UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM
Department of Archaeology
Sedgeford, Norfolk within its wider Iron Age context
by
Elizabeth Jane Wilson
Three of the Gallo-Belgic type E, gold staters found at Sedgeford. (Courtesy of S.H.A.R.P.).
Modules V63401 and V63402 (Dissertation 1 and 2)
Dissertation presented for BA Honours in Archaeology, May 2003
1 Sedgeford, Norfolk within its wider Iron Age context By: Elizabeth Jane Wilson
I certify that:
a) The following dissertation is my own original work b) The source of all non-original material is clearly indicated. c) All material presented by me for other modules is clearly indicated. d) All assistance received has been acknowledged.
Signed: ______Date: ______
This dissertation describes and analyses the evidence for Iron Age occupation in Sedgeford (Norfolk). The evidence consists of excavated features, an impressive pottery assemblage and other artifacts, including the Sedgeford torc and eight gold staters. I have looked at Sedgeford within its local and regional context, describing changes in water levels, the roles of the Icknield Way, the Peddars Way and also the river systems. Comparisons are made with other occupation sites and also high status centres, dating to the Late Iron Age. As a result of this research, I am suggesting that Sedgeford would have been the location of a high status occupation site, in the Late Iron Age, that developed as a direct result if the extensive trade network which covered much of Britain and Europe.
2 Contents Page
List of Illustrations and Figures ……………………………………………………………………… 4-6 List of colour Plates and List of Maps, Plans and Tables …………………………………………….. 7 List of Abbreviations ……………………………………………………………………………………. 8 Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………………………………… 9 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………...... 10-11 Chapter 1: Sedgeford, Norfolk within its wider Iron Age context Archaeological work at Sedgeford ……………………………………………………………...... 12 Location …………………………………………………………………...……………..……………….13 Topography and the Archaeological setting ……...……………………………………………………....14 Why is North-west Norfolk such a hotspot of Iron Age activity? …………………………...…………...17 Previous archaeological investigation conducted in Sedgeford …………………………...... ………….18 Iron Age features and finds within the Boneyard and Reeddam-1 trench………………………………...19 The phasing of the Iron Age features ……………………………………………………………….…….19 The excavated features ……………………………………………………………………………………20 Finds and pottery ………………………………………………………………………………………….21 Archaeo-Environmental Sampling (including Table 1 and 2)…………………………………………….24 The Summary of the Fieldwalking……………………………………………...... 26 Fieldwalking conducted by the Smithdon Hundred Local History Forum……...... 27 Geophysical survey and Aerial photography ……………………………………………………………..28 Summary ………………………………………………………………………………………………….28 Plan 1, 2 and 3 Chapter 2: The Pottery Analysis Why is S.H.A.R.P.’s Iron Age pottery assemblage significant ? ……………………….………………..34 The Assemblage …………………………………………………………………………………………..34 Fabric……………………………………………………………………………………………………...37 Analysis of Table 3 and Table 4 ………………………...………………………………………………..38 Phasing ……………………………………………………………………………………………………38 Devising with Typology ………………………………………………………………………………….39 Problems with the Typology ……….……………………………………………………………………..39 Discussion …………………………………………………………………..………………………….…40 Summary ………………………………………………………………………………………………….41 Pottery Drawing A:1 – H:1(Drawn by: the Author) ……………………………………………….43-51 Chapter 3: Sedgeford in its local and regional Iron Age context Comparative Occupation sites ……………………………………………………………………………52 Changes in Coastline ……………………………………………………………………………………...55 Trade across the Wash ……………………………………………………………………………………56 Links between Norfolk, Lincolnshire, the south, the south-east and the Continent ……………………………………………………………………...... 58 The geographical setting of Sedgeford during the Iron Age and the importance of the Icknield Way and the Peddars Way …………………...... 59 Important Late Iron Age sites within the Icenian territory ……………………………………...………..62 Finds from the five parishes surrounding Sedgeford ……………………………………………………..65 The Snettisham Hoards ………………………………………………………...... 65 A concentration of monuments ……………………………………………………………………...……67 The Fring Hoards in relation to the local area ……………………………………………………………68 Local anomalies …………………………………………………………………………………………..68 Summing up the importance of Sedgeford and the five surrounding parishes ……………………...……70 Map 1 and 2 Chapter 4: The wider perspective Trade ………………………………………………………………………………...……………………75 Specialised production ……………………………………………………………………………………77 Defended enclosures (Hillforts) and rectangular enclosures ……………………………………………..77 Summary……………………………………………………………………………………...…………...79 Discussion and Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………...80 Plates 1-7 ………………………………………………………………………………………...……84-86 Appendix 1– Geology and Soil types ………………………………………………………………..87-88 Appendix 2- Iron Age, Prehistoric and Roman Pottery Analysis (by: the Author) ……………....89-94 Bibliography ………………………………………………………………………………………...95-102
3 List of Illustrations and Figures
Figure: 1: A map showing the location of Sedgeford in relation to the five surrounding parishes. (After: Horlock, 2003). …………………………………………………………………………………...12
Figure: 2: (A) Location of Sedgeford, (B) Location of the Boneyard Field and (C) Trench plan on from 1957-2000 the Boneyard Field and Reeddam. (After: http://www.sharp.org.uk/boneyard/index.htm). …………………………………………………..13
Figure: 3: A sketch map of Sedgeford showing the location of the Boneyard Field, the Reeddam and the River). (From: Van Twest, 2000 (b). …………………………………………………………….…..14
Figure: 4: A map showing the generalised locations of the known Iron Age tribes, in the First Century A.D. (After: Darvill, 1987, pp181, Fig. 108). ………………………………………………………….…15
Figure: 5: Distribution of torcs in Norfolk (S= Snettisham). (From: Davies, 1999, pp19, Fig. 2.2).…….16
Figure: 6: This map shows the distribution of torc (gold and electrum). (From: Cunliffe, 1991, pp485, Fig. 17.33). ……………………………………………………………………..…………………………17
Figure: 7: The Sedgeford Torc. (Courtesy of S.H.A.R.P.). ………………………..……………………18 Figure: 8: The surviving terminal from the Sedgeford Torc. (From: Cunliffe, 1991, pp484, Fig. 17.32). …………………………………………………………………………………………………….18
Figure: 9: Three of the Gallo-Belgic type E, gold staters found at Sedgeford. (Courtesy of S.H.A.R.P.).……………………………………………………………………………………………….19
Figure: 10: ‘Doughnut’ shaped bead, translucent blue, possible Iron Age date, SF No. 489, from Context 1703. (From: Ludford, 2001/ bead within S.H.A.R.P. archive). Not to any scale. ……………...20
Figure: 11: This map shows the distribution of Gold coins over Norfolk. (From: Davies, 1999, pp22, Fig. 2.5). …………………………………………………………………………………………...……. 21
Figure: 12: The distribution of gold and silver coin hoards in Norfolk. Note how most of the gold coins have been found in close proximity to Sedgeford, again in the North-west. (From: Davies, 1999, pp28 Fig. 2.12). …………………………………………………………………………………..……….21
Figure: 13: This map shows the locations of where Gallo-Belgic type D and E coins have been found. (From: Cunliffe, 1991, pp114, Fig. 6.5). …………………………………………………………………22
Figure: 14 (left) and Figure: 15 (right): The Iron Age ‘eye’ glass bead from the side and from above. (Image from: the S.H.A.R.P. archive/ bead within S.H.A.R.P. archive). (Not to any scale). …….23
Figure: 16: Small Find drawing of the Iron Age glass eye bead. (From: Ludford, 2001). (Not to any scale). ………………………………………………………………………………………..……….24
Figure: 17 and Figure: 18: The Terret Ring. (left) photograph of the small find (right) small find drawing of the terret ring (no to any scale). (From: S.H.A.R.P. archive and Ludford, 2001). ………...…27
Figure: 19: This map of Sedgeford shows where fieldwalking has been done within the parish boundary, as well as showing when this work was completed. (From: Davies and Hoggett, work in progress). ……...... 30
Figure: 20: The results from the 1999 fieldwalking showing the find spots of prehistoric pottery. (From: Davies and Hoggett, work in progress). ……………………………………………………….…31
Figure: 21: The results from the 2000 fieldwalking showing the find spots of prehistoric pottery. (From: Davies and Hoggett, work in progress). ………………………………………………………….32
Figure: 22: The results from the 2002 fieldwalking showing the find spots of prehistoric pottery. (From: Davies and Hoggett, work in progress). ………………………………………………………….33
4 Figure: 23: Site plan showing all excavated features, from the Snettisham Bypass excavations. (From: Flitcroft, 2001, pp13, Fig. 5). ……………………………………………………………………..52
Figure: 24: (left) A plan of House 1, showing the structural features, from the Snettisham Bypass excavations. (From: Flitcroft, 2001, pp18, Fig. 9). …………………...…………………………53
Figure: 25: (right) House 1 before excavation. (From: Flitcroft, 2001, pp18, Plate IV). ………………..53
Figure: 26: A reconstruction of the Longbridge Deverill Cow Down (Wiltshire) roundhouse, based on the original plans. I built this model as part of the module V62204. Built at approximately 1:50. (Source: the Author). ……………………………………………………….………53
Figure: 27: Building 9, Phase 1. Fison Way, Thetford. (From: Gregory, 1991, pp31, Fig. 25). …...…...54
Figure: 28 (left): These gullies from Dragonby were interpreted as external drains of roundhouses. (From: May, 1996(ii), pp600, Fig. 22.1). ……………………………………….…………54
Figure: 29 (right): Ring Gully No. 6, from Dragonby, site 1. (From: May, 1996(i), plate 20). ……..….54
Figure: 30: This map shows May’s interpretation of how the Norfolk – Lincolnshire coast line would have looked in the Late Iron Age. The original map shows Lindsey as an island. OS = Old Sleaford and L= Lincoln. (After: May, 1996(ii), pp643, Fig. 24.7). ………………………………...…...55
Figure: 31 (left): The Fenlands c. 300 B.C. (Iron Age). (Grey = clay and Red = peat deposits). (From: Hall and Coles, 1994, pp93, Fig. 59). ……………………………………………………………56
Figure: 32 (right): The Fenlands c. 100 A.D. (Red = peat and Grey = clay). (From: Ibid, pp106, Fig. 68). …………………………………………………………………………………………………..56
Figure: 33: May’s interpretation of where the Lincolnshire coastline would have been, he has marked on a theoretical crossing point to Snettisham. (From: May, 1996(ii), pp641, Fig.24.6). ……..…57
Figure: 34: This map shows the route of the Peddars Way and a number of suggested routes of the Icknield Way. Note how, on this map the Icknield Way changes direction slightly on reaching the Heacham River; this could be because of easier crossing points. (After: Lewton-Brain, 1965). ………………………………………………………………………..……………60
Figure: 35: The route of the Peddars Way and two possible routes of the Icknield Way. (From: Smallwood, 2002, p5). …………………………………………..……………………………………….61
Figure: 36: Flitcroft’s interpretation of the location of the Icknield Way and the Peddars Way. (From: Flitcroft, 2001, pp2, Fig. 1). ………………………………………………………………………61
Figure: 37: A plan and reconstruction of the Fison Way, Thetford, at the time of the Boudican revolt (A.D. 61). (From: Robinson and Gregory, 1987, pp45). …………………………………….……62
Figure: 38: An Aerial Photograph of the Icenian site at Fison Way, Thetford. (Suffolk County Council Planning Department). (From: Robinson and Gregory, 1987, pp4, inner cover). ………..……63
Figure: 39: The torcs from the Ipswich Hoard. (Various scales largest one is 185mm in diameter). (From: Cunliffe, 1991, pp482 and 483, Fig. 17.31). ……………………………………………………..65
Figure: 40: The Snettisham Hoards 1948-1990 (on display at Norwich Castle Museum). (From: Davies, 1999, pp20, Fig. 2.3). …………………………………………………………………………….65
Figure: 41: A distribution map showing the find spots of Iron Age coin hoards, found within the parishes which surround Sedgeford. (Horlock, 2003). …………………………………………..………66
Figure: 42: A distribution map showing the location of the ‘monument’ sites. (Horlock, 2003)...…...…67
Figure: 43: A distribution map showing the find spots of Iron Age animal bone. (Horlock, 2003)...…...68
Figure: 44: A distribution map showing the find spots of Iron Age coins. (Horlock, 2003). ….…….…69
5
Figure: 45: A distribution map showing the find spots of Iron Age terret rings. (Horlock, 2003)………69
Figure: 46: A distribution map showing the find spots of Iron Age horse harnesses. (Horlock, 2003). .. 70
Figure: 47: A distribution map showing the miscellaneous finds of Iron Age date. (Horlock, 2003). …70
Figure: 48: A distribution map showing the find spots of Iron Age pottery. (Horlock, 2003)…..………71
Figure: 49: A distribution map showing the find spots of Iron Age Torcs and Torc Hoards (After: Horlock, 2003). …………………………………………………………………………………...72
Figure: 50: The area inside the red lines shows the location of what the Norfolk Sites and Monuments Record Offices definition of the region which I have called, ‘North-west Norfolk’. The area inside the black lines shows the location of Sedgeford and its surrounding parishes. The blue dots represent find spots and the yellow dots indicate the positions of where Iron Age monument sites have been located. Note that the rest of Norfolk and the Fenlands has not had the distributions plotted into the parish boundaries. (After: Horlock, 2003). ……………..…….73
Figure: 51: The dotted line on this map shows the possible boundary between the Iceni territory and the Trinovantes territory, cutting across Suffolk. Note the concentration of Icenian coins, coin hoards and other find spots in the north-west part of this map, within the modern county of Suffolk. (From: Martin, 1988, pp70, Fig.60). ……………………………………………………………74
Figure: 52: The Lincolnshire coastline at the time of the Late Iron Age, with all sites and routeways of importance marked on. The RED line = the possible crossing point to Snettisham, the BLUE line = the possible Iron Age coastline, the GREEN = the Jurassic Way, the BROWN = the High Street, and the ORANGE = Barton Street. The later three are ancient routeways. (After: Elsdon, 1997, pp4, Fig. 1). (After: May), additions made to map with the help of Jeffrey May…75
Figure: 53: Hoard F from the Snettisham Hoards. (From: Stead, 1991, pp226, Fig. 1). ………..……….76
Figure: 54: Hoard L from the Snettisham hoards. (From: ibid, pp233, Fig. 9). ………………...………76
Figure: 55: Norfolk’s Hillforts. (From: Rickett. In: Davies, et al, 1991, pp59, Fig. 43). ……………….77
Figure: 56: A map showing the location of definite Iron age forts and possible Iron Age forts in Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire and Essex. The RED dots = the Hillforts of Norfolk. (After: Davies, et al, 1991, pp59, Fig. 51). ………………………………………………………………………78
Figure: 57: Iron Age Britain in c. First Century A.D. Showing the core zone (1) and the periphery zones (2), and the location of oppida sites, nucleated settlements and major ports. (After: Darvill, 1987, pp167, Fig. 98). (Based on: Haselgrove, 1982, Fig. 10.6). …………………….…………79
Figure: 58: This map shows the solid geology of Norfolk. The modern parish of Sedgeford is marked in red. (After: Funnell, 1994, pp13, Fig.1). ……………………………………………………..87
Figure: 59: This map shows the principal soil types across Norfolk. (From: Williamson, 1993, pp9, Fig. 1.1). …………………………………………………………………………………………….87
6 List of colour Plates
Plate: 1: The ring ditch feature [7046] (7045) and the Iron Age pit/ditch [7093] (7092). 2001 excavations in the Reeddam-1 trench. (Courtesy of S.H.A.R.P.). ………………………………………..84
Plate: 2: The ring ditch feature [7046] (7045). 2001 excavations in the Reeddam-1 trench. (ibid.).….....84
Plate: 3: Section of feature [7093] (7092). 2001 excavations in the Reeddam-1 trench. (ibid)….………85
Plate: 4: Plan of feature [7228] (7227). 2001 excavations in the Reeddam-1 trench. (ibid). ……...……85
Plate: 5: Three of the Gallo-Belgic type E, gold staters, found at Sedgeford. (ibid). …………………..86
Plate: 6: Detail of one of the Gallo-Belgic type E, gold staters, found at Sedgeford. (ibid)…..…………86
Plate: 7: The Terret Ring. Late Iron Age/Roman. 54mm in length, fieldwalking find from Field 34. (From: Ludford, 2001. (Courtesy of S.H.A.R.P.). ……………………………………….……86 .
List of Maps, Plans and Tables
Map: 1: This map shows the route of the Peddars Way cutting across Norfolk. The position of the Peddars Way has been marked on following a recent survey, which was carried out by Martin Horlock, for the Gressenhall, N.S.M.R. (Horlock, 2003).
Map: 2: This map shows where different types of archaeological activity have been carried out, within Sedgeford and within the surrounding locality. This map was produced by Martin Horlock, from the Gressenhall, N.S.M.R. (Horlock, 2003). All data was taken from the S.M.R. database (March 2003).
Plan: 1: Plan of all features which cut into the ‘natural’ yellow sand in the Reeddam-1 Trench and the features South of the Baulk (Mid-excavation). Inked up by: the Author.
Plan: 2: Plan of the Iron Age Phase in the Reeddam-1 Trench – Fully excavated – Drawn without any other features. Inked up by: the Author.
Plan: 3: Plan of the Iron Age Phase in the Reeddam-1 Trench and the features South of the Baulk (Mid- excavation) – including all features cut into the ‘natural’ sand. Interpretated and ink up by: the Author.
Table: 1: This table shows some of the results from the 2001 environmental samples. It shows the quantities of charred plant macrofossils and other remains from the Reeddam-1 trench. The two highlighted columns show the results from the two Early-mid Iron Age features, which were dated by the pottery analysis. (The results were completed by Fryer, 2002). ……………………………25
Table: 2: This table also shows some of the results from the 2001 environmental samples. It shows the quantities of charred plant macrofossils and other remains from the Reeddam-1 trench. The highlighted column shows the results from Context 1703. (The results were completed by Fryer, 2002). …………………………………………………………....26
Table: 3: This table shows the total No. of sherds, total weight of sherds and average weight of sherds from the extracted assemblage, broken down into each ‘phase’. ………………………………35
Table: 4: This pie-chart shows the percentage of each ‘phase’ of pottery within the assemblage. ……..36
7 List of Abbreviations
BYD – The Boneyard Trench, within the Boneyard Field, Sedgeford, Norfolk. N.S.M.R. 1609
EIA – Early Iron Age (with reference to the pottery)
E-MIA – Early-Mid Iron Age (with reference to the pottery)
ET – Evaluation Trench, seen on Figure 1, cutting across the Boneyard Field
Find Spots – The exact location were an artefact is found
LIA – Late Iron Age (with reference to the pottery)
MIA – Middle Iron Age (with reference to the pottery)
M-LIA – Middle-Late Iron Age (with reference to the pottery)
Monument Sites - This term can encompass anything from an Iron Age hillfort to a small pit (the physical remains of soil features), rather than artefactual remains which are known as ‘find spots’
N.S.M.R. – Norfolk Sites and Monuments Record pers comm. – Personal communication
RB – Romano-British (with reference to the pottery)
RDM - The Reeddam-1 Trench, within the Boneyard Field, Sedgeford, Norfolk. N.S.M.R. 1609
S.M.R. - Sites and Monuments Record
S.M.R No. 1609 SDF – Site specific S.M.R. Number from the Boneyard/ Reeddam excavation at Sedgeford
S.H.A.R.P. - Sedgeford Historical and Archaeological Research Project
UIA – Unknown Iron Age date (with reference to the pottery)
8 Acknowledgements:
I am deeply indebted to a great number of people who have helped me with the creation of this dissertation. I would like to thank Dr. Jon Henderson (dissertation supervisor), who, even whilst on sabbatical, offered advise. I owe my inspiration to Dr. Neil Faulkner (Site director of S.H.A.R.P. and friend), who allowed me the wonderful opportunity of working on such an interesting site. I would also like to thank Dr. Keith Robinson (S.H.A.R.P. director) for taking the time to read my dissertation and for offering helpful hints. Furthermore, I would like to thank all of the S.H.A.R.P. volunteers and supervisors who have ever worked on the Boneyard/Reeddam excavation. Acknowledgement must also be made to Shelia Elsdon who spent many hours with me as we discussed the pottery assemblage. Martin Horlock (Gressenhall, Norfolk S.M.R.) was a great help from the beginning of my research and provided a number of extremely useful maps. Furthermore, Dr. Jeffrey May (for reading my text and providing unpublished information), Sarah Percival (Norfolk Archaeological Unit – for providing local knowledge of the pottery assemblage), David Taylor (for helping me with my plans and pottery drawings), Dr. David Knight (for his knowledge of East Midlands Iron Age pottery), Dr. Lloyd Laing (for his knowledge of the coins), Val Fryer (Norfolk Environmental specialist – from whom I have learnt a great deal and for providing me with the Enviro. results). Furthermore, I would like to thank the 2001 and 2002 Reeddam-1 trench excavation team: Gareth Davies, Katie Pack, Jeff Parsons, Lenny Storey and Kelvin Smith. Also, Ray Ludford (for providing me with finds illustrations and photographs, Chris Mackie, Ray and Pauline Thirkettle and Janet Hammond (for they local history knowledge and the lending of a number of useful texts), Tim Snelling (for the Photographic archive), and Megan Dennis (co-worker on the Iron Age research project). Furthermore, Patricia Chapman, (Finds Supervisor), Rik Hoggett (Landscape), and Andrea Cox (co-director of S.H.A.R.P.). Thanks must also go to Bernard and Susan Campbell (owners of the Sedgeford Hall estate). Material may have been used from the following modules: V62203 and V62204 (Portfolio 1 and 2), V6B348 (Later Prehistory of Southern Britain), V6B347 (The Celts: Iron Age Communities), V62300 (Archaeology Core 4: I.T. and Research Methods) and V6B344 (Through a glass darkly). Finally, special thanks must be made to Ann Hurford and Barbara Taylor (from the University of Nottingham’s Study Support Centre) for spending hours reading and correcting the final draft of this dissertation and of course Dominic Andrews who has kept me sane throughout this final year.
