LANDSCAPE AND SOCIAL PRACTICE:

THE PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION OF POTTERY IN TENTH CENTURY LINCOLNSHIRE

Volume I of II

Leigh Andrea Symonds,B. A., MA. Submitted for the degreeof Doctor of Philosophy to the University* of York, UK. Department of Archaeology December 1999 For my parents '... The is itselfaform For both practice of archaeology ofdwelling ... the dweller, landscape archaeologist and the native the tells - or rather is -a story. It enfolds the lives and times ofpredecessors who, over the generations, have moved around in itandplayed theirpart in itsformation. To perceive the landscape is therefore to carry out an act of remembrance, and remembering is not so much matters of calling up an internal image, stored in the mind, as of engaging perceptually with an environment that is itseypregnant with the past' (Ingold 1993: 152) ABSTRACT

This thesis is entitled 'Landscape and Social Practice: the production and consumption of pottery in tenth century Lincolnshire'. It explores the ways in which early historic communities structured their landscape. Landscapes are perceived and understood by people through social

manipulation of material culture: the paving of roads; the planting of hedges; the issuing and checking of passports at borders. This thesis explores ways in which archaeologists can investigate past understandings of landscape through patterns of material culture. It focuses on the social practices of pottery production, trade and consumption in tenth century Lincolnshire in order to address three themes: the perception of place, the construction of territory and mobility through the landscape. It further investigates cognitive approachesto the

analysis of material culture through the integration of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and statistical techniques.

This thesisis divided into five chapters.Chapter I addressescurrent theoretical approaches to the study of landscapes,both in archaeology,and in the humanitiesand social sciencesas a whole. It addressespast and presentarchaeological approaches to Anglo-Saxonlandscapes. It further outlines the theoreticalagenda and themesof the thesis. ChapterII establishesthe historical and geographicalcontext of the thesis. It exploresthe ways in which tenth century society understoodthe placesand territories in which they lived. It also discussestravel in early historic andmedieval England. ChapterIII discussesthe practicesof pottery production and consumptionin tenth centuryLincolnshire. It introducesthe pottery typology usedin the analysesin ChapterIV. ChapterIV exploresthe ways in which archaeologistscan research cognitive understandingsof landscapein the past. It discusseslimitations in the datato which the analysismust be adapted. Through the use of GIS and statistical methods,this chapter explores the themes of place, territory and mobility introduced in Chapter 1. Chapter V provides a discussionof the previous four chapters,integrating the historical and analytical contextsof the research. It further offers suggestionsfor future research.

-i- TABLE OF CONTENTS

VolumeI-

Abstract i

Table of Contents ii

Table of Figures v

List of Accompanying Material xii

Acknowledgements xiv

Author's Declaration xvi Chapter 1: The Geography of Landscape: Social spaceand the Anglo-Saxons I

Landscapeand Social Practice I

Virtual Landscapes 9

The Landscapein Anglo-SaxonArchaeology II

Landscapeand Material Culture 17

The landscapeof late Anglo-SaxonEngland 21 Artefact and region: Pottery productionin tenth century Lincolnshire 25 The social geographyof Anglo-ScandinavianLincolnshire 30

Summary 31

Chapter H: The Social Geography of Lincolnshire: c. 850-1100 34

Social Topographies 35

Geographiesof water 36 Geographiesof land 41

Settlementsand Communities 48

Kingdoms and counties 48 Ploughing and supportingthemselves 54 Urban landscapes 67 Tenth century Lincoln 76

-ii- Social Landscapes 81

Chapter IH: Practicesof Production:The craft of pottersin Anglo-Scandinavian Lincolnshire 83

The Study of Late Anglo-Saxon Pottery 84

ProducingPottery Data: Collection Strategiesin Lincolnshire 87

Anglo-SaxonPottery Traditions within Lincolnshire 91

ProductionPractices: Kiln-yards and their Wares 93

The kiln-yard 93 The pottery 98 Historical evidence 99 Stamfordwares 101 Torksey ware 103 Lincoln wares 104 Discussion 108

ConsumptionPractices: the Distribution of Pottery within Lincolnshire 109

Summary 113

Chapter IV: Ceramic Landscapes:Exploring Social Geography through Material Culture 115

Approaching the Landscape: Visualising the Past 117

The Reconciliation of Data 122

Pottery and Landscape:Ceramic Analysis and Social Space 126

HumanMobility 128 Routesof movement 130 Perceptionsand representationsof movement 138 SettlementInteraction 148 The urban consumptionof pottery 152 The rural consumptionof pottery 155 Territorial Identity 164

Pottery and Landscape:The Social Practicesof Productionand Consumption 168

6apter V: Landscape and Social Practice in Tenth Century Lincolnshire 173

-iii- Urban Transitions 177

Placeand Mobility in the Landscape 181

Territory and Locale 188

Landscapesof Deposition 191

Epilogue 193

- Volume II -

Table of Contents i

List of Figures iv

List of Accompanying Material xi

Figures 1

Appendix 1: AssemblageCharts 152

Appendix H: DatabaseMaterial (CD-ROM) 185

Appendix IH: Statistics (CD-ROM) 188

Bibliography 192

-iv- LIST OF FIGUPtS

Figure 1: Lincolnshire and the Danelaw 1 Figure 2: Topographyof Lincolnshire 2 Figure 3: Regionsof Lincolnshire 3 Figure 4: Lincolnshire rivers 4 Figure 5: NavigableRivers 5

Figure 6: Lincolnshire and Norfolk Fens 6 Figure 7: Domesdaysettlements in Lincolnshire 7 Figure 8: Lincolnshire Domesdayfisheries 8 Figure 9: Lincolnshire DomesdaySaltpans 9 Figure 10: Romanroads of Lincolnshire 10 Figure 11: Saltwaysand Saltpansof Lincolnshire 11 Figure 12: Lincolnshire Ploughlandsrecorded in Domesday 12 Figure 13: The SevenBoroughs of the Danelaw 13 Figure 14: Anglo-ScandinavianStamford 14

Figure 15: Distribution of Anglo-Scandinaviansculpture 15 Figure 16: Lindsey Covers 16 Figure 17: KestevenCovers 17 Figure 18: EcclesiasticalSites in Lincolnshire 18 Figure 19: Links betweenmanorial lands at Domesday 19 Figure 20: Plan of Goltho 20 Figure 21: Artistic reconstructionof Goltho 21 Figure 22: The Brompton hogbacks 22 Figure 23: Plan of Goltho: c. 850-950 23 Figure 24: Plan of Goltho: c. 950-1000 24 Figure 25: Plan of Cheddar 25 Figure 26: Artistic reconstructionof Cheddar 26 Figure 27: Plan of Flixborough 27 Figure 28: Burghal.Hidage, and ReconquestForts 28 Figure 29: Streetplan of Lincoln 29 Figure 30: Artistic reconstructionof Flaxengate,Lincoln 30 Figure 3 11Distribution of Maxey-typewares 31 Figure 32: Distribution of Ipswich ware 32 Figure 33: Danelawkilns (late 9' and 10' centuries) 33 Figure 34: Decorationon Anglo-Scandinavianpottery 34 Figure 35: Musty's Type I kilns 35 Figure 36: Excavationsat Silver Street,Lincoln 36 Figure 37: Photo of the Silver Streetkiln, Lincoln 37 Figure 38: Plan of the Silver Streetkiln, Lincoln 38 Figure 39: The kiln at StamfordCastle, Stamford 39 Figure 40: The kiln at Wharf Road,Stamford 40 Figure 41: Stamfordwares, Castle Kiln 41 Figure 42: Distribution of EST in Lincolnshire 42 Figure 43: Stamfordware, Wharf Road 43 Figure 44: Distribution of ST in Lincolnshire 44 Figure 45: Red paintedStamford ware 45 Figure 46: Stamfordcrucibles 46 Figure 47: Torksey ware 47 Figure 48: Distribution of TORK in Lincolnshire 48 Figure 49: Lincoln wares 49 Figure 50: Local Late Saxonwares (LSLOC) 50 Figure 5 1: Distribution of LSLOC in Lincolnshire 51 Figure 52: Lincoln Kiln-type ware (LKT) 52 Figure 53: Lincoln Kiln-type ware (LKT) 53 Figure 54: Distribution of LKT in Lincolnshire 54 Figure 55: Distribution of LSH in Lincolnshire 55 Figure 56: Lincoln Fine-shelledware (LFS) 56 Figure 57: Distribution of LFS in Lincolnshire 57 Figure 58: Lincoln Late SaxonSandy ware (LSLS) 58 Figure 59: Distribution of LSLS in Lincolnshire 59 Figure 60: Lincoln Saxo-NormanSandy ware (SNLS) 60 Figure 61: Distribution of SNLS in Lincolnshire 61 Figure 62: Lincoln Gritty ware (LG) 62 Figure 63: Distribution of LG in Lincolnshire 63 Figure 64: Worn SherdRim-Former 64 Figure 65: Distribution of TORKT in Lincolnshire 65 Figure 66: Distribution of HLKT in Lincolnshire 66

-vi- Figure 67: Distribution of sitesin the EMPP database 67 Figure 68: Distribution of non-EMPPsources and sites 68 Figure 69: Distribution of Anglo-Scandinavianpottery in Lincolnshire 69 Figure 69b: Number of sitesper numberof vessels 69b Figure 70: Sawyer'smap of Romanroads 70 Figure 71: Margary's map of Romanroads 71 Figure 72: Stafford's map of Romanroads 72

Proximity Graphs

Figure 73: Proximity to Rivers: EMPP vs Late Saxon sites 73

Figure 74: Proximity to Rivers: EMPP vs Late Saxonsites (percentages) 74 Figure 75: Proximity to Rivers: EMPP vs Late Saxonsites (cumulativepercentages) 75 Figure 76: Proximity to Roads:EMPP vs Late Saxonsites 76 Figure 77: Proximity to Roads:EMPP vs Late Saxonsites (percentages) 77 Figure 78: Proximity to Roads:EMPP vs Late Saxonsites (cumulativepercentages) 78

Figure 79: Distribution of siteswith more than 10 vessels 79 Figure 80: Distribution of Lincoln waresin Lincolnshire (quantity of vessels) 80 Figure 81: Distribution of Torksey ware in Lincolnshire (quantity of vessels) 81 Figure 82: Distribution of TORKT in Lincolnshire (quantity of vessels) 82 Figure 83: Distribution of ST in Lincolnshire (quantity of vessels) 83

Quantities of Pottery along Routes

Figure 84: Travelling Pots: Lincoln wares(quantities of pottery along roads) 84 Figure 85: Travelling Pots:Lincoln wares(quantities of pottery along rivers) 85 Figure 86: Travelling Pots: Stamfordware (quantitiesof pottery along rivers) 86 Figure 87: Travelling Pots: Stamfordware (quantitiesof pottery along roads) 87 Figure 88: Travelling Pots:Torksey ware (quantitiesof pottery along rivers) 88 Figure 89: Travelling Pots: Torksey ware (quantitiesof pottery along roads) 89

Euclidean RegressionGraphs

Figure 90a: Regression of Lincoln wares: Euclidean distances 90

Figure 90b: Regression of Lincoln wares: Euclidean distances excluding Goltho 90 Figure 91: Regression of Stamford ware: Euclidean distances 91

Figure 92: Regression of Torksey ware: Euclidean distances 92

-vi'- Distance Stretching Maps

Figure 93: TemporalDistance: Lincoln wares(along roads) 93 Figure 94: TemporalDistance: Lincoln wares(along rivers) 94 Figure 95: TemporalDistance: Torksey ware (along roads) 95 Figure 96: TemporalDistance: Torksey ware (along rivers) 96 Figure 97: TemporalDistance: Stamford ware (along roads) 97 Figure 98: TemporalDistance: Stamford ware (along rivers) 98

Cognitive Temporal Mapping

Figure 99: TemporalDistance mapping (Lincoln wares(along roads)) 99 Figure 100:Temporal Distance mapping (Lincoln wares(along rivers)) 100 Figure 101:Temporal Distance mapping (Torksey ware (along rivers)) 101 Figure 102: TemporalDistance mapping (Torksey ware (along roads)) 102 Figure 103:Temporal Distance mapping (Stamford ware (along roads)) 103 Figure 104: TemporalDistance mapping (Stamford ware (along rivers)) 104

Cognitive Temporal Regression Graphs

Figure 105: Regressionof Lincoln wares: Roaddistances 105 Figure 106: Regressionof Lincoln wares: Roaddistances excluding Goltho 106 Figure 107:Regression of Lincoln wares:Road distances sites greater than 10 vessels 107 Figure 108: Regressionof Lincoln wares:River distances 108 Figure 109: Regressionof Lincoln wares:River distancesexcluding Flixborough 109 Figure 110: River distancessites with more than 10 vessels 110 Figure I 11: Regressionof Stamfordware: Roaddistances ill Figure 112: Regressionof Stamfordware: Roaddistances (sites with more than 10 vessels) 112 Figure 113: Regressionof Stamfordware: River distances 113 Figure 114:Regression of Stamfordware: River distances(excluding Baston) 114 Figure 115: Regressionof Torksey ware: Roaddistances 115 Figure 116: Regressionof Torksey ware: River distances 116

Figure 117:Fenland pottery sites 117 Figure 118:Tenth and eleventhcentury pottery sites 118 Figure 119:Distribution of Anglian wares in Lincolnshire 119 Figure 120: Proportion of Lincoln wares -' 120 Figure 121:Distribution of Lincoln waresin Lincolnshire 121

-viii- Figure 122: Distribution of LKT and LSH in Lincolnshire 122 Figure 123:Distribution of LFS and SNLS in Lincolnshire 123 Figure 124: Anglo-Scandinavian Vessel Forms in Lincolnshire 124

MDS Models

Figure 126:MDS model of distancesbetween sites (sites including towns; variablesincluding vesselcounts) 126 Figure 127:MDS model of distancesbetween sites (sites excluding towns; variablesincluding vesselcounts) 127 , Figure 128: MDS model of distancesbetween sites (sites including towns; variablesexcluding vesselcounts) 128 ,, Figure 129:MDS model of distancesbetween sites (sites excluding towns; variablesexcluding vesselcounts) 129

Cluster Analysis Graphs

Figure 130: Merarchical Cluster Diagram (sitesincluding towns; variablesincluding vesselcounts) 130 Figure 131: HierarchicalCluster Diagram (sitesincluding towns; 131 variablesexcluding vesselcounts) Figure 132: K-meanscluster results(defining 8 clusters; 132 variablesincluding vesselcounts) Figure 133: K-meanscluster results(defining 9 clusters; 133 variablesincluding vesselcounts) Figure 134: K-meanscluster results (defining 10 clusters; 134 variablesincluding vesselcounts) Figure 135: K-meanscluster results (defining 8 clusters; 135 variablesexcluding vesselcounts) Figure 136: K-meanscluster results (defining 9 clusters; 136 variablesexcluding vesselcounts) Figure 137: K-meanscluster results(defining 10 clusters; 137 variablesexcluding vesselcounts)

Distribution of Cluster Analysis

Figure 138: Geographicrepresentation of k-meansclusters 138 (8 clusters,including vessels) Figure 139: Geographicrepresentation of k-meansclusters 139 (9 clusters,including vessels) Figure 140: Geographicrepresentation of k-meansclusters 140 (10 clusters,including vessels) Figure 141: Geographicrepresentation of k-meansclusters 141 (8 clusters,excluding vessels)

-ix- Figure 142: Geographicrepresentation of k-meansclusters 142 (9 clusters,excluding vessels) Figure 143: Geographicrepresentation of k-meansclusters 143 (10 clusters,excluding vessels)

Figure 144:Distribution of Lincoln waresIn Lincolnshire (quantity of vesselsexcluding Lincoln) 144 Figure 145:Distribution of Lincoln waresin Lincolnshire siteswith only Lincoln wares 145 Figure 146:Distribution of Torksey ware (with only Lincoln wares) 146 Figure 147:Distribution of ST and EST (quantitiesof vessels) 147 Figure 148:Distribution of Stamfordware in Lincolnshire Stamford 148 , siteswith only ware Figure 149: Coin finds in Lincolnshire 149 Figure 150: Density of Manorial Land at Domesday 150 Figure 151: 1e and I Vhcentury Churchfabric 151 Figure 152: Manorial localesand wapentakes 152 Figure 153: Anglo-ScandinavianPottery: South Ormsby 154 Figure 154: Anglo-ScandinavianPottery: Wainfleet All Saints 155 Figure 155:Anglo-Scandinavian Pottery: Fillingham 156 Figure 156:Anglo-Scandinavian Pottery: Homcastle 157 Figure 157:Anglo-Scandinavian Pottery: Haugham 158 Figure 158:Anglo-Scandinavian Pottery: Haverholme 159 Figure 159: Anglo-ScandinavianPottery: Grantham 160 Figure 160: Anglo-ScandinavianPottery: Newton 161 Figure 161: Anglo-ScandinavianPottery: Panton 162 Figure 162: Anglo-ScandinavianPottery: Aylesby 163 Figure 163: Anglo-ScandinavianPottery: Kirkby la Thorpe 164 Figure 163:Anglo-Scandinavian Pottery: Kirton 165 Figure 165:Anglo-Scandinavian Pottery: West Halton 166 Figure 166:Anglo-Scandinavian Pottery: Tattershall 167 Figure 167:Anglo-Scandinavian Pottery: Foston 168 Figure 168: Anglo-ScandinavianPottery: Hackthome 169 Figure 169:Anglo-Scandinavian Pottery: Nettleham 170 Figure 170:Anglo-Scandinavian Pottery: Fishtoft 171 Figure 171:Anglo-Scandinavian Pottery: Caistor 172 Figure 172:Anglo-Scandinavian Pottery: Ketsby 173 Figure 173:Anglo-Scandinavian Pottery: North Kelsey 174

-x-. Figure 174:Anglo-Scandinavian Pottery: Crowland 175 Figure 175:Anglo-Scandinavian Pottery: Sleaford 176 Figure 176: Anglo-ScandinavianPottery: Cherry Willingham 177 Figure 177: Anglo-ScandinavianPottery: Flixborough 178 Figure 178: Anglo-ScandinavianPottery: Repton 179 Figure 179:Anglo-Scandinavian Pottery: Baston 180 Figure 180: Anglo-ScandinavianPottery: Newark 181 Figure 181: Anglo-ScandinavianPottery: Goltho 182 Figure 182:Anglo-Scandinavian Pottery: Torksey 183 Figure 183:Anglo-Scandinavian Pottery: Lincoln 184

-xi- LIST OF ACCOMPANYING MATERIAL

CD-ROM:

File Directories:

/appndx2

/other /coins.dbf /manor.dbf /pottery /pottery.dbf /places.dbf /fensite.dbf /norfen.dbf /healeys.dbf /stamford.dbf

/appndx3

/cluster /hcrural.spo /hcltowns.spo /kclnv.dbf /kclnv. spo /kclvess.dbf /kclvess.spo /warelOnt.dbf /warelOt.dbf

kogreg /Irddist.dbf /hivdist. dbf /rdlreg.spo /rdsreg.spo /rdtreg.spo /rvsreg.spo /rdsreg.spo /srddist.dbf /srvdist.dbf /trddist.dbf

/eucreg /euclreg.dbf /euctreg.dbf /eucsreg.dbf /lincdist.dbf

-xii~ /stdist.dbf /torkdist.dbf

/mds /mdsrural. spo /mdstowns. spo /wareslOnt. dbf /wareslOt. dbf

-Xiii- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am pareatlyindebted to a large numberof peoplefor their input and supportover the years while I was writing this thesis. Firstly, my thanks must go to my supervisor,Dr. Julian Richards. His patienceand insight were invaluableboth to my work andto my stateof mind. Many thanks,Julian. I am also extremely grateful for the expertiseof Peter Halls from the ComputingService Department at York whoseknowledge of ARC/INFO is both dauntingand inspiring. Thankyou for all the supportyou gaveme over the years,Peter. My thanksalso are extendedto themembers of my thesisadvisory panel: Steve Roskams, Dr. TaniaDickinson and Dr. Alan Vince. Thank you all for the interestin this project and the supportwhich you gave me.

T'hisproject would not havebeen possible without the work of Dr. Alan Vince andJane Young whoseeffort in organisingthe East Midlands Pottery Project and dedication in maintainingtheir databaseallowed this thesisto be done. My thanksfor all the information you both shared with me and the interestwhich you showedthis thesis. You havemy gratitude.

My appreciationalso goesout to the archaeologistsand archaeologicalunits of Lincolnshire and surroundingareas. Thanks to CLAU andto HeritageLincolnshire. I extendmy thanksto Mick Jonesfor his kind welcome. I am grateful for the insight into the FenlandProject and the accessto the pottery datafrom that project which Dr. Tom Lane provided. Hilary Healeywas also extremely informative about her work on the pottery collections of Lincolnshire. My personal thanks must also extend to Kate Orr for her professionalintroductions and her friendship over the years. ThanksKate, for giving me a home to come to in Lincoln. Many thanksmust go to David Stockerfor the wonderful chatsand for sendingme his article to be publishedin the Viking Congress.I am indebtedto Dr. ChristopherLoveluck for sharinghis information on the Flixborough Project and for his supportand interestin this thesis. Thank you also to Naomi Field, Collin Palmer-Brownand John Samuelsfor sharingthe information in your site-reportsand articles. It was greatly appreciated.Thank you also to Kevin Leahy for your comments on the Fosse Dyke. My appreciation also extends to the SMR's of Lincolnshire, Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Northamptonshire and Derbyshire for the information they gaveme concerningtheir pottery collections.

Thereare many peopleat the Departmentof Archaeology,University of York whosepersonal and professionalsupport were greatly appreciated.Thank you to JaneGrenville and Barbara Wills for your friendship over the yearsand for extendingyour wonderful hospitality which mademe feel at homein York. Thank you also to Martin Carverfor your enthusiasticinterest in my thesis. Many thanks also to the past and present members of the post-graduate community at York, especiallyto Dr. Kate Giles, JenMacDonald, Rochelle Rowell, Jonathon Clark, Dr. Paul Miller, Dr. Peter Keinzle, Eric Johnson,Alasdair Brooks, SueBuckham, Dr. Krispriontino, Dr. Kat Rutledge,Dr. Simon Trafford and Mark Whyman.

Many peoplewere involved in the technical side of this thesiswhich dependedon the use of computer applications.Thanks are extendedto the Computer Servicesat the University of York, especiallyto PeterHalls, DaveAtkin, RobertDurnaine and John Byrne for their help and support. I am alsoextremely grateful to the staff of the PeterboroughInternet Pipeline, Canada for providing me with the opportunity to carry on my researchwhile in Canada. Thanks

-Xiv- especiallyto Rik Ling, RussSheldon, Paul Halasz,Kary Batesand Sue Corbishley for all their help and encouragement. .. I

I would not have been able to finish this thesis without the support of my friends and family. I cannot thank Jen, Kate and Mel enough for extending their friendship and that of their family. Thank you, Rik, for being the light at the end of the tunnel, and for all of your understanding and support. And most especially, my love, gratitude and thanks must be given to my parents. Without you, this thesis would never have started and certainly would never have finished. Thank you for all the opportunities you have given me.

-Xv- AUTHOR'S DECLARATION

None of the results in this thesis have been previously published. However, preliminary investigation into the representationof movementalong roads and rivers by displaying the amountof pottery travelling alongthem was presented and published for CAA '98 (Barcelona) (Symonds1999). This outlined the approachusing ARCIINFO NETWORK applicationsand routinesusing a hypotheticalroute model. This article is referredto in the thesis. Preliminary resultsfrom this model were presentedto CAA '99 (Dublin) and GIRUK 99 (Southampton). These were not published. Additional pottery information was later integrated into the representationof mobility along the Romanroads and navigablerivers of Lincolnshire. The full resultsand presentationof the datais, therefore,only containedwithin the thesis.

-Xvi- CHAPTER I

THE GEOGRAPHY OF LANDSCAPE SOCIAL SPACE AND THE ANGLO-SAXONS

'Land is not land alone, somethingthat simply is itself. Land partakes of what we breatheinto it, it is touchedby our moodsand memories'-(Naipaul1987: 30).

'The landscapeis the world as it is knownto thosewho dwell therein, who inhabit its places andjourney along the paths connectingthem' (Ingold 1993: 156).

Landscape and Social Practice

Landscapesare structured spacesperceived by people as individuals, communities and societies. Interpretationsof landscapecan be highly symbolic, suchas the visual impression of a minster,whether from the surroundingcountryside, or from the interior iconography.But a hill may simply be understoodas part of the onerouswalk to work, to be trudgedup in the winter amidstthe ice and slush,not as the body of a celestialDreamtime being. A stonemay be a placeto sit on for a hurried lunch, not part of a stonecircle suggestingesoteric relations. Landscapesare both produced and consumed. Meanings are constructedand placed on buildings, artefacts,natural featuresand life forms. As Bendernotes, 'people's experienceof the land is basedin large measureon the particularity of the social, political and economic relationswithin which they live out their lives, while at the sametime their individual actions form part of the way in which theserelations are constructed and changed' (Bender 1993: 246). Humansperceive the areasaround them andthrough this perceptionreconstruct and alter their landscape.

Landscapeis interpretedthrough the social knowledgeheld by individuals and communities. This is expressedby Giddens when he assertsthat 'all human action is carried out by knowledgeableagents who both constructthe socialworld throughtheir action,but yet whose action is also conditioned or constrainedby the very world of their creation' (1981: 54; cf.

-1- Barrett 1987:8). The social practiceswhich constructlandscape are basedon the individual actionswhich, through their repetition, becomeunderstood as patternsof social behaviour. Thesepractices are further actionsof inhabitation(Ingold 1993: 152,154; Barrett 1999:257). Thus, the landscapeis understoodthrough the situatedperspective of the peoplewho dwell it, it it. within move through and through their actionschange and alter --

The social constructionof landscapewas recently addressedby Ashmore and Knapp (1999). They structuredtheir discussionaround four themes(landscape as memory, landscapeas identity, landscapeas social order and landscape as transformation) (Ashmore and Knapp 1999: 13-9). Thesecapture the ways in which landscapeis constructed,interpreted, perceived and negotiatedby individuals and their communities. Indeed,social knowledgeof landscapeis constructedby the memoriesof peoplewhose identity is basedin their understandingof their &place'in the world. This knowledgeis not staticbut changesas the actionsof peopleproduce the experienceswhich comprisethat memory of past social practice.

Memory is integral to the understandingof landscapes.Indeed, 'landscapeis often regarded asthe materialization of memory,fixing socialand individual historiesin space'(Ashmore and Knapp 1999: 13). This is supportedthrough cognitive researchwhich 'suggeststhat human memory constructsrather than retrieves,and that the pastthus originatesfrom the elaboration of cultural memory, which is itself socially constituted(Holtorf 1997:48-50)' (Ashmoreand Knapp 1999: 13). As Barrett comments 'action draws initially upon, and is guided in anticipationby, the subject'smemory of previousexperience' (1987: 8; Giddens 1984:377). Thus,the social structureswhich condition and constrainhuman action exist in the memories of their practitionersand can, therefore,be reproduced,altered and forgotten. Interpretation of landscapeand social practice is basedon past experiences: the knowledge of the estate boundaryis held within the memoriesof the individuals who rode and re-rode the bounds, establishingand re-establishinga knowledgeof landscapethrough their actions (Robertson 1986: 162-3).

Ashmoreand Knapp link the importanceof memoryand landscape to the constructionof social identity (1999: 14). Through the social practicesstructured by previous experiences,social identity is established within the landscape. Indeed, 'people recognize, inscribe, and collectively maintain certain placesor regions ... conversely,these places create and express socioculturalidentity' (Ashmoreand Knapp 1999:15)., Social identity, in its guiseas ethnicity or as community, structuresthe landscape,creating boundaries maintained through a variety of practicesfrom regional differericesin dialect to the construction of ditched enclosures.

-2- %ile many archaeologicalstudies have focussedon the use of monumentsas signifiers of social identity (Tagon 1999; Barnes 1999;Barrett 1999), others have used material culture (Jones1997) or a cultural associationwith a particular compassdirection (e.g. north) (Shields 1991)to study social identity. Landscapeis understoodby its inhabitantsthrough their own understandingof their place within it. Thus, 'landscapeprovides a focus by which people engagewith the world and createand sustaina senseof their social identity' (Ashmore and Knapp 1999: 15).

Socialpractices are not only held within the memoryof their practitioners,they areencouraged by the collective acknowledgementof the social structuresand conditionswhich enablethe continuationof thosepractices. This is demonstratedin a charterfor the propertyat Inkberrow, Worcesterwhere following a disputebetween the bishop of Hereford and a Wulfstan and his sonover land boundaries,the shirecourt 'appointeda day for going to the estate'and declared that 'the samepeople who had tracedthe boundariesfor him [should do so again], and if the boundarieswere the sameas whenthey were first traced,the bishopwas the rightful owner of the estate' (Robertson1986: 162-3). The act of re-riding the boundsof the property by the original witnessesre-establishes the authoritybehind both the witnessesand the act of granting land itself. Thesestructures of practice,Bourdieu's habitus, producea social understanding of thought and action supportedand reinventedthrough individual and corporateactivities. Thus,'habitus, a product of history,produces individual andcollective practices - morehistory- in by history accordancewith the schemesgenerated .... a presentpast that tendsto perpetuate itself into the future by reactivation in similarly structuredpractices' (Bourdieu 1990: 54). Walking the bounds reassertsthe structures of authority which enable the witnesses- individually andcollectively - to determinethe division of landscape,the productionof locale, the creation of spaces and boundaries. Social practice is reproduced through an acknowledgementof the authority and power of individuals and institutions. Indeed, 'it is throughthe capacityof incorporation,which exploits the body's readinessto takeseriously the preformative magic of the social, that the king, the banker or the priest are hereditary monarchy,financial capitalism or the Church madeflesh' (Bourdieu 1990:57).

Landscapeis structuredthrough a situated knowledge of space and place held by people interactingwithin their communities.As that knowledgechanges through social action, so the landscapechanges and alters from the desolatemurky fen of Guthlac'sretreat to the heavenly glory of the Abbey of Crowland (Colgrave 1965:89; Darby 1974:54). The transformationof landscape(Ashmore and Knapp 1999)is boundup with issuesof memory,identity and social order. Changesin social practicemean that former practicesand interpretationsof landscape

-3- are not necessarily sustained by the individual or the community. These re-definitions of

landscape can be extremely visible such as with the re-writing of territorial boundaries, the

destruction of national monuments or the construction of new sacred monuments on culturally

virgin ground (Ashmore and Knapp 1999: 19; Richards 1999: 98). However, as Barrett notes

in his discussion of Bronze and Iron Age monuments:

'the earlier remainswere no longer absentfrom the later period for the simple reasonsthat the Iron Age wasactually an inhabitationof BronzeAge residues. Indeedwe might go further and recognizethat the Iron Age could only have arisenin the way that it did as an interpretationor as a readingof the physical manifestationof its own landscapeheritage' (Barrett 1999:258).

Renegotiationsof landscapethrough changesin social practice - signified today through a changein cultural nomenclature:Bronze versusIron; Late versusEarly - do not completely eradicatewhat went before. Instead,societies restructure and inhabit previous landscapes, constructingtheir own landscapesand social practicesthrough their use (or non-use)of past arenasof social action.

Social practiceis enactedthrough discourse. It is expressedthrough 'all the ways in which we

communicatewith one another... that vast network of signs, symbolsand practicesthrough which we makeour world(s) meaningfulto ourselvesand to others' (Gregory 1994: 11). It is embodiedthrough the interaction of people acrossthe landscape,through their day-to-day routinesand encounters.Social discourseis structuredthrough the manipulationof material culture, throughthe exchangeof coin in a marketplace which recognisesa designatedtrading locale or the building of a wall which signalsthe political and cultural separationof a people. Landscapesare producedthrough social discourse,through 'human conversationover space [which landscapes andtime ... creates] throughmetaphors and comparisons whose outcome is thebuilding of roads,towns, and cultures' (Folch-Seffa1990: 255-6). Furthermore,landscape:

4actsas a storageof cultural resources,including architecturalforms of spaces and boundariesand the temporalcycles of day/nightand seasonalityin which peoplepass through, and are held in placeby, this architecture. The material world thereforeacts as a complex seriesof locales within which meaningful and authoritativeforms of discoursecan be sustained'(Barrett 1987:8).

The manipulation of space and material culture constructs landscape dirough the

-4- communication of social practice. In turn, practices are held within the memory of the individuals and communities which enacted them, allowing landscape - its places and spaces- to be meaningfully understood and to influence future social practice. Tbus, the building of a stone church evokes the power of the Church, creating a ritual landscape in which certain acts, certain mysteries, are performed and communicated, re-establishing the structures of ecclesiastical authority which suffuses the space created through the construction of that church.

Through investigating the patterns of material culture, the day-to-day routines and actions which constructed these patterns can be recovered. As Barrett notes, archaeology is concerned wiýh 'the surviving fragments of those recursive media through which the practices of social discourse were constructed' (1987: 9). Societies are structured through material social practices, through the lifting of a glass of wine in celebration or the smashing of that glass for good luck. Material culture is invested with meaning, the knowledge of which is understood by the people using it in the practices of daily life. This use of material culture in social practice is, thus, spatially meaningful whether it is used across a region or within a building. Indeed, 'space is constituted through social relations and material social practices' (Massey 1994: 145). The distribution of material culture across the landscape is influenced by how that landscape is understood and negotiated by its inhabitants.

Recentarchaeological studies of landscapehave stressedthe importanceof social practicein the constructionof landscape.This is a reactionagainst seeing landscape either as a passive backdrop againstwhich cultures migrate and diffuse, or as a determiner of culture against which societieshave no independentrecourse of action. Thomas,in his critique of Aston (1985), remarksthat ecologicaland systemicanalyses of landscape:

'detail the titanic forceswhich surroundthese individuals - populationlevels, climate,land use patterns, technology, settlement patterns and the organisation focal [as hugeHeath-Robinson human of places... a] apparatus,within which beingshave the metaphysicalstatus of the ghostsin the machine' (1993: 26).

Indeed,the aim of processualarchaeology was not theindividual but the systemwhich operated behind the society. As Hodder notes, 'in the New Archaeology,the individual was avoided, argued out of social theory' (Hodder 1986: 6). Processualapproaches were interestedin explaininghow the landscapeimpacted on the economic,political and socialaspects of human culture.

-5- Conversely,current approachesemphasise the importanceof individuals and communities, whosesocial practicesstructure landscape and whoseactions are, in turn, structuredby their knowledgeand memory of landscapeand social practice. Insteadof seeingmonuments and artefactsas a way of categorizingtime periods,landscape archaeologists are now interestedin how people interact with their landscape,how they structure and appropriate it through constructingbuildings androads or throughthe definition of territory andlocale (Barrett 1999; Scull 1993).

Much of the archaeologicalliterature on landscapefocusses on ritual and monumental landscapes. While there has been some attempt to broadenthe discussionof ideological landscapesthrough words such as 'ideational' (Ashmore and Knapp 1999: 12), landscape archaeologyis still dominatedby the study of built heritagerather than artefactdistributions (Barrett 1999;Buikstra and Charles1999; Tilley 1994). It is ironic that by seekingto redress the concentration on politico-economic systems and settlement analysis adhered to by functionaliststudies, landscape archaeologists have excluded the socialpractices which formed the settlements,which structuredthe political and economic interactions. The landscape portrayedis full of tombsand mounds, 'symbolic meetingpoints on pathsof movement'(Tilley 1994: 109),and absentof the placesin which peoplelived and interacted,in which the social structureswhich producedthose tombs were negotiated. Archaeological investigation must be directedtowards particular questionsof socialdiscourse and patterns of materialculture, such asthe use of monumentalsites. However,it is importantto draw discussionof theseparticulars into a wider framework, to contextualisethem within a broaderunderstanding of past social practice.

It is important to conceptualiselandscape as a structured spacewhich is not necessarily inhabitedbut forms part of the knowledgeof the peoplewho move throughit and negotiateit. Archaeologistshave often concentratedon thoseareas of high materialconsumption, the towns or the graveswhere large quantitiesof artefactshave been deposited(Biddle 1976; Carver 1998). This hasmeant that the peripheralareas which form the majority of the landscapehave been ignored and are often left as blank spaceson distribution maps. They become archaeologicallyuninhabited and ignored. Approaching landscapethrough social practice, while still often focussing on areasof high consumption,recognises that landscape,in its entirety - from towns to tundra - needsto be socially understoodand acknowledged.

Archaeologyis unableto recoverthe 'ideasin people'sheads', as Hodderaspires to do (1984: 25; Barrett 1987:8). While individual actioncan be seenthrough the thumb impressionsalong

-6- a ceramicvessel rim, the thoughtswhich passedthrough the potter's mind as he shapedthe clay, and the conversationhe had with the pig, the impressionof whosehooves were found in the kiln floor (Barley 1982:275), are lost. Thus, individuals occasionallycan be recognised but it is repeatedindividual action, the action of the community which can be discerned. Archaeology can interpret patternsof social behaviour,but individual thought must remain suppositioneven with the aid of history. While history is an immenseaid to the reconstruction of pastsocial practice, historical recordsonly representa fragmentof societyand must still be filtered through centuriesof changein social knowledge and perspective. Indeed,it is this discoursebetween individual and communalaction which archaeologyinvestigates: the coin droppedby the merchantparticipating in the communalrestriction of tradeto the town.

This discussionhas emphasisedthe importanceof landscapeand social practiceto the study of pastsocieties. It hasestablished that acknowledgmentof the socialconstruction of spaceand place is a foundation for archaeologicalresearch. However, researchinto social spacewas developedprimarily in late historic and twentieth century studies(Gregory and Urry 1985). Thesetime periods have a wealth of information which is absentfor the early historic or prehistoric practitioner. Social theory works best with data-rich researchwhere multiple identitiesand constructions of space,place and landscape can be explored. The archaeological landscapeis, by its nature, fragmented, and often archaeologistsmust struggle to find expressionof an identity, much lessa multiplicity of identities. The acknowledgmentof the problemsof applying social theory in researchagendas is noted by Gregory,who despitehis avid promotion of social theory maintains that 'social theory is not a Noah's Ark that can magically savehuman geography (or any otherdiscipline) from its flood waters. Or at any rate, if it is, thenits hull is soriddled with woodwormthat major reconstructionis necessaryto keep it afloat' (1993: 275). However,Gregory goes on to statethat engagingwith thesedifficulties is an importantreason to employ social theory - 'becauseit needsso much work' (1993: 275).

The use of social theory in archaeologyhas been criticised on the groundsthat it attemptstoo much and cannotsupport its claims. Part of this discrepancybetween social theory and data is the lack of analytical techniquesused by social theorists to explore conceptsof social practice and landscape(Yoffee and Sherratt 1993a: 5; Bradley 1993: 131). Processual archaeologyfound much of its appealin statistical and other mathematicaltechniques of analysis(Clarke 1972)and the subsequentuse of thesetechniques within socialtheory has been slow to be adopteddue to this associationwith processualtheory (Whiteley 1998: 12). While there has been confusion between scientific procedures and hypothetico-deductive methodologies'the useof scientific meansof analysis,whether involving the useof statistics,

-7- quantification, chemical or physical studies, is equally relevant with a hermeneutic approach' (Hodder 1986: 185). Analysis is important in elucidating patterns of social practice which then need to be interpreted within a social theoretical framework. As Bourdieu notes 'theory without empirical research is empty, empirical research without theory is blind' (Bourdieu 1988: 773-787; cf. Jenkins 1992: 10). The use of social theory in archaeology requires the analysis of data in order to explore social practice and the construction of landscape.

This thesisis interestedin exploring techniqueswhich can be usedto investigatethe social productionof landscapesin the past. The useof socialtheory can be problematicin landscape archaeologydue to the difficulties of exploring conceptswhich do not alwayshave the dataor analyticaltechniques to supportthem. Early historic landscapeshave the addedcomplication of documentaryknowledge of the period which supplementsthe archaeology. Historical agendasdo not always coincide with archaeologicalinterpretations - not becauseof a discrepancyof understanding,but becauseof two very different setsof data. Hodderrecognises this when he notesthat 'there are distinct differencesbetween material culture and spokenor written language...in contrastto the majority of words,many material culture signsare iconic' (1986: 191). The use of historical comprehensionof the past is vital in the study of early historic landscapesin order to provide a further depthof socialunderstanding of the societies which inhabited those landscapes. The integration of archaeologicalevidence with the historical can be problematicwhen the archaeologicaldata-set is not sufficient to supportthe historical agendas.Tberefore, techniques of analysisneed to be developedwhich incorporate both historical and archaeologicalevidence.

The focus of this thesisis the developmentof an approachto early historic landscapeswhich links social theory with the analysis of landscapethrough the practicesof production and consumptionof material culture. This is basedon the ways in which the analysisof artefact distributions(in this case,pottery) can contributeto further understandingthe ways in which peoplenegotiated and understoodtheir landscape- the way in which they movedthrough the landscape;the places they travelled to and from; and the way in which these movements structured their understandingof territory, place and social identity. This involves the contextualisation of pottery production and consumption within the historical and archaeologicalunderstanding of thetenth century landscape of Lincolnshire. It furtherincludes the analysisof pottery distributions and assemblagesin order to discern patternsof social practice which can then be interpretedwithin a social understandingof landscape. This is accomplishedthrough the useof GIS and statisticalmethods which are aimedat investigating the socialperception and constructionof landscape.Finally, a critique of thesemethods will

-8- be offered to discussthe successof this approachand the ways in which future research agendascould add to our knowledgeof early historic landscapes.

Virtual Landscapes

Patternsof material culture are producedthrough social practice. The pot, depositedin a pit, was produced, traded, distributed, used and disc.ýrded. While the most visible of these processesis that of depositionand subsequentdisturbances, the social practiceswhich led to that depositioncan be discerned. Much of the symbolisminherent in socialpractice is lost to the archaeologist.The gestureswhich accompaniedtrade, the actionswhich ensureda good harvest,the bribery of witnessescan rarely be recoveredthrough archaeology.However, the communalmovement through territory, structuredby socialidentity andmobility, is visible in the distribution patternsof artefacts. The way places and locales were.perceived can be recognizedthrough the distribution of artefacts. The social practicesassociated with the productionand consumptionof artefactsare held within their distribution: the tolls levied on the salt cart travelling to the town from the coast,the restrictionson trade within towns, the traders' interactionwith the settlementsalong the salt road or their avoidanceof the ferry into another territory. Conceptsof territory and place, the perception of mobility and social orientationare enacted through the everydayuse of artefacts,through the practicesassociated with the productionand consumptionof material culture.

Social perception of place is understood through the practices which occur there. Communicationbetween places also articulatesthe ways in which placesare understoodby their inhabitants. As Ingold notes 'there can be no placeswithout paths,along which people arrive and depart;and no pathswithout places,that constitutetheir destinationsand points of departure' (1993: 167). Production, exchangeand consumptionof material culture is thus involved in the socialconstruction of placeand impacts on the communicationand mobility of agentswithin and aroundthat place. Human mobility is further structuredthrough territorial identity and boundary interaction. Indeed, the movementof people through the landscape participates in the construction of territorial identity. Restrictions of movement across boundary structures serve to reinforce an identification with that territory, encouraging movementwithin it rathert6n acrossit. Throughthe explorationof the analysisof thepatterns

-9- of potteryproduction and consumption within tenth centuryLincolnshire, social perception of territory, placeand mobility in Anglo-Scandinaviansociety can be addressed.

Such patterns can be discernedthrough visual and mathematicalanalysis. Through the interpolation of visual mapping and spatial trends, the social construction of spacecan be addressed(Green 1990: 4-5). While Thomasmaintains that archaeologicallandscapes 'cannot be understoodentirely from plans and distribution maps,but [require] a considerationof the positioning of personsin relation to the monuments'(Thomas 1993: 30), the distribution map can be a powerful analytical tool. Indeed,distribution mapsdo provide perspectivefrom an interactivethree dimensionalrepresentation of a monumentallandscape (Yorston 1999;van Leusen1999) to thetwo dimensionaldisplay of artefactsacross the landscape(Richards 1997). The distribution map allows archaeologiststo visualisepatterns of socialpractice enabling the discussionof social positioning which Thomas advocates. The distribution map situates artefacts'andother forms of material culture in its geographicposition, permitting spatial patternsto be recognisedand interpreted.

Mathematical patterning of the relations between material culture is equally useful. The ability to isolate factors such as distance and artefact quantities from their geographic context allows the relationship between these elements to be discerned. Furthermore, the mathematical mapping of assemblages based on degrees of similarity and difference is important in characterising the places from which they were recovered. Statistical analysis explores patterns in the data not readily visible from the distribution map.

Both methods of visualising spatial data, the geographic and the mathematical, allow social patterns and relationships to be discerned and explored. The integration of statistics and mapping technologies through such tools as statistics packages and GIS are invaluable to landscape research. Indeed, 'the combination of landscape archaeology and GIS is one of the most profound and stimulating combinations in archaeological theory and method in the twentieth century' (Green 1990: 5). Through the use of GIS, archaeologists are able to manipulate the large data-sets needed to approach landscape and the social practices which constructed it.

Indeed,the developmentof cognitive GIS hasbeen a topic of much discussion(Gaffney et aL 1995;Green 1990; Boaz and Uleberg 1995). Debatehas focussed on the extentto which GIS researchis environmentallydeterministic (Gaffney and van Leusen 1995;Wheatley 1993). This discussionhas its roots in a dissatisfactionheld by archaeologistsusing GIS of the limited

-10- use of theory by many of their colleagues.The use of GIS to expoundits virtues rather than to contribute to archaeologicalknowledge has meant that many studies have lacked the theoretical structuresneeded to take archaeologicalarguments beyond the results produced usingGIS applications(Gaffney and van Leusen1995: 372). The useof theory-led,rather than application-led' analysisin GIS has increasinglydemonstrated the benefits of using GIS to researchcognitive landscapes (Llobera 1996;Boaz and Uleberg 1995;van Leusen1999). The ability of GIS to combineenvironmental and cultural phenomenahas allowed archaeologists to critically addressthe socialconstruction of landscape(Gaffney et aL 1995:212-3; Boaz and Uleberg1995: 251-3; van Leusen1999: 219-20; Llobera 1996:622). The spatialrepresentation and manipulation of artefact distributions along with other cultural and natural featuresis importantto the interpretationof past social practicethrough patterns of material culture.

The use of GIS to contextualise patterns of pottery distribution within the landscape is invaluable. Nevertheless, many of the uses of GIS to approach cognitive landscapeshave been through viewshed analyses (Llobera 1996; Wheatley 1995; Boaz and Uleberg 1995) rather than artefact distributions. Viewshed analysis directly interacts with the physical landscape and is able to visually situate the archaeologist within it. In order to address the social construction of landscape through the production and consumption of artefacts, traditional methods of quantification (such as cluster and regression analyses) in conjunction with GIS applications have been used in this thesis to elucidate patterns of social practice. Indeed, this thesis is interested in addressing the ways in which the analysis of pottery distribution patterns can contribute to discourse on social practice and landscape.

The Landscape in Anglo-Saxon Archaeology

T'heoreticalagendas have rarely beenexplicitly raisedin Anglo-Saxonarchaeology. Arnold suggeststhat:

'the principal reasons for that state of affairs [occurs because] scholars with museum backgrounds laid the foundations for an artefact-based subject in the first half of the twentiethcentury [which was] heavily influencedand directed by [Indeed] it is in it has been the written sources... only the'1990's that possibleto seethe morewidespread adoption of contemporaryarchaeological

-11- thinking' (Amold 1997: 13).

Anglo-Saxonarchaeology spans the gap between the theoretically driven prehistoricperiod and the text-based historical period. As students of a proto-historic era, Anglo-Saxon archaeologistshave not felt comfortablein either camp andhave chosento adoptthe general trendsof the day without specificreference to the theoreticalarguments that havebeen and are being explicitly exploredin other periodsof archaeology.

The imageof the Anglo-Saxonlandscape, which arosefrom pre-twentiethcentury scholarship, was one basedin early and middle Anglo-SaxonEngland, with its urns and barrows which temptedAntiquarians through the possibility of riches. It wasstructured by topography,by the mounds,ridges anddepressions which originally led excavatorsto put spadeto soil. From the antiquarian inquest into the legendaryBritish past arose the beginnings of seriation and typological techniqueswhich were important for the subsequentrise of cultural historicism. The Anglo-Saxon landscapediscovered by the antiquarianswas being structuredinto an understandingof cultural developmentfrom prehistoricto medievaltimes. It was a landscape of treasure,based on the excavationof artefactsrather than the reconstruction of cultures,social systýms or social practice. The fragmentary remains of the Anglo-Saxons were being recoveredthrough an archaeologyof deathand burial moreconcerned with richesthan with the beneath peopleburied within the urns and the barrows.

This landscape of discovery changed with the advent of culture historic research. It became a backdrop of geographic boundaries defined by diagnostic burial deposits against which the politics of history were enacted. Tribes, defined and delineated by their brooches (Leeds 1946: 81-2) or pottery (Hurst 1956; 1957), dug ditches and dykes to establish the limit of their territorial control. Inter-tribal communication was primarily militant, one culture suppressing the other. The culture historic landscape was one of cemeteries (communities of death), one where settlements (communities of life) had little voice. The broad tribal brush strokes of the culture historians were primarily focussed on the early and middle Saxon periods from which most of their material came. It was only with the development of settlement archaeology in the mid-twentieth century that the late Saxon period came into its own.

During the mid-twentieth century, a 'new' archaeology emerged based on scientific analysis and systemic reasoning. This processualist debate for many Anglo-Saxon archaeologists

'passed by like a skirmishing army on a distant ridge' (Arnold 1997: 14). Despite the lack of explicit theoretical agendas,processualist techniques and approacheswere incorporated within

-12- Anglo-Saxon archaeology. Much of this literature was engagedwith the function and developmentof the town in late Anglo-Saxonsociety. Nevertheless,archaeologists continued to be interestedin the territorial dynamics of Anglo-Saxon England. Early Anglo-Saxon settlementexpansion was explained through site catchmentanalysis and the Principle of Least Effort (Ellison andHarriss 1972). Boundarieswere further investigatedby Arnold (1976)who was interestedin the articulation betweensettlements and burial sites on the Isle of Wight. Through the application of Thiessen polygons, Arnold proposedthat he could chart the development of territorial divisions from numerous small kingdoms to larger territorial agglomerations. He further suggestedthat originally territories were delineatedby natural boundariesand that as territories became subsumed into largerdivisions, artificial markerssuch as dyke systemswere employed (Arnold 1988: 123). In these examples of territorial development,the influence of environmentaldeterminism and of information theory can be observed.Society was directly linked to resourcesand its ability to expandwas basedon the amountof energyit could command. Thesemodels also demonstratethe increasingamount of cross-disciplinarystudy which characterisedprocessualism. Environmental evidence, geographical,historical and place name studies were brought to bear on archaeological scholarship.

These studies continued to stress early and middle Saxon territorial development and expansion.With the intercessionof Alfred the Great,interest turned to urbandevelopment and proto-statemodels for the late Saxonperiod. This dichotomy betweencemetery/early and town/lateis extremelyapparent. Environmentaldeterministic models accounted for much of the early and middle Saxon scholarship. During this time, the landscapedetermined the locations of settlementsand cemeterieswhile being responsiblefor the extents of regional territories. Researchinto the landscapeof late SaxonEngland, dominated by SystemsTheory and statemodels, focussed almost exclusively on urbanarchaeology. Rural excavationswere rare,concentrating on large,politically important sitessuch as Cheddar (Rahtz 1979). Indeed, the landscapeof late Anglo-SaxonEngland became a seriesof points (towns) linked together by a network of roads and rivers down which the information of the English state was disseminated.

During the 1980's,there was a reactionagainst modernity throughoutthe social sciencesand humanities.There was a growing dissatisfactionwith thehypothefico-deductive methodologies of the mid-twentiethcentury. Emphasischanged from artefactand individual being 'passive reflections of the socio-cultural system' (Hodder 1986: 7) to an agendawhich stressedthe importanceof individual and collective agency(Barrett 1987;Hodder 1986). Through this

-13- emphasis on the individual, academics began to explore the multiplicity of social meaning and interaction. Locale was recognised as important to social practice. Material culture became a text to be read by the archaeologist through symbology inscribed on the artefact itself or through its context (Carver 1998; Hodder 1986). A certain amount of knowledge is needed to construct these cultural narratives, to express the multiple individual interpretations of life. It is with this in mind that Arnold comments that 'it has taken the better part of a century to reach the stage where such studies are possible, during which time the evidence has been described

and ordered' (1997: 15). The importance of data to the post-modem movement can easily be overlooked with its tendency to shun quantitative analysis and focus on an imaginative expression of social action. Yet the areas of its most extreme expression are those situated in the present or the recent past where information comes readily to hand (Haraway 1991; 1997; Gregory 1994).,

Post-processualismhas not had the impact on Anglo-Saxon archaeologythat it has had on prehistoric archaeology. Where post-processualismhas been embraced,it has often been implicitly, without specific reference to theoretical arguments. Indeed, Anglo-Saxon archaeology,the archaeologyof the proto-historic,is in manyways proto-theoretical. Despite this outwardly ambiguousstance, there have been changes of approach,alterations in the way Anglo-Saxonarchaeologists are writing abouttheir period. There is a concernto situate the individual, both the Anglo-Saxonand the twentieth centuryreader, within the past. Ideology and symbologyare seenas important mediumsof social expression.There is more emphasis on 'horizontal' regional studies rather than on the 'vertical' typological studies which characterisedAnglo-Saxon archaeology earlier this century (Arnold 1997: 14).

RecentAnglo-Saxon archaeology has focussedon studying individuals and communities within the landscape.This is demonstratedthrough Carvers' work both in urbanarchaeology (1993) and in his excavationsat Sutton Hoo (1992; 1998). Carver is interestedin ideology and symbolic transmission. He appropriatesthe textual metaphorsso commonly incorporated throughoutthe post-modernistmovement. Carvercomments that 'in short, the [Sutton Hoo Mound 1] burial is itself a poem, full'of referencesthat are interlaced with each other: referencesto life in the hall, to how a ship is stowed,to the statusof the deadperson, in reality or aspiration,and at a more personallevel to the foibles and achievementsof the individual' (1998: 129). Here, the multiple expressionsof social discourseare flagged and explored. Carveris concernedwith the individual and how that individual negotiatedthe landscape.In a fanciful allusion to an eighth century inhabitant of Suffolk as he gives directionsto Sutton Hoo, Carverwrites:

-14- 'T'here are six main reaches from the sea, until the river narrows enough to be fordable; just before the ford, look up to the east; on the terrace above the river there you will see a number of burial mounds. They say the pagan kings of East Anglia are buried there. Beach your boat beneath them, but pull it well up becausethe tides still run high at this point. Then walk along the path you will find climbing the scarp; our farm lies in the hollow. It has a hall and ' (1998: seven outbuilldings ... x).

By situatingthe eighthcentury traveller in his landscape,Carver is ableto insert the readerinto the past,commenting on the social memory of the EastAnglian kings, the seasonalchange of the tides,the descriptionof the farm. He is not concernedsolely with the limits of excavation but with the scopeof life within the region of SuttonHoo.

Ilis concernwith visualizing thelandscape is somethingwhichBlairhas alsoincorporated into his studies of ecclesiasticaland urban archaeology. Here, the vehicle for visualizing the landscapecomes from a fictional Mercian herdsmantravelling to Oxford in 1050:

'The wide road aheadmay have been clustered with the stalls of market traders. The frontages on either side would have been a dense, almost unbrokenhuddle of small timber buildings: shopsselling clothes, shoesand other consumergoods, butchers and victuallers stalls,workshops of weavers, brasiers If herdsmanhappened between10 16 smithsand ... the to come and of July, he would haveto steerhis flock thoughthe crowdsconvergilig on the annual fair. Beyond the South Gate, even the boggy ground along the approachto the ford would alreadybe lined with suburbandwellings' (Blair 1994: 146).

Blair uses similar techniquesto Carver: seasonality,individual activity, description of the environmentand structural development. Tbrough these,he is able to orientatethe reader * within eleventhcentury Oxford. The underlying foundation to these insights into the past, however,are the lists of artefacts,the massesof dataaccumulated through the century,which havebeen collated and interpretedto reconstructthis landscape.

Hadley (1996) addressesethnicity within the Anglo-Saxonlandscape. Through her research in the EastMidlands, shedemonstrates the existenceof an Anglo-Scandinavianidentity. She criticises the traditional 'correlation betweennumbers, impact and the ethnicity or identity of

-15- the Scandinaviansettlers' as being 'too simplistic to be useful' (Hadley 1996:83). Insteadof seeingthe Scandinaviansand the English inhabitantsof the Danelawas two separatecultures, Hadley arguesfor the developmentof an Anglo-Scandinavian'community bound together primarily by a sharedand subjectivesense of commoninterests vis-a-vis others' (1996: 834). Hadley suggeststhat the distinctive nature of material culture, place-namesand linguistic characteristicsof the Danelawdo not indicate either a large influx of Scandinaviansinto the areaor an aristocratictakeover, rather they weresocial strategies in 'a period whentwo groups of peopleswith different belief-systemsworked out a commonmeans of existence'(1996: 94). Hadley is not interestedin proving or disproving the impact of the Scandinaviansettlement during the late Saxonperiod. Instead,she concentrateson the social practicesin which the populationof the Danelawengaged.

The last few decadeshave also seena return to typological studies. However, the concernis not with dating or style developmentsas much as the symbolismbeing transmittedthrough the designs.This stressesthe horizontalrelationships rather than the vertical, placing emphasison regionalunderstandings rather than historical developments.Richards (1988; 1992)discusses the signalling of identity throughdesign. In one of the more explicitly theoreticalstudies, he suggeststhat 'symbolic systemsoperate to categoriseinformation as an aid to the regulation and direction of appropriatebehaviour. Languageis just one meansby which the world is classifiedand made understandable and controllable. Artefactsare also tools for thinking about the world' (Richards 1992: 133). Richardsgoes on to explore the symbolism embeddedin Anglo-Saxonmaterial culture, noting totemic associationof animals and statusin mortuary contexts,the transmissionof age,sex and statusthrough inscription on cremationurns andthe associatedimagery on metalwork (1992: 137-147).

These examplesdemonstrate the growing concern to illustrate social understandingand interaction within Anglo-Saxon archaeology. Scholars are interested in individual communicationthrough material culture and landscapeconstruction: the folk-memory of the East Anglian kings situatedin the burial mounds on the hills above the River Deben; the deliberatesignalling of statusthrough the inscription of a horseon metalwork andpottery, the innovation of the god Tiw, and the delineationof power throughthe erectionof a wall around a developingtown. This concentrationon socialactivity further aidsto situatethe reader within the Anglo-Saxon community, providing cross-temporalunderstandings of the signalling of social identity and associationwithin Anglo-Saxonlife.

In the last number of decades,the Anglo-Saxon landscapehas become populated. It is

-16-- conceptualisedas a palimpsest of features which were constructedand negotiatedby its inhabitants. Communicationand mobility are aspectsof the landscape.Symbols are usedto transmit knowledge. Artefacts are now being studied,not for the sakeof chronology or as indicationsof cultural technology,but rather as objectsthat were created,used and discarded by peoplein the past.

