Medieval Haddenham, Buckinghamshire: Excavations at Townsend and Fort End, 2011 and 2013

Version by Daniel Bray and Andrew Weale Online

Free

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Occasional Paper 6 Medieval Haddenham, Buckinghamshire: Excavations at Townsend and Fort End, 2011 and 2013

by Daniel Bray and Andrew Weale

Version

Online

Free Published 2014 by Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd. 47–49 De Beauvoir Road, Reading, Berkshire, England RG1 5NR

ISBN978-0-9926330-5-9

Cover Design and Typesetting by Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd.

Printed by TVAS Press, Reading

Version

Online

Free Front cover: Detail from enclosure map of Haddenham, 1799. Rear cover: Excavation of ditches at Townsend.

Medieval Haddenham, Buckinghamshire: Excavations at Townsend and Fort End, 2011 and 2013

by Daniel Bray and Andrew Weale

Version

Online Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd FreeOccasional Paper 6

Contents List of Figures ...... v List of Plates ...... v List of Tables ...... v 1: Saxon and Medieval Occupation at Townsend ...... 1 Summary ...... 1 Introduction ...... 1 Archaeological and historical background ...... 1 The Evaluation ...... 2 The Excavation ...... 2 Results ...... 3 Prehistoric and Roman ...... 3 Phase 1: Late Saxon ...... 3 Phase 2: Mid to late 11th century ...... 4 Phase 3: Late 11th to Mid 13th century ...... 6 Phase 4: Mid 13th to late 15th century ...... 9 Phase 5: Post Medieval ...... 10 Modern and Undated ...... 11 Finds ...... 11 Pottery by Paul Blinkhorn ...... 11 Ceramic building material by Danielle Milbank ...... 14 Metalwork by Steven Crabb ...... 14 ...... 14 Animal bones by Matilda Holmes ...... 14 Environmental remains by Rosalind McKenna ...... 15 Conclusions ...... 16 Acknowledgments ...... 19

2: 11th- and 12th-century Boundary Features at Fort End ...... 20 Summary ...... 20 Introduction ...... 20 Archaeological background ...... 20 The Evaluation ...... 20 The Excavation ...... 21 Results ...... 21 ...... 23 Finds ...... Version ...... 23 Pottery by Paul Blinkhorn ...... 23 Metalwork by Steve Crabb...... 26 Animal bones by Danielle Milbank ...... 26 Charred plant macrofossils by Rosalind McKenna ...... 27 Conclusions ...... Online ..... 29 Acknowledgments ...... 30 Free REFERENCES ...... 31

APPENDIX 1: 5 Townsend, Pottery catalogue by context...... 33 APPENDIX 2: Fern Lane, Pottery catalogue by context...... 36 iv List of Figures Figure 1.1: General location of both sites within Haddenham and Buckinghamshire '!<" Figure 1.3: Detailed plan of all excavated features Figure 1.4: Sections Figure 1.5: Sections Figure 1.6: Summary plan, phases 1 and 2 Figure 1.7: Summary plan, phases 3 and 4 Figure 1.8: Summary plan, phases 5 and 6 Figure 1.9: Enclosure map

Figure 2.1: Detailed location of site at Fort End, showing prior evaluation trenches Figure 2.2: Detailed plan of the two areas investigated Figure 2.3: Sections (1) Figure 2.4: Sections (2)

List of Plates Plate 1.1 General site shot Plate 1.2 Ditches 1014 (445), 1015 (446), and 1013 (448) and posthole 447 Plate 1.3 Pits 500, 501, 502 and 505, and Ditches 1015 (505), 1014 (503) and 1013 (504) Plate 1.4 Sheep burial Plate 1.5 Chalk dump (583) in 11th century pit 329 Plate 1.6 Thimble from pit 502

Plate 2.1 General site shot Plate 2.2 Ditches 103, 104, and 102 Plate 2.3 Ditches and pit, cuts 37-40 Plate 2.4 Sheep burial Plate 2.5 Chalk dump (583) in 11th century pit 329

List of Tables Table 1.1 Summary of datable pits Table 1.2 Ceramic phase chronology and pottery occurrence Table 1.3 Pottery per ceramic phase, major wares only Table 1.4: Animal bone, species representation by phase Table 1.5: Plant macrofossils Table 1.6: Charcoal

Table 2.1: Inventory of animal bone Table 2.2: Plant macrofossils other than charcoal Version Table 2.3: Charcoal

Online

Free

v 09500

5 Townsend 09000

2 Fern Lane

08500

08000

Milton Keynes Buckingham Version Aylesbury Haddenham

High Wycombe SP 73500 Online 74000 74500 0 500m

!" "#$%&'()**+, Free

vi Saxon and Medieval Occupation at 5 Townsend, Haddenham, Buckinghamshire By Andrew Weale with contributions by Paul Blinkhorn, Steve Ford, Matilda Holmes, Rosalind McKenna and Danielle Milbank Summary -" #$ /8&%;<==*>), #"$ #$###$#$?#/\# light on the sequence of development of the late Saxon and medieval village followed by a period of abandonment before reuse in the $?#$F#\ G#&I($ J(F$ of the site or its environs in these earlier periods. Introduction Archaeological and historical background The site is located immediately south-east of the Haddenham in general does not have a particularly green at Townsend, which is the most northerly of the rich history of archaeological investigation. In fact three greens around which settlement at Haddenham it may be the self-evident historic character of the is focused, along with four ponds (Fig. 1). Most of the settlement that has inhibited research (BCAS 2008). site consisted of open grassy space, and the north- Within the settlement only two excavations had taken east part was a garden. Although relatively flat, the site place prior to this project, one at Bank House and the does slope gently downwards towards the north-west, other to the south of St Mary’s Church, Church End and there is a prominent earthwork running NW- (Blake 1984) both of which revealed medieval features SE across the site, just south of the area excavated, along with Saxon pottery, but no Saxon features. A corresponding to a field boundary shown on the number of small recent interventions (watching briefs 19th-century Ordnance Survey (and earlier) maps. and evaluations) mostly revealed deposits of medieval The ground level is noticeably lower on the northern or post-medieval date, but with occasional finds of side of this feature (i.e. within the excavated area), prehistoric, Roman or Saxon date noted (Sims 2002; at a height of approximately 80m above Ordnance Jenkins 2005; Weale 2007; McNicoll-Norbury 2010; Datum. According to the British Geological Survey, Taylor 2011; Platt 2012a; rarely is nothing of interest the underlying geology is the Portland Formation encountered: Platt 2012b). (sand and limestone) (BGS 1994). The geology The place name is derived by Mills (1998, 159) observed consisted of yellowish white limestone from the Old English (Anglo-Saxon) personal name marl, with orange brown clayey silt towards the east. Hæda and -ham (homestead, village). Planning permission had been granted by Domesday Book (AD1086) shows G Aylesbury Vale District Council for redevelopment (Haddenham, probably including the later manor of a part of the site for new housing. In accordance of Cuddington; VCH 1905, 281) in Stone Hundred, with Archaeology and Planning (PPG16, 1990), a owned by the Archbishop of Canterbury (Lanfranc), condition of the permission required a programme and before the Conquest, by Earl Tosti. It was assessed of archaeological investigation. The archaeological at 40 hides and valued at £40, the same figures as in potential of the site was suggested by a desk-based KingVersion Edward’s time. There was arable for 30 ploughs assessment (Preston 2007) which showed that the (a huge area) and a total (adult male) population of site lies at or near the core of an historic settlement, 56 free tenants and 15 slaves. Two mills are listed, a in an area where there had been relatively little church and meadows, oddly measured as enough for archaeological research. A field evaluation (WallisOnline 6 ploughs. Gilbert the priest held 3 of the hides, with 2007) revealed the presence of archaeological features, a church and 4 tenants (it is clear that the 3 hides are mostly of medieval date, across the whole site. As a included in the total assessment, it is not so clear if result, excavation was required in the areaFree to be built the 4 tenants are included in the total population; on. A specification for the excavation was approved the church appears to be additional). There is also a by Ms Eliza Alqassar, Archaeological Planning and notation that the Archbishop’s farm is entitled to 8 Conservation Officer for Buckinghamshire County days’ hay (Williams and Martin 2002, 395). The church Council, who also monitored the fieldwork. The is one of very few mentioned in Buckinghamshire excavation took place between 13 June and 16 July (VCH 1905, 280) and is normally reckoned to have 2011, supervised by the author. -"& &N#