9 Introduction
Archaeological fieldwork and research is currently being carried out in the North-west Norfolk parish of Sedgeford. The work is being done by the Sedgeford, Historical and Archaeological Research Project (S.H.A.R.P.). The Project, which was originally set up to investigate the known Anglo-Saxon cemetery and settlement, has recently located the remains of what appears to be an extensive Iron Age occupation site. The site is currently being excavated and further work is expected to take place over the coming years to try to determine the extent of the Iron Age occupation within the parish. S.H.A.R.P. has used multi-disciplinary research methods, including fieldwalking, excavation, geophysical surveying, pottery analysis and archaeo- environmental sampling, to gain the initial results discussed below. The aim of my research is to begin to draw together the evidence which has been unearthed so far, bearing in mind that the site is still under excavation, in an attempt to place Iron Age Sedgeford into its wider context. The excavated features, the large pottery assemblage and the other artifacts have never been looked at before, and this dissertation brings together this evidence and analyses it; so that comparisons can be made with other sites and so we can see where Sedgeford fits, in an extremely diverse British Iron Age. I have completed a detailed analysis of the pottery assemblage, which forms the largest source of material evidence which has been unearthed so far. I am hoping to show, by using the data retrieved from the assemblage, that Sedgeford, like most of north-west Norfolk was part of an extensive trade network, bringing influences from the south, the south-east, Lincolnshire and the continent. Furthermore, I aim to show that this assemblage is of significance to the Norfolk Iron Age in general because of the existence of high quality imitation Late La Tène/Gallo-Belgic type pots, which are restricted, in Norfolk to the North-west. I aim to draw together the analysis of the pottery, the coins, the small finds and the excavated features, as well as the material retrieved from fieldwalking to show why the site may be of importance within it local and regional context and to show the extent of the occupation. I will be using the pottery and the associated finds to try to date the soil features, as well as suggesting what the role of the site could have been. It is my intention to try to place Sedgeford into its local and regional context, to see how the parish relates to its surrounding area. This section is of importance because of the relative significance of the Snettisham Hoards and the location of the Icknield Way and the Peddars Way. Finally, I aim to look at Sedgeford within a wider perspective, to see
10 how it and its local area compares to the rest of Britain (and Europe), in a Late Iron Age context. I intend to show that Sedgeford may have been part of a larger tribal group integrating Snettisham, Fring and Heacham. I plan to explore the possibility that the physical location of Sedgeford may have led to the site’s very existence and I shall examine the catalyst of events that may have made the North-west of Norfolk such a hotspot of Late Iron Age activity, and whether the region developed because of the location of Snettisham or whether Snettisham and Sedgeford developed because of their locations within an agriculturally rich, easily accessible zone, which was connected to the rest of Britain and Europe by two routeways, the river systems and an extensive maritime trade network. I shall be suggesting that Sedgeford may have been an important occupation site, related to, a cultural focal point and/or part of a large trading network, because of it’s location between the Icknield Way and the Peddars Way, and its close proximity to the Heacham River. The occupation site may represent the last resting place en route to the Wash, before the hypothetical crossing point to the rest of Europe. Davies (1999, pp16) has suggested that Norfolk can be studied in its own right, rather than having to continually refer back to other parts of Britain, where the evidence of Iron Age occupation and trade is far better known. Often the area north of the Trinovantian territory (Suffolk) is seen as a blank (Davies and Williamson, 1999, pp7); but a more complex picture of the role of the Iceni (the Iron Age communities in Norfolk) is emerging; therefore, it is essential that Norfolk is not looked at in isolation. I aim to use the evidence from the ongoing excavations at Sedgeford to support the theory that regional diversities did existent and that there maybe a North-west Norfolk regional pattern. It is recognised that trying to put a ‘modern parish’ into an Iron Age context is problematic. I will be using modern parish boundaries (as recorded by the Ordnance Survey) and county boundaries as a convenient unit of study, as our knowledge of where tribal or territorial boundaries were in the Iron Age is minimal. The ‘north-west Norfolk’ regional context is based upon the land divisions set out by the Sites and Monuments Record office at Gressenhall, Norfolk (N.S.M.R).
11 Chapter 1: Sedgeford, Norfolk within its wider Iron Age context
Figure: 1: A map showing the location of Sedgeford in relation to the five surrounding parishes. (After: Horlock, 2003). 1
Archaeological work at Sedgeford Sedgeford (Norfolk) (See Figure 1) was first brought into the archaeological spotlight in the 1950’s (most significantly in 1957-58), when an academic friend of the landowner, Dr. Peter Jewell, was invited to excavate the Boneyard Field (See Figure 2 B) (Faulkner, 2000, pp123). The Boneyard had long been known as such, after years of ploughing had unearthed large amounts of human bone. Jewell soon established that the site consisted of an extensive Anglo-Saxon cemetery and settlement site. Thirty-seven years later, Dr. Neil Faulkner was asked by the landowner (Dr. Bernard Campbell), to conduct further archaeological investigations. As a result, in 1995 the Sedgeford, Historical and Archaeological Research Project (S.H.A.R.P.) was set up, with the aim to fully explore the parish both archaeologically and historically. The S.H.A.R.P. excavations are run by a team of volunteers for an eight week digging season every summer. The main focus of the research conducted so far has been on the Anglo-Saxon cemetery and settlement, with the main excavations taking place on the Boneyard and the Reeddam-1 trenches (See Figure 2 C). Alongside this research other smaller excavations and research projects have taken place within the parish boundary
1 All maps in this format were produced by Martin Horlock, on behalf of the Norfolk Museums and Archaeology Service (Gressenhall, Norfolk). (All data used to produce these maps came from the Norfolk S.M.R. – March 2003).
12 and as a result S.H.A.R.P. is slowly building up an idea of the complete, multi-phased, historical and archaeological sequence of the village. Dating evidence, from the pottery and the Saxon coins from within the main excavations appear to date the site to the late Seventh – Eighth Century. In addition, a radiocarbon date from one of the skeletons (cal AD 730±40) indicates that the Project is dealing with a Christian Anglo-Saxon Cemetery (Faulkner, 2000, pp123). S.H.A.R.P. began to find features containing pottery (and later, gold staters) of Iron Age date within the Boneyard and Reeddam testpits as early as 1996 (the first digging season), and more were found in the following years. As yet only the remains of a few possible Iron Age ditches have been noticed in the Boneyard trench, but recent excavations have shown a high concentration of Iron Age occupation evidence within the Reeddam-1 trench. Therefore, the Iron Age finds and features have, as yet, received little attention.
Figure: 2: (A) Location of Sedgeford, (B) Location of the Boneyard Field and (C) Trench plan from 1957-2000 on the Boneyard Field and Reeddam. (After: http://www.sharp.org.uk/boneyard/index.htm).
Location I will be focusing my research on the Boneyard and Reeddam-1 trenches (See Figure 2 C), which can be found within the Boneyard Field, part of the Sedgeford Hall Estate, south of the River (See Figure 3). The field can be found on Ordnance Survey
13 sheet No. TF 73 NW, grid reference 7136 2. The Boneyard and Reeddam-1 excavations have been allocated the S.M.R. No. 1609 SDF. Sedgeford lies approximately three miles (5km) inland from the west coast of Norfolk and five miles to the north-west is the coastal resort town Hunstanton (Andrews, 2001, pp5). The Boneyard trench is (to the extremes) approximately 49m (north to south) x 22m (east to west). The Reeddam-1 trench is approximately 10m (east-west) x 5.5m (north-south) and they are separated by a baulk of approximately 1.5 metres, currently under excavation (See Figure 2 C). Due to the fact that excavation is still in progress, much of the Boneyard trench still contains the remains of the Anglo-Saxon cemetery and settlement, which needs to be removed before the Iron Age features can be fully explored. However, the Reeddam-1 trench was completed in the 2001 digging season and so the Iron Age material in this area has been fully revealed.
Figure: 3: A sketch map of Sedgeford showing the location of the Boneyard Field, the Reeddam and the River. (From: Van Twest, 2000 (b).)
Topography and the Archaeological setting In order to place Sedgeford into a wider Iron Age context it was essential to make a detailed analysis of the Iron Age pottery assemblage and the other finds, as well as the occupation features from within the Reeddam-1 trench. I expect that the pottery assemblage will be able to tell us the greatest amount of information as it is, as yet, the main material source of evidence available indicting an Iron Age presence. On initial examination the site appears to be of significance because of the appearance of Late La Tène/Gallo-Belgic type pottery, which suggests a strong link with the continent and southern England. I am expecting to show that the Iron Age occupation site ties in with
2 Ordnance Survey data was obtained from Gressenhall SMR, Norfolk. 1:10 000 scale. 14 the overall pattern seen within the zone of North-west Norfolk, whilst retaining the theory that the British Iron Age was so diverse, relative to the size of the Isles. It is therefore essential, that I discuss the basic trends and patterns affecting the development of Iron Age Britain and show how these could have related to the development of Sedgeford. Furthermore, one must appreciate why the sites location may have greatly affected it’s development.
Figure: 4: A map showing the generalised locations of the known Iron Age tribes, in the First Century A.D. (After: Darvill, 1987, pp181, Fig. 108).
Sedgeford lies between the two ancient routeways, the Icknield Way and the Peddars Way, within the zone of ‘North-west Norfolk’. The exact route of the Icknield Way (a prehistoric trackway) is indefinable because there would have been more than one path, but it is generally accepted that it passed though Sedgeford (See below). It is assumed that the Peddars Way was a Roman military road; however, recent research into the development of this region, by Robinson, has suggested that it may also have originally been a prehistoric trackway, signifying that its location could also have
15 influenced the development of this region and ultimately Sedgeford.3 The River crosses both tracks as it flows west towards the Wash and so the routes of either track may have shifted due to the ease of access along the river. The coastline of the Wash would have been quite different from today and would have cut the north-west of Norfolk off from mainland Britain, although, allowing easier access to the region via the waterways. It is likely that coastal trade brought many influences to Norfolk from all over the continent and that a crossing from the north-west to Lincolnshire could have existed (See below). North-west Norfolk is famous for the Snettisham Hoards, found at Ken Hill; Sedgeford shares Ken Hill in its boundary with Snettisham and is known because of the 1965 torc find. North-west Norfolk appears to hold a large part of the wealth of the Iceni, but yet retains the stigma of being an Iron Age backwater.
Figure: 5: Distribution of torcs in Norfolk (S= Snettisham). (From: Davies, 1999, pp19, Fig. 2.2).
The ‘Iceni’ were an Iron Age tribe who inhabited the modern county of Norfolk, the North of Suffolk and north-eastern Cambridgeshire (Davies, 1999, pp14) (See Figure 51). Knowledge of who the Iceni were is essential for the understanding of the remains found across their territory4. It is unlikely that we will ever know when the Iceni became a ‘discernible tribe’ as no surviving records have yet been found (Robinson and Gregory, 1989, pp9), although the works of Caesar, Tacitus, Cassius, Dio and Strabo all refer to their existence (Davies, 1999, pp14). Davies outlines that Tacitus (who was writing between 75 and 120 A.D.), believed that the Iceni were allied to the Romans. But as the Roman governors fought to disarm all of the peoples who were south of the Fosse Way, the tribe revolted, until King Prasutagus (acting as a client
3 Robinson has been looking at the location of the Iron Age and Bronze Age find spots and monument sites in North-west Norfolk. He has plotted the positions of all of the Bronze Age barrows onto an OS map and it would appear that the known route of the Peddars Way cuts straight through a number of these sites. So, it is possible that the Peddars Way also began as a prehistoric trackway. (Robinson, pers comm.). 4 ‘Territory’ and ‘region’ used here to describe the land occupied by the Iron Age tribe known to us as the Iceni. 16 king) (ibid, pp15). After his death in A.D. 60 (Green, 1994, pp32), Boudicca (his wife) gained control of the tribe. Famous for the Revolt in A.D. 61, she led the Iceni as they battled against the Romans (Robinson and Gregory, 1989, pp28). However, her defeat at Mancetter, led to the Roman occupation of the Icenian territory (ibid, pp41-2). This historical context is of importance as the dates are contemporary with some of the material found at Sedgeford.
Figure: 6: This map shows the distribution of torc (gold and electrum). (From: Cunliffe, 1991, pp485, Fig. 17.33).
Why is North-west Norfolk such a hotspot of Iron Age activity? A concentration of Iron Age activity is evident in the north-west of Norfolk, from where the Iceni may have had trading links with Europe, southern England and Lincolnshire. This pattern has been observed with the distribution of torcs and torc hoards (See Figure 5 and 6). It has been suggested that the wearing of torcs would have had a symbolic importance for the Iceni, hence, why they are most frequently found in Norfolk (Davies, 1996, pp72). The distribution of gold coins, and gold and silver coin hoards also tends to cluster in the north-west (See Figure 11 and 12) with Snettisham perhaps acting as a cultural focal point. Green has suggested that the coin evidence from the Icenian territory indicates that they may have been subdivided into three groups (1994, pp32). Perhaps North-west Norfolk formed one of these sub-divisions, or maybe this north-west extent of the tribal territory was the central, governing area for the rest of the tribe; however this cannot be proven. Furthermore, if we are to assume that Snettisham (the area around Ken Hill) was the tribal capital, did it development because of the need for a central place of organisation? or because of the existence of Snettisham, a site which was a focus for trade and production.
17 Previous archaeological investigation conducted in Sedgeford
Figure: 7: The Sedgeford Torc. (Courtesy of S.H.A.R.P.).
Figure: 8: The surviving terminal from the Sedgeford Torc. (From: Cunliffe, 1991, pp484, Fig. 17.32).
The work of Holcombe Ingleby (1920: See Hoggett and Payne, 2000, pp4) states that he found ‘British’ and Roman pottery from an excavation of his Bowling Green (S.M.R. 1601 C2). Recent excavations have also found fragments of pottery in the same location, but the findings could not be matched to Ingleby’s (ibid). The most significant find was made in 1965 when farm worker Arthur Middleton found the Sedgeford torc (S.M.R. 1600) (See Figure 7, 8 and 49)5. The badly damaged torc, measuring 12 inches (30cm), was believed to date to c. 100 B.C. and was declared treasure trove. A find of this nature so close to the Snettisham Hoards must be significant, suggesting that some sort of high status activity took place here during the Late Iron Age, as similarities in design have been noticed between this torc and the hoards. This interpretation is substantiated by the eight Gallo Belgic staters, which possibly represent a ‘dispersed hoard’, and the Gallo-Belgic type pottery (See below).
5 This information was found within the Norfolk S.M.R. at Gressenhall. The torc is listed within these records and the paper files contain two newspaper reports on the torc, both from the Eastern Daily Press (11th May 1965) and (30th December 1966). The 1965 article gives details on when, where and how the torc was recovered, whilst the 1966 article states that the torc was declared Treasure Trove. 18 The Iron Age features and finds within the Boneyard and Reeddam-1 trench The first Iron Age artifact (a Late La Tène/Gallo-Belgic type bowl (E:1)) was found in the 1996 excavations, within a ditch fill in a Reeddam test-pit (S.M.R. 1609) (Thomas, 1996). Since then S.H.A.R.P. has unearthed a large quantity of data, which have never before been brought together6. The largest source of material evidence is the pottery assemblage (Chapter 2), although other artifacts and ecofacts have been found dating to this period, which include: eight staters (See Figure 9), evidence of farming activities, a glass ‘eye’ bead (See Figure 14 and 15), a terret ring, a tusk awl, Iron Age worked and burnt flints, fragments of crucible, fire-hardened clay, and the soil-stained features in the Reeddam-1 trench. Other materials have been found but dating evidence is unreliable, because of the amount of intercutting and truncation that has taken place; these artifacts include bone, charcoal, worked bone, slag, butchered bone, ceramic building material and fishbone.
Figure: 9: Three of the Gallo-Belgic type E, gold staters found at Sedgeford. (Courtesy of S.H.A.R.P.).
The Phasing of the Iron Age features I predict that an Iron Age presence will soon become evident in the Boneyard trench when deeper levels are reached. The Reeddam area has been waterlogged in the past which has meant that context distinction and identification is somewhat hampered. The phasing of the site is far from finished and the Harris Matrix is proving to be very complicated, although the pottery analysis is helping to date the Reeddam-1 features more exactly (See Chapter 2). The excavation team had to dig in waterlogged conditions, which, combined with severe truncation from the Anglo-Saxon layers, has made interpretation extremely difficult (Pack, 2001, pp7). For nearly a whole digging
6 In order to conduct my research I have use the original field notes, written, drawn and photographic records, the archive reports, the environmental sampling results, and above all the knowledge that I have gained as a volunteer and a supervisor on the site. 19 season the Reeddam-1 trench was allocated one single context (1703) because of the poor context definition, which has hampered interpretations still further. A large quantity of (multi-phase) Iron Age pottery and a blue ‘doughnut’ type bead (See Figure 10) were found in this context. This could suggest that some Middle or Late Iron Age features could have gone unnoticed, or that they have been severely truncated. Until the phasing is understood and excavation is complete we will not know the extent of the Iron Age occupation on the site, and as yet, the function of the Iron Age features on the Boneyard trench is unclear. Plan 1 shows the features within the ‘Iron Age Phase’, as well as the Anglo-Saxon burials and features which are cut into the strata at this level (Plates 1-4). Plan 3 shows the features which can be dated by the pottery. The pottery analysis suggests that these features date to the Early-mid Iron Age (See below). As yet no other context has been dated conclusively to the Late Iron Age, although a significant Late Iron Age presence is obvious from the torc, the staters and the high quality pottery.
Figure: 10: ‘Doughnut’ shaped bead, translucent blue, possible Iron Age date, SF No. 489, from Context 1703. (From: Ludford, 2001/ bead within S.H.A.R.P. archive). Not to any scale.
The excavated features The final plan of the excavated features (See Plan 1 and 2) shows that a curvilinear gully could be interpreted as a roundhouse gully, an eaves drip gully or a ring ditch (Pack, 2001, pp7). This feature appears to continue into the Boneyard trench (See Plan 1). A number of pits, postholes and ditches are also located within the Iron Age phase of the Reeddam-1 trench and appear to be related to this feature. There is also an east-west orientated ditch (of quiet substantial size 1.7 metres in width with five fills), two small postholes in close proximity, and two small intercutting pits, all of possible Iron Age date (ibid). It has been suggested that these features could represent the remains of a working enclosure (ibid). However, only two of these features (7045 and 7092) can be securely dated by the pottery (See below). Early on-site interpretations of Sedgeford’s possible roundhouse gully, suggest that if circular, it would have had a diameter of approximately 5 metres (See context No. [7046] – Plan 2). However, having re-examined the plans I would suggest that a 20 diameter of approximately 9 metres is more plausible. In the initial evaluation the excavators thought that this possible roundhouse gully curved from roughly 16/30 – 12/32 – 11/29 (See Plan No. 2); which formed a slightly odd curvilinear shape; but if we assume that the gully went from 16/30- 12/32, and continued through to 11/32, including the curvilinear feature context No. [7046] and [7101] this would form a more circular feature, which continues into the Boneyard trench (See context No. [7390] - Plan No.1).
Figure: 11 (left): This map shows the distribution of Gold coins over Norfolk. (From: Davies, 1999, pp22, Fig. 2.5).
Figure: 12 (right): The distribution of gold and silver coin hoards in Norfolk. Note how most of the gold coins have been found in close proximity to Sedgeford, again in the North-west. (From: Davies, 1999, pp28 Fig. 2.12).
Finds and Pottery The most exciting finds from the site, so far, have been the eight coins (See Plate 5 and 6), found in close proximity to each other: 1) Gallo-Belgic E. c.60B.C. Gallic War type, gold stater (VA 52-1) 6.24gms SF1, context 3001 RDM 2) Gallo-Belgic E. c.60B.C. Gallic War type, gold stater (VA 52-1) 5.06gms SF3, context ? RDM 3) Gallo-Belgic E. c.60B.C. Gallic War type, gold stater (VA 54-5) 6.02gms SF2, context 3003 RDM 4) Gallo-Belgic E. c.60B.C. Gallic War type, gold stater (VA 52-1) 6.20gms SF, spoil RDM 5) Gallo-Belgic E. Gallic War type, gold stater (VA) SF, context ? RDM 6) Gallo-Belgic E. Gallic War type, gold stater (VA) SF, context ? RDM 7) Gallo-Belgic E. Gallic War type, gold stater (VA) SF, context ? RDM 8) Gallo-Belgic E. gold stater, RDM baulk removal
These coins originally came from Gaul during the Middle of the First Century B.C. They were struck in large numbers by the Ambiani tribe who lived in the area of what is now the Pas de Calais (North France). They date from between 60-55 B.C., and
21 are thought to have been used to pay the British mercenaries in Gaul (Ludford, 2001), which would suggest that North-west Norfolk, in this particular case Sedgeford, had direct links with Gaul. There is a current theory that suggests that these coins were used by the Gauls to ‘buy’ their way across Britain, in an attempt to rally support for the Gallic Wars (Laing, pers comm.), and they were being distributed beyond the Midlands (Van Arsdell, 1989, pp10). To the Iceni this influx of coins meant that they were no longer an economically isolated tribe and therefore trade with the Trinovantes and the Catuvellauni intensified (ibid, pp184). The coins are of importance to Sedgeford, because they were found in such close proximity to each other, all within roughly the same quarter of the Reeddam-1 trench. It is therefore likely that the coins represent the remains of a dispersed hoard, which would have been heavily truncated by the later incursion of the Anglo-Saxon cemetery. Furthermore, is it possible that some coins were removed by the Saxon grave diggers.
Figure: 13: This map shows the locations of where Gallo-Belgic type D and E coins have been found. (From: Cunliffe, 1991, pp114, Fig. 6.5).
