CNEreport draft

NHER 1079: Archaeological Evaluation of Chalkpit Field, 2007-8

33

AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF THE MIDDLE-LATE ANGLO-

SAXON SETTLEMENT AT CHALKPIT FIELD, SEDGEFORD, NORTHWEST

NORFOLK.

WITH SPECIALIST CONTRIBUTIONS FROM GREG CAMPBELL, NEIL FAULKNER, VAL FRYER, MARTIN

HATTON, DAVID HIBBITT (GRID NINE GEOPHYSICS), QUITA MOULD, NAOMI PAYNE,

KRISTOPHER POOLE AND ANN SMITH.

DRAFT REPORT

BY GARETH DAVIES


2

Preface and Summary................................................................................................ 5

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................... 8

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................... 8

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 9

1.1 Background to the project ............................................................................. 9

1.2 Chalkpit Field: NHER 1079....................................................................... 10

1.3 Aims and Method: The 2007/8 Evaluation Project ..................................... 12

Figure 1: Site Location, showing Sedgeford in the UK and the location of

Chalkpit field (NHER 1079). .............................................................................. 15

2. The Geophysical survey by Grid Nine Geophysics ........................................ 16

2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 16

2.2 Methodology ............................................................................................... 16

2.3 Summary of survey parameters................................................................... 17

2.4 Data collection and processing.................................................................... 18

2.5 Results ......................................................................................................... 19

2.6 Survey Specific Conclusions....................................................................... 22

2.7 Effectiveness of methodology..................................................................... 23

Figure 2 : Location of the Chalkpit North 2007-8 survey on 1:10,000 Ordnance

Survey base mapping .......................................................................................... 24

Figure 3: Processed greyscale linear plot with ZMT and despike applied

(composite image) ............................................................................................... 25

Figure 4: Trace plot of processed data (composite image) ................................. 26

Figure 5: Interpretation of results........................................................................ 27

3. The Fieldwalking............................................................................................. 28

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 28

3.2 Methodology and Conditions ...................................................................... 28

3.3 Results ......................................................................................................... 29

Figure 6: Field walking results and location of grid-based survey ..................... 30

Figure 7: Field walking results............................................................................ 32

Figure 8: Late Saxon shears found during 1996-7 fieldwalking......................... 33

Figure 9: Fieldwalking overlain onto Geophysics .............................................. 33

3.4 Fieldwalking and Geophysics: Interpretation ............................................. 35

4. The Trial Trenches .................................................................................................. 41

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 41

Figure 10: Excavated trenches related to Geophysical survey, 2007.................. 45

Figure 11: Excavated trenches showing all excavated features and attributed

phases. ................................................................................................................. 46

4.2 Trench 1....................................................................................................... 47

Figure 12: Plan of Trench 1 showing excavated features. .................................. 49

Figure 13: West Facing section through cut [114], fill (110) (Section 30) ......... 49

Figure 14: East Facing section, cuts [106] and [107] (Section 5) ....................... 51

Figure 15: West Facing section, cut [106] (Section 4)........................................ 51

Plate 1: EFS of Cuts [106]/[107] mid-excavation, looking west. ....................... 52

Figure 16: Detailed plan of in situ pot, fill [104]. ............................................... 52

Plate 2: Thetford ware vessel, fill (104) mid-excavation. ................................... 53

4.3 Trench 2....................................................................................................... 55

Figure 17: Plan of Trench 2 showing excavated features ................................... 56

Figure 18: NFS of cut [215] (Section 13) and Figure 19: NFS of cut [224]

(Section 18). ........................................................................................................ 56


3

Figure 20: WFS of pit cuts [220] and [212] (Section 46). .................................. 61

Figure 21: NFS of ditch cut [213] (Section 20). ................................................. 61

Figure 22: NFS of ditch cuts [227] and [234] (Section 26). ............................... 64

Figure 23: SFS of N-S ditch cuts [227], [234] and E-W cut [225] (Section 50). 64

Plate 3: Ditch cut [233], [216], [225], [236], [218], [229] and [216] mid-

excavation, looking west. .................................................................................... 67

Figure 24: EFS of E-W ditch cut [218] (Section 16). ......................................... 67



Figure 27: WFS of E-W ditch cut [233] (Section 23). ........................................ 68

4.4 Trench 3....................................................................................................... 71

Figure 28: Pre-Excavation Plan of Trench 3....................................................... 72

Figure 29: Post-Excavation Plan of Trench 3 ..................................................... 73

Plate 4: Trench 3 Pre-excavation ........................................................................ 74

Plate 5: NW facing section of Ditch Cuts [323], [314], [317], [316] and [322]

Post-excavation ................................................................................................... 75

Figure 30: NW facing section of Ditch Cuts [323], [314], [317], [316] and [322]

(Section 33) ......................................................................................................... 77

Figure 31: SE facing section of Ditch Cuts [323], [322], [317], [316], [314] and

[327] (Section 51)................................................................................................ 77

Figure 33: NW facing section of Cut [316], (Section 31)................................... 83

Figure 33: SE facing section of Cut [305], (Section 3)....................................... 87

Plate 6: Trench 3 Oven [311]/[313] under excavation, looking west ................. 89

Plate 7: Detail of Oven Wall [311] under excavation, looking west................... 90

Figure 34: N facing section of Oven [311], [313] and Layer (326), (Section 34)

............................................................................................................................. 91

Figure 35: Detailed Plan of Oven [311]/ [313], (Plan DWG 37)........................ 91

Figure 36: NW facing section of ditch cut [319], (Section 35)........................... 95

4.5 Trench 4....................................................................................................... 97

Figure 37: Post Excavation Plan of Trench 4 (Plan Dwg 48). ............................ 99

Figure 38: East Facing section of Cuts [425] and [427], (Section 54).............. 101

Figure 39: South Facing section of Cut [410], truncated by [427] (Section 42).

........................................................................................................................... 104

Figure 40: East Facing Ditch terminus [417], (Section 45). ............................. 106

Figure 41: West Facing section of Cut [413], (Section 49). ............................. 106

4.6 Trench 5..................................................................................................... 111

Figure 42: Trench 5 Post-excavation, (Plan Dwg. 47). ..................................... 113

Figure 43: NFS through pit cuts [508] and [502], (Section. 44). ...................... 114

Figure 44: NFS through Ditch cuts [506], (Section. 27). .................................. 114

Figure 45: NFS through Gully cuts [510] and [512], (Section. 28). ................. 114

5. The Finds............................................................................................................... 118

Note: Specialist reports on Shell (although see assessment in section 6), Quern,

fired Clay/daub, burnt flint, slag, ceramic building and clay pipe are not included in

this report. Instead, a basic tabulation (including count and weight) is provided as

Appendix 2. Where relevant these Bulk Finds are discussed in the text of Section 4.

............................................................................................................................... 118

5. 1 The Pottery ..................................................................................................... 118

Figure 46: Ipswich Ware Rim Types ................................................................ 126

Figure 46: Thetford Ware Rim Types (1-4) ...................................................... 129

Figure 47: Thetford Ware Rim Types (5-8) ...................................................... 130


4

Figure 48: Thetford Ware Rim Types (9-12) .................................................... 131

Figure 49: Thetford Ware Decoration Types .................................................... 132

Table 1: Pottery Finds by Context from Chalkpit North Evaluation ................ 133

Plate 8: Reconstructed Thetford ware jar from ditch fill (104), Trench 1. ....... 140

5. 2 The Flint .................................................................................................... 144

Figure 50: Neolithic Flaked Axe 2201/201....................................................... 145

5. 3 The Small Finds ........................................................................................ 146

Figure 51: Non-Ferrous Finds 2403, 2207 and 2400 ........................................ 148

Figure 51: Detector/Backfill Finds.................................................................... 150

Figure 52: Loom weight 2200........................................................................... 150

Figure 53: Worked Bone 2009 .......................................................................... 151

Figure 53: Bone Artefact 2407.......................................................................... 152

Figure 54: Vessel Glass 2203............................................................................ 152

5. 4 The Iron ..................................................................................................... 153

5.4.1 Methodology ............................................................................................. 153

5.4.2 Condition................................................................................................... 153

5.4.3 Introduction ............................................................................................... 153

Table 2: Ironwork from Chalkpit Field, Sedgeford SH07 ................................ 153

5.4.4 Dress accessories....................................................................................... 154

5.4.5 Textile processing equipment.................................................................... 154

5.4.6 Domestic knife blades ............................................................................... 155

5.4.7 Horse equipment ....................................................................................... 155

5.4.8 Possible iron-working tool ........................................................................ 156

5.4.9 Structural and miscellaneous ironwork ..................................................... 156

5.4.11 Catalogue of illustrated objects (see Figs 55 and 56)................................ 156

Fig. 55: Iron objects (X-rays).................................................................................... 159

Fig. 56: Iron objects (X-rays).................................................................................... 160

6. The Environmental evidence................................................................................. 161

6.1 The Animal Bone by Kristopher Poole ..................................................... 161

Table 3: Summary of taphonomic patterns in the Chalkpit assemblage (excluding

loose teeth) ........................................................................................................ 165

Table 4: Percentage of loose teeth by phase ..................................................... 165

Table 5: Species represented (NISP) by phase.................................................. 166

Figure 57: Comparison of frequencies of main domesticates by phase and

quantification method........................................................................................ 167

Table 6: Number of sheep mandibles by age class per phase ........................... 168

Figure 58: Late Saxon sheep kill-off patterns (n=39) ....................................... 169

Tables 6a (above left): Mid-Saxon sheep fusion data; 6b (above right): Mid-Late

9th

century sheep fusion data; 6c (left): Late Saxon sheep fusion data ............. 170

Table 7: Cattle dental ageing data ..................................................................... 171

Table 8a (left): Mid-Late 9th

century cattle fusion data; Table 8b(right): Late

Saxon cattle fusion data..................................................................................... 171

Table 9: Pig dental ageing data by phase .......................................................... 172

Figure 59: Late Saxon pig kill-off patterns (n=23) ........................................... 172

Figures 60a-c: Body-part patterns for Mid-Saxon (above left), Mid-Late 9th

century (above right) and Late Saxon (left) sheep/goats................................... 174

Figures 61a-b: Body-part patterns: M-L 9th

century / L Saxon pigs ................. 175

Figures 62a-b: Body-part patterns: M-L C 9th

/ Late Saxon cattle.................... 175

Figure 63: Comparison of sheep tibae distal breadth (Bd) at Chalkpit with other

sites.................................................................................................................... 178


5

Table 10: Numbers of fused and unfused chicken bones by phase................... 181

6.2 The Charred Plant Macrofossils and Other Remains ................................ 191

Table 11: Plant Macrofossils and other remains recovered from CNE 07 samples.

........................................................................................................................... 194

6.3 An Assessment of the Oyster Shell by Greg Campbell ............................ 198

Fig. 64: Diagrammatic depiction of NW-facing section through oyster-rich fill

302..................................................................................................................... 203

Plate 8: Detailed photograph of deposit 302 in the section shown in Fig. 64... 203

Plate 9: Detail of the hinge of the left (lower) valve of O. edulis from deposit

302, showing the remains of the hinge ligament............................................... 204

Plate 10. Photograph of the two right (upper) valves of O. edulis L. from deposit

302 rendered a uniform grey, probably by moderate burning........................... 204

Plate 11: Inner face of left (lower) valve of oyster (O. edulis L.) from ditch fill

SH07 CNE (302), showing cut marks posterior and ventral to adductor scar. . 205

6.4 The Human Bone ...................................................................................... 206

7. Discussion and Conclusions.................................................................................. 211

7.1 Introduction. .............................................................................................. 211

7.2 Pre- Saxon occupation............................................................................... 211

7.3 The Middle Saxon Occupation.................................................................. 213

7.3.2 The Middle Saxon built environment: settlement morphology,

boundaries, and use of space. ............................................................................ 213

7.3.11 The Middle Saxon environment and agricultural economy. ............. 217

7.3.16 Middle Saxon craft, technology, trade and exchange: ...................... 218

7.4 The Mid-Late Ninth century Saxon Occupation ....................................... 220

7.4.3 The Mid-Late Ninth century built environment: settlement

morphology, boundaries, and use of space. ...................................................... 221

7.4.17. The Mid-Late Ninth century environment and agricultural economy.

225

7.4.23 Mid-Late Ninth Century craft, technology, trade and exchange:...... 227

7.5 The Late Saxon Occupation ...................................................................... 228

7.5.3 The Late Saxon built environment: settlement morphology, boundaries

and use of space................................................................................................. 228

7.5.15 The Late Saxon environment and agricultural economy. ................. 232

7.5.24 Late Saxon craft, technology, trade and exchange:........................... 235

7.6 Post- Saxon Occupation ............................................................................ 236

7.7 Final Conclusions...................................................................................... 237

Appendix 1 Matrices and Context Tables ................................................................. 239

Appendix 2: Bulk Finds ............................................................................................ 247

Appendix 3: Animal Bones Number of Identified Specimens (NISP) by species and

context ....................................................................................................................... 252

Bibliography.............................................................................................................. 257

Preface and Summary


6

In 2007, the Sedgeford Historical and Archaeological Research Project’s (SHARP)

excavations in the Boneyard field were brought to a conclusion, with a significant

sample of the population remains retrieved, some of the dynamics of the cemetery/

settlement observed, and earlier 1950’s excavations fully relocated. This fieldwork

has now entered into post-excavation. As a result, a new angle to the research into the

origins of the village was required, particularly to address some of the key questions

raised by the cemetery excavations; namely, what was the character of the associated

settlement.

Due to an abundance of surface finds of shell and pottery, it has long been suspected

that the northern extent of the field immediately south of the Boneyard, Chalkpit field

(NHER 1079), was the main focus of Middle-Late Saxon settlement activity. Because

of this, Chalkpit field was chosen by SHARP as the target for further investigation.

Since April 2007, therefore, further archaeological investigation has been undertaken

at the northern end of Chalk Pit Field, to better understanding the character,

chronology and extent of the Middle-Late Saxon settlement. This has included a

combined program of fieldwalking (data also collected 1996-7/2002) and geophysical

survey; followed-up with the excavation of five test trenches. This report is a write-up

of the investigations to date.

It was also hoped that this evaluation would not only help to start the characterisation

of the Saxon settlement remains at Sedgeford, but also provide valuable data with

which to start to situate a single site within much wider ongoing debates surrounding

early medieval settlements. The discussion at the end of this report aims to show how

high quality field survey and excavation, such as at Sedgeford, can make a valuable

contribution, not only enabling the narration of the changing character of a single

settlement focus, but also -through the use of critical approaches to changing

settlement morphologies and material culture profiles- how this might later contribute

to a better understanding of wider changes in economic, political and social dynamics.

This report is not entirely complete and specialist reports on the Slag and Quern are

awaited. A final publishing strategy is additionally yet to be decided for this piece of

work (July 2008), although the interpretation within this report forms a major case-


7

study in the principle author’s forthcoming PHD ‘The Changing Social Identities of

the Settlements of North West Norfolk, AD 600-1150 AD’: A local regional and

European trade an exchange perspective (Davies, forthcoming). This report is,

however, considered sufficient for the SHARP archives and has been submitted to the

Norfolk HER at Gressenhall. A summary statement of the findings of this work has

been published previously in Norfolk Archaeology XLV (2007), p.232-73.


8

Acknowledgements

A great many people contributed to the work contained within this report, not least of

which were the SHARP volunteers during the summer of 2007. The CNE (Chalkpit

North Evaluation) trench supervisors were John Boothroyd, Holly Holman and Gary

Rossin, the environmental supervisor was Geraldine Crann and the finds supervisors

were Laura Jay and James Frost. The evaluation was overseen by Gareth Davies, with

input from Jon Cousins.

As well as the specialists named above, thanks must also be extended to Steven

Ashley (Norfolk Landscape Archaeology) and Sally Worrell (Portable Antiquities

Scheme) for identification of and advice on certain small finds, and Andrew Rogerson

(Norfolk Landscape Archaeology) for identification of and advice on the handmade

pottery.

Kris Poole and Gareth Davies undertook this study as case studies contributing

towards their respective PHD research, and would like to thank the Arts and

Humanities Research Council, and the School of Humanities, University of

Nottingham for funding their respective researches.

The site archive -including the plan and section drawings contained in this report-was

digitised by Bill Howard. The line drawings of finds are by Simon Hughes (dress pin,

brooch, earring and worked bone object) and Eve Richardson (loom weight). The

images of the metal detector finds were supplied by the finder, Roger Greaves.

The original fieldwalking surveys were undertaken under the supervision of John

Ames (1996-7) and Sophie Cabot, Gareth Davies and Rik Hoggett (2002) and the data

in Section 3 is reproduced from these surveys (particularly the 1996-7 survey).

Thanks are also extended to Neil Faulkner, founding director of SHARP, for general

support, and to the landowners, Professor Bernard and Susan Campbell, and their

representative, farm manager David Lyles, for kindly allowing access to the land.


9

1. Introduction

1.1 Background to the project

1.1.1 The Sedgeford Historical and Archaeological Research Project (SHARP) was

set up in 1995 with the broad aim of investigating the full history of human

settlement and land-use within a ‘typical’ parish in NW Norfolk. Sedgeford,

presently a small village, is situated 6km south of the North Sea and 5km east

of the Wash (see Fig.1).

1.1.2 Archaeological evidence can now demonstrate that people have lived in and

exploited the study area for thousands of years. For example, there are remains

of both Roman and Iron Age settlements, and many earlier artefacts, such as

Neolithic flint tools. A fuller summary of the projects findings can be found at

http://www.heritage.norfolk.gov.uk/SingleResult.aspx?uid='TNF1540'.

1.1.3 Over the thirteen-year life of the project the wider aim of recovering ‘a full

history of human settlement and land-use’ has been refined into various more

specific research avenues: for example, exploring the development of the

present day village. Sedgeford village lies in a fertile valley in the belt of chalk

covering this area, with a small east-west aligned river, the Heacham River,

running to the south of the built-up area (see Fig.1). The village is recorded in

the Domesday Book in 1086 and the round tower of the parish church -

potentially of 11th

century date - is the oldest standing building in the parish.

In order to investigate the development of modern Sedgeford (located roughly

in the centre of the parish), a survey of the Medieval parish church,

excavations within the Late Saxon and post-Conquest settlement focus of

West Hall, and a test-pit survey of the present day village have been

undertaken.

1.1.4 However, the main research focus has been into the origins of the Late Saxon

and post-Conquest settlement located at West Hall. This has consisted –in the

main- of an investigation of a site to the south of the Heacham River and on


10

the opposite side of the valley to the present village. This site, known as the

Boneyard-Reeddam (NHER 1607 and 1605), contains a Middle-Late Saxon

cemetery in which peripheral zones of an associated Middle-Late Saxon

settlement have also been observed. The Boneyard-Reeddam site had

previously been noted as early as 1913, and was partially observed during

excavations in 1957 and 1958. A number of interim summaries of SHARP’s

work at this site have already been provided (see, for example, Cabot, Davies

and Hoggett, 2004, 313-324). Key discoveries include a Christian cemetery

with Middle Saxon origins, and at least three land-use phases of Middle-Late

Saxon ditches and structures.

1.1.5 In 2007, SHARP’s excavations in the Boneyard field were brought to a

conclusion, with a significant sample of the population remains retrieved,

some of the dynamics of the cemetery/ settlement observed, and the 1957-8

excavations fully relocated and incorporated into the 1996-2007 observations.

This phase of works is now in the post-excavation analysis stage. As a result, a

new angle to the research in to the origins of the village was required,

particularly to address some of the key questions raised by the cemetery

excavations; namely, what was the nature of the associated settlement.

1.2 Chalkpit Field: NHER 1079

1.2.1 Due to an abundance of surface finds of shell and pottery, it has been

suspected - since the 1970’s – that the northern extent of the field immediately

south of the Boneyard, Chalkpit field (NHER 1079), is the main focus of

Middle-Late Saxon settlement activity. Because of this, and because of a

desire to investigate the origins and development of the Middle Saxon

settlement, Chalkpit field was chosen by SHARP as the target for further

investigation.

1.2.2 Chalk Pit Field - so-called due to the presence of a now disused post-medieval

chalk pit in the north east corner of the field- lies on rising ground to the south

of the village (with a low point of c.22m AOD) and at the top of the southern


11

slope of the Heacham River valley (see Fig.1). The northern field boundary

lies immediately south of the excavated Saxon settlement and cemetery within

Boneyard Field (NHER 1607), although an east-west aligned apparently post-

medieval track separates the two fields. The underlying geology of Chalkpit

field is characterised by degraded chalk overlain by sand and gravel.

1.2.3 Previous finds from NHER 1079 (recorded as early as 1974) include a surface

artefact scatter of Roman and, predominantly, Anglo-Saxon pottery, including

Ipswich ware, Thetford ware and a rim sherd of an imported Badorf ware

pitcher now held at Norwich Castle Museum (Hodges, 1981, 43).

1.2.4 Since 1989, surface finds relating to a Roman farmstead (subsequently

excavated in 2005 and 2006 by SHARP) have been retrieved at the southern

extent of Chalkpit field. This settlement focus is, however, discrete from the

Saxon remains, and does not join with the settlement evidence (which includes

Roman surface finds) observed at the northern extent of Chalkpit field.

1.2.5 In 1991 Anglia Water laid a water pipe alongside the metalled track bounding

the east and south sides of Boneyard field, abutting the northern extent of

Chalkpit field. During this work the Norfolk Archaeological Unit carried out a

watching brief to identify and record any archaeological features within the

area. In the course of this watching brief, the Norfolk Archaeological Unit

excavated three areas along the path of the pipeline. In the eastern area, the

remains of ditches/gullies and spreads of occupation material were recovered,

whilst to the west an oval oven/kiln, possibly dating to the Middle Saxon

period, was recovered (Bates, 1991). This evidence confirmed the presence of

settlement evidence in Chalkpit field, as well as the absence of cemetery

evidence.

1.2.6 In 1996-7 and 2002, fieldwalking by SHARP further revealed a significant

surface scatter of Ipswich Ware and Thetford ware in an area extending

c.100m south of the northern end of Chalk Pit Field (reproduced in the

Fieldwalking section of this report). The surface pottery scatter appeared to

peter out towards both the north-east and north-west corners of the field, and


12

certainly does not run into West Hall field located to the west of Chalkpit field

(south of the West Hall settlement focus).

1.3 Aims and Method: The 2007/8 Evaluation Project

1.3.1 Interestingly (and as the fieldwalking evidence below suggests) the surface

material located at Chalkpit does not continue significantly into the Medieval

period. This had previously led to speculation about the sites Late Saxon

trajectory, especially when coupled with the apparent emergence of late Saxon

West Hall and the subsequent settlement on the north side of the Heacham

river valley (Davies, Faulkner and Hatton, 2007). A number of potential

reasons behind the apparent ‘failure’ of the BYD/Chalkpit site have already

been postulated, ranging from changes in the landowning rural elites to the

flooding of the river valley. It was felt that new data from Chalkpit field might

provide some answers to this central research question, whilst also acting as an

ideal platform with which to start to narrate the settlement character and

trajectory

1.3.2 Since April 2007, therefore, further archaeological investigation has been

undertaken by SHARP at the northern end of Chalk Pit Field, with the

overarching aims of better understanding the character, chronology and extent

of the Middle-Late Saxon settlement. It was decided that the best way to

initially achieve this aim was to undertake a combined program of

fieldwalking and geophysical survey, and follow this up with sub-surface test

trenches.

1.3.3 In April 2007 and April 2008, a geophysical survey (magnetometry) was

undertaken by SHARP over a rectangular area of (200m east-west and 120m

north-south) running parallel to the northern extent of Chalk Pit Field and

encompassing the observed surface artefact scatter (see Fieldwalking section

below). In July and August 2007, SHARP then carried out a trench evaluation

(five trenches) over the northern extent of the previously observed surface

artefact scatter and geophysical anomalies. The aim of this evaluation was to


13

attempt to understand the character, chronology and condition of the sub-

surface archaeological features relating to the Middle-Late Saxon settlement,

whilst also testing the reliability of the geophysical survey. This report is a

write-up of these investigations to date.

1.3.4 However, it was also hoped that this evaluation would not only help to start

the characterization of the Saxon settlement remains at Sedgeford, but also

provide valuable information with which to enable Sedgeford to later be

situated in a much wider context of ongoing research into to Anglo-Saxon

settlements in Norfolk that the author is exploring as part of PHD research.

1.3.5 This research has identified a number of issues that a study of early medieval

rural settlement and economy in Norfolk must confront. Most importantly, we

can go little further in our understanding of economic, political and social

dynamics until further data collection and high quality survey is undertaken at

settlements sites are better. Particular issues include an unevenness of

archaeological fieldwork (often concentrating on apparent high-status sites), a

lack of critical approaches to changing settlement morphologies, and an

absence of quantitative analyses of material culture profiles.

1.3.6 In particular, new research into early medieval settlement archaeology must

seek explanations for the introduction of boundaries and changes to functional

zones at sites, which, although not necessarily involving a comprehensive re-

shuffling of settlements within the landscape, does perhaps reflect important

social changes. These above problems are particularly prominent in the case of

artefact scatter sites interpreted as seasonal markets or fairs and labelled as

‘productive’ sites (Pestell and Ulmschneider 2003).

1.3.7 In addition, changing material culture profiles must also be comprehensively

explored in conjunction with settlement morphologies. This is especially

pertinent if it is considered that communities and individuals might define

their identities in a number of different ways through trade and exchange

activities according to both social position and geographical location.

Subsequent data analysis and interpretation needs to ground its narrative in,


14

and define its settlement hierarchies by, observed material realities; not

historical labels or modern ‘value free’ classificatory terms.

1.3.8 So, in summary, a simple but vital research agenda can be cited that the

Chalkpit evaluation project will, in part, help to address:

● The settlement hierarchy of North West Norfolk could be defined in relation

to its changing involvement in the wider economic, political and social spheres

of trade and exchange.

● Observed changes in both settlement morphologies and material culture

profiles need to be considered before arriving at newly defined settlement

hierarchies.

● Therefore, new investigations -and reappraisals of existing- settlement

morphologies and material culture profiles (including quantitative analysis of

full material culture profiles) need to be undertaken.

● Problems of interpretation due to an uneven coverage of archaeological

fieldwork and differing levels of preservation/ visibility need to be confronted

NH

ER

10

79

: A

rchae

olo

gic

al E

val

uati

on o

f C

halk

pit

Fie

ld,

20

07

-8

33

Figure 1: Site Location, showing Sedgeford in the UK and the location of Chalkpit field (NHER 1079).

Chalkpit

Field

Colour map extracts © Crown copyright 2008 Ordnance

Survey. Licence Number 100046977.


33

2. The Geophysical survey by Grid Nine Geophysics

2.1 Introduction

2.1.2 Grid Nine Geophysics were commissioned by Mr Gareth Davies acting on

behalf of the Sedgeford Historical And Archaeological Project (SHARP) to

carry out a detailed gradiometer survey of part of a field known as ‘Chalk Pit

Field’ in advance of the SHARP summer 2007 and 2008 excavation seasons.

Previous limited work in Chalk Pit Field (see background above) had identified

archaeological features.

2.1.3 The site works and reporting conform to current national guidelines, as set out in

the Institute for Field Archaeologists ‘Standards and guidance for

archaeological evaluations’ (IFA 2001) and the English Heritage document

‘Geophysical Survey in Archaeological Field Evaluation’ (David 1995).

2.2 Methodology

2.2.1 A Level II magnetometer survey (Gaffney and Gater 1993) using a fluxgate

gradiometer was chosen as the most appropriate geophysical technique to use.

This was due to the nature of the potential archaeology likely to be exposed

within the survey area and the sedimentary geology of the site (David, 1995).

2.2.2 The combinations of the superficial and solid geologies found on the site are

known to give variable to good results from magnetic surveying. The colluvial

deposits can give variable results depending on the depth and nature of the

anomaly, and chalks usually respond well, as do most sedimentary parents

(Gaffney and Gater, 2003, Clark, 1996).

2.2.3 The geology, being chalk, sand and gravel overlain by colluvium, is common,

and results from magnetic surveys encountering these geologies are well

documented. Many survey reports encountering these geologies are held by the

English Heritage Geophysical Survey Database.


17

2.2.4 Magnetic surveying measures very small changes in the Earth's magnetic field

which can be created by anthropogenic activity or geological changes in the

magnetic properties of the soil and/or underlying geology.

2.2.5 Magnetic surveying can usually detect magnetically enhanced features such as

areas of occupation, pits, ditches, hearths and kilns, but also will react to buried

'modern' items such as nails, agricultural equipment fragments, wire fences and

generally any ferrous material in the immediate area. The geology of the site

can play an important role in how successful a magnetic survey will be. If the

local geology is inherently magnetic then it may not be practicable or possible to

undertake a magnetic survey. Similarly, buried services can have an adverse

effect on the data. Magnetic surveying is non-intrusive.

2.2.6 The magnetic ‘signature’ from certain anomalies, for example from a ditch or

kiln, is often very characteristic to that type of known feature. This can assist

with providing an informed, but quantative rather than qualitative interpretation

to certain anomalies.

2.2.7 The survey was carried out using a Bartington Grad601-2 Dual Fluxgate

Gradiometer with an onboard automatic DL601 data logger. This instrument is a

highly stable magnetometer which utilises two vertically aligned fluxgates, one

positioned 1m above the other. This arrangement is then duplicated and

separated by a 1m cross bar. The 1m vertical spacing of the fluxgates provides

for deeper anomaly detection capabilities than 0.5m spaced fluxgates. The dual

arrangement allows for rapid assessment of the archaeological potential of the

site. Data storage from the two fluxgate pairs is automatically combined into one

file and stored using the onboard data logger.

2.3 Summary of survey parameters

Instrument: Bartington Grad601-2 Dual Fluxgate Gradiometer

Sample interval: 0.25m


18

Traverse interval: 1.00m

Traverse separation: 1.00m

Traverse method: Zigzag

Resolution: 0.1 nT

Processing software: ArchaeoSurveyor 2

Weather conditions: Dry and overcast

Surface conditions: Agricultural. Ploughed, rolled and recently seeded

Area surveyed: Approximately 5 hectares

Surveyors David Charles Hibbitt PIFA and Angela Hazel Hibbitt

Data interpretation: David Charles Hibbitt PIFA

2.4 Data collection and processing

2.4.1 The survey area was marked out with a 20m x 20m grid aligned north – south.

Any enhancements to the magnetic field caused by buried features are mapped

increasingly stronger the closer the traverse direction can get to a magnetic north

– south direction (Scollar, 1990). Data was collected by making successive

parallel traverses across each grid in a zigzag pattern, as close to a magnetic

north – south alignment as practicable.

2.4.2 The survey was undertaken in three stints. Originally a rectangular area 30m

south of the northern field boundary (c. 170m x 40m) was surveyed in advance

of the 2007 excavations (Survey 1, 2007). SHARP then requested an additional

20m x 140m transect to be surveyed parallel with the northern boundary across

most of the width of Chalk Pit Field (Survey 2, 2007). Finally, further surveying

was requested to the south of the previous survey areas 1 and 2 area (Survey 3,

2008). Unfortunately it was impossible to seamlessly match the three surveys

due to the different alignments and traverse directions. For this reason the data is

presented as a composite image of the three surveys rather than combined raw

data (see Fig. 3).

2.4.3 The data collected from the survey has been analysed using the current version

of ArchaeoSurveyor 2. The resulting data set plot is presented with positive nT


19

mapped as black and negative nT mapped as white. The data has been corrected

and processed using the following filters:

• De-spike

• De-stripe (Zero Mean Traverse or ZMT)

• De-stagger

2.4.4 The de-spike process is used to remove spurious or extreme high intensity

anomalies or datapoint values, often caused by ferrous objects, which may affect

subsequent filter use, data enhancement and interpretation.

2.4.5 The de-stripe process is used to equalise underlying differences between grids.

Differences are most often caused by directional effects inherent to magnetic

surveying instruments, instrument drift, instrument orientation (such as off-axis

surveying or heading errors) and delays between surveying adjacent grids. The

destripe process is used with care as it can sometimes have an adverse effect on

linear features that run parallel to the orientation of the process.

2.4.6 The de-stagger process compensates for data collection errors by the operator.

Such errors can be caused by unsuitable or uneven surface conditions, such as a

ploughed site or a very windy hillside, where the operator may start recording

traverses too soon or too late.

2.4.7 Plots of the data are presented in processed linear greyscale (with ZMT and de-

spiking applied and interpolated), in trace plot form and as a separate simplified

graphic summary showing the main magnetic anomalies detected (David, 1995).

2.5 Results

2.5.1 The results are presented in Figures 2-5. The subsequent excavation of several of

the identified features by SHARP has enabled a qualitative element to be

introduced in the interpretation of certain anomalies.


20

2.5.2 The results are dominated by a series of positive linear/curvi-linear ditch-type

anomalies, many of which are flanked by faint negative responses, and are

suggestive of enclosure ditches, boundary ditches and other ditch/cut features.

The most striking of these are [1] and [1a], which together appear to represent a

substantial enclosure ditch. The magnitude of this response, varying between

8nT to 10nT, is suggestive of a fill of considerably higher magnetic

susceptibility than the surrounding parent soil suggestive of habitation and/or a

semi-industrial process. The north east continuation of [1] has been truncated by

the chalk pit, and the relationship between [1] and [1a] to the east appears to be

masked by slope wash deposits. It is unclear whether they actually join or

continue as separate anomalies. Several marginally less prominent linear and

curvi-linear anomalies with magnitudes ranging between 4nT to 10nT are [2] [3]

[4] and [5]. These anomalies may represent internal management of the enclosed

land, such as ditches to manage livestock, droveways or tracks.

2.5.3 The modern ploughing trend can be seen running approximately east – west over

the majority of the survey area and is represented in the data as thin, well

defined positive and negative striations. Examples have been noted by [6] and

[6a]. These anomalies arise from the topsoil voids and also as a slight

topographical effect due to the uneven surface.

2.5.4 Several areas of magnetic disturbance [7 ~7c] have been recorded. The cause of

[7] is a ferrous inspection chamber cover to a sewerage main, [7a] is the

response to a well used and rutted farm track, [7b] is magnetic interference from

a boundary fence with a ferrous content and [7c] is a deep furrow between ‘bird

cover’ and crop.

2.5.5 A number of faint linear positive ditch-type anomalies of varying magnitude,

possibly suggesting ditches of one or more phases of activity are evident

throughout the northern half of the survey area. The strongest of these being [8]

with a peak magnitude of 8nT. The fainter linear anomalies vary between 1-3nT.

This area also generally has more magnetic noise than the southern half of the

survey (see conclusions).


21

2.5.6 Three broad but faint curvilinear anomalies [9], [10] and [11] are evident within

the survey area. The ephemeral nature and relatively low magnitude of [9] and

[10] would usually give rise to a geomorphological feature being given as the

most likely explanation. However, part of anomaly [11] was subsequently

excavated (see Trench results below) and was interpreted as a ditch on the

periphery of the settlement. The fill contained little in the way of magnetically

enhanced material other than a few pottery sherds which could explain the

ephemeral nature of the response. Based on the excavation evidence it is

probable that [9] and [10] may also be ditches with a fill of slightly higher

magnetically enhanced material than the surrounding parent soil.

2.5.7 The ephemeral nature and weak magnetic response may be an example of the

‘habitation effect’ where a progressive weakening of magnetic responses to

certain anomalies can be observed the further away from the core of the

site/settlement the survey goes (after Gaffney and Gater, 2003).

2.5.8 Visible throughout the data are a number of positive magnetic anomalies which

may represent pits or similar features. Although the general magnitude of these

anomalies varies between c.3-10nT, there are several with a much stronger

magnitude. The magnitude of anomalies [12 ~12b] is approximately 15nT, and

[12c] is approximately 20nT. These high magnitudes suggest a fill of

considerably higher magnetically enhanced material than the surrounding soil,

possibly as the result of settlement or a semi-industrial use.

2.5.9 One particularly strong positive response worthy of note is anomaly [13]. This

anomaly has an intense magnetic response of 200nT to -2500nT. This anomaly

may be of archaeological interest, but the cause being localised and/or fairly

deep ferrous or fired detritus should not be ruled out.

2.5.10 An enigmatic cluster of five strong positive pit-type anomalies [14~14d] have

been detected in the south east corner of the survey, apparently outside the main

area of activity. Anomaly [14] has a peak response around 20nT, anomaly [14a]

is the strongest, peaking at around 30nT and is the only anomaly of the cluster to

be accompanied by a fairly strong negative response of -8nT. The trace data may


22

tentatively show a ‘double peak’ which would be indicative of a feature such as

a kiln or other feature exposed to high temperatures. Anomalies [14b ~ 14d]

have peak positive responses of 10nT, 15nT and 8nT respectively. The strong

magnetic responses from all these anomalies are suggestive of a fill of

considerably higher magnetically enhanced material. Although these anomalies

could be of archaeological interest a geomorphological cause should not be ruled

out without further investigation being undertaken.

2.5.11 A plethora of dipolar responses have been recorded scattered randomly

throughout the survey. The characteristic dipolar response consisting of positive

and negative ‘spikes’ suggests near-surface ferrous or highly fired material

(Clarke 1996).

2.6 Survey Specific Conclusions

2.6.1 The geophysical survey has revealed a plethora of linear, curvilinear, pit-type

and ditch-type anomalies likely to be associated with anthropogenic activity. The

majority of the anomalies appear to be concentrated in the northern half of the

survey area together with a general spread of responses throughout the survey

area. The apparent concentration of anomalies to the north may represent one or

more phases of settlement, possibly associated with the adjacent Boneyard Field

to the north.

2.6.2 The strong prominent ditch-type anomaly may possibly represent a substantial

boundary or enclosure ditch associated with one or more phases of activity, and

possibly part of the settlement alluded to in 2.6.1. The findings of recent

excavations help support this hypothesis.

2.6.3 Several of the anomalies appear to be truncated and/or cut by other anomalies,

and there is supporting excavation evidence for the re-cutting of some of the

ditches. This is strongly suggestive of a number of phases of anthropogenic

activity on the site.


23

2.6.4 The dating of linear and curvilinear anomalies by geophysical means alone is

problematic and fraught with difficulties. If the linear and curvilinear anomalies

represent ditches associated with anthropogenic activity then they may have

followed the same course for hundreds or possibly thousands of years (after

Gaffney & Gater, 2003). However, the supportive material (including dated

pottery from secure contexts) generated by the ongoing research and excavations

of SHARP would strongly suggest that the majority of anomalies on the site date

to the Anglo-Saxon period. This would make it probable that the site is

associated with the Anglo-Saxon burial ground to the north.

2.7 Effectiveness of methodology

2.7.1 The non-intrusive methodology employed was appropriate to the scale and

nature of the project. The site responded well to magnetic surveying and the

survey has shown that anomalies exist that are of potential archaeological

interest.

2.7.2 As mentioned above, the dating of linear and curvilinear anomalies by

geophysical means alone is problematic and fraught with difficulties. Other

available sources of information, such as crop mark interpretations and

excavation data should always be used where possible to further the potential of

suggested function and dates for anomalies to be made with an element of

confidence.

2.7.3 Although magnetic surveying is usually the preferred method for the majority of

surveying of this kind (David, 1995) there are well documented limitations of

the survey technique. The use of resistance surveying over the most intense

areas of activity, and also over the tentative magnetic anomalies identified by

the magnetic survey may possibly help to define the anomalies further, and

possibly provide further information on their origin. However, the

presence/absence and date of these anomalies can only be confirmed by

intrusive means resulting in feature identification and classification.

NH

ER

10

79

: A

rchae

olo

gic

al E

val

uati

on o

f C

halk

pit

Fie

ld,

20

07

-8

33

Figure 2 : Location of the Chalkpit North 2007-8 survey on 1:10,000 Ordnance Survey base mapping

500 m

etre

s

Map extracts © Crown copyright 2008 Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved.

NH

ER

10

79

: A

rchae

olo

gic

al E

val

uati

on o

f C

halk

pit

Fie

ld,

20

07

-8

33

Figure 3: Processed greyscale linear plot with ZMT and despike applied (composite image)

100 m

etre

s

NH

ER

10

79

: A

rchae

olo

gic

al E

val

uati

on o

f C

halk

pit

Fie

ld,

20

07

-8

33

Figure 4: Trace plot of processed data (composite image)

100 m

etre

s 10 n

T

NH

ER

10

79

: A

rchae

olo

gic

al E

val

uati

on o

f C

halk

pit

Fie

ld,

20

07

-8

33

Figure 5: Interpretation of results

100 m

etre

s


33

3. The Fieldwalking

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 Fieldwalking and metaldetecting has been carried out throughout the life of

SHARP, and Chalkpit field has perhaps received the most attention of any of

the fields within the parish. Campaigns of fieldwalking have been undertaken

at Chalkpit field by SHARP in 1996-7 and 2002, covering the entire field

(approximately ten hectares) (see Fig. 1 for overall location).

3.1.2 The original fieldwalking surveys (accompanied by some metal detecting)

were carried out under the supervision of John Ames (1996-7) and Sophie

Cabot, Gareth Davies and Rik Hoggett (2002). The data reproduced here is

essentially the data from the northern portion of those surveys. Figs. 6-8 are

directly from the SHARP interim report of 1996, and Fig. 9 is the 1996-7 and

2002 data overlain onto the 2007-8 geophysics results.

3.2 Methodology and Conditions

3.2.1 SHARP has employed a two-tier surface collection methodology. The first,

and more commonly employed, method is surface evaluation using transects.

With this method, transect lines are set-up at 20m intervals across the width of

a field. The transects are divided into collection units 20m in length and the

fieldwalker is instructed to observe the surface of the field 1m each side of the

transect line (a total observation width of 2m). This is effectively a 10%

sample of field’s surface and should produce a representative result. This

method is a good way of quickly assessing the presence or absence of artefact

scatters of interest, but is less subtle as a method of characterising those

scatters. This method is approved by Norfolk Landscape Archaeology.

3.2.2 The second method employed by SHARP is reserved for identified sites where

concentrations of finds are expected. This involves gridding out the site into

20 X 20 m squares and walking each grid in a zig-zag manner, effectively

providing a 100% sample of the field. This technique allows for maximum


29

artefact retrieval and analysis of artefact scatters, but does not easily provide

extensive coverage. Metal detecting may also be carried out within the 20 x

20m grids (as was the case both in 1996/7 and 2002 in Chalkpit field).

3.2.3 Two further controls are employed by SHARP during both the transect and

grid based fieldwalking techniques. Firstly, all artefacts are picked-up

including items such as modern pottery and ceramic building material.

Secondly, the time spent in each individual collection unit is kept consistent

(ten minutes is the standard collection time for both fieldwalking pick-up and

metaldetecting). The aim with these controls is to make the observed results as

quantifiable and comparable as possible, given that volunteers of vastly

different skill profiles are involved in the fieldwork.

3.2.4 Field conditions and areas covered are recorded on a daily basis using SHARP

proformas. During October 1996 the field was sown but free from crop and

well weathered, providing optimum conditions. In April 1997 the field had a

little crop growth (wheat) but was well weathered, providing good visibility

conditions. The field conditions were identical in April 2002, and confidence

is high that the observed artefact distributions are a good reflection of

archaeological reality.

3.2.5 The 20 x 20m grid method was adopted for the fieldwalking in the northern

extent of Chalkpit field (area shown in Figure 6) as it was expected that a high

density of finds would be forthcoming. The central portion and southern extent

of Chalkpit field, where Roman pottery was found (not included in this

report), was only covered by the transect method. The results, presented on

Figures 6-9 are now discussed.

3.3 Results

3.3.1 As figures 6 and 7 show, within the intensive survey area a high density of

finds were observed apparently indicative of artefact discard relating to a

settlement focus. The main categories of artefacts (including Anglo-Saxon

pottery and oyster shell) appeared to have clear east, west and south


30

boundaries, suggesting that the limits of the artefact scatter had been

identified. Finds included various ceramic fabrics, oyster shell and occasional

metal detected finds.

Figure 6: Field walking results and location of grid-based survey

3.3.2 The earliest identified pottery was Romano-British, primarily grey wares. A

total of ten sherds were recovered, as well as a single fragment of tegulae (tile)


31

(see Fig. 6). The distribution is concentrated to towards the west of the

observed artefact scatter and may not relate to the Anglo-Saxon scatters. The

amount of material recovered is not enough to indicate a concentrated

settlement focus and may reflect the manuring of agricultural land.

3.3.3 Three sherds of potentially Early Saxon pottery were recovered towards the

centre-east of the observed artefact scatter (see Fig. 6). Little can be said about

Early Saxon occupation from this limited evidence. It is possible that the

‘Early Saxon pottery’ recovered is actually the handmade element of a Middle

Saxon assemblage (see pottery report below).

3.3.4 Two distinctive types of pottery produced a large majority of the fieldwalking

finds. The first significant scatter was Ipswich Ware (dating to between c.720

and a total of 24 sherds were recovered (see Fig.6). Concentrations of Ipswich

ware loss were restricted towards the east and northwest of the observed

artefact scatter, perhaps representing buried middens or concentrations of

archaeological features.

3.3.5 The second significant artefact scatter was Thetford -type wares (c.850-1100

AD) and a total of 162 sherds were recovered, many with thumb impressed

and roulette -decorated rims (see Fig.7). Thetford ware loss covered much of

the northern extent of Chalkpit field, but was particularly abundant towards

the western extent of the observed artefact scatter; suggesting concentrated

activity in this part of the Late Saxon settlement. In addition, there seemed to

be a clear east-west aligned end to the area of concentrated artefact loss

approximately 100m south of the northern field boundary. Other diagnostic

Late Saxon finds were also recovered by metal detecting and include, a Late

Saxon Borre style brooch (depicted on the front cover of this report), a ring

and a pair of shears (Fig. 8, similar to an subsequently item found in the 2007

evaluation, see Finds below). However, it is important to note that, despite the

recovery of artefacts from the Chalkpit fieldwalking survey, quantities of

metal finds were sparse in comparison to a number of other known Norfolk

sites (see for example, Hutcheson, 2007).


32

Figure 7: Field walking results

3.3.6 Medieval pottery was also recovered from the northern extent of Chalkpit

field, consisting of unglazed Grimston ware (3 sherds), glazed Grimston ware

(16 sherds), and tile (5 fragments). Glazed pottery was concentrated to the

north and west of the observed artefact scatter, but overall quantities of


33

Medieval material are vastly reduced in comparison to Late Saxon material,

suggesting cultivation of agricultural land and nothing more.

3.3.7 Finally, potentially significant scatter of Oyster shell was observed and

collected (see Fig.7). The concentrated loss of oyster shell seems to mirror the

concentrations of Late Saxon Thetford ware, with well defined western and

southern extents (although the eastern extent of the scatter may continue

beyond the northeast extent of Chalkpit field). Interestingly, the concentrated

area of Oyster shell loss also seems to end approximately 100m south of the

northern field of Chalkpit field.