09200

No. 3 N

No. 5

60 8 E 0N 09150

60 7 E 0N

6 0 6 E 0N

A A

R R

E E 5 2 N N N A 7 7 O I R e 7 R 7 T . . O O A m 0 0

T 0 CC 0 SN 11

09100 t f o r C d r a l l a M

SP 74100 74150

0 50m )O# "# been a Minster (BCAS 2008). Neither it nor the mills THE EVALUATION can now be located. The extant St Mary’s church dates The initial evaluation consisted of six trenches, each from 13th century, but contains some 12th-century 20m long and 1.6m wide (Fig. 2) which confirmed that elements (VCH 1908). archaeological features survived across the whole site, Under William II, Lanfranc passed part of the comprising pits, ditches and walls mainly dating from manor to the church of St Andrew, Rochester. By the 11th to 13th centuries. There was also some Saxon 1254, the manor was still nevertheless worth £40 and pottery present. assessed for 40 hides. A 3-day fair and weekly market TheVersion Excavation were granted in 1295. In 1342 it was taxed at 50 marks but unable to pay so much that year as the hay crop had The excavation was undertaken as a single area of been poor (VCH 1908, 283), giving a fair indication around 1320 sq m within the footprint of the new of the importance of this crop. The manorial landsOnline development (Fig. 2). Topsoil and overburden were included a Bishop’s Fee, a tenanted estate for the removed by a 360° mechanical excavator fitted with maintenance of a knight for the king (Strange 2007). a toothless bucket to expose the uppermost surface of archaeological deposits (Pl. 1.1). All archaeological Thereafter, Haddenham had little history of note. Free features were planned (Fig. 1.3) and sectioned as a Royalist forces wintered here in 1643/4 during the Civil minimum objective and a range of context types across war. Reports of the devastation they wrought on the the site were sampled for environmental evidence. ‘poor country’ all come from Parliamentary sources (VCH 1927, 540).

2 TVAS Occasional Paper 6

Plate 1.1. General site view after stripping; looking south. Results clearly residual material in posthole 424, pit 430 and ditch 1014 (slot 445). Three sherds of Roman pottery The finds and the deposits on the site are discussed were recovered as residual finds in Pit 421, Gully 1000 using the following phasing scheme based on and Ditch 1014 (slot 319). stratigraphy and the ceramic sequence (CP). There was a significant residual component to many of PHASE 1: LATE SAXON the pottery assemblages and this has led to a certain Features assigned to the late Saxon component of the amount of overlap of the ceramic phases. No features site comprise three pits (236, 316 and 410) together can be assigned to the prehistoric or Roman periods, with a large boundary ditch (1015). All are dated from which are present only as residual finds in later features. tiny quantities of pottery (single sherds), but even if the Table 1.1 summarizing the pits datable to before the features themselves might be later, the finds do point to Vistorian period is included at the end of the results. some activity on the site in the late Saxon period. Figure 1.6 illustrates the changing density of land use Ditch 1015 (446 and 504) was aligned north-west across the phases. to south-east across the centre of the site, with steep Prehistoric/ Roman sides and a concave base (Pls 1.2 and 1.3). Towards Phase 1: Late Saxon (CP1) the east of the site 1015 was completely removed by a Phase 2: Mid to Late 11th century (CP2) laterVersion recut 1014. The ditch was filled with multiple fills Phase 3: Late 11th century to Mid 13th century (CP3 none of which contained dateable artefacts. It has been and CP4) phased in this period based on the fact that its recut (1014) seems to have begun filling in phase 2. Phase 4: Mid 13th century to late 15th century (CP5 and CP6) Pit 236 was circular in plan with two fills (297 and Online298), the upper of which (297) contained a single large Phase 5: Post Medieval (CP8 and CP9) sherd of Thetford Ware. A soil sample (105) from fill Modern 297 contained a large amount of cereal grains (oat, Free barley and wheat) together with peas and bedstraws PREHISTORIC AND ROMAN as well as weed seeds, the only substantial assemblage Two residual or unstratified worked flints of Neolithic of charred plant material from the site, as well as the or Bronze Age date include a broken backed knife greatest concentration of charcoal. Any relationship from pit 500 (695), and a flake from gully 1000 (slot between pit 236 from the excavation and pit 2 from 432 (668)). Iron Age pottery was also recovered as the evaluation had unfortunately been destroyed by the 3 -"& &N# edge of the evaluation trench. It is possible that pit 2 PHASE 2: MID TO LATE 11TH CENTURY belongs to this phase. The mid to late 11th-century component of the site Pit 316 was an elongated pit which extended comprises the recutting of the large boundary ditch under the edge of excavation to the north-west and 1015 as 1014, slightly off line to the original, six pits contained a single fill (452) with, a single tiny sherd of (215, 306, 314, 329, 402 and 420), gully 417 and four St Neots Ware. A sample (108) of fill 452 contained postholes (204, 239, 424 and 426); three further features oat and barley grains as well as weed seeds and charcoal (205, 206, 216) are undated but have been phased here (similar to the plant remains from pit 236 but in much as they are probably related to 204 and several more smaller quantity). undated post holes can probably be associated with Pit 410 was circular with irregular sides and base. 424 and 426. It contained a single fill 589 with another single large Ditch 1014 (319, 337, 445 and 503) was aligned sherd of Thetford Ware. north-west to south-east across the site, cut though ditch 1015 and contained multiple fills (Pls 1.2 and 1.3). Within cut 319, fill 485 contained a sherd of residual

Version

Online

Free

ZO# ##" 4 TVAS Occasional Paper 6

Plate 1.2. O*=%==[,*[%==\,*Z%==+,$#==<##])*[

;#Z;[**[*[*)[*[O*[%[*[,*=%[*Z,*Z%[*=,##])Version 1m and 0.5m. Roman samian pottery, and four sherds dating to this contained within it a single sherd of Cotswold-type phase. Fill 486 contained one sherd of Cotswold- ware. The uppermost fill (551) contained one sherd of type ware and one sherd of Medieval Oxford Ware. Thetford Ware, 12 sherds of mixed late 11th-century A sample (111) of fill 489 contained barley grains,Online pottery and three fragments of animal bone. bedstraws and peas. The absence of the other cereal Gully 417 was heavily disturbed by a modern types noted in Phase 1 cannot be regarded as significant shed but appeared to be aligned similarly to ditch as the quantity of charred material is tiny.Free Cut 445 fill 1014, its fill contained a high proportion of limestone 668 contained only nine sherds of Iron Age pottery fragments and was originally thought to be a robbed that is clearly residual . out wall foundation but is more likely a gully containing Pit 329 was most notable in that it contained limestone washed in from the nearby bank of ditch three fills 551–3 and a large dump of what appeared 1014. It contained a single sherd of Medieval Grey to be blocks of chalk and chalk rubble (583), which Sandy Ware from the 11th century. Gully 417 cut two 5 -"& &N# shallow pits (414 and 418) which could belong to with a line at approximately 30° to these (33, 424 and this phase or an earlier one but contained no dating 426). These appear more likely to be fence lines than evidence. structures, possibly for stock management. Their full At the north end of the site, although only one of form has been obscured by later pits and postholes in the postholes (204) is dated to this phase it is possible the same area. that postholes 204, 205, 206 and pit 216 may from a PHASE 3: LATE 11TH TO MID 13TH CENTURY 1.7m square structure, perhaps some form of store. This phase sees the majority of the activity on site Likewise in the south of the area, postholes 424 and comprises both ceramic phases 3 and 4. There and 426 are dated to this phase, but it appeared these is a subdivision within the southern plot by gullies a part of a structure consisting of two parallel lines (1000 and 1004-6) and ditches 1002 and 1003. These of postholes (23, 24 and 34; 243–5 and 334) together may represent simple garden features or possibly the

E W Image

651 652

419 420

! NE SW N S

282 294 389 285 283 390 234 q hv!($ 284 305

286

226

! "

