CNEreport Draft

NHER 1079: Archaeological Evaluation of Chalkpit Field, 2007-8
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION
OF THE MIDDLE-LATE ANGLO-
SAXON SETTLEMENT AT CHALKPIT
FIELD, SEDGEFORD, NORTHWEST
NORFOLK.
BY GARETH DAVIES
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
33
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
2
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
3
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
4
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
5
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-
6
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.
7
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.
8
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
9
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
10
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
11
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
12
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,
13
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
14
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.
33
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
17
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
18
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.
19
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).
20
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
21
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.
22
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.
23
Figure 2 : Location of the Chalkpit North 2007-8 survey on 1:10,000 Ordnance Survey base mapping
33
500 metres
Map extracts © Crown copyright 2008 Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved.
Figure 3: Processed greyscale linear plot with ZMT and despike applied (composite image)
100 metres
33
Figure 4: Trace plot of processed data (composite image)
100 metres 10 nT
33
Figure 5: Interpretation of results
100 metres
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
33
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
29
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)
30
(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).
31
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
32
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)
33
Early Saxon Pot Middle Saxon

Pot
Figure 9: Fieldwalking overlain onto Geophysics

Late Saxon Pot Oyster shell
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.
33
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
36
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,
37
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
38
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.
39
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.
40
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.
41
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.
42
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
43
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.
44
Figure 10: Excavated trenches related to Geophysical survey, 2007.
33
Figure 11: Excavated trenches showing all excavated features and attributed phases.
46
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
33
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
48
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
33
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)
51
Plate 1: EFS of Cuts [106]/[107] mid-excavation, looking west.
Figure 16: Detailed plan of in situ pot, fill [104].
52
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
53
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.
54
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
55
Figure 17: Plan of Trench 2 showing excavated features. North at top of page.
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
33
(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.
58
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
59
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).
60
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.
61
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
62
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
63
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).
64
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 -
65
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).
66
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).
67
Figure 27: WFS of E-W ditch cut [233] (Section 23).
68
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.
69
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.
70
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
71
Figure 28: Pre-Excavation Plan of Trench 3
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
33
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
75
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).
76
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.
33
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
79
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
80
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
81
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).
82
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).
83
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
84
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
85
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).
86
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
87
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
88
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)
Figure 35: Detailed Plan of Oven [311]/ [313], (Plan DWG 37)
91
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
92
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
93
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
94
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
95
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).
96
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
97
(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
98
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).
99
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).
100
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.
33
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
103
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.
104
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
105
Figure 40: East Facing Ditch terminus [417], (Section 45).
Figure 41: West Facing section of Cut [413], (Section 49).
106
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
107
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
108
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.
109
Middle Saxon land-use is also in evidence, but the activity is perhaps not as
concentrated, judging from the available evidence.
110
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
111
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
112
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).
33
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
115
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
116
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.
117
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.
33
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
119
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-3rd 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
120
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,
121
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
122
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
123
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.
124
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)
125
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
126
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?)
127
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)
128
Figure 46: Thetford Ware Rim Types (1-4)
129
130
131
Figure 49: Thetford Ware Decoration Types
132
Table 1: Pottery Finds by Context from Chalkpit North Evaluation
MNV
(Minimu
m
EVE number
(Estimate of
d Vessel vessels. AV.
FABRIC Equivalen Ves Rim Decoratio Prop.of Sherd
COUNT Weight t) forms forms n Rims) Weight
SH07/CNE T1/101
PRL 1 5 - - - - - 5
MD 3 11 - - - - - 4
:
Comment moder
s: 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?
133
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
134
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
135
?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
136
?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
137
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
138
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
139
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.
140
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
141
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
142
provide a far more detailed picture of the character of the 8th-10th century AD
settlement than those excavated to date.
143
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.
144
Figure 50: Neolithic Flaked Axe 2201/201
145
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).
146
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).
147
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,
148
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.
149
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
150
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.
151
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
152
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
153
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).
154
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
155
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]
156
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].
157
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]
158
Fig. 55: Iron objects (X-rays)
159
Fig. 56: Iron objects (X-rays)
160
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.’
33
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
162
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.
163
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.
164
Table 3: Summary of taphonomic patterns in the Chalkpit

assemblage (excluding loose teeth)
MSAX M-LC9th LSAX

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%
Table 4: Percentage of loose teeth by phase
Phase NISP No. loose teeth % loose teeth