Figure 8: Late Saxon shears found during 1996-7 fieldwalking

Figure 9: Fieldwalking overlain onto Geophysics

(see next page)

NH

ER

10

79

: A

rchae

olo

gic

al E

val

uati

on o

f C

halk

pit

Fie

ld,

20

07

-8

33

Early Saxon Pot

Oyster shell

Late Saxon Pot

Middle Saxon

Pot

Figure 9: Fieldwalking overlain onto Geophysics


33

3.4 Fieldwalking and Geophysics: Interpretation

3.4.1 The combined geophysical (magnetometry) and fieldwalking survey revealed

a huge amount of new information about the potential settlement remains at

Chalkpit Field North (NHER 1079). Most importantly, a number of very clear

geophysical anomalies were recovered, indicative of multiple phases of

enclosure ditches diagnostic of the southern extent of a settlement, covering an

area in the region of 4 hectares. It was also encouraging that the Anglo-Saxon

surface artefact scatters seemed to directly overlay some of the most intensely

ditched areas observed during the magnetometer survey. It also seems clear

that the southern extent of the settlement has indeed been observed, although

interestingly no ‘off-site’ halo of pottery indicative of a manuring scatter away

from the intense settlement focus was observed.

3.4.2 On current evidence, the overwhelming quantities of surface artefacts dating to

the Middle-Late Saxon period might suggest that most of the geophysical

anomalies are also Middle-Late Saxon features. Although, as the Early Saxon

period is generally impoverished in terms of artefact loss at settlements, some

caution must be exercised. However, it is additionally possible to attribute the

small amount of material identified as Early Saxon with a potential Middle

Saxon date. This supports the notion, already discussed in relation to the

Boneyard excavations, that the Middle Saxon site on Boneyard-Reeddam-

Chalkpit North represents a sudden development, and that settlement evidence

in Sedgeford dating to between the 4th

and 7th

century remains unknown

(Davies, Hatton and Faulkner, 2007, 238).

3.4.3 Prior to sub-surface investigation of the survey area (partially addressed by the

trial trenching exercise presented below), conclusions must remain

conjectural. However, at this stage it is already possible to make a number of

observations from the morphological and material culture remains about the

potential settlement character.


36

3.4.4 Within the observed settlement spread of geophysical anomalies, there seems

to be at least two or three discrete functional zones. However, as has been

previously observed in relation to the Boneyard excavations, the observed

features may not be broadly contemporaneous. For example, within the

Boneyard excavation area, at least three phases of cut features (such as

drainage ditches) have been identified as dating from the early eighth century

through to the Late Saxon (potentially Eleventh century) period (Cabot,

Davies and Hoggett, 2004, 316). Some of these excavated features (contra to

an earlier presented interpretation (ibid.)) are certainly contemporaneous with

the Boneyard cemetery activity.

3.4.5 Features of contrasting date can provide important information on the

significance of continuity and change in the organisation of space within the

settlement through time. The potential functional zones and sequence observed

in the Chalkpit field survey must now be considered in this way. The numbers

cited refer to those attributed in section 2 of this report, above.

3.4.6 Firstly, the settlement seems to be bounded and ‘framed’ at its southern extent

by a large curvilinear enclosure ditch (1) that surrounds the flattish ‘table-like’

platform within chalk pit field. This enclosure ditch appears to have a major,

apparently contemporaneous, sub division (1a), running on a broadly east-west

alignment c.70m south of the northern boundary of Chalkpit field. The large

curvilinear ditch, best interpreted as a large stock enclosure, seems to be

largely free of concentrated ditching activity and also concentrated artefact

loss (with the exception of an area within the northern extent of the enclosure

(see comments on (4) and (5) below)), but is nevertheless a significant

landscape feature. It is possible that enclosure (1) marks the southern

boundary of the intense settlement focus from the Middle Saxon period

onwards. Exact parallels to the Sedgeford ‘stock enclosure’ are not easily

forthcoming, largely due to the fact that observations of settlement features on

a landscape scale such as this are rare. However, this set piece (as opposed to

‘organically developed’) type of enclosure is small in comparison to high

status Early-Middle Saxon parallels (e.g. it is comparable to the smallest

enclosure at Milfield, Northumberland (Scull and Harding, 1990), and larger


37

than those observed at potential ‘freeman’ settlements such as Bramford,

Suffolk (Caruth, 1995).

3.4.7 Secondly, if east-west boundary (1a) – because it defines the extent of the

settlement and frames its axes - is created as early as the Middle Saxon period,

then the ephemeral co-axial pattern of possible ditches observed to the north of

it (unnumbered in the Geophysical survey section, but as far east as (7a) and as

far west as (11)) may also date to the Middle Saxon period onwards. It is

particularly interesting, therefore, that concentrated artefact loss of a Middle

Saxon date is restricted to this area, (particularly within the areas to the north

and east of the area north of boundary) (1a).

3.4.8 Furthermore, the density of anomalies (including anomalies of slightly

contrasting alignments) north of boundary (1a), combined with abundant Late

Saxon artefact loss (Thetford wares) suggests that this is a zone of sustained

settlement activity. Such, co-axial patterns of potential Middle-Late Saxon

settlement plots (c.20m square in size) have been observed at a number of

other sites. For example, at Wicken Bonhunt, Essex (Wade, 1980) and North

Elmham, Norfolk (Wade Martins, 1980) planned settlements with linear plot

arrangements develop around large linear ditches (Reynolds, 2003, 130) such

as (1a). A degree of planning is therefore implied at Middle-Late Saxon

Sedgeford, but perhaps not to the degree as is visible with very high status

settlements (ibid. 106-8).

3.4.9 Sustained settlement activity north of boundary (1a) is further indicated by the

surface artefact scatter of oyster shell. An abundance of oyster shell loss has

been observed by the author at other Saxon settlement foci in Norfolk, for

example, at Burnham Market (NHER28127). At Burnham Market it has been

suggested that dense spreads of oyster shell, coinciding with dark soil spreads,

may represent ploughed-out surface rubbish middens, as identified below

ground at a number of excavated sites (e.g. Flixborough, Loveluck, 2007).

3.4.10 Thirdly, the settlement zone north of boundary (1a) is additionally of interest

due to the fact that there appears to be some potential for functional zonation,


38

as indicated by discrete potential industrial features (features 13, 12 and 12a),

something already observed further to the west with the discovery of a Middle

Saxon oven (Bates, 1991). A discrete industrial zone might also be postulated

at the Middle-Late Saxon settlement at Creake Road, Burnham Market

(Percival and Williamson, 2005, 82). Clearly, excavation is required to date

the Sedgeford features to Middle or Late Saxon activity phases (see below).

Furthermore, a cautionary note is provided by two Late Saxon coins that were

also recovered from this part of this survey area (see Finds and Discussion

below) that potentially provide evidence for different settlement functions

(especially considering that Late Saxon coinage finds are in general not

abundant in Norfolk (see Discussion and Conclusion section below).

3.4.11 Fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, in contrast to the potential ‘stock

enclosure’ (1) and the Middle-Late Saxon ‘co-axial’ (or rectilinear) settlement

focus (north of (1a)) discussed above, there is also clear evidence provided by

the geophysical survey for further features that are clearly of a different land-

use phase and character. Of particular note are features 4 (with 5 internal), 3/2,

10/8 and possibly 9/11) which are now discussed.

3.4.12 Boundary (4) is a wnw-ese aligned presumed ditch, that abuts to a longer

north-south aligned boundary ditch (2)/(3). Boundary ditch (4) is located

c.30m south of east-west boundary (1a), and boundary ditch (2)/(3), is located

20m to the west of the eastern arm of enclosure (1), mirroring its alignment. It

is tempting to view boundaries (4) and (2)/(3) as a sub division of the larger

stock enclosure (1). Ditch (3) also has a further apparent double ditch (5)

running-off it on a northwest to southeast alignment. This double ditch, best

interpreted as a droveway, is important as it clearly truncates east-west

boundary (1a). If droveway (5) is broadly contemporaneous to enclosure sub-

division (3) then it suggests that later in the settlements life, there is a

potentially significant replanning of the settlement; potentially to incorporate

droveways. In addition, there are other features that share a common

alignment with potential droveway (5), including potential ditches (10) and

(8). These features might also represent later phases of ditched boundaries or


39

droveways north of boundary (1a), perhaps indicating functional changes in

the previous densly enclosed settlement zone.

3.4.13 Additionally, the area created between boundaries (4), (3) and (1a) seems to

incorporate a dense area of geophysical activity, potentially pitting. This area

also represents a southern extension of concentrated artefact loss (particularly

Late Saxon Thetford ware) beyond the southern extent of east-west boundary

(1a). If, as suggested by the potential stratigraphic relationship between (1a)

and (5), this is a zone of later settlement following the introduction of

droveways, then there might be interesting future observations to make about

changes in functional zones if this area of the site is excavated. The

implication, with the presence of the possible droveways, is that we are

looking at least one major settlement replanning, and that perhaps this is

reflecting changes in Late Saxon settlement/agricultural practice (see

Discussion and Conclusion section below). Possible boundaries (9), (6) and

(11) observed during the geophysical survey are also potentially spatially

related to boundary (4) and may also belong to this period of occupation.

3.4.14 Fifthly, in the south west of the geophysical survey, a number of positive

magnetic enigmatic anomalies were identified in the south-east corner of the

survey (14-14d) that cannot be ruled out as archaeological features. It is just

possible that these features are surface rubbish middens that contain high

temperature waste. If this is the case, then (as with the oyster shell and dark

soil spread north of (1a)) it is potential evidence for the use of surface

middens at Sedgeford - in contrast to the potential use of pits (e.g. (5)) – for

the disposal of settlement waste. Contrasting practices of rubbish disposal are

a potentially useful window onto changing social situations. For example,

surface middens might suggest communal living arrangements, whilst discard

of waste in pits and settlement plots might suggest an emphasis on personal

and private space. In the case of Sedgeford, establishing the chronology and

date of contrasting rubbish discard strategies might be extremely important,

given that there is a potential re-planning event reflected in the geophysical

survey by the introduction of large droveways at some point later in the

settlement’s life.


40

3.4.15 A number of points considered in the above interpretation are necessarily

speculative. The following section now presents the results of the trial

trenching campaign of 2007. This exercise will hopefully provide useful ‘sub-

surface calibration’ that will allow for a fuller discussion and analysis of the

above interpretations, with more accurate considerations of settlement phasing

and chronology in the concluding discussion.


41

4. The Trial Trenches

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 As noted in section 1 above, SHARP had the opportunity to carry out a trench

evaluation (five trenches) over the northern extent of the previously observed

surface artefact scatter and geophysical anomalies in July and August 2007.

The aim of this evaluation was to attempt to understand the character,

chronology and condition of the sub-surface archaeological features relating to

the Middle-Late Saxon settlement, whilst also testing the reliability of the

geophysical survey.

4.1.2 The area available for evaluation was dictated by the cropping regime for

2007. All five trenches were therefore located within the northern 30m of the

northern extension of Chalkpit field, and positioned to sample geophysical

features of interest over the entirety of this available strip. The rationale

behind trench location is presented at the start of the stratigraphic narrative for

each trench.

4.1.3 Trenches were located to both OS grid co-ordinates and the localised SHARP

survey grid initially used for the Boneyard excavations 1996-2007 (see Fig

10). The cardinal co-ordinates of the trenches to on the localised SHARP grids

are as follows:

● Trench 1: NE: 91.0274 E, -28.0226 N. SW: 77.1695 E, -39.1762 N.

● Trench 2: E: 50.9429 E, -33.8301 N. W: 29.8124 E, -31.7083 N.

● Trench 3: NE: 0.2893 E, -20.6220 N. SW: -10.8908 E, -30.2870 N.

● Trench 4: E: - 15.9898 E, - 27.4872 N. W: -22.1814 E, - 27.2492 N.

● Trench 5: E: - 25.7535 E, - 20.0743 N. W: -47.6961 E, -21.5365 N.

4.1.4 All five Trenches contained Middle or Late Anglo Saxon features (see Fig 11

for an overview in plan). The trenches are now discussed in detail. However,

prior to this a short consideration of the phasing methodology is required.


42

4.1.5 Throughout the following evaluation report, the following phases are used:

● Late Saxon (commonly 850 – 1066, but in this case putatively 900-

1066)

● Mid-Late Ninth Century (c.850 – 899)

● Middle Saxon (650-850)

4.1.6 Clearly there in an interpretative aspect to the above attributed phases. For

example, we might ask why is a certain feature placed within a certain phase?

Whether a feature could be placed in two of these arbitrary chronological

brackets? Or if the infilling of a feature occurred in a later phase than its use

(such as cut [413], Trench 4)? The answer to these questions is that, yes, with

the observed stratigraphy, we are, of course, dealing with a relative sequence

of occupation as opposed to an absolute one in, for example, calendar years.

Furthermore, it is accepted that with some of the long sequences of activity

observed (for example in Trench 3) we are more likely to be observing the

remaining evidence of more continuous, ever changing land-use patterns

spanning the Middle and Late Saxon period (650-1066AD), and possibly also

slightly earlier and later. From this point of view, attributing activity to a

discrete ‘phase’ might perhaps be considered a crude or unnecessary exercise,

especially as only a small part of the site has so far been sampled by

excavation at this stage, and observations (and presumably the subtlety of the

phasing) will change if more work is carried-out.

4.1.7 However, despite the above caveats, it is felt that the arbitrary phases cited

above, although artificial devices, represent analytical units that would provide

the best chance of observing the changing character of occupation over time

(as is perhaps evidenced by the quality of observed patterns in the Animal

Bones section). This is because the three phases were arrived at during the

process of stratigraphic analysis by correlating ceramic evidence with

stratigraphic evidence.

4.1.8 The Middle Saxon phase, stratigraphically earliest in Trench 3, consisted of

features with deposits that contain solely Ipswich Ware of handmade pottery.


43

4.1.9 The Mid-Late Ninth Century phase, stratigraphically later than the Middle

Saxon phase in Trench 3, consisted of features with deposits that contain

mixed assemblages of both Ipswich ware and Thetford- type Wares, but

proportionally a high amount of Ipswich Ware. For example, fill (210) in

Trench 2 (15 sherds of Ipswich ware (362g), and 18 sherds of Thetford Wares

(190g)). A Mid-Late Ninth Century chronological bracket was recommended

as a useful analytical unit for this type of ceramically dated context, and one

which would allow an investigation of land-use changes at Chalkpit field,

Sedgeford to start (Dr A. Rogerson (NLA), pers comm.).

4.1.10 The Late Saxon phase, stratigraphically latest in Trench 3, consisted of

features with deposits that contain solely Thetford-type wares of handmade

pottery.

4.1.11 It should be noted that there is some potential for the above detailed phases to

overlap in ‘absolute’ terms due to the fuzziness of the ceramic dating

concerning Ipswich Ware (c. AD 720-?850+).and Thetford ware. (c. AD

?850-1075/1100+). For example, when considering the Late Saxon activity

phase the end date of 1075/1100 is problematic as Thetford ware use merges

imperceptibly i to unglazed Grimston ware use. Similalrly, the start date of

Ipswioch ware is only derived from relative dating from associated coin

evidence in Ipswich itself (Blinkhorn pers comm.).

4.1.12 Most crucially in ceramic terms, at Sedgeford (as at other Middle to Late

Saxon sites in the region), there is also evidence for a considerable Ipswich

ware- Thetford Ware ceramic overlap –in terms of artefact loss in secure

deposits- in the Ninth century. The probability is that Ipswich ware use

continues later than 850 and/or Thetford-type ware begins earlier than than

850. By suggesting that there is a ‘Mid-Late Ninthe century’ activity phase,

we are effectively arguing that there is an activity phase in the mid-ninth

century characterised by concurrent use of the two types of ceramic, and that

we are not just looking at the presence residual of large amounts of residual

Ipswich ware. This is a working hypothesis that – although in clear need of


44

investigation - must be revisited and reconsidered periodically. One future

research avenue might be the analysis of the variation in the degree of sherd

brokenness as an indicator of securely dated deposits (see 5.1.30 below).

4.1.13 The above ceramic/stratigraphy correlation methodology was only achievable

as many contexts appeared relatively secure, and contained pottery

assemblages with little intrusive dating evidence. However, due to the fact that

occupation starts in the Middle Saxon period and continues into the Late

Saxon period - a time where ceramic use is also in transition (see also sections

5.1.12 and 5.1.13 below) – residuality is clearly a factor that has to be

considered carefully when predicting context dates from the ceramic evidence.

For example, in some cases the potential for backfilled deposits to contain re-

worked material has had to be considered. Fortunately many ‘dates’ for

features have been derived from good ceramic assemblages in rapidly formed

primary or secondary silts, and not backfilled deposits. However, as many

features observed in this evaluation were ditches (as opposed to pits) caution

must be exercised because of the potential for artefact transforms and time

lapse (such as the incorporation of pottery in earlier surface middens) before

deposition in apparently ‘sealed’ contexts, as is the case with context (302)

(although the potential time lapse was not felt to be considerable).

4.1.14 The discussion and conclusion section (7) will further consider deposit

security, residuality, and the potential for re-working, in an effort to evaluate

the apparent limits of archaeological inference at Chalkpit filed, and assess if

the activity phases really do represent good interpretative entities. However, at

this early stage large crumb of comfort is provided by the fact that the small

find evidence, where secure (e.g. context (202), Trench 2), seems to agree with

the current working hypotheses.

NH

ER

10

79

: A

rchae

olo

gic

al E

val

uati

on o

f C

halk

pit

Fie

ld,

20

07

-8

33

Figure 10: Excavated trenches related to Geophysical survey, 2007.

NH

ER

10

79

: A

rchae

olo

gic

al E

val

uati

on o

f C

halk

pit

Fie

ld,

20

07

-8

46

Figure 11: Excavated trenches showing all excavated features and attributed phases.


33

4.2 Trench 1

4.2.1 Trench 1 was located at the northeast extent of Chalkpit Field, towards the

eastern extent of concentrated Saxon settlement activity, as evidenced by

surface artefact scatters (see Fieldwalking above). At this point, Chalkpit field

slopes moderately from southwest to northeast. The trench was orientated

northwest to southeast, and aligned at right angles to an ephemeral northwest

to southeast aligned geophysical anomaly thought to represent a ditch buried

below deep colluvium (hillwash). Trench 1 was 1.6m wide and 17.8m long,

with stepped extensions (for health and safety reasons) extending 1.5m

northeast and southwest of the central 10m of the excavated trench.

4.2.2 The latest deposit encountered, ploughsoil (101), was removed by mechanical

excavator and continuously metal-detected. Ploughsoil (101) was a mid grey-

brown friable silty sand containing 5-10% inclusions of sub-angular chalk and

flint, a maximum of 0.44m in depth (deepest at the northeast extent of the

trench) and covered the entirety of the excavated trench. Ploughsoil (101)

contained a number of finds including modern pottery, oyster shell and animal

bone.

4.2.3 Upon removal of the ploughsoil (101), a modern linear feature (cut [113], fill

(112)) was observed, running on an east-west orientation and extending 1.8m

south of the northern extent of the trench. Cut [113] is identified at that of a

modern pipe lain in 1991 by Anglia Water, where a number of northwest to

southeast Anglo-Saxon ditches were also observed (Bates, 1991). Fill (112), a

mid orange-brown friable sand and gravel was not investigated further.

4.2.4 Beneath ploughsoil (101) and modern pipe trench ([113]/((112)) a further soil

layer was encountered, (102). Deposit (102), also removed by mechanical

excavator, was a mid orange-brown friable silty sand containing 5-10%

inclusions of sub-angular chalk and flint. Deposit (102) is interpreted as a deep

colluvium (hillwash), and was a maximum of 0.8m in depth (deepest at the

northeast extent of the trench). A fragment of modern pottery, and shell was

recovered from this deposit. Hillwash (102) probably represents a number of


48

scouring and deposition events, but the active nature of the deposit rendered

any soil horizons invisible. For example, hand cleaning at the base of hillwash

(102) (labelled as (103)) produced a single sherd of possible Early-Mid Saxon

handmade pottery, lava quern and shell hinting that invisible activity horizons

were present near the interface with the natural ground. The depth of layer

(102) can be explained by the presence of a northwest-southeast aligned slope

that extends into a dry valley south of Trench 1 in this area of chalk pit field.

4.2.5 Upon removal of hillwash (102), the natural superficial geology (111) was

revealed. The natural ground (111) generally consisted of a mid reddish-brown

mottled sandy silt but, particularly towards the elevated southern extent of the

trench there was some small gravel, degraded chalk and outcropping flint.

Deposit (111) was cleaned by hand, revealing four discrete soil features (see

Fig. 12).

4.2.6 Upon investigation, two of the apparent soil features, (108) and (109) were

found to represent natural formations (see Fig. 12). Deposit (108), located

4.5m south of the northern extent of trench 1, was irregularly shaped in plan

(max.2.6m n-s, by max. 0.8m e-w). and consisted of a dark reddish-brown

compact silty sand, with 5% inclusions of flint and chalk. Upon investigation,

this soil feature was found to have irregular sides, no base and, from a depth of

0.45m onwards, an undercut profile. Deposit (108) is interpreted as a naturally

formed sinkhole. Deposit (108) contained two fragments of animal bone.

Deposit (109), located 4.6m north of the southern extent of trench 1, was sub-

circular shaped in plan (max.1.1m n-s, by max. 0.95m e-w), and consisted of a

mid orange-brown compact silty sand, with 5% inclusions of flint and chalk.

Upon investigation, this soil feature was found to have no distinct edges or

depth (max. 0.1m). Deposit (109) is interpreted as a patch of remnant

colluvium lying within an undulation in the natural ground. Deposit (109)

contained shell, a fragment of daub and a piece of burnt clay.

4.2.7 A third soil feature was excavated at the southern extent of trench 1. Running

on an east-west orientation, cut [114] extended 1.8m south of the northern

NH

ER

10

79

: A

rchae

olo

gic

al E

val

uati

on o

f C

halk

pit

Fie

ld,

20

07

-8

33

Figure 12: Plan of Trench 1 showing excavated features.

Figure 13: West Facing section through cut [114], fill (110) (Section 30)


33

extent of the trench and was a maximum of 2.8m wide. Upon investigation,

cut [114] was found to have a shallow, irregular profile (max. 0.25m in depth)

and an undulating base. Cut [114] contained a single fill, (110); a mixed

deposit consisting of interleaving lenses of compacted chalk and a mid orange-

brown sandy silt with frequent inclusions of degraded chalk. Observed in the

west facing section of Trench 1, fill (110) appeared to project – in a manner

reminiscent of a camber – into the overlying colluvium, (102/3) (see Fig. 13).

The interpretation of this feature is uncertain. The irregular nature of the

possible cut suggests that this may be a natural formation such as an area of

degraded extant natural superficial geology (closest to the surface in this area

of Trench 1). However, the apparent compaction of the interleaving chalk

lenses and the possible camber-like profile of fill (110), means that it is not

possible to rule-out a man-made origin for this feature. This feature would

benefit from further investigation in the future, but, at present, it is considered

a possibility that cut [114] might represent the sub-surface remains of a man-

enhanced path or trackway.

4.2.8 Late Saxon Feature

The fourth soil feature was located 6.5m south of the northern extent of

Trench 1, towards the centre of the trench, and appeared as a broadly

northwest to southeast aligned linear feature observable over a nw-se length of

1.8m, with a maximum width of 1.3m at its western extent. Upon excavation

(100% sample of the exposed fill) the soil feature was clarified as two separate

cut features: a nw-se aligned ditch, [106] and a possible pit/ditch terminal,

[107] (see Fig’s. 14 and 15, Plate 1).

4.2.9 The latest feature, cut [106], was a nw-se aligned boundary/drainage ditch, a

maximum of 0.64m in width, that ran beyond both the eastern and western

extent of Trench 1. At the western most 0.6m of the observed feature the nw-

se aligned ditch appeared to turn to the west, at an angle of approximately 45

degrees, potentially running on a east-west alignment into the western extent

of the excavated trench. Upon excavation ditch cut [106] was shown to be a

maximum of 0.45m in depth with steep concave sides, breaking moderately to


51

a flattish/irregular base (see Figs. 14 and 15). Ditch cut [106] contained a

single fill, (104), a naturally accumulated friable mid-brown silty sand, with 3-

5% inclusions of sub-angular flint. The upper portion of fill contained a large

portion of a ceramic vessel, apparently smashed in situ, identified as a Late

Saxon Thetford ware jar, comprising both base and body sherds (see Fig. 16

and Plate. 2). Fill (104) also produced animal bone and nine quern fragments,

and was environmentally sample (<104>). Ditch cut [106] can perhaps be

identified as the nw-se aligned anomaly identified in the 2007-8 geophysical

survey.

Figure 14: East Facing section, cuts [106] and [107] (Section 5)

Figure 15: West Facing section, cut [106] (Section 4)


52

Plate 1: EFS of Cuts [106]/[107] mid-excavation, looking west.

Figure 16: Detailed plan of in situ pot, fill [104].


53

Plate 2: Thetford ware vessel, fill (104) mid-excavation.

4.2.10 Largely truncated by ditch cut [106] earlier feature, cut [107] was not observed

fully in plan (only an area of 0.7m north-south, by 0.33m east-west was

exposed) but it appeared to form a rounded terminus extending 0.65m east of

the western side of Trench 1. Upon excavation, cut [107] was found to be a

maximum of 0.5m in depth and 0.5m in observed width, with steep sides and a

concave, flattish base. Cut [107] contained a single observable fill, a naturally

silted mid-dark brown friable silty sand with 3-5% inclusions of sub-angular

flint. No dateable artefacts were recovered from the feature, which is

interpreted as either a portion of a pit, or, more likely, the eastern terminus of a

ditch.

4.2.11 Conclusion

It seems possible that ditch cut [106] is both a replacement and extension of

the ditch system represented by ditch terminus [107]; the intercutting implying

some intensity or longevity of land-use in this part of the Late Anglo-Saxon

settlement. However, in contrast to the density of cut features identified in


54

other trenches (especially Trenches 2 and 3), the sub-surface remains in

Trench 1 do suggest that it is located towards the periphery of the most

concentrated activity.


55

4.3 Trench 2

4.3.1 Trench 2 was located towards the centre-north of Chalkpit Field, 75m west of

the northeast corner of the field and 15m south of the northern field boundary.

At this point Chalkpit field is flattish, sloping moderately from south to north

beyond the northern extent of Trench 2. The trench was orientated east to west

and aligned at right angles to a north to south aligned geophysical anomaly

thought to represent a buried boundary ditch. Trench 2 was 1.8m wide and

21.8m long (see Fig. 17).

4.3.2 The latest deposit encountered, ploughsoil (201/7), was removed by

mechanical excavator and continuously metal-detected. Ploughsoil (201/7)

was a dark grey friable silty sand containing 4% inclusions of sub-rounded

chalk and flint (<10 cm). Ploughsoil (201/7) was a maximum of 0.35m in

depth (roughly uniform over the entire extent of the trench) and covered the

entirety of the excavated trench. Ploughsoil (201/7) contained a number of

finds including oyster shell, animal bone, slag, ceramic building material and

Saxon pottery (both Ipswich and Thetford wares). Notable finds included a

Middle Saxon safety pin brooch (SF 2207) and a Neolithic flaked flint axe (SF

2201, see Fig.17 for findspot location). The quantity of artefacts recovered

from the Trench 2 ploughsoil suggests that this trench is located closer to

concentrated settlement activity in comparison to Trench 1.

4.3.3 Upon removal of ploughsoil (201/7) a further soil layer was encountered,

(204/5). Deposit (204/5) was also removed by mechanical excavator and

continuously metal-detected. Layer (204/5) was a mid brownish-orange friable

silty sand containing <4% inclusions of sub-rounded to sub-angular chalk and

flint. Deposit (204/5) is interpreted as a remnant colluvium (hillwash) and was

a maximum of 0.2m in depth ( in the eastern half of the trench). Hillwash

(201/7) contained a number of finds including shell, animal bone, a fragment

of lava quern, and Saxon pottery (both Ipswich and Thetford wares) in

proportions that would perhaps indicate a mid-late Ninth century date for

concentrated artefact loss if dealing with a ‘secure’ deposit. Notable finds

included an undated fragment of copper alloy sheet (SF 2207) and a rivetted

NH

ER

10

79

: A

rchae

olo

gic

al E

val

uati

on o

f C

halk

pit

Fie

ld,

20

07

-8

33

Figure 17: Plan of Trench 2 showing excavated features

. N

ort

h a

t to

p o

f pag

e.

Figure 18: NFS of cut [215] (Section 13) and Figure 19: NFS of cut [224] (Section 18).


33

iron strip of iron (SF 2204) of potential Saxon date (see Small Finds below).

The quantity of artefacts recovered from the Trench 2 hillwash suggested that

this trench was located closer to concentrated settlement activity when

compared to Trench 1.

4.3.4 Hillwash (102) probably represents a number of scouring and deposition

events, but the active nature of the deposit rendered almost all soil horizons

invisible. However, whereas the subsoil features identified in the eastern half

of Trench 2 were clearly sealed by hillwash (201/7) (discussed below), those

features identified in the westernmost 11m of the trench (after careful cleaning

of the trench sections) appeared to perhaps truncate hillwash (201/7). On the

basis of the evidence of a single trench, phasing features by their relationship

with a heavily truncated colluvium must remain conjectural, but, nevertheless,

some chronological sequencing might be implied (seemingly backed up by the

artefactual data from features, see below).

4.3.5 Eight soil features were identified in Trench 2 are now discussed in

chronological order (latest first).

4.3.6 Late Saxon features

Two north to south aligned ditches were identified in the western half of

Trench 2 (cuts [215] and [224], see Fig. 17) and attributed to a ‘Late Saxon’

phase (on combined stratigraphic and ceramic evidence). As discussed above,

these features both appeared to truncated hillwash (201/7), and 100% of the

exposed fill was excavated.

4.3.7 Ditch cut [215], a truncated n-s aligned boundary/drainage ditch, was located

2m east of the western extent of Trench 2 and was observable over a n-s length

of 1.8m. Ditch cut [215], had a maximum width of 0.83m and, upon

excavation, the ditch was shown to be a maximum of 0.35m in depth with

moderately sloping sides, breaking sharply to a flat base (see Fig.18). Ditch

cut [215] contained a single fill, (208), a naturally silted friable dark brown

silty sand, containing 3% inclusions of sub-rounded/sub-angular flint. Fill


58

(208) produced twenty sherds of Anglo-Saxon pottery - predominantly Late

Saxon Thetford wares (17 sherds)- providing a Late Saxon date for the

infilling of ditch [215]. Fill (208) also contained animal bone, a lava quern

fragment and an iron comb tooth shank (SF 2205) of potential Saxon date. The

range of artefactual material culture recovered from fill (208) perhaps

indicates that ditch [215] was located close to concentrated Late Saxon

settlement activity. Fill (208) was environmentally sampled (<208>) and

abundant cereal grains and heather stem fragments (indicative of the presence

of hearth or oven waste) were recovered (see Environmental section).

4.3.8 Ditch cut [224], a substantial nne-ssw aligned boundary/drainage ditch, was

located 5.5m east of the western extent of Trench 2 and was observable over a

n-s length of 1.8m. Ditch cut [224], had a maximum width of 1.4m and, upon

excavation, the ditch was shown to be a maximum of 0.61m in depth with a

moderately sloping eastern side, a moderately sloping western that broke to a

steep side at the basal 0.2m, and a flattish base (see Fig.19). Ditch cut [224]

contained three observable fills, (223), (222) and (203) (see Fig?). The

primary fill, (223), was a naturally silted mid orange-brown friable silty sand

(containing 5% inclusions of sub-rounded/sub-angular flint and chalk), a

maximum of 0.17m in depth. Fill (223), covering the entire base of the ditch

cut, appeared to have accumulated from erosion of both the eastern and

western sides of the feature. No artefacts were recovered from fill (223),

perhaps suggesting that it accumulated relatively rapidly.

4.3.9 Overlying, fill (223), was a secondary fill, (222). Fill (222) had a diffuse

boundary with the underlying deposit (223). Fill (222), was an apparently

naturally silted mid orange-brown friable silty sand (containing 2% inclusions

of sub-rounded/sub-angular flint and chalk), a maximum of 0.22m in depth.

Although no dateable artefacts were identified within fill (222), both oyster

shell and animal bone were recovered. This suggests that the deposit had

accumulated more slowly than fill (223), during a time in which settlement

related debris was being discarded in the vicinity of Trench 2.


59

4.3.10 Secondary fill (223) was overlain by a tertiary deposit, fill (203). Fill (203)

had a diffuse boundary with the underlying deposit, (222). Fill (203), was a

naturally silted or deliberately backfilled mid-dark orange-brown compact

silty sand (containing 2% inclusions of sub-angular flint and chalk), a

maximum of 0.27m in depth. Fill (223), covered the entire observed width of

ditch cut and appeared to have accumulated from both sides of the feature.

Fill (203) produced a mixed assemblage of Anglo-Saxon pottery including

sherds of grass-tempered Early-Middle Saxon handmade pottery as well as

possibly Ipswich wares and, certainly, Thetford wares. Given the mixed dating

of this assemblage, the stratigraphic position of the feature (with ditch cut

[224] truncating colluvium (204/5))was taken as key and a Late Saxon date

attributed to fill (203). However, this fill also indicates settlement activity of a

Middle Saxon in the vicinty of Trench 2. In addition, fill (203) a relatively

large quantity of oyster shell, 2 fragments of lava quern, fired daub with wattle

impressions (361g) and metal slag. The range of artefactual material culture

recovered from fill (203) indicates that ditch [215] was located close to

concentrated Late Saxon settlement activity. Fill (203) was environmentally

sampled (<203>) and heather stem fragments (indicative of the presence of

hearth or oven waste) were recovered (see Environmental section).

4.3.11 Mid-Late Ninth Century features

Three features - two pits and a ditch - were identified in the western half of

Trench 2 (cuts [220], [212] and [213], see Fig.17) and attributed to a ‘Mid-

Late Ninth Century’ phase (on combined stratigraphic and ceramic evidence).

As discussed above, these features appeared to truncated hillwash (201/7), and

100% of the exposed fill was excavated.

4.3.12 Cuts [220] and [212], two severely plough truncated pits, were located in close

spatial association to one another. Pit cut [220] was located 3.8m east of the

western extent of Trench 2, and abutted the northern extent of the trench. Pit

cut [220] was an oval shape in plan, with maximum surface dimensions of

0.3m (north to south) by 0.2m (east to west). Upon excavation, pit cut [220]

was shown to be a maximum of 0.05m in depth with gradual-moderately

sloping sides and a u-shaped base (see Fig.20). Pit cut [220] contained a single


60

observable fill (221), a naturally silted dark brown friable silty sand

(containing 5% inclusions of sub-rounded/sub-angular flint and chalk). No

dateable artefacts were recovered from fill (221), but morphological

similarities and the close spatial association between pit cut [220] and pit cut

[212] lead to the interpretation of a mid-late ninth date for fill (221) (which did

contain oyster shell).

4.3.13 The second severely truncated pit, cut [212], was located immediately south of

pit cut [220], abutted the southern extent of that cut a way that suggested that,

prior to truncation, the two pits may have intercut. Pit cut [212] was a sub-

circular shape in plan, with maximum surface dimensions of 0.41m (north to

south) by 0.22m (east to west). Upon excavation, pit cut [212] was shown to

be a maximum of 0.02m in depth with gradual sloping sides and a u-shaped

base (see Fig. 20). Pit cut [212] contained a single observable fill (211), an

apparently naturally silted mid brown sandy silt with no apparent inclusions.

Fill (211) contained Anglo-Saxon pottery in proportions suggesting a mid to

late ninth century date for deposition, including Thetford wares (6 sherds) and

Ipswich ware (3 sherds, including a single primary sherd, 268g in weight).

Oyster shell was also recovered from fill (221). Fill (211) was not of

sufficient volume to be retained for environmental sampling. Pits [220] and

[212] may possibly represent the truncated remains of storage pits used for the

deposition of rubbish during their disuse, although this interpretation must

remain conjectural.

4.3.14 The third feature attributed to a mid-late Ninth century activity phase within

Trench 2 was ditch cut [213], a substantial n-s aligned boundary/drainage

ditch located 8.5m east of the western extent of Trench 2. Ditch cut [213], had

a maximum width of 1.97m, was observed over a n-s length of 1.8m and, upon

excavation, was shown to be a maximum of 1.02m in depth with a moderately

sloping uneven eastern side, a moderate-steeply sloping stepped western side,

and an undulating base (see Fig. 21). The irregular observed profile of the

ditch might be a by-product of a number of (now invisible) recutting events.

Ditch cut [213] contained four observable fills, (231), (214), (232) and (210)

(see Fig. 21).


61

Figure 20: WFS of pit cuts [220] and [212] (Section 46).

Figure 21: NFS of ditch cut [213] (Section 20).

4.3.15 The primary fill, (231), was a naturally silted mid orange-brown friable silty

sand, a maximum of 0.35m in depth. Fill (231) restricted to the western side of

cut [224], appeared to have accumulated from erosion of the western side of

the feature. No artefacts were recovered from fill (231), perhaps suggesting

that it accumulated relatively rapidly.


62

4.3.16 Overlying, fill (231), was a secondary fill, (214). Fill (214) had a diffuse


naturally silted mid brownish-yellow friable sandy silt (containing <1%

inclusions of charcoal flecks), a maximum of 0.4m in depth. Fill (214)

contained a Middle Anglo-Saxon pottery assemblage including sherds of

grass-tempered Early-Middle Saxon handmade pottery (2 sherds) and Ipswich

ware (2 sherds). Taken alone, fill (214) would have provided a Middle Saxon

date for cut [213]; however, overlying fill (210) (see discussion below)

produced a later date. Nevertheless, some degree of chronological separation

might be implied between Middle Saxon fill (214) and Mid-Late Ninth century

fill (210). Oyster shell was also recovered from fill (214). This suggests that

the deposit had accumulated more slowly than fill (231), during a time in

which occasional settlement related debris was being discarded in the vicinity

of Trench 2. A fragment of worked bone of uncertain function (SF 2009) was

also recovered from fill (214).

4.3.17 Secondary fill (214) was overlain by a further secondary fill, (232). Fill (232),

was an apparently naturally silted mid brownish-yellow friable sandy silt

(containing <1% inclusions of charcoal flecks), a maximum of 0.5m in depth.

Fill (232), observed at both sides of the ditch cut, appeared to have

accumulated naturally from erosion of both the eastern and western sides of

the feature. No dateable artefacts were recovered from fill (232), perhaps

suggesting that it accumulated relatively rapidly. Oyster shell and animal bone

was recovered from fill (232).

4.3.18 Secondary fill (232) was overlain by a tertiary deposit, fill (210). Fill (210),

was a mixed deposit of possibly backfilled material and naturally silted dark

yellowish-brown friable silty sand (containing <2% inclusions of sub-angular

chalk, flint and charcoal flecks), a maximum of 0.6m in depth. Fill (210),

observed within the central portion of ditch cut [213], appeared to derived – at

least in part- from the eastern side of the feature. This deposit probably formed

during the disuse of ditch [213], but the mixed nature of the fill, it’s humic

quality and inclusions of charcoal, certainly suggest that this was a time when

agricultural and other settlement related activities were occurring within the


63

environs of Trench 2. Fill (210) contained a relatively large assemblage of

pottery, including Middle Saxon Ipswich ware (15sherds) and Late Saxon

Thetford wares (18 sherds). The high proportion of Ipswich ware in a deposit

that cannot be dated earlier than the ninth century (due to the abundant

presence of Thetford wares) suggests a Mid-Late Ninth century date for fill

(210). As discussed above, some degree of chronological separation might be

implied between Middle Saxon fill (214) fill (210). Other artefactual material

recovered from fill (210), included ten fragments of lava quern and an

undiagnostic fragment of glass (SF 2206). Ecofacts included animal bone and

shell. Fill (210) was environmentally sampled and heather stem fragments

(indicative of the presence of hearth or oven waste) were recovered (see

Environmental section).

4.3.19 Middle Saxon Features

Three intercutting archaeological features - consisting of two nnw-sse aligned

ditches and one east-west aligned ditch- were identified in the eastern half of

Trench 2 (cuts [227], [234] and [209], see Fig. 17) and attributed to a ‘Middle

Saxon’ phase (on combined stratigraphic and ceramic evidence). All three

features in the eastern half of Trench 2 appeared to be sealed by hillwash

(201/7), perhaps implying some chronological separation between the Late

Saxon/Mid-Late Ninth century features and those attributed to the Middle

Saxon phase. Alternatively, this apparent stratigraphic relationship might be a

product of reduced truncation towards the eastern extent of Trench 2. 100% of

the exposed fill was excavated.

4.3.20 The latest feature, cut [227], was a nnw-sse aligned boundary/drainage ditch

located 7m west of the eastern extent of Trench 2. Ditch cut [227] was a

maximum of 1.3m in width, and ran beyond both the northern and southern

extent of Trench 2. Upon excavation ditch cut [227] was shown to be a

maximum of 0.65m in depth with a moderately sloping eastern side and a

steeply sloping western side that broke steeply to tight u-shaped base (see Fig.

22/23). Ditch cut [227] contained a single fill, (202), a mixed deposit of

possibly backfilled material and naturally silted friable mid-brownish-grey

sandy silt, with 5% inclusions of sub-angular flint and chalk. This deposit


64

Figure 22: NFS of ditch cuts [227] and [234] (Section 26).

Figure 23: SFS of N-S ditch cuts [227], [234] and E-W cut [225]

(Section 50).


65

probably formed during the disuse of ditch [227], but the mixed nature of the

fill, it’s humic quality and inclusions of charcoal (<1%), certainly suggest that

this was a time when agricultural and other settlement related activities were

occurring within the environs of Trench 2. Fill (202) contained three sherds of

Middle Saxon Ipswich ware pottery and a single sherd of Roman grey ware,

but no Late Saxon Thetford wares, which might suggest a Middle Saxon date

for the fill, although the ceramic evidence is far from abundant. In contrast, a

fine range of artefactual evidence was recovered from fill (210), including two

fragments of lava quern, a fragment of Middle Saxon vessel glass with an

applied trail (SF 2203), a large fragment of clay loom weight (SF 2200) and a

tooth from an Iron comb (possibly used in the production of wool, SF 2202)

(see Fig.17, for location of finds). Ecofacts included animal bone (particularly

sheep) and shell. The find of a loom weight and wool comb (see Finds section)

from this phase, seem to add weight to the notion that sheep were used

primarily for milk and wool in the Middle Saxon phase identified during this

evaluation (see Animal Bones section). Fill (202) was environmentally

sampled (see Environmental section). The range of artefactual material culture

recovered from fill (202) indicates that ditch [227] was located close to

concentrated Middle Saxon settlement activity, but that this was not

necessarily a zone of high ceramic discard. Ditch cut [227] can perhaps be

identified as the n-s aligned anomaly identified during the 2007-8 geophysical

survey.

4.3.21 Running on a similar alignment to, and partially truncated (on its eastern side)

by ditch cut [227] was an earlier feature, cut [234]. Cut [234], although not

observed fully in plan, was a nnw-sse aligned boundary/drainage ditch located

8m west of the eastern extent of Trench 2. Ditch cut [234] had a maximum

observed width of 0.45m (projected maximum of 0.6m), and ran beyond both

the northern and southern extent of Trench 2. Upon excavation ditch cut [234]

was shown to be a maximum of 0.40m in depth with a moderate-steeply

sloping sides and a tight u-shaped base (see Fig. 22/23). Ditch cut [234]

contained a single fill, (235), a possibly naturally silted friable mid-reddish-

brown silty sand, with 4% inclusions of small sub-angular flint and chalk. Fill

(235) contained a single sherd of Middle Saxon Ipswich ware pottery, which -


66

although not particularly reliable dating evidence- does not contradict the

suggested Middle Saxon date for the fill. Animal bone was also recovered

from fill (235). The limited artefactual recovered from fill (235) potential

indicates a chronological or functional shift (i.e. change in settlement land-use

zones) between the use-life of ditches [234] and [227], although their common

alignment and close spatial association does suggest that [227] might have

acted as a replacement to boundary [234].

4.3.22 The third feature to be attributed to the Middle Saxon phase was an east-west

aligned ditch, cut [216], which was also the earliest feature in the observed

stratigraphic sequence (see Plate. 3, Fig’s. 23-27). Ditch cut [216], was an

apparent substantial boundary/drainage ditch aligned parallel to the northern

extent of Trench 2 and observed running 11m west of the eastern extent of the

trench. Due to the positioning of Trench 2, the full width (and therefore also

the full profile) of ditch cut [216] was not observed, instead, the width of the

ditch was observed extending a maximum of 0.9m south of the northern extent

of Trench 2. A projected actual width for ditch feature [216], if investigation

were possible, would possibly be around 1.8m. Ditch cut [216] apparently

formed a rounded terminus at its western observed extent. However, because

the feature was not fully exposed, there remains a possibility that rather than

terminating, ditch [216] instead turns 90 degrees to run on a north-south

alignment (although this is felt to be unlikely, see Fig.17). Ditch cut [216]

contained a single observed fill, although, due to the fact that a linear length of

11m had been exposed, each excavated section of the ditch fill was attributed a

separate cut and fill number (from west to east respectively, cuts [233], [216],

[225], [236], [218], [229] and [216], and fills (206), (217), (226), (237), (219),

(230), and (217). The main aim of this numbering method was to enable

spatial analysis of differential artefact deposition along the length of ditch cut

[216] (although, there were no potentially discernable patterns of differential

artefact deposition in the excavated portion of the feature).


67

Plate 3: Ditch cut [233], [216], [225], [236], [218], [229] and [216] mid-excavation, looking west.

Figure 24: EFS of E-W ditch cut [218] (Section 16).


68



Figure 27: WFS of E-W ditch cut [233] (Section 23).


69

4.3.23 Upon excavation, the observed part of ditch cut [233], [216], [225], [236],

[218], [229] and [216], was shown to be a maximum of 0.6m in depth with

moderate-steeply sloping sides which broke sharply to a flattish base (see

Plate. 3, Fig’s. 23-27). Fill (206)/(217)/(226)/(237)/(219)/(230)/(217) was a

naturally accumulated mid-light orange-brown silty sand, containing 5%

inclusions of sub-angular flint and chalk. This deposit was well sorted in

comparison to many other deposits obsereved in Trench 2, and was noticeably

more demineralised, suggesting that fill

(206)/(217)/(226)/(237)/(219)/(230)/(217) belongs to a different infilling phase

than, for example, Middle Saxon fills (235) or (202). The implication is that

this infilling phase was a time when agricultural and other settlement related

activities were restricted within the environs of Trench 2.

