Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements 9781407317014, 9781407356310

Citation preview

The research presented in this book advances scholarship on Anglo-Saxon non-elite rural settlements through the analysis of material culture. Forty-four non-elite sites and the high-status site of Staunch Meadow, occupied throughout the Anglo-Saxon period (c. 5th–11th centuries) and geographically representative of Anglo-Saxon settlement in England, were selected for study. Comparative analyses of the material culture assemblages and settlement data from these sites were evaluated from four main research perspectives: the archaeological contexts and distributional patterns of material culture at the sites; the range and character of material culture; patterns of material culture consumption; and material culture as evidence for the economic reach of rural settlements. Hana Lewis holds a PhD from the Institute of Archaeology, UCL. She specialises in the archaeology and material culture of early medieval Britain. She has had a long career in cultural heritage, including as a Senior Archaeologist for Museum of London Archaeology and Project Officer for the British Library Labs project.

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

‘This book provides a fascinating insight into the material culture of early medieval rural settlement sites, and reflects the enormous advances that have been made through both development-led archaeology and the Portable Antiquities Scheme.’ Prof. Stephen Rippon, University of Exeter

LEWIS

‘This thesis challenges our understanding of non-elite rural settlements in the Anglo-Saxon period, and is an essential read for anyone interested in the material culture of this period and the Anglo-Saxon rural landscape.’ Dr Michael Lewis, British Museum

E

BAR BRITISH SERIES 649

AL N N LI IO N IT O D IAL AD ER AT

M

VOLUME 1

BAR 649 2019

UCL INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY PHD SERIES

UCL INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY PHD SERIES VOLUME 1

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements HANA LEWIS

BAR BRITISH SERIES 649

2019

U C L I N S T I T U T E O F A R C H A E O L O G Y P H D S E R I E S VOLUME 1

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements HANA LEWIS

BAR BRITISH SERIES 649  

2019

Published in 2019 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 649 UCL Institute of Archaeology PhD Series, 1 Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements ISBN 978 1 4073 1701 4 paperback ISBN 978 1 4073 5631 0 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407317014 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library © Hana Lewis 2019 Cover Image ‘Building in the West Stow Anglo-Saxon village, constructed in the style of buildings from Anglo-Saxon England.’ Courtesy of Midnightblueowl at English Wikipedia. The Author’s moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in  any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

BAR titles are available from: Email Phone Fax

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, ox2 7bp, uk [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

UCL INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY

U C L I N ST I T U T E OF A RC HA E OLO G Y PH D SE R I E S Series Editor: Ruth Whitehouse (Chair of the IoA Publications Committee)

The aim of this series is to offer rapid publication of largely unaltered PhD theses. It covers the full range of subject areas studied at the Institute, including world archaeology, archaeological science, cultural heritage, conservation and museum studies. It makes data, analyses and interpretation available promptly to a wide audience. The UCL Institute of Archaeology is one of the oldest, largest and most prestigious archaeology research facilities in the world. Its extensive publications programme includes the best theory, research, pedagogy and reference materials in archaeology, cultural heritage and cognate disciplines. Through its publications, which also include a General Series and a Critical Cultural Heritage Series, and a number of associated journals, the Institute brings together key areas of theoretical and substantive knowledge, improves archaeological and heritage practice and brings archaeological findings to the general public, researchers and practitioners.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisors Andrew Reynolds and Stuart Brookes for their exceptional guidance, support and inspiration. Also thanks to my family and friends for their unwavering love, support, understanding and encouragement throughout. This work would not have been completed without the help of all of you.

3. Sunken-featured buildings, also termed Grubenhäuser, are abbreviated to ‘SFB’ or ‘SFBs’. 4. Post-built structures are abbreviated to ‘PBS’ or ‘PBSs’. 5. Throughout the book, the conventional Anglo-Saxon chronological periods are used for ease of reference. The traditional historical divisions are:

Notes to Readers

• Early Anglo-Saxon period, c. AD410–AD650 • Middle Anglo-Saxon period, c. AD650–AD850 • Late Anglo-Saxon period, c. AD850–1100.

1. The pro forma reference number [PF nos. 1–45] assigned to each site is listed in square brackets after the settlement, for example ‘Radley Barrow Hills [PF1]’, for reference to Appendix 1 entries. 2. Site archaeological contexts numbers given in publications are listed in square brackets, for example ‘pit [1]’.

However, it must be noted that the analytical approach of the study recognises that political, social, cultural and economic developments do not necessarily conform to rigid historical frameworks and the evidence and findings are examined as continuous processes as appropriate.

Contents List of Figures .................................................................................................................................................................. viii List of Tables.................................................................................................................................................................... xvi Abstract............................................................................................................................................................................ xix Chapter 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Relevance and Objectives ........................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Research Questions .................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.3. Book Structure ......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 2. Literature Review ........................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1. Overview .................................................................................................................................................................. 5 2.2. Theoretical Models................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.3. Anglo-Saxon Studies ................................................................................................................................................ 8 2.3.1. Rural Settlements: Building Types and Evolution ........................................................................................... 8 2.3.2. Rural Settlements: Morphology and Hierarchy.............................................................................................. 10 2.3.3. Anglo-Saxon England: Economic Models and Systems ................................................................................ 12 2.4. Summary ................................................................................................................................................................ 16 Chapter 3. Methodology and Design .............................................................................................................................. 17 3.1. Overview ................................................................................................................................................................ 17 3.2. Approach ................................................................................................................................................................ 17 3.2.1. Rural Settlements of Study ............................................................................................................................. 17 3.2.2. Data Collection ............................................................................................................................................... 18 3.2.3. Quantifying Artefact Totals ............................................................................................................................ 19 3.2.4. Determining Distributional Patterns of Material Culture ............................................................................... 19 3.2.5. Classifying Material Culture .......................................................................................................................... 22 3.2.6. Interpreting Consumption of Material Culture............................................................................................... 24 3.2.7. Gaging the Ubiquity of Material Culture ....................................................................................................... 27 3.2.8. Assessing Material Culture Provenance and Economic Context ................................................................... 28 3.2.9. Defining Local, Regional and Supraregional Economic Reach ..................................................................... 29 3.3. Limitations of the Data........................................................................................................................................... 30 3.3.1. Excavation Methods ....................................................................................................................................... 30 3.3.2. Site Formation Processes ............................................................................................................................... 32 3.3.3. Artefact Quantification ................................................................................................................................... 33 3.4. Summary ................................................................................................................................................................ 34 Chapter 4. Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character ........................................... 35 4.1. Overview ................................................................................................................................................................ 35 4.2. Contexts and Distribution of Material Culture....................................................................................................... 35 4.2.1. Distribution: Stratified Features ..................................................................................................................... 36 4.2.2. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................... 39 4.3. Catalogue of Material Culture................................................................................................................................ 39 4.3.1. Receptacles, Containers, Plates and Vessel Fittings ....................................................................................... 39 4.3.2. Utensils ........................................................................................................................................................... 44 4.3.3. Domestic Items ............................................................................................................................................... 49 4.3.4. Security and Privacy....................................................................................................................................... 52 4.3.5. Ornamentation and Jewellery ......................................................................................................................... 54 4.3.6. Dress ............................................................................................................................................................... 63 4.3.7. Charms ........................................................................................................................................................... 75 4.3.8. Cosmetic ......................................................................................................................................................... 75 4.3.9. Grooming and hygiene ................................................................................................................................... 76 4.3.10. Utilitarian equipment.................................................................................................................................... 78 4.3.11. Manufacturing .............................................................................................................................................. 90 v

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements 4.3.12. Weaponry .................................................................................................................................................... 100 4.3.13. Animal Equipment...................................................................................................................................... 107 4.3.14. Trade and Exchange ................................................................................................................................... 113 4.3.15. Literacy....................................................................................................................................................... 114 4.3.16. Amusement ................................................................................................................................................. 117 4.3.17. Disarticulated Human Bone ....................................................................................................................... 118 4.3.18. Building Material ....................................................................................................................................... 118 4.3.19. Prehistoric Artefacts ................................................................................................................................... 120 4.3.20. Roman Artefacts ......................................................................................................................................... 121 4.3.21. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................ 122 4.4. Summary .............................................................................................................................................................. 125 Chapter 5. The Consumption of Material Culture ..................................................................................................... 126 5.1. Overview .............................................................................................................................................................. 126 5.2. Patterns of Material Culture Consumption .......................................................................................................... 126 5.2.1. Domestic and Household.............................................................................................................................. 126 5.2.2. Ornamentation, Dress and Grooming........................................................................................................... 129 5.2.3. Utilitarian...................................................................................................................................................... 135 5.2.4. Manufacture, Production and Craft .............................................................................................................. 136 5.2.5. Agriculture, Cultivation and Horticulture .................................................................................................... 147 5.2.6. Warfare and Defence .................................................................................................................................... 149 5.2.7. Hunting and Fishing ..................................................................................................................................... 151 5.2.8. Equestrian ..................................................................................................................................................... 152 5.2.9. Leisure .......................................................................................................................................................... 155 5.2.10. Trade and Exchange ................................................................................................................................... 155 5.2.11. Prestige and Luxury.................................................................................................................................... 157 5.2.12. Literacy....................................................................................................................................................... 160 5.2.13. Recycling and Reuse .................................................................................................................................. 161 5.2.14. Ritual .......................................................................................................................................................... 165 5.2.15. Burial and Funerary .................................................................................................................................... 165 5.3. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................................... 170 5.4. Summary .............................................................................................................................................................. 172 Chapter 6. Material Culture and Economic Reach .................................................................................................... 173 6.1. Overview .............................................................................................................................................................. 173 6.2. Material Culture Provenance................................................................................................................................ 173 6.3. Material Culture Provenance and Economic Context .......................................................................................... 173 6.3.1. Coins............................................................................................................................................................. 173 6.3.2. Pottery .......................................................................................................................................................... 181 6.3.3. Worked Stone Artefacts ................................................................................................................................ 191 6.3.4. Beads ............................................................................................................................................................ 193 6.3.5. Gemstones and Gemstone Artefacts ............................................................................................................. 198 6.3.6. Brooches ....................................................................................................................................................... 198 6.3.7. Pins ............................................................................................................................................................... 201 6.3.8. Strap Ends .................................................................................................................................................... 201 6.3.9. Glass Artefacts.............................................................................................................................................. 202 6.3.10. Scandinavian and Anglo-Scandinavian Artefacts....................................................................................... 202 6.3.11. Other Artefacts............................................................................................................................................ 205 6.4. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................................... 205 6.5. Summary .............................................................................................................................................................. 207 Chapter 7. Case Studies ................................................................................................................................................. 208 7.1. Overview .............................................................................................................................................................. 208 7.2. Material Culture and Chronology: Multi-period Settlements .............................................................................. 208 7.2.1. Overview ...................................................................................................................................................... 208 7.2.2. Artefacts and Chronology............................................................................................................................. 208 7.2.3. Consumption Activities and Chronology ..................................................................................................... 209 7.2.4. Economic Trends and Chronology ............................................................................................................... 210 7.2.5. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................. 216 7.3. Material Culture Signatures: Settlement Profiles ................................................................................................. 216 vi

Contents 7.3.1. Overview ...................................................................................................................................................... 216 7.3.2. Settlement Signatures ................................................................................................................................... 216 7.3.3. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................. 219 7.4. Material Culture, Social Status and Hierarchy..................................................................................................... 219 7.4.1. Overview ...................................................................................................................................................... 219 7.4.2. Social Status ................................................................................................................................................. 220 7.4.3. Rural Settlement Hierarchy .......................................................................................................................... 224 7.4.4. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................. 225 7.5. Microscale Settlement Analysis: Yarnton, Oxfordshire ....................................................................................... 228 7.5.1. Overview ...................................................................................................................................................... 228 7.5.2. Yarnton Settlement Morphology and Artefact Distribution by Phase .......................................................... 228 7.5.3. Yarnton Material Culture Assemblage.......................................................................................................... 232 7.5.4. Yarnton Artefacts Provenance ...................................................................................................................... 232 7.5.5. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................. 233 7.6. Summary .............................................................................................................................................................. 234 Chapter 8. Discussion and Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 235 8.1. Overview .............................................................................................................................................................. 235 8.2. Wider Implications of the Study .......................................................................................................................... 235 8.2.1. Discussion .................................................................................................................................................... 246 8.3. Further Research .................................................................................................................................................. 249 8.4. Conclusion............................................................................................................................................................ 250 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................................... 252 The following appendices are available to download from: www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html Appendix 1. The Settlements: Pro Formas Appendix 2. Material Culture: Site Distribution Appendix 3. Material Culture: Evidence Appendix 4. Information on Selected Material Culture Forms, Types and Decoration of Anglo-Saxon Date Appendix 5. Material Culture: Consumption Appendix 6. Material Culture: Economy and Provenance Appendix 7. Material Culture and Chronology Appendix 8. Settlement Profiles: Consumption Activities Appendix 9. Material Culture and Social Status Appendix 10. Microscale Analysis of Yarnton, Oxfordshire

vii

List of Figures Figure 1.1. Distribution map: the settlements of study......................................................................................................... 2 Figure 4.1. Site excavation and material culture assemblage sizes (estimated)................................................................. 35 Figure 4.2. Cooking, eating and serving items: site chronology........................................................................................ 40 Figure 4.3. Cooking, eating and serving items: site distribution........................................................................................ 40 Figure 4.4. Drinking, holding liquids and storage items: site chronology.......................................................................... 41 Figure 4.5. Drinking, holding liquids and storage items: site distribution......................................................................... 41 Figure 4.6. Buckets: site chronology.................................................................................................................................. 42 Figure 4.7. Buckets: site distribution.................................................................................................................................. 42 Figure 4.8. Escutcheons: site chronology........................................................................................................................... 43 Figure 4.9. Escutcheons: site distribution........................................................................................................................... 43 Figure 4.10. Knives: site chronology.................................................................................................................................. 45 Figure 4.11. Knives: site distribution.................................................................................................................................. 45 Figure 4.12. Hooks (various): site chronology................................................................................................................... 46 Figure 4.13. Hooks (various): site distribution................................................................................................................... 46 Figure 4.14. Spoons/spatulas: site chronology................................................................................................................... 47 Figure 4.15. Spoons/spatulas: site distribution................................................................................................................... 47 Figure 4.16. Strike-a-lights: site chronology...................................................................................................................... 48 Figure 4.17. Strike-a-lights: site distribution...................................................................................................................... 48 Figure 4.18. Laundering items: site chronology................................................................................................................. 49 Figure 4.19. Laundering items: site distribution................................................................................................................. 49 Figure 4.20. Mounts (various): site chronology.................................................................................................................. 50 Figure 4.21. Mounts (various): site distribution................................................................................................................. 51 Figure 4.22. Plaques: site chronology................................................................................................................................. 51 Figure 4.23. Plaques: site distribution................................................................................................................................. 52 Figure 4.24. Lamps: site chronology.................................................................................................................................. 52 Figure 4.25. Lamps: site distribution.................................................................................................................................. 53 Figure 4.26. Locks, padlocks, keys and latch lifters: site chronology................................................................................ 54 Figure 4.27. Locks, padlocks, keys and latch lifters: site distribution................................................................................ 54 Figure 4.28. Caskets, boxes and chests: site chronology.................................................................................................... 55 Figure 4.29. Caskets, boxes and chests: site distribution.................................................................................................... 55 Figure 4.30. Pins: site chronology...................................................................................................................................... 56 Figure 4.31. Pins: site distribution...................................................................................................................................... 57 Figure 4.32. Beads: site chronology................................................................................................................................... 58 Figure 4.33. Beads: site distribution................................................................................................................................... 58 Figure 4.34. Brooches: site chronology.............................................................................................................................. 60

viii

List of Figures Figure 4.35. Brooches: site distribution.............................................................................................................................. 60 Figure 4.36. Finger rings: site chronology.......................................................................................................................... 61 Figure 4.37. Finger rings: site distribution.......................................................................................................................... 62 Figure 4.38. Pendants: site chronology............................................................................................................................... 62 Figure 4.39. Pendants: site distribution............................................................................................................................... 63 Figure 4.40. Bracelets/armlets/decorative bands: site chronology..................................................................................... 64 Figure 4.41. Bracelets/armlets/decorative bands: site distribution..................................................................................... 64 Figure 4.42. Strap ends: site chronology............................................................................................................................ 65 Figure 4.43. Strap ends: site distribution............................................................................................................................ 65 Figure 4.44. Hair/dress pins: site chronology..................................................................................................................... 66 Figure 4.45. Hair/dress pins: site distribution..................................................................................................................... 67 Figure 4.46. Buckles: site chronology................................................................................................................................ 68 Figure 4.47. Buckles: site distribution................................................................................................................................ 68 Figure 4.48. Hooked tags: site chronology......................................................................................................................... 69 Figure 4.49. Hooked tags: site distribution......................................................................................................................... 69 Figure 4.50. Belt and leather fittings: site chronology........................................................................................................ 70 Figure 4.51. Belt and leather fittings: site distribution........................................................................................................ 70 Figure 4.52. Wrist clasps: site chronology.......................................................................................................................... 71 Figure 4.53. Wrist clasps: site distribution.......................................................................................................................... 71 Figure 4.54. Studs (clothing): site chronology.................................................................................................................... 72 Figure 4.55. Studs (clothing): site distribution................................................................................................................... 73 Figure 4.56. Discs (clothing): site chronology.................................................................................................................... 73 Figure 4.57. Discs (clothing): site distribution................................................................................................................... 74 Figure 4.58. Girdle hangers: site chronology...................................................................................................................... 74 Figure 4.59. Girdle hangers: site distribution..................................................................................................................... 74 Figure 4.60. Tweezers: site chronology.............................................................................................................................. 76 Figure 4.61. Tweezers: site distribution.............................................................................................................................. 76 Figure 4.62. Combs: site chronology.................................................................................................................................. 77 Figure 4.63. Combs: site distribution.................................................................................................................................. 77 Figure 4.64. Ear scoops: site chronology............................................................................................................................ 78 Figure 4.65. Ear scoops: site distribution............................................................................................................................ 79 Figure 4.66. Agricultural and cultivation tools: site chronology........................................................................................ 80 Figure 4.67. Agricultural and cultivation tools: site distribution........................................................................................ 80 Figure 4.68. Querns: site chronology.................................................................................................................................. 81 Figure 4.69. Querns: site distribution................................................................................................................................. 81 Figure 4.70. Manufacturing tools: site chronology............................................................................................................. 82 Figure 4.71. Manufacturing tools: site distribution............................................................................................................ 83 Figure 4.72. Hammers and hammerstones: site chronology............................................................................................... 84 Figure 4.73. Hammers and hammerstones: site distribution............................................................................................... 84 Figure 4.74. Shears: site chronology................................................................................................................................... 84 ix

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements Figure 4.75. Shears: site distribution.................................................................................................................................. 85 Figure 4.76. Hones and sharpeners: site chronology.......................................................................................................... 85 Figure 4.77. Hones and sharpeners: site distribution.......................................................................................................... 86 Figure 4.78. Whetstones: site chronology........................................................................................................................... 86 Figure 4.79. Whetstones: site distribution.......................................................................................................................... 86 Figure 4.80. Weights: site chronology................................................................................................................................ 87 Figure 4.81. Weights: site distribution................................................................................................................................ 87 Figure 4.82. Rubbers/pounders: site chronology................................................................................................................ 88 Figure 4.83. Rubbers/pounders: site distribution................................................................................................................ 88 Figure 4.84. Fixtures: site chronology................................................................................................................................ 89 Figure 4.85. Fixtures: site distribution................................................................................................................................ 89 Figure 4.86. Fittings: site chronology................................................................................................................................. 90 Figure 4.87. Fittings: site distribution................................................................................................................................. 91 Figure 4.88. Loomweights: site chronology....................................................................................................................... 91 Figure 4.89. Loomweights: site distribution....................................................................................................................... 92 Figure 4.90. Spindlewhorls: site chronology...................................................................................................................... 92 Figure 4.91. Spindlewhorls: site distribution...................................................................................................................... 93 Figure 4.92. Needles/pins: site chronology......................................................................................................................... 93 Figure 4.93. Needles/pins: site distribution........................................................................................................................ 94 Figure 4.94. Pinbeaters: site chronology............................................................................................................................. 94 Figure 4.95. Pinbeaters: site distribution............................................................................................................................ 95 Figure 4.96. Wool/flax combs and heckles: site chronology.............................................................................................. 95 Figure 4.97. Wool/flax combs and heckles: site distribution.............................................................................................. 96 Figure 4.98. Slag: site chronology...................................................................................................................................... 96 Figure 4.99. Slag: site distribution...................................................................................................................................... 97 Figure 4.100. Metal working debris and objects: site chronology...................................................................................... 98 Figure 4.101. Metal working debris and objects: site distribution..................................................................................... 98 Figure 4.102. Moulds, crucibles and ingots: site chronology............................................................................................. 99 Figure 4.103. Moulds, crucibles and ingots: site distribution............................................................................................. 99 Figure 4.104. Manufacturing debris (non-metal): site chronology................................................................................... 100 Figure 4.105. Manufacturing debris (non-metal): site distribution................................................................................... 100 Figure 4.106. Spearheads: site chronology....................................................................................................................... 101 Figure 4.107. Spearheads: site distribution....................................................................................................................... 101 Figure 4.108. Spear accessories: site chronology............................................................................................................. 102 Figure 4.109. Spear accessories: site distribution............................................................................................................. 102 Figure 4.110. Arrowheads: site chronology...................................................................................................................... 103 Figure 4.111. Arrowheads: site distribution...................................................................................................................... 103 Figure 4.112. Seaxes: site chronology.............................................................................................................................. 104 Figure 4.113. Seaxes: site distribution.............................................................................................................................. 104 Figure 4.114. Sword parts and accessories: site chronology............................................................................................ 105 x

List of Figures Figure 4.115. Sword parts and accessories: site distribution............................................................................................ 106 Figure 4.116. Shield accessories: site chronology............................................................................................................ 106 Figure 4.117. Shield accessories: site distribution............................................................................................................ 107 Figure 4.118. Horseshoes and horseshoe nails: site chronology....................................................................................... 108 Figure 4.119. Horseshoes and horseshoe nails: site distribution...................................................................................... 108 Figure 4.120. Bridle equipment: site chronology............................................................................................................. 109 Figure 4.121. Bridle equipment: site distribution............................................................................................................. 109 Figure 4.122. Harness, belt and spur fittings: site chronology.......................................................................................... 110 Figure 4.123. Harness, belt and spur fittings: site distribution......................................................................................... 110 Figure 4.124. Spurs: site chronology.................................................................................................................................111 Figure 4.125. Spurs: site distribution.................................................................................................................................111 Figure 4.126. Bells and bell-clappers: site chronology..................................................................................................... 112 Figure 4.127. Bells and bell-clappers: site distribution.................................................................................................... 112 Figure 4.128. Coins: site chronology................................................................................................................................ 113 Figure 4.129. Coins: site distribution................................................................................................................................ 114 Figure 4.130. Coin equipment, measuring weights and vessel: site chronology.............................................................. 115 Figure 4.131. Coin equipment, measuring weights and vessel: site distribution.............................................................. 115 Figure 4.132. Writing implements: site chronology......................................................................................................... 116 Figure 4.133. Writing implements: site distribution......................................................................................................... 116 Figure 4.134. Counters and gaming pieces: site chronology............................................................................................ 117 Figure 4.135. Counters and gaming pieces: site distribution............................................................................................ 118 Figure 4.136. Disarticulated human bone: site chronology.............................................................................................. 119 Figure 4.137. Disarticulated human bone: site distribution.............................................................................................. 119 Figure 4.138. Prehistoric assemblage: artefact site/percentage totals............................................................................... 120 Figure 4.139. Prehistoric artefacts: site chronology......................................................................................................... 120 Figure 4.140. Prehistoric artefacts: site distribution......................................................................................................... 121 Figure 4.141. Roman assemblage: artefact site/percentage totals.................................................................................... 121 Figure 4.142. Roman artefacts: site chronology............................................................................................................... 122 Figure 4.143. Roman artefacts: site distribution............................................................................................................... 122 Figure 4.144. Anglo-Saxon artefact quantities from the settlements (simplified)............................................................ 123 Figure 5.1. Cooking, eating/drinking and storage: site chronology.................................................................................. 126 Figure 5.2. Cooking, eating/drinking and storage: material culture site distribution....................................................... 127 Figure 5.3. Cooking, eating/drinking and storage: artefact commonness per settlement (excluding pottery)................. 128 Figure 5.4. Pottery (Cooking, eating/drinking and storage): artefact commonness per settlement.................................. 128 Figure 5.5. Household items and possessions: site chronology........................................................................................ 129 Figure 5.6. Household items and possessions: material culture site distribution............................................................. 129 Figure 5.7. Household items and possessions: artefact commonness per settlement....................................................... 130 Figure 5.8. Personal adornment: site chronology............................................................................................................. 130 Figure 5.9. Personal adornment: material culture site distribution................................................................................... 131 Figure 5.10. Personal adornment: artefact commonness per settlement........................................................................... 131 xi

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements Figure 5.11. Dress and clothing: site chronology............................................................................................................. 132 Figure 5.12. Dress and clothing: material culture site distribution................................................................................... 132 Figure 5.13. Dress and clothing: artefact commonness per settlement............................................................................. 133 Figure 5.14. Toilet, grooming and hygiene: site chronology............................................................................................ 133 Figure 5.15. Toilet, grooming and hygiene: material culture site distribution.................................................................. 134 Figure 5.16. Toilet, grooming and hygiene: artefact commonness per settlement........................................................... 134 Figure 5.17. Utilitarian assemblage: site occurrence and percentages............................................................................. 135 Figure 5.18. Utilitarian: site chronology........................................................................................................................... 135 Figure 5.19. Utilitarian: material culture site distribution................................................................................................ 136 Figure 5.20. Utilitarian: artefact commonness per settlement.......................................................................................... 136 Figure 5.21. Manufacture, production and craft activities: site occurrence and percentages........................................... 137 Figure 5.22. Textile working: site chronology.................................................................................................................. 138 Figure 5.23. Textile working: material culture site distribution....................................................................................... 138 Figure 5.24. Textile working: artefact commonness per settlement................................................................................. 139 Figure 5.25. Metal working: site chronology.................................................................................................................... 139 Figure 5.26. Metal working: material culture site distribution......................................................................................... 140 Figure 5.27. Metal working: artefact commonness per settlement................................................................................... 140 Figure 5.28. Leather working: site chronology................................................................................................................. 141 Figure 5.29. Leather working: material culture site distribution...................................................................................... 141 Figure 5.30. Leather working: artefact commonness per settlement................................................................................ 142 Figure 5.31. Bone working: site chronology.................................................................................................................... 142 Figure 5.32. Bone working: material culture site distribution.......................................................................................... 143 Figure 5.33. Bone working: artefact commonness per settlement.................................................................................... 143 Figure 5.34. Wood working: site chronology................................................................................................................... 144 Figure 5.35. Wood working: material culture site distribution......................................................................................... 144 Figure 5.36. Wood working: artefact commonness per settlement................................................................................... 145 Figure 5.37. Pottery working: site chronology................................................................................................................. 145 Figure 5.38. Pottery working: material culture site distribution....................................................................................... 146 Figure 5.39. Pottery working: artefact commonness per settlement................................................................................. 146 Figure 5.40. Glass working: site chronology.................................................................................................................... 147 Figure 5.41. Glass working: material culture site distribution.......................................................................................... 147 Figure 5.42. Glass working: artefact commonness per settlement................................................................................... 148 Figure 5.43. Agriculture, cultivation and horticulture: site chronology........................................................................... 148 Figure 5.44. Agriculture, cultivation and horticulture: material culture site distribution................................................. 149 Figure 5.45. Agriculture, cultivation and horticulture: artefact commonness per settlement........................................... 149 Figure 5.46. Warfare and defence: site chronology.......................................................................................................... 150 Figure 5.47. Warfare and defence: material culture site distribution................................................................................ 150 Figure 5.48. Warfare and defence: artefact commonness per settlement.......................................................................... 151 Figure 5.49. Hunting and fishing: site chronology........................................................................................................... 152 Figure 5.50. Hunting and fishing: material culture site distribution................................................................................. 152 xii

List of Figures Figure 5.51. Hunting and fishing: artefact commonness per settlement........................................................................... 153 Figure 5.52. Equestrian: site chronology.......................................................................................................................... 153 Figure 5.53. Equestrian: material culture site distribution................................................................................................ 154 Figure 5.54. Equestrian: artefact commonness per settlement......................................................................................... 154 Figure 5.55. Leisure: site chronology............................................................................................................................... 155 Figure 5.56. Leisure: material culture site distribution..................................................................................................... 156 Figure 5.57. Leisure: artefact commonness per settlement............................................................................................... 156 Figure 5.58. Trade and exchange: site chronology........................................................................................................... 157 Figure 5.59. Trade and exchange: material culture site distribution................................................................................. 157 Figure 5.60. Trade and exchange: artefact commonness per settlement........................................................................... 158 Figure 5.61. Prestige and luxury assemblage: site occurrence and percentages............................................................... 158 Figure 5.62. Prestige and luxury: site chronology............................................................................................................ 159 Figure 5.63. Prestige and luxury: material culture site distribution.................................................................................. 159 Figure 5.64. Prestige and luxury: artefact commonness per settlement........................................................................... 160 Figure 5.65. Literacy: site chronology.............................................................................................................................. 161 Figure 5.66. Literacy: material culture site distribution................................................................................................... 161 Figure 5.67. Literacy: artefact commonness per settlement............................................................................................. 162 Figure 5.68. Roman reused artefacts: site chronology...................................................................................................... 163 Figure 5.69. Anglo-Saxon reused artefacts: site chronology............................................................................................ 163 Figure 5.70. Recycling and reuse (combined): material culture site distribution............................................................. 164 Figure 5.71. Recycling and reuse (combined): artefact commonness per settlement....................................................... 164 Figure 5.72. Ritual: site chronology................................................................................................................................. 166 Figure 5.73. Ritual: material culture site distribution....................................................................................................... 166 Figure 5.74. Ritual: artefact commonness per settlement................................................................................................. 167 Figure 5.75. Burial and funerary, primary contexts: site chronology............................................................................... 168 Figure 5.76. Burial and funerary, primary contexts: grave goods site distribution.......................................................... 168 Figure 5.77. Burial and funerary, primary contexts: artefact commonness per burial...................................................... 169 Figure 5.78. Burial and funerary, secondary contexts: site chronology............................................................................ 169 Figure 5.79. Burial and funerary, secondary contexts: material culture site distribution................................................. 170 Figure 5.80. Burial and funerary, secondary contexts: artefact commonness per settlement........................................... 170 Figure 5.81. Consumption activities at the settlements: site occurrence and percentages............................................... 171 Figure 6.1. Settlements with coins and mints................................................................................................................... 175 Figure 6.2. Settlements with sceattas and the distribution of metal detected sceattas recorded on PAS......................... 177 Figure 6.3. Settlements with stycas and the distribution of metal detected stycas recorded on PAS............................... 178 Figure 6.4. Settlements with pennies and the distribution of metal detected pennies recorded on PAS.......................... 179 Figure 6.5. Settlements with sceattas and the distribution of sceattas on the Continent................................................. 180 Figure 6.6. Coins: established and possible provenance................................................................................................... 182 Figure 6.7. Settlements and Maxey-type ware distribution.............................................................................................. 183 Figure 6.8. Settlements and Ipswich ware distribution..................................................................................................... 184 Figure 6.9. Settlements and Thetford-type ware distribution........................................................................................... 185 xiii

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements Figure 6.10. Settlements and St Neots ware distribution.................................................................................................. 187 Figure 6.11. Settlements and Stamford ware distribution................................................................................................. 188 Figure 6.12. Settlements with imported pottery................................................................................................................ 189 Figure 6.13. Pottery: established and possible provenance.............................................................................................. 190 Figure 6.14. Settlements and Millstone Grit source......................................................................................................... 192 Figure 6.15. Settlements with Niedermendig lava of established or possible Anglo-Saxon date.................................... 194 Figure 6.16. Settlements with Norwegian ragstone.......................................................................................................... 195 Figure 6.17. Worked stone: established and possible provenance.................................................................................... 196 Figure 6.18. Beads: established and possible provenance................................................................................................ 197 Figure 6.19. Gemstones: established and possible provenance........................................................................................ 199 Figure 6.20. Brooches: established and possible provenance........................................................................................... 200 Figure 6.21. Settlements with Anglo-Scandinavian artefacts........................................................................................... 203 Figure 7.1. Artefact provenance by period: Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon Bishopstone.................................................... 211 Figure 7.2. Artefact provenance by period: Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon Bishopstone...................................................... 211 Figure 7.3. Artefact provenance by period: Early Anglo-Saxon Yarnton......................................................................... 212 Figure 7.4. Artefact provenance by period: Middle Anglo-Saxon Yarnton...................................................................... 212 Figure 7.5. Artefact provenance by period: Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon Yarnton............................................................. 213 Figure 7.6. Artefact provenance by period: Late Anglo-Saxon Yarnton........................................................................... 213 Figure 7.7. Artefact provenance by period: Early Anglo-Saxon Market Lavington......................................................... 214 Figure 7.8. Artefact provenance by period: Middle Anglo-Saxon Market Lavington...................................................... 214 Figure 7.9. Artefact provenance by period: Late Anglo-Saxon Market Lavington.......................................................... 215 Figure 7.10. Consumption activities occurrence at the settlements.................................................................................. 216 Figure 7.11. Deposition/retrieval contexts per artefact (approximated)........................................................................... 223 Figure 7.12. Yarnton Phase 1: settlement features and artefact distribution..................................................................... 229 Figure 7.13. Yarnton Phase 2: settlement features............................................................................................................ 229 Figure 7.14. Yarnton Phase 3: settlement features............................................................................................................ 230 Figure 7.15. Yarnton Phases 2 and 3: artefact distribution............................................................................................... 231 Figure 7.16. Yarnton Phase 4: settlement features and artefact distribution..................................................................... 231 Figure 8.1. Material culture hierarchical indicators by settlement phases........................................................................ 236 Figure 8.2. Early Anglo-Saxon period: established and possible locally and supra-/regionally produced   artefacts (selected)........................................................................................................................................................ 237 Figure 8.3. Early Anglo-Saxon period: established and possible imported artefacts....................................................... 238 Figure 8.4. Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period: established and possible locally and supra-/regionally   produced artefacts (selected)......................................................................................................................................... 240 Figure 8.5. Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period: established and possible imported artefacts.......................................... 241 Figure 8.6. Middle Anglo-Saxon period: established and possible locally and supra-/regionally produced   artefacts (selected)........................................................................................................................................................ 242 Figure 8.7. Middle Anglo-Saxon period: established and possible imported artefacts.................................................... 243 Figure 8.8. Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period: established and possible locally and supra-/regionally   produced artefacts (selected)......................................................................................................................................... 245 Figure 8.9. Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period: established and possible imported artefacts........................................... 246

xiv

List of Figures Figure 8.10. Late Anglo-Saxon period: established and possible locally and supra-/regionally produced   artefacts (selected)........................................................................................................................................................ 247 Figure 8.11. Late Anglo-Saxon period: established and possible imported artefacts....................................................... 248

xv

List of Tables Table 3.1. Artefact typologies and catalogues: references.................................................................................................. 20 Table 3.2. Number of buildings recorded at the settlements............................................................................................... 28 Table 3.3. Settlements with metal detected artefacts.......................................................................................................... 31 Table 4.1. Cooking, eating and serving items: artefact contexts........................................................................................ 39 Table 4.2. Drinking, holding liquids and storage items: artefact contexts.......................................................................... 40 Table 4.3. Buckets: artefact contexts.................................................................................................................................. 42 Table 4.4. Escutcheons: artefact contexts........................................................................................................................... 43 Table 4.5. Knives: artefact contexts.................................................................................................................................... 44 Table 4.6. Hooks (various): artefact contexts..................................................................................................................... 46 Table 4.7. Spoons/spatulas: artefact contexts..................................................................................................................... 47 Table 4.8. Strike-a-lights: artefact contexts........................................................................................................................ 47 Table 4.9. Laundering items: artefact contexts................................................................................................................... 49 Table 4.10. Mounts (various): artefact contexts.................................................................................................................. 50 Table 4.11. Plaques: artefact contexts................................................................................................................................. 51 Table 4.12. Lamps: artefact contexts.................................................................................................................................. 52 Table 4.13. Locks, padlocks, keys and latch lifters: artefact contexts................................................................................ 53 Table 4.14. Caskets, boxes and chests: artefact contexts.................................................................................................... 54 Table 4.15. Pins: artefact contexts...................................................................................................................................... 55 Table 4.16. Beads: artefact contexts................................................................................................................................... 57 Table 4.17. Brooches: artefact contexts.............................................................................................................................. 58 Table 4.18. Finger rings: artefact contexts.......................................................................................................................... 60 Table 4.19. Pendants: artefact contexts............................................................................................................................... 62 Table 4.20. Bracelets/armlets/decorative bands: artefact contexts..................................................................................... 63 Table 4.21. Strap ends: artefact contexts............................................................................................................................ 64 Table 4.22. Hair/dress pins: artefact contexts..................................................................................................................... 66 Table 4.23. Buckles: artefact contexts................................................................................................................................ 67 Table 4.24. Hooked tags: artefact contexts......................................................................................................................... 68 Table 4.25. Belt and leather fittings: artefact contexts........................................................................................................ 69 Table 4.26. Wrist clasps: artefact contexts.......................................................................................................................... 71 Table 4.27. Studs (clothing): artefact contexts.................................................................................................................... 72 Table 4.28. Discs (clothing): artefact contexts.................................................................................................................... 73 Table 4.29. Girdle hangers: artefact contexts...................................................................................................................... 74 Table 4.30. Tweezers: artefact contexts.............................................................................................................................. 75 Table 4.31. Combs: artefact contexts.................................................................................................................................. 77 Table 4.32. Ear scoops: artefact contexts............................................................................................................................ 78

xvi

List of Tables Table 4.33. Agricultural and cultivation tools: artefact contexts........................................................................................ 79 Table 4.34. Querns: artefact contexts.................................................................................................................................. 80 Table 4.35. Manufacturing tools: artefact contexts............................................................................................................. 81 Table 4.36. Hammers and hammerstones: artefact contexts............................................................................................... 83 Table 4.37. Shears: artefact contexts................................................................................................................................... 84 Table 4.38. Hones and sharpeners: artefact contexts.......................................................................................................... 85 Table 4.39. Whetstones: artefact contexts........................................................................................................................... 86 Table 4.40. Weights: artefact contexts................................................................................................................................ 87 Table 4.41. Rubbers/pounders: artefact contexts................................................................................................................ 88 Table 4.42. Fixtures: artefact contexts................................................................................................................................ 89 Table 4.43. Fittings: artefact contexts................................................................................................................................. 90 Table 4.44. Loomweights: artefact contexts....................................................................................................................... 91 Table 4.45. Spindlewhorls: artefact contexts...................................................................................................................... 92 Table 4.46. Needles/pins: artefact contexts......................................................................................................................... 93 Table 4.47. Pinbeaters: artefact contexts............................................................................................................................. 94 Table 4.48. Wool/flax combs and heckles: artefact contexts.............................................................................................. 95 Table 4.49. Slag: artefact contexts...................................................................................................................................... 96 Table 4.50. Metal working debris and objects: artefact contexts........................................................................................ 97 Table 4.51. Moulds, crucibles and ingots: artefact contexts............................................................................................... 98 Table 4.52. Manufacturing debris (non-metal): artefact contexts....................................................................................... 99 Table 4.53. Spearheads: artefact contexts......................................................................................................................... 101 Table 4.54. Spear accessories: artefact contexts............................................................................................................... 102 Table 4.55. Arrowheads: artefact contexts........................................................................................................................ 103 Table 4.56. Seaxes: artefact contexts................................................................................................................................ 104 Table 4.57. Sword parts and accessories: artefact contexts.............................................................................................. 105 Table 4.58. Shield accessories: artefact contexts.............................................................................................................. 106 Table 4.59. Horseshoes and horseshoe nails: artefact contexts........................................................................................ 107 Table 4.60. Bridle equipment: artefact contexts............................................................................................................... 109 Table 4.61. Harness, belt and spur fittings: artefact contexts............................................................................................ 109 Table 4.62. Spurs: artefact contexts.................................................................................................................................. 110 Table 4.63. Bells and bell-clappers: artefact contexts........................................................................................................111 Table 4.64. Coins: artefact contexts.................................................................................................................................. 113 Table 4.65. Coin equipment, measuring weights and vessel: artefact contexts................................................................ 114 Table 4.66. Writing implements: artefact contexts........................................................................................................... 116 Table 4.67. Counters and gaming pieces: artefact contexts.............................................................................................. 117 Table 4.68. Building/construction material: artefact contexts.......................................................................................... 119 Table 6.1. Settlements and material culture provenance................................................................................................... 173 Table 6.2. Coin types and series/derivatives identified..................................................................................................... 176 Table 7.1. The multi-period settlements of study.............................................................................................................. 209 Table 7.2. Multi-period settlements: consumption activities by occupation phase.......................................................... 210 xvii

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements Table 7.3. Consumption activities occurrence per settlement........................................................................................... 217 Table 7.4. Consumption activities average occurrence at the settlements........................................................................ 219 Table 7.5. Material culture hierarchical indicators: grouped occurrences at the settlements........................................... 220 Table 7.6. Settlements ranked by hierarchically indicative material culture and consumption activities........................ 226 Table 7.7. Yarnton artefacts provenance........................................................................................................................... 233

xviii

Abstract This research progresses knowledge of Anglo-Saxon non-elite rural settlements through the study of material culture. Forty-five rural settlements occupied throughout the Anglo-Saxon period (c. 5th–11th centuries) and geographically broadly representative of Anglo-Saxon settlement in England were selected for study. Comparative analyses of the material culture assemblages and settlement data from these sites was evaluated from four main research perspectives: the archaeological contexts and distributional patterns of material culture at the sites; range and character of material culture; patterns of material culture consumption; and material culture as evidence for the economic reach of rural settlements. Site distributional analysis of the material culture provides evidence of depositional practices and refuse methods undertaken at the settlements, demonstrating that artefacts are predominantly found in the fills of common features including buildings, pits and ditches. The cataloguing of the material culture determines the types and demand for artefacts at the settlements, showing that assemblages are dominated by domestic/household items and utilitarian/ manufacturing equipment. The examination of material culture as indicative of cultural and behavioural practices reveals that domestic undertakings, manufacturing, utilitarian and agricultural/cultivation activities are the most common patterns of consumption exhibited at the settlements. The study of economic trends at the settlements as evidenced by material culture highlights engagement in the exchange, trade and travel networks of Anglo-Saxon England with local through to international reach. The analysis of material culture from Anglo-Saxon rural sites illuminates myriad aspects of settlement life including social, cultural, economic and production activities undertaken, the use, supply and demand of resources, and hierarchical structures. The study has crucially highlighted the multifaceted character of many rural communities, demonstrating that these settlements were integral elements of the political, social and economic structures of Anglo-Saxon England.

xix

xx

1 Introduction 1.1. Relevance and Objectives

and Lincoln (i.e. Vince 1990, 1991; Hall et al 2004; ten Harkel 2013).

This study advances scholarship of Anglo-Saxon nonelite rural settlements through a focus on material culture. Anglo-Saxon studies have predominantly focused on cemetery evidence, high-order secular and ecclesiastical settlements, trading sites such as emporia, and towns and this research contributes to redressing the balance. It furthers Anglo-Saxon settlement research through the comparative study of rural sites and the examination of material culture as evidence for the consumption, economic and social activities which shaped these communities, building upon the relatively few notable works serving the subject (i.e. Reynolds 2003; Loveluck 2001, 2013; Hamerow 2012; Wright 2015; Blair 2018).

This work is a comparative study which examines material culture assemblages and site data from 45 rural settlements, geographically broadly representative of Anglo-Saxon settlement in England and with varied occupation dates spanning the Anglo-Saxon period (c. 5th–11th centuries) (Fig. 1.1; Appendix 1). Anglo-Saxon rural settlement and material culture data is increasingly available for study, primarily due to a marked rise in the number of excavations taking place across England, particularly in the last 30 years or so with the growth of commercial archaeology and the publication or online dissemination of such investigations.

The focus of Early Anglo-Saxon research in England has traditionally been dominated by the study of cemeteries and grave goods (Geake 1997, 2–3; Williams 2007, 1–3; Bayliss et al 2013; Hines 2013, 13–6). This imbalanced research approach has been at the expense of other fields including rural settlements and their associated material culture and has proved particularly detrimental to investigations of any long-term Anglo-Saxon material or social processes, such as settlement evolution (Lucy & Reynolds 2002; Wright 2015, 25–6).

The study analyses material culture forms, types, uses, provenance and distribution in order to: assess site artefact distributional patterns and depositional practices; produce a catalogue of material culture from rural settlements; determine the range of consumption activities taking place at rural settlements; and assess the economic reach of rural settlements as evidenced by material culture (Section 1.2). The findings from these principal objectives are further examined in four case studies which focus on: material culture and chronology; the material culture signatures of the settlements; material culture as evidence for social status and settlement hierarchy; and a microscale settlement analysis contextualising the main aspects of the research.

The political, economic and social complexities of the Middle Anglo-Saxon period have also commonly been the focus of research, overshadowing some other areas of enquiry such as rural settlements (Wright 2015, 1–2). As a result, little is available in the way of comprehensive surveys and comparative discussions of Anglo-Saxon rural settlements, with the reviews of Andrew Reynolds, Christopher Loveluck and Helena Hamerow amongst the most significant works on the subject (Reynolds 1999, 2003; Loveluck 2001, 2013; Hamerow 2012).

Overall, the study produces a comprehensive resource which furthers knowledge of Anglo-Saxon non-elite rural settlements and associated material culture on a national scale, through the cross-comparative analyses of the settlement data and artefactual evidence from 45 AngloSaxon rural sites.

The development of some low-status settlements, notably nucleated villages, as well as contemporary phenomena such as common fields, has been more commonly addressed in Middle and, particularly, Late Anglo-Saxon research (i.e. Williamson 2003; Rippon 2008). However, the comparative investigation of a range of non-elite rural settlements and associated material culture remains an area requiring further investigation which is addressed by this study. Late Anglo-Saxon studies have also traditionally concentrated on topics including the Viking incursions and the foundation of the Danelaw (i.e. Hadley & Richards 2000; Hadley 2006); the growth of burhs and burghal settlements (i.e. Haslam 2009; Hall 2011; Baker et al 2013); and the re-introduction of urbanism in England, with the rebirth of towns such as London, York

1.2. Research Questions The study focuses on four principal research questions, raised from the literature review discussion (Chapter 2.3) and examined using the methodological approaches placed upon the study (Chapter 3), which were devised as objectives to achieve the work’s aim of furthering knowledge of non-elite rural settlements and their material culture: 1. What distributional patterns of material culture are evident at Anglo-Saxon rural settlements? 2. What is the range and character of material culture at Anglo-Saxon rural settlements? 1

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 1.1. Distribution map: the settlements of study.

2

Introduction 3. How was material culture utilised at Anglo-Saxon rural settlements? 4. What can material culture reveal about the economic reach of Anglo-Saxon rural settlements?

for analysis (Appendix 5). Material culture evidence for consumption was considered in terms of: • • • •

1. What distributional patterns of material culture are evident at Anglo-Saxon rural settlements? Presented in Section 4.2, the research question was addressed through documenting the archaeological retrieval contexts of material culture from the settlements– stratified, unstratified, residual and metal detected– in order to assess the distributional patterns and artefact deposition trends of artefacts at the sites (Sections 3.2.4, 3.3.2, 4.2). The presence and/or absence of material culture in stratified and non-stratified contexts was compiled from the archaeological context information provided in the pro formas (Appendices 1, 2.1). Stratified features, buildings and structures producing material culture, for example ‘ditch’ or ‘PBS’, were categorised in tables by type in order to analyse depositional patterns and activities taking place at the settlements (Section 4.2; Appendices 2.2–2.10).

4. What can material culture reveal about the economic reach of Anglo-Saxon rural settlements? Presented in Chapter 6, the research question was addressed through examining the origin and distribution of material culture as evidence for the potential economic reach (local, regional, supraregional, imported) of the rural settlements (Section 3.2.8; Chapter 6). Coins of AngloSaxon date (sceattas, stycas and pennies) and scale weights were further considered as indicators of various exchange, commodity and/or commercial transactions. Distance parameters were determined to define material culture of local and supra-/regional provenance at the settlements (Sections 3.2.9, 6.2). Stratified, unstratified (including residual) and metal detected objects of Anglo-Saxon date were considered. The artefactual information documented in the site pro formas (Appendix 1), the catalogue of material culture (Section 4.2; Appendix 3) and the collated tables of artefact types/distinguishing features (Appendix 4) were analysed to determine the provenance of material culture using the established distance parameters.

2. What is the range and character of material culture at Anglo-Saxon rural settlements? Presented in Section 4.3, the research question was addressed through the classification of material culture in terms of form and character, determined from the artefactual information documented in the site pro formas (Sections 3.2.5, 4.3; Appendix 1). The material culture evidence was collated in tables by artefact form and grouped by artefact use (Appendix 3). From this data, a catalogue of material culture from the rural settlements was compiled, producing an informed research tool (Section 4.3). The catalogue comprises stratified, unstratified (including residual) and metal detected material culture of AngloSaxon date. Wherever possible or pertinent, artefacts were examined in terms of: • • • •

artefact use/s and function/s site chronology site distribution commonness of occurrence.

Material culture evidence for provenance and potential economic activities and contacts was considered in a wider historical framework comprising the following factors: • • • • •

total or approximate quantities site chronology site distribution types and forms.

chronology of the settlements geographical location of the settlements exchange/trade networks exploited by the settlements political environment (Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian) social/cultural influences (Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian and Continental).

The key findings and issues highlighted by examination of the four research questions were further explored within the four case studies presented in Chapter 7. The case studies examine, in turn: chronological trends in material culture use, consumption and economic activities (Section 7.2); the establishment of site profiles, highlighting settlement functions and specialisations (Section 7.3); evidence for social and settlement hierarchies (Section 7.4); and the contextualisation of the key findings of the study through microscale settlement analysis (Section 7.5).

3. How was material culture utilised at Anglo-Saxon rural settlements? Presented in Chapter 5, the research question was addressed through identifying consumption activities undertaken at the settlements as evidenced by material culture (Sections 3.2.6–3.2.7; Chapter 5). Artefactual data recorded in the site pro formas (Appendix 1) and the catalogue of material culture (Section 4.2; Appendix 3) was interpreted from behavioural and cultural perspectives to identify and classify the use/s of material culture. Stratified, unstratified (including residual) and metal detected objects of AngloSaxon date were assessed as well as several exceptional prehistoric and Roman items. The artefactual information was compiled in tables categorised by consumption activity

1.3. Book Structure The relevance and objectives of the present work as well as the research questions placed upon the study are introduced above (Sections 1.1–1.2). A literature review is presented in Chapter 2, comprising a consideration of theoretical approaches to Anglo-Saxon material culture studies and archaeology, and discussions of Anglo-Saxon 3

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements scholarship and rural settlement research pertinent to the study. The methodological approaches employed in the study are discussed in Chapter 3, including site selection criteria, data collection, analytical processes and the limitations of the data. The following three chapters examine the principal research objectives of the study. Chapter 4 assesses material culture from the settlements in archaeological context in order to establish distributional patterns (Section 4.2) and produces a catalogue of the range and character of material culture (Section 4.3). Chapter 5 determines the consumption activities taking place at the settlements through the examination of material culture as a resource. Chapter 6 analyses material culture within an economic framework, assessing the potential economic reach, patterns and trends exhibited at the settlements. Four case studies are presented in Chapter 7 which further explore key aspects

of the study, comprising: an examination of material culture from a chronological perspective, focusing on six multi-period settlements (Section 7.2); a discussion of the settlement profiles and signatures established for each site, as evidenced by material culture and the occurrence of consumption activities (Section 7.3); an assessment of material culture and site distributional patterns as evidence for social status and hierarchy at the settlements (Section 7.4); and a microscale analysis of the settlement of Yarnton [PF17], Oxfordshire which contextualises evidence of the principal aspects of the study (Section 7.5). Chapter 8 concludes the work with a discussion of the findings and wider implications of the study and considers avenues of further research. The Bibliography is presented at the end of this volume. The Appendices (1–10) are available to download from: www.barpublishing.com/additionaldownloads.html

4

2 Literature Review 2.1. Overview

of study within archaeology, exceptionally resistant to theoretical and methodological progress (Bintliff 1984, 13, 27; Scull 1993, 65). A key reason for this view is that although archaeology continues to produce a wealth of post-Roman material culture in Britain, the AngloSaxon period can arguably be considered proto-historic, potentially creating a disparity for the modern researcher between ‘words’ and the ‘objects’ (Frantzen 2014, 15).

The aims and objectives of the present study have been introduced in the previous chapter. This study will further knowledge of Anglo-Saxon non-elite rural settlements through an assessment of material culture evidence and the addressing of four research questions. In this chapter, the epistemological, academic and historical contexts which provide the framework for the study are discussed. A background to the theoretical models implemented to support the methodological approaches of the study is first presented (Section 2.2). Anglo-Saxon scholarship and history which contextualise the study is then discussed, encompassing architecture, settlement morphology and evolution as well as economic systems and developments of the period (Section 2.3).

In this study, a bi-theoretical approach has been adopted for the analysis of material culture and rural settlement evidence, combining processualist/New Archaeology empirical methods with post-processual concepts. A bitheoretical approach can ideally avoid myopic analyses of the data, a situation which a number of academics have been concerned with when only a singular-theoretical approach is applied to the interpretation of an archaeological dataset (Bintliff 1996; Trigger 2006, 28, 30).

2.2. Theoretical Models This section discusses the theoretical models that supported the methodological and interpretative processes of the study (Chapter 3).

It has been taken into consideration that the likelihood of the occurrence of interpretive bias is particularly acute in a field such as archaeology, which spans the sciences and humanities and traditionally borrows and adapts theoretical methods from other disciplines (Pluciennik 2011, 31–2). Bruce Trigger has pointed out that, although epistemologies provide a structure for research and evaluation, the application of a particular theory is only pertinent if it is also acknowledged that archaeological data is not the creation of archaeologists– unlike theory itself– and thus has the potential to not always conform to the parameters set by theoretical frameworks (Trigger 2006, 27). As Gavin Lucas has succinctly posed the matter, “it is no longer a question of whether the evidence supports the theory: does the theory work in the context of the evidence?” (Lucas 2012, 2–3).

The broad and diverse experimental nature of the archaeological discipline has led, perhaps inevitably, to the borrowing and adaption of epistemologies from other fields of study, including the sciences, sociology and economics (Foucault 1972, 136–40; Clarke 1978, xv–xvi; Binford 1983, 21). As such, diverse theories and polemic discourse have been applied to archaeology. The importance of the implementation of epistemological frameworks to provide direction to archaeological practice and to give meaning to data within the interpretative process is a method advocated by a number of scholars, including Lewis Binford (1983), Michael Shanks and Chris Tilley (1987, 1992). However, an opposing camp have argued against the restrictions imposed by the doctrines of archaeological theory, instead promoting a more heterogeneous approach to method and interpretation which encompasses the utilisation of systems and techniques from a variety of disciplines (i.e. Baines & Brophy 2006; Trigger 2006; Bintliff 2011; Bintliff & Pearce 2011; Lucas 2012). It has been contended from this point of view that, overall, archaeology is a largely anti-theoretical, empiricist discipline (Shanks & Tilley 1987, vii). Despite the variances in methodologies, Matthew Johnson’s observation of the state of archaeological theory is most perceptive: “all archaeologists are theorists whether we like it or not. There are many different possible positions to take– but they are all theoretical ones” (Johnson 2010, 219–20).

The use of empirical approaches as advocated by processualism, or New Archaeology, theory has been adopted in this study (Section 3.2). Processualism was established during the 1950s and ‘60s as a challenge to the predominantly descriptive theoretical approaches of earlier epistemologies espoused by scholars including the evolutionists and cultural historians of the late 19th and earlier 20th centuries (i.e. Childe 1925, 1926, 1929; Slaughter 1984, 47–9; Wickham-Crowley 1999, 7; Arcangeli 2012, 50–3; Urban & Schortman 2012, 70–6). Processualism resulted in the development of ‘middle range’ theoretical approaches which complimented methodologies incorporating scientific positions (Binford 1983, 21–3, 41–3; Shanks & Tilley 1987, 43–5, 122; Johnson 2010, 50–67).

Specifically, it has been argued that early medieval archaeology, particularly the Early Anglo-Saxon period, has traditionally operated as a somewhat detached area

The ‘positivist’ theoretical approach of processualism advocates studying human behaviour and material 5

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements centres such as coins or craft specialisation will not be present at all sites engaging in economic activities (Hirth 1998, 454). ‘Spatial’ approaches involve the study and plotting of commodity distribution and/or hierarchical elements of settlements in order to produce spatial patterns of economic exchange. However, such methods may be limited by the reliability of available data, for example it may not be possible to establish the provenance or original point of exchange for some artefacts (Hirth 1998, 454). Hirth advocates a multi-disciplinary ‘distributional’ approach as the most effective and direct method for identifying market exchange in the archaeological record, which focuses on the quantity and distribution of material culture as traded or acquired through societal consumption units such as elite or low-status households (Hirth 1998, 454–6). Limitations and adaptations to the ‘distributional’ model have been suggested, for example Richard E. Blanton reasons that exchange theory would benefit from multiple scale analysis of household evidence as well as community and regional-level data, while Patricia Plunket notes that the distribution of material culture and the functions of the household unit are inherently complex, ranging beyond procurement to undertakings such as the processing and discarding of objects (Hirth 1998, 463–4, 468).

culture by means of empirical processes which can be refined by generalised methodologies (Trigger 2006, 29; Urban & Schortman 2012, 85–6). It also promotes multi- and cross-disciplinary studies, ideally enabling archaeology to advance scientifically and maintain relevance as an academic discipline (Pluciennik 2011, 35–6). Within Anglo-Saxon archaeology, processualism was initially emulated in the broader approaches and conceptualisations archaeologists now took to their subject matter. Social, cultural, economic and political aspects of the archaeological record were now focused upon, as well as the wider implications of these factors within the early medieval world, supporting the development of areas of Anglo-Saxon studies discussed in Section 2.3. Binford, one of the pioneers of processualism, has contended that material culture is a component of a total ‘cultural system’, spanning the temporal and spatial, and thus cannot be fully understood or interpreted through a singular-method theoretical approach (Binford 1962, 218–9; 1976, 21–3). David Clarke has also eschewed traditionalist theories, arguing that material culture should be examined through its ‘sociocultural system’ (Clarke 1978, 42, 149–50). Material culture is a ‘subsystem’ of the ‘sociocultural system’, which comprises other modules such as economic, social and religious ‘subsystems’ (Clarke 1978, 84–5, 129–37). To processualists such as Binford and Clarke, material culture conveys numerous attributes and variables of human behaviour and is therefore inherently complex. As such, material culture data is only quantifiable through the implementation of scientific methods (Clarke 1978, 85, 155–6; Binford 1983, 31–3).

In this study, processualist empirical and multi-disciplinary theoretical models have been employed in order to further knowledge of Anglo-Saxon rural settlements and their material culture. Notably: the quantification of artefacts and compilation of a material culture catalogue has supported empirical analysis of the artefactual evidence (Sections 3.2.3, 3.2.5, 4.3, 7.2); ‘spatial’ analysis of the retrieval contexts of material culture at the sites has been undertaken to examine depositional practices at the settlements (Sections 3.2.4, 4.2); the range and scale of activities carried out at the settlements has been assessed through a ‘distributional’ model involving the quantification of buildings as consumption units (Sections 3.2.6–3.2.7, 7.3; Chapter 5); and models of exchange and transference and ‘spatial’ approaches have been considered in determining the distribution and provenance of material culture as well as to establish distance parameters for the analysis of the economic reach of the settlements (Sections 2.3.3, 3.2.8–3.2.9; Chapter 6).

Underpinning this study is the examination of material culture as evidence for social and economic ‘sociocultural systems’. Material culture constitutes recognisable physical evidence deriving from the archaeological record that can be studied to provide information on societal ‘subsystems’ such as consumption, trade and hierarchy (Brookes 2007, 16–7) (Section 7.4; Chapters 5–6). Key methodological approaches that support the analysis of such socio-economic developments which can be applied to Anglo-Saxon studies have been succinctly covered in Kenneth Hirth’s distributional analysis paper (1998). Hirth’s work discusses four approaches for identifying market economics in Mesoamerican archaeology, which are transferable to other periods of study (Hirth 1998, 451–4; Brookes 2007, 16). The ‘configurational’ approach evaluates economic patterns from interpretations of archaeological evidence inferred as representing economic activity, such as manufacturing debris or market places (Hirth 1998, 453). ‘Contextual’ approaches deduce economic centres and activity from social/cultural systems interpreted as engaging in economic systems, such as large towns in which it can be inferred that trade and production was undertaken (Hirth 1998, 453–4). Regarding these two methods, potential issues with focusing on inference include the absence or misinterpretation of evidence, for example common indicators for identifying economic

Post-processualist theoretical and interpretative approaches have also been applied to the study (Section 3.2). The advent of post-processual archaeological theory in the late 1970s and into the ‘80s developed as a reaction to the ‘positivist’ epistemology of processualism, which centres on generalised empiricist techniques. Instead, post-processualism encourages hermeneutic methods drawn from the humanities and the social sciences as a means of interpreting between the past and the present (Shanks & Tilley 1987, 1992; Jones & Alberti 2013, 17–8). Causative factors which affect the archaeological record are focused upon and cultural evidence is studied through the mediums of human behaviours and action, termed ‘individual agency’ and ‘collective agency’ (Trigger 6

Literature Review 2006, 29–30; Gardner 2007, 21; Urban & Schortman 2012, 92, 96; Madella et al 2013, 2). A central tenet of post-processual material culture studies is ‘materiality’, which maintains that a mutually constitutive relationship exists between humans and the material world (Gosden & Marshall 1999, 169–70, 177; Johnson 2010, 224–6; Lucas 2012, 157–68). The ‘constructivist’ approaches of postprocessualism fostered creativity and experimentation within archaeology (Jones & Alberti 2013, 17–8).

53–5; Browitt 2004, 1). Habitus is a continuous structure of works or practices which produces ideas, experiences and actions that are delimited by social, familial and historical conditions (Bourdieu 1977, 78, 82; 1990, 55). It is a medium through which individual, group and societal patterns of cultural behaviour are unconsciously adopted and embedded (Bourdieu 1990, 54; Browitt 2004, 1, 31). Habitus facilitates the study of material culture and archaeological evidence, such as the ‘household’ for example, as physical manifestations of identity, customs and choice, alongside the social processes that enable the manufacture and use of material culture (Blanton 1994, 7, 9–10; Madella et al 2013; Frantzen 2014, 16).

A central premise of the theory is the symbolism and context of material culture, which is pertinent to this study. Material culture can be read as ‘text’– signs and symbols imbued with meaning by the people who had consumed the objects– which can be decoded in a similar manner to ‘language’, enabling the past to be understood in the present (Clarke 1978, 479–81; Hodder 1989a; Shanks & Tilley 1987, 85–6, 99–102; Jones & Alberti 2013, 22). However, Ian Hodder argues that the meanings of material culture are more immediate, use-bound and less palpably representational than meanings in language. In his view, material culture can be considered as meaningfully constituted and its symbolism and significance can only be decoded by defining and comprehending the original context/s (environment) in which the artefact/s are found (Clarke 1978, 107; Hodder 1989a, 72; 1992, 143; Jones & Alberti 2013, 27).

Within Anglo-Saxon archaeology, Bourdieu’s habitus theory has been applied to Early Anglo-Saxon undecorated handmade pottery by Paul Blinkhorn. He argues that there are flaws in the traditional analytical methods of studying Early Anglo-Saxon pottery which can be traced back to the art-historical approaches of J. N. L. Myres (Myres 1977; Blinkhorn 1997, 113). Blinkhorn challenges the common assumption that all Early Anglo-Saxon undecorated handmade pottery should be interpreted as purely functional, arguing that such vessels, from the point of manufacture and during their use, could be instilled with layers of meaning and significance (Blinkhorn 1997, 113–5). His research has led Blinkhorn to call for the adoption of new analytical methods within Anglo-Saxon archaeology that can cultivate ways of understanding and transferring meaning to material culture (Blinkhorn 1997, 114–5).

The methods by which symbolic context/s– material culture within the archaeological record– are identified and interpreted is crucial, to the extent that it has been argued that archaeologists potentially create and alter archaeological contexts and assemblages through the processes of excavation and interpretation (Binford 1983, 57–60; Lucas 2012, 88–91, 178–88; Jones & Alberti 2013, 29). ‘Human agency’ can be seen as the integral action forging the relationship between the ‘context’ (the archaeological evidence) and its associated ‘structures’ (i.e. power, economy etc.). The ‘agent’ actively creates the context and links it to the ‘structures’ (Hodder 1989a, 73; Wiessner 1989, 56–63).

Other scholars have also advocated for new or alternative methodological approaches to be applied to the study and interpretation of material culture. Penelope Allison has called for a greater sociological and all-inclusive approach to the interpretation of archaeological evidence, arguing that standard artefact catalogues do not accurately capture or interpret cultural behaviour and are therefore an outmoded approach to the study of material culture (Allison 1997, 77). Similarly, D. H. Brown has suggested that analysing relationships between different artefact forms, within excavation contexts as well as in the setting of broader medieval society, would be a positive step forward in the study of medieval material culture (Brown 1998, 124).

Agency and its concepts form important components of ‘structuration’ theory, as epitomised by the works of Anthony Giddens (i.e. 1984) and Pierre Bourdieu (i.e. 1979, 1990). The central tenet of ‘structuration’ is the duality of structure, the uniting of ‘the individual’ (agent) and ‘the social’ (structure) into a single epistemological approach (Gardner 2007, 2). To Giddens, the duality of structure is not focused on individual or collective ‘social’ agency, as human activities are considered recursive, but is instead concerned with the ordering of social practices in temporal and spatial frameworks (Giddens 1984, 2, 17, 282–3; Gardner 2007, 2).

The influence of anthropological methods, as well as the dissatisfaction with rigid artefact typologies, has contributed to new epistemological approaches in AngloSaxon studies, alongside Blinkhorn’s Early Anglo-Saxon pottery research (Blinkhorn 1997). For example, studies assimilating a range of evidence together with material culture include Ann Hagen’s and Allen Frantzen’s works on Anglo-Saxon food culture, production and consumption which examine artefactual, archaeological and literary evidence (Hagen 1992, 2006; Frantzen 2014). Also, Penelope Walton Rogers’ research on Early AngloSaxon clothing and manufacture reviews archaeological evidence from both cemeteries and excavated settlements

For Bourdieu, the duality of structure could be cogitated through the theory of habitus (Bourdieu 1977, 1990). Bourdieu hypothesises that humans operate within, and are also constrained by, a controlled set of principles which are dictated by societal processes (Bourdieu 1990, 7

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements (Walton Rogers 2007). Other research methods have focused on the tenet that concepts of individual, social and ethnic identities are complex and multifaceted, influenced by diverse factors such as gender, age, agency/ personal choice and class (i.e. Shennan 1989a, 15–6; Woodward 2003, ix, 1–4; Hakenbeck 2011, 24–5). Thus, identities are not necessarily permanent or quantitative, but rather organic and self-defined, and interpretations of the archaeological record and material culture should be mindful of such issues (Hakenbeck 2011, 7–9; Hills & Lucy 2013, 298). For instance, as Catherine Hills and Sam Lucy have explicated regarding the Anglo-Saxon Spong Hill cemetery excavations, a brooch used as a grave furnishing may reflect a multitude of personal affiliations such as gender, age, marital status or religion. Any of these affiliations could be linked to any number of ‘agents’ associated with the brooch, for example the wearer of the brooch, the people who buried the deceased, the brooch designer and/or the manufacturer of the brooch (Hills & Lucy 2013, 298). Similarly, the context and placement of the brooch may also be encoded cultural symbols that need to be deciphered in order to examine personal concepts such as identity (Martin 2014, 27–8; Knox 2017, 114–5).

and ‘symbols’– of material culture can be multifaceted have been considered in the interpretation of the artefactual evidence. As such, material culture has been variously considered in terms of artefactual forms and types (Sections 3.2.5, 4.3), from behavioural and cultural perspectives to evaluate patterns of consumption (Section 3.2.6; Chapter 5), and in terms of provenance to assess economic trends (Section 3.2.8; Chapter 6). Multi-faceted approaches to interpreting material culture, as demonstrated by AngloSaxon projects such as those discussed above, and the theory of habitus are also pertinent to the study. Such methods enable the interpretation of material culture as a physical indicator of the customs, identity and agency of the people who consumed the artefacts, along with the social processes facilitating the production and utilisation of material culture. In particular, habitus provides a mechanism through which to examine the nexus between the material culture data and settlement evidence of the study and the social, cultural, economic and hierarchical aspects of the Anglo-Saxon settlements and their inhabitants, which constitute the symbolic ‘contexts’ and ‘structures’ that imbue the material culture with meaning (Chapters 4–8). 2.3. Anglo-Saxon Studies

Gareth Perry has also argued that traditional archaeological typologies are focused on subjective definitions which, as such, cannot expound on the people whom manufactured and consumed the material culture (Perry 2014, 55). His study of Early Anglo-Saxon cremation urns examines anthropological and ethnographic methods and case studies in order to develop a new classification model for urns (Perry 2014, 39, 42–4). Perry’s classification is designed to encompass interpretations for pre-burial urn functions, as he maintains that people would have actively constituted the form, shape and dimensions, and hence the purpose/s, of the vessels they consumed (Perry 2014, 39, 42–4). Another work is David Hinton’s study of jewellery and small metalwork objects which explores the conspicuous consumption of these items by the people of Anglo-Saxon and medieval England (Hinton 2005, 1). Hinton examines physical ways in which people present themselves and the significance that can be bestowed on material culture, by considering reasons for an individual’s decision to acquire, display, conceal and discard objects (Hinton 2005, 1, 260). T. F. Martin’s study of the interactions between the human body and Anglo-Saxon dress styles during the 5th and 6th centuries also urges material culture studies to extend beyond the limits imposed by traditional cataloguing formats, by embracing a more holistic understanding of how identity is constructed through the relationship between people and artefacts (Martin 2014, 27). By incorporating the human body into the structure of artefactual analysis, Martin facilitates the study of the interaction of material culture and the human body within a social and anthropological context (Martin 2014, 27, 36).

This section discusses key areas of academic enquiry pertinent to the study’s focus on Anglo-Saxon rural settlement research in England. 2.3.1. Rural Settlements: Building Types and Evolution The study of Anglo-Saxon rural settlements has positively progressed since the early 20th century, when E. T. Leeds’ excavations of Sutton Courtenay [PF27] in the 1920s and ‘30s led him and, subsequently, Ralegh Radford to dismiss the settlement’s buildings as hovels and rude dwellings (Leeds 1923, 1927, 1947; Radford 1957, 29). Knowledge of rural settlements advanced as archaeological techniques and the number of excavations taking place across England developed and increased over the ensuing decades (Gerrard 2003, 70). As a result, the scope and variety of Anglo-Saxon buildings and rural settlement morphology (Section 2.3.2) began to come to light, benefiting subsequent research in the subject area, including this work (Chapters 4–8). The range and architectural diversity of Anglo-Saxon sites and structures were initially explored in the groundbreaking Anglo-Saxon building and settlement surveys undertaken in the 1970s by Peter Addyman (1972) and Phillip Rahtz (1976). These surveys were followed by advances in the research of building forms and types in the 1980s and ‘90s, notably by Simon James, Martin Millett, Anne Marshall and Gary Marshall (James et al 1984; Marshall & Marshall 1991, 1993). Hitherto, Anglo-Saxon building studies had traditionally focussed on identifying Saxon/Continental, British and Scandinavian cultural elements within the architectural styles of buildings, largely based on excavated ground plans (Reynolds 2003, 98).

In this study, the post-processual models of ‘reading’ artefacts and the awareness that the meaning/s– the ‘signs’ 8

Literature Review Such pioneering works laid the groundwork for establishing that the main Early Anglo-Saxon building type was the sunken-featured building (SFB), also termed Grubenhäus. These buildings appear in England from the late 4th or early 5th centuries, coinciding with the migrations of Germanic peoples– predominated by Angles, Saxons and Jutes– from their Continental homelands following the collapse of Roman rule in Britain. The nature, impact and extent of the migrations, including on the introduction of new building types and architectural styles, remains an area of debate within Anglo-Saxon studies and has been well served by a number of works (i.e. Higham 1992; Scull 1993, 1995; Hamerow 1997, 2012; Lucy 2000, 155– 73; Hills 2003; Härke 2011; Halsall 2013).

and towns. One of the most common techniques was individual posthole construction and PBSs from c. 36 settlements in this study are examples of this type (Appendix 1). Post-in-trench was also regularly employed and such PBSs are identifiable at up to 12 settlements. Other construction techniques were less frequently used at the rural settlements, including continuous trench PBSs identified at six sites, beam slot examples recorded at Poundbury [PF10] and Cottenham [PF37], sill-beam PBSs documented at West Stow [PF3] and Springfield Lyons [PF45] and post-pit buildings identified at Raunds Furnells [PF6] and Catholme [PF36]. In particular, the post-pit technique employed at Raunds Furnells [PF6] and Catholme [PF36] was used for substantial buildings for which posts needed to be deeply founded and other known examples include high-status buildings such as the halls at the Anglo-Saxon royal palaces of Yeavering, Northumberland and Cheddar, Somerset and the Period 4 buildings at the episcopal palace of North Elmham, Norfolk (Rigold 1960; Rahtz 1976, 85; 1979; Hope-Taylor 1977). Building evidence, material culture and rural settlement hierarchy is considered in Section 7.4.3.

Up to 35 of the rural settlements examined in this study have SFBs, with the absence of these buildings primarily occurring at settlements of later Middle and Late AngloSaxon dates (Appendix 1). A range of functions have been interpreted for SFBs, ranging from dwelling houses to storehouses, barns and workshops such as weaving sheds. SFBs are typically sub-rectangular in plan, although square, sub-circular and irregular shaped ones are also known (Rahtz 1976, 76). They were commonly post-built, with posts set into individual postholes and structurally supported by post- or sill-beam slots driven into the sunken floor of the building. Typically, a second floor sat at a higher level than the sunken area and sometimes a hearth was situated on either of the two building levels, as evidenced by SFBs at settlements such as West Stow [PF3] and Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27] (Leeds 1923, 158–63, 166; 1927, 62–3, 65–8; 1947, 84–5, 87; Rahtz 1976, 75–6; West 1985a, 111).

Regarding Anglo-Saxon building sizes, Marshall and Marshall’s analysis of Early and Middle Anglo-Saxon building measurements (length, width, proportion) revealed that dimensions generally increased over time and that diversity in building forms accelerated from the Middle Anglo-Saxon period, as also evidenced by the range of PBS styles mentioned above (Marshall & Marshall 1993, 42, 375–80). Their work demonstrated that, in the 5th century, SFBs and other Anglo-Saxon buildings were uniformly small– less than 12m in length– typically aligned east-west and that approximately 25% of the 5th– 7th century buildings subject to study also contained an internal partition, usually at the east end of the building (Marshall & Marshall 1993, 375–9). During the 8th and 9th centuries, buildings began to show marked variations in size, from the long hall at high-status Cheddar which was 24m in length, down to a number of buildings which were even smaller than the 5th century examples. Less than a quarter of the later Anglo-Saxon buildings had internal partitions, which when present usually faced north or west (Marshall & Marshall 1993, 379–80).

From the Middle Anglo-Saxon period and into the Late Anglo-Saxon centuries, SFBs progressively decreased in number within many rural settlements and were largely superseded by framed post-built buildings (PBSs). Both building types are identified at up to 28 settlements of study, which are most frequently occupied in the Early and Middle Anglo-Saxon periods (Appendix 1). General consensus maintains that PBSs commonly functioned as domestic dwellings or halls, some of which may have provided a community focus. Contemporary SFBs likely predominantly served as specialised buildings, such as storehouses or cellars, associated with certain PBSs (i.e. Addyman 1972, 302; Rahtz 1976, 58–60). PBSs are typically rectilinear in plan, although some square and circular examples are known (Rahtz 1976, 85–6). In terms of design, opposing doors were commonly situated in the middle of the long sides of the PBS, sometimes with another door located in one of the end walls, with internal partitions dividing either one or both ends of the building, as found at rural settlements including West Stow [PF3] and Chalton [PF25] (Addyman 1972, 304; Addyman & Leigh 1972, 19, 24–5; West 1985a, 111–2).

Trends in construction techniques could also be ascertained from Marshall and Marshall’s dataset. During the 5th century, individual post- and post-in-trench techniques were almost exclusively employed and these two methods remained popular during the 6th century, although foundation trenches also began to be used, particularly at high-status sites such as Yeavering. By the 7th century, the majority of Anglo-Saxon buildings were constructed using foundation trenches and this broadly remained the case in the following centuries (Marshall & Marshall 1993, 375–80). Overall, Marshall and Marshall established that Anglo-Saxon buildings generally increased in size over time and affirmed that SFBs were more common within Early Anglo-Saxon settlements while halls and larger buildings, frequently of posthole or plank-in-trench design,

A range of techniques were utilised for PBS construction within different Anglo-Saxon settlements, including rural sites, high-order royal or monastic establishments 9

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements were predominantly constructed in settlements of Middle or Late Anglo-Saxon date. These findings are supported by the settlement evidence examined in this book.

the consolidation of the kingdoms from the 6th century leading to an increasingly (identifiable) classed society (Section 8.2).

This study contributes to knowledge of Anglo-Saxon rural settlements through the analysis and interpretation of site features, including buildings, and the material culture of these communities. This includes the examination of distributional patterns of artefacts at the sites, in order to assess the archaeological contexts– such as buildings– associated with the material culture as well as depositional practices undertaken at the settlements (Sections 3.2.4, 4.2). Building totals from the settlements have also provided a baseline for assessing the scale of consumption activities taking place at the settlements (Section 3.2.7; Chapter 5).

Overall, the dispersed nature and limited variation in settlement layout does not suggest that hierarchy was a prominent feature of Early Anglo-Saxon settlements. Given this, it has been argued that the lack of property demarcations or zoning in the settlements infers that social differentiation may not have been a significant factor within Early Anglo-Saxon communities (Hinton 1999, 54–5). However, as Katharina Ulmschneider has discussed, complexities of settlement status may simply not be visible in the archaeological record of Early AngloSaxon settlements to the modern observer (Ulmschneider 2011, 157). For instance, prestige grave goods found in Early Anglo-Saxon cemeteries such as at Springfield Lyons, in use c. later 5th–7th centuries, point to hierarchy featuring as a strong element of Early Anglo-Saxon society, implying that settlement morphology was not considered integral to the display of status and wealth (Tyler & Major 2005, viii–ix, 179).

2.3.2. Rural Settlements: Morphology and Hierarchy The intricacies of identifying and defining Anglo-Saxon settlement hierarchy has been addressed by many scholars within the discipline, with traditional indicators of status such as settlement arrangements/morphology, building types and material culture forms and uses coming under scrutiny. This study contributes to such debate by focusing on the functions, economic development and hierarchical evidence of non-elite Anglo-Saxon rural settlements, which have received less academic attention than highorder sites (Chapters 4–8).

The study of settlement hierarchy gathers complexity during the Middle Anglo-Saxon period, as new types of settlements are progressively identified in England from this time (Section 2.3.3). Also reflecting such developing complexities are instances of property demarcation, such as buildings and fields enclosed by fences or ditches, which become increasingly common physical manifestations of individual ownership within rural settlements, as well as high-order sites, from the c. early 7th century (Hamerow 2002, 97; Reynolds 2003, 104–19; Blair 2018, 139, 149). Examples from the settlements of study include Pennyland [PF19], Thirlings [PF20] and Riby Cross Roads [PF32], which all have enclosed buildings, trackways and droveways as well as fenced enclosures and paddocks by the late 6th or early 7th centuries (O’Brien & Miket 1991, 61–4, 72; Williams 1993, 49–54; Steedman 1994, 212, 224–8; Hamerow 2002, 98–9).

Presently, no definitive evidence for social differentiation or settlement hierarchy is apparent in either the forms or the layouts of Early Anglo-Saxon rural settlements (Hinton 1999, 54–5; Reynolds 2003, 130–1). Current archaeological evidence for Early Anglo-Saxon settlements indicates a general uniformity in settlement morphology and layout, with most settlements dispersed in nature and comprising predominantly SFBs and occasional small PBS timber halls (Section 2.3.1). The use of enclosures and boundaries was rare in Anglo-Saxon settlements before c. AD600 and functional zoning was also uncommon. However, the extensive excavations at West Heslerton, Yorkshire, have proved the site one of the exceptions, with the organisation of SFBs and PBSs into separate areas in which the SFBs were apparently predominantly– if not exclusively– used for storage (Powlesland 1997, 106, 111–3; 1998). The planned settlement layout has led Dominic Powlesland to suggest West Heslerton may be interpreted as a prototown and perhaps a physical manifestation of the results of elite power and direction as well as co-operative enterprise (Powlesland 1997, 110–1). As an example of settlement morphology, West Stow [PF3] includes six PBS rectangular halls with associated SFB dwellings and attendant outhouses, storehouses and sheds. This plan suggests that individual family dwellings were focused around communal halls, with work areas set further back (West 1985a, 111–2; Rowley 1994, 84–5). Such settlement layouts may have been a physical reflection of Early Anglo-Saxon society which was essentially tribal and kinorientated (Rowland 1990, 3–8; Lowry 2003, 101–4), with

Given such evidence, many scholars including Ulmschnieder have discussed the complications of defining settlement hierarchy given the growing diversity in settlement arrangements, such as greater evidence for planning as well as building types, from the Middle Anglo-Saxon centuries (Ulmschnieder 2011, 161) (Section 2.3.1). Currently, high-status cannot be easily identified from the range of layouts, building sizes and construction techniques increasingly employed from this time and, conversely, nor can an absence of structurally sophisticated buildings be interpreted as a definitive indicator of low status (Ulmschneider 2011, 161–2). Other academics have discussed similar concerns, for instance Rosemary Cramp has highlighted the consensus that monasteries before the 10th century cannot be readily identified by structure types or arrangements as “the wide variations in scale and wealth make any generalisations about their form and economy rather superficial” (Cramp 2017, 28). These challenges are further illustrated by the 10

Literature Review aristocratic site during different phases of its occupation (i.e. Loveluck 2007, 8–21). Evidence used to support such theories include the presence/absence in different occupation phases of artefacts ranging from utilitarian objects and tools to jewellery, glassware and imported items such as coins and pottery (Evans & Loveluck 2009). Further, the large-scale buildings in use at Flixborough during the later 10th century have been interpreted as conveying the high-status of the settlement during this period, although the quantity of metal work is less at this time than in earlier phases (Hamerow 2011a, 125).

documentation of some 193 Anglo-Saxon royal sites in written sources which, with few notable exceptions such as Yeavering, are far from being confidently identified in the archaeological record and it is strongly possible that examples may be currently misinterpreted (Ulmschneider 2011, 162–3). Material culture evidence also presents difficulties for the interpretation of settlement status. Defining the potential characteristics of a settlement can be (unintentionally) influenced by incidences of artefactual survival and retrieval at a site, due to factors including the size and extent of archaeological excavations as well as taphonomic processes (Section 3.3). As Hamerow has observed, such assessments are often hampered by the relatively small number of finds uncovered from the majority of excavated sites, many of which are also not intrinsically datable (Hamerow 2012, 2). Further, there is the potential for surviving artefact assemblages to be unrepresentative of evidence such as patterns of material culture consumption at a settlement. For example, objects that may be considered prestige or luxury items can have a higher rate of survival in certain archaeological contexts as they are more likely to have been looked after or passed down as heirlooms compared to utilitarian items (Clegg Hyer & Owen-Crocker 2011, 2). Another issue in defining hierarchy is the interpretation of artefacts as traditional indicators of status, which is discussed further in Sections 3.2.6 and 7.4. Scholars including John Blair and Cramp have pointed out, for example, that items conventionally associated with monasticism such as objects indicative of literacy are also found at other sites including elite secular centres and non-elite rural settlements, as this study also evidences (Blair 2005, 206–12; Cramp 2017, 28) (Sections 4.3.15, 5.2.12). Loveluck’s work on the subject further considers that not all aristocratic or ecclesiastical estates were centres for conspicuous consumption and they could be engaged in other activities such as agricultural production, demonstrating that an absence or paucity of prestige and luxury goods is not a definitive indicator of lower settlement status (Loveluck 2012, 139) (Section 2.3.3).