The Sedgeford staters date to c.60 B.C., a time when no documented Roman invasions or tribal rebellions were taking place, as far as we know. If these coins were kept for a great length of time before they were deposited in the ground; they can at best act as a terminus post quem for their burial context. Although, due to their dispersed distribution pattern and the fact that they were found in indistinct contexts (with no other dating evidence), it is impossible to say, at this stage, when the coins were deposited. Figures 11 and 12 show the distribution of gold/silver coins and coin hoards in Norfolk; significantly many of the gold coin hoards have been found near Sedgeford,
22 again in north-west Norfolk. The Reeddam-1 coins could suggest that Sedgeford was an important place during the Iron Age, holding a similar sort to wealth to that at Snettisham. It is hoped that further excavation will find further Iron Age occupation evidence, but until that time we can only say that there is perhaps a high status, Late Iron Age presence on the site.
Figure: 14 (left) and Figure: 15 (right): The Iron Age ‘eye’ glass bead from the side and from above. (Image from: the S.H.A.R.P. archive/ bead within S.H.A.R.P. archive). (Not to any scale).
S.H.A.R.P. is still waiting for the British Museum’s report on the coins, but they show that there must have been some communication with Europe and that the coins may have come to Sedgeford through trade or propaganda. Figure 13 shows where Gallo-Belgic type D and E coins have been found (up until 1991): this map is now slightly out of date, but shows that both types of coins seem to concentrate in the south- east. This could suggest links between this region and north-west Norfolk, either via land or sea. This pattern has already been noticed within the pottery assemblage especially with the introduction of Aylesford-Swarling/Late La Tène pottery types (See below). Again, this evidence suggests that trade and exchange was taking place on a large scale between Europe, the south-east, and north-west Norfolk. Furthermore, the appearance of these coins alongside the pottery indicates connections with the continent. S.H.A.R.P. is also waiting for the flint report but it is clear that this site is unusual because it is rare to find so many flints in association with Iron Age features (Pack, pers comm.). Both the blue doughnut bead and perhaps more importantly the ‘eye’ bead (See Figure 14 and 15) have been likened to examples found at Oldbury, near Ightham, Kent (Ludford, pers comm.) and continental examples (Venclová, 1983). The terret ring (See Plate 7, Figures 17 and 18) which has been dated to the Late Iron Age-Roman period was found during fieldwalking within the parish (See Ludford,
23 2001). Such high status finds, as the terret ring and the glass beads clearly show that there must have been an important and possibly extensive Late Iron Age presence within the parish and that trade with the south, the south-east and the continent played an important role in the development of Iron Age Sedgeford.
Figure: 16: Small Find drawing of the Iron Age glass eye bead. (From: Ludford, 2001). (Not to any scale).
Archaeo-Environmental Sampling S. H.A.R.P. adopted a sampling strategy in 2001, which I myself devised with the help of Val Fryer (Norfolk’s Environmental Specialist) and previous S.H.A.R.P. environmental supervisors. The strategy requires that all features which are sealed archaeological contexts should be sampled. This involves taking 40 litre samples for flotation and bulk samples which are wet sieved. The results compiled at the end of the 2001 season have proven to be extremely informative. Fryer’s report indicates that the Iron Age features contained assemblages derived from cereal processing debris. However, the fact that the samples were taken from waterlogged conditions has meant that modern contamination has greatly obscured the results. Fryer has suggested that the density of material within this assemblage was too small to pinpoint the actual stage of processing (2002, pp2). She concluded that the waste from cereal processing was dumped into the pits and gullies. I would suggest that the material is wind-blown waste, as there is no evidence of bulk storage or waste disposal. Spelt wheat (Triticum spelta) was the predominant crop (Fryer, 2002, pp3), popular in the Iron Age because of its high yield and protein value (Fryer, pers comm.), although experimental work conducted at Butser Farm has shown that bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) and club wheat (Triticum compactum) were much easier to thresh and also had a high food value (Reynolds, 1979, pp63-64). The excavations at the Snettisham Bypass also unearthed poorly preserved spelt wheat, in what Flitcroft describes as a spelt wheat producing economy (2001, pp79-80).
24 Sample/Context No. 7045 7047 7049 7092 7094 Context type gully ph ?pit pit ph Date ?IA U/D U/D IA U/D Cereals Avena sp. (grains) xcf Cereal indet. (grains) x x xfg x Hordeum sp. (grains) x xcf Secale cereale L. (grains) xcf Triticum sp. (grains) x x x x (glume bases) x (spikelet bases) x T. spelta L. (glume bases) x x Herbs Bromus sp. x x Chenopodium album L. x x x Chenopodiaceae indet. x Fallopia convolvulus (L.)A.Love x x Persicaria maculosa/lapathifolia xcf Small Poaceae indet. x Large Poaceae indet. x x Polygonum aviculare L. x x Polygonaceae indet. x x x Raphanus raphanistrum L. (siliqua frags.) x xcf Tree/shrubs Corylus avellana L. x x Other plant macrofossils Charcoal <2mm xxx x xx xxx xxx Charcoal >2mm x x Charred root/rhizome/stem x x x x Ericaceae indet. (stem) x x Indet.seeds x Other material Black porous 'cokey' material x x x Bone x xb x x xb xx xb Burnt/fired clay x Burnt stone x Fish bone x x Small mammal/amphibian bones x xb x Sample volume (litres) 40 5 40 40 0.6 Volume of flot (litres) 0.3 <0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 % flot sorted 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% Table: 1: This table shows some of the results from the 2001 environmental samples. It shows the quantities of charred plant macrofossils and other remains from the Reeddam trench. The two highlighted columns show the results from the two Early-mid Iron Age features, which were dated by the pottery analysis. (The results were completed by Fryer, 2002).
Table 1 shows that between 1-10 specimens of spelt wheat grains were found in both context 7045 (the ring ditch) and 7092 (the Iron Age pit/ditch), (a relatively small percentage), whilst glume and spikelet bases were also found in 7092. This could suggest that 7092 was used as more of a ‘dump’ but the material in 7045 is derived from wind-blown waste. Table 2 shows the results from the other possible Iron Age features, and again they all have spelt wheat represented within their assemblages. Recent work by Wiltshire and Murphy has shown that there is no evidence for regional differences in Iron Age crop production and that most assemblages are too small to have a relative importance (1999, pp153). One would expect such results from an Iron Age homestead or settlement, as they would all have been producing these crops. The environmental
25 evidence therefore is too restricted to say anything conclusive, until more work in this field have been done both by S.H.A.R.P. and on a regional scale.
Sample No. 1695 1697 1701 1703C 1707 1722 1757 Context type L OL OL CL DF DF DF Cereals and other food plants Avena sp. (grains x x x x x Cereal indet. (grains) x xxx xx xx xx x xx Hordeum sp. (grains) x x x xx xcf xx x (rachis nodes) x Hordeum/Secale cereale (rachis nodes) x x Pisum sativum L. xcf Secale cereale L. (grains) xcf xcf xcf xcf x Triticum sp. (grains) xcf xx x xx xcf x T. aestivum/compactum type (rachis nodes) x T. spelta L. (glume bases) x Herbs Agrostemma githago L. x x xcf Atriplex sp. x Centaurea sp. x Fabaceae indet. xcoty Fallopia convolvulus (L.)A.Love x x Galium sp. x G. aparine L. x Lithospermum arvense L. xm Large Poaceae indet. x x x Polygonum aviculare L. x Ranunculus sp. xcf Raphanus raphanistrum L. (siliqua frags.) x x Rumex sp x Vicia/Lathyrus sp. x x x x Wetland plants Carex sp. x Eleocharis sp. x Menyanthes trifoliata L. xcf Trees/shrubs Corylus avellana L. x xcf Sambucus nigra L. x Other plant macrofossils Charcoal <2mm xxx xxx xx xxx xxx xxx xxx Charcoal >2mm x x x x x Charred root/rhizome/stem x x x x Ericaceae indet. (stem) x x x xcf x xx (florets) x Indet.culm nodes x Indet.inflorescence frags. x x Indet.seeds x x x x Other materials Black porous 'cokey' material x x x x x Black tarry material x x Bone x xb xx xb xx x xx xb xx xb xx xb Burnt/fired clay x x Ferrous globules x x Fish bone x x x x xb Marine mollusc shell frags. x x Pottery x Small mammal/amphibian bones x x xpmc xpmc xx xxpmc Small coal frags. x x x x Vitrified material x x x x Sample volume (litres) 45 45 20 20 45 45 45 Volume of flot (litres) 0.1 0.2 <0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 % flot sorted 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Table: 2: This table also shows some of the results from the 2001 environmental samples. It shows the quantities of charred plant macrofossils and other remains from the Reeddam trench. The highlighted column shows the results from Context 1703. (The results were completed by Fryer, 2002).
A summary of the Fieldwalking Fieldwalking has been conducted by S.H.A.R.P. since 1996. Unfortunately most of the results from 1996-1998 were lost, during a reorganisation of the archive.
26 However, work is currently underway to try to collate the results from 1999- 2002 (Davies and Hoggett, work in progress) (See Figure 19). Fieldwalking has recovered a large quantity of pottery from around the parish all of which has been typed as ‘prehistoric’. The fieldwalking material has been classified by the fieldwalking team with guidance from Sarah Percival (See: Robinson, unpublished), but has not been broken down into periods. I can therefore, be no more precise than to suggest areas of ‘prehistoric’ activity. Figure 20 shows that two sherds of prehistoric pottery were found during the 1999 fieldwalking; Figure 21 shows that a concentrated scatter of prehistoric pottery was found during 2000; Figure 22 shows that approximately 43 sherds of prehistoric pottery were found during the 2002. Fieldwalking in the parish has also been done by other parties but again these results are not yet available (Dennis, Robinson and Wilson, 2003: work in progress). Further research is currently being planned with the hope of evaluating the importance of the concentration of the prehistoric pottery on the Polar Breck Field (See Figure 21). This work has already begun and a research proposal is being formulated, for implementation this summer. As more work is carried out we should begin to see the extent of the Iron Age occupation within Sedgeford.
Figure: 17 and Figure: 18: The Terret Ring. (left) photograph of the small find (right) small find drawing of the terret ring (not to any scale). (From: S.H.A.R.P. archive and Ludford, 2001).
Fieldwalking conducted by the Smithdon Hundred Local History Forum Local historian Janet Hammond, together with the local history forum, has also conducted fieldwalking within the parish. Their most recent work, centred on grid TF 7160 3744 (close to S.M.R. No. 1618)7, has found some interesting results. Within the area studied, three sherds of Iron Age pottery and a number of flint blades of various
7 This Fieldwalking Report has been written by Janet Hammond for the Smithdon Hundred Local History Forum. ‘Looking for Chesewyck: Sedgeford’ reports on work done between Nov/Dec 2001 and March 2002. The land within which the fieldwalking took place is owned by Mr. William Barber, who gave the Forum permission to walk his land. 27 dates have been found. Evidence of this nature shows that ‘prehistoric’ activity took place over much of the parish (Hammond, 2002, unpublished)8; although it is perhaps more interesting that many of the finds are dated to the Roman period (43 – c. 450 A.D.) (ibid). A Roman villa site is known within the parish, although none of the fieldwalking results have so far found enough Roman sherds to allow a us to suggest that there is a Roman pot scatter, so in both cases, we may just be looking at manure spreads.
Geophysical Survey and Aerial Photography As yet no geophysical survey has been done on Polar Breck, although resistivity surveys have shown multi- phased activity in the field immediately south of the Boneyard, but at this stage geophysical survey is of little use, until excavation work is carried out. Work is currently under way to try to tie together the fieldwalking results with the aerial photographs to see if any patterns can be noticed (Dennis, Robinson and Wilson: work in progress). The National Mapping Programme is currently investigating Norfolk and plotting various findings into the database. This work is being completed by the Norfolk Archaeological Unit and the Norfolk Museums and Archaeology Service (Dennis and Horlock, pers comm.). This work should help to locate larger enclosures and concentrations of material by collating evidence from aerial photographs, excavation reports, geophysical and fieldwalking reports, and therefore should show further concentrations of material.
Summary There is a large amount of evidence to suggest that there was once an important Late Iron Age presence within Sedgeford. There does appear to be a concentration of Iron Age activity in north-west Norfolk; this may have occurred because of the location of Snettisham, extensive trading links and/or an increase in production and consumption, especially in the Late Iron Age. The distribution of torcs, coins and coin hoards appears to focus around this area and the patterns of distribution are somewhat expected, because of the overall wealth seen within this zone of the Icenian territory. However, what this evidence strongly suggests is that there is an important Late Iron Age focus within Sedgeford, also because of the fact that three trading links all meet within its boundaries. The occupation evidence appears to be fairly typical of the Iron
8 The identification of the Iron Age pottery was by Andrew Rogerson (County Archaeologist Norfolk), and the flint identification was completed by Peter Robins. 28 Age over much of Britain (See below). Sedgeford’s occupation site appears to conform to the regional norm, but more excavation and research is needed on the site to determine its extent, specifically in the immediate vicinity of the ring ditch and around the possible enclosed area. The coins are perhaps the most significant find, which together with the pottery suggests that the evidence available to date is highly significant, indicating strong and direct links to the continent, the south and Lincolnshire (See below). Furthermore, the value of more utilitarian artifacts such as the worked flints and the tusk awl must not be underestimated, as they show that other types of production were taking place at the site.
29
Figure: 19: This map of Sedgeford shows where and when fieldwalking has been done within the parish boundary. (From: Davies and Hoggett, work in progress).
30
Figure: 20: The results from the 1999 fieldwalking showing the find spots of prehistoric pottery. (From: Davies and Hoggett, work in progress).
31
Figure: 21: The results from the 2000 fieldwalking showing the find spots of prehistoric pottery. (From: Davies and Hoggett, work in progress).
32
Figure: 22: The results from the 2002 fieldwalking showing the find spots of prehistoric pottery. (From: Davies and Hoggett, work in progress
33 Chapter 2: The Pottery Analysis
I refer the reader to the following sections: 1) Appendix 1 2) Appendix 2: ‘Iron Age, Prehistoric and Roman Pottery Analysis’. By: Author. 3) The Pottery Drawings A – H, pages 43-51, all of the drawings have been reduced by ½. To a scale of 2:1. By: Author.
Why is S.H.A.R.P.’s Iron Age pottery assemblage significant? Iron Age pottery sequences from Norfolk are not that well understood, however a typology for ceramic material from the region is currently being developed (Percival, 1999, pp173). The analysis of the pottery from this period is further complicated by the lack of stratified excavated assemblages which have closely dateable associations with other artefacts (ibid). Percival also states that one cannot look at fabric in order to determine a chronological sequence, therefore one must rely on the form of the vessel to do so (1999, pp176 and Elsdon, pers comm.). Norfolk’s Iron Age pottery assemblages currently exhibit characteristics unlike those found elsewhere in Britain (Percival, 1999, pp182). At the Iron Age site of Park Farm, Silfield, Wymondham, a total of 1642 Iron Age sherds were recovered, weighing a total of 8.68kg (Percival, 1996, pp256), whilst at Sedgeford an extracted sample (1996, 1999, 2000 and 2001) of the whole assemblage (1996-2001) weighing 3.242 kg (in total) has been recovered from what is, as yet, an incomplete excavation, with the majority being found within a trench measuring only 10 x 5.5 metres. This suggests that the pottery has been less dispersed and that a high concentration of pottery must have been deposited within this area. The average weight of sherds (See Table 3) some of which are large, again suggests that they are less dispersed.
The Assemblage Seven seasons of excavation on the Boneyard/Reeddam has unearthed a relatively large quantity of Iron Age pottery, 243 sherds/part vessels (3.242 kg), and the total number of sherds keeps growing as more excavation is carried out. One should refer to Faulkner’s 1999 archive report for full analysis of the entire (all-period) pottery figures. It indicates that 1560 Ipswich-ware sherds and 4304 Thetford-ware sherds had already been recovered as early as 1999, because of the vast expanse of the Anglo- Saxon cemetery and the related settlement (Faulkner, 1999). The fact that these two types of pottery are found on the site can cause difficulties because both can be mistaken for Iron Age pottery and vice versa. In comparison to the Anglo-Saxon pottery 34 assemblage the Iron Age pottery assemblage appears quite small, but one must remember that the Iron Age features on the Boneyard/Reeddam excavation have only just started to be explored.
POTTERY ANALYSIS: Total No. of sherds, Total weight of sherds and Average weight of sherds from excavated deposits from 1996, 1999, 2000 and 2001
No. of Sherds Total weight of sherds Av. Weight of sherds
BRONZE AGE 1 23g 23g
UNKNOWN PREHISTORIC FLINT 4 40g 10g
EARLY-MIDDLE IRON AGE 23 319.97g 13.91g
MIDDLE IRON AGE 14 373g 26.64g
MIDDLE-LATE IRON AGE 12 465g 38.75g
LATE IRON AGE 30 1.216kg 40.53g
ROMAN 13 192g 14.77g
ROMANO-BRITISH 1 23g 23g
UNKNOWN IRON AGE 145 853.8g 6.10g
TINIES (too small to quantify) N/A 297g N/A
Table: 3: This table shows the total No. of sherds, total weight of sherds and average weight of sherds from the extracted assemblage, broken down into each ‘phase’.
Iron Age pottery has been found in the greatest quantities in the Reeddam-1 trench; however, sherds have also been found within the Boneyard trench (See Figure 2 C), the Chalk Pit trench and the Reeddam-2 trench (on the peripheries of the Boneyard Field). The majority of the identifiable sherds of Iron Age date were recovered during the 1996, 1999, 2000 and 2001 excavation seasons. I have included drawings of the most significant sherds/part vessels and the detailed analysis of each (See Appendix 2 and pages 43-51). This analysis of the Iron Age pottery will not include any fieldwalked material, because the fieldwalking report is, at present, work in progress.
35 0.41 1.65 9.57 POTTERY ANALYSIS: Percentage of Prehistoric 5.76 and Roman pottery from 1996, 1999, 2000 and 4.94 12.35 2001 excavated deposits 5.35 0.41 59.67
Bronze Age (0.41%) Unknown Prehistoric Flint (1.65%) Early-Middle Iron Age (9.57%) Middle Iron Age (5.76%)
Middle-Late Iron Age (4.94%)
Late Iron Age Unknown Iron Age (12.35%) (59.67%)
Roman (5.35%) Romano-British (0.41%)
Table: 4: This pie-chart shows the percentage of each ‘phase’ of pottery within the assemblage.
Faulkner was aware as early as 1999 that there was a major Late Iron Age–Early Roman phase which was being represented by the ceramic collection. An initial assessment indicated that the assemblage included a number of imitation Late La Tène/Gallo-Belgic type sherds and part vessels. The assemblage also contained a large amount of crudely-made, hand-made sherds and part vessels, suggesting localised production. Some of the pottery was found in association with soil features of possible Iron Age date, but could only date two features to the Early-mid Iron Age (See below). Further analysis has indicated that a number of phases are evident within the Iron Age assemblage including: the ‘Early-mid’, ‘Middle’ and ‘Late’ phases and a possible Bronze Age (or earlier) phase (See Table 3 and 4). Early Roman sherds have also been found within the assemblage but there are too few of them to suggest an ‘Early Roman phase’ and they may only represent a manuring scatter, as we have already seen from the fieldwalking conducted by the Local History Forum (See above). Specialist advice was sought from Sarah Percival in 2001 (by Skilton and Skilton); she verified that S.H.A.R.P.’s assemblage was of some importance, because of the appearance of imitation Late La Tène/Gallo-Belgic type pottery within the 36 assemblage. Such styles have, as yet, only been found, in the North-west of Norfolk; Lyons makes particular reference to Sedgeford and Snettisham within his discussion (1996: See Percival, 1999, pp182). This indicates that Snettisham and Sedgeford (and other parts of North-west Norfolk) may have part of a specific trading link connected to the south and the continent. Furthermore, these two sites may have been independent from the rest of the Icenian territory. It is also possible that the appearance of these types of vessel indicate a direct ‘high status’ link with an exclusive exchange network. Although, one must not place too much emphasise on this evidence as it is likely that more pottery of similar calibre will be unearthed in due course. After liaising with Percival, Skilton and Skilton re-evaluated the 1999, 2000 and 2001 assemblages and found that a total of 93 large sherds were identifiable (Skilton and Skilton, 2001, pp4). With this as a basis I spent a great deal of time becoming familiar with the Iron Age assemblage and again re-assessed the pottery from 1996, 1999, 2000 and 2001. Faulkner and I then devised a basic typology. Further advice was sought from Percival and Knight, whilst Elsdon offered a great deal of support. I met with Elsdon on a number to occasions to verify that the identification was correct to the best of her knowledge. The ‘selected’ assemblage now (1996, 1999-2001) comprises a total of 243 Iron Age (and some Roman) sherds. The total weight of the assemblage is 3.539 kg and the average weight of the sherds is 14.56g (See Table3).
Fabric The local geology would have had a significant bearing on the type of pots that could be produced, especially as they would have been made locally. Hunstanton boulder clay, sand, gravel, chalk, Hunstanton red chalk and Carrstone (including greensands) are all found within Sedgeford (Andrews and Calow, 2001, pp29) (See Appendix 1). The majority of the pottery has a sandy temper, with some flecks of mica and flint. Dr. Ron Firman (Geologist) has suggested that the source of the clay could be weathered Snettisham Clay (which outcrops near Heacham) and that the occurrence of quartz within the tempering could be sourced back to mineral veins. He also added that crushed man-made aggregate would have been deliberately included in the clay and that the angular nature of the aggregate (with a lack of abrasion or sorting) argues against it being a natural sand. Firman also suggests that the aggregate could be sourced to the local glacial erratic boulders of vein quartz which are found within boulder clay (Firman, pers. comm.). Carbon was present on some of the surfaces of the pottery sherds and this suggests that the pots were under-fired and that the clay was rich in
37 organic matter; the carbon would have been expelled as carbon dioxide from the oxidised outer layers (ibid). This would suggest that the pottery was fired on bonfires.
Analysis of Table 3 and Table 4 Iron Age pottery is hard to identify and date, which is why 145 sherds, (853.8g, 59.67%) of the extracted assemblage are in the ‘Unknown Iron Age’ category (See Table 3 and 4). One must therefore consider the fact that the percentage of UIA within the assemblage biases the results, meaning that any one phase could be more abundant than is suggested. One would expect there to be more LIA pottery within the assemblage as these fabrics tend to survive better than EIA fabrics (Willis, 1997, pp209). This is reflected in the assemblage by the fact that the average weight of sherds (for the LIA) was 40.53g indicating that large, datable sherds have been found. One would also expect to find more LIA pottery because of the effect of intensified production and trade. However, while this period is most heavily represented within the pottery assemblage, no context on the site can to securely dated to the LIA.
