Living with the Past: The Reuse of Prehistoric Monuments in Anglo-Saxon Settlements 9781407310589, 9781407322520

Citation preview

BAR 573 2012 CREWE

Living with the Past: The Reuse of Prehistoric Monuments in Anglo-Saxon Settlements Vicky Crewe

LIVING WITH THE PAST

BAR British Series 573 2012 B A R

Living with the Past: The Reuse of Prehistoric Monuments in Anglo-Saxon Settlements Vicky Crewe

BAR British Series 573 2012

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 573 Living with the Past: The Reuse of Prehistoric Monuments in Anglo-Saxon Settlements © V Crewe and the Publisher 2012 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.

ISBN 9781407310589 paperback ISBN 9781407322520 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407310589 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2012. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research presented in this book derives from a doctoral study undertaken at the University of Sheffield between 2007 and 2010. Thanks are due to my PhD supervisor, Dawn Hadley, for her valuable guidance and support during my PhD and beyond. I also wish to thank my examiners, John Moreland and Sarah Semple, and my advisor, Bob Johnston, for their advice, encouragement and interest. The research could not have been carried out without funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council, to whom I am extremely grateful. I wish to thank all the people at HERs who assisted me during the data collection aspect of this research, especially Stephen Coleman (Central Bedfordshire HER), Sarah Poppy and Sally Thompson (Cambridgeshire HER), Alexandra Thornton (Lincolnshire HER), and Susan Lisk (Oxfordshire HER). I am indebted to numerous individuals at archaeological units who kindly sent unpublished reports and illustrations: Howard Jones (Trent and Peak Archaeological Services), Mike Luke (Albion Archaeology), Dan Stansbie (Oxford Archaeology), Colin Palmer Brown (Pre-Construct Archaeology) and Gavin Speed (ULAS). For allowing me to visit ULAS and photocopy many of his notes on Eye Kettleby I am particularly grateful to Neil Finn. I would like to thank Helena Hamerow and Jenny Walker for kindly providing unpublished material relating to their research, as well as for their interest and encouragement. I also owe thanks to Alaric Hall for his advice regarding Anglo-Saxon literature. I wish to express my gratitude to many people too numerous to mention who, through questions or discussions at conferences, prompted me to think about my work in new and different ways. I’m particularly grateful to Katie Hemer, Toby Martin and Lizzy Craig for discussions of archaeology, academia and an assortment of other subjects during my PhD and beyond. I owe my friends outside archaeology a great deal, especially for their understanding when I dropped off the radar during busy times; in particular, thank you Charlotte, Laura, Rachel and Sally. The unwavering interest and support of my family have always spurred me on; thank you Nicky, Graham, Jamie, Charlie and Xenia. Finally, thank you Gareth, for all you have done.

CONTENTS List of Tables List of Figures List of Colour Plates

i i iii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION RESEARCH FOCUS Study Era Study Region Data Selection Comparative Data Reuse of Romano-British Remains PREHISTORIC MONUMENTS Methods for Determining Visibility Monument Forms Archaeological Attitudes to Monument Visibility in Cemeteries and Settlements ANGLO-SAXON SETTLEMENT STUDIES A Brief Overview Early Medieval Buildings Dating Settlements ORGANISATION OF THE BOOK

1 1 1 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6

CHAPTER TWO: APPROACHES TO ANGLO-SAXON MONUMENT REUSE BURIAL SHRINES AND CHURCHES PLACES OF ASSEMBLY SETTLEMENTS THE REUSE OF ARTEFACTS SUMMARY

14 14 19 21 23 24 26

CHAPTER THREE: THE PAST IN PLACE-NAMES AND LITERATURE GENEALOGIES POETRY AND PROSE LAND CHARTERS PLACE-NAMES AND MONUMENTS DISCUSSION

29 29 30 34 36 38

CHAPTER FOUR: THE CORPUS OF SETTLEMENTS THE SITES REUSED BARROWS REUSED LINEAR FEATURES

41 41 41 51

CHAPTER FIVE: THEMES AND PATTERNS IN THE CORPUS MONUMENT FORMS MONUMENT VISIBILITY INTRUSIVE AND ASSOCIATIVE REUSE SETTLEMENTS WITH FUNERARY REUSE DATES OF SETTLEMENTS SETTLEMENT TYPES AND FUNCTIONS REGIONAL VARIATION TOPOGRAPHY SETTLEMENT WITHOUT REUSE: A COMPARISON REUSE IN OTHER CONTEXTS: A COMPARISON Funerary Sites

108 108 109 111 113 113 113 115 116 117 118 118

7 7 8 10 11

Ecclesiastical Sites Shrine Sites and Weapon Deposits SUMMARY

120 120 121

CHAPTER SIX: ANALYSIS OF CASE STUDY SETTLEMENTS CATEGORIES OF ANALYSIS Settlement Layout Building Sizes Building Replacement Phasing Movement within the Settlement Finds and Burials CASE STUDY 1: BARROW HILLS Settlement Layout Building Sizes Post-Built Structures Sunken-Featured Buildings Building Replacement Phasing Movement within the Settlement Finds and Burials Conclusions CASE STUDY 2: SUTTON COURTENAY Settlement Layout Building Sizes Post-Built Structures Sunken-Featured Buildings Building Replacement Phasing Movement within the Settlement Finds and Burials Conclusions CASE STUDY 3: CATHOLME Settlement Layout Building Sizes Post-Built Structures Sunken-Featured Buildings Building Replacement and Phasing Movement within the Settlement Finds and Burials Conclusions CASE STUDY 4: EYE KETTLEBY Settlement Layout Building Sizes Post-Built Structures Sunken-Featured Buildings Building Replacement Phasing Movement within the Settlement Finds and Burials Conclusions CASE STUDIES: OVERVIEW AND DISCUSSION

134 134 134 134 135 135 135 135 136 137 137 137 138 139 139 141 142 144 145 146 148 148 148 149 149 150 151 151 152 153 154 154 154 155 156 158 158 159 160 162 162 162 162 163 163 164 164 165

CHAPTER SEVEN: CONTEXTUALISING REUSE IN SETTLEMENTS BARROWS AND LINEAR FEATURES: THE IMPACT OF MONUMENT FORM Uses for Linear Features Uses for Barrows Different Uses, Different Beliefs? THE IDEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF MONUMENT REUSE SFBs on Barrows: Mortuary Structures? United in Death: Monuments and SFBs Uses for Buildings in the Anglo-Saxon Funeral Ethnographic Parallels Fertility and Gender Summary Monuments in Christian Ideology: St Guthlac’s Mound Monuments as Ritual Foci THE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF MONUMENT REUSE Elites and Monuments ‘Palace’ Sites High-Status Burial Monument Reuse: An Elite Invention? Social Stratification in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries A Ranked Society? Ethnic Identity and Status Axes of Inequality: The Scale of Status Status in Settlements Relating Monument Reuse to Social Stratification Controlling Monuments: Barrows Controlling Monuments: Linear Features The Significance of the Sixth Century Burials in Settlements Archaeologically Invisible Uses for Earthworks Summary OVERVIEW: INTERWEAVING OF IDEOLOGIES AND SOCIO-POLITICAL STRUCTURES Cosmology and Politics Settlements and Buildings: Ritual, Political, Social CHRONOLOGY: THE DEVELOPMENT OF REUSE Monuments and Changing Meanings The Influence of the Church

196 196 196 197 197 198 198 198 199 200 202 203 203 204 207 207 207 207 208 209 209 210 210 211 212 212 213 214 215 215 217 218 218 218 220 220 220

CHAPTER EIGHT: CONCLUSIONS STUDYING MONUMENT REUSE: SOME METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES WHERE NEXT FOR REUSE STUDIES? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

226 226 227 228

APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D

231 259 273 284

BIBLIOGRAPHY

289

LIST OF TABLES Chapter 4 4.1 Sites in the corpus. Chapter 5 5.1 Monument types reused at settlements in the corpus. 5.2 Effects of medieval to modern plough damage. 5.3 Intrusive reuse of monuments in the corpus. 5.4 Associative reuse. 5.5 Settlements with examples of funerary monument reuse. 5.6 Dates of settlements in the corpus. 5.7 Numbers of excavated early to middle Anglo-Saxon settlements in the study area. 5.8 Numbers of burial sites with monument reuse in the study area. 5.9 Anglo-Saxon ecclesiastical sites associated with prehistoric monuments in the study area. Chapter 6 6.1 Interpretations, sizes and locations of post-built structures at Barrow Hills. 6.2 Sizes of SFBs and their distances from barrows at Barrow Hills. 6.3 Average sizes of SFBs in relation to their positions near monuments at Barrow Hills. 6.4 Dimensions of post-built structures at Sutton Courtenay. 6.5 Dimensions and locations of SFBs at Sutton Courtenay. 6.6 Roman artefacts found in Anglo-Saxon contexts at Sutton Courtenay. 6.7 Dimensions and locations of post-built structures at Catholme. 6.8 Dimensions and locations of SFBs at Catholme. 6.9 Dimensions of post-built structures at Eye Kettleby. 6.10 Dimensions of SFBs at Eye Kettleby. LIST OF FIGURES Chapter 1 1.1 The study area. 1.2 The upstanding barrow on the village green at West Halton (Lincs). 1.3 Forms of prehistoric round barrows. Chapter 2 2.1 A Bronze Age round barrow reused for Anglo-Saxon inhumations at Mill Hill, Deal (Kent). 2.2 A possible example of a Category D pagan shrine site at Dorchester-on-Thames and a possible Category E shrine at Slonk Hill. 2.3 The late eleventh-century chapel at Bampton enclosed by a Bronze Age ring ditch. 2.4 The early medieval settlement at Yeavering. Chapter 4 4.1 Locations of settlements in the corpus. 4.2 Village Farm (Beds). 4.3 Elstow Harrowden (Beds). 4.4 Holme Pierrepont (Notts). 4.5 Harrold (Beds). 4.6 Cassington (Oxon) overview. 4.7 Detailed cropmark plot of the Cassington (Oxon) area. 4.8 West Halton (Lincs). 4.9 Hoe Hills, Dowsby (Lincs). 4.10 Cossington Quarry (Leics). 4.11 Willington (Derbys). i

4.12 High Farm, Halton Holegate (Lincs). 4.13 Biddenham Loop (Beds) overview and sites SL62. 4.14 Church Farm, Bierton (Bucks). 4.15 Salmonby (Lincs). 4.16 Old Parkbury (Herts). 4.17 Nettleton Top (Lincs). 4.18 Hatton Rock (Warwicks). 4.19 Wolverton Turn (Bucks). 4.20 Frieston Road (Lincs). 4.21 Manor Farm, Harston (Cambs) overview. 4.22 Manor Farm, Harston (Cambs) detail. 4.23 West Cotton (Northants). 4.24 Corporation Farm, Abingdon (Oxon). 4.25 New Wintles Farm (Oxon) overview. 4.26 New Wintles Farm (Oxon) detail. 4.27 Gatehampton Farm (Oxon). 4.28 Sutton Courtenay (Oxon). 4.29 Glebe Farm (Notts). 4.30 Addenbrooke’s (Cambs). 4.31 Biddenham Loop (Beds) site SL63. 4.32 Harston Mill, Harston (Cambs). 4.33 Pennyland (Bucks). 4.34 Grange Park, Courteenhall (Northants) overview. 4.35 Grange Park, Courteenhall (Northants) detail. 4.36 Thorpe End, Raunds (Northants). 4.37 Enderby (Leics). 4.38 Knave Hill, Stonton Wyville (Leics). 4.39 Foxholes Farm (Herts). 4.40 Eynsham Abbey (Oxon) overview. 4.41 Eynsham Abbey (Oxon) detail. 4.42 Briar Hill (Northants). 4.43 Fatholme (Staffs). 4.44 Taplow (Bucks) trench detail. 4.45 Taplow (Bucks) overview and building detail. 4.46 Crow Hill, Irthlingborough (Northants). Chapter 5 5.1 Sites with funerary monument reuse in the study area. 5.2 Proportions of monument types reused in burial and settlement contexts. 5.3 Numbers of burial sites exhibiting associative and intrusive forms of monument reuse. 5.4 Diameters of round barrows reused in burial and settlement contexts. 5.5 Prehistoric monuments reused as the locations of churches, pagan shrines and weapon deposits. Chapter 6 6.1 Locations of the case study sites. 6.2 Barrow Hills prehistoric barrow cemetery. 6.3 Detail of ring ditch 801 and surrounding Anglo-Saxon buildings at Barrow Hills. 6.4 Detail of barrow 13 and adjacent buildings at Barrow Hills. 6.5 Halls and ancillary structures at Barrow Hills. 6.6 SFBs of above-average size at Barrow Hills. 6.7 SFBs and post-built structures with evidence for re-cutting or replaced postholes at Barrow Hills. 6.8 Terminus post quem groups at Barrow Hills. 6.9 Animal and human burials at Barrow Hills. 6.10 Plan of the northern part of the Sutton Courtenay site. 6.11 Southern portion of Sutton Courtenay site and detail of the L-shaped cropmark hall complex and barrows. 6.12 Plot of magnetometer survey to the south-east of the cropmark halls at Sutton Courtenay. 6.13 The three ‘rooms’ of ‘house’ X at Sutton Courtenay. 6.14 Detailed view of the buildings situated on ring ditches to the north of Leeds’s excavation area. 6.15 Animal and human burials in the northern portion of the Sutton Courtenay settlement. 6.16 SFBs with above-average areas at Sutton Courtenay. ii

6.17 Post-built structures of above-average size at Catholme. 6.18 SFBs at Catholme, with those of above-average size highlighted. 6.19 Total number of building plots in each zone at Catholme and the number that had been used more than once. 6.20 Detail of Zone VII and T4. 6.21 Human and animal burials at Catholme. 6.22 Categories of post-built structure at Eye Kettleby. 6.23 Dimensions of SFBs at Eye Kettleby. 6.24 Buildings with evidence for replacement or re-cutting at Eye Kettleby. 6.25 Animal and human burials at Eye Kettleby. Chapter 7 7.1 The seventh-century cemetery at Street House (N Yorks). 7.2 The square post-built structure AS40 (overlain by AS41) at Catholme. 7.3 Detail of PBS 17 and PBS 16 at Eye Kettleby. 7.4 Possible early Anglo-Saxon shrine structures at Black Bourton (Oxon). 7.5 Anglo-Saxon ‘palace’ sites. LIST OF COLOUR PLATES Plate 1 Eye Kettleby (Leics). Plate 2 Catholme (Staffs). Plate 3 Barrow Hills (Oxon).

All figures have been re-drawn by the author unless otherwise stated.

iii

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Early Anglo-Saxons belonging to the pagan or conversion periods dug graves into prehistoric mounds for their own dead, but seem to have avoided living near them (Meaney 2003: 231). monuments in Anglo-Saxon society risks overlooking a substantial body of archaeological data from settlements, as well as potentially undermining our understanding of how communities interpreted the physical remains of the past in this period.

Recent decades have witnessed growing archaeological interest in the role that prehistoric monuments played in Anglo-Saxon society. During the last fifteen years the reuse of antecedent landscape features in the fifth- to eleventh-century burial record in England has been particularly intensively researched and widely discussed (e.g. Lucy 2000; Reynolds 1999; 2009; Semple 1998; 2003a; 2008; Williams 1997; 1998; 2006). Meanwhile, similar studies have been undertaken on material from Merovingian Gaul (Effros 2001) and Scandinavia (Thäte 2007). There has been a focus on, in particular, the appropriation of prehistoric barrows. Interpretations of this practice have highlighted the roles that these monuments may have played in the construction of lineages of real or imagined ancestors (Bradley 1987; Shephard 1979), as mnemonic devices that perpetuated a community’s shared myths, or as liminal portals to supernatural worlds (Williams 1997; 1998; 2006). John Blair (1995), meanwhile, has identified possible examples of archaeologically elusive pre-Christian ‘pagan’ shrines constructed around ancient monuments. He has also demonstrated that Christian ecclesiastical sites frequently made use of pre-existing enclosures, barrows and other prehistoric features, such as monoliths (Blair 1992; 2005; see also Semple 2003a). Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that monuments could also form meeting places for early medieval political assemblies (Adkins and Petchey 1984; Meaney 1995; Pantos 2004; Semple 2004).

The objectives of the research presented here, then, are twofold. Firstly, it assesses how widespread the reuse of prehistoric monuments was in early to middle AngloSaxon settlements. In so doing, it examines the types of settlements in which the activity occurred and the types of prehistoric features that were reused. This is achieved through a review of the Anglo-Saxon settlement evidence in a regional study area. In addition to well-known and published sites, this review makes use of data that is less frequently discussed in archaeological discourse, such as partially excavated or unpublished settlements that have not previously attracted a great deal of attention from scholars. The second aim is to assess how, and particularly why, monuments were appropriated in settlements. In order to answer these questions an indepth, site-by-site approach is taken, in which the layout and use of space in a number of case studies are analysed. These case studies allow greater understanding of the ways in which older monuments could be referenced in settlements, how reuse changed over time, and why monuments may have been significant. The extensive studies of monument reuse in burial, religious and assembly contexts have generated a host of different interpretations of the practice and its significance in Anglo-Saxon England. A further aim of this research will be to ask whether reviewing the evidence for monument reuse in settlements supports those previously-postulated explanations. Does it, for example, confirm that monument reuse was linked to status, as researchers such as Shephard (1979) and Bradley (1987) have suggested? Does it support Howard Williams’s (1997; 1998) assertions that monuments were regarded as liminal doorways to other realms, and as the embodiments of society’s cosmologies and origin myths? Or does studying attitudes towards ancient earthworks in settlements reveal other, perhaps more prosaic, perspectives and beliefs?

To date, however, there has been no systematic study of the appropriation of, or attitudes to, prehistoric monuments in settlements of the period. Indeed, the subject has been virtually ignored. There are a few exceptions, but these studies have primarily focused on high-status settlements – such as Richard Bradley’s (1987) reassessment of Yeavering (Northumb) – or they have noted the presence of monuments in settlements without seeking to explain them in any detail (e.g. Reynolds 2003; Semple 2003a). The quote that opens this chapter demonstrates that there has been limited understanding of this phenomenon, since the evidence presented in this study will show that Anglo-Saxon communities did occupy buildings in very close proximity to – and sometimes directly on top of – mounds, as well as other antecedent landscape features, such as hillforts and prehistoric enclosures. What is more, this practice was particularly popular in the ‘pagan and conversion periods’. If, as has been claimed, prehistoric monuments exerted such a powerful influence on so many aspects of Anglo-Saxon life, including funerary rites, political assembly and religious ritual, it seems remiss not to ask what effect such monuments had on people in their domestic lives. Failure to strive for a holistic understanding of the role of prehistoric

RESEARCH FOCUS Study Era The settlements discussed in this study date to the period c.AD 450-850. In this era monument reuse, especially in the often-studied funerary record, was at its zenith. Although research by, amongst others, Sarah Semple (2003a; 2008) and Andrew Reynolds (2009) has demonstrated that ancient landscapes continued to hold 1

specific aim of denouncing the misdeeds of the clergy and laity in his own time (Chadwick Hawkes 1986: 64; Yorke 1993: 45). The dates he gave for events were relative and not absolute, and the same applies to the writing of Bede and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; thus, they cannot be taken as accurate chronological records (Yorke 1999: 26).

significance into the tenth and eleventh centuries, most discussions of the practice have focused on the early and middle Anglo-Saxon periods. This book addresses, therefore, the very real need to develop a comparative record of monument reuse in contemporary settlements, which can be analysed alongside other early to middle Anglo-Saxon contexts of reuse. The fifth to ninth centuries constitute a particularly fruitful period for study because they represent an era of substantial upheaval and transformation, which may afford insights into how changing social and political structures were reflected in monument reuse practices. Indeed, it has been widely argued that changes in reuse practices in the funerary process during this period can be linked to socio-political developments (see Chapter 2).

In sum, then, the transition from ‘Roman Britain’ to ‘Anglo-Saxon England’ was not, it appears, as immediate and destructive as traditional accounts suggest. Late Romano-British society had grown very unstable before the fifth century, and aspects of Roman economy and society – such as industrialised production, urban centres, administrative systems and a professional army – were in decline in the late fourth and early fifth centuries (Arnold 1984: 61; Esmonde Cleary 1993a: 57-9; Hines 1995: 76; Wickham 2005: 47, 307-9). It is now generally accepted that Roman infrastructures and a feeling of Romanitas did not necessarily disappear immediately, but rather eroded gradually over the late fourth and early fifth centuries, when power may have passed into the hands of ‘private’ local aristocracies (Esmonde Cleary 1993a: 61; Hills 1979: 307; Moreland 2000a: 32-3; Pohl 1997: 43; Scull 1993: 70). Nonetheless, some aspects of Roman infrastructure may have survived into the fifth century. Road networks appear to have been preserved, and hence some elements of the transport system may still have been effective in the fifth century (Arnold 1984: 82; Bassett 2000: 109; Gelling 1992: 19). Indeed, Roman roads were influential in the placement of Anglo-Saxon cemeteries in Lincolnshire and Kent, for example, suggesting that they were still used for travelling through the landscape (Brookes 2007; Leahy 1993: 31). Moreover, although many towns seem to have lost their functions and populations in the late fourth and fifth centuries, some continued to be occupied into the fifth century, for instance Verulamium Insula XXVII (modern St Albans; Herts) and the Wroxeter baths basilica (Shrops), and Heybridge (Essex) (Drury and Wickenden 1982; Esmonde Cleary 1993b: 11-2). Similarly, there was continued occupation on some rural sites, including Latimer (Bucks) where timber-framed fifth-century buildings appear to have been built near to a Roman villa (Rahtz 1976b: 424; Wilson and Hurst 1967: 263).

Let us begin by considering the events that heralded the era under study. The circumstances surrounding the decline of Roman Britain in the late fourth and early fifth centuries remain the subject of considerable debate, but imperial control of Britain was finally and officially withdrawn in 410-11 (Barnwell 2003: 1; Esmonde Cleary 1993b: 11; Higham 1999: 32; Wickham 2005: 306-313). The traditional view of the transition from ‘Roman’ to ‘Anglo-Saxon’ in England is one of turmoil, destruction and disease, but this view was strongly influenced by the sixth-century writings of the western British cleric Gildas, as well as the mid eighth-century accounts of Bede, who relied on Gildas as his major source for the events of the early post-Roman period (Barnwell 2003: 5; Esmonde Cleary 1993a: 57; Yorke 1993: 45). The AngloSaxon Chronicle also describes the events of the fifth century, but it too belongs to a much later date, having been completed for circulation around 890-92 (Yorke 1993: 45). These early accounts were typified by wholesale, rapid and violent change, instigated by the migration, purportedly in AD 449, of three groups of Germanic peoples who decimated the native British population. Chapter 15 in Book One of Bede’s History of the English Church and People claims that: The new-comers were from the three most formidable races of Germany, the Saxons, Angles and Jutes ... it was not long before such hordes of these alien peoples vied together to crowd into the island that the natives who had invited them began to live in terror (SherleyPrice 1968: 56).

The nature and extent of the movement of people across the North Sea in the early post-Roman period is still by no means certain (Hamerow 1994; Woolf 2007). While historical and linguistic evidence for settlement by people from north Germany and southern Scandinavia in England in the fifth century is substantial, there is now a wider consensus that migration may have taken place at different times and at a slower speed, with greater mixing of incoming and indigenous groups, than traditional accounts allowed for (Arnold 1984: 61; Barnwell 2003: 5; Esmonde Cleary 1993a: 57-61; Hills 1979; Hines 1995; Moreland 2000a; Pohl 1997: 43; Scull 1993; Wickham 2005: 47, 307-9; Yorke 1993: 45). Thus, although the traditional picture of rapid and wholesale migration in post-Roman England must now be abandoned, events of this period did open up

It has been convincingly demonstrated, however, that these accounts are not reliable records of the events of the fifth century. Anglo-Saxon society in the fifth and sixth centuries was not literate, and thus the events of the fifth century were written about long after they occurred (Wickham 2005: 50; Yorke 1993: 45). For this reason, when they were written down the accounts were based on oral traditions that had been in existence for some time; these would have been vulnerable to unconscious change and deliberate manipulation in the intervening years (Yorke 1993: 45). Furthermore, the writers of these sources were recording historical events for particular purposes. Gildas, for example, was writing with the 2

opportunities for the revision and reinvention of aspects of culture and society among the population, with identities in this period in a state of flux (Lucy 2000: 4). What is clear is that the period witnessed great cultural, political and ideological change, reflected in material culture, settlement evidence, burial rites and language, and influenced by both internal and external factors.

previously unrecognised examples of reuse to be identified. Furthermore, this part of the country generally benefits from well-studied ceramic sequences, such as that developed by the East Midlands Anglo-Saxon Pottery Project (Vince and Young 1992) and Paul Blinkhorn’s (1999; 2009; 2012) reassessment of the dates of Ipswich ware, which assist in the dating and interpretation of sites.

What is more, social, religious and political transformations continued in the following centuries, with the late sixth and seventh centuries witnessing new developments, such as the adoption of Christianity and an increasingly stratified society, which were reflected in the settlement and burial record (Arnold 1988: 130; Hamerow 2002: 97; Scull 1992; 1999; discussed in more detail in Chapter 7). The early to middle Anglo-Saxon period can, therefore, be considered one of fluctuation and experimentation. As such, it has the potential to reveal changing attitudes towards, firstly, prehistoric earthworks and, secondly, concepts of ‘the past’ more generally, in both pre- and post-Conversion contexts and, therefore, pre-literate and literate contexts (as researchers such as Williams (1997; 1998) and Semple (1998; 2003a) have successfully exemplified in the case of funerary monument reuse; see Chapter 2).

Modern county boundaries form the limits of the study area; there is no suggestion, of course, that these boundaries necessarily reflect Anglo-Saxon land divisions, but this approach facilitates the effective identification of multi-period data within countyorganised Historic Environment Records (HERs). This was an important factor in data collection, since it is the study’s aim to utilize often overlooked settlement evidence from unpublished reports. The frequency of Anglo-Saxon settlement sites varies across the study area. Parts of the region have extensive settlement date; this is true, for instance, of Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire. Other areas have more limited settlement evidence, particularly Derbyshire. However, the latter benefits from an extensive contemporary burial record that includes numerous instances of monument reuse, albeit as a result of antiquarian barrow-digging in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Bateman 1861; Marsden 1999), and it therefore provides useful comparative material for the study. The study region does not fall within a single Anglo-Saxon kingdom; rather, during the middle Anglo-Saxon period, parts of the region were incorporated, at various times, into Mercia, Wessex and Lindsey (Bassett 1989; Eagles 1989; Gelling 1989; Hassall 1986; Leahy 1999).

Study Region This book focuses primarily on archaeological data from a defined study area, in order to facilitate the detailed spatial examination of relationships between AngloSaxon settlements and ancient monuments. Its regional focus is central England, defined here to the north by the Humber and to the south by the Thames (Fig. 1.1). Counties to the far west of the country, such as the metropolitan county of the West Midlands, have been necessarily excluded due to the paucity of early medieval settlement remains and the lack of well-understood ceramic phasing (Bassett 2000: 115).1 This study area was selected for number of reasons. Firstly, the area has been the focus of a relatively large amount of archaeological investigation, providing a substantial data set of settlement sites to examine for reuse. A large number of these investigations are unpublished and available only as ‘grey literature’ reports.2 These have been incorporated into the study in order to build a fuller picture of settlement activity in the study area and to prevent the research relying solely on published and wellknown sites. The region is also large enough to facilitate the recognition of similarities and differences between different locales within the area, but small enough to permit in-depth study of the settlement data to allow

Sarah Semple (2009) has raised a methodological concern regarding the sizes of study areas chosen by researchers investigating monument reuse. She has advocated the use of a small-scale, regional approach, which facilitates comprehension of the ways in which monuments were treated in different areas, as well as allowing monument reuse to be seen in its local context. On a similar note, Andrew Reynolds (2003: 99) has warned against trying to develop general rules or patterns to apply to all settlements of this period; regional, and even sitespecific, variety is likely and attempts to ‘shoehorn’ settlements into a restricted typology of site types are not necessarily helpful. He has also noted that, too often, the concentration on a handful of well-known sites has failed to take account of overall variation in the settlement record (Reynolds 2003: 98). The area under study here is larger than those discussed by Semple (2009), but it is manageable enough to allow comparison between different locales within the region. Further, analysis of a small number of case studies allows investigation of the differences within and between the forms that monument reuse took in settlements. Thus, the study area allows settlements to be placed in their local context, but at the same it assists understanding of the practice over a larger area.

1

The paucity of evidence for early medieval settlement in this area is rather puzzling, as parts of modern Warwickshire, Worcestershire and Gloucestershire were within the powerful middle Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Mercia (Gelling 1989; 1992: 29-52). The archaeological evidence that does exist, which has recently been enhanced and improved, is still very much from the burial, rather than settlement, record. 2 Unpublished archaeological reports typically produced by commercial archaeological units as a result of developer-funded investigation ahead of development or other potentially destructive land use. These reports are generally housed in Historic Environment Records.

3

across central England. Meanwhile, the settlements without reuse provide a broad picture of settlement activity across the study area, against which the sites in the corpus can be viewed.

Data Selection This study focuses primarily on sites at which AngloSaxon settlement activity has been proven by the excavation of buildings (either post-built structures or sunken-featured buildings). Not included are sites at which ‘occupation features’ (e.g. pits or ditches) have been excavated but no buildings found. Similarly, cropmark sites or pottery scatters interpreted as settlements are also omitted. This selection process ensures that the sites in the study were occupied during the Anglo-Saxon period, and allows detailed exploration of spatial relationships between individual buildings and monuments. An essential criterion in the search for evidence of monument reuse in settlements was the requirement that any monument in close proximity to a settlement had the potential to have still been a visible earthwork in the Anglo-Saxon period. Excavations at Anglo-Saxon settlement sites frequently uncover traces of previous activity, yet many of these features – such as prehistoric postholes or the ring gullies of roundhouses – are often too ephemeral to have survived as earthworks for long periods of time after their abandonment. Thus, the settlements discussed in this book were located close to prehistoric features of a type and size that feasibly allowed them to survive into the Anglo-Saxon period; typically barrows, hillforts, and the banks and ditches of substantial boundary features (see below for a more detailed discussion of the types of monuments in the settlements under study).3

Reuse of Romano-British Remains In addition to prehistoric monuments, Anglo-Saxon communities also made use of Romano-British remains; they were used as the locations of both churches (Bell 1998; Blair 1992; 2005) and cemeteries (Williams 1997; 1998). This study, however, focuses solely on the reuse of prehistoric features for a number of reasons. There is no doubt that Romano-British remains were sometimes chosen as suitable places for early medieval occupation. Nevertheless, the majority of discussions about monument reuse in burial contexts have focused principally on the reuse of prehistoric monuments – particularly barrows – and their roles as socio-political ‘tools’ in Anglo-Saxon society (e.g. Carver 1998; 1999; 2001; Shephard 1979). Williams (1997: 17) found that Romano-British structures and monuments were reused at a relatively small number of burial sites compared to prehistoric monuments; 18% of cemeteries in his study reused Roman features, while 82% reused prehistoric features. In addition, Old English literary sources provide some evidence to suggest that Roman stone structures and prehistoric earthen monuments were attributed with different meanings and origins in Anglo-Saxon society, which may indicate that the two were, on occasion, perceived as distinct groups and interpreted differently (see Chapter 3).

Comparative Data

Furthermore, a number of studies have already been undertaken with the explicit aim of investigating the transition from the Romano-British to Anglo-Saxon period in terms of settlement (e.g. Clark 2005; Eagles 1977). The emphasis in these studies has been on settlement sites that were used in both periods, and on the relationships between occupation features of RomanoBritish and Anglo-Saxon date. In contrast, there has been no systematic exploration of the relationships between prehistoric and Anglo-Saxon occupation features when they have been found on the same sites. The exception, as previously mentioned, is Richard Bradley’s (1987) reassessment of Yeavering, which has the given the impression that monument reuse was high-status and ‘out of the ordinary’ (see, for example, the quote at the beginning of this chapter). There are also methodological problems associated with distinguishing reoccupation of Roman sites from continued occupation; it is sometimes difficult to determine whether they continued in use, or were brought back into use after a hiatus (Williams 1997: 13). Thus, in order to develop a useful and new comparative data set, which could be evaluated with reference to the majority of funerary reuse sites, the reuse of prehistoric monuments is investigated here.

In addition to the corpus of settlement sites under study here, several bodies of comparative data have also been collated. The first is a list of excavated settlements without reuse from within the study area (see Appendix B). The second set comprises other examples of monument reuse in the study region, including burial sites, churches and pagan shrine sites with evidence for the appropriation of pre-existing earthworks (see Appendix C). These comparative bodies of evidence have been gathered in order to provide background information with which to compare the settlements in the corpus; the results of this comparison are presented in Chapter 5. Plotting the settlements in the corpus against AngloSaxon burial sites, ecclesiastical sites and pagan shrines that reused monuments will allow the general distribution of reuse across the study area to be understood, providing a holistic picture of the practice of monument reuse 3 Further relevant sites may exist. Some were omitted from the study because, despite the existence of an Anglo-Saxon settlement located on or near older features being mentioned in a fieldwork note or HER monument record, no information – published or unpublished – could be traced to confirm the nature of the relationship between them. For example, Cambridgeshire HER entry no. 04281 reveals that at Drybread Road, Whittlesey SFBs were discovered during housing development in the early 1980s. The presence of ring ditches is also mentioned in the HER entry, but this information is based on comments made at the time and there are apparently no other sources of information for this site (see Appendix D).

4

to deliberately avoid monuments or when they are situated directly on top of them, as at West Cotton (Northants) (Windell et al. 1990) and Barrow Hills (Chambers and McAdam 2007).

PREHISTORIC MONUMENTS Methods for Determining Visibility A crucial requirement of the settlements in the corpus was that they had evidence for the continued existence of prehistoric monuments as landscape features in the Anglo-Saxon period. This can be difficult to determine, as both Williams (1997: 4) and Lucy (2000: 124) have observed in their studies of monument reuse in burial contexts. In the most straightforward cases, the visibility of the prehistoric features is supported by their presence as landscape features at the time of excavation, such as at West Halton (N Lincs), where a Bronze Age barrow is still a significant landscape feature today (Fig. 1.2). When monuments are no longer visible above ground at the time of excavation, other factors must be considered in order to assess the likelihood of their survival into the Anglo-Saxon era. The agricultural history of the region needs to be taken into consideration, as some regions – for example parts of Lincolnshire – have experienced heavy ploughing, leading to the destruction of many ancient monuments (Jones 1998). While this can make visibility of monuments harder to assess, it can also confirm that destruction of monuments took place in the medieval, post-medieval or modern eras, meaning that they may well have still been visible prior to that. Indeed, in some instances medieval or later plough furrows stop at the edges of monuments, suggesting that they were significant landscape features well after the Anglo-Saxon period; this was the case at Catholme (Staffs), for example (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 119) (see Chapter 4).

A small number of sites included in this study are in close proximity to monuments whose visibility could not be confirmed through the methods described above. Similarly, however, there was no evidence to suggest that the monuments had been destroyed prior to the AngloSaxon period. This was the case at Village Farm (Beds), for example, where Anglo-Saxon buildings were located c.10-20m away from a barrow (BCAS 1995a: 22, figs. 9 and 10; see Chapter 4). These sites have been included in the corpus in order to test whether, by studying them alongside others where monuments were visible, it might be possible to generate new methods for confirming the visibility of the monuments at ‘uncertain’ sites. Monument Forms A range of prehistoric monument types are referred to in this study. It is, therefore, necessary to explain the forms of these monuments and the terminology used to describe them. This is particularly true of barrows, as this category encompasses a wide variety of different shapes and sizes of monument. The term ‘round barrow’, for example, refers to a number of different types of circular barrow, all typically represented in excavation by ring ditches (Fig. 1.3). Bowl barrows are one such type, consisting of a central mound surrounded by a ring ditch, occasionally with an outer bank. Bell barrows are another; they also have central mounds but these are separated from the ring ditch by a flat berm or platform, and they may also have an external bank (Grinsell 1990: 34-5; Megaw and Simpson 1979: 209). Disc barrows are present at some sites in the corpus; these are similar to bell barrows in that they have a central mound on a platform surrounded by a ring ditch and external bank, but the mound is usually comparatively small and set in the centre of the platform (Grinsell 1990: 35; Megaw and Simpson 1979: 209). Other forms of barrow without ring ditches are also reused at settlements in the corpus. Penannular or Cshaped ditches could partially surround circular mounds (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 15), while mounds without any surrounding ditch are also known (Ashbee 1960: 25). Pond barrows are circular monuments comprising an external bank surrounding a central dip or ‘pond’ (Barclay and Halpin 1999: 48-52; Grinsell 1990: 35).

Antiquarian accounts and historic maps are useful tools for determining monument visibility, as they record the locations of monuments razed in recent centuries by destructive processes such as development or agriculture. Similarly, place-names may shed light on the visibility of monuments in the Middle Ages; this was the case at Barrow Hills (Oxon), the name of which was first recorded in a document dating from 1547 (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 9). There are also archaeological clues that can help to ascertain monument visibility. Monuments comprising negative features, such as ditched enclosures or ring ditches, may contain Anglo-Saxon pottery in their upper fills, confirming that these earthworks continued to be landscape features. If evidence for the erosion of accompanying upstanding earthworks (e.g. a mound or bank) into those ditches is absent, this can also provide evidence of monument preservation. When monuments have not been excavated, or they have not yielded enough information to confirm their continued visibility into the Anglo-Saxon period, other archaeological features may be informative. Williams (1997: 4), in his study of funerary monument reuse, observed that the organisation, orientation and depth of graves could be used to demonstrate the visibility of a monument as an earthwork during the Anglo-Saxon period. Similarly, the positioning of AngloSaxon features in relation to monuments in settlements may provide insights, for instance when features appear

Long barrows, meanwhile, consist of an elongated mound surrounded by quarry ditches, usually varying in length from 30m to 60m, although they can be up to around 122m long (Megaw and Simpson 1979: 89). There are two basic forms of long barrow, one with parallel sides and a mound of even height all the way along its length, the other trapezoid in plan with a mound that is higher towards the broader end (Megaw and Simpson 1979: 89). The examples that appear at the sites under study here fall into the former category. The height of these barrows originally varied between 1m and 7m (Grinsell 1990: 11). 5

In settlement studies, it seems, one must work harder to ascertain whether a monument was consciously and deliberately reused in the Anglo-Saxon period. In part, this reflects the fact that there has been no previous attempt to determine whether the practice of reuse even took place in settlements, let alone the frequency and distribution of that practice (in contrast to the realm of mortuary practice). However, another explanation for some archaeologists’ reluctance to identify monument reuse in settlements may well be the separation of settlements as ‘functional’ or ‘economic’ spaces from cemeteries as ‘ritual’ or ‘religious’ spaces. This is an increasingly contested model of Anglo-Saxon society. Some years ago Julian Richards (1999a: 135) warned against this over-simplified separation, arguing that cemeteries and settlements should not be isolated from each other as they were linked into the same ‘symbolic system’. Since that time, particularly in recent years, Anglo-Saxon settlement studies have begun to incorporate the idea that domestic space could provide an arena for the expression of religious belief and votive activity (e.g. Hamerow 2006; Knox 2012; Sofield 2011; Walker 2009; Ware 2005).

Oval barrows are fairly rare in England, but examples do occur in the corpus; they are a type of long barrow, but they are usually smaller and rounder (Megaw and Simpson 1979: 89). The remaining monuments represented in the corpus fall into a category broadly referred to here as ‘linear features’. This category includes hillforts, which are usually found on high ground and originally had earth, timber or stone defences (Megaw and Simpson 1979: 355). A wide range of structural techniques for creating the defences are known, but they usually comprise one or more lines of fence, bank or wall, with an external ditch and a bank beyond that. The substantial size of these enclosures meant that elements of their earthen defences had the potential to be preserved into the Anglo-Saxon period, and indeed today, as imposing earthworks. Other, smaller-scale, enclosures were marked out by banks and ditches, such as a Neolithic causewayed enclosure at Briar Hill (Northants), which was circular, with concentric ditches formed by short ditch sections, partially surrounded by banks (Bamford 1985). Droveways may have been preserved into the AngloSaxon period as hollows in the ground, perhaps accompanied by flanking ditches or banks (Hamerow et al. 2007). The remains of a Neolithic cursus were identified at Sutton Courtenay (Oxon); these monuments are long rectangular earthworks defined by pairs of parallel banks and ditches, the bank lying within the ditch (Megaw and Simpson 1979: 94). Meanwhile, small henges are present at two sites; these monuments comprised pairs of ditches enclosing an oval area c.9-12m long, accompanied by either external banks, internal banks or a mound (Barclay et al. 2003: 34; Brown 1969: 104; Kenward 1982: 51).

Indeed, monument reuse in Anglo-Saxon burial contexts, although now hypothesised as an important element of pagan and conversion belief systems, has not always been interpreted as such. Michael Hunter, in the 1970s, asserted that no reverence was shown for ancient sites when they were ‘misused’ for burial by Anglo-Saxon communities (Hunter 1974: 50). As a result of more intensive study and theorisation of funerary monument reuse during the ensuing decades, views such as Hunter’s are now largely discredited (see Chapter 2). It is hoped that the evidence presented in this study may facilitate a similar development where settlements are concerned, contributing towards greater awareness and a fuller understanding of reuse in domestic contexts. It aims to encourage archaeologists to consider the possibility that Anglo-Saxon communities established their settlements in juxtaposition with ancient monuments, at least in some circumstances, due to conscious, deliberate decisionmaking and an active understanding of their surrounding landscapes. Then, perhaps, we can build upon the preliminary regional corpus presented here.

Archaeological Attitudes to Monument Visibility in Cemeteries and Settlements The discussion of monument visibility in the AngloSaxon period raises a pertinent methodological issue; namely that at times there are significant differences between the ways in which monument visibility is interpreted by archaeologists in burial contexts compared to settlement contexts. Excavators uncovering AngloSaxon graves inserted into and around prehistoric monuments frequently conclude that those monuments were visible in the Anglo-Saxon period, and that reuse was a deliberate and significant act. The appropriation of ancient monuments for Anglo-Saxon burial is a known and established phenomenon in the archaeological record. Therefore, when new examples of that phenomenon are found they are readily interpreted as part of that wider mortuary tradition, and little time is spent on determining the visibility of the monuments in question. When monuments are uncovered in settlements, meanwhile, they are much more likely to be explained away, often interpreted as having been no longer visible or as being of little continuing importance. Indeed, the Barrow Hills (Oxon) excavation report described the appropriation of barrows in the settlement as ‘monument abuse’ (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 303, emphasis added).

As a final note, Chambers and McAdam’s (2007: 303) interpretation of the situation at Barrow Hills, cited above, also raises a further point of interest, namely the potential dangers of assuming that ‘destruction’ or ‘misuse’ of a monument resulted from a lack of reverence for it. Richard Hingley’s (1996) analysis of the reuse of Neolithic chambered tombs during the later Bronze Age and early Iron Age in Atlantic Scotland drew attention to the sometimes partial, or even total, dismantling of these tombs in later periods. While dismantling can be seen as destructive mistreatment, Hingley points out that this attitude might not have been shared by people in the past (Hingley 1996: 232). The practice can, instead, be interpreted as a process of modification, in which parts of the monuments were taken away and used to build elsewhere, but maintained their ‘special’ meanings, as did 6

sites in the 1950s and 1960s, resulting in part from advances made in archaeology during that period, including a growing emphasis on open area excavation in order to uncover large areas of settlements and thereby large numbers of different settlement features (Tipper 2004: 15-16). For example, at Yeavering (Northumb) and Cheddar (Som) large, high-status ‘hall’ buildings were excavated in the 1950s and 1960s (although not published in full until the late 1970s, in Hope-Taylor 1977 and Rahtz 1979 respectively), whilst smaller post-built structures came to light at Maxey (Northants) in 1960 (Addyman 1964) and West Stow (Suffolk) between 1965 and 1972 (West 1969; 1985).

the original monument. When monuments were reused in a way that compromised their original appearance or preservation, this was not necessarily an act of desecration; instead it redefined the earthworks and ‘reinvented’ them (Hingley 1996: 241). In an AngloSaxon context, therefore, it may not have been essential that monuments were ‘pristine’ or un-tampered with in order to be significant; they could even have been actively altered so that they fitted the new community’s needs, whilst still maintaining their importance. ANGLO-SAXON SETTLEMENT STUDIES A Brief Overview

Whilst the recognition that open area excavation could significantly enhance our understanding of Anglo-Saxon settlements took place over half a century ago, subsequent years have not seen the widespread application of this strategy to all settlements. When it has been implemented, the areas excavated have been small compared to those on the continent and rarely define the limits of settlements with any degree of certainty (Hamerow 2002: 8). This situation is in part due to the rescue archaeology atmosphere of the 1970s and 1980s; excavations, if they took place at all, were often undertaken in the midst of development or quarrying, often by volunteers who had to work as quickly as they could to record features before their destruction (Barker 1974; Rahtz 1974). The introduction of PPG16 and developer-funded archaeology in the 1990s sought to bring an end to the need for rescue excavations, setting out best practice guidelines and factoring archaeological research, investigation and preservation into the development process (Darvill and Russell 2002: 3; Department of the Environment 1990). However, this approach did not particularly promote open area excavation either. Although investigations are now, in theory, carried out less hurriedly and with less threat of imminent destruction than in the era of rescue archaeology, the area of investigation is generally confined to that which is threatened; there is little time or funding available for asking questions about material outside that threatened area.

In order to contextualise this research, a brief review of the development of Anglo-Saxon settlement archaeology as a discipline follows. More detailed overviews of the discipline’s development have been produced by Helena Hamerow (2002), Andrew Reynolds (2003) and Jess Tipper (2004) and no attempt is made to reproduce that information in full here. Rather, some of the key themes, concerns and investigative techniques that have shaped the archaeological evidence for Anglo-Saxon settlements will be discussed, as will the approaches used to analyse that evidence. E.T. Leeds is often credited with undertaking the first excavation of an Anglo-Saxon settlement, conducted between 1921 and 1937 at Sutton Courtenay, then in Berkshire but now in Oxfordshire (Leeds 1923; 1927; 1947). The site was being quarried for gravel at the time of excavation, and workmen had uncovered pits filled with pottery and other material (Leeds 1923: 147). Leeds identified these as buildings, consisting of sunken pits with timber-framed structures above, now known as Grubenhäuser or sunken-featured buildings (SFBs), which had already been found on the continent. Despite excavating several lines of postholes, he did not recognise any post-built structures, which led him to believe that the sunken ‘houses’ he had excavated represented the primary dwellings of the site’s inhabitants. Following publication of Leeds’s findings, subsequent discoveries of SFBs took place at sites such as Waterbeach (Cambs) (Lethbridge 1927). In light of these discoveries it was assumed that the Anglo-Saxon inhabitants had lived in extraordinary squalor, amongst the debris which accumulated on the floors of their huts; as Leeds (1936: 26) put it ‘amid a filthy litter of broken bones, of food and shattered pottery’. However, based on the evidence from the continent, where juxtaposed postbuilt structures and SFBs had been excavated, Radford (1957) questioned the assumption that SFBs represented Anglo-Saxon dwellings. He felt that the picture painted by the settlement evidence was at odds with the rich burial record, and predicted that open area excavation would reveal longhouses resembling those found on the continent (Radford 1957: 36). Radford was proved correct, at least in part, when post-built structures (although not continental-style longhouses) did start to come to light on a number of Anglo-Saxon settlement

The lack of large-scale excavation causes problems for those studying Anglo-Saxon settlements (and, indeed, other types of archaeological site). Anglo-Saxon settlements were often dispersed and shifting, meaning that the limits of settlements frequently go undiscovered during excavations (Hamerow 2002: 8). This presents challenges when attempting to determine their original sizes, layouts and chronological development. Where large, open area excavations have been undertaken – generally with the aid of research grants from institutions such as English Heritage and local county councils – they have often demonstrated how complex settlement phasing and layouts could be (Tipper 2004: 18). None of the settlements in this study have benefited from the really extensive open area excavations famously seen at places such as West Heslerton (N Yorks) (Powlesland 2000: 19). Indeed, many are rather limited and small-scale because they result from rescue or developer-funded 7

post-abandonment refuse, and not the accumulation of household waste during a building’s inhabitation, as had previously been suspected (Tipper 2004: 102-3). By examining sherd breaks in pottery assemblages from across settlements he was able to demonstrate that sherds from the same vessel were frequently dispersed over the whole settlement (Tipper 2004: 107-11, 147-50). Thus, parts of a single vessel might be found in an SFB on one side of a settlement, whilst other parts occur in an SFB on the other side of the site. This means that the sherds are not the result of primary deposition (i.e. the result of the initial breakage which took the vessel out of use), or even secondary rubbish deposition (such as the sweeping up of the broken vessel and its removal to a rubbish disposal area), but often from tertiary deposition. In other words, rubbish was removed from the secondary disposal place and used to fill the SFB pits, probably in order to level the ground surface after the dismantling of the buildings. If the same midden was used to fill several SFBs in different parts of a settlement, sherds of a single vessel could end up in completely different areas of a site (Tipper 2004: 184).

excavations. Nonetheless a small number – including Barrow Hills, Eye Kettleby (Leics) and Catholme – have seen large-scale excavations that have revealed relatively large numbers of buildings and other settlement features. It is sites such as these that have produced enough evidence to allow detailed spatial analysis of their layouts in relation to prehistoric monuments (see Chapter 6). Early Medieval Buildings Anglo-Saxon buildings, especially their dimensions, layouts, positions and contents, are integral tools for investigating monument reuse practices in settlements. It is, therefore, crucial to establish the basic characteristics of these structures, their uses and their appearances at the beginning of this study. As a result of the development of Anglo-Saxon settlement studies since Leeds’s excavations at Sutton Courtenay eighty years ago we now have a clearer picture of how and where early medieval communities in England were living. Yet there is still much debate about the appearance of the buildings these communities inhabited, and what they were used for. This is particularly true of SFBs. These structures are typically recovered as sub-rectangular pits, measuring around 3m by 4m and between 0.3m to 0.5m deep, with sloping sides and a flat base, and one or more postholes at each end of the pit (Tipper 2004: 1). They often produce assemblages consisting of, essentially, rubbish; fragments of pottery, debris from craft activities and animal bone are particularly common (Tipper 2004: 184). They represent a totally new style of building within England in the fifth century, and there are no comparable Romano-British structures that might have accounted for their origins (Tipper 2004: 7). They are, however, found on the continent and in Scandinavia, and are therefore widely accepted as deriving from north-west Europe.

A major implication of Tipper’s work is that the items found in the fills of SFBs cannot be confidently tied to their functions, nor are they necessarily an accurate way of dating a building, since material in them could have been deposited in a midden some time previously (Powlesland 2000: 25; Tipper 2004: 184). This renders assessment of the uses of these buildings difficult. It has often been suggested that they were weaving sheds, a supposition based on the frequent finds of loomweights and other textile-working tools in their fills, but given what we now know about tertiary deposition it cannot be assumed that such items necessarily related directly to the building’s use. Rows of loomweights have, on occasion, been discovered on the bases of SFBs, apparently having been suspended on sticks or string in those structures (Hamerow 2002: 33-4; Tipper 2004: 165-7). This evidence derives primarily from a small number of buildings found to have burnt down; while they do suggest that loomweights were kept in the buildings during their lifetimes, this tells us that some SFBs were used for the storage of loomweights, rather than providing incontrovertible proof that weaving was taking place in these buildings (Tipper 2004: 165-7). Further, even if buildings that contain loomweights were used for weaving, this does not indicate that all SFBs had the same function, as has sometimes been assumed (Tipper 2004: 185).

For many years it was assumed that the base of an SFB’s sunken pit acted as the floor of the building, leading to the belief espoused by Leeds (1936: 26) and others that the build-up of rubbish in the pit meant that Anglo-Saxon communities were living in uncomfortable squalor. This was the general opinion until the late 1960s, when Stanley West (1969) published his argument that the SFBs at West Stow had suspended floorboards, which would have allowed air to circulate around the building or provided under-floor storage space. West’s suggestion has not been accepted by all scholars of Anglo-Saxon settlements, and the debate about whether SFBs had sunken floors or suspended floors rumbles on (Tipper 2004: 17). However, Tipper’s detailed re-evaluation of the SFB surveyed much of the available evidence for these buildings. Through studying the remains of these buildings, the patterns of wear on their bases and the accumulated material in them, he was able to conclude that the most likely interpretation was that SFBs did generally have suspended wooden floorboards laid over the pit at ground level or perhaps on the base of the pit (Tipper 2004: 64, 84-7, 92-3).

To complicate the situation further, when loomweights are found on the bases of SFBs, it is also possible that they were placed there as part of the process of abandonment, perhaps as a votive offering; indeed, an SFB destroyed by fire at Upton (Northants) contained unfired loomweights (Gibson and Murray 2003: 210-11; Hamerow 2006: 18). After assessing the evidence, Tipper concluded that SFBs were likely to have been structures with multiple functions, serving as craft-working buildings or as places for grain storage, and perhaps also as dwellings (Tipper 2004: 184-5). The latter is supported

Another major achievement of Tipper’s work was the confirmation that SFB assemblages do, indeed, represent 8

40) and Barrow Hills (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 201) human burials were inserted into abandoned SFBs, whilst fragmented human bone occurs in others (Tipper 2004: 153).

by the reconstruction of SFBs at West Stow as relatively spacious buildings that could very feasibly have been used as dwellings (West 2001). It is worth recounting here the debates surrounding the functions of sunken-featured buildings (SFBs) in AngloSaxon settlements, as these may have implications for the classification of ‘settlements’ in this study. As discussed above, their exact functions are uncertain, and it has been suggested that sites at which SFBs are the only building type should not be interpreted as ‘settlements’ per se (D. Stocker pers. comm.). The implication is that, if these buildings had storage or industrial functions, they may have been situated some distance from an associated ‘living’ area containing post-built structures. It might be argued, therefore, that SFB-only sites should not be included in this study. However, there are a number of dangers associated with assuming that when SFBs are the only structures excavated on a site this means that they were the only structures in existence in the Anglo-Saxon period in that area. The discovery of SFBs and not postbuilt structures may result from small-scale excavation areas; this is especially true of settlements that exhibit zoning, such as West Heslerton or Eye Kettleby (Finn 1997a; 1997b; 1999; Powlesland 2000; Tipper 2004: 162). Had smaller trenches been opened at these sites, they might only have uncovered the settlement zones containing SFBs. Furthermore, the relatively deep pits of SFBs are more susceptible to preservation compared to the shallower postholes of post-built structures. Crucially, even if SFBs did function primarily as craft or storage structures rather than dwellings, they are nevertheless regularly found in association with post-built structures within wider settlement sites; whatever their functions, they still constitute evidence of inhabitation. As such, when they are discovered in association with prehistoric earthworks, they still have the potential to reveal insights into people’s attitudes to monuments in their domestic lives. For these reasons, SFB-only sites are classed as settlements here and included in the study.

It has often been assumed that the funerary realm was the arena in which non-functional ‘ritual’ or ‘votive’ activities were articulated in Anglo-Saxon society (e.g. Crawford 2004). Settlements have rarely been imbued with such significance, with early medieval settlement research frequently concentrating on themes such as settlement economies and land use. However, several recent studies have tried to overcome this, taking a more theoretically-driven approach to the evidence and introducing post-processual theories, such as the significance of human agency, in order to demonstrate that votive activities did take place in settlements, and that the inhabitants were capable of actively signalling their religious beliefs in settlement contexts. Hamerow (2006), for example, has reviewed the evidence for ritual deposition in Anglo-Saxon settlements.4 She revealed that ‘special’ or ‘placed’ deposits of artefacts, human burials and animal burials were deliberately inserted into settlement features, such as pits and SFBs, an act which she interpreted as votive and ideologically-charged (Hamerow 2006: 27-30). In the case of SFBs, deposits seem to have been deliberately inserted after, or contemporaneously with, the dismantling of buildings, and they appear to represent offerings related to the end of a structure’s life. Thus, rather than treating the material found in SFBs as the random remains of midden deposits, or as items which incidentally found their way into buildings, Hamerow’s approach illustrated the benefits of interpreting SFB assemblages as the results of structured, meaningful and deliberate activities with ritual connotations. This has enhanced our understanding of ‘placed’ deposits in Anglo-Saxon settlements as a whole and, in particular, those found in SFBs. Advances have also been made in our understanding of post-built structures since their initial discovery. 5 Research undertaken by numerous authors has highlighted the different construction techniques used to build these structures, and has shown that there was remarkable consistency in the ground plans of early Anglo-Saxon structures across England, as well as exploring the possibility that standard building measurements were in use (e.g. Addyman 1972; Bettess 1991; Fernie 1991; Huggins 1991; James et al. 1984: 182; Marshall and Marshall 1991; Powlesland 2000: 26). Much attention has been paid to tracing the origins of this type of building; they do not resemble the longhouses

Whilst the debates about the construction, appearance and use of SFBs have been useful in furthering our understanding of this building type, they have rarely been addressed in anything other than a functional way. Much attention has been paid to the construction techniques used to build SFBs and their resulting appearances; West (1985), for example, created categories of SFBs based on the number of end posts they had. Rarely, if ever, have researchers asked why particular styles of construction were used, what the builders of those structures were trying to achieve, or what those who used them believed about them (Walker 2009: 297). This is perhaps an understandable consequence of the limited information and knowledge that for so long dogged Anglo-Saxon building studies. However, we now have greater insights into the appearance and uses of SFBs, and a substantial number of excavated examples are known. As a result ‘non-functional’ aspects of their use are becoming apparent, and these deserve greater attention. For example, it has been noted that at a number of sites, including Catholme (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002:

4

Alexandra Knox has also challenged the idea that settlements were places lacking ritual and religious importance in her doctoral research, entitled Ritual Action from the Home to the Grave: Comparing Settlements and Cemeteries to Approach the Anglo-Saxon Worldview. 5 The rather loaded term ‘hall’ is sometimes applied in a wholesale fashion to post-built structures. However, such structures are also likely to have had functions other than dwelling, including agricultural, storage or craft-working uses (Walker 2009: 24). For this reason, the term ‘post-built structure’ (PBS) is used here to refer to above-ground, timber-built structures.

9

with attached byres commonly excavated in Scandinavia and on the continent, and it has been suggested that they represent a hybrid, insular mixture of Romano-British and Germanic building techniques (Dixon 1982; James et al. 1984: 201; Marshall and Marshall 1991: 29). However, Hamerow (1994: 169-73) has warned that architectural styles in mainland northern Europe were already changing in the fourth and fifth centuries, and that there were pre-cursors to the Anglo-Saxon style of post-built structure on the continent, meaning that there was no simple division between continental and English styles of early medieval timber buildings. There are several distinctive characteristics associated with AngloSaxon post-built structures, including their rectangular forms, precise layouts, substantial earth-fast foundations, doors at the centres of long walls and annexes at one or both ends in some cases, although by c.AD 800 the building tradition was changing and becoming more varied in terms of shape and construction techniques (James et al. 1984: 184, 206). James et al. (1984) have also treated timber buildings as indicators of status, studying their sizes and layouts, and demonstrating that larger structures may well been linked to higher-status people or activities.

is to highlight the potential benefits and challenges of various dating methods; further details regarding the methods used to phase the settlements featured in the study can be found in Appendix A. The assemblages and artefact typologies that assist in the dating of contemporary burials are frequently missing from settlements. There are also few reliable metrological or morphological guides to help phase settlement sites. Large numbers of SFBs tend to be more frequently associated with early, rather than middle, Anglo-Saxon settlements, while middle Anglo-Saxon SFBs appear to show more variation in size, but these trends are not yet sufficiently refined to be used as chronological indicators (Tipper 2004: 7, 11). Attempts have also been made to phase the various styles of post-built structures, the suggestion being that simple structures were an earlier building type, and more complex post- or plank-in-trench buildings were later (Marshall and Marshall 1991: 30). Although it does appear to be that case that foundation trench buildings became more commonplace from the later sixth century onwards (Reynolds 2003: 130), there is no simple trajectory of development from one type of post-built structure to another; indeed, it is not unusual for post-in-trench and posthole buildings to be found coexisting in the same settlements (Marshall and Marshall 1991: 31). On the whole, then, the evidence, and our understanding of it, is not refined yet enough to be used to develop chronologies of timber building styles that could be applied as general models to all settlements.

Once again, as valuable as these studies are, they have concentrated on categorising buildings and constructing typologies, or on tracing origins of building styles, rarely asking why those buildings were created in one way or another, or what the architects were attempting to achieve. Jenny Walker has redressed the balance by investigating the ideology of the hall in the early medieval period in Britain and Scandinavia (Walker 2009).6 She treated architecture as a form of material culture, capable of shaping people’s lives and attitudes, and at the same time being shaped by them. Rather than asking where particular styles of building originated or how they were built, Walker’s aim was to investigate how those buildings were used and why they were built in such a way; how did communities use them and what were the builders or owners trying to express or achieve (Walker 2009: 19, 28)? She was able to show how the architecture of the hall, and the use of space inside it, were used to express ideologies and social norms, to control members of society and maintain their sense of habitus. A similar approach has been used by Carolyn Ware (2005) in order to analyse the buildings at Yeavering. By applying a post-processual research framework to settlement archaeology it is possible to investigate attitudes and beliefs about society, beliefs that had the potential to exert a powerful influence over the people who were conducting their daily lives in and around those buildings.

It is also possible that the presence of enclosures and planned rectilinear layouts might act as a guide to dating settlements. Reynolds (2003) has noted that boundary features within settlements, either in the form of enclosures or rectilinear arrangements of buildings, increased between the late sixth and ninth centuries. However, that is not to say that all sixth- to ninth-century settlements had these space-regulating features, or that earlier ones never did, and Reynolds has warned against attempting to apply a single interpretive framework to all settlements, as this can mask their highly individual and diverse natures (Reynolds 2003: 99, 130-2). Artefacts are often used to determine the dates of settlements, and ceramic phasing, in particular, is frequently employed. However, as mentioned above, there are drawbacks to attempting to date individual features, such as SFBs, from their fills (Tipper 2004: 11). Furthermore, in some parts of the country, particularly the west, there are poor ceramic records, partly due to aceramic vessel use, which make pottery sequencing impossible (Dalwood n.d.: 1, 4). Some areas that do generally have useful ceramic sequences also seem to have had aceramic phases during the Anglo-Saxon period, such as Oxfordshire, where the local inhabitants appear to have stopped producing handmade pottery in the eighth century (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 229; Hey 2004: 269). In addition, some commonly-found undecorated ceramic types cannot be dated more closely than the early to middle Anglo-Saxon period or, even less helpfully, simply the ‘Anglo-Saxon period’, meaning that they contribute little to refining the dates of sites

Dating Settlements The secure dating of settlements is a problem that, at times, hinders Anglo-Saxon archaeology (Reynolds 2005: 117, 130). The purpose of this relatively brief discussion 6

In this case, ‘hall’ is used to refer specifically to the distinctively large or unusual timber-framed buildings found on some settlements.

10

which provide more detailed data on the settlement sites referred to in Chapter 4, as well as information on the comparative data sets of burial and settlement sites used in the study.

belonging to this era (Hey 2004: 269; Reynolds 2003: 101). Other finds, such as metal artefacts, can provide dates but these items are often fragmentary and do not occur as regularly as they do in burial contexts. Further, while the burial of objects in a mortuary context can usually be tied to a single depositional event and therefore a point in time, similar objects found in settlement features may have spent an indeterminate period of time as debris in a midden before finding their way into a feature (Tipper 2004: 10). In some cases scientific dating methods, most frequently radiocarbon dating, are successful in providing dates for settlements. However, the expense of these methods often means that, if they are used at all, only limited numbers of samples can be analysed. These methods are reliant on the discovery of suitable, well-preserved, uncontaminated samples of material which allow analysis to take place (Aitkin 1990: 85). Ideally, in order for scientificallydetermined dates to be as effective as possible, sites require clear stratigraphic data which allow relationships between features to be determined; the dating of features can then be undertaken based on their links to scientifically-dated features and a chronology can be produced. ORGANISATION OF THE BOOK This chapter has detailed the focus, impetus and context of the present research. Chapter 2 reviews the archaeological debates that have already taken place on the subject of monument reuse in funerary, religious and assembly contexts in Anglo-Saxon England. In addition, it considers the very limited research that has been undertaken on reuse in settlements of this period and discusses the evidence for the recycling and reuse of older artefacts in Anglo-Saxon society. In Chapter 3 the literary and linguistic evidence for attitudes to the past in Anglo-Saxon England is considered, taking into account place-name evidence, as well as poetic and other literary sources. Chapter 4 reviews the evidence for monument reuse in the settlements that form the corpus at the centre of this study. Chapter 5 examines the overarching themes and patterns that have arisen from the review. Subsequently, Chapter 6 presents four case study sites – Barrow Hills, Catholme, Eye Kettleby and Sutton Courtenay – and analyses them in detail. Their layouts, the positions of buildings in relation to monuments, and their development over time are considered in order to determine whether monuments were reused in different ways on different sites and at different times. Chapter 7 draws together the evidence from both the review of the corpus and the in-depth analysis of the case studies, placing the practice of monument appropriation in settlements in its wider context. It examines the practice with reference to contemporary social and political circumstances, as well as considering the results in the light of what we know already about monument reuse and attitudes to the past in other areas of early medieval society. Finally, Chapter 8 summarises the findings of the study and provides some concluding remarks. The main body of the text is supplemented by Appendices A to D, 11

Fig. 1.1 The study area.

12

Fig. 1.2 The upstanding barrow on the village green at West Halton (Lincs), which was surrounded by a settlement in the Anglo-Saxon period (photograph: D.M. Hadley).

Fig. 1.3 Forms that prehistoric round barrows could take: 1 and 2 bowl barrows; 3 and 4 bell barrows; 5 disc barrow; 6 saucer barrow; 7 pond barrow (after Megaw and Simpson 1979: 210, fig. 5.11).

13

CHAPTER TWO APPROACHES TO ANGLO-SAXON MONUMENT REUSE The frequent use of older earthworks for burial, the rich and elaborate nature of many of those burials, and the deliberate building of new burial mounds in the AngloSaxon period, all demonstrate that older monuments were influential in determining the nature of burial and expression of status in early to middle Anglo-Saxon England. In the late 1970s J. Shephard drew on anthropological evidence to support the idea that barrow burials emphasized ties to ancestors and strengthened claims to land and resources in an unstable social system (Shephard 1979: 47, 77). More recent explanations for Anglo-Saxon barrow burial have continued along the same lines; Helen Geake (1992: 91), Chris Daniell and Victoria Thompson (1999: 68), and Dawn Hadley (2001: 95) have all expressed the opinion that barrow burials represented claims to land and resources, whilst Tania Dickinson (2002: 86) has suggested that they may have created fictive links to ancestors, and others still have asserted that they reflect the increasing stratification of society in the late sixth and seventh centuries (e.g. Scull 1999; Stoodley 1999; Blair 2005).

The reuse of pre-existing landscape features has been recognised in a variety of early medieval contexts throughout England (as well as in other parts of the British Isles and Europe – e.g. Driscoll 1998; Effros 2001; Newman 1998; Thäte 2007). Indeed, the present study owes its origins primarily to these previous studies, which, valuable as they are, have frequently ignored the subject of monument reuse in settlements. It is, therefore, integral to this research that previous studies of monument reuse are summarised and reviewed, in order to demonstrate how this activity in other early medieval contexts has been interpreted and theorised. This will show how the current study fits into, and builds upon, previous work undertaken on the subject of monument reuse. Five dimensions of reuse in Anglo-Saxon society are addressed here. The chapter opens by examining the debates surrounding what is arguably the most wellknown and ubiquitous form of monument reuse, that of funerary reuse. It then considers the role of ancient earthworks at religious sites, both pagan and Christian and as early medieval assembly or ‘moot’ sites, before discussing the small number of studies that have considered relationships between settlements and ancient monuments. It then briefly discusses the reuse and curation of older artefacts in Anglo-Saxon contexts. This activity has primarily been noted in burial studies, but also occurs in settlements, and although not directly related to monument reuse it may help to elucidate attitudes to the past. By way of conclusion, the various strands of evidence will be united and discussed, providing a broad picture of how early medieval attitudes to the past may be illuminated through archaeological evidence.

Robert van de Noort (1993) and Martin Carver (1998; 1999) were both of the opinion that burial reuse of monuments, particularly barrows, represented a fiercely defiant ‘anti-Christian’ statement by Anglo-Saxon elites in the face of encroaching influence from the Christian Church as it spread from the continent (they also applied this interpretation to newly-constructed barrows, which may have been emulations of prehistoric ones). Van de Noort (1993: 71) claimed that growing incidences of barrow burial in Europe, on the peripheries of the Merovingian kingdom, were linked to the spread of church-associated burial from the heart of the Merovingian world. As Christian burial practices spread, he argued, more barrows were used for burial in these peripheral areas as a defensive reaction to the supposed threat of new burial rites; for van de Noort, these peripheral margins of the Merovingian world included south-east England. Carver (1998: 134; 1999: 5) also argued that barrow-burial entailed an anti-Merovingian stance, as a result of perceived growth of Frankish power over early medieval England. Carver believed that the use of burial mounds made direct references to Scandinavian burial customs, representing attempts to align communities in Anglo-Saxon England with real or perceived origins in Scandinavia (Carver 1998: 136). Both the construction of barrows and the reuse of older mounds therefore represented a reinvented tradition of barrow burial in opposition to Christianity and continental authority.

BURIAL The funerary reuse of monuments is a particularly wellresearched subject within early medieval archaeology, witnessing an increasing number of studies in the past decade. In particular, there has been growing interest in the theorisation of the topic. Howard Williams (1997; 1998; 2002; 2006) has been especially prolific in his publications on this subject, whilst others such as Sam Lucy (2000) and Sarah Semple (2003a; 2008; 2009) have also investigated monument reuse in burial contexts. The secondary insertion of Anglo-Saxon burials into prehistoric and Romano-British monuments had been recognised much earlier; antiquarian barrow diggers of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries dug many prehistoric burial mounds containing such interments, although they did not necessarily know the dates of the features they were digging. Recognition of these burials as secondary was intermittent, but modern researchers have often been able to confirm, or at least suggest, that reuse may have taken place on these early-excavated sites (Lucy 2000: 126).

The arguments of van de Noort and Carver are not, however, wholly supported by the archaeological evidence; indeed, Carver (2010: 9) has since ameliorated his stance on the issue. Neither author explained how burial in pre-existing monuments other than barrows, such as Iron Age hillforts, fitted into their picture of antiChristian attitudes. Secondly, scholars such as Edward 14

If the reuse of barrows for burial in the sixth and seventh centuries cannot, then, be attributed to an aggressive ‘pagan’ stance, how can it be explained? As previously mentioned, the increasing stratification of Anglo-Saxon society, and subsequent need for physical expressions of status, is one explanation for the growth of barrow burial. Christopher Scull (1999: 17) has suggested that settlement hierarchies were developing in this period, indicating increasingly territorial, centralised political and economic authority, while Nick Stoodley (1999) has agreed that this may have been a factor in the rise of barrow burial. John Blair (2005) has also stated that rich barrow burials were expressions of status by new competitive elites keen to demonstrate fresh attitudes through innovative burial techniques. The motive for barrow reuse for burial appears, therefore, to be related to political and social developments within Anglo-Saxon society, not aggressive defiance towards external political or religious factors. Part of their function may have been to publicise and legitimise claims to land, power and resources, acting as tools with which to stamp the actual or desired authority of those elites onto the collective consciousness of the communities who lived and worked in the landscape.

James (1992), Ian Wood (1992), Helen Geake (1992) and Dawn Hadley (2001) have noted there is nothing overtly non-Christian about this form of mortuary commemoration. Indeed, it may have provided an alternative to churchyard burial for aristocrats seeking to express their status in death. Hadley (2001: 95) has suggested that rich barrow burials drew on a range of national and international symbols of power, especially in the range of material culture deposited with the deceased, with the object of creating and maintaining social elites in an increasingly stratified society. Furthermore, it has even been suggested that Merovingian – and Christian – influences may have been welcomed by the rulers of southern and eastern England, who appreciated the enhanced status that contact with the Merovingian world gave them (Geake 1999; James 1992; Wood 1992). There is evidence to suggest that parts of south-east England may have been considered subordinate kingdoms by Merovingian rulers, and these regions do seem to have been politically and culturally influenced by Merovingian society, as demonstrated by the presence of continental and Mediterranean artefacts in burials of the period (James 1992: 243; Wood 1992: 235). It seems more likely that, as James (1992: 253) suggested, burial in barrows derived from a desire to emulate rich Merovingian burials beneath ostentatious monuments which, in the stone-building tradition of the continent, took the form of a church or cathedral. In early medieval England, however, where stone-building was not the norm, the practice may have been translated into earthen monuments; the perception may have been that they transmitted the same messages of modernity and sophistication as the continental versions. At the same time, however, barrow burial allowed more familiar and insular motifs to be referenced, using recognisable older monument styles.

Much of the research into funerary monument reuse reviewed thus far has focused primarily on rich barrow burials of the sixth and seventh centuries. This has generally been at the expense of other instances of monument reuse, including those that took place before and after this period, and which made use of other monument types. It is here that the recent work of Sarah Semple, Sam Lucy and Howard Williams has been particularly enlightening, providing a fuller picture of monument reuse in funerary contexts. Over the past decade Howard Williams has been particularly prolific in studying reuse in Anglo-Saxon burial contexts (e.g. Williams 1997; 1998; 2006). Rather than simply focusing on barrow burials, he has elaborated on the nature and extent of monument reuse, showing that many other types of monument, such as henges, hillforts and stone circles, were also appropriated. He has shown that around a quarter of known Anglo-Saxon cemeteries of the fifth to eighth centuries reused ancient monuments, including a variety of both prehistoric and Romano-British remains, and that it occurred relatively evenly across Anglo-Saxon England (Williams 1997: 4; 1998: 92). He did note a peak in funerary reuse in the sixth and seventh centuries, but he was able to show that in the fifth and sixth centuries burial in ancient monuments was more of a communal practice, with large cemeteries making use of prehistoric and Romano-British remains; the well-known tradition of elite barrow burial during the late sixth and seventh centuries actually seems to have been a variation on an already-established practice (Williams 1998: 103; 2002: 358). This work has helped to further disprove claims that barrow burials were an ‘anti-Christian’ innovation, since burial in a variety of older earthworks was already an established activity well before the arrival of Christianity (Williams 1998: 102).

An additional problem with the arguments presented by van de Noort and Carver is their geographical bias towards south-east England. Van de Noort (1993: 71) explicitly discussed this area of the country, while Carver’s assertions were largely based on his work in Suffolk (e.g. Carver 1998; 1999; 2001); indeed some scholars who have interpreted the evidence differently, such as Wood (1992) and James (1992), have also focused solely on south-east England. Neither van de Noort nor Carver explains why the tradition of burial in both old and new barrows in the late sixth and seventh centuries extended to the far north of this area, being particularly prevalent in Derbyshire and east Yorkshire, for example. Moreover, it has been shown that reused Roman and Roman-style grave goods became more popular in the sixth and seventh centuries, including in barrow burials (e.g. Eckhardt and Williams 2003; Geake 1999; White 1988; see below for a more detailed discussion of the material culture evidence). This suggests that there were no anti-Christian or anticontinental feelings attached to barrow burial; in fact, as Geake (1999) has argued, the practice suggests an embracing of Classical styles, which may well have carried Christian resonances. 15

of memory were central to studying remembrance in the past. Devlin (2007: 1) noted that studies of memory have become increasing popular in the social sciences and humanities in the last twenty-five years. This interest has recently come to the fore in archaeology, with several studies drawing on theories of memory from the social sciences in order to apply them to archaeological material. Devlin warned, however, that theories about memory are often varied and contrasting, with much debate on the issue of what memory actually is, and how it is formed. There is, therefore, a risk that archaeologists are drawing inspiration from these studies without fully understanding them, or their contexts. Archaeologists have a tendency to omit definitions of their understandings of memory, as the concept is viewed as ‘self-explanatory’, but Devlin argued that theories need to be fully and thoroughly tested in relation to the past before they can be applied (Devlin 2007: 2). Indeed, her own lengthy discussion on the topic of memory theory illustrated just how much information there is on the subject, much of it complex and contradictory.

As well as noting the extent, form and variety of monument reuse in Anglo-Saxon mortuary contexts, Williams sought to interpret them in more depth than had been attempted previously. He agreed, to an extent, with the assertions that funerary reuse of monuments reflected social stress and competition in society, as well as signalling claims to land and resources, attempts to legitimise power and the desire to create ties to ancestors, but he also believed these explanations to be too simplistic (Williams 1997: 24; 2006: 145). He argued that reuse in burial contexts served to ‘symbolize and maintain relationships with ancient monuments’, and that these sites may have been considered liminal, timeless spaces where communities could reproduce idealized versions of their histories and group identities (Williams 1997: 25; 1998: 96). This he also linked to ethnic identity; for groups perceiving their roots as Germanic, images may have been evoked of imagined northern European ‘homelands’ where there were similar burial practices, whilst the deceased could also be linked to former inhabitants of England who built the monuments, which would have emphasized their links to the past (Williams 1997: 26; 1998: 104).

Devlin particularly highlighted concerns regarding the increasingly commonly-used terms ‘social’ and ‘collective’ memory. Debates exist within the discipline of memory theory itself about the nature of social or collective memory, and whether they even exist at all (Devlin 2007: 4, 8-9, 11). Devlin criticised Williams’s understanding of social memory; for example, Williams (2003) claimed that memory is a social rather than psychological concept, which can reside in society rather than the heads of individuals. Devlin pointed out, however, that he failed to explain exactly how he envisioned memory existing outside the heads of individuals (Devlin 2007: 9). An individual can only recall their own experiences; even when memories are shared and made public they never become the actual memories of others. Here, Devlin drew on Sarah Foot’s (1999) assertions about the nature of social memory. Foot has suggested that terms such as ‘social’ and ‘collective’ memory are semantically flawed, as memory is personal and individual; she differentiated memory from a ‘pool of shared remembrance’, which all members of a social group may have access to. Thus, memory can be understood to be an individual attribute; concepts of ‘social’ and ‘collective’ memories should be better expressed as shared stories, histories, traditions and myths – a ‘learned knowledge’ of the past – which a social group can draw on for commemoration but which they do not all share personal memories of (Devlin 2007: 11). Thus, while Williams’s research into funerary reuse is extremely valuable, as the first nationwide, methodical study of this activity, the application of ideas of memory to archaeology can be fraught with difficulty.

Williams has also suggested that monuments acted as nodes in complex relationships between different groups, including the living community, the dead and ancestors (Williams 2006: 145-6). One of his key claims is that monuments operated in relation to social or collective memories in various ways: by influencing and interacting with ritual actions; by embodying cosmologies and origin myths; by acting as thresholds to other worlds; by functioning as the resting places of ancestors; and by acting as places of repeated contact between the living and the dead. There may have been a range of political and social motivations for monument reuse, but for Williams its primary objective was the construction and reworking of social memories, through links to ancestors and the sacred, but also through the creation of genealogies and histories for both elites and wider communities (Williams 2006: 183). These memories, he claimed, were constructed through the repeated use of burial sites and pre-existing monuments, as well as through the journeys performed between monuments and other areas of the landscape (Williams 2006: 197). Thus, mortuary monuments served as centres of commemoration as a result of the rituals conducted at them, rituals which involved both ancestors and the newly dead, as well as the living. Williams’s claims about reused monuments and ‘social’ or ‘collective’ memories have been influential, although Zoe Devlin’s (2007) doctoral research on the application of memory theory in archaeology has thrown doubt on some of Williams’s assertions. Devlin’s approach was to apply sociological theories of memory to funerary assemblages of fifth- to tenth-century south-eastern English cemeteries in order to assess how ‘technologies of remembrance’, such as grave goods and the layout of cemeteries, contributed to the remembrance and commemoration of the deceased. Crucially, her aim was to demonstrate that a sound understanding of the theories

In common with Williams’s work, Sam Lucy’s (2000) book, The Anglo-Saxon Way of Death also considered the subject of monument reuse for burial. She cited many examples of Anglo-Saxon burial sites that reused features such as Iron Age hillforts, Roman forts and villas, and Neolithic long barrows, as well as the ever-popular Bronze Age barrow (Lucy 2000: 124-6). She noted that 16

widespread, with single rich burials frequently interred (Semple 2003a: 366-7). This practice continued into the eighth century, and even into the ninth and tenth centuries, although it was much less frequent by that point. However, Semple noted that the literary sources of the seventh century onwards depicted barrows as evil places, as the homes of dragons and other supernatural beings, haunted by the dead, and as the homes of outcasts or exiles (Semple 1998: 110; 2003a: 332). She cited the story of St. Guthlac, whose quest to find an unholy, deserted and haunted place for his self-enforced exile apparently led him to the fens and to a large burial mound, where he constructed his house in a robbed-out hollow (Semple 1998: 112-3). Here, he was tormented by demons, wicked spirits and criminals, who he eventually drove out (see Chapter 3).

prehistoric earthworks could form the boundaries of cemetery areas, which may shed light on the ways in which these places were separated off, physically as well as ideologically, from the arenas of the living (Lucy 2000: 123). Monuments also dictated the alignment of burials, which might, for example, all lie with their heads pointing to the centre of a feature, such as the Bronze Age barrow surrounded by burials at Mill Hill, Deal (Kent) (Lucy 2000: 130) (Fig. 2.1). In many ways Lucy’s study resembled Williams’s, as she catalogued the types and dates of monument reuse in cemeteries, searching for patterns. She noted that Roman sites tended to be used predominantly in the early AngloSaxon period, and that the reuse of Neolithic monuments tended to be less frequent (perhaps because these earthworks were not as common as others), but when it took place it tended to be in the sixth century and later (Lucy 2000: 124-6). For example, at West Heslerton (Yorks), a fifth- to seventh-century cemetery occupied an area already used as a late Neolithic and early Bronze Age ritual complex, consisting of a hengiform enclosure, a post-circle and a series of round barrows, as well as a major Iron Age boundary. She noted, however, that the most frequently reused monument for burial was the Bronze Age barrow, and that this reuse took place during the whole period of the fifth to early eighth centuries, at places such as Uncleby (E Yorks) (Lucy 2000: 127-8). Clusters were seen in Derbyshire, Sussex, Wiltshire and Yorkshire in the later sixth, seventh and eighth centuries, and Lucy believed that, despite the potential biases inherent in the commanding skyline positions of many barrows or their investigation by antiquarian diggers, these do seem to be genuine geographical and chronological patterns. She also supported Williams’s assertion that, from the very early Anglo-Saxon period, one intention of monument reuse may have been to create an idealised community of ancestors; by associating their dead with these features, Anglo-Saxon mourners may have been manipulating and drawing on associations with the distant past (Lucy 2000: 130, 148). Lucy also noted a change in attitude towards some pre-Christian burial sites after the introduction of Christianity; earlier burial sites, frequently those with some sort of association with prehistoric monuments or with Anglo-Saxon barrows, subsequently became places for the execution and burial of members of society, as Andrew Reynolds and Sarah Semple have discussed in more detail (see below) (Lucy 2000: 152).

To an extent, archaeological evidence supports these negative associations, as in the seventh and eighth centuries barrows, particularly those on the boundaries of territories, became places for the execution and burial of criminals and outcasts, an activity which extended into the eleventh century (Semple 2003a: 371). Semple suggested that executions at prehistoric barrows may have been attempts to bury wrongdoers where they would be tormented in the afterlife by the evil spirits and creatures inhabiting the mound (Semple 1998: 114). When barrows were located on boundaries, this might have added extra potency to the punishment, placing the victim as far away as possible from all conventional aspects of Anglo-Saxon society (Semple 2003a: 371). Semple’s explanation for the changing perceptions of prehistoric monuments in this era was firmly linked to the arrival of the Christian Church. She demonstrated that the negative documentary evidence about barrows was written in the seventh century and later, contemporary with the conversion, and that this was an attempt to demonise monuments which had formerly been perfectly acceptable locations for pre-Christian, and sometimes Christian, burial (Semple 1998: 118). This approach was intermittent though; in some circumstances monuments seem to have been enveloped by Christian ideology and used as locations for churches or fairs (Semple 2003a: 194, 217). Semple’s research demonstrated the complex and often contradictory views of prehistoric monuments in the early medieval period, showing that there may be more than one reason behind monument reuse in burial contexts. Semple’s study of execution burials at prehistoric monuments developed alongside work by Andrew Reynolds, who discussed execution and deviant burial practices and their relationship with justice systems in both his study of late Anglo-Saxon society (Reynolds 1998; 1999), and in his contributions to the analysis of Anglo-Saxon execution cemeteries such as Chesterton Lane Corner in Cambridge (Cessford et al. 2007) and Stonehenge (Pitts et al. 2002). Reynolds has claimed that, as monument reuse for non-deviant burials began to decline during the eighth to tenth centuries, the reuse of monuments for execution cemeteries rose simultaneously, continuing into the twelfth century (Pitts et al. 2002:

Sarah Semple’s doctoral research, an assessment of the uses of prehistoric monuments in fifth- to eleventhcentury Anglo-Saxon England, also covered the subject of monument reuse in burial rites (Semple 1998; 2003a). She applied a multi-disciplinary approach, taking into account archaeological, historical, art historical and place-name evidence (Semple 2003a: 18). Her research showed that the perceptions of prehistoric barrows changed between the fifth and eleventh centuries, taking on gradually more negative connotations. In the early to middle Anglo-Saxon period, especially the seventh century, secondary burials in prehistoric barrows were 17

suggested that differences in the form that reuse took signalled different attitudes towards the landscape and the past in the period AD 400-800. She found that in North Wiltshire Neolithic and Bronze Age remains were particularly frequently reused for burial; in particular, a large number of rich isolated graves were inserted into barrows in the seventh century (Semple 2009: 3). Meanwhile, in West Sussex, prehistoric remains were also often used for burial between the fifth and eighth centuries, but a more diverse array of monuments were reused, including the mine shafts and spoil heaps of prehistoric flint mines at Blackpatch and the Neolithic house platforms at New Barn Down, Clapham (Semple 2009: 3). At New Barn Down and other sites cemeteries of small primary barrows clustered around ancient remains, and were often overshadowed by the older features; in fact, the insertion of rich, isolated burials into pre-existing barrows is virtually absent from this area (Semple 2009: 3-4). Meanwhile, in East Yorkshire communities made use of Bronze Age and Iron Age round and square barrows, as well as linear earthworks, the reuse of the latter for burial being characteristic of this region (Semple 2009: 4). In this region, burials were inserted into prehistoric barrows and linear earthworks, but as part of large communal cemeteries, such as Uncleby, and not generally as individual interments.

140). He stated that two thirds of the excavated execution cemeteries of the middle to late Anglo-Saxon period (around thirty of which are known in total) were located in association with barrows, of both prehistoric and Anglo-Saxon origin, whilst the remainder were located on linear earthworks; these sites frequently afforded views over the landscape, being in sight of communication routes (Cessford et al. 2007: 218; Pitts et al. 2002: 141; Reynolds 1999: 108). They could therefore act as visual warnings to passing travellers, especially if bodies were hung from gallows, as the finds of postholes at some execution cemeteries, such as South Acre (Norfolk) and Stockbridge Down (Hants), suggest (Reynolds 1999: 109). A large number of excavated execution burial sites seem to have focused on the boundaries of administrative areas. This is supported by the written evidence from charter boundaries, which include boundary markers such as heaðenan byrgels (heathen burials) and cwealmstow (killing place) (Reynolds 1999: 109). Thus, a further motivation for the geographical location of execution cemeteries seems to have been the desire to place the offenders as far away as possible from the inhabitation areas of territories. A classic, yet early, example of this activity was evidenced at Stonehenge, as Mike Pitts, Andrew Reynolds, Sarah Semple and others have discussed (Pitts et al. 2002: 131-4). Reassessment of a skeleton found in the early twentieth century within the henge, previously suggested to be Neolithic or Roman, revealed that the individual was an adult male buried in a shallow grave, not quite long enough to hold his body when fully extended. He had been decapitated and had his head placed on top of his body, and radiocarbon analysis dated him to cal AD 600-690 (Pitts et al. 2002: 134, 137). Reynolds and Semple commented on the historical context of the burial, noting that it was an early example of a clearly ‘deviant’ inhumation (Pitts et al. 2002: 140). Other comparable examples include a mutilated skeleton buried in a Neolithic bank barrow inside Maiden Castle (Dorset), radiocarbon dated the first half of the seventh century, and the body of a woman found in a well in the Roman town of Mildenhall (Cunetio) (Wilts), dated to the sixth century (Pitts et al. 2002: 140). It was suggested that these practices were related to an increasing desire to mark deviant social status through the burial rite in the conversion period (Pitts et al. 2002: 140-3). This evidence, then, shows that the perceptions of burials within or around prehistoric monuments were transformed during the middle and later Anglo-Saxon periods. Monuments came to play an important ideological and practical role in the judicial processes of Christian Anglo-Saxon England; the relevance of preexisting monuments in dictating other aspects of Church enterprise is a subject dealt with further in the following section.

The three regions studied by Semple demonstrate that funerary reuse could take a variety of different forms, and she has divided these into two categories, associative reuse and intrusive reuse. Semple (2008: 411) has glossed funerary intrusive reuse as ‘burials that are cut into a monument’, whilst associative reuse relates to ‘burials that cluster around a monument but are not inserted into it, or to primary Anglo-Saxon barrow burials constructed in immediate proximity to a prehistoric monument’. These different reuse practices may have signalled particular messages about people’s attitudes towards the past and its remains. In particular, it appears that reuse was closely linked to the emergence of elite groups. In North Wiltshire, the large numbers of isolated burials intrusively inserted into monuments may have served to make clear statements about the rights of certain members of society to appropriate older monuments, which may have been used to define territorial boundaries (Semple 2009: 33). In the South Saxon kingdom it appears that the diverse array of funerary reuse practices, and the associative positioning of new mounds close to older ones, were linked to the absence of any centralized ruling group in this area during the fifth to eighth centuries (Semple 2009: 422). Instead, there seem to have been smaller competing groups, who were tying themselves into relatively small territorial areas within the region and linking themselves to the remains of the past through association with monuments during the funerary ritual. In contrast to the other two regions, the lack of rich, isolated burials in monuments in East Yorkshire suggests that different processes were taking place, which did not involve the use of pre-existing monuments as symbols of individual, elite power (Semple 2009: 35). This particular aspect of Semple’s research is pertinent to this study, as a similar division

More recently, Semple (2008; 2009) has taken a microtopographical approach to studying reuse in burial contexts. Comparing burial reuse activities in different regions of the country, each with varying topographies and historical backgrounds, Semple (2009: 2) has 18

original interpretation of the site had dated all the enclosures to the Iron Age, Blair believed that the six smaller square enclosures were Anglo-Saxon monuments deliberately copying the Iron Age ones, whilst the larger enclosure represented a development of that style into a new type of early medieval monument. Category D sites comprised square-shaped ditched enclosures imposed on prehistoric monuments, primarily barrows; they differed from Category C sites as these enclosures were larger and more monumental, functioning as shrine sites rather than as grave enclosures (Blair 1995: 10-5). Frequently identified through aerial photography, they nearly always appear as a circle within a square, although occasionally the circle contains the square. The latter was the case at Bampton (Oxon), and Blair suggested that the square may have been added when only the central mound was visible.

between ‘associative’ and ‘intrusive’ reuse practices has been noted in settlements; this will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5. SHRINES AND CHURCHES It has been recognised that pre-existing monuments influenced the location and layout of pagan and Christian religious sites between the fifth to ninth centuries. In 1995 John Blair investigated the reuse of prehistoric and Romano-British monuments in dictating the location of archaeologically elusive pagan ‘shrines’, which placename evidence suggests focused on mounds, trees and perhaps standing posts (Blair 1995: 1). However, there are seventh-century written sources that refer to roofed shrines containing pre-Christian idols and altars (Blair 1995: 2-3). Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica records Pope Gregory’s advice to the Augustinian mission in Kent, in a letter of 601, in which he advises that ‘temples of the idols’ should be converted rather than destroyed (I.30; Sherley-Price 1968: 86-7). Bede also recounts the burning of Deiran royal shrines at Goodmanham, which he twice mentions had fenced or hedged enclosures (septa) around them (II.13; Sherley-Price 1968: 126-8). Bede’s third reference is to a temple of the seventhcentury King Raedwald of East Anglia, which contained both a Christian and a pagan altar (II.15; Sherley-Price 1968: 130-1). Meanwhile, a letter written by Aldhelm in the 680s also makes reference to pagan shrines containing pillars, which had been replaced by churches; ‘where once the crude pillars of the same foul snake and the stag were worshipped with coarse stupidity in profane shrines, in their place dwellings for students, not to mention holy houses of prayer, are constructed’ (Lapidge and Herren 1979: 160-3).

Some of these Category D sites are Roman, such as Haddenham (Cambs), but there is evidence to support an Anglo-Saxon date for others. A large proportion lie in the Upper Thames Valley, although the only excavated example is at Dorchester-on-Thames; this was published in 1951 and comprised a Neolithic oval henge monument with associated cremations, surrounded by a ditched enclosure almost perfectly square in shape (Fig. 2.2). The enclosure was originally assigned a Neolithic date on the basis of several sherds of pottery, but Blair questioned this, as the enclosure’s precise square plan is not characteristic of the Neolithic period. While an Iron Age or Roman date was possible for the enclosure, Blair stated that the absence of large finds assemblages for either period militated against this; the lack of finds is more indicative of a prehistoric or Anglo-Saxon date. Blair preferred the latter, pointing to the un-Neolithic shape of the enclosure and the fact that any later ditch dug around a Neolithic henge is likely to contain residual pottery.

Blair sought to uncover archaeological evidence for the roofed temple structures which Bede and Aldhelm believed to have existed in the early seventh century. He (1995: 4-5) alleged that a common feature of these ‘shrine’ sites was the use of square enclosures, a tradition which he believed had its roots in Iron Age and RomanoBritish ritual practices. He identified a number of square enclosures from across the British Isles, some of which were early medieval and some earlier, and divided them into six categories, A to F. Some involved the reuse of prehistoric monuments and are of particular interest here; these are categories C, D and E. Category C comprised small square-shaped ditched enclosures which seem to have been used as burial enclosures; they have been found in early medieval southern England at places such as Lyminge and Broadstairs (both Kent) although not all were associated with prehistoric earthworks (Blair 1995: 8-10). Garton Station (E Yorks) is one site that did reuse earlier earthworks. Six square and four round enclosures were laid out in an L-shape and contained Iron Age burials, while a further seven square enclosures were found to contain Anglo-Saxon burials, or none at all. One of the latter seven enclosures had a central position and was larger than the others (including the Iron Age enclosures), with a causewayed entrance on its western side and eleven Anglo-Saxon graves inside. Whilst the

Category E comprises square-shaped fenced enclosures imposed on prehistoric monuments, which are often discovered accidentally during excavations as they are more ephemeral than Category D enclosures, and they do not show up easily as cropmarks (Blair 1995: 16). This category includes a cemetery enclosure within a prehistoric stone circle at Yeavering (Northumb), as well as a square-fenced enclosure superimposed on a Bronze Age barrow at Slonk Hill (Sus) (Fig. 2.2). Although Slonk Hill was interpreted as fourth-century by its excavators, Blair claimed that the fourth-century finds only provided a terminus post quem, and that the presence of a late sixth- to mid eighth- century burial provided solid evidence that the site had been of ritual importance in the Anglo-Saxon period. While the excavator claimed that this burial cut the square fenced enclosure on its western side, Blair pointed out that there was a gap in the posts at this point, large enough to suggest that the burial was actually located at the entrance to the enclosure, not over it, making an Anglo-Saxon date for the Category E enclosure more likely. Blair’s study led him to suggest that there are three archaeological ‘signposts’ indicative of Anglo-Saxon pagan sacred sites. 19

Square ditched or fenced enclosures are one ‘signpost’, as are the reuse of prehistoric monuments (especially Bronze Age barrows) and the use of focal posts, while burials could also feature, often aligned on the focal posts (Blair 1995: 19).

ramparts of a hillfort; the village is recorded in Domesday Book as Volwarde (a compound of wulf and weard, possibly meaning ‘the wolf’s lookout place’), perhaps indicating that the settlement and church had earlier origins in the Anglo-Saxon period (Hooke 1998: 15).

It was Blair’s (1995: 21) assertion that, as he had also identified earlier examples of square enclosures, the origins of Anglo-Saxon square shrines lay in the British Iron Age and Roman periods, rather than on the continent or in Scandinavia. As the Anglo-Saxon examples generally dated to the late sixth and seventh centuries, it is possible that the practice continued after the Roman period in western Britain and Scotland, before being readopted in England (Blair 1995: 21). It was suggested that the re-adoption was driven by elites, at a time when Anglo-Saxon society reached a state of social and cultural development likely to generate large, ritual monuments; elites were seeking legitimacy through identifying themselves with former rulers and former places of authority by building new monuments over older ones. Blair’s study was a very useful exercise in searching for archaeological indicators of pagan belief systems, and it did reveal another way in which prehistoric monuments were used in Anglo-Saxon society. However, his claim that seventh-century society had developed to the point that it had ‘a capacity for systematic planning and an urge to express power in monumental form’ is rather thrown into doubt when we consider that the appropriation of monuments was a tradition established earlier, in the fifth and sixth centuries; it is possible that earlier Anglo-Saxon traditions influenced the establishment of these shrines as much as, if not more than, traditions from elsewhere in Britain.

Blair (2005: 186) noted that many of the sites reused for minsters and other churches were actually those less popular among early medieval communities before the adoption of Christianity; this is especially true of Romano-British towns, forts and buildings. For example, churches at Reculver (Kent) and Ilkley (N Yorks) were located amongst Roman ruins, whilst the granting of Roman towns to monasteries by kings was common, exemplified at Bradwell-on-Sea (Essex) where King Sigebert gave the Roman town to St. Cedd (Blair 2005: 186). Blair linked this to the expectation that minsters of the fifth to ninth centuries would be enclosed by stone or earthwork boundaries, or sometimes simply by the topography of their surrounding landscapes, which acted as divisions between sacred and secular space, rather than defensive boundaries (Blair 1992: 231; 2005: 196). A similar form of appropriation was undertaken in the Mediterranean world, where early Christian centres from the fourth century were frequently established in the deserted remains of Roman towns (Blair 1992: 245). It seems that the founders of seventh-century Anglo-Saxon ecclesiastical sites were reclaiming Roman civic spaces partly because they were convenient as enclosures, but also because they witnessed their Christian mentors in the Gallo-Roman world doing the same, and perceived it as good practice (Blair 1992: 246; 2005: 189). There may have been a different explanation for the reuse of hillforts; this also represented an urge to enclose sacred space and reclaim the past, but rather than copying GalloRoman fashions the aim was to associate churches with the practices of the pre-Christian insular culture (Blair 2005: 190). Blair’s consideration of ecclesiastical monument reuse demonstrated that there were both ideological and functional reasons for the practice, revealing that ancient monuments were ‘enabling’, providing opportunities for reuse, but they were not constraining or dictatorial; they could be used if they suited the needs of the Church, but ignored if not.

In studies published in 1992 and 2005 Blair also commented on the relationships between Christian sacred sites and pre-existing earthworks. Whilst Anglo-Saxon churches located on or next to older monuments had once been treated as evidence of cultural continuity, they may be better interpreted as the purposeful re-adoption of ancient sites (Blair 2005: 183-4). It is probable that some pagan cult sites at older monuments formed the locations for churches, as this would have been an effective way of dealing with remnants of the previous religion and it would have given the sites a new, Christian, lease of life. Positive identification of such sites is, however, rare. It may have been the case at Bampton (Oxon), where the main church, its chapel and a cemetery (the latter radiocarbon dated to at least the ninth century) were superimposed on two Bronze Age barrows, which may have had earlier, pre-Christian religious significance (Blair 2005: 186) (Fig. 2.3). Other possible examples include a minster at Hanbury (Worcs), founded before the end of the seventh century, which stood within the ramparts of an Iron Age hillfort, the name heanburh (the high burh) referring to the hillfort itself (Blair 1992: 234; Hooke 1998: 13). Meanwhile, minsters at Tetbury (Glos), Breedon-on-the-Hill (Leics) and Aylesbury (Bucks) were all also built within the remains of Iron Age hillforts (Blair 1992: 234). The church and part of the village of Great Wolford (Warwicks) are surrounded by the

Semple’s doctoral research also considered the roles of prehistoric monuments as pagan and Christian sacred sites (Semple 1998; 2003a). She wrote that by the seventh century there was a highly developed tradition of using prehistoric monuments as ‘pagan’ shrines (as Blair’s Category E demonstrated), which existed in tandem with the popular use of monuments as burial locations (Semple 2003a: 366). She attributed both activities to beliefs about the liminal properties of pre-existing monuments, claiming that they were thought to be prime sites for communication with spirits, other worlds and ancestors (Semple 1998: 118; 2003a: 372). Like Blair, Semple pointed out that monuments were also important after the conversion, and she listed a compendium of churches juxtaposed with prehistoric monuments, including Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age earthwork 20

enclosures, Bronze Age barrows and megaliths (Semple 1998: 120; see Chapter 5). She interpreted this as a reaction to the previous ‘pagan’ use of such monuments, bringing them into a Christian milieu (Semple 2003a: 217). It was noted, however, that in most cases the origins of the churches concerned, and the dates of their associated monuments, have not been conclusively established through archaeological investigation.

PLACES OF ASSEMBLY A number of researchers have suggested that relationships existed between pre-existing monuments, especially barrows, and the meeting places of AngloSaxon administrative units. Many of the studies discussed in this section have centred on identifying assembly places of the early to middle Anglo-Saxon period, although these sites are difficult to trace archaeologically, and we know relatively little about the nature and functions of administrative assembly in this period. Only in the first half of the tenth century do we achieve greater insight into assembly practices, with the development of the ‘hundred’ system of communal, regional units of local government (Cam 1963: 64; Loyn 1974: 3).

Other scholars have also noted the proximity of churches to older monuments. David Stocker and David Went (1995: 441, 447-50) have discussed the location of the demolished church of St Nicholas at Taplow (Bucks), which parchmarks and geophysical survey revealed to be some 10-15m north-west of the well-known seventhcentury Taplow burial mound. The footprint of the earliest phase of the church suggests that it may have had its origins in the eighth or ninth centuries, based on the lack of structural division between the nave and chancel and the presence of small side chambers (porticus) on either side of the building, both of which are characteristic of Anglo-Saxon churches. Other eighthand ninth-century churches with porticus and similar footprints are known from Bishopstone (Sus), Britford (Wilts) and Ledsham (W Yorks) (Stocker and Went 1995: 449). The church may have been positioned in close proximity to this mound either with or without knowledge of its recent origins, while more recent investigations in the area have revealed that the church and mound lay within an Iron Age hillfort (Allen et al. 2009). Elsewhere, the Anglo-Saxon church of St John sub Castro in Lewes (Sus) may occupy an earlier ritual site, as it is located next to a pre-Christian cemetery and it lies within an enclosure containing a mound (albeit of unknown date) and evidence for Romano-British activity (Bleach 1997: 133).

The term ‘hundred’ is a rather ambiguous one, referring to both a territorial land division and to a court or gathering, two closely connected concepts (Cam 1963: 107-8; Loyn 1974: 1). Hundred territories defined geographical units within a shire, and at their largest could encompass up to sixty-five square miles, although units were usually smaller than this (Loyn 1974: 1). The hundred court, meanwhile, met monthly and dealt with issues such as taxation, land disputes, confirming the good character of members of the community and judging offenders, particularly those accused of theft (Loyn 1974: 9-11). In some cases a hundred court might actually consist of members from several hundred territories, demonstrating the ambiguity and occasional lack of correlation between the court and the geographical unit. Even though Henry Loyn’s (1974: 13) often-cited paper on the hundred system stated that prior to the tenth century disputes over issues such as land and tax took place more intermittently and in a less regular way than under the hundred system, many of the functions of the hundred court may well have existed earlier in the Anglo-Saxon period. Thus, it is possible to speculate that assemblies, and assembly sites, prior to the tenth century shared certain characteristics with the later hundreds, although it should be borne in mind that we know much less about the precise functions of assemblies, or their locations, in the early and middle Anglo-Saxon period.

Tyler Bell (1998) has discussed the ecclesiastical reuse of Romano-British remains, noting that villas were the most commonly reused structures, although forts and signal stations were also appropriated. The majority of the examples he identified were associated with secular Roman buildings, which had been abandoned for over a century before their reuse, and thus there was little evidence for any continuity of use for these structures (Bell 1998: 1, 4). Bell (1998: 5) suggested that part of the attraction of these buildings might have been their geographical or topographical positions, often near natural springs or in commanding positions (this would have particularly been the case with military buildings), whilst the distinctive style of the stone buildings might have marked them out as different and appealing. In an argument reminiscent of Blair’s, Bell (1998: 6-7, 17) believed that ‘Roman’ might have become synonymous with ‘Christian’ in the seventh century and that the appeal of these monuments was their ability to enclose space. He concluded that the reuse of Roman remains by churchbuilders did not result from any single factor, but rather it reflected ‘the range of developing responses to the Roman landscape from the seventh century’ (Bell 1998: 17).

Aliki Pantos (2004) has combined place-name evidence with archaeological and historical data in order to elucidate the location and form of Anglo-Saxon assembly sites. The law courts of Anglo-Saxon England seem to have convened and conducted political and judicial business outdoors, at places removed from primary areas of settlement, and often located on natural features or older monuments (Pantos 2004: 155-6). Common locations for assembly included landmarks such as mounds, trees, stones, earthworks, as well as points of communication, such as crossroads, fords, bridges and routeways. In addition to newly-constructed mounds, prehistoric barrows were also used; Spellow Hills (Lincs) is a Neolithic long barrow whose Old English name, spelhlaw, means ‘speech-mound’, while a mound known as Moat Lowe (Derbys) derives from (ge)mot + hlaw, meaning ‘assembly mound’ (Pantos 2004: 172). 21

– but because of ‘community’ – they belonged to everybody. Similarly, the location of many Anglo-Saxon assemblies on sites of earlier importance (or at least perceived earlier importance), such as pre-existing monuments, could have been an exercise in communality, that served to emphasise ties to the past. Selecting sites that could be ‘marketed’ as the venues of assemblies in the ancestral past meant that later courts could claim precedent and boost their authority (Pantos 2004: 175).

Despite the usefulness of the place-name in detecting assembly sites, Pantos (2004: 156-8) warned that a more wide-ranging research method is needed to identify further examples. In some cases the place-name of a meeting place records a single feature, even though there might be two or more natural features or earthworks in the vicinity. For example, Copthorne Hundred (Surrey) derives from a name meaning ‘pollarded thorn-tree’, but investigation at the moot site revealed not only a group of fields nearby still called Copthorne, but also a linear earthwork known as Nutshambles, believed to derive from OE (ge)mot-sceamol or ‘assembly bench’, which may refer to a structure specifically built on the site for meetings. It seems possible that some place-names reflect just one aspect of assembly places, whilst there may actually have been a variety of connected points within a locale, perhaps with different functions including lawmaking, judicial courts, gaming or trading (Pantos 2004: 161, 165).

Semple (1998; 2004) has compiled a list of possible defining features of assembly sites, with the aim of making these places less archaeologically elusive. These assembly site signifiers include the reuse of prehistoric monuments (in particular complexes of monuments), the creation of contemporary monumental structures, the presence of buildings or indicators of royal residence, evidence for ritual or religious activity such as standing posts or unusual burials, evidence for kingship such as elaborate burials, and features which could indicate expression of authority such as deviant burials and deliberate killings (Semple 2004: 138-9). She noted that ritual, kingship and assembly are known to coincide with ancient monuments in other European areas in the early medieval period. The seats of royal power in first millennium AD Ireland, for example, often centred on mounds, which are thought to have represented central places sacred to the gods, as well as functioning as platforms from which a king could communicate with the ‘otherworld’ (Semple 2004: 136). Mounds also played a role in early medieval Scandinavia as frequent symbols of administration, kingship, assembly and ritual, as well as places for burial.

Pantos (2004: 170-2) also noted that public assembly places were often connected with the exercising of royal power, as well as the expression of group solidarity through communal activities. As such, these sites may have had strong ideological connotations for the people using them, which could have developed as a site was repeatedly used over many generations. Ideological factors could also have influenced the positioning of the site in the first place, especially where pre-existing monuments were used as focal points. Assembly places are often attributed with functional meanings; mounds act as platforms, and trees or stones as distinctive markers. Although these functional properties were perhaps important, they may not have been the only factors influencing the use of markers such as mounds. If they were also perceived as places of divine or ancestral influence, barrows might well have been seen as appropriate places for judicial or legislative business, the supernatural power within the mound affecting or legitimating judgements made there (Pantos 2004: 172).

Having highlighted the importance of the prehistoric mound to assembly sites in other areas of early medieval Europe, Semple (2004: 139) suggested that Anglo-Saxon burial sites (ranging from isolated interments to large cemeteries) associated with prehistoric monuments were potential places of assembly. Extensively reused barrows, such as the one at Uncleby (E Yorks), may have been emblematic of a ‘cumulative ancestral presence’, and could have developed into a suitable places of ‘interface’ between the living and the dead (Semple 2004: 140-2). Indeed, it was Semple’s belief that for an early ritual and/or assembly site to develop from a cemetery site, some sort of monument would have been a pre-requisite. In particular, multi-focal monumental burial sites (i.e. those that reused several prehistoric monuments within a given locale), such as Uncleby, Garton Station and Garton II (all E Yorks), Harford Farm (Norfolk), and Dorchester-on-Thames (Oxon) may be prime potential meeting places because the multi-focal and dispersed use of the landscape for burials led to the delineation of a ritual area surrounded by monuments (Semple 2004: 1402).

Attention has also been drawn to the similarities between meeting places and pagan shrines, both in terms of their locations and the pre-existing features they were associated with; this may indicate that the moot sites of early administrative units coincided with sacred sites, a suggestion made by both Meaney (1995: 37) and Pantos (2004: 172). This could explain why mounds continued to be used as meeting places even after the Church’s attempts to malign their reuse (Semple 1998). In fact, Meaney (1995: 37) has claimed that the popularity of mounds as assembly places actually increased in the later Anglo-Saxon period. It is possible that, as these were places associated with communality and religious activity in the pagan period, they may have been converted to Christian religious sites and continued in use as places for assembly, free from fearful connotations (Pantos 2004: 172-3). The construction of new mounds in this period might even have represented attempts to create similar, but ‘clean’, mounds. Further, Pantos has argued that assembly sites were on boundaries, away from settlement, not because of ‘neutrality’ – i.e. they belonged to nobody

A further indicator of assembly might be ritual structures, such as buildings, square enclosures and standing posts, at burial sites – simple square structures were located at both Harford Farm and Dorchester-on-Thames, for example (Semple 2003a: 145). These resemble John 22

perhaps other involved individuals such as grave diggers or ritual specialists), Williams did not fully explore how these mortuary gatherings were transformed into judicial and administrative assemblies. Nonetheless, an important point to take away from this discussion is that many of the factors discussed by scholars such as Semple, Pantos and Williams in relation to assembly sites may also be attributable to settlements, as will be explored in more detail below (see Chapter 7).

Blair’s ‘pagan’ shrines or temples, and it was Semple’s suggestion that their presence may indicate communal ritual activity, and therefore assembly. In Semple’s appraisal it was suggested that pre-existing features were treated as points of interface between ancestors and the living, and that their reuse demonstrated a need to associate the dead, and the ceremonies of the living, with monuments representative of the ‘otherworld’, (Semple 2003a: 150-1). She claimed that the majority of these sites would have ceased to be used as ritual, royal or ceremonial centres after the conversion, and would therefore remain in the archaeological record only as cemeteries; their former significance as central places of assembly and communal meeting would have been more ephemeral and would remain undetected.

SETTLEMENTS Studies on the subject of monument reuse in settlements are sparse, and those that have taken place have tended to focus on high-status residences. The classic example that ‘kick-started’ the discussion of monument reuse among early medievalists was Richard Bradley’s (1987) reassessment of the settlement at Yeavering (Northumb), which had been excavated by Brian Hope-Taylor in the 1950s (Hope-Taylor 1977).1 The excavation had revealed two prehistoric ceremonial centres – a ring ditch and a stone circle – both dated by fragments of Bronze Age pottery (Bradley 1987: 125) (Fig. 2.4). The stone circle had formed the focus of a Bronze Age cremation cemetery and was reused in the early medieval period as the site of an inhumation cemetery; a nearby timber building was interpreted as a pre-Christian temple. The ring ditch at the opposite end of the excavation area was presumed to mark the site of a barrow, and had been emphasised by a large post in the early medieval period; in time, this was also incorporated into the earthworks of a massive enclosure (Bradley 1987: 125). This ring ditch was also augmented by an early medieval inhumation cemetery, and later by a church and associated graves. Unlike the stone circle, this monument formed the focal point of the alignment of timber buildings on the settlement; the layout of this early medieval Northumbrian site had therefore been determined by two prehistoric monuments, both of which were modified and brought back into use (Bradley 1987: 125). A further monument mentioned by Bradley was the cropmark of a henge, which had been wrongly identified as part of a Roman temple by Hope-Taylor in the excavation report.

A similar argument was made by Williams (2004: 10910), who also pointed out the difficulty of identifying sites of communal gatherings in the archaeological record, claiming that burial sites may well have fulfilled this role. Williams stated that, as distinctively high-status sites (such as ‘palace’ sites; see below) began to develop in the seventh century, these may have formed the foci of assembly in this period, but it is not clear where gatherings might have taken place prior to this. Perhaps, then, fifth- and sixth-century meeting places, if they indeed existed, overlapped with a site type which we do frequently find archaeologically from that period – cemeteries. Focusing on large cremation cemeteries in eastern England, such as Spong Hill (Norfolk) and Loveden Hill (Lincs), Williams suggested that, as substantial numbers of cremations were interred at these cemeteries, dispersed communities from large catchment areas must have been using them and thus, these locations could have acted as assembly places for sizeable groups of people (Williams 2004: 113-5). As many cemeteries can be linked to pre-existing features, including mounds, this again suggests that monuments may have played a part in communal gatherings (Williams 2004: 119). Loveden Hill, for example, was thought to have been located on an older burial mound; excavations revealed that this was in fact a natural knoll, but the early medieval communities burying their dead there may not have been aware of this (Williams 2004: 122-3). Furthermore, aerial photographs hint at the presence of barrows in the vicinity of the cemetery, which Williams suggested were ‘nodes’ of contact with other worlds; they may have acted as the foci of gatherings and ceremonies, perhaps providing a monumental focus for the cemetery and a ready-made ‘stage’ for ritual performance (Williams 2004: 123). What Williams did not clarify, however, is how he saw ‘assembly’ activities fitting into the funerary process. Both Pantos and Semple have emphasised the administrative and judicial functions of communal meetings, but Williams did not explain how these particular functions might have been carried out alongside mortuary activities and ‘ritual ceremonies’, nor how the timing and organisation of the assemblies might have been decided. Thus, while communal cemeteries are meeting places in that they bring together mourners (and

Hope-Taylor had argued for ritual continuity, suggesting that the site had been important politically and ritually from the Bronze Age through to the early medieval period. In contrast, Bradley believed that the early medieval inhabitants had deliberately reused the Bronze Age monuments after a break in occupation in order to claim local ancestry, and thereby authority. Bradley (1987: 127) was able to show that any knowledge of the original prehistoric layout of the site at Yeavering would not have been transmitted into the early medieval period, and ritual continuity was therefore not likely, since the 1

The site was regarded as ‘Anglo-British’, rather than ‘Anglo-Saxon’, by its excavator, Hope-Taylor, because of its location on the fringes of Anglo-Saxon influence and his belief that the buildings showed ‘British’ traits (Hope-Taylor 1977: 209-213). However Scull (1991) has demonstrated that the early, sixth-century, phase of the site actually resembled contemporary Anglo-Saxon settlements and it may not, therefore, represent a wholly unusual or isolated settlement style.

23

life, and on higher-status settlements may have served to create impressive displays in order to demonstrate the legitimacy of the ruling elite’s authority. While Semple’s discussion was short, it did demonstrate that prehistoric monuments were sometimes reused in settlements, and that those settlements were not necessarily high-status examples, such as Yeavering.

position of the prehistoric henge had dictated the Bronze Age axis of the monument complex, whilst the early medieval settlement took its axis from the ring ditch and stone circle. A further indicator of discontinuity was the nature of the evidence for activity in the late prehistoric and Roman periods, during which time a field system was constructed over the site on a completely different axis from the Bronze Age monuments. It was Bradley’s belief that a local Northumbrian elite group was ‘making a considered effort to strengthen its position through reference to the past’ (Bradley 1987: 123, 130). The past was, therefore, being used as a resource by groups who wanted to legitimise the social order to which they belonged, and thereby reinforce their positions of authority within that order. Bradley (1987: 123, 130) suggested that periods of rapid change and insecurity are often emphasised by significant investment in ideology, sometimes involving the construction of impressive monuments and public ritual; this may have been the case at Yeavering. While his paper concentrated on an unusual and high-status site – the exception rather than the norm – Bradley’s ideas about reuse were seminal in the development of our understanding of monument reuse in the early medieval period, and his work has been very influential.

The possibility that Anglo-Saxon settlements reused older earthworks has been raised by several other researchers, although usually in the form of passing comments, with little by way of interpretation. For example, Andrew Reynolds (2003: 100), in his extensive review of the development of bounded settlements in sixth- to eleventhcentury England, stated that ‘it is difficult to find an Anglo-Saxon settlement which is not associated in some way with earlier remains’, but warned that each example must be judged individually to assess the significance of the relationships between the two. Margaret Gray (1974: 54) believed that associations between Anglo-Saxon settlement features and ring ditches at New Wintles Farm (Oxon) were for ‘reasons not considered to be coincidental’, although she did not elaborate any further on this. Similarly, excavation reports for other settlements have also noted that Anglo-Saxon buildings reference older monuments, but they have not attempted to interpret this activity; the report for Glebe Farm, Brough (Notts), for example, noted that buildings followed the alignment of an Iron Age field system (Jones forthcoming). Paul Everson has also pointed out that ring ditches ‘feature’ in various early medieval parishes of Lindsey, suggesting that this was ‘interesting in the context of [Richard] Bradley’s “legitimisation”’; however he offered no explanation as to how these ring ditches might have acted as legitimising forces (Everson 1993: 95). Thus, despite the fact that Bradley’s often-quoted theories were published over twenty years ago, very little analysis of monument reuse in Anglo-Saxon settlement contexts has been carried out since; when we contrast this with other contexts in which monument reuse has been shown to take place, such as burial, assembly and religious activity, this gap in our knowledge becomes particularly palpable.

More recently, Semple’s doctoral research into the appropriation of prehistoric monuments in Anglo-Saxon England included perhaps the only other serious consideration of the relationships between prehistoric features and settlements (Semple 2003a). Even so, this is a rather brief discussion – just a few pages in the whole thesis, despite the fact one of Semple’s main objectives was ‘to establish that in England prehistoric monuments were used throughout the early medieval period for a variety of purposes’ (Semple 2003a: 375; emphasis added). Nevertheless she did cite some examples of sites where she felt there were credible relationships between settlement and pre-existing features. At Sutton Courtenay (Oxon), which is thought to be sixth- or seventh-century in date, the alignment of buildings in relation to several Neolithic and Bronze Age ring ditches may have implied an ‘extensive and formal’ relationship (Semple 2003a: 162; this site is discussed in greater detail in Chapters 4 and 6). Mucking was also cited as a convincing example of reuse in a settlement; Semple felt, as Hamerow (1993: 86) did, that the locations of SFBs confirmed that they had been influenced by the underlying remains of prehistoric and Romano-British field systems and enclosures.

THE REUSE OF ARTEFACTS The presence of prehistoric or Roman-British artefacts in early medieval contexts – particularly graves – has been recognised for some time. Roger White (1988) examined Roman objects from Anglo-Saxon graves, finding that certain objects, such as brooches, vessels, spoons, keys and rings, were purposefully selected for inclusion in graves, particularly those of women and children. He offered several possible explanations for this phenomenon; in some instances Roman objects might have had an amuletic role, for example when sherds of Roman glass or pottery were placed in bags or pouches in the grave, or when artefacts such as brooches were suspended from girdles (White 1988: 161). He also proposed that, when Roman artefacts resembled AngloSaxon ones, they were used as substitutes amongst members of society who could not obtain or afford the contemporary items (White 1988: 163). A further

Semple divided up the evidence for reuse in settlements into three categories: firstly, settlements in which a single structure, often some distance from the rest of the settlement, referenced a prehistoric monument; secondly, those in which buildings were arranged with respect for one or more prehistoric monuments; and thirdly, limited structural evidence seen in relation to burials around prehistoric monuments (Semple 2003a: 164-5). She also claimed that barrows may have offered a focus for religious or ritual behaviour in the context of everyday 24

‘magical’ properties, as amulets, the reuse of these objects may have been related to attempts to ‘define social memories relating to the past’, their lack of known biographies of production, ownership and use making the artefacts mysterious and open to reinterpretation (Eckhardt and Williams 2003: 146, 159).

suggestion was that objects deposited in graves, especially in the fifth century, were survivals from the Roman period that were still in circulation and perhaps treasured, or they were retrieved from abandoned Roman sites (White 1988: 164). In the sixth century, White suggested, these items would have become harder to come by, as they would have been buried or destroyed, although they could have been recovered, accidentally or intentionally, during digging on Roman sites. More recently, Hella Eckhardt and Howard Williams (2003) have studied reused Roman objects from AngloSaxon burials in eastern and southern pre-Christian England. Reused coins and items of personal adornment, such as pins, brooches and buckles were found frequently in these fifth- to seventh-century graves (Eckhardt and Williams 2003: 149). Like White, they found that these objects tended to be associated with female and child burials, often as components of the burial costume; sometimes items were used for their original purpose, but on other occasions their functions had been changed, with brooches being reused as pendants, for example (Eckhardt and Williams 2003: 161). In some cases Roman artefacts were used to construct graves; sarcophagi were reused, parts of Roman pillars covered burials, and Roman tiles lined graves or formed the lids of cremation urns (Eckhardt and Williams 2003: 163). Both White (1988: 159-60) and Eckhardt and Williams (2003: 155) noted, albeit briefly, that the collection and reuse of Roman objects also took place in Anglo-Saxon settlements. The discovery of similar items to those recovered from graves demonstrated that the deliberate selection of certain items was taking place among AngloSaxon communities. At West Stow (Suffolk), for example, Roman coins, brooches, spoons, pins, bracelets and rings were found inside buildings, while Roman pottery and coins were at Mucking and Heybridge (both Essex) (Eckhardt and Williams 2003: 163; White 1988: 159-60).

There are, however, several problems with the arguments presented by Eckhart and Williams. Firstly their reference to the creation of ‘social memories’ draws criticism in the same vein as Zoe Devlin’s (2007) critique of memory studies in archaeology discussed above; the authors do not define what they mean by this term, nor do they offer examples of how social memories might have been created through the reuse of artefacts. Secondly, their assumption that fifth- and sixth-century communities would have been unaware of the ‘biographies’ of Roman artefacts is inherently problematic. It cannot be assumed that all knowledge of the Roman past would have been lost, especially in the century or so following the decline of Roman rule. Artefacts – as well as stories about their production, ownership and use – might have been passed down through the generations spanning the RomanoBritish to Anglo-Saxon transition. Devlin (2007: 20) has made a similar point, criticising the assumption that artefacts were not passed down from Romano-British generations. Indeed, rather than providing a blank canvas for reinterpretation as simply ‘old’ objects, these items could have had long and complex histories, perhaps with multiple meanings. Moreover, if similar objects were known from the continent, where Gallo-Roman fashions were still current (Blair 1995), early medieval communities might have considered Roman objects familiar rather than mysterious, and their appeal could have stemmed from their resemblance to continental and Mediterranean objects. Despite these criticisms, it is pertinent that White, and Eckhardt and Williams, have highlighted another way in which the physical remains of the past were reused in Anglo-Saxon England.

The restricted numbers and types of Roman items discovered in Anglo-Saxon graves indicate that these items are not residual, and that their reuse was selective (Eckhardt and Williams 2003: 156). Eckhardt and Williams (2003: 163) echoed White’s claims that the objects may have had amuletic or protective properties, for example when they were used as the coverings for cremation urns or graves. On the whole, though, they considered many of White’s conclusions unsatisfactory and too functional. They refuted the suggestion that Roman artefacts were reused as poor substitutes for contemporary decorative or expensive items, since reused items appear in both wealthy and poorer grave assemblages (Eckhardt and Williams 2003: 157). The crux of Eckhardt and Williams’s argument was that the age of Roman items gave them their appeal; removed from their temporal and spatial contexts, the objects could be imbued with new and reworked meanings, while cultural and ideological links could have been created between the past and the present (Eckhardt and Williams 2003: 142-3). Rather than having ‘practical’ properties, as imitations of contemporary high-status items, or

On a similar note, Geake (1999) drew attention to the seventh- and eighth-century popularity of Roman-style (as opposed to Roman) artefacts, which seem to have been inspired by both earlier Romano-British and contemporary Byzantine design. She has stated that ‘a distinct contrast can be seen between the old Germanicstyle jewellery and the newer classical-style jewellery’ (Geake 1999: 209). For example, sixth-century ‘Germanic’ brooches found in female graves declined rapidly in the seventh century, while the crystal balls, sieve spoons and bronze girdle hangers that hung from women’s belts were replaced by Roman-style items such as iron latch-lifters, small iron spoons, toilet sets, bags and work-boxes (Geake 1999: 203-4). ‘Gender-neutral’ items also changed, with bronze-bound buckets being replaced by iron-bound ones and glass vessels decreasing in popularity, while in masculine assemblages the seax joined the repertoire of weapons (Geake 1999: 204). In both feminine and gender-neutral assemblages the new artefacts were more delicate, fragile and neatly-made than before. These changes took place widely over much of seventh-century Anglo-Saxon England, making the 25

emerging kingship seem to have increased social and political competition. What these different strands of evidence appear to show is that monument reuse, and an interest in the past, were present from the fifth and sixth centuries, but that in the specific socio-political circumstances of the seventh century the practice of reuse became more frequent and regularised, apparently falling under the control of, and being manipulated by, elites and the Christian Church (see Chapter 7).

newly-emerged kingdoms almost indistinguishable from each other in terms of burial (Geake 1999: 205). It is possible that the arrival of the Christian Church was a factor in these transformations, bringing with it visitors, and in turn objects, from the Mediterranean (Geake 1999: 209). Whilst she was happy to name the Church as a possible mechanism for this change, however, Geake stopped short of naming it as the cause, partly because the change in grave goods began around 600, while the conversion process took most of the seventh century:

Pre-existing monuments seem to have formed a backdrop to early medieval lives, and they could act as the stimuli and locations for a number of different activities. In light of the evidence presented here, it should not be surprising to find that the reuse of ancient earthworks was also reflected in Anglo-Saxon settlements. There existed a variety of ways in which Anglo-Saxon communities could assert their claims and interests in the past, while the archaeological interpretations offered for the phenomenon of reuse also vary. For some, reuse is seen as largely functional, while for others it is explained through social, political and cultural circumstances. Some researchers, such as Williams, Semple and Bradley, have considered in detail the reasons for reuse, providing more in-depth interpretations than had previously been attempted. All the studies, ideas and interpretations reviewed here provide a valuable starting point from which to approach the study of monument reuse in settlements, and one of the aims of the present study is to determine whether analysis of the tradition in settlements can, in conjunction with these previous studies, enhance our understanding of Anglo-Saxon attitudes towards the past.

Instead of seeing the use of classical-style grave goods as a way of advertising Christian allegiance in death, we could instead see it as a way of advertising something else, but given an impetus by the presence of the Church in England (Geake 1999: 212). Accordingly, Geake suggested that the cause was another common factor shared by these kingdoms, dynastic kingship. Geake (1999: 212) suggested that this form of rule would have required legitimisation in order to be accepted, and that the early kings harked back to a time when Britain had last had a united leader – the Roman period. Elites could have claimed to be the direct descendents of Roman rulers, or they could have constructed an image of themselves as ‘inheriting the mantle of Rome’; neither idea necessarily excludes the other (Geake 1999: 212). Paradoxically, by reusing the motifs of Roman rule in their attempts to bolster strength, power and territory, the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms ended up making themselves archaeologically invisible from the point of view of burial (Geake 1999: 214). Once again, we can see that the past in early medieval England was treated as a resource to be ‘mined’ for inspiration and legitimisation. SUMMARY To summarise, there is evidence to suggest considerable interest in the past and its remains amongst early and middle Anglo-Saxon communities, beginning in the fifth and sixth centuries, perhaps peaking in the seventh, but continuing into the ninth century and beyond. This interest was expressed through the reuse of both monuments and artefacts. Where monument appropriation is concerned, some interesting chronological patterns have been noted, particularly by Howard Williams, who has shown that in the fifth and sixth centuries communal burial sites clustered around barrows and other prehistoric monuments in what appears to be a fairly egalitarian way. It is only in the late sixth and seventh centuries that rich, individual, secondary interments began to emerge. Meanwhile, monument reuse existed at pagan sacred sites of the fifth and sixth centuries and was replaced by Christian churches from the seventh century onwards. Similarly, it is in the seventh century that we see particular interest in Roman and Roman-style artefacts, as Geake (1999), White (1988) and Eckhardt and Williams (2003) have demonstrated. It is interesting to note that the seventh century was the period in which social stratification and 26

Fig. 2.1 A Bronze Age round barrow reused for Anglo-Saxon inhumations at Mill Hill, Deal (Kent) (after Lucy 2000: 81, fig. 5.4).

Fig. 2.2 A possible example of a Category D pagan shrine site at Dorchester-on-Thames (left) and a possible Category E shrine at Slonk Hill (right) (after Blair 1995: figs. 7 and 11). 27

Fig. 2.3 The late eleventh-century chapel at Bampton enclosed by a Bronze Age ring ditch (left) (after Blair 1994: fig. 31).

Fig. 2.4 The early medieval settlement at Yeavering, aligned on a prehistoric ring ditch to the east and a stone circle to the west (below) (after Bradley 1987: fig. 1).

28

CHAPTER THREE THE PAST IN PLACE-NAMES AND LITERATURE centuries, but they do not seem to have been a Christian invention (Dumville 1977: 76; Yorke 2000: 79). The inclusion of pagan gods at the beginning of the genealogies is perhaps the most obvious indication of a pre-Christian origin, and it suggests that the inhabitants of pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon England may have already been tracing their ancestry back to deities (Moisl 1981: 216; Yorke 2000: 79). Indeed, Moisl (1981: 233-4) expresses little doubt that the literate, ecclesiastical compilers of the lists were following pre-existing, orally transmitted dynastic legends, and he states that it is difficult to see how and why pagan characters would have been used in Christian society if they did not display recognisable links with earlier legends that were still in existence. It is possible that the genealogies in this early period were transmitted through song or poetry, perhaps by a court scop or poet, and there may have been wellknown legends involving the characters named in the lists (Moisl 1981: 231-3). Further support for the claim that the genealogies were initially devised to be recited and remembered through oral tradition comes from the alliterative nature of the names in them (Sisam 1953: 288, 300).

The written evidence pertaining to the Anglo-Saxon period is, on the whole, restricted to the seventh to eleventh centuries, society in the fifth and sixth centuries being largely non-literate (Yorke 1993: 45). The available documentary evidence from the seventh century onwards includes genealogical lists, poetry and charters. On the basis of the written evidence, Matthew Innes (2000: 1) has described the past as ‘a very real presence in the early Middle Ages’. It could function as a template, which helped to legitimise or explain the current order of the world, or as an ideal – a Golden Age – against which that current order could be judged. Moreover, a shared set of beliefs about the past, perpetuated in written form, could provide a common source of identity amongst a disparate group of people (Innes 2000: 1). This chapter considers how textual sources can provide insights into attitudes towards the past in Anglo-Saxon England. The written evidence from this period has been subjected to extensive analysis by numerous scholars; rather than attempting any radical re-evaluation of that evidence, this chapter reviews previous research in order to reflect on the implications of these previous findings in relation to settlement evidence. Genealogical lists of the royal houses of Anglo-Saxon England will be discussed first, followed by a selection of Old English poetry and prose sources, then the evidence from charters employed in the transfer of land ownership. Toponymic evidence will then be reviewed, since the monikers applied to ancient earthworks can also reveal information about their perceived ages, properties and functions.

Initially, the genealogies traced ancestry back to Woden, but in the late eighth or early ninth century some royal houses then began to extend their ancestries back even further, elaborating them and adding in new characters, thereby exaggerating their own ancestries in relation to their counterparts in other kingdoms (Davis 1992: 28; Dumville 1977: 95; Moisl 1981: 220). At this time Mercia, Bernicia, Deira, Kent and East Anglia added a father for Woden in the character of Frealaf (Davis 1992: 29). Lindsey’s ruling family pushed their genealogy back five generations beyond Woden to Geat, and others, such as the Northumbrian, Kentish and East Anglian rulers followed suit (Davis 1992: 29; Sisam 1953: 308; 324). Then, during the rise of the house of Wessex in the ninth century, the West Saxon kings began to extend their histories even further, making use of Scandinavian heroes and other fallen pagan gods but also, crucially, patriarchal biblical characters (Davis 1992: 30). The pedigree of King Æthelweulf of the West Saxons ― the father of King Alfred ― states that Woden was descended from a son of Noah; Noah was linked to Adam, and therefore Christ (Davis 1992: 30). Tying their ancestries into biblical history enabled West Saxon kings to maintain and enhance their existing Germanic pedigree, while at the same time obtaining more impressive biblical ancestors, the most prestigious progenitors available in the Christian period (Davis 1992: 30-1).

GENEALOGIES The eighth and ninth centuries in England witnessed the production of written royal genealogies, which survive for the kingdoms of Deira, Bernicia, Lindsey, East Anglia, Wessex, Mercia, Kent and Essex (Moisl 1981: 215; Sisam 1953: 326). Each pedigree, at least in its earliest form, began with a pagan god, in most cases Woden, although for Essex it was Seaxnet. They then proceeded to name a number of legendary and mythical heroic figures, ending in the names of historical characters and finally the current king (Davis 1992: 29; Dumville 1977: 78; Moisl 1981: 216-7). They had a standard length, generally incorporating around fourteen names after Woden, and they always implied direct patrilineal descent, despite the fact that competition for kingship appears to have been a much more complex process, open to claims from sons and grandsons of kings (Davis 1992: 32; Moisl 1981: 236). Later on, the lists were augmented with the addition of further characters from a variety of sources, which will be discussed further below. The genealogies are not historical records; rather, they represent the construction of fictitious ancestries (Davis 1992: 33; Dumville 1977: 76, 94, 98; Hunter 1974: 33; Sisam 1953: 328-9).

The continued use of genealogies after the conversion of the royal houses to Christianity suggests that belief in divine descent continued to be ideologically and politically important after overt links with paganism were severed (Moisl 1981: 228). Rather than being destroyed, the mythology of the pre-Christian elites was augmented with a ‘sacred history of the Bible’ (Davis 1992: 23). In

The written lists were compiled by clerics after the conversion to Christianity, during the eighth and ninth 29

genealogies do show a concern for the past, and that it was classified based on contemporary beliefs and values. While genealogies may not have been accurate records of the characters and dates they claimed to record, they do clearly show a propensity for ‘things that had gone before’, whether they were in living memory, the mythical past or somewhere between the two.

this way, royal pedigrees became an appropriate medium for combining the different pre- and post-conversion traditions that were important in society at the time (Davis 1992: 28). They allowed ruling dynasties to link themselves to the most powerful people in Europe, often Scandinavian characters, both past and present, and the Church was able to add further characters from the Bible (Yorke 2000: 81-2). Even though the royal histories contained pagan gods such as Woden, the Christian authorities may have allowed them to continue because they were still essential for legitimising royal authority (Davis 1992: 23). Although these pagan characters were no longer called gods, they could still be present as human characters of the same name, and perhaps associated with the same heroic deeds; despite their ‘demotion’ they were still powerful characters and they still had a role to play in legitimising a royal dynasty’s power (Davis 1992: 23-4). Indeed, by this time, the inclusion of these characters in a royal pedigree could have been a convention required for the legitimisation of kingship; their role in the lists would not have been of religious importance so much as required convention, a ‘stage’ in the demonstration of royal power (Davis 1992: 25; Dumville 1977: 78-9).

Of course, genealogies are, it appears, uniquely highstatus in origin and dissemination (Yorke 2000: 76). Nonetheless, it is possible that the names and exploits of characters from the oral and written genealogies were well-known amongst the wider population (Moisl 1981: 231-3). Indeed, their effectiveness as tools for legitimising royal power might well have depended upon the fact that the population under royal authority believed in the historical, mythical and divine characters, and could be convinced that kings did indeed descend from them. Without that, royal claims to power could have been tenuous and fragile. In sum, the royal genealogies of Anglo-Saxon England were a sophisticated means of manipulating the past, both real and imagined, in order to justify the elevated political and social position of certain members of society (Yorke 1993: 48; 1999: 25). It is these rulers, and their ecclesiastical cohorts, who were responsible for producing and amending the genealogical records in written form. At the same time, however, the characters and stories in them might well have been more widely disseminated amongst the general populace, and indeed, seen as an integral part of their ancestry too.