In summary,different approachesto the past have presentedvarious understandingsof the Anglo-Saxonlandscape. The Antiquariansidentified the barrowsand sepulchresof the early andmiddle Saxonpopulations. This landscapeof deathcontinued into the late nineteenthand twentieth century where culture history assignedracial and ethnic values to the artefacts, tracing cultural interaction through the developmentof styles. Scholarshipwas historically driven, appropriating the writings of the Anglo-Saxons and mapping the politico-cultural recordsonto artefacttypologies. Settlementswere added to this vision of the landscapeduring the mid-twentieth century. Towns becamefunctional communities,'islands of royal power' (Abels 1988: 80). The environment,geology and geographydetermined where the Anglo- Saxonsettlements were placed and what territorieseach settlement controlled. It hasbeen only in the last few decadesthat the landscapehas become populated, that the blank areasbetween the towns and cemeterieshave been addressed. Although rarely explicitly stated,the Anglo- Saxon landscapehas becomeperceived as a socially constructedspace, both by its past inhabitantsand the present-dayscholars who study it.

Landscape and Material Culture

The conceptsbehind social practice and landscapewere introduced at the beginning of this chapter. Theoreticalapproaches to the Anglo-Saxonlandscape were then discussedwith the emphasisplaced on current agendas.Iffie following sectiondelineates the specific agendasof this thesis. It begins with a theoretical discussionof landscapeand social practice. It then movesto a review of thecurrent themes in late Anglo-Saxonarchaeology before addressing the rationale of Lincolnshire for a regional study. Considerationof how the social practicesof pottery productionand consumption during the tenth centuryare ableto infýrin archaeologists abouthow the landscapewas structured by its inhabitantswill follow this. Discussionwill then turn to the strategiesused to analysethe patternsof pottery distribution and to contextualise them within the historical landscapeof tenthcentury Lincolnshire. Thesesections will thenbe

-17- drawn togetherinto a summarystatement leading into the following chapters.

Human agency is involved with material objects, be they the corn which was grown, harvested, consumed and burnt in a hearth or the axe which was used by a guildsman to hew timbers for a house. The construction of space and landscape is inherently bound up with the social use of artefacts (Massey 1994: 145; Barrett 1987: 6). )While the material remains of past cultures are never complete, they do provide evidence of past social practice and the locale in which it was enacted (Barrett 1987: 6). Social action is constructed through a spatial medium and by the physical manipulation of material culture. Artefacts, their production, consumption and deposition, are part of social practice. Patterns of material culture thus represent the actions of past individuals and their communities within the landscape.

The socialconcept of territory is boundup with issuesof spatialidentity. Individuals associate themselveswith a particular spatially understoodcommunity. This terTitorialidentity, which could in somecases be describedin ethnic terms, is containedwithin Bourdieu's conceptof habitus (1990: 56; Jones 1997: 88-92). While habitus was primarily developedto address householdcommunities, it hassubsequently been used as a flexible way to approachlandscape identity (Jones 1997; Llobera 1996). Instead of starting with the premise of bounded communities,which implies territorial closure and often assertsthe primacy of politically imposed boundaries,habitus is concernedwith social identity. This allows for multiple associationswith places within the landscape by individuals and communities. This multiplicity is discussedby Bentley, who assertsthat 'since ethnic identity derives from situationally sharedelements of a multidimensionalhabitus, it is possiblefor an individual to possessseveral different situationallyrelevant but nonethelessemotionally authentic identities andto symbolizeall of themin termsof shareddescent' (Bentley 1987:35; cf. Jones1997: 9 1). Landscapesare constructedthrough the articulation of multiple identities: thoseof the walled town, the monastic promontory, the hundredalorganisation, the kingdom or shire. These identities are formed through sharedsocial practices,enforced and altered by the changing discourseof power.

Territorial identity is structuredthrough material practices. Indeed:

'the material world, permanentand decaying,constructed and demolished, exchangedand accumulated, is a potentially powerful systemof signification. It is inhabitedby actorswhose practical understandingof their daily routines is constructedwith referenceto a material architectureand their temporal

-18- movementthrough those spaces and across their boundaries'(Barrett 1987:9).

The useof particularmaterial items articulates social identity. Thesecan be overt symbolssuch assculpture or dialect which aremeant to signalethnic affiliation or lessstrident practices such as regional trade which is influenced by social perceptionsof movement and direction. Structuresof power and authority strengthensocial identification with a territory. Indeed, political or economicboundaries help to reinforce social movementwithin a territory rather thanacross it throughsuch measures as border patrols and toll boothsregulating and restricting travel.

Landscapeis also constructedthrough the organisationand socialperception of place. Places or localesare understoodthrough the socialpractices enacted within them: the act of plowing is associatedwith the openfield abovethe village, the Benedictinerule with the monastery,the striking of a coin with a town. Bourdieu notes this when he speaksabout the dichotomy of sexualspace within the Kabyle culture:

'the oppositionbetween the sacredof the right handand the sacredof the left hand, betweennif and Waram, betweenman, invested with protective and fertilizing powers, and woman, who is both sacred and invested with maleficentpowers, is materializedin the division betweenmasculine space, with the assemblyplace, the market or the fields, and the female space,the houseand the garden,the sanctuariesof Waram' (Bourdieu 1990:76).

Places are structured through the practices enacted in them and through the identity of the participants. The use of material culture in these practices further defines locale, leaving visible traces for the archaeologist to uncover and to interpret: the coin on the cobbled street, the hearthin the beatenhouse floor, the gravecover in the church yard.

Placeand locale arespatially oriented and geographically distinguished through social practice. Placesare understoodthrough the ways of life associatedwith them (Ingold 1993: 155). Giddensemphasizes this in his remarkconcerning the North-South divide in Britain: 'the North is not just a geographicallydelimited area,but one with long-establishedsocial traits' (1985: 275). Knowledgeof locale involves direction, a socialorientation towards certain locales and away from others,an associationwith North or South, with city or village, field or market. Placeand locale are understoodby the spatial orientationof the peopleengaged in the social practices which construct their identity (Giddens 1985: 281-2; Bourdieu 1990: 77).

-19- Furthermore, those social practices are enacted becauseof the geographic place in which they occur. Part of the social perception of towns in tenth century Britain would have been their positioning on Roman roads and on navigable rivers, along which traders travelled in their carts and boats, participating in marketing activities which structured town identities. Other social practices would have been associatedwith this movement which are archaeologically invisible. Indeed, social practice would have also been articulated through gesturesand postures, through the presence of certain individuals as well as through physical architecture which has not survived the centuries. I

Giddensfurther raisesthe conceptof spatial visibility. In his discussionof core-periphery relationsin twentiethcentury cities, he notesthat 'ghetto areasmay be rendered'invisible' by their regionalenclosure in neighbourhoodshaving both very low ratesof propertytransfer and of daily mobility from thoseneighbourhoods into otherparts of the city' (Giddens1985: 28 1). Localesare thereforemade visible throughsocial practice which focusesattention or relegates marginality. In a morecomplex discussion on spatialvisibility, Bourdieunotes the association of the Kabyle housewith the female (dark/noctumal/damp)and the outdoorswith the male (bright/day/dry)and remarks on the lack of male knowledgeand visibility of the houseand the activities which occur therein (Bourdieu 1990:76,276). Landscapesare understoodthrough the social actionswhich makethem visible or marginal to their inhabitants.

The geographicorientation of place and locale is further articulated through mobility and connnunication.This is partially constructedthrough perceptions of distanceand time, of how long it takesto get from A to B alongwhich route (Giddens1985: 268). However,mobility is also influenced by territorial identities, boundary structures and locale. Movement is associatedwith direction,with the spatialorientation of socialpractice towards and away from places. The movementof peoplealong roadstowards towns impactson the socialperception of the placeswhich lay along the route. The associationof villages with travel towardstowns influenceshow thoseplaces are geographicallyperceived, bringing them socially 'closer' to the town. Boundarystructures, imbued with restrictionssuch as tolls, canencourage movement within territories rather than without, further strengtheningthe senseof territorial identity. Indeed,mobility andcommunication articulate the geographicrelation of placesand territories and of the practicesassociated with them.

Landscapeis constructedthrough the social practices associatedwith place, territory and mobility. Theseissues structure the following discussionsof landscapeand social practice within tenth century Lincolnshire. They are basedon the premise that the Anglo-Saxons

-20- participatedin socialdiscourses which formedand transformed the communities, the places and landscapesin which they lived anddied. Theseactivities took placewithin a social landscape of culturally understoodbehaviour. The tenth century potter threw his pots in an emerging town, his wastewas discarded in pits, his pots andbowls weretraded throughout the region,to be usedand then also discarded. The eleventhcentury trader may have greetedby namethe mancollecting tolls at the gatesof Lincoln, participatingin practicesenacted daily, seasonally or annuallyby the late Anglo-Saxoncommunities. He may havebeen jostled while reaching for his coins, dropping one by mistaketo lie forgotten for the trowel of the twentieth century archaeologistto discover.

-The landscapeof late Anglo-Saxon England-

Despitethe recent publication of a numberof regional studies(Stafford 1985;Gelling 1992; Blair 1994;Yorke 1995),the landscapeof the late Anglo-Saxonperiod is still dominatedby the emergenceof towns. Indeed,while rural and ecclesiasticalstudies have increased in the last two decades,archaeological debate is still primarily concernedwith the rise of towns in the tenth and eleventhcenturies. The great surgeof urban excavationsduring the 1960'sand 1970'suncovered a wealth of information about the Anglo-Saxontown despitethe fact that theseexcavations sometimes represent only 0.025%of the potential archaeology(Hall 1988a: 125). The archaeologicalfocus on town developmenthas createda dichotomy betweenthe burgeoning urban landscapesand equally important rural developments. Only a small percentageof Anglo-Saxonslived in towns. The bulk of the populationinhabited the manorial settlementsin the rural landscape(Darby 1971:5 1). This infatuationwith urbandevelopment hasencouraged such assertions that towns were 'islandsof royal power throughwhich the king andhis agents,ealdormen, bishops, and reeves, were able to dominatethe countryside'(Abels 1988:80). Statementssuch as this havebeen influenced by thoseexcavations, such as York (Hall 1988a;b), Winchester(Biddle 1966; 1972) and London (Dyson and Schofield 1984; Vince 1988;Hobley 1988),which havedemonstrated the requirementsfor generalizedmodels andwhich havebecome the 'type' sitesfor sucharguments. These descriptions of late Anglo- SaxonEngland say little about the people who were inventing and re-inventingthese towns through their actionsand perceptions. They disregardthe settlementsand landscapeagainst which the towns are being defined. Indeed,the preoccupationof late Saxonarchaeology with urbanisationhas tended to ignorethe intricate associations being articulated in the documentary

-21- sourceswhich are for the most part locatedin the rural rather than urbanlandscape.

The continuity of townsfrom the Romanperiod through the so-calledDarkAges'into Hodges' Age of Emporia (I 989a;b) andthe re-emergenceof urbanismin the tenth centuryhas been an areaof archaeologicalinterest. The social changesduring this period were immenseand the towns which developedin the husksof the Romancoloniae were very different from thoseat the turn of the previousmillennium. The vast differencesin the representationof Romanand Anglo-Saxon urbanism prompted debate on the nature of towns (Biddle 1976; Hill 1988; Haslarn1987; Carver 1993). This debatehas hinged on whetherthe Anglo-Saxontown, or its European counterpart, qualifies as 'urban'. It has been claimed that British scholars optimistically claim the tenth and eleventh century town as urban since they are more comfortablewith equatingrubbish pits androws of post-holeswith urbanity. Nevertheless:

'it is also possible that we are too readily impressedby all traces of post- Romancontinuity in Italy... [and] arerendered a little starry-eyed,in a vaguely Europhile way, by the ideathat peoplein Piazzadelle Erbe at Verona (the site of the ancientforum) may havebeen sipping Camparisodas and admiring the fruit-stalls continuouslysince Roman times' (Ward-Perkins1996: 13).

The establishmentof continuity (of urbanismor of habitation of urban settlements)from the Romanperiod is alsoimportant to modemsociety which wishesto link its presentconcepts of civilisation to the ancientworld in a search'for stability in an unstableworld' (Roskams1996: 263). Indeed,the Romangate, the fortresstower and the fortifled wall are still visible today, the works of the giants,the reliquariesof modemcivilisation.

In the last decade, there has been some concern to work towards a flexible definition of a town, one which also includes contemporary concepts of towns and urbanism (Carver 1993: 1-5; Halsall. 1996: 236). Indeed, 'a town, like any settlement, is a complex of significant things, a conversation in matter, in which the various elements, from monuments to midden heaps, communicate different messagesin different ways' (Carver 1993: 4). Less intent on ideological interpretations of towns, Halsall suggests that towns must satisfy five criteria: they must be permanent settlements, they must support a larger population than other contemporary settlements, they must be socially differentiated from other contemporary settlements,they must have an economy based on more than subsistence, voluntary or tribute-based supply, and they must be the foci of regional congregation for the provision' of 'higher order' services (Halsall 1996: 236).

-22- This definition of a town is orientedmore towards the societywhich lived in or travelledto the town thanthe earlierdefinitions which focussedon urbanattributes such as a market,a minster, a mint and a wall (MI 1988:201,211; Heighway 1972:8). Furthermore,it demonstratesan awarenessthat a town is not a unitary settlementbut one which interactsand is defined by its relation to a hinterland (Halsall 1996:237). The concentrationon towns to the exclusionof other settlementshas generatedan abstractconcept of 'the town' which is projectedin an ad hoc basisupon all urbansettlements and has little to do with contemporarygeographic context (Roskainsl996: 2634). Indeed,archaeologists must 'stop seeingthe town asa thing-in-itself, a generic social reality, and recognisethat such settlementsdo not indicate the arrival of urbanismwith a simple,single relationship with generalsocial development. "Me town' is not a social process;towns are a product of suchprocesses' (Roskams, 1996: 264). Thesesocial processesstructure the entire landscape. They are not isolated in particular settlementsor abstractideals. Instead,the socialpractices occurring in the landscape,in the fields andin the fens, structurethe organisationof settlements,both urban and rural, within the landscape.

The re-emergenceof townsin Britain during the late Saxonperiod is not concernedsimply with whether towns were continuously occupiedfrom the Roman period. Indeed,there is little questionthat town life ceasedat the end of the Romanperiod, coinciding with a fundamental shift in socialpractice towards a local andregional organisation (Esmonde Cleary 1995:22-3; Scull 1993:70). Excavationsof towns indicate continuedor sporadicuse of towns but not in any way that could be characterisedas 'urban' (ffinton 1990:6-7). Indeed,the Romantown $was devoid None less,the building haphazard not of people... the recycled material, appearance and asymmetricalplans of any buildings suggest,at best, a settlementwith quite different investmentand maintenance strategies' (Ro. skams 1996: 277). Socialconstruction of landscape restednot in the useor non-useof the town, but in the socialstrategies practised throughout the landscape. This is true both for the decline of urbanismafter the Romanperiod and its re- emergencein the late Anglo-Saxon period. Insteadof characterisingsociety solely by the presenceor absenceof materialculture in towns, archaeologyshould be interestedin how the use of materialculture structuredthe landscapeand in how this informs archaeologistsof the social practicesenacted in the past.

Recentcontributions in rural andecclesiastical archaeology have helped to redressthe earlyand continuedinterest in urbanstrategies (Blair 1988a;b; Stocker1993; Beresford 1987; Loveluck 1997; 1998). Regional studieshave also directed attention away from the town and towards other social usesbf landscape(Stafford 1985;Gelling 1992;Sawyer 1998; Blair 1994;Yorke 1995). This has begunto fill the blank spacesin Anglo-Saxonsocial geographyleft by the

-23- concentrationof researchon towns. Furthermore,these works bridge the gap between archaeologist,historian and linguist to begin to addressthe Anglo-Saxonculture as a society whose gesturesand speech,artefact and architecture,field and house;charter and lawcode structuredthe landscapein which they lived.

The rural landscapehas been primarily representedby a few major excavationssuch as Cheddar,Somerset (Rahtz 1979) and Goltho, Lincolnshire (Beresford 1987). RecentlyRaunds Furnells,Northamptonshire (Boddington 1996) and Flixborough, Lincolnshire (Loveluck 1998; 1997)as well as the Cottamexcavations in the Yorkshire Wolds (Richards 1997)have begun to alleviate the lack of knowledgeof rural settlementsin the middle and late Saxonperiod. However, the questions raised by the Flixborough and Cottam excavationsconcerning the continueduse of a locale througha variety of settlementshifts (Richards1997: 238; Loveluck 1998:150; 1997:18 1) highlight thelack of currentknowledge about rural settlementstrategies. This is alsodemonstrated through the queryraised by Loveluck asto what constitutesa secular or monasticsettlement (Loveluck 1998: 158). Indeed,little is known aboutthe archaeological compositionof the rural landscape.The scantarchaeological knowledge of this areahas been offset by the documentaryknowledge of late Saxonand early medievalEngland. With their detaileddescriptions of thebeekeepers, swineherds and cheesemakers (Douglas and Greenaway 1953:813-6), these sources have perhaps obscured the fact that little archaeologicalknowledge is availableconcerning the inhabitantsof the rural Settlements.

One of the difficulties with the current understandingof the late Saxonrural landscapeis the concentration on. sites rather than their locales. The rural map is much like the urban: a scattering of places with blank spaces between. Place-name evidence has contributed to the knowledge of the landscape by associating places with particular peoples and ethnic groups (Fellows Jenson 1972) as well as providing a picture of the woods and fields recorded within the names and boundary clauses (Gelling 1984; Hooke 198 1). These studies are important for their representationnot only of rural settlementsbut alsoof the landscapein betweenwhich was as inhabitedas the settlementsin which peoplebuilt their homes.

It is importantto approachthe Anglo-Saxonsthrough the practicesof social behaviourwhich structuredtheir landscapeand society. By approachingthe Anglo-Saxonlandscape and the social practiceswhich constructedit, one doesnot lose sight of the furrow or the plow, the parishchurch and sundial,the cobbledstreet or the market,or indeed,the needleused to patch the nalbinding sockto be worn while skatingon the river. While it is impossibleto addressthe Anglo-Saxonculture in the way that anthropologistsare able to study presentday societiesor

-24- to incorporatethe entirety of the patchy and incompletenature of presentknowledge of the Anglo-Saxonpast, it is important to adopt an approachwhich recognisesthe many ways in which theAnglo-Saxons constructed their culture. The archaeologicalstudy of pastlandscapes doesnot end at the town or the manorbut seeksto understandthe practicesof the peoplewho built the houses,travelled the roads, and collected the tolls. Social practice is structured throughthe spatialmanipulation of the materialworld. By addressingthe practices surrounding the production,distribution, consumptionand deposition of materialculture, the archaeologist is able to addressthe ways in which peopleconstructed and understoodtheir landscape.

-Artefact and region: Pottery production in tenth century Lincolnshire~

Mellor noted the importanceof pottery to landscapestudies when she remarkedthat pottery 'studies correspondedwith, and complementedthe developmentof landscapearchaeology' (1994: 4). The productionand consumptionof this ubiquitousartefact is boundup in someof the most observablechanges in materialsocial practices. Potteryproduction was focussedin the emergingtowns. Craft techniquesaltered at the sametime through the introduction of Continental potting traditions, likely causedby the immigration of potters from the Low Countries (Kilmurry 1977a: 184). Thesechanges in craft practices,both in techniqueand locale, took place within larger social transitions. During the ninth to eleventhcenturies, the feudal relationspractised in the medievalperiod developedfrom the early and middle Saxon tributary organisation. Correspondingshifts in settlementstrategies, characterised by the emergenceof towns, manors and parishes,were connectedwith the transformationof the middle Saxonkingdoms into a nation of shires. The activities associatedwith the production and consumptionof pottery were bound up in thesechanges in social practice. Through the examinationof pottery distributions, the ways in which peopleduring the late Saxonperiod understoodand negotiatedtheir surroundingscan be explored.

Approaching the whole of the late Saxon landscape through pottery production and consumption would require more time and space than this thesis allows. Furthermore, archaeological understandingof pottery during this period is structured around county boundariesand regional consultancies.This hasproduced a patchy awarenessof the pottery trade. Accessto countyrecords is just beginningto be madepractical through the work of such data resourceservi6es as the ArchaeologyData Service (ADS). However, the exchangeof information acrosscounty boundariesis still problematic. This is also due to the lack of rNJIVEM rFy OF,OFYORK LLR!IRRA Pý-y funding available for the reassessmentof the pottery assemblages. This desperately needs to be done, especially as the East Midlands Pottery Project (EMPP) discovered a significant amount of late Saxon pottery stored within Roman collections Q. Young pers com). Furthermore, museums have large numbers of unrecorded artefacts in storage such as the eight tons of unclassified pottery in the Scunthorpe Museum (Ulmschneider 1998: 31). Pottery analysis is also complicated by the differing typologies used and the different recording methods employed. Indeed, there is no standardized pottery analysis methodology and thus, currently, the data are not available to make a useful national study of pottery production and consumption practices across the late Anglo-Saxon landscape.

A regional study is thereforemore appropriatefor this project. Lincolnshire (Figure 1) was selectedfor this research.The changesin potteryproduction first occur alongthe easterncoast of Englandduring the mid-ninth century,presumably because of the Scandinavianactivity in the area. While not specifically a 'Scandinavian'phenomena, the changesin the pottery craft reflect the more generalemergence of towns which occursslightly earlier in this areathan in Wessexand English Mercia (Vince 1993a:16 1; 1994:115). Addressingpottery production and consumption in Lincolnshire, therefore, provides the opportunity to investigate Anglo- Scandinaviansocial practices both in termsof town life andthe developmentof the manorand the parish in the rural landscape. While part of the wider late Saxon culture, the Anglo- Scandinaviansociety of Lincolnshiredid havedistinctive ethnicovertones and the term Anglo- Scandinavianwill be usedto reflect this when referring specifically to Lincolnshire.

The importanceof addressingthe social implications of the pottery trade was also raisedby Mellor who notedthat 'only occasionallyhave the wider issues,not simply of date,but also of iconographyand design, technology, cultural andeconomic links, patronage,social and political implications,been included. It is preciselythis explanationof the wider issuesand questions that seemsto be lacking in many pottery reports' (1994: 16). There is a clear needfor pottery to be contextualisedwithin social practice.

Lincolnshire has the pottery data to support such a study of landscape. While there are a numberof conflicting potterytypologies (Chapter H-III; AppendixII), the EMPPhas developed a good understandingof pottery production in the region. Despite the cancellation of the project dueto lack of funding, new pottery datahave been continually addedto the databaseas it wascatalogued. This hasprovided a uniqueresource of pottery dataunequalled in otherparts of the country. Unfortunately,the cancellationof the EMPP hasmeant that Lincolnshireis the only county in the East Midlands which can be examined in this way and cross-county

-26- comparisonshave had to rely on publishedarchaeological accounts. Thus, this projecthas been unableto addresspottery production and distribution outsideof Lincolnshirein detail,although the pottery trade within Lincolnshire has been placed in context within late Anglo-Saxon Englandas a whole.

However,Lincolnshire still allowsinvestigation into theterritorial changesoccurring in thelate Saxonperiod. During the middle Saxonperiod Lincolnshire was comprisedof a numberof Anglo-Saxonkingdoms, the most historically notableof which wasLindsey, a territory which existed until the creation of the county of South Humbersidein 1974. The county of Lincolnshire in unique in that it incorporatestwo of the Danelaw Five Borough territories: Lincoln and Stamford. While Stamfordfell early in the tenth centuryto Edwardthe Elder, the territory of Lincoln (previouslythe kingdom of Lindsey) remainedunder Anglo-Scandinavian rule until the mid to late tenth century. The territories were finallyjoined in the early eleventh centurywith the creationof the shire of Lincoln. Thesechanges in political boundarieswere part of a larger shift in socialidentity encompassingthe transition from villa regalis andminster parochia to town, parishand manor. The practicesof potteryproduction and consumption were embeddedin the constructionof territorial identity and communityinteraction.

The importanceof pottery to archaeologicalresearch was re-iteratedin the 1994 report on medievalceramics (Mellor 1994). It highlightedthe use of potteryto establishthe dateof a site, the depositionprocesses at that site, as well as its socio-economiccontext within the trading networks,production technologiesand cultural tradition associatedwith the use of pottery (Mellor 1994:9). It further emphasisedthe fundamentalinvolvement of county and regional archaeologistsas well as academicinstitutions in the developmentof ceramicstudies (contra Hodges 1995: 105). Most pottery researchhas been developedthrough county and private archaeologicalfirms suchas City of Lincoln ArchaeologyUnit (CLAU), HeritageLincolnshire andYorkshire Archaeological Trust andthrough externally funded projects such as Flixborough (Loveluck 1998;1997); Goltho (Beresford1987); Coppergate (Mainman 1990)and especially the East Midlands Pottery Project (EMPP) (Vince and Young 1991). The other important resourcefor pottery studieshas been in doctoral researchsuch as that by Kilmurry (1980); Coppack(1980) and Hayfield (1985).

Much of the project-basedand commercialresearch focuses on the use of pottery to provide a temporal and regional context for particular sites (Beresford 1987; Loveluck 1997; Palmer Brown 1996). Urban excavationscontinue to expand knowledge of pottery typologies and productionpractices (Adams Gilmour 1988;Miles et al. 1989;Mainman 1990)through pottery

-27~ reports which detail the wares in the assemblages typologically and chronologically. They assessthe relationship between the site and those places which produced the wares found at that site. Thesereports provide a local and regional context for the site. They do not assessthe region as a whole. Indeed,the value of thesereports lies in the integration of pottery with knowledgeof other forms of material culture recoveredfrom the site.

The doctoral thesesand works resulting from doctoral researchwhich focus on pottery productionwithin Lincolnshire havebeen primarily engagedwith the developmentof pottery typologiesand particular ceramicindustries (Coppack 1980; Hayfield 1985;Kilmurry 1980). While tradeand distribution havebeen considered by thesestudies, they havenot focussedon the social landscapebut rather on probablemechanisms of exchange(Kilinurry 1980: 171; Hayfield 1985: 408). These mechanismsof exchangehave been discussedthrough the application of trade models to the data. Where distribution mapshave been included, they demonstratethe extent and regional proportionsof trade (Kilmurry 1980: 161,167) or fabric percentages(Hayfield 1985:figs. 250-255). The regional 'zonesof influence' discussedby Hayfield are not linked to territorial developmentand expression(1985: 406-419)nor are the transportationroutes raised by Kilmurry exploredthrough further dataanalysis (Kilmurry 1980: 171-175).Indeed, these projects were concerned with the developmentof the pottery industry not the social constructionof landscape.

The modelsof exchangeused by Kilmurry (1980)and Hayfield (1985)do not explorethe social landscape issuesinvolved in the constructionof and settlement. Hayfield concentrateson historical referencesto market towns although he notes that the trade of pottery does not conform to a central market town distribution (Hayfield 1985:406-419) Hayfield doesnot discussthe reasonsfor this exceptto suggestthat 'marketscould, therefore,be encapsulated withina zoneof influenceorlie on aninterfacebetween them' (Hayfield 1985:410). Thus,the distribution of pottery is not interpreted in terms of the social construction of spaceand geography. Kilmurry provides a much more historically integrateddiscussion ranging from transportationto the trade of specific waresoutside the town. However,she does not explore thosenetworks nor the socialconstruction of territory andplace within the landscape(Kilmurry 1980: 171-5; Chapter III). While both Kilmurry and Hayfield discuss regional trade distributions and mechanismsof trade,they do not place them within their historical or social context.

While primarily concernedwith discussingthe useand origin of pottery in the London region during the early medieval and medieval period, the studies done by Vince (1984; 1985)

-28- illustrate the applicability of using pottery to discerndirections and methodsof travel, as well as social associationsbetween and within places. Through petrological analysis, Vince establishedthat the predominantware consumedwithin London (Late Saxon Shelly (LSS)) during the late ninth and tenth centurieswas producedin the Oxford region, if not at Oxford itself (1984: 35-6). This shelly ware was then transportedalong the Thames,a route clearly associatedwith the LSS distribution (Vince 1985: 31; 1984:36). This demonstratesa clear connectionbetween Oxford andLondon via the Thames,a relationshipwhich wasnot apparent from the middle Saxon trade axis towards Ipswich (Vince 1985: 34). It also implies that London,despite its prominenceas a town and port, was suppliedthrough trading connections with Oxford.

Furthermore,Vince was ableto characterisethe developmentof London asa town which, like its immediatehinterland, consumed and tradedin one primary ware during the tenth century, but which during the eleventhcentury was engagedwith wider tradeand whoseconsumption patterns differed appreciably from nearby settlements(Vince 1985: 31,38,42). This demonstratesthe increaseddistinctiveness of urban settlementsfrom their rural counterparts during the eleventhcentury. Both the riverine connectionbetween London andOxford aswell as the changingconsumption patterns of the London inhabitantsfrom the tenth and eleventh centuries,suggest that pottery can be usedto discern social perceptionof placeand mobility within the Anglo-Saxonlandscape. ,

The use of pottery in the study of landscapescorresponds with many of the future research agendasdetailed by the Mellor report (1994). Indeed,she notes that 'the study of landscapes (eg.the integrationof the studyof towns andtheir hinterlands,the evidencefor changein rural settlementpatterns) is required if researchis to proceedin a coherentrather than piecemeal fashion' (Mellor 1994:28). The relevanceof establishingthe production and distribution of pottery within a regionalcontext and within otherartefact traditions was highlighted as an area which neededmore attention (Mellor 1994: 9,16). However, the shortageof such studies correspondedwith the lack of availabledata and the difficulty of integrating that data into a form which could supportsuch a study (Mellor 1994:5,14-5).

Indeed,Lincolnshire is one of the few regions which has the data infrastructure to support landscaperesearch in conjunctionwith practicesof pottery productionandiconsumption. The datacompiled through the EMPPenables the socialconstruction of landscapeto be approached through the exploration of pottery distributions. While the Lincolnshire EMPP data-setis stableenough to supporta landscapestudy focussing on territorial identity, socialmobility and

-29- settlementinteraction, its integrationwithin othercollections is problematic. This is partially dueto the wide rangeof datastandards and recording methodologies in Lincolnshire andother counties. The EMPP databaseonly coversLincolnshire andother countieswere not included due to lack of funding.

Investigationinto the practicesassociated with the distribution of pottery offers a chanceto examinethe social activities of Anglo-Saxoncommunities. Individuals can be recogniSedin the pottery craft throughpersonal techniques of potting. However,for the most part, pottery is a domesticitem usedby numerousindividuals aspart of communalconsumption practices. The value of pottery lies in its practicality, its everydayusage, its commonality. This thesis exploresthe practicesof pottery production and consumptionas an avenuefor addressing conununityinteraction and identity in landscape.

-The social geographyof Angto-ScandinavianLincolnshire-

During thelate Saxonperiod therewere a numberof importantchanges in socialpractice which were conveyedin the landscape.The renegotiationof land tenurefrom large estatesheld by the king and his ealdormen,to smaller holdings basedwithin a growing aristocraticnobility, who also'hadinvestments in town properties,was bound up in the shift from tributary to feudal relations(Stafford 1985:60-2; Blair 1994:140; Saunders 1990: 168,282). The increasedsocial mobility during the tenth century sawa rise in the nobility as more ceorls becamethegns. As Blair remarks 'this was bound to intensify exploitation of lords' directly-managedland, and hencethe demandson their dependants'labour... [thus] small manorswere more productive than greatones, and were better managed' (1994: 140). The emergingtowns, with their hagae and markets,were part of this shift to feudal tenurepractices. The towns were linked to the growth in royal control from the early tenth centuryhegemonic: rulership to an acknowledged monarchyduring the eleventhcentury. Indeed,during the late Saxonperiod 'noble society experienceda period of rapid social mobility, with a burgeoning lesser nobility and the emergenceof an exceptionallypowerful greaterone. The former was largely the result of changesin economy and land-holding; the latter was effected primarily by unification' (Stafford 1989: 155). Thesechanges in socialpractice were manifestedthrough an increased privatisationof land holdingswhich resultedin the developmentof the medievalmanor, town and parish.

-30- Alongsidethese more generalchanges in late Saxonsociety, Lincolnshire was involved with the social changesoccurring with the Scandinaviansettlement and the establishmentof the Danelaw territories. Urbanisation was acceleratedin the Danelaw through increased investmentin craft production and trade (Vince 1994: 113-15). Towns suchas Lincoln and Stamfordemerged as focal settlementsfor the territory and region. Parochialdevelopment appearsto be linked with the sharingout of landsby Scandinavianleaders (Sawyer 1998: 55-7). The fragmentationof lands is archaeologicallyvisible in the stone sculpture presumably commissionedby the founders of the parish churches (Everson and Stocker 1999: 79; Boddington 1996: 67). Sculptural traditions exhibit territorial differences between the territories of Lindsey andthat of Stamford(Everson and Stocker 1999: 81-87). Although both territories were part of the Five Borough confederacy,Stamford was conqueredearly in the tenth century by Edward the Elder linking it more closely with Wessex. Indeed, Lindsey appearsto be more stronglyoriented towards the north andYorkshire, while Stamfordand its territory are more southwardlooking (Eversonand Stocker 1999:81-87).

Summary

The social identities being createdthrough territory, town, manor and parish were expressed throughthe varying practicesassociated with eachplace and the ways in which communities from theseplaces interacted. Lincolnshire is dominatedby the geographicdiscourse between watery fen and limestonewold, throughwhich rivers suchas the Trent, Witham and Welland flow. Romanroads, built along the upland surfaces,took advantageof the dry land. The interaction betweenroad and river transport was important to this region during the tenth century. While more regional pathwaysand fenland waterwaysare difficult to discern,local communicationbetween manorial settlementswould haveutilised theseless trodden,though no lessimportant, routes.

The Anglo-Scandinavianproduction and consumption of pottery wereinvolved in thesesocial practicesstructuring territorial identityand community interaction. Pottery production is linked to the emerging urban communities. It is bound up in the changeof craft traditions and practices which occur during the late Saxon period. The introduction of a dramatically different manufacturingtechnique, involving the use of a fast wheel and structured kiln, differentiatesthese vessels from the previousmiddle Saxonhand-made pottery which wasfired in a clamp-kiln. The Continental influence in the style of the late ninth and tenth century pottery in the East Midlands is suggestiveof Scandinavianinfluence, not only in the

-31- transmissionof craft skills and/or craftsmen,but also in the increaseddevelopment of urban traditions in the Danelaw boroughs. The production of this pottery is associatedwith the Anglo-Scandinavianidentity of the Danelawand in the emergenceof a rural interactionwith urban-basedcraft production.

Investigation into practices of pottery production and consumption in tenth century Lincolnshire therefore focuses on assessing the interaction between towns, their associated territories and their settlements. Inquiry into community interaction between rural settlements is established through other documentary sources such as Domesday and the Rectitudines Singuldrum Personarum. Indeed, it is important to highlight not only the present limitations of pottery analysis but also to characterise those social practices unable to be discussed through the practices of pottery distribution. Nevertheless, there is an immense amount of knowledge which pottery analysis is able to contribute to the understanding of past societies. The common occurrence of pottery on all Anglo-Scandinavian sites illows a unique opportunity to consider the regional construction of landscape.

The explorationof the practicesof production and consumptionwithin Anglo-Scandinavian material Lincolnshireinvolves quantitative analysis of thepatterns of culture. GIS werechosen to facilitate the studyof the potterydistributions and to aid in their contextualisationwithin the landscape.The visualisation capabilitiesof GIS are important to the study of landscapeand allow interactiveexploration of a wide variety of data-setsand statistical results. However, GIS were not designedto incorporatecognitive information and mustbe adaptedto addresssocial practicewithin the landscape.Much of the cognitive analysisof landscapehas been based in viewshedanalyses rather than studiesof artefactdistribution. This thesisexplores the waysin which GIS applicationscan be usedto addressthe socialconstruction and understanding of past landscapesthrough the distribution of artefacts.

This thesisdevelops ways in which the productionand consumption of pottery can be usedto examineissues of social changewithin the landscape.Most landscapestudies have focussed on monumentsand built heritagerather than on the social practicesinvolved with the tradeof goods. The practices surroundingthe trade in pottery participated in the construction of landscapethrough the places in which it was produced,the ways and meansin which it travelled, the placeswhere it was traded and those where it was consumedand discarded. Archaeologicalinterpretation of thesepractices is dependantpartially on how receptivepottery analysisis in discerningsocial action and communication within the landscapeand partially on the presentknowledge about the landscape. This thesis seeks to explore the relationship

-32- betweenthe pottery tradeand the constructionof landscapeas well as to suggestavenues for future research.

The tenth century was a century of change. It encompassedthe demiseof kingdoms,the establishmentof shires and parishes,the developmentof a northern Anglo-Scandinavian culture, a shift in settlementpatterns from that of middle SaxonEngland to Domesdaywith its manors,berewicks and sokelandthat reflects that of modem-dayEngland, the emergenceof urbansociety with its influenceover productionand distribution patternsand the development of an English identity. Thesedevelopments occurred through the changingsocial practices of peoplewhose understanding of the placesin which they lived and from which they travelled, shifted as did their lifestyle, the food they ate and the items they made or bought. These decisionsand actionsproduced patterns of material culture which can then be interpretedin terms of the people and of the society who establishedthem. However, they must not be consideredin isolation but as situatedwithin the cultural geographyof tenth centuryEngland.

-33- CIUPTER II

THE SOCIAL GEOGRAPHY OF LINCOLNSHIRE 850-1100

'There is in the midland district of Britain a most dismalfen of immensesize, which beginsat the banksof the river called Granta notfarfrom the camp which is called Cambridge,and stretchesfromthe south asfar north as the sem It is a very long tract, now consisting of marshes,now of bogs, sometimesblack waters overhungby fog, sometimesstudded with woodedislands and traversedby the windings of tortuous streams' (Felix's Life of St. Guthlac; trans. Colgrave 1956:87).

'Any fool can appreciate mountain scenery, it takes a man of discernment to appreciate thefens' (Harry Godwin 1978; cf. Coles and Hall 1998: 1).

This chapterdiscusses current understandingsof Anglo-Scandinaviangeography and social structurein order to establisha context for the analysisof pottery below (ChapterIII and FV). While pottery production and consumptionpatterns are extremely informative about social I practice, their placement within a wider context of social behaviour is important to archaeologicalresearch (Mellor 1994:25). Furthermore,investigation into past landscapes must draw togethera wide rangeof evidencein order to presenta coherentunderstanding of the socialpractices through which theAnglo-Scandinavian inhabitants of Lincolnshire(c. 850- 1100) structuredand negotiatedthe spacearound them. The integration of archaeological, geographic,historical andlinguistic sourcesin this discussionof socialgeography is important in a period where sparsehistorical referencessurvive, and where archaeologically,there are many questionsto be answeredand much knowledgeto be gained.

This chapterbegins its discussionwith the social topographyof Lincolnshire. This servesas an introduction for the subsequentsection dealing with settlementsand communities. The mannerin which hydrological and terrestrial landscapesinfluenced the social geographyare considered. This then leads into a discussionon territorial developmentsfrom the middle throughthe late Saxonperiods before turning to the socialinteraction between rural settlements and the emergingtowns. While the productionand consumptionof pottery was embeddedin the'changesin social practicesfrom the middle to late Saxonperiods, it will be consideredin

-34- the following chapterand emphasishere will be placed on a generaldiscussion of material practicesof productionand consumption.

Social Topographies

Landscapesare socially created. They cannotbe divorced from the peoplewho lived in and traversedthem. Social understandingof landscapeis influencedby how peoplevisualize the land. Topographicalfeatures, such as rivers or ridges,can become imbued with socialmeaning. The River Humberis not simply a major river but also the boundarybetween north and south. It is integratedinto the social identity of thosewho live to the north -the Northumbrians-an identity first articulatedby Bede in the eighth century, and still recalled in the name of the twentieth centurycounty of Northumberland.

The importanceof the visual characteristicsof landscapein the constructionof social spacein the Anglo-Saxonperiod is clearly demonstratedin the charterbounds and place-names of these people. The boundsof the twenty hides at Ham convey the immediacyof the Anglo-Saxon landscapein its personalnames and in the featureswhich it records:

'First into Mercecumb,then to the greenpit,then onto the tor at Mercecumbes spring,then to Denewald'sstone, then to the ditch whereEsne dug acrossthe to the towardsthe thence road ... thenceon old way white stone... along the highwayto the ditch, thencedown to Weakdenesford,thence on to the hollow to the (Whitelock 1968:482-3). way ... and there sea'

Social practiceboth constructedtopography and was structuredby it. Indeed,the architecture of Offa's Dyke wasa distinguishingfeature separating the Mercian kingdom from thekingdoms of the Welsh in much the sameway that the ditch of Esne,dug acrossa road, delineatedthe boundaryof his estate.

This section introduces the topography of Anglo-ScandinavianLincolnshire through an exploration of how the geographywas understoodby its inhabitants. It is divided into two sections. The first is concernedwith the rivers and fens of Lincolnshire and the secondwith the terrestrial topography. Integrated into this description of the natural geography of LincolnsWreare issuesof mobility (the navigability of rivers and the evidencefor roads)and

-35- territory (the topographical delineation of boundaries) (Figure 2).

-Geographiesof water-

The rivers of Lincolnshire played an active role in the definition of Anglo-Saxonterritorial boundaries(Figure 3). This is most apparentin the extentof the Anglian kingdom of Lindsey in the northern half of Lincolnshire. The northern and easternbounds of Lindsey were comprisedof the river Humber which leadsinto the Trent towardsTorksey (Figure 4). The Trent was one of the major water routesrunning from the Humber estuaryand was possibly navigableto Burton-upon-Trent,Staffordshire (Edwards and Hindle 1991: 131). This river passedNottingham and flowed near Derby, both of which were important Danelaw towns. Indeed,the NottinghamDomesday notes that 'in Nottinghamthe river Trent and the dyke and the road to York areso protected that if anyonehinders the passageof ships,or if anyoneplows or makesa dyke within 2 perchesof the King's road, he has to pay a fine of f. 8' (Parker and Wood 1977: 280a.20). At Torksey, the Roman-built Fosse Dyke formed the southwest boundaryof Lindsey running west toward Lincoln whereit met the Witham at Brayford Pool. From Brayford Pool, the southernboundary of Lindsey followed the Witham southwestinto the Wash and then turned northwardsalong the coastto the Humberestuary.

Surroundedby rivers and the coast,Lindsey was essentiallyan island, a characteristicwhich wascaptured in the suffix -ey (-igleg) meaning'island'. This suffix is generallyassociated with a promontoryof landjutting out into a marsh,suggesting that the referenceto the province of Lindsey as an island might be misplaced. Nevertheless,whether the -igleg elementoriginally referredto the entire kingdom or 'to the dramatichill, rising up from the surroundingmarsh, on which the Romantown was situated' (Yorke 1993: 143), it eventuallygave its nameto a territory boundedby rivers and sea. Lindsey's connectionwith water does not end here, however.The first elementlind- also camefrom an allusion to water. Lindum originally meant 'pool' andis thoughtto refer to Brayford Pool beneathLincoln which also takesits namefrom this feature. Lindsey or Lindesig, therefore, may have meant 'the island of the people of Lincoln/the pool' (Yorke 1993: 143). The Witham, moreover,was recordedby Leland in the sixteenth century as the Tindis' directly associatingthe river with Lincoln and Lindsey (Chandler1993: 292).

The boundariesof Holland were also strongly associatedwith water. The Wash and the

-36- Witham providedHolland with its easternand northern limits. Holland wasdefined by fenland separatingit from the woodlandsof Kestevento the west and Cambridgeshireand Norfolk to thesouth andcast. The Car Dyke, a Romancanal, delineated the westernfen edgewhich was parallel to the border of Kesteven,finther into the fen. Whether the Car Dyke was usedfor navigationis debatable.Indeed, the CarDyke wasoriginally constructedfor drainagepurposes by the Romans(Everson and Stocker 1999: 9). Nevertheless,while documentaryevidence for its use during the medievalperiod is slight, there is an allusion to the transportationof bells from Peterboroughto Lincoln (Barley 1936: 17). Furthermore,a load of dressedstone was recoveredfrom its bed at Morton, again suggestingthe use of the Car Dyke for navigation (Barley 1936: 17). Basedon researchinto court and patentrolls, 'Edwards and Hindle have proposedan extent of navigation along the Car Dyke to Swatonduring the medievalperiod (Edwardsand Hindle 1991: 131). 1bus, the possibility of navigation along the Car Dyke during the Anglo-Scandinavianperiod is questionableand further excavationis neededto determineits use.

With the exceptionof the westernedge of Kesteven,the internal and external boundariesof Angloý-ScandinavianLincolnshire wereprimarily definedby waterwaysand fenland. Indeed, most of Kestevenwas definedby the parish boundsof Ness,Beltisloe, Winnibriggs, Loveden andGraffoe, differentiating it from Rutlandand Nottinghaanshire. While theTrent would seem to providean ideal boundary,it turnsinto Nottinghamshirejustbeyond Torksey. ne rivers of Lincolnshire were integratedinto the territorial dynamics of the Anglo-Saxon period and, indeed,remained an importantpart of boundaryformation until the late twentiethcentury with theestablishment of thecounty of Humberside,and the resultantreorganisation of Lindseyinto a truncatedNorth Lincolnshire.

Waterways in Lincolnshire were important routes of communication during the Anglo- Scandinavianperiod, Currentunderstanding of Anglo-Scandinaviannavigability reliesheavily on medievalsources. Edwards and 11indle(1991-, 1993) have been instrumental in assessing headsand potential headsof navigation. According to their reading of medievaldocuments mostof themajorrivers of Lincolnshirewere partially navigable(Figure 5) with the exception of the Bain, The Trent wasone of the major arteriesof travel. Indeed,the Domesdaynotations for Torkseyand Nottingham guaranteed the supplyand transportation of the king's messengers along the Trent to York and ensuredthat the Trent was free from obstructionsto navigation (Fosterand Longley 1924,11.,Parker and Wood 1977-.280a. 20). The suitability of the Trent to travel and communicationwas no doubt why the Romansconstructed the FosseDyke, connectingthe Trent to the Witham at Torkseyand Lincoln respectively. Indeed,this allowed

-37- accessdirectly from the North Sea to the heart of the East Midlands and into Yorkshire via the Humber.

The fens of Lincolnshire would have made a significant impressionon the early medieval population (Figure 6). indeed, prior to the eighteenthand nineteenthcentury reclamation projects which drained the fens, the fenlands were a substantialpart of the topographyof Lincolnshire. Holland was primary composedof fenland stretchingfrom the Witham in the north to the Welland in the south.

The fenswere at onceboth inhospitableand full of manyresources to be exploited. As Hugh Candidusof PeterboroughAbbey writes in the twelfth century:

'floods andoverflowing rivers causethe waterto standon all the land forming deep is However, a marshwhich uninhabitable,except at certainplaces ... the fen is at the sametime useful for men; from it they obtain wood andrushes for fires; hay andfodder for draughtbeast, and thatching for houseroofs andmany other uses' (Colesand Hall 1998:68; Mellows 1949:204).

Travel in the fens was primarily accomplished by boat (Coles and Hall 1998: 68; Mellows 1949: 204; Bradley 1982: 282). Little is known about the types of boat which would have been used to navigate the fens or the inland rivers. Indeed, the Graveney boat (Fenwick 1978), a tenth century boat found in the marshes of Kent, is the only example from England of a small merchant ship. However, with its cargo of quern stones from the Middle Rhine (Fenwick 1978: 175), the Graveney boat was probably used as a cross-Channel ship like that described by the merchant in Alcuin's Colloquy (Mitchell and Robinson 1986: 178-9). Whether the Graveney boat, which was longer than five metres and would have carried at least seven tons (Fenwick 1978: 175,201), was a craft which would have also been used to navigate the rivers and marshesof Lincolnshire is difficult to discern given the lack of evidence. Certainly, the fenland boats would have been shallow draughted vessels, as demonstrated in the Guthlac poems when Guthlac's servant drew his boat up on the gravel to bring word of Guthlac's death (Colgrave 1956: 159). However, little else can be said of the actual boats used for inland water travel during the tenth century.

Travel in the fenscould be an oneroustask, as the fens, 'neither land nor water' (Darby 1974: 93) werenot stable.As Darbywrites:

-38- 'ofttimes, the streamslost their definite channels,or broke their banksand spread"into black pools as much as two or three miles in breadth", or into "deepand boggy quagmires in breadthabout two bowshof" (Darby 1974:95- 6).

This liminal wilderness was what encouraged St. Guthlac, a solider-turned-monk, who wished to devote his life to solitary devotion to God, to inhabit what was to become the site of the great monastery of Crowland. Indeed, the fens are still 'thought of as a formerly intractable and uninhabited, waterlogged wilderness, one that owes its existence to the skills of post-medieval drainage engineers' (Hayes and Lane 1992: 1). Tbus, while only inhabited on the raised outcrops of land - often homes of monastic communities such as Crowland, Peterborough and Ely - the fens during the late Saxon period were areas where sedge and rushes were gathered, where fish and wildfowl were caught and cattle were grazed. These activities were no doubt tied to the seasonsas the fens were highly susceptible to flooding.

Mappingof theDomesday settlements demonstrated that fenlandsettlements such as Kirton-in- Holland, Dowdyke,Gosberton and Holbeach were originally boundedon the eastby the sandy coastof the Wash while Quadring,Donington, Bicker and Spaldingto the west lined the fens creatinga semicircularstrip of habitationalong the Wash (Figure 7). Across the Witham, the fensran alongthe edgeof the limestonewolds from Tattershallto Mareharnle Fen andThorpe St. Petermeeting up with the coastalcrescent along the Wash on which settlementssuch as Fishtoft, Leverton,Wrangle and Wainfleet were built. None of thesesettlements were located directly in the fens but insteadwere situated-alongthe fen edge. Indeed,the FenlandSurvey indicatedthat the small middle Saxonsettlements in the fens were abandonedduring the late Saxonperiod presumablyin favour of villages on the edge of the fenland (Hayes and Lane 1992:215; Lane and Hayes 1993:69)

Thesecoastal settlements along the Washwere protected by banksraised before the end of the Anglo-Saxonperiod (Coles and Hall 1998:66-7). Erosionof the off-shoreshoals had increased during the Romanperiod and had significantly increasedthe dangersof flooding (Stafford 1985: 6). Indeed,excavation suggests that thesebanks were erectedduring the late Anglo- Saxonperiod along with other land reclamationworks (Colesand Hall 1998:67). The Hafdic (OD haf 'sea') stretchedalong the Lindsey coastline.Another bank ran from Fleet to Holbeach alongthe Wash(Stafford 1985:6). In the medievalperiod, the Witham would havebeen lined with fenlanduntil Tattershallwhere the limestoneridge of Kestevenmet the easternWolds of Lindsey, emphasisingthe importanceof suchsettlements as Fiýhtoft situatedalong the stable

-39- coastlineto movementalong the Witham. Marshlandwould also have surroundedthe Isle of Axholme, now an island only in name. The River Ancholme, with its British morphemean, meaning'marsh' further suggestsa marshyriver betweenthe Wolds and the limestoneridge leading to Lincoln (Sawyer 1998: 44). Marsh and fenland compriseda great deal of the geographyof Anglo-ScandinavianLincolnshire.

Information about activities associatedwith waterwaysand fenland comesprimarily from medieval sources.Domesday indicates that fisherieswere found near marsheson the Isle of Axholme and along the fast moving rivers of the Trent and Witham (Figure 8). Geoffrey de Wirce appearedto havea monopolyon the fisheriesof Axholme holding fisheriesat Crowle, Belton, Eastlundand Graizelund, Epworth, Owston and Haxey (Foster and Longley 1924:191- 2). Torkseywas the site of a further elevenfisheries, and along with the fisheriesat Tattershall Thorpe,demonstrates the importanceof the Witham to the fish trade(Foster and Longley 1924: 13). Fenlandfisheries were primarily engagedin catchingeels which arerecorded as renders in Domesdayfor placessuch as Pinchbeck,Stenning in Bicker andBourne (Foster and Longley 1924: 163,156,88).

Oneof themost important resources in theearly medievalperiod was salt. As previouslynoted, salt appearsto havebeen taxed exclusively by the king (Whitelock 1968:498) andmany roads and settlementstake their name from their participation in the movementof salt acrossthe landscape(Blair 1994:86; Sawyer 1998: 15; Rudkin and Owen 1960:84) Domesdayrecords a large numberof salternsalong the easternfen edgeand the Lindsey coast (Figure 9). Salt processingwas a seasonalactivity associatedwith the summer use of marshy pasturesfor grazing livestock. Sommercotesor 'summer huts' with its saltem mounds recalls this summertimeactivity. It has been suggestedthat the seabanks and dykes which were built during the Anglo-Scandinavianperiod were part of a permanentsettlement strategy which developedfrom an earlier seasonalmovement to the coast for salt extraction and summer grazing.With the stabilisationof the early medievalrise in sealevel during the tenth century, settlementalong the coastalareas might have becomemore reasonable(Owen 1984,46-7). This argumentis given credit by archaeologicalinvestigation into the Sea Bank or Dyke surroundingthe Wash. This was not a Roman construction as had been supposedby the antiquariansbut waspart of a coastalstrategy against flooding implementedduring the Anglo- Scandinavianperiod. Indeed,many of the earthworksin the fens and along rivers, dateto this period when a concertedeffort beganto reclaim and managethe fen and marshlandfor arable fanning (Colesand Hall 1998:66-7).

-40- Water was an intrinsic part of social life in tenth century Lincolnshire. The rivers and coastline represented territorial boundaries and structured the social identity of the inhabitants of Lincolnshire. Movement along the rivers was facilitated by the king, ensuring that not only his messengerswere able to reach their destinations, but that those activities such as trading, which depended on riverine travel, were not impinged upon by other aquatic practices such as fishing, which inhibited mobility through the construction of weirs. The fens provided retreats for soul- weary saints and resources such as meadowland, sedge,reeds, eels and waterfowl for the other inhabitants of the fen-edge. Indeed, while rivers and f6n could represent boundaries of social identity and places of isolation, in other ways they were far from liminal. The rivers were places of great activity and movement, while the fens held valuable resources to be harvested by monk and merchant alike.

-Geographiesof land-

The sharp limestone ridge running the length of Lincolnshire is perhapsits most striking feature. A narrow crestabove the Witham, it broadensout in Kestevenfurther emphasizingthe descentinto the fens of Holland to the east and the flood plain of the Trent to the west. In Lindsey, the River Ancholme runs along the easternside of the ridge separatingit from the chalk wolds further to the eastin the North Riding. Today, after massivefenland reclamation, Lincolnshire is consideredto be a 'flat' county. However,in the tenth century,the landscape of Lincolnshirewas a dialoguebetween watery fens and marshland, and upland hills andwolds.

The Romanroads accentuate the outline of the uplands(Figure 2; Figure 10). Ermine Street runs along the top of the limestoneridge from the ferry at Winteringharnto Lincoln and then on to Stamford. Justnorth of Lincoln, Ermine Streetis met by a Romanroad, branching off to the west in an arch, skirting the edgeof the lowland river estuariesof the Trent and Don as it headseventually towards York. This providedan alternateroute north to Ermine Street,which dependedon the ferry linking Winteringharnand Brough. There is one, possibly two, Roman roadsbranching off to the eastof Ermine Street. VAiile thereis little doubt of the one leading from Ownby Cliff to Usselby,there is somedoubt aboutthe Caistor- North Kelseyroad. The OrdnanceSurvey lists this as a Roman road joining Caistor with Ermine Street (Ordnance Survey 1973). Both Margary and Stafford list it as a Romanroad betweenCaistor and North Kelsey but do not link it to Ermine Street(Stafford 1985: 10; Margary 1973: 192). This road hasbeen left off of more recentmaps (Sawyer 1998: 17) which implies that Caistor was only

-41- associatedwith the Romanroad leadingfrom Homcastleto North Ferriby and that therewere no Romanroadworks leading to or acrossthe Ancholme. Just below Lincoln, Ermine Street is met by the Foss Way coming in from the south-west. In Kesteven,Ermine Street is parallelledby the extensionof King Streetand a roadconnecting the two which forms a double diamondacross the broadlimestone uplands. ErmineStreet is further crossedat Saltersfordby a Romanroad headingeast towards the Wash acrossKing Street(Sawyer 1998: 17; Margary 1973: 192).

The Foss Way continues its north-easterly movementjust above Lincoln, branching at Bullington. The lower branch lines the edge of the northern fens towards Burgh-le-Marsh, while the northerly road continuesthrough the wolds towards Grainthorpe. The prehistoric pathway,now called High Street,which was presumablyused as a Romanroad, follows the edgeof the Wolds from nearthe mouth of the Ancholme at SouthFerriby to the beginningof the northernfens at Homcastlecrossing both branchesof the FossWay (Margary 1973: 192; Sawyer1998: 17; OrdnanceSurvey 1973). A ferry is recordedin Domesdayat SouthFerriby; its importanceas a ferry port obviousin its name(Foster and Longley 1924: 106).- This ferry would haveprovided an alternatelink to Brough (or North Ferriby) on the north shoreof the Humber(Margary 1973:192). However,the YorkshireDomesday does not mentiona ferry for either settlement(Faull and Stinson 1975:6N77,6N64,50). -

Parallel to this is another Roman road running through the wolds. This road crossesthe branchesof the Foss Way before arriving near the coastline at the northern fen edge at Donington. Onefinal road beginsat Stixwold on the northernfen edgeand runs parallel to the northernbranch of the FossWay towardsSaltfleetby. This road crossesthe lower branchof the FossWay as well as the Romanroad running parallel to the prehistoricpathway (Margary 1973:192). The Romanroads provided a goodinternal coverageof Lincolnshire and the East Midlands, linking the inlands to the coast.

The coastaltermini of the Romanroads which end at Grainthorpe,Saltfleetby and Burgh-le- Marsh are all associatedwith salt manufacturein the Roman,late Saxonand medieval periods (Owen 1984:48; Figure 11). Indeed,Saltergate (the streetof the salters)in Lincoln is part of the road leading to Grainthorpe,at which point it is called Salter's Lane emphasizingthe movementof salt from the coastto the town (Rudkin and Owen 1960: 84). The Romanroad crossingthe Witham nearGrantham is called Salter'sWay reflecting the inland movementof salt. The importanceof salt to the early medievaleconomy is indicatedthrough the namesof roadsand settlementswhich give voice to the movementof the salt-cartsacross the landscape

-42- (Blair 1994:86).

Unfortunately, little is known about the local roads and pathways which would have complemented the Roman roads and formed communications routes between settlements. These route-ways (OE strats, weegs,pa6s and herepa0s) are recorded in southern England in boundary clauses along with fording places and other features. However, few such records can be attributed to Lincolnshire. Communication and mobility across the rural landscapeprimarily occurred along roads and pathways between settlements. While rivers were an important

medium of transport, navigability was most likely limited to the major arteries such as the Trent and Witham.