The sheer quantity and diversity of the material culture at Flixborough has led Loveluck to suggest that the presence of apparent prestige items, such as fine jewellery or coins, may be a result of the exceptional preservation conditions at the site rather than definitive indications of status. He also notes that such potential high-status artefacts are found in other non-elite contexts, particularly a range of sites along the east coast of England that likely benefited from access to a variety of trade and exchange networks, supporting the case that expressions of privileged status through material culture may sometimes vary regionally (Loveluck 2013, 98–9). Further, both low- and highstatus settlements carried out activities such as craft working which could produce comparable material culture evidence, an observation also supported by evidence in this study (Loveluck 2007, 99–100) (Chapters 4–6). In light of such findings, Loveluck has advocated for the adoption of a ‘dynamic change’ model instead of a traditional ‘highstatus’ settlement categorisation (Loveluck 2007, 147). Hamerow supports the assertion that the interpretation of high-status based on material culture is fraught with ambiguities and further argues that the evidence produced by many excavated sites is often insufficient in terms of preservation, quantity and/or quality to confidently assign status (Hamerow 2012, 101). Adding to the complexities, Hamerow points out that a significant proportion of excavated Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon settlements exhibit potential evidence of conventional high-status in terms of settlement arrangements, buildings as well as artefactual evidence, in part as a result of such ambiguities (Hamerow 2011a, 125) (Section 2.3.1).

Loveluck’s research includes involvement with the excavations at Flixborough, Lincolnshire, occupied during the 7th–11th centuries. The investigations encompassed over 40 buildings and other structures as well as the recovery of more than 10,000 recorded finds and hundreds of thousands of animal bones, which are some of the largest artefactual and faunal assemblages currently ever collected from an Anglo-Saxon site (Loveluck 2007; Evans & Loveluck 2009). The exceptional size, scale and preservation conditions of the Flixborough excavations has fuelled debate concerning the complexities of interpreting settlement status and functions through the analysis of building and material culture data. Based on the diversity of evidence from the site, arguments have convincingly been put forward for Flixborough functioning as either a prolific low-status settlement, a monastic centre and/or an

The examination of Flixborough highlights that apparent changes in site use/s and status over time, as well as the undertaking of similar consumption activities at different types of sites, contribute difficulties to the identification of (non-) elite centres and the interpretation of settlement hierarchy. Given such complexities and the amount of archaeological evidence increasingly available for study in recent decades, academics including Ulmschneider are encouraging the revaluation of the traditional ‘monarchocentric’ views of Anglo-Saxon settlement hierarchy. This maintains that royal, episcopal and aristocratic centres preside over a broad spectrum of ‘rural settlements’, ranging from farmsteads to wics and ‘productive’ sites (Ulmschneider 2011, 156–7). It is argued that such an approach restricts the assessment of potential versatile site characteristics such as multifunctional undertakings 11

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements or the exploitation of mixed resources (Ulmschneider 2011, 162–3).

England continuously evolved between c. AD800–1100, occurring in distinct parts of the country at different times (Unwin 1988, 80; Jones & Page 2006, 7). Of note is Brian Roberts’ and Stuart Wrathmell’s Atlas of rural settlement in England (2000), which is based on Ordnance Survey maps of the mid-19th century and divides medieval England into three main settlement zones with clear Anglo-Saxon antecedents. The comprehensive work presents convincing evidence that patterns of settlement and landscape use evolved across England and was not a static, uniform process (Roberts & Wrathmell 2000; Jones & Page 2006, 6). The evolution of settlement nucleation and regional variations in the process have been attributed to a myriad of social, economic and cultural conditions ranging from population growth to landownership systems (i.e. Thirsk 1964; Lewis et al 1997, 191–2; Jones & Page 2006, 82, 236; Williamson 2013, 135–40, 145–6). As such, some scholars assert that settlement reorganisation could have been a direct response to the creation of new estates or transformed political or ecclesiastical control in a region. For instance, Bruce Campbell argues that lords and lordship played the decisive role in this reorganisation process (Campbell 1981, 125–8), whilst Christopher Dyer and P.D.A. Harvey advocate that the peasant communities were a far more influential force (Dyer 1985, 27–9; Harvey 1989, 36–7, 43). Tim Unwin considers other points of view, discussing both the potential effect of population increase on settlement development, which could have led to the significant reorganisation of a region to ensure an efficient division of land and produce, and the role of social factors, such as the division between Anglo-Saxon and Celtic cultural influences on the borderlands of Mercia and Wales (Unwin 1988, 80). The importance of geographical and environmental variations, including access to meadows and fecund soils, has also been considered a significant influence in the development of settlement nucleation and field organisation by a number of scholars (i.e. Lewis et al 1997, 227–9; Williamson 2003, 180–1; 2013, 234–5; Rippon et al 2014, 200–1).

Despite some of the challenges, Anglo-Saxon settlement hierarchical models have been proposed. For example, John Moreland’s four-tier hierarchy is based on economic parameters and considers: major ecclesiastical centres as commonly most significant; followed by settlements that were slightly less economically successful or wellresourced; below which are settlements primarily engaged in rural production; and, forming the bottom tier, a range of sites that variously provided services to other settlements types but which are largely unidentifiable in the archaeological record (Moreland 2000, 96–7). Ben Palmer has suggested a hierarchy model based on settlement functions and economic activity that has: emporia trading sites at the apex; followed by settlements– commonly ecclesiastical and ‘productive’ sites– that served as central foci and had markets; below which are rural sites, some with ecclesiastical connections, that engaged in specialised production; and, finally, rural settlements with occasional surpluses to trade (Palmer 2003, 53–5) (Section 2.3.3). This study contributes to the discussion through considering material culture, settlement signature profiles and the economic reach of the rural sites as potential evidence for hierarchy, leading to the proposal of a new hierarchical settlement model (Section 7.4.3). Understanding of settlement status and hierarchy is more definitive by the Late Anglo-Saxon period than in earlier centuries (Gardiner 2011, 198). Traditional views maintain that the increasing control and regulation of landownership by royal, ecclesiastical and aristocratic authorities was manifested in non-elite rural settlement layouts, particularly in central England, by the accelerated process of settlement nucleation and associated planned fields in the later 9th-10th centuries (i.e. Campbell 1981). However, newer research is challenging these positions. For instance, Reynolds argues that the theory of the village as a settlement where social complexities can be identified through evidence such as spatial organisation is principally based on later medieval and post-medieval study approaches (Reynolds 2011, 81). Hamerow contends that the defined roles social hierarchies have played in the development of settlement layout remains unclear (Hamerow 2011a, 124). She points out that the processes of transformation from dispersed settlements to the phenomenon of villages and common fields from the Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon periods into the later medieval period is not yet fully understood, as Stephen Rippon’s work also highlights (Rippon 2008, 20; Hamerow 2011a, 124). Research into these complex processes continues and a notable contribution is David Hall’s The open fields of England (2014), which explores the relationship between English field systems, the landscape and associated settlements throughout the Anglo-Saxon period.

This study furthers current knowledge of the development and roles of non-elite rural settlements within the political, economic and hierarchical processes of Anglo-Saxon England through the adoption of a comparative research approach focusing on the character, consumption and economic trends of these settlements, which is an area that has received relatively little academic attention hitherto (Chapters 4–8). 2.3.3. Anglo-Saxon England: Economic Models and Systems Studies of the Anglo-Saxon economy have commonly focused on prevailing economic models such as the Middle Anglo-Saxon trading sites known as emporia or wics, the production/specialisation activities of other centres including Late Anglo-Saxon towns, agricultural intensification or manorialisation. This work contributes by focusing on the lesser studied roles, functions and engagement of non-elite rural settlements in the Anglo-

Currently, broad academic consensus maintains that the process of settlement nucleation in Anglo-Saxon 12

Literature Review Saxon economy, through the comparative analysis of the consumption profiles and economic trends of these sites (Chapters 4–8).

have also been explored by Michael McCormick in his study of the movement of people and artefacts around the Mediterranean in the early medieval period, along networks used for trade as well as other purposes such as travel and communication (McCormick 2002). His work further demonstrates that material culture was transferred for diverse reasons beyond exchange, including religious endeavours (i.e. missionaries), political missions (i.e. envoys), travelling or tourist purposes (i.e. pilgrims), or as the result of relocation (i.e. migrants) or displacement (i.e. refugees, slaves) (McCormick 2002, 271–4, 281, 607). Networks used for such purposes established between Anglo-Saxon England and the kingdoms and territories of the western Continent to the Jutish peninsula, notably the Frankish kingdom, as well as the North Sea communities, particularly Scandinavia and the Baltic regions, continued to be utilised in the ensuing centuries (McCormick 2002, 574, 607–9, 670–2; Brookes 2007, 7–9) (Chapter 6).

During the Early Anglo-Saxon period, processes of migration and acculturation between Germanic settlers and existing populations in Britain contributed to the formation of semi-autonomous Anglo-Saxon tribes and kingdoms in England by the 6th century (i.e. Bede HE I.15–I.22 [trans. Sherley-Price 1990, 62–72]; Higham 1992, 224–6, 232–5; Scull 1993, 1995; Thomas et al 2006; Härke 2011, 12–21). These territories fluctuated in number and size as the struggle for political power between the kingdoms could be fierce, erupting in feuds as a result of the jostling for supremacy and land annexation (Bassett 1989a, 23; Hamerow 1999, 31–2). Coinciding with these events, material culture evidence indicates that the exchange of commodities, ideas and cultural systems were taking place alongside migration and travel between England, the Continent and the North Sea regions. For example, the work of Hamerow, Yann Hollevoet and Alan Vince highlights strong connections in the Early AngloSaxon period between settlements in southern England and coastal Flanders which produce identical chaff-tempered pottery (Hamerow et al 1994, 9–12). John Hines’ study of the origin and distribution of artefacts around the North Sea demonstrates unique parallels in contact and exchange between Anglian England and Scandinavia from the 5th century on, in the form of brooches and pendants (Hines 1984, 1, 272–3). Vera Evison’s extensive survey of wheel-thrown pottery from Anglo-Saxon graves considers the connections between the Early Anglo-Saxons and the Continental Franks (Evison 1979, 28–65). J. W. Huggett has also researched Early Anglo-Saxon grave furnishings and his analysis of imported artefacts from a number of cemeteries suggests that long-distance trading networks were established across Early Anglo-Saxon England, facilitated by trading activities such as market and gift exchanges, bartering and tributes (Huggett 1988, 63, 89, 92, 94).

From the 7th century, many weaker autonomous and semi-autonomous tribes and folk-groups in England were increasingly absorbed by the more powerful AngloSaxon kingdoms, contributing to the apparent growth of an increasingly complex and hierarchical society during the Middle Anglo-Saxon period (Rippon 2008, 14). It has been argued that the rivalry for power between the Middle Anglo-Saxon kingdoms was a significant influencing factor in the creation of royal, ecclesiastical and secular (lordly) estates, as the bequeathing of lands and titles enabled kings and the church to meet the demands of a growing hierarchical society, by rewarding their retainers and followers (Hooke 1998, 39–61; Blair 2005, 251–3; Rippon 2012, 150–3). The intensification of agricultural processes and production output during the period was also an integral economic development leading to the establishment of increasingly complex estate structures as well as the growth of a landowning elite class and peasants tied to the land (Wright 2015, 18–9). Della Hooke’s study of Anglo-Saxon estates asserts that such properties were focused on at least one central place, such as a royal manor (vill) or, commonly from the later 7th century, a minster (mother church) which served the parochial needs of the community (Hooke 1998, 50). Estates needed to possess a range of environmental resources to meet supply and demand, such as arable, pasture and woodland, and this led to the formation of ‘multiple’ estates. Multiple estates were usually assessed between 50 and 100 hides and the demesne would be in control of a number of individual landholdings, sometimes encompassing an overall area of as many as tens to hundreds of square kilometres (Rippon 2008, 14).

The research scope and range of evidence investigated in such studies highlight that different methods of material culture transference, including but not limited to commercial exchanges, were occurring. Such modes of artefact transmission have been discussed by Stuart Brookes, including three chief forms of transference identified as ‘voluntary exchange’, ‘coercive exchange’ and ‘incidental movement’ (Brookes 2007, 18). ‘Voluntary exchange’ transference include objects acquired or traded through production and economic systems, such as goods obtained from itinerant craftspeople/ traders or commodities manufactured in workshops and subsequently sold on open markets (Brookes 2007, 19, 21). ‘Coercive exchange’ and ‘incidental movement’ transferences concern artefacts obtained through means other than commercial exchange and which are more likely to be kept by the possessor rather than traded, such as heirlooms or items extracted as tribute or as plunder (Brookes 2007, 19, 21). Examples of artefact transmission

As a consequence, aristocratic and ecclesiastical institutions soon became common foci in the countryside and research has shown that many of these centres played a pivotal economic role in the supply and demand of goods, as well as in the facilitation of trade and communication networks across Anglo-Saxon England (Hardy et al 2003, 9, 477–8; Blair 2005, 256–61; Booth et al 2007, 99). 13

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements and divorced from the economic processes of the local countryside such as production and exchange (Moreland 2000, 71–2). He maintains that evidence for the focus on craft activities and production that took place within the emporia, often on a large scale, directly challenges the notion that long-distance trade was the impetus behind the creation of the wics. Moreland contends that the substantial amount of surplus food which would have been required from the countryside to maintain these centres instead places the economic systems of the wics within their hinterland, and highlights the role played by rural settlements as economic and production supports for these centres (Moreland 2000, 69–71). Blinkhorn’s study of Ipswich ware also challenges the traditional view of the wics as settlements monopolising long-distance trade. His research into the movement of Ipswich ware, manufactured in the Ipswich emporium, presents a compelling case for a regional economic boom out of eastern England in the second quarter of the 8th century. Blinkhorn reasons that the impetus behind the expansion of regional trading networks at this time was the need for the wics to be provisioned by hinterland settlements with surplus food, utilitarian goods as well as raw materials for manufacture and production (Blinkhorn 1999, 20; 2012, 95–6).

Another phenomenon particularly linked to the economics of the Middle Anglo-Saxon period were emporia or wics, settlements which emerged in the latter half of the 7th century and faced decline in the earlier 9th century. These centres engaged in production and exchange and were founded along the rivers and coasts of England, notably at Gippeswic (Ipswich), Lundenwic (London), Hamwic (Southampton) and Eorforwic (York). The wics facilitated travel, communications and the national and international trade of goods between communities including high-status and monastic centres as well as rural settlements (Biddle 1976, 112; Cowie et al 2012, 2, 93–4; Costen & Costen 2016, 2). The seminal works of Richard Hodges (1989b, 2000) have greatly influenced studies of Anglo-Saxon economics, material culture and the emporia. Hodges advocated that the wics were created by the royal and aristocratic elite in order to control trade and exchange within the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, raise revenues and to establish monopolies on prestige items (Hodges 1989b, 47–65; 2000, 69–80). Hodges argued that wics functioned as dedicated centres, engaged in the manufacture and trade of luxury and prestige goods with other English and Continental emporia, with common items of exchange including Rhenish and Tating ware, coins, glass vessels and fine metalwork (Hodges 1989b, 59–60, 68–74, 91–2, 117–24).

Adding to the debate, John Naylor’s study of metal detected and excavated Anglo-Saxon sites in eastern England has led him to conclude that imported artefacts such as glass and stone objects were also traded at settlements beyond the sphere of the emporia, suggesting that some smaller coastal settlements may have had access to international exchange networks independently of the wics (Naylor 2004, 147; 2012, 238–9). Ulmschneider follows a similar line of argument in her study of ‘productive’ sites, contending that such sites demonstrate participation in Middle Anglo-Saxon economic networks outside of the emporia (Ulmschneider 2002, 338). ‘Productive’ sites are classified by Ulmschneider as a distinctive type of Middle Anglo-Saxon economic site, akin to a small market or fair, likely (semi-) transient, and identified by significant coin and metalwork assemblages that highlight strong economic ties (Ulmschneider 2002, 333–4). Ulmschneider, following the John Blair model (Blair 1988), argues for trading links between ‘productive’ sites and ecclesiastical settlements, as the church was a great landowning institution in the Middle Anglo-Saxon period and played an important role in trade and exchange (Ulmschneider 2000a, 72–4). Moreland and Blair similarly advocate that ecclesiastical settlements were utilised as centres for the redistribution and production of goods, as well as stimulants for longdistance trade (Moreland 2000, 102; Blair 2005, 256–61).

Whilst Hodges’ works continue to provoke debate, the growth in the number of archaeological excavations particularly within the last few decades has resulted in a wealth of new evidence which has led many academics to rebuff Hodges’ ‘classical model’ of the emporia (Loveluck & Tys 2006, 140–2; Pestell 2011, 560–2; Cowie et al 2012, 170). For instance, it has been contended that some of the glass from Hamwic defined by Hodges as ‘exotic’ should be reclassified as broadly domestic or utilitarian, based on evidence of its manufacture on a localised scale at other emporia including Ribe, Jutland and Dorestad, Frisia (Hodges 1989a, 84, 87; Anderton 1999, 1–3). Hodges’ focus on international trade at the expense of the examination of the relationship between the emporia and local and inter-regional trading networks within England has been criticised. Scholars including Brookes and McCormick have argued that the acquisition, exchange and use of prestige items were embedded within wider economic systems and not the sole preserve of the elite (McCormick 2002, 281; Brookes 2007, 18, 22–3). Loveluck and Dries Tys assert that increasing archaeological evidence, particularly the material culture from English coastal settlements, indicates that trading networks and access to imported commodities by early medieval communities was more sophisticated than previously thought, demonstrating that the wics did not enjoy a monopoly on prestige items as Hodges’ model advocates (Loveluck & Tys 2006, 141–3). Moreland also argues against the perception that wics were an isolated phenomenon, primarily engaged in international trade

However, the nature and character of ‘productive’ sites remains a subject of debate. For example, Julian D. Richards has expressed some doubts over the identification of the Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon settlement of Cottam [PF41] in East Yorkshire as a ‘productive’ site, whilst accepting that the settlement was engaged in trading networks as evidenced by material culture from the site. Richards compared the densities of the metal detected assemblage from Cottam 14

Literature Review [PF41] with assemblages from several settlements in the region also suggested as possible examples of ‘productive’ sites, including Wharram Percy, Yorkshire and Hartlepool, County Durham. He calls into question the existence of ‘productive’ sites, given the diversities of the artefact assemblages from proposed ‘productive’ sites and the small size of these assemblages as compared to economically successful high-status and monastic sites such as Flixborough, Lincolnshire and Whitby, Yorkshire (Richards 1999b, 73, 79). Overall, archaeological data supports the argument that the sophistication of trading systems during the Middle Anglo-Saxon period was such that settlements and communities participated in exchange networks involving and separate from the emporia, which is also evidenced in this study (Loveluck & Tys 2006, 141–9) (Chapters 6, 8).

125–8; Gardiner 2017, 88–90, 177–9). Interestingly, Tom Saunders has argued that the bounded and regulated arrangements of manorial complexes were a physical manifestation of the organisation of social space which expressed the presence of this new lordship and, further, illustrates the development of the feudal class structure that is commonly identified with the later medieval period (Saunders 2000, 223–4, 232). Contemporary Late Anglo-Saxon centres to manors, such as burhs, also capitalised on labour, production and commercial activities during the period (Haslam 2015, 201–3). Described in the 10th century Burghal Hidage document, a system of fortified strongholds known as burhs were established by Alfred the Great to maintain the security of Wessex (Haslam 2012, 133–7; Baker & Brookes 2013, 31–4; Williams 2013, 131–2). Two types of burhs existed; the purely defensive strongholds known as ‘burghal forts’ and the ‘burghal towns’ which were planned fortified settlements (Agate 2013, 166–7; Baker & Brookes 2013, 37–41; Williams 2013, 129–30, 150–1).

The English emporia were defunct by the onset of the Late Anglo-Saxon period. Only four Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, Mercia, Northumbria, East Anglia and Wessex, survived into the mid-9th century and all were affected by the Viking raids of England and subsequent migrations. The AngloSaxon Chronicle records that the Vikings first entered English history in AD793, with the attack on the wealthy and influential monastery of Lindisfarne, Northumbria (ASChron [trans. Swanton 2000, 55, 57]). Intermittent raiding ensued over the following decades, until around the mid-9th century when the nature of the Viking raids became more systematic (Ambrosiani & Clarke 1995, 90–1; Hadley 2006, 1–2, 10–2). As the Viking/Danish settlers carved up more and more territory, by AD879 only Wessex, ruled by King Alfred “the Great”, remained autonomous (Abels 2003, 265–6; Gore 2016, 59–63). Under Alfred, Wessex led the final rise against the Danish onslaught which resulted in the creation of the English (Anglo-Saxon Wessex) and Danish (Danelaw) realms after AD878. Alfred’s successors completed the conquest of the Danish lands over the coming decades, culminating in the foundation of a unified kingdom of England by the mid-10th century (Hart 1992, 3; Yorke 1995, 96, 107–12).

The economic activities of settlements including burhs and manors facilitated trade and supported estate and market centres, which contributed to the rebirth of urbanism in England for the first time since the Roman period, a process that accelerated in the later 10th and 11th centuries (Astill 2007, 235–40; Hall 2011, 610–4). The success of Late Anglo-Saxon towns is evidenced by the proliferation of material culture from urban excavations demonstrating that manufacture and production was often undertaken and supported on large scales, such as at London, York and Lincoln. Artefactual evidence also shows that towns engaged in diverse trading networks, operating internationally as well as on local and regional levels in which they engaged with a range of centres including rural settlements (i.e. Mann 1982; Vince 1990, 1991; Hall et al 2004; ten Harkel 2013). The flourishing of economic activities in both rural and urban England is attested to by written sources, notably royal legislative decrees which survive in greater numbers from around the 10th century, such as laws from the reigns of Edward the Elder (r. AD899–921) and Athelstan (r. AD925–39) (Reynolds 2019). Examples of legislation pertaining to commercial activities such as minting and trade regulations, including tolls and taxation, reveal that many economic endeavours undertaken prior to urbanism continued to take place beyond the new towns (Reynolds 2019). Certainly, material culture evidence from the settlements of study demonstrate the operation and sophistication of economic activities throughout rural Anglo-Saxon England.

Contemporary to these political and social events, sophisticated economic systems operated and were developed throughout the Late Anglo-Saxon period. For example, the economic model of manorialisation has been the subject of much research in the discipline. The manorialisation process was a result of increasingly complex landholding patterns and is also seen to have had an impact on settlement nucleation and field organisation, as these developments involved to an extent the direction and resources of the ruling classes (Section 2.3.2). Manors, which were elite residences and farmsteads that commanded estates, are first identified in the landscape in the 9th century and significantly increase in number during the 10th and 11th centuries (Gardiner 2017, 88). These estates required the organisation of land and common fields, settlement holdings and labour typically provided by servile peasants in order to prosper and the manor houses were centres of lordship for the emerging class of landowning gentry (Reynolds 1999, 123–4; 2003,

This study furthers current scholarship through examining how non-elite rural settlements were engaging in the economic systems of Anglo-Saxon England, which is a process less understood than prevailing economic models such as those discussed above. The comparative analysis of the consumption and economic profiles of these sites, 15

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements established by material culture and settlement evidence, provide a means for assessing the patterns and development of the rural economy throughout the Anglo-Saxon period (Chapters 4–8).

Section 2.3 discusses key aspects of Anglo-Saxon scholarship pertinent to the study of rural settlements and associated material culture, which have received less academic attention than other research areas in the discipline. This work addresses the imbalance through furthering knowledge of the character, development and functions of rural settlements, by means of the comparative study of material culture evidence and artefact distributional patterns as well as the consumption and economic profiles of the settlements, contextualised in the historical framework of Anglo-Saxon England.

2.4. Summary This chapter has examined the theoretical and historical scholarship relevant to the study. Section 2.2 considers the theoretical models which have been applied to support the study of rural settlements and material culture, namely processual empirical methods for analytical processes and post-processual paradigms for the interpretation of data.

Following, Chapter 3 builds upon the theoretical and historical structures provided in this chapter to formulate the methodological approaches applied to the study.

16

3 Methodology and Design 3.1. Overview

3. The occupation dates of the selected sites will collectively span the Anglo-Saxon period (c. 5th–11th centuries), in order for the settlements and material culture forms, functions, provenance and distribution to be analysed in the chronological framework of the whole period. 4. The locations of the selected sites will be geographically broadly representative across England, in order for the settlements and material culture forms, functions, provenance and distribution to be analysed on a general national scale. 5. The selected sites will include a variety of rural settlement models which exhibit diversity in terms of size, morphology/arrangement, building forms, structures and feature types, in order to assess the extent to which material culture can inform on aspects such as artefact distribution, consumption, economic trends and hierarchy at the settlements. 6. A high-status rural settlement will be included in the dataset as a control sample, providing a contrast to the material culture, characteristics and functions of the non-elite rural settlements.

The epistemological, academic and historical scholarship underpinning the study were critiqued in the previous chapter. These structures provide the framework for devising the methodological procedures implemented to accomplish the aims and objectives of the study, which are presented in this chapter. The methods of data selection and collection processes undertaken are first explained (Section 3.2). This is followed by a discussion of the potential limitations of the data, encompassing excavation methods, site formation and taphonomic processes as well as artefact quantification issues (Section 3.3). 3.2. Approach This section describes the methodological approaches of the study, formulated after consideration of the theoretical and historical scholarship reviewed in Chapter 2 and implemented to identify, categorise, collate and assess Anglo-Saxon rural settlements and material culture data. The methods further enabled the research questions devised for the study to be effectively addressed (Section 1.2).

As a result of the criteria, the 45 rural settlements selected for study form a structured and diverse dataset, enabling the sites and their material culture to be meaningfully analysed and compared.

3.2.1. Rural Settlements of Study Forty-five Anglo-Saxon rural settlements have been chosen to form the dataset of this study (Fig. 1.1; Appendix 1). The settlements were selected through extensive research of excavated archaeological sites in published formats, specifically monographs, books and journal articles. The decision was made not to broaden the research scope to archived or unpublished material such as ‘grey literature’ reports, given time constraints and the potential impracticalities of attempting to locate, visit and access the holding centres of such information.

The excavation areas of the settlements, where such information has been provided, vary from individual or several trenches to between c. 900sq. m. at Abingdon [PF24] and to c. 18ha at Mucking [PF4]. The number of excavated site features range from three SFBs at Goch Way [PF26], to 203 SFBs, c. 53 PBSs and numerous pits, ditches, enclosures, hearths and postholes at Mucking [PF4]. Chronologically, 15 (33%) settlements date to the Early Anglo-Saxon period; 11 (24%) to the Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period; five (11%) to the Middle AngloSaxon period; six (13%) to the Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period; and two (4%) to the Late Anglo-Saxon period. Six multi-period settlements complete the dataset, variously occupied in two or more phases spanning the Early, Middle and/or Late Anglo-Saxon periods (Section 7.2).

Selection criteria determining the suitability of prospective rural settlements for inclusion in the study was devised prior to the commencement of research and data collection. The 45 settlements were subsequently selected from a pool of published sites examined using the following criteria: 1. The site publication/s contain catalogues or descriptions, preferably with discussions and interpretations also presented in the text, of all or a significant proportion of the material culture uncovered at the settlement. 2. The site has been subject to thorough archaeological investigation, including the excavation, recording and interpretation of settlement buildings and associated structures or features.

Geographically, 18 (40%) settlements are located in east England (Cambridgeshire, Essex, Norfolk, Suffolk); 14 (31%) in south England (Buckinghamshire, Gloucestershire, Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Oxfordshire/ Berkshire, East Sussex); six (13%) in north England (Co. Durham, Lincolnshire, Northumberland, East Yorkshire); four (9%) in southwest England (Cornwall, 17

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements Dorset, Wiltshire); and three (7%) in midland England (Northamptonshire; Staffordshire) (Fig. 1.1; Section 3.3.1).

James 1983).

Regarding settlement type and size, 10 (22%) small hamlets and/or farmsteads are identified which comprise between c. 1–5 buildings and likely constituted family units of occupation; 26 (58%) medium sized sites are included which likely formed multi-family/community settlements and farmsteads, with 11 of these sites comprising between c. 6–10 buildings and the remaining 15 settlements containing between c. 10–22 buildings; and nine (20%) large scale settlements complete the dataset, ranging in size from c. 35–256 buildings. Whilst the number of buildings provides a guideline to the sizes of the settlements, it must be noted that the settlements were not excavated in their entirety and nor were all the buildings necessarily in contemporaneous use.

The study involved data collection for two main categories of evidence from the publications of the 45 Anglo-Saxon rural settlements forming the dataset (Section 3.2.1):

3.2.2. Data Collection

• settlement morphology, building types and other structural features • material culture (portable objects, human bone). The assessment of settlement and artefactual evidence facilitated the analysis of patterns and processes of material culture from the sites within the context of settlement characteristics, furthering understanding of these communities (Chapters 4–8). The material culture data of Anglo-Saxon date collated from the sites comprises objects from stratified, unstratified, residual and metal detected contexts (Section 3.2.4; Appendices 1–10). Prehistoric and Roman artefacts from the sites were also subject to data collection (Sections 4.3.19–4.3.20; Appendices 3.19–3.20). Faunal assemblages and botanic/environmental evidence have been omitted from the study, primarily given the length and time parameters placed upon the research.

In terms of settlement form, as far as could be ascertained, 37 sites (82%) were dispersed in layout; four (9%) settlements were regular/planned in composition; and four (9%) exhibited elements of both dispersed and planned forms. Twenty-seven (60%) settlements appeared to have been open in arrangement; 10 (22%) were partially enclosed; and three (7%) enclosed. Two (4%) settlements exhibited elements of having been open and partially enclosed during occupation; two (4%) developed from open to enclosed; and one (2%) settlement, Cottenham [PF37], was either enclosed or partially enclosed.

The settlement and material culture data for each site was collated in the devised pro forma and given a unique reference number [PF nos. 1–45], assigned chronologically from the initial date of settlement occupation (Appendix 1). The data from the individual pro formas was then compared to examine patterns and trends of material culture types, functions, commonness, provenance and distribution across the rural settlements (Sections 3.2.3– 3.2.10; Chapters 4–7; Appendices 1–10).

Regarding building types, 28 (62%) settlements either comprised or were likely to have contained both SFBs and PBSs; eight (18%) comprised only PBSs; seven (16%) contained only SFBs; and three (7%), West Cotton [PF9], Simy Folds [PF42] and Mawgan Porth [PF44], had stone buildings (Section 2.3.1). Styles of PBSs identified at the settlements included: post-in-trench buildings at c. 12 (27%) settlements; continuous trench buildings at six (13%) sites; post-pit, beam-slot and sill-beam buildings at two (4%) settlements each; stave-built and ridge-spine buildings at West Cotton [PF9] and Foxholes Farm [PF29] respectively; and three possible roundhouses of AngloSaxon date at Quarrington [PF30].

The pro forma is divided into two main parts. The first part outlines general details of the site and characteristics of the settlement. The second part informs on the types, uses, provenance and site distribution of the material culture found (Appendix 1). The settlement name, location, occupation dates, main dating evidence and publication details are given at the top of the pro forma. Below this, the section entitled The site records: the type/s of archaeological investigations carried out at the settlement; the size of the area subject to investigation; and other factors which may have had an influence on the settlement form, function or artefact types discovered. For example, the presence of former Roman occupation within proximity to the settlement may have had an impact on the quantity of Roman artefacts found at the site, which is evidenced at Radley Barrow Hills [PF1]. The ensuing section, The settlement and buildings, documents: the settlement form and arrangement; the types of buildings, structures and other features excavated on site; and the building designs, forms, arrangements and uses.

Finally, Staunch Meadow [PF34] in Suffolk was chosen as the high-status settlement for inclusion in the dataset. The Middle Anglo-Saxon settlement, occupied from the mid-7th–late 9th centuries, was subject to extensive archaeological investigations covering 11,750m sq., in which c. 35 buildings, including two churches, were excavated. The settlement also produced a substantial and diverse material culture assemblage which is well detailed in the site publication (Tester et al 2014) and could be thoroughly compared with the non-elite rural settlements of study. The 44 settlements can be argued from the archaeological evidence to have been non-elite, however it is acknowledged that in some cases evidence such as architecture can lead to alternative interpretations, for example as at Cowdery’s Down [PF22] (Millett & 18

Methodology and Design this study are listed in Table 3.1. Artefact forms, dates and assigned types discussed are the excavators’ or specialists’ own interpretations, as given in the publications. No new identifications, dates or typologies have been attempted, primarily as the material culture assemblages have not been physically examined.

The second main part of the pro forma is entitled The finds. It is introduced by the Material culture overview section, comprising three simplified tables for quick reference which cover: the broad artefact categories found at the site, such as ‘Metal’ and ‘Ceramic’; activities carried out at the settlements based on artefact function, such as ‘Utilitarian’, ‘Equestrian’ or ‘Leisure’ pursuits; and artefact provenance, encompassing ‘Local’, ‘Regional’, ‘Supraregional’ and ‘Imported’. The final section, Material culture types and distribution, categorises the material culture discovered at the site in descriptive tables which itemise the archaeological contexts, types and quantities of artefacts found.

3.2.3. Quantifying Artefact Totals The number of artefacts found at each settlement, in terms of form/type and overall assemblage totals, was quantified for empirical analysis as accurately as possible within the pro formas using the information provided in the texts (Appendix 1). The quantification of artefacts enabled the assessment of the occurrence and commonness of artefact types at individual settlements and across the sites.

Within these tables, the number of artefacts found in each context is listed, where this information could be ascertained. A short note is provided beneath where further relevant information has been provided for an artefact, for example ‘Pinbeater: 1 polished walrus ivory’. The exception is the Anglo-Saxon pottery table which is divided into categories of attribution, for example ‘Fabrics’ and ‘Decorated’. Additionally, further information on artefact classification as provided has been included, for example ‘1 strap end, Hamwic Type A, AD675–750’. When the quantity of an artefact type found within a settlement has not been disclosed in the publication, whether it was found whole, partial or fragmentary, this is reflected in the pro forma by an ‘X’ instead of a given number. In some cases, where only minimal artefactual information has been provided in the publication, explanatory notes provide clarification.

Several issues were encountered in recording the totals, discussed further in Section 3.3.3, notably the omission of some artefact quantities and/or the inclusion of approximated totals, as well as cases of estimations such as where fragments of the same artefact type, with unclear associations to one another, are present instead of a whole item. The quantities given in the texts, whether actual or approximated, are recorded in the pro formas with the appropriate artefact, for example ‘2 keys’ or ‘c. 7 staples’. Omitted totals are substituted with an ‘X’, for example ‘X comb fragments’. Despite the limitations, the quantification of artefacts has provided a means for assessing the occurrence of items at the sites, which has supported the production of a catalogue of material culture from the settlements (Section 4.3), as well as analysis of the frequency of consumption activities taking place at the settlements (Sections 3.2.6– 3.2.7; Chapter 5).

Within the pro formas, where more than one archaeological investigation has been undertaken at a settlement, the data is listed by excavation site, for example as at Lechlade [PF16] and West Fen Road [PF39]. The pro forma data is also recorded by phases of settlement occupation when such information has been provided in the publication, such as at Market Lavington [PF14], Quarrington [PF30] and Cottenham [PF37].

3.2.4. Determining Distributional Patterns of Material Culture

The pro forma tables show simplified information pertaining to the locations and contexts of the material culture found. For example, the individual fills of an archaeological context are not listed, only the description and number of the primary context such as ‘SFB 1’. Whilst the primary and secondary nature of artefact deposition form a critical part of the research analysis (i.e. Sections 4.2, 7.4.2), this information is discussed in the study where appropriate as the purpose of the pro forma is to record information in a simplified framework for raw data analysis.

Material culture was analysed in terms of site distributional patterns– the archaeological locations or contexts in which the artefacts were found and recorded at the settlements. The adoption of such a ‘spatial’ methodological approach (Section 2.2) enabled the assessment of primary and secondary uses of material culture at the settlements and provided evidence for depositional practices (Section 4.2). For example, artefacts deliberately placed within burials as grave goods signify primary deposition, while objects found within pits or disused/backfilled features demonstrate secondary deposition as discard indicates the items are no longer in use (Section 3.3.2).

In the study, the definition of ‘artefact’ adheres to Nina Crummy’s explanation of a small find as “an excavation object which needs more detailed initial recording, more detailed description in publication and possibly a more detailed environment for storage” (Crummy 1983, 3). The small finds typologies and catalogues identified and commonly referenced during the data collection process of

During the data collection process, the retrieval contexts of material culture was recorded in the pro formas for each settlement (Section 3.2.2; Appendix 1). This was undertaken for all stratified material culture, found within archaeological features at the sites associated with AngloSaxon activity, as well as unstratified artefacts including objects from residual features– later phases of activity 19

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements Table 3.1. Artefact typologies and catalogues: references Artefacts

References

Beads

Brugmann, B., 2004. Glass beads from Early Anglo-Saxon graves. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Brugmann, B., 2012. Beads. In: K. Parfitt & T. Andersen (eds.) Buckland Anglo-Saxon cemetery, Dover: Excavations 1994. Canterbury: Canterbury Archaeological Trust, 92–119. Guido, M., 1999. The glass beads of Anglo-Saxon England c. AD400–700: A preliminary visual classification of the more definitive and diagnostic types. Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London no. 56. Rochester, N.Y.: Boydell Press/Society of Antiquaries of London.

Brooches: Applied disc

Evison, V. I., 1978. Early Anglo-Saxon applied disc brooches. Part II: In England. Antiquaries Journal 58, 260–78.

Brooches: Button & Composite

Avent, R., 1975. Anglo-Saxon garnet inlaid disc and composite brooches. BAR British Series II (i). Oxford: BAR Publishing. Avent, R. & V. I. Evison, 1982. Anglo-Saxon button brooches. Archaeologia 107, 77–124.

Brooches: Caterpillar, Hübener Type

Hübener, W., 1972. Gleicharmige bügelfibeln der Merowingerzeit in Westeuropa. Madrider Mitteilungen 13, 211–69.

Brooches: Cruciform

Leeds, E. T. & M. Pocock, 1971. A survey of the Anglo-Saxon cruciform brooches of the florid type. Medieval Archaeology 15, 13–36.

Brooches: Cruciform, Mortimer Type

Mortimer, C., 1990. Some aspects of the early medieval copper-alloy technology, as illustrated by a study of the Anglian cruciform brooch. Unpublished DPhil thesis, University of Oxford. Mortimer, C., 1999. Technical analysis of the cruciform brooch. In: U. Von Freeden, U. Koch & A. Wieczorek (eds.) Völker an Nord-und Ostee und die Franken. Bonn: Habelt, 83–9.

Brooches: Early Anglo-Saxon

Fowler, E., 1963. Celtic metalwork of the fifth and sixth centuries AD: A reappraisal. Archaeological Journal 120, 98–160.

Brooches: Penannular, Fowler Type

Dickinson, T. M., 1982. Fowler’s Type G penannular brooches reconsidered. Medieval Archaeology 26, 41–68.

Brooches: Quoit, Ager Type

Ager, B. M., 1985. The smaller variants of the Anglo-Saxon quoit brooch. In: S. Chadwick Hawkes, J. Campbell & D. Brown (eds.) Anglo-Saxon studies in archaeology and history 4. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, 1–58.

Brooches: Saucer

Dickinson, T. M., 1993. Early Saxon saucer brooches: A preliminary review. In: W. Filmer-Sankey (ed.) Anglo-Saxon studies in archaeology and history 6. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, 11–44.

Brooches: Squareheaded

Hines, J., 1997a. A new corpus of Anglo-Saxon great square-headed brooches. Woodbridge: Boydell Press.

Buckets: Early AngloSaxon

Cook, J. M., 2003. Early Anglo-Saxon buckets: A corpus of copper alloy- and iron-bound, stave-built vessels. Oxford University School of Archaeology monograph 60. Oxford: University of Oxford, School of Archaeology.

Buckles: Marzinzik Type

Marzinzik, S., 2003. Early Anglo-Saxon belt buckles (late 5th to early 8th centuries AD): Their classification and context. BAR British Series 357. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Clasps: Hines Type

Hines, J., 1993. Clasps hektespenner agraffen: Anglo-Scandinavian clasps of Classes A–C of the 3rd and 6th centuries AD: Typology, diffusion and function. Stockholm: Kungl. vitterhets historie och antikvitets akademien.

Combs

MacGregor, A., 1975. Barred combs of Frisian type in England. Medieval Archaeology 19, 195–8. MacGregor, A., 1985. Bone, antler, ivory and horn: The technology of skeletal materials since the Roman period. London; Totowa, NJ: Croom Helm/Barnes & Noble Books. MacGregor, A., Mainman, A. J. & N. S. H. Rogers, 1999. Craft, industry and everyday life: Bone, antler, ivory and horn from Anglo-Scandinavian and medieval York. The Archaeology of York: The Small Finds 17/12. York: Council for British Archaeology.

Girdle hangers

Felder, K., 2014. Girdle-hangers in 5th- and 6th-century England. A key to Early Anglo-Saxon identities. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Oxford. Meaney, A. L., 1998. Girdle groups: Reconstruction and comparative study. In: T. Malim & J. Hines The Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Edix Hill (Barrington A), Cambridgeshire. CBA Research Report 112. York: Council for British Archaeology, 268–75.

20

Methodology and Design Table 3.1 continued Artefacts

References

Glass vessels

Evison, V. I., 1982. Anglo-Saxon glass claw-beakers. Archaeologia 107, 43–76. Price, J. (ed.), 2000. Glass in Britain and Ireland AD350–1100. British Museum Occasional Paper 127. London: British Museum.

Hanging bowls: Fowler Type

Fowler, E., 1968. Hanging-bowls. In: J. M. Coles & D. D. A. Simpson (eds.) Studies in ancient Europe: Essays presented to Stuart Piggott. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 297–310.

Horseshoes: Clark Type

Clark, J. (ed.), 2004 (2nd ed.). The medieval horse and its equipment c. 1150–c. 1450. Museum of London Series: Medieval finds from excavations in London 5. London: HMSO.

Knives: Böhner Type

Böhner, K., 1958. Die fränkischen altertümer des Trierer Landes. Fränkischen Altertümer des Rheinlandes 1. Berlin: Mann.

Knives: Buckland, Dover & Evison Types

Evison, V. I., 1987. Dover: The Buckland Anglo-Saxon cemetery. London: Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England.

Knives: West Type

West, S., 1998. A corpus of Anglo-Saxon material from Suffolk. East Anglian Archaeology 84. Ipswich: Suffolk County Council Planning Department.

Metalwork

Graham-Campbell, J., 1980. Viking artefacts: A select catalogue. London: British Museum Publications. Hinton, D. A., 2005. Gold and gilt, pots and pins: Possessions and people in medieval Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilson, D. M., 1964. Anglo-Saxon ornamental metalwork, 700–1100, in the British Museum. London: Trustees of the British Museum.

Pins: Hamwic Type

Hinton, D. A., 1996. Southampton finds volume 2: The gold, silver and other non-ferrous alloy objects from Hamwic, and the non-ferrous metalworking evidence. Stroud: Alan Sutton in association with Southampton City Council.

Pins: Ross Type

Ross, S., 1991. Dress pins from Anglo-Saxon England: Their production and typo-chronological development. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Oxford.

Roman & Celtic small finds

Crummy, N., 1983. The Roman small finds from excavations in Colchester 1971–9. Colchester Archaeological Reports 2. Colchester: Colchester Archaeological Trust. Cool, H. E. M., 2010. Objects of glass, shale, bone and metal (except nails). In: P. Booth, A. Simmonds, A. Boyle, S. Clough, H. E. M. Cool & D. Poore (eds.) The Late Roman cemetery at Lankhills, Winchester: Excavations 2000–2005. Oxford Archaeology monograph 10. Oxford: Oxford Archaeology, 267–309. White, R., 1988. Roman and Celtic objects from Anglo-Saxon graves: A catalogue and an interpretation of their use. BAR British Series 191. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Roman tools, fittings & weapons: Rees & Manning Types

Rees, S. E., 1979. Agricultural implements in prehistoric and Roman Britain. BAR British Series 69. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Spears: Swanton Type

Swanton, M. J., 1973. The spearheads of the Anglo-Saxon settlements. London: Royal Archaeological Institute.

Spindlewhorls

Walton Rogers, P., 2007. Cloth and clothing in Early Anglo-Saxon England, AD450–700. York: Council for British Archaeology, 23–6.

Strap ends: Hamwic Type

Hinton, D. A., 1996. Southampton finds volume 2: The gold, silver and other non-ferrous alloy objects from Hamwic, and the non-ferrous metalworking evidence. Stroud: Alan Sutton in association with Southampton City Council.

Strap ends: Thomas Type

Thomas, G., 2000. A survey of Late Anglo-Saxon and Viking-Age strap-ends from Britain. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of London.

Stirrup-strap mounts: Williams Type

Williams, D., 1997. Late Saxon stirrup-strap mounts: A classification and catalogue. A contribution to the study of Late Saxon ornamental metalwork. York: Council for British Archaeology.

Swords: Petersen Type

Petersen, J., 1919. De norske vikingesværd. Det Norske Videnskapsakademi i Kristiania Skrifter II histfil 1. Kristiania: Dybwad.

Manning, W. H., 1989. Catalogue of the Romano-British iron tools, fittings and weapons in the British Museum. London: British Museum Publications.

Petersen, J., 1940. British antiquities of the Viking period found in Norway. In: H. Shetelig (ed.) Viking antiquities in Great Britain and Ireland 5. Oslo: Aschehoug. Weapons

Underwood, R., 1998. Anglo-Saxon weapons and warfare. Stroud: Tempus.

21

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements curated or used during the Anglo-Saxon period (Sections 4.3.19–4.3.20). The material culture was recorded in terms of form and quantity, for example ‘1 loomweight’. Stratified material culture was further detailed by the archaeological features and contexts in which they were found (Section 3.2.2). Where applicable, further brief descriptions were included regarding distinguishing features such as artefact type, date or decoration, for example ‘1 copper-alloy small spangle pin, impressed dots, Ross Type VIII, AD450–550’.

which took place at the sites subsequent to Anglo-Saxon occupation– and metal detected artefacts, as/when this information was provided in the texts. Stratified material culture was recorded in the pro formas by archaeological feature type, for example ‘Pit’, and the context number given to the feature, for example ‘101’, with a corresponding column providing the quantity and a brief description of the artefact/s found within the feature context. Unstratified, residual and metal detected objects were documented within separate tables recording the types, date and brief descriptions (where relevant or provided) of the artefacts.

The material culture of confirmed, likely and possible Anglo-Saxon date from the settlements was then collated in terms of artefact form and broadly grouped by function in order to compile a catalogue of material culture from the rural settlements (Section 4.3), discussed below.

The presence and/or absence of material culture within stratified, unstratified, residual and metal detected contexts was then determined for each settlement from the pro forma information and compiled within tables detailing non-stratified and undisclosed contexts (Appendix 2.1). The range of stratified features, buildings and structures– for example ‘pit’, ‘SFB’ or ‘watermill’– producing material culture were categorised by feature type for analysis (Appendices 2.2–2.10).

The materials (i.e. bone, ceramic, glass) in which the artefacts in use during the Anglo-Saxon period were manufactured was also recorded, where this information had been provided in the texts (Appendix 3). This established an overview of artefactual manufacturing patterns which furthers understanding of the material culture presented in the catalogue (Section 4.3), as well as of production activities at the settlements (Section 5.2.4). For instance, most cooking and drinking vessels from all settlements were made from ceramic (Section 4.3.1; Appendix 3.1) and combs were predominantly manufactured in bone (Section 4.3.9; Appendix 3.9).

This collated data of material culture distributional patterns across the settlements supports the first research question placed upon the study (Section 1.2). It facilitated the examination of material culture in archaeological context and depositional practices taking place at the settlements (Section 4.2). The information also provided the archaeological contexts for the artefact types presented in the catalogue of material culture (Sections 3.2.5, 4.3). It further supported other discussions within the study, notably the consideration of social status and hierarchy (Section 7.4.2) and the microscale analysis of Yarnton [PF17] (Section 7.5).

Further distinctive characteristics of Anglo-Saxon material culture, namely artefact types, decoration and decorative techniques/finishes, were then compiled from the descriptive data recorded in the pro formas into a series of tables categorised by artefact form, for example ‘Knives’ and ‘Buckles’ (Appendix 4). This established a range of further information addressed throughout the present work, including material culture decorative styles and chronological typologies based on assigned artefact types, such as for Ross type pins or Mortimer type brooches (Sections 3.2.2, 4.3; Table 1; Appendices 4.5.2, 4.6.2).

3.2.5. Classifying Material Culture Material culture was catalogued by forms and types as determined from the artefactual descriptions provided in the published texts (Appendices 3–4). The processual classification of material culture through examining the roles of artefacts within ‘sociocultural subsystems’ was employed as well as post-processual theoretical approaches, notably the application of habitus as a mechanism for determining the social processes behind the uses of material culture (Section 2.2). These approaches informed on pivotal aspects such as the character, consumption, provenance and distribution of artefacts at the rural settlements of study, expanding current knowledge of these communities (Sections 3.2.6–3.2.10; Chapters 4–8).

The classification of material culture from the rural settlements in terms of forms, types and other distinguishing characteristics addresses the second research question placed upon the study (Section 1.2). It enabled the compilation of a reference catalogue of material culture from the rural settlements (Section 4.3). This collated information and catalogue facilitated the assessment of consumption and economic patterns at the settlements (Chapters 5–6) and provided evidence supporting the case studies presented in Chapter 7. The Material Culture Catalogue

Stratified, unstratified (including residual) and metal detected material culture of confirmed, likely and possible Anglo-Saxon date found at the settlements was initially recorded within the site pro formas, in order to maximise the artefactual data available for empirical analysis (Appendix 1). Artefacts of prehistoric and Roman date were also documented, as some of these objects were potentially

The purpose of the material culture catalogue is to provide a referencing resource for artefactual evidence deriving from Anglo-Saxon rural settlements (Section 4.3; Appendix 3). The material culture of confirmed, likely and possible 22

Methodology and Design Anglo-Saxon date from the settlements, as complied in the pro formas (Appendix 1), was initially collated across the sites by artefact form, for example ‘Beads’ or ‘Finger rings’, which was determined by the excavators’ or specialists’ interpretation of the objects as provided in the published material. The material culture was then broadly grouped into tables by function, for example ‘Beads’ and ‘Finger rings’ were classified as ‘Ornamentation and jewellery’, as detailed below. Functions were inferred by the author from the information provided in the published material and the artefact forms, whilst employing the methodological approaches described above. The catalogue was further influenced by the styles of the material culture catalogues presented in the texts of study. The interpretation of artefacts as prestigious or opulent is discussed in Section 3.2.6.

2. Utensils This category encompasses a range of implements, the majority of which were likely used in the household/ domestic sphere. It comprises: knives, which were predominantly domestic items during the Anglo-Saxon period used in tasks such as food preparation, however it is acknowledged that knives could also be used for other purposes such as manufacturing or hunting activities; hooks, which also served various purposes ranging from functioning as holders for household items to fishing equipment; spoons/spatulas; strike-a-lights; laundering items such as smoothers; and other utensils including potboilers and skewers. 3. Domestic items

It is recognised that such a classification system is inevitably subjective and that alternative category proposals in some cases are equally as plausible. This particularly concerns artefacts that likely served a range of functions and hence potentially fit into more than one category, such as knives which may have been used for activities ranging from food preparation to warfare and hunting or objects such as hooked tags or buckles which can be interpreted as dress accessories but of which decorative examples could also be considered examples of personal adornment, similar to jewellery. Classification is further complicated by the large and diverse range of the objects and the aim of categorising this material by form and broad function comparatively across the 45 settlements from which it derives, rather than on an individual site level as in the published texts. For example, artefact groups identified as multi-purpose such as knives, mounts, hooks, pins and tools could have served a variety of functions within individual settlements. Such patterns of material culture consumption are assessed in Chapter 5, with the aim of the catalogue centring on presenting the types of material culture found at the settlements.

This category encompasses a selection of objects identified as personal possessions and/or of broad domestic purpose. It comprises: mounts, which served as supports for objects ranging from shields and equestrian equipment to purses, however they have been included here as the variety of items they served can broadly be defined as personal possessions even given their diversity of functions; plaques; lamps; and basins. 4. Security and privacy This category encompasses artefacts which can be associated with security and secrecy. It comprises: locks; padlocks; keys; latch lifters; caskets; boxes; and chests. 5. Ornamentation and jewellery This category encompasses items used for personal adornment. It comprises: pins, examples of which served as ornamentation although it is acknowledged that pins could also serve more practical purposes such as functioning as dress fixtures; beads; brooches; finger rings; pendants; bracelets/armlets/decorative bands; and other ornamentation items including earrings and a chain.

Within the catalogue entries, the artefactual evidence is evaluated in terms of settlement occupation dates (Early, Early–Middle, Middle, Middle–Late, Late Anglo-Saxon periods) and location (south, southwest, east, midlands, north England). This facilitated the identification of chronological and geographical patterns pertaining to the material culture.

6. Dress

The classification system devised is as follows:

This category encompasses artefacts associated with dress and clothing. It comprises: strap ends; hair/dress pins; buckles; hooked tags; belt and leather fittings; wrist clasps; studs; discs; girdle hangers; and other dress accessories including toggles and lace ends.

1. Receptacles, containers, plates and vessel fittings

7. Charms

This category encompasses a wide range of vessel types of various purposes and associated fittings as well as platters. It comprises: cooking, eating and serving items such as bowls, cooking pots, briquetagé and dishes; imbibing, liquid holding and storage items such as jars, pots, cups, beakers, flasks and pitchers; buckets; escutcheons; possible funerary vessels; other vessels such as hanging bowls; and vessel fittings and repairs.

This category encompasses objects interpreted as possible talismans. It comprises: amulets; and Norse bells. 8. Cosmetic This category encompasses items associated with aesthetic applications. It comprises: tweezers; cosmetic spoons; cosmetic pins/prickers; and cosmetic fittings. 23

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements 9. Grooming and hygiene

17. Disarticulated human bone

This category encompasses artefacts associated with personal grooming and cleaning. It comprises: combs; ear scoops; nail cleaners; and razors.

This category has been included as human bone falls outside of the composition of the faunal and botanic/ environmental assemblages which have been omitted from the study (Section 3.2.2).

10. Utilitarian

18. Building material

This category encompasses a wide range of tools, fixtures and fittings. It comprises: agricultural tools; processing tools; manufacturing tools; multi-purpose tools such as hammers and shears; sharpening tools; weights; rubbers/ pounders; measuring tools; miscellaneous tools; fixtures; and fittings.

This category encompasses building and structural material which can be associated with the construction and/or fabric of buildings at the settlements. It comprises: stone building/structural material; bricks/tiles; un/fired clay and daub; window glass; and a ladder-like object.

11. Manufacturing

19. & 20. Prehistoric and Roman artefacts

This category encompasses a range of objects and waste associated with various manufacturing activities. It comprises: textile working tools and implements; metal working items and by-products; and manufacturing debris and artefacts indicating bone, glass, leather, pottery and wood working.

The final two categories encompass the prehistoric and Roman artefacts found at the settlements. 3.2.6. Interpreting Consumption of Material Culture In order to identify patterns of consumption at the settlements, material culture was interpreted through the processual theoretical model of considering the uses of artefacts within sociocultural systems and from post-processual behavioural and cultural perspectives, particularly the implementation of habitus theory as a means of analysing the social processes determining the uses of material culture (Sections 2.2). This informed on the range and extent of activities and occupations undertaken at rural settlements in Anglo-Saxon England (Chapter 5).

12. Weaponry This category encompasses weapons and weapon accessories. It comprises: spearheads; spear accessories; arrowheads; seaxes; sword parts and accessories; shield accessories; and missile weapons and missiles. 13. Animal equipment This category encompasses equestrian apparatus and bells. It comprises: horseshoes and horseshoe nails; bridle equipment; harness, belt and spur fittings; spurs; stirrup and strap mounts; and bell and bell-clappers, examples of which may have served pastoral purposes.

Stratified, unstratified (including residual) and metal detected material culture of confirmed, likely and possible Anglo-Saxon date was considered in order to maximise the dataset, as well as prehistoric and Roman artefacts which were reused and/or possibly curated during the Anglo-Saxon period. The identification of consumption activities, discussed below, was initially based on the excavators’ or specialists’ interpretation of the forms and use/s of artefacts as provided in the published material (Sections 3.2.2, 3.2.5). This was drawn from the material culture evidence documented for the sites in the pro formas (Appendix 1) and the catalogue of artefacts by form and character (Section 4.3; Appendix 3). However, the (potential) specific use/s for material culture at the sites was not always determined or discussed and it is recognised that many artefacts could serve multiple purposes (Sections 2.2). For example, tools such as chisels may have been used for various activities such as metal and wood working, and many fixtures and fittings could have been part of a multitude of household objects or tools ranging from dress accessories to furniture.

14. Trade and exchange This category encompasses artefacts associated with trade and exchange activities. It comprises: coins of AngloSaxon date (sceattas, stycas and pennies); economic measuring apparatus, including weights and a scale pan; and coin equipment. 15. Literacy This category encompasses items associated with reading and writing. It comprises: writing implements such as styli; and writing accessories such as inkwells. 16. Amusement This category encompasses artefacts associated with leisurely pursuits. It comprises: counters and gaming pieces; ice skates; and a possible whistle and toy figurine.

In these cases, the methodological approaches described above were implemented to infer likely consumption, with the material culture categorised based on conventional or probable uses for the artefacts as concluded by the author, established from prevailing academic consensus and/or 24

Methodology and Design comparable archaeological evidence. For instance, knives are recognised as common domestic items in the Anglo-Saxon period which were routinely used for household tasks such as cooking and food preparation (i.e. Frantzen 2014, 141–3). As such, knives have been categorised within the activity of ‘Domestic and household’ unless further information as to specific function has been provided within the texts (Section 5.2.1). Examples include the identification of pivoting knives and draw knives at several settlements, which served manufacturing purposes (Section 5.2.4). Another illustration is the mount collection, which includes examples classified by determined function such as shield or stirrup/strap mounts (Sections 5.2.6, 5.2.8); others that are categorised by possible use as given in the texts such as likely book mounts (Section 5.2.12); as well as mounts for which no specific use/s are documented. Examples of the latter have resulted in a classification under ‘Domestic and household’ as mounts may be considered items broadly associated with the domestic sphere in so much as they were owned and utilised for various purposes by individuals, whom are representative of households (Sections 4.3.3, 5.2.1).

Consumption Activities It is recognised that such an assessment of consumption which is based on interpretive and sometimes incomplete data is inescapably subjective and that in some cases other categorisations could be suggested, although the author has endeavoured to adopt conventional views wherever possible, as discussed above. Nevertheless, the wealth of material culture evidence from the settlements demonstrates that a range of consumption activities were undertaken, even allowing for potential differences of interpretation (Section 7.3; Chapter 5). Consumption activities are classified as follows: 1. Domestic and household This category encompasses a large quantity of material culture determined as cooking, eating/drinking and storage objects that could have been utilised in the domestic sphere, notably pottery vessel sherds, as well as a collection of artefacts interpreted as household items and personal possessions.

Considering such variabilities, there are a number of items for which specific consumption purpose/s were not described or could not be determined in the texts and which have been included in two or more consumption categories as a result. Weapons such as spear- and arrowheads are an example, as they may have been utilised in conventional undertakings such as warfare or hunting and thus they have been classified as (potentially) representing both activities in the absence of further information (Sections 5.2.6–5.2.7).

It includes knives, mounts and hooks for which specific purposes are not otherwise documented. As discussed above, knives are identified as common Anglo-Saxon domestic items and mounts have been included as, although it is recognised they are diverse in terms in use, it is argued that the items can be considered as likely attachments for a variety of personal possessions. Similarly, hooks frequently served as implements for a range of broad household purposes, as shown by the identified examples which include pot, flesh and wall hooks.

It should also be noted that while most of the material culture derives from a range of domestic refuse contexts (Section 4.2), with few exceptions including grave goods (Section 5.2.15), it is acknowledged that ritualistic significance may have been attributed to (some) artefacts during the Anglo-Saxon period which is not discernible in the archaeological record to modern interpreters of the evidence (Section 5.2.14).

2. Ornamentation, dress and grooming This category encompasses artefacts considered personal adornment items such as jewellery, as well as dress/ clothing accessories and items that can be associated with cosmetic and hygiene activities, such as combs and tweezers.

Consumption activities were examined in terms of settlement occupation dates (Early, Early–Middle, Middle, Middle–Late, Late Anglo-Saxon periods) and location (south, southwest, east, midlands, north England). This enabled potential variances in chronological and geographical patterns concerning consumption to be identified. Consumption activities were also evaluated regarding the frequency, or ‘commonness’, of occurrence at the settlements, discussed in Section 3.2.7.

It includes pierced Roman coins and an Anglo-Saxon one, such examples of which are commonly interpreted as having likely been perforated for reuse as pendants or similar suspended trinkets. 3. Utilitarian This category encompasses a large and diverse range of tools, fixtures and fittings which are broadly determined as serving practical purposes.

The interpretation and assessment of material culture as evidence for consumption informs on the third research question of the study (Section 1.2) and furthers knowledge of the roles, functions and occupations undertaken by the communities of Anglo-Saxon rural settlements, enabling individual site signatures to be established (Sections 7.3– 7.4; Chapter 5).

It includes a number of multi-purpose tools, fixtures and fittings that could have been implemented into a variety of items and equipment.

25

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements 4. Manufacture, production and craft

10. Trade and exchange

This category encompasses material culture, namely tools, implements and manufacturing debris, that indicate production at the settlements, which potentially comprises textile, metal, leather, bone, wood, pottery and/or glass working.

This category encompasses items associated with the facilitation of trade and/or exchange transactions, whether monetary or otherwise, namely coins and coin/commodity measuring equipment and weights.

It includes multi-purpose tools and equipment, such as chisels, awls, needles and shears, that could have been used for different manufacturing or other purposes.

11. Prestige and luxury This category encompasses artefacts interpreted as likely representative of prestige and/or opulence, either on a personal or social hierarchical level.

5. Agriculture, cultivation and horticulture This category encompasses artefacts, predominantly tools, associated with agriculture, cultivation and/or horticulture activities.

It includes items identified as prestigious within the texts and comparable examples considered as evidencing traditional luxury qualities of real or perceived value, in terms of: materials, such as gold or silver; high quality workmanship regarding design and/or decoration, such as enamelling; and likely limitations in terms of acquisition, whether due to expense, provenance or the comparative rarity of the item/s in circulation (Wickham 2005, 696, 808).

It includes the bell assemblage, excluding Norse bells which are attributed a range of potential functions (Section 4.3.7), as confirmed and suggested examples could have served as livestock bells, attached to grazing animals. 6. Warfare and defence

It is acknowledged that the criteria applied could be refined and debated. Complexities include potentially fluctuating values placed on items, based on factors such as changes in the accessibility or quantities of an item type available over time and/or in certain areas. As such, for example, amethyst and garnet have been included in the collection while amber has been excluded (Harrington & Welch 2014, 161). Compared to amethyst and garnet, amber items such as beads are not uncommon finds along the east coast of England– from which four of the six sites producing amber are located– nor within Early AngloSaxon cemeteries, with some of the examples of study also deriving from settlements burials (i.e. Huggett 1988) (Section 5.2.15).

This category encompasses weapons, weapon accessories and missiles which are items that, due to their general bellicose functions, are commonly interpreted as representative of warfare and/or defence activities. 7. Hunting and fishing This category encompasses artefacts, namely weapons, tools and equipment, that can either be directly connected to hunting or fishing, such as fishing weights and hooks, or postulated to be associated with these activities, for instance missiles such as slingshots. It includes weapons such as spear- or arrowheads which, due to their base functions, could have been employed in warfare, hunting or both, although the identification of the specific uses served by such individual artefacts at the settlements is often difficult to determine.

Overall, an endeavour has been made to implement a consistent approach and social status and hierarchy is further discussed in Section 7.4. It is argued that the material culture demonstrates that varying levels of wealth and hierarchy are evidenced at a number of rural settlements, even allowing for different interpretations.

8. Equestrian

12. Literacy

This category encompasses animal equipment and items, such as horseshoes, bridle gear and spurs, which can be associated with equestrian activities.

This category encompasses artefacts that are either established or considered indicative of reading and/or writing, including writing implements such as styli and a selection of inscribed items in Latin, Lombardic and Anglo-Saxon runes.

9. Leisure This category encompasses artefacts, predominantly counters and gaming pieces, considered indicative of leisure pursuits.

13. Recycling and reuse This category encompasses artefacts of Roman and AngloSaxon date, predominantly pottery sherds and coins, that are identified as recycled in terms of modification activities such as perforations, cuttings and abrading, and/or objects which are deemed reused in terms of context, for example Roman building material incorporated into Anglo-Saxon

It is acknowledged that other activities such as fishing, hunting and horse riding are also potential sport and leisurely pastimes, however these have been considered separately due to the diversity of material culture evidence and the wide scope of such undertakings. 26

Methodology and Design found per site divided by the number of settlement buildings (artefact:building). Buildings were chosen as the constant variable as they form a calculable unit that can be measured against the diversity, range and sometimes less easily quantifiable material culture from the sites (see below). The approach encompassed the definition of the ‘household’ which is particularly used in fields such as household archaeology– and evidenced in this study by buildings and associated material culture– as the smallest unit within a community engaged in consumption, production/processing and economic activities, which are all undertakings examined in this study (i.e. Costin 2001, 275; Steadman 2015, 14, 165–6) (Chapters 4–7). Buildings and structures also constitute one of the three ‘hierarchy units’, alongside site layouts and (multiple) site distribution, which are employed in some studies as a means of measuring a range of activities such as consumption, exchange and production, including Hirth’s ‘distributional’ model (Wilk & Ashmore 1988, 8–9) (Section 2.2).

structures. It is recognised that other artefacts not identified or discussed as such in the texts may be indicative of further examples of reuse, and some cases can be difficult to interpret in the archaeological record. For instance, a Roman coin found within an Anglo-Saxon vase in an SFB [XXII] at Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27] may be incidental or represent an unidentified reuse practice. However, the aim here has been to include the identified examples provided. 14. Ritual This category encompasses material culture identified in the texts as either attributable to or possibly representing ritual activities, notably ‘special deposits’ as well as items such as jewellery and dress accessories which (may) emulate pagan or Christian allusions. It is recognised that ritualistic meaning can be personal as well as multifaceted and, as such, instances can be difficult to identify in the archaeological record with certainty.

Limitations in the approach are recognised. Particularly, none of the settlements were excavated in totality and the archaeological investigations vary considerably in extent, from individual trenches to between c. 900sq. m. and c. 18ha (Section 3.2.1). Taphonomic processes and other preservation issues such as truncation will have also influenced the survival rate of buildings– and material culture– available for analysis (Section 3.3.2). Buildings identified at the settlements would have served a range of functions, although these can be hard to interpret, with some representative of activities beyond the household sphere such as workshops or storage facilities (Sections 2.3.1, 8.2). Also, one ‘household unit’ may have sometimes constituted more than one building, for example a farm. The study has sought to negate the bias of different building functions through averaging out across the sites the number of buildings, which are considered as a unit representative of consumption, for cross-comparative analysis. As such, a larger number of buildings (in terms of settlement totality) will generally constitute more reliable calculations (Table 3.2). However, an aim of the study is to analyse a range of rural settlements which vary in terms of size, arrangement and morphology, in order to maximise the diversity of the dataset (Section 3.2.1). Further, it is argued that all sites are worthy of investigation and can add to our understanding of the Anglo-Saxon period.

15. Burial and funerary This category encompasses material culture from primary and secondary contexts which are either evidence of burial and funerary practices or can be potentially associated with such activities. Grave goods from settlement burials constitute the primary evidence. The material culture deriving from secondary contexts encompasses artefacts for which burial activities have or can potentially be attributed, including identifiable urn sherds, receptacles suggested by the excavators or specialists to be possible funerary bowls and several items of designs and/or styles which can similarly be potentially associated with funerary rites. Given the secondary contexts from which it derives, this assemblage is far more subjective in terms of composition than the primary burial/ funerary collection. 3.2.7. Gaging the Ubiquity of Material Culture Evidence for material culture consumption at the settlements was assessed in terms of the frequency, or ‘commonness’, of the occurrence of consumption activities at the sites (Section 3.2.6). This contributed to the evaluation of the scope and distribution of endeavours taking place at the settlements (Chapter 5).

The exception to this approach is the burial/funerary primary artefacts which derive from settlement burials, where a more meaningful assessment of occurrence was calculated by the number of burial goods divided by the number of burials per settlement (artefact:burial) (Section 5.2.15).

The analysis involved the adoption of a ‘distributional’ theoretical model (Section 2.2), which allowed for the assessment of consumption activities through the quantification of material culture from the settlements controlled by the use of a constant variable (Hirth 1998, 454–6; Brookes 2007, 33–4). The baseline selected as a representation of commonness was the calculation of the absolute or approximate number (as provided) of artefacts

In order to identify consumption patterns, material culture was analysed using the processual approach of determining the functions of artefacts within ‘sociocultural subsystems’ and through post-processual interpretations, notably the consideration of agency as defined by ‘structuration’ theory as a means of establishing the uses of artefacts as 27

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements Table 3.2. Number of buildings recorded at the settlements No. of buildings

Settlements

Total sites

2–5

Market Lavington [PF14]; Abingdon [PF24]; Goch Way [PF26]; Fordham [PF31]; Riby Cross Roads [PF32]; Middle Harling [PF40]; Cottam [PF41]; Goltho [PF43]; Mawgan Porth [PF44]

9

6–10

Heybridge [PF2]; Barton Court Farm [PF5]; Raunds Furnells [PF6]; Orton Hall Farm [PF8]; West Cotton [PF9]; Godmanchester [PF11]; Brandon Road [PF12]; Lechlade [PF16]; Orsett Cock [PF18]; Quarrington [PF30]; Pitstone [PF33]; Simy Folds [PF42]

12

11–20

Melford Meadows [PF7]; Spong Hill [PF15]; Thirlings [PF20]; Maxey [PF21]; Kilverstone [PF23]; Foxholes Farms [PF29]; Cottenham [PF37]; Collingbourne Ducis [PF38]

8

16–20

Poundbury [PF10]; Yarnton [PF17]; Pennyland [PF19]; Cowdery’s Down [PF22]; Riverdene [PF35]; West Fen Road [PF39]; Springfield Lyons [PF45]

7

31–35

Staunch Meadow [PF34]

1

46–50

Bishopstone [PF13]; Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27]; Carlton Colville [PF28]

3

51–55

Radley Barrow Hills [PF1]

1

60–65

Chalton [PF25]; Catholme [PF36]

2

76–80

West Stow [PF3]

1

256–250

Mucking [PF4]

1

Thirlings [PF20], Cowdery’s Down [PF22], Abingdon [PF24] and Goch Way [PF26] were not subject to the nominal calculation. These settlements also produce relatively small total assemblages which likely supported consistent quantification processes, while in contrast– and arguably unsurprisingly– settlements with larger and more diverse assemblages commonly exhibit more instances of quantification omissions and/or discrepancies. The quantification methods and estimations were applied systematically across the settlements as appropriate. The calculated data was gathered in tables representing the consumption activities identified and discussed in Chapter 5.

a resource (Section 2.2). Some objects were indicative of two or more consumption activities, for example multi-purpose tools, finely manufactured jewellery that also denote prestige/rank or inscribed items which are suggestive of literacy as well as religion/ritual. Where artefact totals had not been provided in the published texts, it was estimated for the commonness assessment that two items were present per stratified or unstratified context. For example, the description of ‘X pin fragments’ in ‘Pit A’ was calculated as two pins; ‘X pin fragments’ in ‘Pit A’ and ‘Pit B’ was calculated as four pins; ‘X pin fragments’ in ‘Pit A’, ‘Pit B’ and also unstratified was calculated as six pins. Using the nominal amount of two is arbitrary, however it distinguishes that more than one artefact is present without adding any further conjecture to the undisclosed quantity/s. All sites have at least one example of material culture subject to quantity omission or discrepancy (Appendix 1). More frequently occurring instances across the sites range from: querns, loomweights and flint (17 sites each); nails (11 sites); metal debris such as sheets and strips (9 sites); fixtures/fittings (7 sites); combs and spindlewhorls (5 sites each); bone working waste (4 sites); pins (3 sites); and knives and pinbeaters (2 sites each).

Assessment of the occurrence of consumption activities supported the analysis of the range and extent of activities undertaken at the sites (Chapter 5) and enabled the profiling of settlement signatures and specialisms (Section 7.3). 3.2.8. Assessing Material Culture Provenance and Economic Context Material culture was analysed from an economic perspective in order to assess the potential range and scope of exchange and commercial activities engaged in by the rural settlements. This informed on the contacts and participation of rural settlements within the wider economic systems of Anglo-Saxon England and beyond (Chapter 6).

Other discrepancies which occur include the omission of pottery assemblage totals at eight sites and the inconsistent totalling by quantity and/or weight (where information is provided) at a number of sites of materials such as slag and associated metal by-products, un/fired clay and daub. The assessment of consumption occurrence excludes building material and prehistoric and Roman artefacts (excepting recycled and possibly curated examples), and as such only the material culture assemblages of

The analytical process involved processual empirical analysis through the implementation of ‘configurational’ and ‘spatial’ models of exchange theory (Section 2.2). This enabled the assessment of economic trends as evidenced by archaeological data inferred to represent commercial 28

Methodology and Design the publication texts (Section 3.3). It is acknowledged that this may have narrowed the scope of discussion. It should also be noted that it cannot always be established if examples of Niedermendig lava querns and, less commonly, Millstone Grit querns from some Early and Middle Anglo-Saxon settlements are of Roman or AngloSaxon date. For instance, Millstone Grit quern fragments are found in Roman and Anglo-Saxon contexts at Melford Meadows [PF7] and it is possible that examples from the Anglo-Saxon strata are redeposited Roman querns (Mudd 2002, 76). From Quarrington [PF30], the small size and weathered condition of Niedermendig lava quern fragments could indicate that these pieces are of Roman date (Taylor 2003, 255–6). General consensus also stipulates that the importation of Niedermendig lava from the Continent to England during the Early Anglo-Saxon period was likely to have been minimal at best (i.e. Parkhouse 1997; 2014, 24; Tester et al 2014, 277). Despite the potential limitations, material culture of confirmed, likely and possible AngloSaxon origin was included in the assessment in order to maximise the scale of artefactual evidence for analysis.

activities and the ‘spatial’ patterning of potential economic exchange based on material culture provenance. All stratified, unstratified (including residual) and metal detected artefacts of confirmed, likely and possible AngloSaxon date were considered for evidence of provenance. Determining the origin of artefacts can potentially provide information on commodity distribution via contact, exchange and trade networks on local, regional, supraregional and/or international scales, illuminating the economic reach of the settlements at which the artefacts are found (Section 3.2.9; Chapter 6). The material culture data recorded for the settlements in the pro formas (Appendix 1) and the classification of artefactual evidence in terms of forms/character (Appendix 3) and types/distinguishing features (Appendix 4) were examined to identify artefacts for which provenance could be ascertained. For instance, the recording of ‘Millstone Grit querns’ in a pro forma, which are known to have been sourced from the Pennines region of England, confirmed the origin of these items at the settlement. The documentation of artefact manufacturing materials in Appendix 3 could sometimes determine provenance, such as in the case of beads made from Yorkshire jet or amber from the Baltic and Nordic/ Scandinavian regions (Section 6.3.4–6.3.5). Assigned artefact types and decorated items collated in Appendix 4 also produced information, for example Hamwic type pins (Hinton 1996) deriving from the emporium of Hamwic or Early Anglo-Saxon disc brooches decorated with ring-and-dot motifs with a common distribution in the Upper Thames Valley (Sections 6.3.6–6.3.7). Artefacts with confirmed or likely established sources were then compiled in a series of tables categorised by provenance for analysis (Appendix 6).

The assessment of material culture within an economic framework informs on the fourth research question placed upon the study (Section 1.2). It expanded knowledge of the potential economic activities of Anglo-Saxon non-elite rural settlements and the roles of the rural economy within the wider economic systems of Anglo-Saxon England (Section 7.3; Chapters 6, 8). 3.2.9. Defining Local, Regional and Supraregional Economic Reach In order to evaluate the economic reach of the settlements, a ‘spatial’ approach was implemented to establish distance parameters used to define material culture of local and supra-/regional provenance at the settlements (Sections 2.2, 3.2.8, 6.2).

The coin types in use during the Anglo-Saxon period (sceattas, stycas and pennies) and balance scale weights for weighing commodities and bullion are also integral economic indicators, commonly signifying exchange or commercial transactions, and these items were also documented from the pro formas for economic assessment (Section 6.3.1).

Although arbitrary divisions, three distributional parameters have been applied to the artefactual evidence: • Local provenance. Material culture sourced within the bounds of the (modern) shire in which the settlement/s are located. Although not technically ‘local’, the size of shires meant most parts within them were accessible within one or two days’ travel. • Regional provenance. Material culture sourced beyond the bounds of the shire in which the settlement/s are located, to a maximum distance of three shires. • Supraregional provenance. Material culture sourced greater than three shires distant of the shire in which the settlement/s are located.

Some issues were encountered in the data gathering and assessment processes. As discussed in Section 2.3.3, it is recognised that material culture could have reached the rural settlements through a variety of means, including exchange or commercial transactions, via migrants as personal belongings or through actions such as tribute. Such conditions of acquisition or transference could not be determined for specific artefacts in the dataset and thus all sourced material culture has been included for analysis to maximise the dataset (Chapter 6; Appendix 6). Ascertaining the provenance of material culture provides information on the range and sources of items used by and available to rural settlement communities, whether obtained commercially, through modes of exchange or by other means. However, the sources of some material culture from the settlements was not readily identifiable and artefactual provenance was not always disclosed in

The distributional parameters were not further determined by specific distances as the provenance of most artefacts could only be broadly ascertained (Section 3.2.8). Every settlement produces material culture for which provenance is omitted, uncertain or postulated, on local, regional, supraregional and/or imported levels (Appendix 1). 29

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements of published archaeological material needs to consider variable factors in the analysis and presentation of data, such as the perspective/s and aims of the authors, project budget constraints as well as publication size or word limit restrictions. The publications of the rural settlements in this study vary in length, detail and research focus, resulting in diverse approaches and descriptions of settlement material culture and including examples of: minimal discussion of certain artefact assemblages; incomplete information pertaining to artefactual definitions/materials, contexts and provenance; and omissions of complete settlement artefact totals.

Further, all the artefact categories discussed in terms of provenance have examples with broadly defined source areas within Britain (Chapter 6; Appendix 6). For instance, the geological sources for worked stone artefacts are most frequently identified to either shire level (i.e. ‘Dorset area’) or to a wider spread area, such as Millstone Grit from the Pennines which range from roughly County Durham to Derbyshire, or Old Red Sandstone which derives from the Anglo-Welsh basin and Scotland (Section 6.3.3). Centres of production, including rural settlements, for various items with wide distribution areas are often either unknown or not conclusively established, such as for Maxey-type pottery and some examples of brooches, beads, pins and strap ends (Sections 6.3.2, 6.3.4, 6.3.6–6.3.8). This is also the case for Anglo-Scandinavian items, which are likely to have been variously manufactured in centres across the Danelaw, such as York or Lincoln, as well as possibly elsewhere in England and perhaps – although less likely– the Scandinavian homelands or settled territories (Section 6.3.10).

3.3.1. Excavation Methods A geographical bias is apparent concerning the 45 sites selected for study which favours settlements located in east and south England (Fig. 1.1). The bias is attributable to several factors, most demonstrably that substantially more excavations have been undertaken (and published) in these areas. Archaeological excavations are subject to the rate and extent of development, planning and funding across the country and every endeavour was made during the research and data collection stage to select a geographically and chronologically diverse range of rural settlements for study (Section 3.2.1). However, the majority of excavated Anglo-Saxon settlements are concentrated in east and south England, in particular Suffolk, Norfolk, Essex, Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire, due to the higher rates of development and construction in these regions. Settlements located in Kent have been primarily omitted from the study due to the political, cultural and economic anomalies of the region in the Anglo-Saxon period (i.e. Brookes 2007).

More specific examples include the identification of mints at which some coins found at the settlements were either produced or likely struck (Section 6.3.1; Fig. 6.1). As a potential complexity however, mints could serve (sometimes periodically) as the main local and/or regional mints within their areas or kingdoms, such as the York mint for the Northumbrian kingdom and, subsequently, the Danelaw. Thetford-type and St Neots pottery were produced in East Anglia, at centres including Thetford, St Neots, Ipswich and Norwich, and these wares are thus considered local/regional at the sites in east England at which they are found, to account for these various production locations. Ipswich and Stamford ware are known to have been produced within the settlements for which they are named, although few examples of the latter are identified at the sites of study. In the case of Ipswich ware, the dominance of the pottery within East Anglia has led to the suggestion that it was the local ware of the region during the Middle Anglo-Saxon period and it has been considered as such within the study as an exception (Section 6.3.2).

Likely as a direct result of such excavation bias, several sites of exceptional importance to the study of AngloSaxon rural settlements are located in these areas, which as such were deemed essential to include in the study. Notably, the excavations of West Stow [PF3] and Mucking [PF4], situated in east England, have few parallels in terms of size or the quantity of rural settlement data and material culture evidence uncovered; and Yarnton [PF17], located in Oxfordshire, is one of the few currently known rural settlements occupied continuously throughout the AngloSaxon period, adding to its significance (Section 7.5).

Overall, it was not possible in most cases to determine with greater accuracy distances from the settlements for many artefacts at, say, hundredal (administrative) level or to calculated distances in sq. km that could be classified as local, regional or supraregional, as more definitive provenance information was not available. In some other cases where such distances could be gaged, several potential sources were identifiable. As such, a broader and simplified spatial approach was adopted to maintain consistency and support cross-comparative site analysis.

The number of archaeologically visible ‘Anglo-Saxon’ settlements, recognised through dating or evidence such as building traditions and material culture, is also less common outside of these regions, and this has further influenced the dataset. Hamerow’s work on rural settlements has discussed the issue and she notes that substantially less ‘Anglo-Saxon’ settlements have been identified in west, southwest and northwest England in comparison to south and east England, particularly during the Early and Middle Anglo-Saxon periods, and this is reflected in the dataset (Hamerow 2012, 2–3). Blair’s recent research has also highlighted the trends discussed by Hamerow. His study of the distributional patterns of identified Anglo-Saxon

3.3. Limitations of the Data Whilst an holistic approach to the examination of material culture from Anglo-Saxon rural settlements is adopted in this study, it is recognised that limitations exist within the methodology and dataset. A comprehensive study 30

Methodology and Design regional patterns of artefactual use that highlight activities including exchange or production (Cool & Baxter 2016, 1643; Lewis 2016, 131) (Section 8.3). However, at least in some professional archaeological spheres, metal detecting remains a somewhat controversial exercise particularly given that it is commonly undertaken beyond a controlled archaeological excavation environment (i.e. Lewis 2016). Morphological biases are also inherent in the exercise, with issues including artefact identification inconsistences, formal recording omissions or retrieval biases such as the potential for striking or well-preserved items to be collected more frequently than objects in poorer condition (Cool & Baxter 2016, 1648, 1651–2). Recovery bias is also prevalent as metal detecting is more commonly undertaken in some areas than others, due to factors such as different regional restrictions placed on the activity (Cool & Baxter 2016, 1643). As such, metal detected finds are especially prolific in East Anglia, a region where a high proportion of the settlements of study are located.

settlements with the findspots of visible Anglo-Saxon material such as furnished burials, sceattas, Ipswich ware and pennies has led him to suggest that the high concentration areas, notably the Upper Thames region and the east coast area of England from East Anglia to the Wash, the Humber estuary and East Yorkshire, may be representative of an Anglo-Saxon cultural zone (Blair 2018, 25–35). The cultural zone proposed by Blair is focused in east and south England until some settlement expansion is seen from the Late Anglo-Saxon period (Blair 2018, 32–5). However, comparatively fewer rural settlements have been excavated dating to this period and as such less are included in the study dataset, likely as examples developed into medieval villages or were subsumed by towns in the Late Anglo-Saxon or medieval periods, making them currently archaeologically invisible. The proposed cultural zone supports the presence of higher concentrations of Anglo-Saxon settlement in the south and east, as well as along the east coast of England, and thus the sites forming the dataset reflect a broadly accurate (current) sample representation of Anglo-Saxon settlement.

Broadly following these patterns, six of the 13 settlements which produce associated metal detected finds are located in the East Anglian region (Table 3.3). A proportion of the 13 settlements are also situated within proximity to England’s east coast, an area where sites exhibiting large quantities and/or diverse material culture are commonly identified in the Anglo-Saxon period, ranging from rural settlements to ecclesiastical centres and ‘productive’ sites, the latter of which are sometimes solely identified through metal detecting (Section 2.3.3; Chapter 6). Given this, it is perhaps not a coincidence that the two sites which produce the largest metal detected assemblages– Middle Harling [PF40] and Cottam [PF41]– are located in proximity to the east coast.

Within the sites, the archaeological methods undertaken have influenced the types and amounts of artefacts retrieved and potentially distort the dataset. Metal detecting is a good example of this and the exercise is recorded at 13 of the 45 settlements of study (Appendices 1, 2.1). On a national scale, the impact of metal detecting over recent decades is undeniable, with the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) (https://finds.org.uk/) currently hosting records for over one million metal detected objects. This growing wealth of artefactual information has supported various lines of archaeological inquiry, notably projects of wide scope such as studies of material culture distribution or Table 3.3. Settlements with metal detected artefacts PF no.

Settlements

Location

No. of metal detected artefacts (approx.)