MSAX 185 22 11.9%
M-LC9th 609 92 15.1%
LSAX 1465 237 16.2%
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.
165
Table 5: Species represented (NISP) by phase
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
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
166
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.
100%
90%
80%
70%
Relative percentage
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
MSAX % NISP MSAX % MNI M-LC9th % NISP M-LC9th % MNI LSAX % NISP LSAX %MNI
Phase and Quantification method Sheep/goat Cattle Pig
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
167
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
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
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.
168
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
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 2nd 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.
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
SHEEP Element F UF TOTAL %F SHEEP Element F UF TOTAL %F

3-10m D. Humerus 3 1 4 3-10m D. Humerus 11 1 12
P. Radius 3 1 4 P. Radius 8 1 9
Scapula 1 2 3 Scapula 14 1 15
Pelvis 3 0 3 Pelvis 4 0 4
Phalanx I 2 1 3 Phalanx I 7 1 8
Phalanx II 0 1 1 Phalanx II 1 0 1
TOTAL 12 6 18 67% TOTAL 45 4 49 92%
15-24m D. Tibia 9 2 11 15-24m D. Tibia 15 2 17
D. Metapodial 0 4 4 D. Metapodial 12 2 14
TOTAL 9 6 15 40% TOTAL 27 4 31 87%
36-42m Calcaneus 2 1 3 36-42m Calcaneus 3 1 4
P. Femur 0 2 2 P. Femur 2 0 2
P. Humerus 1 2 3 P. Humerus 1 0 1
D. Radius 1 2 3 D. Radius 3 1 4
P. Ulna 1 1 2 P. Ulna 1 0 1
D. Femur 2 3 5 D. Femur 1 1 2
P. Tibia 0 1 1 P. Tibia 3 0 3
TOTAL 7 12 19 37% TOTAL 14 3 17 83%
SHEEP Element F UF TOTAL %F

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%
36-42m Calcaneus 5 2 7
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%
170
Table 7: Cattle dental ageing data
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
Table 8a (left): Mid-Late 9th century cattle fusion data; Table

8b(right): Late Saxon cattle fusion data
CATTLE Element F UF TOTAL %F CATTLE Element F UF TOTAL %F

7-15m Scapula 6 0 6 7-15m Scapula 14 0 14
Pelvis 2 0 8 Pelvis 11 0 11
P. Radius 1 0 1 P. Radius 16 0 16
TOTAL 9 0 9 100% TOTAL 41 0 41 100%
15-24m Phalanx II 5 0 5 15-24m Phalanx II 11 0 11
D. Humerus 2 0 2 D. Humerus 8 0 8
Phalanx I 7 0 7 Phalanx I 24 1 25
TOTAL 14 0 14 100% TOTAL 43 1 44 98%
24-36m D. Tibia 3 0 3 24-36m D. Tibia 10 2 12
D. Metapodial 6 1 7 D. Metapodial 5 1 6
TOTAL 9 1 10 64% Calcaneus 1 3 4
36-48m Calcaneus 0 4 4 TOTAL 16 6 22 73%
P. Femur 1 0 1 36-48m P. Femur 1 4 5
P. Humerus 1 0 1 P. Humerus 3 2 5
D. Radius 0 1 1 D. Radius 0 1 1
P. Tibia 1 0 1 D. Femur 4 3 7
TOTAL 3 5 8 38% P. Tibia 0 1 1
TOTAL 8 11 19 42%
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
171
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
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
Figure 59: Late Saxon pig kill-off patterns (n=23)
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
0-2m 2-7m 7-14m 14-21m 21-27m 27-36m Adult Old Adult Senile
Age % mandibles % alive
172
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.
173
Figures 60a-c: Body-part patterns for Mid-Saxon (above left), Mid-