Charterevidence suggests that route-wayswere visually distinguished,a difference which is articulatedthrough their nomenclature(Hooke 1981:101). Indeed,strats wereoftenassociated with Romanroads, the pavedsurfaces of theseroutes making them important for long distance travel (Hooke 1980:43; 1981: 100-1). The combineduse of port and striet further link these roadsto the Romannetwork with a renewedfocus towards the late Anglo-Saxonport or market town, so often foundedin previousRoman fortresses (Hooke 1980:45). The pavednature of theseroads and the stoneworkof the Romansis remarkedupon by Anglo-Saxonpoets who recalled 'the ancient work of giant's within the fortress, streetsstone-paven' (Hooke 1981: 30 1). Strats are often called 'great' which 'was probablyan indication of both sizeand status and perhaps,too, of standard,a meaningalso implied by the adjectival use of 'high" (Hooke 1981:306). Certainly, the strats are linked to the salt trade, a resourcejealously guardedby the king (Whitelock 1968:498). Indeed,Hooke suggeststhat 'salt was the major commodity to be carried for long distancesacross the kingdom and beyondits confines' (1981: 306).

Herep.x6 was also usedto refer to a Romanroad. The word herepa,6, or 'army road', is often linked to the movementof armiesand the importanceof the route to strategicdefence (Hooke 1981:307). However,one wondersif this placestoo muchemphasis on military action rather than military service. The tfinoda necessitasof armywork,bridgework and fortresswork were the threepublic dutiesowed to the king. It would not be surprisingif armywork also extended to the upkeepof roads so vital to trade and communicationas well as to the movementof troops.

Another word frequentlyused in referenceto route-wayswas weg. Theseappear to havebeen unpavedpaths running between settlements often alongridgeways (Hooke 1981:308-10). The associationof adjectivessuch as 'clay', 'wooden', 'red' or 'green' with the wegsdemonstrates

-43- the difference between these roads, occasionally lined with logs, and the stone paved striets and herepx6 (Hooke 1981: 308). Unfortunately, these are the route-ways which are the least visible archaeologically, especially in absence of local landscape studies which are able to identify these routes.

The integration of road and waterway coincided at fords, bridges and ferries. Hooke notes that bridges were rarely used except to span small streams (Hooke 1981: 312). Instead, a river crossing was either referred to as aford (ford) or a gelad (lode or ferry). Fords were often associatedwith a particular person, and sometimes served asmeeting places (Hooke 1981: 312). Settlements at the crossing point of a river often recalled that practice in their name. Thus, Waithe, Stenwith and Langworth incorporate the Old Norse word vaa or 'ford' (Gelling 1984: 82; Sawyer 1998: 18). Stapleford combines the Old English version of ford with 'staple', suggesting that posts were associated with the crossing (Gelling 1984: 69). Market Rasen, at the head of navigability of the Ancholme takes the last part of its name from the Old English word rasn or 'plank' and probably refers to a plank or wooden bridge which crossed the Ancholme at this point (Sawyer 1998: 18).

Domesdayrecords ferry pointsat Lea,South Ferriby, Barton-upon-Humber, Winteringham and Grimsby (Foster and Longley 1924: 61,106,45). Other referencesto ferries are recorded within the place-namesthemselves. Indeed, Kinnard's Ferry (documentedto the twelfth century)derives its namefrom the Old Englishpersonal name Cyneheard, thus suggestingthat the 'ferry' place-namewas there during the Anglo-Scandinavianperiod (Barley 1936: 7; Sawyer 1998: 18). Other likely ferry points were at Littleborough where the Romanroad of Tillbridge Lanecrosses the Trent; Newton-on-Trentwhich is mentionedin the twelfth century; andpossibly Newark wherethe bridge wasbuilt during the twelfth century(Sawyer 1998: 17- 18). Tolls would have likely been taken at ferry points and bridges. Gilbert de Gand was accusedof taking uncustomarytolls on 'bread,fish, hides,and very many otherthings' (Foster andLongley 1924:215) at Barton-upon-Humberand South Ferriby during theeleventh century. Thirteenthcentury practice indicates that taxeswere levied on the useof bridgesand ferries in addition to the price-paid to the ferryman for passage(Stenton 1965: 258-9). While the documentaryevidence for Anglo-Saxontaxing practiceshas rarely survived,the movementof people and goodsacross rivers provided an obvious opportunity for kings and aristocratsto raiserevenues.

Roadsand rivers were an integratedsystem of travel along which people,goods, 'and armies travelled. Roads would have been negotiated by cart, packhorse and foot travel.

-44- Archaeologicallythere is little evidenceindicating the useof ox-and-cartor of horse-ridingdue to the lack of surviving material. However,the CheshireDomesday notes that oxenwere used to pull cartsof salt while the horsewas used instead as a pack animal(Douglas and. Greenaway 1953: 871). Horses were commonly used for transport as indicated in the Rectitudines SinguldrumPersonarum (The Rights and Ranksof People)which often notes the use of the horsein manoriallife (Douglasand Greenaway1953: 813-817). However,while horsesmay havebeen used to transportpeople or packs,oxen were primarily usedfor hauling goodsbefore the twelfth and thirteenthcenturies (Langdon 1986: 49,114). This was especiallytrue for the Anglo-Saxonperiod whenthe horse'tended to be very much a luxury beast,primarily a riding animal for the well-to-do' (Langdon1986: 26).

The calculationsdone by Langdonsuggest that the averagerate of travel was two miles per hour for ox and cart and twice that for horsewagon (1987: 56; 1986:162-3). Stentonfurther suggeststhat horseswere easily ableto be ridden at a rate of thirty miles per day and faster if necessary(1965: 255). Carterstravelled in groupsas is notedby the law codes(Attenborough 1922:79). This is not surprisingconsidering the notation in the CheshireDomesday of carts being overloadedto the point of the axle breaking(Douglas and Greenaway1953: 87 1), or in the 1294j ourneyto Norwich whereextra help washired becauseof the difficulty of travel and the consequentstrain on the horses(Stenton 1965: 256).

Travel during the late Anglo-Saxonperiod was a daily activity, from the movementof salt carts along the strats and herepa6s,to the daily movementaround manorial lands along wegsand lanes. Interactionbetween road and river was regulatedthrough the taking of tolls at bridges and ferries. There is little documentaryevidence for Lincolnshire which would further completethe picture of travel takenfrom the Romanroads, navigable rivers and place-names. However,one can envisagethe carts and horsesmoving salt from the coastalong the Roman roads towards Lincoln and down through Grantham,or the fisherman rowing his boat to Lincoln from the fisheriesalong the Witham. The landscapeof Lincolnshire wasnot staticbut filled with movement,not only along the roadsand rivers but in daily movementof peoplein the fields, villages and towns.

Thesepeople lived in a changinglandscape increasingly oriented towards privatisation of land. Through the breakupof the middle Saxonestate system and minsterparochiae, the landscape becamedominated by the manorand the parish (Sawyer1998: 155; seebelow). Tenth century administrationtended to be located in vills rather than in the landscape,bringing the locale jurisdiction of hundred and wapentakeunder the king (Sawyer 1998,136). Domesday

-45- addresses the hundreds within the Danelaw at twelve carucates to the geld, recognising an Anglo-Scandinavian land division of sixes and twelves, rather than the Anglo-Saxon division of fives and tens found in the south of England (Stenton 1924: xii-xiv).

The Scandinavian colonisation transfigured the toponomy of Lincolnshire, the Anglo-

Scandinavian population adopting the Scandinavian village suffix nomenclature -by and the associated outlying settlement suffix of -thorpe. These settlements often recorded the appearanceof their locale within their names. Thus, Birthorpe was 'the outlying farm by the birch trees' and Fenby and Moorby were the villages by the fen and moor respectively (Cameron 1961: 78-9). Other namesrecorded landholders, such as Aft, now contained in the wapentake Avelund (lundr 'wood'). The wapentake of Lawress originally meant Lag-Ufr's (Law-wolf's) coppice (Cameron 1961: 61-2; Sawyer 1998: 102-4). The settlements of Hawerby and Hawthorpe, derived from the personal name Havar6r, imply both an exchange of land during the Anglo-Scandinavian period and a change of local dialect through the addition of the

Scandinavian suffixes -by and -thorpe. These names for village (-by) and outlying farm thorpe) are common throughout Lincolnshire and the Danelaw (Cameron 1961: 78-8 1).

Despitethe impactof Old Norseon thelanguage and placenames of tenthcentury Lincolnshire, manyof the wapentakesretain Old Englishnames which recall the namesof meeting-placesas particular trees,hills or burial mounds. As Sawyernotes: 'Calcewathwas a ford, Lovedon a hill, Louthesk and Aswardun refer to particular trees,an ash and a thorn, and severalwere named after hills, or perhaps,burial mounds: Aslacoe, Haverstoe,Candleshoe, Wraggoe, Beltisloe, Langoe,Threo' (1998: 136). Allusion to the brandishingof spearsat wapentake assembliesis found in the wapentakeof Gartreeor 'speartree' (Stafford 1985: 143).

While Domesdaywas written after thetenth century,it still providesone of the bestrecords for the useto which the land wasput andto the resourcesit held during the early medievalperiod. Woodland (both coppiceand pasture)is recordedin Domesday,with high densitiesin lower Kesteven(the areajust below the Wolds before the northernfens and aboveTorksey) as well as at the Trent estuary. The woodlandsof Kestevenare no surpriseconsidering that the first part of its nameis British for 'wood' (Cameron1961: 57). Nevertheless,the Domesdayfigures for Lincolnshire indicatethat only 3.5% of Lincolnshire waswoodland, half the amountof the national averagefor Englandin 1086(Rackham 1976: 59-6 1; cf. Sawyer 1998:22).

Arable farming was not heavily practisedin Lincolnshire. Most of Lincolnshire rangesfrom 30-50% arable land during the eleventh century with an area below Sleaford remarkably

-46- reaching 90% arable land (Figure 12). Associated with arable farming was the use of the meadow to feed oxen during the winter. Indeed, those areaswith more arable land also register higher amounts of meadow (Sawyer 1998: 25). Arable land was divided into hides and acres during the Anglian period in Lincolnshire. Terminology changed during the Anglo- Scandinavian period to from hides to ploughlands which were comprised of eight oxgangs (Stenton 1924: x). Reference at Domesday alters yet again to the carucate and bovate of the Norman administration (Darby 1971: 37; Sawyer 1998: 137). The Danelaw organisation of carucates differed from those in the south in that they were distributed in sets of six and twelve rather than in sets of five and ten which was the common practice in Wessex (Darby 1971: 37).

Lincolnshire participated primarily in a pastoral agricultural practices. Sheep were the predominantanimal andwere grazedon the salt marshesalong the coastand in the limestone andchalk wolds anduplands (Sawyer 1998: 25-27). Indeed,the decrease of cattlefarming from the late ninth centuryand the subsequentrise in shepherdingduring the tenth centuryhas been suggestedas one of the reasonsfor the low amountsof woodland. The rise in sheepis also linked to a decreasein pigs who usedwoodland as pannage (O'Connor 1982:12). Theamount of land neededto supportthe Anglo-Scandinavian population of Lincolnshire would havebeen immense. The rural population estimatedfrom Domesdayfigures equals approximately 100,000people. A further 10,000-20,000towns-people living within Lincoln, Stamfordand Torksey can be addedto this number(Sawyer 1998:27). The town of Lincoln (comprisinga seventhof the populationof Lincolnshire)would haveneeded approximately 700 sheepnot to mentionthe 500 cattle and 400 pigs. This numberof sheepwould havebeen culled from an collective herd of 5,000 headof sheepgrazing over 5,000-10,000acres of land (O'Connor 1982:48).

The landscapeof Lincolnshire was full of activity during the Anglo-Scandinavianperiod. It wasa landscapeof agriculture,of shepherds,of cowherdsand swineherds,of cottarsand boors who ploughedand maintained the land. Scandinaviancolonisation transformed the landscape through nomenclatureand dialect, renaming and re-organising the landscape. Regional assembliesstill met at, or retained the namesof meeting-places,so important to Germanic administration,while settlements,fords and bridgestook on the namesof local landholders. The tenth centuryinhabitant of Lincolnshire would haverecognised the palimpsestof Anglian features,still visible through the reinscription of the landscapethrough Anglo-Scandinavian socialpractice, brought through the colonisationof Vikings, andthe transformationsoccurring throughoutEngland during the late Anglo-Saxonperiod.

-47- Settlementsand Communities

ChapterI introducedthe conceptsof socialpractice and the constructionof social identity. It exploredthe waysin which people- asindividuals and as parts of communities-structure their landscapethrough their daily practicesand interactions. Much of the discussionfocussed on the importanceof material culture to socialpractice and the constructionof landscape.This sectionseeks to explorethe ways in which theAnglo-Scandinavian population understood their landscape. It concentrateson the issues outlined in Chapter 1: territorial identity and communityinteraction, interweaving concepts of mobility andsocial orientation. The rural and urban landscapesare discussedin separatesections due to the complexity not only of the, informationconcerning manorial and town development,but also,of the archaeologicaldebate surroundingtowns and their hinterlands. Thesewill be brought togetherin the concluding sectionto reconcilethis artificial separationbetween rural and urban social practices.

Thereare a numberof importantthemes which aredeveloped throughout this section. The first one concentrateson the shift from the Anglian kingdomto the English county. The territorial developmentof Lincolnshire evolvedfrom the middle Saxonkingdom of Lindsey to become the Danelawterritories of Stamfordand Lincoln. Theseterritories were then amalgamatedinto a singlecounty with its administrativecentre located in Lincoln during the I I' century. These developmentswere interrelatedwith the changemost concisely expressedas a shift from a tributary to a feudal society. There was an increasedprivatisation of land by the aristocracy. Their investmentin surplusexchange influenced the emergenceof the town, the manorand the parish. Amongst thesegeneral thernes* are the peoplewho lived in the landscape. It is their understandingand interactionwith their landscape,within the developingmanors and towns, which this sectionis interestedin elucidating.

-Kingdoms and counties: terfitorial identities within Anglo-Scandinavian Lincolnshire-

in The first mention of Lincolnshire the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is in the year 1016 where it is recordedthat:

-48- 'prince Edmundrode to Northurnbriato Earl Uhtred,and everybody imagined that they would collect levies to oppose king Cnut, but they went into Staffordshire,and to Shrewsburyand to Chesterand harried on their side and Cnut on his. He went throughBuckinghamshire into Bedfordshire,thence to Huntingdonshire,along the fen to Stamford,then into Lincolnshire,and thence into Nottinghamshire,and so to Northumbriatowards York' (Garmonsway 1953: 147-9)1.

Until this time, Stamfordand Lincoln are mentionedas membersof the Five Boroughsand Lindsey (the territory of Lincoln) is often notedas a territory in its own right. The exactdate of the creationof Lincolnshire is difficult to determine. Sawyerrightly notesthat the change in terminologymentioned in the Chronicleonly saysthatby the time the sectionincluding 1016 wascompiled, Lincolnshire was in existence(Sawyer 1998: 134). However,in 1015,Lindsey is mentionedas a separateterritory suggestingthat the changeoccurred during the second decadeof the eleventhcentury. The delineationof shireswas a processthat beganin the tenth century under the Wessexadministration. However, during the tenth century, the Danelaw appearsto havebeen under a separateorganisation governed by the Five Boroughsof Lincoln, Stamford,Derby, Leicesterand Nottingham(Garmonsway 1955: 110). The one referencein the Anglo-SaxonChronicle to sevenboroughs for the year 1015is thoughtto refer to York and Torksey. Torkseyis assumedto be the oneof the additionalboroughs as it was later included in Domesdaywith a populationof approximately200 burgesses.York is presumedto be the seventhborough due to the amountof landheld by Mercian thegnsunder Edward the Confessor (Garmonsway1955: 146;Stenton 1971: 388, note 2; Figure 13). EastAnglia doesnot appear to have been part of this Danelaw administration despite its location within the area of Scandinaviancolonisation. This distinct natureof the Danelawis articulatedthrough the law codes. It is first notedin the treaty betweenAlfred and Guthrum (886-900) and was still in existenceby 1020-3in the laws of Cnut (Whitelock 1968:380,421).

The delineation of the shiresin the East Midlands during the eleventhcentury presumably requiredlittle more than a changeof namefrom territory to shire,each borough administering the samelands as it had during the tenth century. The exceptionto this is Lincolnshire. It

Ta fyrdedon hi into Stxffordscire and into Scrobswtonand to Ixgceastre, and hi heregodonon heora healfe and Cnut on his healfe.Wende him ut buruh Buccingaharnscireinto Bedanfordscire,and 8anon to Huntadunscire,swa into Hamtunscireandlang fennes to Stanforda,and ýa into Lindcolnescire, Panon3a to Snotingahamscire,and swa to Nor8hymbranto Eoferwic weard' (Old English Corpus 1998)

~49- amalgamatedthe territories of Stamfordand Lincoln within a single shire centred on the boroughof Lincoln. Politically, thecreation of the EastNfidland shireseffectively dismantled the Danelaw and brought the East Nfidlands and Yorkshire under the administrative organisationof Wessex,a Wessexgoverned by the Danishking Cnut. While the laws of Edgar clearly indicate a separateterritorial and ethnic identity for the Danelaw, this ceasedto be importantby the reign of Cnut whenthe Five Boroughswere renamedas shires. Indeed,the needfor the Danelawto exist as a distinct societymay havebeen removed under the rule of a Scandinavianking (Sawyer1998: 133).

The amalgamation of Stamford and Lincoln into a single shire is curious considering that the other members of the Five Boroughs became the central settlements of their own shires. Moreover, the territories of Holland, Kesteven and Lindsey still retain separate identities in

documents such as Domesday and the Lindsey survey (Foster and Longley: 1924). * Indeed, a territory the size of Lincolnshire was administratively unwieldy (Sawyer 1998: 134). Lindsey was governed through its riding organisation, which presumably originated under Scandinavian

rule, as did the Yorkshire Ridings. Kesteven was once referred to as a riding in Domesday and

certainly 'business concerning it that was normally a matter for the shire court at Lincoln was occasionally dealt with in Kesteven' (Sawyer 1998: 134). While subsumed under a single administrative unit during the eleventh century, the earlier territories within Lincolnshire were still active throughout the medieval period and, indeed, until the 1974 reorganisation of local government.

Lindsey was a strongly articulatedterritory during the tenth and eleventhcenturies, as can be seenboth in the documentarysources and in the archaeology(below; ChapterIV). Lindsey further appearsto have had a separateidentity from the other burghal territories in the East Midlands. In the Anglo-SaxonChronicle citations of the Five Boroughs, Lindsey was often singled out, as in 1012,when 'at once Earl Uhtred and all the Northumbrianssubmitted to [Swein] as did all the people of Lindsey, and then all the people belonging to the Five Boroughs,and quickly afterwardsall the Danish settlersnorth of Watling Street' (Whitelock 1968:223). The agreementbetween Cnut and the men of Lindsey againstXthelmd in 1014 is indicative of the strong territorial identity within Lindsey during the Anglo-Scandinavian period. Unfortunately,their supportwas misguidedas Cnut fled leaving the men of Lindsey to face the army of ,EthelrTd. Lindsey was 'ravagedand burnt, and all the men who could be got at werekilled' (Whitelock 1968:224). Originally a middle Saxonkingdom subsumedinto theMercian hegemony, Lindsey continued to asserta strongpolitical identity within the Anglo- Scandinavianterritories.

-50- This is not the case with the territory of Stamford which was allied with Wessex during the early tenth century. In the spring of 922, Stamford was taken by Edward the Elder, who built a burh on the southern bank of the Welland to accompany the Danish burh already established on the north bank (Garmonsway1955: 103; Figure 14). Previously, Stamford had been specificallyassociated with the Danes,as can be seenby)Ethelweard's 894 report that,in York, he met 'the enemy,who possessedlarge territories in the kingdom of the Mercians, on the Stamford between the Welland the westernside of the placecalled ... the streamsof river and thickets of the wood called Kestevenby the commonpeople' (Campbell 1962: 51). With Edward's conquest,Stamford, along with Kestevenand Holland, therefore,appears to have redirectedits allegiancetowards the houseof Wessex.

Conversely,Lindsey was more strongly linked to Yorkshire. While little is known from documentarysources, Northumbrian coinage was occasionally minted in Lindsey. Sihtric (921- 7) appearsto havestruck coins based on the York 'St. Peter' coinagein Lincoln (Blackburnet al. 1983: 14). Indeed,it was not until the fall of Eric Blood-axe that English coinagewas mintedin Lincoln underEadred (Blunt et al. 1989:192,313; cf. Sawyer1998: 124). TheseSt. Martin coinswere one of the few issuesattributed to Eadred,and it hasbeen suggested that this coinagewith its profile of Eadredwith his crown was a deliberate signal to the north that Wessexnow ruled there. Subsequently,Lincoln becameone of the largestmints in England. Indeed,between Lincoln and Stamford,Lincolnshire produced a quarterof the coinageduring the reign of Edward the Confessor(Metcalf 1981:74-7; cf. Sawyer 1998: 185).

The tenthcentury political separationbetween the territory of Stamfordand Lindsey is likewise demonstratedby the sculpturaltraditions. Early in the tenth century,a social elite in Lindsey identified themselveswith the kingdom of York through Hiberno-Norsememorial stones, including Borre-style coversfrom Hackthornand Lincoln (Eversonand Stocker 1999: 82 ). There are very few Borre style monumentswithin England, and they are often directly associatedwith Norway. Their early dateand connectionwith Northumbria,Cumbria and the Isle of Man hasbeen interpreted as an expressionof Norseinfluence and identity (Bailey 1980: 54-5,216-222). The examplesof ffiberno-Norsesculpture in Lindsey demonstratesocial links with the kingdom of York through their petrology. The stonesfound at Holton-le-Clay and Thornton Curtis parallel the stonesburied under York Minster both in designand in petrology (Eversonand Stocker 1999:50,172,265). The cross-shaftat Crowle was originally cut from the millstone grit outcrop at Knaresborough,West Yorkshire, a petrology also familiar in the city of York (Eversonand Stocker 1999: 28,147). While Hiberno-Norseinfluence can be seen in sculpture throughout the Five Borough territories, these Lindsey examplesadd further

-51- supportto thenumismatic evidence thatLindsey was apart of a 'greaterNorthumbria' (Everson and Stocker 1999:8 1; Blackburnet aL 1983:13-14).

During the early to mid-tenth century, Kestevenseems to be participating in a regional sculpturaltradition associatedwith the'Wheel Rim Type' hogback(Everson and Stocker 1999: 35). It is probable that these stoneswere predominantlyquarried in Ancaster within the territory of Stamford. This hogbackhas only basic similarities to the zoomorphichouse-like forms found in Northumbria and Scotland. Instead,these monumentsbear cross images reminiscentof eighth andninth centurysarcophagi (Everson and Stocker1999: 36-7,86). The Trent Valley hogbacksare also present in bothNottinghamshire and Derbyshire suggesting that theseterritories were participatingin a sculpturaltradition which 'had an internal cohesion distinguishingit from Anglo-Scandinaviangroupings to the north and south' (Eversonand Stocker 1999:86). '

Later tenth centurysculpture further maintainsa distinction betweenLindsey and Kestevenin the funerarymonuments referred to as gravecovers (Figure 15). In Lindsey, the Borre style stonesceased to be usedand, instead, flat graveslabs with a simpleinterlace pattern of Carrick bendsand bordering cable design were produced from stonequarried near Lincoln (Eversonand Stocker 1999:51-5; Figure 16). Thesegrave covers were both unusualin designand in their uniformity, and were perhapslinked closely to the re-establishmentof episcopalpower in Lindseyunder the gambitsof the southernEnglish kings andarchbishops (Everson and Stocker 1999:84). The stylistic separationof Lindsey from the rest of the Five Boroughs,politically agreeswith the Wessex advancementby Edward and jEthelflxd into the Five Borough territories of Stamford,Nottingham and Derby. Lincoln and Lindsey did not comeunder the sway of Wessexfor a prolongedperiod of time until later in the tenth century under Edmund (939-46)and his brotherEadred (946-55). The extentof authority that thesekings had over the Five Boroughsis debatable.It is probablethat they wereonly nominally overlordsof territories which continued to be administeredthrough the local aristocracy(Sawyer 1998: 123,126). Nevertheless,the exclusivedistribution of thesecovers within Lindsey would also arguethat a distinct socialidentity wasassociated with Lindsey. This would correspondwith documents which differentiateLindsey from the rest of the Five Boroughs(Everson and Stocker 1999: 84- 5).

The correspondingmid-tenth century Kesteven covers from below theWitham aredistinguished by their double-endedcross-motif. Thesestones were occasionallyused north of the Lindsey border as well as in Nottinghamshire,Derbyshire and Leicestershire(Everson and Stocker

-52- 1999:86; Figure 17). This further emphasisesthe isolateddistribution of gravecovers within Lindsey,as opposed to the inclusionof Kesteventraditions within the Five Boroughterritories. This distinction betweenthe Lindsey and Kesteventraditions ceasedduring the eleventh centurywith the more generalEast Midland tradition basedon Barnack/Clipstonmonuments (Eversonand Stocker 1999:87).

Holland, comprised predominantly of fenland, was rarely mentioned in the historical documents.Its prime recognitioncomes from the organisationof the Lincolnshire Domesday Surveywhere it formed oneof the administrativeunits (Fosterand Longley 1924). During the middle Saxonperiod, Holland wasinhabited by two tribes,the Spaldas and the Bilmiga (Davies and Vierk 1974:234-6,283; Lane andHayes 1993: 68). The boundaryof Holland appearsto have delineatedthese territories from Mercia, although both were later subsumedinto the Mercian confederacy,as was Lindsey (Lane and Hayes 1993: 68). The Fenland Survey indicatedthat during the middle Saxonperiod, the Lincolnshirefens were inhabitedand it was only in thelate Saxonperiod that the settlementsmoved off the fenland(Hayes and Lane 1992: 215; Lane and Hayes 1993: 68-9). Despite obvious inhabitation during the middle Saxon period, the fens were perceivedby eighth century society as a liminal wilderness,home to a 'multitude of fugitive settlementsand the secretdwellings of wretchedspirits' (Bradley 1982: 257). The fenswere enough of a wildernessto providea retreatfor St. Guthlacso that he might devotehis life to God.

After the deathof Guthlac,the monasteryof Crowlandwas foundedand becamea prominent monasticestablishment during the medievalperiod. Indeed,raised promontories on the edges of the fens were favouredlocations for monasteries,such as Crowland,Peterborough and Ely. During the late Saxonand medievalperiods, the field systemsin Holland did not conform to the open field systemsestablished on more stable soil. Instead,agglornerative fields were maintainedin ditched strips called dylings (Lane and Hayes 1993: 69). Intercommoningof livestockwas extensively practised in the fensduring the medievalperiod (Roffe 1994:80) and presumablyduring the late Saxonperiod as well. However,despite its evident management, Holland was a territory less inhabitedthan Kestevenor Lindsey; a situation which no doubt contributedto its rare expressionsof territorial identity.

The developmentof Lincolnshire, from the Anglian territories of Lindsey, Kesteven and Holland, influenced the social identities of their inhabitantsand affected their interactions. Lindsey, despite a changeof allegiance from the northern Idngdom of York to a Wessex rulership, still maintaineda separateterritorial identity. After the amalgamationwith Wessex,

-53- the local aristocracy still preferred to signal its identity through the sculptural tradition, indicating a continued investment in a distinct society. While there may have been some emulation of Kesteven practices, or immigration by Kesteven lords into Lindsey, the sculptural designs associated with Lindsey were not adopted by other manorial lords outside of this territory.

While the delineation of Lincolnshire and the other East Midland shires might have reconciled the administrative dichotomy which existed between the Danelaw and Wessex, the territorial identities, apparent in the tenth century, continued to be recognised throughout the eleventh century and beyond. During the tenth century, Lincolnshire was a complex arrangement of territories, with strident Lindsey in the north and southward looking Kesteven, as well as the quiet fenlands; of Holland. Indeed, the amalgamation of these territories into one shire is surprising considering the distinct identities apparent in the historical and archaeological evidence as well as the direct transition between Five Borough territory and shire in the rest of the East Midlands and in Yorkshire. The territorial distinctions within Anglo-Scandinavian Lincolnshire were structured through sculptural traditions, dialect and political organisation, and formed an important component of the landscape and in the lives of the people who inhabited it.

Anglo-Scandinavian -Ploughing and supporWngthemselves: ruralpractices-

Bowmanbegins his discussionof the Langtonhundred in the late ninth andtenth centuries with the remark 'the chronologyand processby which the dispersedpattern of the early to middle Saxonsettlements was transformed into the known patternof medievalvillages andhamlets is still poorly understood'(Bowman 1996: 130). Indeed,the shift from minsterand villa regalis to parishand manor is part of a profound changein territorial and political organisationwhere more is understoodabout the end result than its beginnings.This is further complicatedin Lincolnshire by Scandinaviancolonization and the virtual absenceof documentarysources. Not only mustone consider the generalshift in the tenth century,from multiple estateto manor, but also one must contendwith the Scandinavianstrategies for land organisation,for which there is no associationoutside of the Danelawwhere more documentaryinformation exists. Becauseof the generallack of historical information for Lincolnshire, this discussionwill borrow widely from the generalunderstandings of the period and,where possible, link themto the Lincolnshire landscape.

-54- The Anglian social landscapewas organized into multiple estates managedby a focal settlement,often a villa regalis or royal vill. Theselands were not necessarilycontiguous; they representedthe holdings of thearistocracy, who maintainedthemselves by progressingthrough their lands and by requisitioning the food rents and dues owed to them. These 'tribute and food-renderregimes were designed to feedlarge, mainly itinerating householdson an episodic basis' (Blair 1994: 140). Glimpsesof the estatesystem can be seenin royal duesrecorded in Domesday,where settlements such as Leighton Buzzard were expected to providethe king with 'a day's provisions of wheat, honey and other things plus duesfor the upkeepof the king's huntingdogs' (Stafford 1985:30). This 'farm of onenight' demonstratesthe mobility on which thesetribute relationsdepended.

The middle Saxon estatesystem was the product of wider social changeswhich had been occurring from the early Saxonperiod. The itinerant tributary relations, betweenking and landholder,was derived from early Saxonsocial organisation. Kings held authority primarily over people,rather than land, during the early Anglo-Saxonsettlement of England(Scull 1993: 67; 1992:6). The aristocraticdependance on food rendersand other duesin the middle Saxon period is a continuationof this investmentin people. This associationwith peoplecan further be seenin the politics during the middle Saxon period, when kingdoms existed as a set of allegiancesgiven to a king during his lifetime, but which often held no substanceafter his death. As Sawyernotes, 'overlordships like Penda'swere inherently unstable; few outlived the death of their creator' (1998: 75). The fluctuating boundariesof the kingdoms during the middle Saxonperiod are representativeof a social organisationbased on tribute relations and allegianceagreements.

Through the middle Saxonperiod, kings and kingdomsbecame more entrenchedthrough the developmentof an aristocracyof ealdormen,former kings and subkingswho had lost their independentstatus through defeat in battle by other kings. Powerwas embeddedin the hands of fewer contendersover larger territories. The introduction of bocland,through the auspices of the Church,introduced the conceptof alienableland from the king which could be disposed of by the landholder. This wasintroduced to provide a mechanismwhereby the Churchcould gain the landsof its followers throughbequests. As the will of Xthelric son of Xthelmund in 804 notes:

'these are the namesof those lands which I will give to the place [minster] which is called Deerhurst,for me andforEthelmund my father, if it befall me that my body shall be buried there: Todenham,and Stour, Shrawley and

-55- Cohhanleah; on the condition that community carriesout their vows as they havepromised me' (Whitelock 1968:472; cf. Blair 1988a:2-3).

I'llis ability to gain land was obviously sought after by the aristocracy, who instituted themselves as abbotsbut did not give up the pleasuresof their secularlives. The complaintby Bede to the Archbishop of York in 734 is clearly disparagingof the stateof affairs. He writes that the abbotsare

'laymen and not experiencedin the usagesof life accordingto the rule or Possessedby love of it, give moneyto kings,and under the pretext of founding monasteriesby landson which they maymore freely devotethemselves to Just ... the very samemen now are occupiedwith wives and the procreation of children, now rising from their bedsperform with assiduousattention what should be done within the precinctsof monasteries'(Whitelock 1968:741).

Nevertheless, whateverthe abusesof sacredoffices, the alienationof land from the king and the increasing complexity of the aristocracy were part of the momentum behind the development of the manor,the parish and the shire.

')'ring into the middle Saxonperiod, the agrarianlandscape was divided estatesadministered by kings and thegns. Somethegns held booklandretaining both the sakeand sokeof the land, 1rnearling that they both held the land andderived customs from its tenants.Sake and soke were divisible, land) in that one lord could havethe sakeof the land (or hold the and loan the soke o"t to another, who would then be responsiblefor the trinoda necessitas(or three duties) 'nculnbent on any lord: bridgework, burghwork, and fyrdwork (Roffe 1996: 110-11). This concept be from of bookland was sustainedthroughout the late Saxonperiod as can see the '&ect'tud"IesSinguldrum Personarum (The Rightsand Ranksof People)thought to havebeen cornPOsed 1953:813). It in the first half of the eleventhcentury (Douglas and Greenaway opens 'Withthe Thegn's he be to his bookright, Law which states;'the law of the thegnis that entitled andthat he shall contributethree things in respectof his land: armedservice, and the repairing of fortresses, 813). These and work on bridges' (Douglasand Greenaway 1953: serviceswere Owedto as a the king, by virtue of the position of the thegnIn the aristocratic community landowner. I

'ý"Dngsjde and their the estates of the villa regali was an ecclesiastical network of rninsters a's0ciatedparochiae. These minsters were often:

~56- 'founded near royal vills, their parochide coterminouswith the territories which the vills controlled ... royal villae and regionesconstituted a coherent matrix within which the (often substantial)endowments of... minsterswere created,and in relation to which theirparochiae were defined' (Blair 1988a: 2).

't is unfortunate that there is little evidencein the Danelaw for pre-Anglo-Scandinavian ecclesiastical development.The lack of evidencemakes it unclearwhether there were 'genuine regional contrasts,or merely differencesin later developments,in the availableevidence or in thePreconceptions of local studies' (Blair 1988a:2). Nevertheless,current research agendas are beginning to shed more light on ecclesiasticaldevelopments in Lincolnshire during the 'ýnglian and Anglo-Scandinavianperiods (Eversonand Stocker 1999; Stocker 1993; Gem 1993).

1ý)Uring the eighth century,minsters were able to securerights of burial within their close. This followed on the heelsof the Final Phaseburials andmounds, such as the SuttonHoo complex (Geake 1992), which were not directly associatedwith the minsters. As Blair remarks, conversion to Christianity 'did not necessarilyinvolve forsaking one's ancestralcemetery, (1994:70). This transition, from ancestralburial ground to minster graveyard,is poorly understood (Blair 1994:70). However,on the eve of the Scandinavianinvasions, the minsters were focal a point in the landscape. Religiouspractices were orientedtowards th ese sacred Places.7le deadwere carried from the outlying settlementsto be laid to rest in the shadowof the Minster., Other sacredrights such as marriage, baptism, and communion occurred at M"'sters. The saintsattached to the minstersformed a part of regionalculture. Indeed,while the saint's lives recordedin medievaltexts are not a reliable indicator of middle Saxonsocial Practice, they do indicate that therewas a flourishing oral tradition which passeddown these stories through the generations(Blair 1994: 75-6). Peoplewould have orientedthemselves tolvards the minsters,so often locatedby the villa regalis. The placeswould havebeen central to the lives of the peoplewithin theirparochiae.

There area numberof known or suggestedminster sitesin Lincolnshire: Crowland,Partney, l3ardney, lEbaldstow, SouthKyme. West Halton, Stow-by-Threekingham,Louth and Barrow (Stocker 1993:10,114; Figure 18). Mnsters havealso been postulated for Kirton-in-Holland, IýIrton-in-Lindsey, Caistor,Grantham and Homcastle,due the sizeof their medievalparishes andthe importance given to them by Domesday(Stocker 1993: 114-5;Sawyer 1998:63-4). Louth is included in this list becauseof the later foundation of a CistercianAbbey afid its

~57- topographical similarity to other seventhand eighthcentury minster sites (Stocker 1993: 114). 7'h'stopographical similarity has beeneffectively exploredby Stocker(1993), who suggests that mostof the seventhand eighth centurymonastic sites in Lincolnshirewere built on islands or ol, Promontorieswith island-like qualitites. This topographicalaloofness of the sites is thOught to havesymbolized a spiritual separationfrom the world. Stockerillustrates this when he remarks:

'this seekingafter physical isolation or enclosure,the desireto separatethe spiritual life from the sins of the world, is the very essenceof early monasticism and has long been identified as one of the main threads running through the lives of the seventh century British saints. It is quite clear that Inany early monastic communities sought out such topographically enclosed sites to give a clearly understood visual expression, to the sharp distinction between the monastery and the outside world, between the City of God and the citY of men' (Stocker 1993: 106).

It is clear that this social mappingof topographyand geographyfollows the religious beliefs, not Only of the inhabitants of the monasteries,but also of Anglian society in general. The separation of heaven and earth would have been signalled through the approachonto a PrornontorY or island, emphasizedat Crowland through the erection of crossesaround the rnonastic grounds(Stocker 1993: 103).

1110 Shift from during late Anglo-Saxon villa regalis and Parochia to manor and parish the Period in While should be seen against more fundamental changes economy and society. the VWng invasions for these and the subsequentsettlement certainly provided a catalyst changes, it undoubtedly differences in the Danelaw. The was responsible for the regional apparent flagmentation larger from of estates, both secular and ecclesiastical, was part of a shift a tributary 1994: 140). The to a feudal economy (Stafford 1985: 60-2; Blair ranks of aristocracy "Icreased kings had large throughout the late Anglo-Saxon period. Formerly, governed the territories Wessex) became Of England. As these kings (especially the scions of more powerful, ealdOrrnen The (shire- or earls were required to govern more territory. reeve and port-reeve) becanle formerly held by an important part of society, taking over responsibilities ealdormen. As blkland began have became more entrenched, the thegns to more private Power over landrights. increasedinterest in This privatisation of land coincided with an surplus Production. SurPlus food which had trade started to become more important than the renders previously supported the itinerant kings (Blair 1994: 140; Stafford 1985: 161-2; Saunders 1991: 168).

-58- While itineration continued to be a large part of government practice, it was integrated with the land-based surpluses of the thegn with his manor and parish church.

The parishchurch became entrenched in thepersona of the late Anglo-Saxonthegn (Hase 1988: 49). Indeed, one of the many requirementsfor a churl (freeman)to becomea thegn(lord of a Manor)was that 'he possessedfully five hidesof land of his own, a bell anda castle-gate,a seat and a special office in the king's hall' (VAiitelock 1955: 432). It was not until the twelfth centurythat manorialchurches emerged from underthe control of the lord. Beforethis, manors and manorial churches formed the ecclesiasticaland socio-economiccentres of the rural communitiesunder secularrule (Blair 1994: 134). Landownerswith a church and cemetery wererequired to give two thirds of the demesnetithes to the bishops,providing the seedsof the later twelfth century law that a local church was only able to retain a third of the parish tithe (Whitelock 1968: 395; Sawyer 1998: 155). While this is seento emphasisethe continued Power of the middle Saxon minstersin the fragmentedlandscape of the tenth and eleventh centuries,the small parishesof Lincolnshire suggestthat this control was a more southemly one, where the parochial structure had not been as disrupted by Scandinaviansettlement (Sawyer 1998: 155-6). In Wessexand English Mercia it is apparentthrough the associations between Minsterand parish church that formerparochial connections continued and that those Villae regaleswhich incorporateda rr-ýnsterwithin their regionesoften wereheld by powerful lords (Blair 1994: 116; Sawyer 1-998:155).

Nevertheless, becomes focus from the mid-tenth century, the parish church the of local communities.Bequests and land endowmentswere given to the parish, rather than to the drawnfrom local n1insterchurch, by the lords of themanor. Parishpriests were the community 9and Owedtheir first loyalties to their lords and neighbours' (Blair 1988b:57). While the the late Saxon Southernminsters continued to retain authority throughout period, the fragmentation that of middle Saxonestates into manorialcommunities meant minsterchurches began jealously As Blair were now compe.ting for resourceswhich they to guard. comments, had been the minsters' 'collegiate structureand largeparochide essentiallywell suitedto the lordship... From their Oldpattern of scatteredsettlements and centralized old position of central and unquestionedimportance, the minsters started to become anachronismsfounded on importantto that despitethe deterioration entrenchedrights' (1988b:57). However,it is note the Anglo-Saxonlaws of the tenth Of Minster authority with the growth of the parish church, the minsterchurch over dependentchapels and eleventhcenturies still affirm the authority of (Rase the andecclesiastical landscape but 1988:5 1). The parishchurch radically altered social the importance. minster churchesstill retainedpositions of

-59- Lincolnshire exhibits a more extreme fragmentationof ecclesiasticalauthority during the Anglo-Scandinavian period than most counties. Yorkshire does not demonstratethis disintegration asclearly, despitethe strongScandinavian aristocratic presence during the tenth andeleventh centuries (Sawyer 1998: 155). However,strong archdiocesan involvement in the Politics of Yorkshire continuedthroughout the Scandinavianrule, andthis, no doubt,impacted on how land wasdivided. In Lincolnshire,there was not sucha vibrant episcopalpresence and church building fell in alongsideestate management. As Sawyernotes, instead of gifts to monasteries,'the landownersof the region [Lincolnshire] apparentlypreferred to demonstrate their piety and wealth by building and adorningtheir own churches'Sawyer 1998,157). This ecclesiasticaladdition to secularassets is recordedin Domesday,where churches and parts of churchesare recorded alongside fisheries, marsh and woodland. At Grasbyin Yarborough,the Bishop of Bayeuxhad a church,a priest, a mill andforty acresof meadow. Robertde Todeni had a manor in RingstoneAvelund, where he owned the third part of a church (Fosterand Longley 1924:40,97). Churcheswere assets that could be owned,shared and divided amongst Manorial lords.

The strong connection between the social elite and the establishment of parishes is emphasized through the burial sculpture associated with these churches. Anglo-Scandinavian sculpture is affiliated with many of the parish churches in Lincolnshire and represents the graves of the secular lords who were establishing theirparish churches during the middle of the tenth century (Everson and Stocker 1999: 78). Indeed, 'to judge from the sudden plethora of carved tombstones in the tenth and eleventh centuries, private manorial churches had begun to rival minsters as favoured burial-sites for the thegnly classes' (Blair 1988a: 8). The secular elite

were signalling the right to be buried in their own churchyard, to which a third of their tithe to the Church was directed (Boddington 1996: 67). Indeed, only a third of theseburial monuments be can associated with minster sites. Thus, the majority of the sculpture commemorated new establishments. These parish churches appear to be predominantly situated in more important settlements, rather than minor settlements bearing -thorpe names. This affiliation of secular estate and parochial establishment is underlined by the common inclusion of associated members of the estate within the parish bounds. This was not only true for Lincolnshire but for the East Midlands in general (Hadley 1996: 78). A common pattern of small endowments of land was associatedwith these Danelaw churches (Hadley 1996: 79-80), again underlining their secular association based on the redistribution of lands under Anglo-Scandinavian control.

The fragmentationof estateswas no doubt started in 877when HaNdan 'shared out the land of theNorthumbrians, and they proceeded to ploughand support themselves' (Whitelock 1968:

-60- 179) It is difficult to reconstruct this shift from Anglian to Anglo-Scandinavian settlement strategies. With virtually no written records referring to Lincolnshire during this time period, it is almost impossible to trace the developments from the Anglian period to the Norman. Nor is the Anglian period in Lincolnshire well documented or understood, except for monastic and fenland landscapes,where more detailed studies have been done (Stocker 1993; Hayes and Lane 1992; Lane 1993). Nonetheless, despite this bleak report concerning settlement strategies, some light can be shed on the Anglo-Scandinavian rural landscape. Place-nameanalysis suggeststhat in some areas, such as Lincoln, Barrow and Bardney, whole estates were assumedby Danish landowners without fragmentation. It has been suggested that the retention of large numbers of Anglian names in these areaswas due to the lack of land division by Scandinavian landlords, who changed and altered the names of places they came to own and inhabit (Sawyer 1998: 98- 100). Partney, an important monastic establishment during the Anglian period, was located in one of the densest concentrations of Scandinavian names. Barrow, another monastic establishment was also situated in an area predominantly comprised of Anglian nomenclature (Sawyer 1998: 98-99). The estates which survived the Scandinavian colonisation and redistribution of land appear to have been held by important leaders. Indeed, these lands were held at Domesday 'by the royal family or by the king's main agents, the earls' (Sawyer 1998: 100). The transition between Anglian estate and Anglo-Scandinavian manor was never

uniform, each region or locale retaining and adopting different traditions.

Similarly, Hadley argues that those areas with plentiful Scandinavian toponomies are located in minor settlements where the land was more easily transferable (1996: 80- 1). Hadley suggests that land such as sokelandwas susceptibleto changesin nomenclature,and thus, throughthe adoption of an Anglo-Scandinavian culture and language, would be renamed using Scandinaviantoponomy. Thosemanors and berewicks, which remainedin continuouscontrol of lords, were less likely to alter their names. Indeed, 'the relationship of such holdings [sokeland] to major manorial centres may have been more fluid than that which bound berewicksto the correspondingmanorial centre' (Hadley 1996:8 1). Thoselands which were lesstransitory than others, retained their Anglian names.One wonders whether this waslinked to the increasedimportance of sheepduring the tenth century (O'Connor 1982:47) making thosesettlements based in pastoralagriculture less stablethan thosemainly practisingarable agriculture.

it is In order to address manorial life in tenth century Lincolnshire, necessaryto piece together documentary various sources, such as land boundaries, archaeological excavations and None these, is references from outside of the county as well as later source material. of alone,

-61- very useful. Our historical understanding of the area is sparse, and there have been few archaeological opportunities to address the development of the manor apart from Goltho and perhaps Flixborough (if it is a secular rather than an ecclesiastical foundation) (Loveluck 1997: 190-1). Indeed, due to the lack of historical information for Lincolnshire, a detailed archaeological investigation of rural settlement patterns becomes extremely important. This, unfortunately, is a statement to which most counties could lay claim. With the increasing focus on landscapes and hinterlands within archaeology, it is hoped that future research agendaswill be able to redress this lack of knowledge.

Documents,such as the law codesand the RectitudinesSinguldrum Personarum, demonstrate that late Anglo-Saxonsociety was extremely stratified. While thesedivisions areperhaps more rigid on paperthan in everydaylife, therural communitywas comprised of interactionsbetween many occupations and levels of society. The eleventh century document, Rectitudines Singularum Personarum,describes a manorial community as consistingof thegns,geneats, cottars,boors, bee-keepers, swineherds, goatherds, cowherds, cheesemakers, granary keepers, beadles,woodwards, and haywards(Douglas and Greenaway1953: 813-16). To this AElfric, in his Colloquy of the occupations,adds the ploughman,the hunter,the monk, the fisherman, the fowler, the merchant,the shoemaker,the salter, the baker and the cook (Mitchell and Robinson 1986: 174-81). Each of these 'classes' of people were responsiblefor various activities andchores: the genealbrought strangers to the village; thecottar worked on thelord's land eachMonday, earninghim the nameof lundinarii or 'Monday-man'; the boor gave the beekeeper swineherdbread when he drove the animalsto the mast-pasture;the was given a horseto run errands;and the slaves,such as the herdsmen,were given corn, sheep,cattle and duties, freemen boor, the right to the lord's wood. In addition to thesemanorial such as the (Douglas Greenaway geneatand cottar tilled their own land andintercommoned their stock and For instance, boor 1953: 813-4). Life revolved aroundthe changingseasons. the performed week-workfor two daysin Easterand threedays before the Feastof the Purification. He paid Martinmas. He gafol at Michaelmasand owed barley andhens to his lord at ploughedan acre Martinmas then, from each week for the lord between the beginning of ploughing and and Greenaway1953: 814). Martinmas to Easter,he had duties in the lord's fold (Douglasand interaction, harvesttime, Rural life was filled with diversity. Community especiallyat was 1953:813-818). orientedtowards the manor and lord (Douglasand Greenaway

the manorand village. Indeed, Researchinto medievallife often emphasisesthe solidarity of Saxon This is basedon the the nucleationof settlementsis a commontheme of late studies. found in the reorganisation observationthat the origins of modernsettlement patterns are often

-62- the landscape during of the tenth and eleventh centuries. However, this 'typical medieval firmly village of the textbooks: a nucleated settlement with its own church and single manor- house in the middle, and its open fields and common pastures spread round about' (Reynolds 1997: 101) presents too much of a closed community. Domesday demonstrates that villages identified were with more than one manor, held by more than one lord. They could also contain berewick lands and sokelands of other manors. For example, Gilbert de Gand held a manor at Cherry Willingham, a place which also contained sokeland belonging to a manor in Redbourne (held by the Bishop of Lincoln) (Foster and Longley 1924: 105,53-4). This patchwork of land- ownership within one locale is quite different from the manorial community described above. Certainly, the 'sheer proximity of dwellings would presumably promote some degree of solidarity, which would be increased if people had to co-operate in labour services at hay- making and harvest or in the working of a regulated open-field system' (Reynolds 1997: 101-2). However, the communal interactions, within settlements and between associated lands in other settlements, are difficult to determine. Furthermore, the extent to which the Domesday landscape existed in the early years of the tenth century is problematic. As Reynolds notes, 'before the twelfth century the evidence is, as usual, sparse, and its interpretation depends as often as not on procedures like reading social relationships into place-names or arguing backwards from the later period, with all the dangers of circular arguments that such reasonings involve' (1997: 105). Nevertheless, Domesday, and other post-Conquest documentation, do

provide one of the few sources for landscape organisation at this time and as such are invaluable resources.

Domesdayindicates that the manorialassociations between places were often clusteredwithin a 10 Ian radius. Taking a sampleof placesfrom Domesday,based on the sites held in the pottery database(see below), communication between these manors and their associated berewicksand sokelandwould haveeasily beenwithin a day's travel. From more extensive work in the EastMidlands, it appearsthat thosesettlements affiliated with a manorialestate are located within the sameparish (Hadley 1996: 78). It is thereforenot surprisingthat none of thesesmall groupings of linked settlementscrossed the Lindsey border or the Kesteven/Holland boundary. Instead, connections crossing the Witham and Fosse Dyke were located at considerabledistance, unlike the clustersof manorialties emphasisinglocale andcommunity. Interestingly, there are no connectionsacross the fens suggestingthat they presenteda substantialsocial barTier. Long distancerelations were often held by morewealthy land-owners such as the King and Archbishop of York. For the most part only wealthy aristocracycould afford to maintain connectionsbetween distant settlements.

-63- The lack of manorial associations across the fenland is intriguing. Land organisation in the fenland from differs that on more solid agricultural land. FenIand settlements are often elongated, extending into the fen. This allows the greatest variety of resources to be exploited by the inhabitants. Both Billingborough and Hacconby along the south-west fen edge are 8 km long and between I and 2 km wide. Furlong strips were used to plough these lands (Coles and Hall 1998: 70-1). However, while furlong ploughing was practised in the tenth century, it should not be equated with the open field systems of the thirteenth century (Blair 1994: 128).

Droveways extended down into the fen. These consolidated pathways exist now as raised routes through the fen, linking mother and daughter settlements, such as Gedney and Gedney

Hill; orin Cambridgeshire, Holbeach and Holbeach Drove (Owen 1984: 48). Fenland was often intercommoned, at least in the twelfth century, when the abbot of Crowland claimed exclusive commoningrights againstthe men of Holland, basedon a supposedland grantby Tbeobaldof Mercia in 716 (Roffe 1994:80). Exploitation of resourcessuch as pasture,reeds, sedge, and peatwas jealously governedby monasteriesand manors alike (Colesand Hall 1998:72). With so much activity (if not habitation)in the fens,it is surprisingthat more social ties acrossthem did not exist. Nevertheless,the inner fenlandwas difficult to traverse,as can be seenfrom the murky descriptionsof Anglo-Saxonand medievalchronicles (Bradley 1982: 257; Colgrave 1956:89).

While documentarysources are quite illuminating in termsof landscapetopography and past social practices,it is archaeologywhich provides the complimentarydetailed knowledgeof settlementsand of the daily activitiespractised by their inhabitants.There havenot beenmany extensiveexcavations of early medieval rural settlements,especially when comparedto the excavationsof towns. Furthermore,many havefocussed on the primary settlementor manor site, rather than exploring the relationship betweenthe manor and the other propertiesin the village. There have been two important excavationsof rural settlementsin Lincolnshire: Flixborough (Loveluck 1997; 1998)and Goltho (Beresford1987). The publication of Goitho, a village fifteen kilometres east of Lincoln along the Foss Way, remains one the most late Anglo-Saxon significant excavations,not only in Lincolnshire, but for the period as a first late Saxon whole. However, one must be careful of the dating which placesthe phaseof dates (J. Young settlementtoo early to correspondwith the pottery assemblage pers com). 850, it is Therefore,- instead of placing the date of the first enclosedsettlement at c. more to the realistic to suggesta dateof c. 900,which would moreclosely relate potteryassemblages. invaluablebefore formal the The excavationsat Flixboroughhave already bee'n publicationof Humber, site. Flixborough is situatedalong the Trent nearits confluencewith the providing Lincoln. While Flixborough is a geographic balance to the proximity of Goltho to

-64- predominantly an Anglian settlement,it does include someAnglo-Scandinavian habitation making it one of the few sites which spans the middle to late Saxon transition.

Goltho is a visually impressiveexample of a late Saxonfortified manorsite (Figure 20; Figure 21). A personvisiting Goltho in the early tenth centurywould haveapproached from the north west. They would haveimmediately been struck by the ditchedenclosure supported by timber or turf and the rampart (Beresford 1987: 30-35). The gate, or burh-geat, was the most monumentalpart of the fortifications. The burh-geatwas a characteristicof noblearchitecture. Indeed,if a churl had a burh-geatalong with five hidesof land, a chapel,a bell-house,a kitchen and a seaton the King's council he was to be considereda thegn(Whitelock 1955:432). The burh-geat also featuresin the heroic tale of Cynewulf and Cyneheard. King Cynewulf is murderedby Cyneheardand his men while visiting his mistressin a burk When Cynewulf's men come to revengehim, they find the gatesclosed against them and proceedto engagein battle around the gates(Whitelock 1968: 162-3). The fortified enclosure,with its gate and ramparts,was an importantpart of the Anglo-Saxonarchitectural practices of the aristocracy.

The buildings inside the gateswere primarily of staveconstruction (Beresford 1987:41-59). Decorationwould probablyhave covered the buildings,especially the main hall, ascan be seen in early medieval stavechurches in Scandinavia(Beresford 1987,48-9). Beresfordsuggests that the roofs were shingled,drawing analogyto the hog-backstones found to the north of Lincolnshire (1987: 50-52; Lang 1984:90-97; Bailey 1980:85; Figure 22). The hall was the most impressivebuilding. It was an internally subdividedbow-sided building approximately 24 metreslong and 6 metreswide. This was the placewhere public assemblies,meetings and bower, festivities occurred(Beresford 1987:38-45). Associatedwith this was the or private building divided house of the thegn and his family. In the early tenth century this was not internally (Figure 23). During themid-tenth century, interior divisionswere added, while those 6 Figure 24). The bower in the main hall wereremoved (Beresford 1987: 1; wasapproximately hall, had 12 metres by 5.4 metres, half the size of the and a private garderobeattached buildings. (Beresford 1987:54). A kitchen and weaving shedcompleted the arrangementof in the first the All buildings had clay floors with central hearthsoften placed partition of Goltho buildings (Beresford 1987: 38,55,59). Indeed, the plan of coincides with the for a thegn. There understandinggained through the documents,especially the requirements they were not resident is no chapel. However,while churcheswere associatedwith manors, inside the fortifications.

for Goltho (Figure 24; Cheddar,located in the Somersetlevels, providesthe bestcomparison

-65- Figure 25). Rahtz (1979) identifled three architecturaldevelopments which occurredduring late the ninth to early eleventh centuries. The original arrangementof the Long Hall and ancillary buildings wasaltered in the early tenth century,when a chapelwas built over the hall and the hall was rebuilt to the west. The early tenth century alterations also included an extensionof the ditchesto enclosea larger areaof the site, including a double-ditchedsection along the easternextent. Cheddarhad two entrancesacross the easternditches. The main entranceappeared to incorporatea gatehouse structure (Rahtz 1979:54-5). Later, during the late tenth century, these buildings were rebuilt but maintained their earlier tenth century positions(Rahtz 1979:49-60). A porch,or dais,was incorporated into themain hall at this time (Rahtz 1979:57).

Both Goltho and Cheddardemonstrate the importanceof enclosureto manorial sites. These placeswere designedto standout in the landscape,signalling the presenceof authority with their ditchesand burh-geats. Within theseenclosures, the dominance of thehall is clear. These manors were meant to impress, to support the power of the thegn who lived there. This investmentin architectureincreases during the late tenth century, as halls and chapelsare restructured. Nobility structuredtheir authority within the landscapethrough the building of aristocratic residencesas the manor beganto rival the meeting-placefor the location of the courts and other administrativeactivities (Blair 1994: 108,134).

This aristocraticinvestment in architectureis mirrored at Flixborough,where there is a distinct decline in artefacts from the middle to late Saxon periods and an increasein the size of buildings (C. Loveluck pers com; Figure 27). It is unfortunate that more of this site could not be excavated, as the middle to late Saxon transition is not well understood. However, the shift from aristocratic interest in artefacts (during the middle Saxon period) to buildings (during the linked from late Saxon phase) appears to be a general trend to the shift tributary to feudal economies (Loveluck 1998: 154; Hinton 1990; 102; Saunders 1991: 167-68). This investment & being in architecture increases through tenth century. the wooden parish churches replaced by in stone at the beginning of the eleventh century, potentially carpenters relearning the masonry art (Sawyer 1998: 161).

Flixborough demonstratesincreased investment in sheepagriculture in Lincolnshireduring the (C. Loveluck in litf; O'Connor 1982: tenth century complimentingthe evidencefrom Lincoln tenth but the 47). Not only do the numbersof sheepincrease through the ninth and centuries, in litt). The loomweightsbecome lighter, suggestinga finer productionof cloth (C. Loveluck demonstratesthat this wasan important emphasison weaving,at both Flixboroughand Goltho,

-66- part of manorialpractice (C. Loveluckin litt; Beresford1987: 55-8,68). Referencesto woollen cloaks, from England and Frisia during the eighth century, further imply that wool and wool productswere a significant part of the early medievaleconomy (Whitelock 1955:782).