32

Riby Cross Roads

Lincolnshire

1

35

Riverdene

Hampshire

1

9

West Cotton

Northamptonshire

1

17

Yarnton

Oxfordshire

3

13

Bishopstone

East Sussex

8

23

Kilverstone

Norfolk

8

39

West Fen Road

Cambridgeshire

13

34

Staunch Meadow

Suffolk

27

7

Melford Meadows

Norfolk

29

28

Carlton Colville

Suffolk

33

27

Sutton Courtenay/Drayton

Oxfordshire

35

41

Cottam

East Yorkshire

225

40

Middle Harling

Norfolk

246

31

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements determining factor in the rate of archaeological survival. For instance, truncation of a settlement by ploughing or modern development can result in the destruction and loss of archaeological evidence and material culture from a site before it has been subject to archaeological investigation. An example of this is Thirlings [PF20], an Early Anglo-Saxon rural settlement comprising at least 12 buildings varying in size and form, the excavation of which produced only c. 16 artefacts and un/fired clay (O’Brien & Miket 1991). Similarly, the Middle AngloSaxon settlement of Simy Folds [PF42] comprising three stone farmsteads in use individually over several phases of occupation has produced just c. 16 artefacts and slag (Coggins 1983, 2004).

The number of metal detected finds from the settlements varies considerably, from just one object at several sites to over 200 at Middle Harling [PF40] and Cottam [PF41] (Table 3.3). The types of metal detected artefacts is also diverse, including a range of jewellery, dress accessories, equestrian equipment, knives, weapons, metal working debris and Roman coins (Appendix 1). These factors have several implications, notably that the range or quantity of metal detected items from a site could ostensibly indicate that the settlement was more affluent regarding material culture and/or prolific in terms of consumption activities than another based (primarily) on such finds (i.e. Section 7.3). In acknowledgement of such issues, the material culture catalogue presented in the study includes a table in each of the larger artefact categories which displays the percentage breakdown of the archaeological contexts– stratified, unstratified, metal detected– from which the artefacts derive, highlighting potential sampling biases within the assemblages (Section 4.3). The archaeological context for any individual artefacts described in the catalogue is also included for further clarification.

3.3.2. Site Formation Processes Despite possessing limiting qualities, site formation and taphonomic processes are crucial to the extraction, analysis and interpretation of material culture, as well as to the understanding of the archaeological record as a whole. Michael B. Schiffer’s classification of site formation processes remains fundamental to this area of study (Schiffer 1983, 1987) and his work continues to be developed upon within archaeology and the environmental sciences (i.e. Goldberg et al 1993; Tipper 2004; Van der Veen 2007). Schiffer’s theory divides taphonomic formations into two fundamental progressions: ‘cultural processes’, defined as archaeological features or contexts that are produced by human actions, for example the digging and backfilling of a pit or the construction of a building; and ‘non-cultural processes’, which are features or conditions created by natural/environmental factors, such as an occupation surface subject to erosion or a windswept accumulation layer (Schiffer 1987, 7).

It is further recognised that such potential biases may be reflected in the analysis of consumption activities presented in Chapter 5, which is based on assessment of the material culture evidence presented in the catalogue (Sections 3.2.6, 4.3). However, examples of all the artefact types recovered from metal detecting are also found in other archaeological contexts across the settlements, which negates some of the bias concerning assemblage analyses, if not always on an individual site level. All assemblages produce stratified artefacts, which is not the case for unstratified and metal detected objects, and the vast majority of the collections are dominated by stratified examples. Further, only metal detected items associated with the settlements of study are focused on within this book, which removes any potential regional bias regarding isolated metal detecting finds external to the sites, although it is important to be aware of such complexities.

The ‘actions’ of cultural and non-cultural processes, such as the use or reuse of material culture by people or the deterioration of artefacts due to environmental conditions, produce the end-result of ‘formation processes’ (Schiffer 1987, 7). Crucially, formation processes can potentially determine the quality, quantity and character of material culture which survives on a site, creating bias and skewing aspects of the archaeological record until the time of excavation or retrieval (Orton 2000, 50–1). Further, the archaeological method is a developmental process that is a deterministic factor in the rate of archaeological survival (Schiffer 1987; Orton 2000, 50–1). For example, the size of an excavation, the implementation of invasive techniques such as excavation trenches or less stratigraphicallyintrusive methods such as fieldwalking, all directly impinge on the type, quantity and contextual information which can be extracted from archaeological material.

Overall, whilst the retrieval and analysis of the greatest number of artefacts from a site, as is practicable, is the preferable outcome for any excavation, an awareness of variations in the methods of artefactual collection, such as metal detecting, that potentially skew the totals and characteristics of material culture assemblages must be borne in mind. This particularly becomes an issue when large numbers of variable datasets are to be compared in order to produce meaningful conclusions and new insight, as is the case with this study of rural settlements and their material culture. Further implications concerning the extent of survival of the excavated rural settlements also must be acknowledged. Any degree of archaeological survival has the potential to be subject purely to chance, to be determined by environmental and soil conditions or to be affected by the recovery techniques employed during archaeological investigations. Subsequent land use can also be a

Artefacts made of robust materials such as metal or ceramic are more likely to survive within different environments and for a longer duration than fragile, perishable and organic materials such as objects made from textiles or wood, which typically need damp or waterlogged 32

Methodology and Design conditions to be preserved. This is highlighted by the 45 rural settlements of study, of which all 45 yield metal artefacts, 44 have ceramic objects, five produce wooden artefacts and one has leather. A total of 12 wooden artefacts derive from the five settlements, including cup/vessel fragments, a fishnet float or rope tackle, a draw knife, a handle and three bucket pieces. In comparison, over 162,865 pottery sherds were retrieved from 44 settlements (Appendix 3.2.1). Further, the metal assemblage from all 45 settlements includes more than 400 fittings from 39 settlements, such as hinges, rings/chains, brackets, rivets and plates, a significant portion of which would have originally formed complete items with wooden objects, such as containers, buckets and tools (Appendix 3.10.4). This stresses the disproportionate percentage of artefactual survival, as a result of materiality as well as site formation and excavation/retrieval processes, that can occur within material culture assemblages.

features were filled with either the same or similarly sourced material, perhaps indicating the occurrence of a contemporary or near-contemporary backfilling or refuse event at the settlement (Tipper 2004, 107, 148). 3.3.3. Artefact Quantification The quantification of material cultural assemblages has placed limitations on the dataset, as omissions of some artefacts and complete assemblage totals occur in some of the publications chosen for study. Further, in certain cases where total or approximate artefact amounts have been disclosed, it has not always been possible to calculate how many whole objects are represented by the stated artefact amounts (i.e. Sections 3.2.3, 3.2.7). As an example, 15 Niedermendig lava quern fragments were found within an SFB [32] at Carlton Colville [PF28] however it could not be determined if these pieces originated from one, several or 15 individual Niedermendig querns. It must also be noted that it is possible I have mistakenly overlooked some artefacts or totals given in the publications during data collection.

Site formation processes can also present difficulties in regard to contextual interpretations of the ‘use-life’ of material culture (Gosden & Marshall 1999, 172–7). For example, it is not always possible through the excavation of a settlement to identify between ‘living’ material culture assemblages, for instance primary contexts which represent a distinct phase in which pottery was actively in use, and ‘death’ assemblages, such as secondary contexts in which pottery has ceased to be used and has been deliberately discarded (Orton 2000, 47–8, 50–1; Orton & Hughes 2013, 203–5, 220–5).

In general, site excavation methods and sampling biases also create artefactual quantification and statistical issues, particularly if these activities have been limited by budget, time and other logistical restraints imposed by developerfunded or similar archaeological programs (Orton 2000, 6–7). For example, machining large occupation deposits (i.e. Layer [2] at West Stow [PF3]) or only allowing the complete sampling/excavation of particular archaeological features (i.e. the smithy at Late Anglo-Saxon Yarnton [PF17], Section 7.5.2) can potentially result in the creation of artefactual patterns which are unrelated to past modes of behaviour such as material culture consumption (Schiffer 1987, 10–1).

Jess Tipper has addressed this issue within Anglo-Saxon archaeology through his meticulous study of the ‘life’ and ‘death’ cycles of material culture within archaeological contexts at the settlements of West Heslerton, West Stow [PF3] and Mucking [PF4], the latter two sites of which are examined in this study (Tipper 2004, 112–3). By charting the cycle of material culture from use through to breakage, discard and final deposition as a physical process of the archaeological record, Tipper has demonstrated the importance of studying artefacts alongside site formation processes in order to facilitate the interpretation of site chronologies and the contextual use and character of material culture (Tipper 2004, 112).

The types and functions of archaeological features also need to be considered in sampling and quantification exercises. For instance, rubbish pits and abandoned, backfilled SFBs at Anglo-Saxon sites are likely to contain a higher number of artefacts than the internal surfaces of a domestic hall which was deliberately kept clean and free of refuse during its use-life (Section 7.4.2). Thus, there are cases when the raw quantification of assemblage totals, such as counting the individual number of broken pottery sherds retrieved from a pit which possibly derive from the same vessel, presents a statistical issue that can actually overstate the ‘true’ size of a functioning artefact assemblage (Orton 1993, 169–75; 2000, 51, 149, 165–6; Orton & Hughes 2010, 203–8).

Tipper’s work shows that the majority of artefacts disposed of within the SFBs at the settlements were deposited in secondary and tertiary backfills, indicating that the primary functions of the SFBs had ceased by the time depositional activity took place. This indicates that it cannot be determined if the use of material culture found within such deposits bears any direct relationship with the original, active functions of the building (Tipper 2004, 105–111). Another important factor highlighted by Tipper’s research is the importance of site distributional analysis in the study of material culture and formation processes. For example, he observes that at Radley Barrow Hills [PF1] pottery sherd joins were discovered within the fills of two different features, an SFB [6] and a reused prehistoric barrow [13], which were located c. 50m apart. This suggests that these

The likelihood of artefactual survival, preservation and retrieval in the archaeological record is also a quantification issue which further concerns material culture studies. Clive Orton has divided these statistical probabilities into four classes (Orton 2000, 48): a) artefacts likely to be found complete or near-complete which are made of durable materials and perhaps 33

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements data collected from the sites was quantified in terms of artefact forms/types and overall assemblage totals to enable evaluation of occurrence rates and commonness of artefacts found at the settlements (Section 3.2.3). The archaeological retrieval contexts of material culture at the sites were assessed as such distributional pattern analysis elucidated on depositional/discard practices and the usecycles of artefacts at the settlements (Section 3.2.4).

considered valuable, such as coins b) artefacts likely to be found in broken states but which commonly have a post-depositional history, for example the sherds of a singular pottery vessel which was discarded after it had broken c) artefacts found which are likely to have been recycled and reused, such as a glass vessel sherd refashioned into a bead d) artefacts likely to be found broken which may have unrelated depositional histories, for example sheep bone fragments found within the same deposit that derive from different sheep.

Material culture evidence was evaluated from different theoretical and analytical perspectives. The examination of material culture as a resource supported the classification of artefact forms and types, informing on the range and character of material culture present at the settlements (Section 3.2.5). The behavioural and cultural interpretation of material culture assisted in determining patterns of consumption taking place at the settlements, indicating the types of activities undertaken (Section 3.2.6). The frequency or common occurrence of consumption activities was also assessed, further illuminating the scale and range of these activities (Section 3.2.7). The analysis of material culture from an economic perspective, concentrating on artefact provenance, distribution and the commercial indicators of coins and balance scale weights, informed on the economic reach of the settlements (Section 3.2.8). Local, regional and supraregional distributional parameters were established to refine the assessment of provenance at the settlements (Section 3.2.9).

Within such a statistical framework, understanding of the character and consumption of material culture at AngloSaxon rural settlements is often hampered by the relatively small number of finds uncovered from a significant number of excavated sites, many of which are not intrinsically datable (Hamerow 2012, 2). There is also the potential for surviving artefact assemblages to be unrepresentative of patterns of material culture use and consumption on a site. For instance, Maren Clegg Hyer and Gale Owen-Crocker have pointed out that luxury items can have a higher rate of survival in certain contexts and are more likely to have been looked after or passed down as heirlooms compared to more functional items (Clegg Hyer & Owen-Crocker 2011, 2). Overall, it can be argued that an excavation site should always be considered as a sample, as it is near impossible to excavate the whole of a site or to retrieve the entirety of its material culture and this is the only method that could ensure the elimination of all quantification, statistical and interpretive bias (Orton 2000, 165). In light of the issues discussed above, a social and cultural methodological approach to the raw data has been adopted in the study, rather than a sole reliance on artefact quantifications.

Key findings and aspects highlighted by addressing the research questions in Chapters 4–6 are further analysed in four case studies presented in Chapter 7, covering material culture and chronology (Section 7.2); settlement profiles as established by material culture signatures (Section 7.3); material culture as evidence of social status and hierarchy (Section 7.4); and a microscale settlement analysis (Section 7.5).

3.4. Summary

Section 3.3 discusses limitations concerning the methods and dataset of the study. Central issues limiting the quality and range of the data include: variabilities and constraints in the information and interpretations provided in the published texts chosen for analysis; archaeological excavation methods (Section 3.3.1); site formation processes (Section 3.3.2); and variable artefact and assemblage quantifications (Section 3.3.3). Overall, it is essential to utilise the information provided in published texts for research as they represent the interpretations and analyses of the primary archaeological record.

This chapter has presented the methodological processes applied to the study and considered the limitations of the data. Section 3.2 discusses the methodological approaches employed. The 45 sites of study were selected to produce a diverse dataset in terms of aspects such as settlement arrangements and size, chronology and location, in order to increase understanding of Anglo-Saxon non-elite rural settlements and their material culture (Section 3.2.1). Data collection from the settlements targeted material culture (portable objects, human bone) and information pertaining to settlement morphology, building types and other structural features, to facilitate the analysis of artefactual evidence within settlement contexts to further knowledge of rural communities (Section 3.2.2). The material culture

Following, Chapter 4 applies the methodological procedures detailed in this chapter to examine the distributional patterns of material culture in archaeological context (Section 4.2) and to produce a catalogue of material culture from the settlements (Section 4.3).

34

4 Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character 4.1. Overview

assemblage quantities greatly differ (Fig. 4.1). The five largest (estimated) material culture assemblages derive from West Stow [PF3], Mucking [PF4], Staunch Meadow [PF34], Carlton Colville [PF28] and Bishopstone [PF13] respectively. These sites were subject to substantial investigations, ranging from c. 3ha of fieldwalking and c. 10,000sq. m of excavation at Bishopstone [PF13] to c. 18,2000sq. m excavations at Mucking [PF4], which is the largest site of study. These settlements were all considerably large, ranging from c. 35 buildings at Staunch Meadow [PF34] to c. 256 examples at Mucking [PF4]. They also produce a variety of other structures such as hearths and a tower, as well as features including pits and ditches.

The preceding chapters have presented the objectives, research frameworks and methodological approaches which underpin the study. Utilising this framework, the first two research questions placed upon the study are examined respectively in this first thematic chapter: 1. What distributional patterns of material culture are evident at Anglo-Saxon rural settlements? 2. What is the range and character of material culture at Anglo-Saxon rural settlements? The first research question is assessed through an examination of site distributional patterns and the archaeological contexts of material culture at the settlements (Section 4.2). The second research question is addressed through the compilation and presentation of a catalogue of material culture from the settlements, classified by type and form (Section 4.3).

Regarding material culture collection at the settlements of study, artefacts variously derive from stratified features and unstratified contexts (Appendix 2.1). Unstratified artefacts are present at 41 sites (91%) and Anglo-Saxon objects from residual archaeological features at 21 (47%) settlements. Metal detecting was undertaken at 13 (29%) settlements. This exercise has the obvious potential advantage of unearthing larger metal assemblages than those produced from standard excavation methods, as exhibited by the metal detected collections at sites including Middle Harling [PF40] and Cottam [PF41] (Section 3.3.1). Due to the nature of the exercise, the vast majority of metal detected objects are retrieved from nonstratified settings, such as a field located in close proximity to the site.

4.2. Contexts and Distribution of Material Culture This section examines the archaeological contexts and distributional patterns of material culture from the settlements (Section 3.2.4; Appendix 2). The scale and methods of excavations undertaken at the sites, settlement sizes and complexity– in terms of buildings/features and activities undertaken– and site

Figure 4.1. Site excavation and material culture assemblage sizes (estimated).

35

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements 4.2.1. Distribution: Stratified Features

likely taking place somewhere within the settlement.

This section discusses excavated stratified features from the settlements which produce material culture (Appendix 2). Artefactual evidence found stratified within archaeological features– unlike non-stratified objects– enables the consideration of primary and secondary depositional patterns at the settlements, which in turn informs on the (potential) uses of material culture (Sections 3.2.4, 3.3.2, 7.4.2, 7.5). The consideration of artefacts collected from unstratified, residual and metal detected contexts adds to our overall understanding of Anglo-Saxon sites, however these items cannot be specifically associated with settlement features or contexts. The stratified contexts at the settlements are divided into nine feature categories, examined below. Undisclosed and/or unidentified features that could not be further analysed are additionally recorded at 29 (64%) settlements.

Material culture is found in PBSs at 34 (76%) settlements. Most artefacts are recovered from structural postholes and are indicative of secondary activity. For example, artefacts present in posthole backfills that accumulated after the buildings fell out of use and the timbers had been removed or rotted away. It is likely that whilst domestic PBSs were inhabited they would have been kept relatively clean and free of refuse, partially accounting for the less common discovery of artefacts in primary contexts from such buildings. It is also possible that some of the artefacts found are the result of chance losses taking place during the use-life of the buildings, which denotes primary deposition. Stone buildings are recorded at West Cotton [PF9], Simy Folds [PF42] and Mawgan Porth [PF44]. A rectangular buckle from Building [3] (Site/Farmstead 2) at Simy Folds [PF42] and an Aethelred II penny (AD990–5) from Courtyard House [1] at Mawgan Porth [PF44] may have been chance losses by the house occupants. The AngloSaxon pottery sherds from stone buildings ranges, [S20] and [T34], at West Cotton [PF9] are fragmented and thus likely to have been discarded objects.

Buildings, Building Features and Large Structures Three general building forms are identifiable across the settlements: sunken-featured buildings (SFBs), post-built structures (PBSs) and stone buildings (Section 2.3.1; Appendix 2.2). Notable examples include two churches, [7098] and [8851], present at the high-status settlement of Staunch Meadow [PF34] and the remains of a smithy complex at Yarnton [PF17] (Section 7.5.2). Large structural features of note include a watermill [M26]/[M27] at West Cotton [PF9], a likely cellared timber tower [W] from Bishopstone [PF13] which may have been a structure of status, and a possible tower [1]/[1A] at Springfield Lyons [PF45] (Tyler & Major 2005, 193; Thomas & Ottaway 2014, 353–7). Also recorded at various settlements are individual building features, namely floor layers, walls, foundation/structural features and a yard. Buildings and structural features produce artefacts from primary and secondary deposits, potentially including chance losses as well as items directly associated with the functions of the buildings.

Similarly, deposits within a church [8851] at Staunch Meadow [PF34] produce a number of artefacts, including ceramic crucibles, which are likely discarded objects. This is also the case with broken Anglo-Saxon pottery sherds from the cellared ?timber tower [W] at Bishopstone [PF13]. Discarded objects such as quern fragments are also found within the watermill [M26]/[M27] at West Cotton [PF9]. In similar fashion, the material culture from other individual building features at the settlements can be regarded as either secondary depositions and/or chance losses. For example, at Orton Hall Farm [PF8] an iron spearhead was retrieved from a stone floor [F447], a Roman coin was incorporated in a structural post-pad [F182] and a buckle was associated with a wall [F567]. Slag was retrieved from the north boundary wall of Simy Folds [PF42] and the smithy established at Yarnton [PF17] during the late 10th–11th centuries appears to have been used intermittently, with the fills of several smithy features including artefacts unrelated to metal working, such as Niedermendig lava quern fragments and a bone weaving comb from a posthole [5006] (Hey 2004, 51,79, 167, 172) (Section 7.5).

All or most of the SFBs from the c. 35 (78%) settlements in which these structures are identified produce material culture, including Maxey [PF21] where two features, [F2] and [F18], are interpreted as possible SFBs. Most artefacts derive from post-occupational backfills– secondary deposits not associated with the use-life of the SFBs but indicative of the abandonment and subsequent infilling of these structures (Section 3.3.2). Thus, while the wealth of material culture recovered from excavated SFBs is valuable, the artefacts cannot be directly correlated to the original functions of the SFBs without reservations. For instance, the backfilling of an SFB with readily accessible dumped material derived from other sources could result in the placement of previously discarded pinbeaters, loomweights and spindlewhorls within the building. The occurrence of these artefacts is hence the result of secondary activity associated with the building and does not mean that textile production was carried out within the SFB during its use-life, only that textile manufacture was

Cut Features (Miscellaneous) Cut features denote the removal or truncation of archaeological deposits (i.e. soil, building material etc.) to create a feature which is usually vertical, such as a pit, posthole or ditch. Miscellaneous cut features producing material culture considered in this section comprise pits, postholes, stakeholes, robber trenches, slots and a furrow at West Fen Road [PF39] (Appendix 2.3). Other cut features 36

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character are considered in separate sections broadly categorised by function or character, comprising division/demarcation features including ditches, small structural features such as wells and burials (Section 4.2.1). Cut features represent both primary artefactual deposition, for example a rubbish pit, and secondary use, such as an abandoned empty posthole in which deposits subsequently accumulate.

such, it is unclear whether the artefacts from these features derive from primary and/or secondary deposits. However, given the patterns of deposition identifiable in other stratified contexts from the settlements, it can be assumed that many of these features had been backfilled or levelled with deposits composing refuse, including artefacts, and are thus secondary depositions.

Pits are the most ubiquitous settlement feature producing material culture, with 40 (89%) of the 45 sites yielding artefacts from pit contexts. Of the remaining five settlements, sterile pits are located at Abingdon [PF24] and Cottenham [PF37] and pits are absent at Goch Way [PF26], Simy Folds [PF42] and Goltho [PF43].

Robber trenches were excavated at Market Lavington [PF14] and Orton Hall Farm [PF8] and both contain Anglo-Saxon pottery, with the latter site also producing a joiner’s dog and a knife or shears fragment. Given the purpose of robber trenches, artefacts from these deposits are indicative of the backfilling of the features subsequent to the removal of the original materials sought after, denoting secondary deposition and patterns of infilling/ disposal undertaken at these settlements.

Pits served various purposes within Anglo-Saxon settlements, ranging from refuse functions as evidenced by rubbish and cesspits, to structural purposes such as postpits and hearth/oven bases. Pit fills producing artefacts can be regarded as primary, secondary and tertiary etc. deposits, as determined by the specific function/s of the pit. For example, artefacts within the original fill of a rubbish pit can be regarded as belonging to the primary context, directly associated with the intentional use of the feature. Whilst artefacts from the backfill/s of an abandoned post-pit, initially associated with a structure, can be interpreted as deriving from secondary or tertiary etc. deposits and cannot be contextualised in relation to the original function/s of the feature in which they are found. Artefactual occurrence within pits is therefore largely informative regarding the discard methods undertaken at sites, as the presence of objects within disposal features is representative of the end-use of the artefacts, with few exceptions.

Finally, a possible bone parchment pricker from a furrow [context 337] at West Fen Road [PF39] is likely a chance loss. The fill presumably accumulated within the furrow subsequent to its formation, after the feature was left exposed to the elements. Division and Demarcation Features A range of settlement features associated with the demarcation and division of property, fields and/or land produce material culture, including various boundary and field ditches, enclosures and gullies (Appendix 2.4). The infilling and use of these features involves primary and secondary depositions, highlighting discard methods undertaken at many settlements. For example, primary deposits are identified in several settlement ditches, showing these features were utilised for rubbish disposal. Some ditches and gullies had been re-cut or extended, with these modifications infilled by secondary deposits.

It is of note that pits are not considered to have been greatly utilised for rubbish disposal during the Early Anglo-Saxon period (Hamerow 2012, 94–5), although within this sample all the Early and Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon occupied sites have pits producing artefacts excepting Abingdon [PF24] and Goch Way [PF26]. However, several of these pits only yield a small number of finds, for example at Spong Hill [PF15], suggesting that such pits were not chiefly intended for disposal purposes.

Ditches are prolific stratified features found at the majority of settlements. Ditches of generic or undisclosed purpose producing material culture are widespread, with excavated examples at 32 (71%) settlements. Boundary/ field/paddock ditches with material culture are identifiable at nine of these 32 sites and additionally at Cowdery’s Down [PF22]. Enclosure ditches backfilled or levelled with deposits composing discarded material culture are recorded at 15 (33%) settlements and gullies similarly backfilled are present at 13 (29%) sites.

Postholes and stakeholes which produce artefacts and are not directly associated with buildings or structures are present at c. 27 (60%) settlements, as well as post-pipes at Spong Hill [PF15] and Riby Cross Roads [PF32]. Some are isolated features, although many originally formed constructions such as windshields, pens and gates. The majority, if not all, of the artefacts from postholes and stakeholes can be regarded as secondary depositions. The artefacts, already discarded and many previously broken, became incorporated in mixed backfills, most of which filled the cut features after the posts and stakes– the original constructions– had been removed or rotted away.

Demarcation structures producing artefacts comprise fencelines, present at five (11%) sites, as well as palisade fences at Goltho [PF43] which yield Anglo-Saxon pottery. Finally, the bank of a possible Anglo-Saxon linear earthwork [509] at Market Lavington [PF14] produces broken and discarded Anglo-Saxon pottery. Small Structural Features Material culture deriving from various small structural features at the settlements can be considered secondary

Cut slots and features of undisclosed purpose producing material culture are recorded at 13 (29%) settlements. As 37

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements backfilled into the features as refuse. At Spong Hill [PF15], several reused ring ditch contexts yield finds including Roman and Anglo-Saxon pottery.

depositions, as the artefacts cannot be directly attributed to the functions of the structures (Appendix 2.5). Backfilled wells excavated at 10 (22%) sites produce an assortment of artefacts from secondary deposits, denoting activity subsequent to the use-life of the wells. Material culture assemblages also derive from hearth features at nine (20%) settlements, as well as corn/grain driers at Poundbury [PF10] and Cottam [PF41]. Small individual structural features which produce finds, including Anglo-Saxon pottery, a bone tool and a Millstone Grit quern, comprise: a furnace [F999] from Orton Hall Farm [PF8]; a bonfire hollow [2166] at Melford Meadows [PF7]; a cooking-hole in an SFB [X] at Sutton Courtenay/ Drayton [PF27]; a cooking trench [D] from Mawgan Porth [PF44]; and a pottery kiln [2223] at Spong Hill [PF15]. At Brandon Road [PF12], a Valsgärde glass bowl or globular beaker with reticella decoration, dated 8th–9th centuries, is from a flint working hollow [2134] and may have served a funerary purpose (Atkins & Connor 2010, 64).

Activity or reuse within Roman features occur at six (13%) settlements. Many of these features produce artefacts, such as a Roman shale armlet core within the post-destruction debris of a mausoleum [R8] at Poundbury [PF10] that had been bored during the Anglo-Saxon period for reuse as a spindlewhorl or pendant. Other Anglo-Saxon artefacts found include pottery from Roman ditches, gullies, wells and villa robber trenches at Barton Court Farm [PF5] and, at Spong Hill [PF15], Anglo-Saxon knives, wool comb heckles, nails and Niedermendig lava querns within recut Roman ditches. Route Features Artefacts are found within a small group of excavated features associated with routing at five (11%) settlements (Appendix 2.8). The route features comprise trackways at Orton Hall Farm [PF8] and Riby Cross Roads [PF32], droveways from Pennyland [PF19] and Fordham [PF31], a causeway [3662] at Catholme [PF36] and an entrance hollow [955], possibly for a gate, at Barton Court Farm [PF5], in which Roman pottery fragments are found.

Burials Anglo-Saxon burials produce Anglo-Saxon artefactual evidence from primary and secondary contexts (Section 5.2.15; Appendix 2.6). Five of the six (13%) settlements with Anglo-Saxon graves, excepting Brandon Road [PF12], include burials accompanied by grave goods indicative of primary deposition (Section 5.2.15). Five burials from Barton Court Farm [PF5] contain an array of grave goods, including amber beads, a Roman 3rd century coin in grave [258] that may have been placed in the mouth of the male adult, and a bronze silvered plate, probably a shield mount, found in a female burial [807]. At Poundbury [PF10], bone hair pins are present within each of the four Anglo-Saxon graves. The adult male burial in an SFB [X] at Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27] is complete with a knife, two ivory combs, Anglo-Saxon pottery and four worked flints which are possibly intrusive. At Catholme [PF36], a knife is found within a burial [3666]. Finally, at Middle Harling [PF40], it has been argued that the occupant of one burial [451] was a pagan Viking, as the individual was accompanied by four knives, a spur with unusual curled-round terminals, two buckles, one possibly of Scandinavian style, a fine decorated ear scoop, a stone hone and possibly Anglo-Saxon pottery (Rogerson 1995, 79–80).

Deposits from these features represent primary depositions, including the infilling of feature/s for levelling and constructional purposes, as well as episodes of secondary depositing, for example the re-cutting and extension of droveways or trackways. Some of the artefacts may also represent chance losses that could have occurred during travel, such as the pinbeater at Fordham [PF31] and the bone tool from Pennyland [PF19], both deriving from droveway fills. Layers and Deposits Layers from 17 (38%) settlements yield a significant amount of artefactual evidence, as do the phased grid square deposits excavated at Staunch Meadow [PF34], although these may represent mixed contextual evidence (Appendix 2.9). Layers at the settlements varied in function and range from occupation and levelling deposits, which are normally indicative of primary deposition, to dump layers, demonstrative of secondary deposition and disposal methods. Midden deposits excavated at Brandon Road [PF12] and West Fen Road [PF39] are also primary features, illustrative of refuse activities.

Reused Prehistoric and Roman Features Reused prehistoric and Roman features and contexts yield a range of Anglo-Saxon material culture, primarily the result of secondary depositional activities (Appendix 2.7). Prehistoric features reused at Radley Barrow Hills [PF1] comprise several barrows, including a Neolithic oval barrow and a ring ditch. These features produce a substantial material culture assemblage which includes Anglo-Saxon pottery, Roman coins, metal implements, bone manufacturing waste and quern fragments, all

Water, Natural and Animal-Disturbed Features The final group of excavated features producing material culture are either naturally formed or the result of animal activity (Appendix 2.10). Hollows, scoops and/ or depressions were excavated at 10 (22%) sites, while periglacial features, tree boles and animal disturbance are recorded at Spong Hill [PF15] and Riverdene [PF35]. 38

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character 4.3.1. Receptacles, Containers, Plates and Vessel Fittings

Water formations comprise a pond [F200] at Orton Hall Farm [PF8], a waterhole [329] at Sutton Courtenay/ Drayton [PF27], peninsula deposits and features from Staunch Meadow [PF34] and a watercourse which passes through West Cotton [PF9]. A possible dewpond [2227] excavated at Spong Hill [PF15] has produced c. 439 Anglo-Saxon pottery sherds as well as prehistoric pottery.

This section covers vessels and fittings associated with containment and storage, primarily of liquids and foodstuffs (Appendices 3.1–3.2). Cooking, Eating and Serving Items

Due to the compositional nature of these contexts, it is likely that many of the artefacts came to be in these features as a result of natural displacement episodes, for example water silting or inundation events, or from earth/ground displacement, including holes created by burrowing animals or the growth of tree roots. Also of note, it is possible that some artefacts from the Staunch Meadow [PF34] peninsula deposits and the West Cotton [PF9] watercourse were either chance losses or deliberately discarded into these water features.

Cooking, eating and serving items are identifiable at 40 settlements (Table 4.1). The quantity of individual items and types is unclear, as the pottery, glass and metal vessel assemblages total more than 163,000 sherds/objects including undiagnostic and unidentified sherds. The only settlement that does not produce pottery, which makes up the bulk of this assemblage, is Simy Folds [PF42] and this is likely accounted for by the site’s small total artefact collection. Bowls and cooking pots are best represented, with examples from 36 and 14 settlements respectively. Ten of the sites producing cooking pots also have bowls, excepting Chalton [PF25], Riverdene [PF35], Middle Harling [PF40] and Springfield Lyons [PF45].

4.2.2. Conclusions Examination of the distributional patterns of material culture at the settlements reveals that the majority of stratified artefacts are retrieved from pits (40 sites, 89%), SFBs (35 sites, 78%), PBSs (34 sites, 76%), ditches (32 sites, 71%) and/or postholes and stakeholes (27 sites, 60%).

The assemblage also includes several stratified briquetagé sherds from Mucking [PF4] and Lechlade [PF16]. Briquetagé vessels were used to make evaporation containers for extracting salt from seawater. They were filled with saltwater and heated underneath until the boiling water evaporated, leaving the salt behind. The vessels were then broken to extract the separated salt (i.e. Lane & Morris 2001). The briquetagé at Lechlade [PF16] is of note given the inland location of the settlement.

Patterns of primary and– more frequently– secondary depositional activities are identifiable and reveal evidence of refuse disposal methods undertaken at the settlements. Waste deposits were commonly disposed of within pits and abandoned SFBs, as well as ditches, enclosures and gullies. Discarded material culture is also prevalent in layers, suggesting that some dump deposits were deliberately formed as constructional or levelling surfaces within the settlements.

Further found are dish sherds at Orton Hall Farm [PF8] and, at Mucking [PF4], a c. 3rd century stratified Roman jar sherd has had the edges ground down to form a shallow dish (Section 5.2.13). Plate and platter sherds are present at Mawgan Porth [PF44] and skillets at Goltho [PF43].

4.3. Catalogue of Material Culture This section presents a catalogue of stratified, unstratified (including residual) and metal detected material culture from the settlements (Appendix 3). The classification system used is discussed in Section 3.2.5. Most material culture derives from stratified contexts and these artefacts dominate the majority of the assemblages, with metal detected objects overall least represented across the collections, even given the comparatively large number of these items from some settlements (Section 3.3.1). Prehistoric and Roman finds are considered separately, unless otherwise stated (Sections 4.3.19– 4.3.20).

Further Information Inscriptions The cut down half base of a Roman samian ware bowl found stratified at Radley Barrow Hills [PF1] has the letter ‘R’ incised into the underside. It is impossible to know whether the inscriber was literate or simply copying the letter as a design. The letter ‘R’ occurs in both Latin and

Table 4.1. Cooking, eating and serving items: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

40

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

40

100%

28

70%

1

3%

39

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements runic. Also from the site is an Anglo-Saxon pottery sherd with runic graffito, found in an SFB [39] backfilled in the c. 6th century. The graffito in this instance points towards a casual approach to literacy (Chambers & McAdam 2007, 123, 183–4) (Section 5.2.12).

Site Distribution

Site Chronology

Drinking, Holding Liquids and Storage Items

The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.2). The Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period is ubiquitous and the Middle Anglo-Saxon period is least represented.

Items associated with drinking, liquid containment and storage are identifiable at 40 settlements (Table 4.2). Artefact quantities are unclear as more than 163,000 sherds/objects form the pottery, glass and metal vessel

The settlements are located in all regions (Fig. 4.3). The east and the midlands are ubiquitous and the north is least represented.

Figure 4.2. Cooking, eating and serving items: site chronology.

Figure 4.3. Cooking, eating and serving items: site distribution.

Table 4.2. Drinking, holding liquids and storage items: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

40

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

39

98%

28

70%

40

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character assemblages which include undiagnostic, unidentified and undisclosed sherds.

Site Distribution The settlements are located in all regions, which are well represented (Fig. 4.5). The east and the midlands are ubiquitous and the southwest is least represented.

Jars are the most commonly identified vessel forms, with examples from 36 settlements. Glass vessels are present at 13 sites with beakers the most common type, found at up to 10 settlements including possible examples from Brandon Road [PF12] and Market Lavington [PF14].

Buckets Some 15 bucket parts are identifiable at eight settlements and possibly Orton Hall Farm [PF8], where a mount and a handle may derive from bucket/s (Table 4.3).

The assemblage also comprises cups and pots/storage pots which are identified at five settlements each, pitchers at four sites and a stratified pewter flagon from Orton Hall Farm [PF8] of c. early 5th century date.

The assemblage comprises metal bucket fittings, including mounts, handles and bucket-loops, which are present at all sites except Staunch Meadow [PF34], where a stratified wooden bucket binding and two bucket staves survive.

Site Chronology The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period and all centuries are well represented (Fig. 4.4). The Early–Middle and Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon periods are ubiquitous and the Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon periods are equally least represented.

Site Chronology The settlements date to the Early and Middle Anglo-Saxon centuries (Fig. 4.6). The Middle Anglo-Saxon period

Figure 4.4. Drinking, holding liquids and storage items: site chronology.

Figure 4.5. Drinking, holding liquids and storage items: site distribution.

41

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements Table 4.3. Buckets: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

9

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

9

100%

3

33%

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

Figure 4.6. Buckets: site chronology.

is best represented and the Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Further Information Typologies

Site Distribution

A tinned and enamelled escutcheon found stratified at Chalton [PF25] is assigned as a Fowler’s Group IV Type (Fowler 1968, 297–8; Addyman 1973, 19–20).

The settlements are located in three regions, excepting the southwest and the north (Fig. 4.7). The east and midlands are equally best represented and the south the least.

Decoration

Escutcheons

A disc-shaped escutcheon metal detected from Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27] is decorated in Salin Style II with back-biting animals and has parallels with the Sutton Hoo ship burial, Suffolk (Hamerow et al 2007, 171–5).

Three hanging bowl escutcheons (decorative cover plates) are identified at Chalton [PF25], Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27] and Carlton Colville [PF28], with a fourth possible example unstratified at Middle Harling [PF40] (Table 4.4). The escutcheons may have been domestic items and/or served funerary purposes (Sections 5.2.1, 5.2.15).

A copper-alloy escutcheon found unstratified at Carlton Colville [PF28] has blue and red enamel decorative traces (Lucy et al 2009, 193).

Figure 4.7. Buckets: site distribution.

42

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character Table 4.4. Escutcheons: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

4

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

1

25%

2

50%

1

25%

Site Chronology

Further handmade sherds from settlements that are otherwise undiagnostic or unidentified could also derive from urns, particularly from sites of Early Anglo-Saxon date when cremation burials were common.

The settlements date to three occupation phases, excepting the Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon periods (Fig. 4.8). The Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Early Anglo-Saxon period the least.

A stratified possible Valsgärde bowl of c. 8th–9th centuries date from Brandon Road [PF12], with reticella decoration, is alternatively a globular beaker (Evison 2000, 79, 80; Atkins & Connor 2010, 64). It may have been a funerary bowl as the typology for Valsgärde bowls is defined by grave goods from the early medieval princely burials, including a ship burial, of Valsgärde, Sweden (i.e. Norr 2008).

Site Distribution The settlements are located in south and east England (Fig. 4.9). The south is best represented and the east the least. Funerary Vessels A number of artefacts may have served funerary purposes (Section 5.2.15).

A stratified copper-alloy bowl fragment at Goch Way [PF26] is interpreted by the excavators as of funerary type (Wright 2004, 121). The beaded decoration of the bowl rim has Continental parallels of AD450–700 date and is a style commonly present on Anglo-Saxon grave goods,

Urn sherds, used for cremation burials, are recorded at Orton Hall Farm [PF8] and Collingbourne Ducis [PF38].

Figure 4.8. Escutcheons: site chronology.

Figure 4.9. Escutcheons: site distribution.

43

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements such as within burials at Buckland cemetery in Kent, in use from the c. late 5th–mid-7th centuries (Evison 1987; Wright 2004, 121–2).

The assemblage predominantly comprises domestic knives. Other examples identified include c. six pivoting knives, commonly used in manufacturing for cutting and tooling materials, which are found stratified and unstratified at Bishopstone [PF13], Middle Harling [PF40], Cottam [PF41] and possibly Yarnton [PF17]. Two stratified draw knives, traditional hand tools used to shape wood by removing shavings, are identified at Bishopstone [PF13] and West Fen Road [PF39].

Other Vessels and Containers A small number of miscellaneous vessels and sherds are recorded. Stratified ornamental pottery vase sherds are found at Sutton Courtney/Drayton [PF27], including a carinated vase decorated with incised curved lines.

Further Information Forms

Suspended vessel pottery sherds are identifiable at Raunds Furnells [PF6] and hanging vessel sherds at Godmanchester [PF11].

Knife forms are recorded at a number of settlements (Appendix 4.4). Whittle-tang knives are documented at seven settlements; seaxes (curved knives) at c. five sites (Sections 5.2.6–5.2.7); angle-backed knives at West Stow [PF3] and Riby Cross Roads [PF32]; three hooked knives of Scandinavian style at Raunds Furnells [PF6] (Section 6.3.10); and a straight-backed knife at Middle Harling [PF40].

Metal detected sheets possibly from hanging bowl/s of Late Roman or Anglo-Saxon date are present at Kilverstone [PF23]. Vessel Fittings and Repairs

Typologies

A small group of up to 11 vessel fittings and repairs are documented.

Knife typologies are recorded at seven settlements (Appendix 4.4). The knife types assigned are predominantly those devised through Anglo-Saxon cemetery studies and, as such, they are documented at settlements occupied in the Early and Middle Anglo-Saxon periods (Böhner 1958; Evison 1987; West 1998). Of the settlements represented, associated cemeteries are found at Lechlade [PF16], Carlton Colville [PF28], Quarrington [PF30] and possibly Radley Barrow Hills [PF1].

A stratified copper-alloy likely vessel rim clip is from Mucking [PF4] and at Spong Hill [PF15] are three stratified copper-alloy wooden bowl repair clips. An unstratified lead pot repair comes from Brandon Road [PF12] and two copper-alloy and two bronze likely vessel repairs, all stratified, are present at Carlton Colville [PF28].

Evison Type 1, dating AD450–700, are recorded at Goch Way [PF26] and Carlton Colville [PF28]. Also from Carlton Colville [PF28] are Evison Types 2 (c. AD450– 600), 3, 4 and 5 (all 7th century).

A stratified iron vessel suspension fitting is from Cottam [PF41] and a possible second stratified example is present at Yarnton [PF17].

Böhner Types A and C, of 5th–7th centuries date, are documented at Radley Barrow Hills [PF1].

4.3.2. Utensils This section covers a range of implements largely used in the domestic sphere (Appendix 3.3).

Buckland Types 1, 4 and possibly 5, dating 5th–early 7th centuries, are recorded at Pennyland [PF19].

Knives

Dover Types 3 (5th century–AD750) and 4 (c. AD625– 750) are identifiable at Lechlade [PF16].

Some 515 knives are found at 40 settlements (Table 4.5). Knives were chiefly household items during the Anglo-Saxon period, used for everyday activities such as the preparation and eating of food (Frantzen 2014, 141–3).

West classed knives, namely Types A, B, C and D, dating c. 6th–later 8th centuries, are documented at West Stow [PF3] and Quarrington [PF30].

Table 4.5. Knives: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

40

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

39

98%

15

38%

3

8%

44

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character Site Chronology

bone. The gorge is a simple type of fishing hook sharpened to a point at both ends. The Pennyland [PF19] gorge is carved at the waist for the fishing line to be attached. Such fishing gorges are relatively uncommon in AngloSaxon contexts, with Continental evidence including examples from the Scandinavian wic of Birka (Williams 1993, 117).

The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period and all centuries are strongly represented (Fig. 4.10). The Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon periods are ubiquitous and the Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period is least represented. Site Distribution

Also in the assemblage are two stratified pot hooks at Bishopstone [PF13] and Carlton Colville [PF28], an unstratified flesh hook from Staunch Meadow [PF34] and a second possible stratified example at Carlton Colville [PF28]. Two wall hooks from Middle Harling [PF40] and Staunch Meadow [PF34] are metal detected and stratified respectively, with a second possible unstratified example also present at the latter site.

The settlements are located in all regions, which are well represented (Fig. 4.11). The southwest and the midlands are ubiquitous and the north is least represented. Hooks Around 55 hooks of various purposes are found at 14 settlements (Table 4.6).

Site Chronology

The assemblage includes c. 10 fishing hooks from five settlements. From Market Lavington [PF14] is a stratified swivel hook (fishing line fitting) and at Pennyland [PF19] is a stratified fish gorge hook, fashioned from

The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.12). The Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Late Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Figure 4.10. Knives: site chronology.

Figure 4.11. Knives: site distribution.

45

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements Table 4.6. Hooks (various): artefact contexts Total sites represented:

14

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

12

86%

3

21%

2

14%

Figure 4.12. Hooks (various): site chronology.

Site Distribution

spatula from West Stow [PF3] and a spatula or rod from Mucking [PF4] are both stratified.

The settlements are located in every region excepting the north (Fig. 4.13). The east is best represented and the south the least.

Further Information Decoration

Spoons/spatulas

A metal spoon found unstratified at Brandon Road [PF12] is ornamented with ring-and-dot motif.

Some 24 spoons and spatulas are found at seven settlements (Table 4.7).

A combined fork and spoon implement metal detected from Staunch Meadow [PF34], with one pronged end and an oval spoon bowl at the other, is decorated with pecked dots and an irregular cross is formed in the centre of the spoon by five irregular dots (Tester et al 2014, 177).

The assemblage includes a stratified bone spoon from Pennyland [PF19] and an unstratified Roman silvered or tinned spoon of 3rd–4th century date from Spong Hill [PF15], which may have been curated in the Anglo-Saxon period due to its quality (Section 5.2.11). A spoon or

Figure 4.13. Hooks (various): site distribution.

46

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character Table 4.7. Spoons/spatulas: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

7

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

4

57%

5

71%

1

14%

Site Chronology

midlands and north (Fig. 4.15). The east is best represented and the south the least.

The settlements date to all occupation phases excepting the Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.14). The Middle Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Late Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Strike-a-Lights Around eight strike-a-lights, used for lighting fires, are present at five settlements (Table 4.8).

Site Distribution

The assemblage includes two metal strike-a-lights from West Stow [PF3] and Cottam [PF41], found stratified

The settlements are located in three regions, excepting the

Figure 4.14. Spoons/spatulas: site chronology.

Figure 4.15. Spoons/spatulas: site distribution. Table 4.8. Strike-a-lights: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

5

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

2

40%

2

40%

1

20%

47

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements and metal detected respectively. At Riby Cross Roads [PF32] are two unstratified metal strike-a-lights and from Middle Harling [PF40] are two metal detected examples of probable 10th century date. At Spong Hill [PF15] are several flint strike-a-lights from stratified contexts of probable Anglo-Saxon manufacturing date.

Site Distribution The settlements are located in east and north England (Fig. 4.17). The north is best represented and the east the least. Laundering Items

Further Information

Four settlements yield a selection of laundering artefacts, used for flattening garments and materials (Table 4.9).

Decoration Two strike-a-lights metal detected from Middle Harling [PF40] have spiral terminals.

The assemblage comprises six stratified and unstratified slickstones from Mawgan Porth [PF44], stratified and unstratified glass linen-smoother fragments at Staunch Meadow [PF34], a stratified limestone smoother from Yarnton [PF17] and a possible whalebone linen-smoothing board from Bishopstone [PF13], also stratified.

Site Chronology The settlements date to three occupation phases, excepting the Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon periods (Fig. 4.16). The Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Site Chronology The settlements date to the Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon centuries (Fig. 4.18). The Middle Anglo-Saxon period is

Figure 4.16. Strike-a-lights: site chronology.

Figure 4.17. Strike-a-lights: site distribution.

48

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character Table 4.9. Laundering items: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

4

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

4

100%

2

50%

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

Figure 4.18. Laundering items: site chronology.

best represented and the Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period the least.

A metal strainer is stratified at Yarnton [PF17]. A metal cleaver, a skewer and a possible second example, all stratified, are present at Carlton Colville [PF28].

Site Distribution The settlements are located in three regions, excepting the midlands and the north (Fig. 4.19). The southwest is best represented and the east the least.

A bone mussel scoop is stratified at Mawgan Porth [PF44]. A ceramic cheese-press or spindlewhorl is stratified at Orton Hall Farm [PF8].

Other Utensils

4.3.3. Domestic Items

A small number of miscellaneous utensils, predominantly cooking equipment, are recorded.

This section comprises the miscellaneous domestic items of mounts, plaques, lamps and basins (Appendix 3.3).

A stone potboiler is stratified at Carton Colville [PF28] and several flint examples of possible Anglo-Saxon date are unstratified at Simy Folds [PF42].

Mounts Up to 55 mounts of various purposes are identified at 15 settlements (Table 4.10).

A stone pot-ring is stratified at Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27].

Figure 4.19. Laundering items: site distribution.

49

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements Table 4.10. Mounts (various): artefact contexts Total sites represented:

15

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

11

73%

4

27%

3

20%

The assemblage comprises a range of mounts, such as five stirrup and strap mounts and three shield mounts, deriving from four sites, and two stratified purse mounts at Bishopstone [PF13]. A metal detected axe-shaped mount and a bird of prey mount from Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27] may have served funerary purposes (Section 5.2.15). At Staunch Meadow [PF34] is a stratified mount refashioned from a possible silver drinking horn (Sections 5.2.11, 5.2.13).

Middle and Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon periods are equally best represented and the Early and Late Anglo-Saxon periods are equally least represented.

Further Information

Plaques

Decoration

Three plaques (decorative tablets) are recorded at three settlements and a further plaque or mount fragment is present at Middle Harling [PF40] (Table 4.11).

Site Distribution The settlements are located in every region excepting the southwest (Fig. 4.21). The midlands are best represented and the north the least.

An axe-shaped mount and a fine gilded bird of prey mount, both metal detected from Sutton Courtenay/ Drayton [PF27], are decorated in Salin Style II animal ornamentation which exhibit parallels with grave goods from the near contemporaneous early 7th century Sutton Hoo ship burial, Suffolk (Høilund Nielsen 1999, 185–6, 198–9; Hamerow et al 2007, 171–5).

The assemblage comprises a stratified perforated bone plaque at Barton Court Farm [PF5], possibly from a belt fitting, a stratified bone oblong plaque from Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27] which was perhaps a personal token, a metal detected gold plaque of 8th–early 9th centuries date depicting Christian allusions at Staunch Meadow [PF34], and a metal detected sheet of c. 10th century date deriving from either a plaque or mount at Middle Harling [PF40] (Sections 5.2.11–5.2.12, 5.2.14).

A silver gilt lobed mount metal detected at Middle Harling [PF40] has chip-carved interlace, and a rectangular cast mount also from the site, of c. late 10th–11th centuries date, is decorated with three-strand non-zoomorphic interlace and red enamel (Rogerson 1995, 64) (Section 5.2.11).

Further Information Decoration

Site Chronology

A bone oblong plaque stratified at Sutton Courtenay/ Drayton [PF27] is decorated with bulls-eye circlets within a line border.

The settlements date to all occupation phases excepting the Middle Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.20). The Early–

Figure 4.20. Mounts (various): site chronology.

50

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character

Figure 4.21. Mounts (various): site distribution. Table 4.11. Plaques: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

4

Stratified:

Unstratified:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

2

50%

No. of sites present

A gilded ornamental plaque/mount piece metal detected from Middle Harling [PF40] is ornamented with applied wire interlace set within a T-shaped cell (Section 5.2.11).

Metal detected: % of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

2

50%

SCS/EVA/N/GE/LI/ST/A/IO/HA/NNIS (Tester et al 2014, 256–8). Site Chronology

Inscriptions

The settlements date to all occupation phases excepting the Late Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.22). The Middle Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Early Anglo-Saxon period the least.

A fine gold plaque metal detected from Staunch Meadow [PF34] has a niello-inlaid frame and venerates Christianity with a depiction of the evangelist symbol and a Latin inscription reading ‘St John the Evangelist’ (Sections 5.2.12, 5.2.14):

Site Distribution The settlements are located in south and east England (Fig. 4.23). The south is best represented and the east the least.

Figure 4.22. Plaques: site chronology.

51

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 4.23. Plaques: site distribution.

Lamps

Site Distribution

Up to 10 lamps, likely used for household illumination, derive from four settlements (Table 4.12).

The settlements are located in every region excepting the midlands (Fig. 4.25). The southwest is best represented and the east the least.

The assemblage includes ceramic lamp sherds from various contexts at Bishopstone [PF13] and five stratified and unstratified limestone lamps and one soldering lamp or reservoir at Staunch Meadow [PF34]. A ceramic lamp is found at Collingbourne Ducis [PF38] and two stratified ceramic lamp bases are further present at Cottam [PF41], one fashioned from a Roman Crambeck grey-ware beaker sherd (Section 5.2.13).

Basins At Early Anglo-Saxon Poundbury [PF10], located in southwest England, two stratified pieces of partially burnt Ham Hill stone from Roman column/s of likely 4th century AD date had their interiors hollowed out for reuse as basins or similar items during the Anglo-Saxon period (Green 1987, 106).

Site Chronology

4.3.4. Security and Privacy

The settlements date to the Middle and Late AngloSaxon centuries (Fig. 4.24). The Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Middle Anglo-Saxon period the least.

This section covers items associated with security and privacy, namely locks, keys, caskets and chests (Appendix 3.4).

Table 4.12. Lamps: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

4

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

4

100%

2

50%

Figure 4.24. Lamps: site chronology.

52

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character

Figure 4.25. Lamps: site distribution.

Locks, Padlocks, Keys and Latch Lifters

Site Chronology

Around 50 key, lock and latch lifter pieces and c. 54 padlock and padlock key fragments derive from 19 settlements (Table 4.13).

The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.26). The Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Early Anglo-Saxon period the least.

The assemblage includes bone keys from West Stow [PF3] and Staunch Meadow [PF34], metal slide keys for lock bolts at Riby Cross Roads [PF32] and Cottam [PF41], and barrel padlock keys from Middle Harling [PF40] and West Cotton [PF9].

Site Distribution

Latch lifters (basically designed keys) come from Carlton Colville [PF28] and Middle Harling [PF40]. At Radley Barrow Hills [PF1] is a stratified unusual latch lifter or a T- or L- shaped lift key from a tumbler lock. Similar keys– although not precise parallels– are known in graves [134] and [369] at the Early Anglo-Saxon cemetery of Morning Thorpe, Norfolk (Chambers & McAdam 2007, 252).

Caskets, Boxes and Chests

The settlements are located in every region excepting the southwest (Fig. 4.27). The midlands is ubiquitous and the east is least represented.

Caskets, boxes and/or chests, used for holding valued personal possessions, are represented by c. 17 fittings at eight settlements (Table 4.14).

The locks include an unstratified fine decorated box padlock from Raunds Furnells [PF6] and a tentatively identified locking device found stratified at Lechlade [PF16].

The assemblage includes a drop handle from Lechlade [PF16], a likely box hinge from Cottenham [PF37] and an iron chest hinge strap at Cottam [PF41], which are all stratified. Likely metal and bone casket mounts derive from various contexts at Orton Hall Farm [PF8], Bishopstone [PF13] and Middle Harling [PF40]. A related item is an unstratified small casket key from Staunch Meadow [PF34].

Further Information

Further Information

Decoration

Decoration

An L-shaped key found unstratified at Staunch Meadow [PF34] has an ornamental scrolled loop terminal.

A possible metal casket mount of c. early 6th century date found unstratified at Orton Hall Farm [PF8] has raised bosses.

Table 4.13. Locks, padlocks, keys and latch lifters: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

19

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

15

79%

7

37%

3

16%

53

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 4.26. Locks, padlocks, keys and latch lifters: site chronology.

Figure 4.27. Locks, padlocks, keys and latch lifters: site distribution.

A possible bone casket mount found stratified at Bishopstone [PF13] is decorated with sinuous zoomorphic motif.

Site Distribution The settlements are located in three regions, excepting the southwest and the midlands (Fig. 4.29). The east is best represented and the south the least.

A casket mount metal detected from Middle Harling [PF40] of 11th century date has a stylised face.

4.3.5. Ornamentation and Jewellery

Site Chronology

This section covers personal adornment items (Appendix 3.5).

The settlements date to all occupation phases excepting the Late Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.28). The Middle– Late Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Pins Around 396 pins, variously used as jewellery, dress

Table 4.14. Caskets, boxes and chests: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

8

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

6

75%

4

50%

1

13%

54

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character

Figure 4.28. Caskets, boxes and chests: site chronology.

Figure 4.29. Caskets, boxes and chests: site distribution.

fixtures and for more practical purposes, are present at 25 settlements (Table 4.15).

silver pin finial of possible Anglo-Saxon date from Carlton Colville [PF28], and a silver-plated pin as well as gilt and chip-carved pin examples, all unstratified, at Cottam [PF41].

The assemblage includes c. 151 pins from Staunch Meadow [PF34] which is by far the largest settlement collection, with the second largest from Mucking [PF4] comprising c. 62 pins. From seven settlements are c. 20 pins made of silver or gold, gilded or incorporating gemstones (Section 5.2.11). Again, the largest group derives from Staunch Meadow [PF34], comprising c. 12 pins and an unquantified number of silver pin fragments. The collection also includes an unstratified silver knobheaded dress pin from West Stow [PF3], a stratified 7th century garnet-headed pin at Mucking [PF4], a stratified

Further Information Forms Some 20 pin forms are recorded at 13 settlements, ranging from more common occurring knob-, disc- and biconicalheaded pins, to rarer ball-, coil- and spangle-headed examples (Appendix 4.5.1).

Table 4.15. Pins: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

25

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

24

96%

14

56%

3

12%

55

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements depicting two intertwined confronted birds pecking at a plant, interpreted as an allusion to the Tree of Life Psalm 104 (Hinton 2005, 97; Tester et al 2014, 238, 383).

Typologies Two assigned pin types are recorded at three settlements (Appendix 4.5.2).

Inscriptions

Ross type pins (Ross 1991) comprise a gilded example at Radley Barrow Hills [PF1] and 12 pins of nine Ross types identified at Carlton Colville [PF28]. The Carlton Colville [PF28] group includes spangle-, hook- and disc-headed pins.

A disc-headed pin found unstratified at Staunch Meadow [PF34] is decorated with interlace, zoomorphic and foliage designs, and inscribed on the shaft are two lines of the beginning 16 letters of the Anglo-Saxon runic alphabet, called the fuþorc (Section 5.2.12):

Hamwic type pins (Hinton 1996) are recorded at Brandon Road [PF12], where the group of c. 17 pins includes spherical-, polyhedral- and biconical-headed examples.

fuþorcjwhnIj/ipxs (Tester et al 2014, 260–1).

Decoration

Site Chronology

Pins from several sites are decorated, including with ringand-dot patterns such as at Maxey [PF21], Yarnton [PF17] and Cottam [PF41], and with grooves as at Mucking [PF4] and Staunch Meadow [PF34] (Appendix 4.5.3).

The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.30). The Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon periods are equally least represented.

A large Ross Type V pin (Ross 1991) found stratified at Radley Barrow Hills [PF1], of late 5th century date, has incised ring decoration and gilding (Section 5.2.11).

Site Distribution The settlements are located in all regions (Fig. 4.31). The east is best represented and the southwest the least.

A lead gunmetal pin found stratified at Mucking [PF4] has garnet inlay and hatched gold foil (Section 5.2.11).

Beads

A silver gilded pin metal detected from Middle Harling [PF40] has spirals formed of filigree wire (Section 5.2.11).

Some 173 beads derive from 22 settlements (Table 4.16). The assemblage predominantly comprises glass beads, with examples present at all sites excluding Heybridge [PF2] and Cottam [PF41]. The group includes a stratified Roman glass vessel sherd from Market Lavington [PF14] and two unstratified Anglo-Saxon examples from Raunds Furnells [PF6] that are refashioned into beads (Section 5.2.13).

Two pins found unstratified at Staunch Meadow [PF34] likely depict Christian allusions (Sections 5.2.11, 5.2.14). A silver linked pin is decorated with a round-headed cross, the arms of which divide representations of twisted creatures including a humanoid. The humanoid depiction is of remark as it is unusual for whole beings to be portrayed during the period unless the figure is a saint or one of the evangelists (Webster & Backhouse 1991, 83; Tester et al 2014, 238). An intricately designed gilded oval disc-headed pin from the site is incised with a scene

Sixteen amber beads are stratified and unstratified at six settlements, two jet beads are stratified at Mucking [PF4]

Figure 4.30. Pins: site chronology.

56

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character

Figure 4.31. Pins: site distribution. Table 4.16. Beads: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

22

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

20

91%

9

41%

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

and further possible jet bead fragments come from West Stow [PF3] and Cottam [PF41]. Two stratified ceramic beads are present at Heybridge [PF2] and West Stow [PF3], with the latter site also producing a stratified bone bead or disc. Mucking [PF4] and Carlton Colville [PF28] each produce a stratified amethyst bead. The precious gemstone was usually imported via the eastern Mediterranean from as far as India (Huggett 1988, 66–8) (Sections 5.2.11, 6.3.5). A large worked amethyst fragment found stratified at West Stow [PF3] may have been intended as a bead or similar jewellery item. The fragment is polished on both sides and one corner has been rounded, although it is unclear whether the fragment was completed or still in the process of being reworked (West 1985a, 32).

the c. 5th century (Guido 1999, 47–9). Reflecting this, most examples derive from settlements of Early and Middle Anglo-Saxon date. Other coloured bead examples broadly conform to established geographical trends. For instance, yellow-green beads favoured in East Anglia are only present at West Stow [PF3] and Mucking [PF4] which are located in the region (Guido 1999, 37). Similarly, opaque beads (often yellow) decorated with coloured crossed waves and sometimes dots are also common to East Anglia and the singular example is an opaque bead with light blue crossed waves and blue dots from Carlton Colville [PF28] in Suffolk (Guido 1999, 40).

Further Information

The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.32). The Early Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Site Chronology

Forms Some 12 bead types are recorded at 16 settlements, ranging from more numerous annular, cylinder and disc beads to infrequently occurring double, oval and drum-shaped beads (Appendix 4.7.1).

Site Distribution The settlements are located in all regions (Fig. 4.33). The midlands and the north are equally best represented and the south the least.

Colours Some of the glass beads are coloured or decorated (Appendices 4.7.2–4.7.3). Coloured beads in opaque, translucent or– most frequently– monochrome, are far more common than patterned or polychrome beads. Dark blue is the most frequent colour of monochrome and translucent beads. Blue beads regained popularity in Britain from the beginning of the Anglo-Saxon period in

Brooches Around 143 brooches are found at 22 settlements (Table 4.17). Several established chronological, geographical and social trends are evidenced by the varied brooch assemblage. For 57

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 4.32. Beads: site chronology.

Figure 4.33. Beads: site distribution.

example, applied disc brooches which were fashionable in the early 5th–6th centuries are found at Radley Barrow Hills [PF1] and Mucking [PF4], both occupied during these centuries. Saucer brooches, common in south and east England during the 5th–6th/7th centuries, are found at Mucking [PF4], Barton Court Farm [PF5], Market Lavington [PF14] and Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27], reflecting this geographical and chronological pattern. Another example found unstratified at West Cotton [PF9], located in the midlands, is of late 5th–early 6th centuries date. Annular brooches, particularly common from the late 5th–7th centuries, are almost exclusive to settlements active during these centuries, possibly excepting four unstratified examples from Staunch Meadow [PF34] which was occupied from the mid-7th–late 9th centuries.

Late disc brooch forms are also present at settlements of corresponding date, including a Jelling-style disc brooch at Cottam [PF41] and a Borre-style disc brooch at West Fen Road [PF39], which are both Scandinavian style brooch types dating to the 10th century. These brooches are potential signifiers of cultural or social affiliations, as both settlements were located in the Scandinavian-ruled Danelaw during the later Anglo-Saxon centuries (Section 6.3.10). The assemblage includes seven brooches from five settlements made of silver or gold, gilded or incorporating gemstones, some of which are finely decorated (Section 5.2.11). Additionally from Raunds Furnells [PF6], a stratified copper-alloy strip with silver coating is either a

Table 4.17. Brooches: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

22

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

14

64%

14

64%

7

32%

58

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character There are several examples of fine decorated brooches (Section 5.2.11). A copper-alloy gilt equal-armed brooch of 6th century date found stratified at Mucking [PF4] has red enamelled roundels. A gilded silver disc brooch found unstratified at West Cotton [PF9] dates to the second half of the 6th–early 7th centuries and has ‘keystone’ recesses and zoomorphic ornamentation (Chapman 2010, 337). A Roman cast and gilt silver brooch of c. AD400 date found stratified at Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27] is intricately decorated with tendrils, acanthus scrolls, egg-and-tongue patterns and crouched animals, and was likely curated in the Anglo-Saxon period due to its opulence (Leeds 1923, 174). Also from the site is a metal detected gold-plated disc brooch front-plate of Avent Class 7.2 type (Avent 1975) ornamented with filigree annulets, a ribbed wire rim and lozenge with garnet or red glass inlay (Hamerow et al 2007, 171). A disc brooch of late 10th–11th centuries date found unstratified at West Fen Road [PF39] has a cloisonné enamelled centrepiece, sectioned to form a wavy equalarmed cross (Mortimer et al 2005, 54).

brooch or an openwork mount part. The group includes a metal detected gilded cruciform brooch foot at Spong Hill [PF15] and an early 6th century stratified copper-alloy button brooch which is also gilded from Mucking [PF4]. Further Information Forms Some 19 brooch forms are recorded at 21 settlements, ranging from the more commonly occurring such as disc, annular, and cruciform brooches, to individual examples including radiate and square-headed brooches (Appendix 4.6.1). Typologies Four assigned brooch types are recorded at three settlements (Appendix 4.6.2). A fine Avent Class 7.2 disc brooch (Avent 1975, 46), dating to the later 6th–early 7th centuries, is metal detected from Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27] (Section 5.2.11).

Site Chronology The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.34). The Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Late Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Five annular brooches of Ager Types E (broad-banded), G (flat, narrow-banded) and 5 (Type E subdivision with double-ridged pin-catch) (Ager 1985, 1–2), dating 6th–7th centuries, are recorded at Carlton Colville [PF28].

Site Distribution

Two Mortimer Type Z (Mortimer 1990, 108) cruciform brooches, of late 6th–7th centuries date, are unstratified at Carlton Colville [PF28].

The settlements are located in all regions (Fig. 4.35). The midlands is best represented and the southwest the least.

A Hübener Group 9 (Hübener 1972) caterpillar brooch, dating c. late 7th/early 8th centuries, is unstratified at Riby Cross Roads [PF32].

Finger Rings Some 61 finger rings are present at 13 settlements (Table 4.18).

Decoration

The assemblage predominantly comprises metal finger rings, which are present at every site. The group includes a metal detected gold finger ring of c. early 7th century date with decoration from Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27] and silver finger rings from various contexts at West Stow [PF3], West Fen Road [PF39], Middle Harling [PF40] and Cottam [PF41] (Section 5.2.11). From West Stow [PF3] is an unstratified glass finger ring of probable Anglo-Saxon date and a stratified Roman decorated glass example. At Raunds Furnells [PF6] are five antler finger ring fragments, the two unstratified examples of which are partly smoothed and polished (Audouy & Chapman 2009, 201).

The brooches exhibit a variety of ornamentation and styles (Appendix 4.6.3). Decoration ranges from Borre and Jelling-styles at West Fen Road [PF39] and Cottam [PF41] respectively (Section 6.3.10), animal/zoomorphic patterns such as at Bishopstone [PF13] and West Stow [PF3], to face/humanoid masks including at Radley Barrow Hills [PF1] and Carlton Colville [PF28], and punched/ incised designs as well as dots, rings and spirals, such as at Mucking [PF4], Yarnton [PF17] and Middle Harling [PF40]. A cruciform brooch of Mortimer Type Z (Mortimer 1990, 108) found unstratified at Carlton Colville [PF28] is ornamented with impressed quatrefoil motif and a ridged panel terminating in a stylised mask with animal heads (Lucy et al 2009, 175).

Further Information Forms

A caterpillar brooch of Hübener Group 9 (Hübener 1972) found unstratified at Riby Cross Roads [PF32] is decorated with a winged biped, possibly a bird, and surrounded by interlace (Steedman 1994, 264).

Five finger ring forms are recorded at three settlements (Appendix 4.9.1). Carlton Colville [PF28] and West Stow [PF3] have spiral and slip-knot finger rings, including silver examples from the latter site (Section 5.2.11). West Stow 59

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 4.34. Brooches: site chronology.

Figure 4.35. Brooches: site distribution.

[PF3] also produces a lead knot finger ring and a wraparound bronze finger ring. Seven copper-alloy penannular finger rings come from Middle Harling [PF40].

or annulet patterns. A silver finger ring found stratified at West Stow [PF3] has longitudinal grooves and a snake’s head terminal (Section 5.2.11). Also from the site is a stratified blue glass finger ring of Roman date that has an almost circular bezel with a crude moulding of two confronting heads, which may have been curated for its distinctiveness (West 1985a, 55).

Decoration Decorated finger rings derive from eight settlements (Appendix 4.9.2). Patterns include a metal detected Trewhiddle style (stylised animals) finger ring from Cottam [PF41] and ring-and-dot decorated examples at Staunch Meadow [PF34], Middle Harling [PF40] and Cottam [PF41]. Ten finger rings from Middle Harling [PF40], including seven penannular examples, are stylised with tapering terminals and stamped ring-and-dots, ribbing

A finger ring fashioned from a cut down bronze bracelet found stratified at Barton Court Farm [PF5] is decorated with a frieze of incised stylised animals and punched dots and is perhaps a 5th century insular Quoit brooch imitation (Miles 1986, fiche 4) (Section 5.2.13).

Table 4.18. Finger rings: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

13

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

10

77%

5

39%

3

23%

60

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character A gold finger ring metal detected at Sutton Courtenay/ Drayton [PF27] has a circular disc bezel and beaded filigree wire and is also ornamented with opaque white glass and likely black glass beads (Hamerow et al 2007, 176–8) (Section 5.2.11).

Pendants Around 59 pendants and likely examples are present at 10 settlements (Table 4.19). The pendant assemblage is diverse. Forty Roman coins of later Roman date from five settlements that are pierced– sometimes twice– or show evidence of attempted piercing, were likely being perforated for suspension as pendants or discs (Appendix 4.14). Thirty-five of these examples derive from West Stow [PF3], suggesting this may have been a style preference at the settlement (Section 5.2.13). Early Anglo-Saxon cemetery evidence, such as in Kent, demonstrates a fashion for wearing Roman coins as pendants in burials– particularly women’s graves– during the late 6th and first half of the 7th centuries (Karkov 2011, 27). Chronologically reflecting this trend, Radley Barrow Hills [PF1], West Stow [PF3] and Mucking [PF4] were occupied during the Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon periods and all produce pierced Roman coins. An example is also present in the Early Anglo-Saxon occupation phase of Market Lavington [PF14]. The settlements, possibly excluding Radley Barrow Hills [PF1], have associated Anglo-Saxon cemeteries. The fifth site, Middle Harling [PF40], is of Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon date. A cemetery in use during the Late Anglo-Saxon and medieval periods is associated with the settlement, although grave good burial had broadly ceased as a custom by this time (Buckberry & Cherryson 2010, ix; Hadley 2011, 289, 299–300). At Staunch Meadow [PF34], the incomplete piercing of a debased silver Anglo-Saxon coin may have been an attempt to produce a pendant.

A silver gilt finger ring of likely Late Anglo-Saxon date found unstratified at Middle Harling [PF40] is inscribed and has a bezel in the shape of clasped hands and shoulders decorated with engraved crosses (Rogerson 1995, 55) (Section 5.2.11). Inscriptions An ornamented silver gilt finger ring found unstratified at Middle Harling [PF40] bears a Lombardic inscription (Section 5.2.12): IHC NAZARENS R. (Rogerson 1995, 55). The Lombards (or Longobards), a Germanic-speaking people, were settled in the Rhine and Danube regions from the 5th century and subsequently Italy, from the 6th century into the medieval period. Parts of the Lombardic language are known through surviving runic inscriptions on artefacts and in literary texts (Christie 1995, 18–20, 225; Bowersock et al 1999, 546–7). Site Chronology The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.36). The Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Middle Anglo-Saxon period the least.

The assemblage further includes a stratified amber pendant from Carlton Colville [PF28] and a metal detected T-shaped pendant from Bishopstone [PF13] interpreted as a likely Thor’s hammer pendant (Section 5.2.14). Two stratified pendants from West Stow [PF3] and Mucking [PF4] are manufactured with silver and a stratified decorated glass pendant is also found at the latter site (Section 5.2.11).

Site Distribution The settlements are located in all regions (Fig. 4.37). The east and the midlands are equally best represented and the north the least.

Figure 4.36. Finger rings: site chronology.

61

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 4.37. Finger rings: site distribution. Table 4.19. Pendants: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

10

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

8

80%

2

20%

1

10%

Further Information

or purple glass (Section 5.2.11). Also from the site is a stratified 7th century turquoise glass pendant in a copperalloy ‘dog-tooth’ setting, which is moulded with pointed projections (Hamerow 1993, 63, 84).

Forms Pendant forms include a disc shield pendant at West Stow [PF3], a likely ornament pendant from Mucking [PF4] and a probable Thor’s hammer pendant at Bishopstone [PF13].

A likely Thor’s hammer pendant metal detected from Bishopstone [PF13] is perforated with a suspension hole and decorated with incised lines, in keeping with other English examples found which are commonly simply patterned or undecorated (Jesch 2011, 17).

Decoration A silver disc shield pendant found stratified at West Stow [PF3] has an ornamental boss (Section 5.2.11).

Site Chronology

A likely ornament pendant found stratified at Mucking [PF4] is decorated with hatched silver inlaid with red

The settlements date to all occupation phases excepting the Late Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.38). The Middle–Late

Figure 4.38. Pendants: site chronology.

62

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Early– Middle and Middle Anglo-Saxon periods are equally least represented.

Site Chronology The settlements date to the Early and Middle Anglo-Saxon centuries (Fig. 4.40). The Early Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Middle Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Site Distribution The settlements are located in three regions, excepting the midlands and the north (Fig. 4.39). The southwest is best represented and the south the least.

Site Distribution The settlements are located in three regions, excepting the midlands and the north (Fig. 4.41). The southwest is best represented and the south the least.

Bracelets/Armlets/Bands Around 57 bracelets, armlets or decorative bands are recorded at nine settlements (Table 4.20).

Other Adornment Items Further jewellery includes three stratified earrings from West Cotton [PF9] and a fine metal chain found stratified at Poundbury [PF10].

The assemblage predominately comprises metal bracelets and bands. The other examples are a stratified shale bracelet at Barton Court Farm [PF5], a stratified ivory bracelet at Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27] and two unstratified bone bracelets and a stone one of Anglo-Saxon or Roman date at Orton Hall Farm [PF8].

A copper-alloy ring with intertwined ends found unstratified at Raunds Furnells [PF6] may have been part of a necklace (or a finger ring).

Further Information

An iron slip-knot ring found stratified at Carlton Colville [PF28] likely derives from either a necklace or a toilet-set item.

Forms Some seven bracelet and armlet forms are recorded at four settlements (Appendix 4.8.1). Examples include twisted ribbon and twisted wire bracelets at West Stow [PF3], a ribbon strip bracelet from Barton Court Farm [PF5] and a penannular bracelet at Carlton Colville [PF28].

4.3.6. Dress

Decoration

Around 108 strap ends, used to prevent material fraying or twisting, are found at 20 settlements (Table 4.21).

This section covers dress and clothing items (Appendix 3.6). Strap Ends

Several of the 26 bracelets and bands from West Stow [PF3] are decorated, with patterns including ring-and-dot ornamentation and a running ‘S’ stamp scroll (Appendix 4.8.2).

The assemblage includes a variety of decorated examples and thirteen strap ends manufactured with silver, enamel

Figure 4.39. Pendants: site distribution. Table 4.20. Bracelets/armlets/decorative bands: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

9

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

7

78%

5

56%

63

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 4.40. Bracelets/armlets/decorative bands: site chronology.

Figure 4.41. Bracelets/armlets/decorative bands: site distribution.

Decoration

or inlay from various contexts at Staunch Meadow [PF34], Middle Harling [PF40] and Cottam [PF41] (Section 5.2.11).

A number of strap ends are decorated or stylised (Appendix 4.11).

Further Information

A strap end of Thomas Class A Type 2 (Thomas 2000, 69–70, 89) found unstratified at Brandon Road [PF12] is decorated with an animal head.

Typologies Two assigned strap end types are recorded at two settlements.

A strap end metal detected from Bishopstone [PF13] of 8th–11th centuries date has an animal-headed terminal. Also from the site is a metal detected strap fitting of 10th– 11th centuries date in Winchester style (zoomorphic and foliate motifs) and decorated with a stylised animal mask (Thomas 2010, 108).

A decorated copper-alloy split-end strap end of Thomas Class A Type 2 (Thomas 2000, 69–70, 89), dating 8th–10th centuries, is unstratified at Brandon Road [PF12]. A Hamwic Type A strap end (single-riveted, triangular split ends and spherical terminals) dating AD675–750 (Hinton 1996, 37–8) is found stratified at Staunch Meadow [PF34].

Several decorated strap ends are found at Staunch Meadow [PF34]. An unstratified strap end from the site may be of Christian significance (Section 5.2.14). The strap end

Table 4.21. Strap ends: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

20

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

15

75%

11

55%

5

25%

64

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character depicts a long-haired naked male with legs spread and hands upraised in front of his chest, flanked by vegetal ornament and a possible beast on either side. He is comparable to a male figure depicted in a Canon Table of the 8th century Hiberno-Saxon Barberini Gospel manuscript (Tester et al 2014, 226–7). Also from the settlement is an unstratified strap end ornamented with a central panel divided into five parts with niello and silver inlay, as well as spirals and U-shaped decoration. A third stratified strap end of c. AD800–900 date has an animal head with black inlay, possibly niello, and a central panel decorated with gilded silver scrollwork in a niello background (Tester et al 2014, 226) (Section 5.2.11).

Six strap ends found stratified and metal detected at Cottam [PF41] comprise four examples inlaid with silver and wire ornament and two copper-alloy strap ends inlaid with enamel, one decorated with parallel arcs set within a linear border and the other with incised decoration (Richards 1999a, 15, 68) (Section 5.2.11).

Four Trewhiddle-type (zoomorphic) strap ends from various contexts at Middle Harling [PF40] are ornamented with animal-headed terminals characteristic of the style. A fine silver and copper-alloy strap end of 9th century date has a detailed Trewhiddle-type animal-headed terminal modelled in deep relief in the central field. Two other strap ends from the site, also 9th century copper-alloy examples, have Trewhiddle-type animal-headed terminals and traces of white inlay (Rogerson 1995, 58–60) (Section 5.2.11).

Site Distribution

Site Chronology The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.42). The Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period is by far best represented and the Early–Middle, Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon periods are equally least represented.

The settlements are located in every region excepting the midlands (Fig. 4.43). The southwest is best represented and the south the least. Hair/Dress Pins Around 104 hair or dress pins have been classified at 11

Figure 4.42. Strap ends: site chronology.

Figure 4.43. Strap ends: site distribution.

65

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements A copper-alloy Hamwic Type G ring-headed dress pin (Hinton 1996, 32), possibly a cloak fastener, is found stratified at Brandon Road [PF12].

settlements within the much larger pins collection (Table 4.22; Section 4.3.5). It is likely that other examples have either not been identified or are not recorded as hair or dress pins in the published texts.

Decoration

The assemblage includes c. 73 hair or dress pins from Cottam [PF41] which is by far the largest settlement collection, with the second largest from West Stow [PF3] comprising c. 13 examples. Seven sites have bone hair or dress pins and five have metal ones, with only Radley Barrow Hills [PF1] producing examples of both. The collection includes two bone dress pins or bobbins from Market Lavington [PF14]. At Poundbury [PF10], four bone hair pins are each found in an Anglo-Saxon burial located in the settlement (Section 5.2.15).

A bone dress pin found stratified at Radley Barrow Hills [PF1] is ornamented with spirals. A copper-alloy dress pin of 7th–9th centuries date found unstratified at West Fen Road [PF39] is decorated with ring-and-dots motif. Site Chronology The settlements date to all occupation phases excepting the Middle Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.44). The Middle– Late Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Late Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Further Information Forms

Site Distribution

Some 10 pin forms are identifiable as hair or dress pins, ranging from common conical-, cheese- and knob-headed examples, to rarer thistle-, biconical- and round-head pins (Appendix 4.5.1).

The settlements are located in every region excepting the midlands (Fig. 4.45). The southwest is best represented and the north the least.

Typologies

Buckles

Two assigned pin types are recorded as dress pins at two settlements (Appendix 4.5.2).

Some 73 buckles derive from 23 settlements (Table 4.23). The assemblage includes a stratified silver and bronze studded example from Barton Court Farm [PF5] and an unstratified buckle of c. 6th century date from Market

A copper-alloy Ross Type V biconical-headed dress pin (Ross 1991, 162, 366), of 5th century date, is stratified at Radley Barrow Hills [PF1]. Table 4.22. Hair/dress pins: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

11

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

9

82%

3

27%

1

9%

Figure 4.44. Hair/dress pins: site chronology.

66

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character

Figure 4.45. Hair/dress pins: site distribution. Table 4.23. Buckles: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

23

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

20

87%

10

43%

5

22%

Lavington [PF14], possibly inlaid and with a garnet attached to its corroded material mass (Section 5.2.11).

Site Chronology The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.46). The Early–Middle and Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon periods are equally best represented and the Late Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Further Information Forms Around five buckle forms are recorded at no less than 12 settlements, ranging from common oval, rectangular and D-shaped examples, to rare double-plated and openworkplated buckles (Appendix 4.10.1).

Site Distribution The settlements are located in every region excepting the midlands (Fig. 4.47). The north is best represented and the south the least.

Typologies

Hooked Tags

Buckles assigned as Marzinzik types (Marzinzik 2003) are recorded at Carlton Colville [PF28] (Appendix 4.10.2). The group comprises eight examples of 6th–7th centuries date, including a buckle with a shield-tongue (Marzinzik Type I.2) and oval and rectangular examples (Marzinzik Types I.IIa-i; II.19b; II.24a; II.24b-ii).

Around 57 hooked tags, used to fasten clothing, come from nine settlements (Table 4.24). The largest hooked tag collections derive from Staunch Meadow [PF34] and Middle Harling [PF40], which produce 19 hooked tags each. Five metal detected strap ends from Staunch Meadow [PF34] are manufactured in silver (Section 5.2.11). The second largest collections are from Bishopstone [PF13] and West Fen Road [PF39], with five hooked tags apiece.

Decoration A selection of the buckles are decorated (Appendix 4.10.3). Examples include buckles ornamented with animal heads at Brandon Road [PF12] and Staunch Meadow [PF34], and stamped ring or dot variant patterns at West Stow [PF3] and West Fen Road [PF39].

Further Information Forms

A Borre style buckle metal detected at Cottam [PF41] of 9th century date denotes Scandinavian artistic– and possibly cultural– influence (Section 6.3.10).

At least four hooked tag forms are recorded (Appendix 4.12). A triangular-shaped and two U-shaped hooked tags 67

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 4.46. Buckles: site chronology.

Figure 4.47. Buckles: site distribution.

are present at West Fen Road [PF39] and examples with circular mouldings and circular roundels are found at Staunch Meadow [PF34].

A silver hooked tag metal detected from Staunch Meadow [PF34] is gilded with a ‘chip-carved’ interlace triquetra central area surrounded with lightly punched dots. Another metal detected hooked tag from the site has silver inlay and a third example may also have been inlaid with silver (Tester et al 2014, 227) (Section 5.2.11).

Decoration Several hooked tags are decorated (Appendix 4.12). Ringand-dots are the most common pattern, with examples at Brandon Road [PF12], Carlton Colville [PF28] and Staunch Meadow [PF34]. Other decoration includes examples with foliate and interlace designs at Staunch Meadow [PF34] and a hooked tag with an incised border and one with zig-zags, both from Bishopstone [PF13].

Site Chronology The settlements date to all occupation phases excepting the Early and Late Anglo-Saxon periods (Fig. 4.48). The Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Middle Anglo-Saxon period the least. Hooked tags

Table 4.24. Hooked tags: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

9

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

6

67%

6

67%

3

33%

68

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character

Figure 4.48. Hooked tags: site chronology.

are common artefacts in Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon England and this is broadly reflected by the settlement occupation dates.

The assemblage includes two stratified silver stylised belt studs at Barton Court Farm [PF5] and another stratified silver and iron belt mount from Carlton Colville [PF28] (Section 5.2.11). Also at Carlton Colville [PF28] are three stratified and metal detected chatelaine links– decorative belt hooks/ clasps attached to a (woman’s) belt for carrying keys or other everyday items (Geake 1997, 57; Felder 2014, 39–40).

Site Distribution The settlements are located in every region excepting the midlands (Fig. 4.49). The north is best represented and the south the least.

Further Information

Belt and Leather Fittings

Decoration

Some 28 belt and leather fittings are present at eight settlements, including likely examples from Orton Hall Farm [PF8] and Cowdery’s Down [PF22] (Table 4.25).

Two silver and gilded belt studs found stratified at Barton Court Farm [PF5] are of sinuous animal form (Section 5.2.11).

Figure 4.49. Hooked tags: site distribution. Table 4.25. Belt and leather fittings: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

8

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

8

100%

1

13%

69

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements Site Chronology

at Carlton Colville [PF28] that may have been gilded (Section 5.2.11).

The settlements date to all occupation phases excepting the Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon periods (Fig. 4.50). The Early Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Wrist clasps of later date include a stratified studded example from Brandon Road [PF12] that may be of Scandinavian type. It derives from the Middle AngloSaxon occupation phase of the settlement (c. early 8th century–c. AD869) and its occurrence may be suggestive of growing Viking/Scandinavian presence in north and east England during this period (Section 6.3.10).

