by Tim Pestell
The Middle Anglo-Saxon significance of Rudham became evident in i99i when Mr David Fox and Mr Philip West undertook metal-detecting and fieldwalking in the western parish. Profuse finds of metalwork were accompanied by many sherds of Ipswich ware. Since i994 the work has continued under Messrs Barry and Ashley Mears. To the south and west of St Peter’s, the parish church of West Rudham, an area of about five hectares has produced Middle AngloSaxon material including two sceattas, of Series D and E (710–15 and 710–30) and three ninth-century silver strap-ends (Fig. 10.3 b–d). A small number of objects have been recovered outside this well-defined area, but only to the north around the present village (Fig. 10.3 a and e).
The situation in East Rudham is far less clear. Some 1.4km north-east of the western site, metal-detecting carried out by Mr Barry Mears over a very limited period in a field no longer under arable produced three sceattas, of Series BII and C (700–10) and R (730–50), and a cross-shaped brooch. A few Middle Anglo-Saxon sherds were also recovered. The site lies 300m from St Mary’s parish church. The nearest part of a contiguous arable field has yielded a further Series E sceatta. Despite providing restricted opportunities for survey East Rudham is without doubt more numismatically productive than its western neighbour.
FIGURE 10.3. Selected finds from Rudham, scale 1:1. (a) Gilded copper-alloy fragment of the head of a pin or possibly stylus, eighth century. (b)–(d) Three silver strap-ends, each with Trewhiddle-style animals on a niello-inlaid ground, two rivets and empty eyes, probably once filled with glass pellets. Mid ninth century.vv (e) Carolingian copper-alloy strap-distributor with four empty perforations which would have once held dome-headed rivets. The arms are decorated with plant ornament, the tendrils probably picked out in silver wire against a niello ground (now silver coloured). The object has not been scientifically analysed. Later ninth century. Drawn by Sue White
In common with Burnham and Congham, Middle Anglo-Saxon Rudham is set against a background of prolific amounts of Early Anglo-Saxon metalwork which have been recorded over a much larger area and which must, at least in part, be derived from inhumation burials. However, unlike the other two places the seventh-century component is not strong, although undoubtedly present. In the Rudhams metal and pottery finds of the tenth and eleventh centuries are more numerous and widespread than those of the Middle AngloSaxon period, but could not be described as remarkable.
West Walton
At the extreme western edge of Marshland, an area of silt soils south of the Wash, and only one and a half kilometres from the River Nene which forms the boundary between Norfolk and Lincolnshire, lies the only known ‘productive’ site in the Norfolk fenland. The modern village, with its splendid medieval church, has seen considerable growth in modern times.
The site was discovered by Bob Silvester during fieldwalking for the Fenland Survey in the early 1980s (Silvester 1988, 92), with Ipswich ware spread over fields to the north and south of the parish church of St Mary. The Sea Bank, a sea defence earthwork now considered to have been constructed in the Late Anglo-Saxon period (Crowson et al. 2000, 229) runs c. 800m to the west. Middle Anglo-Saxon finds are confined to areas of very slightly elevated ground which Silvester demonstrated were the confluence of the raised silt banks or ‘roddons’ of relict Iron Age watercourses. A detailed field survey by Silvester and the present author was left unfinished, and as a result an incomplete and unsatisfactory plan has been published (Andrews 1992, fig. 4d). A second Middle Anglo-Saxon site in West Walton, a smaller concentration of finds 1.6km to the north, has more recently been subjected to trial excavation (Crowson et al. 2000, 216–7).
