thrapston spaldwick
TRANSCRIPT
1
A prehistoric and Saxon site at Thrapston Road, Spaldwick
by Susan Clelland and Lorraine Mepham
with contributions by Catherine Barnett, Lorrain Higbee and Chris J. Stevens
Summary
The excavation of an area adjacent to Thrapston Road, Spaldwick, revealed
archaeological remains ranging in date from early prehistoric to post-medieval,
focusing in particular on the Iron Age and Saxon periods. Ephemeral traces of a
transient early prehistoric use of the site were succeeded in the Iron Age by a
trackway and a succession of small enclosures, probably related to a mixed farming
settlement. The site was apparently abandoned during the Romano-British period, but
was reoccupied during the early/mid-Saxon period, at first for possible small-scale
‘industrial’ use, before being formally reorganised in the late Saxon period into tofts,
each containing rectangular post-built structures. Later, during the medieval period,
the site became part of an agricultural field system.
INTRODUCTION
Wessex Archaeology was commissioned in 2010 by SD Construction and
Developments Ltd to carry out an archaeological excavation at 33 Thrapston Road,
Spaldwick, centred on NGR 512780 272917 (Figure 1). This followed on from an
earlier desk-based assessment and evaluation of the site, both also carried out by
Wessex Archaeology, in 2001–2 (Wessex Archaeology 2002a; 2002b).
Site location and geology
The site, which lies on the north-western fringes of the village of Spaldwick,
comprised at the time of excavation a parcel of overgrown scrub covering
approximately 0.12 hectares. Located on a gentle north-east facing slope, the site is
bounded to the north-east by Thrapston Road, originally part of the road running from
Huntingdon to Thrapston, which forms the village High Street, and which is now
bypassed by the A14. The site is bounded to the north-west and south-east by
2
residential properties and to the south-west by further overgrown scrubland backing
on to St James’ Church.
The underlying geology is shown by the British Geological Survey (Sheet 2) as
comprising Oxford Clays with Kellaway Beds.
Archaeological and historical background
The known archaeological and historical context of the site is limited, with little
evidence for prehistoric settlement known from the immediate vicinity, although Iron
Age ditches were recorded in a pipeline trench within 1km of the site. The Roman
road from Leicester (Ratae) to Godmanchester (Durovigutum) lies 5km to the north.
The manor of Spaldwick is first mentioned in the 10th century when it was granted to
Ely Abbey by Brithnoth, earldorman of Essex, in AD 991. From 1109 to 1543 it was
held by the Bishop of Lincoln who may have had a palace or hunting lodge to the east
of the site, near to his deer park (the 12th century ‘Forest of Spaldwick’), of which
there is now no trace (Wessex Archaeology 2002a).
The banked enclosure around the presumed historic core of the village (Figure 1) is
the site of the shrunken village of ‘Danesfield’, although the name Spaldwick
(Spalduice) was in use by Domesday. The settlement of ‘Danesfield’ may have been
in existence before AD 991 when Spaldwick was granted to Ely Abbey. The
enclosure is roughly oval with the south and west sides marked by a small surviving
bank; the bank on the northern and eastern sides has been destroyed. The earthworks
within the enclosure (see Figure 1) may range from building foundations, in the south,
to a windmill mound or perhaps a very small motte in the west.
Previous archaeological investigations within the village of Spaldwick found two
Saxon or early medieval buildings succeeded by later medieval rubbish pits in yards
with some industrial activity on a site on the northern side of Thrapston Road
(CCCAFU 1996), and a medieval ditch and plough marks were recorded at Ferriman
Road, to the south of the site (Murray 1998) (Figure 1).
3
The many 16th, 17th and 18th century Listed Buildings in Spaldwick may indicate the
prosperity of the village, though none of these lie close to the site, and map regression
shows that the village has changed little from 1775 (Wessex Archaeology 2002a, fig.
3). The line of the earthwork enclosure around ‘Danesfield’ may be seen on the 1775
Enclosure map, curving around and running along the northern edge of the site (see
Figure 1).
EXCAVATION RESULTS
The modern overburden generally comprised a mixed layer of made ground and
topsoil, typically a mid- to dark grey-brown silty loam, above subsoil. Across the site
this sequence of deposits varied in thickness from 0.4m at the northern end of the site
up to 1m at the southern end. Archaeological features and deposits were noted both
within the base of and below the subsoil (Figure 2).
Early Prehistoric
Evidence for a human presence on the site during the early prehistoric period
(Neolithic–Bronze Age) was indicated by a small assemblage of worked flint,
recovered as residual finds from features and deposits of later date. The assemblage,
mainly comprising flake debitage, also included two scrapers likely to be of Neolithic
date (topsoil finds) and one dating to the earlier Bronze Age (from Late Iron Age pit
663). In addition, a sherd of Middle/Late Neolithic Peterborough ware came from an
otherwise undated pit (532), and single, abraded body sherd from a Beaker vessel was
found in the topsoil.
Mid–Late Iron Age
Much of the complex series of intercutting features revealed on the site has been dated
to the Iron Age (Figure 3). This includes a probable track- or droveway, field
boundary ditches, a succession of small, subrectangular enclosures (784, 792, 794,
798), a possible ring-gully (790), and a number of pits. Stratigraphic relationships
indicate a sequence of activity, in which four phases have been defined here, although
the pottery evidence is insufficient to confirm this, or the timescale within which it
could have occurred (see below).
4
Phase 1: Trackway
Two parallel shallow gullies (averaging 0.3m wide and 0.1m deep), excavated in four
sections (758, 774, 787, 796), form a probable track or droveway, running south-west
to north-east across the site, and diverging at the south-western end. Eight sherds of
pottery, four worked flints and two pieces of animal bone, all very small and abraded,
constituted the only finds from these features.
Phase 2: Field boundaries
The phase 1 trackway ditches were not continuous, but their shallow nature suggests
that they might have been truncated. One section (gully 758) was cut by a substantial
ditch (783) running roughly east-west across the site. Ditch 783, together with a
parallel ditch (628) partially revealed at the southern end of the site, appears to mark a
formal demarcation of boundaries, approximately 30m apart, within the landscape.
Ditch 783 was U-shaped, 2.5m wide and 1.1m deep (Figure 4). The associated fill
sequence suggests that a bank, mounded along its northern edge, was later levelled
into the ditch following the accumulation of a secondary deposit (733, 734) from
which the majority of the finds from the ditch were recovered (73 pieces of animal
bone; 1 piece of worked flint; 33 sherds of pottery). Ditch 783 may only have been in
use for a short period of time before there was a change in land-use whereby the area
appears to have been levelled and cleared.
Phase 3: Enclosures and associated features
Parts of three sub-rectangular enclosures were uncovered (784, 792, 794), with a
possible fourth (798) just clipped by the southern end of the trench. Enclosure 792
may be the earliest —its ditch was cut by both 798 and 794, and ended in a terminal at
the eastern end, indicating an east-facing entrance. The ditch was on average 1.2m
wide and 0.5m deep with two distinct episodes of infilling (Figure 4). The lower
deposit (574) contained a concentration of charcoal and heat-affected flint nodules,
which were mainly found along the base of the ditch. Overall, ditch 792 produced 111
fragments of animal bone and five sherds of pottery, as well as a fragment from a
saddle quern, and the majority of this material derived from the upper fill of the ditch
(575).
5
Ditch 798, of which only a small section was revealed at the southern end of the site,
is thought to represent the north-eastern corner of an enclosure, cutting enclosure 792;
it could conceivably have been a recutting of the latter enclosure. The ditch appeared
to be on a similar alignment to 792, but had a profile differing slightly from the latter,
and also from enclosures 784 and 794. There was a shallow outer lip to a deeper, U-
shaped ditch, with a total width of 1.2m, and a depth of up to 0.4m (Figure 4). The
ditch yielded a small assemblage of animal bone (50 fragments), pottery (13 sherds)
and worked flint (three pieces), all from secondary fills.
Enclosures 794 and 784, perhaps adjacent to each other, and differently aligned to 792
and 798, were exposed along the western side of the excavated area. Enclosure 784,
of which the south-east corner was revealed, was aligned north-north-east to south-
south-west, with an east-facing entrance 3m wide. Cutting through enclosure 792,
enclosure 794, to the south-west of enclosure 784, was aligned north-east–south-west
and represented by the north-eastern corner. The north-east–south-west section of this
ditch ended in a terminal at the south end, indicating a south-east-facing entrance. The
dimensions, profiles and fill sequences of enclosure ditches 784 and 794 were similar
in both instances to those of 792, but both enclosures were more productive in terms
of pottery: 80 sherds from 784, and 40 from 794. A chalk spindlewhorl was also
recovered from enclosure 784. An environmental sample taken from ditch 784
contained significant quantities of emmer and spelt wheat, as well as seeds of several
wild species.
The original size of the enclosures is unknown, although 784 appears to have been no
more than 20m from north to south. Stratigraphic relationships indicate that enclosure
792 was earlier than both 798 and 794, but the chronological relationships of these
three to 784 are unknown. The pottery is only marginally helpful, suggesting, in the
absence of grog-tempered wares from 792, that this enclosure may have had a Middle
Iron Age origin, the other three enclosures perhaps dating to the Late Iron Age, but
quantities are too small to provide firm evidence here (only five sherds came from
enclosure 792). Certainly the pottery groups from 784, 794 and 798 are very similar
(mixed shell-tempered and grog-tempered), and suggest that all three enclosures could
have been in use (or at least the ditches backfilled) over a relatively short timespan,
perhaps no more than a century. Five Romano-British sherds were recovered from the
6
upper fill of 794, perhaps later finds in the top of the feature. The precise provenance
of two early Saxon sherds from enclosure ditch 784 is unknown.
The only internal features recorded within the enclosures comprise a group of five
intercutting pits (800) of varying sizes inside the north-eastern corner of enclosure
794. These pits cut phase 1 gully 796, but only the latest pit (612) produced any
datable finds (14 sherds of pottery, all shell-tempered).
Outside the enclosures, a curvilinear feature (789) is of uncertain function. It had been
recut along its southern side by gully 790. It could represent part of a roundhouse
ring-gully, except that what was present appeared not to be circular or penannular,
and it lies outside any of the identified enclosures. Seven pottery sherds, shell, fired
clay fragments and animal bone were recovered from the gully fills. All seven pottery
sherds are in shell-tempered wares, which could suggest a Middle Iron Age date, and
therefore probably pre-dating enclosures 784 and 794. Gully 790 was also cut by
another ditch (788), which ran parallel to the eastern side of enclosure 794, but whose
function is uncertain; this ditch produced eight sherds of pottery, including both shelly
and grog-tempered wares.