E W

662 663 660

664 429

430 661

428

SSW NNE Version

subsoil Online 254 290

253 Free 230 201 231

0 1m

=#%, 6 TVAS Occasional Paper 6

;#=$#)+$)Z*#?^#*Z* sub-division of the plot to contain livestock. Gullies from CP3a and CP3b would suggest that they should 1016 and 1017 are cut into the top of the silted up be placed within this phase, the single sherd of mid boundary ditch 1014 and may have followed the edge 16th century pottery from ditch 1006 (cut 235) must of a surviving bank or hedge that delineated the plot be intrusive. boundaries. Some of the activity can be seen to occur Ditch 1002 (427 and 429) was aligned close to within the 12th century, by the pottery, ditches 1002 south–north. It cut pit 430 and was cut by ditch 1003. and 1003 along with gullies 1000 and 1001 together Both 427 and 429 contained a single fill (659 and 662) with slumps (338, 339, 568) into the top of pits 328–9 and combined to produce fifteen shreds of medieval and 400–1. Only pits (23=309), 421 and 500 are within pottery together with three fragments of animal bone. the early 13th century (CP3a). The rest of the features Ditch 1003 (428) was aligned parallel to 1002 have a broader late 11th to early 13th century date range but stopped short with a rounded terminal end to the (CP3b). This broad late 11th- to mid 13th-century north. It cut ditch 1002. Ditch 1003 contained two component accounts for the majority of features fills (660 and 661). Fill 661 contained two sherds of across the site, consisting of five postholes (212, 221, Medieval Oxford ware together with 6 fragments of 313, 423 and 425), nineteen pits (201, 203, 209, 211, animal bone. Fill 660 contained 22 sherds of pottery 230, 242, 312=407, 317, 318, 343, 400, 401, 419-20, and 25 fragments of animal bone. 430, 431, 433, 435, 444), gullies (1004–9, 1016–17) and a hollow (338). Gully 1000 (432, 434, 436 and 440) was aligned from the south west to north east with a return from The northern plot shows a markedly lower density north west to south east, and although it appeared to of activity to the southern plot with only a single gully Version cross both evaluation trenches 4 and 5 it did so only as 1008 (probably associated with 1009) and several pits a shallow stain which was not visible in the evaluation. including 230 which contained a sheep burial. (Pl. 1.4) In cut 432 there were two fills (667, 668) and the other The deeper pits appear to have been used as rubbish cuts had a single fill each (670, 672 and 676). In total pits especially the intercutting pit complex of (343, Onlinethere was a single residual sherd of Roman Pottery, 400-1 405 and 500) and pit 328, whereas pit 230 was three sherds of Medieval Grey Sandy Ware, one sherd excavated for the disposal of the sheep carcass. The of Sandy and Shelly Ware, two sherds of Medieval other shallower pits could have been for this purpose Oxford Ware and one sherd of Shelly Coarse ware or even the removal of the weatheredFree limestone and together with five fragments of animal bone. A broken sand for the construction of ‘witchert’, a local type of flint blade was recovered from cut 432 fill 668. Gully building material. 1000 cut pits 431, 433 and 435. Although no direct Whilst it is possible that gullies 1000 and 1004–6 relationship was established it seems unlikely to be may be dated slightly earlier the inclusion of pottery contemporary with gully 1006. 7 -"& &N#

;#['#$%[+Z,$Z)>##]) Gullies 1004, 1005 and 1006 were clearly all At the north end of the site, gullies 1008 (208 contemporary, representing sub-divisions of this plot, and 210) and 1009 were aligned south west to north probably along with more minor gullies 1001 and 1007. east. Gully 1009 was undated but must be related to Gully 1006 (3, 235, 331, 332, 333, 437 and 441) was 1008, whose single fill (262 and 264) contained a total aligned west to east with a slight bend to the north-east of three sherds of Medieval Oxford Ware and three as it exited the excavated area. There were multiple fills fragments of animal bone. No relationship could be that contained one sherd of Shelly Coarseware, three established with pit 209. sherds of Cotswold type ware, one sherd of Medieval Gully 1016 (340, 341, 342, 348, 404 406, 506) Grey Sandy Ware and one sherd of Medieval Oxford was aligned north west to south east. No relationship Ware together with 21 fragments of animal bone. could be established with gully 1017, but one should Gullies 1004 and 1005 both led north-east off the line be a recut of the other, Gully 1017 cut Ditch 1014 of 1006. and was cut by Pit 343 but no relationship could be Gully 1004 (438 and 439) was led north east off established with Pit 500. Gully 1017 was filled with a Gully 1006 and terminated after 5m. Both 438 and 439 single fill in each of its cuts (557, 558, 559, 567, 581 contained a single fill (674 and 675) that contained a 585, 758) with a total of 24 sherds of pottery together total of four sherds of Cotswold type ware together with 28 fragments of animal bone. Gully 1017 (344, with three fragments of animal bone. 345,Version 347, 403, 449) was aligned north west to south east Gully 1005 (442 and 443) was parallel to 1004 and was filled with a single fill in each of its cuts (561, and although no distinct terminal was evident, it was 562, 566, 580 and 757) with a total of 43 sherds and 53 not seen in evaluation trench 5 so presumably it also fragments of animal bone. terminated. Both 442 and 443 contained a single Onlinefill Pit 329 was sub-circular in plan contained three (679 and 680) that contained a total of one sherd of St fills (551-3) and a large dump of blocks of chalk and Neots Ware, one sherd of Medieval Grey Sandy Ware chalk rubble (583) (Pl. 1.5). The dump of chalk (583) and one sherd of Sandy and Shelly ware togetherFree with contained within it a single sherd of Cotswold type twelve fragments of animal bone. ware. The uppermost fill of the pit (551) contained 14 Gully 1007 (237 and 238) was aligned SW-NE and sherds of early medieval pottery and 3 fragments of a single fill in each cut (299 and 350) contained a total animal bone. of one sherd of Medieval Grey Sandy Ware and one Pit 230 was circular in plan and contained a single sherd of Sandy and Shelly Ware. fill 290 and a sheep burial 281. Fill 290 contained one + TVAS Occasional Paper 6

# " NE SW Image 495 485 496 486 497 490 491 487 320 488 489 492 493 494

319 NW SE 498 554 555 552 499 550 551 553 339 583 328 329

# $ SSW NNE " 689 692 694 683 691 693 687 688 686 684 685 447 681 682 690 445 446

NW SE 568 573 569 572 570 575 571 574 576 577 400 401 578 579 animal 402 burrow

SW NE # " $ 756 695 696 697 698

699 754 505 500 501 502 751 750 752 753 755 503 504 0 1mVersion [#%), sherd of Cotswold type ware and one sherd of Medieval Spreads 338, 339 and 568 all dating to the 12th Oxford Ware. A sample (104) from the stomach area of century, possibly formed due to slumping of the fill the animal burial contained a single grass seed. PitOnline 201 of underlying phase 3 pits. Their formation may be a was cut into the top of pit 230, and pit 231 in turn cut natural process. into pit 201. Neither of the overlying pits produced any PHASE 4: MID 13TH TO LATE 15TH CENTURY pottery. Despite the coincidence with theFree locations of several clearly modern animal burials, pit 230 is phased The mid 13th century to late 15th century component here based on its two sherds of pottery; if these were of the site, covering ceramic phases 4 and 5, comprised residual, this could join the group of modern animal just three pits (200, 308 and 502). burials which it also resembles..