Regular searching with a metal-detector was begun by Mr Michael Carlile in 1987. The Fenland Survey recovered no evidence for Early Anglo-Saxon activity at West Walton which, because of unfavourable environmental conditions prevalent over most of Marshland at that period, was not suitable for settlement. This absence has been confirmed by metal-detector survey. Likewise, changes in Late AngloSaxon times with the onset of a more dispersed settlement pattern (Silvester 1988, 92), are mirrored in the distribution of tenth-and eleventh-century metalwork
Small quantities of Middle Anglo-Saxon metal finds have been recovered south of the parish church and include one Series G sceatta (710–25). To the north, a rather well-defined area of profuse finds is similar in size and location to what is known of the pottery distribution and covers c. 2.8ha. Recording of findspots has been of sufficient detail to demonstrate that metalwork does not occur very close to the churchyard, indicating that the ‘productive’ zone is not continuous with the area of Middle Anglo-Saxon occupation to the south. The northern field has produced a substantial group of unremarkable metal finds, along with six sceattas, four of Series E (710–30), one of Series Q (715–30) and one unidentified. In contrast, only four sceattas have been recorded from other Norfolk Marshland sites (two each from Walpole St Peter and Walsoken), while Hay Green in Terrington St Clement, by far the largest of the group of nine Middle Anglo-Saxon settlements (Rogerson and Silvester 1986), has proved almost devoid of Middle Anglo-Saxon metalwork.
Wormegay
In common with West Walton, the archaeology of Wormegay island, an outcrop of mineral soil within the peat-filled lower valley of the Nar, has benefited from the attentions of the Fenland Survey (Silvester 1988, 143–50). Ipswich ware was first recovered from the Middle Anglo-Saxon site, the sole one on the island, in 1970. A detailed ‘sherd-by-sherd’ survey, completed in 1991 recorded a crisply defined area of Ipswich ware extending to 1.8ha next to the edge of the island on a southern-facing slope (Andrews 1992, 21). St Michael’s parish church is close by to the west, while the medieval and medium sized modern village, with its motte-and-bailey castle, sits one and a half kilometres away on the western edge of the island.
Metal-detecting, which commenced in 1993, has been carried out chiefly by Mr Steven Brown, on far fewer occasions than on the other sites under consideration. The distribution of metal objects matches very closely that of the pottery. The assemblage includes nineteen pins and two styli, as well as six sceattas, of Series B and BII (700–10), Series D (710–15), Series E (710–30), Series J (710–50) and Series R (730–50). The latest coin is a denier of Louis the Pious (814–40). The likelihood that concentrations of possible iron-smelting slag to the south-west of St Michael’s church are Middle Anglo-Saxon (Andrews 1992, 21) remains unproven. The material is more likely to be Romano-British given the distribution of other finds of that date.
Evidence for Early Anglo-Saxon activity on the site is sparse, consisting of fragments of two sixth-century brooches and one sherd. The ‘handful’ of Thetford-type ware sherds (Silvester 1988, 146) is insufficient to indicate occupation continuing into the tenth century, a point borne out by a corresponding lack of Late Anglo-Saxon metal finds. Exceptions to this are two fragments of a Viking gilt-bronze oval brooch (or possibly a pair) found within an almost sherd-free gap in the Middle Anglo-Saxon pottery distribution on its south-west side (Andrews 1992, fig. 7). It may be significant that a spread of human bones coincides with this gap, and a Scandinavian burial may be indicated.
Discussion
Pre-Domesday Norfolk suffers from a paucity of documentary sources which contrasts strikingly with the wealth of archaeological evidence. The latter, though, is heavily skewed towards non-excavated surface collected data. No large excavation of a Middle Anglo-Saxon site has been conducted since work at North Elmham ceased in 1971 (WadeMartins 1980). None of the sites under discussion has seen more than trial trenching, and all six owe a recognition of their significance to non-invasive surveys, largely carried out by amateurs.
Bawsey is undoubtedly the pre-eminent place in terms of ‘productivity’ and in common with the other five it was certainly a settlement, rather than a periodically visited and sporadically occupied fair or market. It is tempting to see it as a more obvious candidate than Wormegay for ‘one of the estate centres from which the Middle Saxon settlement of Marshland was organise
d and controlled’ (Crowson et al. 2000, 225). Its total of six styli (the highest in Norfolk) certainly suggests literacy, but it would be dangerous to insist on a monastic role solely from these objects. An administrative function at an aristocratic or royal centre, which required the presence of clerical men, seems as plausible. Nor should Bawsey’s role as a minor wic be ruled out, given its near-coastal location. Like West Walton and Wormegay it was of little importance in the fifth and sixth centuries, but unlike them it had its origins in the seventh.