Apart from pit group 800, nine other pits have been assigned to this period of activity
(440, 549, 693, 695, 701, 762 and group 801). These were mostly small and contained
single fills and very small quantities of finds, including animal bone and a few sherds
of pottery.
Several small abraded sherds of Iron Age pottery recovered from posthole group 802
may be residual. The function of this small group of at least four intercut postholes,
each approximately 0.4m in diameter, is unknown.
Late Iron Age/Romano-British
The seven Romano-British sherds from enclosure 794 have been noted above. A
further 16 sherds of Romano-British pottery were recovered from various features
across the site; mainly as residual finds (for example, in Saxon pit 663, and medieval
ditches 780, 782 and 791). No features could be definitively dated to this period, and
it appears that the site was abandoned, possibly around the time of the conquest.
7
Early/mid-Saxon
Evidence for activity in the early/mid-Saxon period comprises a number of pits
(Figure 5). The base of large oval pit 663 (2.3m x 1.6m x 1m deep), adjacent to the
eastern edge of the excavated area, cut through a sandy layer within the Oxford Clay,
breaching the water table, and has been tentatively interpreted as a watering hole; the
profile shows one steep side and the other more gradually sloping, which could have
allowed access for animals to drink (Figure 6). The base of the pit was filled after
going out of use through the gradual accumulation of laminated silt deposits (666–
671), and this was followed by a series of dumped layers (672–4); subsequently, late
Saxon-medieval boundary ditch 791 cut through the top. Pit 663 produced 12
early/mid-Saxon sherds, as well as animal bone (64 fragments) and a possible iron
smithing hearth bottom.
Nine shallow, sub-rectangular ‘fire pits’, forming two clusters (433, 729 and 752 to
the north; 435, 705, 715, 724 and 725 to the south) with one outlier (450), have been
assigned to the early/mid-Saxon period, although the only dating evidence recovered
comprised four early/mid-Saxon sherds from two intercutting pits (435, 725). Within
the two clusters the pits were located close enough together to perhaps imply
successive rather than contemporaneous use, a suggestion supported by the fact that
pit 435 cut the corner of pit 725. The pits were all of broadly similar shape and size
(1.2–1.8m long, 0.8–1.2m wide, 0.1–0.2m deep; near vertical sides and flat bases),
and most had similar burnt material in their fills. The sides of most of the pits were
heat-affected, although this was not consistent or continuous around the sides of any
of the pits, while the pit bases were only slightly heat-affected.
The depositional sequence recorded in pit 724 (Figure 6) is somewhat different to the
others, and may provide an insight into how the pits may have functioned. A dense
layer of charcoal (723), mainly consisting of large pieces of roundwood, lay at the
base of the pit. This was overlain by a layer of slightly heat-affected flint nodules
(722), apparently dumped into the pit rather than in situ. A deposit of accumulated
debris comprising a fine dark silty loam with a distinct ashy grey hue and small
fragments of charcoal (721) sealed the layer of stones. Layer 721 was sealed by an
upper fill of topsoil-derived material (720). The remaining eight pits were filled with a
mixed layer of silty loam including abundant charcoal and heat-affected flint nodules
8
of varying size (Figure 7). The density and size of the charcoal increased towards the
bases of these pits, but there were no clearly differentiated charcoal and stone deposits
as seen in pit 724.
Apart from the four sherds of pottery noted above, other finds from the pits comprised
244 fragments of animal bone (mostly cattle and sheep/goat, but also a few pig, red
deer and bird bones), 33 fragments of fired clay, 159 pieces of burnt, unworked flint,
and one piece of ironworking slag. There was a concentration of finds in pit 433 (all
of the burnt flint, most of the fired clay, and approximately half of the animal bone).
The possibility that these pits may be slightly later in date, perhaps late Saxon, cannot
be ruled out, although the southern cluster was cut by timber structure 799 (see
below).
Two other pits (455, 525), both on the eastern side of the excavation area, may also
belong to this phase of activity; both produced early/mid-Saxon pottery (three sherds
from pit 455, 20 from pit 525) and, although one sherd of medieval pottery was also
recovered from 525, this was small and could well have been intrusive. Pit 525 also
produced 125 fragments of animal bone and two pieces of ironworking slag.
Late Saxon/early medieval
Two right-angled gullies (539 and 793) appear to be related, forming a ‘pair’, and
may be the earliest features in this phase (Figure 8). These two gullies ran parallel
across the southern half of the site before turning to the south-west, though their full
extent is unclear. Pottery indicates a late Saxon/early medieval date (three sherds of St
Neots ware and one of early medieval shelly ware, alongside nine early/mid-Saxon
sherds), and both gullies were cut by later boundary ditches (780 and 791
respectively).
The main focus of activity in this phase, however, was the construction of two timber
structures, probably domestic buildings, and associated fences within clearly defined
ditched boundaries (tofts). This marks a significant period of landscape
reorganisation, and may represent the earliest evidence for the village of ‘Danesfield’
9
(Figure 8). The excavated area constitutes the majority of one toft, and part of a
second, both oriented north-east to south-west, and respecting the present-day
alignment of Thrapston Road along the north-east side of the site.
The tofts were separated by ditches 780 and 791, with ditch 782 to the north. The
main toft exposed extended for at least 37 m, and tapered from 17m wide at the
northern end to 11m at the southern end. Ditch 782 along the northern side exhibited
at least three episodes of recutting, by ditches 422 and 587 (Figure 9), resulting in a
broader ditch (3.6 m wide, 1.1m deep) than the two forming the sides of the plot.
Deposits within ditch 782 suggest the presence of a bank to the south, apparently
backfilled during the medieval period. The two side ditches (780 and 791) were
between 1m and 2m wide, and approximately 0.5m deep. Thirteen sherds of
early/mid-Saxon pottery were recovered from the eastern ditch 791 (which cut
possible waterhole 663), one medieval sherd from western ditch 780, and 20 Late
Saxon/early medieval sherds from ditch 782 recuts 422 and 587 to the north.
Within the central toft exposed lay a rectangular timber structure (799), just over 20m
south of ditch 782, and following the same alignment as the side ditches, but closer to
ditch 780. Structure 799 comprised 12 postholes, and measured 8m by 4m. The
postholes varied in size and the profile and plan of several indicate that posts were
replaced during the structure’s use. The two postholes on the east side may indicate
the location of a centrally placed doorway in this wall. Three postholes produced
early/mid-Saxon pottery (a total of 13 sherds), but the sherds are small (mean sherd
weight 4g) and are considered likely to be intrusive here. Furthermore, one of the
postholes in the east wall cut one of the earlier Saxon ‘fire pits’ (715), and the
projected wall line passed very close to three others.
To the north of structure 799 was a probable yard. A number of postholes formed two
sides of a fence alignment (786) running parallel to the eastern and northern boundary
ditches (786 and 791 respectively), and at a distance of about 4m inside them. Two
small pits (448, 490) and posthole 776 comprised the other contemporary features
identified in this area, and these produced a total of only four sherds of late
Saxon/early medieval pottery.
10
A second possible rectangular structure (803), on a similar alignment to structure 799,
was more tentatively identified within the plot or toft to the west. Structure 803
comprised ten postholes forming a ground plan measuring an estimated 10m by 4m.
No dating evidence was recovered from any of the postholes. Pit 543, probably a
rubbish pit, to the north-west of structure 803, yielded two sherds of Late Saxon St
Neots ware.
Late medieval and post-medieval
The few remains dated to the later medieval and post-medieval periods (Figure 8)
suggest that the area reverted to agricultural use at this time. Late medieval feature
804 comprises an 8m wide series of ditches 10m to the south of and parallel with
Thrapston Road. Parallel and less than 3m to the south was the late Saxon-medieval
ditch 782 bounding the north side of the tofts. It is possible that feature 804 represents
a hollow-way, with possible origins in the late Saxon period, comprising a sequence
of linear hollows and ditches, the latter perhaps drainage ditches which broadly
confined the shifting course of the route. Cobble patch 404 may also have been an
element of this complex, and the gravel in the lowest fills (585 and 589) of the recuts
(422 and 487) of ditch 782 may derive from similar metalled surfaces of which no
other trace survived.
During the post-medieval period the site was levelled, sealing feature 804. The
remains of a street frontage garden/property wall (402), mirroring the alignment of
Thrapston Road, lay at the northern end of the site, with a post-medieval pit (406)
beyond.
FINDS
Pottery
by Lorraine Mepham, with a contribution by Patrick Quinn
The complete pottery assemblage recovered amounts to 558 sherds (5475g), and
includes sherds of early prehistoric, late prehistoric, Romano-British, early/mid-
Saxon, medieval and post-medieval date, although the majority belongs to the late
prehistoric period. Only the prehistoric (271 sherds; 3042g) and Saxon material (109
11
sherds; 652g) is discussed here; details of all other pottery are held in the project
archive.
Methods of analysis
The prehistoric and Saxon pottery has been subjected to full fabric and form analysis,
following the standard Wessex Archaeology pottery recording system (Morris 1994),
which accords with nationally recommended guidelines for the recording of
prehistoric pottery (PCRG 2010), and post-Roman pottery (MPRG 2001). Fabrics
have been defined and coded on the basis of predominant inclusion type; totals and
summary descriptions are given in Table 1. To support the fabric analysis, samples of
ten selected fabric types (four prehistoric and six Saxon) were submitted for thin
section analysis by Dr Patrick Quinn (University College, London). His full report is
held in the project archive, and a summary of his results is incorporated below.
Early prehistoric
Two early prehistoric sherds were recovered; both are small and abraded. The first is
a body sherd in a very coarse, flint-tempered fabric, with traces of impressed whipped
cord decoration on the external surface; this can be identified as Middle/Late
Neolithic Peterborough ware. It was the only sherd from pit 532.
The second is a body sherd in a grog-tempered fabric, with comb tooth decoration,
clearly identifiable as Beaker. This came from the topsoil.
Late prehistoric
The condition of the later prehistoric assemblage is fair; mean sherd weight is 11.3g,
but this is somewhat biased by the presence of a few large sherds; on the whole,
sherds are small (<10g), and lightly to heavily abraded. The inclusions in some of the
shelly fabrics have leached, leaving voids.