4.3.24 The suspicions that east-west ditch [216] belongs to a different phase of land-

use to Middle Saxon ditches [227] and [234] is supported by the contrasting

ceramic assemblage produced by fill

(206)/(217)/(226)/(237)/(219)/(230)/(217); consisting of three sherds of Early-

Middle Saxon handmade pottery, five sherds of Ipswich ware, a potentially

intrusive single sherd of Late Saxon Thetford ware ware, and 3 Iron

Age/Roman sherds (including a Roman sherd of a local Samian imitation

ware). Although the ceramic evidence is far from abundant, the weighting

towards Saxon handmade pottery and the presence of residual Roman material

does perhaps suggest a deposit that accumulated at the very latest during the

earlier part of the Middle Saxon period. A range of additional artefactual

evidence was also recovered from the fill, including fired clay, oyster shell,

possible metal slag and animal bone. Fill (230) was environmentally sampled

and heather stem fragments (indicative of the presence of hearth or oven

waste) were recovered (see Environmental section). Despite the demineralised

nature of fill (206)/(217)/(226)/(237)/(219)/(230)/(217), the range of material

culture recovered indicates that ditch [233], [216], [225], [236], [218], [229]

and [216] was in fact located close to Early- Middle Saxon settlement activity,

but that this was not necessarily a zone of high artefact discard.


70

4.3.25 Conclusion

The discovery of a series of three intercutting ditched features attributable to a

Middle Saxon phase of occupation importantly indicates some density of land-

use and persistence of settlement within the environs of Trench 2 at this time.

The discovery of Late Saxon and Mid-Late Ninth century ditches, also

indicate activity during these phases. The additional presence of Mid-Late

Ninth century pits suggests the close proximity of later Middle Saxon

habitation zones, as does the varied material culture discard.


71

4.4 Trench 3

4.4.1 Trench 3 was located towards the centre of the northern extent of Chalkpit

Field (126m east of the northeast corner of the field, and 18m south of the

northern field boundary), within the most concentrated area of Saxon

settlement as evidenced by surface artefact discard (see Fieldwalking above).

At this point, Chalkpit field is relatively flat, with a slight south to north

aligned slope running beyond the northern extent of Trench 3. The trench was

orientated northeast to southwest, at right angles to an extremely large (c.8m

in width) northwest to southeast aligned geophysical anomaly thought to

represent a series of buried ditches. Trench 3 was 1.7m wide and 14.3m long,

with stepped extensions (for health and safety reasons) extending 3m southeast

and southwest of the central 5.5m of the excavated trench.


excavator and continuously metal-detected. Ploughsoil (301) was a dark

greyish-brown friable sandy silt (containing 5% inclusions of sub-angular to

angular flint), a maximum of 0.22m in depth, which covered the entirety of the

excavated trench. Ploughsoil (301) contained a mixed assemblage of Anglo-

Saxon pottery, including Early-Middle Saxon handmade pottery (2 sherds),

Middle Saxon Ipswich ware (7 sherds), Late Saxon Thetford ware (22 sherds)

and a sherd of Saxon shelly ware. A fragment of modern tile was the sole

indicator of modern disturbance. Other artefacts recovered included a

fragment of lava quern, 2 fragments of fired clay (5g), animal bone, a Late

Saxon iron buckle (SF 2315) and a tooth from an iron comb (SF 2312). Metal

detecting in the environs of Trench 3 recovered a coin of Burgred of Mercia

(AD 852-74).

4.4.3 Upon removal of ploughsoil (301), the natural superficial geology (324) was

revealed at both the north east and southwest extent of Trench 3. The profile of

the natural ground sloped gently from south west (27.09m AOD) to north east

((25.70m AOD). Natural deposit (324) generally consisted of a light yellow-

brown silty sand but, at the elevated south western 2m of the trench, there was

NH

ER

10

79

: A

rchae

olo

gic

al E

val

uati

on o

f C

halk

pit

Fie

ld,

20

07

-8

33

Figure 28: Pre-Excavation Plan of Trench 3

NH

ER

10

79

: A

rchae

olo

gic

al E

val

uati

on o

f C

halk

pit

Fie

ld,

20

07

-8

33

Figure 29: Post-Excavation Plan of Trench 3


33

some exposed small gravel and outcropping flint underlying the silty-sand.

Hand cleaning revealed that deposit (324) was truncated in the central portion

of Trench 3 by a large northwest to southeast band of apparent feature fill

roughly 7.5m wide (see Plate 4). The western half of the feature fill was

abundant in inclusions of oyster shell and, in particular, an apparently dumped

deposit of animal bone (later identified as fill (302). This area of fill

corresponded well with the expected anomaly identified by the geophysical;

this, and two further discrete patches of feature fill identified towards the north

east extent of the trench, were therefore subject to further investigation by

hand excavation (see Fig. 28).

Plate 4: Trench 3 Pre-excavation


75

4.4.4 Upon excavation, the northwest to south east aligned band of feature fill

initially identified during hand cleaning was shown to infact represent a series

of five (and possibly six) intercutting ditch features ([323], [322], [316], [317],

[314] and [325], See Fig 29). The size and scale of these features (combined

with associated dating evidence) strongly suggest that these features represent

a significant boundary in the wider Anglo-Saxon settlement. Three other

features a ditch [319], a pit/ditch terminal [305] and a fragment of an oven

([311]/[313]) were also identified and excavated. The soil features identified in

Trench 3 are now discussed in chronological order (latest first).

Plate 5: NW facing section of Ditch Cuts [323], [314], [317], [316] and [322] Post-excavation


76

4.4.5 Late Saxon features

Two northwest to southeast aligned ditches (cuts [215] and [224], see Fig. 29,

30 and 31) and a hillwash deposit (303), were identified within the central

sequence of six cuts in Trench 3 and attributed to a ‘Late Saxon’ phase (on

combined stratigraphic and ceramic evidence). 100% of the exposed fill was

excavated.

Ditch cut [323], a northwest-southeast aligned boundary ditch, was centered

6.3m west of the eastern extent of Trench 3 and was observable over a n-s

length of 3m. Ditch cut [323], the fill of which directly underlay ploughsoil

(301), had a maximum width of 3.45 m and, upon excavation, was shown to

be a maximum of 0.45m in depth with a steeply sloping north eastern side, and

a moderately sloping south western sides (suggesting that the ditch might have

been observed at an oblique angle) breaking sharply to a flattish base (see

Fig.29). Ditch cut [323] contained two fills, (325) and (302) (see Figs. 30-31).

The primary fill, (325), was a dark brown friable silty sand (containing <2%

inclusions of sub-angular flint and chalk), a maximum of 0.31m in depth. Fill

(325), restricted to the northeastern side of the ditch cut, appeared to have

accumulated from erosion of the northeast side of the feature. Fill (325)

produced a small assemblage of Anglo-Saxon pottery consisting of Ipswich

ware (2 sherds) and Thetford ware (3 sherds); taken in isolation this would

have provided a Mid-Late Ninth century date. However, as overlying fill,

(302), and underlying deposit (303) produced strong Late Saxon pottery

assemblages, fill (325) is considered to be Late Saxon in date. In addition,

animal bone and oyster, mussel and cockle shell were recovered from fill

(325), although the reduced range of material culture recovered (in comparison

to overlying fill (302)) indicates that the fill may have accumulated relatively

rapidly. Fill (325) was environmentally sampled (<325>) (see Environmental

section).

NH

ER

10

79

: A

rchae

olo

gic

al E

val

uati

on o

f C

halk

pit

Fie

ld,

20

07

-8

33

Figure 30: NW facing section of Ditch Cuts [323], [314], [317], [316] and [322] (Section 33)

Figure 31: SE facing section of Ditch Cuts [323], [322], [317], [316], [314] and [327] (Section 51)


33

4.4.6 Overlying, fill (325), was a secondary fill, (302), initially identified as a

surface deposit abundant in inclusions of oyster shell and animal bone (see

above). Fill (302) had a distinct boundary with the underlying deposit (325).

Fill (302), was a mixed naturally silted and deliberately backfilled dark grey-

brown friable silty sand (containing 2% inclusions of sub-rounded/sub-angular

flint and chalk), a maximum of 0.45m in depth. Roughly 50% of the deposit

consisted of dumped animal bone and shell. Fill (302), covered the entire

observed width of ditch cut and appeared to have accumulated from both sides

of the feature.

4.4.7 Fill (302) produced a remarkable assemblage of Late Saxon artefacts and

ecofacts (discussed in more depth in the various specialist reports). The

assemblage of Anglo-Saxon pottery included Early-Middle handmade pottery

(3 sherds), Ipswich ware (44 sherds), Saxon shelly wares (17 sherds) and,

predominantly, Thetford wares (258 sherds); providing a Late Saxon date. In

addition, 20 sherds were identified as possibly Roman (1 prehistoric sherd),

and two pieces were identified as modern or 19th

century pan tile; suggesting

that both residuality and intrusion was relatively low. In addition to pottery,

iron artefacts were particularly prominent within fill (302), and included a

snaffle bit (horse ring) (SF2302), a horse shoe nail of a type not manufactured

until the 11th

Century (SF2317), a nail (SF2316), a strap (SF2318) and two

iron strips (SF2319, SF2320). A range of other artefactual evidence was also

recovered from fill (302), including five fragments of lava quern , three

fragments of fired clay (140g), a piece of Ceramic Building Material and three

pieces of metal slag (129g).

4.4.8 Fill (302) produced a huge quantity of shell (particularly oyster shell, 78651g).

The shell occurred as distinct lenses within fill (302), in association with

animal bones, or in the base of the deposit. The nature of the distribution of

oyster shell within the fill suggested episodic dumping without huge time

delays between dumping events (see Oyster shell report). Fill (302) also

contained a large quantity of animal bone, this particular dump makes up over

half of the Late Saxon bone from the Chalkpit North Evaluations.


79

Interestingly, sheep and pig foot bones were noticeably scarce, indicating that

this dumped deposit might represent kitchen waste. It is possible that this

collection of bone represents a surface midden, subsequently dumped into

ditch [323] (see Animal Bone report).

4.4.9 The range of artefactual material culture recovered from fill (302) indicates

that ditch [323] was located immediately adjacent to concentrated Late Saxon

settlement activity. In addition, it seems clear that the level of rubbish

dumping observed in fill (302) must have occurred as boundary ditch [325]

went out of use. The dating obtained from horse shoe nail (SF 2317) suggests

that this disuse may have occurred in the later 11th

century. Fill (302) was

environmentally sampled (<302>).

4.4.10 The north east extent of ditch cut [323] truncated deposit (303). Deposit (303),

was a mid-light brown friable silty sand containing <5% inclusions of sub-

angular flint. Deposit (303) is interpreted as a colluvium (hillwash) and was a

maximum of 0.8m in depth. Deposit (303) probably represents a number of

deposition events, but the active nature of the deposit rendered any soil

horizons invisible. Deposit (303) was observed from the point at which it was

truncated by the northeast extent of cut [323], running in a roughly uniform

band into the northeastern extent of Trench 3. Hillwash (303) lay directly

below ploughsoil (301) (physical relationship) at the eastern extent of the

trench. Deposit 303 at its southwestern observed extent may also partly infill

ditch cut [314] (fill (310)), if (as is projected on Fig.29) the ditch does indeed

turn to run on an easterly alignment beyond the southeast extent of Trench 3.

However, this remains conjectural from the evidence presently available.

4.4.11 The excavation of (303) produced a pottery assemblage dominated by Late

Saxon Thetford wares (59 sherds), but including Middle Saxon Ipswich ware

(14 sherds) and a single sherd of Saxon shelly ware, providing a Late Saxon

date for the deposit. Similarly, to later fill (302), layer (303) produced a

number of iron finds, including a knife (SF 2304), an 11th

century horse shoe

nail (SF 2314), a staple (SF2303) and a nail (SF23113) (see Fig. 28 for

locations of SF2304 and 2303). Animal bone, oyster/cockle shell, a fragment


80

of metal slag and fired clay were also recovered from layer (303). The range of

artefactual material culture recovered from layer (303) indicates it formed

during a time when rubbish dumping from the immediately adjacent Saxon

settlement was occurring. The dating obtained from horse shoe nail (SF 2314),

akin to that from fill (302), suggests that this disuse may have occurred in the

later 11th

century. The fact that a layer and later ditch cut are all perhaps dated

to within the later 11th

suggests a final phase of intense settlement activity

within the environs of Trench 3 at this time.

4.4.12 Upon its removal, deposit (303) was found to overlay (stratigraphically) the

fill of a second northwest to southeast aligned Late Saxon ditch: cut [322] (fill

(321)). Ditch cut [322], a northwest-southeast aligned boundary ditch, was

centered 4m west of the eastern extent of Trench 3 and was observable over a

n-s length of 3m. Ditch cut [322], was not fully observed in plan due to the

fact that its fill was truncated at the southwest extent by later ditch cut [323]

(physical relationship) and that it had been scoured away or rendered invisible

by being overlain by hillwash deposit (303) (northern extent of trench,

stratigraphic relationship) (see Figs 30 and 31). Ditch cut [323] had a

maximum observed width of 1.33 m and, upon excavation, had a maximum

observed depth of 0.9m with a moderate to steeply sloping southwest side, and

a u-shaped base (see Fig.29, 30 and 31).

4.4.13 Ditch cut [322] contained a single fill, (321) a naturally silted dark brown

friable silty sand (containing <10% inclusions of sub-angular flint and chalk),

a maximum of 0.9m in depth. Fill (321), covered the entirety of the observed

extent of cut [322]. Fill (321) produced a reasonable assemblage of Anglo-

Saxon pottery consisting of Ipswich ware (3 sherds, including a possible

handle fragment) and Thetford ware (319 sherds); the ratio of Ipswich ware to

Thetford wares providing a Late Saxon date for the deposit. In addition,

animal bone, oyster/ mussel shell, 9 fragments of lava quern, a fragment of

burnt flint and four possible fragments of ceramic building material were

recovered from fill (321). Although the reduced quantities of material culture

recovered from fill (321) (in comparison to later ditch fills such as (302),

indicates that the fill either accumulated relatively rapidly or at a time where


81

rubbish discard from the Saxon settlement was reduced, the range of material

culture deposited in the fill is still indicative of a full range of settlement

activities 3.

4.4.14 Mid-Late Ninth century features

Following the excavation of the Late Saxon features in Trench 3, a sequence

of three further northwest to southeast aligned ditches (cuts [317], [314] and

[316]) were encountered within the central sequence of six cuts in Trench 3

(see Figs 30 and 31). These features were attributed to a ‘Mid-Late Ninth

century phase’ on combined stratigraphic and ceramic evidence (chiefly

proportions of Ipswich ware to Thetford wares). Two other features were also

attributed to this activity phase and excavated: a pit/ditch terminal [305] and a

fragment of an earlier oven ([311]/[313]). 100% of the exposed fill was

excavated. The main Mid-Late Ninth century ditch sequence is now discussed,

followed by the pit/ditch terminal and the oven fragment.

4.4.15 The latest ditch in the sequence of three was cut [317]. Ditch cut [317], a

northwest-southeast aligned boundary ditch, was centered 7m west of the

eastern extent of Trench 3 (on a similar alignment to Late Saxon cut [323])

and was observable over a n-s length of 3m. Ditch cut [317], was not fully

observed in plan due to the fact that its fill was truncated at the southwest

extent by later ditch cut [322] (stratigraphic relationship) and at the northeast

extent by later ditch cut [323] (physical relationship) (see Figs 30 and 31).

Ditch cut [323] had a maximum observed width of 2.2 m and, upon

excavation, had a maximum observed depth of 0.4m with a moderate to

steeply sloping northeast side, a moderately sloping southwest side, and a u-

shaped base (see Fig. 30).

4.4.16 Ditch cut [317] contained a single observable fill, (309) a naturally silted light

brown friable silty sand (containing <5% inclusions of sub-angular flint and

chalk), a maximum of 0.4m in depth. Fill (309), covered the entirety of the

observed extent of cut [317]. Fill (309) contained a small amount of Anglo-

Saxon pottery consisting of Ipswich ware (3 sherds) and Thetford wares (4

sherds), which, although far from conclusive, suggest a Mid-Late Ninth


82

century date for the deposit. Animal bone, oyster/ mussel shell and a fragment

of metal slag were also recovered from fill (309). Other individual finds were

two iron comb teeth (SF2308 and SF2321, see Finds report). The reduced

quantities of material culture recovered from fill (309) (in comparison to later

ditch fills such as (302), indicate that the fill either accumulated relatively

rapidly or at a time where rubbish discard from the Saxon settlement was

reduced.

4.4.17 The excavation of cut [317], fill (309) exposed the fills of two earlier ditches:

fill (306) within ditch cut [316], and fill (310) within ditch cut [314]. Due to

truncation by later features, these two ditches were rendered stratigraphically

unrelated to one another.

4.4.18 Ditch cut [316] (the southwestern most of the two Mid-Late Ninth century

ditches identified below ditch cut [317]) was a northwest-southeast aligned

boundary ditch (centered 9m west of the eastern extent of Trench 3) and was

observed running over a n-s length of 3m. Ditch cut [316], was not fully

observed in plan due to the fact that its fill was truncated at the northeast

extent by later ditch cuts [322] (stratigraphic relationship) and [323] (physical

relationship) (see Figs 30 and 31). Ditch cut [316], an apparent major

boundary, had a maximum observed width of 4.2 m and, upon excavation, had

a maximum observed depth of 1.1m with a gradually sloping stepping to a

moderately sloping northeast side, and a concave, u-shaped base (see Fig.32).


83

Figure 33: NW facing section of Cut [316], (Section 31)

4.4.19 Ditch cut [316] contained four observable fills, (308), (320), (307) and (306)

(see Fig 30). The primary fill, (308), was a naturally silted mid brown friable

sandy silt (containing <5% inclusions of sub-angular flint and chalk), a

maximum of 0.25m in depth. Fill (308) restricted to the basal centre and

southwestern side of cut [316], appeared to have accumulated from erosion of

the southwestern side of the feature. Pottery recovered from fill (308)

consisted of Middle Saxon Ipswich ware (11 sherds), Late Saxon Thetford

wares (6 sherds) and five residual sherds of possible Roman pottery; the

proportions of Saxon pottery hint at a deposition date during the Mid-Late

Ninth century. Other material recovered from the fill includes oyster, mussel

and cockle shell, ten fragments of lava quern, two pieces of burnt flint, metal

slag (3 pieces), and CBM (1 fragment). Considering primary fill (308) may

have formed relatively rapidly, both the quantity and range of material culture

deposited within fill (308) is indicative of a full range of various settlement

activities within the environs of Trench 3 at this time. Fill (308) was

environmentally sampled and heather stem fragments (indicative of the

presence of hearth or oven waste) were recovered (see Environmental section).


84

4.4.20 Overlying, fill (308), was a thin lens of fill (320), observed towards the

southwestern extent of the exposed ditch only. Fill (320) had a distinct


rapidly backfilled discrete deposit of a light brown friable sandy silt

(containing <1% inclusions of charcoal flecks), a maximum of 0.1m in depth.

No artefacts or ecofacts were recovered from fill (320), perhaps suggesting

that it accumulated rapidly (perhaps during a single ditch digging or

backfilling episode).

4.4.21 Fill (320) was overlain by a secondary fill, (307). Fill (307), was a mixed

deposit of a naturally accumulated mottled mid-light brown friable silty sand

(containing <5% inclusions of sub-angular chalk, flint and charcoal flecks), a

maximum of 0.28m in depth, and interpreted as a colluvially formed fill. Fill

(307) extended across the entire observed portion of ditch cut [316], and

appeared to be derived from the southwest side of the feature, judging by the

angle of its tip line. This deposit probably formed during the disuse of ditch

[316], but the mixed nature of the fill, it’s humic quality and inclusions of

charcoal, suggest that this was a time when agricultural and other settlement

related activities were occurring within the environs of Trench 3. Fill (307)

contained a pottery assemblage dominated by Middle Saxon Ipswich ware (24

sherds), in contrast to Late Saxon Thetford wares (3 sherds) and residual

Roman pottery (4 possible sherds). Taken alone, fill (307) would possibly

provided a Middle Saxon date for cut [213]; however, overlying fill (306) (see

discussion below) produced a potential Mid-Late Ninth century date.

Nevertheless, some degree of chronological or functional separation might be

implied between fills (307) and (306). Additional finds from fill (307)

included animal bone, oyster, mussel and cockle shell, and possible metal slag

(4 fragments). A further individual find included an iron nail of probable

Saxon date (SF2306).

4.4.22 Fill (307) was overlain by a tertiary fill, (306). Fill (306), was a mixed deposit

of a naturally accumulated mid brown friable silty sand (containing <5%

inclusions of sub-angular chalk, flint and charcoal flecks), a maximum of

0.41m in depth, and interpreted as a colluvially formed fill (similar in


85

character to colluvial layer (303) but certainly also partly infilling ditch cut

[316]). Fill (306) extended across the entire observed portion of ditch cut

[316], and appeared to be derived from the southwest side of the feature,

judging by the angle of its tip line. This deposit probably formed during the

disuse of ditch [316], but the mixed nature of the fill, it’s humic quality and

inclusions of charcoal, suggest that this was a time when agricultural and other

settlement related activities were certainly occurring within the environs of

Trench 3. Fill (306) contained a good assemblage of Anglo-Saxon pottery,

consisting of Middle Saxon Ipswich ware (39 sherds), and Late Saxon

Thetford wares (22 sherds) suggesting a Mid-Late Ninth century date for the

fill. Additional finds from fill (306) included animal bone, oyster and cockle

shell, and possible metal slag (3 fragments).

4.4.23 Ditch cut [314] (the northeastern most of the two Mid-Late Ninth century

ditches identified below ditch cut [317]), was a northwest-southeast aligned

boundary ditch (centered 4.3m west of the eastern extent of Trench 3) and was

observed running over a n-s length of 3m. Ditch cut [314] was not fully

observed in plan due to the fact that its fill was truncated at the southwest

extent by later ditch cut [317] (stratigraphic relationship) and overlain by

hillwash deposit (303) (physical relationship) (see Figs 29 and 30). It is

suspected, from the profile of cut [314 and fill (310) that (as projected on Fig.

29) the ditch turns to run on an easterly alignment beyond the southeast extent

of Trench 3. This was apparent at the northeast extent of nw facing section of

Trench 3, where cut [314] was observed apparently truncating fill (318) (cut

[319]) (see Fig. 30) . Ditch cut [316] had a maximum observed width of 2.06

m and, upon excavation, had a maximum observed depth of 0.39m with a

moderately sloping sides, breaking sharply to a flattish base (see Fig.30).

4.4.24 Ditch cut [314] contained a single observable fill, (310) a naturally silted light-

mid brown friable silty sand (containing <5% inclusions of sub-angular flint

and chalk), a maximum of 0.39m in depth. Fill (310), covered the entirety of

the observed extent of cut [317]. Fill (310) contained a good assemblage of

Anglo-Saxon pottery, consisting of Ipswich ware (22 sherds), Thetford wares

(26 sherds) and a single Early-Middle Saxon handmade sherd, which can


86

comfortably fit with the Mid-Late Ninth century date suggested by the

stratigraphic position of the fill. Residual Roman pottery (4 fragments) and an

intrusive single sherd of modern pottery do suggest some context

contamination, however. Animal bone, oyster, mussel and cockle shell, five

fragments of lava quern, seven fragments of metal slag, a piece of daub and a

possible fragment of CBM were also recovered from fill (310). Other

individual finds were some iron shears (SF2307), an iron knife (SF2309 and

an iron strip (SF2311), all of potential Late Saxon date (see Finds report). The

range of material culture recovered from fill (310) indicates that ditch [323]

was located adjacent to concentrated Mid-Late Saxon settlement activity. It

seems probable that the level of rubbish dumping observed in fill (310)

occurred as boundary ditch [314] went out of use. Fill (310) was

environmentally sampled and abundant heather stem fragments (indicative of

the presence of hearth or oven waste) were recovered (see Environmental

section).

4.4.25 A further feature identified and attributed to a Mid-Late Ninth century activity

phase was possible ditch terminal/pit, cut [305] (fill (304)). Ditch terminal/pit

cut [305] was located immediately beyond the northeast extent of the long

sequence of six northwest to southeast aligned ditch cuts in the central portion

of Trench 3 as an isolated soil feature. Ditch terminal/pit cut [305] was located

3m west of the eastern extent of Trench 3, and abutted the northern extent of

the trench. Pit cut [220] was an oval shape in plan, although there was a slight

indication that the sides of the feature were ‘flattening out’ to a northeast-

southwest aligned linear profile at the northern extent of the observed feature.

On the basis of this evidence it is felt that cut [305] is more likely to represent

a ditch terminal. Cut [305] had maximum observed surface dimensions of

1.10m (southwest to northeast) by 0.9m (northwest to southeast) (see Fig.33).


87

Figure 33: SE facing section of Cut [305], (Section 3)

4.4.26 Upon excavation, cut [305] was shown to be a maximum depth of 0.28m with

moderately-steeply sloping uneven stepped sides and an irregular-u-shaped

base (see Fig.33). Ditch terminal/pit cut [305] contained a single observable

fill (304), a naturally silted mid-dark orangey brown friable silty sand

(containing 5% inclusions of sub-rounded/sub-angular flint and chalk). A

small assemblage of Anglo-Saxon pottery was recovered from fill (304),

consisting of 3 sherds of Ipswich ware and 7 sherds of Thetford wares. This

limited dating evidence might suggest a Mid-Late Ninth century date, or even

a Late Saxon date, for the infilling of cut [305]. Other material recovered

from fill (304) included animal bone, oyster/cockle shell and a piece of

possible metal slag. Individual finds included two undiagnostic fragments of

copper alloy (SF2301, and SF2300, see Fig. 33). The range of material culture

deposited within fill (304) further indicates concentrated settlement activity

within the environs of Trench 3 at this time.

4.4.27 Mid-Late Ninth century Oven

Following the excavation of fill (310) and cut [314], a further intriguing

feature attributed to a Mid-Late Ninth century activity phase was noted at the

base of Trench 3. Covering an area of roughly one square metre - centred 6.5m

west of the eastern extent, and 0.5m south of the northern extent of Trench 3 -

structure [311] (and associated construction cut [313]) was an apparently in

situ fragment of a possible oven (see Plate 6). Following hand-cleaning, the

oven fragment resolved its appearance in plan as a curved portion of partially


88

fired, rammed yellowish-grey clay (0.18m north-south, by 0.53m east-west)

interpreted as the external wall of the oven ([311]), and, to the immediate

north of oven wall [311], a teardrop shaped demolition deposit (0.7m east-west

by 0.52m north-south) consisting of a mixed deposit of a redeposited burnt,

charcoal rich, reddish-brown sandy silt containing fire-cracked stones (315)

(see Plate 7. Fig. 35). The surface of the oven feature represented by structure

[311] and deposit (315) was truncated on four sides by the two later northwest-

southeast aligned ditch cuts, cut [317] to the west/north and cut [314] to the

east/south. This truncation had isolated a small ‘island’ of intact stratigraphy

where oven [311] remained.

4.4.28 After the extent of oven [311] had been established, the feature was further

investigated by excavation. The stratigraphic sequence of the oven fragment is

now discussed from earliest to latest.

4.4.29 The earliest deposit encountered in the oven sequence was a remnant soil

layer, (326) (see Figs. 34 and 35), preserved beneath oven cut [313]. Layer

(326), interpreted as a remnant Saxon sub-soil, was a light brown friable silty

sand (with no obvious inclusions of stone or charcoal). Layer (326) was

observed over an area of 0.75m east-west, by 0.52 m north-south, with a

maximum depth of 0.13m. Layer (326) was truncated on four sides by two

later northwest-southeast aligned ditch cuts, cut [317] to the west/north and cut

[314] to the east/south. Very little pottery was recovered from layer (326),

being restricted to a single sherd of Middle Saxon Ipswich ware and a single

sherd of Late Saxon Thetford ware. Layer (326) is therefore more accurately

phased to the Mid-Late Ninth century by the fact that it is truncated by

features with very good Mid-Late Ninth century dated fills (e.g. (307) within

cut [316]). Other recovered arefacts included animal bones, oyster shell and a

fragment of fired daub. Layer (326) was environmentally sampled and a good

amount of heather stem fragments (indicative of the presence of hearth or oven

waste) were recovered, perhaps suggesting that industrial activity within the

environs of Trench 3 also pre-dated the construction of oven [311]/[313] (see



89

Plate 6: Trench 3 Oven [311]/[313] under excavation, looking west


90

Plate 7: Detail of Oven Wall [311] under excavation, looking west.


91

Figure 34: N facing section of Oven [311], [313] and Layer (326),

(Section 34)

Figure 35: Detailed Plan of Oven [311]/ [313], (Plan DWG 37)


92

4.4.30 Where observable, remnant subsoil layer (326) was then truncated away by

construction cut for oven [311], cut [313] (see Fig. 34). The construction cut

for the oven, [313] was observed over maximum dimensions of 0.7m east-west

by 0.52m north-south, with a maximum depth of 0.11m. Upon investigation,

cut [313] was found to have a shallowly sloping eastern side and a flattish

base. All other sides of the construction cut had been completely truncated

away by later northwest-southeast aligned ditch cuts, cut [317] to the

west/north and cut [314] to the east/south.

4.4.31 Oven construction cut contained three observable fills, primary fill (312) and,

overlying this, the aforementioned oven structure [311] and demolition deposit

(315). Primary fill (312), covering the entire observed base of construction cut

[313] (0.7m e-w, by 0.52m n-s), was a potentially collapsed/backfilled

homogenous mid orange-brown silty sand deposit (containing <5% inclusions

of sub-angular flint and <1% inclusions of charcoal flecks) a maximum of

0.14m in depth. Primary fill (312) was truncated away by later northwest-

southeast aligned ditch cuts, cut [317] to the west/north and cut [314] to the

east/south. There was little evidence of in situ burning with deposit (312) with

the exception of a small area at the eastern extent of the deposit (underlying

oven structure [311]). Very little pottery was recovered from fill (312), being

restricted to a two sherds of Middle Saxon Ipswich ware and two sherds of

Late Saxon Thetford ware. Fill (312) is therefore more accurately phased to

the Mid-Late Ninth century by the fact that it is truncated by features with

very good Mid-Late Ninth century dated fills (e.g. (307) within cut [316])

(combined with the fact that a presence of Thetford ware which cannot date to

earlier than the Ninth century) . Other recovered artefacts included animal

bones and oyster shell. The restricted range of material culture and

homogeneity of fill (312) perhaps suggests that the deposit formed relatively

rapidly, during the act of constructing oven [311].

4.4.32 Partially overlying fill (312), and almost abutting the eastern extent of

construction cut [313], was the aforementioned oven structure [311],

consisting of an apparently in situ curved portion of partially fired, rammed

yellowish-grey clay (0.18m north-south, by 0.53m east-west) interpreted as the


93

external wall of the oven ([311]). The maximum observed depth of the oven

wall was 0.08m. Structure [311] was truncated away by later northwest-

southeast aligned ditch cuts, cut [317] to the west and cut [314] to the east.

Structure [311] was environmentally sampled (see Environmental section).

4.4.33 Overlying and abutting structure [311], was the aforementioned demolition

deposit (315), consisting of a teardrop shaped demolition deposit (0.7m east-

west by 0.52m north-south and a maximum) consisting of a mixed deposit of a

redeposited burnt, charcoal rich, reddish-brown sandy silt containing fire-

cracked stones (<10%)(315) (see Figs. 34 and 35). Demolition deposit (315)

was truncated away by later northwest-southeast aligned ditch cuts, cut [317]

to the west/north and cut [314] to the east/south. No dateable artefacts were

recovered from demolition deposit (315), and the deposit is more accurately

phased to the Mid-Late Ninth century by the fact that it is truncated by

features with very good Mid-Late Ninth century dated fills (e.g. (307)/[316])

and it overlies deposits containing Thetford war ((326) and (312)). A single

oyster shell and animal bone was recovered from fill (315). The restricted

range of material culture recovered from fill (315) is perhaps more of a

reflection of the small amount of the deposit preserved in the archaeological

record.

4.4.34 The fragment of oven observed in Trench 3 provides solid evidence for the

presence of industrial activities related to the Anglo-Saxon settlement

sometime during the Mid-Late Ninth century; a notion supported by finds of

heather stem fragments in a number of environmental samples from the site

(see Environmental section). In terpretation of the exact nature of oven {311]

is difficult from the small amount remaining in Trench 3. However, the

curvature of structure [311] is not dissimilar from an example excavated

further to the west in Sedgeford in 1991, and interpreted as a Middle Saxon

bread oven (Bates, 1991). Matching the ‘wall’ profiles of the Trench 3 oven

and the excavated example from 1991, it might speculatively be suggested that

the open (stoke-hole) end of the Trench 3 structure was located at the eastern

end of the observed structure: however, this notion must remain conjectural on

present evidence. Further investigation around structure [311] in Trench 3


94

clearly demonstrated that no further structural remains had survived

truncation. The survival of a relict subsoil, (326) is important in that it

demonstrates settlement phasing (and perhaps changes to functional zones)

within the Mid-Late Ninth century occupation phase.

4.4.35 Middle Saxon features

Two further features, a nnw to sse aligned boundary/drainage ditch (cut [319],

see Figs. 29 and 36) and heavily truncated pit/ditch terminal (cut [327], Fig.

31), were identified in Trench 3 and attributed to a ‘Middle Saxon’ activity

phase (on combined stratigraphic and ceramic evidence). 100% of the exposed

fill was excavated.

4.4.36 The first feature, truncated pit/ditch terminal, cut [327] represents the earliest

feature in the long sequence of six Anglo-Saxon cuts observed within the

central portion of Trench 3 (the other cuts being [323], [322], [317], [316] and

[314]). Pit/ditch terminal [327] was centered 4.3m west of the eastern extent of

Trench 3 and was observable over a nw-se length of 1.2 m (due to its complete

truncation in the southern half of Trench 3 by ditch cut [314)]. Pit/ditch

terminal cut [327], was not fully observed in plan due to the fact that its fill

was truncated at the southwest extent by later ditch cut [317] (physical

relationship) and on all other sides by later ditch cut [314] (stratigraphic

relationship) (see Figs 29 and 31). Pit/ditch terminal [327] had a maximum

observed width of 2.03 m and, upon excavation, had a maximum observed

depth of 0.43m, with moderate to steeply sloping sides and a tight u-shaped

base (see Fig.31). Pit/ditch terminal [327] was an oval shape in plan, although

there was a slight indication that the sides of the feature were ‘flattening out’

to a northeast-southwest aligned linear profile at the northern extent of the

observed feature. On the basis of this evidence it is felt that cut [327] is more

likely to represent a ditch terminal than a pit cut.

4.4.37 Pit/ditch terminal cut [327] contained a single observable fill, (328) a naturally

silted darkbrown friable silty sand (containing <5% inclusions of sub-angular

flint and chalk), a maximum of 0.43m in depth. Fill (328), covered the entirety

of the observed extent of cut [327]. Fill (328) contained a small amount of


95

Anglo-Saxon pottery consisting of 3 sherds of Ipswich ware, which, although

far from conclusive, suggests Middle Saxon date for the deposit. Animal bone

and oyster shell was also recovered from fill (328). The reduced quantity and

range of material culture recovered from fill (328), indicate that the fill either

accumulated relatively rapidly or at a time where rubbish discard from the

Saxon settlement was reduced.

Figure 36: NW facing section of ditch cut [319], (Section 35)

4.4.38 The second feature, nne-ssw aligned ditch, cut [319], located at the eastern

extent of Trench 3 and was observable over a nnw-sse length of 1.7 m. Ditch

cut was not fully observed in plan due to the fact that its eastern extent ran

beyond the eastern extent of Trench 3 (see Figs 29 and 36). Ditch cut [319]

had a maximum observed width of 1.55 m (projected total width, c.3m) and,

upon excavation, had a maximum observed depth of 0.68m with a moderate to

steeply sloping western side and a u-shaped base (see Fig. 36). Ditch cut [319]

contained a single observable fill, (318) a naturally silted light brown friable

sandy silt (containing <5% inclusions of sub-angular flint and chalk), a

maximum of 0.68m in depth. Fill (318), covered the entirety of the observed


96

extent of cut [319]. Fill (318) contained a good assemblage of Anglo-Saxon

pottery consisting of 20 sherds of Ipswich ware and only 3 sherds of Thetford

ware. The vast weighting towards Middle Saxon Ipswich ware suggests a

probable Middle Saxon date for the deposit, albeit most likely in the ninth

century due to the presence of a small quantity of (potentially intrusive)

Thetford ware. Animal bone and oyster/mussel shell, 2 fragments of daub, 3

fragments of possible CBM and a possible fragment of metal slag were also

recovered from fill (318). The range of material culture recovered from fill

(318), indicate that the fill accumulated at a time where rubbish discard from

the Saxon settlement was relatively frequent, indicating the close proximity of

concentrated settlement activity.

4.4.39 Conclusion

The discovery of a series of up to six intercutting ditched features attributable

to Anglo-Saxon phases of occupation indicates concentrated land-use,

particularly as a key area for settlement boundaries, and a persistence of

settlement within the environs of Trench 3. The additional presence of

industrial activity suggests the close proximity of later Middle Saxon

habitation zones, as does the varied material culture discard. Importantly, there

is some indication that the observed stratigraphy in this part of the settlement

will offer future opportunities to observe key changes in material culture

discard profiles throughout (and possibly within) the different identified

phases of Middle-Late Saxon land use in the Chalkpit North Anglo-Saxon

settlement (see discussion section below).


97

4.5 Trench 4

4.5.1 Trench 4 was located towards the northwest corner of the northern part of

Chalkpit field (140m west of the of the northeast corner of the field, and 16m

south of the northern field boundary) at the western extent of the most

concentrated area of Saxon settlement as evidenced by surface artefact discard

(see Fieldwalking above). At this point, Chalkpit field is relatively flat, with a

moderate southeast to northwest slope starting beyond the western extent of

Trench 4. The trench was orientated north to south, and position to overlay an

area of possible discrete geophysical anomalies (both positive and negative

magnetic anomalies) thought to represent possible buried archaeological

features. Trench 4 was initially rectangular: 6.2m east to west, by 4.3m north

to south, but was extended by 3.3m (north- south) and 1.8m (east-west) at the

northeast extent of the trench. This was in order to investigate archaeological

features observed at the northern extent of the trench.



brown compact silty sand, containing 10% inclusions of sub-angular flint and

occasional rounded chalk, a maximum of 0.48m in depth and covered the

entirety of the excavated trench. Ploughsoil (401) contained four fragments of

Late Saxon Thetford ware, oyster/cockle shell and animal bone. The broken

frame from a possible Late Saxon d-shaped buckle (SF2405) was also

recovered. Notable stray finds made by metal detecting from the environs of

Trench 4 were a copper alloy hooked tag, and a St.Edmund memorial coin

(c.910-920AD), both finds indicating important Late Saxon activity in the

environs of Trench 4 (see Finds section).

4.5.3 Upon removal of ploughsoil (401) a further soil layer was encountered,

(403/05/18/02/06). Deposit (403/05/18/02/06) was also removed by

mechanical excavator and continuously metal-detected. Layer

(403/05/18/02/06) was a light greyish-brown friable sandy silt containing

<10% inclusions of sub-rounded to sub-angular chalk and flint. Deposit


98

(403/05/18/02/06), interpreted as a remnant colluvium (hillwash), was a

maximum of 0.23m in depth and covered the entirety of the excavated trench.

Hillwash (403/05/18/02/06) contained a number of finds including oyster,

mussel and cockle shell, animal bone, 18 fragments of lava quern (62g), and

Saxon pottery (both Ipswich and Thetford wares) in proportions (5 sherds of

Thetford wares and 2 sherds of Ipswich ware) that could potentially indicate a

Late Saxon or mid-late Ninth century date for concentrated artefact loss if

dealing with a ‘secure’ deposit. A Middle Saxon pin with a balloon shaped

head was also recovered from the base southwest extent of the observed

ploughsoil deposit (see Finds section and see Fig. 37). Hillwash

(403/05/18/02/06) probably represents a number of scouring and deposition

events, but the active nature of the deposit rendered all soil horizons invisible.

All identified sub soil features in Trench 5 were clearly sealed by the hillwash

4.5.4 Four soil features were identified in Trench 4, consisting of an east-west

aligned ditch terminal, [413/17/32], two pit/ditch terminals, [425] and [427],

and a nnw-sse aligned gully terminal [409/10/22]. The features are now

discussed in chronological order (latest first).

4.5.5 Mid-Late Ninth Century features

Three intercutting features - two ditch terminal/pits ([425] and [427]) and a

gully terminal ([409/10/22])- were identified in Trench 3 (see Fig. 37) and

attributed to a ‘Mid-Late Ninth Century’ activity phase (on combined

stratigraphic and ceramic evidence).

4.5.6 The stratigraphically latest feature attributed to the Mid-Late Ninth century

activity phase was ditch terminal/pit, cut [427]. Ditch terminal/pit cut [427]

was located within the northeast extension of Trench 4 (centered 2.3m south of

the northern extent of the trench), and ran under the western extent of the

northern trench extension. Ditch terminal/pit cut [427] as observed was semi-

circular shape in plan, although there was an indication that the sides of the

feature were ‘flattening out’ to an east-west aligned linear profile as the

feature abutted and continued under the western extent of Trench 4. On the

basis of this evidence it is felt that cut [427] is more likely to represent a ditch


99

Figure 37: Post Excavation Plan of Trench 4 (Plan Dwg 48).

North at top of page.

terminal (although this must currently remain conjectural). Cut [427] had

maximum observed surface dimensions of 1.6m (east to west) by 2.0m (north

to south) (see Fig.38).

4.5.7 Upon excavation, cut [427] was shown to have a maximum observed width of

2m and a maximum observed depth of 1.0m with moderately-steeply sloping

southern side sides, a steep concave northern side (suggesting that the feature

had been observed at an acute angle) and a near v-shaped base (see Fig. 38).


100

Ditch terminal/pit cut [427] contained a single observable fill (428), an

apparently naturally silted dark orangey-brown friable silty sand. Fill (428)

contained <2% inclusions of sub-rounded/sub-angular flint and chalk,

including a discrete lens of packed chalk/flint in the upper portion of the fill

perhaps representing a specific collapse/infilling event. Fill (428) was

apparently derived from both sides of cut [427], and the fill covered the

entirety of the observed extent of the ditch/pit cut. A small assemblage of

Anglo-Saxon pottery was recovered from fill (428), consisting of 6 sherds of

Ipswich ware, 7 sherds of Thetford wares and a single residual Roman sherd

(West Norfolk Reduced Ware). This limited dating evidence might suggest a

Mid-Late Ninth century date for the infilling of cut [427]. Other material

recovered from fill (428) included animal bone, oyster/mussel shell, a

fragment of lava quern, and a piece of possible CBM. Individual finds

included an iron strap of potential Saxon date (SF2406) and a curious bone

artefact, with no obvious parallels, consisting of a fragment of a sheep’s rib

onto which nine bird tracheal rings had apparently been threaded (SF2407,

Finds section). The range of material culture deposited within fill indicates

moderate settlement activity within the environs of Trench 4 during the Mid-

Late Ninth century.

4.5.8 Following its excavation, ditch terminal/pit cut [427] was observed to truncate

the southern extent of an earlier feature, ditch terminal/pit cut [425]. Pit/ditch

terminal [425] was centered 1.3m south of the northern extent of Trench 5 and

ran under the western extent of the northern trench extension. Ditch

terminal/pit cut [425] as observed was a semi-circular shape in plan (although

truncated at its southern extent); there was an indication that the sides of the

feature were ‘flattening out’ to an east-west aligned linear profile as the

feature abutted and continued under the western extent of Trench 4. On the

basis of this evidence it is felt that cut [425] is more likely to represent a ditch

terminal than a pit cut (although this must currently remain conjectural). Cut

[425] had maximum observed surface dimensions of 0.85m (east to west) by

2.3m (north to south) (see Fig. 38).

NH

ER

10

79

: A

rchae

olo

gic

al E

val

uati

on o

f C

halk

pit

Fie

ld,

20

07

-8

33

Figure 38: East Facing section of Cuts [425] and [427], (Section 54).


33

4.5.9 Upon excavation, cut [425] was shown to have a maximum observed width of

2.3m and a maximum observed depth of 0.95 m, with a steeply sloping

northern side (southern side not observed) and a tight u-shaped base (see Fig.

38). Pit/ditch terminal cut [425] contained five observable fills, (426), (434),

(429), (430), (431) (see Fig?). The primary fill, (426), was a naturally silted

mid brownish-grey friable sandy silt (containing < 5% sub-angular flint and

chalk and <1% inclusions of charcoal flecks), a maximum of 0.30m in depth.

Fill (426) -restricted to the southern side of cut [425]- appeared to have

accumulated from erosion of the southern side of the feature. No artefacts

were recovered from fill (231), perhaps suggesting that it had accumulated

relatively rapidly.

4.5.10 Overlying, fill (426), was secondary fill (434). Fill (214) had a distinct

boundary with the underlying deposit (426). Fill (434), was a rapidly

accumulated collapse/backfill deposit consisting of 75% sub angular flint

(65%) and chalk (10%) and 25% naturally silted mid brownish-grey friable

sandy silt, a maximum of 0.5m in depth. Fill (434) –located within the

northern and central portion the cut [425]- appeared to have accumulated from

erosion of the southern side of the feature judging by tip lines in the flint. No

artefacts were recovered from fill (434), suggesting that it had accumulated

relatively rapidly.


was a mixed deposit of possibly naturally silted mid-brownish grey friable

silty sand (containing <5% inclusions of sub-angular chalk, flint and charcoal

flecks (<1%)), a maximum of 0.4m in depth. Fill (429), observed within the

central and northern portions of ditch cut [425], appeared to derived – at least

in part- from the northern side of the feature. This deposit probably formed

during the disuse of cut [425]. No artefacts were recovered from fill (429),

suggesting that it had accumulated at a time where little artefact discard from

the Anglo-Saxon settlement was occurring, perhaps suggesting the absence of

concentrated activity in the environs of Trench 4.


103

4.5.12 Tertiary fill (429) was overlain by a further tertiary deposit, fill (430). Fill

(430), was a naturally silted mid orange-brown friable silty sand (containing

<1% inclusions of sub-angular chalk and flint), a maximum of 0.08m in depth.

Fill (429) was observed within the central portion of ditch cut [425], and

appeared to have derived from both the northern and southern sides of the

feature. This deposit probably formed as a rapid silting event during the disuse

of cut [425]. No artefacts were recovered from fill (430).

4.5.13 Tertiary fill (430) was overlain by a further tertiary deposit, fill (431), which

was the final infilling event within ditch terminal/pit cut [425]. Fill (431), was

a naturally silted mid greyish-brown friable silty sand (containing <2%

inclusions of sub-angular chalk and flint, and <1% charcoal flecks), a

maximum of 0.27m in depth. Fill (431) was observed within the central

portion of ditch cut [425], and appeared to have derived from both the

northern and southern sides of the feature. This deposit probably formed

during the disuse of ditch [425], but it’s humic quality and inclusions of

charcoal, certainly suggest that this was a time when agricultural and other

settlement related activities were occurring within the environs of Trench 4.

Fill (431) contained four sherds of Middle Saxon Ipswich ware pottery and a

single sherd of Iron Age pottery (sandy fabric), but no Late Saxon Thetford

wares, which taken alone might suggest a Middle Saxon date for the fill.