Site Distribution The settlements are located in three regions, excepting the east and the north (Fig. 4.51). The midlands is best represented and the south the least.

Further Information

Wrists Clasps

Typologies

Some 18 wrist clasps, used for securing garment sleeves, are found at seven settlements (Table 4.26).

Eight Hines type wrist clasps of predominantly 6th century date are assigned at Orton Hall Farm [PF8] and Carlton Colville [PF28] (Hines 1993) (Appendix 4.13). The wrist clasps are variously stratified, unstratified and metal detected. Both settlements produce Hines Type B7 wrist clasps, composed of plates with perforations for sewing, including a possible gilded example from Carlton Colville [PF28] (Hines 1993, 39–43) (Section 5.2.11). Both sites also produce a Hines Type B13c wrist clasp, characteristically decorated on the applied plates (Hines 1993, 51–2). From Orton Hall Farm [PF8] is the catch

The assemblage predominantly comprises wrist clasps of c. 6th century date that are comparable to examples found in Early Anglo-Saxon cemeteries. For instance, a metal detected single-riveted wrist clasp from Kilverstone [PF23] is comparable to a similar example of 6th century date from the Early Anglo-Saxon cemetery of Little Eriswell, Suffolk (Garrow et al 2006, 200). The assemblage also includes a leaded-bronze wrist clasp found stratified

Figure 4.50. Belt and leather fittings: site chronology.

Figure 4.51. Belt and leather fittings: site distribution.

70

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character Table 4.26. Wrist clasps: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

7

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

6

86%

2

29%

2

29%

plate of a Hines Type B8 of late 5th–early 6th centuries date (Hines 1993, 43–5). At Carlton Colville [PF28] is a Hines Type B16, characterised by a shaped rear edge (Hines 1993, 56–7).

Site Chronology The settlements date to the Early and Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon periods (Fig. 4.52). Wrist clasps are common artefacts of the earlier Anglo-Saxon centuries and this is reflected by the occupation dates of the settlements.

Decoration Wrist clasps from various contexts found at Orton Hall Farm [PF8] have raised bosses.

Site Distribution The settlements are located in three regions, excepting the southwest and the midlands (Fig. 4.53). The east is best represented and the south the least.

A wrist clasp of Hines Type B13c (Hines 1993, 51–2), of 6th century date, found stratified at Carlton Colville [PF28] has repoussé zoomorphic ornament.

Figure 4.52. Wrist clasps: site chronology.

Figure 4.53. Wrist clasps: site distribution.

71

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Studs Some 14 studs from six settlements may have been dress attachments (Table 4.27).

Site Distribution The settlements are located in south and east England (Fig. 4.55). The east is best represented and the south the least.

The assemblage includes a stratified pyramid-shaped stud at Radley Barrow Hills [PF1] and an unstratified stylised gilded stud from Middle Harling [PF40], possibly deriving from a belt (Section 5.2.11). At Yarnton [PF17], an exceptional metal detected Hiberno-Viking stud of c. 9th– 10th centuries date may have been a clothing attachment or an equestrian fitting (Sections 4.3.13, 5.2.11, 7.5.3).

Discs Six discs from six settlements may have been attached to clothing for fashionable purposes (Table 4.28).

Further Information

The assemblage includes an unstratified iron disc with surviving cloth impression from West Stow [PF3] and a stratified copper-alloy disc from Riverdene [PF35] which may have been an appliqué decoration from a belt or shield. Fine examples comprise a stratified bronze disc from Mucking [PF4] which is inlaid with red enamel, a metal detected likely disc fragment from Sutton Courtenay/ Drayton [PF27] with garnet or red glass inlay, and a silver disc from Carlton Colville [PF28] that may be an intrusive item (Section 5.2.11).

Decoration A fine enamelled and inlaid Hiberno-Viking stud metal detected from Yarnton [PF17] is decorated with a striking glass inlay milled rim, bordering a pattern based on an equal-armed cross and semi-circular stepped arcs. A comparative stud is known from Kolset, Norway, which has an interlaced panel in quatrefoil shape (Hey 2004, 286) (Section 5.2.11). A gilded stud found unstratified at Middle Harling [PF40] is ornamented with a crowned bearded head (Section 5.2.11).

Further Information

Site Chronology

A decorative disc found unstratified at Staunch Meadow [PF34] is intricately designed with an impressed cross layout, near-circular roundels and three interlaced beasts (Tester et al 2014, 166).

Decoration

The settlements date to all occupation phases excepting the Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon periods (Fig. 4.54). The Table 4.27. Studs (clothing): artefact contexts Total sites represented:

6

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

3

50%

2

33%

2

33%

Figure 4.54. Studs (clothing): site chronology.

72

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character

Figure 4.55. Studs (clothing): site distribution. Table 4.28. Discs (clothing): artefact contexts Total sites represented:

6

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

5

83%

2

33%

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

Site Chronology

Site Chronology

The settlements date to the Early and Middle Anglo-Saxon centuries (Fig. 4.56). The Middle Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Early Anglo-Saxon period the least.

The settlements date to all occupation phases excepting the Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon periods (Fig. 4.58). The Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Early Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Site Distribution

Site Distribution

The settlements are located in south and east England (Fig. 4.57). The east is best represented and the south the least.

The settlements are located in east and north England (Fig. 4.59). The east is best represented and the north the least.

Girdle Hangers

Other Clothing Accessories

Seven girdle hangers are found at four settlements and another likely example is present at Mucking [PF4] (Table 4.29). Girdle hangers imitated keys or latch lifters in form and were commonly worn by women, hung from a girdle belt around the waist (Manning 1989, 90; Felder 2015, 2–3).

A small number of miscellaneous clothing accessories are recorded. Three bone toggles, for fastening coats or similar garb, are found stratified at Radley Barrow Hills [PF1] and Sutton

Figure 4.56. Discs (clothing): site chronology.

73

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 4.57. Discs (clothing): site distribution. Table 4.29. Girdle hangers: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

5

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

4

80%

2

40%

1

20%

Figure 4.58. Girdle hangers: site chronology.

Figure 4.59. Girdle hangers: site distribution.

74

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character artefactual evidence from as early as the Roman period is representational of evil eye charms, worn to ward off wickedness (Meaney 1981, 139–40; MacGregor 1985, 105–8; Schoenfelder & Richards 2011, 159). However, the function/s of Norse bells remains debatable and other suggestions for their use include as ornamental horse harness fittings, as attachments for falcons’ legs to track the birds during falconry or hawking, or as personal adornment items (Richards 1999a, 96; Schoenfelder & Richards 2011, 157–8).

Courtenay/Drayton [PF27] and unstratified at West Stow [PF3]. Lace tags, used to secure ties or cords, are found stratified at Raunds Furnells [PF6] and Carlton Colville [PF28]. A stratified tag end from Maxey [PF21], of c. 9th–10th centuries date and in likely Scandinavian style (Section 6.3.10), was of similar use to the lace tags. Other accessories that could be sewn or attached to fabric comprise three stratified bronze spangles and a bronze dome from West Stow [PF3] and a stratified copper-alloy appliqué with simple incised line decoration at Carton Colville [PF28].

4.3.8. Cosmetic This section covers cosmetic implements and fittings (Appendix 3.8).

4.3.7. Charms

Tweezers

This section comprises amulets and Norse bells, which may have served as talismans (Section 5.2.14; Appendix 3.7).

Some 45 pairs of tweezers are present at 14 settlements (Table 4.30). The assemblage includes 20 tweezers from various contexts at Staunch Meadow [PF34], an elaborately moulded pair of tweezers unstratified from Raunds Furnells [PF6] and a stratified pair from Brandon Road [PF12] with unusually shaped blades.

Amulets Three settlements occupied during the Early Anglo-Saxon period produce three artefacts interpreted as likely amulets, objects believed to have magical or protective attributes.

Further Information

From West Stow [PF3] is a stratified boar’s tusk, pierced towards the root end, which is perhaps an amulet (Meaney 1981, 51, 134; West 1985a, 125–6). At Godmanchester [PF11], a stratified Roman drum-shaped ceramic loomweight with rudimentary decoration is perforated for reuse, possibly as a protective amulet. During the AngloSaxon period, such pierced objects could be attributed with the power to stave off nightmares (Meaney 1981, 54–8, 99–100; Gibson & Murray 2003, 187). From Abingdon [PF24] is a stratified quartz pebble also interpreted as an amulet by the excavator and thought to be an indication of everyday superstition at the settlement (Keevil 1992, 78). There is historical and archaeological evidence for the belief that quartz possessed magical qualities dating back to the Classical period (Meaney 1981, 88–96).

Decoration Tweezers decorated with ring-and-dots are present in various contexts at West Stow [PF3], Staunch Meadow [PF34], West Fen Road [PF39] and Middle Harling [PF40] (Appendix 4.15). An exceptional silver pair of tweezers found unstratified at Staunch Meadow [PF34] have cross-hatching and semicircular indents near the terminals and an inscription set in framing lines above a small cruciform pattern (Tester et al 2014, 257–8) (Sections 5.2.11–5.2.12). Inscriptions

Norse Bells

A fine pair of decorated silver tweezers found unstratified at Staunch Meadow [PF34] bear a runic inscription of the presumably Anglian male name ‘Aldred’ (Sections 5.2.11–5.2.12):

Two Norse bells, artefacts distinct to the VikingScandinavian world, are metal detected items from Cottam [PF41] (Schoenfelder & Richards 2011, 154–60).

+aldred (Tester et al 2014, 246, 262).

The miniature bells are decorated with ring-anddots, a pattern which it has been argued for other Table 4.30. Tweezers: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

14

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

10

71%

5

36%

2

14%

75

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements Site Chronology

Cosmetic Fittings

The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.60). The Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon periods are equally least represented.

Three stratified ferrules from Mucking [PF4] and one at West Stow [PF3] likely derive from cosmetic implements. Also from West Stow [PF3] is a stratified possible toilet brush. At Radley Barrow Hills [PF1] is a stratified looped item that could be a cosmetic fitting and a stratified ring from Carlton Colville [PF28] may have come from a toilet ring set.

Site Distribution The settlements are located in three regions, excepting the southwest and the north (Fig. 4.61). The midlands is best represented and the south the least.

4.3.9. Grooming and hygiene This section covers items associated with personal grooming and hygiene (Appendix 3.9).

Cosmetic Spoons

Combs

One cosmetic spoon is found unstratified at Barton Court Farm [PF5] and two at Quarrington [PF30]. Several spoons from Staunch Meadow [PF34], mostly unstratified, may also have been similar cosmetic implements.

Around 290 combs or fragments derive from 29 settlements (Table 4.31). The combs are manufactured of bone excepting one metal decorated example from Staunch Meadow [PF34]. The assemblage includes a stratified ivory comb at Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27] and a stratified miniature comb from West Stow [PF3] which was perhaps a child’s possession or a charm or token (Squires 2014, 121–2).

Cosmetic Pins/Prickers Radley Barrow Hills [PF1] and Brandon Road [PF12] each produce a stratified cosmetic pin/pricker and one unstratified example is present at Barton Court Farm [PF5].

Figure 4.60. Tweezers: site chronology.

Figure 4.61. Tweezers: site distribution.

76

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character Table 4.31. Combs: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

30

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

29

97%

9

30%

1

3%

Further Information

A comb handle with connecting plates metal detected from Staunch Meadow [PF34] is decorated with a twisting band of lateral incised lines.

Forms Single-sided and double-sided combs, some of composite manufacture, are recorded at seven and 13 settlements respectively (Appendix 4.17). Hog-backed (flaring endplates) combs are identified at West Stow [PF3] and Market Lavington [PF14].

Site Chronology The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.62). The Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Early and Middle–Late AngloSaxon periods are equally least represented.

Decoration

Site Distribution

A comb case stratified at West Stow [PF3] has ring-anddot ornamentation.

The settlements are located in all regions (Fig. 4.63).

Figure 4.62. Combs: site chronology.

Figure 4.63. Combs: site distribution.

77

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements The southwest is ubiquitous and the midlands is least represented.

Nail Cleaners A nail cleaner is found stratified at Riverdene [PF35] and a stratified nail cleaner or tooth pick is attached to an ear scoop at Quarrington [PF30].

Ear Scoops Up to eight ear scoops are present at eight settlements, including two tentatively identified examples from Carlton Colville [PF28] (Table 4.32).

Razors Two razors are found stratified at Radley Barrow Hills [PF1] and one tentatively identified example at Orton Hall Farm [PF8]. Few equivalents to the two razors from Radley Barrow Hills [PF1] are currently known, even in Early Anglo-Saxon cemeteries. The razors are of a simple non-folding design and square-ended, like some Continental knives of 7th–8th century date. This later dating suggests the razors might be residual at the settlement (Chambers & McAdam 2007, 253–4).

The assemblage includes a stratified ear scoop from Quarrington [PF30] which is attached to a tooth pick or nail cleaner. Further Information Decoration A copper-alloy ear scoop found stratified at Middle Harling [PF40] is decorated with leaf-shaped zones.

4.3.10. Utilitarian equipment This section covers tools, fixtures and fittings (Section 5.2.4; Appendices 3.10.1–3.10.4).

Site Chronology The settlements date to all occupation phases excepting the Late Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.64). The Early– Middle Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Early Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Agricultural Tools This sub-section covers agriculture-related tools, which are present at 40 settlements (Table 4.33; Section 5.3.5; Appendix 3.10.2).

Site Distribution

Cultivation Tools

The settlements are located in three regions, excepting the southwest and the midlands (Fig. 4.65). The east is best represented and the south the least.

Some eight cultivation-related tools come from six settlements.

Table 4.32. Ear scoops: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

8

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

7

88%

1

13%

Figure 4.64. Ear scoops: site chronology.

78

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character

Figure 4.65. Ear scoops: site distribution.

A stratified spud tool from Orton Hall Farm [PF8] and a stratified weeding tang spud at Goltho [PF43] were used for cutting and digging out roots and weeds. Hard earth and soil could be broken up with a pick, such as the stratified one found at Carlton Colville [PF28]. A second possible pick, which is alternatively a reamer or a bit, is unstratified at Maxey [PF21]. Digging could also have been carried out with two stratified likely spade shoes from Mucking [PF4]. A possible unstratified trowel at Orton Hall Farm [PF8] could have been used for activities including the digging or smoothing of soils. From Bishopstone [PF13] is a stratified plough share, the leading cutting edge of a plough, an essential tool for the tilling of soil prior to the sowing of seeds.

A cutting hook and two cutting edges, found stratified and unstratified at West Stow [PF3], may have been used similarly to reaping and bill hooks.

Harvesting Tools

Tree cutting and harvesting is indicated by a woodcutter’s axe found unstratified at Staunch Meadow [PF34]. A stratified stone axe from Carlton Colville [PF28] and two metal axes from West Stow [PF3], including a bronze miniature axe, could have been similarly used. From Fordham [PF31] is a stratified axe or hoe blade.

Two scythes, for reaping crops or mowing grass, are found unstratified at Orton Hall Farm [PF8] and metal detected at Cottam [PF41]. A probable hayfork is found stratified at Catholme [PF36]. Horticulture Tools Some seven horticulture-related tools are found at six settlements.

Up to 15 harvest-related tools are present at seven settlements. Three sickles, curved tools for harvesting cereal crops and cutting grass or hay, are found stratified and unstratified at Raunds Furnells [PF6], Bishopstone [PF13] and Cottam [PF41]. A fourth possible example is stratified at Mucking [PF4].

Pruning hooks, useful for clipping smaller trees and branches, comprise a stratified standard sized example from Pennyland [PF19] and an unstratified miniature pruning hook from Yarnton [PF17], likely employed for cropping small or delicate shrubberies.

Reaping or bill hooks, for harvesting and cutting crops or plants, comprise three stratified and unstratified examples from West Stow [PF3] and a stratified one at Orton Hall Farm [PF8]. A reaping hook or sickle is found stratified at Mucking [PF4].

Site Chronology The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period and all centuries are strongly represented (Fig. 4.66). The Middle–Late and Late Anglo-Saxon periods are

Table 4.33. Agricultural and cultivation tools: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

40

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

39

98%

17

43%

79

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 4.66. Agricultural and cultivation tools: site chronology.

ubiquitous and the Early and Middle Anglo-Saxon periods are equally least represented.

Tackle or Float An oak block with a drilled hole found stratified at West Cotton [PF9] is a possible rope tackle (or fishnet float) that could have been used to move millstones around the settlement’s mill (Chapman 2010, 407–8).

Site Distribution The settlements are located in all regions, which are strongly represented (Fig. 4.67). The southwest and the midlands are ubiquitous and the south is least represented.

Querns Complete or fragmented querns are represented by c. 4651 pieces from 39 settlements (Table 4.34).

Processing Tools This sub-section covers milling equipment, notably querns, which were used for crop processing (Section 5.2.5; Appendix 3.10.2).

Imported Niedermendig lava querns from the Rhineland/ Mayen region are most frequently represented, with

Figure 4.67. Agricultural and cultivation tools: site distribution. Table 4.34. Querns: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

39

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

38

97%

12

31%

80

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character c.  4485 objects/pieces identified at 28 settlements. The group includes a lava quern from Staunch Meadow [PF34] reused for, or as part of, a working surface (Section 5.2.13). British sourced or unidentified/undisclosed querns comprise c. 166 objects/pieces recorded at 31 sites. Sourced querns are discussed in a regio-economic context in Chapter 6 (Section 6.3.3).

Site Distribution

Site Chronology

A range of manufacturing tools are identified at 25 settlements (Table 4.35; Section 5.2.3; Appendix 3.10.1). Evidence for manufacturing activities is discussed further in Section 4.3.11.

The settlements are located in all regions (Fig. 4.69). The southwest is ubiquitous and the midlands is least represented. Manufacturing Tools

The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.68). The Middle–Late and Late AngloSaxon periods are ubiquitous and the Middle Anglo-Saxon period is least represented.

Most frequent in the assemblage are awls and pegs, with c. 67 examples at 20 settlements. These tools could be used

Figure 4.68. Querns: site chronology.

Figure 4.69. Querns: site distribution. Table 4.35. Manufacturing tools: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

25

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

21

84%

13

52%

1

4%

81

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements for sewing, puncturing and hanging materials, for example during stages of textile, leather and bone working.

contexts at West Cotton [PF9], Pennyland [PF19] and Mawgan Porth [PF44]. At Barton Court Farm [PF5] is a stratified forging/heath tool and at Mucking [PF4] a stratified sharpening tool. Carlton Colville [PF28] and Yarnton [PF17] each produce an unstratified file, used for metal and bone working or similar. Carlton Colville [PF28] also yields stratified metal working tongs, a nail making plate and a modelling tool.

Around 31 chisels and gouges, frequently used for metal, wood and stone working, are present at 21 sites. The group includes a stratified gouger or engraving tool from Mucking [PF4], a stratified carving chisel from Spong Hill [PF15] and stratified and unstratified paring, firmer and mortise chisels, as well as a miniature example from Carlton Colville [PF28].

The assemblage is completed by two stratified leather working tools from Mucking [PF4] and Carlton Colville [PF28] and a stone mason’s pick from the latter site, associated with stone refashioning and construction.

Some 15 spoon, auger and drill bits, commonly used for boring and drilling in metal and wood working, are found at eight settlements.

Site Chronology

From 10 sites are c. 14 punches, regularly used for hammering, incising or decorating objects during metal and leather working. The collection includes an unstratified likely punch from Cottam [PF41] with no known parallels. The thinner end of the punch may have functioned as a tang set within a wooden handle and the thicker end could have been used for shaping or chasing non-ferrous metalwork (Richards 1999a, 74).

The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.70). The Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon periods are equally least represented. Site Distribution The settlements are located in all regions (Fig. 4.71). The south is best represented and the southwest and the north are equally least represented.

Also in the assemblage are up to nine wedges, likely used to stabilise wood during chopping and splitting, found at four settlements including a possible example from Orton Hall Farm [PF8]. Four sites each produce a shave blade, traditional hand tools used to shape wood by removing shavings. Further associated with wood working are three adzes, a carpenter’s chipping tool also used for trimming and shaping wood (Riley 2014, 67). Two adzes are stratified at Carlton Colville [PF28] and one is unstratified at West Stow [PF3]. At Middle Harling [PF40] is an unstratified reamer, commonly used to clean out or enlarge holes bored by wood augers, and a second tentatively identified example, also unstratified, is from Maxey [PF21].

Multi-purpose Tools This sub-section covers hammers, hammerstones and shears, which are multi-purpose tools (Sections 5.2.3– 5.2.5; Appendix 3.10.1). Hammers and Hammerstones Eight settlements produce 17 hammers or hammerstones, used in various tasks, as well as possibly West Cotton [PF9] where a sandstone block may have been a hammerstone or anvil (Table 4.36).

The assemblage further comprises tools commonly associated with metal working. Three possible stone (forging) anvils come from stratified and unstratified

The assemblage includes a stratified clawhammer from

Figure 4.70. Manufacturing tools: site chronology.

82

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character

Figure 4.71. Manufacturing tools: site distribution. Table 4.36. Hammers and hammerstones: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

8

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

7

88%

2

25%

Bishopstone [PF13], a stratified adze hammer from Carlton Colville [PF28] and c. eight stratified and unstratified hammerstones from Mawgan Porth [PF44], including a pebble one that could have also served as an anvil.

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

Site Distribution The settlements are located in every region excepting the southwest (Fig. 4.75). The east is best represented and the north the least. This may reflect the rich agricultural landscape of central and parts of east England (Roberts & Wrathmell 2002, 1–3).

Site Chronology The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.72). The Late Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Sharpening Tools This sub-section covers whetstones, hones and sharpeners (Sections 5.2.3–5.2.4; Appendix 3.10.1).

Site Distribution

Hones and Sharpeners

The settlements are located in three regions, excepting the midlands and the north (Fig. 4.73). The east is best represented and the south the least.

Complete or fragmented hones and sharpeners are evidenced by c. 165 pieces at 20 settlements (Table 4.38).

Shears

The assemblage includes a stratified Roman limestone veneer piece from Godmanchester [PF11] recycled into a sharpening stone (Section 5.2.13).

Some 25 shears are found at 15 settlements, including an unstratified pair from Melford Meadows [PF7] of possible Anglo-Saxon date (Table 4.37). Shears are used for textile, metal and leather working as well as for agricultural purposes, such as sheep shearing and pruning (Sections 4.3.10– 4.3.11).

Site Chronology The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.76). The Middle Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Late Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Site Chronology The settlements date to all occupation phases excepting the Late Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.74). The Early– Middle Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Early Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Site Distribution The settlements are located in all regions (Fig. 4.77). The midlands is best represented and the south the least. 83

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 4.72. Hammers and hammerstones: site chronology.

Figure 4.73. Hammers and hammerstones: site distribution.

Table 4.37. Shears: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

15

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

12

80%

4

27%

1

7%

Figure 4.74. Shears: site chronology.

84

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character

Figure 4.75. Shears: site distribution. Table 4.38. Hones and sharpeners: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

20

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

20

100%

5

25%

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

Figure 4.76. Hones and sharpeners: site chronology.

Whetstones

north (Fig. 4.79). The southwest is best represented and the south the least.

Around 69 whetstone pieces are present at 18 settlements (Table 4.39).

Weights

Site Chronology

Some 62 weights, used for various purposes, are present at 17 settlements (Table 4.40 Section 5.2.4; Appendix 3.10.1).

The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.78). The Early Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period the least.

The assemblage includes 14 slate thatch weights or netsinkers from Mawgan Porth [PF44] and 13 weights from Cottam [PF41], five chalk and eight lead. Two centrally perforated oyster shells found stratified at Barton Court Farm [PF5] may have functioned as net weights or similar (Miles 1986, fiche 4, fiche 5).

Site Distribution The settlements are located in every region excepting the 85

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 4.77. Hones and sharpeners: site distribution. Table 4.39. Whetstones: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

18

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

12

67%

10

56%

Figure 4.78. Whetstones: site chronology.

Figure 4.79. Whetstones: site distribution.

86

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character Table 4.40. Weights: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

17

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

15

88%

6

35%

2

12%

Further Information

Site Distribution

Decoration

The settlements are located in every region excepting the midlands (Fig. 4.81). The southwest and the east are equally best represented and the north the least.

A spherical weight with an iron core and copper-alloy coating metal detected from Middle Harling [PF40] is decorated on one face with two concentric circles of stamped annulets (Rogerson 1995, 67).

Rubbers/Pounders

Site Chronology

Seven stone rubbers or pounders are identified at seven settlements (Table 4.41; Section 5.2.4; Appendix 3.10.1).

The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.80). The Middle Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period the least.

The assemblage includes a stratified Niedermendig quern fragment of likely Anglo-Saxon date modified into a rubbing stone at Fordham [PF31] (Section 5.2.13).

Figure 4.80. Weights: site chronology.

Figure 4.81. Weights: site distribution.

87

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements Table 4.41. Rubbers/pounders: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

7

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

6

86%

1

14%

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

Site Chronology

Other Tools

The settlements date to all occupation phases excepting the Middle Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.82). The Late Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Early Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Unspecified or unidentified tools/implements are recorded at 19 settlements (Section 5.2.4; Appendix 3.10.1). The collection includes simple tools such as worked bone scrapers and scoops from 16 settlements, an unstratified double-pointed bone tool from Raunds Furnells [PF6] decorated with four grooves, two unstratified pebble tools at Mawgan Porth [PF44] and five struck flints from Collingbourne Ducis [PF38] that may have been manufactured during the Anglo-Saxon period.

Site Distribution The settlements are located in southwest and east England (Fig. 4.83). The southwest is best represented and the east the least. Measuring Tools

Fixtures

A pair of unstratified callipers at Middle Harling [PF40] and a stratified possible plumb bob from West Stow [PF3] are measuring items that could have been used for architectural calculations (Section 5.2.4; Appendix 3.10.1).

Many fixtures for tools, implements and other items are present at 41 settlements (Table 4.42; Section 5.2.4; Appendix 3.10.3).

Figure 4.82. Rubbers/pounders: site chronology.

Figure 4.83. Rubbers/pounders: site distribution.

88

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character Table 4.42. Fixtures: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

41

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

40

98%

12

29%

1

2%

The assemblage comprises a range of diverse fixtures, such as: nails (37 sites), including wood working nails from Radley Barrow Hills [PF1] and horseshoe/frost nails from Orton Hall Farm [PF8], Brandon Road [PF12] and Riby Cross Roads [PF32] (Section 4.3.13); staples (15 sites); bars (11 sites); rods (10 sites); wire (eight sites), including a silver wire loop from West Stow [PF3] (Section 5.2.11); binding (c. eight sites); spikes (six sites); and ferrules (c. six sites). Individual settlement finds include washers from West Stow [PF3], billet fragments at Brandon Road [PF12], clench bolts from Bishopstone [PF13] and a stratified socketed object at West Fen Road [PF39] with no currently known parallels (Mudd & Webster 2011, 77).

Site Chronology The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.84). The Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period is ubiquitous and the Late Anglo-Saxon period is least represented. Site Distribution The settlements are located in all regions (Fig. 4.85). The south is best represented and the midlands the least.

Figure 4.84. Fixtures: site chronology.

Figure 4.85. Fixtures: site distribution.

89

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements [PF17] is decorated with incised lines and ring-and-dot motifs.

Fittings Numerous fittings, for tools, implements and other items, are found at 39 settlements (Table 4.43; Section 5.2.4; Appendix 3.10.4).

Two animal-headed fittings metal detected from Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27] have Salin Style II animal ornamentation and are comparable to artefacts from the Sutton Hoo ship burial, Suffolk (Høilund Nielsen 1999, 185–6, 198–9; Hamerow et al 2007, 171–5).

The assemblage comprises a range of versatile fittings, such as: rings (22 sites); rivets/riveted sheets (12 sites), including a silver rivet at Brandon Road [PF12] (Section 5.2.11); plates (11 sites), such as a stratified enamelled attachment plate at Chalton [PF25] (Section 5.2.11); links/ chains (nine sites), including a stratified 7th century chain from Chalton [PF25] which is possibly from a linked pair of pins; and hasps and clasps (seven sites), some of which are likely to have been jewellery and dress attachments. Fittings of identified purpose include equestrian fittings (c. 14 sites), clothing fittings (c. 12 sites) and bucket/vessel fittings (c. 10 sites). Of further note, a stratified structural fitting at Cowdery’s Down [PF22] is recycled from a pair of shears (Section 5.2.13), and two metal detected animal-headed fittings from Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27] may have been used for funerary purposes (Section 5.2.15).

Site Chronology The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.86). The Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon periods are equally least represented. Site Distribution The settlements are located in all regions (Fig. 4.87). The midlands is ubiquitous and the southwest is least represented. 4.3.11. Manufacturing This section encompasses artefactual evidence for manufacturing, including textile, metal and bone working (Section 5.2.3; Appendices 3.11.1–3.11.3). Manufacturing tools are discussed separately in Section 4.3.10.

Further Information Decoration A bone plate found stratified at West Stow [PF3] has lattice ornament.

Textile Working This sub-section covers artefacts associated with textile

A copper-alloy plate or fitting found unstratified at Yarnton Table 4.43. Fittings: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

39

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

34

87%

16

41%

3

8%

Figure 4.86. Fittings: site chronology.

90

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character

Figure 4.87. Fittings: site distribution.

working (Appendix 3.11.1). All sites excluding Goltho [PF43] produce examples of textile equipment.

is made from a modified Roman tile (Section 5.2.13). Site Chronology

Loomweights

The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.88). The Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Late Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Complete or fragmented loomweights, hung on the warpweighted loom to keep threads taut, are represented by well over 1000 pieces counted or weighed at 39 settlements (Table 4.44).

Site Distribution

The assemblage comprises ceramic loomweights at 39 settlements, metal ones at four sites and stone examples from Bishopstone [PF13] and Collingbourne Ducis [PF38]. A stratified loomweight from Radley Barrow Hills [PF1]

The settlements are located in all regions (Fig. 4.89). The east is best represented and the midlands and the north are equally least represented.

Table 4.44. Loomweights: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

39

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

38

97%

9

23%

Figure 4.88. Loomweights: site chronology.

91

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 4.89. Loomweights: site distribution.

Spindlewhorls

sherds from Radley Barrow Hills [PF1] and Heybridge [PF2] as well as a bone gaming piece at Raunds Furnells [PF6], all recycled into spindlewhorls (Section 5.2.13).

Complete or fragmented spindlewhorls, weights used during the spinning process, are represented by c. 394 pieces from 40 settlements (Table 4.45).

Site Chronology

The assemblage comprises pottery and ceramic spindlewhorls from 28 settlements, stone ones at 21 sites, bone examples from 11 settlements and metal ones at eight sites.

The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.90). The Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon periods are equally least represented.

Included in the collection are c. 39 Roman pottery sherds modified into spindlewhorls, deriving from nine sites. West Stow [PF3] produces 18 of these examples and 10 are from Mucking [PF4]. Further present are two Anglo-Saxon pottery

Site Distribution The settlements are located in all regions, which are well represented (Fig. 4.91). The southwest, east and

Table 4.45. Spindlewhorls: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

40

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

39

98%

14

35%

1

3%

Figure 4.90. Spindlewhorls: site chronology.

92

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character midlands are ubiquitous and the south is least represented.

is best represented and the Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon periods are equally least represented.

Needles/Pins

Site Distribution

Some 96 needles/pins potentially associated with textile or leather working are found at 29 settlements (Table 4.46).

The settlements are located in all regions (Fig. 4.93). The southwest is best represented and the north the least.

The assemblage comprises bone needles/pins from 26 settlements and metal examples from seven sites, including a stratified likely netting needle from Orton Hall Farm [PF8].

Pinbeaters

Site Chronology

Around 132 bone pinbeaters, thread pickers for weaving, are present at up to 21 settlements (Table 4.47).

The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.92). The Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period

Of note in the assemblage is one of the six pinbeaters from Collingbourne Ducis [PF38] which is made of polished

Figure 4.91. Spindlewhorls: site distribution. Table 4.46. Needles/pins: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

29

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

28

97%

6

21%

Figure 4.92. Needles/pins: site chronology.

93

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 4.93. Needles/pins: site distribution. Table 4.47. Pinbeaters: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

21

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

19

90%

7

33%

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

walrus ivory, a rare find in Anglo-Saxon Wiltshire. It can be surmised that the pinbeater was considered a valuable possession and, given the inland location of the settlement, it likely originated from a regional or international source (Pine 2001, 109, 115).

Site Distribution

Site Chronology

Wool/Flax Combs and Heckles

The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.94). The Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon periods are equally best represented and the Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Approximately 49 wool/flax combs or heckles (comb teeth) used for spinning yarn are identifiable at 14 settlements, including an iron wool comb surviving set into its wooden card at Cottam [PF41] (Table 4.48).

The settlements are located in every region excepting the north (Fig. 4.95). The midlands is best represented and the east the least.

Figure 4.94. Pinbeaters: site chronology.

94

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character

Figure 4.95. Pinbeaters: site distribution. Table 4.48. Wool/flax combs and heckles: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

14

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

12

86%

2

14%

1

7%

Site Chronology

A bone weaving tablet is found stratified at Bishopstone [PF13] and two further possible stratified examples are present at West Stow [PF3] and Staunch Meadow [PF34].

The settlements date to all occupation phases excepting the Late Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.96). The Middle– Late Anglo-Saxon period is by far best represented and the Middle Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Textile processing spikes/points comprise five stratified and unstratified examples from Brandon Road [PF12] and two unstratified examples at Staunch Meadow [PF34].

Site Distribution The settlements are located in every region excepting the midlands (Fig. 4.97). The east is best represented and the north the least.

A possible weaving batten is found stratified at West Stow [PF3] and from Staunch Meadow [PF34] is an unstratified spear-shaped item that is either a weaving batten or a spearhead blade of Swanton Type G2 (Swanton 1973, 100–1; Tester et al 2014, 282) (Section 4.3.12).

Other Textile Items A small number of other textile-related items are recorded.

Figure 4.96. Wool/flax combs and heckles: site chronology.

95

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 4.97. Wool/flax combs and heckles: site distribution.

Metal Working

Site Distribution

This sub-section presents artefactual evidence for metal working (Appendix 3.11.2).

The settlements are located in all regions (Fig. 4.99). The east and the north are equally best represented and the south the least.

Slag

Metal Working Debris and Objects

Slag and associated metal working elements, such as hearth linings, are identified at 34 settlements (Table 4.49).

Metal working evidence encompassing casting, scrap, undisclosed/unidentified metal and c. 854 sheets and strips is found at all sites excepting Thirlings [PF20], Simy Folds [PF42] and Goltho [PF43] (Table 4.50).

Site Chronology The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.98). The Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period is ubiquitous and the Late Anglo-Saxon period is least represented.

Sheets and strips, including decorated examples and offcuts, are present at 39 sites. The group includes a metal

Table 4.49. Slag: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

34

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

33

97%

13

38%

1

3%

Figure 4.98. Slag: site chronology.

96

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character

Figure 4.99. Slag: site distribution. Table 4.50. Metal working debris and objects: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

41

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

40

98%

18

44%

4

10%

detected rolled gold sheet at Cottam [PF41] (Section 5.2.11).

ubiquitous and the Middle Anglo-Saxon period is least represented.

From 24 settlements are objects that may have become amorphous or fragmented through metal working processes, including a stratified silver hammered object from Brandon Road [PF12] (Section 5.2.11). Recognisable metal working waste, casting and scrap are present at 13 sites. A stratified silver rod fragment from Mucking [PF4] may also be indicative of metal working (Section 5.2.11).

Site Distribution The settlements are located in all regions (Fig. 4.101). Every region is ubiquitous excluding the north. Moulds, Crucibles and Ingots Recorded at nine settlements are c. 69 moulds and crucibles, containers for producing metal items at high temperatures, as well as ingots (Table 4.51).

Further Information Decoration

The assemblage comprises c. 59 moulds and crucibles made of metal, ceramic and stone from eight settlements and c. 10 ingots from three sites. The collection includes brooch crucibles at Carlton Colville [PF28] and a stratified squareheaded brooch mould of 6th century date from Mucking [PF4].

Decorated sheets and strips from the settlements are variously ornamented with patterns including ring and/ or dot punched and stamped variations as well as incised grooves or circular bosses (Appendix 4.19).

Site Chronology

A silver sheet found stratified at West Stow [PF3] has scrolls and stamped decoration (Section 5.2.11).

The settlements date to all occupation phases excepting the Late Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.102). The Early– Middle Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Early Anglo-Saxon period the least.

A copper-alloy fragment metal detected from Sutton Courtney/Drayton [PF27] is inlaid with either garnet or red glass (Section 5.2.11).

Site Distribution

Site Chronology

The settlements are located in three regions, excepting the southwest and the midlands (Fig. 4.103). The east is best represented and the north the least.

The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.100). The Late Anglo-Saxon period is 97

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 4.100. Metal working debris and objects: site chronology.

Figure 4.101. Metal working debris and objects: site distribution.

Table 4.51. Moulds, crucibles and ingots: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

9

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

9

100%

3

33%

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

various sawn, cut, shaved, polished and smoothed bone fragments, rings and antler tines.

Other Manufacturing Activities This sub-section covers artefactual evidence for other manufacturing activities (Appendix 3.11.3).

Potential evidence of glass production comprises melted glass, found unstratified at Spong Hill [PF15] and stratified at Springfield Lyons [PF45], possible glass manufacturing waste stratified at Barton Court Farm [PF5], a stratified possible bead making droplet from Yarnton [PF17] and a twisted glass rod at West Stow [PF3].

Manufacturing Debris (Non-metal) Nineteen settlements produce potential evidence of bone, glass, leather, pottery and wood working (Table 4.52).

Misfired pottery wasters are present at Bishopstone [PF13], indicating coarse ware production at the settlement (Thomas 2010, 87).

Worked bone fragments and offcuts are found stratified and unstratified at 17 settlements. The collection includes 98

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character

Figure 4.102. Moulds, crucibles and ingots: site chronology.

Figure 4.103. Moulds, crucibles and ingots: site distribution.

Table 4.52. Manufacturing debris (non-metal): artefact contexts Total sites represented:

19

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

18

95%

4

21%

Leather working is indicated at Yarnton [PF17] by nine stratified folded and non-stitched leather strips/offcuts, probably derived from calf.

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

Site Distribution The settlements are located in all regions (Fig. 4.105). The south and the southwest are equally best represented and the north the least.

A wood offcut is found stratified at Staunch Meadow [PF34], presumably highlighting wood working.

Other Manufacturing Evidence

Site Chronology

Other potential manufacturing evidence comprises pot stamps, firebars and a stamped pad.

The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.104). The Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Middle–Late AngloSaxon period the least.

Nine stratified and unstratified pot stamps, used for branding maker’s marks or signatures, are found at 99

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 4.104. Manufacturing debris (non-metal): site chronology.

Figure 4.105. Manufacturing debris (non-metal): site distribution.

4.3.12. Weaponry

West Stow [PF3] and from Brandon Road [PF12] is one stratified example. The West Stow [PF3] group includes a bone pot stamp cut into the end of an antler tine in the form of a cross with slightly unequal arms, and a ceramic trial stamp designed with a circle and a single cross with dots, surviving in three quadrants. The pot stamp at Brandon Road [PF12] is made of red deer antler.

This section covers weapons and weapon accessories (Appendix 3.12). Spearheads Some 15 spearheads are present at 12 settlements, including an example of uncertain date from Melford Meadows [PF7] and a spear- or arrowhead at Maxey [PF21] (Table 4.53). Spears were the most common Anglo-Saxon weapons, used by all social classes in warfare as missiles as well as in hand-to-hand combat (Underwood 1999, 23, 39, 46).

A clay fragment with wooden stamp impressions found stratified at Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27] likely served a similar manufactural labelling purpose to the pot stamps. Six firebar fragments, possibly kiln furniture, are found stratified at Mucking [PF4].

Further Information Typologies

An exceptional find from Staunch Meadow [PF34] is an unstratified lead disc-shaped object, interpreted as a stamped pad. To date, the pad is of a uniquely-tooled form in England and may have been used in the leather working process, as a backing for decorating either leather or nonferrous alloys (Tester et al 2014, 284–5).

Spearhead types are assigned at several settlements (Appendix 4.20). An angular spearhead of Swanton Type F1 (Swanton 1973, 91–3) is stratified at Barton Court Farm [PF5]. 100

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character Table 4.53. Spearheads: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

12

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

7

58%

4

33%

2

17%

A leaf-shaped spearhead of Swanton Type C1 or D1 (Swanton 1973, 49–51, 64–7), with a date range of the mid-6th–7th centuries, is stratified at Pennyland [PF19]. These forms were common blade types in use during the Anglo-Saxon period (Underwood 1999, 39–44).

Middle Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period the least. Site Distribution The settlements are located in three regions, excepting the southwest and the midlands (Fig. 4.107). The east and the north are equally best represented and the south the least.

A possible Swanton Type G2 spearhead is unstratified at Staunch Meadow [PF34], however this object may alternatively be a weaving batten (Swanton 1973, 100–1; Tester et al 2014, 282) (Section 4.3.11).

Spear Accessories

Site Chronology

The use of spears is further represented by the presence of up to seven spear accessories at five settlements (Table 4.54).

The settlements date to all occupation phases excepting the Late Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.106). The Early–

Figure 4.106. Spearheads: site chronology.

Figure 4.107. Spearheads: site distribution.

101

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements Table 4.54. Spear accessories: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

5

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

5

100%

1

20%

The assemblage comprises: spear sockets at Pennyland [PF19], Carlton Colville [PF28], Staunch Meadow [PF34] and a possible example from Mucking [PF4]; an unstratified spear collar and a stratified possible spear ferrule at Staunch Meadow [PF34]; and a spear butt and a second spear or staff butt stratified at Radley Barrow Hills [PF1].

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

Arrowheads Around 23 arrowheads are found at 11 sites, including a possible example from Collingbourne Ducis [PF38] and a spear- or arrowhead at Maxey [PF21] (Table 4.55). The assemblage includes a small stratified arrowhead at Chalton [PF25].

Site Chronology The settlements date to three occupation phases, excepting the Middle–Late and Late Anglo-Saxon periods (Fig. 4.108). The Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Early Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Further Information Forms Three leaf-shaped and three barbed arrowheads found unstratified at Middle Harling [PF40] are of possible Anglo-Saxon date. Leaf-shaped and barbed arrowheads were common Anglo-Saxon types which likely evolved from hunting arrows (Underwood 1999, 29).

Site Distribution The settlements are located in south and east England (Fig. 4.109). The south is best represented and the east the least.

Figure 4.108. Spear accessories: site chronology.

Figure 4.109. Spear accessories: site distribution.

102

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character Table 4.55. Arrowheads: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

11

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

8

73%

3

27%

1

9%

Site Chronology

Seaxes

The settlements date to all occupation phases excepting the Middle Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.110). The Early– Middle Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Late Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Five settlements each produce a seax (curved AngloSaxon knife), including a likely example from Catholme [PF36] (Table 4.56). The stratified and unstratified seaxes from Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27], Staunch Meadow [PF34] and the likely example from Catholme [PF36] are otherwise undistinguished. The stratified seax from West Cotton [PF9] comes from the Late Anglo-Saxon occupation of the site (AD950–1100) and can be dated to the 11th century.

Site Distribution The settlements are located in every region excepting the midlands (Fig. 4.111). The southwest is best represented and the south the least.

Figure 4.110. Arrowheads: site chronology.

Figure 4.111. Arrowheads: site distribution.

103

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements Table 4.56. Seaxes: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

5

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

3

60%

2

40%

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

Further Information

Site Distribution

Decoration

The settlements are located in three regions, excepting the southwest and the north (Fig. 4.113). The midlands is best represented and the east the least.

A seax found unstratified at Yarnton [PF17] of c. 8th–10th centuries date is pattern-welded and the high-quality workmanship indicates that it is a prestigious item (Hey 2004, 282–3) (Section 5.2.11).

Sword Parts and Accessories Six sword accessories are present at four settlements, including a possible example at Orton Hall Farm [PF8] (Table 4.57). Swords themselves were weapons broadly reserved for the upper ranks of Anglo-Saxon hierarchy and are uncommon finds on Anglo-Saxon excavation sites (Underwood 1999, 39; Tester et al 2014, 266).

Site Chronology The settlements date to all occupation phases excepting the Early Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.112). The Middle Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Early– Middle Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Figure 4.112. Seaxes: site chronology.

Figure 4.113. Seaxes: site distribution.

104

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character Table 4.57. Sword parts and accessories: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

4

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

3

75%

1

25%

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

The assemblage includes a scabbard binding from Carlton Colville [PF28] and a scabbard chape from Spong Hill [PF15], both stratified. These items were used to protect the sword from wear and tear (Underwood 1999, 58–9). A decorated possible scabbard chape found stratified at Orton Hall Farm [PF8], dating c. the first half of the 6th century, is alternatively a strap end (Mackreth 1996, 103–4). Three sword parts are present at Staunch Meadow [PF34]. The group comprises a stratified sword pommel (decorative fitting) of Petersen Type H (Petersen 1919, 89–100), which is a fine decorated and silver-inlaid item. The lower guard of a sword hilt, also stratified at the site, is further inlaid and decorated (Section 5.2.11). A second sword hilt guard found unstratified is a plainer item (Tester et al 2014, 265–6).

Site Chronology

Further Information

The assemblage includes stratified shield fittings at Carlton Colville [PF28] and Market Lavington [PF14], with the latter site further producing a shield stud. Also from Carlton Colville [PF28] are a stratified shield boss apex and a fine silvered gunmetal shield mount (Section 5.2.11). These items were commonly fixed to the central shield area for grip and impact absorption (Underwood 1999, 81–2). Possible shield mounts of likely Early Anglo-Saxon date are present at Barton Court Farm [PF5] and West Cotton [PF9], found stratified and unstratified respectively.

The settlements date to the Early and Middle Anglo-Saxon centuries (Fig. 4.114). The Middle Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period the least. Site Distribution The settlements are located in east England (Fig. 4.115). Shield Accessories Up to eight shield accessories are found at four settlements (Table 4.58).

Typologies A sword pommel found stratified at Staunch Meadow [PF34] is assigned as a Petersen Type H (Petersen 1919, 89–100). Decoration A possible scabbard chape found stratified at Orton Hall Farm [PF8] is decorated with raised bosses, dots and rosettes.

Further Information Forms

A fine sword pommel found stratified at Staunch Meadow [PF34] is inlaid with silver-alloy and decorated with vertical grooves (Section 5.2.11).

A possible shield mount found stratified at Barton Court Farm [PF5] is silvered and of fish-shaped plate form, a

Figure 4.114. Sword parts and accessories: site chronology.

105

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 4.115. Sword parts and accessories: site distribution. Table 4.58. Shield accessories: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

4

Stratified:

Unstratified:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

4

100%

No. of sites present

typical shield mount design (Miles 1986, 18; Dickinson 2005, 127–9, 132).

Metal detected: % of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

Site Distribution The settlements are located in every region excepting the north (Fig. 4.117). The midlands is best represented and the east the least.

Decoration A possible copper-alloy shield mount found unstratified at West Cotton [PF9] is decorated with repoussé dots forming concentric circles and straight lines. It is stylistically similar to Early Anglo-Saxon shield mounts commonly used as grave goods (Chapman 2010, 337).

Missile Weapons and Missiles A bone rectangular perforated mount found stratified at West Fen Road [PF39] may have been an archer’s wrist guard. The bow and arrow was an effective missile weapon used in Anglo-Saxon warfare and hunting, although the discovery of archery equipment is uncommon in England (Underwood 1999, 26–8).

Site Chronology The settlements date to the Early and Middle Anglo-Saxon centuries (Fig. 4.116). The Early Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period the least.

A javelin blade is metal detected from Middle Harling [PF40].

Figure 4.116. Shield accessories: site chronology.

106

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character

Figure 4.117. Shield accessories: site distribution.

Missiles comprise three stratified ceramic slingshots from Lechlade [PF16] and an unstratified roughly spherical stone from Cottam [PF41] which is probably a ballista ball or similar projectile.

and Clark Type 2 (narrow, thick iron bar) examples are recorded in various contexts (Clark 2004, 85–6).

4.3.13. Animal Equipment

The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.118). The Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Early Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Site Chronology

The section covers animal equipment, namely equestrian gear and bells (Section 5.2.8; Appendix 3.13).

Site Distribution

Horseshoes and Horseshoe Nails

The settlements are located in every region excepting the southwest (Fig. 4.119). The east and the midlands are equally best represented and the south the least.

Some 42 horseshoes and six horseshoe nails derive from 10 settlements, including a possible horseshoe fragment from Springfield Lyons [PF45] (Table 4.59).

Bridle Equipment

The assemblage includes a group of 28 mostly unstratified horseshoes from West Cotton [PF9], of which several are identified as of 11th century date. Both horseshoes and horseshoe nails are found stratified and unstratified at Radley Barrow Hills [PF1] and Riby Cross Roads [PF32]. Two unstratified fiddle-key horseshoe nails of Late AngloSaxon or medieval date are identifiable at Brandon Road [PF12], although no horseshoes have been found at the settlement. Horseshoes are also absent from Orton Hall Farm [PF8], however a stratified frost nail, driven into a horseshoe to prevent the animal from slipping, comes from the site.

Around 20 bridle (horse headgear) components are identifiable at nine settlements, as well as perhaps Melford Meadows [PF7] where an unstratified iron ring may be part of a bridle bit (Table 4.60). The assemblage includes bridle snaffle bits from five sites and, from Yarnton [PF17], a metal detected fine enamelled Hiberno-Viking stud that may have been an elaborate horse bridle fitting (Hey 2004, 89, 286) (Sections 4.3.6, 5.2.11, 7.5.3). Further Information

Further Information

Decoration

Typologies

A bridal cheek of Anglo-Scandinavian type found unstratified at Raunds Furnells [PF6] is decorated with enlarged bosses (Section 6.3.10).

Two horseshoe types are assigned at Staunch Meadow [PF34], where several Clark Type 1 (rounded and broad) Table 4.59. Horseshoes and horseshoe nails: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

10

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Stratified:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

7

70%

5

50%

107

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 4.118. Horseshoes and horseshoe nails: site chronology.

Figure 4.119. Horseshoes and horseshoe nails: site distribution.

Site Chronology

Abingdon [PF24] and a stratified harness fitting from Riby Cross Roads [PF32].

The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.120). The Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Early Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Further Information Decoration

Site Distribution

A harness bit of Anglo-Scandinavian type found unstratified at Raunds Furnells [PF6] has boss ornament (Section 6.3.10).

The settlements are located in three regions, excepting the southwest and the north (Fig. 4.121). The midlands is best represented and the south the least.

Site Chronology The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.122). The Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period is by far best represented and the Early–Middle AngloSaxon period the least.

Harness, Belt and Spur Fittings Some 12 harness, belt or spur equestrian fittings are recorded at nine settlements, as well as a possible harness leather clip at Riverdene [PF35] (Table 4.61).

Site Distribution

The assemblage includes a stratified belt-side spur strap from Bishopstone [PF13], a stratified spur fitting at

The settlements are located in every region excepting the 108

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character Table 4.60. Bridle equipment: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

9

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

4

44%

6

67%

1

11%

Figure 4.120. Bridle equipment: site chronology.

Figure 4.121. Bridle equipment: site distribution.

Table 4.61. Harness, belt and spur fittings: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

9

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

7

78%

3

33%

1

11%

109

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 4.122. Harness, belt and spur fittings: site chronology.

midlands (Fig. 4.123). The north is best represented and the east the least.

Further Information Decoration

Spurs

An iron spur found stratified at Middle Harling [PF40] has unusual curled-round terminals.

Six settlements produce seven spurs, spikes worn on a rider’s heel (Table 4.62).

Site Chronology

The assemblage comprises stratified undecorated spurs from Raunds Furnells [PF6], Bishopstone [PF13], West Fen Road [PF39] and Springfield Lyons [PF45]. From Market Lavington [PF14] is an unstratified fine white metal plated spur of c. 10th–11th centuries date (Section 5.2.11).

The settlements date to the Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon centuries (Fig. 4.124). The Late Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Figure 4.123. Harness, belt and spur fittings: site distribution. Table 4.62. Spurs: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

6

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

5

83%

1

17%

110

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character

Figure 4.124. Spurs: site chronology.

of 7th–9th centuries date is present at Riby Cross Roads [PF32] and from Mucking [PF4] is a stratified possible iron bell-clapper.

Site Distribution The settlements are located in every region excepting the north (Fig. 4.125). The midlands is best represented and the south the least.

Site Chronology The settlements date to the Early and Middle Anglo-Saxon centuries (Fig. 4.126). The Early–Middle AngloSaxon period is best represented and the Middle Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Bells and Bell-Clappers Twenty-nine bells and two bell-clappers are found at four settlements (Table 4.63). The assemblage includes 28 iron and copper-alloy bells from stratified and unstratified contexts at Staunch Meadow [PF34], some which may have served pastoral purposes. From Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27] is a stratified cow bell. An unstratified small bell-clapper

Site Distribution The settlements are located in three regions, excepting the southwest and the midlands (Fig. 4.127). The north is best represented and the south the least.

Figure 4.125. Spurs: site distribution. Table 4.63. Bells and bell-clappers: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

4

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

3

75%

2

50%

111

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 4.126. Bells and bell-clappers: site chronology.

Figure 4.127. Bells and bell-clappers: site distribution.

Stirrup and Strap Mounts

Decoration

Five stirrup and strap mounts, attached to horse stirrups, derive from three settlements occupied in the Middle–Late and Late Anglo-Saxon periods: Raunds Furnells [PF6] and West Cotton [PF9], located in the midlands, and Middle Harling [PF40], situated in east England.

All of the mounts are finely manufactured or decorated (Appendix 4.21). A near-complete stirrup of 10th–11th centuries date found unstratified at Raunds Furnells [PF6] is tin plated and embellished with three bosses. The stirrup is of AngloScandinavian type and may have formed a set with the harness bit and bridal cheek from the site which also have bossed decoration (Audouy & Chapman 2009, 199) (Section 6.3.10).

Further Information Typologies A stirrup-strap mount metal detected from West Cotton [PF9] is assigned as a Williams Class B Type (Williams 1997, 94). It is given an 11th century date by Williams, however subsequent research has suggested that these stirrup-strap mount types can be more likely dated to the period c. 1070–1140 (Williams 1997, 85; Lewis 2007, 182, 184).

A Williams Class B Type stirrup-strap mount metal detected from West Cotton [PF9] is decorated with striking zoomorphic ornamentation defined as Williams Type 2 Group 6, with symmetrical animal heads protruding sideways and a raised central motif with another animal head (Williams 1997, 94; Chapman 2010, 408). Three sub-triangular objects which may have been stirrup mounts found unstratified at Middle Harling [PF40] are 112

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character ornamented. One of the mounts has traces of silver wire inlay and is decorated with interlaced animals in Ringerike style, a Scandinavian design characteristic of the 10th–11th centuries (Sections 5.2.11, 6.3.10). A second example from the site is also a fine item, ornamented with animal-headed terminals and with the remains of silver and niello wire inlay (Section 5.2.11). The third possible stirrup mount from Middle Harling [PF40] has an unusual crudely engraved face-mask (Rogerson 1995, 66).

This section encompasses artefacts associated with trading activities (Section 5.2.10; Appendices 3.14.1–3.14.2).

single finds. Only two coins are from stratified sequences, with the remaining 76 from unstratified and metal detected contexts. This includes the hoard of King Beonna of East Anglia comprising c. 50 coins dating AD757–96 (Rogerson 1995, 46–8, 88). Cottam [PF41] has the second largest assemblage, with 31 coins from stratified and metal detected contexts. Also from Cottam [PF41] is a plain metal circular disc that may be an extremely worn coin or perhaps a trade token. Staunch Meadow [PF3 4] and Sutton Courtenay/ Drayton [PF27] produce 20 and 13 coins respectively, deriving from stratified, unstratified and metal detected contexts. Assemblages of five coins or less are present at the remaining nine settlements, with five sites producing just one coin each, some which may have been chance losses.

Coins

Site Chronology

Thirteen settlements produce 161 coins of Anglo-Saxon date from stratified, unstratified and metal detected contexts (Table 4.64; Appendix 3.14.1). Coinage is discussed in a regio-economic context in Chapter 6 (Section 6.3.1).

The settlements date to all occupation phases excepting the Early Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.128). This corresponds with the period of Anglo-Saxon currency production, from the 7th–later 11th centuries (Sawyer 2013, 3–6; Costen & Costen 2016, 6–7). The Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Middle Anglo-Saxon period the least.

4.3.14. Trade and Exchange

The assemblage is diverse, including sceattas, stycas and pennies of various series and designs which were minted across the country, from Devon to York. Four settlements produce confirmed or probable imported coins: at Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27] are three ‘porcupine’ sceattas likely from the Dorestad/Rhine mouth area; from Middle Harling [PF40] is a Kufic dirham imitation (c. AD893–902); at Brandon Road [PF12] is a possible Jutish sceat; and from Riby Cross Roads [PF32] is a probable Frisian sceat.

Site Distribution The settlements are located in all regions (Fig. 4.129). The east is best represented and the south the least. Coin Equipment, Measuring Weights and Vessel

The largest individual site collection by far is from Middle Harling [PF40], comprising a hoard of c. 50 coins and 28

Examples of economic measuring apparatus and coin equipment are present at eight settlements (Table 4.65; Appendix 3.14.2).

Table 4.64. Coins: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

13

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

10

77%

5

38%

4

31%

Figure 4.128. Coins: site chronology.

113

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 4.129. Coins: site distribution. Table 4.65. Coin equipment, measuring weights and vessel: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

8

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

6

75%

2

25%

1

13%

Site Chronology

The assemblage includes five equal armed/equipoise weights and a scale pan, used for calculating and weighing commodities, as well as weights. Godmanchester [PF11] and Brandon Road [PF12] each produce one stratified equal armed/equipoise weight. From West Stow [PF3] is an unstratified balance beam, at Orsett Cock [PF18] is a stratified balance arm and from Middle Harling [PF40] is an unstratified folding balance arm of likely Anglo-Saxon date. A stratified circular copper-alloy scale pan from West Fen Road [PF39] was probably used for coin weighing (Appendix 3.14.2). Scale pans were suspended for balance to check the weights of coins or other metal items functioning as currency (Kruse 1992, 68–70). At Cottam [PF41] are a number of unstratified lead weights of Viking/Scandinavian type, ranging from 8.42–94.89g, that are likely to have been scale weights, used with beam balances for weighing staple commodities or possibly bullion (Richards 1999a, 9–10, 92; Haldenby & Kershaw 2014, 112–3, 117). West Stow [PF3] also produces a stratified possible fired clay coin mould, however it may be of Iron Age date.

The settlements date to three occupation phases, excepting the Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon periods (Fig. 4.130). The Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period the least. Site Distribution The settlements are located in east and north England (Fig. 4.131). The regions are equally represented. 4.3.15. Literacy This section covers artefacts likely associated with reading and writing (Section 5.2.12; Appendix 3.15). Writing Implements Up to 13 writing implements are present at six settlements (Table 4.66).

At Riby Cross Roads [PF32] is a curious stratified lead vessel or small tank (Steedman 1994, 268). A comparative study of the mathematical dimensions and volumes of the vessel, in terms of imperial dry and liquid measurements, with similar examples from other Anglo-Saxon sites has resulted in the plausible suggestion that the vessel may have been used for assessing standard measures (Cowgill 2009, 269–71; Malone 2010, 160–1). The casting and jointing of the vessel from Riby Cross Roads [PF32] are such that it is not water-tight, however it could have been used for weighing, measuring and/or transporting staple dry crops or seeds (Cowgill 2009, 272–3).

The assemblage includes 10 potential styli from five settlements. West Stow [PF3] produces a stratified stylus and Staunch Meadow [PF34] three stratified examples. At Orton Hall Farm [PF8], two possible styli fragments come from stratified Anglo-Saxon deposits and another two, of either Roman or Anglo-Saxon date, are unstratified. A possible stylus head is stratified at Carlton Colville [PF28] and another potential stylus, of likely Late Anglo-Saxon date, is stratified at West Fen Road [PF39]. 114

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character

Figure 4.130. Coin equipment, measuring weights and vessel: site chronology.

Figure 4.131. Coin equipment, measuring weights and vessel: site distribution.

A possible bone parchment pricker found stratified at West Fen Road [PF39] would originally have had a metal point. Parchment prickers are thought to have been used to establish ruling lines on parchment by the creation of guide holes in the sheet margins (Biddle 1990, 733–5).

Late Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period the least. Site Distribution The settlements are located in east and north England (Fig. 4.133). The east is best represented and the north the least.

Two possible stone ‘slate’ pencils found unstratified at Cottam [PF41] were perhaps used for writing on slate boards (Richards 1999a, 67).

Writing Accessories

Further Information

Three settlements, all located in east England, produce confirmed or possible writing accessories: Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon Brandon Road [PF12], Middle Anglo-Saxon Staunch Meadow [PF34] and Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon Middle Harling [PF40] (Section 5.2.12).

Decoration A stylus found stratified at Staunch Meadow [PF34] is ornamented with incised lines and a second stratified example from the site is decorated with mouldings.

From Staunch Meadow [PF34] are nine variously stratified and unstratified glass inkwell sherds, some coloured or decorated, as well as a stratified inscribed antler inkwell. Stratified at Brandon Road [PF12] is a likely iron book page clip, which is a fine item with white-metal inlay (Atkins & Connor 2010, 53) (Section 5.2.11). From

Site Chronology The settlements date to all occupation phases excepting the Late Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.132). The Middle– 115

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements Table 4.66. Writing implements: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

6

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

5

83%

2

33%

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

Figure 4.132. Writing implements: site chronology.

Figure 4.133. Writing implements: site distribution.

Middle Harling [PF40] are six unstratified decorated repoussé strips of likely 8th or 9th century date that may have been book mounts. Further Information

chasing hares, ducks, oval bosses, foliage and/or trefoils. These designs are probably based on Roman artistic styles and, if the strips are book mounts, the decoration could be interpreted as an artistic reference to traditional Roman/ Latin literacy culture (Rogerson 1995, 65).

Decoration

Inscriptions

A possible iron book page clip found stratified at Brandon Road [PF12] is inlaid with white-metal and has decorative leaf-shaped terminals (Section 5.2.11).

An antler inkwell found stratified at Staunch Meadow [PF34] bears an incomplete runic inscription (Section 5.2.12):

Six potential repoussé book mount strips found unstratified at Middle Harling [PF40] are decorated with hounds

w o h s w i l d u m d e o (..) (Tester et al 2014, 262). 116

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character 4.3.16. Amusement

piece, also of likely Anglo-Scandinavian date, is perforated for reuse as a spindlewhorl (Section 5.2.13).

This section encompasses artefacts associated with leisurely pursuits (Appendix 3.16).

Further Information

Counters and Gaming Pieces

Decoration

Up to 45 ceramic, bone, glass and stone counters and gaming pieces derive from 10 settlements (Table 4.67).

A bone gaming piece of possible Anglo-Scandinavian date found unstratified at Raunds Furnells [PF6] is decorated with ring-and-dots (Section 6.3.10).

The assemblage includes c. 17 gaming counters fashioned from reused Roman pottery sherds, found at five settlements of Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon date and possibly Market Lavington [PF14]. Roman sherds could be collected in various states of fragmentation and easily shaped into counters, accounting for the significant proportion of examples found (Section 5.2.13). Eight of the recycled counters are from Radley Barrow Hills [PF1] and four from Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27].

Site Chronology The settlements date to three occupation phases, excepting the Middle and Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon periods (Fig. 4.134). The Early Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Late Anglo-Saxon period the least. Site Distribution

Further present is a stratified well-smoothed bone counter of high workmanship from Chalton [PF25] and six unfinished bone gaming pieces found stratified at West Stow [PF3]. At Raunds Furnells [PF6] are three bone gaming pieces. The two stratified examples, from the Anglo-Scandinavian occupation phase of the settlement (AD850–900/950), are hemispherical with flat bases and have a rectangular hole, one with iron peg remnants surviving within it. The forms could be indicative of Scandinavian influence, as an example of a pierced gaming board on which such gaming pieces were used is known at the Viking settlement of Ballinderry, Ireland (Beresford 1987, 176) (Section 6.3.10). The third unstratified gaming

The settlements are located in all regions (Fig. 4.135). The midlands is best represented and the north the least. Other Amusement Items Three bone ice skates are stratified at West Fen Road [PF39] in Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon contexts. Ice skates have been found at contemporary settlements including Anglo-Scandinavian York (Mainman & Rogers 2000, 2463). A possible metal whistle found stratified at West Stow [PF3] could have served several functions, including the making of (rudimentary) music.

Table 4.67. Counters and gaming pieces: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

10

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

9

90%

4

40%

Figure 4.134. Counters and gaming pieces: site chronology.

117

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 4.135. Counters and gaming pieces: site distribution.

4.3.18. Building Material

A copper-alloy figure found stratified at Carlton Colville [PF28] is possibly a toy horse figure or alternatively a mount.

This section presents an overview of building material (Table 4.68; Appendix 3.18). The evidence confirms that settlement buildings and structures were variously constructed using brick, tile, stone and timber as well as in the traditional Anglo-Saxon wattle and daub form.

4.3.17. Disarticulated Human Bone Disarticulated human bone derives from refuse or secondary/backfilled archaeological features at nine settlements (Section 5.2.15; Appendices 3.17, 4.23).

Stone Building/Structural Material Building and structural stone, including likely reused Roman material, is recorded at 19 sites (Section 5.2.13). The vast majority of structures at the settlements were not made entirely from stone, with stone buildings only identified at West Cotton [PF9], Simy Folds [PF42] and Mawgan Porth [PF44]. The collection includes slabs, blocks or floor paving from 11 settlements. Stone and worked stone fragments, some deriving from building material, are recorded at 15 sites, including a granite door pivot from Mawgan Porth [PF44] and a possible door rebate block of oolitic limestone at Cowdery’s Down [PF22]. Limestone pieces are present at Bishopstone [PF13], Market Lavington [PF14] and Cottam [PF41]. The use of stone materials for constructional purposes is various, such as beach pebbles apparently used as floor surfacing in a building [I] at Bishopstone [PF13] and a Niedermendig lava quern of Anglo-Saxon date from Staunch Meadow [PF34] used as post-packing for the pad of a building [5390].

Known Anglo-Saxon cemeteries are situated near at least six of the settlements, excepting Orton Hall Farm [PF8], Pitstone [PF33] and possibly Brandon Road [PF12]. Two child leg bones and foetus/neonate remains from Brandon Road [PF12] are possibly associated with an Early AngloSaxon child burial [858]/[859] at the settlement, situated in proximity to the enclosure ditch [2205] and midden [2315] in which the disarticulated bones derive. In the cases of Orton Hall Farm [PF8] and Pitstone [PF33], it can be postulated that isolated individual or small groups of burials were situated in close proximity to the settlements. Neonates, infants, children and female/male adults are represented in the assemblage, as well as undisclosed fragments. The group includes four adult skull/cranial fragments, as well as child and adult radius and humerus bone fragments. Site Chronology The settlements date to all occupation phases excepting the Late Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.136). The Middle Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Early Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Bricks/Tiles Brick/tile fragments identified as of Anglo-Saxon date are present at eight settlements. Primary structural contexts include building pads, floor surfaces and tiles used in the construction of hearths and ovens, such as at Melford Meadows [PF7] and Cottenham [PF37]. From Staunch Meadow [PF34], an unquantified number of Roman tiles are reused in building paving and padding, ovens, hearths and a floor surface (Section 5.2.13).

Site Distribution The settlements are located in every region excepting the southwest (Fig. 4.137). The midlands and the north are equally best represented and the south the least. 118

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character

Figure 4.136. Disarticulated human bone: site chronology.

Figure 4.137. Disarticulated human bone: site distribution. Table 4.68. Building/construction material: artefact contexts Total sites represented:

42

Stratified:

Unstratified:

Metal detected:

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

No. of sites present

% of total sites represented

38

90%

15

36%

2

5%

window glass can therefore not be confidently associated with any Anglo-Saxon building/s at the settlement. At the high-status site of Staunch Meadow [PF34], the majority of window glass also comes from secondary deposits, however a number of sherds are present within a post-built building [8118] of early 8th–late 9th centuries date (Tester et al 2014, 87). The paucity of the assemblage highlights that window glass was not a common building material within Anglo-Saxon rural settlements (Section 7.4).

Un/fired Clay and Daub Largely undiagnostic fired and unfired clay fragments come from 24 settlements and it is likely that many pieces were originally building material. Daub is documented at 20 sites. Window Glass Window glass of Anglo-Saxon date is identifiable at two settlements. At Market Lavington [PF14], 73 fragments of mixed window and glass vessel sherds derive from undisclosed medieval and post-medieval contexts. The

Ladder-Like Object From Yarnton [PF17] is a ladder-like object made of oak, hazel or alder, found in a backfilled well [3029]. The 119

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements object may have once been part of a larger timber building/ structure, perhaps serving as a window frame or similar (Hey 2004, 295–7).

BC–AD43) dates. Items that may have been curated in the Anglo-Saxon period due to their distinctiveness and/or perceived value include La Tène brooches from Mucking [PF4], Melford Meadows [PF7] and Orton Hall Farm [PF8], a large dark blue annular glass bead of Late Iron Age date from Poundbury [PF10] and an Iron Age coin from Middle Harling [PF40]. The coin, depicting a horse facing towards the west, is the base-metal core of a gold stater forgery and has thin gold remnants surviving (Rogerson 1995, 48).

4.3.19. Prehistoric Artefacts Prehistoric artefacts are recorded at 33 settlements, although it is unclear how many of these objects were in use during the Anglo-Saxon period (Appendix 3.19.1). All except five of the settlements have evidence of earlier prehistoric activity, ranging from scattered finds to field systems and prehistoric settlements (Appendix 3.19.2).

Site Chronology The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.139). The Early Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Late Anglo-Saxon period the least.

The assemblage is dominated by worked flint and pottery (Fig. 4.138). Residual worked flint, recovered at 22 sites, includes scrapers, blades, axes and awls. Pottery is present at 17 settlements and possibly Cowdery’s Down [PF22], where sherds are interpreted as of Iron Age or Roman date. The collection spans much of the prehistoric period in Britain, comprising pottery of Neolithic (c. 4000–2500 BC), Bronze Age (c. 2500–800 BC) and Iron Age (c. 800

Site Distribution The settlements are located in every region excepting the midlands (Fig. 4.140). The east is best represented and the north the least.

Figure 4.138. Prehistoric assemblage: artefact site/percentage totals.

Figure 4.139. Prehistoric artefacts: site chronology.

120

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character

Figure 4.140. Prehistoric artefacts: site distribution.

4.3.20. Roman Artefacts

The large assemblage is diverse in terms of artefact forms, including coins, pottery, personal adornment items such as brooches, bracelets and pins, knives, keys, tools, Niedermendig lava querns, glass vessels and beads (Fig. 4.141; Appendices 3.20.1–3.20.3).

the Anglo-Saxon period is evidenced, with more than 240 recycled Roman objects identifiable at 16 sites (Section 5.2.13). Forming the bulk of the assemblage are c. 130 reused Roman pottery sherds, present at 13 settlements. Regarding patterns of reuse, the pottery sherds have been cut, shaped and perforated to form a variety of objects such as spindlewhorls and counters. Other recycled objects include 97 Roman coins from six sites. Ninety of these examples derive from West Stow [PF3] which produces a total assemblage of c. 289 Roman coins. Some 40 coins from five of the sites, including West Stow [PF3], had been pierced, likely for reuse as pendants (Section 4.3.5). Other coins from the large assemblage at West Stow [PF3] had been variously nicked, clipped, hammered or abraded during the Anglo-Saxon period (Curnow 1985, 76–81).

Much of the Roman material cannot be specifically associated with Anglo-Saxon activity, however some trends of reuse and the curation of Roman artefacts during

The large size of the Roman total coin assemblage– comprising over 700 examples from 25 settlements– indicates that the coins retained a degree of worth and

Roman artefacts are recorded at 43 settlements (Appendices 3.20.1–3.20.4). Twenty-eight of the sites have evidence of earlier Roman activity, ranging from isolated finds to burials and settlements (Appendix 3.20.4). Roman artefacts are only absent from Thirlings [PF20] and Simy Folds [PF42], both settlements with small total finds assemblages and with no recorded previous Roman activity on site (Appendix 3.20.4).

Figure 4.141. Roman assemblage: artefact site/percentage totals.

121

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements personal value in the Anglo-Saxon period, although separated from the monied economy introduced in the early 7th century. While some archaeological evidence suggests that Roman bronze coins may have continued to be exchanged in certain areas of Anglo-Saxon England (i.e. Andrews 1988, 10, 25; Williams 2006, 159–63), it is generally accepted that the circulation of Roman coins had ceased in a monetary sense by the c. mid-5thcentury (Perring 2002, 52–6; Blackburn 2011, 592). Alternative uses for Roman coins include the modified likely pendant examples described above and, from Barton Court Farm [PF5], the deliberate deposition of Roman coins within two Anglo-Saxon burials, [258] and [271] (Section 5.2.15).

Cotton [PF9] (Section 7.2). It can be theorised that Roman objects were easier to acquire, and thus remained in greater circulation, in the immediate centuries following the end of the Roman period in Britain. Site Distribution The settlements are located in all regions (Fig. 4.143). Every region is ubiquitous excluding the north. 4.3.21. Conclusions The catalogue of material culture from the 45 sites presented in Section 4.3 reveals comparative trends of artefactual type, use and demand, as well as chronological and geographical patterns.

Site Chronology The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 4.142). The Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period is ubiquitous and the Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period is least represented. Overall, greater numbers of Roman artefacts are found at settlements of Early and Middle Anglo-Saxon dates, including the occupation phases at five of the six multi-phase sites, excluding West

In terms of quantity, the Anglo-Saxon material culture assemblages range in size from single examples to a few hundred as well as several thousand (Fig. 4.144). However, most assemblages total less than 100 artefacts; 17 collections are greater than this in size. The building material and slag assemblages could not be quantified

Figure 4.142. Roman artefacts: site chronology.

Figure 4.143. Roman artefacts: site distribution.

122

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character

Figure 4.144. Anglo-Saxon artefact quantities from the settlements (simplified).

The loomweight and fixtures assemblages are also comparatively large in size, producing over 1000 artefacts each in estimation and deriving from 39 and 41 settlements respectively (Sections 4.3.10–4.3.11). The fixtures collection comprises implements that share practical usage although range in type, such as nails, staples, washers and ferrules, and which are found in differing individual quantities. These assemblages indicate the prevalence of utilitarian and textile working activities at the settlements, also supported by a number of the other larger artefact collections. Regarding practical endeavours, a range of c. 400 fittings are found at 39 sites and c. 165 hone and sharpener fragments at 20 settlements (Section 4.3.10). The frequent undertaking of textile working is further highlighted by the discovery of close to 400 spindlewhorl pieces at 40 settlements and c. 132 pinbeaters at up to 21 sites (Section 4.3.11).

with confidence as, where such information was provided, weighed amounts were more frequently given than artefact totals. The assemblage variations reflect, to differing degrees, the quantification issues encountered in the study and the limitations of the data. Complexities include the omission or approximation of artefact totals, difficulties of identifying similar sherds/fragments as deriving from the same item, as well as incidences of artefactual survival due to archaeological investigation approaches and/or taphonomic processes (Sections 3.2.3, 3.3). Bearing in mind such limitations, it is evident that an assortment of artefacts predominantly identified as cooking, eating, drinking, serving and/or storage items are by far most commonly found at the settlements, with over 163,000 objects recorded at most sites, primarily due to the sizes of the pottery assemblages produced (Section 4.3.1). Given the vast size of this collection, the other artefact classes excluding querns represent c. 1% or less each of the total material culture assemblage from the settlements, reflecting a strong statistical representation of minority objects and highlighting the dominance of pottery at the sites. However, it can be argued that all the artefact collections regardless of size provide a level of insight into rural settlement life.

Metal sheets and strips comprise the fifth largest assemblage, with c. 854 objects from 39 settlements, examples of which include offcuts and likely indicate metal working, an activity frequently demonstrated by other artefactual evidence (Section 4.3.11). The sixth largest artefact group is knives, with c. 515 examples identified at 40 sites, indicating the common occurrence and use of these items at rural settlements (Section 4.3.2).

Querns form the second largest assemblage, with the discovery of more than 4500 pieces at 39 sites, pointing towards the commonness of crop processing at many settlements (Section 4.3.10). The total is strongly influenced by Carlton Colville [PF28] and West Fen Road [PF39], which each produce quern collections amounting to the thousands, however the number of whole querns represented by the fragments from the sites could not be determined.

The other outstanding assemblages in terms of quantity are varied in use. Close to 400 pins, used for purposes such as ornamentation and clothing attachments, are found at 25 settlements (Section 4.3.5). The importance and possible preferred styles of personal adornment is further supported by the beads and brooches assemblages, which total c. 173 and c. 143 items respectively, each deriving from 22 sites (Section 4.3.5). The significance of grooming is 123

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements within an economic context in Chapter 6. The occurrence of weaponry and equestrian equipment– objects traditionally associated with warriors and the elite– could be indicative of the social status or wealth of individuals linked to the settlements (Sections 5.2.6, 5.2.8, 7.4). Weapons and accessories are present at 24 settlements, over half of the sample set, illustrating that arms are more frequently present in archaeological contexts beyond Anglo-Saxon cemeteries than traditionally thought (Härke 1990, 28–33, 42–3). The equestrian assemblage derives from 20 settlements, almost half of the sample set, and suggests that the ownership of horses (for riding) may have been more frequent amongst the populace of rural England than commonly believed (i.e. Sundkvist 2004, 241–3; Pollington et al 2010, 409–12; Mortimer 2011, 278).

evidenced by the combs collection, with c. 290 examples documented at 29 settlements (Section 4.3.9). Dress accessorising is also highlighted, with more than 100 strap ends and hair/dress pins found at 20 and 11 settlements respectively (Section 4.3.6). Finally, the discovery of 161 coins of various Anglo-Saxon date at 13 sites evidence currency circulation and demonstrate the participation of rural settlements in exchange and trade networks (Section 4.3.14). The remaining assemblages variously comprise single items to less than 100 objects. The artefact types, uses and functions represented are diverse and further examples of the activities represented by the larger assemblages discussed above are also evidenced.

More than 60 items that may be considered prestigious, variously manufactured and/or decorated with precious metals or stones, are present at 17 settlements (Sections 3.2.6, 5.2.11). The artefacts range from weapons and equestrian equipment to jewellery and objects such as mounts. Most items come from the high-status site of Staunch Meadow [PF34], included as a control sample to provide contrast to the non-elite settlements (Section 3.2.2). However, the presence of opulent items at 16 other settlements, alongside the coin, literacy, weapons and equestrian collections, may all be interpreted as potential indicators of status and hierarchy within a significant proportion of non-elite rural settlements (Section 7.4). The discovery of keys, locks and caskets at c. 20 settlements shows that matters of privacy and security were a part of rural life and suggests that protection measures were likely deemed necessary to keep valued items safe.

Concerning the total material culture assemblage, it is recognised that variations in artefact quantities may reflect commonness of use and also the perceived value of certain objects at the settlements. For instance, pottery vessels and utilitarian objects such as fixtures are found in far greater numbers than equestrian equipment, amethyst or items incorporating gold or silver. Such patterns of artefact occurrence, commonness and use are examined further in the assessment of consumption activities at the settlements in Chapter 5. Regarding the range of artefact types found at the settlements, the material culture is dominated by domestic/ household items and utilitarian/manufacturing equipment, including some of the artefact examples mentioned above. Domestic objects encompass an assortment of vessels, such as cooking and drinking receptacles as well as keys, locks and utensils including knives and strike-a-lights. Utilitarian items include agricultural and cultivation tools, querns, weights and many versatile fixtures and fittings. A variety of manufacturing tools/implements are also present and textile and metal working activities are particularly well represented at the settlements.

As well as producing the largest amount of prestige and intricately decorated items, Staunch Meadow [PF34] also provides the strongest evidence for a literacy culture, with the greatest number of styli, inkwells and inscribed artefacts. These findings can be linked to the site’s elite status. However, Staunch Meadow [PF34] also produces many artefacts common to the other settlements, ranging from Anglo-Saxon coins, weaponry and equestrian equipment– likely denoting wealth or rank– to tools such as shears, querns, awls, whetstones, weights and textile equipment. This shows that high-order and non-elite rural settlements both undertook activities such as production and likely also engaged in some of the same exchange networks, facilitating the trade of similar items amongst rural settlements (Chapters 5–6).

A collectively large number of personal items are also found, ranging from jewellery and dress accessories to cosmetic and grooming implements, including pins, combs and strap ends which form some of the largest assemblages recovered from the settlements. Less commonly represented artefacts include weapons, equestrian equipment, amusement objects such as gaming counters and artefacts associated with literacy, specifically inscribed items, writing implements and accessories. Artefacts assigned likely burial or devotional characteristics are few and include possible funerary bowls, fittings and amulets, however it is acknowledged that the Anglo-Saxons could have attributed ritualistic significance to other material culture and that this is not recognisable to the modern interpreter.

The material culture assemblages from the settlements are broadly comparable and reveal some chronological and geographical patterns. For example, chronological trends attributed to artefacts such as hooked tags, wrist clasps and Anglo-Saxon coins are reflected in the dates of the settlements producing these objects. Larger numbers of Roman artefacts, including objects reused during the Anglo-Saxon period, are present at settlements of Early and Middle Anglo-Saxon date, suggesting greater accessibility and distribution of Roman items during these

Several artefact groups merit further attention. The comparatively significant number of coins found has been highlighted above and these items are considered further 124

Material Culture from Rural Settlements: Context, Range and Character centuries (Section 5.2.13). Possible funerary items, such as bowls and escutcheons, are more prevalent at settlements of Early or Middle Anglo-Saxon date located in east and south England. This coincides with the common distribution and period of furnished burials in England (i.e. Bayliss et al 2013). Some artefact styles, including several brooch and beads forms, reflect established chronological and geographical typologies. For instance, artefacts of Scandinavian type or influence, such as Borre and Jelling type jewellery, are more common at settlements of Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon date located in the Danelaw of north, midlands and east England, reflecting the cultural, economic and political impact of the kingdom (Section 6.3.10).

found in pits (40 sites), SFBs (35 sites), PBSs (34 sites), ditches (32 sites) and/or postholes and stakeholes (27 sites). The characteristics of the fills from these types of features are largely reflective of secondary deposition practices and the material culture distributions reveal evidence of the refuse and discard methods undertaken at the settlements. Section 4.3 studies the range and character of material culture from the settlements through the compilation of a catalogue of the evidence, classified by type and form. The catalogue reveals chronological, geographical and typological trends across the settlements. This includes the widespread prevalence of domestic, utilitarian and manufacturing artefacts. Of note are potential indicators of personal wealth, status and security– namely coins, prestige items, weapons, equestrian equipment, writing implements, keys and locks – which are found in significant numbers beyond the elite settlement of Staunch Meadow [PF34].

4.4. Summary This chapter has examined two key areas: the contextual and distributional patterns of material culture; and the character and forms of material culture.

Following, Chapter 5 expands upon the findings and catalogue presented in this chapter through an analysis of the patterns of consumption at the settlements as evidenced by material culture.

Section 4.2 assesses material culture distribution at the settlements within archaeological context. The analysis demonstrates that the majority of stratified artefacts are

125

5 The Consumption of Material Culture 5.1. Overview

5.2.1. Domestic and Household

In this chapter the material culture evidence from the rural settlements is assessed as a resource, in order to address the third research question of the study:

Domestic and household activities are represented at all settlements. Evidence for cooking, eating/drinking and storage is present at every site, and personal possessions and domiciliary items are found at 32 (71%) settlements.

How was material culture utilised at Anglo-Saxon rural settlements?

Cooking, Eating/Drinking and Storage

Through analysing patterns of artefact uses, functions and common occurrence, the evidence illuminates modes of consumption undertaken at the settlements (Section 5.2).

All settlements produce material culture associated with the preparation, storage and consumption of food and drink (Appendix 5.1). Material Culture Evidence

5.2. Patterns of Material Culture Consumption

Evidence for food and drink preparation, consumption and storage comprises a large diverse group of receptacles, containers, cookware and vessel parts and repairs (Section 4.3.1). Utensils associated with eating, drinking and cooking range from knives, which are particularly common objects, to flesh and pot hooks, spoons, strike-a-lights and cooking equipment such as potboilers (Section 4.3.2).

This section examines evidence for consumption activities taking place at the settlements, through the consideration of artefacts as indicators of behavioural and cultural practices (Appendix 5). The classification system for consumption activities is discussed in Section 3.2.6. The frequency, or ‘commonness’, of consumption activities taking place at the sites is also assessed (Section 3.2.7). A catalogue detailing the material culture found at the settlements is presented in Chapter 4 (Section 4.3), with references to relevant catalogue entries provided below where appropriate. The material culture derives from stratified, unstratified (including residual) and metal detected contexts at the settlements, and it is recognised that such diversity can potentially introduce complexities and biases into a dataset (Section 3.3.1). However, the majority of the artefacts, including examples of all material culture types, are stratified.

Site Chronology The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period and all phases are ubiquitous (Fig. 5.1). Site Distribution All settlements are represented (Fig. 5.2). The larger number of sites located in east England (18 sites total) exhibit the greatest variety and quantity of objects, and the minimally represented settlements in the midlands

Figure 5.1. Cooking, eating/drinking and storage: site chronology.

126

The Consumption of Material Culture

Figure 5.2. Cooking, eating/drinking and storage: material culture site distribution.