12
Fabrics
by Lorraine Mepham and Patrick Quinn
Eight fabric types have been defined for the later prehistoric assemblage; these
include grog-tempered (Group GR), sandy (Group QU) and shelly fabrics (Group
SH), although sandy fabrics are represented by just one small body sherd.
Samples of two grog-tempered fabrics (GR1 and GR3) and two shelly fabrics (SH1
and SH4) were thin-sectioned. Both grog-tempered samples were found to be closely
related petrographically, both characterised by abundant grog temper and fossil shell
inclusions within a fine, silty, non-calcareous clay. The two samples vary only in the
relative frequencies of grog and fossil shell within each. Some of the grog fragments
contain fragments of fossil shell, suggesting the recycling of ceramics similar to the
parent fabric, but none contain second-generation grog. The shell material in SH1 and
SH4 is clearly related to that seen in GR3, and SH4 also contains sporadic grog
fragments. There are clear similarities between the four fabrics petrographically, and
all could have been produced using local resources, within the sedimentary rocks of
the Jurassic Oxford Clay Formation. The Oxford Clay is currently extracted for brick-
making in several parts of the outcrop, and could therefore have been a suitable raw
material for manufacturing ceramics. Shelly material could be sourced from the
Stewartby Member of the middle Oxford Clay. Vince, in his analysis of other Iron
Age ceramics from Cambridgeshire, suggested the Jurassic Cornbrash or lower
Oxford Clay to be the source of the fossil shell used (Vince 1997; 2006; 2007a), but
the Cornbrash is not present in the general area of Spaldwick.
Other grog-tempered and shelly fabrics (GR2, SH2 and SH3) are clearly also related
to this group, varying only in the frequency, size, and relative proportions of the grog
and fossil shell inclusions. The single sandy sherd (QU1) stands out as anomalous
within this group and, indeed, is not even definitively of Iron Age date —it came from
the topsoil.
13
Forms
A restricted range of vessel forms was identified. Of the 26 rim sherds recovered, 21
are diagnostic at least to partial profile, and these fall into seven vessel forms (see
Table 2). Other, less diagnostic rim sherds are likely also to belong to this range of
forms.
1. Vessels with beaded rims and convex, neutral profiles (R3, 7 examples; Fig. 10, 1–2)
2. Vessels with plain or slightly thickened (‘proto-bead’) rims and convex, neutral profiles (R7, 3
examples; Fig. 10, 3–4)
3. Vessels with everted rims and convex, neutral profiles (R2, 3 examples; Fig. 10, 5)
4. Vessels with sharply everted rims and rounded, open profiles (R1, 2 examples, Fig. 10, 6)
5. Vessels with upright, plain rims, shouldered (R8, 2 examples, Fig. 10, 7)
6. Open vessels with plain, upright rims (R9, 1 example, Fig. 10, 8)
7. Everted rim on necked form, profile unknown (R5, 3 examples, not illustrated)
Only eight vessels have measurable rims (examples of types 1, 2 and 4); these range
from 140mm to 180mm, with a slight focus on the upper end of this range. These
vessels could be said to fall within the ‘small to medium’ size range, following work
on vessel size and possible function on other mid- to late Iron Age assemblages from
Cambridgeshire (e.g. Hancocks 2003, 90–1; Hancocks et al. 1998, 74–5).
Decoration is confined to one type 6 vessel in fabric SH2, with a finger impression
on the outside of the rim (Fig. 10, 8), and two pinched cordons on grog-tempered
body sherds.
Surface treatments, however, are more apparent in the assemblage. A number of
sherds (29) carry surface scoring on external surfaces, although this may have as
much of a functional as a decorative function. Scoring can be horizontal (Fig. 10, 1)
or vertical; some vessels combine both (Fig. 10, 4). Both shelly and grog-tempered
vessels are scored, and diagnostic scored sherds belong to vessel types 1, 2 and 5. One
small body sherd in shelly fabric SH3 is externally burnished. No sooting or other
surface residues were observed.
14
Discussion
Shelly and sandy wares constitute the two main fabric groups in use during the middle
to late Iron Age in Cambridgeshire (Percival 2008, 5); grog-tempered wares rarely
appear before the late Iron Age. In this instance, sandy wares are virtually absent, and
the assemblage is dominated by shelly wares (89% by weight) with a smaller
proportion of grog-tempered wares (11%). This suggests that this assemblage may
have an origin in the mid- Iron Age, but that there is a definite late Iron Age
component. This is supported by the vessel forms represented —mainly convex
vessels with simple or pulled bead rims, occasionally scored, with a few necked and
cordoned vessels. The slack-shouldered vessels, which are the most commonly
represented form in most mid- to late Iron Age assemblages in Cambridgeshire (ibid.,
3) are scarce here, and occur only in shelly wares.
In terms of parallels with other mid- to late Iron Age assemblages from
Cambridgeshire, Spaldwick shows little overlap with the mid- Iron Age assemblage
from Cambourne, either in form or fabric (Leivers 2009), while other nearby sites
along the route of the A428 provide parallels for the shouldered forms, but show the
reliance on sandy and shelly fabrics characteristic of sites in the south of the county.
Closer parallels can be found in the west of the county, from sites such as Little
Paxton, Hinchingbrooke and sites along the route of Ermine Street (Hancocks 2003;
Hancocks et al. 1998). At Little Paxton, the Spaldwick assemblage appears to overlap
with phases 3 (Late Iron Age handmade) and 4 (Late Iron Age/Transitional), but lacks
the wheelthrown wares of the latter phase. The period 1 (Late Iron Age) assemblage
from Tort Hill West on Ermine Street contains similar proportions of grog-tempered
and shelly wares (Hancocks et al. 1998, table 5). Overall, while the Spaldwick
assemblage may have Middle Iron Age origins, it seems to fit best within the ‘Late
pre-Belgic Iron Age’ range of c. 100 BC–AD 20 (ibid., 77).
Distribution
Late prehistoric sherds were recovered from 27 cut features either phased as
prehistoric on stratigraphic grounds, or presumed to be of prehistoric date solely on
datable pottery; a relatively small number of sherds (24) occurred residually in later
15
features and topsoil contexts. However, the numbers of sherds from individual
features within this overall distribution is generally very low. Only three features
produced more than 20 sherds (ditch 794, 26 sherds; ditch 783, 35 sherds; ditch 784,
78 sherds). The group from ditch 784 stands out not only by reason of its size, but
also for a relatively high average sherd weight (16.9g, while ditches 783 and 794 have
average sherd weights of 9.1g and 9.7g respectively). Vessel forms represented in
ditch 784 comprise types 1, 2 and 4: Fig. 10, 1–3). There is some suggestion of a
ceramic sequence through the ditch’s fills: in one section, the primary fill contained
only shelly wares, whereas grog-tempered wares appear in the secondary deposits.
In terms of patterning across the site and through the stratigraphic sequence, however,
there is little more that can be drawn from this small assemblage. Both shelly and
grog-tempered wares occur from the earliest stratigraphic phases. One of the two
examples of the shouldered vessel form (type 5), which might be considered an
‘early’ form within this assemblage, came from the stratigraphically latest feature
(enclosure ditch 794), which also yielded seven Romano-British sherds, including two
of decorated samian.
Early/mid-Saxon
The identification of a Saxon element within the assemblage is somewhat
problematic. A total of 109 sherds have been dated as early/mid-Saxon solely on the
grounds of fabric; there are no clearly diagnostic sherds. Nearly all fabrics are sandy
and are almost entirely unoxidised; these are harder-fired than those sandy wares
identified as later prehistoric (although petrographic examination indicates that all
were fired to less than 850°C, the same as the prehistoric fabrics), and coarser. The
condition of the sherds is fair; despite their hard-fired nature, sherds on the whole are
smaller than in the prehistoric assemblage, and are at least slightly abraded. Mean
sherd weight is 6.0g.
16
Fabrics
by Lorraine Mepham and Patrick Quinn
A total of eight fabrics has been identified (Table 1), and samples of six were thin-
sectioned (Q400, Q401, Q402, Q404, Q405, Q406).
The Saxon fabrics are compositionally distinct from the prehistoric sherds analysed in
that they are dominated by quartzose inclusions rather than shell and/or grog. In all
but one sample (Q402) this material appears to have derived from sandstone. The
source of this sandstone material is not entirely clear. Sandy layers occur within the
Oxford Clay and in the Kellaway Beds below it. However, these are doggers or sandy
clay rather than pure sandstones of the type seen in these fabric samples.
Nevertheless, the calcareous sandstone seen in Q402 could have derived from a
calcareous cemented sandy layer in the Oxford Clay or other Jurassic marine
sedimentary unit. Vince found calcareous sandstone inclusions in Iron Age ceramics
from Cambridgeshire and interpreted it as having a Lower Cretaceous origin (Vince
2006); he also found calcareous sandstone temper in Saxon ceramics from the county,
which he interpreted as the Jurassic Spilsby Sandstone (Vince 2007b).
Non-calcareous quartz arenite sandstone (as in Q400) does not occur as a primary
outcrop in the region around Spaldwick and the nearest in situ sandstone outcrops
may be some distance away. However, eroded sandstone clasts could be present in the
glacial till or fluvio-glacial material that covers the Oxford Clay in places. Given that
the sandstone clasts in several of the samples are thought to have been added as
temper (Q400, Q401, Q406), it is possible to envisage the selection of glacial erratic
for this purpose. Vince also attributed the presence of sandstone inclusions in Saxon
ceramics from Cambridgeshire to the use of boulder clay (Vince 2007b and c).
Forms
There are only four rim sherds amongst the Saxon assemblage. One of the rims (from
‘fire pit’ 725) is from a fairly thick-walled vessel with an upright, rounded rim. The
other rims are simple and rounded in profile, but the rim orientation and overall vessel
profile are unknown in all cases. These do not, therefore, help to confirm the dating of
17
the assemblage. No decoration is present, and only eight sherds (three in fabric Q401,
four in Q403, and one in Q404) are burnished.
Discussion
The dating of this small group of sherds, then, has to rely heavily on parallels with the
fabric types, and there are similarities with early/mid-Saxon wares identified at other
Cambridgeshire sites, such as Cambourne New Settlement and Eynesbury (Seager
Smith 2009; Mepham 2004), as well as the assemblages previously analysed by Vince
(2007b and c). In the absence of a well-understood and well-dated early/mid-Saxon
ceramic sequence for the region, the Eynesbury assemblage was dated broadly, on
typological grounds, to the 5th–7th centuries, and it is likely that the Spaldwick
assemblage falls within the same date range.