A primary function of the genealogies, then, was their role in legitimising the current political order, and their production may have been an essential part of establishing new kingships; once a kingship was established, a genealogical document tracing the ancestry of the royal house would then be constructed or amended (Davis 1992: 28; Dumville 1977: 75). Moisl (1981: 217) asserted that the belief in common descent amongst both leaders and ordinary members of a community facilitated the development of perceived ethnic coherence. Even though every person was, in theory, a descendent of the characters named in the genealogies, it was the elites who had the wherewithal to demonstrate that, initially in songs and stories and later in written texts (Davis 1992: 31). The implication was that, by directly and clearly tracing their ancestors, elites could demonstrate continuous political authority and that their authority was divinely sanctioned. As Davis (1992: 36) has stated, ‘kings could gaze down the length of a pedigree to God’s creation of cosmic order of the world and could contemplate the direct source of their own political descent from divinity’.

POETRY AND PROSE A number of poetic and prose sources of the period contain interesting references to ancient monuments, which may aid our understanding of how people viewed these features in the early medieval period. Notably, there are references to ancient mounds as the dwelling places of dragons, for instance in the Old English poem Beowulf, thought to have been composed in the eighth century although it survives in a later manuscript (Lapidge 2000: 36-42). The poet uses a variety of terms to describe the dragon’s dwelling, including stone-barrow (stan-beorh), earth-dwelling (ðam eorð-[hu]se), earthen dug-out (eorðsele), stone cleft or crag (stan-cleofu) and earth-cave (eorð-scrafa) with stone bows or vaults (stanbogan), which all suggest that the poet envisaged the dwelling as a form of stone-chambered burial mound (Semple 2003a: 243).

Hunter (1974: 33) has stated that it was the impression of age that genealogies conveyed that made them important. Davis (1992: 28), on the other hand, has suggested that it was not antiquity as such that mattered, but rather direct and demonstrable descent from divinity. Davis did, however, argue that there was some degree of ‘periodization’ in the lists, with the demoted Germanic gods and heroes merged into a single mythical ‘heroic age’, which came before the current dynasties but after the biblical characters (Davis 1992: 33). These periods were divided and prioritized based on contemporary levels of ideological value, with Christ and biblical characters at the top of the ‘family tree’, followed by mythical and pseudo-historical figures from legend (Davis 1992: 36). Thus, it can be argued that the

That the mound was considered ancient is confirmed by the assertion in the poem that ‘giants in old days had made it’ (Hall 2002: 8). The author also recognised that ancient burial mounds could be filled with treasure, described as ‘heathen gold’ (Semple 1998: 109), perhaps indicating a familiarity with these earthworks and their contents within the circle of author and audience, as well as the wider community. Whatever the contemporary pragmatic knowledge about these monuments and their contents, the poem suggests that barrows were considered evil and frightening places. The dragon is depicted as a malicious and monstrous creature: ‘the ravager of the 30

cunning work of masonry walls’ (ceastra beoð feorran gesyne / orðanc enta geweorc / þa þe on þysse eorðan syndon / wrætlic weallstana geweorc) (Greenfield and Evert 1975: 340; Howe 2002: 96).

night, the burner who has sought out barrows from of old, then found this hoard of undefended joy. The smooth evil dragon swims through the gloom enfolded in flame’ (hord-wynne fond eald uht-sceað opene standan, se ðe byrnende biorgas seceð nacod nið-draca, nihtes fleogeð fyre befangen) (Alexander 1987: 122-3; Semple 2003a: 244). Similar sentiments are expressed in the gnomic poem Maxims II, which consists of numerous short statements representing universal ‘truths’; lines 26-7 record the expectation that a mound would contain both a dragon and treasure; ‘the dragon belongs in its barrow canny and jealous of its jewels’ (draca sceal on hlæwe / frod, frætwum wlanc) (Bradley 1982: 513-4; Greenfield and Evert 1975: 341, 347-8). As will become clear later, this link between mounds and dragons, as well as other supernatural creatures, is one that is also visible in the toponymic evidence.

Another, later poetic source, known as The Wife’s Lament, also includes enigmatic references to features that appear to be ancient in date. The poem, the original title of which is unknown, is also found in the Exeter Book (Bradley 1982: 201). The protagonist is a woman, who appears to be living in or around a barrow. The text says that she has been forced to live there by herself, while she laments the loss of her husband and friends: I was bidden to dwell among a thicket of trees under an oak tree in this earthen dugout. Ancient is this earthen abode – I am quite consumed by longing – the dales are dark, the hills high, the bastioned towns grievously overgrown with briars, their habitations void of pleasures. Here full often my lord’s departure has bitterly obsessed me. My friends, loved while they lived, are in earth; they keep their rest while I in the dawning pace alone under the oak-tree around this earthen dug-out. There I must sit the summer-long day. There I may weep for the ways of my exile, my many hardships; for never shall I be able to soothe this my anxiousness of mind nor all the longing which has obsessed me in this life (Bradley 1982: 385).

References to ancient stone structures appear in the Old English poem known as The Ruin, written in the second half of the tenth century and preserved in the Exeter Book manuscript (Bradley 1982: 201; Howe 2002). The poem describes the masonry of what appear to be ruined Roman baths, the work of ‘giants’, which decay slowly over time (Howe 2002: 95). The imagery of the poem emphasises that different people once lived in the landscape, building very different structures from the timber ones with which early medieval inhabitants would have been familiar (Howe 2002: 96). That the structures are old is highlighted by the description of the walls as ræghar and readfah, translated by Howe as ‘grey with lichen and stained with red’, the red stain caused by wall braces made of metal or wire (weallwalan wirum) (Howe 2002: 96). Howe notes similarities between the Anglo-Saxon reuse of Roman stone work or spolia and the use of Romano-British building imagery in The Ruin, both of which he describes as ‘gestures of appreciation’ towards the Romano-British remains (Howe 2002: 97).

The woman’s dwelling is described as an eorðscræf, translated by Bradley (1982: 385) as an ‘earthen dug-out’, while Hall translates it as ‘earth-cave’ and points out that her dwelling is referred to elsewhere in the poem as an eorðsele, an ‘earth chamber’ or ‘earth hall’ (Hall 2002: 9). The indications are that this is a burial mound, the phrase ‘this earth-hall is old’ indicating ancient origins for the feature (Hall 2002: 9). The words used to describe the mound are similar to those found in Beowulf, and in both texts the ‘earth-hall’ is portrayed as belonging to an ancient, mysterious society (Hall 2002: 8; Semple 2003a: 247).

The landscape of Anglo-Saxon England would have contained numerous visible remnants of the past – including barrows, hillforts, embankments, ditches, roads, buildings and artefacts – and Howe states that ‘an inherited landscape can be marked by past creations that make it attractive for a present generation and then again for future occupants’ (Howe 2002: 95). The Ruin suggests that an essential part of inhabiting a landscape is the need to contemplate its pre-existing remains, and to understand their historical and spiritual significance, whilst the fact that the builders of those impressive remains no longer survive and are unknown becomes a cautionary tale (Howe 2002: 96). As Howe points out, Anglo-Saxon writers did not know the luxury of inhabiting a landscape without prior occupants; their reactions to the landscape that they perceived, lived in and wrote about were always entwined with ideas about past inhabitants, their actions and the remains they left behind (Howe 2002: 93). Maxims II contains a similar theme, highlighting that stone-built structures in a timberdominated landscape would have been visually striking; Howe’s translation reads ‘cities are visible from afar, the original work of giants, those which are on this earth, the

The phrase bitre burgtunas appears in the poem, and is translated by Bradley (1982: 385) as ‘bastioned towns’ (see quote above). Gelling (1989: 145-8) has interpreted burgtunas as the ruins of a fortified place, while Semple (2003a: 247) has suggested that such features were indicative of the passing of time and decay, especially since they are described as being overgrown with briars. More recently, Hall (2002: 7) has questioned Bradley’s translation, suggesting that a more literal translation of bitre burgtunas as ‘bitter defence-enclosures’ might be appropriate. He has also explored the possibility that the phrase actually means ‘bitter barrow-enclosures’, since burg and be(o)rg were often confused in West Saxon, the dialect of Old English used in the poem (Hall 2002: 7). He suggests that, given that the woman’s dwelling seems to be a barrow, this could well be the correct understanding of the phrase, and we might therefore envisage the speaker’s dwelling place as a burial mound, 31

torments of mind’. It is possible that the similarities between the Casket imagery and the themes of The Wife’s Lament indicate that the poem set down in writing a legend already circulating in society, which was depicted in pictorial form on the Franks Casket (Hall 2002: 2-3; Semple 2003a: 250).

surrounded by an enclosure overgrown with briars (Hall 2002: 7). As The Wife’s Lament appears to describe a woman living in or on a barrow, it may be particularly pertinent to this study. However, the reason for the woman’s dwelling-place is difficult to discern, as the poem does not explicitly reveal why she is living there. Semple (1998: 111) has suggested that the woman has been banished and forced to live as an outcast, and that she may even be a ghost, speaking from beyond the grave and lamenting that she is separated from other people by being confined to her burial mound. The poem’s feeling of gloom, emptiness and loneliness emphasises her ghostly state and, if the barrow is her grave, or even her execution site, this would correlate with Reynolds’s (1998) findings that barrows were used as execution sites and deviant cemeteries in later Anglo-Saxon England (Semple 1998: 111). More recently, Hall (2002: 14) has looked in more detail at the story, and suggests that the woman is neither dead nor exiled, but confined in sanctuary for her own safety. The poem describes the woman’s lord leaving her, after which she suffers uhtceare ― translated by Hall as ‘troubles in the twilight before dawn’ ― over his whereabouts; Hall believes that the character’s husband may have commanded her to live in sanctuary there. In support for his claim that the couple are separated by a force other than death, he cites the speaker’s declaration that ‘often indeed the two of us vowed that nothing should part us except death alone’, the implication being that it is not death that has forced them apart, it is something else (Hall 2002: 21). A family or clan feud is suggested by the line ‘I must, far or near, / suffer the ?blood-feud of my much-beloved’ (sceal ic feor ge neah / mines felaleofan fæhðu dreogan) and there is a suggestion that her husband may have been at fault in this feud, which is why she is suffering (Hall 2002: 21).

There is some debate over what the runic inscription tells us about Hos and her relationship to the mound. Semple’s (2003a: 249-50) interpretation, that Hos is the muzzled figure sitting on the mound, rests on the fact that she links the runic inscription to the image on the left-hand side of the Franks Casket. Hall, on the other hand, points out that the runes could read ‘in’ rather than ‘on’, implying that Hos sits in the sorrow-mound (Hall 2002: 2). He believes that the inscription refers to the central image, the mound with the figure inside it; this is because elsewhere on the Casket the inscriptions accompanying tripartite panels refer to the central scene (Hall 2002: 3). Hall, therefore, believes that Hos may be the figure inside the mound in the centre of the panel, while Semple has suggested that Hos is the figure on a mound on the left-hand side of the panel (it seems possible that both may be true, if the Casket imagery depicts several scenes from one story). Therefore, while the Franks Casket provides intriguing parallels with the The Wife’s Lament, it still does not make clear the exact nature of the character’s dwelling in relation to the mound. Regardless of which part of the Franks Casket images the inscription applies to, the description of Hos’s dwellingplace as a wretched den of sorrows implies that barrowdwelling in this case has negative connotations. However, like the poem, the theme of sanctuary, as opposed to exile or death, cannot be ruled out of Hos’s story, even though the runic inscriptions imply that she has been forced to live in or on the mound (Hall 2002: 21). Page’s translation of the runic inscription does not necessarily indicate that the woman has been exiled from society or is living in a ghostly state; as in The Wife’s Lament, the character may have been commanded to live in sanctuary, even if she is not particularly willing to do so. It is also possible that, to the audience of the poem, the casket inscription and the legend that inspired the inscription, the dwelling on or in the mound had multiple meanings, depending on what they chose to believe about the character and her story. Indeed, the inclusion of Old English legal terms in the poem indicates the need for contextual and semantic knowledge amongst the audience, and there may be unspoken aspects of the story that are lost to the modern reader (Howe 2002: 21).

Thus, the reason for the protagonist’s barrow dwellingplace is difficult to determine; it could have negative connotations, as a prison or grave, but she could alternatively be exiled for her own safety, in which case the enclosures and barrow could, in fact, be interpreted as having a protective function. Further clues may be found in the carved decorative schema on an end panel of the Franks Casket, an artefact of early eighth-century Northumbrian production (Semple 2003a: 248-9; Webster 1982: 28-30). The panel depicts a scene thought to derive from an unpreserved Germanic legend, which appears to have parallels with the story of The Wife’s Lament (Hall 2002: 2-3; Semple 2003a: 248-9). On the left hand side of the panel is a creature, muzzled by a serpent, who sits on a small hump, with a helmeted warrior either confronting or guarding it, and in the centre of the panel is a horse, surrounded by foliage, standing at the side of what appears to be another mound, looking across to the face of a man on the opposite side (Hall 2002: 2-3; Semple 2003a: 249). The inscription on the panel is runic, and translation is uncertain, but Page (1973: 182) and Hall (2002: 2) both believe that it reads ‘Here Hos sits on the sorrow-mound; she suffers distress in that Ertae has decreed for her a wretched den (?wood) of sorrows and

Elsewhere, the reuse of a pre-existing mound as a dwelling is recorded in the eighth-century hagiographical account, Felix’s Life of St Guthlac, composed for King Æfwald of East Anglia, probably between 730 and 749 (Bradley 1982: 249; Hall 2007: 207). The Life documents Guthlac’s early life as a warrior, his conversion to Christianity, and his subsequent search for a lonely and uninhabited location for a hermitage (Colgrave 1956). The saint is said to have settled on an island in the fens of eastern England, on which there was a burial mound, and 32

Felix may well have been drawing on the imagery of sources such as the Vita Antonii in his text, it is interesting that he (or indeed Guthlac himself) consciously ‘translated’ the saint’s dwelling place into something more contextually fitting for the audience of the Life. Rather than dwelling in a giant urn, or in a desert tomb, Guthlac lived in or on a mound, a practice that, as this study will show, may well have been familiar to many people at that time.

Chapter 28 describes Guthlac dwelling ‘in the side of a barrow which had been dug open, building a hut over it’ (Colgrave 1956: 93). He builds his house over a ‘sort of cistern’, supposedly left by barrow-robbers; this sounds remarkably like a form of SFB, constructed over the hollow of a robber trench, as Hamerow (2002: 34) has previously noted. Although it may not be possible to determine with certainty that this dwelling was a SFB, the Life does offer a literary example of a building located on, or in the side of, an earlier barrow. Furthermore, Chapter 51 records Guthlac’s sister Pega burying him in his oratory on the mound (Colgrave 1956: 161). This draws intriguing links between the role of the monument in both the saint’s life and his death, as well as paralleling the contemporary practice of placing burials in infilled SFBs after they went out of use, a characteristic feature of ‘placed’ deposits in early to middle Anglo-Saxon England (Hamerow 2006).

Guthlac was one of Anglo-Saxon England’s first native saints, and as a result several other texts were written about him (Hall 2007: 207). The poem Guthlac A also seems to belong to the eighth century and may have been influenced by Felix’s Life, but could also have been drawn together separately from contemporary oral narratives about St Guthlac (Hall 2007: 208; Semple 2003a: 253). Unlike the Life, Guthlac A was composed in Old English, and concerns itself almost wholly with Guthlac’s efforts to fight off the ghosts of murderers and criminals, who in this case do reside in the barrows near the saint’s hermitage (Hall 2007: 215; Semple 2003a: 254). Rather than just one barrow, Guthlac A mentions multiple haunted barrows (beorgas) on the island, all of which the saint cleanses (Hall 2007: 216). It also differs from the Life in that it describes Guthlac building his house on top of one of the mounds, with no mention of the barrow having been previously robbed or broken (Hall 2007: 218). Guthlac A therefore differs slightly from the version of events as recorded by Felix, but it does still record the saint living on a pre-existing mound.

Semple (1998: 112-3, 121) has discussed Guthlac’s decision to dwell on the barrow, linking it to the growth of Christian influence in middle Anglo-Saxon England. She claims that, as Guthlac is forced to drive away malevolent demons and ghosts who haunt the mound before he can live there in peace, this was part of the Church’s attempt to demonise the practice of monument reuse, with its unpalatable pre-Christian overtones. She argues that it was the hellish, demonic associations which were the attraction for Guthlac, and, indeed, the text does state that the saint chose the location because it was fearful, horrible and uninhabited (Semple 1998: 113). On the other hand, Hilda Ellis Davidson (1950: 176-7) has suggested that it was the perceived sanctity of burial mounds that influenced Guthlac’s decision to live on one. The Life claims that several people had tried to dwell there before and been forced to leave by the demons, whilst another priest tries to kill Guthlac so he can take his place on the mound (Ellis Davidson 1950: 176-7). These alternative interpretations are not mutually exclusive; the significance of the mound as a holy dwelling-place might have been linked to the ability of the inhabitant to persevere and overcome the demons, as a result of which they, and the mound, would be revered.

A second poem, Guthlac B, was written down in the Exeter Book in the tenth century, where it was combined with Guthlac A (Hall 2007: 208). Semple sees the poem as later than Guthlac A and the Life, composed as a poetic interpretation of the saint’s life using the two other earlier sources, and Bradley suggests a late eighth-century date for its composition (Bradley 1982: 249; Semple 2003a: 256). Guthlac B focuses almost exclusively on the events surround the saint’s death (Bradley 1982: 269; Hall 2007: 208). In this version the demons are supernatural beasts, rather than ghosts as they were in Guthlac A (Semple 2003a: 255). This poem is not concerned with Guthlac’s home-making on the mound, although it does state that as the saint lay dying he tells his attendant that he wishes to be buried in the ‘hill’ (beorge; ln.1193), which could feasibly be interpreted as ‘barrow’ (Bradley 1982: 279; Roberts 1979: 118). Given that in Felix’s Life the saint asks to be buried in the mound on which he lived, it seems likely here that ‘the hill’ might also be interpreted as the mound in this poem.

It must be noted that Felix’s Life follows a conventional hagiographic format, inspired by fourth-century sources such as Evagrius’ Vita Antonii (thought to date to the late 350s), the life of the Egyptian saint Antony, who had himself shut in a tomb, Sulpicius Severus’ Vita Martini and Jerome’s Vita Pauli, (written between 374 and 379), and the hagiographic account of St Bartholomew, who lived in a large empty urn (Barnard 1974; Hall 2007: 213; Meaney 2003: 231; Semple 2003a: 251). The extent to which it truly reflects Guthlac’s life and dwelling is therefore open to question, although archaeological support comes from aerial photographs, which have shown that a possible site of Guthlac’s cell, Anchor Hill (Lincs), does indeed have the remains of a chapel overlying a round barrow within an enclosure (Meaney 2003: 229; Semple 2003a: 252). As a documentary record of the inhabitation of an ancient monument, the source is pertinent in the context of this study. Furthermore, whilst

A number of the interpretations of the Anglo-Saxon written sources presented have been developed by archaeologists, in order to contextualise the contemporary archaeological evidence. Semple, in particular, has broadened her approach to researching the ‘the past in the past’ through studying the documentary evidence alongside the archaeological data, and this work has been widely quoted amongst those working in early medieval archaeology. However, it should be noted that 33

Charters tended to be divided into four parts; they opened with a statement that named God and/or Christ as the authority through which the giver granted the property, followed by a section detailing the bounds of the property, a warning about what would happen to any person who tried to impede the grant, and a list of those who had witnessed the grant (Howe 2002: 99). Earlier charters included brief, vague descriptions of the estate boundaries in Latin, mentioning just the cardinal points of the land being granted (Kelly 1990: 46). However, in the ninth century, boundary descriptions became more common and more detailed, specifying a large number of topographic features (Hooke 1998: 10, 87; Kelly 1990: 46). They often began with a distinctive feature, such as at a point in a corner of the estate, along a river or stream, or at a barrow, and then generally ran clockwise around the estate (Grinsell 1991: 51; Hooke 1998: 92, 95). The boundary clause for a charter relating to land at Staunton (Herts; S6771), dating to 958, exemplifies this more detailed style:

discussions of these written sources are many and varied. They are the focus of an extensive body of research produced by literary scholars, who at times differ from archaeologists in their interpretations, and their work is not always taken into account in the archaeological discussions of the poetic and prose evidence. Alaric Hall’s recent papers provide informative reviews of these arguments, as well as taking into account archaeological evidence alongside his work on the textual evidence. Hall (2007: 217) has warned that the handling of the literary evidence by archaeologists has at times been inaccurate. In fact, his criticism was chiefly levelled at Sarah Semple’s (1998) interpretation of the Old English literary evidence, particularly the later Anglo-Saxon evidence for the links between hell or damnation and older monuments, which Hall felt was at times inaccurate. He did, nonetheless, believe that Semple’s arguments and conclusions were broadly convincing and useful. This issue must be borne in mind when using these sources to enhance our understanding of the archaeological evidence; the written evidence discussed in this section can be of great value when combined with archaeological evidence in the context of studies such as this, but they must be used and interpreted with caution.

First from the mill ford along the Arrow, then to Washford; from Washford along the Arrow round the top of Holaneig; from the top of Holaneig to the top of the oak edge, then along the top of the oak edge, then to the front of the snæd way, from the snæd way round Hanley to the æcna-bridge, up along the brook, then to the dyke, along the dyke to Tanesbæc, from Tanesbæc along the boundary-fence, then to the boundary of the community of Lene, along the boundary of the community of Lene, then to Æthelwold’s hedge, from Æthelwold’s hedge to Heanoldan, from Heanoldan to the boundary thorn, from the boundary thorn along the fence to the swing-gate, from the swing-gate along the paved road to the dyke-gate, from the dyke-gate to the third gate, then along the paved road back to Milford (Whitelock 1955: 514-6).

LAND CHARTERS Land charters were legal documents produced from the late seventh century in order to define the bounds of estates and record transfers of land (Hooke 1998: 10, 85; Kelly 1990: 40; Keynes 2001: 99). The Christian Church was at the forefront of this practice, using tenets of Roman law in order to produce charters that were based upon Roman land documents (Hooke 1998: 85; Kelly 1990: 44). The Church was usually one of the parties involved in the land transfers, although in the eighth century lay people began to be named as beneficiaries too (Kelly 1990: 44; Keynes 2001: 99; Wickham 2005: 315). As a large proportion of the charters detail gifts to or by ecclesiastical houses, they often survive due to preservation in the libraries or scriptoria of cathedrals and monasteries (Hooke 1998: 86; Kelly 1990: 45).

Prior to the exact boundaries of estates being written down, there seems to have been an understanding that estate boundaries were widely known amongst communities (Kelly 1990: 46). Ceremonies such as ‘beating the bounds’ may have impressed boundaries on people’s memories, and in the earliest known land charter (S8), from 679, King Hlothhere of Kent states that land is to be held ‘according to the well-known boundaries demonstrated by myself and my officers’ (Kelly 1990: 46; Whitelock 1955: 443). In this early phase, the granting of land seems to have been accompanied by visible rituals, which impressed on the general lay community that land had changed hands; the charter was more of a visual symbol of this, and of ownership, than a written record for these people (Kelly 1990: 44). Later, as exact details about the boundaries of estates began to be included more frequently in charters, the documents became more important as sources of information, rather than as symbols of ownership. It is possible that this resulted from the splitting up of earlier, larger estates, as

Around 1500 land charters survive, although they are distributed unevenly throughout the country; some areas have no surviving examples while others – such as Kent, Surrey, Hampshire and Worcestershire – yield them in fairly large numbers as a result of their preservation in large religious houses in those areas (Hooke 1998: 85; Kelly 1990: 40; Sawyer 1974: 110; Wickham 2005: 314). Although around 228 charters claim to have been written before c.800, only twenty survive as copies genuinely written before then; of these, seven survive from Kent, two from the kingdom of the Hwicce, two from Essex, eight from Mercia and one from Sussex (Sawyer 1974: 111). Some are fabrications and claim to have been produced earlier than they actually were, while others were altered, intentionally or accidentally, by transcribers who were copying earlier versions of charters, and on occasions churches claimed early dates for documents which were later but which they hoped or believed to be true in content (Hooke 1998: 85; Sawyer 1974: 111).

1

34

Charter number from Sawyer (1968).

closer attention began to be paid to the terrain that outlined the new smaller parcels of land (Hooke 1998: 92).

demonstrating links between barrows and supernatural creatures that will also be seen in the discussion of placenames below (Grinsell 1991: 49-50; Semple 2003a: 306). Similar links are seen in the use of ‘goblin/demon barrow’ (scuccan hlæw) in an eighth-century charter from Horwood (Bucks; S138), ‘Woden’s barrow’ (wodnes beorge) in a ninth-century example from Alton Priors (Wilts; S272), and ‘heathen barrow’ (hæþenan beorge) in an early eleventh-century example from Drayton (Hants; S956), the latter perhaps referring to execution sites or pre-Christian cemeteries (Semple 2003a: 277, 284-6, 321-4). References were also made to ‘broken/robbed barrows’: brocenan beorg appears in a tenth-century charter from Farnborough (Berks; S411) and abrocenan beorg in another tenth-century example referring to Long Sutton (Hants; S835) (Grinsell 1991: 50; Semple 2003a: 290, 300). The terms stone (stan), stony (stanige), broad (braden), great (myclen) and fern (fearn) were also used to describe barrows in charters (Semple 2003a: 273, 290324).

The development of detailed boundary descriptions in charters in the ninth century was accompanied by an increasing use of vernacular language (Kelly 1990: 46). Some ninth-century and later charters were bilingual; Latin, the language of the Church and elite, was used for the sections of the document that made statements about political authority, such as the recording of rights to give and receive property, whereas Old English was used to record boundary markers (Howe 2002: 100). Reading the boundary clauses aloud in the vernacular would have allowed people working and living in the landscape to understand where the new boundaries lay, and who owned the newly-defined area within them (Howe 2002: 100-1). This may explain the composition of the clauses, in which landmark features are mentioned twice, first as a location of departure and then as a point of arrival; ‘from A to B, from B to C, from C to D’ and so on. Such a structure would have aided memorisation of the boundary features, and may have been read out loud as part of a perambulation around an estate (Howe 2002: 102; Kelly 1990: 57). The use of the vernacular would also have been beneficial since finding direct Latin translations for place-names in the vernacular may have presented challenges (Kelly 1990: 56).

There is some disagreement over interpretation of the words hlæw and beorg in these charters, both of which can be translated as either barrow or hill. Both Hooke (1998: 99) and Grinsell (1991: 61) have claimed that Anglo-Saxon communities were using beorg to refer primarily to barrows of prehistoric date and hlæw to refer to those of Anglo-Saxon date. Grinsell asserts that the frequent references to ‘rough barrows’ in charters indicates that Anglo-Saxon communities were much more willing to allow older barrows to fall into a state of disrepair than they were their own (Grinsell 1991: 61). This simple distinction is not, however, particularly convincing. It seems unlikely that Anglo-Saxon communities were typically able to distinguish between barrows of different ages, unless they were very distinctive in form. In any case, the secondary use of prehistoric burials would have blurred the line between what was ‘old’ and what was ‘new’, whilst barrows built earlier in the Anglo-Saxon period might well have been considered ‘old’ just decades later. Furthermore, in Beowulf both words are used to describe the dragon’s barrow, which is also explicitly described as ancient (Semple 2003a: 271). Similarly, the barrow at Swallowcliffe Down (Wilts) is described as hlæw in a tenth-century charter (S468), even though it is a reused prehistoric mound (Semple 2003a: 271, 318). Thus, there is little evidence to commend the notion that AngloSaxon communities differentiated between barrows of different dates.

Land charters are useful in the context of this study due to the detailed topographical information frequently included in the later examples. Numerous charters, many dating to the tenth century, used features such as trees, hills, roads and – significantly – ancient earthworks as markers (Grinsell 1991: 46; Hooke 1998: 10, 86; Sawyer 1974: 112). References to barrows are particularly frequent, and a variety of descriptive terms are applied to these features, illustrating aspects of their appearance such as colour, condition and number. 2 ‘Rough barrows’ (ruh and ruwan beorh) appear in charters such as a tenthcentury example from Winkfield (Berks; S482), perhaps indicating a barrow covered with vegetation (Grinsell 1991: 47; Semple 2003a: 273, 292). ‘Little barrow’ also occurs in charters such as that from Donnington (Glos; S1026) and Alton (Wilts; S368), and ‘stone barrow’ occurs in a charter from Watchfield (Oxon; S413) (Grinsell 1991: 47). Some charters used groups of barrows as markers; ‘five barrows’ (fif beorg) appears in a tenth-century charter of Fyfield (Hants; S800) while ‘three barrows’ (thrim beorg) appears in a charter of similar date from Medmerry (Sus; S403) (Semple 2003a: 303, 308). Meanwhile ‘giant’s barrow’ (enta hlæw), appears in a charter for Poolhampton in Overton (Hants; S970),

Barrows were the most frequently-mentioned monuments in charters, but references were also made to other ancient landmarks. A number of hillforts were used as boundary markers, such as one on the boundary of Adlestrop, on the border of Oxfordshire and Gloucestershire, which was referred to as ‘the old castle fort’ (þære aldan cestelbyrig) in a purportedly early eighth-century charter (S1250) (Hooke 1998: 98). Similarly, according to a late eighth-century charter (S57), the bounds of the Kemerton estate on the border of Gloucestershire and Worcestershire ran to ‘the summit of

2 For further examples see Semple (2003a: 290-324), who has fully catalogued the descriptive terms applied to monuments in charters from the counties of Berkshire, Hampshire, Sussex and Wiltshire. Grinsell (1991) has also produced a detailed catalogue for Dorset, Gloucestershire, Oxfordshire, Somerset, Surrey, Wiltshire, Berkshire, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. The majority of examples cited here derive from these two sources.

35

monuments were used as burial and meeting places if they were seen as distinctive focal points in the landscape at this time. Secondly, the individuals who dictated estate boundaries also named, classified and described monuments according to their appearance and condition. Given the legal nature of the documents, it seems likely that the descriptive terms would have had to be both accurate and in use locally, so that boundaries could be easily re-established should disagreements arise over their extent or ownership (Semple 2003a: 270). That the descriptive terms employed in the documents were current amongst local communities would have been crucial if, as Howe has suggested, the bounds were read aloud in Old English so that the general non-Latinspeaking population could understand them. The evidence supports the proposition that barrows, as well as other monuments such as hillforts, could be at the forefront of people’s minds as distinctive markers in the landscape, with which they would have interacted as they moved through, and inhabited, the landscape.

the aforesaid hill Breedon on the top of which is the fortification anciently called Bænintesburg’, the name of which survives as the moniker of the Banbury Stone, a large block of limestone which still stands inside the ramparts of the hillfort (Hooke 1998: 99). Detailed descriptions of boundaries running through hillforts come from two tenth-century charters, the first (S524) from Uffington (Oxon), in which the boundary runs through the centre of Uffington Castle, an Iron Age hillfort (at that time called Ashbury); the bounds ran ‘into Ashbury’s south gate and thus out at the north gate’ (Hooke 1998: 99). Meanwhile, the eastern boundary of East Woolstone, the adjacent estate to Uffington, was recorded in 958 (S575) as running through the same hillfort in the opposite direction, progressing ‘to the north gate, then to the south gate’, the ‘gates’ being cuts made through the ramparts during the Romano-British period (Hooke 1998: 99; Semple 2003a: 297). Semple (1998: 116) has suggested that in these cases hillforts seem to have been shared out between estates, and were possibly used as communal meeting places. She pointed to Rigold and Metcalf’s (1977: 31-52) finding that Anglo-Saxon sceattas have been discovered at a number of Iron Age hillforts, suggesting that there may have been a tradition of using them as trading sites, which would have emphasised their role as communal meeting places.

PLACE-NAMES AND MONUMENTS Place-name evidence can also be of use when assessing attitudes towards ancient monuments in the Anglo-Saxon period, as in some cases they preserve the Old English names applied to monuments. They can reveal beliefs about the antiquity and previous functions of monuments, as well as shedding light on their uses and associations in the early medieval period (Gelling 1988: 130). Much attention has been paid to the enigmatic associations between supernatural entities and monuments that are preserved in place-names and this will be reflected in the following discussion. However, it must be noted that supernatural monikers make up only a small proportion of the known Old English names given to monuments, while words pertaining to other characteristics of earthworks, such as colour, size and shape have frequently been preserved in place-names (Semple 1998; 2003a).

Ditches were used as markers, often prefixed by ‘old’ (eald or ealden), for example in charters from Appleford (Berks; S355), Eccinswell (Hants; S412) and Dauntsey (Wilts; S301/S1580) indicating a perceived ancient date (Semple 2003a: 275, 290-324). Other adjectives were used as well, including curly (curspan) in a charter from Brightwalton (Berks; S448), wrinkled/twisting (gewrincloda) in an example from King’s Worthy (Hants; S962), and red (readen) in a charter from Buttermere (Wilts; S336) (Semple 2003a: 275, 294, 305, 317). Single standing stones were sometimes mentioned, nearly always associated with personal names indicating ownership of the stone or the land it stood on, although colours and other physical descriptors were also used as prefixes for them (Semple 2003a: 276). For example, there was a ‘giant’s stone’ (flecge stan) in a charter from Chilton (Berks; S934), ‘four stones’ (foer stan) were referred to in an example from Liddington (Wilts; S459), and a ‘stone row’ (stan ræwe) was mentioned in a charter from Hardwell (Berks; S369), the latter probably indicating a prehistoric monument (Semple 2003a: 298, 319). Many of these stan names have been recorded in Wiltshire, a county with a rich record of prehistoric stone monuments (Semple 2003a: 275-7).

Margaret Gelling, in her thorough review of place-names relating to archaeological features, has stated that placenames referring to prehistoric monuments often clearly demonstrate a break in the historical sequence, as the monuments were often viewed as the remains of other cultures and times, their names being unrelated to their original functions (Gelling 1988: 130-1). She noted that Anglo-Saxon names for prehistoric monuments generally imbued them with either defensive or funerary functions, with little thought given to the relative antiquity of monuments. However, she did warn against underestimating the abilities of early medieval communities to identify human-made landscape features. For example, although the three main words used to describe barrows or mounds ― beorg, hlāw/hlæw and haugr ― were also sometimes applied to natural hills, there are other terms that refer only to natural features. Thus, Gelling saw these three words as, at least partially, specialised terms indicating a certain amount of understanding about, and classification of, barrows (Gelling 1988: 132). A number of names applied to pre-

The land charters are pertinent to this study for two main reasons; firstly, they demonstrate that early medieval communities were very aware of ancient features, especially barrows, in the landscape. These documentary records reveal that people made use of ancient monuments as topographical markers from at least the late seventh century, but this may have perpetuated a tradition already in place before the introduction of written documents. It is perhaps no coincidence that 36

existing monuments reveal attitudes about their characters, properties and antiquity, some of which Gelling (1988: 132-42) has discussed. Idel Barrow (Glos) and Idlebush Barrow (Berks) contain the element idel (‘vacant’, ‘empty’ or ‘useless’), while Brokenborough (Wilts) derives from brocenan beorge (‘broken barrow’), which may indicate that the barrow had a robber’s hollow at its peak. Langan beorge (‘long barrow’) was also applied to some monuments, becoming Lambrough and Longborough (both Glos). Meanwhile, Ploughly Hill (Oxon) comes from the earlier name Pokedelawe (‘baggy tumulus’), whilst Copley Hill (Cambs) stems from Coppelawe meaning ‘rounded tumulus’, and Sharplow (Derbys) means ‘pointed tumulus’.

such as Grim’s Dyke, as well as with hillforts and other prehistoric monuments (Cameron 1996: 117; Gelling 1988: 149). Grīm was a nickname for Woden, alluding to his habit of disguising himself, and Gelling (1988: 149) has suggested that the numerous earthworks associated with Grīm may have been believed to be the work of the god, or they were named after him as a vague expression of superstitious belief concerning the origins of the site. Audrey Meaney (1995: 33) expressed a similar belief, suggesting that Woden had been reduced from a god to a giant or supernatural builder in these circumstances. Grīm is found in Grimley (Worcs), which was centred on a Roman fort, as well as the Neolithic flint mines Grimes Graves, and Grimspound, a prehistoric enclosure on Dartmoor (Hooke 1998: 16). In Norfolk there is also an example of a Grimshoe, associating Grīm with a mound (Semple 2003a: 282). Execution sites or heathen cemeteries associated with linear features are also possibly indicated by place-names such as Fleam Ditch (Cambs) (‘ditch of the fugitives’) and Thieves Dikes (from theovesdiches) (N Yorks) (Semple 2003a: 286). Other supernatural beings were also occasionally allied with earthworks, such as pūca and hob, both meaning ‘goblin’, as in Hobditch Causeway (Worcs) (Gelling 1988: 150). There is also an association between a giant (thyrs) and a barrow in the place-name Thirshowe (E Yorks) (Semple 2003a: 330).

As discussed in Chapter 2, the use of barrows as meeting places was also sometimes reflected in their nomenclature; examples include Modbury (from gemōtbeorge or moot barrow) and Hundredsbarrow (both Dorset), and Mutlow (Cambs and Essex). Barrows were also associated with dragons and treasure, as demonstrated by names such as Drakelow (Beds, Derbys, Worcs) and Dragley (Lincs), both meaning ‘dragon tumulus’, and Drechowe (N Yorks) and Drakehow (W Yorks). Wormwood Hill (Cambs) (previously Wyrmelawe), is translated as ‘dragon tumulus’ too, as wyrm also meant dragon. The name Hurdlow (Derbys) reveals the association of hoards with barrows, as it combines hord (‘hoard’) with hlāw. Similarly, the name Drake North (Wilts) (from Drakenhorde) means ‘dragon’s treasure’, and was perpetuated in a field name close to a place named brocenebereue, suggesting that some kind of treasure had been found in the vicinity during barrow digging (Cameron 1996: 122; Semple 2003a: 283).

Thus, the place-name evidence, like the charter documents, demonstrates that early medieval communities not only recognised ancient monuments in the landscape, but also named them. While it could be argued that the landmarks named in boundary clauses of land charters were perpetuated primarily by a relatively small group of high-status people involved in land transfers, the survival of place-names relating to monuments suggests that they were indeed part of the shared language of the general population. These remnants of ancient landscapes were enough a part of everyday life to require naming and describing, and in some instances it seems that they also inspired stories about their supposed ancient and supernatural origins. However it should be noted that monuments were only given supernatural names in a very small number of cases, and supernatural associations are not restricted to monuments; occasionally other features in the landscape might be imbued with the similar associations, such as the use of ‘dwarf’ (dwerg) in Dwarriden (W Yorks) (Semple 2003a: 279). It must also be kept in mind that almost all the place-names we know about survive in documents dating to after 1066 and some Old English terms used for prehistoric monuments, such as hlæw, beorg, burh and dic, survived in use in a variety of forms in Middle English, as did some of the adjectives used to describe these features (Semple 2003a: 268). Thus, it is possible that place-names such as Green Barrow or Brokenberwe found in post-Conquest sources could have an Old English origin, but could alternatively have a Middle English one.

Hillforts would have constituted particularly impressive pre-existing monuments, and the most commonly occurring name for these is burh (‘defended place’) (Gelling 1988: 143-4). Sometimes this was combined with the word ‘old’, as in Oldbury (Warwicks), or with the name of an animal or bird, as in Ramsbury (Berks and Wilts), which derived from hræfnesbyrig (‘raven’s fort’), which could be a mocking name for a deserted fort, or could refer obliquely to the god Woden, whose emblem was the raven (Chaney 1970: 132, 135; Meaney 1966). Other names for hillforts include weard-setl, meaning ‘guard-house’, tōt-ærn, combining ‘look-out place’ and ‘house’, and eorth-burh, meaning ‘earth fort’ (Gelling 1988: 147). Other names show awareness that hillforts were nearby; the name Burghill appears to mean ‘hill with a fort’, and Burley means ‘wood by a fort’, whilst Burlton (Shrops) derives from burh-hyll-tūn, meaning ‘settlement by a hill with a fort’, an interpretation supported by the presence of a large enclosure just west of the village (Gelling 1988: 145). Linear earthworks and embankments were further forms of prehistoric monument noted and named in the early medieval period (Gelling 1988: 148; Semple 2003a: 282). The name Grīm, translated as ‘the masked one’, was commonly associated with linear earthworks in names 37

There are some indications from these literary sources that prehistoric and Roman remains were interpreted differently in Anglo-Saxon society. Both The Ruin and Maxims II attribute the origins of ruined Roman stone structures to ancient races of giants (Greenfield and Evert 1975: 340; Howe 2002: 95-6). In contrast, poetic descriptions of mounds do not, generally, attribute the building of these monuments to giants. In The Wife’s Lament, the mound is described in earthy, rather than stony, terms, as an ‘earthen dug-out’ or ‘earth-cave’ (eorðscræf) and an ‘earth chamber’ or ‘earth hall’ (eorðsele) (Bradley 1982: 385; Hall 2002: 9). The ‘earthhall’ is declared to be old, but it does not seem to have been attributed to a gigantic, stone-building people, nor were the bitre burgtunas surrounding the mound (Hall 2002: 9). Similarly, in Felix’s Life of St Guthlac the building of the mound inhabited by the saint is not attributed to giants (Colgrave 1956). Beowulf is different, in that it does describe a mound as a stone-barrow (stanbeorh), a stone cleft or crag (stan-cleofu), and as an earthcave (eorð-scrafa) with stone bows or vaults (stanbogan), which was made by ‘giants in old days’ (Hall 2002: 8; Semple 2003a: 243). However, there are also terms referring to the mound which are more akin to those used in The Wife’s Lament, such as earth-dwelling (ðam eorð-[hu]se) and earthen dug-out (eorðsele) (Semple 2003a: 243). In Beowulf, therefore, the barrow is linked to both giants and dragons, while the belief that the mound contained piles of gold and treasure is clearly expressed (Semple 2003a: 243-4). Meanwhile, in Maxims II a mound was also linked to a treasure-guarding dragon (Greenfield and Evert 1975: 347-8).

DISCUSSION What does the written evidence reveal in the context of this study? Writers such as Sisam (1953), Dumville (1977), Moisl (1981) and Davies (1992) have shown that the genealogical lists used the past as an integral part of displaying and sanctioning kingship in the Anglo-Saxon era; this seems to have been the case from the early Anglo-Saxon period, but it only becomes visible to us with the introduction of literacy. The royal pedigrees seem to have been less concerned with the specifics of the past or historical accuracy, but with the past or ‘what had come before’ as a more general concept. Although the lists do not specifically shine any light on the settlement evidence, they do reveal that the past was crucial to the upper echelons of society, and this might have also been true of the rest of the population. Unlike landscape features, which provoked reactions due to their immediate physicality, the past as it was used in the genealogies was more abstract and open to adaptation, although that is not to say that it was any less powerful or influential. The work of scholars such as Semple (1998; 2003a), Howe (2002) and Hall (2002; 2007) has shown that Old English poetry and prose can be of use when attempting to understand Anglo-Saxon beliefs about the past and its remains. In contrast to the genealogical evidence, in some cases these sources can be directly linked to dwellings on or in ancient monuments, often mounds. Sources such as Beowulf and Maxims II convey the belief that dragons lived in mounds, surrounded by treasure, but whether this is a literary device or representative of widespread belief is difficult to say. The Ruin expresses appreciation of the stone-work of Roman buildings, which are described as the work of giants, again displaying supernatural associations, although the extent to which this might be a literary device is also once again uncertain.

There appear, then, to be some differences in the characteristics attributed to Roman stone ruins and prehistoric earthen mounds in the poetic sources. The construction of the former is associated with ancient races of giants, but there are no references to dragons and little mention is made of their use during the Anglo-Saxon period; indeed, in both The Ruin and Maxims II the abandonment and desolation of the stone-built cities is emphasised. In the case of the latter, little mention is made of their origins, apart from the fact that they are old, and it is their inhabitation by dragons that is focused on. Maxims II highlights this distinction well; if the mound it describes as the home of a dragon was perceived as being created by the same race of giants believed to have constructed the stone cities portrayed elsewhere in the source, we might expect the composer to have stated this. Could it have been the case that the Anglo-Saxon composers of these poetic sources distinguished between the different types of monument, and that this reflected more widely disseminated beliefs about their origins? Although the monuments would not have been categorised as ‘Roman’ and ‘prehistoric’ it is possible that they were believed to have been made and used in different ways in the past.

The Wife’s Lament contains more mysterious and puzzling references to monuments. The protagonist’s dwelling appears to be an ancient burial mound, but whether she is living in or on it, or both, is open to question. Also debateable is her reason for living there; she may be dead, banished, or exiled for her own safety. Whatever the reason, in this poem there appear to have been negative connotations associated with living on or in the barrow. Perhaps the most interesting source in the context of this study is the Life of St Guthlac, which records occupation on a barrow by a real person, rather than a literary character, although some details of Guthlac’s story may have been influenced by earlier hagiographic accounts. Again, it has been suggested that there were negative connotations to Guthlac’s choice of dwelling, although it is interesting that the ghosts and demons who haunt him do not inhabit the mound themselves, and that once he has banished them the barrow becomes a suitable – and safe – place for the saint to live out his life, so much so that he is eventually buried in it.

The nomenclature applied to monuments reveals that Anglo-Saxon society did pay close attention to the appearance and characteristics of earthworks, supporting the suggestion that different types of landscape feature 38

sources discussed here were part of this tradition of ‘demonising’ the reuse of monuments. Semple did also note that the Church’s approach was not wholesale or consistent, as ancient monuments continued to be used as the locations of churches and fairs, for example (Semple 2003a: 194, 217). This inconsistency is reflected in the other written sources under consideration here, since detailed boundary clauses in charters were frequently produced in the ninth and tenth centuries (Kelly 1990: 46) and written royal genealogies are thought to belong to the eighth and ninth centuries (Moisl 1981: 215; Sisam 1953: 326). Ecclesiastical input was frequently seen in both, as discussed above, and thus in the middle and late AngloSaxon period the Church was also involved in producing documents that did not contain particularly negative accounts of ancient monuments or the pre-Christian past, many of which were more likely to have been used in everyday life as practical documents.

were distinguished and interpreted differently. Land charters and toponymic evidence demonstrate that early medieval communities were more than capable of recognising ancient monuments in the landscape, and that they often chose to categorise them according to their appearance, but could also name them based on ownership, nearby flora and fauna, and supernatural associations. However, only a small proportion disclose supernatural associations, such as links with giants, dragons, goblins, and Woden’s alter ego Grīm (Gelling 1988: 130-50; Semple 2003a: 282). Much more frequent were descriptive adjectives, which are pertinent to this study as they reveal how communities interpreted and named monuments outside of the literary sphere, on a more prosaic and practical level. These include references to colour, shape, topographic position, and animals or plants that might have lived in or near the monuments, whilst personal names were also used (Gelling 1988: 13050; Semple 2003a: 278-83). This evidence demonstrates that there was, at least in some cases, a need to name monuments, and that they must therefore have been referred to by people in the course of daily life; naming a monument would have been pointless if people did not encounter, engage with and talk about those earthworks, and land charters reveal to us one way in which people would have to do all three.

Of course, a potential problem with using the sources discussed in this chapter is that they often date to the latter part of the study period, or post-date it. However, many actually appear to have had earlier origins, and their visibility in the middle or later Anglo-Saxon periods is related to the introduction of literacy, as opposed to their ‘invention’ at this time. For instance, boundaries may have been marked by prehistoric monuments before the practice was set down in written documents (Kelly 1990: 46), genealogical lists may have been perpetuated through oral traditions prior to the eighth century (Moisl 1981: 216; Yorke 2000: 79), and poems such as Beowulf and The Wife’s Lament may have been in existence prior to being written down (Hall 2002: 21; Lapidge 2000: 3642). While it is possible that the versions of stories and royal pedigrees written down in the middle Anglo-Saxon period were different from earlier, orally-transmitted versions (Yorke 1993: 46), they still provide a valuable window onto contemporary, and perhaps earlier, views of the past and its physical remains.

The documentary and linguistic evidence discussed in this chapter falls loosely into two categories; sources in which monuments were imbued with negative connotations, and those in which the connotations were more positive. The genealogical lists, although they do not refer directly to monuments, can be classed as falling into the latter category as they record the use of the past, albeit it a rather loose and manipulated version thereof, in positive terms as a tool for demonstrating legitimate authority. Negative views of monuments, and in particular of living in or on monuments, are most clearly seen in the Old English literature. This may be related to the dates of those sources. The earliest sources under consideration here are likely to be the Life of St Guthlac, composed between 730 and 749 (Bradley 1982: 249), and Beowulf, also thought to have been written down in the eighth century (Lapidge 2000: 36-42). Guthlac A and Guthlac B are both thought to have been composed in the eighth century as well, although they survive in the Exeter Book manuscript, which dates from the second half of the tenth century (Bradley 1982: 201, 249). The Wife’s Lament, The Ruin and Maxims II also survive in the Exeter Book, although as the correlations between The Wife’s Lament and the eighth-century Franks Casket show, there may also have been earlier origins to these stories (Webster 1982: 28-30).

It is also necessary to consider the audiences and purposes of the written and linguistic evidence, which in some cases were produced for particular members of society. Genealogical lists, for example, were created for an elite audience, although it is possible that dissemination of the information they contained was essential for impressing upon the communities being ruled over the legitimacy of their ruler. Similarly, the boundary clauses in land charters were ostensibly intended for a high-status audience of those wealthy enough to give and receive land, but lower-status members of the community would have been privy to these documents if they were involved in beating the bounds, or if the documents were read aloud, as Kelly (1990: 46, 57) and Howe (2002: 101) have suggested. The poetry and prose documents might also have had a high-status audience, as they were created in an ecclesiastical setting, often for wealthy benefactors. For example, the Life of St Guthlac was produced for King Ælfwald of East Anglia, although its influence need not have been so limited, since the poem Guthlac A may have been produced from separate narrative sources current in

Semple (1998: 110; 2003a: 332) has discussed changing attitudes towards ancient monuments in Anglo-Saxon society and the increasingly negative views towards monuments expressed in literary sources of the seventh century and later. This she has linked to the growing influence of the Church, and its desire to sever links with pre-Christian uses and beliefs about ancient monuments (Semple 1998: 118). It is possible, then, that the literary 39

society after Guthlac’s death, and his story could therefore have been well-known, at least in the east of England (Hall 2007). Thus, although at first glance many of these sources were written for, and sometimes by, elite groups in society, they may have had much wider currency amongst the general population, and it is possible that in some cases they reflected the views and beliefs of these people. In sum, the purpose of this chapter has been to consider some of the documentary and linguistic evidence from Anglo-Saxon England in order to investigate how beliefs about the past and its physical remains are reflected in these sources, with particular reference to what they might reveal about the practice of living on or near ancient monuments. There appears to have been a literary tradition, from the eighth century onwards, of portraying monuments, particularly barrows, as negative dwellingplaces (Hall 2002). However, this is not the case in other written documents, such as land charters and genealogies, which were also the products of ecclesiastical scribes. The genealogical lists show that the past could be a very important tool in the creation and maintenance of royal authority, whilst the descriptive terms used in placenames and boundary clauses show that ancient monuments were used as distinctive markers in the landscape. The fact that these monuments were described and named suggests that they were interacted with, talked about, and classified by people, indicating that they became part of people’s lives and landscapes. They were not, therefore, necessarily avoided or shunned as evil or haunted places; instead they were actively made use of by Anglo-Saxon communities. Although most of the settlements considered in this study do not have any evidence for names that might have been applied to the prehistoric monuments they encompassed, it is possible that the earthworks were recognised and classified in similar ways to those whose names have survived. The people settling around these monuments would not have been ignorant of their presence, and might at the very least have thought of them as being a particular type of earthwork, such as a ‘green’, ‘rough’ or ‘broken’ barrow, or as an ‘old’ hillfort. Therefore, it seems likely that when communities constructed dwellings near to still-visible monuments people would have been conscious of an earthwork’s presence as well as being capable of categorising it based on their observations of, or beliefs about, the monument.

40

CHAPTER FOUR THE CORPUS: SETTLEMENTS AND MONUMENTS and that they were respected, a point also noted in the excavation report (BCAS 1995b: 12). Further early to middle Anglo-Saxon settlement features were found approximately 200m to the south-east of Village Farm at Medbury Lane, where two SFBs, three post-built structures and two wells were excavated (BCAS 1995a: fig. 27; fig. 28; BCAS 1995b: 17). Given their close proximity the two sites may well have been related, with both forming parts of one dispersed settlement. As the Village Farm site was excavated in a long, relatively thin road corridor trench it did not expose the complete circuits of the ring ditches, or the land between the two sites, meaning that further buildings could have been present to the south, east and west of the barrows (BCAS 1995a; 1995b).

THE SITES Having outlined the impetus for, and background to, this study in the previous chapters, this chapter now reviews the evidence for monument reuse in the early to middle Anglo-Saxon settlement record of central England. A corpus of forty-two settlement sites at which buildings appear to have been constructed in the vicinity of preexisting earthworks has been collated (Fig. 4.1).1 Some were located on or adjacent to Neolithic and Bronze Age barrows, some were within Bronze Age and Iron Age enclosures, and others were aligned on earlier boundaries. At some sites just one pre-existing earthwork was reused while at others a number of different monuments had been incorporated into a settlement; the monuments associated with each site are listed in Table 4.1. All of the sites in the final inventory are of a rural nature, in most part because urban settlement sites do not appear to have begun developing until around the ninth century (Scull 1997: 274).2 The sites are discussed thematically, having been divided into two groups; the first focuses on settlements where prehistoric barrows were appropriated, the second on sites where linear features, such as enclosures and boundaries, were reused. As several settlements overlay both barrows and linear features, they have been discussed in both sections. A gazetteer of the settlements arranged by county is included in Appendix A. More detailed information about four sites, Barrow Hills, Sutton Courtenay, Catholme and Eye Kettleby can be found in Chapter 6, where they are discussed as case studies.

A similar pattern can be observed at Elstow Harrowden, about a kilometre north-east of Village Farm/Medbury Lane, which also yielded evidence for early to middle Anglo-Saxon settlement close to a Bronze Age ring ditch (Shepherd 1997: figs. 1 and 6) (Fig. 4.3). The ring ditch was situated to the west of the site, with ditches 1.5m wide and an internal diameter of c.17m (Shepherd 1997: 8). Pits and postholes of early to middle Anglo-Saxon date were found in Trench 17, within c.20m of the barrow, and in Trench 13, around 100m north-east of the monument (Shepherd 1997: fig. 6). The postholes excavated in both trenches were interpreted as forming post-built structures (Shepherd 1997: 5), although unfortunately no plans of these potential buildings were included in the excavation report. Immediately south of the first Elstow Harrowden site was another excavated area at Manor Farm, containing further possible middle Anglo-Saxon post-built structures (Fig. 4.3) (BCAS 1995a: 33). Once again, however, there were no plans of these features in the excavation report. Nonetheless, it can be seen on the site plan that the middle Anglo-Saxon features were dispersed across the two long, narrow trenches, with a concentration towards the eastern end, closer to the Elstow Harrowden site. Although the site plan is not detailed enough to show the exact positions of the postulated buildings, it does demonstrate that the two sites were probably part of one early to middle AngloSaxon settlement, which lay to the north and east of a Bronze Age ring ditch. Some of the settlement features were particularly close to the ring ditch, whilst others were more dispersed and lay further away, such as those at the eastern ends of the trenches.

REUSED BARROWS Excavations at Village Farm/Medbury Lane, Elstow have revealed the ring ditches of two late Neolithic or early Bronze Age round barrows, with internal diameters of 22m and 13m respectively (Fig. 4.2) (BCAS 1995a: 22; BCAS 1995b: 13). About 12m north-east of the larger ring ditch was a small SFB (17), whilst 10m to the northeast of that was another, larger SFB (16) (BCAS 1995a: 22, fig. 9, fig. 10). Both buildings were therefore within about 22m of the larger barrow, and both were identified as being broadly early to middle Anglo-Saxon in date (BCAS 1995a: 22). They were accompanied by a scatter of several contemporary pits to the north-east of the buildings. There was also a Saxo-Norman phase of occupation, as well as evidence for Iron Age activity (BCAS 1995a: 22, 24). The lack of disturbance to the two barrows in both the Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon periods appears to indicate that they were still visible earthworks,

At Holme Pierrepont a single early Anglo-Saxon SFB was discovered just 4m away from the limit of excavation, adjacent to an unexcavated area containing the cropmarks of two large ring ditches, plus four smaller ones and a square enclosure (Fig. 4.4) (Guilbert 2006: 1824; 2007: 282). The two large ring ditches, A and B, are of particular interest, as they lay to the west of the unexcavated area, closest to the SFB. They were evaluated in 1992, and although little was learnt about them or their dates of construction, it was confirmed that

1

In Crewe (2008) it was stated that forty-nine preliminary examples had been identified. However, subsequent reassessment of the material led to seven examples being excluded because the evidence for reuse as crucial evidence to confirm the nature of the relationship between Anglo-Saxon and prehistoric features could not be located. 2 Exceptions are the sixth- to eighth-century wics or emporia of Southampton, London, Ipswich and York (Scull 1997: 275-280), which all lie outside the study area.

41

ring ditch A consisted of two concentric ditches and that B was the focus of an early Bronze Age cremation cemetery (Guilbert 2006: 18). The cropmarks showed that the external ditch of A had a diameter of c.15m, whilst B had a diameter of c.20m (Guilbert 2006: fig. 2). The excavated SFB was located just 20m away from ring ditch B, suggesting that the accompanying mound could have been a highly visible earthwork for the building’s inhabitants. Furthermore, the unexcavated area could have contained further Anglo-Saxon settlement features; the excavators certainly thought it likely that they had exposed the edge of a larger settlement, and did not rule out the possibility that machine removal of the soil in this area might have removed traces of more ephemeral postbuilt structures (Guilbert 2006: 37). If these other buildings were present in the unexcavated area, they, like the excavated SFB, would have been situated in close proximity to ring ditches A and B.

Immediately to the south of the barrows and SFBs documented by Eagles and Evison, on a site known as Meadway, there were further early to middle AngloSaxon features, including five possible SFBs and several incomplete posthole buildings (Albion 2005: 4-5; Bradley et al. 1999: 232-3; Gaimster et al. 1998: 115). There was also a possible Neolithic ring ditch with an internal diameter of 20m, situated roughly 10m south-east of the focus of Anglo-Saxon occupation (Albion 2005: fig. 2). It seems likely that the features of both phases relate to the site to the north. However, an undated linear feature bisects the ring ditch; if this pre-dates the Anglo-Saxon period it could mean that the ring ditch no longer represented a visible earthwork (Albion 2005: fig. 2). 3 As the Meadway site is immediately adjacent to the area excavated by Eagles and Evison the buildings may belong to one dispersed settlement, interspersed with a number of round barrows of various sizes.

The site of Harrold exhibits a similar pattern of reuse, as a dispersed fifth-century to sixth- or seventh-century Anglo-Saxon settlement was located in the vicinity of a large number of prehistoric round barrows (Fig. 4.5) (Eagles and Evison 1970). There were two SFBs (‘pits’ D and J), positioned about 150m apart, although the area between them was not fully excavated and further buildings might have existed; ephemeral post-hole buildings were particularly likely candidates for destruction by the quarrying activity that damaged the site and prompted excavation (Eagles and Evison 1970: 17, 46-8). There were up to ten Bronze Age barrows on the site, ranging in diameter from about 8m to 40m, but those of particular interest are Barrows 5, 6, 7 and 13 (Eagles and Evison 1970: 20-1). Barrow 13 was the largest on site, with a diameter of 40m and a ditch 1.3m deep and 3m wide, and although the other three were removed by bulldozers their diameters were noted before destruction; Barrow 5 was 18m in diameter, Barrow 6 was 8m and Barrow 7 was 13m.

Extensive gravel quarrying and the construction of the Oxford Northern Bypass (now the A40) at Cassington in the 1930s to 1950s revealed a pattern of Anglo-Saxon settlement and funerary activity in an area containing prehistoric monuments (Fig. 4.6) (Benson and Miles 1974a: 84; Hey 2004: 10). The site was bisected from east to west by the A40, and to the north of the road a single SFB was found during quarrying in Partridge’s gravel pit (Hey 2004: 10). Much more extensive features of prehistoric and Anglo-Saxon date, including a large Iron Age enclosure, were situated to the south of the road (Atkinson 1947: 7; Atkinson and Crouch 1945: 93; Hey 2004: 10) (see below for further discussion of the Iron Age enclosure). In this area were two Bronze Age barrows, located in Smith’s Pit II, lying just to the northeast of the Iron Age enclosure (Anon 1939: 195; Harden 1942: 104-5). Ring ditch A had an external diameter of c.30m and ring ditch B a diameter of c.36.5m, and both had traces of gravel slumping in their ditches, indicating that there had been a bank around the outside (Harden 1942: 106). These monuments appear to have been disc barrows, comprising a central mound, or mounds, on a platform surrounded by a ditch and external bank (Grinsell 1990: 34; Harden 1942: 106). A Bronze Age round barrow, c.33.5m diameter, was also excavated inside the Iron Age enclosure in 1943-4, at which time it still survived as a low mound (Atkinson 1947: 5-7).

SFB D was situated c.100m east of Barrow 13, and c.60m south-east of another circular feature (feature 9), which had a maximum diameter of c.27m and could have been another barrow (Eagles and Evison 1970: 19-20). SFB J, meanwhile, was closer to Barrow 13, lying about 50m south-west of it. Given the large size of this barrow it may well have been a substantial earthwork during the period of Anglo-Saxon occupation. Barrow 5, some 100m south-east of SFB J, was certainly a surviving earthwork in this period, as seventh-century burials were recovered from within the ring ditch and from immediately outside it (Eagles and Evison 1970: 17, 20, 39). It is debateable whether the adjacent barrows, 6 and 7, would have also been visible, as they were smaller, with diameters of 8m and 13m respectively. In addition to these monuments, the remains of several further barrows were noted during destruction of the site, but they could not be archaeologically recorded. Although their exact positions were not known, at least one of these barrows was found in Area I, and it would therefore have been in the vicinity of the SFBs and barrows discussed above (Eagles and Evison 1970: 39).

Anglo-Saxon features at Cassington were primarily dispersed across an area to the east of the two disc barrows. Leeds (1934: pl. XXXII) uncovered AngloSaxon settlement features in the eastern half of Tolley’s Pit, but although he plotted these on a site plan, he did not elaborate on his finds any further. Five features are labelled as Anglo-Saxon on the site plan, although only one (feature III) resembles a building; measuring roughly 3

The details of this excavation are to be published in a forthcoming volume of Bedfordshire Archaeology (A. Slowikowski pers. comm.), although no pre-publication drafts were available for consultation at the time of writing, and thus the date of the linear feature is unknown.

42

was not considered to be a prehistoric feature prior to the excavations; indeed, an antiquarian investigation in the 1830s had concluded that it was not a barrow (Dudley 1931: 28). However, resistivity survey and excavation revealed that the feature was a Bronze Age barrow, with a ring ditch c.30m in diameter (Hadley et al. 2011: 10-11). Human remains, recovered from the backfill of the antiquarian trench, yielded radiocarbon dates of AD 600670 (95% confidence), indicating that the mound had been reused for at least one secondary interment in the seventh century. A second denuded Bronze Age barrow, which was found to contain a primary child inhumation and secondary prehistoric cremation, had been levelled for use as a medieval building platform, was subsequently discovered to the south of the upstanding one. To the east of the Bronze Age barrows, in Trench 6, was an area containing early to middle Anglo-Saxon post-built structures, which lay c.60m south-east of the upstanding barrow and c.40m east of the denuded one. Postexcavation analysis is ongoing, but it appears that there were at least three or four buildings in the excavated area, one of continuous foundation trench construction, the others of post-hole construction.

3m by 2.5m, this might have been an SFB (Leeds 1934: pl. XXXII). The other features cannot be easily interpreted from Leeds’s plan, but they are marked as ‘Saxon pits’ on a site plan produced by Harden (1940: 3) (Fig. 4.7), which plotted all the finds from the various Cassington investigations. A further feature on Leeds’s site plan is a double ring ditch approximately 20m in diameter, half of which he managed to salvage before destruction, confirming that it was a double ditched prehistoric monument, probably a barrow (Benson and Miles 1974a: 84; Leeds 1934: 269). In the western half of Tolley’s Pit an Anglo-Saxon hut was excavated by workmen in 1938 (it is labelled on the site plan in the north-west corner of Tolley’s Pit; Fig. 4.6) (Anon 1938: 164). Neolithic pits and ‘a few Saxon hearth bottoms’ containing finds were also found in this area at a similar time (Benson and Miles 1974a: 84). The site plan also shows a dashed ring ditch lying partially under the course of the A40 in the north-west corner of Tolley’s Pit, near to a ‘Saxon hut’. As this area is rich in prehistoric earthwork remains, it seems likely that the dashed ring ditch was a further prehistoric barrow of some form, although no records of any investigations of this feature have been found.

Another significant feature excavated in this part of the site was a large early to middle Anglo-Saxon ditch, up to 2m wide in places and up to 1m deep, which had been cut into the bedrock and may have had an internal rubble bank. There had been at least two phases of activity in this area, since at least one of the buildings had been dissected by the enclosure ditch. It was difficult to be certain how large an area the ditch enclosed, but geophysical survey suggested that it might have had a diameter of c.40-50m. Although the geophysics did not reveal an entrance in the enclosure ditch, it is just possible that the entrance was in fact flanked by the two Bronze Age barrows; a similar layout is suggested by cropmarks at Cottam in East Yorkshire, some 45 miles north of West Halton (Richards 1999b) (Fig. 4.8).

Some years after the destruction of the land on either side of the A40 at Cassington, Benson and Miles (1974a) reconsidered the cropmark evidence from aerial photographs taken before the site’s obliteration. Numerous circular features were visible, numbering many more than the excavations records of the 1930s and 1940s suggest; in addition to the excavated examples, an estimated twenty to forty ring ditches were noted as cropmarks, many interpreted as further Bronze Age barrows (Fig. 4.7) (Benson and Miles 1974a: 84). Also marked on Benson and Miles’s (1974a: 85, fig. 13) cropmark plan is an intriguing rectangular feature to the north of the A40 road, in what was Partridge’s Pit. The authors made no mention of this feature in their discussion of the cropmarks, but it appears on the plan as a rectangle measuring roughly 30m by 15m, with a gap along its southern edge. It resembles the cropmarks of large Anglo-Saxon hall buildings at other sites nearby, notably Sutton Courtenay (see Blair 1994: 32, fig. 30 and the discussion of Sutton Courtenay below). The buildings at Sutton Courtenay have been interpreted as belonging to a high-status settlement site (Blair 1994: 32; Hamerow et al. 2007: 109) and the rectangular cropmark may indicate that there had been a high-status element to the AngloSaxon settlement at Cassington too. Given the apparent rarity of such large halls, and their postulated high-status associations (Hamerow 2002: 97; James et al. 1984; Rahtz 1970) it may unfortunately be the case that an unusual and potentially high-status Anglo-Saxon settlement site, in association with earlier monuments like the one at Sutton Courtenay, was lost without proper investigation at Cassington.

To the north of the upstanding barrow, in Trench 12, further Anglo-Saxon features have recently been found, although they are also still undergoing post-excavation analysis. Immediately north of the upstanding barrow was a square ditched enclosure, about 30m wide, which had been identified by geophysical survey (Hadley et al. 2011: 21-3). Excavation of about a quarter of the enclosure revealed that it was enclosed by a steep-sided palisade ditch; the feature resembled one of Blair’s (1995) pagan shrines, which generally date to the sixth and seventh centuries. However, the enclosure ditch at West Halton yielded very little dating evidence, and an Anglo-Saxon date cannot be attributed with certainty. Inside it, though, there lay an SFB and at least one postbuilt structure, alongside hundreds of narrow postholes, some of which clearly relate to small rectangular structures, which respected the layout of the Anglo-Saxon buildings and may therefore be associated with them. Although West Halton is still undergoing post-excavation analysis, it is evident that there were at least two phases of Anglo-Saxon settlement in the vicinity of at least two Bronze Age barrows, and that some form of enigmatic

Recent excavations at West Halton have revealed a number of buildings in close proximity to two Bronze Age round barrows, one of which is still a substantial landscape feature today (Fig. 4.8). The upstanding mound 43

At Willington a large late Neolithic or Bronze Age barrow was investigated; although half of the monument had been destroyed by quarrying when it was found, its original diameter was found to have been c.36m, with a ditch 1.3m wide and 1.4m deep (Fig. 4.11) (Wheeler 1979: 61, 73). The mound was still visible as a slight rise when investigated, although the original edge was difficult to define as it had been eroded and spread by ploughing. Approximately 60m south-west of the barrow was a possible sixth-century post-built structure (Wheeler 1979: 125-31). It was situated in an area that also contained Neolithic post-built structures, but the AngloSaxon postholes differed from the Neolithic examples as they were both wider and deeper, containing a darker fill, and Anglo-Saxon pottery was recovered from a plough furrow that overlay the postholes. Further away from the barrow were three sixth-century SFBs, which overlay a first- to second-century Romano-British farmstead (Wheeler 1979: 125, 133). These elements of the AngloSaxon settlement appear to have been more influenced by the Romano-British landscape than by the prehistoric barrow located to the north-east of them, but the presence of the post-built structure closer to the large, and certainly visible, barrow indicates that the barrow may have had an influence on the Anglo-Saxon settlement.

building activity was taking place within the squareditched enclosure immediately north of one of the barrows, which had also formed the focus of secondary burial activity. At Hoe Hills, Dowsby a prehistoric barrow cemetery of up to seven tumuli, perhaps more, has been identified, some of which survived into the 1940s when the field containing them was levelled for ploughing (Lane 2000: 99) Investigation of one of the tumuli confirmed that it was Bronze Age, that it survived as a low mound at the time of excavation, and that it had a ring ditch 27m in diameter (Lane 2000: 104-7). A nearby scatter of AngloSaxon pottery, some 100m south-east of the barrow, was found to cover early Anglo-Saxon pits and postholes. The postholes formed at least two putative Anglo-Saxon structures, both on a roughly east-west alignment (Fig. 4.9) (Lane 2000: 101-3). The lack of excavation between the two areas unfortunately means that it is not known if further Anglo-Saxon features were present even closer to the barrows. There were, however, four further early Anglo-Saxon pottery scatters among the barrows in the Hoe Hills cemetery, possibly indicating that the complex as a whole had seen more extensive reuse of the barrows during the early medieval period (Hayes and Lane 1992: 74).

Excavations at High Farm, Halton Holegate revealed possible SFBs located slightly down slope from a Neolithic or Bronze Age round barrow (Fig. 4.12) (Ramsey 2001: 3). Initial geophysical survey and evaluation revealed two parts of a curving ditch in Trench 2, representing a circular feature c.10m in diameter with a ditch c.1.35m wide (Rylatt 2001: 9-10). The fills of the ditch indicated that there had originally been a mound, and that material may have been built up around the outside too. Although the excavated ring ditch had a relatively small diameter compared to many others in the corpus, the barrow builders had positioned it to create a false horizon, making the barrow look larger and appear to project into the sky when viewed from further down the hill (Rylatt 2001: 17).

Investigations at Cossington Quarry have demonstrated that a Bronze Age round barrow with an internal diameter of c.25m formed the focus of early medieval settlement and funerary activity (Fig. 4.10) (Thomas 2007b: 1). The barrow had a central mound, which was still visible at the time of excavation as a slight earthwork, 0.5m high, which had slipped to cover an area about 60m in diameter (Thomas 2007b: 51-6). It had become the focus for a small inhumation cemetery in the sixth and seventh centuries; although bone had been destroyed by the acidic soil, groups of metalwork representing graves were located. In an area approximately 60m to the north of the barrow was an early to middle Anglo-Saxon SFB with associated pits, postholes and linear features, which were mostly on the eastern edge of the excavated area (Thomas 2007b: 65-6). The SFB lay within the corner of a rightangled linear feature, which was not excavated but was thought to be contemporary.

Down slope from the barrow were seventh- to ninthcentury pits and postholes and at least one SFB (F428) containing nearly 300 sherds of Anglo-Saxon pottery (Ramsey 2001: 3-5). Another ‘pit’ (F410) resembled the SFB and was on the same alignment, although it did not yield the large assemblages of animal bone and pottery that the SFB had; nevertheless it may also have been a building. Further pit-type features (F404 and F425), on the north-eastern edge of the excavation area were smaller and also yielded few finds; whilst they were less convincing as buildings, the site was heavily truncated and it is possible that some or all of them represented the damaged remains of further SFBs (Ramsey 2001: 3). As at many other sites in the corpus, the area between the settlement and the barrow was not investigated, meaning that the relationship between the two was not fully understood. Although the barrow at High Farm was small in comparison to other barrows in the corpus, its prominent position and the location of the settlement

Excavation did not take place in the 60m between the barrows and the settlement area, meaning that there was no indication of what, if anything, lay between the two areas or how the cemetery and settlement related to each other spatially. However, traces of Anglo-Saxon activity were located around 500m away, near to two other prehistoric barrows (Thomas 2007b: 1). Anglo-Saxon pottery was scattered across the area around the barrows, whilst sherds were found in both the inner and outer ditches of one (Thomas 2007b: 48). The pottery might represent the vestiges of more widespread activity in this area, associated with the remains of the monuments, especially as there were sherds in the barrow ditches, but the nature of that activity could not be ascertained without further excavation.

44

settlement appears to date to the early Anglo-Saxon period, based on the absence of characteristically middle Anglo-Saxon pottery, such as Maxey and Ipswich wares, and the presence of stamped sherds which are thought to date to the period AD 450-650 (Luke and Barker 2010: 75).

down slope from it may mean that the barrow was a noticeable feature on the skyline from the settlement. At Eye Kettleby it is also possible that settlement features clustered around an earlier barrow, although the interpretation of the feature as a barrow is tentative. Large-scale excavations revealed multi-period features, including twenty-five SFBs and twenty post-built structures ranging from the fifth or sixth century to the seventh century (Plate 1) (Bradley and Gaimster 2000: 289; Finn 1998: 178; 2007). In the north-west corner of the site a C-shaped ditch was excavated, which in interim reports was interpreted as part of a prehistoric ring ditch c.19m in diameter (Finn 1997a; 1997b: 91). If the Cshaped ditch at Eye Kettleby did represent the remains of a prehistoric barrow, then one of the groups of AngloSaxon buildings would have formed a cluster around it. None of the buildings in this cluster encroached on the monument, although two post-built structures were aligned roughly longitudinally on what could have been its edge, whilst on its south-eastern side there was an SFB, which could have abutted the monument. The excavator has questioned whether this was, in actual fact, a barrow, in part because of the proximity of these buildings to the postulated monument. However, this pattern has been noted at many other sites in the corpus, including Barrow Hills, Sutton Courtenay, Frieston Road and Corporation Farm; it should certainly not be assumed, therefore, that the proximity of the buildings to the postulated monument at Eye Kettleby indicates that there was no barrow there.

On land at Church Farm, Bierton two SFBs were excavated alongside two prehistoric monuments (Fenton 1996; Roseff 1996). SFB I was located on the northwestern edge of the excavation area, and SFB II lay towards the centre, roughly 30m south-east of SFB I (Fig. 4.14). A number of contemporary pit features were found at the south-eastern end of the site, whilst a large number of undated postholes were also observed, some of which may have been Anglo-Saxon (Fenton 1996: 3-4). The settlement features were assigned an early to middle Anglo-Saxon date, but could not be more closely dated (Fenton 1996: 1). In addition to the Anglo-Saxon features, there were also two Bronze Age ring ditches; to the west of the site was a penannular, V-profiled ditch with an internal diameter of c.13m, which may have been a barrow, and to the east was a second ring ditch, which formed a complete circuit c.10m in diameter and which was also interpreted as a barrow (Fenton 1996: 2). The buildings lay to the north and east of the two prehistoric ring ditches, with SFB II located roughly 13m north of the circular ring ditch and a similar distance east of the penannular one, while SFB I was further away to the north-west. The contemporary pits to the south-east of the site were not labelled on the site plan, but seem to have been the sub-rectangular features scattered around the circular ring ditch, one of which was located on the barrow. The buildings at Church Farm were, therefore, in close proximity to the two potential barrows, and the pits to the south of the site may have directly modified one of those barrows, although the limited information about the excavations makes this difficult to confirm.

Twenty early Anglo-Saxon SFBs at Biddenham Loop were also situated in an area of pre-existing monuments, in a field in the north-east corner of the site (site SL62; Fig. 4.13) (Luke 2008: 1; Luke and Barker 2008: 9-12; Luke and Barker 2010: 74). Immediately north-west of the settlement was an early Bronze Age ring ditch (L2104), with an internal diameter of c.25m (Luke and Barker 2008: 12). This was part of a complex of monuments (SL5), containing a Neolithic oval monument and a number of Bronze Age ring ditches (Luke and Barker 2010: 42-3). Two of these ring ditches contained centrally-placed and off-centre cremations, while in another were small pits containing sherds of Collared Urns, which may have been truncated graves (Luke and Barker 2010: 43).

Similar patterns were observed at Salmonby by G.V. Taylor in the 1950s, although plans for this site have proved elusive if, indeed, any ever existed (A. Thornton pers. comm.). Taylor found Anglo-Saxon ‘huts’ on both sides of the road between Salmonby and the adjacent village of Somersby (Fig. 4.15), which had been brought to light as a result of ploughing (Petch 1960: 20). Published features include one building in a field known as Sandy Knobbs, and another on the north side of the road in a field called New England (Petch 1960: 21; Thompson 1955: 10), although the Lincolnshire HER entry for the site suggests that further buildings were located.4 There is also evidence for prehistoric funerary activity in the area, although this too is unpublished. A scheduled cropmark of an oval-shaped long barrow 44m long was noted at Salmonby (Jones 1998: 107; Lincs HER). A ring ditch was situated some 20m to the northwest of the long barrow according to Jones (1998: 107), although the Lincolnshire HER entry for this site records a distance of 70m between the two monuments. This ring

Radiocarbon dating of samples from graves within all three monuments yielded early Bronze Age dates, and the presence of burials in the ring ditches strongly suggested that they represented barrows, although no above-ground remains of mounds survived. The buildings also seem to have been influenced by the enclosures of a RomanoBritish settlement, the core of which lay to the east, as thirteen SFBs lay within a Romano-British enclosure, and others were located on top of ditches belonging to the Romano-British phase (Luke and Barker 2010: 75). A small number of pits and postholes were also found across this area, although no post-built structures were found, possibly as a result of the site’s truncation by ploughing (Luke and Barker 2010: 75, 77). This area of

4

45

See Appendix A for the relevant HER numbers.

late Bronze Age rather than the period that the urns belonged to. Three sixth- to seventh-century SFBs were also uncovered at Nettleton Top (Field and Leahy 1993: 10-15, 20-24). The first was in Area One, roughly 50m west of the possible barrow site, alongside contemporary pits and an eroded hearth.

ditch is believed to have been a bowl barrow, c.25m in diameter (Lincs HER). The grid references for these features show that the buildings and cropmarks were situated in the same field, no more than 100m away from each other. Thus, while the limited quality and extent of excavation at Salmonby mean that the relationships between the Anglo-Saxon and prehistoric features cannot be known for certain, the evidence suggests that the SFBs were situated in fairly close proximity to the prehistoric monuments.

In Area Two, which contained the postulated barrow, there were no buildings but there were two Anglo-Saxon fire pits in close proximity to the Bronze Age vessels. In Area Three, north of Area Two, two further SFBs were excavated, both of which had been truncated by ploughing. A pit containing pottery and animal bone had been dug through the southern edge of one of the SFBs, whilst to its east it overlapped another similar pit. The two SFBs and two pits in Area Three were all located approximately 25m north-west of the area of the postulated barrow, whilst the features in Area One were slightly further away. The Anglo-Saxon features at Nettleton Top therefore appear to have been fairly dispersed, although the possibility that further features lay outside the trenches cannot be ignored. Had a mound existed over the Bronze Age vessels in Area Two, the building in Area One would have been some 50m to the west of it, and those in Area Three would have been closer, around 20m to the north, while the fire pits in Area Two could have been adjacent to it.

Grendon also has tentative evidence for the intermingling of Anglo-Saxon buildings with prehistoric features although, like Salmonby, information about the site has proved difficult to obtain. Limited records reveal that salvage excavations uncovered ring ditches, as well as Anglo-Saxon postholes, pits and three SFBs, which apparently overlay the prehistoric features (Jackson 1978: 179; RCHM 1982: 199; Youngs and Clark 1981: 175). Unfortunately, site plans and any more detailed information about the investigations have been impossible to locate. However, a short summary of the investigations recorded that a round barrow was found in the same area as the three SFBs, along with a deep feature containing possible human bones and AngloSaxon sherds (Foard 1977: 224). The barrow in the vicinity of the three SFBs might have had some influence on their layout, although without site plans this cannot be investigated further.

Aerial photographs and a magnetometer survey at Hatton Rock have brought to light various archaeological features, including an eighth- to ninth-century settlement (Fig. 4.18) (Hirst and Rahtz 1973; Rahtz 1970). The features were sketched onto a map of the area by Philip Rahtz, who suggested that there had been two phases of occupation, based on the relative orientation of the features and differences in the ‘sharpness’ of their outlines (Rahtz 1970: 140). The more blurred outlines of the group of postulated Phase 1 buildings may have resulted from their timbers being removed, while the sharper outlines of the possible Phase 2 group might have resulted from the building remains being left in the ground. In each group were several rectangular buildings, as well as possible SFBs, and an L-shaped ditch or timber alignment (Rahtz 1970: 141-2). The rectangular ‘halls’ ranged in size from c.6m by 6m to c.50m by 9m and, although the building dimensions taken from the cropmark plot are not exact, it is clear that the buildings were unusually large and had similarities with large halls at sites such as Yeavering.

At Old Parkbury a Neolithic logboat, 5.3m long and 1.07m wide, and containing a human burial has been excavated (Fig. 4.16) (Niblett 2001: 159-61). While no trace of a mound or ring ditch was found during the excavation, a mound may have existed over the burial; the removal of topsoil by a mechanical digger could have destroyed any remaining traces of it. Furthermore, modern ploughing and erosion had also truncated much of the site, meaning that traces of any surviving mound material could have been removed relatively recently (Niblett 2001: 163). Support for the former existence of a mound is provided by the discovery of a middle Bronze Age urn in a pit 7.7m north-west of the logboat, possibly indicating that the burial site had attracted later funerary activity (Niblett 2001: 161). In the same field as the logboat were two sixth- to eighth-century SFBs, one located roughly 30m north of the logboat, the other around 5m south of it (Niblett 2001: 162, fig. 8, 171). Nettleton Top resembles Old Parkbury, in that it too has evidence to indicate that a mound might once have been present, although no traces of an earthwork were found (Fig. 4.17). Three Bronze Age funerary vessels were found within an area measuring roughly 5m by 1m, their presence so close to each other strongly suggesting that they might have been placed in or under a mound (Field and Leahy 1993: 9). The lack of surrounding ring ditch would not be unusual in Lincolnshire, as other examples of barrows without ring ditches have been excavated elsewhere in the county (Field and Leahy 1993: 36). Furthermore, flat Bronze Age cemeteries without mounds are rare in the area, and tended to be established in the

A narrow pipe trench subsequently dug across the site allowed the features at Hatton Rock to be considered in more detail (Hirst and Rahtz 1973: 161; Rahtz 1970: 142). Some of the exposed features could be correlated with cropmarks; part of the small square cropmark Q and the corner of L-shaped ditch C were excavated, whilst another excavated feature (14) appeared to correlate with the north wall of building J (Hirst and Rahtz 1973: 167). The excavation of part of cropmark Q suggested that it was an SFB, in which case cropmarks B and K might also have represented SFBs (Hirst and Rahtz 1973: 164, 169). Although the limited excavation did not greatly add to 46

understanding of the settlement’s function or status, it did confirm that the interpretation of the features on the cropmark and geophysical plots were on the whole correct.

in a number of different ‘zones’ within the settlement, which may have represented farmsteads. On the eastern side of the settlement were three further prehistoric features: a small ring ditch (PM1), a segmented-ditch monument (PM2) and a large penannular ditch (PM3) (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 15). The penannular ditch had an internal diameter of approximately 25m and may have originally had a mound, whilst the other two features were roughly 10m in diameter, but their original forms were not known (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 116, fig. 3.97). The excavators suggested that PM3 could have been ‘sufficiently preserved to influence the layout of the Anglo-Saxon settlement’, whilst the other two may have been similarly preserved (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 15).

Also on the cropmark plot and magnetometer survey was a ring ditch, measuring roughly 20m in diameter (Rahtz 1970: 141, fig. 3). The pipe trench made an oblique cut through the ring ditch, confirming that it was stratigraphically earlier than an apparent timber-slot of a building and supporting the supposition that it was a prehistoric feature (Hirst and Rahtz 1973: 167). Belonging to each of the two proposed phases at Hatton Rock was a row of three or more aligned timber buildings, the Phase 2 row of buildings situated immediately east of the ring ditch. The postulated barrow may therefore have influenced the layout of the settlement in one or all of its phases, particularly in the case of the alignment of rectangular buildings belonging to Phase 2. In this way the site also displays a resemblance to the high-status settlements at Yeavering and Sutton Courtenay, where large timber halls were aligned on prehistoric barrows (Bradley 1987; Blair 1994: 32).

The preservation of PM2 and PM3 was supported by the fact that they were ‘annexed’ by the Anglo-Saxon settlement, which had an organised structure, delineated by numerous ditched and fenced boundaries (LoscoBradley and Kinsley 2002: 28, 41). The area containing PM2 and PM3 was divided from the rest of the settlement by lengths of ditch and a trackway. The annexe was kept clear of occupation, and the only Anglo-Saxon features within the area were a cow burial and human burial. The area containing PM2 and PM3 certainly seems to have been separated from the rest of the settlement, but the reason for this is unknown. However the burials and the lack of buildings and other settlement features in this area suggests that the space might have had some special function or status, which may have been enhanced by the fact that it was delineated to the west by a long-lived boundary which had its origins in the prehistoric period (see below).

The buildings and possible barrow at Hatton Rock may therefore have been part of a high-status settlement and, indeed, there are textual references that suggest that much of the land in the area of Hatton Rock was part of a large royal Mercian estate until the eighth century (Rahtz 1970: 139, 142). For example, a charter of 7815 records an agreement between King Offa of Mercia and the Bishop of Worcester, in which the king confirmed the bishop’s ownership of Hampton Lucy, the manor in which Hatton Rock lay and which had belonged to Offa’s predecessor Aethelbald, in return for land elsewhere (Finberg 1972: 95-6; Rahtz 1970: 139). Further, a piece of land called Ingon within the manor of Hampton Lucy and close to Hatton Rock, was sold by two Hwiccan princes, Æthilheard and Æthilweard, in c.704-709 (Finberg 1972: 135; Rahtz 1970: 139).6 The royal estate seems to have been gradually diminished by grants during the eighth century, although nearby Wellesbourne appears to have still had a palace in the ninth century, as in 840 a bishop of Worcester handed over horses and jewellery to King Berhtwulf of Mercia7, and in 862 a charter signed by members of the Mercian council was granted there (Finberg 1972: 46, 153-66; Rahtz 1970: 139).

There was a similar situation at Wolverton Turn Enclosure, where a Bronze Age round barrow had been enclosed within another Anglo-Saxon ‘annexe’, this time projecting off a larger contemporary enclosure. The main enclosure was large and sub-rectangular, up to 155m wide and c.175m long, enclosing an area of roughly 2.6ha (Fig. 4.19) (Preston 2007: 81, 90-2). The ditches had been re-cut on a number of occasions, with some re-cuts diverging from the original ditches and then joining them again, and inside there were also smaller sub-enclosures, indicated by internal ditches. The round barrow was tightly fitted into the northern corner of the smaller enclosure, which measured c.30m by 50m, and this precise fit almost certainly indicates that it was still a visible earthwork when the enclosure was dug (Preston 2007: 81, 86-91). The relationship between the small enclosure and the larger one was uncertain; they might have been constructed at the same time, but this could not be confirmed. On the south-west side of the smaller enclosure there appears to have been an entrance where Ditch 9 terminated before it reached Ditch 1 of the large enclosure, suggesting that the smaller enclosure was contemporary with or later than the large enclosure (Preston 2007: 91). It seems clear that, as was the case at Catholme, the barrow at Wolverton was separated or protected from the rest of the enclosure and surrounding landscape, but that access to the monument through the

The settlement at Catholme displayed a rather unusual, highly structured pattern of association between AngloSaxon and prehistoric features, although as this settlement forms a case study in the following chapter, it will not be discussed in great detail here. The excavation revealed sixty-five early seventh- to late ninth-century sunken-featured and post-built buildings (Plate 2) (LoscoBradley and Kinsley 2002: 85, 117). These were located 5

Charter 228 in Finberg (1972). This charter is number 382 in Finberg (1972) and it also appears in Sawyer (1968) as charter 1177. 7 Charter 65 in Finberg (1972). 6

47

them within the ring ditch. The pits and ring ditch contained remarkably similar fills, which made it difficult to determine their stratigraphic relationships and relative dates (Copp and Toop 2006: 92). Nonetheless, one of the pits produced sherds of late Bronze Age or early Iron Age date, which was consistent with the suggested dates for this type of monument, and the excavators proposed that the pit alignment reinforced an earlier boundary that had been previously marked by the ring ditch, since the precise bisection of the ring ditch was unlikely to be a coincidence (Copp and Toop 2006: 93, 151; Toop and Copp 2005: 27-8).

entrance was possible – and perhaps necessary – although for what reason excavation could not discern (Preston 2007: 114). The enclosures were accompanied by post-built structures and SFBs, some lying inside and others outside the larger enclosure (Preston 2007: 93-5). Structure 4 was a postbuilt structure measuring roughly 5m by 3m, and was situated inside the large enclosure. Outside the enclosure, around 200m north of the barrow, was an SFB (Structure 5), animal bone from the lower fill of which yielded a radiocarbon date of AD 430-600 (95% confidence) (Preston 2007: 95). Two further early to middle AngloSaxon SFBs, along with associated features such as cesspits, were identified around 100m west of the previously excavated SFB, about 60m north of the large enclosure, while dark patches on aerial photographs may represent further SFBs (Gaimster and O’Connor 2005: 357; Preston 2007: 85, 95). Occupation dated to between the sixth or seventh century and the eighth or ninth century, with radiocarbon dates of AD 690-890 (95% confidence) coming from two different fills in the main enclosure Ditch 1 (Preston 2007: 90, 98). As these dates and the one from Structure 5 did not overlap, there seem to have been several phases of activity belonging to the early to middle Anglo-Saxon period, although the numerous re-cuts of the large enclosure ditches suggest that the enclosure was present throughout the life of the settlement. The barrow, and its surrounding enclosure, may therefore also have been a long-lived and significant feature in the settlement at Wolverton.

The presence of the pit alignment makes it difficult to determine to what extent a mound would have been present during the Anglo-Saxon period, and the appearance of the pits at this time is uncertain too, although they may have been visible as hollows in the ground. Nonetheless, the locations of the SFB and pits, and the relatively large assemblage of Anglo-Saxon pottery in the ring ditch, indicate that the monument was still visible in some form in the seventh century. The excavated features appear to have been part of a larger complex, as similar ring ditches were noted on a magnetometer survey of the area to the south-west and north-east of the excavated example, while further anomalies thought to be SFBs were also noted on either side of the pipeline easement (Copp and Toop 2006: 93, 152; FAS 2001: 19; Toop and Copp 2005: 24). A similar form of reuse has also been noted at Manor Farm, Harston where fifth- to sixth-century settlement features and a Bronze Age barrow have been excavated (Figs. 4.21 and 4.22) (Malim 1993: 23-6). Two possible timber slot buildings were located (in Trenches 6 and 13), whilst the ditches of a large cropmark enclosure were excavated in Trench 7 and found to contain Anglo-Saxon material. A Bronze Age ring ditch with an external diameter of 19m was found to have had a central mound or internal bank. Cut into this mound material were two SFBs (pits 15 and 16), which represented two phases of building activity, since pit 15 had cut pit 16. Charcoal found on the base of the latter yielded a radiocarbon date of AD 460-645 (68% confidence). The two SFBs were thus located on top of a pre-existing mound, towards its southern edge and, given their relatively shallow depths of 0.15m and 0.25m, it seems likely that they had originally been cut deeper into a now-eroded mound. The excavator suggested that the presence of sophisticated timber-framed buildings, which were located a little to the north of the SFBs on the mound, as well as a possible nearby cemetery identified on aerial photographs, and the site’s position near to a parish boundary, raise the possibility that this may have been an important early Anglo-Saxon estate centre (Malim 1993: 38). This suggestion was supported by the discovery of a sixthcentury gilt and garnet disc brooch with animal motif decoration, which was found in the vicinity of the site and which the excavator believed to be indicative of a highstatus presence (Malim 1993: 38-9).

The pattern of reuse exhibited at sites such as Hatton Rock, Catholme and Wolverton is particularly highly structured and appears very deliberate; these are traits that are also seen at settlements where buildings modified monuments. At Frieston Road a Bronze Age ring ditch with a diameter of 13m was found to have a late sixth- or seventh-century SFB cut into its south-western quadrant, with two contemporary shallow pits lying to the north of the SFB within the ring ditch (Fig. 4.20) (Copp and Toop 2006: 78-83, 89-91; Toop and Copp 2005: 24). A relatively large assemblage of Anglo-Saxon pottery, contemporary with that from the SFB and pits, was discovered in the upper fills of the ring ditch, indicating that it was present to some extent as an earthwork in the sixth or seventh century (Copp and Toop 2006: 91). The ring ditch appears to have been part of a prehistoric funerary monument, probably a barrow, as an early Bronze Age accessory vessel was recovered from it (Copp and Toop 2006: 92, 152). Although the excavators noted that there was no surviving evidence of a mound, the shallowness of the Anglo-Saxon pits situated inside the ring ditch may indicate that they had been dug from a higher level when a mound was still present, and that this was a barrow. The form and visibility of the monument in the AngloSaxon period was thrown into question, however, by the discovery of an Iron Age pit alignment crossing it (Copp and Toop 2006: 84-8). Thirty pits were identified over a distance of 70m, twelve of which were excavated, five of 48

buildings, and another scatter roughly 200m to the east (Windell et al 1990: 16). A scatter of early to middle Anglo-Saxon sherds was also discovered in a field containing three cropmark ring ditches to the north of the excavated area (Parry 2006: 175), and there may therefore have been even more extensive occupation in and around the monument complex at West Cotton in the early to middle Anglo-Saxon period.

Similarly, at West Cotton, a settlement was found to lie within an extensive complex of Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments close to the banks of the River Nene (Fig. 4.23) (Windell et al. 1990: 5, 7). This complex included three round mounds or barrows; the first, known as the Turf Mound, was an unditched mound that was probably originally ovoid, c.19m wide by at least 25m long (Windell et al. 1990: 11, 89). The mound was not considered to be a barrow by the excavators since it lacked a burial and it may have had some form of fenced structure on its summit. The Turf Mound had been eroded by ridge and furrow ploughing and then covered by alluvium in the medieval period, but still survived to a height of 0.5m when it was excavated. The other two mounds did contain burials, and were therefore classed as barrows (Windell et al. 1990: 11-3). Barrow 1 had been constructed in several phases, but in its final form it was a disc barrow, c.30m in diameter, with a mound in the middle of the ring ditch and a berm between it and the ditch. Barrow 2, meanwhile, was located 70m south-west of the long enclosure, overlapping the Turf Mound, and consisted of a mound within a ring ditch with a diameter of c.21m diameter.

The Anglo-Saxon features at Corporation Farm, Abingdon were also located within a complex of Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments (Fig. 4.24) (ADAS 1973; Barclay et al. 2003: 32; Parrington and Henderson 1974). Three SFBs were excavated, one described as ‘small’ and associated with an early fifth-century bowl and another as ‘large’ and probably sixth-century in date (ADAS 1973: 40). Of the third building only postholes remained, whilst near to it were two pits, dug below the water level, which contained clay, wood and fifth-century pottery. Another feature, containing a stone-lined hearth, was interpreted as a ‘lean-to’, and was found to overlay a ditch of a Romano-British enclosure (Parrington and Henderson 1974: 10). This had apparently been replaced by a further SFB on a slightly different alignment, containing later fifth-century pottery. The monument complex at Corporation Farm consisted of at least seven excavated ring ditches and another thirteen cropmark ring ditches, as well as a possible henge (Barclay et al. 2003: 32; Parkinson 1994: 1). A middle Bronze Age enclosure complex and a middle second-century Romano-British enclosure have also been identified (ADAS 1973: 40; Barclay et al. 2003: 37-9).

A long mound was also discovered, and at the time of excavation its eastern end still stood to height of between 0.5m and 0.8m (Windell et al. 1993: 9). Parts of the monument were badly preserved, the western end having been destroyed by quarrying, whilst a central portion c.35m long had been almost completely eroded away by a medieval stream (Windell 1989: 87; Windell et al. 1990: 9). Nonetheless, there were two intact lengths of the monument surviving for investigation, at either end of the 35m gap caused by the stream, and it was possible to ascertain that the mound had been 135m long and between 13m and 19m wide. The monument complex is evidently even more extensive, as at least four more round barrows, a causewayed ditched enclosure and a henge have also been identified on aerial photographs or through excavation to the west, east and north-east of the site (Parry 2006: 175; Windell 1989: 87; Windell et al. 1993: 13-5).

The Anglo-Saxon buildings were situated in Area J, close to a number of the prehistoric monuments, including two of the excavated ring ditches, as well as three further cropmark ring ditches and the Romano-British enclosure (ADAS 1973: 40-1; Barclay et al. 2003: 31, fig. 3.6). One of the excavated ring ditches (feature 2) was small and had been overlain by a much larger ring ditch (3), making it highly unlikely that the smaller example survived into the fifth and sixth centuries (Barclay et al. 2003: 35). Ring ditch 3 was a much larger Bronze Age monument, with a ditch 1.4m wide, up to 1.2m deep and 30.5m in diameter, which had been accompanied by an internal mound or bank. The ‘large’, sixth-century, SFB was situated on the north-east side of ring ditch 3 (ADAS 1973: 40). The building might well, therefore, have abutted the central mound or bank of the barrow. The other buildings were not as closely associated with monuments; the partially preserved SFB lay just under 30m south of ring ditch 3, whilst the smaller SFB lay within the second-century enclosure and the ‘lean-to’ lay on the enclosure ditch (Barclay et al. 2003: 31, fig. 3.6). Nonetheless, the settlement was situated in a landscape rich in prehistoric remains, the nearby henge and ring ditches defining the northern and western edges of the area containing the buildings.

In the early Anglo-Saxon period an SFB was constructed approximately 30m north of the long mound, and 60m west of Barrow 1 (Windell et al. 1990: 8, fig. 4). The building contained early Anglo-Saxon pottery and produced a radiocarbon date of AD 421-597 (confidence not specified) (Parry 2006: 175). Meanwhile, on top of the long mound another SFB was identified (Windell et al. 1990: 16). Although the excavation report did not specify exactly where on the mound the second building lay, the fact that only two lengths of the mound were available for excavation narrows down the building’s possible location; it must have been situated somewhere on one of those lengths, either at the eastern end of the monument or to the west of the mound’s centre. The second building was only 0.1m deep, whilst the first was 0.4m deep, suggesting that the second may well have been dug into the mound at a higher level originally (Windell et al. 1990: 16). There was a scatter of around 300 early Anglo-Saxon potsherds around the two

At New Wintles Farm, Eynsham archaeological investigation took place on four separate occasions in three adjacent fields, which were subsequently labelled 49

scattered across Areas C and D, and to the south of the site.

Areas A to D (Figs. 4.25 and 4.26) (Clayton 1973: 382). The four episodes of excavation revealed four or five post-built structures, a well, scattered pits of various sizes, and twenty-one SFBs, two of which lay within ring ditches in Areas C and D (Clayton 1973: 384). Area A, to the north of the site, contained SFBs and post-built structures, which had been bounded to the east by palisade trenches containing substantial timbers (Fig. 4.26) (Chadwick Hawkes and Gray 1969: 2-3). Three post-built structures and eleven dispersed SFBs were discovered in Area A, representing several phases of settlement. SFBs 38 and 91 and posthole building 122 were thought to be sixth-century, whilst SFBs 36, 123 and 124 and a square posthole building were assigned a seventh-century date, and SFB 9 contained an unspecified decorated metal ‘object’ that might have been early eighth-century (Chadwick Hawkes and Gray 1969: 3). To the west of this settlement focus was Area D, which contained three Bronze Age ring ditches. Gray (1973: 18) found an SFB inside the most northerly of ring ditches, which had an internal diameter of c.20m, as well as another SFB and a post-built structure approximately 25m north of another ring ditch, and several pits and a well scattered across Area D.

The settlement at Gatehampton Farm, Goring was similarly situated within a prehistoric barrow cemetery consisting of at least twelve barrows (Fig. 4.27) (Allen 1995: 4). The excavated Anglo-Saxon features were not extensive. All but the eastern end of an SFB, which may have been fifth- or sixth-century in date, and a scatter of postholes to the north and south were exposed (Allen 1995: 45-7, 97). Some postholes formed lines, and were possibly the partial remains of post-built structures contemporary with the SFB. Around 200m to the west of the SFB, in what appeared to be part of a buried water channel, was a midden deposit containing charcoal, animal bones and sherds of Anglo-Saxon pottery, which indicated that occupation in the early medieval period might have been more widespread, a suggestion supported by the presence of residual Anglo-Saxon pottery in features across the site, between the excavated SFB and the midden (Allen 1995: 47, 97). The excavated SFB was located approximately 12m north of the ring ditch of a round barrow (feature 36), which had a diameter of c.25m (Allen 1995: 2, 32). Within an area c.200m wide to the south-west of the excavated SFB and barrow 36 were six further ring ditches. At least two of these (413 and an un-numbered example) had visible mounds at the time of excavation, standing between 0.10m and 0.75m tall, whilst another (226) had surviving mound material under the topsoil and may have originally been up to 2.2m high (Allen 1995: 31-5). A number of the barrows in the cemetery were therefore certainly visible in the Anglo-Saxon period, whilst others, including barrow 36, might also have had surviving mounds.

The available information about Areas B and C was limited, and although the excavated features were marked on the general site plan, individual features were not labelled. However, the findings from these areas were briefly summarised by Gray (1974: 54), revealing that a further eight SFBs were exposed in Areas B and C. There were also many Anglo-Saxon pits of unknown function in these areas; these and the SFBs cannot be told apart on the site plan, so the exact positions of the buildings remain uncertain (Gray 1974: 55). It is known, however, that in Area C there was another example of an SFB situated inside a ring ditch; this can be seen towards the south of Area C (Fig. 4.25) (a very similar feature, feasibly another SFB, also abuts the ring ditch on the plan, although this was not mentioned in the publications) (Clayton 1973: 384; Gray 1973: 18; 1974: 54). In addition to the excavated settlement features at this site, there may have been more to south, where cropmarks of more SFBs and another ring ditch were noted (Gray 1974: 53).

The possibility that further ring ditches and Anglo-Saxon occupation lay to the west of the excavation area was confirmed by a magnetometer survey, which confirmed the presence of two other un-numbered ring ditches near to barrow 226 that had also been seen as cropmarks (Allen 1995: 49-53). Numerous discrete positive anomalies were also identified, some of which were likely to be further SFBs. Interestingly, one anomaly was situated in the middle of barrow 36; although the magnetometer survey cannot be considered a reliable indicator of the exact size of the feature, the anomaly measured roughly 4m by 3m; these dimensions are arguably too large for a grave, but are characteristic of SFBs (Tipper 2004: 1). At Gatehampton Farm, then, there seems to have been a potentially large Anglo-Saxon settlement situated within an area of prehistoric barrows, including one possible instance of a building located on top of a mound.

Gray (1974: 54) believed that the associations between the SFBs and ring ditches in Areas C and D at New Wintles Farm were for ‘reasons not considered to be coincidental’, although she did not elaborate any further on her ideas. More recently, Semple (2003a: 162) has claimed that the barrows at New Wintles Farm would not have been visible in the Anglo-Saxon period as they had been completely ploughed away by the Iron Age or Roman period. However, all the evidence for ploughing on the site was medieval in date; there were no traces of prehistoric or Roman ploughing (Clayton 1973: 384). Thus, on the contrary, there is evidence to suggest that there could have been visible prehistoric earthworks at New Wintles during the Anglo-Saxon period, including a possible henge, and perhaps as many as six barrows

More extensive settlements within prehistoric monument complexes have been excavated at two more Oxfordshire sites, Barrow Hills and Sutton Courtenay, both of which will be discussed as case studies in the following chapter, so the evidence pertaining to them will be summarised fairly briefly here. At Barrow Hills, thirteen post-built structures and forty-five SFBs were identified, dating 50

147).8 His investigations exposed traces of thirty-three fifth- to seventh-century SFBs and two possible post-built structures (Leeds 1923; 1927; 1947). In addition, several Bronze Age features were excavated at the northern end of the site, including a ring ditch (Circle A) with an internal diameter of c.20m (Leeds 1927: 60). A second excavated ring ditch (Circle B), was found to have sloping berms on both the inside and outside, whilst another smaller example (Circle C) was slightly to the south-east of Circle B (Barclay et al. 2003: 22; Leeds 1927: 60). An SFB had been constructed just outside the ring ditch of Circle A, another lay partially over the ditch of Circle B, and one also overlay the smaller ring ditch; each ring ditch therefore had an SFB either immediately adjacent to it or directly over it.

from the fifth to seventh centuries (Plate 3) (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 66, 85-89, 297). The settlement lay at one end of a prehistoric monument complex that extended beyond the excavated area along a ridge to the north-east (Barclay and Halpin 1999: 1; Chambers and McAdam 2007: 4). Within the settlement were numerous prehistoric features, some of which certainly survived as earthworks into the Anglo-Saxon period. These include a Neolithic oval barrow, two small ring ditches (801 and 201) that may have had mounds, and two pond barrows (4583 and 4866) with central ‘ponds’ and external banks (Barclay and Halpin 1999: 20-1, 48-52, 111-5). There were also three larger barrows within the settlement; Barrow 12 was a particularly large example and may have had both a central mound and an external encircling bank (Barclay and Halpin 1999: 97-102). Barrow 13, immediately north-east of Barrow 12, was also large and had an internal mound or bank, whilst Barrow 1 was similar in size and probably also similar in form to Barrow 13 (Barclay and Halpin 1999: 111, 141). There were also further prehistoric monuments that seem to have been too insubstantial to have survived, or that were destroyed by other earthworks, such as a pond barrow that was overlain by Barrow 12 (Barclay and Halpin 1999: 35).

To the south of the area excavated by Leeds the cropmarks of five large timber buildings have also been identified, lying in an L-shape (Benson and Miles 1974b). These are particularly large buildings, and may represent a seventh-century or later ‘palace’ site (Blair 1994: 32; Hamerow et al. 2007: 187). A sixth building has recently been identified and partially excavated to the south-east of the others (Hamerow et al. 2007: 115). The buildings were located close to another cluster at least six of ring ditches; the three north-south orientated buildings were in line with the largest ring ditch, whilst another building cut across a smaller example (Barclay et al. 2003: 17, fig. 3.1). Along with the sixth building, recent work has also identified a previously unknown Neolithic oval barrow and another ring ditch on a geophysical survey, located to the south-west of the cropmark ‘palace’ site (Hamerow et al. 2007: 113, 131). Thus, the extensive site at Sutton Courtenay contained a dispersed Anglo-Saxon settlement within an area measuring around 750m north to south, within which were the remains of up to eleven barrows and a Neolithic cursus (see below); the relationships between these features are discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.

The Anglo-Saxon buildings lay amongst the pre-existing barrows, mostly in an area defined to the south by Barrows 12 and 13 and to the east by Barrow 1. A number of buildings had modified barrows, such as one SFB (9) that had been dug into the centre of the Neolithic oval barrow, the ditches of which also contained AngloSaxon pottery (Barclay and Halpin 1999: 23; Chambers and McAdam 2007: 203-18). The upper levels of the ring ditch around Barrow 12 contained large amounts of Anglo-Saxon material, whilst an SFB (26) lay inside the ring ditch, apparently between the central mound and external bank (Barclay and Halpin 1999: 99-101; Chambers and McAdam 2007: 203-18). The ditch around Barrow 13 also contained Anglo-Saxon material, while an SFB (24) lay on top of the ditch (Barclay and Halpin 1999: 115). One of the smaller ring ditches (801) had three SFBs (14, 17 and 18) overlying its ring ditch too, potentially abutting its associated mound. A small quantity of Anglo-Saxon pottery also came from the top of the internal pit or ‘pond’ of pond barrow 4866, and an Anglo-Saxon burial had been placed near it, probably cut through the encircling bank (Barclay and Halpin 1999: 118). The buildings at Barrow Hills had, therefore, been located within an area containing many prehistoric monuments, with six buildings located on top of the mounds and ring ditches belonging to a number of different types of barrow.

REUSED LINEAR FEATURES At the fifth-to seventh-century settlement of Glebe Farm, Brough the positions and alignments of buildings appear to have been influenced by prehistoric enclosures; up to nine SFBs and fifteen post-built structures were found in amongst the enclosures of an Iron Age field system, following the east-west alignment of the preexisting ditches (Fig. 4.29) (Jones forthcoming). There were also two Anglo-Saxon enclosures, which continued the Iron Age preference for an east-west by north-south alignment, and which formed a southern extension to the earlier ditch system, rather than a replacement of it. The buildings, on the whole, followed the alignment of the earlier ditches without modifying them in any way, although one SFB had been dug into an earlier ditch, and the walls of one post-built structure terminated at an earlier ditch, its south wall cutting into the ditch (Jones forthcoming).

The settlement at Sutton Courtenay was also extensive, and has been investigated on a number of occasions during the last century, revealing both prehistoric and early medieval elements to the site. E.T. Leeds first investigated the Anglo-Saxon settlement in 1921, when he was informed that ‘pits’ were being destroyed by gravel quarrying on land on the border of the parishes of Drayton and Sutton Courtenay (Fig. 4.28) (Leeds 1923:

8 The settlement spans the parish boundary, but is commonly referred to as Sutton Courtenay (Hamerow et al. 2007: 113).

51

being scattered over a distance of 600m from north to south along the river edge (Luke and Barker 2010: 75). Five buildings were arranged in a broad SE-NW orientated band 170m long, while the others were more isolated and closer to the river, two to the north of the band and one to the south. These structures were located within a middle Bronze Age field system on the western side of the Loop, some in the middle of the fields and others around the edges, and it was suggested that they had been influenced by the continued presence of Bronze Age boundaries or hedges (Luke and Barker 2010: 75). The fields had, themselves, been orientated around earlier Bronze Age ring ditches in this area of the site; towards the north-eastern end of the field system each field contained a monument, and in some cases the monuments were incorporated into the boundaries at the corners of the fields (Luke and Barker 2010: 47). Thus, it is possible that at least some of these monuments were also visible in the area around the western cluster of SFBs. The small quantity of domestic debris recovered from these buildings included early Anglo-Saxon pottery, loomweights and two strap mounts (Luke and Barker 2010: 75). It is unclear exactly how these structures related to those to the north-east, although the early Anglo-Saxon pottery recovered from both may indicate that they were in use at roughly the same time.

Unfortunately, detailed site plans for Glebe Farm were not available for analysis, with the exception of one published but unlabelled interim plan (Knight and Howard 2004: 100, fig. 5.16), meaning that there is little visual information to assess the relationships between the buildings and enclosures. However, the excavator was confident that the prehistoric landscape had influenced the Anglo-Saxon settlement layout (Jones forthcoming). In what form the enclosures remained is unknown; they may have had accompanying banks, or perhaps hedges, while the presence of medieval furrows overlying some of the Iron Age ditches supports the preservation of at least some of the ditches as hollows in the landscape into and beyond the Anglo-Saxon period (Jones forthcoming). Similarly, at Addenbrooke’s, several middle AngloSaxon buildings were located immediately adjacent to earlier enclosure ditches. A late Iron Age phase of settlement was dominated by a large sub-rectangular enclosure divided into smaller compounds, and had been replaced by a Romano-British enclosure system (Evans et al. 2005: 22). The Anglo-Saxon features were situated in the south-east corner of the site, in the vicinity of one of the late Iron Age compounds (J6) (Fig. 4.30). They included two rectangular post-built structures (14 and 15), as well as five wells and a curvilinear length of ditch (F6) (Evans et al. 2005: 57-60). Structure 15 lay in a corner created by an Iron Age ditch and the northern ditch of an early Romano-British droveway that ran across the southern part of the site, on the same alignment as the adjacent Iron Age ditch. Structure 14 was on the same alignment as 15, and was also aligned on an adjacent ditch, in this case an early Romano-British one. Additionally, three of the wells were aligned in a northsouth row, two lying on another Iron Age boundary ditch.

Trial trenches dug on land at Harston Mill, Harston also revealed dispersed early to middle Anglo-Saxon features alongside late Iron Age ones (Fig. 4.32) (McDonald et al. 2000: 1). Part of a SFB was revealed in the middle of the evaluation area, whilst large subrectangular or subcircular pits were found elsewhere, all partially uncovered in the narrow evaluation trenches (McDonald et al. 2000: 4-9). Although they were not interpreted as SFBs, a number of these pits closely resembled the SFB in their sizes, forms and fills, although admittedly many were deeper than the SFB (McDonald et al. 2000: 4-9, 14). Thus, the settlement may have been more extensive in terms of building numbers than the initial interpretation suggested. Also belonging to the AngloSaxon period were four ditches, all on a west-northwest/east-south-east alignment, and six closely-spaced narrow, intercutting gullies of field boundaries on a north-west/south-east alignment (McDonald et al. 2000: 6-13, fig. 2).

While the first- to second-century Roman phase of enclosures at Addenbrooke’s does not strictly correspond with the criteria of this study, there are indications that elements of the previous phase of Iron Age enclosures survived, and that they remained visible into the AngloSaxon period. The enclosures may have been associated with banks or hedges, given that structure 15 and two of the wells were so precisely tied into the position and alignment of the Iron Age ditches (Evans et al. 2005: 65). The Roman enclosures formed droveways and appeared to have had an agricultural function, with little evidence for occupation; this lack of intense domestic occupation might have aided the preservation of the Iron Age features (Evans et al. 2005: 55). Furthermore, of course, the remains of both phases may well have had a very similar appearance as landscape features after their abandonment, meaning that the community living at Addenbrooke’s may not have distinguished between the two, a possibility discussed in more detail below.

Features belonging to the late Iron Age at Harston Mill included a section of ditch that shared its alignment with a group of cropmark ditches noted to the south of the evaluation area, suggesting that it was part of a complex of enclosures that extended across the unexcavated part of the Harston Mill site (McDonald et al. 2000: 11, 16). If the line of the four Anglo-Saxon west-north-west/eastsouth-east ditches is extrapolated it appears that they were also on the same alignment as the cropmark complex, and it is possible that the field system survived as a feature which influenced the Anglo-Saxon site layout (McDonald et al. 2000: 16). However, the precise nature of this potential influence is difficult to ascertain due to the evaluative nature of the investigation, which could only reveal limited information about the size and

On the western edge of Biddenham Loop, approximately 1km south-west of the cluster of SFBs close to the Bronze Age barrow (SL62), was a second focus of settlement (SL63), consisting of eight SFBs (Fig. 4.31) (Luke and Barker 2010: 74). They were much more widely dispersed than those in settlement area SL62, 52

possibility that the smaller, earlier enclosure was used as an internal feature, as its eastern corner coincides almost exactly with the eastern boundary of the larger AngloSaxon enclosure.

function of excavated features and left large areas of the site unexcavated. Nevertheless, although the investigation was limited, it did appear to show that the Anglo-Saxon and Iron Age boundaries shared the same alignment, perhaps resembling the layout of the settlement at Glebe Farm.

Elsewhere, SFB 10 was situated on top of a ditch of Iron Age Enclosure 2, while on the south-east side of the site timber hall 2 appeared to abut Iron Age ditch 582 (Williams 1993: 74). Meanwhile in the eastern part of the site the Anglo-Saxon Enclosures 2 and 3 and Droveway 1 shared a relatively similar alignment with the Iron Age ditch 582 and droveway, with both droveways leading off to the east or south-east of the site. However, this might have been related to local topography, as the land sloped downwards at this point. Plough damage and overstripping ahead of excavation at Pennyland made it impossible to ascertain whether the Iron Age ditches had been accompanied by banks, although as they were interpreted as livestock enclosures some form of bank or hedge would have been expected (Williams 1993: 19). It was, therefore, difficult to determine whether the Iron Age features had survived as earthworks into the AngloSaxon period, although there are relationships between features of both dates, such as the SFB located in the entrance to Iron Age Enclosure 3, that support the assertion that at least some of these enclosures remained to influence the later settlement.

Similarly, at Elstow Harrowden, in addition to a round barrow (see above), elements of an Iron Age field system were found amongst the early to middle Anglo-Saxon settlement features (Fig. 4.3) (Shepherd 1997: 8). Traces of Iron Age enclosures, including a 3m-wide ditch, were found in trenches to the north-east of the Bronze Age ring ditch, and further east were the cropmarks of more enclosures, which excavation confirmed were formed by large ditches containing Iron Age pottery. Similarly, on the site immediately to the south of the Elstow Harrowden trenches, the excavation of cropmarks confirmed that they were further Iron Age ditches, interspersed with Anglo-Saxon features (BCAS 1995a: 33-4). This site, like Harston Mill, lacked large-scale excavation, making interpretation of the relationships between the Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon features difficult. However, it does constitute another example of a settlement established over an Iron Age enclosure system, and may represent another site similar to Glebe Farm. At Pennyland a sixth- to late eighth-century AngloSaxon settlement had been established on the site of an Iron Age enclosure system (Fig. 4.33) (Williams 1993: 3). However, the relationships between the two phases were less clearly structured than at sites such as Glebe Farm and Addenbrooke’s, and thus the suggestion that it displays reuse is more tentative. There were several phases of settlement, the first comprising a small dispersed settlement, established around the first half of the sixth century, which was followed by a major reorganisation involving the establishment of enclosures and droveways, imposed over the previous occupation area (Williams 1993: 93). Williams (1993: 93) placed this second phase in the late sixth or early seventh century, based on the presence of Ipswich ware, but subsequent re-evaluation of the dates of this pottery have suggested that it began to be produced in the seventh century or even as late as AD 720, continuing until around the mid ninth century (Blinkhorn 1999: 9; 2009: 359; Moreland 2000b: 90). In the final phase, assigned a mid eighthcentury date by Williams (1993: 93), the settlement reverted to a more dispersed layout again, consisting of two loose clusters of buildings.

At Cossington, in addition to the barrow excavated to the south of the Anglo-Saxon settlement (see above), several large Iron Age ditches were located in the same trench as the settlement (Fig. 4.10) (Thomas 2007b: 65-7). On the northern edge of the excavation area was a right-angled enclosure ditch, which contained Iron Age pottery. The exposed part of the enclosure measured c.15m in width and may have been part of a larger square enclosure, the ditch of which was up to 2.7m wide and 0.6m deep and may have been re-cut a number of times. There were also the ends of two substantial ditches on the western edge of the trench. The Anglo-Saxon settlement features were towards the east of the trench, and there is little evidence to show any obvious associations with the Iron Age enclosures. However, the fact that all these features were located at the edges of the trench and only partially exposed may have resulted in relationships between the two phases being poorly understood. Furthermore, the SFB lay in the angle of a ditch that was not excavated; Anglo-Saxon material was observed in it, but there is the possibility that it in fact belonged to the Iron Age phase, especially since further ditches of that date were discovered to the south-east of the trench (Thomas 2007b: 66).

The Anglo-Saxon settlement remains were on the site of an Iron Age field system and settlement (Williams 1993: 9). Possible associations between Anglo-Saxon and Iron Age features were in some cases fairly convincing, such as SFB 2 situated in the entrance to Iron Age Enclosure 3. On the other hand there were less convincing associations, such as SFB 7 located within Iron Age Enclosure 4, which could indicate that the enclosure was being reused; however, it also lay within the much larger Anglo-Saxon Enclosure 1, and thus the location of the SFB may have been coincidental. However, there is the

At Grange Park, Courteenhall fieldwalking identified four scatters of broadly early to middle Anglo-Saxon pottery and several foci of Iron Age settlement in an area of c.9ha (Figs. 4.34 and 4.35) (Buteux 2001: 1). The only Anglo-Saxon building to be excavated was an SFB, which lay under a pottery scatter in Area 10 of the site (Buteux 2001: 20). The building was situated close to a complex of Iron Age boundaries and enclosures, including a 5m-wide droveway and five subrectangular 53

enclosure seem to have become a focus of Anglo-Saxon activity at the site, and in combination with the many barrows may have created a backdrop of earthworks that attracted interest in the early medieval period.

and polygonal enclosures, which were all to the west and south of the SFB (Buteux 2001: 26). Although the enclosures to the south seem to have been substantial, the building was located some distance away from them and they may have had little effect on the building’s location. It was closer to the Iron Age droveway, which ran from south-east to north-west c.15m to the west of the building; if this droveway was still visible in the landscape during the Anglo-Saxon period, it might feasibly have formed a useful route across the site and might therefore have influenced the building’s position.

Magnetometer survey and excavation at Thorpe End, Raunds revealed the presence of an Iron Age enclosure containing Anglo-Saxon features (Fig. 4.39) (Parry 2006: 234). Part of an early to middle Anglo-Saxon post-in-slot structure was excavated, while 200m to the west, in another trench, were irregular pits of the same date (Parry 2006: 236-7). The building’s post-in-slot trench had two phases, indicating at least one re-building of the structure, whilst the remains of a clay floor were also found. The building was situated in the north-west corner of the Iron Age enclosure, which was D-shaped and measured 97m by 68m, with a possible 10m-wide entrance in its southern side (Parry 2006: 235-7). Sections across the ditch on the northern and western sides of the enclosure showed that it was c.2m wide and cut up to 0.85m deep into the natural limestone, and that it may have had an associated bank. The excavations at Thorpe End took place on a small scale, but it was clear from the amount and spread of pottery recovered during fieldwalking that further Anglo-Saxon activity had taken place over much of the area in and around the Iron Age enclosure (Parry 2006: 235, fig. 6.49).

Elsewhere at Grange Park, in Area 6, a scatter of AngloSaxon pits seemed to have been more convincingly positioned in relation to two Iron Age enclosures, EN 13 and EN 14 (Buteux 2001: 20-1). There were three pits lying within EN 14, all fairly close to the entrance in its eastern side, whilst there were three more to the north in EN 13, including an elongated pit, at least 1.82m long that, interestingly, formed a partial re-cut of a Iron Age roundhouse ring ditch (Buteux 2001: 35-6). Although further Iron Age and early Roman enclosures were found to the east of EN 13 and EN 14, the Anglo-Saxon pits all clustered within EN 13 and EN 14 (Buteux 2001: 29-32). The eastern edges of EN 13 and EN 14 and the western edges of the other enclosures formed a trackway running north-west to south-east across the site; if it survived into the Anglo-Saxon period it would have provided access to the two reused enclosures. The large assemblage of Anglo-Saxon pottery recovered implies that there had been more extensive occupation, including further buildings, in both Areas 6 and 10, but plough damage from the medieval to modern periods had caused significant damage to many features, and may have eradicated more ephemeral ones belonging to the AngloSaxon period (Buteux 2001: 23, 38-9). Nonetheless, there is some evidence to suggest that the earlier droveways at Grange Park may have influenced the Anglo-Saxon settlement, and the pits in enclosures EN 13 and EN 14 may also indicate that they were reused by a later settlement, much of which has now been destroyed.

A similar situation to Thorpe End was witnessed at Enderby, where fieldwalking recovered fifth- to sixthcentury pottery from within another D-shaped Iron Age enclosure (Fig. 4.37) (Clay 1992: 1-5). Although excavation inside the enclosure did not uncover any Anglo-Saxon remains, about 20m outside of it part of an SFB was found at the limit of the excavation (Clay 1992: 30). Nearby postholes and gullies were undated, but may have been associated with the SFB, whilst considerable plough damage had destroyed all features except those cut into the subsoil, which may explain the lack of further Anglo-Saxon features (Clay 1992: 6, 30). The enclosure was found to have been modified several times, ending up as a D-shaped area with wide, deep ditches and possible banks (Clay 1992: 22-4). Charcoal from all the ditch phases included hedgerow species, possibly indicating that hedges were used to augment the boundaries. The eastern ditch of the enclosure had evidence for bank material being ploughed back into it as late as the early post-medieval period, when stone drains were also inserted into the older ditch, suggesting that both the bank and ditch were preserved in the landscape at that time (Clay 1992: 32).

At Cassington, as well as numerous round barrows (see above), there was also a large Iron Age enclosure, known as the Cassington Great Enclosure, situated south of the A40 (Figs. 4.6 and 4.7) (Atkinson 1947: 7; Atkinson and Crouch 1945: 93; Hey 2004: 10). The enclosure had a circumference of c.700m (Benson and Miles 1974a: 87) and sections across the ditch indicated that it was c.9m11m wide and c.3.5-4m deep with an internal bank and possibly an external one too (Atkinson 1947: 7; Atkinson and Crouch 1945: 93; Harden 1942: 106). The AngloSaxon buildings at Cassington were generally located to the east and north of the enclosure, but the enclosure ditch was found to contain early to middle Anglo-Saxon pottery, indicating that it had been open, or re-cut, in this period (Atkinson and Crouch 1945: 94; Hey 2004: 10). As much of the inside of the enclosure was destroyed without investigation there is no way of knowing whether further buildings or other occupation features might have been situated within the enclosed area (Benson and Miles 1974a: 84). The banks, and possibly the ditches, of the

Furthermore, around 350m south of the D-shaped enclosure was another Iron Age enclosure of a similar size and shape, with possible evidence for Anglo-Saxon funerary activity (Meek et al. 2004: 5-13; Sharman and Clay 1991). A cremation in a possible fifth- to seventhcentury vessel had been buried outside an entrance to a roundhouse within the enclosure. This enclosure also had substantial ditches, the upcast from which may have been used to form a bank. Both enclosures at Enderby therefore seem to have formed the focus of Anglo-Saxon 54

In an area to the south of the Iron Age enclosure were further sixth- to eighth-century buildings; these included three more SFBs, another ‘ridge-spine’ building and a subrectangular posthole structure (Partridge 1989: 63-9). They were scattered across an area defined to the east by a droveway and to the west by a ditched boundary parallel to the droveway, with a slightly curving roughly east-west aligned boundary connecting them. These ditches contained little dating evidence and may have been Iron Age, but could have been Roman (Partridge 1989: 70). Although the relationships between the AngloSaxon buildings and earlier ditches were less clear and structured than they had been to the north, the boundaries may have had some influence on the buildings, since the majority of them were within the area defined by the droveway and the western ditch, and all but two buildings were on the same alignment as the roughly east-west ditch that cut across the area (although it must be noted that little land outside the area defined by the droveway and ditches was investigated).

activity, comprising both burial and settlement activity, but whether this is because the two enclosures were in fact reused for different activities by one community or if it is simply the result of the partial excavation of the enclosures is unknown. Part of another D-shaped Iron Age enclosure was investigated at Knave Hill, Stonton Wyville (Fig. 4.38) (Wessex Archaeology 2008). Two Anglo-Saxon postbuilt structures were also found near the north-west edge of the enclosure. In Trench 1, just outside the D-shaped enclosure, were the postholes of a fifth- to eighth-century post-built structure (Wessex Archaeology 2008: 6). Further south in the same trench, lying within the enclosure, were ditches, gullies, pits and more possible postholes, including a row of four postholes on the same alignment as the enclosure ditch, although these features were undated. To the west of these, in Trench 4, was another partial Anglo-Saxon post-built structure which extended beyond the northern limit of the trench (Wessex Archaeology 2008: 8). Within this building were traces of an occupation layer and a possible hearth, or dump of hearth material, containing Anglo-Saxon pottery.

Although the site of Eynsham Abbey experienced intense occupation as an Anglo-Saxon and medieval ecclesiastical centre, the first major phase of activity here belonged to the Bronze Age, when a large ditched enclosure was constructed (Fig. 4.40) (Barclay et al. 2001; Hardy et al. 2003: 25). Parts of the prehistoric ditch were revealed during excavation, and it appears to have formed an enclosure with an entrance along the eastern edge (Barclay et al. 2001: 111). The overall area of the enclosure could not be discerned since it was only partially revealed, but the ditches varied in width from 3m to 4.5m and in depth from 1.6m to 1.9m. Although sections across the enclosure ditch revealed that it had filled in during the late Bronze Age, gravel fills were present in the lower fills of the ditch, and appeared to have formed from the outer edge (sections 250A, 250B and 250C had all filled from the north, while section 720 had filled from the south-east) (Barclay et al. 2001: 113, 155). An external bank, formed by the upcast gravel from the substantial ditches, may therefore have been present. Indeed, the apparently rapid filling of the middle and upper layers of the ditch with deliberate deposits of domestic refuse in the late Bronze Age might have aided the preservation of such a bank, as there would then have been no ditch for the bank material to erode into.

Some 150m east of the Iron Age enclosure, in Trench 3, were three linear features containing Roman and AngloSaxon material, indicating that further fifth- to eighthcentury activity had taken place in this part of the site (Wessex Archaeology 2008: 7, 15). There certainly seems to have been an extensive Anglo-Saxon settlement at Knave Hill, hinted at by large assemblages of AngloSaxon pottery recovered during fieldwalking (Wessex Archaeology 2008: 3). The ditches of the Iron Age enclosure were wide and fairly shallow, and had been truncated by ploughing (Wessex Archaeology 2008: 6, 14). No mention was made of evidence for banks in the excavation report, and thus the location of the AngloSaxon buildings may have been coincidental. However, the post-built structure in Trench 1 was placed over a gap in the Iron Age enclosure ditch, judging from the geophysical survey of the enclosure, perhaps indicating that a gap or entrance was visible at this point and that the positions of the buildings were influenced by the remains of the Iron Age enclosure. At Foxholes Farm, Hertford a sixth- to eighth-century settlement was found within an Iron Age enclosure (Fig. 4.39) (Partridge 1989: 25-9). Two SFBs were excavated, along with seven rather unusual ‘ridge-spine’ buildings, which were formed by a central line of postholes and end posts. All nine buildings lay within the Iron Age enclosure, which was 130m long and 80m wide, with a slightly later internal sub-division located just off-centre (Partridge 1989: 31). The ditches forming this subdivision had cut through an internal bank accompanying the main enclosure, demonstrating that there had originally been upstanding earthworks along the inside of the ditches. The sub-dividing boundary itself was less substantial than the main enclosure, perhaps explaining why one of the ridge-spine buildings lay across it (Partridge 1989: 32, fig. 13).

The Bronze Age enclosure was overlain by later buildings, most of which belonged to the abbey, and several phases of Anglo-Saxon occupation were noted (Fig. 4.41). The first phase (phase 2a) consisted of five sixth-century SFBs; one in the extreme north-east corner of the site, a group of three to the south of the investigation area, and another to the north of those (Hardy et al. 2003: 25). Although there were few other structural features, postholes to the west of the group of three SFBs might have belonged to a fence or other structure and a pit excavated in the north-west corner of the site also probably belonged to this phase. To the south of the easternmost SFB (feature 821) in the cluster of three was a fence, which led off to the east beyond the edge of the site at a right angle to the prehistoric ditch. 55

took place (Finn 2007). Investigation did, however, demonstrate that the ditches were fairly shallow and narrow, and that there was little evidence for re-cutting, except near the entrance to the western D-shaped enclosure. Along the northern edge of the eastern Dshaped enclosure there was evidence of silting from a possible bank, suggesting that at least some of the ditches may have been accompanied by raised earthworks (Finn 2007). The visibility of the enclosures during the AngloSaxon period cannot be ascertained with certainty, but remnants of banks accompanying some, if not all, of the enclosures might have survived as earthworks. An AngloSaxon building had been constructed in the entrance to the southern circular enclosure, precisely where the associated banks, if there had been any, would have terminated; if they were still visible features, it is possible that this building might have been positioned in a gap between the earthworks.

The fence cut across the ditch, and SFB 821 had been partly cut into it, but both lay at the terminal of the eastern side of the ditch (Barclay et al. 2001: 111; Hardy et al. 2003: 35). If the postulated external bank had also petered out at this terminal, the fence cutting across the ditch might actually have formed a related boundary, extending from the terminal of the Bronze Age enclosure across to the east; it may even have been part of some form of entrance into the enclosure. Between c.650 and 750 (phase 2b), occupation was represented by numerous hearths, burnt areas and pits, and in some areas at this time activity was relatively intense and on a large scale (Hardy et al. 2003: 28). Numerous postholes, beam slots and stakeholes were cut into and around one of the central hearths, suggesting the presence of associated structures. The features attributed to this phase may, in fact, be related to the earlier phase, but the lack of stratigraphic relationships between features meant that this could not be confirmed. In Phase 2b activity was restricted to the area within the prehistoric enclosure, the exception being one pit located over the eastern section of the Bronze Age ditch. The following phase (2c) was dated to between c.750 and 900, although it too lacked stratigraphic relationships to confirm that it was chronologically distinct from the preceding phase (Hardy et al. 2003: 28). This phase comprised a pit group, boundary features and two probable posthole buildings. These features were also within the area defined by the enclosure ditch, with one posthole building situated over the infilled ditch.

Further buildings lay within the Bronze Age enclosures, although their placement may of course be coincidental if remains of the enclosures no longer existed. Additionally, 200m of a late Bronze Age east-west oriented pit alignment was traced across the excavation area, neatly bisecting the southern circular enclosure (Finn 2007). This pit alignment was subsequently re-cut as a ditch at an unknown point in time, probably in prehistory, and had been redefined at least once. It is interesting to note that a possible Anglo-Saxon trackway, although it was only traced for c.25m, followed a very similar alignment to the pit alignment (Finn 1997a). The settlement at Eye Kettleby is discussed in greater detail as a case study in the following chapter.

A church is known to have been in existence at Eynsham in this period, as in 864 King Burgred of Mercia granted fives hides at Water Eaton to the bishop of Worcester on the condition that ‘after a year he renders thirty shillings to Eynsham to that church from the tribute’ (Birch 188593: 2, 199 cited in Hardy et al. 2003: 3). It is likely, then, that the features attributed to Phase 2c were associated with this ecclesiastical use of the site (Hardy et al. 2003: 28). Although in phases 2b and 2c the relationships between the Anglo-Saxon features and the earlier enclosure were not as obvious and direct as they seem to have been in the first phase, the settlement features were still located within the enclosure. In later Anglo-Saxon and medieval phases the buildings at Eynsham became more substantial and began to heavily truncate the prehistoric remains (Hardy et al. 2003: 31), but between the sixth and ninth centuries the enclosure may have exerted some influence over the settlement.

The monument complex at West Cotton included a Neolithic or Bronze Age long enclosure, in addition to the barrows discussed above, which measured 120m by 20m, and which may have had internal banks or spoil mounds formed by ditch upcast (Fig. 4.23) (Windell et al. 1990: 10). There were also traces of a smaller oval or egg-shaped ditched enclosure measuring roughly 33m by 25m, which may also have had an internal bank (Windell et al. 1990: 11). The long enclosure lay to the south of the SFBs and the egg-shaped enclosure to the east, and although they were, therefore, further away from the buildings than the long mound and Barrow 1, they were within the monument complex surrounding the SFBs, and within the area containing the scatter of Anglo-Saxon pottery. Indeed, much of the long enclosure had been eroded by medieval streams and alluvium, whilst part of the egg-shaped enclosure lay outside the excavation area, meaning that, had there been any further Anglo-Saxon settlement features in the vicinity of these monuments, they might not have been uncovered.