(3 sites total) the least. Vessels, containers and knives are near ubiquitous at the settlements. The very large quantity of artefacts is the result of site pottery assemblages, some numbering in the thousands (Appendices 3.1–3.2).

Summary The everyday activities of cooking, eating, drinking and the storage of liquids and foodstuffs are well represented at every settlement. Site pottery assemblages especially add to this evidence.

Commonness Artefactual evidence for cooking, eating, drinking and storage is prolific, mainly due to site pottery assemblages of which some number in the thousands (Appendices 3.1–3.2). Considering the discrepancies in site assemblage totals as a result, the settlement artefact:building analysis for this consumption activity has been collated into two tables which separately display the scale of commonness for pottery and the remaining artefactual evidence (Figs. 5.3–5.4).

Household Items and Personal Possessions Household items and personal possessions, denoting domestic consumption, are present at 32 (71%) settlements (Appendix 5.2). Material Culture Evidence Household consumption is represented by a diverse artefact collection. Evidences ranges from domestic items such as escutcheons, lamps, vases and hanging vessels, to various mounts, hooks and plaques, as well as buckets and possible basins (Sections 4.3.1–4.3.3). Also found are laundering objects, namely linen-smoothers and slickstones (Section 4.3.2). A variety of keys, padlocks, latch lifters and casket, box or chest fittings denote matters of security and privacy at the settlements (Section 4.3.4). Found unstratified at Middle Harling [PF40] is an Iron Age stater forgery coin which may have been curated in the Anglo-Saxon period due to surviving gold remnants (Section 4.3.19). A Roman circular glass ‘imitation’ stone found stratified at West Stow [PF3] could have been collected for its distinctiveness. The imitation stone depicts a crude figure advancing with the right arm upraised, possibly holding a spear, and a shield on the left arm (West 1985a, 39, 55).

Excluding pottery, Cottam [PF41] is by far the most commonly represented settlement, with finds including knives and a strike-a-light (Fig. 5.3). Second most common is Middle Harling [PF40], followed by Market Lavington [PF14]. The scale of commonness at the remaining settlements is significantly lower. Least represented is Foxholes Farm [PF29], followed by Collingbourne Ducis [PF38]. With the inclusion of pottery, where assemblage totals have been provided in the texts, West Stow [PF3] is most commonly represented, followed by Mawgan Porth [PF44] and then the high-status site of Staunch Meadow [PF34] (Fig. 5.4). These sites produce pottery assemblages totalling c. 53,570, c. 2000 and c. 21,507 sherds respectively. The least commonly represented settlements including pottery cannot be satisfactorily determined, as eight sites have undisclosed pottery assemblage amounts. No distinct patterns regarding the un/commonness of artefacts are apparent across the settlements, reflecting the ubiquitous undertaking of cooking, eating, drinking and storage activities.

Site Chronology The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 5.5). The Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon periods are equally least represented. 127

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 5.3. Cooking, eating/drinking and storage: artefact commonness per settlement (excluding pottery).

Figure 5.4. Pottery (Cooking, eating/drinking and storage): artefact commonness per settlement.

Site Distribution

Commonness

Settlements located in all regions are represented (Fig. 5.6). Sites in the east (15 of 18 sites) exhibit the greatest variety and quantity of material culture and settlements in the southwest (3 of 4 sites) are least diverse. Mounts, keys/ locks and padlocks are most widely distributed.

Settlement artefact:building analysis demonstrates that household items/possessions are by far most commonly found at Middle Harling [PF40], followed by Cottam [PF41], with artefacts from the sites including lamps, keys and items such as hooks (Fig. 5.7). Of note, 128

The Consumption of Material Culture

Figure 5.5. Household items and possessions: site chronology.

Figure 5.6. Household items and possessions: material culture site distribution.

5.2.2. Ornamentation, Dress and Grooming

both settlements also produce large metal detected collections that have contributed to the diversity of the site assemblages (Sections 3.3.1, 7.3). Least commonly represented is Chalton [PF25], followed by Catholme [PF36] and Mucking [PF4]. The scale of commonness exhibited across the sites likely in part reflects the diversity of household items represented, which particularly vary in terms of quantity and occurrence.

Personal adornment, clothing, cosmetic and hygiene activities are collectively represented at 44 (98%) settlements, excluding Orsett Cock [PF18]. The small size of the site assemblage from Orsett Cock [PF18] likely explains this absence (Appendices 5.3–5.5). Personal Adornment

Summary

Personal adornment items, namely jewellery, are present at 36 (80%) settlements (Appendix 5.3).

Household and personal items are diverse, revealing a wide scope of domestic elements at the settlements. This ranges from personal ownership and tastes in furnishings and trinkets, to security issues as evidenced by keys and locks, and the undertaking of everyday tasks such as clothes laundering.

Material Culture Evidence The personal adornment collection comprises pins, beads and brooches, which are most frequently found, as well 129

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 5.7. Household items and possessions: artefact commonness per settlement.

as finger rings, bracelets, pendants, three earrings, a fine chain and two possible necklaces (Section 4.3.5).

diverse. Pins, beads, brooches and finger rings are found at settlements in every region.

Site Chronology

Commonness

The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 5.8). The Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Middle Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Settlement artefact:building analysis demonstrates that personal adornment items are by far most commonly found at Cottam [PF41] and, secondly, Middle Harling [PF40] (Fig. 5.10). Both sites produce a substantial amount of metal detected jewellery and this has impacted the results (Section 3.3.1). Third most commonly represented is Staunch Meadow [PF34], where a significant proportion of the jewellery are prestigious items which in part reflect the high-status of the site (Section 5.2.11). Personal adornment is least represented at Catholme [PF36],

Site Distribution Settlements located in all regions are represented (Fig. 5.9). Sites in the east (16 of 18 sites) and the southwest (3 of 4 sites) equally exhibit the greatest variety of material culture and settlements in the north (4 of 6 sites) are least

Figure 5.8. Personal adornment: site chronology.

130

The Consumption of Material Culture

Figure 5.9. Personal adornment: material culture site distribution.

Figure 5.10. Personal adornment: artefact commonness per settlement.

followed by Chalton [PF25], Kilverstone [PF23] and then Collingbourne Ducis [PF38]. These sites produce overall small artefact assemblages, particularly as compared to settlements such as Cottam [PF41], Middle Harling [PF40] and Staunch Meadow [PF34], and this has likely influenced the commonness results.

as social standing, religious beliefs or cultural affiliation (i.e. Owen-Crocker 2004, 321–3). For example, items made of precious metals or intricately decorated could indicate an individual’s wealth or status and objects rendered in Scandinavian-styles, such as brooches or Thor’s hammer pendants, could highlight cultural, religious and/or social affiliations of the wearer (Sections 5.2.13, 6.3.10).

Summary

Dress and Clothing

The high incidence of adornment items at the settlements is demonstrative of the widespread consumption of jewellery for personal ornamentation. In some cases, personal adornment could express information about the wearer such

Dress and clothing accessories, ranging from everyday garb to decorative items, are found at 32 (71%) settlements (Appendix 5.4). 131

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements Material Culture Evidence

Buckles, hair/dress pins and strap ends are found at settlements in every region excepting Raunds Furnells [PF6] in the midlands.

The dress and clothing collection comprises strap ends, hair/dress pins, buckles and hooked tags, which are the most common items, as well as belt/leather fittings, wrist clasps, studs, girdle hangers, discs, lace and tag ends, toggles, spangles, a dome and at least one appliqué (Section 4.3.6).

Commonness Settlement artefact:building analysis demonstrates that dress and clothing accessories are by far most commonly found at Cottam [PF41], where many of the objects were metal detected (Fig. 5.13). Second is Middle Harling [PF40], which also has a large metal detected collection. Comparably, the remaining settlements are significantly less well represented. Dress accessories are least common at Mucking [PF4], then Riverdene [PF35] and closely followed, equally, by Maxey [PF21], Cottenham [PF37] and Collingbourne Ducis [PF38].

Site Chronology The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 5.11). The Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Middle Anglo-Saxon period the least. Site Distribution Settlements located in all regions are represented (Fig. 5.12). Sites in the east (15 of 18 sites) exhibit the greatest variety of material culture and the midlands (1 of 3 sites), represented by Raunds Furnells [PF6], is least diverse.

Summary Dress and clothing accessories, like personal adornment items, could potentially convey details about the wearer

Figure 5.11. Dress and clothing: site chronology.

Figure 5.12. Dress and clothing: material culture site distribution.

132

The Consumption of Material Culture

Figure 5.13. Dress and clothing: artefact commonness per settlement.

such as fashion preferences, social rank or cultural associations. The evidence reveals that attire at the settlements ranged from the everyday and plain (i.e. toggles, girdle hangers and catches/fasteners), to elaborate and valuable accessories which could have emphasised the owner’s wealth and status (i.e. opulent strap ends and hooked tags). Also found is a Scandinavian-style Borre buckle from Cottam [PF41] which may have been culturally symbolic to the wearer (Section 6.3.10).

Material Culture Evidence

Toilet, Grooming and Hygiene

The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 5.14). The Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Middle Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Cosmetic evidence comprises tweezers, toilet spoons, pins/prickers and a selection of fittings (Section 4.3.8). Grooming and hygiene is represented by combs, which are particularly common items, as well as ear scoops, nail cleaners and razors (Section 4.3.9). Site Chronology

Cosmetic, grooming and hygiene activities are represented at 34 (76%) settlements (Appendix 5.5).

Figure 5.14. Toilet, grooming and hygiene: site chronology.

133

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements Site Distribution

a number of combs (Fig. 5.16). Second most commonly represented is West Stow [PF3], where combs, tweezers and ear scoops are found. Third is Quarrington [PF30] which also produces a selection of implements: combs, a toilet spoon and a nail cleaner with an ear scoop. Least represented is Mucking [PF4], followed by Chalton [PF25].

Settlements located in all regions are represented (Fig. 5.15). Sites in the south (11 of 14 sites) exhibit the greatest variety of material culture and settlements in the southwest (4 sites total) are least diverse. Combs are found at settlements in every region.

Summary

Commonness

The frequent occurrence of personal grooming items, particularly combs and tweezers, highlights that an importance was placed on aesthetics and hygiene at the settlements.

Settlement artefact:building analysis demonstrates that toilet, grooming and/or hygiene activities are most commonly represented at Cottam [PF41], which produces

Figure 5.15. Toilet, grooming and hygiene: material culture site distribution.

Figure 5.16. Toilet, grooming and hygiene: artefact commonness per settlement.

134

The Consumption of Material Culture 5.2.3. Utilitarian

5.18). The Early–Middle, Middle–Late and Late AngloSaxon periods are ubiquitous and the Middle Anglo-Saxon period is least represented.

Utilitarian activities are represented at every settlement excepting Kilverstone [PF23], which produces an overall small material culture assemblage that may account for this. The large and diverse artefactual evidence from the settlements is broadly categorised as examples of either tools, fixtures or fittings (Fig. 5.17; Appendices 5.61–5.6.3).

Site Distribution All settlements excepting Kilverstone [PF23] in east England are represented in the total utilitarian assemblage (Fig. 5.19). Tools, fixtures and fittings are found at settlements in every region.

Material Culture Evidence Evidence for utilitarian activities comprises various equipment ranging from multi-purpose, manufacturing, agricultural, processing and construction tools, to versatile fixtures and fittings for implements and objects (Section 4.3.10).

Commonness Settlement artefact:building analysis demonstrates that utilitarian activities are most commonly represented at Riby Cross Roads [PF32] (Fig. 5.20). Cottam [PF41] and Mawgan Porth [PF44] are second and third most commonly represented, respectively. The three settlements produce a range of metal and stone tools and implements. Utilitarian activities are least common, equally, at Chalton

Site Chronology The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period and all centuries are strongly represented (Fig.

Figure 5.17. Utilitarian assemblage: site occurrence and percentages.

Figure 5.18. Utilitarian: site chronology.

135

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 5.19. Utilitarian: material culture site distribution.

Figure 5.20. Utilitarian: artefact commonness per settlement.

5.2.4. Manufacture, Production and Craft

[PF25] and Foxholes Farm [PF29], with Thirlings [PF20] also minimally represented. The marked variances in the scale of utilitarian activities may indicate that such undertakings were prioritised differently across the settlements.

Material culture associated with manufacturing and a range of production activities is present at every settlement, with textile and metal working best represented (Fig. 5.21; Appendices 5.7.1–5.7.7).

Summary

Textile Working

Tools, fixtures and fittings were essential for the undertaking of many utilitarian tasks at the settlements, ranging from manufacture and horticulture to the equipping of clothes or weapons.

Every settlement, excluding Goltho [PF43], produce artefacts associated with textile working (Appendix 5.7.1). 136

The Consumption of Material Culture

Figure 5.21. Manufacture, production and craft activities: site occurrence and percentages.

activity is also uncommon at Simy Folds [PF42], Thirlings [PF20] and Chalton [PF25]. The marked differences in the levels of textile working taking place across the settlements suggests that the activity was limited to household production levels at some sites and that others were producing textiles on a greater scale, perhaps to exchange or sell commercially.

Material Culture Evidence Evidence for textile production includes spindlewhorls, loomweights, needles/pins and pinbeaters, which are most frequently found, as well as wool/flax heckles and combs, awls/pegs and shears. Less common are weaving tablets and smoothers, pounders and slickstones for pressing and laundering garments. Also found are a spindle, a heddle-stick and two possible weaving battens and spools (Sections 4.3.2, 4.3.10–4.3.11).

Summary Textile working is one of the most common production activities taking place at the settlements. The large amount of artefactual evidence for every stage of the textile manufacturing process proves the significant role this activity played at all settlements, affirming long-standing knowledge of the importance of textile production to Anglo-Saxon life.

Site Chronology The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period and all centuries are strongly represented (Fig. 5.22). The Early, Early–Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon periods are ubiquitous and the Middle Anglo-Saxon period is least represented.

Metal Working

Site Distribution

Potential evidence for metal working is present at every settlement except Thirlings [PF20] (Appendix 5.7.2). The small size of the site assemblage at Thirlings [PF20] may explain this absence. Archaeological evidence from the settlements associated with metal working include an excavated furnace [F999] at Orton Hall Farm [PF8], a range of slag-filled pits, ditches and related features from Quarrington [PF30] which likely denote a metal working area and a smithy at Yarnton [PF17] (Sections 7.5.2–7.5.3).

All settlements excepting Goltho [PF43] in north England are represented (Fig. 5.23). Sites in the south (14 sites total) exhibit the greatest variety of material culture and settlements in the midlands (3 sites total) and the north (5 of 6 sites) are equally least diverse. Spindlewhorls, loomweights, needles/pins and awls/pegs are found at settlements in every region. Commonness

Material Culture Evidence

Settlement artefact:building analysis demonstrates that textile working is most common at Spong Hill [PF15], where a range of textile equipment is found (Fig. 5.24). Second and third most commonly represented are Pennyland [PF19] and Fordham [PF31] respectively, with both producing various textile items. West Stow [PF3] and Riby Cross Roads [PF32] are also strongly represented. Textile working is least represented at Cowdery’s Down [PF22], closely followed by Foxholes Farm [PF29]. The

Metal working is indicated by a range of tools that could be used in the production process including chisels, punches, shears, files, hammers, reamers, tongs, blacksmith’s clips, a nail-making plate and a forging tool. Also recovered are crucibles, moulds, ingots and slag, which is particularly common, along with related by-products and materials such as hearth linings and tuyère (furnace or hearth air pipes). Numerous metal sheets and strips are found, examples 137

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 5.22. Textile working: site chronology.

of which are likely offcuts, as well as scrap, casting, metal waste and amorphous or otherwise unidentifiable/ undisclosed metal objects (Sections 4.3.10, 4.3.11).

Commonness Settlement artefact:building analysis demonstrates that potential evidence for metal working is most common at Cottam [PF41], where finds include a quantity of metal offcuts (Fig. 5.27).

Site Chronology The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period and all centuries are strongly represented (Fig. 5.25). The Middle–Late and Late Anglo-Saxon periods are ubiquitous and the Middle Anglo-Saxon period is least represented.

It must be noted that slag totals for the sites have been estimated in the analysis, as actual amounts of slag or associated material, such as hammerscale and hearth bottoms, are rarely quantified one to one. Unless specific amounts have been provided in the publications, slag and associated material is calculated as two per context, whether the context is stratified, unstratified/residual or metal detected. To elucidate, a site with slag found in one stratified feature, one unstratified context and through metal detecting is calculated as six (2 per context x 3).

Site Distribution Settlements located in all regions are strongly represented (Fig. 5.26). Sites in the east (18 sites total) exhibit the greatest variety and quantity of material culture and settlements in the southwest (4 sites total) are least diverse. Slag, sheets/strips and miscellaneous metal objects are found at settlements in every region.

Second most commonly represented is Riby Cross Roads [PF32], which produces slag, scrap and offcuts. Also well

Figure 5.23. Textile working: material culture site distribution.

138

The Consumption of Material Culture

Figure 5.24. Textile working: artefact commonness per settlement.

Figure 5.25. Metal working: site chronology.

represented are Quarrington [PF30], Carlton Colville [PF28] and Brandon Road [PF12], which all produce a range of tools and debris. Metal working is least common at Raunds Furnells [PF6], followed by Cowdery’s Down [PF22]. The activity is also uncommon at Chalton [PF25] and West Cotton [PF9]. The differing ranges of metal working evidence at the settlements points towards the various production of metal items on localised commercial scales as well as on smaller domestic levels.

by an array of artefacts ranging from tools and moulds to by-products.

Summary

Leather working is suggested by tools such as needles/pins, awls, pegs and shears, which are most commonly found, as well as punches, pivoting knives, leather dressing/working tools and leather offcuts (Sections 4.3.2, 4.3.10–4.3.11).

Leather Working Potential evidence for leather working is identified at 33 (73%) settlements (Appendix 5.7.3). Material Culture Evidence

Metal working was an important and regularly undertaken manufacturing activity at many settlements, as evidenced 139

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 5.26. Metal working: material culture site distribution.

Figure 5.27. Metal working: artefact commonness per settlement.

A stamped pad from Staunch Meadow [PF34] may have functioned as a backing for decorating either leather or non-ferrous alloys (Blakelock 2005; Tester et al 2014, 284–5).

Site Distribution Settlements located in all regions are represented (Fig. 5.29). Sites in the south (10 of 14 sites) exhibit the greatest variety of material culture and settlements in the southwest (4 sites total) are least diverse. Needles/pins and awls/pegs are found at settlements in every region.

Site Chronology The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 5.28). The Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Middle Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Commonness Settlement artefact:building analysis demonstrates that leather working is most commonly represented at Market 140

The Consumption of Material Culture

Figure 5.28. Leather working: site chronology.

Figure 5.29. Leather working: material culture site distribution.

Lavington [PF14], where awls and needles/pins are found (Fig. 5.30). Least represented is Catholme [PF36], followed closely by Mucking [PF4] and Chalton [PF25].

Material Culture Evidence Bone working is indicated by tools including awls, files and smaller knives more suitably designed for intricate craft work (Riley 2014, 39). This includes a short iron knife from Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27] (Section 4.3.10). Also found are bone offcuts and worked fragments (Section 4.3.11). Of note from Carlton Colville [PF28] are whalebone ‘chopping boards’, cropped to form almost flat-sided cylindrical blocks and providing working surfaces for manufacturing activities (Lucy et al 2009, 199–200).

Summary Leather working appears to have been a common manufacturing activity at the settlements, as inferred by the reasonable size and variety of the artefactual evidence, which was generally undertaken on small domestic scales. It must be taken into consideration that leather is prone to deterioration overtime and it is likely that many leather items have not survived at the sites.

Site Chronology

Bone Working

The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 5.31). The Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Middle Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Bone working is suggested by material culture at up to 26 (58%) settlements, primarily in the form of production waste (Appendix 5.7.4). 141

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 5.30. Leather working: artefact commonness per settlement.

Figure 5.31. Bone working: site chronology.

Site Distribution

are found (Fig. 5.33). The elite nature of Staunch Meadow [PF34] highlights that manufacturing activities took place at settlements of various hierarchical status (Section 7.4.3). Collingbourne Ducis [PF38] is second most commonly represented, with the site producing manufacturing debris. Bone working is least common at Catholme [PF36], followed closely by Mucking [PF4].

Settlements located in all regions are represented (Fig. 5.32). The larger number of settlements located in the south (8 of 14 sites) and the east (11 of 18 sites) have a greater diversity of objects than the less represented areas. Awls and bone working debris are found at settlements in every region.

Summary

Commonness

Bone working is well evidenced by material culture, particularly manufacturing debris, highlighting the significant undertaking of this activity at the settlements.

Settlement artefact:building analysis demonstrates that bone working is most commonly represented at Staunch Meadow [PF34], where a range of tools and implements 142

The Consumption of Material Culture

Figure 5.32. Bone working: material culture site distribution.

Figure 5.33. Bone working: artefact commonness per settlement.

Wood working is suggested by artefacts from up to 20 (44%) settlements (Appendix 5.7.5).

fixing/clamping), wedges (possibly for splitting/chopping) and wood working nails are also associated with the activity (Section 4.3.10). From Staunch Meadow [PF34] is a single wood offcut (Section 4.3.11).

Material Culture Evidence

Site Chronology

A range of tools found that are indicative of wood working include axes, chisels, gouges, adzes, shave blades, draw knives, a clawhammer, a gimlet, at least one reamer and a likely wood working tool (Sections 4.3.2, 4.3.10). Fixtures such as spoon auger bits (for drilling), joiner’s dogs (for

The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 5.34). The Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon periods are equally least represented.

Wood Working

143

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 5.34. Wood working: site chronology.

Site Distribution

Summary

Settlements located in every region excepting the midlands are represented (Fig. 5.35). Sites in the east (11 of 18 sites) exhibit the greatest variety and quantity of material culture and settlements in the southwest (1 of 4 sites) and the north (3 of 6 sites) are equally least diverse. Gouges/ chisels and spoon, augur and drill bits are most widely distributed.

Wood working can be considered an activity of reasonable importance at the settlements, as evidenced by the range of associated material culture. It should be considered that wood is a highly perishable material and as such does not generally survive well in the archaeological record, so further evidence from the sites is likely to have been lost.

Commonness

Pottery Working

Settlement artefact:building analysis demonstrates that wood working is most commonly represented at Cottam [PF41], where spoon auger bits are present (Fig. 5.36). Strongly represented are Middle Harling [PF40], Goltho [PF43] and Carlton Colville [PF28], which all yield a range of tools. Wood working is least common at Mucking [PF4], followed closely by Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27].

Beyond the potential evidence of the pottery assemblages, pottery production is strongly indicated at five (11%) settlements (Appendix 5.7.6). Material Culture Evidence Suggestive of pottery working are pot stamps (for branding maker’s signatures), ceramic firebars (kiln furniture)

Figure 5.35. Wood working: material culture site distribution.

144

The Consumption of Material Culture and misfired wasters from the production process (Section 4.3.11). A lunate bone tool or knife from Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27] may have been used for clay working such as sculpting or shaping pottery vessels (Leeds 1923, 183–4). A pottery kiln [2223] excavated at Spong Hill [PF15] is further indicative of pottery production.

Site Distribution The settlements are located in south and east England (Fig. 5.38). Commonness Settlement artefact:building analysis demonstrates that pottery working is most commonly represented at Bishopstone [PF13] and is least common at Mucking [PF4] (Fig. 5.39).

Site Chronology The settlements date to three occupation phases, excepting the Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon periods (Fig. 5.37). The Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Early Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Summary There is minimal evidence for pottery working at the settlements excepting the pottery assemblages themselves

Figure 5.36. Wood working: artefact commonness per settlement.

Figure 5.37. Pottery working: site chronology.

145

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements (Sections 4.3.1, 5.2.1). This suggests that, beyond localised manufacture undertaken at some rural settlements, the chief production of wares took place at specific sites or centres, such as the large-scale manufacturing of Ipswich ware at the wic of Ipswich (Section 6.3.2).

debris, namely melted glass waste and a twisted rod (Section 4.3.11). Site Chronology The settlements date to three occupation phases, excepting the Middle and Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon periods (Fig. 5.40). The Early Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Glass Working Potential evidence of glass working is minimal and derives from five (11%) settlements (Appendix 5.7.7).

Site Distribution

Material Culture Evidence

The settlements are located in south and east England (Fig. 5.41).

Glass production is suggested by possible manufacturing

Figure 5.38. Pottery working: material culture site distribution.

Figure 5.39. Pottery working: artefact commonness per settlement.

146

The Consumption of Material Culture

Figure 5.40. Glass working: site chronology.

Figure 5.41. Glass working: material culture site distribution.

Commonness

5.2.5. Agriculture, Cultivation and Horticulture

Settlement artefact:building analysis demonstrates that potential evidence for glass working is most commonly represented at Springfield Lyons [PF45] and is least common at West Stow [PF3] (Fig. 5.42).

Material culture indicative of agriculture, cultivation and/or horticulture is present at 40 (89%) settlements (Appendix 5.8). Material Culture Evidence

Summary

Agrarian activities are evidenced by tools used for cultivation, harvesting, horticultural and agricultural activities, querns and an oak block for crop processing, as well as possible animal bells, attached to livestock put out to pasture (Sections 4.3.10, 4.3.13).

Potential evidence of glass working is minimal, indicating that the activity predominantly took place, at best, on smallscale levels at rural settlements. The limited evidence can be compared to the significant number of glass vessels and beads found at the settlements (Appendices 4.2– 4.3, 4.7). This supports existing notions that glass was predominantly manufactured at specialised centres such as monastic centres or, in the Late Anglo-Saxon period, towns (i.e. Hall et al 2004, 474, 478, 483; Paynter et al 2014).

Site Chronology The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 5.43). The Middle–Late and Late AngloSaxon periods are ubiquitous and the Middle Anglo-Saxon period is least represented. 147

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 5.42. Glass working: artefact commonness per settlement.

Figure 5.43. Agriculture, cultivation and horticulture: site chronology.

Site Distribution

commonly represented is Carlton Colville [PF28], which also produces a large quantity of quern fragments, as does Quarrington [PF30] which is third most common. Fourth is Staunch Meadow [PF34], demonstrating that agrarian pursuits were also undertaken at high-status settlements. Many of the other settlements exhibit similar levels of agricultural and horticultural activities to one another. Least represented is Catholme [PF36], followed closely by Mucking [PF4] and then Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27].

Settlements located in all regions are represented (Fig. 5.44). Sites in the east (17 of 18 sites) exhibit the greatest variety and quantity of material culture and settlements in the southwest (4 sites total) are least diverse. Querns, including Niedermendig lava querns, are by far the most common artefacts and are found at settlements in every region. Commonness

Summary

Settlement artefact:building analysis demonstrates that agrarian activities are by far best represented at West Fen Road [PF39] (Fig. 5.45). The site total is strongly influenced by the discovery of more than 1000 quern fragments. Second most

The widespread occurrence of artefacts associated with agriculture, cultivation and horticulture emphasises that these endeavours were principal underpinnings of rural life at the 148

The Consumption of Material Culture

Figure 5.44. Agriculture, cultivation and horticulture: material culture site distribution.

Figure 5.45. Agriculture, cultivation and horticulture: artefact commonness per settlement.

settlements. Such activities provided food, natural/material resources, supported the payment of rent dues and tenure and could also reap a commodity surplus for exchange.

likely archer’s wrist guard. Weapon accessories comprise spear attachments, shield fittings and sword accessories (Section 4.3.12).

5.2.6. Warfare and Defence

Site Chronology

Artefacts potentially indicative of warfare and defence are present at 24 (53%) settlements (Appendix 5.9).

The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 5.46). The Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Late Anglo-Saxon period the least. Overall, the greatest emphasis is on the Early–Middle and Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon centuries. A proportion of the weapons are prestige items and likely indicative of the owners’ wealth and rank (Sections 5.2.11, 7.4). This

Material Culture Evidence Weapons found are spearheads, arrowheads, seaxes, a javelin blade, slingshots, a probable ballista ball and a 149

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 5.46. Warfare and defence: site chronology.

evidence, in some instances, may have been linked to the apparent increasingly complex hierarchical structures of Anglo-Saxon society from the c. 7th century, which could in part explain the high proportion of Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon settlements also represented (Sections 2.3.3, 8.2). The Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period evidence may, to an extent, reflect the turbulence of the First Viking Age (9th–10th centuries) and Second Viking Age (later 10th– 11th centuries) in England during these centuries. Events included the formation of the Danelaw, which is supported by the geographical concentrations of the artefacts as discussed below (Sections 2.3.3, 6.3.10).

the settlements represented that are located in the area of the Danelaw, in east, north and midlands England, date to the Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon periods and are thus contemporary with the kingdom (Sections 2.3.3, 6.3.10). Commonness Settlement artefact:building analysis demonstrates that weapons are most commonly found at Middle Harling [PF40], where all the objects derive from metal detecting (Fig. 5.48). Second most common is Market Lavington [PF14], where the datable weapons are Early AngloSaxon. Cottam [PF41] and Riby Cross Roads [PF32] are also reasonably well represented. Weapons are least common, equally, at Mucking [PF4], Pennyland [PF19], Chalton [PF25] and Catholme [PF36], followed closely by Sutton Courtney/Drayton [PF27]. Of note, these sites are not Danelaw settlements, either chronologically or geographically, possibly excepting Catholme [PF36] which was occupied contemporaneously with the First Viking Age (9th–10th centuries). This supports the chronological

Site Distribution Settlements located in all regions are represented (Fig. 5.47). Sites in the east (11 of 18 sites) exhibit the greatest variety and quantity of material culture and settlements in the southwest (2 of 4 sites) and the midlands (2 of 3 sites) are equally least diverse. Arrowheads and shield accessories/fittings are most widely distributed. Most of

Figure 5.47. Warfare and defence: material culture site distribution.

150

The Consumption of Material Culture

Figure 5.48. Warfare and defence: artefact commonness per settlement.

for falconry or hawking. The miniature bells may have been tied onto the falcons’ legs so the falconers could keep track of the birds during the hunt, although admittedly the sound produced by the bells would have been minimal over longer distances (Schoenfelder & Richards 2011, 157–8) (Section 4.3.7). Fishing pursuits are represented by netsinkers, fishing weights, fishing hooks, a mussel scoop, a possible harpoon blade and a fishnet float or rope tackle (Sections 4.3.2, 4.3.10).

and site distributional analysis which shows that weaponry is strongly represented at Danelaw settlements. Summary At least half of the settlements produce weapons and/ or weapon accessories. It is of note that weapons are usually associated with Anglo-Saxon burials, in which they are common grave goods (i.e. Bayliss et al 2013). The collection therefore represents the use/ownership of these items in practical or everyday environments, rather than as objects of ritual, ceremony or sentimentality. The exception is the probable shield mount at Barton Court Farm [PF5] which is from a female adult burial [807]. Weapons may indicate a warrior/army presence at some of the settlements, even on an individual or small group level, and the prominence of Danelaw settlements represented by the assemblage is supportive of this theory. Weapons could also be an indicator of the owners’ social status or affluence and this is reinforced by the prestige examples found (Sections 5.2.11, 7.4).

Site Chronology The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 5.49). The Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Early Anglo-Saxon period the least. The emphasis on the Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon centuries is due to the high incidence of weapons found which may have been used for hunting purposes dating to this period (Section 5.2.6). Site Distribution Settlements located in all regions are represented (Fig. 5.50). Sites in the east (11 of 18 sites) exhibit the greatest variety and quantity of material culture and settlements in the midlands (2 of 3 sites) are least diverse. Arrowheads are most widely distributed.

5.2.7. Hunting and Fishing Material culture associated with hunting and fishing is represented at up to 27 (60%) settlements (Appendix 5.10). Material Culture Evidence

Commonness

Evidence potentially associated with hunting, for food and/or sport, includes spearheads, arrowheads, seaxes, slingshots and a likely archer’s wrist guard (Section 4.3.12). Two Norse bells from Cottam [PF41] were possibly used

Settlement artefact:building analysis demonstrates that hunting and fishing are by far most commonly represented at Mawgan Porth [PF44], with the commonness of fishing 151

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 5.49. Hunting and fishing: site chronology.

Figure 5.50. Hunting and fishing: material culture site distribution.

equipment showing the importance of this activity at the seaside settlement (Fig. 5.51). Second most common is Cottam [PF41] with potential evidence of hunting comprising weapons and two Norse bells, although the function/s of the bells is debated (Section 4.3.7). Least commonly represented are, equally, Chalton [PF25] and Catholme [PF36], followed by Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27]. The three sites produce weapons.

Material Culture Evidence

Summary

Site Chronology

Artefactual evidence related to hunting and fishing points towards the undertaking of these pursuits at many settlements. Fishing and the hunting of wild animals and game provided food and could also be enjoyed as recreation or sport.

The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 5.52). The Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Early Anglo-Saxon period the least. The emphasis on the Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon centuries may suggest that horse ownership had become more common or that warriors and lords– the traditional possessors of horses– or individuals of some affluence and rank had a growing presence in rural settlements over the centuries. If so, this could have been linked to the

Equestrian pursuits are represented by horseshoes and horseshoe nails, spurs, stirrup/strap mounts, bridle gear and harness, belt and spur fittings (Section 4.3.13). Two Norse bells from Cottam [PF41] may have been fitted to horse harnesses as ornamental objects, however the use/s of the bells remains open to debate (Section 4.3.7).

5.2.8. Equestrian Evidence for equestrian activities is present at up to 20 (44%) settlements (Appendix 5.11). 152

The Consumption of Material Culture

Figure 5.51. Hunting and fishing: artefact commonness per settlement.

Figure 5.52. Equestrian: site chronology.

culture and settlements in the southwest (2 of 4 sites) are least diverse. Most of the artefacts are widely distributed.

development of increasingly complex social hierarchies and/or a demand for a greater military or elite presence in certain areas of England (Sections 2.3.3, 8.2). Supporting these theories is the fact that many of the sites represented in the assemblage are located in the midlands, north or east England, which were regions directly affected by the Viking incursions of the First Viking Age (9th–10th centuries) and subsequent settlements of the Second Viking Age (later 10th–11th centuries) (Section 6.3.10).

Commonness Settlement artefact:building analysis demonstrates that equestrian equipment is most commonly found at West Cotton [PF9], where the Late Anglo-Saxon occupation phase (AD950–1100) produces 28 horseshoes, bridle and stirrup apparatus (Fig. 5.54). Second is Middle Harling [PF40], with a range of equipment some of which is metal detected, and Riby Cross Roads [PF32] is also well represented. Equestrian equipment is least common at Riverdene [PF35], followed equally by Poundbury [PF10] and Carlton Colville [PF28], with Radley Barrow

Site Distribution Settlements located in all regions are represented (Fig. 5.53). Sites in the east (11 of 18 sites) and the midlands (2 of 3 sites) equally produce the greatest variety of material 153

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 5.53. Equestrian: material culture site distribution.

Figure 5.54. Equestrian: artefact commonness per settlement.

Hills [PF1] and Melford Meadows [PF7] little better represented. The settlements producing little equestrian evidence are of Early or Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon date, excepting Riverdene [PF35] which was occupied during the Middle Anglo-Saxon period. This supports the chronological analysis which demonstrates that equestrian activity is characteristically found at Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon settlements.

may have been more common than conventionally thought. Horses could have been put to use by settlement inhabitants for hard labour tasks such as drawing wagons as well as in sport, hunting or war pursuits. Some of the equestrian equipment are prestige items and such conventional indicators of rank and affluence point towards examples of horse ownership by nobles, warriors or other wealthy individuals of the rural settlements (Sections 5.2.11, 7.4). Of note, equestrian equipment is more common at Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon settlements, as are weapons (Section 5.2.6). Equestrian and weaponry can be easily linked, such as for hunting or fighting on horseback.

Summary The considerable evidence for equestrian activities implies that the use and presence of horses at rural settlements 154

The Consumption of Material Culture 5.2.9. Leisure

Mucking [PF4], followed closely by Chalton [PF25] and then Carlton Colville [PF28].

Leisure/gaming objects, which are few in number, are identified at 12 (27%) settlements (Appendix 5.12).

Summary

Material Culture Evidence

Leisurely pastimes, notably counters for game playing, are represented at a relatively small number of settlements. The sites are predominantly of Early and Middle AngloSaxon date, as a higher quantity of Roman artefacts reused as gaming pieces are present at settlements occupied during these centuries (Section 5.2.13). Hunting, fishing and horse riding, discussed separately, could also have been recreational endeavours (Sections 5.2.7–5.2.8).

Evidence for leisurely pursuits comprises counters and gaming pieces, bone ice skates from West Fen Road [PF39], a possible copper-alloy toy horse figure from Carlton Colville [PF28] and a likely metal whistle from West Stow [PF3], which could have served several functions including the making of (rudimentary) music (Section 4.3.16).

5.2.10. Trade and Exchange

Site Chronology

Artefacts which can be directly associated with trade and exchange are identified at 16 (36%) sites (Appendix 5.13). The discussion of material culture in a regio-economic context is the subject of Chapter 6.

The settlements date to all occupation phases excepting the Middle Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 5.55). The Early AngloSaxon period is best represented and the Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period the least. The emphasis on the Early and Middle Anglo-Saxon centuries can be attributed to the significant number of counters/gaming pieces made from reused Roman pottery sherds (Sections 4.3.16, 5.2.13).

Material Culture Evidence Coins of Anglo-Saxon date are the primary indicators of commerce and exchange (Section 4.3.14). Other artefacts pointing to currency use are an extremely worn coin or trade token from Cottam [PF41] and a possible AngloSaxon coin mould from West Stow [PF3]. Commodity measuring apparatus comprise equal armed/equipoise weights, balance and scale weights, a scale pan that could have been used for coin weighing at West Fen Road [PF39] and an unusual lead vessel from Riby Cross Roads [PF32] likely used for the weighing of dry or liquid produce (Steedman 1994, 268) (Section 4.3.14).

Site Distribution Settlements located in all regions are represented (Fig. 5.56). Sites in the east (6 of 18 sites) exhibit the greatest variety and quantity of material culture, compared to the other areas which are represented by less settlements. Counters/gaming pieces are most widely distributed. Commonness Settlement artefact:building analysis demonstrates that leisure activities are most commonly represented at Market Lavington [PF14], where counters are found (Fig. 5.57). Second is Radley Barrow Hills [PF1], which also produces gaming counters. The datable objects from both sites are of Early Anglo-Saxon date. Leisure is least represented at

Site Chronology The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 5.58). The Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Middle Anglo-Saxon period the least. Coins of Anglo-Saxon date are found

Figure 5.55. Leisure: site chronology.

155

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 5.56. Leisure: material culture site distribution.

Figure 5.57. Leisure: artefact commonness per settlement.

at sites occupied in the 7th–later 11th centuries, the period of Anglo-Saxon currency production (Sections 4.3.14, 6.3.1).

Commonness Settlement artefact:building analysis demonstrates that trade and exchange are by far most commonly represented at Middle Harling [PF40], which produces c. 78 coins of AngloSaxon date (Fig. 5.60). Second most commonly represented is Cottam [PF41], where 31 coins and a number of scale weights are found. Both site assemblages have benefitted from metal detecting. The commonness of artefactual evidence is broadly consistent across the remaining settlements, including at the high-status site of Staunch Meadow [PF34] where exchange

Site Distribution Settlements located in all regions are represented (Fig. 5.59). Sites in the east (9 of 18 sites) exhibit the greatest variety and quantity of material culture, compared to the other regions which are represented by less settlements. Coins are found at settlements in every region. 156

The Consumption of Material Culture

Figure 5.58. Trade and exchange: site chronology.

Figure 5.59. Trade and exchange: material culture site distribution.

activities are third most common. Least represented is Mucking [PF4], followed closely by West Stow [PF3].

items are from Staunch Meadow [PF34], reflecting the elite status of the settlement.

Summary

Silver manufactured, plated, gilded or decorated items are the most common, with examples from 13 settlements. Enamelled objects are present at six sites and gold manufactured or decorated artefacts at five settlements. Amethyst is found at three sites and items incorporating garnet also come from three settlements as well as possibly Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27], where a disc brooch and a copper-alloy fragment are decorated with either garnet or red glass. Inlaid prestige items are present at two sites and intricately interlaced artefacts at Middle Harling [PF40].

Artefactual evidence reveals that currency use, exchange and commodity regulation (i.e. weighing, measuring) were commercial activities undertaken at some rural settlements. Material culture and economic reach is examined in Chapter 6. 5.2.11. Prestige and Luxury An element of prestige is denoted by artefacts of considered opulence at 17 (38%) settlements (Appendices 5.14a–5.14b).

The artefacts vary in form and function (Fig. 5.61). Personal adornment items are most common, highlighting that opulent portable objects were popular visual symbols of personal status.

Material Culture Evidence Fine Badorf and Tating ware sherds and more than 60 items of precious metal, stone, enamel and/or intricate inlay can be considered luxury objects. The greatest quantity of

The personal adornment collection comprises more than 18 pins and pin fragments, which are the most common 157

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 5.60. Trade and exchange: artefact commonness per settlement.

Figure 5.61. Prestige and luxury assemblage: site occurrence and percentages.

prestige item found, as well as 12 brooches, five finger rings, two amethyst beads and a worked fragment, one pendant and a second possible example from Mucking [PF4] (Section 4.3.5).

Luxury domestic, household and personal possessions comprise Badorf and Tating ware, five mounts and plaques, two escutcheons, a pair of inscribed tweezers, a possible book clip, a rare wooden spindle-turned cup from Staunch Meadow [PF34] and a silvered Roman spoon from Spong Hill [PF15] that may have been curated (Sections 4.3.1– 4.3.3, 4.3.8, 4.3.15).

Opulent dress accessories are 12 strap ends, five hooked tags, two buckles, two belt studs, one belt mount and, from Carlton Colville [PF28], a possibly gilded wrist clasp and a silver disc that may be an intrusive object (Section 4.3.6). A fine Hiberno-Viking stud from Yarnton [PF17] is likely either a clothing attachment or a bridle fitting (Section 4.3.6).

Also found are prestige weapons and accessories, specifically a seax, a sword pommel, the lower guard of a sword hilt, a silvered shield mount and a second possible example from Barton Court Farm [PF5] (Section 4.3.12). 158

The Consumption of Material Culture Opulent equestrian equipment comprises two stirrup mounts, a prick spur and possibly the Hiberno-Viking stud mentioned above (Sections 4.3.6, 4.3.13).

variety and quantity of material culture and settlements in the midlands (2 of 3 sites) are least diverse. The largest prestige assemblage derives from Staunch Meadow [PF34], the high-status settlement included as a control sample in the dataset, which reflects the elite character of the site (Section 3.2.1). Pins, brooches, finger rings and sheets/fragments are most widely distributed.

The prestige assemblage is completed by artefacts that either derive from once larger items or are manufacturing debris: an enamelled attachment plate, a silver rivet, a silver wire looped item, a rolled gold sheet, a silver sheet, a silver rod and a silver object otherwise unidentified (Sections 4.3.10, 4.3.11).

Commonness

Site Chronology

Settlement artefact:building analysis demonstrates that prestige objects are most commonly found at Middle Harling [PF40] and second most commonly represented at Cottam [PF41] (Fig. 5.64). Both settlements produce a variety of opulent items including pins, finger rings and strap ends, some of which were metal detected. The high-status site of Staunch Meadow [PF34], which has the largest prestige assemblage in terms of quantity, is third most commonly represented. Opulent artefacts are least common at Radley Barrow Hills [PF1], followed closely by Mucking [PF4] and Chalton [PF25]

The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 5.62). The Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon periods are equally least represented. Site Distribution Settlements located in all regions are represented (Fig. 5.63). Sites in the east (8 of 18 sites) exhibit the greatest

Figure 5.62. Prestige and luxury: site chronology.

Figure 5.63. Prestige and luxury: material culture site distribution.

159

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 5.64. Prestige and luxury: artefact commonness per settlement.

which are equally represented. The findings show that portable wealth– items indicative of personal rank and/or prosperity– are widely found in communities other than elite settlements.

Material Culture Evidence Reading and writing at several settlements is suggested by seven inscribed artefacts. From Radley Barrow Hills [PF1] is a Roman samian ware bowl incised with the letter ‘R’ and an Anglo-Saxon pottery sherd with runic graffito (Section 4.3.1). At Middle Harling [PF40] is a silver finger ring bearing a Lombardic inscription (Section 4.3.5). From Staunch Meadow [PF34] are four items: a gold plaque with a Latin inscription reading ‘St John the Evangelist’; a silver pin inscribed with the beginning 16 letters of the fuþorc, the Anglo-Saxon runic alphabet; a pair of silver tweezers with a runic inscription, likely of the Anglian male name ‘Aldred’; and an antler inkwell with an incomplete runic inscription (Sections 4.3.3, 4.3.5, 4.3.8, 4.3.15).

Summary Prestige objects illustrate a consumerist desire for affluence and luxury, as well as available access to such items at a number of settlements. The objects reflect social structures operating within settlement communities, pointing towards the association of wealthy and/or highranking individuals or groups with some rural settlements. Individual status or wealth could be signified through prestigious items and most of the artefacts were either worn about the person, for example jewellery or swords, or attached to an individual’s belongings denoting ownership, such as equestrian equipment for a horse or accessories for a warrior’s shield. Reverence of burial rites and the dead is demonstrated by the opulent belt studs, a brooch, a buckle and a likely shield mount from two burials, [807] and [820], at Barton Court Farm [PF5] (Section 5.2.15). Further indicators are escutcheons which, although not found within grave contexts at the sites, are items also potentially associated with burial. Material culture, status and hierarchy is examined further in Section 7.4.

The pursuit of writing is potentially represented at six settlements (Section 4.3.15). Styli are present at up to five sites, including West Fen Road [PF39] which also produces a possible parchment pricker. From Cottam [PF41] are two stone ‘slate’ pencils that may have been used for writing on slate boards. Staunch Meadow [PF34], at which three styli are found, further yields eight glass inkwell sherds as well as the antler inkwell described above. Literacy is further suggested by a likely book page clip from Brandon Road [PF12] and six possible book mounts from Middle Harling [PF40] decorated with potential allusions to Roman/Latin literacy (Section 4.3.15).

5.2.12. Literacy

Site Chronology

Indications of literacy at the settlements is minimal, with potential evidence identified at nine (20%) sites (Appendix 5.15).

The settlements date to all occupation phases excepting the Late Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 5.65). The Middle–Late 160

The Consumption of Material Culture Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Early– Middle and Middle Anglo-Saxon periods are equally least represented.

mounts are metal detected items (Fig. 5.67). Second most commonly represented is Cottam [PF41], followed by Orton Hall Farm [PF8]. Staunch Meadow [PF34] is fourth most commonly represented, although the site produces the largest literacy assemblage in terms of artefact quantity. Least represented is West Stow [PF3].

Site Distribution Settlements in three regions, excepting the southwest and the midlands, are represented (Fig. 5.66). Sites in the east (7 of 18 sites) exhibit the greatest variety and quantity of material culture, with Radley Barrow Hills [PF1] in the south and Cottam [PF41] in the north the only other settlements represented. The largest literacy assemblage is from high-status Staunch Meadow [PF34], the control sample of the dataset (Section 3.2.1). Inscribed artefacts are most widely distributed.

Summary Evidence of a reading and writing culture at the sites is minimal, although it does show such activities taking place in non-elite rural settlements. The largest assemblage is from high-status Staunch Meadow [PF34], which supports long-held assertions that literacy was almost exclusive to the sphere of ecclesiastics, royal administrators and the elite (Gameson 2011, 96–102; Brown 2017, 72).

Commonness

5.2.13. Recycling and Reuse

Settlement artefact:building analysis demonstrates that literacy is most commonly represented at Middle Harling [PF40], where an inscribed ring and possible box

Modified and reused Roman and Anglo-Saxon artefacts are present at 20 (44%) sites (Appendices 5.16.1–5.16.4).

Figure 5.65. Literacy: site chronology.

Figure 5.66. Literacy: material culture site distribution.

161

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 5.67. Literacy: artefact commonness per settlement.

Material Culture Evidence

Also found are 10 Roman shale armlet cores at Poundbury [PF10], recycled into pendants or spindlewhorls. The site further produces two Ham Hill stone (c. 4th century) fragments which were hollowed out to form probable basins. A glass vessel sherd from Market Lavington [PF14] is modified into a bead. The assemblage further includes an unquantified number of tiles recycled into various items such as a loomweight at Radley Barrow Hills [PF1] and floor surfaces and building paving at Staunch Meadow [PF34]. A piece of limestone veneer from Godmanchester [PF11] is modified into a sharpening stone.

The reused Roman artefact collection is significantly larger than the Anglo-Saxon group. More than 240 recycled Roman objects, predominantly pottery and coins, are identified at 16 (36%) sites. Thirty-nine pottery sherds from nine settlements have been modified into spindlewhorls and 17 sherds at six sites are refashioned into counters and gaming pieces. A sherd is reused as a dish at Mucking [PF4], a perforated example forms a disc at Lechlade [PF16] and one sherd is recycled as a lamp base at Cottam [PF41]. Refashioned sherds of indeterminate or undisclosed purpose are present at Radley Barrow Hills [PF1] (65 sherds), West Stow [PF3] (2 sherds) and Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27] (1 sherd).

The reused Anglo-Saxon artefact group comprises at least 13 items from eight (18%) sites. Two pottery sherds from Radley Barrow Hills [PF1] and Heybridge [PF2] are recycled into spindlewhorls. A decorated bronze bracelet at Barton Court Farm [PF5] cut down and refashioned into a finger ring may be a 5th century insular Quoit brooch imitation (Miles 1986, fiche 4). From Raunds Furnells [PF6] is a worked bone gaming piece modified into a spindlewhorl and two glass vessel sherds refashioned into beads. At Staunch Meadow [PF34] is a decorated silver fragment, possibly from a drinking horn, which is cut down to form a mount and a debased silver coin (dated c. AD675–750) with an incomplete piercing, perhaps an attempt to make a pendant. The settlement also produces a Niedermendig lava quern reused for, or as part of, a working surface and a second lava quern of probable Anglo-Saxon date recycled as building padding. From Fordham [PF31] is a quern reused as a rubbing stone and shears at Cowdery’s Down [PF22] have been modified into a structural fitting. A loomweight from Godmanchester [PF11] is refashioned into a possible protective amulet.

Ninety-seven Roman coins from six sites are identified as reused. It is recognised that further examples may also be present at the settlements– for example at Mucking [PF4] a Roman coin corroded onto a brooch could have been ornamentation for the item– however only examples interpreted by the excavators/specialists are included in the study. Forty Roman coins from five sites have been pierced for suspension, likely as pendants or similar ornamentation (Section 4.3.5). With a total assemblage of c. 289 Roman coins, West Stow [PF3] produces 35 of these perforated coins as well as c. 55 other examples which had been variously modified during the AngloSaxon period through clipping, nicking, hammering or abrading (Curnow 1985, 76–81). At Barton Court Farm [PF5], two Roman coins were deposited as grave goods in the Anglo-Saxon burials of an adult male [258] and female [271] (Section 5.2.15). 162

The Consumption of Material Culture Site Chronology

sites in the south (4 of 14 sites), the east (3 of 18 sites) and the midlands (1 of 3 sites) (Fig. 5.70). Sites in the east (4 of 18 sites) exhibit the greatest variety and quantity of material culture and the midlands (1 of 3 sites), represented by Raunds Furnells [PF6], is least diverse. Radley Barrow Hills [PF1], Barton Court Farm [PF5], Godmanchester [PF11] and Staunch Meadow [PF34] produce both reused Roman and Anglo-Saxon objects.

Roman recycled objects are found at settlements which chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 5.68). The Early Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon periods are equally least represented. The emphasis on the earlier Anglo-Saxon centuries reflects the broad chronological pattern evident across the Roman finds assemblage (Section 4.3.20).

Commonness

Anglo-Saxon recycled items are found at settlements which date to all occupation phases excepting the Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 5.69). The Late Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Early–Middle AngloSaxon period the least.

Settlement artefact:building analysis demonstrates that recycling activities are most commonly represented at Radley Barrow Hills [PF1], followed closely by West Stow [PF3] (Fig. 5.71). The assemblage from Radley Barrow Hills [PF1] is dominated by pottery sherds and the collection from West Stow [PF3] by modified coins. Recycled Roman objects are third most common at Poundbury [PF10] and the activity is least represented at Mucking [PF4], followed closely by Pennyland [PF19]. The reuse of Anglo-Saxon items is most frequent at Raunds Furnells [PF6] and the smallest recycled AngloSaxon group is also present at Radley Barrow Hills [PF1].

Site Distribution Roman reused objects are found at settlements located in all regions (Fig. 5.70). Sites in the east (7 of 18 sites) exhibit the greatest variety of recycled items and settlements in the southwest (2 of 4 sites) are least diverse. The much smaller Anglo-Saxon reused assemblage derives from

Figure 5.68. Roman reused artefacts: site chronology.

Figure 5.69. Anglo-Saxon reused artefacts: site chronology.

163

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 5.70. Recycling and reuse (combined): material culture site distribution.

Figure 5.71. Recycling and reuse (combined): artefact commonness per settlement.

Summary

due to their use over significantly longer periods of time. Recycling such artefactual material into new objects for consumption is indicative of a degree of self-sufficiency and the productive use of resources taking place within the settlements.

The evidence reveals that artefactual recycling activities took place at a significant proportion of the settlements. The disparity between the sizes of the Roman (240+ artefacts) and Anglo-Saxon (13 artefacts) assemblages is likely explained by the fact that a significant proportion of the Anglo-Saxon artefacts were manufactured and consumed near-contemporaneously, with the items largely serving their original functions whilst in circulation. In contrast, a higher percentage of the Roman artefacts would have been collected in various stages of damage or disrepair

The Roman and Anglo-Saxon assemblages exhibit similarities, with both including reused pottery sherds, coins, querns and glass vessel sherds. Also found in both are pottery sherds refashioned into spindlewhorls, coins perforated for suspension and glass sherds recycled into beads. This reflects the importance of textile working at 164

The Consumption of Material Culture [PF31] (c. AD850–1050), a complete horse skull found in a pit [F230] and a partial dog skeleton from an enclosure [E] ditch [F123] are identified as ‘special deposits’ (Patrick & Rátkai 2011, 51–3). From Staunch Meadow [PF34], a partial mature male horse burial was found within a post-pit of a church [7098]. The burial includes the head and parts of the vertebrae, ribs and mandible, while the position of the horse skull is suggested by the excavators to possibly imbue ritual significance (Tester et al 2014, 48, 362). In the Late Anglo-Saxon occupation phase of West Cotton [PF9] (AD950–1100), a dog burial consisting of an intact skull and mandible was discovered placed within a pit located between a ditch system [10 (LSD 10)] and a hall [T29]. It is argued that this positioning may symbolise that the burial is an example of a protective or ritual ‘special deposit’ (Chapman 2010, 74).

the settlements as well as the emphasis placed on personal adornment, which is strongly evidenced by objects at many sites (Sections 5.2.2, 5.2.4). 5.2.14. Ritual Ritual activities are interpreted at 11 (24%) settlements. It is recognised that the attribution of religious or supernatural ritualistic meaning to other material culture by the Anglo-Saxons may simply not be identifiable at present (Appendix 5.17). Material Culture Evidence Pagan religion is suggested by a T-shaped pendant from Bishopstone [PF13] which is a likely depiction of the Norse god Thor’s hammer (Section 4.3.5). Christianity is venerated at Staunch Meadow [PF34] by a St John the Baptist gold plaque and two pins and a strap end depicting likely Christian allusions (Sections 4.3.3, 4.3.5–4.3.6).

Three artefacts from West Stow [PF3], Godmanchester [PF11] and Abingdon [PF24] are interpreted as possible amulets– small jewellery or ornamental items believed to offer protective powers against harm, illness or danger (Meaney 1981, 3–4, 6–7) (Section 4.3.7). It has been suggested that Norse bells, such as the two found at Cottam [PF41], may have been worn on necklaces and attributed with amuletic or even shamanistic qualities (Meaney 1981, 142; Schoenfelder & Richards 2011, 159–60) (Section 4.3.7).

‘Special deposits’ are recorded at seven settlements. The purpose and meaning/s of ‘special deposits’ remain a subject of academic discussion, however they can be broadly defined as the deliberate ritual and/or functional placement of artefacts or human and animal bone within a physical setting (Hamerow 2006, 26–8; Morris & Jervis 2011, 66; Sofield 2012). Hamerow has identified examples of deliberate ritual and functional placement of pottery and animal bone deposits within Early Anglo-Saxon structures at various settlements, either at the time of foundation or post-use, and argues that future work should concentrate on the ritual aspect of ‘special deposits’ (Hamerow 2006, 26–8). However, James Morris and Ben Jervis question the special nature of the deliberate placements, arguing that depositional activity was multifaceted rather than merely ritual and should be seen as an activity that was undertaken as an integrated part of daily life (Morris & Jervis 2011, 66).

Site Chronology The settlements chronologically span the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 5.72). The Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon periods are equally best represented and the Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period the least. Site Distribution Settlements located in every region excepting the southwest are represented (Fig. 5.73). Sites in the south (3 of 14 sites) and the east (5 of 18 sites) equally produce the greatest variety of material culture and settlements in the midlands (2 of 3 sites) and the north (1 of 6 sites) are equally least diverse. ‘Special deposits’ are most widely distributed.

The ‘special deposits’ from the settlements of study vary in composition and form and only features identified as a ‘special deposit’ by the excavators are included in this assessment. At Mucking [PF4], a significant quantity of antlers appear to have been deliberately placed on the bottom of a recut Roman ditch [3958] during the AngloSaxon period (Hamerow 1993, 19–21). From Bishopstone [PF13], the articulated skull and the mandible of two cattle positioned in a post-pit [1706] of PBS [V] during the Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon occupation phase (c. 8th– late 10th/early 11th centuries) may have been deliberately placed (Thomas 2010, 60). A cow burial at Cowdery’s Down [PF22] discovered in a pit [6] is also interpreted as a ‘special deposit’. The base of the pit had been filled with clay and a single pig bone, then levelled over and covered by cobbles. A clay layer sealed the cobbles and placed upon this was the virtually intact cow burial (Millet 1984, 221). Similarly, a cow burial [3663] at Catholme [PF36] is thought to be a ‘special deposit’ (Losco-Bradley & Kinsley 2002, 40–1). From the Late Anglo-Saxon phase of Fordham

Commonness Settlement artefact:building analysis demonstrates that the minimal potential evidence for ritual activities is most commonly represented at Cottam [PF41] and least at West Stow [PF3] (Fig. 5.74). Summary A small number of artefacts can be interpreted as reflecting ritualistic practices as elements of rural life in the settlements. 5.2.15. Burial and Funerary Evidence for burial and funerary practices at the settlements consists of primary and secondary material 165

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 5.72. Ritual: site chronology.

Figure 5.73. Ritual: material culture site distribution.

culture assemblages, collectively represented across 17 (38%) sites (Appendices 5.19.1–5.19.2).

Knives are the most frequent grave good, with one burial at Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27], one at Catholme [PF36] and two burials at Barton Court Farm [PF5] accompanied by one knife each. Four knives come from the grave of an adult ?male [451] at Middle Harling [PF40]. The burial dates to the c. late 9th–early 10th centuries, making it one of a relatively small number of burials accompanied by grave goods known in the East Anglian region during this period, strongly suggesting that the occupant was a pagan Viking/Dane (Rogerson 1995, 25). One whittle-tang knife in this burial [451] was placed within the adult’s left elbow and a straightbacked knife overlay a hone situated in proximity to the pelvis. The straight-backed knife had a pivot-bladed knife of 9th–10th centuries date placed over it and both were positioned with tips facing north and cutting edges west. A second pivot-bladed knife, also of 9th–10th centuries date, was found west of the hone (Rogerson 1995, 24–5, 79–80).

Primary Contexts The primary archaeological evidence comprises AngloSaxon burials situated within the six settlements of Barton Court Farm [PF5], Poundbury [PF10], Brandon Road [PF12], Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27], Catholme [PF36] and Middle Harling [PF40]. Grave goods are found within burials at each settlement excepting Brandon Road [PF12]. Material Culture Evidence Most artefacts found within the burials are recognised as grave goods or personal adornment/dress items in which the deceased were buried and thus constitute primary evidence (Appendix 5.19.1). 166

The Consumption of Material Culture

Figure 5.74. Ritual: artefact commonness per settlement.

Also within burial [451] at Middle Harling [PF40] was a copper-alloy buckle likely of Scandinavian type, with a quite unusual rectangular moulded frame and an iron plate. It was found on the left pelvis and was possibly worn by the individual. A second small D-shaped iron buckle was uncovered by the left knee. Next to the left foot was a straight-sided iron spur with unusual curledround terminals which, given its positioning, may have been attached to the shoe of the occupant. A fine copperalloy ear scoop decorated with leaf-shaped zones divided by transverse ribbing also comes from the grave. Ear scoops are uncommon burial items during the 9th and 10th centuries, as compared with other toilet items such as tweezers or combs (Rogerson 1995, 79–80). Finally, a Thetford-type sherd from the grave fill is likely an intrusive item that was backfilled into the burial (Rogerson 1995, 24–5, 79–80).

accompanied by– as well as the pin– a gilded saucer brooch, two silver and gilded bronze belt studs in sinuous animal form, a silver and bronze buckle with studs and amber bead fragments. A third grave of a female [271] at the settlement, buried with a newborn, was also accompanied by amber bead fragments as well as a bronze ring and a 3rd century Roman bronze radiate coin (Miles 1985, 18). Another 3rd century Roman radiate comes from a male adult burial [258] at Barton Court Farm [PF5], which may have originally been placed in the mouth of the adult. Also in the burial was a lump of iron slag, likely intrusive or residual. Several 6th century pottery sherds from undisclosed burial contexts at Barton Court Farm [PF5] were possibly also residual or intrusive. The final burial at the settlement is of a second male adult [1171] and devoid of artefacts. In terms of range and quantity, the grave goods from the three female burials at Barton Court Farm [PF5] contrast with the two male adult burials and point towards the existence of social hierarchy at the settlement (Section 7.4.2). It is possible that the burials date to after the abandonment of Barton Court Farm [PF5] in the mid–late 6th century and instead belong to the longer-lived nearby settlement of Radley Barrow Hills [PF1] (Miles 1986, 37).

Artefacts associated with personal adornment and dress/ styling form the largest category of grave goods in the settlement burials. Pins are the most common item in the group. A bone hair pin was present in each of the four burials at Poundbury [PF10], of which three are conical-headed and one is round-headed. At Barton Court Farm [PF5], iron pin fragments were found in the grave of a female adult [807] and bronze pin fragments in another female adult burial [820] (Miles 1986, 18). Both these female burials were well furnished. The former female burial [807] also included an amber bead, a bone comb, a knife and a bronze silvered plate in the shape of a fish, which is a common shield mount form. The latter female burial [820] was more richly furnished,

Site Chronology The settlements date to all occupation phases excepting the Late Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 5.75). The Middle AngloSaxon period is best represented and the Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period the least. 167

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements Site Distribution

been associated with funerary practices at some point. The assemblage comes from 15 (33%) settlements, of which 10 and possibly Brandon Road [PF12] had associated cemeteries.

Settlement burials with grave goods are present at: Barton Court Farm [PF5] and Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27] in the south, Poundbury [PF10] in the southwest, Middle Harling [PF40] in the east and Catholme [PF36] in the midlands (Fig. 5.76).

Material Culture Evidence The evidence includes disarticulated human bone from secondary depositional contexts at the settlements, examples of which likely originally derived from burials (Section 4.3.17). Also in the assemblage are: four hanging bowl escutcheons, three of which are finely decorated items; identifiable urn sherds at Orton Hall Farm [PF8] and Collingbourne Ducis [PF38]; a possible funerary Valsgärde bowl from Brandon Road [PF12]; and another possible copper-alloy funerary bowl from Goch Way [PF26] (Section 4.3.1). From Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27] are two animal-headed fittings and two mounts with Salin Style II animal ornamentation which parallel grave goods from the Sutton Hoo ship burial, Suffolk (Sections 4.3.3, 4.3.10).

Commonness The commonness of grave goods in settlement burials has been calculated by the number of grave objects divided by the number of burials (artefact:burial) per settlement (Fig. 5.77; Section 3.2.7). Grave [451] at Middle Harling [PF40] is most amply furnished and may have been a Viking/Danish burial (see above). Secondary Contexts The secondary material culture assemblage comprises artefacts from non-funerary/burial contexts that may have

Figure 5.75. Burial and funerary, primary contexts: site chronology.

Figure 5.76. Burial and funerary, primary contexts: grave goods site distribution.

168

The Consumption of Material Culture Site Chronology

Commonness

The settlements date to all occupation phases excepting the Late Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 5.78). The Middle– Late Anglo-Saxon period is best represented and the Early Anglo-Saxon period the least.

Settlement artefact:building analysis demonstrates that potential secondary evidence of burial/funerary activity is most common at Orton Hall Farm [PF8] (Fig. 5.80). The site produces urn sherds and disarticulated human bone, however an associated cemetery to the settlement has not been identified. Second most commonly represented is West Stow [PF3], where human bone is also found, and the settlement has a contemporary inhumation and cremation cemetery. Least represented, equally, are Chalton [PF25] and Catholme [PF36], closely followed by Carlton Colville [PF28]. The latter two of these settlements have associated cemeteries.

Site Distribution Settlements located in all regions are represented (Fig. 5.79). Sites in the south (4 of 14 sites) and east (7 of 18 sites) exhibit the greatest variety and quantity of material culture, compared to the other regions which are represented by less settlements. Disarticulated human bone is most widely distributed.

Figure 5.77. Burial and funerary, primary contexts: artefact commonness per burial.

Figure 5.78. Burial and funerary, secondary contexts: site chronology.

169

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 5.79. Burial and funerary, secondary contexts: material culture site distribution.

Figure 5.80. Burial and funerary, secondary contexts: artefact commonness per settlement.

Summary

activities were taking place at the settlements (Fig. 5.81).

The artefacts from the primary and secondary burial assemblages are comparable with burial goods from Anglo-Saxon cemeteries. For instance, knives, pins and beads are common grave items. This confirms that the few settlement burials were undertaken in similar fashion to graves located in the cemeteries.

Patterns of consumption evidenced by material culture demonstrate that rural life was strongly characterised by domestic undertakings alongside manufacturing, utilitarian and agricultural/cultivation activities. Domestic evidence is far ranging, revealing households undertaking routine tasks such as cooking, storing and laundering as well as considerations of fashion, jewellery and cosmetic appearances, as shown by the dress, adornment and toiletry assemblages. Production and agrarian activities, supported by utilitarian tasks, provided essentials such as foodstuffs

5.3. Conclusions The analysis of artefacts as indicators of cultural and behavioural practices reveals that a range of c­ onsumption 170

The Consumption of Material Culture

Figure 5.81. Consumption activities at the settlements: site occurrence and percentages.

further highlighting degrees of prosperity as well as exchange/commerce and monetary circulation taking place at some rural settlements. These findings indicate the existence of social structures within the settlements and demonstrate that portable wealth, commonly associated with personal status, and multifaceted economies were not atypical of non-elite rural sites. The evidence for literacy, albeit minimal, at the settlements also highlights such potential social complexities, as the activity was chiefly the domain of elite and monastic centres. Finally, the material culture shows that ritual activities as well as burial/funerary rites were elements of rural settlement life, however it is acknowledged that further examples of artefacts imbued with ritualistic significance by the AngloSaxons may not be recognisable to the modern interpreter.

and raw materials for the settlements, promoted selfsufficiency in the communities and the surplus stimulated trade and the economy. Manufacturing and crafts took place at all settlements. Textile and metal working were most frequently carried out and evidence for leather, wood and bone working is also strong. Evidence for pottery and glass manufacture is slight, pointing towards the common production of these materials at other Anglo-Saxon centres such as monastic institutions and towns (i.e. Hall et al 2004, 474, 478, 483; Paynter et al 2014). Hunting and fishing are well represented activities at the settlements, undertaken for food provision as well as recreation. Other leisurely activities, such as gaming, are less well evidenced. Many of the gaming counters uncovered are designed from reused Roman pottery and artefactual recycling took place at a significant proportion of settlements, indicating another degree of self-sufficiency. Most recycled artefacts are of Roman date, with few AngloSaxon examples as contemporary objects are most likely to have functioned in their original capacity.

Several chronological and geographical trends are apparent regarding consumption activities taking place across the settlements. No fewer than four out of the five chronological periods of settlement occupation and/or three of the five geographical regions of site location are represented per main consumption activity (Section 7.2). Settlements situated in east England, followed by those in the south, are best represented across the consumption activities, however most sites of study are located in these areas (Section 3.3.1).

The prominence of warfare and equestrian pursuits, evidenced at up to 24 and 20 settlements respectively, is substantial enough to point towards the presence of warriors and/or other elite and wealthy individuals within rural settlements. It can also be suggested that horse ownership may not have been chiefly the preserve of the privileged (i.e. Sundkvist 2004, 241–3; Pollington et al 2010, 409–12; Mortimer 2011, 278). A range of prestige objects, including examples of weaponry and equestrian equipment, further indicate affluence and degrees of social hierarchy at the settlements. Such items are found at the high-status site of Staunch Meadow [PF34] as well as up to 16 other settlements, demonstrating that portable wealth was not exclusive to higher ranking communities. Trade is suggested by coins of Anglo-Saxon date at 13 settlements,

The recycling and reuse of Roman objects is more common at settlements of Early and Middle Anglo-Saxon date, reflecting the higher incidence of Roman artefacts found at sites occupied during these centuries (Sections 4.3.20, 5.2.13). This pattern is further highlighted by leisure activities and the pierced Roman coins collection, where gaming counters modified from Roman objects and the perforated coins, reused as pendants or similar, are most commonly found at Early and Middle Anglo-Saxon settlements (Sections 4.3.5, 5.2.9). 171

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements relative affluence of Middle Harling [PF40] and Cottam [PF41], economically and in terms of portable wealth, and the potential status of Cottam [PF41] as a ‘productive’ (economic) site is currently debated (Section 2.3.3).

Chronological and geographical contextualisation can be theorised for warfare and equestrian activities (Sections 5.2.6, 5.2.8). Evidence for both is frequently found at settlements located in the Danelaw area of north, midlands and east England and occupied during the Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon centuries, corresponding with the First Viking Age (9th–10th centuries) and Second Viking Age (later 10th– 11th centuries) in England (Sections 2.3.3, 6.3.10). These activities could therefore be suggestive of the presence of warriors and/or authoritative members of the elite in some settlements, reflecting the turbulent times of this period. The evidence also highlights the existence of social structures within the settlements as weaponry and equestrian equipment may have been owned by other individuals of various degrees of wealth and/or rank. The hierarchical nature of Anglo-Saxon society became progressively complex from the c. 7th century and this development may be reflected in the weapons collection, which is also well represented in the Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period. Further consumption that may reflect an increasingly multifaceted society are prestige and literacy activities, which are more commonly found in the Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon periods and also suggest degrees of affluence and status amongst individuals associated with the rural settlements.

Comparison of the control sample, the high-status settlement of Staunch Meadow [PF34], with the rest of the study set demonstrates that elite and lower status rural settlements undertook similar activities, ranging from manufacturing to trade and conspicuous consumption. For example, bone working is most common at Staunch Meadow [PF34] and the site is third most commonly represented by trade and exchange, personal adornment and prestige consumption, as well as fourth for literacy. The findings point towards complexities in the consumption and society of rural settlements. 5.4. Summary This chapter has examined consumption patterns at the settlements, as evidenced by material culture. Section 5.2 identifies the consumption activities undertaken, which are assessed in terms of material culture evidence, site chronology, site distribution and the frequency, or ‘commonness’, of the activities taking place at the settlements. This analysis demonstrates that domestic, manufacturing, utilitarian and agricultural/cultivation endeavours were the dominant activities undertaken at the settlements. Also represented are hunting, fishing, leisurely pursuits, recycling, ritual activities and burial/ funerary rites. The occurrence of prestige items, currency, weaponry, equestrian equipment and artefacts indicative of literary culture across a substantial number of the sites point towards social status and hierarchy within the rural settlements, examined further in Section 7.4. Assessment of the commonness of consumption activities occurring per site has enabled settlement signatures and specialisms to be profiled, discussed further in Section 7.3.

Analysis of the commonness of consumption activities occurring per site has enabled settlement signatures and profiles to be established, which is examined further in Section 7.3 (Appendix 8). The analysis demonstrates that the greatest frequency trends are exhibited at Cottam [PF41], with the settlement most commonly represented in seven consumption activities as well as cooking, eating/ drinking and storage with the exclusion of pottery (Section 5.2.1). The common consumption activities at Cottam [PF41] include prestige, dress and personal adornment, all which are influenced by the great number of artefacts metal detected at the site. Similarly, Middle Harling [PF40] produces many metal detected objects and is most commonly represented as a result in trade and exchange, warfare and literacy consumption. The settlement is additionally second most commonly represented– after Cottam [PF41]– in prestige, dress and personal adornment consumption. These activities are dominated by metal artefacts, stressing again the potential importance of metal detecting in expanding knowledge of an archaeological site (Section 3.3.1). The findings also highlight the

Following, Chapter 6 develops upon the assessment of material culture consumption presented in the current chapter through focusing on artefacts from an economic perspective, assessing material culture provenance and distributional trends to evaluate the potential economic reach of the rural settlements.

172

6 Material Culture and Economic Reach 6.1. Overview

in the local sphere of, the settlements, further demonstrated by a range of evidence for production and manufacturing at the sites (Section 5.2.4). A proportion of the locally produced items could have been sold or exchanged within the settlements or through localised trading networks. Artefacts of confirmed or likely regional provenance are present at 39 settlements and material culture of supraregional origin at up to 26 sites (Table 6.1). Imported items are recorded at 29 sites and possible examples are further present at Radley Barrow Hills [PF1], Heybridge [PF2], Melford Meadows [PF7], Orsett Cock [PF18] and Riverdene (PF35). The results and implications of these findings are discussed in the ensuing sections.

In this chapter the material culture evidence from the rural settlements is analysed within an economic framework, in order to address the fourth research question of the study: What can material culture reveal about the economic reach of Anglo-Saxon rural settlements? Material culture defined by the distributional parameters as of local, regional and supraregional provenance (Section 3.2.9), is first presented (Section 6.2). Following, the distribution and sources of material culture is assessed in order to examine potential economic patterns and trends exhibited at the settlements (Section 6.3).

6.3. Material Culture Provenance and Economic Context

6.2. Material Culture Provenance

This section examines stratified, unstratified (including residual) and metal detected artefacts of confirmed, likely and possible Anglo-Saxon date for which provenance could be confirmed or likely established, highlighting the potential economic reach of the rural settlements (Sections 2.3.3, 3.2.8–3.2.9; Appendix 6).

Analysis of the provenance of material culture, utilising the defined local, regional and supraregional distributional parameters (Sections 3.2.8–3.2.9), shows that all sites consistently produce Anglo-Saxon material culture of local origin and that regional, supraregional and imported artefacts are represented at settlements throughout the Anglo-Saxon period (Appendix 6). The fluctuating scale and quantity of regional, supraregional and imported artefacts overtime can be associated with various factors including differing modes of economic exchange and transactions as well as geography, political circumstances and the ready availability of high-quality resources (Section 6.3).

Thirteen sites produce 161 coins of various Anglo-Saxon date (Fig. 6.1; Sections 4.3.14, 5.2.10; Appendix 6.1). The settlement dates span the 7th–later 11th centuries, corresponding to the Anglo-Saxon coin production period.

The large quantity of locally produced artefacts exemplifies the high degree of self-sufficiency taking place within, and/or

The assemblage is considerably diverse (Table 6.2). It includes c. 44 sceattas of Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon

6.3.1. Coins

Table 6.1. Settlements and material culture provenance PF no.

Settlements

Location

Material culture provenance

Totals

Local

Regional

Supraregional

Imported

1

Radley Barrow Hills

Oxfordshire

X

X

X

?X

c. 4

2

Heybridge

Essex

X

X

X

?X

c. 4

3

West Stow

Suffolk

X

X

X

X

4

4

Mucking

Essex

X

X

X

X

4

5

Barton Court Farm

Oxfordshire

X

X

X

3

6

Raunds Furnells

Northamptonshire

X

X

?X

X

c. 4

7

Melford Meadows

Norfolk

X

X

X

?X

c. 4

8

Orton Hall Farm

Cambridgeshire

X

X

X

X

4

9

West Cotton

Northamptonshire

X

X

X

X

4

173

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements Table 6.1 continued PF no.

Settlements

Location

Material culture provenance

Totals

Local

Regional

Supraregional

Imported

X

X

4

X

3

10

Poundbury

Dorset

X

X

11

Godmanchester

Cambridgeshire

X

X

12

Brandon Road

Norfolk

X

X

X

X

4

13

Bishopstone

East Sussex

X

X

?X

X

c. 4

14

Market Lavington

Wiltshire

X

X

X

3

15

Spong Hill

Norfolk

X

X

X

4

16

Lechlade

Gloucestershire

X

X

X

3

17

Yarnton

Oxfordshire

X

X

X

X

4

18

Orsett Cock

Essex

X

X

X

?X

c. 4

19

Pennyland

Buckinghamshire

X

X

X

3

20

Thirlings

Northumberland

X

?X

21

Maxey

Cambridgeshire

X

22

Cowdery’s Down

Hampshire

X

23

Kilverstone

Norfolk

X

24

Abingdon

Oxfordshire

X

25

Chalton

Hampshire

X

26

Goch Way

Hampshire

X

X

27

S. Courtenay/Drayton

Oxfordshire

X

?X

28

Carlton Colville

Suffolk

X

X

29

Foxholes Farm

Hertfordshire

X

30

Quarrington

Lincolnshire

X

X

X

3

31

Fordham

Cambridgeshire

X

X

X

3

32

Riby Cross Roads

Lincolnshire

X

X

X

X

4

33

Pitstone

Buckinghamshire

X

?X

?X

34

Staunch Meadow

Suffolk

X

X

X

X

4

35

Riverdene

Hampshire

X

X

X

?X

c. 4

36

Catholme

Staffordshire

X

X

37

Cottenham

Cambridgeshire

X

X

38

Collingbourne Ducis

Wiltshire

X

X

39

West Fen Road

Cambridgeshire

X

40

Middle Harling

Norfolk

41

Cottam

42

X

c. 2 ?X

X

X

c. 3 2 1

X

2 X

2 2

?X

X

c. 3

X

c. 4 1

c. 3

2 X

3

?X

X

c. 4

X

X

X

4

X

X

?X

X

c. 4

East Yorkshire

X

X

X

X

4

Simy Folds

Co. Durham

X

43

Goltho

Lincolnshire

X

X

2

44

Mawgan Porth

Cornwall

X

X

2

45

Springfield Lyons

Essex

X

X

X

X

45

c. 39

c. 26

c. 34

Totals

174

1

4

Material Culture and Economic Reach

Figure 6.1. Settlements with coins and mints.

175

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements Table 6.2. Coin types and series/derivatives identified PF no.

Settlements

Sceattas

4

Mucking

3: Series BX

9

West Cotton

12

Brandon Road

13

Bishopstone

27

S.Courtenay/ Drayton

10: Series B (various); C (various); H, Type 48; Series J, Type 37; Series K, Type 33; N; Q (various)

28

Carlton Colville

1: Series Blg

32

Riby Cross Roads

34

Staunch Meadow

16: Series K; O; Q (various); Q/R; R (various); 70h

39

West Fen Road

2: Series L, Type 18

40

Middle Harling

9: Series R; U

41

Cottam

c. 2

44 45

Stycas

Pennies

Imported

Unidentified

3 1: Cnut

1: Series R

Totals

2: Aethelred II of Northumbria

1: Aethelred II

1 1: Series X sceat, ?Ribe/Jutish

5

4: Berhtwulf of Mercia; Alfred of Wessex; Edward the Elder; Edmund I

4

3: Series E ‘porcupine’ sceattas, Dorestad/Rhine

13

1 1: Series E ‘porcupine’ sceat 1: Aethelred II of Northumbria

2: Beonna of East Anglia; Coenwulf of Mercia

1

1

20

2

c. 67: Beonna of East Anglia (various); Berhtwulf of Mercia; Alfred of Wessex; St Edmund Memorial; Edmund I; Edgar; Aethelred II; Cnut; Edward the Confessor 26: Eanred; Aethelred II of Northumbria; irregular

1: Kufic dirham, central Asia

1: ?Late AngloSaxon

c. 78

c. 3: Uigmund, Archbishop of York; Aethelbert of Wessex

c. 31

Mawgan Porth

1: Aethelred II

1

Springfield Lyons

1: Aethelred II

1

Totals

c. 44

29

c. 80

176

c. 6

2

Material Culture and Economic Reach of exchange, given the settlements were occupied well beyond the period of sceatta production.

date, indicating rural settlement participation in the exchange systems of the period. Further discovered are 29 stycas and c. 80 pennies of Late Anglo-Saxon date, evidencing engagement in the growing monetary economy of later Anglo-Saxon England. Four imported coins– three sceattas and a penny– and two further possible examples are also found, as well as two unidentifiable coins.

Some distributional patterns are highlighted by mapping the settlements producing sceattas with metal detected sceattas from rural and urban find spots across England recorded on the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) (https:// finds.org.uk/) (Fig. 6.2). The following three figures of sceattas, stycas and pennies (Figs. 6.2–6.4) are based on maps generated by Anglo-Saxon landscape and economy (Richards et al 2009), a comprehensive online research project which utilises a range of Anglo-Saxon PAS data and has produced an overall comparative, detailed picture relevant to this study, although the PAS database has been more currently updated.

Sceattas, dating to the 7th–8th centuries, are found at nine sites. Six of the settlements are located in east England; Mucking [PF4], Brandon Road [PF12], Carlton Colville [PF28], Staunch Meadow [PF34], West Fen Road [PF39] and Middle Harling [PF40]. Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27] is situated in the south along the Thames river and Cottam [PF41] is located in the Yorkshire Wolds of north England. The largest collection is from high-status Staunch Meadow [PF34], totalling 16 sceattas, with Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27] producing the second largest group of 13 sceattas, which are all metal detected. Some of the examples from West Fen Road [PF39], Middle Harling [PF40] and Cottam [PF41] may either be residual or indicative of the coins continuing as a means

Regarding Fig. 6.2, the settlements and PAS data show, for instance, that comparable sceattas to the examples from Cottam [PF41] are found elsewhere in northern and eastern Yorkshire, including at York, Driffield and the Humber estuary area (Richards 1999a, 92). Series B and Series R sceattas are the most common types identified at the settlements, with one

Figure 6.2. Settlements with sceattas and the distribution of metal detected sceattas recorded on PAS. After Richards et al 2009, with amendments, Anglo-Saxon landscape and economy: Using portable antiquities to study Anglo-Saxon and Viking Age England, Internet Archaeology 25. http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue25/2/images/uk_pas_finds/index.html. CC licence: CC BY 3.0.

177

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements or both types present at each site excepting West Fen Road [PF39] and possibly Cottam [PF41]. These sceatta types, as well as Series Q and Q/R– present at Sutton Courtenay/ Drayton [PF27] and Staunch Meadow [PF34]– were commonly distributed and minted in southeast England, such as at the East Anglian mint of Ipswich (Tester et al 2014, 271). Series K sceattas found at Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27] and Staunch Meadow [PF34] are likely to have been minted in Kent (Hamerow et al 2007, 182; Tester et al 2014, 271). One Series C ARIP ‘eclectic-type’ sceat and a Series L Type 18 sceat, from Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27] and West Fen Road [PF39] respectively, were probably both minted in London (Mortimer et al 2005, 84; Hamerow et al 2007, 182). Two other sceattas from Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27], a Series H Type 48 sceat and a Series J Type 37 sceat, may have been minted in Hamwic and Northumbria respectively. This suggests the settlement could have participated in supraregional trading networks, however the sceattas may have been acquired via local exchange systems or through other means.

Overall, a variety of sceatta series and derivatives are identifiable and many examples within the assemblage were struck in local and regional mints to the sites at which they are found (Fig. 6.1). This points towards examples of rural settlement integration within local and regional barter and commercial exchange networks that utilised sceattas, particularly during the Early–Middle AngloSaxon centuries which correspond to the production of the coins and over which many of the sites yielding sceattas were predominantly occupied. Moving into the later Anglo-Saxon centuries, stycas struck during the late 8th-mid-9th centuries are present at Brandon Road [PF12], Staunch Meadow [PF34] and Cottam [PF41], all settlements contemporary with their production. The settlements are located in recognised distributional areas of stycas, as shown by mapping the sites with metal detected stycas from rural and urban find spots in England recorded on the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) (https://finds.org.uk/) (Fig. 6.3).

Figure 6.3. Settlements with stycas and the distribution of metal detected stycas recorded on PAS. After Richards et al 2009, with amendments, Anglo-Saxon landscape and economy: Using portable antiquities to study Anglo-Saxon and Viking Age England, Internet Archaeology 25. http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue25/2/images/uk_pas_finds/index.html. CC licence: CC BY 3.0.

178

Material Culture and Economic Reach Pennies, variously dating from the 8th–11th centuries, are the most common coin type found and are present at eight sites, all contemporary to their production. The settlements are located within identified distributional areas of pennies, as evidenced by plotting the sites with metal detected penny rural and urban find spots in England recorded on the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) (https://finds.org. uk/) (Fig. 6.4).