9 -"& &N#

Table 1.1 Summary of pits (excludes undated and modern) Pit %, N%, O$%, Phase 236 1.15 1.15 0.29 Pottery, Bone 10th-11th century 316 0.70 0.50 0.12 Pottery 10th-11th Century 410 1.05 1.05 0.12 Pottery 10th-11th Century 215 1.60 1.60 0.58 Pottery, Bone Mid-late 11th century 239 0.85 0.85 0.13 Pottery, Bone Mid-late 11th century 306 0.50 0.62 0.12 Pottery Mid-Late 11th century 314 1.05 0.75 0.16 Pottery, Bone Mid-late 11th century 414 0.50 0.55 0.23 Mid-late 11th century 418 0.50 0.50 0.15 Mid-late 11th century 420 1.40 1.24 0.19 Pottery Mid-Late 11th century 444 1.37 0.69 0.11 Pottery, Bone Mid-late 11th century 209 0.70 0.70 0.10 Late 11th -13th century 211 0.50 0.90 0.23 Pottery, Bone Late 11th -13th century 213 1.40 1.40 0.18 Pottery, Bone Late 11th -13th century 230 2.23 2.23 0.25 Animal skeleton, Pottery Late 11th -13th century 308 1.22 0.74 0.30 Pottery, Tile, Bone Late 11th-mid 13th century 309 1.34 0.88 0.25 Pottery, Bone Late 11th-mid 13th century 312 0.55 1.09 0.39 Pottery, Bone Late 11th-mid 13th century Same as 407 317 1.75 0.70 0.31 Pottery, Bone Late 11th-mid 13th century 318 1.67 1.35 0.25 Pottery Late 11th-mid 13th century 328 1.60 1.60 0.58 Pottery, Bone Late 11th-mid 13th century 329 0.27 0.27 0.65 Pottery, Bone Late 11th-mid 13th century 343 0.71 0.32 0.51 Pottery, Bone Late 11th-mid 14th century 400 1.00 1.75 0.45 Pottery, Tile, Bone Late 11th-mid 13th century 401 1.67 1.67 0.45 Pottery Late 11th –mid 13th century 402 2.75 2.75 0.60 Pottery, Fe nail, Bone Late 11th-mid 13th century 407 0.66 0.31 0.55 Pottery Late 11th-mid 13th century Same as 312 419 1.40 0.56 0.19 Pottery Late 11th –mid 13th century 421 4.00 2.27 0.18 Pottery, Bone Late 11th-mid 13th century 425 0.62 0.86 0.12 Pottery, Bone Late 11th-mid 13th century 430 3.90 1.15 0.42 Pottery, Bone Late 11th-mid 13th century 431 0.64 0.35 0.21 Pottery Late 11th –mid 13th century 433 0.86 0.57 0.08 Late 11th –mid 13th century 435 1.80 1.30 0.11 Pottery Late 11th –mid 13th century 500 0.80 0.80 0.68 Pottery, Tile, Flint, Bone Late 11th-mid 13th century 200 2.22 0.63 0.13 Pottery. Tile, Bone Mid 13th-15th century 405 0.75 0.50 0.30 Pottery Mid 13th-15th century 502 1.96 1.96 0.57 Pottery, Tile, Bone VersionMid 13th-15th century 501 1.34 1.34 0.67 Pottery, Bone Mid 16th-17th century 2 1.00 1.00 0.88 Bone Medieval or later 201 0.94 0.26 0.34 Bone Medieval or later 26 Pottery, CBMOnline Mid16th-17th century unexcavated 214 1.30 1.30 0.28 Pottery, Brick, Tile, Bone Mid 16th-17th century 321 4.16 1.02 0.65 Pottery, Tile Fe metal work, Bone 17th-20th century PHASE 5: POST-MEDIEVAL (MID 16TH TO 17FreeTH CENTURY ) of their backfill on the same alignment. Although the After the lull in the previous phase, the mid 16th ditches had silted up they had left a noticeable break century to 17th century saw a renewal of activity on the of slope between them dropping down to the north site, with ditches 1010, 1012 and 1013, drain 1011 and from the southern plot. It is possible that the remains six pits. Ditch 1013 would appear to be a redefinition of any bank or hedge on the top of this slope may still of the earlier boundary ditches as it cut though the top have been visible, but even if not, the dip itself may 10 TVAS Occasional Paper 6 have served as a long-standing reminder. Ditches 1010 PM5: Trailed slip-ware, 17th century. 3 sherds, 9g. and 1012 may represent a subdivision of the northern PM8: Red Earthenware, 16th–19th century. 38 sherds, 1288g. plot that is shown on the enclosure map of 1799. Ditch PM15: Cistercian ware, AD1470–1550. 1 sherd, 6g. 1010 may be drainage for 5 Townsend itself as it was PM25: White Earthenware. Late 18th – 20th century. 7 replaced with the stone lined drain 1011 and higher up sherds, 45g . in the sequence a glazed ceramic pipe in the same place The location of the site means that the assemblage has and orientation. This would have fed a little stream a number of wares which are common in Oxfordshire which flows into Tack’s Pond just beyond the site to but are not included in the Milton Keynes type-series. the south-east. Details of these features are in the site These have been recorded using the codes and dating archive. of the County Type-Series (Mellor and Oakley 1984; Mellor 1994) as follows: MODERN AND UNDATED OXAC: Cotswold-type ware, AD1050–1350. 162 sherds, The 19th century to 20th century component of the 1297g, EVE = 0.43. site comprised just two pits 321 and 47/322, and OXBF: North-East Wiltshire Ware, AD1050–1400. 15 animal burials 255, 261, 272 and 46 (a cat burial from sherds, 196g, EVE = 0.30. the evaluation), all in the north-west corner of the area, OXY: Medieval Oxford ware, AD1075–1350. 69 sherds, which is shown as separated from the rest of the plot 592g, EVE = 0.69. on the enclosure map of 1799 and on later maps. Pit OXAW: Early Brill/Boarstall Ware, late 12th – 13th century. 230 in the same area, with a sheep burial, may also be 3 sherds, 166g. modern, though it has been allowed to be dated by two OXBX: Late Brill/Boarstall Ware, 15th–16th century. 3 sherds of medieval pottery (above). sherds, 33g, EVE = 0.08 Many features, mostly small post holes, but also OXFH: Border Ware, AD1550–1700 (Pearce 1988). 1 sherd, some moderately large pits, were undated and could 20g belong to any of the above phases. In addition, another fabric, not present in either of the above type-series, was also noted: Finds F102: Thetford Ware, AD850–1100 (Rogerson and Dallas 1984). 3 sherds, 166g. POTTERY BY PAUL BLINKHORN The material from each context was recorded by Eleven sherds (141g) of Iron Age material and 3 number and weight of sherds per fabric type. The sherds (53g) of Roman wares were also noted, all in terminology used is that defined by the Medieval later features. The pottery occurrence by number and Pottery Research Group (MPRG 1998) and statistical weight of sherds per context by fabric type is shown in analysis was carried out to the standards suggested by Appendix 1 for the medieval contexts (post-medieval Orton (Orton 1998-9, 135-7; MPRG 2001). contexts are detailed in archive). Each date has been checked against the stratigraphic matrix and adjusted where necessary. The pottery assemblage comprised 582 sherds with a total weight of 6,060g. The estimated vessel equivalent The range of fabric types is fairly typical of (EVE), by summation of surviving rimsherd sites on the Buckinghamshire/Oxfordshire border, circumference was 2.87. (EVEs are 0 if not stated comprising mainly types which are common in both below.) Where possible it was recorded using the coding counties, although Thetford Ware is a rare find in the system of the Milton Keynes Archaeological Unit type- region (all the sherds appear to be from large storage series (e.g. Mynard and Zeepvat 1992; Zeepvat et al. vessels,Version which seem generally to have travelled further 1994), as follows: than other vessel types of the tradition, presumably as containers for traded goods). The presence of St Neots SNC1: St Neots Ware, AD900–1100. 12 sherds, 54g, EVE and Thetford Wares indicates that there was Late = 0.06. Saxon or early Saxo-Norman activity at the site. The MC1: Shelly Coarseware, AD1100–1400. 10 sherds, Online154g, EVE = 0.11. majority of the St Neots Ware appears to be Denham’s MS3: Medieval Grey Sandy Wares, Mid 11th – Late 14th type T1(2) type (Denham 1985), and thus dates to c. century. 166 sherds, 1335g, EVE = 0.66.Free AD1000–1150. Most of the Thetford Ware from, for MS6: Potterspury Ware, AD1250–1600. 3 sherds, 31g. example, Northamptonshire and London (Blinkhorn MS9: Brill/Boarstall Ware, 1200–?1600. 26 sherds, 330g. 2010; Vince 1985) is storage vessels, and is of a similar MS19:Stamford Ware, c AD900–1200. 1 sherd, 1g. date, so it seems likely that this is also the case here. MSC1: Sandy and Shelly ware, Late 11th – Mid 13th century. Overall, the bulk of the assemblage appears to be 43 sherds, 321g, EVE = 0.09. of mid/late 11th – mid 13th century date.