The importanceof wool to the economyof Lincolnshire in the tenth century was associated with the increasedprivatisation of the landscapeby aristocraticlandholders. Trade relations were establishedbetween the rural settlementsand the developingmarkets within the towns, to exchangethe surplus of goods producedin both settlements. This re-emphasisof social practicetowards aristocratic, rather than royal, control overthe landscape was further conveyed throughthe developmentof theparish church with its basisfirmly containedwithin aristocratic tenure. The high fragmentationof estatesand the apparentlack of ecclesiasticalpresence within Lincolnshire during the tenth century suggeststhat the orientation towardsindividual estatesmight havebeen greater in this areathan elsewhere. The aristocraticinvolvement in the erection of monumentalsculpture and in the fortified manorswhich were being constructed acrossthe landscapefurther emphasisesthe emergenceof an aristocracy,which signalledits importancethrough investment in architectural,rather thanartefactual traditions. Community interactionwas increasingly focussed on themanor as well asparish church and with movement towards the growing towns which provided markets for the agricultural surpluses,being producedin the fields and meadowsof the manorial settlements.

-Urban landscapes~

The burhs of Wessexwere the first towns to be eagerlyexplored earlier this century. Riding had benefit 1960's on the tails of Alfred's greatness,these settlements not only the of the and 1970'ssurge in urbanexcavations, but also the documentationand propaganda provided by the Asser's Life Burghal Hidage, the law codes,the Anglo-SaxonChronicle and of King Alfred. Seenas a deliberatedefensive strategy against the Vikings andas planned market settlements, Saxon the Wessexburhs were consideredto be the amalgamationof the middle royal vill and in Danelawdid develop emporiasites (Biddle 1976: 114,119,131). In contrast,towns the not by Alfred. Instead from the concertedfortification programmeestablished of sucha vigorous this impression military inception,these towns seemto placemore impetus on trade,although in this Indeed, could be led by the lack of documentarysupport for military endeavours area. dependant without the documentarysupport, towns in the Danelaw were on archaeological burhs Wessex town researchto bring themto light. While earlyresearch into the of emphasized

-67- planning andmercantile activity (Biddle 1976: 130-1),it has becomeapparent, in the last few decades,that the northern towns, with their early connectionsto the Scandinaviantrade networks,were economically more strident than the garrisoned towns to the south(Vince 1994: 113,115).

There hasbeen considerable deliberation on the elementswhich compriseda town (Hill 1988: 197; Ward Perkins 1996: 5-6). While there has been a call to approach towns as one type of settlementwithin a landscapeand to focus on the social processeswhich createtowns, urban archaeologystill tendsto approachthe town as an isolatedsettlement (Roskams 1996: 2634). This trendis mostfrequently observed in political modelsof thelate Saxonperiod, where towns are conceivedas 'islands of royal power through which the king and his agents,ealdormen, bishops,and reeves, were able to dominatethe countryside'(Abels 1988:80). Indeed,with the lack of contemporaryrural excavations,it waseasy to seethese settlements simply asa network of fortified market towns, administered by an increasingly powerful Wessex royalty. Furthermore,'the separationof urbanstudies from other aspectsof the archaeologicalrecord haslikewise allowedinterpretation to proceedwith little attemptat contextualisation'(Roskams 1996:264). This separationof town from hinterlandis difficult to sustain.As EsmondeCleary remarkedon the decline of towns at the end of RomanBritain:

'humansocieties can get alongperfectly well without towns andusually have. have Even once towns come into existencethey no pre-ordainedright to a have failed continuedexistence; individually or collectively they can and ... from Romano-British Insteadof seeingthem as an inevitable part of the change look found to Anglo-Saxon,moira to wyrd, we shouldinstead at why people (EsmondeCleary 1993:6). towns useful and then stoppeddoing so'

human but Indeed, urban developmentis not a latent evolutionary seedwithin society, one life (Roskams. which is brought aboutby social investmentin particular practicesand ways of 1996:264-5).

landscape, from rural economiesand Towns werean integralpart of the tenthcentury emerging to support and sustain their social practices. Indeed, towns dependedon rural resources 'in hundreds inhabitants(Reynolds 1997: 166). The tenurialchanges in thecountryside which to consumeand to sell' (Blair of landowners,great and small, neededregular supplies of goods tributary and itinerant 1994: 140) led to the production of surpluses.Instead of sustaininga in exchangewas increasingly kingshipthrough food renders,the aristocraticinvestment surplus

-68~ oriented towards the production and trade of goods within towns. The alienation of land from the king through the institution of bokland and the later fragmentation of estates, during and after the Viking invasions and settlement, saw the growth of a landed aristocracy which was less dependant on the king for political, social and economic status (Stafford 1985: 34-5). Indeed, the increased investment in structures, rather than artefacts, among the rural estates(C. Loveluck pers com) demonstrates this move from tributary to feudal society. The decline in ostentatious personabilia is evident, not only in the lack of such artefacts from the late Saxon period, but also in the lessening of decoration inscribed upon them As ffinton notes:

'rings [were] like bullion storescarried on the person,rather than the filigree decorations found it less andniello-enhanced of earliercenturies ... thewealthy important to express their status in display of objects admirable in workmanshipand design,redolent of the gift-giving tradition that cemented earlier societies' (Hinton 1990: 102).

Land, and the wealth and surplus derived from it, was increasingly associated with the individual, rather than with the family (Stafford 1985: 34-5). Landlords, with their local surpluses, entered into trade and the exchange of goods within the growing towns. They mapped out these tenurial relations on plots of land within the town, sustaining a growing community of craftsmen who were dependant on a supply of resources being directed through the town (Roskams 1996: 76,80; Saunders 1991: 281-2).

While the aristocracy,with its focus on regionalexchange of surpluses,may have stimulated town growth anddevelopment, the king was an importantinnovator of town policy. While no by laws of the Scandinavianrulership of theDanelaw have been recorded, themid-tenth century AEthelstan implementinglegislature, stipulatedthat trademust occur in towns'and . was which (Attenborough be witnessedby appropriatemembers of the community,such as the town reeve bishopWxrferth in 1922: 115). Rulerswere able to grantrights, suchas that given to the late half 'land-rent, ninth centuryby AEthelrwdand )Ethelflxd of Mercia. Wxrferth wasgranted the borough-wall, the fine for fighting, or theft, or dishonesttrading, and contribution to the and has beenlaid down all the [fines for) offenceswhich admit of compensation... exactly as as 498). Similarly, Ealhham,Bishop regardsto themarket-place and the streets'(Whitelock 1968: former Ceolmundin London, by of Worcesterwas grantedCeolmundinghaga, the estateof the 'therein to Burgred of Mercia in the late ninth century. This grant contained rights use in [of London]' (Whitelock freely the scaleand weightsand measures as is customary the port towns 1968:488). Kings were actively involved in placing tolls andtaxes on activities within

-69- and controlling the accessto the wealth which accumulatedas a result. Economic activity within towns wascontrolled by the king throughadministrators such as theporigerefa, his very title indicative of the community for which he was responsible

AEthelstanfurther dictatedthat minting wasto occurin specific towns andlisted the numberof mintersper town (Whitelock 1968:397). Foreigncoinage was arrestedat theseports of trade andreminted in the currencysupported by the kings.)Ethelstan was the first king to attemptto implementa uniform coinage.He wasonly moderatelysuccessful and regions still maintained a certain amount of diversity (Stafford 1989: 213). It was not until Edgar's reform of the coinagein 973 that suchcontrol over minting was accomplished.The legacyof this coinage continued throughoutthe eleventhcentury. Indeed,kthelrxd Unraedwas able to debasethe currency to raise the Danegeld and still maintain a high value for coinage. However, both

,Ethelmd and Cnut were unable to maintain a uniform currency and regional variations still existed during their reigns (Stafford 1989: 213).

Lincoln andStamford were highly involved in minting activities,especially from the mid-tenth century under the Wessexkings (Sawyer 1998: 123; Blackburn et aL 1983: 15-16). As one might expect,Torksey also had a mint in the tenth century thoughnot nearly as important as thoseat Stamfordand Lincoln. Furtherevidence of minting activities existsat Caistor,Louth and Horncastle (Blackburn et aL 1983: 15). However, unlike other parts of England, these subsidiary mints 'failed to take root and withered'. an occuffence which Blackburn speculates is linked to the control over hinterland relations that both Lincoln and Stamford held (Blackburn et aL 1983: 15-16). Tlese placesare also associatedwith possibleminster statusduring the Anglian period (Stocker1993: 114-5; Sawyer 1998: 63-4). This suggeststhat thesesettlements retained a focal identity within the landscapeinto the tenth century. It further implies that currentunderstanding of thesocial practices associated with urbandevelopment are more vague than current modelsallow.

The legal regulationof coin productionwithin towns alsoextended to a generalconcentration of craft activity within the towns. This is particularly visible through the move of pottery in production from the rural sites to a production based,almost exclusively, the town. J[be Continental traditions changesin pottery productionalso extendedto the adoptionof ceramic using the fast wheel and structuredkilns (Chapterin). Other crafts, such as metalworking, bone, located leatherworkingand thosespecialising in amber,wood and were also within the 1988a: 130). The town on the tenementdivisions controlled by the aristocracy(Hall one during the tenth was industry which did not focus its production within the town century

-70- weavingand wool production. VVhileweaving occurred within thetown, manorialparticipation in this craft was still prevalent(above). This suggeststhat while the tradein wool might have beenimportant to the developingmarket trade, weaving was still an importanthousehold craft in a way that cobbling or metalworkingwas not.

Towns were dependant on an external supply of meat. Analysis of faunal remains in town is invaluable to understanding, not only daily practices of food consumption, but also the organisation of the economy. The middle Saxon consumption of animals in emporia or wic sites seems to have been primarily beef from mature cattle (O'Connor 1994: 139; Bourdillon

1988: 181-2). Sheep were also eaten in significant quantities. The slaughter-age of these animals suggests that meat consumption was not the only reason for the maintenance of herds (O'Connor 1994: 139; Bourdillon 1988: 182). Indeed, the people living in these trading settlements:

4were fed overwhelmingly with the results of domestichusbandry, and this [the husbandrywas not speciallytailored to the table ... animals]were valued for the contributionsthey madein their lifetime as well as for their meat,and for thoseother products such as horn andhide which would comeonce and for all after death' (Bourdillon 1988: 180).

The middle Saxon supply of meat to the wic sites appearsto have been on the hoof and slaughteredwithin the settlement(O'Connor 1994:139; Bourdillon 1988: 188). Furthermore, the main supplyof meatcame from cattle, sheepand pig with little variety suppliedfrom'wild fauna, suggestingthat the consumptionof meat was regulated and not controlled by the inhabitantsof the wics (O'Connor 1994: 141;Bourdillon 1988: 189).

increased Conversely, the late Saxon consumption of meatwithintowns demonstratesan variety Wbile in the resource base through the tenth and eleventh centuries. cattle, sheep and pig still fish, begin be represent the majority of meat eaten, other animals, such as wildfowl and to O'Connor links 'the consumed in greater amounts (O'Connor 1994: 144-5). this to emergence by of a substantial element in the town's population with disposable wealth, the tenth century Probably largely expressed as coinage, which they could use to obtain commodities additional is increase in backyard fauna to the staple food resources' (1994: 145). Indeed, there an such butchery further imply the as pigs, fowl and geese (O'Connor 1994: 143). Improved practices 1992: 130). development of craft traditions within the town (Bourdillon

-71- Research of the documentationof the late Saxon period is also able to comment on the developmentof a distinctive urbanidentity in town communitiesduring the late Saxonperiod. Domesdaystudies indicate that townswere assessed separately from therural manorsand their associatedlands. Towns were imposingentrance tolls on thosepeople who did not hold land within the town walls (Fosterand Longley 1924:11). The fishermaninElfric's Colloquy sold his fish to the ceasterwareor townspeople(Mitchell and Robinson 1986: 177). Lawcodes demonstratethe reasonfor the fishermanbringing his waresto the town market. Kings were increasinglyinterested in regulatingtrade within thetown. Aýthelstan'slaws issuedat Grateley are most indicative of this: 'And we havepronounced that no goodsover 20 penceare to be bought outside a town, but they are to be bought therein the witnessof the town-reeveor of anothertrustworthy man, or, againin the witnessof the reevesin a public meeting' (Whitelock 1968:384; Attenborough1922: 135). Witnesseswere imperative in legal tradingtransactions. The continual emphasisof this within the laws implies that the Idng had a direct economic interestin trading practices,presumably deriving revenuefrom the exchange.

Mercantile activity was stronglyregulated by kings andrulers throughoutthe middle and late Saxonperiods. The laws outlining the relationshipbetween king andmerchant suggest that it was oneof mutual benefit. Early medievalsociety was organised around duties and protection given to king andkin. Merchants,through their itineracy,were unable to takeadvantage of the structureswhich governedthe more steadfastagrarian societies. The laws which provided Witnessesfrom family and community (Whitelock 1968:378-9) would not apply to them and thus their protection was guaranteedby the king. Kings took an interestin the movementof merchants,both to securethe safetyof a valuableresource and also to ensurethe protectionof their territory from other unwholesometravellers such as thieves(Sawyer 1977: 150-1). The late ninth century laws of Alfred further indicate a royal concern for the movement of merchants,stipulating that tradersand their men shoulddeclare themselves to the king's reeve (Attenborough 1922:79).

The protectionoffered to strangersand traders by the king wasrepaid through toll and tribute. Sawyersuggests that 'tolls were probably the most valuablesource of revenue'and notesthe in harbours interestthat religious communitiestook to acquireand maintainrights to tolls and markets(Sawyer 1977: 153). Tolls on shipsand ports during the eighthcentury, at placessuch 1968: 452), does asLondon indicate an earlyregulation of mercantilemovement (Whitelock as levied by Mercian the waggon-shillingand load-penny(wagonscilling and seampending) the documentationdoes kings on salt from Droitwich (Sawyer1977: 147). While Anglo-Saxon not Louis the Pious,similar include the list of tolls and chargesdue from tradersand travellersto

-72- taxes were probably in existence. These appear to have been levied at every possible opportunity, from bridges,to moorageand harbour,to passage-rightthrough fields to pay for possibledamage to fishing and accommodation(Sawyer 1977: 153). Indeed,in the eleventh century, Cnut complained to the Emperor Conradand PopeJohn concerningthe passageof tradersand travellers to Rome. He requested'that they might be grantedmore equitablelaw and greatersecurity on their way to Rome,and that they should not be hinderedby so many barrierson their way andso manyunjust tolls' (Whitelock 1968:417). Freedomof passagefor English and Danes alike was apparentlygranted to Cnut by the Easter assemblyat Rome (Whitelock 1968:417).

While trading had been regulated by kings throughout the seventh to ninth centuries, the increasedmercantile activity in towns generated more laws. From the reign of Edward the Elder, legal codes began to restrict major trading transactions to towns (Attenborough 1922: 63). The trade and purchase of goods was strictly controlled and had to occur in front of the witnesses assigned to the town or wapentake. Intention to trade was also to be announced before thejourney was undertaken to obtain the goods. Furthermore, the witnesses under which the trade occurred must be named within five days of the return of the travellers. If unexpected purchasing occurred, it was to be announced upon return to the village (Whitelock 1968: 399). The reliance on oral witness for trade, rather than written receipt, is clear. Indeed, the accounts of witnesseswere a mainstayof Anglo-Saxonlegal procedures. The laws regardingtrading behaviour outside of towns further suggesta reason behind the duties of geneat to bring strangersto the village (Douglasand Greenaway 1953: 813). If tradewere part of theintention of the visitor, then it would have to occur in front of witnesseswho were presumably inhabitantsof the village. Earlier laws, statingthat tradersmust keep to the roadsor announce their movementsthrough shoutingor ringing a bell, were aimedat distinguishingtrader from thief (Wbitelock 1968:364). Thus,the geneat'sresponsibility of escortingstrangers may also have beendesigned to facilitate the regulationof legitimatetravel through the region.

Towns were where most exchangesoccurred during the late Saxonperiod, from selling and purchasingto the giving and receiving of tolls. Most of the information aboutthe rights and in law dueswithin towns comesfrom the granting,or exemptingof theserights the codesand chartersof the period. Bishop Wxrferth wasable to securehalf the rights of streetand market in last decades both within andwithout the town of Worcesterfrom the rulers of Mercia the of the ninth century,with the exceptionof the toll on salt,which remainedunder royaljuzisdiction (Whitelock 1968:498). Theseincluded fines for fighting, theft anddishonest trading, as well as other duessuch as land-rentand burgh-work. This regulationof tradeand othercommerce

-73- within the towns illustrates the importance these places had in the distribution and organisation of wealth and goods.

Royal restrictions on trading transactionsto marketswithin towns emphasizethe aristocratic investment in towns as places of redistribution (Attenborough 1922: 115,135). This is underlinedbyEthelstan's further decree'that thereshall be onecoinage throughout the king's realm,and no manshall mint moneyexcept in a town' (Attenborough1922: 135). Furthermore, the penaltyfor minting baseor light coinswas the lossof a handwhich would thenbe displayed on the wall of the mint as a deterrentfor otherminters with similar ideas(Attenborough 1922: 135). Despitethe concertedeffort of kings to restrict trading to the towns,there are lesscoins found in urban contexts during the late Saxon period than in the middle Saxon wics. Furthermore,there are numerouslate Saxon coins found on rural sites, suggestingthat the legislationrestricting trade to town marketswas not alwayseffective (11inton1986: 17,24,26).

Nevertheless,the amountof coinageminted and exchangedwas substantialduring the tenth century, especially after Edgar minted his reformed coinage(Metcalf 1986: 156-7). ViNle during the mid-ninth century,minting occurredprimarily in the south-eastof Englandand the distribution of coins was reflective of this practice. By the middle of the tenth century,there wereunusually high levelsof minting activity in thenorth of England,especially at suchplaces as Lincoln, Stamford, York, Tamworth, Stafford and Chester(Metcalf 1986: 134-5). The distribution of coins implies a regionaltrade during the tenth century,with lessforeign contact than later in the eleventhcentury (Metcalf 1986: 156).

The investment in minting and trading activities within towns was linked to the growing importance of rents within these communities, and indeed, within the late Anglo-Saxon landscapeas a whole. The use of coinagefacilitated exchangewithin the towns which were increasingly dependanton goods brought in from the rural settlements. As Saundersnotes peasantswere engaged in urbanmarket transactions in orderto exchangesurplus rural products for cash,so that essentialcommodities, such as salt, clothes,tools, etc. could be purchased' (1991: 281). By situating economicactivities predominantlywithin the towns, the kings and distinct from aristocracywere participating in the structuring of towns as places, their rural kingdoms counterparts,in a society where the tributary demandsof sustainingmultiple were diminishing in the face of a growing national government.

The emergenceof towns wasalso tied to a royal investmentin military organisation,especially heavily in Wessexand English Mercia. Alfred's defenceof Wessex relied on a strategywhich

-74- combined a mobile army with town garrisons (Abels 1988: 71,74). The Burghal Hidage

illustrates the military importance of towns, listing the number of men needed to man the walls: 16 men per acre of wall (Abels 1988: 74). Indeed, the Wessex burhs were 'situated in such a way that no part of the Ungdoin was more than twenty miles, a day's march, from a fortified centre' (Abels 1988: 69). Thus, the town garrison was able to protect its surrounds independently or in conjunction with the army orfyrd (Abels 1988: 71-2). These fortifications were positioned along the major rivers and roadways (Figure 28), often utilising the locations of the Roman towns situated along the same lines of communication. The strategic importance of towns cannot be understated, especially for the Wessex expansion into Mercia and the north.

While Wessexabounded in fortified burhs, the Danelaw towns were not oriented as much towardsdefence as they weretowards trade (Stafford 1985:47-8). Indeed,discussion of these settlementsmust rest largely on the developmentof tradeand production within them(Stafford 1985:40-62). The towns of the EastMidlands had an early economicfocus which must have beeninfluenced by thetrading practices of the Scandinaviansettlers (Vince 1994:115; Stafford 1985:49). YvUle defencewas probably important in the early daysof habitation,there is little direct eviden6eto discernwhether the town defencesof places,such as Nottingham,were as extensiveas is normally claimed (Stafford 1985:47). Whateverthe defensivenature of the Danelawtowns, the strongassociation of theseplaces with tradeand industry cannot be refuted.

The inhabitantsof towns,in their tenementdwellings, became a societyset apart from the rural inhabitantsdescribed in the RectitudinesSingularum Personarum. They were dependanton the incoming surplusesof meat and grain from regional manors. They lived in settlements where the commerceand minting were strictly controlled. Walls were maintainedboth as in documents protectionand as socio-economic barriers to commerce.Certainly, the pertaining to Queenhithein London, control over mooring and marketingprivileges was grantedto the bishop WTrferth of Worcester and archbishopPlegmund of Canterbury(Dyson 1978:202). for Control over economicprivileges wasparamount in thesesettlements, and tolls marketing activities werepart of everydaylife. The developmentof urbancommunities through the tenth in Anglo-Saxon before andeleventh centuries was one of themost visible changes societies the Nonnan Conquest.

three towns: The developmentof urbanism in Lincolnshire is primarily associatedwith life from Lincoln, Stamfordand Torksey. Most of the archaeologicalevidence of town comes Lincoln. Archaeologicalknowledge of tenth centuryStamford rests largely on the excavation (Mahany 1982).Torksey, similarly, of kiln sitesat Wharf Streetand underneath the castle etaL

-75- is known only from its kiln sites (Barley 1982; 1964; Palmer-Brown 1995). Indeed, the location of the settlement at Torksey is still an unanswered question. Lincoln, with its excavations at Flaxengate(Perring 1981; Coppack 1973) and Silver Street (Miles et aL 1989), have made Lincoln archaeologicallycomparable with towns such as York (Hall 1988a; b), Chester (Thacker 1988)and Thetford (Dallas 1993;Rogerson et aL 1984)where substantial evidence for tenth century occupationhas been uncovered.

Potterywas one of thepredominant artifacts recovered in theseexcavations, and its importance to archaeologicalunderstanding of late Anglo-Saxon society will be further discussedin the next chapters(Chapter III-V). While potters were not highly regardedduring the medieval period (Moorhouse1978: 14),they producedan artefactwhich is extremelyinformative about the communitieswhich inhabitedboth the town andthe rural settlements.Potters were amongst the craftsmenwho took up residencewithin the town walls, participatingin the emergenceof urban life. The changesin the craft traditions of the potters, within placessuch as Lincoln, Stamfordand Torksey, are some of themost visible archaeologicalphenomena which signalthe developmentof towns within the Anglo-Saxonlandscape. The potters would haveproduced and sold their waresat market. They would havewalked past the tenementof the minter on the integral stone-pavedstreet as they went one their daily routines. Potterswere an part of urban communitiesduring the tenth century.

Tenth Century Lincoln

from Ermine Street The most impressiveapproach to Lincoln is, and was, the south along limestone (Figure 29). Today, the cathedral and castle rest high above the city on the houses escarpmentdominating their surroundings.In the tenthcentury, cobbled streets, timber have first through and stonehouses lined the hillside. A traveller along theroad would passed By beginning the tenth this Wigford, at the bottomof thehill below the Witham. the of century, Ambrosiani 1991:98), stretchof Ermine Streetwas lined with churches(Clarke and many of Indeed,town churches,such as the St. which probably had their origins in the tenth century. 'travellers Michael-at-the-North-Gate,Oxford, wereimportant both to town dwellers,and to the has been that Wigford, with wishing to saya prayer' (Ottaway 1992:140). It always suggested evidencehas been its wics element,was a trading suburbof Lincoln, althoughno excavation 156). The large of sculpture, forthcoming to shedlight on this issue(Ottaway 1992: quantity

-76- associated with St. Mark's in Wigford, is perhaps indicative of a trading community whose more ostentatious members were able to invest in the sculptural traditions upheld by the rural elite (D. Stockerpers com).

Crossingthe Witham into Lincoln, the traveller would haveencountered cobbled streets such as those found along the Flaxengatefrontage. With the remainsof the Romanfortress still standing,the words 'entaarge weorcinnan burgumstrate stanfage'(the ancientwork of giants within the fortress,the streetsstone-paven) (Hooke 1981:301) could easily pertainto Lincoln. In the early tenth century theseroads were well built with limestonepieces in a silt matrix positioned over a limestonerubble core. Later in the tenth century, theseroads were less pristine with occupationaldebris encroaching onto their surfaces(Perring 1981: 10). The street names of Lincoln, with their gata endings, like those of York, are representativeof Scandinavianpresence within thesetowns. Furthermore,this suffix is indicative of an early origin, as evidencedby the Flaxengateexcavations (Ottaway 1992: 156; Periing 1981: 6). These streets,unlike those of Winchester (Biddle 1976: 130), cannot be associatedwith a gridded streetplan, althoughthe main streetsfollowed a generalalignment linking the Roman gates.While theRoman street plan hadbeen obscured through the centuries, the standingfabric of the gatesand walls influencedroad development(Ottaway 1992: 156; Perring 1981:44).

As in York, buildings often fronted these streets (Figure 30). However, the linear plot arrangements, so familiar from the Coppergate excavations, have not been found in Lincoln. indicates Nevertheless, the spreading of loam across the entire site at Flaxengate still control of the property by a landlord who was able to arrange for an uniform levelling of hi's property. Indeed, there is some suggestion that the property at Flaxengate was approximately the same This indicate dimensions as those in the upper city (Perring 1981: 43-4). would that Lincoln has been was laid out with specific plot measurementsin mind. A similar suggestion made for 1988: 90). The other towns such as York (Hall 1988a: 130) and London (Vince term used to describe these divisions is haga which originally meant 'a hedge or enclosure' (Hooke 1980: homestead [haga] 39). Indeed, Ine's laws of the seventh century dictate that a'ceorl's must be A land toEthelrmd fenced in winter and summer' (Whitelock 1968: 368). charter giving and haga large Xthelflaed of Mercia by Bishop Wwrferth in 904 suggeststhat this particular was a between block of land within the walls (Hooke 1980: 39). This agreement, archaeological and in blocks, by the historical sources indicates that urban land was distributed aristocracy and (Dyson 1978: nobility, along with certain economic rights pertaining to markets and mooring the 206). These haga were owned by local aristocracy and can be linked to manors within landscape the and the region (Biddle 1976: 383). This direct connection between the of manor

-77- town further emphasizes the need to see both rural and urban development, not as separate activities, but as an interrelated whole.

The buildings of Lincoln were structuredaround a post-in-holeor post-in-trenchconstruction. Theseposts were not symmetrically arrangedindicating that roofing was not reliant on tie- beams,but instead,was probably thatched.There is somesuggestion that plankswere secured with dowels to the upright posts. Indeed,there was a scarcity of clay or daub found in the excavation. Where it was uncovered,it was generallyassociated with hearthactivity, rather than along the walls. The central position of the hearth within the house and the lack of substantialand paired timber posts suggeststhat these buildings were only single storey. Despitea lack of symmetricalpost arrangements,these buildings, like thoseof York, appearto havebeen planned with uniform measurementsbased on the perch,a measurementof 5 V2yards (Perring 1981:37-39).

Craft productionin towns is an importantactivity. Lincoln hasproduced evidence of glassand metal-working,as well as large scalepottery production(Chapter Hb. From the generallevel of craft activity on the Flaxengatesite, it appearspeople were operatingat a householdlevel. Remainsof antler- and bone-working,textile manufactureand jewellery productionin amber andjet were uncovered(Perring 1981:423). Presumablyleather, wood and otherperishable materials would have completedthe rangeof householdcrafts. The large numbersof coins found within Lincoln (Blackburn et al. 1983: 34-9) are further indicative of the trading transactionstaking place within the town.

The faunalremains forLincoln generallysuggest similar consumptionpatterns to thoseat York (O'Connor 1994)and Southampton(Bourdillon 1992). Geesewere kept asbackyard animals. Cats and dogsare similarly found in associationwith town habitation. The lack of young dog bonesand the burial of completeskeletons indicates that dogswere kept aspets. Catswere not asdomesticated and appearto havebeen free agentswithin the town (O'Connor 1982: 11,37. 8). Approximately 10% of the diet was comprisedof pig. This does not seemto radically fluctuate throughoutthe tenth century,unlike the relative numbersof sheepand cattle which were the main sourcesof meat. This suggests'that the influenceswhich broughtpigs into the Flaxengatearea were independentof thosewhich controlledthe movementsand marketing of implying cattle andsheep' (O'Connor 1982:11). Pigswere not kept on the Flaxengatesite, that in different if pigs werebred elsewhere and brought into the town for fattening,this occurred a 1982: 33). area of town and was not associatedwith household production (O'Connor However, the impressionof pig feet in the kiln at Torksey suggeststhat pigs were part of

-78~ household life in other places (Barley 1982: 275).

Thereis a significantrise in theconsumption of sheepduring thetenth century and a contrasting reduction in cattle (O'Connor 1982: 11,47). This is consistentwith the evidence from Flixborough (C. Loveluck in litt) suggestingthat there was an increasedinvestment in wool production in Lincolnshire. York continuedto consumelarger amountsof beef than mutton (O'Connor 1994: 143), suggestingthat an investment in wool production was a regional phenomenonin which Lincolnshirewas participating. The increasednumber of sheepmay also haveinfluenced the slight decreasein pigs during the tenthcentury. Indeed,if the consumption of sheepwithin Lincoln correspondedto an increasein pasturageat the expenseof wood and wastelandoutside the town, this would haveimpacted on the amountof woodlandavailable for the pannageOf Pigs (O'Connor 1982: 12)

The hunting of wildfowl appearto have taken place during the winter months,providing a welcomesupplement to a standarddiet of mutton, beef andpork. The inhabitantsof Lincoln were taking advantageof the flocks of plover in the abundantLincolnshire marshlands (O'Connor 1982:44). Codrepresented the predominant fish consumedin Lincoln. Salmonwas also a favoured fish. Eel did not figure amongstthe fish bonesfound at Lincoln, which is surprising considering the importance given to eels in Domesday. Indeed, 'the historical accounts of the freshwater fisheries at this time are much more extensive than the archaeologicalevidence indicates; this may also be a reflection of recoverymethods as most fowl freshwaterspecies are fairly small' (O'Connor 1982:46). Fish and were never main componentsof the diet of people living in Lincoln during the tenth century, although the archaeologicalrecovery of fish is not representativeof the amountswhich were undoubtedly consumed(O'Connor 1982:48). Instead,most meat came from sheepand cattle arriving on the in hoof from the countryside. The winter monthswere those which the =4 variety of meat Indeed, waseaten. The diet wassupplemented by the inclusionof wildfowl. wildfowling must it does have conjuredup imagesof brisk weatherand longer nights, as today.

Lincoln, This image of a townsman hunting wildfowl in the marshes around once again, Indeed, the towns illustrates the merging of the urban and rural landscapes. emergence of in the late Saxon should not be treated as a separate issue from the other changes occurring larger period. The development of towns during the late Anglo-Saxon period was part of a shift interaction. The appearance in social practice which influenced conceptions of community and increase in the of a feudal society during the late Saxon period was associated with an This is in the manorial and privatisation of land under the control of the aristocracy. visible

~79- parochial developmentsin the rural landscape,as well as in the urban haga inhabited by craftsmen. Control over tradewas regulated by the king and noblementhrough the restriction of minting andtrading activities to marketswithin theprecincts of the town. The concentration of craft activities within towns further indicatesaristocratic interest in practicesof production andconsumption. Towns wereinvolved not only with regionaltrade with outlying settlements, but also in an interregional exchangewith other towns. As Saundersnotes, towns:

4possessfed] a dual economicrole, simultaneouslyoperating externally and internally with respectto the peasanteconomy. On onelevel, the larger towns and ports which were engagedin mercantile trade were divorced from the production for use,thus forming a specialised-commercialsector within the feudal economy. On anotherlevel, all towns large or small were integrated with the countrysideforming centresfor petty commodityproduction as well as nodesin the articulation of agrariansurpluses' (Saunders 1991: 253).

The town was an integral part of the landscapeduring the late Anglo-Saxon period. it developed through the changing structuresand practicesenacted by the inhabitantsof the landscape;from the lord with land in both manorand town, to the potter producingwares to be consumedwithin and outsidethe town, to the swineherdtaking the sheepto pasture.

Throughout the late Anglo-Saxonperiod, the town beganto develop a communal identity separatefrom that of the manorialsettlement. The communityof craftsmenand tradersbegan but to developguilds, assertingtheir identity not asmembers of a village asmembers of a craft tradition. This wasalso encouraged by theregulation of socialpractices of craft productionand living trade within the town. The distinction betweentownspeople and those within the the towns, hinterland was further structuredthrough the extortion of tolls at entranceof the fronting the The town pavedstreets and the tenementswith their rows of buildings street. was fortified Indeed, visually distinctive from therural settlementswith their fields and enclosures. distinctive the late Anglo-Saxontown in the infancy of its later medievaldevelopments, was a be in isolation, its settlementwithin the landscape. While the town should not considered As Roskams if importanceto late Anglo-Saxonsociety shouldnot be underestimated. notes in in Britain from the seventh the villa regalis and the wics arethe key players the power game burh' (1996: 267). century,this r6le passesin the ninth centuryto the

-80- Social landscapes

The shift from tribal to feudal landscape,with its political and economicimplications on settlementstrategies, influenced how peopleunderstood their communitiesand their landscapes. Indeed, 'the tenth and eleventhcenturies were to bring a new frameworkand new problems: unification and conquest,new military needs,the rule of two kingdoms,the growth of towns and trade, the difficulties and opportunitiesof ruling a large kingdom' (Stafford 1989: 138). The fragmentationof estatesduring the ninth century,and the developmentof the manorand Oe parish during the tenth century,meant that communities,and their lords, wereincreasingly involved in the local landscapewith an eye towards surplus produce to be traded in the burgeoningtowns. The movementtowards these proto-urban communities is demonstrated through referenceto roadsas 'portways', roadsleading towardsthe town. Manor and town wereinvolved in a socio-economicrelationship with aristocraticholdings both in the town and within its hinterland. The developmentof a hinterlandis evidenceof a strategyof land tenure which wasfocussed on tradeand communication within the towns. Indeed,Abels' view (1988: 80) of the towns as nodesof communicationand administrationis not unwarranted.Ifis lack of discussionof town-hinterlandrelations is problematic. Abels rightly notesthe importance burghal for of the town - with its mints, marketsand courts - the extensionof royal power. However, his concentrationon the military importanceof thesesettlements ignores the rural landscapewith its hundredand wapentake courts, its monasticand manorial establishments and their social interaction with towns. Towns do not exist on their own or in isolation. They are part of a landscapestrategy which relies on surplusproduction in the hinterland to support artisanand craft communitiesliving within the town.

The themeswhich arecontinually re-addressed for the late Saxonperiod arethose of increased privatisation of land and resourceswhich influence the fragmentationof estatesand the landscape developmentof themanor, parish and town. Movementthroughout the wasregulated by legislation enforcedby the king and aristocracyand administeredthrough the reevesand communalcourts of the hundred,wapentake, shire and borough. Tradewas orientedtowards the town through acts of legislation and throughthe developmentof an urban community of However, craftsmen and traders. Much less is understoodabout manorial relations. the in from fortified manorsand their surroundinglands were engaged a wide variety of practices interactions. beekeepingto shepherdingand ploughing which structuredtheir communitiesand in landscape. More archaeologicalresearch is neededon thepractices which occurred therural

-81- Focus has centred on the manorial sites rather than the villages surrounding them. At present, a great deal of our knowledge about the rural communities lies in documentary sources,rather than archaeology discoveries. Until this is redressed,knowledge of the late Anglo-Saxon period will still rest primarily in the towns, rather than in a balanced understanding of social practice within the landscape.

Investigationinto the practicesof pottery production and consumptionis able to focus on the landscapethrough the analysisof distribution patterns. VVhilethe production of pottery is in developing in centredin the towns - the pottersparticipating the craft communities those is informative landscape. settlements- trade and consumptionof pottery about the rural Distribution patternshelp to demonstratethe structureof the settlementswithin the landscape and their interactionwith the emergingtowns. It can begin to characterisemobility within the landscapeand the ways in which it influenced manorial settlementand territorial identity. However,although pottery is extremelyinformative about the socialconstruction of landscape, it must be contextualisedwithin a wider understandingof social geography. It is only one artefact amongmany which was usedin the constructionof social practice. Until a greater understanding of rural settlementis reached,pottery analysis must be oriented towards hinterlandrelations with the town rather than amongstmanorial communities.

The following two chaptersfocus on the practicesof pottery production and consumption. in Anglo-ScandinavianLincolnshire, Through discussionand analysisof the pottery trade the in issuesof territorial identity, communityinteraction and social mobility addressed this chapter will be further investigated. Lincolnshire was engagedin the restructuring of territorial by boundariesand identities, so apparentin the sculpturalmonuments erected the aristocracy. Goltho The increasedemphasis on the privatisationof land gaverise to suchsettlements as and Lincoln. The influenced the investmentin sheeppastoralism so evident at Flixborough and becamefocal for their emerging towns of Lincoln, Stamford and Torksey centres regions, Structuringmovement towards them through the thriving marketsand craft communitieswithin haga involved in social interactionwhich thern. The potters with their kilns and town were a from the Lincoln structured the Anglo-Scandinavianlandscape, stretching minter using a in the fen edge. Stamfordcrucible, to the use of a cooking pot a small settlementalong

-82- CHAPTERIH

PRACTICES OF PRODUCTION: THE CRAFT OF POTTERS IN ANGLO-SCANDINAVIAN LINCOLNSHIRE

Stewedeapons

Takeparsley, hissop, sage, rosemary and thyme, break them between yourhands and stuffyour capons with them and colour them with saffron andput them in an earthern Pot or else in brass byt an earthen one is better and lay splints underneath and all about the sides so that the capons do not touch the sides nor the bottom and cast the same herbs into the pot among the capons andput a quart or a pint of the best wine that you can get and no other liquor and set a lid upon it that willflt within the brim andmake a batter ofwhite ofeggs andflour andput between the brim a mass ofpaper (mss: paper lefe) or else linen cloth that the batter may seal it surely so that no egg comesout. See that the batter is thick andsetyourpot on a charcoalflre to the middle side andsee that the liddoes not rise with the heat and let it stew gentlyfor along time and when you think that it is cooked, take itfrom theflre, if it is an earthen pot, set it upon a wisp ofstraw so that it does not touch the cold ground and when the heat is well drawn and overpast take offthe lid and take outyour capons with a stick and lay them in another vessel and make a syrup of wine and mince dares and cinnamon drawn with the same wine, add thereto currants, sugar, saffron and salt, boil it a little and cast in gingerpowder with a little ofthe same wine andadd the same to the above beef syrup andpour upon the capons and serve theinforth with a rib of every one a capon on a dish.

late fifteenth centuryrecipe (Pepys1047) (Hodgett 1972,14-15;cf. Kilmurry 1980.28)

This chapter is primarily concernedwith situating the potter and the production of pottery within Anglo-Scandinaviansociety. ChapterH discussedthe social geographyof Anglo- Scandinavian Lincolnshire,touching on themeswhich wereaffecting the whole of late Anglo- Saxon landscape Lincolnshire. society,as well asaddressing issues and details specific to the of This discusses chapterplaces the potter andhis craft within the town. It also the social useof distribution Pottery,and the waysin which this mustaffect our interpretationsof pottery within late Anglo-Saxon society. In addition to thesehistorical themes,this chapterprovides an introduction, Lincolnshire. Finally, it considers to thepottery producedin Anglo-Scandinavian the distribution for the more detailed of pottery within Lincolnshire, establishinga context examination IV. of trading and consumptionpractices in Chapter

-83- Archaeology reconstructspast societiesthrough the recoveryand analysisof material culture within the landscape. Artefacts, are deposited through human action, although later environmentalor cultural occurrencesmay alter this resultingpattern. The patternof artefact deposition reflects the socialmovements and interactions of the peopleproducing, trading and consumingthis material.

Pottery is extremely informative aboutpast social practices. The versatility'of the processes OfPottery production makeseach tradition unique,even within the samesociety. The useof clays and tempersis associatedwith particular regionsand locales,while the firing of pottery within a bonfire or a structured IdIn, is influenced by more general social practices of Production. The shapeand decorationof pottery is often able to suggestthe ways and places in which that pottery was used. Pottery also provides a window into the lives of individual Potters,through the way in which a rim was thumbed,or a designfingered acrossthe surface of a pot.

Pottery production within tenth century Lincolnshire was involved with the developmentof craft traditions and, indeed, with the constructionof a communalidentity within the town (Chapter ID. Pottersare unknown from pre-Conquestdocumentary sources. However,they would haveparticipated in the life of the town: in the renting of haga from a lord, in the market Practices,and the advantagesof living in a communityof craftsmen.Perhaps, they might have been membersof a town guild, who would have been exempt from the sametolls as all townspeople.Archaeologically, potters are one of the mostvisible membersof the town: their kilns demonstrating waresdistributed in vast amountsthroughout the town, their and wares a in kiln, changein production practicesfrom hand-madepottery, fired a rural clamp to wheel- thrown pottery fired in a structuredkiln within the town. The practicesof pottery production Wereinexorably linked to the developmentof urban communitiesin the late Saxonperiod. Through discoursebetween investigationinto theproduction and trade of pottery,the townsand their hinterlandscan be discussed.

The Study of Late Anglo-Saxon Pottery

Since has to archaeological the 1950's,the study of late Saxon pottery greatly contributed

-84~ research of this period (Vince 1993a: 151). In a series of papers,John Hurst and Gerald Dunning establishedthe basisfor late Saxonpottery researchby publishing a typology of the wheel-thrown wares now recognisedas belonging to the ninth to eleventhcenturies (Hurst 1956;1957; Dunning 1959). During the largescale urban excavations of the 1960'sand 1970'9, the Productionof late Saxonpottery waslinked to the developmentof towns (Kilmurry 1980; Vince 1985;Mainman 1990;Dallas 1993;Hebditch 1967;Carver forthcoming). As pottery began to be associatedwith particular towns,typologies of town 'types' were developed,and the original typologies establishedby Hurst and Dunning were modified to reflect this new knowledge. A detailed review of the changesin late Saxonpottery typologiesand ceramic researchhas been concisely addressed elsewhere (Vince 1993a).In summary,the variation in fabric tyW appearsto be not only a factor of regionality and the availability of clays but also one of social practice. Indeed, 'it is likely that this reflects a desireby pottersto use familiar materialsand to follow a mentaltemplate' (Vince 1993a:156). The shelly, sandy,gritty and untemperedwhite claysused by the pottersreflect a deliberateintent to follow a craft tradition. While the introduction of thesewares to the Danelawmight haveoriginally createda change in the practicesof pottery production, the associationof temperswith particular towns and regions implies the establishment of a craft tradition.

Pottery production within the Danelawcan be distinguishedfrom that of Wessexand English Mercia. Potters within the Danelawfavour a narrowerbase and less squatform than do the n'Oresouthern potters. Danelawpotters often removedthe base from the wheelwith a wire but did not alwaysalter the bases,leaving a distinctivethrowing whorl on the bottomof the vessel. Roller-stamping (diamondand square)as a form of decorationis also limited to the Danelaw (Vince 1993a:160). Indeed,the potteryproduction within the Danelawwas distinct from that elsewhere.This wasprobably due to the early introductionof wheel-thrownpottery traditions to by in Mercia theDanelaw and the subsequentspread and adoption of thesetechniques potters during late (Vince 1993a: first half of the tenth centuryand Wessexduring the tenth century 161).

One late Of the primary issuesdiscussed was the origin of the wheel-thrownwares of the ninth their to eleventhcenturies (Vince 1993a).These wheel-thrown hard-fired wares, with globular forms. barrel-shaped were strikingly different from their hand-made,soft-fired predecessors. Indeed, had its Romanforms. The' they mostresembled Continental pottery which still retained of England has suddenappearance of these wares during the Scandinaviancolonisation into England on the wave of alternatively been explained by the inunigration of potters Scandinavian knowledgeacross the settlement,or by thecultural transmissionof technological

-85- Channel(Hurst 1957; 1976; Dunning 1959;Vince 1993a: 152). The immigration argument favoured either a family tradition being maintained throughout the generationsor a craft tradition introduced by Continentalpotters which was later adoptedby Anglo-Saxonpotters (Kilmurry 1977a: 183-4; Vince 1993a: 152). The immigration of Continental potters is Supported by the fact that the technicalexpertise and knowledge needed to producethese wares at the high standardof production with which they first appearis considerable(Barley 1982: 275; Kilmurry 1980: 190; Vince 1993a:152). Indeed,the earlier pottery is generallybetter madethan that which occurslater in the tenth century(Miles et aL 1989:226). Furthermore, there was no transitional period betweenthe hand-mademiddle Saxonpottery and the wheel- thrown wares,except in EastAnglia with its Ipswich ware production during the eighth and ninth centuries(Vince 1993a:153). Finally both the form of thepottery and the ldlns is directly Parallelledon the Continent(Kilmurry 1977a:183-4; Vince 1993a:152; Musty 1977:43,50).

Wheel-thrown pottery appearsto havebeen originally introducedin themiddle of thelate ninth centuryby immigrant pottersin the emergingtowns along the north eastcoast of Englandin towns such as York (Mainman 1990), Uncoln (Miles et aL 1989; Adams Gilmour 1988), Stamford (Kilmurry 1980) and Thetford (Dallas 1993). It then spreadinto the surrounding Danelaw territoriesestablishing regional traditions and fabrics. During thefirst half of thetenth century,wheel-thrown pottery emergesto the westand south in townssuch as Stafford (Carver forthcoming; Ford 1995)and Oxford (Vince 1985;Mellor 1980). Finally, during the late tenth and early eleventhcenturies, wheel-thrown wares can be found in Wessexwith the Cheddar, Michelmersh, Portchesterand Exeterindustries (Vince 1993a:161).

The introduction of wheel-thrown pottery into England must be seenagainst the general changesoccurring during the late Anglo-Saxonperiod (ChapterID- The emergingtowns incorporated leather more crafts than pottery within their walls. Coin production, working, s1nithing,woodworking and other crafts establisheda craft and mercantilecommunity within these The late settlementswhich was not basedon agricultural husbandry. situationof ninth and tenth century pottery production exclusively within towns suggeststhat craft production law indicate increasing was encouragedwithin these communities. Certainly the codes 384). However, the aristocraticcontrol over town activities (Whitelock 1968: while regulation (ChapterH), the of town marketswould suggesta vigorousinternational trade potteryevidence does in international not reflect this (Vince 1985:36). Indeed,the middle Saxontrade pottery is Instead,only locally and significantly reducedduring the late ninth to late tenth centuries. the resurgenceof regionally Producedwares are found. The turn of the eleventhcentury saw international Rhineland the Low Countrieswere an pottery trade, and imports from the and

-86- being consumedwithin the towns (Vince 1985:38). This coincided with a re-emergenceof regional hand-madewares competing against previously establishedwheel-thrown industries Q. Young perscom). Furthermore,there was a differentiation betweenthe typesof pottery the towns peopleare using andthat found outsidethe town (Vince 1985:42). The socialchanges, evidencedby the pottery industry, were parallelledin developmentsin building construction, coinageand in an increasedrange of animalresource consumption (Chapter H). During the late tenth and eleventh centuries, the towns of the late nl'nth and early tenth centuries were recognisablyurban in character.

The emergenceof wheel-thrown,hard-fired pottery within Danelawtowns during thelate ninth century was indicative not only of a social change, which encouragedlarge-scale craft Productionwithin towns, but also of a distinct social identity being constructedwithin the Danelaw. The law codesindicate a distinct identity for the Danelaw(YVWtelock 1968: 380, 421) as do the wapentakesand riding divisions. Regionalidentities being structuredthrough media such as sculpture(Everson and Stocker 1999:86), are indicative of distinctive Anglo- Scandinavian social practices. Archaeology further suggeststhat the Dan6law towns demonstratedmore 'urban' characteristicsduring the late ninth century,the period when the wheel-thrownpottery tradition was introduced,than their burghal counterpartsto the south (Vince 1994:113). The establishmentof anurban pottery tradition during thelate ninth century in but wasengaged not only in socialchanges affecting the early medievalsociety general, also in Danelaw. the constructionof an Anglo-Scandinavianidentity within the

Producing Pottery Data: Collection Strategies in Lincolnshire

Jast few decadeshas been the use of One of the important analytical advancesover the have this thesis possible. computer technology in research. Indeed, theseadvances made techniqueshas allowed the Collection and interpretation of data through computer-aided Thesetechniques depend both on the explorationof vast quantitiesof complex information. datain formats by computers.Although standardisationof dataand the recording of that usable has beenmatched by therate of data technologyhas made tremendous advances, this not always in archives.Nor hasthe entry, andmany resources are still held on paperrather than electronic Lack of financialresources has been reassessmentofpast collectionsoften beenaccomplished.

-87- oneof the fundamentalreasons for the absenceof computer-maintainedup-to-date collections. However,without the administrativesupport from funding agencies,this is unlikely to change.

Nevertheless,there have been some important advances in this direction. Therehas been much discussionconcerning data standards in recentyears especially with the adventof the Arts and Humanities Data Service (AHDS) and its service-provider,the Archaeology Data Service (ADS). Ileir mandateis to provide regulatedaccess to datawhich is in standardisedformats andtherefore usable by a wide rangeof people. This wasone of the aimsof the EastMidlands PotteryProject (EMPP) begunin 1991. The EMPP was interestedin providing a databaseof EastMidlands pottery which usedstandardised and acceptedpottery codesand terminology. This entailedre-analysing pottery storedin museumsas well as encouragingnew finds to be analysedaccording to the EMPP format. Unfortunately,as with manyprojects, the sizeof the Projectwas larger than anticipated, and there were no further financesforthcoming to copewith the work which neededto be done. As a result, Lincolnshire(where the project wasbased) has a good coverageof pottery dataunder this project but other countieswere not assessed.

(below). Most pottery used in this research has been recorded using EMPP codes These codes Lincoln Silver Street kilns are based on recognising kiln products such as those from the or from Castle Farm, Torksey. The codes are arranged in a hierarchy of information from a basic be included late Saxon category to a specific kiln product. Other data can within the general for data be scheme when it does not conform to the EMPP codes, allowing a wider range of to interrogated. This kiln-based typology permits comparison between kiln traditions and allows Lincoln travelling the recognition of craft movement among potters, such as a potter to HOmcastle The EMPP typology or a Stamford potter moving to Nottingham. allows research As it is typology for to be undertaken involving movement of wares and potters. such, the used Unfortunately, this thesis, with additions, where possible, from other typologies. projects such to as the Fenland Project, have used fabric-based codes which were not established recognise (Healey 1992: 249-52; kiln pr oducts but rather are a basic description of the pottery matrix Stamford, Torksey, 1993: 7-8). The only kiln-based codes which were recorded were a general it is the most general level that Thetford, Maxey and Ipswich assignation. Therefore, only at be used together. the two typologies, EMPP and Healey's fabric-based code, can correlated and Fenland Project cannot be assessed in This means that such important projects as the data for Lincolnshire. conjunction with the majority of pottery

(1980) focussed defining a relative Ile researchdone by Coppackfor his doctoral thesis on from Nottingham,Derby andLincoln (1980: chronologyand typology for the medievalpottery

~88- 1,3).His resultswere basedon distinguishingdifferences in colour, temperand texture as well asa comparisonof forms. Othermethods such as chemical analysis were only beingdeveloped during the courseof his thesis and so were not employed(Coppack 1980: 18-20). The basic typology,established by Coppackfor the Lincoln wares,separated the shelly waresinto a finer (shell-tempered)and coarser(harsh shell-tempered) shell-tempered ware, the differencelying not only in the characterof the temperbut alsoin the basalstructure. The shell-temperedware had knife-trimmed,sagging bases while the harsh-temperedbases were flat (Coppack1980: 39- 41). Thesetwo wares were later separated,in the EMPP topology, into a larger numberof ware-tYpesbased on post-excavationanalysis of the Flaxengate(Adams Gilmour 1988) and Silver Street(Miles et al. 1989)material. Coppackalso distinguishedan early medievalgrey sandyware and splashedglazed ware in addition to a later orangeware (Coppack1980: 43-4). This over generalisationof the Lincoln shell-temperedwares caused Coppack to presumethat there was no substantialchange in pottery manufactureat the time of the Danish incursions, despitehis observationsto the contraryfrom the materialfrom Derby andNottingham (1980: 341-2). Instead,Coppack concludes that Lincoln hada strongpottery tradition which continued from the middle Saxon period and which influenced other pottery practices of the East Midlands (1980: 331-2). However,while Coppackmaintains that the Lincoln pottery industry was instrumentalto the developmentof the EastMidland pottery traditions, he also links the Stamford pottery with that of Derby andNottingham (1980: 217-18,275). With the lackof pre- Conquestmaterial at the time from both thosetowns, further conclusionswere difficult to draw (Coppack 1980: 292). Nevertheless,Coppack dates the connectionbetween the Stamford- Derby-Nottingham industriesto pre-I 100 (1980: 2934).

The focus by Coppackon the typological developmentof the pottery from threetowns meant that he did not considerthe rural consumptionof thesewares in detail, exceptfor a comparison of the Lincoln material at Goltho (1980: 113-134). He notesthat little was known aboutthe rural industriesof the medievalperiod (Coppack1980: 33 1). However,other than a cursory glanceat the rural consumptionpatterns in the EastMidlands, Coppackdoes not addresstrade and consumptionof the material which he studied. Indeed, as he notes, there was little understandingof urbanpottery productionpatterns in the EastMidlands beforethe late 1970's and 1980'swith his and Kilmurry's (1980) theseson EastMidland pottery and the analysisof the Flaxengate(Adams Gilmour 1988) and Silver Street (Miles et aL 1989) excavationsin Lincoln. Knowledgeof the developmentof the wareswithin their placeof productionwas an important stepto understandingthe developmentof the regional landscape.

Kilmurry's (1980) thesishas remained an instrumentalwork on the developmentof Stamford

-89- ware. KilmurTy recognised a number of different fabrics produced in Stamford. This was based on analysis of excavation of kilns, such as those excavated at Wharf Road and under Stamford Castle (1980: 314,44-5). While the detailed distinctions between these wares are often difficult to distinguish, Kilmurry's fabric types and general ware developments are still used in current analysis. Unlike Coppack (1980). Kilmurry did not stop at a typological assessmentof the pottery, but included discussions concerning the practices ofproduction, trade and consumption of Stamford ware (1980: 171-5). Indeed, her thesis remains a seminal work in the understanding of one of the finest of East Midland pottery traditions and is used in the following discussions of Stamford ware.

The typology developedby Hayfield considereda large temporalrange of ceramicsfrom AD 410 to AD 1540 (1985: 2) within North Lincolnshire. Hayfield establishedone of the first tYPologiesfor this areafrom theexcavations it ThornholmeAbbey. Like that doneby Coppack 0 980: 18-20),this wasdone on visual similarities throughan alphabeticalcode, which 'sought to avoid the needto adoptany establishedname for particular fabrics which mayhave had any unfoundedimplications for their placeof manufacture'(Hayfield 1985:6). This differed from Healey's approach which was not based on stratified assemblagesand was, therefore, chronologicallyimprecise. Furthermore,Coppack's comparison of Lincoln, Nottinghamand Derby did not addresstown-hinterland interactions and instead focussedon relationships betweenthe town assemblages.Hayfield soughtto addressthe distribution of pottery within the landscapefrom a chronologicalperspective (Hayfield 1985:7). However,by structuring the typology without reference to particular kiln sites, Hayfield's typology is ultimately unproductive.Furthermore, without the useof microscopicand thin sectionanalysis, much of the typology is not secure.While his work representsimportant research, the alphabeticfabric codesare unwieldy anddo not havethe precisionof thoseidentified from kiln strata. The lack of a kiln-based typology is problematic as it removes the processesof production and consumptionfrom their spatial and social context. It is the interactionsbetween town and hinterland - or the place of production and placesof consumption- which are of particular interest.and it is appropriateto basethe typology firmly within that spatialrelationship.

The establishmentof the East Midland Pottery Project (Vince and Young 1991) was instrumentalin the understandingof the pottery traditions within Lincolnshire. The EMPP soughtto establisha databaseof pottery from current and previous excavationsbased on a typology developedfrom microscopic,neutron-based and thin sectionanalysis which linked Potteryto specific kilns. Unfortunately,because of funding restraints,this project wasunable to continue,and only Lincolnshire receiveddetailed coverage. The following descriptionsof

-90- the Potteryin Lincolnshire areprimarily basedon this understandingas well asthat developed by Kilmurry (1980) and Barley (1982; 1964). The two articles by Barley contain detailed descriptions of the kilns and wares from his two excavationsat Torksey. Subsequent excavationsand analysishave built upon the knowledgepresented by Barley (Palmer-Brown 1995; 1996b). However, his researchof the Torksey pottery industries is still the main referencefor that tradition.

The following discussionof the Lincolnshire pottery industries in the Anglo-Scandinavian period will be basedon the typologiesdeveloped by the EMPP (1991), Kilmurry (1980) and Barley (1982; 1964). Further dialogueconcerning the use of this infomiation in the pottery analysis will occur in ChapterIV. This chapterfocuses on the production practicesof the Pottersin tenth centuryLincolnshire andprovides an introductionto the tradeand distribution Of that pottery.

Anglo-Saxon Pottery Traditions within Lincolnshire

This section describesthe production and trade of pottery within Lincolnshire during the Anglian and Anglo-Scandinavianperiods (AD 650-1100). It focusesprimarily on the Anglo- Scandinavian developmentsto complementthe focus of this thesis.7be Anglian waresare only briefly References discussedto provide a contextfor the Anglo-Scandinavianpottery. to ware types uses the typology developedby the EMPP. The EMPP typology is the one most in Prevalentlyused in Lincolnshireand is thetypology usedin theanalyses undertaken Chapter 1V- in Chapter Further discussionof typologieswill be addressedin the methodologysection IV- This currentchapter is concernedwith the socialpractices surrounding the productionand useOf Potteryin the late Saxonperiod.

During industry, the Anglian period in Lincolnshire,pottery productionwas a rural operating referred clarnpkilns to fire coil-built pots. Thesewcre shell-temperedvessels, and are generally to first despite later fabric as Maxey wares from the site which they were observed bucket barrel shapes,usually subdivisions. Thesepots were 'flat bottomedwith simple and Young in litt). The quality of these With a flat or slightly evertedrim' (J. Wilkinson and J. in the pottersproducing vesselsappears to be linked to fabric, suggestinga range the skill of

-91- the ware. There appearsto have been both a northern and southernMaxey tradition being traded within Lincolnshire along a north/south divide. Indeed, the southernMaxey ware dominatesthe sites in the south of the county while being absentfrom those in north (J. Wilkinson and*J. Young in litt). This might suggestthat the kingdom of Lindsey, while nominally part of Mercia, wasstill assertinga regionalidentity which wasobserved by trading Practices.However, the distribution of Maxey-typewares is still limited (Figure 31) and such a conclusionwould bepremature. Nevertheless, the question as to whetherpottery distributions were structured by conceptsof territorial identity in the middle Saxon period would be worthwhile pursuing when a sufficient quantity and quality of datawas available.