Phasing The phasing of the site is currently being studied, but the development of a Harris Matrix is proving to be extremely complicated, because so many different periods are all represented within approximately 1.5 metres of the stratigraphic sequence. It may be the case that certain features will later be interpreted as LIA once this work has been completed. It is also likely that the later Anglo-Saxon occupation on the site truncated most of the features (See above), which may have lead to deposits of pottery moving higher up the sequence as Anglo-Saxon pits, ditches and burials were dug into the Iron Age levels. The presence of large sherds also suggests that the sherds have not moved far from their original position (See Section E of the pottery drawing). Furthermore, within the assemblage the sherds of a one third complete vessel and the sherds of a one half complete vessel (both of which have been reconstructed) have been recovered (See E:1 and E:3) suggesting that disturbance in certain areas has been kept to a minimum. It is significant that the E-MIA is so heavily represented within the assemblage, because of the fact that the fabrics from this period do not normally survive that well (Percival, pers comm.). Table 3 shows that 23 sherds have been found dating to this period, weighing 319.97g in total, which equates to 9.57% of the Iron Age assemblage (See Table 4); therefore suggesting considerable occupation in this period. The E-MIA sherds were found within the two features which have now been dated to
38 the E-MIA in light of this analysis (See Plan 3). The ring ditch feature and the adjacent pit/ditch both cut into the natural sands (See Plan 1 and 2); however a great deal of truncation has taken place within the area.
Devising the Typology The typology that I produced for S.H.A.R.P. for the Boneyard/Reeddam assemblage was devised with direct consultation with Elsdon, Percival and Knight; with much reference being made to the original pottery typology which has been devised and studied by Faulkner (2002(a), 2002(b) and 1999)9. Percival has suggested that Early Iron Age pots were constructed with a high proportion of crushed, calcined flint, within a quartz sand and clay matrix (1999, pp177), as is the case with the Sedgeford assemblage. The distinctive rim forms of the MIA sherds helped their identification (Elsdon, pers comm.) and the profiles are slightly more rounded (Percival, 1999, pp177). By the LIA identification becomes more difficult; many sherds still appear to be crude and hand-made; these are the vessels which would have been used for cooking and as containers. Although, contemporary to this ‘true Belgic forms’ or tableware were also being produced; however, we have already seen that the distribution of such vessels, in Norfolk, is limited to the north-west (specifically Sedgeford and Snettisham) (Lyons, 1996: See ibid, pp182). This provides more evidence that could suggest that the North-west of Norfolk has closer links to the south and the continent than other parts of Britain. Throughout my analysis of the assemblage Elsdon made it clear that noticeable similarities in form were evident between this assemblage and examples from in Lincolnshire, suggesting that trade links across the Wash did exist.
Problems with the typology Some of the pottery from the LIA period is quite distinctive because existing chronologies include Gallo-Belgic type vessels and Roman transitional period vessels. Problems can occur because the cooking pots and containers which continued to look the same throughout the periods are simply clumped into the earlier period because they are considered to be ‘cruder’. The same pattern may occur with the analysis of the E- MIA, where only extremely crude vessels are recognised within this section of the typology. Even when all of these factors are considered one must look at the assemblage with the knowledge available at this moment in time, for as we have already seen, ‘a
9 I have also referred to the original field notes, in order to check the contexts within which the pots were found, including the site’s written record, and the results of the Archaeo-Environmental Sampling (S.H.A.R.P. archive). 39 reliably-dated pottery fabric series has yet to be established for the Norfolk Iron Age,’ (Percival, 1995, pp216). The analysis of the pottery also found evidence of earlier prehistoric (perhaps Neolithic or Bronze Age) habitation, within the Reeddam area (Faulkner, 1999); 0.41% of the assemblage dates to the Bronze Age or earlier (See A:1) (See Table 4), whilst 1.65% dates to the ‘Unknown Prehistoric’. It is hoped that further excavation within the Reeddam area will clarify the importance of these sherds. What is also interesting is that 5.35% of the assemblage dates to the Roman period10. Other Roman features are represented on the site and it is well known that at least one Roman villa lies within the parish. The occurrence of these sherds therefore suggests that widespread manuring was taking place during the Roman period, which lead to the dispersal of these sherds. These sherds were most frequently found in the ploughsoil layers; they are all extremely abraded and only large bases and rim sherds have survived. This assemblage of Roman pottery is far too small to represent an occupation scatter or a ‘phase’.
Discussion The ceramic identification is hampered by the fact that the vessels would have been fired in bonfire stacks rather than in kilns; this would have caused varying degrees of oxidation, giving them different colours and textures, leading to difficulties in the comparisons with other sherds (Percival: See: Skilton and Skilton, 2001, pp1). Hand- made vessels continued to be made well into the LIA, using sand as the main temper, as with this assemblage (Martin, 1999, pp80). Elsdon has suggested that the Belgic ‘penetration’ of Lincolnshire began as early as the early First Century B.C. (1997, pp3); whilst May suggests that these influences were coming from the Late La Tène (pers comm.). Although, wheel-made pottery appeared on the continent as early as the Sixth Century B.C. (ibid). It is therefore possible that the Iceni could have begun imitating these high quality vessels at any point between these dates. These influences could have come from the south, and spread north, via the ridgeways or via the extensive maritime trading network. Much discussion has centred on where North-west Norfolk gained its influences and how. May and Elsdon both believe that trade must have been taken place across the Wash during this period, between the Iceni and Coritani (pers comm.) (See below). Whilst trying to find parallels with the pottery from Dragonby (Lincolnshire); they found that the vessel forms were closely related to the Aylesford-Swarling types, and
10 See section F of the drawings and appendix. 40 suggested that maritime contact with the South-east would have been essential (Elsdon, 1993, p5; May, 1970, pp245); this may also have been the case at Sedgeford. It is also possible that influences came straight from the continent by-passing the south. Trade and communication obviously played an extremely important part in the development of these tribes, centring on such ancient trackways such as the Icknield Way, the Jurassic Way, the Peddars Way and the maritime trade network (See below). The two most significant contexts which contained Iron Age pottery were RDM 1703 and RDM 7045. Both contexts contained a considerable number of sherds; unfortunately the origin of RDM 1703 is not understood; however with the help of this analysis, RDM 7045 can now be dated to the E-MIA. These two contexts are significant because the pottery contained within them, although Iron Age, is completely different in appearance (Skilton and Skilton, 2001, pp1). The pottery within RDM 1703 was relatively well made and hard-fired; most of the sherds are mid-reddish-brown or mid- greyish-brown. But in comparison the sherds from RDM 7045 are crude, poorly fired and mid-brownish-black. The obvious difference between these two contexts is that RDM 7045 dates to the E-MIA, whilst RDM 1703 contains pottery from the Mid, M-L and LIA. However, this interpretation does not account entirely for the completely different appearance of these two groups of pottery, both made from the same clay. What can be said is that the two groups have been fired under differing conditions (temperature, levels of oxidation, bonfire or kiln fired) which has lead to the colour differences and the firing quality. This signifies that one cannot rely too heavily on methods of dating Iron Age pottery other than the analysis form.
Summary Initial fabric analysis has suggested that the pottery was produced locally; using clay that probably came from near Heacham, whilst the temper is derived from the local geology. This assemblage indicates that Iron Age occupation at this site began in the E- MIA and continued through to the Roman period. It is hoped that the typology that I have produced alongside the drawings and the analysis in the Appendix will be used to aid further research. For the purpose of this piece of work only the initial stages of analysis have been completed; there is therefore scope for further research to be conducted focusing on this Iron Age pottery assemblage. The assemblage indicates that Sedgeford must have been part of an extensive trade network which had developed in this region. Influences from Lincolnshire, the Aylesford-Swarling culture and the Gallo-Belgic/Late La Tène styles are all evident within the assemblage in the form of
41 imitations. I am therefore confident in suggesting that the people of Sedgeford must have had a tradable commodity available in order to receive these high quality ceramics. Furthermore, these high quality vessels must have been desirable to the Iron Age community for them to want to copy the styles. The assemblage indicates that Iron Age Sedgeford was part of a wider trade network and that trade and importation must have played a huge role within the development of the area.
42 Pottery Drawings: (Source: the Author)
43 Pottery Drawings: (Source: the Author)
44 Pottery Drawings: (Source: the Author)
45 Pottery Drawings: (Source: the Author)
46 Pottery Drawings: (Source: the Author)
47 Pottery Drawings: (Source: the Author)
48 Pottery Drawings: (Source: the Author)
49 Pottery Drawings: (Source: the Author)
50 Pottery Drawings: (Source: the Author)
51 Chapter 3: Sedgeford in its local and regional Iron Age context
Comparative occupation sites In order to assess the importance of the Iron Age material found at Sedgeford, it is essential that I show how the site relates to other sites of similar date, as it is vital that we see Sedgeford within its Iron Age context. Furthermore, one must consider the geographical location of Sedgeford during this period in order to understand how the site may have developed. Evans has stated that eaves drip gullies tend to encircle round buildings, which in many cases are then themselves located within a ditched enclosure (1997, pp216), a pattern which is possibly represented at Sedgeford. One could suggest that the large east-west ditch seen in the Reeddam-1 trench could represent such an enclosure ditch. (See Plan 1, 2 and 3). The ditch which was noticed within the 2000 S.H.A.R.P. Evaluation Trench (See Figure 2C) could also represent the remains of an enclosure ditch11, or perhaps the large linear feature found on the geophysical survey (S.H.A.R.P., 2002) in the adjacent field (to the south) could represent the exterior of such an enclosure. This is only a theory as these features cannot be dated, until further excavation has been carried out. Similar features to those at Sedgeford have been found at the Snettisham Bypass excavations, dating to the mid First Century A.D. (See Figure 23) (Flitcroft, 2001, pp66), though metal detecting on the site found 3 Icenian gold staters, indicating some Late Iron Age activity (ibid, pp15).
Figure: 23: Site plan showing all excavated features, from the Snettisham Bypass excavations. (From: Flitcroft, 2001, pp13 Fig. 5).
11 During the excavation of an evaluation trench (which can be seen cutting directly through the Boneyard Field on Figure 2C) a large north-south ditch (2.7m wide and 1.7m deep) was found. The ditch appears to have been initially cut in the Iron Age and then re-cut in the Anglo-Saxon period. (http://www.sharp.org.uk/Reports/Reports00/2000.htm, pp3 – See Bibliography for full reference). 52
Figure: 24: (left) A plan of House 1, showing the structural features, from the Snettisham Bypass excavations. (From: Flitcroft, 2001, pp18, Fig. 9).
Figure: 25: (right) House 1 before excavation. (From: Flitcroft, 2001, pp18, Plate IV).
The Snettisham excavations found a ring ditch feature, in association with a large number of postholes, pits, gullies and larger ditches; perhaps some of the larger ditches seen on Figure 23 represent the same sort of feature as the larger east-west ditch in the Reeddam-1 trench (See Plan 1, 2 and 3). Similar features are also evident at the multi-phased site at West Stow (Suffolk). Excavation of phase 1 of this site has located part of an enclosure, 21 pits and some postholes, dating to the Third-First Century B.C. (West, 1989, pp9). Phase 2 dates from the First Century B.C. to the Early First Century A.D.; within this phase a number of pits have been recognised, alongside one or possibly two circular structures, similar to the ring ditch feature at Sedgeford (ibid, pp15). It is perhaps also significant that this site is also situated within half a mile of a suspected route of the Icknield Way (ibid, pp3).
Figure: 26: A reconstruction of the Longbridge Deverill Cow Down (Wiltshire) roundhouse, based on the original plans. I built this model as part of the module V62204. Built at approximately 1:50. (Source: the Author).
House 3 at Longbridge Deverill Cow Down (Wiltshire) had a diameter of 11.6 metres (Hawkes, 1994, pp58) (See Figure 26), whereas the ground plan of a roundhouse
53 found at Little Woodbury (Wiltshire) would suggest a diameter of 15 metres (Bersu, 1940, pp79). A gully at Crickley Hill (Gloucestershire) has a ground plan measuring 11.2 metres (Guilbert, 1981, pp299) and at Balksbury, near Andover (Hampshire) posthole evidence suggests a 9.1 metre diameter roundhouse (Reynolds, 1979, pp36). Figure 24 shows the ground plan of a round-house which measures approximately 8 metres, whilst Figure 27 shows a ground plan of a roundhouse approximately 7-8 metres in diameter. It is clear therefore that, at 9 metres the ground plan of the possible roundhouse seen within the Reeddam/Boneyard excavations is typical of what one would expect to find on an Iron Age site.
Figure: 27: Building 9, Phase 1. Fison Way, Thetford. (From: Gregory, 1991, pp31, Fig. 25).
Figure: 28 (left): Ring gullies from Dragonby. (From: May, 1996(ii), pp600, Fig. 22.1).
Figure: 29 (right): Ring Gully No. 6, from Dragonby, site 1. (From: May, 1996(i), plate 20).
A gully with no structural remains was found at the Fison Way excavations (See Figure 27); Gregory interpreted this as a roundhouse gully, within an occupation site
54 (1991, pp31). These features have been unearthed on sites all over Britain, suggesting that they are typical of the Iron Age. Examples can also be seen in Cambridgeshire at the site of Orton Longueville (See: Mackreth, 2001, pp16, Fig. 13 and pp18, Fig. 14), in Oxfordshire at such sites as Manor House Farm, Hatford, (See: Bourn, 2000, pp9, Fig. 5 and pp11, Fig. 7), and at Dragonby (See Figure 28 and 29) where the remains of a number of roundhouse gullies were found (May describes them as ‘ring-gullies’). Feature No. F724; in the North-east corner of the site, measured approximately 8 metres in diameter (See: May, 1996(i), pp106, Fig. 5.41a).
Changes in Coastline During the Iron Age the coastline of the Wash would have been entirely different from today. At this time the Fenlands (which were formed as a result of the erosive nature of the ancient river systems) became eroded and so inlets were created, allowing ‘marine incursions to flood the land itself’ (Hall and Coles, 1994, pp1). Many scholars (including Robinson; May (1996(i); Elsdon, 1993; Robinson and Gregory (1987) and Chadburn (1999)) have all tried to calculate the extent of this flooding, but for the most up to date and comprehensive study one should refer to the recent report written by Hall and Coles (1994). Figures 30, 31 and 32 all show that the Wash extended over the Fenlands, creating marshland, open seas and creeks that affected the whole of the landscape. This information is fundamental to our understanding of how Iron Age communities in Norfolk and Lincolnshire developed.
Figure: 30: This map shows May’s interpretation of how the Norfolk – Lincolnshire coast line would have looked in the Late Iron Age. The original map shows Lindsey as an island. OS = Old Sleaford and L= Lincoln. (After: May, 1996(ii), pp643, Fig. 24.7). (NB: May has marked the location of Snettisham incorrectly).
55 The Fenlands got much wetter as the sea encroached over the peat deposits and over land which had previously been dry (See Figure 31) (Hall and Coles, 1994, pp92). Until, the flooding reached its height, in the Mid-late Iron Age. Consequently, much of this area would have been impassable by foot (ibid, pp103). The flooding would have increased the distance between Norfolk and Lincolnshire, but, would have increased the accessibility to the maritime and river transportation systems. By the Roman Period, large artificial drains were cut, draining most of the landscape, and so the coastline began to retreat (See Figure 32). In Sedgeford the Early-mid Iron Age occupation site developed in the valley bottom, near to the River (in what is now the Reeddam-1 trench and the Reeddam proper). However, as the river’s floodplain became wetter, because of the rising water table, the community may have moved further up the slope away from the increasingly waterlogged valley bottom onto what is now the Boneyard, Polar Breck, the field immediately south of the Boneyard, to the north where the modern village is now situated.
Figure: 31 (left): The Fenlands c. 300 B.C. (Iron Age). (Grey = clay and Red = peat deposits). (From: Hall and Coles, 1994, pp93, Fig. 59).
Figure: 32 (right): The Fenlands c. 100 A.D. (Red = peat and Grey = clay). (From: Ibid, pp106, Fig. 68).
Trade across the Wash As land transportation would have been almost impossible on any scale, the Iceni and Coritani (See Figure 1) must have been communicating and trading across the Wash, using an extensive ferrying system (May, pers comm.). Figure 33 shows what
56 May believes was once the route of ferry crossings between North Norfolk and Lincolnshire. This could explain why parallels in pottery production are noticeable between the two regions and why Gallo-Belgic coins have been found in Lincolnshire (See below). When considering the flow of information, the trade network and the general organisation of society in the Iron Age, these links are of great importance, as they would have brought continental influences directly into the North-west region of Norfolk. What this suggests is that Norfolk was not as isolated as some scholars believe and it shows that social organisation was taking place.
Figure: 33: May’s interpretation of where the Lincolnshire coastline would have been, he has marked on a theoretical crossing point to Snettisham. (From: May, 1996(ii), pp641, Fig.24.6).
At Candlesby Hill (Lincolnshire), recent metal detecting (on what would have been the south-eastern tip of Lincolnshire during the Iron Age), has produced important new evidence12. Jeffrey May (working in conjunction with a detectorist), has found a collection of 120 Corieltauvi coins, within a small area of an extremely large ploughed
12 Many Lincolnshire and Norfolk, Iron Age specialists have been waiting a great deal of time for such evidence to appear. (See: May, 1992, pp118-9). 57 field (Mays, pers comm.)13. In addition 12-14 Icenian coins have also been found. These find spots represent the highest percentage of Icenian coins found in the whole of the Corieltauvi region (May, forthcoming). On a clear day Ken Hill (Snettisham) is clearly visible, straight across the Wash, from the top of Candlesby Hill (ibid). May has suggested that this site may once have been a small shrine or possibly a small trading centre, although as yet no excavation has taken place at the site. The fact that these Icenian coins have been unearthed in such quantity suggests that an extensive trade and communications networks had developed here between the communities of Coritani and the Iceni. Furthermore, this evidence would suggest that Lincolnshire was also incorporated into the far-reaching trade network, or it could indicate that this part of Lincolnshire had stronger and closer ties with Norfolk and ultimately Europe, than the rest of Britain.
Links between Norfolk, Lincolnshire, the south, the south-east and the Continent Due to the lack of evidence, very little can be said conclusively about the trading links which affected Norfolk. The best interpretations can be made by looking at the distribution of coins and other artifacts, to see where different influences were being adopted and where certain coins were finally being deposited. The work of Birchall, Rodwell and Hawkes all suggests an association between Gallo-Belgic type E coins and trade (See: Fitzpatrick, 1992(a), pp15). We have already seen how the introduction of these coins into Norfolk came about during the Gallic Wars, with an intensification of trade and production, but prior to this the evidence is sparse. The Iceni do not appear to have struck their own coins until c. 10 B.C., but by this time other coin types were being used all over the Icenian territories (Gregory, 1977, pp2). Chadburn believes that the Iceni were using them for bartering or bullion (1999, pp163). Trade, industry and the use of a monetary system do all seem to be related to navigable rivers and the major routeways such as the Peddars Way and the Icknield Way (See below). Three significant Iron Age minting sites (Saham Toney, Thetford and West Stow) have been found in close proximity to the Icknield Way and to (presumably), navigable rivers (Chadburn, 1999, pp165 and166). The work of Cunliffe (1995: See: Davies, 1996, pp63) suggests that Northern East Anglia had closer ties to the continent than with the south, whilst Lincolnshire shows evidence of having links with the Mediterranean and La Tène Europe (Elsdon, 1997, pp2). These connection
13 The exact location of the field and the finds has been kept secret so not to attract illegal metal detecting. Jeffrey May has kindly allowed me to include this information, because of the importance of the findings. 58 probably developed as maritime trade and exchange penetrated into Norfolk and Lincolnshire. The waterways could have aided the accessibility to certain sites, which in turn caused new sites to develop close to the rivers and the Icknield Way; in order to cope with the demand from the increase in trade and exchange.
The geographical setting of Sedgeford during the Iron Age and the importance of the Icknield Way and the Peddars Way The current evidence suggests that the focus of Iron Age activity, at Sedgeford lies between the Icknield and Peddars Ways and the River. The Fenland research by Hall and Coles has shown that marine incursion did not take place near Sedgeford, although some have suggested that the sea would have been slightly closer to Sedgeford than the modern coastline would suggest (See Figure 30; Robinson and Gregory, 1987, pp72-73 and Chadburn, 1999, pp166, Fig. 7.3). Other research shows the coastline at Heacham in the same place as it is at present14. The climate would have been wetter and arguably the water table would have been higher, making the River Heacham much deeper and, as Mackie has suggested navigable (pers comm.). In theory the River could have given Sedgeford a direct link with any maritime destination, including Lincolnshire and Europe. Mackie has also suggested that Fring would once have been home to a harbour on the course of the River, which in itself suggests that trade and exchange could have been taking place here (ibid.). Clarke also suggested that the River (Heacham) would have provided ‘suitable anchorages for small craft’ (1954, pp32). One of the most significant factors affecting this zone is the location of the Icknield Way and possibly the Peddars Way. The very existence of these two routeways could have lead to the development of a large number of Iron Age occupation sites, along their courses. It is perhaps of no coincidence that the recent excavations at Snettisham found an Iron Age/Romano-British occupation site which would have been served by the Peddars Way to the east, the Icknield Way to the west and the River Ingol (Flitcroft, 2001, pp1), while the recent excavations at Sedgeford have revealed a similar pattern. The Icknield Way may date as far back as the Neolithic period (Lewton-Brain, 1965, pp408) as ‘a corridor of straggling tracks wandering roughly in the same direction’ (Robinson and Rose, 1983, pp8), which joined Salisbury Plain to North-West Norfolk (Smallwood, 2002, pp5). Both tracks would have acted as trading and
14 Keith Robinson has produced a number of maps showing the sea level at various different periods throughout History and Prehistory, he has worked out the position of the Iron Age coastline by looking at where the 5 metre contours occur near to the coast. In doing so he has been able to suggest that the coastline to the west of Heacham would have remained the same, as the sea levels would have had to have risen considerably more to have moved further inland. (Robinson, pers comm.). 59 communication links joining a number of tribes or groups together. Furthermore, we must think of them both (specifically the Icknield Way) as trackways for possibly animal (or human) migration, as a transhumance route (Robinson and Rose, 1983, pp8) (See Figure 34). It is notable that both pass through the parish boundary, as their influence on the area could have lead to Sedgeford’s very existence and possibly its development in the Late Iron Age, especially since the evidence from the recent excavations has found links with Lincolnshire and the South-east.