Only 16 Saxon sherds came from features stratigraphically phased as Saxon (12 from
pit 663, 2 from ‘fire pit’ 435 and 2 from ‘fire pit’ 725). In addition, 20 sherds from pit
525 may serve to date this feature, if one small medieval sherd can be considered as
intrusive, while three sherds from pit 455 have been taken as dating evidence, albeit
tentative. A further 13 sherds formed the only dating evidence in three postholes in
timber building 799, but their small size and highly abraded nature precludes their use
as firm evidence. All other Saxon sherds came from later features and topsoil
contexts.
List of illustrated vessels (Figure 10)
1. Beaded rim (R3); shallow horizontal scoring; fabric SH2. PRN [Pottery Record Number] 23,
context 468, enclosure ditch 784.
2. Beaded rim (R3); fabric SH2. PRN28, context 470, enclosure ditch 784.
3. Rim, convex vessel (R7); fabric SH3. PRN138, context 678, enclosure ditch 784.
4. Rim, convex vessel (R7); deep multi-directional scoring; fabric SH3. PRN102, context 610, pit
612.
5. Rim, everted, on convex vessel (R2); fabric SH4. PRN197, context 773, ditch 788.
6. Rim, everted, on rounded, open vessel (R1); fabric SH4. PRN15, context 432, ditch 783.
7. Shouldered vessel with upright rim (R8); fabric SH4. PRN202, context 623, enclosure ditch
794.
18
8. Open, convex vessel with plain rim (R9), single ?finger impression on outside of rim; fabric
SH2. Context 575, enclosure ditch 792.
Animal Bone
by L. Higbee
A total of 1,348 fragments (or 10.768kg) of animal bone was recovered from the site;
this is a raw fragment count and when adjusted to take account of refits the figure falls
to 1,191 fragments. The majority of this material comes from Iron Age and early/mid-
Saxon contexts (Table 3), but the number of identified fragments from each period is
quite small and this limits its potential for detailed analysis.
In terms of species proportions, the Iron Age and late Saxon/medieval phases appear
to be sheep/goat dominated, while the early/mid-Saxon phases appear to be dominated
by cattle. Whether or not this apparent difference in the relative importance of
livestock species is real and reflects a shift in husbandry strategy between the local
Iron Age economy and that of the Saxon period, and then back again, is uncertain
given the small sample size. It is also difficult to assess how the Spaldwick
assemblage fits with regional period trends since variations in the relative importance
of sheep/goat and cattle have been noted for both main periods (Hambleton 1999, 46;
Crabtree 2010).
Analysis of body parts and age data indicates that livestock were raised locally and
slaughtered on-site, and suggests that the local economy was a self-sufficient producer
of meat and secondary products.
Less common species include pig, horse, dog, red deer (mostly antler), domestic fowl
and cat. The latter is from an Iron Age context and is likely to belong to a wildcat
rather than a domestic animal.
Other finds
A small fragment of an antler comb was recovered from possible early/mid-Saxon pit
525; this is part of the tooth plate from a double-sided composite comb of a type
19
current from the Romano-British through to the medieval period (MacGregor 1985,
fig. 51).
Of the 48 pieces of worked flint recovered, most is flake debitage, and not
chronologically distinct. Of the tools, the three scrapers are of varied date: a large end
scraper made on a tertiary trimming flake in a distinctive banded flint is likely to be
(perhaps later) Neolithic; an end scraper on a pale brown blade with neat edge damage
on both margins is likely to be Early Neolithic or even Mesolithic; a somewhat
shapeless end and side scraper on a secondary flake struck from a small pebble is
likely to be earlier Bronze Age. There are also two gun flints of post-medieval date.
Raw material was mostly a pale to dark brown inclusion-free flint, with a worn cortex
indicating a source in the local drift geology.
A small quantity of slag was recovered. Some of this clearly represents iron smithing
slag, and includes one possible hearth bottom, from early/mid-Saxon waterhole 673.
However, the small assemblage also includes pieces of a very light, vesicular
material, grey in colour, which results from some kind of pyrotechnic activity, but not
necessarily metalworking. Overall, the quantities of slag are insufficient to postulate
on-site metalworking, or any other industrial activity. Fragments came from topsoil,
and from both prehistoric and medieval features.
Other finds comprise very small quantities of ceramic building material (medieval and
post-medieval brick and roof tile); fired clay (probably structural, mainly from Iron
Age contexts, including one fragment with wattle impressions); glass (post-medieval
vessel and window); stone (fragment of saddle quern from Iron Age enclosure ditch
792, chalk spindlewhorl from enclosure ditch 784); and metalwork (including copper
alloy buttons, buckle and pin, lead sheet fragment, iron nails, key and scythe, all
medieval or later).
20
ENVIRONMENTAL
Charred plant remains
Chris J. Stevens
Introduction
Thirty-four bulk samples were taken and processed for charred plant remains and
charcoal. On the basis of the assessment, which on the whole indicated few cereal
remains or charred plant remains other than charcoal, six samples were selected for
full analysis. The selected samples came from three middle to late Iron Age features
(enclosure ditches 784 and 792; pit 612 from group 800), two early/mid-Saxon
features (‘fire pit’ 433; pit 525), and one Late Saxon/medieval (ditch 782).
Methods of analysis
The samples were processed using standard flotation methods with the flot collected
on a 0.5mm mesh. For the six samples selected for analysis all identifiable charred
plant macrofossils were extracted from the flots, together with the 2mm and 1mm
residues. Identification was undertaken using stereo incident light microscope at
magnifications of up to x40, following the nomenclature of Stace (1997) for wild
species and the traditional nomenclature as provided by Zohary and Hopf (2000,
tables 3 and 5) for cereals. The results are presented in Table 4. In the case of the
0.5mm to 1mm fraction from ditch 784 the sample was extremely rich in small weed
seeds and for this reason only one-third of the sample was examined. The results were
then multiplied by three to provide estimates for the flot as a whole.
Results
Iron Age
The Iron Age samples were dominated by remains of both emmer wheat (Triticum
dicoccum) and spelt (Triticum spelta) wheat. These were particularly prevalent in the
samples from pit 612 (group 800) and ditch 784. Generally spelt was better
represented than emmer in the samples, with glume bases outnumbering grains.
21
Barley (Hordeum vulgare) grains were also present, although far outnumbered by
those of hulled wheats. Only in one case, in the grain from pit 612, was hulled barley
identified. Grains of free-threshing wheat were also present, although only in low
numbers.
No other crop remains were present in these samples, although remains of potential
wild foods including hazelnut (Corylus avellana) shell fragments and a seed of
bramble (Rubus sp.) were recorded. These samples also produced thorns of
sloe/hawthorn (Prunus spinosa/Crataegus monogyna).
The samples from pit 612 and enclosure ditch 784 contained several tubers of pignut
(Conopodium majus). However, given that these same samples also yielded
tubers/rhizomes of onion couch grass (Arrhenatherum elatius) and monocot (sedge,
grass or rush) rhizomes, rootlets and stems, this might suggest they are more likely to
have been associated with turf material rather than deliberately collected.
The samples included reasonably large numbers of seeds of wild species, in particular
from ditch 784. The latter sample was dominated by smaller seeds of orache (Atriplex
sp.), fat-hen (Chenopodium album) and clover (Trifolium sp.). Other seeds present in
all three samples included those potentially associated with grassland but equally
possibly from arable fields, including dock (Rumex sp.), meadow grass/cat’s tails
(Poa/Phleum sp.), brome grass (Bromus sp.) and oats (Avena sp.). The richer two
samples also produced seeds of a large range of species associated both with
grassland and arable fields; these included vetch/wild pea (Vicia Lathyrus sp.), medick
(Medicago lupulina), selfheal (Prunella vulgaris), ribwort plantain (Plantago
lanceolata), red bartsia (Odontites vernus) and perennial rye grass (Lolium perence).
Species more closely associated with arable fields in these two samples included
scentless mayweed (Tripleurospermum inodorum) and stitchwort (Stellaria sp.).
Saxon and medieval
Of the three Saxon and medieval samples, that from the early/mid-Saxon ‘fire-pit’
433 produced very little in the way of plant macros, being dominated by wood
charcoal. However, those present did include several thorns of sloe/hawthorn (Prunus
spinosa/Crataegus monogyna), along with three intact fruits of sloe (Prunus spinosa),
22
of which two had the stones clearly visible, and a well preserved stone. The only other
remains in this sample were a single grain of rye and a seed of vetch/wild pea (Vicia
Lathyrus sp.).
The remaining two samples had a greater quantity of cereal remains, although only
that from late Saxon/medieval ditch 782 might be deemed rich in cereal remains.
Unlike the Iron Age samples, these samples produced no remains that might be
associated with turves.
Early/mid-Saxon pit 525 produced a few grains of barley (Hordeum vulgare sl) and a
single rachis fragment and several grains of free-threshing wheat (Triticum
aestivum/turgidum type). A possible grain of hulled wheat was recovered along with
two extremely badly preserved glume bases. This sample also has a single fragment of
hazelnut (Corylus avellana) shell. Seeds of wild species were relatively few but
comprised a similar range of species to those seen in the Iron Age samples. These
included fig-leaved goosefoot (Chenopodium ficifolium), dock (Rumex sp.), clover
(Trifolium sp.), meadow grass/cat’s tails (Poa/Phleum sp.), oats (Avena sp.) and
stinking mayweed (Anthemis cotula).
The richer sample from late Saxon/medieval ditch 782 had a large number of grains of
free-threshing wheat (Triticum aestivum/turgidum type), with a similar number of
rachis fragments of free-threshing wheat. In most cases these rachises were not
identifiable, but in a few cases they could be indentified as from hexaploid free-
threshing wheat, (Triticum aestivum sl).
Weed seeds mainly comprised both small and large seeded species. In the former
group were those of fat-hen (Chenopodium album), orache (Atriplex sp.), dock
(Rumex sp.) and stinking mayweed (Anthemis cotula). In the latter group were seeds
of vetch/wild pea (Vicia Lathyrus sp.), cleavers (Galium aparine/tricornutum) and oats
(Avena sp.).
23
Discussion
Iron Age
The cultivation of both spelt and emmer within other parts of East Anglia during the
Iron Age is well testified (Stevens 2009a and b; Murphy 1997). The high numbers of
glume bases to grain indicates that all three samples result from the charring of
dehusking waste from the processing of spelt and/or emmer stored in the spikelet.