11 -"& &N# Chronology and Pottery Occurrence tiny sample is distorted by the presence of a single Each context-specific assemblage was given a ceramic very large sherd from a Thetford Ware storage jar phasing (CP) based on the range of ware-types present. from context 297. Other than this, the mean sherd The basis of the scheme and the chronology, along weights for the Saxo-Norman and medieval pottery with the bulk pottery occurrence per phase is shown (CP2 – CP6) are generally very low, which suggests in Table 1.2. The pottery occurrence per ceramic that much of the pottery is the product of secondary phase, by percetnage weight of sherds per fabric type, deposition, perhaps the result of scattered domestic is shown in Table 1.3. midden material being used to backfill features during The data in Table 1.2 show that there was more or site clearance. less continuous deposition at the site from the Saxo- The data in Table 1.3 show a fairly typical pattern Norman period until the late 13th century, after which for the region. Residuality is fairly high in CP5 – CP6, time there was a sharp decline by at latest the early although this is likely to be another distortion due to the years of the 15th century. After this, no deposition small assemblage size. The presence of earlier wares in seems to have taken place until the mid-16th – 17th CP3 – CP4 indicates that there was some disturbance century. The contexts dated to CP1 all produced just of Roman and Saxo-Norman deposits at that time, one or two sherds of pottery, but are, in most cases, and there appears to have been similar disturbance to stratigraphically very early. The CP1 assemblage also earlier medieval strata during CP5, CP8 and CP9. has by far the largest mean sherd weight, although this Table 1.2: Ceramic phase chronology and pottery occurrence CP O\N O%(O, G N%, EVE N%, CP1 SNC1, MS19, F102 10th – mid 11th 4 153 0 38.3 CP2 OXAC, MS3, OXBF Mid-late 11th 17 129 0.05 7.6 CP3a OXY, MSC1 Late 11th – 13th 215 1752 1.08 8.1 CP3b MC1 12th – 13th 74 647 0.72 8.7 CP4a OXAW Late 12th – mid 13th 73 565 0.87 7.7 CP4b MS9 early – mid 13th 52 568 0.16 10.9 CP5 MS6 Mid 13th – 15th 22 139 0.23 6.3 CP6 OXBX 15th – Late 15th 5 53 0.08 10.6 CP7 PM15 Late 15th – M 16th 0 0 0 0 CP8 PM8, F451 Mid 16th – 17th 41 893 0 21.8 CP9 PM5 17th – 18th 11 139 0 12.6 MOD PM25 19th – 20th 26 532 0 20.5

Table 1.3. Pottery by % weight, per ceramic phase by fabric type, major wares only CP1 CP2 CP3 CP4 CP5 CP6 ';+ CP9 MOD RB/IA 0 0 2.4% 1.0% 0 0 0 0 0 SNC1 2.6% 0 0.5% 1.9% 0 0 0 0 0 F102 97.4% 0 0.7% 0 0 0 0 0 0 OXAC - 58.9% 33.3% 22.2% 19.2% 0 2.9% 9.4% 0 MS3 - 13.2% 27.6% 23.7% 36.0% 0 8.0% 0 0 OXBF - 27.1% 4.1% 4.4% 0 0Version 0.6% 0 0 OXY - - 16.2% 10.0% 22.3% 7.5% 4.7% 0 2.4% MSC1 - - 9.0% 8.3% 0 0 0 0 0 MC1 - - - 0.4% 0 0 0 0 0 OXAW - - - 2.6%Online 0 0 0 0 0 MS9 - - - 25.4% 0 30.2% 1.2% 11.5% 0 MS6 - - - - 22.3% 0 0 0 0 OXBX - - -Free - - 62.3% 0 0 0 PM8 ------79.8% 75.5% 88.3% PM5 ------3.6% 0.8% MOD ------8.5% Total 153 129 2399 1133 139 53 893 139 532 Shaded cells = residual 12 TVAS Occasional Paper 6 ';*N= ';[ZN[)) [Z-j-z* Z>-j-z**+ Two of the four sherds of pottery from this phase This phase sees a very sharp-drop-off in pottery are Thetford Ware, both being fragments from a large deposition compared with the previous phases, and storage jar, probably the same vessel, although they do suggests that the site was all but abandoned during not join. The other two sherds are of St Neots Ware, this time. The main fabrics were MS3 (36.0%), OXY and are both plain bodysherds from jars. As noted (22.3%) and MS6 (22.3%). Residual OXAC made up above, it is very likely that they are all of 11th-century 19.2% of the material. Only three rimsherds were date. present, two from jars and one from a jug. ';)N#< ';\[[[Z-j-z )>-j-z**[ **+ This assemblage is dominated by OXAC, 58.9% of All the pottery was Brill/Boarstall Ware, except for the assemblage by weight, with the other main wares a single, small, residual sherd of OXY. This is fairly being OXBF (27.1%) and MS3 (13.2%). The only other typical of the period. There is one rimsherd, from a jar. pottery present is a small sherd (1g) of Stamford Ware. Just one rimsherd was noted, from a jar in OXAC. ';+\N<= This pattern of pottery occurrence is more typical of +>Z Oxfordshire than Buckinghamshire, and suggests that This phase is dominated by PM8, Red Earthenware the main source of trade for Haddenham at this time (79.8%), which is very typical of post-medieval sites lay to the west, from Oxford, rather than Aylesbury to in the region. All the rest of the assemblage is residual, the north-east. other than two small sherds of Brill/Boarstall Ware. The PM8 sherds are mainly from large bowls (pancheons), ';Z#NZ)+> which is again typical. The single sherd of Border Ware )Z>>-j-z=* from this phase is quite a rare find in the region, other In this phase, Oxfordshire seems to still be the main than in Oxford, where it can be found in relatively large source of pottery, with OXAC continuing to be the quantities (e.g. Blinkhorn 2006). major ware (33.3%), but MS3 (27.6%) and OXY (16.2%) are also well-represented, along with MSC1 ';><Z> (9.0%). Three small sherds of SNC1 were also present, This phase is again dominated by PM8 (75.5%), with along with a single residual sherd from a Thetford Ware the only other stratified pottery being two very small storage jar, one Iron Age and two Roman sherds. sherds of PM5 (3.6%). The rest of the assemblage is residual. The rimsherd data suggest a typical vessel consumption pattern for the period. Jars are by far the {O-FG>N)*)\[Z) most common (EVE = 1.06; 75.7%), with the rest of The latest phase of the site is also dominated by PM8 the assemblage comprising bowls (16.4%) and a single (88.3%), but it seems very likely that at least some of jug rim (7.8%). The jug rim is in MC1. Such vessels in this material is residual. The defining ware, PM25, this fabric tend generally to be of 12th-century date. makes up just 8.5% of the group. ';=#)NZ)[ Summary ZZ-j-z*Z The main period of pottery deposition was from the The three main fabric types in this phase are MS9 lateVersion 11th to late 13th century, after which time there (25.4%), MS3 (23.7%) and OXAC (22.2%). The rest of was a sharp decline, and the site was abandoned by the the assemblage comprises smaller quantities of OXY late 15th century. There seems to have been activity (10.0%), MSC1 (8.3%), OXBF (4.4%), OXAW (2.6%) here in the mid 16th and 17th centuries. and MC1 (0.4%). The only other pottery presentOnline is The range of fabric and vessel types appears small quantities of residual St Neots Ware and Roman largely typical of sites in the region. In the medieval material. and early post-medieval periods, much of the pottery The rimsherd assemblage is still dominated by appears to have originated to the west of the site, and jars (EVE = 0.64; 62.1%), but jugs areFree much more the nature of the material is very similar to that in common (26.2%), with bowls representing around the the city of Oxford at that time. There is no reason to same proportion as before (11.7%). This is a typical suspect that any of the activity at the site was anything pattern for the medieval period, with jugs becoming other than domestic at any point, and the assemblages more common with time. are generally fragmented and scattered, with no reconstructable vessels. 13 -"& &N#

