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