Figure: 34: This map shows the route of the Peddars Way and suggested routes of the Icknield Way. (After: Lewton-Brain, 1965).
The route of the Icknield Way would have changed due to ease of access, or during tribal disputes, or there may have even been a winter and a summer route, because certain rivers and streams would become impassable at certain times of year. Clarke suggests that the Snettisham finds could have been on one of the routes of the Icknield Way (1954, pp32). Little is know about the termination of either route; though many have suggested that there must have been some sort of port or harbour somewhere near to Old Hunstanton (Lewton-Brain, 1965, pp408; Clarke, 1954, pp32), or near
60 Holme-Next-The-Sea (May, pers comm.; Flitcroft, 2001, pp1), acting as the beginning of the ferry point across the Wash. Figures 34, 35 and 36 all show the route of the Icknield Way following different courses; it is possible that these routes all converge, somewhere in Ringstead or further North.
Figure: 35: The route of the Peddars Way and two possible routes of the Icknield Way. (From: Smallwood, 2002, p5).
Figure: 36: Flitcroft’s interpretation of the location of the Icknield Way and the Peddars Way. (From: Flitcroft, 2001, pp2, Fig. 1).
It is generally accepted that trade took place via the waterways and maritime routes, as this would have been much quicker than land travel. The work of Whimster (1981) (See: Bradley, 1993, pp10) suggests that by the Middle Iron Age there was
61 ‘renewed interaction’ along the Norfolk and Suffolk coastlines. It seems quite plausible that both sets of tracks lead towards a possible terminal point at or near Holme-next-the- Sea, as this stretch of coastline would have had a natural harbour, which would have been perfect for such a port or haven. This method of transportation would have given the Iceni direct links with the Lincolnshire, south-east and the continent. The Norfolk coastline has numerous natural inlets and harbours which could have provided trading ports, which in turn could have aided the trade network (Davies, 1996, pp81). Arguably, Sedgeford may represent a trading stop or resting place en route to the coast, (before crossing the Wash to Lincolnshire or the continent), with some sort of high status significance, just like the other sites along the course of the trackway, such as Fison Way (See below). It may even be the case that the Sedgeford Iron Age community developed in order to take advantage of the three trade links which pass through this area. The level of trade and communication in this region is far overshadowed by the trade network which had developed in the south and on the continent. There is no evidence so far to suggest that the Iceni were involved in interchange with the Roman Empire, as amphorae and other luxury goods of Roman date have so far not been found (Robinson and Gregory, 1987, pp19). It is possible that the development of north-west Norfolk in the Late Iron Age occurred because of the intensive use of the Icknield and Peddars Way for trade and communication, but it is also possible that trade focused in this area because of the location of Snettisham.
Important Late Iron Age sites within the Icenian territory
Figure: 37: A plan and reconstruction of the Fison Way, Thetford, at the time of the Boudican revolt (A.D. 61). (From: Robinson and Gregory, 1987, pp45).
62 A number of important Late Iron Age sites have been located near to the Icknield Way in Norfolk, such as the Fison Way (Gregory, 1991), Narborough hillfort (Davies and Gregory, 1991, pp66) and Snettisham. The Late Icenian Iron Age saw the development of large rectilinear enclosures, which are unique to the north and the west of Norfolk. Fison Way is a hugely important ritual/trade site (or possible tribal centre)15, near to the Little Ouse River (Robinson and Gregory, 1987, pp44), (See Figure 37 and 38). The work of Gregory (1992: See: Davies, 1996, pp77), has suggested that this site may be a viereckschanze, similar in design to those seen on the continent; Gregory has also suggested that the Fison Way may have been Boudica’s palace.
Figure: 38: An Aerial Photograph of the Icenian site at Fison Way, Thetford. (Suffolk County Council Planning Department). (From: Robinson and Gregory, 1987, pp4, inner cover).
These large rectilinear enclosure sites may have acted as central places of redistribution or as centres where the leaders congregated, taking on a similar role to the hillforts in the south and south-east. Davies has also suggested that these sites may have had defensive, strategic, ritual or funerary functions (1996, pp77). Other similar sites have been seen at Thornham, Warham Burrows, and Wighton, whilst aerial photographs may have located further examples: Alby, Bintree, Bodham, Heacham, and Great Massingham16 (ibid). To this list Davies has added Crimplesham and Fincham, as two possible large rectilinear enclosures (1999, pp32). The above examples show that the
15 See the work of Davies, 1996; Gregory 1992 and Bryant, 2000, pp17. 16 Alby (S.M.R. 17208), Bintree (S.M.R. 12147), Bodham (S.M.R. 18191), Heacham (S.M.R. 1427) and Great Massingham (S.M.R. 13018). (Davies, 1996, pp77). 63 social organisation of the Iceni was quite different from other parts of Britain and that something significant was taking place here during the Late Iron Age. These enclosures may represent a new type of defensive enclosure on flat land, which arguably could suggest a reason for the lack of hillforts in this region (See below). A rectangular enclosure (S.M.R. 1427)17, has been identified from aerial photographs within the parish boundary of Heacham. Recent aerial photographs (conducted by the National Mapping Programme) and aerial photographs from 1982, have also indicated the remains of a multi-vallated rectangular enclosure, with 5-6 ditches just within the western parish boundary of Sedgeford (S.M.R. 18237)18. Sarah Massey (from the national Mapping Programme) has stressed that this feature is, as yet undatable and she does not believe that the feature is of prehistoric origin (pers comm.). Although, one must not rule out the possibility that this feature is of Late Iron Age date, similar to that at Heacham and similar in form to the Fison Way (Robinson, pers comm.). The presence of this enclosure (if Iron Age) could suggest that this site was of high ritualistic importance or that it was used as gathering places or centre of the governing bodies. The significance for Sedgeford is that the enclosure could suggest further parallels with important Late Iron Age site such as Fison Way. If the site does turn out to be of Late Iron Age origin then it would provide definitive evidence that Sedgeford was an important centre in its own rights. The enclosure may have been the focal point of this whole area, encompassing Heacham, Sedgeford and Snettisham, on a possibly route of the Icknield Way. Only nine Norfolk sites have produced ten or more coins and at only eight have 20 or more been found (Davies, 1999, pp33), so the Sedgeford staters, are highly significant. The torc hoards from Snettisham, Bawsey and North Creake, and the single find at Sedgeford19, suggest a very close concentration in the north-west zone, (See Figure 5 and 6). Other torcs have been found across Britain and even as far north as Netherurd (Peebles) (Cunliffe, 1991, pp483), implying that the north-west Norfolk trade network reached the far North of England. However, the torc hoards seems to be restricted to Norfolk, Suffolk and a coastal settlement in Lincolnshire, which could suggest close ties with the Iceni, via various trade routes, or an integration of Icenian custom into neighbouring tribes. It has also been suggested that the hoards at Bawsey
17 (Davies, 1996, pp77). 18 This information was obtained during a search of the database at the Norfolk Sites and Monuments Record Office (Gressenhall, Norfolk). Martin Horlock kindly found this information for me on my request and he asked Sarah Massey about the function and date of the site S.M.R. 18237. 19 Locations of torc hoard find spots taken from Cunliffe, 1991, pp149 and pp483. 64 and Ipswich (See Figure 39) may represent a form of structured deposition, as seen in the European Late Iron Age (Fitzpatrick, 1992(b), pp243).
Figure: 39: The torcs from the Ipswich Hoard. (Various scales largest one is 185mm in diameter). (From: Cunliffe, 1991, pp482 and 483, Fig. 17.31).
Finds from the five parishes surrounding Sedgeford
The Snettisham Hoards
Figure: 40: Part of the Snettisham Hoards 1948-1990 (on display at Norwich Castle Museum). (From: Davies, 1999, pp20, Fig. 2.3).
North-west Norfolk has received much archaeological attention because of the Snettisham hoards, found between 1948 and 1990 at Ken Hill (Davies, 1996, pp78) (See Figure 40). It is significant that such riches were found so close to Sedgeford, specifically because of the 1965 finding of the Sedgeford torc (See Figure 7 and 8). In total nine hoards were found at Ken Hill; six contained deposits of complete torcs and three contained scrap metal, ingots and coins. In all 75 torcs were found, along with fragments of 100 more, 170 coins (Gallo-Belgic issues) and 100 ingot rings and 65 bracelets (Stead, 1991, pp231-233)20. The fact that the entire southern extent of Sedgeford has a boundary with Snettisham is of great interest. Similarities between the two parishes are now becoming noticeable, from the pottery analysis, the torc findings and the coins; and it may be that the two had strong links, or were working as one unit.
Figure: 41: A distribution map showing the find spots of Iron Age coin hoards found within the parishes surrounding Sedgeford. (Horlock, 2003).
The hoards of torcs, broken torcs and scrap metal, at Snettisham, may represent not only a hiding place for great wealth but also the location of a workshop, which would have been sited somewhere within the vicinity (Stead, 1991, pp233). This workshop could have been producing any number of torcs, for wide distribution. Such a workshop probably developed because of economic, social and political interests which had already developed in the area, which may also indicate why concentrations of activity have centred on this area. The work of Ann Ross and Don Robins has shown that the gold used to make the torcs came from the Wicklow Hills (Dublin)21. The very fact that the gold had travelled such a distance shows that the Snettisham area must have had a great influence on the trading network and was pooling resources from all over Europe, through long distance trade. Similarities between the Sedgeford torc and those
20 For full reference to the Snettisham Hoard’s one should refer to Stead (1991), Davies (1996) and the original report by R. Rainbird Clarke (1954). 21 During conversation with Keith Robinson a discussion ensued about the origins of the gold used to make the Snettisham torcs. Robinson referred to the text by Ann Ross and Don Robins, 1991. The life and death of a druid prince. 1991, pp108-9, which states that the gold had come from Dublin, via a long distance trade route. 66 found at Snettisham have been demonstrated and it has even been inferred that they may have come from the same workshop (Robinson and Gregory, 1987, pp14). The same has also been said about the Ringstead hoards, a hoard of bronze objects which were beautifully decorated using the same ornamental style as the Snettisham torcs (ibid, pp15). North-west Norfolk appears therefore, to have been the wealthy and religious focus of the Iceni, with Snettisham as the main centre (Davies, 1996, pp80).
Figure: 42: A distribution map showing the location of the ‘monument’ sites. (Horlock, 2003).
A concentration of monuments Six Iron Age ‘monument’ sites have been found at Heacham and two at Sedgeford (See Figure 42), although this pattern may simply reflect the nature of the archaeological work which has been carried out (See Map 2)22. Animal bones have been found in association with two of the monument sites at Heacham, suggesting a domestic or ritual use for these sites (See Figure 43). At S.M.R. No. 13032 (which is close to the mouth of the River)23 a domestic roundhouse was excavated, which related to Iron Age field systems and a rectangular enclosure24. This location would have been ideal for
22 Much archaeological investigation has been focused on Heacham and Snettisham, and increasely so at Sedgeford. In contrast to this very little archaeological work has been conducted in Docking and Fring. 23 Ordnance Survey data was obtained from Norfolk S.M.R. (Gressenhall). 1:10 000 scale. TF66903850 TF63NE. 24 This information was found during a search of the database and the paper files at the Norfolk Sites and Monuments Record Office (Gressenhall, Norfolk). 67 settlement during the Iron Age, on the River, and near to the Icknield Way, as is the case at Sedgeford.
Figure: 43: A distribution map showing the find spots of Iron Age animal bone. (Horlock, 2003).
The Fring Hoards in relation to the local area The civil parish of Fring has produced three Iron Age coin hoards and a number of individual coins (See Figures 41 and 44). Chadburn suggests that the finds from Fring may simply reflect the general wealth of the Late Iron Age population here (1991, pp6). She adds that the hoarding may have only taken place because of political unrest (ibid). Coin hoards have also been found in Heacham and of course Snettisham (See Figure 41) and most of the coin find spots are in these two parishes (See Figure 44), expecting the six of the Sedgeford coins, which have not yet been plotted into the S.M.R. database. The hoard at Heacham consisted of First Century B.C. gold coins (Davies, 1996, pp72) of similar date to those found at Sedgeford. It would appear that the three parishes which surround Sedgeford, to the south, west and south-east are also rich in pottery finds and other artefacts (See Figure 47 and 48).
Local anomalies A large hoard of bronze objects (Robinson and Gregory, 1987, pp15), as well as pottery, a coin, a terret ring and other artifacts (See Figure 44, 45, 47 and 48) suggests a rich Iron Age presence to the North of Sedgeford, at Ringstead. But on the other hand, the parish of Docking has no recorded Iron Age finds. Robinson and Gregory have suggested that over-exploitation in the Neolithic and Bronze Age of areas like Docking, (which is located on a chalk ridge), may have resulted in the deterioration of the quality the soil (1987, pp7) and perhaps this is why no Iron Age remains have been found there.
68
Figure: 44: A distribution map showing the find spots of Iron Age coins. (Horlock, 2003).
Figure 50 shows the distribution of find spots and monument sites in the north-west Norfolk region. It is clear that a concentration of material is evident in the extreme north-west of Norfolk, whilst the area just to the east has only sporadic findings. Perhaps Docking lay too far away from the Icknield Way for the communities to want to settle there. In contrast to this the wealth of remains found at Snettisham, may relate to the fact that the Icknield Way cuts across this area. However, other areas may have so few finds because of a lack of archaeological investigation (See Map 2).
Figure: 45: A distribution map showing the find spots of Iron Age terret rings. (Horlock, 2003).
69
Figure: 46: A distribution map showing the find spots of Iron Age horse harnesses. (Horlock, 2003).
Summing up the importance of Sedgeford and the five surrounding parishes The wealth of remains so close to Sedgeford suggests its relative importance, within a wider Iron Age context. The hoards at Snettisham overshadow any other find in Norfolk, but on the other hand Docking is sterile of occupation evidence. The work of Chadburn (1991) outlined the importance of one of the Fring coin hoards, which contained a total of 169 silver coins (pp1). She stresses the significance of these coins, which were discovered about 3.5 miles from the Snettisham hoards, suggesting that there may once have been a flourishing workshop in the area producing these precious artifacts (ibid, pp2). Reference is also made to the site’s proximity to the Icknield Way and the idea that a coastal trading route did exist, to Lincolnshire and the south-east (ibid).
Figure: 47: A distribution map showing miscellaneous finds of Iron Age date. (Horlock, 2003).
70 Chadburn suggests that Fring was an important area during the Late Iron Age, just as Snettisham was and Sedgeford could have been. She outlines that both trade and production of precious-metals would have been taking place in this part of Norfolk, and that, in order to subsidise such production, a large community must have been connected to such substantial trade links as the Icknield and Peddars Way (Chadburn, 1991, pp6). Trade would have brought a large number of ‘finished items’ into this region, (Robinson and Gregory, 1987, pp9). However, Greensand deposits found within West Norfolk (such as the deposits in Sedgeford) (See Appendix 1) were probably used to make iron ore (ibid, pp8) in order to produce iron artifacts, for internal use and for export.
Figure: 48: A distribution map showing the find spots of Iron Age pottery. (Horlock, 2003).
Other artifacts of Iron Age date have also been unearthed at Fring, including two terret rings, a number of miscellaneous artifacts and some pottery (See Figure 45, 47 and 48). Sedgeford appears to tie into the regional norm, and the finds which have been unearthed so far represent an expected pattern. However, what sets Sedgeford aside from Heacham, Fring and Ringstead is that a significant amount of Late La Tène/Gallo- Belgic type pottery which has been found, in close association with staters, and the torc. We must remember that the parish boundaries are modern constructs and perhaps Fring, Heacham, Sedgeford and Snettisham were once part of the same territory or that a number of tribes clustered here to be near the religious focus at Snettisham25. Conceivably, different functions could have been assigned to Heacham, Fring and Ringstead; perhaps Sedgeford was a trading stop and Snettisham acted as the religious
25 Davies accounts for the wealth of the deposits at Snettisham by suggesting that a religious association lead the communities to consign their wealth to the ground there (1996, pp73). 71 centre. It is plausible that this whole area developed because of the termination of the Icknield Way and the Peddars Way, either as a collective or developing independently. Davies also believes that an ‘agglomeration of smaller units’ may have lead to the development of larger sites, during the Late Iron Age, especially as the population was rising (1996, pp78). One must not forget that the Iceni also occupied what is now the North of Suffolk and north-eastern Cambridgeshire (See Figure 51). Figure 51 also shows that a concentration of Iceni coins and coin hoards has been located within the westernmost extent of what is now the North of Suffolk. This could suggest further evidence that rich Iron Age sites tended to cluster along the route of the Icknield Way, which we know continued through Suffolk to Salisbury Plain (Smallwood, 2002, pp5).
Figure: 49: A distribution map showing the find spots of Iron Age Torcs and Torc Hoards. (After: Horlock, 2003).
72
Figure: 50: The area inside the red lines shows the Norfolk Sites and Monuments Record Offices definition of ‘North-west Norfolk’. The area inside the black lines shows the location of Sedgeford and its surrounding parishes. The blue dots represent find spots and the yellow dots indicate the positions of where Iron Age monument sites have been located. (After: Horlock, 2003).
73
Figure: 51: The dotted line on this map shows the possible boundary between the Iceni territory and the Trinovantes territory, cutting across Suffolk. Note the concentration of Icenian coins, coin hoards and other find spots in the north-west part of this map, within the modern county of Suffolk. (From: Martin, 1988, pp70, Fig.60).
74 Chapter 4: The wider perspective
Trade
Figure: 52: The RED line = the possible crossing point to Snettisham, the BLUE line = the possible Iron Age coastline, the GREEN = the Jurassic Way, the BROWN = the High Street, and the ORANGE = Barton Street. The latter three are ancient routeways. (After: Elsdon, 1997, pp4, Fig. 1: After: May; additions made to map with the help of Jeffrey May).
Trade across Britain and Europe would have had huge implications on the development of certain sites, including Sedgeford. The work of Cunliffe (1995) has shown that East Anglia may have had closer links to the Low Countries than the rest of Britain (See: Davies, 1996, pp81). At Dragonby the recovery of La Tène II pottery indicates that the site was closely connected to Northern Gaul (May, 1970, pp236). This pottery came to Dragonby over-land along the Jurassic Way, but it seems more likely that the site had a direct link to the continent via the sea and the river systems (See Figure 52). The Late La Tène/Gallo-Belgic type pottery and the staters must also have come to Sedgeford from continental influences, whether across land, via the Icknield
75 Way, or via the vast maritime trading links which would have existed (as we have already seen at Dragonby). Cunliffe states that the ‘sea-ways must have seen a constant flow of people and goods’. (1995, pp24). It is highly likely that maritime and waterways trade brought many influences across to Britain from the continent. In the same respect it is possible that sites, such as Sedgeford, developed as a direct result of these trading networks. Furthermore, the fact that North-west Norfolk was almost entirely surrounded by sea, creeks or rivers could suggest that this zone would have benefited more from sea and waterway trade than from land trade. Although, the importance of the ridgeways and trackways much not be underestimated as they too would have formed a huge part of the trade network (See Figure 52 and See above).
Figure: 53: (Left) Hoard F from the Snettisham Hoards. (From: Stead, 1991, pp226, Fig. 1).
Figure: 54: (Right) Hoard L from the Snettisham hoards. (From: Ibid, pp233, Fig. 9).
The changes in the shape of the Wash have been discussed at length above, and it has become clear from archaeological and numismatic evidence that the sea route across the Wash did exist (May, 1992, pp118-9). May has suggested that there was once a direct link between Snettisham and Ulceby Cross (See Figure 52), this link could also have serviced Sedgeford and other areas in the North-west of Norfolk such as Heacham. Figure 52 shows that Lindsey may have been an island, cut off by the River Ancholme (May, 1996(ii), pp642) and by the marine encroachments from the Wash to the south. As an island Lindsey may have been more accessible for maritime trade, although this implies that the island was isolated from over-land communications. Arguably, the isolation of such tribes as the Corieltauvi and the Iceni may have lead to their unique identities and their regional diversities, whilst at the same time allowing easier access via the waterways. North-west Norfolk may have become aware of the continental
76 influences from the maritime trading networks, as they were easier to access than those coming across from the rest of Britain.
Specialised production The Late Iron Age saw the ‘development of industrial production from household to commercial workshop level, especially wheel-thrown pottery, iron and salt’ (Bryant, 2000, pp17). Stead has suggested that the hoards of scrap metal at Snettisham show parallels to those at Site 33, Hengistbury Head (Hampshire)26. The Snettisham Hoards (See Figure 40, 53 and 54) show that specialised production was taking place in Britain and it is likely that widespread distribution of such artifacts was occurring. Their importance is further exemplified by the fact that very little is known about Icenian production and distribution, especially when compared to other ‘Late’ sites in the south (Bryant (1995; 1997) See: Bryant, 2000, pp14). Specialised production could also have been taking place within Sedgeford, but it is possible that the Sedgeford torc was made at the same workshop as the Snettisham torcs. The pottery Dragonby [and Sedgeford] suggests that much of it was made on the site or very nearby (May, 1996(ii), pp629), showing that localised production was still essential to these communities.
Defended enclosures (Hillforts) and rectangular enclosures
Figure: 55: Norfolk’s Hillforts. (From: Rickett. In: Davies, et al, 1991, pp59, Fig. 43).