The fifth- to seventh-century settlement at Eye Kettleby was established in an area that contained four early Bronze Age ditched enclosures, as well as the possible barrow discussed earlier (Plate 1) (Finn 2007). There were two sub-circular prehistoric enclosures, one north of the other, flanked by two D-shaped enclosures to the west and east, all of which were considered roughly contemporary. The enclosures were scheduled to be covered by a car park, meaning that they could be preserved to a high degree compared with other areas of the site, and thus only limited excavation of the ditches

Rather unusually, an even earlier enclosure appears to have influenced the layout of an Anglo-Saxon settlement at Briar Hill, where a late Neolithic causewayed enclosure has been excavated (Fig. 4.42) (Bamford 1985: 1-2). The enclosure covered c.3ha in total, and was delineated by two ditch circles dug in concentric arcs, with a smaller internal enclosure on the eastern side 56

revealed intercutting Bronze Age ring ditch circuits, with an internal area at least c.17m in diameter, containing a post-built structure that pre-dated the ring ditch (Fig. 4.43) (Losco-Bradley 1984: 402; TPAT 1984). There was no evidence to suggest that this was a barrow, and it may instead have been a circular enclosure. The excavation report was brief and focused largely on the ring ditch but it did record the discovery of other features, including the corner of a small late prehistoric enclosure (TPAT 1984). There were also pits, a ditched boundary and postholes of an eroded rectangular structure belonging to the AngloSaxon period (TPAT 1984). The Anglo-Saxon features were not labelled on the site plan, but comparing the features described in the report with those on the plan reveals that a ditch running across the southern edge of the site on the plan is a likely candidate for the AngloSaxon ditch. A collection of postholes in the north-west corner of the plan were also unlabelled, but might represent the eroded rectangular structure. No further information on finds, phasing or features was available, but this site does provide another example of an AngloSaxon settlement on the site of a prehistoric enclosure, and it is interesting to note that the Anglo-Saxon boundary appeared to avoid the prehistoric enclosure ditches.

formed by the inner ditch spiralling inwards. The circuits of the enclosure were formed by ditch segments up to 2m deep and all the circuits had been subject to repeated recutting (Bamford 1985: 7). The ditch fills suggested that banks had accompanied the circuits, the first extending around the entire enclosure close to the inner edge of the outer circuit (Bamford 1985: 37-8). A second bank may have existed around the inner edge of the inner ditch circuit on its north, west and south-west sides, and almost certainly on its north-east side. This did not extend around the smaller spiral enclosure, but there was probably a bank on the outside of the southern side of the spiral as well. Three or four SFBs had been constructed on the eastern side of the enclosure in the early to middle Anglo-Saxon period, possibly during the seventh century (Bamford 1985: 7, 122). The buildings lay in an area c.60m by 20m, three (10, 12 and 30) located fairly close to each other and another (29) c.34m east of them. SFB 29 was not considered a definite example of an SFB because, unlike the other three, it lacked postholes, but it seems likely that this was an SFB since its size and form were comparable to the others, and examples of SFBs without postholes are known from elsewhere (Bamford 1985: 55; Tipper 2004: 1). The outlying SFB to the east of the others would have been situated approximately 10m away from the outermost bank. Meanwhile, the cluster of three SFBs would have been very close to the bank running around the inner circuit, as well as the bank along the southern portion of the small spiral enclosure. All three appear to have been aligned with their long axes along the banks. Indeed, the most northerly building in the cluster of three (SFB 30) may well have been adjacent to the remains of a bank, while SFB 12 may have lain directly on top of a section of bank.

In addition to the ring ditches at Corporation Farm and New Wintles Farm there were also Neolithic henges (Figs. 4.24, 4.25 and 4.26) (Barclay et al. 2003: 32; Brown 1969: 104; Kenward 1982: 51; Parkinson 1994: 1). The henge at Corporation Farm lay to the west of the large ring ditch (ring ditch 3) in Area J, and comprised a pair of ditches enclosing an elliptical area 9m by 10m, which originally had an external bank (Barclay et al. 2003: 34). Although there were no buildings directly associated with the henge, as there were with other monuments on the site, it was located some 50m away from each of the Anglo-Saxon buildings. It lay between the large ring ditch and another cropmark ring ditch to the south-west, forming a line of monuments that may have enclosed the Anglo-Saxon settlement.

In addition to the ‘annexing’ of the ring ditches in the early seventh- to late ninth-century settlement at Catholme, a later prehistoric ditch that formed a terraceedge boundary along the eastern side of the settlement had been re-cut in the Anglo-Saxon period (Plate 2) (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 18-20). The settlement lay on the banks of the River Trent, along which the terrace-edge boundary had been constructed at some point in the later prehistoric period, although its exact date was not known. What was clear is that there had been numerous phases of the boundary. It began as a pit alignment accompanied by a fence 1-2m to the east, which was later replaced by a bank. Later, three successive lengths of ditch replaced the pits, and they were subsequently replaced by a longer ditch, which followed the line of the earlier boundary and had been redefined by re-cuts later in its life. The final re-cut of the boundary dated to the Anglo-Saxon period, at which time it had once again been re-defined and had been used to form the eastern boundary of the Anglo-Saxon settlement.

The henge at New Wintles Farm was oval, with discontinuous ditches 10-12m long and two more internal 6m-long banana-shaped lengths of ditch, and contained Neolithic cremations (Brown 1969: 104; Kenward 1982: 51). It had a mound or bank formed by up-cast gravel and was interpreted as a Neolithic henge or enclosure (Brown 1968: 138; Kenward 1982: 51-4). Although it was found on the northern edge of Area A, it was not marked on the site plan along with the Anglo-Saxon settlement features (Brown 1968: 138; 1969: 104; Kenward 1982: 51). However, it was situated somewhere along the northern boundary of the site, in which case it would have been within about 30m of the most northerly SFBs in Area A, buildings 9, 36 and 45. A further aspect of Sutton Courtenay’s long history of occupation is the 1700m-long Drayton Neolithic cursus, part of the southern portion of which extended across the area investigated by Leeds in the 1920s and 1930s (Fig. 4.28) (Barclay et al. 2003: 16; Thomas and Wallis 1982:

The excavation records for Fatholme are limited and result from a salvage excavation, but an early prehistoric enclosure may have been reused here too. Excavation 57

2009: 95-99). The earlier phases of the hillfort were smaller than the latest phase, the U-profiled ditch of which continued to the south of the site and enclosed the Taplow burial mound.

184). Most of the cursus had been destroyed by gravel extraction before Leeds became aware of it, although part of the eastern ditch may have been traced by Leeds for c.55m (Barclay et al. 2003: 16). The smallest ring ditch, Circle C, was close to the line of the cursus ditch, and might even have sat on a bank associated with the ditch (Barclay et al. 2003: 22). Although the destruction of the southern portion of the cursus meant that the existence of accompanying banks could not be confirmed, excavation of the northern portion has shown that there were internal banks, which supports the assertion that they had been present to the south as well (Ainslie and Wallis 1987: 12; Thomas and Wallis 1982: 188). Even so, as Barclay et al. (2003: 23) have pointed out, had the cursus survived as an earthwork into the Anglo-Saxon period its influence would probably not have been as dramatic as the three barrow mounds that ‘no doubt existed’ within the ring ditches.

The hillfort had been reoccupied in the late sixth or early seventh century (around the time that the Anglo-Saxon burial mound was built) and occupation seems to have ceased in the ninth century (Allen et al. 2009: 101-7). The U-profiled ditch and undated V-profiled ditch contained large assemblages of Anglo-Saxon material in their upper fills, which yielded calibrated radiocarbon dates ranging from AD 650 and 980 (95% confidence) (Allen et al. 2009: 101-3). The Anglo-Saxon finds were generally those expected from a settlement of the period, including a range of agricultural, domestic and craft-working items, but there were also some items that might indicate a highstatus presence, including a possible sherd from a late Roman eastern Mediterranean vessel, found in an AngloSaxon context (Allen et al. 2009: 104-5, 139). The animal bone assemblage included commonly-found species such as cattle, horse, pig and sheep/goat, but also red and roe deer, which also hinted at a high-status presence (Allen et al. 2009: 149).

The northern part of the cursus also had a second-century Roman field system aligned on it, indicating that at least part of it was still visible at that time, although the Roman agricultural activity may have added to the destruction of what was left of the monument (Ainslie and Wallis 1987: 7; Moore 1986: 100). About 50m west of the cursus were three probable SFBs and three probable post-built structures, attributed to the AngloSaxon period although dating evidence was limited (Barclay et al. 2003: 117-121). It is possible that the location of the buildings was influenced by the remains of the cursus or by the Roman field system, as one post-built structure was on the same alignment as the Neolithic ditch and the Roman one that overlay it. The possible Anglo-Saxon buildings were between about 100m and 250m north of Leeds’s site, although the lack of dating evidence makes the relationship between the two sites difficult to determine. They might, however, represent a northerly element to the site, influenced in this case by the remains of the Neolithic cursus, or perhaps the Romano-British field system, or both.

The quantity of Anglo-Saxon material retrieved from the ditches suggests that intense occupation occurred nearby, although few structural remains were excavated (Allen et al. 2009: 101). The possible foundation trench of an Anglo-Saxon building was partially revealed and lay just to the north-east of the terminal of the U-shaped ditch, in an entrance to the hillfort (Allen and Lamdin-Whymark 2001: 287; Allen et al. 2009: 105). Given the large quantity of material in the undated V-shaped ditch, which was located slightly away from the other ditches, the focus of settlement may have been in the unexcavated area between this ditch and the U-profiled one, or it could have been elsewhere in the hillfort. Indeed the earliest Anglo-Saxon evidence from the site, a fifth- or sixthcentury decorated pot sherd, came from an evaluation trench some distance away within the hillfort; it was found alongside similar pottery to that in the hillfort ditches, suggesting that occupation took place within the enclosure at this time (Allen et al. 2009: 105).

There were two settlements in the corpus at which prehistoric hillforts had been reused in the Anglo-Saxon period. One of these was Taplow, where an Iron Age hillfort was discovered, and found to encircle the wellknown Anglo-Saxon Taplow burial mound (Figs. 4.44 and 4.45) (Allen and Lamdin-Whymark 2001: 287; Allen et al. 2009: 7). There had been at least three phases of hillfort, the first being a late Bronze Age hilltop enclosure marked by fence lines, a palisade and a rampart (Allen and Lamdin-Whymark 2001: 288; Allen et al. 2009: 3571). After a hiatus the hillfort was remodelled in the Iron Age when a large V-profiled ditch was dug, which was in turn replaced by a larger parallel U-shaped ditch and a timber rampart inserted into the fill of the V-shaped ditch (Allen and Lamdin-Whymark 2001: 287-8; Allen et al. 2009: 73-95). There may have been another phase of enclosure, as another substantial, undated V-shaped ditch was found to the east of the main excavation area; although it was undated, judging from its position and size it seems likely to have related to the Iron Age hillfort (Allen and Lamdin-Whymark 2001: 288; Allen et al.

Taplow hillfort was still a substantial feature in the landscape in the early medieval period. At the time of its reoccupation the undated V-profiled ditch was still up to 2m deep, while the U-profiled one was 1.5m to 2m deep (Allen et al. 2009: 103). The remains of a gravel rampart also seem to have survived in the early medieval period, since the Anglo-Saxon fills of the hillfort ditches contained fire-reddened gravel thought to have derived from the preserved Iron Age rampart (Allen and LamdinWhymark 2001: 288; Allen et al. 2009: 103). There was little evidence to suggest that the hillfort had been renovated or maintained in the Anglo-Saxon period, although a pit and a posthole at the entrance to the hillfort may have belonged to the Anglo-Saxon phase of reoccupation (Allen et al. 2009: 103-4). They did not contain any dating evidence but they were stratigraphically later than the hillfort and they may have 58

the eighth century, and the excavated building could have related to this phase of activity (Reynolds 2003: 102).

represented the remains of fences that had been inserted into the tops of the surviving ramparts, which then eroded away to leave no trace except at the entrance where the rampart had ended but the fence continued. It is not clear exactly when the Anglo-Saxon material was deposited in the hillfort ditches; they could have filled slowly during the occupation of the hillfort, or they might have been filled in when the settlement was abandoned (Allen et al. 2009: 104-5). There is some evidence to suggest that the material was redeposited, as there were several later Anglo-Saxon sherds at the bottom of the ditch fills (Allen et al. 2009: 105, 137-8). This could mean that the material was placed in the ditches after occupation had ceased, and that they remained substantial earthworks throughout the period of reoccupation. Buildings were discovered just outside another Iron Age hillfort at Crow Hill, Irthlingborough. The hillfort covered an area of c.3ha and was identified through field survey, aerial photography and trial excavation (Fig. 4.46) (Parry 2006: 139). Excavation across the southern defences revealed that the hillfort ditch was 17m wide in total, although this included several re-cuts whose positions had shifted each time they were redefined (Parry 2006: 143-5). The first two ditch phases were substantial, 3m to 5m wide and over 3.3m deep, possibly accompanied by a rampart strengthened by timber posts. Subsequent re-cuts were wider and shallower and at some point the ditch, maintaining the same size and profile, was moved 2m outside its previous inner edge. The next re-cuts continued this outward drift and contained early to middle Anglo-Saxon pottery, whilst a final Anglo-Saxon re-cut returned to the inner edge of the defensive circuit. There were at least three phases of ditch belonging to the Anglo-Saxon period, providing greater evidence for modification of the hillfort than was identified at Taplow (Parry 2006: 145). Over 700 sherds of early to middle Anglo-Saxon pottery were also recovered from the site, 457 of them from the northern half of the hillfort (Parry 2006: 139, 141). Outside the hillfort entrance was a second scatter, possibly indicating that the entrance had formed a focus of settlement activity (Parry 2006: 141, 146). This was confirmed when part of a substantial early to middle Anglo-Saxon building of post-in-slot construction was found at the edge of a trench c.80m away from the hillfort entrance, under the pottery scatter (Parry 2006: 143, 146). Although excavation did not take place inside the hillfort, the pottery collected from within it strongly suggests that there was occupation in the re-defended enclosure (Parry 2006: 145), perhaps indicating that the excavated building was part of a larger settlement that reused and modified the preserved hillfort. Interestingly, there are indications that at Crow Hill, as at Taplow, the reoccupation was related to high-status activity. King Offa of Mercia (757-96) is known to have signed a charter (S1184) at Irthlingborough between 787 and 796, when he held an assembly there (Blinkhorn 1999: 10; Lewis et al. 1997: 98; Reynolds 2003: 102). The hillfort appears, then, to have been a place of royal authority in

59

Table 4.1 Settlement sites in the corpus; see Fig. 4.1 for locations of these sites (continued overleaf). No. On

Site Name

Fig. 4.1

County

Prehistoric Monument(s) Round barrow

1

Biddenham Loop

Bedfordshire

2

Elstow Harrowden

Bedfordshire

3

Harrold

Bedfordshire

Round barrows

Bedfordshire

Round barrows

4

Village Farm/Medbury Lane, Elstow

Bronze Age enclosures Round barrow Iron Age enclosures

Round barrow

5

Church Farm, Bierton

Buckinghamshire

6

Pennyland

Buckinghamshire

Iron Age enclosures

7

Taplow

Buckinghamshire

Iron Age hillfort

8

Wolverton Turn Enclosure

Buckinghamshire

Round barrow

9

Addenbrooke's

Cambridgeshire

Iron Age enclosures

10

Harston Mill, Harston

Cambridgeshire

Iron Age enclosures

11

Manor Farm, Harston

Cambridgeshire

Round barrow

12

Willington

Derbyshire

Round barrow

13

Foxholes Farm, Hertford

Hertfordshire

Iron Age enclosure

14

Old Parkbury

Hertfordshire

Barrow (unknown type)

15

Cossington Quarry

Leicestershire

16

Enderby

Leicestershire

17

Eye Kettleby

Leicestershire

18

Knave Hill, Stonton Wyville

Leicestershire

Iron Age enclosures

19

Frieston Road

Lincolnshire

Round barrow

20

High Farm, Halton Holegate

Lincolnshire

Round barrow

21

Hoe Hills, Dowsby

Lincolnshire

Round barrow

22

Nettleton Top

Lincolnshire

Barrow (unknown type)

23

Salmonby

Lincolnshire

24

West Halton

Lincolnshire

Round barrows

25

Briar Hill

Northamptonshire

Neolithic enclosure

26

Crow Hill, Irthlingborough

Northamptonshire

Iron Age hillfort

27

Grange Park, Courteenhall

Northamptonshire

Iron Age enclosures

Penannular ring ditch/barrow

Round barrow Iron Age enclosures Iron Age enclosure Barrow (unknown type) Bronze Age enclosures

Round barrow Long barrow

60

28

Grendon

Northamptonshire

Round barrows

29

Thorpe End, Raunds

Northamptonshire

Iron Age enclosure Long barrow

30

West Cotton

Northamptonshire

Round barrows Neolithic/Bronze Age enclosures

31

Glebe Farm, Brough

Nottinghamshire

Iron Age enclosures

32

Holme Pierrepont

Nottinghamshire

Round barrows Round barrows

33

Barrow Hills

Oxfordshire

Oval barrow Pond barrows Round barrows

34

Cassington

Oxfordshire

35

Corporation Farm, Abingdon

Oxfordshire

36

Eynsham Abbey

Oxfordshire

Bronze Age enclosure

37

Gatehampton Farm, Goring

Oxfordshire

Round barrows

38

New Wintles Farm, Eynsham

Oxfordshire

39

Sutton Courtenay

Oxfordshire

40

Catholme

Staffordshire

41

Fatholme

Staffordshire

Prehistoric circular enclosure

42

Hatton Rock

Warwickshire

Round barrow

Iron Age enclosure Round barrows Neolithic henge

Round barrows Neolithic henge Round barrows Neolithic cursus Penannular ring ditch/barrow Prehistoric ditch

61

62

Fig. 4.1 Locations of settlements in the corpus (numbers correlate with those in Table 4.1).

Fig. 4.2 Village Farm (Beds). Overview of the Village Farm and Medbury Lane sites (top) (after BCAS 1995a: fig. 27); detail of the Village Farm excavation, with the two prehistoric ring ditches in the south-west corner of the excavated area (bottom) (after BCAS 1995a: fig. 10).

63

Fig. 4.3 Elstow Harrowden (Beds). Plan of the Manor Farm Bedford Bypass excavations (top) (after BCAS 1995a: fig. 14); plan of the Elstow Harrowden excavations with approximate positions of Manor Farm Bedford Bypass trenches marked (bottom) (after Shepherd 1997: fig. 6).

64

Fig. 4.4 Holme Pierrepont (Notts). General overview showing cropmarks, including ring ditches A and B in the preserved ‘island’ of land to the north-west of the site (top) (after Guilbert 2006: 22, fig. 2); a more detailed plan of the area containing the excavated SFB (bottom) (after Guilbert 2006: 29, fig. 6). 65

Fig 4.5 Harrold (Beds). Plan of the area investigated in the 1950s, with numbered ring ditches; SFBs D and J are in Area I (above) (after Eagles and Evison 1970: 19, fig. 2); detailed plan of the Meadway site, to the south of the 1950s excavations, with Anglo-Saxon settlement features surrounding a Neolithic ring ditch (left) (after Albion 2005: fig. 2).

66

Fig. 4.6 Cassington (Oxon). Plan of the quarried area at Cassington (after Harden 1940: 3, fig. 1).

67

68 Fig. 4.7 Cassington (Oxon). Detailed cropmark plot of the Cassington area (left) (after Benson and Miles 1974a: 85, fig. 3); detailed plan of area in Tolley’s Pit excavated by E.T. Leeds in 1934, containing barrow and Anglo-Saxon features (above) (after Leeds 1934: pl. XXXII).

Fig. 4.8 West Halton (Lincs). General plan of village green with approximate locations of barrows and trenches containing the Anglo-Saxon features (left); plan of posthole and post-in-trench buildings adjacent to Anglo-Saxon enclosure ditch in Trench 6 (bottom left) (drawn by J. Willmott, reproduced by permission of H. Willmott). The cropmark enclosure at Cottam, which may have been flanked by two ring ditches (bottom right) (after Richards 1999b: 16, illus. 9).

69

Fig. 4.9 Hoe Hills, Dowsby (Lincs). Site overview showing area of magnetometer survey and locations of excavated barrow and Anglo-Saxon settlement site (top left) (after Lane 2000: 101, fig. 33); Trench A, containing the Bronze Age barrow (top right) (after Lane 2000: 100, fig. 32); Trench B, containing the Anglo-Saxon features (bottom) (after Lane 2000: 103, fig. 34).

70

Fig. 4.10 Cossington Quarry (Leics). General plan of site (top) (after an unpublished plan in Thomas 2007b) and a detailed plan of Area E, which contained the Anglo-Saxon occupation features (bottom) (after an unpublished plan in Thomas 2007b). 71

Fig. 4.11 Willington (Derbys). General plan showing Barrow 1 to the far east of the site and location of Anglo-Saxon building represented by posthole Group G (top) (after Wheeler 1979: 62, fig. 2); detailed plan of the three SFBs overlying Romano-British farmstead 1 (bottom) (after Wheeler 1979: 127, fig. 48). 72

Fig. 4.12 High Farm, Halton Holegate (Lincs). Plan of the geophysical survey area showing barrow anomaly and subsequently-excavated area (left) (after Rylatt 2001: fig. 2); detail of the excavated area to the south of the site containing the Anglo-Saxon occupation features (below) (after Ramsey 2001: fig. 3).

73

Fig. 4.13 Biddenham Loop (Beds). General plan of Biddenham Loop with Anglo-Saxon settlement areas SL62 and SL63 marked (top) (after Luke and Barker 2010: fig. 11.2); detail of site SL62 (bottom) (after Luke and Barker 2010: fig. 11.4). See Fig. 4.31 for a detailed plan of SL63. 74

Fig. 4.14 Church Farm, Bierton (Bucks). General site plan (after Fenton 1996: fig. 1).

75

Fig. 4.15 Salmonby (Lincs). Approximate positions of the Anglo-Saxon settlement and prehistoric barrows (based on grid references provided in HER records).

76

Fig. 4.16 Old Parkbury (Herts). General site plan with area containing SFBs highlighted (left) (after Niblett 2001: 158, fig. 3); detailed plan of logboat burial and surrounding area including two SFBs (below) (after Niblett 2001: 162, fig. 8).

77

78

Fig. 4.17 Nettleton Top (Lincs). The approximate position of the postulated barrow is indicated; SFB 2 can be seen in Area One; SFBs 41 and 51 and pits 38 and 49 can be seen in Area Three (after Field and Leahy 1993: 10, fig. 1).

Fig. 4.18 Hatton Rock (Warwicks). The course of the pipe trench can be seen running from south-west to north-east across the site, and the two suggested phases are to the right of the picture (after Hirst and Rahtz 1973: 168, fig.6).

79

80

Fig. 4.19 Wolverton Turn Enclosure (Bucks). Plan of cropmark enclosure and round barrow with position of SFB 5 marked to the north of the enclosure (left) (after Preston 2007: 85, fig. 2); plan of excavated portion of the enclosure, showing Bronze Age ring ditch in its ‘annexe’ and excavated sections of the main enclosure ditches (right) (after Preston 2007: 87, fig. 3).

Fig. 4.20 Frieston Road (Lincs). Geophysical anomalies in the area around the trench, including further ring ditches; although anomalies thought to be SFBs were noted, they are not marked on the plan (above) (after Toop and Copp 2005: 28, fig. 6); plan of the ring ditch, pit alignment, SFB and Anglo-Saxon pits (left) (after Copp and Toop 2006: fig. 48).

81

Fig. 4.21 Manor Farm, Harston (Cambs). General site plan showing positions of cropmarks and trenches (after Malim 1993: 17, fig. 4).

82

Fig. 4.22 Manor Farm, Harston (Cambs). Detailed plans of trenches containing Anglo-Saxon features (top) (after Malim 1993: 22, fig. 9) and plan of Trench 9, which contained the Bronze Age barrow and SFBs (bottom) (after Malim 1993: 28, fig. 13).

83

Fig. 4.23 West Cotton (Northants). General site plan with approximate positions of the SFBs marked (the exact location of the SFB on the mound is unspecified in the excavation report; it could have been in either of the preserved portions of the long mound) (after Windell 1989: 88, fig. 5.3). 84

85

Fig. 4.24 Corporation Farm (Oxon). Overview of prehistoric, Romano-British and Anglo-Saxon features (left) (after ADAS 1973: 41); detail of ring ditches 2 and 3 with the position of the SFB marked (right) (after Barclay et al. 2003: 33, fig. 3.7).

Fig. 4.25 New Wintles Farm, Eynsham (Oxon). General plan showing positions of Areas A to D and cropmarks to the south of the site, with the SFBs associated with ring ditches in Areas C and D marked (after Gray 1974: 52, fig. 6).

86

87

Fig. 4.26 New Wintles Farm, Eynsham (Oxon). Detailed plan of features excavated in Area A (after Chadwick Hawkes and Gray 1969: fig. 1).

Fig. 4.27 Gatehampton Farm, Goring (Oxon). General plan showing cropmark barrows, position of SFB and AngloSaxon midden deposit (top) (after Allen 1995: 2, fig. 1); cropmark plot of area subjected to geophysical survey and interpretation of the geophysical anomalies (bottom) (after Allen 1995: 52, fig. 40). 88

Fig. 4.28 Sutton Courtenay (Oxon). Overview of the site with Leeds’s excavation area to the north and the complex of cropmark halls to the south (from Barclay et al. 2003: 17, fig. 3.1, reproduced by kind permission of Oxford Archaeological Unit Ltd). 89

Fig. 4.29 Glebe Farm, Brough (Notts). General site plan showing Iron Age field system and Anglo-Saxon buildings (after Knight and Howard 2004: 100, fig. 5.16).

90

Fig. 4.30 Addenbrooke’s (Cambs). General site plan showing Anglo-Saxon features shaded in black; earlier features are unshaded (after Evans et al. 2004: fig. 19).

91

Fig. 4.31 Biddenham Loop (Beds). Detailed plan of settlement SL63 (after Luke and Barker 2010: figs. 5.6 and 11.2). See Fig. 4.14 for a general overview of the Biddenham Loop site.

92

93

Fig. 4.32 Harston Mill, Harston (Cambs). General plan showing the positions of trial trenches, cropmark field system to the south-east of the site, and extrapolated courses of the Anglo-Saxon ditches in Trenches 3 and 5 (top) (after McDonald et al. 2000: fig. 2); Trench 12, with the SFB (F1159) at the south-eastern end of the trench (bottom) (after McDonald et al. 2000; fig. 6).

94

Fig. 4.33 Pennyland (Bucks). Plan of Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon features (after Williams 1993: figs. 5 and 25).

95

Fig. 4.34 Grange Park, Courteenhall (Northants). General plan showing excavation areas (left) (after Buteux 2001: fig. 23); detailed plan of Area 6 with Anglo-Saxon pits F406, F407, F409, F446, F486 and F517 marked (right) (after Buteux 2001: fig. 28).

Fig. 4.35 Grange Park, Courteenhall (Northants). Detailed plan of Area 10 with SFB marked (after Buteux 2001: fig. 29).

96

Fig. 4.36 Thorpe End, Raunds (Northants). Magnetic anomalies, cropmarks and trenches, with the position of the Anglo-Saxon building marked (top left) (after Parry 2006: 235, fig. 6.49); distribution plot of early to middle AngloSaxon pottery (top right) (after Parry 2006: 235, fig. 6.49); plan of the trench containing the early to middle AngloSaxon building (bottom) (after Parry 2006: 238, fig. 6.51).

97

Fig. 4.37 Enderby (Leics). Iron Age enclosure, with position of partially excavated SFB marked (after Clay 1992: 5, fig. 7).

98

Fig. 4.38 Knave Hill, Stonton Wyville (Leics). General plan of Area 1 showing geophysical anomalies and positions of trenches (top left) (after Wessex Archaeology 2008: fig. 2); plan of Trench 1 containing Anglo-Saxon structure (below left) (after Wessex Archaeology 2008: fig. 3); plan of Trench 4 containing Anglo-Saxon structure (below right) (after Wessex Archaeology 2008: fig. 7).

99

100

Fig. 4.39 Foxholes Farm (Herts). Area 1, showing ridge-spine buildings and SFBs inside an Iron Age enclosure (after Partridge 1989: fig. 4).

Fig. 4.40 Eynsham Abbey (Oxon). Phases 2a to 2c of the Anglo-Saxon occupation (with the position of the Bronze Age enclosure shown in the 2a plan) (top) (after Hardy et al. 2003: 26, fig. 2.1); detail of Section 250/C across Bronze Age ditch, showing filling from the north (bottom) (after Barclay et al. 2001: 114, fig. 5).

101

102

Fig. 4.41 Eynsham Abbey (Oxon). Detail of the southern part of the site during phase 2a; fence 811 can be seen cutting across the terminal of the Bronze Age ditch (after Hardy et al. 2003: 34, fig. 3.3).

103

Fig. 4.42 Briar Hill (Northants). General plan of the Neolithic causewayed enclosure with the likely positions of banks (above) (after Bamford 1985: 38, fig. 20); detail of the eastern portion of the causewayed enclosure containing the SFBs (right) (after Bamford 1985, unnumbered plan).

104 Fig. 4.43 Fatholme (Staffs). Plan of the site (after TPAT 1984, un-numbered plan).

Fig. 4.44 Taplow (Bucks). Plan of excavated hillfort defences with position of the possible Anglo-Saxon building to the north-west of the site marked (after Allen et al. 2009: 16, fig. 2.1).

105

Fig. 4.45 Taplow (Bucks). Detail of possible Anglo-Saxon foundation trench (top) (after Allen et al. 2009: 16, fig. 2.1); overview of Taplow showing extent of the prehistoric hillfort defences and position of Taplow mound inside the defences (bottom) (from Allen et al. 2009: 189, fig. 11.1; reproduced by kind permission of Oxford Archaeological Unit Ltd). 106

Fig. 4.46 Crow Hill, Irthlingborough (Northants). Cropmarks, magnetic anomalies and trenches, with re-cut defences and position of Anglo-Saxon building marked (top) (after Parry 2006: 142, fig. 6.3); early to middle Anglo-Saxon pottery distribution across the site (bottom) (after Parry 2006: 142, fig. 6.3). 107

Plate 1 Eye Kettleby (Leics). Site plan (after an unpublished plan by Finn). The C-shaped ditch is highlighted in red, while the section of Anglo-Saxon cobbled trackway is yellow and just to the south of the prehistoric pit alignment/ditch. The Bronze Age enclosures can be seen in the central/eastern part of the site.

Plate 2 Catholme (Staffs). Site plan; red = fenced boundary, green = ditched boundary, blue = building (from LoscoBradley and Kinsley 2002: 116, fig. 3.97; reproduced by kind permission of Trent and Peak Archaeology).

Plate 3 Barrow Hills (Oxon). Site plan (from Barclay and Halpin 1999: fig. 1.9; reproduced by kind permission of Oxford Archaeological Unit Ltd).

CHAPTER FIVE THEMES AND PATTERNS IN THE CORPUS Having presented the evidence from the corpus in Chapter 4, it is now time to review and discuss this evidence, identifying patterns and themes in the data and comparing the corpus with other types of Anglo-Saxon site in the study area. Firstly, it will be compared with the settlement record more generally in order to determine whether there are distinctive traits in settlements with monument reuse compared to those without. Secondly, it will be contrasted with other types of site with monument reuse, primarily burial sites, but also church and preChristian shrine sites. This comparative exercise is intended to produce a holistic picture of the practice of monument reuse across the midland counties of England.

were found at Barrow Hills, and long barrows were reused at Salmonby and West Cotton, while the settlement at Barrow Hills also had an oval barrow in it, as did the settlement at Sutton Courtenay. There also sites with penannular ring ditches, which may have represented circular barrows of some sort, although the exact form was uncertain; this was the case at Catholme, Church Farm and possibly at Eye Kettleby. Meanwhile, at Old Parkbury and Nettleton Top the presence of barrows was suggested by finds that might have lain under those barrows, rather than by traces of the barrows themselves, making it difficult to determine what form the barrows might have taken.

MONUMENT FORMS

Monuments falling into the category of linear features also varied in their shape and appearance. The reused hillforts at Taplow and Crow Hill were still substantial earthwork enclosures in the Anglo-Saxon period. The reoccupation of earlier fortified enclosures has been noted in western Britain, such as at Dinas Powys (Glam) and Cadbury Castle (Som), and it is interesting that Arnold (1984: 73-7) believed these to be ‘unique to south-west England and Wales’. The excavations at Taplow and Crow Hill have shown that the practice was in existence in Anglo-Saxon England too. Other prehistoric enclosures and boundaries have evidence for having been preserved as banks, rather than as ditches, as in many cases the ditches had filled before the Anglo-Saxon period. Iron Age enclosures at Knave Hill, Enderby, Grange Park, Thorpe End and Pennyland were D-shaped, whilst the Bronze and Iron Age enclosures at Foxholes Farm and Eynsham Abbey were sub-rectangular. At sites such as Biddenham Loop, Glebe Farm and Addenbrooke’s, and perhaps Elstow Harrowden and Harston Mill, there seem to have been multiple prehistoric field boundaries and enclosures.

The monuments discussed in this chapter have thus far been classed as falling into one of two general categories – barrows or linear features – for ease of discussion. Barrows were reused at twenty-eight settlements in the corpus, while linear features were appropriated at twentyfour (Table 5.1). These two categories express the differences in the form and, to some extent, function of the two types of earthwork; barrows generally constitute discrete ‘lumps and bumps’ in the landscape, whereas enclosures and boundaries generally define, divide and enclose areas of the landscape. However, as discussed at the beginning of the chapter, these general classifications belie great variety in the different forms exhibited by the barrows, enclosures and boundaries that were present in Anglo-Saxon settlement sites in the corpus. It is important to bear in mind these differences in form and appearance, as they may have impacted on how communities interpreted and reused different monuments. Let us first consider barrows, the most frequently reused form of monument in the corpus. A large number of settlements were established on or close to round barrows, which in many cases were indicated archaeologically simply by the presence of a ring ditch, at sites such as Village Farm/Medbury Lane, Elstow Harrowden, Harrold, Biddenham Loop and Corporation Farm, for example. As stated in Chapter 1, the term ‘round barrow’ can refer to a number of different forms of circular barrow; while a ring ditch indicates that a circular barrow was present, without further evidence for the above-ground element of the barrow, such as a mound or bank, it is difficult to determine exactly what these would have looked like before their destruction. At some settlements, however, the above-ground form of monuments could be discerned. For example, bowl barrows are known from Cassington, West Halton, Cossington Quarry, Hoe Hills, Gatehampton Farm, Salmonby, Manor Farm, West Cotton, Corporation Farm and Barrow Hills. Disc barrows are known from Cassington, where there were two examples, and from West Cotton and Barrow Hills, while the barrow at Willington had a berm between the mound and the ring ditch, suggesting that it was a bell barrow. Pond barrows

The causewayed enclosure at Briar Hill, with its curved sections of bank, was different from other enclosures, while the possible enclosure at Fatholme was also slightly unusual in that it was circular. The remains of the cursus at Sutton Courtenay, if still visible, would probably have been seen as two parallel banks running through the area of the settlement site, and the prehistoric boundary at Catholme would have formed a discrete, linear boundary feature, possibly accompanied by a bank. Meanwhile, the two possible henges at Corporation Farm and New Wintles Farm were formed by two elliptical lengths of ditch, c.10m long, accompanied by banks. Droveways, which may have been reused at Addenbrooke’s and Grange Park, could have been preserved as hollows, perhaps with accompanying ditches or banks. Both barrows and linear features, then, could have been visible in the Anglo-Saxon period as a variety of different shapes and sizes of earthwork. These earthworks formed either ‘negative’ features, such as ditches and hollows, ‘positive’ features, such as banks and mounds, or a combination of the two. At the majority of sites in the 108

Thus, although Roman landscape features are not considered in this study for the reasons outlined in Chapter 1, it is of course worth noting that Anglo-Saxon communities most likely did not distinguish between these and prehistoric features when they were similar in form.

corpus the evidence appears to demonstrate that it was the positive, above-ground elements of monuments that survived to have an impact on later settlement. This is especially true of barrows, but it is also the case with many linear features, which were often delineated by raised banks. Thus, even when pre-existing ditches had silted up prior to the Anglo-Saxon period – at Eynsham Abbey and Foxholes Farm for example – there was evidence to suggest that the banks had survived. On the other hand, there were several instances in which the negative parts of earthworks were preserved; there was Anglo-Saxon material in the prehistoric ditches at Taplow and Cassington, and in the upper fills of ring ditches at Frieston Road and Barrow Hills, for instance. Vegetation could also have had an impact on the appearance of monuments during the Anglo-Saxon period. The excavators of some sites, such as Biddenham Loop, Pennyland and Enderby, suggested that hedges were used to enhance the boundaries around enclosures. These hedges may have survived into the Anglo-Saxon period and impacted upon the layout of later settlements, as Hamerow (1993: 86) has suggested in the case of Mucking (Essex). There may have been a similar situation where ring ditches were concerned, as they may have experienced preferential growth of vegetation, perhaps increasing their distinctiveness in the landscape (R. Darrah pers. comm.).

MONUMENT VISIBILITY While a monument’s form would have had an impact on its appearance for those viewing it in the early medieval period, so too would its level of preservation. Monuments had to be preserved as visible earthworks in order to have been reused and, indeed, the confidence with which monument reuse can be said to have taken place at a site is generally dependent on the evidence for visibility in the Anglo-Saxon period. In Chapter 1 it was stated that a basic – and obvious – criterion for including sites in the settlement corpus was that there was evidence to suggest that the monument had been visible in the Anglo-Saxon period. At one end of the scale there are settlements in the corpus at which monuments were definitely visible during the fifth to ninth centuries. The hillforts at Taplow and Crow Hill were visible when they were reoccupied and at least one of the hillforts was modified at that time. At Barrow Hills there is no doubt that the ditches, mounds and banks of various barrows were preserved as earthworks in the fifth to seventh centuries (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 303). Similarly, the survival of barrows into the nineteenth, twentieth and twenty-first centuries at West Halton, Gatehampton Farm, Willington, Cossington Quarry, Hoe Hills, West Cotton and Cassington demonstrates that those monuments were still visible earthworks in the Anglo-Saxon period. At sites such as Frieston Road, Manor Farm and West Cotton the precise positioning of SFBs on barrows strongly suggests that those monuments survived as visible features in the landscape. Meanwhile, at Catholme and Wolverton Turn Enclosure the ‘annexing’ of barrows provides strong evidence for the desire to enclose, and perhaps restrict or protect, earlier monuments.

An appreciation of the various forms that barrows and enclosures could have taken is an important aspect of this study, as Anglo-Saxon communities may well have viewed different forms of monument in different ways. The fact that people in the early medieval period did recognise differences in the appearance of monuments is demonstrated linguistically, as discussed in Chapter 3. The use of specific terms for monuments such as barrows (hlæw and beorgh) and hillforts (burh), as well as the use of adjectives to describe those monuments, as ‘broken’ (brocenan) or ‘long’ (langan) barrows for instance (Gelling 1988: 132-42), demonstrates that people were aware of monuments, and mindful of their appearances, similarities and differences. As such, they may have held different beliefs about the origins and characteristics of the different forms of monument.

At the other end of the scale are settlements where the proposed visibility of monuments is more tentative, although, crucially, there is no evidence to prove that the monuments had been destroyed prior to the Anglo-Saxon period. At Eynsham Abbey, for example, there may have been an external bank surrounding the Bronze Age enclosure, which then influenced the sixth- to ninthcentury settlement, but this was not certain. The positioning of so many settlement features inside the earlier enclosure, however, seems more than coincidental. Similarly, there is some uncertainty about the level of preservation of the Iron Age and Bronze Age enclosures at sites such as Pennyland and Eye Kettleby but, again, the presence of buildings within the enclosures and aligned on ditches or banks does seem to suggest that the earthworks were visible and exerted some influence over the later settlements. Meanwhile, at settlements such as Village Farm/Medbury Lane, Elstow Harrowden, Biddenham Loop and Holme Pierrepont ring ditches indicate that there had been some form of round barrow

When considering the appearance of prehistoric monuments during the Anglo-Saxon period, it should also be noted that Roman remains could, in some cases, have closely resembled prehistoric remains, and Anglo-Saxon communities may not have distinguished between them. At several sites in the corpus Iron Age and RomanoBritish remains lay side by side; this was the case at Grange Park, Willington and Addenbrooke’s, for example. These sites demonstrate that Romano-British landscape features were not necessarily appropriated or interpreted differently from prehistoric ones, especially when their forms were very similar and when they were already centuries old by the time they were reoccupied. It seems more likely that there may have been differences in the way that people viewed more distinctive Roman remains, such as stone buildings, which would not have resembled the earthen remains of prehistoric monuments. 109

present, but as there were no traces of mounds or banks (and in some cases because detailed excavation records were not available) it is difficult to determine to what extent they would have been preserved in the early medieval period.

evidence for ploughing from the medieval period to the present day. The sites listed in the table were those at which plough damage was noted in excavation reports; there may well have been further sites with plough damage that was not mentioned by the excavators.

Arguably, the lack of confirmation for monument visibility at some sites diminishes the likelihood that reuse had taken place. However, by drawing parallels between sites at which monument visibility in the AngloSaxon period has been confirmed, and sites where the evidence is less compelling, it is possible to demonstrate there were precedents for the styles of monument reuse seen at the more ‘tentative’ sites. For example, at Village Farm/Medbury Lane, Biddenham Loop and High Farm there is no evidence to demonstrate that barrows were visible in the Anglo-Saxon period but, equally, there is no evidence to confirm that they were not. On the other hand, sites such as West Halton, Cossington Quarry and West Cotton confirm that barrows could survive into the Anglo-Saxon period as substantial earthworks, and that settlements were established around them. As such, they show that the postulated relationships between buildings and barrows at sites such as Village Farm/Medbury Lane did exist elsewhere, supporting the notion that monument reuse was taking place at settlements where monument visibility could not be confirmed beyond doubt archaeologically.

Jones (1998) has made a similar point in relation to the discovery of levelled Neolithic long barrows in Lincolnshire. His study of aerial photographs from the county revealed over fifty examples of levelled and ploughed out long barrows, the existence of which was unknown until they were revealed by aerial photography (Jones 1998: 83). His study highlighted the increasingly intensive agricultural practices used in the county since World War II, particularly in the last quarter of a century, which have had a significant impact on ancient landscapes (Jones 1998: 97-8). In addition, the marks of ridge and furrow cultivation covering some sites indicate that the process of erosion through ploughing was underway in the medieval period (Jones 1998: 98). Monuments in Lincolnshire, as an intensively cultivated region of the country, have therefore suffered particularly badly due to ploughing, and the same can also be said of many other regions in England (Barker 1974: 29, 33; Jones 1998: 101). In addition to ploughing, archaeological features at some settlements had been affected by other forms of erosion and destruction. Recent soil erosion was noted at Old Parkbury (Niblett 2001: 163) and road building in the early to mid-twentieth century at Cassington had destroyed parts of the landscape (Hey 2004: 10). Features at Barrow Hills had suffered as a result of extensive animal burrowing (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 9) and at Eynsham Abbey medieval building activity had truncated earlier features (Barclay et al. 2001: 157). Alluviation post-dating the Anglo-Saxon period had caused damage to prehistoric monuments at West Cotton, where medieval activity had also caused the diversion of streams which then destroyed parts of some monuments (Windell 1989: 89; Windell et al. 1990: 9-10). Medieval activity at West Halton included levelling a Bronze Age barrow and using the resulting platform for building on (Hadley et al. 2011). Quarrying had also taken its toll on a number of settlements, especially when it had taken place in the nineteenth and mid twentieth centuries without archaeological recording, at Harrold (Eagles and Evison 1970: 17, 48), Sutton Courtenay (Leeds 1923: 147-9) and Cassington (Benson and Miles 1974a: 84), for instance.

Furthermore, an additional advantage of drawing parallels between sites is that it can assist the visualisation of how less well-understood sites, such as those with small-scale investigations or poor recording, might have reused monuments. For example, Harston Mill and Elstow Harrowden might have originally exhibited patterns of reuse similar to Glebe Farm, where Anglo-Saxon buildings and enclosures followed the alignment of an Iron Age field system, but the small scale excavation of the two sites limits our understanding of the relationships between features of different phases. The benefits of drawing parallels between settlements in order to unravel the relationships between buildings and monuments at less well-understood sites will be explored in Chapter 6, where Eye Kettleby will be compared with settlements with definite reuse to assist in determining whether the postulated barrow was incorporated into the Anglo-Saxon settlement or not. It is clear from the settlement sites discussed in this chapter that one of the major factors affecting monument preservation in the present day has been ploughing in the medieval, post-medieval and modern periods, which has caused severe truncation at many sites. On one hand, this can hinder assessment of the level of monument visibility in the Anglo-Saxon period. On the other, it demonstrates just how much damage has been caused to prehistoric monuments since the medieval period, and adds support to the notion that many more monuments remained as visible earthworks prior to this destruction than we might initially imagine. Table 5.2 demonstrates just how extensive plough damage was on settlements across the study area, with over half the sites in the corpus having

Thus, much of the evidence for the erosion and disturbance of prehistoric monuments in the settlements under study here points to their destruction during the medieval, post-medieval and modern periods, as a result of agricultural activities, quarrying or building. A significant amount of damage and truncation has therefore occurred in recent centuries, and this has a bearing not only on the visibility of features in the present day, but also on our ability to assess their preservation in the Anglo-Saxon period. While agricultural activities in the prehistoric and Romano-British eras could potentially 110

have truncated pre-existing remains, at very few sites in the corpus was there evidence for such activity. There was evidence for Roman ploughing at Gatehampton Farm but, although ploughsoil overlay some mounds, this did not prevent them from being visible as earthworks at the time of excavation (Allen 1995: 125). Thus, many of the monuments present in and around the settlements in this study witnessed most damage and destruction in the period between the medieval era and the modern day. A large proportion of them may well have been significant landscape features prior to this and could, therefore, have had a substantial impact on the communities living near them in the early medieval period.

buildings and barrows seen elsewhere. Intrusive reuse, then, appears to be the result of definite, deliberate and structured relationships between Anglo-Saxon buildings and the earlier features they appropriated. Deliberate and structured appropriation of monuments is not restricted to intrusive reuse, however. At Catholme and Wolverton Turn Enclosure the enclosing of earlier barrows can be classed as associative, as the barrows were not modified, but the pattern of reuse still indicates that premeditated and conscious decisions were made about the way in which the monuments were to be incorporated into, and at the same time separated from, the rest of the settlement (Table 5.4). The alignment of buildings on earlier earthworks is also indicative of intentional and organised associative reuse. The timber halls at Hatton Rock and Sutton Courtenay were aligned very precisely in rows next to the ring ditches of probable barrows, whilst at Glebe Farm and Addenbrooke’s buildings followed the alignment of earlier ditches. The positioning of buildings within earlier enclosures, at Foxholes Farm and possibly at Eynsham, also suggests deliberate and planned associative appropriation.

INTRUSIVE AND ASSOCIATIVE REUSE As previously discussed, Sarah Semple (2008; 2009) has distinguished between associative and intrusive forms of reuse in the funerary record (see Chapter 2). To recapitulate, she classed intrusive reuse as ‘burials that are cut into a monument’, and associative reuse as ‘burials that cluster around a monument but are not inserted into it, or to primary Anglo-Saxon barrow burials constructed in immediate proximity to a prehistoric monument’ (Semple 2008: 411). Analysis of the sites in the corpus has revealed that monument reuse in settlements also fell into these two categories.1 In cases of associative reuse, buildings and other settlement features were situated in close proximity to a monument (up to c.150m away), or a monument was encompassed by a settlement, with buildings located around it. In some of these associative cases buildings appear to have been aligned on the monuments, arranged in a row next to a barrow or echoing the alignment of prehistoric boundaries, but the buildings did not modify or touch the monuments. On the other hand, intrusive reuse was characterised by the modification of monuments, with buildings constructed on top of, or abutting, pre-existing features.

In other instances associative reuse was looser, with fewer structured relationships between buildings and monuments (Table 5.4). Barrows were located within or near settlements at Village Farm/Medbury Lane, Elstow Harrowden, Church Farm, Hoe Hills, Cassington, High Farm, Harrold, Holme Pierrepont and Willington, and perhaps Salmonby, Grendon, Nettleton Top and Old Parkbury, but there was no evidence to suggest that they were modified or referenced by the buildings in any obvious or direct way. Buildings were loosely arranged in proximity to prehistoric linear features too; at Sutton Courtenay the cursus was not referenced in any obvious way by the Anglo-Saxon buildings, nor were the henges at New Wintles Farm and Corporation Farm, although they were located very near to buildings. However, it must be noted that the apparent lack of structured relationships between buildings and monuments at some sites could have resulted from methods of excavation, rather than real archaeological patterns. For example, at Holme Pierrepont, Cossington, West Halton, Hoe Hills and High Farm there were unexcavated areas of up to 100m between the buildings and the barrows; it is possible, therefore, that further buildings existed closer to the monuments. Meanwhile, barrows at sites such as Village Farm/Medbury Lane and Willington had only been partially excavated, meaning that any further buildings on their unexcavated sides would have gone unnoticed. At Salmonby and Grendon the lack of published evidence from the excavations means that very little is known about the spatial relationships between Anglo-Saxon and prehistoric features.

Intrusive reuse was frequently seen in connection with barrows, at sites including Barrow Hills, Frieston Road, Sutton Courtenay, Manor Farm, West Cotton, New Wintles Farm, Corporation Farm and possibly at Gatehampton Farm and Eye Kettleby (Table 5.3). In each of these cases buildings sat on top of the barrows, or they were directly over a ring ditch and positioned in such a way that would have been adjacent to the mound or abutting it. There were also instances of intrusive reuse involving enclosures and boundaries, at Glebe Farm and Pennyland for example, where buildings had been dug into Iron Age ditches. Intrusive reuse through the modification of prehistoric ditches was seen at Catholme, Crow Hill and possibly at Cassington, while the hillfort at Taplow may have been modified too. At Briar Hill an SFB seems to have been placed on top of a Neolithic bank, and another may have abutted a section of bank, a situation reminiscent of the associations between

Similarly, there are indications that some buildings may have been associated more closely with linear features than initial excavation suggested. At Harston Mill and Elstow Harrowden, for example, buildings were situated

1 The term ‘direct’ was used in Crewe (2008), but ‘intrusive’ has been substituted here in order to correspond with terms used by Semple (2008).

111

level surface in order to create a flat, well-drained floor, and would have been less likely to fit easily on top of an earthwork.

amongst the remains of Iron Age field systems, but without further excavation it is impossible to determine whether any of those buildings were aligned on the enclosures or situated inside them. The apparent lack of intrusive or structured relationships between buildings and monuments at many sites could, therefore, have resulted from the positioning and sizes of trenches, in which case there may have been an even greater number of settlements with closer and more structured associations between buildings and older earthworks. The geophysical survey undertaken at Gatehampton Farm, which revealed the presence of further possible buildings including one on top of a barrow, demonstrates the advantages of investigating areas between monuments and buildings, even if it is through non-intrusive means rather than excavation.

This may explain why SFBs, and not post-built structures, were associated with barrows, but it does not explain why Anglo-Saxon communities wanted to construct buildings on top of and immediately next to prehistoric earthworks. None of these buildings is isolated; they were all part of larger settlements, although in some cases the existence of further buildings was only revealed through aerial photography and geophysical survey, rather than by excavation, for example at Frieston Road. The indication is, then, that at some settlements it was considered important that a building lay atop or immediately next to a monument, that those buildings had a particular role to play within those settlements, and there may have been different forces in play dictating whether to place a building on top of a mound or next to it. The specific link between SFBs and monuments is supported further when we look at sites such as West Halton and the Village Farm/Medbury Lane site where, although reuse was not intrusive, SFBs were situated closer to monuments than post-built structures were, although of course it is possible that excavation strategies influenced this pattern.

One particularly interesting pattern emerging from this research is a link between SFBs and the intrusive reuse of monuments. This is especially apparent in relation to barrows; every instance of a building situated on top of a mound or ring ditch involves an SFB (Table 5.3). SFBs were located on top of barrows at Manor Farm, West Cotton, New Wintles Farm, Barrow Hills, and possibly at Frieston Road and Gatehampton Farm as well. They were situated over ring ditches at Barrow Hills, Sutton Courtenay and Corporation Farm, and possibly at New Wintles and Eye Kettleby. To a lesser extent SFBs intrusively reused linear features too; SFBs had been dug into the ditches of Iron Age enclosures at Glebe Farm and Pennyland, and an SFB may have sat on top of a bank, with another immediately adjacent to the bank, at Briar Hill. At the latter, the insertion of the building into the bank is akin to the insertion of SFBs into barrows, adding support to the argument that there was a definite and deliberate link between upstanding earthworks and SFBs. Furthermore, given the evidence for the medieval, postmedieval and modern levelling of monuments through ploughing and other activities, it would not be surprising to find that further cases of SFBs intrusively reusing earthworks had once existed, but that they had been destroyed along with the monuments. Williams (1997: 4) has made similar claims in relation to funerary monument reuse; post-depositional processes such as ploughing, erosion, tree planting and deliberate levelling of monuments mean that burials (and therefore also buildings) positioned on monuments are less likely to have survived than those situated around monuments.

Another notable pattern emerging from this research is a link between Anglo-Saxon buildings and the entrances to pre-existing enclosures. At Taplow the remains of AngloSaxon occupation were concentrated in an area around the entrance to the hillfort, with a building situated directly next to the terminal of one of the substantial hillfort ditches. The building at Crow Hill was c.80m outside the entrance to the hillfort, although another focus of occupation inside the enclosure was indicated by a pottery scatter (Parry 2006: 141). Buildings may have been placed in the entrances to enclosures at Pennyland, Eye Kettleby and Knave Hill, while at Eynsham Abbey, in the earliest phase, several buildings were clustered near to the entrance of the Bronze Age enclosure, and there may even have been a fence augmenting the entrance to the earlier enclosure. That is not to say that early medieval buildings only used the entrances to enclosures; there are examples of the corpus at which this was not the case, for example at Foxholes Farm, where buildings were located inside the Iron Age enclosure but none specifically made use of the entrances to the enclosure. Nonetheless, the examples listed above demonstrate that, in some cases, entrances could form a focus of reoccupation, and buildings appear to have been deliberately placed directly in entrances, or near to them. This may signify that the uses of pre-existing enclosures during the Anglo-Saxon period resembled the original uses of these monuments, and that they were once again being used as enclosures in the Anglo-Saxon period. Situating buildings in and near entrance gaps may have been linked to a need to control access to the enclosures, or it may demonstrate that occupation took place outside the enclosures, with the interiors being reserved for some function other than settlement.

A practical explanation for the association between upstanding earthworks and SFBs, as opposed to post-built structures, is that the construction of an SFB lends itself much more easily to building on a curved, uneven surface than a post-built structure would do. SFBs, which typically measure c.4m by c.3m (although their sizes do vary), tend to be smaller than post-built structures (Addyman 1972; Tipper 2004: 1), and might therefore have fitted more easily on the tops of monuments or immediately next to them. Additionally, the digging of the sunken pit under an SFB would have been more effective at levelling of an uneven land surface, whereas a post-built structure would have had greater need for a 112

is, on the other hand, a possibility that the dates attributed to the settlements in Table 5.6 have been biased by the inclusion of diagnostic pottery. For example, decorated pottery is generally considered indicative of a fifth- or sixth-century date (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 232; Hamerow 1993). When it appears in an assemblage of broadly-dated, uncharacteristic early to middle AngloSaxon handmade pottery, it can lead to an interpretation of that assemblage as fifth- or sixth-century, when there might in fact be a middle Anglo-Saxon element too, which is not represented by such distinct decoration or vessel forms. Nonetheless, in the study area a middle Anglo-Saxon date is often indicated by the presence of Ipswich ware, which began to be produced around AD 720 and Maxey wares, the earliest fabrics of which (Maxey Fabric A) began to be produced in the mid to late seventh century (Blinkhorn 1999: 9; Chambers and McAdam 2007: 228; Young and Vince 2009). Thus, although dating settlements can be difficult, there are relatively reliable ceramic indicators of date available for the midland counties of England, and many of the settlement dates in Table 5.6 are based on these.

SETTLEMENTS WITH FUNERARY REUSE A small number of settlements in the corpus had contemporary burials inserted into SFBs or buried between buildings; this was the case at Eye Kettleby (Sayer 2003: 105-6) and New Wintles Farm (Chadwick Hawkes and Gray 1969: 3), for example. Of particular interest are the settlements that contained evidence for funerary monument reuse (Table 5.5). At Cossington Quarry the prehistoric barrow south of the Anglo-Saxon settlement had been reused as the focus for a number of secondary burials (Thomas 2007b: 56; Thomas 2008), and at Barrow Hills the pond barrow on the eastern edge of the site had been reused for a burial thought to be contemporary with the final phase of the settlement (Barclay and Halpin 1999: 118). Meanwhile, human bones recovered from the upstanding Bronze Age barrow at West Halton revealed that it had been reused for at least one secondary burial in the early to mid seventh century (Hadley et al. 2011). At Taplow a late sixth- to seventh-century burial was found just to the north of the substantial U-profiled hillfort ditch (Allen et al. 2009). The late sixth- or seventh-century Taplow burial mound had also been constructed within the confines of the hillfort (Allen and Lamdin-Whymark 2001: 287). At Catholme a human burial had been inserted into the longlived terrace-edge boundary just to the north of an entrance gap, while a cow burial was located just to south-east of another entrance through this boundary (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 41). These instances of funerary monument reuse add an additional layer of complexity to the relationships between settlements and monuments in the study region, and seem to have been particularly prevalent in the sixth and seventh centuries. The significance of these burials will be discussed further later in this book (see Chapter 7).

While Table 5.6 shows the general dates during which settlements were inhabited, it does not convey information about the development of those sites throughout their occupation. The ways in which a settlement appropriated a pre-existing monument could change as time went by, and as buildings were constructed, decayed and replaced. For example, the three phases at Pennyland show great variety in the extent and positioning of buildings in relation to the Iron Age enclosure system. Again, due to the restrictions of dating, it is often not possible to fully appreciate the exact phasing of buildings within Anglo-Saxon settlements. However, there are several settlements in the corpus, such as Barrow Hills, at which we do have enough evidence to explore the influence of monuments over buildings at different points in time, and these will be discussed further in Chapter 6.

DATES OF SETTLEMENTS The summaries of settlements in this chapter (and the more detailed overviews in Appendix A) show that the precise dating of sites in the corpus is not always possible. However, where dates of occupation have been established (albeit in some cases tentatively), they seem to indicate that monument reuse saw a peak in popularity during the fifth to seventh centuries (Table 5.6); not only were many settlements established in this period, a large proportion had also apparently been abandoned by the seventh century, with relatively few sites being established or occupied between the seventh and ninth centuries. Although this evidence is tentative, as in only a few cases was radiocarbon dating carried out, it may indicate that there was a particular preference for situating buildings near older monuments in the early, compared to the middle, Anglo-Saxon period.

SETTLEMENT TYPES AND FUNCTIONS Whilst establishing the dates of Anglo-Saxon settlements can be difficult, obtaining clues about their status or function is often even harder. This is particularly true for the early Anglo-Saxon period, when there is little to distinguish settlements from each other in terms of function or status (Hamerow 2002: 97; Powlesland 1997: 115; Scull 1993: 72). The small-scale excavations at many sites in the corpus also hinder understanding of their functions. However, there are several settlements in the corpus about whose functions we can say more. The site at Eynsham Abbey is known to have been the location of an important church in the ninth century (around the end of phase 2c of the settlement), as it appears in a charter of 864, at which point it is giving land away, suggesting that it had been in existence long enough to amass it; it could, therefore, have had an ecclesiastical function earlier than 864, although the settlement’s origins may well lie in a secular centre (Hardy et al. 2003: 7, 28). Similarly, West Halton may

Settlements at which occupation could not be dated more closely than the early to middle Anglo-Saxon period have been excluded from Table 5.6. Although these sites generally yielded broadly fifth- to ninth-century pottery assemblages, they lacked diagnostic pottery and other finds that would have dated them more accurately. There 113

structures were present. For example, the positioning of SFBs on barrows is not restricted to SFB-only sites, such as Frieston Road and West Cotton; it is also seen at larger settlements with mixed building types, such as New Wintles Farm and Barrow Hills. The same is true of sites where linear features were reused. For instance, a postbuilt structure was located outside the entrance to the Iron Age hillfort at Crow Hill, while similar structures were found inside and outside the enclosure at Knave Hill. At Enderby the only excavated building was a single SFB, but this was also just outside an Iron Age enclosure. Meanwhile at Addenbrooke’s post-built structures were aligned on prehistoric ditches, while at Glebe Farm both SFBs and post-built structures were aligned on preexisting boundaries, and at Harston Mill, an SFB-only site, it appears that the buildings may also have been aligned on Iron Age field boundaries.

have been an ecclesiastical site in the middle AngloSaxon period, although it is not currently known whether the excavated features related to that period of use; initial indications are that there was settlement activity from early on in the Anglo-Saxon period, which would have pre-dated any ecclesiastical phase (Hadley et al. 2011). One form of middle Anglo-Saxon settlement that particularly stands out is the ‘palace’ site, thought to have been identified at both Sutton Courtenay and Hatton Rock. Their distinctive layouts in relation to monuments, and their unusually large timber buildings constructed using foundation trenches, mark them out as different from many other sites in the corpus. These distinctive characteristics are recognised as belonging to ‘palace’ sites elsewhere in the country, most notably at Yeavering (Bradley 1987; Hamerow 2002: 97; Hope-Taylor 1977). Additionally, at Taplow, although the evidence for buildings is more limited than at the ‘palace’ sites, the assemblages of material culture in the hillfort ditches may also indicate a high-status presence, as indeed might the foundation slot construction of the possible Anglo-Saxon building (Allen et al. 2009). Similarly, there is evidence to support high-status activity at Irthlingborough, where King Offa of Mercia is known to have signed a charter and presided over an assembly in the late eighth century (Lewis et al. 1997: 98; Reynolds 2003: 102).

Thus, the findings of this study provide little evidence to support the suggestion that, where monument reuse is concerned, SFB-only sites are different from those with post-built structures; monument reuse took similar forms at both. The discovery of SFB-only sites close to barrows may, in fact, be an accident of preservation, as the postholes of post-built structures at these sites may have been poorly preserved or further away (Marshall and Marshall 1991: 31). At Harrold, it was noted that in the salvage excavation which took place amidst the quarrying of the site, ephemeral postholes were thought to have been destroyed without even being seen by archaeologists, let alone recorded (Eagles and Evison 1970: 17, 46-8). Meanwhile, the SFBs at High Farm in Halton Holegate were heavily truncated when excavated, and any remains of post-built structures may have been completely destroyed (Ramsey 2001: 3). Given the level of truncation, particularly through plough damage, at many sites (noted in Table 5.2) it would not be surprising to find that post-built structures had originally stood on these SFB-only sites. Furthermore, the locations and sizes of trenches may well have influenced the discovery of particular building types. Consider, for instance, the settlement of Eye Kettleby, where a smaller excavation area might have uncovered only the area of the settlement containing SFBs. Meanwhile, the trenches at some SFBonly sites, such as Frieston Road, were relatively small, and it is possible that further buildings lay beyond the limits of excavation. At Village Farm, the two excavated SFBs appear to have been part of a larger settlement which continued to the south-east at Medbury Lane; without the discoveries at Medbury Lane, this site would have been classed as an SFB-only site.

Also of interest is Manor Farm in Harston, where the position of the settlement, the possible nearby cemetery, and the discovery of a gold disc brooch suggested to the excavator the possibility that the site was an early AngloSaxon estate centre (Malim 1993: 38-9). Meanwhile Cassington, like Manor Farm, lacks the distinctive alignments of large halls seen at Hatton Rock and Sutton Courtenay, but cropmark plots of the now-destroyed site hint at the former existence of a large timber hall close to a complex of prehistoric monuments, which included numerous barrows and a large Iron Age enclosure (Benson and Miles 1974a: 85, fig. 3). Although they represent a small proportion of the data set, there does appear to have been a deliberate and structured relationship between the buildings at these high-status settlements and prehistoric monuments. Equally, however, it is just as significant that many more apparently ‘ordinary’ settlements appropriated monuments, some in very similar ways to the higherstatus settlements; possible motivations and reasons for monument reuse at both types of site will be explored further in Chapter 7. It was noted previously that there are potential difficulties associated with designating as ‘settlements’ sites at which SFBs are the only building type, as there is some debate over whether these structures functioned as dwellings (see Chapter 1). It is certainly the case that a number of sites in the corpus are SFB-only sites (including Biddenham Loop, Old Parkbury, Harrold, Frieston Road, Nettleton Top, High Farm and West Cotton), yet this study has yielded little evidence to suggest that monument reuse in SFB-only sites was in any way distinctive when compared with sites where post-built

What the SFB-only sites may do, however, is provide additional evidence to support the assertion that there were very close links between SFBs and ancient monuments, particularly barrows. It has been noted that at Village Farm/Medbury Lane, for example, both SFBs and post-built structures were present, but the SFBs were closest to the two barrows (at least, as far as it is possible to tell from the areas selected for excavation). Perhaps, then, at places such as Frieston Road, Nettleton Top and West Cotton we are not looking at sites which only had 114

variation can be affected by the differential preservation of monuments in particular areas, as well as the quality and quantity of the antiquarian and archaeological investigation that has taken place (Williams 1997: 19). Many settlements in the corpus were discovered unexpectedly, as a result of investigations aimed at uncovering prehistoric remains. Thus, decisions about which prehistoric monuments to excavate will also have contributed to the patterns of monument reuse within the study area.

SFBs; rather, we may be looking at the parts of the settlements that contained SFBs, which were situated closer to monuments than were post-built structures. If so, this adds weight to the argument that there was a particularly close link between SFBs and monuments, and it suggests that the function, or functions, of these particular buildings made them appropriate candidates for situating close to pre-existing earthworks in some settlements. On the whole, and on the basis of current evidence, the argument that SFB-only sites represent a distinctive site type in comparison to ‘proper’ settlements is unconvincing. A greater number of extensive, openarea excavations on well-preserved settlement sites would be needed to confirm that there were Anglo-Saxon sites which only had SFBs (Tipper 2004: 163). Furthermore, there is currently no conclusive proof to validate the suggestion that SFBs did not function as dwellings (the reconstructions at West Stow convincingly demonstrate that these structures need not have been cramped subterranean huts).

Any possible regional patterns in the settlements under study here can, therefore, only be tentatively suggested. The patterns would only be meaningful if a large array of different monument types in the study area had been excavated and certain forms found to be consistently associated with Anglo-Saxon settlements. Without this, it is virtually impossible to draw any firm conclusions about regional patterns in the data, although perhaps as more Anglo-Saxon settlements are uncovered these patterns may become clearer. However, there are some indications that the preference for round barrows across the study area is real. Williams (1997: 6; 1998: 92), Lucy (2000: 124) and Semple (2008: 412) have all noted that round barrows were the most frequently-reused monument type in funerary activity, and that this appears to be a real pattern across much of Anglo-Saxon England. Semple (2008: 413; 2009: 35) has suggested that people may have been making use of what was readily available to them within their landscape, but with clear preferences for certain earthworks within that milieu. This is a feasible suggestion, especially given that there might be many factors to consider in the selection of a site on which to build a settlement, including proximity to resources such as water, land and wood, as well as the local topography (Fowler 1976: 32).

REGIONAL VARIATION The settlements in the corpus demonstrate that monument reuse was, on the whole, fairly widespread and consistent within the study area, with barrows and linear features being appropriated across the region. The most frequently-reused type of monument was the round barrow, in particular the bowl barrow, and this may stem, at least in part, from their ubiquity across England (Ashbee 1960: 24; Williams 1997: 14). There are one or two regional patterns, however. Settlements in Oxfordshire appear to have made use of a greater variety of monuments than other areas; a cursus, two small henges, two oval barrows and two pond barrows were reused in this county, but these types of monument were not appropriated elsewhere. This county also had a high proportion of settlements reusing barrows in comparison to linear features, and there seems to have been a particular trend for intrusively reusing monuments, with SFBs inserted into mounds or ring ditches at sites such as Corporation Farm, New Wintles Farm, Barrow Hills and Sutton Courtenay. All the Lincolnshire settlements in the corpus reused barrows, as did the majority of settlements in Bedfordshire. Meanwhile, Iron Age enclosures, including D-shaped enclosures and hillforts, seem to have been particularly frequently reused in an area running centrally down the study region in the modern counties of Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Buckinghamshire.

It is possible, then, that people made use of monuments that happened to be in areas that were conducive to occupation in other ways. That is not to say, however, that the presence of a particular type of monument might not be one of the factors dictating the location of settlements; the establishment of settlements within preexisting enclosures, or adjacent to barrows, demonstrates that the selection of particular monuments could be deliberate and purposeful. Irrespective of whether particular monuments were actively sought out for occupation or reused more pragmatically due to their proximity to a settlement site that had been selected for other reasons, the people living near, in and on preexisting earthworks must have interpreted them, had beliefs about their origins and functions, and may well have incorporated them into their own identity as a community. It is these reactions towards, and beliefs about, monuments that are of particular importance in this study, and as such they will be explored in greater detail later in the book.

However, there are numerous factors that might have affected the reuse of monuments in these particular areas, and these need to be taken into account. Intense Neolithic and early Bronze Age activity in Oxfordshire resulted in a landscape filled with remains, such as cursuses and henges, which were not necessarily found elsewhere in the study area. Similarly, hillforts are not present across the whole country; there are large areas of eastern England where few, if any, are found (Megaw and Simpson 1979: 365). This might explain why hillforts were reused in centrally-located counties, such as Northamptonshire, but not others. Furthermore, regional

A consistent characteristic of reuse in the study area is the form that appropriation took; similar relationships between buildings and monuments were seen in settlements across central England. For example, SFBs 115

at c.35m above OD, while Grendon lay on the slopes of the valley of the Nene, and Grange Park and Thorpe End both lay on the flanks of streams within small valleys (Buteux 2001: 5; McCormick 1975: 12; Parry 2006: 172, 234; Windell et al. 1990: 5). Corporation Farm in Oxfordshire was on the first gravel floodplain of the Thames at 52m above OD, some 200m south-west of the present course of the Thames, while Eynsham Abbey was also located close to the confluence of the Rivers Evenlode and Thames, and Gatehampton Farm in Goring was located on the north bank of the Thames (Allen 1995: xiii, 2; Harding and Lee 1987: 233; Hardy et al. 2003: 3). Cassington was also on a gravel terrace of the Thames at c.67m above OD, close to the confluence of the Rivers Thames and Evenlode (Atkinson 1947: 5). A number of other sites were also on river terraces, but slightly higher up the valley sides, further away from the rivers and their floodplains. Briar Hill was on a slope on the south side of the Nene Valley, at 75-85m above OD, 650m south of the river, while Old Parkbury in was on a terrace on the north-east side of the River Colne, at 70m above OD, and Willington lay on gently sloping land on a terrace some 600m north of the River Trent (Bamford 1985: 3; Niblett 2001: 157; Wheeler 1979: 58-60). Barrow Hills was on the second gravel terrace of the Thames, 1.5km away from the river at 60m above OD (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 1).

were inserted into barrows at Manor Farm in Cambridgeshire, West Cotton in Northamptonshire, Frieston Road in Lincolnshire, and a number of settlements in Oxfordshire. Meanwhile, buildings lay inside earlier enclosures at Foxholes Farm in Hertfordshire, Eynsham Abbey in Oxfordshire, Thorpe End in Leicestershire, and Pennyland in Buckinghamshire. This consistency is not surprising in light of the similarities in other aspects of settlement across Anglo-Saxon England. It has been noted, for example, that regular building forms and settlement layouts were also geographically dispersed (Hamerow 2002: 51, 94; James et al. 1984; Powlesland 1997: 104, 110; Tipper 2004: 1). The combination of SFBs and postbuilt structures in settlements is seen all over the country, at Mucking (Essex) (Hamerow 1993), West Stow (Suffolk) (West 1985) and West Heslerton (N Yorks) (Powlesland 1997), for instance. Meanwhile, from the sixth century onwards, settlements across the country appear to have developed more structured layouts, with rectilinear arrangements of buildings and the increasing use of boundaries (Reynolds 2003). Many characteristics of Anglo-Saxon settlements were, therefore, shared by sites across England, and it is possible that the appropriation of monuments was one of these characteristics. This may mean that the reasons for monument reuse were also shared across much of the country, perhaps with some regional variations too.

Some settlements occupied more prominent ridges and spurs overlooking rivers; Enderby lay on a ridge at 69m above OD overlooking the confluence of several streams which flowed into the River Soar 1km to the east (Clay 1992: 1). New Wintles Farm was on a gravel ridge west of the River Evenlode c.67m above OD, while Hatton Rock was on the south end of a spur of land overlooking the River Avon, some 500m north-east of the river, at a height of c.52m above OD (Chadwick Hawkes and Gray 1969: 1-2; Gray 1974: 51; Rahtz 1970: 138-9). The hillfort at Taplow was in a similar position, at 65m above OD on a projecting spur of land on the east bank of the River Thames, overlooking the river valley, with the ground dropping steeply to the west and south (Allen et al. 2009: 1). The hillfort at Crow Hill, meanwhile, was on a prominent scarp overlooking the Nene Valley at c.70m above OD (Parry 2006: 141). Wolverton Turn Enclosure was also near the top of a ridge at 78.5m above OD, while Foxholes Farm was on a chalk scarp overlooking a wide river valley at 71m above OD, with the River Lea around half a mile away (Partridge 1989: 3, 5-6; Preston 2007: 84).

TOPOGRAPHY As stated at the beginning of this study, its aim is primarily to elucidate the forms that monument reuse took within settlements, rather than attempting to understand their wider landscape settings. Nonetheless, there may be some advantages to considering the topographical positions of the settlements in the corpus, as this could reveal particular trends in the positions of these occupation sites or distinctive topographic qualities that mark them out from others without reuse. A large number of settlements in the corpus were situated on fairly low-lying land on the terraces of river valleys. For example, Harrold lay some 500m north of the River Great Ouse at c.44m above OD, while Elstow Harrowden and Village Farm/Medbury Lane both lay along the valley bottom of the River Great Ouse (Albion 2005: 5; BCAS 1995a: 5; 1997: fig. 1; Eagles and Evison 1970: 17-9). Biddenham Loop was on flat land at c.30m above OD, within a ‘loop’ formed by the same river (Luke 2008; Luke et al. 2004). Harston Mill lay on flat land, in the shallow valley of the River Cam at 15m above OD, while Manor Farm was also in the Cam Valley (Malim 1993: 13; McDonald 2000: 2). Catholme and Fatholme lay on terraces of the River Trent, just above the floodplain of the river, while Holme Pierrepont was situated on a fairly flat terrace of the Trent on a ‘tongue’ of slightly higher ground surrounded by floodplain, at about 23.5m above OD (Guilbert 2006: 15-16; Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 1; TPAT 1984).

Several settlements in the corpus were located on uplands rather than in valleys, although these were relatively few in number. Church Farm in Bierton was on a ridge at a height of 93.7m above OD (Fenton 1996: 1; Roseff 1996: 2), while Pennyland lay on level land on a gravel spur at 80m above OD, with the ground dropping away at the margins, especially to the east of the site (Williams 1993: 4) and Knave Hill lay on high ground which sloped from 90-100m above OD (Wessex Archaeology 2008: 1). Frieston Road was also on high ground, on the flanks of the Lincoln Edge limestone escarpment, at 57m above

West Cotton was located on a slightly raised gravel platform at the eastern edge of the River Nene floodplain 116

there is little to suggest that the desire to reuse monument enticed communities away from their preferred settlement locations.

OD, and High Farm in Halton Holegate lay at the southern edge of the Lincolnshire Wolds, on the crest of a ridge (Rylatt 2001: 2; Toop and Copp 2005: 24-5). Nettleton Top was on very high land, at one of the highest points in the Lincolnshire Wolds, at 120m above OD, with extensive views over the Trent and Witham Valleys and the Humber (Field and Leahy 1993: 9). Only two sites stand out as being in fairly unusual topographical positions compared to the rest of the corpus, both of which are in Lincolnshire and on low land. The settlement at Hoe Hills was on the western margins of the Lincolnshire fens at c.10m above OD, with a limestone ridge rising to the west of the site (Lane 2000: 99-102). The other site, West Halton, was at the northern end of the Lincoln Edge escarpment, which rose to 70m above OD to the north of the parish, but the settlement itself was on a spur of land at 10m above OD (Hadley et al. 2011).

SETTLEMENTS WITHOUT REUSE: A COMPARISON By comparing the settlements in this study with the regional settlement record more generally, it may be possible to determine whether there were any areas in which monument reuse was particularly popular. For example, Oxfordshire, Northamptonshire and Lincolnshire have the highest numbers of sites displaying reuse, while Warwickshire and Derbyshire have the smallest numbers, with just one each (Table 5.7). However, this too has its problems, as in the absence of a complete settlement record it is extremely difficult to ascertain whether the proportions of settlements with monument reuse are representative of the settlement record as a whole across the study area. Table 5.7 suggests that in counties such as Nottinghamshire and Staffordshire at least 50% of known settlements were associated with older earthworks; however, it also reveals that just three and four settlements respectively have been excavated in these counties. Indeed, the discovery of Anglo-Saxon settlements in counties such as Staffordshire, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire has often been a consequence of the investigation of prehistoric sites; this was the case at Willington (Wheeler 1979) and Fatholme (Losco-Bradley 1984: 402; TPAT 1984), for example. It is no wonder, therefore, that there is a bias towards settlements associated with prehistoric features in these counties. Without a fuller understanding of Anglo-Saxon settlement patterns in these particular counties, it is not possible to attach any great significance to the numbers relating to them in Table 5.7.

The majority of the settlements in the corpus, then, appear to have been located on gravel terraces or floodplains in river valleys, while a small proportion were on uplands, with commanding views over the landscape, or in the case of Hoe Hills and West Halton, on very lowlying land. These positions are fairly typical for contemporary Anglo-Saxon settlements in general; many fifth- to seventh-century settlements were located on the gravel terraces of river valleys (Fowler 1976: 32; Hamerow 2002: 121). The fact that so many sites in the corpus were located in river valleys does raise the possibility that their discovery was biased against other landscape types, given that so many were discovered ahead of, or during, gravel quarrying. Furthermore, aerial photography is most effective at revealing cropmarks on river gravels, which may well have brought more of these sites to archaeological attention compared to other landscapes (Benson and Miles 1974a: 15). On the other hand, it is true that there are characteristics of river gravels which would have made them attractive for settlement in the past, including the proximity of rivers and streams for transport, food and water, the ability to collect clean, filtered water in wells as it rose through the gravels, and the presence of light, easy-to-work soils (Gray 1974: 51; Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 1).

In counties where there is more extensive settlement evidence on the whole, it is possible that the proportions of settlements with monument reuse are more reliable. Oxfordshire, Northamptonshire and Lincolnshire not only have the highest numbers of settlements displaying reuse, they also have some of the largest numbers of excavated settlements overall. These counties have benefited from relatively extensive archaeological investigation, as have others such as Leicestershire and Cambridgeshire. For example, Oxfordshire has been subject to extensive archaeological activity since the nineteenth century, often prompted by the intensive gravel quarrying that has taken place there, although few sites have been systematically excavated and recording has often been poor (Benson and Miles 1974a; Hamerow et al. 2007: 115). Northamptonshire has also benefited in recent decades from widespread fieldwalking activity, which has been undertaken with the purpose of finding evidence for Anglo-Saxon settlement, and the same is true of Leicestershire (Brown and Foard 1998: 68; Lewis et al. 1997: 92; Shaw 1994).

The bias towards this landscape type may well reflect real preferences amongst Anglo-Saxon communities. Either way, the potential bias towards river valleys, if caused by quarrying activity and aerial photography, is likely to have affected the settlement record as a whole, rather than just settlements with reuse, and it cannot be solved without greater investigation of other landscape types. Nonetheless, it is worth highlighting here as it just possible that investigation of these other areas of the landscape might reveal further, different, examples of monument reuse. At the moment, however, there is little to suggest that the topographic settings of the settlements in the corpus were in any way distinct from those of other contemporary Anglo-Saxon settlements. This lends support to the proposal made earlier in this chapter that prehistoric monuments were one factor among many that influenced the positioning of Anglo-Saxon settlements;

If we exclude from Table 5.7 the counties with fewer than sixteen excavated settlements in total, we see that for those counties that remain (Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, Leicestershire, 117

central England. This primarily involves comparison with the reuse of older earthworks for burial, for which there is a great deal of archaeological evidence, but it will also consider monument appropriation by churches and shrine sites.

Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire and Oxfordshire) there is a tendency for the proportion of settlements with monument reuse to range between 17% and 25% (the exception being Cambridgeshire at 6%). It is possible that this might roughly reflect the overall proportion of Anglo-Saxon settlements that reused monuments, although it must of course be borne in mind that patterns may have differed according to region and at any given time. However, it may be significant that this correlates with Williams’s (1997: 4; 1998: 92) findings, which revealed that around a quarter of cemeteries in AngloSaxon England reused prehistoric monuments. It is interesting that Cambridgeshire, with its sizeable settlement record, has only three examples of settlements associated with monuments; it has been noted during the course of this research that this particular county appears to have had a relatively large number of settlements associated with Roman sites, and it may be the case that the trend for monument reuse in this area was focused more on Roman remains than prehistoric ones, although to substantiate such a claim would require further research.

Funerary Sites In total, 150 examples of funerary reuse have been identified in the study area (Table 5.8 and Fig. 5.1). There are particularly high numbers in Derbyshire, as a result of the large number of preserved prehistoric barrows in the uplands of the county, and the archaeological attention that they have attracted, particularly from antiquarian barrow-diggers (Marsden 1999: 49; Williams 1997: 19). The overwhelming majority of burial reuse sites in the study area appropriated barrows, primarily round barrows (Fig. 5.2). These were reused at 57% of sites, with a further 4% of sites reusing long barrows, and 27% reusing unknown or unspecified barrow types. Linear features had been reused for burial at just 11% of sites. Williams (1997: 17) obtained similar results in his study of funerary monument reuse across England, in which he found that 61% of burial sites reused round barrows, 8% reused long barrows and 13% reused henges, hillforts and other linear earthworks. Again, however, it is possible that the bias towards round barrows is influenced by the fact that they were so often the targets of antiquarian investigations, although it could also be attributable to the frequency with which these monuments are found across much of England (Lucy 2000: 126-7; Williams 1997: 14). The situation in burial contexts, then, is similar to that in settlements, in that barrows were the most frequently reused form of monument. However, within the study area, a much greater number of settlement sites made use of older linear features, while the proportion of linear features reused at burial sites was fairly small.

A crucial point to note here is that the majority of comparative settlements without monument reuse are unlikely to have been investigated with the possibility of monument reuse in mind, given that this subject has been so under-studied in the past. A large number of the settlements without reuse listed in Appendix B were excavated on a small scale; in many cases just one or two SFBs have been uncovered. As such, the investigations have not been sufficiently extensive to confirm whether there were prehistoric monuments nearby or not. Thus, the proportion of settlements that appropriated earlier monuments may have been larger than the numbers in Table 5.7 initially suggest. Moreover, the possible existence of further early to middle Anglo-Saxon settlements with monument reuse in the study area is attested to by a number of sites that did not meet the criteria for inclusion in the corpus, but which reveal evidence for associations between Anglo-Saxon occupation and ancient earthworks, such as cropmark sites, or Anglo-Saxon pottery scatters covering prehistoric earthworks (see Chapter 8 and Appendix D for further discussion of these sites). For example, at Clanfield (Oxon) cropmarks thought to represent SFBs have been noted in close proximity to the cropmarks of ring ditches (Benson and Miles 1974a: 34). Although these sites require more detailed investigation before it can be claimed that they represent settlements which reused earlier monuments, they point to the likelihood that there are likely to have been many more settlement sites with monument reuse than the corpus initially suggests.

As is the case with settlements, there are difficulties associated with searching for regional patterns in the data, since regional variation is dependent on the preservation of monuments, as well as the quality and quantity of antiquarian and archaeological research in particular areas (Williams 1997: 19). There were, however, some variations in the monuments used in particular counties, and this may be significant. In every county round barrows were the most frequently-reused monument type, closely followed by barrows of unknown or unspecified type, a number of which may also have been round barrows, which would increase the proportion of reused round barrows.2 Hillforts were reused for burials in Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire and Warwickshire; it is interesting that Leicestershire and Northamptonshire are areas in which the reuse of enclosures for settlement was particularly common. It seems likely that the inhabitants

REUSE IN OTHER CONTEXTS: A COMPARISON In order to gain a clearer holistic insight into how monument reuse in settlements compared with the practice as a whole, the settlement data will now be analysed alongside the evidence for appropriation in other early to middle Anglo-Saxon archaeological contexts in

2 See Appendix C. Many of the unknown or unspecified barrows were described as ‘mounds’ or ‘Bronze Age barrows’, suggesting that they may have been round barrows, although this was not explicitly stated in the descriptions of them.

118

of these areas were influenced by the prehistoric remains that were particularly visible in the landscape around them, leading them to affix special meanings to these types of monument. As was the case for the settlement record, Oxfordshire had a particularly varied range of reused monuments, which may, as suggested above, have stemmed from the wide variety of prehistoric remains in this area. Many of the problems associated with studying regional variation in the settlement record discussed above, such as the lack of excavation of a large array of different monument types, also affect our understanding of monument reuse in the burial record. However, it does seem to have been the case that round barrows were particularly popular and that, on the whole, the range of reused monuments in each county of the study area was fairly uniform. This is supported by Williams’s findings, which showed that monument reuse in burial was, indeed, equally popular and similar in form across much of Anglo-Saxon England (Williams 1997: 19; 1998: 95).

In sum, then, monuments appear to have been reused in fairly similar ways in burial and settlement contexts in central England during the fifth to ninth centuries. Round barrows were the most frequently-reused monument type in both contexts, although there is some evidence to suggest that they were more frequently reused in burial at the expense of prehistoric linear features, the latter occurring more frequently on settlement sites. Similarly, there are no obvious differences in the sizes of the barrows reused in settlement and burial contexts. However, there are problems associated with determining trends in the data, not least the difficulty of assessing whether excavated sites are representative of the original extent of Anglo-Saxon activity. A further problem is created by the methods used to excavate many of the monuments associated with AngloSaxon burials. Of all the funerary reuse sites identified in the study area (150 sites in total), only twenty-seven (18%) of these are ‘definite’ examples of reuse (i.e. sites where modern, rigorous archaeological excavations have confirmed that there was secondary reuse of prehistoric monuments). These include the burials inserted into earthworks in the Barrow Hills prehistoric barrow cemetery in Oxfordshire, which have been excavated at various times between 1944 and 1985 (Chambers and McAdams 2007) and the recently-excavated burial inserted into the Bronze Age barrow at West Halton (Hadley et al. 2011). Similarly, a barrow variously known as Boslow, Boar Low, Bowers Low and Rose Low near Tissington (Derbys) was excavated in the mid 1960s and found to contain seventh- to eighth-century inhumations as well as Bronze Age primary burials (Meaney 1964: 73), while the sixth- to seventh-century cemetery at Edix Hill, Barrington (Cambs) was shown to have been associated with a Bronze Age barrow when it was excavated in 1989-1991 (Malim and Hines 1998). A small number of the 123 ‘questionable’ examples (i.e. sites at which secondary reuse is suspected but not proven) have been excavated to a high standard in recent times, but they are classed as ‘questionable’ because the nature of the evidence did not allow secondary reuse to be confirmed beyond doubt. For example, at Holme Pierrepont (Notts) early Anglo-Saxon graves were excavated in 2002, and were found to be situated close to and within ring ditches, but the dates of these monuments were unknown (Guilbert 2006).

A particular aspect of monument reuse that can be compared between settlement and burial sites is the popularity of intrusive and associative forms of reuse. Fig. 5.3 shows that the majority of funerary reuse sites reused monuments intrusively, with graves inserted into ancient earthworks. This is in contrast to the settlement evidence, which appears to show that intrusive reuse was rarer than associative reuse. However, as noted above, the choice of excavation area can create the impression that there was a gap between a building and a monument when, in fact, there may have been further buildings in the unexcavated area between them. The opposite problem exists in the burial record; the impression that intrusive reuse was more frequent in burial contexts may have been created by archaeological investigations that have focused on monuments themselves, and not the areas around them. For example, Thomas Bateman, the prominent nineteenth-century Derbyshire barrow-digger, regularly dug through the centre of the mound to reach the central ‘chieftain’ burial, and rarely investigated the rest of a barrow or the area around it (Barnatt and Smith 2004: 34). This restricted form of excavation has, therefore, created a bias towards isolated burials within mounds (Semple 2003b: 73; Williams 1997: 19). Another comparison that can be made is between the sizes of monuments reused in burial and settlement contexts (Fig. 5.4). As the majority of burial and settlement sites with monument reuse appropriated round barrows, a comparison of the sizes of barrows from the different sites was undertaken. Where available, the diameters of the ring ditches around barrows were compared.3 There is some indication from the data that burials reused monuments with a greater range of sizes than settlement sites, as well as more monuments at the lower end of the size scale. There is no evidence to suggest, therefore, that particular sizes of monument were reserved for burial or for settlement.

The vast majority of the ‘questionable’ sites were discovered in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries during activities such as road building or through investigations by barrow diggers. There is a danger that these early investigators did not adequately distinguish between primary and secondary burials, or Anglo-Saxon and prehistoric mounds (Williams 1997: 4). Furthermore, the modus operandi of many of the early barrow-diggers is unlikely to have revealed burials surrounding monuments. On a similar note, they would also have missed any related settlement features that might have been nearby. What this may reveal, however, is that burial reuse was not as widespread as Table 5.8 initially suggests, in which case its popularity could feasibly have

3

These sizes derive from a variety of sources and may refer to diameters of ring ditches seen as cropmarks, or to the diameter of a barrow when it was excavated; thus they are approximate.

119

enclosures than in both the burial and settlement record, with Iron Age hillforts proving particularly popular. This is a trend observed by John Blair (1992: 234; 2005: 190), which he interpreted as an attempt by the Christian authorities to enclose church sites and reclaim the past with reference to the practices of the pre-Christian elite (see Chapter 2). The different types of reused monuments are distributed fairly evenly throughout the study area. However, it is interesting that so many churches associated with ancient earthworks have been noted in Buckinghamshire, although whether this is a real pattern in the archaeological record or the result of investigative activities it is difficult to tell.

been on a par with monument reuse in settlements. The disparity between the numbers of settlements with monument reuse (forty-two) and cemeteries (150) with reuse may not be as substantial as it initially appears. So, while so many studies have focused on funerary reuse as a noteworthy and remarkable phenomenon in AngloSaxon England, the evidence from this comparison suggests that reuse in settlement contexts had the potential to be as popular and as important as it was in burial. Ecclesiastical Sites Making use of data from Sarah Semple’s (2003a: 497520) survey of monument reuse in a variety of contexts, it was also possible to compare the settlement data with evidence for monument reuse at early ecclesiastical sites. Within Semple’s corpus there were seventeen examples of churches associated with ancient earthworks that lay within the study area, and it has also been possible to add three more to this list (Table 5.9 and Fig. 5.5). Hardy et al. (2003: 7) noted that the middle Anglo-Saxon minster at Abingdon (Oxon) reused an Iron Age valley fort, while Hooke (1998: 15) has stated that the church and part of the village at Great Wolford (Warwicks), which was mentioned in Domesday Book, were situated within a hillfort. Meanwhile, a church at Elstow Abbey (Beds) may have been located next to a prehistoric barrow. A Benedictine nunnery was established at Elstow around the 1080s and although no traces of an earlier church were found (it may have been underneath the medieval church), a fragment of eighth-century cross shaft had been built into a sixteenth-century wall (Wilson and Hurst 1968: 164; 1969: 230). Over 260 late Anglo-Saxon burials were also discovered, suggesting that there may have been an ecclesiastical focus here prior to the foundation of the nunnery (Wilson and Hurst 1969: 230; 1970: 166). Towards the east end of the medieval abbey church were fifth- and sixth-century finds, including a domestic cooking pot containing a cremation, and decorated sherds of pottery, indicating that the site had been used for burial earlier in the Anglo-Saxon period (Wilson and Hurst 1969: 230). There was also a ring ditch, c.40m in diameter, passing under the modern churchyard, which may have been of Bronze Age date although no evidence was uncovered to confirm this. It is possible, therefore, that an early church was established at Elstow on the site of an earlier cemetery, which may have been associated with a prehistoric barrow.

Shrine Sites and Weapon Deposits In addition to burial and ecclesiastical sites, there are also two other categories of archaeological site that appear to show associations with pre-existing monuments, although in both cases the numbers of sites involved are small (Fig. 5.5). There are five possible shrine sites associated with prehistoric monuments in the study area. Blair (1995: 13-4) suggested that a square ditched enclosure around a Neolithic oval henge at Dorchester-on-Thames (Oxon) was, in fact, of Anglo-Saxon date due to a number of factors, discussed in Chapter 2. The ditch had been dated to the Neolithic period on the basis of just a few sherds of pottery, but Blair suggested that these were residual, while the form of the square enclosure was unlike other Neolithic monuments. Morphologically, it could have been Iron Age or Roman, but there was no pottery to support use in either of these periods, which would be unusual for an Iron Age or Roman site. Furthermore, the feature was situated in an area rich in Anglo-Saxon activity, and just 120m north of the enclosed henge was a round barrow that had formed the focus of nine Anglo-Saxon burials. In addition to this example, Semple (2003a: 212) identified several more; Long Hanborough (Oxon), Littleworth (Bucks) and Bampton (Oxon). The square-ditched enclosure at West Halton also resembled one of these shrines (Hadley et al. 2011). Although the enclosure did not surround a barrow, it was situated just two to three metres north of the ring ditch of a large Bronze Age barrow. Meanwhile, Semple (2003a: 215) identified four sites in central England at which weapons are believed to have been deposited in monuments independently of human burials. In the Devil’s Ditch (Cambs) two iron axes, a spur, a stirrup and an axe-head dating from the fifth to seventh centuries were found by workmen levelling the Dyke in the 1920s, and there was no mention of any associated bones (Semple 2003a: 487). At Chinnor (Oxon) workmen discovered two spearheads, a javelin head and a scabbard chape in a barrow around the year 1899, although the site may have been on acidic soil and the items could have represented a burial (Semple 2003a: 491). Elsewhere in Oxfordshire, at Lyneham, a shield boss, and a seventh- to eighth-century seax were discovered at the north-east end of a long barrow. They were not associated with human remains, although there was secondary burial activity in the vicinity, which

It should be noted, however, that Semple (2003a) has warned against relying too heavily on her list of churches associated with monuments, since archaeological investigation at many of these sites has been infrequent, and at a number of the sites the mounds next to churches have not been confirmed archaeologically as barrows. The same applies to instances of reuse not noted by Semple; monument reuse at these sites has rarely been confirmed archaeologically. Nevertheless, there are some interesting trends within the data. At twelve sites possible barrows had been reused, while at nine enclosures had been reused. It appears that there was greater use of 120

A further point to make in relation to the appearance of monuments in the Anglo-Saxon period concerns their visibility. As previously discussed, determining the visibility of earthworks in the Anglo-Saxon period is often challenging, except in the most straightforward of cases, such as those sites where monuments are still visible at the time of excavation. Reviewing the evidence from the corpus has revealed, however, that agricultural activities since the medieval period have had a major impact on the majority of sites in the corpus. In addition, activities such as road building and quarrying have also impacted on the visibility of many monuments, often destroying them altogether. There is considerable evidence, therefore, to suggest that much of the destruction of these monuments has taken place in the medieval, post-medieval and modern periods. As such, the present-day landscape is very different from the landscape viewed by people in the Anglo-Saxon period, which was filled with many more substantial earthworks than are visible today.

demonstrated that bone did survive in the mound (Semple 2003a: 492). Finally, at Wredon Hill in Ramshorn (Staffs) an iron spearhead and knife were found in a barrow, apparently unaccompanied by human remains, although, as at Lyneham, other burials elsewhere in the mound demonstrated that bone did survive in it (Semple 2003a: 492). Both types of site are, however, extremely limited in number, and few firm conclusions can be drawn from them. They do, nonetheless, demonstrate that monuments could be reused in a variety of different ways. In particular they reveal that barrows were, again, popular foci for secondary Anglo-Saxon activity, since nearly all the known shrine sites and weapon deposits were associated with barrows. The evidence for preChristian shrine sites is also particularly interesting, demonstrating as it does that earlier earthworks were important as religious centres prior to the conversion to Christianity. SUMMARY

In light of this review, it is also possible to draw some conclusions about the forms that monument appropriation took. Reuse could be associative or intrusive; at the former earthworks were modified or changed in some way, while at the latter there was no physical modification but settlement features were situated close to the earthworks. A particularly interesting form of intrusive reuse is the insertion of SFBs into the tops of mounds or their ring ditches; given the widespread erosion of monuments through ploughing discussed above, we might even speculate that many more of these structures originally existed on top of earthworks. Associative reuse could be looser, with buildings clustering around a monument or near it, but without any obvious direct spatial references to it. At other times associative reuse was more structured, for instance when buildings were aligned on prehistoric field boundaries, within enclosures, or by the entrances to enclosures.

What has this analysis of the sites in the corpus revealed about monument reuse in settlements? Firstly, it has shown that forty-two settlement sites in the study area have evidence for monument reuse to some extent. It has also suggested that there are potentially more settlements which may have reused monuments. This is hinted at by the identification of cropmarks of SFBs or the presence of pottery scatters close to monuments. It is also significant that many of the settlements which apparently lack monument reuse have not been investigated in enough detail to confirm or deny the presence of monuments nearby. It seems likely that the forty-two settlements discussed here do not, therefore, represent all cases of monument reuse in settlements within the study area; they are simply the settlements about which we know the most because they have been excavated. The analysis has demonstrated that, as in burial contexts, round barrows were particularly frequently reused in settlements. In contrast to burial sites, a relatively large number of settlements in the corpus reused linear features, especially enclosures and field systems. Together with round barrows, enclosures accounted for the majority of the appropriated monuments in the corpus, but other reused earthworks included long barrows, pond barrows, cursuses and henges. Some of the settlements reused just one monument, while others were situated within monument complexes and made use of a number of earthworks. A particularly important point to remember is that these monuments may well have had a variety of different above-ground appearances in the Anglo-Saxon period. This is exemplified in the case of round barrows; while these monuments are generally represented in the ground by a ring ditch, the aboveground form of the monument could vary. In some cases they had central mounds, while in others they had banks, or banks and mounds. It is particularly important, therefore, when studying monument reuse, to bear in mind the different forms that monuments may have had, as this may have influenced how they were reused.

Monument reuse in settlements appears to have been particularly frequent in the early Anglo-Saxon period, between the fifth and seventh centuries, although it did take place on some settlements into the eighth and ninth centuries. It also took place on a cross-section of settlements; in the corpus there are ecclesiastical sites, such as Eynsham Abbey and perhaps West Halton, as well as high-status sites, such as Hatton Rock and Sutton Courtenay, in addition to a large number of apparently ‘ordinary’ settlements. Ascertaining whether there are regional differences across the study area is made difficult by the fact that excavated settlements are not necessarily representative of the settlement record as a whole. For example, it was noted earlier that a large number of sites in the corpus, and Anglo-Saxon settlements more generally, are situated on gravel terraces in river valleys, but this could reflect patterns in excavation areas rather than real settlement distributions. There are some regional patterns in the data, such as the use of varied monuments in Oxfordshire, but it is likely that this reflects the reuse of the range of monuments available in this county of rich prehistoric remains. 121

Overall, it is not currently possible to draw out any obvious regional or topographic characteristics from the corpus that would distinguish the settlements in the corpus from each other, or from other settlements without reuse (at least at the present time). A number of the patterns and trends noted here, such as the potential differences in attitudes towards barrows and linear features, and the intrusive reuse of barrows by SFBs, will be explored in further detail in Chapter 7, but before that the following chapter will now consider how an in-depth approach to a number of case study sites might enhance our understanding of reuse.

122

Table 5.1 Monument types reused at settlements in the corpus. General Category

Barrows

Linear Features

Monument Type

Number of Sites With Monument

Long barrow

2

Oval barrow

2

Disc barrow

4

Bowl barrow

10

Bell barrow

1

Pond barrow

1

Round barrow (exact form unknown) Barrow (type unknown)

14

Enclosure/field system

18

Droveway

3

Hillfort

2

Boundary ditch

1

Cursus

1

Henge

2

5

Table 5.2 Effects of medieval to modern plough damage at sites in the corpus, where mentioned in excavation reports (continued overleaf). Site Biddenham Loop Pennyland Willington

County Beds

Plough Damage The site had been truncated by ploughing

Bucks Derbys

Old Parkbury Cossington Quarry Enderby

Herts Leics

Plough damage across the site Ploughing had spread barrow material; medieval plough furrows across site Modern ploughing had truncated many features Barrow had been badly plough damaged

Eye Kettleby

Leics

Knave Hill

Leics

Frieston Road

Lincs

High Farm Hoe Hills

Lincs Lincs

Leics

The site had suffered considerable plough damage; post-medieval ploughing may have pushed a bank into the ditch Medieval ridge and furrow across the site; deep ploughing in recent decades Archaeological features had been truncated by ploughing Medieval or post-medieval plough furrows were observed in the trench Significant truncation of features Barrows levelled and ploughed from the 1940s onwards 123

Source Luke and Barker 2010: 77 Williams 1993: 19 Wheeler 1979: 73, 116 Niblett 2001: 163 Thomas 2007b: 56 Clay 1992: 6, 32

Finn 1997a; Finn 1997b: 91 Wessex Archaeology 2008: 6, 14 Copp and Toop 2006: 91 Ramsay 2001: 3 Lane 2000: 99

Nettleton Top

Lincs

Salmonby

Lincs

Briar Hill

Northants

Crow Hill

Northants

Grange Park

Northants

West Cotton

Northants

Glebe Farm Holme Pierrepont Barrow Hills

Notts Notts

New Farm

Oxon

Wintles

Sutton Courtenay Catholme

Oxon

Oxon Staffs

Plough marks; ploughing had truncated two SFBs; plough damage to two Bronze Age vessels, which were possibly under ploughed away mound SFBs were revealed by modern ploughing; round barrow much reduced by ploughing Ploughing across the site had probably levelled Neolithic banks Hillfort had been much reduced by ploughing when discovered

Field and Leahy 1993: 14

Medieval plough furrows across the site; postmedieval and modern ploughing had caused damage too Mound eroded by medieval ridge and furrow ploughing High degree of erosion caused by ploughing Modern ploughing

Buteux 2001: 38-9

Traces of ridge and furrow (presumed to be medieval); recent heavy cultivation had left share marks The site has suffered due to medieval, post-medieval and modern ploughing; furrows overlay much of the site The field investigated by Hamerow et al. had been severely truncated by deep ploughing in recent years Medieval and post-medieval plough furrows over most of the site

Chambers and McAdam 2007: 9 Gray 1973: 18; Gray 1974: 53

Petch 1960: 20; HER record Bamford 1985: 37 Parry 2006: 139

Windell et al. 1990: 11 Jones forthcoming Guilbert 2006: 36

Hamerow et al. 2007: 113 Losco-Bradley and Wheeler 2002: 12

Table 5.3 Intrusive reuse of monuments in the corpus. Site

County

Form of Intrusive Reuse

Pennyland

Bucks

SFB dug into ditch

Taplow

Bucks

Possible modification of hillfort

Manor Farm

Cambs

Two phases of SFB dug into barrow

Eye Kettleby

Leics

Post-built structures abutting possible barrow

Frieston Road

Lincs

SFB dug across ring ditch

Briar Hill

Northants

Crow Hill

Northants

SFB dug into bank SFB abutting bank Modification of hillfort

West Cotton

Northants

SFB dug into long barrow

Glebe Farm

Notts

SFB dug into ditch

Barrow Hills

Oxon

Corporation Farm

Oxon

SFB dug into oval barrow SFB on berm of barrow Four SFBs abutting barrows SFB abutting barrow

Gatehampton Farm

Oxon

Possible SFB on barrow

New Wintles Farm

Oxon

Two SFBs dug into barrows

Sutton Courtenay

Oxon

Three SFBs abutting barrows

Catholme

Staffs

Modification of prehistoric boundary

124

Table 5.4 Associative reuse, with more ‘structured’ examples in bold (continued overleaf). Site

County

Form of Associative Reuse

Biddenham Loop

Beds

Elstow Harrowden

Beds

Harrold

Beds

Village Farm/Medbury Lane Church Farm

Beds

Pennyland

Bucks

Taplow

Bucks

SFBs and post-built structures amongst Iron Age enclosures SFB in entrance to Iron Age enclosure Post-built structure in entrance to hillfort

Wolverton Turn Enclosure Addenbrooke’s

Bucks

Barrow enclosed and ‘annexed’ by settlement

Cambs

Post-built structures aligned on Iron Age ditches

Harston Mill

Cambs

At least one SFB amongst Iron Age enclosures

Willington

Derbys

Post-built structure 60m from a barrow

Foxholes Farm

Herts

SFBs and post-built structures within an Iron Age enclosure

Old Parkbury

Herts

SFBs 5-30m away from a possible barrow

Cossington Quarry

Leics

SFB 60m away from a barrow

Enderby

Leics

SFB 20m outside an Iron Age enclosure

Eye Kettleby

Leics

Knave Hill

Leics

Frieston Road

Lincs

SFBs and post-built structures in and around Bronze Age enclosures One building in an entrance to an enclosure SFBs and post-built structures c.5-250m from a possible barrow Post-built structures inside and outside an Iron Age enclosure One building in a possible entrance to enclosure SFB dug across ring ditch

Hoe Hills

Lincs

Post-built structures c.100m away from a barrow

High Farm

Lincs

At least one SFB c.50m away from a barrow

Nettleton Top

Lincs

SFBs 20-50m away from a possible barrow

Salmonby

Lincs

SFBs c.100m away from barrows

West Halton

Lincs

Post-built structures and an SFB 5-60m away from barrows

Briar Hill

Northants

SFBs 10-34m away from causewayed enclosure banks

Crow Hill

Northants

Post-built structure outside entrance to hillfort

Grange Park

Northants

SFB c.15m away from an earlier droveway

Bucks

SFBs c.20m from a barrow SFBs within Bronze Age fields Post-built structures 20-100m away from a barrow Structures situated amongst Iron Age enclosures SFBs 50-100m away from barrows within a monument complex SFBs 12-22m away from two barrows Further settlement features 200m to the south-east SFBs 13-40m away from two barrows

125

Grendon

Northants

SFBs in close proximity to barrow

Thorpe End

Northants

Post-built structure inside an Iron Age enclosure

West Cotton

Northants

Glebe Farm

Notts

SFBs c.30-60m away from barrows and enclosures within a monument complex SFBs and post-built structures aligned on ditches

Holme Pierrepont

Notts

Barrow Hills

Oxon

Cassington

Oxon

Corporation Farm

Oxon

SFB 20m from a possible barrow and close to other cropmarks in complex Numerous SFBs and post-built structures within a monument complex, c.1-75m away from barrows. SFBs within a monument complex, c.20-250m away from barrows and Iron Age enclosure SFBs c.30-60m away from barrows and a henge

Eynsham Abbey

Oxon

SFBs and post-built structures within a Bronze Age enclosure

Gatehampton Farm

Oxon

New Wintles Farm

Oxon

Sutton Courtenay

Oxon

Catholme

Staffs

SFB within monument complex, 12m from nearest barrow and up to c.200m from others SFBs and post-built structures within a monument complex, c.20-150m away from barrows Row of buildings aligned on a barrow Numerous SFBs and two post-built structures within a monument complex, c.5-200m away from barrows and a cursus Barrows enclosed and ‘annexed’ by settlement

Fatholme

Staffs

Post-built structure c.10m from a circular enclosure

Hatton Rock

Warwicks

Row of buildings aligned on a barrow

Table 5.5 Settlements with examples of funerary monument reuse.

Site Taplow

County Bucks

Cossington Quarry

Leics

West Halton

Lincs

Barrow Hills

Oxon

Catholme

Staffs

Funerary Monument Reuse Adult male burial in hillfort Adult burial in Taplow burial mound Numerous secondary burials in a barrow (indicated by clusters of grave goods) Fragmentary human bones in a barrow Adult female burial in the bank of a pond barrow Burial adjacent to entrance in a prehistoric boundary

126

Date of Burial AD 590-680 (95% confidence) th C6th-7 th C6th-7

AD 600-670 (95% confidence) C7th C7th to C9th

Table 5.6 Dates of settlements in the corpus; those established in the fifth century are shaded light grey, those established in the sixth century medium grey and those in the seventh century dark grey (sites with unknown or very uncertain dating are excluded). Site

County

Dates Occupied

Dating Source

Corporation Farm

Oxon

C5th to C6th

Pottery

West Cotton

Northants

C5th to C6th

C14 date

Manor Farm, Harston

Cambs

C5th to C6th

Pottery

Biddenham Loop

Beds

C5th to C7th

Pottery

Barrow Hills

Oxon

C5th to C7th

Pottery

Hoe Hills

Lincs

C5th to C7th

Pottery

West Halton

Lincs

C5th to C7th

Pottery

Glebe Farm

Notts

Late C5th to C7th

C14 dates/pottery

Wolverton Turn

Bucks

C5th to C9th

Pennyland

Bucks

Early C6th to C7th/8

Willington

Derbys

C6th

Nettleton Top

Lincs

C6th

C14 dates/pottery th

Pottery/other finds Pottery Pottery/other finds

th

Frieston Road

Lincs

C6th to 7

Pottery

New Wintles Farm

Oxon

C6th to early C8th

Pottery/other finds

Foxholes Farm

Herts

C6th to C8th

Pottery

Old Parkbury

Herts

C6th to C8th

Pottery

Eye Kettleby

Leics

C6th to C7th

C14 dates/pottery

Eynsham Abbey

Oxon

C6th to C9th

Pottery/coins/ other finds

Taplow

Bucks

C6/7th to 9

th

C14 dates/ pottery/other

Catholme

Staffs

C7th to C9th

C14 dates

Table 5.7 Numbers of excavated early to middle Anglo-Saxon settlements in the study area, including those with and without evidence for monument reuse. County

Bedfordshire Buckinghamshire Cambridgeshire Derbyshire Hertfordshire Leicestershire Lincolnshire Northamptonshire Nottinghamshire Oxfordshire Staffordshire Warwickshire Total

Settlements Without Reuse

Settlements With Reuse

Total No. of Settlements

16 12 48 1 5 19 21 18 1 24 2 6 173

4 4 3 1 2 4 6 6 2 7 2 1 42

20 16 51 2 7 23 27 24 3 31 4 7 215

127

Percentage of Settlements with Reuse 20% 25% 6% 50% 29% 17% 22% 25% 66% 23% 50% 14% 20%

.

Round barrow

5

5

5

32

2

2

9

3

2

11

8

2

86

County

Bedfordshire

Buckinghamshire

Cambridgeshire

Derbyshire

Hertfordshire

Leicestershire

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Nottinghamshire

Oxfordshire

Staffordshire

Warwickshire

Total

7

2

2

1

1

1

Long barrow

43

2

4

4

1

3

4

2

14

5

1

3

Unknown or unspecified barrow type

Table 5.8 Numbers of burial sites with monument reuse in the study area.

7

1

3

2

1

128

Hillfort

6

1

1

1

2

1

Other enclosure

3

3 (1 cursus and 2 pond barrows)

Other monument

150

5

12

22

3

10

14

5

3

48

13

6

9

Total no. of burial sites with reuse

Table 5.9 Anglo-Saxon ecclesiastical sites associated with prehistoric monuments in the study area.

Site

County

Monument

Relationship

Source

Elstow Abbey

Beds

Barrow

Next to mound

Edlesborough

Bucks

On mound

Stone

Bucks

Undated stepped mound/earthwork Artificial mound/barrow

Wilson and Hurst 1968; 1969; 1970 Semple 2003a

On mound

Semple 2003a

Taplow

Bucks

Next to mound

Semple 2003a

Aylesbury

Bucks

Barrow. Also within IA hillfort IA hillfort

Semple 2003a

Cholesbury

Bucks

Adjacent to/within enclosure Adjacent to/within enclosure

Great Kimble

Bucks

Semple 2003a

West Wycombe

Bucks

Nearly circular earthwork

Breedon-on-theHill

Leics

IA hillfort

Edenham

Lincs

Crowland

Lincs

Platform, bounded by earthworks Barrow

Adjacent to/within enclosure Adjacent to/within enclosure Adjacent to/within enclosure On mound Next to mound

Semple 2003a

Winwick

Northants

Large circular mound

On mound

Semple 2003a

Abingdon

Oxon

IA valley fort

Within enclosure

Hardy et al. 2003

Bampton

Oxon

Barrows

On mound

Semple 2003a

Eynsham

Oxon

BA enclosure

Semple 2003a; Hardy et al. 2003

Croxall

Staffs

Barrow

Adjacent to/within enclosure Next to mound

Wednesbury

Staffs

IA hillfort

Semple 2003a

Brinklow

Warwicks

Barrow

Adjacent to/within enclosure Next to mound

Great Wolford

Warwicks

IA hillfort

Within enclosure

Hooke 1998

Stoneleigh

Warwicks

Mound

Next to mound

Semple 2003a

Prehistoric sub-circular earthwork enclosing c.10 acres; partly double-ditched Entrenchments and mound to N of church

129

Semple 2003a

Semple 2003a

Semple 2003a

Semple 2003a

Semple 2003a

Semple 2003a

130

Fig. 5.1 Sites with funerary monument reuse in the study area, with settlement sites in the corpus shown for comparison.

Fig. 5.2 Proportions of monument types reused in burial and settlement contexts in the study area. A higher proportion of settlement sites than burial sites reuse linear features, and in both cases round barrows were the most frequently reused monument type.

131

Fig. 5. 3 Numbers of burial sites exhibiting associative and intrusive forms of monument reuse in the study area.

Fig. 5.4 Diameters of round barrows reused in burial and settlement contexts in the study area.

132

133

Fig. 5.5 Prehistoric monuments reused as the locations of churches, pagan shrines and weapon deposits in the study area.

CHAPTER SIX INSIDE THE SETTLEMENTS: CASE STUDIES interesting relationships earthworks.

Four settlements from the corpus have been analysed indepth as case study sites: Barrow Hills, Sutton Courtenay, Catholme and Eye Kettleby (Fig. 6.1). These have been selected because they are some of the most extensivelyexcavated and well-recorded settlements in the corpus. Furthermore, all four have particularly large numbers of excavated buildings in comparison to other settlements in the corpus, with at least forty-five buildings each. As such, detailed spatial analysis of the relationships between the structures and monuments in each settlement can be undertaken. The aim of this analysis is to determine whether there were more subtle spatial, structural and chronological relationships between buildings and prehistoric monuments than the more general overview of settlements in the previous chapter was able to reveal. Each settlement will be discussed separately, taking into account a number of different categories of archaeological evidence. Barrow Hills will be considered first, followed by Sutton Courtenay, Catholme, and finally Eye Kettleby. The discussion of each case study will commence with a description of the settlement, its discovery and the prehistoric features within it. Specific aspects of the settlements will then be considered, in order to determine whether they can reveal information about the relationships between the settlements and the earlier monuments that they incorporate. This discussion will include, for example, analysis of the sizes of buildings in relation to monuments, and investigation of the impact that monuments may have had on movement around each settlement. It is hoped that the close examination of these different aspects of the settlements will enhance our understanding of how people reused monuments in settlements during the fifth to ninth centuries.

between

buildings

and

Building Sizes This aspect of the analysis involves comparing the sizes of post-built structures and SFBs, with reference to their positions in relation to monuments; in other words, comparing the sizes of structures closer to monuments with those further away. This aspect of the settlement evidence was selected for investigation because it has the potential to reveal information about the status of settlements, since it has been demonstrated by James et al. (1984) that the sizes of post-built structures could be indicative of status. James et al. divided settlement sites into two groups, one with predominantly larger buildings, measuring over 50m2 in area, the other with mostly small buildings, under 50m2 (James et al. 1984: 185-6). Those sites falling into the first category also tended to show clear signs of planning, and included well-known, highstatus settlements, such as Yeavering and Cowdery’s Down (Hants). Marshall and Marshall (1991: 39) have observed that larger buildings not only point to a higherstatus role for a settlement as a whole, but could also denote higher status within settlements. It is also possible that differences in building dimensions were linked to function, as the excavators of Barrow Hills have suggested (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 66-7; see below). Meanwhile, size differences may also have been linked to date, as larger post-built structures – especially those constructed using plank- or post-in-trench techniques – increased in number from the seventh century onwards (Marshall and Marshall 1991: 42). Thus, considering the sizes of post-built structures in relation to monuments is deemed to be of use as it has the potential to reveal whether particular sizes of building were more likely to be located close to barrows, which could, in turn, disclose information about the status, functions or dates of those structures.

CATEGORIES OF ANALYSIS Before discussing the four sites, let us consider which elements of the settlements have been analysed and why. There are six aspects of the archaeological evidence from each settlement that are deemed in this study to be particularly useful for understanding how Anglo-Saxon communities appropriated monuments. These are settlement layout, building sizes, building replacement, phasing, movement within a settlement, and finds and burials. These categories of evidence have been investigated at each of the four sites, with specific reference to what they might reveal about the appropriation of monuments within the settlements. A brief summary of each of the themes analysed follows.

No such links have previously been drawn between size and status or function in the case of SFBs, although there are some indications that building sizes were more varied in the seventh and eighth centuries than in the fifth and sixth (Tipper 2004: 11). These structures have often been interpreted as rather lowly craft-working or storage sheds, the implication being that they were not employed to express status in the same way that post-built structures were. Nonetheless, there was significant variation in the sizes of these structures in Tipper’s (2004) review, and it is not unusual to find SFBs that are as large as post-built structures on many sites. Thus, if it is possible that increasing size correlated with increasing status where post-built structures were concerned, the same might be true of SFBs, since those members of society with the wealth and resources to construct large hall buildings may also have had the means to build larger SFBs. Similarly, if size differences were related to functional

Settlement Layout In this part of the analysis attention has been paid to the positions of buildings in relation to prehistoric monuments in each settlement, as well as to the distribution of different types of buildings. This reveals how the settlements formed around the monuments within them, and highlights particularly close or 134

other, for example? Or did they influence the way in which particular buildings were approached and entered? Alternatively, did buildings or other structures such as fences restrict or encourage access to the monuments? This part of the analysis takes into account the evidence for trackways, views through and across settlements, and the positioning of buildings and fences in relation to monuments in order to answer these questions.

use in post-built structures, it is also possible that the same was true for SFBs. For these reasons both post-built and SFBs have been analysed in terms of size and their proximity to monuments. When considering the proximity of buildings to barrows, structures have been classified as falling into one of the following categories: buildings on a mound or ring ditch; buildings within 10m of a barrow (but not on it); buildings within 10-20m of a barrow; and buildings more than 20m away from a barrow. The distances between monuments and buildings have been measured from site plans using a clear plastic ruler (a method advocated by Huggins (1991: 7) for calculating building dimensions), measuring from the outer edge of the monument to the nearest part of the building. This method was used at Barrow Hills, Sutton Courtenay and Eye Kettleby. At Catholme the method employed was different, as the settlement layout was highly structured and buildings were located in different settlement zones; in this case building sizes have been considered in relation to the zones in which they were located. Additionally, at Eye Kettleby, there were several prehistoric enclosures, and accordingly in this instance the sizes of buildings were analysed with reference to their positions inside and outside the enclosures.

Finds and Burials Aspects of the artefact assemblages from each site are considered, in order to date features where possible, but also to determine whether finds were distributed in such a way as to provide information about the uses of particular areas of the settlements. Specific attention is paid to the apparently deliberate placement of artefacts, animal remains and human burials in settlement features, particularly when they have been found close to monuments. An increasing number of these placed deposits are being recognized on Anglo-Saxon settlements (Hamerow et al. 2007: 185), and they frequently comprise animal remains, which can be complete or fragmentary, in the form of skulls, articulated limbs or trunks, or disarticulated bone en masse (Hamerow 2006: 3). Complete or semi-complete objects, such as pottery vessels and brooches, on the bases of features or in primary fills, are another form of placed deposit (Hamerow 2006: 17). These items generally stand out when they are against a background of highly fragmented material, but they are more likely than animal deposits to be interpreted as casual losses. Human burials within settlements can also be classed as placed deposits, and are similarly of interest here.

Building Replacement The rebuilding and re-cutting of both post-built structures and SFBs have been considered, as this can reveal whether there were particular building locations in settlements that communities used repeatedly. When these repeatedly-used building plots occurred in close proximity to pre-existing earthworks, they may indicate that structures close to earthworks were places of longlived importance. Additionally, replacement and maintenance of buildings are demonstrative of multiple phases of activity, and they are therefore indicators of chronological depth. As such, they can aid the dating of sites and they are related to the following category of evidence, phasing.

Movement within the Settlement

Placed deposits are useful for indicating which areas of settlements were seen as appropriate for ‘ritual’ or ideologically-important activity. For example, 50% of the deposits in Hamerow’s study were deposited in SFBs as termination or closing offerings, generally dug into the backfill or laid on the base of the buildings (Hamerow 2006: 8-9). There was also a link between entrances or boundaries and placed deposits, which may have reinforced the liminal, transitional nature of these locations. When these deposits are found near to monuments, this may reveal that these places were also linked to ritual activities. Furthermore, the insertion of human and animal burials into monuments in settlements – essentially a form of funerary monument reuse – adds an additional layer of meaning to the appropriation of those monuments by the communities who lived near them. Placed deposits could also emphasise the exceptional status or functions of buildings, as for example at Yeavering, where a cache of ox skulls was associated with a large post-built structure which, it has been suggested, had a religious function (Hamerow 2006: 30).

Another aspect of the evidence analysed is the impact that pre-existing monuments had on the movement of inhabitants around settlements. Did monuments obstruct routes or views from one side of the settlement to the

The presence of reused prehistoric and Roman artefacts occurs on all four case study sites. In some cases they have been found in contexts thought to represent general collections of discarded material, but in other instances

Phasing The dating evidence from each case study site varies, but it includes finds assemblages, stratigraphic relationships and radiocarbon dates. These have been used to investigate the phasing of the sites, and thereby their chronological development. This category of evidence was considered significant in this study because it has the potential to reveal whether there were changes in the relationships between buildings and monuments over time. Moreover, it may also disclose whether there were wider chronological developments across all four sites.

135

Hills was a roughly contemporary settlement at Barton Court Farm, also excavated in the 1970s, which may have been linked to the Barrow Hills site, as similar pottery was found at both (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 7, 66). However, the western boundary of the Barrow Hills settlement was formed by a stream surrounded by marshy land called Daisy Banks, and there do not appear to have been any further features in the area between the two sites, calling into question the possibility that they were part of one settlement (Fig. 6.2).

there is evidence to suggest that they were buried deliberately in features, as placed deposits. Either way, their presence in settlements demonstrates that inhabitants were recycling older items, and this provides a further avenue for exploring the reuse of, and reactions to, the physical remains of the past. CASE STUDY 1: BARROW HILLS Barrow Hills, near Abingdon in Oxfordshire, was excavated by Oxford Archaeological Unit and Reading University between 1983 and 1985, as the site was under threat from housing development (Fig. 6.2 and Plate 3) (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 1). Although ploughing had damaged the site in recent years, some archaeological features, including many SFBs, were clearly visible as cropmarks prior to excavation. Twenty-two post-built structures were excavated, and these were divided into three categories by the excavators: halls, ancillary structures and fencelines (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 66). Of these, thirteen were interpreted as buildings, with the remainder thought to have formed fences. However, the excavators did warn that the site plan was ‘misleadingly tidy’, as many other postholes had been excavated but could not be reconstructed as parts of buildings or fences, and they were therefore omitted from the published plan (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 66, 85, 303). Additionally, extensive animal burrowing on the site caused some confusion due to the resemblance between burrows and postholes, while a ‘blank’ section of the site to the south of SFBs 4, 5 and 16 was probably due to the loss of excavation records for that area, rather than a true lack of archaeological features (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 10).

Barrow Hills was situated at the south-western end of a prehistoric monument complex, and a number of these monuments were situated within the Anglo-Saxon settlement itself (Plate 3). There were several substantial monuments of particular note: a Neolithic oval barrow in the north-west corner of the excavation area, barrow 1 in the north-east corner, and two large barrows, 12 and 13, located towards the south of the site (Barclay and Halpin 1999: 20-1, 97-102, 111). The visibility of these monuments in the Anglo-Saxon period is indicated by the fact that their ring ditches contained Anglo-Saxon material; the depth of these Anglo-Saxon fills indicated that the ditches were still up to 0.9m deep when the settlement was established (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 23, 203-17). The construction of SFBs on or next to some barrows also adds weight to the argument that they were visible earthworks, while the first record of the site’s name occurs in a document of 1547, indicating that at least some of these earthworks were still standing at that time (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 9, 303; Gelling 1974: 437).

All the post-built structures at Barrow Hills were of simple posthole construction, and as few artefacts were recovered from the postholes these structures were dated on the basis of their relationships with SFBs, of which there were forty-five (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 66, 83, 89). The majority of the datable material was recovered from the fills of SFB pits, although there were also a small number of other pits of Anglo-Saxon date. The finds indicated a period of occupation between the fifth and early seventh centuries, although the dates retrieved from most SFBs provided only a terminus post quem for each building, rather than its exact dates of occupation, since the material had been deposited after the abandonment of the buildings (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 297). The dates from these buildings can, nonetheless, provide some indication of the phasing of the site, and are useful for understanding its chronological development, as will be demonstrated below.

There were also a number of smaller monuments within the settlement, including two late Neolithic or early Bronze Age ring ditches, 201 and 801, with internal diameters of 9.5m and 10m respectively, which may also have had internal mounds (Barclay and Halpin 1999: 48, 135-6). Although there is little evidence to indicate whether 201 was an earthwork in the Anglo-Saxon period, the positioning of SFBs in relation to 801 strongly suggests that it may have been visible. There were also two pond barrows in the settlement; the pit of 4583 was 4.6m in diameter and 1m deep, while the pit of 4866 was 6.5m in diameter and also 1m deep (Barclay and Halpin 1999: 52, 115). A late sixth- or seventh-century burial seems to have been inserted into the bank around 4866 and its central pit contained some Anglo-Saxon material, whilst the positioning of five third- to fourth-century Romano-British graves on the north-west side of pond barrow 4583 strongly suggests that an external bank was still visible around that monument in the late RomanoBritish period (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 118).

A large proportion of the settlement’s original extent seems to have been excavated, although occupation may have extended slightly beyond the limits of the excavation to the north and south, whilst to the west the burnt remains of a wattle and daub structure, associated with fifth- to seventh-century artefacts, were discovered in the 1970s (Avery and Brown 1972; Chambers and McAdam 2007: 65). Some 300m south-west of Barrow

There were several less substantial pre-existing features that might have influenced the Anglo-Saxon settlement, although there is no clear spatial or structural evidence to confirm that this was the case. A segmented ring ditch, comprised of shallow ditch segments, enclosed an area c.10m by 9m, and was located west of barrow 12 but had no evidence for an accompanying mound or bank (Barclay and Halpin 1999: 44). Even so, it is interesting 136

ring ditch around barrow 13, where it may have abutted the mound (Fig. 6.4). In addition to the buildings located on top of the mounds and their ring ditches, a further six SFBs had been built adjacent to barrows. SFB 23 was just to the south of SFB 24, situated extremely close to barrow 13 and immediately adjacent to its ring ditch, whilst SFB 12 lay less than 5m away from the oval barrow in the north-west corner of the site, and SFB 35 would have lain within c.5m of the bank around barrow 12. SFB 10 lay less than 5m west of ring ditch 801, while SFBs 11 and 13 were within 5-10m of the same ring ditch.

that it does appear to have been respected by a RomanoBritish grave to the south and by an Anglo-Saxon fence to the north, so it may have survived in some form. There were also Neolithic and Bronze Age ‘flat’ graves, which had no evidence for earthworks accompanying them, although some had seen repeated burial activity during the prehistoric period, perhaps indicating the presence of small mounds or banks (Barclay and Halpin 1999: 56, 130). Again, the graves had not been disturbed by later features, although this does not necessarily mean that they were still visible as earthworks in the fifth to seventh centuries. The third- to fourth-century Romano-British graves respecting the segmented ring ditch were part of a cemetery that lay in the middle of the investigation area (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 13-17). Although there were no indications that these burials had been accompanied by markers, except perhaps small amounts of upcast material from the graves, the Anglo-Saxon features did generally respect them. To summarise, then, there was an extensive palimpsest of earlier activity at Barrow Hills, and although the visibility of some features in the Anglo-Saxon period is doubtful, an array of monuments certainly existed as substantial earthworks and appear to have influenced the layout of the fifth- to seventh-century settlement.

Post-built structures had also been constructed very close to barrows. To the east of ring ditch 801 was PBS 6, the end of which lay just 2-3m from the monument. Meanwhile, PBS 22 would have been a similar distance away from the external bank surrounding barrow 12, although this structure was poorly recorded and was not certainly a building (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 71). Approximately 3-4m south of barrow 13 was the north wall of PBS 11, while to the east of that was PBS 8, which was slightly further away, but still within 10m of the barrow. On the eastern edge of the investigation area PBS 10 was situated 5-10m away from the bank that would have surrounded pond barrow 4866. Some 10-15m north of both barrow 12 and barrow 13 was a large structure, PBS 21, which was represented by a dense cluster of postholes, badly disturbed by animal burrowing and, in common with PBS 22, poorly recorded in comparison with other structures in the settlement (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 71). It does not appear to have been a building; instead it was formed by two parallel fencelines 30m long and 8.5m apart, alongside two roughly L-shaped structures, a smaller one at the southern end of the fences and a larger example at the northern end. Although its function was unknown, PBS 21 was unusual and particularly large, and it could have been some form of compound or substantial fence. Thus, in sum, there were six structures located on monuments at Barrow Hills, all of them SFBs, in addition to a further six SFBs situated within c.10m of monuments. Four posthole buildings were also within about 10m of barrows, as were the two post-built structures of unknown function, PBS 21 and PBS 22.

Settlement Layout Many buildings were situated in the middle of the investigation area, surrounded by the prehistoric barrows but not directly in contact with them. The majority of post-built structures were located in this central/northern cluster of buildings, accompanied by a number of SFBs. The settlement activity was by no means restricted to this part of the site, however, as another cluster of post-built structures and SFBs lay to the south-east of barrow 13, whilst there were more widely dispersed structures located towards the south and west of the excavation area. There do not appear to be any obvious spatial distinctions between post-built structures and SFBs, although SFBs were more widely distributed across the site. Nearly all the buildings were aligned northeast/south-west, reflecting the orientation of the prehistoric barrow cemetery that stretched away to the north-east, but also following the alignment of the ridge upon which the settlement and monument complex lay.

Building Sizes Six structures, all SFBs, intrusively reused monuments at Barrow Hills. In the north-west corner of the site SFB 9 had been inserted into the mound of the Neolithic oval barrow; the shallowness of the building compared to others on the site suggested that the building had been dug when the mound was a more substantial earthwork (Barclay and Halpin 1999: 23). Further south, ring ditch 801 formed the focus of SFB 14, which had been dug over the ditch on its south-west side. Opposite this, on the north-east side of the ring ditch, were two further intercutting buildings, SFBs 17 and 18 (Fig. 6.3). Elsewhere, SFB 26 lay on the flat berm around the central mound of barrow 12, where it would have stood between the mound and the external bank of the barrow. SFB 24 had been constructed over the eastern side of the infilled

Post-Built Structures There were thirteen posthole buildings at Barrow Hills, not including the structures represented by the clusters of postholes PBS 21 and PBS 22, which, as their dimensions were uncertain and they might not have been buildings, have not been included in this part of the analysis. In the excavation report the thirteen buildings with known dimensions were categorised by size, the larger examples being interpreted as halls or dwellings, and the smaller ones as ancillary buildings, such as storage structures and workshops (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 66-7). There were six of these ‘ancillary’ structures, with areas of between 7.6m2 and 14.1m2, and seven ‘dwellings’, with 137

areas of 24.5m2 to 37.4m2 (Table 6.1). The average area of the post-built structures was 20.7m2; all the ancillary structures were smaller than average, while the ‘hall’ structures were all larger. The buildings do, therefore, appear to have fallen into two separate categories, as a gap of 10.4m2 exists between the area of the largest ancillary structure and the smallest hall-type structure, whilst the different categories of building fall on either side of the average area.

mentioned previously that building size may have been related to status. None of the structures at Barrow Hills measured more than 50m2 and the settlement therefore falls into James et al.’s (1984: 185) Group 1 category of ‘lower-status’ settlements. However, as Marshall and Marshall (1991: 39) have pointed out, larger buildings might have signalled high status within a settlement, even if that settlement was not one that we would interpret as ‘high-status’. One possibility, therefore, is that the buildings at Barrow Hills had similar functions regardless of their size, but that their different dimensions reflected differences in the rank, wealth or status of the individual or group who built and used them.

Seven of the thirteen post-built structures were located within 20m of a barrow; all were towards the south of the site and were near to ring ditch 801, barrow 12, barrow 13 and the pond barrow 4866 (Fig. 6.5). Of these seven buildings, five belong to the hall category and two were ancillary structures. Four buildings (PBSs 6, 8, 10 and 11) were within 10m of a barrow, and these were all halls. In contrast, the six buildings located over 20m away from barrows comprise two halls and four ancillary buildings. Thus, there appears to have been a trend at Barrow Hills for positioning larger structures (the ‘halls’) closer to barrows. Indeed, PBS 6, the largest reconstructable hall in the settlement was located just 2.5m away from ring ditch 801, while PBS 10 was also large, at 31.5m2, and it was c.9m away from pond barrow 4866 (although it was comparable in size to PBS 5, which was located further north and away from the barrows). Although there were relatively large buildings over 20m away from barrows, primarily in the central/northern area of the site, there were only two, and dispersed amongst them were a higher number of smaller, ancillary structures. Moreover, if we take into consideration the possible building represented by PBS 22, which was c.9m away from barrow 12 and could have been as large as 40m2, the trend for situating large buildings within 20m of barrows and smaller ones further away is maintained.

It is also possible that the dates of the buildings contributed to differences in their sizes. The settlement was occupied between the late fifth and early seventh centuries, and it is feasible that within that period there were phases during which larger structures were built. Marshall and Marshall (1991: 42; 1993: 374-9, 390-1) found that post-built structures increased in size during the Anglo-Saxon period, but that the larger, later structures were usually of post- or plank-in-trench, not posthole, construction. Furthermore, although these larger structures began to appear in the late sixth and early seventh centuries, their numbers grew within the seventh century, at which time the settlement at Barrow Hills appears to have been abandoned. The structures at Barrow Hills do not seem to fit in with the wider trends of building development in Anglo-Saxon England, although it is possible that some larger structures were of a different date from smaller ones. Thus, it seems likely that at Barrow Hills the differences in the sizes of postbuilt structures were related to their functions, although status and their dates of construction could also have a dictated their dimensions. Sunken-Featured Buildings

This pattern appears to suggest that the functions of buildings may have had an impact on their locations in relation to barrows; in general, larger hall buildings were closer to monuments, while smaller ancillary structures were further away. However, it should be noted that the division between ancillary and hall buildings in the report was based solely on size (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 67). The lack of finds from these structures meant that there was no artefactual evidence to reveal their functions, nor were there differences in form or internal layout that might have indicated how the buildings were used, since their preservation was often poor. Nonetheless, support for the two categories of building comes from West Stow (Suf), where post-built structures were also divided into two categories based on their size (West 1985: 10-14). There were ‘hall’ buildings, measuring in the region of 6-8m by 3-5m, and other postbuilt structures ‘of lesser importance’, typically measuring 3-5m by 1-3m. In light of this, the attribution of functional differences to smaller and larger buildings at Barrow Hills may hold true and this could explain the differences in size between groups of structures at this site and others. It is possible, however, that there were other reasons for the differences in size between the buildings. It was

Of the forty-five excavated SFBs, forty-two were well preserved enough to yield dimensions for analysis (Table 6.2). As there were more SFBs than post-built structures, and because a number were situated on top of monuments, their sizes and positions in relation to barrows show greater variation than the post-built structures. SFB areas have been calculated based on the lengths and widths of the pits provided in the report, as the pits were the only surviving elements of the buildings. However, the SFBs at Barrow Hills appear to have had suspended plank floors over their pits; the superstructures of the buildings need not have been restricted to their pit sizes, and the buildings could well have had larger floor areas than the pit dimensions suggest (Chambers and McAdams 2007: 81). Indeed, in some instances it appears that SFBs had greater floor areas than some of the smaller post-built structures. Eighteen of the forty-two SFBs were situated either on monuments or within 20m of them (Table 6.2). Six were on barrows, while a further four were within 10m of a barrow, and another eight were between 10-20m from a barrow. The rest of the excavated SFBs, twenty-four in 138

provided the impetus for its maintenance, it appears that structures elsewhere in the settlement were also rebuilt or maintained. The repeated use of building plots may, therefore, have been for other reasons as well, such as the presence of nearby buildings and the desire to perpetuate relationships with them, or the suitability of certain areas of the settlement for particular activities.

total, were over 20m away from monuments; many of these were situated in the central/northern occupation area around PBSs 1-5 and 19-20. The average size for all SFBs on the site was 11.6m2; buildings situated over 20m away from barrows were generally smaller than this, with an average area of 10.6m2 (Table 6.3). In contrast, the structures lying within 20m of a barrow had a higher average of 12.9m2 (Fig. 6.6). The average size of buildings lying within 10m of a barrow was larger still, at 15m2, while the buildings located on barrows had a similarly large average area of 14.7 m2. Therefore, SFBs located closer to barrows tended to have larger areas on average than those further away, with those on barrows or within 10m of them being particularly large in comparison to others. This trend is also demonstrated by the fact that 56% of the SFBs within 20m of monuments were of above-average size, whilst only 23% of the SFBs over 20m from barrows were above-average in area.