However, the ceramic evidence is far from abundant, and the fact that cut

[425] was later found to overly a Mid-Late Ninth century context containing

predominantly Thetford wares (fill (407/08/23),cut [427] see below) might

suggest a Ninth century date, no later, for fill (431). Animal bone, shell

(oyster, mussel and cockle) and metal slag (3 fragments) were also recovered

from fill (431), suggesting that some artefact discard from Middle Saxon/Mid-

Late Ninth Century settlement activity, was occurring in the environs of

Trench 4 during the time in which the deposit formed.

4.5.14 Following its excavation, ditch terminal/pit cut [425] was observed, at its

eastern extent, to truncate an earlier feature: nnw-sse aligned gully terminal

[409/10/22] (see Fig 37 and Fig 39). Gully terminal [409/10/22], the final

feature attributed to a Mid-Late Ninth century activity phase, was a maximum


104

of 0.4m wide, and observed over a nnw-sse length of 4.4 towards the eastern

extent of Trench 4. Gully cut [409/10/22] terminated in a rounded nnw

terminal, 0.4m south of the northern extent of Trench 4. The full length of the

feature was not observed due to the fact that the cut ran beyond the southwest

corner of Trench 4. Upon excavation, gully [409/10/22] was shown to have a

maximum observed width of 0.4m and a maximum observed depth of 0.4 m,

with moderately sloping sides and a u-shaped base (see Fig.37/39). Gully

[409/10/22] is best interpreted as a drainage gully and/or settlement plot

boundary.

Figure 39: South Facing section of Cut [410], truncated by [427]

(Section 42).

4.5.15 Gully cut [409/10/22] contained a single observable fill (407/08/23) (see Fig?),

a naturally silted mid orange-brown silty sand (containing < 1% sub-angular

flint and chalk and <1% inclusions of charcoal flecks), a maximum of 0.4m in

depth. Fill (407/08/23) covered the entire observed extent of cut [409/10/22].

Anglo-Saxon pottery was recovered from fill (407/08/23), in proportions

indicating a Late Saxon or Mid-Late Ninth century date for infilling (2 sherds

of Ipswich ware and 12 sherds of Thetford wares). Animal bone,

oyster/mussel/cockle shell and possible metal slag (5 fragments) was also

recovered from fill (407/08/23), indicating that moderate artefact discard from

Middle Saxon/Mid-Late Ninth Century settlement activity, was occurring in

the environs of Trench 4 during the time in which the deposit formed.


105

4.5.16 The discovery of a series of three intercutting features attributable to a Mid-

Late Ninth century phase of occupation, indicates concentrated land-use and a

persistence of settlement within the environs of Trench 4. However, the

quantity and range of material culture discard is reduced in comparison to

Trench 3; potentially indicating that we are observing the western boundary of

a zone of concentrated artefact discard.

4.5.17 Middle Saxon feature

A single soil feature -east-west aligned ditch terminal, [413/17/32] – was

identified in Trench 4 that could be more confidently attributed to a Middle

Saxon activity phase.

4.5.18 East-west aligned ditch terminal, [413/17/32], was a maximum of 1.0m wide,

and observed over a nnw-sse length of 4.2 towards the western extent of

Trench 4. Ditch terminal [413/17/32] terminated in a rounded eastern terminal,

1.1m east of the western extent of Trench 4’s northern extension. The full

length of the feature was not observed due to the fact that the cut ran beyond

the western side Trench 4. Upon excavation, gully [409/10/22] was shown to

have a maximum observed width of 1.6m (maximum projected width c.3m)

and a maximum observed depth of 1.07 m, with steeply sloping sides (stepped

half way down), breaking sharply to a flat base (see Fig. 40). At the eastern

observed extent of the feature (cut [417]), the feature was a maximum of 1m

wide, 0.3m deep and contained a single fill, (414) (see Fig. 41). Ditch terminal

[413/17/32] is best interpreted as a large boundary ditch boundary. The feature

may have had a stratigraphic relationship with potentially earlier ditch

terminal/pit cut [427], but this unfortunately lay beyond the western extent of

the excavation trench.

4.5.19 Ditch terminal [413/17/32] contained six observable fills, (421), (420), (419),

(412), (411) and (433/14/15/16/04: numbered individually in different

interventions, but a single fill) (see Fig. 40). The primary fill, (421), was a

naturally silted dark brown friable sandy silt (containing < 5% sub-angular

flint and chalk and <1% inclusions of charcoal flecks), a maximum of 0.1m in


106

Figure 40: East Facing Ditch terminus [417], (Section 45).

Figure 41: West Facing section of Cut [413], (Section 49).


107

depth. Fill (421) covered the entire observed base of cut [413] and had not

obviously silted from any particular side of the cut. A single small sherd of

Thetford ware (5g) was recovered from fill (421) which, given the Middle

Saxon date obtained from overlying fills (419), (412) and (411), may represent

an intrusive sherd. Nevertheless, the possibility remains that the infilling of cut

[413] occurred during the ninth century. Animal bone and oyster shell was

also recovered from fill (421). The limited artefacts recovered from fill (421)

perhaps suggest that it had accumulated relatively rapidly, or at a time where

artefact discard from the surrounding settlement was limited.

4.5.20 Overlying, fill (421), was secondary fill (420). Fill (420) had a distinct

boundary with the underlying deposit (421). Fill (420), was a naturally silted

dark reddish brown friable sandy silt, a maximum of 0.1m in depth. Fill (420)

covered the entire observed extent of cut [413], and appeared to have

accumulated from erosion of the northern side of the cut judging by the tip

angle of the deposit. No dateable artefacts were recovered from fill (420), but

animal bone, oyster shell and a fragment of possible metal slag was recovered.

The limited artefacts recovered from fill (421) perhaps suggest that it had

accumulated relatively rapidly, or at a time where artefact discard from the

surrounding settlement was limited.

4.5.21 Overlying, fill (420), was a further secondary fill (419). Fill (419) had a

distinct boundary with the underlying deposit (4210). Fill (419), was a rapidly

accumulated naturally silted dark brown friable sandy silt (a maximum of

0.17m in depth), perhaps representing a single silting event. Fill (419) was

restricted to the southern extent cut [413], but appeared to have accumulated

from erosion of the northern side of the cut judging by the tip angle of the

deposit. Anglo-Saxon pottery, consisting of four sherds of Ipswich ware were

recovered from fill (419), which although a limited assemblage, may indicate a

Middle Saxon date for the fill. Animal bone, oyster shell and a fragment of

possible metal slag were also recovered from fill (419). The limited artefacts

recovered from fill (419) are perhaps a reflection of the fact that it had

accumulated relatively rapidly, perhaps also at a time where artefact discard


108

from the surrounding settlement was reduced settlement (although not as

reduced as with fills (421) and (420)).


was a mixed deposit of possibly backfilled/naturally silted greyish-brown

friable sandy silt (containing <5% inclusions of sub-angular chalk, flint and

charcoal rich (<10%)), a maximum of 0.4m in depth. Fill (412), covered the

entire observed extent of cut [413] and may have accumulated from both sides

of the cut. This deposit formed when cut [413] was no longer properly

maintained; it’s richness in leached charcoal, certainly suggest that this was a

time when agricultural and other settlement related activities were occurring

within the environs of Trench 4. Anglo-Saxon pottery, consisting of a single

sherd of Ipswich ware, was recovered from fill (412) which, although

inconclusive in itself, supports the better Middle Saxon dates obtained for

interleaving fills (411) and (419). Animal bone, oyster shell and two fragments

of lava quern were recovered from fill (412). Two further notable finds from

fill (412) were a fragment of undiagnostic glass (SF24008) and a Middle-Late

Saxon earring (SF2403). The limited quantities of artefacts recovered from fill

(412) are perhaps a reflection of the fact that the deposit accumulated at a time

where artefact discard from the surrounding settlement was relatively limited.

However, despite the small quantities, a good range of Middle Saxon

settlement related activities are represented in the material culture from

deposit (412). In addition, fill (412) was environmentally sampled and a good

amount of heather stem fragments (indicative of the presence of hearth or oven

waste) were recovered, perhaps suggesting industrial activity within the

environs of Trench 4 at this time (see Environmental section).

4.5.23 Tertiary fill (412) was overlain by a further tertiary deposit, fill (411). Fill

(411), was a naturally accumulated mid reddish-brown friable silty sand

(containing <5% inclusions of rounded chalk and flint), a maximum of 0.11m

in depth. Fill (411) covered the entire observed extent of cut [413], and

appeared to have derived from both the northern and southern sides of the

feature. This deposit probably formed during the disuse of cut [413]. Anglo-

Saxon pottery, consisting of a five sherds of Ipswich ware, was recovered


109

from fill (411) which, although a small quantity, suggests a Middle Saxon date

for the fill. Animal bone was also recovered from fill (411). The limited

artefacts recovered from fill (411) are perhaps a reflection of the fact that it

had accumulated relatively rapidly at a time where artefact discard from the

surrounding settlement was limited.

4.5.24 Tertiary fill (412) was overlain by a further tertiary deposit, fill

(433/14/15/16/04), which was the final infilling event within ditch terminal

[413]. Fill (433/14/15/16/04)), was a mixed deposit of possibly

backfilled/naturally silted mid orange-brown friable sandy silt (containing

<2% inclusions of sub-angular chalk and flint, and <1% charcoal flecks), a

maximum of 0.3m in depth. Fill (433/14/15/16/04) covered the entire observed

extent of cut [413], and appeared to have derived from both the northern and

southern sides of the feature. This deposit probably formed during the disuse

of cut [413], but it’s humic quality and inclusions of charcoal, certainly

suggest that this was a time when agricultural and other settlement related

activities were occurring within the environs of Trench 4. Fill

(433/14/15/16/04) contained six sherds of Anglo-Saxon pottery: 3 sherds of

Middle Saxon Ipswich ware and 3 sherds of Late Saxon Thetford ware. The

ceramic evidence is far from abundant, but a Mid-Late Ninth century

depositional date for fill (433/14/15/16/04) might be argued. If this is the case,

a degree of chronological separation between the ‘final disuse’ of cut [413]

(represented by fill (433/14/15/16/04)) and earlier fills (411), (412) and (419)

might be suggested. Animal bone, shell (oyster, mussel and cockle), a

fragment of lava quern and a possible fragment of CBM were also recovered

from fill (433/14/15/16/04) , suggesting that some artefact discard from

Middle Saxon/Mid-Late Ninth Century settlement activity, was occurring in

the environs of Trench 4 during the time in which the deposit formed.

4.5.25 Conclusion

The discovery of a series of up to three intercutting features attributable to a

Mid-Late Ninth century phase of occupation indicates concentrated land-use,

and a persistence of settlement within the environs of Trench 4 at this time.


110

Middle Saxon land-use is also in evidence, but the activity is perhaps not as

concentrated, judging from the available evidence.


111

4.6 Trench 5

4.6.1 Trench 5 was located towards the northwest corner of the northern part

Chalkpit Field (158m west of the northeast corner of the field, and 20m south

of the northern field boundary). At this point, Chalkpit field slopes moderately

from southeast to northwest. The trench was orientated wsw to ene, and

positioned to overlay an area of possible ephemeral north to south aligned

geophysical anomalies thought to represent possible buried archaeological

features. Trench 5 was 1.7m wide and 20.8m long, with a stepped extension

(for archaeological reasons) extending 1m south of the western 5m of the

excavated trench.



brown compact silty sand, containing 15% inclusions of sub-rounded to sub-

angular flint (<6cm), a maximum of 0.5m in depth and covered the entirety of

the excavated trench. Ploughsoil (501) contained a number of finds including

modern tile and ceramic building material, but also Late Saxon Thetford ware,

oyster shell and animal bone indicative of a continuation of the Late Saxon

settlement scatter in this, the most westerly of the evaluation trenches. A

notable stray find was a Roman coin (SF 2501), identified as a Barborous

Radiate (c.275-85AD) (see Finds section).

4.6.3 Upon removal of ploughsoil (514), the natural superficial geology was

revealed. The natural ground (514) generally consisted of a mixed orange-

brown silty sand, and 30% sub-angular coarse gravel (especially at the western

extent of the trench). Approximately 5.5m east of the western extent of Trench

5, a discrete northwest to southeast aligned band of a friable reddish-orange

sandy silt, (504/5) (containing <1% inclusions of small sub-rounded flint and

chalk) a maximum of 1.9m in width, was observed extending beyond the

northern and southern extent of the trench. Initially investigated as an

archaeological feature, deposit (504/5) was shown to be sterile and without


112

obvious sides (at a depth of 0.5m). This discrete deposit is therefore

interpreted as a natural solution channel.

4.6.4 The coarse gravel natural had not contributed to the enhanced preservation of

sub-soil archaeological features. Nevertheless, as deposit (514) was cleaned by

hand, five discrete features, evidencing no stratigraphic sequence, were

revealed (see Fig. 42).

4.6.5 Mid-Late Ninth Century feature

A single feature –a truncated pit (cut [508] see Fig. 42) - was identified in the

western half of Trench 5, and is attributed to a ‘Mid-Late Ninth Century’

phase (on the basis of ceramic evidence). 100% of the exposed fill was

excavated.

4.6.6 Pit cut [508] was located 4.2m east of the western extent of Trench 5, and

abutted the southern extent of the trench. As a result, Trench 5 was extended

1m south to observe the entire extent of pit cut [508]. Pit cut [508] was

irregular-oval shape in plan, with maximum surface dimensions of 0.79m

(north to south) by 0.65m (east to west). Upon excavation, pit cut [508] was

shown to be a maximum of 0.32m in depth with moderately sloping concave

sides and a u-shaped base to irregular base (see Fig. 43). Pit cut [508]

contained a single observable fill (509), a possibly backfilled deposit

consisting of a mixture of a dark brown friable silty sand (80%) and a charcoal

rich very dark brown silt with frequent flecks of burnt red clay and burnt

chalk. Both Middle Saxon Ipswich ware (2 sherds) and Late Saxon Thetford

ware (3 sherds) were recovered from fill (509). A notable find was an Iron

chisel, potentially a Late Saxon Iron working tool (SF 2500) (see Finds

section). Fill (230) was environmentally sampled and heather stem fragments

(indicative of the presence of hearth or oven waste) were recovered (see


4.6.7 The primary function of pit cut [508] is uncertain, however, if the pit was dug

specifically to receive backfilled waste, the combined evidence of the burnt

and hearth/oven waste, and a potential iron working tool, suggests that this

NH

ER

10

79

: A

rchae

olo

gic

al E

val

uati

on o

f C

halk

pit

Fie

ld,

20

07

-8

33

Figure 42: Trench 5 Post-excavation, (Plan Dwg. 47).


33

Figure 43: NFS through pit cuts [508] and [502], (Section. 44).

Figure 44: NFS through Ditch cuts [506], (Section. 27).

Figure 45: NFS through Gully cuts [510] and [512], (Section. 28).


115

was industrial waste perhaps associated with high temperature activities (such

as iron working). Industrial activities are often located on the periphery of

settlements and pit [508] may hint that we are observing the remains of a

different functional zone of the Late Saxon settlement in Trench 5. A Middle

Saxon bread oven was located immediately beyond the western extent of

Chalkpit Field in 1991 (see Bates 1991).

4.6.8 Late Saxon feature

A single feature –a nnw-sse aligned boundary or drainage ditch, cut [506] (see

Fig. 42)- was identified in the western half of Trench 5, and is attributed to a

‘Late Saxon’ phase (on the basis of ceramic evidence). 100% of the exposed

fill was excavated.

4.6.9 Ditch cut [506], was located 10.5m east of the western extent of Trench 5.

Ditch cut [506] was a maximum of 0.86m in width, and ran beyond both the

northern and southern extent of Trench 5. Upon excavation ditch cut [506] was

shown to be a maximum of 0.66m in depth with a steeply sloping irregular

sides that broke steeply to a flattish base (see Fig. 44). Ditch cut [506]

contained a single fill, (507), a naturally silted mid orange-brown silty sand,

with frequent inclusions of sub-angular flint. Fill (507) contained four sherds

of Late Saxon Thetford ware and two residual sherds of Prehistoric/Roman

pottery, suggesting a Late Saxon date, although the ceramic evidence is far

from abundant. Additional evidence recovered from the fill included animal

bone and shell.

4.6.10 The density of Anglo-Saxon cut features identified in Trenches 2, 3 and, to a

lesser extent, Trench 4, the sub-surface remains located in Trench 5 suggest

that it is located towards the north- western periphery of the most concentrated

Middle-Late Saxon settlement activity.

4.6.11 Possible Medieval feature


116

A single feature –a truncated pit (cut [502] see Fig. 42)- was identified in the

western half of Trench 5, and is the only feature of a possible Medieval date

(on the basis of ceramic evidence) to be identified during the Chalkpit

evaluations. 100% of the exposed fill was excavated.

Pit cut [502] was located 3m east of the western extent of Trench 5, and

abutted the southern extent of the trench. As a result, Trench 5 was extended

1m south to observe the entire extent of pit cut [502]. Pit cut [502] was a sub-

circualr shape in plan, with maximum surface dimensions of 1.15m (north to

south) by 0.62m (east to west). Upon excavation, pit cut [502] was shown to

be a maximum of 0.13m in depth with steep, almost vertical sides and a flat

base (see Fig. 43). Pit cut [502] contained a single observable fill (503), a

naturally silted deposit very dark brown friable sandy silt containing

occasional sub-angular fragments of burnt chalk and flint ( inclusions similar

to that identified within fill (509)). Five fragments of unglazed Medieval

pottery (including a single sherd of unglazed Grimston ware), were recovered

from fill (503) (in addition to Middle Saxon Ipswich ware (3 sherds), Late

Saxon Thetford ware (1 sherd) and a residual Roman sherd), indicating a

deposition date perhaps between the 11th

and 13th

centuries AD. Shell and

animal bone was also recovered from fill (503). Fill (503) was

environmentally sampled (see Environmental section). The primary function

of pit cut [502] is uncertain.

4.6.12 Undated features

Two further features –consisting of two undated drainage gullies (cuts [512]

and [510], see Fig.)- were identified towards the eastern extent of Trench 5.

100% of the exposed fill was excavated.

4.6.12 Cut [512], a nne-ssw aligned apparent drainage gully located 2.3m west of the

eastern extent of Trench 5. Gully cut [512] was a maximum of 0.5 in width,

and ran beyond both the northern and southern extent of Trench 5. Upon

excavation gully cut [512] was shown to be a maximum of 0.25m in depth

with moderately-steeply sloping irregular sides that broke sharply to a flattish

base (see Fig. 45). Ditch cut [512] contained a single fill, (513), a naturally


117

silted dark brown silty sand, with 5% inclusions of sub-angular chalk and flint.

Fill (513) contained no artefacts to aid interpretation, but the profile of the

feature bears morphological similarities to drainage gullies identified further to

the north in the 1996-2007 SHARP Boneyard excavations (Cabot, Davies and

Hoggett, 2004, 316).

4.6.13 Cut [510], a nne-ssw aligned apparent drainage gully located 1m west of the

eastern extent of Trench 5. Gully cut [510] was a maximum of 0.42 in width,

and ran beyond both the northern and southern extent of Trench 5. Upon

excavation, gully cut [510] was shown to be a maximum of 0.4m in depth with

steeply sloping sides and a near v-shaped profile (see Fig. 45). Gully cut [510]

contained a single fill, (511), a naturally silted dark brown sandy silt, with 2%

inclusions of sub-angular chalk and flint. Fill (511) contained no artefacts to

aid interpretation, but the profile of the feature bears morphological

similarities to drainage gullies identified further to the north in the 1996-2007

SHARP Boneyard excavations (Cabot, Davies and Hoggett, 2004, 316). In

addition, the morphological similarity between cuts [510] and [512] suggest

that they may be related (both chronologically and functionally), although this

must remain conjectural.

4.6.14 Conclusion

The reduced material culture and density of sub-surface archaeological

features in the area of the site represented by Trench 5 certainly suggests that

the northwest corner of the northern extension of Chalkpit field is peripheral to

the main settlement zone in contrast to Trenches 2-4.


33

5. The Finds

Note: Specialist reports on Shell (although see assessment in section 6),

Quern, fired Clay/daub, burnt flint, slag, ceramic building and clay pipe are

not included in this report. Instead, a basic tabulation (including count and

weight) is provided as Appendix 2. Where relevant these Bulk Finds are

discussed in the text of Section 4.

5. 1 The Pottery by Neil Faulkner and Ann Smith

5.1.1 A total of 997 sherds was recovered from the five evaluation trenches, of

which 918 could be identified with reasonable confidence; of these 997, 858

(86%) came from Trench 3. The assemblage was overwhelmingly Middle to

Late Saxon in date; other periods were represented only by residual material.

The sherd counts by period were as follows: Iron Age, 5 (1%); Roman, 17

(2%); Middle Saxon, 295 (32%); Late Saxon, 592 (64%); Medieval, 1 (0%);

and Post-medieval, 8 (1%).

5.1.2 A full context by context breakdown of pottery finds is provided below in

Table 1. The abbreviations on Table 1 are now explained, using information

from the SHARP pottery typology. Readers should refer to this for a full

breakdown of categories of pottery finds from Sedgeford (Faulkner, 2004).

5.1.3 The Fabric Series (abbreviated as Fabric in Table 1).

The following is a summary of the different pottery types found during the

CNE 2007 evaluations.

5.1.4 Prehistoric Pottery

PF: Prehistoric handmade flint-tempered wares. (? Spong Hill fabric IA2.)

Reduced dark grey fabric, often with outer surface oxidised to red, orange or

pink. A poorly-fired, somewhat crumbly fabric, with numerous, irregular,

angular, small to medium flints or grits. ? Neolithic to Late Iron Age. Gregory

1991, 158; Percival 1999, 173-84; Percival 2000, 215-16.


119

5.1.4 ISd: Iron Age handmade sandy wares. (Spong Hill fabric IA1; ? Quidney

Farm fabrics IA99, IA95 and IA97; Biddulph HMS and HMG; SHARP

Pottery Typology 1999 IS, IGt and SH; SHARP Pottery Typology 2003 ?IGr

and IGg.) Occasionally slightly oxidised to browny-red, orangy-red or orangy-

yellow, but otherwise dark-grey to dull-brown or buff. Hard, sandy fabric,

sometimes with occasionally irregular, usually angular, small to large flints.

Mica may be present in variable quantity. Sometimes temper includes grog

and/or variable quantities of grass temper. The ‘groggy’ sherds tend to have a

grey, ‘soapy’ fabric, with numerous, often quite large, red or orange grog

inclusions. (Reclassification of a small number of handmade sandy and grass-

tempered sherds from the Saxon period [SH and SG in the SHARP Pottery

Typology 1999] to the Iron Age has significant implications for the dating of

the Saxon sequence on Boneyard/Reeddam. This reclassification is supported

by stratigraphy: there is no evidence of 5th

to 7th

century AD phases on the

site.) Sometimes wiped to produce smooth surface sheen; otherwise surfaces

have ‘sandpaper’ feel. Sometimes has ‘rusticated’ scored-decoration across

parts or whole of exterior surfaces. (This is a general ‘lumping’ category of

handmade sandy wares of Middle to Late Iron Age date, which workers at

other sites, e.g. Quidney Farm, Saham Toney, have attempted to split into sub-

categories.) Sandy wares, Middle to Late Iron Age/Early Roman (c. 300 BC-

AD 100). Gregory 1991, 158; Percival 2000, 215-16. Grass-tempered sherds,

?? Late Iron Age/Early Roman (c. 100 BC-100 AD). Sarah Percival, pers.

comm.. Grog-tempered sherds, Late Iron Age/Early Roman (c. ? 100 BC-AD

100). Percival 2000, 215-16; Sarah Percival, pers. comm.Wilson 2003.

5.1.5 ?IU: Iron Age unknown. Unidentified but probably Iron Age. Wilson

grouped MOST of the IA pottery from Sedgeford in this category. This was

done on the following basis. Fabric is not chronologically diagnostic: both fine

and ‘crude’ ceramic may be produced throughout the IA; and ‘crude’ ceramic

is especially likely to be prevalent alongside fine ceramic in the LIA. Firing in

bonfire stacks on domestic sites is likely to have produced a very wide range

of ceramic finishes throughout the IA. Form is more diagnostic – though even


120

here boundaries are blurred and uncertain. This leaves most body sherds – and

even many rims – as simply of broad Iron Age date. Wilson 2003.

5.1.6 Roman Pottery

RSa: Roman samian wares. (Biddulph SAMIAN.) Mid-1st to mid-3

rd century

AD.

5.1.7 RNa: Roman Nar Valley oxidised wares. (Biddulph NARO; Spong Hill

fabric 16.) (NB It is possible that this fabric may be confused with earlier,

local, Roman coarsewares.) Late 2nd

century AD onwards.

5.1.8 RG: (unsourced) Roman sand-tempered grey-surfaced wares. (Biddulph

GSW.) Reduced buff or light-grey fabric, with rare oxidisation. Hard, wheel-

thrown, sandy, coarseware fabric, with occasional varied inclusions.

Somewhat more distinctive when compared with IS and IB than RBl. Roman.

5.1.9 WNRW: West Norfolk Reduced Wares.

5.1.10 ?RU: Roman unknown. Unidentified but probably Roman.

5.1.11 Anglo-Saxon Pottery

E-MS: Early-Middle Saxon Handmade. A handmade fabric, often with

grass temper to distinguish from Isd. Identified by Rogerson, 2008 and to be

further assessed.

5.1.12 SI: Middle Saxon Ipswich-type wares. Thick, chunky sherds. Fairly hard

and well-fired. Fine fabric apparently in three main types: a) ‘smooth’ SI has

few sand inclusions and a smooth ‘talcum-powder’ surface feel; b) ‘sandy’ SI

has more sand inclusions and a rougher ‘sandpaper’ surface feel; and c)

‘pimply’ SI has many coarse sand inclusions and an uneven ‘pimply’ surface

feel. However, microscopic examination has shown really only two main

fabrics: Group 1 are smooth and sandy without large, rounded, sand inclusions

(= ‘smooth’ and ‘sandy’ types); and Group 2 have the large, rounded, sand

inclusions (= ‘pimply’). (But there is no evidence that these fabric differences


121

are diagnostic, and my analysis has not, therefore, included this distinction.)

Irregular cavities are sometimes apparent in the matrix. Usually light-grey,

occasionally brown, very occasionally highly-oxidised red. Sometimes outer

surfaces are burnished and dark-grey. Slow-wheel-made, so rilling and other

hand-work marks often uneven. Many body sherds display irregular,

concentric banding, presumably evidence of coil-method manufacture. Rims

usually simple and everted. Usually saggy-bottomed, sometimes with knife or

string cut-marks. Occasional stamped and scored decoration (perhaps

indicating a later date). West 1963; Hurst & West 1957; Hurst 1976; Jennings

1981; Paul Blinkhorn, pers. com.. c. AD 720-?850+.

5.1.13 ST: Late Saxon Thetford-type wares. Hard, well-fired sherds with sandy,

‘sandpaper’-feel fabric. Fast-wheel-made, with regular rilling often evident.

Rims often elaborate: usually everted, often rolled, and usually either rounded

or with concave hollow on inside. Usually flat-bottomed, sometimes with wire

marks. Sometimes decorated with bands of diamond- or square-shaped

rouletting, occasionally with incised wavy-lines, and often (? especially later)

with thumb-impressed appliqué-strips. There may be a contrast between

‘good-quality’ ST (usually hard, dense, mid-dark iron-grey, where the core

may be somewhat lighter, but with oxidisation rare); ‘medium-quality’ ST

(unevenly fired and inconsistently reduced, with a range of colours, including

light-grey, dark-grey/brown sandwich, and light- or orangy-brown); and ‘poor-

quality’ ST (unevenly fired under partially-reducing conditions, usually with

light- to dark-grey core and a range of surface colours, including grey, brown,

buff, orangy-buff, orangy-pink, pinky-red, and occasionally cream). This

contrast may be linked with three other variables: a) diminishing density,

hardness and ‘fineness’, so that mediums and poors may be somewhat lighter

and softer; b) increasing coarseness of inclusions, so that mediums and poors

may have more, larger and somewhat different inclusions; and c) diminishing

quality of finish, so that mediums and poors may be somewhat crude. Better

STs have the following inclusions (in diminishing order of frequency): clear,

whitish, rounded quartz; dark-grey and reddish-brown ores; white/grey flint;

chalk; fine, silvery, platey mica-particles. Poorer STs have (again in

diminishing order of frequency): clear, white quartz; coarse, sub-angular,


122

red/brown flint (up to 2mm); coarse grog (‘red bits’); and bits of iron ore. (A

distinction between ‘smooth’ ST (an early Ipswich product) and ‘sandy’ ST

(the slightly later product of Thetford itself and other production centres) has

been recognised elsewhere, but not in the Sedgeford assemblage.) It is possible

that a shift from a small number of early, centrally located, highly capitalised,

high-quality production centres to a larger number of later, more local, less

capitalised, lower-quality production centres may account for this, but this is

highly speculative, and there are, in fact, no agreed diagnostic fabric

distinctions within the assemblage. c. AD ?850-1075/1100+. The start date is

complicated by two factors. First, at Sedgeford (as at other Middle to Late

Saxon sites in the region), there is evidence for a considerable SI/ST ceramic

overlap, so the probability is that SI continues substantially later than 850

and/or ST begins substantially earlier. Second, the earlier ‘smooth’ ST has not

been recognised at Sedgeford; this compounds our ‘ceramic gap’, since it is

this material that has the earlier suggested start-date of c. AD 850, while other

ST is usually dated c. AD 875/925. The end date is also problematic: ST

merges imperceptibly into MGu, so that 1075/1100 represents an arbitrary and

hypothetical termination, based partly on general lack of evidence for post-11th

century activity on the site. Hurst 1957; Clark 1973; Jennings 1981; Jennings

1983; Rogerson & Dallas 1984; Leah 1994; Andrews 1995; Sue Anderson,

pers. com.; Paul Blinkhorn, pers. com.; Andrew Rogerson, pers. com..

5.1.14 SSh: Late Saxon shell-tempered wares. There are two main types, hard to

distinguish. St Neots ware tends to be black or purple if it is c. AD 850/900-

1000, and pale pinky-brown if later, tends to have fine and even temper, and

(microscopically) will often have regular black specking on the shell caused

by the bryozoa brachyopod. Lincolnshire shelly ware tends to be pinky or

orangy, to have large and irregular temper, and always lacks black specking.

Sedgeford’s Late Saxon shell-tempered wares may be predominantly

Lincolnshire. These fabrics are relatively low-fired and soft, with a ‘waxy’ or

‘soapy’ feel, and fast-wheel-made with rilling often evident. They are often

saggy-bottomed. c. AD ? 850-1150. (NB If early St Neots could be clearly

recognised in the assemblage, it might, in view of the chronologically fuzzy


123

character of ST, provide a useful terminus ante quem.) Hurst 1976; Paul

Blinkhorn, pers. com..

5.1.15 Medieval Pottery

MGu: Medieval unglazed Grimston-type wares. Moderately hard, well-

fired sherds, fairly thin-walled, less dense and lighter than the better-fired,

iron-grey ST. Fabric sandy with coarse ‘sandpaper’-feel and rougher-looking

than ST. Usually evenly fired and consistenly oxidised, so colour typically a

sandwich of pinky-red or orangy-brown surfaces with grey or brown cores.

Inclusions similar to ST, but tend to be larger and cruder, reaching up to 7mm.

Fast-wheel-made, with regular rilling sometimes evident, though with rough

finish. Usually flat-bottomed. Represents local continuation of ST tradition, so

the two merge and there is no clear distinction at this point; where ST ends and

MGu begins is arbitrary and subjective. When distinctive, MGu need not be

earlier than MGg. (NB Abraded MGg sherds which have lost their glaze will

be identical to MGu.) c. AD 1100/1150-?1250/1300. Clarke 1973; Leah 1994;

Sue Anderson, pers. com.; Jim Beckerleg, pers. com.; Andrew Rogerson, pers.

com..

5.1.16 ?MU: Medieval unknown. Unidentified but probably medieval.

5.1.17 Early Modern Pottery

PRE: Early post-medieval glazed red earthenwares. Orange-red fabric with

clear glaze over a light-brown slip. Numerous forms occur. Early 16th

century-

c. AD 1650. Jennings 1981, 72ff.; Jim Beckerleg, pers. com..

5.1.18 PTF: Post-medieval tin-glazed flatwares. Orange fabric with thick, cream,

yellow and brown tin-glazes. 18th

-19th

century AD. Jim Beckerleg, pers. com..

5.1.19 ?PU: Post-medieval unknown. (SHARP Pottery Typology 1999 MD.)

Unidentified but probably post-medieval.

5.1.20 Late Modern Pottery


124

MD: Modern wares.

5.1.21 ?UN: Unknown.

5.1.22 The Form Series (abbreviated as Ves. Forms, Rim Forms and Decoration

in Table 1).

5.1.23 The only fabrics which occur in sufficient quantity at the present time to merit

form analysis are Middle Saxon Ipswich-type wares (SI) and Late Saxon

Thetford-type wares (ST). Other fabrics do not at present occur in sufficient

quantity for classification by form to yield statistically significant results. The

only partial exception is Medieval unglazed Grimston-type ware (MGu), but

that is because this fabric evolved out of ST and is often indistinguishable

from it. (The principal study – Lentowicz and Percival in Leah 1994 –

employs the fabric categories ‘Grimston-Thetford’ and ‘Unglazed Grimston’.)

5.1.24 Since we have a limited stratigraphic sequence both on BYD/RDM and at

WHL, and since the overwhelming bulk of our pottery is either SI or ST (on

BYD/RDM, the proportions of the total pottery assemblage for 1996-8 were

29% and 63% respectively), we may be able to establish chronological

distinctions within the broad SI and ST traditions using form typologies. Other

studies and personal communications have hinted at the potential – e.g. jars

may predominate in early ST assemblages, bowls in late ones. There are,

however, two problems with the standard form typologies (i.e. West 1963,

Dallas in Rogerson and Dallas 1984, and Wade, Lentowicz, Percival. and

Little in Leah 1994). These studies, in the traditional manner, employ complex

typologies composed of many fine distinctions (‘splitting’ rather than

‘lumping’), even though no clear diagnostic value has been established for

these. I have therefore rejected these ‘splitting’ typologies in favour of

‘lumping’ typologies. I have chosen a system which would enable us to

process large quantities of material quickly, in order to assess whether or not

any diagnostic (i.e. essentially chronological) significance could be established

for them.


125

5.1.25 Forms are distinguished in three ways:

1. By vessel form. This is determined using mainly rim-sherds and by

reference to a standard rim-chart (a semicircle of closely-spaced concentric

lines permitting quick assessment of vessel diameters).

2. By rim form. There are four types for SI and twelve for ST. The rim-

form illustrations are ‘ideal-types’ of the basic forms, with illustrations of

variations where these diverge substantially from the basic form.

3. By decoration. These are currently of five types for SI and eight for

ST. ST are illustrated below (no decorated Ipswich Ware was recovered).

Whereas the rim-form assemblage is now very large and new forms are

unlikely to be encountered in the Sedgeford assemblage, the decoration

assemblage is small and we should be prepared to add new variations.

VESSEL, RIM OR DECORATION TYPE LOCATED DURING THE

CNE 07 EVALUATIONS ARE HIGHLIGHTED in 5.1.26 and 5.1.27

BELOW

5.1.26 I: Middle Saxon Ipswich-type wares

Vessel forms

i) Small jars (SJ) up to 110mm external rim-diameter

ii) Medium jars (MJ) over 110mm and up to 160mm external rim-diameter

iii) Large jars (LJ) over 160mm external rim-diameter

iv) Pitchers (P) – known only from handles or spouts

(Other forms are extremely rare.)

Rim forms (Fig. 46)

West’s rim-form typology (1963) recognised ten forms organised in three

main groups. This typology is not yet known to have diagnostic value, so I

have used a simplified system of rim-form classification:

i) Rim-form 1 (SI1) is plain rounded (West’s 1A)


126

ii) Rim-form 2 (SI2) is plain angular (West’s 1B, 1C, 1D and 1E)

iii) Rim-form 3 (SI3) is S-shaped (West’s 2F, 2G and 3J)

iv) Rim-form 4 (SI4) has an external lip (West’s 3H and 3I)

Figure 46: Ipswich Ware Rim Types


127

Decoration

The following motifs have been recognised and recorded (with old SHARP

classification codes and West 1963 references in brackets):

i) SIa: stamped diamond- or square-shaped lattices (formerly SIa; West 1963,

Fig. 45, P. 11, L. 3, No. 5)

ii) SIb: stamped circular lattices (formerly SIe; West 1963, Fig. 45, P. 11, L. 3,

No. 3)

iii) SIc: stamped triangular lattices (formerly SId)

iv) SId: stamped lattices and slashed-groove borders (formerly SIc; West

1963, Fig. 45, P. 11, L. 3, No. 10)

v) SIe: punched holes and slashed-groove borders (formerly SIb; West 1963,

Fig. 44, P. 6, No. 1)

vi) SIf: curving grooves and bulges, usually as part of larger design (formerly

SIf)

5.1.27 ST: Late Saxon Thetford-type wares

Vessel forms

i) Small jars (SJ) up to 110mm external rim-diameter

ii) Medium jars (MJ) over 110mm and up to 160mm external rim-diameter

iii) Large jars (LJ) over 160mm external rim-diameter

(Jars have bodies which bulge outwards below the rim.)

iv) Small bowls (SB) up to 240mm external rim-diameter

v) Large bowls (LB) over 240mm external rim-diameter

(Bowls have bodies which fall vertically or sloping inwards below the rim.)

vi) Storage vessels (SV) – known from characteristically thick body-sherds

vii) Handled vessels (HD) – known from handles

viii) Lidded vessels (LD) – known from lids and in-turned inner lip on rim

ix) Lamps (LP) – known from characteristically chunky sherds

Rim forms (Figs. 46-48)

i) Rim-form 1 (ST1) is a simple everted jar-rim

ii) Rim-form 1a (ST1a) is a simple everted jar-rim but with an in-turned inner

lip (for a lid?)


128

iii) Rim-form 2 (ST2) is a simple everted jar-rim with a wedgy or blocky

cross-section

iv) Rim-form 3 (ST3) is a simple everted jar-rim with a rounded wedgy or

blocky cross-section

v) Rim-form 4 (ST4) is an elaborate everted jar-rim with a rounded wedgy

cross-section

vi) Rim-form 5 (ST5) is an elaborate everted jar-rim with an outer upward

point

vii) Rim-form 6 (ST6) is an everted bowl-rim

viii) Rim-form 7 (ST7) is an everted blocky bowl-rim

ix) Rim-form 8 (ST8) is an everted rounded bowl-rim

x) Rim-form 9 (ST9) is a bowl-rim with an everted lip

xi) Rim-form 10 (ST10) is a bowl-rim with an inverted lip

xii) Rim-form 11 (ST11) is a bowl-rim with a folded-over exterior lip

xiii) Rim-form 12 (ST12) is a bowl-rim thickened with applied clay

Decoration (Fig. 49)

The following motifs have been recognised and recorded (with old SHARP

classification codes in brackets):

i) STa: incised wavy lines (formerly STa)

ii) STb: thumb-impressions on rim or applied clay-strips (formerly STb)

iii) STc: rouletted checkerboard-square pattern (formerly STc)

iv) STd: rouletted checkerboard-rectangle pattern (formerly STf)

v) STe: rouletted diamond-lattice pattern (formerly STe)

vi) STf: incised or rouletted slash-lines (formerly STf)

vii) STg: rouletted triangle-lattice pattern (formerly STd)


129

Figure 46: Thetford Ware Rim Types (1-4)


130



131



132

Figure 49: Thetford Ware Decoration Types


133

Table 1: Pottery Finds by Context from Chalkpit North Evaluation

FABRIC

COUNT Weight

EVE

(Estimate

d Vessel

Equivalen

t)

Ves

forms

Rim

forms

Decoratio

n

MNV

(Minimu

m

number

of

vessels.

Prop.of

Rims)

AV.

Sherd

Weight

SH07/CNE T1/101

PRL 1 5 - - - - - 5

MD 3 11 - - - - - 4

Comment

s:

:

moder

n.

SH07/CNE T1/102

MD 1 1 - - - - - 1

Comments: sherd of Willow pattern;

modern.

SH07/CNE T1/103

ISd/ E-

MS 1 9 - - - - - 9

.Comments: sherd contains mica and flint/grit inclusions; Iron Age/E-MS (?)

SH07/CNE T1/104

ST 18 516 - - - - - 29

Comments: comprises base and body sherds, some sizeable, most can be fitted together

to form part of large vessel, probably jar. Most sherds recovered in situ; late Saxon (see

Plate 8, below)

SH07/CNE T1/109

DAUB

SH07/CNE T2/201

RG/SI 1 13 - - - - - 13

SI 6 37 - - - - - 6

ST 3 31 - - - stc:1 - 10

Comments: good mix of both Middle and Late Saxon; Late C9th/C10th.

SH07/CNE T2/202

SI 3 90 0.16 mj:1 si2:1 - 1/1 30

?RU 1* 6 - - - - - 6

Comments: * small rim sherd; Middle

Saxon.

SH07/CNE T2/203

E-MS 6 49 - - - - - 8

?RU 1 7 - - - - - 7

SI? 2 9 - - - - - 5

ST 3 17 - - - - - 6

Comments: * presence of some grass-tempered sherds, some heavily, might represent possible

hand-made Early Saxon; Late Saxon?


134

SH07/CNE T2/204

IU 1 2 - - - - - 2

?IU 2 6 - - - - - 3

RNa 1 6 - - - - - 6

SI 8 183 - - - - - 23

ST 12 71 0.11 mj:2 st2:2 - 2/2 6

?ST 5 14 - - - - - 3

UN 1 5 - - - - - 5

Comments: Late C9th/C10th.

SH07/CNE T2/205

?RU 1 1 - - - - - 1

RNa 1 3 - - - - - 3

SI 2 59 - - - - - 30

PTF 1 5 - - - - - 5

Comment

s: presence of 2 very large pieces of SI, which fit together but may have been separated

during excavation, suggest possible context contamination; Modern by assemblage.

SH07/CNE T2/206

E-MS 1 8 - - - - - 8

RSa 1 21 - - - - - 21

Comments: E-MS has a sandy/gritty fabric with mica inclusions. RSa is very likely to be a

locally made imitation Samian, consisting of dark orange colour coating lighter orange

inner fabric; Early-Mid Saxon.

SH07/CNE T2/208

?IU 1 1 - - - - - 1

?RU 10 21 - - - - - 2

SI 3 41 - - - - - 14

ST 17 143 0.31 mj:2 st1:1 - 2/2 8

st4:1

Comments: Late Saxon but with residual IA and Roman sherds; Late Saxon.

SH07/CNE T2/210

PF 1 9 - - - - - 9

RG 3 11 - - - * - 4

SI 15 362 0.23 mj:2 si2:2 - 2/2 24

ST 18 190 0.51 mj:3 st2:3 stb:1 3/4 11

lj:1 st3:1

Comments: Possible single pressed circular decoration on one RG sherd. Some large SI sherds

present; Late C9th/C10th.

SH07/CNE T2/211

ISd 1 1 - - - - - 1


135

SI 3 291* 0.09 mj:1 si2:1 - 1/1 97

ST 6 86 0.13 lj:2 st2:1 - 2/2 14

st4:1

Comments: * contains single sherd weighing 268g. ISd is grass-tempered. Late

C9th/C10th.

SH07/CNE T2/214

?RG 1 1 - - - - - 1

E-MS 2 19 - - - - - 10

SI 2 16 - - - - - 8

Comments: One E-MS sherd is grass-tempered, both contain mica inclusions; middle Saxon.

SH07/CNE T2/226

ISd/E-MS 2 6 - - - - - 3

Comments: both sherds very different but both containing small quantities of mica inclusion,

one heavily shell/grit tempered; IA/Early to middle Saxon.

SH07/CNE T2/229

?PF 1 4 - - - - - 4

ST 1 10 0.09 mj:1 st5:1 - 1/1 10

Comments: ?PF course, quartz tempered; Late Saxon?

SH07/CNE T2/235

SI 1 36 - - - - - 36

Comments: Middle Saxon?

SH07/CNE T2/237

SI 5 123 0.29 mj:2 si2:2 - 2/2 25

Comments: Middle Saxon.

SH07/CNE T3/ 301

Tile 1 18 - - - - - -

E-MS 1 6 - - - - - 6

SI 7 153 0.16 sj:1 si2:2 - 2/2 22

mj:1

ST 22 489 0.26 lj:4 st1:2 stb:3 4/4 22

st3:1

st4:1

SSh 1 2 - - - stc:1 - 2

Comments: 2 large base sherds of ST from same vessel, fit together to show base diameter

of 220mm; Late Saxon.

SH07/CNE T3/302

PF 1 3 - - - - - 3

RG 7 60 - - - - - 9

?RG 1 3 - - - - - 3

?RU 3 11 - - - - - 4

?R.roof 1 148 - - - - - -

tile?

E-MS 3 14 - - - - - 5

SI 41 465 0.18 mj:1 si1:2 - 2/2 11

lj:1


136

?SI 2 38 - - - - - 19

ST 258 4073 3.22 sj:1 st1:5 stb:7 30/32 16

mj:11 st2:3 ste:9

lj:10 st4:9

sb:2 st5:4

lb:8 st7:4

hd:1 st8:6

?ST 5 75 - - - - - 15

SSh 14 168 0.14 lj:1 st4:1 stc:2 2/2 12

sb:1 st10:1

MD 1 17 - - - - - 17

UN 13 111 - - - - - 9

Comments: One sherd of SI retains a sooty residue, separated for possible future analysis. In UN

category one is unusual rim form and one retains thick layer of burnt residue, again separated for

possible future analysis. MD is C.19th pan tile. Context contains a very good range of wares;

Late Saxon.

SH07/CNE T3/302 but found on base of 302, on top of 309

SI 1 7 - - - - - 7

Comments: Middle Saxon ?

SH07/CNE T3/303

SI 14 192 0.1 mj:1 si1:1 - 2/2 14

p:1

ST 59 628 1.2 mj:7 st1:2 ste:1 10/10 11

lj:2 st2:3

lb:1 st4:3

st5:1

st8:1

SSh 1 13 0.07 lj:1 st1:1 - 1/1 13

Comments: SI pitcher diagnosed from spout sherd; Late Saxon.

SH07/CNE T3/304

SI 3 56 - - - - - 19

ST 8 70 0.04 sb:1 st8:1 - 1/1 9

Comments: 9th-10th C.

SH07/CNE T3/306

SI 39 537 0.27 sj:2 si1:2 - 2/2 14

ST 22 269 0.2 mj:2 st3:1 - 2/2 12

st4:1


SH07/CNE T3/307

RG 2 7 - - - - - 4

?RG/ST? 1 1 - - - - - 1

?RU 1 1 - - - - - 1

SI 24 287 0.38 mj:4 si1:3 - 5/6 12

lj:2 si2:1

si3:2

ST 3 12 - - - ste:1 - 4

Comments: C9th/Early C10th.