It is clear that vast amounts of community labour was exhorted on the construction of such sites as the rectangular enclosures mentioned above. It is possible
26 Similar conclusions were also reached by Bushe-Fox (1915) and Cunliffe (1987) (See: Stead, 1991, pp238).
77 that these sites were built as a parallel to the hillforts which are abundant in the south, south-east and other parts of Britain. They show that the Iceni may have been under a different form of organisation to the south. Five out of the Norfolk six hillforts/defended enclosures are located in the west (See Figure 55 and 56), suggesting the hillfort building pattern may have also followed the tendency of focusing within this zone. Although not directly linked to the evidence at Sedgeford, it is important to mention the hillforts at this point because they help to show where the concentrations of population were and where the labour forces were. It is interesting to see that the hillforts do tend to cluster in the west, specifically Narborough, as it is situated close to a crossing point of the Icknield Way, just south of the River Nar27 and because Holkham, Warham Camp and South Creake are all within this extreme north-west zone. It is possible to suggest that these hillforts and the rectangular enclosures were both built to defend the ‘rich zone’ and the trade networks.
Figure: 56: A map showing the location of definite Iron age forts and possible Iron Age forts in Norfolk. (After: Davies, et al, 1991, pp59, Fig. 51).
The hillforts of Norfolk are set apart from those in the south because they appear to prefer ‘river valley locations’ (Rickett. In: Davies, et al, 1991, pp69) which implies the need to defend the trade routes. In the south the development of the Oppidum (See Figure 57) seems to represent the general shift in social organisation after the First Century B.C., as rapid changes brought about specialised production and as settlement intensification became more prevalent (Cunliffe, 1991, pp70 and pp370). Perhaps the rectangular enclosures in Norfolk had a similar function to the oppidum, although, due
27 This geographical information was taken from (Rickett. In: Davies, et al, 1991, pp66). 78 to the diverse nature of the British Iron Age it is possible that society was organised entirely different to the rest of Britain.
Figure: 57: Iron Age Britain in c. First Century A.D. Showing the core zone (1) and the periphery zones (2), and the location of oppida, nucleated settlements and major ports. (After: Darvill, 1987, pp167, Fig. 98). (Based on: Haselgrove, 1982, Fig. 10.6).
Summary It has long been known that the British Iron Age was extremely diverse, relative to the size of the isles when compared to the continent where general patterns can be applied to vast areas. What my research is suggesting is that there does appear to be a specific region which developed in the Late Iron Age, in the North-west of Norfolk. This area would have been accessible via the sea, waterways and over the ridgeways and the prehistoric trackways all bringing influences in from Europe. The area is rich in environmental resources, with fertile soil (See Appendix 1) and would have been the ideal location for settlers. The very fact that they were trading on such a scale would suggest that the inhabitants of this area were producing a surplus and it is this that would have brought the wealth to the region. Snettisham is the most important Late Iron Age site, in Britain, whilst Sedgeford and many of the other sites seem to show connections to the possible tribal centre. One of the key points identified so far is that the north-west zone of Norfolk had links with Lincolnshire, the south and the continent and that the Iceni were not as isolated as earlier scholars have previously assumed.
79 Discussion and Conclusion
I believe that the civil parish of Sedgeford was once the location of a multi- functional Iron Age occupation site and it would appear that S.H.A.R.P. has only just begun to find the evidence to prove this theory. I believe that the curvilinear feature in the Boneyard/Reeddam-1 excavations does represent the remains of a roundhouse because of its dimensions and because of the associated finds, which are all of domestic origin and/or that of a small scale industry. The pottery analysis indicates an Early-mid Iron Age date. It is highly unlikely that S.H.A.R.P. accidentally found the remains of the only roundhouse within this area. I therefore believe that the possible roundhouse relates to a larger occupation site or farmstead type settlement, due to the sheer amount of pottery within the assemblage. It is possible that the feature represents the remains of something entirely different, such as an enclosure ditch, an animal pen or a simple drainage ditch. But, from the amount of domestic waste within the fill of this feature, I feel quite confident in saying that it represents the remains of a domestic dwelling, which was associated with production. I doubt that people would have lived in the house, if it was in the industrial quarter of the farmstead, but it is likely that domestic production took place here, such as flint tool production or cereal production. The artifacts found in association with this feature could suggest that the local inhabitants were also producing their own, hand-made pottery, within the industrial area of a larger (possibly enclosed) farmstead. It maybe the case that S.H.A.R.P. has, as yet, only found the site of the domestic industries (pots, flints and food production) and they will find further industrial activity as excavation continues, such as smelting, wood working and possibly other sorts of specialised production. This roundhouse could have been an isolated dwelling, because the artefactual assemblage does represent a complete domestic unit (i.e: pottery, animal bone, cereal production and flints – wood and textiles would have rotted away). However, the presence of slag within these Early-mid Iron Age features would suggest the existence of a much larger occupation site, as one small dwelling could not justified the need for smelting it own iron. If one is to assume that the structure represents part of a workshop then it would be fair to suggest that the pits, ditches, postholes and gullies, which were also evident in Reeddam-1, represent the remains of enclosure ditches, drainage channels, waste/processing pits or stores for the raw materials needed within the working enclosure. What happens after this Early-mid Iron Age phase is less clear, as S.H.A.R.P. simply has not found the remains of any features dating to the Middle or Late Iron Age, even though both phases are represented within the pottery assemblages. It is likely that 80 the remains of these features were completely destroyed by the later encroachment of the Anglo-Saxon cemetery but it is also possible that these later phases may become evident in a different location, if at all, close to the Early-Middle Iron Age site or further up the slopes. The Middle and Mid-late pottery assemblages do indicate the existence of a substantial occupation site within the vicinity. The pottery assemblage suggests that an increase in production and/or importation could have taken place during the Late Iron Age, although it could simply indicate that these pots have survived better as a result of better fabrics and firing practises. The pottery assemblage indicates that Sedgeford was part of a larger trading network, because influences were coming from Europe and the South, in the form of Late La Tène/Gallo-Belgic type wares and Aylesford-Swarling type wares. The assemblage implies that production was localised but high quality influences were reaching Sedgeford, making such pots desirable. These ideas/styles were then copied by the local potters, on an increased scale. The styles and production techniques appear to have developed in the Late Iron Age, as a direct result of fashion and the very fact that these pots were fashionable would suggest that a large trade network was being extensively utilised. Throughout this dissertation I have focused heavily on the importance of the different routes and functions of the Icknield Way and Peddars Way. I believe that the Late Iron Age occupation in Sedgeford developed as a direct result of their existence. These routeways and the river would have given Sedgeford direct links to other territories and the extensive trade network which had developed over much of Europe. North Norfolk would have been isolated geographically from the south over-land because of the marine incursion around the Wash and because of the physical distant from the ‘heartland’ of the British Iron Age – Wessex, which possibly lead to its independent development. Although, it was at a better positioned for receiving imports from maritime trade. North-west Norfolk seems to have been a hotspot of high-status Late Iron Age activity as shown by the distributions of torcs and coins. I believe that this too is because of the developments along the course of the Icknield Way. Sedgeford may even represent the final stopping-off point before crossing the Wash to Lincolnshire, the rest of Britain or even Europe. Although, this could simply be a reflection of the amount of archaeological investigation work which has been done, because of the location of Snettisham, a focal point of the tribal wealth and trade. The occupation site at Sedgeford may have shifted up the slopes onto higher ground as a result of the rising water table which was affecting much of West Norfolk, the Fenlands and Lincolnshire. S.H.A.R.P. therefore may find Iron Age material further
81 up the north-facing slope (which is mostly badly eroded and truncated) or further up the south-facing slope (where the modern village is now situated). The concentration of Iron Age material only appears to be heightened within the Boneyard and Reeddam-1 excavations because this is where all archaeological work has been focused within the parish. Sedgeford, like Norfolk, must not be thought of as a separate entity. It must not be assumed that Sedgeford is the be all and end all of the Late Iron Age of North-west Norfolk, as it has to be looked at in the context of its wider landscape. It is significant that a relatively large quantity of Late La Tène/Gallo-Belgic type pottery has been found in association with the eight staters because they show that some sort of high status activity was taking place at Sedgeford, particularly in the Late Iron Age. It is likely that Sedgeford, Snettisham, Heacham, Fring and possibly Ringstead were part of a larger tribal unit, with Snettisham as the focus, although it is also possible that other unknown land divisions were used to defend areas or zones within the Icenian territory. One cannot assume that Sedgeford was a major site because S.H.A.R.P. simply has not yet found anywhere near enough material to rival such sites as Snettisham or Fison Way. Although, if the large multi-vallated rectangular enclosure on the Sedgeford side of Ken Hill is found to be of Iron Age date, then it is possible that Sedgeford, was a Late Iron Age centre, in its own right. Other Iron Age material is becoming evident throughout the rest of the parish and I hope that as more work is conducted by S.H.A.R.P. the importance of these findings will become clearer. Over much of Europe this period gave raise to a rapid acceleration of social, economical and political development. Although, the diverse nature of the British Iron Age makes interpretations difficult and it is almost impossible to form general trend patterns on any scale; especially, when one compares the Late Iron Age of Norfolk to the increasingly proto- urban south. Further research into the Iron Age occupation of Sedgeford is planned for the coming seasons at S.H.A.R.P. A structured programme of fieldwalking, geophysical surveying and test-pitting will lead to further excavations where concentrated scatters of Iron Age pottery and artifacts become evident. Once this work is underway it is hoped that S.H.A.R.P. may find the remains of the Late Iron Age occupation site which has so far gone undiscovered. S.H.A.R.P. should consider having further analysis done on the pottery assemblage as more samples are found. If funding became available it would be useful to have some thin sections taken from some of the sherds in order to make direct comparisons between this pottery assemblage and those seen across the Wash in Lincolnshire and the south-east, to see if any pottery was being traded between these
82 territories. Analysis of the flint assemblage should also prove interesting and useful. The coins need to be studied at length, firstly, to see if they show evidence of coming from the same dies and secondly to determine the composition of the metal. Regionally, more work needs to be conducted to evaluate the relative importance of such areas as Sedgeford, but with rescue archaeology taking preference across Britain, often research aims and theories cannot be fully explored and so it may be several years before we gain a more complete picture of Iron Age occupation in North-west Norfolk.
83
Plate 1: The ring ditch feature [7046] (7045) and the Iron Age pit [7093] (7092). 2001 excavations in the Reeddam-1 Trench. (Courtesy of S.H.A.R.P.).
Plate 2: The ring ditch feature [7046] (7045). 2001 excavations in the Reeddam-1 Trench. Courtesy of S.H.A.R.P.).
84
Plate 3: Section of feature [7093] (7092). 2001 excavations in the Reeddam-1 trench. (Courtesy of S.H.A.R.P).
Plate 4: Plan of feature [7228] (7227). 2001 excavations in the Reeddam-1 trench. (Courtesy of S.H.A.R.P).
85
Plate 5: Three of the Gallo-Belgic type E gold staters, found at Sedgeford. (Courtesy of S.H.A.R.P.).
Plate 6: Detail of one of the Gallo-Belgic type E gold staters, found at Sedgeford. (Courtesy of S.H.A.R.P.).
Plate 7: The Terret Ring. Late Iron Age/ Roman, 54mm in length, fieldwalking find from Field 34 (Ludford, 2001: Courtesy of S.H.A.R.P.).
86 APPENDIX 1
Figure: 58: This map shows the solid geology of Norfolk: The modern parish of Sedgeford is marked in red. (After: Funnell, 1994(b), pp13, Fig.1).
Figure: 59: This map shows the principal soil types across Norfolk. The RED circle shows the approximate location of Sedgeford. (After: Williamson, 1993, pp9, Fig. 1.1).
Geology Sedgeford is an ideal location for settlers; the area is sheltered in a valley, with a fresh source of water, and fertile soil. The parish of Sedgeford can be found at the confluence of two shallow valleys; the major from the south-east and the minor from the north-east (Andrews, 2001, pp5). The local geology
87 within the parish is varied, owing to the fact that several rock types rise to the surface. The predominant surface rock is Cretaceous Middle Chalk; strata of Greensands, Carrstone, Hunstanton Red Chalk and deposits of flint can also be found on the surface (Andrews and Calow, 2001, pp29) and glacial deposits have left behind, as pockets of Hunstanton Boulder Clay, sand and gravel (ibid). The Peddars Way28 is located along a crest of high ground, between the upper chalk and the lower chalk (Funnell, 1994(b), pp12) (See Figure 58).
Soil types Soil types across Norfolk also vary in depth and fertility. Most of Norfolk’s farmland is and probably always has been, arable (Williamson, 1993, pp5). Figure 59 shows that Sedgeford lies within a ‘light loam’ principal soil type area. Loam is the ideal soil for agriculture; 20% of a loam is made up of clay which hold the nutrients, 40% of the make up is sand which helps to prevent waterlogging, whilst the other 40% is silt which binds the other two properties together (Waugh, 1995, pp244).
28 The Peddars Way cut across the east of the parish (See Map 1). 88 APPENDIX 2
PREHISTORIC, IRON AGE AND ROMAN POTTERY ANALYSIS (Source: the Author)
BRONZE AGE POTTERY ditch feature (Flitcroft, 2001, pp66, Fig. 36), A:1. Possibly Bronze Age or earlier (Percival), Willington, Derbyshire, dating to the Early Iron or Iron Age which has been fired under Age (Elsdon, 1993, A:5). differing conditions (Elsdon). 3 body sherds (23g). Hand-made sand temper with crusted B:2. Early-Middle Iron Age (Elsdon and chalk, Knight suggests grog tempering, Firman Percival), 23g of base sherd, found in close suggests that the pot has been made using an association with B:1. The diameter is uncertain. organic rich clay, and that Carbon has been Definitely hand-made similar in appearance as expelled from the oxidised outer layer as CO². B:1, badly degraded but feels like it has been The exterior is light-creamy-yellow, the interior harder fired. Same colouration as B:1, but has is dark-brownish-black, and is coated with very larger angular lumps of flint included within the crumbly Carbon (possible food remnants); the tempering. Similar vessels at: Old Sleaford, pot may have had a slip added to the exterior, or Lincolnshire (Elsdon, 1997, pp152, Fig. 76). the colour difference occurred as a result of air getting into the bonfire stack. These sherds were B:3. Early-Middle Iron Age (Elsdon), 4th-2nd found in the only fill of ditch [2043], where it Century B.C. 8g of rim sherd, hand-made, was difficult to distinguish between the feature irregular but very well made, the rim is slightly and the natural sand. The context was within the lipped, possible evidence of twig decoration or Reeddam testpit TP4, and could indicate earlier perhaps chaff impressions (Knight and Elsdon). prehistoric occupation. Faulkner dates the The interior is mottled mid-reddish-brown, the context to ?early Saxon or very Late Iron Age exterior is dark-blackish-grey, with flecks of (1999). ironstone and the temper includes a crystalline substance seen on the rim lip (Knight). Found EARLY-MIDDLE IRON AGE POTTERY within the same context as B:1 and B:2. Similar B:1. Early-Middle Iron Age (Elsdon and vessels at: Dragonby, within an early ditched Percival), 160g in total, 3 rim and 5 body sherds enclosure (May, 1996(ii), pp447, Fig. 19.20 and stuck together after excavation, forming ⅓ of a also pp451, Fig. 19.23), Old Sleaford, vessel. Crudely-made, hand-made pot, badly Lincolnshire (Elsdon, 1997, pp151, Fig. 75) and degraded, which crumbles to the touch. Slab also small-med sized jars (pp128, Fig. 52), built construction with a lipped rim, Willington, Derbyshire, dating to the Early Iron thumb/fingerprints evident all over the surface. Age (Elsdon, 1993, A:5). Evidence of burnt vegetable, quartz and mica tempering (Knight), with course flecks of sand B:4. Early-Middle Iron Age (Elsdon), 3 < >1-1.5mm in size. Surface has mottled adjoining body sherds total weight 30g, with colouring, mid-brownish-black, mid-greyish- recent breaks. Elsdon suggests that these sherds black, dark-reddish-brown with a yellow ochre could have been part of an upright jar. The layer just below exterior surface. All 8 sherds interior and exterior are both mid-brownish- were found within the curvilinear ring ditch grey, with black and sandy mottles, possible feature, which cut into the natural sands, found evidence of burning on the pot’s interior surface in association with an arrowhead, 17 worked (? Food remnants). Finger/ thumbprints found flints, 315g burnt flint, a flint tool, 4 flint flakes, across the surface of the sherds; sand tempering 605g of bone, other pottery, and charcoal. This with high mica content. These sherds were all deposit is likely to represent an Early-Mid Iron found within a pit/ditch feature, in close Age context. Similar vessels found at: Burgh, association with RDM 7045 and 7100; this Suffolk, dating to the mid-late Iron Age, feature also cuts into the natural sands and may (Martin, 1999, pp77, Fig. 3.18), Fison Way, be related to the possible structure of 7045. within a ring ditch feature (Gregory, 1991, Found with a worked bone, worked flint, burnt pp156-7, Fig. 140), Dane’s Graves, Yorkshire, flint, butchered bone, struck flint, a fragment of dating to the 3rd-1st Centuries B.C. (Dane’s slag, bone and other pottery. This feature can Graves-Staxton Style) (Cunliffe, 1991, pp580, therefore also be dated to the Early-Mid Iron Fig. A:27), Old Sleaford, Lincolnshire, dating to Age. the Mid Iron Age (Elsdon, 1997, pp102, Fig. 47), and (pp151, Fig.75), Snettisham Bypass, hand-made pot from within the fill of a ring