Where post-built structures were concerned, it was often difficult to distinguish whether more than one phase of building was represented in the poorly-preserved clusters of postholes. PBS 1 had some replaced posts, indicating that there had been at least one phase of rebuilding, while the southern end of PBS 5 could also have been rebuilt (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 67, 85). The large clusters of postholes forming PBSs 21 and 22 had been formed by numerous structural phases although, as previously stated, the functions of these features are unknown (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 87). In addition to the features on the site plan, there was also a mass of undated postholes, stakeholes and animal burrows that could not be joined to form buildings; these were particularly prevalent in the area west of the RomanoBritish cemetery that contained SFBs 2 and 3, and they give the impression of intense, long-term activity (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 303). There seems, therefore, to have been a concern for maintaining the original positions of certain post-built structures, although this was sometimes difficult to confirm and there was little evidence to indicate whether the structures close to the barrows had been rebuilt or maintained.

Although there are no clear or predictable patterns at Barrow Hills, such as building size increasing with increasing proximity to a monument, the average areas of the SFBs reveal a similar trend to that exhibited by the post-built structures, with larger buildings frequently lying near to barrows. Of course, there are some smaller buildings located close to barrows, such as SFB 13, which had an area of 7.3m2 and was c.7m from ring ditch 801. Equally, there are some relatively large SFBs in the central/northern area of the site. Nonetheless, larger structures were more likely than smaller ones to be situated close to barrows, particularly within 10m of them. There were several especially large buildings situated on, and near to, barrows, such as SFBs 12 and 17, the only buildings to have areas of over 20m2. As with the post-built structures, the different dimensions of these buildings might be related to their functions, or their date of occupation, and the latter will be explored in the Phasing section (below).

Phasing The primary dating evidence for the settlement came from the SFBs, thirty-one of which yielded positive dating evidence. Primarily, this dating evidence was in the form of pottery, the ceramic assemblage forming one of the largest so far recovered from an early Anglo-Saxon settlement (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 229). Vessel forms, decorative schema and vessel fabric were studied by Paul Blinkhorn in order to date the sherds in the SFBs. However, it was stressed in the excavation report that the pottery and other artefacts could only provide a terminus post quem (tpq) for the fills of the buildings, as they seem to have consisted of re-deposited midden material, which was not directly linked to the occupation of the buildings (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 302). Based on the datable material, the buildings were divided into a fifthcentury tpq group, a fifth- to sixth-century group, and a sixth-century group (Fig. 6.8). The presence of joining sherds in the ditch of barrow 13, pit 414 and SFB 7 (all fifth-century tpq) and SFB 23 (sixth-century tpq) demonstrates that it is inadvisable to assume that material in these features directly related to their use and adds weight to the argument that the fills of the SFB pits had been introduced from middens elsewhere on the site (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 232).

Building Replacement Possible re-cut or replaced postholes were observed in five SFBs (1, 2, 3, 8 and 38), while the pits of six (3, 14, 23, 29, 38 and 43) had been re-cut or extended (Fig. 6.7) (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 80). Meanwhile, SFBs 17 and 18 intercut each other, as did SFBs 28 and 29, SFBs 32-34, and SFBs 36 and 37. The proximity of SFB 30 to the cluster of intercutting buildings formed by SFBs 3234 suggests that it might have been another phase of building related to them, while the closeness of SFBs 20, 21 and 22 in the north-west corner of the site suggested that they might also have replaced each other (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 80-1). A number of these intercutting and maintained SFBs were associated with barrows; SFBs 14, 17 and 18 were on ring ditch 801, while SFB 23 was immediately next to the ring ditch of barrow 13. This suggests that the positions of these structures were sufficiently important for the buildings to have been maintained and replaced. However, the practice of rebuilding and replacing SFBs was by no means restricted to the areas around barrows. While a building’s position in relation to a monument could have been

It was noted, therefore, that the pottery did not provide definitive dating evidence that could be used to reconstruct the precise dates of particular buildings. At 139

of the settlement, although exactly when is unknown (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 302). Unfortunately it was not possible to place the other buildings that lay on top of or adjacent to barrows (SFBs 9, 12, 17 and 18) into tpq groups, as they yielded no diagnostic pottery (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 111). Given that SFBs 14, 23, 24 and 26 appear to have belonged to a period later in the settlement’s life, it might also have been the case that the other buildings on or close to barrows also belonged to that phase. In the case of SFB 9, this was supported by the discovery of a bone pin with a thistlelike head, thought to belong to the sixth to ninth centuries, in the pit fill (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 111).

most, it provided an earliest date at which an SFB’s pit had been filled in, meaning that occupation of the structure must have pre-dated that time. Nonetheless, this information does provide a valuable (and rather rare) opportunity for exploring how the settlement may have changed over time, albeit in general terms rather than through the absolute dating of particular features. As such, the proposed tpq groups are scrutinized here, in order to determine whether they can assist in understanding the development of the Barrow Hills settlement, and in particular its relationships with the prehistoric monuments it contained. Only five buildings (SFBs 5, 7, 15, 35 and 43) were assigned to the fifth-century tpq group; with the exception of SFB 35, towards the south of the site, all were in the central/northern area, to the north and northeast of the Roman cemetery. The fifth-century tpq buildings were in close proximity to post-built structures in this central/northern area, including PBSs 1-5, 13, 16, 19 and 20, suggesting that these structures may have belonged to the same phase as the SFBs (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 302-7). The fifth- to sixth-century tpq group of eight buildings (SFBs 2, 3, 25, 30, 32, 36, 38 and 42) appears to have been more dispersed than the earlier group, expanding to the south, north-west and north-east. None of these buildings were closely associated with post-built structures in the same way as the earlier SFBs, and none were in the area of the fifthcentury tpq SFBs. This could indicate that the central fifth-century tpq area continued in use during this time, and that the fifth- to sixth-century tpq buildings represent the outwards expansion of the settlement, whose earlier core was still in existence at the centre of the site.

A problem associated with the analysis of these tpq groups is the possibility that some buildings were built a great deal earlier than their fills suggest; this is particularly a problem for those structures that had re-cut or extended pits, or replaced postholes. In these instances, a building could have existed on a plot for the life of the settlement, undergoing maintenance and redefinition, in which case its fill would only provide a tpq for the very last phase of the building. Evidence for re-cutting and replacement was rare amongst the fifth-century tpq group (only SFB 43 had been re-cut), but more common among the fifth- to sixth-century tpq group (SFBs 2, 3 and 38 had been re-cut or had postholes replaced) and the sixthcentury tpq group (SFBs 1, 8, 14, 23 and 29 had been recut or had postholes replaced). Thus, it is possible that these structures actually existed in the earliest phase of the settlement, but their fills were deposited some time later. As such, it is possible that SFBs 14 and 23, which both belonged to the sixth-century tpq group, had been re-cut or otherwise maintained and were next to barrows, were not only in use during a later phase in the settlement’s life, as they could have existed earlier.

Eighteen buildings were classed as falling into the sixthcentury tpq group (SFBs 1, 4, 6, 8, 14, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 37, 39, 40, 41 and 45), and they were even more widely dispersed across the site. Buildings in this group appear to show the settlement expanding in all directions, with further buildings being added to the central/northern area of earlier occupation, suggesting that this formed a focus of the settlement throughout its life. This group also contained a second focus towards the south and south-east of the site, particularly around ring ditch 801, barrows 12 and 13, and the pond barrow. If the sixth-century tpq SFBs in this second focus did represent activity relating to a later phase of the settlement, it is possible that the post-built structures around them, including PBSs 6-12 and 21-22, were also part of this second settlement focus.

On the basis of the tpq groupings a possible sequence of the settlement’s development can be tentatively suggested. It seems that in the first phases of the settlement the relationships between the buildings and earlier monuments at Barrow Hills were more associative in form; the buildings were interspersed with the monuments, and may even have been bounded by them to the south and east, but they do not seem to have lain directly on the barrows. In later phases of the settlement, perhaps in the sixth century, it appears that buildings began to ‘encroach’ on the barrows. The inhabitants seem to have reused the monuments more intrusively and, although associative forms of reuse did continue, SFBs were more likely to be constructed immediately adjacent to the barrows and on top of them. If the presence of postbuilt structures close to these potentially later SFBs can be taken as an indication that they were part of ‘clusters’ of buildings of a similar date, then it is also possible that many of the hall-type and ancillary buildings situated near to monuments, especially those in the south-eastern settlement focus, belonged to a later phase in the settlement’s history. That the central/northern focus continued in use when the south-eastern focus was established is suggested by the evidence for the

The phasing evidence from Barrow Hills appears to suggest that there was a tendency for later (possibly sixthcentury) buildings to be situated on or near barrows; SFBs 14, 23, 24 and 26, all of which were on or adjacent to barrows, belonged to the sixth-century tpq group. Further support for the suggestion that SFBs 14, 23 and 26 belonged to a later phase in the settlement’s life comes from the fact that they post-dated the backfilling of the ring ditches around barrows 12 and 13, which were filled with occupation debris some time after the establishment 140

be argued that the undated SFBs 12 and 17 were part of this later trend, due to their large sizes and positions on monuments. Meanwhile, many of the post-built structures in the southern part of the settlement nearest the barrows were also large in comparison to those elsewhere on the site. The evidence points to the possibility that the inhabitants of Barrow Hills began to build on or very close to monuments during a later phase of the settlement, perhaps in the sixth century, and that the buildings they constructed were often larger than those that had come before, and perhaps larger than other contemporary buildings as well.

rebuilding of PBSs 3 and 5, and by the mass of undated postholes around SFBs 2 and 3, which were indicative of long-lived and repeated use (even though plans of individual buildings could not be identified). It is now possible to explore the suggestion made above that there might be correlations between building sizes, their proximity to monuments, and their dates. In terms of the SFBs, the fifth-century tpq group of buildings are either of average size for the site as a whole, or belowaverage (between 9m2 and 11.6m2). The buildings with a fifth- to sixth-century tpq were mostly of average size for the site, although there were two larger examples and one smaller one; there seems to have been greater variation in the size of SFBs in this group compared to the first. The sixth-century tpq group contained five larger-thanaverage SFBs, two smaller-than-average and the rest average in size; it was also varied, but it included a greater number of larger-than-average buildings. SFB sizes, therefore, seem to have varied to a greater extent in the second and third tpq groups, while in the third group they were also more likely to be larger than average. Further support for there being smaller buildings in the fifth-century tpq group comes from the layout of the settlement. A number of smaller-than-average SFBs could not be phased and were thus not included in the tpq groups. However, SFBs 1 and 16 were both particularly small (between 6m2 and 9m2 in area) and were both within the central cluster of buildings, meaning that they may have belonged to an earlier phase of the settlement.

Movement within the Settlement The lack of dating evidence for some settlement features, particularly the post-built structures, makes it virtually impossible to determine which structures were standing at any one time at Barrow Hills. Nonetheless, it is possible to make some observations about how people might have moved around the settlement and interacted with the monuments, even if this was not necessarily the same throughout the settlement’s history. The structures situated on, or very close to, barrows are particularly interesting, as the earthworks could have influenced or impeded access to those structures. A particularly clear example of this is provided by SFB 26, located on the berm of barrow 12; in order to access this building people may have been required to climb over the bank around the barrow and then perhaps walk on the berm around the central mound. Similarly, the approach to SFB 9 would have required people to climb up onto the oval mound, perhaps avoiding the partially-preserved hollow of the ditch around the barrow on their way.

Given the problems associated with dating the post-built structures, it was more difficult to trace correlations in their sizes, dates, and proximity to monuments. However, if the south-eastern structures PBSs 6-12 and 21-22 can be attributed to a later phase through their association with the nearby sixth-century tpq SFBs, this area may have belonged to a later period in the settlement’s occupation. As many of these structures were large, and classed as dwellings, it may have been the case that inhabitants of this area of the site, perhaps in the sixth century, were particularly concerned with constructing their dwellings in close proximity to a number of the site’s visible monuments, including barrows 12 and 13, as well as the pond barrow and ring ditch 801. In comparison with the apparently earlier central/northern settlement focus, which may have continued to be occupied at the same time as the southern focus was in use, the desire to associate buildings with monuments was apparently much greater.

Accessing SFBs 23 and 24 could have been affected by their proximity to barrow 13; SFB 24 was aligned with its long axis perpendicular to the mound and SFB 23 was on a similar alignment less than a metre away from the ring ditch. It seems likely that these locations impacted upon the ways in which people approached and entered the buildings, although it is true to say that our understanding of the positions of SFB entrances is extremely limited (Tipper 2004: 81). It is unlikely that doorways would have been located in the sides of SFBs 24 and 26 closest to the barrows, but it is unknown which of the other sides would have provided access to the buildings. The entrances could, arguably, have been in the long walls opposite the sides abutting the mounds; they would then have faced outwards, towards the rest of the settlement, with SFB 23, for example, opening out onto the area around PBS 8 and PBS 11.

In sum, the phasing evidence may suggest that many of the SFBs situated on monuments and very close to them belonged to the sixth-century tpq group of structures, although the use of this evidence is not unproblematic. It is possible that the post-built structures towards the south of the site, in the area around barrows 12 and 13, also belonged to the same phase as these SFBs. It has been shown that the SFBs belonging to this sixth-century tpq group were more likely to be of larger-than-average size, with some particularly large examples (e.g. SFBs 14 and 23) situated on barrows. Based on this evidence, it could

The buildings on ring ditch 801 were aligned differently from SFBs 23 and 24, with their end walls abutting the monument. It is possible that the doorways of these structures were also in the long walls, as SFB 14 could then have opened out towards SFB 10. If these buildings were indeed contemporary and related, this would have facilitated access between them. Wherever the entrances to SFBs 9, 14, 17, 18, 23 and 24 lay, it seems likely that the oval barrow, barrow 13 and ring ditch 801 would all 141

which could have blocked views from one side of the settlement to the other.

have formed substantial, noticeable earthworks for those entering and leaving the buildings. Certainly in the case of SFB 26, and perhaps the others, there may have been attempts to restrict access to the buildings through their positioning in relation to the prehistoric earthworks.

The location and density of the buildings and fences in this southern area might have had a similar effect. The most noticeable example of this is the possible large fence PBS 21, which may well have screened barrows 12 and 13 from view from the central cluster of buildings, and the effect may have been even greater if PBS 22 was also standing at the same time. The evidence for paired posts along some of the posthole lines in PBS 21 suggests that the fence was formed by planks or panels of wattling, which could have been very effective at screening the barrows from view (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 71). Similarly, PBS 17, a fence extending from close to the south-east corner of PBS 6, also seems to have been constructed using planks or panels between paired posts, and in conjunction with PBS 6 it might have screened the southern part of the site from view from the central cluster of buildings around PBS 5. On the other hand, barrows 12 and 13 could also have prevented people standing amongst buildings PBS 7, PBS 8 and PBS 11 from seeing across to the central and northern parts of the site.

The entrances into structures PBS 1, PBS 3 and PBS 5 in the central area of the site opened out onto a roughly square ‘courtyard’ north of PBS 5, which might have been long-lived even if the buildings around it were not all contemporary. Entrances to post-built structures towards the south of the site seem to have led out towards the barrows they were close to, although they all had more than one entrance. PBS 6, for example, had a doorway in its western wall which, as it was only c.2.5m away from ring ditch 801, would have opened out directly onto the monument. Elsewhere, a doorway in the north wall of PBS 11 was less than 5m away from barrow 13 and would have led out towards it, while a doorway in the west wall would have led out towards barrow 12. There was no trace of a doorway in the north wall of PBS 8, the best-preserved structure on the site, although there was an entrance in the west wall that could have led out to an area onto which SFB 23 also possibly opened. If PBS 11 was contemporary, this structure might have encouraged people to walk around it on leaving PBS 8 by the western door, meaning that they may have passed between PBS 11 and barrow 13. On the other hand, if they were not contemporary, the western door of PBS 8 would have funnelled people out towards barrow 12.

Crucially, the fences, buildings and barrows that formed screens and prevented people on one of the settlement from viewing the other side might also have prevented movement between different areas as well. It is possible, therefore, that fences and buildings were used to obstruct or control access between different parts of the site, in particular between the northern/central cluster of buildings, the cluster around ring ditch 801, and the buildings to the south-east of barrows 12 and 13. The location of PBSs 7, 8 and 11 and their associated SFBs on the south-eastern side of barrow 13 certainly seems to suggest that whoever built them was seeking to divide themselves from the central cluster of buildings to the north-west. It was previously demonstrated that many buildings in this area had a sixth-century tpq, and the cluster may have belonged to a later phase in the settlement’s occupation. As such, there seems to have been a growing intensity of occupation in the area around the monuments to the south of the site in the later phases of the settlement, possibly accompanied by greater control over access into and out of this area of the settlement. Anyone wanting to enter this part of the site would have had to pass between PBSs 6 and 22, or bear west and pass by the SFBs on the western side of ring ditch 801 and then past PBS 9, or they would have had to go around to the east, passing by PBS 21, PBS 12, PBS 10 and the pond barrow. Thus, access to the monuments in this part of the settlement appears to have been controlled, or the monuments were being used to control access to the buildings in this area or, indeed, both.

Towards the east of the settlement, PBS 10 had entrances in its west, north and south walls, and the first two would have opened out onto an area to the east of the pond barrow; people leaving or entering by these entrances would have had to navigate around the pond barrow as they travelled to the other side of the settlement. Of course, there may have been multiple ways in which people approached and left these buildings and we cannot be certain that they always did so in the ways suggested here, especially as there are no traces of trackways in the settlement. The routes people might have taken remain unknown, as do any structured ‘rules’ that could have governed movement around the settlement. Nevertheless, there is evidence to demonstrate that people would have had to interact very closely with the barrows, for instance when they left PBS 6 by its western entrance. The locations of fences and buildings within the settlement will have affected how visible each barrow was from different parts of the site. The relative lack of buildings around the oval mound suggests that this barrow might have been visible and easily accessible from much of the settlement. Similarly, barrow 1 was within an open space, which might have allowed clear views and access from much of the settlement and the same might have been true of ring ditch 201 if it still had a visible mound in the Anglo-Saxon period. There seems to be more evidence to indicate that views were more restricted towards the south of the settlement. This is partly due to the positions of the large barrows 12 and 13,

Finds and Burials The most prolific assemblage recovered from Barrow Hills, apart from Anglo-Saxon pottery, consisted of reused Roman pot sherds, of which there were seventyfive examples (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 35-7). The 142

many were deposited in prehistoric ring ditches. Two coins, an unstratified example and one from barrow 12, were very worn, suggesting that they might have been in circulation amongst the Anglo-Saxon community for some time, and two others, from SFB 43 and barrow 13, had been perforated, suggesting that they had been reused as pendants (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 214).

majority of the sherds had been shaped into discs, halfdiscs and wedges, which might have been used as gaming pieces, counters, weights, craft tools or as pot stands (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 257-9). Nearly every SFB yielded at least one reused Roman sherd, and the ditches around Barrows 1, 12 and 13 all contained a number of them. This is not unusual; many Anglo-Saxon settlements, including all four discussed in this chapter, have yielded both shaped and un-shaped Roman sherds (see, for example, West (1985: 82-4) for a discussion of the Roman material from West Stow). The sherds are not likely to have been residual material from Roman activity, as there is little evidence for activity of this date on site and there were no sherds of this type in the thirdto fourth-century graves (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 36). The fact that they had been shaped, and were in a limited range of ceramic types, also indicates that they were deliberately selected and brought onto the site. The ceramic material did not include shell-tempered fabrics, which were widely used in the area during the late Roman period and were thus readily available locally, but instead comprised primarily Oxfordshire colour-coated sherds and other coloured, reduced fabrics (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 37). The colour, and perhaps the fine, even texture, of these fabrics may well have made them attractive to the Anglo-Saxon community at Barrow Hills.

Blinkhorn’s analysis of the Anglo-Saxon pottery also revealed interesting distribution patterns, which may relate to the functions of particular areas of the settlement (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 229-47). Blinkhorn noted that, in the sixth century, sherds of jars and bowls finding their way into SFBs in the central/northern area of the site belonged to fairly small vessels, whereas fragments from larger sixth-century jars and bowls were more common in the southern part of the site.1 Bowls were also more common to the south of the site, making up 23.7% of the vessel assemblage in contrast to 7% of the central/northern assemblage (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 241). The sample for the fifth-century pottery was very small, but it too suggested that larger vessels were being deposited towards the south of the site (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 239). Anthropological studies have shown that small vessels are often used individually for food consumption or preparation by an individual, while larger vessels are used for food or water storage, or for cooking for larger numbers of people (although these trends are not universal and other uses are known) (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 246). Caution is required when using this data, as the material finding its way into SFBs did not necessarily relate to the use of the buildings. Nonetheless, this distribution suggests that the central/northern area of the site experienced more individual food consumption, while the southern area was used for food storage and preparation, perhaps more communally. Interestingly, there are some exceptions to this pattern in the southern SFB group; few jar sherds were recovered from the SFBs in the area of barrows 12 and 13 (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 246).2 This part of the settlement, therefore, does not resemble either the southern or the central/northern area. It is possible that this is simply the result of deposition practices, although it may be significant that this part of the site, which was so closely entwined with the large Bronze Age barrows 12 and 13, as well as the pond barrow to the east, stands out from the other areas; perhaps it had a different function, or the inhabitants of this area used pots (and perhaps other, unpreserved vessels in organic materials) in a different way from the rest of the occupants.

Other Roman artefacts were also discovered in AngloSaxon contexts; for example, fragments of Roman glass were recovered from a number of SFBs (1, 4, 6, 14, 24, 35, 40 and possibly 24) (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 89-186). The fragment in SFB 1 had been polished after it was broken, suggesting that the modification had taken place in the Anglo-Saxon period, and this might also have been the case with the fragments in SFBs 4, 6 and 37, which all had signs of scratching and wear. A fragment of Roman trumpet brooch also came from SFB 4, whilst there was a first- to third-century bone pin in SFB 6, a possible Roman comb in SFB 11, a copper-alloy drop handle in SFB 13, a fragment of cable bracelet in SFB 28, and another possible Roman comb in SFB 29 (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 89-164). Like the Roman ceramics, these objects appear to have been retrieved from elsewhere, since there is no evidence for Roman activity preceding the Anglo-Saxon settlement in this area, with the exception of the Roman burials, which had experienced minimal disturbance and did not contain the types of artefact recovered from the SFBs. Furthermore, thirteen Roman bronze coins were discovered in Anglo-Saxon contexts, along with two unstratified examples (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 89219). Three of the stratified coins came from the upper fills of SFBs 30, 42 and 43, but the remaining ten coins were all found in the fills of the ring ditches around Barrows 1, 12 and 13; there were two in barrow 1, three in barrow 12, and five in barrow 13 (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 166, 191-5, 207-19). No other features in the settlement, such as pits or burials, contained these coins, and it may be significant that their deposition was focused in very particular locations, especially as so

The excavation report made no explicit reference to any possible placed deposits in the settlement, but this is not unusual for a site excavated in the 1980s, before the 1 The ‘central/northern’ group consisted of SFBs 1, 4, 6, 19, 20, 39 and 40, while the ‘southern’ group comprised SFBs 8, 14, 23, 24, 25, 28/29, 41 and 45 (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 239). 2 The report did not indicate exactly which SFBs near barrows 12 and 13 lacked the jars but, as the closest buildings to these monuments, SFBs 23 and 24 and perhaps SFB 45 are likely candidates.

143

widespread realisation that structured deposition might have take place in Anglo-Saxon settlements (Hamerow 2006). There were few indications of exactly where artefacts were found in SFBs fills, for example, and no mention of any articulated animal remains in these buildings. However, it is possible that at least some of the Roman objects noted above were placed deliberately in SFBs and other features, particularly the Roman coins in the ring ditches. It was noted that the near-complete skeleton of a fairly large adult dog was discovered in the uppermost level of the pond barrow 4866, which might have constituted a deliberately placed deposit (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 218) (Fig. 6.9). Indeed, its proximity to a human burial (see below) suggests that this area of the settlement, or this monument in particular, might have been viewed as especially important in terms of ritual activity.

Conclusions This in-depth analysis has revealed that inhabitants of Barrow Hills had a range of surviving prehistoric monuments available to them for reuse, as the settlement was established in an area with a particularly high density of pre-existing earthworks. Some Anglo-Saxon structures were constructed extremely close to these monuments, while others were built on top of them. Both post-built structures and SFBs close to monuments exhibited a trend for being larger than those built further away. In the case of post-built structures this appears to show that ‘halls’ or dwellings were more likely to be situated close to monuments, while this association was less important where ancillary structures were concerned. The reasons for the differences in size of SFBs are not clear, but a number of them were built on monuments, while many others were situated adjacent to earlier earthworks. Those SFBs on or within 10m of a monument, showed a particular tendency to be larger than those further away. The proximity of buildings to the barrows and the locations of doorways (where they could be discerned) demonstrate that on entering and leaving these structures people would have passed extremely close to the monuments, confirming that they would have been very aware of the presence of these barrows in their settlement. Indeed, it can even be argued that these monuments could have been an inconvenience to the inhabitants as they built on and moved around the site; that they deliberately established their settlement among these earthwork ‘obstacles’ suggests that the monuments did, indeed, have special significance.

A number of human burials had been interred within the settlement and just outside it (Figs. 6.2 and 6.9). A newborn infant had been buried in a shallow cut in the bottom of SFB 32, towards its south side, although it had been badly damaged by an animal burrow (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 201). It is interesting to note that this building was part of an intercutting cluster, which incorporated SFBs 33 and 34, and possibly SFB 30; there may have been up to four phases of building in this location. The space on all sides of these intercutting buildings appears to have been open and clear of settlement features, suggesting that a deliberate decision was taken to build on roughly the same plot multiple times. The insertion of the infant into one of these phases of building might have reflected the importance of this location within the settlement, or to a particular function of the buildings. Elsewhere in the settlement, an adult female, aged over 45, had been buried on the south-west side of the pond barrow 4866 (which also contained the dog burial) (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 201). The cut was very shallow, and the burial seems to have been inserted into a bank around the barrow, which had subsequently eroded. A copper-alloy pin, dating to the late sixth or early seventh centuries, and a fifth- to ninthcentury iron knife accompanied the burial, indicating that it belonged to the latest phase of occupation, or even that it slightly post-dated the settlement.

Phasing of the SFBs suggests that there may have been several foci to the settlement. Initially, it appears that the central/northern cluster of buildings formed the focus of the settlement, but during later phases of the settlement the buildings may have become more dispersed. As part of this development, it is possible that the buildings to the south of the site may have been built, including the structures around ring ditch 801 and those to the southeast of barrows 12 and 13, although it seems that the central/northern focus continued in use. The southern structures were closer to the monuments than the earlier occupation focus had been, and there was a tendency for dwellings, in particular, to be located near to the monuments. Interestingly, it appears that SFBs constructed on and adjacent to the barrows may have belonged to a later settlement phase, when they began to ‘encroach’ onto the monuments; the implication is that the importance of intrusively and demonstrably reusing monuments was growing. While in the earlier phases the central/northern cluster of buildings may have been surrounded and perhaps ‘protected’ by the barrows, in the later phases the obvious, intrusive association of particular buildings with the barrows became more frequent. This may indicate that the monuments, and their role in the community, became more significant, or it could suggest that the control of the barrows grew in importance.

To the north-west of the settlement, in other barrows belonging to the prehistoric barrow cemetery, further Anglo-Saxon burials were found throughout the twentieth century. Barrow 2 contained a secondary burial with a seventh-century knife, Barrow 5 contained two undated secondary burials, which may have been Anglo-Saxon, and in Barrow 16 Anglo-Saxon sherds were recorded in the south-west quadrant of the ring ditch (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 220). There are indications, then, that in the late sixth and seventh centuries, the inhabitants of Barrow Hills began to bury some of their dead in the prehistoric monuments around the settlement, and it is interesting to note that this development apparently took place after the monuments had been reused for some time in the settlement, perhaps even post-dating the settlement. 144

from this part of the site suggests that these buildings were occupied from the fifth or early sixth century into the seventh century (Hamerow et al. 2007: 115).

The possibility that there was increasing control of the southern area of the site is supported by the presence of ‘barriers’, formed by PBS 17, PBS 18, PBS 21 and PBS 22, as well as the use of barrows 12 and 13 to divide the south-eastern cluster of buildings from the rest of the settlement. These would have impeded movement from the north of the site to the south, and suggest some form of restriction of movement may have been in place. In this way, then, the reuse of monuments in the settlement at Barrow Hills could be interpreted as ‘acts of possession’, which demonstrated that particular people or groups had rights to the barrows and their use. It is interesting, therefore, that the use of the monuments for burial did not develop until the very end of the settlement’s life, in the late sixth or early seventh century. The trend in the settlement, and in the area around it, was for increasing ‘ownership’ of barrows; their reuse for burial may have been another development in this increasing ownership, establishing links between particular individuals or families and particular monuments.

More recently, intrusive and non-intrusive archaeological investigations since the 1970s have led to the discovery of several large timber buildings to the south of the site (Fig. 6.11). Benson and Miles (1974a: 62; 1974b: 223-4) identified the cropmarks of five timber halls lying in an L-shape on aerial photographs, while another cropmark hall was subsequently identified to the east of these by Chadwick Hawkes (1986: 88-9). These cropmarks were thought to represent exceptionally large Anglo-Saxon timber structures, possibly belonging to a high-status settlement or ‘palace’ site, examples of which are known from the late sixth and seventh centuries elsewhere in the country (Benson and Miles 1974a: 62; Blair 1994: 32; Hamerow et al. 2007: 109). The halls were also accompanied by a number of sub-rectangular and subcircular cropmarks, 3-5m long, at least some of which may represent SFBs, perhaps related to the buildings to the north (Blair 1994: 32; Hamerow et al. 2007: 115, 224).

It has been shown in this analysis that there were not necessarily strong links between the barrows in the settlement and placed deposits, including human and animal burials. Although the pond barrow on the eastern edge of the settlement did contain both a dog burial and a human burial, the other barrows do not seem to have been used for similar activities. A possible exception is the pattern of deposition of the reused Roman coins from the settlement, which showed a marked trend for being deposited in the ring ditches around barrows, especially barrows 12 and 13. Placed deposits were found elsewhere, however, such as the neonate burial in SFB 32, some distance away from the barrows. Thus, although barrows could be the focus of apparently ritual activity in the settlement, this was not always the case.

A programme of archaeological investigation between 2001 and 2003, comprising a magnetometer survey, metal detecting and excavation, confirmed that the cropmarks were Anglo-Saxon features (Hamerow et al. 2007: 115) (Fig. 6.12). Excavation revealed that the cropmark hall to the south-east of the L-shaped arrangement was 9m wide, with a 1.1m-wide entrance in the middle of the eastern wall, and a foundation trench c.1m wide by c.1m deep (Hamerow et al. 2007: 160-3). One of the pit-type cropmarks, which had also been seen as an anomaly on the magnetometer survey, was investigated and found to be a waterhole flanked by intercutting pits, rather than a SFB, although it was of Anglo-Saxon date (Hamerow et al. 2007: 154). The magnetometer survey also revealed that there were further possible SFBs to the south-east of the partially-excavated hall building.

CASE STUDY 2: SUTTON COURTENAY There were two major components to the Sutton Courtenay settlement; a dispersed group of SFBs to the north of the site, and a number of large halls to the south. The northern area was investigated by Leeds during a series of salvage excavations in the midst of gravel quarrying in the 1920s and 1930s (Leeds 1923; 1927; 1947) (Fig. 6.10). Leeds investigated thirty-three SFBs, or ‘houses’ as he dubbed them; thirty to the east of Milton Road, which ran from north to south through the site, and another three in a field to the west. He also exposed parts of two probable post-built structures, one (building XXII) in the middle of the site, and another unnumbered example further north (Leeds 1927: 16, fig. 1; 1947: 84). However, additional buildings had been destroyed before Leeds was able to record them, particularly in a ‘blank’ area in the middle of the site, where workmen reported having seen further structures (Hamerow et al. 2007: 109; Leeds 1923: 149). Others were already partially destroyed at the time of their investigation and revealed few clues about their original sizes, forms and contents (e.g. buildings II, IV and V) (Leeds 1923: 157-8). Recent re-assessment of the finds

In 2009, elements of this southern part of the site were examined (Wessex Archaeology 2010). The largest and most easterly hall of the L-shaped arrangement (labelled A in Fig. 6.11) was partly excavated, and found to have an entrance in its east wall, whilst the most northerly hall (labelled C) was found to overlay an SFB at its eastern end. A penannular ring ditch bisected by hall A was also confirmed as a prehistoric monument, while a small anomaly seen to underlay hall C on aerial photos and the geophysical survey was found to be an SFB of fifth- to seventh-century date. Another possible SFB identified through geophysical survey was found to be an undated pit (Wessex Archaeology 2010: 12-13). Dating evidence was scarce and the chronological relationships between features were, in most cases, virtually impossible to determine (Wessex Archaeology 2010: v). Nonetheless, these discoveries contribute to broader understanding of the site, and are particularly valuable in confirming the interpretations of several cropmark and geophysical anomalies. The investigations undertaken since 2001 indicate that the settlement at Sutton Courtenay was 145

parallel for this feature was the Barrow Hills oval barrow, c.5km away, there was a local precedent for situating buildings on top of these monuments.

much more complex, extensive and of higher status than Leeds had imagined, a notion that is supported by the metal-detected finds of high-status sixth- and seventhcentury metalwork from a postulated nearby cemetery, and the discovery of early eighth-century coins that may indicate the presence of a market (Hamerow et al. 2007: 109-10).

There may have been further barrows in the area destroyed by quarrying, as the apparent partial cropmark of a large ring ditch, perhaps over 40m in diameter, was plotted just to the south of the road that formed the southern boundary of Leeds’s site (Fig. 6.11). Moreover, there were more ring ditches situated to the west of the cropmark halls. Only the ring ditches to the far north of the site have been excavated, and the discovery of fragments of human skull, Bronze Age pottery and flint from Circle B suggested that this was a Bronze Age barrow, while Circles A and C are also likely to have been barrows (Barclay et al. 2003: 22; Leeds 1927: 60). Both Barclay et al. (2003: 23) and Hamerow et al. (2007: 113) felt confident that, given the high numbers of prehistoric barrows in this area, the unexcavated ring ditches also represented barrows. They also suggested that, given the relationships between the buildings and the ring ditches, which will be discussed in detail below, there was evidence to support their longevity and visibility as monuments into the Anglo-Saxon period.

The settlement at Sutton Courtenay is, therefore, extensive and complex, consisting of a number of elements, perhaps of different phases. The excavated settlement features cover an area of approximately 750m from north to south, although the settlement’s full extent is not known, and it may have continued to the north and west (Hamerow et al. 2007: 115, 183). Excavations at the adjacent Drayton Highways Depot site appeared to indicate that no further buildings existed to the east, although the recent magnetometer survey conducted by Hamerow et al. suggested that there were more easterly SFBs close to the halls in the southern half of the site (Barclay et al. 2003: 23-9; Hamerow et al. 2007: 115). Although it may initially appear that the SFBs and postbuilt structures were spatially distinct at Sutton Courtenay, this was not the case, as the partiallypreserved post-built structures in the northern area and the SFBs in the southern area demonstrate; the exact relationship between the two areas is, however, presently unclear (Hamerow et al. 2007: 187). Indeed, although a large number of buildings have been investigated, the quality and quantity of evidence is not satisfactory enough to create a detailed picture of the settlement. This is partly the result of the destruction of the site through quarrying and the salvage nature of the excavations in the 1920s and 1930s, but it is also due to modern ploughing, which has severely truncated many features in the southern area (Hamerow et al. 2007: 113). Nonetheless, there is enough evidence to explore the relationships between the settlement and the prehistoric monuments within it, which will be discussed below.

A Neolithic cursus also ran through the settlement from north to south. The monument consisted of two sections, a northern part (Drayton North cursus) and a southern section (Drayton South cursus); the area excavated by Leeds lay at the northern end of the Drayton South cursus, but it seems that most features associated with this monument were destroyed by gravel extraction before Leeds became aware of them (Barclay et al. 2003: 16) (Fig. 6.11). However, part of the eastern ditch survived, and was traced by Leeds for c.55m, whilst he also probably uncovered a further 17m of ditch, although this stretch was not included on his published plan (Barclay et al. 2003: 16; Leeds 1927: 62). The ditch was probably accompanied by a bank, as excavations of the Drayton North cursus revealed that it had internal parallel banks (Ainslie and Wallis 1987: 1-2; Moore 1986: 99). Additionally, in 2001-03, Roman enclosures were found on the eastern side of the field subjected to the magnetometer survey (Fig. 6.12) (Hamerow et al. 2007: 135). Although they were located some distance from the Anglo-Saxon settlement and do not seem to have influenced it, a droveway ran from the enclosures to the west of the field, where the Anglo-Saxon buildings were located. The droveway dated from the mid first to early second century AD, and was c.15m wide with defining ditches that had been re-cut on at least one occasion, and it is possible that this feature still existed at the time of the Anglo-Saxon occupation (Hamerow et al. 2007: 154).

The site contained numerous prehistoric monuments. At the northern limit of the area excavated by Leeds were three ring ditches; Circle A had an internal diameter of c.20m, Circle B a diameter of c.27m, and Circle C a diameter of c.9m (Leeds 1927: 60). Circles A and C were typical forms of ring ditch, while Circle B may have had an inner and outer berm on either side of the ring ditch (Barclay et al. 2003: 22). Close to the large halls to the south of the site were further ring ditches, including a particularly large example to the north of hall C. There were two more ring ditches either side of it, one of which had been overlain by hall A (possibly casting doubt on its visibility during the Anglo-Saxon period) and to the east of these was another, double-ditched, cropmark ring ditch. In the area surveyed in 2001-03, there was another ring ditch with an internal diameter of c.23m, and a probable Neolithic oval barrow measuring approximately 33m by 21m (Hamerow et al. 2007: 113, 121, 131). There were geophysical anomalies over and around the oval barrow; these were undated, but it is possible that they were Anglo-Saxon features, perhaps buildings or graves (Hamerow et al. 2007: 131). Given that the nearest

Settlement Layout The SFBs in the northern half of the site generally had an east-west alignment, similar to many other early AngloSaxon settlements (Marshall and Marshall 1993), although several were on a roughly north-south alignment. They were arranged around the ‘blank’ quarried area; this area probably contained further 146

buildings were aligned on the barrows, each having an end wall pointing towards a barrow.

buildings, as did the field containing building W1 to the west of Milton Road (Hamerow et al. 2007: 115; Leeds 1927: 75; 1947: 92). Leeds recorded the investigation of thirty-three buildings, although re-evaluation shows that some of his interpretations were rather dubious. ‘House’ X, for example, was interpreted as a building consisting of three rooms, labelled 1 to 3 (Leeds 1923: 167-73). It is more likely that these ‘rooms’ were three separate buildings, two of them intercutting (Fig. 6.13). Similarly, Leeds interpreted ‘house’ XXI as a cellared building with a clay store, but its depth, the waterlogging at its base and the wattle around its sides make it more likely that this was a waterhole (Hamerow et al. 2007: 185; Leeds 1947: 81-4; Tipper 2004: 88).

The L-shaped arrangement of large halls to the south also appears to have been influenced by prehistoric barrows. The three halls (C, D and E) forming the short, northsouth side of the ‘L’ pointed towards a large ring ditch, approximately 35m in diameter (Fig. 6.11). The closest cropmark to the ring ditch was C, which was just over 10m away from the monument, although it overlapped with a smaller rectangular feature on its western side, which was even closer to the ring ditch (Hamerow et al. 2007: 224). As it was on a different alignment from C, D and E, this smaller rectangle may have belonged to a different phase. The long, east-west side of the ‘L’ was formed by cropmarks A and B, the former situated directly over a penannular ring ditch, c.22m in diameter (Wessex Archaeology 2010: 10-12). This may indicate that this particular monument was no longer a visible earthwork in the Anglo-Saxon period; this is also suggested by the cropmark evidence, which shows that the ring ditch was less substantial than other examples nearby (Hamerow et al. 2007: 189). Alternatively, it could indicate that the building had been deliberately placed over a pre-existing earthwork after it had been wholly or partly levelled; this would be unusual, as this practice has not been seen elsewhere in the study area, but it is a possibility.

‘House’ XV was a rather unusual feature, which Leeds also interpreted as a building, although it was only partially excavated. It consisted of a ‘pavement’ of limestone blocks overlying the south-west quadrant of Circle B, with several Anglo-Saxon sherds lying above it (Leeds 1927: 69-70). It did not resemble other buildings on the site, nor indeed Anglo-Saxon buildings from elsewhere in the country, although it was noted that a number of other SFBs contained large limestone blocks, often in their upper fills (for example, buildings III, VI, VII and VIII) (Leeds 1923: 157-66). It is possible that, as the building was only partially excavated, it was an SFB but Leeds failed to reveal its sides, base, or any of the diagnostic characteristics that would have proved this. Taking into account the reinterpretation of ‘house’ XXI as a waterhole and the realisation that ‘house’ X was in fact three buildings, Leeds actually seems to have excavated thirty-five buildings (including the questionable limestone paved building XV).

A smaller ring ditch, c.13m in diameter, was situated between the two larger ring ditches and encircled what appear to be at least five pit-type cropmarks. Recent investigations revealed that a similar, smaller, pit anomaly lying at the end of hall C was an SFB, and it is therefore possible that similar anomalies, including those within the ring ditch, were SFBs (Wessex Archaeology 2010: 13). It is notable that the anomalies were located inside the ditch and did not overlap it; this resembles the construction of buildings on barrows elsewhere in the corpus, and it is possible that the anomalies represent concentrated intrusive reuse of the monument, perhaps in multiple phases. The eastern ditch of the Drayton South cursus also ran through this area of the site, and the northwest corner of hall B overlapped it. It is uncertain how visible this feature would have been in the Anglo-Saxon period, however, as both Barclay et al. (2003: 23) and Hamerow et al. (2007: 189) have stated that it was unlikely to have been particularly well-preserved. The hall to the south-west of the L-shaped arrangement, in the field investigated by Hamerow et al. (2007) in 2001-03, does not appear to have been strongly influenced by the remains of monuments. However, the magnetometer anomalies thought to represent SFBs to the south of the hall were relatively close to the anomalies of the ring ditch (C) and the oval barrow (D) (Fig. 6.12) (Hamerow et al. 2007: 154). If these were SFBs, they would have been within c.50m of the ring ditch and c.100m east of the oval barrow and, as previously noted, further anomalies situated on and around the oval barrow might also have been buildings (Hamerow et al. 2007: 131).

Although the quarried ‘blank’ area in the centre of the site did not allow a complete picture of the layout of the northern part of Sutton Courtenay to be produced, it does appear that a relatively large number of the SFBs in the settlement were located towards the north of this area, close to Circles A, B and C. Each of these ring ditches had been reused intrusively; building XIX lay on the north-west side of Circle A, building XVIII lay over Circle B on its western side, and building XVI lay over Circle C on its northern side (Fig. 6.14). The limestone ‘pavement’ of XV was also situated over the south-west quadrant of Circle B. In addition, there were further structures in very close proximity to the ring ditches; building XVII was c.6-7m south of Circle A, building XIV was a similar distance south of Circle C, and building IX was c.5m south-east of Circle C. Less than 5m south of Circle B lay the postholes of one of the two post-built structures noted by Leeds, which appears to have been at least c.3.8m wide by c.7.6m long. It is interesting that, while a roughly east-west alignment was preferred across much of the site, buildings VIII, IX, XIII and XIV had a north-south alignment, which also echoed the alignment of building XIX on Circle A and XVIII on Circle B. This is particularly noticeable in contrast to the row of buildings to the north of the quarried area, including ‘houses’ I, II, III, IV and V, which were all aligned east-west. It appears that the north-south aligned 147

positioning of the large buildings. Their structured layout suggests that they were part of one complex, built perhaps at the same time by the same person or group, and thus they all appear to have been associated with the prehistoric monuments in this area.

Building Sizes Post-Built Structures The large post-built structures situated to the south of the site fell into James et al.’s (1984: 185) Group 2, comprising sites at which the majority of buildings measure over 50m2 (Table 6.4). The two sets of postholes excavated by Leeds to the north appear to have been partially-preserved post-built structures. As they were incomplete their dimensions are unknown, but they do not appear to have been built on the same scale as those to the south. Leeds did not specify the dimensions of these structures, but measurements have been taken from his site plan, albeit rather imprecisely due to the plan’s small scale. The dimensions of halls A to E, and the hall to the south-east of them, have been obtained from Hamerow et al. (2007: 224). However, they did not provide dimensions for the smaller rectangular building overlying the north-west corner of C, so this has been measured from Blair’s (1994: 32) plan of the cropmarks. It should be noted that, with the exception of the width of the south-eastern hall excavated in 2001-03, the building dimensions in Table 6.4 have all been obtained from cropmark plots or geophysical surveys, rather than through excavation.

Sunken-Featured Buildings The evidence presented in this part of the analysis is derived wholly from the SFBs in the northern part of the site. Although it appears from aerial photography and geophysical survey that there were further SFBs in the vicinity of the large halls, their dimensions, with the exception of one (feature 330), have not been confirmed through excavation (Wessex Archaeology 2010). Of the thirty-five SFBs excavated by Leeds, the dimensions of twenty-eight were known; this includes many of the buildings in the main cluster to the east of Milton Road, as well as the three buildings to the west (W1 to W3) (Table 6.5). The ‘rooms’ of building X have been treated as three separate buildings, distinguished here as X(1), X(2) and X(3). The average size of the SFBs was 11m2; thirteen buildings were larger than this, up to 17.9m2, and fifteen were smaller, the smallest measuring 6.1m2 (Table 6.5). The majority of the larger-than-average structures were located to the north of the area investigated by Leeds, just to the south of the three ring ditches, with particular concentrations south-west of Circle B and south of Circle C (Fig. 6.14). Further south there were just two largerthan-average buildings (XXV and XXVIII), while W3 was the only above-average example west of Milton Road. A number of buildings were particularly large, with areas in excess of 15m2 (buildings VI, VII, IX, XII, XIV and W3). Again, these tended to be located just south of the barrows; all except W3 were situated within c.20m of Circles B and C. Of the twenty-eight structures with discernable dimensions, three were positioned on the monuments, and another seven were within 20m of a ring ditch; the average area of these ten structures was 13.6m2, compared to an average of 9.5m2 for buildings over 20m away.

The two posthole buildings excavated by Leeds were of fairly typical size for an early Anglo-Saxon settlement (Marshall and Marshall 1991). However, given their partial preservation, it is of course possible that they were larger than the measurements here suggest. Although it was difficult to confirm beyond doubt that the unnumbered structure was, as it appears to be on the plan, larger than building XXII, it is interesting that it was situated within about 5m of Circle B. It is just possible that, as at Barrow Hills, there was a link between larger post-built structures and monuments, although the poor preservation of these structures and the lack of evidence for other post-built structures in this area make this impossible to confirm. The cropmark halls were exceptionally large; all except the structure overlapping the north-west corner of C were over 50m2 in area, while building A and the south-eastern hall were particularly substantial. Indeed, building A was comparable in size with the largest timber building, A4, at the high-status settlement of Yeavering (Hamerow et al. 2007: 187). The relationships between these buildings and at least one ring ditch, on which they appear to have been aligned, is also significant, as similar associations have been noted in high-status Anglo-Saxon settlements elsewhere, for example Hatton Rock (Rahtz 1970) and Cowage Farm near Malmesbury (Hinchliffe 1986). Interestingly, in this complex of halls at Sutton Courtenay the larger structures were located further away from the large, focal ring ditch, while the smaller ones were closer. This is in contrast to the situation at Barrow Hills, and possibly in the northern area of the Sutton Courtenay settlement, where larger buildings appear to have been closer to monuments. The arrangement of halls at Sutton Courtenay is sufficiently different from the other sites to suggest that there may have been different rules dictating the construction and

As at Barrow Hills, there appears to have been a tendency for larger SFBs to be situated closer to monuments at Sutton Courtenay. However, unlike Barrow Hills, the three structures located on top of the barrows were not particularly large. Only building XVIII was of aboveaverage size, while buildings XIX and XVI were relatively small, although they were still larger than a number of other SFBs in the settlement. The ring ditch of Circle B was wider than the other two ring ditches, which may explain why the building located on it was larger than those on Circles A and C; the smaller size of the other ring ditches could have restricted the sizes of the buildings on top of them. The average area of buildings within 10m of a barrow was 14.6m2, while the average for those within 10-20m of one of the barrows was 15.4m2, meaning that there was a slight tendency for SFBs in the clusters south of the monuments to be larger the further out they were. 148

position so close to the large barrow to the north suggests that this building plot was sufficiently important to have been used in at least two phases. If so, this smaller structure may have been a precursor to the more substantial complex of halls, and could even have belonged to an earlier phase of the settlement, which might well have included some or all of the SFBs excavated by Leeds to the north.

There may not, therefore, have been a desire to place particularly large buildings directly on the barrows at Sutton Courtenay, but there does appear to have been a marked trend for constructing larger buildings in close proximity to the monuments. Of course, the destruction of a large swathe of the northern part of the Sutton Courtenay site is problematic. Without information about the other buildings that no doubt existed in the destroyed area, it is impossible to know whether the trends in size noted here were borne out by the rest of the settlement. For example, building W3 shows that large SFBs could be situated some distance away from the three ring ditches. However, there are enough buildings with known sizes scattered across the whole site to be able to say that there was a trend amongst the excavated buildings for larger structures, often particularly large examples, to be constructed close to the three ring ditches, especially Circle B and Circle C.

Phasing Phasing the different elements of the settlement is not straightforward, partly because of the limited excavation to the south of site, and partly because the artefacts from the SFBs to the north have undergone limited modern analysis, since many finds in the archive cannot now be linked to particular features (Hamerow et al. 2007: 115). However, the Anglo-Saxon pottery found during the 2001-03 excavations in the area containing the halls was typical of the early to middle Anglo-Saxon period, with a predominance of chaff-tempered wares suggesting a sixth- to seventh-century date (Hamerow et al. 2007: 1689). This date was supported by the lack of sand-tempered wares and decorated sherds, both of which are generally thought to indicate a fifth- to sixth-century date in this area. The indications are, then, that this part of the settlement, at least, did not exist before the late sixth century.

Building Replacement The structures excavated towards the north of the site yielded little evidence for re-cutting or rebuilding, although their poor preservation and salvage recording may have led to evidence for replaced postholes or re-cut pits being overlooked. The only known instance of rebuilding is in relation to building X, which Leeds interpreted as three rooms of one structure, despite the fact that he recognised that ‘room’ 2 was built after ‘room’ 1 had fallen out of use (Leeds 1923: 176). One ‘room’ appears to be a separate SFB, while the others formed two intercutting buildings; building X, therefore, appears to represent three phases of re-building (Hamerow et al. 2007: 185). The structure was located towards the north of the excavation area, but did not have any obvious or direct relationship with any of the monuments. However, with such limited evidence regarding the replacement and re-cutting of SFBs, it is possible that the structures on the ring ditches could have been rebuilt or maintained, and so too could other SFBs in the settlement.

The hall sizes and methods of construction add weight to the assertion that the settlement had a seventh-century phase, as similar complexes of large buildings belonging to the seventh century or later have been found elsewhere in the country (Blair 1994: 32). Meanwhile, the SFB uncovered at the end of hall C during the recent excavations was assigned a broad early Anglo-Saxon date of the fifth to seventh centuries (Wessex Archaeology 2010: 25). The similar anomalies overlapping hall B may also be earlier SFBs, in which case the halls may belong to a later phase of settlement at Sutton Courtenay, which was preceded by a settlement consisting of many SFBs, including those to the north excavated by Leeds. If so, the settlement may have developed from a more ‘ordinary’ occupation site into an extraordinary one at some in the late sixth or seventh century. Metal detected items discovered during the 1990s in the field containing the south-eastern hall included sixth- to seventh-century dress accessories, such as saucer brooches, mounts and buckles, thought to be from an associated cemetery, and these correlate with the postulated date of the settlement (Hamerow et al. 2007: 118, 170-6, 185). Fourteen sceattas dating from c.700-730 have also been recovered from the same field by metal detectorists since 1991 (quite possibly in addition to further, unreported metal detected finds), suggesting that in the early eighth century the southern part of the site at Sutton Courtenay functioned as a trading and meeting place (Hamerow et al. 2007: 180).

Further south there are some indicators of building replacement, although the dearth of excavation in this area means that there may be many more instances of building maintenance and replacement yet to be uncovered. During the excavations in 2009 SFB 330, excavated at the end of cropmark hall C, was found to pre-date the hall (Wessex Archaeology 2010: 13). Similar anomalies, perhaps also SFBs, overlapped the cropmark outline of hall B. Although this evidence can tell us little about augmentation to individual buildings, it does reveal that this part of the site was already occupied prior to the construction of the large halls. The fact that the SFBs appear to have been replaced by such large and unusual halls may indicate that these particular barrows were seen as especially significant, and that they became the focus of high-status occupation that overlay previous traces of an earlier, perhaps more ‘ordinary’ settlement. The smaller rectangular hall overlapping hall C did not share an alignment with any of the other halls in the ‘L-shape’, and it appears to have belonged to a different phase; its

Understanding the development of the part of the settlement excavated by Leeds is rather difficult. The few instances of intercutting buildings, discussed above, 149

demonstrate that there were several phases to certain areas of the site, but absolute dates for any of these phases are not known. Hamerow et al. (2007: 169) briefly discussed the ceramics from Leeds’s excavations and these, like the ceramics from around the large halls, were attributed a sixth- to seventh-century date, based on the small proportion of decorated sherds and the presence of ‘swallow’s nest’ lugs3 on vessels. Leeds discovered a fifth-century silver-gilt equal-armed brooch in ‘room’ 2 of building X and he believed that this provided a date for the site’s occupation, although this was not necessarily the case as the brooch could have been old when it was deposited and the site lacked other fifth-century pottery or finds (Leeds 1923: 171; Hamerow et al. 2007: 184).

structures exhibiting reuse. The focus of the settlement at that time appears to have been the hall complex, although it is possible that the areas to the north and south continued to be used. Movement within the Settlement There are few indications of how people might have moved around the northern part of the settlement, since no traces of trackways or routes were noted by Leeds. Similarly, the lack of knowledge about entrances in SFBs means that little can be said about how the inhabitants might have interacted with the barrows on the northern edge of the site. However, at least three buildings were situated on ring ditches which, in a similar way to the buildings on barrows at Barrow Hills, could have impeded access to the buildings. At the very least, their locations would have meant that people entering or leaving the buildings would have been aware of the monuments. All three were aligned with their long axes following the line of the ring ditches, possibly indicating that the entrances were in the opposite walls, facing out and away from the barrows. The location of building XVI on the northern side of Circle C might have served to hide it from view, at least partially, from the other side of the barrow if the earthwork was a significant landscape feature. As at Barrow Hills, the buildings clustering around the south-west side of the barrows might have had an effect on access to the monuments, as inhabitants would have had to negotiate their way around these structures when approaching the barrows from the southern part of the settlement. This is particularly true of the line of east-west SFBs formed by buildings including I, II, III and IV; while we cannot know whether all these structures existed at any one time, or what other structures stood in the destroyed area, it is interesting that they seem to have formed a linear arrangement to the south of the barrows. It is possible that they acted as a boundary, separating the barrows and the buildings on or near them from the rest of the settlement to the south.

It is just possible that comparison with the buildings at Barrow Hills might reveal links between the sizes, positions and dates of the SFBs excavated by Leeds. At Barrow Hills, the sixth-century tpq group of SFBs were often larger than earlier examples, and showed greater variation in size. At Sutton Courtenay, therefore, it might be the case that the larger SFBs close to Circles A, B and C, and the buildings situated on top of them, belonged to the sixth century, or at least a later phase of the settlement. If so, is it possible that the settlement also displays the ‘encroachment’ of activity onto the barrows during a later phase of occupation? Could that ‘encroachment’ have taken place at a similar time to the construction of the large halls to the south, or perhaps earlier? These possibilities deserve consideration, but they remain only tentative suggestions; in the absence of reliable dating evidence they are impossible to substantiate. Nevertheless, a general model for the development of the settlement at Sutton Courtenay can be suggested. The settlement might have begun with a dispersed collection of SFBs in the northern part of the site, perhaps accompanied by post-built structures (of which only two were traced, although it seems likely that there were more). As at least one SFB pre-dated the cropmark hall complex, the SFBs in this area appear to have belonged to an earlier phase of the settlement, while the magnetometer anomalies in the field to the south-east might represent further contemporary structures. The multiple phases of building X indicate that, at least to the north of the site, occupation took place long enough for buildings to have fallen into disrepair and to have been replaced. The small rectangular cropmark hall overlapping hall C may also have belonged to this earlier phase, and it could have been contemporary with the buildings positioned on Circles A, B and C to the north. During a later phase the large cropmarks halls to the south may then have been constructed, overlying some of the earlier SFBs and the small cropmark hall. The inhabitants at this time appear to have replaced the earlier, more subtle reuse of the prehistoric monuments with a more substantial and ostentatious complex of

The cropmark halls to the south display a much more structured arrangement than the SFBs. The axial arrangement of large timber buildings is a characteristic feature of high-status settlements, and has also been noted at Cowdery’s Down and Yeavering, although the significance of this arrangement is currently unclear (Hamerow et al. 2007: 187). It is possible that axial alignments emphasised the importance of particular buildings or were related to processions through the settlement and the structures (Hamerow et al. 2007: 187). The location of the larger buildings further away from the ring ditch in this area might suggest that processions started at the barrow and moved progressively through the halls, going from the smaller to larger buildings. There may also have been enclosures limiting or influencing the way that people moved through this part of the site. This was suggested by a length of ditch extending from one corner of the hall excavated by Hamerow et al., but as it was not possible to carry out geophysical survey in the field containing the rest of the halls, and as no enclosures were visible on the aerial

3 ‘Swallow’s nest’ lugs are round pouch-shaped additions applied to a vessel’s exterior surface, around the neck or rim, which enclose a perforated hole for suspension (G. Perry pers. comm.).

150

There were a number of interesting animal bone assemblages that may also have represented placed deposits (Fig. 6.15). A horse skull and part of an articulated horse skeleton, as well as the skull and several other bones from a dog, were recovered from Pit 2, to the west of building VII (Leeds 1923: 165). At the centre of building XII lay the back half of an ox skull, with its horn cores attached, while building XVII had the hind feet of a dog in its eastern posthole and the front feet in the western posthole (Leeds 1923: 63; 1927: 71). Meanwhile, an articulated lower leg of an ox had been deposited in building XXIX (Leeds 1947: 89). Further south, in the fill of SFB 330 underlying hall C, a number of animal remains were recovered, including the skull of a large dog, the remains of at least four pigs, and seven articulating cattle vertebrae (Wessex Archaeology 2010: 19). In addition, two human burials were found in the area of the settlement excavated by Leeds. In building X(1) was the burial of an adult male accompanied by an iron knife; the body had been deposited after the building went out of use and then covered by earth and a layer of clay (Leeds 1923: 169). Meanwhile, Pit α, which was nearly 2m wide and located to the west of building XXIII, contained the remains of an adult female, whose body had been interred at an angle, so that her feet were higher than her head (Leeds 1947: 86). Her feet were to the east, with her legs sloping downwards, and her arms were ‘outstretched’ towards the remains of an infant, while behind her head were two ox skulls and a horse skull.

photographs, this cannot be confirmed (Hamerow et al. 2007: 187). Finds and Burials As at Barrow Hills, numerous Roman artefacts were discovered in the SFBs and pits excavated by Leeds; as there was no evidence for Roman occupation on the site, it seems that these finds were brought into the settlement from elsewhere (Leeds 1923: 149) (Table 6.6). The bases of vessels were frequently found, some having been trimmed into discs and spindle whorls (Leeds 1927: 79). The curated Roman ceramics show a preference for red wares and grey wares, as the collection included fragments of brick or tile, sherds of Samian or Samiantype wares, and other red and grey ceramics. Some pieces were decorated, including a tile decorated with a linear pattern from building IV, a fragment of Samian-type ware mortarium with white painted scrolls from building VII, an almost complete but very abraded bowl of Samiantype ware with scroll decoration in white on the rim from building XVII, as well as a sherd of Samian ware decorated with a roulette pattern from Pit β (Leeds 1923: 158, 162; 1927: 71; 1947: 87). Other Roman finds include a fragment of decorated glass from building X(2), a bronze fibula from building XIII, a brass coin of Constantinus I in building XXI and a late fourth-century bronze coin of Gratian in W1 (Leeds 1923: 171; 1927: 68; 1947: 82). Interestingly, Leeds (1947: 85) also recorded finding a small Roman vase containing a bronze Roman coin in building XXII, the more southerly of the two post-built structures. A large pit or posthole inside the timber hall to the south-east of the cropmark hall complex was also found to contain a Roman sherd, although it had not been shaped (Hamerow et al. 2007: 167). Flint was found in every SFB, although given the extensive prehistoric use of this area, and the fact that Leeds (1923: 151-4, 184; 1927: 59-62) found prehistoric pits as well as SFBs here, these could have been residual rather than deliberately collected, although it is possible that a mixture of both factors were responsible for the presence of flint in the SFBs.

As at Barrow Hills, these deposits were fairly widely dispersed and there were no specific associations between placed deposits and the prehistoric monuments. Building VII and the adjacent Pit 2 were within c.16m of Circle C and building XVII was c.7m south of Circle A, but building XII was some way to the west of the barrows, buildings X(1) and X(2) were about 25m away from the closest barrow, Pit α was some 150m south of the barrows, and building XXIX was at the southern end of the site. Thus, although several placed deposits were found fairly close to the prehistoric monuments, it cannot be said that there was any clear link between them and the prehistoric monuments, although there could have been further, less obvious or already destroyed deposits that were not identified by Leeds.

It is possible that some of these Romano-British sherds formed placed deposits, particularly when they were unusual in being highly decorated or practically complete vessels, whilst the bronze coins and fibula might also have been deliberately placed in specific features. There are also a number of Anglo-Saxon finds that might constitute deliberately placed deposits. For example, Leeds found a large smashed cooking pot in building VII, while building X(2) contained a fifth-century silver-gilt equal-armed brooch, mentioned above, which had been placed on the base of the pit (Leeds 1923: 162, 171). In ‘house’ XXI, now thought to be a waterhole, a large piece of antler and a complete or semi-complete pottery vessel were found just above the base of the feature, which Hamerow et al. (2007: 185) classed as a placed deposit, although the presence of a vessel in a waterhole may have resulted from accidental loss rather than deliberate deposition.

Conclusions The two areas of settlement at Sutton Courtenay seem to have been part of one site, although their archaeology and excavation histories are very different. The earliest elements of the settlement may have been located in the area excavated by Leeds to the north of the site, which seems to have been inhabited in the sixth and seventh centuries. A possible fifth-century phase is attested to by a brooch from building X(2), but this could have already been old when it was buried (Hamerow et al. 2007: 184; Leeds 1923: 171). The primary evidence of occupation in this area was in the form of numerous SFBs, three (or possible four) of which were on the prehistoric barrows, Circles A to C, at the northern end of the site. The SFBs in this part of the site showed a tendency to be larger the 151

perhaps also post-built structures, to an ordered arrangement of remarkably large halls, perhaps with some co-existence of the two. Future investigation of the site will no doubt reveal further information about the relationships between the Anglo-Saxon settlement and the prehistoric landscape.

closer they were towards the barrows although, unlike Barrow Hills, the structures on top of the barrows were not particularly large. The relative dates of the buildings uncovered by Leeds are unknown, although there is some evidence for the replacement of some structures, which reveals that there were multiple phases to certain areas of the site. The locations of the re-cut buildings do not demonstrate any particular links with the barrows, suggesting that the maintenance of structures on or adjacent to barrows was not of the upmost importance. However, this is not certain, as Leeds could have overlooked evidence for re-cutting and rebuilding due to the early date and the salvage nature of his investigations.

CASE STUDY 3: CATHOLME Catholme lies in Staffordshire, close to the border with Derbyshire, on a gravel terrace of the River Trent (LoscoBradley and Kinsley 2002: 1). This terrace became a focus for quarrying in the early 1970s, resulting in a large-scale excavation, which uncovered an area of c.3.4ha in various seasons between 1973 and 1980 (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 3-6). The excavation area was defined to the east by the Trent, to the west by an existing quarry and a railway line, to the south-west by the course of a sunken road, Catholme Lane, and to the north by the proposed limit of quarrying activity. This did not reveal the full extent of the settlement, as buildings may have continued beyond the limit of the excavation to the north-west and the south. The settlement was occupied from the early seventh to late ninth centuries, and consisted of a number of ‘zones’, defined by ditched and fenced boundaries, connected by trackways, and containing settlement features including post-built structures, SFBs and pits of various types (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 28) (Plate 2). At least sixty-five postbuilt structures and SFBs were excavated, a large number of which had been refurbished or rebuilt in the same location several times (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 85-8). Thirteen of these buildings were SFBs, and there was also a further possible SFB (AS33), which was heavily eroded. The remainder of the structures were post-built, constructed using posts set in postholes or trenches, or postholes with shallow ditches linking them.

To the south of the site the complex of large halls overlay several earlier SFBs, which may have been related to those to the north. Early indications are that the recentlyexcavated SFB under hall C was late sixth-century in date; the large halls could have been seventh-century, which correlates with the dates of similar complexes elsewhere (Blair 1994: 32). The positions of the halls and their alignment on a barrow show an organised and structured relationship between the buildings and the prehistoric earthwork, which seems to have been very deliberate. The halls were unusually large for an AngloSaxon settlement, the largest being comparable in size to the largest building at Yeavering (A4) (Hamerow et al. 2007: 187). Meanwhile, the discovery of a possible highstatus cemetery and market near to the halls also indicate that the site acquired special status towards the late sixth or early seventh century (Hamerow et al. 2007: 183-5). Indeed, Sutton Courtenay was a West Saxon royal centre by the ninth century, and it is likely that a similar highstatus role was already being signalled through the complex of large halls, the cemetery and the market, several centuries earlier (Hamerow et al. 2007: 189). If the northern part of the site excavated by Leeds was earlier than the hall complex, it is possible that the focus of this earlier settlement was the northern area containing the three prehistoric barrows. The presence of three or four structures on these barrows could, in fact, have been a precursor to the complex to the south, and these structures could potentially have been related to the display of status on the site prior to the construction of the larger, more ostentatious and highly structured group of halls.

Some of the postulated post-built structures were more subjective than others, such as five examples (AS8, AS10, AS24, AS27 and AS53) identified from two sets of paired postholes, thought to represent the deeper entrance posts of otherwise heavily eroded buildings. The excavation report did, however, explicitly state that conjecture was avoided as much as possible when distinguishing structures amongst the large numbers of excavated postholes (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 85). The post-built structures at Catholme show greater variation in their forms than the buildings recognised at settlements such as Barrow Hills; this may result from differences in preservation, the different dates of settlements, or their geographical location. Four buildings had annexes (AS25, AS38a/b, AS42a and AS61) and some were formed by two units of similar size (AS6, AS15, AS43 and AS45), although in the case of AS6 and AS15 there is no certainty that both units stood at the same time.

As at Barrow Hills, there was little evidence to indicate that the barrows at Sutton Courtenay were linked specifically to ritual activity in the form of placed deposits, as these were dispersed across the whole site. The relationship between the northern and southern areas is difficult to determine, as is the extent to which the buildings in both areas co-existed, although there is some overlap between the dates of features to the north and the south (Hamerow et al. 2007: 186). Nonetheless, there is ample evidence to demonstrate that there was a high degree of integration between the Anglo-Saxon settlement features and the prehistoric landscape in both the northern and southern areas at Sutton Courtenay. The form of monument reuse also appears to have developed and changed, from a dispersed collection of SFBs, and

The assemblage of Anglo-Saxon artefacts recovered from Catholme was small, with a dearth of datable finds, and radiocarbon dating was undertaken in order to determine the dates of the settlement (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 152

Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 29). The longevity of PM3 is indicated by the fact that the eastern terminals of medieval furrows respected the inner edge of its ditch, suggesting that a mound survived within it until well after the settlement was abandoned (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 119). It appears, then, that PM3, and possibly the smaller monument PM2, were respected by nearby settlement features and ‘annexed’ or cut off from the rest of the settlement, perhaps in order to separate or protect them from occupation activities that took place elsewhere.

2002: 120-3). These dates were recalibrated in 1995, some fifteen years after the excavation ended, providing a more reliable indication of the settlement’s period of occupation, which was determined to have been between the early seventh and late ninth centuries. Unfortunately, few of these samples came from contexts with stratigraphic relationships to other features; thus, while they give a broad indication of Catholme’s period of occupation, they are not particularly useful for phasing other features in the settlement. Nonetheless, the redefinition of many ditches, fences and buildings demonstrated that there was chronological depth to the site. There did exist some stratigraphic relationships between archaeological features, which allowed certain elements of the site to be phased, even if those phases could not be dated in absolute terms (see the Phasing section below) (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 117).

Settlement Layout Catholme’s occupation zones were numbered I to X, and were all fully or partially enclosed by ditched and fenced boundaries. The report authors argued that these zones reflected real occupation units that were in use during the settlement’s lifetime (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 115). There was little evidence to indicate that the zones had different functions; instead, it seems that each unit represented a property or farmstead belonging to a different group, possibly different families or members of one extended family (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 28, 126-7). Each zone contained a number of post-built structures, while the majority of SFBs were situated to the south of the site in Zone X, which may suggest some degree of functional variation between this area and the rest of the settlement. Many of the enclosures and trackways had been redefined on multiple occasions, indicating longevity and stability in the settlement’s layout.

The prehistoric monuments at Catholme were to the east of the settlement, which was defined on its eastern side by a re-cut of a long-lived boundary, the origins of which lay in the later prehistoric period, although its exact date was unknown (Losco-Bradley 2002: 15-20). This boundary ran across the terrace top and down the terrace edge slope, and it had begun life as a 90m-long pit alignment accompanied by a line of posts 1-2m to the east. Nine of these posts had subsequently been sealed by a bank of sand and gravel, traces of which were preserved over an area of c.8m by 2m; three successive lengths of ditch, each 30-40m long, then replaced the pits and postholes, and these in turn were cut by a longer ditch, which essentially followed the original course of the pit alignments. This latest ditch phase was 0.9-1.0m deep and c.2m wide when excavated, and it had also been recut three times; pottery from the re-cuts indicated that the ditch had filled in during the Anglo-Saxon period, suggesting that the boundary had been redefined in this period.

Of particular interest in this study are the zones on the eastern side of the settlement, VII, VIII and IX. The prehistoric monuments were in Zone IX, while Zones VII and VIII were immediately adjacent to this area; any spatial relationships between settlement features and earlier monuments are likely to have been manifested in this part of the site. The boundaries of these particular zones were very well-defined, although it cannot be argued that this was a trait restricted to this part of the site, as Zones IV and V also had clear boundaries. Others, however, are much less clear; the limits and contents of Zone II are rather obscure, and the report authors did not explain why they classed this as a separate zone. It is also difficult to see how Zone I, containing just one SFB overlain by a larger post-built structure, might have constituted a farmstead in itself; it may well have been related to the cluster of buildings in Zone III.

Within the area defined by the long-lived boundary was a large penannular ring ditch (PM3), c.30m in diameter, and a smaller segmented ditch-monument (PM2), approximately 10m in diameter (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 15). Both were difficult to date, but they may have been constructed in the late Neolithic period. There was a third monument (PM1) to the south of PM2 and PM3, which appears to have been a ring ditch with a diameter of c.5m. Given its small size, and the fact that the Anglo-Saxon ditch D58 cut across it, PM1 may not have been a visible feature in the Anglo-Saxon period. A further prehistoric feature, located just to the south of PM2, was a large pit (3690), which could have survived as a hollow into the Anglo-Saxon period, when it appears to have filled up (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 15).

Unlike Barrow Hills and Sutton Courtenay there were no intrusive relationships between buildings and monuments, due to the fact that Zone IX was kept clear of settlement activity. The closest building to the monuments was the SFB AS48, which was built late in the settlement’s life and seems to have disrupted the longlived ditched boundary separating this area from Zone VII (this building will be discussed in more detail below). Thus, rather than displaying links between individual buildings and monuments, as the preceding sites did, Catholme appears to exhibit associations between

The area containing the prehistoric features is particularly interesting, as it is the only part of the settlement devoid of buildings. It seems to have been separated from the rest of the settlement by a series of ditched boundaries, including the long-lived north-south ditch D44, which had a distinctive sinuous plan, perhaps resulting from the ditch curving to avoid passing too close to PM3 (Losco153

southern arm suggested to the report authors that it may have been lower and perhaps separated from the wider building by a screen (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 96). A similar screen might have sub-divided the wider unit, cutting it in half lengthways (at least in the second phase of the building), creating two rooms. Although exact dimensions for each phase of the structure were difficult to ascertain, it was suggested in the report that the structure might have measured, roughly, around 12m by 5.5m, with the southern ‘arm’ measuring c.4m by 3.5m (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 96). This would have given it a floor area of around 80m2, which would have made it one of the largest buildings in the settlement. This was a particularly sophisticated building, and Losco-Bradley and Kinsley (2002: 115) believed that its size, complex layout and central position within an apparently central enclosure meant that it was imbued with some form of special status.

compact and precisely-bounded occupation areas and monuments. Building Sizes All the buildings except one were more than 20m away from the monuments at Catholme, meaning that they have been analysed differently from those at Barrow Hills and Sutton Courtenay. In this case, the sizes of buildings have been compared based on the zones in which they were situated. Building dimensions have been measured from plans in the excavation report, as the authors did not provide measurements. Forty-eight post-built structures had widths that were sufficiently preserved for measurement, although the areas of only twenty-seven could be determined with confidence since the lengths of the remaining twenty-one were not known for certain due to poor preservation or truncation by medieval plough furrows. Minimum lengths for these structures have been provided here, but they may have been greater. The average area of the post-built structures has, therefore, been calculated using only the twenty-seven known building sizes, although the remaining twenty-one with known minimum measurements will also be referred to in the analysis below. Where appropriate, the dimensions of multiple phases of buildings have been included, as a number had been rebuilt several times on the same plot. It was possible to determine the dimensions of sixteen SFBs, and this number also included multiple phases of structures that had been rebuilt in their original locations.

Sunken-Featured Buildings Most of the SFBs were to the south and west of the settlement, in Zones IV, VI and X, although there was one example to the north of Zone I (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 117) (Fig. 6.18). The majority had pit areas of 10m2 to 20m2, the average area size being 13.1m2, although AS64a was just under 6m2 according to the excavators and AS63 was c.25m2 (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 88) (Table 6.8).4 AS63 lay to the south of Zone X, while two buildings in Zone IV measured 20m2 or just over; these particularly large SFBs were comparable in size with some of the smaller post-built structures. AS63 in Zone X was accompanied by a concentration of SFBs of below-average size, which lay primarily on the eastern side of the zone. Similarly, the buildings in Zones I and VI were also generally fairly small. As at Barrow Hills, the excavators warned that the structures could have been larger than their pits suggested, as their floors may have been suspended over the pits (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 88).

Post-Built Structures The average area of the post-built structures was 40.3m2; twelve structures with known areas were larger than this, while at least nine with known minimum areas were above-average as well (Table 6.7). As Table 6.7 shows, Zone VII had a higher number of above-average structures than any of the other occupation zones. In addition, it also had a particularly high number of very large buildings, measuring over 60m2. Although other zones contained structures measuring over 60m2, none contained more than one (Fig. 6.17). The phases of AS38 in Zone VII measuring in excess of 75m2 may have been the largest structures in the settlement because, although AS25 in Zone V was extremely large, it was composed of two units that may not have stood at the same time (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 85). The excavators suggested that AS38 might even have been as long as 15m originally (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 85), meaning that it could have covered an area of c.90m2. Thus, there appears to have been a trend for building and re-building particularly large structures in Zone VII, on a scale that was not seen in the other occupation zones. The assertion that Zone VII contained a comparatively high number of large structures is supported by the presence of AS43 along its southern edge. This structure was particularly large and complex, but its multiple phases and unusual layout made it impossible to determine measurements for inclusion in Table 6.7. It is best interpreted as an L-shaped building with a crosspassage at the junction of the arms; the narrowness of the

The SFBs were, therefore, fairly varied in size, and there are few direct links that can be drawn between these buildings and their relationships with the prehistoric monuments, as most were situated some distance away from Zone IX. The absence of SFBs in Zone VII may indicate that they had a role which did not feature in Zone VII. The exception is SFB AS48, which was the only building within 20m of the prehistoric monuments. Although it does not display the close, intrusive style of reuse seen at some of the sites in the corpus, it is interesting that this constitutes another example of a link between an SFB and at least one pre-existing monument, albeit in a different form from the sites already discussed in this chapter. This is especially interesting considering that the other SFBs were generally much further away from Zone IX. At 10.8m2, this SFB was of below-average size and there is, therefore, little to indicate that SFB

4

Although AS64a was very badly disturbed and its dimensions could not be measured from the plan provided in the report.

154

suggesting that the boundaries and trackways were primary settlement features and that buildings were constructed later (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 119). However, there were some changes to the long-lived enclosures and trackways, apparently in the later phases of the settlement’s life. For example, the defining ditches of trackway T4 had been re-cut multiple times and the trackway was therefore deemed to have existed throughout the life of the settlement (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 28, 117). However, one of the later re-cuts of the ditch defining the southern side of T4 (D17) was overlapped by building AS28, from whose northern end a fence (F11) extended northwards, across the trackway (Fig. 6.20). This suggests that at some point in its later life T4 was blocked, even if only temporarily.

sizes were related to their proximity to monuments at Catholme. Building Replacement and Phasing The evidence for the re-cutting and replacement of buildings and the evidence for phasing will be discussed together for Catholme, as the two are inseparable. In the absence of datable finds, rebuilt and overlapping features provide the primary evidence for phasing. Although few absolute dates could be determined, the recognition of sequences of building and rebuilding indicated that there had been a number of phases of occupation; this aided understanding of the development of some areas of the site, albeit not the whole settlement (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 117-9, 126). In some cases several phases of building had replaced each other in much the same location. For example, AS2 overlay the SFB AS1 in Zone I, while nearby AS3 and AS4 overlapped, although it was not clear which building was earlier. The same is true of AS26 and AS27 in Zone V, which also overlapped the boundary D19, and of AS60 and AS61 in Zone X. There were three instances of SFBs being altered or replaced in the same location (AS50, AS62 and AS64), all of which were located in Zone X (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 88).

In contrast to Barrow Hills and Sutton Courtenay, the evidence from Catholme appears to point to a settlement with a relatively long-lived and consistent layout. However, there are indications that this was not always the case, particularly around Zone VII. In addition to the replaced buildings in this occupation area, its boundaries were also redefined on numerous occasions. While the west side of the enclosure around Zone VII seems to have been fairly static, the north, south and east sides expanded outwards, often at the expense of other zones, particularly Zone X (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 117-9) (Fig. 6.20). D20 initially formed the northern boundary of Zone VII, and continued to be re-cut after AS36 was built over part of it. The subsequent construction of D18, F15 and F16 seems to have expanded the enclosure to the north, although it is possible that these boundaries formed the sides of a trackway instead. The zone’s southern side experienced even greater expansion; D21, the earliest boundary, was built over by AS42 and cut by D23 and D24, the latter forming a new southern boundary c.10m away from D21. D24 was then built over by AS43, with D25 forming a new southern boundary another c.6-7m further south; D25 was, in turn, replaced by a fence (F35) dug into the infilled ditch. There was a slight westwards expansion of the southern area too, with the terminals of D20, D24 and D25 lying further to the west than earlier ditches.

Zone VII, in particular, had experienced a high degree of building replacement and repair. Over its lifetime this zone contained twenty-two post-built structures in total, taking into account the individual phases of structures that had been rebuilt on the same plot. These structures had been built on eleven separate plots, of which six (55%) had been used more than once, suggesting that it was important for the inhabitants to maintain specific building locations within Zone VII (Fig. 6.19). Nowhere else in the settlement had such a high proportion of reused building plots. Although Zone X had five reused plots, this represented only 36% of the total plots in this area. It is possible that the areas surrounding the structures in Zone VII were organised in such a way that they did not encourage rearrangement; there may have been gardens or paths laid out, for example (LoscoBradley and Kinsley 2002: 87). However, given that Zone VII expanded in several directions during its lifetime (see below) and new buildings were constructed in those expanded areas, the inhabitants do not seem to have had qualms about altering the layout of this occupation area. The repeated replacement of buildings in Zone VII might not, therefore, have been for purely practical reasons; perhaps, if these were family farmsteads, it was important to maintain the locations of ancestral properties within them.

It is also possible to trace the development of Zone VII on its eastern side, where it had interfaces with Zones VIII and IX (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 119). The final phase of the southern expansion of Zone VII, represented by F35, may have extended to the east in the form of F40, which lay in the area classed as Zone VIII by the excavators, but which could just as easily be seen as part of the Zone VII enclosure. The eastern edge of Zone VII was marked by fragmentary, non-parallel ditches (D27, D28, D31, D41 and D42), which were probably successive redefinitions of one boundary, although there are no stratigraphic relationships to prove this (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 119). It is possible that the walls of buildings AS39, AS46 and AS47 formed part of the area’s eastern boundary. Just to the east of these buildings and the fragmentary lengths of ditch was D44, the sinuous long-lived boundary separating the prehistoric monuments from the rest of the settlement; it

While the replacement of buildings can offer insights into the phasing of specific areas of the settlement, clues about the development of the settlement more broadly are provided by the enclosures and trackways. These were, on the whole, long-lived and repeatedly maintained, indicating that the general layout of the settlement did not change considerably during its occupation. There were no certain instances of a boundary cutting a building, 155

defined on either side by ditches or buildings (LoscoBradley and Kinsley 2002: 31). As previously mentioned, their defining ditches had been re-cut on numerous occasions, and some were very heavily worn, indicating that they had been used for long periods of time. Further trackways, T6 to T8, were also identified to the east of the long-lived terrace-edge boundary D49; although not defined by ditches, they were visible as worn linear hollows (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 31). There may well have been further examples, but these could not be identified with certainty; D18, F15 and F16 may have formed the northern edge of a trackway running across to the north of Zone VII (although this could have been an extension to the enclosure), whilst D44 could have formed the eastern side of a north-south track running between Zones VII and IX (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 31, 117-9).

is possible that a trackway ran along the gap between D44 and the border formed by the buildings and short ditches (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 119). It is also possible that D41 represented the first eastern boundary, but that it was replaced by D42, which could have continued to the south as D26. In the final phase on the eastern side of Zone VII D27 and D43 were constructed, cutting the long-lived D44, while SFB AS48 was also built directly over D44. At this point, the eastern edge of the enclosure was some 15m away from its original boundary, and Zone VII was encroaching on Zone IX to an extent not seen in the earlier phases of the settlement. Changes in the layout of Zone IX were also observed, most notably on the eastern side of the area, along the terrace edge, which was defined at various times by lengths of ditch, including D36 to D40, D47, D48 and D49 (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 117-9). D49 formed the initial Anglo-Saxon phase of boundary, which re-cut the already-present prehistoric boundary, and it was re-cut numerous times on the same line. At a later stage in the settlement’s life D49 was then replaced by D47, which overlapped the northern end of D49 but changed the angle of the boundary from a northeast/south-west alignment to a more north-south alignment. However, D47 stopped just inside the limit of the excavation; if it did extend beyond the limit of excavation to the south its course is unknown. The developments in the delineation of Zone IX are difficult to interpret, since there was no pressure from building activity forcing the area to expand. One possibility is that the activities taking place in this area, perhaps related to the prehistoric monuments, underwent changes which required more space to the east of PM2 and PM3, although exactly what these activities were it is difficult to determine.

T4 was the longest length of track; it was recorded for 72m, and it was 3.5m wide, broadening to 8m at the eastern end, where it terminated just inside the enclosure in Zone VII, and it was heavily worn (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 31). T3 abutted the east side of Zone IV, connecting the northern part of the settlement with T4, although the intersection of these two tracks was destroyed by a post-medieval quarry (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 31). Any junction between T3 and the possible track along the northern edge of Zone VII would also have been destroyed by this quarry. The intersection of T3 and T4, their repeated redefinition and their heavy wear, suggests that members of the community repeatedly used these tracks to move around the settlement, and that inhabitants who wished to enter the enclosure in Zone VII from elsewhere in the settlement would have had to approach it using T4. In contrast, trackway T5, which led down the terrace edge from the north-east corner of Zone VII, showed very little evidence of use. Although the ditches on both sides had been repeatedly re-cut, its gravel surface was not eroded; it does not, therefore, seem to have been a main thoroughfare through the settlement (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 32). The track appears to have followed a route out of the north-east corner of the Zone VII enclosure, past PM3, towards the terrace edge and the long-lived boundary D49. The track’s lack of wear suggests that it might have been reserved for certain occasions, or for use by specific people, a possibility that is supported by the fact that access to it was, it seems, only possible from inside Zone VII (although the possible trackway along the northern edge of this enclosure might have connected it to T3). As T5 does not appear to have been a major thoroughfare, it is possible that its use was controlled or restricted in some way. The evidence from this part of the site suggests that, once again, the farmstead in Zone VII exerted some form of control over parts of the site, in this case restricting movement to the north of the area containing the prehistoric monuments and controlling access onto the terrace edge. Evidence for the control of access to Zone IX also comes from the arrangement of ditches and buildings on the eastern side of Zone VII. It is possible that D44 formed

The development of the area around Zones VII, VIII and IX is particularly interesting in light of this study. It seems that the enclosure around Zone VII was long-lived and maintained for much of the life of the settlement. It had seen intense occupation, with a clear preference for building in particular locations within the enclosure, and the approach to the enclosure along T4 was maintained for a long period of time. During its existence it expanded to the north, south and east, encroaching on Zones IX and X. For much of Zone VII’s life its buildings were clearly separated from the prehistoric monuments to the east, but at some point in the later phases of the settlement, this changed, with alterations to the boundaries between the two areas and the construction of AS48. Prior to this, Zone IX had been exempt from the encroaching expansion of Zone VII; it is possible that some development in the social organisation of the community living at Catholme resulted in this change, and this will be discussed in more detail below. Movement within the Settlement Catholme yielded more information about movement within the settlement than the two preceding case studies. A number of trackways (T1 to T5) were recognised, 156

possible opening near the north-east corner, it appears to have been the only zone which was fully enclosed. Since every expansion of the occupation area was accompanied by a new ditched or fenced boundary, the effective enclosure of this area appears to have been important. Similarly, Zone IX was also surrounded by long-lived boundaries, which might well have screened the monuments from view for the rest of the settlement.

the eastern side of a north-south trackway, which would have abutted the eastern side of Zone VII; its western edge could have been formed by D41 and/or D42. Gaps in the southern side of T5, and between D44 and D39, could have been entrances which allowed access to the area containing PM2 and PM3. In later phases, the reorganisation of the eastern portion of Zone VII saw the addition of D27 and D43, which would have created a very different arrangement in this area, as the possible north-south track formed by D44 and the Zone VII enclosure would have been blocked off. If ditches D41 and D42 were, indeed, earlier and no longer existed in this period, there would have been direct access from the interior of Zone VII into Zone IX, with D27 and D43 creating a ‘funnel’ between the two areas. That ditch D44 did not exist to restrict access in this phase is supported by the presence of SFB AS48, which lay directly over it (although another possibility is that, if the SFB had a doorway at either end, it might have provided access through boundary D44 into Zone IX).

Meanwhile, there is some evidence for entrances through these numerous boundaries (these were labelled E1 to E13) (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 30). There were several entrances in the terrace-edge boundary (E7, E10, E11, E12 and E13), which were not all open at once, and which suggest that movement between the river terrace and Zone IX was possible. Two of these entrances became the foci for ritual activity in the form of burials, which suggests that they were important places for the inhabitants of the site (see below). Several entrances to Zone VII were also identified, the main one being E5 at the eastern terminal of trackway T4 (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 30-1). A cluster of postholes in the trackway at the point where it met Zone VII suggested that there had been an entrance structure here, which included two large postholes, c.0.75m in diameter and c.3m apart on the line of ditch D21, possibly representing gate posts (Fig. 6.20). There was also a hollow at this point, indicating that the entrance had been heavily used; this, along with the entrance structure, suggests that E5 formed a primary, perhaps visually impressive, entrance into Zone VII. While there were other entrances into this zone, they were much smaller and less ostentatious. Catholme Lane, the sunken road that joins the site to Barton-under-Needwood 3km to the north, currently skirts around the excavated area to the south, but it may originally have led into the settlement in the form of trackway T4 (Reynolds 2003: 132). If so, entrance E5 could have been the main entry point into the settlement for visitors from elsewhere.

Towards the south of Zone IX, where it bordered X, access appears to have been less restricted, with few boundary features dividing Zones IX and X. However, there were possible restrictions on movement; D50 and D51, for example, seem to have formed southerly continuations of D44, and there are two fences, F41 and F42, forming short lengths of east-west boundary to the south of PM3. The terminals of medieval furrows had badly damaged this area of the site, making it possible that further boundary features once existed in this area (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: fig. Y). It is also possible that buildings, fences and ditches to the south of Zone VII might have served to restrict access to the eastern side of the site. Fences F39 and F40 may have been fairly late additions to the southern boundary of Zone VII, and would have blocked access to Zone VIII and possibly IX (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 119). Further, F39 connected with AS57, while F40 connected with AS52, suggesting that these structures might have had a role to play in delineating this area of the site (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 117). A number of features in Zone X could also have restricted access to Zone IX for anyone approaching from the west and north of the settlement, including ditches D55, D56, D57 and D58, fence F38, and buildings AS50, AS51, AS56, AS57, AS58 and AS59.

Another, much less ostentatious entrance was also present on the south side of Zone VII, in the form of the 2m-wide gap (E8) through F35, which was blocked or modified by F36, just 0.6m to the south (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 30). F36 continued to the east, forming a passage c.2.5m long, which would have permitted only single-file access through E8. To the east of this, E9 allowed access through ditch D27; again, this was a fairly narrow entrance, which would have led out of the enclosure into an area of further boundary features. In contrast to E5, this was a much narrower and restrictive entrance, which may have been used by different people, in different ways, or on different occasions from the more elaborate E5. Due to their poor preservation, doorways into structures were difficult to trace and there were too few to be able to reconstruct any internal routes and paths between enclosures and buildings (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 30, 87, 126). However, it can be stated that, unlike Barrow Hills and Sutton Courtenay, none of the structures at Catholme would have opened out onto monuments or the spaces around them, perhaps with the

The ditches delineating many of the boundaries at Catholme were shallow, and would probably have needed accompanying above-ground structures to improve their effectiveness, especially if part of their function was as stock enclosures or pathways (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 29). The short lengths of many re-cuts strongly suggested that this was the case; the ditches seem to have been quarried for material for the localised repair of associated banks, which could have been topped by fences or hedges. Thus, they may have provided substantial screening of particular parts of the settlement, and there might have been numerous barriers restricting views across the settlement. Zone VII would have been particularly well-screened; with the exception of one 157

head was to the south-west; preservation was poor, but dark stains indicated the location of the skull, upper arms and spine, and a knife blade was present on the spine stain. The only surviving bone fragment came from the skull vault, which revealed that the individual had been an adolescent or an adult. A cow burial (3663) had also been inserted into a grave adjacent to the later phase of terrace edge boundary ditch, D47, between entrances E10 and E11, and due east of the penannular ring ditch (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 41). The grave was too small to have held the animal intact, but there is evidence that parts of it were articulated. The location of these burials suggests a concern for continuity of location. They are located around the older features on the site and around the long-lived farmsteads; they may show a concern for continued land ownership and an ancestral presence, in which case it is particularly interesting that a large proportion were situated in Zones VII and IX.

exception of SFB AS48, although the exact position of this building’s entrance is unknown. Finds and Burials The Anglo-Saxon pottery and artefact assemblages from Catholme were relatively small, and the soil acidity resulted in an animal bone assemblage that was so poorly preserved that very little analysis could be undertaken (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 111-5). There were no discernible patterns in the distribution of the pottery, partly because it occurred widely across the site, but also because it was difficult to classify based on form or function (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 107-8). In common with the two preceding case study sites, Romano-British pottery formed a notable assemblage (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 22, 99-100). A pit in Zone VIII and another in Zone IV contained small sherds of Samian ware, large numbers of which were also recovered from SFBs. In contrast, sherds of Roman pottery from Anglo-Saxon ditch contexts were primarily grey-ware body sherds. The Romano-British pottery from the SFBs contrasts with that from other Anglo-Saxon contexts as the sherds were larger and less abraded; 61% were oxidised as well, compared to 28% from pits and ditches, and 50% from topsoil (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 99). As at Sutton Courtenay, the overall preference was for grey and red-orange sherds, as well as some colour-coated sherds; the bias towards oxidised sherds was thought to indicate that they might have been used as ‘talismans or ritual objects’ (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 100). There was no evidence for the shaping of the sherds, as there had been at Barrow Hills, but the biases towards certain wares and colours suggests that they were deliberately collected.

Conclusions Catholme’s layout differs greatly from the preceding two case study sites, due to its long-lived and stable structure. Its dates of occupation are also different, which may go some way towards explaining its different layout. Planning is evident, especially in the layout of the boundaries surrounding the occupation zones, although perhaps to a lesser extent in the case of the buildings (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 126). Catholme is also different in terms of how its prehistoric monuments were reused. Unlike the two previous case study sites, the monuments at Catholme were separated from the rest of the settlement and they had not been built over. Instead, they were demarcated and respected by the inhabitants for the duration of the settlement’s life (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 119). The ‘annexation’ of the monuments meant that some areas of the settlement were divided from the prehistoric monuments by trackways, enclosures and buildings, while other areas were much closer. In particular, Zone VII seems to have lain extremely close to the ‘annexe’ in Zone IX. Zone VII also formed a central area upon which other farmsteads and zones were focused. Of course, the centrality of Zone VII may have resulted from the position of the excavation area, but even so, there are indications that it was particularly important within the settlement. There are four major characteristics of this zone that were not seen elsewhere: the scale of rebuilding and replacement of its structures, the large sizes and complex layouts of those structures, the well-defined and maintained boundaries around the whole occupation area, and the growth of the enclosure at the expense of other zones.

Certain areas of the settlement had become the foci for both human and animal burials (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 115) (Fig. 6.21). At entrance E1 into Zone IV a human burial (3617) had been inserted into the fill of SFB AS13 (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 40-1). No torso bones were present due to the poor bone preservation, but the surviving skull and leg bones indicated that the head had been to the north-east, and it was tentatively suggested that the individual was male and aged twenty or older. Human burial 3367 was located between structures AS41 and AS42 in Zone VII, although its level of preservation was poorer than that of 3617, as it had been eroded by a furrow (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 40-1). Additionally, D27 yielded part of a human skull from its lowest fill, which was thought to belong to an adult aged thirty-five or older. It is possible that the position of this skull fragment, in a ditch belonging to a later phase of the Zone VII enclosure, indicates that the construction of D27 had disturbed an earlier burial in this zone (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 40-1).

Furthermore, trackway T4 led directly into Zone VII, passing through what appears to have been a gateway or entrance structure. This points to the importance of this particular occupation zone, but it also suggests that control was exerted over access to the area. The encroachment into other zones of the settlement also indicates that the inhabitants of Zone VII could exert power over other areas. The complex layouts of buildings

In Zone IX, a human burial (3666) had been inserted into a ditch of the terrace-edge boundary D49, just north of the entrance gap E12 (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 41). The body had been aligned with the ditch so that its 158

The site has not yet been fully published and this discussion is, therefore, based on several interim reports, two unpublished dissertations on the settlement produced by Michael Hawkes (1998) and Robert Sayer (2003), and on information provided by the site director, Neil Finn of the University of Leicester Archaeological Services. Although these sources provide a great deal of information about the site, their use has not always been straightforward, as they occasionally contain conflicting information.5 It should also be noted that, as postexcavation analysis is not yet complete and the excavation has not been fully published, the interpretation of the site is ongoing and is subject to change and reassessment (N. Finn pers. comm.). The most recent interim report, which is now ten years old, referred to the identification of twenty post-built structures and twentyfive SFBs at Eye Kettleby (Bradley and Gaimster 2000: 289). Several other uncertain examples had actually been excavated, but these were not mentioned in the interim report. They are PBSs 17, 22 and 23, which were recorded in Neil Finn’s unpublished post-excavation notes. There may also have been an additional SFB, which can be seen in the south-east corner of the site on the most recent (unpublished) site plan, although it is unnumbered on the master plan (Plate 1). It appears, therefore, that the excavated settlement consisted of twenty-three post-built structures and twenty-five, possibly twenty-six, SFBs.

such as AS43 also indicate that Zone VII was unusual in comparison to other areas. Moreover, the large and complex buildings in this zone would have required greater amounts of labour and resources than smaller structures, while the complete rebuilding of structures on slightly different alignments and scales, rather than their maintenance on the same spot, suggests that the people in control of Zone VII had the wherewithal to completely replace structures once they were not suitable for their purpose or when they were in need of updating. The builders of Zone VII, therefore, appear to have had great concern for continuity, but at the same time made the most of their ability to expand at the expense of other areas of the settlement. This may indicate that these occupants exerted control over the settlement and community, and that they were perhaps of higher status than other occupants. In light of this, it is particularly interesting that Zone VII also appears to have controlled access into Zone IX, the area containing the prehistoric monuments, cutting off that area from the rest of the settlement. It is possible that the occupants in charge of Zone VII used their farmstead enclosure to restrict access to the monuments and the activities that took place around them. Even after changes took place in the layout of the eastern side of Zone VII, including the replacement of the long-lived ditch D44 with a ‘funnel’ between Zones VII and IX, Zone VII appears to have maintained its control over the monuments. AS48, the closest building to monument PM3, may have contributed to controlling access between the two zones, or its function could have been related to particular activities that took place in Zone IX. The possibility that the occupation zones at Catholme were ancestral farmsteads is supported by the longevity of the enclosures and by the presence of burials at specific points within some of the zones, which may have been ‘founder’ burials (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 126). While one human burial was found near the entrance to Zone IV, the majority of the burials at Catholme were in Zones VII and IX, supporting the assertion that these were particularly significant and ideologically-charged areas of the settlement.

In addition to the buildings, a large number of pits were excavated, while several fence lines appeared to date to the Anglo-Saxon period (Finn 1999: 6, 9). A number of shallow, discontinuous ditches may also have been Anglo-Saxon; although this has yet to be confirmed through analysis of their contents, they were distinguishable from the rectilinear medieval field system that covered much of the site (Finn et al. 1998: 6). Part of a cobbled road or trackway uncovered in the western part of the site may also relate to the Anglo-Saxon phase. It is likely that the excavated area does not represent the full extent of the original settlement, as it appears to have continued to the west and north of the investigation area (Finn 1999: 5, 12). Provisional assessment of the finds indicated a fifth- or sixth-century date for the settlement, possibly extending into the seventh century (Bradley and Gaimster 2000: 289; Finn 1999: 5). Samples submitted for radiocarbon dating have confirmed this, yielding dates of cal AD 439-539, AD 464-550, AD 539-563 and AD 558-604 (68% confidence) (N. Finn pers. comm.; Sayer 2003: 111).

CASE STUDY 4: EYE KETTLEBY Eye Kettleby was excavated by University of Leicester Archaeological Services (ULAS) in advance of development in the late 1990s, after fieldwalking, geophysical survey and trial trenching between 1993 and 1995 revealed traces of Anglo-Saxon occupation (Finn 1997b: 88; Finn 2007). In total, an area of 4.2ha was excavated, with a further 3.35ha recorded during a watching brief (Bradley and Gaimster 2000: 289). Many archaeological features had been damaged by medieval ploughing, which seems to have flattened a once undulating field (Finn et al. 1998: 5). A benefit of this agricultural activity was that the resulting plough soil accumulated in the hollows, protecting some features from the more intense deep mechanical ploughing that had taken place for fifty years or so before the site was excavated.

As discussed in Chapter 4, there may have been a prehistoric barrow in the north-west corner of the 5 For example, the dimensions of the SFBs used here have been taken from Hawkes (1998), who numbered the buildings differently from the numbering system devised by Neil Finn, and did not provide corresponding master plan numbers. In most cases it has been possible to correlate the buildings discussed by Hawkes with those on the master plan based on their sizes and forms, but there have been occasions when this has proved to be impossible. To avoid further confusion, in this analysis both the post-built and SFBs will be referred to using Finn’s numbering system, taken from the site master plan and his notes.

159

in situ was greater than other parts of the site, and they were not extensively investigated (Finn 2007). There was little evidence for the re-cutting of the ditches, except near the entrance to the western D-shaped enclosure. A radiocarbon date from this ditch section revealed that it had partially filled by 1940-1740 cal BC (95% probability) (Finn 2007). The ditches were also found to be fairly shallow and narrow, and it is therefore rather unlikely that they survived as earthworks into the AngloSaxon period. However, the enclosures were probably accompanied by banks, an assertion supported by the evidence for silting from a bank in a section across the northern edge of the eastern D-shaped enclosure (Finn 2007). Thus, the enclosures, if still visible in the AngloSaxon period, are likely to have been preserved as raised banks, rather than ditches. Additionally, at some stage a large boulder was placed over the infilled ditch of the western D-shaped enclosure, and it had been used as a polishing or sharpening stone (N. Finn pers. comm.). The date of the stone’s insertion into the ditch is unknown but it might have pre-dated, or been contemporary with, the Anglo-Saxon occupation.

settlement, where excavation revealed a C-shaped Bronze Age ditch (Finn 2007). If this feature had continued to form a circle, it would have had a diameter of c.19m, and in the interim reports it was postulated that this was part of a ring ditch around a barrow (Finn 1997b: 91). More recently, the excavator has expressed doubt over this interpretation, primarily due to the absence of a full ring ditch (N. Finn pers. comm.). There is evidence, however, to suggest that the C-shaped ditch may well have belonged to a prehistoric barrow. Firstly, the site had been severely damaged by medieval and modern ploughing, which had heavily truncated many features (Finn 1997a: fig. 7; 1997b: 91). Medieval plough furrows were clearly seen across much of the site, especially in the north-west corner where the possible barrow was located; furrows had truncated buildings adjacent to the C-shaped ditch, including PBSs 16 and 17 (N. Finn, unpublished field notes). To the east of the excavation area was the deserted medieval village of Eye Kettleby, part of which extended into the eastern portion of the excavation area (Finn 1997a; 1999: 9). Aerial photographs showed that these remains had, until relatively recently, formed considerable earthworks, but they had been completely ploughed away by the time of the excavation (Finn 1997b: 90). If there had been a barrow, it is highly likely that modern ploughing, combined with medieval agricultural activity, could have removed any surviving traces of its mound, and perhaps even parts of its ditch.

A sinuous east-west pit alignment belonging to the late Bronze Age was also traced for 200m across the excavation area, consisting of pits c.2.5m2, 1m deep and 1m apart, and at an unknown point in time this alignment had been redefined as a ditch (Finn 1997b: 91; Finn 2007). The feature neatly bisected the southern circular enclosure, supporting its visibility at that time (Finn 2007). Although it cut through the western D-shaped enclosure less neatly, it did enter the enclosure very close to its entrance, perhaps entering between the terminals of its banks, which could have been wider apart than the gap in the ditch suggested (Plate 1). It is not clear whether this ditch was a visible feature in the Anglo-Saxon period, although the location of the possible Anglo-Saxon cobbled trackway suggests that it might have been influenced by the earlier ditch. If the pit alignment and subsequent ditch had cut through the banks of the earlier enclosures, they might have altered the earthworks, perhaps changing their shape and affecting how the enclosures appeared to the site’s occupants in the fifth to seventh centuries. Even so, the enclosures, especially the two northerly ones that had not been bisected by the ditch, may well have remained substantial earthworks during the Anglo-Saxon reoccupation.

Secondly, part of a Bronze Age pit alignment lay adjacent to the C-shaped ditch, extending beyond the northern limit of the site (Finn 2007). The juxtaposition of prehistoric barrows and pit alignments is not unusual (it was also seen at Freiston Road; see Chapter 4) and it is possible that these two types of monument are found next to each other because they both formed land divisions or territorial boundaries in prehistory (Copp and Toop 2006: 93, 151). Thirdly, the shape of the ditch does not preclude it from having been a barrow, as at both Catholme and Church Farm, Bierton penannular ditches were thought to have been associated with mounds. Furthermore, the size of the feature correlates with other known Bronze Age mounds seen in the corpus, while the lack of AngloSaxon settlement features in the space where the hypothesised mound would have been adds support to the suggestion that an earthwork was present. As this discussion of the site will demonstrate, the alignment of buildings on and near the postulated barrow also resembles the patterns seen at settlements where the presence of barrows has been confirmed.

Settlement Layout There were two clusters of post-built structures in the north-east and north-west corners of the site, perhaps indicating a bifocal settlement of two ‘residential’ areas, in addition to several dispersed post-built structures to the south (Sayer 2003: 109). The possibility that the two clusters of buildings represented residential areas is supported by the fact that the majority of SFBs were located towards the centre of the site, in what may have been an industrial, craft-working or storage zone, similar to that postulated at West Heslerton (Powlesland 2000; Sayer 2003: 109). This suggestion relies on an assumed functional differentiation between SFBs and post-built

In addition to the possible ring ditch, there were four early Bronze Age enclosures located towards the eastern side of the site (Finn 2007). The northern enclosure was sub-circular, measuring c.34m by c.36m, while the southern enclosure was circular, with a diameter of c.43m. These were flanked to the east and west by two Dshaped enclosures, an eastern one measuring 64m by 3439m and a western one c.55m by c.41m. As these enclosures were scheduled to be covered by a car park during the development the potential for preserving them 160

Both PBS 16 and PBS 17 were roughly perpendicular to the curved Bronze Age ditch, lying with their long axes aligned on the ditch, while SFB 2 to the south-east would have been very close to mound had there been one (Plate 1). This SFB was probably not close enough to have abutted the postulated mound, but it would have lain several metres away, in a location reminiscent of SFB 23 at Barrow Hills. The buildings in this area of the site are densely clustered, yet they do not impinge on the area of the possible mound. In addition, a number of pits and fire-pits clustered on the south-eastern side of what would have been the mound, again respecting the area of the ring ditch. The situation at Eye Kettleby differs from other sites discussed in this chapter as the buildings in closest proximity to the mound were post-built structures, rather than SFBs.

structures, in which the former are not interpreted as dwellings (see, for example, Hamerow 1993: 14-5; Rahtz 1976a: 93; Welch 1992: 21-5). Although it is difficult on many sites to prove that the two types of building did, indeed, have different uses, at Eye Kettleby the functional distinction between the two is supported by the presence of three apparently ‘ancillary’ post-built structures in this central area of the site, alongside many of the SFBs. These ancillary buildings are PBSs 14, 21 and 23, all of which were relatively small and may, therefore, have had storage, craft or industrial uses; indeed, PBS 14 has been provisionally interpreted as a raised granary structure (N. Finn pers. comm.). The presence of the large boulder that had been used as a polishing or sharpening stone in this area is intriguing; it is possible that the wear on the stone was related to craft activities taking place in the AngloSaxon period.

The large Bronze Age enclosures at Eye Kettleby also seem to have exerted some influence over the organisation of the settlement, as the ‘zone’ of SFBs in the centre of the site coincided with the four earlier enclosures (Plate 1). Some were inside the enclosures and some outside, with one building, SFB 11, situated directly over the ditch of the northern circular enclosure. The position of PBS 21 is particularly interesting, as it lay across the entrance to the southern circular enclosure. This structure may well have been situated between the terminals of a bank around the enclosure in such a way as to regulate access. Its east-west alignment, with a possible doorway located in the north wall and perhaps an opposing one to the south, might even have meant that access to the enclosure was through the building. A scatter of postholes to the east of the building could have represented some form of fence, acting as additional control measure. It is tempting to speculate that SFB 11 might have had a similar function, controlling access to the northern circular enclosure. The excavation plan shows no entrance into this enclosure, whereas the three other enclosures do have entrances. If the gap had been a similar size to that in the southern enclosure, which was c.1.5m wide, SFB 11 would have been large enough to completely obliterate any trace of the gap in the ditch.

The bifocal layout of the settlement could, alternatively, have been due to a settlement shift. PBSs 11 and 12 in the north-eastern cluster utilized post-in-trench and beamslot construction techniques, which are generally thought to be later in date than simpler posthole construction methods, possibly developing in the seventh century (Marshall and Marshall 1991; Sayer 2003: 109). However, as both of these structures also had earlier, posthole only phases, these post-in-trench and beamslot phases of building may simply represent later augmentation of pre-existing buildings. That both clusters of post-built structures were in existence at roughly the same time is supported by the radiocarbon dates; fire-pit 2424, near the eastern cluster, produced a radiocarbon date of AD 539-563 (68% confidence), whilst fire-pit 541, near the western cluster, returned a date of cal AD 464-550 (68% confidence) (Sayer 2003: 112). Thus, there seems to have been a bifocal settlement by the mid sixth century or earlier, but the absence of later construction techniques in buildings to the west raises the possibility that the eastern focus survived into the seventh century. Of all the buildings in the settlement, the western cluster of post-built structures was most closely related to the postulated barrow. A number of post-built halls lay to the north and north-east of the C-shaped Bronze Age ditch, with several others to the west. Immediately north of the ditch, lying partially on top of it, were two post-built structures, 16 and 17. PBS 16 was a small post-built structure, measuring 3.3m by between 2.3m-3m (the eastern side had been truncated by a medieval ditch) (N. Finn, unpublished field notes). PBS 17 lay slightly to the west of PBS 16, and measured 5m by c.4.4m; it was unusual in that it was sub-rectangular, with no clear corners, unlike the other post-built structures on the site (N. Finn, unpublished field notes). Both buildings were, therefore, unusual for the settlement, as in most other instances the posthole buildings were larger, more regularly-shaped, and had traces of features such as doors, internal fittings or hearths, none of which were found with these structures. Indeed, it was suggested that PBS 17 might even have been a small enclosure, rather than a building (N. Finn, unpublished field notes).

Each enclosure contained between one and four SFBs and a scatter of pits, although the northern circular enclosure also contained PBS 14, the possible granary. The majority of pits were dispersed across the central part of the site, suggesting a closer relationship with SFBs than with post-built structures. Indeed, Sayer (2003: 112) demonstrated that pits were more consistently located 20m of SFBs compared to post-built structures. Although the exact uses of many of these pits are unknown, they may add weight to the argument that the centre of the settlement was used as a craft, storage or industrial area. Elsewhere, the possible Anglo-Saxon trackway, which may have followed the line of the prehistoric pit alignment, led from the west of the settlement towards the central zone of SFBs and the prehistoric enclosures. PBS 8 was aligned so that its southern end lay on the line of the prehistoric pit alignment/ditch; this may be coincidental, but it resembles the situation at other settlements in the corpus, such as Glebe Farm and 161

Sunken-Featured Buildings

Pennyland, where buildings were situated with one end wall over an earlier ditch.

The average area of the SFB pits at Eye Kettleby was 11.9m2; nine buildings (SFBs 3, 5, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 22 and 25) were larger than this, with eight of those measuring 14m2 or more (Table 6.10). There appear, in fact, to be two categories of SFB based on size, a group of buildings with areas of 11.9m2 or less, and another with areas of c.14m2 and over (Fig. 6.23). The majority of these larger-than-average SFBs were associated with the north-eastern cluster of buildings or the central area around the Bronze Age enclosures, with only one towards the west of the site. SFBs of below-average size, particularly those below 10m2, were more frequently found to the west of the settlement, associated with the north-west cluster of post-built structures. However, they were also close to two of the largest SFBs (3 and 25), which had areas of 15.8m2 and 16.1m2 respectively.

Building Sizes As at Barrow Hills and Sutton Courtenay, the sizes of buildings at Eye Kettleby have been considered in relation to their distances from the possible barrow. The dimensions of the post-built structures are derived from Neil Finn’s unpublished notes, which record the excavation of twenty-three structures, some of which had multiple phases. However, his notes on the SFBs were not available for study, and the dimensions of these buildings have, therefore, been taken from Hawkes (1998). It was previously mentioned that some of the building numbers attributed by Hawkes did not match those on the excavation master plan. In most cases it was possible to correlate his numbers with those on the master plan, but three buildings (SFBs 12, 20 and 21) had to be omitted from the analysis since they could not be matched with the numbers and dimensions provided by Hawkes. Thus, a total of twenty-two SFBs had known dimensions and could be included in this part of the analysis.

It appears, then, that larger SFBs were more likely to be situated in the area of the Bronze Age enclosures or to the north-east of them around the cluster of post-built structures in that area. Smaller SFBs were more frequently found towards the west of the site, but there was some variation here, as there were also two particularly large structures. SFB 2, the structure situated very close to the postulated barrow, measured 11.5m2. Unlike at Barrow Hills and Sutton Courtenay, there does not appear to have been a correlation between large SFBs and the possible barrow at Eye Kettleby. However, there was a correlation between large SFBs and the Bronze Age enclosures, since four of the particularly large SFBs (5, 8, 11 and 13) were within the enclosures or directly over them, while two more (SFBs 14 and 15) were just outside of the enclosures to the north-east, associated with the north-east cluster of post-built structures.

Post-Built Structures The post-built structures at Eye Kettleby had an average area of 32.3m2. The buildings varied greatly in size, however; some were much smaller than this and others much larger, although there were no distinct categories of smaller and larger structures resembling those at Barrow Hills. Twelve buildings were of above-average area; the majority of these were located towards the west of the site, particularly in the north-western focus close to the postulated barrow (Table 6.9 and Fig. 6.22). Four of the above-average structures (PBSs 2, 4, 9 and 22) were particularly large, with areas in excess of 50m2; these were also situated to the west of the site. PBSs 2, 4 and 22 were in the north-western cluster of buildings, while PBS 9 was to the south of them on the western side of the settlement.

Building Replacement The fieldwork notes from the excavation of the site revealed that a number of buildings overlapped one another or showed signs of having been rebuilt or refurbished (N. Finn, unpublished field notes). PBS 8 had two apparently overlapping phases, although the posthole plans were difficult to interpret, and PBS 7 was postdated by SFB 16 (Fig. 6.24). There were at least two phases to PBS 11, and possibly PBS 22, and three possible phases to PBS 12, while PBS 13 had been rebuilt in the same location at least once as well. Elsewhere, PBS 4 and PBS 5 were on different alignments but they overlapped, and the postholes of PBS 5 had been re-cut too. Structures in both the north-west and north-east clusters of buildings had been rebuilt on the same locations, demonstrating that maintaining the locations of particular buildings was important on both sides of the settlement. Elsewhere, in the SFB-dominated southern and central zones the few post-built structures that were excavated did not show any evidence for having had multiple phases. This suggests that there was greater concern for perpetuating the positions of ‘halls’ or dwellings in the two northern clusters of buildings than there was elsewhere in the settlement. It is possible,

There appears, therefore, to have been a marked trend for constructing larger post-built structures towards the west of the site, particularly in the north-west occupation cluster near to the location of the possible barrow. A number of the above-average sized buildings had been increased in area and complexity through the addition of annexes; these were used in the construction of PBSs 3, 4 and 9, which, again, were towards the west of the site. Although some smaller structures were also present in the western half of the settlement, several particularly small examples measuring under 15m2 in area (and therefore roughly comparable with the ‘ancillary’ structures at Barrow Hills) were situated towards the south of the site, with one (the possible granary PBS 14) inside one of the Bronze Age enclosures.

162

other areas were abandoned, although this has not been convincingly confirmed.

therefore, that the north-west and north-east building foci were ancestral farmsteads similar to those at Catholme; although they lacked the clearly defined boundaries of the Catholme farmsteads, the two clusters of buildings at Eye Kettleby were maintained and perpetuated through repeated rebuilding.

Movement within the Settlement The only evidence for trackways in the settlement was in the form of a 25m-length of cobbled trackway, which may have been part of a longer track running across the site in an east-west alignment (Sayer 2003: 115). If the Bronze Age enclosures at Eye Kettleby were accompanied wholly or partly by banks, they could have formed obstacles to movement around the site, forcing people to move around or between them as they travelled through the settlement. The banks could also have influenced movement into and out of the enclosures, which might have been controlled further by the positioning of PBS 21 over the entrance to the southern circular enclosure, and perhaps also by SFB 11 over the possible entrance to the northern enclosure. It is interesting that, if this was the case, there was greater control over the central area of the site than there was around the two clusters of post-built structures, which have much less evidence for the control of space.

It is not known for certain whether any SFBs had been recut or maintained; Hawkes (1998) discussed the contents and dimensions of the SFB, but not the evidence for their replacement or re-cutting. However, he did include plans of the SFBs in his dissertation, taken from the site archive, which can be studied for signs of refurbishment. It does not appear from these that any SFBs overlapped each other, although some do seem to have had two or more postholes at each end, perhaps indicating that there had been some replacement of their posts. This suggests that some buildings had been maintained, although they do not appear to have been rebuilt in the same location when they fell out of use, in contrast to SFBs 32-34 at Barrow Hills or the three ‘rooms’ of building X at Sutton Courtenay, for example. Phasing

Several fences associated with the Anglo-Saxon settlement have been noted, including one linking the north-west corner of PBS 20 with the south-west corner of SFB 17 (N. Finn, unpublished field notes) (Plate 1). There were also two lines of postholes just to the south of PBS 7, one on a north-south alignment and the other on an east-west alignment. Moreover, there were a number of discontinuous, sinuous lengths of ditch that did not appear to be part of the rectilinear medieval field system overlying the Anglo-Saxon settlement. There were short lengths of sinuous ditch to the west and south of the Cshaped ditch, immediately adjacent to where the barrow seems to have stood. If so, it is possible that these ditch sections could have been part of a boundary that partially enclosed the barrow during at least some of the settlement’s life. Such a situation would be reminiscent of the ‘annexing’ of barrows at Wolverton Turn Enclosure and Catholme. If a mound was present PBSs 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 22 would have been effective in screening it from view from the rest of the settlement too, and they could even have had a role in controlling access into this area of the settlement.

The re-cutting and replacement of the post-built structures at Eye Kettleby indicates that there were several phases to the settlement and that it was in existence long enough for two, sometimes three, phases of a structure to be built, although how long each phase of building stood for is unknown. Artefacts recovered from the site indicate that the settlement was occupied during the fifth and sixth centuries. Fifth-century occupation is attested to by small finds, such as brooches and strap ends, as well as annular loomweights, while a sixth-century phase is indicated by grid stamps and linear designs on decorated sherds of pottery (Finn 1999: 27). As previously mentioned radiocarbon dating of charcoal from eleven pits, which were widely distributed across the site, also returned dates of the fifth and sixth centuries (Finn 1999: 59-60; N. Finn pers. comm; Sayer 2003: 111). The date of the settlement’s abandonment is unclear; Finn (1999: 5, 27) observed that a small, possibly middle Anglo-Saxon element in the pottery assemblage was associated with one (unspecified) building, suggesting continuity into the seventh century, although this period and its ceramics are poorly understood in Leicestershire. The construction techniques used to build the later phases of PBSs 11 and 12 were typical of the seventh century and later (Marshall and Marshall 1991; Hawkes 1998: 23) and it is possible that the focus of the latest phase of the settlement lay to the north-east of the site. Thus, it appears that throughout the fifth and sixth centuries the settlement may have had a consistent form, with northeastern and north-western clusters of post-built structures and a central area containing SFBs, which may have had storage, craft-working or industrial uses. It is possible that, towards the end of the settlement’s life in the seventh century, the north-eastern focus survived but the

Further possible lengths of Anglo-Saxon ditch lay to the east of the site as well, and these are also likely to have had an impact on movement and visibility within the settlement (N. Finn, unpublished field notes). One ditch extended from the western end of SFB 10 towards to the eastern side of the Bronze Age circular enclosure in which it lay. Another ran from the eastern end of PBS 21 and had an apparent continuation, with a gap between the two, in the form of another length of ditch to the south of PBS 21. Within the same enclosure, to the north of SFB 7, a ditch ran from east to west. It is possible that these ditches were used to demarcate space within the enclosures, perhaps dividing areas under different ownership or separating zones with different functions. The latter seems particularly likely if this was, as 163

the front leg of a young sheep along with other animal bone fragments, mostly from unidentified elements and ribs. A pit cut into the base of SFB 5 contained a number of sheep/goat skulls, and in SFB 18 there was a partial dog skeleton with a nearly complete spine. SFB 14 also contained a partial dog skeleton with a particularly wellpreserved skull, as well as bone fragments from other species including red deer, sheep, cattle, pig, horse and fowl. The examples noted by Sayer were the more obvious instances of articulated animal bones noted during excavation, and it is possible that further, less obvious, deposits of bone might have been missed. These animal deposits were widely distributed, and thus no one part of the settlement appears to have been a focus of ritual deposition (Sayer 2003: 127).

suggested, an area used for craft or industrial activities, although Sayer’s (2003: 123) analysis of the SFB contents did not reveal any distinctive patterns in the fills of these structures that might have revealed how different areas of the settlement were used. It was possible to determine the location of doorways for a number of post-built structures, and they were primarily in the long walls (N. Finn, unpublished field notes). In general, the locations of the doorways that can be determined do not reveal a great deal about access to the prehistoric monuments, although doorways in the southern wall of PBS 1 and the northern wall of PBS 7 may indicate that the cluster of buildings in this part of the site opened out onto a possible courtyard, represented by a relatively uncluttered area that contained the possible barrow. Unfortunately, there were no clear entrances in the structures overlaying the C-shaped ditch, and thus the access arrangements for them and the extent to which their positions might have been influenced by the postulated barrow are uncertain. As previously mentioned, PBS 21 lay in the entrance to the southern Bronze Age enclosure; this building may have had an entrance in its north wall, as well as an opposing one in the south wall, which could have acted as a ‘funnel’ for traffic entering and leaving the enclosure (N. Finn, unpublished field notes). There may have been a similar arrangement for SFB 11, although given the difficulties of determining the positions of SFB entrances, detailed elsewhere in this book, this can only be speculation.

In addition to the articulated animal bone groups, human remains were found in a number of SFBs (Sayer 2003: 105). There was an adult human radius in SFB 14 (as well as the partial dog skeleton and other animal bones mentioned above) and a human metacarpal was found in SFB 22. In both cases the human bones were identified during post-excavation analysis of the faunal assemblage; it is possible that the fragments were deliberately deposited, or they could have been incorporated with other fragmentary bone before their deposition in the SFBs. More definite examples of deliberately placed burials come from SFBs 7 and 11, each of which contained the remains of a neonate. The example in SFB 7 was found towards the base of the structure, while the other in SFB 11, was grouped with animal bone during excavation and only identified as human during postexcavation analysis. Also from SFB 11 came a very small three-lugged cup, the only complete Anglo-Saxon vessel from the site, which may have been related to the burial (Hamerow 2006: 17; Sayer 2003: 105). The human remains, like the articulated animal deposits, were dispersed and there is little to indicate that particular areas of the settlement were seen as more appropriate for the deposition of burials, although the two infant burials were in SFBs in the central area of the site (Sayer 2003: 127).

Finds and Burials The majority of the Anglo-Saxon pottery assemblage came from the fills of SFBs and pits. Although postexcavation analysis and interpretation is not yet complete, Sayer (2003) did undertake a study of some of the assemblage, as well as the animal bone and loomweights. This revealed little about the uses of different areas of the site, with artefacts, bone and pottery tending to be widely dispersed. This is possibly as a result of rubbish disposal patterns, which may have moved material around the settlement from middens in order to fill in pits and SFBs. The finds did indicate that a diverse range of activities were taking place on site, including the manufacture of bone tools, iron implements, and the production of textiles (Finn 1999: 6). It was noted that Roman artefacts, including more than twenty Roman coins and a number of Roman brooches, were recovered from Anglo-Saxon contexts (Finn 1999: 61), although no further information about these reused artefacts or their distribution was provided in any of the available sources.

Conclusions Eye Kettleby was inhabited at roughly the same time as Barrow Hills and Sutton Courtenay, but its layout was rather different. The settlement appears to have had two foci, a north-western one and a north-eastern one, between which was an apparent craft, storage or industrial area containing primarily SFBs. The distribution of the post-built structures and SFBs does suggest that there was a functional distinction between the different areas of the site. The craft, storage or industrial zone seems to have made use of four Bronze Age enclosures; many of the buildings in this area lay within the enclosures, while two (SFB 11 and PBS 21) seem to have lain over the entrances to the northern and southern enclosures, possibly in order to control access to those areas and the activities that took place within them. The presence of possible fence lines within the southern

Sayer (2003: 101-2) did note that were a number of unusual, apparently deliberately placed animal bone deposits amongst the faunal assemblage (Fig. 6.25). Near the base of Pit 977 was a cow skeleton, without its skull, lying above a thin layer of ash, while Pit 2230 contained two complete but fragmentary cow skulls, as well as sheep, pig, horse and further cattle bones. Pit 1608 contained a probable articulated bone group identified during post-excavation analysis, comprising bones from 164

Concurrently, one of these groups may have been in control of the postulated barrow in the north-west corner, which they displayed possession of through the construction of numerous buildings, and perhaps also boundaries, around it.

Bronze Age enclosure also suggests that space within it was divided or controlled. One of the purposes of investigating this site as a case study was to determine whether any light could be shed on the postulated presence of a barrow in the north-west corner of the settlement. This analysis has revealed that the buildings in this area showed a tendency to be larger than average, with three particularly large structures (PBSs 2, 4 and 22) measuring over 50m2. At the three other case study sites it has been demonstrated that larger post-built structures tended to be located close to monuments. As such, the larger sizes of the buildings in the north-west corner of the Eye Kettleby site correlate with this and point towards the existence of a barrow. Although the two structures (PBSs 16 and 17) closest to the possible barrow were fairly small, this is not unlike the situation at Sutton Courtenay, where the buildings on the barrows were smaller than those adjacent to the barrows. Furthermore, the unusual forms of these two structures, which did not resemble other structures in the settlement, adds weight to the suggestion that they were marked out as different and that they may have fulfilled specific functions (discussed in more detail in Chapter 7).

CASE STUDIES: OVERVIEW AND DISCUSSION The intention of this part of the study has been to elucidate the forms that monument reuse took in AngloSaxon settlements in much more detail than the wideranging review of the corpus in Chapter 4 allowed. The four case study sites were selected based on the fact that all had been excavated relatively recently6 and because each had been subject to comparatively large-scale excavation, which had uncovered large numbers of buildings. Considering that they were selected solely on the basis of their excavation histories, as opposed to any archaeological traits they were perceived to share, it is particularly interesting that there were a number of similarities in the ways in which all four settlements reused monuments. Particularly interesting is the apparent tendency for larger structures to be located close to monuments, a trend noted at all four sites. At Eye Kettleby and Catholme, buildings nearer to monuments were also more likely to have annexes than those elsewhere in the settlements. It must be acknowledged that these differences are often subtle and, as far as the archaeological footprints of these buildings can reveal, there is little to mark these particular structures out as ‘special’ (although it is possible that, when standing, there were aspects of their appearance which did distinguish them from other buildings). It is only at Sutton Courtenay that the particularly large and ostentatious structures close to barrows reveal that the buildings were in some way special. Nonetheless, even though in most cases the differences between structures closer to monuments and those further away are relatively subtle, they may still be significant. This is especially true given that in the early Anglo-Saxon period building dimensions and styles do not seem to have varied to any great extent; even small differences in size, or the addition of an annexe, may well have been significant in distinguishing certain buildings from those around them.

Comparisons can be drawn between the settlement layouts of Eye Kettleby and Catholme. Although Eye Kettleby lacked long-lived trackways and boundaries, it does appear to have been divided into ‘zones’. In particular, there seem to have been two clusters of ‘dwellings’, resembling the separate farmsteads at Catholme but without the boundaries delineating them. The north-west collection of buildings may have fulfilled a similar role to Catholme’s Zone VII, controlling or restricting access to the postulated barrow. This assertion is supported by the positions of buildings such as PBSs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 22, which could have formed a ‘barrier’ between the area around the barrow and the rest of the site to the east. The lack of boundary features around the two clusters of post-built structures is in contrast to the centre of the site, as this area was delineated by the Bronze Age enclosures, which appear to have influenced the locations of numerous Anglo-Saxon buildings. In common with the other case study sites there were no indications that ritual activity, in the form of placed deposits, was linked to the monuments at Eye Kettleby since these deposits were widely dispersed across the settlement. There was also little to suggest that buildings closer to the postulated barrow had experienced greater levels of replacement than those elsewhere. While many structures in the north-western cluster had been re-cut and replaced, so too had buildings in the north-eastern cluster, such as PBS 12; this suggests that in both areas the perpetuation of certain building locations was important. This is in contrast to the central area of the settlement, in and around the Bronze Age enclosures, where the maintenance of building locations seems to have been less important. As at Catholme, the repeated replacement of structures in the two ‘dwelling’ areas may indicate that these were ancestral farmsteads, sustained over long periods of time by particular families or groups.

Why might some buildings close to monuments have been larger than others? It is possible that these buildings had certain functions, which distinguished them from others in the settlement. It is also possible that they were built, owned or controlled by particular individuals or groups within the settlements. The latter suggestion is not necessarily one that concurs with the general impression gained from settlements of the early Anglo-Saxon period (to which period all but Catholme belong), which have been interpreted as egalitarian, with little evidence for 6

The exception being the northern portion of the settlement at Sutton Courtenay, but this is countered by the fact that it has been re-examined recently e.g. by Barclay et al. (2003), Tipper (2004) and Hamerow et al. (2007).

165

changed little over time, while at Eye Kettleby the two possible ‘domestic’ foci and the craft or storage focus were maintained throughout the life of the settlement. Physical divisions between areas at Eye Kettleby were less clear and rigid than those at Catholme, but the different areas do seem to have been maintained, and in the central/eastern area of the settlement pre-existing enclosures were used in order to delineate space. As such, the relationships between buildings and monuments at these two sites remained the same for much of the lives of the settlements. In contrast, the layouts at Sutton Courtenay and Barrow Hills seem to have been more changeable, with the positioning of buildings in relation to monuments changing over time. At Sutton Courtenay this was most clearly seen with the construction of the large southern halls in the late sixth or early seventh century, while at Barrow Hills there are some indications that buildings ‘encroached’ onto the monuments during a later phase of the settlement. What is clear is that monument reuse at each settlement was influenced by the particular context of that site and its inhabitants; as Semple (2009: 31) has pointed out in a burial context, the practice is nuanced and individual, selective and strategic.

distinction between members of a community (e.g. Hodges 1989: 34-36; Lewis et al. 1997: 98). Even so, the evidence for larger structures close to monuments, combined with the evidence for the control of monuments at the case study sites, raises that the possibility that some monuments were managed, controlled or owned; this is a possibility worthy of consideration. If we firstly consider Catholme, a middle Anglo-Saxon settlement, there is strong evidence for the control of access to monuments through the annexation of the penannular ring ditch PM3 and the apparent control of access by the inhabitants of Zone VII. Indicators of control are less obvious at the other three sites, but they are present. For example, at both Barrow Hills and Eye Kettleby post-built structures and fences seem to have cut off monuments from the rest of the settlements. Similarly, the SFBs on top of mounds and ring ditches at Sutton Courtenay and Barrow Hills potentially restricted or regulated access to these structures and perhaps signified their ownership or control by certain people; SFB 26 at Barrow Hills is a particularly clear example of this. The locations of these buildings on top of or adjacent to earthworks might also have emphasised them in relation to other structures, calling specific attention to their uses or owners. At Sutton Courtenay, the ostentatious alignment of structures on at least one barrow suggests that the builders of those structures were very clearly exercising their right to build in that place and to reference the barrow. In light of the evidence from all four case study sites, there is a case for suggesting that not all early Anglo-Saxon settlements were as egalitarian as they are often assumed to be, and this possibility will be considered in greater detail in the following chapter. Another similarity between all four case study sites is that there were no strong or consistent links between apparently ritual finds, in the form of placed deposits, and monuments. There are some links, such as the burial inserted into the pond barrow at Barrow Hills, the collection of Roman coins in the ditches around barrows 12 and 13 at the same settlement, and the burials at entrances into Zone IX at Catholme. Nonetheless, placed deposits were dispersed across the four settlements and there were no clear correlations between them and ancient monuments. Similarly, the rebuilding of structures did not specifically correspond with the monuments; although some were rebuilt close to earthworks, others were rebuilt and maintained elsewhere in the settlements. An exception is Catholme, where there was strong evidence for the repeated rebuilding of structures in Zone VII, which enhanced its distinctiveness in comparison with the other occupation zones. While these other zones did also contain rebuilt structures, this was on a much smaller scale than Zone VII. One aspect of the relationship between buildings and monuments that did differ between the four settlements was the chronology of monument reuse. At both Catholme and Eye Kettleby settlement layouts appear to have been relatively static over time. At Catholme space was regulated by trackways and enclosures, which 166

Table 6.1 Interpretations, sizes and locations of post-built structures at Barrow Hills (buildings within 20m of a monument are shaded grey).

Length

Width

Area

(m)

(m)

(m )

Hall

7.0

3.5

24.5

Over 20m away

PBS 2

Ancillary

4.0

3.5

14.0

Over 20m away

PBS 3

Ancillary

4.2

1.8

7.6

Over 20m away

PBS 4

Ancillary

3.2

2.7

8.6

Over 20m away

PBS 5

Hall

9.0

3.5

31.5

Over 20m away

PBS 6

Hall

7.5

5.0

37.5

c.2.5m from ring ditch 801

PBS 7

Hall

7.0

3.5

24.5

c.18m from barrow 13

PBS 8

Hall

8.0

3.5

28.0

c.9m from barrow 13

PBS 9

Ancillary

5.0

2.5

12.5

c.18m from barrow 12

PBS 10

Hall

7.5

4.2

31.5

c.9m from pond barrow 4866

PBS 11

Hall

5.5

4.5

24.8

c.5m from barrow 13

PBS 12

Ancillary

4.2

2.5

10.5

c.12.5m from barrow 13

PBS 13

Ancillary

4.7

3.0

14.1

Over 20m away

Structure

Interpretation

PBS 1

Relationship to Monument

2

Table 6.2 Sizes of SFBs and their distances from barrows. Buildings on barrows are shaded in dark grey, buildings 010m from a barrow medium grey and those 10-20m from a barrow light grey; SFBs 31, 32 and 34 have been excluded as their areas were unknown (continued overleaf). 2

SFB

Length (m)

Width (m)

Area (m )

Relationship to Monument

Category

1

3.1

2.6

7.9

c.18m from ring ditch 801

10-20m away

2

3.8

3.0

11.5

20m+ away from monuments

Over 20m away

3

4.0

3.3

13.1

c.11m from ring ditch 801

10-20m away

4

4.5

4.1

18.2

20m+ away from monuments

Over 20m away

5

3.5

2.6

9.1

20m+ away from monuments

Over 20m away

6

3.7

3.0

11.2

20m+ away from monuments

Over 20m away

7

3.5

2.9

10.3

20m+ away from monuments

Over 20m away

8

3.5

2.5

8.8

c.14m from barrow 12

10-20m away

9

4.2

3.3

13.9

On oval barrow

On barrow

10

3.6

3.6

13.0

c.3.5m from ring ditch 801

0-10m away

11

4.3

3.3

14.2

c.11m from ring ditch 801

10-20m away

12

5.6

4.5

24.9

c.2.5m from oval barrow

0-10m away

13

2.8

2.6

7.3

c.7m from ring ditch 801

0-10m away

14

4.4

3.4

14.8

On ring ditch 801

On barrow

15

4.4

2.8

12.2

20m+ away from monuments

Over 20m away

16

3.5

2.4

8.5

20m+ away from monuments

Over 20m away

167

17

6.5

4.0

26.0

On ring ditch 801

On barrow

18

4.5

3.0

13.5

On ring ditch 801

On barrow

19

3.9

2.8

10.9

20m+ away from monuments

Over 20m away

20

4.3

2.9

12.5

20m+ away from monuments

Over 20m away

21

3.5

2.8

9.7

20m+ away from monuments

Over 20m away

22

3.7

2.6

9.9

20m+ away from monuments

Over 20m away

23

4.3

3.5

14.9

Less than 1m from barrow 12

0-10m away

24

3.5

2.7

9.6

On barrow 13

On barrow

25

4.0

2.5

9.9

20m+ away from monuments

Over 20m away

26

3.4

3.0

10.2

On barrow 12

On barrow

27

4.0

2.5

9.9

20m+ away from monuments

Over 20m away

28

3.0

2.2

6.5

20m+ away from monuments

Over 20m away

29

4.0

2.5

9.9

20m+ away from monuments

Over 20m away

30

3.5

2.8

9.5

20m+ away from monuments

Over 20m away

33

4.3

3.2

13.8

20m+ away from monuments

Over 20m away

35

3.3

2.8

9.2

c.11.5m from barrow 12

10-20m away

36

3.5

3.0

10.5

c.20m from oval barrow

10-20m away

37

3.2

2.1

6.7

20m+ away from monuments

Over 20m away

38

3.6

3.1

11.2

c.16m from oval barrow

10-20m away

39

4.2

2.6

10.9

20m+ away from monuments

Over 20m away

40

3.7

2.9

10.7

20m+ away from monuments

Over 20m away

41

4.5

3.3

14.6

20m+ away from monuments

Over 20m away

42

3.0

2.3

6.9

20m+ away from monuments

Over 20m away

43

4.7

3.2

14.9

20m+ away from monuments

Over 20m away

44

2.8

2.1

5.8

20m+ away from monuments

Over 20m away

45

4.0

2.2

8.8

c.20m from barrow 13

10-20m away

Table 6.3 Average sizes of SFBs in relation to their positions near monuments. No. of

Average

Average

Average

Buildings

Length (m)

Width (m)

Area (m )

On barrow

6

4.4

3.3

14.7

0-10m away

4

4.1

3.6

15.0

10-20m away

8

3.7

2.9

10.5

All buildings on/within 10m

10

4.3

3.4

14.8

All buildings on/within 20m

18

4.0

3.1

12.9

Over 20m away

24

3.8

2.8

10.6

All SFBs (with known sizes)

42

3.9

2.9

11.6

Relationship to Barrow

168

2

Table 6.4 Dimensions of post-built structures at Sutton Courtenay. 2

Building

Excavation History

Length (m)

Width (m)

Area (m )

A

Cropmark

25.0

8.0

200.0

B

Cropmark

9.0

6.0

54.0

C

Cropmark

9.0

6.0

54.0

D

Cropmark

9.0

6.0

54.0

E

Cropmark

16.0

6.0

96.0

South-eastern hall

Excavated by Hamerow et al. (2007)

19.0

9.0

171.0

Rectangular building over north-west end of C

Cropmark

9.0

4.0

36.0

7.0+

4.7+

32.9+

9.4+

4.7+

44.2+

Posthole structure XXII Posthole structure south of Circle B (un-numbered)

Excavated by Leeds (1947) Excavated by Leeds (1927)

Table 6.5 Dimensions and locations of SFBs at Sutton Courtenay. Buildings on barrows are shaded dark grey, buildings 0-10m from a barrow medium grey and those 10-20m from a barrow light grey (continued overleaf). SFB No.