CERAMIC BUILDING MATERIAL BY DANIELLE Cat. No. 54 is a copper alloy acorn thimble recovered from MILBANK the 13th to 15th century pit 502. It measures 18mm across A total of 6.6kg of ceramic building material (112 13mm high and the walls are 1mm thick. There is a small fragments, excluding very small pieces) was recovered hole in the top of the thimble measuring 2mm across, this is possibly a remnant of the casting process. This type from contexts of pre-20th century date. Even when the of thimble has been dated from 1300 to 1450 (Shopland ceramic building material was of pre-20th century date, 2005). The knurling is uneven, shallow and from top it was found most frequently in post-medieval deposits. to bottom, there is a double ring around the base with The majority of the material which could be identified a spacing of 1mm from the base and 1mm between the was roof tile. No complete tiles were present, but 9 rings (Pl. 1.6). pieces with peg holes suggest that most fragments are Cat. No. 16 is the head of a key recovered from the 16th from plain peg tiles, not closely datable. to 17th century ditch 1010 [226]. The teeth are no longer The tile fabric was uniformly sandy, with frequent individually visible as the corrosion products have covered small well-sorted quartz sand inclusions. The colour the area. The head is 26mm long and it is 87mm long in total, the shaft is circular and measures 13mm across and varied from slightly orange red to darker red, with it weighs 60g. occasional examples of a grey (reduced) core. The fragments were generally fairly hard and well-fired and STRUCK FLINT BY STEVE FORD the typical thickness was 10mm. Most frequently the A broken flake from gully 432 (668) and a broken fragments had a rough underside, indicating that they backed knife from pit 500 (695), were both clearly were made using a sanded mould. One fragment from residual. The knife has well executed invasive retouch ditch 1013 (slot 320) had an incised line across the forming a shallow angle along one edge with irregular edge, the reason for which is unclear. The brick fabric was fairly consistent and homogenous, with very fine, well-sorted sandy inclusions. Larger inclusions (1mm–2mm) were very occasionally present. The fabric was hard and well- fired, though a couple of examples were slightly friable and weak. The colour ranged from bright orange red to dark red. All but one fragment were unfrogged, and all had a smooth upper surface with slight wire striations, and rough sides and undersides indicating Plate 1.6. Thimble from pit 502; scale 10cm. a sandy mould (Hammond 1984). None of the bricks were intact, and the full width or length could not be abrupt retouch forming the back. The broken flake established for any of the examples recovered, but the is not closely datable but is broadly of Neolithic or full thickness was present on a few fragments: these Bronze Age date whereas the knife is more likely to be ranged from 48mm (from pit 321) to 55mm (from ditch of later Neolithic or Early Bronze Age date. slot 319) thick, with three further examples 50mm thick ANIMAL BONE BY MATILDA HOLMES from ditch slot 320, drain 387, and posthole 447. They were produced by hand, and are broadly categorized as A small assemblage of animal bones came from Harley type 4 (Harley 1974). The fabric and thickness features dating from the settlement’s origins in the late are more typical of bricks from the later medieval Saxon period to the 20th century. Samples from each period up to 1784 (when the Brick Tax encouraged the phase are not large enough to warrant detailed analysis making of thicker and larger bricks) than 19th-century (underVersion 10 identifiable bones from each of phases 1, 2 or later types. and 4, and even the best represented phase 3 had only just over 100 identifiable bones), although points of A shallow frog was visible in section in an example interest are summarized below. Details of methods and from posthole 447. Overall, this brick was 52mm thick, more data are in the archive. Bones were generally in and of a hard, evenly-fired mid orange fabric, withOnline good condition, although considerably fragmented: the small well-sorted sandy inclusions. It is likely to be of great majority of bones were less than half complete, mid to late 18th-century date. Free with a high number of fresh breaks. METALWORK BY STEVEN CRABB The incidence of canid (and, to a lesser extent, Excluding the clearly 19th- and 20th-century finds, and rodent) gnawing was also high, indicating that many the two items described below, just six iron nails and of the bones were not buried immediately following one unidentified lump were recovered, and of those, disposal. However, the ratio of loose teeth to those just one nail came from a medieval pit (402). remaining in the mandible is not great, suggesting that

14 TVAS Occasional Paper 6 Table 1.4: animal bone, species representation (NISP) by period Species *?- ? ?Z Z?[ \?<

#!}<~#! Sample 105 108 120 109 110 112 11 117 118 114 119 Cut 236 316 329 318 331 340 439 339 347 422 214 Deposit 297 452 583 455 478 557 675 554 566 654 270 Group 1006 1017 1004 1001 Phase 11233333 3 35 $ Pit Pit Pit Pit Gully Gully Gully Hollow Gully Gully Pit G 500+ 29 1 11 100+ 42 50+ 1 1 50+ 10 "I%, 279181120281218252523 Latin Vernacular Corylus avellana Hazel 1 4 1 Salix / Populus Willow / Poplar 87 8 1 4 63 11 18 1 35 7 Quercus Oak 13 28 Indeterminate 20 7 37 31 15 3

The lack of cereal chaff suggests that crop Conclusions processing occurred elsewhere and that the cereals The excavations revealed a surprising density of finds were brought into the site fully cleaned. Overall, and deposits, with most activity belonging to the the low numbers of grains, chaff and weed seeds in medieval period. Prehistoric flints, and Iron Age and the majority of the samples indicates the accidental Version Roman pottery probably represent no more than casual burning of cleaned grain and its subsequent disposal, loss or manuring practice or possibly where a later or the use of material cut from cultivated ground as feature has cut though an Iron Age one. fuel. There was no sign of sprouting on the grains, so it does not seem to have been charred during roastingOnline The small assemblage of late Saxon pottery for malt. As the majority of the plant remains were confirms previous evidence for settlement of the 11th found together with charcoal remains, it may suggest century in the vicinity of Townsend and adds to the that waste or spilt grain and pulses which didFree not make evidence that the sprawling (or polyfocal) layout of it into pottage were put on the fire with other rubbish Haddenham is an original feature, although it remains and a small fraction became charred without burning unclear whether the picture should be seen as dispersed up, and joined the domestic ash on the rubbish heap. settlements later ‘filling in’ or as ribbon development from the beginning. There is still no evidence for early or middle Saxon settlement.

16 TVAS Occasional Paper 6

N 201/215 Im

204 Quhr Vuhrq

410 $

504 338

239 314 316 420 306

402 # 329

426 Quhr !

236 424 Vuhrq

0 10m

230

201 200 212

211 '210 208 209 203

Quhr ! iqh ( 221 vyy vviyr 217 313

Quhr " 312 407 Vuhrq 308 502

344 340 341 345 342 343 ' 400 318 317 500 347 Quhr # 419 506 401 348 328 238 403

421 329 242 404 Vuhrq 237 & 427 % 439 $ 428 # 443 430 423 438 437 331 442

441 235 435 3 422 425 433 % " ! 436 431 434 440 432 202

444 214

213

226

" ! qvpu q hv

327

502 Quhr $ Vuhrq

26 Version \;$# One of the earliest activities on the site was the (present on the Enclosure map) forming the south-west digging of a substantial ditch considered to be a land edge of the site and others to the north-east may reflect division. Although the earliest manifestation ofOnline this the presence of enduring land plots which originated in ditch produced no finds, it was earlier than the almost the late Saxon period. The suggested plots would have identical recut which probably began filling in the late fronted on to Townsend Green and extended back 11th century. Allowing time for the firstFree ditch to fill to the stream that flows though the village. This land in, but not enough time for the line it marked to be division may have stopped at Tacks Pond to the south- lost, suggests a late Saxon date for this boundary. It is east of the site. This is reflected in the 1799 Enclosure of the same size and orientation as a further ditch to map which can now be seen to reflect a very ancient the south-west examined during the evaluation. These layout indeed (Fig. 1.7). two ditches together with other extant land divisions The original ditch forming this boundary was cut 17 -"& &N# by a later ditch on a similar alignment whose backfilling the second ditch is slightly off line from the first. This can be dated as starting in the mid to late 11th century would appear to take place near the end of the Saxon and probably still remaining open into the 12th or 13th. period or possibly at around the time of the Norman This line was to be redefined again in the post-medieval Conquest. Activity within the site increases slightly, period. Within the two plots formed either side of this with more and larger pits being excavated including one ditch only a small amount of activity in the form of which had a large dump of chalk in its base. The chalk rubbish disposal in pits took place initially. However, had to have been imported as the nearest chalk source it is often noted that Saxon settlement leaves little is 7km away. The presence of this chalk seems out of below ground trace other than remains of buildings context for a site that lies on a limestone substrate with themselves (e.g. at Walton Road, Aylesbury, where even both lime and building stone readily available. Its use on a densely occupied site, hardly any features other here is not known. The larger pits of this period could than buildings produced Saxon finds; Ford and Howell perhaps have been for limestone extraction, possibly 2004). This may suggest the focus of activity at this for use in making witchert, and only later used for time may have been on the Townsend Green end of rubbish disposal, but this is speculation. the site beneath the current house (5 Townsend). The majority of the activity on the site occurs in The second period of activity on the site appears to the period from the late 11th to the 13th century when be a redefining of this boundary after it had silted up, as the manor of Haddenham was in the possession of