89 MIDDLE IRON AGE POTTERY Roystone Grange and Brassington, Derbyshire, C:1. Middle Iron Age, high quality (Elsdon), dating to the Early-mid Iron Age (Elsdon, 1993, Percival has reservations and suggests a Saxon A:3). Fisher Gate, Nottingham, dating to the date. 50g rim sherd, very thick, very crude Mid-late Iron Age, (Elsdon, 1993, B:1). hand-made with a lipped rim. Surface of pot Enderby, Leicestershire, dating to the Mid Iron pitted with fingerprints and irregular striations. Age (Elsdon, 1993, D:11). Dark-greyish-black, with evidence of burnishing; some evidence of grass, grog and C:4. Middle Iron Age date (Elsdon and flint tempering. The sherd was found within a Percival) 500-200 B.C. One (38g) rim sherd, probable Saxon layer, within Test Pit 4 in the hand-made with a very uneven lipped rim, the Reeddam; however Faulkner does not rule out S-shaped profile thickens towards the base, the possibility of the feature being of Iron Age again suggesting that it was hand-made, date (1999). Similar vessels found at: Bixley on fingerprint impressions can also be seen on the the Norwich Southern Bypass, dating to the surface. The exterior is dark-sandy-brown in Early Iron Age (Percival, 1999, pp178, Fig. colour, with sand, mica, and flint or shell within 8.2). Framlingham, Suffolk, dating to the Early- the tempering. There is evidence of sooting on mid Iron Age (Martin, 1999, pp76, Fig. 3.17). the pot’s surface which could possible indicate Dragonby (May, 1996(ii), pp463, Fig. 19.31). that it was once a small cooking pot, and the pot Weelsby Ave, Humberside, dating to the Early- appears to have been hard fired to a biscuity mid Iron Age (Elsdon, 1993, C:6a). Enderby, texture. This sherd came form an undatable Leicestershire, dating to the Mid Iron Age gully/ditch which could be of Iron Age date. (Elsdon, 1993, D:11). Similar vessels at: Enderby, Leicestershire, dating to the Mid Iron Age (Elsdon, 1993, C:2. Middle Iron Age rim sherd, with lipped D:11). rim (27g), crudely-hand-made pot, irregular profile suggests this, fingerprints also evident. C:5. Middle Iron Age combed ware jar The interior is mid-greyish-brown, the exterior (Elsdon), 2 sherds stuck together totalling 17g. is mid-reddish-brown, evidence of mica and Mid-sandy-brown in colour, with large grooves grass tempering. Some evidence of burning, on exterior, similar sherds found within the which could indicate that the pot was once a RDM context 1703, but on these sherds the small cooking pot. This sherd was found in grooves are much more regular and deep. These RDM 2039 which later became RDM 2031 sherds came from a layer of probable ploughsoil (C:1). Similar vessels found at: Valley Belt, and therefore I would suggest that the pot is Trowse, and Silfield, on the Norwich Southern residual. Similar vessels at: Dragonby (May, Bypass, dating to the Mid Iron Age (Percival, 1996, pp448, Fig. 19.21). Breedon-on-the-Hill, 1999, pp180, Fig. 8.3). Burgh, Suffolk, dating to Leicester, dating to the mid Iron Age (5th – 2nd the mid-late Iron Age (Martin, 1999, pp77, Fig. Centuries B.C.) (Breedon-Ancaster Group) 3.18). Mam Tor, Derbyshire (Elsdon, 1993, (Cunliffe, 1991, pp562, Fig. A:9). Slough, A:1). Maxey, Cambridge, dating to the Early Bucks/ Abington, Pigotts/ and Houghton, Hunts Iron Age (Elsdon, 1993, D:3). Enderby, (Cunliffe, 1991, pp577, Fig. A:24). Old Leicestershire, dating to the Mid Iron Age Sleaford, Lincolnshire, dating to the Mid Iron (Elsdon, 1993, D:11). Age (Elsdon, 1997, pp102, Fig. 47). Epperstone, Nottingham, dating to the early-mid Iron Age C:3. Middle Iron Age rim sherd (Elsdon and (Elsdon, 1993, A:4). Holme Pierrepont, Percival), 2 adjoining sherds (1 rim and 2 body Nottingham, dating to the Mid-late Iron Age sherds) weighing in total 51g. Crude-hand-made (Elsdon, 1993, B:2). pot with fingerprints on the body and rim, which is chunky and lipped. The exterior is MIDDLE-LATE IRON AGE POTTERY mid-sandy-brown with burnt areas; the interior D:1. Percival suggests a later-mid to late date is much lighter; the temper includes flint and for these sherds, whilst Elsdon suggests a other stone. The context within which these Flavian/post-conquest date, and that the vessels sherds were found also contained a large may have been finished on a slow wheel. These number of other Iron Age sherds and some of three sherds in total weigh 74g (1 body and 2 the Gallo-Belgic type E coins. The context was rim sherds). The rim is well made, but the originally interpreted as an Anglo-Saxon feature profile of the pot seems to thicken out towards within the Reeddam Anglo-Saxon skeleton the base, which suggests that the pot was hand- levels; I must question this, however and made. Mid-sandy-brown in some areas with suggest that Anglo-Saxon features may have cut darker mottling, some evidence of burnishing into Iron Age deposits. Similar vessels found at: around the rim, rougher around the middle, the Framlingham, Suffolk, dating to the Early-mid surface is slightly uneven. Flint, mica and shell Iron Age, (Martin, 1999, pp76, Fig. 3.17). Old tempering are very frequent. From the same Sleaford, Lincolnshire – small-medium jars, of context as C:3. Similar vessels at: Dragonby Iron Age date (Elsdon, 1997, pp127, Fig. 51). (May, 1996(ii), pp459, Fig. 19.28). Moulton
90 Park, Northampton, dating to the late 1st pot. Dark-greyish-brown with a high mica Century B.C.- Early 1st Century A.D. (Elsdon, content, <3mm in the profile of the sherd. The 1993, E:9). sherd was found within the fill of the grave containing the Anglo-Saxon Burial S1063; this D:2. Percival suggests later-mid to late Iron grave was cut into the natural sands so it is Age, Elsdon suggests mid-late date of c. 500- likely that the grave truncated Iron Age deposits 150 B.C., perhaps a steep-sided storage jar, and that Iron Age material has been redeposited definitely hand-made, the rim sherd (34g) is higher up the sequence. The sherd was found in very uneven and chunky, with fingerprints association with potboilers and 4 small flint along the rim. The sherd is dark-sandy-brown, flakes. Similar vessels found at: Bixley on the the interior is much redder than the exterior. Norwich Southern Bypass, dating to the Early The profile contains a reddish-grey layer Iron Age (Percival, 1999, pp178, Fig. 8.2). sandwiched between the exterior and the Dragonby (May, 1996(ii), pp492, Fig. 19.50). interior; sand appears to be the only tempering. Epperstone, Nottingham, dating to the early-mid This sherd came from the same context as C:3 Iron Age (Elsdon, 1993, A:4). and D:1. Similar vessels found at: Framlingham, Suffolk, dating to the Early-mid Iron Age D:6. Mid-late or possibly Saxon (Percival). (Martin, 1999, pp76, Fig. 3.17). Old Sleaford, base sherd (35g), which has been hand-made Lincolnshire – small-medium jars, of Iron Age and perhaps finished on a slow-wheel, very faint date (Elsdon, 1997, pp127, Fig. 51). circular striations on the base emphasize this point. The pot was well-made by hand, with D:3. Mid-late (500-150B.C.) (Elsdon), fingerprints evident. Mid-sandy-brown exterior Percival suggests later-mid-late or possibly late. and mid-brownish-grey interior, with some mica Combed ware storage jar or ‘scored ware’. Two within the tempering. The context was sherds weighing 126g in total suggest that the interpreted as an Iron Age pit and the sherd was pot would have been a very large storage jar, found in association with a fragment of slag, definitely handmade, with evidence of potters’ ceramic building material, fire hardened clay, fingerprints. Mid-greyish-brown in colour, this worked flint, burnt flint, a crucible fragment, sherd was also found within the RDM context bone, fishbone and other pot sherds. Similar 1703, same as C:3, D:1 and D:2. Similar vessels vessels found at: Bixley on the Norwich at: Dragonby (May, 1996(ii), pp448, Fig. Southern Bypass, dating to the Early Iron Age 19.21). Breedon-on-the-Hill, Leicester, dating to (Percival, 1999, pp178, Fig. 8.2). the mid Iron Age (5th – 2nd Centuries B.C.) (Breedon-Ancaster Group) (Cunliffe, 1991, LATE IRON AGE POTTERY pp562, Fig. A:9). Old Sleaford, Lincolnshire, E:1. Very Late Iron Age, Gallo-Belgic type dating to the Mid Iron Age (Elsdon, 1997, ware, wheel-made, possibly Flavian vessel pp102, Fig. 47). Epperstone, Nottingham, dating (Elsdon). 1 rim sherd (from RDM 2058), 4 body to the early-mid Iron Age, (Elsdon, 1993, A:4). sherds and 3 base sherds, all adjoining totalling Holme Pierrepont, Nottingham, dating to the 129g. An extremely well-made vessel, with Mid-late Iron Age (Elsdon, 1993, B:2). elaborate design. Dark-sandy-brown interior and dark-greyish-black exterior, which appears D:4. Mid-late Iron Age (500-150 B.C.) to have been burnished. Possible food remnants (Elsdon), but questioned whether the sherd or sooting are evident on the interior. could have been of Saxon date. Percival Approximately ⅓ of the vessel has been suggests a slightly later date. 70g of combed recovered. The vessel resembles the Aylesford- storage jar, well-made, handmade sherd. Mid- Swarling style. All but the rim sherd were found greyish-brown with mica and flint tempering. within the same context as A:1, dating to the This sherd also came from RDM 1703, same as early Saxon or very Late Iron Age. The rim C:3, D:1, D:2 and D:3. Similar vessels at: sherd was found within an adjacent context Dragonby (May, 1996(ii), pp448, Fig. 19.21). 2058, which appears to be a primary deposit of Breedon-on-the-Hill, Leicester, dating to the very Late Iron Age date (Faulkner, 1999), mid Iron Age (5th – 2nd Centuries B.C.) which was originally interpreted as the only fill (Breedon-Ancaster Group) (Cunliffe, 1991, of a small pit, this vessel may have been pp562, Fig. A:9). Old Sleaford, Lincolnshire, intrusive or part of a votive offering. Similar dating to the Mid Iron Age (Elsdon, 1997, vessels found at: Fison Way, dating to the late pp102, Fig. 47). Epperstone, Nottingham, dating Iron Age (Gregory, 1991, pp159, Fig. 141) and to the early-mid Iron Age, (Elsdon, 1993, A:4). (pp167, Fig. 145). Swarling, Kent, dating to c. Holme Pierrepont, Nottingham, dating to the 50 B.C. – A.D. 43, Ayleford-Swarling Style Mid-late Iron Age (Elsdon, 1993, B:2). (Cunliffe, 1991, pp581, Fig. A:28). Old Sleaford, Lincolnshire (Elsdon, 1997, pp153, D:5. Mid-late or possibly Saxon date (Elsdon), Fig. 77) and concave-sided and carinated bowls 40g of probably a base sherd, hand-made with (pp138, Fig. 62). Potlock, Derbyshire, dating to faint striations on the surface of the slab-built the late Iron Age (Elsdon, 1993, A:6).
91 E:2. Very late Iron Age, wheel-made, pedestal pp448, Fig. 19.21). Breedon-on-the-Hill, base which was probably contempory with the Leicester, dating to the mid Iron Age (5th – 2nd transitional Roman period (135g) (Elsdon). The Centuries B.C.) (Breedon-Ancaster Group) interior of the base has a raised area suggesting (Cunliffe, 1991, pp562, Fig. A:9). Old Sleaford, that the pot has been turned on a wheel, also the Lincolnshire, dating to the Mid Iron Age fingerprints on the sherd are extremely regular. (Elsdon, 1997, pp102, Fig. 47). Holme The exterior is mid-greyish-brown and the Pierrepont, Nottingham, dating to the Mid-late interior is slightly darker; the tempering Iron Age (Elsdon, 1993, B:2). includes mica. This base was found within a Saxon context, so one would assume that it is E:6. Late Iron Age, possibly Saxon (Elsdon residual. Similar vessels found at: Fison Way and Percival), 3 adjoining base sherds, (53g). (Gregory, 1991, pp161, Fig. 142). Old Sleaford, The pot was well-made and possibly finished on Lincolnshire (Elsdon, 1997, pp152, Fig. 76). a slow wheel. The exterior, which is mid-sandy- brown in colour, has evidence of fingerprint E:3. Very late Iron Age, Gallo-Belgic, wheel- striations, but the interior, which is darker has made, Flavian period (69-96 A.D.); almost ½ of larger finger grooves indicating that the interior the pot has been reconstructed. 28 sherds were was hand-finished. The tempering included found within 1584 and 1503 (280g). Well-made, mica and possibly grass. These sherds were highly decorative pot, with a rolled rim, wide found within the same context as C:3, D:1, D:2, flanged body and a simple base; the fingerprint D:3, E:4 and E:5. Similar vessels found at: striations are very regular indicating a great deal Fison Way (Gregory, 1991, pp161, Fig. 142). of skill was used to produce the vessel. The base appears to have been scraped to remove any E:7. Very late Iron Age rim sherd, or possibly excess clay; the exterior has been smoothed on a wheel-made Flavian period. The sherd only wheel, but not burnished. The whole pot is weighs 5g but shows evidence of being very mottled light and mid-sandy-brown, with fine finely made with a large lipped rim. Fingerprint sand, mica and iron stone temper. Iron stone striations are evident on the surface of the sherd. flecks are angular and measure >2mm. The This sherd was found within the colluvium context within which most of the pot sherds levels of the RDM2 trench. Similar vessels were found was the primary fill of an east-west found at: Fison Way, dating to the late Iron Age ditch located towards the southern extent of the or Early Roman (Gregory, 1991, pp165, Fig. Boneyard trench. It is possible that this ditch 144). Old Sleaford, Lincolnshire (Elsdon, 1997, was over cut during excavation or that the pot pp151, Fig. 75). Snettisham Bypass (Flitcroft, appeared in a Saxon context, as a residual 2001, pp67, Fig. 37). Flawford, Nottingham, artefact. Similar vessels found at: Fison Way, Late Iron Age (Elsdon, 1993, B:8). dating to the late Iron Age (Gregory, 1991, pp167, Fig. 145). Swarling, Kent, dating to c. 50 E:8. Late Iron Age, wheel-made sherd B.C. – A.D. 43, Ayleford-Swarling Style (Percival). Elsdon suggests that the pot is an (Cunliffe, 1991, pp581, Fig. A:28). Old imitation butt-beaker, of Gallo-Belgic type. A Sleaford, Lincolnshire, dating to the late Iron large primary sherd weighing 65g. The pot is Age (Elsdon, 1997, pp160, Fig. 84), (pp152, well-made with a sophisticated rim. The sherd is Fig. 76) and (pp138, Fig. 62). Epperstone, dark-reddish-brown mottled with sandy-brown Nottingham, dating to the early-mid Iron and greyish-black. The tempering includes mica Age,(Elsdon, 1993, A:4). and possibly grass. This sherd was found within a colluvium layer in the RDM2 trench. Similar E:4. Probably late Iron Age, but possibly vessels found at: Framlingham, Suffolk, dating Saxon (Percival), 2 body sherds (117g) stuck to the Early-mid Iron Age (Martin, 1999, pp76, together after excavation. Crudely-made, hand- Fig. 3.17). made pot, with large fingerprint striations on the surface of the pot. The profile of the pot is quite E:9. High quality Late Iron Age (22g) rim irregular and thickens out towards the base. The sherd (Elsdon), which was hand-made and sherds are light-sandy-brown with evidence of perhaps finished on a slow wheel. Chunky rim burning on the exterior, these sherds were found sherd with a lipped rim; the exterior is within the same context as C:3, D:1, D:2, and burnished and fingerprint striations are regularly D:3. spaced down from the rim which suggests that the vessel was finished on a slow wheel. The E:5. Iron Age, Gallo-Belgic scored ware, these interior is very badly degraded, the exterior is 2 sherds (79g) are of the same high quality as mid-blacky-brown, with flint and possibly shell the Gallo-Belgic ware. The sherds are from a tempering. The context within which this sherd combed ware jar, which had irregular scoring on was found was originally interpreted as an Iron it exterior, these sherds were found within the Age pit, but the context may also have been a same context as C:3, D:1, D:2, D:3, and E:4. Saxon charnel pit; the feature was dug into the Similar vessels at: Dragonby (May, 1996(ii), natural sands, so if Saxon, the feature may have
92 disturbed Iron Age deposits. The sherds were pp178, Fig. 8.2). Flawford, Nottingham, Late associated with 25g of slag, 2 flint flakes, 430g Iron Age (Elsdon, 1993, B:8). of human remains, 215g of animal remains, 2 fishbones, charcoal and a large quantity of ROMAN POTTERY pottery. Similar vessels found at: Longham, on F:1. Roman greyware, base sherd (32g), the Norwich Southern Bypass, dating to the Mid possibly wheel-made or finished on a slow Iron Age, (Percival, 1999, pp181, Fig. 8.4). Old wheel (Elsdon). The temper contains mica. The Sleaford, Lincolnshire (Elsdon, 1997, pp151, context within which this sherd was found was Fig. 75). Flawford, Nottingham, Late Iron Age dated to the Saxon period. Similar vessels found (Elsdon, 1993, B:8). Enderby, Leicestershire, at: Fison Way (Gregory, 1991, pp161, Fig. 142). dating to the Mid Iron Age (Elsdon, 1993, Old Sleaford, Lincolnshire (Elsdon, 1997, D:11). pp152, Fig. 76).
E:10. High quality imitation Gallo-Belgic F:2. Roman greyware, rim sherd (12g) ware (93g) (Elsdon), dating to the Roman (Elsdon). This sherd was found within a midden transitional period. The irregular profile context of Saxon date. Similar vessels found at: suggests that it was hand-made but finished on a Snettisham Bypass (Flitcroft, 2001, pp67, Fig. slow wheel. The surface of the sherd is 37). Flawford, Nottingham, Late Iron Age, burnished and very smooth, but finger tip (Elsdon, 1993, B:8). striations are quite irregular which suggests that the pot was hand-made. This sherd was found F:3. Early Roman base sherd which could be within the same context as D:6. Similar vessels Gallo-Belgic ware (Elsdon). The base (28g) was at: Dragonby, (May, 1996(ii), pp459, Fig. hand-made, but irregular striations suggest that 19.28). Moulton Park, Northampton, Late 1st the pot was finished on a slow wheel. The base Century – Early 1st Century A.D. (Elsdon, 1993, seems to have had the excess clay scraped off E:9). and the evidence of tool marking indicates that the pot was worked whilst leather-hard E:11. Imitation Gallo-Belgic ware (Elsdon), (Elsdon). This sherd is from the same context as well-made, hand-made pot (33g), with abundant C:1 and C:2 and is therefore likely to be inclusions of what appears to be crushed residual. Similar vessels found at: Fison Way aggregate which was added deliberately, (Gregory, 1991, pp161, Fig. 142). Old Sleaford, probably made from a local glacial erratic Lincolnshire (Elsdon, 1997, pp152, Fig. 76). boulder of vein quartz which is found within Bassingfield, Nottingham, dating to the Mid- boulder clay (Firman, pers. comm.); there is late Iron Age (Elsdon, 1993, B:1). Enderby, also evidence of grog and possible flint or shell Leicestershire, dating to the Mid Iron Age tempering. The uneven rim suggests that the pot (Elsdon, 1993, D:11). was made hand-made, whilst the surface looks slightly burnished. The pot is mottled mid- F:4. Early Roman greyware (29g) base sherd rusty-brown and mid-brownish-black, with (Elsdon) which has been wheel-made and some yellowish patches. The context within appears to have been hard fired. This sherd was which this pot was found dates to the Saxon found within a plough soil layer. Similar vessels period. Similar vessels found at: Fison Way, at: Dragonby (May, 1996(ii), pp492, Fig. dating to the late Iron Age (Gregory, 1991, 19.50). pp159, Fig. 141). Old Sleaford, Lincolnshire – small-medium jars, of Iron Age date (Elsdon, F:5. Roman base sherd (4g) (Elsdon). Finely 1997, pp127, Fig. 51). Mam Tor, Derbyshire made decorative sherd almost too small to date. (Elsdon, 1993, A:1). This sherd was found within the same context as F:4. E:12. Crudely-made hand-made imitation Gallo-Belgic ware (Elsdon), which was almost F:6. Roman rim probably from the Flavian too small to identify. The 2g rim looks as period or possibly a very late Iron Age sherd though it has been finished on a slow wheel. (2g) (Elsdon). The pot was wheel-made and has The sherd was found within a possible Saxon fingerprint striations. This sherd was found gully; the gully may have been Iron Age as it within the same context as F:4 and F:6. Similar was cut into the natural sands. Postholes ran vessels found at: Framlingham, Suffolk, dating alongside the gully so it is possible that the to the Early-mid Iron Age (Martin, 1999, pp76, gully was part of a boundary fence. This context Fig. 3.17). Fison Way, dating to the late Iron contained worked flint, burnt flint, other pottery Age or Early Roman (Gregory, 1991, pp165, sherds, 310g of human remains, 275g of animal Fig. 144). Old Sleaford, Lincolnshire (Elsdon, remains and 8 fish bones. Similar vessels found 1997, pp151, Fig. 75) and butt-beakers (pp139, at: Bixley on the Norwich Southern Bypass, Fig. 63). Snettisham Bypass (Flitcroft, 2001, dating to the Early Iron Age (Percival, 1999, pp67, Fig. 37). Flawford, Nottingham, Late Iron Age (Elsdon, 1993, B:8).
93 F:7. Early Roman necked jar (29g) (Elsdon), place during excavation. Similar vessels at: perhaps finished on a slow wheel, irregular Dragonby, dating to the Early Roman period striations indicate that the pot was hand-made. (May, 1996(ii), pp458-9, Fig. 19.28 and pp462, This sherd is very similar to some much earlier Fig. 19.30 and pp464, Fig. 19.32). sherds. It was found within a ploughsoil layer. Similar vessels found at: Old Sleaford, ROMANO-BRITISH POTTERY Lincolnshire – small-medium jars, of Iron Age G:1. Romano-British base sherd (23g) date (Elsdon, 1997, pp127, Fig. 51) and (pp151, (Knight). The pot appears to have been hand- Fig. 75) and Iron Age butt beakers (pp139, Fig. made but to a high quality. The context within 63). Snettisham Bypass (Flitcroft, 2001, pp67, which the sherd was found has been interpreted Fig. 37). as a Saxon deposit (Faulkner, 2002 (b)).
F:8. Early Roman greyware, from the Flavian IRON AGE – UNKNOWN DATE period (Elsdon), wheel-made, fine ware (3g). H:1. Iron Age sherd (35g) of unknown date The sherd has been well fired and has a biscuity (Elsdon), an elaborately made, but crude hand- texture. This sherd was found within the lowest made pot, with a large rim. The interior has ditch fill of a Boneyard ditch; perhaps large finger grooves whilst the exterior is pitted overcutting took place during excavation and with finger and thumb prints. The temper disturbed early deposits. Similar vessels found includes mica, flint and possibly grass. This at: Fison Way, dating to the late Iron Age or sherd was found within the same context as G:1. Early Roman (Gregory, 1991, pp165, Fig. 144). Similar vessels found at: Bixley on the Norwich Old Sleaford, Lincolnshire, (Elsdon, 1997, Southern Bypass, dating to the Early Iron Age pp151, Fig. 75) and butt-beakers (pp139, Fig. (Percival, 1999, pp178, Fig. 8.2). Framlingham, 63). Snettisham Bypass (Flitcroft, 2001, pp67, Suffolk, dating to the Early-mid Iron Age Fig. 37). Gamston, Nottingham, dating to the (Martin, 1999, pp76, Fig. 3.17). Dragonby Late Iron Age (Elsdon, 1993, B:3a). Flawford, (May, 1996(ii), pp463, Fig. 19.31). Enderby, Nottingham, Late Iron Age (Elsdon, 1993, B:8). Leicestershire, dating to the Mid Iron Age (Elsdon, 1993, D:11). F:9. Unknown Roman type, rim sherd (25g) (Elsdon and Faulkner). This sherd was found within the same context as E:11; perhaps these pots are residual, or overcutting may have taken
94 Bibliography
ANDREWS, Dominic. 2001. The Physical Geography of Sedgeford. Unpublished Archive Material: Sedgeford Historical and Archaeological Research Project, 2001, pp1-26.
ANDREWS, Dominic and CALOW, Stuart. 2001. The Boneyard/Reeddam Environs: Local Geology and the Reeddam II Trench. In: DAVIS, Gareth and HOGGETT, Rik. (Eds) Sedgeford, Historical and Archaeological Research Project. [s.n.: s.n.], 2001, Interim Report 2001, pp29-31.
ASHWIN, Trevor. 1999. Studying Iron Age Settlements in Norfolk. In: DAVIES, John and WILLIAMSON, Tom. (Eds) Land of the Iceni: The Iron Age in Northern East Anglia. Norwich: The Centre of East Anglia Studies, 1999, Studies in East Anglia History 4, pp100-124.
BERSU, G. 1940. Excavations at Little Woodbury, Wiltshire, Part 1. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 1940, 6, pp30-111.
BIDDULPH, Edward (Ed). 1999. Sedgeford, Historical and Archaeological Research Project, 1998 Interim Report. Norfolk Archaeology: A Journal of Archaeology and Local History, 1999, XLIII (II), pp351-352.
BOURN, Richards. 2000. Manorhouse Farm Hatford, Oxfordshire: An Iron Age and Early Romano-British Settlement. In: ZEEPVAT, P.J., (Ed) (with contributions from Paul Booth...[et al.]). Three Iron Age and Romano-British Rural Settlements on English Gravels: Excavations at Hatford (Oxfordshire), Besthorpe (Nottinghamshire) and Eardington (Shropshire) undertaken by Tempvs Repartvm between 1991-1993. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2000, British Archaeological Report Series 312, pp4-14.
BRADLEY, Richard. 1993. Where is East Anglia? Themes in Regional Prehistory. In: GARDINER, Julie (Ed) (with contributions from Malcolm Atkin…[et al.]). Flatlands and Wetlands: Current Themes in East Anglian Archaeology. Norwich: The Scole Archaeological Committee. East Anglian Archaeology, 1993, Report No. 5, pp5-13.