Length (m)

Width (m)

Area (m )

Relationship to Monument

Category

III

3.4

1.8

6.1

20m+ from monuments

Over 20m away

IV

3.1

2.4

7.4

20m+ from monuments

Over 20m away

V

3.4

2.4

8.2

20m+ from monuments

Over 20m away

VI

4.9

3.5

17.1

c.20m from Circle C and c.16m from Circle B

10-20m away

VII

4.7

3.4

15.8

c.12m from Circle C

10-20m away

VIII

4.0

3.0

12.0

c.15m from Circle C and c.14m from Circle B

10-20m away

IX

5.3

3.2

17.1

c.5m from Circle C

0-10m away

X(1)

3.5

2.4

8.5

20m+ from monuments

Over 20m away

X(2)

4.1

3.5

14.4

20m+ from monuments

Over 20m away

X(3)

3.7

3.2

11.7

20m+ from monuments

Over 20m away

XI

3.2

2.7

8.8

20m+ from monuments

Over 20m away

XII

4.0

3.0

12.0

20m+ from monuments

Over 20m away

XIII

6.4

2.6

16.6

c.16m from Circle B

10-20m away

XIV

5.0

3.6

17.9

c.5m from Circle B

0-10m away

XVI

3.1

2.9

8.8

On Circle C

On barrow

XVII

3.4

2.7

8.9

c.7m from Circle A

0-10m away

XVIII

4.1

3.4

13.8

On Circle B

On barrow

XIX

3.2

2.4

7.8

On Circle A

On barrow

XX

3.7

1.8

6.7

20m+ from monuments

Over 20m away

2

169

XXIII

3.1

2.4

7.4

20m+ from monuments

Over 20m away

XXIV

3.5

2.2

7.7

20m+ from monuments

Over 20m away

XXV

3.8

3.7

13.9

20m+ from monuments

Over 20m away

XXVII

3.1

2.4

7.4

20m+ from monuments

Over 20m away

XXVIII

3.8

3.1

11.6

20m+ from monuments

Over 20m away

XXIX

3.1

2.4

7.4

20m+ from monuments

Over 20m away

W1

3.1

2.4

7.4

20m+ from monuments

Over 20m away

W2

3.1

2.4

7.4

20m+ from monuments

Over 20m away

W3

6.4

2.3

16.6

20m+ from monuments

Over 20m away

Table 6.6 Roman artefacts found in Anglo-Saxon contexts at Sutton Courtenay (based on information from Leeds 1923; 1927; 1947) (continued overleaf). Building

Roman Artefacts

I

Gaming piece cut from Samian ware.

IV

Part of a tile baked brick red and decorated on one side with a linear pattern (may be Roman). Six sherds of Samian or Samian-type ware; fragments of Romano-British tile; a ‘roundel’ (possibly a pot lid?) made from the base of a Roman pot, 3.5in diameter. A light grey ware Roman bowl fragment with flat base and straight sides widening upwards to a moulded rim; a fragment of a mortarium of Samian-type ware decorated with scrolls in white paint.

VI

VII Pit 2 (W of VII)

A fragment of a well-fired Roman brick or tile; a pot lid made from the base of a Roman vase.

VIII

The base of a Roman pot; two pieces of Samian ware; fragments of Roman tiles; a fragment of glass (Roman?).

X(2)

A dozen sherds of Roman greyware; a fragment of decorated Roman glass.

X(3)

In the western half of the hut was a line of stones and Roman tile in a crescent c.5.5ft wide; two small sherds of Samian ware; a rim fragment of light red mortarium; sherds of light grey wares and base of a vase in the same fabric; also a possible Bronze Age sherd.

XI

Two bases of Roman vases.

XII

A fragment of Roman tile.

Pit N of XII

A Samian sherd.

XIII

A Bronze Roman fibula of mid second century AD.

XIV

Half a dozen Roman sherds, including the bases of two grey ware vases; the carinated collar of a slender-necked vase deliberately smoothed down to use as a spindle whorl. A practically complete bowl of Samian-type ware with scroll decoration in white on the rim, worn and chipped.

XVII XX

The base of Samian-type ware bowl with rough edge trimmed.

XXI

Outside the north-east corner of the pit, about 2ft deep in gravel, was a circular recess, containing a brass coin of Constantinus I. A small bronze coin of Gratian (AD 375-83) on the base of the hut close to the western end.

W1

170

W2

Two Roman sherds.

Unstratified

The base of a small-footed Roman vase 1.5in high and 2in diameter, which had been roughly levelled around the top edge and ‘used as a lamp’ (on the edge and walls traces of burning were observed).

XXI

Pieces of Roman tile; a Roman sherd cut to a gaming piece.

XXII

A small rough Roman vase containing a small bronze coin of Tetricus.

XXIII

Several fragments of Roman tiles; the base of a Roman vase pared down to make a pot lid; a spindle whorl made from the base of a small Roman red-ware vessel. The base of a Roman vessel with a small hollow foot with upper edge trimmed to make a ?toy cup or gaming piece.

XXV Pit β

A gaming piece cut from a sherd of Samian ware decorated with a roulette pattern.

XXVII

Fragments of Roman tile towards the middle of the western side.

XXVIII

The base of a Roman grey ware vase.

Table 6.7 Dimensions and locations of post-built structures at Catholme; buildings of above-average size are shaded grey; * denotes structures for which only minimum sizes are known (continued overleaf). 2

Building

Length (m)

Width (m)

Area (m )

Zone

AS2

11.5

5.5

63.3

I

AS3

9.0

4.5

40.5

II

AS6

10.0

4.0

40.0

III

AS7*

4.5+

3.0

13.5+

III

AS9*

6.0+

4.5

27.0+

III

AS11*

12.5+

5.0

62.5+

II

AS14

9.5

4.0

38.0

IV

AS15

13.5

4.0

54.0

IV

AS17*

3.6+

4.4

15.8+

IV

AS18

8.3

4.7

39.0

IV

AS19

7.5

5.4

40.5

IV

AS21

6.7

4.4

29.5

V

AS22*

4.7+

4.5

21.2+

V

AS23*

7.5+

6.2

46.5+

V

AS25

16.0

5.8

92.8

V

AS26

7.4

4.6

34.0

V

AS28

10.5

5.4

56.7

VI

AS29

7.5

4.3

32.3

VI

AS30

7.2

4.0

28.8

VI

AS31

10.8

5.8

62.6

VI

AS34

8.0

5.2

41.6

VI

AS35b*

10.0+

4.0

40.0+

VII

AS36a

6.0

4.0

24.0

VII

AS36b

6.0

4.0

24.0

VII

171

AS36c

6.5

5.0

33.0

VII

AS37

4.2

3.0

12.6

VII

AS38a*

10.0+

7.5

75.0+

VII

AS38b*

11.0+

6.0

66.0+

VII

AS38c*

12.5+

6.0

75.0+

VII

AS38d*

12.5+

6.0

75.0+

VII

AS39*

10.0+

5.4

54.0+

VII

AS40

2.5

2.5

6.3

VII

AS41a

6.0

4.2

25.2

VII

AS42a

8.0

6.2

49.6

VII

AS42b

9.0

6.8

61.2

VII

AS45*

8.0+

3.5

28.0+

VII

AS46

7.0

4.5

31.5

VII

AS47a*

5.5+

4.0

22.0+

VII

AS47b*

5.5+

4.7

25.9+

VII

AS49*

5.0+

4.0

20.0+

VII

AS54

6.0

3.8

22.8

X

AS55*

9.5+

5.2

49.4+

X

AS56*

6.0+

4.8

28.8+

X

AS57*

9.5+

4.7

44.6+

X

AS58

11.2

5.5

61.6

X

AS59*

4.0+

5.0

20.0+

X

AS60*

7.0+

4.7

32.9+

X

AS61

9.2

4.7

43.2

X

172

Table 6.8 Dimensions and locations of SFBs at Catholme (structures of above-average size are shaded grey). 2

Building

Length (m)

Width (m)

Area (m )

Zone

AS1

3.0

2.5

7.5

I

AS13

4.0

3.5

14.0

IV

AS16

4.8

4.2

20.2

IV

AS20

5.0

4.0

20.0

IV

AS32

4.6

3.6

16.6

VI

AS48

4.0

2.7

10.8

VIII

AS50a

3.8

2.8

10.6

X

AS50b

3.5

2.6

8.8

X

AS51

4.2

3.0

12.6

X

AS52

3.0

2.5

7.5

X

AS62a

4.0

3.5

14.0

X

AS62b

4.0

3.5

14.0

X

AS63

6.2

4.0

24.8

X

AS64b

4.0

3.2

12.8

X

AS64c

3.2

2.3

7.4

X

AS65

3.2

2.7

8.6

X

Table 6.9 Dimensions of post-built structures at Eye Kettleby (structures of above-average size are shaded grey) (continued overleaf). 2

Building

Length (m)

Width (m)

Annexe (m )

Total Area

1

9.1

4.2

n/a

38.2

2

14.2

4.6

n/a

65.3

3

8.0

4.6

9.6

46.4

4

10.4

5.0

10.0

62.0

5

10.5

4.4

n/a

46.2

6

6.8

5.0

n/a

33.8

7

6.3

3.8

n/a

23.9

8a

7.6

6.4

n/a

48.6

8b

8.4

3.8

n/a

31.9

9

10.0

5.0

5.3

55.6

10

9.0

4.3

n/a

38.3

11b

7.8

4.5

n/a

35.1

12a

7.5

4.0

n/a

30.0

12b

7.5

4.0

n/a

30.0

12c

6.0

3.5

n/a

21.0

13

12.0

3.0

n/a

36.0

14

5.0

3.0

n/a

15.0

15

6.0

4.4

n/a

26.4

173

16

3.3

2.3

n/a

7.6

17

5.0

4.4

n/a

22.0

18

3.7

3.1

n/a

11.5

19

5.6

2.0

n/a

11.2

20

6.3

3.5

n/a

22.1

21

5.3

3.5

n/a

18.6

22

11.4

4.4

n/a

50.2

23

3.5

3.5

n/a

12.3

Table 6.10 Dimensions of SFBs at Eye Kettleby (structures of above-average size are shaded grey). 2

Building

Length (m)

Width (m)

Area (m )

1

4.0

2.8

11.2

2

3.6

3.2

11.5

3

4.4

3.6

15.8

4

3.7

2.6

9.6

5

4.5

4.2

18.9

6

3.6

2.6

8.3

7

3.6

3.0

11.0

8

4.6

3.0

14.0

9

3.7

3.1

11.5

10

3.8

2.5

9.4

11

4.1

3.7

15.9

13

4.1

4.0

16.4

14

4.8

3.8

18.2

15

4.7

3.6

16.9

16

3.2

2.3

7.4

17

2.9

2.0

5.7

18

3.3

3.1

10.2

19

3.4

2.7

9.1

22

3.9

3.2

12.5

23

2.8

2.5

7.0

24

2.6

2.1

5.3

25

4.6

3.5

16.1

174

Fig. 6.1 Locations of the case study sites.

Fig. 6.2 Barrow Hills prehistoric barrow cemetery; the Anglo-Saxon settlement is in the field containing barrows 12 and 13 (after Chambers and McAdam 2007: 3, fig. 1.3).

175

Fig. 6.3 Detail of ring ditch 801 and surrounding Anglo-Saxon buildings at Barrow Hills (after Chambers and McAdam 2007: 306, fig. 7.5).

Fig. 6.4 Detail of barrow 13 and adjacent buildings at Barrow Hills (after Chambers and McAdam 2007: 305, fig. 7.4).

176

177

Fig. 6.5 Halls and ancillary structures at Barrow Hills (after Barclay and Halpin 1999: fig. 1.9).

178 Fig. 6.6 SFBs of above-average size (after Barclay and Halpin 1999: fig.1.9).

179

Fig. 6.7 SFBs and post-built structures with evidence for re-cutting or replaced postholes (after Barclay and Halpin 1999: fig. 1.9).

180 Fig. 6.8 Terminus post quem groups (after Barclay and Halpin 1999: fig.1.9).

181

Fig. 6.9 Animal and human burials at Barrow Hills (after Barclay and Halpin 1999: fig. 1.9).

Fig. 6.10 Plan of the northern part of the Sutton Courtenay site, excavated by Leeds in the early twentieth century (after Leeds 1947: fig. 1).

182

Fig. 6.11 Southern portion of Sutton Courtenay site showing cropmark halls and ring ditches (top) (from Barclay et al. 2003: 17, fig. 3.1, reproduced by kind permission of Oxford Archaeological Unit Ltd); detail of the L-shaped cropmark hall complex and barrows (bottom) (after Blair 1994: 32, fig. 30). 183

184

Fig. 6.12 Plot of magnetometer survey to the south-east of the cropmark halls at Sutton Courtenay; the eastern end of the sixth cropmark hall (labelled B) was located in Trench 4; the ring ditch is labelled C and the possible Neolithic oval barrow is labelled D (after Hamerow et al. 2004: illus. 4).

Fig. 6.13 The three ‘rooms’ of ‘house’ X (after Leeds 1923: 168, fig. 10).

Fig. 6.14 Detailed view of the buildings situated on ring ditches to the north of Leeds’s excavation area (after Leeds 1947: fig. 1).

185

Fig. 6.15 Animal and human burials in the northern portion of the Sutton Courtenay settlement (after Leeds 1947: fig. 1).

186

Fig. 6.16 SFBs with above-average areas at Sutton Courtenay (after Leeds 1947: fig. 1).

187

Fig. 6.17 Post-built structures of above-average size at Catholme (from Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 116, fig. 3.97 with additions; reproduced by kind permission of Trent and Peak Archaeology).

188

Fig. 6.18 SFBs at Catholme, with those of above-average size highlighted (from Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 116, fig. 3.97 with additions; reproduced by kind permission of Trent and Peak Archaeology).

189

Fig. 6.19 Total number of building plots in each zone at Catholme and the number that had been used more than once.

Fig. 6.20 Detail of Zone VII , showing T4 leading into the occupation area and Zone VII with its redefined and expanding boundaries (from Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 116, fig. 3.97; reproduced by kind permission of Trent and Peak Archaeology).

190

Fig. 6.21 Human and animal burials at Catholme (from Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 116, fig. 3.97, with additions; reproduced by permission of Trent and Peak Archaeology).

191

192

Fig. 6.22 Categories of post-built structure at Eye Kettleby; above-average buildings, particularly large structures measuring over 50m2 and possible ancillary structures measuring 15m2 or less are highlighted (after an unpublished plan by Finn).

193

Fig. 6.23 Dimensions of SFBs at Eye Kettleby; the majority of structures fell into two groups, those 14m 2 or more and those 11.9m2 or less (after an unpublished plan by Finn).

194

Fig. 6.24 Buildings with evidence for replacement or re-cutting at Eye Kettleby (after an unpublished plan by Finn).

195

Fig. 6.25 Animal and human burials at Eye Kettleby (after an unpublished plan by Finn).

CHAPTER SEVEN CONTEXTUALISING REUSE IN SETTLEMENTS constructed inside it. The same may be true of Glebe Farm, where an Iron Age field system influenced the layout of the settlement, and of Barrow Hills, where the first phase of the settlement seems to have been ‘enclosed’ on several sides by a number of prehistoric barrows (see Chapter 4).

The preceding two chapters considered how monument reuse took place in settlements; it is the aim of this chapter to now explore why it took place. Why did people choose to build their settlements near, on or in older earthworks? What did people believe about the earthwork remains? Did the significance of ancient earthworks change over time? In order to answer these questions, this chapter will discuss the social, political and religious contexts of reuse. It will begin by considering the impact that monument form had on reuse, examining whether there were differences between the ways in which barrows and linear features were appropriated, and perhaps therefore interpreted, by Anglo-Saxon communities. The chapter will then proceed to explore the potential ideological significance of monument reuse in settlements, investigating whether the ritual and religious importance ascribed to reuse in burial can also be attributed to the practice in settlements. Following this will be a discussion of the social and political contexts of reuse, which will consider whether events and developments in society during the early to middle Anglo-Saxon period had a bearing on monument appropriation in settlements. It will become clear throughout the chapter that the ideological and sociopolitical meanings of the practice were interlinked, but they are considered separately here for ease of discussion. Their inter-relationships will be discussed towards the end of the chapter, and will be followed by a consideration of the chronological development of monument reuse on occupation sites.

The evidence from the corpus indicates that communities were reusing linear features and barrows in different ways, probably as a result of their differing forms. Where pre-existing enclosures and field systems were concerned, their appropriation often resembled their original uses. The Iron Age field system at Glebe Farm, for example, not only influenced the layout of the later settlement, it was also augmented by the addition of further boundaries. Similarly, the remains of prehistoric sub-rectangular enclosures at Eynsham Abbey and Foxholes Farm, and the hillforts at Taplow and Irthlingborough, were reused to enclose buildings, or buildings were constructed adjacent to the entrances of the enclosures. There appears, therefore, to have been a practical element to the reuse of enclosures. It has been suggested that the reoccupation of hillforts in early medieval south-west Britain was for defensive purposes (Arnold 1984: 73-7), and similar suggestions have been made with regard to Anglo-Saxon England (Brown and Foard 1998: 71). However, both the reoccupied hillforts in this corpus have evidence for occupation outside the ramparts, making the use of the enclosures for defensive measures unlikely in these cases; without further excavation in the interiors of these two hillforts it is unknown whether any buildings or other settlement features were located inside them.

BARROWS AND LINEAR FEATURES: THE IMPACT OF MONUMENT FORM

Uses for Linear Features It has already been noted that prehistoric monuments could have survived into the early medieval period in a variety of forms; not only can they be divided into the broad categories of ‘barrows’ and ‘linear features’, within these categories there are numerous shapes and sizes of monument. Decisions about which monuments were to be reused, and what form that reuse took, may have been dictated in no small way by the physical appearance of those earthworks. Indeed, Williams (1997: 14) has suggested that the selection of particular types of earthwork for reuse may have reflected the expression of different identities. It certainly seems to be a possibility that there were disparities in the ways in which particular earthworks were viewed, interpreted and reused. It must be borne in mind that settlements may have been established in particular locations for a variety of reasons, including topography and proximity to resources; people may have reused the monuments that were available to them in an area that had already been selected for settlement based on other factors. Nevertheless, the proximity of a particular type of monument may have been one factor in the selection of a suitable occupation area. For example, the presence of an Iron Age enclosure at Foxholes Farm appears to have influenced the choice of settlement site, as a number of buildings were

It may seem an obvious conclusion that linear features were reused in ways which resembled their original functions, since their preserved remains in the landscape may well have still been effective at enclosing or demarcating space. However, it is worth taking into consideration the settlement at Briar Hill, where four SFBs were located over the eastern side of a Neolithic causewayed enclosure. These buildings were not near an entrance, nor were they enclosed by the monument (Bamford 1985). Instead, they were positioned next to the banks on one side of the enclosure, with some of the buildings aligned on those banks and one perhaps directly on top of an earthwork. Their positions appear to have been influenced by the presence of the monument but it was not, as far as it is possible to ascertain, reused as an enclosure. Although Briar Hill does appear to be an exception, in many cases the appropriation of enclosures, field systems, ditches and banks had a functional purpose. This does not mean, however, that the age of the features was unimportant; it is still possible that the pre-existence of the enclosures gave them added significance or usefulness. Beliefs about the origins of the enclosures and 196

We must, therefore, look for alternative explanations for the buildings situated on top of barrows, as well as those buildings constructed around them. Perhaps the desire to appropriate these earthworks stemmed from beliefs about their origins and characteristics; their significance may have been ideological, rather than functional. Therefore, it is possible that many of the beliefs relating to barrows postulated by Williams (1997; 1998; 2006) and Semple (1998; 2003a) in the context of burial reuse, such as their roles as liminal places and as the perceived homes of ancestors and supernatural creatures, were also in play within settlements; this possibility will be explored in more detail later in this chapter. Another possibility is that the positioning of buildings on or near barrows might have served to enhance their visibility within the settlement, and perhaps emphasised their importance, and this possibility will also be considered in more detail below.

field systems could have incorporated myths about supernatural builders, as intimated by the connections between ditches and Grīm or Odin in Old English placenames (see Chapter 3). Moreover, the perceived age and significance of an enclosure might have been used to emphasise the importance of the buildings inside it, or the activities that took place within it. A similar combination of practical use and ideological meaning has been noted at the sixth- to seventh-century barrow cemetery of Sutton Hoo (Suffolk) (Hummler 2005: 457). Here, the barrows had been positioned along the ditches and at the corners of an Iron Age field system, which Hummler envisaged as being visible still in the form of low banks, hedges and lynchets. However there were no signs of above-ground features under the barrows, and the ditches had been filled in, leading Hummler to suggest that the barrow-builders levelled the site just before they built the barrows, but still used these features to orient the earthworks. She pointed out that this prehistoric landscape, although old, was not funerary, monumental or even very dramatic, yet it was still chosen as a suitable place for a seventh-century high-status burial ground. She suggested that this activity incorporated functional reuse, as well as beliefs about the origins of the pre-existing field system, and that ‘perhaps practical and spiritual considerations were not that far apart in the barrow builders’ minds’ (Hummler 2005: 457).

Different Uses, Different Beliefs? The evidence discussed in this section suggests that there were differences in the ways in which different forms of monument were reused, and that Anglo-Saxon communities were making real distinctions between monuments with different forms. Indeed, the place-name and charter evidence discussed in Chapter 3 demonstrates that people did identify monuments of different types, particularly barrows, and described them according to their shape and appearance. The distinction between the uses of linear features and barrows is emphasised to an even greater extent when we consider that many linear features in the corpus appear to have been preserved as raised earthworks in the form of banks. Thus, the trend for inserting SFBs into barrows could, potentially, have been replicated through the construction of buildings on top of banks, but it was not. An exception is the site of Briar Hill, mentioned above, where an SFB may have been inserted into part of a bank around a Neolithic causewayed enclosure (Bamford 1985). Interestingly, in this case the banks around the monument were intermittent and they only surrounded part of the ditched enclosure. It is possible that, by the Anglo-Saxon period, the monument no longer resembled an enclosure, and that the reused section of bank actually bore more of a resemblance to the remains of a barrow.

Uses for Barrows The situation appears to have been different where the reuse of barrows was concerned. Their appropriation in settlements bore little resemblance to their original functions as funerary monuments, except in the few instances in which burials were inserted into barrows within settlements (at Barrow Hills and West Halton, for instance; see Chapter 5). There may have been fewer opportunities for reusing barrows in functional ways, as they did not have the practical uses possessed by linear features. However, it is not unfeasible to suggest that barrows could have had practical uses; they might have provided shelter from the prevailing wind, for example, or they might have been used as viewpoints. Yet these possibilities are not particularly convincing. At Barrow Hills, for example, the prevailing wind was from the south-west (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 307), yet buildings were positioned in such a way that the barrows would not have provided shelter, especially in the case of those buildings directly on top of the monuments. Meanwhile, where barrows were surrounded by buildings they are unlikely to have been effective viewing platforms, since the encircling buildings may well have blocked views out into the landscape. Further, the construction of SFBs on top of mounds would hardly have been necessary for their use as viewing platforms; indeed, it is possible that these buildings would also have been an impediment to viewing the surrounding area and, given that we know little about the positioning of windows and doorways in SFBs (Tipper 2004), it is possible that these structures provided few opportunities for viewing the surroundings.

In spite of these apparent differences between monuments of different types, one characteristic they may all have had in common is that people believed that they were ‘alien’ or old, belonging to a society different from their own. Williams (1997: 14) has suggested that monuments may have been incorporated into a conceptual framework as ‘ancient’ places, built before living memory. Although monuments were not necessarily distinguished as belonging to particular societies or periods in history, they may have been perceived as belonging to ‘the past’ in very general terms. Anglo-Saxon England, like much of early medieval Europe, was preoccupied by precedent (Hunter 1974: 49). As such, it may not have mattered whether monuments were built at different times or by different societies; the very fact that they pre-existed and 197

United in Death: Monuments and SFBs

were ‘old’ may have been enough to imbue them with importance. We might draw parallels here with the genealogies discussed in Chapter 3; ‘the past’ as a general concept seems to have been more important than its constituent parts. Nevertheless, the distinctions that seem to have been made between linear features, which ran through and divided the landscape, and barrows, which formed discrete ‘lumps and bumps’ in the landscape, could contributed to some differences in beliefs about the original uses and characteristics of these monuments, and earthworks may have conveyed different messages depending on their form. The remainder of this chapter will now explore what these beliefs and meanings might have been.

The frequent reuse of monuments as the foci for burial activity demonstrates that, at least in some cases, they were closely linked to death and funerary rites in the early to middle Anglo-Saxon period. In addition to being used for burial, Williams (1998: 99) has suggested that monuments in cemeteries might also have served as stages for ritual performances associated with burial, such as the laying out of the dead. Moreover, there are indications that SFBs were also associated with endings and death. For instance, Hamerow (2006) has shown that placed deposits in SFBs were frequently termination or ‘closure’ deposits, which marked the end of a building’s life. Tipper (2004: 151), too, has linked the deposition of animal remains in SFBs to the ‘death’ of buildings.

THE IDEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF MONUMENT REUSE

There is some evidence to suggest that the dismantling and termination of the life of an SFB was a prescribed, perhaps ritual, procedure. At Barrow Hills the inwardsloping angle of gable postholes in at least nine SFBs, and the outward slope of two further SFBs, led to the suggestion that they had been deliberately removed when the buildings ceased to be used (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 75). Irregular and enlarged gable postholes can also suggest that SFBs were systematically dismantled and that posts had been forcibly removed (Tipper 2004: 71). For example, the western posthole of AS48 at Catholme was much larger than the eastern one; although it was suggested that it might have held a door jamb, another possibility is that the post was rocked free and removed at the end of the building’s life (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 74; Tipper 2004: 71). At other settlements for which sufficient information about the relationship between pit fills and posthole fills is available it was also apparent that posts had been deliberately removed. In the majority of SFBs at Barrow Hills for which the relationship between the SFB fill and the posthole fills could be determined, the pit fill extended over the postholes, indicating that the posts had been removed before the deposition of the pit fill, as opposed to decaying in situ (Chambers and Madam 2007: 75-6). Similarly, sections through the SFBs at Pennyland showed that in the majority of cases the same material filled both the pits and the postholes or, in a few cases, that the pit fill overlay the posthole fills (Williams 1993: 56-71). Both circumstances indicate that the posts had not decayed in situ.

Throughout this book there have been frequent references to the theories used to explain monument reuse in the burial record, such as those put forward by Howard Williams, which were discussed in detail in Chapter 2. These theories propose that monuments were imbued with ritual and religious significance when they were reused in funerary rites. For example, drawing on burial evidence, Semple (1998; 2003a) has suggested that the Christian ‘demonization’ of monument reuse occurred from the seventh century onwards because monument reuse was an important aspect of pagan belief systems in early Anglo-Saxon England. Similar interpretations have been applied to the appropriation of prehistoric monuments at early medieval royal sites in Ireland, where it was believed that mounds were openings to the spirit world, making them attractive sources of mythological and supernatural legitimacy (Driscoll 1998: 143-7). In this section let us know consider whether there may have been similar beliefs about monuments when they were reused in settlements, and what this might tell us about the role of monuments in pre-Christian belief systems. SFBs on Barrows: Mortuary Structures? When comparing the meanings of monument reuse in burial and settlement contexts, one aspect of the evidence that may prove insightful is the relationship between SFBs and barrows. Firstly, the construction of SFBs on barrows demonstrates that extremely close spatial relationships existed between Anglo-Saxon buildings and prehistoric monuments. Secondly, this form of appropriation in settlements most strongly resembles the reuse of monuments for burial, thereby providing the clearest parallels between funerary and settlement reuse practices. However, as previously noted, there are difficulties associated with determining the uses of SFBs (see Chapter 1); determining the reasons for the positioning of particular buildings on barrows is, therefore, also potentially problematic. Nevertheless, we can explore one possibility based on the available evidence, namely that these particular structures may have had a role to play in Anglo-Saxon funerary rites.

Moving outside the study area, the SFBs at the extensively excavated settlement of West Stow displayed a similar phenomenon; in the majority of cases the fills of the postholes were same as the rest of the fill in the building, or the fill of the pit overlay the postholes (West 1985). It is possible that the dismantling and ‘termination’ of a building was a structured and methodical activity, and its potential ritual significance is attested to by the insertion of placed termination deposits in SFB fills, the burial of which may have been another step in the process of disassembling the building. Moreover, the very contents of these termination deposits are also resonant of death, as they often included the 198

conditions; indeed, as the postholes and slots of the structures were often shallower than the cremations they accompanied, it is possible that many more have been ploughed away, leaving no trace (Williams 2000: 22830).

remains of animals and humans (Hamerow 2006). Indeed, even the burial of an artefact, such as a brooch or pot, as a termination deposit would have taken the item out of circulation and ended its useful life within the community, in a very similar way to burying an object in a grave. It appears, therefore, that the ‘death’ of an SFB was, in some circumstances, an ideologically important event for Anglo-Saxon communities.

Another interesting and pertinent example of a building within a cemetery comes from the seventh-century cemetery at Street House near Saltburn (N Yorks) (Sherlock 2008). Most of the 109 graves at this site formed an irregular square ‘enclosure’, measuring 36m by 34m, with entrances in the southern side and in the north-east corner (Sherlock 2008: 34) (Fig. 7.1). The cemetery appears to have been carefully planned, as no grave overlapped another and most were regularly spaced. Preserved in the middle of the ‘enclosure’ was the ring ditch of an Anglo-Saxon mound covering an inhumation, with a number of other graves clustered around it including a high-status bed burial (Sherlock 2008: 32). The cemetery was on the site of an Iron Age settlement and a number of burials in the north-west corner of the enclosure were within an Iron Age roundhouse (Sherlock 2008: 31-2). Some 8m to the south of the burial mound was an SFB, measuring approximately 3m by 2m, which the excavators believed was associated with the cemetery rites (Sherlock 2008: 31-2). Additionally, there were a number of postholes between the mound and the SFB, possibly forming a structure or fence, although some may have held grave markers.

Uses for Buildings in the Anglo-Saxon Funeral That structures were sometimes used during Anglo-Saxon burial rites is indicated by the evidence from a number of cemeteries. While many of these sites do not fall into the geographical remit of this study, they are useful comparanda nonetheless. Williams (2000) has discussed the evidence for structures from a number of cremation cemeteries dating from the period c.450-600. At Baston (Lincs), a number of postholes were identified within the cemetery (Mayes and Dean 1976). Williams (2000: 226) suggested that they formed two parallel lines demarcating three irregular sides of an open square, while a narrow slot also formed part of the alignment. There was a similar feature at Westgarth Gardens in Bury St Edmunds (Suf) in association with a cremation grave, while at Portway, Andover (Hants) there were two parallel slots in the cemetery, with a cremation burial laying immediately west of the southern slot (Cook and Dacre 1985; West 1988; Williams 2000: 226-7). Also at Portway were a number of undated postholes; some formed a line through the cemetery, while others were isolated or arranged in pairs and may have held standing posts (Cook and Dacre 1985; Williams 2000: 227).

There are several interesting parallels between Street House and the settlements identified in this study with SFBs close to or on top of mounds. The first is that the graves within the roundhouse exhibited monument reuse, and the second is that there was an SFB just a few metres from a barrow, albeit an Anglo-Saxon one. The exact chronological relationship between the graves and the building is unknown, as the site is still undergoing analysis. However, the fact that the cemetery appears to have been planned, and the grave goods indicate a fairly short period of use from c.650 to 700 (Sherlock 2008: 37), suggests that the building would have been constructed in the knowledge that this was a contemporary mound, rather than an ancient one. Nevertheless, the site provides intriguing links between funerary practices and buildings near to mounds, which may indicate that the construction of buildings near to mounds in both cemeteries and settlements had similar impetuses, perhaps as part of the mortuary ritual.

Meanwhile, unpublished plans from the Loveden Hill (Lincs) cemetery record the presence of a sub-circular arrangement of stone slabs, which may have been the post pads for some form of structure (Williams 2000: 226). Similarly, at Apple Down (Sus) at least four sets of apparent ‘fence-lines’ were noted, although the distances between the posts were variable and it appears that some were too far apart to have been part of a fence (Down and Welch 1990; Williams 2000: 227). Their dates were uncertain, but they may have had some form of funerary use, since three of the four were close to timber structures containing cremations. Similar timber ‘grave houses’ to those found at Apple Down have also been identified at other cemeteries in the Thames Valley and to the south of the Thames, including Berinsfield (Oxon) (Boyle et al. 1995; Williams 2000: 228). The ‘grave house’ at Berinsfield is particularly interesting in the context of this study as the building, which surrounded an unurned cremation burial, was separated from the rest of the cemetery and lay next to a prehistoric pond barrow (Boyle et al. 1995; Williams 2000: 236). Furthermore, the presence of linear and circular arrangements of cremations at other cemeteries, such as Spong Hill, suggests that there may have been structures that influenced the positioning of graves, but that these have not survived (Williams 2000: 228). The preservation of these structures might have been affected by factors such as soil conditions, plough damage and excavation

Perhaps most compelling parallel, however, comes from Mucking Cemetery II, where three fifth- to seventhcentury SFBs were excavated amongst the graves; as they intercut several graves, they appear to have been in existence at the same time as the cemetery (Hirst and Clark 2009: 454-5, fig. 11). The excavators suggested that these structures may have been used as mortuary houses, although there was little archaeological evidence to indicate their functions. Most notably, some 20m south-west of the cemetery was a Bronze Age round barrow, Barrow 1, with an SFB (GH 76) situated over its 199

Williams (2000) speculated about the functions of the early Anglo-Saxon cemetery structures he identified, focusing specifically to their uses in early Anglo-Saxon cremation rites. He suggested that buildings associated with cremated remains at places such as Apple Down and Berinsfield are unlikely to have been part of the cremation rite itself, since there was no burnt material in the postholes or slots (Williams 2000: 229). Instead, these structures may have been tombs for displaying or storing cremated remains and urns, while the postholes in cemeteries such as Baston and Portway may have held ‘memorial posts’ (Williams 2000: 226). Another suggestion was that remains were placed on the structures as an alternative to burial, or that the structures displayed items recovered from the funeral pyre, or brought by the mourners (Williams 2000: 228).

ring ditch, while less than 5m south-west of that was another SFB (GH 68). Here, then, we see a direct parallel with the many in the settlements in the corpus; SFBs, apparently in a mortuary context, closely associated with a pre-existing barrow. We might speculate that these particular buildings played a role in the burial rites at Mucking, and that the position of two SFBs in close proximity to a barrow was of cosmological significance. The use of buildings in the mortuary ritual continued into the middle and later Anglo-Saxon period in some instances. At Thwing (E Yorks) the foundations of a small wooden structure measuring 3m by 4m have been uncovered, with an apparent entrance 1.5m wide in its southern wall (Craig 2009: 382-3). Meanwhile, the cemeteries at Spofforth (N Yorks) and Pontefract (W Yorks) both contained two-celled structures (although the latter started life as a single-celled building) (Craig 2009: 384-5). A building was also found in the cemetery at Ledston (W Yorks); it contained a fragment of juvenile cranium radiocarbon dated to the seventh to eighth century (Craig 2009: 386). These buildings seem to have been focal points in the cemeteries, as burials (often of juveniles) clustered around them and occasionally inside them; they may have been considered particularly important or sacred places within the cemeteries, perhaps even early churches. At Wells (Som) a fourth- to fifthcentury mausoleum containing a late Roman burial seems to have stood throughout the early to middle AngloSaxon period (Rodwell 2001: xvii, 78). A cemetery had developed to the west and north of the building during the seventh century, and the structure seems to have been used for storing human remains for several centuries, since charnel recovered from it yielded radiocarbon dates from the sixth to tenth centuries (Rodwell 2001: 78-9).

With reference to middle and later Anglo-Saxon cemeteries, Craig (2009) noted that the buildings in these contexts were also enigmatic; there are few clear indications of their uses, and little coherence in the terminology applied to them. Two-celled buildings are often interpreted as early churches, primarily because they often correspond in date with the increase in churchbuilding in England from the seventh century onwards (Craig 2009: 396; Morris 1983: 35-8). Meanwhile, single-celled structures are generally termed ‘burial chapels’ or ‘mortuary chapels’, whether they contained burials or not. The use of these structures for storing human remains has been hinted at in some cases, at Ledston for example, yet it is possible that buildings yielding no human remains, or any other clues about their functions, may have been used for housing holy objects, reliquaries or charnel, which are not discovered archaeologically because they were important enough to be removed and transported somewhere else once a cemetery fell out of use (Craig 2009: 396-7).

Also of interest are two buildings, constructed in the seventh to eighth centuries, belonging to the early church of St Wystan at Repton (Derbys). The earliest church appears to have been built c.600, and not long after a semi-subterranean, two-roomed structure was constructed c.60m to the west on the same alignment; bones stacked in the eastern room suggest that this was a mausoleum (Biddle and Kjølbye-Biddle 2001: 50). Several kings of Mercia were buried at Repton, including Merewahl, who may have been interred in the mausoleum in the later seventh century (Biddle and Kjølbye-Biddle 2001: 50). Elsewhere at Repton a crypt beneath the chancel of the modern church appears to have begun life as a baptistry, sunk 1.2m into the ground and drained by a stone channel, which had been built by c.740 at the latest. This was subsequently converted into a mausoleum to hold the body of King Æthelbald, who died c.757, as well as other, ninth-century, Mercian kings including Wiglaf, who ruled between 827 and 840 (Biddle and KjølbyeBiddle 2001: 50). A similar structure is known from Anglo-Saxon documents and later antiquarian records to have existed at Winchcombe (Glos), an important Mercian royal centre (Bassett 1985: 82). Here, a freestanding structure is thought to have existed from the early ninth century, when King Cœnwulf’s son Cynhelm was interred in the building (Bassett 1985: 85).

Ethnographic Parallels When envisaging how buildings might have been incorporated into Anglo-Saxon funerary rites, anthropological studies of non-western societies may be of assistance, since they reveal a variety of ways in which structures, both in settlements and cemeteries, can be used in burial practices. Indeed, the power of ethnography for elucidating aspects of Anglo-Saxon paganism has recently been demonstrated by scholars such as Carver (2010), Semple (2010) and Sanmark (2010) in their recent work on early medieval paganism. To offer one ethnographic example relevant to this study, the Ma’anyan of Borneo store the ashes of their dead in containers on large raised platforms in cemeteries; these often also contain relics from former festivals (Huntingdon and Metcalf 1979: 82). This is reminiscent of Williams’s (2000) suggestions for the structures at cemeteries such as Apple Down. Similarly, in Bali the cadavers of priests and very prestigious individuals are not buried, but are instead retained within domestic compounds on special platforms (Huntingdon and Metcalf 1979: 85). Is it possible, perhaps, that the unexplained postholes found in cemeteries, such as those 200

coffins. These mausoleums are often elaborately carved or painted; they are located in graveyards, which are adjacent to domestic longhouses, and they consist of a chamber, which might be some 2m to 6m above the ground on several posts, or on the ground, or even underground (Huntingdon and Metcalf 1979: 135-7). The close relationship between death and domestic activity was also noted by Rivers (1906) in his study of the Todas of southern India in the early twentieth century. Dairying was a particularly important activity, in economic, social and religious terms, and there were strict rules about who could milk buffalo and produce dairy products (these activities were always undertaken by men), and the rituals and prayers which accompanied each activity. On the death of a male member of the community, the body would be stored for several days in the outermost room of the village dairy, or in a speciallyconstructed hut which was also called a ‘dairy’ (pali) (Rivers 1906: 245). When women died their bodies were also placed in specially-constructed huts, known as ‘houses’ (ars); their huts were burned down immediately after use, while male huts were left standing and sometimes used again for further funerals if they had not fallen into disrepair (Rivers 1906: 340).

at Street House and Baston, represent similar structures? Could it also have been the case that the masses of postholes which cannot be reconstructed as building footprints found on some settlements, such as Barrow Hills, also represent more ephemeral structures such as platforms, which could have played a role in funerary activities? There are many ethnographic examples of communities storing their dead in or near settlements prior to burial, either in houses or specially-constructed huts; these can facilitate the visualisation of how mortuary structures in Anglo-Saxon settlements may have been used and the types of funerary activities that could have taken place in them. For instance, the Toradja of central Sulawesi in Indonesia store corpses after death in a rough hut built slightly away from the village (Huntingdon and Metcalf 1979: 83-5). Similarly, the Mambai of Timor remove the corpse from its house immediately after death and take it to the cult house of its descent group, where it is laid out on a mat and dressed in ritually appropriate clothes (Huntingdon and Metcalf 1979: 89-90). The body remains there for several days while all the deceased’s close family are summoned; when they can no longer tolerate the smell the body is rolled in its mat and buried in the centre of the village.

Of course, these anthropological examples are vastly removed, both temporally and geographically, from the Anglo-Saxon world. Nonetheless, they provide insights into the ways in which buildings, particularly those in settlements, might be incorporated into a number of different stages of the funerary process. For example, Ma’anyan funerary structures in cemeteries provide possible correlates for buildings in Anglo-Saxon cemeteries. The structures used by groups such as the Toradja, Phayeng and Berawan communities demonstrate how closely entwined death rituals can be with domestic life, with the preparation of the corpse for burial often taking place within settlements. In some cases these structures are temporary and built specially for a funeral, but the use of dairies by the Todas, and the Bara use of existing structures as ‘female’ and ‘male’ mortuary houses, emphasise the ‘multi-purpose’ role that buildings in settlements can have. It is not unfeasible to suggest that the same may be true of buildings in Anglo-Saxon settlements, and that SFBs on or adjacent to barrows might have been linked to the funerary process, whether they were built specifically for that purpose or had other functions when they were not in use as mortuary structures. Similarly, we might also speculate about the functions of the unusual posthole features PBS16 and PBS17 adjacent to the mound at Eye Kettleby and the hundreds of narrow postholes immediately north of the barrow at West Halton; were these temporary or ephemeral structures associated with funerary rites perhaps? The lack of human burials within the buildings on or near barrows suggests that they did not receive inhumations or cremated remains, as some of the buildings in the cemeteries discussed above did, but they may have played a role in the preparation and storage of bodies prior to burial or cremation.

After the death of a member of the Bara community of Madagascar, a ‘female’ and a ‘male’ mortuary house are selected from the structures already standing in a settlement (Huntingdon and Metcalf 1979: 102-3). The corpse rests in the female house for three days, during which time the women keep vigil, while in the male house the men of the deceased’s family receive male visitors and organise the funeral. The Phayeng of Manipur in India also place dead bodies inside temporary huts, which are specially constructed in one corner of the domestic courtyard (ManiBabu 1994: 157). When the body of a member of the Phayeng community is transported to its hut, it is carried clockwise around the outside of the hut three times, and kept there until a cremation pyre has been built; when it is time for it to be cremated, the corpse is placed in its coffin inside the hut (ManiBabu 1994: 158-60). The prescribed circling of the hut is of particular note here; the barrows on which the SFBs sat at settlements such as Manor Farm and Barrow Hills would have been suitable features for similar circumnavigation and processional activities. Amongst the Berawan of central northern Borneo the body of the deceased is displayed in the settlement on a specially built seat for a day or two until all the close family have viewed it, then it is inserted into a coffin or large jar, which is kept in the family longhouse or on a simple wooden platform in the graveyard (Huntingdon and Metcalf 1979: 68). Some time later the coffin or jar is brought out of storage and moved to a small shed built into the longhouse veranda. The bones are then transferred to a final resting place; this is sometimes a large carved post with a niche for a jar to sit in, while on other occasions the bones are placed in a large decorated wooden mausoleum, which may house up to forty 201

buildings could have encouraged the health and reproduction of a flock or herd (Sayer 2003: 106).

The anthropological studies discussed above also raise some interesting questions about the physical appearance of structures attributed with a funerary function; is it possible that they were marked out in some way from surrounding structures? As is generally the case with Anglo-Saxon buildings, it is difficult to determine what the structures in Anglo-Saxon cemeteries might have looked like, given that there were a variety of building techniques available to the creators of Anglo-Saxon architecture and because footprints of buildings are often all that remain (Williams 2000: 229). The mausoleums used by the Berawan demonstrate that a modest footprint of a few postholes can be topped by an elaborately carved and painted funerary chamber (Huntingdon and Metcalf 1979: 135-7). The discovery of white plaster on a number of buildings at Yeavering (Walker 2009: 293) and the preserved carved posts from an early medieval ‘temple’ at Gross Raden in Germany (Stupecki 2007: 376-7) also suggest that these structures had the potential to be more elaborate and decorative than their archaeological footprints suggest.

Moreover, it has been suggested that one of the possible uses of SFBs was for grain storage, since there is no evidence from Anglo-Saxon settlement sites for airtight grain storage pits, or for the four-, six- or nine-post raised grain storage structures found on the continent at this time (Tipper 2004: 164). The raised floors of SFBs would have allowed air to circulate around the buildings and discouraged attack from burrowing rodents, making them appropriate places to store grain. If so, the tending and maintenance of these buildings may have required considerable effort; as the preservers of a community’s major food source, and therefore its future wellbeing, they may have been particularly important places within settlements. Thus the evidence, although it is equivocal, may indicate that SFBs may have been linked to beliefs about fertility and the lifecycle even when they did not contain clearly ‘placed’ deposits; the very act of filling them with midden material may in itself have been meaningful.

Fertility and Gender Similarly, ancient monuments may also have been significant in conceptions of lifecycles and the afterlife. Williams (1997; 1998) has proposed that, if ancient earthworks were believed to be the homes of ancestors, the dead or supernatural beings, they may have been timeless places, perceived as existing in both the past and the present, while Semple (2003a) has made similar claims (see Chapter 2). If this was the case, monuments may have been connected to beliefs about the afterlife, and perhaps rebirth or continued existence after death, at least for some Anglo-Saxon communities. Their longevity, and the fact that they belonged to a time before living memory, could have made them timeless places, or at least places with a different form of time from that of everyday life. Monuments may have, therefore, not only contained the dead in literal terms, it is also possible that they were thought of as containing their ‘afterlife’ incarnations. Thus, it is also possible to suggest that SFBs, when they were located on or near barrows, were also tied into beliefs about life, fertility and rebirth, as well as death; however, it is acknowledged that the evidence is ambiguous and the interpretations offered here are conjectural.

An implication of the possible connection between death and buildings associated with monuments is the possibility that this was part of wider set of beliefs about fertility; the close link between death, birth and fertility is a phenomenon noted in many societies (Huntingdon and Metcalf 1979: 96). Where SFBs are concerned, it is possible that the rubbish used to fill the structures after they fell out of use was, in fact, ideologically significant. The classification of ‘rubbish’ is a social construct, which varies between societies, while strategies for dealing with refuse also differ; although the disposal of rubbish is often considered of little significance in the modern western world, there are ethnographic and archaeological indications that rubbish disposal could be a ritual activity (Hill 1995: 4; Moore 1982). For example, Parker Pearson (1996: 125-7) has suggested that middens in late Bronze Age and early Iron Age settlements, some of which lay immediately outside the entrances to buildings, may have been regarded as valuable ‘fertility stores’, as they were so closely associated with the practice of manuring. Thus, the disposal of midden material can in itself be a meaningful activity, since it prevents the material from being used to encourage agricultural fertility. Indeed, the apparent lack of byres for holding animals in AngloSaxon England would have made the collection of animal dung for agricultural use difficult, and the use of domestic refuse as manure is likely to have been very important (Tipper 2004: 158). This may mean that the decision to fill SFB pits with this material, rather than using it for growing crops, was significant. Furthermore, it is possible that the deposition of infant burials as ‘placed deposits’ in some SFBs may have served a similar purpose, representing fertility and new life, while the structured deposition of animal remains could also have represented sacrifices, or even animals that had suffered accidental deaths, whose deposition in particular

A further implication of the postulated use of SFBs on barrows as funerary structures is the possibility that the use of these buildings was in some way dictated by gender. This is an extremely tentative assertion, but it is a notion worthy of consideration in the context of this study. Geake (2003: 260-1) has observed that there were a large number of decisions that had to be made about burial rites when a person in Anglo-Saxon England died. There were decisions about whether to cremate or inhume the corpse, which grave goods the deceased would be buried or burnt with, the positions of these grave goods in the grave or on the pyre, what sort of container to place the remains in, and where to finally lay the body or cremated remains to rest. A pre-requisite for making these decisions was the need to know exactly what they 202

indicative of female influence over burial rites? Similarly, if Geake is correct in asserting that ‘cunning women’ were responsible for managing mortuary practices in early Anglo-Saxon England, and if it is also true that they were healers or ritual specialists as suggested by Meaney (1981), we might hypothesise that they were also responsible for influencing other aspects of cosmology, such as which prehistoric monuments were reused in cemeteries and settlements, and when. We might also find that they were responsible for aspects of the funerary ritual that took place in settlements, such as laying out, washing and dressing the corpse, and perhaps keeping vigil by it. Therefore, if buildings situated on, or near, monuments in settlements were tied into the funerary process, women may have been exerting influence on the reuse of monuments in these contexts.

signalled, how to undertake them properly, and knowledge of what was appropriate for each person. Geake (2003: 262) has suggested, therefore, that there may well have been ritual specialists in early AngloSaxon England who made these decisions. She has postulated that the burials of so-called ‘cunning women’, identified by Audrey Meaney (1981: 249-62) and Tania Dickinson (1993: 45, 53), may be those of ritual specialists. These female inhumations are enigmatic and they are marked out by the fact that they do not resemble the rest of the burial population in their cemeteries. Their graves contain unusual objects, placed in unusual positions and combinations, in particular ‘scrap’ items such as the scraps of textiles and iron and bronze artefacts in the ‘cunning woman’ grave (27) at Wheatley (Oxon) (Geake 2003: 263; Meaney 1981: 32-4). Both Meaney and Dickinson have both suggested that these women were ritual specialists, healers or fortune tellers, and the fact that they did not receive a ‘normal’ burial suggested to Geake (2003: 264) that they might have been the controllers or managers of funerary practices.

Summary In sum, it is possible that SFBs on barrows, and perhaps other buildings adjacent to monuments in settlements, were linked to funerary rites, as there is evidence to suggest that both monuments and SFBs could be connected to death and endings, whether literal or symbolic. When both SFBs and monuments are found in such close proximity, this raises the possibility that they were used as part of activities and ceremonies associated with death. The anthropological evidence discussed here has helped to shed light on ways in which structures might be used as part of burial practices, and particularly how aspects death and burial could be intimately tied to settlements, not just cemeteries. It is not unfeasible, therefore, that some of the activities surrounding death and burial took place in Anglo-Saxon settlements. Interestingly, although buildings have been found on barrows at a fairly small number of sites in the corpus, the destruction of monuments through ploughing in the medieval, post-medieval and modern periods, as noted by Jones (1998) for example (see Chapter 5), could have removed traces of similar structures at other sites, especially when the tops of features have been destroyed. If so, the positioning of SFBs on top of ancient earthworks could, in fact, have been more frequent and widespread than the archaeological evidence suggests.

In support of her argument Geake (2003: 264) cited an ethnographic example from modern rural Greece, where women, particularly older women, are often in charge of burial practices. To this we might add a number of other ethnographic examples; for example, amongst the Bara of Madagascar women are responsible for the task of laying out and preparing a body in the ‘female’ house (Huntingdon and Metcalf 1979: 103). Meanwhile, amongst the Ma’anyan of Borneo ritual specialists, who are always women, are believed to guide the soul on its journey to the land of the dead using long ritual chants (Huntingdon and Metcalf 1979: 82). Geake (2003: 165) also cited the observations of the Arab traveller Ibn Fadlan, who soon after AD 920 recorded witnessing the burial of a Rus chief; the funerary rites were presided over by a woman and her daughters. While Geake (2003: 267) herself admits that the evidence for the control of burial by female ritual specialists is not vast, the evidence for consistency in burial practices both within and between cemeteries certainly seems to suggest that someone directed and managed Anglo-Saxon funerary rites, and the unusual burials of ‘cunning women’ are possible candidates for this role. Similarly, in the context of later medieval England Roberta Gilchrist (2008: 152) has suggested that the role of women as ‘care-givers’ in life extended to death as well. Their family roles and their use of charms and sympathetic magic in this period gave women access to the corpse, as well as access to the magical materials that were buried with the dead such as herbs and ash. Gilchrist’s study of the apotropeic uses of certain grave goods in medieval England revealed an overrepresentation of children buried with these items; she suggested that mothers and grandmothers may have used charms to protect these vulnerable members of society after death (Gilchrist 2008: 152). There are interesting links here with the high frequency of child burials, particularly infants, in SFBs; is it possible that their overrepresentation in Anglo-Saxon domestic contexts is also

Monuments in Christian Ideology: St Guthlac’s Mound The preceding discussion of buildings on monuments primarily focused on archaeological evidence from the early Anglo-Saxon, pre-Christian, period. However, the Anglo-Saxon documentary evidence reviewed previously (see Chapter 3) drew attention to the mid eighth-century source The Life of St Guthlac, which recounts the saint’s search for an uninhabited dwelling-place in the late seventh or early eighth century and his subsequent decision to dwell ‘in the side of a barrow which had been dug open, building a hut over it’ (Chapter XXVIII; Colgrave 1956: 93). Tales from Guthlac’s life are also found in two poems, Guthlac A and Guthlac B, but the description of his structure on the mound is most detailed 203

picture. The fact that the saint managed to free himself and the mound of the demons also seems rather contradictory; if the intention of the Church was to instil in the general population a fear of burial mounds, it would arguably have been more effective if the barrow remained a haunted, evil and uninhabitable place. The most fitting explanation for Guthlac’s choice of dwellingplace may be found in the hagiographic accounts of early saints, such as Anthony and Bartholomew, who inhabited an ancient tomb and an old urn respectively (Hall 2007: 213; Meaney 2003: 231; Semple 2003a: 251). If Guthlac, or at least his biographer, was inspired by the actions of these early saints, he may have sought an appropriate alternative which reflected his own surroundings. Thus, the deserts of Egypt were translated into the fens of eastern England, while the tomb of Saint Anthony and the giant urn of Saint Bartholomew were replaced by a prehistoric barrow. In this way, Guthlac made use of an indigenous and pre-existing tradition, with which many members of contemporary society may have been familiar; it was not, therefore, out of the ordinary.

in Felix’s Life (Hall 2007). Felix’s description of Guthlac’s dwelling sounds remarkably like an SFB dug into a mound (Hamerow 2002: 34). The findings of the present research have revealed that the saint’s dwelling and its position on an earlier mound were not unique or unusual. In light of this it is possible to suggest that the dwelling Felix described was, indeed, an SFB. The practice of constructing buildings on prehistoric earthworks had existed from the fifth or sixth century, and it took place on ordinary settlement sites; it was, therefore, an established tradition by the time Guthlac was supposedly building his dwelling. Interestingly, these sources also suggest that Guthlac was buried in his building on the mound, although he was disinterred some time later and reburied (Chapter LI; Colgrave 1956: 161). This not only provides parallels for the insertion of human burials into SFBs in Anglo-Saxon settlements, it also provides further evidence for the mortuary use of buildings on mounds and their links with death. In Guthlac’s case the structure had previously been used as a dwelling, and it is possible that this was also true of the buildings situated on barrows discussed above.

It is possible that, as a result, Guthlac’s barrow, and perhaps barrows more generally, were transformed from having pagan ideological significance to Christian significance. Rather than being explicitly or aggressively ‘demonised’, the story of Guthlac may have served to draw pre-existing earthworks into a Christian milieu. Instead of forcefully encouraging the population to see monuments as fearful or evil places, Guthlac’s story may have encouraged them to view barrows and other features as Christian sacred places. This would explain why it was still acceptable to reuse monuments on ecclesiastical and high-status settlements. If monument reuse became an activity associated with those particular types of site it would have been under greater control by the Church and newly-Christian elites, and it may have become less desirable or appropriate for the rest of the population living in lower-status or secular settlements.

Semple (1998: 112-3, 121) interpreted Guthlac’s choice of dwelling-place as an attempt by the Church to demonise the practice of monument reuse in middle Anglo-Saxon England (see Chapter 3). The mound in Guthlac’s story is significant because of its haunted state, and because Guthlac had to prove his sanctity by overcoming the devils and demons that visited him there. It does appear that, by the late seventh and early eighth century, the practice of reusing monuments in settlements had waned in comparison with the fifth to earlier seventh centuries (although it is possible that this apparent pattern is partly due to the difficulties associated with dating many Anglo-Saxon settlements). Nonetheless, in the ninth century there were still settlements which were appropriating monuments, including Catholme and Wolverton Turn Enclosure. Outside the study area, there were also settlements reusing monuments at this time, including the high-status settlement at Paddock Hill, Thwing (E Yorks) (Manby 1986: 3-6; 1988: 16-18). The Church might, therefore, still have had cause to dissuade people from reusing ancient monuments in their settlements. Yet the settlement at Eynsham Abbey had been transformed into an ecclesiastical site by the early eighth century, and it was still apparently reusing a Bronze Age enclosure, while nearby the ecclesiastical sites of Abingdon and Bampton (both Oxon) reused an Iron Age valley-fort and Bronze Age barrow respectively (Hardy et al. 2003: 7). Similarly, Anglo-Saxon minsters at Breedon-on-the-Hill (Leics) and Aylesbury (Bucks) were reusing Iron Age hillforts at this time (Blair 1992: 234).

Monuments as Ritual Foci The first part of this discussion regarding the ideological significance of monument reuse in settlements has focused on very specific aspects of earthwork appropriation. The remainder of this section will now consider whether ancient earthworks in settlements more generally were of similar significance, even when the spatial relationships between buildings and monuments were less structured or less obvious than in the examples discussed above. When attempting to answer this question it is unfortunate that we have such a poor understanding of the functions of structures within settlements. If we had greater knowledge about the uses of buildings this might reveal whether there were links between buildings used for specific activities and their locations in relation to monuments.

Determining the motivation for Guthlac’s alleged reuse of a mound as his dwelling is, therefore, complex. While it could be argued that his decision to live in a building on a mound ‘demonised’ a pre-existing tradition which the Church wanted to be rid of, the continued reuse of monuments for ecclesiastical sites, as well as high-status and more ordinary settlements, presents a contrasting

This problem has wider repercussions beyond the present study; the lack of finds from early medieval settlements, and their inability to reveal information about the functions of particular areas within settlements, also 204

prehistoric monuments also indicates that they held meanings which were not necessarily related to beliefs about monuments. Ancient earthworks were not, therefore, consistently the foci of ritual activity as the locations of deliberate votive deposition.

posed problems for Jenny Walker (2009: 259) in her study of hall buildings. As discussed previously, it is often virtually impossible to determine the functions of structures; SFB fills do not necessarily yield information about their original uses (Tipper 2004: 102-3), while the floor surfaces of post-built structures have often been ploughed or eroded away (Marshall and Marshall 1991: 31). Given the fairly restricted range of building forms available to Anglo-Saxon communities, it seems likely that most buildings may well have looked similar but performed different functions, while it is also possible that a single building could have had multiple functions, either at one time or sequentially; as James et al. (1984: 201) have stated ‘in an architectural repertoire where the variety of forms is so limited it is unlikely that any form was used for one purpose alone’.

Another category of evidence that might indicate whether ritual activities were taking place near to monuments are small square structures, interpreted by Blair (1995) as pagan shrines or temples. He has suggested that, as documentary sources written by Bede and Aldhelm show that they believed enclosed or roofed temples had existed in the early seventh century in England, the small square post-built structures found on some settlements may have represented these roofed shrines (Blair 1995: 1; see Chapter 2). There was a possible seventh-century example at New Wintles Farm (feature 130), which was near the centre of the site and measured 5m by 5m, with postholes interpreted as supports for a timber-laced wall c.0.5m thick (Blair 1995: 4, 19) (Fig. 4.26). The north, south and east walls were square in plan, but the western postholes were irregular, forming either two short lengths of slanting wall flanking a gap, or free-standing posts. A single post was situated in the exact centre of the square, although it was not clear if the structure was roofed or open (Blair 1995: 19). Blair suggested that it had affinities with the annexe at Yeavering on the ‘temple’ D2, which also had a central posthole and which he felt was a shrine structure as it was associated with burials (Blair 1995: 19).

At all four case studies discussed in the previous chapter there was evidence to suggest that larger buildings tended to be found closer to monuments, often barrows. At Barrow Hills, and perhaps also Eye Kettleby, the postbuilt structures could be divided into two groups – one containing larger structures and the other smaller structures – suggesting that the larger buildings may have been used as dwellings, while the smaller structures had ancillary functions as workshops, barns and storage buildings (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 66-7). Similarly, the structures in Zone VII at Catholme were often larger than others, and may have been dwellings. There are some indications, therefore, that structures used for inhabitation, as opposed to storage or craft-working, tended to be located closer to monuments, at least at the settlements analysed as case studies. Carolyn Ware (2005: 154) has made the point that, as there was a restricted range of building forms on Anglo-Saxon settlements, activities of social and religious importance many have been carried out in ‘ordinary’ looking buildings. Thus, it is possible that at least some of the apparently ‘mundane’ structures situated close to monuments in the Anglo-Saxon settlements under discussion here were the locations of ritual or religious activities.

Although at the time he was writing Blair (1995: 19) believed the New Wintles Farm structure to be ‘unique among early Anglo-Saxon domestic buildings’, similar structures have been observed in a number of settlements in the corpus, including Catholme. Building AS40 was poorly preserved, but does appear to have been a square structure measuring at least 2.5m by 2.5m, which did not resemble any other buildings in the settlement (Fig. 7.2) (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 67). Particularly intriguing is the form of construction of the building, which was also unique to the site; linear stains lying parallel with the postholes may have been wall trenches, which the excavators suggested might not have been load-bearing (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 67).1 The distance between the postholes and wall trenches was c.0.5m, which would have formed a thick wall similar to that at New Wintles Farm. The square structure at Catholme was not situated in particularly close proximity to the prehistoric monuments in the settlement, but it is interesting that it was in Zone VII, the apparently central and important occupation zone, whose inhabitants may have controlled access to the earthworks in the settlement. The structure was built over at some point by a larger building (AS41), and it is possible that its original functions were no longer required, or they were transferred elsewhere, perhaps to the larger structure that

One way in which it might be possible to determine the importance of monument reuse in Anglo-Saxon belief systems is through the distribution of placed deposits within monument-appropriating settlements, since these deposits have been shown to have had ritual significance (Hamerow 2006; Tipper 2004). For example, placed deposits were often located next to transitional, liminal places such as boundaries and entrances in Anglo-Saxon settlements (Hamerow 2006: 28). Therefore, if these deposits were consistently associated with prehistoric monuments, this might well reveal that the earthworks were viewed as liminal or transitional places. At the settlements discussed in Chapter 6, however, this was not the case; there were little to suggest that placed deposits were consistently or clearly linked to earthworks within settlements, even though they were sometimes found in or near monuments. Instead, these deposits seem to have been distributed more widely across settlements. Their presence in settlements without associations with

1

They did not suggest why they thought this to be the case; it seems to have been because the stains were relatively insubstantial compared to the postholes.

205

and the possibility that monuments could have been linked to ritual activity through placed deposits and shrines in settlements. Although there are some clear and consistent patterns in the archaeological data, such as the regular relationships between SFBs and barrows, there is little evidence overall to show that monuments in settlements were the focus of ritual activity in any uniform or consistent way. Human burials were sometimes inserted into monuments, but at other times they were not, and the same is true of animal burials and other forms of placed deposit. Indeed, Sayer (2003: 104) has pointed out that Anglo-Saxon deposits seem to lack the complex rules of deposition often associated with similar Iron Age ritual deposits, which often occurred in enclosure ditches or disused grain storage pits. Meanwhile, some settlements had SFBs constructed on barrows, but others did not. Thus, there does not appear to have been any single, coherent or consistent way of reusing monuments in settlements. Moreover, the occurrence of ritual activity in the form of placed deposits and ‘shrines’ elsewhere in settlements, away from monuments, as well as in settlements without evidence for monument reuse (for example at Black Bourton), demonstrates that other places within settlements could be imbued with ideological significance.

replaced it (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 67). It may also be of significance that Catholme had a ditched enclosure, albeit not a square one, enclosing the ring ditch PM3; could this have been a form of shrine enclosure similar to those identified by Blair (1995)? Particularly intriguing is the ditched sub-rectangular annexe enclosing the ring ditch at Wolverton Turn Enclosure (Fig. 4.19), which very closely resembled Blair’s (1995) category D shrines, such as Dorchester-on-Thames (Fig. 2.2); it is possible that this monument was incorporated into religious activities associated with the larger enclosure and its accompanying settlement. Martin Carver (2010: 12) has suggested that the rigid classification of AngloSaxon shrines as square structures might, in fact, be a distraction, and that we should seek other examples that may not have been this shape. Pertinent here, then, are PBSs 16 and 17 at Eye Kettleby. Both structures were immediately north of the C-shaped ditch and in terms of their sizes and shapes both were unusual compared to the rest of the buildings in the settlement (Fig. 7.3 and Plate 1). They were rectangular or sub-rectangular and fairly small, PBS 16 measuring c.3.3m by c.2.3m and PBS 17 c.5.0m by c.4.4m (although both had been truncated by later furrows and ditches so their exact dimensions were unknown; PBS 16 could have been square) (N. Finn unpublished document).

The evidence, therefore, points to the possibility that there could be multiple foci of cosmological significance in settlements; a pre-existing monument could form one such focus if present in a settlement, but the indications are that monuments were not an essential aspect of Anglo-Saxon ideological activity in every settlement. A wide range of pagan practices and beliefs may have been amalgamated to form ‘pagan’ ideologies; with no ‘handbook’ of Anglo-Saxon belief systems and their physical expression, communities may have been able to choose which elements of their settlements were imbued with particular significance, and how they expressed that. This might have depended on a number of factors, including which, if any, monuments were available for appropriation, the time and place, or events and changes within a community. Carver (2010: 15) has recently made a similar assertion, describing Anglo-Saxon paganism as ‘a vocabulary drawn from a wide reservoir of cosmology’. In the settlements in the corpus under study here, ancient monuments seem to have become part of pagan ideology and may have been imbued with very particular and individual meanings from site to site, and from community to community (Semple 2010: 35; Williams 1997: 25). In some cases their reuse as the foci of ritual expression has been identified archaeologically, but in other instances it may have left no archaeological traces, perhaps because non-intrusive activities such as ceremonies or processions were taking place on or near monuments, or because the destruction or erosion of monuments since the Anglo-Saxon period has removed the traces of these activities.

These structures resemble others at Black Bourton (Oxon), where two sub-circular post-built structures have recently been excavated and interpreted as early AngloSaxon shrines (Gilbert 2007; 2008) (Fig. 7.4). They lay within an area of early to middle Anglo-Saxon occupation, consisting of four SFBs, five post-built structures and a well (Gilbert 2008: 152-3). PBS 4 was sub-circular, measuring c.4m by c.3m, and consisted of seven postholes surrounding an oval pit measuring 2m by 1.6m, while the six postholes belonging to PBS 5 formed a more regular circular structure c.5m in diameter and surrounded a cluster of three small oval intercutting pits (Gilbert 2008: 152). Each of the structures had one posthole containing early to middle Anglo-Saxon pottery. One possible interpretation of these features was that they were latrines, however this was discounted on the basis that the fills of the central pits did not contain the organic deposits expected of such a feature, while the central pit in PBS 4 was thought to be too wide and shallow for a latrine (Gilbert 2008: 152). Instead, the structures were interpreted as shrines; the site was compared to nearby New Wintles Farm, where the ‘shrine’ was also within a domestic settlement, and it was suggested that their sizes and central pits were comparable with Blair’s fenced pagan shrines (Gilbert 2008: 156). If it can be said that the structures at Eye Kettleby and Black Bourton were, indeed, early Anglo-Saxon religious structures, it is particularly interesting that those at Eye Kettleby were positioned in such close proximity to the C-shaped ditch of the postulated prehistoric barrow. This part of the study has considered the evidence for the ritual and religious importance of monument reuse, by investigating the links between SFBs and barrows, the implications of St Guthlac’s dwelling-place on a barrow, 206

excavation of these cropmarks has taken place, at Sutton Courtenay and Yeavering for example, this has confirmed that they are, indeed, unusually large halls (Hamerow et al. 2007; Hope Taylor 1977).

THE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF MONUMENT REUSE In addition to the potential ideological significance of monument reuse in settlements, it is also possible that the appropriation of earthworks was related to contemporary social and political factors. In particular, there is evidence to suggest reuse was tied into the control of space, and perhaps people, in early and middle Anglo-Saxon England; this appears to have been the case at the four settlements discussed in the previous chapter, and it may also have been true of other settlements in the corpus. This is perhaps most clearly expressed in the case of high-status ‘palace’ sites of the late sixth and early seventh centuries but, significantly, it was not restricted to these settlements. In order to demonstrate this we must first consider what we already know about monument reuse and its links with elite settlement sites. The discussion will then move back in time, in order to investigate the evidence for the social and political circumstances of the fifth and sixth centuries, and their impact on monument reuse.

The presence of these substantial timber halls is characteristic of ‘palace’ sites; the structures often form imposing focal buildings and are frequently arranged in perpendicular fashion (Hamerow 2002: 97; Welch 1985: 16).3 These sites are also typified by controlled and planned layouts, including fenced enclosures, which seventh-century lawcodes, such as that of King Ine of Wessex, suggest were particularly important for the control and demonstration of land ownership on royal and elite settlements (Hamerow 1999: 30; Turner 2003: 51). These high-status settlements seem to have signalled a significant departure from previous settlement forms, in which there was apparently little evidence for social distinction (Reynolds 2003: 103) (although this assertion will be questioned below). A number of these sites share a very distinctive form of monument reuse, in which their perpendicular complexes of halls were aligned on one or more prehistoric barrows; this was the case at Hatton Rock, Sutton Courtenay and Yeavering as we have already seen, but also at places such as Cowage Farm. Bradley’s (1987) discussion of the evidence from Yeavering, in which he argued that elites were attempting to control the past and use it to legitimise their authority by claiming descent from previous inhabitants, has greatly informed the interpretation of these sites (Bradley 1987: 123, 130; see Chapter 2). There are also settlements at which other pre-existing features were reused for high-status settlement, including the hillforts at Irthlingborough and Taplow, an Iron Age field system at Mount Down (Fig. 7.5), and possibly a large Iron Age enclosure at Cassington, although the latter is a tentative example of a high-status occupation site (see Chapter 4). The impression gained from these high-status settlements is that at many (although not all) AngloSaxon elites of the late sixth and seventh centuries were appropriating ancient earthworks and constructing buildings in alignment with them in a very distinctive and deliberate fashion.

Elites and Monuments ‘Palace’ Sites In the late sixth and seventh centuries high-status elite or ‘palace’ sites began developing across England (Hamerow 2002: 97; Härke 1997: 147; Scull 1992: 21; 1999: 17).2 A number of these sites have been identified, Yeavering perhaps being the most well-known example (Hope-Taylor 1977). Others include Cowdery’s Down (Hants) (Millett & James 1983), Mount Down (Hants) (Hampton 1981), Milfield (Northumb) (Hope Taylor 1977), Atcham (Shrops) (St Joseph 1975), Long Itchington (Warwicks) (Welch 1985: 16), Northampton (Northants) (Williams 1984), Cowage Farm near Malmesbury (Wilts) (Hampton 1981; Hinchliffe 1986), and Sprouston (Rox) (St Joseph 1982), although the latter lies just over the modern Scottish border (Fig. 7.5). In addition, there are the two previously-discussed examples within the study area, Sutton Courtenay (Blair 1994: 32; Hamerow et al. 2007) and Hatton Rock (Rahtz 1970). Irthlingborough, and perhaps Taplow and Cassington, also seem to have been high-status middle Anglo-Saxon settlements in this period, although the evidence for the presence of buildings at each of these sites is limited (Allen et al. 2009; Hey 2004; Parry 2006). Many of these high-status settlements have only been identified on aerial photographs, which have revealed the cropmarks of what appear to be large, distinctive, rectangular halls. When

High-Status Burial Simultaneously, in the late sixth- and seventh-century burial record, a similar development was taking place; wealthy burials, in isolation or in small groups, began to be interred in prehistoric monuments, frequently barrows (Geake 1992: 85). This was the case at Swallowcliffe Down (Wilts) (Speake 1989) and Wigber Low (Derbys) (Collis 1983), for example. The introduction of elite monument reuse for burial was one aspect of an increasing polarity in grave wealth, resulting in a burial record in which some individuals had comparatively rich grave goods and elaborations, while others had few

2

It should be noted that Sawyer (1983: 274) has criticised the ‘overoptimistic’ tendency of archaeologists to interpret all these sites as royal palaces or vills. This does not, however, diminish the possibility that they were used by aristocrats or other high-status members of society. For example, Sawyer dismissed Sutton Courtenay as one of these overoptimistically identified royal sites, yet on excavation the settlement yielded evidence for very high-status occupation which, even if not royal, was indicative of occupation by materially wealthy members of society (Hamerow et al. 2007).

3 See the plan of Yeavering in Fig. 2.4, the plan of Hatton Rock in Fig. 4.18, and plans of Sutton Courtenay in Fig. 4.28 and Chapter 6.

207

development of highly structured, high-status forms of reuse. As this study has demonstrated, this is especially true of settlement studies, even though monument appropriation in settlements was, in fact, apparently taking place from the fifth century onwards. In terms of burial, the attention given to fifth- and sixth-century monument reuse has been more substantial, although it is still not extensive. Research into fifth- and sixth-century funerary monument reuse has primarily been undertaken by Williams (1997; 1998; 2006), who was able to shed light on its development in the early Anglo-Saxon period. His work has shown that the use of ancient earthworks for burial was already taking place in the fifth and sixth centuries, and that it was a communal, inclusive practice at this time (Williams 1997: 16-18; 1998: 94). Burial sites around older monuments in the early Anglo-Saxon period were used inclusively and for large numbers of people, while the isolated or small groups of wealthy burials belonging to the late sixth and seventh centuries represent a much more exclusive and restricted mortuary tradition (Williams 1997: 17).

(Geake 1992: 85). The development of this polarity in the reuse of monuments for elite burials and ‘palace’ sites was contemporary with the formation of major kingdoms, which were established and consolidated from the late sixth century onwards (Scull 1993: 69). This was accompanied by a new degree of social differentiation and political centralisation, as part of which leadership became more permanent and wide-reaching, being unambiguously expressed through the construction of new types of site, including ‘palace’ sites, which were part of newly-developed settlement hierarchies (Reynolds 2003: 130; Scull 1999: 22; Wickham 2005: 341). Numerous researchers have interpreted funerary monument reuse in light of these newly-consolidated power structures; they have claimed that elites were seeking new ways to stamp their authority on the landscape through the funerary appropriation of ancient earthworks, in order to create links to previous inhabitants and rulers of that landscape (e.g. Arnold 1988: 130; Blair 2005; Geake 1992: 91; Hadley 2001: 95; Härke 1997: 151; Shephard 1979: 47, 77; Scull 1992: 20; 1999: 17, 22). As Williams (1997: 18) has commented, ‘for elite groups in the seventh century this exclusive reuse may have been a deliberate symbol of status and power with reference to the past’. Rather ironically, given that so little research has been undertaken on reuse in settlements compared to burial sites, Bradley’s (1987) discussion of Yeavering is frequently cited in these discussions of elite funerary reuse; in particular, his suggestion that the builders of Yeavering appropriated monuments in order legitimise their power through connecting themselves to real or fictional ‘ancestors’ is often applied in the context of burial.

The indication, then, is that monument reuse was adopted by newly-strengthened elites from the late sixth century, in ways that differed from the forms of reuse witnessed earlier, in the fifth and earlier sixth centuries (Williams 1997: 17). Although communal cemeteries did continue to focus on monuments during the seventh century, this century saw the diversification of uses of, and attitudes to, pre-existing earthworks, moving away from their traditional role as communal burial sites to include a new form of elite reuse, characterised by exclusivity and isolated, single graves (Williams 1997: 23; 1998: 103). Crucially, this new form derived from the funerary practices of the fifth and sixth centuries, it was not a new creation in the late sixth and seventh centuries (Williams 1997: 22). What is significant here is that similar developments in reuse practices seem to have been taking place in settlements as well; reuse began as a more communal activity in ordinary settlements of the fifth and sixth centuries, but was then developed as an elite activity in the late sixth and seventh centuries, although during that time the earlier, communal reuse also apparently continued in ordinary settlements. Thus, the work of Howard Williams, and the research presented in this study, have demonstrated that monument reuse in both burial and settlement contexts was taking place in an apparently communal and inclusive way in the fifth and sixth centuries; the phenomenon was not, therefore, an elite invention of the late sixth or seventh centuries. Furthermore, this reveals that the practice of reuse transcended the conversion of Anglo-Saxon England to Christianity, meaning that it was not specifically related to pagan or Christian ideologies (Williams 1997: 25).

Thus, the burial record of the late sixth and seventh centuries is similar to that of the settlement record; in both there was a comparable degree of social polarisation, increasingly expressed in spatial terms (Reynolds 2003: 104). In burial contexts, as well as in settlements, there is a clear link between late sixth- and seventh-century elites and monument reuse. As Hamerow (1999: 30) has stated, by AD 700 planned settlements with large halls would have formed important focal points in the landscape, reflecting the new monumentality of elite buildings, and these would have combined with the monumentality of elite burial in barrows in the surrounding landscape. As a result of the increasingly stratified nature of society, elite families began to display their authority through a range of methods, such as increasingly complex and innovative funerary rituals, which included the use of monumental markers, often prehistoric earthworks (Semple 2003b: 82). Monument Reuse: An Elite Invention?

The assertion that monument reuse in middle AngloSaxon England was not an elite invention has an impact on how we apply Bradley’s (1987) theories about reuse to the settlement evidence. On one hand, there is no reason to refute his suggestion that the high-status occupants of settlements such as Yeavering were constructing links to the past in order to display and legitimise their authority.

A great deal of attention has clearly been given to the practice of monument appropriation when it took place on late sixth- and seventh-century high-status sites. However, much less time has been dedicated to considering the tradition of monument reuse in the period before the late sixth and seventh centuries, prior to the 208

still have been some manipulation of the tradition so that it suited the elites of the seventh century, at its core the practice could have had a much longer history as a signifier of authority within settlements. This possibility will be explored in the remainder of this part of the chapter, but in order to do so we must first consider how society was organised in the fifth and sixth centuries, and how this social organisation might have been expressed in settlements.

However, Bradley did treat the practice as an elite innovation, without exploring practices of the preceding period in either settlements and cemeteries. What he was not able to expand on, therefore, was why this preexisting tradition was chosen by elites as a particularly effective way of demonstrating their ‘right to rule’. In contrast, the understanding that monument appropriation existed prior to its adoption by late sixth and seventhcentury elites does now allow us to ask why this tradition was adopted with such enthusiasm by high-status groups.

Social Stratification in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries The settlement evidence suggests that elites of the late sixth and seventh centuries adopted a pre-existing, established and well-known phenomenon, altering and reworking it to create new, highly-structured forms of reuse. Given that we now known that monument reuse was taking place in settlements from the fifth century, in apparently communal and inclusive ways, it is possible to argue that elites adopted the practice because they knew that the communities they were claiming authority over were already familiar with the tradition and understood its meanings. As Williams has also recognised, this approach ‘had efficacy because it involved the appropriation and alteration of existing attitudes to ancient monuments; elites were not inventing these traditions de novo’ (Williams 1998: 103). As such, many members of society would have been able to understand and interpret reuse when they saw it on high-status sites, such as Sutton Courtenay and Hatton Rock, but its meanings could also have been manipulated in order to transmit new and different messages about the power of elites and their ability to claim authority over people and places. This might explain why there was an apparent decline in the reuse of monuments in ordinary settlements in the corpus from the seventh century. The practice seems to have co-existed on high- and lower-status sites to begin with, but may have become more restricted and associated with the display of status from the seventh century, until it was no longer practiced – at least in any regular or frequent manner – in lower-status settlements. This could have been because lower-status communities had no need to display the specific messages about power which monument reuse now transmitted, or it could have resulted from the active control of the practice by elites including, possibly, ecclesiastical powers, as we shall see later.

A Ranked Society? Both Barbara Yorke (1993; 1999) and Chris Wickham (2005: 50) have remarked that we know very little about fifth- and sixth-century social structures in terms of leadership or ranking, as this period lacks the documentary sources of later centuries. For this reason, the social and economic structures of the fifth and sixth centuries have to be approached primarily through archaeological remains (Scull 1993: 65-6; 1999: 17). Nonetheless, the archaeological evidence, much of which derives from the burial record, does suggest that society in this early period was ranked and not wholly egalitarian. For example, Scull (1993: 69) has claimed that marked disparities in the material wealth deposited in grave assemblages related to differences in the social rank of the interred individuals. He drew attention to the range of grave goods in the early Anglo-Saxon cemetery at West Stow (Suffolk), which lay c.300m north-east of the nearby settlement; although ranking was observed within the cemetery, this is at odds with the settlement evidence, which showed no evidence for social stratification (Scull 1993: 73). Elsewhere, in AngloSaxon Wessex, Stoodley (1999: 103) found that variation in fifth- and sixth-century grave assemblages indicated differences in social position. Hamerow (1999: 26, 29) has also argued that, based on the funerary evidence, fifth- and sixth-century society in England was ‘undoubtedly ranked’. In fact, early Anglo-Saxon society may have been ranked from its very earliest beginnings; as Roman Imperial authority and administration in Britain waned, power in seems to have devolved to local aristocracies (Scull 1993: 70). Wickham (2005: 330-2) has suggested that powerful landowners at this time could have used the imagery of kinship, geographical identity and religion to attract groups of followers cohesive enough to be considered a tribe, who looked to their leader as a ‘protector’. The leader’s power would no longer have been based on tenurial landholding, but rather on their ability to make material concessions to followers, for instance through feasting, or on their personality. Therefore, society could have been structured from the fifth century, with ‘leading’ characters or groups claiming authority over others. Similarly, migrants from the continent came from hierarchical societies with complex social structures, not from free, egalitarian societies; it is unlikely that these social structures would have been forgotten in the journey to England, especially if migration took place in groups

This discussion has, thus far, proposed that the elite adoption of monument appropriation involved the alteration of its meanings to suit the needs of newlyconsolidated aristocratic families. There may, however, have been an additional reason for the elite adoption of monument reuse as a signifier of status in the late sixth and seventh centuries, one that did not involve the alteration of its meanings. Rather than manipulating the tradition and turning it into a means for displaying status, it is possible that elites adopted the practice precisely because it already signalled status, authority and control in the early Anglo-Saxon period. Elites may have chosen to adopt the practice because it was already intimately connected to social and political power structures in the fifth and early-mid sixth centuries. Although there may 209

migrated in the fifth century, but it has been demonstrated, by Catherine Hills (1979: 316) for example, that this was not the case; the identities actually developed within England during the sixth century. These ethnic identities were expressed through material culture, especially jewellery, and they were constructed from a diverse range of sources in the particular social and political circumstances of sixth-century England (Hines 1995; Moreland 2000a: 42-3). The development of these regional ethnic groups within England allowed people in different areas of the country to ‘exclude’ others and construct identities in opposition to one another, a process which was the product of the emergence of regional power structures in this period (Moreland 2000a: 44). These ethnic signifiers were, in fact, restricted to the gens, the higher-status members of society; these groups were developing their power over others, claiming particular ethnic backgrounds and identities in order to create a sense of cohesion among the populations they were ruling (Moreland 2000a: 45). Once again, then, there is evidence to suggest that sixth-century society exhibited a degree of stratification.

(Moreland 2000a: 38; Scull 1993: 71). Moreover, the early processes of state formation need not have been built up from nothing, since remainders of Roman power and social structures were partially preserved; this is indicated by middle Anglo-Saxon kingdoms with Romaninfluenced names, such as Lindsey, whose name is thought to have derived from a Roman civitas capital (Lindon, modern Lincoln) (Bassett 1989: 7; Yorke 2000: 85). Ethnic Identity and Status Further support for the existence of social ranking during the early Anglo-Saxon period comes from the work of John Hines (1995). In the latter half of the fifth century, Hines (1995: 77-8) has suggested, there was an era of competition for positions of social eminence, which reached a particularly intense phase around c.475. This was accompanied by the widespread breakdown of older elite groups, and the appearance of rivalry on a more individual level (Hines 1995: 78). This period witnessed the establishment of political units, referred to in later historical sources as small groups bearing names of the type ‘N-ingas’, such as the Sunningas (Hines 1995: 82). Their presence in the seventh-century assessment of tribute, the Tribal Hidage, suggests that they developed and strengthened their positions, and came to have some form of organisational or administrative character later in the Anglo-Saxon period (Hines 1995: 82).

Based on the evidence discussed here, there is no reason to assume that in its earliest forms Anglo-Saxon society lacked hierarchical or ranked social structures. Indeed, Hamerow (1999: 23) has noted that changes associated with the development of social stratification in the middle Anglo-Saxon period were already underway in the Upper Thames Valley in the sixth century, including the rapid and widespread adoption of continental styles of building, costume, weaponry, burial rites and pottery; she notes that many of these factors can be seen across the rest of Anglo-Saxon England too. Further, in the sixth and seventh centuries the Upper Thames Valley seems to have been involved in bullion exchange with Kent, probably in return for imported glass vessels and jewellery, which helped elites to further increase their power and prestige (Hamerow 1999: 31). By the end of the sixth century the Anglo-Saxon elite had the means to consolidate and increase their territorial control and access to portable wealth, while barrows became a visible way of a descent group establishing ties with ancestors and staking their claims to ‘ancestral’ territory (Hamerow 1999: 28).

A popular model in archaeology sees these smaller ‘tribal’ units evolving from the settlement areas of extended families, with middle Anglo-Saxon kings emerging from competition between these groups (Yorke 2000: 82). However, this evidence must be used with caution; although it is often assumed that the smaller units listed in the Tribal Hidage were old, small kingdoms, which came to form the building blocks of larger, later kingdoms, it is also possible that some were subdivisions of the later kingdoms, created during the seventh century (Yorke 1999). Nevertheless, some of these ‘N-ingas’ units may well have developed early in the Anglo-Saxon period, and Hines (1995: 82) has questioned what these political units actually meant for their inhabitants, pointing out that there is little reason to assume that they expressed the consensual group identity of all the inhabitants. Rather than meaning ‘the people of N’, which suggests a family or kin group led by a prominent individual, such names might have meant ‘the people belonging to N’; as such, the term was an administrative and possessive one, imposed on the inhabitants of a particular area under a particular leader (Hines 1995: 82). We may be seeing in this early period the development of a stratified and ranked society, in which there were leaders and those who followed them, or who even belonged to them.

Axes of Inequality: The Scale of Status While there is evidence to support the claim that society was ranked in some way during the fifth and sixth centuries, the evidence also suggests that the level of social stratification was on a smaller, and less permanent, scale than it was to become during the emergence of kingdoms and established elites in the middle AngloSaxon period (Wickham 2005: 340). Prior to the later sixth century, the cemetery data indicates that there was greater social differentiation within communities than there was between them, with no clear evidence for extreme social differentiation relating to regional elites, as these do not seem to have developed until the later sixth and early seventh centuries (Hamerow 1999: 26-9; Scull 1993: 73, 76; 1999: 21). Rather than ‘rich’ leading

In the sixth century, the development of specific ethnic ‘Anglian’, ‘Saxon’ and ‘Jutish’ identities may also have been connected to social stratification (Moreland 2000a). It was once thought that these ethnic identities represented the ethnic groups in which Germanic people 210

of a permanent regional overlordship did not happen until social and political changes, such as the establishment of the Church and the ascendency of select, powerful aristocratic groups, took place in the later sixth and seventh centuries (Scull 1999: 23; Wickham 2005: 342, 503). It is possible to surmise, then, that in the fifth and sixth centuries society was ranked, but generally this was on an internal level, with households of broadly equal status, perhaps farming or exploiting ancestral territories, being internally ranked based on factors such as age, gender, position in a lineage or achievements (Hamerow 1999: 27; Scull 1993: 77; 1999: 21). Power seems to have been localised and unstable, based on specific people and their abilities to impose and negotiate power relations (Esmonde Cleary 1993a: 60; Hamerow 1999: 27). This may have involved controlling the redistribution of goods and commodities, resulting in differential access to these items and leading to social constraints over who could own them and, therefore, give them away, as well as who could hold feasts and keep allies (Esmonde Cleary 1993a: 60-1; Scull 1993: 77).

families and ‘poor’ dependent families in the fifth and sixth centuries, there appear to have been different ranks within families; it seems that ‘identity, status and affiliation in this period were almost entirely kin-based’ (Hamerow 1999: 26-9). The burial evidence supports the existence of individuals who were of local importance, as evidenced by their more elaborate and materially richer graves, but these individuals did not necessarily wield power on a larger scale, outside of their own communities (Scull 1993: 73). The implication is that ranking was ‘internal to the basic social unit of the community’ and that graves that were marked out as different from others within a cemetery were those of important figures in a lineage or descent group, which might include several nuclear families in a generation (Scull 1993: 73). The apparent need for the public display and disposal of material wealth in graves at this time points to negotiable and unstable distinctions of rank, enacted on a local level, rather than permanent or overarching positions of status, which would arguably have required fewer obvious or local visual indicators of status as they would have been more established (Wickham 2005: 340).

Status in Settlements In contrast to the cemetery record, social stratification does not appear to have been manifested in settlements prior to the late sixth or seventh century. Indeed, it is often asserted that settlements belonging to that period did not demonstrate social stratification, either within or between sites. Richard Hodges (1989: 34-6) has stated that early Anglo-Saxon England is ‘notable for the egalitarian quality of its modest farmsteads’, while Lewis et al. (1997: 98) have remarked that ‘the absence of a clear settlement hierarchy in the early Anglo-Saxon period reflects a restricted social stratification and the lack of a well defined state structure’. In his discussion of the West Stow cemetery, cited above, Scull (1993: 72) also observed that the settlement at West Stow had no evidence for buildings or layouts showing marked social differentiation in the community in the fifth and sixth centuries, and that this was similar to contemporary settlements elsewhere. Both Moreland (2000a: 49) and Wickham (2005: 313, 340) have also noted that settlements in the fifth and sixth centuries displayed a profound lack of social differentiation, while a settlement hierarchy was also absent.

Caution must be exercised here, as we do not know exactly on what grounds social status or rank might have been assigned in early Anglo-Saxon society. There are a number of possible ‘axes of inequality’ which might have marked out important individuals from the rest of their community and caused unequal social relations between people (Scull 1993: 73; 1999: 21). These individuals could have been of a particular age, or known for their achievements, abilities or charisma, or they could have been heads of families (Scull 1993: 73). Ranking within the general population, and the burial forms attributed to people of different ranks, could have been dictated by factors including membership of a lineage, position within a lineage, age, gender or cultural identity (Hadley 2004: 301-3; Scull 1993: 73; 1999: 21). As such, we should not necessarily see authority or rank as permanent, stable or non-negotiable, as it may have changed and fluctuated depending on social circumstances, such as marriages or deaths, or the political prowess of individuals. We might envisage that those individuals who did hold powerful or influential roles within their communities might have had social obligations and responsibilities to fulfil, and they might also have had the power to collect and redistribute resources (Scull 1993: 73). Individuals or families who established themselves in socially prominent roles could have accentuated the social ranking within their community, in order to display and perpetuate their status, although it seems unlikely that that this was accompanied by clearly marked stratification until one group was able to establish a permanent regional overlordship (Scull 1993: 75). Nonetheless, local leaders may occasionally have been able to exert their authority outside their communities, on a wider scale, on an impermanent or cyclical basis (Scull 1999: 23). However, the establishment and maintenance

The suggestion that fifth- and sixth-century settlements did not display social differentiation has primarily been based on the lack of evidence for obvious and ostentatious markers of status resembling those found in middle Anglo-Saxon settlements, such as enclosures or the alignments of unusually large halls discussed above, which tended to be absent in this earlier period (Hamerow 2002: 97; Powlesland 1997: 115; Scull 1993: 72). Instead, fifth- to seventh-century settlements, on the whole, had loosely-structured layouts, limited variation in the sizes of post-built structures and rarely contained obvious central or focal buildings; given the apparent dearth of high-status or focal structures, ranking within society does not seem to have been expressed through 211

century, is one such site; the ditched enclosure or ‘annexe’ surrounding a Bronze Age round barrow may have served to restrict access to the monument (Preston 2007: 86-91). There were also indications that the control or management of monuments was taking place at the three case study settlements which were occupied in the early Anglo-Saxon period: Barrow Hills, Sutton Courtenay and Eye Kettleby. During the earlier phase of the settlement at Barrow Hills there is little archaeological evidence to suggest that particular members of the community were claiming authority over the barrows in the settlement, although the majority of the buildings were within an area defined by the barrows, and archaeologically-invisible activities may have taken place on or near them in this early phase. In a later phase, possibly belonging to the sixth century, there are clearer indications that ‘possession’ of the barrows was increasing in importance. This is exemplified by the construction of buildings on top of several barrows, and extremely close to them, as well as by the trend for constructing larger buildings closer to the earthworks, which hints at the possibility that those members of the community with greater resources and perhaps more powerful roles were taking control of the monuments and the space around them. The positioning of the entrances to some of these buildings would have had an impact on the ways in which members of the community interacted with the monuments, while it appears that some of the buildings and fence structures prevented clear and easy access to some of the barrows.

architecture (Hamerow 1999: 29). Doubt as to whether status was reflected in settlement forms also stems from the visualisation of early Anglo-Saxon social stratification discussed above, in which social and political authority are pictured as moveable and kinshipbased, related to specific people rather than specific places (Härke 1997: 140; Scull 1992: 20; 1993: 73). However, as has been shown here, studies of fifth- and sixth-century burial practices have demonstrated that society in the early Anglo-Saxon period was ranked, albeit on a local, perhaps kin-based level. Meanwhile, the discussion of ‘palace’ sites has also demonstrated that settlements from the late sixth century onwards did react to, and reflect, changes in society. It would not be unexpected, therefore, to find that fifth- and sixth-century settlement forms also responded to, and reflected, the specific social, cultural and political circumstances of the time. Indeed, Reynolds (2003: 130) has argued that ‘it is unthinkable to suggest that Anglo-Saxon society in its earliest form existed without any form of physical constraint in a settlement and landscape context’. Turner (2003: 51) has also noted that, as middle Anglo-Saxon settlement forms were related to the consolidation of kingdoms and changes in economic structures, there may have been similar impetuses in the early Anglo-Saxon centuries. This is especially true given that settlements were places in which many of the relationships between people of different ranks in society are likely to have been acted out, negotiated, maintained or altered.

The northern portion of the settlement at Sutton Courtenay appears to have had its origins in the sixth century, although a fifth-century date is not impossible, and occupation appears to have continued into the seventh century (Hamerow et al. 2007: 115). Here, each of the three prehistoric barrows on the northern edge of the settlement had an SFB constructed on it, although at what point in the settlement’s life their construction took place is uncertain. Given the circumstances at Barrow Hills, just 5km away, it is tempting to speculate that the buildings on the barrows also belonged to a later phase of the settlement, but this cannot be proven due to the early date and salvage nature of the excavation. The nature of the investigation also meant that the original extent of the settlement is unlikely to have been fully revealed, but there is some evidence to suggest that larger structures may also have been built closer to the three barrows. Again, the positioning of a number of buildings very close to the monuments would also have resulted in close interaction between members of the community and the barrows, and may also have managed access to the earthworks. Furthermore, the row of SFBs aligned eastwest to the south of the three barrows might also have formed a boundary, separating the area containing the monuments from the rest of the site.

As previously stated, it is important to exercise caution when considering the basis upon which social status was assigned in the early Anglo-Saxon period, since there were a number of different ‘axes of inequality’ that might have marked out particular people who exerted power or influence over others. Disparities in rank might not have been determined solely by material wealth, and they did not necessarily translate to physical differentiation in architecture (Hamerow 2002: 89). Nonetheless, it is possible that status and social differentiation were expressed in physical form in fifth- and sixth-century settlements, but that these forms of expression were more subtle than the ostentatious markers found on middle Anglo-Saxon settlements; as such, it is possible that they have not yet been recognised by archaeologists. One possibility, which will now be explored, is that monument reuse was part of this process, not just from the late sixth century, but from the beginning of the Anglo-Saxon period. Relating Monument Reuse to Social Stratification Controlling Monuments: Barrows A number of the settlements in the corpus under study here have yielded evidence to suggest that monuments were under some form of management or control in the fifth and sixth centuries. In some cases it appears that monuments within settlements may have been ‘owned’, or that access to them was restricted. Wolverton Turn Enclosure, which was established in the fifth or sixth

Similarly, Eye Kettleby appears to have been established in the sixth century, although it too may have had fifthcentury origins (Bradley and Gaimster 2000: 289; Finn 1999: 5). The postulated barrow within the settlement appears to have been surrounded by post-built structures 212

4.8). The barrows may have been worked into the enclosures at both sites in a way that restricted access to the enclosure in which the Anglo-Saxon settlement features lay, but also directly related those structures to the prehistoric earthworks, and thereby regulated who could access them; perhaps in both cases their apparent incorporation into the enclosure was intended to demonstrate to outsiders that the inhabitants could exert control over the physical remains of the past.

that were frequently larger than those elsewhere in the settlement, while they also had also been given more complex layouts (and perhaps uses) by the addition of annexes. These buildings were also arranged in such a way that they may have restricted views of the potential earthwork, and perhaps also regulated access to it. Whilst none of the structures close to barrows at these three sites was as large as those at high-status sites such as Yeavering (Hope Taylor 1977) or Cowdery’s Down (Millett and James 1983), it is significant that they were large in comparison to the rest of the buildings in each settlement. This pattern fits well with the supposition that social ranking in this period was within settlements and communities, rather than between them, and serves as a reminder that differences in status or social position at this time might have been signalled through relatively subtle differences between buildings or other settlement features, or through aspects of their appearance that are now lost.

The practice of building structures on top of barrows or immediately adjacent to them may have served to draw attention to particular buildings, their owners or their functions, emphasising their visibility as ‘special’ or unusual places in a settlement. The builders or users of the structures might then have exerted control over the monuments and the buildings, managing, dictating or overseeing what took place in and around them. Earlier in this chapter it was suggested that these structures might have been used in some way during funerary rites. This is not at odds with the suggestion that they were owned, rather than shared or communal buildings, as their use during funerals could have been reserved for a particular individual, family or group, who would then have been able to clearly and visibly demonstrate their links with specific monuments. Even if the structures did not, in fact, have a mortuary use, it is still possible that their construction and use were dictated by an owner or group of owners, and that the structures were still visible markers of the connection between those people and the earlier monuments.

Other settlements in the corpus also appear to indicate that monuments were dominated or managed by particular members of society in the early Anglo-Saxon period. At Manor Farm and West Cotton fifth- to sixthcentury buildings were constructed on top of barrows (Malim 1993: 23-6; Windell et al. 1990: 16). Like those at Barrow Hills, these buildings may demonstrate that certain members of the community were stamping a visual symbol of their authority or ownership on the earthworks. This may also have been the case at Frieston Road, where an SFB was built over a prehistoric ring ditch; although this building may have been abandoned in the seventh century, there is some ceramic evidence to suggest that it was occupied in the sixth century (Copp and Toop 2006: 89-93). Similarly, the sixth-century building constructed over the ring ditch around a substantial round barrow at Corporation Farm may have transmitted similar messages about ownership and control (ADAS 1973: 40). Another example comes from New Wintles Farm, which was established in the sixth century and occupied until the early eighth century, where there were two examples of buildings constructed on top of monuments, although it is not clear to which phase of the settlement they belong (Clayton 1973: 384; Gray 1973: 18; 1974: 54). Meanwhile, at Gatehampton Farm, a possible building on a barrow was revealed during a magnetometer survey and may also have belonged to the fifth or sixth century (Allen 1995: 45-7, 97). The building on top of the bank around the Neolithic causewayed enclosure at Briar Hill displays a similar form of reuse, although occupation at this site may have belonged to the middle Anglo-Saxon period (Bamford 1985: 7, 122).

Controlling Monuments: Linear Features Enclosures were also reused in ways that appear to indicate that access to them was being controlled, or that the enclosures themselves were being used to restrict space. The use of the Bronze Age enclosures within the settlement at Eye Kettleby may have been controlled, due to the positioning of one, perhaps two, buildings over the entrances to these enclosures. At Knave Hill, which may have been established in the fifth or sixth century, buildings were located just inside the enclosure and just outside it (Wessex Archaeology 2008: 6-8). These buildings were adjacent to a possible entrance, albeit one indicated by a geophysical survey rather than excavation, suggesting that there was perhaps a degree of control over who could enter and leave the enclosure. It is also possible to speculate that the buildings inside and outside the enclosure might have had different functions or belonged to different people, although the ephemeral and inconclusive nature of the building evidence made this difficult to investigate.

It is also possible that the enclosure around the early Anglo-Saxon settlement at West Halton used the two nearby Bronze Age barrows as entrance terminals (Hadley et al. 2011). Although this is a rather tentative suggestion, as only a small proportion of the ditch has been excavated, it is interesting that it resembles the layout of the settlement at Cottam (Yorks), where geophysical survey has revealed an enclosure flanked by what appear to be ring ditches (Richards 1999b) (Fig.

At Foxholes Farm, which was established in the sixth century and occupied until the eighth century, the presence of Anglo-Saxon buildings within an Iron Age enclosure suggests that access to these structures may have been controlled (Partridge 1989: 25-32). There were other buildings on the site outside the enclosure; it might be significant that, like at Knave Hill, some were inside the older enclosure while others were not, perhaps due to 213

Pennyland, where the pre-existing system of enclosures might have aided the control of livestock, and it is also a possibility that this was the case at Glebe Farm and Harston Mill. Pre-existing enclosures might have provided useful resources for increasing production with minimal effort on the part of the communities who reused the features. The fact that the enclosures were old at the time of their reuse may also have given them added potency, and perhaps added legitimacy to their new uses, or their new owners, in a situation reminiscent of Bradley’s (1987) interpretation of Yeavering and Hummler’s (2005) arguments for Sutton Hoo. Not only could reused enclosures have defined and controlled space on behalf of certain members of society, the fact that they pre-existed may have added a feeling of continuity and rightfulness to the social order that they helped to create.

differences in their uses or owners. At Eynsham Abbey there were also indications that the reused Bronze Age enclosure might have restricted access to the AngloSaxon buildings inside it (Hardy et al. 2003: 25-38). A fence associated with the earliest, sixth-century, phase may have formed an entrance structure, which could have been used to manage access to the enclosure. There are several other settlements at which the dating of the Anglo-Saxon occupation was more tentative, but where there is some suggestion that enclosures were being used in similar to control people’s movements in the early Anglo-Saxon period. Although the reoccupation of Taplow hillfort has been dated to the late sixth or seventh century based on the material from the ditches, there were sherds from within the hillfort to suggest that occupation had been established within the enclosure in the fifth or earlier sixth century (Allen et al. 2009). If so, it may have been used in a similar way to Knave Hill and the other sites discussed above. Indeed, it is possible that, like Sutton Courtenay, an earlier settlement at Taplow developed into a more ostentatious high-status seventhcentury settlement. Similarly, the building inside the enclosure at Thorpe End may have been established in the early Anglo-Saxon period, although this was uncertain (Parry 2006: 236-7).

The Significance of the Sixth Century It has been shown that there a number of early AngloSaxon settlements in the corpus under study at which monuments appear to have been controlled, managed or ‘owned’. Interestingly, a number of those listed above appear to have either been established in the sixth century, or their forms of appropriation became more intense at this time. This was the case at Barrow Hills, where the buildings appear to have begun ‘encroaching’ on the earthworks in the sixth century, reusing them intrusively rather than just associatively, as they had done previously. Eye Kettleby and Sutton Courtney may well have been established in the sixth century, while at Corporation Farm the SFB situated over the ring ditch of the substantial barrow was believed to be of sixth-century date, while the SFB further away to the south was thought to have been fifth-century (ADAS 1973: 40; Finn 1999; 5; Hamerow et al. 2007: 115). Similarly, the buildings on barrows at Manor Farm, West Cotton, Gatehampton Farm may all have been sixth-century in date, while the prehistoric enclosures at Foxholes Farm, Eynsham Abbey and perhaps Taplow were reoccupied at this time (Allen 1995: 45-7, 97; Allen et al. 2009: 105; Hardy et al. 2003: 25; Malim 1993: 23-6; Partridge 1989: 25-9; Windell et al. 1990: 16).

Sam Turner’s (2003) discussion of the significance of enclosures on Anglo-Saxon ecclesiastical sites may aid our understanding of how pre-existing enclosures could have been important in earlier, secular settlements. He noted that enclosures make statements about power over the landscape and the control of space, with a defined space marking an area under the power of an individual or group (Turner 2003: 50). Concurrently, enclosures also imply the ability to exercise power over certain people, as access to an enclosure can be controlled; those with free access have power over those who do not. They also demonstrate power over defined areas of the landscape, which in turn can imply authority over the wider landscape in which the enclosure is sited (Turner 2003: 50). Furthermore, enclosures in general tend to have a durable physical presence, making them ‘monumental’, and as such they are likely to have been important factors in the definition of power relations within society (Turner 2003: 51). All of these factors could have made the reuse of pre-existing enclosure particularly desirable.

This chronological pattern is not restricted to sites with evidence for the intrusive reuse or active control of monuments; it also seems to have been the case for settlements with less obvious control or management of earthworks. For example, Willington, Nettleton Top, Old Parkbury, West Halton and Enderby may all have been established in the sixth century (Clay 1992: 1-5; Field and Leahy 1993: 10-15, 20-4; Hadley et al. 2011; Niblett 2001: 159-61; Wheeler 1979: 125-31). The same may be true of Pennyland, which in its earliest, sixth-century phase had less intrusive and less structured relationships between buildings and the older enclosures than it was to have later (Williams 1993: 93). Although these sites seem to lack the encroachment of occupation features onto, or into, monuments in the sixth century, they demonstrate that associative relationships were also forming in the sixth century. It appears, therefore, that in the sixth

It is particularly interesting that none of the reused enclosures whose dates of occupation could be determined were reoccupied before the sixth century. It was at this time that the use of enclosures generally in Anglo-Saxon settlements began to become more frequent and widespread (Reynolds 2003). It is possible that the appropriation of pre-existing enclosures was related to this practice, and the socio-political circumstances that precipitated it. The fact that these enclosures were old might have made them attractive since, on a prosaic level, they did not require building from scratch. Indeed, the reuse of enclosures and field systems may have stemmed from increasing pressures on production. For example, Moreland (2000b) has discussed the settlement at 214

have been increasing social or political pressures which meant that it became important to specifically associate certain people with these particular monuments, and perhaps this burial rite was reserved for specific members of society.

century there was an increase in, firstly, the number of settlements established near monuments and, secondly, the likelihood that buildings would be situated on or very close to monuments. Interestingly, Wickham (2005: 341) has proposed that the period 550-600 saw the stabilization of social status, which was to lay the way in subsequent centuries for the development of hierarchical society, political power and elite wealth. The majority of these sites cannot be dated any more precisely within the sixth century, but it is possible that they began to reuse monuments more intensively in the latter half of the sixth century in response to the socio-political stabilization proposed by Wickham. The control of monuments appears to have continued into the middle Anglo-Saxon period on settlements that were not apparently of high status. For example, at Catholme there was clear evidence to suggest that prehistoric monuments were enclosed and that access to them was restricted (see Chapter 6). Several fifth- to sixth-century sites mentioned above also continued to be occupied into the middle Anglo-Saxon period, including the settlements at New Wintles Farm, Eynsham Abbey and Foxholes Farm (Chadwick Hawkes and Gray 1969: 2-3; Hardy et al. 2003: 28; Partridge 1989: 25-9). Thus, at the time that high-status ‘palace’ sites were reusing prehistoric monuments, lower-status settlements were also still reusing them, albeit perhaps in different ways. This seems to support the claims made by Williams (1998: 103) that reuse was diversifying in the seventh century, with new elite forms of monument appropriation existing alongside earlier forms. The evidence suggests, however, that on middle Anglo-Saxon lower-status settlements monument reuse retained some of its earlier meanings. For instance, the settlement at Catholme clearly demonstrates that access to monuments was being restricted and controlled in the seventh to ninth centuries. This implies that reuse was, as suggested, linked to the demonstration of authority and status in lower-status settlements, as well as higher-status ones, during the middle Anglo-Saxon period.

At first glance the evidence for funerary monument reuse in settlements may appear at odds with the phenomenon of reusing monuments as execution cemeteries, as these two forms of reuse, one apparently ‘positive’ and the other ‘negative’, were taking place at the same time (see Chapter 2). For instance, the ‘deviant’ decapitated burial inserted into the centre of Stonehenge yielded a radiocarbon date of AD 600-670, almost exactly the same as that from the mound at West Halton and very similar in date to the burial in the pond barrow at Barrow Hills (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 201; Hadley et al. 2011; Pitts et al. 2002: 134-7). As discussed in Chapter 2, Semple has drawn attention to the complexity of funerary monument reuse, particularly in the seventh and eighth centuries. The burial of outcasts and criminals at this time (and, indeed, into the twelfth century) often took place at monuments on boundaries and the edges of territories, apparently to position the damned dead away from the living and perhaps to subject them to torment from supernatural creatures inhabiting the monuments and the deserted marginal land on which they lay (Semple 1998: 114; 2003a: 371). However, the use of monuments for ‘ordinary’ burial continued into the eighth centuries and even occasionally beyond (Hadley 2004: 306; Lucy 2000: 127-8). In light of the increasing evidence for the control of monuments discussed in this chapter, it is possible to suggest that the reuse of monuments for both deviant and ordinary burials was not as contradictory as it might first appear. It may well have been yet another form of ‘resource management’ relating to the remains of the past; perhaps those who dictated whether ordinary burials were inserted into barrows, including those in settlements such as Barrow Hills, also deemed that specific monuments were suitable places for the burial of outcasts and wrongdoers.

Burials in Settlements

Archaeologically Invisible Uses for Earthworks

The presence of human burials within some monuments in settlements adds weight to the idea that some, if not all, monuments were in the possession of particular individuals, or that the earthworks were very closely associated with certain people. For example, at Barrow Hills a burial had been inserted into the bank around one of the pond barrows in the early seventh century, while several others were inserted into barrows just to the north-east of the settlement (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 201). At West Halton radiocarbon dating of human bone from the upstanding Bronze Age barrow indicated that it had a burial inserted into it during the seventh century (Hadley, et al. 2011). At both of these sites the graves were inserted into the monuments after the settlements had been inhabited for some time. This may represent an even greater encroachment onto (or rather into) the monuments, and a further intensification of their reuse in the later phases of both settlements. There may

This part of the chapter has so far considered the impact of physical features, such as buildings and fences, on the control and management of monuments, but it is also possible that their manipulation and reuse by specific individuals or groups did not involve activities which left archaeological traces. At settlements such as Village Farm, Willington, High Farm and Hoe Hills buildings were situated some distance from monuments, but the earthworks still appear to have been incorporated into the settlements. As discussed above, religious ceremonies may have taken place near, in or on ancient earthworks at these sites (these could also have been carried out at settlements with more obvious forms of control as well); the right to initiate, dictate, carry out or oversee these activities might have marked out certain members of a community from others. As Williams (1997: 26) has suggested in the context of funerary practices, ‘rituals taking place around old structures in the landscape may 215

this, arguing that the site might have been chosen specifically for this reason. She has also argued that the visibility of barrows next to routes in Wiltshire might have been used to impress travellers, as the earthworks represented highly visible symbols of authority (Semple 2003b: 81). Thus, associative forms of reuse might have been just as powerful as more obvious, intrusive forms, but their influence may have been rooted in what the people viewing monuments knew or believed about their origins, uses and symbolism. Turner (2003: 51) has suggested that the lack of strictly defined property boundaries and other permanent systems of control in many early Anglo-Saxon settlements suggests that there was a degree of cooperation between people within communities. It is possible, therefore, that invisible social boundaries, rather than physical ones, regulated and controlled the movement of people around settlements and monuments.

have been used by elite groups to impose their identities upon the wider populace by demonstrating their power and authority through an ideology of common mythical origins and divine descent’. Funerary rituals with minimal archaeological impact might have included feasts, processions and ceremonies related to religious belief (Hadley 2004: 305), and similar activities may have taken place near to monuments in settlements. Furthermore, it is also possible that ancient earthworks in settlements may have been used as meeting places; we saw in Chapter 2 that the evidence for early Anglo-Saxon assembly sites is sparse. As early Anglo-Saxon assembly places have proved difficult to identify, Williams (2004) and Semple (2004) have both suggested that cemeteries (especially those centred on prehistoric monuments) may have fulfilled this role. Meanwhile, Meaney (1995: 37), Pantos (2004: 172) and Semple (2004: 136-9) have all suggested that early assembly places coincided with sacred sites. Semple proposed that the defining characteristics of these sites included the reuse of prehistoric monuments, the creation of contemporary monumental structures, the presence of buildings or indicators of royal residence and evidence for ritual or religious activity such as standing posts or unusual burials. In light of the evidence presented in this study for the potentially sacred significance of monuments in settlements, perhaps we ought to envisage them playing a part in early Anglo-Saxon assembly as well. Indeed, many of Semple’s defining characteristics listed above can be applied to settlements. While it is true that the evidence we have tends to point towards assemblies taking place away from settlements (Pantos 2004: 155-6), attempts to identify earlier Anglo-Saxon meeting places have generally been unsuccessful; perhaps, therefore, we should be looking more closely at those sites which have been identified, as Williams (2004: 109-10) proposed when arguing for the use of early Anglo-Saxon cemeteries as assembly places. This could have been another way in which monuments in settlements were used for activities that did not necessarily leave archaeological traces, but which were connected to sociopolitical organisation and the regulating of a community’s social structure.

This suggestion is supported by Jenny Walker’s (2009) recent research on the use of the hall in early medieval society, in which she proposed that part of the social role of the hall building in early medieval Britain and Scandinavia was to manipulate and control society. Elites, rather than simply imposing their authority over a community by brute force, used the architecture of the hall to impress on people their rank in society. The higher-status members of society who commissioned or built halls drew on a number of ‘ideo-symbolic’ elements in order to construct and maintain their ideal society, by designing halls which both permitted and prohibited the actions of particular members of society (Walker 2009: 101). These ‘ideo-symbolic’ elements included the position of the hall in relation to the rest of the settlement (for example in a prominent position or in an enclosure), the positions and use of external and internal doorways, the use of internal partitions and the positioning of a central ‘high seat’ or focal point used by the hall owner and their guests (Walker 2009: 298). The organisation of the hall was planned so that elites could manage the activities taking place within it in a way that explicitly, and implicitly, demonstrated that the hall owner was legitimately in control and that this was the natural order (Walker 2009: 301). The intention, argues Walker (2009: 300), was to ensure that the social position of elites was maintained and accepted as it became part of the habitus4 of the community. In other words, hall builders used these structures to impress on people how society, in their view, should be structured, and attempted to turn this into the norm. People viewing and entering halls knew their place and how to use these buildings in an appropriate way for their social position (such as which doorway to use or where to stand) because they did not need to question or consciously think about where their place

Thus, despite the fact that some settlements, such as Village Farm/Medbury Lane and Willington, did not yield physical traces of control over monument reuse there may have been other, invisible, forces at work controlling their use. Social rules may have prevented people from accessing or using monuments, and control over land or people need not have been articulated through architecture. Similar claims have been made in relation to high-status settlements of the middle AngloSaxon period. For example, Ryan Lavelle (2007) has noted that the position of a documented palace at Grately (Hants) would have been approached along a Roman road, with a visually prominent hillfort nearby. He has argued that the prominence and visibility of these preexisting features would have impressed on people the pre-eminence and age of the site, and the power of the people in control of it. Semple (2009: 39) has added to

4

Habitus, as defined by Bourdieu (1977: 86), is a ‘subjective but not individual system of internalised structures, schemes of perception, conception and actions common to all members of the same group’. It allows people to react to any situation and to understand society around them, without having to make conscious decisions about how to act.

216

1993: 67; Wickham 2005: 340-2). As Semple (2008: 415) has stated, ‘in the vacuum created by the collapse of Roman rule, many different groups, indigenous and otherwise, were seeking to define themselves in new ways’. It does not seem to have been the case, then, that early Anglo-Saxon society was without competing groups, social stratification, and systems of control over people and land. While power in the fifth and sixth centuries is often envisaged as being linked to specific people, rather than specific places, the two need not have been mutually exclusive. Those members of a community with greater authority, wealth or influence could have enhanced the visibility of their power by linking themselves to specific places within their settlements, in this case monuments. Even if this was only on a local and relatively impermanent level, it could still have been very significant for each local community.

within society was; it just was. Rather than using force to impress upon people where their place was in society, elites used the layout of the hall and the wider settlement to convince the population they were claiming authority over that this was simply ‘how things were’. Where monument appropriation is concerned we might picture a similar situation; certain members of a community could have influenced the structure of society and maintained their own powerful positions through the reuse of monuments and the creation of ‘social norms’ which dictated, encouraged or prohibited access to, and use of, earthworks. There may have been unseen restrictions on how different members of society could access and use monuments, therefore, which would not be archaeologically tangible. Summary

This study has, therefore, demonstrated that monument reuse in settlements was not a practice that elites of the late sixth and seventh centuries invented. Ancient earthworks were already being reused in earlier settlements, and middle Anglo-Saxon elites seem to have drawn on these pre-existing traditions when planning ‘palace’ sites such as those at Yeavering, Sutton Courtenay, Hatton Rock and Cowage Farm. It has also been shown that, rather than altering the meaning of monument reuse in their high-status settlements, elites may have adopted the practice precisely because it was already linked to the display of social status and the imposition of authority over a community by specific groups or individuals in the fifth and sixth centuries. Although high-status settlement sites made use of regular and highly structured forms of monument reuse which were not seen earlier, particularly the alignment of rows of large halls on barrows, at the core of the tradition may have been this connection with the management, supervision and control of both ancient monuments and people.

To summarise, it is possible to suggest that there was an element of social stratification within early Anglo-Saxon settlements. This correlates with the evidence from contemporary cemeteries, which exhibit ranking between individual graves, as scholars such as Scull (1993) and Hamerow (1999) have demonstrated. Social ranking may have been internal to communities, rather than between them, and on a relatively small scale, perhaps within families; few of the early Anglo-Saxon settlements in the corpus under discussion were particularly large, and they might have been occupied by extended family groups. Although the demonstration of authority through monument reuse was not necessarily as obvious and ostentatious as it was in high-status ‘palace’ sites of the late sixth and seventh centuries, there is evidence to suggest that in smaller, earlier and lower-status settlements the practice had similar meanings. Particular individuals may have had a central role within the communities living at settlements which contained monuments. This might have brought with it certain rights and responsibilities, some of which may have involved the control of monuments and the activities that took place on and around them. There may have been a benefit in terms of personal gain for these people, but their role could also have been a custodial or curatorial one, protecting or using the monuments for the perceived good of the community, controlling whatever power the monument was thought to possess. At some sites the archaeology has revealed remains of structures which might have served to manage, control or display possession of monuments, while at others there is little archaeologically-tangible evidence, although it is still possible that control of these earthworks was taking place through the manipulation of social norms and rules about who could access earthworks.

As a result, not only would seventh-century elites have been able to claim descent from ancient, mythical ancestors in order to legitimise their powerful positions, as Bradley (1987) has claimed, they would also have been able to legitimise their positions with reference to earlier Anglo-Saxon socio-political systems. It was previously mentioned that the developments of the fifth and sixth centuries paved the way for the emergence of regional elites and major kingdoms from the seventh century (e.g. Hamerow 1999: 23; Wickham 2005: 342). It may, therefore, have been important for seventh-century elites to give the impression that they had emerged from a long line of earlier, pre-eminent Anglo-Saxon ancestors, especially those who displayed their rank through the appropriation of monuments during the fifth and sixth centuries; the adoption of traditions practiced by these ‘ancestors’ may have given the impression of continuity and family longevity. Just such a situation can be proposed for Sutton Courtenay, where the carefully planned positions of large timber halls close to several larger barrows represented an important political focal point in seventh- to ninth-century Wessex (Hamerow et

The social and political circumstances of the fifth and sixth centuries seem to have contributed to the development of monument reuse in settlements, and it seems that these centuries did not lack socio-political complexity, as it is sometimes assumed (e.g. Lewis et al. 1997: 98). It was in this period that the development of social, political and economic complexity led to the establishment of overarching systems of control (Scull 217

al. 2007: 190). This complex seems to have evolved from an apparently ordinary settlement, in which the construction of SFBs on and near Circles A to C suggests that the monuments were already important to the community living in the northern portion of the site, whose settlement may have existed from the fifth or sixth century. Indeed, we might even speculate that the family or group who initiated or controlled reuse of the barrows to the north of the site in its earliest phases were the same group whose power grew and developed to the point that they were then able to establish a new and impressive complex of halls to the south, maintaining a concern for reusing the prehistoric remains in the area, but doing so in a more ostentatious way than they had previously.

could also have visually emphasised the pre-eminence of the individual or group associated with the structure, thereby enhancing their social position and reminding other members of the community that they did not have the privilege of being so closely linked to the earthworks, or their magical or ritual characteristics. This may be another reason why elites chose to adopt the practice of monument reuse in order to demonstrate their legitimacy and authority with respect to the past. If monuments were already powerful tools for manipulating ideologies and social order, their control would have been very useful for the emerging, unstable elites, who needed to express their authority visually and to be in control of the belief systems that structured people’s lives.

OVERVIEW: INTERWEAVING IDEOLOGIES AND SOCIOPOLITICAL STRUCTURES

Settlements and Buildings: Ritual, Political, Social The close link between the ideological and socio-political meanings of monument reuse is also suggested by the architectural evidence from early medieval settlements. For example, the interweaving of social and religious activities in some early medieval halls in Britain and Scandinavia demonstrates that elites often recognised the advantages that arose from combining religion and ritual with the secular hall (Walker 2009: 302). Studies of nonwestern societies have frequently observed that, when house forms are fairly standardised, they are often an important medium for the ‘negotiation and reproduction of social relationships’, as well as representing the ‘image of a society or universe’ (Ware 2005: 156). If houses are at the centres of peoples’ worlds, then we might expect to find examples of ways in which buildings were treated socially and culturally. The hall was undoubtedly important in early medieval society, and the very act of building is charged with meaning and, despite their apparently restricted forms Anglo-Saxon buildings may have played very important roles in society (Marshall and Marshall 1991; Ware 2005: 154).

Cosmology and Politics It was noted at the beginning of this chapter that, although the ideological and socio-political meanings of monument reuse have been considered separately here for ease of discussion, the two themes were certainly not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, they seem to have been intimately connected. The very fact that ancient monuments seem to have been so important in social and political terms during fifth to ninth centuries may well have stemmed from their roles as ideologically-charged ritual foci; the control and management of monuments may in turn have facilitated the manipulation and maintenance of ideologies and social norms. It is interesting that, in his description of a hypothetical late seventh-century village of Malling, Wickham (2005: 428431) describes one of the two leading families in the village running the local religious rituals of the community both before and after the conversion to Christianity. It must be stressed that this is a conjectural account, written with reference to the available archaeological evidence, but it does allow us to imagine how a group further up the social scale in Anglo-Saxon England might be responsible for the control of belief systems and thereby, perhaps, monument reuse on behalf of a whole community.

It was previously mentioned that the evidence for ritual activity on or near monuments in the settlements under study is fairly limited. There are some indications that placed deposits and shrines were situated close to monuments at some sites, but not all, and monuments seem to have formed just one type of focal point in a wider system of ritual and religious activity. Indeed, the evidence for this form of activity in Anglo-Saxon settlements as a whole is quite limited and has only recently begun to be appreciated (see Chapter 1). This may, in part, stem from the possibly that ‘ordinary’looking buildings had multiple functions, which included ritual activities. Significantly, Ware (2005: 154) has suggested that:

The supernatural and ritual interpretations of monuments in the context of burial were detailed in Chapter 2, but Howard Williams’s (1998: 103) claim that ‘ancient monuments were probably envisaged as powerful, liminal places, that may have been regarded as the dwellings of supernatural beings, ancient or ancestral peoples’ sums up his views on the subject. Despite the fact that there is simply not enough evidence to confirm or deny that Anglo-Saxon people held these beliefs, especially where settlements are concerned, the conjectured meanings of monument reuse provided by researchers such as Williams do provide some insights into why asserting authority over ancient monuments might have been particularly important and desirable. If, for example, SFBs on monuments were used as mortuary structures, this may have been due to the perceived powers or properties of the monuments on which they stood, but it

in the early Anglo-Saxon, pre-Christian, period there is little evidence for dedicated public buildings and civic institutions per se. Rather, political, economic and social activities were played out at the everyday level of the house or as we seem to prefer to call it in early medieval England – hall. 218

argument that, even though power is often visualised as related to specific people rather than specific places in both the early and middle Anglo-Saxon periods, personbased power could have been articulated and maintained through connections with specific areas of a settlement. Even if these places do not resemble grand, permanent centres of power to modern archaeologists, they may still have been very significant for members of Anglo-Saxon communities.

The separation of religious, social and political realms of activity does not appear to have been the norm in this period (Semple 2010: 22). Instead, these activities were combined and inseparable, taking place in similar surroundings and perhaps all overlapping within ceremonies or events. This means that identifying different forms of activity can be difficult, especially as so many of the buildings in which they may have taken place are so badly preserved archaeologically. At the large and politically-important site of Yeavering there were obvious ‘ritual embellishments’ to some structures, such as the cache of ox skulls in a pit within building D2, which has been interpreted as a temple (Hamerow 2006: 12; Ware 2005: 156). Perhaps in smaller-scale, less regionally-important settlements this ‘ritual embellishment’ was of a more ephemeral or less ostentatious nature, meaning that it has not survived archaeologically. This might explain why ritual activities related to belief systems are difficult to identify, as they may have taken place in apparently ‘ordinary’ buildings whose remains survive in a poor state of preservation. However, this does allow us to speculate that those ‘typical’-looking structures close to barrows and other monuments in settlements were not just ‘dwellings’ and ‘ancillary’ structures, but that they also played a part in the construction and maintenance of social and ideological orders within communities.

In light of the evidence reviewed in this chapter, it is possible to claim that monument reuse was driven by religious, social and political factors, which seem to have been amalgamated and interwoven, manifested in the same surroundings and events. Although this is more clearly seen at ostentatious and unusual settlements such as Yeavering, it may well also have been the case for more ‘ordinary’ settlements, albeit on a smaller scale (or a less well-preserved one). We should not, it seems, expect to find clear, unambiguous pointers to ‘ritual’ or religious activity in settlements; instead, this type of activity appears to have been intermingled with other aspects of domestic life. Thus, while buildings on top of barrows, for example, provide clear evidence for intrusive reuse and raise the possibility that the ownership or management of monuments was being expressed, connections between ideological or socio-political activities and monuments were not necessarily always evinced so clearly and physically; they may have been lost archaeologically as they were woven into ‘everyday’ activities.

Ware (2005: 156-7) has also suggested, again with reference to Yeavering, that the familiarity of high-status architecture meant that it was not completely ‘otherworldly’ to lower-status members of the community, but drew on people’s everyday knowledge. As she put it, ‘social elites appropriated, as a means of legitimising power, symbols and metaphors easily recognisable within wider society’ (Ware 2005: 156-7). This resembles the argument made here, that elites adopted monument reuse after it had become an established tradition in earlier settlements. In both cases, elite groups appear to have deliberately taken up preexisting traditions with the aim of creating sites that members of the wider population could interpret and understand, the aim being to show the population where their rank in society was in comparison to the elites. Indeed, there would arguably have been no point in using established architectural forms or monument reuse practices if the populations over which high-status groups were claiming authority could not interpret the messages of dominance, longevity and legitimacy that the elites were attempting to convey.

Reynolds (2003: 132) has claimed that the development of more rigid, structured settlement layouts from the mid sixth century may have denoted increased ‘ritual planning’, with some settlements, such as Yeavering, performing a variety of social functions beyond housing in the seventh century, as expressed through alignments of standing posts and barrows, human burials in settlements (often near boundary features), and animal deposits. What is becoming clear, however, is that although ‘ritual planning’ was perhaps more obvious in high-status settlements, it was not restricted to them, as the discovery of monument reuse and placed deposits in early Anglo-Saxon settlements and lower-status middle Anglo-Saxon settlements indicates. In short, the use of these motifs, especially monument reuse, on late sixthand seventh-century Anglo-Saxon settlements of high status may well have been adopted because of their preexisting significance to early Anglo-Saxon communities, and the messages they already relayed.

Ware (2005: 154) also suggested that the construction of the complex of halls at Yeavering ‘secured links’ between a particular lineage or group and the local landscape. This suggestion can be applied to the settlements under study here; it is possible that constructing buildings, albeit not particularly ostentatious ones, near to monuments could have secured links between a particular individual or group and the earthworks. Ware (2005: 154) has also stated that the act of building establishes and enhances links between people and places. This adds further weight to the

It is interesting to note that, in his discussion of pagan shrines Blair (1995: 21), suggested that their use was readopted by late sixth- and seventh-century elites from western British aristocratic practices, to which the elites became more receptive around the year 600, when kingdoms and royal dynasties were beginning to emerge. He has stated that: this generation, with its capacities for systematic planning and its urge to express power in 219

onwards (Reynolds 2003). Intrusive and highly structured monument reuse during the sixth century was noted at three of the four case study settlements discussed in the previous chapter – Barrow Hills, Eye Kettleby and Sutton Courtenay – as well as at other sites in the corpus. A similar pattern has also been noted in the burial record; there are few cemeteries at which earlier burials clustered around a monument and later ones lay further away, as might be expected (Williams 1998: 99). This could be because there were multiple foci in these cemeteries, perhaps based on household groups. Some cemeteries exhibit the opposite pattern, with the earliest graves located away from a monument and later graves closer to it, for example at the fifth- to seventh-century cemetery at Buckland, Dover (Kent), where graves were inserted into a round barrow over a hundred years after the cemetery had been established some distance away from the mound (Williams 1998: 99).

monumental form, was paradoxically more likely than its predecessors to assimilate the high-status practices of British neighbours, or to adopt and reproduce ancient monuments (Blair 1995: 21). Based on the evidence presented here, however, it might instead be argued that elites made use of prehistoric monuments for shrines, as well as for settlements and burial sites, because they were already familiar with the practice, as the communities they emerged from and claimed authority over had been for most of the AngloSaxon period. Thus, while the influence of western British elites may have made the reuse of monuments for negotiating power more attractive, monument reuse was already a well-developed practice in early Anglo-Saxon England, which elites drew on precisely because it was familiar to many people and because it was already transmitting messages about both ideology and social status.

Monument reuse appears to have signalled authority and social status throughout the early to middle Anglo-Saxon period. It was passed from local, small-scale elites onto later, more powerful and regional elites, on both settlements and burial sites. The changes and transitions in society which seems to have taken place around the year 600 are often attributed to a dismantling of earlier social structures and their replacement with new forms of governance and religion (e.g. Blair 1995; Stoodley 1999: 104-5). While it certainly seems to be true that changes were afoot at this time, hypothesising the transition as a dislocation or dismantling of earlier social systems might in fact obscure elements of continuity. Instead, the changes may well have been part of a longer evolutionary process. For example, Yorke (1989) has suggested that during the late sixth and seventh centuries, small communities in south-west England that had existed in the previous two centuries were coming together and consolidating their group status, merging into larger regional units that foreshadowed the rise of the West Saxon kingdom. This situation speaks more of a process of development or evolution, with groups, and their leaders, emerging out of earlier social structures. Thus, emergent elites of the late sixth and seventh centuries may well have displayed their power through monument reuse because they and their followers were familiar with it and knew its meanings.

CHRONOLOGY: THE DEVELOPMENT OF REUSE Monuments and Changing Meanings This study has suggested that there was a chronological development in the practice of reusing monuments in settlements. The activity has been recorded in apparently ‘ordinary’ and ‘egalitarian’ settlements during the fifth and sixth centuries, although whether these settlements were, in fact, egalitarian has been questioned here (as the phenomenon may already have signalled the preeminence of certain members of a community at this time). It appears to have transmitted similar meanings in the seventh to ninth centuries on settlements that were apparently further down the settlement hierarchy, but there was also a development in the tradition in the late sixth and seventh centuries, with its adoption on highstatus so-called ‘palace’ sites, with their distinctive alignments of buildings on barrows and their reuse of imposing enclosures such as hillforts. Appropriation of ancient earthworks appears to have become an important signifier of elite power at the time that major kingdoms were emerging. Although there are seventh- to ninthcentury lower-status settlements where reuse continued to take place, such as Catholme, these sites are fewer in number than they were in the fifth to seventh centuries, suggesting that the practice was waning, perhaps because it was being transformed into a tool increasingly reserved for elite use.

The Influence of the Church A subsequent development in the practice of monument reuse is also of interest in light of these findings. The Christian Church adopted the practice from the seventh century, despite the fact that its leaders seem to have dissuaded others from reusing monuments (see Chapter 2). Why did ecclesiastics consider this an appropriate course of action? The answer might, again, lie in the reuse of monuments as an indicator of authority. We know that, as monument reuse was taking place from the fifth century and was, therefore, in existence at the time when the Church began its missionary processes (Yorke 1990: 1). Furthermore, since ‘palace’ sites and elite burial sites adopted monument reuse in the late sixth and early

On a more subtle level there may have been changes in the tradition of reuse in settlements during the early Anglo-Saxon period too. Although the dating evidence is not always as detailed as we might like, there may have been an intensification in reuse during the sixth century, which saw the construction of SFBs on barrows and the encroachment of buildings into the spaces around monuments. There may also have been an increase in the number of reused enclosures at this time, perhaps related to the burgeoning trend for enclosing space within settlements more generally from the mid sixth century 220

‘palace’ sites. Indeed, Blair (1996: 105) noted that the layout at Northampton echoed that at Yeavering, where hall buildings were aligned between two pagan cult foci (both focused on prehistoric monuments). This form of alignment was associated with some of the earliest ecclesiastical Anglo-Saxon sites elsewhere too, for example Canterbury, and Blair (1996: 105; 2005: 199200) has argued that this arrangement of halls and churches had its origins in earlier high-status settlements and their alignments of buildings. It should be noted that there is some debate about the function of the hall at Northampton; Blair’s (1996) paper argued that the hall could have belonged to a minster, rather than a royal site as has frequently been assumed. Nonetheless, this site may well exemplify the ecclesiastical adoption of earlier techniques of exhibiting power through the association of a hall with the two churches (whether this hall had a royal or an ecclesiastical use). Churches replaced prehistoric monuments as the foci of these axial alignments, and this served to ‘translate’ the arrangement from one belief system to another. As Christianity was firmly established in the eighth century, when the hall and churches at Northampton were initially constructed, the arrangement may have by that time been adopted into a Christian architectural repertoire, removing any lingering reminders of paganism from this form of high-status building complex.

seventh centuries, this pre-dated the conversion of the elites to Christianity. The process of conversion began with the arrival of St Augustine and a group of monks to the court of the Kentish King Æthelbert in 597, and by the mid to late seventh century the royal houses for which sufficient written evidence survives had been converted (Yorke 1990: 1; 2003: 245). Church leaders and missionaries may, therefore, have observed that monument reuse was a marker of status and legitimate authority in the settlements of the elites they were attempting to convert. Turner (2003: 51) has stated that the Church needed to gain a cultural presence in everyday conceptions of landscape in Anglo-Saxon England in order to be accepted and gain power. Choosing to make use of pre-existing earthworks would have allowed the Church to do this, making use of widely-recognised motifs that signalled rightful and lawful authority. It is possible to suggest that, like the emerging elites of the late sixth century, the Church adopted the tradition of reuse and assimilated itself into earlier Anglo-Saxon traditions, creating a heritage and antiquity for itself that allowed it blend into pre-existing social, cultural and political structures. Ecclesiastical sites that reused monuments would, therefore, have shared certain spatial and physical characteristics with elite settlements, helping them to blend into the top rung of an existing settlement hierarchy.