SH07/CNE T3/308


137

?RU 4 32 - - - * - 8

SI 8 148 - - - - - 19

ST 6 70 0.3 mj:1 st5:1 ste:2 1/1 12

stone** 1 35 - - - - - -

Comments: * Incised lines on 3 sherds. ** Recorded as possibly shaped.

?RU*** 1 4 - - - - - 4

SI*** 3 16 - - - - - 5

Comments: *** In bag marked (316) but thought to be from (308); Late

Saxon.

SH07/CNE T3/309

SI 3 43 0.08 sj:1 si1:1 - 1/1 14

ST 4 38 - - - - - 10

Comments: Late C9th/Early C10th.

SH07/CNE T3/310

RU 1 3 - - - - - 3

?E-MS 1 19 - - - - - 19

?RU 3 9 - - - - - 3

SI 22 354 0.1 mj:1 si2:1 - 1/1 16

ST 26 193 0.09 mj:1 st4:1 - 1/1 7

PRE? 1 17 - - - - - 17

Comments: Presence of PRE? Suggests possible context contamination. All other sherds suggest

Late C9th/C10th.

SH07/CNE T3/312

SI 2 35 - - - - - 18

ST 2 56 0.07 mj:1 st4:1 - 1/1 28


SH07/CNE T3/318

SI 20 328 0.12 mj:1 si2:1 - 1/1 16

ST 3 52 0.06 lb:1 st7:1 - 1/1 16

Comments: Predominantly Ipswich ware with a small representation of later Thetford ware;

?C9th.

SH07/CNE T3/321

SI 3* 99 - - - - - 33

ST 19 190 0.15 mj:1 st5:1 ste:1 1/1 10

Comments: * contains one unusual sherd, possibly handle frag, would benefit from

further examination; Late

Saxon.

SH07/CNE T3/325

SI 2 21 - - - - - 11

ST 3 27 0.09 lj:1 st2:1 - 1/1 9



138

SH07/CNE T3/326

SI 1 38 - - - - - 38

ST 1 3 - - - - - 3

Comments: Late Saxon? But could be Middle Saxon with intrusive sherd of

ST.

SH07/CNE T3/328

SI 3 31 0.04 mj:1 si1:1 - 1/1 10


SH07/CNE T4/401

ST 4 97 0.36 mj:1 st1:1 sta:1* 2/2 24

lj:1 st2:1

Comments: * but with looping/curving rather than usual wavy lines. Late Saxon.

SH07/CNE T4/403

?RU 1 24 - - - - - 24

ST 5 163 0.12 lb:2 st7:2 stb:2 2/2 33

Comments: Late Saxon.

SH07/CNE T4/404

SI 1 32 - - - - - 32

ST 3 37 - - - - - 12


SH07/CNE T4/406

SI 1 4 - - - - - 4

ST 2 44 - - - - - 22


SH07/CNE T4/407

ST 5 76 0.22 lj:2 st1:1 - 3/3 15

sb:1 st2:1

st9:1


SH07/CNE T4/408

SI 2 8 - - - - - 4

ST 6 47 0.04 lb:1 st10:1 ste:1 1/1 8


SH07/CNE T4/411

SI 5 58 - - - - - 12


SH07/CNE T4/412

SI 1 16 - - - - - 16


SH07/CNE T4/414

SI 1 7 - - - - - 7


SH07/CNE T4/415


139

ST 3 99 0.16 lj:1 st1:1 - 1/1 33


SH07/CNE T4/418

ISd/E-MS 2 14 - - - - - 7

?RG 1 6 - - - - - 6

SI 6 77 - - - - - 13

ST 8 62 - - - - - 8

SSh 1 1 - - - - - 1


SH07/CNE T4/419

SI 4 123 0.08 mj:1 si3:1 - 1/1 31


SH07/CNE T4/421

ST 1 5 - - - - - 5

Comments: Late Saxon?

SH07/CNE T4/423

ST 2 18 0.04 lb:1 st7:1 - 1/1 9

Comments: Late Saxon?

SH07/CNE T4/428

SI 6 119 - - - - - 20

ST 7 91 0.07 mj:1 st4:1 - 1/1 13

WNRW 1* 90 - - - - - 90

Comments: * sizeable base sherd. Late C9th/C10th.

SH07/CNE T4/431

ISd 1* 8 - - - - - 8

SI 4 57 0.07 sj:1 si1:1 - 1/1 14

Comments: * large amount of mica inclusion. Middle Saxon.

SH07/CNE T4/433

SI 2 93 - - - - - 47


SH07/CNE T5/501

Tile 6

?RU 4 27 - - - - - 7

ST 7 48 0.11 lj:2 st1:1 - 2/2 7

st10:1

?PU 1 21 - - - - - 21

Comments: modern.

SH07/CNE T5/503

?RU 1 1 - - - - - 1

SI 3 17 - - - - - 6

ST 1 6 - - - - - 6

MGu 1 22 - - - - - 22

?MU 4 18 - - - - - 5


140

Comments: Medieval?

SH07/CNE T5/507

PF 1 9 - - - - - 9

?RU 1 4 - - - - - 4

ST 4 45 - - - - - 11

Comments: Late Saxon

SH07/CNE T5/509

SI 2 21 0.19 mj:2 si1:1 - 2/2 11

si2:1

ST 3 39 0.06 lb:1 st11:1 - 1/1 13


Plate 8: Reconstructed Thetford ware jar from ditch fill (104), Trench 1.


141

5.1.26 Discussion

Two points are worth making about the non-Saxon material. First, the Iron

Age sherd count is low compared with that on the Boneyard-Reeddam (NHER

1609) site immediately to the north, implying that Chalkpit North lies beyond

the extent of the Iron Age site (notable, in particular, for the discovery of the

Sedgeford Hoard in 2004). Second, the Medieval sherd count seems

exceptionally low – both in general and compared with that from Boneyard-

Reeddam – raising a question about land-use after the Late Saxon period.

5.1.27 The Saxon assemblage is of four types: Early-Middle Saxon handmade grass-

tempered ware, 13 (1%); Middle Saxon Ipswich ware, 282 (31%); Late Saxon

Thetford ware, 575 (63%); and Late Saxon shelly wares, 17 (2%). The

handmade ware was previously identified as Iron Age, and we are grateful to

Andrew Rogerson for re-examining and reclassifying this material. It seems

that grass-tempering can be considered diagnostic of handmade Saxon (as

opposed to Iron Age) wares in Norfolk, and that such material may be either

Early or Middle Saxon in date. At Chalkpit North, all handmade Saxon sherds

were associated with Ipswich ware, so we assume the latter. This alters our

general picture substantially: we had assumed that no handmade pottery was in

use during the life of the Anglo-Saxon settlement; that it relied entirely on

imported Ipswich ware. New questions now arise. Earlier assemblages will

need to be re-examined, and we must attempt to assess a) the chronological

span of the handmade material, and b) the relationship between handmade and

imported pottery in contemporary use. More generally, we may need to re-

assess our broad date range for the site – c. AD 750-950 – which was based in

part on the apparent absence of any Saxon ceramics pre-dating Ipswich ware.

5.1.28 In most other respects, the Saxon pottery from Chalkpit North tells a similar

story to that from Boneyard-Reeddam. The proportion of Ipswich ware to

Thetford ware overall (a ratio of 1:2) is the same as that on Boneyard-

Reeddam. The implication is that we have a site of predominantly 8th

, 9th

, and,

at latest, early-mid 10th

century date, for we would expect the relative quantity

of Thetford ware to be far higher on a site which continued strongly up to and

beyond c. AD 1000. (Crudely, through examination of a range of comparative


142

sites, we have estimated that one sherd of Ipswich ware probably represents a

similar level of activity to five sherds of Thetford.

5.1.29 One other characteristic of the assemblage supports this date. The Thetford

assemblage is dominated by jars (61 out of 81 identified forms). A

preponderance of bowls is thought be a feature of later assemblages (Andrew

Rogerson, pers. comm.), an observation supported here by the fact that 13 out

of 19 bowls were from features dated Late Saxon on stratigraphic grounds, and

16 out of 19 were from contexts that contained at least three times as many

Thetford sherds as Ipswich (well above our average and therefore probably of

later date). Further to this, we are not aware of distinctively ‘Grimston-

Thetford’ sherds within our assemblage. These cruder fabrics from rural kilns

can be contrasted with the harder, darker, more consistently fired fabrics of the

early, urban-based Thetford production centres. The former seem to date only

from the 11th

century onwards. As far as we are aware, our assemblage does

not contain much, if any, of this material (though this conclusion is at present

provisional).

5.1.30 Finally, there appears to be some variation in the degree of brokenness within

assemblages from primary contexts. This may indicate changes in rubbish-

disposal patterns – primary deposition in ditches and pits as opposed to on

surface midden-spreads, for example – but more detailed analysis will be

required to confirm such subtleties.

5.1.31 As well as these detailed observations, one important general observation must

be made. Given the size of the trenches excavated compared with those on

Boneyard-Reeddam, the quantity and quality of Middle to Late Saxon pottery

recovered are exceptional. Not only is the material more abundant, but a far

higher proportion of it appears to come from undisturbed primary deposits. By

contrast, we must now conclude that the Saxon ceramic assemblage from

Boneyard-Reeddam represents an area of the settlement site that was either

more peripheral and/or has been more heavily disturbed. The Chalkpit North

evaluation has therefore revealed archaeological deposits with the potential to


143

provide a far more detailed picture of the character of the 8th

-10th

century AD

settlement than those excavated to date.


144

5. 2 The Flint by Geraldine Crann

5.2.1 Two flint implements were discovered during the CNE 2007 evaluationn. A

Neolithic flaked axe, 2201/201, was recovered from Trench 2 and a marginally

retouched and notched flake, SF 2322/301, was found during the topsoil

machining of Trench 3.

5.2.2 The Neolithic flaked axe is a core tool produced on a mottled light grey and

cream flint, with some later iron spot-staining. At 130mm by 47mm by

25mm, it is at the smaller end of Neolithic flaked axes. The piece has clear

evidence of rough hard-hammer bifacial thinning, the thinning around the

curved cutting edge being more carefully executed to form a sharp edge. The

butt end narrows to a point. The rough nature of the bifacial thinning makes it

possible the piece was a preform awaiting final working, but its size makes

this unlikely, as further thinning would render it very small indeed. It is

possible that the axe was made on a very large flake, though its thickness, after

the bifacial thinning process, makes this unlikely.

5.2.3 The marginally retouched notched flake is undatable, with pragmatic use of

flakes like this occurring throughout the prehistoric period. It is made on a

secondary flake of light grey flint, with a large amount of internal inclusions

and some mottled white patination. Cortex covers some 40% of the dorsal

surface. It measures 131mm x 52mm x 17mm. The entire dorsal edge is

retouched, apart from the small area of striking platform which remains. The

notch is formed by small flake removals on the ventral right lateral edge

towards the distal end of the flake. This notch shows some edge-damage,

probably usewear, occurring in antiquity. There is a further notch with flake

removals in the middle distal right side of the tool. The flake removals here

are very irregular and have removed patination from the flint surface,

indicating that this notch is most probably a result of accidental damage

occurring after the tool became part of the archaeological record.


145

Figure 50: Neolithic Flaked Axe 2201/201


146

5. 3 The Small Finds by Naomi Payne

5.3.1 The small finds discovered during the 2007 evaluation included six objects of

copper alloy, one Roman coin, a fired clay loom weight, two worked bone

items and four pieces of glass. Following the evaluation, metal detecting was

carried out on the backfilled trenches and several further artefacts were

discovered, including two silver coins, a copper alloy hooked tag and a

fragment of gold sheet. Steven Ashley of Norfolk Landscape Archaeology’s

Identification and Recording Service subsequently examined these objects and

the information provided about them is taken from his descriptions.

5.3.2 Non-ferrous metals

Three of the excavated copper alloy artefacts are identifiable as dress

accessories, a pin, a brooch and an earring, and these are discussed below. The

other three objects are fragmentary. 2300/304 is a narrow length of thin copper

alloy, 43mm by 9mm by 1mm. Both ends have been bent back on themselves

and there is a break at the end of the wider terminal. 2301/304 is an encrusted

copper alloy fragment 21mm by 10mm by 4mm. 2208/205 is a small fragment

of sheet copper alloy which has been bent back on itself. It measures 15mm by

14mm by 1mm.

5.3.3 Dress Pin

A near complete copper alloy dress pin, 2400/402, was found in Trench 4

within a colluvial layer. The Middle Anglo-Saxon pin has a balloon-shaped

head, 11mm in diameter by 12m, which is decorated with ten ring-and-dot

motifs arranged in two circumferential lines and a cross on the flattened apex.

Below the head is a collar and the shaft has a slight swelling in the centre. The

pin has an overall length of 101mm and is complete with the exception of the

very tip of the shaft. Just to the north of the evaluation on the Boneyard site,

thirty-one dress pins were discovered during the 1996-2007 excavations, in

addition to three from the 1958 trenches. There is no exact parallel from

Boneyard, although three examples have undecorated balloon-shaped heads.

The inscribed cross on the apex is unparalleled within the Boneyard

assemblage. A similar pin was found during excavations in Thetford

(Rogerson and Dallas 1984, pp. 69 and 73, fig. 112, no. 46).


147

5.3.4 Brooch

2207/201 is an incomplete copper alloy safety-pin brooch of Middle Anglo-

Saxon date. The surviving portion comprises the lozenge-shaped front plate

and the catch-plate, which has been bent out of shape. It measures 30mm by

15mm by 1mm. There is a break at the other end of the plate which has

removed the integral spring and pin. The decoration on the front of the plate is

not very clear but appears to consist of three longitudinal incised lines,

possibly flanked by ring-and-dot motifs. Three safety-pin brooches were

discovered during the Boneyard excavations, including a reasonably close

parallel (32/0016). Middle Anglo-Saxon safety-pin brooches appear to be a

type found mainly in the east of England. Hattatt published two examples

(Visual Catalogue, fig. 140, nos. 1442 and 1385) from Norfolk but

misattributed them to the Bronze Age or Iron Age. Excavations at

Flixborough, Humberside, have produced nine. There is another parallel from

Brandon, Suffolk (no. 5007). A further example from Gringley on the Hill,

Nottinghamshire has been recorded on the Portable Antiquities Scheme

database (reference SWYOR-B804D7).

5.3.5 Earring

2403/412 is a curved length of narrow copper alloy wire with a circular cross-

section, 1.5mm in maximum thickness and c. 38mm in length. The ends are

narrowed. It resembles earrings of Middle to Late Anglo-Saxon date (compare

with for example comparanda in McGregor and Bolick 1993).


148

Figure 51: Non-Ferrous Finds 2403, 2207 and 2400

5.3.6 Hooked tag (Fig. 51)

The copper alloy hooked tag was discovered in the backfill of Trench 4. It

consists of a circular plate with a projecting backwards curving hook and

measures 12mm by 17mm by 1mm. It has a pierced central ring-and-dot which

sits between twin perforations for attachment, and six further punched ring-

and-dots. It dates from the 9th

to the 11th

century and appears on the Portable

Antiquities Scheme database as record NMS-870118. Several similar

examples were excavated at Middle Harling, Norfolk (Rogerson 1995, fig. 39,


149

nos. 35-7). Four hooked tags were discovered during the Boneyard

excavations. One of these, 1264/Jewell backfill, is broadly similar although it

has two additional rounded projections adjacent to the attachment holes.

5.3.7 Scrap gold sheet (Fig. 51)

A scrap of gold sheet was discovered in the backfilled Trench 4. The fragment

is from an unidentified object which is not closely datable but may be of some

age. It is sub-rectangular, curved and broken, partly molten and faced with

traces of two oblique lines of tiny punched ovals which converge at one end. It

measures c. 15mm by c. 17mm and weighs 2.1g. It appears on the Portable

Antiquities Scheme database as record NMS- 871612.

5.3.8 Coins (Fig.51)

Barbarous radiate

A copper alloy barbarous radiate coin, 2501/501, was discovered during the

machining of Trench 5. The emperor and type are uncertain but the coin dates

from c. AD 275-85.

5.3.9 Penny of Burgred of Mercia

A silver penny of Burgred of Mercia (North 1994, p. 100 no. 426) was

discovered using a metal detector following the excavation in the backfill of

Trench 3. It dates from AD 852-74 and has been recorded on the Early

Medieval Corpus of Coin Finds as record 2007.0232.

5.3.10 St Edmund memorial penny

A silver St Edmund memorial penny (North 1994, pp. 108-9, no. 483) was

located in the backfill of Trench 4. It dates from AD c. 895-910 and has been

recorded on the Early Medieval Corpus of Coin Finds as record EMC

2007.0231.


150

Figure 51: Detector/Backfill Finds

(L-R, St. Edmund memorial penny, Burgred of Mercia Penny, Hooked Tag, Gold

Sheeet)

5.3.11 Fired clay (Fig.52)

Loom weight

About one-third of a fired clay loom weight, 2200/202 was found within a

ditch in Trench 2. The bi-convex donut-shaped loom weight measures 40mm

in thickness and would have had a diameter of about 100mm when complete.

The weight has a light to mid-grey reduced core and orangey-buff oxidised

surfaces.

Figure 52: Loom weight 2200


151

5.3.12 Worked bone (Fig. 53)

One worked bone item, 2009/214, was identified by Kris Poole during

analysis of the faunal assemblage. The broken object measures 38mm by

17mm by 9mm. The undamaged end has been shaped and there are three

transverse cut marks on one side, adjacent to the end. The object is otherwise

undecorated. Its precise usage is uncertain.

Figure 53: Worked Bone 2009

5.3.13 7/428 appears to be an artefact in that it has been constructed from animal

bones, although it has not been further worked. It comprises a fragment of a

sheep’s rib onto which nine complete and incomplete bird tracheal rings have

been threaded. No parallel for this object has been found.


152

Figure 53: Bone Artefact 2407

5.3.14 Glass (Fig. 54)

Of the four glass sherds only one can be dated to the Middle/Late Anglo-

Saxon period with certainty (pers. comm. Sally Worrell). 2203/202 is a light

blue glass body sherd from a vessel with three light yellow trailed lines. It

measures 16mm by 9mm by 1mm. Of the other three, 2502/501 is a modern

green bottle glass fragment and both 2206/210 and 2408/412 are tiny chips

which are two small to merit any meaningful comment.

Figure 54: Vessel Glass 2203


153

5. 4 The Iron by Quita Mould

5.4.1 Methodology

The iron was examined with the help of X-radiography and a basic record

provided on an excel spreadsheet accompanying this document. The iron is

summarised by functional category and provenance. Illustrated objects are

catalogued at the end of the text.

5.4.2 Condition

The iron was in good condition and, unlike the vast majority of archaeological

ironwork, was not heavily encrusted, the majority showing only slight

corrosion.

5.4.3 Introduction

Twenty-seven iron objects were recovered during the evaluations of Chalkpit

Field. The majority, 19 objects, came from Trench 3, in fills and recuts of the

Saxon ditches. Three objects came from Trench 2, four from Trench 4 and a

single item from Trench 5. All the diagnostic material is contemporary with

the settlement and may be dated no later than the end of the 11th

century. It is

comparable with other contemporary assemblages notably those from Thetford

(Rogerson and Dallas 1984) and York (Ottaway 1992). A range of items

reflecting settlement activity was present including dress accessories, domestic

implements, objects associated with textile production, transport and structural

ironwork.

Table 2: Ironwork from Chalkpit Field, Sedgeford SH07

Trench 2 Trench 3 Trench 4 Trench 5

Buckle 0 1 1 0

Textile spike 2 3 1 0

Shears 0 1 0 0

Knife 0 2 1 0

Stem, decorated 0 1 0 0

Horseshoe nail 0 2 0 0


154

Nail 0 3 0 0

Staple 0 1 0 0

Strap 0 1 1 0

Strap, riveted 0 1 0 0

Strip 0 3 0 0

Strip, riveted 1 0 0 0

Bar/chisel 0 0 0 1

5.4.4 Dress accessories

A small buckle with an oval or D-shaped frame and a buckle plate (SF2315)

was found in topsoil (301) containing Middle/Late Saxon pottery in Trench 3.

The broken frame (SF2405) from a larger example was found in topsoil (401)

containing Late Saxon pottery in Trench 4.

5.4.5 Textile processing equipment

Iron spikes associated with the processing of textile fibres were found: three in

Trench 3, two in Trench 2 and another in Trench 4. All came from contexts

containing pottery attributed to the Middle or Late Saxon periods. The spikes

have a sub-rectangular section being angular with rounded corners, the single

complete example measuring 92mm in length. As such they appear to be teeth

from a wool comb (Walton Rogers 1997, 1727) but may be teeth from a flax

heckle and, being difficult to assign to either implement with certainty, have

been termed ‘fibre-processing spikes’ here (ibid. 1731). The remains of a

triangular blade (SF2307) with a very long, narrow tang was found in fill

(310) of ditch [314] in Trench 3 with pottery of 10th

century/Late Saxon date.

It appears to be the blade from a pair of shears of pre-Conquest type lacking a

pronounced bow, the spring being of the same width as the rest of the handle.

Shears of this type, one with a distinctive ‘M-shaped’ bow, were found at

Thetford (Goodall in Rogerson and Dallas 1984, fig 126, 105-6). Others with

only a slight distinction visible between the bow and handle come from

Coppergate, York (Ottaway 1992, fig 219, 2688) and Maxey,

Northamptonshire (Addyman 1964, fig 16, 11).


155

5.4.6 Domestic knife blades

Three knives, all with narrow, straight, thick-backed blades, were recovered

from contexts containing Late Saxon pottery. A complete knife (SF2304) with

a thick, rectangular-sectioned tang was found in fill (303) of ditch [314] in

Trench 3. A broken blade (SF2309) with a notched backed was found in the

fill (310) directly below and another example (SF2401) from fill (404) of ditch

[413] in Trench 4. One knife blade (SF2309) has a pair of V-shaped,

transverse notches in the back of the blade close to the pointed tip and another

located at the junction of the blade and tang where it has been broken. The

other (SF2401), with a worn edge, is similarly notched at the shoulder. While

the apparent shoulder notches might simply be the result of each blade having

been snapped across the junction of the blade and tang, complete knives with

notches at the shoulder have been found elsewhere, notably at York (Ottaway

1992, 582; Rogers 1993, 1276-7). Blades with notches at the shoulder have

been found in contexts dated from the middle Anglo-Saxon period onwards

being most common in the later 9th

to 10th

centuries (Rogers 1993, 1277). A

knife with a pair of notches in the back toward the tip is known from Thetford,

and blades with multiple notches along the back have been found in contexts

dated between mid 9th

-11th

century date elsewhere ((ibid. 582-3).

5.4.7 Horse equipment

A small stem with a bifurcated end (SF2302), apparently broken across a

pierced ring, was found with Late Saxon pottery in fill (302) of the boundary

ditch [323] seen in Trench 3. The stem has decorative transverse mouldings

and a non-ferrous metal plating* visible in X-radiograph. It is likely to have

been broken from an item of horse equipment such as part of a snaffle bit or

the arm of a strap distributor for example. Though little now remains, what

does survive is comparable to a mouthpiece link from a snaffle bit decorated

with diagonal grooves found at Coppergate, York (Ottaway 1992, 706 and fig

307, 3844). Two horseshoe nails (SF2314, 2317) of fiddlekey type used on

horseshoes with countersunk nail holes were recovered from Trench 3 from

ditch fills (302, 303) containing Late Saxon pottery. Fiddlekey horseshoe nails

are generally dated to the 11th

-13th

century by their association with Clark type

2 horseshoes (Clark 1986, 95-6). While horseshoes with countersunk holes


156

have been found in earlier, pre-Norman contexts, evidence suggests that the

shoeing of horses did not become common until the later 11th

century

(Ottaway 1992, 709).

5.4.8 Possible iron-working tool

A rectangular-sectioned bar (SF2500) tapering in both width and thickness at

one end may be the remains of a broken chisel or punch used to cut hot metal.

It was found in the single fill (509) of a shallow pit [508] in Trench 5, a

content tentatively attributed to the Late Saxon (?) period. The deposit (509)

contained a lot of charcoal and a small amount of iron slag.

5.4.9 Structural and miscellaneous ironwork

A small rectangular-sectioned strip tapering to an upturned point at each end

was found in Late Saxon fill (303) of ditch [314]. Rectangular staples of this

type have been found in several contemporary assemblages (York Ottaway

1992, 1413; Thetford Goodall in Rogerson and Dallas 1984, 88-89). A small

number of fragments of strap and strip were also found along with small

timber nails with flat, round heads and short shanks.

5.4.10 *The non-ferrous plating is likely to be of tin or, possibly, silver. Identification

could be confirmed by XRF analysis once a small area of the object has been

cleaned to reveal the plating.

5.4.11 Catalogue of illustrated objects (see Figs 55 and 56)

5.4.12 Iron buckle and plate

Oval/D-shaped frame, pin and folded sheet plate with pair of small, round-

headed rivets. Encrusted. Complete. Frame Height 28mm, width 15mm, plate

21x20mm. SH07, SF2315 (301) topsoil

5.4.13 Iron fibre-processing spike

Spike with sub-rectangular section with rounded corneres, tapering from a

straight head to a pointed tip. Slightly encrusted. Complete. Length 92mm,

section 6x4mm. SH07, SF2202 (202) uppermost fill of ditch [227]


157

5.4.14 Iron fibre-processing spike

Spike, as above, slightly flattened and expanded at the head, gently curving

profile, broken at the tip. Almost complete. Length 78mm, section 5x4mm.

SH07, SF2308 (309) fill of ditch [317]

5.4.15 Iron shears

Remains of triangular, straight-backed blade with shouldered edge. The long,

rectangular-sectioned tang continuing the line of the back is now cranked and

distorted. Slightly encrusted. Incomplete. Complete. Length 139mm, blade

length 34mm, width 23mm, back thickness 3mm. SH07, SF2307 (310) fill of

ditch [314]

5.4.16 Iron knife

Knife with narrow, thick blade, with straight back and edge, back dropping to

meet the edge at a pointed tip. Thick, rectangular-sectioned, ‘stepped’ tang.

Slightly encrusted.Complete. Length 164mm, blade length 100mm, width

11mm, back thickness 5mm. SH07, SF2304 (303) fill of ditch [314]

5.4.17 Iron knife

Narrow, thick blade with straight back and edge meeting at a pointed tip. The

back has a pair of V-shaped notches at the tip and another at the point of

fracture before the tang (now missing). Unencrusted. Incomplete. Length

57mm, width 10mm, back thickness 3.5mm. SH07, SF2309 (310) fill of ditch

[314]

5.4.18 Iron knife

Narrow, thick blade with straight back and edge meeting at a pointed tip. The

back is notched at the point of fracture before the tang (now missing), the edge

is slightly worn from repeated sharpening. Slightly encrusted. Incomplete.

Length 81mm, width 14mm, back thickness 5mm. SH07, SF2401 (404) fill of

ditch [413].


158

5.4.19 Iron decorated stem

Stem of plano-convex section, flattened and bifurcated at one end. Curved face

of stem has series of raised, transverse mouldings, with non-ferrous metal

plating preserved in the grooves of the mouldings. Slightly encrusted.

Incomplete. Length 34mm, stem 8x7mm, terminal width 12mm. SH07,

SF2302 (302) fill of ditch [323]


159

Fig. 55: Iron objects (X-rays)


160

Fig. 56: Iron objects (X-rays)


33

6. The Environmental evidence

6.1 The Animal Bone by Kristopher Poole

6.1.1 Introduction

Excavations in 2007 on the northern edge of Chalkpit Field, Sedgeford led to

the recovery of 8,505 bone and teeth fragments, of which 8,293 could be

categorised as either Middle Saxon (964 fragments), Mid-Late 9th

Century

(2369 fragments) or Late Saxon (4980 fragments), according to the

methodology and caveats outlined in 4.5.1 above.

6.1.2 Due to the interim nature of the phasing, a context by context breakdown of

number of identified specimens (NISP) by species and context is provided to

potentially assist future research as Appendix 3.

6.1 3 Methods

Levels of preservation were recorded using Behrensmeyer’s (1978) standards,

with burning and gnawing also recorded. Butchery was recorded in detail,

noting the butchery mark type (chop, cut, saw, shave) and its location on the

bone. This was achieved using the standards set out by Lauwerier (1988), with

additional butchery codes created by myself when necessary. The Sedgeford

bone was identified using the reference collections of Nottingham University

and the Bird Group of the Natural History Museum at Tring. Attempts were

made to identify all bone fragments to element and species, with some

exceptions. Mammal ribs, vertebrae, skull fragments and long bones fragments

not identifiable to species, were classed as large-, medium-, or small-sized

mammal (except for atlas and axis vertebrae, and the more durable/diagnostic

parts of the cranium, namely the zygomatic, occipital, maxilla and horn core,

which were identified to species). Ribs were only counted when the head was

present. Apart from the calcaneii and astragali, carpals and tarsals were not

recorded. Similarly, for birds, all elements were identified, where possible, to

species, apart from vertebrae and ribs, which were classed simply as ‘bird.’


162

6.1.4 Morphological criteria of Boessneck (1969), Payne (1985), Prummel and

Frisch (1986) and Halstead et al. (2002) were utilised to attempt to distinguish

between sheep (Ovis) and goat (Capra). In addition, particular measurements

were taken of medial metapodial condyles and proximal metatarsals of

sheep/goat species, which have been shown to aid species separation (Rowley-

Conwy 1998). Domestic pig and wild boar can be extremely hard to tell apart,

one of the best ways being through tooth measurements (Payne & Bull

1988:31), and thus measurements of the width of the greatest length (GL),

length at cemento-enamel junction (CL), the width of anterior (WA) and width

of posterior (WP) of the deciduous fourth premolar, first, second and third

permanent molars were taken. Red deer were distinguished from cattle using

Prummel (1988), with red and fallow deer differentiated using their antlers,

and the criteria of Lister for postcrania (1996). Hares and rabbits were

separated through Callou’s (1997) methods.

6.1.5 Attempts to distinguish between chicken and pheasant were made using the

pneumatised proximal foramen of the femur and the continuation of the medial

calcaneal ridge on the tarso-metatarsus (Cohen and Serjeantson 1996: 63, 79).

Geese lack suitable morphological criteria on which to differentiate between

individual species, and there is also considerable size overlap between species

(Barnes et al. 2000:91). Where bones are of a size obviously compatible with

domestic goose, they were recorded as such, otherwise, they were recorded as

Anser/Branta sp. Similar problems exist for ducks, and so their remains were

recorded as either ‘mallard-size’ or ‘teal-size’.

6.1.6 All identified fragments were recorded as individual specimens, with the

exception of fresh breaks, which were refitted where possible, and counted as

one element. Partial or complete skeletons were recorded as one specimen,

with details of the elements present, completeness, measurements and so on

noted. The most straightforward method of quantification applied is the

Number of Identified Specimens (NISP), being merely a count of the

identified fragments. Such a method can be problematic as it will particularly


163

overemphasise the larger taxa due to greater fragmentation. For this reason,

the zoning systems set out by Serjeantson (1996) for mammals and Cohen and

Serjeantson (1996) for birds were used to record elements. This was then used

to work out the Minimum Number of Elements (MNE) and Minimum Number

of Individuals (MNI) for each species.

6.1.7 Methods used for ageing specimens were dental eruption/attrition and

epiphyseal fusion. Grant’s methods (1982) were used for recording tooth wear

in cattle, sheep and pig, with wear stages assigned using standards set out by

Halstead (1985) for cattle, Grant (1982) for pigs, and Payne (1973,1987) for

sheep. Epiphyses were recorded as ‘foetal’, ‘neonatal’, ‘unfused’, ‘fusing’ or

‘fused’. This data enabled age estimates to be calculated using the sequence

outlined for sheep/goat, cattle, pigs, equids and dogs using data given by Getty

(1975) and cats using Smith (1969). As bird bones lack epiphyses, elements

were recorded as either ‘fused’ or ‘unfused.’

6.1.8 Where possible, pigs were sexed on the basis of their canines; male canines

growing throughout life and being open-rooted, while sows have much smaller

canines with closed roots (Schmid 1972:80). In addition, the canines of

castrates appear dwarfed and stunted, although they retain the open root

characteristic of males (Armitage 1977:94). Morphological and metrical traits

of the pelvis were used to sex cattle and sheep/goat (Grigson 1982; Hatting

1995; Greenfield 2006). Cattle may be sexed using the metapodials, although

other factors also play a part in the dimensions of these elements (e.g.

Albarella 1997). Equids were sexed through the presence of canines and on the

pelvis. Presence of the baculum was used to identify male dogs in the sample.

Presence or absence of tarsometatarsi cockspurs was used to differentiate

between male and female chickens. Medullary bone in femora and tibiotarsi

was used to sex Galliformes (Driver 1982), as well as other birds, where

possible.


164

6.1.9 Measurements were taken following von den Driesch (1976) for mammals and

Cohen and Serjeantson (1996) for birds. Withers heights were calculated using

the calculation factors given by von den Dreisch and Boessneck (1974).

Pathological traits were recorded using the protocol developed by Vann and

Thomas (2006). Those traits that were particularly looked for are: hypoplasia

(following the method devised by Dobney and Ervynck 1998), penning elbow,

periodontal disease, and osteoarthritis.

6.1.10 Taphonomy

Animal bone was mostly recovered by hand collection, a method which will

tend to lead to smaller animals being underrepresented. However, a number of

samples were also taken, which contained only a very small amount of bone

(mostly unidentified), so we can take the bone received by the author as

largely representative. Most of the bone came from ditch fills, and in general

was in excellent condition, the overwhelming majority being ascribed to stage

1 of Behrensmeyer’s (1978) weathering stages. Levels of identified bones

varied by phase; 26.8% (258 fragments) in Mid-Saxon levels, 29.8% (707

fragments) in Mid-Late 9th century deposits and 29.7% (1465 fragments) in

Late Saxon features. Table 3 summarises other taphonomic information for

bones of sheep/goat, cattle, pig, deer and birds, excluding loose teeth.

Gnawing, predominantly by dogs, varied between phase, being least common

in the Middle Saxon period, and increasing in frequency over time. This has

created a more fragmentary assemblage; Table 4 shows the proportion of loose

teeth in each phase, providing a rough guide to the levels of fragmentation of

the assemblage; the greater percentage of loose teeth in Mid-Late 9th

century

and Late Saxon phases indicating these assemblages are the most fragmentary.

Bones of sheep and pigs appear to have been most frequently gnawed; pig

bones especially in the Late Saxon period. In contrast, cattle bones were the

most frequently butchered (with the exception of Late Saxon deer bones), the

larger size of their carcasses meaning they required greater division. In all

phases, very few bones were burnt, with those from the Middle Saxon phase

having slightly higher frequencies than the Mid-Late 9th century and Late

Saxon material.


165

Table 3: Summary of taphonomic patterns in the Chalkpit assemblage (excluding loose teeth)

Table 4: Percentage of loose teeth by phase

6.1.11 Species represented

Overall, nineteen different species were present in the assemblages, including

sheep/goat, cattle, pig, horse, dog, cat, roe deer, red deer, chicken, geese,

mallard, crane, curlew, golden plover, snipe, goshawk, buzzard and crow/rook

(Table 5). Only one bone, a mandible, could be identified as goat, in contrast

to 258 sheep bones, and so it is assumed that most of the ovicaprid remains are

from sheep. Although the difficulties of separating domestic pig from wild

boar must be borne in mind, measurements of pig teeth do not indicate the

presence of wild boar within this assemblage. Similarly, no bones of pheasant

or guinea fowl were identified, unsurprising given their exotic status (Poole,

forthcoming a), and so it is also assumed that most, if not all, galliform

remains are of chicken. In addition, most goose remains were of a size

comparable with domestic species.

Species % gnawed % butchered % burnt % gnawed % butchered % burnt % gnawed % butchered % burnt

Sheep/goat 8.8% 4.0% 1.6% 22.4% 7.0% 0.7% 26.0% 2.8% 0.4%

Cattle 5.0% 5.0% 0.0% 18.8% 8.0% 0.0% 25.9% 5.2% 0.5%

Pig 11.1% 0.0% 0.0% 21.8% 1.8% 0.0% 36.5% 1.8% 0.5%

Deer - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 23.1% 0.0%

Bird 2.0% 1.5% 1.5% 2.5% 1.3% 1.3% 4.7% 1.6% 0.0%

TOTAL 6.8% 3.0% 1.3% 18.1% 5.3% 0.5% 25.8% 3.5% 0.5%

LSAXMSAX M-LC9th

Phase NISP No. loose teeth % loose teeth

MSAX 185 22 11.9%

M-LC9th 609 92 15.1%

LSAX 1465 237 16.2%


166

Table 5: Species represented (NISP) by phase

6.1.12 Cattle, sheep and pigs

As one would expect, the three main domesticates, sheep, cattle and pig,

dominate each phase, although their frequencies fluctuate over time. In each

phase, sheep are the most frequently represented species based on NISP

(Figure 57), making up 75.7% of the fragments in the Mid-Saxon period, but

only 57.9% in the Mid-Late 9th century and 45.6% in the Late Saxon period.

Numbers of pigs almost double in relation to the other two species between the

Mid-Saxon period and Late 9th

-10th

century phase, holding steady in the Late

Saxon period, whilst cattle frequencies increase over time. There are some

differences between frequencies based on NISP and MNI, with the widest

disparities coming in the Late Saxon bone; substantially fewer cattle being

present when using MNI compared to NISP. In assemblages with extensive

Species MSAX M-LC9th LSAX

Sheep/goat 103 273 477

Sheep 37 83 141

Goat 1

Cattle 25 129 452

Pig 20 130 283

Horse 1 9 11

Dog 6 9

Cat 5 2 5

Roe deer 4 14

Red deer 2

Hare 1

Rabbit

Galliform 51 46 37

Anser sp. 8 9

Anser/Branta sp. 5 8 11

Mallard 1 1 4

Crane 1 1 4

Curlew 1 1

Golden plover 2 7

Snipe 2 1

Goshawk 1

Buzzard 3

Crow/rook 2

Large mammal 38 110 262

Medium mammal 173 353 528

Small mammal 1 1

Bird 20 15 13

Unidentified 474 1184 2671

TOTAL 964 2369 4940


167

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

MSAX % NISP MSAX % MNI M-LC9th % NISP M-LC9th % MNI LSAX % NISP LSAX %MNI

Phase and Quantification method

Relative percentage

Sheep/goat Cattle Pig

carnivore gnawing, as in context 302 (Late Saxon), species proportions

become heavily biased towards the larger species (Ioannidou 2003:57). This is

partly as bones of larger species tend to fragment more than those of smaller

species. Pig and sheep may, therefore, in this case, have been more frequent,

and the MNI estimate may be more reliable than that based on NISP.

Figure 57: Comparison of frequencies of main domesticates by phase and quantification method

6.1.13 Ageing and sexing

Ageing evidence was most abundant for sheep, and is displayed in Table 6.

Although the sample from Mid-Saxon deposits is small, it suggests emphasis

on dairy and wool production, with some meat; a clustering of animals being

at the 1-4 month stage, some aged between 4 months to 12 months (which may

represent surplus animals culled in autumn/winter), and then a gap until 7-9

years. In Mid-Late 9th century levels, there may have been a move towards

more meat production, with a peak at 3-4 years, although the large group at 7-

9 years suggests wool was still important. The Late Saxon dental ageing

suggests even greater concern with meat production, around 60% of the

mandibles coming from animals culled between the ages of 1 and 3 years of


168

age, with a peak at 2-3 years (Figure 58). Animals past this age may represent

breeding stock and/or animals kept for wool.

Table 6: Number of sheep mandibles by age class per phase

6.1.14 No mandibles or teeth in any phase came from animals belonging to the

earliest age group, although a neonatal distal humerus from Mid-Late 9th

century deposits may hint at some on-site breeding, even if it was limited. In

the case of long bones, this may partly be due to the degree of gnawing

leading to the more-or-less complete destruction of young sheep bones. As for

mandibles, Munson and Garniewicz (2003:415) argue for large changes in

density and strength of sheep jaws from infancy to adulthood, and that

mortality profiles based on individual teeth are accurate, especially in canid-

ravaged assemblages, such as the Chalkpit bone. However, there are no lower

dp4s with a wear stage less than stage c, suggesting a general absence of the

youngest sheep, at least within this sample. Apart from this, the fusion data

(Table 6a-c) matches with the dental ageing, suggesting animals were in the

main transported to the site whole (see also the body-part data below). Only

limited sexing information was available: in the Mid-Saxon period there were

two female pelves and one male pelvis; in Mid-Late 9th century levels, there

were two females, one possible castrate and one male pelves; whilst in Late

Saxon levels, three pelves were female, one a possible castrate and eight male.

This latter pattern is compatible with an emphasis on meat production.

Stage Age MSAX LC9th-10th LSAX

A 0-1m

B 1-4m 3 1 1

C 4-12m 2 1 3

D 1-2y 1 8

E 2-3y 1 15

F 3-4y 6 4

G 4-7y 4

H 7-9y 2 5 4

J 9+y


169

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0-1m 1-4m 4-12m 1-2y 2-3y 3-4y 4-7y 7-9y 9+y

Age

%

% mandibles % alive

Figure 58: Late Saxon sheep kill-off patterns (n=39)

6.1.15 There were no ageable cattle mandibles from Middle-Saxon levels, and only

limited fusion evidence, with most long bones being fused, except for an

unfused 1st and an unfused 2

nd phalanx, which came from animals less than 2

years old at death. For the Mid-Late 9th century, a limited number of

mandibles hint at use of cattle primarily for traction, with five of the seven

mandibles being aged at over 12 years old at death (Table 7). Some prime

meat was apparently also consumed; the fusion data (Tables 8a-b) suggest the

presence of some younger cattle, with 36% and 26% culled before 36 months

and 48 months respectively. Only five ageable mandibles were recovered from

Late Saxon levels, again with a possible emphasis on agrarian production,

although fusion data shows slightly more cattle being kept to older ages than

in the Mid- Late 9th

century. In no phase is there evidence for on-site cattle

breeding. Sexing information (pelves) indicates the presence of one female

cattle in Mid-Late 9th

-century levels, and three females and two males in the

Late Saxon deposits.


170

Tables 6a (above left): Mid-Saxon sheep fusion data; 6b (above right): Mid-Late 9th century sheep fusion data; 6c (left): Late Saxon sheep fusion data

SHEEP Element F UF TOTAL %F

3-10m D. Humerus 3 1 4

P. Radius 3 1 4

Scapula 1 2 3

Pelvis 3 0 3

Phalanx I 2 1 3

Phalanx II 0 1 1

TOTAL 12 6 18 67%

15-24m D. Tibia 9 2 11

D. Metapodial 0 4 4

TOTAL 9 6 15 40%

36-42m Calcaneus 2 1 3

P. Femur 0 2 2

P. Humerus 1 2 3

D. Radius 1 2 3

P. Ulna 1 1 2

D. Femur 2 3 5

P. Tibia 0 1 1

TOTAL 7 12 19 37%


3-10m D. Humerus 11 1 12

P. Radius 8 1 9

Scapula 14 1 15

Pelvis 4 0 4

Phalanx I 7 1 8

Phalanx II 1 0 1

TOTAL 45 4 49 92%

15-24m D. Tibia 15 2 17

D. Metapodial 12 2 14

TOTAL 27 4 31 87%


P. Femur 2 0 2

P. Humerus 1 0 1

D. Radius 3 1 4

P. Ulna 1 0 1

D. Femur 1 1 2

P. Tibia 3 0 3

TOTAL 14 3 17 83%


3-10m D. Humerus 22 1 23

P. Radius 18 1 19

Scapula 12 1 13

Pelvis 12 1 13

Phalanx I 5 1 6

Phalanx II 5 2 7

TOTAL 74 7 81 91%

15-24m D. Tibia 23 4 27

D. Metapodial 11 2 13

TOTAL 34 6 40 85%


P. Femur 1 2 3

P. Humerus 1 0 1

D. Radius 0 1 1

P. Ulna 1 2 3

D. Femur 0 3 3

P. Tibia 1 3 4

TOTAL 9 13 22 41%


171

Table 7: Cattle dental ageing data

Table 8a (left): Mid-Late 9th century cattle fusion data; Table 8b(right): Late Saxon cattle fusion data

6.1.16 The only ageable pig mandible from Mid-Saxon levels was from a pig aged at

21-27 months old at death (Table 9), and there were no canines present for

sexing. Mandibles from the Mid-Late 0th century were aged between 14 and

36 months, whilst in the Late Saxon period, pigs were in the main slaughtered

between 7 and 27 months, with a peak at 14-21 months (Figure 59). Fusion

data is somewhat different, with no Mid-Late 9th

century bones coming from

animals older than around 18 months of age, whilst there appear to be a

Stage Age M-LC9th LSAX

A 0-1m

B 1-6m

C 6-18m

D 18-30m 1

E 30-36m 1

F 3-6y

G 6-8y 1

H 8-12y 1 3

J 12+y 5

CATTLE Element F UF TOTAL %F

7-15m Scapula 6 0 6

Pelvis 2 0 8

P. Radius 1 0 1

TOTAL 9 0 9 100%

15-24m Phalanx II 5 0 5

D. Humerus 2 0 2

Phalanx I 7 0 7

TOTAL 14 0 14 100%

24-36m D. Tibia 3 0 3

D. Metapodial 6 1 7

TOTAL 9 1 10 64%


P. Femur 1 0 1

P. Humerus 1 0 1

D. Radius 0 1 1

P. Tibia 1 0 1

TOTAL 3 5 8 38%

CATTLE Element F UF TOTAL %F

7-15m Scapula 14 0 14

Pelvis 11 0 11

P. Radius 16 0 16

TOTAL 41 0 41 100%

15-24m Phalanx II 11 0 11

D. Humerus 8 0 8

Phalanx I 24 1 25

TOTAL 43 1 44 98%

24-36m D. Tibia 10 2 12

D. Metapodial 5 1 6

Calcaneus 1 3 4

TOTAL 16 6 22 73%

36-48m P. Femur 1 4 5

P. Humerus 3 2 5

D. Radius 0 1 1

D. Femur 4 3 7

P. Tibia 0 1 1

TOTAL 8 11 19 42%


172

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

0-2m 2-7m 7-14m 14-21m 21-27m 27-36m Adult Old Adult Senile

Age

%

% mandibles % alive

substantial number of Late Saxon pigs aged over 2 years, and 4 years, which

possibly represent breeding stock. It may be the case that heads of older pigs

were removed and deposited elsewhere onsite, for some reason. The only

evidence for on-site pig breeding consists of a Mid-Late 9th century neonatal

1st phalanx and a foetal/neonatal proximal tibia. Of pig lower canines, in the

Mid-Late 9th

century, 2 were female, 7 male, and in Late Saxon levels, 6 were

female, 10 were male. Given the emphasis on pig as a meat animal, the

preferential slaughter of males is unsurprising.