Onelocal wareemerges in the ninth centuryaround Lincoln (Early Fine-ShelledWare (ELFS)) for a brief period before being overwhelmedby introduction of Anglo-Scandinavianwheel- thrown pottery during the late ninth century. The pottersproducing ELFS incorporatedsome of the Maxey characteristics(coil-built, flat bottomed, barTelform) but were producing a distinctive warewhich hadgrass-wiped, striated exteriors and round everted rims Q. Wilkinson andJ. Young in litt).

Trade in the regional shell-temperedMaxey-type ware production was complimentedby imports from Ipswich. Ipswich ware wasthrown on a slow wheeland fired in structuredkilns. It generallyhad uneven girth marks,sagging bases and was knife-trimmed (Dunning et aL 1959: 14). The Ipswich ware pottersappear to havebeen copying Rhenishand Merovingian forms andstylistic elementsemploying traditional Anglo-Saxon techniques and technology (Dunning et aL 1959: 28; Hurst 1957: 30; Vince 1993a: 154). This sandygrey pottery was primarily tradedwithin East Anglia along the coastand up navigablerivers from Essexto the eastern Fensat King's Lynn (Hurst 1957:3 1; Figure 32). Indeed,it is ubiquitouson sitesin Norfolk and Suffolk which datefrom the eighth to early ninth centuries(Vince 1993a:154). However, it was also usedextensively outside the kingdom.

During the latter half of the ninth century,the abrupt appearanceof hard-fired wheel-thrown Potteryin Stamford,Lincoln andTorksey submerged the earlierhand-made production. Both Lincoln and Torksey developeddaughter industries: Lincoln at Horricastle,and Torksey at in Newark. The pottery production within the Lincolnshire towns must be seen context with the EastAnglian Thetford, Ipswich andNorwich industriesand Seven Boroughs production at York, Leicester,and Nottingham (Figure 33). Associatedwith thegrowing craft activity within theseemerging towns, the shift in potteryproduction illustrates the formation ofnew settlement Strategieswithin the landscape.

-92~ Production Practices: Kiln-yards and their Wares

Discussion of the productionand consumption of pottery in Anglo-ScandinavianLincolnshire mustinclude the kiln-yard andthe potteryproduced there. Kiln-yard is usedhere to refer to the areaused for the production of pottery, the town haga,presumably held by a lord to which the Pottersowed rent. This sectionexplores how the kiln-yard was situatedwithin the growing towns of Lincoln, Stamfordand Torksey. It discussesthe differencesin kiln constructionand the general developmentsin kiln technology throughout the Anglo-Scandinavianperiod. Evidence of craft techniquesevident from the excavationof kilns are also introduced.

-The kiln. yard~

During the medievalperiod, kilns tendedto be locatedon the edgesof communities.The late ninth and tenth century pottery production was often situatedjust inside the walls of the burgeoning towns. The potterslater movedoutside the town andthere are medieval references to both individual potters, as well as to communitiesof potters, within the rural landscape (MOOrhouse 1981:97). Iliere may havebeen a practicalreason for this marginalisation.The Silver Street kiln in Lincoln was associatedwith glassproduction and iron smelting. This suggeststhat thesefurnace-based crafts werepurposefully positioned to take advantageof the Prevailingwinds which blew the smokeaway from theinhabitants of the town (AdamsGilmour 1988: 173; Miles et aL 1989: 198). This raisesthe possibility of 'industrial zoning'. While towns were managedby the aristocracyand their reeves,without more extensiveevidence, it is difficult to arguethat the aristocracywere able to establishcommunities of craftsmenwhere they willed. Furthermore,Kilmurry suggeststhat the lack of industrial zoningin Stamford(as Opposedto Ipswich or Norwich) was perhaps due to the more intense habitation of Stamford which encouraged more movement within the town (Kilmurry 1980: 151). Nevertheless, such indications of craft zoning are tantalizing suggestions of social control either at the administrative or community level. Ironically, this peripheral placement of the kiln may have reflected the low status of the potter in medieval society (Moorhouse 1978: 14).

-93- With so few kiln sites excavated in their entirety, it is difficult to obtain a visualization of the People and the activities which surrounded the firing of the kiln. This lack of kiln-yard investigations was remarked upon by Musty who commented

'that all too frequently only a solitary kiln has beenexcavated. Its discovery will have often resultedfrom an accidentalexposure of part of it and onceit has been excavatedno attempthas beenmade to searchfor others. Equally, on occasionswhen more than one kiln hasbeen located, no attempthas been made to search the ground between the IdIns for associated structures' (Musty 1974: 57).

Investmentin a kiln-yard stretchedover successivegenerations of kilns. Furtherinquiry into the extent and longevity of kiln-yards would increasecurrent knowledgeof the period of individual craft activity on town tenements.Indeed, the kiln-yard excavatedat Thetford (Dallas 1993)has proved invaluable for the understandingof potteryproduction. However,due to the Commercialnature of archaeology- especiallywithin cities- a secondexcavation of an entire kiln-yard is unlikely. The evidencefor kiln-yardsin Lincolnshireis primarily basedon the kiln andits products. However,the social practicesassociated with the kiln-yards of Lincolnshire can be discussedthrough the combinationof information gainedfrom excavations

Pits from are the most numerous feature on a kiln site. These contain wastage kiln firings such aspot sherds,silt, clay, loam andcharcoal (Miles et A 1989:197). Pits werealso usedto store and weatherclay, as well as for addingfiller andtemper (Dallas 1993:60; Barley 1982:270, 275) large jar to have held . One pit at Thetford containeda storage which was suggested water for pot-throwing activities (Dallas 1993:60). Few structuresother than the kiln have beenexcavated. There is little evidencefor domestichabitation of the site unlike other craft tenementswithin towns (Perring 1981; Hall 1988a: 130;b: 240). This suggeststhat the potters may have lived within anothertenement separate from the kiln-yard. Indeed, it would be unpleasantto havelived in the kiln-yard while the kiln was firing. Experimentssuggest that this lastedapproximately ten to thirteenhours (Bryant 1971: 116).

The excavations at Thetford (Dallas 1993) provide most of our information about the Movementsof potters. Here the kiln-yard wasenclosed by gullies on the north-eastand north- delineation west, indicating a delineation of property bounds (Dallas 1993: 60). The of in York indicate Propertywas a commonAnglo-Saxon practice. Tenements that there was is fencing betweenthe plots (Hall 1994:66). Indeed,the Anglo-Saxonword for plot, haga,

-94- associatedwith hedges(Hooke 1980:39). Therewas some evidence for buildingsat Thetford. One post hole perhapsrepresented the basefor a potter's wheelfrom thepacked debris of flint andpottery surroundingit. There was an unoccupiedarea east of the kilns wherethe fuel for the kiln might have beenstored (Dallas 1993:60). Indeed,a large amountof fuel would have beenneeded to operatethe kilns, as firing would havetaken more than one day (Musty 1974: 55). Most of the activity at the Thetford kiln-yard was located in an areasouth-west of the kilns. The groundwas trampled and churned here perhaps caused by loadingpottery into a cart (Dallas 1993:60).

Other finds begin to give an insight into the potters themselves. Excavations at Silver Street recovered a discarded cattle rib, which may have been used for scraping, on top of one of the refuse pits (Miles et aL 1989: 193). Other cattle ribs have been found at Thetford (Dallas 1993: 68) suggesting that this was part of the potter's tool kit. Many of the routines and practices of Pottery production have not been recovered. However, these techniques are apparent on the vessels themselves. The potters used stamps and material for painting and glazing (Figure 34). l1011er-stamping was probably applied while turning the pot on the wheel. Wires were used to cut the pots from the bases,and knives were used to trim any excessclay. Slurries were formed through smoothing with a cloth and bases were often wiped (Miles el aL 1989: 206-7,212; Kilmurry 1980: 79-85). A more endearing glimpse of a potter's life is seen in the human heel and young pig hoof impressions round the pedestal of one of the Torksey kilns (Barley 1982: 275). One can imagine the potter on his daily routine followed by an inquisitive young pig.

The kilns themselves are generally circular single flue updraught kilns: circular pits with a flue entrance into a stoke pit (Figure 35). These kilns come in two forms: the first a simple oven Pit on the same level as the stoke pit; the second a more elaborate construction with a raised Ovenfloor (either supported by a pedestal or sprung from the kiln wall) (Must y 1974: 44). The fuel into would have been placed within the flue arch, the heat being funnelled the kiln proper (Musty 1974: 57). Branches of oak, hazel and poplar were used as fuel (Miles et al 1989: 186, for 194). Wood would likely have been delivered in a cart, perhaps also accounting the area involved in Of churned soil at Thetford. However, whether the potters were a reciprocal arrangement with an estate, like the salters at Droitwich were with Bromsgrove to obtain wood (Blair 1994: 86; Hooke 1981: 132,140-1), or whether they obtained it themselves, is unknown. The procurement of clay was also part of the routine of the potters. Both clay and wood would drying have been collected a seasonin advance to allow for souring of the clay and of the wood (Bosworth 1982: 44). These activities further indicate the dependance of the town crafts on resourcesoutside the town.

-95- Often the kilns were simply lined with clay, but linings of limestone,skerry and pottery are sometimesused (Miles et al. 1989: 186; Kilmurry 1980: 85-6; Barley 1982: 273). This indicates a more substantialinvestment in the kiln to reduce shrinkageof the lining after repeatedfirings. The kilns where this techniqueis employedwere in use for a significant amountof time (Barley 1982:372; Miles et aL 1989: 186). Despitea query by Musty (1974: 54) about the necessityof an impermanentroof structure to load the kilns, it is generally thoughtthat thesekilns hada removablesuperstructure (Miles et al. 1989:199; Kilmurry 1980: 86). A non-permanentdome would havecertainly facilitated the loading of the kiln (Musty 1974: 54). Thesesuperstructures appear to havebeen built out of clay and loam (Miles et al. 1989: 186,191). Internal structuressuch as baffle bars,pedestals and firebars were used, both to supportthe kiln andthe pottery aswell asto increasethe air flow (Kilmurry 1980:86; Barley 1964: 176-7; 1982:273). The excavationsat Torkseyand Stamfordsuggest that introduction Of thesestructures developed during the mid-tenthcentury, the earlier kilns being a circular basin with no internal additions(Kilmurry 1980:86; Barley 1964: 175-7;1982: 270-5; Young and Wilkinson 1995: 6). Pottery at Lincoln was likely stackedupside-down from the grey reducedinteriors. This would haveprotected the rims from rapid cooling. The sometimesgrey patchy exteriors on thesepots further suggestthat they were cooled in hot ash (Miles et al. 1989: 199). Stamfordpottery alsowas primarily stackedupside down andit wassuggested that this Position better retained hot air preventingextreme differentials of heat within the kiln (Bryant 1977: 110-1,120; Kilmurry 1980: 86-7). At Stamfordthe kilns appearto be fully loaded at eachfiring, again ensuringbetter results (Vilmurry 1980:86).

The twelve kilns so far known from Torkseyrepresent the largestnumber of known kilns from a settlement. Indeed,if so many kilns havebeen recovered at Torksey,one wonderswhether Torksey the numberof kilns at other towns was originally a similar number,or whether was kilns uniqueamongst pottery producing towns. Barley originally examinedsix of the andnoted by fire-bars the developmentfrom a simpleclay lined kiln basinto a pedestaledbase supported (Barley 1964:175; 1982:271-5). His sequencingof kilns waslater reworkedby Wilkinson and Young during (1995: 6) whosechronology suggests that the kilns becamemore complex the kilns from Inid-tenthcentury. The kilns all havedifferent life-spanswith threeconsecutive the (Barley 1982: 279-85; Mid-tenth to mid-eleventh century demonstratinga large output Wilkinson and Young 1995: 3-6).

The kiln briefly using what Silver Streetpotters in Lincoln employeda unique structureafter 1989: 194; Figure 36, Figure 37, appearsto be a more standardcircular kiln (Miles et aL Figure the Lincoln 38). Insteadof a circular kiln pit with flue arch andstoke pit construction,

-96- pottersbuilt rectangularIdIns of about I V2metres wide and 3- 6 metresor morelong (Miles et aL 1989: 186,193). Thesewere not properkilns, asthe fuel sourcewas not separatedfrom the kiln proper. In essence,these were elaborateclamp kilns, which combinedthe wood with the Pottery,capping it with loam and clay (Miles et aL 1989: 186,199-200). T'hetwo excavated kilns were lined or partially lined with limestoneblocks (Miles et aL 1989: 186),presumably to Preventwall shrinkageand to supportthe vertical kiln sides. The only parallels for these kilns come from Merovingian and Carolingiancontexts on the Continent(Miles et aL 1989: 198).

The two late Saxonkilns which havebeen excavated at Stamfordare locatedon Wharf Road andbeneath Stamford Castle. The Castlekiln wasthe earlier of the two andwas in useduring thelatter half of the ninth centuryextending early into thetenth century (Figure 39). It waspart of a larger complex of kilns probably situatedto the north of the excavation(Kilmurry 1977a: 180). This kiln had flue arch and stokehole like the kilns at Torksey and Thetford, but was elongatedwith straightsides. The pottershad relined the kiln a numberof times. It wasrotated 180degrees during its productivelife, the stokehole shifting from the southto the north. There were no internal structures,and the superstructureis assumedto have beenremoved by the Pottersafter eachfiring. The pieceof oak found in the flue arch indicatesthat oak wasone of the sourcesof fuel for the Castlekiln potters. Pits nearbyhad beenused to disposeof pottery and fizing debris and there was a probable puddling pit excavated(Kilmurry 1980: 31-4; Mahany forthcoming).

The kiln-yard at Wharf Road was probably in use at the turn of the eleventh century (Figure 40). It was superficially circular, but became elongated and sub rectangular towards the bottom, suggesting a similar structural design to the kilns under the Castle. The floor was sloped, facilitating the movement of air from the southern stoke hole to the flue towards the north. The sides were lined with pottery to minimize wall shrinkage. The potters were using baffle bars as structural supports, which also increase air flow through the kiln. These bars Could have held a temporary upper shelf on which the pottery could have been stacked. bottom. Alternatively, the pottery could have simply been stacked with the glazed pots at the There did not appear to be any permanent superstructure associated with the kiln, suggesting 1980: 44-5). that the potters were removing a temporary roof after each firing (Kilmurry

W11ilethe kiln-yards appearto be similar, the kiln structuresfound within Lincolnshire vary in from place to place. Indeed,there is no uniform kiln structurebeing repeated eachtown. kilns Except for the early circular kiln at Lincoln, thereappears to be a relative uniformity of

-97- within eachkiln yard, and indeed,within the town as a whole. This suggeststhat the potters were operating within a craft tradition linked to the production of each ware. This would not be surprising if, indeed, the potters were immigrants into Lincolnshire, and were establishing their trade along the knowledge they had brought with them from the Continent. This further implies that the potters continued to work within the kiln tradition in which they were educated, emPhasising the importance of craft tradition within early medieval society.

There does appearto be a general developmentin kiln structurethrough the tenth century. Early kiln basinswere simply lined andrelined with clay. During the mid-tenthcentury, there wasa greaterinvestment placed on kiln architecture.The walls werelined with stoneor pottery to Prevent shrinkage, and internal structuressuch as pedestals,fire and baffle bars were inserted. However, there was no move to create a permanentsuperstructure for the kilns, Presumablydue to easeof loading. Certainly, in the caseof the Silver Street and Torksey Potters,the developmentof the kiln architecturewas linked to a greateroutput of kiln products (Barley 1983:279-85; Wilkinson and Young 1995:3-6; Miles et aL 1989:200).

-Thepottery-

The late Saxon potter did not have a large repertoire of forms and decoration. The most commonly made form was the cooking pot representing 70-80% ofproduction (Adams Gilmour 1988: 65; Mainman 1990: 427; Barley 1964: 179). This was a globular shapedvessel generally having an everted rim, although they ranged to intumed. The rims were often rebated (lid- found seated) possibly to hold a lid. Bases were cut with a wire. The 'sagging' basesoften on tenth century wares are the result of subsequenttrimming after removal from the wheel. Basal increasing trimming removes excess clay, which would produce differential heating, chances Of cracking (Kilmurry 1980: 79-80). The cooking pot could be modified into a pitcher or storage vessel with the addition of a spout and/or handle. Bowls and dishes were also made and large represented the second major form. Occasional production of cups, crucibles, storage (Miles vessels, pedestal lamps and costrels further completed the late Saxon ceramic range et aL 1989: 208; Kilmurry 1980: 25-28; Adams Gilmour 1988: 120). These forms appear to have been standardised and the rims may have been produced with the aid of a template (Miles et aL 1989: 205).

inscribed in The artful scrolling and interlace inlaid in bone, metal and wood as well as

-98- manuscripts,characteristic of the Anglo-Scandinavianperiod, is not evident on the pottery. Instead, thereis a scarcityof decoration. Under 10%of the vesselsare decorated(Miles et aL 1989: 207; Mainman 1990: 403,431). Stamps,both singular and roller, were employedto createsquare, diamond and occasionallyrosette patterns. Wavy incised lines were a further decorativetechnique. Finger pressingand applied decoratedstrips were also usedto create texture and decoration(Miles et aL 1989:206-7; Barley 1982:279-287; Kilmurry 1980:21). Glazingoccurred in rare instances,primarily at Stamford,and red paint is only known from the Pottersof this town (Kilmurry 1977a;1980; Miles et aL 1989:207; Figure 34).

It hasbeen suggested (Carver forthcoming) that the decorationindicated the pots' contentsor Perhapsthe place of production. The useof similar decorativetechniques across a numberof industries would tend to counter the latter proposal of kiln specific decoration. Indeed, decorationappears to vary moreacross time thangeography. Roller-stamping appeared on rims and shoulder from the late ninth to the mid-tenth centuries,after which it was replacedby thumbeddecoration on rims and applied strips,as well as inscribedlinear designs(Wilkinson and Young 1995:6). Moreover,while thereis somesuggestion of decorationbeing linked to the sizeof the pot, as with the applied strips on the large storagejarsof Thetford andTorksey, this may have more to do with the structural integrity of the pot rather than its contents (Mainman 1990:437). Although if theselarge storagejars were being usedas a containerfor one substance,then the decorationand shape may havebeen associated with that substance,in the sameway that today we associateglass jars with jam or other preserves.However, there is so little evidencefor decorationand contentthat it is difficult to do more than speculateon a correlationbetween the two.

Historical evidence

The Anglo-Saxon languagewas alive with meaningand connotation. This extendedto its but bucket, Poetryas well as to its everydayusage. Thus, a pot was not just a pot a pitcher, a a kettle, a tile, a cup, a bucket or a vat. Anglo-Saxonstended to combinewords to makethe (stan fxt meaningmore precise: sopcuppe (sop = soup;cuppe = cup/bowl) or stanfxt = stone; 2--Vessel/cup/vat). Words also had a numberof different meaningsdepending on the context. (bucket) derived from its Mele could mean hollow vessel,cup, pot or basket. Xschen was in kitchen,but its material,ashwood, as was spear (, Tsc). Pannemay havemeant pan the other bragpanne (brainpan). Words connotation was skull as in heafodpanne(headpan) or

~99- specifically connected with pottery were pott and greofa (pot). Crocc (crock, pot or pitcher) could be combined with -hware (kettle), -sceard (potsherd) and -wirhta (potworker or potter). Tigel was specifically a tile but could also be used to mean any ceramic item such as a pot. Ceac could mean a basin, cup, pitcher or beaker (Roberts 1992: 201-2).

Boiling was the main culinary themeof Anglo-Saxoncuisine. Stews and broths retainedjuices and flavours while having the advantageof softening tough or dried meat as well as dried vegetables.Eggs were hard-boiled and vegetables seethed in combinationsof milk, butter and honey as well as oil. Fruits were stewedin vinegar and wine, occasionallybeing sweetened with honey (Hagan 1992:53-4). However,one shouldnot think that thesewere unsavoury as the Anglo-Saxonshad a wide variety of herbsand seasoningsat their disposal(Hagan 1992: 6o).

Meals suchas these would likely havebeen cooked in a ceramicpot. Medievalcookery books imply that slow simmering was a popular technique. If pots were set in ashes,it is therefore gnotsurprising that many pots show only slight sooting,as they would not usually havebeen nearthe flames' (Kilmurry 1980:26). However,further accountingfor the popularity of the Pot, were the other usesto which it could be put: flour and grain could be storedin pots; fruit and vegetablescould be storedand preserved; oil, wine and ale could be kept and transported in Potsdepending upon the porosity of the pot; milk would stay cool in earthenwarevessels; Pots could be used in making butter and cheese;and coals could be containedwithin them Providinga portablebrazier (Moorhouse1978: 7-13). Indeed,as Moorhouse notes, the open- mouthed'cookingpoe was oneof the mostsuitable and versatile of vessels(1978: 7). Pitchers and storagevessels would havebeen more adaptedto someof theseuses, but the 'cookingpot, Couldbe usedfor all.

Lids wererarely constructedfrom clay. insteadthe wood, linen andparchment were often used. although the latter may have been a medieval practice rather than an Anglo-Saxon one (Moorhouse 1978: 14-15; Moorhouse 1973:14). Sealing agents,such as an egg and flour mixture, as well as clay, dung, wax and lime, could also be employed(Austin 1888:72-3; cf. MOorhouse1978: 6,14). Ile angledrims on late Saxonvessels would have beenideal for fruit binding a cloth over the mouth of a vessel holding such contentsas and vegetable Preserves. Furthermore,the pie-crust rim decoration on bowls might have intentionally complementeda pastry lid on a pie. Indeed,decoration is often more commonon the smaller 1980:26). vesselswhich might havebeen brought to the table (Kilmurry

-100- In addition to their usesas kitchen accessories,pots were also buried in the ground. Reasons for this type of deposithave been suggested; such as coin hoards,good luck charmsand even distilling apparatuses(Moorhouse 1978: 12-13). Lampswere sometimesmade of pottery and Must have been an important householditem. One other use pottery had, and probably will continueto have,is as a weapon. Examplesof medievalincidents can be found in court rolls suchas the time when in 1306Richard Schackelokbroke onejar upon the headof Gilbert the merchant'(Ratcliff 1946: 122;cf. Moorhouse1978: 17) andin 1532William Bakon killed his Prior in the heat of an argumentby hitting the prior on the head with an earthenpot which caused,incidentaly, a two inch long wound penetratinginto the prior's brain (Hunnisett1969: 57, no. 2; cf. Moorhouse1978: 17).

The documentary evidence supports the suggestionthat the primary use of pottery was domestic. While thereis somearchaeological evidence for the productionof table wares,this was on a small scale, and pottery appearsto have been mostly a utilitarian item used in conjunctionwith the wooden,leather and metal implements necessary for food production. As Kilmurry rightly notes,it is importantto remember,that pottery wasnot the only materialat the disposalof early medievalcommunities, however much potterymight dominatearchaeological assemblages(KilmurTy 1980:25). Pottery was usedamongst other materialssuch as wood, leather,metal and cloth. Woodenbarrels were used for storageas were baskets, leather vessels, and cloth sacks. Metal as well as ceramic vessels were used for cooking. Indeed, the image of a caldron or pot suspended over a central fire is a common image in manuscripts. Metal was also associated with high status practipes, and other materials would have been used in lieu of 25). metal if it were not readily available to the household (Kilmurry 1980:

Stamford wares

The Stamfordpotters were using a nearby sourceof Upper Estuarineclay to produce their Pottery (Kilmurry 1980: 63). This clay did not needto have any additional temperand the (Vince 1993a: resulting vesselswere extremely fine in comparisonto other temperedwares E, F, H, 156). Tlere appearto have beenfive fabrics in productionduring the tenth century: (Figure 41). This A andD. The chronologyof thesefabrics beginsat the Castlekiln with OF Early Stamford earliestfabric of Stamfordware is referredto in the EMPP topology as ware Castle (EST) (Figure 42). Fabric H is suggestedto have beensubsequently produced at the differencebetween E F kiln-yard, but no direct evidenceof this hasyet beenfound. The and

. 101- is based on the amount of sand and quartz inclusions, the quartz in F resulting in a mica-like appearance. However, it is unlikely that the potters made any distinction between either E or F (Kilmurry 1977a: 18 1; 1980: 34). Fabric H is distinguished from E/F by its numerous quartz inclusions and the fact that it is soft and often under-fired (Kilmurry 1980: 42). Fabric A was Produced at the Wharf Road kiln-yard in the late tenth century. Fabric H exhibits similarities in form and rouletted decoration to the Wharf Road vessels, suggesting a possible relocation kiln Of and clay source by the potters producing Fabric H (Kilmurry 1980: 132). Fabric D was Produced in the late tenth and eleventh centuries but appears to have been a distinct workshop sPecialising in glazed table-wares, intumed bowls and large storage vessels. Fabric D is more Commonly found on sites outside of Stamford, as demonstrated by its high occurrence at Flaxengate in Lincoln (Kilmurry 1980: 132; Figure 43). The similarity between Fabrics FJF, H and A would argue for a single tradition of Stamford potters operating throughout the Anglo- Scandinavian period (Kilmurry 1980: 132). The later Stamford wares are termed Stamford ware (ST) in the EMPP topology (Figure 44). However, it is often difficult to distinguish between

earlier forms and those produced in the eleventh century. Therefore, they are often grouped more generally into the ST type.

The CastleKiln potterswere able to constantlycentre their vesselsand produce uniformly thin walls throughthe useof a fast kick-wheel(Kilmurry 1980:70-1). The baseswere cut by a wire or string. Thesewere occasionallyhand-wiped to removethe drag marks,and there is little evidenceof knife trimming. Theseearly rims are generallyeverted with the flangesforming a triangular cross-section. This often causedair bubblesto form which crackedthe rims (Kilmurzy 1980:34). Handleswere formed by throwinga hollow cylinder,before being cut and handleforms attachedto the vesselby smearing.The trefoil spout,rim and as well as the flat basesemployed by the CastleKiln potters are most closely parallelled on Continentalforms emphasisingthe Continentalorigins of the industry. They are also the only potterswho used Figure 45). red-painteddecoration On their wares(Kilmurry 1977a:183-4;

In by Castle Kiln the contrast to the high standard of production evidenced the potters, pots from bases The few the Wharf Road kiln-yard are poorly made with thick sagging and walls. handles Rouletting, it occurs, was often are slab cut rather than being thrown on a wheel. where done blurred to the decoration. before the vessel had properly hardened, causing a appearance Solne but too Slight splashes Pottery was decorated with thumbed applied strips this was rare. Wharf Road However, there and sPeckles of glaze are also occasionally found on the vessels. Castle Kiln although there was less was a wider range of vessels produced than at the yard, standardisationof rim form (KilmurrY 1980:45-6).

-102- The Stamford potters decoratedtheir vesselswith rouletting, applied strips with or without thumbing and grooved linear designs as decoration from the beginning of the industry MIMUrry 1980: 22-24). The CastleKiln potters were also occasionallyglazing their wares with two lead basedglazes, one opaqueand yellow, the otherclear andranging from yellow to Olivegreen. This glazewas applied in streaksor splashesand there is no indication that whole vesselswere glazed (Kilmurry 1980:36; 1977b:55). Yellow splashedglaze was also usedon the Wharf Road products. 'The iron-basedred paint decorationemployed by the CastleKiln Pottersis unique to Britain. Instead,it is more often found on the Continent. Red paint was often found in combinationwith glazeddecoration. It appearsto havebeen applied with finger strokesbut thereis someindication of the occasionalbrush being used. On one examplethe Potterhad placed his paint-smearedhand in the vesselto removeit from the wheel,leaving a handprint (Kilmurry 1977a:18 1; 1980:36).

The Stamfordpotters were primarilyproducing cookingwares. These fall into thestandard late Salon ratio with the vast majority being cooking pots followed by bowls. Variation within thesebasic divisions increasesthrough the tenth century(KilmurTy 1980:34,45). A number of developmentsoccurred within the Stamfordindustry. Early in the tenth centurythe bases changedfrom flat wire-cut basesto concavesagging bases. There was also a shift from well- thrown, thin-walled vesselsto more irregular, thicker pots. Rouletting was introducedin the early tenth century on the rims of Fabric H vessels.Fabrics A/D also had rouletting on their shoulders(Kilmurry 1980: 131). Handlesand applied strips, first cut from wheel-thrown cylinders,were later slabcut. The crucible wasintroduced in the early tenthcentury indicating that Stamfordpotters were also cateringto an industrial market (Figure 46). Finally, lamps increasein form were Producedfrom the mid-tenth century following the general variation throughthe tenth century (Kilmurry 1980: 142).

Torksey ware

'rOrksey in least twelve different kilns ware (TORK) production was a single fabric made at frOrn (Figure 47; Figure 48). Indeed, except for the late ninth to the mid-eleventh centuries nor microscopic analysis variation in the amount of calcite in the vessels, neither macroscopic is fabric form (Wilkinson and Young 1995: able to ascertain any differences between vessel and 2,6). blown temper from a narrow zone Potters were using a local lias clay with sand Collingham (Barley 1982: 275). These were extending east of the Trent from Scunthorpe to

-103- generallycoil- built and then finished on a wheel. Pottersoften wiped their vesselswith a wet Clothand trimmed the basesupside down on the wheel. The walls were thin, 2-4 millimetres thick. Cooking pots were a standardrim size of between 13-18 centimetres:throughout Production and were the predominant form. Bowls were basedon two rim sizes of 20 centimetresand 30 centimetres.The smallerbowls often hadplain out-turnedrims, while the larger bowls hadin-turned rims suggestingtwo different uses.The largerin-turned rims might have beenused for holding liquid suchas milk. The in-turnedrim would be ideal for stopping unduespillage. It hasbeen estimated that theselarger bowls would havecontained 14 litres of liquid (Barley 1982:279,284).

While this gives a generaldescription of the ware,it is important to rememberthat there was variation betweenkilns. Not all potterswere as skilled as othersresulting in quality variation, as can be'seenfrom the potters at Kiln 6 who did not wipe the vessels. Other pottershad greateroutput resulting in the large storagejars producedby the Kiln 5 potters(Barley 1982: 284). The pottersfrom Kiln 3 appearto havemade vessels with a nearblack finish in contrast to the lighter greys coming out of other kilns (Barley 1964: 179). Nevertheless,there was a remarkablestandardisation between the kilns.

Torksey production spannedthe shift from rouletting to thumbeddecoration which occurred during the mid-tenthcentury. Roller-stampingwas concentratedon the rims and shouldersof vessels.Thumbing occurredon therims, creatinga piecrust-likeappearance, as well as on the thumbPressed applied strips on the large storagejars. Thesestrips extendedthe length of the body running diagonallyand vertically (Barley 1964:179), like thoseon Thetford warestorage vessels(Dallas 1993: 123-4). Otherdecoration included incised horizontal and wavy lines as well as bosses(Barley 1982:279; Young and Wilkinson 1995:2-3).

Lincoln wares

industries Unlike Torksey, Lincoln appearsto have fostereda numberof pottery producing by the Silver Street either shell or sand/grittempered wares (Figure 49). The wareproduced for tenth Potters(Lincoln Kiln-Type or LKT) tendedto dominateover the others most of the different century. Nevertheless,it is clear that there were a numberof competingpotters at two kilns have been times throughoutthe Anglo-Scandinavianperiod. Unfortunately,only House, the Silver Street excavated:one at Silver Streetand one at the Sessions of which only

-104- kiln has beenanalysed and published(Miles et al. 1989). Thus, the classificationof Lincoln waresis primarily basedon similarities of material, form, manufactureand supply (Adams Gilmour 1988: 77). Indeed,thin sectionanalysis indicated that there was little variation in fabric betweenthe shell temperedwares although microscopic analysis tended to confmn the groupings establishedthrough visual comparisonof decoration,c6lour, form, temper and manufacture(Miles et al. 1989:222). The potters were evidently procuring clay and temper from the samelocale. This suggeststhat the variation betweenthe Lincoln industrieswas due to Productionpractices in the workshopsthroughout the town ratherthan a differencebased on material composition.

One of the earliest Anglo-Scandinavianwares thought to be producedin Lincoln was similar in form to St. Neot's ware. This hasbeen called Local Late SaxonShelly Ware (LSLOC) and it is found in contextsdating to the late ninth early tenth centuries(Figure 50; Figure 51). It was both wheel-thrown and coil-built, often in combination. The potters used a distinctive sweepingroller-stamping pattern across the shouldersof the jars. The potters also were achievinga standardovoid jar form, the height of which was I V2times the diameter.Jars were the Primary form correspondingwith the generaltrend of production ratios for the Anglo- Scandinavianperiod but other forms were also made(Miles et aL 1989:222).

The pottersat Silver Streetwere producing what hasbecome known asLincoln Kiln-type Ware (LKT) (Figure 52; Figure 53; Figure 54) This shell temperedware was the primary ware producedin Lincoln throughoutthe tenth century. The potters threw the vesselson a wheel Producing interior ridges which were occasionally smoothed. Vessels were wiped after trimming and sometimesthe exterior wall and bottom of the vesselbases were tool smoothed (Miles et al. 1989:205). The jars were standardisedin form: the height and maximumwidth This conformingto I ýi - 13/4 times the rim diameter. createda globularjar which waseasily stacked(Miles et al. 1989:208). Wheel-thrownhandles were attachedto this form to create jugs and pitchers (NEleset al. 1989:206). Bowls and dishes,however, had little correlation betweenthe dimensionsof rim and form. While jars were the most numerousvessel form Produced,followed by bowls,the LKTpotters werealsoproducing pedestal vessels, bottles'and cOstrels(Miles et al. 1989:210).

It is possible to trace some of the changes in the LKT industry through the tenth century. The earliest vessels were well thrown and fired. During the early to mid-tenth century, the quality body of production started to decline and baseswere coil-built and pressedonto the which was became thrown as a hollow cylinder. The wall thickness also began to vary and the vessels

-105- irregularly centred(Miles et aL 1989:205). The firing wasless controlled and the LKT pottery became more oxidised (Miles et al. 1989:204). This changedthe colour from a light red to a reddishyellow or pinkish buff (Miles et al. 1989:226). Decorationchanged through the tenth centuryboth in style andfrequency. %ile decorationwas rare (being found on only 5% of the vessels),it declinedduring the tenthcentury (Miles et al. 1989:207,226). Roller-stampingon the rim, and/or shoulder,of vesselswas the most common. Earlier in the period, the potters Preferreda diamondpattern, which shifted to a squarepattern in the mid-tenthcentury (Miles et al. 1989:226). Finally, therewas a shift in rim shapesfor a numberof forms. The frequency Ofinturned bowls increasedfrom the early to mid-tenthcentury. Simultaneously,there was a decrease in disheswith upright or slopingrims. Throughoutthe productionthere was a shift towardsa moredefined lid-seated rim (hollow evertedI- hollow everted3) (Miles et al. 1989: 226).

These differencesare most apparentbetween the earlier kiln groupsat Silver Streetand the Products both 200 Kiln 200 fired in Kiln 200. - However, while the pre-Kiln and the assemblagesappear to be very distinct, this distinction is not mirrored on the sites within Lincoln to the sameextent. As Young comments'seen separately these two groupsare very distinctive, but thereis no clear dividing line on Flaxengate,where the groupsseem to merge "I is be in the mid-tenth century' (Miles et aL 1989: 204). This what might expected a The communitywhich was both regularly trading and usingthe vesselsproduced. new styles the kiln being blurred ýVOUldbe used alongsidethe old, the sharpdistinction visible on site through householdpractices.

4nOther in Lincoln from the late to shell temperedware (LSH) was produced ninth early The differencebetween these eleventhcentury (GroupA, B andQ (Figure 55). main groups, Other GroupA wereconstructing their vessels than fabric, is the quality of production. potters Thesewere generally poorly made I'vitha coil/ring techniquewhich wassmoothed on a wheel. and Group C potters were employing both coil/ring there was little effort to finish them. building thesetechniques on the samevessel. They and wheel throwing, often combining finished The vesselsproduced by the GroupB potters the vesselswith a thick slurry or slip. were building used (Miles el al. 1989: 222). well thrown and finished with no coil/ring 41thOugh LKT it is indicative of a rangeOf Production LSH is not as prolific as the vessels, occUrring within or nearLincoln.

Finally, duringthe late tenthcentury and proceeded Lincoln Fine-Shelledware (LFS) appeared 57). These 10fill industrY(Figure 56; Figure vesselswere the gap left by the declining LKT

-io6- hand-niade andcoil-built demonstratinga clearshift in practicefrom theearlierfocus on wheel- throwing techniques. The LFS vesselswere more cylindrical than the globular forms, which dominated the late ninth and tenth centuries.Decoration was rare, but whereit appeared,was comprised of nail pressingor incised wavy lines (Miles et aL 1989:223).

Potters who employed sand temper instead of shell were also practising in Lincoln first during the late ninth to mid-tenth centuries, and then again from the late tenth century into the eleventh century. The earlier wares formed three distinct groups: Lincoln Late Sandy Ware (LSLS), Lincoln Gritty Ware (LG) and Lincoln Glazed Sandy Ware (Miles et al. 1989: 222-3). The later sandy Production began in the mid-tenth century with the potters producing Lincoln Saxo- Norman Sandy wares (SNLS) (Miles et al. 1989: 222-3).

Lincoln Late Sandy Ware had two fabrics (Group A and B) both of which were wheel-thrown and well finished (Figure 58; Figure 59). These potters were mainly producing a mediumjar. 1)ecOration consisted of square roller-stamping, with Group A potters also employing the occasional thumb pressed applied strip, and Group B potters using wavy-incised lines (Miles et 1989: al. 222-3). The Lincoln Saxo-Norman Sandy (SNLS) potters retained the wheel- thrown form into the eleventh century, when the shell tempered potters reverted to ring/coil- builtproduction (Figure 60; Figure 61). Nevertheless, the wheel-throwing technique was poor in comparison to the earlier tenth century examples. Decoration consisted of finger pressing and Wavy incised lines rather than the earlier roller-stamping patterns. The jar/pitcher is still the nnOstcommon form, although the shallow dish of previous production has disappeared Wiles et a4 1989.223).

1110 Potters Producing Lincoln Gritty (LG) used a combination of wheel throwing and coil/ring building (Figure 62; Figure 63). The bases of these vessels tended to be coil-built, while the UPPer Portions were turned on a wheel. These grey wares were sometimes decorated with square roller-starnping. The lower body of LG was often knife-trimmed and rims were made With the use of a former, leaving a sharp edge (Figure 64). The potters were primarily Producing medium jars but also bowls and dishes (Miles et al, 1989: 222-3; A. Vince and J. Young in litt).

C31azedPOtteryproduction hasbeen linked to theLKTpotters dueto similaritiesbetween fabric, fOrn', manufactureand decorationof both LKT and glazedvessels. Glazing only adheresto sand temperedfabrics. Tbus,the additionalshell temperingfound in theLincoln glazedpottery Suggests an attemptby Shellyware potters to glazetheir vessels,but still retain their distinctive

-107- Shellyfabric (Miles et aL 1989:226). Threefabrics wereproduced: GroupA, B and C The Potters who producedthis glazedware decorated their vesselswith diamondroller- stamping, a style also found on early LKT vessels. The glaze was either splashedacross the pottery (Group 13and Q or it covered both surfaces(Group A). Glazedpottery production also extended to the production of the only sandyglass-melting crucibles made in Lincoln during the late ninth to n-ýd-tenthcenturies (Miles et al. 1989:222-3).

Discussion

During the middle of the ninth century,immigrant potters from theContinent took up their craft within the settlements,which werelater to developinto towns alongthe north-eastemcoast of England. In Stamford, there is a direct linkage with Frankishpottery traditions seenin the forin-tYpes, red paint andsplashed glaze used by the CastleYjln potters(Kilmurry 1977a:184). Indeed, the suddenappearance of fully fledged wheel-thrownwares in Lincoln and Torksey argues for the immigration of pottersversed in the Continentalcraft traditions of this pottery (A4iles et al 1989:226; Barley 1982:275). The pottery craft underwenta numberof changes during the Anglo-Scandinavianperiod. The finest wareswere the earliestproduced, further indicating the introduction of a fully-fledged craft tradition from the Continent to the East Mdlands during the ninth century. However, while there was a later decline in the standard of Pottery(thicker, more irregular vesselswith saggingbases which are often not completely 'Wheel-thrown), a larger numberof forms wereproduced throughout the tenth century. This corresponded with the developmentof furniture andinternal structureswithin the kilns which was relatedto increasedproduction later in the tenth century.

"he East NfidlandPotters were operating within establishedcraft traditionsas can be seenfrom the distinct movementof potters from one town to another. Indeed, Torksey-typeware is further known from Newark and Leicester(Vince 1993a:156; Figure 65) and possibly a site "Orth Ofthe Humberdue to thepreponderance of Torksey-typewares at York (Mainman 1990: 422-440; Vince 1993a: 156). Stylistic similarities, betweenthe thumbing techniqueof the TorkseY Potter and that of the potter at Newark, suggestthe movementof a potter down the Trent from Torksey to Newark, perhapsduring the developmentof the town during the tenth century East (j. Young pers com). Torksey-typewares are also extremely similar to the 'knglian MY ware tradition associatedwith the Tbetford industry (Dallas 1993;Rogerson et 41- 1984;Vince 1993a:156; Mainman 1990:437). However,lbetford-type andTorksey-type

-108~ 'Waresremain two separatetraditions within the East Midlands. Pottersalso appearto have travelled from StamfordtoNorthampton (Vince 1993a:156; Coppack 1980: 217-8) andperhaps to Derby where a Stamfordvariant was also produced(Coppack 1980: 274-6). Furthermore, a potter within the LKT tradition can be locatedat Homcastleduring the tenthcentury (Vince 1993a: 156;J. Youngpers com). The Homcastlepotters continued into the eleventhcenturies despite the demise of the LKT industry in Lincoln (J. Youngpers com; Figure 66). Shelly waresare also known from St. Neots (Hurst 1956;Hunter 1979;cf. Vince 1993a:56) as well asOxfOrd/London (Vince 1985;Vince 1993a:156) indicating that the useof shell temperwas wide spreadin the Midlands.

The Fast Midlands potters were participating in the generaldevelopment of craft industry Within the towns. Thesepotters were engagedprimarily in the tradeof cooking vessels(pots, Pitchers,bowls anddishes). They hard-firedthese vessels in kilns within the towns,their kiln- Yardsspotted with storagepits for clay and firing waste. Procurementof clay and fuel would have beenan intermittent activity, as would the firing of the kiln, a processwhich would take a full day (Bryant 1977: 166). Potterswere not involved in a prestigioustrade, and indeed, appear to have been poorly regarded (see above). However, pottery was a necessary commodity, and the potters did producea range of specially decoratedwares ranging from imprinted designsto red paint and glazing. There is somesuggestion that thesepotters were situatedon the edgesof the town communities,perhaps to takeadvantage of prevailing winds. However, locatedThetford kilns, this wasnot alwaysthe caseas can be seenwith the centrally despite the suggestionbyDavidson that his kilns representedan industrial area (Davidson 1967: 194; cf Kilmurry 1980: 151). Indeed,as Kilmurry points out, the two kiln sitesat Thetford are in 1967: 194; Kilmurry two distinct areas (Knocker and Hughes 1950: 43-4; Davison qf 1980: kiln-yards that living 151). The lack of evidencefor habitation on the suggests neara fired kiln wasnot particularly desirable.Further excavation is neededto moreclearly relate the Pottery industry with the other crafts within the town.

COIrlsuMption Practices: The Distribution of Pottery within Lincolnshire

"ere in the Anglo-Scandinavian is much less understoodabout the consumptionof pottery

-109- Period than the production of it. While sooting on the pots suggestscooking practices,and crucibles are indicative of metallurgic crafts, there is little archaeologyhas beenable to say aboutthe useof thesepots. Barley hassuggested that the Torkseybowls wereused for holding milk (Barley 1982:284) andlater medievaldocumentary evidence suggests both culinary and dairy usesfor pottery (Moorhouse1978: 7-13). Potterywas often usedin food productionand storage.This would make it a necessarypart of a household,although woodenand leather vesselswould have been used alongsidetheir ceramic counterparts. Anglo-Scandinavian Potterswere producing vesselsprimarily for householdusage (cooking pots, bowls, globular lamps and costrels), as well as maintaining a separatetrade in crucibles to the town metal Workers.

Mechanisms of pottery distribution within Uncolnshire have been discussedby Kilmuriy (1980) and Hayfield (1985). Both focussedon models of trade which outlined -general scenariosof exchange(Kilmuny 1980: 171; Hayfield 1985: 408). Thesemodels describe Commercialinteractions between producer and consumerwith occasionalintervention by a Middlemanor trader. Thus, in Kilmuny's adoptionof Renfrew'smethods of exchange,there five ard possiblemodels:

1. Pottery is directly traded at the workshop to the consumers. 2. Pottery is traded by the potters who travel themselves to the consumers. 3. Pottery is traded by the potters to the consumers at a designated locale such as a market. 4. Pottery is traded by the potters to middlemen who then trade it to the consumers. 5. Pottery is traded to a standardised central agency by the potters (Kilmurry 1980: 171).

'ýýilrnurry determined that the first four methods were possible models for the trade and exchange of Stamford pottery. She concludedthat the population of Stamford could have traded have directly with the potters (1) as well as at a market(3) which would also serveda regional Population. Traders,either the potters themselvesor designatedmiddlemen, would alsohave 171-2). beenable to servethe regionalpopulation (2,4) (Kilmurry 1980:

'ýU`nurrY situatedher discussionof themeans of distributionfor Stamfordware (1980: 171-5) inore interestedin defining 'zones firmly in its historical contextthan Hayfield who was the of influence' for a market distribution (Hayfield 1985: 410). Kilmurry suggestedthat the main inethod Of pottery distribution was throughmiddlemen traders who carried the vesselsas an extra based item to complete a load (1980: 170,172). This was partially on the wide

-110-. distribution of Stamfordware which implies interactionwith specialisedtraders who wereable to carry the pottery thosedistances (Kilmurry 1980: 172). She also noted that the Stamford Potterytrade was different from that of Thetford-typepottery which shelinked with the grain trade. Indeed, Stamford appearsto be trading predominantlyin smaller vessels(Kilmurry 1980:170).

While Kilmurry and Hayfield link the distribution of pottery to specific modelsof exchange, these discussionsare ancillary to their main purposeof establishingtypologies for a particular town or region. Thus, while Hayfield provides numerousdistribution maps for the South Humberside pottery productionduring the medievalperiod, he doesnot considerthe reasons WhyPottery would be travelling to particular places(Hayfield 1985:406-419). Neither does Kilinurry considerthe placesin which potterywas being consumed (Kilmurry 1980:170-175). The focus of this thesis on landscape,and the ways in which the practicessurrounding the Productionand consumptionof material culture can inform archaeologistsabout the waysin which landscapewas structuredduring the tenth century,necessitates a different approachto the discussion of trade and exchange.

The discussionbecause socialconstruction of placein the landscapebecomes important to this " affects the activities which occur within a place and thus the characterof the movement towards and away from that place. The abovediscussion demonstrated that the consumption OfPottery during the late Anglo-Saxonperiod wasprimarily domestic.Furthermore, while the use it item, OfPottery in tenth centuryLincolnshire was wide-spread, wasnot a prestigious and "Murry item in as (1980: 170)has suggested,might havebeen traded as an extra additionto the in in Main load of trade. Therefore,this thesisis interested the ways which the production and the landscape.The consumptionof pottery structuredplace and mobility within remainder Of its influence the this chapterwill begin a discussionconcerning the tradeof pottery and on Social landscape.These issues be understandingof place and mobility within the will more fully Lincolnshire addressedin ChapterIV with the analysisof the pottery collections.

From late thediscussion in ChapterIf, it is clearthat tradeand movement were regulated within Saxon the and society. Towns werewhere most of thetrading occurred, under eyeof witnesses town reeves(Attenborough 1922: 115,135). Travellersand traderswere required to register 'With Anglo-Saxon in general(Attenborough the local authority, a practicecommon to society 1922: inhabitants (Whitelock 79). Financial transactionsmade by manorial werealso recorded 1968: items such as salt, 399). Domesdaysuggests that locale influenced the cost of some 'Which (Douglas Greenaway1953: was dearerto thoseliving outsidethe hundredor shire and

-111~ 871). Domesday indicates also that movementin and out of towns was also taxedas was the loading andunloading of goodsat ports (Fosterand Longley 1924:215). Placeand region were important to the social practicesof trade.

Towns foci were of trade and craft production. It is, therefore, not surprising that pottery Production was located in the town, nor would it be unexpected if much of the trade in pottery Occurred in the towns, either to townspeople or to traders hauling loads between town and manor. 71e practices surrounding production and exchange of goods within the towns, increasingly became a source of differentiation of towns from other settlements. It is difficult to characterise the trade in rural locales. Indeed, the law-codes attempted to regulate trade over twelve pence to markets within towns. This was aimed at substantial transactions. Later sources indicate that small-goods traders, such as pot-sellers, travelled through the countryside (1ýilrnurry 1980: 17 1). Certainly traders were moving through the landscapeas indicated by the grant Of toll-revenues and market taxes to Wwrferth byEthelrxd and'EthelflMd (VAlitelock 1968: 498). The question becomes to what extent was pottery traded outside of the town, to where, and how did the social understanding of place, territory and mobility influence this nlOvemenL

Traders would havetraveled by foot, by horseor by cart pulled by oxen. Indeed,the research done by Langdon (1986: 26,49,114) indicatesthat before the thirteenthcentury, oxen were horses Primarily usedfor traction, especiallyduring the Anglo-Saxonperiod when were used for The CheshireDomesday riding and luxury beastsrather than for hauling loads. indicates that for Peopledid use pack horsesand foot travel, as well as cart and ox, transportingsalt (')Ouglas Kilmurry and Greenaway1953: 871). However,if pottery was, as suggests(1980: 170), be an extra item to the main load of otherperishable produce, then an ox:and cart would the travel 2 km most likely methodof travel. Langdoncalculates that an ox.and cart could per hour horses to faster as Opposedto twice this for horseand cart. While were able travel than oxen, load capableof hauling (Langton they were only able to carry half the that oxen were 1986: by Recordsfrom 162-3; 1987:56). Theserates were influenced weatherconditions. the thirteenth from London to Norwich, in winter century note that a consignmenttravelling weather 12 20 Ianper day (Stenton1965: 256), using horses,was only ableto achieve miles or Stentonfurther ernPhasisingthe difficulties the seasonscould present to travellers. notesthat a least30 miles per day (Stenton1965: 255), again messengeron a horsewas able to travel at demonstrating throughvarying methodsof travel. the differentiation in travel time produced I"erception with, and the seasonsin, which one of distance was dependanton the means traveled.

-112- This fluid perceptionof distancewas true also of water-transport.Tides and currentsgreatly affected the travel time neededto go betweenplaces. Indeed,while it only took 2 days for scholars to travel by boat from Torkseyto York in 1319,a distanceof approximately120 Ian; it took the samegroup 2 days to go along the Witham from Boston to Lincoln, only 60 km (Barley 1936: 15-6). Indeed, Johnstone (1980) calculates that an average sized barge (approximately 6 tons) 'could cover 10 kilometresin a day, while a big teammight doublethat distance. Downstream,when the river helpedthe haulers,the day's travel could go up to as much as 35 kilometres' (1980: 168). Leighton suggeststhat Frederic Barbarosatraveled betweenSinzig and Aachen at 30-40 miles per day or 50 - 65 krn per day (1972: 177). All these sourcesindicate, that without the aid of strongtides andcurrants, boat travel wasable to C"er aPproximately 4 Ian per day.

Travellers in Lincolnshire usedboth river androad travel. While thecounty is perceivedas flat today, from the drainageprogrammes of the seventeethto nineteenthcenturies, tenth century travellers would havebeen presented with a landscapeof uplandhills andridges, along which fan the strals and herepaos,and of low lying fen andmarsh through which flowed the rivers. Ile movementof peoplefrom town to village along theseroutes structured the landscape.

The waysin which Potteryis able to inform archaeologistsabout Us movementis oneof the foci is of the next chapter. While theuse of the Romanroad and river system unquestioned,the extent to which rivers andRoman ioads were used in thetransportation ofpottery remainsopen to is debate. Current knowledge of local paths betweensettlements limited for the early MedievalPeriod despite the detailed work of Russell(1984). Thus, ChapterIV is aimed at addressing in the extent to which the Romanroad and navigablerivers were used the pottery trade. farmers Through an explorationof themovement of traders- whethermerchants Or - the waysin they traveledto from be which they perceivedtheir territory and the places and will further discussed.

Surnmary

The developments and consumptionin the Anglo- in the understandingof potteryproduction Sa"On areable to discussissues such Periodthrough this centuryhave meant that archaeologists

-113- associal identity and geographicalorientation. The productionof pottery is incorporatedinto the social definition and perceptionof the place whereit is made. It becomesembedded into that community. Similarly, the distribution of pottery reflects the social geographyof the region. Travel is directedmovement towards one place and away from another. How those Placesare understoodwithin society, impacts on what pottery is traded and used in those communities. Furthermore,political and geographicalboundaries structure the regionsand directions in which travel and tradeoccur.

In order to addressthese issues, it is importantto understandthe contextin which the pottery wasproduced and traded. This must include the generaldevelopments and characteristicsof Anglo-Scandinavian Potteryduring theperiod. Many of the argumentsOf social change within Viking Invasions. Societyrest on a definable break at the end of the Anglian period with the The in it Potteryreflects this in termsof its form productiontechnology and the place which is wasmanufactured. Through examinationof the pottery and the kiln site, one able to place in then' within Anglo-Scandinaviansociety. A discussionof both the generaltrends occurring 4ngIO-Scandinavian in the pottery production and the specific places which pottery was Anglo-Scandinavian Producedis necessaryfor this contextualisationof thepottery trade within England. the trader the Above all, one must not lose site of the potter, and user who enacted the kiln for the to social movementswhich led to the depositionof pot and archaeologist ullcover.

-114- CHAPTERIV

CERAMIC LANDSCAPES EXPLORING SOCIAL GEOGRAPHY THROUGH MATERIAL CULTURE

'SPaceis constitutedthrough social relations and material social practices' (Masscy 1994: 145).

'People's experienceof the land is basedin large measureon theparticularity of the social, political and economicrelations within which they live out their lives, while at the sametime their individual actionsform par-tof the way in which these relations are constructedand changed'(Bender1993: 246).

'To avoidjurther despair, we accept[these difficulfies] andproceedwith courage, lookingfirst at the theoretical ideal and then at what may bepractical in particular circumstances'(Orton et aL 1993: 167).

liurnan landscapesare constructed through social practice. This theme was discussed throughout the previous chapterswith the focus first on social theory, then on the historical laridscape of the tenth century and, finally, on pottery production during the Anglo- Scandinavian period. When approachinglandscapes the emphasis is on humanaction, on how People interact with their environment.The useof the term 'environment'is not meantsimply to evoke images of trees and vegetation. Instead,it is concernedwith communities and individuals who live in a landscapeof sociallyconstructedmeanings and interpretations (Ingold 1993: 156). The river is not just a river but a cultural boundary which has political and economicimplications. Indeed,people tend to orientatetheir movementaway from boundaries and towardsthose places with which they sharecultural affiliations.

'iOw Peopleinterpret their territorial landscapesimpacts on how they perceivetravel. In the global communityof the twenty-first century,many cultural boundariesare easilycrossed, but the tourist Paraphernaliaof kilts, leiderhosen,and beretswhich clothe the national dolls are fenlinders that political boundaries are enforced by social adherenceto a common understandingand representation of cultural identity. This orientationof movementand social identity is apparenttoday in Canadawhere the northward-lookingribbon of populationjust

-115- abovethe U. S. border,takes its identity from a largely unpopulatedNorth andculturally frowns on cross-bordershopping, despite individual participationin this event(Shields 1991: 164-66). Social perception of territory structurespopulation mobility and interaction. This social orientation towards territorial affiliation patternsmaterial culture. The Anglo-Scandinavian sculptural traditions in Lincolnshire, with their emphatic stylistic differences betweenthe territories of Lindsey and Kesteven,demonstrate territorial orientationand cultural affiliation towardsa socially defined landscape(Everson and Stocker1999). Peopleinvest in statements of identity, such as thosechurch foundersin the tenth century who erectedstone sculpture to memorialisetheir contribution to landscapeand community after their death.

The social constructionof landscapehas beenpredominantly addressed through the study of ritual and monumentallandscapes (Ashmore and Knapp 1999; LIobera 1996; Tilley 1994). These studies have been able to focus on the social geographicagendas which emphasise memory,social identity andorder, as well as socialtransformation (Ashmore and Knapp 1999: 13-9). However, the associationbetween material culture and the social structureof space (Barratt 1987:8; Massey 1994: 145) includesthe production and consumptionof artefactsas well as monuments. Social understandingof settlements,of boundaries,of orientation and mobility are all part of theseproduction and consumptionactivities. Through studying the Patternsof materialculture, archaeologistsare able to approachthe larger issues of space,place and social action within the landscape. L

The study of landscapeemphasizes those aspectsof society such as the seasonalityof movement (Ingold 1993: 163), the visual representationof power in henges or burial monuments(Bender 1993; Thomas 1993), and the signallingof territorial identity (Fisher 1988; Scull 1993; 1992). While many studiesare basedon visualization of socially constructed landscapes,such as the ritual arrangementof barrowsand stonecircles, othersare concerned with the social distribution of material culture. All emphasizethe individual and community acrossthe levels of social interaction. Indeed,when reconstructingthe individual within the landscape,it is not the ealdormanor aristocratwhich is chosen,it is theherdsman, the traveller, and the farmer (Blair 1994: 146;Carver 1988:x). It is appropriate,therefore, that the artefact chosenfor this study of the Anglo-Scandinavianlandscape of Lincolnshire is pottery, an item usedin towns and manors,berewicks and sokeland.

it Potteryis a ubiquitousartefact on sitesin tenthcentury Lincolnshire which makes appropriate for studying settlementand trading strategiesas a vehicle to approachingcultural landscapes. As previously discussed(Chapter 1), social landscapesare structuredthrough the production

~116~ and consumptionof material culture, the patterning of which archaeologistsrecover through excavation.The examinationof pottery productionand consumption is particularly applicable to researchinto humanmovement and settlement organization within thelandscape. Production andconsumption practices vary dependingupon the placeand activities which occurredthere. The developmentof the town and manor during the late Saxon period can be investigated throughthe analysisof pottery distributions. This shift from themiddle Saxonestate to the late Saxonmanor and town is boundup in a changefrom tributary to feudal relations(Chapter H). Pottery production and consumptionreflect thesechanges, most noticeably,with the focus of Productionand tradewithin the emergingtowns and the interactionbetween these settlements and the developingrural hinterlands.

Analysis of materialculture is importantin elucidatingthe artefactualpatterns created through socialpractice. This chapterfocuses on the analysisof pottery productionand consumption in tenth century Lincolnshire as an avenuefor addressingthe social constructionof place and territory as well as social conceptsof mobility. It accomplishesthis by combining statistical methodsof analysiswith techniquesdeveloped using GIS. The dataused for this studyhave beengathered from previousprojects and reports, primarily the EastMidlands PotteryProject (EMPP). This chapterdiscusses the quality of pottery data and other information neededto successfullyaddress past landscapes through social practices associated with theproduction and consumptionof material culture. It also considersthe current analyticaltechniques available for this studyand comments on areasof future research.Further discussion of theseissues will Comprisethe final chapter(Chapter V).