BRYANT, Stewart. 2000. The Iron Age. In: BROWN, Nigel and GLAZEBROOK, Jenny (Eds). Research and Archaeology: the Eastern Counties, 2. research agenda and strategy. East Anglian Archaeology Occasional Paper No.8. Norwich: The Scole Archaeological Committee for East Anglia, 2000, pp14-17.
CHADBURN, Amanda. 1990. A Hoard of Iron Age silver coins from Fring, Norfolk, and some observations on the Icenian coin series. The British Numismatic Journal, 1990 (printed 1991), 60, pp1-7.
CHADBURN, Amanda. 1999. Tasking the Iron Age: the Iceni and Minting. In: DAVIES, John and WILLIAMSON, Tom. (Eds) Land of the Iceni: The Iron Age in Northern East Anglia. Norwich: The Centre of East Anglia Studies, 1999, Studies in East Anglia History 4, pp162-172.
CLARKE, Rainbird, R. 1954. The Early Iron Age Treasure from Snettisham, Norfolk. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 1954, XX (1), pp27-84.
COOKE, N.M. and GARDNER, A.N. 1996. Report on Excavations at Sedgeford, Norfolk 1996: The Excavation of a Late Anglo-Saxon Christian Cemetery at Sedgeford, Norfolk. Unpublished Archive Material: Sedgeford Historical and Archaeological Research Project, 1996. 95
COX, Andrea, FOX, Jonathan and THOMAS, Gabor (Eds). 1998. Sedgeford, Historical and Archaeological Research Project, 1997 Interim Report. Norfolk Archaeology: A Journal of Archaeology and Local History, 1998, XLIII (I), pp172-177.
CUNLIFFE, Barry. 1991. Iron Age Communities in Britain: An account of England, Scotland and Wales from the Seventh Century B.C. until the Roman Conquest. 3rd Edition. London: Routledge, 1991.
CUNLIFFE, Barry. 1995. English Heritage Book of Iron Age Britain. Reprinted 2000 Edition. London: B.T.Batsford Ltd.
DARVILL, Timothy. 1987. Prehistoric Britain. London: Routledge, 1987, pp133-184.
DAVIES, John. A. et al. 1991. The Iron Age Forts of Norfolk. Norfolk: Norfolk Museums Service. Field Archaeology Division. East Anglian Archaeology, 1991, Report No. 54, pp x/ 1-3/ 31-34/ 59-72.
DAVIES, John. A. 1996. Where Eagles Dare: The Iron Age of Norfolk. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 1996, 62, pp63-92.
DAVIES, John. 1999. Patterns, Power and Political Progress in Iron Age Norfolk. In: DAVIES, John and WILLIAMSON, Tom. (Eds) Land of the Iceni: The Iron Age in Northern East Anglia. Norwich: The Centre of East Anglia Studies, 1999, Studies in East Anglia History 4, pp14-43.
DAVIES, John and WILLIAMSON, Tom. 1999. Introduction: Studying the Iron Age. In: DAVIES, John and WILLIAMSON, Tom. (Eds) Land of the Iceni: The Iron Age in Northern East Anglia. Norwich: The Centre of East Anglia Studies, 1999, Studies in East Anglia History 4, pp7-13.
DeJERSEY, Philip. 1996. Celtic Coinage in Britain. Buckinghamshire: Shire Publications Ltd, 1996, pp17-18.
DENNIS, Megan, ROBINSON, Keith and WILSON, Liz. 2003. Desktop Study and Project Design: Iron Age Sedgeford. Sedgeford Historical and Archaeological Research Project, work in progress, 2003.
DeROCHE, C.D. 1997. Studying Iron Age production. In: GWILT, Adam and HASELGROVE, Colin. (Eds). Reconstructing Iron Age Societies: New Approaches to the British Iron Age. Oxbow Monograph 71. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1997, pp21-25.
EHRENREICH, Robert. M. 1985. Trade, Technology and the Iron working community in the Iron Age of Southern Britain. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 1985, British Series 144.
ELSDON, Shelia. M. 1989. Prehistoric Pottery in England and Wales. Great Britain: Shire Publications Ltd, 1989, pp11-60.
ELSDON, Shelia, M. 1993. Iron Age Pottery in the East Midlands: a handbook. University of Nottingham: Department of Classics and Archaeology, 1993, pp1-5.
ELSDON, Shelia, M. (with Margaret Jones and Contributions by friends and colleagues), 1997. Old Sleaford Revealed. A Lincolnshire settlement in Iron Age, Roman, Saxon and Medieval times: excavations 1882-1995. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1997, Oxbow Monograph 91, Nottingham Studies in Archaeology 2.
96
EVANS, Christopher. 1997. Hydraulic Communities: Iron Age Enclosure in the East Anglian Fenlands. In: GWILT, Adam and HASELGROVE, Colin. (Eds). Reconstructing Iron Age Societies: New Approaches to the British Iron Age. Oxbow Monograph 71. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1997, pp216-227.
FAULKNER, Neil. Project Site Director’s Note and Record Book- Summer Season 1997, 1998 and 1999. Unpublished Archive Report: Sedgeford, Historical and Archaeological Research Project.
FAULKNER, Neil. (Ed). 1997. Sedgeford, Historical and Archaeological Research Project, 1996, First Interim Report. Norfolk Archaeology: A Journal of Archaeology and Local History, 1997, XLII (IV), pp532-535.
FAULKNER, Neil. 1999. Analysis of Pottery from Boneyard/Reeddam Excavations 1996-1998. Unpublished Archive Report: Sedgeford, Historical and Archaeological Research Project.
FAULKNER, Neil. 2000. Sedgeford: Exploring an Early English Village. Current Archaeology, 2000, No.171, Vol. XV (3), pp122-129.
FAULKNER, Neil. 2002(a). The Pottery Typology. Unpublished Archive Report: Sedgeford, Historical and Archaeological Research Project, 2002(a) revised version.
FAULKNER, Neil. 2002(b). Pottery Analysis 2002: Context by Context breakdown. Unpublished Archive Report: Sedgeford, Historical and Archaeological Research Project, 2002(b).
FITZPATRICK, A.P. 1992(a). The roles of Celtic coinage in south east England. In: MAYS, Melinda. (Ed) Celtic Coinage: Britain and Beyond. The Eleventh Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History. British Archaeological Report Series 222. Oxford: Tempvs Reparatvm: Archaeological and Historical Associates Limited, 1992(a), pp1-32.
FITZPATRICK, A.P. 1992(b). The Snettisham, Norfolk Hoards of Iron Age Torques: Sacred or Profane? From: Antiquity 66 (251) 1992. In: CARR, Gillian and STODDART, Simon. (Eds) Celts from Antiquity. Antiquity Papers 2. Cambridge: Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2002(b), pp243-246.
FLITCROFT, Myk. (with specialist contributions from many authors). 2001. Excavation of a Romano-British Settlement on the A149 Snettisham Bypass, 1989. Norfolk: Archaeology and Environmental Division, Norfolk Museums and Archaeology Service, 2001, East Anglian Archaeology Report No. 93.
FRYER, Val. 2001. Charred Plant Marcofossils and other Remains from the Boneyard Excavation, Sedgeford (SH00 BYD): An Assessment. Unpublished Archive Report: Sedgeford, Historical and Archaeological Research Project, 2001.
FRYER, Val. 2002. Charred Plant Marcofossils and other Remains from Sedgeford, Norfolk (2001 Season): An Assessment. Unpublished Archive Report: Sedgeford, Historical and Archaeological Research Project, 2002.
FUNNELL, Brian. 1994(a). Recent Geology. In: WADE-MARTIN, Peter, (Ed). An Historical Atlas of Norfolk, Second Edition. Norwich: Norfolk Museums Service, 1994(a), pp16-17.
97 FUNNELL, Brian. 1994(b). Solid Geology. In: WADE-MARTIN, Peter, (Ed). An Historical Atlas of Norfolk, Second Edition. Norwich: Norfolk Museums Service, 1994(b), pp12-13.
GREEN, Barbara. 1994. The Iron Age. In: WADE-MARTIN, Peter, (Ed). An Historical Atlas of Norfolk, Second Edition. Norwich: Norfolk Museums Service, 1994, pp32-33.
GREGORY, Tony. 1977. Iron Age Coinage in Norfolk. Norfolk: Norfolk Museums Service Information Sheet.
GREGORY, Tony, (with contributions from A. Bartlett…[et al.]), 1991. Excavations in Thetford, 1980-1982, Fison Way. Volume 1. Dereham: Field Archaeology Division, Norfolk Museums Service, 1991, East Anglian Archaeology Report No. 54.
GREGORY, Tony. 1992. Snettisham and Bury: some new light on the earliest Icenian coinage. In: MAYS, Melinda. (Ed) Celtic Coinage: Britain and Beyond. The Eleventh Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History. British Archaeological Report Series 222. Oxford: Tempvs Reparatvm: Archaeological and Historical Associates Limited, 1992, pp47-71.
GUILBERT. Graeme. C. 1981. Double-ring roundhouses, probable and possible in prehistoric Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 1981, 47, pp299-317.
GWILT, Adam. 1997. Popular practices from material culture: a case study of the Iron Age settlement at Wakerley. In: GWILT, Adam and HASELGROVE, Colin. (Eds) Reconstructing Iron Age Societies: New Approaches to the British Iron Age. Oxbow Monograph 71. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1997, pp153-166.
HALL, David and COLES, John. 1994. Fenland Survey: An essay in landscape and persistence. London: English Heritage, 1994, Archaeological Report 1.
HAMMOND, Janet. 2002. Looking for Chesewyck: Sedgeford. Unpublished Report: Smithdon Hundred Local History Forum, 2002, Field Walking Report Nov/Dec 2001 and March 2002 – Area centred on TF 7160 3744.
HASELGROVE, Colin. 1992. Iron Age coinage and archaeology. In: MAYS, Melinda. (Ed) Celtic Coinage: Britain and Beyond. The Eleventh Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History. British Archaeological Report Series 222. Oxford: Tempvs Reparatvm: Archaeological and Historical Associates Limited, 1992, pp123- 137.
HAWKES, S.C. 1994. Longbridge Deveril Cow Down, Wiltshire, House 3: A Major roundhouse of the Early Iron Age. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 1994, 13 (1), March, pp49-69.
HENDERSON, Julian, 1987. Glass. In: CUNLIFFE, Barry. W. (with the contributions from Lisa Brown [et al.]). Hengistbury Head, Dorset. Volume 1: The Prehistoric and Roman Settlement, 3500 B.C. – A.D. 500. Oxford: Oxford University for Archaeology, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph No. 13, 1987, pp160-163.
HILL. J.D. 1992. Can we recognise a different European Past? A Contrastive Archaeology of later Prehistoric settlements in Southern England. Journal of European Archaeology, 1992 (1), pp57-75.
HILL. J.D. 1995. Ritual and Rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex: A study on the formation of a specific archaeological record. Oxford: Tempvs Reparatvm, British Archaeologoical Report, 1995, pp242.
98
HILL. J.D. 1999. Settlement, Landscape and Regionality: Norfolk and Suffolk in the Pre-Roman Iron Age of Britain and Beyond. In: DAVIES, John and WILLIAMSON, Tom. (Eds) Land of the Iceni: The Iron Age in Northern East Anglia. Norwich: The Centre of East Anglia Studies, 1999, Studies in East Anglia History 4, pp185-207.
HOGGETT, Rik. (Ed). 2000. Sedgeford, Historical and Archaeological Research Project, 2000, Interim Report. [sn.:sn.], 2000, pp2-22.
HOGGETT, Rik. (Ed). 2001. Sedgeford, Historical and Archaeological Research Project, 2000, Fourth Interim Report. Norfolk Archaeology: A Journal of Archaeology and Local History, 2001, XLIII (IV), pp681-683.
HOGGETT, Richard and PAYNE, Naomi. 2000. The Site of Sedgeford Hall’s Bowling Green: An Archaeological Evaluation. Conducted July 2000. S.H.A.R.P. Site Code SH2000 BGE, Norfolk S.M.R. Number 1601 C2. Unpublished Archive Report: Sedgeford, Historical and Archaeological Research Project, 2000, pp1-23.
LAWSON, Andrew and WYMER, John. 1994. The Bronze Age. In: WADE-MARTIN, Peter, (Ed) An Historical Atlas of Norfolk, Second Edition. Norwich: Norfolk Museums Service, 1994, pp30-31.
LEWTON-BRAIN, C.H. The Icknield Way: Its course from Narford and Narborough to Old Hunstanton. Norfolk Archaeology, 1965, XXXIII (IV), pp408-422.
LUDFORD, Ray. 2001. Sedgeford Small Finds Report: Draft Copy. Unpublished Archive Report: Sedgeford, Historical and Archaeological Research Project.
MACKRETH, D.F. (with contributions from Helen Bamford…[et al.]), 2001. Monument 97, Orton Longueville, Cambridge: A Late Pre-Roman Iron Age and Early Roman Farmstead. Manchester: Nene Valley Archaeological Trust, Report No. 97, 2001, pp2-21.
MARTIN, Edward (with contributions from M. Beech…[et al.]), 1988. Burgh: The Iron Age and Roman Enclosure. Ipswich: Suffolk County Planning Department. East Anglian Archaeology, 1988, Report No. 40.
MARTIN, Edward. 1999. Suffolk in the Iron Age. In: DAVIES, John and WILLIAMSON, Tom. (Eds) Land of the Iceni: The Iron Age in Northern East Anglia. Norwich: The Centre of East Anglia Studies, 1999, Studies in East Anglia History 4, pp44-99.
MAY, Jeffrey. 1966. Prehistory. In: EDWARDS, K.C. (Ed). Nottingham and its Region. Nottingham: Nottingham Local Executive Committee of the British Association, 1966, pp177-190.
MAY, Jeffrey. 1970. Dragonby: An Interim Report on excavations on an Iron Age and Romano-British Site near Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire, 1964-9. The Antiquaries Journal, 1970, 50 (L), pp222-245.
MAY, Jeffrey. 1992. The earliest gold coinages of the Corieltauvi? In: MAYS, Melinda. (Ed) Celtic Coinage: Britain and Beyond. The Eleventh Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History. British Archaeological Report Series 222. Oxford: Tempvs Reparatvm: Archaeological and Historical Associates Limited, 1992, pp113- 121.
99 MAY, Jeffrey. 1996(i). (with contributions from B.J. Colston [et al.]). Dragonby: Report on Excavations at an Iron Age and Romano-British Settlement in North Lincolnshire. Volume 1. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1996, Oxbow Monograph 61.
MAY, Jeffrey. 1996(ii). (with contributions from B.J. Colston [et al.]). Dragonby: Report on Excavations at an Iron Age and Romano-British Settlement in North Lincolnshire. Volume 2. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1996, Oxbow Monograph 61, pp397- 512.
PACK, Katie. 2001. Reeddam: The Iron Age Phase. In: DAVIS, Gareth and HOGGETT, Rik, (Eds), Sedgeford, Historical and Archaeological Research Project. [s.n.: s.n.], 2001, Interim Report 2001, pp7-8.
PERCIVAL, Sarah. 1995. Iron Age Pottery from two pits at Fincham, Norfolk. Norfolk Archaeology: A Journal of Archaeology and Local History, 1995, XLII (II), pp215-217.
PERCIVAL, Sarah. 1996. Prehistoric Pottery. In: ASHWIN, Trevor. Excavation of an Iron Age site at Park Farm, Silfield, Wymondham. Norfolk Archaeology: A Journal of Archaeology and Local History, XLII (III), pp256-265.
PERCIVAL, Sarah. 1999. Iron Age Pottery in Norfolk. In: DAVIES, John and WILLIAMSON, Tom. (Eds) Land of the Iceni: The Iron Age in Northern East Anglia. Norwich: The Centre of East Anglia Studies, 1999, Studies in East Anglia History 4, pp173-184.
REYNOLDS, Peter. J. 1979. Iron Age Farm: The Butser Experiment. London: British Museum Publications Limited, 1979, pp18-109.
ROBINSON, Bruce and ROSE, Edwards. J. (in collaboration with the Norfolk Museum Service). 1983. Roads and Tracks: Norfolk Origins 2. Cromer: Poppyland Publishing, 1983, pp6-12.
ROBINSON, Bruce and GREGORY, Tony. 1987. Celtic Fire and Roman Rule: Norfolk Origins 3. Norfolk: Poppyland Publishing, 1987, pp4-86.
ROBINSON, Keith. Sedgeford Pottery Analysis- Fieldwalked material (As per Sarah Percival). Unpublished Archive Material: Sedgeford Historical and Archaeological Research Project, pp1-4.
ROGERSON, Andrew. 1999. Arable and Pasture in Two Norfolk parishes: Barton Bendish and Fransham in the Iron Age. In: DAVIES, John and WILLIAMSON, Tom. (Eds) Land of the Iceni: The Iron Age in Northern East Anglia. Norwich: The Centre of East Anglia Studies, 1999, Studies in East Anglia History 4, pp125-131.
ROGERSON, Andrew and DAVISON, Alan. 1997. An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Parish of Barton Bendish, Norfolk. In: ROGERSON, Andrew, …[et al.]). Barton Bendish and Caldecote: Fieldwork in south-West Norfolk. Dereham: Norfolk Museums Service. Field Archaeology Division, 1997, East Anglian Archaeology Report No. 80, pp ix/ 8-17.
SKILTON, Mary and SKILTON, Roger. 2001. The Iron Age Pottery Project. Unpublished Archive Report: Sedgeford, Historical and Archaeological Research Project, 2001, pp1-4.
SMALLWOOD, John. March 2002. Roman Buildings in West Norfolk: Norfolk Historic Buildings Group, Number 3 [Newsletter], Chairman Adam Longcroft, pp5.
100
STEAD, Ian. 1991. The Snettisham Treasure: excavations in 1990. From: Antiquity 65 (248) 1992. In: CARR, Gillian and STODDART, Simon. (Eds) Celts from Antiquity. Antiquity Papers 2. Cambridge: Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2002, pp225-242.
THOMAS, Gabor and other members of S.H.A.R.P. 1997. An Archaeological Investigation in the area of ‘The Reeddam’, Sedgeford, 1996-1997. Unpublished Archive Report: Sedgeford, Historical and Archaeological Research Project, 1997, pp1- 13.
VAN ARSDELL, R.D. 1989. Celtic Coinage of Britain. London: Spink and Son Ltd, 1989, pp9-11 and 184-214.
VAN TWEST, Melanie. (Ed). 2000 (a). Sedgeford, Historical and Archaeological Research Project, 1999, Fifth Interim Report. Norfolk Archaeology: A Journal of Archaeology and Local History, 2000 (a), XLIII (III), pp512-516.
VAN TWEST, Melanie. 2000 (b). Sedgeford and SHARP, Sedgeford, Historical and Archaeological Research Project, Guide Book. Unpublished.
VENCLOVÁ, Natalie. 1983. Prehistoric Eye Beads in Central Europe. Journal of Glass Studies, 1983, 25, pp11-17.
WAUGH, David. 1995. Geography: An Integrated Approach. Second Edition. Surrey: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd, 1995, pp244.
WEST, Stanley. (with contributions from Pam. J. Crabtree…[et al.]). 1989. West Stow, Suffolk: The Prehistoric and Romano-British Occupations. Bury St. Edmunds: Suffolk County Planning Department, in conjunction with The Scole Archaeological Committee Ltd, 1989, East Anglian Archaeology Report No. 48, pp1-29/ 109.
WILLIAMSON, Tom. 1993. The Origins of Norfolk. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993, pp4-19/ 23-48.
WILLIS, Steven. 1997. Settlement, Materiality and Landscape in the Iron Age of the East Midlands: evidence, interpretation and wider resonance. In: GWILT, Adam and HASELGROVE, Colin. (Eds) Reconstructing Iron Age Societies: New Approaches to the British Iron Age. Oxbow Monograph 71. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1997, pp205-215.
WILSON, Liz. 2001. What does the Archaeo-Environmental Sampling tell us? In: DAVIS, Gareth and HOGGETT, Rik, (Eds), Sedgeford, Historical and Archaeological Research Project. [s.n.: s.n.], 2001, Interim Report 2001, pp27.
WILSON, Liz. 2002. Sedgeford’s Iron Age Pottery. Notes from two Meetings held between Liz Wilson (S.H.A.R.P.) and Shelia Elsdon (the University of Nottingham) on 28th May 2002 and 5th June 2002. Unpublished Archive Report: Sedgeford, Historical and Archaeological Research Project, pp1-4.
WILTSHIRE, Patricia. E.J. and MURPHY, Peter. L. 1999. Current Knowledge of Iron Age Environment and Agrarian Economy of Norfolk and Adjacent Areas. In: DAVIES, John and WILLIAMSON, Tom. (Eds) Land of the Iceni: The Iron Age in Northern East Anglia. Norwich: The Centre of East Anglia Studies, 1999, Studies in East Anglia History 4, pp132-161.
101 Electronic Sources:
ANON. Sedgeford, Historical and Archaeological Research Project, Boneyard and Reeddam [online]. 2002. Available at: http://www.sharp.org.uk/boneyard/index.htm
BIDDULPH, Edward (Ed). Sedgeford, Historical and Archaeological Research Project, 1998 Interim Report, Third Interim Report [online]. 2001. Available at: http://www.sharp.org.uk/Reports/Report98/1998.htm
COX, Andrea, FOX, Jonathan and THOMAS, Gabor (Eds). Sedgeford, Historical and Archaeological Research Project, 1997 Interim Report, Second Interim Report [online]. 2001. Available at: http://www.sharp.org.uk/Reports/Report97/1997.htm
FAULKNER, Neil (Ed). Sedgeford, Historical and Archaeological Research Project, First Interim Report [online]. 2001. Available at: http://sharp.org.uk/Reports/Report96/1996.htm
HOGGETT, Rik (Ed). Sedgeford, Historical and Archaeological Research Project, 2000 Interim Report, Fifth Interim Report [online]. 2001. Available at: http://www.sharp.org.uk/Reports/Report00/2000.htm
VAN TWEST, Melanie (Ed). Sedgeford, Historical and Archaeological Research Project, 1999 Interim Report, Fourth Interim Report [online]. 2001. Available at: http://www.sharp.org.uk/Reports/Report99/1999.htm
102
103