Table 9: Pig dental ageing data by phase

Figure 59: Late Saxon pig kill-off patterns (n=23)

Stage Age MSAX M-LC9th LSAX

A 0-2m

B 2-7m 1

C 7-14m 5

D 14-21m 1 10

E 21-27m 1 2 7

F 27-36m 2

G Adult

H Old Adult

J Senile


173

6.1.17 Body-parts and butchery

For sheep, mandibles and tibiae are the most frequent bones present in each

phase (Figures 60a-c). This can be explained by the fact that mandibles are

one of the densest elements, and that tibiae are easier to identify from shaft

fragments than other long bones. In the Mid-Saxon period, most parts of the

body are represented, although horn cores are very few in number – either

these were removed elsewhere, perhaps for working, or mostly polled sheep

were being kept; a similar lack of horn cores in later phases may suggest the

latter. Aside from this, all body-parts are present, suggesting animals were

brought to the site on the hoof or were already present. The Mid-Late 9th

century data shows a broadly similar pattern, although some of the less dense

bones, including the pelvis, ulna and femur, are not as well represented; again,

this likely to be a factor of preservation and the greater levels of gnawing in

this phase. This is even more marked in the Late Saxon data, although there is

also a lack of foot bones, which is surprising given that these are quite dense.

Whilst the low numbers of phalanges may be partly accountable by recovery

bias, this is not the case for the metapodials. It may be that some primary

butchery of the animals in this sample took place elsewhere, and so was not

included with these other remains. This contrasts with the earlier phases,

where there are proportionately more lower limb bones. It may be that the

animal remains phased as Mid-Saxon and Mid-Late 9th century derive from a

range of sources, whilst the Late Saxon bone mostly represents secondary

butchery waste, bones from meat served at the table (see discussion).

6.1.18 Pigs seem to show a similar pattern, with the main meat-bearing parts well

represented in the Mid-Late 9th century and Late Saxon levels (Figures 61a-

b). Cattle seem less affected by taphonomic biases than pigs or sheep,

especially in the Late Saxon phase, where most parts of the body are present,

although foot bones below the astragalus and calcaneus are still not as well

represented as the main-meat-bearing elements (Figures 62a-b). This contrasts

with the Mid-Late 9th century phase, where, as with sheep, the bones with less

meat are more in evidence. Cattle horn cores are also noticeably more frequent

than those of sheep, which may support the idea that polled sheep were being

exploited by the site’s inhabitants.


174

MSAX Sheep/goat - % MNE

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

3rd Phalanx

2nd Phalanx

1st Phalanx

Metatarsal

Metacarpal

Calcaneus

Astragalus

Tibia

Femur

Pelvis

Ulna

Radius

Humerus

Scapula

Mandible

Horn core

Element

% MNE(mne=14)

M-LC9th Sheep/goat - % MNE

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

3rd Phalanx

2nd Phalanx

1st Phalanx

Metatarsal

Metacarpal

Calcaneus

Astragalus

Tibia

Femur

Pelvis

Ulna

Radius

Humerus

Scapula

Mandible

Horn core

Element

% MNE(mne=39)

LSAX Sheep/goat - % MNE

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

3rd Phalanx

2nd Phalanx

1st Phalanx

Metatarsal

Metacarpal

Calcaneus

Astragalus

Tibia

Femur

Pelvis

Ulna

Radius

Humerus

Scapula

Mandible

Horn core

Element

% MNE (mne=74)

Figures 60a-c: Body-part patterns for Mid-Saxon (above left), Mid-Late 9th century (above right) and Late Saxon (left) sheep/goats


175

LSAX Pig - % MNE

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

3rd Phalanx

2nd Phalanx

1st Phalanx

Metatarsal

Metacarpal

Calcaneus

Astragalus

Tibia

Femur

Pelvis

Ulna

Radius

Humerus

Scapula

Mandible

Element

% MNE(mne=33)

M-LC9th Pig - %MNE

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

3rd Phalanx

2nd Phalanx

1st Phalanx

Metatarsal

Metacarpal

Calcaneus

Astragalus

Tibia

Femur

Pelvis

Ulna

Radius

Humerus

Scapula

Mandible

Element

% MNE(mne=12)

LSAX Cattle - % MNE

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

3rd Phalanx

2nd Phalanx

1st Phalanx

Metatarsal

Metacarpal

Calcaneus

Astragalus

Tibia

Femur

Pelvis

Ulna

Radius

Humerus

Scapula

Mandible

Horn core

Element

% MNE(mne=21)

M-LC9th Cattle - %MNE

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

3rd Phalanx

2nd Phalanx

1st Phalanx

Metatarsal

Metacarpal

Calcaneus

Astragalus

Tibia

Femur

Pelvis

Ulna

Radius

Humerus

Scapula

Mandible

Horn core

Element

% MNE(mne=10)

Figures 61a-b: Body-part patterns: M-L 9th century / L Saxon pigs

Figures 62a-b: Body-part patterns: M-L C 9th / Late Saxon cattle


176

6.1.19 A small amount of butchery marks were found on Mid-Saxon bones. A sheep

humerus had a cut mark on the cranial side of the distal end of the diaphysis,

probably from cutting the knee ligaments, whilst an occipital had been

chopped through along the midline, probably to allow access to the brain. Two

metacarpals had holes made in their proximal articular surfaces, either by

drilling or punching a nail through it. All of these butchery marks may have

been made to push marrow out of the bone. There was more butchery evidence

in the Mid-Late 9th century bone, although no evidence of standardised

butchery, with a combination of cleavers and knives used on all three of the

main domesticates. For cattle, one astragalus had similar cut marks to the Mid-

Saxon sheep astragalus, suggesting feet may have been removed with knives,

as do cut marks around the proximal end of a metatarsal. In the main,

however, cattle carcasses seem to have been divided using cleavers. One

femur had been removed from the pelvis by chopping through the femoral

head, the medial part of a cattle humerus trochlea had been chopped off, and a

coracoid process of a scapula chopped through. Cut marks on the midshaft of a

femur likely result from defleshing. One metatarsal had been chopped

diagonal across the proximal articulation and another horizontally through the

distal end of the diaphysis, probably to extract marrow. A cattle axis vertebra,

chopped axially along the middle, most likely results from sagittal splitting of

the carcass. In contrast, a pig sacrum had both wings chopped off

longitudinally, suggesting carcasses were divided by splitting the spine along

both sides of the centrum. Both methods are evident among the sheep remains;

an atlas vertebra having been split longitudinally, whilst a sacrum was

chopped in the same way as the pig sacrum, with the addition of a further chop

perpendicular to these marks, perhaps from creating lamb chops.

6.1.20 Defleshing was indicated by shaving marks on the cranial side of a pig

humerus shaft and sheep femoral shaft. In general, sheep carcasses seem to

have been divided using knives: cut marks on the medio-caudal border of a

scapula, on the dorsal side of a radius, just below the proximal articulation, on

the medial, dorsal and lateral sides of a distal tibia, and on the dorsal surface of

an astragalus. Metapodials had been exploited for marrow; 4 metacarpals and

2 metatarsals had holes punched in their proximal articular surfaces, with a


177

metatarsal split longitudinally down the middle. One horn core had been

chopped through the base, whilst a frontal had cut marks parallel to the horn

core base, suggesting removal of the horn, likely for horn working.

6.1.21 Late Saxon cattle carcasses were also separated with cleavers: a femur had the

femoral head chopped off, a humerus with a trochlea chopped through in the

middle, three pelves chopped through the pubis and the distal processes of a

tibia had been chopped through. However, there may have been increasing

numbers of cattle carcasses being divided using knives to cut the muscles and

ligaments. Evidence of this included: a femur with cut mark just below the

femoral head, humeri with cut marks around the distal end of the diaphysis, on

the lateral and cranial sides, as well as diagonal marks on the medial side, an

astragalus with cuts on the middle of the dorsal side, and a metatarsal with

shave marks at the proximal end. One metatarsal was chopped longitudinally

along the median, for marrow. Horn cores had been removed by chopping

through the frontal and parietal, although one had cut marks on the base of the

horn core and frontal, probably from removing the horn for working. Three

pig bones had butchery marks: an atlas vertebra with cut mark across the

ventral surface, probably from slaughter, a pelvis with a cut mark on ventral

side of the ischium, from defleshing, and two pelves had the pubic side of the

acetabulum chopped off, from separating the hind leg. As with the Mid-Late

9th century bone, most sheep carcasses were disarticulated using knives

around the joints, including the distal humerus and proximal radius. Cuts were

also observed on the lateral side of a mandible, underneath the mandibular

condyle, probably from removing the tongue, on the ventral side of an

ischium. A number of tibiae had shaving marks, either on the tibial tuberosity,

or on the mid-shaft of the diaphysis, likely from defleshing.

6.1.22 Size

Figure 63 compares the breadth of distal sheep tibiae from Chalkpit Field with

those of contemporary sites. The Mid-Saxon sheep were, on average, larger

than those from the later phases, although the Mid-Late 9th century and Late

Saxon sheep had a wider range. All were within the normal range for this

period. This difference is also reflected in the withers heights for sheep, with


178

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

Site/period

Tibia Bd(m

m)

an average of 59.8cm, 55.8cm and 55.7cm in the Mid-Saxon, Mid-Late 9th

century and Late Saxon deposits respectively. There were insufficient cattle

measurements to look at changes over time, but Late Saxon cattle astragali

GLl measurements fit within the range from other sites. Pigs, being mainly

meat animals, are usually killed young, before many of the bones can fuse,

thus reducing the number of measurements.

Figure 63: Comparison of sheep tibae distal breadth (Bd) at Chalkpit with other sites

6.1.23 Pathology and non-metrics

A small amount of pathology was noted. From Mid-Late 9th

century deposits,

four humeri had exostoses originating from the lateral side of the distal end,

and two radii had exostoses emerging from the lateral side of the proximal

end, both characteristic of the condition known as ‘penning elbow’. This has

been interpreted as damage caused by trauma during rough handling or

confinement or penning of the animals, but to date, a definitive aetiology for

this condition has been identified (Dobney et al. 2007:185). It is possible that,

as with other arthropathies, it is at least partly age-related, which may be

supported by the advanced ages of many of the sheep, and the overall younger

ages of sheep in Late Saxon levels could explain why only one sheep humerus

from this phase had the condition.


179

6.1.23 Oral pathology was more in evidence. From Mid-Late 9th century levels, three

sheep mandibles (10.8% of the total) had evidence of dental crowding, in all

cases with the M1 crowding on to the P4. This suggests mandibles were not

growing large enough to accommodate the erupting teeth, perhaps suggesting

poor quality/insufficient grazing or fodder could have been an occasional

problem (Baker 2005:227). Late Saxon levels had exactly the same percentage

of sheep mandibles with this condition, in each case resulting in malocclusion.

From the same phase, four mandibles (5.4%) had tooth loss and lowering of

the alveolar border characteristic of periodontal disease, again possibly linked

to diet. However, these figures are relatively low, and it would seem that the

sheep were generally fairly healthy.

6.1.24 From Mid-Late 9th

century contexts, six pig mandibles (50%) had linear

enamel hypoplasia (LEH) on either the M2 or M3, and from the Late Saxon

phase, eleven pig mandibles (33.3%) had slight to moderate levels of LEH.

This condition is a deficiency in enamel thickness, generally caused by

developmental stress, of which nutritional deficiencies are an important factor

(Dobney and Ervynck 2000:597). Provision of sufficient food for domestic

animals can be a particular problem during winter, and high frequencies (and

the locations) of LEH here may indicate that the inhabitants of Sedgeford

encountered difficulties in feeding their animals during winter.

6.1.25 There was little non-metrical variation. From Mid-Saxon levels, a sheep

femoral nutrient foramen was located on the anterior proximal end of the shaft.

In the Late 9th

-10th

century levels, three out of three sheep femora had the

nutrient foramen at the anterior proximal end of the shaft, one cattle distal

humerus had a septal aperture, and a cattle lower third molar had an

underdeveloped hypoconulid. From Late Saxon levels, one sheep femur had

the nutrient foramen at the distal end of the anterior side.

6.1.26 Horses, dogs and cats

Horses, dogs and cats were also present in small numbers throughout the

assemblages (except for dogs in Middle Saxon deposits), including a Mid-

Saxon cat partial skeleton, consisting of skull, right mandible, right humerus,


180

left pelvis, left and right femora, metapodials and one lumbar vertebra. All of

its long bones were fused and all permanent teeth were present, whilst no

butchery was noted on the bones. The mandible was of interest, with a

supernumerary tooth having erupted on the lingual side of the 4th

permanent

premolar, causing it to rotate c. 45 degrees to the buccal side. For the

disarticulated horse, dog and cat bones, all of the long bones in each phase

were fused, except for a Mid-Saxon cat femur with neither end fused, as well

as a Mid-Late 9th

century horse proximal femur and cat distal ulna.

6.1.27 Little metrical information was available. There were no complete horse or

dog bones, meaning no withers heights could be constructed, although there is

no reason why the cat and dog bones are not domestic. No non-metrics,

pathologies or cut marks were noted on any horse, cat or dog remains in this

material, except for a Late Saxon horse atlas vertebra with transverse cut

marks on each side of the ventral cranial part. The latter probably resulted

from slaughter of the horse, by cutting its throat.

6.1.28 Wild mammals

There were no wild mammal remains from Mid-Saxon features. The roe deer

remains from the Mid-Late 9th century deposits constitute one humerus, one

pelvis and one mandible, whilst in the Late Saxon period are: seven

mandibles, one humerus, one radius, one tibia, two metacarpals and two

metatarsals, with an MNI of 4. A red deer radius and tibia came from the same

phase, as did a hare femur. Of these, all except for a left and right roe deer

mandible came from context 302.

6.1.29 All long bones had fused. All butchered bones came from Late Saxon

contexts: the red deer radius had a single cut mark on the dorsal side, just

below the proximal articulation, and a red deer tibia had cut marks on the

distal processes,. For roe deer, a radius had cut marks on the medial side of the

shaft and a tibia had a shave mark on the medial side of the distal end,

probably from defleshing.

6.1.30 Domestic birds


181

Chicken was by far the most frequent domestic bird in each phase, making up

78.5%, 71.9% and 72.2% of the domestic bird remains in the Mid-Saxon,

Mid-Late 9th century and Late Saxon phases. Ageing data for chickens is

summarised in Table 10. In all cases, the majority of the long bones are fused,

suggesting chickens were mainly kept for eggs, although the number of fused

bones is significantly lower in the Mid-Saxon period than later. Perhaps meat

was more important than eggs in this period than later. Where visible, all

bones of geese and ducks had fused, except for an unfused mallard distal

tibiotarsus and a neonatal mallard tarsometatarsus; perhaps a hint of duck-

breeding on site. Geese and ducks, therefore, could have been more important

for eggs and feathers than their meat. Very little sexing information was

available. For the Mid-Saxon period, one of four chicken tarsometatarsi and

none out of three femora had medullary bone, whilst one of one tarsometatarsi

had a cockspur, so was male. In the Mid-Late 9th century, none out of one

tibiotarsi had medullary bone, and one of two tarsometatarsi had a cock spur.

For the Late Saxon period, there was no medullary bone in four tibiotarsi, and

one tarsometatarsus did not have a cock spur.

Table 10: Numbers of fused and unfused chicken bones by phase

6.1.31 As the samples are fairly small, it is not possible to study body-part patterns

for geese, ducks. For chickens, little patterning is evident in any phase. Mid-

Saxon chicken ulna had a horizontal cut mark near the proximal end, and a

Late 9th

-10th

century goose humerus had a series of slight cut marks along the

shaft. A Late Saxon chicken ulna had been fractured just below mid-shaft, and

rehealed at an angle of around 45 degrees.

6.1.32 Wild birds

In total, seven wild bird species were recovered in total from the excavations.

A crane ulna and a curlew ulna were both recovered from Mid-Saxon context

Phase Fused Unfused % fused

MSAX 27 10 73%

LC9th-10th 25 4 86%

LSAX 21 4 84%


182

226. From Late 9th

-10th

century levels, a crane humerus, curlew

carpometacarpus, two golden plover humeri, a snipe carpometacarpus and

femur, and a goshawk femur were identified. Wild birds recovered from Late

Saxon contexts were: a coracoid, two humeri and a complete tarsometatarsus

of crane, a carpometacarpus, humerus, radius, tarsometatarsus and two ulnae

of golden plover, a snipe humerus, two coracoids and a radius of buzzard, and

a carpometacarpus of crow or rook.

6.1.33 Where ends of bones were present, all had fused. No pathologies were present.

The only butchered wild bird bone was a complete crane tarsometatarsus with

a horizontal cut mark on the anterior surface of the intercondylar eminence.

6.1.34 Fish

A few vertebrae of flatfish were recovered.

6.1.35 Discussion

Discussion of this collection of animal bone must bear in mind that the

excavations from Chalkpit Field revealed only a small part of the settlement,

and may not be fully representative of the site as a whole. However, material

studied from Boneyard to date by Ray Thirkettle and, later on, by the current

the author, provides some comparative evidence, although at present this

material can only be dated as Mid-Late Saxon. The Mid-Saxon bone recovered

from Boneyard during Jewell’s 1958 excavations is also of use (Clutton-Brock

1976).

6.1.36 Carcass processing and refuse disposal practices

The animal remains recovered from Chalkpit Field seem to be suggestive of

different attitudes to waste disposal, and represent the remnants of different

activities. Cut marks on the ventral surface of Late Saxon pig and sheep atlas

vertebrae indicate that animals were slaughtered by slitting their throats. No

evidence of pole-axing was found. Bleeding the animals in this way would get

most of the blood out of the meat, ensuring that it preserved for much longer,

and blood was also a taboo food in Christian Saxon England (Salisbury

1994:62). In each phase, the butchery process seems to have been


183

characterised by its variety, with little evidence of specialised techniques.

Some limited horn working is also suggested. The Mid-Saxon bone is

noticeably less fragmented and gnawed, and in general seems to represent a

series of small dumps of refuse. Most parts of the skeleton from the main

domesticates are represented, indicating that both primary and secondary

butchery and/or kitchen waste has been deposited. The only exception is sheep

horn cores, although the possibility of polled sheep being exploited was

mentioned above.

6.1.37 The Mid-Late 9th

-century bone seems to be similar, in that it provides

evidence for a range of activities, although the bone was much more

fragmented and gnawed. In contrast, context 302, which makes up over half of

the Late Saxon bone, seems to represent a single dump of a large amount of

bone and shell. For sheep and pigs, foot bones, even the metapodials, are

noticeably scarce, indicating that we could have kitchen waste. Most body

parts of the domestic birds are present, but preparation of bird carcasses is

typically a kitchen activity. Slaughter and primary butchery could well have

taken place on another part of site, with the unwanted parts of the carcass

dumped elsewhere. However, mandibles seem to have been left attached to

carcasses, which may be because the jowls and tongue have a significant

amount of meat; cut marks on one sheep mandible indicate tongue removal. It

is possible that this collection of bone represents a surface midden,

subsequently dumped into this ditch. The significant amount of gnawing and

fragmentation imply that the bone was left exposed, where it was accessible to

cats and dogs living around the site. The presence of buzzard and crow/rook,

birds known for their scavenging habits, from the same context, may also

support this interpretation. When considering changes through time, it is

therefore necessary to bear in mind that the waste in each case may represent

different stages of processing, which may bias the samples to some extent.

6.1.38 Food preservation and cooking methods

Very few bones bore evidence of burning, perhaps suggesting roasting was not

a cooking method often employed by those at Chalkpit, although knife and

shave marks on some bones may result from deboning the meat before


184

cooking. In the Mid-Saxon and Mid-Late 9th

centuy levels, a few burnt

chicken bones indicates that roast chicken was enjoyed, at least on occasion.

Stews were a common feature of the Anglo-Saxon diet, and meat from the

main domesticates may have been mostly cooked in stews, with marrow from

long bones and metapodials included to add richness. Alternatively, meat

could have been boiled, which would have helped reduce the toughness of the

meat from older sheep and cattle (Hagen 1992:58). The cleaved sheep

occipital from Mid-Saxon levels indicates that brains were also eaten; a

number of cleaved skulls have so far been identified from the Boneyard

excavations, although these are not yet dated. Tongue is also likely to have

been consumed. Meat and dairy produce were likely often salted, for future

consumption, and pork may have been more often consumed as bacon.

Methods of preservation rarely show up archaeologically, and there was no

evidence of it in the Chalkpit bone. However, marks indicative of preserved

meat have been found on cattle, sheep and pig scapulae from Boneyard.

6.1.39 The horse atlas vertebra with evidence of this animal having been killed by

slitting its throat also raises the possibility that horses were consumed at

Sedgeford, an interesting possibility given the taboos against eating horse flesh

in this period. Chopped horse bones have also been identified from Boneyard,

including two humeri chopped through the middle, possibly to divide the

carcass, and/or to access marrow. As with the sheep skull, however, the dating

of these awaits post-excavation work.

6.1.40 Site characterisation

The Mid-Saxon bone from Chalkpit Field is the smallest sample from all the

three main phases, but is still a useful sample. It is overwhelmingly made up

of bones of sheep, with cattle and pig bones present in small numbers.

Unfortunately, ageing data was insufficient to work out cull strategies for

cattle and pigs, but sheep seem to have been used primarily for milk and wool.

The find of a loom weight and wool comb (Payne, this report) from this phase

adds support to this. Milk was probably mostly consumed as butter and

cheese, as this would have preserved for much longer, and would have been a

particularly important protein for a religious community (Hagen 1992:27-31).


185

Certainly, based on this sample, people on this site were raising, managing and

slaughtering sheep. Although the earliest age group of sheep are not present,

lambing may well have taken place away in fields away from the site, and any

natural mortalities are unlikely to have been included in these assemblages.

The absence of sheep in between the ages of 2 and 7 years may have been

because these animals were raised to maturity, or they may have been taken

elsewhere, perhaps to be sold/traded at a market.

6.1.41 This proportion of old animals is paralleled at a number of ecclesiastical sites,

in Britain and on the continent (Loveluck forthcoming). Presence of a large

cemetery in Boneyard from c. AD 700 onwards suggests the site acted as a

focus for the surrounding population, perhaps as an ecclesiastical centre

(Davies et al. 2007:239). Ecclesiastical sites from this period have proportions

of pigs ranging from 15% at Jarrow to a 69.9% at St Albans Abbey, with an

average of 20.5% (if we exclude St Albans). Nearby, North Elmham had a

proportion of 28.5% pig. The average pig percentage for a Mid-Saxon rural

site for this period is 13.7%, whilst within the Chalkpit bone, pigs make up

only 10.8% of the three main domesticates. However, this figure is higher than

other sites in the region: just 3.2% from Downham Market, 4.4% from

Walpole St Andrew, 5.4% at Terrington St Clemence, 7.8% at both West Fen

Road, Ely and Brandon Road Thetford. Although the levels of pig

consumption seem low in comparison to sites across the country, in this

region, it is actually quite high. That Sedgeford may have been a site of higher

status than others in the region cannot therefore be ruled out. The proportion

of domestic bird remains (25.7%) is certainly much higher than contemporary,

especially rural, sites. Although chickens would have been kept on most sites,

eating chicken was probably a relatively rare occurrence, partly limited by

status (Hagen 1995:126). It is possible that the high occurrence of chickens

from this phase partly results from sample size, but it is a picture that would fit

with monastic diet.

6.1.42 The Benedictine Rule became increasingly influential from the eighth century

onwards, and may have affected diet at Sedgeford. Under this Rule, monks

were not to consume the flesh of quadrupeds except when ill (Harvey


186

2006:215), although the term ‘flesh’ did not include fat, as an incidental

enactment forbids this only during the Advent and Lenten fasts (Hagen

1992:119). Use of the term ‘quadrupeds’ also meant that the flesh of birds was

allowed, as was fish, eggs and dairy products. The percentage of immature

chicken bones at Chalkpit (27%) compares well to 30% and 40% at Eynsham

Abbey and St Alban’s Abbey respectively, in contrast to less than 10% at

Winchester Western Suburbs (Serjeantson 2006:137). The high proportion of

domestic birds and evidence for dairying therefore would not contradict with

an ecclesiastical presence at Sedgeford in the Mid-Saxon period. At present,

however, this is based on a small amount of evidence, and only further

excavation will reveal how representative this is of the site in general.

6.1.43 The larger collection of Mid-Late 9th

century bones still show sheep to be the

dominant species, although cattle and pig numbers increase significantly.

Previous study of bone from Boneyard indicated pig numbers to be fairly low

– around 9% (Thirkettle 2002), just below that from Mid-Saxon levels at

Chalkpit Field. The amount of Linear Enamel Hypoplasia in this sample

certainly suggests some problems with feeding pigs in autumn and winter,

partly linked to limited areas of woodland; Dobney and Erynck (2000:606)

suggested that increasing levels of LEH in pigs was due to degradation of

forest environment throughout the Middle Ages. In the majority of cases,

however, LEH in this sample was only of slight severity. The figures of 21.1%

pigs in both the Mid-Late 9th

century and Late Saxon period may also that the

low level of pig consumption evident in mid-Saxon contexts, rather than

necessarily being only related to lack of woodland, may instead be a

chronological one, with an increase in pig exploitation as time progresses.

Although pannage (allowing pigs to forage in woodland) would have been a

useful way to fatten pigs, it was not the only way; pigs could also have been

fed on legumes and cereals, occasionally grazed on pasture, or housed or kept

in yards (Albarella 2006:77). In the Mid-Late 9th

century phase, the Chalkpit

bone has a greater amount of pigs than is normal for rural sites, which, as we

are not dealing with an urban site, perhaps that as in the Mid-Saxon period, it

was a site of reasonable status.


187

6.1.44 The large number of elderly cattle in the Mid-Late 9th century indicates that

agricultural production was also important at this time, and that, in the main,

cattle were being kept for traction before slaughter (and perhaps dairy

production) for meat. Field fertility would therefore have been a major

concern, a role for which sheep would have been extremely useful, as they are

capable of grazing (and thus manuring) poor quality stubble and fallow fields,

and their dung has better fertilising qualities than the other domesticates

(Sykes 2007:14,34). The small number of mandibles from young, and larger

group of older, sheep suggest that that dairying and wool production may have

continued on site in the Mid-Late 9th century, as do the presence of shears and

comb teeth from levels of this phase. The neonatal sheep humerus also

indicates some breeding in the vicinity of the site. However, the presence of a

number of sheep at 3-4 years of age suggests that meat may have been

becoming more important, although these animals could still have provided a

few clips of wool before slaughter. This dominance of sheep fits with the

contemporary sample from rural Burnham Market, but also the ecclesiastical

settlement of North Elmham.

6.1.45 In the Mid-Late 9th century phase, levels of domestic birds are higher than for

contemporary rural or urban sites. The drop in chicken numbers (which holds

into the Late Saxon period) is interesting, fitting in with the changing pattern

in north and east of England from the Mid-Saxon to Late Saxon periods, in

contrast to the south and west of England, where chicken frequencies actually

increase in the Late Saxon period (Poole, forthcoming b). Quite why this

should be so is unclear; Grant (1988:163) suggests the popularity of goose

keeping is linked to local environment, with the fenlands of East Anglia being

an important goose-breeding area where large flocks were kept, although

Sedgeford is not quite on the Fens. It is interesting that this period provides the

first possible evidence of hunting by the Sedgeford inhabitants, in the form of

roe deer bones, although these only make up 0.6% of the assemblage.

Wildfowling is also in evidence, with crane, golden plover, snipe and curlew

all being exploited, birds which prefer wetlands and areas of marshland, which

would have been available nearby. Some of these birds are seasonal in their

distribution; the crane (context 306) breeds in northern Europe and winter


188

furthers south (although they have since been reintroduced to England);

curlew (context 310) breed on upland areas in the summer, wintering around

the coast; golden plover (contexts 310, 423 and 433), breeds on upland and

winters on arable fields/grassland, or sometimes in coastal marshes and

estuaries; an snipe (contexts 306 and 307), in contrast, are resident all year

round.

6.1.46 A variety of methods for capturing wild birds, including nets, snares, traps and

hawking may have been used. The goshawk femur from context 433 may

represent a bird kept for catching these other birds, although it is impossible to

tell if this was from a wild or captive bird, based on one bone. Autumn and

winter are the tradition seasons for wildfowling; as Ælfric’s Fowler says:

‘They feed themselves and me in the winter, and in the spring I let them fly to

the woods; then in the autumn I take young ones for myself’ (Crossley-

Holland 1999:224). In the 11th

century Cotton Tiberius calendar, October is

illustrated with a hawking scene. The Church officially frowned upon

falconry; St Boniface wrote to Cuthbert, Archbishop of Canterbury in AD 747,

stating that ‘The servants of God we forbid to hunt and wander in the woods

with dogs and to keep hawks and falcons’ (Kylie 1911:178). If this was an

ecclesiastical settlement, nets and snares may have been the methods of

capture, or the wildfowl were gifted to them by members of the secular

aristocracy (Sykes 2005:99). We must be a little careful when interpreting

seasonality from bird bones, as changes have taken place over time in their

distributions, but it seems likely that we have evidence for year-round activity.

In this period, wild species were in general little exploited, although they are

marginally better represented on high status and ecclesiastical sites. The

percentages of wild mammals and birds in the Mid-Late 9th

century phase at

Chalkpit, when considered with the pigs and domestic birds, would suggest

that we may have a settlement of some status here, possibly a continuation of

the potential Mid-Saxon ecclesiastical site.

6.1.47 The Late Saxon period seems to represent a further shift in proportions of the

main domesticates, with a large increase in the proportion of cattle relative to

sheep, and pigs remaining stable. Given the taphonomy of bones from this


189

phase, the reliability of this pattern is difficult to assess; based on MNI, the

pattern is reversed, and pigs increase whilst cattle remain the same. What is

clear is that the sheep from these deposits were primarily being used for meat.

There is evidence of on-site husbandry, with a small proportion of younger

and older animals, but the majority of animals seem to have been killed young,

the inhabitants being supplied with tender meat. The ageing data for cattle

indicates the presence of older animals, but also a substantial proportion killed

before the age of 4 years, perhaps for their meat. Unsurprisingly, the ageing

data for pigs indicates that meat was also the primary objective. A notable

absence of the youngest pigs, and those over 3 years, suggests we are not

looking at a pig production site. Indeed, the patterns reflected in the Late

Saxon bone are more indicative of a consumer assemblage than in any other

phase. The greater proportions of male sheep and pigs also support this. At the

same time, the numbers of domestic birds drop by around two-thirds,

suggesting these birds were less integral to the diet than before. A greater

number of older chickens may, however, suggest that eggs were more

important than chicken flesh.

6.1.48 This phase also has twice the proportion of wild mammals compared to before,

with red deer and hare represented for the first time in the sequence. The

presence of at least 4 roe deer, 3 of which come from one deposit, hints at

more than purely opportunistic exploitation. Most areas of the body are

represented, and it would seem that these deer were being brought to and

consumed on-site. It would also suggest that there was adequate woodland

near Sedgeford, given that roe deer are relatively shy creatures, favouring

mixed and deciduous woodland (Hofmann 2007:202). Both red deer bones

were also butchered.

6.1.49 The horse snaffle-ring and horseshoe nail from contexts 302 and 303

respectively also hint at horse-riding being part of the inhabitants’ lives,

perhaps even from hunting. Similar bird species as in the Mid-Late 9th

century

were also exploited. In fact, in all periods, the percentage of wild birds

remains stable – only fluctuating by 0.1%. None of the birds from these phases

are in themselves indicative of high status – during the Mid-Saxon period,


190

cranes are almost ubiquitous on Saxon sites, especially Norfolk, where they

are found in Mid and Late Saxon North Elmham, Late Saxon levels from

Thetford and Norwich, as well as Saxo-Norman levels at Castle Rising. In the

Late Saxon period, they are poorly represented on elite sites, and are as

frequent on rural sites as ecclesiastical settlements (Sykes 2005:98-99).

However, the evidence presented above suggests we are dealing with a more

than a low-status rural site. In summary, there are distinct differences in this

phase compared to those before. The proportions of wild mammals and birds

are not exceptional, but are still above the typical rural and urban site, and the

increase in wild taxa from the previous period, coupled with the drop in

domestic birds could potentially indicate a shift from ecclesiastical to secular

control. The emphasis on meat production, with only small numbers of older

and younger animals, indicates that the site in this period was less involved in

production as before, to the extent that we could potentially label it a

‘consumer’ site. The diet of the majority of the population in Anglo-Saxon

England would likely be much more vegetable-based, with only limited meat

consumption. Accordingly, the ability to eat prime meat animals, along with

venison and wild birds, would be a particular mark of status in a period when

wool production and arable farming was becoming increasingly important in

many parts of the country.


191

6.2 The Charred Plant Macrofossils and Other Remains by Val

Fryer BA, M.I.F.A.

6.2.1 Introduction and method statement

The new Chalk Pit excavations at Sedgeford, undertaken during the 2007

season, revealed ditches, pits, an oven and other discrete features of probable

Middle Saxon to Late Saxon date. In accordance with the excavation

specification, samples for the retrieval of the plant macrofossil assemblages

were taken from features within all five of the excavation trenches, and

seventeen were submitted for assessment.

6.2.2 The samples were bulk floated by members of the S.H.A.R.P. team, and the

flots were collected in a 500 micron mesh sieve. The dried flots were scanned

under a binocular microscope at magnifications up to x 16 and the plant

macrofossils and other remains noted are listed on Tables 1a and 1b.

Nomenclature within the tables follows Stace (1997). Identifications were

made by comparison with modern reference specimens. All plant remains

were charred. Modern contaminants including fibrous roots and seeds were

present throughout.

6.2.3 Because of the poor preservation of the material within the assemblages,

further analysis (including quantification) was not possible. As a result, this

report is based on an assessment of the plant macrofossils. The density of

material within each assemblage is expressed in the tables as follows: x = 1 –

10 specimens, xx = 10 – 50 specimens, xxx = 50 – 100 specimens and xxxx =

100+ specimens. Other abbreviations used in the tables are explained at the

end of this text section.

6.2.4 Results

Cereal grains and weed seeds were present at varying densities in all seventeen

assemblages. Preservation was generally very poor, with the majority of the

grains being severely puffed and distorted, probably as a result of combustion

at very high temperatures.


192

6.2 5 Although most of the cereals were too severely damaged for close

identification, oat (Avena sp.), barley (Hordeum sp.), rye (Secale cereale) and

wheat (Triticum sp.) grains were recorded, with barley and wheat occurring

most frequently. Cereal chaff was exceedingly scarce, but rachis nodes of both

barley and rye type were recorded. A single fragment of an indeterminate large

pulse (Fabaceae) of pea/bean type was noted within sample 302.

6.2.6 Weed seeds were relatively uncommon, frequently occurring as a single

specimen within an assemblage. Segetal taxa, including corn cockle

(Agrostemma githago), brome (Bromus sp.), corn gromwell (Lithospermum

arvense), wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) and vetch/vetchling

(Vicia/Lathyrus sp.), were predominant. Hazel (Corylus avellana) nutshell

fragments and a single elderberry (Sambucus nigra) seed were also recorded.

Charcoal/charred wood fragments were common or abundant within most

assemblages. Other plant macrofossils occurred less frequently, but did

include a number of fragments of heather (Ericaceae) stem.

6.2.7 A limited range of other materials was also recorded. The fragments of black

porous material were probable residues of the combustion of organic remains

(including cereal grains) at exceedingly high temperatures. Bone fragments,

including some burnt pieces, were present in all but one assemblage, and other

possible dietary residues included eggshell, fishbone and fragments of marine

mollusc shell.

6.2.8 Discussion

Of the samples studied, ten are from ditch fills, two are from pits, three from

deposits associated with the remains of a small oven and two from layers.

However, despite this diversity of contexts, the composition of the

assemblages is remarkably uniform, possibly indicating a common source for

much of the material. The predominance of poorly preserved cereal grains

within the assemblages may indicate that the material is largely derived from

domestic refuse/hearth waste, where the grains were accidentally spilled

during culinary preparation. However, it should be noted that similar

assemblages can also occur where cereal processing waste has been used as


193

kindling or fuel, or where small batches of grain have been accidentally

charred as a result of poor temperature control during cereal drying. The

presence of heather stem fragments within many of the assemblages may also

be indicative of the presence of hearth or oven waste. Heather was particularly

favoured as a fuel for a range of domestic and light ‘industrial’ uses as it

ignited easily and quickly reached a high temperature, which was maintained

throughout combustion.

6.2.9 Whatever the original source of the material, it is clear that the resulting

charred refuse was not systematically deposited, but rather widely spread

across the site, accidentally becoming incorporated within most of the

recorded features.

6.2.10 Conclusions

In summary, the assemblages would appear to be primarily derived from

scattered refuse, probably mostly of domestic origin, although remains from

some other sources may also be incorporated. The apparent lack of chaff may

indicate that the occupants of the site were not actively engaged in the

production and processing of cereals, but were, instead, largely a consumer

society, dependant on batches of imported prime grain to meet their cereal

requirements. However, it should be noted that the extreme temperatures to

which this material has obviously been subjected would almost certainly

destroy the more delicate chaff elements and smaller weed seeds, creating an

unrepresentative bias within the assemblages. As a result, the above

hypothesis may not be entirely correct.

6.2.11 Key to Table 11

x = 1 – 10 specimens xx = 10 – 50 specimens xxx = 50 – 100 specimens

xxxx = 100+ specimens

cf = compare m = mineral replaced b = burnt tf = testa fragment

NH

ER

10

79

: A

rchae

olo

gic

al E

val

uati

on o

f C

halk

pit

Fie

ld,

20

07

-8

33

Table 11: Plant Macrofossils and other remains recovered from CNE 07 samples.

Sample/context No.

104

202

203

208

210

230

412

503

509

Trench No.

T1

T2

T2

T2

T2

T2

T4

T5

T5

Feature type

Ditch

Ditch

Ditch

Ditch

Ditch

Ditch

Ditch

Pit

Pit

Cereals

Common

name

Avena sp. (grains)

Oat

x

xcf

xx

x

x

x

xcf

Hordeum sp. (grains)

Barley

x

x

xx

x

x

x

x

(rachis node)

x

Hordeum/Secale cereale type (rachis

nodes)

x

Secale cereale L. (grains)

Rye

x

xcf

x

(rachis node)

x

Triticum sp. (grains)

Wheat

x

x

xx

x

xcf

Cereal indet. (grains)

x

x

x

xxxx

xx

xx

xxx

x

x

Herbs

Agrostemma githago L.

Corn cockle

x xm

x

Fabaceae indet.

x

x

x

x

Lithopsermum arvense L.

Corn gromwell

xxx

Small Poaceae indet.

Grasses

x

x

Large Poaceae indet.

x

Polygonum aviculare L.

Knotgrass

x

Polygonaceae indet.

x

Raphanus raphanistrum L. (siliqua

fragments)

Wild radish

x

Rumex sp.

x

R. acetosella L.

Sheep's sorrel

x

Vicia/Lathyrus sp.

Vetch/vetchling

x

x

x

NH

ER

10

79

: A

rchae

olo

gic

al E

val

uati

on o

f C

halk

pit

Fie

ld,

20

07

-8

195

Tree/shrub macrofossils

Corylus avellana L.

Hazel

xcf

x

Other plant macrofossils

Charcoal <2mm

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxxx

xxxx

xxx

xxxx

xxx

xx

Charcoal >2mm

xx

x

xx

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

x

x

Charred root/stem

x

x

x

x

x

Ericaceae indet. (stem)

Heather

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Indet.seeds

x

x

Other materials

Black porous 'cokey' material

x

xxxx

xxx

xx

xx

xxx

xxx

Black tarry m

aterial

x

Bone

x

x xb

x

x

x

x

x

xb

x

Burnt/fired clay

x

Eggshell

x

Fish bone

x

x

Marine m

ollusc shell

x

x

x

x

Siliceous globules

x

Small coal frags.

x

x

x

x

x

Small mammal/amphibain bones

x

x

x

x

x

Vitrified m

aterial

x

x

x

Sample volume (litres)

10

10

10

20

10

10

10

10

10

Volume of flot (litres)

<0.1

<0.1

0.1

0.1

<0.1

<0.1

<0.1

<0.1

<0.1

% flot sorted

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

NH

ER

10

79

: A

rchae

olo

gic

al E

val

uati

on o

f C

halk

pit

Fie

ld,

20

07

-8

196

Sample/context No.

302

308

310

311

312

315

325

326

Feature type

Ditch

Ditch

Ditch

Oven

Oven

Oven

Layer

Layer

Cereals

Common

name

Avena sp. (grains)

Oat

xx

x

xcf

x

x

x

x

Large Fabaceae indet.

Pea/bean

x

Hordeum sp. (grains)

Barley

xx

x

x

xcf

x

xcf

x

Hordeum/Secale cereale type (rachis

nodes)

x

Secale cereale L. (grains)

Rye

x

x

xcf

x

x

x

Triticum sp. (grains)

Wheat

xx

xx

x

x

x

Cereal indet. (grains)

xxx

xxxx

xx

x

xx

xx

xx

xx

Herbs

Agrostemma githago L.

Corn cockle

xtf

x

Bromus sp.

Brome

xcf

xcf

xcf

x

x

Fabaceae indet.

x

x

x

Fallopia convolvulus (L.)A.Love

Black

bindweed

x

Hyoscyamus niger L.

Henbane

xcf

Lithopsermum arvense L.

Corn gromwell

x

Small Poaceae indet.

Grasses

x

x

Raphanus raphanistrum L. (siliqua

fragments)

Wild radish

x

Vicia/Lathyrus sp.

Vetch/vetchling

x

x

x

Tree/shrub macrofossils

Corylus avellana L.

Hazel

x

x

Sambucus nigra L.

Elderberry

x

Other plant macrofossils

Charcoal <2mm

xxxx

xxxx

xxxx

xxx

xxxx

xxx

xxxx

xxxx

Charcoal >2mm

xxxx

xx

xxx

x

x

x

xxx

xxx

Charcoal >5mm

x

Charred root/stem

x

x

xx

x

x

x

NH

ER

10

79

: A

rchae

olo

gic

al E

val

uati

on o

f C

halk

pit

Fie

ld,

20

07

-8

197

Ericaceae indet. (stem)

Heather

x

xx

x

x

(florets)

x

Indet.culm nodes

x

Indet.seeds

x

x

Other materials

Black porous 'cokey' material

xx

x

x

x

x

x

x

Black tarry m

aterial

x

Bone

x

x

x

x

x

x xb

x

Burnt/fired clay

x

x

Ferrous globule

x

Fish bone

x

x

Marine m

ollusc shell

x

x

x

x

x

Siliceous globules

x

x

Small coal frags.

x

x

Small mammal/amphibain bones

x

x

x

x

x

x

Sample volume (litres)

10

20

20

20

20

5

20

20

Volume of flot (litres)

0.1

0.1

0.1

<0.1

<0.1

<0.1

<0.1

<0.1

% flot sorted

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%


33

6.3 An Assessment of the Oyster Shell by Greg Campbell

6.3.1 Introduction and Methods

A random sample of shells of oyster from Late Saxon ditch fill CNE 302, were

provided for assessment of their research potential. Also supplied were counts

and total weight of the hand-retrieved material excavated from the fill, a plan

of the excavated area, a section drawing (Fig. 64) and a digital photograph

(Pate 8) of a section through the fill, its ditch, and the other ditches in this

boundary.

6.3.2 The shells were washed by moderate scrubbing with a medium toothbrush,

rinsed, air-dried, and identified by comparison with standard criteria and

identified specimens in the author’s collection. Fragments bearing traces of

the hinge were separated into left (lower, concave) and right (upper, flat)

valves. The oysters were weighed and each type of valve counted. Shells

were examined for surface features relating to their bed conditions (such as

traces of encrusting, burrowing or predatory organisms) and treatment

following harvesting (such as cut- or break-marks). The range and average of

the size was estimated by measuring a sub-sample of ten lower valves selected

to cover the full range of sizes present. Average and range of age was

assessed by counting the annual rings on the sub-sample used to define

average size.

6.3.3 Results

Number, size, age and shape: The sample was made up of 136 oyster valves,

weighing 4.5kg after washing and air-drying. All could be assumed to be the

common, flat or native oyster (Ostrea edulis Linnaeus 1758), since over 90%

of the hinges bore the fine teeth (chomata) characteristic of this species.

Lower (concave) valves were more common (85 valves), the remainder were

upper (flat) valves. The valves were selected from the 3556 shells weighing

78.6kg recovered from the deposit, and therefore represented a sample of 3.8%

by number and 5.7% by weight. Washing revealed five shells of mussel

(Mytilus sp., probably M. edulis) and a fragment of large mammal bone.


199

6.3.4 The oyster shells ranged from 5-9 years in age, and from 35-130mm in size,

with most about 7 years old and about 80mm across. There may be two

groups, the larger of typical to large shells of about 60-130mm in size and 6-9

years in age, with 10% of the shells younger (usually five years old) and very

small for consumption (about 35-50mm).

6.3.5 The oysters had a consistent round shape (shell height about equal to length),

with no examples of markedly excentric shapes (much longer than tall, or

much taller than long). The perceived group of smaller younger shells seemed

to be more elongate (longer than tall) than the majority group. Only two

valves showed constrictions to the shell edge characteristic of growth being

limited by a physical object.

6.3.6 Preservation: Overall, preservation is excellent. About 15% of the valves

retained their colour (the fine irregular purple radial lines often found on

oysters, especially in well-lit water). Flaking of the shell, delamination

(separation along growth planes and loss of the outer part of the hinge) and

powdery shell surfaces, affected only about 5% of the shells: post-depositional

degradation due to dissolution of shell carbonate by ground-water percolation

was much less than typical of archaeological oysters. This post-depositional

degradation affected about half the perceived group of small-sized younger

oysters. In two cases the ligament (the tough proteinaceous structure that

holds the valves together at the hinge in living oysters) remained in part (Fig.

3), a condition not previously reported in the author’s experience.

6.3.7 Almost all valves had fine sand cemented to the shell surface by a deposit

which was dark olive green when initially exposed, but changed to dull brown

after washing and drying. This deposit was probably formed from iron salts

dissolved in ground-water depositing at the shell surface in the localised high

pH at the surface caused by shell carbonate. This gritty cemented deposit was

usually confined to part of one valve surface, but could cover most of the

valve, obscuring some features (such as the adductor scar or traces of adhering

organisms).


200

6.3.8 Despite this gritty deposit, all valves could be identified to species, and 41%

could have their dimensions measured with minimal estimation. Breakage

was much less prevalent on the upper valves: measurable shells made up 57%

of the upper valves but only 32% of the bottom valves. This is not unusual,

since upper valves have more solid edges. Virtually all of the breaks were

fresh (the broken edges were sharp and the broken surfaces were clean, lacked

the gritty cemented deposit, and were less eroded than the other shell

surfaces).