Late 9th century (above right) and Late Saxon (left) sheep/goats
MSAX Sheep/goat - % MNE M-LC9th Sheep/goat - % MNE
Horn core Horn core

Mandible Mandible
Scapula Scapula
Humerus Humerus
Radius Radius
Ulna Ulna
Pelvis Pelvis
Element
Element
Femur Femur
T ibia T ibia
Astragalus Astragalus
Calcaneus Calcaneus
Metacarpal Metacarpal
Metatarsal Metatarsal
1st Phalanx 1st Phalanx
2nd Phalanx 2nd Phalanx
3rd Phalanx 3rd Phalanx
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
% MNE(mne=14) % MNE(mne =39)
LSAX Sheep/goat - % MNE
Horn core
Mandible
Scapula
Humerus
Radius
Ulna
Pelvis
Element
Femur
T ibia
Astragalus
Calcaneus
Metacarpal
Metatarsal
1st Phalanx
2nd Phalanx
3rd Phalanx
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
% MNE (mne=74)
174
Figures 61a-b: Body-part patterns: M-L 9th century / L Saxon pigs

M-LC9th Cattle - % MNE LSAX Cattle - % MNE
Horn core Horn core
Mandible Mandible
Scapula Scapula
Humerus Humerus
Radius Radius
Ulna Ulna
Pelvis Pelvis
Element
Element
Femur Femur
T ibia T ibia
Calcaneus Calcaneus
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
% MNE(mne=10) % MNE(mne=21)
M-LC9th Pig - % MNE LSAX Pig - % MNE
Mandible Mandible
Scapula Scapula
Humerus Humerus
Radius Radius
Ulna Ulna
Pelvis Pelvis
Femur Femur
Element
Element
T ibia T ibia
Calcaneus Calcaneus
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
% MNE(mne=12) % MNE(mne=33)
Figures 62a-b: Body-part patterns: M-L C 9th / Late Saxon cattle
175
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
176
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
177
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.
32
30
Tibia Bd(mm)
28
26
24
22
20
Site/period
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.
178
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,
179
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
180
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
Phase Fused Unfused % fused

MSAX 27 10 73%
LC9th-10th 25 4 86%
LSAX 21 4 84%
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
181
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
182
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
183
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).
184
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
185
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.
186
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
187
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
188
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,
189
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.
190
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.
191
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
192
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
193
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
Common
Cereals 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
33
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 material x
Bone x x xb x x x x x xb x
Burnt/fired clay x
Eggshell x
Fish bone x x
Marine mollusc 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 material 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%
195
Sample/context No. 302 308 310 311 312 315 325 326
Feature type Ditch Ditch Ditch Oven Oven Oven Layer Layer
Common
Cereals 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
Black
Fallopia convolvulus (L.)A.Love 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
196
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 material x
Bone x x x x x x xb x
Burnt/fired clay x x
Ferrous globule x
Fish bone x x
Marine mollusc 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%
197
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.
33
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).
199
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
200
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.
201
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
202
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.
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.
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 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
206
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
207
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
208
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.
209
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.
210
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
211
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
212
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
213
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
214
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
215
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.
216
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
217
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:
218
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
219
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
220
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
221
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.
222
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
223
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
224
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
225
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
226
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
227
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.
228
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.
229
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.
230
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
231
(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
232
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
233
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.
234
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.
235
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.
236
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
237
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.
238
Appendix 1 Matrices and Context Tables