Version Site

Online

Free

<#$ <>> + TVAS Occasional Paper 6 the Church of St Andrew, Rochester. The major land been flourishing at the end of the 13th century. Only division seems to have remained in place even though seven years later, however, the market was withdrawn. the ditch may have silted up, as it was redefined in the This cannot account for the decline in fortunes of form of two gullies on a similar alignment to the large the current site, which came much earlier, nor was the ditches beneath, and which may represent gullies down Haddenham market the source of the range of pottery the side of a hedge line or bank along the existing available, which was also reaching the site earlier. boundary. The southern plot is further sub-divided by Despite what looks like a long abandonment, internal gullies whilst the northern plot appears to have the discontinuity is not complete. It appears that the been kept mostly open at this time. The southern plot basic land division, at least, survived in some form. is also sees major activity in the digging of intercutting In the mid 16th to 17th century activity resumed in pits, clustering along the line of the boundary, as well the northern plot with the construction of a ditch as isolated pits and post holes. Activity in the northern (1012), later replaced by a drain (1011), together with a plot is markedly subdued in comparison. This may redefinition of the plot boundary and a sub-division of reflect a difference in prosperity or industry conducted the plot. The main plot boundary, now taking the form by the two different tenants of the plots. of a minor gully (1013), appears to kink at the east end, The economic evidence, which was recovered in in line with ditch 1010 to the north. This unexplained very modest proportions, seems to be fairly typical kink is replicated in maps from 1799, 1820 and 1834. of domestic sites of this period and the backland The subdivision in the north (1010 and 1012) may be context of the site. The usual domesticated animals related to the construction of 5 Townsend itself and are represented with cattle providing the greatest meat drainage related to this building. A similar enclosure weight, but with sheep/goat providing slightly more mapped on the historic maps in this area appears to individual bones. It is unclear if these stock were kept cover a smaller area, and to lie slightly further north, primarily for their meat or for dairy and secondary than the features excavated here. A further building, products. The presence of smaller amounts of pig, found in the evaluation but outside the excavation area, horse, chicken and goose are unexceptional, as are dogs occupied part of the southern plot and also appears on and cats as pets. Plants consumed included the usual the enclosure maps of 1799 and 1834, however other wheat, barley and oats, and peas. All of the cereals archaeologically visible activity within this plot in this were already processed before arriving on the site; period is almost nil. Domesday Book notes the presence of two mills. The The enclosure map shows that apart from 5 presence of fuel from wetland tree species (dominant Townsend and the building in the southern plot, the throughout phases 1–3) would appear to reflect the area was open land until the present development landscape alongside the stream and pond nearby. although the land divisions were first realigned and then As is replicated on numerous medieval sites, from went out of use within the 20th century. A very small the mid 13th century to the end of the 15th century area in the north-west corner of the site witnessed the the activity on site is markedly curtailed, with just burials of several animals (a dog, a cat, a sheep, and the occasional pit. It is possible that even these few two pigs) and although some of these pits contained features belong to the end of the preceding period, or medieval or post-medieval pottery, it seems likely that are erroneously dated by residual finds, and belong to all of these were buried in the 19th or 20th century. the post-medieval phases, and if so the site could be simply abandoned at this time. This observation adds Acknowledgments further to the evidence of the profound changes that TheVersion author would like to thank a number of individuals took place within both urban and rural settlements, for their help in the implementation of this project, including population decline, movement of population in particular Dan Moore of Rectory Homes who and a change in social conditions at the end of the funded the work and Eliza Alqassar who monitored feudal period, not all of which need be attributed the work. The fieldwork team consisted of David directly to the Black Death. Certainly the evidenceOnline Platt, Tim Dawson, Aidan Colyer, Kyle Beaverstock, here is slight compared to the loss of entire villages James Early and Aiji Castle. The illustrations are by in parishes nearby (Aston Mullins, Moreton and Andrew Mundin, Tim Dawson and Daniel Bray. Steve Waldridge) (BCAS 2008, 8). That a weeklyFree market and Preston edited the text. The archive will be deposited annual three-day fair were granted in 1295 (VCH 1908, with Buckinghamshire County Museum with accession 283), presumably indicates that Haddenham must have code AYBCM:2007.82.

19 -"& &N# 11th- and 12th-century Boundary Features at 2 Fern Lane, Fort End, Haddenham, Buckinghamshire

by Daniel Bray

;#&#'O###F#~ Summary -"-# # N)$$###RS /#$# $## )G#$/#$? $#?### -## the early existence of a street corresponding with modern Banks Road. Other features were contemporary with the property boundary. ## )###$ = #$/ Introduction Archaeological background Subsequent to the excavation at Townsend, an The archaeological potential of the site has been archaeological recording action was carried out in 2013 suggested by the results of field evaluation (Williams by Thames Valley Archaeological Services (TVAS) 2011). A detailed summary of the development to the Rear of 2 Fern Lane, Fort End, Haddenham, of Haddenham as a whole has also recently been Buckinghamshire (SP 7408 0888) (Fig. 1.1). The work produced by Buckinghamshire County Archaeological was commissioned by Mr Dan Moore of Rectory Service (BCC 2008). The site lies within the historic Homes, who also funded the work, in repsonse to a core of Haddenham which had until recently witnessed conditon placed on planning permission (11/01812/ little archaeological fieldwork. Haddenham has late APP) granted by Aylesbury Vale District Council Saxon origins and is mentioned in Domesday Book (as to develop the site for new housing. An evaluation Nedreham) but has little documented history of note. (Williams 2011) revealed that archaeological deposits However, topographically it is of unusual plan with its were present on site and as a result further work was three greens and four ponds. The site lies at Fort End, required in the areas where the remains would be which is thought either to be a corruption of ‘ford’ affected by the ground works, in accordance with the reflecting a crossing of the stream that flows through Department for Communities and Local Government’s the village or, less likely, reflects the presence of an National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2012) and earthwork considered to have been defensive in nature. the District Council’s policies on archaeology. . Recent fieldwork has begun to shed more light The site is located on the north-east side of Fort on the settlement’s early development. Excavation and End which is the middle one of the three greens evaluation of a plot of land 200m to the north revealed around which Haddenham is focussed (Fig. 1.1). Saxon pits and a complex development of medieval The site is surrounded on three sides by residential plot boundaries followed by abandonment in the 14th properties (Fig. 2.1). To the east the houses are modern century. Finds of Neolithic to Bronze Age struck flint, while the properties located to the south and north are and pottery of Iron Age and Roman date also indicated historic. The north-western boundary is defined by a activityVersion of other periods in the area (Wallis 2007; Weale witchert wall. The site, which has been used as a farm 2012). Other work on sites in the area has revealed yard and for the storage of machinery and materials deposits of Bronze Age, Roman and Medieval dates for many years, is relatively flat but does slope gently (Weale 2007; Taylor 2011; Platt 2012a). down towards the west and Fern Lane. The site lies at a THE EVALUATION height of approximately 78m above Ordnance DatumOnline and occupies an area of around 0.26ha. According to The evaluation trenching revealed a range of deposits the British Geological Survey, the underlying geology is of archaeological interest comprising ditches, postholes Portland Formation (sand and limestone)Free (BGS 1994). and a quarry pit thought to be of medieval date, The geology observed consisted of Portland stone but also parts of the site have undergone extensive bedrock in the north-eastern part of the site with the modern disturbance (Williams 2011). This permitted rest of the site consisting of yellowish white limestone the excavation to be targeted only on those areas not marl, with orange brown clayey silt. previously disturbed.