6.3.9 The fine surface sculpture and the traces of boring or encrusting organisms

were clear and survived the toothbrush washing without damage. The types of

infestation were those typical of oysters, but infestation was surprisingly un-

common: 12% of the shells bore tubes of keelworms (Pomatoceros), 11% had

burrows of the sponge Cliona, 9% had burrows of the tube-worm Polydora, 2

shells had barnacles, and only one shell had been drilled by a predatory whelk,

probably Buccinum undatum. As usual, such encrustation was much less

prevalent on the upper valves, with only four valves affected.

6.3.10 Treatment following harvest: Two upper valves were hard and a uniform pale

grey throughout (Fig. 4), characteristic of moderate burning. About five shells

had oblong patches of moderately dense black sooty spots 0.5-2mm across,

characteristic of slight exposure to burning.

6.3.11 Two lower valves bore cut-marks (Fig. 5) characteristic with a knife inserted

from the anterior edge of the shell near to the hinge, and forced across the

entire oyster body, severing the muscle holding the oyster shut by repeated

broad sweeps. This is contrary to the modern practice, in which the knife is

inserted posterior and below the hinge, so it need travel a much shorter

distance before severing the muscle.

6.3.12 Nature of the deposition: The section drawing and photograph (Figs. 64 &

Plate 8) show oysters are not the principal component of the deposit (as would

be expected for a true shell-midden), but can occur as distinct lenses, in


201

association with animal bones or in the base of the feature. They also show

concentrations of oysters in stratigraphically earlier deposits 325 (in the same

cut), 321 (in immediately preceding ditch 322), and 307 (in dith 314, the

earliest in the boundary).

6.3.13 Conclusions

The potential of the marine shell in this late Saxon deposit is high.

Preservation is excellent, with shape, size, and surface features relating to age,

infestation and methods of opening clearly visible. The consistent rounded

shape indicates shells were well separated during growth. The age and size

range was quite narrow, and infestation was low. Harvesting by dredge breaks

up oyster clusters or reefs and spreads out the oysters, inhibiting infestation

and allowing individual oysters to grow shells of a broader more rounded

shape. Dredging also recovers oysters of a narrow age and size range, and

reduces the proportion of aged oysters in a bed. Therefore there is good

evidence to suggest there was a well-established late Saxon oyster dredging

fishery off the nearby coast. The possibility that there are two groups of shells

(a small portion of oysters being small, possibly more rounded and harvested

about their fifth year) may (if confirmed by studies based on measurements)

indicate two harvesting strategies were employed.

6.3.14 The deposit is also rich in other types of shells, since the number of mussels

found in the spoil attached to the un-washed oysters was high given its small

volume. Drawn and photographic evidence suggests shells were deposited

episodically, in some cases along with other debris, in this and earlier deposits

in the same boundary. There is therefore the potential to address three

research questions about the span of late Saxon time covered by the filling of

this boundary:

1) The relative contribution of marine shellfish to the overall meat supply can be

traced over time by comparing the counts and average sizes of the shellfish

with their contemporary mammal and fish bones.


202

2) The relative importance of the various kinds of shellfish can be traced over

time by comparing the counts and average sizes of the shellfish with each

other.

3) Changes over time in the beds exploited, and the harvesting methods used, can

be traced by comparing shellfish average size, average shape, and infestation

levels.

6.3.15 Breakage during archaeological recovery was the main source of loss of

information, through damage or extensive loss to the shell edge

6.3.16 Future Excavation methods

A column, 100cm square in plan, should be excavated in 10cm depth

increments, through the deepest parts of deposits 302, 325, 321 and 307. Each

10cm increment should be regarded as a soil sample, given its own individual

soil sample number in a continuous sequence of sample numbers, and have its

depth below the initial surface of the column recorded. Care should be taken

to ensure that increments do not cross deposit boundaries. Any patch visibly

rich in shell revealed during the excavation of the column should be treated as

an increment in its own right.

6.3.17 Individual shells encountered during excavation should be retrieved by careful

hand-trowelling. Oysters should be wrapped individually (squares of

newspaper will do), and kept as whole as is possible during washing, air-

drying and wrapped individually during storage and transport. Mussel shells

should be not be washed, just air-dried and then individually paper-wrapped.

Other shells require washing and air-drying without individual wrapping. The

spoil from the increment should be sieved to 6mm and the shell fragments

recovered. (There may be some sense in sieving and sorting to finer mesh

size, to recover bones of fish and small mammals.)

6.3.18 Rest assured that this level of sampling intensity is not appropriate for the bulk

of the deposits being excavated. Retrieved shells should continue to be

assigned to the deposit which contained them. Particular care should be taken


203

when excavating individual shells from those deposits which excavation

shows to be visibly rich in shell.

Fig. 64: Diagrammatic depiction of NW-facing section through

oyster-rich fill 302. (see also Fig. 30 above)

Scale: 1:50

Plate 8: Detailed photograph of deposit 302 in the section shown in Fig. 64.


204

Plate 9: Detail of the hinge of the left (lower) valve of O. edulis from deposit 302, showing the remains of the hinge ligament.

Plate 10. Photograph of the two right (upper) valves of O. edulis L. from deposit 302 rendered a uniform grey, probably by moderate

burning.


205

Plate 11: Inner face of left (lower) valve of oyster (O. edulis L.)

from ditch fill SH07 CNE (302), showing cut marks posterior and

ventral to adductor scar.


206

6.4 The Human Bone by Martin Hatton

6.4.1 Human Bone was excavated from the trenches put into the northern end of

Chalkpit Field, Sedgeford by SHARP in 2007. It was originally collected with

animal bone, from which it was removed when the analysis of the animal bone

took place. It was then passed to me for analysis. In total it amounted to only

the two bones here reported.

6.4.2 Bone 1 (context 208):

It is a human 1st proximal pedal phalanx (i.e. the big toe, second bone back

from the tip).

6.4.3 The epiphysis is unfused. [Note: these bones only have one epiphysis, a

proximal one (i.e. towards the foot in this case) between the metatarsal and

this phalanx]. The epiphysis itself is not present but the proximal end of the

diaphysis (i.e. shaft) shows a perfect example of the sort of ‘billowing surface’

to which the epiphysis would, in due time, fuse. There is no evidence that the

epiphysis was ever fused (not even tentatively) to the main bone. Scheuer and

Black show (Fig 11.35:443) that this epiphysis is still unfused at age 14 but

that the bone is complete on females at 16 and males at 18 years old.

6.4.4 Looked at from the ‘top’ (the dorsal view) the left side is slightly more curved,

and hence longer, than the right side. “The proximal phalanx of the big toe can

be easily attributed to the correct side, as the medial border is always longer

than the lateral border” (ibid.:465). Hence the bone is clearly from a right foot.

6.4.5 Comparison with a photograph at true-size of an adult right 1st proximal pedal

phalanx (White and Folkens,2000:270-2) shows that this bone has all of the

morphological features of the fully adult bone except for the missing

epiphysis. The maximum length of the actual bone is 24mm. The length

measured on the photograph across the same landmarks (i.e. so as to adjust for

the missing epiphysis) was 35mm. The maximum diameter of the diaphysis of

the actual bone is 16mm. On a scale drawing of the same bone from a 7 year


207

old (Scheuer and Black,2000:Fig11.53,p457) the same diameter is the

equivalent of 14mm.

6.4.6 On the basis of the fusion data, appearance and metrics my tentative estimate

of the age of the individual from which this bone came is 10-12 years old.

Because there is always doubt about ‘hard numbers’ many authorities prefer to

classify ages. In the terminology used in Scheuer and Black (ibid.p469) this

toe would be from an ‘adolescent’; some other authors use the term ‘juvenile’

and yet others classify those aged between 7-14 as ‘older children’ or ‘Infants

2’.

6.4.7 It is not possible to determine the sex of the individual from this bone.

6.4.8 The bone is strong and in good condition. There is a minute chip out of the

right distal corner which occurred recently, possibly when the bone was

excavated or being cleaned. There are no signs of pathology.

6.4.9 Bone 2 (context (103):

It is a fragment of the diaphysis (shaft) of a human femur (thigh bone).

6.4.10 To ensure that it was human, comparisons were made with the femurs of other

commonly occurring mammals. Horses and cows are much bigger and more

robust and sheep smaller and more gracile. Deer come in a range of sizes.

However the cross-sectional shape, which can be clearly seen in this fragment,

is that of a ‘tear drop’. The linea aspera (a ridge down the posterior (back)

aspect of the femur) forms the ‘tail’ of the ‘tear drop’ in humans. This is

distinctly different from the cross sectional shape of femurs of other common

mammals which are generally more circular. (Comparisons made using

Hillson,1992:Figs 41 & 42, opp p37).

6.4.11 The fragment is a maximum of 109mm long. (To put this into perspective, the

full length of the femur of an adult about 5ft7in tall might typically be about

450mm. The two ends of a femur – including the metaphyses, the bits where

the bone widens out, and the epiphyses, the bits which make the joints – each


208

contribute, very roughly, a quarter of the length of the bone. The diaphysis –

the main shaft of the bone – makes up the other half of the length.)

6.4.12 The two broken ends of the fragment are transverse to its main axis, i.e. they

cut right across its diameters.

6.4.13 There is a clear linea aspera along the length of the fragment. There is a slight

widening of this towards one end. This is where it was coming towards one or

other of the metaphyses. There is also a nutrient foramen towards the other

end. This is clearly the foramen marked O2 in Fig 12.2 of White and Folkens

(234). Hence the fragment is almost all of the distal (lower) half of the

diaphysis of a human femur.

6.4.14 Viewed posteriorly (from the back) in the natural position (proximal end up)

this foramen – O2 – is medial to the linea aspera. Hence it is possible to

determine that this fragment is from a right femur.

6.4.15 The anterior–posterior diameter of the fragment at the nutrient foramen is

26.9mm. The medial-lateral diameter is 26.5mm. Normally these diameters are

taken at the midshaft of the femur. Because of the break it is not possible

determine exactly where the midshaft point of the complete bone would have

been on the fragment. It seems that it was most probably just beyond the

proximal end of the bone we now have i.e. it is missing. The closest point at

which measurements can be reliably be taken give AP diameter 26.9mm, ML

diameter 26.7mm. It is probably not meaningful to talk about a typical

midshaft diameter but figures of the order of 25 – 30 mm would not be

exceptionally robust or gracile. In short, the bone looks like that of a normal,

average adult. Direct comparison involving placing the fragment in exactly the

right position on the true-size photograph in White and Folkens (Fig

12.2:p234) reinforces this opinion. However, without the usual indicators –

epiphyses, auricular surfaces, pubic symphyses, teeth - attempting to estimate

age at death on the basis of size alone is inadvisable. The bone could have

come from a tall sub-adult, perhaps one only a few years short of becoming an


209

adult. Hence, in my opinion, whilst the fragment probably came from an adult

but there is a possibility that it came from someone in their mid-late teens.

6.4.16 Establishing the sex of the individual from a fragment of bone is also

something to be treated with caution, especially if it is not the pelvis or skull.

However, a paper by Black (1978:229), cited in Bass (1995:231), suggests that

a femoral midshaft circumference of >81mm is indicative of a male and a

circumference of <81mm indicative of a female. The circumference at the

closest point I could get to the midshaft point and measure reliably was 84mm.

Hence, on the basis of this statistic one would be tempted to suggest that the

bone came from a male. However Black goes on to say (1978:230) that “a new

function should be calculated for each population to be considered”. Although

we don’t know which population this fragment came from, it is not

unreasonable to assume that it came from the same population as that buried in

Boneyard (see Interpretation below). In a sample of 35 skeletons from

Boneyard identified as ‘male’ or ‘probably male’ the average midshaft

circumference was 98mm and on none was this measurement under 87mm. In

a sample of 43 ‘females’ and ‘probable females’ however, almost half had

circumferences of 84mm or less (Hilary Snelling, pers.com.). Hence, on the

basis of a local population it seems more likely that the fragment came from a

female. However, since there is a possibility that it came from a late

adolescent rather than a full adult, it should be noted that males at this stage of

development often display similar skeletal gacility to adult females. Hence any

assessment of the sex of the person from whom this femur came must be

regarded as speculative and conditional upon estimates of their age.

6.4.17 The linea aspera although clear is not particularly pronounced or ruggose,

features sometimes linked to greater robusticity.

6.4.18 The bone is strong and in fairly good condition. The breaks at the two ends are

clearly post-depositional but not recent. The surface shows some fine eroded

lines, probably caused by very fine root action. There is a small dent in one

area, possibly the result of impact by a plough or shovel in more recent times.

There are no signs of pathology.


210

6.4.19 Summary

There are two bones. One is a bone from the right big toe of a juvenile whose

sex is indeterminable. The other is a fragment amounting to, very roughly, a

quarter of a right femur. This probably came from an ‘average’ size adult, but

just possibly from a well-developed mid-late teenager. If the fragment is from

an adult it is likely to be from a female; if it is from an adolescent the sex is

indeterminable. There are no signs of injury or disease on either bone.

6.4.20 The bones give all the appearance of being ‘archaeological’ (i.e. not modern

intrusions).

6.4.21 Interpretation

These two small bits of bone are insufficient evidence to suggest that the

nearby Boneyard cemetery reached this far up the hill. As it is up hill, it is also

hard to see what sort of natural action would have brought the bones to the

position in which they were found. Action by man is the most likely

explanation. Perhaps fill removed from ditches, which we know criss-crossed

Boneyard after it went out of use as a cemetery, was found to be organically

rich and hence was carted up the hill to improve the soil there. A few small

bits of bone could easily get mixed in with such fill.

6.4.22 An alternative explanation involves speculating that there may be burials

associated with the Roman site at the top of the hill at the south end of

Chalkpit Field. However this is much further away than Boneyard and a link

with Boneyard seems more likely.


211

7. Discussion and Conclusions

7.1 Introduction.

7.1.1 The preceding report has concentrated on the presentation and interpretation of

the collected data from the geophysical and fieldwalking survey (Chapters 2

and 3), the presentation of an integrated analysis of the stratigraphic and

chronological sequence of the excavated deposits (Chapter 4), and the

identification, analysis and interpretation of the artefact and ecofacts remains

from the excavated deposits (Chapters 5 and 6).

7.1.2 This final discussion now aims to bring together these observations, micro-

analyses and interpretations in order to present a picture of what we now know

of the character of the Middle-Late Saxon settlement at Chalkpit Field,

Sedgeford.

7.1.3 The discussion will use the 2007-8 evidence in an attempt to narrate the

changing character (settlement morphology and material culture profile) of the

settlement focus. This will hopefully allow for future considerations of wider

economic, political and social dynamics and place of the site within wider

settlement hierarchies.

7.1.4 However, as this is an initial evaluation of the settlement evidence, a key aim

is also to highlight current knowledge gaps that future investigation at

Chalkpit field would no-doubt resolve.

7.2 Pre- Saxon occupation

7.2.1 A small amount of evidence was recovered from the trench evaluation that can

be attributed to phases of occupation earlier in date than the Middle Saxon

period; although none of this material was apparently in situ. The fieldwalking


212

produced some finds, but no geophysical anomalies can be confidently

attributed to pre-Saxon phases of occupation. The finds are now summarised

chronologically.

7.2.2 The earliest dateable artefact identified during the 2007-8 CNE evaluation was

the Neolithic flaked axe recovered from Trench 2 (see section 5.2). The

artefact allows us to imagine some form of earlier Prehistoric activity of an

indeterminate nature in the environs of Chalkpit field, as is also the case

further to the north in the Bonyeard-Reedam area (NHER 1609) (Davies et.al,

2007, 237).

7.2.3 Following the loss of the Neolithic flaked axe, there is little tangible evidence

from the Chalkpit field evaluation until the Iron Age, although three sherds of

Prehistoric flint tempered pottery of indeterminate age were recovered during

the excavation of the trial trenches. Iron Age pottery was recovered from the

evaluation trenches, but is restricted to eight residual sherds (no sherds were

observed as part of the surface artefact scatter). It is uncertain what level of

activity this pottery represents. Interestingly, the Iron Age sherd count is low

compared with that on the Boneyard-Reeddam site immediately to the north,

implying – on present evidence - that the northern extent of Chalkpit field lies

beyond the southern extent concentrated Iron Age activity.

7.2.4 Romano-British pottery was also recovered from the 2007 evaluation trenches

(53 sherds) and a small scatter of ten Romano-British sherds, primarily grey

wares, were recovered towards the west of the observed artefact scatter in

Chalkpit Field North (see Fig.6). The amount of material recovered from

surface collection is not enough to indicate a concentrated settlement focus

and may reflect the manuring of agricultural land. The pottery sherds from the

evaluation trenches may indicate some more concentrated activity, particularly

in the environs of Trenches 2 and 3, during the Romano-British period, but as

no sub-surface deposits or features could be attributed this potential phase of

land-use the nature of this activity is presently unknown. A copper alloy

barbarous radiate coin, (c. AD 275-85) located in the environs of Trench 5,

does potentially indicate some variation in the activities undertaken within the


213

northern extent of Chalkpit Field. Further north, on the Boneyard-Reeddam

site, the excavated evidence suggested that the valley bottom was managed to

an extent, but not intensively occupied during the Roman period (Davies et.al,

233).

7.3 The Middle Saxon Occupation

7.3.1 The first phase of significant occupation, as identified by the fieldwalking,

geophysics and excavation evidence, can be attributed to the Middle Saxon

period. Geophysical anomalies indicative of settlement enclosures - closely

correlating to a surface artefact scatter of Ipswich ware (c.720-850) and a

small amount of Early-Middle Saxon handmade pottery- might suggest that

intensive occupation started in the late Seventh/early eighth century (see

section 5.1 for considerations of the ceramic chronology). This notion is

supported by the identification of six sub-surface archaeological features in

evaluation Trenches 2, 3 and 4 that confirm that at least some of the

geophysical anomalies represent features of a Middle Saxon date.

7.3.2 The Middle Saxon built environment: settlement morphology,

boundaries, and use of space.

The geophysics, although not easy to interpret in a chronological sense, does

provide a wide spatial frame by which to consider the potential developmental

sequence of the Chalkpit settlement morphology. Most importantly, the survey

suggested that a large stock enclosure [1] - potentially paralleled by the small

enclosure at Milfield, Northumberland (Scull and Harding, 1990) - marked the

southern boundary of the settlement focus from its outset, as other boundaries

appear to be articulated from this feature. Judging by the fieldwalked surface

artefact scatter of 24 sherds of Ipswich ware (c. 720 – 850 AD), the earliest

settlement activity is Middle Saxon in date.

7.33 The Ipswich ware surface artefact scatter is, however, located towards the east

and northwest of the geophysical survey area. Perhaps suggesting that

concentrated Middle Saxon activity is located north of a large east-west


214

boundary feature [1a] (c.80m south of the northern field boundary, and

apparently contemporary to the large stock enclosure) where a number of

apparent co-axial ditched geophysical anomalies are located.

7.3.3 As will be discussed below, the area north of the major east-west boundary

located by the geophysical survey appears to be a zone of sustained settlement

activity, and the main occupation focus is characterised by a co-axial pattern

of ditches. Such co-axial patterns of potential Middle-Late Saxon settlement

plots (c.20m square in size) have been observed at a number of other sites. For

example, at Wicken Bonhunt, Essex (Wade, 1980) and North Elmham,

Norfolk (Wade Martins, 1980) where planned settlements with linear plot

arrangements developed around large linear ditches (Reynolds, 2003, 130). A

degree of planning is therefore implied from the outset at Middle Saxon

Sedgeford, but perhaps not to the degree as is visible with very high status

settlements (ibid. 106-8). Nevertheless, the presence of a potential large stock

enclosure –sizeable enough to accommodate a large number of animals - is an

indicator of a certain degree of status form the outset, this is due to the

importance of livestock in both social and economic terms during the Middle

Saxon period. The presence of possible settlement plots perhaps also denotes

an emphasis on private space and is perhaps an indicator of a social elite

presence amongst the wider population at this site from the outset. At present,

however, these observations concerning settlement morphology on a wide

spatial scale are somewhat conjectural, and represent important future research

questions that need to be asked of this settlement.

7.3.4 In contrast, the 2007 trial trenching has already provided some important

evidence that –although not revealing any structures - can inform about the

character of the boundaries and use of space within the Middle Saxon

settlement.

7.3.5 In general, preservation in the down-slope area of Chalkpit North was good,

with features in Trench 2 sealed in part by a colluvial deposit. However, a

degree of plough truncation was in evidence throughout the evaluation area,

particularly in Trench 4, and the surface artefact scatter of Ipswich ware is


215

evidence of that truncation. Nevertheless, Middle Saxon features were well

preserved enough to contain secure primary fills.

7.3.6 The impression gained from the 2007 evaluation trenches, due to the absence

of Middle Saxon features in Trenches 1 and 5, was that the main area of

Middle Saxon activity was located in between these trenches within the

environs of Trenches 2-4. A basic first point, due to the fact that only two

dispersed human bones were recovered from the evaluation, is that it seems

that the Middle-Late Saxon cemetery on the Boneyard field might not have

continued south into Chalkpit Field. This raises the possibility that the part of

the exiting east-west aligned trackway immediately north of Chalkpit field

might be a relatively old boundary that defines the southern extent of the

Saxon cemetery.

7.3.7 The discovery of a series of three intercutting Middle Saxon ditch features in

Trench 2 indicates that there was dense land-use and a persistence of

settlement in this part of the site. In addition, the arrangement of the ditches in

Trench 2, suggest that this is sub-surface evidence for a co-axial Middle-Late

Saxon enclosure as predicted by the geophysical survey. Additionally, the two

Middle Saxon features (one a definite ditch) in Trench 3 suggest that the

origins of the dense boundary and industrial sequence observed from then

Mid-Late Ninth century onwards (see section 7.4 below) had its origins in the

earlier Middle Saxon period and that, although the pattern of land-use is hard

to predict, the later significant boundaries were perhaps articulated around

earlier boundary features. The single east-west aligned ditch terminal located

in Trench 4 (with a final infilling in the mid-late ninth century) also indicates

the potential for earlier Middle Saxon features that continue to be relevant

features in the landscape of the Mid-Late Ninth century/ Late Saxon

settlement.

7.3.8 Perhaps most significantly, however, the feature fills from the Trench 2

ditches suggest that it might be possible to characterise Middle Saxon waste

disposal practices: a potential useful window onto social constraints. For

example, a fantastic range of artefactual material culture was recovered from


216

the fill of N-S ditch [227], indicating that this feature was located close to

concentrated Middle Saxon settlement activity. However, in comparison to

some of the Late Saxon features, the quantities of artefact loss (particularly

ceramics) suggest that this Middle Saxon phase (or land-use zone) was not

necessarily a phase/ zone of high quantities of artefact discard; perhaps

indicating a specific mode of waste disposal. Interestingly, the Mid-Saxon

animal bone is noticeably less fragmented and gnawed in comparison to the

Late Saxon material and in general seems to represent a series of small dumps

of refuse in archaeological features (as perhaps opposed to a more collective

rubbish disposal strategy initially in surface middens, see section 3.5 below

and Poole, this volume). This perhaps suggests that future archaeological

investigations might benefit from a high degree of Middle Saxon deposit

security, with less potential for residuality and deposit re-working than in later

phases of activity.

7.3.9 On a cautionary note, it might also be suggested from the existing evidence

that the rather more limited artefactual evidence recovered from an earlier N-S

Middle Saxon ditch in Trench 2, potentially indicates a chronological or

functional shift (i.e. change in settlement land-use zones) between the use-life

of ditches [234] and [227]. Earlier still, the fill of an east-west Middle Saxon

ditch, cut [216] (which contained heather stem fragments, indicative of the

presence of hearth or oven waste, and a range of material culture which

indicated that ditch was located close to Early- Middle Saxon settlement

activity, perhaps indicates a third shift in waste disposal practices within just

three observed Middle Saxon features in Trench 2. This allows for possibility

that, instead of a specific model of waste disposal (e.g. the disposal of

individual groups of waste in ditches), the Middle Saxon settlement may

actually be characterised by a number of dynamic shifts in waste disposal

practices. The potential for dynamic shifts in the settlement character clearly

remains a crucial avenue for future research, made all the more relevant due to

the fact that the animal bone evidence from the 2007 evaluations (see below)

is suggesting that the ‘Middle Saxon phase’ alone might indeed be a useful

analytical bracket by which to characterise the site.


217

7.3.10 On a final cautionary note, whereas the general impression of the Middle

Saxon archaeology is of a high degree of deposit security, with less potential

for deposit re-working than in later phases of activity, the east-west aligned

ditch terminal (potentially a habitation-area boundary) in Trench 4, with its

final infilling in the mid-late ninth century (and intrusive Thetford ware in its

primary fill) indicates the potential for earlier Middle Saxon features that

continue to in use towards the Late Saxon period. If this is the case, then future

investigation will have to be aware of the possibility that clear cur

interpretations of changing waste disposal practices by phase might be

difficult of impossible.

7.3.11 The Middle Saxon environment and agricultural economy.

The Middle Saxon phase was the smallest sample in terms of excavated

features. Accordingly, little can be surmised about the contemporary

environment from the soil samples collected. However, in common with the

other phases of land use, environmental sampling did suggest the presence of

scattered refuse primarily of domestic origin. Samples containing high

quantities of heather stem fragments, indicative of the presence of hearth or

oven waste, may be a useful future target for investigation of industrial activity

within the Middle Saxon settlement.

7.3.12 Interestingly, the apparent lack of chaff from the environmental samples may





which the sampled material had obviously been subjected would almost

certainly have destroyed the more delicate chaff elements and smaller weed

seeds, creating an unrepresentative bias within the assemblages. As a result,

the above hypothesis must remain conjectural at this stage.

7.3.13 The Mid-Saxon animal bone recovered during the 2007 evaluations was the

smallest recovered sample of all the land use phases (964 identified


218

fragments), yet despite this reduced sample, a number of interesting patterns

could be observed (see section 6.1 for detailed discussion). Firstly, the

assemblage is overwhelmingly made up of bones of sheep, the sheep seem to

have been used primarily for milk and wool. Based on this sample, people on

this site were raising, managing and slaughtering sheep. The absence of sheep

in between the ages of 2 and 7 years might be because these animals were

raised to maturity, or they may have been taken elsewhere, perhaps to be

sold/traded at a market. The proportion of older sheep is paralleled at a

number of ecclesiastical sites, in Britain and on the continent (Loveluck

forthcoming).

7.3.14 The level of Middle Saxon pig consumption it is actually quite high for the

region. That Sedgeford may have been a site of higher status than others in the

region cannot therefore be ruled out (Poole, this volume). The proportion of

domestic bird remains is certainly much higher than many contemporary rural

sites. It is possible that the high occurrence of chickens from this phase partly

results from sample size, but it is a picture that would fit with a monastic diet:

the Benedictine Rule became increasingly influential from the eighth century

onwards (where consumption of the flesh of quadrupeds was taboo but the

flesh of birds was allowed, as was fish, eggs and dairy products), and may

have affected diet at Sedgeford. A high proportion of domestic birds and

evidence for dairying would therefore not contradict with an ecclesiastical

presence at Sedgeford in the Mid-Saxon period. At present, however, this is

based on a small amount of evidence, and only further excavation will reveal

how representative this is of the site in general.

7.3.15 Nevertheless, combining the animal bone evidence with the presence of a

large cemetery in Boneyard from c. AD 700 onwards and associated small

finds, such as writing stylus, suggests that the site at Sedgeford acted as a

focus for the surrounding population, perhaps as an ecclesiastical centre of

reasonable status in the Middle Saxon period.

7.3.16 Middle Saxon craft, technology, trade and exchange:


219

As noted in the environment section above, the Middle Saxon phase was the

smallest sample in terms of excavated features. Because of this it has been

impossible to quantify the range of craft activities, industrial technology

present at the Middle Saxon site, let alone the range of traded or exchanged

items.

7.3.17 However, the presence of four Middle Saxon features, including two

containing a good range of lost artefacts, does suggest that future investigation

would have a good chance of characterising the range of craft activities taking

place, and recovering the range of commodities in circulation at the Chalkpit

settlement.

7.3.18 With craft and industrial activities for example, the find of a loom weight, a

wool comb tooth and decorated vessel glass from a single ditch fill in Trench 2

(in association with pottery and animal bone) presents a fleeting glimpse of

both the craft and raw material processing activities of wool production in

association with material culture associated with elite status activities such as

dining.

7.3.19 With trade and exchange activities, the recovery of a knife, comb tooth and

earring from the east-west ditch terminal in Trench 4 (as well as a fine

unstratified Middle Saxon dress pin and hooked tag) presents a picture where

the consumption and use of (potentially traded-in) personal metalwork

suggests a community where lifestyles, at least for certain members of the

community, were elevated above mere ‘subsistence’ levels. This sort of

evidence from the 2007 sub-surface investigations is of vital importance as, on

the existing evidence from the fieldwaking, loss of the more obvious status

indicators (such as coinage and other non-ferrous metalwork) is not abundant

in the surface artefact scatters at Sedgeford.

7.3.20 Furthermore, as noted above, the absence of sheep in between the ages of 2

and 7 years might possibly suggest that these animals were taken elsewhere to

be sold/traded at a market, and, finally, it might be further argued that the


220

presence of Ipswich ware itself is good evidence for some form of exchange

relationship between the emporia and Sedgeford (perhaps via intermediary

sites), if, as seems to have been the case, this pottery was produced exclusively

within, or in the immediate environs of, Ipswich (Blinkhorn, 1999, 9).

Whatever economic model for the distribution of Ipswich Ware is chosen to be

pursued - be it the existence of a fully fledged ‘market economy’ or elite

controlled distribution of Ipswich Ware containers as a form of taxation on

rural settlements by secular and ecclesiastical elites (Hutcheson, 2007)- its

presence at Middle Saxon Sedgeford is clearly a pattern that must be

explained.

7.3.21 In contrast, only one confirmed sherd of imported Badorf ware (1974 surface

find) from the entire Chalkpit settlement investigations to date suggests that

contacts further afield than East Anglia were perhaps restricted. In conclusion,

the degree to which Middle Saxon Sedgford was an outward looking

community with influence is still something for future investigation and

debate.

7.4 The Mid-Late Ninth century Saxon Occupation

7.4 1 The second phase of significant occupation, as identified by the fieldwalking,

geophysics and excavation evidence, can be attributed to the Mid-Late Ninth

century. The identification and interpretation of this phase is largely derived

from the ceramic phasing.

7.4.2 A detailed consideration of the ceramic-based phasing methodology has been

provided above (section 4.1.6), but it should be reiterated that the Mid-Late

Ninth Century phase, stratigraphically later than the Middle Saxon phase in

Trench 3, consisted of features with secure deposits that contain mixed

assemblages of both Ipswich ware and Thetford- type Wares, but

proportionally a high amount of Ipswich Ware. Within these deposits it is felt

that there is considerable potential for concurrent use of both Ipswich Ware

(c. AD 720-?850+) and Thetford ware. (c. AD ?850-1075/1100+). This


221

potential ceramic-use overlap in ‘absolute’ chronological terms cannot be

tightly dated, but must occur in the second half of the Ninth century. As noted

in section 4.1, this is a working hypothesis must be revisited and reconsidered

periodically. However, The identification of 12 sub-surface archaeological

features in evaluation Trenches 2, 3, 4 attributed to this activity phase strongly

implies that the later Ninth century was a period of concentrated activity and

occupation, and at least some of the geophysical anomalies identified in the

2007-8 survey must originate in this phase

7.4.3 The Mid-Late Ninth century built environment: settlement

morphology, boundaries, and use of space.

As the interpretation of this phase is largely derived from the ceramic phasing

(and supporting stratigraphic observations in the sub-surface trenching

thereafter) it is unfortunately impossible to attribute with confidence any

aspects of the observed settlement morphology, as identified during the

geophysical survey, to this activity phase.

7.4.4. Essentially, in the broader spatial geographic sense, this activity phase must be

considered as invisible and transitory between the Middle Saxon and Late

Saxon occupations. Indeed, the presence of superimposed Ipswich ware and

Thetford ware surface artefact scatters are themselves an example of the

interpretative problems that presently exist in identifying exclusively Ninth

century activity at a Saxon rural sites (the fieldwalking evidence derived from

the Late Saxon Thetford ware is considered in section 7.5). Although, a

surface find of a coin of Burgred of Mercia (AD852-74) towards the eastern

extent of the observed surface artefact scatter does give definite confirmation

of Mid-Late Ninth century activity.

7.4.5. It is felt that many of the geophysical anomalies indicative of Middle Saxon

settlement enclosures do probably continue in use throughout the Mid-Late

Ninth century (see discussion of Trench 4 below). Indeed, most probably

continue to be used and re-cut through into the Late Saxon phase, when a

phase of settlement-use expansion can then be genuinely postulated. This


222

notion is supported by the identification of twelve sub-surface archaeological

features (discussed in 7.4.6 onwards, below) in evaluation Trenches 2, 3 and 4

that confirm that a number of the geophysical anomalies represent features of

a Mid-Late Ninth century date.

7.4.6. However, a single feature of the settlement morphology observed during the

geophysical survey can perhaps be tentatively leant towards this transitory

Mid-Late Ninth century phase. This is the possible zone of pitting (between

geophysical anomalies [4] and [5]) that certainly is also attributable to the Late

Saxon phase, but, because of the sub-surface evidence now described below,

might realistically commence Mid-Late Ninth century . It is argued that a

propensity towards pitting is closer in character to the potential Middle Saxon

waste discard strategies (see 7.3.8 above), and contrasts with the Late Saxon

phase (as evidenced by a surface artefact scatter of oyster shell that may

represent ploughed-out surface rubbish middens), hence the attribution of the

possible pitting to this activity phase.

7.4.7. The 2007 trial trenching recovered twelve features (5 pits, 1 gully, 5 ditches

and an oven) provided some important evidence that –although not revealing

any structures – can inform about the character of the boundaries and use of

space within the Mid-Late Ninth century settlement.

7.4.8. In general, preservation in the down-slope area of Chalkpit North was good.

However, a degree of plough truncation was in evidence throughout the

evaluation area, particularly in Trenches 4 and 5, and the surface artefact

scatter of Ipswich/Thetford ware is evidence of that truncation. Nevertheless,

Mid-Late Ninth century features were well preserved enough to contain secure

primary fills. A crucial cautionary note however concerns problems of

intrusion and residuality: as this activity phase is analytically derived from

observing mixed proportions of pottery of contrasting date, future research

must look closely at variation in the degree of sherd brokenness as an indicator

of securely dated deposits before firm conclusions are made.


223

7.4.9. The impression gained from the 2007 evaluation trenches, due to the absence

of Mid-Late Ninth century features in Trench 1, was that although the main

area of activity was enlarged from the Middle Saxon phase, that the core

activity focus had remained the same (located in between trenches 2-4).

7.4.10. The discovery of the truncated remains of two possible storage pits (used for

the deposition of rubbish during their disuse) in Trench 2 perhaps indicates

that Mid-Late Ninth century habitation zones were in close proximity

(although land-use was apparently not as dense as in the Middle Saxon

phase). The recovery of pits from this phase also allows for the possibly that

the potentially comparable possible zone of pitting identified further to the

south in the geophysical survey (between geophysical anomalies [4] and [5]) is

also of Mid-Late Ninth century date.

7.4.11. The further discovery of a n-s aligned ditch in Trench 2 further highlights the

possibility - as is the case with the Middle Saxon archaeology – that it might

be possible to characterise waste disposal practices of the Mid-Late Ninth

century. Furthermore, the four fills of ditch cut [213] (especially fills (214)

and (210)), contained vastly contrasting artefactual signatures indicating

firstly, that the ditches might be maintained over a long period of time, and,

secondly, that there might have been a number of dynamic shifts in waste

disposal practices during this phase. This opens up the potential for recovering

dynamic shifts in the settlement character; a crucial avenue for future research.

7.4.12. In Trench 3, the recovery of a wall from a possible bread oven

(stratigraphically the earliest Mid-Ninth century feature in Trench 3) suggests

that during part of this phase this part of the site may have been reserved for

industrial activities. Industrial activity has also been observed in other areas of

the overall settlement spread, to the west (Bates, 1991) and to the north (Cabot

et.al 2004).

7.4.13. Also in Trench 3, the discovery of three nw-se aligned large boundary ditches

that truncate the oven, seems to signal the start of a dynamic sequence

boundaries that continue into the Late Saxon period (although they are perhaps


224

articulated around earlier boundary features). The digging of these ditches – if

they are equated to geophysical anomaly 8 - might also mark the

commencement of a departure from the more co-axial settlement Middle

Saxon boundary system to a more organically defined system of large

boundaries interpretable as droveways. This might indicate an important shift

in agricultural practices at the Chalkpit North settlement (see section 7.5

below). It is therefore interesting that shifts in the animal bone assemblage are

also noticeable in the Mid-Late Ninth century. For example, there is more

butchery evidence, with a combination of cleavers and knives used on all three

of the main domesticates. Furthermore, the greater percentage of

fragmentation and gnawing observed in the animal bone assemblage in the

Mid-Late 9th

century (even more marked in the Late Saxon data, see 7.5

below) might also be a reflection of agricultural changes that include the

introduction of surface middens as opposed to disposal of discrete collections

of waste in pits and ditches.

7.4.14. Additionally, the presence of the Trench 3 boundaries may suggest that an

occupation focus lay further to the west. As with the Mid-Late Ninth century

ditch observed in Trench 2, the fills of the Trench 3 ditches contained

contrasting artefactual signatures suggesting that there might have been a

number of dynamic shifts in waste disposal practices during this phase. For

example, fill (309) appears to have accumulated rapidly or at a time where

rubbish discard from the Saxon settlement was reduced. Whereas, even

though fill (308) was apparently rapidly formed, the quantity and range of

material culture deposited within it is indicative of a full range of various

settlement activities located within the environs of Trench 3 at this time.

7.4.15. The discovery of a series of three intercutting features attributable to the Mid-

Late Ninth century phase of occupation indicates concentrated land-use

(potentially close to an occupation focus) within the environas of Trench 4.

The n-s gully – possibly a plot boundary- further indicates the potential for

bounded areas of private space within the wider settlement spread: a

potentially important future research question. The single east-west aligned

ditch terminal located in Trench 4 with a final infilling in the mid-late ninth


225

century) also indicates the potential for earlier Middle Saxon features that

continue to be relevant features in the landscape of the Mid-Late Ninth

century/ Late Saxon settlement.

7.4.16. The single pit observed in Trench 5 perhaps indicates that Mid-Late Ninth

century habitation zones were in close proximity, although it is felt that

certainly Trench 5 is not within the main zones of artefact discard in all

periods.

7.4.17. The Mid-Late Ninth century environment and agricultural

economy.

The Mid-Late Ninth century phase was the largest sample in terms of

excavated features. In common with the other phases of land use,

environmental sampling suggested the presence of scattered refuse primarily

of domestic origin. High quantities of heather stem fragments, indicative of

the presence of hearth or oven waste, were located in the environs of Trench 3.

this suggests that ‘industrial zones’ within the wider settlement might be

recoverable as deposits with distinctive macrofossil signatures if future

excavation in this area was ever undertaken.

7.4.16 The apparent lack of chaff from the environmental samples may indicate that

the occupants of the site were not actively engaged in the production and

processing of cereals, but were, instead, largely a consumer society, dependant

on batches of imported prime grain to meet their cereal requirements.

However, it should be noted that the extreme temperatures to which the

sampled material had obviously been subjected would almost certainly have

destroyed the more delicate chaff elements and smaller weed seeds, creating

an unrepresentative bias within the assemblages. As a result, the above

hypothesis must remain conjectural at this stage.

7.4.17 The Mid-Late Ninth century animal bone recovered during the 2007

evaluations was a much larger sample than the Middle Saxon bone, but a

smaller sample than the Late Saxon (2369 identified fragments), allowing for


226

a number of interesting patterns to be observed (see section 6.1 for detailed

discussion).

7.4.18 In the Mid-Late Ninth century assemblage sheep are still the dominant species,

although cattle and pig numbers increase significantly. This dominance of

sheep fits with the contemporary sample from rural Burnham Market, but also

the ecclesiastical settlement of North Elmham (Poole, this Volume).

7.4.19 The Middle Saxon bone from Chalkpit and previously studied bone from

Boneyard indicated pig numbers to be fairly low – around 9% (Thirkettle

2002). The figures of 21.1% pigs in both the Mid-Late 9th

century and Late

Saxon period at Chalkpit therefore denote an increase in pig exploitation as

time progresses. Pigs might have foraged in woodland or have been fed on

legumes and cereals, occasionally grazed on pasture, or housed or kept in

yards (Albarella 2006:77). In the Mid-Late 9th

century phase, the Chalkpit

bone has a greater amount of pigs than is normal for rural sites, which, as we

are not dealing with an urban site, perhaps suggests that, as in the Mid-Saxon

period, it was a site of reasonable status.

7.4.20 A large number of elderly cattle in the Mid-Late 9th century phase also

indicates that agricultural production was important at this time (perhaps in

contrast to the potential macrofossil evidence), and that, in the main, cattle

were being kept for traction before slaughter (and perhaps dairy production).

Field fertility would therefore have been a major concern, a role for which

sheep would have been extremely useful. Sheep dairying and wool production

may have continued on site in the Mid-Late 9th century, as suggested by the

presence of shears and comb teeth from this phase (see below).

7.4.21 In the Mid-Late 9th century phase, levels of domestic birds are higher than for

contemporary rural or urban sites, and the first possible evidence of hunting by

the Sedgeford inhabitants, in the form of roe deer bones (0.6% of the

assemblage) occurs. Wildfowling is also in evidence. In this period, wild

species were in general little exploited, although they are marginally better

represented on high status and ecclesiastical sites. The percentages of wild


227

mammals and birds in the Mid-Late 9th

century phase at Chalkpit, when

considered with the pigs and domestic birds, would suggest that we may have

a settlement of some status here, possibly a continuation of the potential Mid-

Saxon ecclesiastical site.

7.4.22 Finally, as mentioned above, it also interesting that shifts that there is more

butchery evidence, and a greater percentage of fragmentation and gnawing in

the Mid-Late 9th

century animal bone assemblage (even more marked in the

Late Saxon data, see 7.5 below) which might be a reflection of changes in

waste disposal practices that include the introduction of surface middens as

opposed to disposal of discrete collections of waste in pits and ditches.

7.4.23 Mid-Late Ninth Century craft, technology, trade and

exchange:

The Mid-Late Ninth century phase was the largest sample in terms of

excavated features, but did not produce a hugely diagnostic range of material

indicative of craft activities, industrial technology, or traded/ exchanged items.

7.4.24 The best evidence for industrial technology comes from the recovery of a wall

from a possible bread oven, suggesting that during this phase part of the site

may have been reserved for industrial activities. A number of strong positive

magnetic anomalies, potentially indicative of kilns, were further observed

during the geophysical survey (anomaly [13], section 3). Industrial activity has

also been observed in other areas of the overall settlement spread, to the west

(Bates, 1991) and to the north (Cabot et.al 2004).

7.4.24 However, the three ditch features within Trench 3 did produce two iron wool

comb teeth, a nail, an iron strip, shears (similar to those recovered during

fieldwalking, Fig. 8) and two undiagnostic fragments of copper alloy. This

range of lost artefacts hints that either agricultural activities were becoming

increasingly important, or that we have not observed the full range of craft

activities taking place at the site. The importance of agricultural processing


228

activities is emphasised by ten fragments of lava quern recovered from the

Mid-Late Ninth century ditch in Trench 2.

7.4.25 The lack of material culture associated with the consumption and use of

potentially traded-in commodities (lava quern and, potentially, Thetford-type

wares excepted), let alone the trappings of elite status activities observed in the

Middle Saxon phase, perhaps suggest a more functional aspect to material

culture usage (with iron increasingly used) in the Mid-Late Ninth century; a

notion further indicated by the recovery of an iron chisel from Trench 5. Yet,

despite this observation, the recovery of a worked bone item from the ditch in

Trench 2, and the surface find of a coin of Burgred of Mercia (AD852-74, Fig.

51) hints that the apparent lack of the conspicuous consumption, more readily

noted in the animal bone assemblage, and evidence for trade and exchange may

be more apparent than real.

7.5 The Late Saxon Occupation

7.5.1 The final phase of significant occupation, as identified by the fieldwalking,

geophysics and excavation evidence, can be attributed to the Late Saxon

period. Geophysical anomalies indicative of settlement enclosures - closely

correlating to an expanded surface artefact scatter of Thetford wares (c. AD

?850-1075/1100+), potentially associated scatters of oyster shell, occasional

metal finds (such as late Saxon shears, ), and the surface find of a St.Edmund

memorial coin (c.910-920, Fig. 51) towards the eastern extent of the artefact

scatter)- suggest that intensive occupation flourished in the Tenth/earlier

eleventh century. This notion is supported by the identification of eight sub-

surface archaeological features, rich in quantities of lost material culture, in

evaluation Trenches 1, 2, 3 and 5 that confirm that at least some of the

geophysical anomalies represent features of a Late Saxon date.

7.5.3 The Late Saxon built environment: settlement morphology,

boundaries and use of space.


229

The fieldwalking survey, which produced a surface scatter of 162 sherds of

Thetford ware, suggests that the area to the north of a large east-west boundary

feature [1a] (where a number of apparent co-axial ditched geophysical

anomalies are located) continued to be the main focus of activity in the Late

Saxon phase.

7.5.4 The geophysics, although not easy to interpret in a chronological sense, do

provide a wide spatial frame by which to consider the potential developmental

sequence of the Late Saxon Chalkpit settlement morphology. Importantly,

where there seems to be a very clear east-west aligned end to the area of

concentrated artefact loss approximately 100m south of the northern field

boundary, this corresponds to east-west aligned geophysical anomaly (1a) - a

potential Middle Saxon boundary feature - suggesting that this remained an

important feature in the Late Saxon landscape. There is additionally nothing to

suggest that the large stock enclosure (1) at the southern extent of the

settlement spread did not continue in use for at least the earlier part of the Late

Saxon period.

7.5.5 Perhaps most importantly, there is also clear evidence provided by the

geophysical survey suggesting that there are features of a different land-use

phase and character to the co-axial system of ditches north of east-west

boundary 1a. For example, boundaries (4) and (2)/(3) appear to be a late sub

division of the larger stock enclosure (1). Ditch (3) also has a later double

ditch (5) running-off it on a northwest to southeast alignment. This double

ditch is best interpreted as a droveway, and it clearly truncates east-west

boundary (1a). There are also other features that share a common alignment

with potential droveway (5), including potential droveway ditches (10) and

(8). These features most likely represent later phases of ditched boundaries or

droveways north of boundary (1a). The implication, with the presence of the

possible droveways, is that we are looking at least one major settlement

replanning, and that perhaps this is reflecting changes in Late Saxon

settlement/agricultural practice.


230

7.5.6 Finally, in the south west of the geophysical survey, a number of positive

magnetic anomalies were identified in the south-east corner of the survey (14-

14d) that are possibly surface rubbish middens that contain high temperature

waste. If this is the case, then (as with the undated but probably Late Saxon

oyster shell and dark soil spread north of (1a)) it is potential evidence for the

use of surface middens at Sedgeford. In contrast to the use of pits, as observed

in the Mid-Late Ninth century phase, surface middens suggest communal

waste disposal arrangements. Given that there is a potential re-planning event

reflected in the geophysical survey by the introduction of large droveways at

some point later in the settlement’s life an accompanied change in waste

disposal arrangements is highly significant (as are marked changes in the

animal exploitation trends, see below).