The indications are that ecclesiastical leaders were appropriating earlier spatial and architectural indicators of authority from established ‘palace’ sites, and that barrows and churches had similar functions in these complexes, as one replaced the other. As such, there is further evidence to support the argument that barrows had a religious and perhaps ceremonial role prior to their replacement by churches. We might, therefore, draw comparisons between the religious functions of barrows in earlier high-status settlements, such as Sutton Courtenay and Yeavering, and the role of churches on later ecclesiastical and high-status sites, such as Northampton.

It would also have been in the Church’s interest to maintain the status quo as it was encountered. Even though kingdoms and hierarchical social structures were the product of fairly recent developments, the Church helped to crystallize and formalize what had originally been transient relationships; any attempts at rapid or wholesale changes in society would not have been favourably received (Scull 1993: 76). By embracing the practice of monument reuse the Church could have transformed it from a potentially threatening aspect of pagan belief into one related to Christian doctrines. This might have been a gradual process, followed by the phasing out the practice. This is exemplified at Eynsham Abbey, where a secular settlement appears to have been established in a Bronze Age enclosure around AD 600 (Hardy et al. 2003). This was transformed into an ecclesiastical site at some point in the eighth century, at which time the location of the earlier settlement and the monument were respected. In subsequent centuries the Bronze Age enclosure was built over, and the pre-existing earthwork had clearly diminished in importance. In contrast, the barrows at West Halton may well have been adopted into the minster that appears to have been established there in the seventh century; in this case the monuments were preserved, although though their meanings are likely to have changed (Hadley et al. 2011).

Perhaps, then, the Church adopted the practice of reusing monuments as a way of assimilating itself with AngloSaxon social structures and high-status activity. This would have ‘translated’ the messages that the monuments transmitted, from pagan to Christian, and allowed the Church to phase out the practice gradually. The discovery of eighth-to tenth-century burials in barrows and other landscape features at Thwing (E Yorks), Swinhope (Lincs) and Winton Hill, Alfriston (Sus), and a ninthcentury example at Bevis’s Grave, Bedhampton (Hants), demonstrates that these practices were not explicitly outlawed by the Church until later, perhaps in the tenth century when it began to take a greater interest in controlling burial practices (Hadley 2004: 306). As discussed in Chapter 2, the reuse of monuments for burial after the conversion may have been perceived as a perfectly acceptable, sophisticated alternative to the Merovingian practices of stone memorials (Hadley 2001: 95; James 1992: 253). This implies that the high-status connotations of the practice were preserved, but that its

A complex of buildings excavated at Northampton is also of interest here; in the eighth and ninth centuries, several phases of a substantial hall building were positioned between two churches, St Peter’s and St Gregory’s (Blair 1996: 105). This closely resembled the alignment of large halls on barrows at late sixth- and seventh-century 221

pre-Christian ideological significance had been erased. A gradual process of acceptance and ‘translation’ would have helped to avoid the potential disruption, conflict and ill-feeling associated with trying to veto the practice when it had been in existence for most of the AngloSaxon period. Further, as the Church moved the focus of religious activity from everyday dwellings to specific places (Ware 2005: 160), this would have removed the need for monument reuse as a religious activity in settlements. This hypothesis may explain Guthlac’s choice of dwelling-place; as the Church sought to assimilate monument reuse and transform its meanings to ones that it sanctioned, Guthlac’s barrow could have been portrayed as a distinctly Christian and sacred place, one that could only be safely inhabited by a saintly or ecclesiastical figure. The aim may have been to encourage ordinary, secular members of society to believe that reuse was no longer appropriate for them, and that ultimately it was an activity which could only be effectively, and safely, carried out and controlled by more godly individuals.

222

Fig. 7.1 The seventh-century cemetery at Street House (N Yorks). An SFB and the postholes of a possible fence or post -built structure (marked in grey) lay to the south of an Anglo-Saxon burial mound (after Sherlock 2008: 31).

Fig. 7.2 The square post-built structure AS40 (overlain by AS41) at Catholme (after Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002: 67, fig. 3.55). 223

Fig. 7.3 Detail of PBS 17 and PBS 16 at Eye Kettleby (after unpublished plans by N. Finn).

Fig. 7.4 Possible early Anglo-Saxon shrine structures. Black Bourton (Oxon) (after Gilbert 2008: 149, fig. 2).

224

Fig. 7.5 Anglo-Saxon ‘palace’ sites. Cropmark halls positioned over an Iron Age field system at Mount Down (top left) (after Hampton 1981: 317, fig. 1); cropmark halls next to an enclosure system of unknown date at Atcham (top right) (after St Joseph 1975: 294, fig. 1); cropmark halls aligned on a ring ditch at Cowage Farm (bottom) (after Hinchliffe 1986: fig. 1).

225

CHAPTER EIGHT CONCLUSIONS accurately as do the cemeteries; their message is more subtle, yet hardly of less importance’.

The aims of this study have been threefold. Its first objective was to determine whether monument reuse did, indeed, take place in Anglo-Saxon settlements. Once this had been confirmed, its second aim was to find out how monument reuse in settlements took place; what forms it took, which monuments were used, and whether the practice changed over time. The third intention was to then interpret and understand the activity, to attempt to discover its meanings and significance, and to ascertain how it compared with the phenomenon of monument appropriation in other contexts. This concluding chapter will, firstly, consider some of the methodological issues that have arisen during this study. It will then highlight some further avenues of research brought to light by the study, before summarising its findings. STUDYING MONUMENT METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

REUSE:

A methodological problem facing any researcher seeking to explore later reactions to earlier landscapes is the need to assess the longevity and continued visibility of earthworks. It is certainly true that the preservation of earthworks into the Anglo-Saxon period can be difficult to prove, and visibility should not be assumed at every site where prehistoric and Anglo-Saxon remains coincide. The review of the corpus in Chapter 5, however, demonstrated that agricultural practices, quarrying and construction activities carried out since the medieval period have impacted on a large number of archaeological sites (see also Jones 1998). We should, therefore, take care not to assume that the present day landscape is similar to that of the Anglo-Saxon period; the chronological gulf that divides the two eras is filled with destructive processes that have levelled a great many prehistoric landscape features, and the early medieval landscape undoubtedly contained many more earthworks, and better-preserved ones, than it does today. Thus, a more optimistic attitude towards the survival of prehistoric earthworks in the Anglo-Saxon period might well be beneficial and might lead to the identification of further examples of monument reuse.

SOME

A certain amount of scepticism surrounds the idea that monument reuse took place in Anglo-Saxon settlements; archaeologists are, it seems, often more prepared to accept that monument reuse took place in what are understood to be ‘ritual’ contexts, such as burial, as opposed to perceived ‘mundane’ settlement contexts. This attitude is succinctly expressed in the Barrow Hills excavation report, in which the treatment of the earthworks in the settlement was described as monument ‘abuse’, and contrasted with the reverential ‘reuse’ exhibited by nearby burials (Chambers and McAdam 2007: 303). While it is true that the ring ditches around the monuments at Barrow Hills were filled in during the Anglo-Saxon period, this actually enabled the community to construct buildings closer to the above-ground earthwork remains than they could have if the ditches had been open. Further, the work of Richard Hingley (1996), discussed in Chapter 2, reminds us that the modification of a pre-existing earthwork need not have been disrespectful; it could have been part of the process of reuse, bringing the monument into the contemporary milieu.

This research has sought to strike a balance between providing a wide-ranging review of monument reuse in settlements through the compilation of a regional corpus and offering a more in-depth analysis of several sites in order to understand, in a more nuanced and subtle way, how appropriation took place. The use of a restricted study area has allowed sites to be reviewed on an individual, site-by-site basis, as advocated by Reynolds (2003), Semple (2008) and Walker (2009), but at the same time the corpus is large enough to draw out shared themes and patterns, as well as differences, between the sites. A further benefit is that it has allowed the inclusion of unpublished sites, particularly those whose excavation is recorded in grey literature reports residing in Historic Environment Records. This was considered preferential to an approach that took into account only well-known and published sites, as these would not have provided a ‘cross-section’ of settlement activity in one region. The unpublished material is not always easy to use; the excavations are often small-scale, or post-excavation analysis is limited or absent, while on some occasions only brief interim reports are available, even for sites excavated many years ago. These sites do, however, repay consideration; reuse at settlements such as Village Farm/Medbury Lane, Eye Kettleby, Frieston Road, Elstow Harrowden, Glebe Farm and Biddenham Loop would not have been identified without the use of grey literature reports.

It is important to stress that this scepticism is by no means universal. As has already been stated, Richard Bradley (1987), Sarah Semple (2003a), Andrew Reynolds (2003) and Helena Hamerow (2002) have all expressed the opinion that ancient monuments influenced AngloSaxon settlement layouts. Arguably, the scepticism surrounding monument reuse in settlements stems from their underestimation as places of ideological importance, where actions related to belief and ritual could be carried out (e.g. Crawford 2004). Fortunately, studies discussed throughout this book by researchers such as Jess Tipper (2004), Carolyn Ware (2005), Helena Hamerow (2006) and Jenny Walker (2009) are helping to dispel this assumption, demonstrating that settlements could, in fact, be arenas for ritual, ideological and ceremonial activity. As Reynolds (2003: 130) has noted, ‘the settlement record appears to reflect the nature of society as 226

It is also possible that there are more examples of monument appropriation in settlements, which are as yet unexcavated or unrecognised. During the course of this study a number of occupation sites with possible monument reuse have been identified, but they did not meet the criteria for inclusion in the corpus, often because they did not have excavated evidence for buildings (see Appendix D for a list of these sites). Included in this group are sites where Anglo-Saxon pottery scatters have been found on top of prehistoric monuments. Pottery scatters do not necessarily indicate settlement activity, as they can derive from cemeteries or manuring (Lane 2000: 100), but since a number of settlements in the corpus were initially identified as pottery scatters (e.g. Knave Hill, Thorpe End, Crow Hill, Eye Kettleby and Grange Park) there is the potential that at least some of these scatters represent further settlements in the vicinity of prehistoric remains. For example, Anglo-Saxon pottery scatters have been discovered on top of Iron Age enclosures at Muston (Leics; HER no. 3400) and Frisby on the Wreake (Leics; Thompson 2000: 238). Similarly, at the Iron Age hillfort of Hunsbury (Northants) around 100 sherds of early to middle Anglo-Saxon pottery have been discovered, along with a loomweight and a silver sceat of AD c.575-775 (Jackson 1994; Moore 1973: 41).

WHERE NEXT FOR REUSE STUDIES? The geographical remit of the study has been restricted to central England, but it is clear from a preliminary review of the published literature reveals that there were early medieval settlements all over England that incorporated prehistoric monuments into their layouts. In addition to the examples of ‘palace’ sites outside the study area discussed in Chapter 7, monument reuse has also been recorded at Thwing (E Yorks). Here, a Bronze Age ringwork or hillfort had been refortified in the period AD 700-950, when structures and a cemetery were located inside it and a series of further enclosures were also attached to it (Manby 1986: 3-6; 1988: 16-18). At Rookery Hill in Bishopstone (Sus), a fifth- to sixthcentury settlement was located between two Bronze Age barrows, which lay about 140m apart (Bell 1977: 194, fig. 86). One barrow was located just to the north of the settlement and the other to the south-west, with the buildings dispersed between them. One building was situated several metres north of the more southerly barrow, which had also formed the focus of an associated cemetery. Meanwhile, at Mucking (Essex), elements of a fifth- to seventh-century settlement had been influenced in their alignment and location by prehistoric ditches running through the settlement (Hamerow 1993: 86). A possible SFB was excavated overlying the ring ditch of a ploughed-out prehistoric round barrow at Ivy Tree Farm in Hadleigh (Suffolk) (Corbishley 1974: 112), while in North Marden (Sussex) an SFB was discovered 5m northeast of a Neolithic oval barrow (Drewett et al. 1986). The development of a fuller picture of appropriation in settlements across the country would enable a microtopographical study, resembling that undertaken on the burial evidence by Semple (2008; 2009), to be conducted, as part of which areas of the country with particularly rich records of settlement monument reuse could be compared.

There are also sites at which the cropmarks of possible SFBs have been noted in close proximity to prehistoric features. At Asgarby (Lincs), possible cropmarks of SFBs have been noted alongside a partial cropmark of a ring ditch, thought to represent a Bronze Age barrow (Lincs HER no. MLE45191). A number of similar sites were noted by Benson and Miles (1974a) in their thorough study of the cropmark evidence from the Upper Thames Valley; at Fawler (Oxon), three round barrows were recorded on aerial photographs, the largest of which was flanked to the north-east by six Anglo-Saxon pits (which were excavated) and an unexcavated cropmark thought to be an SFB (Benson and Miles 1974a: 50). The list in Appendix D also includes sites at which Anglo-Saxon features suggestive of occupation have been excavated, but where there are no buildings. At Salford (Beds) three Bronze Age ring ditches, as well as Iron Age ditches and a pit alignment, were excavated alongside an early Anglo-Saxon watering hole, dated to between AD c.450 to 650 on the basis of the domestic debris it contained (Albion Archaeology 2005; Dawson 2005). This implies that a settlement site might have been nearby, but the presence of buildings was not confirmed through excavation.

Further work is needed to assess the extent of monument appropriation in ninth- to eleventh-century settlements while a study of the reuse of Romano-British remains would also help to create a fuller picture of the practice as a whole. Comparison with reuse practices on the continent and in Scandinavia would also be fruitful, and could reveal similarities between different regions of northern Europe. It has been noted that many settlements in the corpus yielded reused artefacts, particularly Romano-British items but also prehistoric ones. There have been several brief discussions of this phenomenon – such as Plouviez’s examination of the Roman finds from West Stow in West (1985), or Leary’s assessment of the Roman material from Anglo-Saxon contexts in the Catholme report (Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002) – but these have not been extensive and the focus has tended to be on the discovery of these artefacts in graves (e.g. Eckhardt and Williams 2003; White 1988). A comprehensive study of reused artefacts in settlements could be particularly valuable in enhancing our understanding of Anglo-Saxon attitudes towards the physical remains of the past, especially if this data was combined with the evidence for monument appropriation.

Finally, there are also a number of sites listed in Appendix D for which HER entries recorded AngloSaxon and prehistoric features in close proximity, but no sources could be found to confirm this. For example, Leicestershire HER entries MLE366 and MLE367 state that double-ditched boundaries enclosed a rectangular area near Narborough Bogs in Blaby, and within this were four smaller rectangular enclosures and a ring ditch, with nearby Anglo-Saxon pottery suggesting occupation of this date. No further information about the site, however, could be traced. There is evidently scope for 227

perhaps with some accompanying localised variations? There is certainly evidence to suggest that other characteristics of Anglo-Saxon settlements, such as building techniques and settlement layouts, were similar and widespread across England (Hamerow 2002: 51, 94; James et al. 1984; Powlesland 1997: 104, 110; Tipper 2004: 1). There will undoubtedly have been variations; as Reynolds (2003: 99) has noted, to expect uniformity in settlement form is unrealistic, and any attempt to make a single interpretative framework for all settlements would overlook the presence of variation between them. Nonetheless, there are some general trends that can be identified across the study area, for example the positioning of SFBs on top of mounds or the ring ditches around them, which took place in Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire.

identifying further settlements with monument reuse, and it would be particularly interesting to determine whether any of the potential examples listed in Appendix D do, indeed, represent instances of monument appropriation. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS This study has demonstrated that – in common with cemeteries, shrines, churches and moot sites – AngloSaxon settlements of the fifth to ninth centuries did reuse prehistoric monuments. The most frequently appropriated monument type in the study area was the round barrow, closely followed by prehistoric enclosures and field systems, although long barrows, pond barrows and henges were also reused. The forms that reuse took can be divided into ‘associative’ and ‘intrusive’, reflecting differences in the level of physical modification that monuments were subjected to. There is some evidence to suggest that reuse took place more frequently in settlements of the fifth to seventh centuries, and that it became less regular from the seventh century onwards, although there were still settlements, such as Catholme, which reused monuments in the eighth and ninth centuries. Monument appropriation took place on a variety of different types of settlement, from apparently ‘ordinary’, relatively low-status sites, such as New Wintles Farm or Eye Kettleby, to high-status ‘palace’ sites, such as Hatton Rock and Sutton Courtenay (and perhaps also Taplow and Crow Hill) as well as ecclesiastical sites such as Eynsham Abbey.

Another aspect of monument reuse that appears to have had shared meanings across the study area, and further afield, is the late sixth- and seventh-century development of the tradition as an elite tool for demonstrating power, which seems to have arisen across much of Anglo-Saxon England. Much attention has been paid to this phenomenon, especially in the context of burial. In terms of settlement, Richard Bradley’s (1987) reassessment of Yeavering, and his suggestion that elites were appropriating monuments there in order to legitimise their powerful positions, has been extremely influential, but it did not consider why the aristocratic builders of the settlement viewed monument reuse as an effective tool for expressing and legitimising authority. This study, it is argued, has helped to clarify this. Just as Howard Williams (1997; 1998) has asserted in the case of burial, we should not see the reuse of monuments in the settlements of late sixth- and seventh-century elites as a new invention; it already existed prior to that period. The messages it transmitted to the general population, and its effectiveness as a signifier of legitimate authority, stemmed from the fact that the practice had existed from the fifth century amongst communities over whom elites were claiming power. What is more, it appears to have already relayed messages about control and authority from the early Anglo-Saxon period.

Anglo-Saxon communities appear to have been making conscious decisions about which monuments they reused, and they exploited these earthworks in different ways. This was probably based on the above-ground appearances of these earthworks, which could have been varied, even though their below-ground remains may look similar archaeologically. That communities did distinguish between monuments on the basis of their appearances is confirmed by the toponymic evidence, which records the application of adjectives such as ‘green’ and ‘broken’ to monuments. Enclosures and other linear features were often used in a way that resembled their original use, perhaps inevitably so, since even after a great deal of time had passed their forms may still have lent themselves to enclosing space. Even if this type of reuse had a prosaic and practical element to it, this does not mean that it was without ideological meaning. The age of an enclosure may have made its appropriation particularly attractive, and it was perhaps perceived as giving the enclosure added effectiveness or protection, or as a legitimising force for the activities that took place inside it. The reuse of barrows is more enigmatic, and this activity does not appear to have a practical function; the positioning of SFBs on top of barrows at some settlements is particularly intriguing.

Thus, many members of early Anglo-Saxon society may well have been familiar with idea that the control of monuments was a signifier of authority; by managing and restricting access to monuments through ostentatious buildings and burials, newly-emerging high-status groups could clearly signal to the general populace that they were now in charge. Arguably, this would have been much more effective if people were already familiar with the idea that monument reuse was linked to the expression of power. If elites adopted the practice from earlier communities but changed its meanings, they would have had to communicate these new meanings to the rest of the population and wait for them to be disseminated, which might have diminished the message that the elites were attempting to convey.

The different types of reuse seem to have been fairly widely distributed across the study area, with relatively consistent trends in the positioning of buildings in relation to monuments across central England. Could it, then, have had similar meanings across the region,

An additional benefit of adopting the practice of reuse for high-status groups could well have been the links it 228

it, in order to avoid rejection. Adopting monument reuse might have been a pragmatic decision, which allowed Church sites to ‘blend into’ the landscape. It could also have helped to create the impression that they were the rightful heirs to a tradition which had begun several centuries earlier, as elites had also previously done. Secondly, the Church could use a pre-existing method of signalling authority in order to establish itself as a powerful force in society; again, this was something that elites had begun to do a short time before. It is possible that, once monument reuse began to be associated with Christianity through strategies such as the positioning of churches, the burial of Christian elites in pre-existing monuments, and the reuse of earthworks in the settlements of converted high-status groups, the Church could then start to phase out the practice by manipulating its meanings, ultimately demonising it where settlements and cemeteries were concerned (although Semple (1998) has noted that monuments continued to be used for some activities, for example as fair or market sites, into the late Anglo-Saxon period, adding another layer to the Church’s complex attitude towards reuse). This does not seem to have been a straightforward practice, however, and it may have taken some time, since settlements such as Catholme were still reusing monuments in the ninth century. Perhaps, though, this was because Catholme had been established in the seventh century, when the practice was more acceptable; it is interesting to note that none of the settlements in the corpus appear to have been founded in the eighth and ninth centuries.

created with the recent past, as well as the distant past. Perhaps demonstrating their knowledge of the tradition of monument reuse in settlements enabled elites to show that they had emerged from the same communities as the people they were ruling over, or even that it was their families who had controlled reuse on smaller, more impermanent scale during the fifth and sixth centuries. Elites might, therefore, have created an impression of unbroken authority, projecting this back both to the fifth century and the more remote and mythical past. As such, these higher-status members of society could have created an identity which rested on being ‘of the people’, but which marked them out as special, entitled to rule over the rest of the population. The Christian Church’s attitude to the practice, although this seems to have been complex. As Semple (1998; 2003a) has shown, the Church vilified the practice through the depiction of monuments as haunted and evil places in written sources, most of which date to the eighth to tenth centuries, as well as through the reuse of monuments as execution cemeteries. Yet prior to this, in the seventh century, the Church’s attitudes towards prehistoric monuments, although they are often harder to comprehend, appear to have been more flexible. For example, some early churches, and their associated settlements, were established in, on or near prehistoric monuments, such as Breedon-on-the-Hill (Leics) and Aylesbury (Bucks), which were both within Iron Age hillforts (Blair 1992: 234; Semple 2003a; see Chapters 2 and 5). Additionally, the Church does not appear to have immediately discouraged the occupation of sites with traces of earlier activity at the high-status settlement sites of converted seventh-century elites; at Yeavering, for example, after Bishop Paulinus had commenced his mission there, the wooden standing post and ring ditch within the Great Enclosure at the eastern end of the site continued to be used as a place of burial, augmented by the construction of a church (Frodsham 2005: 24; Hope Taylor 1977: 169). John Blair has argued that the ecclesiastical reuse of monuments was an attempt to emulate Mediterranean church-building traditions (specifically through the reuse of pre-existing enclosures) and he has also proposed that the intention of the Church was to Christianize the tradition of reuse (Blair 1992: 245; 2005: 183-4). The latter proposal, in particular, is supported by the findings of this study, which suggest that monument reuse may well have been a manifestation of pagan belief systems in early Anglo-Saxon settlements.

We must also consider what this study has revealed about the role of monuments in early medieval belief systems, since one of its aims was to examine whether the settlement evidence supported the ideas put forward by scholars such as Williams (1997; 1998; 2006) about the significance of monument appropriation in burial. There is limited archaeological evidence to indicate that monuments were consistently reused as the foci for religious or ritual activity in Anglo-Saxon settlements. There are hints at this, such as the insertion of burials into monuments in some settlements, and the construction of SFBs on top of mounds or ring ditches. It has been suggested here that these structures had some ritual function, perhaps as buildings used in the funerary process; they are certainly an enigmatic aspect of reuse. These features are not, however, found in all settlements in the corpus, and there are no consistent patterns between, for example, the locations of ritual placed deposits and monuments. Indeed, placed deposits and human burials also occur in settlements with no trace of monument reuse. Of course, it should be borne in mind that activities carried out on or near monuments in settlements need not have left any archaeological traces. Furthermore, when we consider the level of damage caused to so many monuments by agricultural practices and other destructive activities in recent centuries, it is possible that evidence for further activity on monuments, perhaps much of it ephemeral, has been lost; this possibility has also been noted in cemetery contexts by Williams (1997: 4).

While, admittedly, monument appropriation at ecclesiastical settlements has made up only a small proportion of the discussion in this book, the conclusions about reuse in earlier and contemporary secular settlements may shed some additional light on the Church’s attitudes towards reuse. It is possible that the Church initially adopted and accepted monument reuse for the same reasons that high-status groups had earlier, prior to the introduction of Christianity. Firstly, as Sam Turner (2003) has suggested, the early Church needed to assimilate itself into society without dramatically altering 229

Thus, it seems to have been the case that monument reuse was a practice that was undertaken depending on the needs of a community, and that it was determined by what was available to that community in the area they chose to establish their settlement. At some settlements reuse took place, while at others it did not. At those sites where it did take place, many of which date to the preChristian era, there are some indications that the tradition was ideologically important. Perhaps, then, we might see it as one element in a whole ‘package’ of activities related to early Anglo-Saxon pagan belief systems. The flexible, adaptable and heterogeneous nature of early medieval belief has been discussed by a number of researchers; Geake (2003) has pointed out that a huge variety of different burial practices were available to early Anglo-Saxon communities, from which certain elements could be selected for particular individuals.

Church, which then ‘translated’ its religious significance from a pagan to a Christian one. The purpose of this study has not been to suggest that prehistoric monuments were the only factor influencing the positioning of Anglo-Saxon settlements; of course, there may have been numerous factors dictating this decision. Further, it is acknowledged that there are many early to middle Anglo-Saxon settlements from which there is no evidence for monument reuse (although see footnote 2). Where they were reused, however, they habitually seem to have been important places within the settlements. There is little positive archaeological evidence to corroborate the suggestion that they were imbued with the specific properties that Williams (1997; 1998) has speculated about in relation to funerary reuse, such as acting as the homes of ancestors or liminal portals to supernatural worlds. Nevertheless, they may well have been places of both socio-political and religious significance. As such, the results of this study have contributed to the increasing appreciation that activities of a religious and ritual nature in fifth- to ninth-century England were not restricted to what are traditionally regarded as ‘ideologically significant’ contexts, such as burial, but were also intimately connected to settlements as well. After all, the same communities were reusing monuments in both cemeteries and settlements; indeed, there is a growing realisation that Anglo-Saxon populations blurred the lines between the two, constructing buildings in their cemeteries and burying the dead in their settlements. As a final coda, it seems to fitting to end this book as it began, with a quote from Audrey Meaney, in which she states that ‘just over 1,300 years ago, according to his hagiographer Felix, St Guthlac did something until then unrecorded in England; he went to live on a burial mound’ (Meaney 2003: 229). Unrecorded in documentary form this practice may have been, but Guthlac’s actions echoed those of many other Anglo-Saxons who, from the fifth century, chose to live on, in and around the preserved remains of ancient monuments.

A key finding of Jenny Walker’s (2009) study of the early medieval hall was that those commissioning or building halls could select different ‘pieces’ from an assortment of architectural elements. This included positioning the building in a prominent position on a hill or within an enclosure, as well as dividing the interior in particular ways and placing doorways in certain places, in order to control how people viewed, approached and moved around the building. Through the selection of these particular architectural elements the hall-builders – usually elite groups – could control how the structure was used and make sure that the rest of the community knew their place within it. Additionally, hall-builders could decide whether to integrate religious practices into the hall or to separate them by building separate structures such as ‘cult houses’ (Walker 2009: 306). These seem to be pieces of an architectural ‘puzzle’, some of which could be selected while others were not. As such, Walker suggested that it was pointless to try to search for any one, single way in which early medieval religion was practiced, or to attempt to discern whether an early medieval hall was a religious building or a secular one, as the beliefs of both spheres were merged (Walker 2009: 306). Perhaps, then, monument reuse was a single element in a ‘catalogue’ of early medieval religious practices; it was one of a number of different activities of religious significance which could be used by a community, but it was by no means essential to the enacting of religious ceremonies in all communities, as it was not found on all settlements.1 Moreover, like the halls in Walker’s study, it seems that these monuments had both a religious and socio-political significance. If monument appropriation was connected to religious belief, its control may well have been imperative in the exertion of social and political influence over others. This might well explain why certain individuals or groups sought to command and manage reuse, including the 1

The comparison with the rest of the settlement record in Chapter 5 suggested that around 16-26% of early to middle Anglo-Saxon settlements in the study area reused monuments, although the number of sites listed in Appendix D, and the fact that reuse has been so rarely explicitly searched for during excavations of settlements, raises the possibility that the proportion may be higher.

230

APPENDIX A SUMMARIES OF SETTLEMENT SITES IN THE CORPUS This appendix provides more detailed summarises of the evidence from each of the sites in the corpus than in Chapter 4, including further information about the excavations, settlement features, dates and the evidence for monument visibility. The sites are listed in the order they appeared in Table 4.1.

isolated, two lying to the north and another to the south of the main band. These structures were located within one of the middle Bronze Age field systems (SL13), some in the middle of the fields and others around the edges, and it was suggested by the excavators that these SFBs were influenced in their layout by the Bronze Age boundaries, marked by earthworks or hedges.

Biddenham Loop, Bedfordshire (Figs. 4.13 and 4.31) GR: TL 0253 4915 Bedfordshire HER no. 16034. Pastscape no. 360244. The site at Biddenham Loop was c.60 hectares in size and contained numerous features dating from the prehistoric, Romano-British and Anglo-Saxon periods. The information presented here is taken from two interim reports (Luke 2008; Luke and Barker 2008), and a draft of a more comprehensive report (Luke and Barker 2010). The site lay on land within a ‘loop’ created by the River Great Ouse. There were sixteen Neolithic and Bronze Age ring ditches, arranged in three clusters; a north-eastern cluster (SL5), a southern cluster (SL7) and a north-western one (SL3). Also associated with each cluster was at least one oval or sub-oval Neolithic monument. Only monuments in the north-western cluster (SL5) produced human remains; cremation burials were found within ring ditches L2104 and L2106. In addition, a number of small pits in ring ditch L2300 contained sherds of Collared Urns which possibly represented truncated graves. A number of the graves within these three monuments were radiocarbon dated to the early Bronze Age (more specific dates were not provided in the available reports). By the middle Bronze Age the open landscape had been replaced by two field systems, one to the north (SL11) and one to the south (SL13), roughly in the same areas as the southern and north-eastern early Bronze Age monument clusters. The earlier monuments were respected by the new fields; in the north-east cluster each monument was incorporated into a separate field. In all cases the monuments lay towards the edges of the fields, and in some they were integrated into the field boundaries.. The evidence points to the continued existence of the Neolithic and early Bronze Age monuments into the middle Bronze Age, and the locations of the two field systems appear to coincide with earlier monument clusters.

Luke and Barker (2010) asserted that the absence of characteristically middle Anglo-Saxon pottery types (e.g. Maxey and Ipswich wares) suggested an early Anglo-Saxon date for the site, as did the presence of stamped sherds, often assigned to the period AD 450-650. From the dispersed western SFBs early Anglo-Saxon pottery was also recovered. It is unclear how the two areas of Anglo-Saxon settlement related to each other, and whether the buildings were occupied at the same time, although the presence of early Anglo-Saxon pottery at both suggests that they were roughly contemporary. There were also other possible foci of settlement activity in the vicinity of the Loop (SL165), with three possible SFBs south of the river, outside the Loop and some way south of the two settlement foci discussed here (these other SFBs do not appear to have been associated with prehistoric features) and there were also scatters of Anglo-Saxon pottery, which may belong to cemeteries or settlements. Sources: Luke 2008; Luke and Barker 2008; 2010. Elstow Harrowden, Bedfordshire (Fig. 4.3) GR: TL 055 475 Bedfordshire HER no. 1626 (ring ditch only). Pastscape no. N/A. Prior to development at Elstow Harrowden cropmarks were noted, prompting archaeological evaluation in 1997. Five areas were investigated, but of particular interest here are Areas 4 and 5. Initially nineteen trenches (c.1.5m wide and between 20m100m long) were opened across all five areas, with extensions where more complex features were uncovered. The excavations are recorded in a relatively short unpublished report (BCAS 1995a), which reveals that Area 4 contained a Bronze Age ring ditch. The ditch was 1.5m wide with a diameter of c.17m, enclosing a central Bronze Age cremation. Area 5 lay immediately east of Area 4 and contained Trenches 13 to 21. Area 5 overlay the western end of an extensive series of rectilinear cropmark enclosures; many of these cropmark ditches were excavated, and the field system was found to extend further west than the cropmarks suggested, perhaps because the topsoil to the west was deeper. Ditches of this unexpected, more westerly area of the field system were uncovered in Trench 17 and the southern half of Trench 13. One of these ditches (3122 in Trench 17) was up to 3m across, and was found to continue to the north, being traced in Trenches 19 and 20. These lengths of ditch all contained Iron Age pottery. To the east of 3122 another ditch (3171) was uncovered; this had not been visible on the aerial photographs, and it was found to contain Anglo-Saxon pottery. It is unclear if this was an Anglo-Saxon ditch, which perhaps followed the alignment of the Iron Age, or if it was an Iron Age ditch containing AngloSaxon pottery in its upper fills.

An early Anglo-Saxon settlement of twenty SFBs was discovered within a field to the north-east of the excavation area (SL62), covering 6ha. It was also close to a Romano-British farmstead (SL51/52), the core of which lay to the east of the Anglo-Saxon buildings. Thirteen of the SFBs lay within the remains of an enclosure associated with the farmstead, while seven more were positioned peripherally, many of them on top of the ditches of Romano-British enclosures. Immediately north-west of the settlement there was also a ring ditch, with an internal diameter of c.25m. This was part of the north-eastern monument cluster, SL5, which was the only cluster to produce human remains. It is unclear from the reports whether this particular ring ditch was one that yielded burials, but it was part of the cluster that did contain burials, therefore this ring ditch may well have been a Bronze Age barrow. In addition, a small number of pits and postholes were also found across this area, but none of the postholes formed post-built structures; it was suggested that these could have been truncated through ploughing within the Loop. About 1km south-west of SL62 was another focus of Anglo-Saxon settlement (SL63), more dispersed than the first. There were eight SFBs, lying on the western side of the Loop near the river and arranged in a linear fashion over a distance of c.600m from north to south. Five were in a broad band 170m long, while the others were more

Within the areas defined by ditches 3122 and 3171 were pits and postholes, although these were largely unexcavated and remained undated. One large feature (3165) measured nearly 5m across and was partially emptied by machine to a depth of 1.5m, but its base was not found. It contained middle AngloSaxon Maxey-type pottery and a bone comb of similar date. Nearby there were postholes which cut the Iron Age ditches,

231

and these may have been contemporary with the large middle Anglo-Saxon feature. Further pits and postholes of AngloSaxon date were found in Trenches 13 and 17; those in Trench 13 were within c.20m of the ring ditch and those in Trench 17 were c.100m north-east of the ring ditch. The postholes were interpreted as forming post-built structures, although no plans of these features were provided in the excavation report. There is also little information about the dating of the settlement, apart from the middle Anglo-Saxon pottery and comb recovered from the large pit feature 3165. Although other pits and postholes were assigned an Anglo-Saxon date, there is nothing in the report to indicate exactly when in this period they dated to, although they could have been contemporary with 3165 on the basis of their proximity to that feature. Further east, Trenches 14-18 overlay the Iron Age cropmark field system noted prior to excavation. Within one enclosure were postholes, small pits, two corn-drying kilns and a curving drainage gully dated to the Romano-British period. It was suggested that the regular rectilinear layout of the ditches, which covered an area in excess of 370m, indicated a single period of occupation, which may have extended from the late Iron Age to into the RomanoBritish period. The enclosures to the west, in the area of the Anglo-Saxon occupation, may have been the earliest part of this field system complex, as the Romano-British material was concentrated to the east, away from the Anglo-Saxon focus of activity.

and lay further away. The settlement also lay within the remains of an Iron Age field system, parts of which were uncovered at the Manor Farm site as well as at Elstow Harrowden. Sources: BCAS 1995a; Shepherd 1997. Harrold, Bedfordshire (Fig. 4.5) GR: SP 9528 5705 (Harrold) GR: SP 9512 5698 (Meadway) Bedfordshire HER no. 64. Pastscape no. 346787. Excavations at Harrold in advance of quarrying during the 1950s revealed dispersed Anglo-Saxon settlement features in the vicinity of a large number of round barrows. Many of the features were uncovered by J.H. Edwards, although the discoveries were published in the 1970s by Eagles and Evison (1970), who did note that in the intervening years information about some aspects of the original investigations had been mislaid (or had never been recorded). It is known that two SFBs (‘pits’ D and J) were found in Area I of the excavations, while in the same area was another feature (XVII), described as a spread of black earth measuring 10ft by 8ft (c.3m by 2.4m) containing Anglo-Saxon pottery, which may have been a spread from the contents of a pit. The two SFBs were c.150m apart, although the space between them was not fully excavated during the salvage excavations; Eagles and Evison remarked that ‘if the settlement was continuous [between J and D] it must have been a large one’. The possibility that further Anglo-Saxon settlement features were originally present cannot, therefore, be ruled out. Indeed, it was suggested that the postholes of postbuilt structures were likely candidates for destruction during the rescue excavation and quarrying. ‘Pit’ J contained late RomanoBritish sherds, fifth-century pottery, a bone needle and a spindle whorl, while ‘pit’ D also contained Romano-British sherds, as well as late seventh-century pottery, a bone pin and a toggle. Most of the finds were not closely datable, but due to the presence of decorated pottery fifth- to sixth-century occupation was suggested.

While the limited nature of the archaeological investigation prohibits detailed understanding of the relationships between Anglo-Saxon and Iron Age features, the indications are that an Anglo-Saxon settlement was established amongst the remains of an Iron Age field system. The presence of Anglo-Saxon features so close to a Bronze Age barrow suggests that there may have been a relationship between the two, as this resembles the situation at many other sites in the corpus. Furthermore, the Anglo-Saxon material found in ditch 3171 suggests that either an Anglo-Saxon boundary was influenced by the presence of earlier ditches, or the earlier ditches were still visible in the Anglo-Saxon period as hollows, which then filled up with Anglo-Saxon occupation debris.

There were up to ten Bronze Age barrows in the area, between c.8m to c.40m in diameter. There were also two Iron age circular enclosures, one with a maximum diameter of 11.5m (feature 14) and the other 15m (feature 12) (the report does not offer an interpretation for them, but a record card for this site in Bedfordshire HER suggests that features 12, 14 and possibly 9 were roundhouse gullies). Of particular interest is the largest barrow, 13, 40m in diameter and with a ditch 3m across the top and 1.3m deep. SFB J lay c.50m away from this barrow, while SFB D was located about 100m away. Given the large size of this monument, it may well have been a large and visible earthwork during the Anglo-Saxon period. Also of interest are barrows 5-7, which were relatively close to the two SFBs. They were removed by bulldozers in the 1950s, although their diameters were noted during this process; barrow 5 was 18m in diameter, barrow 6 was 8m, and barrow 7 was 13m. Barrow 5 was certainly visible in the Anglo-Saxon period, as twelve seventh- to eighth-century skeletons were recovered from within the ring ditch and immediately outside it.1 Another grave in this cluster was interpreted as a ‘ninth-century Viking’ burial. As this barrow was c.100m from SFB J, it may also have been a noticeable earthwork in the settlement. Further seventh- to eighth-century burials were noted elsewhere, although information on their position is sparse in the report. They are marked on the site plan in the middle of Area I, some way

The site lay close to the route of the extensive Bedford Southern Bypass excavations (Village Farm, c.1km to the south-west, was also discovered as part of this Bypass project; see below). Manor Farm, one of the areas investigated during the Bypass project, was located immediately south of the Elstow Harrowden site, and it seems likely that the two were related. At Manor Farm there were further middle Anglo-Saxon features in the form of large pits and postholes; the latter were thought to be the remains of post-built structures. However, as at Elstow Harrowden, the unpublished report on the Manor Farm excavations lacks a detailed site plan, so the exact locations of these structures are uncertain. Indeed, the report offered no information about the fills or dimensions of the excavated features, nor did it explain the basis for assigning the features a middle Anglo-Saxon date (as dating of Anglo-Saxon settlements is so often based on pottery assemblages it seems likely that this might have been used to date the site). Nonetheless, it can be seen on the general site plan that the middle Anglo-Saxon features were dispersed across two long, narrow trenches. There were concentrations of Anglo-Saxon features towards the eastern ends of the trenches, which lay immediately adjacent to the Elstow Harrowden site. Although this plan is not detailed enough to indicate where the postulated Manor Farm buildings were, it does suggest that Elstow Harrowden and Manor Farm were part of one early to middle Anglo-Saxon settlement, which lay to the north and east of a Bronze Age ring ditch. Some features were particularly close to the ring ditch (within c.20m), whilst others were more dispersed

1

Eagles and Evison (1970: 20) record that the skeletons were found in ring ditch 5, but on p.39 they write that ring ditch 2 contained the burials. Based on their description of the ring ditch’s location and size on p.39, it seems likely that it is in fact ring ditch 5 that contained the skeletons and that ring ditch 2 is a typographical error.

232

north-east of ring ditch 5; there may therefore have been another cemetery focus here, or there could have been a continuous spread of graves between this area and barrow 5. It may even have been the case that the second burial cluster was focused on another, unrecorded barrow. The destruction of at least three more barrows (8, 10 and 11) was noted during the quarrying, although these examples are not marked on the site plan. At least one is known to have been in Area I, however, and it is possible that the second group of burials might have been focused on it.

‘pits’ J and D found to the north. An unmarked ring ditch on this plan is likely to be the Neolithic funerary monument, which was within c.30m of several Anglo-Saxon structures. Potentially problematic for our understanding of the site is a long ditch shown on the plan, which runs almost the whole length of the excavated area and bisects the ring ditch. The interim reports reveal that this ditch is of unknown date; if it was Anglo-Saxon or earlier this would suggest that the monument was no long a standing earthwork in the settlement, however if the ditch postdated the Anglo-Saxon occupation then the barrow could have been visible. Sources: Albion Archaeology 2005; Bradley et al. 1999; Eagles and Evison 1970; Gaimster et al. 1998.

While barrows 6 and 7 were arguably close enough to the SFBs to have potentially influenced them, it is debateable whether these monuments would have been visible in the Anglo-Saxon period, as they were smaller than the adjacent barrow 5 (although on the site plan all three are depicted as being of similar size). Meanwhile c.60m from SFB D was feature 9, a circular feature with a maximum diameter of c.27m, which could have been a barrow but could alternatively have been an enclosure (no interpretation of this feature was offered in the report). It is possible, then, that a number of the monuments in this area were still visible earthworks in the Anglo-Saxon period, and that the settlement was more extensive than the two excavated SFBs suggest, although due to the salvage nature of the excavation this it is not possible to confirm either claim.

Village Farm, Elstow, Bedfordshire (Fig. 4.2) GR: TL 05109 47042 Bedfordshire HER no. 16082. Pastscape no. 1129601. Village Farm was excavated ahead of the construction of the Bedford Southern Bypass in 1995 and lay towards the western end of the bypass corridor (BCAS 1995a). Excavation was initially targeted towards ring ditches visible on aerial photographs, which were partially excavated as only their northern halves lay inside the road corridor. These features dated to the late Neolithic or early Bronze Age period. The larger of the two had an internal diameter of c.22m, whilst the smaller had an internal diameter of c.13m. In common with the report for Manor Farm, which was also excavated as part of the Bypass construction (see the description of Elstow Harrowden above), the Village Farm report was lacking in detail. Nonetheless, the findings do reveal that two Anglo-Saxon SFBs were excavated in the vicinity of the ring ditches, along with a number of pits, all of which contained contemporary pottery, loomweights and animal bone. One SFB was located c.12m north-east of the larger of the two ring ditches, while another was c.22m north-east of the same monument, with the contemporary pits situated were further to the north-east.

Subsequent investigations in 1997 and 1999, immediately south of the site investigated in the 1950s, revealed further early to middle Anglo-Saxon settlement features on land called Meadway (Albion Archaeology 2005; Bradley et al. 1999; Gaimster et al. 1998). It seems that this area contained a continuation of the Anglo-Saxon settlement to the north, strongly suggesting that SFBs D and J were part of a larger settlement. Much of the eastern side of the Meadway site had been destroyed during the gravel quarrying of the 1950s, but to the west prehistoric features and early to middle Anglo-Saxon occupation features were excavated. The Anglo-Saxon features were located in Field 1, in an area measuring 72m by 68m. The findings are currently being written up by Albion Archaeology for inclusion in a forthcoming volume of Bedfordshire Archaeology, but efforts to obtain copies of the 1997 and 1999 reports, or a draft of this article, were not successful. Thus, the primary sources of evidence for this part of the Harrold site are two interim reports from the fieldwork notes of Medieval Archaeology (Bradley et al. 1999; Gaimster et al. 1998), as well as a brief overview of the 1997-1999 findings in an Albion Archaeology (2005) report, which documented findings from another excavation nearby.

Features of Iron Age date were also found, including pit groups, post-built structures and two cremations, although none of these features was deemed substantial enough to have survived into the Anglo-Saxon period. Iron Age pottery was discovered in the ring ditches of the barrows, suggesting that they were filled at this time, however the lack of disturbance to the barrows in the Iron Age suggested to the excavators that the monuments survived and were respected during this period. There was also no evidence to suggest that the monuments had suffered disturbance after the Iron Age, and it seems likely that the barrows were still visible features in the early Anglo-Saxon period. An early to middle Anglo-Saxon date was assigned to the SFBs and pits, the report contained very little information about the ceramic assemblage from the site, and did not mention the presence of any other datable artefacts. A Saxo-Norman phase of occupation was also noted, consisting of four post-built structures.

The area excavated in 1997 and 1999 covered c. 100m by 40m in total, with dispersed features covering the whole area. Belonging to the Anglo-Saxon period were five possible SFBs (in trenches 2, 16 and 17), as well as incomplete posthole buildings (trench 18) and scattered pits. The base of a probable well was also found in the north-west corner of the field (trench 14), while the settlement may have been bounded to the east by a ditch (in trenches 3 and 4). This area also contained a possible Neolithic ring ditch with an internal diameter of c.20m, as well as Neolithic burials and an Iron Age cremation cemetery. It seems likely that the features of all phases relate to the previously-excavated monument complex and settlement to the north. The 2005 Albion Archaeology report includes a site plan of the area excavated in 1997-1999, although none of the features are labelled. It is possible, however, to identify the five SFBs, as well as collections of postholes which seem to be the post-built structures. An interim report states that the features were dated to the early to middle Anglo-Saxon period on the basis of the pottery assemblage (Gaimster et al. 1998). This means that the site may well have been contemporary with the

During a separate excavation, also undertaken by Bedfordshire County Archaeology Service (1995b), Anglo-Saxon features were discovered at Medbury Lane, 150-250m south-east of the Village Farm site. This did not reveal any further prehistoric monuments, but it did uncover two further SFBs, three postbuilt structures and two wells. Although no detailed information was given about the dating of this part of the site, it was stated that it was thought to be middle Anglo-Saxon, and it seems likely that they were related to the buildings at Village Farm. The area between the two sites was not excavated, and it is possible that further settlement features were located in this area. Sources: BCAS 1995a; BCAS 1995b.

233

excavated and the remainder subjected to a watching brief. The construction work began in 1979, and a routine fieldwork visit during topsoil stripping revealed Iron Age features indicative of dense occupation. This stripped portion of the site was dubbed Area A, whilst an area to the north-east was labelled Area B and one to the south-east was designated Area C. Salvage work in these areas demonstrated that there was enough archaeological evidence to open a full-scale excavation to the south and east of the main site. These new areas were named D and E, while Areas F and G were later added. The salvage excavations took place between 1979 and 1981, although some parts of the site had been virtually destroyed before archaeological assessment could take place, and it is likely that some features were not recorded.

Church Farm, Bierton, Buckinghamshire (Fig. 4.14) GR: SP 83515 15330 Buckinghamshire HER no. 010470006 – MBC22438. Pastscape no. N/A. The evaluation area at Church Farm covered c.1.1ha. Trial trenching by Buckinghamshire County Museum Archaeology Service in January 1996 located several Anglo-Saxon features, including a small circular shallow feature, a shallow linear feature at least 7.5m long and a ditch containing fragments of loomweights (Roseff 1996). An open area excavation, undertaken by Tempus Reparatum, was carried out between April and June 1996 (Fenton 1996). Two ring ditches were discovered towards the south of the site, one cut into solid limestone underlying part of the site, the other into soft sand that underlay other areas. The feature on the limestone was penannular in shape with a deep V-profile cut and a diameter of c.13m, and the ditch had evidence for intermittent post settings within it. Excavation produced two sherds of pottery, one early Bronze Age and the other late Bronze Age. The initial interpretation had been that it was a ploughed-out barrow, but as no central burial or mound was identified it was subsequently interpreted as the drainage gully of a roundhouse. The second ring ditch had a complete circuit and was c.10m in diameter. No evidence of a preserved mound was located, but this ring ditch did have a central crouched inhumation burial, with a beaker and flint tools, and it was thus interpreted as a Bronze Age barrow. The ditch was well preserved, having escaped serious truncation under a ‘considerable depth’ of colluvium, which may have been related to Saxo-Norman occupation of the site (see below).

The Iron Age occupation dated to the second half of the first millennium BC, although some activity may have been slightly earlier. Settlement features included D-shaped and subrectangular enclosures and boundary ditches, as well as eleven roundhouses. Also dating to this period were at least eighty-four pits, as well as hearths and burnt areas, and three four-post structures. Two Romano-British field ditches were found around the southern edge of the site. Early to middle AngloSaxon occupation overlay the Iron Age enclosures. Dating of the Anglo-Saxon occupation was based on the pottery and bone comb sequences, which suggested that there were three phases to the settlement. In some areas of the country the similarity between handmade Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon pottery can make the two difficult to distinguish, but at Pennyland the ceramics were distinctive, while the fills of features belonging to the two periods were different colours, making their differentiation easier. Anglo-Saxon settlement appeared to date from the early sixth century (indicated by decorated pottery vessels and an early iron spearhead) to the late seventh or eighth century (suggested by Ipswich ware and bone combs) (although it should be noted that the interpretation pre-dated Blinkhorn’s reassessment of the date of Ipswich ware, which might extend into the ninth century).

Two subrectangular Anglo-Saxon SFBs were discovered. SFB1 (4.65m by 3.5m and 0.3m deep) was towards the north-west of the site, and contained loomweights, spindle whorls, bone pins and a large quantity of grass-tempered pottery. SFB2 (3m by 2.5m and 0.23m deep) was towards the centre of the site, sealed by a ‘platform’ of raised silty material, which was made up of layers of soil from later occupation (it seems that this was the source of the colluvium over the barrow to the south). In its fill were bone pins and a large number of sherds of ‘probable middle Anglo-Saxon pottery’ (although elsewhere the excavators suggested a broad late fifth- to ninth-century date for the settlement). A number of Anglo-Saxon pits were cut into the sand in the south-east corner of the site and a further large vertical-sided pit was cut into the limestone to the south-east of the silted Saxo-Norman ‘platform’ area. All of these pits produced pottery dated tentatively to the middle Anglo-Saxon period and several charcoal samples were taken from the large pit for radiocarbon dating. Tempus Reparatum closed down soon after the excavation took place and this analysis (along with other post-excavation analysis) was not undertaken (J. Wise pers. comm.). A large number of undated postholes were also excavated; many of them were thought to be Saxo-Norman, but it was also stated that some were likely to belong to the early to middle Anglo-Saxon phase. The Saxo-Norman phase dated to the tenth to twelfth centuries, and included a ditch, a gully and a metalled trackway bounding four structures, pits, wells and smaller gullies. The boundary ditches respected the positions of the two ring ditches, suggesting that they may have been preserved as visible earthworks. Sources: Fenton 1996; Roseff 1996.

In total thirteen SFBs and three post-built structures were excavated, although post-built structures may have been underrepresented due to the difficult nature of identifying ephemeral features during the initial development phases. There were also four unusual sunken four-post structures, which were not attributed to the Iron Age because of their sunken bases, which the similar Iron Age four-post structures lacked. The earliest Anglo-Saxon phase is thought to have consisted of a small dispersed settlement established around the first half of the sixth century. SFBs 7, 9 and 12, and pit 463 are all dated to this phase on the basis of stamped pottery in their fills, while SFBs 5 and 13 may also date to this phase. The next phase seems to have involved a major reorganisation of the site, with the construction of enclosures, droveways, PBSs 1, 2 and 3, SFBs 6, 10 and 11 and well 3, all of which were situated in enclosures. The absence of decorated pottery and the presence of Ipswich ware led to the suggestion that this phase dated to the late sixth or early seventh century, although Blinkhorn’s (2012) reassessment suggests that any Ipswich ware on the site could have belonged to a period between c.AD 720 and 850. There are indications that the features attributed to the second phase of occupation were not all in existence at one time. The western corner of PBS 1 overlay SFB 13, meaning that they were not contemporary. PBS 2 was aligned with the ditches of Enclosure 3 within which it lay, while the southern end of the building overlay the Iron Age boundary ditch 582. PBS 3 was immediately north-east of hall 2, and was part of a discrete group of over a hundred postholes, few of which contained datable material, although those that did contained Anglo-Saxon material. It seems likely that these postholes represented other

Pennyland, Buckinghamshire (Fig. 4.33) GR: SP 862 411 Milton Keynes HER (no. unknown). Pastscape no. N/A. The housing estate of Pennyland lies in Great Linford, northeast of Milton Keynes (Williams 1993). An area of c.65,000m2 was stripped of topsoil prior to development, with c.22,000m2

234

timber halls or the rebuilding of one of more buildings on different alignments. The corner of another possible timber structure was reconstructed, overlapping with hall 3, and might have represented another phase of building. The third and final phase postulated by the excavator saw the site revert back to being more dispersed, consisting of two loose clusters of occupation features. These were made up of SFBs 3, 4 and 8 at the southern end of the site, and SFB 2 and well 1 to the north. The four sunken four-post structures at the southern end of the site were also assigned to this phase (structures 464, 737, 792 and 793). The functions of these structures were uncertain, but as their pits appear to have been revetted, they could have been used for grain storage, as cellars or as cess pits. All the features in this phase, dated by Ipswich ware, were outside the enclosures, which may indicate that by this stage they were no longer visible, or necessary, or were used only for agricultural purposes.

was impossible to say whether the Iron Age boundaries had been accompanied by features such as banks or fences, except for enclosure 2, which retained traces of a palisade trench around its outer lip in its final phase. The small internal areas of the enclosures made it unlikely that they would have contained internal banks, but since it was thought they might have served as livestock enclosures, outer banks, fences or hedges would have been needed. Source: Williams 1993. Taplow Court, Buckinghamshire (Figs. 4.44 and 4.45) GR: SU 90683 82399 Buckinghamshire HER nos. 0632103000-MCB25055 (AngloSaxon) and 0632100000-MBC22999 (prehistoric). Pastscape no. N/A. The site at Taplow sat on a projecting spur on the east bank of the River Thames. In 1999 Wessex Archaeology undertook an evaluation ahead of building work towards the northern end of the Taplow Court estate (Allen et al. 2009). This initial evaluation uncovered three large ditches, which were thought to be related to landscaping of the medieval house’s grounds, and more extensive excavation was recommended. Oxford Archaeology undertook the subsequent excavations in three phases, in 1999, 1999/2000 and 2005 (Allen and LamdinWhymark 2001; Allen et al. 2009). This soon revealed that the ditches were prehistoric; in the late Bronze Age (probably the eleventh century BC) a hilltop enclosure or hillfort had been established, consisting of palisades, a ditch and rampart. In its earliest phase this enclosure was marked by fence lines and a palisade, which were subsequently covered by the gravel upcast of a V-shaped ditch (6m wide and 2.6m deep) which replaced them. Optical stimulated luminescence dating of a silt layer in the lowest fill of the V-profiled gave a date range of 900 to 605 BC (at 95% confidence), which is consistent with a late Bronze Age or very early Iron Age date.

The amount of influence that the Iron Age features exerted on the layout of the Anglo-Saxon settlement is mixed. Some Anglo-Saxon features did not appear to have been influenced by Iron Age features, but some relationships between features of different dates could be discerned. Perhaps the most convincing is the location of SFB 2, which appears to lie within the entrance to Iron Age Enclosure 3. Meanwhile, SFB 7 lay within Iron Age enclosure 4, although the Anglo-Saxon enclosure 1 encompassed both and it is possible that SFB 7 was simply situated within the Anglo-Saxon enclosure. However, SFB 7 was assigned to the first phase of the settlement, while the Anglo-Saxon enclosures were assigned to the second phase; it is therefore possible that the Anglo-Saxon enclosures were laid out with reference to the pre-existing Iron Age ones. Elsewhere SFB 10 lay on top of the ditch of Iron Age enclosure 2, although the boundary ditches of Anglo-Saxon enclosures 3 and 4 bisected this Iron Age enclosure, so its visibility is questionable (it may have survived as a hollow, sub-dividing the later enclosures). Towards the east of the site Anglo-Saxon enclosures 2 and 3, and droveway 1 had a relatively similar alignment to the Iron Age droveway and ditch 582, both droveways leading off to the east or south-east, although this may well have had more to do with the topography of the site than the influence of earlier features, as the land sloped downwards at that point. Meanwhile SFB 5 was located on a gap in the gully of roundhouse 6; elsewhere in this study it has generally been considered that ring gullies would not have been visible features in the Anglo-Saxon period due to their relatively narrow and shallow ditches and their lack of above-ground elements, but this juxtaposition is interesting nonetheless. Perhaps if the inhabitants stripped the site of topsoil they may have come across the feature in the subsoil. The same may have been true of PBS3, which was located within Iron Age roundhouse 11. Anglo-Saxon ditch 562 almost exactly touched Iron Age ditch 582 at one end and Iron Age ditch 550 at its other end, as if it fitted between them. On the south-east side of the site timber hall 2 appeared to abut an Iron Age ditch, its southern wall overlying it.

There was then a hiatus in activity, and subsequently a second hillfort was constructed in the Iron Age, probably in the fifth century BC. This was marked by a U-profiled ditch and a timber-laced gravel rampart. The ditch was found to be almost 9m wide and 2.8m deep, running the whole length of the site and tapering to an entrance at the northern end. A line of burnt timber postholes ran parallel to the ditch, representing the remains of the timber framework of the rampart, which had been inserted into the top of the earlier, Bronze Age, V-shaped ditch. Towards the western end of the site the gravel rampart survived to a height of c.0.25m above the natural gravel. There may even have been another phase of enclosure, as a third substantial outer ditch (also V-profiled, 7m wide and at least 1.2m deep) was found to the east of the main excavation area, although no evidence for its date of construction was recovered. At the southern end of the excavation area the late Bronze Age/early Iron Age palisade and first V-shaped ditch started to turn westwards, suggesting that the extent of these phases of enclosure had been reached, but the later Iron Age U-profiled ditch continued to the south suggesting that this later phase of the hillfort was larger.

How visible might the Iron Age landscape have been in the Anglo-Saxon period? Iron Age enclosure 3 (over whose entrance SFB 2 lay) had a ditch 1.4m to 1.7m wide and up to 1m deep. Enclosure 4 (in which SFB 7 lay) had a ditch 1m deep and 1.3m wide to the west; its southern side was up to 2.5m wide; its northern side 0.5m deep and 1m wide; and the eastern side was slightly deeper and wider than the northern ditch. Nearly all the apparently reused Iron Age enclosure ditches were substantial, some very much so, and it is possible that they remained visible features, perhaps hollows, into the AngloSaxon period. Plough damage and overstripping of the site in preparation for development had truncated the enclosures, and it

The hillfort was reoccupied in the late sixth or seventh century. At roughly the same time, some 160m to the south and still within the hillfort, the well-known Taplow burial mound was constructed. There was no evidence for reconstruction of the hillfort defences in this period, but there were considerable quantities of Anglo-Saxon material in the surviving Iron Age Uprofiled ditch and outer, undated V-shaped ditch. Finds from these ditches yielded radiocarbon dates of between AD 650 and 980 (95% confidence). The ditches had filled up over the course of the Anglo-Saxon occupation, but would still have been highly visible earthworks at the beginning of the period; judging

235

from the depth of the Anglo-Saxon fills, the outer V-shaped ditch was still over 2m deep and the U-profiled one c.1.5-2m deep. The visibility of the Iron Age ramparts in the AngloSaxon period is less clear, although large quantities of firereddened gravel from the burnt ramparts were found in the upper, Anglo-Saxon fills of the ditches, suggesting that erosion of the ramparts was still taking place at that time. It seems that at the beginning of the Anglo-Saxon period the inner rampart would still have existed as a notable earthwork.

wheat, rye, barley and oat grain; a wheat grain from the outer Vshaped ditch gave a radiocarbon date of AD 670-870. The lowest Anglo-Saxon fill of the U-profiled ditch also yielded radiocarbon dates of AD 550-650 and AD 770-970. A single decorated sherd of probable fifth- or sixth-century date came from one of the evaluation trenches inside the hillfort (which also contained similar pottery to the hillfort ditches) and may have represented the earliest Anglo-Saxon occupation evidence, perhaps pre-dating the material in the ditches. Other items in the Anglo-Saxon fills were undated and could only be assigned an early to middle Anglo-Saxon date. The occupation seems to have begun around the sixth or early seventh century, based on radiocarbon dates, and ended as last as the ninth century.

Two postholes (postholes 510 and 506 in row 1107) adjacent to the Iron Age hillfort entrance produced radiocarbon dates of AD 670-810 and AD 650-780 respectively. Another posthole (549 in row 1104) yielded a radiocarbon date of AD 690-890. It seems that some of these dates came from intrusive material; stratigraphically, none of the postholes in row 1107 and some of the postholes in row 1104 could have been Anglo-Saxon as they were covered by the upcast from the late Bronze Age V-shaped ditch. An alternative explanation for the posthole in row 1104 is that it was one of a group of posts of Anglo-Saxon date, belonging to a fence planted in the top of the rampart during the Anglo-Saxon period. If this was the case, and the majority of the postholes were destroyed as the top of the rampart eroded, it might have left only those postholes near the entrance where the rampart terminated. A further posthole (719) and a pit (796), both undated, were found cut through the Iron Age entrance features; as they post-dated the Iron Age, and there was no evidence for Romano-British occupation of the site, it is possible that these features were also Anglo-Saxon. If so, this suggests that this area, between the U-profiled and outer ditches, was a focus of the later reoccupation.

There is some evidence to suggest that the material in the ditches may have been dumped after it had accumulated elsewhere, meaning that the ditches could have been open and highly visible for much of the Anglo-Saxon phase of occupation. A small sherd of Cotswold-type ware came from the base of one of the Anglo-Saxon fills in the U-profiled ditch, and this material is most commonly found in the eleventh century, although it can occur as early as the late ninth century. A larger sherd of the same type was also found in a fill of the outer V-profiled ditch. In both cases the Costwolds-type sherds were from some of the lowest ditch fills, below many of the bones and burnt grains which gave earlier radiocarbon dates, implying that the material had been mixed up and redeposited. The site was disturbed, and a copper pipe had been pushed vertically through the fills of the U-profiled ditch to form an earth, so these sherds could alternatively have been intrusive. If this material was deposited after the site had been occupied for some time it suggests that the hillfort ditches were respected and perhaps kept clear during the occupation. The excavators suggested that the filling of the ditches with rubbish might have meant that they were not considered significant. However, if the fills accumulated later in the Anglo-Saxon period, it may be that they were deliberately kept free of debris in the early to middle Anglo-Saxon era. Furthermore, it cannot be assumed that the modification of a monument necessarily denotes a lack of respect for it (Hingley 1996). Sources: Allen and Lamdin-Whymark 2001; Allen et al. 2009.

The structural evidence for Anglo-Saxon occupation was sparse, but there was a foundation trench (846) of a building which would have measured c.4m wide by at least 4m long. This lay next to the terminal of the U-profiled ditch in the entrance to the hillfort. However, the building yielded no dating evidence so, while its size and method of construction fit with an AngloSaxon date, it is not certainly of this phase. It was proven to post-date the Iron Age features, however, and as the next major phase of activity took place in the Anglo-Saxon period this adds weight to the suggestion that it was contemporary with the reoccupation. The scale of the Anglo-Saxon assemblage in the ditches certainly suggests that occupation was taking place nearby, and its main focus could have been in the unexcavated area between the Iron Age U-profiled ditch and the outer undated V-profiled ditch, or it could have been elsewhere in the hillfort, as suggested by a decorated sherd found in an evaluation trench inside the hillfort. A poorly preserved inhumation (105) was also discovered close to the building, just to the north of the U-shaped ditch, and it yielded a radiocarbon date of AD 590-680. The individual was an adult male, accompanied by an iron knife of sixth- or seventh-century date. There were two further human skeletal fragments in the upper fills of the U-profiled ditch, both parts of an adult left humerus, possibly indicating that another burial or burials had been disturbed during the Anglo-Saxon period itself.

Wolverton Turn Enclosure, Buckinghamshire (Fig. 4.19) GR: SP 8025 4066 Milton Keynes HER (no. unknown). Pastscape no. N/A. At Wolverton Turn a large, sub-rectangular enclosure was first noted on aerial photographs in 1969, and part of it was subsequently excavated ahead of development in 1972 (Preston 2007). In advance of further development in 1991 more of the enclosure was excavated. The enclosure ditches were initially thought to be Roman, but excavation revealed that they were Anglo-Saxon. In 1974, a ring ditch (feature MK13), also noted as a cropmark in 1969, was excavated and found to be a Bronze Age barrow, which had been enclosed by an annexe of the large Anglo-Saxon enclosure. The sides of the large enclosure were formed by three ditches; Ditch 1 on the south-eastern side, Ditch 2 on the north-eastern side, and Ditch 3 on the southwestern side. Sections across Ditch 1 revealed that it was 144m long, but the corners of the enclosure were broad and sweeping, meaning that the sides (Ditches 2 and 3) would actually have been up to 155m apart. Aerial photographs show that the enclosure was around 175m long along its other axis, and it would have enclosed an area of roughly 2.6ha.

The Anglo-Saxon deposits from the ditches contained finds very similar to those generally found on contemporary settlements, including a range of agricultural, domestic and craft-working items (e.g. large quantities of animal bone, pottery and fragments of lava stone). The animal bone included cattle, horse, pig, sheep/goat, and domestic fowl, but also red and roe deer which were suggestive of high-status occupation. The pottery assemblage included several Roman sherds, one of which, a base, may have been trimmed into a disc, as well as a sherd possibly from a late Roman eastern Mediterranean vessel. Charred plant remains in the Anglo-Saxon fills included mainly

The ditches had experienced a complex sequence of cutting and re-cutting, with sinuous sections of ditch separating and converging in some cases. The convergence of Ditches 6, 7, 8 and 9 at a point along the southern side of the enclosure may

236

suggest that there had been an entrance here at some point. Ditches 1, 2 and 3 all yielded middle Anglo-Saxon pottery in their upper and lower fills, whilst radiocarbon dating of bone from two separate fills near the base of Ditch 1 yielded a date of AD 690-890 (95% confidence). A palisade trench (feature 5) ran roughly parallel with Ditches 1 and 3 in the interior of the enclosure, and may have also extended towards Ditch 2. Apparently connected with this were further ditches, 6 and 7, which connected with palisade ditch 5; Ditch 6 may have been part of a small interior enclosure feature judging from the aerial photographs.

Source: Preston 2007. Addenbrooke’s, Cambridgeshire (Fig. 4.30) GR: TL 4625 5535 Cambridgeshire HER no. MCB17890. Pastscape no. N/A. In 2001 Cambridge Archaeological Unit began investigating a on the north side of Addenbrooke’s Hospital (Evans et al. 2004). The western third of the site was being used as a hospital car park, whilst the eastern two thirds were part of Downing College’s playing fields. The site covered 3ha in total. A geophysical survey of the playing fields revealed two distinct networks of linear features which were later excavated. Seven major occupation phases were identified, from the Iron Age to the medieval period, along with some background earlier prehistoric activity (although none of it substantial enough to have influenced the Anglo-Saxon occupation). The occupation phases of interest here are Phase 3 (late Iron Age), Phase 4 (mid to late first century AD), Phase 5 (late first to mid second century AD), and Phase 6 (middle Anglo-Saxon).

Other, smaller ditches were associated with the main enclosure, including Ditches 9 and 10, which surrounded the Bronze Age barrow. Only part of this annexe was excavated, but its extent was mapped from aerial photographs, which showed that it measured c.30m by c.50m, the barrow fitting tightly into the northern corner. Ditch 10 cut through the outside edge of the ring ditch but respected the area where the mound would have been, and the precise fit of the barrow in the enclosure almost certainly indicates that it was still a visible landscape feature when the enclosure was dug, and that there was a desire to separate it or protect it from the surrounding occupation. The relationship between the smaller annexe and the main enclosure was uncertain; Ditch 10 might have been an extension of Ditch 2, or it may have been constructed at a different time. On the south-western side of the annexe, Ditch 9 terminated just less than 1m away from Ditch 1. It was suggested in the report that this was too small to be an entrance (although it is not clear on what grounds this assumption was made), although Ditch 1 was formed by a number of re-cuts, some of those other ditch phases lay 2m to 2.5m away from Ditch 9, so there could have been a wider entrance here.

Phases 3 and 4 spanned the transition between the late Iron Age and early Romano-British period, and it was hard to disentangle the two. In Phase 3 the core of activity lay in the central and western parts of the site, consisting primarily of a series of ditched enclosures (A to H) which were seen as cropmarks covering the whole site. Also belonging to this period were two roundhouses and a series of U-shaped structures. In the late Iron Age Phase 4, a rectilinear enclosure system on a northwest/south-east alignment, was established. It was dominated by a large subrectangular enclosure (J) which was subdivided into smaller compartments (J1-6). The southern edge of Enclosure J was demarcated by a north-west/south-east aligned trackway, with a pair of flanking ditches 13m apart. Further ditches extended from J to the north and west and delineated enclosures and fields. Enclosures K and L, to the north of J, had a similar alignment. Immediately east of J and just to the north of the roadway lay a small, unenclosed cemetery broadly contemporary with Phase 4. There was no mention of any marker associated with this cemetery, although there may have been since a Phase 5 and a Phase 6 ditch both turned to avoid it. If the core of activity in this period is assumed to be Enclosure J, then the focus had shifted east from Phase 3. In Phase 5 at least two distinct phases of a Romano-British field system were recognised. They lay on a broadly north-north-east/south-southwest alignment and appear to have been agricultural in nature, as little occupation debris was found. These ditches were mostly wide and shallow, with multiple re-cuts, suggesting a long period of use. Only a few sherds of third-century AD pottery were found on the site, indicating very little later RomanoBritish activity.

In and around the main enclosure were post-built structures and SFBs. Structure 4 was a post-built structure measuring c.5m by c.3m, which yielded no dating evidence. However, based on its morphology and finds of Anglo-Saxon pottery from a nearby posthole it was deemed contemporary with the enclosure. Around 200m north of the barrow was an SFB (structure 5), found during evaluation in 1991, radiocarbon dated to AD 430600 (95% confidence). As this date does not overlap with those from the enclosure fills, it is possible that there were several phases of occupation. Two further early to middle Anglo-Saxon SFBs and associated features, such as cesspits, were identified c.100m west of Structure 5 and c.60m north of the enclosure in 2004, while aerial photographs of the area around Structure 5 show dark patches which may be further SFBS. A kiln (feature 418), was also discovered within the main enclosure, consisting of two chambers with a narrow flue connecting them; there was little in the way of dating evidence, but it was stratigraphically linked to the Anglo-Saxon occupation. The pottery from the enclosure and associated features indicated a middle AngloSaxon date, although a single decorated sherd of the sixth century suggests that the site was occupied earlier, with plain handmade local wares also possibly dating to the sixth or seventh century. This corresponds with the radiocarbon date from Structure 5, and the excavators suggested that the enclosure had existed for much of this time, as early AngloSaxon material from the ditch fills may well have been cleared when the ditches were re-cut, which happened on a number of occasions. A notable feature of the animal bone assemblage at Wolverton Turn is the abundance of horse remains, which had a high frequency in comparison with other contemporary sites in the region. Animals of all ages were represented, including very young and very old individuals, which suggested that the horses were raised on the site. It was tentatively suggested by the excavators that the site could have been a specialist equine breeding and/or training centre.

The Anglo-Saxon features were situated in the south-east corner of the site, in the area of the late Iron Age compound J6 (formed by ditches F3, F5, F8 and F11; F3 and F11 were 0.95m to 1.5m wide and 0.26m to 0.53m deep, F8 was 0.58-1.52m wide and 0.22-1.02m deep, and F5 was 0.44-1.0m wide and 0.09-0.41m deep. The latter was the northern flanking ditch of the trackway and it had been re-cut on a number of occasions). Most of these Iron Age ditches were wide and shallow, and had been subject to multiple re-cuts, suggesting that they had been used over a long period of time. It is not clear what form they might have survived in, but some of the Anglo-Saxon features do appear to respect them. Features belonging to the Anglo-Saxon phase include a curvilinear ditch (F6/F420), five wells (F482, F500, F501, F552, F609), a pit (F529) and one, possibly two, postbuilt structures (structures 14 and 15). Most were located around J6, although one of the possible wells was further north. Wells F500, F501 and F552 were arranged in a closely-spaced

237

north-south aligned row, and two (F500 and F501) were located on top of a Phase 3 or 4 ditch, which might have influenced their alignment or location. Finds from the wells were scarce, with only one yielding pottery (Ipswich ware). Most of the other wells, in common with nearly all the Anglo-Saxon features on the site, contained fragments of lava quern, which to the excavators indicated an Anglo-Saxon date. Another well (F482) was located at the terminus of the Anglo-Saxon semi-circular ditch F6, which enclosed PBS 15, while PBS 14 was slightly further north. Neither structure yielded dating evidence, but morphologically an Anglo-Saxon date was considered most likely for PBS 15, while its position within the enclosure formed by Anglo-Saxon ditch F6 added weight to this suggestion. PBS 14 was more uncertain, but on the grounds of its comparable morphology to 15 it was assigned to the AngloSaxon phase. Structure 14 was rectangular, 9.25m long by 5m wide, with its eastern postholes dug into the silted ditch of an earlier enclosure, which may have had some influence on its position. Structure 15 measured approximately c.11m by c.5m although its form was not as clear as that of Structure 14.

the form of six closely spaced narrow gullies, some intercutting, measuring between 0.53m-1.5m in width and up to 0.56m deep (although some were not bottomed due to waterlogging). The ditches in Trenches 3 and 5 were all on the same west-northwest/east-south-east alignment, while the multiple gullies in Trench 9 were all on a north-west/south-east alignment. Extrapolating the Anglo-Saxon ditches showed that they were also on a similar alignment to the cropmark complex to the south; it is, therefore, possible that the field system survived as a feature which influenced the Anglo-Saxon site layout. Part of an SFB (F1159; 3.8m by at least 1.1m and 0.32m deep) was revealed in Trench 12, roughly in the middle of the area under evaluation. In its fill were eleven sherds of Anglo-Saxon and Saxo-Norman pottery. Further features associated with this phase of settlement were present in many other trenches, and many contained ‘Saxon’ pottery, although this was not analysed in detail, and much of the assemblage consisted of fairly undiagnostic local handmade pottery. Large sub-rectangular or sub-circular pits were investigated in Trenches 1, 2, 3 and 4, all measuring at least 0.9m by 2.1m in plan, although all of these features continued outside of the trenches so all were larger than this. The excavators interpreted these features as pits, although it seems possible that some may have been further SFBs, as they closely resembled the excavated SFB. All the pits had roughly vertical sides and flat bases, and although they were deeper than the SFB, their fills were also similar to that of the building, containing sherds of Anglo-Saxon or Saxo-Norman pottery and animal bone. None of the pits had postholes in them, but neither did the SFB. In addition to these features, there were also smaller, rounder pits scattered across the trenches, which were thought to be Anglo-Saxon, whilst postholes in Trenches 2, 3, 4, 5 and 12 were assigned an AngloSaxon date too as some, although not all, contained AngloSaxon and Saxo-Norman pottery.

The alignments of a number of the Anglo-Saxon features seem to have been influenced by the earlier ditches at Addenbrooke’s. PBS 14 was adjacent to, and aligned on, a Phase 5 ditch, whilst wells F500 and F501 were on top of a Phase 3 or 4 ditch. The excavators suggested that, as PBS 15 was tucked into a corner created by two Phase 3 or 4 ditches (F15 and F67), these also survived as earthworks, perhaps enhanced by hedge-lines. It was explicitly suggested that the Anglo-Saxon builders conveniently re-utilised the remnant earthwork boundaries, which may have been associated with banks (the remains of which did not survive) or hedgerows. As such, it was questioned whether the apparently Anglo-Saxon ditch F6 really was a newly-established feature as it seemed to be, or if it was a re-cut of an earlier feature which obliterated all traces of the original. Although F6 had Anglo-Saxon material in its lower fills, its alignment seemed to mirror the arrangement of the Phase 4 ditch F816 to the north of the site and it respected – or perhaps even continued – the alignment of the south corner of the Roman field system (formed by F9, F178, F491 and F492). The Anglo-Saxon pottery assemblage consisted only of twentyone sherds and included Ipswich ware and a single St Neots sherd (of the ninth to eleventh centuries), suggesting a middle Anglo-Saxon date. Source: Evans et al. 2004.

This site is difficult to assess in the context of this study as the trial trench evaluation was by its very nature limited. In particular, few conclusions were drawn about the exact date of the site, as many features could not be closely dated. The excavation report states that in some features ‘Saxon’ pottery sherds were noted, while in others there were ‘Saxo-Norman’ sherds, although it is not clear how precisely the pottery analysis was carried out or to which point in the ‘Saxon’ period pottery belonged. The small sizes of the trenches also meant that it was virtually impossible to tell whether the positions of alignments of Anglo-Saxon buildings and pits were influenced by the Iron Age ditches. Nonetheless, although it is uncertain in what form the prehistoric boundaries might still have been visible, it did seem to be the case that the Anglo-Saxon and Iron Age boundaries shared the same alignment, and the locations of the Anglo-Saxon features may have been influenced by these earlier ditches. Source: McDonald et al. 2000.

Harston Mill, Harston, Cambridgeshire (Fig. 4.32) GR: TL 4180 5075 Cambridgeshire HER no. CB14545. Pastscape no. N/A. Harston lies approximately 8km south-west of Cambridge, on the banks of the River Cam in a shallow valley. Between 19992001 Hertfordshire Archaeological Trust carried out a trial trenching evaluation, opening twelve trenches (McDonald et al. 2000). This uncovered late Iron Age (and possibly middle Iron Age) features, as well as Anglo-Saxon features. Discrete features were primarily located to the west of the site, whilst ditches had a broader distribution and may have been related to cropmark enclosures noted to the south of the evaluation area. The late Iron Age period was represented by ditch F1173 in Trench 6, which shared a west-north-west/east-south-east and north-north-east/south-south-west alignment with the dense network of cropmark ditches to the south of the site; occupation in this period might have been centred on this cropmark area.

Manor Farm, Harston, Cambridgeshire (Figs. 4.21 and 4.22) GR: TL 418 498 Cambridgeshire HER no. 04122. Pastscape no. 370955. In common with the previous site, Manor Farm was located in Harston. In the 1950s and 1960s aerial photographs revealed cropmark features at the site, which were scheduled in 1978 (Malim 1991; 1993). Destructive farming processes prompted excavation in 1991, in order to assess the damage to these features, which included a cropmark rectilinear enclosure and trackways, a pit alignment and a major ditch to the north of Manor Farm. In a field to the north of the A10 near the farm a concentration of ring ditches was seen, and at least two more were identified south of the farm. Features to the south of the

An Anglo-Saxon date was attributed to other excavated ditches; two were exposed in Trench 3 (features 1033 and 1037), and another two in Trench 5 (features 1126 and 1144). Further possible Anglo-Saxon field boundaries ran across Trench 9, in

238

farm also included the rectangular plans of foundation trenches of timber buildings, as well as smaller sub-square cropmarks resembling SFBs. A cluster of small marks adjacent to the nearby Hoffer Brook may be graves, possibly part of an AngloSaxon cemetery.

line of the plotted rectangular enclosure. Postholes and small ditched enclosures were also found in Trenches 7 and 8, and were thought to be Anglo-Saxon. Thus, there is settlement evidence for the Anglo-Saxon period in the area of Trenches 7, 8 and 13, to the north of the SFB in ring ditch in Trench 9. Analysis of the ceramics suggested a date of the fifth or sixth century for the settlement based on finds of decorated sherds. It was proposed that the structural evidence and the possibility of a cemetery near the Hoffer Brook strongly suggested the presence of an important early Anglo-Saxon settlement, although this idea was not expanded upon. Sources: Malim 1991; 1993.

Twelve trenches were excavated, each c.50m long, and all were located to sample major cropmark features in the fields under study. Trenches 1-5 were in the field north-east of Manor Farm, and were all c.1.5m wide; they were positioned over the rectilinear field system. Trenches 6-8 sampled a large doubleditched rectilinear enclosure immediately south-east of Manor Farm, while Trenches 9 and 11 crossed the two ring ditches south of the farm. Trench 10 investigated ditches forming a disturbed pattern of enclosures to the south of the study area, whilst Trench 12 investigated an area which appeared devoid of features on the aerial photos in order to confirm its apparent sterility. Trench 13 was added to supplement Trench 8 and to investigate the possibility that the small cropmark enclosure in this area might have been a building. Of the twelve trenches positioned to investigate the cropmark features, Trenches 6, 7, 8, 9 and 13 contained evidence of Anglo-Saxon occupation.

Willington, Derbyshire (Fig. 4.11) GR: SK 285 278 Derbyshire HER no. 27928. Pastscape no. 310191. Aerial photographs of the Willington site revealed that archaeological features were being threatened by gravel quarrying in the early 1970s (Wheeler 1979). Three ring ditches were identified and investigated, although it appears that Barrow 1 was the only visible monument in the Anglo-Saxon period. Half of this barrow had been destroyed by quarrying before excavation, but the ring ditch was found to have a diameter of 36m, a width of 1.3m and a depth of 1.4m, and was still visible as a slight rise at the time of excavation. The original mound edge was difficult to define as it had eroded and been spread by ploughing, but there appeared to be an area 89m wide gap between the inner edge of the ring ditch and the edge of the mound, suggesting that there had been a berm. This barrow was dated to the late Neolithic or Bronze Age. Approximately 60m from the barrow was a possible AngloSaxon post-built structure in the form of six or seven postholes, labelled Group G. They were in an area which also contained Neolithic post-built structures, but the Group G postholes differed from others, in that they were filled with a darker soil, they were larger (0.4-0.75m in diameter) and deeper (up to 0.38m deep). The postholes were thought to be part of a building, and the presence of Anglo-Saxon pottery in a plough furrow above the building suggested that it belonged to this phase.

In Trench 9 two overlapping SFBs (‘pits’ 15 and 16) had been built in the centre of a ring ditch, one of which had apparently replaced the other. The ring ditch was assigned a Bronze Age date, and it was 19m diameter, with a ditch between 1.6-3.0m wide and up to 0.8m deep. A further ring ditch was located just over 100m to the south in Trench 11, and was slightly larger at 23m diameter. The assertion that these were the remains of barrows was supported by the discovery of a cremation in the Trench 11 barrow. The SFBs in the middle of the ring ditch in Trench 9 appeared to cut through an orangey-brown deposit which had eroded over the ring ditch and which may have been the remains of a mound. No cremations were found in this barrow, although this may have been the result of disturbance by the construction of the SFBs. In the fills of the SFBs were early Anglo-Saxon pottery sherds, and animal bone. Pit 16 contained some particularly interesting artefacts, including a Romano-British sherd with fourth- or fifth-century stamped decoration, a clay spindle whorl in a Roman fabric but with probable Anglo-Saxon decoration, and a base sherd of a Roman Nene Valley colour-coated beaker deliberately ground down around the edges. Charcoal from the base of pit 16 yielded a radiocarbon date of AD 460-645 (68% confidence). These two phases of ring ditch were thus located on top of a pre-existing mound; pit 15 was 0.15m deep and pit 16 was 0.25m deep, both relatively shallow for SFBs, probably indicating that they had once been cut deeper into a now-eroded mound.

Barrow 2 and another ring ditch both belonged to the Iron Age. They were located to the west of Barrow 1 and were much smaller, at 18m diameter and 8m diameter respectively. A number of later Iron Age and Romano-British features, including pits and ditches, were situated on them or running through them, suggesting that they were no longer visible in these periods. Other prehistoric features included more ephemeral late Bronze Age or early Iron Age hut circles, fourpost granary structures and pits, which are unlikely to have survived as earthworks into the Anglo-Saxon period. Two Romano-British agricultural enclosure systems were also identified, one to the far west of the threatened area, the other in the middle; it is this latter enclosure system (Romano-British Farmstead 1) which seems to have influenced later occupation. Both sets of enclosures were dated to the second century, with Farmstead 1 perhaps beginning in the late first century and Farmstead 2 continuing into the third century, and there was little evidence for any dwellings of this period. There was evidence to suggest that three second- to early third-century Romano-British ditches in Farmstead 1 were visible in the medieval period as they lay beneath medieval plough furrows, which followed the same alignment.

Elsewhere, Trench 6 was placed across a small rectangular enclosure, thought to represent an Anglo-Saxon timber building. Excavation revealed that there were, indeed, two ditches (36 and 112) approximately 0.6m wide, in addition to two postholes (113 and 114). Meanwhile, at the eastern end of Trench 7 were two ditches (34 and 58) which corresponded with ditches of a large enclosure seen on the cropmark plot. Ditch 34 was almost 3m wide and 0.65m deep, and two of the three sherds of pottery obtained from it were Anglo-Saxon, whilst ditch 58 was 1.1m wide and 0.85m deep. A terminal of ditch 58 was uncovered, in which a fragment of Anglo-Saxon bone comb, a sherd of Anglo-Saxon pot and a Romano-British sherd were found. Trench 13 was placed over another possible timber building and, unlike the other trenches, it was E-shaped, with three arms leading northwards from an east-west aligned ‘backbone’. This trench contained a large number of postholes, gullies and small ditches, and although no coherent plan could be reconstructed in the ground, they did correspond with a rectangular feature seen on a geophysical survey. In particular, gully 88 followed the

In the area of Romano-British Farmstead 1, and just to the north of it, were buildings and other features belonging to a settlement of the sixth century. There were three SFBs, as well as pits and postholes close to the huts. SFB 1 was 2m south of the Iron Age

239

ring ditch, but as there was no evidence to suggest that this ring ditch had a mound it seems unlikely that the feature influenced the position of the building. SFB 2 lay 1m west of a large Romano-British enclosure ditch, while SFB 3 lay in the middle of Romano-British farmstead 1, inserted into an internal ditch of that date. Pottery of sixth-century date was present in some quantity and came from all three SFBs, while contemporary pits and postholes were scattered around these SFBs. The SFBs appear to have been influenced more by the Romano-British field system than by any prehistoric features, and it is unclear how they related to the structure closer to the barrow towards the east of the site, although the space between the two AngloSaxon occupation foci was not excavated, nor was the land to the east of the Neolithic barrow (as this had been quarried away by the time the excavation began), so it is possible that these were part of a larger Anglo-Saxon settlement at Willington. Source: Wheeler 1979.

posts, termed ‘ridge-spine’ structures by the excavators. The smallest and simplest (buildings VI, VII and VIII) consisted of just three or four postholes in a row, whilst the more complicated examples (II and III) consisted of longer lines of postholes with another row of three at either end (building II) or at just one end (building III). Both buildings II and III were c.20m long. Similar pottery was associated with both SFBs and ‘ridge-spine’ buildings, suggesting that they were contemporary, although no stratigraphic relationships existed to confirm this. Sherds of grass-tempered pottery were found in the lower fills of most SFBs, which also contained loomweights, knives, fragments of iron and bronze (derived from the Romano-British industrial activity). Thirteen sherds of Romano-British pottery, all of which had been cut down and shaped, were found in features in Area 1. All the Anglo-Saxon buildings in Area 1 were well within the Iron Age enclosure, with none located over the ditches of the main enclosure, suggesting that it was still a visible earthwork. This is supported by the observation that the southern internal ditch, which was added to the enclosure after its construction, cut through an internal bank of the main enclosure. The enclosure ditches were between c.2.2m and c.3m wide, and 0.6m-1m deep, and it is possible that they were also visible earthworks in the AngloSaxon period.

Foxholes Farm, Hertfordshire (Fig. 4.39) GR: TL 34383 12588 Hertfordshire HER (no. unknown). Pastscape no. 367837. Foxholes Farm lies on a scarp bordering the southern edge of the Lea Valley (Partridge 1989). In 1973, during gravel extraction, preliminary fieldwalking was undertaken and in 1974 trial excavation took place, revealing many late Iron Age and Romano-British features. Large-scale excavation subsequently took place and continued almost constantly until 1976. This part of the site was classed as Area 1. Later in 1976 the quarrying company transferred their activities to the south side of the newly constructed dual carriageway; this area was classed as Area 2, and total excavation of this part of the site was attempted. Excavations in Area 2 ceased in 1978, when quarrying operations prevented any more work. Further areas were then investigated, although only Areas 1 and 2 revealed Anglo-Saxon occupation. Also in Areas 1 and 2 were Bronze Age and early Iron Age buildings, while in Area 1 a Bronze Age or early Iron Age sub-oval enclosure had been overlain by a sub-rectangular enclosure dating to around the second century BC, and the latter was almost completely excavated. About 30m south-east of this, in Area 2, were sections of ditches belonging to a smaller enclosure or perhaps an annexe to the main one in Area 1. A broad date of c.600 BC to AD 300 was given to the Area 2 enclosures, but it was suggested that they could have been earlier than the more northerly ones in Area 1. Further features in Area 1 included short lengths of Romano-British ditch (dating to AD 50-250) and a cemetery of the same date.

Area 2 contained further Anglo-Saxon buildings, including three SFBs, another ridge-spine building and a subrectangular posthole structure c.8m long. These buildings were scattered across an area that had been dissected by late Iron Age and Romano-British ditches. There were several short lengths of late Iron Age ditch, which may have been contemporary with the Area 1 enclosure, although all the ditches extended beyond the western edge of the excavation area and were not particularly well understood. The principal linear features in this area were a north-south droveway on the eastern side of the site, with a single parallel ditch running down the western edge of the site, and a slightly curving east-west aligned boundary connecting them. Little dating evidence came from the ditches, apart from a few abraded sherds of Romano-British greywares. The evidence for the Anglo-Saxon buildings reusing the earlier linear features in this area is less convincing than in Area 1, as the buildings are fairly widely scattered across the area. However, all three SFBs and the ridge-spine building follow the north-northwest/south-south-east alignment of the ditch that runs across the site, and the boundaries may have had some influence on the sixth- to eighth- century settlement. The excavation report suggested that the unusual ridge-spine buildings would have been flimsy and short-lived, and that they may have been tent-like structures on a temporary settlement, perhaps a fair or camp. However, this possibility is thrown into question when we consider that buildings III and IV overlapped, suggesting some longevity of occupation, and by the presence of SFBs and an ordinary post-built structure, which arguably represent a greater investment of time and effort than a temporary camp. On the basis of the ceramic evidence the settlement was assigned a date of the sixth to eighth centuries, and most of this material was stratified within the Anglo-Saxon buildings. Although there are often similarities between Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon handmade ceramics in this area, the two were distinguishable, as the Iron Age pottery was tempered with grog, sand, clay pellets, crushed flint, quartz and rounded pebbles, while the Anglo-Saxon pottery was grass-wiped and tempered with grass as well as flint and quartz. It was noted that the Anglo-Saxon pottery was not closely datable, and the wares found at Foxholes Farm could have dated from the sixth to eleventh centuries, but the vessels forms (mainly plain globular jars) were suggested to be of fifth- to seventh-century date. Source: Partridge 1989.

The late Iron Age sub-rectangular enclosure (F1) in Area 1 measured 130m by 80m, and pottery of the late second century to first century BC was recovered from the lower fills of its ditches. Two internal sub-dividing ditches were found within the enclosure, slightly off centre to the eastern side of the enclosure, with an entrance c.5m wide between them. These dividing ditches were added after the construction of the main enclosure ditch, since F130, the more southerly of the two, had been cut through an original internal bank of F1. Lining up with the entrance between the two subdividing ditches, in the east side of the main enclosure F1, was another entrance, also c.5m wide. Inside the enclosure were a number of features thought to be associated with the fourth-century industrial phase, as they yielded late Roman pottery and third- to fourth-century coins. These features included two-post structures, a four-post structure and an oven or kiln, as well as five corndrying ovens scattered inside and just outside the enclosure. The Iron Age enclosure in Area 1 contained nine Anglo-Saxon buildings; two were SFBs, and the other seven were a rather unusual style of structure with central rows of postholes and end

240

Pastscape no. 1342524. Three Bronze Age barrows have been excavated ahead of gravel quarrying at Cossington, two in 1976 and another in 1999 (Thomas 2007a; 2007b; 2008). Barrows 1 and 2, excavated in 1976, lay in the southern part of the quarry 300m north of the River Wreake, while Barrow 3 lay further north in the quarry area, c.500m away. The barrows belonged to a dispersed cemetery at the confluence of the Rivers Soar and Wreake, which has been identified through aerial photography. Barrow 3 formed the focus of Anglo-Saxon funerary and settlement activity and was particularly well preserved. The ring ditch had an internal diameter of c.25m, a width of 2.5m-3.5m at the top, and an average depth of 1.2m. Radiocarbon dates suggested that the ditch had was infilled by the second millennium BC, but the mound was still visible at the time of excavation as a slight earthwork, 0.5m high, having slipped to cover an area c.60m in diameter. There were some traces of primary prehistoric burials in the mound, although bone preservation was almost nonexistent in the acidic soil. This barrow had also become the focus for settlement in the Iron Age, when enclosures and a roundhouse were located nearby. Deliberate burial of whole or near-complete pots also seems to have taken place in the Iron Age, extending into the first or second century AD. In the sixth and seventh centuries the barrow became the focus for a small inhumation cemetery. Bone had been destroyed by the acidic soil, but groups of metalwork, indicative of graves, were located. Defining the grave cuts was difficult in the sandy soil, but two large grave-shaped pits were discovered on the edge of the barrow. In other areas around the barrow discrete groups of finds suggested the presence of further interments. A more dispersed scatter of metal artefacts around the monument suggested that other graves might have been disturbed by intensive ploughing and their contents spread over the surrounding area. The metal artefacts included knives, spearheads, a shield boss, copper alloy dress fittings and brooches.

Old Parkbury, Hertfordshire (Fig. 4.16) GR: TL 1590 0230 Hertfordshire HER nos. 6977 (prehistoric) and 9706 (AngloSaxon). Pastscape no. N/A. Rescue excavations at Old Parkbury in 1989 uncovered a burnt Neolithic logboat ahead of quarrying (Niblett 2001). A large dark patch in the gravel (c.3m by 6.5m) was seen, which on excavation was found to be an elongated oval pit with steeply sloping sides and a flat base 0.2-0.4m below the surface of the natural gravel. A burnt dugout boat was found in the pit, containing the cremated bones of an adult. The boat was fragmentary and hard to reconstruct but it had a total length of 5.3m and an overall diameter of 1.07m, and it had clearly been burnt in situ. Two radiocarbon samples were taken, giving calibrated dates of 3980-3790 BC and 4035-3705 BC, with a mean of 3952 BC. Although no trace of a mound or ring ditch was found associated with the dugout boat, it was suggested that a now-eroded mound may have been present originally. A mechanical digger had been used to remove topsoil and this could have destroyed any traces of a mound. Furthermore, erosion and ploughing had truncated many features on the site. Subsequent insertion of a middle Bronze Age Deverel-Rimbury bucket urn (feature AMK), which possibly held a cremation, in a pit 7.7m to the north-west of the logboat suggests that some form of marker did survive, and attracted later funerary activity. The position of the logboat burial on the edge of a gravel terrace would have meant that in a treeless landscape even a low mound would have been visible on the skyline from the river valley. Nearly 200 other features of Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age date were found cut into the gravel subsoil in the same field as the boat, but as they consisted of pits, ditches, postholes, stakeholes and two small roundhouses or pens they are unlikely to have formed visible earthworks. There were also two Anglo-Saxon SFBs; the first (ADH/K) was sub-rectangular (3.5m by 3.8m and cut 0.25m into the subsoil). Large unweathered sherds of grass-tempered pottery were found lying on the floor of the feature, and in the St Albans area this pottery is usually dated to the sixth to eighth centuries. This feature was located c.30m north of the logboat. The other possible SFB (AFN/P) was c.5m south of the logboat. This did not contain pottery, but it was morphologically similar to ADH/K and it had a similar fill. This SFB abutted the northwest quadrant of a prehistoric roundhouse or pen, defined by a penannular ring gully (0.5-0.73m wide and c.0.3m deep), with a sub-rectangular area 4.5m by 2.3m. Given the shallow, narrow nature of the ring gully it is hard to claim that this would have been visible in the Anglo-Saxon period although, as at Pennyland, this is an interesting juxtaposition and it might just have been visible in the subsoil if the site had been stripped of topsoil prior to construction. As this SFB was close to the logboat it is possible that, if there was a mound or ring ditch around the logboat, this building would have been in close proximity to the monument. The excavation report for Old Parkbury contains a number of errors, which hamper efforts to use the information in it. Many features marked on the site plan are not discussed in the text, or they are given different codes on the plan from those in the text. For example, the SFB containing the sixth- to eighth-century pottery is called ADH/K in the text, but labelled as ABH on the plan. In sum, however, there is a case for arguing that there may well have been a mound at Old Parkbury, and that it became the focus for Anglo-Saxon activity. Source: Niblett 2001.

In 2001 a watching brief and salvage excavation took place in an area c.60m north of Barrow 3 (Area E). At the time of excavation this area had already been stripped of topsoil ahead of quarrying, and some parts had already been destroyed, but a 35m by 70m ‘island’ was intact and was subject to salvage recording. This contained Anglo-Saxon settlement features including an SFB (c.4m by 2.7m) and associated pits, postholes and linear features, mostly on the eastern edge of the excavated area. The SFB lay within the corner of a right-angled linear feature, which was not excavated. Pits and postholes lay close to the SFB and yielded no datable material, but based on their proximity to the building they may have been contemporary. Some 15m west of the SFB an almost complete Anglo-Saxon pottery vessel and part of a loomweight were discovered during topsoil stripping, although there was no evidence for a feature from which these might have come, and they may have been disturbed. A joining sherd from the vessel was recovered from a pit (F36) on the northern edge of the area, about 30m away. The vessel was also similar in form to the one found at the base of Pit F35, which had been dug into the edge of Barrow 3. Iron Age occupation in Area E was indicated by several large ditches. On the northern edge of the excavation area was a rightangled enclosure ditch containing Iron Age pottery. The excavated part of the enclosure was c.15m wide and may have been part of a larger square enclosure, the ditch measuring up to 2.7m wide and 0.6m deep. Several other Iron Age ditches were found on the western edge of the excavation area. The rightangled section of ditch in close proximity to the SFB in the south-east corner of the site was uninvestigated and undated. Anglo-Saxon pottery in a spread of material thought to have come from the ditch fill suggests an Anglo-Saxon date for the

Cossington Quarry, Leicestershire (Fig. 4.10) GR: SK 613 102 Leicestershire HER no. unknown.

241

feature, but another possibility is that it was an Iron Age ditch, perhaps with Anglo-Saxon pottery in its upper fills.

there to have been a bank, unless they were partially cut into it for shelter. Nonetheless, support for the suggestion that there was originally a bank comes from the upper fills of ditch F62 (the eastern ditch of the enclosure), which seemed to have derived from a bank being ploughed back into the ditch in the early post-medieval period, when stone drains were also built in the Iron Age enclosure ditch; this suggests that both the ditch and bank were still visible as earthworks at this time. Charcoal from all the ditch phases included hedgerow species, which may indicate that hedges were also used as boundaries. Sources: Clay 1983; 1985; 1992; Meek et al. 2004; Sharman and Clay 1991.

There was also evidence for Anglo-Saxon activity in the vicinity of Barrows 1 and 2. Anglo-Saxon pottery was scattered across the area around the barrows, while sherds were found in both the inner and outer ditches of the double-ditched Barrow 2. It was suggested that the Anglo-Saxon pottery represented the vestiges of more widespread activity in this area, associated with the remains of the monuments, especially as there were sherds in the barrow ditches, although the nature of that activity could not be ascertained without further excavation. Sources: Thomas 2007a; Thomas 2007b; Thomas 2008.

Eye Kettleby, Leicestershire GR: SK 731 180 Leicestershire HER no. MLE 3981. Pastscape no. N/A. Case study site: see Chapter 6 for further information.

Enderby, Leicestershire (Fig. 4.37) GR: SP 550 999 Leicestershire HER no. MLE112 (Iron Age features only). Pastscape no. 316942. Enderby is located c.5km south-west of Leicester. A subrectangular Iron Age enclosure was found during aerial reconnaissance in 1989, 350m south of another, similar Iron Age enclosure excavated in 1983-4 (Clay 1992; Meek et al. 2004). Ten trial trenches were subsequently placed over the cropmark enclosure in 1990, with more extensive excavation in 1996 (Meek eta l. 2004). There were two Iron Age phases to the enclosure, each associated with two roundhouses. Excavation revealed that the enclosure dated to the late Iron Age (c.175 BCAD 43), and was probably contemporary with the enclosure investigated in 1983-4 to the north. The ditch of the enclosure had seen at least one phase of re-cutting, and it terminated on either side of a north-east facing entrance, through which ran the remains of a gravel trackway. In its first phase the enclosure was trapezoidal, with an entrance to the north-west, and a Vshaped ditch c.1.5m deep. Subsequently, the northern ditch was abandoned and replaced by another, 2m to the south, with no entrance. Later, this northern ditch was backfilled and the enclosure was extended to the north into a large D-shape, although a hollow was left by the previous northern ditch, which now bisected the enclosure and may have acted as a drainage gully or internal division. This larger phase of enclosure, with deeper ditches, dates from c.25 BC-AD 50.

Knave Hill, Stonton Wyville, Leicestershire (Fig. 4.38) GR: 474190 293356 Leicestershire HER no. MLE 17032. Pastscape no. N/A. Knave Hill is located in Stonton Wyville, in a large field covering c.18 hectares (Wessex Archaeology 2008). The Stonton Wyville survey (1996-2004) incorporated fieldwalking across forty-five fields in the parish and identified four concentrations of Anglo-Saxon pottery; one to the north of the village, one to the east and two to the south (Vince 2006). The two concentrations to the south represented the largest scatter of Anglo-Saxon pottery identified by fieldwalking in Leicestershire, producing a total of 245 sherds, and the Knave Hill site lies within this concentration. Interestingly, the second largest concentration, produced by the same fieldwalking methods, was at Eye Kettleby, suggesting that there may have been a settlement of comparable size at Knave Hill, only a fraction of which was excavated. A magnetometer survey was carried out in two areas of the site in 2007, although the recent harrowing of the field produced noise that might have masked weaker anomalies, especially those associated with the Anglo-Saxon period (Wessex Archaeology 2008). A major discovery was a D-shaped enclosure, while a number of pits and ditches were observed, and there were also ridge and furrow responses. The part of the field designated Area 1 contained the linear and curvilinear ditches of the D-shaped enclosure, as well as a smaller associated enclosure. The internal space of the D-shaped enclosure was sub-divided by shorter ditch responses, while outside the enclosure were further responses including a ditch which may be part of an entrance into the complex. In Area 2 the responses were not as strong, perhaps suggesting that occupation was centred on the D-shaped enclosure. Ditches were observed on the geophysical survey and may form part of an enclosure, but the remains appeared to be damaged. A number of pit-like anomalies were also seen in Area 2; they could have been archaeological, or they may have related to a former quarry known to have existed to the north-east. Following the survey trenches were opened as part of a Channel 4 Time Team investigation; Trenches 1, 2 and 4 were located in Area 1, while Trench 3 was further east in Area 2.

Fieldwalking on the site of the enclosure produced nineteen sherds of early Anglo-Saxon pottery and a spindle whorl, most of which were within the Iron Age enclosure. Trenches inside the enclosure did not uncover any Anglo-Saxon remains, but about 20m outside it (in Area IV) part of an SFB (c.2.5m by at least c.2.5m and 0.05m-0.15m). The presence of fifth- to sixthcentury pottery across the site suggests that this was an AngloSaxon building, although it did contain some Iron Age pottery, and it was suggested that it could have been an Iron Age feature, as sunken buildings of that date are not unknown. However, comparing Enderby with other sites in the corpus, such as Grange Park and Thorpe End, provides support for an Anglo-Saxon date, especially when pottery of that period was found across the site. Two postholes and six gullies of unknown date were also discovered in Area IV. Elsewhere on site plough damage had been considerable and had destroyed all features except those cut into the subsoil, which may explain the lack of further Anglo-Saxon features. The trenches did not uncover the entire interior of the enclosure, and it is possible that there were further Anglo-Saxon features inside it.

Trench 1 was situated over the D-shaped enclosure. A large number of postholes were discovered at the northern end of the trench, while further south in the trench, within the enclosure, were ditches, gullies, pits and possible postholes. The enclosure ditch (126) was uncovered and found to be wide and narrow, containing pottery of the late Iron Age to the second century AD. This pottery was mixed, however, and was thought to have

The ditch of the Iron Age enclosure was substantial (c.1.5m deep and c.5m wide), and it was suggested that a large amount of upcast material would have been generated, which could have created a bank. Iron Age enclosures such as this often have internal banks, although this is thrown into doubt at Enderby, since two of the roundhouses were too close to the ditch for

242

been a secondary fill, while four small sherds in a sandy fabric may have been Anglo-Saxon. The postholes to the north of the ditch formed a definite north-west/south-east aligned row and a possible return, aligned north-east/south-west, forming part of a structure at least 10m long by 4m wide (Structure 1). AngloSaxon pottery was recovered from some of these postholes. To the south of the ditch, within the enclosure, was a row of four possible postholes, on the same alignment as the ditch. Although these yielded no positive dating evidence they could also have been Anglo-Saxon in date.

Sources: Vince 2006; Wessex Archaeology 2008. Frieston Road, Lincolnshire (Fig. 4.20) GR: SK 9330 4684 Lincolnshire HER no. 35527-MLI82472. Pastscape no. N/A. The site at Frieston Road was located on high ground between the villages of Hough-on-the-Hill and Caythorpe and was investigated in 2000 ahead of the construction of a gas pipeline (Copp and Toop 2006; Toop and Copp 2005). An initial geophysical survey of the site revealed a number of linear and curvilinear anomalies, which were subsequently investigated by trial trenching and found to represent a ring ditch and pit alignment. The ring ditch was on the south side of the pipeline easement, with a ditch 1.2-1.8m wide and up to 0.6m deep. The ditch was continuous in plan and c.13m diameter, and it appeared to have been re-cut on at least three occasions on the same footprint. Pottery recovered from the feature indicated that it was Bronze Age in date. Crossing the pipeline easement on a north-west/south-west axis was a pit alignment, which bisected the ring ditch. Thirty pits were traced over a distance of 70m, although only twelve were excavated. The pits were closely spaced, suggested that originally they would have abutted each other or overlapped slightly, creating a continuous feature. Five of the pits (F122-F126) were located within the area demarcated by the ring ditch, and were larger and deeper than the pits excavated elsewhere. They were rock cut, square or subrectangular in plan, 0.73-0.90m deep, and 1.86-2.30m wide. A small amount of late Bronze Age or early Iron Age pottery was recovered, although a middle Iron Age date was thought possible, based on comparison with other sites and the few finds that came from the pits.

Trench 2 was east of Trench 1, and situated over an anomaly thought to be an internal division of the enclosure. A northwest/south-east aligned ditch was excavated, confirming the geophysical interpretation, and it appeared to have been filled in during the Roman period. Trench 3 lay outside the main enclosure some 140m to the east of Trench 2, and it was positioned over another possible internal enclosure identified through geophysical survey. It contained no Anglo-Saxon structural evidence, although three linear features that had given no geophysical response contained Roman and Anglo-Saxon material, and may have had an agricultural function. Trench 4, the most westerly of the four trenches, yielded further AngloSaxon features, in the form of a large number of postholes, many of which were small and irregular. A number were much more distinct, and formed the western and eastern wall lines of another Anglo-Saxon building (Structure 2), with a row of possible postholes representing a southern wall. To the north, the structure seems to have extended beyond the edge of the trench. This building was c.4.5m wide and at least 6m long. A bone pin or needle was found in one posthole (421), but otherwise the only dating evidence was a single Anglo-Saxon sherd from posthole 452. Within the building were traces of an occupation layer and a possible hearth (or dump of hearth material), which contained Anglo-Saxon material. The finds from Trenches 1 and 4 suggest that the focus of the AngloSaxon occupation lay just to the north-west of the Iron Age enclosure, inside and outside it.

It appeared, then, that the ring ditch was an early Bronze Age monument, which had been cut by the pit alignment in the later Bronze Age or Iron Age. However, interpretation of the features and the relationships between them was not straightforward. The excavators noted that it was not impossible that the ring ditch was later than the pit alignment, as there were no stratigraphical relationships between them. On balance, the excavators concluded that the ring ditch was an early Bronze Age monument with a funerary use (indicated by the finds of Bronze Age urn sherds in the ditch, which may have belonged to funerary deposits removed by the re-cutting of the ditch) that the pit alignment was an Iron Age feature, which perhaps reinforced a boundary that had earlier been marked by the ring ditch, since the precise bisection of the ring ditch was unlikely to be a coincidence.

A total of fifty-six early to middle Anglo-Saxon sherds were recovered and assigned a fifth- to eighth-century date. The fabrics are all likely to have been locally produced, and there was only one decorated sherd. There were few chronologically distinctive artefacts, and the lack of dating evidence from the post-built structures meant that it was not possible to determine whether they were contemporary or not. Four copper-alloy coins of the third and fourth centuries were found, three with deliberate modification; one had been pierced for suspension and another two had been polished smooth on the obverse side. These coins seem to have been deliberately collected and modified during the Anglo-Saxon period. All were from Trench 1; one was unstratified and the three others were retrieved from the topsoil.

A single SFB (F143; 3.5m by 4.1m and up to 0.45m deep) was also discovered, cutting the ring ditch in its south-west quadrant, so that half of the pit was outside the ring ditch and the other half inside. An assemblage of early to middle AngloSaxon pottery was recovered from the feature, as well as part of a bone comb and a small assemblage of animal bone. There were two shallow pits to the north of the SFB, within the area defined by the ring ditch, containing similar pottery. The pottery from the Anglo-Saxon features was handmade and fairly undiagnostic. It was assigned a late sixth- or early seventhcentury date, although the presence of Maxey-type wares suggested that there had been a phase of occupation in the middle or later seventh century too. The late sixth- or early seventh-century phase was suggested by the decoration on one vessel. Similar Anglo-Saxon pottery was also found in relatively large quantities in the upper fills of the ring ditch, indicating that the feature was a visible earthwork at that time. It seems likely that the positioning of the SFB over the ring ditch was deliberate. The excavators asserted that the most fitting interpretation of the monument was that it was a Bronze Age

The ditches of the Iron Age enclosure were thought to have been truncated by later ploughing and in some places the archaeology was overlain and obscured by ridge and furrow. It is uncertain in what form the enclosure might have survived; the upcast from the ditches may have been used to construct banks (and the fact that there were no traces of banks may be due to the intensive ploughing of the site). As the Anglo-Saxon features produced no geophysical responses it is possible that there were further settlement features in and around the enclosure, although we might expect SFBs to have been visible on the survey. The small scale of the investigation in comparison with the area of the enclosure, and the large pottery assemblage retrieved during fieldwalking, mean that it is possible that there were further Anglo-Saxon settlement features in the vicinity of the Iron Age enclosure at Knave Hill.

243

round barrow, in the absence of any other evidence for an alternative use. Geophysical survey in the vicinity of the pipeline trench also revealed that similar ring ditches were nearby, suggesting that it was part of a larger group of monuments, perhaps a barrow cemetery. In addition, anomalies indicative of SFBs were also noted to the north and south-west of the trench, suggesting that more extensive Anglo-Saxon settlement remains were present at Frieston Road. Sources: Copp and Toop 2006; Toop and Copp 2005.

A further phase of excavation, carried out by Birmingham University Field Archaeology Unit, also took place in 2001 (Ramsey 2001). This targeted unexamined areas away from the possible barrow; the northern edge of the excavation area was c.30m south of the centre of the ring ditch found previously. Four phases of occupation were discovered: Phase 1 (Neolithic and Bronze Age); Phase 2 (early to middle Anglo-Saxon); Phase 3 (medieval); and Phase 4 (post-medieval and modern). Phase 1 was represented solely by an assemblage of flint. A series of discrete pits and postholes were found to belong to Phase 2, all of which contained the same range of Anglo-Saxon pottery fabrics. The Phase 2 features included three large shallow pits near the north corner of the site (F404, F410 and F425), with three postholes in the base of F410 suggesting that it was an SFB. Four smaller pits were discovered in this area too (F402, F411, F429, F432). To the south of F410 was another large shallow pit (F428) with postholes in its base, which contained c.300 sherds of pottery, as well as Anglo-Saxon loomweights; this appears to have been another SFB. An irregular pit feature (F455) lay directly west of F428, and another pit of this period (F444) was located towards the eastern corner of the site. Ramsey (2001) suggested that these and other shallow pit features were the heavily truncated remains of SFBs. The preservation of the features was extremely poor; medieval plough furrows crossed the site, and a possible SFB F425 had been damaged by a land drain. This heavy truncation may well explain why the barrows to the north were no longer visible. The pottery from the pits and SFBs consisted of c.400 sherds, the majority classed as early to middle Anglo-Saxon in date.

High Farm, Halton Holegate, Lincolnshire (Fig. 4.12) GR: TF 41310 65600 Lincolnshire HER nos. 43944 (prehistoric) and 46666 (AngloSaxon). Pastscape no. N/A. High Farm is located c.600m north-west of the core of Halton Holegate village, at the southern edge of the Lincolnshire Wolds. The initial archaeological evaluation of the site was conducted in 2000 by Pre-Construct Archaeology (Lincoln) (Rylatt 2001), including a geophysical survey and the opening of three trenches. Aerial photography and geophysical survey had previously suggested that the area was the setting for significant activity during the Neolithic period, as they showed a large circular feature in a field immediately to the east of the site. It took the form of two concentric circles, the inner with a diameter of c.25m and the outer c.40m, both of which appear to be discontinuous; this may be a causewayed enclosure dating from the Neolithic period, although it was not investigated. Further cropmarks were noted in a field to the east of the possible causewayed enclosure, apparently representing at least four round barrows, and there were further cropmarks of ring ditches to the west of High Farm. There were also cropmarks of several sub-rectangular enclosures, one possibly containing a circular structure, immediately west and north-west High Farm, which could belong to the Iron Age or Romano-British periods.

The Anglo-Saxon features at High Farm were between about 30m and 60m downslope from the excavated prehistoric barrow, and it is possible that the monument was a visible feature close to the settlement. The presence of further cropmarks of ring ditches and a possible causewayed enclosure suggest that the settlement was also close to other prehistoric monuments. It is unfortunate that the excavation did not establish whether further Anglo-Saxon settlement features existed further north, closer to the barrow, and that Rylatt (2001) provides no clear indication of the locations or numbers of other ring ditches detected on the geophysical survey; as the survey area measured only c.90m by 120m it is likely that they were close to the Anglo-Saxon occupation. Sources: Ramsey 2001; Rylatt 2001.

The magnetometer survey located faint traces of possible ring ditches and numerous discrete anomalies, although a plan of these features is not included in Rylatt’s (2001) report. The approximate positions of certain features can, however, be discerned from the positions of the trial trenches, which were opened to investigate some of the geophysical anomalies. Trenches 1 and 2 (both 20m long) were in the north-east quadrant of the site and Trench 3 (5m by 5m) was towards the southern edge; there were also three test pits along the eastern edge of the site. Trench 1 contained mainly post-medieval and modern features. Trench 2 was c.20m south-west of Trench 1, and placed to investigate penannular anomalies detected by the magnetometer survey. The more clearly-defined anomaly of the two was chosen, and this was situated to the east of its neighbour. Part of a curving ditch (204) was exposed, c.1.35m wide, with a U-shaped profile and a level base c.0.35m wide. A second ditch (205) was revealed c.9m north-west of this, which also had a slight curvature. It was wider than 204, at 1.7m, with a more irregular profile. It also appeared to be 0.25m shallower, possibly due to the undulating ground surface. It seems that these two ditches represent two sections through the same feature, a ring ditch of c.10m diameter, which corresponds with a penannular anomaly on the geophysical survey. The fills of ditches 204 and 205 indicated that soil had eroded into them from both the outside and inside, indicating the former presence of a bank and a mound. Flint artefacts recovered from the area to the south of the ring ditch support a Neolithic or Bronze Age date for the feature. As similar anomalies were present on the geophysical survey, this may have been one of a group of monuments, all of which were on high ground and may have been highly visible from below.

Hoe Hills, Dowsby, Lincolnshire (Fig. 4.9) GR: TF 1181 3031 Lincolnshire HER nos. 34377 (Anglo-Saxon) and 36431 (prehistoric). Pastscape no. 1123992. A prehistoric barrow cemetery at Hoe Hills has been known about for some time. In the early 1990s, when the site was subjected to archaeological investigation, at least seven barrows were still visible, although they had been ploughed almost flat, whilst some were known to have been destroyed previously during the building of a reservoir (Hayes and Lane 1992; Lane 2000). In 1872 a group of six barrows was noted, while in 1929 seven were recorded. A late Neolithic or early Bronze Age date had generally been accepted for the barrows, although none had been excavated. Between 1984 and 1985 the Fenland Survey identified early to middle Anglo-Saxon pottery scatters at five sites within the Hoe Hills barrow cemetery area (DOW2, DOW3, DOW4, DOW5 and DOW8). Whether these represented cemeteries or settlements was uncertain, but the pottery indicated before or at the beginning of the middle Anglo-Saxon period, c.AD 650. Between 1991-1995 the Fenland Management Project undertook excavation of DOW8 and one of the ploughed out barrows, in order to find out more about the Anglo-Saxon activity and to date the barrow. The

244

trench over the pottery scatter was situated at the centre of the scatter, c.100m away from the barrow, and covered 480m2.

functions of which were unknown although they contained relatively large amounts of animal bone and Anglo-Saxon pottery. Traces of a possible hearth, much eroded, were also located 19m south of the SFB. In Area 2 two Anglo-Saxon ironstone-lined fire pits (features 22 and 43) were found, while a great square-headed brooch was also discovered in the subsoil in Area 2. Two further SFBs (41 and 51) were discovered in Area 3, both of which were shallow, probably as a result of truncation since plough marks were particularly clear in this area. SFB 41 measured 4m by 3.4m and 0.45m deep, while SFB 51 was 4.3m by at least 2.2m and 0.22m deep; both had clearly been truncated by ploughing. This agricultural activity, which post-dated the Anglo-Saxon period, may also have responsible for destroying the postulated mound, which may thus have still been visible in the Anglo-Saxon period. There were also two pits nearby, one of which (feature 38) had been dug through the southern edge of SFB 51 after its abandonment, and contained pottery and animal bone. The pit had been enlarged at least once and in terms of depth it was the most substantial feature on the site, with a maximum depth of 0.95m. To the east was the second pit (feature 49), which had cut pit 38 (or vice versa) and contained similar material. The two SFBs and two pits in Area 3 were all located approximately 25m north-west of the postulated barrow.

Excavation of DOW8 revealed Neolithic postholes, an Iron Age ring gully, and early Anglo-Saxon pits and postholes. The Anglo-Saxon postholes formed two putative structures, just to the west of the Iron Age gully. Excavation of the barrow revealed that it held two urned early Bronze Age cremations; at least one barrow in the cemetery is, therefore, prehistoric and it is probable that the others are too. A ditch (030) extended westwards from the southernmost part of the barrow ditch, possibly represented part of a ditched field system apparently of Roman date, which had been laid out while the barrow ditch was still visible. The spread of mound material into the field system ditches must have taken place after the Roman period, suggesting that the barrows were still visible features in the Anglo-Saxon period. The nineteenth- and early twentiethcentury accounts of the barrows also demonstrate this. Thus, the Anglo-Saxon buildings were c.100m away from the excavated barrow and in an area containing further barrows. The lack of excavation in the space between the barrow and buildings leaves open the possibility that there were further Anglo-Saxon settlement features closer to the barrow, while the other AngloSaxon pottery scatters around the barrows also suggest other occupation foci. Sources: Hayes and Lane 1992; Lane 2000.

Over 400 sherds of Anglo-Saxon pottery were recovered, most of which were undecorated and difficult to date precisely, but a date of the sixth century was most likely, not least because the absence of local middle Anglo-Saxon Maxey-type wares suggested that the site had been abandoned prior to the seventh century. The square-headed brooch found lying on the subsoil close to fire pit 43 was also sixth-century in date. The three SFBs seem to have been similarly aligned, despite being so far apart, and the pottery from all three suggests that were broadly contemporary. The features were dispersed, and none were found in the space between Areas 1 and 2/3. The original extent of the site is not known; it might have been no more than several dispersed buildings, but on the other hand there may have been many more features destroyed by the gravel quarrying. Source: Field and Leahy 1993.

Nettleton Top, Lincolnshire (Fig. 4.17) GR: TF 1070 9880 Lincolnshire HER nos. 51869 (Anglo-Saxon) and 51870 (prehistoric). Pastscape no. 893005. The site at Nettleton Top lay on top of Nettleton Hill at 120m OD, on one of the highest points on the Lincolnshire Wolds. Prehistoric and Anglo-Saxon features came to light during topsoil stripping in a sand and gravel pit in 1986 (Field and Leahy 1993). This led to a rescue excavation of part of an area measuring c.80m by c.40m (Area 1), of which c.30m by c.50m was excavated. Further work in Area 1 was carried out in 1987, including the opening of two more trenches (Areas 2 and 3; both 25m by 2m). At the western end of Area 2 Bronze Age vessels were uncovered, the first a large Collared Urn, upside down in the ground, which must have been in some sort of pit although there was no trace of such a feature in the soil and analysis of its contents produced only sand. Around 1m to the north was a scatter of cremated bone and fragments of pottery, and underneath this was the rim of another Collared Urn. This was interpreted as a second inverted urn over a pit of cremated bone, the base of which had probably been destroyed by ploughing. Around 1m east of these two Collared Urns was a small plain auxiliary Bronze Age vessel in a small pit; both the pot and pit had been truncated, probably by ploughing. The presence of the three vessels in an area measuring 5m by 1m suggested that they were placed within a barrow. While there was no surviving evidence for a ditch or mound, prehistoric barrows without surrounding ditches have been found in Lincolnshire (e.g. at Ponton Heath, Stroxton and West Ashby). Moreover, flat cemeteries are typically later Bronze Age and are rare in Lincolnshire, making it more likely that this represents a barrow. Any traces of a mound could have erased by the ploughing activity that damaged the upturned urns. It was suggested by the excavators that the views offered by this site would have made it attractive to prehistoric communities.

Salmonby, Lincolnshire (Fig. 4.15) GR: TF 3320 7317 (long barrow) GR: TF 3315 7323 (round barrow) GR: TF 3315 7315 (Anglo-Saxon) Lincolnshire HER nos. 42562 (Anglo-Saxon), 43170 (long barrow) and 43719 (round barrow). Pastscape no. 1378695. Parts of this site were excavated by G.V. Taylor in the 1950s. It was situated east of Salmonby (and should not be confused with another area of Anglo-Saxon occupation north-west of the village, excavated in the 1970s). Taylor’s investigations took place after ploughing in fields on either side of ‘the Somersby road’ (presumably Bridge Road, the road between Salmonby and the adjacent village of Somersby) and revealed SFBs, although sources for this site do not indicate how many were discovered. The field to the south of the road was called Sandy Knobbs and it was investigated in 1954, while that to the north was called New England and Taylor excavated here in 1958. He found ‘huts’ of various structural types, along with pottery, loomweights, spindle whorls, beads and animal bones. Taylor’s findings remain unpublished, although brief records of his activities were written up by Thompson (1955) and Petch (1960), and this summary of the Anglo-Saxon occupation is based on these sources.

The site also seems to have been appealing to later communities, as Anglo-Saxon settlement features were found in Area 1. They include SFB 1 (c.3m by 3.5m and 0.16m deep), c.50m west of the possible barrow. Around 22m north-east of the SFB were two contemporary pits (features 16 and 7), the

Close to the area investigated by Taylor, at TF 3320 7317, is the cropmark of a probable Neolithic long barrow, aligned NW-SE

245

and situated on a false crest at about 58m above OD. It measures c.44m by c.17m, with an elongated oval shape. Fieldwalking in 1991 revealed no surface traces, but it is visible as a cropmark on aerial photographs. The long barrow seems to be surrounded by an infilled ditch, with no causeways or entrances, and it is possible that it is one of the simpler types of Lincolnshire Wolds long barrows which do not have mounds (Jones 1998). The cropmark of a Bronze Age round barrow, c.25m diameter, is c.77m north-west of the long barrow; both monuments are scheduled, as is the land between them. The Lincolnshire HER entry for the round barrow reports that it has been ‘reduced by ploughing’, suggesting that it was still a visible feature in recent years. Grid references for the AngloSaxon settlement, long barrow and round barrow reveal that they are all in the same modern field, south of Bridge Road. The Anglo-Saxon occupation was c.50m south-west of the long barrow and c.80m south of the round barrow. This site is not unproblematic, since excavation records are sparse, yet it does constitute an example of a site where an Anglo-Saxon settlement existed in proximity to two earlier monuments, at least one of which was still visible in recent years. Sources: Jones 1998; Petch 1960; Thompson 1955; Whitwell and Wilson 1969.

was discovered c.40m south of the first. This monument had been levelled and used as a building platform in the medieval period. A trench positioned to investigate this building coincidentally lay right across the middle of the barrow, and the cremated remains of an adult female were encountered directly beneath the floor of the medieval building. The only associated find being a sherd of prehistoric corded-ware pottery; the concrete plinth of what appeared to be a WWII gun emplacement had been dug into the area next to the burial, destroying the vessel to which this sherd belonged. Immediately beneath the cremation was the grave of what appears to have been the barrow’s primary inhumation, a child, while further disarticulated, undated human remains were also recovered. These appear to have been part of a larger barrow cemetery in the area, since detailed study of the prehistoric setting of the village revealed further former Bronze Age ring ditches, many of which have now been destroyed (D.M Hadley, pers. comm.). Some 40m to 50m east of the two excavated barrows an area of Anglo-Saxon occupation was discovered in Trench 6. Although post-excavation analysis of the findings is ongoing, it seems that three or four post-built structures were uncovered. A number of other features, such as postholes, stakeholes and pits, were also discovered in this area. A further significant feature in this part of the site was another section of the Anglo-Saxon ditch that had been located during the investigations in the 1980s. The ditch was up to 2m wide and over 1m deep, and ran through the excavated area to the east of the Anglo-Saxon buildings, apparently enclosing them. It was cut into bedrock and may have had an internal rubble bank judging from the slump of broken up bedrock found against the inner face, where it had eroded or been pushed back into the ditch. The ditch bisected at least one of the posthole buildings, suggesting that there had been at least two phases of Anglo-Saxon occupation here. The full extent of the enclosure defined by this ditch is uncertain, but geophysical survey and excavation on the west side of the upstanding mound suggest that the enclosure did not extend beyond the barrows. One possibility is that the entrance of the enclosure was located between the two Bronze Age barrows, as appeared to be the case at Cottam, which lies c.45km to the north-east of West Halton (Richards 1999b) (see Chapter 4). The dates of the timber structures are currently unknown, as they yielded little datable material, but ongoing analysis of the ceramics from the associated ditch suggests an early to middle Anglo-Saxon date. At least two phases of occupation are known, one pre-dating the enclosure, as the ditch bisected one of the structures.

West Halton, Lincolnshire (Fig. 4.8) GR: SE 90518 20894 Lincolnshire HER no. N/A. Pastscape no. N/A. West Halton lies about 2 miles south of the south bank of the Humber. In 1982 an area of the current village green, then being used as a paddock, was bulldozed and levelled to make way for a football pitch, revealing building debris and pottery (Grenville and Parker Pearson 1983). During fieldwork in 1983 on the southern edge of the football field an area of 10m2 was excavated. Parts of late medieval buildings and associated destruction levels were uncovered, although not fully excavated. Beneath these buildings the top of a ditch was located, but again not excavated. Subsequent excavation of this ditch revealed that it was of Anglo-Saxon date. A second, shallower ditch was excavated to the south and again assigned Anglo-Saxon origins. Further fieldwork was carried out by the University of Sheffield between 2003-2009, in order to better understand the features excavated in the 1980s (Hadley et al. 2011). Post-excavation analysis is ongoing and the investigations are yet to be published, thus it should be noted that the interpretations are preliminary. Prior to the recent excavations a prominent mound on the village green was thought not to have prehistoric origins; an antiquarian investigation in the 1830s concluded that it was an artificial hill, not a barrow (Dudley 1931), while the Ordnance Survey stated in the 1960s that it was either a civil war feature or a post-medieval garden viewing platform. Resistivity survey and excavation, however, revealed that the feature was a prehistoric barrow (Hadley et al. 2011). A fragment of a prehistoric greenstone axe was recovered from within the mound fabric, in an area disturbed by a medieval wall. A ring ditch around the mound, c.30m in diameter, was identified on the resistivity survey, and excavation revealed that was shallow and U-profiled, containing several sherds of Bronze Age pottery, worked flint, and part of a jet pendant or button. Meanwhile, a trench positioned over the antiquarian disturbance on the eastern side of the mound yielded fragmented human remains, including long bones and part of a mandible, suggesting that the antiquarians had unwittingly disturbed a burial. Radiocarbon dating of these bones produced a date range of AD 600-670 (95% confidence), indicating that the barrow had been used for secondary burial activity in the Anglo-Saxon period. Subsequently, a second denuded Bronze Age barrow

Excavation immediately to the north of the upstanding Bronze Age barrow, in Trench 12, revealed further, rather enigmatic, Anglo-Saxon feature. Geophysical survey revealed a square enclosure (c.30m by c.30m) north of the barrow and roughly a quarter of this enclosure was excavated, revealing a steep-sided ditch cut into bedrock. The flat base of this ditch and the fact that it had been refilled with bedrock soon after construction suggests that it may have held a palisade. The enclosure resembles the type highlighted by John Blair (1995) as possible pagan Anglo-Saxon shrines, which he believed dated to the late sixth or seventh century (although there is generally little evidence to date these features; see Chapter 2). The enclosure at West Halton was no less complicated and intriguing than those highlighted by Blair, especially as the redeposited fill contained little dating evidence; it is hoped that further post-excavation analysis will reveal more about the origins of this feature. Whatever its origins, however, the square enclosure was in use during the Anglo-Saxon period. An SFB excavated within the enclosure was found to contain a whole dog burial alongside bones of other large mammals, in a cluster in the centre of the pit; this may be interpreted as a placed deposit, as defined by

246

Hamerow (2006). There was also at least one post-built structure inside the enclosure, alongside hundreds of narrow postholes (some little more than 0.1m in diameter), at least some of which seem to have formed small rectangular structures. Although the postholes were difficult to date as they contained few finds, they respected the post-built structure and the SFB, suggesting a similar date. One posthole did contain two sherds of decorated pottery, from two different vessels, which can be paralleled with urns found at Elsham cremation cemetery, suggesting an early Saxon date. While the chronology of the Anglo-Saxon occupation is yet to be fully understood, it is clear that the settlement was established around at least one, and probably many more, highly visible prehistoric barrows. Sources: Dudley 1931; Grenville and Parker Pearson 1983; Hadley et al. 2011.

clayey subsoil would have held together for a long period of time, eroding very slowly. The site was reoccupied in the Iron Age (in the third-first centuries BC), when a number of ditched enclosures were constructed across the southern part of the Neolithic enclosure. Two east-west ditch slots belonging to this phase terminated at the outer ditch circuit of the enclosure, while the eastern side of one enclosure was dug into the fill of Neolithic ditch segments, following their line exactly. This evidence suggests that the causewayed enclosure was still a significant feature in the landscape in the Iron Age. Some distance to the east of the Iron Age features were three early to middle Anglo-Saxon SFBs, dispersed across an area of 60m by 20m over the eastern side of the Neolithic enclosure, with another (SFB 29) c.34m east of the main cluster. SFB 29 measured 4m by 3.1m and had a pit c.0.25m deep (measured from the subsoil), while the fill contained metalwork, pottery and animal bone. SFBs 10, 12 and 30 were deeper than SFB 29, but slightly smaller. In contrast to SFB 29, the fills of these other three buildings contained few finds and only SFB 12 contained a significant quantity of Anglo-Saxon sherds. It was suggested in the report that these SFBs were on the periphery of a larger Anglo-Saxon settlement, although no other features of this date were excavated. The pottery was assigned an early to middle Anglo-Saxon date, with a seventh-century date thought most likely.

Briar Hill, Northamptonshire (Fig. 4.42) GR: SP 7362 5923 Northamptonshire HER (no. unknown). Pastscape no. 620772. The site at Briar Hill was excavated by the Northampton Development Corporation Archaeological Unit ahead of development (Bamford 1985). The existence of a Neolithic enclosure was first noted in 1972, when distinctive segmented ditch circuits were seen on an aerial photograph. A geophysical survey and trial trenching in 1973 revealed that the ditch segments resembled those of Neolithic causewayed camps previously excavated in southern England. Full excavation of the feature was then undertaken in advance of the building work between 1974-1978. The enclosure covered c.3ha, with two main ditch circuits enclosing an area c.162m by c.146m. The ditches were not continuous, but were instead dug in concentric arcs 15-28m apart. Within the enclosure, on its eastern side, an extension of the inner ditch curved inwards clockwise in a spiral to define an inner enclosure 84m by 92m. The two main enclosure circuits were made up of segments 1m to 2m deep (measured from the subsoil; the Neolithic ground surface had been ploughed away), while the spiral arm of the inner circuit was made up of smaller segments, more akin to pits, up to 1m deep. The enclosure had been defined a number of times; approximately 80% of the excavated ditch segments had been re-cut at least once, the majority more than once. The ditches had filled in by the late Neolithic or early Bronze Age, but a middle Bronze Age cemetery established towards the southwest side of the outer enclosure suggests that the monument remained a focal point in the landscape.

At least parts of the Neolithic enclosure seem to have remained visible into the Anglo-Saxon period, possibly as above-ground earthworks. Since some Iron Age enclosures overlay parts of the causewayed enclosure, it is possible that certain portions of the monument were no longer visible as substantial earthworks by that time. On the other hand, Iron Age features in other areas appear to have been influenced by the enclosure, indicating that some parts had survived. That sections of the Neolithic monument survived into the Anglo-Saxon period is suggested by the positions of the SFBs, three of which (10, 12 and 30) lay particularly close to areas with strong evidence for banks. Indeed, SFB 12 lay directly over a section of the one of the postulated banks, while SFB 30 was just 1-2m away from a possible section of bank and SFB 10 was 4-5m away from the bank underlying SFB 12. Perhaps, then, the Anglo-Saxon occupants were attracted to this particular area because of the preserved remains of a Neolithic bank, the form of which is unknown; it could have been a continuous earthwork or, like the ditch section, a discrete feature. If the latter were true, it is even possible that the banks may have resembled barrows, which could explain why one of the SFBs lay on top of it; this pattern is seen at other settlements with barrows, but not on other sites that reused linear features. Source: Bamford 1985.