Approaching the Landscape: Visualising the Past

inhabitants This thesisexplores the landscapeand socialpractices of the Anglo-Scandinavian of tenth century Lincolnshire. Much of this investigationis basedon visual exploration of is Pottery production and consumptionpractices. While Thomas rightfully wary of the tendencyfor the distribution map to becomethe end result of research(Thomas 1993: 30), it, landscapes. and other forms of patternrecognition, are essential to the studyof archaeological The importance of visualisation is noted by Gregory when he quotes an unreferenced is visual discipline that sight is almost commentator:'geography ... to such an extent a ... interpretlandscape certainly a prerequisitein its pursuit' (1994: 16). Humanspredominantly

-117- throughvisual means,and any analysisof landscape,whether survey or post-excavation,needs to incorporatethe visual into the research. This is achievedthrough statistical analysisand spatialrepresentation using GIS.

GIS applications are effective in archaeological research because of their ability to handle spatialdata. GIS allow archaeologists both to make associations between the environment and material patterning and to graphically display the results. Indeed, it is through the visual analysis of material culture that archaeology gains much of its knowledge. In order to understand how people in the past lived and moved through their landscape and within their communities, archaeology needs to incorporate visual analysis of spatial data. Archaeology is involved with the reconstruction of past societies, the buildings in which they lived, the roads they traversed and how they saw their surroundings. Visualization of the past therefore becomes one of the primary methods employed in archaeological research.

The use of GIS as a tool for analysisand visualizationof social practicehas been explored by archaeologistsover the last decadeand a half. Lock and Harris (1992), in one of the most comprehensivevolumes of archaeologicalresearch using GIS, discussedthe developmentof spatial analysis through the techniquesof mapping, statistics and digital analysis. They exploredtheuse of GIS within archaeologynoting that 'GIS isananalytical enginethat canuse digital mapping as just one of severalmethods of displaying results from a wide range of analytical procedures' (Lock and Harris 1992: 88). Indeed, GIS allow the integration of statistical analysis,spatial visualizationand contextualinquiry. Reilly further discussedthe importanceof datavisualization through the useof GIS, by which 'multi-dimensionaldata can be broughtwithin therange of humanexperience and cognition' (1992: 148) This hasformed the basisof archaeologicalinvestigation using GIS.

balance The combination of statistics and GIS in this thesis accomplishesa betweenthe strengthsof thesemethods. Indeed, space is not representedreadily throughstatistical analysis. Statisticsis engagedwith the reductionof datapatterns to a few fundamentalvariables, either throughconscious selection of specific variables,or throughmathematical equations (Cooper and Weekes 1983:241). Ibis processremoves the data from its context,isolating specific is interestedin variables for analysis. This is especially useful for the researcherwho the relationship between such issues as the importance of distance to artefact distribution (regressionanalysis) or in the similarity betweensites basedon assemblagecomposition location, (cluster analysis). However, other variables,such as direction and geographic are difficult to introduce into the equation. By displaying theseresults through GIS techniques,

-118- spatialand other data can be incorporatedinto the analysis.Indeed, one of the greatadvantages Of GIS are the spatial display of data. Through interactivequerying of databaseinformation storedwithin GIS, the distribution map becomesan important tool for exploratoryanalysis. While GIS incorporatestatistical analyses within its prograrnming,the user-interfaceis not as approachableas that usedby Windows-basedprograms such as SPSS. Therefore,SPSS was usedin this thesis for the statistical analysesand, wherepossible, the results were displayed using GIS.

The post-processual movement has often declared the analysis of distribution maps and statistical techniques to be too reductive (Yoffee and Sherratt 1993a: 4). There is a fear of losing the people, the communities and individuals of the past, in the dots and formulas of Pattern analysis. Once again, Bourdieu's assertion that 'theory without empirical research is empty, empirical research withouttheoryis blind'(Bourdieu 1988: 744-5; cf. Jenkins 1992,10) must be restated. Tbeory is about the agenda, approach and interpretation of human society. However, its foundations must be securely grounded in data from which to develop its ideas and understandings of past cultures.

This awarenessof a distinctionbetween theory and dataanalysis has been particularly discussed by those using computer applicationsin archaeologicalresearch (Gaffney and van Leusen 1995). Computers,so much a part of the 1960'sscientific revolution, are still often seenas deterministic, and as part of the hypothetico-deductiveschool of researchwhich stressesthe interactionof cultural systemsrather than socialpractices of actorand agency. Llobera (1996) draws attention to this issuewhen he statesthat 'an archaeologicalstudy which incorporates environmental information is not condemned to determinism (or vice versa). Determinism is the product of our interpretationas reflected through the way we useour information' (1996: 613). The samecould be saidabout the use of the words 'empirical' and 'empiricism'. The use of empirical data within researchdoes not denoteempiricism. Empiricism is an approachto data interpretation. It is not the use of data itself.

This thesis,as outlined in ChapterL exploresof the socialunderstanding of landscapethrough the analysisof pottery distributions. Ibis differs from manylandscape studies which focus on monumentsrather than artefact analysis. Projects which addressmonumental or ritual landscapeshave physically situatedthe archaeologist within thelandscape (LIobera, 1996; Boaz and Uleberg 1995). Thesehave employed techniquessuch as viewshed analysis which allow sites and locales to be visually perceivedand explored. Thesetechniques of representation- discuss from 3-D modelling to 2-D mapping - have been successfullyadapted to cognitive

-119- landscapes.

Exploration of past landscapesthrough the analysisof artefactsinvolves the developmentof other techniqueswhich are not asreadily available. Insteadof concentratingon a specific site Orlocale, the region hasoften beenthe focusof distribution analyses.Thus, the act of situating the archaeologistwithin the landscapeis moreabstract, dealing not somuch with modellingthe visual impact of burhs and manors,as with the movementbetween those places. Indeed,the developmentof cognitive approachesto movementhas been a largepart of this thesis. Human mobility is dealt with directly through the analysis of artefact distributions and the social Practiceswhich producedthose patterns. Perceptionof distance,territory andplace structure the tradeand consumptionof materialculture. It wasthis concentrationon socialstructures of mobility and movementwhich madethe use of GIS in this project so appealing.

GIS applicationswere primarily developedto dealwith the multi-facetedspatial constructions Ofthe late twentiethcentury. Complexstructures, such as networked street plans to aid hospital services(Walsh et aL 1995)and hydrological watershed models (Matson et al. 1995),have been constructedthrough the useof GIS. Thesesystems are able to manageand assess large amounts Ofspatial data. However,archaeologists rarely havethe detailedknowledge of the culturesthey study to recreatesuch elaboratesystems. Nor do they ask the samequestions of a GIS that thoseinvolved with twentiethcentury projects ask. Indeed,the archaeologistis often interested in obtainingthe information thatis normally enteredinto modemday GIS. The socialpractices which GIS are designedto model and manageare already embeddedwithin the pattern of material culture. Thus, GIS analysea static pattern - not the processeswhich led to it. The tenth century traveller has already queuedand paid his toll at the gates of Lincoln. The impedancesand restrictions are already incorporated in the archaeologicalrecord. This means that GIS applicationsmust be adaptedto elucidateand identify pittems of social interaction rather than to construct systemsfacilitating the administrationof humanmovement and the managementof natural resources.

Thus, archaeological GIS need to be adapted to address different agendas'frorn those which be they were originally designed to do. GIS are not inherently cognitive, and techniques must 1995: 372). As designed which address social questions (Gaffney and van Leusen previously discussed, this thesis examines the ways in which people perceived places and territories and how they negotiated and interacted with their landscape. Techniques which address place, issues the Mobility and region need to be employed in order to address these through analysis of production and consumptionpractices.

-120- I)ifferences betweenpractices of consumptionwithin settlementscan be elucidatedthrough the useof statisticalmethods such as cluster analysis. The applicationof statisticaltechniques to approachsettlement identity are well known (Hodderand Orton 1976;Shennan 1988). Using GIS, theresulting patterns can be displayedgeographically, allowing othercognitive structures, such as territory, to be included within the analysis. The visualisationof past social action Within GIS require the use of its databaseand analytical features.The manipulationof these techniquesand the evaluationof their effectivenessformed a significant part of this thesis.

Indeed, while placesare understoodthrough the activities which are practisedthere, they are also structuredby their location within the landscapeand the waysin which peoplenegotiate that landscapein their daily routines. Humanmobility hasmost often beenaddressed through GIS using cost-surfaceanalysis (van Leusen1999; Marble 1996). Cost-surfaceanalyses are usually preformed on particular locales, rather than entire regions, as they involve the reproductionof surfacetopographies in order to investigateprobable routes and rates of travel acrossthe landscape.This thesisis interestedin how knownroutes of travel (Romanroads and navigablerivers) were usedand perceived by tenthcentury society, and how movementalong theseroutes structuredsocial perceptionof place and territory. It has, therefore,developed methodsusing route-way analysisin GIS in conjunction with statistical techniques,such as regressionanalysis, to addressthese concepts. This usesvector-based applications rather than raster-basedsimulations of a landscapesurface.

Furthermore, this thesis explores ways of mapping cognitive landscapes. Two of the largest here, linearity Problems with GIS, and the other analytical techniques used are their and 'binary' include nature. Where social theory wants to incorporate the relativity of travel time, to draws line 'day's the last push of a caravan to a good resting place, GIS a around a travel Indeed, be in the techniques which fuelled the processual movement must continually adapted light Of current research agendasstressing the importance of the social understanding of social for Practice. While these techniques are still perfectly valid and important exploring the in interpretation the Patterns of data, it is necessaryto be aware of their 'abilities' our of results.

Thus, invaluable,both their while the'useof GIS andstatistics within this thesisis effectiveness An important this thesis andthe robustnessof the dataneed to be critically assessed. aspectof is through artefact the developmentof ways of approachinglandscape and social practice it is further interestedin provoking analysisusing such tools as GIS and statisticalanalysis. debate data analysiscan be into the ways in which archaeologicalmethods of collection and improved to addresspast understandingsof landscape.

-121- The Reconciliation of Data

The data usedfor the pottery analysesin this thesisis predominantlyderived from the EMPP database(Vince and Young 1991). As Hayfield's typology was developedfrom visual rather than microscopicand thin sectionanalysis, it is difficult to transferthe datafrom this typology to the EMPP without re-assessingthe pottery itself. Time and moneyconstraints prevented a detailedreassessment of potterycodes developed by Hayfield. Therefore,Hayfield's datawas incorporated by Vince and Young into the EMPP databasethrough the comparisonof pottery descriptions.Information from sitesexcavated on a commercialbasis was added by Young as Partof contractedassessments of the data. However,as Blinkhorn notes'contract archaeology rendersany analysisbeyond fabric, chronologyand form (or, in somecases, merely dating features from the pottery) an expensiveluxury which may result in the loss of the tenderto a 'rival who utilises sucha methodology'(Blinkhorn 1997: 114). Indeed,the conditionsfor the continued recording of medieval pottery in the EMPP databasehave not been ideal. Nevertheless,the additionsto the databaseare invaluable, going beyondform, chronologyand fabric to an assessmentof the amountof pottery and additionalnotes on otherfeatures such as decoration.

The EMPP databasecoverage is quite extensive. This is demonstratedon a map showingthe (Figure 67). This is entire EMPP databaseof sitesagainst those with late Saxonmaterial map is important for demonstratingto what degreethe late Saxondistribution of pottery a product of excavation strategiesas opposedto tenth century social practices of movementand dispersed consumption. For the most part, the late Saxon sites are widely throughout Saxon Tbus,in Lincolnshire,complimented by a moreextensive distribution of non-late sites. distribution the analyse'sbelow, one is able to assessthe late Saxonsites as a representative within Lincolnshire.

down towards Cambridgeshire The fenland regions to the north and south of Witham, stretching them. The twentieth and Norfolk, are also notable by the lack of pottery sites recorded within is on this map along the north century county division of South Humberside also clearly seen As stated, the EMPP was only coast of Lindsey where there are few sites recorded. previously to remain up-to-date in able to cover Lincolnshire before financial concerns caused the project Vince J. Young. Thus, many of the South Lincolnshire through the private efforts A. and

~122- Humbersidesites were not included within the EMPP typology and database.

Stamfordware is knownprimarily fromtwo kiln excavations:the Stamford Castle site (Mahany forthcoming; Kilmurry 1980) and the Wharf Road site (Mahany et aL 1982:90-9; Kilmurry 1980). It is also commonon excavationsaround the city (Kilmurry 1980:90-129). Stamford wareis one of the mostrecognisable wares produced during the early medievalperiod andhas the largest geographic distribution of any late Saxon pottery. Kilmurry's BAR report on Stamfordware (1980) and the publications of theexcavations in Stamford(Mahany etaL 1982) havemade Stamford ware well known. However,the closure of the StamfordUnit in 1987,and the unpublished Castle Site report, has meant that there is no completerecord forStamford ware (Miles forthcoming). Furthermore, this data was collected before the EMPP codes were

developed and put into practice. Therefore, Stamford as a whole is unable to be directly related to Torksey and Lincoln.

In orderto representthe production of Stamfordware in this thesis,the above sources have been consultedand compiledinto figures suggestiveOf Stamford ware production and consumption in the late Saxontown (AppendixI). However,these figures are estimates only and shouldnot be usedas an accuratemeasure of Stamfordware production. Sherdcount rather than vessel count has been used as it is the baselevel of recordingacross reports. Thus, the Stamford in collection was not usedin the analyses.Instead, it was included appropriatemaps through from Lincoln. The a sherd count comparisonwith the pottery sherd and vesselscounts for Stamfordware sherdcount wasconverted into a hypotheticalvessel count representational Purposesonly.

The data This thesisalso usesfabric-based data collected by Healeywhere possible. recorded is by Healey (Appendix 1) is accuratesimply to the level of sherdcount and therefore only be in future useful for presence/absenceanalyses and to indicatewhich sitesshould evaluated research. This has meantthat the Fenlanddata was usedonly to suggestgeneral settlement Thus, Holland is under- distributions rather than being included in the statistical analyses. interactionbetween Kesteven and representedas a territory andthe focusis turnedtowards the has been Lindsey. Furthermore,that data which was recordedby Healey only useful as an materialrecovered indication of the degreeof disparity betweenthe amountof early medieval Holland is based.This disparity in Lindsey, ascontrasted with that of Kestevenand whereshe Nevertheless,this demonstratesthe need is not greatas the EMPP coverageis quite extensive. as the EMPP. for the completionand continuedimplementation of projectssuch

-123- Data from publishedsite reportsoutside of the county were usedfor comparisonwith the data from Lincolnshire (Figure 68). Unfortunately,without the standardisedEast Midland pottery database, which the EMPP wasaimed at providing, thereis a limited amountof datawhich can be applied in detailed inter-county analyseswhich would be of interest to this thesis and fundamental for'future research. Use and knowledge of the EMPP codes is limited to Lincolnshire, andeven within thecounty is not fully adopted.Until a standardisedpottery code is disseminatedand implemented,such cross-countyprojects will have to remain future researchagendas. It is regrettablethat a low importanceis placed on the expertiseof finds specialistswho would provide the infrastructurefor sucha standardisedpottery code which Couldbe utilized so profitably in research(Mellor 1994:28-3 1).

Furthermore, no standardof dataquality has beendeveloped or employedeither in recording strategies or in published reports (Mellor 1994: 20-1). Data organisation has ranged significantly: from a notationindicating that a warewas present, to calculatedestimated vessel equivalencies(EVE's) (Hayes and Lane 1992; Lane 1993; C. Loveluck in litt). This is Primarily due to the commercialnature of mostarchaeology and the lack of financial resources to Provide EVE's and weight calculations. However, published site reports still use sherd numbersrather than EVE's (Mainman 1990; Dallas 1993). This suggeststhat behind this cOmmercialisednature of archaeologicalrecording, there is alsoa needfor a mandatedetailing a quality standardfor dataenforced by an authority. While this would be ideal, thereis little Prospectof this occurring without a generalchange of attitude towardsthe value of heritage.

This lackof standardizationofrecording at thelevel of accuracyneededtoperform comparative analysesof assemblagesis problematic.Sherd counts are the predominant method ofrecording. Sherdcounts contain two biases:the amountof fragmentationof vesselsand the sizeof thepot. A large Torksey storage vessel would be over representedin an assemblageotherwise comprisedof small LKT cookingpots. Different site formationprocesses (such as ploughing) Furthermore, alsodramatically effect thenumber of sherdsrepresented in anassemblage. some The vesselsbreak more easily than others,thus, under-and over representingtypes. use of sherdcounts in statisticalanalysis measures the site formationprocesses and the sizeof a vessel A between rather than the number of vessels (Orton et al. 1993: 168-71). comparison While assemblagescan also be basedon an analysisof the weightsof thepottery types per site. theydo weight measuresare still biassedtowards the heavinessand size of the vessel, eliminate be to the bias of fragmentationinherent in sherdcounts. T'herefore,weight can used measure it is the of the Proportion of pottery in different sites, although unableto compare amounts it is the equivalencies Potterywithin a site (Orton et al. 1993: 169). Indeed, only when vessel

-124- are measuredor estimated(EVE) that thesebiases are removed. This is accomplishedby measuring the rim of a vesselas a fraction of the whole and calculatingthe numberof vessels by adding the fractions together(Orton et aL 1993: 171-2).

While the EMPP data was recorded to the number of sherds per vessel, no EVE's have been calculated except in the Flixborough project (Appendix 1). Furthermore, while there was a category for the weight included in the original EMPP database format, weights were not subsequently entered. Thus, EVE's are not calculable and the measures of the vessel must remain at a maximum estimated vessel number as originally entered in the EMPP database. T'lle Maximum estimated vessel number records the number of sherds which can be associatedwith a Particular vessel. Each entry in the database, therefore, represents one vessel and notes the number of sherds associated witý this vessel. While this has allowed statistical analysis of pot numbers to be done, the measurementsare not as robust as EVE's and some of the between-site and within-site breakage biases which characterize sherd counts remain. The termination of the EMPP project, and the subsequentcommercial nature of the ceramic recording, has meant that this valuable resource has not been realized to its true extent. There is variation between the amountof data recordedat eachsite as well. Internal residueshave beencommented on in detail for suchsites as Flaxengate, Lincoln or Flixborough,but Us level of recordingdoes not exist for the entire database.

While the EMPP databaseis somewhatproblematic. other datarecording is evenmore so. It is impossible to integrate fully other information from published site reports such as COPpergate,York (Mainman 1990),Fenland Project (Hayesand Lane 1992;Lane 1993)and (Appendix Otherrelevant reports published in the EastAnglian Archaeologyseries (EAA) R). The lack of standardisationin typology and the frequentuse of sherdcounts means that these were only usedfor presence/absencecomparisons. Where amounts of pottery are compared, it has been noted that the percentagesare basedon sherdcounts rather than vessel counts. important, if Despitethese difficulties, the explorationof theseassemblages is particularly so is it is able to highlight the importance of a standardizedrecording methodologywhich have 'to further employed throughout pottery studies. Indeed,as Orton et aL noted: avoid looking first the theoretical despair,we accept[these difficulties] andproceed with courage, at ideal (1993: 167). and then at what may be practical in particular circumstances'

is faced Archaeologicalinquiry into the social constructionof place in the landscape always created With the knowledgethat the patternsof materialculture are as much archaeologically Topographies representingthe as they are a product of past social practice. of consumption

-125- social practices involved with production and consumption activities, are also topographies of archaeological consumption. They are patterns of archaeological work and activity as much as they are patterns of past social practice. This is especially true when considering non-urban Places in the late Saxon period since relatively few monasteries or developing manorial settlements have been excavated. Indeed, there have been a few funded excavations such as Goltho (Beresford 1987) and Flixborough (Loveluck 1997; 1998) which have investigated the rural landscape of Lincolnshire in the Anglo-Scandinavian period. Instead, excavation has been dependant on commercial activities making it difficult to discuss the archaeological relationship between manorial settlements. Con-unercial mitigation is rarely able to recover a representative sample of the site. Indeed, the majority of the sites contain less than 10 pots. It is therefore unclear whether this was due to the extent of archaeological assessmentor to genuine lack of activity. Therefore, one must be content with the assertion that, while there is no current evidence for a focal settlement such as a manor, future research may uncover an important high status site.

In order to alleviate someof the discrepanciesbetween archaeological recovery of ceramic culture,data has been grouped according to settlementrather than the individual site (Appendix 11). This further allows the focus to be on placesrather than on excavations,following the is importantfor researchagenda outlined in ChapterL The developmentof individual sites the understandingof past social practice. Indeed,the questionswhich are most useful are those itself in which considerhow a focal or manorialsettlement defined relation to other manorial location. This has and urban settlementsas well as to its territorial and geographic thesis (ChapterH) concentratedon the publishedreports of large-scaleexcavations to provide the Indeed, archaeologicaldepth neededfor a discussionof settlementand place. many of the excavationswere not extensiveenough to fully assessaspects of rural society,suggesting areas further late for future research.Documentary and historical sourcesprovided commentaryon V). The Saxon social practice and geography(Chapter H, combinationof archaeological, basisfrom to investigatethe Anglo- historical and geographicresearch has established a which for future Scandinavianlandscape of Lincolnshire and to highlight avenues research.

Social Space Pottery and Landscape: Ceramic Analysis and

landscape throughan examinationof the Tbemesof movementand mobility in the areexplored

-126- use of navigablerivers and Romanroads in the tradeand distribution of pottery. This section concentratesinitially on the importanceof distanceto the tradeand consumption of potteryand the ways in which social perceptionof distancecan be represented.It then addressesthe use of roadsand rivers in the tenthcentury and relates this to thedistribution of pottery. While later medievalstudies have addressed the interactionbetween roads and rivers in humanmovement acrossthe landscape,little hasbeen done for the early medievalperiod, althoughthis is being redressed(Symonds 1998; MacDonald forthcoming). Indeed,previous studies in potteryhave not fully explored the meansof transportationdue to their primary focus on typological development(Hayfield 1985;Coppack 1980; Yjlmurry 1980). Therefore,little is understood aboutthe waysin which tradeoccurred through the landscape.This sectionaddresses the ways in which pottery was transportedthrough the landscapeand how this participated in the constructionof place and communitywithin the Anglo-Scandinavianlandscape.

The next section explores the discourse between settlements through the use of GIS and statistical analysis. It focuses on the development of town and manorial communities and the ways in which they interacted. Indeed, the integration of urban and rural consumption patterns further Within pottery studies has been identified as a topic which needs research (Mellor 1994: 7,9). Other analyses have focussed on characterising the distribution of pottery (Vince 1985; Hayfield 1985; Kilmurry 1980). This thesis is concerned with the ways in which the discourse between distribution ofpottery can inform archaeologists on the social which existed distribution, but draws various settlements. It concentrates not only on the character of the the in discussion into how settlement identity was expressed geographically through the trade is divided into two Pottery. For the purposes of organisation this section subsections which focus on urban and rural consumption.

through territorial Finally, the extent to which the trade and movement ofpottery was structured has been (Kilmurry 1980: 156; identity is assessed.While the regionality of pottery often noted territory. Tlýs Hayfield 1985: 404-5) these studies have not linked it to the social expression of limits the of information has removed the pottery trade from its social context which amount linking distributions to generalised which can be gained about past societies. By pottery is lost due to the difficulty of models, the importance of territory, place and mobility often and reintroducing these themes into the discussion. Thus, the practices of pottery production consumptionare positioned firmly within their social context.

-127- -Human Mobility~

ChapterI discussedthe importanceof mobility to the constructionof spaceand place within social landscapes.it suggestedthat humanmovement across the landscapeparticipated in the constructionof placeand territory. The placesto which peopletravel, the reasons and activities associatedwith that travel, contributeto how a placeis perceivedand identified. Similarly, the orientationof the movementof people,the directionsin which they mostoften travel,are often associatedwith territory. Travel within a territory is often encouragedthrough such restrictions as bordercrossings and tolls which hindermovement across territorial boundaries.Therefore, the waysin which peoplemove andtravel structurethe socialunderstanding of settlementand territory.

Investigation into human movementthrough the landscapeis structuredby the analysesof pottery distributions as a way of characterisingsocial conceptsof movement. For the late Anglo-Saxonperiod, a large portion of travel was associatedwith trade,the itinerariesof the nobility, or the movementsof armies. Potteryis able to say little aboutmilitary manoeuvres. However, in addition to its obvious involvement in the movementof traders - whether middlemenor otherstravelling to market - pottery distributions may also reflect aristocratic movement,in that those placeswith large amountsof pottery might also have hostedlarge numbersofpeople. Unfortunately,with thelack ofhistorical informationconcerning itineration in Lincolnshire, as well as the difficulty in discerning the social practicesassociated with aristocraticprogresses through the landscape,the extentto which royal mobility influencedthe movement of pottery is difficult to assess. Therefore, one is left with a combination of for aristocratic,merchant and individual mobility which to varyingextents was responsible the distribution of pottery.

Pottery was being consumed at particular places because of their social and geographical location in the landscape. Places are structured through the social practices which take place hill, by influences these within them. Their geographical position - near a road, on a a river - between tenth Practices and thus the identity of that place. Through exploring the relationships further investigate century mobility and those places in which pottery was consumed, one can fisherman travel. the ways in which the merchant, the thegn, the and the ceorl understood

-128- Discussing humanmobility in thepast is alwaysproblematic. Thereconstruction ofpast route- WaYsand past modes of transport is never precise, especially when there is no textual information supportingthe use of a particular river or road. Indeed,the changesin the route systems,the alterationof riverpassages,the useand disuse of roads,the erosionorreclamation Of coastlinesare topics which can only fully be exploredthrough multidisciplinary landscape surveysof clearly defined environs. Without suchopportunities, researchers must rely on the Presentunderstandings of pastroute-ways.

The exemplary work of Edwards and Hindle (1991; 1993; Figure 5) on the use of medieval rivers was explored as a basis for earlier late Saxon navigability in Chapter U. While this research does not directly addressthe late Saxon period, it is still one of the best references for earlymedieval navigability simply due to the lack of comparative sourcematerial for the Anglo- Saxon Period. The tenth century coast-line was also addressedin Chapter H with reference to work on the Domesday distribution of settlements (Darby 1971) and otherresearch on the early Inedievalsalt industry (Rudkin and Owen 1960;Hallam 1960;Owen 1984).

As with the river systems,it is difficult to reconstructmany of theroads which would havebeen usedbetween settlements within a small locale. Most of the information on road systemslies 'Withthe place name scholar who is able to identify the types of roads from Anglo-Saxon writings (Hooke 1981; Gelling 1984; ChapterH). The only readily identifiable roads are Roman, 10). the herepathsand strivis of the Anglo-Saxonperiod (Figure

Therefore, impossible without the benefitsof such an intensivelandscape survey, an almost integrates information from undertakingfor a region the sizeof Lincolnshire,this research the Edwardsand Hindle (1991; 1993),Barley (1936)and other studieswhich considerthe useof Lincolnshire Where rivers and coastline in the medieval period. possible, reference to Lane 1992;Lane 1993)has been archaeologicalsurveys such as the Fenland Survey (Hayes and incorporated.Preliminary investigation into the distributionof potteryalso suggested possible CarDyke extentsof navigability. Indeed,there is somedebate as to whetherthe wasnavigable Stocker1999: 9). However,both Orwhether it was only usedas a drainagesewer (Everson and by Edwardsand Hindle (1991: theproximity of pottery Irindsand the later informationgathered transportation(Figure 69). 131) aswell asBarley (1936: 17)indicate that it provideda routeof Bain to transportpottery Furthermore,the distribution ofpottery alsosuggests that the wasused from Bain the Car Dyke are includedin the Tattershallup to Horncastle. Thus, both the and distribution of navigablerivers.

-129- The Roman is road network the only systemof roadsknown for Lincolnshire,along with some Prehistoric routes. However,despite the amountof knowledgepertaining to theseroads, there is still some doubt as to their distribution. Information here was compiled from Margary (1973), the OrdnanceSurvey (1973), Stafford (1985: 10), and Sawyer(1998; 17) (Figure 70ý Figure 71; Figure 72). Sawyer includes the largest number of Roman roads in his map compiled by Vince and Oliver (1998: 17). However,many of theseare fragmentaryand only the road along the easternextent of the Wolds is used for the analysesbelow, which are concernedwith theconnectivity of theroutes. Theroad extending from Caistorto North Kelsey was also not included by Sawyer (1988: 17) although both the OrdnanceSurvey (1973), Margary (1973: 192) andStafford (1985)all include it. Due to the prominenceof Caistorand North Kelsey in preliminary researchinto the pottery distributions,this road is integratedinto the analyses.Margary also suggeststhat the Stixwould- Saltfleetbyroad may haveextended southwards through Woodhall Spa and North Kyme meeting up with the Sleaford road (Margary 1973:242). This extensionis includedin the analysesin orderto determinewhether a road was usedalong this axis during the tenth century.

The following analysesare focussed on two themes:theperception of distanceand the location Of travel. The first section is interestedin the routes which people used to travel and the relationship of places to transportation routes. Ways of representing perceptions of travel held by the tenth century inhabitants of Lincolnshire are further developed through these analyses. Ile distribution second section explores the importance of distance to the of pottery. it be suggests ways in which the cognitive understanding of distance can represented, as well as used in traditional analyses such as regression analysis.

ROutesofmovement

how theseroutes Travel occurredvia roads and rivers. In order to characterise eachof was Perceivedby tenth century society, the associationbetween tenth centurypottery sites and based betweensites navigablerivers andRoman roads was explored. This was on a comparison held the EMPPdatabase. Withlate Saxonpottery andother non-late Saxon pottery sites within distribution to bothRoman Theproximity of both setsof sites- the late Saxonand the general - bar plotting the numbers, roads and navigable rivers is plotted on a number of graphs Idlometrefrom both roadsand rivers. Percentagesand cumulativepercentages of sitesat each

-130- There does not appearto be any strong associationof late Saxonsites with navigablerivers (Figure 73; Figure 74). This is different from the generaldistribution of siteswhere there is a fall off of sites from the rivers. Indeed,only 25% of late Saxonsites are within 5 Ian of a river, where as57% of the overall EMPP distribution of sitesis within the samedistance from a river. This difference is similarly observable at 10 Ian from a river where the 85% of general distribution is located within this distance, as opposed to only 42% of the late Saxon sites (Figure 75). Despite the lack of association between rivers and late Saxon sites, those with the greatest number of vessels are generally within 5 krn of the rivers.

This is very different from the road distributions where both the general and late Saxon distributionsdemonstrate a fall off from theroads (Figure 76, Figure 77). The late Saxonsites appear to have a stronger association to the roads than do the overall sites. Indeed, 80% of late Saxon sites are within 5 km of a Roman road while 67% of the general distribution of sites lies within this distance.Similarly, 93% of late Saxonsites as opposed to 86%of thegeneral EMPP sitesare within 10 Ian of a Romanroad (Figure 78).

These graphs indicate that there was a much greater associationbetween roads and the distribution of pottery than with rivers. Regionaltravel appearsto be more strongly linked along roadsrather than rivers. This differs from the hypothesisthat Edwardsand Hindle had concerningthe importanceof rivers to transportation,especially in Lincolnshire (1991: 124; Chapter11). However, the region appearsto have beenmore important to trading practices during the tenth century than in later centuries(above; Vince 1985: 34-38). Indeed,rivers might havebeen primarily usedfor interregionaltravel, suchas the King's Men usingthe Trent to reach York (Foster and Longley 1924: 11). A similar suggestionconcerning the by Uhler transportationof producein the fourteenthcentury was given who proposedthat grain (Uhler 1977; was takenoverland to the nearestnavigable river andthence to a customsport cf. between Edwardsand Hindle 1991: 124). Langdoncertainly assertsthat the relationship road Hindle He and river travel was more complicated than Edwards and suggest. notes that (1993: 3-6). He seasonality,the upkeepof waterwaysand river flow affectedthe useof rivers frequency thought further implies that roads were used with much more than sometimes (Langdon 1993:4-6)

in Anglo-ScandinavianLincolnshire. The Romanroads figure highly in theexchange of pottery lie these (Figure 79). Indeed,those sites with thegreatest amount of potterytend to along routes along the Foss Way The distribution of Lincoln waresclearly demonstratesthis, especially FxmineStreet, and the roads towards the eastcoast of Lindsey. However,other sites along

-131- running parallel to it, also illustrate the importanceof the road systemto the distribution of Lincoln wares(Figure 80). Nettleham,Goltho andPanton indicate the importanceof theFoss Way for the exchangeof pottery. Indeed,Goltho has the largestpercentage of non-Lincoln pottery (9% Stamfordand 7% Torksey),while Nettleharnhas 6% Stamfordware, and Panton is representedcompletely by Lincoln wares'. The relative absenceof Torkseyware along this road is intriguing, especiallywith sitesso closeto Lincoln, a largeconsumer of Torkseyware. Furthermore,Torksey ware has been found at Haugham,Ketsby and SouthOrmsby, along the easternRoman road leading into theWolds from theFoss Way. Thesethree sites are comprised of a variety of wares,predominantly Lincoln wares,which representapproximately 3/4 of the assemblages.Stamford ware and Torksey ware form the other 1/4 of the assemblages.Unlike the variedassemblages at Ketsby,Haugham and South Ormsby, Aylesby, furtheralong the road nearthe coastalmost completely consists of Lincoln waresexcept for a small amountof Early Stamford ware. Nevertheless,that Torksey ware was being traded along the Romanroad farthestto eastof Lincoln, but not extensivelycloser to the town alongthe mostdirect route to thoseplaces, raises an interestingquestion as to the natureof the Torksey ware trade.

Indeed,the otherLindseysites with a high tradein pottery alongthe Roman roads from Lincoln are all representedby Torksey or Torksey-typeware (Figure 81; Figure 82). Hackthorpe,a larger site along Ermine Street, has 1/4 Torksey-typeware. Torksey-typeware represents approximately 1/3 of the assemblageat Fillingharn locatedon the uplandpath alongsidethe Ermine Street. Furtheralong Ermine Street and off alongthe road to Caistor,North Kelseyhas an unusuallyhigh amountof Torksey-typeware (8 1%). Indeed,the assemblage looks morelike a kiln site with its varied but small amountsof Lincoln, Newark and Stamfordwares. The assemblageat North Kelsey is further contrastedby Caistor8 Ian along the road which has a (4%) 'Varied,but more balanced,representation of Lincoln wares(819c), Stamford andTorksey (13%). Interestingly,Caistor doesnot haveany Torksey-typewares at all.

Roman However, while the Torksey and Torksey-type wares travelled along the roads Trent Flixborough predominantlynorth of Lincoln, the main axis of tradewas along the up to In fact, from andWest Halton anddown throughNewark and down towardsRepton. onepotter in Torksey appearsto havemade his way from Torkseyto Newark the early tenth centuryand is by large to have built a On there (J. Young pers com). While Newark not represented amountsof Torksey ware, the social movementfrom Torksey of potters and their pottery

I in Ilese SeeAppendix I for percentagetables of the waresat thosesites discussed the text. sites have 10 or more vessels.

-132- traditions doesdemonstrate the importanceof the Trent for the distribution of Torkseywares.

The other waterwaywhich wasvitally importantto theTorksey-ware trade was the Fosse Dyke. While thereis somedebate over the navigability of theFosse Dyke in the tenthcentury (Chapter U), a large numberof pots travelled from Torksey to Lincoln. Indeed,Lincoln is the highest consumerof Torkseyware. Whetheror not thesepots proceeded to Lincoln via theFosse Dyke, which is the most likely scenarioconsidering the position of Torkseyat the mouthof the dyke, or via the Romanroad to the north of Torksey,is unknown. However,this thesisindicates that a strongtrading connectionexisted between these two towns.

Crowlandalso participated in a coastal/riverinetrade. As previouslynoted, Crowland exhibits a surprisinglyLincoln orientedassemblage for a site so closeto Stamford(69% Lincoln wares; 23% Stamfordware and 7% Torksey-typeware). Crowlandwas only reachedby water. With the relative easeof accessto the Wash and Witham, this might be the avenueby which the Lincoln wareswere transported.

The Witham was an importantriver during the Anglo-Scandinavianperiod both as a transport route from the Wash and North Seaand as a social boundarybetween Lindsey and Kesteven (ChapterR). It is not surprisingto seea high consumptionof pottery alongits banks. These settlementsare all on the Lindsey bank. Indeed,marsh and fen lined the southernbank of the Witham until Tattershall which undoubtedlymade substantial settlement difficult as well as undesirable(Figure 6). Both Cherry Willingham and Fishtoft had considerableamounts of Pottery. The assemblageat Tattershallhad a variedrange of pottery, as one might expectof a settlementat the tidal extent of the Witham, and which wasnear the branchesof the Sleaand Bain. Each of these sites is predominantly representedby Lincoln wares. At Cherry Willingham, the assemblageof pots mirrors Goltho in its rangeand percentage of wares,with Lincoln warescomprising 74%, Torkseyware 13% and Stamfordware 2%. Tattershall,like Sleaford,has a relatively high percentageof Stamfordware (22%). However,since nearly three quartersof the pottery found at both Cherry Willingham and at Tattershallwas producedin betweenLincoln Lincoln, one must concludethat a strong trading associationoccurred and these sites. This trade along the Witham is further recognisedthrough the assemblageat has Fishtoft, which almostcompletely consists of Lincoln wares(92%), and a smallpercentage of Stamfordware (817c).

fens Lindsey The assemblageat Wainfleet All Saints,at the edgeof the northern andthe coast- Wainfleet is line, demonstratesthat pottery from Lincoln also travelled to coastal sites.

-133- Predominantlyrepresented by Lincoln wares. The other ware found was Stamford ware. Stamford ware doesappear to have beenengaged in coastaltrade. This is reflected in the Kirton (27%) andWainfleet (20%) assemblagesas well asin the generalStamford distribution which extendsalong the Wash and also near Saltfleetby (Figure 83). From the Wash, the Stamford tradecontinues along the Romanroad to placessuch as Ketsby, Haugham and South Ormsby,indicating the interrelationshipbetween road and water transportation.

The traders of Stamford ware used the Romanroads in a similar way to those exchanging Lincoln wares. Indeed,Baston is a closeparallel to Goltho with its proximity to ErmineStreet and extensiveamounts of Stamfordware (81%). Newton also participatedin tradealong the Romanroads with 63% Stamfordware. Grantham presumablyutilized the Romanroads for its trade with Stamford. The predominanceof Stamford ware (79%) and the small representationof Lincoln wares(21%), demonstratethe close ties this placehad to Stamford.

Trade along the Ermine branch to Sleaford deservesmore discussion. The inhabitantsof Sleaford were consuminga relatively balancedrange of wares. Indeed, the Lincoln wares (49%) and Stamfordware (27%) ratio at Sleafordwas unusualin Kesteven. While Stamford wareonlycomprised 16%of thepotteryconsumeo at Lincoln, it representedalmost 1000pots, far in excessof any otherplace. Indeed,trade between Lincoln and Stamfordand the amount of pottery usedin the town indicatesthat a large quantity of regional and interregionaltrade occurred in the town markets.

The location of Sleaford on the branch of Fxrnine Street where it crossesthe Slea facilitated the use of both road and river transport to and from this place. Indeed,the assemblageslocated along the Slea to Tattershall emphasizethe importanceof the Slea to Sleaford's trade and communication. Quarringtonand Kirkby la Thorpeon either sideof Sleafordalong the River Slea,are both representedby a predominantlyStamford assemblage (Quarrington 67%; Kirkby la Thorpe 73%) with a small numberof Lincoln vessels(Quarrington 33%; Kirkby la Thorpe 27%). Haverholme,along the Slea,is unusual. The significant amountof Lincoln pottery (78%), implies that the Sleawas usedas an avenuefor tradewith Lincoln andLindsey. This (Figure 83). becomeseven more apparentwhen the generalStamford distribution is examined Bain There is a clear associationof sites running along the Slea to Tattershalland up the to Horncastle. The similar percentagesof Stamford ware, and indeed of all the wares at Bain. While Tattershalland Horricastle, suggest a connectionbetween these two sitesalong the 11indle(1991), the the Bain is not includedin list of navigablerivers compiledby Edwardsand indeed for scattering of Stamford ware along the Bain does imply that this river was used

-134- transport.

While this descriptionof the tradeof waresis helpful for introducingthe distribution patterns of pottery production in Torksey, Stamford and Lincoln, it does little to demonstratethese geographically. Visual analysisand representation of artefactdistributions are essential to the understandingof thesepatterns of socialpractice. The representationof thepercentages of the Lincolnshire waresgiven in Figure 80 is helpful in this regard.It is ableto illustratethe general tendenciesexplored in the text aboveenabling the researcher to comprehendthe patterns within the distributions. However,it doeslittle to addressmovement between places. Indeed, the map presentsa staticview of theresult of traderather than characterising the practices which created it.

One of the aims of this thesiswas to explore ways in which social practicesin the landscape could be conceptuallyaddressed through the analysisof artefact distribution patterns. The developmentof cognitive mapping techniquesmust include representationof movement betweenplaces and explorethe waysin which mobility structuredthe social understandingof the landscape.In order to expressthis, mapswere createdwhich demonstratedthe amountof Potterytravelling from the placeof productionacross the landscapeto whereit waseventually consumedand discarded(Symonds 1998).

but illustrate directions These maps are designed not to show the actual usage of route-ways to and frequency of travel. it would be impossible to directly associatethe movement ofparticular Pots with specific routes. Nor is this the aim of the exercise. Instead, this technique and the analyses below, addressthe social understanding of transportation routes and explore the ways in which human mobility along them structured social perception and understanding of landscapeand settlement.

from to The amountof pottery moving along the mostdirect route the placeof production the settlementswhere it was consumedwas calculatedusing NETWORK applicationswithin 5 Jun ARC/INFO. Siteswere included in the analysisif theywere within of a river or of a road. Each from the Thesesites were thenlinked to the network(of roadsor rivers). route - placeof timesas Productionto the placeof consumption- wastraced and recorded the samenumber of the the numberof vesselsin its assemblage.The frequencyof movementalong each section of (Symonds1998: 284-6). It is this route was then calculatedand associatedwith that section frequency of pottery movement which is displayed on the map.

-135- These maps were designed to represent two aspects of human mobility. The first was to visually link places ofproduction and consumption where a large quantity of goods was moving from one to the other. It is argued that frequent movement between two places condensesthe Perceiveddistance between them. Throughemphasising this frequencyin bold vibrantcolours, a cognitive understanding of distance is represented. The second, and related aim, was to address communal interaction within the landscape. This was necessarily biassed towards the relationships between towns and their connections rather than between those of the rural settlements, as pottery is particularly associated with this movement.

The first impressiongiven by the map of Lincoln wares,is large scopeof movementwithin Lincolnshire (Figure 84; Figure 85). However,many of the frequenciesalong the route-ways do not indicate a significant amount of movement. This is especiallytrue for the rivers and coastline. The map of river frequenciesclearly indicatesthat the Witham andTrent werethe main thoroughfaresfor the trade of pottery. The map of road frequenciesdemonstrates a different orientation of travel along the Foss Way towards Goltho as well as along Ermine Streetand the parallel roadsattached to it. A larger amountof traffic appearsto be travelling along the roads. Indeed,more siteswith large vesselcounts are locatedbeside the roadsthan along the rivers.

The movementof pottery from Lincoln towardsthe coast,instead of towardsTorksey and the Lindsey. Trent, emphasizesthe regionalorientation of the tradeof Lincoln wareswithin This in directionalmovement suggests a possibleassociation between the trade potteryand the trade determine in saltproduced along the Lindsey coast. While it is impossibleto whetherthere was a direct link betweenthe two trades,the easternemphasis of the Lincoln waretrade does imply at least an indirect connection.

T'he between 17heotheravenue of movementof Lincoln waresis towardsSleaford. association havebeen Sleafordand Lincoln is intriguing. Lincoln waresdo not appearto extensivelytraded within Kesteven,and the link io Sleaford raisessome question concerning the settlementat the Sleaford. As noted above,Sleaford has an unusuallydiverse and evenrepresentation of Sleaford ware groupsproduced in Lincolnshire. The uniquecharacter of the assemblagewill While it is town, it doesnot have be further addressedin the clusteranalyses below. not a also the flavour of a rural manor.

indicatea general The maps of the frequenciesof Stamfordware along roadsand rivers also 87). However, the axis of movement throughout Lincolnshire (Figure 86, Figure main

-136- Stamford trade appears to be to Lincoln either along Ermine Street or the Car Dyke. While the number of sites along the Car Dyke suggests that there was movement along this route, it is more likely that Ermine Street was the route used to reach Lincoln from Stamford. While Stamford ware was widely traded across late Saxon England, its regional focus is emphasised by the low frequency of movement outside of Kesteven. While Stamford wares appear to be travelling to Lincoln, they do not continue along Ermine Street or the Trent to sites north of the town. The Lincoln mapdid not incorporatea similar movementsouth towards Stamford. This is presumablydue to a distribution of datarather than pottery. Indeed,without accessto the Stamforddata collections, the associationsbetween Lincoln andStamford can only be assessed by the assemblagesin Lincoln.

The other orientation of movementis towardsthe coastalsettlements along the Wash. This route, along the Welland to the Witham, had more traffic that the frequenciesalong the Car Dyke suggest.This infers an associationbetween the salt tradeand the movementof pottery, as implied by the Lincoln assemblages.This orientationof movementtowards the coastalso arguesfor the use of Ermine Streetand the road parallel to it for the transportationof pottery from Stamfordto placessuch as Sleaford,Grantham, Baston and Lincoln. It would be faster to travel directly by road from Stamfordto Lincoln than to go via the rivers.

1he map of the frequenciesof Torksey warepottery along the rivers and roadsdemonstrates the importance of rivers to its trade (Figure 88; Figure 89). Unlike Stamfordand Lincoln, Torksey is located beside a river rather than having direct accessto road communication. Indeed, the prominent movementof Torksey ware appearsto be along the FosseDyke to Lincoln. %ile this wasapparent in thepie-graphs of thepottery distributions discussed above, this map emphasizesthe movementbetween these two towns, suggestingthat the distance betweenthem was conceptuallysmall. It further implies that Torkseywas supplying Lincoln with pottery rather than interactingwith Lincoln as a separateborough in its own right. This is also suggestedby the documentarysources which nameTorksey as a suburbof Lincoln (Fosterand Longley 1924: 13).

Flixborough The othermain axis of tradein Torkseyware was along the Trent towards andthe Humber. Indeed,documentary sources, such as Domesday, indicate that the Trent wasused in interregionaltravel (Fosterand Longley 1924: 11). This orientationof tradealong the Trent included is also supportedby the large assemblagesat Newark and Repton,not on the map of betweenTorksey river frequencies.It would be interestingto explorefurther the relationship Torksey-type ware and the Trent. Certainly Newark and York. both producing wares,are

-137~ reached via the Trent, suggesting that this river was not only irýportant to the trade of Torksey ware but also to the identity of Torksey itself.

These maps demonstratehigh frequenciesof movementtowards the coastand betweenthe towns. The concentrationon the frequencyof pottery travelling along routes, rather than location of its consumption,addresses the orientation of the pottery trade. It illustrates the social connection betweensites such as Torksey and Lincoln as well as suggestingwider involvement of the pottery tradewith other tradein goodssuch as salt. It highlights unusual directions of trade,such as that of the Lincoln warestowards Sleaford. Upon reflection of the connection between Lincoln and Stamford, it may be that Sleaford participated in the interaction betweenthese larger settlements which might accountfor its unusualratio of wares. Furthermore,the possible road extending across the Withamabove Tattershall, which Margary Proposed(Margary 1973:242), doesnot seemto havebeen used. This implies that, while the raised ground might have facilitated a route acrossthe Witham at this point, it was not commonly crossedat this point. While this mappingtechnique is not derived from any extra data than that presentedin the pie-chartdistribution of pottery in Lincolnshire,it emphasizes movementof pottery, rather than assemblagecomposition, allowing discussionto include conceptssuch as social orientation and community interaction. These concepts introduced here will be further developedin discussionsbelow and in the next chapter.

Perceptions and representations of distance

In order to consider human mobility through the consumption of pottery, it is important to establish the extent to which pottery was travelling around Lincolnshire. This is readily established through the use of scatter and regression plots. Scattergrams are very useful for illustrating the relationship between two variables, an independent (along the x axis) and a dependant (along the y axis) (Shennan 1988: 114-119). However, while scattergrams demonstrate the shape of the relationship, they do not characterize the main trends very well. Regression analysis executes a least squarescalculation between all the points and plots a line which best fits all points. The slope of this line is also calculated. The greater the slope the more the dependant variable is reliant on the independent (Shennan 1988: 121-126). Thus, when plotting the number of pots/site against the distance from the source, regression establishes the degree to which distance influences the amount of pottery found at each site.

-138- In the following analyses,only the rural siteswere usedto focus on the waysin which pottery was consumedwithin the hinterland. The exclusionof the urban sites in theseanalyses was alsoprudent due to the large amountof pottery found on thesesites, which obscuresthe results of the regressionanalysis through the large variancebetween the amountsof pottery. Not only is the graphic display of the scattergrarndistorted throughthe relative clumping of siteswith lower quantitiesof pottery, but the urban outliers significantly affect the least-squaresresults of the regression.

The regressionof Lincoln waresdemonstrates part of this effect simply by the initial inclusion of Goltho (Figure 90). Here, the slope of the regressionline is equal to 0.052. This almost straight line indicates that distance was not important to the distribution of Lincoln wares. However, the value of the scatterplotto graphically demonstratethe relationshipbetween the quantity of pottery andthe distancetravelled is obscuredby the differencebetween the amount of Lincoln waresat Goltho and that at the other settlements.By excluding Goltho from the equation,a clearerresult is shown(Figure 90). This time, the regressionline doesnot slope, asit hasan r-squaredvalue of 0.000. However,the scatterplotdoes not indicateany observable trend towards the numberof vesselsincreasing with distance,which, with the'low r-squared value,suggests that the amountof pottery wasnot influencedby thedistance of thesesites from Lincoln.

Theriegressionof Stamfordware similarly demonstratesa low r-squaredvalue of 0.0197,the regressionline slightly sloping upwardsto the left (Figure 91). Distancefrom Stamforddid not influencethe numberof vesselsat eachsite. The underlyingscatterplot demonstrates that most of the siteswith Stamfordware had low vesselcounts. Furthermore,except for Baston, those sites in close proximity to Stamford were not consuming high numbers of Stamford ware. This is most likely due to the low coverage of sites in the EMPP database surrounding Stamford, rather than a representation of low rural interaction with the town. Nevertheless, the scattergram and regression line indicate that there is no clear fall off of sites with large amounts of pottery from Stamford.

T'he scatterplotof Torksey ware indicates that it was traded in even smaller amountsthan Stamford, there only being 5 sites with more than 10 vesselsof Torksey ware in their assemblages(Figure 92). Like both Lincoln and Stamford,the pottery from Torkseywas not 0.004. Perhaps dependanton distancefor trade. The r-squaredvalue of the regressionwas the Stamford mostnoticeable difference between the scatterplotof Torkseyware and those of and in Lincoln ware is the small amountof pottery found at most sites. This was also noted the

-139- geographicaldisplay of the Torksey ware distribution (Figure 81).

The regression results indicate that distance did not affect the trade in Torksey, Stamford or Lincoln pottery. This is quite significant given the emphasis of previous studies on regional Pottery distributions in the late Saxon period (Kilmurry 1980: 171-175; Hayfield 1985: 406- 419; Vince 1985: 36). There is an underlying assumption based on historical and archaeological inference that the trade during the late Saxon period was oriented around a Particular town whose market supplied the local hinterland (Hodges 1989a: 164). Distance from the market town is often considered to be the determining factor in the placement of these towns and markets and influential in the trade of goods. The regression of wares within Lincolnshire demonstrates that distance was not nearly as important as other social phenomena such as territorial orientation which affected the amount of pottery used within settlements.

However, before abandoning the concept of distance as a contributing factor to the trade in Pottery, it is important to realise the underlying concepts of the regression analyses above. Distance was calculated as a Euclidean measurementfrom the production site to the settlements whereit was recovered. This calculationignores the social conceptionof distancewhich was structuredby travel along the rivers and roads. Peopledid not travel 'as the crow flies', but rather used routes which did not always take them directly to their destination." The representationof distancein kilometres further isolatesthe perceptionof distancefrom the analysis. Distanceis often conceptualisedin termsof the time it takesto travel from oneplace to another. Twentieth century understandingof kilometres is based on automotive transportationwhich obscuresthe translation into temporalunits of travel suchas hours or days. The nature of the distancesused in the regressionequations above may conceal the social importance of distancethrough the artificial calculationof thosedistance measurements. in order to representperception of distancewithin the regressionequation, the distancemust be measuredalong the rivers and roadsand a conceptof time introducedinto the equation.

This has important implications for the use and perception of transport during the late Saxon interrelationship, period. There has been much general discussion over the primacy, or of river 1936; and road transport (Edwards and Hindle 1991; 1993; Langdon 1993; Barley Sherratt 1993), discuss 1996) in the past. Recent accounts, such as that by Edwards and Hindle (1991; the inter-relation between these two mediums of travel. It is not surprising that the Roman towns, many of which became the late Anglo-Saxon towns, were situated along road routes and important for identity navigable rivers. Access to transportation was vitally their as towns, as from. Indeed, places of administration and trade, and as places where people travelled to and

-140- Many of the social practicescarried out in towns are associatedwith the act of travel.

Conceptsof distanceare structured through the time it takesto travel from oneplace to another. Thus, the meansand speedby which one travels becomesvery important to perceptionsof distanceand travel. Ile ways and routes with which peopletravel can compressor inflate distance:the multi-lane expresswaysof North America shrinking the distancebetween major centresof population, the small windy roads of the Yorkshire Dales stretchingthe distance betweenvillages. Perceptionof distanceis very much dependanton whereone is situatedand how the communityunderstands travel throughthe landscape.This perceptionof distanceand travel is more easily addressedtoday with our knowledgeof speedlimits and other traffic control measures. Our understandingof travel in the past is limited, especiallyfor those periods,such as the Anglo-Saxonperiod, wherefew or no recordssurvive. For the mostpart, this exploration of travel is basedon information from the medievalperiod.

Indeed,the extentsof navigation,as previously noted,have beenderived primarily from the work of Edwardsand Hindle (1991; 1993). The speedwith which onetravelled these rivers is more difficult to determine. Currentknowledge of river-craft is limited for the Anglo-Saxon period. The Graveneyboat (Fenwick 1978)is oneof the bestexamples of the type of boatthat wasused during the tenthcentury. However,it wasprobably used in cross-Channeltrade rather than for internal travel. Furthermore,speed of travel was not included in the report which focussedon the structuralelements of the boat. Thereare a few referencesto travel time along rivers in themedieval period. Stentonnotes that scholarstravelling from Cambridgeto Boston usedthe fenland rivers to the Wash and then the Witham, Trent and Humberrivers to reach YorJL It apparentlytook thesetravellers 2 daysto go from Bostonto Lincoln, a distanceof 60 km (Barley 1936: 15-6). The time from Torkseyto York was also recordedas 2 daysbut this time the scholarstravelled 120km. The speedat which onetravelled from Torkseyto York was obviously dependanton the tidal flow which must haveincreased the speedsubstantially. A Continentalexample comes from thecoronation of FredericBarbarosa who travelledat a speed of 30-40miles per day alongthe Rhinefrom Sinzigto Aachen,a distanceof 60 miles (Leighton 1972: 177). From thesesuggestions regarding the speedof river travel, a rate of 4 miles per hour was usedon the assumptionthat a full day's travel lastedapproximately 8 hours.

The variable conditions of water transport are difficult to addresswith the small amount of data have available for rivers in the tenth century. The issues such as river flow which would have been affected the speed of transport have been discussed above and in Chapter 11but not included in the analyses below. It would be erroneous to include such amorphous details into

-141- techniques which give more veracity to the data than it is able to support. Therefore, this thesis has used a non-complex digital representation of the river and road routes. This too is Problematic in that it does not account for tidal extents and current flow as well as land topography,which would haveaffected the easeof travel. Theseitems are ableto be included in the GIS. However,the advantagessuch accuracy would havehad would be undernidnedby the lack of understandingconcerning mode and rate of transportas well as tenth centuryrates Ofriver flow. The analysesbelow are aimedat suggestinga needfor greaterunderstanding of transportationrather than presentingan intricate representationof transportationin the tenth century.

A clearer understandingof distanceand travel is gained from recordsrelating to terrestrial movement.Langdon suggests that it wasnot until the thirteenthcentury that horseswere used extensively for cartage(1987: 56; 1986: 49,114). Instead,the cart and ox were the main methodof transportinglarge amounts of goods.This meantthat theaverage speed of travelwas 2 Miles per hour. Horse and cart were able to increasethis speedby twice this amount. As riding animals, Stenton suggeststhat the horse could easily reach up to 30 miles per day (Stenton 1965:255). In addition to the oxen and cart, Domesdaynotes the use of both pack horsesand human carriage in the Cheshireentry for the salt-worksat Middlewich (Douglasand Greenaway1953: 871). Furthermore,horses were used to transportpeople around the manor asindicated by theRectitudines Singuldrum Personarum (Douglas and Greenaway 1953: 813- 817). Despitethe obvioususe of horsesduring the Anglo-Saxonperiod, Langdon suggests that they were primarily- luxury animals, and that the ox and cart was the prime method of transportinggoods (Langdon 1986:26).

Due to the lack of information for travel timesduring the late Anglo-Saxonperiod, the models of the river and roadsroutes usedto derive the distancesbetween sites did not attemptany complex representationsof movement. The facility with which computersimulations realise assumptionsor projections basedon insufficient data makesit vital that the representations produced by such methods are not conflated unnecessarily. Furthermore,the additional information which is gained by such models is not that great. The investigation of the transportationnetwork below did not attempt any cost surfaceanalyses. The discrepancy betweenmethods of travel is too greatto makesuch accuracy useful. Nor did it include tidal movementsor water currents. Again, the data neededto support such inferencesis not available. Instead,the modelssimply usedthe Romanroad network and the navigablerivers notedby Edwardsand Hindle as well as the River Bain from the Witham to Homcastlebased on the numberof sitesalong that waterway. Ile speedof travel was basedon the ox andcart

~142- and horseand cart calculationsdone by Langdon(1987: 56).

The coordinatesused for the temporalanalysis of the pottery distributions were derived by Usingthe PythagoreanTheorem to calculatethe end point, given the origin (the kiln site) and a point along the samevector (the original site) (Appendix 111).Thus, the alignmentfrom the kiln site to the settlementswas retained. Thus, the direction of movementbetween sites was maintained. The resulting mapsvisually demonstratethe distancedistortion inherentin the geographicalmaps. While obviously a combinationof road andriver travel would havebeen usedto reach somesites in order to minimize the travel time, thesemaps illustrate that some siteswere indeedfarther away from the productionsite thanreadily apparenton a geographic map.