Stycas of Aethelred II of Northumbria (r. c. AD844–53 and c. AD850–8) are found at each site, which were minted in Northumbria, commonly at York. One of the two stycas from Brandon Road [PF12] is attributable to the moneyer Eanwulf (Atkins & Connor 2010, 40). The unstratified Aethelred II styca from Staunch Meadow [PF34] was minted by the moneyer Aldhere, likely at the York mint (Tester et al 2014, 271). In contrast, 26 stycas are found at Cottam [PF41], the only settlement of the three located in Northumbria. The Cottam [PF41] group includes several Aethelred II stycas, a styca dating c. AD837–49/50 issued by Uigmund, Archbishop of York and minted at York by the moneyer Coenred, as well as a styca dating c. AD790–835 minted at York by the moneyer Huaetred and possibly issued by Eanred of Northumbria (r. c. AD810–41) (Richards 1999a, 105). The discovery of stycas at these sites suggests these communities participated in the expanding monetary economy of the period and may attest to the operation of long-distance trade and exchange networks between Northumbria and east England, where Brandon Road [PF12] and Staunch Meadow [PF34] are located.

The largest assemblage by far is from Middle Harling [PF40], where the majority of the c. 67 pennies– dating from the reigns of Beonna of East Anglia (r. c. AD749–c.96) to Edward the Confessor (r. 1042–66)– were minted in local East Anglian mints, including Norwich and probably also Ipswich (Rogerson 1995, 46–50). The widest circulation of the settlement’s coin group is confined to south England. A penny of Berhtwulf of Mercia (r. AD839/40–52) dating c. AD843–8 was minted by the moneyer Oswulf, possibly at the Canterbury mint. A penny dating to the reign of Alfred of Wessex (r. AD871–99) was minted in London by Tilwine of London and a cut-farthing of Pyramids type

Figure 6.4. Settlements with pennies and the distribution of metal detected pennies recorded on PAS. After Richards et al 2009, with amendments, Anglo-Saxon landscape and economy: Using portable antiquities to study Anglo-Saxon and Viking Age England, Internet Archaeology 25. http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue25/2/images/uk_pas_finds/index.html. CC licence: CC BY 3.0.

179

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements issued by Edward the Confessor was minted at Oxford. Another settlement located in east England, Staunch Meadow [PF34] also produces two pennies which are likely to have been produced in East Anglian mints; a penny of Beonna of East Anglia dating AD757–96 and one of Coenwulf of Mercia (r. AD796–821).

Pointed Helmet penny dating 1024–30 and issued by Cnut (r. 1016–35) was produced at Stamford, one of the midlands regional mints, by the moneyer Oswerd (Chapman 2010, 394). One of the pennies at Bishopstone [PF13] was also likely minted within the greater region of the settlement, an Edmund I issue (r. AD939–46) produced by the moneyer Otic, probably at the Winchester mint (Thomas 2010, 141).

Similarly, at Mawgan Porth [PF44] a stratified penny of Aethelred II of England (r. AD978–1013 and 1014–6) dating AD990–5 was produced at one of the mints closest to the settlement, located in Lydford, Devon (BruceMitford 1997, 85). At West Cotton [PF9], an unstratified

Overall, most of the pennies were minted locally or regionally to the settlements in which they are found (Fig. 6.1). Examples from supraregional distances are

Figure 6.5. Settlements with sceattas and the distribution of sceattas on the Continent. After Hill & Metcalf 1984, with amendments, Maps 7–13, 127–133; Map, 153.

180

Material Culture and Economic Reach few, including a penny each from Brandon Road [PF12] and Cottam [PF41]. At Brandon Road [PF12], a penny of Aethelred II of England (r. AD978–1013) dating c. AD997– 1003 was minted by the moneyer Steorger, probably at the York mint (Atkins & Connor 2010, 40–1). At Cottam [PF41], a penny of Aethelbert of Wessex (r. AD860–5) dating AD858–65/6 was likely minted in Winchester, possibly by the moneyer Wulfheard (Richards 1999a, 105). The penny assemblage, which is comparatively large compared to the sceatta and styca collections, points towards contemporary rural settlement engagement in commercial exchange systems and the monetary economy, which were generally thriving by the Late Anglo-Saxon period.

Assessment of the assemblage demonstrates that the majority of coins were minted either locally or within the region of the settlements at which they are found (Fig. 6.1). Supraregional and imported examples are less represented. For instance, sceattas and pennies struck in East Anglian mints such as Ipswich are commonly found at sites located in the region and Northumbrian stycas minted at York are present at the Yorkshire settlement of Cottam [PF41]. This pattern is evidenced by all coin types spanning the currency production period of the 7th–later 11th centuries, despite the various economic, political and social developments of the Anglo-Saxon period (Section 2.3.3). Such coin circulation indicates that processes of minting, issuing and distribution were controlled and overseen by the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.

Up to six imported coins are present at four of the settlements. The majority are sceattas, which are found at settlements contemporary to their production. Three secondary-phase Series E ‘porcupine’ sceattas, from the Dorestad/Rhine mouth area, are found at Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27], inhabited from the c. 6th –7th/ early 8th centuries (Hamerow et al 2007, 182). At Riby Cross Roads [PF32], occupied from the 6th/7th–mid-9th centuries, a Series E ‘porcupine’ sceat is likely a Frisian import (Steedman 1994, 272, 296). One Series X sceat dating to the late 7th–8th centuries from Brandon Road [PF12], inhabited over the 5th–later 9th centuries, may be an import from the Jutish peninsula, likely the settlement of Ribe (Atkins & Connor 2010, 40–1). The imported sceattas point towards mixed exchange activities at the settlements and, on a wider scale, evidence trading and cultural contacts between Anglo-Saxon England and the Continent (Williams 2006, 153) (Figs. 6.5–6.6). Of later date, from Middle Harling [PF40], occupied in the c. mid-8th–11th centuries, is a Kufic dirham imitation of a Samanid dirhem of Isma’il b. Ahmad dating c. AD893– 902. Kufic dirhams and their forgeries were exported westwards from central Asia to Scandinavia and northwest Europe and it may have arrived at the settlement by means of commerce (Rogerson 1995, 52–3). The small number of imported coins suggests that the four settlements may have benefitted from certain economic advantages. The sites, excluding Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27], are located in proximity to England’s east coast and all of them produce other imported artefacts (i.e. Sections 6.3.2– 6.3.3, 6.3.7).

Coin provenance further highlights examples of rural settlement engagement in wider exchange and commercial networks (Fig. 6.6). From the earlier Anglo-Saxon period for example, the diversity of English coins found at Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27] is reflected at other sites within the Thames Valley and the midlands (Hamerow et al 2007, 182). The settlement’s potential economic reach may be partially attributed to its strategic location along the Thames river, one of the main arteries for trade, communication and travel across south and east England during the Anglo-Saxon period. Moving into the later Anglo-Saxon centuries, the presence of Northumbrian stycas at the East Anglian settlements of Brandon Road [PF12] and Staunch Meadow [PF34] evidence the circulation of the coins along England’s east coast, by sea or land routes. Stycas are also found along the east coast to the north, at Cottam [PF41] in East Yorkshire. At Middle Harling [PF40], coins from the southern mints of London, Oxford and possibly Canterbury point towards currency transactions between East Anglia in the Danelaw, in which the settlement is located, and Wessex in the south. Overall, it is evident that coins were used for exchange and commercial transactions within rural settlements during the Anglo-Saxon period. 6.3.2. Pottery The large pottery assemblage, which derives from all settlements excepting Simy Folds [PF42], provides ample potential evidence of trade and exchange on local, supra-/ regional and imported levels throughout the AngloSaxon period (Appendix 6.2). Locally sourced pottery, commonly handmade wares, are identifiable at most sites and there is evidence that at least 17 pottery types were consumed locally at the settlements and/or traded further afield (Appendices 3.2.2–3.2.3, 6.2). Twenty-six sites produce pottery sourced from regional or supraregional distances. Less common is imported pottery, present at up to 12 settlements.

Exchange and commercial activities are further evidenced by several artefacts from settlements occupied throughout the Anglo-Saxon period (Sections 4.3.14, 5.2.10). From Cottam [PF41] is a plain circular disc that may be an extremely worn coin or a possible trade token, as well as likely scale weights for weighing staple commodities or perhaps bullion. A scale pan from West Fen Road [PF39] could have been used for weighing coins or other items, such as bullion, operating as currency. Equal armed/equipoise and balance weights from West Stow [PF3], Godmanchester [PF11], Brandon Road [PF12], Orsett Cock [PF18] and Middle Harling [PF40] may have also been utilised for commodity or currency/ bullion calculations.

Five Anglo-Saxon pottery types, Maxey-type, Ipswich, Thetford-type, St Neots and Stamford ware, are present at a number of sites and distributional analyses of these wares highlights the potential economic reach of the settlements. 181

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 6.6. Coins: established and possible provenance. © Free Vector Maps.com.

These pottery types are examined chronologically below, followed by a discussion of imported pottery.

that only Niedermendig lava had a greater distribution area in England during the Middle Anglo-Saxon period than Ipswich ware (Blinkhorn 2012, 69) (Section 6.3.3; Fig. 6.15). Plotting the rural settlements contemporary to Ipswich ware with Blinkhorn’s map of recorded Ipswich ware find spots, ranging from excavation sites to chance finds in rural and urban contexts, demonstrates that the settlements conform to established Ipswich ware distribution patterns (Blinkhorn 2012, 69–71).

Maxey-type ware (c. AD650–850) is found at nine settlements contemporary to its manufacture (Fig. 6.7). The settlements cover much of the distributional area of Maxey-type ware, which is common to the east midlands, areas of east England (notably Cambridgeshire), as well as Lincolnshire and parts of Yorkshire to the north (Vince 2003, 5). Maxey-type ware is found as far as Pennyland [PF19] in Buckinghamshire to the south, Brandon Road [PF12] in Norfolk to the east and Cottam [PF41] in East Yorkshire to the north. This highlights that Maxey-type ware appears to have been exchanged and traded via local and long-distance networks in which some of the rural settlements participated. The presence of the pottery at settlements of earlier Anglo-Saxon date may evidence the development of market systems that facilitated such commodities, which are increasingly identifiable as operating in England from the Middle and into the Late Anglo-Saxon periods (Wickham 2005, 810–1).

The pottery was produced in the East Anglian wic of Ipswich and most sites with Ipswich ware are also located within the East Anglian region. The regional dominance of Ipswich ware suggests that it commonly served as the local ware, reducing the need for other pottery production at settlements in the area (Mudd & Webster 2011, 131). This is supported by the lack of evidence for pottery production at the rural settlements of study (Section 5.2.4). The large-scale production of Ipswich ware reflects a significant period of economic growth and the progression of commercial exchange systems apparent from the c. early 8th century in England. This was further marked by occurrences such as changes in landownership patterns and the establishment of the emporia from the Middle Anglo-Saxon period, and further evidenced by the ensuing mass-produced pottery wares discussed (Wickham 2005, 810–2, 818; Brookes 2007, 32) (Section 2.3.3). Of note, the Ipswich ware assemblage from Staunch Meadow [PF34] comprises c. 24,000 sherds and is currently by far the largest collection of the pottery known outside of Ipswich,

Ipswich ware (c. AD720–850) is the most common pottery type found at the sites. It is present at 12 settlements contemporary to its production and is residual at Godmanchester [PF11] (Fig. 6.8). Ipswich ware is also the most widely circulated Anglo-Saxon pottery type, with a distributional area covering the east coast of England from Yorkshire to Kent, as well as the Ouse, Nene and Thames river regions (Tester et al 2014, 149). It appears 182

Material Culture and Economic Reach

Figure 6.7. Settlements and Maxey-type ware distribution (Vince 2003, 5).

183

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 6.8. Settlements and Ipswich ware distribution. After Blinkhorn 2012, with amendments, Fig. 36, 70. Courtesy of the Medieval Pottery Research Group.

at Godmanchester [PF11] (Fig. 6.9). Thetford-type ware replaced Ipswich ware as the main mass-produced pottery during the mid-9th century and it was chiefly manufactured at Thetford, Ipswich and Norwich in East Anglia (Hey 2004, 272; Tyler & Major 2005, 173). The common distribution area of Thetford-type ware comprises all of east England, north as far as Lincolnshire and to London in the south (Vince 1991, 89–94). Supporting this distributional pattern, eight of the settlements producing Thetford-type ware are situated in east England and Raunds Furnells [PF6] is located in Northamptonshire.

from where c. 50,000 sherds have been recorded (Tester et al 2014, 149, 377). This points towards significant commercial ties between the high-status settlement and the wic (Tester et al 2014, 377). Ipswich ware was also exchanged and traded beyond East Anglia, with evidence of the pottery found to the north at Quarrington [PF30] and Riby Cross Roads [PF32], both in Lincolnshire. To the south, Lechlade [PF16] and Yarnton [PF17] also produce Ipswich ware and both are situated along the Thames, which is the likely southernmost edge of the pottery’s distribution (Tester et al 2014, 149).

St Neots ware (c. AD900–1200) is the second most common pottery type identified, after Ipswich ware. It is found at eight settlements contemporary with its

Thetford-type ware (c. AD850–1100) is identified at eight settlements contemporary to its production and is residual 184

Material Culture and Economic Reach

Figure 6.9. Settlements and Thetford-type ware distribution (Vince 1991, 89–94).

185

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements production and residually at four sites (Fig. 6.10). The common distribution area of St Neots ware ranges from the Oxfordshire area in the south, through east England and the east midlands and north to Yorkshire (Williams 1979, 232). The distribution area is conformed to by the settlements and, comparable to the circulation of Ipswich ware at the sites, St Neots ware was also produced in East Anglia and is predominantly found at sites located in east England. The pottery is further present in Northamptonshire at Raunds Furnells [PF6] and West Cotton [PF9] and to the south at Yarnton [PF17] in Oxfordshire. The discovery of St Neots and Ipswich ware at Yarnton [PF17], occupied from the c. late 5th–11th centuries, potentially highlights the operation of exchange and commercial networks during the Anglo-Saxon period between east and south England via the Thames, which the settlement is situated in proximity to (Sections 7.5.4–7.5.5).

identified sherd is a Merovingian style wheel-thrown greyware vessel from Riby Cross Roads [PF32], occupied during the 6th/7th–mid-9th centuries. The sherd dates AD485–570 and derives from the northwestern France/ Belgium regions. It is comparable with Merovingian biconical bowls commonly found in Continental inhumation cemeteries during the 6th–7th centuries, such as at Nouvion-en-Ponthieu in northern France (Steedman 1994, 247–9). The ware is also known in contemporary Early Anglo-Saxon burials in England. The discovery of the pottery at Riby Cross Roads [PF32] conforms with known distribution trends, as the ware is found widely but infrequently in Kent, eastern England and along the east coast as far as North Humberside (Steedman 1994, 247–8). The pottery may highlight the strategic location of Riby Cross Roads [PF32] in proximity to the Humber, which likely afforded access to east coast economic and communications networks on local and supra-/regional levels by sea and perhaps land.

Stamford ware (c. AD900–1200) is present at five settlements contemporary to its production and is likely residual at Staunch Meadow [PF34] (Fig. 6.11). The settlements conform with the common distribution area of Stamford ware, which encompasses parts of East Anglia, particularly the north of the region, the midlands, Lincolnshire and areas of Yorkshire to the north (Cumberpatch & Roberts 2013, 112).

From Mucking [PF4], occupied in the early 5th–8th centuries, are 15 wheel-thrown Frankish ware sherds, of which 14 are of c. late 6th–7th centuries date. The final sherd likely dates to the slightly earlier mid-late 6th century period and is characteristically similar to contemporary pottery from the French region of Artois (Hamerow 1993, 22). Frankish pottery is comparatively rare at Anglo-Saxon sites and the quantity from Mucking [PF4] is therefore significant, indicating that the settlement likely benefitted from exchange and trade contacts given its strategic location near the Thames estuary (Hamerow 1993, 22). Several wheel-turned sherds of northern French origin are also present in the south at Chalton [PF25] in Hampshire, which was occupied during the c. 6th–7th centuries.

Assessment of the Anglo-Saxon pottery demonstrates that many rural settlements utilised and had access to a range of wares that were produced, exchanged and/or traded within local as well as long-distance economic networks throughout the Anglo-Saxon period. Imported pottery is identifiable at nine settlements of varying date, location and character, although settlements occupied during the Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon centuries are best represented (Fig. 6.12; Appendix 6.3). Additionally, a ‘fabric 6’ pottery sherd from Cowdery’s Down [PF22] is possibly a Continental import, as may be a wheel-made base sherd from Riverdene [PF35] (Millett & James 1983, 254–6; Hall-Torrance & Weaver 2003, 86–7).

The importation of northern French and Rhenish pottery to Anglo-Saxon England beyond the 7th century is evidenced at several settlements, including Carlton Colville [PF28] which was occupied during the c. 6th–early 8th centuries. Contexts at the site spanning the period c. AD670–mid8th century contain 18 sherds from a single Merovingian biconical jar decorated with a cordon and horizontal lines, of northern France/Belgium origin. Also from the settlement is a possible Rhenish Walberberg-type vessel deriving from the Cologne Vorgebirge region and a second sherd which is either another Walberberg-type or a Meuse valley Huy-type ware, the latter being produced in the northern France/Belgium regions. Like many of the settlements producing importing pottery, Carlton Colville [PF28] is situated in proximity to England’s east coast and presumably benefitted from access to a range of local and long-distance networks afforded by such a location.

The imported pottery from Poundbury [PF10], occupied from the 5th–c. mid-7th centuries, is sourced from the furthest distances and may be the earliest examples within the assemblage (Fig. 6.13). The settlement produces a Coptic sherd of Egyptian or eastern Mediterranean origin and a Biv amphora sherd also from this region, possibly Asia Minor. Both pottery types are known to have been imported to southwest England from Roman times, in the 4th century and through the post-Roman period to the 7th century (Green 1987, 140). The wares are also found at other early medieval sites in southwest England including Glastonbury Tor and South Cadbury in Somerset and Tintagel, Cornwall (Green 1987, 141). The presence of the pottery at Poundbury [PF10] may represent the utilisation of such exchange or trade networks in the region.

From Staunch Meadow [PF34], occupied from the mid7th–late 9th centuries, is a North French blackware jar rim with incised decoration of early 7th–9th centuries date. Also from the settlement are 10 globular vessel sherds of sandy unburnished pottery, decorated with incised wavy lines and cordons. This unusual pottery, labelled ‘wavy line’ ware, is possibly a Continental import from the northern

Imported pottery from eight of the settlements is of northern French or Rhenish origin (Fig. 6.13). The earliest 186

Material Culture and Economic Reach

Figure 6.10. Settlements and St Neots ware distribution (Williams 1979, 232).

187

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 6.11. Settlements and Stamford ware distribution (Cumberpatch & Roberts 2013, 112).

188

Material Culture and Economic Reach

Figure 6.12. Settlements with imported pottery.

189

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 6.13. Pottery: established and possible provenance. © Free Vector Maps.com.

France region and is likely to have been in circulation at a similar time to North French wares (Tester et al 2014, 158–9). Such Continental pottery imports continue into the Late Anglo-Saxon period. At Springfield Lyons [PF45], occupied from c. AD850–1200, wheel-thrown Rhenish type ware is found in at least 10 features dating c. 10th–12th centuries. A particularly fine pottery type, the presence of Rhenish ware at Springfield Lyons [PF45] points towards the settlement’s engagement in commercial networks operating along England’s east coast and radiating beyond (Tyler & Major 2005, 173).

at the above settlements. This demonstrates that the settlement cultivated access to exchange and trade networks over its occupation from the Early Anglo-Saxon period through to the Late Anglo-Saxon centuries (Section 7.2.4). The imported pottery includes wheel-thrown red painted ware from the Rhineland or northern France, found in early and later Anglo-Saxon contexts at Bishopstone [PF13], and wheel-thrown blackware with red painted lattice decoration, which is likely of northern French type. Yellow and green glazed pottery sherds at the site, some with rouletted decoration, may also derive from northern France or Flanders, where such glazed ware was produced in the 10th century (Thomas 2010, 98–9).

The contexts with imported pottery from Bishopstone [PF13] span most centuries in which imports are found

Much of the imported pottery from the settlements can be considered rare and/or fine examples, such as Frankish 190

Material Culture and Economic Reach ware, suggesting that imported vessels were typically considered luxurious items (Sections 3.2.6, 5.2.11). A further example is Tating ware, identified as a prestigious wheel-thrown sandy pottery, which is found at Staunch Meadow [PF34] and also Middle Harling [PF40], occupied from the c. mid-8th–11th centuries. Produced in the 8th–9th centuries, Tating ware is common in Scandinavia and the Frisian trading settlement of Dorestad, however it is comparatively rare in England (Slowikowski 1991, 130; Tester et al 2014, 158). As such, the discovery of Tating ware likely highlights that both settlements had access to sophisticated trading networks, bolstered by their strategic locations in proximity to England’s east coast. One of the Tating ware sherds from Staunch Meadow [PF34] is burnished and has applied tinfoil decoration. An additional reddish-yellow sherd from Middle Harling [PF40], decorated with a rouletted pattern, may also be a Rhenish import. In particular, the quantity and range of imported pottery from Staunch Meadow [PF34] emphasises the settlement’s high status (Tester et al 2014, 165). Finally, Badorf ware pitcher sherds are also found at the site, including a fine rouletted example. Badorf ware was produced in the Badorf, Cologne and Mayen areas of the Rhineland during the c. early 8th–late 9th centuries (Tester et al 2014, 158).

examples from 29 settlements. Five of the sites with confirmed imported worked stone also produce stone artefacts of either supraregional or imported provenance. Finally, the single worked stone artefact from Pitstone [PF33], a micaceous schist hone, also derives from either a supraregional or imported source. The locally and supra-/regionally sourced worked stone is varied, exemplifying the exploitation of Britain’s geological diversity at the settlements. Examples of local use include Dorset Purbeck limestone whetstones and a hone at Poundbury [PF10], a Buckinghamshire-sourced siltstone spindlewhorl at Pennyland [PF19] and Cornwall granite querns and a Staddon Grit spindlewhorl from Mawgan Porth [PF44]. Millstone Grit, sourced from the Pennines which range from the Peak District in central England to Northumberland, is a prevalent supra-/regionally obtained commodity at settlements occupied throughout the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 6.14). This demonstrates that Millstone Grit was widely distributed and a constant, popular choice for the manufacturing of artefacts. Millstone Grit querns are found at 15 settlements occupied from the 4th or 5th centuries, including Heybridge [PF2], through to the 10th and 11th centuries, such as the Late Anglo-Saxon occupation phase of West Cotton [PF9] (AD950–1100), and possibly Springfield Lyons [PF45]. As well as the querns, Millstone Grit hones are identified at Spong Hill [PF15] and a whetstone at Radley Barrow Hills [PF1].

The imported pottery assemblage demonstrates that settlements occupied throughout the Anglo-Saxon period produce imported wares, although examples are more common at sites of earlier date. This suggests that such imports could be acquired through the exchange mechanisms more common in the Early Anglo-Saxon period, such as gift-giving, as well as via the developed market and commercial systems of later Anglo-Saxon England (Section 2.3.3). The assemblage is dominated by wares from northern France and the Rhineland, which remained in demand at rural settlements throughout the Anglo-Saxon period. The majority of sites with imported pottery were located in obvious economically advantageous positions, commonly in proximity to the east coast of England, and were settlements of apparent success, including high-status Staunch Meadow [PF34] which produces the largest imported group.

Far less common than Millstone Grit are Hertfordshire Puddingstone querns, identified at five settlements occupied in the Early and Middle Anglo-Saxon periods and located in east England. However, some of the querns may be of prehistoric or Roman date (Appendix 6.4). There are several examples of other worked stone artefacts of regional, supraregional or imported provenance from settlements of various Anglo-Saxon date. Hones made of micaceous schist are found at Spong Hill [PF15], Carlton Colville [PF28], Pitstone [PF33] and Staunch Meadow [PF34], all occupied in the Early–Middle AngloSaxon centuries. Micaceous schist is variously sourced across Britain, including Scotland and Wales, as well as from Scandinavia (Lucy et al 2009, 251). Also from Carlton Colville [PF28] is a mudstone greywacke hone and another made of dolerite, both stone types which are similarly sourced across Britain and Scandinavia (Lucy et al 2009, 251–2). Staunch Meadow [PF34] further produces a hone of purple phyllite which derives from Scotland, Scandinavia or possibly the Continent (Tester et al 2014, 268). A ‘slate’ pencil from Cottam [PF41], occupied during the 8th–early 10th centuries, is either made of purple phyllite or fine-grained Norwegian ragstone from Eidsborg, southern Norway. A second ‘slate’ pencil from the settlement is of ragstone schist, deriving from the Scottish Highlands, Eidsborg or possibly another nonBritish material source (Richards 1999a, 67). Finally, a

Overall, the pottery distributional patterns reveal that Anglo-Saxon and imported wares could be acquired by means of rural settlement participation in economic, communication and travel networks of various local, supra-/regional and international reach. 6.3.3. Worked Stone Artefacts A considerable number of worked stone artefacts derive from varied local, supra-/regional and imported sources (Appendices 6.4–6.9). Artefacts made from locally sourced stones are identifiable at c. 29 settlements. Worked stone artefacts of regional provenance to the settlements are identifiable or likely at 24 sites and supraregional examples at up to 19 settlements. Imported stone artefacts also make up a large proportion of the assemblage, with 191

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 6.14. Settlements and Millstone Grit source.

192

Material Culture and Economic Reach quern from Springfield Lyons [PF45], occupied from c. AD850–1200, is made of either Millstone Grit from the Pennines or Niedermendig lava.

occupied during the c. 6th –7th/early 8th centuries; and an unstratified French Aubigny-type limestone piece from multi-period Bishopstone [PF13].

Imported stone is well represented in the assemblage, demonstrating that many rural settlements had access to contacts and/or networks facilitating such commodities from long-distance sources. Niedermendig lava from the Rhineland/Mayen region was traded to many areas of the northern Continent and lava querns of confirmed or likely Anglo-Saxon date are recorded at 28 sites of varied occupation dates (Fig. 6.15). Also, a Niedermendig rubber stone comes from Market Lavington [PF14] and a second possible rubber is present at Fordham [PF31].

Worked stone from Norway was also imported, which was recognised alongside Niedermendig lava to be high-quality stone, although it is far less common at the settlements than lava. Hones made from Norwegian ragstone, sourced from Eidsborg, are present at settlements of Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon date: Staunch Meadow [PF34], Cottam [PF41], the Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon phase of Bishopstone [PF13] (c. 8th–late 10th/early 11th centuries), the Anglo-Scandinavian occupation of Raunds Furnells [PF6] (AD850–900/950) and the Late Anglo-Saxon phase of West Cotton [PF9] (AD950–1100) (Fig. 6.16). This chronological trend highlights that the occurrence of Scandinavian material culture at the settlements is strongly linked to the Viking/Danish migrations to England during the later centuries of the Anglo-Saxon period (Sections 2.3.3, 6.3.10).

In the Middle Anglo-Saxon period, Niedermendig lava was customarily shipped as rough-outs from Continental wics to their English counterparts, where the lava was finished off into querns and other items before being traded across the country (Steedman 1994, 283–4; Parkhouse 1997, 102–4). The lava trade continued into the Late AngloSaxon period at which time towns, many of which were former emporia such as Ipswich, London and York, were important commercial and distribution centres in AngloSaxon England (Hey 2004, 292) (Section 2.3.3). This is supported by the settlement evidence.

Analysis of the provenance and distribution of worked stone reveals the production and acquisition of such items was commonly taking place on local, supra-/regional and international levels throughout the Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 6.17). The evidence highlights that rural settlements participated in exchange and commercial networks that either directly involved emporia and towns or included worked stone commodities manufactured and circulated by such centres. The imported stone was most commonly sourced from the Rhineland and Scandinavian imports appear from the 9th century.

To illustrate, 10 settlements occupied during the Middle Anglo-Saxon period produce both Ipswich ware and Niedermendig lava, suggesting either direct economic relationships between the sites and emporia such as Ipswich or the participation of the settlements in wider trading networks including the wics and/or goods produced or distributed by these centres. The utilisation of similar connections, likely involving to some degree the urban centres which succeeded the emporia, is indicated by several settlements of later Anglo-Saxon date. The Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon sites of Cottenham [PF37] and West Fen Road [PF39], situated in East Anglia, produce both Niedermendig querns and Ipswich ware. Niedermendig lava is also found in the Middle–Late AngloSaxon phase of Bishopstone [PF13] (c. 8th–late 10th/early 11th centuries), the Late Anglo-Saxon occupation of West Cotton [PF9] (AD950–1100) and at Springfield Lyons [PF45], occupied from c. AD850–1200. The locations of the three settlements in Sussex, Northamptonshire and Essex respectively further attests to apparent rural settlement participation in commercial systems operating throughout England in the later Anglo-Saxon centuries. Overall, the continual demand for Niedermendig lava in the Anglo-Saxon period is demonstrated by Yarnton [PF17], where the querns are found in contexts spanning the settlement’s occupation from the c. late 5th–11th centuries (Section 7.5.4).

6.3.4. Beads The sources for a selection of beads from the sites can be determined or postulated (Fig. 6.18; Appendix 6.11). The collection further illuminates potential local, supra-/ regional and international contacts and goods acquisition at the rural settlements. A variety of beads are distinguishable as of local, regional and, less commonly, supraregional origin at settlements predominantly occupied in the Early and Middle AngloSaxon centuries. Frequently found in East Anglia during the Anglo-Saxon period are glass beads of various shapes decorated with green and yellow inlay, known as reticella or herringbone and twist, which are likely to have been sourced and manufactured in the region (Guido 1999, 8). Local or regional examples are identifiable at the Early– Middle Anglo-Saxon settlements of Mucking [PF4] and Carlton Colville [PF28], both located in east England, with the latter site also producing a cylindrical example of mid–late 6th century date.

Other imported stone found includes a decorated finegrained chalk spindlewhorl of unspecified imported provenance from Godmanchester [PF11], occupied in the 5th–7th centuries; a Rhineland-sourced quern that may be Andernach tuff at Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27],

Beads or fragments of jet, commonly sourced from northeastern Yorkshire (Pierce 2013, 198–9), are found locally at the Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon settlement of Cottam [PF41] and at supraregional distances at Mucking [PF4] and possibly West Stow [PF3], both in east England. 193

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 6.15. Settlements with Niedermendig lava of established or possible Anglo-Saxon date.

194

Material Culture and Economic Reach

Figure 6.16. Settlements with Norwegian ragstone.

195

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 6.17. Worked stone: established and possible provenance. © Free Vector Maps.com.

This potentially highlights use of exchange, trade and travel routes around the east coast of England by people and commodities from the Early Anglo-Saxon period, at which time West Stow [PF3] and Mucking [PF4] were initially occupied.

Imported beads of various provenance are identifiable at seven settlements (Fig. 6.18). Most common are amber beads, sourced from the Baltic or Nordic/Scandinavian regions (Huggett 1988, 64–6). These are found at six settlements occupied during the Early and Middle AngloSaxon centuries, including examples within burials at Barton Court Farm [PF5]. This suggests that the circulation and/or accessibility of amber beads by rural communities was greater at this time than in the Late Anglo-Saxon period (Section 6.3.5). Three of these settlements, West Stow [PF3], Mucking [PF4] and Carlton Colville [PF28], also produce amethyst beads or fragments. Amethyst was obtained from as far away as India and Sri Lanka and is a comparatively rarer find than amber within Anglo-Saxon England (Harrington & Welch 2014, 161).

From the Anglo-Scandinavian phase of Raunds Furnells [PF6] (AD850–900/950), which was located in the Danelaw kingdom, is a heavy-leaded yellow glass ringbead (or ring) of a type found in either Lincoln or York (Audouy & Chapman 2009, 199). The bead may indicate the movement of people and/or trade networks operating over regional and supraregional distances involving such settlements and towns of the Danelaw (Section 6.3.10). 196

Material Culture and Economic Reach

Figure 6.18. Beads: established and possible provenance. © Free Vector Maps.com.

From Staunch Meadow [PF34] is a glass disc bead, black with yellow zig-zag decoration, which is likely an import from Trier, Rhineland. The bead dates c. late 4th–5th centuries and is a residual find from a ditch [0144] at the settlement, occupied in the mid-7th–late 9th centuries, which may have survived as an heirloom or similar. Staunch Meadow [PF34] also produces a cylindrical dark green glass bead with unmarvered yellow ends and central band which is of contemporary date to the site’s occupation. It is closely paralleled by beads from Avar cemeteries of central Europe and Scandinavia, including a 7th–8th centuries cemetery at Ribe, Jutland (Guido 1999, 28).

Early Anglo-Saxon period at centres including Rothulfuashem, Netherlands and possibly other Low Countries workshops, as well as in the Rhineland (Guido 1999, 36–9; Grünewald & Hartmann 2014, 47–50). Such beads from the settlements include examples in annular form at Goch Way [PF26], occupied in the c. 6th–early 7th centuries, and Carlton Colville [PF28], inhabited in the c. 6th–early 8th centuries. The latter site also produces barrel-shaped and cylindrical beads, some confirmed as of 6th–7th centuries date. Opaque yellow glass beads have a wide distribution in Anglo-Saxon England, covering the south and east of the country, where these settlements are located, as well as the midlands and Northumberland (Guido 1999, 38; Peake & Freestone 2014, 18–20).

Other beads from the settlements could also be imports. Opaque yellow glass beads were manufactured in the 197

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements Further examples include short green cylinder beads, such as those found at Mucking [PF4] and Carlton Colville [PF28], which were variously manufactured in Trier and elsewhere on the Continent as well as England, particularly during the later 5th–8th centuries (Guido 1999, 42). Blue cylinder beads were fairly common, especially during the 6th century, and were manufactured in workshops in the Low Countries, northeastern France as well as possibly England (Guido 1999, 49–50). This bead type is also found at Mucking [PF4].

in Early Anglo-Saxon cemeteries, indicating these items were worn in life and death. Three of the settlements with amber also produce amethyst; beads at Mucking [PF4] and Carlton Colville [PF28] and a worked fragment from West Stow [PF3]. The exotic provenance of amethyst, sourced from Sri Lanka or India and likely reaching England by trade and travel routes via the (eastern) Mediterranean, surely contributes to its rarity at Anglo-Saxon rural settlements (Meaney 1981, 76; Huggett 1988, 66–8).

Beads of identified and possible imported provenance derive from settlements occupied in the Early and Middle AngloSaxon centuries, perhaps indicating a greater demand and/ or the availability of such beads during this time. It is also likely that the larger scale manufacturing enterprises increasingly adopted from the Middle Anglo-Saxon period and into the Late Anglo-Saxon centuries– commonly facilitated by wics and urban centres– led to the greater production of beads within England.

Garnet, found at three settlements occupied during the Early and Middle Anglo-Saxon centuries, may have also been sourced from Sri Lanka, or from Bohemia in central Europe (Nicolay 2014, 223; Hamerow 2017, 76). Garnet was popularly used for the embellishment of lavish Anglo-Saxon artefacts, particularly in the Early Anglo-Saxon period, such as jewellery and other portable items found in the 7th century Sutton Hoo ship burial, Suffolk (Carver 2005; Nicolay 2014, 170–8). The artefacts from the settlements incorporating garnet are personal adornment items, for display and ornamentation, which reflects the association of garnet with opulence. From Mucking [PF4] is a garnet-headed pin of 7th century date and a second pin with slab garnet decoration set over hatched gold foil. A garnet from Market Lavington [PF14] may have once been attached to a buckle of c. 6th century date. From Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27], an Avent Class 7.2 brooch (Avent 1975) of later 6th–early 7th centuries date is inlaid with either garnet or red glass, as is another copper-alloy fragment from the settlement.

Overall, the provenance of the beads identified at the sites is wide, encompassing sources local and supra-/regional to the settlements as well as examples imported from the Continent, Scandinavia and beyond. The beads could have arrived at the settlements by various means such as exchange practices including gift-giving, trade and other circumstances like migration, the latter perhaps given the earlier occupation dates of many sites producing these items. Distributional analysis shows that strategically located settlements, such as those near the east coast of England, appear to have particularly acquired beads of various provenance, including imported examples. This trend is also reflected in other assemblages, such as the pottery (Section 6.3.2) and gemstone collections (Section 6.3.5).

Jet is present at three sites and was commonly sourced from the Whitby area of northeastern Yorkshire (Pierce 2013, 198–9). It is found locally at the Middle–Late AngloSaxon settlement of Cottam [PF41] in East Yorkshire. The discovery in east England of jet beads at Mucking [PF4] and a jet bead of possible Anglo-Saxon date at West Stow [PF3], which were occupied in the Early and Middle Anglo-Saxon centuries, point towards the circulation of jet items over long distances from the source, likely through means such as exchange and trade (Section 6.3.4).

6.3.5. Gemstones and Gemstone Artefacts The provenance of gemstones found at the settlements is widespread, encompassing areas of Europe as well as Asia (Fig. 6.19; Appendix 6.11). These artefacts exhibit the greatest potential economic extent reached by the rural settlements, as such items were transported considerable distances from their source areas, likely through various methods of transference (Section 2.3.3).

In contrast to other assemblages such as the coins (Section 6.3.1), pottery (Section 6.3.2) and strap ends (Section 6.3.8), the gemstones are more commonly imports rather than of local or supra-/regional source. The imported gemstones derive from settlements occupied in the Early and Middle Anglo-Saxon centuries and they may have served as indicators of status or wealth within these communities, as long-distance provenance would likely have contributed to the desirability of these objects (Section 7.4). This is supported by the small size of the assemblage, as well as the fact that most of the gemstone artefacts are personal adornment items.

Most commonly found are items made of amber, sourced from the Baltic and Nordic/Scandinavian regions (Huggett 1988, 64–6). Amber beads are found at six sites of Early and Middle Anglo-Saxon date: West Stow [PF3], Mucking [PF4], Barton Court Farm [PF5], Market Lavington [PF14], Quarrington [PF30] and Carlton Colville [PF28], which also produces an amber pendant (Section 6.3.4). Market Lavington [PF14], occupied throughout the AngloSaxon period, produces an amber bead from an Early Anglo-Saxon gully [1041] and an unstratified example. At Barton Court Farm [PF5], amber beads are found in three settlement burials ([271], [807], [820]) and two are unstratified. Amber beads are common burial goods

6.3.6. Brooches Brooches also shed light on the potential economic reach of some rural settlements, with examples of local, supra-/ 198

Material Culture and Economic Reach

Figure 6.19. Gemstones: established and possible provenance. © Free Vector Maps.com.

regional and imported provenance identified (Fig. 6.20; Appendix 6.11).

occupied during this period. From Barton Court Farm [PF5], similar counterparts to a saucer brooch with silver gilded animal mounts are known in the nearby Early Anglo-Saxon Abingdon and Brighthampton cemeteries, suggesting that such specialist brooches were the work of local craftsmen (Miles 1986, 48). At Yarnton [PF17], a disc brooch dating c. 5th–6th centuries is decorated in a ring-and-dot style, comprising repeated groups of dots surrounded by three concentric rings. Ring-and-dot motifs are a typical Anglo-Saxon design found on artefacts in the Upper Thames Valley in which Yarnton [PF17] is situated. The disc brooch was unstratified and may derive from a disturbed burial in the settlement’s Early Anglo-Saxon cemetery (Hey 2004, 76). At Radley Barrow Hills [PF1], an applied disc brooch is of a type distributed locally and

Evidence for local, regional and supraregional contacts include a selection of disc brooches from settlements occupied throughout the Anglo-Saxon period. The brooches may have been variously acquired through trade, exchange or other modes of transference such as movement of people, particularly as brooch types and styles may be considered ways of conveying the personal affiliation/s of the wearer such as religious or cultural identity (Sections 2.2, 2.3.3). Examples of Early Anglo-Saxon disc brooches are particularly concentrated at settlements in Oxfordshire 199

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 6.20. Brooches: established and possible provenance. © Free Vector Maps.com.

regionally to the settlement, in an area concentrated around the Upper Thames Valley and Avon Valley (Evison 1978, 269–71). Possible supraregional connections are also demonstrated at Radley Barrow Hills [PF1] by an annular brooch with flat-sectioned hoops made of sheet metal, of mid-5th–mid-6th centuries date. Such brooches are rare in the Upper Thames Valley but are common in East Anglia and northeast England (Dickinson 1976; Chambers & McAdam 2007, 249). This discovery potentially highlights the pivotal role of the Thames river– which the settlement is located in proximity to– as a major trade, travel and communications route, providing links between south and east England.

supra-/regional and possibly international contacts at the settlements. A pewter disc brooch from Cottam [PF41] is of a type known at Coppergate, pointing towards the participation of the settlement in economic networks involving York, which is further evidenced by other finds from Cottam [PF41] such as coins, pottery and metal stone items that can be associated with York. Also at Cottam [PF41] is a Jelling style disc brooch which is of Scandinavian influence, as is a Borre style disc brooch from West Fen Road [PF39] and a trefoil brooch at Middle Harling [PF40]. The brooches are likely to have been manufactured in England, although it is possible they are imports. They may evidence the operation of trading or exchange systems within the Anglo-Scandinavian Danelaw kingdom– in which the three settlements are located– and

Examples of Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon disc brooches from contemporary sites further illuminate potential local, 200

Material Culture and Economic Reach likely beyond to other areas of the Scandinavian world (Section 6.3.10).

& McAdam 2007, 250). Also at Radley Barrow Hills [PF1] is a large Ross Type V pin (Ross 1991) of c. late 5th century date that may be a Continental import. Similar biconical pins with ribbed and faceted upper shafts are common in northwestern Europe during the 5th century at settlements such as Wijster, Netherlands (Chambers & McAdam 2007, 250). The items may have arrived at the site through migration, given the early dates of both the settlement and the pins, or by other means such as exchange or trade.

Other confirmed or possibly imported brooches pre-date the examples from the Danelaw settlements. The only confirmed import is the up-turned foot of an iron Frankish brooch from West Stow [PF3]. It cannot be determined how the brooch reached the settlement, although the Frankish kingdom had close economic, social and political ties with southeast England, particularly the kingdom of Kent, during the earlier Anglo-Saxon centuries when West Stow [PF3] was occupied (Brookes 2007, 7–9; Nicolay 2014, 31). A copper-alloy ‘Anglian’ brooch from Radley Barrow Hills [PF1], occupied from the 4th–early 7th centuries, may be a 6th century import, perhaps arriving from the Germanic homelands of the Anglo-Saxons. From Riby Cross Roads [PF32], occupied during the 6th/7th–mid-9th centuries, is a caterpillar brooch of Hübener’s Group 9 (Hübener 1972) that may be a northern Continental import. Continental examples are known from the late 7th–9th centuries, however there is evidence such brooches were also manufactured in England in the c. 8th century. The brooch from Riby Cross Roads [PF32] may be an earlier form of this type, perhaps dating to the late 7th or early 8th centuries (Steedman 1994, 264). At Yarnton [PF17], occupied from the c. late 5th–11th centuries, is an equalarmed brooch decorated with a crudely incised pattern of a form characteristic of the late Merovingian and Carolingian periods (late 5th–late 10th centuries). A parallel example of likely contemporary date from Domburg, on Walcheren Island, Netherlands is a Hübener’s Group 10 brooch (Hübener 1972), however such equal-armed brooches were also manufactured in Norwich, Norfolk during the Anglo-Saxon period (Hey 2004, 286–8).

Some 17 Hamwic type pins (Hinton 1996) are identified at Brandon Road [PF12], occupied over the 5th–later 9th centuries, and other pins also comparable to examples from the wic are present at Yarnton [PF17], inhabited from the c. late 5th–11th centuries, and Riby Cross Roads [PF32], of 6th/7th–mid-9th centuries date. Yarnton [PF17] and Riby Cross Roads [PF32] further produce pins with comparable counterparts from York, including a rare composite pin of 10th century date from the former site. The discovery of pin types commonly found at Hamwic and York suggests that these settlements may have had access to supra-/regional exchange or trading networks during the Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon centuries that involved commodities produced or distributed by emporia and towns. Wics commonly developed into towns and retained prominence as commercial centres, as evidenced by York and Hamwic, which was superseded by Southampton. 6.3.8. Strap Ends The provenance or general distributional area of several strap ends could be ascertained at three settlements of varied date (Appendix 6.11). From Staunch Meadow [PF34], occupied from the mid7th–late 9th centuries, is a Hamwic Type A strap end dating AD675–750 (Hinton 1996, 37–8). If the strap end was a traded item, it perhaps reached the settlement via exchange routes involving the Hamwic and Ipswich emporia, as other material culture at the site such as Ipswich ware particularly support the argument that Staunch Meadow [PF34] and Ipswich participated in linked commercial networks (i.e. Section 6.3.2). Hamwic type pins (Hinton 1996) are found at Brandon Road [PF12], located nearby to Staunch Meadow [PF34], and both sites also produce other comparable items such as pottery wares, coin types and worked stone items, suggesting the settlements may have engaged in the same or similar exchange and/or trading systems (i.e. Sections 6.3.1–6.3.3).

A selection of the brooches likely evidence local production and exchange at the settlements, as well as other means of transference such as migration. Some of the brooches may have been acquired via supra-/ regional and international economic systems operating in England during the Anglo-Saxon period. The confirmed or possible imported brooches either commonly derive from settlements occupied in the Early and Middle AngloSaxon periods or are brooches of Scandinavian style and/ or origin that are present at settlements of Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon date, however it is more likely that the latter examples were manufactured in England. 6.3.7. Pins The origin or potential distributional area of a small number of examples from the large pin assemblage are documented (Section 4.3.5; Appendix 6.11).

Four strap ends with inlaid silver wire ornament from Cottam [PF41], occupied during the 8th–early 10th centuries, are of a type which is otherwise almost exclusively found and distributed in East Anglia (Richards 1999a, 91; Thomas 2001, 40–2). Whether acquired through commerce or other means, the strap ends provide further potential evidence of the thriving trade, communications and travel routes operating by sea and land along England’s east coast, which were economically vital throughout the Anglo-Saxon period.

From Radley Barrow Hills [PF1], occupied from the 4th–early 7th centuries, is a small bone thistle-headed pin with a hipped shaft that may have been supra-/regionally sourced from southeast England. This pin type is characteristic of the 6th–9th centuries and examples are known in the Early Anglo-Saxon cemetery of Sarre, Kent (Stevenson 1956, 285–6; Chambers 201

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements At Yarnton [PF17], occupied from the c. late 5th–11th centuries, three 9th century strap ends decorated with distinct oval ears and lunate incisions have a wide distribution area. The strap ends are found in southern England, where Yarnton [PF17] is located, as well as the east, the midlands around Derbyshire and as far north as the Whitby area of Yorkshire (Hey 2004, 282).

6.3.10. Scandinavian and Anglo-Scandinavian Artefacts A variety of artefacts of Scandinavian or AngloScandinavian origin, style and type are identified at 11 settlements (Appendix 6.10). The Anglo-Scandinavian history of England coincides with the last decades of the Middle Anglo-Saxon period and the Late Anglo-Saxon period. It is traditionally divided into the First Viking Age, dating from the 9th century when the initial Viking raids and migrations occurred, and the Second Viking Age of the later 10th–11th centuries, covering the Scandinavian settlements and polities establishment in the north and east of the country and culminating in the foundation of a Danish royal dynasty in England (Sawyer 1969, 163–76).

The collection demonstrates the considerable distances between the settlements and the source or distributional extents of the strap ends. This evidence likely indicates the movement of people and/or the operation of exchange or trading activities over long distances. 6.3.9. Glass Artefacts

The artefacts found at the settlements are diverse in form, ranging from jewellery to equestrian equipment and tools. It is likely that most of the items would have been manufactured in England within the Anglo-Scandinavian Danelaw kingdom, established in the late 9th century, and perhaps also in the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Wessex to the south (Section 2.3.3). Settlements in the Danelaw where such items could have been produced include York and Lincoln, which were major manufacturing and commercial centres in the Late Anglo-Saxon period (i.e. Mann 1982; Hall et al 2004). It is also possible that some of the items were imported along established trading routes linking England and the Scandinavian world such as the North Sea and Irish Sea. Most of the settlements producing the assemblage are located in north, midlands or east England, the area encompassed by the Danelaw, and are also contemporary to the kingdom, being occupied during the later Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon periods (Fig. 6.21). Overall, the evidence from the settlements shows that such goods were primarily used, acquired and traded in the Danelaw, with fewer examples found beyond the kingdom.

Established provenance for glass artefacts is limited, excepting the beads assemblage (Section 6.3.4; Appendix 6.11). Examples of possibly imported glass artefacts are recorded at Staunch Meadow [PF34], occupied from the mid-7th–late 9th centuries, and likely reflect the high-status of the settlement. A monochrome beaker sherd decorated with moulded bosses is of a type commonly found in the Rhineland (Tester et al 2014, 377). A similar sherd has been identified at Ipswich and the trading relationship between the two settlements has been established by other material culture evidence (i.e. Sections 6.3.1–6.3.2, 6.3.8). A second beaker from Staunch Meadow [PF34], in globular form and with white and purple decoration, may be a Continental or Scandinavian import. In addition, several of the finer glass inkwells from the settlement are likely imports. Comparable inkwells are few and include a sherd from Liège, Belgium and examples from Hamwic, one of the English wics facilitating long-distance and international trade via its counterparts in England and Europe during the Middle Anglo-Saxon period (Tester et al 2014, 377). The inkwells may have been initially exchanged between Hamwic and Ipswich, the latter wic which was local to Staunch Meadow [PF34]. Finally, window glass from Staunch Meadow [PF34] is likely to either have been imported from the Continent, given the limited archaeological evidence for glass production centres in England, or perhaps recycled from Roman glass (Freestone et al 2008, 31, 41–2; Paynter et al 2014, 34–6; Tester et al 2014, 377).

Jewellery and clothing accessories are common items in the assemblage. Scandinavian-style brooches of 9th–10th centuries date are present at the Middle–Late AngloSaxon settlements of West Fen Road [PF39], Middle Harling [PF40] and Cottam [PF41], all located within the Danelaw (Fig. 6.21). A disc brooch from Cottam [PF41] is ornamented with Jelling style intertwined animal art, named after the Viking settlement of Jelling, Denmark (Kershaw 2013, 28–9). Another disc brooch from West Fen Road [PF39] has Borre style animal ornamentation, characterised by mask-heads. Borre style artefacts are found throughout the Viking world, as far as Iceland and Russia (Kershaw 2013, 26–8). At Middle Harling [PF40], a trefoil brooch with stylised ornamentation is of a form produced and worn in both England and Scandinavia and commonly found within the Danelaw (Kershaw 2013, 79– 81). Cottam [PF41] further yields a Borre style buckle and, from Middle Harling [PF40], a copper-alloy rectangular buckle with an iron plate is probably also of Scandinavian type. Brandon Road [PF12] and Maxey [PF21] produce a studded wrist clasp and a decorated tag end of c. 9th–10th centuries date respectively, both items which are of likely

Further examples of imported glass comprise an undisclosed amount of vessel and undiagnostic sherds from Chalton [PF25], occupied during the c. 6th–7th centuries, which are recorded as imports, however no further information is provided (Champion 1977, 369). The glass further demonstrates that Staunch Meadow [PF34] and Chalton [PF25] participated in economic networks that accessed imported commodities, as both sites also produce other imported artefacts (i.e. Sections 6.3.2–6.3.3). 202

Material Culture and Economic Reach

Figure 6.21. Settlements with Anglo-Scandinavian artefacts.

203

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements Scandinavian type. The settlements are also located in the Danelaw area although they were only occupied into the 9th centuries, the beginning of the First Viking Age.

of Ballinderry, Ireland (Beresford 1987, 176). Also from Raunds Furnells [PF6] are three hooked knives with curved blades, the form of which suggests they are of Scandinavian date and design (Audouy & Chapman 2009, 199).

Bishopstone [PF13] and Yarnton [PF17], both situated in the kingdom of Wessex in southern England, further produce items of Scandinavian fashion. From Yarnton [PF17] is a Hiberno-Viking type decorated square stud of c. 9th–10th centuries date. The size, weight and distinctive milled rim of the stud are similar to a number of enamelled mounts known from Scandinavian settlements and sites. The mount group includes circular examples from Scandinavian Dublin and Newtownlow, County Westmeath in Ireland, as well as mounts/studs associated with horse bridal fittings from Balladoole, Isle of Man and Kolset, Norway (Hey 2004, 286). At Bishopstone [PF13], a T-shaped pendant interpreted as a likely Norse god Thor’s hammer pendant comes from the Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon occupation phase (c. 8th–late 10th/early 11th centuries). Such items– as with other examples in the assemblage– could symbolise the cultural, religious or other affiliation/s of the wearers and may evidence instances of travel or re-settlement by the owners’ (Section 2.2). It is also possible that the objects are indicative of rural settlement participation in trading networks, perhaps far-reaching between Wessex and the Danelaw or elsewhere in the Scandinavian world.

Lead weights discovered at Cottam [PF41] are of a type found in contemporary Scandinavian Dublin and are probable evidence of trading and social contacts between the Norse and Danish settlements of Ireland and England. They are likely to have been scale weights and suggest the undertaking of transactions in which bullion was a substitute for debased coinage, pointing towards a versatile economy that accommodated both barter and monied markets (Richards 1999a, 9–10, 92; Haldenby & Kershaw 2014, 106, 117). Also from Cottam [PF41], two Norse bells further illuminate commercial and cultural links with the Scandinavian world. Of uncertain function/s, these miniature bells are exclusive to Norse and Danish colonised areas, although none have been found in Scandinavia to date (Richards 1999a, 96). Other settlements within the Danelaw that produce Norse bells include Lincoln and Coppergate, York. Exchange and trade connections between Cottam [PF41] and Anglo-Scandinavian York– whether by direct or indirect networks– is corroborated by other material culture including coins and brooches, as well as a strike-a-light designed with a hooked arm and tapering striking plate which has comparative counterparts at York, as do two spoon augers also from the site (Richards 1999a, 79). Further afield, Norse bells are known on the Isle of Man and Freswick Links, Scotland. Norse bells can perhaps best be interpreted as a “colonial statement” or similar cultural identifier, or simply as items considered fashionable within parts of the Scandinavian world (Richards 1999a, 96).

An assortment of household and utilitarian items of Scandinavian origin or style are also found. Norwegian ragstone hones are identifiable at five settlements (Section 6.3.3; Appendix 6.6). Of these, the four settlements of Raunds Furnells [PF6], West Cotton [PF9], Staunch Meadow [PF34] and Cottam [PF41] are contemporary to the Danelaw, in which they are all located, while Bishopstone [PF13], which is also contemporary, is situated on the south coast. Additionally, purple phyllite and micaceous schist hones from Staunch Meadow [PF34] and two ‘slate’ pencils made of either purple phyllite or fine-grained ragstone from Cottam [PF41] could be Scandinavian imports. Norwegian ragstone and purple phyllite hones are increasingly found in the Danelaw region from the 9th century and this rise in their importation coincides with the growing Scandinavian presence in the region from the First Viking Age (Tester et al 2014, 268–70). Hones made from micaceous schist, which are found at the Early and Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon settlements of Spong Hill [PF15], Carlton Colville [PF28] and Pitstone [PF33], may also have been sourced from Scandinavia. The three settlements predate the Anglo-Scandinavian period and the hones are thus potential evidence of economic and social contact between England and Scandinavia prior to the Viking Age periods.

Situated in the kingdom of Wessex, Collingbourne Ducis [PF38] produces a polished walrus ivory pinbeater, a rare find in Wiltshire during the Anglo-Saxon period (Pine 2001, 97). The settlement was occupied during the c. early 8th–10th centuries, spanning the period when walruses were hunted for their valuable ivory which was popularly traded by the Vikings across northern Europe (Frei et al 2015, 440, 448). Given this, the pinbeater likely arrived at the settlement via long-distance travel and trading routes. Equestrian equipment of Scandinavian style is found at two Danelaw settlements. A likely stirrup mount from Middle Harling [PF40] is finely decorated with silver inlay and the Ringerike style of interlaced animals and tendrils (Kershaw 2013, 31). From Raunds Furnells [PF6] is a fine stirrup of 10th–11th centuries date, a harness bit and a bridal cheek, which are all decorated with bosses and may have formed a single equestrian outfit. Harness sets with similar bossed ornamentation are known in southern Norway (Waterman 1959, 75; Audouy & Chapman 2009, 199).

Other finds include a possible decorated Valsgärde bowl of c. 8th–9th centuries date at Brandon Road [PF12], which may have been imported from Sweden or elsewhere in Scandinavia. From Raunds Furnells [PF6] are two pegged bone gaming pieces which are of likely Scandinavian type, as an example of a pierced gaming board on which such pieces could be played is known at the Viking settlement

Finally, an imitation Kufic dirhem from Middle Harling [PF40] derives from a distant source. Such coins travelled 204

Material Culture and Economic Reach west from central Asia and examples that reached England would have been exchanged along the Viking trade routes of Russia, the Baltic and Scandinavia (Rogerson 1995, 52–3; Kershaw 2016, 94). The coin belongs to a group of imitations dating c. AD893–902 and such dirhems and their copies have been discovered as isolated finds elsewhere in East Anglia and a forged example is also known from York (Rogerson 1995, 52–3). Middle Harling [PF40] is contemporary with the production of these dirhems and it may have been acquired through means of commercial exchange.

within an SFB [X], suggesting it could have arrived at the settlement as a personal belonging. At Carlton Colville [PF28], occupied from the c. 6th– early 8th centuries, is a Marzinzik Type I.2 buckle tongue (Marzinzik 2003) which is a likely Frankish import. Finally, a copper-alloy ‘Byzantine’ bowl with lattice decoration from Staunch Meadow [PF34], occupied from the mid-7th–late 9th centuries, is a possible import. It is likely some of these items reached the settlements via established trade, communications and travel routes with the Continent, such as through the kingdom of Kent or along the Thames (Brookes 2003, 85; Lucy et al 2009, 186; Nicolay 2014, 31).

Economic and cultural factors are highlighted by the Scandinavian and Anglo-Scandinavian material culture found at the settlements. Distributional analysis determines that such artefacts are predominantly found at Middle–Late and Late Anglo-Saxon settlements, situated within the Danelaw and corresponding in date to the First Viking Age (9th–10th centuries) and/or the Second Viking Age (later 10th–11th centuries) in England. Comparable material culture is common to other areas of the Viking world. For instance, the Danelaw settlements of Raunds Furnells [PF6], Middle Harling [PF40] and Cottam [PF41] each produce a range of artefacts, including jewellery, equestrian equipment and tools, with counterparts from other Scandinavian settlements in northwestern Europe. Particularly due to this, it is not possible to determine with confidence whether examples of the AngloScandinavian artefacts found at the rural settlements were manufactured in England or imported items. On balance however, it is likely that many were produced in England as archaeological evidence demonstrates that centres including Late Anglo-Saxon towns– many within the Danelaw such as York and Lincoln– functioned as manufacturing and industrial centres as well as commercial hubs during the period (i.e. Mann 1982; Hall et al 2004). From a social perspective, the assemblage reveals that such material culture, in particular the personal adornment objects, could serve as artistic or fashionable items as well as cultural indicators or unifiers.

This small group further highlights that imported artefacts are overall more commonly found at settlements of earlier Anglo-Saxon date. These sites, excepting Orton Hall Farm [PF8], also produce other imported objects including coins, pottery and worked stone items (i.e. Sections 6.3.1–6.3.3, 6.3.9). The various artefacts may have been obtained through diverse modes of transference such as commercial transactions, migration or exchange systems including gift-giving. 6.4. Conclusions Material culture provenance and distribution demonstrates that rural settlements were engaged to various degrees in networks of local, regional, supraregional and international reach throughout the Anglo-Saxon period, which facilitated exchange and commercial activities, as well as travel and communications. Key factors including geography, politics, culture and the quality and availability of resources contributed to economic trends and variations. Systems of exchange, such as gift-giving and tribute, which characterised the economic, social and political structures of Early Anglo-Saxon England are reflected by the material culture (Sections 2.3.3, 8.2). Artefacts of supra-/ regional and, particularly, local provenance are present at settlements of Early and Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon date, however these sites also produce the greatest quantity and diversity of imported goods in terms of type and provenance. Gemstones of Baltic, Nordic/Scandinavian, Continental or Asian provenance, commonly fashioned into beads, are only found at sites occupied during these centuries (Section 6.3.5). Five settlements of these dates as well as possibly Cowdery’s Down [PF22] produce imported pottery, ranging from northern French and Rhenish types to Egyptian or eastern Mediterranean wares (Section 6.3.2). A number of sites of earlier Anglo-Saxon date further yield brooches, a pin, a buckle, glass, worked stone and bone artefacts all of confirmed or probable north and western Continental origin, as well as several hones that may be of Scandinavian provenance (Appendices 6.10–6.11). It can be surmised that some of the artefacts would have been valued, perhaps more likely items for personal adornment

6.3.11. Other Artefacts A small collection of individual artefacts of confirmed or likely imported provenance are recorded at four settlements. From Orton Hall Farm [PF8], occupied from the 5th–c. early 6th centuries, is a bone comb of Frisian Barred or Barred Zoomorphic form that is of late 4th–5th centuries date. The comb, along with a possibly imported ivory tusk ring that may be a belt buckle, could be present due to migration given the early date of the settlement, although systems of exchange cannot be ruled out. Further ivory artefacts that may have been imported are present at Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27], occupied during the c. 6th–7th/early 8th centuries. From the backfill of an SFB [IV] is an ivory bracelet and a double-toothed ivory comb accompanied an adult male burial placed 205

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements or display than utilitarian objects, given their distant provenance and/or comparative rarity (Meaney 1981, 76; Huggett 1988, 66–8) (i.e. Sections 3.2.6, 6.3.4–6.3.5). It is probable that examples of these items, originally acquired from further afield, were exchanged by Early Anglo-Saxon kin groups and communities via systems of exchange such as largesse and tribute (Hill 1995, 11; Lowry 2003, 41–9; Scull 2011, 850–1). Such material culture also highlights elements of hierarchy during the period, which is not overtly apparent in other archaeological evidence such as settlement morphology (Sections 2.3.3, 8.2).

at rural settlements in Yorkshire as well as east England, demonstrating a wide distribution (Section 6.3.1). Such artefactual evidence indicates rural settlement participation in exchange and trading networks involving commodities originally produced and/or distributed by emporia. The number of imports found at the rural settlements starts to decrease from the Middle Anglo-Saxon period. Imports from Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon settlements include Niedermendig lava, Scandinavian worked stone objects, French Aubigny-type limestone at Bishopstone [PF13], pottery from five sites and possibly Riverdene [PF35], an imitation Kufic dirham from Middle Harling [PF40], and glass items and possibly a ‘Byzantine’ bowl from Staunch Meadow [PF34]. The importation of Niedermendig lava appears exceptional, with examples present at 28 settlements occupied throughout the AngloSaxon period, although it is unclear how frequently it was imported during the Early Anglo-Saxon period (Parkhouse 1997; 2014, 24) (Section 6.3.3). Yarnton [PF17], inhabited continuously from the Early to Late Anglo-Saxon period, produces lava from every occupation phase (Section 7.5.3). The superiority of lava for the production of quality querns and similar items explains the continued importation of the stone from the Rhineland (Parkhouse 2014, 22).

The Anglo-Saxon kingdoms progressively consolidated power in the 7th century and this relative stability supported economic developments including the introduction of Anglo-Saxon coinage, the development of market- and monetary-based exchange and the establishment of the emporia commercial and productions centres in the Middle Anglo-Saxon period (Sections 2.3.2–2.3.3). Sceatta coins were struck in England from the 7th century and these as well as imported examples were circulated in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms (Section 6.3.1). Sceattas are present at nine sites, demonstrating the integration of coins into the rural economy (Hamerow 2012, 166– 7). Where mints could be identified, the English sceatta circulation demonstrates that many were struck in local or regional mints to the rural settlements at which they are found, suggesting some form of distributional control. The discovery of several imported sceattas shows that the distribution of these coins encompassed rural settlements and, on a larger scale, evidences trading and social contacts between Anglo-Saxon England and the Continent. Sceattas facilitated mixed barter and commercial transactions and highlight the burgeoning of market-based economies which are increasingly apparent from the Middle AngloSaxon period.

Into the Late Anglo-Saxon period, market and estate centres as well as emerging towns supported commerce and facilitated the operation of trade and exchange networks, participated in by rural settlements (Sections 2.3.2–2.3.3). The Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon settlement of Cottam [PF41] provides a detailed individual example, with artefacts such as coins, weights and other implements showing that the settlement had close commercial ties– whether directly or indirectly– with the wic and subsequent town of York, its closest major centre. Significantly, Cottam [PF41] was largely aceramic prior to the late 9th century, from which time a range of pottery including York type wares become prevalent, highlighting the settlement’s contacts (Richards 1999a, 97). Also from the site, several chalk weights and a thatch weight sourced from the Wolds show that Cottam [PF41] benefitted from exploitation of the area’s natural resources.

Intense economic growth in Anglo-Saxon England, particularly from the early 8th century, supported the introduction of mass-produced goods, some of which were manufactured and/or distributed by the emporia, along with other commodities (Wickham 2005, 810–2; Brookes 2007, 32). This is evidenced at the rural settlements, particularly by mass-produced pottery wares. The heavy concentration of Ipswich ware in East Anglia, produced in the region’s premier wic of Ipswich, strongly suggests it served as the local ware for centres such as rural settlements in the region (Mudd & Webster 2011, 131). Thetford-type and St Neots wares were also predominantly distributed locally and regionally to the settlements (Section 6.3.2). Goods likely sourced from the Hamwic emporium at the rural settlements include Hamwic type pins at Brandon Road [PF12] and equivalents at Yarnton [PF17] and Riby Cross Roads [PF32], as well as a Hamwic Type A strap end from Staunch Meadow [PF34] (Hinton 1996) (Sections 6.3.7–6.3.8). From Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27] is a possible Hamwic Type 48 sceat. Stycas were also struck and circulated from the later 8th century at wics and centres such as York, examples of which are found

Pennies fuelled the monetised economy and they constitute the largest collection of coin types found at the rural settlements (Section 6.3.1). Regarding distribution, pennies were predominantly struck in mints local or regional to the settlements at which they are found, as seen with sceattas. The establishment of the Danelaw across north, midlands and east England in the late 9th century is reflected by the prevalence of Anglo-Scandinavian style artefacts at contemporary rural settlements, most of which were located within the kingdom (Section 6.3.10). It is probable that many Anglo-Scandinavian items were produced in manufacturing and commercial hubs such as towns within the Danelaw as well as perhaps elsewhere in England. However, some examples may be imports as the 206

Material Culture and Economic Reach as a control sample in the dataset, likewise produces a substantial and diverse material culture assemblage with variously sourced objects. The assemblage includes local, supra-/regional and imported material common to other sites such as Ipswich ware, Niedermendig lava and Millstone Grit querns. It is distinguished by prestige goods, for example Tating and Badorf ware, and items such as inkwells which were likely imported, as well as window glass, which are rarely found at rural settlements. The assemblage from Staunch Meadow [PF34] thus reflects both a general economic prosperity, which is comparable to a number of other settlements, and hierarchical status, which sets the site apart (Section 7.4).

similarities between Anglo-Scandinavian material culture and artefacts from other areas of the Scandinavian world highlights that such objects could serve as cultural and political identifiers. As outlined above, fewer confirmed imports are found at rural settlements during later AngloSaxon centuries than earlier in the period. However, the importation of high-quality Scandinavian stone such as micaceous schist and Norwegian ragstone is evidenced at the sites and demonstrates demand for such quality materials, along with Niedermendig lava, which may have reached the settlements via various networks (Section 6.3.3). Assessment of the provenance of artefacts found at the rural settlements demonstrates that the greatest quantity are locally produced goods, including handmade pottery vessels, ceramic items such as loomweights and worked bone implements like needles and combs (Appendix 6). Such items are common to every site and are manufactured throughout the Anglo-Saxon period, emphasising scales of production and economic self-sufficiency operating within rural settlements (Sections 4.3.11, 5.2.4). Artefacts of regional provenance are also prevalent, such as coins and pottery wares, with similar examples from supraregional sources less common (Section 6.2). The majority of imports, which are predominantly found at settlements of Early and Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon date, were sourced from the northwestern Continent, notably the Rhineland, Low Countries and France, throughout the Anglo-Saxon period. Possible Scandinavian imports such as hones become increasingly common from the later 9th century, coinciding with the Viking Age periods in England.

Overall, the material culture evidences the roles and participation of rural settlements in the economic structures of Anglo-Saxon England, from exchangebased systems and the prevalence of imported goods in the Early Anglo-Saxon period, to the development of market systems and mass-production from the Middle and into the Late Anglo-Saxon periods, the latter which was also characterised by the supply and demand of Anglo-Scandinavian goods. 6.5. Summary This chapter has analysed the provenance and distribution of material culture in order to assess the potential economic reach of the rural settlements. Section 6.2 discusses the distance parameters used to define local, regional and supraregional provenance of material culture at the settlements.

From a geographical perspective, the artefactual evidence reaffirms the established consensus of the material prosperity and general economic advantages afforded to sites located along or in proximity to the east coast of England. In the study set, the majority of settlements producing diverse and often large material culture assemblages with artefacts of local, supra-/regional and imported provenance are located on or near to the east coast and are of various occupation dates, such as West Stow [PF3], Mucking [PF4], Carlton Colville [PF28], Riby Cross Roads [PF32], Middle Harling [PF40] and Cottam [PF41].

Section 6.3 examines the potential economic patterns and trends evidenced by the material culture at the settlements, focusing on the analysis of artefactual provenance and distribution. The evidence highlights rural settlement participation in the exchange and commercial systems characterising Anglo-Saxon England. The majority of artefacts were produced locally throughout the AngloSaxon period and regionally sourced goods are also common. Artefacts of supraregional provenance are found in lesser quantities and imports are prevalent at settlements of earlier Anglo-Saxon date.

Also situated in proximity to the east coast, the highstatus settlement of Staunch Meadow [PF34], included

Following, Chapter 7 further evaluates the key results and issues presented in Chapters 4–6 through four case studies.

207

7 Case Studies 7.1. Overview

culture assemblages from the sites (Section 4.3). The commonest artefacts found across the settlements of study are present at the multi-period sites (Appendix 3). As such, pottery, knives, brooches, pins/needles, slag and metal manufacturing debris, Niedermendig querns and a range of tools and implements, including awls, weights, shears and agriculture/cultivation tools, are found at every multiperiod settlement. Most prolific of these are pottery, pins/ needles and Niedermendig querns, which are represented in every occupation phase of the multi-period settlements.

The preceding three chapters have explored the research questions placed upon the study, encompassing examination of site distributional patterns, the range and character of material culture, consumption activities undertaken and evidence of potential economic trends (Chapters 4–6). In this chapter, key findings and issues highlighted in these assessments are examined through four case studies. The first three case studies are broad-ranging in method and theme, with the final case study adopting a microscale approach. In the first case study, material culture is analysed from a chronological perspective through a focus on evidence from the six multi-period settlements included in the sample set, highlighting patterns of artefactual evidence, consumption and potential economic trends across the settlements (Section 7.2). Discussed in the second case study is the settlement profiles that have been established for each site based on consumption patterns, which emphasise the activities and some specialisations taking place at the settlements (Section 7.3). Following, the third case study considers artefactual evidence and site distributional patterns as potential indicators of status and rank, illuminating social and hierarchical complexities at many rural settlements (Section 7.4). In the final case study, a microscale analysis of the settlement of Yarnton [PF17] is undertaken, which contextualises on an individual site level the main themes of the study, namely the types, range and distribution of material culture, consumption activities and economic patterns (Section 7.5).

Other common artefacts found include loomweights and pinbeaters, present at each multi-period site excepting Raunds Furnells [PF6]. These items are absent from Middle Anglo-Saxon deposits and pinbeaters are also not found in Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon occupation sequences. Each multi-period settlement except Yarnton [PF17] produces spindlewhorls, which are similarly absent from the Middle Anglo-Saxon period. Combs are found at the multi-period sites excepting West Cotton [PF9] and are present in all occupation periods. Other querns, excluding Niedermendig types, are present at each multi-period settlement excluding Fordham [PF31]. Querns are datable to the Middle–Late or Late Anglo-Saxon periods at West Cotton [PF9], Bishopstone [PF13] and Market Lavington [PF14], with unstratified examples at Raunds Furnells [PF6] and Yarnton [PF17]. Less common artefacts such as heckles, hooked tags, smoothers, rubbers, counters/gaming pieces, equestrian equipment and weapons are variously datable to all occupation phases and particularly the Middle–Late and Late Anglo-Saxon periods. The strong representation of Late Anglo-Saxon occupation at the multi-period settlements and the quantity and diversity of artefacts datable to the Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon centuries at Bishopstone [PF13] and Yarnton [PF17] accounts for this. Material culture of Middle Anglo-Saxon date is least represented, with occupation phases only documented at Yarnton [PF17] and Market Lavington [PF14], which has a paucity of finds dating to this period.

7.2. Material Culture and Chronology: Multi-period Settlements 7.2.1. Overview This case study presents an analysis of material culture from a chronological perspective, building upon evidence discussed in previous chapters (Chapters 4–6). It examines the material culture which is stratigraphically phased and/ or datable from the six multi-period settlements in the study set (Table 7.1; Appendix 7). Section 7.2.2 assesses material culture from the settlements within chronological context. Section 7.2.3 discusses consumption activities in terms of chronology. Section 7.2.4 examines apparent economic patterns in a chronological framework. Section 7.2.5 presents the conclusions.

The multi-period settlements highlight examples of material culture chronological patterns, with several artefact groups conforming to established trends. Handmade pottery, which is characteristic of the earlier Anglo-Saxon centuries in England and the Continent, is found exclusively in Early, Early–Middle and Middle Anglo-Saxon occupation phases at the multi-period sites. Wheel-thrown/-turned pottery, which becomes increasingly common from the Middle Anglo-Saxon period onwards in England, is present at each site in the Middle–Late and/or Late Anglo-Saxon periods. Roman

7.2.2. Artefacts and Chronology Artefactual evidence from the multi-period settlements highlights the broad uniformity exhibited in the material 208

Case Studies Table 7.1. The multi-period settlements of study PF no.

Multi-period settlements

Settlement occupation phases Early AngloSaxon

Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon

Middle AngloSaxon

6

Raunds Furnells

9

West Cotton

13

Bishopstone

14

Market Lavington

X

X

17

Yarnton

X

X

31

Fordham

Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon

X

Late AngloSaxon X

X

X X

X

X

X X

X X

out by consumption activities represented (Section 3.2.6; Chapter 5; Appendix 5). The multi-period sites engaged throughout the Anglo-Saxon period in the same common undertakings as the other settlements, notably domestic chores such as cooking and food preparation, dress and adornment interests, as well as manufacturing, utilitarian and agricultural/cultivation activities (Table 7.2). Identifiable household/personal possessions are absent from stratified contexts until the Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period, with evidence including keys, locks/ padlocks, mounts and hooks (Appendix 7.2). Toilet and grooming activities are consistently represented, due to the broad dates of the combs found and tweezers of Early, Early–Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon date which are present at three of the multi-period settlements.

artefacts are found at every multi-period settlement and are present in all occupation phases excepting the Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period, although examples are most common in Early and Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon sequences. This is of note given the high representation of Late Anglo-Saxon occupation at the multi-period sites and reflects the chronology for all settlements producing Roman material, the majority of which are of Early and Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon date (Sections 4.3.20, 5.2.13). Bishopstone [PF13], Market Lavington [PF14] and Yarnton [PF17] produce strap ends, most of Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon date. This supports the chronology established with the other settlements, which demonstrates that strap ends are best represented in the Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period (Section 4.3.6). Brooches from the multi-period settlements are most frequently of Early and Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon date, periods that are well represented in the chronological analysis of the total brooch assemblage from the sites (Section 4.3.5). Beads are found at four multi-period settlements, excluding Bishopstone [PF13] and Fordham [PF31], with examples datable to the Early, Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon periods. This mirrors the broad chronology of the other settlements that produce beads, which are variously occupied throughout the Anglo-Saxon period (Section 4.3.5). Buckles are only present at Bishopstone [PF13] and Market Lavington [PF14] however the examples range from Early to Late Anglo-Saxon date, reflecting the chronological spread of the other sites with buckles (Section 4.3.6).

7.2.3. Consumption Activities and Chronology

Most of the less common consumption activities identified across the settlements also took place at the multiperiod sites. Equestrian activities are represented at each settlement excluding Fordham [PF31], with all the evidence dating to the Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period. This supports the chronology for this activity across the sites, in which settlements of Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon date are predominantly represented (Section 5.2.8). Weapons that may have been used for warfare and hunting are datable to the Early, Middle–Late and Late AngloSaxon periods, however the limited evidence from the multi-period sites does not reflect the emphasis on the Early–Middle and Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon periods established for warfare and hunting activities across all settlements (Sections 5.2.6–5.2.7). Affluence is indicated by five artefacts interpreted as prestige items from Raunds Furnells [PF6], West Cotton [PF9], Market Lavington [PF14] and Yarnton [PF17] (Section 3.2.6). Three of the objects date to the Early and Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon periods and two are of Middle–Late and Late AngloSaxon date. The small collection supports the established chronology across the settlements that such prestige artefacts were present in settlements of varied dates but does not reflect the Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon phase as the most represented period (Section 5.2.11).

The similarities in material culture chronologies between the multi-period and other settlements is further borne

Leisurely activities, identified at 12 sites, are represented at the multi-period settlements by gaming pieces and

The chronological trends apparent at the multi-period settlements strongly supports the chronological patterns established across the sites of study, with most material culture represented in corresponding occupation phases at the multi-period and other settlements (Appendices 7.2–7.8). Overall, the material culture present at the multiperiod sites is directly comparable to the other settlement assemblages.

209

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements Table 7.2. Multi-period settlements: consumption activities by occupation phase

Cooking, eating/drinking & storage

Settlement occupation phases Totals

Consumption activities

Early AngloSaxon

Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon

Middle Anglo-Saxon

Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon

Late AngloSaxon

X

X

X

X

X

5

X

X

2

Household items & personal possessions Personal adornment

X

X

X

X

X

5

Dress & clothing

X

X

X

X

X

5

Toilet, grooming & hygiene

X

X

X

X

X

5

Manufacture, production & craft (all)

X

X

X

X

X

5

  Textile working

X

X

X

X

X

5

  Metal working

X

X

X

X

X

5

Utilitarian

X

X

X

X

X

5

Agriculture, cultivation & horticulture

X

X

X

X

X

5

Warfare & defence

X

X

X

3

Hunting & fishing

X

X

X

3

Equestrian

X

X

2

Leisure

?X

X

c. 2

Trade & exchange

X

X

2

X

X

c. 4

X

X

2

c. 17

17

Prestige & luxury

X

?X

Ritual Totals

12

c. 10

9

counters at Raunds Furnells [PF6] and Market Lavington [PF14] (Section 5.2.9). The gaming pieces from Raunds Furnells [PF6] are of Anglo-Scandinavian date and likely reflect the settlement’s location within the Danelaw (Section 6.3.10). From Market Lavington [PF14] is a Roman pottery sherd modified into a counter, dating to the Early Anglo-Saxon occupation. This example reflects the leisurely artefacts from the other sites, most of which are counters fashioned from Roman artefacts and common to settlements of Early and Middle Anglo-Saxon date.

Overall, the consumption activities undertaken at the multiperiod sites are largely reflective of the activities undertaken at all settlements throughout the Anglo-Saxon period. 7.2.4. Economic Trends and Chronology The multi-period sites elucidate potential economic patterns as evidenced by analysis of material culture provenance and distribution at the settlements (Chapter 6). Engagement in exchange, trade and travel networks of various local, supra-/regional and international reach is demonstrated at the multi-period sites, as at the other settlements. Maps showing the provenance of artefacts by period from three of the multi-period sites, Bishopstone [PF13], Market Lavington [PF14] and Yarnton [PF17], highlight this (Figs. 7.1–7.9 below).

Ritual activities at the multi-period settlements are indicated by ‘special deposits’, present at Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon Bishopstone [PF13] and in Late Anglo-Saxon contexts at West Cotton [PF9] and Fordham [PF31]. ‘Special deposits’ are interpreted (by the excavator/s) at seven settlements overall, however this apparent strong representation of multi-period sites of later Anglo-Saxon date is not decisive given the small size of the sample (Section 5.2.14). For example, Hamerow’s research examines a significantly wider sample of (potential) ‘special deposits’ from a larger range of Anglo-Saxon settlements of various occupation dates (Hamerow 2006).

Regarding local manufacture and perhaps exchange at the settlements, commodities such as pottery, loomweights, spindlewhorls, combs, pins/needles and pinbeaters are consistently represented at all the multi-period sites and in every occupation period, a trend observed across the other settlements. 210

Case Studies

Figure 7.1. Artefact provenance by period: Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon Bishopstone. © Free Vector Maps.com.

Figure 7.2. Artefact provenance by period: Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon Bishopstone. © Free Vector Maps.com.

211

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 7.3. Artefact provenance by period: Early Anglo-Saxon Yarnton. © Free Vector Maps.com.

Figure 7.4. Artefact provenance by period: Middle Anglo-Saxon Yarnton. © Free Vector Maps.com.

212

Case Studies

Figure 7.5. Artefact provenance by period: Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon Yarnton. © Free Vector Maps.com.

Figure 7.6. Artefact provenance by period: Late Anglo-Saxon Yarnton. © Free Vector Maps.com.

213

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 7.7. Artefact provenance by period: Early Anglo-Saxon Market Lavington. © Free Vector Maps.com.

Figure 7.8. Artefact provenance by period: Middle Anglo-Saxon Market Lavington. © Free Vector Maps.com.

214

Case Studies

Figure 7.9. Artefact provenance by period: Late Anglo-Saxon Market Lavington. © Free Vector Maps.com.

England and the Scandinavian world (Sections 2.3.3, 6.3.10). Reflecting this, Scandinavian stylised objects of Middle–Late and Late Anglo-Saxon date are found at four multi-period sites. Situated in the Danelaw, the AngloScandinavian occupation phase of Raunds Furnells [PF6] (AD850–900/950) produces a Norwegian ragstone hone. Fragments of Norwegian ragstone are also present in the Late Anglo-Saxon occupation phase of West Cotton [PF9] (AD950–1100). From Yarnton [PF17] is a Hiberno-Viking stud of c. 9th–10th centuries date and from the Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon phase of Bishopstone [PF13] (c. 8th–late 10th/early 11th centuries) is a Norwegian ragstone hone and a likely Thor’s hammer pendant.

Material culture from the sites shows that imported artefacts reached rural settlements throughout the AngloSaxon period, although they are more prevalent at sites of earlier Anglo-Saxon date (Sections 2.3.3, 8.2; Chapter 6). This trend is supported by imports at four of the multiperiod sites from Early and Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon occupation phases: Continental pottery at Bishopstone [PF13]; an amber bead and garnet at Market Lavington [PF14]; Niedermendig lava querns and an equal-armed brooch at Yarnton [PF17]; and a Niedermendig rubber at Fordham [PF31]. Continental pottery continued arriving at Bishopstone [PF13] in the Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period, along with imported stone materials, perhaps suggesting some continuity of contacts and/or trading links at the settlement. Niedermendig lava was imported to England during the Anglo-Saxon period due to the superiority of the stone for manufacturing (Parkhouse 2014, 22). Reflecting this, lava is present in occupation phases of all dates at the six multi-period settlements (Appendices 7.3–7.8).

Middle Anglo-Saxon emporia trading ports and Late Anglo-Saxon towns were central to the control and facilitation of trade (Section 2.3.3). A pin from Yarnton [PF17] with unusual ring-and-dot decoration is likely from the Hamwic emporium and Ipswich ware, produced and initially distributed from the emporium of Ipswich, is also found at the settlement (Sections 6.3.2, 6.3.7, 7.5). St Neots ware, also produced in East Anglia, is present in Middle–Late and Late Anglo-Saxon contexts at Raunds Furnells [PF6], West Cotton [PF9], Yarnton [PF17] and Fordham [PF31]. Towns such as Northampton, London and Oxford participated in commercial systems that facilitated the exchange of such pottery and other goods via various networks to rural settlements (Section 6.3.2). Overall, evidence from the multi-period sites demonstrates

The development of market and monetised commerce in the Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon periods is supported by evidence from the multi-period settlements. The supply and demand of Scandinavian imports and AngloScandinavian styled items flourished in England during the Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon periods and the founding of the Danelaw in the later 9th century facilitated strong cultural, political and economic ties between 215

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements rural settlement participation in the exchange and trade systems of Anglo-Saxon England, as also shown by other settlements of study.

Consumption Activities Occurrence at the Settlements Eighteen broad consumption activities have been identified, as discussed in Chapter 5, and correlation of the individual site profile data demonstrates that many settlements were undertaking a range of these activities (Fig. 7.10).

7.2.5. Conclusions The settlement profiles of the multi-period sites, established by artefactual evidence and chronological analysis, are not distinctly unique from the other settlements of study. The material culture, consumption and economic signatures of the multi-period sites are directly comparable to one another as well the other settlements, with few variances noted. This points towards a broadly uniform use of material culture and the undertaking of similar consumption and economic activities across contemporary rural settlements throughout the Anglo-Saxon period. These findings are further discussed in a wider historical framework in Chapter 8 (Section 8.2).