It appears that some parts of the ditch circuits were accompanied by banks. While no remains of the banks themselves were found, the site had been heavily ploughed, which may have removed any earthworks (the field in which most of the enclosure lay had been cultivated from at least the medieval period, and broad furrows up to 0.15m deep ran across the site every 8m). The former existence of banks is indicated by the fills of the outer ditch segments, which showed that material had eroded into the ditches from the inner edge. Similarly, fills of ditch segments in the inner circuit also suggested that rubble banks had accompanied them. Based on the fill patterns, it was suggested that a bank had existed around the entire enclosure between the two main ditch circuits. A second bank may have existed around the internal edge of the inner circuit on its north, west and south-west sides, and almost certainly on the north-east side. This did not extend around the inside of the spiral enclosure, but there seemed to have been a bank on the outside of the southern side of the spiral, located between it and the southern terminal of the inner main ditch. Based on the volume of soil removed from the ditch segments, the excavators estimated that the banks might have been c.1m high and c.2m wide when constructed, and that the dense,

Crow Hill, Irthlingborough, Northamptonshire (Fig. 4.46) GR: SP 958 715 Northamptonshire HER (no. unknown). Pastscape no. 347930. Crow Hill hillfort lies in a prominent position to the west of the River Nene, with extensive views over the river valley. It had been greatly reduced by ploughing and was unknown prior to archaeological investigation in the 1970s and 1980s (Parry 2006). Fieldwalking in and around the hillfort revealed a major concentration of Iron Age (third-to second-century BC) pottery within the hillfort. There were also intensive Romano-British pottery scatters, mostly from within the northern half of the defences, but also beyond the defences to the east. Some 252 sherds of early to middle Anglo-Saxon pottery were recovered from across the site, and a further 457 from intensive collection in the northern half of the hillfort. The main concentration of Anglo-Saxon sherds covered c.1.5ha within the hillfort, with

247

another scatter immediately outside the entrance, and a light concentration of across the whole of the area inside the hillfort, as well as the plateau to the east.

and another three postholes were aligned at right angles. Although the postholes proved to be empty of datable finds, early to middle Anglo-Saxon sherds, many of them from one vessel, were found in the slot, and these seemed to have been used as packing material. Interestingly, the reoccupation of Crow Hill hillfort may have been related to high-status settlement activity. King Offa of Mercia (757-96) signed a charter at Irthlingborough between 787 and 796, when he also presided over an assembly there (Blinkhorn 1999; Lewis et al. 1997; Reynolds 2003). 2 The hillfort may, then, have been a place of royal authority in the eighth century, and the excavated building could have related to this phase of activity.

Prior to excavation, most of the hillfort had been traced as a cropmark on aerial photographs and as an anomaly on a magnetometer survey, which suggested that the ditches varied in width from c.8m-14m and that the enclosure was roughly rectangular with rounded corners. They also revealed the presence of a narrow ditch following the line of the hillfort around the outside of its south-west corner. An entrance was noted adjacent to the south-west corner of the hillfort; this was formed by the hillfort ditch curving outwards slightly to create a gap of c.4m. Outside the entrance were two short, narrow lengths of ditch, which may have served to create an indirect approach to the hillfort, while a further narrow ditch appeared to block the entrance, although it was unclear if it was a contemporary feature. Two narrow ditches extended inwards from the main ditch at either side of the entrance, forming a funnel-shaped area which may have provided a further defensive measure. A narrow ditch or palisade trench could be discerned along much of the inner edge of the main ditch, while a band of more advanced crop development about 10-15m wide along the inner edge of the ditch coincided with a ‘blank’ area on the magnetometer survey, and may suggest the presence of a rampart.

A further trench (41m by 1.6m) was opened just to the southwest of the hillfort entrance. The few features found in this trench included an aceramic gully, a posthole and a possible plough furrow, in addition to a V-shaped ditch, 1m wide and 0.6m deep, which corresponded with a boundary identified on the magnetometer survey. A single large sherd of an early Romano-British vessel may indicate a date for this feature. An area of 42m2 was also excavated within the hillfort, in the hope of finding out about the relationship between a rectangular enclosure and a roundhouse, both of which had been noted on aerial photographs and the magnetometer survey. Although features did survive, cut into the bedrock, they were not excavated. Although no further Anglo-Saxon features were discovered in these trenches, the scatters of pottery within the hillfort, and the fact that only a very small proportion of the interior was excavated, make it plausible that there may have been further buildings inside the enclosure. Source: Parry 2006.

Subsequent excavation targeted features identified on the aerial photographs and magnetometer survey. One trench (46m by 1.6m) was cut by a mechanical digger across the southern side of the hillfort, across the ditched defences. The width of the ditch was 17m in total, although this included several shifting re-cuts, the tops of which had been eroded. The original ditch, thought to have been constructed initially in the early or middle Iron Age, appears to have been a single, deeply-cut, narrow feature, which was subsequently replaced by an identical re-cut. A later ditch had removed the upper levels of both of these phases, destroying the relationship between them. The substantial depths of the ditches prevented full excavation, but they were excavated to a depth of 3.3m. Their sides were very steep; extrapolating these profiles upwards to the present ground surface showed that the earlier ditch would have been c.5m wide and the other c.3m wide. The defences at this point seem to have been accompanied by rampart strengthened by timber posts. A 3.4m-wide layer of limestone rubble situated 7m inside the most recent cut of the main ditch may be the denuded remains of the hillfort rampart, although no upstanding traces were found, probably as a result of the extensive plough damage that had taken place across the hillfort. Subsequent ditch re-cuts, thought to belong to the first century AD, were much wider and shallower, the earliest being up to 11.2m wide and 2.8m deep, whilst the phase after that was a similar size and moved the ditch 2m beyond its previous inner edge. The next two re-cuts of the hillfort ditch continued the outwards drift of the defences and each contained four sherds of early to middle Anglo-Saxon pottery, while the subsequent and final re-cut measured 8.5m wide by 1.4m deep and returned to the inner edge of the defensive circuit. During the early to middle Anglo-Saxon period it appears that the original Iron Age defences were re-cut at least three times.

Grange Park, Courteenhall, Northamptonshire (Figs. 4.34 and 4.35) GR: SP 76426 54851 Northamptonshire HER nos. 7737/0/1 (excavation) and 8566/0/3 (Anglo-Saxon pottery recovered during fieldwalking). Pastscape no. N/A. Grange Park was investigated by Birmingham University Field Archaeology Unit in 1999 (Buteux 2001). The development area covered 193ha and a brook divided the site into an eastern and western zone. Evaluation prior to 1999 indicated that the eastern zone (108ha) had the most archaeological potential and 20ha were subjected to a gradiometer survey, which identified four enclosure complexes (including enclosures, internal ring ditches, and trackways). Intensive fieldwalking over 9ha of the site then identified four discrete scatters of early to middle Anglo-Saxon pottery. Subsequent excavation in parts of the site uncovered activity belonging to five phases: Phase 1 (early to mid Iron Age); Phase 2 (mid to late Iron Age); Phase 3 (late Iron Age to early Roman); Phase 4 (first to fourth centuries); and Phase 5 (early to middle Anglo-Saxon). The latter features were found under the previously identified pottery scatters. Of particular interest in this study are Areas 2, 6 and 10, in which the Anglo-Saxon features were excavated (although only Area 10 contained structural evidence). Pottery scatter (Sax2) in Area 2 comprised 147 sherds of early to middle Anglo-Saxon pottery, although this area was least productive in terms of yielding Anglo-Saxon features, with just two Anglo-Saxon pits (F566 and F640). F566 was oval, 1.5m by 1.2m and 0.2m deep, although it was badly truncated, whilst F640 was 0.7m in diameter and 0.2m deep. This area contained the smallest of the Iron Age enclosure complexes (EC4), comprising a large ditched enclosure (EN 25) containing a smaller rectangular enclosure in its south-east corner. There

Settlement in and around the hillfort during the Anglo-Saxon period is suggested by the pottery scatters, while excavation beyond the hillfort entrance revealed at least one substantial timber building of this period. The building was c.80m south of the hillfort entrance, of post-and-slot construction, and appeared to be substantial, although it extended beyond the trench edge. One side was formed by a row of three large closely-spaced postholes (each 0.5m in diameter and 0.5m deep), while a slot

2

248

S1184 in Sawyer (1968).

were also traces of another subrectangular enclosure to the south (EN 19). The Anglo-Saxon pits, however, were some way south of the Iron Age features, the closest pit lying c.60m away from the closest Iron Age enclosure and the more southerly pit located another c.100m away. Thus, there is little evidence to suggest that these features in Area 2 were influenced by the earlier enclosures.

Anglo-Saxon settlement, but that many occupation features had been destroyed. It was noted that the surviving SFB in Area 10 was on the side of a gentle ridge in an area of comparatively low ground, and may have been better protected than other features of that date. The ditches of the earlier enclosures were more substantial than the Anglo-Saxon features, which is likely to have aided their preservation. Even so, the truncation is likely to have removed any traces of banks associated with the enclosures. Source: Buteux 2001.

Area 6 contained the most extensive collection of Anglo-Saxon features, although again no buildings were found. Several pits (F446, F406, F486, F407, F409 and F517), and these did appear to have been influenced by earlier enclosures, as they were all located within middle to late Iron Age enclosures (EN 13 and EN 14). The sub-rectangular enclosure EN 13 (73m by 40m, with ditches 0.8-1.7m wide and 0.2-0.6m deep) had been partly cut by D-shaped enclosure EN 14 in the mid to late Iron Age. The latter had more substantial ditches (2.9-3.8m wide and 1.01.4m deep). Further Iron Age to early Roman enclosures lay east of EN 13 and EN 14, although this area does not seem to have formed a major focus of later reoccupation. The edges of these enclosures did, however, form a trackway running to the east of EN 13 and EN 14, perhaps providing access to these two reused enclosures in the Anglo-Saxon period. Three of the Anglo-Saxon pits lay within EN 14, all fairly close to the entrance in its eastern side. Further north, inside EN 13, were three more pits, including an elongated example (F407; at least 1.8m by 0.77m), which formed a partial re-cut of a mid to late Iron Age roundhouse ring gully. The precision of the re-cut suggests that the reuse of the gully was not coincidental although it is difficult to determine in what form the gully might have been visible; it might have been visible as a hollow in the ground, or it might have been a visible feature in the subsoil if the topsoil around it had been stripped.

Grendon, Northamptonshire GR: SP 8767 6226 Northamptonshire HER nos. 3728/1/1 and 3728/1/2 (prehistoric) and 3729/0/1 and 3729/0/2 (Anglo-Saxon). Pastscape no. 345610. Salvage excavations at Grendon took place ahead of gravel quarrying in the mid 1970s, although available information about the site is sparse. An interim report stated that early to middle Anglo-Saxon pottery had been found in 1976 in two fields located at SP 8765 6222 (Youngs and Clark 1981). Topsoil had been stripped ahead of quarrying and a watching brief recorded a number of early to middle Anglo-Saxon features, including shallow scoops containing traces of charcoal, scraps of bone and sherds of pottery. Two shallow ditches also contained sherds of Anglo-Saxon pottery. A round barrow was also discovered, and a feature cut into this was found to contain a few bones (it was not known whether they were human or animal) and several sherds of Anglo-Saxon pottery. In 1977, at SP 877 623, gravel quarrying encroached into an area of extensive cropmarks (Foard 1977; Jackson 1978). During this work a watching brief was carried out; ring ditches were recorded, and four early Bronze Age urns were recovered from one. In addition, ‘extensive’ evidence of Anglo-Saxon occupation was recovered, including SFBs, postholes and pits. However, due to the salvage nature of the excavations, only three SFBs were excavated. Two were single-phase structures, aligned east-west, while the third had been rebuilt several times, as well as being reoriented. All three contained early AngloSaxon pottery, with other finds including metal artefacts and animal bone. It is unclear exactly how these buildings related to the ring ditches, but both phases of activity were in the same area. This is supported by a comment in the RCHM (1992) inventory of monuments in Northamptonshire, which noted that an Anglo-Saxon settlement had been found at SP 877 623, and that it ‘lay on the prehistoric site’. The visibility of at least one round barrow in the Anglo-Saxon period is suggested by the feature containing bone and Anglo-Saxon pottery, noted above, cut into a barrow, which may have been a secondary inhumation. Sources: Foard 1977; Jackson 1978; RCHM 1982; Youngs and Clark 1981.

Area 10 contained pottery scatter Sax1, which produced 106 sherds and corresponded with a scatter formerly noted in 1983. The pottery overlay several Iron Age enclosures and a droveway belonging to enclosure complex EC3, and this was the only excavated area to contain Anglo-Saxon structural evidence, in the form of an SFB (3.5m by 2.9m and 0.26m deep). This lay to the east of an early to mid Iron Age droveway, formed by two parallel ditches (LD 14 and LD 15) 5m apart. In terms of width these were substantial ditches; LD 14 was 1.24m-1.7m wide and 0.26-0.62m deep, while LD 15 was 2.3-5.2m wide and 0.4-1.6m deep. A sub-rectangular enclosure to the south-east of the droveway was contemporary with LD 14 and 15, while a number of later Iron Age enclosures were also situated to the southern end of the droveway. Many of the Iron Age ditches at Grange Park were substantial, although it is difficult to determine how they might have survived into the Anglo-Saxon period, as the excavation report made no mention of any traces of accompanying banks. It seems likely that the positioning of the SFB in Area 10 was influenced primarily by the droveway and its defining ditches, particularly the long-lived LD 15 (which was repeatedly re-cut during the Iron Age, including near the SFB, at which point it was 2.352.75m width and 0.6-1.0m in depth).

Thorpe End, Raunds, Northamptonshire (Fig. 4.36) GR: SP 9980 7228 Northamptonshire HER (no. unknown). Pastscape no. 347397. Thorpe End is located towards the southern end of the village of Raunds, along the flanks of a small stream (Parry 2006). Magnetometer survey and excavation revealed an Iron Age enclosure containing Anglo-Saxon features, with further cropmark ditches to the west that may represent the continuation of the Iron Age settlement complex. The Iron Age enclosure was D-shaped, aligned roughly east-west, and measured 97m by 68m, with a possible 10m-wide entrance in its southern side. Sections across the ditch on the north and west sides of the enclosure revealed that it was c.2m wide and cut up

The SFB also lay towards the limit of excavation, so further features may have existed outside Area 10. The relative paucity of Anglo-Saxon features under the pottery scatters was noted by the excavators, who suggested that it may have resulted from heavy ploughing of the site (Buteux 2001). In all areas archaeological features had been truncated by plough furrows, thought to derive from ridge and furrow ploughing in the medieval or post-medieval period, while modern ploughing had added further to the destruction. It appeared that the AngloSaxon features the most badly affected features; the excavators asserted that the pottery scatters probably did indicate areas of

249

to 0.85m deep into the natural limestone, while pottery from the ditch indicated a possible middle to late Iron Age date. Some of the ditch fills appeared to derive from the erosion of an accompanying bank.

that was probably originally ovoid, which measured c.19m wide by at least 25m long. It was not interpreted as a barrow as it lacked a burial and it may have had some form of fenced structure on its summit. It had been eroded by ridge and furrow ploughing and then covered by alluvium in the medieval period, but still survived to a height of 0.5m when excavated. Barrows 1 and 2 did contain burials, and were therefore classed as barrows. Barrow 1 had been constructed in several phases; its diameter in the first phase was 14.5m, and in the second it was enlarged to 30m. The eastern side of the Barrow 1 ditch overlapped the egg-shaped enclosure, and there were interruptions in its ditch circuit just inside the enclosure where the two intersected, supporting the proposal that a bank had existed inside the enclosure. The second phase of Barrow 1 saw the re-construction of a mound in the centre of the ring ditch, with a berm between it and the ditch. Barrow 2 was located 70m south-west of the long enclosure, overlapping the Turf Mound, and consisted of a mound within a ring ditch with a diameter of c.21m. Additionally, there was also a very small double ring ditch, 3m in diameter, lying west of Barrow 1. The monument complex was evidently even more extensive, as a round barrow and causewayed ditched enclosure were excavated in the late 1980s immediately south of the site, whilst a henge monument is known from aerial photographs and geophysical survey c.450m to the east. Another, larger ring ditch, visible as a cropmark, also lies about 300m west of the barrow and causewayed enclosure excavated in the late 1980s. To the northeast of the site, roughly 100m from Barrow 1, were the cropmarks of two probable ring ditches, as well as another possible example, probably the remains of further round barrows. All these monuments belonged to the Neolithic and Bronze Age periods.

Anglo-Saxon occupation was first detected during fieldwalking in 1986, when 206 locally-made early to middle Anglo-Saxon sherds and nine Ipswich ware sherds were recovered from the area of c.1ha over and around the Iron Age enclosure. In 1987 and 1988 excavation of a geophysical anomaly inside the enclosure revealed a slot c.0.45m wide, cut into the limestone to a depth of 0.23m, which belonged to an Anglo-Saxon post-inslot structure. The post-trench had stone packing on either side, three oval postholes cut into its base on its north-western side, and a line of six concentric postholes, alternately large and small, lying c.0.5m outside the slot. There had been at least one re-building of the structure, since beneath this slot were traces of an earlier one, while the remains of a clay floor surface were also identified overlaying part of the slot and stopping at the line of the wall. The structure was dated to the early to middle Anglo-Saxon period on the basis of pottery of that date. The building lay in the north-west corner of the enclosure. In a separate trench 200m to the west, opened as part of a separate excavation at a site called Smith’s Containers, were a group of irregularly shaped pits containing small quantities of local early to middle Anglo-Saxon pottery and a further seven sherds of Ipswich ware. These pits may have been the result of tree clearance or horticulture. Observation during development on the north side of the valley, c.300m to the east of the Iron Age enclosure, revealed further pottery, perhaps indicating a second focus of early to middle Anglo-Saxon activity. It was clear from the pottery recovered during fieldwalking that further Anglo-Saxon activity had taken place in around the Iron Age enclosure and, given the ephemeral nature of many post-built Anglo-Saxon structures, it is possible that further buildings could have remained undetected on the magnetometer survey. Due to the substantial size of the Iron Age ditches and the location of the structure in a corner of the enclosure, it seems likely that the Anglo-Saxon occupation was influenced by the earlier earthworks. Source: Parry 2006.

The site does not appear to have been occupied again until the early Anglo-Saxon period, when an SFB was built c.30m north of the long mound and 60m west of Barrow 1. The building contained early Anglo-Saxon pottery and produced a radiocarbon date of AD 421-597 (Parry 2006; confidence not given). On top of the long mound was another probable SFB, containing a spindle-whorl, loomweight and pottery, with two postholes in the pit. The second building was only 0.1m deep, while the first was 0.4m deep, suggesting that the shallower pit had been dug into the mound when it was a more substantial earthwork. The postholes and contents of the pit certainly seem to suggest that this was an SFB. The excavation report did not specify exactly where on the mound the SFB lay, and it was not marked on the site plan. However, its position can be roughly determined, due to the fact that only two lengths of the mound were preserved for excavation; it must have been situated somewhere on one of those lengths, either at the eastern end of the monument or to the west of the mound’s centre.

West Cotton, Northamptonshire (Fig. 4.23) GR: SP 976 725 Northamptonshire HER (no. unknown). Pastscape no. 347334. West Cotton was investigated between 1985-1990 as part of the Raunds Area Project (Parry 2006). An extensive complex of Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments was discovered, lying close to the east bank of the River Nene, on a slightly raised gravel platform (Windell 1989; Windell et al. 1990). Within the complex was a long enclosure (120m by 20m), defined by a single ditch, which may originally have had an internal bank or spoil heaps of upcast. A smaller oval or egg-shaped ditched enclosure (c.33m by c.25m) was also discovered and may have had an internal bank. There was a Neolithic long mound within the complex, which at the time of excavation still stood to a height of between 0.5-0.8m. However, certain parts of the monument were not well preserved; the western end had to be recorded as part of a salvage excavation before it was destroyed by quarrying, whilst a central portion c.35m long had been almost completely eroded by a medieval stream. Nonetheless, there were two intact lengths of the monument surviving for investigation, at either end of the 35m eroded gap. In total the monument was 135m long and between 13m and 19m wide.

It was suggested that these two SFBs may have been peripheral to a larger settlement nearby (Windell 1989; Windell et al. 1990). In addition to the buildings there was a scatter of early Anglo-Saxon pottery, comprising c.300 sherds in the area around the structures, while immediately east of Cotton Lane, c.200m away, was a scatter of a fifty sherds. A scatter of early to middle Anglo-Saxon sherds was also discovered in the field containing the three cropmark ring ditches to the north of the excavation area (Parry 2006). Nine trial trenches opened across this field yielded few further Anglo-Saxon sherds and no definite features; the excavator suggested that this was rather surprising, given the amount of pottery found in the field. However, the trenches were deliberately positioned to avoid the north-west part of the field containing the ring ditches (even though Anglo-Saxon pottery had been recovered from this part of the field). Given the associations between Anglo-Saxon buildings and prehistoric features, particularly barrows,

There were three round mounds or barrows too; the first, termed the ‘Turf Mound’ by the excavators, was an unditched mound

250

emerging from this study, this might well explain the lack of archaeological features; trenches opened nearer the monuments might well have uncovered Anglo-Saxon features.

There was little evidence to suggest that the Iron Age ditches had been maintained after their abandonment in the prehistoric period, but it was suggested that they could have remained visible if they had been accompanied by banks or hedges, and the distribution of the Anglo-Saxon features seems to support their visibility. In Area 20 three possible pits and an SFB were dug into earlier ditches, while in Area 18 the angle of a major pre-existing ditch formed the location of an Anglo-Saxon pit (a medieval furrow situated directly over the east-west arm of this enclosure adds further support to the notion that the field system continued to be a visible feature in the landscape). Another eastwest ditch was cut by the south wall of an Anglo-Saxon postbuilt structure, also aligned east-west (and the northern wall of the structure lay under a medieval furrow that lay on the same alignment as the ditch). Furrows in Area 20 also showed a north-south alignment and two overlay substantial lengths of late Iron Age boundaries, again suggesting that the field system influenced later land use. Sources: Jones 2001; Jones forthcoming; Jones and Knight 2001.

A number of the prehistoric monuments at West Cotton had been damaged by stream courses and alluviation, particularly the long enclosure, which was covered by 0.7m of alluvium at its north-east end and 2m at its south-west end. It had also been cut through by later streams. The alluvial deposits were particularly deep to the west and south of the site, and prevented the appreciation of the full extent of the prehistoric remains, meaning that parts of the long mound, Turf Mound and Barrow 2 were only found during salvage work during quarrying. It is crucial to note that the streams and alluvial deposits were the products of late Anglo-Saxon and medieval settlement activity; therefore, their erosion of the monuments took place after the early Anglo-Saxon occupation, at which point many of the monuments are likely to have been visible. Sources: Parry 2006; Windell 1989; Windell et al. 1990. Glebe Farm, Brough, Nottinghamshire (Fig. 4.29) GR: SK 4837 3584 Nottinghamshire HER (no. unknown). Pastscape no. N/A.

Holme Pierrepont, Nottinghamshire (Fig. 4.4) GR: SK 6251 3865 Nottinghamshire HER (no. unknown). Pastscape no. N/A.

Glebe Farm was excavated by Trent and Peak Archaeological Trust ahead of improvements to the Fosse Way (A46) in 2000 (Jones 2001; Jones forthcoming; Jones and Knight 2001). The site was located north and west of the Roman town of Crococalana, which lies under modern Brough. Iron Age ditches were found lying on a north-south by east-west alignment, and these were overlain by Anglo-Saxon occupation. The AngloSaxon settlement covered an area of c.500m from north to south, although its limits do not appear to have been reached in the excavation. The information about Glebe Farm cited here derives primarily from a draft publication of the Anglo-Saxon findings (Jones forthcoming). The availability of visual information about the site is limited; there were no site plans with the draft report, and the only published plan appears to be an interim, unlabelled plan (Knight and Howard 2004). Nonetheless, used together these reports provide enough information to explore the relationships between earlier and later features at Glebe Farm.

Holme Pierrepont was excavated ahead of gravel quarrying in an area where large numbers of cropmarks had been noted, including at least eleven ring ditches (Bradley and Gaimster 2002; Guilbert 2006; Guilbert 2007). The excavations were undertaken by Trent and Peak Archaeological Unit between 1999- 2003. While many of the previously-noted cropmarks lay in the quarry area and were excavated, an ‘island’ containing a particularly dense assortment of cropmarks to the north of the site was protected from quarrying in order to preserve the archaeological remains. The primary Anglo-Saxon activity in the quarry area was funerary in nature. An extensive cemetery was revealed, including graves clustering around and inside a ring ditch c.18m in diameter, which pre-dated the burials and seemed to be prehistoric (although its exact date was unknown). Elsewhere graves seem to have been positioned with reference to smaller ring ditches, up to 12m in diameter. The acidity of the soil at Holme Pierrepont meant that many grave cuts did not contain bone, but metalwork and pottery suggested that the burials were fifth- to seventh-century in date. In another field, some 115m from the nearest of the graves excavated in 1999-2003, a single SFB was recorded. It was oblong, with steep sides, and a flat base 2.5m by 2.2m, and a depth of 0.7m below the plough soil. It contained loomweights and pot sherds, and was assigned an early Anglo-Saxon date. The upper 0.4m of the pit had been removed by mechanical digger, meaning that more ephemeral features might have been destroyed without recording. However, due to the depth of the SFB it was considered improbable that similar buildings were missed during the excavation (although smaller features, particularly postholes, could have been destroyed if they were not cut deeply into the gravel). On the whole, the excavators felt that it was more likely that the SFB was an isolated feature on the periphery of a settlement; as it lay just 4m from the limit of quarrying, it seems likely that the remainder of the settlement had inadvertently been preserved.

Up to nine SFBs and fifteen post-built structures were found amongst the enclosures of the Iron Age field system. There was a high degree of erosion due to ploughing, and a number of the post-built structures were represented simply by short lengths of parallel postholes. Where walls were preserved enough to assess their original dimensions, lengths varied between c.7.5m-11.5m, whilst widths were very consistent, ranging in length from 3.7m-c.6m, the majority around 4m. An east-west orientation was favoured in every instance where the long axis of a building could be determined and this reflected the alignment of the Iron Age field system. The nine SFBs were widely dispersed and show few signs of having been grouped with each other or with the post-built structures. They varied in length from 2m-4.5m, but were fairly shallow (the deepest 0.39m deep), possibly as a result of truncation through ploughing. There may also have been Anglo-Saxon ditches, although these were restricted to two rectangular or sub-square enclosures, which appear to have continued the late Iron Age preference for an east-west/northsouth alignment, forming a southern extension to the Iron Age enclosure system. A date range of the late fifth to early seventh century was suggested by the pottery assemblage and radiocarbon dates (although no specific details about these dates were provided in the draft report). The only datable metalwork of this period was a copper alloy annular brooch of probable sixth-century date.

What is particularly interesting about Holme Pierrepont is that the unexcavated area 4m away from the SFB was the preserved cropmark ‘island’ mentioned previously. It contained two large ring ditches, as well as four smaller examples, and a square enclosure. The two large ring ditches (A and B) are of interest

251

because they lay on the western side of the ‘island’, closest to the SFB. Both were evaluated in 1992 and although little was learnt about them or their dates of construction at that time, it was confirmed that A consisted of two concentric ring ditches and that B was the focus of an early Bronze Age cremation cemetery, making it likely that they were prehistoric monuments. The cropmarks showed that B had a diameter of c.20m, whilst the external ditch of the double-ditched ring A measured c.15m across. The excavated SFB was located just 20m away from ring ditch B, suggesting that, assuming it was accompanied by a mound, the barrow could have been a highly visible earthwork for the building’s inhabitants. Furthermore, if there were other settlement features in the unexcavated area, there may have been other buildings with similar relationships with ring ditches A and B. Sources: Bradley and Gaimster 2002; Guilbert 2006; Guilbert 2007.

Archaeological Society; there were no burials and few finds, but the features were judged to be Bronze Age based on their forms (Anon 1939; Harden 1942). The two ring ditches were located in Smith’s Pit II, and lay just to the north-east of the large Iron Age enclosure. Ring ditch A had an external diameter of c.30m, and traces of gravel slumping on the outer side of the ditch, indicating that there had been an external bank. Ring ditch B had an external diameter of c.36.5m, and the fills of this ditch suggested that it too had been surrounded by a bank. These appear to have been disc barrows, comprising a central mound (or mounds) on a platform, surrounded by a ditch and external bank. Within the Iron Age enclosure a Bronze Age round barrow, c.33.5m diameter, was also excavated in 1943-44, at which time it still survived as a low mound (Atkinson 1947). The Anglo-Saxon occupation was generally dispersed across an area to the east of the two ring ditches excavated in 1939. The enclosure ditch itself contained Anglo-Saxon pottery, indicating that it had been open, or re-cut, in this period. Leeds recorded finding Anglo-Saxon settlement features in the eastern half of Tolley’s Pit, south of the Iron Age enclosure; unfortunately, although he plotted these on a site plan, he did not elaborate on his finds any further (Leeds 1934). The plan shows five archaeological features labelled as Anglo-Saxon, although only one (feature III) resembles a building. Measuring roughly 3m by 2.5m, this feature could have been an SFB. Other features on the plan are short and narrow, measuring c.2m by 1m (features I and II), or they are apparently incomplete and represented by two or three sides measuring between about 2.5m and 5m long (features IV and V). Thus, features III, IV and V may have been further buildings; indeed, they are marked on the Cassington site plan as ‘Saxon pits’, which could mean that they were SFBs. Hey (2004) suggested that at least three of these features could have been SFBs, although she did not specify which ones.

Barrow Hills, Oxfordshire GR: SU 5135 9815 Oxfordshire HER nos. D2494 (Cameron Avenue prehistoric), D8403 (Cameron Avenue Anglo-Saxon) and 13400 (Barrow Hills all phases). Pastscape no. 237928. Case study site: see Chapter 6 for further information. Cassington, Oxfordshire (Figs. 4.6 and 4.7) GR: SP 4533 1027 Oxfordshire HER no. D15053. Pastscape nos. 336742 (Tolley’s Pit) and 969487 (Anglo-Saxon finds within the Iron Age enclosure). Extensive gravel quarrying and the construction of the Oxford Northern Bypass road (now the A40) at Cassington in the 1930s-1950s revealed Anglo-Saxon settlement and funerary activity in an area containing numerous prehistoric monuments. Salvage work was carried out at different times by a number of local archaeologists while the site was in the midst of destruction, and the evidence is therefore rather complex to piece together. These investigations were generally published piecemeal in Oxoniensia, although a more recent overview of the site has been compiled by Hey (2004). A site plan of most of the features found at Cassington was produced by Harden (1940), and this is particularly useful for understanding the relationships between features of different dates and in different gravel pits. The salvage nature of the excavations, and the lack of any coherent post-excavation analysis, means that it is virtually impossible to assign exact dates to the Anglo-Saxon features, although finds including pottery, loomweights, a glass beaker fragment and bone weaving equipment suggest an early to middle Anglo-Saxon date.

A further feature on Leeds’s (1934) site plan of Tolley’s Pit, although not mentioned in his article, is what appears to be a double ring ditch approximately 20m in diameter. It was located roughly in the middle of Tolley’s Pit, and also appeared on the comprehensive plan of Cassington, drawn with dashed lines suggesting that it was perhaps noted as a cropmark or an incomplete feature. Benson and Miles (1974a) stated that Leeds had managed to salvage half of this feature, confirming that it was a double concentric ring ditch, presumably of prehistoric date. In the western half of Tolley’s Pit an Anglo-Saxon ‘hut’ was excavated by workmen in 1938, adding support to the suggestion that the features excavated by Leeds to the east were also related to an Anglo-Saxon settlement. Benson and Miles also recorded that Neolithic pits and ‘a few Saxon hearth bottoms’ containing finds were also found in this area at a similar time. The comprehensive site plan also shows another dashed ring ditch lying partially under the course of the A40 in the north-western corner of Tolley’s Pit, near to the ‘Saxon hut’ found by workmen. Although there is no record of this feature having been excavated, it does seem likely that it also belonged to a prehistoric barrow. In addition to the settlement features, Anglo-Saxon inhumations were also found, often by workmen. An uncertain number of graves were disturbed in 1940 in the east side of Smith’s Pit II, while in 1944 further graves were found in the same pit just to the south of the Iron Age enclosure and south-west of the previous discoveries (Atkinson and Crouch 1945).

The site was bisected by the A40, which runs through from east to west; many prehistoric and Anglo-Saxon features lay to the south of the road in a number of gravel pits. Anglo-Saxon occupation to the north of the road was restricted to a single SFB discovered in Partridge’s gravel pit (Hey 2004). A particularly notable prehistoric feature to the south of the road was the Iron Age Cassington Enclosure, which had a perimeter of c.700m (Atkinson 1947; Atkinson and Crouch 1945). A section excavated across the enclosure ditch by Harden (1942) in the early 1940s revealed that it was c.11m wide and 3.5m deep, and that it had been accompanied by an internal and an external bank. Another section excavated by Atkinson and Crouch (1945) several years later revealed that the ditch was c.9m wide and c.4m deep, although in this case there was only evidence for an internal bank. Numerous round barrows were also observed to the south of the road. In 1939 two ring ditches (A and B) were investigated by Oxford University

Some decades after the destruction of the Cassington Iron Age enclosure and its surrounding area, Benson and Miles (1974a) examined the cropmark evidence from aerial photographs taken before quarrying began. The cropmark of the Iron Age enclosure was visible, as were numerous circular features,

252

numbering many more than excavation records from the 1930s and 1940s suggest. On the basis of their forms and sizes many of these were thought to be Bronze Age barrows which predated the enclosure. The authors noted that only three ring ditches were excavated and adequately recorded at Cassington (presumably the three discussed above), estimating that another twenty to forty circular features had been destroyed without record. In addition to the Iron Age enclosure and numerous ring ditches seen on the cropmark plan produced by Benson and Miles, there is also another intriguing feature to the north of the A40, in what was Partridge’s Pit, where the single SFB, mentioned above, was found. Benson and Miles did not mention this feature in their discussion of the cropmarks, and no references to it have been found in any other published sources. The feature appears on the plan as a rectangle, measuring roughly 30m by 15m, with a gap along its southern edge. This closely resembles the cropmarks of large Anglo-Saxon hall buildings seen at other sites nearby, such as Sutton Courtenay, although it is several metres longer than any of the buildings noted there. It is possible, therefore, that this represents a large, perhaps high-status, Anglo-Saxon building, which was destroyed without record by the quarrying at Cassington.

alignment, which contained later fifth-century pottery (an SFB is marked on the site plan just to the south-west of the ‘lean-to’, and this seems to be the building in question since it is indeed on a slightly different alignment, although it does not appear to have replaced the ‘lean-to’ structure). The Anglo-Saxon features were located close to the remains of numerous prehistoric monuments (ADAS 1973; Barclay et al. 2003; Parkinson 1994). Seven ring ditches and a possible henge have been wholly or partly excavated, and a further thirteen ring ditches were seen on aerial photographs of the area. A middle Bronze Age enclosure complex and a second-century RomanoBritish enclosure have also been identified. The Anglo-Saxon buildings were situated in Area J, close to the excavated henge, two of the excavated ring ditches, three cropmark ring ditches and the Romano-British enclosure. The possible henge comprised a pair of ditches enclosing an elliptical area 9m by 10m, with narrow causeways (Parkinson 1994). The feature could, alternatively, have been a form of barrow, but either way it was thought to have had an external bank, as bank material had eroded into the ditches. One of the excavated ring ditches (feature 2) was small and slightly ovoid, with a maximum diameter of 9.5m. This feature almost certainly would not have survived into the Anglo-Saxon period due to the fact that a much larger ring ditch (feature 3), overlay it. Ring ditch 3 was substantial, with a ditch 1.4m wide, up to 1.2m deep and 30.5m in diameter. Silting within the ditch suggested that there had been an internal gravel and sand mound or bank, whilst pottery retrieved from the fill was early Bronze Age in date. This feature was substantial enough to have potentially survived into the Anglo-Saxon period. Indeed, the ‘large’, apparently sixth-century, SFB lay on the north-eastern quadrant of the ring ditch. The building may well have abutted the central mound or bank of the barrow. The other buildings were not directly associated with monuments in the same way, although the partially preserved six-post SFB lay just under 30m south of ring ditch 3, whilst the smaller SFB lay within the second-century enclosure and the ‘lean-to’ lay on the enclosure ditch. With no further information about the Romano-British enclosure, and the sizes of its ditches or presence of a bank, it is difficult to ascertain whether it might still have been visible at the time the SFBs were built.

Unfortunately, this site demonstrates just how much archaeological information may have been lost to destructive activities, such as quarrying, in the early to mid twentieth century. This area was evidently extremely rich in archaeological remains, but understanding these features, and the relationships between them, is extremely difficult. It is possible to say, however, that the Anglo-Saxon occupation was situated in a complex of prehistoric monuments, many of which may well have still been visible as raised mounds and banks. The discovery of Anglo-Saxon pottery in the Iron Age enclosure ditch suggests that this might also have been visible as a hollow in the ground, probably accompanied by an internal bank and perhaps also an external one. There appear to have been groups of buildings to the east and west of Tolley’s Pit, perhaps connected by further buildings in the middle of the area; these were close to two ring ditches, although only one was recorded. To the west were at least two further disc barrows, the Iron Age enclosure and at least one barrow inside the enclosure, while the cropmarks investigated by Benson and Miles suggest that the landscape could have contained many more prehistoric earthworks. Sources: Anon 1938; Anon 1950; Anon 1965; Atkinson and Crouch 1945; Barclay et al. 2003; Benson and Miles 1974a; Harden 1940; Harden 1942; Hey 2004; Leeds 1934; Leeds 1940; Parrington and Henderson 1974.

Excavation also took place to the west of the settlement, revealing parts of a middle Bronze Age enclosure system but no further Anglo-Saxon features. It seems unlikely, therefore, that the Anglo-Saxon settlement extended to the west, although the lack of early medieval features might be a consequence of the haphazard salvage strategy. The two Anglo-Saxon pits dug below the water level lay to the east and south of the SFBs, perhaps suggesting that further settlement features existed outside the excavation area in these directions. Meanwhile, land to the north of ring ditch 3 had been disturbed, and a large part had been destroyed by gravel workings, although aerial photographs taken prior to the quarrying showed two further cropmark ring ditches in the destroyed area. Thus, it is unclear exactly how many extensive the prehistoric and Anglo-Saxon activity might originally have been. Sources: ADAS 1973; Barclay et al. 2003; Parkinson 1994.

Corporation Farm, Oxfordshire (Fig. 4.24) GR: SU 497 957 Oxfordshire HER no. D14278. Pastscape no. 233982. The Anglo-Saxon features at Corporation Farm, excavated by the Abingdon and District Archaeological Society in the early 1970s, were located within a complex of Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments (ADAS 1973). Salvage excavations took place in advance of gravel quarrying and it proved impossible to record all features. It was also noted that the Anglo-Saxon features suffered more as a result of this than the prehistoric ones. However, three SFBs were excavated, one described as ‘small’ and associated with an early fifth-century bowl and another as ‘large’ and probably sixth-century in date. Of the third building only postholes remained, whilst near to it were two pits, dug below the water level, which contained clay, wood and fifth-century pottery. Another posthole feature, containing a hearth lined with stone, was interpreted as a ‘lean-to’, and was found to overlay a ditch of a Romano-British enclosure. This had been replaced by a six-post SFB on a slightly different

Eynsham Abbey, Oxfordshire (Figs. 4.40 and 4.41) GR: SP 433 091 Oxfordshire HER (no. unknown). Pastscape no. 336425. Eynsham Abbey is known for its extensive Anglo-Saxon and medieval occupation, but the first major phase of activity on the site dated to the Bronze Age, when a large sub-rectangular enclosure (feature 5151) was built, which appears to have

253

influenced later occupation. Parts of the enclosure ditch were uncovered in trenches opened during the excavations between 1989 and 1992 (Barclay et al. 2001). The enclosure was orientated west-north-west/east-south-east, and appears to have been formed by a continuous ditch with an entrance along its eastern edge, a terminal of which was excavated. The enclosure ditch varied in width from 3m-4.5m, and in depth from 1.6m1.9m; sections across it suggested that it had been infilled by domestic debris by the late Bronze Age.

metalworking debris and could have been cooking pits for a community living outside the excavated area, although slag in pit 394 might indicate that metalworking was taking place. Phase 2b activity was restricted to the area within the prehistoric enclosure, the exception being one pit located over the eastern section of the Bronze Age ditch. The possible entrance feature formed by fence 811 does not appear to have been in use, although the lack of stratigraphic relationships again makes this uncertain. The features assigned to Phase 3 (mid-late eighth to late ninth century) were all were within the Bronze Age enclosure, with one posthole building situated over the infilled ditch. Nineteen pits uncovered at the extreme west of Trench 2 formed a dense intercutting alignment c.10m long, and may represent a boundary, while two small ditches (1960/3130 and 3193) lying at right angles to each other were situated slightly north-east of the pit alignment. A fence line (5165) comprising twenty-five postholes later replaced the pit alignment, delineating an area in which a posthole building was identified, whilst a second building was located 9m away to the east in Trench 1. Documentary evidence suggests that there was a church on the site from at least the early ninth century, and it was suggested in the excavation report that the features attributed phase 2c were associated with the ecclesiastical activity (Hardy et al. 2003). The site yielded a large and well preserved early to middle Anglo-Saxon pottery assemblage of 6248 sherds, which contributed to phasing, although it should be noted that the majority of the pottery assemblage was recovered from the SFBs, and much of it was fairly undiagnostic; the phasing was, therefore, tentative. However, the numismatic evidence did support an earlier eighth-century date for phase 2b features, while the mid eighth-century to late ninth-century date assigned to phase 2c was supported by a styca dated to AD 837-55.

The prehistoric features, including the enclosure, were discussed by Barclay et al. (2001), who suggested that there was little evidence to indicate that the enclosure had survived into the Anglo-Saxon period, due to the fact that the ditch had silted up in prehistory, and because one of the SFBs would have cut through the line of an internal bank had there been one. There is, however, some evidence to suggest that the enclosure was visible in the Anglo-Saxon period. Firstly, the majority of the Anglo-Saxon settlement features were situated inside it, which seems more than coincidental. Secondly, as other sites in the corpus have shown, it is not unusual for SFBs to cut into earthworks; it is not impossible that a building did cut into a low internal bank. Moreover, even if the presence of an internal bank seems unlikely, there was evidence from the ditch fills to suggest that there had been an external bank accompanying the enclosure. Sections 250A, 250B and 250C across the northern arm of the Bronze Age ditch all showed that gravel deposits had filled the ditch from the north; in other words from outside the enclosure. Another section, 720, across the eastern arm of the enclosure close to the terminal of the ditch clearly showed that it had been filled from the south-east; again, this was the outside of the enclosure. Interestingly, as the evidence pointed to the rapid (and perhaps deliberate) infilling of the ditch by the late Bronze Age, this may well have aided the preservation of a bank, as there would have been no hollow for it to collapse into.

After phase 2c the ecclesiastical site at Eynsham continued in use until the sixteenth century (Hardy et al. 2003). The processes of building and rebuilding and the subsequent stone robbing resulted in damage to earlier archaeological remains. The Anglo-Saxon remains were effectively isolated on ‘islands’ of land where later activity had not caused damage. On these islands preservation was very good, but it is likely that other features were destroyed by later activity. The subsequent phases of the abbey site do not fall within the remit of this study and have not been considered, suffice to say that Phase 2d, dating to the tenth century, saw the construction of an enclosure ditch on a very similar alignment, and just inside of, the east side of the Bronze Age enclosure. After that, however, the abbey buildings became more substantial, and no longer respected the previous layout of the Anglo-Saxon settlement or the Bronze Age enclosure. Prior to Phase 2c there is little evidence to suggest an ecclesiastical function of the Anglo-Saxon settlement; indeed, in its earliest phases it pre-dated the introduction of Christianity, and the indications are that the abbey developed from an earlier secular settlement. Sources: Barclay et al. 2001; Hardy et al. 2003.

Eynsham was subsequently occupied in the early Anglo-Saxon period (phase 2a) (Hardy et al. 2003). This phase was predominantly dated to the sixth century, although it may have begun in the late fifth and extended into the mid-late seventh century. Features attributed to this phase include five SFBs, the best preserved of which (821, 3744 and 3534) were towards the south of the site. Notably, SFB 821 cut into the fill of the Bronze Age enclosure ditch. SFB 117 lay in the extreme northeast corner of the site, and was only partially revealed as it extended beyond the edge of the excavation area. The fifth SFB (3153) was located towards the centre of the site and had been badly damaged by medieval activity. Few other structural features belonging to phase 2a survived, although a fence (811) lay to the south of SFB 821 and led off to the east beyond the limit of excavation, at a right angle to the eastern side of the prehistoric enclosure ditch. The fence cut across the ditch, close to the terminal of the enclosure and if the postulated external bank also terminated at this entrance, the fence might have been positioned with reference to this. It is therefore possible that the fence was part of an entrance feature, which defined one side of an entry point into the Bronze Age enclosure during the AngloSaxon period.

Gatehampton Farm, Goring, Oxfordshire (Fig. 4.27) GR: SU 6045 7960 Oxfordshire HER no. 15019. Pastscape no. 241352. This site lay on the north bank of the River Thames on a gravel terrace and was excavated in advance of pipe-laying between 1985-1988, although cropmarks had been noted in the area as early as 1960 (Allen 1988; 1989; 1995). Cropmarks revealed at least twelve ring ditches, thought to represent a prehistoric barrow cemetery. Some were excavated during the 1980s, when their interpretation as Bronze Age barrows was confirmed. In the Romano-British period the site had been divided by a series of rectilinear enclosures, and cropmarks suggested that the

Phase 2b (mid-late seventh to the mid-late eighth century) was represented by hearths, burnt areas and pits, although there was little structural evidence. Two large hearths (1890 and 458) were found c.5m apart in the centre of the site and another (732) was c.11m to the south-east. Numerous postholes, beam slots and stakeholes were cut into and around hearth 1890, suggesting that there had been a structure (or structures) associated with it. A number of pits were also found in association with the hearths, the largest (394) containing animal bone, metalworking slag and early eighth-century coins. The hearths contained little

254

focus of this Romano-British phase of activity lay beneath the modern Gatehampton Farm, away from the ring ditches. Ploughing had taken place inside some of these fields in the Roman period, and alluvial deposits had also built up at that time, but these do not appear to have prevented the barrows (at least some of them) from forming visible earthworks at the time of excavation.

anomalies indicative of occupation were also identified, a number of which could have been further SFBs. In particular, it was suggested that the features identified in Area 2 of the survey were likely to have been SFBs. Similar anomalies were located in other areas of the survey as well, and one of these was situated in the middle of barrow 36, slightly off centre. Although the magnetometer survey cannot be considered a reliable indicator of the exact sizes of the features it identified, on the survey plan this feature measures approximately 4m by 3m. These dimensions are arguably on the large side for a grave cut, and are characteristic of SFBs, hinting at the possibility that there was a building on top of a barrow here. Based on the evidence from the magnetometer survey, the excavators suggested that a potentially large Anglo-Saxon settlement was waiting to be uncovered at Gatehampton Farm. This settlement was certainly established in an area containing at least two upstanding prehistoric barrows (226 and 413, as indicated by their visibility at the time of excavation) and perhaps a number of other visible barrows. In addition to the Anglo-Saxon occupation midden and SFB, there were also pottery sherds scattered across the area between them. The pottery assemblage was fairly undiagnostic, but there was a decorated fifth- to sixth-century sherd, and this date was supported by the organic tempering of other sherds. Sources: Allen 1988; Allen 1989; Allen 1995; Lambrick 1986.

The Anglo-Saxon features at Gatehampton Farm were not extensive; all but the eastern end of an SFB (feature 38) was exposed (Allen 1995). It was on an east-west axis and subrectangular, measuring 3.5m by at least 4.4m and surviving to a depth of 0.25m. Scatters of postholes to the north and south were found to contain a similar fill to the building, although only some were investigated and no dating evidence was retrieved. Some postholes did form lines, however, and they may have represented the remains of post-built structures contemporary with the SFB. Around 200m to the west of the SFB, in a cable trench investigated in 1992, further AngloSaxon remains were discovered. A deposit containing charcoal, animal bones and sherds of Anglo-Saxon pottery was found in what appeared to be part of a buried water channel, and this was interpreted as a midden. Both areas of Anglo-Saxon activity were in the vicinity of barrows. Approximately 12m to the south of the SFB was round barrow 36, the eastern side of which was exposed in the same trench as the SFB in 1987. A small westerly extension of the trench over the interior of the ring ditch revealed no trace of a mound, but the survival of a prehistoric subsoil, as well as possible slumped mound material in the ditch fill, indicated that there had originally been one. The ring ditch was found to be c.2m wide and 1m deep, with a diameter of c.25m. Additionally, a Romano-British corndrier was discovered in the 1987 trench; sherds of Anglo-Saxon pottery were found in the bottom layers of the destruction level in one part of the corndrier, suggesting that the structure may have existed into the fifth century and perhaps also influenced later occupation.

New Wintles Farm, Eynsham, Oxfordshire (Figs. 4.25 and 4.26) GR: SP 430 108 Oxfordshire HER nos. D15055 (prehistoric) and 15056 (AngloSaxon). Pastscape no. 336789. Land west of New Wintles Farm was investigated between 1968-1972 ahead of gravel extraction. Interpretation of the site is complicated by the fact that four separate excavations took place in three adjacent fields. Area A was excavated under the direction of Sonia Chadwick Hawkes and Margaret Gray in 1968, Area B by Gray in 1970, Area C by N.B. Clayton in 1971, and Area D by Gray in 1972 (these areas were designated A to D for clarity in 1973, after the excavations had taken place). The excavations were piecemeal as they were dictated by the rate at which gravel extraction was taking place. Archaeological features were scattered over seven acres and in total the four episodes of investigation revealed four or five post-built structures, a well, scattered pits of various sizes, and twenty-one SFBs, two of which lay within ring ditches in areas C and D.

Within an area c.200m south-west of the excavated SFB and barrow 36 were six further ring ditches. The furthest away, barrow 413, was visible at the time of the excavation as a mound c.18m in diameter, standing between 0.10-0.75m high, and it had a ring ditch 25m in diameter. Excavation proved that it was a prehistoric monument and a medieval field boundary ran across the barrow, suggesting that it had been used as a landmark. Midway between the excavated SFB and barrow 413 was another ring ditch (226), which was also excavated. It was 18m in diameter, and had evidence for a central mound, which survived to a height of 0.25m under the topsoil. This feature was thought to be a Bronze Age bell barrow, which would have originally have had a mound c.2.2m tall. Although the other ring ditches in this cluster were not excavated, another unnumbered ring ditch to the north-west of 226 was seen to have a surviving mound at the time of the excavation. A number of the prehistoric barrows in the cemetery were, therefore, certainly visible earthworks in the Anglo-Saxon period.

Area A, to the north of the site, contained a number of SFBs and post-built structures (Chadwick Hawkes and Gray 1969). A deep palisade trench marked the settlement’s eastern boundary and in the south-east corner of Area A the palisade turned west at an acute angle, joining a second north-south palisade ditch parallel with the first. Although the palisades were undated, their relationship with the Anglo-Saxon settlement features suggested that they were contemporary; in particular, several trackways believed to be part of the Anglo-Saxon settlement led up to, and into, the enclosure formed by the palisade trenches. There were three post-built structures in this part of the site; the first (122) measured 12m by 6m and was overlain by later SFBs, while the second (130) was roughly 5m square with a central posthole, and the third (255) was a similar size to 122 but less regular. To the south-east of posthole building 122 were two sleeper-beam trenches 4m apart but of uncertain length, with internal partitions; this may have been a stock enclosure, since the trenches were considered too small to have held beams for a building.

While the evidence for Anglo-Saxon occupation was fairly limited, magnetometer survey of an area (150m by 130m) to the west of the trench containing the SFB suggested that further features may have been present (Allen 1995). The survey area included the trench containing the SFB and provided a view of the entire ring ditch around barrow 36, only part of which had been excavated. Also on the survey were the ring ditches of two other un-numbered ring ditches (which had also been seen as cropmarks) near to barrow 226. One of these was the largest ring ditch on the site, while the other was seen as a doubleditched cropmark ring ditch (although the magnetometer survey only identified one ditch). Significantly, fifteen discrete positive

255

Eleven dispersed SFBs were also excavated in Area A, the largest (123) measuring 5.5m by 4m and the smallest (38) 3.5m by 2.5m. Each had a substantial posthole at the end and some had traces of stakeholes inside the pits, while most were on the same alignment as the posthole structures. One of these eleven buildings was partially uncovered by machine on the edge of Area A, and it was not marked on any of the site plans or investigated in any detail. Two of the SFBs (123 and 124) overlay post-built structure 122. There were also two burials within the settlement, one (260) a female interment with sixthcentury disc brooches towards the east of the settlement, and another (316) towards the south (no further details were provided about this second burial). A third skeleton was uncovered by machine to the north of the settlement, although its relationship with the other burials and the settlement was unclear. A date of the sixth to late seventh century was suggested for the settlement, with two, possibly three, phases of occupation. SFBs 38 and 91 and PBS 122 appeared to be the earliest, dating to the sixth century, while SFBs 36, 123 and 124, and the square post-built structure, appeared to be seventhcentury. A slightly later date was hinted at by a ‘decorated metal object’ (no further details were given) in SFB 9, which could have belonged to the early eighth century.

they labelled on the accompanying site plan. It was noted that twenty SFBs had been excavated in total at New Wintles Farm (although the total number was actually twenty-one, as this article did not take into account the partially excavated SFB on the edge of Area A). This means that eight SFBs must have been uncovered in Areas B and C. While the site plan provides few clues about the features in Areas B and C, it is possible to correlate some of the features described by Gray (1974) with those on the site plan in Areas B and C. Gray stated that in total two SFBs had been found within Bronze Age ring ditches in total; as one of these was accounted for in Area D, the other must have been a pit feature marked on the site plan in the centre of the larger of two ring ditches in Area C (which had a diameter of c.20m). While there was an inhumation within an Anglo-Saxon ring ditch in this area, Clayton (1973) explicitly stated that this burial had been omitted from the plan of Area C, hence there is no possibility that the feature marked on the large ring ditch was a grave; it must have been the SFB described by Gray (1974). There was a post-built structure abutting the larger ring ditch in Area C; this was not considered to be AngloSaxon, although no further details about its date were given. Many features marked in Areas B and C are likely to have been the large sterile pits described by Gray (1974), which were not well understood although some contained Anglo-Saxon pottery. They frequently cut prehistoric features and were overlain by medieval furrows, supporting the suggestion that they were Anglo-Saxon features. It was suggested that these were quarry pits for obtaining gravel to consolidate some of the muddier areas of the Anglo-Saxon settlement. Many isolated pits and postholes were also discovered; these did not form structures, but they could have belonged to features which had been partially destroyed.

During the 1968 phase of excavation, in the northern part of Area A, an enclosure containing late Neolithic cremations was discovered. This was oval and had 10-12m-long discontinuous outer ditches and two 6m-long curved lengths of inner ditch (Kenward 1982). The monument was interpreted as a middle Neolithic henge or burial enclosure, and its ditches were found to have been filled in soon after they were dug. However, the ditch fills contained no trace of the gravel that would have been removed when the ditches were dug, possibly indicating that the upcast gravel had been used to form a mound or bank, and that the ditches had been infilled with material from elsewhere before the banks could erode into them. It is possible, therefore, that the monument could have remained a visible earthwork in the Anglo-Saxon period. The enclosure was not marked on any of the published site plans, meaning that it is difficult to determine its proximity to the Anglo-Saxon features. However, it was stated that it found within Area A slightly to the north of the sixth- to eighth-century buildings, in which case it must have been somewhere along the northern edge of the settlement, at most about 30m away from the line of the most northerly SFBs.

The site had suffered as a result of medieval and modern ploughing, which had removed all floor levels and left only the bases of shallow features. It is, therefore, possible that more Anglo-Saxon settlement features existed at New Wintles Farm. Further features may also have been present in old gravel workings nearby, and these would have been long-since destroyed. Cropmarks to the south of the excavated areas suggests that more archaeological features were present; in particular, sub-rectangular marks suggest that the southern limit of the Anglo-Saxon settlement had not been reached. In her doctoral thesis Semple (2003b) claimed that the barrows at New Wintles Farm would definitely not have been visible in the Anglo-Saxon period as they had been completely ploughed away by the Iron Age or Roman period. She cited as evidence the site plan provided in Clayton’s 1973 paper (the same site plan referred to throughout this summary), but this does not, in fact, show that any Iron Age or Roman ploughing had taken place. Furrows are visible, but Clayton stated that these were all medieval, and there is no mention in any of the excavation summaries of Iron Age or Roman activity. Plough damage had therefore been caused to the New Wintles Farm site in the medieval and post-medieval periods, and there is no reason to believe the earthworks of the prehistoric remains had been destroyed before the Anglo-Saxon period. In fact, Gray (1974: 54) stated that the associations between the Anglo-Saxon features and the barrows were for ‘reasons not considered to be coincidental’, although she did not elaborate on this. Sources: Brown 1968; Brown 1969; Chadwick Hawkes and Gray 1969; Clayton 1973; Gray 1973; Gray 1974; Kenward 1982; Semple 2003b; Wilson and Hurst 1969.

Area D lay immediately north of Area A; it contained another SFB lying immediately east of a post-built structure (9m by 4m) (Gray 1973). Several pits were also uncovered, in addition to a well, the latter having a depth of 2.53m below the gravel and containing animal bones, including complete skulls, and AngloSaxon pottery. A further SFB, without posts but containing a clay oven, lay within a ring ditch in this area. No further information about the position of this SFB was given in the text, but on the site plan the building appears to have been within the most northerly ring ditch in Area D. In total there were three ring ditches in this area, and Bronze Age pottery recovered from the most northerly one indicated that it was a prehistoric monument. It appears to have had a diameter of c.20m, as did the most southerly ring ditch in this area, while a smaller circle between the two was c.15m in diameter (these dimensions were measured from the site plan as no details were given in the text). Details about the excavations in areas B and C were less well disseminated than those in areas A and D. The primary source of information about these areas is a summary of all the New Wintles Farm excavations (Gray 1974). Although many of the features discovered in Areas B and C were mentioned, few details were provided about their sizes or positions, nor were

Sutton Courtenay, Oxfordshire GR: SU 4913 9467 Oxfordshire HER nos. 5382 (all phases), 15287 (all phases), 15933 (Didcot Anglo-Saxon ditch) and 16255 (Didcot AngloSaxon buildings).

256

Pastscape no. 234114. Case study site: see Chapter 6 for further information. Catholme, Staffordshire GR: SK 197 163 Staffordshire HER no. 01481 – MST1473. Pastscape no. 921734. Case study site: see Chapter 6 for further information.

Romano-British or medieval, as much more material would have been expected. The geographical position of the site also suggests that it may have been an important place, as it lay near a ford across an important waterway, while its proximity to the Hatton Rock cliff would have made it a noticeable and impressive location. This is supported by documentary evidence, which suggest that the area of land was part of a Mercian royal estate, which gradually diminished in the eighth century (Rahtz 1970).

Fatholme, Staffordshire (Fig. 4.43) GR: SK 2019 1736 Staffordshire HER no. 00209 – MST209. Pastscape no. N/A. Fatholme was investigated as part of a salvage excavation by Trent and Peak Archaeological Services in 1983-1984 (LoscoBradley 1984; TPAT 1984). The site was stripped in advance of gravel quarrying and cropmarks had already suggested that a double ring ditch was present. Excavation revealed that there were in fact seven circuits of intercutting ditch containing Bronze Age material. Pits and postholes within the ring ditches appear to pre-date it, some forming a building with an apparent porch or annexe. The pattern of postholes shows that occupation extended to the north, south and west of the excavated area, and the ditch was consistently shown to post-date the postholes within it. The area within the ring ditches was at least c.17m in diameter. Further excavation around the ring ditch (although not to the east where quarrying had already destroyed the ground) revealed that the prehistoric enclosure and postholes did not extend beyond the area previously investigated.

The cropmarks had initially been noted in 1964 and the year after a geophysical survey was carried out; although a resistivity survey revealed little, a magnetometer survey did produce a correlation between the strongest readings and the mapped cropmarks. Rahtz (1970) sketched the features onto a map of the area, which became and has remained the main source of information about the site’s layout. Rahtz suggested that there may have been two phases of occupation, based on the relative orientation of the buildings and differences in the ‘sharpness’ of their outlines; the more blurred outlines of the first phase of buildings possibly resulted from their timbers being removed, whilst the sharper outlines of possible second phase features might have been due to the building remains being left in the ground. Each phase appeared to consist of a group of rectangular buildings, presumed to be timber, as well as possible SFBs, and an L-shaped ditch or timber alignment. The timber ‘hall’ buildings ranged in size from c.6m by 6m to c.50m by 9m and one example, building J, may have had an apsidal end, suggesting that it could have been a church. Although the building dimensions were not exact, it was clear that they were unusually large and had similarities with the large halls at sites such as Yeavering. A ring ditch was also noted to the north of the geophysical survey area, measuring c.20m in diameter. In each of the two proposed occupation phases there was a distinct row of three or more timber buildings. The possible Phase 2 row lay immediately to the east of the ring ditch, with the most northerly building lying adjacent to it. It seems that this ring ditch influenced the positioning of these buildings, and it may have belonged to a barrow.

The excavation report for this site is very brief and focuses largely on the enclosure, but it does mention that other excavated features included the corner of a small, late prehistoric ditched enclosure, as well as pits, a ditched boundary and postholes of an eroded rectangular structure attributed to the Anglo-Saxon period (TPAT 1984). The Anglo-Saxon features are not labelled on the site plan, but a ditched boundary running across the southern edge of the plan seems to be the AngloSaxon one mentioned in the text, as no other discrete boundaries were discovered (since the portion of late prehistoric ditch formed the corner of an enclosure it cannot be this feature). Similarly, a collection of postholes on the site plan in the northwest corner of the site is not labelled; as the prehistoric features are generally labelled, and as no other clusters of postholes were mentioned in the report, it seems likely that this represents the Anglo-Saxon structure. Unfortunately, no further information on the finds and features from Fatholme could be traced, and it is difficult to interpret this site. In particular, there is no information about the dating of the Anglo-Saxon features. It is interesting, however, that it seems to indicate that AngloSaxon features were perhaps 10-15m away from the Bronze Age monument (although the form of that monument is unknown), and it may also be relevant that the possible AngloSaxon boundary appeared to skirt around the prehistoric monument. Sources: Losco-Bradley 1984; TPAT 1984.

The construction of a pipe trench across the site in January 1970 allowed the cropmark features to be investigated in more detail, although the trench measured just 0.3m across and it was investigated under inclement weather conditions (Hirst and Rahtz 1973). It was possible to correlate some of the excavated features with those seen on the aerial photographs. For example, part of the small square cropmark feature Q was correlated with excavated feature 1, while feature 2 was thought to be the corner of L-shaped ditch C. An oblique cut through a ditch feature (feature 6) seems to have been part of the ring ditch, and the excavation confirmed that it was stratigraphically earlier than one of the apparent timber-slot buildings (feature 7), supporting the supposition that it was a prehistoric feature. Another excavated feature (14) appeared to correlate with the north wall of building J; the linear feature was either the timber slot of the building, or an eaves-drip or drain associated with it. If feature 1 was indeed part of the small square cropmark feature Q, it seems likely that it was an SFB, as it had sloping sides leading to a flat base, it contained a large assemblage of animal bone, and it appeared to have straight edges in plan. If this was the case, then features B and K on the cropmark plot might also have represented SFBs as they resembled Q. A hearth, a 1.5m-deep posthole and timber slots of a similar depth were also uncovered in the pipe trench.

Hatton Rock, Warwickshire (Fig. 4.18) GR: SP 237 577 Warwickshire HER no. 954. Pastscape no. 333185. This site is located on the southern end of a spur overlooking the Warwickshire Avon, close to the eponymous Hatton Rock, a clay and gravel cliff. Philip Rahtz (1970) suggested that cropmarks in the area belonged to an Anglo-Saxon ‘palace’, as possible cropmark halls on the site were too large to belong to a ‘normal’ settlement, and were comparable with structures at Yeavering, Milfield and Cheddar. Although the dates of these features could not be discerned without excavation, the lack of material disturbed by ploughing suggested that it was not

It was stated that pottery recovered from the features supported the supposition that Hatton Rock was an early to middle AngloSaxon site, although detailed analysis of the assemblage does not seem to have been undertaken (Hirst and Rahtz 1973). A

257

radiocarbon date of AD 875±88 was retrieved, leading to the suggestion that the site was eighth- or ninth-century in date. Although the limited excavation did not greatly add to understanding of the settlement, it did confirm that the interpretations of the features on the cropmark and geophysical plots the size of the buildings were generally correct. There does, therefore, appear to have been a close relationship between a high-status settlement and a barrow, and the arrangement of the phase 2 row of buildings closely resembles the situation at Sutton Courtenay. Sources: Hirst and Rahtz 1973; Rahtz 1970.

258

APPENDIX B GAZETTEER OF SETTLEMENTS WITHOUT REUSE This appendix provides a comparative list of all early to middle Anglo-Saxon settlement sites in the study area without evidence for monument reuse. The criteria for compiling this list were similar to those for the corpus, in that it only includes sites that have been excavated and that have yielded structural evidence. Many were initially identified using the National Monument Record’s online catalogue, Pastscape. Where available, this information has been supplemented with details from SMR or HER records and published data, in particular the fieldwork notes from volumes of Medieval Archaeology and regional journals. Time periods have been abbreviated to BA (Bronze Age), IA (Iron Age), RB (Roman-British) and AS (AngloSaxon). The settlements are listed by county, in alphabetical order.

Source(s): Bedfordshire HER; BCCCAS N.d. Houghton Regis GR: SP 991 225 Pastscape No. 346576 An AS SFB was found during quarrying. There are also BA inhumations and an IA storage pit, but these were not deemed to have been long-lived or visible enough to have influenced later occupation. Source(s): Pastscape Houghton Regis GR: TL 022 242 Pastscape No. 359867 An AS settlement site, including a well containing C9th-10th pottery. Source(s): Pastscape.

BEDFORDSHIRE Bedford GR: TL 053 597 An AS burh in Bedford, containing one or two 'substantial' buildings of posthole and sleeper beam slot construction. Excavated c.1970. Source(s): Rahtz 1976b.

Ivel Farm/Becks Land South, Sandy GR: TL 182 467 HER No. 3527 At least four, possibly five, SFBs were discovered in 20012002, two in close proximity to each other on the east of the site, the other two/three to the west. Source(s): Bedfordshire HER; Bradley and Gaimster 2003: 2201; Thorpe 2003: 3.

Church End Lower School, Marston Moretaine GR: SP 9960 4178 Pastscape No. 346760 Early to middle AS boundary ditches and occupation evidence was found (although no further details about the occupation features was given). A possible Saxo-Norman hall was discovered too. Source(s): Pastscape; Bradley et al. 1999: 233.

Land off Groveland Way, Stotfold GR: TL 222 362 Excavations uncovered the truncated remains of an SFB. A number of smaller sub-rectangular pits scattered across the site were tentatively interpreted as SFBs. Small quantities of early to middle AS pottery were recovered. There were also AS inhumations. Other features on the site were predominantly IA and RB, but these were not deemed substantial enough to have existed in the AS period. Source(s): Bradley and Gaimster 2001: 115-6.

Elstow Road, Cutler Hammer GR: TL 04949 47946 Possible AS PBSs (they cut alluvium which built up in the later RB period and which covered ring ditches, IA settlement features and an RB settlement. No AS artefacts were found, however. This information is based on information from Stephen Coleman, the Historic Environment Officer at Bedfordshire HER, but the actual HER number of the site is unknown. Source(s): Bedfordshire HER; S. Coleman pers. comm.

Oakley Road, Clapham GR: TL 0220 5280 Investigations took place along the line of the A6 Clapham bypass. The majority of features were associated with a late IA/RB farmstead. Early to middle AS occupation was located on higher ground, beyond an area of alluvium. There were five SFBs clustered in three distinct groups. Some of this information is based on comments from Stephen Coleman, the Historic Environment Officer at Bedfordshire HER, but the actual HER number of the site is unknown. Source(s): Bedfordshire HER; Bradley and Gaimster 2001: 1534; Edmonson et al. N.d.

Felmersham GR: SP 990 578 Pastscape No. 346793 Excavations on the site of a deserted medieval village located possible early AS structures. According to Rahtz, these included a possible SFB and postholes, as well as a pit. Excavated in c.1951 by Jope. Source(s): Pastscape; Rahtz 1976b.

Pear Tree Farm, Elstow GR: TL 049 472 Pastscape No. 360171 An AS SFB was excavated. Source(s): Pastscape.

High Street/ Land off Spring Lane, Yielden GR: TL 012 670 At the High Street site middle AS ditches, gullies, pits and postholes (probably from structures) were found in association with C8th-9th Maxey ware, which is rare in Bedfordshire. There were also late Neolithic and BA features, which were cut by RB linear ditches, gullies, postholes, possible timber slots and pits. At the adjacent Land off Spring Lane site were RB and AS boundary ditches and pits, as well as AS pottery, ditches, gullies, pits and postholes. Some of this information is based on comments from Stephen Coleman, the Historic Environment Officer at Bedfordshire HER, but the actual HER number of the site is unknown.

Puddlehill, Haughton Regis GR: TL 0032 2355 Pastscape No. 359820 Ten SFBs are known from a chalk ridge and are thought to have been occupied between the C6th and C7th. There is also a C5th 'warrior' burial in a mound over an RB ditch and a C6th inhumation cemetery. Source(s): Pastscape; Webster and Cherry 1972: 147; Rahtz 1976b; Matthews and Chadwick Hawkes 1985.

259

revealed early AS pottery in the upper fills of RB ditches and a possible AS post-built structure was found to the north of the RB enclosures. Source(s): Zeepvat et al. 1994.

Puddlehill Ridge, Houghton Regis GR: TL 0021 2347 Pastscape No. 359938 Two SFBs were found in a pipeline trench on the same ridge as the Puddlehill settlement. They were excavated in 1971. Source(s): Pastscape.

Bow Brickhill, Caldecotte GR: SP 890 355 Pastscape No. 344613 An IA and RB settlement dating from the C1st to C4th was found during excavation 1978-1980. The Pastscape record records the discovery of an 'early medieval' building (although it is not clear if this means AS or belonging to the post-Conquest medieval period). Webster and Cherry suggested that the ditches survived as landscape features adjacent to an AS ‘village’, and that part of a PBS was excavated, which could indicate that the ‘early medieval’ building was AS in date. Source(s): Pastscape; Webster and Cherry 1980: 218.

Stratton, Biggleswade GR: TL 205 438 Pastscape No. 1239781 HER No. 518 Excavations took place in 1990-1992 and 1995-1999 over a large area. On the W side of the site was an industrial zone, enclosed by a curving boundary ditch with two entrances. Inside the enclosure were six SFBs and pits containing ferrous slag. A further four SFBs were located outside the enclosure, along with several granary structures. Further investigations revealed four wells, another SFB and a probable PBS. It is suggested that occupation began in the C7th. Activity continued into the middle AS period. The wells were replaced around this time and a considerable quantity of Maxey-type ware came from these features. The settlement remains covered at least 21 ha. In 1999 more dispersed AS features were found, including a large water pit, a possible hearth and isolated pits and postholes. A small pottery assemblage dominated by shell-tempered Maxey-type wares was found. Source(s): Bedfordshire HER; Pastscape; Shotliff 1995; Nenk et al. 1996: 242-3; Gaimster et al. 1998: 116; Bradley et al. 1999: 233-4; Bradley and Gaimster 2000: 249.

Caldecotte Balancing Lake, Bletchley GR: SP 8841 3568 Pastscape No.1147674 Excavations in 1981 revealed an early AS building (of unspecified type). Source(s): Pastscape. Fenny Lock, Bletchley, Milton Keynes GR: SP 884 345 Pastscape No. 1151611 Excavations took place at Fenny Lock in 1996. A single SFB was found in association with an RB building. Pastscape gives the site’s grid reference as SP 884 345, but in Bradley and Gaimster’s article it is given as SP 884 347. Source(s): Pastscape; Bradley and Gaimster 2001: 262; Ford and Taylor 2001.

Warren Villas Quarry, Upper Caldecote, Sandy GR: TL 1827 4698 HER No. 3527 Excavation took place in 1994. IA curvilinear ditches were excavated, along with pits. The site was abandoned in the late IA and reoccupied in the C1st AD. This settlement lasted until the C4th, when waterlogging affected the site. After a hiatus of two centuries AS occupation began, which was characterised by the cutting and replacement of enclosure ditches, as well as three rectangular post-built structures. This occupation was dated to the C6th. The Saxo-Norman period saw more extensive activity. Source(s): Bedfordshire HER; BCCAS 1994; BCCAS 1995; Maull 1995.

Former Castle Cement Works (Phase 2), Pitstone GR: SP 9375 1515 An open area excavation of about 1.5ha uncovered four SFBs along with a widely-spaced scatter of pits and postholes. The buildings were all aligned E-W. Pottery was mostly early to middle AS, but there were some late IA/RB sherds. There was also some evidence for RB field enclosures. Excavated in 2002. Source(s): Bradley and Gaimster 2003: 222. Land near Walnuts Farm, Newport Pagnell GR: SP 856 431 A C5th SFB on the site of RB enclosures was excavated c.2006. Source(s): Morris 2007: 13.

Whitsundoles Farm, Salford GR: SP 9220 4005 Two SFBs, 5m apart, were excavated, along with a PBS c.30m NE of the SFBs. These structures were early to middle AS in date. IA activity was also identified, including a major boundary in the SE corner of the excavation area which had been redefined on a number of occasions, but this was not close enough to the AS features to have influenced them. Source(s): Albion 2004; Dawson 2005.

Latimer Villa, Latimer GR: SU 998 986 C5th occupation was discovered near to an RB villa in the 1960s. A narrow timber-framed building and another potential building were excavated, and other buildings were apparently indicated by floor areas. However, there is a chance this could be C4th activity, not C5th. Source(s): Wilson and Hurst 1967: 263; Rahtz 1976b.

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE Bancroft Mausoleum, Bancroft GR: SP 825 405 A single, poorly-preserved SFB was found 40m south-east of a late Romano-British mausoleum in 1985. The building was cut into the side of a late Belgic clay pit, aligned N-S and contained C5th pottery. Source(s): Youngs et al. 1986: 121.

Moat House, Bradwell GR: SP 8298 2397 Pastscape No. 344682 Investigations at the C17th Moat House uncovered an C8th timber building, which had been superseded by an C11th stone one. A possible ditch, contemporary with the C8th building, was also found to the N and W of the structure. The Pastscape record for this site suggests that it might have been a burh. Rescue excavations took place c.1969. Source(s): Pastscape.

Berrystead Close, Caldecotte GR: SP 893 352 Large quantities of AS pottery were recovered during fieldwalking in the 1970s. Excavations between 1978 and 1980

260

Sewerage Scheme, Weston Underwood GR: SP 86 50 Recording along sewage trenches in 1994 revealed AS pottery, which lacked a specific focus but showed that the site was occupied in the early and late AS periods. Traces of a PBS were also found, but no useful dating evidence came from this, so it could have belonged to either period. Source(s): Nenk et al. 1995: 189.

Cambridge GR: TL445 594 (Castle Hill) GR: TL 448 584 (Market Place) HER Nos. 04422 (Castle Hill); 04423 (Market Place); 04944 (Cambridge) An AS 'village' on Castle Hill. According to Rahtz, there were pits (some wicker-lined) and ditches in this area. Although features seem to have been first noted in the C19th, further investigations took place in the 1960s. At Market Place there was another ‘village’ site, occupied at the same time as Castle Hill. This also seems to have been first noted in the C19th. Of Cambridge generally, the old RB town may have been deserted by the C7th, but there may also have been a consistent presence there in the early AS. A parallel settlement S of the river grew up and assumed greater importance from the early C7th onwards than the old RB one. Several churches in Cambridge, both N and S of the river, have pre-Conquest origins. During the late C8th a burh was apparently created in the old RB town by Offa. Subsequently settlement seems to have spread out from the burh to the S of the river. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER; Rahtz 1976b.

Walton Street and Walton Road Stores, Walton GR: SP 820 130 (Walton Road) GR: SP 8225 1319 (Walton St) Excavation prior to development in Walton Street revealed two AS SFBS in 1973. The better-preserved contained grasstempered pottery and fine decorated sherds. The other survived to a depth of only 0.1m and contained a single-sided and a double-sided comb. A palisade trench contained St Neots-type pottery. In 1974 two more SFBs were found, oriented E-W. There were also two pits, one containing quern fragments. Loomweights, a comb, a brooch and much decorated pottery were found too. At Walton Road Stores in 1995 AS activity was recorded in the form of six SFBs and two rectangular PBSs. There was little evidence for middle AS activity, but in the late AS property boundaries were laid out which shared their alignments with a series of RB field boundaries. One SFB had been destroyed in a fire, with evidence of burnt timbers. Loomweights, bone comb fragments and gaming counters were found in the SFBs. In 1996 middle AS activity was found, represented by one SFB, seven sub-rectangular and square PBSs, and fence lines. Gullies and hearths were also excavated. Ceramic evidence suggests that the site was occupied between the C6th and C8th. Source(s): Webster and Cherry 1974: 174; Webster and Cherry 1975: 220; Nenk et al. 1995: 188; Nenk et al. 1996: 245.

Cambridge Rowing Lake I and II, Waterbeach GR: TL 4932 6481 (I) GR: TL 4924 6417 (II) Pastscape No. 371848 HER Nos. 09024 (I); 09049 (II) Evaluation revealed AS settlement features including ditches and structural evidence, all associated with early AS pottery. Remains included the possible N end of PBS, a posthole cluster and a possible hearth. Further finds were made during an evaluation, including a possible SFB and two pierced C4th coins. Evaluated in 1996. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER; Pastscape. Cardinal Distribution Park, Godmanchester GR: TL 2550 7030 HER No. 13011 The principal evidence from this site was in the form of SFBs, an associated enclosure and field system, and PBSs. There were a small number of prehistoric features (which were not large enough to have been preserved into the AS period) and RB features. Two phases of AS activity have been identified, and both seem to belong to the early AS period. Excavated 1998. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER.

Wavendon Gate, Walton GR: SP 904 368 Pastscape No. 1147682 Excavations in 1988-9 located a substantial IA and RB agrarian settlement, which was followed by a hiatus until the C6th. C6th pits and postholes were excavated, probably representing fence lines rather than buildings. The upper fills of RB ditches contained AS pottery, and at the intersection of two large RB ditches was a concentration of AS pottery and a loomweight thought to represent the remains of an SFB. There were also several early AS ditches and a small square pit. The early Anglo-Saxon settlement phase was short-lived. The IA features were not deemed to have influenced the AS settlement although the RB features may have done so. Source(s): Pastscape; Gaimster et al. 1989: 172; Williams et al. 1996.

Castle Hills/The Hillings, St Neots GR: TL 1733 5890 Pastscape No. 362787 Ringwork and bailey with partly underlying AS cemetery and settlement. Excavations in 1949-50 revealed forty AS burials, probably also with a settlement and church. Subsequent excavations uncovered a C9th AS settlement, but no more details about the settlement features are given on Pastscape. Excavated in 1949-50 and again in 1962. Source(s): Pastscape.

CAMBRIDGESHIRE Buckden GR: TL 201 680 Pastscape Nos. 366337 and 871834 HER Nos. 00861c and 02498 Excavations in advance of quarrying revealed pits, ditches and some postholes of early AS date, and a small SFB was also found. Subsequently, early AS pits and more early AS SFBs and lines of postholes were found. Excavated by Addyman ahead of quarrying in the early 1960s. Earlier work had taken place in the 1950s by Tebbutt, C.F. and Rudd, G.T. ahead of quarrying, when they found SFBs, pottery and pits. There were also C1st to C2nd ditches. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER; Pastscape; Rahtz 1976b.

Castor GR: TL 1246 9849 (1957-58 area) GR: E 512500 N 298400 (Elmlea) Pastscape Nos. 364314 (1957-58 area) and 364308 (Elmlea) In 1957-1958 Charles Green excavated an SFB associated with Ipswich Ware sherds of middle AS date. About 130m north of this small scale excavations subsequently revealed an AS building over the N wing of an RB villa at Elmlea in Castor. This buildings was just to the N of St Kyneburg's church and it was also thought to be middle AS in date. Source(s): Pastscape.

261

The site was excavated in advance of the development for a new school playing field. This revealed three stratigraphically related AS features. The earliest was a settlement around the crossroads of which an SFB was excavated and dated by pins and brooches to the C5th. The settlement area was then reduced by two large and successive banks and ditches of pre-C9th date. Excavated c.1970/71. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER; Pastscape; Rahtz 1976b.

Clopton GR: TL 301 487 Pastscape No. 368524 Structures and ditches were found under a DMV, according to Rahtz. Excavated c.1968. Rahtz gives the grid reference TL 302 488 but the Pastscape record states TL 301 487. Source(s): Pastscape; Rahtz 1976b. Crowlands/Lordship Lane, Cottenham GR: TL 44907 67806 Pastscape No. 1113392 HER No. CB15522 A dense network of ditches and other features, including buildings, suggested continuity of occupation from the middle AS period to the early medieval period. In the middle AS era there was an extensive ditch system with rectangular PBSs in ditched and fenced compounds. Excavated 1993-4 according to Cambs HER, 1996-7 according to Pastscape. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER; Pastscape.

Fordham GR: TL 6336 7085 Pastscape Nos. 1336990 and 1301927 A possible middle to late AS settlement site at Fordham Primary School (1336990), with a post-built structure, possibly middle AS, and two parallel ditches, which were at latest late AS. They were interpreted as property boundaries. There were also postholes of uncertain date. Record 1301927 on Pastscape (at TL 6320 7070) says that an SFB with loomweights and a human burial, as well as other structures and a series of boundary ditches have also been excavated. Source(s): Pastscape.

Denny End, Waterbeach GR: TL 49340 65732 HER No. CB14602 Early AS features were partially sealed beneath ridge and furrow. The primary feature was an SFB and to the W was a three-sided PBS. Finds include large pottery and bone assemblages, loomweights, a spindle whorl and bone tools. Excavated 1996. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER.

Fordham Road, Isleham GR: TL 6439 7391 HER No. MCB16866 A primarily medieval site with several poorly dated features that could be AS. These include two SFBs, a PBS, fence lines and pits, set within an enclosure. Excavated 2004-6. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER. Godmanchester GR: TL 2478 7034 Pastscape No. 366866 Possible AS settlement consisting of an SFB, pits and a wattle lined well, excavated in 1974. Source(s): Pastscape.

Dimmock’s Cote, Stretham GR: TL 5337 7265 Pastscape No. 375183 HER No. 06927 An SFB site was reported in Dimmock's Cote, with pottery possibly belonging to the C8th or C9th. Found c.1959. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER; Pastscape.

Granary Close, Godmanchester GR: TL 245 704 HER No. 1536 A well and two rectilinear huts of late C1st-early C2nd AD date were overlain by an aisled stone barn in the C2nd-C3rd. This was rebuilt in the late C4th, and formed the focus of 'sub-RB' occupation, which is associated with timber huts and early AS pottery. New timber aisle posts and clay floors were laid in this phase, whilst three smelting furnaces were also found inside the building. The site was excavated in 1975. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER.

Drybread Road, Whittlesey GR: TL 2790 9780 HER No. 04281 SFBs were destroyed by the building of a housing estate in the 1980s. Ring ditches and part of a rectilinear enclosure were also noted before their destruction. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER. Eaton Socon, St Neots GR: TL 1684 6050 HER No. 00495 A much ploughed out AS 'hut' site was represented by postholes and drainage gully. Rahtz also records a timber building with internal divisions, dated to the late AS, with no mention of the 'hut'. Found during bypass construction 1960s by Addyman. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER; Rahtz 1976b.

Haddon GR: TL 140 932 Pastscape No. 1194471 An RB bath house was partly demolished late C4th and then reused as a corndrier. This in turn was demolished and the structure was used as a building, which went out of use by c.500-525, when it was cut by an inhumation. Excavated 19914. Source(s): Pastscape.

Eynesbury, Eynesbury Hardwicke GR: TL 18087 58234 HER No. MCB17706 Excavation by Wessex Archaeology in 2000-1 revealed seven SFBs of early AS date along with contemporary pits. Some of the features were enclosed by two long sections of curvilinear gully delineating a sub-rectangular area. Both gullies were poorly dated but did contain possible AS sherds. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER.

Hall Place and Hall Place II, St Neots GR: TL 18639 60213 (I) GR: TL 18603 60150 (II) GR: TL 1859 6012 (Addyman) Pastscape No.363307 HER Nos. MCB17662 (I), MCB17661 (II) and 00567 (Addyman) C.F. Tebbutt excavated eight AS SFBs and three PBSs at Hall Place. At Hall Place II he found seven further SFBs. Although some artefacts were late AS in date, an early to middle AS date

Fiddler’s Close, Grantchester GR: TL 4332 5570 PastscapeNo. 371377 HER No. 04922a

262

was preferred. The site was excavated in 1929-1932 ahead of quarrying. Further work took place in 1961, conducted by Addyman ahead of development. He found an AS timber building and the remains of perhaps five or six more. There were also pits, postholes and ditches. The main building was boat-shaped. All the PBSs are characteristic of the middle to late AS, but a late AS date was assigned to the settlement. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER; Pastscape; Rahtz 1976b.

trenching in the area revealed no other contemporary features except a fence line. The brooch has been assigned a C6th date and the pottery from the site a C7th-9th date. Further excavations in the N field uncovered two more SFBs and a series of pits dating from the C5th to C7th. A large amount of RB pottery was found in the AS features. Excavations took place in 1993 and 1995. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER.

Hemingford Grey GR: TL 302 692 Pastscape No. 1377237 HER No. 00865c AS pottery and at least one SFB were found in 1940s and/or 1950s. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER; Pastscape; Rahtz 1976b.

Hinxton Road, Duxford GR: TL 4810 4585 Pastscape No. 1388331 Three AS SFBs and a mortar mixer found on a site with IA and RB remains. It was not clear how the AS features relate to earlier features, but they do not seem to be in the area of the IA activity, although they could be near the RB industrial features. Source(s): Pastscape.

High Street and the Round Moat, Fowlmere GR: TL 4235 4590 Pastscape No. 1307976 HER No. CB14599 AS evidence included an SFB dated to c.500, which may have been contemporary with the remains of a pony buried in an adjacent pit. Excavated 1999. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER; Pastscape.

Houghton, Houghton and Wyton GR: TL 2861 7166 Pastscape No. 366609 HER No. 01913 An early AS SFB c.6 feet in diameter was found to contain loomweights, a broken knife, pottery sherds and animal bones. Excavated by CM Coote c.1952. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER; Pastscape; Rahtz 1976b.

High Street, Willingham GR: TL 4050 7030 Pastscape No. 1113507 HER No. 11973b The main phase of occupation on this site dates to the AS, which is represented by earth-fast PBSs. Eight of these were found and another two were seen in partial plan. Other postholes may have been part of fence lines. A clay oven or hearth possibly dates to the middle AS. The bulk of the pottery was early AS but some was middle AS. Excavated 1997. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER; Pastscape.

Institute of Criminology, Cambridge GR: TL 44292 58002 Pastscape No. 1388340 HER No. CB15349 An AS settlement was suspected from finds and was confirmed by excavation. This revealed a large PBS, as well as two SFBs, and a number of pits. It was thought that the settlement spanned a large area, but other parts could not be excavated as they were outside the development area. A C6th-7th date was thought likely. Excavated 2002. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER; Pastscape.

Hill Farm, Littleport GR: TL 538 918 HER No. 07337a One SFB, which contained quernstones. Seems to have been excavated in the 1950s. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER.

Linton Gas Pipeline, Linton GR: TL 572 460 HER No. 6129 An SFB was excavated and found to contain early AS pottery dated to the early to middle C6th. There was also a bone comb, a bone needle and metalwork. Excavated ahead of pipeline construction 1980. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER.

Hillside Meadow, Fordham GR: TL 6320 7069 Pastscape No. 1301927 HER No. CB14613 Three phases of AS activity were found on this site. Phase 1 was early to middle AS in date, comprising ditches and gullies of five small enclosures, aligned N-S. Inside were pits and SFBs. Two of the enclosures continued to be used in Phase 2, dated to the middle to late AS period; a further enclosure was added in this phase. No structures of this period were recorded. In Phase 3, the late AS period, settlement activity was concentrated on the E half of the site, and was represented by the continued use of three enclosures and the addition of a further four, one of which contained an SFB. Pottery was complimented by chronologically diagnostic small finds. Excavated in 1999. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER; Pastscape.

Marholm Road, Bretton GR: TF 165 023 Pastscape No. 350314 An early AS SFB and brooch were discovered on an RB farmstead dating to the C2nd to C4th, which included an agricultural building and a ditch system. Excavated during development. Source(s): Pastscape. Maxey GR: TF 124 081 Pastscape No. 350135 Early to middle AS settlement, including a 'number' of SFBs and framed buildings, which was uncovered ahead of quarrying. The site covered an area of c.0.75ha and there were at least five SFBs, plus at least four timber PBSs and another two possible PBSs. There were also other features such as fifty-five pits, gravel holes and fire pits. Excavated by Addyman in the 1960s. The site used to be in Northamptonshire. Source(s): Pastscape; Wilson and Hurst 1961: 309-10; Rahtz 1976b.

Hinxton Quarry, Hinxton GR: TL 48721 46940 HER No. 11306B Excavations took place in fields to the N and S of Hinxton Quarry. A middle AS brooch discovered during fieldwalking was found to have come from the backfill of an SFB. Further

263

Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER; Pastscape.

Orton Hall Farm, Orton Longueville GR: TL 176 956 Pastscape No. 364221 Late IA pottery and ditches were discovered and they had been followed by a C2nd wooden building, which was demolished in the C3rd, when an RB farmstead or villa was laid out around a rectangular courtyard. Occupation of the RB buildings may have continued into the C5th since AS material appears to have been focused on the E periphery of the farmstead. Within an enclosure were 'houses', an SFB and a possible granary, which were dated to the C6th. Source(s): Pastscape.

St Mary's Lodge, Ely GR: TL 53810 80321 HER No. CB15552 A watching brief in 2000 recorded the discovery of Ipswich Ware (c.700-850) associated with a beam slot, possibly of a building. A possible monastic or secular settlement is known to have been present in the vicinity. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER. St Neots GR: TL 1684 6050 Pastscape No. 363431 An AS SFB site which had been damaged by ploughing prior to excavation. Source(s): Pastscape.

Orton Longueville GR: TL 170 965 Pastscape No. 364249 A possible early AS settlement site, with at least two SFBs. Source(s): Pastscape; Rahtz 1976b.

Stonea Grange, Wimblington GR: TL 4491 9368 Pastscape No. 1331861 HER No. 06057c Three AS buildings, at least one built on the gravelled surface of a W-E RB road. The palisade of a rectangular AS enclosure measuring c.20m by 20m was also found. Plain and stamped pottery was discovered, almost exclusively at the N end of the site. Excavated 1981-3. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER; Pastscape.

Peterborough GR: TL 189 974 Pastscape No. 364074 Seven early to middle AS SFBs (dated to c.550-700), pits and ditches were excavated c. 1932. Source(s): Pastscape; Rahtz 1976b. Peterborough GR: TF 177 039 Pastscape No. 350316 A middle AS settlement consisting of posthole structures, pits and hearths. Source(s): Pastscape.

Techne Factory, Hinxton Road, Duxford GR: TL 4810 4585 Pastscape No. 1353879 A range of undated features, such as possible beamslots and postholes, which indicate the presence of AS structures. A group of four inhumation burials of AS period were also found, one with a sherd of early AS pottery. Archaeological evaluation took place in 2001. Source(s): Pastscape.

Peterborough GR: TL 1825 9735 Pastscape No. 364177 An AS settlement with evidence for SFBs, according to Pastscape (no further details given). Source(s): Pastscape.

The Lodge, Waterbeach GR: TL 4904 6533 Pastscape No. 371803 HER No. 05312 At least three AS SFBs were found in the 1920s on the site of Car Dyke. There was a dog burial in the floor of one. Excavated by TC Lethbridge in 1926 and 1927. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER; Pastscape; Rahtz 1976b.

Shire Balk, Guilden Morden GR: TL 28385 39606 HER No. 02714B In 1991 a gas pipe trench revealed an SFB associated with AS sherds (this feature may have just been over the border in Hertfordshire). A further SFB was subsequently found. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER.

The Priory, St Ives GR: TL 3148 7112 HER No. NMCB15820 An early AS SFB and PBSs, as well as ancillary features, were discovered and dated to the C6th-7th. There were also RB occupation features in the form of large enclosure ditches, smaller ditches and pits. Excavated c.1997-2003. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER.

Station Road, Gamlingay GR: TL 243 519 Pastscape No. 1116443 HER No. 11980A Early to middle AS occupation features included ditches, postholes, pits, SFBs, a droveway and a long building with an enclosure. This settlement seems to have been established in the early AS period and was surrounded by a causewayed ditch. It consisted of twelve SFBs, a small six-post structure and a number of pits. In a second phase of AS activity, a new droveway was established which truncated the earlier enclosure. A long timber building and adjacent livestock enclosure were also added. During the middle AS a new axial field system or enclosure was added to the S of the site, parts of which truncated the original settlement enclosure (this seems to be the same phase already described). During a later phase a causewayed enclosure and two SFBs were added. At some stage in the middle AS period a cemetery was established, comprising at least 118 graves, bounded to the N and E by reused enclosure ditches (although it is unclear if these are earlier AS ditches or pre-AS in date). Excavated between 1996 and 1998.

Thornhaugh GR: TL 157 963 Pastscape No. 364248 A possible AS settlement comprising at least two SFBs, found during quarrying. Source(s): Pastscape. Woodston GR: TL 182 973 At least two SFBs have been recorded. Source(s): Rahtz 1976b.

264

Book. The Pastscape Record gives the grid reference TL 233 336, but the Gaimster et al. article gives TL 230 340. Source(s): Pastscape; Gaimster et al. 1989: 196-7.

Bourn Bridge Pampisford GR: TL 516 495 HER No. 11317A Seven SFBs, six of which lay in a group within an area defined by an RB ditch and the seventh c.180m away. There were also pits and shallow scoops of the same date. Pottery and metalwork suggested a date of occupation between the fifth to seventh centuries. The site was excavated in 1993 and 1994. There was also a Bronze Age ring ditch nearby, but this appears to have been an unusual sunken shrine, rather than a barrow, and there is little evidence to suggest that it was visible in the Anglo-Saxon period. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER; Pollard 1996; Pollard 2002.

Hill Street, St Albans GR: TL 1425 0742 Pastscape No. 361997 At 19 Hill Street there was evidence of occupation and structures of probable post-RB date, in the form of postholes, stakeholes, timber slots, gullies, pits, shallow depressions and a hearth. Several phases of occupation were noted. The only finds were RB, but these seemed to be residual. The site appears to have developed into a burh later. There is no mention in the Pastscape record of this site being related to the Verulamiun AS features (see below), but it is not far from them. Excavated in 1976. Source(s): Pastscape.

DERBYSHIRE Carsington Reservoir GR: Unknown Excavations in advance of the filling of Carsington Reservoir produced handmade pottery of apparently early AS date. This was on the site of an RB masonry building set in an enclosure. A number of PBSs were found within the enclosure, but could not be dated with any certainty. In the enclosure ditch was a quantity of handmade, apparently AS, pottery, possibly indicating an AS re-cut. Excavated by Trent and Peak Archaeological Services c.1992, ahead of Carsington Reservoir being filled. Grid reference unknown. Source(s): Barrett N.d.: 2.

Verulamiun, St Albans GR: TL 137 073 Pastscape No. 361974 Possible post-RB occupation in the Roman town of Verulamiun, in Insula XVIII. A hearth, oven and timber structure of premedieval date were thought to be AS, but were undated. Excavations in Insula XXVII (361980) revealed phases of building from the C1st to C5th, both RB and post-RB. A hall or barn was built in the post-RB period, followed by a wooden gravity fed water pipe. This site was located at TL 134 072. Excavations took place between 1956 and 1960. Source(s): Pastscape.

HERTFORDSHIRE

LEICESTERSHIRE

Baldock Bypass, Blackhorse Farm, Baldock GR: TL 2415 3450 Pastscape No. 365843 HER Nos. 2470 and 6826 Pits, postholes and an SFB of AS date were discovered in 1994, in addition to IA and RB ditches. They were at the S edge of a cropmark complex visible on aerial photographs. There were possible further AS features but these were in a flooded trench and were not properly investigated. The relationships between features of different dates were not expanded upon, but the unpublished excavation report shows an SFB located c.20m SW of the cropmarks of the RB enclosures. Excavated by North Hertfordshire District Council Museums Field Archaeology Section. Source(s): Pastscape; Fenton 1994; Hurley 1996: 136.

Bonners Lane and Oxford Street, Leicester GR: SK 585 039 The remains of an SFB were dated to the early or middle AS period; this was the first structure of this type recorded in Leicester. To the W of the SFB was a N-S aligned ditch, which may have formed part of an enclosure or a field boundary. A beam slot, pit and postholes were found to post-date the SFB, and it may have been late AS. An RB road ran through the excavation area, just a few metres from the SFB. Around 50m away, at the junction of York Road and Oxford Street, another badly truncated SFB was excavated in 1999. The site was evaluated by Neil Finn in 1993, and again in 1999. Source(s): Finn 1994: 165-70; Nenk et al. 1994: 231-2; Bradley and Gaimster 2000: 288.

Broadwater Cresent, Stevenage GR: TL 2630 2168 Pastscape No. 365331 A possible early AS settlement site, with an SFB probably dating to the late C5th, was found at 444 Broadwater Cresent. Source(s): Pastscape.

Empingham GR: SK 9447 0776 Pastscape No. 325171 A single SFB was discovered under an AS cemetery. There was possible another located at SK 942 080. There was also a possible RB boundary ditch, mentioned in Wilson and Hurst (1968). Gorin (1971-2) noted that one of a group of AS SFBs had been excavated on the site of RB farmstead at SK 945 078, ahead of dam and reservoir construction. Excavated in c.1967 and c.1972. Source(s): Pastscape; Wilson and Hurst 1968: 160; Wilson and Hurst 1970: 162; Gorin 1972: 75; Webster and Cherry 1973: 149; Rahtz 1976b.

Green Lane, Norton, Letchworth GR: TL 233 336 Pastscape No. 365764 Pastscape records excavations around Green Lane and Blackhorse Road between 1959 and 1967. Multi-period features were discovered, including an AS cemetery at Blackhorse Road. Further excavation of 1300m2 in the 1980s revealed twenty-four pits, of which sixteen may be SFBs. Features were arranged in rows and the site shows some evidence of planning. The features belonged to several phases, with pottery suggesting dates of c.650 to 1200, and the earliest phase may be associated with the cemetery at Blackhorse Road, 200m to the S. The Pastscape record for the site suggests that it could be the deserted settlement of Rodenhanger, mentioned in Domesday

Empingham GR: SK 9373 0793 Pastscape No. 325185 An SFB was excavated in 1972 on an IA occupation site, which had a hut circle and an associated hearth and postholes (but the IA features were not deemed substantial enough to have existed in the AS period). This seems to have been a different site from

265

the other site at Empingham where an SFB was found under a cemetery. Source(s): Pastscape.

Nether Hambleton GR: SK 893 066 Excavations took place in 1972 on the site of the deserted medieval village of Nether Hambleton, where a 15m2 trench revealed three walls of a possible AS 'longhouse'. Several hundred fragments of pottery dating to the C6th to the C17th were recovered. Source(s): McWhirr and Adams 1973: 64.

Hemington Quarry, Castle Donington GR: SK 45448 29845 Pastscape No. 1342511 HER No. MLE9693 A small riverside settlement of probable AS date was found during a rescue excavations in 1998 and 1999. A rectangular PBS had first been noticed in 1998; it was located on an area of river gravel terrace. About 30m W of the building was another, which was c.5m square. Early AS pottery and fire-cracked pebbles were located from associated pits between the buildings. A contemporary ditch running E-W delineates the site to the S. Source(s): Leicestershire HER; Pastscape; Cooper and Ripper 2000: 233.

Sanvey Gate, Leicester GR: SK 584 050 Investigations took place on land E of Sanvey Gate prior to development in 2005, revealing part of the NE RB town defences. The earliest post-RB deposits included a timber structure identified from postholes, as well as a pit, both associated with early AS pottery. Source(s): Gaimster et al. 2006: 331. Sewage Treatment Works, Wanlip GR: SK 594 113 (Sewage Works) GR: SK 5949 1123 (SW of Works) HER Nos. MLE9123 (Sewage Works) and MLE9532 (SW of Sewage Works) Two sites discovered in the vicinity of the Sewage Treatment Works suggest the presence of a dispersed AS settlement. At the Sewage Treatment Works three C5th-C6th SFBs were discovered during archaeological evaluation in 1998 and 1999. Subsequently, in 2002, work SW of the Treatment Works during pipeline renewal revealed a series of ditches and pits which may be AS. There was another SFB, as well as a large pit and ditch, both of the latter containing large amounts of AS pottery. The Sewage Treatment Works site is at SK 594 113 according to its HER entry, but the Bradley and Gaimster article gives a grid reference of SK 515 114. As the location of the nearby site SW of the Works is given as SK 59498 11232 in its HER entry, it seems likely that the Bradley and Gaimster location is erroneous. Source(s): Leicestershire HER; Bradley and Gaimster 2000: 291; Thomas 2003: 149-52.

Highfield Farm, Ravenstone With Snibstone GR: SK 403 115 Pastscape No. 920584 HER No. MLE4823 On land north of Highfield Farm a rectangular PBS was excavated in 1981; it did not have any dating evidence but it was of AS style. There was also a pit nearby containing early AS pottery. The Pastscape record notes the existence of an RB site consisting of tile and pottery kilns, although there is no mention of this on the HER entry. Source(s): Leicestershire HER; Pastscape. Land South of Harston, Belvoir GR: SK 839 313 Pastscape No. 323867 HER No. MLE3354 One SFB and another possible SFB were uncovered during ironstone working in 1935-6, according to the HER record. Both contained combs, pottery, iron knives and spindle whorls. These finds were dated to the C6th-7th. Rahtz, however, records that the site was at SK 850 314 and Hurst (1971: 156) mentions that features were excavated by Dunning in 1952, which may mean that there is another site nearby, but this is unclear. Source(s): Leicestershire HER; Pastscape; Hurst 1971; Rahtz 1976b.

South Street, Oakham GR: SK 85695 08899 A salvage excavation and watching brief on a development site in 1994 revealed part of an SFB associated with pottery of probable C5th-6th date. Source(s): Jones 1995: 118.

Land West of Churchyard, Swepstone GR: SK 366 106 HER No. MLE4916 Timber slots aligned N-S suggested the presence of a structure, which was associated with C5th-C6th pottery. Source(s): Leicestershire HER.

St Mary's Hospital, Thorpe Road, Melton Mowbray GR: SK 7585 1930 HER No. MLE10547 An SFB associated with C5th/6th pottery and loomweights was found during a watching brief ahead of development in 2003. The remains were truncated and it was suggested that other buildings might have existed but been destroyed. Source(s): Leicestershire HER; Gaimster et al. 2006: 331.

Leicester Royal Infirmary GR: SK 587 037 AS remains, including SFBs, were identified in the vicinity of Leicester Royal Infirmary. Source(s): Gaimster et al. 1998: 264-5.

Sutton Farm, Broughton Astley GR: SP 516 943 HER No. MLE9657 Evaluation revealed an AS SFB and the probable remains of a second. Other possibly related features include gullies, ditches and numerous postholes, one of which was large enough to suggest that it had belonged to a ‘high status’ building. Source(s): Leicestershire HER.

Millfield West, Blaston GR: SP 799 958 HER No. MLE1243 Trial excavation undertaken after fieldwalking revealed a scatter of AS pottery and iron slag. Traces of at least two possible SFBs were found, along with 300 more sherds of C6th and C7th pottery. The survey and excavation were undertaken by Leicestershire Archaeological Unit in 1987. Source(s): Leicestershire HER; Liddle 1988: 72.

Tickencote GR: SK 985 093 Two SFBs, two hearths, two pits and a linear ditch were revealed during a watching brief ahead of pipeline construction

266

in 1990. More than 3kg of pottery was recovered, and it was provisionally dated to the C5th or C6th. Source(s): Nenk et al. 1991: 173.

Pastscape No. 1123072 HER No. 20123 An area of AS settlement was excavated in 1992 as part of the Fenland Management Project. It was associated with early to middle AS pottery. Four phases of occupation were recognised, the first two consisting mainly of ditches and gullies, the third represented by a rectangular beam-slot building, and the fourth by circular or curving ditches. The building is thought to be a middle AS dwelling, and the circular features are thought to be drainage gullies around haystacks, or animal pens. The Pastscape record for this site gives its location as TF 1910 2905, but the HER entry gives TF 1988 2900. Source(s): Lincolnshire HER; Pastscape; Hayes and Lane 1992; Crowson et al. 2000.

Wheeler Lodge Farm, Welford Road, Husbands Bosworth GR: SP 635 840 An SFB associated with C5th-C6th pottery was recorded during topsoil stripping ahead of quarrying in 2005. Source(s): Gaimster et al. 2006: 329. Willow Farm, Castle Donington GR: SK 44676 28836 Pastscape No. 1304591 HER No. MLE9678 Two early AS PBSs and an SFB were excavated in 1997 and 1998. At SK 44678 28814 a dense concentration of pits was also found; these are undated, but they may have been AS. Source(s): Leicestershire HER; Pastscape.

Evedon, Ewerby and Evedon GR: TF 09568 46637 HER No. 64438 Geophysical anomalies were identified and trial trenches were then opened over the features, and area excavation was subsequently undertaken. A number of possible postholes, pits, irregular gullies and an SFB were all dated to the late C5th to early C7th, whilst c.400 sherds were collected. Three distinct concentrations of postholes may have represented structures or fence lines. The evaluation was undertaken by Network Archaeology in 2000 and full excavation took place in 2003. Source(s): Lincolnshire HER.

Wyfordby, Freeby GR: SK 79305 18742 HER No. MLE10167 Excavations in 2001 revealed two rectangular PBSs defined by postholes and a rectilinear gully. Further ditches, pits, a setting of cobbles and a possible hearth were also found, and to the S is a substantial E-W ditch and pits. Source(s): Leicestershire HER.

Flixborough GR: SE 8760 1425 Pastscape No. 61128 SMR No. 5018 Between 1989 and 1991 approximately forty structures were excavated, dating from the C7th to C11th. Source(s): North Lincolnshire SMR; Pastscape; Loveluck and Atkinson 2007.

LINCOLNSHIRE Bagmoor GR: SE 8965 1651 Pastscape No. 60959 HER Nos. 4982 and 4983 A single SFB found was discovered here. Pastscape records evidence for AS settlement, including a knife and a loomweight. This could be the same site as Normanby, according to Rahtz. Source(s): Humberside HER; Pastscape; Rahtz 1976b.

Goltho GR: TF 1138 7755 Pastscape No. 351512 HER No. 51233 Various structures and boundary features of a middle AS settlement were discovered in the early 1970s. Some ditches were aligned on the remains of RB ditches and enclosures. The site later developed into a manor. The Pastscape record gives the location of the site as TF 1138 7755 and the HER entry gives TF 1161 7743. Source(s): Lincolnshire HER; Pastscape; Rahtz 1976b; Beresford 1987.

Burton Upon Stather GR: SE 893 181 Pastscape No. 883479 Early AS finds and features, including one SFB, have been excavated. Source(s): Pastscape. Caythorpe GR: SK 940 470 Pastscape No. 325884 Possible SFBs, pottery, loomweights and graves were discovered by chance during quarrying in the 1930s. Source(s): Pastscape; Rahtz 1976b.

Greetwell Farm, Messingham GR: SE 9102 0342 Pastscape No. 63520 HER No. 2557 A possible SFB was discovered c.1950 in association with pottery dated to the early to middle C6th. Source(s): Humberside HER; Pastscape; Rahtz 1976b.

Cherry Willingham GR: TF 032 724 Pastscape No. 893466 Excavations took place E of the churchyard ahead of development in 1980, on a site identified by fieldwalking during 1977. One SFB was found, associated with C9th pottery, according to the Medieval Archaeology summary, but Pastscape records a date of c.510. Drainage gullies and fences were also located, and pottery of the C6th to the C12th was also discovered. It was suggested that this was the periphery of an AS settlement (which perhaps lay under the modern village). Source(s): Pastscape; Youngs and Clark 1981.

Land East of St Peters Church, Barton-upon-Humber GR: TA 034 220 Pastscape No. 1208934 To the E of the church an enclosure ditch enclosing 5ha was discovered, and excavation demonstrated that this belonged to the middle AS period, although it was in use until the C13th. The C8th to C9th cemetery next to the church was outside this enclosure. Also outside it were early AS beam-slot timber buildings with gravel floors which were found below the church. Two metalled trackways of the same date were also discovered. C5th to C11th pottery was found in the enclosure,

Chopdike Drove, Gosberton GR: TF 1910 2905

267

suggesting a long-lived site, perhaps an estate. The site was excavated in 1979-1985. Source(s): Pastscape; Rahtz 1976b.

Pastscape No. 893258 HER No. 42642 An SFB was excavated in 1972, at which time at least six other SFBs were visible as soilmarks. This site was about 1.5km away from the Salmonby site included in the thesis corpus. The SFB contained late C6th-7th pottery, animal bone and loomweights. Source(s): Pastscape; Lincolnshire HER; Rahtz 1976b; Webster and Cherry 1973; Everson 1973.

Leaves Lake Drove, Pinchbeck GR: TF 1920 2515 Pastscape No. 1124033 HER No. 20191 An early AS site was found on high siltland. Excavations revealed intercutting shallow ditches and gullies, two of which seem to have formed a droveway down to a pond. One possible structure was apparently identified, but it had been nearly completely ploughed out. The site was excavated in 1994 as part of the Fenland Management Project. Source(s): Lincolnshire HER; Pastscape; Hayes and Lane 1992; Crowson et al. 2000.

St Helen's Church, Cumberworth GR: TF 5062 7373 HER No. 44038 Excavation revealed an SFB dated to the C7th to C9th, with finds including pottery, animal bone, an iron knife, fragments of fired clay, charred plant remains and hammerscale. It was conjectured that further AS settlement features might be in the vicinity. The building was sealed by a layer of soil thought to date to the C9th. The site was discovered during excavation and a watching brief in 1997. Source(s): Lincolnshire HER.

Lincoln Road, Holdingham, Sleaford GR: TF 05950 47279 HER No. 64180 Evaluation on land at Lincoln Road identified AS features, including postholes, pits, ditches and gullies, possibly indicating a sizeable settlement dating to the C5th-8th. Two PBSs were recorded, one a rectangular building, the other a round or horseshoe shaped structure. The evaluation was undertaken by Archaeological Project Services in 2006. Source(s): Lincolnshire HER.

St Nicholas School, Church Road, Boston GR: TF 3369 4360 HER No. 13351 During construction of a new building at the school, sections were dug through two C8th SFBs. The site was excavated ahead of building work in 1995 by Pre-Construct Archaeology (Lincoln). Source(s): Lincolnshire HER.

Main Street, Kirkby Green, Scopwick GR: TF 0846 5783 Pastscape No. 1326236 HER No. 62296 Numerous features, thought to represent an early to middle AS settlement, were identified during a watching brief by PreConstruct Archaeology (Lincoln) in 1999. Pits and postholes containing C5th-7th pottery were recorded. The postholes were possibly the remains of a building with a nearby hearth. A large undated ditch to the N of these features may be the settlement boundary ditch. Later AS pits were also identified but they did not appear to relate to the earlier settlement. Source(s): Lincolnshire HER; Pastscape.

The Mount, Willoughton GR: SK 9329 9271 HER No. 50938 A single C6th SFB was excavated south of The Mount. Further ‘sites’ (no further details were given) were discovered at SK 9336 9268 and SK 9334 9270; their proximity to the SFB may indicate a settlement. Investigations took place in c.1934, c.1949 and c.1951 by Ethel Rudkin, and possibly others. The two other ‘sites’ were confirmed in 1964 by Rudkin, but may have been investigated earlier. Source(s): Lincolnshire HER; Rahtz 1976b.

Mornington House, Gosberton GR: TF 1746 3145 HER No. 20115 A settlement was found on high ground in fenland during the Fenland Management Project excavations in 1992. It comprised numerous pits and ditches, and the remains of a rectangular structure measuring c.11m by 5m. Pottery of the early and middle Anglo-Saxon period was discovered, and the structure had been abandoned by the C9th. Source(s): Lincolnshire HER; Hayes and Lane 1992; Crowson et al. 2000.

The Old Tavern, Westborough and Dry Doddington GR: SK 850 444 Pastscape No. 891691 In c.1969 in the garden of the Old Tavern postholes and pottery belonging to a possible early medieval building were discovered. Source(s): Pastscape. Town Road, Quarrington GR: TF 0581 4457 HER No. 60487 An early to middle AS settlement site was excavated in 1993 to 1994, including early AS metalworking evidence. The ceramic assemblage was particularly large, with a wide range of forms and fabrics. These were dated to the late C5th or early C6th to the C8th. Ditches and gullies were identified through geophysics and excavations, and these appeared to define rectilinear enclosures. Within these enclosures posthole clusters were found, which formed buildings of indeterminate function, some of which were rectangular and some sub-circular. The only other buildings found were one beam slot and one SFB. Pits were found within the enclosures, mainly in two groups. One group contained early AS metalworking debris, the other household debris. Source(s): Lincolnshire HER; Nenk et al. 1994: 234; Nenk et al. 1995: 231-2.

Osbournby GR: TF 064 384 Pastscape No. 348546 Four AS pottery scatters were noted in Osbournby, one of which was under threat from ploughing, so it was excavated. The excavation area measured 40m by 6m and revealed a timber framed PBS associated with pottery dated to AD 550-700. The excavators thought that there would be more buildings in the vicinity. Two RB ditches were also noted. The site was excavated in 1979. Source(s): Pastscape; Marjoram 1974: 24; Simmons 1974: 24-5; Rahtz 1976b; Mahoney and Hilary Healey 1979: 80-1. Pickitt's Cottages, Salmonby, Tetford GR: TF 3175 7357

268

An SFB and palisade ditch were discovered, possibly belonging to the C6th. Source(s): Pastscape.

NORTHAMPTONSHIRE Brigstock GR: SP 945 855 Pastscape No. 347536 Rahtz recorded the discovery of several SFBs at Brigstock. Pastscape records an AS 'house' and possible other buildings. The site was excavated by Wyman Abbott at some point prior to the 1970s. Source(s): Pastscape; Rahtz 1976b.

Northampton GR: SP 788 610 Pastscape No. 621689 A possible AS settlement was indicated by the discovery of a probable SFB associated with early to middle AS pottery. Source(s): Pastscape.

Brixworth GR: SP 751 699 A small enclosed settlement of five timber buildings and four SFBs was excavated c.1995. Ceramics and radiocarbon samples suggested a date of occupation between the C5th and 7th. Source(s): Shaw 1994; Nenk et al. 1996: 275; Foard N.d.: 10.

Oundle

Castor GR: TL 125 984 An SFB and another possible 'hut' were found, according to Rahtz, in c.1964 and c.1971. Source(s): Rahtz 1976b.

Raunds GR: TL 001 731 Pastscape No. 965253 Extensive excavation took place revealing settlement evidence from the AS to post medieval periods. Source(s): Pastscape; Parry 2006.

GR: TL 0333 8798 Pastscape No. 361103 A probable early AS SFB associated with C5th pottery was uncovered during building work. Source(s): Pastscape.

Chalk Lane/St Peter's Street, Northampton GR: SP 749 605 (Chalk Lane) GR: SP 749 605 (St Peter’s) Pastscape No. 1152845 HER Nos. 1160/0/132 (Chalk Lane) and 1160/0/7 (St Peter’s) Excavations below the inner bailey bank of a castle in 1975 revealed early and middle AS occupation, including a large scatter of pottery. Structures associated with this period were not found, but there were timber halls, at least one SFB and numerous pits from the late AS period. Further work took place in 1978, producing more late AS evidence and a middle AS SFB. There was also a possible early AS timber slot cutting a prehistoric ditch (noted on the St Peter’s St HER record) but no further information about this could be found. Source(s): Northamptonshire HER; Pastscape; Webster and Cherry 1976: 168; Webster and Cherry 1979: 242; Williams and Shaw 1981; Foard N.d.

Redlands Farm, Stanwick Three SFBs were found adjacent to an RB building. Source(s): Foard N.d.: 5. Sol Central GR: SP 750 604 Excavation and a watching brief in 2000 uncovered SFBs associated with pottery of the middle AS period. There was also intense activity in the late AS and Norman periods, c.850-1150. Source(s): Bradley and Gaimster 2001: 307-8. Stanwick Two possible buildings of C5th-6th date were found on the site of a Roman villa. Source(s): Parry 2006: 167-73. Thrapston GR: SP 9964 7875 Pastscape No. 347295 A possible middle AS mound, an inhumation cemetery and an associated building have been discovered. Source(s): Pastscape.

Clipston GR: SP 7101 7931 Pastscape No. 1379283 An SFB containing early to middle AS pottery was found during road construction on the M1-A1 link road. Source(s): Pastscape.

Upton GR: SP 7146 6021 Pastscape No. 343621 An SFB was excavated by D.A. Jackson in advance of road construction. The SFB was unusually large and had been burnt. Source(s): Pastscape; Wilson and Hurst 1966: 172; Jackson et al. 1969.

Daventry Rail Freight Terminal, Crick, Kilsby GR: SP 570 724 Pastscape No. 1151232 HER No. 6428 An early AS SFB was excavated on a site which also had RB ditches and C2nd sub-rectangular enclosures. The site was excavated ahead of the construction of the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal in 1994-5. Source(s): Northamptonshire HER; Pastscape.

Westfield Spinney, Denford A large scatter of early to middle AS pottery was discovered and trenches were opened to investigate the core and periphery of the scatters. They revealed a small early to middle AS structure and a contemporary boundary ditch. They also confirmed that several cropmark enclosures were Iron Age in date (the relationship between features of the two periods were uncertain; see Appendix D). Source(s): Parry 2006: 214-19.

Higham Ferrers GR: SP 95963 69664 A large oval enclosure of early AS date was found, associated with a high status settlement. Source(s): Foard N.d.: 2. Northampton GR: SP 736 592 Pastscape No. 621200

Wollaston GR: SP 9032 6254 Pastscape No. 347126

269

HER No. 3240 Excavations in advance of the construction of the Wollaston bypass uncovered prehistoric and Roman features as well as AS pottery and an SFB. Source(s): Northamptonshire HER; Pastscape; Foard N.d.: 11; Chapman and Jackson 1992.

Source(s): Oxfordshire HER; Webster and Cherry 1973: 148; Rahtz 1976b. Black Bourton GR: SP 2859 0421 An area designated as a new cemetery for St Mary’s Church in Black Bourton was excavated by John Moore Heritage Services. Previous evaluation had uncovered traces of early to middle Anglo-Saxon settlement in 2002. In 2006 the investigation revealed early Anglo-Saxon ‘religious’ activity in the form of two circular post-built ‘shrines’ encircling pits, which were possibly also associated with domestic activity. There were also four SFBs and three PBSs of the middle Anglo-Saxon period. There was also a fence line and a circular well. Source(s): Gilbert 2007; Gilbert 2008.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE Girton Quarry, Girton GR: SK 825 666 Pastscape No. 1189767 Four or five SFBs were discovered on a sand dune in Girton Quarry, while a sixth building was post-built. There may have been further buildings that had been destroyed by quarrying activity. Radiocarbon dates of cal AD 650-815 were retrieved from the Anglo-Saxon features. A further two SFBs were found during a watching brief during quarrying to the east. The site was excavated ahead of quarrying in 1995 and 1999. Source(s): Pastscape; Garton et al. 1997; Kinsley 1998; Kinsley and Jones 1999.

Gossway Fields, Kirtlington GR: SP 4985 1970 Evaluation in 2005 revealed two early to middle AS SFBs on the edge of the site, meaning that further settlement features might have extended E beyond the limit of the excavation. Predating these was a series of RB field boundary ditches, which may be associated with a settlement adjacent to the RB road from Akeman Street to Oxford. Source(s): Gaimster et al. 2006: 344-5.

OXFORDSHIRE Abingdon GR: SU 486 975 An SFB was partially uncovered during grave digging in 1970, in a modern cemetery NW of the town. Source(s): Wilson and Moorhouse 1971: 148.

Land South of St Helen's Church, Abingdon GR: SU 49 97 Pastscape No. 1358703 Traces of an early AS settlement, located to the S of St Helen's Church, were excavated in 1971. It comprised three SFBs and a posthole, and two of the SFBs were thought to be potentially very early in date, c.450 or earlier. Source(s): Pastscape.

Abingdon Vineyard Redevelopment, Abingdon GR: SU 499 972 HER No. 12849.03 Two SFBs were discovered in the N half of the Abingdon Abbey precinct in 1989; these may be peripheral to the settlement at Abingdon and were probably C6th. Source(s): Oxfordshire HER; Gaimster et al. 1990: 205.

Littlemore GR: SP 5390 0210 Pastscape No. 1333072 A watching brief and excavation in 1999 revealed six SFBs, pits, postholes of suspected timber buildings and fence lines. Pottery suggested that the site was mainly occupied in the C6th. Source(s): Pastscape.

Audlett Drive, Abingdon GR: SU 505 973 HER No. 15649 – MOX8719 Three early AS SFBs were discovered on the S side of Audlett Drive in 1990. There were also gullies and a major boundary ditch of middle AS date. Around 350 postholes were found, and 158 were excavated, although very few contained finds and they were therefore difficult to date. Some were clearly associated with the middle AS boundary ditch, however. Source(s): Oxfordshire HER; Nenk et al. 1991: 180.

Milton Common, Great Milton GR: SP 654 033 Pastscape No. 340809 A complex of late RB gullies was found c.1971. There was also at least one probable posthole building, and pottery suggested that the site continued to be used until the C6th. Source(s): Pastscape.

Barton Court Farm, Radley GR: SU 510 977 Pastscape No. 238005 An AS settlement, along with several inhumations, was found on the site of an RB villa, dating to the C3rd to C4th. There were also traces of earlier occupation, from the C1st BC to C1st AD. Source(s): Pastscape; Miles 1986 .

Oxford GR: SP 450 090 Timber buildings, pits, walls, postholes and roads were excavated in the 1950s and 1960s. A further SFB was located at SP 511 061. The site was assigned a late AS date, but it may have its origins in the later middle AS period. Source(s): Rahtz 1976b.

Beech House Hotel, Dorchester-on-Thames GR: SU 587 945 HER No. 12527 – MOX11009 Excavations during the mid 1960s and again in 1972, revealed a C6th SFB with an extension leading to steps up to an RB street. There was a cluster of postholes outside, and apparent internal fittings within the SFB A further SFB of early AS date was also found. Part of two possible C9th rectilinear buildings of posthole in trench construction also discovered, as were two flint and clay-walled buildings which were dated C6th to C9th.

Oxford Science Park, Grenoble Road, Oxford GR: SP 5390 0210 The remains of an AS settlement were found in 2000, including ten SFBs and a number of pits. Deep ploughing had removed many shallower features, including the postholes of suspected timber-framed structures and fence lines. Pottery suggests occupation from the C6th until not long after the early C7th. Source(s): Bradley and Gaimster 2001: 311.

270

smaller rectangular building was also discovered during magnetometer survey lying at right angles to the main structure. Source(s): Gaimster et al. 1998: 149.

Peep O'Day Lane, Sutton Courtenay GR: SU 4970 1596 Excavations in advance of gravel quarrying in 1973 revealed the ditches of a C2nd enclosure and a well, in addition to two successive phases of C5th SFB. Source(s): Wilson et al. 1974: 457.

Yarnton GR: SP 474 113 Pastscape No. 1066559 HER No. 16389.04 – MOX11184 A settlement comprising SFBs and PBSs within enclosures, with an associated smithy, was excavated. There is evidence for occupation until the C8th, but the evidence mainly dated to the C7th. Source(s): Oxfordshire HER; Pastscape; Hey 2004.

Purwell Farm, Cassington GR: SP 446 122 Pastscape No. 336782 HER No. 15095 – MOX107 Six SFBs containing C6th artefacts were discovered in J. H. Brown’s gravel pit at Purwell Farm in the 1950s. Five further SFBs and a kiln seem to have been found nearby. Source(s): Oxfordshire HER; Pastscape; Anon 1958; Wilson and Hurst 1958; Wilson and Hurst 1960; Arthur and Jope 1963.

Yelford, Hardwick With Yelford GR: SP 360 040 Pastscape No. 893792 An SFB, measuring c.3.7m square, was discovered in 1858 by Stone. Another Pastscape record (334499) records an 'AS hut site' in a similar location; it is possible that these are the same site. Source(s): Pastscape; Rahtz 1976b.

Rycote GR: SP 6609 0495 Excavations along a proposed pipeline route in 1999 revealed early AS features, including two SFBs, which were C14 dated to AD 437-637 and AD 646-768. There were also four parallel ditches of this date, five pits, and two postholes. The pottery and the C14 dates from the buildings suggest that they belonged to two different phases. Source(s): Taylor and Ford 2001: 25-32.

STAFFORDSHIRE Tamworth GR: SK 207 041 SMR No. 34/77 Excavations between c.1968 and 1971 revealed at least two middle to late AS PBSs, plus a watermill at Bolebridge Street which yielded C14 dates of the C8th. Source(s): Staffordshire SMR; Rahtz 1976b.

Spelsbury GR: SP 339 213 An SFB was excavated c.1938. Source(s): Rahtz 1976b. St Helen's Avenue, Benson GR: SU 6152 9155 Excavation in 1999 revealed three SFBs and a number of PBSs on the banks of the Thames. Source(s): Bradley and Gaimster 2001: 310; Pine and Ford 2003: 131-178.

The Close, Lichfield GR: SK 1158 0969 SMR No. 02681 MST 2669 Early medieval structures and cemetery were excavated by Martin Carver in the 1970s. Pits, postholes and ditches were also found. The features were thought to be middle to late AS. Source(s): Staffordshire SMR; Kinsley N.d.; Carver 1981.

Standlake GR: SP 385 045 'Many' SFBs and another possible SFB were apparently found by Stone in 1857 and during further work in the 1950s. Source(s): Rahtz 1976b.

WARWICKSHIRE Alveston Manor, Stratford on Avon GR: SP 213 554 Pastscape No. 333325 Loomweights were found during quarrying prior to 1939 at SP 213 554; Hurst (1971: 165) states that structures were found here too (but gives no further evidence). At SP 2094 5485 excavations took place in 1970 and revealed a palisade trench, which appears to have been part of a conjoined series of enclosures dating to the early AS period. The S side of a subrectangular ditched enclosure of late RB or early AS date was found to the S of the northernmost palisade enclosure, where the postholes of a small rectangular building with adjacent pits were also found. In 2002-2003 trial trenching took place at SP 2087 5473. A long trial trench was opened SW of an AS cemetery and revealed AS features including postholes, pits, gullies and a boundary ditch, along with early AS pottery. A larger area was subsequently examined and uncovered further burial evidence. Source(s): Pastscape; Rahtz 1976b; Hurst 1971; Webster and Cherry 1972: 164; Bradley and Gaimster 2003: 287; Bradley and Gaimster 2004: 292.

Stanton Harcourt GR: SP 403 055 'Several' SFBs and two more possible SFBs were found by Stone in 1858 and during further work in the 1940s. Source(s): Rahtz 1976b. Woodstock GR: SP 4458 1887 Pastscape No. 336682 An SFB was found to contain RB pottery and glass, as well as AS pottery. Source(s): Pastscape. Wootton, Hordley GR: SP 445 187 A watching brief during pipeline construction in 1972 revealed an SFB, measuring 3m by 2m. Source(s): Webster and Cherry 1973: 148; Rahtz 1976b.

Baginton Gravel Pit, Baginton GR: SP 3416 7473 Pastscape No. 335901 A single SFB dated to the C6th was found under a DMV c.1962 by G.G. Wilkins. Source(s): Pastscape; Hurst 1971; Rahtz 1976b.

Worton Rectory Farm, Cassington GR: SP 4595 1116 Evaluation showed that a rectangular feature seen as a cropmark was a post-in-trench building measuring 17m by 8m. A small amount of early to middle AS pottery was found, and another

271

Bidford-on-Avon GR: SP 0993 5187 Pastscape No. 328587 Excavation in c.1970-1971 revealed parallel slots with postholes at the ends, possibly representing pens. A ditch containing wattle and daub and quernstones was also found, while ditches and postholes (possibly representing timber buildings) yielding AS pottery were discovered further west. The site’s location is given as SP 0993 5187 on Pastscape and as SP 0998 5197 in the Webster and Cherry article. Source(s): Pastscape; Webster and Cherry 1972: 163-4; Rahtz 1976b. Salford Priors GR: SP 084 537 Six SFBs as well as PBSs and pits were discovered, all seemingly belonging to the same period of occupation. The excavations took place in 1994 on the site of the A435 Norton Lenchwick Bypass. Source(s): Palmer 1993; Nenk et al. 1994; Palmer 1999. St Peter's Churchyard, Wootton Wawen GR: SP 1530 6330 Pastscape No. 331280 AS timber buildings were discovered in Wootton Wawen churchyard. Large postholes were thought to define at least one building with a terminus ante quem of 1050. The earlier buildings were thought to be middle AS, predating any later timber or stone buildings on the site. Source(s): Pastscape. Stretton-on-the-Fosse GR: SP 216 383 A trapezoidal enclosure ditch, pits, and sunken and surface 'features' were found associated with an AS cemetery, according to Rahtz. Hurst states that early AS SFBs were found under the cemetery before gravel working. The reports in Medieval Archaeology noted the discovery of a rectangular timber-framed building, as well as SFBs. The site was excavated between 1968 and 1970. Source(s): Wilson and Hurst 1969: 241; Wilson and Hurst 1970: 163; Hurst 1971; Wilson and Moorhouse 1971: 134; Rahtz 1976b.

272

APPENDIX C GAZETTEER OF BURIAL SITES WITH MONUMENT REUSE This appendix contains a list of early to middle Anglo-Saxon burial sites with evidence for monument reuse in the study area. In common with Appendix B, this list has been compiled from searches of Pastscape, SMR and HER records, and fieldwork notes journals. Meaney’s (1964) gazetteer of early Anglo-Saxon burial sites has also been used, although in many cases there are disparities between the information this source provides and that on Pastscape and HER entries. The abbreviations are the same as those in Appendix B. It would have been beyond the scope of the project to verify every possible instance of monument reuse listed here. As such, the gazetteer includes both unconfirmed examples of reuse (e.g. from antiquarian investigations) and more certain examples (e.g. from modern excavations). Sites at which monument reuse is deemed to have been demonstrated beyond doubt are marked with an asterisk.

Source(s): Cooper and Edmonds 2007. Shillington GR: TL 130 309 Pastscape No. 362602 C5th-7th secondary inhumations with grave goods were found associated with two barrows, which were possibly IA. Source(s): Pastscape. Wilbury Hills, Stotfold GR: TL 21 35 Pastscape No. 365616 An early medieval cemetery is recorded on Pastscape near to Wilbury Hills, on a similar NGR to 'late prehistoric' enclosure ditches seen on aerial photographs in 2004 (see Pastscape record 1458110, location TL 2191 3572). The cemetery was found in the C19th. Source(s): Pastscape.

BEDFORDSHIRE Culvers End Field, Home Farm, Cople GR: TL 101 498 Pastscape No. 1229705 Four ring ditches were noted as cropmarks and subsequently the most northerly of them was excavated ahead of gravel quarrying in 1962. This revealed evidence for a mound with burnt bone in the centre. There were also two extended inhumations. The excavator suggested that the inhumations represented AS reuse of a prehistoric barrow, although the exact dates of the skeletons were unknown. Source(s): Pastscape.

Galley Hill, Streatley GR: TL 0921 2699 Pastscape No. 359536 One of four mounds on Galley Hill was excavated and twentyfive burials were recovered, although dating evidence for them was poor. A roughly central pit dug down through the mound seems to have been secondary and disturbed a primary grave. Some secondary burials could relate to the mound's function as a gallows in the medieval period, but some could be AS. Opened in 1951 and fully excavated in 1961. Source(s): Pastscape.

Barrow 5, Five Knolls Barrow Group, Dunstable GR: TL 0061 2105 Pastscape No. 359925 Around 100 inhumations were found in and around a round barrow, mostly in the E and SE sectors. About one third had their hands tied behind backs. It was suggested that this was an execution cemetery (although the burials were associated with early AS artefacts, and an execution cemetery of this period would be unusual). The barrow was first opened in 1850, and then excavated fully in 1926-9. Source(s): Pastscape; Matthews 1963.

Marina Drive, Totternhoe* GR: TL 0005 2135 Pastscape No. 359896 At least 49 secondary C7th burials were found in a BA round barrow in 1957. Source(s): Pastscape; Meaney 1964. BUCKINGHAMSHIRE Cop Hill Barrow, Bledlow cum Saunderton* GR: SP 7733 0109 Pastscape No. 342622 In 1937 secondary C5th-7th inhumations and possible cremations were found in a BA bowl barrow which also contained a primary inhumation. Source(s): Pastscape.

Elstow Abbey, Elstow GR: TL 0529 4686 Pastscape No. 360218 A C6th cremation cemetery was found in association with a ring ditch, c.40m diameter, thought to be a BA barrow. The ring ditch is now under the churchyard. Source(s): Pastscape.

Burnham GR: SU 9217 8119 Pastscape No. 251717 A secondary C5th-7th burial with grave goods was found in a BA round barrow during railway construction in 1890. Source(s): Pastscape.

Harrold* GR: SP 953 573 Pastscape No. 346787 A late C7th-early C8th cemetery was excavated on a multiperiod site, which contained c.18 round barrows, thought to be prehistoric. Thirteen AS burials were found, some in a barrow to the W side of the site, with three others buried around it. A cluster of burials was also in the middle of the site. The burials were excavated by Edwards at some point before the main excavation by Eagles and Evison in advance of gravel extraction in 1951-3. Source(s): Pastscape; Eagles and Evison 1970.

Gallows Hill, Ivinghoe GR: SP 9693 1709 Pastscape No. 346365 Possible secondary C5th-7th inhumations were found in a BA bowl barrow with a primary inhumation. Source(s): Pastscape. Tickfield Park Estate, Newport Pagnell GR: SP 8877 4331 Pastscape No. 344952

Broom, Sandy GR: TL 172 430 An AS cemetery was found in and around a BA barrow.

273

A C5th-7th cemetery containing graves placed in two concentric circles. The inhumations had their feet pointing towards the centre, and may have been aligned on a barrow. The site was excavated in 1900 during gravel digging. Source(s): Pastscape.

Pastscape No. 369646 HER No. 03862 A possible BA barrow was found to contain C5th-7th inhumations and a cremation. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER; Pastscape; Meaney 1964.

Rislip Farm, Soulbury GR: SP 888 276 Pastscape No. 1200546 Parts of four extended AS inhumations were excavated in 1996 on a ridge of land. Prehistoric pottery and lithics were also found, perhaps indicating that a BA barrow had existed here too. Source(s): Pastscape.

Chatteris GR: TL 30709 86214 Possible secondary AS burials were found in a barrow during gravel digging in 1757. There was an inhumation with a sword, shield boss and spear, and a cremation burial. Source(s): Meaney 1964. Cherry Hinton* GR: TL 4856 5580 HER No. 04965a Eight or more secondary AS inhumations were found in a BA barrow in 1949. Accompanying grave goods included an iron spearhead, knives, a buckle, iron mountings from a wooden bed, a silver ring, combs, a pot, and a crystal ball with bronze mountings. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER; Meaney 1964.

Taplow Court, Taplow* GR: SU 9061 8216 Pastscape No. 251689 A rich C6th-7th burial was found in a mound thought to be AS in date. However, it was excavated in 1883, so there is a chance that any earlier evidence was not located. The barrow is situated within an IA hillfort. Another inhumation, with a C14 date of 590-680, was located close to one of the major IA ditches on the other side of the hillfort. Source(s): Pastscape; Allen et al. 2009.

Eynesbury Hardwicke* GR: TL 1813 5812 Pastscape No. 362821 HER No. 10198E Secondary AS burials were found in an early BA barrow, which was excavated in 1984 ahead of road building. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER; Pastscape.

CAMBRIDGESHIRE Edix Hill, Barrington* GR: TL 373 495 Pastscape No. 368376 HER No. 03264 A C6th-7th inhumation cemetery was excavated overlying a prehistoric round barrow on Edix Hill. At least forty-one skeletons were found in the 1840s, and more were discovered between 1989 and 1991. There was also an IA double-ditched enclosure on the hill. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER; Pastscape; Meaney 1964.

Gamlingay GR: TL 243 519 HER No. 11980A Excavations in the late 1990s revealed a middle AS cemetery comprising at least 118 graves, mostly within an area of 40m by 40m, defined to the N and E by enclosure ditches; these ditches could have been prehistoric or AS in date. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER.

Allington Hill, Bottisham GR: TL 5801 5874 Pastscape No. 374359 HER No. 06762 A C7th burial with two jewelled mounts was found cut into chalk bedrock under a round barrow. Investigation of the site took place in 1860 and again in 1876. Although the burial sounds like a primary AS one, due to the early date of investigation this is not certain and it might be an example of reuse. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER; Pastscape; Meaney 1964.

Linton Heath B, Linton GR: TL 582 467 Pastscape No. 373996 HER No. 06179a Digging in 1853 by Neville recovered 104 C5th-6th inhumations with grave goods including brooches, swords, spearheads, Roman coins, buckets and urns. A mound was still visible at the time of excavation and was said to be oblong and BA. All the AS inhumations were judged to be secondary. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER; Pastscape; Meaney 1964.