Other aspects of crop-husbandry might be difficult to elicit from the samples. Given
the presence of both tubers of pignut (Conopodium majus), and swollen tubers of
onion couch grass (Arrhenatherum elatius), along with numerous rhizomes and stems
of monocotyledonous plants, there is a question of whether the seeds of wild species
recovered from the Iron Age samples arrived with turf material or were harvested
with cereal remains.
The range of species represented is for the most part indicative of neutral to
calcareous, long, seldom-grazed grassland. Along with pignut and onion couch grass
such species potentially include clover (Trifolium sp.), black medick (Medicago
lupulina), vetch/wild pea (Vicia Lathyrus sp.), red bartsia (Odontites vernus), annual
meadow grass/cat’s tails (Poa/Phleum sp.), and potentially indicative of slightly more
disturbed grassland, ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata), dock (Rumex sp.), brome
grass (Bromus sp.), cinquefoils (Potentilla sp.), self-heal (Prunella vulgaris),
knotgrass (Polygonum aviculare) and oats (Avena sp.). While pignut is an unlikely
component of arable fields, all the remainder, particularly the latter group, could
equally represent arable weed seeds. Amongst those species whose seeds are found in
the samples, but are less likely to be associated with turves from long-grassland are
many seeds of orache (Atriplex sp.), fat-hen (Chenopodium album), chickweed
(Stellaria media), black bindweed (Fallopia convolvulus) and scentless mayweed
(Tripleurospermum inodorum).
At the very least, most of these species would appear to be reflective of generally
drier, lighter, neutral to calcareous soils, and hence suggestive that such local soils
were under cultivation. Wetland species are rare but blinks (Montia fontana subsp.
24
chondrosperma) was recovered from ditch 792 and sedge (Carex sp.) from the other
two samples, although in low quantities.
High numbers of monocot stems and rhizomes along with tubers of onion couch grass
(Arrhenatherum elatius) are common in parts of northern England where they were
probably associated with the burning of turves (Hall 2003; Hall and Huntley 2007).
The other alternative is that they derive from ground-breaking and vegetation
clearance, which was then burnt perhaps during the formation of a fire-break (cf.
Stevens 2008).
Saxon and medieval
The charcoal from ‘fire pit’ 433 contained large quantities of sloe or blackthorn
(Prunus spinosa) (Barnett, below), and it is probable that many of thorns derive from
the burning of blackthorn or hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) twigs and branches.
The presence of several whole fruits of sloe (Prunus spinosa), while possibly
representative of the collection of such fruits for consumption, are also likely to have
come in with scrub/hedge material collected as fuel, still attached to the plant.
Fruits of sloe gradually dry on the plant and become quickly wrinkled, and this would
imply that the wood with the berries is likely to have been collected between
September and November. More importantly, it suggests that at least some of the
wood, if not a large part of it, was burned green with the berries still attached.
The cereals from ditch 782 and pit 525 are relatively typical of Saxon and medieval
assemblages with a high prevalence of free-threshing wheat, along with smaller
amounts of barley and rye (Stevens 2009c). The high numbers of rachis fragments is
of some significance, particularly since they are far more readily destroyed during
charring than grains (Boardman and Jones 1990). The ratio of rachis fragments to
grain is 1:2–6; as such, a higher ratio of rachis fragments, as seen here, is
characteristic of threshing waste (van der Veen 1992, 82), in particular rachises
removed by raking or coarse sieving.
Both small and large seeds are relatively prolific in the samples, although it might be
noted that around half of the small weed seeds are of stinking mayweed (Anthemis
25
cotula), which has a tendency to remain in the heads and therefore is often removed
with coarse sieving waste. The samples are likely to come from the waste generated
from processing sheaves for clean grain. It is quite possible that as such the crops
were stored as sheaves after harvesting in summer. However, whether this was a
common practice, or one that was only conducted in years when poor weather
conditions restricted the processing of crops following harvest, is difficult to gauge
from two samples.
The presence of stinking mayweed (Anthemis cotula) can be associated with the
cultivation of heavy clay soils. This species occurs in earlier periods, but only upon
Romanised settlements, and its widespread occurrence in the Saxon period as seen
here is quite probably related to the introduction of heavy mouldboard ploughs
(Stevens with Robinson 2004).
Wood Charcoal
Catherine Barnett
Introduction
Five samples were analysed for charcoal, all from the early/mid-Saxon ‘fire pits’. All
wood charcoal >2mm was separated from the processed flots and the residue scanned
or extracted as appropriate. The samples proved rich and so were sub-sampled, with a
number of fragments felt to be representative of the sample as a whole identified,
normally 100 fragments. The fragments were prepared for identification according to
the standard methodology of Leney and Casteel (1975, see also Gale and Cutler
2000). Each was fractured with a razor blade so that three planes could be seen:
transverse section (TS), radial longitudinal section (RL) and tangential longitudinal
section (TL). The pieces were mounted on a glass microscope slide using modelling
clay, blown to remove charcoal dust and examined under bi-focal epi-illuminated
microscopy at magnifications of x50, x100 and x400 using a Kyowa ME-LUX2
microscope. Identification was undertaken according to the anatomical characteristics
described by Schweingruber (1990) and Butterfield and Meylan (1980) to the highest
taxonomic level possible, usually that of genus, with nomenclature according to Stace
(1997).
26
A list of taxa by period is given in Table 5. Individual taxa were quantified (mature
and twig separated), and the results tabulated (Table 6).
Results and Discussion
As shown in Table 5, a minimum of eight woody species were represented overall.
The charcoal from each of these five early/mid-Saxon features proved relatively
similar, supporting the assumption that they are related in function and chronology.
Three of the five were heavily dominated by blackthorn (Prunus spinosa) at 60–86%,
with common Pomoideae (usually indentifiable further as hawthorn, Crataegus type)
at 10–14%. Pomoideae, however, formed the dominant type in pit 435 at 70%, with
ash (Fraxinus excelsior) in pit 724 at 46%, though blackthorn was still common in the
latter. Oak (Quercus sp) occurred in three contexts, while field maple (Acer
campestre), buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) and elder (Sambucus nigra) each
occurred in one context.
All the taxa found are relatively common deciduous types and most are tolerant of a
variety of free-draining soils. However, in combination the taxa found are strongly
suggestive of hedging or open scrub. In addition, for all of the species represented,
there proved to be an overwhelming predominance of juvenile wood, twigwood and
young roundwood, usually 3–10 years old when cut. Although there was clearly a
substantial presence of roundwood, this varied in age, diameter and species, so there
is no clear indication of management of woody resources, for example by coppice
rotation. Instead, exploitation of substantial quantities of immature scrub and/ or
hedges for fuel is indicated. Whether this was purposeful or as a result of extensive
earlier deforestation in the area which limited availability of larger trees and shrubs or
access to remaining resources is unclear. However, it is apparent that a very open
landscape occurred locally during the Saxon period.
Despite the fact that young narrow pieces dominated, a high temperature of burn was
achieved with the selected fuel, as attested to by the glassy, vitrified appearance of
many of the pieces. According to the experimental work of Prior and Alvin (1983),
temperatures >800ºC are necessary to achieve this. It might be suggested that, given
the young wood and types used, careful management of the fire, possibly within a
27
restricted area or structure would be needed to reach such temperatures, and casual
domestic fires are not indicated.
DISCUSSION
Neolithic and Bronze Age
There is very limited evidence for pre-Iron Age activity on or around the site, in the
form of residual Neolithic and Bronze Age finds; the assemblage is largely indicative
of transient occupation. Land on the Oxford Clays was only sporadically exploited
prior to the Iron Age, and there are very few known pre-Iron Age sites in the area (e.g.
Hall 1992, 96; Ellis et al. 1998, 107).
Late Iron Age (1st century BC–1st century AD)
This period saw more permanent occupation of the site. The creation of a trackway
implies the use of the area for pastoral agriculture and the movement of animals.
From this period onwards the demarcation of boundaries and the construction of
enclosures increasingly express the sense of tenure from which a sustained settlement
emerges. Only one possible roundhouse structure was found in the excavated area,
and the evidence is not very convincing. However, the occurrence of wattle
impressions on a fragment of fired clay is indicative of structural remains, and more
structures may have existed, possibly beyond the western and southern limits of the
site. A variety of subsistence activities (cereal grain-processing, textile-working, iron
smithing) are represented in the range and quantity of occupation debris recovered,
implying a mixed farming economy. Emmer and spelt wheat were being cultivated in
an increasingly deforested area; sheep/goat were the predominant animal species
exploited, together with cattle in smaller numbers. There is slight evidence for the
exploitation of the fenland in the form of blinks and sedge, possibly introduced to the
settlement with fodder. The pottery suggests that while the settlement may have
Middle Iron Age origins, the focus of activity is likely to lie within the range of c. 100
BC–AD 20, and that the site was probably abandoned by the time of the conquest.
Whether occupation spanned the whole of this date range, or was relatively short-
lived, is not possible to determine from the ceramic evidence, although the
intercutting of ditches implies more than one phase of enclosure.
28
The Spaldwick settlement is one of a number of such sites excavated within the
county, and the environmental and economic background to Iron Age settlement in
the region, including the fen-edge, has been increasingly well researched. The main
strands of evidence indicate expansion of settlement on to the claylands during this
period, possibly reflecting the exploitation of marginal lands as a result of population
growth, or due to climate change leading to increased flooding of lower-lying areas
(Haselgrove et al. 2001, 29; Abrams and Ingham 2008, 30). There is a general
increase in activity along the fen-edge; there are more settlements, and more
artefactual evidence, including an increase in traded products. There is little evidence
of the latter from Spaldwick —a quernstone and a chalk spindlewhorl. The closest
parallels for the pottery appear to lie with sites in the west of the county, rather than
those to the east or south, but there is no evidence to indicate that they were anything
other than locally produced.
The size of the Spaldwick enclosures is broadly comparable to those at Scotland Farm
on the A428 in the south of the county (Abrams and Ingham 2008, fig. 2.1), but the
agglomeration of enclosures seems to have grown more organically than at the latter
site, while the construction of sub-rectangular rather than curving enclosure ditches
can be paralleled also at Knapwell Plantation and Little Common Farm at
Cambourne, also on the A428 (Wright et al. 2009, fig. 15, fig. 22), and these also
lacked internal buildings, as at Spaldwick, though only small areas of the four
enclosures were exposed on the latter site.