West Norfolk forms part of a large sector of the county which remained unurbanised until the twelfth century despite a largely above-average population in the Late Anglo-Saxon period (Atkin 1985, fig. 2). Bawsey and another coastal site and potential wic, Burnham, could be proposed as candidates to fill this lacuna, at least in the eighth and ninth centuries, although thereafter this part of the county remained strictly rural until the emergence of the major port of (King’s) Lynn in the 1090s. Burnham was to survive as a minor market town in the Middle Ages but Bawsey dwindled, almost to the point of desertion, under the twin threats of inadequate access to the sea and the proximity of Lynn.
The permanent settlements at Congham and the two Rudhams were at inland locations, and both were places of significance in the Early Anglo-Saxon period. Communication, in the form of the Icknield Way rather than the tenuous links with the River Babingley, probably contributed to Congham’s role as a centre of trade, but it is difficult both to pinpoint the forces behind the amount of activity that is evident in East and West Rudham and to characterise its function. A more complete knowledge of the Roman road network in that area might provide an explanation for its location.
The role of West Walton must surely be closely linked to its eight companions along the arc of Middle Anglo-Saxon settlements in Marshland. The surfaces of all nine sites are characterised by profuse quantities of animal bone, and trial work at three has recovered evidence for salt making (Crowson et al. 2000). A large-scale meat production and export regime, presumably under the control of one or more great monasteries, or even the East Anglian king, has yet to be demonstrated (Silvester 1988, 158). Yet, if this were the case, then as well as an administrative and trading centre at Bawsey, a subsidiary port on the banks of the Nene at West Walton might well have been necessary.
The best interpretation of the restricted and short-lived, almost exclusively Middle Anglo-Saxon, insular site at Wormegay, might be that it was monastic. Its topographic setting is reminiscent of the three probably monastic sites in Suffolk, at Brandon, Butley and Iken (Carr et al. 1988; Fenwick 1984; West et al. 1984). An additional indicator may be the presence of an inhumation cemetery, admittedly unexcavated and undated.
In all the above there has been only a superficial treatment of the material and much surmise, despite the small and anachronistic area chosen for study. Without a major study of the evidence now available for the whole of Middle Anglo-Saxon East Anglia, we can go little further in understanding the economic, political and social dynamics which were at play during the seventh to ninth centuries. Markets, fairs and ‘productive’ sites must be set alongside their more numerous low status neighbours, some of whose inhabitants were surely the consumers of a proportion of what passed through the former. It is hoped that Stanley West’s presentation of the artefactual evidence for Anglo-Saxon Suffolk (West 1998) will soon be followed by a Norfolk volume, to be assembled by the same author. As well as corpera and syntheses of what has been recorded, on a par with what has been achieved for Lincolnshire and Hampshire (Ulmschneider 2000a and 2000b), there remains a pressing need for more detailed surface surveys of known sites of every status and size, including the six above examples, followed by carefully targeted and high quality excavations.
CHAPTER 11
The Afterlife of ‘Productive’ Sites in East Anglia
Tim Pestell
In this paper I shall consider ‘productive’ sites from a rather different perspective, namely their Late Anglo-Saxon and Norman landscape histories. Although this approach might at first seem strange, sites notable simply for having unusually large metalwork assemblages clearly need to be placed within the context of wider settlement hierarchies. Moreover, when a whole region such as East Anglia has little in the way of early documentary sources, we have little choice but to pursue these later clues for any hints they may give us about the earlier landscape in which ‘productive’ sites operated. The region is almost devoid of historical sources until 1086 when, in contrast, the richness of Little Domesday Book provides a detailed snapshot of the Early Norman landscape, albeit one with limitations in focus and scope. Finally, a later perspective is required when casual observation seems to indicate East Anglia has a high coincidence of Middle Anglo-Saxon ‘productive’ sites and important later land units, in particular the locations of post-Conquest monasteries.
Clearly, back-projecting provides no secure interpretation for the origins and nature of Middle Anglo-Saxon ‘productive’ sites. Is it therefore possible to discuss the presence and distribution of different archaeological site types, separated by two or three hundred years, in any meaningful way? I aim to show that we can, and that in so doing, ‘productive’ sites can indeed be seen as distinct and of above-average importance in Middle Anglo-Saxon settlement hierarchies, rather than ‘normal’ types of site from which greater numbers of artefacts have been recovered by metal-detection (Richards 1999b and this volume).