The mapsdemonstrating the distortion betweenthe geographical and temporal distances along roads (Figures 93-8) show a significant difference betweenmeasurements. Indeed, while Romanroads are often consideredto be direct routesfrom one place to another,these maps indicate that that the 'directness'of theseroutes is relative. Certainly,in comparisonwith the temporal distancestretching which occurredalong rivers (Figures 94,96,98), the distance along roads was clearly shorter.

While variation betweenEuclidean and travel distance is apparentfrom themaps indicating the distortion betweenthe two, they do not accountfor cognitiveunderstanding of thesedistances. Perceptionof distanceis structuredby the time it takesto travel from one place to another. Travel speedsalong rivers was at leasttwice as fast asthat alongroads (see above). Thus,the distancesalong rivers is conflated in relation to the measurementsalong roads. In order to explorethe cognitiveperception of the distancebetween sites, the geographicalbackground to thesemaps was removed. Instead,temporal measurements were addedto reflect the number of days travelled along either river or road.

The clusteringof siteswithin oneto two daystravel is clearly demonstratedfrom the cognitive maprepresenting the amountsof Lincoln waresaccording to distanceand time measurements alongthe Romanroads (Figure 99). Most of the siteswith largenumbers of vesselsare located within or alongthe edgeof the oneto two day division. Indeed,a day's travel wasan important conceptheld by the inhabitantsof Lincolnshire. It structuredtheir movementsthrough the landscape,drawing those settlements within a day'sjourney of Lincoln, conceptuallycloser to the town. ,

-143- Furthermore, the orientationof travel within Lindseyand towards the coast is articulatedon this map. Lincoln wareswere not travelling north alongErmine Streettowards York. Instead,the distribution of sitesimplies a regional focus for the movementof pottery. The importanceof territory is exploredin more detail below. However,from this map,it is apparentthat most of the Pottery trade for Lincoln wareswas concentratedwithin Lindsey.

The Witham-Trentriver corridor wasimportant to the movementof Lincoln pottery alongthe rivers (Figure 100). Indeed,while distancedid not greatlyinfluence the tradeof potteryalong rivers, it doesappear to be associatedwith particularroutes, which, interestingly,are apparent on this map. This arguesthat the FosseDyke wasmaintained to navigablestandards during the Anglo-Scandinavianperiod. Furthermore,this map suggeststhat the Car Dyke was also frequentlyused, more so thanthe frequency maps implied. However,much of the clusteralong the Car Dyke could be accountedfor by the Slea. Finally, the extentof travel alongthe coastal edges of the map demonstratesthat, while roads were structuring most of the movement throughoutLincolnshire, rivers were still an importantavenue for travelling long distances.

Movementalong the Rivers Witham andTrent, via the FossDyke, is further apparentfrom the cognitive distancemap of Torksey ware along rivers (Figure 101). Torksey ware is clearly moving directly to Lincoln along the FosseDyke. Newark is not included on this map. Trentfor distribution However,its inclusion would havedemonstrated the importance of the the OfTorkseyware. Indeed,Torksey appears to be exportinga greatdeal of its potteryalong rivers in a similar fashion to the Oxford shelly wares which were distributed along the Thames towards London (Vince 1985: 3 1).

lack The riverine orientation of the Torksey waresis supportedby the of patterningon the While distribution is cognitive map of Torkseyware along the Romanroads (Figure 102). the concentratedwithin the northernarea of the map, it doesnot show a concentratedmovement by distance, alongparticular routes. Neither doesit appearto havebeen structured unlike that Torksey. This Of distribution along rivers, which appearsto be clusteredaround scatteringof The TOrkseyware along the roads suggests that this wasa secondarymode of movement. main focus of mobility for Torksey ware was along the rivers.

do Lincoln Torksey Stamfordware doesnot appearto be as constrainedby distanceas the or implies wares(Figure 103). The cognitive mapof Stamfordware along the Romanroads that However, of its Stamford ware was distributed throughout the county. the concentration Ermine Street)towards movementwas along Ermine Street(and the road running parallel to

-144- Lincoln. Indeed, the predominantinfluence of the trade of Stamfordware appearsto be a temporal distanceof approximatelythree days. This suggestsa regional distribution within Kesteven. Nevertheless,Stamford ware does not appearto be significantly traded within Holland.

This lack of Stamfordware within Holland is also apparenton the cognitivemap of temporal distancesalong rivers (Figure 104). Instead,the coastalWitham-Trent corridor is onceagain clearly visible in this map. While therivers arenot transportinglarge amounts of pottery,there was significant movementalong theseroutes, as indicated by the travels of the Cambridge scholarsin the thirteenthcentury (Barley 1936:15-6). Distancedoes not appearto havegreatly affectedthe riverine distribution of Stamfordware. Like theLincoln wares,distance was more important to travel along roads.

These maps demonstrate the perception of travel held by traders rather than by single messengers. Indeed, the cohorts of traders moving with their oxen and cart would have understood distance much differently from the messengeron his horse who was able to cover 30 miles in a day rather than 16 miles (Stenton 1965: 255; Langdon 1987: 56). This contrast is readily apparent on the temporal map. Indeed, most of Lincolnshire was able to be covered within a day by horse, whereas it could take up to 3 or 4 days using a cart and ox.

The variable understandingof distanceis readily apparentthrough this non-geographical representationof distance. However,much of the populationwould not havebeen travelling at any great speed. While the geneatwas accustomedto travelling and carrying messagesby horse-back,and horseswere availableto somepeople on the manor(Douglas and Greenaway 1953: 813-817),most people would not have used horsesextensively (Langdon 1986: 26). Travel along the roadswould have beenaccomplished at a relatively slow pace and riverine travel, althoughat least twice as fast as ox and cart, was also not extremelyrapid. From the analysesabove, it appearsthat theday was an importantmeasurement of distance.Indeed, those siteswith large amountsof pottery plotted within the 2 day bandof travel are situatedclose to the delimiting line betweenthe I and 2 day estimationsof travel. This may suggestthat the measurementof a day's travel wasunderestimated in the analysis.More importantly,however, it demonstratesthat there was more movementto and from towns to placeslocated within approximately8 hourstravel of that town.

In order to readdressthe issuesof distanceand mobility, the distancesalong rivers and roads were recalculated to be used in regression analyses. This was done in ARCANFO by measuring

-145- distance the to eachsite alongrivers androads. The numberof days (8 hoursof travel) to reach each site was calculatedin order to representa conceptualunderstanding of the distanceinto the analyses. Regressionplots were then formulated for Lincoln wares, Stamfordware and Torksey ware along both roadsand rivers.

The Lincoln wareregression suggested that the distanceof sitesfrom Lincoln alongthe Roman roads was more important to the numberof vesselson each site than the previousEuclidean measurementhad implied (Figure 105). The r-squaredvalue increasedto 0.0125 from the previous0.0052, demonstrating that distancedid influencethe amountof pottery found on sites. It further indicatesthat thosesites with largenumbers of vesselswere within approximatelyone days travel of Lincoln.

The underlyingpattern of the scatterplotwas clarified whenGoltho wasremoved (Figure 106). This demonstratesthat the large number of sites with less than 10 vesselsis significantly influencing the regressionline. The pattern of sites with more than 10 vesselsimplies that distancewas important to the amountof pottery at thesesettlements, something that was not evident on the previousEuclidean plot.

Indeed, when sites with more than 10 vesselsare selected,the slope of the regressionline is calculatedat 0.1595(Figure 107). Distancefrom Lincoln doesappear to impact on the trade of large amountsof pottery. Furthermore,it is clear that temporal distanceinfluenced the amountof Lincoln pottery usedat eachof thesesettlements. The majority of sitescalculated within two daystravel of Lincoln border the edgeof the one day limit. This demonstratesthe importanceof social perceptionof distance. Indeed,those sites bordering the one to two day delineationmay simply havebeen considered 'a long day's travel'.

(Figure 108). indeed, Distanceis not asimportant to the amountof potterymoving alongrivers the r-squaredvalue for the Lincoln waresis 0.000. Furthermore,the sites are not clustered large within I day's travel as they were along the roads. Instead,the majority of sites with However,due amountsof pottery are within two to threedays travel. to the greaterextremes distance be When of travel speedalong rivers, the time neededto travel those might conflated. the (Figure Flixborough is excludedfrom the regressioncalculation to clarify patternof sites distance does to influence the 109), the scatterplot indicates, once again, that not seem only those distribution of pottery along the rivers. Nor doesthis changewhen one considers 110). Indeed, both ther-squared values are siteswith largenumbers of pottery (Figure on plots, extremelylow.

-146- The movementof Stamfordpottery alongroads also was affected by distance,although it is not as apparenton this regressionplot asit was for the Lincoln wares(Figure 111). TIlis is due to the sparsecoverage of sites near Stamford. Tlie slope of the regressionline was 0.0437,an increase from the slopeof the line usingEuclidean distances 0.0 197. Stamfordware circulated over a much larger areathan the Lincoln wares. However,most of the siteswith largenumbers of pottery appearto be locatedwithin two to threedays of the town.

This is clarified when siteswith lessthan 10 vesselsare removedfrom the scatterplot(Figure , 112). Indeed, there is a distinct clustering of sites along the two to three day divide, again suggestingthat the delineation betweenthe number of days is too abrupt and that social Perceptionof distanceaffected the distribution of pottery. The slopeof the regressionline is 0.1269,furtherimplying thatdistancewas important to thedistribution of Stamfordware along roads.

Turning to the regressionof Stamfordware along the rivers, large amountsof pottery do not appear to have beentraded along the rivers and coast(Figure 113). This is demonstratedby Baston,whose large numbersof pottery significantly distort the underlyingscatterplot. When Bastonis removedfrom this calculation,it becomesapparent that only four siteswithin 5 Ian of a river were consuming large amounts of Stamford ware (Figure 114). This is in comparison to the eight settlements with more than 10 vesselsin close proximity to the roads. However, as with the scatterplot demonstrating the importance of distance to the trade of Stamford ware along roads, there is a clustering of sites within two to three days travel from Stamford.

Torksey ware wasnot engagedin the extentof tradethat either the Lincoln or Stamfordwares were. This is demonstratedthrough the regressionplot of Torkseyware along both rivers and roads(Figure 115; Figure 116). While therewas clearly more travel along the roadways,the distances along the rivers is unusually clustered within a day's travel of Torksey. This illustratesthe importanceof the Trent andthe Witham to local tradein Torkseyware. Regional trade,however, appears to haveoccurred along the roadsmore generally. Indeed,while the r- important squaredvalue of eachregression line doesnot suggestthat distance was to theamount imply Of pottery, the close clustering of sites along the rivers close to Torksey does that the important its position of Torksey,at the meetingof the FossDyke and the River Trent, was to trading relations along rivers.

to the The useof distancesalong roads and rivers makesthe regressionanalyses more sensitive

-147~ importancedistance had on the numberof vesselsat eachsite. WhenEuclidean distances were usedin the regressionanalyses, the results indicate that the distancefrom the productionsite was not very important to the generaldistribution of pottery. However, when the distance measuredalong the rivers androads is used,this is not the case.Indeed, distance was important to thosesites with significant amountsof pottery, as demonstratedparticularly by the Lincoln wares. This suggeststhat those sites, often proximal to roads, were conceptuallyoriented towardsthe town.

In order to further research the perception of distance along the routes of travel, the difference in temporal distance and geographical distance was plotted. This was done to explore ways in which archaeologists can investigate cognitive understandings of past landscapes. Perception of distance is integral to how people move through the landscape. Present-day cognition is based on fast-moving traffic along rail-lines or dual carriage ways. This remapping of temporal distances translates tenth century mobility into a common twentieth century understanding of distance be -a day's travel. From this remapping, the assemblagepatterns can reexamined using a distance measurement conforming to tenth century travel.

-Settlement Interaction -

Placesare understood by thesocial practices which occurwithin andaround them. Thesesocial practices,framed by the materialculture employedto enactthem (whether a twentiethcentury Wall Streetbusiness suit or a medievalcoulter usedby a cottar), define the placesand locales in late in which they areenacted. The abruptappearance of urbanmaterial culture the ninth and tenth centuriessignalled that theseemerging settlements were beingdefined as distinct places within the late Anglo-Saxonlandscape. While thesetowns cannot truly be called 'urban' until One the eleventhcentury or later, it is importantnot to ignoretheir urbancharacteristics. of the most visible differences in these settlementsis the large amount of pottery producedand from consumedwithin them. Indeed,it is in the pottery craft that manytransitions the middle Saxonto the late Saxonperiod can be observed(Chapter 111). The movementof theproduction ofpottery to within the town walls, the changein productiontechniques, the standardisationand increasingspecialisation of ceramicwares, all demonstratedeveloping urban social traditions in a landscapepreviously associatedwith productionpractices occurring on the villa, minster fundamental in the andwic sites. The emergenceof the town signalleda alteration structureof be early medievalsociety. However,while the town may the mostobservable manifestation of

-148- this alteration,it is not the reason,or evena reason,for the changesoccurring from the turn of the tenth century. Instead,the town is a product of a shift in socialpractices, of a redefinition of the way activities were structured throughoutthe landscape. Its developmentcannot be divorced from the social changesoccurring in a developingrural hinterland of manorsand monasteries,shires and parishes.

Manorial developmentin the late Anglo-Saxonperiod is directly linked to the developmentof feudalism,the rise of a landedaristocracy with increasingcontrol over their own landsin terms of production and parochial activities. During the late Anglo-Saxonperiod there is a shift in activities which focussedon an itinerant tributary kingship located in the villa regalis, to a feudalaristocracy involved in moreprivatised land tenure practices centred around manorial and town relations, (Chapter H). The developmentof towns with their dependancyon rural agriculturalpractices was an integralpart of the emergenceof manors,divorcing themfrom the more self-sufficient villa regalis of the middle Saxon period. The increasingly feudal aristocracy,which exercisedtheir authority in town and manor alike, ftulher investedin the ecclesiasticallandscape with theparish church. Townsand manorial settlements were engaged in an interdependentrelationship.

Insight intothe developmentof manorsand otherrural sites inAnglo-Scandinavian Lincolnshire must rely heavily upon archaeology. ffistorically there is little information regarding Lincolnshire asa whole,and even within thelate Anglo-Saxon corpus of writings little is known aboutday-to-day manorial practices. Furthermore, there has been little archaeologicalinquiry into the late Anglo-Saxonmanor (Chapter10, regardingwhat archaeologicallyconstitutes a manoror otherfocal settlement.investigating the consumptionpractices of theseplaces allows communication between settlementsto be addressed,as well as geographiclocation and territorial identity (above). Pottery was an ubiquitous artefact during the Anglo-Scandinavian period, used extensively in domestic practices. It therefore provides an excellent medium for addressing the social construction of place in the rural landscape.

The general distribution of pottery in Anglo-ScandinavianLincolnshire was discussedin Chapter HI in relation to the social practicesof pottery production and consumption. The changebetween Anglian andAnglo-Scandinavian settlement patterns was explored, suggesting that therewas a generalshift in settlementduring the ninth century. However,as sitessuch as Flixborough demonstrate,archaeological understanding of the movementof placesis poorly understood.WUIe both middle andlate Saxonpottery arenot often found togetheron the same site, the number of sites where they do occur togethersuggests that social understandingof

-149-

A -placewas important to the continuity of the site. Settlementat Flixborough appearsto be moving across the site, the excavations there indicating the edge of the Anglo-Scandinavian settlement(Loveluck 1998:148). Linwood, a placewhose name denotes a long associationand inhabitation of that place (Sawyer1998: 22-3), is alsorepresented by both Anglian andAnglo- Scandinavianpottery. Furthermore,the Fenland Survey suggestedthat Anglo-Scandinavian siteswere situatedon firmer groundalong the fen edge,rather than being spread throughout the fenland (Hayesand Lane 1992:215). ThoseAnglian sitesalong the fen edgeoften hadAnglo- Scandinavianpottery on them as well. Indeed,the shift in settlementbetween the middle and late Saxonperiods is not clearly understoodand remains an importanttopic for future research.

While continuity betweenmiddle andlate Saxonsites was obviously occurring, it paledbeside that occurring through the tenth and eleventhcenturies. There was an entrenchmentof the population, encouragedby the investmentin the parish community (Chapter11), rooting the communitiesmore firmly to settlementsand locales. Indeed,most tenth century sites continue into the eleventhcentury and beyond. Pottery assemblages indicate a durationof settlementand an interest in maintaining the manorial settlementpattern. As was discussedin ChapterI[L thereis a generalshift in settlementduring the ninth century. This is observablein the fenland where habitation moved off the fens to settlementsalong the westernedge (Hayes and Lane 1992: 148; Figure 117). The tenth century villages were locatedalong the spring-lineat the margin betweenfen and upland. Along the easternedge of the fens, habitationmoved to the higher silt-lands and the boundarybetween fields and fen, as well as fields and sea,were demarcatedby banks(Lane and Hayes 1993:69).

Furthermore, investment in settlementcontinuity from the tenth and eleventh century is demonstratedby the associationbetween tenth and eleventhcentury pottery on most sites (Figure 118). Approximatelyhalf of the total numberof tenth andeleventh century sites have pottery from both centuries. The sites with only tenth or eleventh century pottery equal in approximatelyone quarter of the total numberof sites. This meansthat eachcentury, seventy While is percent of the sites have a pottery assemblagespanning both centuries. there in settlementmovement during theAnglo-Scandinavian period Lincolnshire,the majority of the sites are inhabitedthroughout both centuries.

Saxon is This is strikingly different from the distribution of middle pottery sites, which Fenland Survey (Hayes deceptively sparse,as indicated by the more generousresults of the and Lane 1992; Lane 1993; Figure 119). The large amount of pottery from Flixborough also in Anglian demonstrates the comparative lack of information concerning the use of pottery the

-150~ period in the rest of Lincolnshire. Theseprojects show that information concerningAnglian settlement can be recoveredfrom pottery evidenceand that the current representationof settlementfrom pottery is misleading. Indeed,in a recentdoctoral thesis, Ulmschneider notes that it was difficult to say much about Anglian habitation in Lincolnshire from the pottery evidencedue to the lack of publishedand recorded finds (1998: 31,47). However,sites such as Flixborough (Loveluck 1998: 148),Cottam (Richards 1997:236-8) and Goltho (Beresford 1987) suggestthat there was a general movementof settlementduring the ninth century, althoughperhaps remaining within a specific locale. Flixboroughappears to continueinto the tenth centuryjust to the northeastof the middle Saxonsettlement (Loveluck 1998: 148). The extent to which theseshifts in settlementlocation representeda consciousmovement of place hasyet to be addressed.To the inhabitantsof Flixborough,the movementof buildingstowards the northeast may not have influenced their perception of the settlement. However, the establishmentof a new moatedmanor at Goltho during the ninth century signalsa changein attitude towardsthat place.

While it is difficult to characterisethe changein settlementpatterns from the middle to late Saxonperiod from the distribution of pottery, there is an entrenchmentof settlementin the landscapeduring the tenth century. In Lincolnshire, this coincideswith the developmentof openfield systems,except in Holland wherea dyling organisationusing wide rows of ditches was adopted(Lane and Hayes 1993: 69). Furthermore,there is an increaseduse of stonein buildings such as churchesduring the 11th century (Sawyer 1998: 165). This practice is extremely evident in Lincolnshire where the widespreadbuilding of parish churcheswas Stocker originally accompaniedby stonesculpture (Sawyer 1998: 155-7; Eversonand 1999:78; Boddington 1996:67). The practiceof erectingstone buildings during the tenth and eleventh landscape, centuriesindicates a rising interestin the stability of place and locale within the a Practicewhich is further demonstratedby the pottery distributions.

is However,in Towns were the settlementswhere this investmentin place most observable. land in manyinstances, towns werean extensionof rural socialpractice. Lords held rights both York London typesof settlement(Hinton 1977:75-6; Chapter11). Investigation of and suggest in (Hall 1988a: 130; Dyson that the manorial holding of blocks of land also occurred towns 1978: 201-2). The ownership of thesehaga could be accompaniedby rights of market or harbour(Whitelock 1968:451,498). Indeed,the fisherman,represented in Alcuin's Colloquy, Robinson1986: 177; would havepaid a toll to a lord to sell his fish in the town (Mitchell and into the town is further Foster and Longley 1924: 215). The movement of resources 144-5;Bourdillon demonstratedby the animalresources brought to the town (O'Connor 1994:

-151- 1992: 130). Towns werealso militarily supportedthrough requisitioning support from therural Population(Abels 1988:74-5). Communicationbetween town andmanor was an important part of daily practice, the social understandingof place and spacebeing constructedthrough the interaction betweenurban and rural communities.

The urban consumptionofpoltery

The first impression of urban consumption practices during the tenth century is the enormous amount of material found in excavations. Despite the difflculties in describing an early medieval town as fully 'urban' (Chapter 1), the consumption of material culture in these settlements is unparalleled on rural sites. This material culture is produced through the numerous production activities which occur in towns ranging from minting to leather-working andpottery. Documentary sourcesimply that the aristocracy exercised control over town-based activities (Whitelock 1968: 384,451,598; Chapter 11). Indeed, towns are an important expression and focus of aristocratic power. The foci of activity in towns are demonstrated through the production and consumption of pottery within these settlements.

Production of pottery within towns often was associatedwith one ware being producedin a numberof workshops(Chapter M). This is certainly true for Torkseyand Stamford,although there were a number of different fabric traditions containedwithin the Stamfordproduction (KilmurTy 1980: 34-42,45-6). Lincoln was unusual for the number of pottery traditions operatingwithin its walls, althoughLKT representedthe major ware produceduntil the late tenth century when US beganto emergeas the prominentware (Figure 120). The variety of pottery waspartially due to both sandyand shelly tempersbeing usedwithin Lincoln (Chapter 111).Pottery traditions also migratedto other towns, as can be seenwith the Torksey potter moving down the Trent to Newark, the Stamfordpotter travelling to Nottinghamand Derby (Coppack 1980: 217-8,275) and the Lincoln potter establishinghis craft in Homcastle (J. Youngperscom). While potteryproduction, often of a singleware, is associatedwith town life in the late Anglo-Saxonperiod, each town hasits own particularpractices which give a unique flavour, or identity, to that town.

This focus of production activities is mirrored in the consumption of pottery. Many of the wares produced in Lincoln do not have an extensive trade outside of the town. Indeed, LG, LSLS, LSH and SNLS are rarely found outside the city (Figure 121). Instead, there appears to

-152- be an internal trade within the town which begins during the late 9th century with the LG production. LG appearsrelatively early in the late Saxonsequences andjust over 100pots have been found within the city. However, it only appearsat Cherry Willingham, Flixborough, Goltho and Thornton-le-Moor outside of Lincoln. The other non-shelly wares,LSLS and SNLS, were also traded more predominantlywithin Lincoln than at sites such as Sleaford, CherryWillingham, and Goltho. Both wareswere traded along the main transportationroutes.

Thesesand tempered ware horizons were on either side of the LKT production. Indeed,LSH - a Shellyware- was the only competitorfor LKT during mostits production. Furthermore,it has beensuggested that LSH perhapsresulted from an experimentalor accidentalmix of temperand clay by LKT potters (J. Young and A. Vince in litt). However, while LKT was traded extensivelywithin the region, LSH remainedprimarily within the city (Figure 122). Indeed, of approximatelyforty sitescontained LSH in their assemblages,only five of thesehave ten or more vessels.This is in comparisonwith LKT which wasfound on approximatelyone hundred and thirty sites, sixteenof which have vesselsnumbering ten or more. Furthermore,the sites with large numbersof LSH wereall representedby a significantamount of LK-T. LKT wasthe Predominantware being traded within Lincolnshirewhile LSH wasmainly beingtraded within the city and on sites whereLKT is alreadypresent.

Correspondingto the declinein LKT during the latter part of the tenth century,the new shelly LFS tradition and the sandySNLS productionappeared at the end of the tenth century(Figure 120). LFS was tradedregionally while SNLS was more often found within Lincoln, albeit in greaternumbers than LSLS in the precedingcentury (Figure 123). US was recoveredfrom seventy-fivesites, seven of which hadten or morevessels. This is a lessextensive distribution than the precedingone of LKT. SNLS was containedwithin approximatelyten assemblages only one of which was greaterthan ten vessels. Both thesewares indicate a decline in trade within the county but continue to demonstratea difference between rural and urban consumptionpatterns.

In addition to the Lincoln wares,the peopleof Lincoln are also tradingheavily in Torkseyand Stamfordwares throughout the late ninth to eleventhcenturies. Indeed,early Stamfordware is traded in the samenumbers as the LG industry operatingat the sametime. Together, Stamfordware and the Torksey derivativesaccount for approximatelyone third of the pottery consumedwithin Lincoln. Otherindustries such as Nottingham ware, Leicester ware and Derby wareare also found within Lincoln, althoughfar lessfrequently than theLincolnshire products (Figure 183).

-153- While the general ratio of vessel forms are similar throughout the landscape,towns were consuminga larger variety of forms. This is mostclearly seenin the useof crucibleswithin the town. Crucibles account for 5% of the pottery assemblagewithin Lincoln (Figure 124). Stamford crucibleswere highly valuedas can be seenfrom the high numbersof vesselsfound at Lincoln. York also had an extensivetrade in Stamfordcrucibles. Indeed,crucibles were the Primary Stamford ware traded within the tenth century at York. It is only at the turn of the eleventhcentury that other Stamfordvessels made a significantappearance at York (Mainman 1990:467-469). The tradein crucibleswas indicative of the growing craft traditionswithin the town which were involved with non-ferrousmetal production. Metalworkers were trading specifically for Stamfordcrucibles due to their high refractory nature (Bayley 1992:754). It is unfortunatethat the databasefor the excavationsat Stamfordhas not beencompiled. Indeed, while cruciblesare a part of Stamfordproduction (Kilmurry 1980:28), they are not quantified (Kilmurry 1980;Mahany et al. 1982). No crucibleshave b6en recovered from Torksey,which is probably due to the predominanceof kiln-sites excavatedat Torksey. Indeed,the natureof domesticoccupation at Torksey still needsto be determinedarchaeologically.

It is difficult to characterisethe variety of vesselforms at Stamfordand Torksey due to the lack of excavationof non-potteryproducing sites. In Lincoln, otherforms, such as Torksey 'ginger' jars, globular lampsand pedestal vessels, were found. Towns wereconsuining a wider variety of forms than rural settlements.However, this variety wasstill only a small percentageof the large investmentin cooking pots, pitchers,bowls and dishes. Indeed,the greatestdistinction betweenrural andurban consumption of potterywas the sheernumber of potsconsumed within the town. This demonstratesthe large investmentin trade by the inhabitantsof the town, a Practicewhich increasinglydistinguished them from rural communities.This accordswith the researchon pottery consumptionpatterns in London,where there was a significantincrease in the variety of pottery in London betweenthe tenth and eleventh centuries, as well as a recognizabledifference between urban and rural assemblagesduring the tenth century (Vince 1985:38,42).

The variety and the amountof pottery consumedby the peopleof Lincoln were not found at Torksey(Figure 182). Indeed,despite the high numberof kiln sites,Torksey had approximately half of the amountof pottery that Lincoln did. While Stamfordand Lincoln productsappear at Torksey,they certainly do not representthe samepercentage as the non-localwares at Lincoln. This drastic differencein consumptionpatterns is conflatedby the non-domesticnature of the sitesexcavated. Indeed, the pottery assemblagefound at Torkseyconforms more to that of the Silver StreetIdIn site thanit doesto towns suchas Lincoln andYork, with lessthan one quarter

-154- of non-local waresbeing represented(Figure 182). Nevertheless,from the relatively sparse distribution of Torksey ware, it appearsthat this town, while attaining Domesdayborough status,had a separateidentity amongthe emergingurban settlementsof the Danelaw. While, the majority of the pottery consumedat Newark wasproduced there, approximately a third of its pottery consumptionwas in non-localproducts (Figure 180). Ile largerpercentage of non- local ware suggeststhat Newarkhad similar, if lessintensive, trading and production practices asdid Lincoln. Indeed,if a domesticsite wasexcavated at Torksey,this town might correspond better to the other urban sites.

The developing craft traditions within towns participated in an urban trade as well as in a more regional distribution of their wares. This extensive internal trade distinguished the town communitiesfrom rural sites. While therewas little differencebetween the variety of forms found on urban sites during the tenth century - with the obviousexception of crucibles- the large ýmountof pottery that wasconsumed within the town wasdistinctive. Furthermore,the imports from other towns are indicative of an interregional trade in which the towns were Participating.This is particularly clearwith theexchange of Stamfordcrucibles during thetenth century, a trade which further emphasizesthe importanceof the craft communitieswithin the towns.

The rural consumption OfPotterY

The high urbanconsumption of potteryin the tenthcentury is contrastedwith that of rural sites primarily through the sheer volume of pottery which is found within towns. Manorial is consumption,while demonstrablyhigh at such sites as Goltho and Flixborough still only by abouta third of the amountfound at Lincoln andStamford. Most sitesare represented fewer artefactsthan Goltho andFlixborough since they do not havethe advantage of a research-funded excavation.Indeed, most of the settlementsare represented by lessthan 10vessels (Figure 75). Due to the variation of excavationsize and location within presentday settlements,some of is thesesites with fewer than 10pots may have had higher levels of consumptionthan clearfrom presentknowledge. It is, therefore,important, as notedabove, to focus on the characteristics of those sites which do demonstratehigh pottery consumptionpatterns. Regardlessof the from variation betweenthe rural sites,they areengaging in different socialpractices than those indicative within the towns. The different levels of pottery consumptionare thus of diverse lifestyles and social practices.

-155- In order to addressthe ways in which social practice structuredthe rural landscape,the consumptionof pottery will be examinedthrough an explorationof the assemblages.This will be accomplishedthrough a numberof statisticaltechniques ranging from scattergrams:to cluster analysisand multidimensionalscaling, as well as using distribution mapsgenerated through GIS. Thesetechniques are used to explorethe characteristics of theassemblages and to suggest the ways in which rural sites are differentiating themselveswithin the landscape,both from other places within the hinterlandas well as from the emergingurban settlementswhere the Potteryis primarily produced. This will leadinto the subsequentsections on territorial identity and community interaction,allowing discussionto focus both on particularplaces, as well as more generaltrends throughout the landscape.

A Primary archaeologicaldistinction betweensettlements is their size and the amount of material associatedwith them. Admittedly, this is partially dependentupon the size of excavationand whether it was designedto targetparticular features. However, it is also a socialphenomenon produced by activitiesand practices which occurredin thepast. Tberefore, one of the first stepsin gaining an understandingof the diversity of siteswithin the landscape- both socially and archaeologicallyproduced - is to look at their demography.This was done here by creating a stem-and-leafdiagram which graphedthe cumulative number of sites accordingto vesselcount. This wasaimed at assessingvariation between sites according to size of assemblage.

The resulting graph demonstrateda number of trendsin the amountof pottery at eachsite (Figure 75). Thereis a sharpfall-off from thosesites associated with smallnumbers of vessels. This fall-off curve ends at those siteswith approximately10 vessels.This waschosen as an appropriatedistinction betweensettlements with small numbersof pottery and those with a high larger quantity of vessels. The rest of the graphcharacterises those sites with a quantity OfPottery. Thereis a clump of siteswhich hasbetween 10 and34 vesselswhich weregrouped This fairly closely togetherwith no large incrementsin vesselcount betweenthem. changes whenthe vesselnumberjumps from 34 to 43. The numberof sitesattached to eachvessel count is more variableas the numberof vesselsincreases. The only observablegroups are those sites from With between43 and 77 vessels.Sites with greaterthan 77 vesselsare sparselystretched have approximately100 to 6000vessels and represent those places where extensive excavations occuffed.

in data. Those 9 This diagramsuggests that thereare approximately3 trends the siteswith or lessvessels represent the majority of sites. Thereare then a numberof siteswith approximately

~156- 10 35 to vesselswhich can be said to have a moderateamount of pottery. Sites with large defined numbersof vesselswere as having more than 35 vessels. This is the largestrange of sites,and at its far end,encompasses the research excavations where extensive material has been recovered. The large number of sites with small vessel counts is partially due to the commercial nature of the excavations. However, it also suggestssocial differentiation between settlements. Without further research and excavation based on a local landscape study, the degree to which the range of pottery between sites reflects past social action rather than archaeological recovery methods is difficult to determine. The Fenland Survey was instrumental in demonstrating the current lack of archaeological knowledge concerning rural settlements (Hayes and Lane 1992;

Lane 1993). More surveys such as the Fenland Survey need to be done in order to further our understandingof the social organisationof landscapes.

The gap betweenthe 10-35 vessel range and that of the 35+ grouping suggesteda social differentiation betweenthese two groups. The groupingof siteswith more than 35 vesselsis distinguishedfrom the middle grouping (10-35 vessels)both through the amount of pottery associatedwith themas well asa largevariation in waretypes (Appendix 1). While someof the sites within the 10-35vessel range are representedby a variety of wares,this is not common acrossthe grouping. The 35 and abovegroup hasa wide rangeof vesselnumbers from 46 at Fishtoft andNettleharn to Bastonand Goltho with 329 pots and913 vesselsrespectively. This extreme variation is predominantlydue to the different extentsof excavation. Most of the settlementshave between 50 to 100vessels. Tlere area few outliers suchas Goltho, wherethe 913 vesselsreflect the large-scaleexcavation which occurredthere. Flixborough is the only comparableexcavation to Goltho, althoughonly 135vessels out of over 4000 are late Saxon. The difference between the size of excavationsis a bias inherent in the database. This highlights the need for excavationextents to be included within the finds database. This information would havebeen extremely useful in characterisingthe rangeof vesselquantities across the settlement. Once again, the small number of large scale excavationsfurther emphasizesthe needfor more extensiverural excavationstrategies.

The importanceof variationand the numberof vesselsto theseassemblages was explored using cluster analysis. Investigation into the variation betweenassemblages was accomplished through the combined use of statistical techniques(multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis)and geographicrepresentation using GIS. SPSSwas usedto perform the statistical flexible analyses.VAiile ARCIINFO certainlyincludes statistical algorithms, they arenot as as identify thosewithin SPSS.The primary aim of theclustering methods was to trendsacross and involvedin betweenassemblages in order to explorethe socialpractices which were producing

-157- thoseassemblages. As previouslynoted, the majority of the settlementsare represented by less than 10 vessels,many of which may be the result of archaeologicalmethods of recoveryled by commercial needs,rather than a representationof past social diversity within the landscape. This makes the larger sites difficult to characterizestatistically due to the weighting of the numeroussmaller sites, obscuringthe variation betweenthe sites with larger vesselcounts. Therefore,the clustering was performedon thoseplaces represented by more than 10 vessels. This meansthat the exploratorystatistics are aimedat analysingsocial differentiation between settlementswhere peoplewere involved in a higher consumptionof pottery.

Multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis are related techniques and are often used in combination. Both techniques are exploratory and focus on the nature of variation between

multivariate sets of data (Cooper and Weekes 1983: 299). One of the primary advantages of multidimensional scaling is its graphical display of the spatial clustering of data. This can be done through two or more dimensions, allowing the researcher to visualize the proximity between sites. However, while this technique presents a good graphical display of data it does not characterizethe individual sitesvery well. Instead,it concentrateson the overall shapeof the distancesbetween data. In contrast,cluster analysis is valuablefor its productionsof charts and dendrogramsillustrating the linkagesbetween the groupingsof sites.

Cluster analysis categorizesindividual sites into groupings based on levels of similarity. However, as Baxter rightly notes, 'cluster analysisis not a single method;it is a genericterm for a wide range of techniques' (Baxter 1994: 140). There are two basic forms of cluster analysis:hierarchical and non-hierarchical(k-means). Hierarchicalcluster analysisis a rigid classificationmethod which 'can imposeunwarranted structure on a setof data. An individual, once within a cluster, stays there' (Baxter 1994: 147). There are a number of different algorithms usedto perform hierarchicalcluster analysis(Baxter 1994: 141-7;Shennan 1988: 212-225). Ward's Method was usedhere. It has a more robust clustering method,which is basedon the recalculatedvariability of groupsthrough an error sum of squarescalculation, or 'the total sum of squareddeviations or distancesof all points from the meansof the clustersto which they belong' (Shennan 1988: 216). Through this method, the clusters remain as homogenousas possible and they are grouped together in theway thatproduces the least amount 142). K-means of variability within the group as a whole (Shennan1988: 216; Baxter 1994: cluster analysisis basedon a predefinednumber of groups(k) and the optimal clustering of defined individuals within thesegroups. K-meansclustering runs througha numberof cluster However, simulations to provide the best result for the defined parameters. unlike the hierarchicaltechnique, k-means analysis allows the reclusteringof individuals if, as the group

-158- centre changes, they more appropriately belong in another cluster (Shennan 1988: 225-6). These two methods can be used together (as they are here), the hierarchical suggesting the number of clusters to be defined for the k-means analysis (Baxter 1994: 147).

The varied assemblage characteristics across this group of sites (Appendix 1) suggests that consumption practices varied between places. The initial variation between sites was explored through multidimensional scaling in SPSS (Appendix 111),using the percent of Anglo- Scandinavian vesselsat each settlement together with the total number of vesselsper settlement. Using percentages reduces the variation caused by the extremes in pottery numbers across the sites. This allows the focus to be on the relative distribution of pottery on a site. By including the total number of vessels per site, the size of the assemblageis included as a single variable rather than affecting the whole sample. The distribution graphs suggestssome variation in the data. The 3-D spatial distribution of sites suggestsat least two groupings of sites (Figure 126). The one exceptional outlier is Lincoln, which produces a denser cluster of sites in the graph. Therefore, the towns (Lincoln, Newark and Torksey) were removed from the sites assessedto further examine the distribution (Figure 127). This resulted in a graph where two, perhaps three, clusters are visible.

Thesegraphs demonstrate a numberof clusterswithin the data. In order to explorehow the inclusion of vesselcounts affected this distribution, they were removed(Figure 128, Figure 129). The datawas then reassessedby the MDS algorithm,both including andexcluding town settlements. The MDS graph for the data which included towns, clearly indicatesthat there were two clustersof sites. This is supportedby the graphexcluding towns which showsone main cluster and a smaller one off to the right. The predominantcluster is slightly scattered, possibly implying further distinctionswithin it.

While multidimensionalscaling is usefulfor visualisingthe variationbetween sites, it doesnot easily characterisethe similarities betweenparticular sites. This is more adequatelydone throughclustering techniques (Appendix III). This wasaccomplished in two stages.The first stagewas to perform a hierarchicalcluster analysison sites with and without vesselcounts. Indeed,while the inclusion of towns within the MDS equationresulted in denserclusters, they did not greatly affect the overall pattern. Instead, there was more variation betweenthe inclusion or exclusion of vessel counts. Tberefore, this distinction was explored through hierarchicalclustering methods.

The secondstage was aimed at producing distinct clusters which could then be explored

-159- geographically. Throughexamination of the hierarchicalcluster results, a rangein the number of clusterswas chosen to run throughthe K-meanscluster equation. This excludedtowns from the data on the basis that their position within the clusters had been sufficiently explored through hierarchicalanalysis.

Hierarchical clustering was performedusing Ward's Method on the percentageof ware types across those sites with more than 10 vessels. When the quantity of vesselsper site was included,the results(Figure 130) were very definitely skewedtowards the numbersof vessels at eachsite, a demographyalready explored throughthe MDS and geographicaldistributions.

Excluding the vessel quantity per site gave more intelligible results (Figure 131). There appears to be two basic groups based on the predominance of Stamford ware or Lincoln wares in the overall assemblage (Appendix 1). The Stamford ware grouping focuses on Baston, Grantham, Newton and Quarrington, with Kirby la Thorpe more loosely associated. The Lincoln cluster appeared to be divided into two basic groupings, with a number of internal divisions. Wainfleet All Saints, Foston, Goltho, Haugham and Haverholme are grouped with the closer grouping of West Halton, Ketsby, Cherry Willingham, Nettleham and Panton. The clustering of these sites is predominantly based on the large amounts of LKT associated with them (approximately 35- 55%). The remaining group has even more internal variation with two main clusters, the first associated with Hackthorn, Aylesby, Lincoln, South Ormsby and Caistor, and the second with Crowland, Tattershall, Horricastle, Sleaford, Repton, Kirton and Flixborough. This association also appears to be based on the amount of LKT on these sites which lay between approximately 20-30% with an internal division between the first cluster (Hackthorn et al ) with approximately 25-30% LKT and the second group (Crowland et al. ) which had a much wider diversity of LKT percentages. The outliers to these two internal groupings were Torksey, with its large number of Torksey-ware, at one end, and Newark and North Kelsey, with large amounts of Torksey-type ware, at the other. The hierarchical clustering therefore was grouping sites on the percentage of the predominant ware. While this did little to address the internal variation of the groups, it did demonstrate that LKT was the predominant ware traded in Lincolnshire. It further suggested an association between those settlements where LKT was not prominent, such as at Baston, Torksey or North Kelsey.

Turning to the k-meansanalysis, a low numberof groups(8-10) werechosen on the basisthat the hierarchicalclustering did not demonstratea large numberof fragmentedgroups but did display some internal variation and a few outliers from the three predominant clusters (Appendix Ell). The kiln sites, Lincoln, Torksey and Newark, were excluded from this analysis

-160- in order to further explore the relationshipsbetween rural settlements.

Clusters generatedby the k-meansanalysis are basedmore on the internal variation of the assemblagesrather than focussing on thepredominance of oneware (Appendix 111; Figures 132- 4). This was done by first including the number of vesselsper site to determinehow the quantity of pottery affectedthe distribution of clusters. Goltho, Baston,and North Kelseywere constantlyin a single groupingby themselves.The variety of the assemblageand quantity of Pottery at Goltho immediately setsit apart from the rest of the distribution, as does that of Flixborough. Similarly, -the large assemblageof Stamfordware found at Bastonis alsounique. North Kelsey hasa singularly high amountof Torksey-typeware explaining its solitary status.

Clustering further exists betweensites which are predominatelybalanced between a large percentage of LKT and LFS. Aylesby, Hackthorpe, Fillingharn and South Ormsby are grouped together in both the eight and nine cluster results. When ten clusters were specified, both Fillingharn and South Ormsby are replaced by Nettleham, another site with a similarly high LKT/LFS ratio. This group is balanced by the Stamford ware grouping of Grantham, Newton, Quarrington and Kirton which was identified as a separateclass throughout the cluster analyses. Indeed, these sites are primarily represented by Stamford ware, like Baston, but are not as large as Baston and therefore were clustered in a distinct group.

The other set of settlements which stands out contained Caistor, Cherry Willingham, Crowland, Ketsby, Sleaford and Nettlehain (although Nettleham is included with the Aylesby grouping when ten clusters are specified). The rational for this grouping is balanced between the variety of assemblage and the amount of pottery found at each of these sites. Indeed, the inclusion of Netilehain in this group appears to be primarily based on the number of vesselsrather than the diversity of assemblage.

The final grouping is closely associatedwith the large grouping originally identified by the hierarchical clustering. It is comprisedof Foston,Haugham, Haverholme, Homcastle, West Halton, Linwood, Panton, Tattershall, Fishtoft and Wainfleet All Saints. Foston, Panton, Wainfleet All Saints and Fishtoft are separatedfrom this group when ten clusters are stipulated. This is primarily due to the large percentage of the assemblagesbeing balanced between LKT and LSH making a useful distinction from the other sites which but for their amounts of pottery, would likely have been classified within the Caistor cluster.

Removing the amount of pottery from the clustering equation helped to clarify some of these

-161- relationships (Figures 135-7). North Kelsey and Kirton are distinguished as solitary assemblages;the unusual Torkseyýtype percentage at North Kelseyis onceagain identified. The Stamfordgrouping of Grantham,Newton, Quarrington and Kirton persistswith the addition of Baston. The LFSALKTset offillingham, Hackthoipeand Aylesby also remains. T`heLKT/LSH cluster of Fishtoft, WairffleetAll Saintsand Foston isjoined somewhatunusually by Crowland which has a more balancedvariety of waresthan the rest of its group. Flixboroughand South Ormsbyare well groupedwith their generaldiversity of wares. A balanceof Stamford,Torksey (-type) and the Lincoln wares US and LKT is expressedthrough the largest grouping of Tattershall,Linwood, Horricastle,Haugham, Haverholme, Sleaford and Goltho. Theappearance of Linwood and Haverholmein this grouping is notable due to lack of Stamford ware at Linwood and a similar lack of Torksey (-type) ware at Haverholme. However, the large percentageof LKT and the balancingpercentages of the other waresappears to be the reason for their inclusion. West Halton, Panton,Nettleham, Cherry Willingham and Ketsby are classified togetheron the strengthof the high percentageof LKT at eachof thesesites which masksthe variety of Torksey(-type)and Stamfordwares at Cherry Willingham, Ketsby and West Halton. Inclusion of Caistor within this set is intriguing due to the variety of waresat Caistor. However, the relationshippresumably lies on the equal split betweenUS and LKT at both of thesesites.

The geographical distribution of the sites for the k-means analysis where size was included in the variables, clearly demonstrates the Kesteven distribution of the Stamford clusters (Figures 13840). Other clusters are not as obvious in their distribution. The Caistor grouping with its larger number of pots is distributed throughout Lincolnshire as was the LKTALSH group of Homcastle et al.. The only Lindsey distribution appears to be associated with those sites containing a majority of LKTALFS wares.

The clustersgenerated by thek-means analysis (excluding the quantity ofpottery) alsoillustrate a cleardistinction betweenterritorial distributions,especially with the KestevenStamford ware grouping which did not changesignificantly when the vesselquantity was excluded(Figures 141-143). Furthermore,those sites with more Lincoln waressuch as CherryWillingham and Ketsbyare located within Lindsey. Thereis still a distribution of predominantlyLincoln wares stretching across the Witham. However, this grouping is less cohesive than the similar Lindsey/Kestevendistribution of Lincoln waresrepresented by the clusterswhich included vesselsize. Indeed,there is moreinternal variation whenthe vesselcount is excluded,and the Cluster 8 (excludingvessel count) fragmentsinto a numberof groupingswhen 10 clustersare specified. This greater number of clusters is not clearly defined geographically,however.

-162- Indeed,the 8 clusters,with its more definitive Lindsey-Kestevendivide, is more informative.

From thesevarious cluster analysesa numberof trendsbecome apparent. There is a definite grouping of settlementscontaining large percentagesof Stamford ware within Kesteven expressedthrough the Grantham,Newton, Quarrington,Kirton and Bastonaxis. Thosesites representedpredominantly by Lincoln wares are correspondinglyfocussed within Lindsey. However,'the Lincoln ware clustersare less territorially distinct than the Stamfordgrouping, extending into Kesteven with settlementssuch as Crowland, Foston and Sleaford. This distinction is greaterwhen the numberof vesselsis includedin the clusterequation, indicating that the amountof pottery was important to its territorial distribution.

Geographical differentiation betweenLincoln and Stamford assemblagesis clearly demonstrated throughout the cluster analyses. Other groupings between sites, where the quantity of vessels is included, do not maintain the same cohesion when vessel quantity is not one of the variables. While the variation between assemblageswas demonstrated in the k-means analysis, the reasons for these groupings are not clear. The importance of LKT, especially in those assemblages within Lindsey was illustrated by the hierarchical cluster analysis, although this analysis was not as sensitive to the internal variations between assemblages.Furthermore, the firm inclusion of Lincoln within a hierarchical cluster suggests that the internal variations between assemblages,the ýelative amounts of Torksey or Stamford ware within a Lincoln assemblage, are not that distinctive.

These analyses demonstrate that the most extreme differences between rural and urban assemblageswas their size and the relatively low urban consumption of interregional wares such as those from Nottingham and Leicester. The cluster analyses were not sensitive to the range of interregional wares found at Lincoln. Instead, this was demonstrated by the graphical analysis of the data. There does not appear to be any substantial variation in the consumptign of different forms. Indeed, the ratio between the number of pots and bowls remains fairly constant with the pots maintaining a majority of 3: 1 over the bowls. Although this presents a rather sports-like view of the situation, it does imply that these assemblageswere primarily domestic and not related to a variety of specific practices located on different sites.

What the cluster analyses did demonstrate was a territorial difference between assemblage composition. Mffle this is the topic for the next section, it is important to highlight the territorial affinity being expressedthrough the pottery trade in both Lindsey and Kesteven. This was especially evident in the Kesteven clustering of Stamford ware, as well as the virtual

-163- absenceof Torksey ware in Kestevenexcept on siteswhere Lincoln wareswere present. The numberof siteswith only the Lincoln or Stamfordwares present was also substantiallyhigher in the associatedterritory. Territory appearsto be oneof the strongestinfluences on assemblage composition.

- TeMimial Identity -

Throughout the Anglo-Scandinavianperiod, Lincolnshire was being transformedfrom the kingdomsof Lindsey and thosewithin Kestevenand Holland, to the Five Boroughterritories of Lincoln and Stamford,and then to an amalgamatedshire stretchingfrom the Humberin the north to the Welland in the south (Chapter11). This reflected the shift betweenthe Mercian hegemonicoverlordship of the Anglian period, to the Anglo-Scandinaviancontrol over the boroughs,and finally, to a nationalmerging of territory underWessex leadership at the turn of the eleventhcentury. Territorial organisationwas part of the social and ethnic identity of the leaders and inhabitants of these regions. Throughout the Anglo-Saxonperiod of Britain, territory had been strongly linked to kin groupsand social identity, associatinglocales with particular lineagesor individuals.

The scantpoliticalreferences in theAnglo-SaxonChronicle forLincolnshire in thetenth century point to a strong perception of territorial identity, especiallyin Lindsey which is singledout from theFive Boroughsin 1012(Whitelock 1968:223). Indeed,it appearsfrom both thetextual and archaeologicalevidence that Lindsey retainedsocial connectionswith the Norsekingdom of York and Scandinavianleadership in general. Early Norse sculptureis found in Lindsey linking it with the Scandinaviansocio-cultural traditions north of theHumber. This association with the kingdom of York is further expressedin Lindsey through its division into the Scandinavianland arrangementof ýriaings, later fossilized as ridings, an arrangementonly sharedby Yorkshire. Stamfordand Kesteven,on the other hand,were politically allied with Wessexearly in the tenth century, an associationwhich was also rcflected in the sculptural traditions of the period (Eversonand Stocker 1999:86-7; Chapter11). Territory continuedto be important when in 1014,the men of Lindsey supportedCnut against Ethelrxd (Whitelock 1968:224).

Territorial identity figured stronglyin Anglo-Saxonsocial practices. While the middle Saxon tributary organisationwas dissolving in theface of feudalrelations during the late Saxonperiod,

-164- territorial identities continued to be articulated. Indeed,middle Saxonkingdoms were often transformed into shire counties under the Wessex administration during the tenth and eleventh centuries. Superficially, Lincolnshire appearsto be an exceptionto the continuedimportance of territorial locale in the late Saxonperiod with the integrationof the territoriesof Lincoln and Stamford. The other Five Borough territories becameshires in their own right. However,the continuedexpression of the middle Saxonkingdoms of Lindsey, Kestevenand Holland lasted until the twentieth century.

As discussedin ChapterH, Lindsey has always figured significantly in what documentation there has beenfor the middle Saxonperiod. Indeed,it was a kingdom and bishopricunder the Mercian kings. Lessis known aboutKesteven and Holland, althoughthe Tribal Hidage,which lists Lindsey asa kingdom,also notes the territoriesof Bilmiga andGyrwa which aresuggested to be within southernLincolnshire (Daviesand Vierck 1974:235). Potteryis able to saylittle about the middle Saxon organizationof theseplaces. Indeed,besides a generalpetrological division betweenNorthern and SouthernMaxey waretraditions (J. Young andJ. Wilkinson in litt), there is little ceramic differentiation which can be made. Nor is there a great deal of middle Saxonpottery on which to comment,either in territorial divisions, or in site continuity (Figure 119). Furthermore,the topic of the Anglian divisions of Lincolnshire and the East Midlands does not appear to have been recently explored despite an otherwise extremely interestingvolume dedicatedto discussingPre- Viking Lindsey(Vince 1993b). Therefore,it is difficult to addressthe territorial groupingsand identities articulated within Lincolnshireduring the Anglian period and comparethem with thosebeing expressedby the Anglo-Scandinavian population.

With the strongterritorial identity being signalledby the Lindsey covers(Everson and Stocker 1999),it is not surprisingthat the territory of Lindsey is alsorecognisable through the tradeand distribution of pottery in the tenth century (Figure 15). The Lincoln wares were traded throughout Lincolnshire but appear to have been primarily traded within Lindsey. It is important to rememberthat this distribution is skewedwith regardsto data collection. South Humberside has less pottery due to its modem political separation from Lindsey and Lincolnshire and the resultantdifferences in site typologies(Hayfield 1985). The areabelow Lincoln is sparselycovered. This areahas a high military presenceand lessarchaeology has beenrecovered here. Although this areais also lessheavily populatedat Domesday(Chapter II; Figure 7) andperhaps coincidentaly represents a valid distribution. Closerto Stamford,the pottery has been primarily assessedby Healey as has the fenland data. Unfortunately, her typologies are not able to be incorporated with the EMPP information for more than

-165~ Presencelabsenceanalysis due to the low level of comparisonpossible betweendata sets (above).

As the cluster analysis(above) illustrates, this focus of trade within Lindsey becomesmore apparentwhen the numberof pots are addedto the distribution (Figure 80). The internal trade and consumptionof pottery is very visible within Lincoln, emphasisingthe developingurban nature of this town. Sites such as Goltho, Nettleham,Caistor and Flixborough also indicate substantial trade with Lincoln, especially when considered without the high levels of consumptionof pottery within Lincoln (Figure 144). Indeed,there are only five siteswithin the territory which presumablyare oriented towards Stamford which have more than ten pots Producedin Lincoln: Sleaford,Crowland, Baston, Evedon, and Foston. Furthermore,when the 73 sites with only Lincoln waresare displayedregardless of size,only II of theseare situated within Kesteven and Holland and none have large numbersof vessels(Figure 145). This demonstratesthat the practices associatedwith the distribution of Lincoln pottery were participating in the constructionof the social perceptionof Lindsey as a distinct region.

The Torksey ware trade also appearsto havebeen primarily trading within Lindsey, although it wasalso stronglyassociated with settlementsalong the Trent (Figure 81). Unfortunately,its sparsedistribution offers little comparisonwith the wider distribution practicesof the Lincoln and Stamfordindustries. Indeed,very few of the sitesare represented solely by Torkseyware. However,Torksey and Lincoln waresare more often paired than Torksey and Stamford (Figure 146) and thesewith one exceptionare found within Lindsey. This suggeststhat Torkseyand the Lincoln waresare participating in the sameregional tradewithin Lindsey.

Stamford ware is the most widely tradedware of the late Saxonperiod. Indeed,it has been found in places such as Trondheim and Aberdeen(Kilmurry 1980: 160-1). The fine white fabric of the untemperedpots and their colourful glazedand red-painteddesigns distinguish thesevessels from other less elaboratewares. Stamfordcrucibles have a greaterrefractory ability andare thereforeable to withstandhigher temperatures than other fabrics (Bayley 1992: 754). It is, therefore,not surprisingto seea generaldistribution of Stamfordware throughout Lincolnshire (Figure 83). This distribution datesfrom thelate ninth to theeleventh century, and is lessprecise than other wares which did not haveas extensive a productionlife. Indeed,while somepots can be datedmore preciselythan this wide daterange, most are only identiflable as Stamfordware or DevelopedStamford ware which datesfrom the twelfth to thirteenthcentury (J. Youngpers com). Thus, the more uniform 'Lincolnshire' tradein Stamfordware spans the Five Boroughorganisation and the amalgamationof theseterritories into the shireof Lincoln.

-166~ It is difficult to address a shift in social identity and mobility from the Five Boroughs territory Stamford of to a unified Lincolnshire, in a similar manner to that of Lindsey because of this vague date range for most of the pottery. Indeed, a distribution map of EST and those pots of ST which have been identified as tenth and eleventh century indicates that while EST was traded throughout Lincolnshire, however sparsely, tenth and eleventh century Stamford ware was located primarily in Kesteven, except at Lincoln and Torksey (Figure 147). However, due to the lack of sites where tenth and eleventh century Stamford ware can be distinguished, this does not clearly demonstrate a regional Kesteven distribution of Stamford ware during the tenth century. It only hints at the possibility that Stamford ware had a corresponding territorial distribution to that of the Lincoln wares in Lindsey. Unfortunately, the lack of sites, especially with the wider distribution of EST, makes it difficult to construct more of an argument for a Stamford-Kesteven distribution than has already been made.

Nevertheless, those sites which have a higher consumption of pottery are located within the territory of Stamford. While there is a more uniform distribution throughout Lincolnshire, sites with more than 10 Stamford ware pots are located south of the Witham with the exception of Lincoln and Torksey, which because of their town status would be expected to have a more extensive consumption of pottery. Furthermore, of those sites where Stamford ware has been the only ware recovered, 9 were found in Lindsey whereas 20 were located in Kesteven (Figure 148). On none of the sites within Lindsey were more than 10 vessels recovered. While Stamford ware appears to have been traded throughout Lincolnshire during the tenth and eleventh centuries. it is predominantly traded within the Five Borough territory of Stamford.

The territorial identity of the territories of Lincoln and Stamford appear to be structuring the movement of pottery within the region. Indeed, those sites primarily trading in Stamford ware were located within Kesteven, as the geographic representation of the K-means cluster results demonstrates. Although Lincoln wares were more predominant in Lindsey, they were traded South of the Witharn in greater numbers than Stamford ware was in Lindsey to the north. Further inquiry into the distributions of the Lincoln, Torksey and Stamford wares indicates that this differentiation extends to those sites with fewer than 10 pots. Indeed, those sites which are only representedby eitherLincoln or Stamford kilns also indicated that territorial differentiation was important to trade. Torksey ware, with its more limited trade within Lincolnshire, demonstrates a Lindsey based distribution when combined with Lincoln wares. Territory was being articulated not only through the sculpture erected in parish churches but also through the trade of pottery produced in the towns, the focal settlements of the region.

~167- Pottery and Landscape: The Social Practices of Production and Consumption

The social practicessurrounding the production and consumptionof pottery in tenth century Lincolnshire havebeen studied through the useof statisticalanalysis and interactive display of ceramic patterning using GIS in Lincolnshire. The combineduse of thesetechniques has allowed both the isolation of particularfactors such as distance and assemblage composition to be analysedand interpreted within geographicspace. While statisticalmethods are valuable for theirability to recognizetrends in thedata, they arenot designedto incorporatemultiple sources of data which are valuableto the discussionof place. Statisticalmethods do not characterize geographic relationships very well. This is where the elegance of the distribution map lies, in its ability to present multiple sources and forms of information across the landscape. GIS has allowed an interactive exploration of the distribution of material culture through the Anglo- Scandinavian landscape using its underlying databasecapabilities. This allows distributions to be queried and displayed, providing the visual component necessaryfor a landscape study.