The abandonment of the settlement may have coincided with the arrival of the Roman
legions (cf Ellis et al. 1998, 107) or may be linked to increased flooding which led to
many settlements in the Ouse/Nene region being abandoned by the 1st century AD
(Dawson 2000, 111–14). That some kind of presence persisted in the area, however, is
implied by the sporadic occurrence of Romano-British pottery.
Early/mid-Saxon (5th–8th centuries)
Activity on the site during this period is somewhat enigmatic. There are no definite
structures, but this is in line with the general pattern across the region, where
settlement was concentrated in the valleys and is rare on the clay uplands, which were
29
probably used primarily for pasture (Wright 2009, 115–6). The presence of a probable
waterhole certainly fits the latter supposition
The nine sub-rectangular ‘fire pits’ excavated are of uncertain function, and the dating
evidence from them is very slight (four sherds of pottery). The charcoal found within
them indicates the exploitation of large quantities of immature scrub or hedges for
fuel. The relatively small size of the pits, the type of fuel burnt in them, and the
presence of variable quantities of lightly burnt flint nodules renders their initial
interpretation as charcoal-burning pits highly unlikely. The ‘pitsteads’ used in the
Saxon charcoal-burning industry were usually circular, often banked around the
edges, and at least 4 metres across (see Steane 1985, 222 for medieval examples), and
would have used very large quantities of mature wood (up to several tons in each
episode of burning) which, given the evidence for the deforestation of the surrounding
landscape, would not have been easily available. A link with metalworking is
unsupported by any other firm evidence for on-site metalworking in the form of slag,
but some kind of craft or industrial function still seems to be the best interpretation.
The relatively large quantity of animal bone recovered from the pits should be noted
(more than was recovered from the whole of the late Saxon/medieval phase), as
should the concentration of this material, together with fired clay and nodules of
lightly burnt flint, in one of the pits; it may be that these pits were used for cooking.
Any connection with the later village development seems fortuitous.
Late Saxon/early medieval (9th–11th/12th centuries)
The evidence from the late Saxon to early medieval period is of particular interest in
throwing some light, albeit somewhat dim, on the origins of the modern village.
Comparable evidence is scarce within the county. This period saw the creation of
formalised land divisions or tofts which extended south from what is now Thrapston
Road, a medieval route which perhaps originated as a hollow-way through the
settlement. These tofts appear to have contained rectangular post-built timber
structures with fences sub-dividing the yard areas, and perhaps represent the
beginnings of the village. Evidence of the cultivation of the clay soils of the area,
probably related to the introduction of heavy mouldboard ploughs, comes in the form
of seeds of stinking mayweed recovered from one of the boundary ditches.
30
The area at this time formed part of Mercia, with Cambridge as a possible frontier
burh, but it is assumed that the arrival of the Danes in 875, and a settlement at
Cambridge from c. 889, must have stimulated some reorganisation of land ownership,
from multiple estates with dependent tenures, to the Danish system of free tenancies
(Ellis et al. 2001, 103). In this context it is perhaps significant that the early village
was named ‘Danesfield’. After the reconquest of the Outer Danelaw in 916–7,
serfdom and the manorial system were reintroduced. It is more likely that the laying
out of tofts in Spaldwick is linked to the latter phase, given the pottery evidence,
which includes St Neots and Stamford wares and other 10th–12th century wares from
the boundary ditches, although the rectangular buildings produced only residual
early/mid-Saxon sherds. The village may, however, have slightly later origins. A
possible parallel can be seen at Bassingbourn in the south of the county, where there
is a suggestion of an earlier (early/mid-Saxon) origin to the village, with subsequent
changes in layout taking place in the 10th/11th century and possibly linked to land
ownership changes after the Norman conquest (Ellis et al. 2001, 123).
In terms of pottery, the late Saxon and early medieval village shows less reliance on
local supplies, with regional wares (from St Neots and Stamford) appearing from the
10th century; this may reflect the position of the settlement on what may have been
even at that time a major route between Cambridge, Huntingdon and Thrapston. There
is little else, however, to illustrate the material culture of the settlement. In contrast to
the early/mid-Saxon period, cattle were predominant rather than sheep/goat (although
quantities are very small), while weed seeds suggest that the heavy clay soils of the
area were being increasingly cultivated; crops include wheat, barley and rye.
Acknowledgements
Wessex Archaeology would like to thank Steve Daniels of SD Construction and
Development Ltd for his assistance with the project, and also Dan McConnell,
Historic Environment Officer for Cambridgeshire County Council, for his guidance
and support.
The fieldwork was directed by Susan Clelland, assisted by Ross Lefort, Virginia
Meszaros, Jeff Muir, Virginia Vargo and Marius Wisniewski. The fieldwork was
31
managed by Brendon Wilkins, and the post-excavation analysis and publication by
Andy Crockett. The illustrations were drawn by Elizabeth James.
The archive is currently stored at the offices of Wessex Archaeology under the project
code 75070, but in due course will be deposited with the Cambridge Archaeological
Store under the accession code ECB3445.
32
Bibliography
Abrams, J & Ingham, D 2008 Farming on the Edge: archaeological evidence from
the clay uplands to the west of Cambridge. Albion Archaeology/East Anglian
Archaeology Report 123, Bedford: Albion Archaeology
Boardman, S & Jones, G 1990 Experiments on the effects of charring on cereal plant
components. Journal of Archaeological Science 17: 1–11
Butterfield, BG & Meylan, BA 1980 Three-Dimensional Structure of Wood: an
Ultrastructural Approach. London and New York: Chapman and Hall
CCCAFU 1996 Land on and behind Thrapston Road, Spaldwick, Cambridgeshire.
Cambridge County Council Archaeology Field Unit report 127/1996
Crabtree, P 2010 Agricultural innovation and socio-economic change in early
medieval Europe: evidence from Britain and France. World Archaeology 42(1): 122–
136
Dawson, M 2000 ‘The Iron Age and Romano-British period: a landscape in
transition’. In M Dawson (ed), Prehistoric, Roman, and Post-Roman Landscapes of
the Great Ouse Valley. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 119, York:
107–30
Ellis, P, Hughes, G, Leach, P, Mould, C & Sterenberg, J 1998 Excavations alongside
Roman Ermine Street, Cambridgeshire, 1996: the archaeology of the A1(M)
Alconbury to Peterborough Road Scheme. Birmingham University Field Archaeology
Unit Monograph Series 1/British Archaeological Report British Series 276, Oxford:
Archaeopress
Ellis, P, Coates, G, Cuttler, R & Mould, C 2001 Four Sites in Cambridgeshire:
excavations at Pode Hole Farm, Paston, Longstanton and Bassingbourn, 1996–7.
Birmingham University Field Archaeology Unit Monograph Series 4/British
Archaeological Reports British Series 322, Oxford: Archaeopress
33
Gale, R & Cutler, D 2000 Plants in Archaeology. Westbury and Royal Botanic
Gardens, Kew
Hall, D 1992 The South-western Cambridgeshire Fenlands. East Anglian
Archaeology/Fenland Project No. 6, Cambridge
Hall, A 2003 Recognition and characterisation of turves in archaeological
occupation deposits by means of macrofossil plant remains. Centre for Archaeology
Report 16/2003, Portsmouth: English Heritage
Hall, AR & Huntley, JP 2007 A review of the evidence for macrofossil plant remains
from archaeological deposits in Northern England. Research Department Report
Series 87–2007, Portsmouth: English Heritage
Hambleton, E 1999 Animal husbandry regimes in Iron Age Britain: a comparative
study of faunal assemblages from British archaeological sites. British Archaeological
Report British Series 282, Oxford: Archaeopress
Hancocks, A 2003 ‘The Iron Age pottery from Little Paxton near Bedford’. In A
Gibson (ed.), Prehistoric Pottery: People, Pattern and Purpose. Prehistoric Ceramics
Research Group Occasional Publication 4/British Archaeological Report International
Series 1156, Oxford: Archaeopress, 103–56
Hancocks, A, Evans, A & Woodward, A 1998 ‘The prehistoric and Roman pottery’.
In Ellis et al. 1998, 34–79
Haselgrove, C, Armit, I, Champion, T, Creighton, J, Gwilt, A, Hill, J D, Hunter, F &
Woodward, A 2001 Understanding the British Iron Age: an Agenda for Action.
Salisbury: Prehistoric Society/Wessex Archaeology
Leivers, M 2009 ‘Prehistoric pottery’. In Wright et al. 2009, CD-Rom
Leney, L & Casteel, RW 1975 Simplified procedure for examining charcoal
specimens for identification. Journal of Archaeological Science 2: 53–159
MacGregor, A 1985 Bone, Antler Ivory and Horn: the technology of skeletal
materials since the Roman period. London and Sydney: Croom Helm
34
Mepham, L 2004 ‘Saxon pottery’. In CJ Ellis, A Prehistoric Ritual Complex at
Eynesbury, Cambridgeshire: Excavation of a multi-period site in the Great Ouse
Valley, 2000–2001. East Anglian Archaeology Occasional Paper 17/Wessex
Archaeology, Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology, 53–7
Morris, EL 1994 The Analysis of pottery. Wessex Archaeology Guideline 4,
Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology
MPRG 2001 Minimum Standards for the Processing, Recording, Analysis and
Publication of Post-Roman Ceramics. Medieval Pottery Research Group Occasional
Paper 2
Murray, J 1998 Land off Ferriman Road, Spaldwick, Cambridgeshire: an
archaeological evaluation. Hertford Archaeological Trust Report 298
Murphy PJ 1997 ‘Environment and economy’. In S Bryant, Iron Age, in J Glazebrook
(ed.), Research and Archaeology: a Framework for the Eastern Counties, 1. Resource
Assessment. East Anglian Archaeology Occasional Paper 3, 30–1
PCRG. 2010 The Study of Later Prehistoric Pottery: general policies and guidelines
for analysis and publication. Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group Occasional Paper
1/2 (3rd ed)
Percival, S 2008 Pottery (Bronze Age and Iron Age), in Abrams and Ingham 2008:
CD-Rom, Appendix 5
Prior, J & Alvin, KL 1983 Structural changes on charring woods of Dictostachys and
Salix from Southern Africa. International Association of Wood Anatomists Bulletin
4(4): 197–206
Schweingruber, FH 1990 Microscopic Wood Anatomy. Birmensdorf: Swiss Federal
Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (3rd ed.)