In addition to studying the documentary evidence for those ‘productive’ sites discussed by Andrew Rogerson and John Newman elsewhere in this volume, I shall consider five other sites which appear ‘productive’, namely Hindringham, Caistor St Edmund and Burgh Castle in Norfolk and Burrow Hill and Brandon in Suffolk (Fig. 11.1).
Congham and West Walton
Of those six west Norfolk locations identified by Andrew Rogerson, four came to have monasteries founded on or close to the known ‘productive’ sites. At Congham and West Walton, however, there was no such direct religious involvement. Indeed, the later history of Congham has very little to recommend it as of especial interest. Domesday Book records only small landholdings here, held by William de Warenne, one of the greater Domesday tenants-in-chief. There was a church, but the entry is interlined in the Domesday text and no value is given (DB Norfolk, fo. 161a). Congham therefore appears to be a location best understood tenurially as simply being a minor holding of the Warenne lands.
FIGURE 11.1. Locations mentioned in the text.
West Walton has a far more interesting history. Located on the very western edge of Norfolk, traditionally it appears to have looked west rather than east. It was adjacent to Wisbech, one of the richest manors belonging to Ely Abbey, and enjoyed an association which appears to have continued into at least the thirteenth century. Wisbech came to Ely about 1016, as the gift of the East Anglia bishop jfflfwine, and formed a ferding or quarter hundred with a ten-hide valuation. Edward Miller pointed out that this arrangement possibly had an earlier origin (Miller 1951, 31–3), and a hundred court met at an unlocated place called Modich, probably in or near Wisbech, certainly by the twelfth century when mentioned in the Liber Eliensis (written 1169X1174) (Blake 1962, 125).
Wisbech became a nodal point through which riverine traffic passed from the Midlands to the sea at the Wash, leading to its wealth by Domesday at £6 in 1066, 100s in 1086 (DB Cambridgeshire fo. 192a). The town itself has an uncertain origin, but a recent small-scale excavation revealed very deeply stratified deposits caused by the frequent and sometimes deep accumulation of fine silt from episodic flooding. At 3.80m OD, three metres down, only mid thirteenth-century levels had been encountered while auguring indicated archaeological deposits extending to at least 2.60m OD (Hinman 1999, 15). The trading potential of this site in the Middle Anglo-Saxon period is extremely difficult to assess, but it is conceivable that the twelfth-century situation represents a repositioning of an earlier trading focus. If West Walton had been part of an hundredal centre, later develope
d at Wisbech, it might explain why above-average quantities of eighth-century metalwork have been found here. Indeed, a fluidity in market location may well have been enforced by the very fluidity of the ground upon which the merchants traded.
Bawsey
Bawsey arguably represents another Middle Anglo-Saxon redistributive centre which moved in response to changing topographical considerations. Bawsey is today a parish surrounded by seven others (Fig. 11.2a) and its strange zig-zag shape strongly suggests that it was carved out of an earlier surrounding land unit. That this probably included Gaywood and Mintlyn is of interest because these manors belonged to the East Anglian bishops. When Herbert de Losinga became the diocesan in 1091 he embarked upon an impressive programme of monastic patronage whereby he established a Benedictine community in his new cathedral in Norwich to which were attached a series of monastic cells, including St Leonard’s in Norwich, St Nicholas’ in Yarmouth and St Margaret’s in Lynn (Pestell 2001a). The first two cells involved the suppression of wealthy Anglo-Saxon churches but no similar institution was present in Lynn to be redeveloped. Instead, as archaeological excavation has shown (Clarke and Carter 1977), this settlement was a ‘new’ town developed by the bishop to the west of his manor of Gaywood, to exploit the evolving configuration of river and water systems in the Fenland basin. Its principal trade rival was Wisbech, then also being developed by Ely Abbey. The control of trade was clearly the principal motive behind Losinga’s foundation at Lynn and this probably represents the reconfiguration of an earlier trading centre originally located at Bawsey. In the Middle Anglo-Saxon period, Bawsey was more directly approachable by the sea, but by the twelfth century it seems to have become increasingly marginalised either by falling sea levels or by other more commercially advantageous river systems then evolving in the Wash area.