Generally, sites producing evidence for a greater range of consumption activities are larger in terms of settlement size (including building totals), excavation extent and/ or artefact assemblage volume. This emphasises biases inherent in archaeology, notably the coincidental rate of survival, recovery and/or interpretation of the archaeological record as primarily determined by the nature and scope of archaeological investigations undertaken at a given site (Section 3.3). As illustration, 17 consumption activities– the largest amount identified as taking place per site– are evidenced at three settlements which variously benefit from advantageous archaeological circumstances (Table 7.3). West Stow [PF3] comprises a larger scale excavation of c. 18,000sq. m which encompassed a sizeable settlement of 77 buildings (70 SFBs, 7 PBSs) and produced c. 55,490 artefacts. The high-status settlement of Staunch Meadow [PF34] encompasses c. 35 PBSs (including churches) within an excavation area of 11,750sq. m that has yielded c. 22,718 artefacts. While at Cottam [PF41], only three PBSs were excavated in three 10m x 20m trenches, however the site was also subject to metal detecting and fieldwalking exercises and the settlement assemblage comprises c. 484 artefacts.

7.3. Material Culture Signatures: Settlement Profiles 7.3.1. Overview This case study presents an overview of the settlement profiles which have been established for each site (Appendix 8). The profiles are based on the occurrence, or ‘commonness’, of consumption activities taking place at the settlements (Sections 3.2.6–3.2.7; Chapter 5). Section 7.3.2 examines consumption patterns as potential unique indicators at the settlements. Section 7.3.3 presents the conclusions. 7.3.2. Settlement Signatures

Sixteen consumption activities are represented at Carlton Colville [PF28], West Fen Road [PF39] and Middle Harling [PF40], which were also subject to various opportune archaeological conditions. West Fen Road [PF39] produces c. 19 PBSs and c. 9450 artefacts from a considerably

The assessment of consumption activities taking place at the sites, as evidenced by material culture, can establish cross-settlement trends and determine unique settlement signatures.

Figure 7.10. Consumption activities occurrence at the settlements.

216

Case Studies Table 7.3. Consumption activities occurrence per settlement Consumption activities (18 categories total)

Settlements

17

West Stow [PF3]; Staunch Meadow [PF34]; Cottam [PF41]

16

Carlton Colville [PF28]; West Fen Road [PF39]; Middle Harling [PF40]

15

Radley Barrow Hills [PF1]; Mucking [PF4]; Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27]

14

West Cotton [PF9]; Brandon Road [PF12]

13

Barton Court Farm [PF5]; Orton Hall Farm [PF8]; Market Lavington [PF14]; Riby Cross Roads [PF32]

12

Raunds Furnells [PF6]; Bishopstone [PF13]; Spong Hill [PF15]; Yarnton [PF17]; Chalton [PF25]

11

Melford Meadows [PF7]; Poundbury [PF10]; Collingbourne Ducis [PF38]; Springfield Lyons [PF45]

10

Lechlade [PF16]; Pennyland [PF19]; Maxey [PF21]; Catholme [PF36]

9

Godmanchester [PF11]; Abingdon [PF24]; Fordham [PF31]; Cottenham [PF37]

8

Quarrington [PF30]; Riverdene [PF35]; Mawgan Porth [PF44]

7

Cowdery’s Down [PF22];

6

Heybridge [PF2]; Orsett Cock [PF18]; Kilverstone [PF23]; Pitstone [PF33]

5

Goch Way [PF26]; Simy Folds [PF42]; Goltho [PF43]

4

Thirlings [PF20]; Foxholes Farms [PF29]

Settlements exhibiting less consumption activities include sites smaller in terms of excavation size such as: Abingdon [PF24], at c. 900m in extent and encompassing c. five buildings (3 SFBs, 2 ?PBSs) and yielding c. 211 artefacts; Heybridge [PF2], with an excavation area of c. 1600sq. m comprising six buildings (5 SFBs, 1 PBS) and producing c. 761 artefacts; and Goch Way [PF26], covering 8000sq. m comprising three SFBs and producing c. 315 artefacts. Several sites larger in size produce smaller artefact assemblages and less consumption activities, including Kilverstone [PF23] which comprises an excavation area of 26,000sq. m that yielded 14 buildings (10 SFBs, 4 PBSs) and c. 116 artefacts, and Foxholes Farm [PF29] which covers 44,000sq. m in which 15 buildings (6 SFBs, 9 PBSs) and c. 34 artefacts were excavated. Small material culture assemblages are also present at sites such as Thirlings [PF20] and Simy Folds [PF42], which both produce no more than c. 35 artefacts and are settlements with less consumption diversity.

sized excavation area of 52,600sq. m. Carlton Colville [PF28] encompasses a large archaeological excavation of +30,000sq. m in which 48 buildings (38 SFBs, 10 PBSs) and c. 10,925 artefacts were recovered. At Middle Harling [PF40], just four PBSs were excavated in an investigation area of c. 1350sq. m, however metal detecting increased the finds assemblage to c. 1667 artefacts. Carlton Colville [PF28] and West Fen Road [PF39] also produce metal detected artefacts, although both assemblages are considerably smaller than the collections from Middle Harling [PF40] and Cottam [PF41] (Section 3.3.1). Fifteen consumption activities are identified at Radley Barrow Hills [PF1], Mucking [PF4] and Sutton Courtenay/ Drayton [PF27], which exhibit comparable archaeological circumstances to the above settlements. The excavation extents of these sites cover from 35,000sq. m at Radley Barrow Hills [PF1] to 0.18200sq. km at Mucking [PF4] and comprise from c. 46 buildings (34 SFBs, c. 12 PBSs) at Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27] to c. 256 buildings (203 SFB, c. 53 PBSs) at Mucking [PF4]. The settlement material culture assemblages range from c. 264 artefacts at Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27], of which 35 objects were recovered from metal detecting, to c. 33,319 items from Mucking [PF4].

With few exceptions, and arguably unsurprisingly, sites more fortuitous in terms of excavation opportunities and, often, material culture assemblage sizes generally exhibit greater ranges of consumption activities. Of note, Middle Harling [PF40] and Cottam [PF41], which are on the smaller side regarding excavation size and artefact assemblage quantity as compared to other sites in the dataset, are two of the most prolific settlements in terms of consumption activities. Similarly, Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27] produces a relatively small artefact collection although a range of activities are evidenced at the settlement. However, all three sites have

Of note, five of the six multi-period settlements in the study set, Raunds Furnells [PF6], West Cotton [PF9], Bishopstone [PF13], Market Lavington [PF14] and Yarnton [PF17], also produce evidence for a greater number of consumption activities, variously undertaken throughout the Anglo-Saxon period (Section 7.2). 217

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements Appendix 8.41). Middle Harling [PF40] and Cottam [PF41] produce evidence of 16 and 17 consumption activities respectively and the advantages of metal detecting are evident at both sites (Section 3.3.1).

benefitted from metal detecting which has produced a variety of objects at the settlements, highlighting instances of archaeological bias (Section 3.3.1). Overall, the nature and variability of the archaeological record must be considered within such an assessment and, given this, it is plausible that further examples of consumption and specialisations were taking place at the settlements than currently identified or recovered in the archaeological record.

All consumption activities, except utilitarian, are least commonly represented at one or more settlements. Dress and clothing items are least common at seven sites and weapons and equestrian equipment at four settlements each. Possible reasons are dress accessories may be worn by individuals on relocation or travel between settlements and could also be buried with individuals, as was weaponry and equestrian equipment. The absence or limited undertaking of metal detecting at many of the sites of study is also a likely contributing factor. Leisure activities are least frequently undertaken at five sites and recycling/reuse at four settlements. This may be explained by the comparatively small sizes of the total leisure and recycling/reuse assemblages, the latter likely due to the ready supply of original items for use with no need of modification.

Common and Average Occurrence of Consumption Activities at the Settlements As examined in Chapter 5, the analysis of the common occurrence of activities at the settlements has been calculated from the absolute or approximate number of artefacts from each site divided by the number of settlement buildings. The exception is primary burial/funeral material culture, calculated by the number of burial goods divided by the number of burials per settlement (Sections 3.2.7, 5.2.15).

Analysis of the average occurrence of consumption activities taking place at the settlements also supports the prevalence of cooking, eating/drinking and storage (with pottery), manufacturing and utilitarian activities (Table 7.4). These consumption activities are dominant (‘above average’) undertakings at most of the settlements at which they occur. Agriculture/cultivation is split evenly in terms of above and below average occurrences. However, it is likely that some implements classified in utilitarian, as they are not further identifiable, were likely agricultural tool fixtures or similar.

Assessment of the common occurrence of consumption activities demonstrates that cooking, eating/drinking and storage activities are most frequently represented at the settlements, however this is biased by the large pottery assemblages from many sites (Section 5.2.1; Appendix 8). The removal of pottery from the assessment qualifies manufacturing activities as the most frequently undertaken, as evidenced at 23 settlements (Section 5.2.4). Utilitarian pursuits are most common at 11 sites and agricultural, cultivation and horticultural endeavours at five settlements (Sections 5.2.3, 5.2.5). Cooking, eating/ drinking and storage undertakings– without pottery– are most frequently represented at two settlements (Section 5.2.1).

Four common consumption activities– personal adornment, dress/clothing, toilet/grooming and household– are less frequent (‘below average’) endeavours at most of the settlements where they were undertaken. This may reflect that some artefacts associated with these pursuits had real or perceived value, such as jewellery, which may have limited their presence, discard and/or casual loss at some rural settlements.

Personal adornment is the most commonly represented consumption activity at Raunds Furnells [PF6] (Section 5.2.2). The pre-manorial settlement has evidence of 11 other consumption activities including leisure, recycling/ reuse, prestige and equestrian endeavours, pointing towards the presence of a multifaceted community at Raunds Furnells [PF6] (Appendix 8.6). Sutton Courtenay/ Drayton [PF27] most frequently produces evidence for primary and secondary burial/funerary practices, with furnished burials and metal detected items of potential funerary purpose (Section 5.2.15). Overall, Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27] is one of the more prolific settlements with 15 consumption activities represented, of which manufacturing is the second most common activity (Appendix 8.27). Trade and exchange is the most commonly represented undertaking at Middle Harling [PF40], influenced by the assemblage of c. 78 coins at the settlement, including metal detected examples (Section 5.2.10; Appendix 8.40). Cottam [PF41] most frequently produces dress and clothing items, strongly influenced by metal detected and unstratified artefacts from the site including c. 73 dress pins and 34 strap ends (Section 5.2.2;

All of the less common consumption activities demonstrate majority below average occurrences across the settlements, likely due in most cases to the overall smaller scale of these undertakings. Five undertakings exhibit no above average occurrences. Of these, literacy, leisure and ritual activities occur at less settlements than other activities and all comprise comparatively small material culture assemblages. The below average occurrence of prestige consumerism highlights the affluence and luxury considered connected with these items (Section 3.2.6). Evidence for weaponry/warfare is recorded at 24 settlements, however the total below average occurrence suggests that some weapons may have been prized and not commonly discarded and/or that individuals associated with such items had a limited presence in rural settlements (Sections 5.2.6, 7.4).

218

Case Studies Table 7.4. Consumption activities average occurrence at the settlements Above average occurrence

Below average occurrence

Consumption activities

No. of sites

% site total

Consumption activities

No. of sites

% site total

Manufacture, production & craft

42

93%

Manufacture, production & craft

3

7%

Cooking, eating/drinking & storage (with pottery)

36

80%

Cooking, eating/drinking & storage (with pottery)

-

-

Cooking, eating/drinking & storage (without pottery)

12

27%

Cooking, eating/drinking & storage (without pottery)

33

73%

Cooking, eating/drinking & storage – pottery not disclosed

9

20%

Utilitarian

34

77%

Utilitarian

10

23%

Agriculture & cultivation

20

50%

Agriculture & cultivation

20

50%

Personal adornment

10

28%

Personal adornment

26

72%

Dress & clothing

5

17%

Dress & clothing

27

84%

Burial & funerary

5

29%

Burial & funerary

12

71%

Equestrian

3

15%

Equestrian

17

85%

Recycling & reuse

3

15%

Recycling & reuse

17

85%

Toilet, grooming & hygiene

2

9%

Toilet, grooming & hygiene

32

94%

Hunting & fishing

2

7%

Hunting & fishing

25

93%

Trade & exchange

2

13%

Trade & exchange

14

88%

Household items & possessions

1

3%

Household items & possessions

31

97%

Warfare & defence

24

100%

Prestige & luxury

17

100%

Leisure

12

100%

Ritual

11

100%

Literacy

9

100%

7.3.3. Conclusions

closely by West Stow [PF3], with both sites producing a range of predominantly Roman refashioned pottery sherds and coins that evidence the activity of modifying items. Fishing is most strongly represented at Mawgan Porth [PF44], reflecting the natural resources available at the seaside settlement. Equestrian equipment is most common at pre-manorial Late Anglo-Saxon West Cotton [PF9] (AD950–1100), and horse riding is also evidenced at the site’s succeeding manor (Section 7.4.3; Appendix 9.3).

Assessment of the quantity, frequency, and averaged occurrences of consumption activities demonstrates that the settlements were predominantly involved in domestic pursuits such as cooking, manufacturing and utilitarian activities (Chapter 5). Analysis also indicates specialisations at some settlements, even given potential biases such as excavation sizes or artefact assemblage quantities (Section 7.3.2). Regarding manufacturing activities, which are commonplace at the settlements, textile working is most frequently undertaken at Spong Hill [PF15], potential metal working and wood working at Cottam [PF41], leather working at Market Lavington [PF14] and bone working at Staunch Meadow [PF34]. Agricultural and cultivation activities are most common at West Fen Road [PF39], Carlton Colville [PF28] and Quarrington [PF30], which all produce large quantities of quern fragments, highlighting crop grinding at the settlements. Recycling processes are most commonly undertaken at Radley Barrow Hills [PF1], followed

Overall, material culture evidence demonstrates that rural settlements were undertaking a range of consumption activities on varying scales, pointing towards the industrious, and sometimes multifaceted, nature of many rural communities. 7.4. Material Culture, Social Status and Hierarchy 7.4.1. Overview This case study examines potential evidence for social status and hierarchy at the settlements by considering 219

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements artefacts as hierarchical indicators of wealth and rank (Appendix 9). The material culture catalogue and defined settlement consumption activities provide the foundation for this assessment (Sections 4.3, 7.3; Chapter 5). Section 7.4.2 analyses social hierarchy in terms of artefact types and occurrence at the sites, as well as artefactual disposal and retrieval patterns in archaeological context. Section 7.4.3 considers factors for and evidence of non-elite rural settlement hierarchies. Section 7.4.4 presents a conclusion of the evidence.

groups, for example merchants or craftspeople. Weapons and equestrian equipment are considered conventional indicators of social rank, commonly associated with warriors/soldiers and nobles. Literacy in the Anglo-Saxon period was the common preserve of the elite, ecclesiastics and government administrators. Window glass, laborious and expensive to produce, was rarely used for non-elite buildings and usually reserved for churches, palaces or similarly exceptional buildings (Paynter et al 2014; Tester et al 2014, 106–7, 142; Leahy & Lewis 2015, 69–70).

7.4.2. Social Status

Grouped Occurrences of Hierarchical Indicators

Almost all sites produce material culture indicative of social groups present at the settlements. For example, manufacturing/production activities are evidenced at every settlement and agrarian and/or cultivation activities at 40 (89%) sites, showing that craftspeople and agriculturalists were common inhabitants of rural settlements (Sections 5.2.4–5.2.5).

Correlation of the material culture evidence in terms of presence at the sites demonstrates which hierarchical indicators occur more and less commonly together across the 35 settlements at which these artefacts are found (Table 7.5; Appendix 9.1). Objects attesting to literacy exhibit the greatest trend, with an 89% co-occurrence rate at sites that also produce prestige items, weapons and equestrian equipment, which appears to support the elitism of literacy in the Anglo-Saxon period. Coins of Anglo-Saxon date are also frequently present with 77% co-occurrence at sites with prestige objects, weapons and equestrian equipment, highlighting that currency was a means of facilitating portable wealth. The presence of glass vessels at settlements with prestige items is also high, at 77%, and slightly less so alongside weapons, with a 69% co-occurrence rate. Glass vessels are less common, with 38% occurrence, at sites producing equestrian equipment and/or coins. This likely reflects chronological patterns, as glass vessels are more common at Early Anglo-Saxon sites and coins and equestrian equipment at settlements of later Anglo-Saxon date. Weapons and equestrian equipment are both found at up to 13 settlements of varied dates and location and demonstrate a 62% co-occurrence rate. This suggests the possible presence of nobles and/or soldiers at some settlements. However, weapons could be owned and used for pursuits such as hunting and horses, although likely requiring some wealth to buy, could have been owned for activities other than riding, such as hard labour (Sections 5.2.6–5.2.8).

Material culture interpreted as likely signifiers of hierarchy, status and/or wealth add complexity to social stratas apparent at the settlements. Such evidence is identified across 35 (78%) sites, however it is recognised that other artefacts and materials not currently interpreted as such could be further indicators (Appendix 9.1). Such interpretations are inevitably subjective and the factors adopted in the classification of artefacts as prestigious or luxury items, comprising traditional evidence such as high-quality workmanship and materials as well as comparative rarity, is discussed in Section 3.2.6. In this assessment, material culture analysed as reflections of hierarchy are artefacts considered prestige/luxury items, glass vessels, coins of Anglo-Saxon date, weapons, equestrian equipment, objects associated with literacy and window glass (Sections 3.2.6, 4.3.1, 4.3.14, 4.3.18, 5.2.11– 5.2.12, 5.2.6, 5.2.8). Prestige items and glass vessels are relatively uncommon objects at rural settlements and can illustrate affluence. Coins of Anglo-Saxon date are portable wealth as well as a means of acquiring and distributing it. Such prosperity can be linked to the elite as well as economically successful individuals or

Table 7.5. Material culture hierarchical indicators: grouped occurrences at the settlements Occurrence with:

Artefacts: Prestige (17 sites)

Prestige

Weapons (24 sites)

Equestrian (20 sites)

Coins (13 sites)

Literacy (9 sites)

Glass vessels (13 sites)

Window glass (2 sites)

68%

57%

77%

89%

77%

100%

62%

77%

89%

69%

100%

77%

89%

38%

100%

67%

38%

50%

56%

50%

Weapons

68%

Equestrian

57%

62%

Coins

77%

77%

77%

Literacy

89%

89%

89%

67%

Glass vessels

77%

69%

38%

38%

56%

Window glass

100%

100%

100%

50%

50%

220

100% 100%

Case Studies Further trends are also apparent across the 35 settlements. Prestige items, weapons, equestrian equipment and reading/ writing objects are most commonly found in Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon contexts at the sites (Sections 5.2.6, 5.2.8, 5.2.11–5.2.12). This likely reflects social complexities and hierarchical structures within later Anglo-Saxon society (Sections 2.3.3, 8.2). Glass vessels are most common at Early Anglo-Saxon sites, possibly indicating connections to Continental glass production at this time (i.e. Section 6.3.4). Coins are present at settlements occupied during the 7th–later 11th centuries, contemporaneous with AngloSaxon currency production (Section 6.3.1). Window glass from high-status Staunch Meadow [PF34] is of Middle Anglo-Saxon date and the pieces from Market Lavington [PF14] are unstratified (Section 4.3.18). The 35 settlements producing hierarchically indicative material culture are located throughout England, although most commonly in the east which likely reflects that the greatest number of sites examined in this study are situated in this region, including high-status Staunch Meadow [PF34] (Section 3.3.1).

area of 14,000sq. m and c. 10 SFBs and PBSs. This could demonstrate that social diversity was more prevalent at Brandon Road [PF12], however the settlement was not excavated as extensively as Radley Barrow Hills [PF1] or West Fen Road [PF39] and so this apparent finding may be superficial. The remaining three sites are substantially smaller in excavation area and settlement size. The excavations at Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon Middle Harling [PF40] and multi-period (Early–Late Anglo-Saxon) Market Lavington [PF14] were c. 1,350sq. m and c. 1,000+sq. m respectively and the excavations of Middle– Late Anglo-Saxon Cottam [PF41] comprised three 10m x 20m trenches. Five SFBs and PBSs are recorded at Market Lavington [PF14], however the structures are not contemporaneous as the settlement was occupied throughout the Anglo-Saxon period (Section 7.2). Four PBSs are identified at Middle Harling [PF40] and three at Cottam [PF41]. The lesser scale of the archaeological investigations and smaller number of settlement buildings at the three sites, as compared to the range of artefactual evidence produced by them, suggests these settlements were particularly socially complex. However, metal detecting exercises were also undertaken at Middle Harling [PF40] and Cottam [PF41], as well as fieldwalking at Cottam [PF41], greatly contributing to the diversity of these site assemblages (Section 3.3.1).

Hierarchical Indicators per Settlement The material culture hierarchical indicators are represented individually to varying degrees at the 35 settlements at which they are found (Appendix 9.1).

All of the above settlements are varied in terms of chronology, location, settlement morphology and excavation size. Although fortuitous archaeological conditions such as excavation extent, methods employed and rates of survival are inevitably beneficial (Section 3.3), these findings suggest that the development of social complexities within Anglo-Saxon rural settlements was adaptable to diverse circumstances.

The high-status settlement of Staunch Meadow [PF34], the control sample included in the dataset for comparison with the non-elite rural settlements, is the only site to produce examples of all the hierarchical indicators. The Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon settlement of Carlton Colville [PF28] produces potential evidence of all hierarchical indicators excepting window glass. The settlement likely benefitted from its strategic location on England’s east coast in the prosperous kingdom of East Anglia. Carlton Colville [PF28] was also subject to extensive archaeological excavations, covering +30,000sq. m and encompassing a range of archaeological features including 48 SFBs and PBSs. Larger scale excavations provide more opportunity to retrieve a greater number of artefacts and the considerable size of the settlement may have cultivated social diversity in the population, however not all of the buildings would have been contemporary.

The remaining sites producing hierarchical indicators exhibit similar variances, in terms of occupation dates, artefact retrieval, location, settlement size and morphology (Appendix 9.1). For instance, the four sites with evidence of four hierarchical indicator groups date throughout the Anglo-Saxon period and are located in the midlands, east and south England. The excavations range from +0.10000sq. km at Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27] to c. 0.18200sq. km at Mucking [PF4] and all the sites have SFBs and PBSs. The group also includes West Stow [PF3], one of the most extensively excavated Anglo-Saxon settlements, and West Cotton [PF9] which developed into a manor in the Late Anglo-Saxon period. Sutton Courtenay/ Drayton [PF27] produces c. 35 metal detected objects, which has influenced the hierarchical indicators and other consumption activities represented, and the settlement was also situated in proximity to a high-status hall complex (Brennan & Hamerow 2015) (Section 3.3.1).

Six settlements produce material culture representative of five of the seven hierarchical indicator categories (Appendix 9.1). Of these settlements, Middle–Late AngloSaxon West Fen Road [PF39] and Early Anglo-Saxon Radley Barrow Hills [PF1] are by far the largest sites in terms of excavation area, at 52,600sq. m and 35,000sq. m respectively. Radley Barrow Hills [PF1] also has the largest number of buildings, totalling 52 SFBs and PBSs, and West Fen Road [PF39] the second most, with c. 19 PBSs. Similar to Carlton Colville [PF28], these factors may have influenced the occurrence of hierarchical indicators at these sites. Considerably smaller than these two settlements, Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon Brandon Road [PF12] is the third largest site with an excavation

Six chronologically and geographically diverse settlements have evidence representative of three hierarchical indicator categories (Appendix 9.1). The settlements comprise both SFB and PBS buildings, excepting Riby Cross Roads [PF32] and Springfield Lyons [PF45] which only have 221

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements and other activities taking place at the settlements (Sections 2.3.1–2.3.2). Of the remaining 10 sites, only PBSs are present at seven settlements, SFBs at two sites and stone courtyard houses at Mawgan Porth [PF44]. Structures or buildings which likely denote status comprise stone-built ranges from the Late Anglo-Saxon phase of West Cotton [PF9] (AD950–1100) and a possible cellared timber tower [W] and latrines from the Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon occupation of Bishopstone [PF13] (c. 8th–late 10th/early 11th centuries), which are uncommon features at non-elite rural settlements (Chapman 2010, 37–8, 240–1; Thomas & Ottaway 2014, 353–7). The arrangement of the highstatus settlement of Staunch Meadow [PF34] includes a series of halls and two churches, [7098] and [8851] (Tester et al 2014, 47, 63, 393).

PBSs. The excavation areas are wide-ranging, from a 5m x 300m trench at Riby Cross Roads [PF32] to c. 20,000sq. m at Chalton [PF25]. Two material culture indicator categories are evidenced at four settlements (Appendix 9.1). The group includes multi-period Raunds Furnells [PF6] (Early–Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon), situated in the midlands, which evolved into a manor from the Saxo-Norman period and the Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon occupation phase of Bishopstone [PF13] (c. 8th–late 10th/early 11th centuries) in south England, where a possible timber tower [W] was a structure of status (Thomas & Ottaway 2014, 353–7). Also represented is Early Anglo-Saxon Barton Court Farm [PF5] in south England, which has c. 9 SFBs, and Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon Melford Meadows [PF7] located in east England, where c. 13 SFBs were excavated. The excavations of these four settlements range from c. 1sq. km at Melford Meadows [PF7] to c. 12,500sq. m at Bishopstone [PF13].

The extent to which the hierarchically indicative material culture can be considered definitive evidence of social status within the settlements is difficult to determine. For example, metal detected, unstratified and residual artefacts are uncontextualised objects that should be associated with the archaeological record retaining some caution. Also, direct correlations between stratified artefacts and the settlement buildings or features in which they are found is not always possible. For example, when secondary (tertiary etc.) depositional contexts and practices are more prevalent at a settlement than primary sequences, this can sometimes evidence the use-life of an artefact (Sections 3.3.2, 4.2).

One hierarchically indicative category is evidenced at up to 13 settlements, which also exhibit variances in chronology, geography and settlement morphology (Appendix 9.1). Included in this group is Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon Goltho [PF43], which was developed into a fortified manorial complex before the Norman Conquest. Ten of the 13 settlements have both SFBs and PBSs, while only PBSs are recorded at Thirlings [PF20] and Goltho [PF43] and Mawgan Porth [PF44] comprises three stone courtyard houses. The excavation areas of the 13 settlements cover c. 900m at Abingdon [PF24] to c. 34,000sq. m at Catholme [PF36].

Such factors bear consideration in an analysis of the depositional/retrieval contexts of the material culture at the 35 settlements and the extent to which this evidence can be directly associated with the settlements (Fig. 7.11). By far, most of the artefacts derive from unstratified, residual or metal detected contexts. Stratified artefact deposition occurs most commonly in SFBs, which were regularly backfilled after abandonment. Pits, ditches and layers/ deposits are also strongly represented. In comparison to SFBs, material culture infrequently derives from PBSs or other structures and potentially related features such as floors. Some of the artefacts from PBSs may be more reasonably linked to contemporary or near-contemporary activity associated with the buildings, partially due to the level construction of PBSs which could be easily swept and kept clean, rather than the hollows/pits which constitute SFBs for example. Some PBSs also had raised wooden floors, again making it easier to retrieve dropped items or debris (Hinton 2005, 72–3). It is therefore likely that a greater proportion of the artefacts from PBSs were accidental losses by individual/s in some way associated with the building as oppose to, say, the owner of item/s found in the backfill of a deserted SFB.

Finally, the 10 settlements which do not produce hierarchically indicative material culture are also varied, from Goch Way [PF26] with an excavation area of 8000sq. m and three SFBs, to the 44,000sq. m excavations at Foxholes Farm [PF29] where 15 SFBs and PBSs are recorded. Notwithstanding the range and scope of the evidence, no specific settlement ‘type’, whether in terms of chronology, location, settlement morphology or character, can be associated with either a larger or lesser presence of hierarchically indicative material culture. While the advantages of more extensive archaeological excavations are clear, not all the larger settlements produce a great range of material. It is apparent that a variety of circumstances, such as the channelling of wealth and/or strong economic links, cultivated social diversity and the development of hierarchy and status in non-elite rural settlements. Hierarchical Indicators and Settlement Context

Considering such contextual factors, some depositional patterns recorded at the settlements could prospectively link social status to settlement occupation. Evidence that may have been directly associated with settlement buildings include: a likely book page clip, indicative of literacy, from a PBS [223] at Brandon Road [PF12]; an

Regarding the morphology of the settlements which produce hierarchical indicators, both SFBs and PBSs are present, over the lifespan, of 25 out of the 35 sites. A mixture of such buildings, likely of differing value/status and serving a range of functions, could reflect diverse social 222

Case Studies

Figure 7.11. Deposition/retrieval contexts per artefact (approximated).

bronze belt studs, as well as a knife, a pin and amber bead fragments. The other female [807] was buried with a fine fish-shaped bronze silvered plate that is likely a shield mount, as well as an amber bead, a knife, a comb and pins. At Middle Harling [PF40], an adult ?male burial [451] of c. late 9th–early 10th centuries date is likely of a Viking/ Dane, as Anglo-Saxon graves during this period were rarely furnished (Rogerson 1995, 25). The occupant was buried with a spur, possibly originally attached to the shoe, pointing towards horse ownership and perhaps an army (equestrian) role or similar. Also in the grave was a fine ear scoop, four knives, two buckles, a hone and possibly residual pottery, further suggesting this was an individual of some affluence (Appendix 5.19.1).

imported Tating ware sherd deriving from a PBS [B] at Middle Harling [PF40]; and a horseshoe present in a PBS [1] at Springfield Lyons [PF45], perhaps suggesting horses were owned or kept nearby. At West Stow [PF3], a PBS [7] produces two glass vessel rim fragments, along with nine glass beads and a twisted glass rod. From Mawgan Porth [PF44], a silver Aethelred II penny (AD990–5) was found in a room [4] of one of the settlement’s stone courtyard houses [1]. From the cellared structure [W] at Bishopstone [PF13] is an iron ‘hoard’ which, along with tools, fittings and items such as padlocks, also produces two horseshoes. The structure [W] may have been a timber tower and indicative of status within its own right given the rarity of such structures at rural settlement sites (Thomas & Ottaway 2014, 353–7). At Springfield Lyons [PF45], a possible tower [1]/[1A] yields a horseshoe fragment as well as a D-shaped buckle, metal fittings, pottery and a spindlewhorl. By comparison, the high-status settlement of Staunch Meadow [PF34] has one PBS [1094] which produces a Clark Type 1 horseshoe (Clark 2004), another PBS [4886] with a sceatta (Series Q/R, AD675–750) which was perhaps out of circulation by the time it was deposited, a third PBS [7500] which yields a glass vessel and, from a fourth PBS [8118], sherds of window glass which may have originally been part of the building.

Material culture in defined secondary archaeological contexts are less conclusive evidence than furnished burials, however some features producing two or more hierarchically indicative artefacts may be more likely signifiers of social status, given the multiple occurrence of comparable items in the same context/feature. Few such instances are recorded at the settlements, with examples including an SFB [22] at Carlton Colville [PF28] which produces an iron and silver belt mount, a ?claw beaker base and a second blue glass sherd, as well as a pit [321] from the site in which an equestrian hooked plate and a blue vessel fragment were found. At Orton Hall Farm [PF8], a probable stylus and a frost (horse) nail come from the same pit [F137]. At Radley Barrow Hills [PF1] a barrow ditch [12] produces a spearhead and bridle snaffle bit. The three clay sling shots/missiles from Lechlade [PF16] derive from a ditch [U] and may have been deposited together.

Furnished burials, which are primary deposits that can reveal information about the social standing of the occupants, are present within five settlements (Section 5.2.15). Of note are five furnished settlement burials at Barton Court Farm [PF5], comprising two female adults, a female adult with a newborn, one male adult and an undisclosed individual. The two single-occupant female burials, [807] and [820], were more richly furnished than the other graves and indicate social hierarchy at the settlement (Appendix 5.19.1). Female [820] was the most opulent, buried with a gilded saucer brooch, a silver and bronze studded bronze buckle and two silver and gilt

Mucking [PF4] is most compelling, with evidence noted in five SFBs and a settlement enclosure. From SFB [GH42] are two pins, one lead gunmetal example inlaid with slab garnet set over hatched gold foil and a copperalloy garnet-headed pin. SFB [GH113] produces a bronze 223

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements and the potential economic reach of the settlements (Chapter 6).

disc inlaid with red enamel and an olive-green vessel fragment. From SFB [GH129] is an arrow-/spearhead and a light green glass vessel with horizontal trails. Found in SFB [GH166] are a gilt button brooch and claw beaker fragment, both of 6th century date. Finally, within SFB [GH168] are three Series Type BX sceattas (c. AD680–5) which were perhaps lost or deposited as a group. From the North Enclosure of Mucking [PF4] are an ornament ?pendant inlaid with purple/red glass and set over hatched silver and a glass vessel sherd, alongside other finds such as imported Frankish pottery. The five SFBs are situated in the north, central and south areas of Mucking [PF4] and therefore do not form a cohesive physical group. However two of the SFBs, [GH166] and [GH168], are located within the North Enclosure, in proximity to this boundary although they are not situated close to one another. Despite these arrangements, evidence that affluent, perhaps even elite, individuals may have been living in Mucking [PF4] is considerable. The comparative evidence from the highstatus site of Staunch Meadow [PF34] is on a smaller scale to that from Mucking [PF4]. One ditch [0135] at Staunch Meadow [PF34] produces a stylus with incised lines and a glass claw beaker and from another ditch [8186] comes a Clark Type 1 horseshoe (Clark 2004) and a globular glass beaker. A layer [8155] at the settlement also contained two Series Q sceattas dating AD675–750.

The compilation of such relevant simplified information highlights which settlements are most prolific and produces a rudimentary rank of the sites, presented in Table 7.6. The table shows a general correspondence between the settlements producing the greatest range of hierarchically indicative material culture and those undertaking the most consumption activities, as the positioning of the settlements changes minimally in the two columns with few exceptions. However, in some cases this correspondence reflects that hierarchically indicative artefacts may solely represent certain consumption activities at the settlements, for example coins might be the only evidence for trade and exchange (Section 5.2.10). The top 12 settlements in both columns have imported goods, however as the majority of sites produce confirmed or likely internationally sourced artefacts these indicators may be considered overall less significant (Chapter 6). The information from Table 7.6 can be examined alongside the following proposed model of settlement hierarchy, in order to suggest rankings for some of the rural sites. The model has been established after consideration of the hierarchy discussion presented in Section 2.3.2 and focuses on the political and economic roles and functions of Anglo-Saxon settlements:

In some of the cases outlined, hierarchically indicative material culture may be linked with a degree of confidence to the settlements or features within them. The difference in the range of artefacts found in the furnished burials at Barton Court Farm [PF5] are particularly strong evidence for social hierarchy (Section 5.2.15). There are also possible associations between the artefactual evidence and the use-life of buildings, including PBSs at a number of sites, the cellared ?timber tower [W] at Bishopstone [PF13] which is likely a status symbol itself, and several SFBs, particularly at Mucking [PF4]. However, much of the hierarchically indicative material culture derives from secondary deposition contexts and many examples would have been deliberately discarded or chance losses. On balance, it is likely that affluent and/or elite persons and perhaps notable individuals such as members of the army or literate government administrators were living or operating, even on a semi-permanent basis, within some rural settlements. By design, portable wealth was easily transported and some of these individuals may have been itinerant, with at least some of the artefactual evidence indicative of transactions and interactions between such individuals and rural communities.

1. Royal residences or centres 2. Authoritative towns and ecclesiastical and aristocratic centres, such as minster settlements or manors 3. ‘High-status’ settlements, whether aristocratic, ecclesiastical or other, with a variety of traded goods and evidence of conspicuous consumption 4. Economically successful settlements engaged in trade, significant productive output and/or specialisms (agricultural, manufactured or other), such as emporia and some ‘productive’ sites, burhs and towns 5. Settlements engaged in trade, production and/or specialisms to a degree, including some ‘productive’ sites and rural settlements 6. Settlements engaged in trade but without apparent specialisms or large-scale production, including some ‘productive’ sites and rural settlements 7. Rural settlements with limited or no evidence of trading or specialised production.

7.4.3. Rural Settlement Hierarchy

The high-status settlement of Staunch Meadow [PF34], the control sample in the study, ranks first in both columns of Table 7.6, which reflects its elite character and it can be considered a third-tier site.

Potential evidence for hierarchy amongst the rural settlements of study may be provided by key factors such as: material culture signature profiles established for the sites based on consumption activities which highlight the multifaceted character of many of the settlements (Section 7.2; Appendix 8); the presence of potential hierarchically indicative material culture (Section 7.4.2);

Eleven settlements of study are especially prolific and complex, each producing between 4–6 categories of hierarchically indicative artefacts and 14–17 consumption activities, including some specialisations, as well as strong evidence for trade. These are: Radley Barrow Hills [PF1]; West Stow [PF3]; Mucking [PF4]; West Cotton [PF9]; Brandon Road [PF12]; Market Lavington [PF14]; Sutton 224

Case Studies low-status settlement and the manor both produce pottery including Stamford ware, spindlewhorls, pinbeaters, earrings and equestrian equipment (Appendix 9.3). Prestige items, excepting an Early Anglo-Saxon gilded silver disc brooch, are only found in the manorial assemblage and include silver and gilt finger rings and three gilded buckle plates. The manor also produces at least one bone gaming piece. At Goltho [PF43], knives, querns and fittings are found in settlement and manorial contexts and shelltempered, grey sandy ware, Torksey and Stamford ware are in use throughout both settlement phases (Appendix 9.4). Artefacts from the manor include coins, equestrian equipment and a D-shaped buckle with possible gilding.

Courtenay/Drayton [PF27]; Carlton Colville [PF28]; West Fen Road [PF39]; Middle Harling [PF40]; and Cottam [PF41]. The industrious nature of these settlements and the harnessing of a range of economic, production and other resources makes it likely that at least some of them were fifth-tier sites, perhaps functioning as territorial/estate focal centres or similar. Most of the rural settlements would have been sixth- or seventh-tier sites. Settlements engaged in long-distance trade and exhibiting degrees of economic success, including Orton Hall Farm [PF8], Bishopstone [PF13], Yarnton [PF17], Riby Cross Roads [PF32] and Springfield Lyons [PF45], can be considered sixth-tier sites. Likely examples of seventh-tier sites include Goch Way [PF26], Kilverstone [PF23] and Pitstone [PF33].

At these sites, the transition of settlement status is supported on an individual site basis by material culture, notably the musical instruments from Raunds Furnells [PF6] and the increase in luxury artefacts at the manors of West Cotton [PF9] and Goltho [PF43]. However, the artefact types found at the manors are also either present at the pre-manorial settlements or at the other non-elite settlements of study, where prestige items or wealth indicators such as coins are sometimes found in equal or greater quantity than at these manors. This is particularly observable at settlements which yield a diverse range of metal detected objects, notably Sutton Courtenay/Drayton [PF27], Middle Harling [PF40] and Cottam [PF41] (Section 3.3.1).

The proposed hierarchy model and settlement examples provided here establish a useful framework for further research, however it is recognised that the assessment of non-elite settlement hierarchy in individual site cases can be complicated. Considerations include the theory that potentially ‘elite’ buildings at some rural settlements, notably halls or similar PBS structures, appear to have been routinely kept clean and therefore an absence of material culture– which can provide evidence of consumption and economic reach– could also be indicative of status. This has been suggested at Cowdery’s Down [PF22], which has a small finds assemblage given the settlement excavations included two SFBs and 16 PBSs (Hinton 2005, 72). This is similarly the case for Catholme [PF36], where the excavated settlement comprising 64 buildings (13 SFBs, 51 PBSs) produced comparatively few artefacts, of which one item is a possible seax (Losco-Bradley & Kinsley 2002). Another possible example is Thirlings [PF20] where 12 PBSs, comprising six individual post buildings and six continuous trench buildings, two with palisaded enclosures around them, yielded only 10 artefacts and fired clay fragments between them, although the site was also subject to extensive truncation.

Overall, artefacts highlight elements of social strata within rural communities and provide a platform for studying and proposing Anglo-Saxon hierarchical models, however defining hierarchy amongst non-elite rural settlements also undoubtedly extends to evidence beyond material culture. 7.4.4. Conclusions A range of evidence from the settlements shows that many rural communities were not homogenous and that they supported socially complex communities. Livelihoods surrounding domestic, agrarian and manufacturing activities were most commonly undertaken at the settlements, with economic networks facilitating exchange, trade, supply and demand (Chapters 5–6). Some settlements also exhibit degrees of wealth, with indicators such as prestige items (Section 7.4.2). Potential evidence for other occupations and/or the presence of elite members of society are suggested at some settlements, indicated by items such as weapons, equestrian equipment or reading/ writing implements. The material culture evidence demonstrates that prestige items and other prominent objects such as weapons and equestrian equipment were not solely buried with the elite (Hinton 2005, 74). Some of these items remained in circulation, owned and used by a greater stratum of society.

A comparison of the material culture from three rural settlements of study which developed into manors from the Late Anglo-Saxon period, Raunds Furnells [PF6], West Cotton [PF9] and Goltho [PF43], also shows that attempting to define settlement status through a strong focus on material culture evidence can be complicated (Appendices 9.2–9.4). Low-status and manorial Raunds Furnells [PF6] both produce more commonplace artefacts such as St Neots and Stamford ware, knives, fittings, metal working debris and spindlewhorls (Appendix 9.2). Also associated with both settlement phases are silver brooches or mounts and leisure activities are represented by bone gaming pieces from the Late Anglo-Saxon settlement and a limestone Nine Men’s Morris gaming board from the manor. Differences in the assemblages include equestrian equipment, which is associated with the Late Anglo-Saxon settlement, and musical instruments, comprising a bone decorated threestringed musical instrument and a bone flute or whistle, which derive from the manor. At West Cotton [PF9], the

Such social complexities point towards the existence of hierarchical structures within, and amongst, non-elite rural settlements. The material culture, functions and character 225

Cottam

West Fen Road

Middle Harling

Radley Barrow Hills

Brandon Road

Market Lavington

West Stow

Mucking

S. Courtenay/Drayton

West Cotton

Orton Hall Farm

Riby Cross Roads

Spong Hill

Yarnton

Chalton

Springfield Lyons

Barton Court Farm

Raunds Furnells

Bishopstone

Melford Meadows

Poundbury

39

40

1

12

14

3

4

27

226

9

8

32

15

17

25

45

5

6

13

7

10

?1

c. 2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

c. 5

11

11

12

12

13

11

12

12

12

13

13

14

15

15

17

13

14

15

16

16

17

16

Yes

?Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

?Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

38

10

7

25

17

15

13

6

32

14

8

5

12

9

27

4

1

40

39

28

41

3

34

41

c. 6

Yes

Carlton Colville

17

Collingbourne Ducis

Poundbury

Melford Meadows

Chalton

Yarnton

Spong Hill

Bishopstone

Raunds Furnells

Riby Cross Roads

Market Lavington

Orton Hall Farm

Barton Court Farm

Brandon Road

West Cotton

S. Courtenay/Drayton

Mucking

Radley Barrow Hills

Middle Harling

West Fen Road

Carlton Colville

Cottam

West Stow

Staunch Meadow

11

11

11

12

12

12

12

12

13

13

13

13

14

14

15

15

15

16

16

16

17

17

17

1

?1

c. 2

3

3

3

2

2

3

5

3

2

5

4

4

4

5

5

5

c. 6

c. 5

4

7

Hierarchically indicative (7 categories)

28

7

Consumption activities (18 categories)

Staunch Meadow

Settlements

34

Imports

PF no.

Consumption activities (18 categories)

Settlements

PF no.

Hierarchically indicative (7 categories)

Ranked by no. of consumption activities (18 categories total)

Ranked by hierarchically indicative material culture (7 categories total)

Table 7.6. Settlements ranked by hierarchically indicative material culture and consumption activities

Yes

Yes

?Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

?Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Imports

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Pennyland

Maxey

Catholme

Abingdon

Cottenham

Riverdene

Mawgan Porth

Heybridge

Goltho

Thirlings

Godmanchester

Fordham

Quarrington

Cowdery’s Down

Orsett Cock

Kilverstone

Pitstone

Goch Way

Simy Folds

Foxholes Farm

21

36

24

37

35

44

2

43

227

20

11

31

30

22

18

23

33

26

42

29

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

?1

1

1

4

5

5

6

6

6

7

8

9

9

4

5

6

8

8

9

9

10

10

10

10

No

No

No

No

No

?Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

?Yes

No

?Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

29

20

43

42

26

33

23

18

2

22

44

35

30

37

31

24

11

36

21

19

16

45

19

1

Yes

Lechlade

11

Foxholes Farm

Thirlings

Goltho

Simy Folds

Goch Way

Pitstone

Kilverstone

Orsett Cock

Heybridge

Cowdery’s Down

Mawgan Porth

Riverdene

Quarrington

Cottenham

Fordham

Abingdon

Godmanchester

Catholme

Maxey

Pennyland

Lechlade

Springfield Lyons

4

4

5

5

5

6

6

6

6

7

8

8

8

9

9

9

9

10

10

10

10

11

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

1

0

1

0

1

0

?1

1

1

1

3

Hierarchically indicative (7 categories)

16

1

Consumption activities (18 categories)

Collingbourne Ducis

Settlements

38

Imports

PF no.

Consumption activities (18 categories)

Settlements

PF no.

Hierarchically indicative (7 categories)

Ranked by no. of consumption activities (18 categories total)

Ranked by hierarchically indicative material culture (7 categories total)

Table 7.6 continued

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

?Yes

?Yes

Yes

No

?Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Imports

Case Studies

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements of many of the sites is also potentially illuminating in terms of settlement status and it is suggested that several tiers of hierarchy are apparent amongst the settlements of study (Section 7.4.3). The rankings proposed here for nonelite settlements range from economically successful sites engaged in exchange/trade and specialised production, down to settlements with economic links but lacking in significant productive output or specialisms, and finally rural sites with little or no evidence of exchange/trade, production or specialisms.

settlement organisation and layout are reflected by artefact distribution patterns (Appendix 10). Early Anglo-Saxon Yarnton: Phase 1 (c. later 5th–7th centuries) To date, excavations of Early Anglo-Saxon rural sites across England have demonstrated a broad uniformity in settlement morphology and layout, with little apparent evidence of hierarchical structure (Hinton 1999, 54–5; Reynolds 2003, 130–1). Many settlements were open and dispersed in nature, comprising mostly SFBs, occasional small PBS timber halls and few pits (Sections 2.3.1– 2.3.2). The layout of Early Anglo-Saxon Yarnton [PF17] conforms to such arrangements (Fig. 7.12).

Overall, the multifaceted nature of many rural settlements reveals a range of evidence for social status and differentiations within these communities as well as of hierarchy amongst non-elite rural settlements. 7.5. Microscale Settlement Analysis: Yarnton, Oxfordshire

Situated in the northwest corner of the excavated site area, Early Anglo-Saxon Yarnton [PF17] comprises four SFBs, one small PBS and several pits of likely contemporary date to the SFBs. Located c. 100m to the north was an Anglo-Saxon cemetery of c. late 6th–early 7th centuries date, which possibly delineated the northern extent of the settlement (Hey 2004, 38–9, 95).

7.5.1. Overview The preceding three case studies have adopted broadrange approaches in the examination of chronology, settlement signatures (character) and status/hierarchy at the settlements (Sections 7.2–7.4). This final case study takes an opposite approach, presenting a microscale analysis of the settlement of Yarnton [PF17]. It examines the material culture assemblage in relation to settlement morphology, distributional patterns, consumption activities and economic trends within the historical context of the site. The case study is a practical application on an individual settlement of the main themes of the study, namely: material culture in archaeological context (Section 4.2); the range and character of material culture (Section 4.3); material culture as a consumption resource (Chapter 5); and material culture as evidence of economic trends (Chapter 6).

The artefact distribution and discard patterns of Phase 1 Yarnton [PF17] are consistent with modes of disposal identified at other excavated Early Anglo-Saxon settlements across England. The majority of the artefacts were recovered from the backfills of the SFBs, with only two pits producing Niedermendig lava querns and slag (Fig. 7.12). Pits were not commonly utilised for rubbish disposal during the Early Anglo-Saxon period and SFBs were typically backfilled with artefact-rich deposits, suggesting they may have served as settlement middens after falling out of structural use (Tipper 2004, 105–11). Middle Anglo-Saxon Yarnton: Phase 2 (mid-7th–9th centuries) and Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon Yarnton: Phase 3 (9th–10th centuries)

Yarnton [PF17], located in the Upper Thames Valley on the north bank of the Thames in Oxfordshire, was occupied throughout the Anglo-Saxon period from the c. late 5th–11th centuries and is one of the six multi-period settlements included in the sample set (Section 7.2). Excavations were undertaken by Oxford Archaeological Unit (currently Oxford Archaeology) between 1990–96 as part of the Yarnton-Cassington Archaeological Project (Hey 2004).

The excavations at Yarnton [PF17] were the first of a Middle Anglo-Saxon settlement in the Oxfordshire area. The marked changes in the settlement layout and organisation at this time, as well as the increased size and growing diversity in building design, conform with regularised planning arrangements seen at many contemporary Middle Anglo-Saxon rural settlements (Marshall & Marshall 1993; Reynolds 2003, 119–25; Hey 2004, 87) (Sections 2.3.1– 2.3.2).

Section 7.5.2 examines the development of Yarnton [PF17] and the distributional patterns of artefacts within settlement contexts. Section 7.5.3 discusses the settlement material culture assemblage. Section 7.5.4 assesses the provenance of artefacts at the site from an economic perspective. Section 7.5.5 presents the conclusions.

During the mid-7th–early 8th centuries (Phase 2), Yarnton [PF17] shifted to the east and grew substantially in size to c. 3ha. The settlement was laid out in a regularised manner with a trackway running through it and the number of buildings and other features, including wells and animal enclosures, increases. PBS timber halls appear at Yarnton [PF17] for the first time and ditched enclosures and fences delineate apparent distinct zones of activity, with pits situated away from buildings and the SFBs separated from the halls (Fig. 7.13).

7.5.2. Yarnton Settlement Morphology and Artefact Distribution by Phase Excavations at Yarnton [PF17] revealed four phases of Anglo-Saxon occupation and transformations in 228

Case Studies

Figure 7.12. Yarnton Phase 1: settlement features and artefact distribution. After Hey 2004, with amendments, Fig. 5.1, 96; Fig. 5.6, 102. © Oxford Archaeology.

Figure 7.13. Yarnton Phase 2: settlement features. Hey 2004, Fig. 6.1, 106. © Oxford Archaeology.

229

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements By the c. early 9th century, Yarnton [PF17] had been organised into two distinct settlement areas adjacent to one another and a small cemetery had also been established, which remained in use into the Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period (Phase 3) of the settlement (Fig. 7.14) (Hey 2004, 87–91).

Late Anglo-Saxon Yarnton: Phase 4 (late 10th–11th centuries) The increasing organisation and regularisation of rural settlement arrangements continued into the Late AngloSaxon period (Section 2.3.2). By this time Yarnton [PF17] had begun to shift northwards towards the nucleus of the later medieval village (Hey 2004, 91). Within the excavation area, a new enclosure system was laid out cutting across the Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon settlement, divided into seven smaller enclosures (Fig. 7.16). A smithy was established in the corner of one of the enclosures situated on the fringe of the settlement, which was radiocarbon dated in use to cal. AD910– 1160. Other Late Anglo-Saxon structural features which were not excavated are apparent in several of the other enclosures at Yarnton [PF17], including another possible PBS (Hey 2004, 51).

The planned layouts of Middle and Middle–Late AngloSaxon Yarnton [PF17] had an impact on the management of waste disposal at the settlement. As in the Early AngloSaxon period, refuse disposal within the backfills of SFBs continued however, in contrast, the majority of the artefacts were discarded within pits, enclosures, ditches and backfilled wells, whilst few were found within other buildings. The occurrence of distinct artefact concentrations points towards the implementation of organised systems of disposal at Yarnton [PF17] (Hey 2004, 71, 74). The densest finds concentrations are in the annexe enclosure ditches [3432] to the north and east of hall [B 3348] and within a large pit [3693], cutting through the enclosure ditches to the southeast of hall [B 3348] (Fig. 7.15). Another finds concentration focuses around a group of features, including wells and small enclosures, situated to the south of pit [3693]. Two further concentrations are apparent in the northwestern settlement area, centred around paddock [B 3620] and several pits located to the immediate southeast of the paddock [B 3620].

Similar to the Middle and Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon occupation phases, an analysis of the artefacts distribution and discard patterns at Late Anglo-Saxon Yarnton [PF17] shows refuse disposal into pits and enclosure ditches (Fig. 7.16).The bulk of the artefacts were found within features of the smithy, however given it was the only major area subject to excavation with Late Anglo-Saxon Yarnton [PF17] this has likely biased the artefact distribution data for the period.

Figure 7.14. Yarnton Phase 3: settlement features. Hey 2004, Fig. 7.1, 140. © Oxford Archaeology.

230

Case Studies

Figure 7.15. Yarnton Phases 2 and 3: artefact distribution. After Hey 2004, with amendments, Fig. 3.6, 68; Fig. 3.7, 70. © Oxford Archaeology.

Figure 7.16. Yarnton Phase 4: settlement features and artefact distribution. After Hey 2004, with amendments, Fig. 8.1, 168. © Oxford Archaeology.

231

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements 10th centuries, is of exceptional workmanship however its provenance could not be determined (Hey 2004, 282–3). The enamelled copper-alloy square stud is of HibernoViking type and dates to the c. 9th–10th centuries. Only one directly comparable stud is known from Kolset, Norway (Hey 2004, 286).

7.5.3. Yarnton Material Culture Assemblage The total material culture assemblage from Yarnton [PF17] is moderately sized as compared with other settlements in the study set (Appendix 1). The four phases of AngloSaxon occupation at the settlement produce assemblages that are similar in size and artefact forms and functions, excepting prestigious items which are present from the Middle Anglo-Saxon period.

The material culture assemblage demonstrates that domestic, manufacture and agricultural/cultivation activities were the predominate undertakings at AngloSaxon Yarnton [PF17] throughout its occupation (Section 7.2; Appendix PF17). The presence of prestige items of Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon date suggests increasing wealth and perhaps the development of social hierarchy within the settlement from the Middle Anglo-Saxon period.

Material culture evidence for domestic activities include household-type Anglo-Saxon pottery, predominantly vessel and jar sherds, which derive from all settlement phases (Hey 2004, 267). Personal adornment items are also prevalent at Yarnton [PF17], including a brooch pin from Phase 1, a decorated glass bead of c. AD500–700 date found residually in Phase 2 as well as a buckle plate and a belt strap end recovered from Phase 4 contexts. Additionally, two copper-alloy pins of Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon date are unstratified, one with an unusual ring-and-dot decoration. Also unstratified are two copperalloy plate or belt fittings, one of which is decorated with incised lines and ring-and-dot motifs.

7.5.4. Yarnton Artefacts Provenance The provenance of some artefacts from Yarnton [PF17] could be ascertained, particularly pottery and worked stone objects, shedding light on the potential economic reach of the settlement (Table 7.7).

Manufacturing activities were undertaken at Yarnton [PF17] throughout the settlement occupation. Textile production is evidenced, which is one of the most commonly identified manufacturing activities at AngloSaxon rural settlements (Section 5.2.4). Pins/needles are found in all four site phases as well as a weaving comb in Phase 4. Ceramic loomweights derive from Phases 1, 3 and 4 contexts and a Phase 2 limestone smoother may have been used to flatten woven material. Additionally, two cigar-shaped bone pinbeaters are unstratified. Metal working is evidenced by the recovery of slag and metal working debris from across the settlement in Phases 1, 2 and 4 as well as in various Phase 3 features. A small smithy was established at Yarnton [PF17] during Phase 4 which appears to have been used intermittently (Hey 2004, 51, 79). It may suggest the growing importance of metal working as a production and economic resource at the settlement in the Late Anglo-Saxon period. Further potential evidence of manufacture is suggested by nine leather fragments, presumably offcuts, from a Phase 3 pit [3043] which point towards small-scale leather production. More tentatively, a possible glass bead-making droplet found in the backfill of a Phase 2 enclosure ditch [3297] may indicate (limited) glass production at Yarnton [PF17].

The Early/Middle Anglo-Saxon pottery from Yarnton [PF17] is largely undiagnostic, however locally sourced chaff fabrics are the most common type identified and the limestone fabrics may derive from regional sources (Hey 2004, 267–9). Several sherds of Ipswich ware, dating AD725/40–850 and produced in East Anglia, are found in secure contexts and indicate the exploitation of trade and exchange networks with supraregional reach by Yarnton [PF17] during the Middle Anglo-Saxon period (Section 6.3.2). A similar economic sphere of influence continued into the Late Anglo-Saxon period at the site, indicated by the presence of St Neots ware sherds, produced in the Cambridgeshire region from the c. later 9th–12th centuries (Hey 2004, 273–4). Local wares also continued in use at this time. Fragments of Niedermendig lava querns, deriving from the Rhineland, are found within contexts in all four occupation phases at Yarnton [PF17], as well as unstratified. It is possible that Niedermendig lava was imported to Yarnton [PF17] throughout the settlement’s occupation, however this is less likely for the Early Anglo-Saxon period (Phase 1). Lava was regularly imported to Britain during the Roman period although this trade appears to have significantly declined, or ceased all together, after the collapse of Roman rule and to not have been fully restored until around the Middle Anglo-Saxon period (Gibson 2003, 189; Hey 2004, 292).

Agricultural and cultivation activities at Yarnton [PF17] are represented by Niedermendig lava querns, used for milling, which are found in all four occupation phases as well as in residual (medieval, post-medieval) and unstratified contexts. A Millstone Grit quern comes from the backfill of an SFB [2551] in Phase 2 and a second is residual in a later context (Hey 2004, 293).

An Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon equal-armed bow brooch from Yarnton [PF17] is of characteristic late Merovingian or Carolingian form (c. 7th/8th–9th/10thcenturies). It may have been imported to the site as at least one parallel to the brooch is known from Domburg, Netherlands, although equal-armed brooches were also manufactured in Norwich during the Anglo-Saxon period (Hey 2004, 286–8).

Two items that may be considered prestigious, a seax and an ornate stud, are unstratified at Yarnton [PF17] (Sections 3.2.6, 5.2.11). The seax, dated stylistically to the c. 8th– 232

Case Studies Table 7.7. Yarnton artefacts provenance Artefacts

Local

Local/regional

Supraregional

Imported

Early Anglo-Saxon Phase 1: c. late 5th–7th centuries Pottery

X various fabrics

X various fabrics

X Niedermendig

Middle Anglo-Saxon Phase 2: mid-7th–9th centuries Pottery

X various fabrics

X Ipswich

Querns

X Millstone Grit

X Niedermendig

Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon Phase 3: 9th century Pottery

X various fabrics

X shelly ware

X Ipswich

Querns

X Niedermendig

Late Anglo-Saxon Phase 4: late 10th–11th centuries Pottery

X Oxford ware

X shelly ware

X St Neots

Querns

X Niedermendig

Unstratified/residual Querns

X Millstone Grit

X Niedermendig

Equal-armed bow brooch (Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon)

?X Norwich

?X Continental import

Hiberno-Viking stud (Middle–Late AngloSaxon)

?X Danelaw

?X Ireland/North Sea

Strap ends (Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon)

X Lowlands Britain

Cu decorated pin (Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon)

X ?Hamwic, Thetford or York

Cu composite pin (Late Anglo-Saxon)

X ?York

identifiable local and supra-/regional pottery as well as Niedermendig lava, likely obtained via similar systems involving centres which functioned after the demise of the emporia, such as towns.

The foundation of specialised trading centres, known as emporia or wics, in the Middle Anglo-Saxon period coincides with an increase of supraregional and/or imported artefacts at Yarnton [PF17] (Section 2.3.3). It is probable that a range of such artefacts found at Yarnton [PF17] were acquired via trading and exchange networks engaging the emporia, perhaps including Niedermendig lava querns, Millstone Grit querns, the Hiberno-Viking stud and other distinctive artefacts such as certain pin types, possibly the Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon bow brooch and several Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon strap ends of Lowlands British type (Chapter 6). Certainly, the discovery of Ipswich ware at Yarnton [PF17] indicates the settlement participated in networks involving the wic at Ipswich, Suffolk, where the pottery was produced. By the Late Anglo-Saxon period, Yarnton [PF17] produces only

7.5.5. Conclusions The longevity of Yarnton [PF17], occupied throughout the Anglo-Saxon period from the c. 5th–11th centuries, is relatively uncommon amongst Anglo-Saxon rural settlements known to date. The strategic location of Yarnton [PF17] is a contributing factor to the long-standing success of the settlement. Situated in the Upper Thames Valley on the Thames, the material culture evidence demonstrates that the settlement benefitted from the prime exchange, trading and communication routes provided by the river. 233

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements Microscale analysis of such a site can reveal much about key aspects such as settlement evolution and morphology, artefact distribution patterns, consumption activities and economic patterns, within the framework of material culture studies. Early Anglo-Saxon Yarnton [PF17] appears broadly egalitarian in character, with a dispersed settlement layout and artefacts demonstrative of domestic, manufacturing and potential agricultural activities deriving from local, regional and possibly imported sources (Section 7.5.2). From the Middle Anglo-Saxon period, domestic, manufacturing and agricultural undertakings continue at Yarnton [PF17], alongside an increase in the number of personal adornment and dress items as well as the appearance of apparent prestige objects, all of various local, supra-/regional and imported provenance (Section 7.5.2). The assemblage points towards an increasingly multifaceted community, including evidence of the demand and supply of ornate and prestige goods. The progressively complex and hierarchical society of the Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon periods is further physically manifested at Yarnton [PF17] through the increasing organisation of space within the settlement, as well as in the management of refuse disposal. Examination of the evolution and material culture of Yarnton [PF17] highlights the broader themes and findings examined throughout the book.

contribute to Anglo-Saxon rural settlement and material culture studies. Section 7.2 undertakes a chronological assessment of material culture, as supported by evidence from the six multi-period settlements of study, demonstrating broad similarities in artefacts, consumption activities and economic trends at rural settlements overtime. Section 7.3 discusses the individual profiles established for the settlements based on material culture evidence, highlighting the multifaceted nature of many rural communities. Section 7.4 assesses potential evidence for affluence and status within rural communities and hierarchy amongst Anglo-Saxon settlements, emphasising that a range of social complexities are apparent at rural sites. Section 7.5 presents a microscale settlement analysis of Yarnton [PF17] and is a practical application demonstrating evidence for the key elements of the study within the archaeological context of an evolving settlement. The following concluding chapter draws together the evidence, results and implications of the study presented in the preceding chapters into a comprehensive discussion and highlights areas for future research within AngloSaxon settlement studies.

7.6. Summary The four case studies presented in this chapter have discussed various findings and considerations that

234

8 Discussion and Conclusions 8.1. Overview

settlements highlight greater potential social complexities than the apparent egalitarian nature of settlement morphology and architecture. The study has demonstrated that rural settlements throughout the Anglo-Saxon period were primarily engaged in domestic/household, manufacturing, utilitarian and agricultural activities (Chapter 5). However, a range of other endeavours were also taking place, showing that certain rural communities were rather more multifaceted than traditionally thought (Section 7.2). Of note, social complexities and hierarchical elements are potentially evidenced by material culture at many of the settlements. Chronological divisions by settlement dates and occupation phases of potentially hierarchically indicative material culture, as identified and discussed in Section 7.4, reveal trends across the periods (Fig. 8.1).

The study, through a focus on material culture, expands current knowledge of the evolution, functions and interactions of Anglo-Saxon non-elite rural settlements and their communities within the societal, economic and political developments of the period. This chapter discusses the overall findings and broader implications of the work. The rural settlements and material culture are first assessed within the wider social, economic and political settings of Anglo-Saxon England (Section 8.2). Following, future directions of research highlighted by the study are considered (Section 8.3). The work is completed with an overall summary of the conclusions reached (Section 8.4). 8.2. Wider Implications of the Study This discussion considers the types, uses, provenance and distribution of material culture and consumption activities undertaken at the settlements within a chronological framework, illuminating the character and roles of rural settlements within the wider context of AngloSaxon England. A key aspect of this study, and where its originality lies, is its focus on material culture rather than the built environment and its concern with non-elite settlements which have been largely neglected in contrast to elite centres and other settlements such as emporia.

The most common hierarchically indicative artefacts found at settlements occupied in the Early Anglo-Saxon period are weapons, followed by artefacts interpreted as prestige objects due to characteristics including highquality materials and workmanship (Section 3.2.6). Glass vessels are third most common. This evidence highlights the tribal and kin-orientated essence of Early AngloSaxon society, in which bonds particularly between noble and warrior classes were forged and maintained around largesse, tribute and feasting (Rowland 1990, 3–8; Lowry 2003, 101–4). The weapons, likely employed in warfare and other pursuits such as hunting, may have belonged to warriors, aristocrats or other individuals. The prestige items, such as brooches, likely reflect the status and/ or affluence of the owner or wearer and some may be examples of gift exchange, symbolising the negotiation or reinforcement of social ties and treaties between parties or individuals (Hill 1995, 11; Lowry 2003, 41–9; Scull 2011, 850–1). The glass vessel assemblage includes claw and cone beakers and coloured/decorated sherds, examples of which may have been receptacles used in feasts (Appendices 4.2.1–4.2.2).

Broad academic consensus maintains that Early AngloSaxon settlements appear largely egalitarian in character, with dispersed and generally unenclosed layouts and few building or property boundaries (Hinton 1999, 54–5; Reynolds 2003, 130–1) (Section 2.3.2). Early Anglo-Saxon settlements of the study that exhibit such arrangements include Heybridge [PF2], Orsett Cock [PF18], Kilverstone [PF23], Goch Way [PF26] and the Early Anglo-Saxon occupation phase of Yarnton [PF17] (Section 7.5). The building traditions of the Early Anglo-Saxon period also appear remarkably uniform across England (Section 2.3.1). SFBs and PBSs of similar construction techniques and broadly comparable sizes have been identified from northern England, at sites including Thirlings [PF20], through to settlements such as Poundbury [PF10] in the southwest, a region regarded as largely more resistant to the adoption of ‘Anglianisation’ processes such as architectural styles, burial rites and material culture (Hamerow 2012, 31, 33, 37–40). Determining the functions and potential status of settlement buildings in the period is hampered by both the apparent lack of construction and limited survival of internal features such as floor levels, hearths and annexes (i.e. Hamerow 2011b, 136–41).

In light of such findings, material culture evidence may support evaluations of hierarchy and social (in)equality as potentially manifested within Early-Anglo-Saxon settlement morphology. For example, debate concerning whether some SFBs could have been constructed with suspended planked floors rather than sunken floors may have implications for the functions and status of these buildings. It has been argued that suspended planked floors would have created essentially a two-storey building, increasing the floor area of such SFBs to a level comparable with many PBSs, and providing other qualities such as improved air circulation, meaning the buildings could have been utilised more comfortably

In contrast, material culture from the Early Anglo-Saxon 235

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 8.1. Material culture hierarchical indicators by settlement phases.

graves at Barton Court Farm [PF5], indicating that most of the imports were likely in circulation at the settlements. It is probable that many of these items would have been regarded as prized possessions given their exotic origins, further illuminating potential evidence for hierarchy within the rural settlements of the period.

for habitation rather than predominantly for ancillary purposes or storage as commonly interpreted (Powlesland 1997, 110–3; Tipper 2004, 184; Hamerow 2012, 64) (Section 2.3.1). Such a model would presumably involve the investment of labour, materials and building expertise broadly on par with PBS construction, pointing towards potential evidence of hierarchy regarding operation, design and/or resources (Hamerow 2012, 59–65). Overall, the artefactual evidence is strongly indicative of such hierarchy within rural settlements and social stratification is further demonstrated by the material culture from contemporary furnished cemeteries (i.e. Bayliss et al 2013) (Sections 5.2.15, 7.4.2).

The evidence presented in the study indicates that some rural settlements were socially and economically sophisticated prior to the onset of the Middle AngloSaxon period and the more recently termed ‘long eighth century’ (c. AD680–830), which covers much of the conventional phase and is recognised as a period of broad homogeneity in England (Hansen & Wickham 2000, ix; Rippon 2010, 44–5). It is these two periods which are commonly attributed with the emergence of developing socio-economic complexities in Anglo-Saxon England. Further research comparing the archaeology of the long eighth century with evidence from the preceding and succeeding centuries will continue to elucidate on the political, social and economic developments and trends of the Anglo-Saxon period.

Regarding material culture provenance, the study has shown that locally and supra-/regionally produced artefacts are present at rural settlements throughout the AngloSaxon period, including pottery and items ranging from combs and loomweights to fittings and querns (Chapter 6; Appendix 6). Such evidence from the Early AngloSaxon period includes Illington-Lackford ware which was produced in East Anglia and brooch types of common Upper Thames Valley distribution (i.e. Dickinson 1976, 118–34; Evison 1978, 269–71; Avent & Evison 1982, 98, 100) (Fig. 8.2).

It is contended that evidence for social differentiation becomes increasingly apparent in Anglo-Saxon settlement organisation and building designs from the c. 7th century (Sections 2.3.1–2.3.2). This is typified by settlement zoning and delineations such as trackways, as well as evidence for property or livestock/crop ownership as denoted by building and field demarcations such as fences and enclosures (Marshall & Marshall 1993, 42; Powlesland 1997, 106, 111–3; Reynolds 2003, 119–25). Examples from the study include the Early and Early-Middle AngloSaxon settlements of Pennyland [PF19], Thirlings [PF20] and Riby Cross Roads [PF32], which had trackways, droveways, fenced enclosures and paddocks by the late 6th or early 7th centuries (O’Brien & Miket 1991, 61–4, 72; Williams 1993, 49–54; Steedman 1994, 212, 224–8; Hamerow 2002, 98–9). Building types and construction techniques also progressively diversify. Internal

The Early Anglo-Saxon settlements are distinctive in that they produce a variety of imported items from widespread sources (Fig. 8.3; Appendix 6). The assemblage includes: glass beads from production centres in the Low Countries and/or the Rhineland; pottery produced in northern France, the Rhineland, Egypt or the eastern Mediterranean as well as possibly Asia Minor; garnet from Bohemia or Sri Lanka; amethyst sourced from India or Sri Lanka; and amber beads from the Baltics or Nordic/Scandinavia regions. The range of imported artefacts may variously evidence economic and social transactions, such as giftgiving, as well as other circumstances including migration (Section 2.3.3; Chapter 6). The only identified imports deriving from settlement burials are amber beads, in 236

Discussion and Conclusions

Figure 8.2. Early Anglo-Saxon period: established and possible locally and supra-/regionally produced artefacts (selected).

237

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 8.3. Early Anglo-Saxon period: established and possible imported artefacts. © Free Vector Maps.com.

arrangements such as annexes, rooms and compartments, sometimes with axially aligned entranceways, become more prevalent features particularly within larger PBSs, such as at Chalton [PF25] and Cowdery’s Down [PF22], as building dimensions also begin to exhibit a greater variety that broadly continues in the ensuing centuries (Marshall & Marshall 1993, 380; Hamerow 2012, 38–40). From this time, status and hierarchy can be increasingly identified through architecture and settlement layout, in addition to material culture which is strongly evidenced in the Early Anglo-Saxon period as discussed above.

logical record (Section 2.3.3). From this time, monastic, aristocratic and royal centres increasingly served as central foci in the countryside and are commonly classified by factors including their strategic locations, structural layouts and/or consumption of luxury and imported goods (Moreland 2000, 103; Blair 2005, 256; Loveluck 2007, 146–7). Ecclesiastical and aristocratic institutions were great landowners and examples of these centres engaged in production and participated in extensive trade and communication networks, often facilitating the supply and demand of commodities in part to support their own conspicuous consumption (Moreland 2000, 102; Ulmschneider 2000a, 72–4; Blair 2005, 256–61; Loveluck 2013, 124).

The increased building diversification, organisation and demarcation of rural settlements from the 7th century is contemporaneous with the emergence of new, or previ­ously commonly unidentified, settlement types in the archaeo-

Another contemporary occurrence was the establishment of the emporia, or wics, trading and production centres in 238

Discussion and Conclusions strategic coastal and riverine locations from the later 7th century. The traditional ‘Hodgean’ model of emporia as catalysts for Middle Anglo-Saxon trade with a monopoly over international and prestige commodity exchange (Hodges 1989b, 2000) has been challenged and modified in the ensuing decades, including by Hodges himself (Hodges 2013, 66). It is now widely recognised that the emporia were not isolated phenomena, monopolising long-distance trade or divorced from the hinterlands which provided surplus food and other provisions to the populations of the wics (Blinkhorn 1999, 20; Moreland 2000; Palmer 2003, 55; Loveluck & Tys 2006; Blinkhorn 2012, 95–6). ‘Productive’ sites, classified as market fairs or (semi-) transient trading and specialised sites, are also identified in England from the Middle Anglo-Saxon period, evidencing the operation of trading systems outside of the emporia (Ulmschneider 2002, 333–4, 338; Ulmschneider & Pestell 2003, 1–3; Naylor 2004, 147).

continuation in the availability and use of such goods. Amber, amethyst and garnet are found in both periods, as well as northern Continental pottery, glass beads and Niedermendig lava querns, although some quern examples are likely to be residual from the Roman period (Parkhouse 1997; 2014, 24). Changes include the introduction of English and Continental sceattas, as coins began to be struck in England and Anglo-Saxon currency developed, and the appearance of hones made from good quality Scandinavian stone (Sections 6.3.1, 6.3.3). The evidence from the Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon rural settlements emphasise the social-economic complexities of these communities, traditionally not considered as significant as other contemporary settlements. The material culture, notably the prestige items and diverse imported goods, support the prevailing view that sophisticated exchange and trade systems which included the supply and demand of luxury and imported commodities– and in which rural settlements clearly participated– operated before the emporia and independently of these centres after their foundation.

There is broad academic agreement that transformations in settlement organisation and diversity as well as architecture from the c. 7th century reflect developments of political, hierarchical, economic and social structures within the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms as they consolidated power (Hooke 1998, 39–61; Blair 2005, 251–3; Rippon 2008, 14). However, evidence also supporting the sophistication of the Early Anglo-Saxon period is outlined above. Rural settlements occupied from the Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon periods exhibit a range of hierarchically indicative material culture, with weapons most commonly represented– as in the Early Anglo-Saxon period– followed equally by prestige items and coins, the latter produced in England from the 7th century (Fig. 8.1). The material culture demonstrates that socially diverse rural settlements were established and operated throughout the Early and Middle Anglo-Saxon periods, evidencing some continuity in social and economic trends at these places moving into the long eighth century.

Material culture from the rural settlements occupied in the Middle Anglo-Saxon period reflect, to a degree, contemporary political, social and hierarchical developments. Hierarchically indicative artefacts are overall less represented at these settlements, however this variation may not be indicative of a true fluctuating trend as the Middle Anglo-Saxon centuries are well represented by other artefacts from the Early–Middle and Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon crossover periods (Fig. 8.1). Weapons are most commonly found, as in the Early and Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon periods, which shows a continuing demand for such items, followed by equestrian equipment. Most of the hierarchically indicative material derives from the high-status settlement of Staunch Meadow [PF34], the control sample included in the study as a comparison with the non-elite rural settlements (Section 3.2.2). The range and quantity of the assemblage from Staunch Meadow [PF34], which includes prestige weapons, jewellery, clothing accessories and imported pottery as well as definitive evidence of literacy in the form of inkwells, styli and inscribed objects, all support the elite character of the site as compared to the other settlements of study. However, prestige items including jewellery, clothing accessories and equestrian equipment and other hierarchically indicative artefacts such as glass are also found to lesser degrees at many of the rural settlements, evidencing the presence of affluence and status at these sites as well (Section 7.4). The non-elite settlements and Staunch Meadow [PF34] further engaged in many of the same activities, such as manufacturing, agricultural and cultivation endeavours (Section 7.3; Chapter 5). A variety of artefacts are also found at both settlement types, including coins (sceattas, stycas, pennies), Niedermendig lava querns, beads, strap ends and pottery wares (i.e. Ipswich, Thetford-type, St Neots), pointing towards overlaps in the exchange, trade and communication networks used.

Regarding material culture provenance, locally and supra-/ regionally sourced artefacts at Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon settlements include pottery wares produced on large scales, notably Ipswich and Thetford-type wares (Fig. 8.4; Appendix 6). Such pottery begins to increasingly appear at rural sites from the c. mid-7th century and into the ensuing centuries, a result of the general rise in industrial production within Anglo-Saxon kingdoms from this time as commercial systems developed (i.e. Wickham 2005, 810–2, 818; Blinkhorn 2012, 95–7; Naylor 2012, 237–8, 243). Artefacts of ‘Anglo-Scandinavian’ type produced in England and perhaps elsewhere in the Scandinavian world, including clothing accessories such as wrist clasps or tag ends, are increasingly found at settlements from the Middle Anglo-Saxon centuries and signify a growing demand for these commodity types (Section 6.3.10). A range of imported artefacts from diverse sources are present at Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon settlements (Fig. 8.5; Appendix 6). A similar pattern is seen at settlements occupied in the Early Anglo-Saxon period, suggesting a 239

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 8.4. Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period: established and possible locally and supra-/regionally produced artefacts (selected).

240

Discussion and Conclusions

Figure 8.5. Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon period: established and possible imported artefacts. © Free Vector Maps.com.

6). However, the sources of some of the artefacts are unidentified or undisclosed, such as the greyware pottery sherd from Riverdene [PF35] and the glass inkwells and decorated copper-alloy ‘Byzantine’ bowl from Staunch Meadow [PF34]. The evidence points towards changes in the accessibility and/or demand for such items, which is also apparent at settlements in the ensuing centuries, perhaps partially due to the increasing development of market systems (Chapter 6). Most of the imports are from Staunch Meadow [PF34], suggesting the high-status site was engaging in more lucrative economic networks than some contemporary non-elite rural settlements.

Regarding artefact provenance, many of the locally and supra-/regionally sourced artefacts found at settlements occupied in the Middle Anglo-Saxon period are also present at Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon sites, such as Millstone Grit and Puddingstone querns, Charnwood, Maxey-type, Thetford-type and Ipswich ware as well as micaceous schist hones from Britain and/or Scandinavia (Fig. 8.6; Appendix 6). This evidences continuity in the supply and demand for a range of artefact types. The scope and provenance of imported artefacts from Middle Anglo-Saxon settlements is contracted as compared to settlements of earlier date, with a geographical range encompassing Niedermendig lava querns and Badorf ware from the Rhineland to micaceous schist hones and glass beads possibly from Scandinavia (Fig. 8.7; Appendix

Overall, the types and provenance of material culture from sites occupied in the Early, Early–Middle and Middle AngloSaxon periods demonstrate that some rural settlements 241

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 8.6. Middle Anglo-Saxon period: established and possible locally and supra-/regionally produced artefacts (selected).

242

Discussion and Conclusions

Figure 8.7. Middle Anglo-Saxon period: established and possible imported artefacts. © Free Vector Maps.com.

engaged in sophisticated exchange and/or trade systems which included the acquisition of an array of imported and prestige items, before and after the emergence of other major Anglo-Saxon focal centres. However, imported goods are found in decreasing numbers at non-elite rural settlements occupied from the Middle Anglo-Saxon period. Overall, the evidence supports current academic theories that various economic networks, including prestige/luxury goods exchange, operating in the Middle Anglo-Saxon period were independent of the emporia (Blinkhorn 1999, 20; Moreland 2000; Palmer 2003, 55; Loveluck & Tys 2006; Blinkhorn 2012, 95–6). The rural settlements show that active networks also predate the establishment of the emporia.

status centres such as Staunch Meadow [PF34], indicating the operation of multi-tiered exchange at some rural settlements. For example, pottery such as Ipswich and Thetford-type wares and Niedermendig lava were often distributed from the emporia and Hamwic type pins (Hinton 1996) and similar objects likely associated with the Hamwic emporium are present at several settlements, including Brandon Road [PF12], Yarnton [PF17] and Riby Cross Roads [PF32] (Sections 6.3.2–6.3.3, 6.3.7). Moving into the Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon centuries, phenomena such as settlement nucleation, common field organisation and manorialisation which are first apparent from the 9th century become increasingly recognisable in the landscape during the 10th and 11th centuries, influenced by variables such as property ownership complexities

Additionally, some settlements also likely did engage in trading networks involving the emporia as well as high243

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements occupied in the Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period is restricted in scope and quantity in comparison to sites of earlier date, a trend first noted in settlements from the Middle Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 8.9; Appendix 6). The geographical distribution of the imports extends south to the Rhineland, which produces Niedermendig lava querns and Tating ware, and north to Scandinavia, with the exception of an imitation Kufic dirham from Middle Harling [PF40]. Originating from central Asia, the coin presumably reached the settlement via Viking trade routes through Russia to the Baltics and Scandinavia, likely stressing the prevalence of Anglo-Scandinavian influences in England at this time (Rogerson 1995, 52–3; Haldenby & Kershaw 2014, 120). The decreased range of imports may in part reflect changes in the manifestation of wealth and hierarchy, as resources besides material culture such as landownership increasingly signified rank and status (Gardiner 2011, 199–211; Hamerow 2012, 164–5).

and population increase (i.e. Reynolds 1999, 123–4; Jones & Page 2006, 79, 82; Rippon 2008, 20; Gardiner 2017, 88–90) (Sections 2.3.2–2.3.3). Reflecting such processes, contemporary rural settlement morphology remains broadly regularised, as progressively observed in settlements from the c. 7th century onwards. Landownership by the secular and ecclesiastical elite can be observed physically manifested in non-elite and, particularly, highorder settlement layouts, which begin to more frequently incorporate constructions such as defensive ditches and buildings of identifiable distinctive purposes, such as latrines, kitchens, barns and long ranges (Reynolds 1999, 112–34, 149–54; Gardiner 2011, 199–211; Hamerow 2011a, 124; 2011b). A good example from the study is Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon Goltho [PF43], comprising a Middle Anglo-Saxon settlement laid out in a rectilinear arrangement and apparently aligned on trackways that was replaced in the Late Anglo-Saxon period by a sequence of fortified manor houses which occupied the site beyond the Norman Conquest (Beresford 1987, 21–4; Reynolds 2003, 123–5).

The material culture from the Middle–Late AngloSaxon sites shows that many rural settlements remained complex socio-economic entities during the ongoing transformations of the period. The range of artefactual evidence demonstrates that rural settlements were an integral element of Anglo-Saxon England, linked to key phenomena including economic systems.

Artefacts from rural settlements occupied in the Middle– Late Anglo-Saxon period contribute to the historical evaluation of these centuries. Material culture indicative of social hierarchy is overall most strongly represented at these settlements (Fig. 8.1). With regard to potential status indicators, equestrian equipment is most common, followed by weapons, with prestige items and coins also well represented. The Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period is the only phase in which glass vessels, which are most frequently found at rural settlements of earlier AngloSaxon date, are absent. The prevalence of hierarchically indicative artefacts evidences the supply and demand for luxury objects during and after the demise of the emporia and may also signify increased social and/or hierarchical complexities within some rural communities during the Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon centuries, perhaps influenced by circumstances such as property and landownership changes.

Certain significant transformations recognised from the Middle Anglo-Saxon centuries continued into the Late Anglo-Saxon period, such as diversity in building styles and dimensions, regularised rural settlement arrangements, processes of settlement nucleation and field organisation (Unwin 1988, 80; Jones & Page 2006, 7; Rippon 2008, 20; Hamerow 2011a, 124) (Sections 2.3.2– 2.3.3). Also, new and existing estate and market centres continually developed in the Late Anglo-Saxon period, including the establishment of fortified settlements known as burhs which engaged in production and commercial activities alongside other centres such as monastic and aristocratic institutions (Palmer 2003, 50; Haslam 2015, 201–3). The period further saw the rebirth of urbanism in England, with towns functioning as major commercial, production and market centres, actively engaged in trade and communication networks involving rural settlements and other centres (i.e. Vince 1990, 1991; Hall et al 2004; ten Harkel 2013; Reynolds 2019).

In terms of artefact provenance, mass-produced regionally distinctive pottery, including St Neots, Stamford, Torksey and Oxford wares, dominate the locally and supra-/ regionally sourced material culture assemblages from the Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon settlements (Fig. 8.8; Appendix 6). Also of note are coin finds, commonly pennies, which were struck in the main regional mints of the AngloSaxon and Anglo-Scandinavian kingdoms, including the centres of London, York, Norwich and Oxford (Fig. 6.1; Section 6.3.1). Particularly distinctive– in contrast to earlier centuries– is the marked increase in the range and quantity of Anglo-Scandinavian artefacts during the Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period, most of which were likely manufactured in England. Finds, ranging from jewellery to tools, reveal the widespread impact of Viking/ Danish influence and Scandinavian migration and political establishment in northern, midlands and eastern England.

Artefacts from Late Anglo-Saxon rural settlements are less hierarchically indicative than those from Middle– Late Anglo-Saxon settlements (Fig. 8.1). Of the potential indicators, equestrian equipment is most commonly found, as in the Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period, suggesting that horse ownership remained significant in rural communities. Coins are second most common, perhaps reflecting the monetised economy and the increasing number of mints operating in Late Anglo-Saxon England, particularly within towns (Sawyer 2013, 87–8, 91–5). Prestige items are minimally represented in the Late Anglo-Saxon period and it is the only phase in which objects potentially associated with literacy are absent. The

The imported artefacts assemblage from rural settlements 244

Discussion and Conclusions

Figure 8.8. Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period: established and possible locally and supra-/regionally produced artefacts (selected).