Seager Smith, R 2009 ‘Saxon pottery’. In Wright et al. 2009, CD-Rom
Stace, C 1997 New Flora of the British Isles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
(2nd ed.)
35
Steane, JM 1985 The Archaeology of Medieval England and Wales. London and
Sydney: Croom Helm
Stevens CJ 2008 ‘Cereal agriculture and cremation activities’. In MJ Allen, M Leivers
& CJ Ellis, Neolithic causewayed enclosures and later prehistoric farming: duality,
imposition and the role of predecessors at Kingsborough, Isle of Sheppey, Kent, UK.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 74: 296–9.
Stevens, CJ 2009a ‘The local and wider Iron Age landscape’. In Wright et al. 2009,
69–72
Stevens, CJ 2009b ‘The Iron Age agricultural economy’. In Wright et al. 2009, 78–84
Stevens, CJ 2009c ‘The Anglo-Saxon agricultural economy’. In Wright et al. 2009,
116
Stevens, CJ with Robinson, M 2004 ‘Production and consumption: plant cultivation’.
In G Hey, Yarnton: Saxon and Medieval Settlement and Landscape. Thames Valley
Landscape Monograph, Oxford: Oxford Archaeology, 81–2
Van der Veen, M 1992 Crop Husbandry Regimes: An archaeobotanical study of
farming in northern England 1000 BC – AD 500. Sheffield Archaeological
Monograph 3/JR Collis Publications, Sheffield: University of Sheffield
Vince, A 1997 The petrology of some shell-tempered pottery from Cambridgeshire
(Site LHP97). Alan Vince Archaeological Consultancy (AVAC) Report 1997/004
Vince, A 2006 Characterisation studies of Iron Age pottery from the A428 Caxton to
Hardwick Improvement Scheme, Cambridgeshire (CH1131). Alan Vince.
Archaeological Consultancy (AVAC) Report 2006/74
Vince, A 2007a Characterisation of Iron Age and Roman shell-filled pottery from
Earith, Cambridgeshire. Alan Vince Archaeological Consultancy (AVAC) Report
2007/34
36
Vince, A 2007b Petrographic analysis of Saxon and medieval pottery from Stratton,
Bedfordshire, and Cambridgeshire: early to mid Anglo-Saxon wares. Alan Vince
Archaeological Consultancy (AVAC) Report 2007/119
Vince, A 2007c Characterisation studies of Cambridgeshire Anglo-Saxon and
medieval pottery: Colne Ware. Alan Vince Archaeological Consultancy (AVAC)
Report 2007/112
Wessex Archaeology 2002a Land adjacent to 33 Thrapston Road, Spaldwick,
Cambridgeshire: desk-based assessment. Wessex Archaeology Report 51568E
Wessex Archaeology 2002b Land adjacent to 33 Thrapston Road, Spaldwick,
Cambridgeshire: archaeological evaluation. Wessex Archaeology Report 51568.02
Wright, J 2009 Anglo-Saxon settlement, in Wright et al. 2009, 105–6
Wright, J, Leivers, M, Seager Smith, R & Stevens, CJ 2009 Cambourne New
Settlement: Iron Age and Romano-British settlement on the clay uplands of west
Cambridgeshire. Wessex Archaeology Report 23, Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology
Zohary, D, & Hopf, M 2000 Domestication of plants in the Old World: the origin and
spread of cultivated plants in West Asia, Europe, and the Nile Valley. Oxford:
Clarendon Press (3rd ed.)
37
List of Figures
Figure 1: Site location
Figure 2: Overall view of site during excavation, view from the south-west
Figure 3: Iron Age features – phase plan
Figure 4: Sections of selected Iron Age features (enclosure ditches 783, 792 and 798)
Figure 5: Early/mid-Saxon features – phase plan
Figure 6: Sections of selected early/mid-Saxon features (waterhole 663, ‘fire pit’ 724)
Figure 7: ‘Fire pit’ 433 after partial excavation
Figure 8: Late Saxon/medieval and post-medieval features – phase plan
Figure 9: Sections through late Saxon/medieval boundary ditch 782
Figure 10: Prehistoric pottery
List of Tables
Table 1: Pottery fabric totals and summary descriptions
Table 2: Iron Age vessel forms by fabric
Table 3: Animal bone: number of identified specimens present (or NISP) by period
Table 4: Charred plant remains
Table 5: Charcoal species list
Table 6: Charcoal from early/mid-Saxon ‘fire pits’
38
Table 1: Pottery fabric totals and summary descriptions
Fabric Code
No. sherds
Weight (g)
PREHISTORIC- Beaker 1 3- Peterborough ware 1 7
GR1*Abundant, subangular grog <2.5mm; sparse fossil shell fragments <1mm; in fine silty clay matrix 42 245
GR2Common, poorly sorted, subangular grog <3mm; ‘lumpy’ texture; no shell visible in hand specimen 3 63
GR3*As GR1, but grog less common and fossil shell more common 2 14
QU1Rare subrounded quartz <0.5mm; in fine clay matrix. One small body sherd only 1 1
SH1*Abundant, poorly sorted fossil shell fragments <4.5mm; rare quartz; rare burnt plant matter; in fine clay matrix 73 1025
SH2 As SH1, but shell finer and better sorted 48 565
SH3Sparse fossil shell fragments <1mm; sparse to moderate, well sorted, subangular grog <1mm; in fine clay matrix 25 265
SH4*Sparse fossil shell and calcite fragments <2mm; sparse subangular grog <1mm; rare quartz; in fine clay matrix 75 854
sub-total prehistoric 271 3042SAXON
QU400*
Quartz inclusions <0.5mm, derived from arenitic sandstone in slightly calcareous clay matrix; crushed sandstone possibly added as temper 28 184
QU401*
Sandstone inclusions (quartz, polycrystalline quartz, and rock fragments) <1mm and fossil shell <1mm in fine, non-calareous clay matrix; both possibly added as temper 44 222
QU402*
Coarse fabric: rounded quartz and polycrystalline quartz <2mm, some possibly added as temper, in fine, non-calcareous clay matrix; sparse carbonate inclusions 13 92
QU403 Fine fabric: finer variant of Q400; inclusions <0.25mm 13 58
QU404*
Quartz-rich sandstone inclusions <2mm (quartz and polycrystalline quartz), poorly sorted, probably naturally occurring; possible plant temper, in non-calcareous clay matrix 1 16
QU405*
Abundant quartz, polycrystalline quartz and sandstone <2mm (derived from coarse arkosic sandstone); sparse carbonate inclusions, whether temper or naturally occurring uncertain; in non-calcareous clay matrix 2 11
QU406*
Sand-sized inclusions of quartz and polycrystalline quartz <0.5mm (well sorted, probably added as temper) in silty non-calcareous clay matrix; sparse chert and sandstone inclusions 3 37
VE400Organic-tempered fabric: moderate, fairly well sorted organic inclusions <3mm; rare quartz 5 32
sub-total Saxon 109 652OVERALL TOTAL 380 3694
* indicates fabrics samples for petrographic analysis
39
Table 2: Iron Age vessel forms by fabric
Vessel Form GR1 GR2 SH1 SH2 SH3 SH4 TotalType 1: Convex vessels with beaded rims
1 1 3 2 7
Type 2: Convex vessels with plain or ‘proto-bead’ rims
2 1 3
Type 3: Convex vessels with everted rims
2 1 3
Type 4: Rounded, open vessels with sharply everted rims
1 1 2
Type 5: Shouldered vessels with plain, upright rims
1 1 2
Type 6: Open vessels with plain rims
1 1
Type 7: Everted rim, necked form
1 1 1 3
TOTALS 2 1 4 7 2 5 21
40
Tab
le 3
:Ani
mal
bon
e: n
umbe
r of
iden
tifie
d sp
ecim
ens p
rese
nt (o
r N
ISP)
by
peri
od
Peri
od/S
peci
es
cattle
sheep/goat
pig
horse
dog
red deer
domestic fowl
cat
rat
Unidentifiable
Total
Iron
Age
phas
e 1
33
Iron
Age
phas
e 2
1211
13
11
8010
929
Iron
Age
pha
se 3
2886
213
33
41
133
248
215
0Ea
rly/m
id-S
axon
5436
132
35
278
391
113
Late
Sax
on/m
edie
val
1026
71
9413
844
Mod
ern
62
1321
8U
ndat
ed2
74
12
3147
16
Tot
al11
216
846
93
812
11
831
1191
360
41
Tab
le 4
: Cha
rred
pla
nt r
emai
ns
Phas
eIA
IAIA
E/M
Sa
xon
E/M
Sa
xon
LSax
/med
Feat
ure
Num
ber
792
612
642
433
525
782
Feat
ure
type
ditc
hpi
tdi
tch
‘fire
pit’
pit
ditc
hC
onte
xt51
560
967
843
452
474
8Sa
mpl
e21
3724
518
27Si
ze/L
itres
88
1717
182
Flot
110
100
180
1650
110
020
Roo
ts25
2065
330
10
Cer
eal
Com
mon
Nam
eH
orde
um v
ulga
re sl
(gra
in)
barle
y2
1h14
-3
-H
. vul
gare
sl (r
achi
s fra
gs)
barle
y-
1-
-1
-Tr
iticu
m sp
. (gr
ains
)w
heat
22
--
--
Triti
cum
dic
occu
m/s
pelta
(gra
in)
emm
er/s
pelt
whe
at5
648
-cf
.1-
T. d
icoc
cum
/spe
lta (g
lum
eba
ses)
emm
er/s
pelt
whe
at33
111
est.
160
-2
-T.
dic
occu
m/s
pelta
(spi
kele
t for
ks)
emm
er/s
pelt
whe
at-
23
--
-Tr
iticu
mdi
cocc
um(g
lum
e ba
se)
emm
er w
heat
4-
est.