Theseanalyses demonstrate the importanceof pottery to the archaeologicalunderstanding of Lincolnshire in the tenth century. Trading practicescan be especiallysensitive to structures of territorial identity. The use of techniques such as cluster and distribution analysis demonstratethe articulation of territory within Lindsey and Kestevenat this time. They establish that Stamford ware, although found throughout Lincolnshire (and beyond!) was predominantlyconsumed within Kesteven. Indeed,the largestpercentage of Stamfordware within Lindsey on siteswith a significant numberof pots is at Tattershall(22%). The absence of large numbersof Stamfordware vesselswithin Lindsey is not mirrored by Lincoln vessels traded within Kestevenand Holland. Sites suchas Haverholme,Foston and Crowland have large percentagesof Lincoln wares.The resistanceto cross-bordertrade appearsto lie with Lindsey rather than with the territory of Stamford.

While the most vigorous trade within Lindsey lies with wares produced within Lincoln, it is also most strongly associated with the Torksey ware trade. Torksey ware does not have a wide distribution of wares. Most of the wares appear to be travelling down the Fosse Dyke to Lincoln. Elsewhere, it is predominantly found in association with Lincoln wares, rather than Stamford wares, suggesting a common practice of trade between the two production centres.

-168- This betweenLincoln Torksey is association and intriguing. One of the original aims of the analyses to between was explore the association rural and urban settlements. This evident between SevenBoroughs, association two of the locatedon either sideof the FosseDyke, was unexpectedand will be further exploredin ChapterV.

The from other axis of trade Torksey is along the Trent from Flixborough to Repton. While the Homcastle potters are moving within the same territory, the potters from Torksey travel down the Trent Newark, to creating a daughter industry on the Nottingham side of the Trent. Torksey's Trent is association with the poorly understood, and until further research based on knowledge kiln from current of typologies both Torksey and Newark is undertaken and recorded in East Midlands, other areas of the the strength of Torksey's association with Lindsey will be unclear.

The most limited place of pottery production within Lindsey was at Homcastle. Although jiLKTdoes nothave an extensivedistribution during thetenth century, themovement ofpotters from Lincoln to Homcastle during the tenth century further strengthensthis territorial associationof shell-temperedvessels with Lindsey. The Horricastleproduction of LKT-type waresis also firmly distributed within Lindsey.

The importance of regional locale also appears to be articulated through other pottery distribution patterns(Chapter III). York was primarily producing and consurningYork ware throughoutthe tenth century,with an increasein Torkseyý-typeware (also presumably produced in York) and Stamfordware during the middle to the late tenth century. Other wares(such as shelly andgritty wares)were reaching the town, but thesewere in small quantities.Nottingham (Naffor 1984), and Leicester (Hebditch 1967) were also participating in an urban-based productionand regional distribution ofpottery. Thesewares appear to belinked to a geographic locale. Indeed,the trade of Thetford ware was fminly linked to East Anglia. Thetford ware rarely reachedLincolnshire, and it is primarily associatedwith Norfolk. While shelly waresare found on somesites within Norfolk, it is suggestedthat theyoriginated from the Cambridgeshire St. Neot's productionrather than from Lincoln or Horncastle.Unfortunately, these shelly wares have not been assessedby Cambridgeshireor Lincolnshire pottery specialists, and this identification with Cambridgeshirerather than Lincolnshire must remain supposition(Dallas 1993: 125).

The differentiation betweenplaces based on thepercentage of wareswitWn an assemblagewas not that significant within eachterritory as demonstratedthrough the cluster and distribution

-169~ analyses.Indeed, there is little differentiationbetween urban sites such as Uncoln andmanorial sites such as Caistor either in distribution of wares or vesselforms. While urban sites are participating in a trade in crucibles and do have a wider range of alterative vesselssuch as globular lamps,the ratio betweenpots and bowls remainsa relatively standard3: 1.

Theseresults are similar to thosedemonstrated by the London consumptionof a shelly ware produced in Oxford (Vince 1985). Until the turn of the eleventh century, London was primarily consuming a ware termed London Local Shelly ware. However, during the late tenth and early eleventh century, there is a sharp shift (perhaps originally caused by the burning of Oxford in 1009) where non-local ware consumption significantly increases. Furthermore, urban assemblagesbegin to differ significantly from those found outside the town (Vince 1985: 42). During the tenth century, rural consumption of pottery mirrors town consumption to a significant degree (above). This regional internalization alters during the eleventh century with a general increase in foreign and interregional trade.

This thesiswas further able to explore the associationsbetween rural and urbancommunities throughthe useof regressionanalysis. Integration of conceptualmapping techniques indicates that distancewas influential to the amountof pottery at eachsite. Ibis is especiallytrue for the Lincoln wareswhich havea more extensivecoverage of data. The resultsfrom the analysisof Lincoln wareswould presumablybe echoedby that of Stamfordhad both territories had the same quality of data. Furthermore, the cognitive approachused with these techniques demonstratesthe importanceof a day's travel to the trade of goodsproduced in towns. This temporalassociation between towns andrural settlementswill be addressedin ChapterV.

The emphasisin the analyseson the perceptionof travel during the tenth centurywas further able to discussthe use of roadsand rivers in transportation.Through graphing the proximity of late Anglo-Saxonsites against the overall coverageof theEMPP data set, it becameclear that has important Romanroads were preferredover rivers in the transportationof pottery. This implications not only for the social practices associatedwith travel but also with the communitieslocated along these routes. The associationbetween large amounts of pottery and theRoman road systemwould undoubtedyhave influenced the socialdefinition of thoseplaces. further This is alsorelated to the distancethese places were from thetowns and will be explored in ChapterV.

Furthermore,while other studieshave addressed the nomenclature of route-ways(Hooke 1985; Gelling 1984),there has beenlittle attemptto associatethese meanings with the use of these

-170- routesin any material way. Later documentaryresearch has used court and trading recordsto explore the relationship betweenthe use of rivers and roads in medieval trade and travel (Edwardsand Hindle 1991; 1993;Langdon 1993). Unfortunately,such detailedrecords are non-existent in the late Saxon period. Therefore, it is through the associationbetween transportation and material culture that such topics are able to be addressed. The clear affiliation betweenthe distribution of pottery andthe useof theRoman road network during the tenthcentury for tradingpractices establishes an archaeological understanding of theimportance of theseroutes. It is also suggestiveof a differencebetween regional and interregionaltravel in termsof the useof roadsand rivers. It hasbeen previously determined that the pottery trade primarily occurredwithin territorial boundaries. The extensiveuse of Romanroads in this practice is therefore representativeof regional mobility rather than interregional trade. However, the documenteduse of rivers to transport messengersin Domesday(Foster and Longley 1924: 11) and their associationwith the Viking campaignsillustrates the significance of rivers to interregionalmovement. This suggestsfurther avenuesof researchwhich would be aimed at addressinginter-regional mobility.

Although the ubiquity of pottery is extemely valuable for archaeologicalinquiry into past landscapes,it can also be a drawbackwhen addressingissues of social complexity. This is especiallytrue in areaswhich lack intensivelandscape surveys targeted at investigatingthe use of a locale over time. Theseanalyses demonstrate that it is difficult to investigatecommunity variation acrossthe rural landscapewith the current information availableand the uniformity of the pottery distributions. While the distribution of pottery is sensitive to territorial boundaries,without further understandingof rural landscape,it is difficult to addressthe constructionof locale which figures so largely in the historical researchof theperiod. Instead, the most fruitful analysesare thosewhich deal with movementto and from the towns and the developmentof locale in relation to that movement. This highlights the need for future landscapesurveys which arefocussed on aparticularlocale as well asexcavations of late Saxon sitesother than manorial complexes.

This chapter has explored the articulation of territorial identity through the trade and consumptionof pottery. Territorial identity is clearly establishedthrough the distinctive distribution of Stamfordand Lincoln vesselsas well as throughthe ancillary tradein Torksey and Homcastle wares. This chapter has further demonstratedthe importanceof roads to regionaltravel and trade,an associationwhich no doubtwas influential in the socialperception of thoseplaces. Despitethe regionalemphasis on pottery distributions,it is evidentthat towns were participating in an inteffegional trade,although primarily consumingregional and local

-171- goods. Indeed,the urbantrade in crucibleswas one way in which thesetown communities,with their emphasison craft production,were distinguished from rural sites. However,there is little other differentiation in pottery consumptionbetween towns andtheir hinterland,reflecting the still developingurban characteristics of theseplaces. Social interaction between such places as Lincoln and Torksey can be discerned. In this chapter,emphasis was placed on integrating traditional methodsof pattern analysiswith cognitive approachesto landscape. Visual and graphical techniqueswere usedto explore the social constructionof landscape.While many advanceshave been made in social landscapestudies of monumentalsites, little hasbeen done on distributions of material culture. This chapterhelps to redressthis balanceby developing techniques,which can be used in future researchto addresslandscape and social practice, throughthe analysisof artefactualdistribution. Unlike mostprevious artefactual analysis, this thesishas not focussedon the developmentof local and regionaltypologies, and instead,has beenconcerned with the waysin which patternsof materialculture can inform archaeologists about past landscapes. This exploration of landscapeand material culture will be further contextualisedwithin a larger understandingof late Anglo-Saxonsociety in the next chapter.

-172- CHAPTER V

LANDSCAPE AND SOCIAL PRACTICE IN TENTH CENTURY LINCOLNSHIRE

'And in spite of that crow4 and the highways, and the artillery ranges (with their fluorescent or semiluminoustargets), my senseof antiquity, myfeelingfor the age of the earth and the oldnessofman'spossession of it, wasalways with me. A vastsacred burial grouni4 boundedby the sky - of what activity those barrows and tumuli spoke, what numbers,what organisation,what busynessin thesenow virtually emptydowns'(Naipaul 1987:24).

'Land is an end in itseyand not a meremeans ofexistence and work is not a way ofliving but a way of life. ' (Bourdieu 1979: 103).

The Anglo-Scandinavian landscape of Lincolnshire was inhabited by individuals and communities who constructedthe places in which they lived; the roads down which they travelled;the marketswhere they traded; and the fields wherethey grew their wheatand grazed their livestocL The daily movementsof people,their interactionsand activities, structured the landscape,forming patternsof association,of memoM a contextthrough which to interpretthe placesin which they lived and the peoplewith whom they communicated.Much of this was done through the manipulationof inatezialculture: the building of stonechurches, still used today at placeslike Stow; the production of coins in Lincoln which travelled to, and were exchangedlater in a market at York for a bolt of silk; the building of a wall which defined a distinction betweenthose who lived within the town, and thosewho lived without; thosewho paid tolls, andthose who did not. Material culturewas an integralpart of the discoursebetween peopleand the landscapeswhich they constructedand inhabited.

While much of the tenth century landscapeof Lincolnshire is visible today, it is not always intelligible. It is a palimpsestof continuedsocial practicesleaving echoesof past lives and societiesin the reuse of Roman roads, the habitual use of the stone church at Stow, the continued settlementand naming of the place called Ketsby. Social practice is understood through the memory of past action; the production of individual and communalidentity; the collective acknowledgement of authoritative structures; and through the recursive transformationof thesepractices (Ashmore and Knapp 1999: 13-9; Chapter1). Late Saxon towns becameassociated with markets,not only through the laws laid down by Xthelstan

~173- (Attenborough 1922: 135),but also through the perpetuationof marketpractices, structuring the placesin which they occurred,becoming part of the social perceptionof the towns at the turn of the first millennium. The continual associationof practice and place within the landscapeallows the knowledgeof suchplaces and practices to be understoodby society. As Giddensnotes 'all humanaction is carriedon by knowledgeableagents who both constructthe social world throughtheir action,but yet whoseaction is alsoconditioned or constrainedby the very world of their creation' (Giddens1981: 54; cf. Barrett 1987:8). Tbus,the eleventh century traveller to Crowland would have understoodhis passageas a transition from mundaneto monasticlandscape by the boundarycrosses erected around the isthmus(Stocker 1993: 106). He would haveinterpreted this transitionthrough previous social knowledgeand perpetuated this understandingthrough his action and interpretation of his surroundings. Indeed. the production of locale, of place, is understoodby the activities which occur there from the building of roads,to the ploughing of fields, to the mysteriousliturgies of the Church.

Material culture is usedto structuresocial practice,to constructmeanings of territories and places and to form perceptionsof spaceand landscape.Ile patterningof material culture through humanagency can thereforebe usedto investigatepast social practices(Chapter 1). While much of the individual action and knowledgehas been lost throughtime, the collective understandingwhich structuredthe patterns ofproduction andconsumption of materialculture can be recovered.Indeed, it is often throughthe variationsin the manufactureof artefactsthat individuals come to be rediscoveredby archaeologists. The thumbing techniqueused to decorateTorksey ware vessels can be tracedto the potterat Newark,suggesting the movement of a persontrained at Torksey to a new location along the Trent (J. Youngpers com). The impressionsof the feet of a pig at a similar Torkseykiln revealthe curiosity of a smallfarmyard animal following the potter who left his heelprintsin the clay (Barley 1982:275). The useof templateson stonesculpture suggests, if not an individual, a craft tradition operatingwithin a locale of settlements(Bailey 1980:240). However, the individual is rarely so apparentand must be readinto the more generalknowledge of social practicegained by investigationinto material culture.

The contextualisationof archaeological,historical and geographical knowledge concerning the sociallandscape ofAnglo-Scandinavian Lincolnshire has been a maincomponent of this thesis. This was especiallyimportant due to the narrow focus on the productionand distribution of a single artefact, pottery. A numberof themeswere addressedwhich focussedon the social constructionof place and territory in tenth centuryLincolnshire and the waysin which place and territory structured human movementacross the landscape. This thesis was further

-174- concernedto addressthe ways in which thedeveloping towns and hinterlands interacted. Much archaeologicalresearch has centred on theemerging urban settlements of thetenth and eleventh centuries(Haslam 1984; Hill 1988;Biddle andI-Ell 1971:Hodges and Hobley 1988). In these landscape studies,the rural hasoften remaineda blank backgroundupon which the townswere inscribed. The emergenceof townsis not an isolatedoccurrence, but part of a wider socialshift in practiceoccurring throughout the landscape(Esmonde Cleary 1993:6; Roskams1996: 264).

Interaction between settlements was explored through geographic and statistical analysis. Other have focussed pottery analyses on the distribution of pottery as representative of the extent of influence which the town exerted over its hinterland. This thesis was concerned, instead, with how the assemblagesof pottery were involved in the social construction of place. lberefore, it did not simply describe pottery distributions but also investigated the different groups of assemblagesthrough statistical and geographic analysis (Chapter IV). These results were then incorporated within an historical understanding of settlement development within Anglo- Scandinavian Lincolnshire, as well as the late Saxon period as a whole. This meant that social perception of towns and manorial settlements were explored through the practices associated with the trade of pottery.

These two themes were further expressedthrough investigations into the social understanding of mobility in the landscape. These explorations focussed on the use of transportation routes and related movement along these routes with cognitive understandings of distance. Previous studies have assumedthat the Roman road network, so visible even today, was extensively used in the past (Kilmurry 1980; Hindle 1976). Rivers have also been considered either as a complimentary system or as alternative route-ways to roads (Barley 1936; Edwards and Hindle 1991; Kilmurry 1980; Vince 1985). This thesis was interested in exploring the relationship between the rivers and road systems through the trade in pottery. It demonstrated the use of these routes through artefact distribution (as per Vince 1985). It explored the interaction between road and river routes. Furthermore, it assessed the use of Roman roads in the transportation of pottery. It also linked the use of these routes with the definition of place and the construction of territory in the landscape. Transportation was further correlated to distance through a map expressing the distances in travel-time of cart and boat. This allowed the travel through the landscape to be contextualised and communication between settlements further explored.

The articulation of territory was investigatedin this thesis through the geographicaland statistical analysisof pottery distributions. This differed from other pottery analyseswhich

-175- I identified the regionality of pottery distributions but which did not link those regions with territorial identity. Instead, the historical understanding of territorial developments (Chapter H) was incorporated in the GIS with statistical and distributional analysis of pottery. This situated the movement and consumption of pottery within the social geography of Anglo- Scandinavian Lincolnshire and allowed it to be linked to the social construction of territory.

The ways in which landscapescould be explored,and represented,using current technology formed an importantpart of this thesis. GIS wereused to provide visualisationtools aswell as interactiveanalytical techniques used in exploringthe distribution of pottery. The focusof this thesis on addressinglandscape through the productionand consumptionof artefactswas one of the reasonsGIS were chosen. The use of GIS provided an interactivemedium through which historical and archaeologicalunderstanding of the past could be explored. GIS applicationsallowed mathematical analyses of assemblagesto be locatedwithin thelandscape. Through GIS, the landscapecould be contextualisedwithin a historical and archaeological frameworL However, its applicationshad to be modified in order to representcognitive understandingsof landscape(Chapter IV). GIS applicationshave begun to incorporatemore cognitive approachessuch as neural networks (Gibson 1993; Barcel6 et aL 1994). 111eir potential for visually representingcognitive landscapes is still beingrealised (Gaffney and van Leusan 1995).

The interpretation of past social practice is a dialogue with present day practices of excavation and recording opportunities and methodologies. Indeed, the landscapeof the past is very much a landscape of today. Archaeological understanding of landscapes is constructed from a patchwork of evidence, from the excavation of artefacts to the reading of historical documentation to ethnographic analogies of social practice. This contextualises past landscapes within present understandings of place and space allowing informed readings of past landscapes. However, the archaeological landscape of excavation will always remain incomplete, and the ability of the archaeologist to reconstruct past social practices is limited by the quality of data available. Archaeology is rarely able to dictate the terms of excavation and analysis. Instead, it is often done at the behest of commercial firms interested in future development. This increases the importance of a standardised methodology of excavation and archaeological recording, allowing the glimpses gained by small archeological excavations to be integrated into a wider understanding of the past.

-176- Urban Transitions

The appropriation and development of settlements, where 'the works of giants' (Mitchell and Robinson 1986: 238) still dotted the skyline, must have made a significant impression on the people living in the former eastern extents of Mercia during the later half of the ninth century. Topographical analysis of towns (Dyson 1978: 201; Baker et aL 1992: 67) suggeststhat the development of these places was structured by aristocratic control over the sake and soke of blocks of land with the emerging town. These blocks were then divided into tenements, into urban haga named presumably for the hedged demarcation between plots, where craftsmen were encouraged to take up practice (Hall 1988a: 130; Vince 1988: 90). The inspiration for these towns certainly existed in the ninth century landscape, in the fortified vills of Mercia (Haslam 1987: 76), in the coastal and riverine trading ports (Hodges 1989a: 80-104) and, indeed, in the Roman fortifications that would have still been monumental at the turn of the tenth century. Many of the elements which were comprised in the urban communities existed in the settlements of the middle Saxon period. However, it was the combination of social practices, so obviously encouraged by royal enforcement of trading and minting restrictions, as well as through the regulation of tolls and dues (Whitelock 1968: 384,489; Foster and Longley 1924: 11) which defined these places as towns.

The developmentof towns during the late Saxonperiod cannot be divorced from the rural landscape.Indeed, the aristocracyheld land in both town andmanor, the plots often associated one with other in the wills of the proprietors (Hinton 1977: 75-6). The increasedsocial differentiationbetween town andmanor was based in thepractices which occurredin thetowns, ý94: andin the changingrelationship between lord andland (Stafford 1985:34-5; Blair 1 140). Towns were foci of administrativeand mercantileactivities in a landscapewhere placesof governmentwere shifting from meeting places (located near semi-naturalfeatures such as stones,trees and barrows)to inhabitedsettlements. The emergenceof the town signallednot only a changein land tenurepractices structured around a larger aristocraticpopulation, but a transformationof society.

Indeed, when one discusses landscapes of memory, the late Saxon landscape is difficult to characterise in terms of such large temporal periods as the British Iron Age (Barrett 1999). The changes can be measured over generations rather than centuries and millennium. Still, the growth of towns often associatedwith the r; -appropriation of Roman civitas was conceptualised

-177- by the late Anglo-Saxonsas a re-inhabitationof entageweorc - 'the works of giants' (Mitchell andRobinson 1986: 238). Indeed, a reduceduse, or avoidance,of monumentsin thelandscape doesnot necessarilymean they were not socially recognisedand remembered (Barrett 1999: 258). Indeed,the re-inhabitation of Romanstructures by thelate Anglo-Saxonshas been linked to a conscious association by the Anglo-Saxons with the powerful ideology which Rome still held in the late ninth and tenth centuries (Carver 1987: 56).

However, whether emulation of Rome was one of the motivations of Alfred the Great in his construction of the burhs of Wessex, the development of towns in the late Saxon period was predominantly a response to the changing practices of social order and those activities which defined particular settlements. Towns were increasingly reliant on the surpluses produced on the manorial settlements to support their population of craftsmen and administrators. These craftsmen formed a large part of the identity of the town and inhabited the haga owned by lords to whom they owed rent. The topography of the town, at first, large open plots of land, quickly became defined by rows of streets and tenements as more people came to live within its walls. The identification of towns with crafts and markets was largely encouraged by the nobility and leaders of the society. Indeed, the archaeological evidence of the Danclaw towns demonstrates this early implantation of craftsmen, such as potters, whose presence structured the identity of the town communities and participated in the transformation of the late Saxon landscape (Chapter 11).

Amongst these developing craft tenements,the potters were erecting their kilns and digging pits for clay or rubbish. The kiln-yards would have been situated close to a supply of water, and perhaps, downwind from most of the town to minimize the amount of smoke drifting over the rest of the settlement (Adams Gilmour 1988: 173; Miles el aL 1989: 198). The procurement of clay from nearby sources would have been a routine practice of the potter, as would the gathering of oak, popular and hazel branches to fuel the kiln (Miles et aL 1989: 186,194; Kilmurry 1980: 63,67). During the late ninth century, the potters would have first dug the large pits needed for the kiln base, perhaps conversing in a Frankish or Low Country dialect, having arrived from the Continent on a Danish ship not so long ago (Kilmurry 1977a: 183-4). As the centuries progressed, these kilns would become more elaborate. The bases began to be lined with stones (rather than clay) to increase their stability, and internal furniture (such as baffle bars and raised pedestals) were added to increase air flow during firing (Barley 1982: 372; Miles et aL 1989: 186; Kilmurry 1980: 86). These first kilns rarely lasted very long. Indeed, the first Lincoln kiln built by the Silver Street potters was likely in use for only a few years before the strange rectangular kilns were built in the early tenth century (Miles et aL 1989:

-178- 194). The brief production of red-painted ware at Stamford also demonstratesthe short life of these first industries, does pottery as the equally brief production of sandy and gritty wares at Lincoln during the late ninth century and early tenth centuries (Kilmurry 1980: 13 1; Miles et 1989: 222). Instead, it al. was later in the tenth century, with the establishment of predominant ware types that the investment in kilns increased.

The use of similar tempers,throwing and decoration techniquescan be used to trace the establishmentof new workshopsby membersof a particular kiln-yard. Indeed,the broad thumbing usedon vesselsfrom the Torksey kiln and that found at Newark demonstratesthe movementof pottersfrom the town of Torkseyalong the Trent to Newark(J. Youngperscom). Perhaps this may havebeen linked to the developmentof Newark, the 'new work' along the Trent. Potters from Lincoln appearto have moved to Horncastle,establishing a daughter industry of the main Lincoln ware, LKT which outlastedits progenitor(I. Youngpers com). Nottingham potters hive also.been traced to Stamford,demonstrating the expansionof the Stamford industry (Coppack1980: 217-18,275). Most of the movementoccurred in the early tenth century suggestingan impetus for expandingthe pottery trade. It is difficult to say whether this was by craft designor stimulatedby aristocraticinterest in the developmentof craft activity within towns. Nevertheless,at the turn of the tenth century,potters located in thosetowns which were to becomeadministrative and mercantilefoci, for their regions,were also moving to other, lesser establishedtowns. This not only indicates a degreeof craft mobility but also the developmentof towns in a landscapeincreasingly structured around the interaction betweenrural and urbancommunities.

WMIe decorationis not a commonfeature on vesselsduring the tenth century,it was socially meaningful.It is difficult to discernwhat importance was put on theroller-stamping, thumbing, red finger-painteddesigns and occasional splash of glaze.'Mese glimpses into theindividuality of the potters,the use of the broadside of the thumb or the tip to impressthe wavy pie-crust rims, perhapsmean more to the archaeologistthan they did to the tenth centuryinhabitant of Goltho who used the vessel. Alternatively, the rare usesof such designsmay have been significant to Anglo-Saxonsociety, indicating the contentsof the vessel(Carver forthcoming) or simply making the vesselmore valuable. Decorationdoes appear have been influenced by fashion,roller-stamping designs being more common earlier in the tenthcentury and thumbing moreapparent on later vessels(Wilkinson andYoung 1995:6; Kilmurry 1980:142). Whatever their socialmeaning, these designs were deliberately added by the potters,the stampsand red- paint part of the tool kit which includedformers and large pots to hold water(Dallas 1993:60, 68; Mles et aL 1989: 193).

-179- Previous analysis of the vessels produced by these potters demonstrates that they were conforming to a standard range of vessels (Miles et aL 1989: 205; Barley 1982: 275). The possible use of pottery sherds for templates was suggested by the results of the Flaxengate excavations (Mles et aL 1989: 205). This indicates an investment by the potters, and indeed by the craft community, in production standards. The differences in size and shape would undoubtedly have been recognised by the users of the pots. However, this adherence,whether by potters or minters, to the standardisation of products, also implies a certain amount of expectation by the community for goods which conformed to a specified standard. The standardisation of production further influences craft identity. This social cohesion is demonstrated in the movement of potters with recognisable traditions from one town to another (Chapter 111).

The analysesin ChaptersIII andIV suggesteda rangeof productionwithin townsranging from thosekiln-yards which had an extensivetrade outsidethe town and thosewhose production mainly suppliedthe town. This was especiallytrue at Lincoln, where LKT representedthe predominantware exchanged, both within andwithout the town, while otherwares were more often only locatedwithin the town (Figure 121). This implies a substantialconsumption by the town communityof the waresproduced within the town. Indeed,the large amountof pottery within the town is what distinguishesit most from other settlements.Excavations such as Goltho (Beresford 1987) and Flixborough (Loveluck 1997; 1998) indicate that rural consumptionof pottery was much greater than it would appear from most excavations. However, neither of these rivalled the number of vessels within the towns. This was demonstratedthrough the cluster analysesin ChapterIV where the amountof pottery was shown to be the defining variablewhen includedin the equation(Figure 130). When vessel count was excludedfrom the analysis,towns such as Lincoln were associatedmuch more closely with the rural assemblages(Figure 131). However,it must be rememberedthat these statisticalanalyses were dependant on the percentagesof the major ware groups,rather than emphasisingthe variety of wares within the towns, a more subtle variation demonstrated throughthe distribution maps.

The distribution of forms also indicated that people in towns were not consuminga vastly different variety of forms that peopleon rural settlements,but wererather slightly augmenting their useof pottery with suchrare items ascostrels and lamps (Figure 124). The exceptionto this werecrucibles which wereused exclusively in towns. The urbanconsumption of crucibles demonstratesthe concentrationof craft activity within the towns. It also suggestsa trade of goodsexchanged almost exclusively between towns. The extentof theStamford crucible trade

-180- provides the best example of this, as Stamford crucibles were used by the metalworkers of York as well as Lincoln (Mainman 1990: 467-469)

This implies that while the towns of Lincolnshire were consurningmuch larger amountsof pottery than their rural counterparts,the urban communitieswere participating in the same regional trade as the manors. There were obvious exceptionssuch as the urban trade in crucibles,but for the most part, the towns wereprimarily interactingwith settlementswithin their territory. This relationship betweentown and region was also demonstratedwith the London assemblages.Indeed, it was only during the eleventh century that a distinctive differencewas apparentbetween urban and rural pottery consumption,London increasingly signallingits separationfrom rural communitieswith its largevariety of importedwares (Vince 1985:42).

Townsin the tenthcentury were communities in transitionwhich werecontinually developing their own socialpractices and identities. VVhilethe mostobservable archaeological difference betweentown andmanor in the tenth centurylies in the managedtenement plots andthe large amountsof materialculture associated within urbanplaces, the developments of socialpractices which distinguishedtowns from settlementsin their hinterlandare observable. The increased variety of goodsin towns indicatesa growing internalisationof productionand consumption practicesvery different from that in the countryside. The collection of social orders,be they connected with Church, market, guild or legislation, stimulated the development of communitieswhich interactedwith the hinterland,drawing peopleand producetowards foci of activity, and interacting with other urban communities,thus, creatinga 'town life' which thrived on variety. This transformationof societywas structured through the manipulationof materialculture: the stonesof the churchbuilt alongthe streetleading to town, the silver of the penny struck near the market or the pot carried in a wagon heading towards the coast.

Place and Mobility in the Landscape

Perceptionof thelandscape, constructed through the movement ofpeople in theirdafly routines, structuredsocial understanding of placeand territory. Townswere associated with movement, both within their walls and throughtheir gates. Tenth centuryperception of travel wasoften directed towards the town. Many roads were tenned 'portways' or 'townroads' and are

-181- testimonies to the social orientation towards urban communities. Taking this one step further, the social order, which restricted much of the marketing activities to the town, was also involved in directing movement towards them, influencing the ways in which rural communities were situated and understood. One should not focus only on the towns and their importance in the landscape, but on how that movement towards urban markets and communities influenced

the organisation of the rural landscape. It is often forgotten that the carts and wagons were driven down roads, through and by settlements, perhaps resting overnight near a manor where the merchant cohort intermingled with the resident populace.

Mercantile activity was strongly regulated by kings and rulers throughout the middle and late Saxon periods. The laws outlining the relationship between king and merchant suggest that it was one of mutual benefit. Early medieval society was organised around duties and protection given to king and kin. Merchants, through their itinerancy, were unable to take advantage of the structures which governed the more steadfast agrarian societies. The laws which provided witnesses from family and community (VvUtelock 1968: 378-9) would not apply to them and, thus, their protection was guaranteed by the king. This is apparent through research into the laws in the seventh century, which noted that the wergild of any stranger largely went to the king and provided for the upkeep of strangers and traders for three nights by local landholders (Sawyer 1977: 150). The late ninth century laws of Alfred further indicated a royal concern for the travelling merchants. Alfred stipulated that traders and their men should declare themselves to the king's reeve(Attenborough 1922: 79; Sawyer1977: 15 1). Kings took an interestin the movementof merchants,both to securethe safetyof a valuableresource and also to ensurethe protectionof their territory from other unwholesometravellers such as thieves(Sawyer 1977: 150-1).

Much of the analysis done in Chapter IV addressedthe concept of mobility in the landscapeand how it participated in the understanding of place and territory. Clustering techniques indicated that tenth century towns were participating predominantly in regional trade (above). This was emphasized in the investigation into the use of roads and rivers at this time (Figures 73-8). The proximity of many tenth century sites to a Roman road was undoubtedly important to the strýcture of the rural landscape. This was especially noticeable in the low correlation of tenth century sites to rivers. Those sites close to rivers were often also associatedwith large amounts of pottery. However, the much larger percentage of sites proximal to the Roman roads, including many settlements with significant numbers of vessels,indicates that the Roman roads were important to tenth century settlement and mobility. This implies that the regional focus of trade was structured along roads rather than rivers, which may have been more influential

-182- in'inter-regional travel and trade, as suggested from the note in Domesday concerning the obligation of the aelderman of Torksey to provide riverine transport for the Ving's men to York (Fosterand Longley 1924: 11).

The Ibetford excavationssuggested that pottery might have beentransported in carts. Ile churnedground to the south-westof thekilns wasinterpreted as possible disturbance due to cart loading activities (Dallas 1993:60). A cart would havebeen useful not only for tradersdealing in pottery,but alsofor thepotters in gatheringwood fuel for their kilns. Cartswere extensively in used the salt tradeand documents, from the agreementbetween the Bishop of Worcesterand Ethelrxd , andkthelflxd of Mercia to the Domesdayaccounts for Cheshire,indicate not only the useof cartsor waggons,but that a toll (wagnschilling) waslevied on eachcartload of salt (Whitelock 1968:498; Douglasand Greenaway1953: 871). The transportof potteryoverland in carts pulled by oxen is easily believable,especially if, as the laws indicate, tradersrarely travelled alone but rather in groupsunder a single leader(Whitelock 1968:378). Certainly Langdonsuggests that oxen were used for tractionuntil thetwelfth centurywhen horses became the preferredanimal for transportation(Langdon 1986:49,114).

Kilmurry hasproposed that pottery was unlikely to be themain component of a merchant'sload despitesuch later medieval references to thelarge consignments ofpottery andeleventh century referencesto pot-sellers(Kilmurry 1980: 170-1). She suggestedthat the transportationof Stamfordware was linked to the movementof wool ratherthan the tradein grain proposedfor the Thetford warestorage jars (Kilmurry 1980:170-1). The ubiquitousand domestic nature of pottery during the late Saxon period makesa particular methodof trade and transportation difficult to argue,as demonstratedby the trademodels discussed by Kilmurry and Hayfield (Kilmurry 1980:17-1; Hayfield 1985:408). However,the association between the consumption of pottery and the salt routes demonstratedin ChapterIV (Figure 85) implies a possible connectionbetween the transportationof salt andpottery.

The importanceof the salt trade from the Lindsey coastto Lincoln is still recordedtoday in suchroad namesas Saltergateand Salter'sLane (Rudkin and Owen 1960:84). Traffic would havebeen relatively frequentalong the Romanroads leading from Lincoln to thecoast, and one can imaginethe hollers of the cartersto their oxenas they travel, provisioningthe settlements with salt to preservebutter and cheese and to seasonvegetables (Mitchell andRobinson 1986: 179). This axis of travel from Lincoln to the coast is echoedthrough the pottery trade as demonstratedby the cognitivemaps representing the amountof tradealong the routes (Figures 84-9). Indeed,much pottery is found along the roadsto the salternsat placessuch as Goltho.

-183- This suggeststhat the pottery trade from Lincoln may have been oriented around the trade of salt, whether through direct involvement as a container, or as an extra load of goods taken by the salt carts. This further suggeststhe prominence of places such as Ketsby along the coastal Roman road far from the town of Lincoln from where most of its pottery came (Figure 79).

Trade along the Lindsey coast is evident in the distribution of Stamford ware (Figure 86). Indeed, the main axis of Stamford trade demonstrated in Chapter IV was either along the Slea to Tattershall, Homcastle and Ketsby or along the coastline (Figure 83). This again suggests a link to the salt trade along the Lindsey coast and the existence of customs at Saltfleetby (Foster and Longley 1924: 215) indicates that an active trade existed along this stretch of coastline. However, other than at Ketsby, no large quantities of pottery were recorded along the coastline (Figure 79). Instead, it is through the general scatter of pottery that this movement towards and along the coast can be suggested. Despite the importance of salt and its obvious movementinland from the coastduring the tenth century,there is no prominenttrading site either in the middle or late Saxonperiods (Sawyer 1998: 174). Ile developmentof the coast andits relationshipto the tradein Lincolnshireduring theAnglo-Saxon period is an areawhich shouldbe highlightedfor future research.

The significance of Roman roads to trade is further indicated by the distribution of coins in Lincolnshire (Figure 149). This clear association between coins and roads demonstratestheir importance in regional trade. Indeed, the high quantities of coinage found in Lincoln not only illustrated the position of the town as a focus of mercantile activity, but also implies that the trading practices responsible for the distribution of coinage were linked to travel and mercantile activities emanating from this town. The distribution of coinage also indicates the participation of roads in interregional travel. Unlike the pottery distributions which displayed a regional orientation, the coin distributions extended further along roads, such as Ermine Street, implying a movement across territorial boundaries. While both the coin and pottery distributions are representativeof tradingpractices and travel alongthe Romanroads as well asthe interaction of nearby settlementswith these activities, the pottery distribution was primarily directed towardsthe coastrather than along Ermine Streettowards York.

Perceptionof place in the rural landscapewas thereforestructured through participation in tradingactivities with thetowns. Proximity, especiallyto Romanroads, as well asto navigable rivers, was associatedwith mercantiletravel and focal settlementsas demonstratedby both coins andpottery. Furthermore,large land holdingsalso appearto be linked to this patternof mobility throughthe landscape(Figure 150). Domesdaydata suggests that thosemanors with

-184- large areas of sokeland were situated along the roads. This data was derived from the tenth century pottery sites, an assessmentof the entirety of the Domesday material exceeding the bounds of this project. Thus, this patterning of Domesday sites, which was both close to roads, and often within a day's travel of a town, must be further explored to determine whether this is a pattern which occurs independently of the pottery distributions. Nevertheless, this association further indicates the importance of mobility to the perception of place within the landscape.

Interestingly, however, the distribution of sculpture did not complement the patterns of coin, pottery and land tenure explored above (Figure 15). The distribution of tenth century sculpture compiled by Everson and Stocker (1999) demonstrated that other practices were involved with the social structure of space within the landscape. Indeed, sculpture and its association with parish churches emphasizesthe increased inward orientation ofrural communities to parish and manor. While the large artefact distributions associated with settlements along the roads and rivers imply the focal nature of these communities, they ignore much of the rest of the populace.

The current lack of knowledgeconcerning rural communitiesin the tenth century is readily apparent. The analysesdone within this thesis would have benefited from an extensive landscapesurvey which targetedthe interactionand mobility of settlementswithin a region. Indeed,the social importanceof the meetingplaces, so prominentin the Lincolnshire place names,has been unable to be consideredwithin this project nor has it been adequately addressedelsewhere.

What the analysesin ChapterIV wereable to highlight was thecurrent simplification of tenth century settlement. Placessuch as Sleafordand Homcastleindicate the existenceof places which, although not towns, were somethingother than manorial settlements. Indeed, the movementof pottersfrom Lincoln to Homcastlesuggests that Homcastlewas associated with productionand trading activities otherwiselinked with towns. The unusualbalance of wares in thepottery assemblage at Sleafordimplies that this settlementwas also something other than a manorial community.

The existence of these 'proto' towns is also apparent from landholdings recorded in Domesday. Indeed, Homcastle, Caistoi and Grantham, all former Roman towns, have some of the largest entries for sokeland concentrated in entries for one or two manors. The manors and most of the sokelandwere controlled by the king. While otherplaces, such as Stow and Claxby-by-Alford, have a similar distribution of sokeland,they were held by aristocratssuch as the Bishop of

-185- Lincoln and Gilbert de Gand and not the king. Instead, the king appears to have invested in previously former Roman sites. Many towns were established in previous Roman fortresses by kings leaders and other during the late ninth century. This would imply a lengthy royal interest in defended such previously sites. The high numbers of pottery and the varied assemblagesat Homcastle, Caistor and Grantham would further argue that there was royal interest in these places.

Geographical analysisin ChapterlValsoarguedforthe uniquenessof Crowland.Crowland was a prominentmonastic establishment in themiddle Saxon period which wasrevived to its former splendorwith Edgar's Benedictinerevival. The continuedexistence of the monasticlife in Lincolnshire during the early tenth century is difficult to discern (Sawyer 1998: 98-9). However,the monasteryof Crowlandwas 'revived' during the mid-tenthcentury and became one of the greatmonastic churches of the medievalperiod (Stocker 1993: 1034,106). It is interestingthat the largeamounts of early mid-tenthcentury Lincoln waresfound at Crowland, not only do not reflect Crowland'slocation in 'Stamfordshire',but are also not comprisedof late tenthand eleventh century material. Indeed,Crowland, with its locationalong the Welland fenland,should be predominantlytrading with Stamford. Onewould further expectCrowland to have a concentrationof late tenth and early eleventhcentury waresrather than the large percentageof LKT it doeshave. This tenth century assemblageis the main pottery group found in the excavation,indicating that the later eleventhcentury occupation of the site was elsewhere. The strong trading associationbetween Crowland and Lincoln during the tenth centurysuggests that a possibleecclesiastical connection between the bishopric of Lincoln and the monasteryof Crowland might have continued into the tenth century. Whatever the connection,the presenceof suchlarge numbersof Lincoln waresat Crowlandis a subjectof curiosity, and a topic for future research.

A further associationbetween settlements was alsohighlighted through the explorationof the amount of pottery moving along roadsand rivers. While most towns appearto havea trade basedon interregional trade, the connectionsbetween Lincoln and Torksey are somewhat different (Figures 88-9). The large amountsof pottery travelling from Torksey to Lincoln indicatesa strongconnection between these two townssituated on eitherend of theFosse Dyke. While there is somedoubt aboutthe navigationof the FossDyke in the tenth century(Leahy pers com),the importancefor Lincoln of the locationof Torkseyalong the Trent would suggest that this canal was an important link betweenthe towns. This is further supportedby the dredgingof andthe subsequentconstruction of wattle-hurdlestructures at BrayfordPool in the tenth century (A. Vince pers com). Domesdayalso indicatesa strong associationbetween

-186- Lincoln andTorksey. While Torkseyqualifies asa royal boroughin thesurvey, it is alsocalled a suburbof Lincoln, as is the manorof Hardwick. Both Torkseyand Hardwick contributeda fifth part of the Lincoln geld and thoseinhabitants of Torksey who also held land in Lincoln had free accessinto and out of Lincoln (Fosterand Longley 1924:11-13). The documentary, geographicand artefactualassociations between Lincoln and Torksey suggestthat Torksey derivedits boroughstatus from Lincoln and wasconsidered to be a part of Lincoln despitethe 17 Ian between them.

Domesdayalso provides information concerningthe position of Torksey along the Trent. Torksey was a stop-overfor the king's messengerstraveling along the Trent to York. Trade betweenLincoln and York (ChapterH) must often havebeen directed along the Trent to the Humberand Ouse. This eleventhcentury connection of Torkseywith tradealong the Trent was also articulatedthrough the tradeof tenth andeleventh century pottery from Torksey. Indeed, the location of Torksey along one of the major medievalthoroughfares was undoubtablythe impetusfor the Torksey-typeindustry at Newark,as well asthe largpamounts of Torkseyware found at Repton.

Mobility was not only associated with particular routes but also with temporal distance. This was demonstrated through the cognitive distance maps and regression analysis explored in Chapter IV (Figures 99-116). The standard regression based on Euclidean distance was not sensitiveenough to elucidatethe patterns of travel alongthe rivers androads. Indeed,the maps which expressedthe temporalstretching of distanceillustrated that geographicaldistance was misleading (Figures 90-2). This cognitive approachto distribution analysis allowed the discussionto moveto perceptionsof distance.The importanceof a day's travel wasespecially notedin the distribution of Lincoln wareswhere those sites with largeamounts of potterywere approximatelywithin a day of Lincoln. Furthermore,the Domesdaydistribution of manorial landsalso implies that proximity to the town wasan importantpart of the socialconstruction of place.

The ways in which peoplemove through the landscapeare important to how they perceive places. Movementdirected towards the towns along the Romanroads as well as the rivers emphasizedtheir focal identity in thelandscape. This influencedthe ways in which settlements along thoseroutes interactedwith the towns and the traffic moving towardsand away from them which in turn affectedhow thosesettlements were perceivedby tenth century society. Communitiesalong the Roman roads consumed much larger amounts of materialculture traded with the emergingtowns no doubtincreasing their prestigeand that of their holderswithin the

-187- wider rural landscape. Settlements which appear to be existing as 'proto-towns', such as Sleaford and Horncastle,are situatedin prominent positions along Romanroads and rivers. Temporal distance was importantto the orientationof settlementsand their communication with towns. The influence which the burgeoning urban communities exerted across the landscape was significant within specific locales, which was, perhaps a factor in the construction of the Danelaw territories which looked towards a single focal settlement.

Territory and Locak

Towns during the tenth century were changing from communities oriented towards specific regions, to ones which participated extensively in interregional and international trade. This transformation was part of a larger transition in the landscape. Rural communities were no longer part of large estatesheld by nobles investing in gift-based social practices. Instead, they were more inward looking, towards parish and manorial locale. Settlementsbecame less mobile as building size increased and stone churches and monuments provided stable communal foci. The widespread erection of sculpture has already been explored (Figure 15). Added to this must be the emergenceof the stone church in many rural communities. This can be seen from a distribution of early medieval church fabric surveyed by Pevsner (1999), where there is no fabric dating from before the tenth century, and a visible increase in fabric during the tenth and eleventh centuries (Figure 151). Although churches are often rebuilt, rural churches were rarely subjected to the large scale rebuilding campaigns experienced by the cathedrals and remnants of previous structures are often incorporated within the 'new' structure.

Current understandingof rural settlementcomposition in the late Saxonperiod is vaguein comparisonto that occurring later in the medievalperiod (ChapterU). Nevertheless,some information can be gainedfrom documentarysources such as the DomesdaySurvey and other eleventhcentury sources.The manorialsettlements emerging in the tenth centurylandscape were communities in which there existed multiple rights to sake and soke (Chapter 11). Sokelandheld by one lord wasoften found in the samesettlement as a manorheld by another. Furthermore,this sokelandwas held by sokemenwho owedrents to a lord (Stenton1924: xxiv). This multiplicity of land holding extendedto sharedrights of churches. Indeed,Domesday often lists the ownershipof half a churchsuch as in Blyboroughwhere one church appears to havebeen shared between the Bishop of Durham,Gocelin and Geoffrey de Wirce (Fosterand

-188- Longley 1924: 30,191). Sokeland of Rippingale was shared between both Stainfield and Hacconby by Oger the Breton (Foster and Longley 1924: 163-4). Within each community, numerous social relations were being expressed through the holding of land, church, mill and manor.

Ile ties between manor and sokeland were often geographically close, creating a communal locale in the landscape. This can be seen through mapping the connections between manor and berewick- or sokeland in Domesday (Figure 19). This map was generated using the sites held within the pottery database,rather than from a complete assessmentof the entire county entry for Lincolnshire, a project beyond the scope of this thesis. The majority of the manorial associations with berewicks and sokeland were within 20 Ian of the manor. When this is placed against a map of the wapentakesit becomes apparent that the connections between manors and their associated lands were primarily within the wapentake (Figure 152). The cluster of connections in Tbreo and Winnibriggs suggest that these two wapentakes might have been originally one locale. Once again, this highlights the need for more regional landscapesurveys targeted at the transition from the Anglian to the Anglo-Scandinavian periods. It would be interesting to investigate the importance of these locales and their orientation towards the meeting places which gave many of the wapentakes their name. Tbe notable exception to this wapentake distribution is Bardney with its extensive landholdings near the Lindsey coast. This demonstrates the unique landholding practices of monastic establishments with their extensive contacts through the landscape. Unlike the locales established by manorial settlements, Bardney was exercising its power to hold land long distances from its location along the Witham.

This association with locale is also seen in the expression of territorial identity. As discussed in Chapter IL Lincolnshire is unusual for its amalgamation of two of the Five Borough towns within its county bounds: Lincoln and Stamford. Analysis in Chapter IV demonstrated the importance of territorial association to trade and travel. Distribution analysis suggestedthat Lincoln and Torksey wares were primarily traded within Lindsey while Stamford ware was located predominantly within Kesteven or 'Stamfordshire' (Figure 80, Figure 83). This was supported through geographical mapping of the results of the cluster analyses which also demonstrated that both Kesteven and Lindsey were trading primarily within their regions (Figures 138-143). Indeed, while both Lincoln and Stamford wares are found extensively throughout the county in small amounts, the focus of the trade was oriented within the territories associated with each town.

-189- This territorial distribution of pottery is echoed by the sculptural traditions in the mid-tenth century (Everson and Stocker 1999: 82-6). There is a distinct regional association exhibited by the location of the Lindsey and Kesteven covers placed in the parish churchyards (Figure 15). Indeed, the sculpture is not only articulating local landholding practices but also signalling territorial and ethnic affiliation.

The importanceof territory demonstratedby the distributionsof both pottery and sculpture indicates that the boundarybetween Kesteven and Lindsey along the FosseDyke and the Witham was likely articulatedthrough other meanssuch as tolls and customs. Travel was closely regulatedduring the Anglo-Saxonperiod (above). Throughthe notificationsof travel andtrade demanded by the king, mobility wasclosely overseen by the reevesand witnesses of wapentakeand borough. Furthermore,the tolls and dueslevelled on tradewere an immense sourceof income for king and noble. The increasein the cost of salt for thosepeople living outsidethe shire or hundredin Middlewich, Cheshireindicates that boundarieswere usedto imposetaxes on travel (Douglasand Greenaway 1953: 871). This impactedon themobility of both tradersand other travellersmoving throughthe landscapeand encouragedtravel within territorial boundaries. Internalisationof travel further emphasisedterritorial identity and directed the orientation of the inhabitantsto settlementswithin a territory rather than ones acrossa boundary.

The existence'of boundary structuresis especially apparentwhen one turns back to the geographical distribution of manorial connections(Figure 152). Indeed, there are few connectionsacross the Lindsey-Kesteven border. The mostnoticeable lack of communication, however,is acrossthe fens. Indeed,there are no manorialextensions of sokelandor berewick. land which exist betweenHolland andeither Lindsey or Kesteven.This indicatesthat the fens werean importantsocial boundary, isolating Holland from the rest of Lincolnshire. Although habitationand exploitation of the fenshave been stressed in recentliterature (Hayes and Lane 1992; Lane 1993; Coles and Hall 1998), they also presenteda formidable deterrent to cornmunication. Placessuch as Crowland, Peterboroughand Ely were positionedto take advantageof thoseareas where travel wasnot dependanton wendingone's way throughbogs andmires. Furthermore,as the medieval period continued, the fenswere increasingly managed by their landholders.The fensin the tenth centurywere not far removedfrom the wilderness retreatof Guthlac,filled with mists and spirits.

Territory andlocale werestructured through human movement in the landscape.The manorial connectionsbetween berewick and sokelandwere primarily orientedtowards the wapentake.

-190- Further landscapestudies aimed at studying the variation of settlements and otherplaces within the parishes and wapentakes would be beneficial. This project was unable to fully explore the rural consumption of pottery due to the lack of current material concerning manorial settlement and life in the tenth century. However, it was able to discern the articulation of territory through the distribution of artefacts. During the tenth century the Five Borough territories of Stamford and Lindsey encouraged movement within their own borders. This was no doubt emphasized through tolls or taxes levied on travellers as was the case in Cheshire. The tenth centurylandscape was imbued with boundarystructures, from theditch surroundingthe Goltho manor or the crossesaround CrowIand to the wapentakesand territories often delineatedby rivers suchas the Witham, Trent and Ancholme.

Landscapes of Deposition

Present understanding of past landscapesis constructed through the production of archaeologicallandscapes. Discussion of production and consumptionpractices of tenth centuryLincolnshire is dependanton currentconsumptive practices, on theexpansion of towns andcities, the developmentof roads,gas lines andhydro-electric towers. Most archaeologyis commerciallyoriented, contingent on developmentplans, rather than research driven projects. Knowledgeof pastlandscapes is primarily comprisedof the small amountsof archaeologyand post-excavationresearch funded by developers,who are often more interested in thecompletion date,than what the pot sherdsand bits of metalcan sayabout past inhabitants. The palimpsest of past lives inscribed upon the landscapeis continually being uncoveredthrough our constructionof landscapeand geography.

Despitethe predominance of commercially-ledexcavation, projects such as the EMPP (Young and Vince 1991),Flixborough (Loveluck 1997;1998) and Goltho (Beresford1987) have been invaluableto presentunderstandings ofAnglo-Saxon landscapes. The CLAU excavations,such as thoseat Flaxengateand Silver Street(Miles et aL 1989;Adams Gilmour 1988;O'Connor 1982;Perring 1981), havecontributed tremendously to our knowledgeabout the emergenceof urban communitiesin the late Saxonperiod, as havethe kiln excavationsat Torksey(Barley 1982; 1964) and Stamford (Kilmurry 1980; 1977a). Further excavationsand researchwill continueto add to this knowledge,refining it and altering it with new information. Reviews, suchas that on the stateof medievalceramic research (Mellorl994), are vitally importantfor

-191- this research. They are able to highlight and discuss the current difficulties in archaeological research and to suggest the ways in which future research can be structured.

Indeed,the importanceof the EMPP (Young and Vince 1991)to our understandingof thepast is immeasurable. Pottery analysis forms one of the greatestsources of archaeological knowledge. The opportunity to havean entire EastMidlands corpus,reviewed and properly recorded,should be encouragedat any cost. Yet the funding to completethis project wasnot forthcoming and it is only through the continuedefforts of A. Vince and J. Young that the presentdatabase used for this thesiswas madeavailable. It is ironic that manyof the aims of the EMPP were reiteratedin the recent English Heritage volume on the state of medieval pottery researchin Britain (Mellor 1994). Collaborationbetween units and the supportof specialistsis vital for the future of archaeology.Without the infrastructurethey provide, many archaeologicaladvances are made redundant, the wheelof pottery-typologiesbeing reinvented again,and again(Mellor 1994:22).

Increased communication between archaeologists will be partially accomplished through the use of computers. Storage and analysis of data within computers demands a rigidity of data standardisation and organisation which rarely exists today (Chapter IV). Furthermore, the ability to amalgamate and process large data sets will enable archaeologists to interrogate the past to an extent impossible before the widespread use of electronic technology. The integration of multidisciplinary information is integral to landscaperesearch. This is especially true for the early medieval period where evidence for past social practice can be limited, both in terms of archaeological and historical information. Information from a wide variety of sources must be integrated into the research. Historical evidence from later time periods is an important information resource, despite the problems associated with structuring arguments around evidence from later sources. While this thesis has focussed on the practices of pottery production and consumption to addresspast landscapes,it has incorporated the results of this analysis with other archaeological, historical, linguistic and geographical knowledge.

This thesishas focussed on themanipulation and exploration of datathrough statistics and GIS. Unlike most landscape studies using GIS, this research did not give prominence to easily visualised monumental landscapesusing techniques such as view shed analysis. Instead, it was interested in exploring the ways in which artefactual distributions were able to inform archaeologists about the social construction of landscape. Techniques of visualisaflon and analysis were used in order to elucidate patterns of social action. Furthermore, approachesto representing cognitive understandings of landscape were developed and explored. VVhile a

-192- perceptionalgeography of tenthcentury Lincolnshire was able to be investigated(Chapter IV), new techniquessuch as fuzzy systemsand neural networkswill continueto developand be adaptedto socialgeographical research agendas. Representation of cognitivelandscapes would have beenaided by a more in-depth archaeologicalknowledge of the rural landscapein the eighth and tenth centuries,which would have allowed more focus on locales within the landscape,and on the ways in which tenth century social practicetransformed the landscape from that of previouscenturies. Better availability andquality of excavationdata would also havebeen beneficial. Nevertheless,the analysisin ChapterIV demonstratethe importanceof a cognitive approachto landscapestudy through its concentrationon socialunderstandings of temporaldistance, territorial structuresand interactionbetween communities.

The greatestincrease in current knowledgeof early medievalBritain, has beenin the rural landscape.While muchprevious archaeological research focuses on theemerging towns of the tenth and eleventh centuries with their immenseproduction and consumptionof material culture, most of the inhabitants of England lived in the manorial settlements which comprised the developing parishes, hundreds and shires of England. Indeed, the towns were places which existed in response to the changes occurring in other parts of the landscape. There are still many questions concerning the social practices in towns. Knowledge about towns continuously increasesdue to the amount of commercial development within them. Conversely, information on the rural landscape often needs to be directly addressedthrough research agendas. Indeed, the issues which have been highlighted as important areas of future research mainly address the rural landscape.

Epilogue

Archaeological landscapesare formulated from the material expressions of social action. This thesis has explored the social construction of landscape through investigating the social practices which produced the distribution of pottery in tenth century Lincolnshire. it accomplished this through exploratory and visual analytical techniques, as well as through contextualising the pottery distribution within a wider understanding of tenth century society and landscape. T'hesc analyses focussed on three themes: territorial identity, settlement interaction and human mobility. It investigated how the practices of pottery production and consumption constructed social understanding of place and communication in tenth century

-193- society.

This research agenda was also oriented towards'exploring the ways in which artefactual distributions could be used to investigate cognitive understandings of landscape. It took the study of the late Saxon pottery of Lincolnshire beyond previous typological and site based analyses, to concentrate on its regional importance in the cultural landscape. It accomplished this through the analysis of the pottery data in a combination of statistical and geographical analyses, integrated through the use of GIS, as well as by contextualising the pottery distributions within a wider discussion of tenth century society and landscape.

The production and consumption of pottery was an integral part of tenth century society. The habitation of potters in the developing towns participated in the construction of craft and mercantile identities within those settlements influencing the ways in which people understood place within the landscape. The practices of the townspeople, with their mass consumption of pottery and other material culture, their tenement structures, their freedom of the town, their participation in the marketý set the towns apart from the manorial communities in the hinterland. Communication was integral to the towns, the Roman roads structuring regional movement towards and away from the markets, churches and walls of urban community. Rivers were used to transport people and goods between regions and were perhaps the primary source of exotic goods such as the silk clothing found in both York and Lincoln.

The movementsof tradersand other travellers distributed the pottery produced in thekiln yards of the town. Oxen driven carts would have slowly wound their way along the roads east towardssaltworks along the coastor north andsouth along Ermine Street. It would havebeen a threeday journey from Lincoln to the Lindseycoast, a] though a horseand rider could have madeit in a day. Indeed,those settlements approximately a day'sjourney from the town were muchmore involved with the urbantrade than thosefurther away. Thesecohorts of cartsand oxen would havepassed by manorialsettlements with their fields andpastures of sheep.The settlementsby the roadswere accustomed to the traffic to andfrom the towns,and participated in that trade as well as with the local communities within their parish and wapentake. Travellerswould havealso travelledto the monasticestablishments on their promontories,or to placesalong the roads,which werenot as urbanas the focal towns,but still wereidentified by practices not enacted on more rural settlements.

Travel alongthe rivers would havebeen faster at times,if onecaught the tidal movementsalong thelarge rivers suchas Trent andHumber. Weirs and other impedances would haveconstricted

-194- traffic. Most boatswould be travelling towardsthe townswith messengersor othergoods such as fish, cloth andpottery to tradein the town. Taxesand tolls would be levied at the mooring placeswithin the towns by the reevesand other officials.

The late Anglo-Saxon landscape was constructed by past understandings of territory and social orientation. The Anglian kingdoms of Lindsey and Kesteven continued to be articulated in the Five Borough territories of the Danelaw. Former estate associations lingered in the manorial connections linking two wapentakes. Re-inhabitation of Roman structures was encouragedby kings and leaders, perhaps in emulation of past prestige. Indeed, the memory of social identity and order within the landscape structured the social practices of the tenth century. However, it was also influenced by the transformation of society, from the gift-giving practices of the Anglian estate organisation, to the manorial strategies of surplus production and trade with towns. Movement towards and habitation of these settlements was encouraged through laws restricting mercantile practices to town markets and through the establishment of craft communities within the walls. The transition from the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms to the medieval English nation was structured by the tenth century discourse between town and manor; parish and wapentake; and monastery and meeting place. The cultural and ethnic developments in social practice were enacted within the landscapethrough the actions of people communicating and moving along the roads and rivers, within the manor and market, through the n*es of fen or the coastal silts. It is through an investigation of the ways in which material culture was used to structure daily activities that allows the archaeologist to represent the landscape and social practices of people in the past.

-195-