245

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 8.9. Middle–Late Anglo-Saxon period: established and possible imported artefacts. © Free Vector Maps.com.

evidence may superficially indicate that social changes were occurring within rural settlements, for example some of the populace may have migrated to towns.

manorialisation in which peasants were tied to the land by the gentry (thegnly) class through rent in return for labour services and dues (Molyneaux 2015, 41; Blair 2018, 311–2; Andrew Reynolds pers. comm.).

Regarding locally and supra-/regionally sourced artefacts, distinctive mass-produced pottery such as St Neots, Cheddar, Stamford and Oxford wares remain prominent within Late Anglo-Saxon site assemblages (Fig. 8.10; Appendix 6). Coins, chiefly pennies, also continue to circulate at rural settlements, predominantly struck at mints either local to the settlements or in the closest regional centres, such as the Aethelred II penny at Mawgan Porth [PF44] from the mint at Lydford, Devon. Demand for Millstone Grit querns continued and examples are present at rural settlements occupied throughout the Anglo-Saxon period. Anglo-Scandinavian artefacts, of likely British or perhaps Scandinavian origin, remain characteristic finds at some rural settlements, a trend identified from the Middle– Late Anglo-Saxon period.

Late Anglo-Saxon settlements demonstrate some continuities from preceding centuries, notably a limited number of imports and an on-going demand for certain commodities, including mass-produced English pottery and practical objects such as querns, manufactured in Britain and abroad. On balance, it is evident that non-elite rural settlements were important and complex centres throughout the Anglo-Saxon period, engaged in the political, social and economic systems of early medieval England. 8.2.1. Discussion The study of material culture from non-elite rural sites highlights that socially and economically complex rural communities operated alongside other settlement types such as emporia, monasteries and towns in Anglo-Saxon England. Material culture from rural settlements throughout the period, ranging from imported pottery, mass-produced Anglo-Saxon wares, glass vessels and prestige items to coins and utilitarian objects such as querns, are also found at emporia, aristocratic centres, monastic institutions and towns, evidencing links across economic networks between different settlement types. This suggests that

The use and scope of imported goods at rural settlements continues to contract in the Late Anglo-Saxon period (Fig. 8.11; Appendix 6). The assemblage includes Scandinavian hones, Niedermendig lava querns and two rubbers from several settlements and Rhenish pottery from Springfield Lyons [PF45]. The lack of imports at Late Anglo-Saxon rural settlements may, in part, reflect the increasingly insular world of the common populace in the countryside. This was a result of developing elements of what would become known as feudalism, notably processes such as 246

Discussion and Conclusions

Figure 8.10. Late Anglo-Saxon period: established and possible locally and supra-/regionally produced artefacts (selected).

247

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements

Figure 8.11. Late Anglo-Saxon period: established and possible imported artefacts. © Free Vector Maps.com.

multi-tiered exchange, trading and communication networks operated between some rural sites and other settlement types. Goods including Niedermendig lava and Millstone Grit querns are present at rural settlements of all dates, showing continuity of commodity supply and demand in rural communities throughout the Anglo-Saxon period.

distinctive pottery types, such as Ipswich, Thetford-type and Stamford ware, become more common-place at rural settlements from the c. mid-7th century as industrial output increases (Section 6.3.2). Coins, particularly pennies, were commonly struck in the local or main regional mints to the rural settlements at which they are found (Section 6.3.1). Anglo-Scandinavian artefacts reflect some of the widespread political, commercial and cultural transformations occurring in the Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon centuries in England (Section 6.3.10). These trends broadly coincide chronologically with changes in the pattern of imports. The range, quantity and sources of imported artefacts present at rural settlements contracts from the Early and Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon periods into the Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon centuries, which likely reflects greater political, economic and social

Patterns have been identified which emphasise that rural settlements were embedded in wider economic systems and broader developments and fluctuations in the socioeconomic environment of Anglo-Saxon England. Rural settlements produced and procured local and supra-/ regional materials throughout the Anglo-Saxon period, and this markedly increases from the Middle AngloSaxon period. For example, mass-produced and regionally 248

Discussion and Conclusions developments such as changes in the availability or demand for particular commodities, commercialisation and/or variations in manifestations of wealth and rank.

exemplified by work such as Anglo-Saxon landscape and economy (Richards et al 2009) which has been used to produce several maps in this study (Figs. 6.2–6.4). Ideally, artefact distributional studies can be expanded or modified to encompass new and diverse data from archaeological investigations, metal detecting and chance finds. For example, distributional analysis could further elucidate on areas such as the relatively small collections and occurrence of some metal artefact types at the rural settlements of study, including equestrian equipment such as stirrup-strap mounts, as compared to the numbers found through metal detecting (https://finds.org.uk/). Future distributional studies examining mass-produced goods such as Anglo-Saxon pottery wares and other artefacts used over long periods and/or with a wide economic reach, such as Anglo-Scandinavian artefacts or Millstone Grit querns, would also be particularly advantageous. Such research could contribute to the assessment of consumption activities, exchange, trade and communication networks and the economic reach of rural settlements on local, supra-/regional and international scales.

Another key finding of the study is the multifaceted character of many rural communities, as demonstrated by the comparative study of non-elite rural settlements with the high-status site of Staunch Meadow [PF34], included as a control sample, and primarily evidenced by the identification of consumption activities and hierarchically indicative material culture (Sections 3.2.6, 7.4; Chapter 5). Such artefacts highlight portable wealth and objects conventionally associated with rank, such as weaponry and equestrian equipment, as potential statements of status and affluence by individuals associated with rural settlements of various dates (Sections 5.2.6, 5.2.8). This evidence shows that prestige and social status was not the sole preserve of elite centres or communities in the AngloSaxon period (Section 5.2.11). Of note is potential evidence for social complexity in the Early Anglo-Saxon period, when rural settlement arrangements and buildings appear broadly egalitarian in character and before the foundation– or at least identification– of other settlement types such as royal or monastic centres, which establish settlement hierarchy in the ensuing centuries (Section 2.3.2). Social hierarchy in the Early Anglo-Saxon period is commonly demonstrated by furnished burials. The discovery of items such as weapons and equestrian equipment outside of burial contexts within rural settlements, however, emphasises social complexities in daily life.

Anglo-Saxon cemeteries and grave goods have long been subject to extensive research within the discipline, which has resulted in the establishment of a range of burial artefact typologies and chronologies (i.e. Meaney & Chadwick Hawkes 1970; Evison 1987; Geake 1997, 1999). Material culture assemblages from rural settlements have not been investigated to the same degree, an issue this book addresses, and the comparative analysis of burial and site assemblages would benefit many research aspects. For instance, this study has highlighted that potential socially indicative artefacts such as weapons and equestrian equipment which are commonly found in cemeteries are also present in rural settlements, and comparative research of site and burial contexts could increase understanding of social and settlement hierarchies as well as consumption patterns. Some of the rural settlements studied have accompanying cemeteries with furnished burials, such as Mucking [PF4], Spong Hill [PF15] and Carlton Colville [PF28], and the comparison of these site and burial assemblages has the potential to develop understanding of settlement communities and the populace from surrounding areas that likely engaged with these centres.

Crucially, this study has demonstrated that rural settlements were integral, complex elements of the economic, social and political structures of Anglo-Saxon England. 8.3. Further Research The findings of this work, along with the collated data and methods employed in the study can contribute to future research in Anglo-Saxon settlement and material culture studies. The continual generation, analysis and accessibility of useable data, primarily excavations of Anglo-Saxon sites, publications and the production of ‘grey literature’ is essential to the future of Anglo-Saxon archaeology and scholarship.

Comparative analysis of material culture with faunal and botanical site assemblages adds a wealth of information to rural settlement studies, ranging from evidence of agrarian processes to dietary variations. On a site-specific basis, combined assemblage analysis can be potentially illuminating for the study of individual settlements and produce information subsequently useful for larger scale evaluations. For example, the evolution of Pennyland [PF19], Buckinghamshire has been examined alongside material culture, agriculture/production and other economic evidence. This initially dispersed settlement, founded in the 6th or early 7th century, was reorganised with defined farmsteads, enclosures and droveways from the later 7th century and it is suggested from evidence including artefacts that Pennyland [PF19] continued

Large and diverse datasets are crucial for artefact distributional studies and increasingly available. Relatively few systematic distributional studies of artefacts found across Anglo-Saxon England and/or the Continent are currently available, with notable exceptions including Gabor Thomas’ research on Late Anglo-Saxon and Viking strap ends (2000), Blinkhorn’s review of Ipswich ware (2012) and Jonathan Parkhouse’s examination of Niedermendig lava querns (1997, 2014). Surveys of metal detected objects and isolated finds recorded in databases such as the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) (https:// finds.org.uk/) are also valuable resources for research, 249

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements individuals based on the presence and quantity of prestige and luxury goods at a site may, in some cases, be an oversimplification of the evidence (Loveluck 2013, 98). He contends that such material culture could represent a spectrum of social ranks present within settlement communities, ranging from wealthy individuals such as free landowners to dignitaries or nobility (Loveluck 2013, 98–9). Loveluck has examined mercantile households in Hamwic which produce weapons, equestrian equipment and glass vessels (Loveluck 2013, 205–6), and the analysis of comparable socially indicative material at rural settlements as presented in this study is complimentary to such research. This study and Loveluck’s reveal that the populations of rural settlements and emporia exhibit degrees of luxury consumption and social differentiation, demonstrating that prestige and social status was not confined to royal/aristocratic or ecclesiastical centres as traditionally thought, and is an area of research which merits further attention.

to maintain a broad-based subsistence economy at this time (Williams 1993, 92–3; Palmer 2003, 57). From the later 7th/early 8th century, the final phase of Pennyland [PF19] involved the return to a more dispersed layout with minimal organisation and this was accompanied by an economic transformation which included the appearance of Ipswich ware from East Anglia, a likely change in farming towards stock-rearing and possible landholding transformations, as suggested by the apparent abandonment of the enclosure systems and individual farm units (Williams 1993, 93; Moreland 2000, 90–1; Palmer 2003, 57). Microscale analyses of rural settlements are clearly valuable exercises, as demonstrated in this study with the case study of Yarnton [PF17] (Section 7.5). Multisite evaluations of such projects and findings will develop understanding of production, agriculture, cultivation and other economic systems and trends operating across rural settlements and throughout England. Future research examining the relationships between rural settlements and other central places will also greatly advance understanding of Anglo-Saxon England. As this study has emphasised, many rural settlements were complex entities involved in production, often exhibiting social differentiations and engaged in exchange, trade and communication networks of varying degrees of sophistication. The significance of these findings and the diversity of data collated in the study can therefore strongly contribute to further cross-comparative settlement and material culture research, concentrating on core issues such as the socio-economic relationships between Anglo-Saxon settlement types. This could encompass key factors including agricultural/cultivation processes and intensification, economic systems, landscape reorganisation, landholding patterns and the development of feudalism (i.e. Saunders 2000, 224; Blair 2005, 275–9; Rippon 2008, 12–26; Crabtree 2010, 132; Hodges 2013, 66; Banham & Faith 2014, 293–300).

On an international scale, Anglo-Saxon settlement and material culture research can continue to advance with comparative studies of contemporary archaeological evidence from the Continent, Scandinavia and Ireland, concentrating on the broad themes of early medieval studies such as settlement evolution, hierarchy, feudalism and the development and fluctuations of socio-economic trends. Overall, this study has highlighted that rural settlements can be considered integral components of Anglo-Saxon settlement studies and that they can contribute much to the discipline moving forward. 8.4. Conclusion The study has produced a dataset and presented discussions illuminating the character and functions of non-elite rural settlements, conventionally less researched than more high-profile Anglo-Saxon sites such as emporia or fields such as cemetery studies.

Identifying social hierarchy amongst rural settlements remains a much-debated area and more work is also needed to define non-elite settlement rankings. The study has highlighted some evidence applicable to this subject, including potential hierarchically indicative material culture, as well as research approaches such as analysing site artefact distribution patterns (Section 7.4). A new hierarchical model for Anglo-Saxon settlements has also been proposed (Section 7.4.3). Important avenues for further research include examining associations between settlement morphology and settlement communities for evidence of social and hierarchical complexities, potentially demonstrated by types and provenance of material culture, consumption activities, artefact distribution, architecture, production output, economic patterns and diet. Also, comparing the range and character of artefact assemblages from diverse settlement types will support the potential further identification and definition of Anglo-Saxon low- and high-status social and settlement hierarchies. For example, as Loveluck has argued, the common identification of high-status settlements or

The results and approaches of the study have expanded current knowledge of rural settlements through focusing on several key areas. An assessment of site artefact distributional patterns (Section 4.2) and a catalogue of material culture from rural sites have been produced for reference (Section 4.3). The range and extent of consumption activities taking place at the rural settlements has been established, which is particularly useful for settlement profile analysis (Chapter 5). The examination of material culture in an economic framework has shown that many rural settlements were commercially sophisticated and likely engaged in extensive trade networks (Chapter 6). The four case studies have also demonstrated significant findings. A broad uniformity in material culture, consumption activities and economic patterns is observed within contemporary rural settlements (Section 7.2). The establishment of individual rural settlement profiles highlights functions and specialisations 250

Discussion and Conclusions taking place at the settlements (Section 7.3). Evidence for social differentiation is apparent at a significant number of rural settlements, pointing towards potential hierarchical structures (Section 7.4). The microscale settlement analysis contextualises the key aspects of the study (Section 7.5).

Saxon England, than traditionally assumed. Rural settlements supported a range of production activities and livelihoods, engaged in exchange, trade, travel and communication networks of local, regional, supraregional and international reach, and some also have evidence for social affluence and/or hierarchy amongst occupants or individuals associated with the settlements. These findings will enable non-elite rural settlements to be more meaningfully studied as an integral element of AngloSaxon research.

One of the most important aspects of this study is the evidence that many rural settlements were rather more socially and economically complex, and hence appear to have been of greater consequence throughout Anglo-

251

Bibliography Andrews, P. (ed.), 1988. Southampton finds volume 1: Coins and pottery of Hamwic. Southampton: Southampton City Museums.

Primary Sources Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. M. J. Swanton (ed. & trans.), 2000. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. London: J. M. Dent.

Anlezark, D. (ed.), 2011. Myths, legends and heroes: Essays on Old Norse and Old English literature in honour of John McKinnell. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Bede, c. AD 731. Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum. L. Sherley-Price & D. H. Farmer (trans.), 1990 (rev. ed.) [1955]. Bede: Ecclesiastical history of the English people. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Arcangeli, A., 2012. Cultural history: A concise introduction. London: Routledge.

Secondary Sources

Astill, G., 2007. Community, identity and the later Anglo-Saxon town: The case of southern England. In: W. Davies, G. Halsall & A. Reynolds (eds.) People and space in the Middle Ages, 300–1300. Turnhout: Brepols, 233–54.

Abels, R., 2003. Alfred the Great, the micel hæðen here and the Viking threat. In: T. Reuter (ed.) Alfred the Great: Papers from the eleventh-centenary conferences. Aldershot: Ashgate, 265–79. Addyman, P. V., 1964. A Dark Age settlement at Maxey, Northamptonshire. Medieval Archaeology 8, 20–73.

Aston, M. & C. Lewis (eds.), 1994. The medieval landscape of Wessex. Oxbow monograph 46. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Addyman, P. V., 1972. The Anglo-Saxon house: A new review. Anglo-Saxon England 1, 273–307.

Aston, M., Austin, D. & C. Dyer (eds.), 1989. The rural settlements of medieval England. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.

Addyman, P.V., 1973. The Anglo-Saxon village at Chalton, Hampshire: Second interim report. Medieval Archaeology 17, 1–25.

Atkins, R. & A. Connor, 2010. Farmers and ironsmiths: Prehistoric, Roman and Anglo-Saxon settlement beside Brandon Road, Thetford, Norfolk. East Anglian Archaeology 134. Bar Hill: Oxford Archaeology East.

Addyman, P. V. & D. Leigh, 1972. Anglo-Saxon houses at Chalton, Hampshire. Medieval Archaeology 16, 13–31. Agate, A., 2013. Aspects of suburban settlement at early urban centres in England. In: J. Baker, S. Brookes & A. Reynolds (eds.) Landscapes of defence in early medieval Europe. Turnhout: Brepols, 166–94.

Audouy, M. & A. Chapman (eds.), 2009. Raunds: The origin and growth of a midland village AD450–1500. Excavations in north Raunds, Northamptonshire 1977– 87. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Ager, B. M., 1985. The smaller variants of the AngloSaxon quoit brooch. In: S. Chadwick Hawkes, J. Campbell & D. Brown (eds.) Anglo-Saxon studies in archaeology and history 4. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, 1–58.

Avent, R., 1975. Anglo-Saxon garnet inlaid disc and composite brooches. BAR British Series II (i). Oxford: BAR Publishing. Avent, R. & V. I. Evison, 1982. Anglo-Saxon button brooches. Archaeologia 107, 77–124.

Alberti, B., Meirion Jones, A. & J. Pollard (eds.), 2013. Archaeology after interpretation: Returning materials to archaeological theory. Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press, Inc.

Baines, A. & K. Brophy, 2006. Archaeology without – isms. Archaeological Dialogues, 13/01, 69–91. Baker, J., & S. Brookes, 2013. Beyond the Burghal Hidage: Anglo-Saxon civil defence in the Viking Age. Leiden: Brill.

Allison, P. M., 1997. Why do excavation reports have finds’ catalogues? In: C. Cumberpatch & P. Blinkhorn (eds.) Not so much a pot, more a way of life: Current approaches to artefact analysis in archaeology. Oxbow monograph 83. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 77–84.

Baker, J., Brookes, S. & A. Reynolds (eds.), 2013. Landscapes of defence in early medieval Europe. Turnhout: Brepols.

Ambrosiani, B. & H. Clarke (eds.), 1995. Excavations in the black earth. Stockholm: Birka project for Riksantikvarieämbetet and Statens Historiska Museer.

Banham, D. & R. Faith, 2014. Anglo-Saxon farms and farming. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bassett, S., 1989a. In search of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. In: S. Bassett (ed.) The origins of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 3–27.

Anderton, M. (ed.), 1999. Anglo-Saxon trading centres: Beyond the emporia. Glasgow: Cruithne Press. 252

Bibliography Bassett, S. (ed.), 1989b. The origins of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Leicester: Leicester University Press.

Blair, J., 1994. Anglo-Saxon Oxfordshire. Sutton, Stroud. Blair, J., 2005. The church in Anglo-Saxon society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bateman, C., Enright, D. & N. Oakley, 2003. Prehistoric and Anglo-Saxon settlements to the rear of Sherborne House, Lechlade: Excavations in 1997. Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society 121, 23–96.

Blair, J., 2018. Building Anglo-Saxon England. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Blakelock, E., 2005. The lead pad from Staunch Meadow, Brandon, Suffolk: Was it used to create cross-hatched gold foils? Centre for Archaeology Report 23/2005. Portsmouth: English Heritage.

Bayliss, A., Hines, J., Høilund Nielsen, K., McCormac, G. & C. Scull, 2013. Anglo-Saxon graves and grave goods of the 6th and 7th centuries AD: A chronological framework. London: The Society for Medieval Archaeology.

Blanton, R. E., 1994. Houses and households: A comparative study. New York; London: Plenum Press.

Bell, M., 1977. Excavations at Bishopstone. Sussex Archaeological Collections 115.

Blinkhorn, P., 1997. Habitus, social identity and AngloSaxon pottery. In: C. Cumberpatch & P. Blinkhorn (eds.) Not so much a pot, more a way of life: Current approaches to artefact analysis in archaeology. Oxbow monograph 83. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 113–124.

Beresford, G., 1987. Goltho: The development of an early medieval manor c. 850–1150. London: Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England.

Blinkhorn, P., 1999. Of cabbages and kings: Production, trade and consumption in Middle Saxon England. In: M. Anderton (ed.) Anglo-Saxon trading centres: Beyond the emporia. Glasgow: Cruithne Press, 4–23.

Biddle, M., 1976. Towns. In: D. M. Wilson (ed.) The archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 99–150. Biddle, M., 1990. Artefacts from medieval Winchester: Object and economy in medieval Winchester. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Blinkhorn, P., 2012. The Ipswich Ware Project: Ceramics, trade and society in Middle Saxon England. London: The Medieval Pottery Research Group.

Binford, L. R., 1962. Archaeology as anthropology. American Antiquity 28/2, 217–25.

Blinkhorn, P. & C. Cumberpatch (eds.), 2014. The chiming of crack’d bells: Recent approaches to the study of artefacts in archaeology. BAR International Series 2677. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Binford, L. R., 1976. An archaeological perspective. New York; London: Seminar Press. Binford, L. R., 1983. Working at archaeology. New York; London: Academic Press.

Böhner, K., 1958. Die fränkischen altertümer des Trierer Landes. Fränkischen Altertümer des Rheinlandes 1. Berlin: Mann.

Bintliff, J. (ed.), 1984. European social evolution: Archaeological perspectives. Bradford: University of Bradford.

Booth, P., Dodd, A., Robinson, M. & A. Smith, 2007. The Thames through time. The archaeology of the gravel terraces of the Upper and Middle Thames: The early historical period, AD1–1000. Oxford: Oxford Archaeology.

Bintliff, J., 1996. Interactions of theory, methodology and practice. Archaeological Dialogues, 3/2, 246–55. Bintliff, J., 2011. The death of archaeological theory. In: J. Bintliff & M. Pearce (eds.) The death of archaeological theory? Oxford: Oxbow Books, 7–22.

Booth, P., Simmonds, A., Boyle, A., Clough, S., Cool, H. E. M. & D. Poore (eds.), 2010. The Late Roman cemetery at Lankhills, Winchester: Excavations 2000– 2005. Oxford Archaeology monograph 10. Oxford: Oxford Archaeology.

Bintliff, J. & H. Hamerow (eds.), 1995. Europe between late antiquity and the Middle Ages: Recent archaeological and historical research in western and southern Europe. BAR International Series 617. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Bourdieu, P., 1979. Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bintliff, J. & M. Pearce (eds.), 2011. The death of archaeological theory? Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Bourdieu, P. (trans. R. Nice), 1990. The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity.

Blackburn, M., 2011. Coinage in its archaeological context. In: H. Hamerow, D. A. Hinton & S. Crawford (eds.) The Oxford handbook of Anglo-Saxon archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 580–99.

Bowersock, G. W., Brown, P. & O. Grabar, 1999. Late antiquity: A guide to the postclassical world. Cambridge; London: Belknap Press. Brennan, N. & H. Hamerow, 2015. An Anglo-Saxon great hall complex at Sutton Courtenay/Drayton, Oxfordshire: A royal centre of early Wessex? Archaeological Journal 172, 325–50.

Blair, J., 1988. Minster churches in the landscape. In: D. Hooke (ed.) Anglo-Saxon settlements. Oxford; New York: Basil Blackwell, 35–58. 253

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements Brookes, S., 2003. The Early Anglo-Saxon framework for Middle Anglo-Saxon economics: The case of east Kent. In: T. Pestell & K. Ulmschnieder (eds.) Markets in early medieval Europe: Trading and ‘productive’ sites, 650–850. Macclesfield: Windgather Press, 84–96.

Carroll, J., Reynolds, A. & B. Yorke (eds.), 2019. Power and place in Europe in the first millennium AD. Oxford University Press for the British Academy (in press). Carter, G. A., 1998. Excavations at the Orsett ‘Cock’ Enclosure, Essex, 1976. East Anglian Archaeology 86. Chelmsford: Essex County Council.

Brookes, S., 2007. Economics and social change in AngloSaxon Kent AD400–900: Landscapes, communities and exchange. BAR British Series 431. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Carver, M., 2005. Sutton Hoo: A 7th century princely burial ground and its context. London: British Museum Press. Chadwick Hawkes, S., Campbell, J. & D. Brown (eds.), 1985. Anglo-Saxon studies in archaeology and history 4. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology.

Browitt, J., 2004. Pierre Bourdieu: Homo sociologicus. In: J. Browitt & B. Nelson (eds.) Practising theory: Pierre Bourdieu and the field of cultural production. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1–12.

Chambers, R. & E. McAdam, 2007. Excavations at Barrow Hills, Radley, Oxfordshire, 1983–5. Volume 2: The Romano-British cemetery and Anglo-Saxon settlement. Oxford: Oxford Archaeology, Thames Valley Landscapes monograph 25.

Browitt, J. & B. Nelson (eds.), 2004. Practising theory: Pierre Bourdieu and the field of cultural production. Newark: University of Delaware Press. Brown, D. H., 1998. Finds in medieval archaeology. Scottish Archaeological Review 5, 120–4.

Champion, T., 1977. Chalton. Current Archaeology 59 vol. V/12, 364–9.

Brown, M. P., 2017. Strategies of visual literacy in insular and Anglo-Saxon book culture. In: C. Insley & G. R. Owen-Crocker (eds.) Transformation in Anglo-Saxon culture: Toller lectures on art, archaeology and text. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 71–104.

Chapman, A., 2010. West Cotton, Raunds. A study of medieval settlement dynamics AD450–1450: Excavation of a deserted medieval hamlet in Northamptonshire, 1985–89. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Bruce-Mitford, R. L. S., 1956a. A Dark Age settlement at Mawgan Porth, Cornwall. In: R. L. S. Bruce-Mitford (ed.) Recent archaeological excavations in Britain: Selected excavations 1939–1955 with a chapter on recent air-reconnaissance. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 167–96.

Chapman, J. & H. Hamerow (eds.), 1997. Migrations and invasions in archaeological explanation. BAR International Series 664. Oxford: BAR Publishing. Childe, G., 1925. The dawn of European civilisation. London: Kegan Paul.

Bruce-Mitford, R. L. S (ed.), 1956b. Recent archaeological excavations in Britain: Selected excavations 1939– 1955 with a chapter on recent air-reconnaissance. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Childe, G., 1926. The Aryans: A study of Indo-European origins. London: Kegan Paul. Childe, G., 1929. The Danube in prehistory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bruce-Mitford, R. L. S., 1997. Mawgan Porth: A settlement of the Late Saxon period on the north Cornish coast. Excavations 1949–52, 1954, and 1974. English Heritage Archaeological Report 13. London: English Heritage.

Christie, N., 1995. The Lombards: The ancient Longobards. Oxford: Blackwell. Clark, J. (ed.), 2004. (2nd ed.). The medieval horse and its equipment c. 1150–c. 1450. Museum of London Series: Medieval finds from excavations in London 5. London: HMSO.

Brugmann, B., 2004. Glass beads from Early Anglo-Saxon graves. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Clarke, D. L., 1978 (2nd ed.). Analytical archaeology. London: Methuen & Co.

Brugmann, B., 2012. Beads. In: K. Parfitt & T. Andersen (eds.) Buckland Anglo-Saxon cemetery, Dover: Excavations 1994. Canterbury: Canterbury Archaeological Trust, 92–119.

Clegg Hyer, M. & G. R. Owen-Crocker (eds.), 2011. The material culture of daily living in the AngloSaxon world. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.

Buckberry, J. & A. Cherryson (eds.), 2010. Burial in later Anglo-Saxon England c. 650–1100 AD. Oxford; Oakville: Oxbow Books.

Clegg Hyer, M. & G. R. Owen-Crocker (eds.), 2015. The material culture of the built environment in the AngloSaxon world. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

Campbell, B. M. S., 1981. Common field origins: The regional dimension. In: T. Rowley (ed.) The origins of open field agriculture. London: Croom Helm, 112–29.

Coggins, D., 2004. Simy Folds: Twenty years on. In: J. Hines, A. Lane & M. Redknap (eds.) Land, sea and home: Proceedings of a conference on Viking-period settlement, at Cardiff, July 2001. Leeds: Maney Publishing, 325–34.

Carr, R. D., Tester, A. & P. Murphy, 1988. The MiddleSaxon settlement at Staunch Meadow, Brandon. Antiquity 62/235, 371–77. 254

Bibliography Coggins, D., Fairness, K. J. & C. E. Batey, 1983. Simy Folds: An early medieval settlement site in Upper Teesdale, Co. Durham. Medieval Archaeology 27, 1–26.

Cumberpatch, C. & P. Blinkhorn (eds.), 1997. Not so much a pot, more a way of life: Current approaches to artefact analysis in archaeology. Oxbow monograph 83. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Coles, J. M. & D. D. A. Simpson (eds.), 1968. Studies in ancient Europe: Essays presented to Stuart Piggott. Leicester: Leicester University Press.

Cumberpatch, C. & I. Roberts, 2013. A Stamford ware pottery kiln in Pontefract: A geographical enigma and a dating dilemma. Medieval Archaeology 57, 111–50.

Cook, B. & G. Williams (eds.), 2006. Coinage and history in the North Sea world c. AD500–1250: Essays in honour of Marion Archibald. Leiden: Brill.

Curnow, P., 1985. In: S. West West Stow: The Anglo-Saxon village. Volume 1: Text. East Anglian Archaeology 24. Ipswich: Suffolk County Council Planning Department, 76–81.

Cook, J. M., 2003. Early Anglo-Saxon buckets: A corpus of copper alloy- and iron-bound, stave-built vessels. Oxford University School of Archaeology monograph 60. Oxford: University of Oxford, School of Archaeology.

Cuttler, R., Martin-Bacon, H., Nichol, K., Patrick, C., Perrin, R., Rátkai, S., Smith, M. & J. Williams, 2011. Five sites in Cambridgeshire: Excavations at Woodhurst, Fordham, Soham, Buckden and St Neots, 1998–2002. BAR British Series 528. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Cool, H. E. M., 2010. Objects of glass, shale, bone and metal (except nails). In: P. Booth, A. Simmonds, A. Boyle, S. Clough, H. E. M. Cool & D. Poore (eds.) The Late Roman cemetery at Lankhills, Winchester: Excavations 2000–2005. Oxford Archaeology monograph 10. Oxford: Oxford Archaeology, 267–309.

Davies, W., Halsall, G. & A. Reynolds (eds.), 2007. People and space in the Middle Ages, 300–1300. Turnhout: Brepols. DeBoe, G. & F. Verhaeghe (eds.), 1997. Exchange and trade in medieval Europe: Papers of the Medieval Europe Brugge Conference. Vol. 3, IAP rapporten 3, Zellik.

Cool, H. E. M. & M. J. Baxter, 2016. Exploring morphological bias in metal-detected finds. Antiquity 90/354, 1643–53.

Dickinson, T. M., 1976. The Anglo-Saxon burial sites of the Upper Thames region and their bearing on the history of Wessex c. AD400–700. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Oxford.

Costen, M. D. & N. Costen, 2016. Trade and exchange in Anglo-Saxon Wessex, c. AD600–780. Medieval Archaeology 60/1, 1–26.

Dickinson, T. M., 1982. Fowler’s Type G penannular brooches reconsidered. Medieval Archaeology 26, 41– 68.

Costin, C., 2011. Craft production systems. In: G. M. Feinman & T. Douglas Price (eds.). Archaeology at the millennium: A sourcebook. New York; London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 273–327.

Dickinson, T. M., 1993. Early Saxon saucer brooches: A preliminary review. In: W. Filmer-Sankey (ed.) AngloSaxon studies in archaeology and history 6. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, 11–44.

Cowgill, J., 2009. The lead vessels housing the Flixborough tool hoard. In: D. H. Evans & C. Loveluck (eds.) Life and economy at early medieval Flixborough c. AD600– 1000. Excavations at Flixborough Volume 2. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 267–77.

Dickinson, T. M., 2005. Symbols of protection: The significance of animal-ornamented shield in Early Anglo-Saxon England. Medieval Archaeology 49, 109–63.

Cowie, R. & L. Blackmore, with Davis, A., Keily J. & K. Rielly, 2012. Lundenwic: Excavations in Middle Saxon London, 1987–2000. MOLAS monograph 63. London: Museum of London.

Dickinson, T. M. & D. Griffiths (eds.), 1999. The making of kingdoms: Papers from the 47th Sachsensymposium, York, September 1996. Anglo-Saxon studies in archaeology and history 10. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology.

Crabtree, P. J., 2010. Agricultural innovation and socioeconomic change in early medieval Europe: Evidence from Britain and France. World Archaeology 42, 122– 36.

Drury, P. J. & N. P. Wickenden, 1982. An Early Saxon settlement within the Romano-British small town at Heybridge, Essex. Medieval Archaeology 26, 1–39.

Cramp, R., 2017. New perspectives on monastic buildings and their uses. In: G. Thomas & A. Knox (eds.) Early medieval monasticism in the North Sea zone: Proceedings of a conference held to celebrate the conclusion of the Lyminge excavations 2008–15. AngloSaxon studies in archaeology and history 20, 27–42.

Dyer, C., 1985. Power and conflict in the medieval village. In: D. Hooke (ed.) Medieval villages. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology monograph 5, 27–32. Eagles, B., 1994. The archaeological evidence for settlement in the 5th–7th centuries AD. In: M. Aston & C. Lewis (eds.) The medieval landscape of Wessex. Oxbow monograph 46. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 13–32.

Crummy, N., 1983. The Roman small finds from excavations in Colchester 1971–9. Colchester: Colchester Archaeological Trust. 255

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements Escalona, J. & A. Reynolds (eds.), 2011. Scale and scale change in the early Middle Ages: Exploring landscape, local society and the world beyond. Turnhout: Brepols.

Freestone, I. C., Hughes, M. I. & C. P. Stapleton, 2008. The composition and production of Anglo-Saxon glass. In: V. I. Evison; S. Marzinzik (ed.) Catalogue of AngloSaxon glass in the British Museum. London: British Museum, 29–46.

Evans, D. H. & C. Loveluck (eds.), 2009. Life and economy at early medieval Flixborough c. AD600– 1000. Excavations at Flixborough Volume 2. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Frei, K. M., Coutu, A. N., Smiarowski, K., Harrison, R., Madsen, C. K., Arneborg, J., Frei, R., Guðmundsson, G., Sindbæk, S. M., Woollett, J., Hartman, S., Hicks, M. & T. H. McGovern, 2015. Was it for walrus? Viking Age settlement and medieval walrus ivory trade in Iceland and Greenland. World Archaeology 47(3), 439– 66.

Evison, V. I., 1978. Early Anglo-Saxon applied disc brooches. Part II: In England. Antiquaries Journal 58, 260–78. Evison, V. I., 1979. A corpus of wheel-thrown pottery in Anglo-Saxon graves. Leeds: Royal Archaeological Institute. Evison, V. I., 1982. Anglo-Saxon glass claw-beakers. Archaeologia 107, 43–76.

Gameson, R., 2011. Anglo-Saxon scribes and scriptoria. In: R. Gameson (ed.) The Cambridge history of the book in Britain volume 1 c. 400–1100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 94–102.

Evison, V. I., 1987. Dover: The Buckland Anglo-Saxon cemetery. London: Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England.

Gameson, R. (ed.), 2011. The Cambridge history of the book in Britain volume 1 c. 400–1100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Evison, V. I., 2000. Glass vessels in England AD400– 1100. In: J. Price (ed.) Glass in Britain and Ireland AD350–1100. British Museum Occasional Paper 127, London: British Museum, 47–104.

Gardiner, M., 2011. Late Saxon settlements. In: H. Hamerow, D. A. Hinton & S. Crawford (eds.) The Oxford handbook of Anglo-Saxon archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 198–217.

Evison, V. I.; Marzinzik, S. (ed.), 2008. Catalogue of Anglo-Saxon glass in the British Museum. London: British Museum.

Gardiner, M., 2017. Manorial farmsteads and the expression of lordship before and after the Norman Conquest. In: D. M. Hadley & C. Dyer (eds.) The archaeology of the 11th century: Continuities and transformations. Society for Medieval Archaeology monograph 38. London: Routledge, 88–103.

Feinman, G. M. & T. Douglas Price (eds.), 2001. Archaeology at the millennium: A sourcebook. New York; London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Gardner, A., 2007. An archaeology of identity: Soldiers and society in late Roman Britain. Walnut Creek, California.

Felder, K., 2014. Girdle-hangers in 5th- and 6th-century England. A key to Early Anglo-Saxon identities. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Oxford.

Garrow, D., Lucy, S. & D. Gibson, 2006. Excavations at Kilverstone, Norfolk: An episodic landscape history. East Anglian Archaeology 113. Cambridge: Cambridge Archaeological Unit.

Felder, K., 2015. Networks of meaning and the social dynamics of identity. An example from Early Anglo-Saxon England. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 25(1): 3, 1–20. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.5334/pia.478

Geake, H., 1997. The use of grave-goods in conversionperiod England, c. 600–c. 850. BAR British Series 261. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Filmer-Sankey, W. (ed.), 1993. Anglo-Saxon studies in archaeology and history 6. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology.

Geake, H., 1999. When were hanging bowls deposited in Anglo-Saxon graves? Medieval Archaeology 43, 1–18.

Foucault, M. (trans. A. M. Sheridan Smith), 1972. Archaeology of knowledge. London: Routledge.

Gelichi, S. & R. Hodges (eds.), 2012. From one sea to another: Trading places in the European and Mediterranean early Middle Ages. Proceedings of the International Conference Comacchio, 27th–29th March 2009. Turnhout: Brepols.

Fowler, E., 1963. Celtic metalwork of the fifth and sixth centuries AD: A reappraisal. Archaeological Journal 120, 98–160. Fowler, E., 1968. Hanging-bowls. In: J. M. Coles & D. D. A. Simpson (eds.) Studies in ancient Europe: Essays presented to Stuart Piggott. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 297–310.

Gerrard, C., 2003. Medieval archaeology: Understanding traditions and contemporary approaches. London; New York: Routledge. Gibson, C. with J. Murray, 2003. An Anglo-Saxon settlement at Godmanchester, Cambridgeshire. In: D. Griffiths, A. Reynolds & S. Semple (eds.) Boundaries in early medieval Britain. Anglo-Saxon studies in archaeology and history 12, 137–217.

Frantzen, A. J., 2014. Food, eating and identity in early medieval England. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. Frazer, W. O. & A. Tyrrell (eds.), 2000. Social identity in early medieval Britain. London: Leicester University Press. 256

Bibliography Giddens, A., 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity.

Study of Childhood in the Past (SSCIP) monograph 3. Oxford: Oxbow Books

Goldberg, P., Nash, D. T. & M. D. Petraglia (eds.), 1993. Formation processes in archaeological context. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistory Press.

Hadley, D. M. & J. D. Richards (eds.), 2000. Cultures in contact: Scandinavian settlement in England in the 9th and 10th centuries. Turnhout: Brepols.

Gore, D., 2016. A review of Viking attacks in western England to the early tenth century: Their motives and responses. In: R. Lavelle & S. Roffey (eds.) Danes in Wessex: The Scandinavian impact on southern England, c. 800–c. 1100. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 56–69.

Hagen, A., 1992. A handbook of Anglo-Saxon food: Processing and consumption. Pinner, England: AngloSaxon Books. Hagen, A., 2006. Anglo-Saxon food and drink: Production, processing, distribution and consumption. Hockwold cum Wilton, Norfolk, England: Anglo-Saxon Books.

Gosden, C. & Y. Marshall, 1999. The cultural biography of objects. World Archaeology 31(2), 169–78.

Hakenbeck, S., 2011. Local, regional and ethnic identities in early medieval cemeteries in Bavaria. Florence: All’insegna del giglio.

Graham-Campbell, J., 1980. Viking artefacts: A select catalogue. London: British Museum Publications. Green, C. S., 1987. Excavations at Poundbury volume I: The settlements. Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society monograph 7. Dorchester: Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society.

Haldenby, D. & J. Kershaw, 2014. Viking-Age lead weights from Cottam. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 86, 106–23. Hall, D., 2014. The open fields of England. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Griffiths, D. (ed.), 2000. Anglo-Saxon studies in archaeology and history 11. Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology.

Hall, R. A., 2011. Burhs and boroughs: Defended places, trade, and towns. Plans, defences, civic features. In: H. Hamerow, D. A. Hinton & S. Crawford (eds.) The Oxford handbook of Anglo-Saxon archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 600–21.

Griffiths, D., Reynolds, A. & S. Semple (eds.), 2003. Boundaries in early medieval Britain. Anglo-Saxon studies in archaeology and history 12. Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology.

Hall, R. A., Rollason, D. W., Blackburn, M., Parsons, D. N., Fellows-Jensen, G., Kenward, H. K., O’Connor, T. P., Tweddle, D. & A. J. Mainman, 2004. Aspects of Anglo-Scandinavian York. York: Council for British Archaeology.

Grünewald, M. & S. Hartmann, 2014. Glass workshops in northern Gaul and the Rhineland in the first millennium AD as hints of a changing land use– including some results of the chemical analyses from Mayen. In: D. Keller, J. Price & C. Jackson (eds.) Neighbours and successors of Rome: Traditions of glass production and use in Europe and the Middle East in the later 1st millennium AD. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 43–57.

Hall-Torrance, M. & S. D. G. Weaver, 2003. The excavations of a Saxon settlement at Riverdene, Basingstoke, Hampshire, 1995. Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club Archaeological Society 58, 63– 105.

Guido, M., 1999. The glass beads of Anglo-Saxon England c. AD400–700: A preliminary visual classification of the more definitive and diagnostic types. Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London no. 56. Rochester, N.Y.: Boydell Press/Society of Antiquaries of London.

Halsall, G., 2013. Worlds of Arthur: Facts and fictions of the Dark Ages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hamerow, H., 1993. Excavations at Mucking volume 2: The Anglo-Saxon settlement. London: English Heritage. Hamerow, H., 1997. Migration theory and the AngloSaxon ‘identity crises’. In: J. Chapman & H. Hamerow (eds.) Migrations and invasions in archaeological explanation. BAR International Series 664. Oxford: BAR Publishing, 33–44.

Hadley, D. M., 2006. The Vikings in England: Settlement, society and culture. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Hadley, D. M., 2011. Late Saxon burial practice. In: H. Hamerow, D. A. Hinton & S. Crawford (eds.) The Oxford handbook of Anglo-Saxon archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 288–314.

Hamerow, H., 1999. Anglo-Saxon Oxfordshire, 400–700. Oxoniensia 64, 23–38. Hamerow, H., 2006. ‘Special deposits’ in Anglo-Saxon settlements. Medieval Archaeology 50, 1–30.

Hadley, D. M. & C. Dyer (eds.), 2017. The archaeology of the 11th century: Continuities and transformations. Society for Medieval Archaeology monograph 38. London: Routledge.

Hamerow, H., 2011a. Overview: Rural settlement. In: H. Hamerow, D. A. Hinton & S. Crawford (eds.) The Oxford handbook of Anglo-Saxon archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 119–27.

Hadley, D. M. & K. A. Hemer (eds.), 2014. Medieval childhood: Archaeological approaches. Society for the 257

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements Hart, C., 1992. The Danelaw. London: Hambledon Press.

Hamerow, H., 2011b. Anglo-Saxon timber buildings and their social context. In: H. Hamerow, D. A. Hinton & S. Crawford (eds.) The Oxford handbook of AngloSaxon archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 128–55.

Harvey, P. D. A., 1989. Initiative and authority in settlement change. In: M. Aston, D. Austin & C. Dyer (eds.) The rural settlements of medieval England. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 31–43.

Hamerow, H. (ed.), 2011c. Anglo-Saxon studies in archaeology and history 17. Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology.

Haslam, J., 2009. The development of Late-Saxon Christchurch, Dorset, and the Burghal Hidage. Medieval Archaeology 53, 95–118.

Hamerow, H., 2012. Rural settlements and society in Anglo-Saxon England. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Haslam, J., 2012. Urban-rural connections in Domesday Book and Late Anglo-Saxon royal administration. BAR British Series 571. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Hamerow, H. (ed.), 2013. Anglo-Saxon studies in archaeology and history 18. Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology.

Haslam, J., 2015. The landscape of the Late Saxon burhs and the politics of urban foundation. In: M. Clegg Hyer & G. R. Owen-Crocker (eds.) The material culture of the built environment in the Anglo-Saxon world. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 181–215.

Hamerow, H., 2017. The circulation of garnets in the North Sea zone c. 400–700. In: A. Hilgner, S. Greiff & D. Quast (eds.) Gemstones in the first millennium AD: Mines, trade, workshops and symbolism. International Conference October 20th–22nd, 2015. Mainz: Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, 71–84.

Hey, G., 2004. Yarnton: Saxon and medieval settlement and landscape. Results of excavations 1990–96. Thames Valley Landscapes monograph 20. Oxford: Oxford Archaeological Unit.

Hamerow, H. & A. MacGregor (eds.), 2001. Image and power in the archaeology of early medieval Britain: Essays in honour of Rosemary Cramp. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Higham, N. J., 1992. Rome, Britain and the Anglo-Saxons. London: Seaby. Higham, N. & M. J. Ryan (eds.), 2010. The landscape archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England. Woodbridge: Boydell Press.

Hamerow, H., Hollevoet, Y. & A. Vince, 1994. Migration period settlements and ‘Anglo-Saxon’ pottery from Flanders. Medieval Archaeology 38, 11–8.

Hilgner, A., Greiff, S. & D. Quast (eds.), 2017. Gemstones in the first millennium AD: Mines, trade, workshops and symbolism. International Conference October 20th– 22nd, 2015. Mainz: Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums.

Hamerow, H., Hayden, C. & G. Hey, 2007. Anglo-Saxon and earlier settlement near Drayton Road, Sutton Courtenay, Berkshire. Archaeological Journal 164, 109–96. Hamerow, H., Hinton, D. A. & S. Crawford (eds.), 2011. The Oxford handbook of Anglo-Saxon archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hill, D. & D. M. Metcalf (eds.), 1984. Sceattas in England and on the Continent: The seventh Oxford Symposium on coinage and monetary history. BAR British Series 128. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Hansen, I. L. & C. Wickham (eds.), 2000. The long eighth century: Production, distribution and demand. Leiden: Brill.

Hill, J. M., 1995. The cultural world in Beowulf. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Hårdt, B. & L. Larsson (eds.), 2002. Central places in the migration and Merovingian periods: Papers from the 52nd Sachsensymposium, Lund. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.

Hills, C., 2003. Origins of the English. London: Duckworth. Hills, C. & S. Lucy, 2013. Spong Hill, part IX: Chronology and synthesis. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

Hardy, A., Dodd, A. & G. Keevill, 2003. Ælfric’s abbey: Excavations at Eynsham Abbey, Oxfordshire, 1989– 1992. Oxford: Oxford Archaeological Unit.

Hines, J., 1984. The Scandinavian character of Anglian England in the pre-Viking period. BAR British Series 124. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Härke, H., 1990. “Warrior graves”? The background of the Anglo-Saxon weapon burial rite. Past & Present 1:126, 22–43. Härke, H., 2011. Anglo-Saxon immigration ethnogenesis. Medieval Archaeology 55, 1–28.

Hines, J., 1993. Clasps hektespenner agraffen: AngloScandinavian clasps of Classes A–C of the 3rd and 6th centuries AD: Typology, diffusion and function. Stockholm: Kungl. vitterhets historie och antikvitets akademien.

and

Harrington, S. & M. Welch, 2014. The Early Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of southern Britain AD450–650: Beneath the Tribal Hidage. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Hines, J., 1997a. A new corpus of Anglo-Saxon great square-headed brooches. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. 258

Bibliography Hines, J. (ed.), 1997b. The Anglo-Saxons from the migration period to the eighth century: An ethnographic perspective. Woodbridge: Boydell Press.

Hooke, D. (ed.), 1988. Anglo-Saxon settlements. Oxford: Blackwell. Hooke, D., 1998. The landscape of Anglo-Saxon England. London; Washington: Leicester University Press.

Hines, J., Scull, C. & A. Bayliss, 2013. The results and their implications. In: A. Bayliss, J., Hines, K. Høilund Nielsen, G. McCormac & C. Scull Anglo-Saxon graves and grave goods of the 6th and 7th centuries AD: A chronological framework. London: The Society for Medieval Archaeology, 517–71.

Hope-Taylor, B., 1977. Yeavering: An Anglo-British centre of early Northumbria. Swindon: English Heritage. Hübener, W., 1972. Gleicharmige bügelfibeln der Merowingerzeit in Westeuropa. Madrider Mitteilungen 13, 211–69.

Hinton, D. A., 1996. Southampton finds volume 2: The gold, silver and other non-ferrous alloy objects from Hamwic, and the non-ferrous metalworking evidence. Stroud: Alan Sutton in association with Southampton City Council.

Huggett, J. W., 1988. Imported grave goods and the Early Anglo-Saxon economy. Medieval Archaeology 32, 63–96. Insley, C. & G. R. Owen-Crocker (eds.), 2017. Transformation in Anglo-Saxon culture: Toller lectures on art, archaeology and text. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Hinton, D. A., 1999. The fifth and sixth centuries: Reorganisation among the ruins. In: C. E. Karkov (ed.) The archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England: Basic readings. New York: Garland Publishing Inc., 53–78.

James, S., Marshall, A. & M. Millet, 1984. An early medieval building tradition. Archaeological Journal 141, 182–215.

Hinton, D. A., 2005. Gold and gilt, pots and pins: Possessions and people in medieval Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jesch, J., 2011. The Norse gods in England and the Isle of Man. In: D. Anlezark (ed.) Myths, legends and heroes: Essays on Old Norse and Old English Literature in honour of John McKinnell. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 11–24.

Hirth, K., 1998. The distributional approach: A new way to identify marketplace exchange in the archaeological record. Current Anthropology 39/4, 451–76. Hodder, I., 1989a. Post-modernism, post-structuralism and post-processual archaeology. In: I. Hodder (ed.) The meaning of things: Material culture and symbolic expression. London: Unwin Hyman, 64–78.

Johnson, M., 2010 (2nd ed.). Archaeological theory: An introduction. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Jones, A. & B. Alberti, 2013. Archaeology after interpretation. In: B. Alberti, A. Meirion Jones & J. Pollard (eds.) Archaeology after interpretation: Returning materials to archaeological theory. Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press Inc., 15–35.

Hodder, I. (ed.), 1989b. The meaning of things: Material culture and symbolic expression. London: Unwin Hyman. Hodder, I., 1992. Theory and practice in archaeology. London: Routledge.

Jones, R. & M. Page, 2006. Medieval villages in an English landscape: Beginnings and ends. Cheshire: Windgather Press.

Hodges, R., 1989a. The Anglo-Saxon achievement: Archaeology and the beginnings of English society. London: Duckworth.

Karkov, C. E. (ed.), 1999. The archaeology of AngloSaxon England: Basic readings. New York: Garland Publishing Inc.

(2nd

Hodges, R., 1989b ed.). Dark Age economics: The origins of towns and trade AD600–1000. London: Duckworth.

Karkov, C. E., 2011. The art of Anglo-Saxon England. Woodbridge: Boydell Press.

Hodges, R., 2000. Towns and trade in the age of Charlemagne. London: Duckworth.

Keevil, G. D., 1992. An Anglo-Saxon site at Audlett Drive, Abingdon, Oxfordshire. Oxoniensia 57, 55–79.

Hodges, R., 2013. Dark Age economics: A new audit. London: Bloomsbury Academic, an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

Keller, D., Price, J. & C. Jackson (eds.), 2014. Neighbours and successors of Rome: Traditions of glass production and use in Europe and the Middle East in the later 1st millennium AD. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Høilund Nielsen, K., 1999. Style II and the AngloSaxon elite. In: T. M. Dickinson & D. Griffiths (eds.) The making of kingdoms: Papers from the 47th Sachsensymposium, York, September 1996. AngloSaxon studies in archaeology and history 10. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, 185– 202.

Kenyon, D. & M. Collard, 2004. Anglo-Saxon and medieval remains at Kent Place, Sherborne Street: Excavations in 2000. Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society 122, 117–26. Kershaw, J., 2013. Viking identities: Scandinavian jewellery in England. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hooke, D. (ed.), 1985. Medieval villages. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology monograph 5. 259

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements Kershaw, J., 2016. Scandinavian-style metalwork from southern England: New light on the ‘First Viking Age’ in Wessex. In: R. Lavelle & S. Roffey (eds.) Danes in Wessex: The Scandinavian impact on southern England, c. 800–c. 1100. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 87–108.

Hamerow & A. MacGregor (eds.) Image and power in the archaeology of early medieval Britain: Essays in honour of Rosemary Cramp. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 78–130. Loveluck, C., 2007. Rural settlement, lifestyles and social change in the later first millennium AD: AngloSaxon Flixborough in its wider context. Excavations at Flixborough Volume 4. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Knox, A., 2017. Middle Anglo-Saxon dress accessories in life and death: Expressions of a world view. In: T. F. Martin & R. Weetch (eds.) Dress and society: Contributions from archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 114–29.

Loveluck, C., 2012. Central-places, exchange and maritimeoriented identity around the North Sea and western Baltic, AD600–1100. In: S. Gelichi & R. Hodges (eds.) From one sea to another: Trading places in the European and Mediterranean early Middle Ages. Proceedings of the International Conference Comacchio, 27th–29th March 2009. Turnhout: Brepols, 123–165.

Kruse, S. E., 1992. Late Saxon balances and weights from England. Medieval Archaeology 36, 67–95. Lane, T. & E. L. Morris (eds.), 2001. A millennium of saltmaking: Prehistoric and Romano-British salt production in the Fenland. Sleaford: Heritage Trust of Lincolnshire.

Loveluck, C., 2013. Northwest Europe in the early Middle Ages, c. AD600–1150: A comparative archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lavelle, R. & S. Roffey (eds.), 2016. Danes in Wessex: The Scandinavian impact on southern England, c. 800– c. 1100. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Loveluck, C. & D. Tys, 2006. Coastal societies, exchange, and identity along the channel and the North Sea shores of Europe, AD600–1000. Journal of Marine Archaeology 1, 140–69.

Leahy, K., 2003. Anglo-Saxon crafts. Stroud: Tempus. Leahy, K. & M. Lewis, 2015. Domestic dwellings, workshops and working buildings. In: M. Clegg Hyer & G. R. Owen-Crocker (eds.) The material culture of the built environment in the Anglo-Saxon world. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 51–75.

Lowry, S., 2003. Ritual and politics: Power negotiations at Anglo-Saxon feasts. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of North Carolina. Lucas, G., 2012. Understanding the archaeological record. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Leeds, E. T., 1923. A Saxon village near Sutton Courtenay, Berkshire. Archaeologia 73, 147–92.

Lucy, S., 2000. The Anglo-Saxon way of death: Burial rites in early England. Stroud: Sutton Publishing.

Leeds, E. T., 1927. A Saxon village at Sutton Courtenay, Berkshire (second report). Archaeologia 76, 59–80.

Lucy, S. & A. Reynolds (eds.), 2002. Burial in early medieval England and Wales. London: The Society for Medieval Archaeology.

Leeds, E. T., 1947. A Saxon village at Sutton Courtenay, Berkshire (third Report). Archaeologia 92, 79–93. Leeds, E. T. & M. Pocock, 1971. A survey of the AngloSaxon cruciform brooches of the florid type. Medieval Archaeology 15, 13–36.

Lucy, S., Tipper, J. & A. Dickens, 2009. The Anglo-Saxon settlement and cemetery at Bloodmoor Hill, Carlton Colville, Suffolk. East Anglian Archaeology 131. Cambridge: Cambridge Archaeological Unit.

Lewis, C., Mitchell-Fox, P. & C. Dyer, 1997. Village, hamlet and field: Changing medieval settlements in central England. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

MacGregor, A., 1975. Barred combs of Frisian type in England. Medieval Archaeology 19, 195–8. MacGregor, A., 1985. Bone, antler, ivory and horn: The technology of skeletal materials since the Roman period. London; Totowa, NJ: Croom Helm/Barnes & Noble Books.

Lewis, M. J., 2007. A new date for ‘Class A, Type 11A’ stirrup-strap mounts, and some observations on their distribution. Medieval Archaeology 51, 178–84. Lewis, M. J., 2016. A detectorist’s utopia? Archaeology and metal-detecting in England and Wales. Open Archaeology 2/1, 127–39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ opar-2016-0009

MacGregor, A., Mainman, A. J. & N. S. H. Rogers, 1999. Craft, industry and everyday life: Bone, antler, ivory and horn from Anglo-Scandinavian and medieval York. The Archaeology of York: The Small Finds 17/12. York: Council for British Archaeology.

Losco-Bradley, S. & G. Kinsley, 2002. Catholme: An Anglo-Saxon settlement on the Trent gravels in Staffordshire. Nottingham: Department of Archaeology, University of Nottingham.

Mackreth, D. F., 1996. Orton Hall Farm: A Roman and Early Anglo-Saxon farmstead. East Anglian Archaeology 76. Manchester: Nene Valley Archaeological Trust.

Loveluck, C., 2001. Wealth, waste and conspicuous consumption: Flixborough and its importance for Middle and Late Saxon rural settlement studies. In: H.

Madella, M., Kovacs, G., Kulcsarne-Berzsenyi, B. & I. Briz i Godino (eds.), 2013. The archaeology of household. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 260

Bibliography Mainman, A. J. & N. S. H. Rogers, 2000. Craft, industry and everyday life: Finds from Anglo-Scandinavian York. The Archaeology of York: The Small Finds 17/14. York: Council for British Archaeology.

Miles, D. (ed.), 1986. Archaeology at Barton Court Farm Abingdon, Oxon: An investigation of the Neolithic, Iron Age, Romano-British, and Saxon settlements. Oxford Archaeological Unit Report 3; CBA Research Report 50. Oxford: Oxford Archaeological Unit & Council for British Archaeology.

Malim, T. & J. Hines, 1998. The Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Edix Hill (Barrington A), Cambridgeshire. CBA Research Report 112. York: Council for British Archaeology.

Millett, M. & S. James, 1983. Excavations at Cowdery’s Down, Basingstoke, Hampshire, 1978–81. Archaeological Journal 140, 151–279.

Malone, S., 2010. A Group of Romano-British lead tanks from Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire. In: S. Malone & M. Williams (eds.) Rumours of Roman finds: Recent work on Roman Lincolnshire. Heckington: Heritage Trust of Lincolnshire, 138–42.

Milton, B., 1987. Excavations at Barrington’s Farm, Orsett Cock, Thurrock, Essex 1983. Essex Archaeology and History 18, 16–33.

Malone, S. & M. Williams (eds.), 2010. Rumours of Roman finds: Recent work on Roman Lincolnshire. Heckington: Heritage Trust of Lincolnshire.

Molyneaux, G., 2015. The formation of the English kingdom in the tenth century. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Moreland, J., 2000. The significance of production in eighth century England. In: I. L. Hansen & C. Wickham (eds.) The long eighth century: Production, distribution and demand. Leiden: Brill, 69–104.

Mann, J. E., 1982. Early medieval finds from Flaxengate I: Objects of antler, bone, stone, horn, ivory, amber and jet. London: Council for British Archaeology. Manning, W. H., 1989. Catalogue of the Romano-British iron tools, fittings and weapons in the British Museum. London: British Museum Publications.

Morris, J. & B. Jervis, 2011. What’s so special? A reinterpretation of Anglo-Saxon ‘special deposits’. Medieval Archaeology 55, 66–81.

Marshall, A. & G. Marshall, 1991. A survey and analysis of the buildings of Early and Middle Anglo-Saxon England. Medieval Archaeology 35, 29–43.

Mortimer, C., 1990. Some aspects of the early medieval copper-alloy technology, as illustrated by a study of the Anglian cruciform brooch. Unpublished DPhil thesis, University of Oxford.

Marshall, A. & G. Marshall, 1993. Differentiation, change and continuity in Anglo-Saxon buildings. Archaeological Journal 150, 366–402.

Mortimer, C., 1999. Technical analysis of the cruciform brooch. In: U. Von Freeden, U. Koch & A. Wieczorek (eds.) Völker an Nord-und Ostee und die Franken. Bonn: Habelt, 83–9.

Martin, T. F., 2014. (Ad)Dressing the Anglo-Saxon body: Corporeal meanings and artefacts in early England. In: P. Blinkhorn & C. Cumberpatch (eds.) The chiming of crack’d bells: Recent approaches to the study of artefacts in archaeology. BAR International Series 2677. Oxford: BAR Publishing, 27–37.

Mortimer, P., 2011. Woden’s warriors: Warfare, beliefs, arms and armour in northern Europe during the 6th and 7th centuries. Swaffham: Anglo-Saxon Books. Mortimer, R., 2000. Village development and ceramic sequence: The Middle and Late Saxon village at Lordship Lane, Cottenham, Cambridgeshire. Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society 89, 5–33.

Martin, T. F. & R. Weetch (eds.), 2017. Dress and society: Contributions from archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Marzinzik, S., 2003. Early Anglo-Saxon belt buckles (late 5th to early 8th centuries AD): Their classification and context. BAR British Series 357. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Mortimer, R., Regan, R. & S. Lucy, 2005. The Saxon and medieval settlement at West Fen Road, Ely: The Ashwell site. East Anglian Archaeology 10. Cambridge: Cambridge Archaeological Unit.

McCormick, M., 2002. Origins of the European economy: Communications and commerce AD300–900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mudd, A., 2002. Excavations at Melford Meadows, Brettenham, 1994: Romano-British and Early Saxon occupations. East Anglian Archaeology 99. Oxford: Oxford Archaeological Unit.

Meaney, A. L., 1981. Anglo-Saxon amulets and curing stones. BAR British Series 96. Oxford: BAR Publishing. Meaney, A. L., 1998. Girdle groups: Reconstruction and comparative study. In: T. Malim & J. Hines The Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Edix Hill (Barrington A), Cambridgeshire. CBA Research Report 112. York: Council for British Archaeology, 268–75.

Mudd, A. & M. Webster, 2011. Iron Age and Middle Saxon settlements at West Fen Road, Ely, Cambridgeshire: The Consortium site. BAR British Series 538. Oxford: BAR Publishing & Northamptonshire Archaeology.

Meaney, A. L. & S. Chadwick Hawkes, 1970. Two AngloSaxon cemeteries at Winnall, Winchester, Hampshire. Monograph 4. London: Society for Medieval Archaeology.

Myres, J. N. L., 1977. A corpus of Anglo-Saxon pottery of the Pagan Period. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 261

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements topography: Essays in memory of David Hill. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 19–25.

Naylor, J., 2004. Access to international trade in Middle Saxon England: A case of urban over-emphasis? In: M. Pasquinucci & T. Weski (eds.) Close encounters: Sea- and riverborne trade, ports and hinterlands, ship construction and navigation in antiquity, the Middle Ages and modern times. BAR International Series 1283. Oxford: BAR Publishing, 139–48.

Partridge, C., 1989. Foxholes Farm: A multi-period gravel site. Hertford: Hertfordshire Archaeological Trust. Pasquinucci, M. & T. Weski (eds.), 2004. Close encounters: Sea- and riverborne trade, ports and hinterlands, ship construction and navigation in antiquity, the Middle Ages and modern times. BAR International Series 1283. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Naylor, J., 2012. Coinage, trade and the origins of the English emporia, c. AD 650-750. In: S. Gelichi & R. Hodges (eds.) From one sea to another: Trading places in the European and Mediterranean early Middle Ages. Proceedings of the International Conference Comacchio, 27th–29th March 2009. Turnhout: Brepols, 237–66.

Patrick, C. & S. Rátkai, 2011. Hillside Meadow, Fordham. In: R. Cuttler, H. Martin-Bacon, K. Nichol, C. Patrick, R. Perrin, S. Rátkai, M. Smith & J. Williams Five sites in Cambridgeshire: Excavations at Woodhurst, Fordham, Soham, Buckden and St Neots, 1998–2002. BAR British Series 528. Oxford: BAR Publishing, 41–122.

Nicolay, J. A. W., 2014. The splendour of power: Early medieval kingship and the use of gold and silver in the southern North Sea area (5th to 7th century AD). Eelde: Barkhuis Publishing; Groningen: University of Groningen Library.

Paynter, S., Jennings, S. & J. Price, 2014. Glassworking at Whitby Abbey and Kirkdale Minster in North Yorkshire. In: D. Keller, J. Price & C. Jackson (eds.) Neighbours and successors of Rome: Traditions of glass production and use in Europe and the Middle East in the later 1st millennium AD. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 32–42.

Norr, S. (ed.), 2008. Valsgärde studies: The place and its people, past and present. Uppsala: Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University. O’Brien, C. & R. Miket, 1991. The early medieval settlement of Thirlings, Northumberland. Durham Archaeological Journal 7, 57–91.

Peake, J. R. N. & I. C. Freestone, 2014. Opaque yellow glass production in the early medieval period: New evidence. In: D. Keller, J. Price & C. Jackson (eds.) Neighbours and successors of Rome: Traditions of glass production and use in Europe and the Middle East in the later 1st millennium AD. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 15–21.

Orton, C., 1993. How many pots make five?– an historical review of pottery quantification. Archaeometry 35 (2), 169–84. Orton, C., 2000. Sampling in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Perring, D., 2002. Town and country in England: Frameworks for archaeological research. York: Council for British Archaeology.

Orton, C. & M. Hughes, 2013 (2nd ed.). Pottery in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Owen-Crocker, G. R., 2004 (rev. ed.). Dress in AngloSaxon England. Woodbridge: Boydell Press.

Perry, G., 2014. All form one and one form all: The relationship between the pre-burial function and the form of Early Anglo-Saxon cremation urns. In: P. Blinkhorn & C. Cumberpatch (eds.) The chiming of crack’d bells: Recent approaches to the study of artefacts in archaeology. BAR International Series 2677. Oxford: BAR Publishing, 39–64.

Owen-Crocker, G. R. & S. D. Thompson (eds.), 2014. Towns and topography: Essays in memory of David Hill. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Palmer, B., 2003. The hinterlands of three southern English emporia: Some common themes. In: T. Pestell & K. Ulmschnieder (eds.) Markets in early medieval Europe: Trading and ‘productive’ sites, 650–850. Macclesfield: Windgather Press, 48–60.

Pestell, T., 2011. Markets, emporia, wics, and ‘productive’ sites: Pre-Viking trade centres in Anglo-Saxon England. In: H. Hamerow, D. A. Hinton & S. Crawford (eds.) The Oxford handbook of Anglo-Saxon archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 556–79.

Parfitt, K. & T. Andersen (eds.), 2012. Buckland AngloSaxon cemetery, Dover: Excavations 1994. Canterbury: Canterbury Archaeological Trust.

Pestell, T. & K. Ulmschnieder (eds.), 2003. Markets in early medieval Europe: Trading and ‘productive’ sites, 650–850. Macclesfield: Windgather Press.

Parkhouse, J., 1997. The distribution and exchange of Mayen lava quernstones in early medieval northwestern Europe. In: G. DeBoe & F. Verhaeghe (eds.) Exchange and trade in medieval Europe: Papers of the Medieval Europe Brugge Conference. Vol. 3, IAP rapporten 3, Zellik, 97–106.

Petersen, J., 1919. De norske vikingesværd. Det Norske Videnskapsakademi i Kristiania Skrifter II hist-fil 1. Kristiania: Dybwad. Petersen, J., 1940. British antiquities of the Viking period found in Norway. In: H. Shetelig (ed.) Viking antiquities in Great Britain and Ireland 5. Oslo: Aschehoug.

Parkhouse, J., 2014. Putting lava on the map. In: G. R. Owen-Crocker & S. D. Thompson (eds.) Towns and 262

Bibliography Phillips, M., 2005. Excavation of an Early Saxon settlement at Pitstone. Records of Buckinghamshire 45, 1–32.

Reynolds, A., 2011. Debating scale and scale change in the English landscape: Four case studies from the Late Roman period into the Middle Ages. In: J. Escalona & A. Reynolds (eds.) Scale and scale change in the early Middle Ages: Exploring landscape, local society and the world beyond. Turnhout: Brepols, 61–86.

Pierce, C., 2013. Jet cross pendants from the British Isles and beyond: Forms, distribution and use. Medieval Archaeology 57, 198–211. Pine, J., 2001. The excavation of the Saxon settlement at Cadley Road, Collingbourne Ducis, Wiltshire. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 94, 88– 117.

Reynolds, A., 2019. Spatial configurations of power in Anglo-Saxon England: Sidelights on the relationships between boroughs, royal vills and hundreds. In: J. Carroll, A. Reynolds & B. Yorke (eds.) Power and place in Europe in the first millennium AD. Oxford University Press for the British Academy (in press).

Pluciennik, M., 2011. Theory, fashion, culture. In: J. Bintliff & M. Pearce (eds.) The death of archaeological theory? Oxford: Oxbow Books, 31–47.

Richards, J. D., 1999a. Cottam: An Anglian and AngloScandinavian settlement on the Yorkshire Wolds. Archaeological Journal 156, 1–110.

Pollington, S., Kerr, L. & B. Hammond, 2010. Wayland’s work: Anglo-Saxon art, myth and material culture from the 4th to 7th century. Swaffham: Anglo-Saxon Books.

Richards, J. D., 1999b. What’s so special about ‘productive sites’? Middle Saxon settlements in Northumbria. In: T. M. Dickinson & D. Griffiths (eds.) The making of kingdoms: Papers from the 47th Sachsen symposium, York, September 1996. Anglo-Saxon studies in archaeology and history 10. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, 71–80.

Powlesland, D., 1997. Early Anglo-Saxon settlements, structures, form and layout. In: J. Hines (ed.) The Anglo-Saxons from the migration period to the eighth century: An ethnographic perspective. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 101–24. Powlesland, D. (ed.), 1998. The West Heslerton assessment. Internet Archaeology 5. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.11141/ia.5.4

Richards, J. D., Naylor, J. & C. Holas-Clark, 2009. Anglo-Saxon landscape and economy: Using portable antiquities to study Anglo-Saxon and Viking Age England. Internet Archaeology 25. DOI: https://doi. org/10.11141/ia.25.2

Price, J. (ed.), 2000. Glass in Britain and Ireland AD350– 1100. British Museum Occasional Paper 127. London: British Museum.

Rickett, R., 1995. Spong Hill, part VII: The Iron Age, Roman and Early Saxon settlement. East Anglian Archaeology 73. Field Archaeology Divisions: Norfolk Museums Service.

Radford, C. A. R., 1957. The Saxon house: A review and some parallels. Medieval Archaeology 1, 27–38. Rahtz, P., 1976. Buildings and rural settlements. In: D. M. Wilson (ed.) The archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 50–98.

Riddler, I. (ed.), 2003. Materials of manufacture: The choice of materials in the working of bone and antler in northern and central Europe during the first millennium AD. BAR International Series 1193. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Rahtz, P., 1979. The Saxon and medieval palaces at Cheddar: Excavations 1960–62. BAR British Series 65. Oxford: BAR Publishing. Redknap, M., Edwards, N., Youngs, S., Lane, A. & J. Knight (eds.), 2001. Pattern and purpose in insular art: Proceedings of the fourth International Conference on Insular Art held at the National Museum and Gallery, Cardiff 3–6 September 1998. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Rigold, S. E., 1960 (reprinted 1966). North Elmham Saxon cathedral. London: HMSO.

Rees, S. E., 1979. Agricultural implements in prehistoric and Roman Britain. BAR British Series 69. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Rippon, S., 2008. Beyond the medieval village: The diversification of landscape character in southern Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Reuter, T. (ed.), 2003. Alfred the Great: Papers from the eleventh-centenary conferences. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Rippon, S., 2010. Landscape change during the ‘long eighth century’ in southern England. In: N. Higham & M. J. Ryan (eds.) The landscape archaeology of AngloSaxon England. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 39–64.

Riley, D., 2014. Anglo-Saxon tools. Ely, Cambridgeshire: Anglo-Saxon Books.

Reynolds, A., 1999. Later Anglo-Saxon England: Life and landscape. Stroud: Tempus.

Rippon, S., 2012. Making sense of an historic landscape. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Reynolds, A., 2003. Boundaries and settlements in later 6th to 11th century England. In: D. Griffiths, A. Reynolds & S. Semple (eds.) Boundaries in early medieval Britain. Anglo-Saxon studies in archaeology and history 12. Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology, 97–139.

Rippon, S., Wainwright, A. & C. Smart, 2014. Farming regions in medieval England: The archaeobotanical and zooarchaeological evidence. Medieval Archaeology 58, 195–255. 263

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements Roberts, B. K. & S. Wrathmell, 2000. An atlas of rural settlement in England. London: English Heritage.

The Oxford handbook of Anglo-Saxon archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 848–64.

Roberts, B. K. & S. Wrathmell, 2002. Region and place: A study of English rural settlement. London: English Heritage.

Semple, S. & H. Williams (eds.), 2007. Early medieval mortuary practices. Anglo-Saxon studies in archaeology and history 14. Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology.

Rogerson, A., 1995. A Late Neolithic, Saxon and medieval site at Middle Harling, Norfolk. East Anglian Archaeology 74. London: British Museum; Norfolk: Field Archaeology Division, Norfolk Museums Service.

Shanks, M. & C. Tilley, 1987. Social theory and archaeology. Cambridge: Polity. Shanks, M. & C. Tilley, 1992 (2nd ed.). Re-constructing archaeology: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ross, S., 1991. Dress pins from Anglo-Saxon England: Their production and typo-chronological development. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Oxford. Rowland, J., 1990. OE Ealuscerwen/Meoduscerwen and the concept of ‘paying for mead’. Leeds Studies in English 21, 1–12.

Shennan, S., 1989a. Introduction: Archaeological approaches to cultural identity. In: S. Shennan (ed.) Archaeological approaches to cultural identity. London: Unwin Hyman, 1–32.

Rowley, T. (ed.), 1981. The origins of open field agriculture. London: Croom Helm.

Shennan, S. (ed.), 1989b. Archaeological approaches to cultural identity. London: Unwin Hyman.

Rowley, T., 1994 (rev. ed.). Villages in the landscape. London: Orion Books Ltd.

Shetelig, H. (ed.), 1940. Viking antiquities in Great Britain and Ireland 5. Oslo: Aschehoug.

Saunders, T., 2000. Class, space and ‘feudal’ identities in early medieval England. In: W. O. Frazer & A. Tyrrell (eds.) Social identity in early medieval Britain. London: Leicester University Press, 209–232.

Slaughter, C., 1984. Social evolution: Some sociological aspects. In: J. Bintliff (ed.) European social evolution: Archaeological perspectives. Bradford: University of Bradford, 41–68.

Sawyer, P. H., 1969. The two Viking Ages of Britain: A discussion. Mediaeval Scandinavia 2, 163–207.

Slowikowski, A. M., 1991. A previously unrecognised sherd of Tating-type ware from excavations in Bedford in 1976. Bedfordshire Archaeology 19, 130.

Sawyer, P. H., 2013. The wealth of Anglo-Saxon England. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sofield, C. M., 2012. Placed deposits in Early and Middle Anglo-Saxon rural settlements. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Oxford.

Schiffer, M. B., 1983. Toward the identification of formation processes. American Antiquity 48, 675–706.

Squires, K. E., 2014. Through the flames of the pyre: The continuing search for Anglo-Saxon infants. In: D. M. Hadley & K. A. Hemer (eds.) Medieval childhood: Archaeological approaches. Society for the Study of Childhood in the Past (SSCIP) monograph 3. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 114–30.

Schiffer, M. B., 1987. Formation processes of the archaeological record. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Schoenfelder, M. & J. D. Richards, 2011. Norse bells: A Scandinavian colonial artefact. In: H. Hamerow (ed.) Anglo-Saxon studies in archaeology and history 17. Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology, 151–68.

Steadman, S., 2015. Archaeology of domestic architecture and the human use of space. London: Routledge. Steedman, K., 1994. Excavation of a Saxon site at Riby Cross Roads, Lincolnshire. Archaeological Journal 151, 212–306.

Scull, C., 1993. Archaeology, Early Anglo-Saxon society and the origins of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. In: W. Filmer-Sankey (ed.) Anglo-Saxon studies in archaeology and history 6. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, 65–82.

Stevenson, R. B. K., 1956. Pins and the chronology of brochs. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 21, 282–94.

Scull, C., 1995. Approaches to material culture and social dynamics of the migration period in eastern England. In: J. Bintliff & H. Hamerow (eds.) Europe between late antiquity and the Middle Ages: Recent archaeological and historical research in western and southern Europe. BAR International Series 617. Oxford: BAR Publishing, 71–83.

Sundkvist, A., 2004. Herding horses: A model of prehistoric horsemanship in Scandinavia– and elsewhere? Proceedings of the Conference at the Swedish Institute in Rome, September 2002. Swanton, M. J., 1973. The spearheads of the Anglo-Saxon settlements. London: Royal Archaeological Institute.

Scull, C., 2011. Social transactions, gift exchange, and power in the archaeology of the fifth to seventh centuries. In: H. Hamerow, D. A. Hinton & S. Crawford (eds.)

Taylor, G., 2003. An Early to Middle Saxon settlement at Quarrington, Lincolnshire. The Antiquaries Journal 83, 231–80. 264

Bibliography Underwood, R., 1999. Anglo-Saxon weapons and warfare. Stroud: Tempus.

ten Harkel, L., 2013. Urban identity and material culture: A case study of Viking-Age Lincoln, c. AD850–1000. In: H. Hamerow (ed.) Anglo-Saxon studies in archaeology and history 18. Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology, 157–73.

Ulmschneider, K., 2000a. Settlement, economy, and the ‘productive site’: Middle Anglo-Saxon Lincolnshire AD650–780. Medieval Archaeology 44, 53–79.

Tester, A., Anderson, S., Riddler, I. & R. Carr, 2014. Staunch Meadow, Brandon, Suffolk: A high status Middle Saxon settlement on the fen edge. East Anglian Archaeology 151. Bury St Edmonds: Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service.

Ulmschneider, K., 2000b. Markets, minsters, and metaldetectors: Middle Saxon Lincolnshire and Hampshire. BAR British Series 307. Oxford: BAR Publishing. Ulmschneider, K., 2002. Central places and metal-detector finds: What are the English ‘productive sites’? In: B. Hårdt & L. Larsson (eds.) Central places in the Migration and Merovingian periods: Papers from the 52nd Sachsensymposium, Lund. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 333–9.

Thirsk, J., 1964. The common fields. Past and present 29, 3–29. Thomas, G., 2000. A survey of Late Anglo-Saxon and Viking-Age strap-ends from Britain. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of London.

Ulmschneider, K., 2011. Settlement hierarchy. In: H. Hamerow, D. A. Hinton & S. Crawford (eds.) The Oxford handbook of Anglo-Saxon archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 156–71.

Thomas, G., 2001. Strap-ends and the identification of regional patterns in the production and circulation of ornamental metalwork in Late Anglo-Saxon and Viking Britain. In: M. Redknap, N. Edwards, S. Youngs, A. Lane & J. Knight (eds.) Pattern and purpose in insular art: Proceedings of the fourth International Conference on Insular Art held at the National Museum and Gallery, Cardiff 3–6 September 1998. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 39–48.

Ulmschnieder, K. & T. Pestell, 2003. Introduction: Early medieval markets and ‘productive’ sites. In: T. Pestell & K. Ulmschnieder (eds.) Markets in early medieval Europe: Trading and ‘productive’ sites, 650–850. Macclesfield: Windgather Press, 1–10.

Thomas, G., 2010. The later Anglo-Saxon settlement at Bishopstone: A downland manor in the making. CBA Research Report 163. York: Council for British Archaeology.

Underwood, R., 1998. Anglo-Saxon weapons and warfare. Stroud: Tempus. Unwin, T., 1988. Towards a model of Anglo-Scandinavian rural settlement in England. In: D. Hooke (ed.) AngloSaxon settlements. Oxford; New York: Basil Blackwell, 77–98.

Thomas, G. & A. Knox (eds.), 2017. Early medieval monasticism in the North Sea zone: Proceedings of a conference held to celebrate the conclusion of the Lyminge excavations 2008–15. Anglo-Saxon studies in archaeology and history 20.

Urban, P. & E. Schortman, 2012. Archaeological theory in practice. California: Left Coast Press.

Thomas, G. & P. Ottaway, 2008. The symbolic lives of Late Anglo-Saxon settlements: A cellared structure and iron hoard from Bishopstone, East Sussex. Archaeological Journal, 165, 334–98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00 665983.2008.11020749

Van der Veen, M., 2007. Formation processes of desiccated and carbonised plant remains– the identification of routine practice. Journal of Archaeological Science 34, 968–90. Vince, A. G., 1990. Saxon London: An archaeological investigation. London: Seaby.

Thomas, M. G., Stumpf, M. P. & H. Härke, 2006. Evidence of an apartheid-like social structure in Early Anglo-Saxon England. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B Biological Sciences 273(1601), 2651–7.

Vince, A. G., 1991. Aspects of Saxo-Norman London II: Finds and environmental evidence. London: London & Middlesex Archaeological Society.

Tipper, J., 2004. The grubenhaus in Anglo-Saxon England: An analysis and interpretation of the evidence from a most distinctive building type. Yedingham, North Yorkshire: Landscape Research Centre.

Vince, A., 2003. West Midlands post-Roman research agenda: Ceramics. Birmingham: West Midlands Regional Research Framework, 1–19. www. birmingham.ac.uk/documents/college-artslaw/caha/ wmrrfa/4/alanvince.doc

Toller, H. S., 1980. An interim report on the excavation of the Orsett ‘Cock’ Enclosure, Essex: 1976 –79. Britannia 11, 35–42.

Von Freeden, U., Koch, U. & A. Wieczorek (eds.), 1999. Völker an Nord-und Ostee und die Franken. Bonn: Habelt.

Trigger, B. G., 2006 (2nd ed.). A history of archaeological thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Walton Rogers, P., 2007. Cloth and clothing in Early Anglo-Saxon England, AD450–700. York: Council for British Archaeology.

Tyler, S. & H. Major, 2005. The Early Anglo-Saxon cemetery and later Saxon settlement at Springfield Lyons, Essex. East Anglian Archaeology 111. Chelmsford: Essex County Council.

Waterman, D. M., 1959. Late Saxon, Viking and early medieval finds from York. Archaeologia 97, 59–105. 265

Pattern and Process in the Material Culture of Anglo-Saxon Non-elite Rural Settlements Webster, L. & J. Backhouse (eds.), 1991. The making of England: Anglo-Saxon art and culture AD600–900. London: British Museum Press.

Williams, H., 2007. Introduction: Themes in the archaeology of early medieval death and burial. In: S. Semple & H. Williams (eds.) Early medieval mortuary practices. Anglo-Saxon studies in archaeology and history 14. Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology, 1–11.

West, S., 1985a. West Stow: The Anglo-Saxon village. Volume 1: Text. East Anglian Archaeology 24. Ipswich: Suffolk County Council Planning Department.

Williams, J. H., 1979. St Peter’s Street, Northampton: Excavations, 1973–1976. Northampton: Northampton Development Corporation.

West, S., 1985b. West Stow: The Anglo-Saxon village. Volume 2: Figures and plates. East Anglian Archaeology 24. Ipswich: Suffolk County Council Planning Department.

Williams, P. & R. Newman, 2006. Market Lavington, Wiltshire, an Anglo-Saxon cemetery and settlement: Excavations at Grove Farm, 1986–90. Wessex Archaeology report 19. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology Ltd.

West, S., 1998. A corpus of Anglo-Saxon material from Suffolk. East Anglian Archaeology 84. Ipswich: Suffolk County Council Planning Department. White, R., 1988. Roman and Celtic objects from AngloSaxon graves: A catalogue and an interpretation of their use. BAR British Series 191. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Williams, R. J., 1993. Pennyland and Hartigans: Two Iron Age and Saxon sites in Milton Keynes. Buckinghamshire Archaeological Society monograph 4. Aylesbury: Buckinghamshire Archaeological Society.

Wickham, C., 2005. Framing the early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean, 400–800. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Williamson, T., 2003. Shaping medieval landscapes: Settlement, society, environment. Macclesfield: Windgather Press.

Wickham-Crowley, K. M., 1999. Looking forward, looking back: Excavating the field of Anglo-Saxon archaeology. In: C. E. Karkov (ed.) The archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England: Basic readings. New York: Garland Publishing Inc., 1–23.

Williamson, T., 2013. Environment, society and landscape in early medieval England: Time and topography. Anglo-Saxon studies 19. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. Wilson, D. M., 1964. Anglo-Saxon ornamental metalwork, 700–1100, in the British Museum. London: Trustees of the British Museum.

Wiessner, P., 1989. Style and changing relations between the individual and society. In: I. Hodder (ed.) The meaning of things: Material culture and symbolic expression. London: Unwin Hyman, 56–63.

Wilson, D. M. (ed.), 1976. The archaeology of AngloSaxon England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wilk, R. R. & W. Ashmore (eds.), 1988. Household and community in the Mesoamerican past. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Woodward, K., 2003. Understanding identity. London: Arnold.

Williams, D., 1997. Late Saxon stirrup-strap mounts. A classification and catalogue: A contribution to the study of Late Saxon ornamental metalwork. York: Council for British Archaeology.

Wright, D. W., 2015. ‘Middle Saxon’ settlement and society. Oxford: Archaeopress. Wright, J., 2004. Excavation of Early Saxon settlement and Mesolithic activity at Goch Way, near Chalton, Andover. Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club Archaeological Society 59, 116–38.

Williams, G., 2006. The circulation and function of coinage in conversion-period England c. AD580–675. In: B. Cook & G. Williams (eds.), Coinage and history in the North Sea world c. AD500–1250: Essays in honour of Marion Archibald. Leiden: Brill, 145–92.

Yorke, B., 1995. Wessex in the early Middle Ages. London; New York: Leicester University Press.

Williams, G., 2013. Military and non-military functions of the Anglo-Saxon burh, c. 878–978. In: J. Baker, S. Brookes & A. Reynolds (eds.) Landscapes of defence in early medieval Europe. Turnhout: Brepols, 129–63.

Website Portable Antiquities Scheme, https://finds.org.uk/

266