16-
--
T.di
cocc
um(s
pike
let f
ork)
emm
er w
heat
1-
--
--
Triti
cum
spel
ta (g
lum
e ba
ses)
spel
t whe
at2
6328
--
-Tr
iticu
msp
elta
(spi
kele
t for
k)sp
elt w
heat
-2
--
--
Triti
cum
aest
ivum
/turg
idum
(gra
ins)
brea
d/riv
et w
heat
cf.1
13
-7
127
T.ae
stiv
um/tu
rgid
um(r
achi
s fra
gs)
brea
d/riv
et w
heat
--
--
-10
5
T. c
f. ae
stiv
um (h
exap
loid
rach
is fr
ags)
hexa
ploi
d ra
chis
fr
agm
ent
--
--
-3
Seca
le c
erea
le (g
rain
)ry
e-
--
1-
1Se
cale
cer
eale
(rac
his f
rags
)ry
e-
--
--
13C
erea
l ind
et. (
grai
ns)
cere
al2
-45
-2
-C
erea
l ind
et. (
est.
who
le g
rain
s fro
m fr
ags.)
cere
al-
--
--
-C
erea
l cul
m n
odes
cere
al-
--
--
2Sp
ecie
sC
omm
on N
ame
Cor
ylus
ave
llana
haze
lnut
1-
--
1-
Ranu
ncul
us su
bg. R
anun
culu
s (ar
b)bu
tterc
up1
11
--
-
42
Fum
aria
sp.
fum
itory
--
1-
--
Che
nopo
dium
fici
foliu
mfig
-leav
ed g
oose
foot
22
--
1-
Che
nopo
dium
alb
umfa
then
-3
est.
60-
-19
Atri
plex
sp.
orac
he-
3es
t.22
0-
136
Stel
lari
a m
edia
chic
kwee
d1
1es
t.3
--
-
Stel
lari
a pa
lust
ris/
gram
inea
mar
sh/le
sser
st
itchw
ort
-1
est.
3-
--
Mon
tia fo
ntan
a su
bsp.
cho
ndro
sper
ma
blin
ks3
--
--
-
Pers
icar
ia m
acul
osa/
lapa
thifo
lium
reds
hank
/pal
e pe
rsic
aria
1-
4-
--
Poly
gonu
m a
vicu
lare
knot
gras
s-
-8
--
-Fa
llopi
a co
nvol
vulu
sbl
ack
bind
wee
d-
-8
--
-Ru
mex
sp.
dock
27
est.
28-
28
Bras
sica
sp.
blac
k m
usta
rd e
tc.
--
est.
1-
--
Rubu
s sp.
bram
ble
1-
--
--
Rubu
s/Ro
sa ty
pe sp
. (th
orn)
bram
ble/
rose
type
th
orns
11
--
--
Pote
ntill
a sp
.ci
nque
foil/
torm
entil
--
est.
4-
--
Prun
us sp
inos
a(f
ruit/
ston
es)
sloe
--
-3/
1-
-P.
spin
osa/
Cra
taeg
us m
onog
yna
(thor
ns)
sloe
/haw
thor
n th
orns
81
2++
-2
Med
icag
o lu
pilin
abl
ack
med
ick
-5
est.
31-
--
Trifo
lium
sp.
clov
er3
20es
t.90
-3
-G
aliu
m a
pari
ne/tr
icor
nutu
mcl
eave
rs1
-4
--
36Vi
cia.
/Lat
hyru
s sp.
vetc
h/pe
a1
-20
1-
5cf
. Lat
hyru
s nis
sola
gras
s-pe
a-
-1
--
-C
onop
odiu
m m
ajus
(tub
ers)
pign
ut-
211
--
-Pr
unel
la v
ulga
ris
selfh
eal
--
est.
3-
-1
Plan
tago
lanc
eola
ta
ribw
ort p
lant
ain
--
est.
21-
--
Odo
ntiti
es v
ernu
sre
d ba
rtsia
--
est.
9-
--
Sher
ardi
a ar
vens
isfie
ld m
adde
r-
2-
--
-Sa
mbu
cus n
igra
elde
r-
--
--
1
Ate
race
ae in
det.
>2.5
mm
Inde
t. D
aisy
/this
tle
type
--
--
-1
Trip
leur
ospe
rmum
inod
orum
scen
tless
may
wee
d-
1es
t.9
--
-
43
Anth
emis
cot
ula
stin
king
cha
mom
ile-
--
-1
24M
onoc
ot R
oot s
tem
s/cu
lms/
inte
rnod
esgr
ass/
sedg
e st
ems
212
est.
170
--
-Le
mna
sp.
duck
wee
ds-
-1m
--
-C
arex
sp. l
entic
ular
sedg
e fla
t see
d-
1-
--
-C
arex
sp. (
trigo
nous
)se
dge
(trig
onou
s)-
-3
--
-Po
acea
e la
rge
(cul
m n
ode)
gras
s cul
m n
ode
-2
--
-1
Loliu
m p
eren
neL.
rye
gras
s-
2es
t.6
--
4
Poa/
Phle
um sp
.m
eado
w g
rass
/cat
s'-ta
ils2
9es
t.12
-2
-
Arrh
enat
herm
um e
latiu
s var
. bul
bosu
mfa
lse o
at-g
rass
(tu
ber)
--
20-
--
Aven
asp
. (gr
ain)
oat g
rain
12
30-
133
Aven
a L.
/Bro
mus
sp.
oat/b
rom
e-
4310
--
-Br
omus
sp.
brom
e2
1210
--
-Se
ed in
det.
smal
l3
--
--
-in
det r
oot/t
uber
-2
4-
--
Cha
rred
rode
nt d
ropp
ing
1-
--
--
44
Table 5: Charcoal species list
Species Common NameAcer campestre Field MapleCorylus avellana HazelFraxinus excelsior AshPomoideaeCrataegus type
Pomaceous fruits e.g. apple, whitebeam, hawthornHawthorn
Prunus sp.Prunus spinosa
Cherry type, includes bird cherry, wild cherry, blackthornBlackthorn
Quercus sp. OakRhamnus cathartica BuckthornSambucus nigra Elder
45
Tab
le 6
:Cha
rcoa
l fro
m e
arly
/mid
-Sax
on ‘f
ire
pits
’
Feat
ure
Con
text
Sam
ple
Size
L
itres
Flot
Si
ze m
lC
harc
oal
4/2
mm
Com
men
ts
Acer t
Corylus avellana
Fraxinus excelsior
Pomoideae
Pomoideae, Crataegus
Prunus sp.
Prunus spinosa
Quercussp.
Rhamnus catartica
Sambucus i
Unidentified
Total no frags used
433
434
517
1650
1
700/
500
ml
V l
arge
sam
ple,
big
pi
eces
, oc
c. f
issu
red
and
vitri
fied.
*0
.8–
2.2c
m
5–13
yr
s, **
1–2.
2cm
5–2
2 yr
s
-2 rw
d1
-14
*-
83 rw
d**
--
--
100
435
436
119
1700
950/
425
ml
Ric
h sa
mpl
e,
larg
e pi
eces
(e
sp
Pom
oide
ae),
occ.
vitri
fied
6-
3-
701
-12
5 twd
3-
100
450
452
168
425
150/
150
ml
Mod
erat
e sa
mpl
e,
seve
ral
war
ped
and
vitri
fied
but
fria
ble
and
frag
men
tary
, al
l yo
ung
rwd
1–1.
5cm
di
amet
er,
*3–5
yr
s, **
5 yr
s, 3–
10 y
rs
--
10 rwd
*
10 rwd*
*
--
60 rwd*
**2
rwd
--
7,1
twd
100
724
723
322
250
160/
50 m
lM
oder
ate
sam
ple
but
larg
e pi
eces
(e
sp
Pom
oide
ae),
occ.
fis
sure
d an
d vi
trifie
d.
*1–3
cm
3–
8 yr
s, **
1cm
4–5
yrs
--
46 rwd
*
16-
18 rwd*
-20 rw
d**
--
-10
0
729
730
342
400
240/
100
ml
Mod
erat
e sa
mpl
e bu
t in
c v
larg
e pi
eces
. *i
nc 1
.2–2
.2 c
m 8
–11
yrs
--
-13
, 1
twd
--
80 r
wd*
, 6
twd
--
--
100
Key
: rw
d –
roun
dwoo
d; tw
d –
twig
woo
d
Cambridgeshire
R. Nene
R. Ouse
R. C
am
Old Nene R
.
Site location Figure 1
Digital Map Data © (2004) XYZ Digital Map Company
Spaldwick
Peterborough
Cambridge
Godmanchester
Little Paxton
Eynesbury
Bassingbourne
Cambourne
Huntingdon
ER
MIN
E S
TR
EE
T
The Site
0 50m
512800
272900
Site outline
1998 Evaluation
1996Evaluation
Earthworks
Boundary of'Danesfield'late Saxonvillage
Excavation area
Evaluation trench
Archaeological feature
The Site513000
512500
272000
273000
A504
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2012.
Spaldwick
Tree-throw hole
St James'
Church
Figure 2
Iron Age phase plan Figure 3
Excavation area
Iron Age: Phase 1
802
Gully774
Boundary ditch783
Enclosure
784
Gully 758
Enclosure792
Gully789
Gully796
Rubbishpits 800
Ditch 788
Gully790
Gully787
Enclosure798
Enclosure794
612
801
549
762
440
701
693
695
Boundary ditch628
20m0 10
Later phase/undated
Section line
Iron Age: Phase 2
Iron Age: Phase 3
Sections of selected Iron Age features Figure 4
23.97m ODS N
24.39m ODSENW
400
736
735
734
733
732
575
577
574
1m0
Boundary ditch783
Enclosure792
Enclosure798
Early/mid-Saxon phase plan Figure 5
Excavation area
Early-mid-Saxon
Pit 724
Pit 455
Waterhole663
Pit 715
Pit 433
Pit 729
Pit 752
Pit 435
Pit 725Pit 705
20m0 10Other phase/undated
Pit 525
Pit450
Section line
675
Sections of selected Saxon features Figure 6
1m0
720
721
722
723
23.80m OD
Fire pit 724
Burnt flint
Low charcoal density
Medium charcoal density
High charcoal density
NNE SSW
23.65m ODNW
Ceramics
Charcoal flecks
Waterhole 663
791
676673
674
672
671
670
668666
667
669
SE
Flint
Figure 7
Late Saxon/medieval and post-medieval phase plan Figure 8
Excavation area
Late Saxon-medieval
Pit 490
Ditch 780
20m0 10Other phase/undated
Pit 543
776
Section line
Post-medieval
Ditch 782
?Hollow way804
Gully 793
Surface 404
Wall 402
Pit 406
Gully539
Structure803
Structure799
Fence786Pit
448
Fence786
Ditch 791
Sections of selected medieval features Figure 9
1m0
23.17m OD
N
Charcoal flecks
S
Flint
583
582
584
586
585
588
Ditch 782
Ditch recut422
Ditch recut587
500 100mm
12
34
5
6
7
8
Figure 10