7.5.7 In conclusion the geophysical an fieldwalking surveys demonstrate that -

although there are a number of Middle-Late Saxon continuities in land-use -

there is a key transition characterised by the expansion of the use of

droveways and a departure from the more co-axial Middle Saxon boundary

system. When viewed against the context of the animal bone data an important

shift in agricultural practices at the Chalkpit North settlement can be

suggested.

7.5.8 The 2007 trial trenching –although not revealing any structures -identified

eight sub-surface archaeological features, all ditches mostly rich in quantities

of lost material culture that provide important about the character of the

boundaries and the use of space within the Late Saxon settlement.

7.5.9 In general, preservation in the down-slope area of Chalkpit North was good,

with ditch feature [322] in Trench 3 sealed by a contemporaneous colluvial

deposit, and the ditches in Trench 1 sealed by a deep colluvium. However, a

degree of plough truncation was in evidence, particularly in Trench 5, and the

surface artefact scatter of Thetford ware is evidence of that truncation.

Nevertheless, all Late Saxon features were well preserved enough to contain

secure primary fills.


231

7.5.10 The impression gained from the 2007 evaluation trenches, was that the entire

evaluated area was within the concentrated Late Saxon activity focus

(particularly trenches 2-3), although Trenches 1 and 5 were located towards

the periphery of concentrated activity. That no Late Saxon features were

located in Trench 4 is not considered highly significant, although it might

suggest that the activity interpreted as located near to an occupation focus of

the Mid-Late Ninth century had perhaps ended or moved elsewhere.

7.5.11 The discovery of intercutting ditch features in Trench 1, thought to be towards

the periphery of the settlement spread, demonstrates that there was some

intensity or longevity of Late Saxon land-use even in this eastern area

(although still contrasting with the density of features identified in other

trenches). The recovery of a large portion of a smashed Thetford ware jar from

the latest fill in the Trench 1 ditch sequence further indicates the close

proximity of concentrated settlement activity.

7.5.12 The discovery of two n-s aligned Late Saxon ditches in Trench 2 suggests that

levels of activity remained largely consistent in this area between the Mid-Late

Ninth century and the Late Saxon period, although no Late Saxon pits were

observed. . However, in contrast to the Mid-Late Ninth century features, which

contained fills with vastly contrasting artefactual signatures (hinting at a

number of dynamic shifts in waste disposal practices during this phase) the

Late Saxon ditches seemed to contain more uniform abundant levels of

material culture for example, pottery, anmal bone, lava quern and cereal

remains.

7.5.13 In Trench 3 the intense NW-SE aligned boundary sequence that possibly

aligns to droveway ditches (identified by the geophysical survey) from the

Mid-Late Ninth century onwards continues in use. In the Late Saxon period

two very large boundary ditch cuts and a contemporary colluvial deposit were

observed. Interestingly, and in contrast to the Trench 2 ditches, the fills of the

Trench 3 ditches contained contrasting artefactual signatures suggesting that

there might have been at least one shifts in waste disposal practices during this

phase. For example, although the range of material culture deposited in fill


232

(321) is still indicative of a full range of settlement activities, reduced

quantities of material culture indicate that the fill either accumulated relatively

rapidly or at a time where rubbish discard from the Saxon settlement was

reduced. In contrast, fill (302) produced a remarkable assemblage of Late

Saxon artefacts and ecofacts indicating that ditch [323] was located

immediately adjacent to concentrated Late Saxon settlement activity. Finds

included Ipswich ware (44 sherds), Thetford wares (258 sherds); and, iron

artefacts including a snaffle bit (horse ring), a horse shoe nail of a type not

manufactured until the 11th

Century, a nail, a strap, two iron strips and five

fragments of lava quern. In addition, fill (302) produced a huge quantity of

oyster shell in distinct lenses, in association with animal bonest. The nature of

the distribution of oyster shell and animal bone within the fill suggested

episodic dumping without huge time delays between dumping events.

Interestingly, sheep and pig foot bones were noticeably scarce, indicating that

this dumped deposit might represent kitchen waste. It is possible that this

collection of bone and shell represents a surface midden (similar to that

ploughed-out and observed as part of the surface artefact scatter) subsequently

dumped into ditch [323]. The rubbish dumping observed in fill (302) must

have occurred as boundary ditch [325] went out of use. The dating obtained

from a horse shoe nail (SF 2317) suggests that this disuse may have occurred

in the later 11th

century; perhaps as the settlement was getting towards the end

of its life.

7.5.14 The single Late Saxon ditch observed in Trench 5 confirms that the overall

settlement spread extended into the western area of Chgalkpit Field North but

the reduced quantities of material culture (4 Late saxon sherds) suggest that

this was towards the periphery of concentrated activity.

7.5.15 The Late Saxon environment and agricultural economy.

The Late Saxon phase was the largest sample in terms of excavated features

fill, but the second largest (after the Mid-Late Ninth century phase) in terms of

number of excavated features. In common with the other phases of land use,

environmental sampling suggested the presence of scattered refuse primarily


233

of domestic origin. Samples containing high quantities of heather stem

fragments, indicative of the presence of hearth or oven waste, may be a useful

future target for investigation of industrial activity within the Middle Saxon

settlement.

7.5.16 Interestingly, the apparent lack of chaff from the environmental samples may





which the sampled material had obviously been subjected would almost

certainly have destroyed the more delicate chaff elements and smaller weed

seeds, creating an unrepresentative bias within the assemblages. As a result,

the above hypothesis must remain conjectural at this stage.

7.5.17 The Late Saxon animal bone recovered during the 2007 evaluations was by far

the largest recovered sample of all the land use phases (4980 identified

fragments). However, the huge proportion of material recovered from fill

(302) raises questions about the representativness of the sample for

characterising the Late Saxon settlement as a whole

7.5.18 In Late Saxon period there is a further shift in proportions of the main

domesticates, with a large increase in the proportion of cattle relative to sheep,

and pigs remaining stable, although given the taphonomy of bones from this

phase, the reliability of this pattern is difficult to assess. What is clear is that

the sheep from these deposits were primarily being used for meat. There is

evidence of on-site husbandry, with a small proportion of younger and older

animals, but the majority of animals seem to have been killed young, the

inhabitants being supplied with tender meat. The ageing data for cattle

indicates the presence of older animals, but also a substantial proportion killed

before the age of 4 years, perhaps for their meat. Unsurprisingly, the ageing

data for pigs indicates that meat was also the primary objective. A notable

absence of the youngest pigs, and those over 3 years, suggests we are not

looking at a pig production site. Indeed, the patterns reflected in the Late


234

Saxon bone are more indicative of a consumer assemblage than in any other

phase. The greater proportions of male sheep and pigs also support this. At the

same time, the numbers of domestic birds drop by around two-thirds,

suggesting these birds were less integral to the diet than before. A greater

number of older chickens may, however, suggest that eggs were more

important than chicken flesh.

7.5.19 This phase also has twice the proportion of wild mammals compared to before,

with red deer and hare represented for the first time in the sequence. The

presence of at least 4 roe deer, 3 of which come from one deposit, hints at

more than purely opportunistic exploitation. Most areas of the body are

represented, and it would seem that these deer were being brought to and

consumed on-site. It would also suggest that there was adequate woodland

near Sedgeford, given that roe deer are relatively shy creatures, favouring

mixed and deciduous woodland (Hofmann 2007:202). Both red deer bones

were also butchered.

7.5.20 The proportions of wild mammals and birds are not exceptional, but are still

above the typical rural and urban site, and the increase in wild taxa from the

previous period, coupled with the drop in domestic birds could potentially

indicate a shift from ecclesiastical to secular control.

7.5.21 The emphasis on meat production, with only small numbers of older and

younger animals, indicates that the site in this period was less involved in

production as before, to the extent that we could potentially label it a

‘consumer’ site. The diet of the majority of the population in Anglo-Saxon

England would likely be much more vegetable-based, with only limited meat

consumption. Accordingly, the ability to eat prime meat animals, along with

venison and wild birds, would be a particular mark of status in a period when

wool production and arable farming was becoming increasingly important in

many parts of the country.


235

7.5.22 The horse snaffle-ring and horseshoe nail from contexts 302 and 303

respectively also hint at horse-riding being part of the inhabitants’ lives,

perhaps even from hunting.

7.5.23 In conclusion, the animal bone evidence hints that there is a shift in animal

resource exploitation in the Late Saxon period that might be characterised as

high-status, consumer and secular: certainly a marked contrast to the Middle

Saxon exploitation patterns with its ecclesiastical leanings. These observations

are all the more interesting given that firstly, new features such as droveways

and potential surface middens (identified by the geophysical survey) are

introduced in the Late Saxon phase, and, secondly, this site ‘fails’ and does not

continue into the post-conquest and Medieval period. Might the potential

changes in elite status observed in the faunal remains be one of the reasons

behind the eventual settlement relocation ?

7.5.24 Late Saxon craft, technology, trade and exchange:

As noted in the environment section above, the Late Saxon phase was the

largest sample in terms of excavated features fill, but the second largest (after

the Mid-Late Ninth century phase) in terms of number of excavated features.

The 2007 excavation unfortunately did not produce a hugely representative

range of deposits containing material culture indicative of craft activities,

industrial technology, or traded/ exchanged items, and most small finds were

recovered from the latest ditch an associated colluvium in Trench 3.

7.5.25 Nevertheless, NW-SE aligned ditch features [323], colluvium (303) and

especially fill (302) produced a wide range of artefacts, including a buckle, a

comb tooth, a snaffle bit, 11th

century fiddlekey horseshoe nails, nails, a

staple, a strap, a strip and a knife (9th

-10th

century) all of iron. This range of

lost artefacts hints at an increasingly functional (perhaps agriculturally

derived) feel to activities which resulted in artefact loss. A pair of iron shears

were also recovered as part of the fieldwalking exercise (Fig.8). In addition,

the loss of horse-shoe nails indicates that horse-riding was now part of the

inhabitants’ lives, perhaps even from hunting.


236

7.5.26 The lack of material culture associated with the consumption and use of

potentially traded-in commodities, including portable material culture

associated with elite status activities observed in the Middle Saxon phase,

perhaps suggest a more functional aspect to material culture usage (with iron

now almost exclusively used) in the Mid-Late Ninth century. Yet, despite this

observation, two iron buckles (Trench 3 and Trench 4, surface find) do

indicate the presence of personal consumables amongst the Sedgeford

inhabitants. Finally, and most intriguingly, surface artefact finds including a

Late Saxon Borre style brooch (depicted on the front cover of this report), a

ring and a St.Edmund memorial coin (c.910-920) - a Viking issue - suggests

that, despite the sparse quantities of Late Saxon non-ferrous metal finds that

conspicuous consumption (more readily noted in the animal bone assemblage)

and trade/ exchange did occur at Late Saxon Sedgeford. Arguably, the

reduction in obvious quantities of high-status consumables is actually a

reflection of both a regional and a national trend during in the Tenth century

and might say more about the changing ability of rural elites to access

consumables, rather than signifying an absence of the elites themselves.

7.6 Post- Saxon Occupation

7.6.1 Medieval pottery was recovered from the northern extent of Chalkpit field

during the fieldwalking, consisting of a total of 19 sherds. Quantities of

Medieval material are therefore vastly reduced in comparison to the Late

Saxon material, suggesting cultivation of agricultural land and nothing more.

7.6.2 Similarly, the sub surface trial trenching revealed single feature –a truncated

pit- identified in the western half of Trench 5, of a possible Medieval date.

Five fragments of unglazed Medieval pottery were recovered from the feature,

and it is uncertain what level of activity this feature represents.


237

7.6.3 On the present available evidence it seems clear that the main settlement site is

abandoned at some point in the Eleventh century, and does not continue in use

into the post-conquest and Medieval period.

7.7 Final Conclusions

7.7.1 In conclusion, the combined geophysical, fieldwalking and trial trenching

exercise has been afantastically useful way of starting to characterise the

Middle-Late Saxon settlement at Sedgeford, and the trial trenching has shown

that targeting geophysical anomalies is possible, but that geophysical survey

does not recover the entire complexity of the sub-surface archaeology. The

above discussion has highlighted a number of important questions that,

although now tangible, are in desperate need of future investigation. For

example, is the Middle Saxon settlement actually an implanted, planned entity

with demarcated private space from the outset? Do the potentially dynamically

changing waste disposal patterns (e.g. from pits to surface middens) actually

reflect wider social changes in the Anglo-Saxon society? What exactly is the

nature of the elite presence (more readily identified in the Middle Saxon

period) and, as the animal bone remains might indicate, is there actually a

transition from an ecclesiastical to a secular community? Additionally, are the

potential changes in settlement character ultimately a contributory factor in its

demise and eventual abandonment in the later eleventh century?

7.7.2 Finally, in comparative terms, where do the levels of material culture

consumption sit in the wider settlement hierarchy? At present, it is argued that

Sedgeford is a centre of reasonable to high status in both the Middle and Late

Saxon periods. However, the present excavated sample of the Chalkpit site is

minute and, arguably, an apparent reduction in quantities of high-status

consumables in the Late Saxon phase is just as likely to be an issue of sample

bias, as it is actually a reflection of both a regional and a national trend during

the Tenth century. Future work must aim to make the answers to all these

questions more representative. If this occurs, Sedgeford will become a vitally

important case-study not only for the exploration of changing social identities


238

at early medieval rural settlements, but also for looking at how changing

lifestyles reflect wider political, social and economic trends: a discussion sadly

beyond the scope of this report, but a major part of the authors forthcoming

PHD thesis.


239

Appendix 1 Matrices and Context Tables

Trench 1.

Chalkpit North Evaluation 2007 (NHER 1079). Trench 1. Context List

Context

No.

Type Description Phase

101 Layer Ploughsoil Modern

102 Layer Colluvium Modern

103 Layer Base of Topsoil (101) (Cleaning) Modern

104 Fill Fill of Ditch, Cut [106] Late Saxon


106 Cut Cut of NW-SE aligned Ditch Late Saxon

107 Cut Cut of ?NW-SE aligned Ditch Late Saxon

108 Layer Natural accumulation of silt overlying (111) Natural Feature

109 Layer Natural accumulation of silt overlying (111) Natural Feature

110 Fill Fill of ?Natural Feature/trackway Unknown

111 Layer Natural Natural

112 Fill Fill of Pipe Trench Modern

(101)

(112)

(103)

(104)

[106]

[107]

[114]

(105)

(108) (109)

[113]

(111)

(110)

(102)


240

113 Cut Cut of Pipe Trench Modern

114 Cut Cut of ?Natural Feature/trackway Unknown

Trench 2

(201) (207)

(203)

(222)

(214) (223)

(231)

(232)

[224]

(210) (211)

[234]

(235)

[227]

(202)

[213]

(208) (221)

[212] [220] [215]

(204) (205)

[236] [233] [229] [225] [218] [216]

(217) (237) (206) (219) (230) (226)

(209)


241


Context

No.


201 Layer Ploughsoil (same as (207)) Modern

202 Fill Fill of Ditch, Cut [227] Middle Saxon


204 Layer Colluvium Mid-Late 9th C.

205 Layer Colluvium Mid-Late 9th C.


207 Layer Ploughsoil (same as (201)) Modern



210 Fill Fill of Ditch, Cut [213] Mid-Late 9th C.

211 Fill Fill of Pit, Cut [212] Mid-Late 9th C.

212 Cut Cut of Pit Mid-Late 9th C.

213 Cut Cut of N-S aligned Ditch Mid-Late 9th C.


215 Cut Cut of N-S aligned Ditch Late Saxon

216 Cut Cut of E-W aligned Ditch Middle Saxon


218 Cut Cut of E-W aligned ditch (same as [216]) Middle Saxon


220 Cut Cut of Pit Mid-Late 9th C.

221 Fill Fill of Pit, Cut [220] Mid-Late 9th C.


223 Fill Fill of ditch, Cut [224] Late Saxon

224 Cut Cut of N-S aligned Ditch Late Saxon

225 Cut Cut of E-W aligned Ditch (same as [216]) Middle Saxon

226 Fill Fill of ditch, Cut [225] Middle Saxon

227 Cut Cut of N-S aligned Ditch Middle Saxon



231 Fill Fill of ditch, Cut [213] Mid-Late 9th C.

232 Fill Fill of ditch, Cut [213] Mid-Late 9th C.


234 Cut Cut of N-S aligned Ditch Middle Saxon





242

Trench 3

(310)

[314]

(304)

[305]

(306)

(328)

[327]

(318)

[319]

(324)

(301)

(302)

(325)

(303)

[316] (315)

[311]

(312)

[313]

(326)

(321)

[322]

(309)

[317]

(308)

(320)

(307)

[323]


243


Context

No.




303 Layer Colluvium Late Saxon

304 Fill Fill of Ditch Terminal/Pit, Cut [305] Mid-Late 9th C.

305 Cut Fill of Ditch Terminal/Pit Mid-Late 9th C.






311 Structure Structural Fill of Oven, Cut [313] (clay) Mid-Late 9th C.

312 Fill Fill of Oven, Cut [313] Mid-Late 9th C.

313 Cut Cut of Oven Fragment Mid-Late 9th C.

314 Cut Cut of NW-SE/E-W aligned ditch Mid-Late 9th C.

315 Fill Demolition Fill of Oven, Cut [313] Mid-Late 9th C.

316 Cut Cut of NW-SE aligned ditch Mid-Late 9th C.

317 Cut Cut of NW-SE aligned ditch Mid-Late 9th C.


319 Cut Cut of NNW-SSE aligned ditch Middle Saxon







326 Layer Remnant Occupation Deposit Below [313] Mid-Late 9th C.

327 Cut Cut of Pit/Ditch Terminal Middle Saxon

328 Fill Fill of Pit/Ditch Terminal, Cut [327] Middle Saxon


244

Trench 4

(401)

[425]

(434)

(426)

(404)

(418) (405) (406) (403) (402)

(411)

(429)

(430)

(431)

[427]

(421)

(414/15/16)

(420)

(419)

(412)

(428)

[413] [417]

(433)

[432]

(407)

[409] [410] [422]

(408) (423)

(424)


245


Context

No.





404 Fill Fill of Ditch, Cut [413] (same as (433)) Mid-Late 9th C.



407 Fill Fill of Gully, Cut [409] Mid-Late 9th C.

408 Fill Fill of Gully, Cut [410] Mid-Late 9th C.

409 Cut Cut of N-S aligned Gully (same as [410], [422]) Mid-Late 9th C.



412 Fill Fill of Ditch, Cut [413] (same as

(414/415/416))

Middle Saxon

413 Cut Cut of E-W aligned Ditch (same as [417],

[432])

Middle Saxon


(412/415/416))

Middle Saxon


(412/414/416))

Middle Saxon


(412/414/415))

Middle Saxon


[432])

Middle Saxon






423 Fill Fill of Gully, Cut [422] Middle Saxon


425 Cut Cut of Ditch Terminal/Pit Mid-Late 9th C.


427 Cut Cut of Ditch Terminal/Pit Mid-Late 9th C.






[432])

Middle Saxon

433 Fill Fill of Ditch, Cut [413] (same as (404)) Mid-Late 9th C.



246

Trench 5


Context

No.



502 Cut Cut of Pit Medieval

503 Fill Fill of Pit, Cut [502] Medieval

504 Layer Natural Feature (same as (505)) Natural Feature

505 Layer Natural Feature (same as (504)) Natural Feature

506 Cut Cut of N-S aligned ditch Late Saxon.

507 Fill Fill of Ditch, Cut [506] Late Saxon.

508 Cut Cut of Pit Mid-Late 9th

C.

509 Fill Fill of Pit, Cut [508] Mid-Late 9th

C.

510 Cut Cut of N-S aligned Gully Unknown

511 Fill Fill of Gully, Cut [510] Unknown

512 Cut Cut of N-S aligned Gully Unknown

513 Fill Fill of Gully, Cut [512] Unknown


(501)

(511) (513) (509) (503) (507)

[510] [512] [508] [502] [506]

(504) (505)

(514)


247

Appendix 2: Bulk Finds

Shell

Find Type Context Count Weight (g) Comments

Shell 101 30 174 29 Oyster

Shell 102 27 512 25 Oyster, 2 Cockle

Shell 103 22 76 14 Oyster, 8 Mussel

Shell 104 89 1136 Oyster




Shell 202 52 939 Oyster, 3 Mussel


Shell 204 263 5415 Cockle and Mussel



Shell 210 96 6218 2 Mussel






Shell 226 42 534 Oyster , 1 Mussel




Shell 236 Fragments 335 Oyster


Shell 301 36 970 13 Oys.,13 Mus.,1 Coc.


Shell 303 441 13471 Oyster, 24 Cockle


Shell 306 464 9535 251 Oys.,19 Coc.

Shell 307 154 4312 Oyster, 15 Mus., 2 Coc.



Shell 310 289 5195 Oyster/ Mus., 10 Coc,





Shell 321 378 6594 Oyster/Mus, 6 Coc.

Shell 325 17 757 Oyster, 2 Mus, 3 Coc.




248

Shell 401 22 725 Oyster, 3 Cockle

Shell 402 17 648 15 Oys, 2 Mus, 1 Coc.

Shell 403 72 643 Oyster, 25 Mus, 9 Coc.

Shell 404 69 1321 61 Oyster, 4 Coc.


Shell 407 48 200 Oyster, 21 Mus.,4 Coc.


Shell 412 21 233 6 Oys.,14 Mus., 1 Coc.

Shell 414 36 924 Oyster and Mussel

Shell 415 9 151 5 Oys.,1 Mus.,3 Coc.











Shell 503 7 6 Cockle



Quern


Lava Quern 103 2 9

Lava Quern 104 9 15

Lava Quern 202 2 83

Lava Quern 203 2 132

Lava Quern 204 1 29

Lava Quern 208 1 4

Lava Quern 210 9 10




Lava Quern 310 5 1


Lava Quern 412 2 1


Lava Quern 428 1 9



249

Fired Material: Clay/Daub and Flint


Fired Clay 109 1 3

Fired Daub 203 315 + 361 Straw Impressions

Fired Clay 230 4 292

Fired Clay 301 2 5

Fired Clay 302 2 32

Fired Clay 303 3 140

Burnt Flint 308 2 7

Daub 310 1 25

Daub 318 2 42

Burnt Flint 321 1 5

Fired Daub 326 1 8

Slag


Slag 201 1 3

Slag 203 2 45

Slag 226 3 272

Slag 302 3 129

Slag 303 1 71

Slag 304 1 31

Slag 306 3 215

Slag 307 4 89

Slag 308 4 128

Slag 309 1 88

Slag 310 7 162

Slag 318 1 50

Slag 407 5 158

Slag 419 1 65

Slag 420 1 8

Slag 431 3 172

CBM and Clay Pipe


CBM 201 1 45

Clay Pipe 202 2 6

CBM 202 1 76

CBM 302 1 22

CBM 308 1 <1

?CBM 310 1 53

?CBM 318 3 175

?CBM 321 4 121

?CBM 428 1 43


250

?CBM 433 2 81

CBM 501 2 12


33

NH

ER

10

79

: A

rchae

olo

gic

al E

val

uati

on o

f C

halk

pit

Fie

ld,

20

07

-8

33

Appendix 3: Animal Bones Number of Identified Specimens (NISP) by species and context

NH

ER

10

79

: A

rchae

olo

gic

al E

val

uati

on o

f C

halk

pit

Fie

ld,

20

07

-8

33

Context

Sheep/goat

Sheep

Goat

Cattle

Pig

Horse

Dog

Cat

Roe deer

Red deer

Hare

Rabbit

Large mammal

Medium mammal

Small mammal

Unidentified

TOTAL

101

3

1

2

1

7

103

5

2

2

4

2

14

27

56

104

8

3

3

3

1

8

44

75

105

2

2

1

5

4

14

108

1

1

2

109

1

2

3

201

7

6

2

4

8

13

40

202

16

3

3

4

1

6

24

1

77

142

203

11

16

18

2

3

8

20

76

154

204

36

6

18

12

19

23

76

195

205

2

3

2

4

1

4

4

15

35

206

4

3

3

3

5

25

49

208

11

12

9

1

8

29

56

127

210

43

18

15

10

1

3

1

12

53

152

316

211

7

1

2

8

22

40

214

5

2

2

4

1

1

13

34

62

217

1

3

4

221

1

1

2

222

2

7

9

226

15

7

5

3

1

4

29

51

139

229

1

2

9

17

230

6

2

9

11

32

232

2

1

6

3

12

235

3

3

236

1

1

1

1

1

5

10

237

12

2

1

1

3

30

38

95

301

6

11

4

1

3

3

21

49

302

340

80

1

303

195

6

5

3

10

2

1

200

341

1

1830

3369

303

72

24

73

41

2

3

36

44

394

704

304

3

1

2

6

1

9

14

37

306

35

17

22

36

2

1

2

20

55

190

397

307

24

7

5

13

1

8

33

113

214

308

14

4

6

10

1

7

18

122

188

309

21

5

7

1

1

1

3

3

21

51

133

310

47

9

32

13

2

12

58

215

401

312

1

3

4

36

47

315

1

5

6

316

1

1

5

11

18

318

28

9

5

4

5

55

160

297

321

17

9

26

26

1

1

6

54

192

340

325

4

1

3

2

7

35

53

326

1

2

9

18

34

328

3

5

2

3

1

3

4

12

33

401

5

1

2

1

1

11

402

3

1

5

2

16

30

403

1

1

3

2

1

5

15

28

404

4

2

2

2

1

3

5

10

32

NH

ER

10

79

: A

rchae

olo

gic

al E

val

uati

on o

f C

halk

pit

Fie

ld,

20

07

-8

254

Context

Galliform

Anser sp.

Anser/Branta sp.

Mallard

Crane

Curlew

Golden plover

Snipe

Goshawk

Buzzard

Crow/rook

Bird

TOTAL

101

7

103

56

104

4

1

75

105

14

108

2

109

3

201

40

202

3

2

1

1

142

203

154

204

4

1

195

205

35

206

4

2

49

208

1

127

210

4

4

316

406

1

1

1

3

407

3

2

4

2

4

5

11

31

408

1

2

4

3

12

22

411

3

1

8

12

412

3

2

2

1

3

14

26

414

1

1

4

11

18

415

1

1

1

3

416

2

1

3

418

4

3

3

1

3

4

7

27

419

7

2

3

2

1

10

4

31

60

420

1

1

2

421

2

1

1

15

19

423

1

1

1

6

22

32

428

6

1

5

2

10

8

28

62

431

2

7

20

29

433

19

2

1

1

5

5

34

501

3

5

1

5

14

28

503

1

5

6

505

1

1

507

4

3

6

2

6

20

41

TOTAL

889

263

1

624

449

22

15

11

17

2

4

1

427

1086

2

4440

8520

NH

ER

10

79

: A

rchae

olo

gic

al E

val

uati

on o

f C

halk

pit

Fie

ld,

20

07

-8

255

211

40

214

62

217

4

221

2

222

9

226

20

1

1

2

139

229

5

17

230

3

1

32

232

12

235

3

236

10

237

7

1

95

301

49

302

27

6

2

4

1

1

2

7

3369

303

5

3

1

1

1

4

704

304

1

37

306

6

1

4

1

1

1

3

397

307

6

1

1

2

214

308

4

1

1

188

309

15

5

2

133

310

8

2

1

1

1

401

312

2

1

47

315

6

316

18

318

7

5

5

14

297

321

4

1

2

1

340

325

1

53

326

2

2

34

328

1

33

401

1

11

NH

ER

10

79

: A

rchae

olo

gic

al E

val

uati

on o

f C

halk

pit

Fie

ld,

20

07

-8

256

402

1

2

30

403

28

404

3

32

406

3

407

31

408

22

411

12

412

1

26

414

1

18

415

3

416

3

418

1

1

27

419

60

420

2

421

19

423

1

32

428

1

1

62

431

29

433

1

34

501

28

503

6

505

1

507

41

TOTAL

145

19

23

8

6

2

9

3

1

5

2

47

8520


33

Bibliography

Addyman, P V, 1964, ‘A Dark –Age Settlement at Maxey, Northants.’ In Medieval

Archaeology 8, 20-73

Albarella, U. 1997. Shape variation of cattle metapodials: age, sex or breed? Some

examples from mediaeval and postmediaeval sites. Anthropozoologica 25-26: 37-47.

Albarella, U. 2006. Pig Husbandry and Pork Consumption in Medieval England. In

C.M. Woolgar, D. Serjeantson and T. Waldron (eds.), Food in Medieval England.

Diet and Nutrition, pp. 72-87. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Andrews, 1995, Excavations at Redcastle Furze, Thetford, 1988-9 (Dereham, Field

Archaeology Division, Norfolk Museums Service, East Anglian Archaeology 72).

Armitage, P.L. 1977. The Mammalian Remains from the Tudor Site of Baynard’s

Castle, London. A Biometrical and Historical Analysis. Unpublished PhD thesis.

Royal Holloway College/British Museum of Natural History, London.

Baker, P. 2005. Animal Bone. In A. Crowson, T. Lane, K. Penn and D. Trimble,

Anglo-Saxon Settlement on the Siltland of Eastern England, pp. 216-228. Sleaford:

Lincoln Archaeology and Heritage Reports Series No. 7.

Bartington, G and Chapman, C.E. 2004. A High-stability Fluxgate Magnetic

Gradiometer for Shallow Geophysical Survey Applications. Archaeological Prospection

11 (1) 19-34.

Barnes, I., Young, J.P.W. and Dobney, K.M. 2000. DNA-based Identification of

Goose Species from Two Archaeological Sites in Lincolnshire. Journal of

Archaeological Science 27: 91-100.

Bass,W.M. 1995 Human Osteology, A Laboratory and Field Manual, Missouri

Archaeological Society, Columbia, Missouri.


258

Bates, S. 1991, Summary Report of Excavations at Sedgeford, Norfolk (Norfolk

Archaeological Unit Report No. 35).

Behrensmeyer, A.K. 1978. Taphonomic and ecologic information from bone

weathering. Paleobiology 4: 150-162.

Black,T.K.III 1978 A new method for assessing the sex of fragmentary skeletal

remains: Femoral shaft circumference. American Journal of Physical Anthropology

48:227-31

Boessneck, J. 1969. Osteological differences between sheep (Ovis aries Linne) and goat

(Capra hircus Linne). In D. Brothwell and S. Higgs (eds), Science in archaeology, pp.

338-355. London: Thames and Hudson.

Cabot, S., Davies, G. and Hoggett, R. 2004. ‘Sedgeford: Excavaions of an 8th century

rural settlement in Norfolk’ in Hines, J., Lane, A. and Redknap, M. Land Sea and

Home: Proceedings of a Conference on Viking Period Settlement, Society for

Medieval Archaeology Monograph.

Callou, C. 1997. Diagnose différentielle des principaux elements squelettiques du

lapin (genre Oryctolagus) et du lièvre (genre Lepus) en Europe occidentale.

Valbonne-Sophia Antipolis: Fiches d’Ostéologie Animale pour l’Archéologie, Série

B, Mammifères, n° 8 APDCA.

Caruth, J. 1995. ‘Ipswich, Hewlett Packard plc, Whitehouse Industrial Estate’ in

Medieval Settlement Research Group Annual Report, 10, 40-1.

Clark, A. 1996. Seeing Beneath The Soil. Prospecting Methods in Archaeology.

Routledge.

Clark, J, 1995, The Medieval Horse and its Equipment c.1150-c.1450. Medieval Finds

from Excavations in London: 5 (London: HMSO)


259

Clarke, H., 1973, ‘Excavations on a kiln site at Grimston, Pott Row, Norfolk’, in

Norfolk Archaeology, 35, 79-95.

Clutton-Brock, J. 1976. The animal resources. In D.M. Wilson (ed.), The Archaeology

of Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 372-392. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, A. and Serjeantson, D. 1996. A manual for the identification of bird bones

from archaeological sites. London: Archetype publications.

Crossley-Holland, K. 1999. The Anglo-Saxon World. An Anthology. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

David, A. 1995. Geophysical Survey in Archaeological Field Evaluation. English

Heritage Research and Professional Services Guideline No.1.

Davies, G., Faulkner, N. and Hatton, M. 2007. Sedgeford Historical and

Archaeological Research Project: Interim Report 2005-07. Norfolk Archaeology 65:

232-239.

Dobney, K. and Ervynck, A. 1998. A Protocol for Recording Linear Enamel

Hypoplasia on Archaeological Pig Teeth. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology

8: 263-273.

Dobney, K. and Ervynck, A. 2000. Interpreting developmental stress in archaeological

pigs: the chronology of linear enamel hypoplasia. Journal of Archaeological Science

27(7): 597-607.

Dobney, K., Jacques, D., Barrett, J. and Johnstone, C. 2007. Farmers, Monks and

Aristocrats: the Environmental Archaeology of Anglo-Saxon Flixborough

(Excavations at Flixborough Volume 3). Oxford: Oxbow Books

Early Medieval Corpus of Coin Finds

(http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/dept/coins/emc/)


260

Filmer-Sankey, W. (no date). Brandon, Staunch Meadow: The Small Finds.

Unpublished report.

Gaffney, C and Gater, J. 1993. ‘Development of Remote Sensing. Part 2. Practice and

method in the application of geophysical techniques in archaeology’ in J.R. Hunter and

I. Ralston (Eds) Archaeological Resource Management in the UK Alan Sutton. Stroud.

Gaffney, C. and Gater, J. 2003. Revealing The Buried Past. Geophysics For

Archaeologists. Tempus.

Gaffney, C., Gater, J., and Ovenden, S. 2002. The Use of Geophysical Techniques in

Archaeological Evaluations. IFA Paper No.6. The Institute of Field Archaeologists.

Grant, A. 1982. The use of tooth wear as a guide to the age of domestic ungulates. In B.

Wilson, C. Grigson & S. Payne (eds.), Ageing and Sexing Animals from Archaeological

sites, pp. 91-108. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 109.

Grant, A. 1988. The Animal Resources. In G. Astill and A. Grant (eds.), The

Countryside of Medieval England, pp. 149-187. Oxford: Blackwell.

Greenfield, H.J. 2006. Sexing Fragmentary Ungulate Acetabulae. In D. Ruscillo (ed.),

Recent Advances in Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones, pp. 68-86. Oxford: Oxbow

Books.

Gregory, T., 1991, Excavations in Thetford, 1980-1982, Fison Way, Volume One

(Dereham, East Anglian Archaeology 53).

Grigson, C. 1982. Sex and age determination of some bones and teeth of domestic

cattle: a review of the literature. In B. Wilson, C. Grigson & S. Payne (eds.), Ageing

and Sexing Animals from Archaeological sites, pp. 7-19. Oxford: British

Archaeological Reports, British Series 109


261

Hagen, A. 1992. A Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Food. Processing and Consumption.

Hockwold-cum-Wilton: Anglo-Saxon Books.

Hagen, A. 1995. A Second Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Food. Production and

Distribution. Hockwold-cum-Wilton: Anglo-Saxon Books.

Halstead, P. 1985. A study of the mandibular teeth from Romano-British contexts at

Maxey. In F. Pryor (ed.), Archaeology and Environment of the Lower Welland Valley

Vol. 1, pp.219-282. East Anglian Archaeology Report 27.

Halstead, P., Collins, P. and Isaakidou, V. 2002. Sorting the Sheep from the Goats:

Morphological Distinctions between the Mandibles and Mandibular Teeth of Adult

Ovis and Capra. Journal of Archaeological Science 29(5): 545-553.

Harris, K. and Hamilakis, Y. 2007.

Harvey, B.F. 2006. Monastic pittances in the Middle Ages. In C.M. Woolgar, D.

Serjeantson and T. Waldron (eds.), Food in Medieval England. Diet and Nutrition, pp.

215-227. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hattatt, R. (2000). A Visual Catalogue of Richard Hattatt’s Ancient Brooches.

Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Hatting, T. 1995. Sex-related characters in the pelvic bone of domestic sheep (Ovis

aries L.). Archaeofauna 4: 71-76.

Hillson,S. 1992 Mammal Bones and Teeth, An Introductory Guide to Methods of

Identification, Institute of Archaeology, London

Hodges, 1981. The Hamwih pottery: the local and imported wares from 30 years’

excavations at Middle Saxon Southampton and their European context, Southampton

Archaeological Research Committee Report 2, CBA Research Report 37, CBA,

Hereford.


262

Hofmann, H. 2007. Wild Animals of Britain and Europe. London: Collins.

Hurst, J. G., 1957, ‘Thetford ware’, in Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian

Society, 51, 42-60

Hurst, J. G. and West, S. E., 1957, ‘Ipswich ware’, in Proceedings of the Cambridge

Antiquarian Society, 51, 29-42.

Hurst, J. G., 1958, ‘Stamford ware’, in Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian

Society, 51, 37-65.

Hurst, J. G., 1976, ‘The pottery’, in D. M. Wilson (ed.), The Archaeology of Anglo-

Saxon England (Cambridge, CUP), 283-348.

Hutcheson, A.R.J. 2007. ‘The Origins of King’s Lynn? Control of wealth on the Wash

prior to the Norman Conquest’ in Medieval Archaeology 50.

Institute of Field Archaeologists. 2001 ‘Standards and guidance for archaeological

evaluations’

Jennings, S., 1981, Eighteen Centuries of Pottery from Norwich (Norwich, The

Norwich Survey, East Anglian Archaeology 13).

Jennings, S., 1983, ‘The pottery’, in B. Ayres, P. Murphy, M. Atkin and S. Jennings,

Waterfront Excavation and Thetford-ware Production, Norwich (Norwich, Norfolk

Archaeological Unit, Norfolk Museums Service, East Anglian Archaeology 17), 74-

91.

Kearly, P., Brooks, M., & Hill, I. 2002, An Introduction to Geophysical Exploration.

Blackwell Publishing.

Kylie, E. 1911. The English Correspondance of St Boniface. Chatto and Windus.


263

Lauwerier, R.C.G.M. 1988. Animals in Roman times in the Dutch Eastern River Area.

ROB Neaderrlandse Ordheden 12.

Leah, M. (ed.), 1994, The Late Saxon and Medieval Pottery Industry of Grimston,

Norfolk: excavations, 1962-92 (Dereham, Field Archaeology Division, Norfolk

Museums Service, East Anglian Archaeology 64).

Lister, A.M. 1996. The Morphological Distinction Between Bones and Teeth of

Fallow Deer (Dama dama) and Red Deer (Cervus elaphus). International Journal of

Osteoarchaeology 6: 119-143.

Loveluck, C. Forthcoming. The Dynamics of Elite Lifestyles in the ‘Rural World’,

AD 600-1150: archaeological perspectives from northwest Europe. Les elites du haut

moyen age.

McGregor, A. and Bolick, E. (1993). A Summary Catalogue of the Anglo-Saxon

Collections (Non-Ferrous). Oxford: Tempus Reparatum (BAR British Series no. 230).

Munson, P.J. and Garniewicz, R.C. 2003. Age-mediated Survivorship of Ungulate

Mandibles and Teeth in Canid-ravaged Faunal Assemblages. Journal of


The Norfolk Heritage Explorer website (Norfolk County Council)

http://www.heritage.norfolk.gov.uk/

North, J. J. (1994), English Hammered Coinage Volume 1: Early Anglo-Saxon to

Henry III c.600-1272. London: Spink.

O’Connor, T. 2000. The archaeology of animal bones. Stroud: Sutton.

1886 Ordnance Survey Map (Norfolk) 1:2,500



264





2006 Ordnance Survey Map Sheet 250 (Norfolk Coast West) 1:25,000

2006 Ordnance Survey Map Sheet 132 (Norfolk Coast West) 1:50,000

Ottaway, P, 1992, Anglo-Scandinavian Ironwork from 16-22 Coppergate. The

Archaeology of York The Small Finds 17/6 (CBA)

Payne, S. 1969. A metrical distinction between sheep and goat metacarpals. In P. J.

Ucko and G. W. Dimbleby (eds.), The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and

Animals, pp. 295-395. London: Duckworth

Payne, S. 1973. Kill-off patterns in sheep and goats. The mandibles from Asvan Kale.

Anatolian Studies 23: 281-303.

Payne, S. 1985. Morphological Distinctions between the Mandibular Teeth of Young

Sheep, Ovis, and Goats, Capra. Journal of Archaeological Science 12(2): 139-147.

Payne, S. 1987. Reference codes for wear stages in the mandibular cheek teeth of sheep

and goats. Journal of Archaeological Science 14: 609-14.

Payne, S. and Bull, G. 1988. Components of variation in measurements of pig bones

and teeth, and the use of measurements to distinguish wild boar from domestic pig

remains. Archaeozoologica 2: 27-66.


265

Percival, S. and Williamson, T. 2005. ‘Early Fields and Medieval Furlongs:

Excavations at Creake Road, Burnham Sutton, Norfolk’, in Landscapes, I (2005), p. 1-

17.

Pestell, T. and Ulmschneider, K. 2003. Markets in Early Medieval Europe. Trading

and ‘Productive’ sites, 650-850, Windgather Press, Macclesfield.

Poole, K. Forthcoming a. Bird Introductions. In N.J. Sykes and T.P. O’Connor (eds.),

Extinctions and Invasions: The Social History of British Fauna. Macclesfield:

Windgather Press.

Poole, K. Forthcoming b. Living and Eating in Viking Age Towns and their

Hinterlands. In M. Allen, S. Baker, S. Middle and K. Poole (eds.), Proceedings of the

Food and Drink Conference 2007, University of Nottingham. Oxford: Prospect

Books.

Portable Antiquities Scheme database (http://www.findsdatabase.org.uk)

Prummel, W. 1988. Distinguishing features on postcranial skeletal elements of cattle,

Bos primigenus f. Taurus, and red deer, Cervus elaphus. Kiel: Schriften aus der

Archäologisch-Zoologischen Arbeitsgruppe Schleswig-Kiel.

Prummel, W. and Frisch, H-J. 1986. A Guide for the Distinction of Species, Sex and

Body Side in Bones of Sheep and Goat. Journal of Archaeological Science 13(6):

567-577.

Reynolds, A., 2003. ‘Boundaries and Settlements in Later Sixth to Eleventh-century

England’ in Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History 12, 2003.

Rogers, N S H, 1993, Anglian and Other Finds from 46-54 Fishergate. The

Archaeology of York The Small Finds 17/9 (CBA)


266

Rogerson, A. (1995), A late Neolithic, Saxon and Medieval Site at Middle Harling,

Norfolk. Dereham, Norfolk : Norfolk Archaeological Unit, Norfolk Museums Service

(East Anglian Archaeology report no 74).

Rogerson, A. and Dallas, C., 1984, Excavations in Thetford, 1948-59 and 1973-80

(Dereham, Norfolk Archaeological Unit, Norfolk Museums Service, East Anglian

Archaeology 22).

Rowley-Conwy, P. 1998. Improved Separation of Neolithic Metapodials of Sheep

(Ovis) and Goats (Capra) from Arene Candide Cave, Liguria, Italy. Journal of


Scheuer,L. & Black,S. 2000 Developmental Juvenile Osteology, Academic Press,

London.

Schmid, E. 1972. Atlas of Animal Bones. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Scollar, I., Tabbagh, A., Hesse, A., and Herzog, I., (Eds), 1990. Archaeological

Prospecting and Remote Sensing. Cambridge University Press.

Stace, C., 1997 New Flora of the British Isles. Second edition.

Cambridge University Press

Scull, C.J. and Harding, A.F. 1990. ‘Two Early medieval Cemeteries at Milfield,

Northumberland’ in Durham Archaeological Journal, 6, 1-29.

The Sedgeford Historical And Archaeological Research Project (SHARP) website:

www.sharp.org.uk

Serjeantson, D. 1996. The animal bones. In S.R. Needham & A. Spence (eds), Refuse

and Disposal at Area 16 East Runneymede. Runneymede Bridge Research Excavations,

Volume 2, pp.194-223. London: British Museum Press.


267

Serjeantson, D. 2006. Birds: Food and a Mark of Status. In C. Woolgar, D,

Serjeantson & T. Waldron, Food in Medieval England. History and Archaeology,

131-147. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Smith, R.N. 1969. Fusion of ossification centres in the cat. Journal of Small Animal

Practice 10: 523-530.

Sykes, N.J. 2005. The Dynamics of Status Symbols: Wildfowl Exploitation in

England AD 410-1550. Archaeological Journal 161:82-105.

Sykes, N.J. 2007. The Zooarchaeology of the Norman Conquest. Oxford: British

Archaeological Reports, International Series 1656.

Snelling,H. 2008 Data on Femur Circumference from Sedgeford Skeletons, Personal

Communication.

Thirkettle, R. 2002. What about the pigs? In S. Cabot (ed.), Sedgeford Historical and

Archaeological Research Project Interim Report 2002, pp. 28-32.

Timby, J. R., 1988, ‘The Middle Saxon pottery’, in P. Andrews (ed.), Southampton

Finds, Volume One, The Coins and Pottery from Hamwic (Southampton,

Southampton City Museums), 73-122.

Vann, S. and Thomas, R. 2006. Humans, other animals and disease: A comparative

approach towards the development of a standardised recording protocol for animal

palaeopathology. Internet Archaeology 20.

http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue20/vannthomas_toc.html

von den Driesch, A. 1976. A guide to the measurement of animal bones from

archaeological sites. Peabody Museum Bulletin 1. Cambridge: Harvard University.

von den Dreisch, A. and Boessneck, J. 1974. Kritische Anmerkungen zur

Widerristhohen-Berechnung aus langmassen vor-und fruhgeschichtlicher

Tierknochen. Saugetierkundliche Mitteilungen 22(4): 325-248.


268

Wade, K. 1980. ‘A settlement site at Bonhunt Farm, Wicken Bonhunt, Essex, in D.G.

Buckley (ed.), Archaeology in Essex to AD 1500, CBA Res. Rep., 34, London:CBA,

p. 96-102.

Wade-Martins, P.1980. Excavations at North Elmham Park 1967-72, East Anglian

Archaeology, 9, Gressenhall, Norfolk.

Walton-Rogers, P, 1997, Textile Production at 16-22 Coppergate. The Archaeology of

York The Small Finds 17/11 (CBA)

West, S. E., 1963, ‘Excavations at Cox Lane (1958) and at the town defences, Shire

Hall Yard, Ipswich (1959)’, in Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology, 29,

3, 233-303.

White,T.D. & Folkens,P.A. 2000 Human Osteology, Academic Press, London.

Wilbourn, D. 2007. ArchaeoSurveyor Program version 2. User Manual. DW

Consulting.

Wilson, E. J., 2003, ‘Sedgeford, Norfolk within its wider Iron Age context’

(unpublished Nottingham University dissertation). (Plus notes extracted under title

‘Sedgeford Historical and Archaeological Research Project: the Iron Age pottery

typology’.)

CNEreport draft

Documents

Transcript of CNEreport draft