Trench 1.
(101)
(112)
[113]
(102)
(103)
(104) (110)
[106] [114]
(105)
[107]
(108) (109)
(111)
Chalkpit North Evaluation 2007 (NHER 1079). Trench 1. Context List
Context Type Description Phase
No.
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
239
113 Cut Cut of Pipe Trench Modern

114 Cut Cut of ?Natural Feature/trackway Unknown
Trench 2
(201) (207)
(221) (211) (203) (210) (208)
[220] [212] (222) (232) [215]
(223) (214)
[224] (231)
[213]
(204) (205)
(202)
[227]
(235)
[234]
(217) (219) (226) (230) (206) (237)
[216] [218] [225] [229] [233] [236]
(209)
240

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
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
241
Trench 3
(301)
(302)
(325)
[323]
(303)
(321)
[322]
(304) (309)
[305] [317]
(310) (306)
[314] (307)
(320)
(308)
(318) (328) (315) [316]
[319] [327] [311]
(312)
[313]
(326)
(324)
242

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
243
Trench 4
(401)
(403) (405) (418) (402) (406)
(433) (414/15/16) (404) (428)
(411) [427]
(412) (431)
(419) (430)
(420) (429)
(421) (434)
(426)
[432] [417] [413] [425]
(407) (408) (423)
[409] [410] [422]
(424)
244

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 Middle Saxon
(414/415/416))
413 Cut Cut of E-W aligned Ditch (same as [417], Middle Saxon
[432])
(412/415/416))
(412/414/416))
(412/414/415))
[432])
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])
433 Fill Fill of Ditch, Cut [413] (same as (404)) Mid-Late 9th C.
245
Trench 5
(501)
(511) (513) (509) (503) (507)
[510] [512] [508] [502] [506]
(504) (505)
(514)

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.
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
246
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.
247
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
248
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
249
?CBM 433 2 81
CBM 501 2 12
250
33
Appendix 3: Animal Bones Number of Identified Specimens (NISP) by species and context
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
33
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
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
254
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
255
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
256
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.
33
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)
258
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/)
259
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
260
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.
261
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.
262
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
263
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.
264
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)
265
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.
266
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.
267
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’.)
268

CNEreport Draft

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

CNEreport Draft

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

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

WITH SPECIALIST CONTRIBUTIONS FROM GREG

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

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

Preface and Summary

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

1.1 Background to the project

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

1.2 Chalkpit Field: NHER 1079

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

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

1.3 Aims and Method: The 2007/8 Evaluation Project

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

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

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

● Observed changes in both settlement morphologies and material culture

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

● Problems of interpretation due to an uneven coverage of archaeological

Colour map extracts © Crown copyright 2008 Ordnance

2. The Geophysical survey by Grid Nine Geophysics

2.3 Summary of survey parameters

Instrument: Bartington Grad601-2 Dual Fluxgate Gradiometer

Traverse interval: 1.00m

2.4 Data collection and processing

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

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

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

2.5.11 A plethora of dipolar responses have been recorded scattered randomly

2.6 Survey Specific Conclusions

2.7 Effectiveness of methodology

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

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

Figure 5: Interpretation of results

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

3.2 Methodology and Conditions

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

Figure 7: Field walking results

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

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

Figure 9: Fieldwalking overlain onto Geophysics

Early Saxon Pot Middle Saxon

Figure 9: Fieldwalking overlain onto Geophysics

3.4 Fieldwalking and Geophysics: Interpretation

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

3.4.5 Features of contrasting date can provide important information on the

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

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

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

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

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

4. The Trial Trenches

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

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

4.1.10 The Late Saxon phase, stratigraphically latest in Trench 3, consisted of

investigation - must be revisited and reconsidered periodically. One future

4.1.13 The above ceramic/stratigraphy correlation methodology was only achievable

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

Figure 12: Plan of Trench 1 showing excavated features.

4.2.8 Late Saxon Feature

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

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

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

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