Ninescore Hill Barrow, Burwell GR: TL 609 630 Pastscape No. 377466 A secondary C5th-7th inhumation seems to have been inserted into a BA round barrow, which also contained primary inhumations. Source(s): Pastscape.

Mepal Fen, Mepal GR: TL 43 81 Pastscape No. 372288 HER No. 05826A A secondary AS cremation burial was apparently found in an AS urn alongside primary BA ones in a round barrow in 1859. Meaney gives the site’s location as TL 40 82, but the HER entry says TL 43 81. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER; Pastscape; Meaney 1964.

Cambridge* GR: TL 4849 5576 Pastscape No. 371218 Two BA bell-disc or disc barrows were found containing nine secondary C8th-9th inhumations. The site was excavated during quarrying. Source(s): Pastscape.

Soham GR: TL 6148 7159 Pastscape No. 377653 HER No. 07506 A mid C6th-7th cemetery of twenty-three inhumations and two cremations was found during trench digging for an electricity cable in 1931. All the inhumations were found to describe circumference of circle, suggesting the former existence of

Chatteris GR: TL 38 83

274

barrow. The parish boundary also passes nearby, hinting at the use of the postulated barrow as a boundary marker. However, the date of any such barrow is unknown. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER; Pastscape; Meaney 1964.

and beads, all dated to C7th. Earlier, primary burials were subsequently found in the barrow. Source(s): Pastscape; Meaney 1964.

DERBYSHIRE

Lapwing Hill, Brushfield GR: SK 1661 7171 Pastscape No. 309149 A C5th-7th burial, represented by grave goods including a sword, shield, knife and buckle, was found in the C19th. It was in a round barrow that had been accidentally opened by a farmer in 1825 and which was subsequently investigated by Bateman in 1850. It is uncertain whether the AS burial is primary or secondary. Source(s): Pastscape; Meaney 1964.

Alsop-in-the-Dale, Alsop GR: SK 163 553 In 1845 Bateman opened a small barrow called the Lowe on a rocky ridge overlooking the valley of Alsop-in-the-Dale. Towards the S side of the mound was a skeleton with a C7th shield boss. It may be secondary due to its position on the S side of the barrow. Source(s): Meaney 1964.

Lapwing Hill, Brushfield GR: SK 1686 7235 Pastscape No. 309143 A C5th-7th extended inhumation was found in 1850, accompanied by a sword, knife and javelin, and bolts from a coffin or bed. It was in a round barrow which could have been AS or earlier. Source(s): Pastscape; Bateman 1861.

Nether Low, Aldwark GR: SK 1107 6887 Pastscape No. 308560 In 1849 a C5th-7th inhumation was apparently found with an iron knife, traces of wood and animal skin. It was in a rock grave lined with stone slabs under a small round barrow; this sounds like a primary inhumation but the date of the barrow is uncertain. Source(s): Pastscape.

Buxton GR: SK 0625 7054 Pastscape No. 306065 A possible AS inhumation in a coffin was found in a BA round barrow opened in 1850. Source(s): Pastscape.

Gallow's Hill, Swaffham Prior GR: TL 578 643 Pastscape No. 1200473 An AS inhumation cemetery was found on a multi-period site, comprising IA ritual activity and two RB shrines. The features had been noted as cropmarks and were excavated in 1992-1993. Source(s): Pastscape.

Calver Low, Calver GR: SK 2367 7456 Pastscape No. 312095 Five C5th-7th inhumations were found during quarrying and investigated by Bateman in 1850. There was evidence for a tumulus a few yards away, suggesting that these were secondary burials associated with an earlier barrow. Source(s): Pastscape; Meaney 1964.

Grindlow, Over Haddon GR: SK 2006 6734 Pastscape No. 311177 SMR No. 809 A C7th secondary internment accompanied by bronze hanging bowl was found in a round barrow by Bateman in 1849. There was also a primary BA burial of three contracted skeletons, one with a jet necklace. Source(s): Derbyshire SMR; Pastscape; Bateman 1861; Meaney 1964.

Chelmorton Thorn, Chelmorton GR: SK 1186 6955 Pastscape No. 308563 A round barrow containing a C5th-7th 'Anglian' burial with two short knives and an iron buckle was opened by Bateman in 1859. The barrow could have been AS or prehistoric. Source(s): Pastscape; Bateman 1861; Meaney 1964; Ozanne 1962-3.

Minninglowe Hill, Ballidon GR: SK 1987 5837 Pastscape No. 307813 In 1843 Bateman found C5th-7th secondary burials in a round barrow which also contained primary BA inhumations and cremations. Source(s): Pastscape; Ozanne 1962-3.

Bone Low, Derwent GR: SK 1792 9073 Pastscape No. 309748 A round cairn containing four possible C5th-7th cremations and disarticulated secondary inhumations was found by workmen in 1780. It is unknown whether the barrow was AS or earlier in date. Source(s): Pastscape; Meaney 1964.

Rystone Grange, Ballidon GR: SK 2026 5717 Pastscape No. 310812 A secondary C5th-7th inhumation was uncovered in one of two earlier round barrows by Bateman in 1849. The barrow containing the AS burial also contained primary BA cremations, whilst the other yielded no finds. Source(s): Pastscape; Bateman 1861; Ozanne 1962-3.

Barrows between Green Low and Net Low, Eaton and Alsop GR: SK 151 558 Pastscape No. 605653 SMR No. 4816 Two round barrows, situated between Green Low and Net Low (also known as Nettly Knowe), were opened by Carrington in 1851. One contained a C5th cremation with twenty-eight bone playing pieces and two bone combs, the other barrow contained Roman pottery and the skeleton of an ox. It is uncertain whether the cremation was primary or secondary. Meaney gave the

Galley Low/Callidge Low, Brassington GR: SK 2180 5649 Pastscape No. 310798 The middle part of a round barrow was opened by Bateman in 1843. About two feet from the surface were human bones, along with pieces of iron, two arrowheads, a whetstone, a bone pin,

275

location as SK 148 567 but the Derbyshire SMR entry gave it as SK 151 558. Source(s): Derbyshire SMR; Pastscape; Meaney 1964.

by a helmet and possible fragments of chain mail. It is unknown whether the burial was primary or secondary. Source(s): Pastscape; Bateman 1861; Meaney 1964.

The Lowe, Eaton and Alsop GR: SK 15 55 SMR No. 4806 A barrow called the Lowe was opened by Bateman in 1845. A primary cremation in a rock cut grave was found under the mound, and towards the S side of the mound was an inhumation with a C7th shield boss. It was suggested that the inhumation was on the old ground surface, but given the early date of excavation this information might not be reliable, and the date of the primary cremation in unknown. Source(s): Derbyshire SMR.

Carder Low, Hartington Middle Quarter GR: SK 1301 6263 Pastscape No. 308888 A round barrow opened by Bateman in 1845 contained a secondary C5th-7th inhumation with grave goods. There was also a BA crouched inhumation under the barrow. Meaney gives the site’s location as SK 128 626, but the Pastscape record gives SK 1301 6263. Source(s): Pastscape; Meaney 1964; Ozanne 1962-3.

Cross Low, Eaton and Alsop GR: SK 1595 5560 Pastscape No. 307833 A secondary C6th-7th inhumation with a shield was found in one of three barrows, all of which contained BA cremations and inhumations. Source(s): Pastscape; Ozanne 1962-3.

Hurdlow, Hartington Middle Quarter GR: SK 117 666 Pastscape No. 305859 Three small round barrows in a line were opened by Bateman in 1849. The first covered a rock-cut grave containing skeleton and grave goods. In the second an iron knife was found, and in the third was a skeleton. The burials were thought to be C7th, but it is possible that the mounds were older. Source(s): Pastscape; Meaney 1964; Ozanne 1962-3.

Stoney Low, Cold Eaton, Eaton and Alsop GR: SK 148 567 Pastscape No. 308024 A round barrow was opened in 1845 when a central cist with an iron knife, iron dagger, charcoal and a small piece of bird bone were found. The inhumation could be AS, but the date of the mound is unknown. Source(s): Pastscape; Meaney 1964.

Pilsbury, Hartington Middle Quarter GR: SK 1208 6395 Pastscape No. 308879 A ‘probable’ C5th-7th round cairn or stony barrow was opened by Bateman in 1847, although it is uncertain on what basis the date of the cairn/barrow was decided. Source(s): Pastscape; Bateman 1861; Meaney 1964: Ozanne 1962-3.

Cow Low, Tunstead Quarry, Green Fairfield GR: SK 1027 7297 Pastscape No. 309252 A round barrow was opened by Bateman in 1846. In the centre, about half way down, was a C7th secondary burial with gold pins and a glass bead, as well as a wooden box wrapped in cloth containing a comb, green glass vessel, and eleven necklace pendants. The barrow appears to have been earlier, but this is unconfirmed. Source(s): Pastscape; Meaney 1964.

Vincent Knoll, Hartington Middle Quarter GR: SK 1372 6356 Pastscape No. 308876 A BA round barrow containing a secondary C5th-7th inhumation with a spearhead was found by Bateman in 1849. The primary burial was a rock-cut oval grave containing three skeletons. Source(s): Pastscape; Bateman 1861; Meaney 1964; Ozanne 1962-3. Waggon Low, Cronkston, Hartington Middle Quarter GR: SK 1158 6480 Pastscape No. 308873 A C5th-7th inhumation, accompanied by two iron knives and part of a quernstone, was found on the S side of a round barrow. There was also a primary BA cremation and an inhumation. The site was investigated by Bateman in 1852. Source(s): Pastscape; Bateman 1861; Meaney 1964.

Brundcliff, Hartington GR: SK 13 60 A barrow was opened by Bateman in 1847 and found to contain charred wood, the tooth of a horse, an iron knife and a supine human burial on the ground surface. The inhumation was accompanied by a jug which could have been Frankish. This seems to be an AS barrow, however it could have been earlier. Source(s): Meaney 1964.

Newhaven House, Hartington Nether Quarter GR: SK 1618 6028 Pastscape No. 308707 A 'doubtful' AS inhumation with a helmet strap, bronze boss and bronze vessel was found in a round barrow opened by Bateman in 1849. Source(s): Pastscape; Bateman 1861; Meaney 1964.

Gospel Hillocks, King Sterndale GR: SK 0871 7157 SMR No. 8807 Two barrows c.100m apart are known as Gospel Hillocks. The smaller one was opened in 1896 by M. Salt. It contained a primary crouched burial under a large stone, as well as two further primary inhumations to the S. Several secondary interments were also found in the top of the mound and these may have been AS in date. Source(s): Derbyshire SMR.

Hartington Town Quarter GR: SK 1589 6146 Pastscape No. 308683 A rock-cut grave was found under a round barrow in 1847. It contained an extended inhumation, possibly in a coffin, accompanied by an early medieval jug and iron knife. Although this sounds like a primary AS burial, the date of the barrow is unconfirmed. Source(s): Pastscape; Meaney 1964.

Benty Grange, Hartington Middle Quarter GR: SK 1460 6421 Pastscape No. 308870 A round barrow with a burial at its centre was opened by Bateman in 1848. It contained a C7th inhumation accompanied

276

and knife. It had been inserted into a BA bowl barrow, which also contained primary inhumations and a secondary prehistoric beaker inhumation. The barrow was opened in 1821 by William Bateman, then by Thomas Bateman in 1848, and again in 1921. Source(s): Pastscape; Bateman 1861; Meaney 1964.

Stan Low, NW of Nether Water Farm, Hazelbadge* GR: SK 1690 7922 SMR No. 7617 A barrow was destroyed in 1932, but the site was surveyed and excavated in 2004, at which time a long oval earthwork still survived. A single complete skeleton was found towards the N end of the barrow, and the disturbed remains of eight other skeletons were also found. There were Neolithic stone tools in the material, and disarticulated bones gave C14 dates of 2134 to 1911 BC. The articulated skeleton was C14 dated to AD 650700. Source(s): Derbyshire SMR.

Middleton and Smerrill GR: SK 1533 6386 Pastscape No. 308648 A secondary burial of a child, possibly AS in date, discovered near the surface of a small BA round barrow. barrow’s primary inhumation was crouched and accompanied by a jet and bone necklace. The barrow opened in 1848. Source(s): Pastscape; Bateman 1861.

Wigber Low, Kniveton* GR: SK 2040 5141 Pastscape No. 311025 C7th secondary inhumations were found in a BA cairn during the 1980s by Collis. Source(s): Pastscape; Meaney 1964; Collis 1983.

was The was was

Middleton Common, Middleton and Smerrill GR: SK 1529 6387 Pastscape No. 308645 C5th-7th secondary burials were found in a BA barrow, which also contained a primary cremation. Source(s): Pastscape; Bateman 1861.

Hay Top, Little Longstone GR: SK 1781 7238 Pastscape No. 309173 An intrusive C5th-7th burial was found in a BA round barrow, which also contained primary inhumations. Bateman opened the barrow in 1851. Source(s): Pastscape; Bateman 1861; Meaney 1964; Ozanne 1962-3.

Rusden Low (Cross Flatts), Middleton and Smerrill GR: SK 1911 6231 Pastscape No. 308689 A BA bowl barrow called Rusden Low was located near Kenslow Wood. It was opened in 1848, when three inhumations were found in a rock-cut grave. An iron knife, RB coin and bone comb probably represented a secondary interment of AS date. Further away from the centre was also a possible cremation. Source(s): Pastscape; Bateman 1861; Meaney 1964; Ozanne 1962-3.

King's Newton, Melbourne GR: SK 3935 2615 Pastscape No. 922875 A C5th-7th cremation cemetery with over 100 urns was found on the crest of a hill during railway construction in 1866. There was also a possible prehistoric rectangular enclosure nearby (which could have been an earlier AS feature, however). Source(s): Pastscape; Meaney 1964.

Baley Low, Newton Grange GR: SK 144 540 SMR No. 10612 A barrow was opened by Samuel Carrington in 1850. Primary rock-cut graves were found, along with secondary AS inhumations. Source(s): Derbyshire SMR.

Barrow near Kenslow Knoll, Middleton and Smerrill GR: SK 187 615 A barrow near Kenslow Knoll was opened by Bateman in 1825. It contained a few fragments of human bone, two iron knives and two other iron fragments. It was thought to be a primary AS inhumation, but this is unconfirmed. Source(s): Meaney 1964.

Borrowash, Ockbrook and Borrowash GR: SK 4145 3429 Pastscape No. 315628 During railway construction in the mid C19th workmen cut through a piece of ground which had apparently been a tumulus. They found around eighty skeletons, some apparently burnt. One had a flint arrowhead in the skull, and another had a stone tool, according to the antiquarian account. Beads and brooches were also found, suggesting the presence of secondary AS burials. Source(s): Pastscape; Meaney 1964.

Cross Flatt's Plantation, Middleton and Smerrill GR: SK 1922 6377 Pastscape No. 308674 A barrow opened in 1927 contained a C5th-7th extended inhumation with a knife. It is unknown whether this was a primary or secondary inhumation. Source(s): Pastscape; Meaney 1964; Ozanne 1962-3. Garrett's Piece, Middleton and Smerrill GR: SK 1718 6261 Pastscape No. 308719 A round barrow was opened by workmen digging for lime in 1788. It contained an extended C7th inhumation accompanied by a hanging bowl, another bowl and a shield boss. It is unknown whether this was a primary or a secondary inhumation. Source(s): Pastscape; Meaney 1964.

Swarkestone Lows Barrow Cemetery, Swarkestone* GR: SK 3651 2950 Pastscape No. 313008 This prehistoric barrow cemetery consisted of at least six barrows. In one BA bell barrow (Barrow 2) there were intrusive C5th-6th inhumations and cremations, with grave goods including a brooch dated to AD 500. The barrow containing the AS burials was excavated in 1955. Source(s): Pastscape; Meaney 1964.

Kenslow Knoll, Middleton and Smerrill GR: SK 1842 6172 Pastscape No. 308722 A secondary inhumation thought to be C5th-7th in date (although it could have been RB) was accompanied by a brooch

Taddington GR: SK 14 71 Pastscape No. 309330

277

A barrow was found to contain an inhumation in a cist. It could have been AS in date, although dating evidence for the burial and mound was sparse. The barrow was excavated by Bateman in the mid C19th. It cannot now be located with any certainty. Source(s): Pastscape; Bateman 1861.

GR: TL 355 411 Pastscape No. 368621 A round barrow containing inhumations and grave goods was found, although the dates of the inhumations and mound are uncertain. Source(s): Pastscape.

Barrow near Sharplow, Tissington GR: SK 1534 5267 Pastscape No. 308090 Secondary C5th-7th burials, one accompanied by a shield, were found in a BA round barrow opened by Bateman in 1848. There was also a primary BA cremation and an inhumation. Source(s): Pastscape; Bateman 1861; Meaney 1964.

Five Hills, Therfield GR: TL 34090 40250 Pastscape No. 1317111 HER No. 1739 A possible AS secondary inhumation with a bronze buckle was found in a BA round barrow. The barrow was one of a group of five, and was been opened in 1856 and again in 1858. Source(s): Hertfordshire HER; Pastscape.

Boslow/Bowers Low/Boar Low/Rose Low, Tissington* GR: SK 1693 5259 Pastscape No. 308087 A BA round barrow with a primary contracted inhumation and cremation under a stone was opened by Lucal in 1963-4. A secondary C7th-8th burial was represented by a sword in its scabbard, a shield boss and a spearhead. The large tumulus survives to height of c.2.7m. Source(s): Pastscape; Meaney 1964.

Therfield Long Barrow, Therfield GR: TL 3415 4017 Pastscape No. 368696 HER No. 1630 A C6th secondary burial was found in a Neolithic long barrow. The barrow was investigated in 1855 and 1935. Source(s): Hertfordshire HER; Pastscape. LEICESTERSHIRE

Sharp Low, Tissington GR: SK 1613 5286 Pastscape No. 308093 A low flat barrow was opened by Bateman in 1848. It contained two probable C5th-7th contracted inhumations with iron knives. In the middle of the barrow was a stone laid over the horn of a bull and another bone, which were thought to be primary BA deposits. Source(s): Pastscape; Bateman 1861; Meaney 1964; Ozanne 1962-3.

Breedon-on-the-Hill GR: SK 4066 2332 Pastscape No. 315452 An extensive cemetery was found inside a hillfort. It could have been medieval, but was probably of AS date. There were over 180 inhumations, all aligned E-W, in two or three orderly rows. The site was c.100m E of the church, suggesting that the cemetery may have been associated with an AS monastery. The site was investigated in 1946, and again at some point before 1950. Source(s): Pastscape; Meaney 1964.

Middleton Moor, Wirksworth GR: SK 270 557 Pastscape No. 310664 A round barrow was accidentally opened by a farmer in 1787, who found spears, knives and a quernstone. William Bateman investigated and recorded the barrow, finding at the centre an extended skeleton lying on the ground surface, along with an iron spearhead. The burial was thought to be C5th-7th. This sounds like a primary inhumation, but the date of the barrow is unconfirmed. Source(s): Pastscape; Meaney 1964; Ozanne 1962-3.

Cossington Quarry, Platts Lane, Cossington* GR: SK 613 102 Pastscape No. 1342524 Seven or eight C5th-6th inhumations were represented by groups of metalwork cut into a BA round barrow (no bone survived). In the vicinity were other scatters of metalwork, suggesting that further burials had been destroyed and spread by ploughing of the mound. The site was excavated by ULAS in 1999 and relates to the settlement site at Cossington discussed in Chapter 5. Source(s): Pastscape; Thomas 2007a; Thomas 2007b; Thomas 2008.

White Lowe, Winster GR: SK 220 597 Pastscape No. 310833 A barrow was destroyed in 1765/6, and many artefacts were found, including gold and silver jewellery, glass vessels, beads and bronze clasps. There were also two urns on the old ground surface. A mid to late C7th date has been suggested for the items, although the date of the mound is unconfirmed. Source(s): Pastscape; Meaney 1964.

Baggrave, Hungarton GR: SK 6865 0546 Pastscape No. 319123 A mound was opened accidentally in 1784, and found to contain C7th burials and grave goods. The date of the mound is unknown. Source(s): Pastscape; Meaney 1964.

Wyaston GR: SK 1911 4200 Pastscape No. 307710 Human teeth, twenty-seven beads, silver earrings, a flat bronze brooch and a silver ring dated to the C7th were found in a round barrow. Another barrow was opened a short distance away but nothing was found. Both barrows were opened by Carrington in 1853, and their dates are unconfirmed. Source(s): Pastscape; Meaney 1964

Ingarsby GR: SK 685 053 Several skeletons were found in a large mound during tree planting in 1830. One had a large square-headed brooch, thought to be C7th. The date of the mound is unknown. Source(s): Meaney 1964. Stoke Golding GR: SP 3969 9703 Pastscape No. 336104

HERTFORDSHIRE White Bear Inn, Royston

278

The earthwork remains of a round barrow were noted overlooking Watling Street. It was partly excavated in 1931, when C7th items were found, although this did not confirm that the mound itself was of AS date. Source(s): Pastscape; Meaney 1964.

Secondary C5th-7th inhumations were found in a BA round barrow when it was levelled in 1815. There were also AS inhumations around the barrow, laid neatly in rows, some with armour. There was a primary BA cremation too. Source(s): Pastscape.

LINCOLNSHIRE

Loveden Hill, Hough on the Hill* GR: SK 908 458 Pastscape No. 325833 HER No. 30289 A C5th-7th cemetery containing nearly 2000 cremations and at least thirty-two inhumations was initially excavated in the 1920s. Deep ploughing of the site led to further excavations in 1955-63 and again in 1972. According to Meaney, a round barrow at the top of the hill was investigated and found to contain burials, although their date is not known. Other records state that there were also uninvestigated enclosures and another mound seen as cropmarks. Source(s): Lincolnshire HER; Pastscape; Meaney 1964.

Cock Hill, Burgh le Marsh GR: TF 4993 6500 Pastscape No. 355275 HER No. 43596 The earthwork remains of a round barrow were discovered and subsequently excavated. The barrow contained a C6th-7th inhumation and an associated buckle slide. There were microliths in the barrow material, which may indicate a prehistoric date. Source(s): Lincolnshire HER; Pastscape; Meaney 1964. Caenby Barrow, Caenby GR: SK 9703 8896 Pastscape No. 326801 HER No. 50430 In the C19th this round barrow was found to contain a C7th inhumation with weapons, horse remains and riding equipment. Although this was thought to be a primary burial, the date of the mound is not certain. Source(s): Lincolnshire HER; Pastscape; Meaney 1964; Albone n.d.

Kirby la Thorpe* GR: TF 1063 4576 Pastscape No. 1326153 Nine C7th-8th inhumations lay directly over two round and three rectangular barrows of IA date. The site was excavated during the digging of a gas pipeline in 1998. Source(s): Pastscape. Kirton in Lindsey GR: SE 9385 0070 Pastscape No. 63526 During road-building in 1856 a landowner cut through a slightly raised mound just within the N boundary of Kirton in Lindsey. He found fifty to sixty C5th-7th urns with bones and grave goods inside. To the N of the urns was a quantity of stones and above them four to five feet of soil heaped up to make a barrow, presumably the mound mentioned. The date of the mound is uncertain, but the discovery of the urns to the S of the mound suggests that they may have been secondary. Source(s): Pastscape; Meaney 1964.

Beacon Hill, Cleethorpes GR: TA 2994 0810 Pastscape No. 814151 A BA bowl barrow containing five primary cinerary urns was also found to contain a secondary late C6th-7th cremation urn when it was investigated in 1935. Source(s): Pastscape; Meaney 1964. Elsham Cemetery, Elsham* GR: TA 046 125 Pastscape No. 78908 A C5th-6th cemetery of around 630 cremation urns and four inhumations was excavated in the mid 1970s. Two lengths of (probable) prehistoric ditch and a BA beaker inhumation were also found. Source(s): Pastscape.

Partney GR: TF 4225 6810 Pastscape No. 355297 HER No. 42150 A round barrow was levelled by workmen in 1950 during roadworks. AS inhumations with grave goods were found, including two adults and two children, although it is possible that more were found but not recorded. The date of the mound is unknown. Source(s): Lincolnshire HER; Pastscape.

Flixborough GR: SE 897 157 Pastscape No. 60972 A barrow containing a C5th-7th urn was excavated some time prior to 1949. The date of the barrow is unknown. Source(s): Pastscape.

Stenigot GR: TF 2528 8208 Pastscape No. 353137 HER No. 40785 Ploughing of a barrow in 1954 unearthed three C6th-7th inhumations accompanied by a cauldron, dirk and knives. As it was not properly excavated it is unknown whether these were primary of secondary burials. Source(s): Lincolnshire HER; Pastscape; Meaney 1964.

Brocklesby Park, Great Limber GR: TA 1332 0890 Pastscape No. 80261 A round barrow was opened during construction of a mausoleum in the 1792, and it was found to contain cinerary urns, burnt bones and grave goods, either of AS or RB date. This may possibly indicate AS secondary reuse of an earlier mound, although this is a tentative assertion as the evidence is sparse. Source(s): Pastscape.

West Halton* GR: SE 90518 20894 A BA round barrow contained at least one C7th burial. Antiquarian investigation had taken place in the C19th and yielded no finds, but re-excavation of the C19th trench yielded fragments of human bone which were C14 dated to AD 600-670 (95% confidence rate).

Butts Hill Barrow, Heckington GR: TF 1417 4373 Source(s): Pastscape No. 351155

279

Source(s): Hadley et al. 2011.

C5th-7th inhumations with grave goods. Since the RB road deviated around the mound it must have been there first, so the AS burials seem to be secondary. The barrow was opened in c.1855 and destroyed by straightening of the road in 1863. Source(s): Pastscape; Meaney 1964.

Wold Newton GR: TF 24386 96928 Over twenty urns were found by workmen in a barrow during road repairs in 1828. Unfortunately it is uncertain if the urns and mound were prehistoric or AS in date. Source(s): Meaney 1964.

Longmans Hill, Pitsford GR: SP 7508 6774 Pastscape No. 343380 An oblong mound, possibly Neolithic, was opened in 1882 and had been much disturbed. It contained fourteen C5th-7th urned cremations along with grave goods. Source(s): Pastscape; Meaney 1964.

NORTHAMPTONSHIRE Cransley GR: SP 839 778 Pastscape No. 345805 C7th finds indicated a possible cemetery in the vicinity of a BA burial site. The presence of the BA inhumation may indicate that there had been a barrow, although this is uncertain. The finds were discovered in 1879 and are now dispersed. Source(s): Pastscape.

Tansor Crossroads, Tansor* GR: TL 057 901 Pastscape No. 1194171 Three possible barrows were identified as cropmarks in the 1970s. One was found to be a windmill mound, another was unexcavated, and the third was excavated ahead of roadworks in 1995. It had started as a Neolithic enclosure, which had been turned into a round barrow in the BA period. Two C7th inhumations had been inserted into it, although no bone survived. Source(s): Pastscape.

Borough Hill, Daventry GR: SP 588 622 Pastscape No. 339935 A barrow on Borough Hill was found to contain C5th artefacts. Borough Hill is a fort or encampment and Meaney suggested that the barrow was one identified on the SW side of the inner entrance into the northern camp. She listed the AS burial as secondary, but it is not clear on what basis. The barrow was opened by G. Baker in 1823. Source(s): Pastscape; Meaney 1964.

Seabridge Close, Thenford GR: SP 514 419 Pastscape No. 339415 Intrusive C5th-7th burials were discovered in a barrow made of earth and rubble. Drinking cups and accessory vessels accompanied the burials. The date of the barrow is unknown. Source(s): Pastscape; Meaney 1964.

Desborough GR: SP 8050 8307 Pastscape No. 346081 A C7th-8th inhumation cemetery was found within an 'old encampment' of prehistoric or RB date during ironstone mining in 1876. Grave goods include a silver spoon, necklace, skillet and scales. Source(s): Pastscape.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE Holme Pierrepont GR: SK 625 386 Pastscape No. 319765 HER No. 18377 An AS linear cemetery was excavated in the 1990s and early 2000s. Some graves were located near ring ditches and overlying them. Despite excavation the ring ditches were undated, although their small sizes suggested that they could have been AS in date. Source(s): Nottinghamshire HER; Pastscape; Guilbert 2006.

Kings Sutton GR: SP 505 387 Pastscape No. 339064 C5th-7th inhumations were found in a round barrow, which also had BA evidence in it, so the AS burials were probably secondary. Source(s): Pastscape.

Oxton GR: SK 6177 5341 Pastscape No. 320274 HER No. M5490 A C7th-8th grave containing a shield boss, sword, knife and game counter and an apparently female skeleton was found in 1789. It was thought to be in a mound and primary, but given the early date of the find this is unconfirmed. Source(s): Nottinghamshire HER; Pastscape.

Cow Meadow, Northampton GR: SP 7581 6007 Pastscape No. 343555 A round barrow was opened in 1844 and found to contain two small urns, as well as artefacts including a brooch, bone pin and metal tweezers of C5th-7th. The date of the mound is unknown. Source(s): Pastscape; Meaney 1964. Hunsbury Hillfort, Northampton* GR: SP 7387 5835 Pastscape No. 343287 AS inhumations have been found in the IA hillfort at Hunsbury. Some were discovered in the C19th, and in 1953 two further AS burials were found in the bank of the hillfort. Source(s): Pastscape.

Willoughby on the Wolds GR: SK 648 251 Pastscape No. 319559 HER No. 371 An AS cemetery was found on the site of a possible RB C3rd4th settlement. There is a ring ditch near to one AS grave, which may be the remains of a prehistoric barrow (this seems to be the earthwork known as Cross Hill Barrow). Source(s): Nottinghamshire HER; Pastscape.

Norton Barrow, Norton GR: SP 6191 6283 Pastscape No. 341798 A long oblong barrow was noted on the E side of the RB road Watling Street in the 1850s. The barrow contained five or six

280

OXFORDSHIRE

Source(s): Pastscape.

Abingdon Cursus, Abingdon GR: SU 5126 9824 Pastscape No. 237992 A possible early AS inhumation was found between enclosure ditch circuits at Abingdon Neolithic cursus in 1905. Source(s): Pastscape.

Dike Hills, Dorchester GR: SU 575 937 Pastscape No. 238046 BA barrows on Dike Hills contained primary BA and secondary early AS burials. Source(s): Pastscape.

Saxton Road, Caldecott, Abingdon* GR: SU 4892 9631 Pastscape No. 233949 HER No. D2657 An early AS mixed cemetery with eighty-two cremations and over a hundred inhumations was excavated in 1934-35. Many had grave goods and some had traces of coffins. The burials overlay BA features, including a round barrow, which lay on the E boundary of cemetery. It contained six primary and two secondary inhumations. There were also further ring ditches noted as cropmarks. Source(s): Oxfordshire HER; Pastscape.

Dorchester on Thames Site VII, Dorchester* GR: SU 5682 9682 Pastscape No. 237869 HER No. D15323.11.01 At least nine early AS secondary burials were discovered around a BA round barrow. More were apparently found in the area later during gravel extraction. Bone preservation was poor but grave goods included necklaces, spearheads and brooches. The barrow was located just to the W of the SW ditch of the Dorchester on Thames cursus and contained primary BA burials. The site was excavated 1947 ahead of gravel extraction. Source(s): Oxfordshire HER; Pastscape.

Lowbury Hill, Aston Upthorpe GR: SU 5405 8226 Pastscape No. 237761 A round barrow excavated in 1859 and again in 1913-4 seems to be AS in date. It contained a central inhumation accompanied by C7th-8th grave goods. The central position of the burial seems to indicate that it was primary, but the date of the barrow is unconfirmed. Source(s): Pastscape.

Scutchaemer Knob, East Hendred GR: SU 4565 8503 Pastscape No. 233623 An irregularly shaped mound was opened in the C19th and found to contain a primary burial, thought to belong to the IA. A possible secondary early AS inhumation was also found. Source(s): Pastscape. New Wintles Farm, Eynsham* GR: SP 429 106 Pastscape No. 336806 Two prehistoric round barrows were excavated in 1972. One contained a primary inhumation and another a secondary early AS inhumation. Source(s): Pastscape.

Blewburton Hill, Blewbury* GR: SU 5469 8613 Pastscape No. 237555 HER No. 9858 An early AS cemetery of twenty-two inhumations and a cremation was found in an IA hillfort. The majority of the burials had grave goods. Source(s): Oxfordshire HER; Pastscape.

City Farm, Hanborough* GR: SP 4295 1157 Pastscape No. 336785 C6th burials were excavated in an area of late Neolithic and early BA ring ditches and other cropmarks. Four AS cremations and two inhumations were discovered in a BA barrow between 1955 and 1964. Source(s): Pastscape.

Cassington* GR: SP 4500 1026 Pastscape Nos. 969487 & 336741 HER Nos. D15053.36 & D15058 A number of AS burial sites have been found around the IA Great Enclosure in Cassington. No burials were found within the enclosure, although some did come from a re-cut of one of the ditches. AS graves were also found near to prehistoric barrows in Smiths Pits I and II, just to the N of the Great Enclosure. Excavations took place in the 1940s and 1950s ahead of and during gravel quarrying. Source(s): Oxfordshire HER; Pastscape; Harden 1940; Benson and Miles 1974; Hey 2004 .

Westcote Hill, Idbury GR: SP 2287 1954 Pastscape No. 332307 HER No. 1449 Close to an IA univallate hillfort, the ditches of which survive today, AS burials were found during quarrying. Source(s): Oxfordshire HER; Pastscape. Segsbury Camp, Letcombe Regis GR: SU 3850 8448 Pastscape No. 229295 An AS burial was found in a cist on the S part of a rampart of an IA univallate hillfort. The burial could only be broadly dated to the C5th-11th. Source(s): Pastscape.

Chinnor Hill, Chinnor GR: SP 7676 0063 Pastscape No. 342609 Two bowl barrows were noted on Chinnor Hill, both of which have mounds surviving to c.1m high. In 1899 an early AS inhumation, accompanied by a spearhead, was found dug into the top of one of the mounds, which were probably BA in date. Source(s): Pastscape.

Lyneham Barrow, Lyneham GR: SP 2795 2106 Pastscape No. 332607 Two early AS inhumations were cut into the top of a Neolithic long mound. To the NE, 9m away, is monolith which may be associated with the earthwork. The mound was opened in 1894.

Crawley GR: SP 3371 1129 Pastscape No. 334811 Three secondary early AS inhumations were found in a Neolithic long barrow, which was opened in 1857.

281

Source(s): Pastscape.

Two AS bowl barrows were placed in a row with a BA one, aligned SW to NE on top of a hill. They overlook a Neolithic long barrow too, and are c.70m S of the Uffington White Horse. Although there is no evidence for intrusive reuse of the earlier barrows, this is an example of associative reuse. Source(s): Pastscape.

Barrow 2, Radley* GR: SU 5147 9822 Pastscape No. 1239645 An AS inhumation, accompanied by the remains of an iron knife, was found inserted into the top of a BA round barrow, which was part of the Radley Barrow Hills cemetery. Parts of the barrow cemetery were excavated in 1944, 1976 and 1983-5. Source(s): Pastscape; Barclay and Halpin 1999; Chambers and McAdam 2007.

STAFFORDSHIRE Pea Low/Steep Lowe, Alstonefield GR: SK 1307 5646 Pastscape No. 307966 An apparently BA barrow was opened by Bateman in 1845, Carrington in 1848 and by Crewe in 1861. In the top of the barrow was a secondary C5th-7th burial, accompanied by an iron spearhead and lancehead, a knife and three RB brass coins. The Pastscape entry for this site records a secondary IA cremation too, but this was not mentioned by Meaney. Source(s): Pastscape; Bateman 1861; Meaney 1964.

Barrow 5, Radley* GR: SU 5160 9829 Two possible AS secondary inhumations were recovered during salvage work from a large BA round barrow containing primary pyre debris. This was part of the Barrow Hills cemetery, parts of which were excavated in 1944, 1976 and 1983-5. Source(s): Barclay and Halpin 1999; Chambers and McAdam 2007.

Nettles Field, Blore with Swinscoe GR: SK 1338 4915 Pastscape No. 307537 A BA bowl barrow opened in 1849 by Carrington and again in 1927 contained a possible AS inhumation with a vessel and an iron ring. The date of the mound is uncertain. Source(s): Pastscape; Bateman 1861; Meaney 1964.

Barrow Hills, Radley* GR: SU 5141 9812 Pastscape No. 1240140 A late C6th-C7th inhumation seems to have been inserted into the bank around a BA pond barrow, which was part of the Barrow Hills cemetery. It was located in the Barrow Hills settlement. The barrow was also surrounded by eight prehistoric burials. The site was excavated between 1983 and 1985. Source(s): Pastscape; Barclay and Halpin 1999; Chambers and McAdam 2007.

Elford Park Farm, Elford GR: SK 193 126 Pastscape No. 921806 Seven possible AS barrows containing human bones and other finds were destroyed in the C18th. The dates of the barrows are unconfirmed. Source(s): Pastscape.

Standlake* GR: SP 3834 0461 Pastscape No. 334496 HER No. 1614 A C6th-7th inhumation cemetery and a large number of prehistoric barrows/ring ditches have been found at various times between 1820 and 1954. In the centre of mound 17 four AS graves were found in 1954. The presence of an IA pit also cut into the barrow suggests that the AS burials were secondary. Earlier excavations had also found scattered AS graves around ring ditches 18 and 21. Source(s): Oxfordshire HER; Pastscape.

Wardlow Barrow, Farley GR: SK 0854 4727 Pastscape No. 305198 A bowl barrow containing a primary crouched inhumation and cremation was also found to contain probable secondary AS inhumations. Investigations have taken place on several occasions. Source(s): Pastscape; Bateman 1861.

Stanton Harcourt GR: SP 4100 0510 Pastscape No. 336399 HER No. D2373 Twenty-three secondary C7th inhumations were found associated with a BA bowl barrow. They had grave goods and were arranged in an arc around the centre of the barrow. Source(s): Oxfordshire HER; Pastscape.

Castern, Ilam GR: SK 1202 5355 Pastscape No. 308331 A BA bowl barrow was found to contain primary burials, as well as an AS knife with a horn handle, indicating at least one AS burial. Subsequent investigation uncovered a secondary burial, although this had an RB-style bracelet. The barrow was opened by Bateman in 1845 and again by Carrington in 1850. Source(s): Pastscape; Bateman 1861; Meaney 1964.

Round Hill, Stoke Lyne GR: SP 5475 3073 Pastscape No. 339229 A round barrow was opened in 1927 and again in 1961-2. There was an inhumation in a central pit, thought to be primary, and an upright C7th pottery vessel next to the grave. It is thought to be an AS mound, although the position of a vessel next to the central grave may indicate a secondary burial. A monkey skeleton was also found; a recent local story said a sailor had buried his pet monkey there in the C18th or C19th. Source(s): Pastscape.

Wredon Hill, Ramshorn GR: SK 0857 4694 Pastscape No. 305234 A round barrow was opened by Carrington in 1848 and found to contain primary burials. Some distance away from the primary skeletons were an iron spear and a narrow iron knife, thought to represent the remains of a secondary AS burial. Source(s): Pastscape; Meaney 1964. Calton Barrow, Waterhouses GR: SK 1081 5027 Pastscape No. 308228 A BA bowl barrow was opened by Carrington in 1848 or 1849. It contained five burials, some of which appear to have been

Whitehorse Hill, Uffington GR: SU 3010 8653 Pastscape No. 1302944

282

secondary early AS inhumations. One of these AS burials lay in the NW part of the mound with its head on the flat stone of a small prehistoric cist. Source(s): Pastscape; Meaney 1964.

A BA bowl barrow was partially opened in 1835 and found to contain a C5th-7th inhumation along with three BA ones. Source(s): Pastscape; Meaney 1964. Long Itchington GR: SP 414 658 Pastscape No. 337425 AS pottery and inhumations were found in a barrow during quarrying in 1894. They were thought to be secondary, although the date of the barrow is unknown. Source(s): Pastscape; Meaney 1964.

Cauldon Hills, Waterhouses GR: SK 08 48 Pastscape No. 305221 A round barrow, already mutilated before opening, was investigated by Carrington in 1849. It was in an area where other barrows had already been investigated. A grave had been dug into the bedrock, which contained a skeleton and a burnished vessel. This vessel could have been a C7th Frankish artefact, but could instead have been RB. The date of the mound may is uncertain. Source(s): Pastscape; Bateman 1861; Meaney 1964.

Marton GR: SP 4132 6805 Pastscape No. 337404 A round barrow was opened by workmen in the 1850s and found to contain C5th-7th cremations and inhumations accompanied by grave goods. The date of the barrow is unknown. Source(s): Pastscape.

Musden Second Barrow (Musden Hill), Waterhouses GR: SK 1178 5008 Pastscape No. 308364 Two probable C6th secondary cremations in urns were found in a BA bowl barrow when it was opened by Carrington in 1848. They were located above a BA skeleton with a piece of flint by it. There were other barrows in the area. Source(s): Pastscape; Bateman 1861; Meaney 1964.

Meon Hill, Quinton GR: SP 1769 4533 Pastscape No. 330738 An AS inhumation was discovered in Meon Hill, an IA multivallate hillfort. Source(s): Pastscape.

Musden Fourth Barrow (Musden Hill), Waterhouses GR: SK 116 501 Pastscape No. 308364 The fourth of a group of barrows on Musden Hill was opened by Carrington in 1849. About half way down in the centre were two skeletons. By one was a pebble and a bronze annular brooch, which was assigned a C7th date. These seem to be secondary burials inserted into an older barrow. Source(s): Pastscape; Bateman 1861; Meaney 1964. Thorncliff, Waterhouses GR: SK 1134 4951 Pastscape No. 307557 A large bowl-shaped BA barrow was opened by Carrington in 1848. He found a primary inhumation with a flint tool and bronze dagger, and a secondary extended inhumation which was undated but was thought to date to a long after the building of the mound; it may therefore be AS. Source(s): Pastscape; Bateman 1861. Borough Fields, Wetton GR: SK 108 547 Pastscape No. 308194 Inhumations and other finds may indicate site of an early AS cemetery. A C7th skeleton with an iron spearhead and a knife was found in a small mound, which was destroyed in 1845. Later, in 1852, disturbed human bones and artefacts were found in this area, perhaps suggesting secondary burial around the mound, which could have been AS or prehistoric. Source(s): Pastscape; Bateman 1861; Meaney 1964. WARWICKSHIRE Compton Verney GR: SP 31 52 Pastscape No. 335422 A barrow opened in 1774 contained C7th-8th inhumations and grave goods, although the date of the barrow is unknown. Source(s): Pastscape. Oldbury/Hartshill Hayes, Hartshill GR: SP 3175 9432 Pastscape No. 336252

283

APPENDIX D GAZETTEER OF SETTLEMENTS WITH POSSIBLE MONUMENT REUSE In this study it has been noted that a number of settlement sites did not meet the criteria for inclusion in the corpus, yet nevertheless they potentially represent further examples of occupation on or near earlier monuments (see Chapter 8). These sites are listed here; they include pottery scatters on monuments, and sites where cropmarks appear to show SFBs overlying older monuments. The list also includes sites with excavated occupation features, such as wells and ditches, but no excavated buildings. There are also several sites for which HER entries suggest the juxtaposition of Anglo-Saxon and prehistoric remains but no further information could be found to confirm this. The abbreviations are the same as those in Appendices B and C.

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE The Prebendal, Aylesbury GR: SP 81640 13945 Pastscape No. 870843 HER No. 0291802000-MCB7826 Aylesbury lies within an IA hillfort. Part of the hillfort ditch, originally 3m deep, was excavated and traced for over 20m in the town centre. The ditch had been re-cut to a depth of 2m in the C7th-C8th. The fill of the AS ditch contained a sceat of AD 710-20, as well as Ipswich ware and animal bones. The excavators did not feel that the ditch was defensive, and as there was no later AS evidence in the ditch it was not thought to have surrounded a burh. It was suggested that it might have enclosed a minster, or a sixth-century ‘town’ mentioned in the AngloSaxon Chronicle. Source(s): Buckinghamshire HER; Pastscape; Farley 1986.

BEDFORDSHIRE Great Barford Flood Attenuation Scheme GR: TL 132 521 Middle AS occupation features were excavated, consisting of two pits, two postholes and a ditch terminal of the C8th-9th. No earlier features were detected, but the site could be related to several (undated) sub-rectangular enclosures identified as cropmarks (HER 16750). This information is based on comments from Stephen Coleman, the Bedfordshire HER Officer. Source(s): S. Coleman, pers. comm.

CAMBRIDGESHIRE Drybread Road, Whittlesey GR: TL 2790 9780. HER No. 04281 The HER entry records the destruction of SFBs by a housing estate. Ring ditches, including probable hut circles, as well as part of a rectilinear enclosure were also found, but no further information could be traced to verify the relationships between AS and earlier features. The information came from comments made by R Palmer and from brief notes by him from 1983, which were recorded on the HER entry. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER.

Hinksley Road, Flitwick GR: TL 03634 35677 An AS well, pit and two small boundary features were found on the site of an IA enclosed settlement and a second- to fourthcentury Romano-British field system. There was also a BA ring ditch c.150m away from the well. Source(s): Luke 1999.

Fenstanton GR: TL 304 689 Pastscape No. 1377262 Evaluation carried out in 1990 identified eight square features, one of which was interpreted as a late IA enclosure. Cropmarks of possible SFBs were noted as well, and it is possible that some of the square features were also AS. The relationship between the SFB cropmarks and IA enclosure is unknown. Source(s): Pastscape.

Ivel Farm/Becks Land South GR: TL 182 467 Two clusters of SFBs were found along with IA pits, postholes and a cremation burial. The IA pits formed two alignments, one 35m long, the other 40m long, but it is not clear how these related to the SFBs as there is no site plan and information is sparse. Source(s): Thorpe 2003.

Hinxton Road, Duxford GR: TL 480 460 Evaluation of the former 'Techne' factory site in Hinxton Road was undertaken in 2001. This revealed a Bronze Age curvilinear ditch, features of possible Iron Age date, a Roman ditch, and medieval ditches and postholes. There were also undated features, possibly beamslots and postholes belonging to timber structures. Belonging to the AS period were four inhumation burials, one of which was associated with sherds of early AS pottery. On higher ground, on top of a nearby hill, was an enclosed area which had been used ritually during the middle IA to early RB periods. Remains of this phase included burials and pits containing structured deposits. The lower part of the site was occupied in the early AS period. Three SFBs and a PBS were in use between the C5th/6th and C9th-10th. No site plan was available for consultation so it is unknown how the AS features related to the earlier ones. Source(s): Lyons 2008.

Millennium Country Park, Marston Moretaine GR: SP 9960 4110 HER No. 17715 Clusters of AS pits were discovered close to IA pits and ditches, but no other settlement remains were found. Source(s): Bedfordshire HER; BCAS 1998. Salford GR: SP 928 401 Three BA ring ditches, all 17m to 20m diameter, were discovered, although they did not contain burials. There were also late BA and early IA roundhouse gullies, a pit alignment, ditches and postholes, as well as middle IA roundhouses and postholes, and an AS watering hollow dating to c.450-650, but there were no other excavated AS features. This was, however, about 500m E of Whitsundoles Farm in Salford, where two SFBs and a PBS were found (see Appendix B for a summary of this site) so it is possible that there was a more extensive AS settlement here, around the barrows. Source(s): Albion 2004; Dawson 2005.

Lattersey Field, Whittlesey GR: TL 284 358 HER No. 02921

284

Cropmarks of ring ditch and nine possible SFBs have been noted. There are also possible cropmarks of construction trenches of post-in-trench buildings. Source(s): Cambridgeshire HER.

date in the interim summary, but the buildings seems to share an alignment with them. Source(s): Leicestershire HER; Coward and Ripper 1999; Bradley and Gaimster 2000.

LEICESTERSHIRE

LINCOLNSHIRE

Bottesford Bypass 1 – Muston GR: SK 821 382 HER No. MLE3400 Cropmarks of one, possibly two, sub-rectangular enclosures and a possible ring ditch were noted on aerial photographs. Fieldwalking in the area then produced IA, RB and AS pottery. A small scale excavation was then undertaken in advance of the construction of the Bottesford Bypass, the road line of which clipped the enclosures seen as cropmarks. Two sides of an enclosure were found, along with a possible entrance. Nearly all the finds came from the ditch of the enclosure, and they consisted of IA, RB and early handmade AS pottery. It seems likely that the ditches were part of an IA enclosure which partly silted up in the RB period but which was only finally filled in the AS. An iron working furnace was also found, but no mention is made of its date on the HER record. Source(s): Leicestershire HER; Liddle 1989.

Asgarby/Lusby With Winceby GR: TF 3358 6668 HER No. 45191 – MLI85250 The National Mapping Programme identified possible cropmarks of SFBs and the partial cropmark of a ring ditch, which has been interpreted as a BA round barrow. Source(s): Lincolnshire HER. Normanby le Wold GR: TF 126 941 Pastscape No. 351937 Bulldozing in the late 1960s produced possible AS finds (as well as prehistoric and RB material). Trial excavation1969 uncovered animal bone, middle AS pottery on top of a rubble surface, which have been a path. The area also contains a large number of BA round barrows and a Neolithic long barrow, most of which have been noted as cropmarks or earthworks. The relationship between the AS material and the earlier barrows is unknown due to the lack of extensive investigation, but this does suggest that the settlement was within or close to a monument complex. Source(s): Pastscape; Rahtz 1976b.

Frisby on the Wreake GR: SK 680 170 Sherds of pottery were brought to the surface by badger setts and the possibility that this badger activity was damaging archaeological remains led to a fluxgate gradiometer survey being undertaken in July 1999. This revealed a series of linear and curvilinear anomalies thought to be infilled ditches. Based on the pottery recovered from the site it was suggested that this was an IA settlement, perhaps with activity continuing into the RB period. The discovery of at least fifteen AS sherds as well may indicate the presence of a settlement of this date Source(s): Thompson 2000.

NORTHAMPTONSHIRE Berry Hill Close, Culworth GR: SP 544 470 Large IA enclosure ditches were found to have AS ditches cutting across them. Source(s): Audouy 1994.

Grange Farm, West Langton GR: SP 721 922 HER No. MLE2626 A scatter of early AS pottery, including one stamped sherd, was discovered in 1990 on a site from which other finds suggested IA occupation. Source(s): Leicestershire HER.

Brigstock GR: SP 9252 8422 HER Nos. 1603 and 1606 MNN4208 In 1979-1981 unstratified AS sherds were found in the vicinity of an IA ditch and banked enclosure. Source(s): Northamptonshire HER. Hunsbury Hillfort, Hardingstone GR: SP 738 583 Pastscape No. 621204 HER No. 5028 MNN6351 The presence of early to middle AS pottery in Hunsbury Hillfort suggests possible Saxon settlement within the enclosure. This pottery was identified during a recent re-examination of material found during ironstone quarrying in the 1880s. A number of other AS finds have been recovered from the interior of the hillfort. These include a spindle whorl and a loomweight of probable AS date, and a silver sceatta (Series B type, AD 575-775) found in the N part of the hillfort in 1956. A ‘cinerary urn’ containing glass and amber beads and a crystal spindle whorl were apparently found at ‘Hunsbury’ in 1779 and given to the Society of Antiquaries, while a crystal ball cut into facets is also reported to have come from ‘Hunsbury’. ‘Some Saxon pots a few hundred yards from Hunsbury’ were also discovered in the C19th or early C20th. Some of these finds could indicate a settlement, although the crystal ball and cinerary urns are perhaps indicative of burial activity. Source(s): Northamptonshire HER; Pastscape; Moore 1973: 41; Jackson 1994.

Land South of Narborough Bogs, Whetstone, Blab GR: SP 551 974 HER Nos. MLE366, MLE367 and MLE368 A double ditched boundary was noted as a cropmark, and within the area it enclosed were four rectangular enclosures and a possible ring ditch. AS pottery has also been found, so the rectangular enclosures could be trench-built AS buildings, perhaps alongside older features. Source(s): Leicestershire HER. Willow Farm, Castle Donington GR SK 445 288 HER Nos. MLE9678 and MLE9679 Two AS ‘halls’ and an SFB were found at Willow Farm. They were about 200m away from a BA barrow, which seems to have been downslope and may therefore have been visible from the settlement. The barrow was only 10m in diameter, so it might not have been large or visible in the AS period (although some barrows in the corpus were this size). The area between the AS buildings and the barrow was filled with postholes, but the brief interim report on the site said nothing about their possible dates or if they were thought to belong to buildings. There are also ditches close to the AS buildings; there is no mention of their

285

Titchmarsh GR: TL 0158 7990 Pastscape No. 360843 The cropmarks of enclosures of prehistoric or RB date have been located from aerial photographs, and finds of AS pottery may indicate that there was a settlement of that period in the vicinity. Source(s): Pastscape.

Aston Bampton and Shifford GR: SP 358 037 Cropmarks of numerous rectangular, sub-rectangular and oval enclosures overlying each other. There are also possible pits, a sinuous trackway, and possible SFBs, as well as ridge and furrow marks. Source(s): Benson and Miles 1974a: 41. Aston Bampton and Shifford GR: SP 365 027 Cropmarks of a large double-ditched, sub-rectangular enclosure (c.100m by 80m), which could be a Roman fort. There is also a circle (at SP 363 028) as well as linear features, pits and possible SFBs. To the S (centred on SP 364 026) are a NNWSSE aligned trackway, possible circles and possible small subrectangular enclosures. Source(s): Benson and Miles 1974a: 41.

Welford GR: SP 635 799 Pastscape No. 341900 A possible double ditched enclosure has been postulated from an aerial photograph, and early AS pottery has been found nearby, possibly indicating a settlement. The cropmark feature in the photographs was unclear, however, and it could be partly ridge and furrow. Source(s): Pastscape.

Clanfield GR: SP 278 006 An area containing sub-rectangular enclosures, pits, trackways and linear features, all of which were obscured by ridge and furrow. To the SE (centred SP 281003) was a possible rectilinear enclosure. To the N (at SP 2770 0075) were 'block' marks and there was also a kidney-shaped enclosure (at SP 2755 0060) with a circle immediately to the E. Linear features, pits and possible SFBs were also noted. The main part of the site may be a DMV. Source(s): Benson and Miles 1974a: 34.

Wellingborough GR: SP 8795 6754 Pastscape No. 345450 A ditched enclosure, postholes and a pit of uncertain date were revealed during building work off Weavers Road in 1969. IA, RB and AS pottery were found. Source(s): Pastscape. Westfield Spinney, Denford GR: SP 983 764 A large scatter of early to middle AS pottery was found over the cropmarks of several large enclosures. Excavation of the pottery scatter revealed an early to middle AS structure and contemporary ditch, and revealed that the enclosures were Iron Age. However, it is not clear exactly where the trench containing the AS structure was located, and there are no plans of the trenches in the report; it is possible that it is a trench marked just to the west and outside of one of the enclosures. The excavated areas were also very small in comparison to the pottery scatter and the large cropmark enclosures, so it is possible that there were further buildings that were more closely related to the Iron Age features. Source(s): Parry 2006: 214-19.

Dorchester GR: SU 573 943 A sub-rectangular enclosure was noted as a cropmark, along with scattered SFBs, a circle, a half-circle and pits. Part of site was destroyed by gravel extraction, and salvage excavation in 1973 revealed one SFB. Source(s): Benson and Miles 1974a: 68. Drayton GR: SU 484 928 Cropmarks include rectilinear enclosures, which may belong to a field system, with a possible trackway running E-W. There are also pits and possible SFBs, as well as three circles. An AS cemetery was found in this area at SU 488 926. Source(s): Benson and Miles 1974a: 60.

OXFORDSHIRE Aston Bampton and Shifford GR: SP 341 023 A cropmark complex including circular and penannular enclosures, linear features and pits, as well as 'block' marks, and a large rectilinear enclosure (at SP 342 022). There was also a pit alignment (at SP 342 026), possible SFBs and ridge and furrow. Source(s): Benson and Miles 1974a: 39.

Eynsham GR: SP 424 079 In this area are large curvilinear cropmarks, with an apparent opening to SW; this has been interpreted as an enclosure, probably a double-entranced henge. At SP 422 079 there is a trackway running NE-SW, with an adjacent sub-rectangular enclosure containing another small penannular enclosure, possibly a hut circle. There are also pits which may be SFBs. To the SW (at SP 4215 0790) is a possible triple concentric circle, as well as rectilinear enclosures. To the S are small rectangular enclosures, a circle and linear features (centred on SP 423 078). At area centred on SP 424 079 are the cropmarks of pits, probable SFBs and linear features, and nearby (at SP 426 080) is a large rectangular enclosure on the S side of a trackway running SW-SE. The enclosure is subdivided into smaller rectangular enclosures containing penannular enclosures. Source(s): Benson and Miles 1974a: 44.

Aston Bampton and Shifford GR: SP 354 030 A sinuous trackway has been noted running roughly NE-SE for c.850m, with associated oval enclosures. Connected to this ditch system are straight trackways, which are associated with rectilinear enclosures. There were also pits and possible SFBs, as well as marks of ridge and furrow. Source(s): Benson and Miles 1974a: 41. Aston Bampton and Shifford GR: SP 358 021 Seven circles, possible pits, linear features and possible SFBs have been noted. Source(s): Benson and Miles 1974a: 41.

Eynsham GR: SP 426 088 The cropmarks of curvilinear features, possible trackway, pits, a circle and possible SFBs have been noted. Source(s): Benson and Miles 1974a: 44.

286

There is also one larger circle, which is an outlier of a group to the NE. Source(s): Benson and Miles 1974a: 27.

Grafton and Radcot GR: SP 265 011 A cropmark complex including circles, sub-rectangular enclosures, linear features and pits. The principal concentration is bounded by an apparently continuous trackway, which can be traced on the N and W sides. On the W side of the trackway is a sharp change of alignment where it intersects with a circle, which may contain a concentric arrangement of pits and a possible central sub-rectangular enclosure (at SP 2656 0113). There are also other small sub-rectangular enclosures within the complex. To the NW of the area is a large circle (at SP 2630 0123) with a smaller circle to the S. At SP 2645 0105 is another large circle, which is cut by a modern road. To the SE, there is a compact group of 'block' marks, as well as ridge and furrow remains. Other 'block' marks, possible pits and possible SFBs are scattered across the cropmark complex. Source(s): Benson and Miles 1974a: 33.

Lechlade GR: SU 213 999 The cropmarks of two large circles, one with a possible internal circle, as well as several possible small circles. There are also pits, linear features and possible SFBs. Source(s): Benson and Miles 1974a: 27. Long Wittenham GR: SU 549 935 The cropmark of a trackway was seen to run NE-SW for c.750m; to the N and S of the trackway are rectilinear enclosures, linear features, pit clusters and SFBs. Possible SFBs were also noted. There is also a block of rectangular enclosures at SU 549 937 and a trapezoidal enclosure, apparently with an entrance on its E side at SU 551 936. Excavations in 1859-60 by Akerman at SU 546 936 revealed an AS cemetery and RB finds. Source(s): Benson and Miles 1974a: 66.

Fawler GR: SP 4299 1052 Pastscape Nos. 336804 and 336805 Aerial photographs revealed cropmarks of three probable Bronze Age round barrows, a possible SFB and pits. The three probable round barrows are located at SP 4297 1051, SP 4289 1061 and SP 4295 1062; all are circular and defined by a single ditch. Their respective diameters are 30m, 12m and 20m; the most southerly barrow (at SP 4297 1051) is the largest, and is surrounded to the NW and SW by a ditch with an angular bend, possibly part of an enclosure. The barrow at SP 4295 1062 has pit inside it, possibly representing a burial, and to its NE are the cropmarks of six pits (three at SP 4297 1053 and another three at SP 4293 1053). The many pits measuring between 1-2m in diameter; excavation revealed that they were early medieval. The possible cropmark of an SFB is located at SP 4299 1052; it is rectangular and measures c.6m x 7m. The ring ditches have been excavated and confirmed to be Bronze Age barrows containing pottery, inhumations and cremations of that date. Pastscape record 336805 reveals that excavation did, in fact, also uncover Anglo-Saxon buildings here, but no further information could be located to follow up this claim; this certainly sounds like a very likely candidate for a settlement site with monument reuse. Source(s): Pastscape; Benson and Miles 1974a: 50.

Mount Farm, Berinsfield GR: SU 583 968 HER No. 15320 In the 1930s excavations at SU 5830 9688 found Neolithic pits, a ring ditch with a Beaker burial, BA field systems and droveways, a middle IA circular house enclosure and field system and ‘some AS features’. Further work in 1978 revealed AS wells, pits and postholes (the latter may have belonged to a building but this was uncertain). Source(s): Oxfordshire HER; Goodburn 1979; Lambrick 1979; Lambrick 1980; Lambrick 1981; Youngs and Clark 1981. South Leigh GR: SP 393 068 The cropmarks of pits, possible SFBs and a small square enclosure (the latter at SP 3934 0609) have been noted. Source(s): Benson and Miles 1974a: 42. Standlake GR: SP 381 033 Cropmarks include irregular linear features, possibly trackways and irregular enclosures. There are also SFBs, pits and an AS cemetery (centred on SP 380 327), which was recorded in 1857. Some cropmarks in this area may represent further graves. Source(s): Benson and Miles 1974a: 46.

Hardwick-with-Yelford GR: SP 364 052 Cropmarks of a penannular enclosure, possible SFBs, pit groups and linear features. Source(s): Benson and Miles 1974a: 42.

Stanton Harcourt GR: SP 416 071 Small circles and at least five penannular enclosures have been noted, as well as a sub-rectangular enclosure with an opening to the E. There are also pits and possible SFBs. Source(s): Benson and Miles 1974a: 42.

Hardwick-with-Yelford GR: SP 363 056 A dense complex of cropmarks, including a large trapezoid enclosure (centred at SP 364 057), which intersects with circular enclosures (at SP 3645 0568 and SP 3640 0574). The trapezoidal enclosure contains two small sub-rectangular enclosures and linear features, and its SW corner intersects with a rectangular enclosure (centred on SP 3626 0576). To the S of this are a trackway and a smaller rectangular enclosure, and to the SW are penannular enclosures. There are also two D-shaped enclosures and a pit complex (centred on SP 366 057). There are also pits and possible SFBs distributed across the whole site, inside and outside the enclosures. Source(s): Benson and Miles 1974a: 42.

Stanton Harcourt GR: SP 403 054 The cropmark of a large sub-rectangular enclosure measuring c.100m by 100m contains smaller enclosures, linear features and pits. To the SW are a number of penannular enclosures, interpreted as hut circles. Outside the large enclosure, and apparently aligned on its SW side, is a dense spread of pits, and to the NW is a sub-rectangular enclosure. At SP 404 055 there is another pit group, N of the corner of the enclosure. The complex also contains a number of solid circular features, and there are possible SFBs scattered across the area. Source(s): Benson and Miles 1974a: 48.

Langford GR: SP 214 027 A densely marked area of cropmarks including two circles, rectilinear enclosures, linear features, pits and possible SFBs.

287

Stanton Harcourt GR: SP 413 051 This complex includes a rectangular enclosure and a trilobate enclosure, along with pits and possible SFBs, and a circle at SP 4118 0515. Salvage excavation of the circle in 1940 revealed no internal features. Source(s): Benson and Miles 1974a: 50. Vicarage Field/Beard Mill Complex, Stanton Harcourt GR: SP 401 056 This area contained the cropmarks of a group of circles and small sub-rectangular enclosures, as well as pits. There was also a complex of rectilinear enclosures, pits and linear features centred on SP 402 057. Salvage work during quarrying, principally in 1944 and 1951, revealed Neolithic and IA pits, IA hut circles and enclosures, and RB pottery. The site was destroyed by gravel quarrying in 1953. In an area centred on SP 403 055, were rectangular enclosures, two circles and possible SFBs. AS pottery and possible SFBs were also recorded during quarrying in this area. Source(s): Benson and Miles 1974a: 48. Warborough GR: SU 590 945 A cropmark complex including a large rectangular enclosure with internal subdivisions. Within the enclosure and spreading outside it to the S is a dense mass of marks, some apparently arranged in rows; these are probably graves. In the NE corner is a series of overlapping sub-rectangular enclosures with bowed sides. To the N is a curvilinear trackway running NW, along with linear features and possible SFBs. A sub-rectangular enclosure with curved sides and an entrance at the N end is centred at SU 5896 9446 and there is a circle at SU 5899 9453. In the SW corner of the large rectangular enclosure at SU 590 944 is a smaller rectangular enclosure with regular subrectangular divisions, which may be a building. It has been suggested by St Joseph (1966: 122) that this may be an early Christian site with a cemetery and timber buildings. Source(s): St Joseph 1966; Benson and Miles 1974a: 69; STAFFORDSHIRE Berth Hill, Maer GR: SJ 7876 3906 Pastscape No. 74227 A single AS sherd was recovered from Berth Hill IA hillfort in the NW of the county. Source(s): Pastscape; Kinsley n.d. Croxall GR: SK 1982 1362 HER Nos. 00945-MST943 and 00947-MST945 A mound, possibly a barrow, was still 32m in diameter and 5m high when it was scheduled by English Heritage (at an unknown date). The mound has been interpreted as a motte, but in 1800 an antiquarian investigation uncovered human bones. It is unknown whether these were prehistoric or if they belonged to the nearby churchyard. The mound lies immediately south of a deserted settlement, which is recorded in Domesday Book. It is just possible that this is the site of an earlier AS settlement near to a prehistoric mound. Source(s): Staffordshire HER.

288

BIBLIOGRAPHY ADAS (Abingdon and District Archaeology Society). 1973. Abingdon: Corporation Farm. South Midlands Archaeology Newsletter 3: 40-41. Addyman, P.V. 1964. A Dark-Age settlement at Maxey, Northants, in 1959. Medieval Archaeology 8: 20-73. Addyman, P.V. 1972. The Anglo-Saxon house: a new review. Anglo-Saxon England 1: 274-307. Adkins, R.A. and Petchey, M.R. 1984. Secklow hundred mound and other meeting place mounds in England. Archaeological Journal 141: 243-251. Ainslie, R. and Wallis, J. 1987. Excavations on the cursus at Drayton, Oxon. Oxoniensia 52: 1-9. Aitken, M. J. 1990. Science-Based Dating in Archaeology. London: Longman. Albion. 2004. Whitsundoles Farm, Salford, Bedfordshire. Archaeological Open Area Excavation and Watching Brief Interim Report 6. Unpublished report, Albion Archaeology. Albion Archaeology. 2005. Land at Meadway, Harrold, Bedfordshire: A Programme of Archaeological Observation, Recording, Analysis and Publication. Unpublished report, Albion Archaeology. Albone, J. N.d. An Archaeological Resource Assessment of Anglo-Saxon Lincolnshire (East Midlands Archaeological Research Framework). Unpublished document. Alexander, M. (trans). 1987. Beowulf: A Verse Translation. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Allen, T.G. 1988. Goring: Gatehampton Farm. South Midlands Archaeology Newsletter 18: 77-80. Allen, T.G. 1989. Goring: Gatehampton Farm. South Midlands Archaeology Newsletter 19: 51-52 Allen, T.G. 1995. Lithics and Landscape: Archaeological Discoveries on the Thames Water Pipeline at Gatehampton Farm, Goring, Oxfordshire 198592. Oxford: Oxford Archaeological Unit. Allen, T.G. and Lamdin-Whymark, H. 2001. The Taplow Hillfort. Current Archaeology 175: 286-89. Allen, T.G., Hayden, C. & Lamdin-Whymark, H. 2009. From Bronze Age Enclosure to Anglo-Saxon Settlement: Archaeological Excavations at Taplow Hillfort, Buckinghamshire. Oxford: Oxford Archaeology. Anon. 1938. Notes and news. Oxoniensia 3: 162-178. Anon. 1939. Notes and news. Oxoniensia 4: 195-199. Anon. 1950. Notes and news. Oxoniensia 15: 104-116. Anon. 1958. Notes and news. Oxoniensia 23: 130-146. Anon. 1965. Notes and news. Oxoniensia 38: 190-198. Arnold, C.J. 1984. Roman Britain to Saxon England. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Arnold, C.J. 1988. An Archaeology of the Early AngloSaxon Kingdoms. London: Routledge. Arthur, B.V. and Jope, E.M. 1963. Early Saxon pottery kilns at Purwell Farm, Cassington, Oxfordshire. Medieval Archaeology 6-7: 1-14. Ashbee, P. 1960. The Bronze Age Round Barrow in Britain. London: Phoenix House.

Atkinson, R.J. 1947. A middle Bronze Age barrow at Cassington, Oxon. Oxoniensia 6-7: 5-26. Atkinson, R.J. and Crouch, P.M. 1945. Notes and news. Oxoniensia 10: 93-107. Audouy, M. 1994. Excavations at Berry Hill Close, Culworth, Northamptonshire, 1992. Northamptonshire Archaeology 25: 47-62. Avery, M. and Brown, D. 1972. Saxon features at Abingdon. Oxoniensia 37: 66-81. Bamford, H. 1985. Briar Hill: Excavation 1974-8. Northampton: Northampton Development Corporation. Barclay, A. and Halpin, C. 1999. Excavations at Barrow Hills, Radley, Oxfordshire. Volume I The Neolithic and Bronze Age Monument Complex. Oxford: Oxford Archaeological Unit. Barclay, A., Boyle, A. and Keevill, G.D. 2001. A prehistoric enclosure at Eynsham Abbey, Oxfordshire. Oxoniensia 66: 105-162. Barclay, A., Lambrick, G., Moore, S. and Robinson, M. 2003. Lines in the Landscape: Cursus Monuments in the Upper Thames Valley. Oxford: Oxford Archaeology. Barker, P. 1974. The scale of the problem. In P. Rahtz (ed.) Rescue Archaeology. Middlesex: Penguin. Pp. 28-34. Barnard, L.W. 1974. The date of S. Athanasius’ Vita Antonii. Vigiliae Christianae 27: 169-175. Barnwell, P. 2003. Britons and warriors in post-Roman south-east England. In D. Griffiths, A. Reynolds and S. Semple (eds.) Boundaries in Early Medieval Britain: Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History 12. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. Pp. 1-8. Barrett, D. N.d. An Archaeological Resource Assessment of Anglo-Saxon Derbyshire (East Midlands Archaeological Research Framework: Resource Assessment of Anglo-Saxon Derbyshire). Unpublished document. Bassett, S. 1985. A probable Mercian royal mausoleum at Winchcombe, Gloucestershire. Antiquaries Journal 65: 82-100. Bassett, S. 1989. In search of the origins of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. In S. Bassett (ed.) The Origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. Leicester: Leicester University Press. Pp. 3-27. Bassett, S. 2000. How the west was won. In D. Griffiths (ed.) Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History 11. Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology. Pp. 107-118. Bateman, T. 1861. Ten Years’ Diggings in Celtic and Saxon Grave Hills, in the Counties of Derby, Stafford and York, from 1848 to 1858. London: George Allen. BCAS (Bedfordshire County Archaeology Service). 1995a. Bedford Southern Bypass Post Excavation Assessment Report. Volume 1: The Sites. Statement of Potential for Further Analysis. Unpublished report, Bedfordshire County Archaeology Service. 289

Blair, J. 1996. Palaces or minsters? Northampton and Cheddar reconsidered. Anglo-Saxon England 25: 97-121. Blair, J. 2005. The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bleach, J. 1997. A Romano-British (?) barrow cemetery and the origins of Lewes. Sussex Archaeological Collections 135: 131-142. 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. Pp. 4-23. Blinkhorn, P. 2009. Ipswich ware. In D.H. Evans and C. Loveluck (eds.) Life and Economy at Early Medieval Flixborough c.AD 600-1000: The Artefact Evidence (Excavations at Flixborough Vol. 2). Oxford: Oxbow. Pp. 357-363. Blinkhorn, P. 2012. The Ipswich Ware Project: Ceramics, Trade and Society in Middle Saxon England (Medieval Pottery Research Group Occasional Paper 7, with major contributions by S. Dudd, R. Evershed, N. Walsh and D. Williams). Dorchester: The Medieval Pottery Research Group. Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boyle, A., Dodd, A., Miles, D. and Mudd, A. 1995. Two Oxfordshire Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries: Berinsfield and Didcot. Oxford Archaeological Unit/Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. Bradley, J. and Gaimster, M. 2000. Medieval Britain and Ireland, 1999. Medieval Archaeology 44: 235334. Bradley, J. and Gaimster, M. 2001. Medieval Britain and Ireland in 2000. Medieval Archaeology 45: 233379. Bradley, J. and Gaimster, M. 2002. Medieval Britain and Ireland in 2001. Medieval Archaeology 46: 125264. Bradley, J. and Gaimster, M. 2003. Medieval Britain and Ireland in 2002. Medieval Archaeology 47: 199339. Bradley, J. and Gaimster, M. 2004. Medieval Britain and Ireland in 2003. Medieval Archaeology 48: 229350. Bradley, J., Gaimster, M. and Haith, C. 1999. Medieval Britain and Ireland, 1998. Medieval Archaeology 43: 226-302. Bradley, R. 1987. Time regained: the creation of continuity. Journal of the British Archaeological Association 140: 1-17. Bradley, S. 1982. Anglo-Saxon Poetry: An Anthology of Old English Poems. London: Dent. Brookes, S. 2007. Walking with Anglo-Saxons: landscapes of the dead in early Anglo-Saxon Kent. In S. Semple and H. Williams (eds.) Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History 14. Pp. 143-153. Brown, P.D. 1968. Archaeological notes: 1967-68. Oxoniensia 33: 137-138.

BCAS (Bedfordshire County Archaeology Service). 1995b. Bedford Southern Bypass PostExcavation Assessment Report. Volume 4: The Landscape. Statement of Potential for Further Analysis. Unpublished report, Bedfordshire County Archaeology Service. BCAS (Bedfordshire County Archaeology Service). 1998. Archaeological Investigation at the Proposed Stewartby ‘Millennium’ Country Park, Marston Moretaine, Bedfordshire. Unpublished report, Bedfordshire County Archaeology Service. BCCAS (Bedfordshire County Council Archaeology Service). 1994. Warren Villas Quarry VI: Archaeological Evaluation. Unpublished report, Bedfordshire County Council Archaeology Service. BCCAS (Bedfordshire County Council Archaeology Service). 1995. Warren Villas Quarry Part I: Post Excavation Assessment of the Potential for Analysis, Unpublished report, Bedfordshire County Council Archaeology Service. BCCCAS (Bedfordshire County Council Conservation and Archaeology Section). N.d. Archaeological Assessment at Yielden. Unpublished report, Bedfordshire County Council Conservation and Archaeology Section. Bell, M. 1977. Excavations at Bishopstone, Sussex. Sussex Archaeological Collections 15: 192-241. Bell, T. 1998. Churches on Roman buildings: Christian associations and Roman masonry in AngloSaxon England. Medieval Archaeology 42: 1-18. Benson, D. and Miles, D. 1974a. The Upper Thames Valley: An Archaeological Survey of the River Gravels. Oxford: Oxfordshire Archaeological Unit. Benson, D. and Miles, D. 1974b. Cropmarks near the Sutton Courtenay site. Antiquity 48: 223-226. Beresford, G. 1987 Goltho: The Development of an Early Medieval Manor c.850-1150. London: Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England. Bettess, F. 1991. The Anglo-Saxon foot: a computerized assessment. Medieval Archaeology 35: 44-50. Biddle, M. and Kjølbye-Biddle, B. 2001. Repton and the ‘great heathen army’, 873-4. In J. GrahamCampbell, R. Hall, J. Jesch and D.N. Parsons (eds.) Vikings and the Danelaw: Select Papers from the Proceedings of the Thirteenth Viking Congress, Nottingham and York, 21-30 August 1997. Oxford: Oxbow. Pp. 45-96. Blair, J. 1992. Anglo-Saxon minsters: a topographical review. In J. Blair & R. Sharpe (eds.) Pastoral Care Before the Parish. Leicester: Leicester University Press. Pp. 226-266. Blair, J. 1994. Anglo-Saxon Oxfordshire. Stroud: Sutton. Blair, J. 1995. Anglo-Saxon pagan shrines and their prototypes. In D. Griffiths (ed.) Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History 8. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. Pp. 1-28.

290

to Christianity. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Chapman, A. and Jackson, D. 1991. Wollaston Bypass, Northamptonshire: salvage excavations 1984. Northamptonshire Archaeology 24: 67-75. Clark, S. 2005. Territorial Organisation, Land Use and Settlement in the Middle Thames Valley: A Study of Continuity and Change from the Late Roman to the Late Anglo-Saxon Period. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Southampton. Clay, P. 1983. An excavation at Enderby (SK 551002) – an interim report. Transactions of the Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society 58: 77-79. Clay, P. 1985. An excavation at Grove Farm, Enderby (SK551002) – interim report. Transactions of the Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society 59: 86-87. Clay, P. 1992. An Iron Age Farmstead at Grove Farm, Enderby, Leicestershire. Transactions of the Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society 66: 1-82. Clayton, N.B. 1973. New Wintles, Eynsham, Oxon. Oxoniensia 38: 382-384. Colgrave, B. 1956. Felix’s Life of Saint Guthlac: Introduction, Text, Translation and Notes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Collis, J. 1983. Wigber Low, Derbyshire: A Bronze Age and Anglian Burial Site in the White Peak. Sheffield: University of Sheffield. Cook, A. and Dacre, M. 1985. Excavations at Portway, Andover 1973-1975. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. Cooper, A. and Edmonds, M. 2007. Past and Present: Excavations at Broom, Bedfordshire 1996-2005. Cambridge: Cambridge Archaeological Unit. Cooper, L. and Ripper, S. 2000. Castle Donington, Hemington Quarry. Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society Transactions 74: 233. Copp, A. and Toop, N. 2006. Silk Willoughby to Staythorpe Gas Pipeline, Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire: Archaeological Investigation and Watching Brief. Unpublished report, Field Archaeology Specialists. Corbishley, M.J. 1974. An interim report on prehistoric excavations at Ivy Tree Farm, Hadleigh. Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and History 33 (2): 109-115. Coward, J. and Ripper, S. 1999. Castle Donington, Willow Farm (SK 445 288). Leicestershire Archaeology and History Society Transactions 73: 87-90. Craig, E. 2009. Burial Practices in Northern England c.AD 650-850: A Biocultural Approach. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Sheffield. Crawford, S. 2004. Votive deposition, religion and the Anglo-Saxon furnished burial ritual. World Archaeology 36 (1): 87-102. Crewe, V. 2008. The appropriation of prehistoric monuments in early to middle Anglo-Saxon

Brown, P.D. 1969. Eynsham, Oxon. Oxoniensia 34: 104106. Brown, T. and Foard, G. 1998. The Saxon landscape: a regional perspective. In P. Everson and T. Williamson (eds.) The Archaeology of Landscape. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Pp. 67-94. Buteux, S. 2001. Grange Park, Courteenhall, Northamptonshire Archaeological Investigations 1999: Post-Excavation Assessment and Research Design. Unpublished report, Birmingham University Field Archaeology Unit. Cam, H.M. 1963. Liberties and Communities in Medieval England: Collected Studies in Local Administration and Topography. London: Merlin Press. Cameron, K. 1996. English Place Names. London: Batsford. Carver, M.O.H. 1981. Excavations south of Lichfield Cathedral, 1976-77. South Staffordshire Archaeological and Historical Society Transactions 22: 35-69. Carver, M.O.H. 1998. Sutton Hoo: Burial Ground of Kings? London: British Museum Press. Carver, M.O.H. 1999. Cemetery and society at Sutton Hoo: five awkward questions and four contradictory answers. In C. Karkov, K. Wickham-Crowley & B. Young (eds.) Spaces of the Living and the Dead. Oxford: Oxbow. Pp. 1-14. Carver, M.O.H. 2001. Why that? Why there? Why then? The politics of early medieval monumentality. In H. Hamerow & A. MacGregor (eds.) Image and Power in the Archaeology of Early Medieval Britain: Essays in Honour of Rosemary Cramp. Oxford: Oxbow. Pp. 1-22. Carver, M.O.H. 2010. Agency, intellect and the archaeological agenda. In M. Carver, A. Sanmark and S. Semple (eds.) Signals of Belief in Early England: Anglo-Saxon Paganism Revisited. Oxford: Oxbow. Pp. 1-20. Cessford, C., Dickens, A., Dodwell, N. And Reynolds, A. 2002. Middle Anglo-Saxon justice: the Chesterton Lane Corner execution cemetery and related sequence, Cambridge. Archaeological Journal 164: 197-226. Chadwick Hawkes, S. 1986. The early Saxon period. In G. Briggs, J. Cook and T. Rowley (eds.) The Archaeology of the Oxford Region. Oxford: Oxford University Department for External Studies. Pp. 64-108. Chadwick Hawkes, S. and Gray, M. 1969. Preliminary note on the early Anglo-Saxon settlement at New Wintles Farm, Eynsham. Oxoniensia 34: 14. Chambers, R. and McAdam, E. 2007. Excavations at Barrow Hills, Radley, Oxfordshire. Volume 2: The Romano-British Cemetery and Anglo-Saxon Settlement. Oxford: Oxford Archaeology. Chaney, W.A. 1970. The Cult of Kingship in AngloSaxon England: The Transition from Paganism

291

settlements. Medieval Settlement Research 23: 1-8. Crowson, A., Lane, T. and Reeve, J. 2000. Fenland Management Project Excavations 1991-1995. Sleaford: Heritage Lincolnshire. Dalwood, H. N.d. The Archaeology of Post-Roman and Early Medieval Worcestershire (West Midlands Regional Research Framework for Archaeology Seminar 4). Unpublished document. Daniell, C. & Thompson, V. 1999. Pagans and Christians: 400-1150. In P. Jupp & Gittings (eds.) Death in England: An Illustrated History. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Pp. 65-89. Darvill, T. and Russell, B. 2002. Archaeology After PPG16: Archaeological Investigations in England 1990-1999 (Bournemouth University School of Conservation Sciences Research Report 10). Bournemouth and London: Bournemouth University/English Heritage. Davis, C.R. 1992. Cultural assimilation in the AngloSaxon royal genealogies. Anglo-Saxon England 21: 23-36. Dawson, M. 2005. An Iron Age Settlement at Salford, Bedfordshire (Bedfordshire Archaeology Monograph 6). Bedford: Albion Archaeology and Bedfordshire Archaeological Council. Department of the Environment. 1990. Planning Policy Guidance 16: Archaeology and Planning. Devlin, Z. 2007. Remembering the Dead in Anglo-Saxon England: Memory Theory in Archaeology and History (BAR British Series 446). Oxford: BAR Publishing. Dickinson, T.M. 1993. An Anglo-Saxon ‘cunning woman’ from Bidford-on-Avon. In M. Carver (ed.) In Search of Cult. Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer. Pp. 45-54. Dickinson, T.M. 2002. Review article: what’s new in early medieval burial archaeology? Early Medieval Europe 11 (1): 71-87. Dixon, P. 1982. How Saxon is the Saxon house? In P. Drury (ed.) Structural Reconstruction: Approaches to the Interpretation of Excavated Remains of Buildings (BAR British Report 110). Oxford: B.A.R. Pp. 275-286. Down, A. and Welch, M. 1990. Chichester Excavations VII. Chichester: Chichester District Council. Drewett, P., Holgate, B., Foster, S. and Ellerby, H. 1986. The excavation of a Saxon sunken building at North Marden, West Sussex, 1982. Sussex Archaeological Collections 124: 109-118. Driscoll, S. 1998. Picts and prehistory: cultural resource management in early medieval Scotland. World Archaeology 30 (1): 142-158. Drury, P.J. and Wickenden, N.P. 1982. An early Saxon settlement within the Romano-British small town at Heybridge, Essex. Medieval Archaeology 26: 1-40. Dudley, H. 1931. The History and Antiquities of the Scunthorpe and Frodingham District. Scunthorpe: Caldicott.

Dumville, D. 1977. Kingship, genealogies and regnal lists. In P. Sawyer and I. Wood (eds.) Early Medieval Kingship. Leeds: University of Leeds. Pp. 72-104. Eagles, B.N. 1977. The Settlement Pattern of Lindsey and the East Riding of Yorkshire in the Late Roman and Early Anglo-Saxon Periods. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Birkbeck College/University of London. Eagles, B.N. 1989. Lindsey. In S. Bassett (ed.) The Origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. Leicester: Leicester University Press. Pp. 202-212. Eagles, B.N. and Evison, V.I. 1970. Excavations at Harrold, Bedfordshire, 1951-53. Bedfordshire Archaeological Journal 5: 17-55. Eckardt, H. and Williams, H. 2003. Objects without a past? The use of Roman objects in early AngloSaxon graves. In Williams, H. (ed.) Archaeologies of Remembrance: Death and Memory in Past Societies. New York/London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Pp. 141170. Edmonson, G., Clarke, C. and Wells, J. N.d. Iron Age, Roman and Saxon Settlement on the Great Ouse at Oakley Road, Clapham, Bedfordshire. Unpublished report, Albion Archaeology. Effros, B. 2001. Monuments and memory: the repossession of ancient remains in early medieval Gaul. In M. de Jong and F. Theuws (eds.) The Topography of Power in the Early Medieval West. Leiden: Brill. Pp. 93-118. Ellis Davidson, H.R. 1950. The hill of the dragon: AngloSaxon burial mounds in literature and archaeology. Folklore 61 (4): 169-185. Esmonde Cleary, S. 1993a. Approaches to the differences between late Romano-British and early AngloSaxon archaeology. In W. Filmer-Sankey (ed.) Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History 6. Pp. 57-64. Esmonde Cleary, S. 1993b. Late Roman Towns in Britain and Their Fate. In A. Vince (ed.) Pre-Viking Lindsey. Lincoln: City of Lincoln Archaeological Unit. Pp. 6-13. Evans, C., Mackay, D. and Webley, L. 2005. Excavations at Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge: the Hutchison Site Assessment Report. Unpublished report, Cambridge Archaeological Unit. Everson, P. 1973. An excavated Anglo-Saxon sunkenfeatured building and settlement site at Salmonby, Lincs. 1972. Lincolnshire History and Archaeology 8: 61-72. Everson, P. 1993. Pre-Viking settlement in Lindsey. In A. Vince (ed.) Pre-Viking Lindsey. Lincoln: City of Lincoln Archaeological Unit. Pp. 91-100. Farley, M. 1986. Aylesbury. Current Archaeology 101: 187-9. FAS (Field Archaeology Specialists). 2001. Evaluation Programme: Silk Willoughby to Staythorpe Gas Pipeline. Phase 3: Evaluation. Frieston Road. Unpublished report, Field Archaeology Specialists.

292

Fenton,

P. 1994. A505 Baldock Bypass: An Archaeological Evaluation of a Scheduled Ancient Monument at Blackhorse Farm, Baldock, Hertfordshire. Unpublished report, North Hertfordshire District Council Museums Field Archaeology Section. Fenton, P. 1996. An Interim Statement on the Archaeological Excavations at Church Farm, Bierton, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire. Unpublished report, Tempus Reparatum. Fernie, E.C. 1991. Anglo-Saxon lengths and the evidence of the buildings. Medieval Archaeology 35: 1-5. Field, N. and Leahy, K. 1993. Prehistoric and AngloSaxon remains at Nettleton Top, Nettleton. Lincolnshire History and Archaeology 28: 9-38. Finberg, H.P. 1972 (2nd ed.). The Early Charters of the West Midlands. Leicester: Leicester University Press. Finn, N. 1994. Bonners Lane, Leicester. Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society Transactions 68: 165-170. Finn, N. 1997a. Eye Kettleby, Leicester Road, Melton Mowbray: an Interim Report on the Results of Excavation. Unpublished report, University of Leicester Archaeological Services. Finn, N. 1997b. Eye Kettleby, Leicester Road, Melton Mowbray (SK 731 180). Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society Transactions 71: 88-91. Finn, N. 1998. Melton Mowbray, Eye Kettleby, Leicester Road (SK 731 180). Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society Transactions 72: 178. Finn, N. 1999. Eye Kettleby, Leicestershire: Revised Assessment and Updated Project Design. Unpublished report, University of Leicester Archaeological Services. Finn, N. 2007. Eye Kettleby, Leicestershire: The Prehistoric Remains (Updated Summary July 2007). Unpublished report University of Leicester Archaeological Services. Finn, N., Chapman, S., Harvey, D., Woodward, A., Marsden, P., Cooper, N., Sawday, D., Cooper, L., Monkton, A., Grieg, J., Browning, J. and Beamish, M. 1998. Eye Kettleby, Leicestershire: Assessment Report and Updated Project Design. Unpublished report, University of Leicester Archaeological Services. Foard, G. N.d. An Archaeological Resource Assessment of Anglo-Saxon Northamptonshire (400-1066). Unpublished report. Foard, G. 1977. Grendon. Northamptonshire Archaeology 12: 224. Foot, S. 1999. Remembering, forgetting and inventing: attitudes to the past in England at the end of the first Viking Age. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society (sixth series) 9: 185-200. Ford, S. and Taylor, K. 2001. Iron Age and Roman Settlements, with Prehistoric and Saxon Features, at Fenny Lock, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire. Records of Buckinghamshire 41: 79-123.

Fowler, P.J. 1976. Agriculture and rural settlement. In D.M. Wilson (ed.) The Archaeology of AngloSaxon England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 23-48. Frodsham, P. 2005. ‘The stronghold of its own native past’: some thoughts on the past in the past at Yeavering. In P. Frodsham and C. O’Brien (eds.) Yeavering: People, Power and Place. Stroud: Tempus. Pp. 13-64. Gaimster, D., Margeson, S. and Barry, T. 1989. Medieval Britain and Ireland in 1988. Medieval Archaeology 33: 161-241. Gaimster, D., Margeson, S. and Hurley, M. 1990. Medieval Britain and Ireland in 1989. Medieval Archaeology 34: 162-253. Gaimster, M. and O’Connor, K. 2005. Medieval Britain and Ireland, 2004. Medieval Archaeology 49: 323-474. Gaimster, M., O’Connor, K. and Sherlock, R. 2006. Medieval Britain and Ireland in 2005. Medieval Archaeology 50: 271-400. Gaimster, M., Haith, C. and Bradley, J. 1998. Medieval Britain and Ireland, 1997. Medieval Archaeology 42: 107-190. Garton, D., Jones, H. and Malone, S. 1997. Girton Quarry. Transactions of the Thoroton Society 101: 19-20. Geake, H. 1992. Burial practice in seventh- and eighthcentury England. In M. Carver (ed.) The Age of Sutton Hoo. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. Pp. 83-94. Geake, H. 1999. Invisible kingdoms: the use of gravegoods in seventh-century England. In T. Dickinson and D. Griffiths (eds.) The Making of Kingdoms: Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History 10. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. Pp. 203-215. Geake, H. 2003. The control of burial practice in AngloSaxon England. In M. Carver (ed.) The Cross Goes North: Processes of Conversion in Northern Europe, AD 300-1300. Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer. Pp. 259-270. Gelling, M. 1974. The Place-Names of Berkshire Part II. Cambridge: The English Place-Name Society. Gelling, M. 1988 (2nd ed.). Signposts to the Past: PlaceNames and the History of England. Chichester: Phillimore. Gelling, M. 1989. The early history of western Mercia. In S. Bassett (ed.) The Origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. Leicester: Leicester University Press. Pp. 184-201. Gelling, M. 1992. The West Midlands in the Early Middle Ages. Leicester: Leicester University Press. Gibson, C. and Murray, J. 2003. An Anglo-Saxon settlement at Godmanchester, Cambridgeshire. In D. Griffiths, A. Reynolds and S. Semple (eds.) Boundaries in Early Medieval Britain: Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History 12. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. Pp. 137-217.

293

Hamerow, H. 1993. Excavations at Mucking Vol. 2: the Anglo-Saxon Settlement. London: English Heritage/British Museum Press. Hamerow, H. 1994. Migration theory and the migration period. In B. Vyner (ed.) Building on the Past: Papers Celebrating 150 Years of the Royal Archaeological Institute. London: Royal Archaeological Institute. Pp. 164-177. Hamerow, H. 1999. Anglo-Saxon Oxfordshire, 400-700: the Tom Hassall Lecture for 1998. Oxoniensia 64: 23-38. Hamerow, H. 2002. Early Medieval Settlements: The Archaeology of Rural Communities in NorthWest Europe 400-900. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hamerow, H. 2006. ‘Special deposits’ in Anglo-Saxon settlements. Medieval Archaeology 50: 1-30. Hamerow, H., Heyden, C. & Hey, G. 2007. Anglo-Saxon and earlier settlement near Drayton Road, Sutton Courtenay, Berkshire. Archaeological Journal 164: 109-196. Hampton, J.N. 1981. The evidence of air photography: elementary comparative studies applied to sites at Mount Down, Hants, and near Malmesbury, Wilts. Antiquaries Journal 61: 316-321. Harden, D.B. 1940. Notes and news. Oxoniensia 5: 161173. Harden, D.B. 1942. Excavations in Smith’s Pit II, Cassington, Oxon. Oxoniensia 7: 104-107. Harding, A.F. and Lee, G.E. 1987. Henge Monuments and Related Sites of Great Britain: Air Photographic Evidence and Catalogue (BAR British Series 175). Oxford: BAR. Hardy, A., Dodd, A. and Keevill, G.D. 2003. Aelfric’s Abbey: Excavations at Eynsham Abbey, Oxfordshire 1989-92. Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology. Härke, H. 1997. Early Anglo-Saxon social structure. In J. Hines (ed.) The Anglo-Saxons from the Migration Period to the Eighth Century: An Ethnographic Perspective. Woodbridge: Boydell. Pp. 125-171. Hassall, T. 1986. The Oxford region from the Conversion to the Conquest. In G. Briggs, J. Cook and T. Rowley (eds.) The Archaeology of the Oxford Region. Oxford: Oxford University Department for External Studies. Pp. 109-114. Hawkes, M. 1998. Anglo-Saxon Timber Buildings: A Consideration of Regional Style within the East Midlands. Unpublished BA dissertation, University of Leicester. Hayes, P.P. and Lane, T.W. 1992. The Fenland Management Project No. 5: Lincolnshire Survey, the South-West Fens. Sleaford: Heritage Trust of Lincolnshire. Hey, G. 2004. Yarnton: Saxon and Medieval Settlement and Landscape. Results of Excavations 1990-96. Oxford: Oxford Archaeology. Higham, N. 1999. Imperium in early Britain: rhetoric and reality in the writings of Gildas and Bede. In T. Dickinson and D. Griffiths (eds.) The Making of Kingdoms: Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology

Gilbert, D. 2007. Early medieval and medieval settlement at Black Bourton. Medieval Archaeology 51: 282-286. Gilbert, D. 2008. Excavations west of St Mary’s Church, Black Bourton, Oxfordshire: early, middle, and late Anglo-Saxon activity. Oxoniensia 73: 147160. Gilchrist, R. 2008. Magic for the dead? The archaeology of magic in later medieval burials. Medieval Archaeology 52: 119-160. Goodburn, R. 1979. Roman Britain in 1978. Britannia 10: 268-338. Gorin, S. 1972. Empingham. Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society Transactions 47: 75 Gray, M. 1973. New Wintles, Eynsham, Oxon. South Midlands Archaeology Newsletter 3: 18-20. Gray, M. 1974. The Saxon settlement at New Wintles, Wynsham, Oxfordshire. In T. Rowley (ed.) Anglo-Saxon Settlement and Landscape (BAR British Series 6). Oxford: BAR. Pp. 51-55. Greenfield, S.B. and Evert, R. 1975. Maxims II: Gnome and Poem. In L.E. Nicholson and D. Warwick Frese (eds.) Anglo-Saxon Poetry: Essays in Appreciation. London: University of Notre Dame Press. Pp. 337-354. Grenville, J. and Parker Pearson, M., 1983. Excavations at West Halton, Lincolnshire. An interim report. Unpublished report. Grinsell, L.V. 1990 (3rd ed.). Barrows in England and Wales. Princes Risborough: Shire Publications. Grinsell, L.V. 1991. Barrows in the Anglo-Saxon land charters. Antiquaries Journal 71: 46-63. Guilbert, G. 2006. Excavations at Holme Pierrepont Quarry, Nottinghamshire, in 2002-03: preliminary summary of a multi-period palimpsest on the Trent Gravels. Transactions of the Thoroton Society 110: 15-48. Guilbert, G. 2007. The Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Holme Pierrepont: new finds. Medieval Archaeology 51: 280-282. Hadley, D.M. 2001. Death in Medieval England. Stroud: Tempus. Hadley, D.M. 2004. Negotiating gender, family and status in Anglo-Saxon burial practices, c.600950. In L. Brubaker and J.M.H. Smith (eds.) Gender in the Early Medieval World East and West, 300-900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 301-323. Hadley, D.M., Willmott, H. and Crewe, V. 2011. Interim Report on Excavations at West Halton, Lincolnshire 2007-2009. Unpublished report, University of Sheffield. Hall, A. 2002. The images and structure of the Wife’s Lament. Leeds Studies in English 33: 1-29. Hall, A. 2007. Constructing Anglo-Saxon sanctity: tradition, innovation and Saint Guthlac. In D. Higgs Strickland (ed.) Images of Sanctity: Essays in Honour of Gary Dickson. Leiden: Brill. Pp. 207-235.

294

and History 10. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. Pp. 31-36. Hill, J.D. 1995. Ritual and Rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex: A Study of the Formation of a Specific Archaeological Record (BAR British Series No. 242). Oxford: BAR Publishing. Hills, C. 1979. The archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England in the pagan period: a review. Anglo-Saxon England 8: 297-329. Hinchliffe, J. 1986. An early medieval settlement at Cowage Farm, Foxley, Near Malmesbury. Archaeological Journal 143: 240-259. Hines, J. 1995. Cultural change and social organisation in early Anglo-Saxon England. In G. Ausenda (ed.) After Empire: Towards an Ethnology of Europe’s Barbarians. Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer. Pp. 75-95. Hingley, R. 1996. Ancestors and identity in the later prehistory of Atlantic Scotland: the reuse and reinvention of Neolithic monuments and material culture. World Archaeology 28 (2): 231-242. Hirst, S. and Clark, D. 2009. Excavations at Mucking. Volume 3: The Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries (Part ii Analysis and Discussion). London: Museum of London Archaeology. Hirst, S. and Rahtz, P.V. 1973. Hatton Rock 1970. Transactions of the Birmingham and Warwickshire Archaeological Society 85: 161177. Hodges, R. 1989. The Anglo-Saxon Achievement: Archaeology and the Beginnings of English Society. London: Duckworth. Hooke, D. 1998. The Landscape of Anglo-Saxon England. London: Leicester University Press. Hope-Taylor, B. 1977. Yeavering: An Anglo-British Centre of Early Northumbria. London: H.M.S.O. Howe, N. 2002. The landscape of Anglo-Saxon England: inherited, invented, imagined. In J. Howe & M. Wolfe (eds.) Inventing Medieval Landscapes: Senses of Place in Western Europe. United States: University Press of Florida. Pp. 91-112. Huggins, P.J. 1991. Anglo-Saxon timber building measurements: recent results. Medieval Archaeology 35: 6-28. Hummler, M. 2005. Before Sutton Hoo: the prehistoric settlement (c.3000 BC to AD 500). In M. Carver (ed.) Sutton Hoo: A Princely Burial Ground and Its Context. London: British Museum Press. Pp. 391-458. Hunter, M. 1974. Germanic and Roman antiquity and the sense of the past in Anglo-Saxon England. Anglo-Saxon England 3: 29-50. Huntingdon, R. and Metcalf, P. 1979. Celebrations of Death: the Anthropology of Mortuary Ritual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hurley, T. 1996. Review of Archaeological Projects in Hertfordshire for 1994. Hertfordshire Archaeology 12: 135-142. Hurst, J.G. 1971. Gazetteer of excavations at medieval house and village sites (to 1968). In M.

Beresford and J.G. Hurst (eds.) Deserted Medieval Villages: Studies. London: Lutterworth. Pp. 145-168. Innes, M. 2000. Introduction: using the past, interpreting the present, influencing the future. In Y. Hen & M. Innes (eds.) The Uses of the Past in the Early Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 1-8. Jackson, D.A. 1978. Grendon. Northamptonshire Archaeology 13: 178. Jackson, D.A. 1994. Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon settlement and activity around the Hunsbury Hillfort, Northampton. Northamptonshire Archaeology 25: 35-46. Jackson, D.A., Harding, D.W. and Myres, J.N.L. 1969. The Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon site at Upton, Northants. Antiquaries Journal 49: 202-221. James, E. 1992. Royal burial among the Franks. In M. Carver (ed.) The Age of Sutton Hoo. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. Pp. 243-254. James, S., Marshall, A. and Millett, M. 1984. An early medieval building tradition. Archaeological Journal 141: 182-215. Jones, D. 1998. Long barrows and Neolithic elongated enclosures in Lincolnshire: an analysis of the air photographic evidence. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 64: 83-114. Jones, E. 1995. An archaeological salvage excavation and watching brief at South St, Oakham. Leicestershire Archaeology and History Society Transactions 69: 118. Jones, H. 2001. Brough, Glebe Farm. Transactions of the Thoroton Society 106: 147. Jones, H. and Knight, D. 2001. Evaluation Excavations on the Line of the Fosse Way Bypass, at Glebe Farm, Brough, Nottinghamshire. Unpublished report, Trent and Peak Archaeological Trust. Jones, H. forthcoming. The Anglo-Saxon Settlement at Glebe Farm, Brough. Kelly, S. 1990. Anglo-Saxon lay society and the written word. In R. McKitterick (ed.) The Uses of Literacy in Early Medieval Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 36-62. Kenward, R. 1982. A Neolithic burial enclosure at New Wintles Farm, Eynsham. In H.J. Case and A.W. Whittle (eds.) Settlement Patterns in the Oxford Region: Excavations at the Abingdon Causewayed Enclosure and Other Sites. Oxford: CBA and Ashmolean Museum. Pp. 51-54. Keynes, S. 2001. Charters and writs. In M. Lapidge, J. Blair, S. Keynes and D. Scragg (eds.) The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England. Oxford: Blackwell. Pp. 99-100. Kinsley, G. N.d. Anglo-Saxon Staffordshire: An Overview (West Midlands Regional Framework for Archaeology, Seminar 4). Unpublished document. Kinsley, G. 1998. Interim report on archaeological watching briefs and excavations at Girton Quarry Extension, Newark, 1997-8. Tarmac Papers 2: 41-49.

295

Kinsley, G. and Jones, H. 1999. Summary Report on Archaeological Watching Briefs and Excavations at Girton Quarry Extension, Newark, 1997-9. Unpublished report, Trent and Peak Archaeology. Knight, D. and Howard, A. 2004. Trent Valley Landscapes: the Archaeology of 500,000 Years of Change. King’s Lynn: Heritage. Lambrick, G. 1979. Berinsfield, Mount Farm. South Midlands Archaeology Newsletter 9: 113-5. Lambrick, G. 1980. Mount Farm, Berinsfield, Oxfordshire. SU 584968. Neolithic to Roman. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 46: 356. Lambrick, G. 1981. Berinsfield: Mount Farm post excavation. South Midlands Archaeology Newsletter 11: 148. Lambrick, G. 1986. Goring: Gatehampton Farm. South Midlands Archaeology Newsletter 16: 100. Lane, T. 2000. Hoe Hills, Dowsby. In A. Crowson, T. Lane and J. Reeve (eds.) Fenland Management Project Excavations 1991-1995. Sleaford: Heritage Lincolnshire. Pp. 99-107. Lapidge, M. 2000. The archetype of Beowulf. AngloSaxon England 29: 5-41. Lapidge, M. and Herren, M. (trans.). 1979. Aldhelm: The Prose Works. Ipswich: D.S. Brewer. Lavelle, R. 2007. Royal Estates in Anglo-Saxon Wessex: Land, Politics and Family Strategies (British Archaeological Reports British Series 439). Oxford: BAR Publishing. Leahy, K. 1993. The Anglo-Saxon settlement of Lindsey. In A. Vince (ed.) Pre-Viking Lindsey. Lincoln: City of Lincoln Archaeological Unit. Pp. 29-44. Leahy, K. 1999. The formation of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Lindsey. In T. Dickinson and D. Griffiths (eds.) The Making of Kingdoms: AngloSaxon Studies in Archaeology and History 10. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. Pp. 127-134. Leeds, E.T. 1923. A Saxon village at Sutton Courtenay, Berkshire. Archaeologia 73: 47-192. Leeds, E.T. 1927. A Saxon village at Sutton Courtenay, Berkshire: second report. Archaeologia 74: 5980. Leeds, E.T. 1934. Recent Bronze Age discoveries in Berkshire and Oxfordshire. Antiquaries Journal 14: 264-276. Leeds, E.T. 1936. Early Anglo-Saxon Art and Archaeology. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Leeds, E.T. 1947. A Saxon village at Sutton Courtenay, Berkshire: third report. Archaeologia 112: 7994. Lethbridge, T.C. 1927. An Anglo-Saxon hut on the Car Dyke at Waterbeach. Antiquaries Journal 7: 141-146. Lewis, C., Mitchell-Fox, P. & Dyer, C. 1997. Village, Hamlet and Field: Changing Medieval Settlements in Central England. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Liddle, P. 1988. Archaeology in Leicestershire and Rutland. Leicestershire Archaeology and History Society Transactions 62: 72-92.

Liddle, P. 1989. Bottesford 1 Excavation (SK 821382) – an interim report. Transactions of the Leicestershire Archaeology and History Society 63: 106-7. Losco-Bradley, S. 1984. Fatholme, Barton-underNeedwood, Staffordshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 50: 402. Losco-Bradley, S. & Kinsley, G. 2002. Catholme: An Anglo-Saxon Settlement on the Trent Gravels in Staffordshire. Nottingham: University of Nottingham. Loveluck, C. and Atkinson, D. 2007. The Early Medieval Settlement Remains From Flixborough, Lincolnshire: The Occupation Sequence, c.AD 600-100 (Excavations at Flixborough Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxbow. Loyn, H.R. 1974. The hundred in the tenth and early eleventh centuries. In H. Hearder & H.R. Loyn (eds.) British Government and Administration; Studies Presented to S.B. Chrimes. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Pp.1-15. Lucy, S. 2000. The Anglo-Saxon Way of Death. Stroud: Sutton. Luke, M. 1999. An enclosed pre-‘Belgic’ Iron Age farmstead with later occupation at Hinksley Road, Flitwick. Bedfordshire Archaeology 23: 43-82. Luke, M. 2008. Land West of Bedford: Interim Archaeological Report 3. Unpublished report, Albion Archaeology. Luke, M. and Barker, B. 2008. Land West of Bedford: Interim Archaeological Report 5. Unpublished report, Albion Archaeology. Luke, M. and Barker, B. 2010. Combined Bedford Western Bypass and Land West of Bedford Project: Phasing and Publication Information for Specialists Undertaking Analysis (Vol. 1; Version 1.1). Unpublished report, Albion Archaeology. Luke, M., Preece, J. and Wells, J. 2004. Land West of Kempston/Southern Biddenham Loop, Bedfordshire: Results of Archaeological Intrusive Evaluation. Vol. 1: The Text. Unpublished report, Albion Archaeology. Lyons, A. 2008. Hinxton Road, Duxford: Summary. Unpublished report, Cambridgeshire County Council. Mahoney, C.M. and Hilary Healey, R. 1979. Recent Saxon finds from South Lincolnshire: Middle Saxon pottery in the Fenland area. Lincolnshire History and Archaeology 14: 80-81. Malim, T. 1991. An Investigation of Multi-Period Cropmarks at Manor Farm, Harston. Unpublished report, Cambridgeshire Archaeology. Malim, T. 1993. An investigation of multi-period cropmarks at Manor Farm, Harston. Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society 82: 11-54. Malim, T. and Hines, J. 1998. The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Edix Hill (Barrington A), Cambridgeshire: Excavations 1989-1991 and a Summary Catalogue of Material from 19th Century 296

Interventions. York: Council for British Archaeology. Manby, T.G. 1986. Thwing 1985. Yorkshire Archaeological Society: Prehistory Research Section Bulletin 23: 3-7. Manby, T.G. 1988. Excavation and field archaeology in eastern Yorkshire: the Thwing project 19731987. CBA Group 4 (Yorkshire) Annual Newsletter: 16-18. ManiBabu, M. 1994. Post-cremation-urn-burial of the Phayengs (Mainipur): a study on mortuary behaviour. The Eastern Anthropologist 47 (2): 157-171. Marjoram, J. 1974. Archaeological Notes, 1973. Lincolnshire History and Archaeology 9: 17-34. Marsden, B.M. 1999. The Early Barrow Diggers. Stroud: Tempus. Marshall, A. and Marshall, G. 1991. A survey and analysis of the buildings of early and middle Anglo-Saxon England. Medieval Archaeology 35: 29-43. Marshall, A. and Marshall, G. 1993. Differentiation, change and continuity in Anglo-Saxon buildings. Archaeological Journal 150: 366-402. Matthews, C.L. 1963. Ancient Dunstable: A Prehistory of the District. Dunstable: Manshead Archaeological Society of Dunstable. Matthews, C.L. and Chadwick Hawkes, S. 1985. Early Saxon Settlements and Burials on Puddlehill, Near Dunstable, Bedfordshire. In S. Chadwick Hawkes, J. Campbell and D. Brown (eds.) Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History 4. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. Pp. 59-116. Maull, A. 1995. Sandy, Warren Villas Quarry. South Midlands Archaeology 25: 16. Mayes, P. and Dean, M.J. 1976. An Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Baston, Lincolnshire. Sleaford: Society for Lincolnshire History and Archaeology. McCormick, A.G. 1975. Grendon, Northamptonshire. South Midlands Archaeology Newsletter 5: 1214. McDonald, T., Last, J., Seddon, G. and Sudds, B. 2000. Harston Mill, Harston, Cambridge: An Archaeological Evaluation. Unpublished report, Hertfordshire Archaeological Trust. McWhirr, A. and Adams, A.W. 1973 Nether Hambleton. Leicestershire Archaeology and History Society Transactions 48: 64. Meaney, A.L. 1964. A Gazetteer of Early Anglo-Saxon Burial Sites. London: Allen and Unwin. Meaney, A.L. 1966. Woden in England: a reconsideration of the evidence. Folklore 77 (2): 105-115. Meaney, A.L. 1981. Anglo-Saxon Amulets and Curing Stones (BAR British Series 96). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Meaney, A.L. 1995. Pagan English sanctuaries, placenames and hundred meeting-places. In D. Griffiths (ed.) Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History 8. Oxford: Oxford

University Committee for Archaeology. Pp. 2942. Meaney, A.L. 2003. Anglo-Saxon pagan and early Christian attitudes to the dead. In M. Carver (ed.) The Cross Goes North: Processes of Conversion in Northern Europe, AD 300-1300. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. Pp. 229-242. Meek, J., Shore, M. and Clay, P. 2004. Iron Age enclosures at Enderby and Huncote, Leicestershire. Transactions of the Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society 78: 1-34. Megaw, J. and Simpson, D. 1979. An Introduction to British Prehistory. Leicester: Leicester University Press. Miles, D. 1986. Archaeology at Barton Court Farm, Abingdon, Oxon: An Investigation of Late Neolithic, Iron Age, Romano-British, and Saxon Settlements. Oxford: Oxford Archaeological Unit. Millett, M. & James, S. 1983. Excavations at Cowdery’s Down, Basingstoke, 1978-81. Archaeological Journal 140: 151-279. Moisl, H. 1981. Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies and Germanic oral tradition. Journal of Medieval History 7: 215-248. Moore, J. 1986. Drayton: Pyrton Glebe Field, Drayton Cursus. South Midlands Archaeology Newsletter 16: 99-100. Moore, W.R. 1973. Northampton, Hunsbury Hill-Fort. Northamptonshire Archaeology 8: 41. Moore, H.L. 1982. The interpretation of spatial patterning in settlement residues. In I. Hodder (ed.) Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 7479. Moreland, J. 2000a. Ethnicity, power and the English. In W.O. Frazer and A. Tyrrell (eds.) Social Identity in Early Medieval Britain. Leicester: Leicester University Press. Pp. 23-51. Moreland, J. 2000b. The significance of production in eighth-century England. In I. Hansen and C. Wickham (eds.) The Long Eighth Century: Production, Distribution and Demand. Pp. 69104. Morris, R. 1983. The Church in British Archaeology. London: Council for British Archaeology. Morris, S. 2007. Milton Keynes, Newport Pagnell. South Midlands Archaeology Newsletter 37: 13. Nenk, B.S., Margeson, S. and Hurley, M. 1991. Medieval Britain and Ireland in 1990. Medieval Archaeology 35: 126-238. Nenk, B.S., Margeson, S. and Hurley, M. 1992. Medieval Britain and Ireland in 1991. Medieval Archaeology 36: 184-308. Nenk, B.S., Margeson, S. and Hurley, M. 1994. Medieval Britain and Ireland in 1993. Medieval Archaeology 38: 184-293. Nenk, B.S., Margeson, S. and Hurley, M. 1995. Medieval Britain and Ireland in 1994. Medieval Archaeology 39: 180-239.

297

Pollard,

J. 1996. Excavations at Bourn Bridge, Pampisford, Cambridgeshire. Unpublished report, Cambridgeshire Archaeological Unit. Pollard, J. 2002. The ring-ditch and the hollow: excavation of a Bronze Age ‘shrine’ and associated features at Pampisford, Cambridgeshire. Proceedings of the Cambridgeshire Antiquarian Society 91: 5-22. Powlesland, D. 1997. Early Anglo-Saxon settlement, structures, form and layout. In J. Hines (ed.) The Anglo-Saxons from the Migration Period to the Eighth Century: An Ethnographic Perspective. Woodbridge: Boydell. Pp. 101-125. Powlesland, D. 2000. West Heslerton settlement mobility: a case of static development. In H. Geake & H. Kenny (eds.) Early Deira: Archaeological Studies of the East Riding in the Fourth to Ninth Centuries AD. Oxford: Oxbow. Pp. 19-26. Preston, S. 2007. Bronze Age and Saxon Features at the Wolverton Turn Enclosure, Near Stony Stratford, Milton Keynes: Investigations by Tim Schadla-Hall, Philip Carstairs, Jo Lawson, Hugh Beamish, Andrew Hunn, Ben Ford and Tess Durden, 1972 to 1994. Records of Buckinghamshire 47 (1): 81-119. Radford, C.A.R. 1957. The Saxon house: a review and some parallels. Medieval Archaeology 1: 27-38. Rahtz, P. 1970. A possible Saxon palace near Stratfordupon-Avon. Antiquity 44: 137-45. Rahtz, P. 1974. Rescue digging past and present. In P. Rahtz (ed.) Rescue Archaeology. Middlesex: Penguin. Pp. 53-72. Rahtz, P. 1976a. Buildings and rural settlements. In D.M. Wilson (ed.) The Archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 49-98. Rahtz, P. 1976b. Appendix A: gazetteer of Anglo-Saxon domestic settlement sites. In D.M. Wilson (ed.) The Archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 405-452. Rahtz, P. 1979. The Saxon and Medieval Palaces at Cheddar: Excavation, 1960-62 (BAR British Series 65). Oxford: B.A.R. Ramsey. E. 2001. An Archaeological Investigation at High Farm, Halton Holegate, Lincolnshire: A Post-Excavation Assessment and Research Design. Unpublished report, Birmingham University Field Archaeology Unit. RCHM (Royal Commission on Historical Monuments). 1982. An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the County of Northamptonshire Vol. 4: Archaeological Sites in South-West Northamptonshire. London: HMSO. Reynolds, A. 1998. Anglo-Saxon Law in the Landscape: An Archaeological Study of the Old English Judicial System. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of London. Reynolds, A. 1999. Later Anglo-Saxon England: Life and Landscape. Stroud: Tempus.

Nenk, B.S., Margeson, S. and Hurley, M. 1996. Medieval Britain and Ireland, 1995. Medieval Archaeology 40: 234-318. Newman, C. 1998. Reflections on the making of a ‘royal site’ in early Ireland. World Archaeology 30 (1): 127-141. Niblett, R. 2001. A Neolithic dugout from a multi-period site near St Albans, Herts, England. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 30 (2): 155-195. Ozanne, A. 1962-3. The peak dwellers. Medieval Archaeology 6-7: 15-52. Page, R.I. 1973. An Introduction to English Runes. London: Methuen. Palmer, S. 1993. Salford Priors, A435 Norton Lenchwick Bypass Site E. South Midlands Archaeology Newsletter 36: 98-99. Palmer, S. 1999. Archaeological excavations in the Arrow Valley, Warwickshire. Birmingham and Warwickshire Archaeological Society Transactions 103: 1-231. Pantos, A. 2004. The location and form of Anglo-Saxon assembly-places: some ‘moot points’. In A. Pantos & S. Semple (eds.) Assembly Places and Practices in Medieval Europe. Dublin: Four Courts Press. Pp. 155-180. Parker Pearson, M. 1996. Food, fertility and front doors in the first millennium BC. In T.C. Champion and J.R. Collis (eds.) The Iron Age in Britain and Ireland: Recent Trends. Sheffield: University of Sheffield (J.R. Collis Publications). Pp. 117-132. Parkinson, A. 1994. Corporation Farm, Wilsham Road, Abingdon, Oxon: Watching Brief Report. Unpublished report, Oxford Archaeology Unit. Parrington, M. and Henderson, R.P. 1974. Sutton Courtenay Peep O’Day Lane. South Midlands Archaeology Newsletter 4: 10. Parry, S. 2006. Raunds Area Survey: An Archaeological Study of the Landscape of Raunds, Northamptonshire 1985-94. Oxford: Oxbow. Partridge, C. 1989. Foxholes Farm: A Multi-Period Gravel Site. Hertford: Hertford Archaeological Trust. Petch, D.F. 1960. Archaeological notes for 1958. Lincolnshire Architectural and Archaeological Society Reports and Papers 8: 1-25. Pine, S. and Ford, S. 2003. Excavation of Neolithic, Late Bronze Age, Early Iron age and Early Saxon Features at St Helen’s Avenue, Benson, Oxfordshire. Oxoniensia 68: 131-178. Pitts, M., Bayliss, A., McKinley, J., Boylston, A., Budd, P., Evans, J., Chenery, C., Reynolds, A. and Semple, S. 2002. An Anglo-Saxon decapitation and burial at Stonehenge. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 95: 131-146. Pohl, W. 1997. The barbarian successor states. In L. Webster and M. Brown (eds.) The Transformation of the Roman World AD 400900. California: University of California Press. Pp. 33-47. 298

Scull, C. 1992. Before Sutton Hoo: structures of power and society in early East Anglia. In M. Carver (ed.) The Age of Sutton Hoo. Woodbridge: Boydell. Pp. 3-24. 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. Pp. 6582. Scull, C. 1997. Urban centres in pre-Viking England? In J. Hines (ed.) The Anglo-Saxons from the Migration Period to the Eighth Century: An Ethnographic Perspective. Woodbridge: Boydell. Pp. 269-297. Scull, C. 1999. Social archaeology and Anglo-Saxon kingdom origins. In T. Dickinson and D. Griffiths (eds.) The Making of Kingdoms: AngloSaxon Studies in Archaeology and History 10. Oxford: Oxford University Community for Archaeology. Pp. 17-24. Semple, S. 1998. A fear of the past: the place of the prehistoric burial mound in the ideology of middle and later Anglo-Saxon England. World Archaeology 30 (1): 109-126. Semple, S. 2003a. Anglo-Saxon Attitudes to the Past: A Landscape Perspective. A Study of the Secondary Uses and Perceptions of Prehistoric Monuments in Anglo-Saxon Society. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Oxford. Semple, S. 2003b. Burials and political boundaries in the Avebury region, North Wiltshire. In D. Griffiths, A. Reynolds and S. Semple (eds.) Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History 12. Pp. 7291. Semple, S. 2004. Locations of assembly in early AngloSaxon England. In A. Pantos & S. Semple (eds.) Assembly Places and Practices in Medieval Europe. Dublin: Four Courts Press. Pp. 135-154. Semple, S. 2008. Polities and princes AD 400-800: new perspectives on the funerary landscape of the South Saxon kingdom. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 27 (4): 407-429. Semple, S. 2009. Recycling the past: ancient monuments and changing meanings in early medieval Britain. In M. Aldrich and R.J. Wallis (eds.) Antiquaries and Archaists: the Past in the Past, the Past in the Present. Reading: Spire Books. Pp. 29-45. Semple, S. 2010. In the open air. In M. Carver, A. Sanmark and S. Semple (eds.) Signals of Belief in Early England: Anglo-Saxon Paganism Revisited. Oxford: Oxbow. Pp. 21-48. Sharman, J. and Clay, P. 1991. Leicester Lane, Enderby: An archaeological evaluation. Transactions of the Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society 65: 1-12. Shaw, M. 1994. The discovery of Saxon sites below fieldwalking scatters: settlement evidence at Brixworth and Upton, Northants. Northamptonshire Archaeology 25: 77-92.

Reynolds, A. 2003. Boundaries and settlements in later sixth- to eleventh-century England. In D. Griffiths, A. Reynolds & S. Semple (eds.) Boundaries in Early Medieval Britain: AngloSaxon Studies in Archaeology and History 12. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. Pp. 98-136. Reynolds, A. 2005. Review article: on farmers, traders and kings: archaeological reflections of social complexity in early medieval north-western Europe. Early Medieval Europe 13 (1): 97-118. Reynolds, A. 2009. Anglo-Saxon Deviant Burial Customs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Richards, J.D. 1999a (2nd ed.). Anglo-Saxon symbolism. In M. Carver (ed.) The Age of Sutton Hoo: The Seventh Century in North-Western Europe. Woodbridge: Boydell. Pp. 131-148. Richards, J.D. 1999b. Cottam: An Anglian and AngloScandinavian settlement on the Yorkshire Wolds. Archaeological Journal 156: 1-110. Rigold, S.E. and Metcalf, D.M. 1977. A check-list of English finds of sceattas. The British Numismatic Journal 47: 31-52. Rivers, W.H. 1906. The Todas. London: Macmillan and Co. Roberts, J. 1979. The Guthlac Poems of the Exeter Book. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Rodwell, W. 2001. The Archaeology of Wells Cathedral: Excavations and Structural Studies, 1978–93. London: English Heritage. Roseff, R. 1996. Church Farm, Bierton, Buckinghamshire Archaeological Evaluation Report. Unpublished report, Buckinghamshire County Museum Archaeology Service. Rylatt, J. 2001. Archaeological Evaluation Report: Land to the South of High Farm, Halton Holegate, Lincolnshire. Unpublished report, Pre-Construct Archaeology (Lincoln). Sanmark, A. 2010. Living on: ancestors and the soul. In M. Carver, A. Sanmark and S. Semple (eds.) Signals of Belief in Early England: Anglo-Saxon Paganism Revisited. Oxford: Oxbow. Pp. 158200. Sawyer, P.H. 1968. Anglo-Saxon Charters: an Annotated List and Bibliography. London: Offices of the Royal Historical Society. Sawyer, P.H. 1974. Anglo-Saxon settlement: the documentary evidence. In T. Rowley (ed.) Anglo-Saxon Settlement and Landscape: Papers Presented to a Symposium, Oxford 1973 (BAR British Series 6). Oxford; BAR. Pp. 106-119. Sawyer, P.H.1983. The royal tun in pre-Conquest England. In P. Wormald (ed.) Ideal and Reality in Frankish and Anglo-Saxon Society. Oxford: Blackwell. Pp. 273-299. Sayer, R. 2003. Size Matters: Volumetric Analysis of Finds from the Early Anglo-Saxon Settlement at Eye Kettleby, Leicestershire. Unpublished MA dissertation, University of Leicester. Scull, C. 1991. Post-Roman Phase 1 at Yeavering: a reconsideration. Medieval Archaeology 35: 5163. 299

Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society Transactions 77: 149-152. Thomas, J. 2007a. Cossington: Saxon cemetery and settlement in a barrow context. Medieval Archaeology 51: 264-267. Thomas, J. 2007b. Monument, Memory and Myth: Use and Reuse of Three Round Barrows at Cossington, Leicestershire. Unpublished report, University of Leicester Archaeology Services. Thomas, J. 2008. Monuments, memories and myths in the early Bronze Age and beyond. Current Archaeology 216: 24-29. Thomas, R. and Wallis, J. 1982. Recent work on Neolithic and early Bronze Age sites in the Abingdon area. South Midlands Archaeology Newsletter 12: 181-190. Thompson, B. 2000. An Iron Age, Roman and AngloSaxon site at Frisby on the Wreake. Leicestershire Archaeology and History Society Transactions 74: 238-241. Thompson, F.H. 1955. Archaeological notes for 1954: Anglo-Saxon. Lincolnshire Architectural and Archaeological Society Papers and Reports 6 (1): 10-11. Thorpe, R. 2003. Ivel Farm/Becks Land South. South Midlands Archaeology Newsletter 33: 3 Tipper, J. 2004. The Grubenhaus in Anglo-Saxon England: an Analysis and Interpretation of the Evidence from a Most Distinctive Building Type. Yedingham: The Landscape Research Centre. Toop, N. and Copp, A. 2005. Funerary activity and boundary demarcation in the Lincolnshire Landscape. Lincolnshire History and Archaeology 40: 24-29. TPAT (Trent and Peak Archaeological Trust). 1984. Fatholme, Barton-under-Needwood, Staffs: Summary Report. Unpublished report, Trent and Peak Archaeological Trust. Turner, S. 2003. Boundaries and religion: the demarcation of early Christian settlements in Britain. In D. Griffiths, A. Reynolds and S. Semple (eds.) Boundaries in Early Medieval Britain: Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History 12. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. Pp. 50-57. van de Noort, R. 1993. The context of early medieval barrows in western Europe. Antiquity 67: 66-73. Vince, A.G. 2006. The Anglo-Saxon period (c.400-850). In N.J. Cooper (ed.) The Archaeology of the East Midlands: An Archaeological Resource Assessment and Research Agenda. Leicester: University of Leicester. Pp. 161-184. Vince, A.G. and Young, J. 1992. East Midlands AngloSaxon Pottery Project: Second Annual Report (CLAU Archaeological Report 4). Lincoln: City of Lincoln Archaeological Unit. Walker, J. 2009. The Ideology of the Timber Hall of the North Sea Region During the Conversion Period. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of York. Ware, C. 2005. The social use of space at Gefrin. In P. Frodsham and C. O’Brien (eds.) Yeavering:

Shephard, J. 1979. The social identity of the individual in isolated barrows and barrow cemeteries in Anglo-Saxon England. In B.C. Burnham & J. Kingsbury (eds.) Space, Hierarchy and Society: Interdisciplinary Studies in Social Area Analysis (BAR International Series 59). Oxford: BAR. Pp. 47-80. Shepherd, N. 1997. Elstow-Harrowden Housing Development: Archaeological Evaluation. Unpublished report, Bedfordshire County Archaeology Service. Sherley-Price, L. (trans). 1968. A History of the English Church and People. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Sherlock, S. 2008. The lost royal cult of Street House, Yorkshire. British Archaeology 100: 30-37. Shotliff, D. 1995. Stratton, Biggleswade. Unpublished report, Albion Archaeology. Simmons, B.B. 1974. Excavations in 1974. Medieval Village Research Group Report 22: 16-40. Sisam, K. 1953. Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies. Proceedings of the British Academy 39: 287348. Speake, G. 1989. A Saxon Bed Burial on Swallowcliffe Down. London: Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England. St Joseph, J.K.S. 1966. The Uses of Air Photography: Nature and Man in a New Perspective. London: Baker. St Joseph, J.K.S. 1975. Air reconnaissance: recent results, 39. Antiquity 49: 293-295. St Joseph, J.K.S. 1982. Sprouston, Roxburghshire: an Anglo-Saxon settlement discovered by air reconnaissance. Anglo-Saxon England 10: 191199. Stocker, D. and Went, D. 1995. The evidence for a preViking church adjacent to the Anglo-Saxon barrow at Taplow, Buckinghamshire. Archaeological Journal 152: 441-454. Stoodley, N. 1999. Burial rites, gender and the creation of kingdoms: the evidence from seventh-century Wessex. In T. Dickinson and D. Griffiths (eds.) The Making of Kingdoms: Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History 10. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. Pp. 99108. Stupecki, L. 2007. Gross Raden, Germany. In J. GrahamCampbell and M. Valor (eds.) The Archaeology of Medieval Europe Vol. 1: Eighth to Twelfth Centuries AD. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Pp. 376-377. Taylor, K. and Ford, S. 2004. Site 30 Rycote. In S. Ford, I. Howell and K. Taylor (eds.) The Archaeology of the Aylesbury-Chalgrove Gas Pipeline and a Saxon Site at The Orchard, Walton. Reading: Thames Valley Archaeological Services. Pp. 2532 Thäte, E.S. 2007. Monuments and Minds: Monument Reuse in Scandinavia in the Second Half of the First Millennium AD. Lund: Acta Archaeologica Lundensia. Thomas, J. 2003. Archaeological recording during groundworks for the Wanlip to Rothley pipeline. 300

People, Power and Place. Stroud: Tempus. Pp. 153-160. Webster, L. 1982. Stylistic aspects of the Franks Casket. In R.T. Farrell (ed.) The Vikings. Pp. 20-31. Webster, L.E. and Cherry, J. 1972. Medieval Britain in 1971. Medieval Archaeology 16: 147-212. Webster, L.E. and Cherry, J. 1973. Medieval Britain in 1972. Medieval Archaeology 17: 138-188. Webster, L.E. and Cherry, J. 1974. Medieval Britain in 1973. Medieval Archaeology 18: 174-223. Webster, L.E. and Cherry, J. 1975. Medieval Britain in 1974. Medieval Archaeology 19: 220-260. Webster, L.E. and Cherry, J. 1976. Medieval Britain in 1975. Medieval Archaeology 20: 158-201. Webster, L.E. and Cherry, J. 1979. Medieval Britain in 1978. Medieval Archaeology 23: 234-278. Webster, L.E. and Cherry, J. 1980. Medieval Britain in 1979. Medieval Archaeology 24: 218-264. Welch, M. 1985. Rural settlement patterns in the early and middle Anglo-Saxon periods. Landscape History 7: 13-25. Welch, M. 1992. English Heritage Book of Anglo-Saxon England. London: Batsford. Wessex Archaeology. 2008. Knave Hill, Stonton Wyville, Leicestershire: Archaeological Evaluation and Assessment of Results. Unpublished report, Wessex Archaeology. Wessex Archaeology. 2010. Sutton Courtenay, Oxfordshire: Archaeological Excavation and Assessment of Results. Unpublished report, Wessex Archaeology. West, S. 1969. The Anglo-Saxon village of West Stow: an interim report on the excavations 1965-8. Medieval Archaeology 13: 1-20. West, S. 1985. West Stow: the Anglo-Saxon Village. Ipswich: East Anglian Archaeology. West, S. 1988. The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Westgarth Gardens, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk. Bury St Edmunds: Suffolk County Council. West, S. 2001. West Stow Revisited. Bury St Edmunds: Bury St Edmunds Borough Council and West Stow Anglo-Saxon Village Trust. Wheeler, H. 1979. Excavation at Willington, Derbyshire, 1970-1972. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal 99: 58-220. White, R.H. 1988. Roman and Celtic Objects From Anglo-Saxon Graves: A Catalogue and Interpretation of Their Use (BAR British Series 191). Oxford: BAR. Whitelock, D. 1955. English Historical Documents c.500-1042. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode. Whitwell, J.B. and Wilson, C.M. 1969. Archaeological notes 1968. Lincolnshire History and Archaeology 4: 99-119. Wickham, C. 2005. Framing the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean, 400-800. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Williams, H. 1997. Ancient landscapes and the dead: the reuse of prehistoric and Roman monuments as early Anglo-Saxon burial sites. Medieval Archaeology 41: 1-32.

Williams, H. 1998. Monuments and the past in early Anglo-Saxon England. World Archaeology 30 (1): 90-108. Williams, H. 2000. ‘The Burnt Germans of the Age of Iron’: Early Anglo-Saxon Mortuary Practices and the Study of Cremation in Past Societies. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Reading. Williams, H. 2002. Cemeteries as central places – place and identity in Migration Period Eastern England. In B. Hardh & L. Larsson (eds.) Central Places in the Migration and the Merovingian Periods: Papers From the 52nd Sachsensymposium, August 2001. Pp. 341-362. Williams, H. 2003. Material culture as memory: combs and cremation in early medieval Britain. Early Medieval Europe 12: 89-128. Williams, H. 2004. Assembling the dead. In A. Pantos & S. Semple (eds.) Assembly Places and Practices in Medieval Europe. Dublin: Four Courts Press. Pp. 109-134. Williams, H. 2006. Death and Memory in Early Medieval Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Williams, J. 1984. From ‘palace’ to ‘town’: Northampton and urban origins. Anglo-Saxon England 13: 113-136. Williams, J.H. and Shaw, M. 1981. Excavations in Chalk Lane, Northampton, 1975-1978. Northamptonshire Archaeology 16: 87-135. Williams, R.J. 1993. Pennyland and Hartigans: Two Iron Age and Saxon Sites in Milton Keynes. Aylesbury: Buckinghamshire Archaeological Society. Williams, R.J., Hart, P.J. and Williams, A.T.L. 1996. Wavendon Gate: A Late Iron Age and Roman Settlement in Milton Keynes (Buckinghamshire Archaeological Society Monograph Series No. 10). Aylesbury: Buckinghamshire Archaeological Society. Wilson, D., Wright, R. and Hassall, M. 1974. Roman Britain in 1973. Britannia 5: 397-480. Wilson, D.M. and Hurst, J.G. 1958. Medieval Britain in 1957. Medieval Archaeology 2: 183-213. Wilson, D.M. and Hurst, J.G. 1960. Medieval Britain in 1959. Medieval Archaeology 4: 134-165. Wilson, D.M. and Hurst, D.G. 1961. Medieval Britain in 1960. Medieval Archaeology 5: 309-339. Wilson, D.M. and Hurst, D.G. 1966. Medieval Britain in 1965. Medieval Archaeology 10: 168-219. Wilson, D.M. and Hurst, D.G. 1967. Medieval Britain in 1966. Medieval Archaeology 11: 262-272. Wilson, D.M. and Hurst, D.G. 1968. Medieval Britain in 1967. Medieval Archaeology 12: 155-164. Wilson, D.M. and Hurst, D.G. 1969. Medieval Britain in 1968. Medieval Archaeology 13: 230-287. Wilson, D.M. and Hurst, D.G. 1970. Medieval Britain in 1969. Medieval Archaeology 14: 155-208. Wilson, D.M. and Moorhouse, S. 1971. Medieval Britain in 1970. Medieval Archaeology 15: 124-179. Windell, D. 1989. A late Neolithic ‘ritual focus’ at West Cotton, Northamptonshire. In A. Gibson (ed.) Midlands Prehistory: Some Recent and Current 301

Researches into the Prehistory of Central England (BAR British Series 204). Oxford: BAR. Windell, D., Chapman, A. and Woodiwiss, J. 1990. From Barrows to Bypass: Excavations at West Cotton, Raunds, Northamptonshire 1985-1989. Northampton: Northamptonshire County Council. Wood, I. 1992. Frankish hegemony in England. In M. Carver (ed.) The Age of Sutton Hoo. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. Pp. 235-242. Woolf, A. 2007. Apartheid and economics in AngloSaxon England. In N.J. Higham (ed.) The Britons in Anglo-Saxon England. Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer. Pp. 115-129. Yorke, B. 1989. The Jutes of Hampshire and Wight and the origins of Wessex. In S. Bassett (ed.) The Origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. Leicester: Leicester University Press. Pp. 84-96. Yorke, B. 1990. Kings and Kingdoms of Early AngloSaxon England. London: Seaby. Yorke, B. 1993. Fact or fiction? The written evidence for the fifth and sixth centuries AD. In W. FilmerSankey (ed.) Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History 6. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. Pp. 4550. Yorke, B. 1999. The origins of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms: the contribution of written sources. In T. Dickinson and D. Griffiths (eds.) The Making of Kingdoms: Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History 10. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. Pp. 25-30. Yorke, B. 2000. Political and ethnic identity: a case study of Anglo-Saxon practice. In W.O. Frazer and A. Tyrrell (eds.) Social Identity in Early Medieval Britain. Leicester: Leicester University Press. Pp. 69-91. Yorke, B. 2003. The adaptation of the royal courts to Christianity. In M. Carver (ed.) The Cross Goes North: Processes of Conversion in Northern Europe, AD 300-1300. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. Pp. 243-258 Young, J. and Vince, A.G. 2009. The Anglo-Saxon pottery. In D.H. Evans and C. Loveluck (eds.) Life and Economy at Early Medieval Flixborough c.AD 600-1000: The Artefact Evidence (Excavations at Flixborough Vol. 2). Oxford: Oxbow. Pp. 339-401. Youngs, S.M. and Clark, J. 1981. Medieval Britain in 1980. Medieval Archaeology 25: 166-228. Youngs, S.M., Clark, J. and Barry, T. 1986. Medieval Britain in 1985. Medieval Archaeology 30: 114198. Zeepvat, R.J., Roberts, J.S. and King, N.A. 1994. Caldecotte, Milton Keynes: Excavation and Fieldwork 1966-91 (Buckinghamshire Archaeological Society Monograph Series No. 9). Aylesbury: Buckinghamshire Archaeological Society.

302