20 TVAS Occasional Paper 6

;#)]8## The Excavation Results The excavation examined two parcels of land of c. On the eastern edge of Area A, a number of linear 1390 sq m (A) and 100 sq m (B) on the footprints of ditches (Fig. 2.2) were recorded which most likely the development. The main area (A) corresponded with represent the redefinition of a property boundary on a features found in the evaluation comprising ditches, number of occasions. No archaeological features were gullies and a quarry pit with the smaller area (B) located present in Area B, much of which had been truncated close to a cluster of possible postholes of uncertain by modern services. date and function. A contingency of 10% was included Pit 2 may have been the earliest feature on the site. in the proposal to extend the zone examined between It was possibly circular in plan, although the full extent Areas A and B if archaeological deposits were found to was not seen due to it being truncated by ditch 103. If extend into these areas and not to have been destroyed circular it was 2.45m in diameter and 0.30m deep. It by modern disturbance. had concave sides and a flat base. It was filled with a The excavation was undertaken as planned (Fig. dark brown grey sandy silt with occasional limestone 2.2) and the two areas were stripped of topsoil to fragments (52). Although it contained no dating reveal the natural Portland Formation geology (Pl. evidence it is possible (but purely speculative) that the 2.1). Topsoil and subsoil were removed by a 360°-type IronVersion Age pottery recovered from ditch 103 originated machine fitted with a toothless ditching bucket, under here. constant archaeological supervision. All spoil heaps The earliest linear feature recorded was ditch 100, were monitored for finds and where archaeological which does not relate to the later property boundary. features were present they were cleaned and excavated Ditch 100 was observed for c.11m on an east- using hand tools. Isolated features such as pitsOnline and west alignment. It was between 0.70-1.00m wide and postholes were to be half-sectioned as a minimum and 0.12m-0.24m deep (Fig. 2.3) and was seen in five linear gullies and ditches were sampled at a minimum of sections (8, 18, 20, 34 and 2/06). It contained a mid 25% of their length. All termini and intersectionsFree were grey clay silt with occasional limestone fragments. examined. Bulk samples of mostly 10l-40l of soil were No dateable finds were recovered but it is considered taken from eleven sealed contexts for environmental to belong to the same early medieval period as the remains and to enhance small finds recovery. majority of the other deposits on the site. This ditch was truncated by ditches 101 and 102 (Fig. 2.3). 21 -"& &N#

Area A !"#!$%&

(%#:&;! ()#*(%#%!"

+!$#% ' <%!#%;!"# #*!!#" Area B - %#"#% $/ $%, #*#

))O# The earliest ditch most likely associated with sequence can be established). It was predominantly on the property boundary was ditch 101. Ditch 101 was a NNW – SSE alignment curving slightly towards the the westernmost ditch associated with the property southern end closer to due north–south, and possibly boundary and was observed for c.13m and aligned terminating at its northern end, although here it may NNW – SSE. It was widest at the northern end have been entirely replaced by its recut 103, see below). measuring 1.00m wide and 0.36m deep narrowing A totalVersion of six sections were excavated across its 31m towards the southern end before petering out/ length (4, 7, 25, 27, 31, 41) that all showed it contained terminating to the north. It contained a mid dark a single mid grey brown clay silt fill. Two sherds of brownish grey silty clay primary fill and a mid greyish St Neots Ware (c. AD900–1100) were recovered (one brown silty clay secondary fill, both with occasionalOnline each from slots 4 and 7). This ditch was recut along limestone fragments. It was seen in four sections (1, its whole eastern length by ditch 103 (Fig. 2.3 and Pl. 19, 26 and 3/04) and produced a single fragment of 2.2). The stratigraphic sequence shows that this is the Medieval Oxford ware pottery. This ditch is later than earliest dated feature on the site, while the absence of ditch 100 and although it is not possible Freeto say how it later pottery also would suggest that it is more likely to relates stratigraphically to ditches 102-106 to its east, it be 11th rather than late 11th to 12th century. is likely that it forms a phase of the property boundary. Ditch 103 was observed for c.43m and recut the Stratigraphically Ditch 102 is the earliest length of ditch 102 differing only at the northern end permutation of the property boundary (where a where it most likely continued turning west at a right

22 TVAS Occasional Paper 6

! " #

$ % &

% # $

)Z%,

Version

Online

Free

;#)O*Z*=*)%)Z)=)[,##])* 23 -"& &N#

)=%), angle, probably to form 14/15 although here it had 33m before turning at a right angle towards the west. been lost to a modern quarry pit. It varied between It had a probable total length of as much as 52m. Six 0.60–1.50m wide and between 0.15–0.38m deep. It slots were excavated through the length of the ditch contained a dark grey brown clay silt with frequent (6, 9, 12, 17, 38, 43 and 14 or 15) which showed it limestone fragments. From six slots across this ditch (3, to be between 1.00-2.10m wide and 0.13-0.58m deep 22, 23, 28, 32, 42) two sherds of Medieval Oxford Ware with a light to mid grey silty clay fill with frequent were recovered in addition to two small fragments of limestone. Towards the northern end a mid brown grey shell-tempered Iron Age pottery which must be residual clay silt primary fill was present. In total two sherds of and possibly from pit 2, which ditch 103 cut through. Cotswolds-type Ware, two sherds of Medieval Oxford This ditch in turn was partly truncated by ditch 104 Ware, a single sherd of Medieval Grey Sandy Ware and (Fig. 2.3). three fragments of Shelly Coarseware (AD1100-1400) Ditch 104 observed for c.24m on a NNW – were recovered. This ditch was recut for most its length SSE alignment. It was between 0.50-0.65m wide and on theVersion western side by ditch 105 (Pl. 2.3) and truncated 0.22m-0.35m deep and was seen in five sections (24, by the modern quarry.. 29, 30, 35, 44), but was not visible at section 37–40, Ditch 105, a recut of ditch 106 was observed for where it must have been removed by either ditch 106 c.30m on a N – S alignment. It varied in width between or its recut 105 (Fig. 2.3) It contained a dark grey clayOnline 0.60-1.00m and in depth from 0.16-0.38m. It was seen silt with frequent limestone fragments. Two sherds of in six sections (5, 11, 16, 36, 37, 45). It contained a Medieval Oxford Ware, one fragment of Cotswolds- single dark grey clay silt fill with frequent limestone type Ware (c. AD975–1350) and a piece Freeof Medieval fragments. Three sherds of Cotswold-type Ware and Grey Sandy Ware (mid 11th – 14th century) were two sherds of Medieval Oxford Ware were recovered. recovered from this ditch as well a single residual sherd The clear stratigraphic sequence through of shell-tempered Iron Age pottery. these ditches (102–103–104–106–105) shows that From the southern end of the site, ditch 106 the boundary was successively extended further extended on a due north–south alignment for some eastwards in five phases. It is by no means clear that 24 TVAS Occasional Paper 6

;#)ZO$%Z

Plate 2.4. Pit 46, looking west, Scales: 2m and 0.5m. excavation, including a small number from sieved soil tempered Iron Age pottery were also noted. The samples. A total of 298 fragments were recovered, pottery occurrence by number and weight of sherds weighing 2615g (Table 2.1). The preservation of per context by fabric type is shown in Appendix 2. the remains was moderate to poor, with fairly high Most of the sherds are fairly large and are in fragmentation and some surface erosion. good condition. The range of fabric and vessel types, The remains were identified by species, and where prehistoric material aside, indicates that there was this was not possible, categorized as large (horse, activity at the site during the 11th and 12th centuries. cattle), medium-sized (sheep/goat, pig) and small (cat, Common 13th-century glazed wares, such as Brill dog, rodent) mammals. The majority of the remains (MK code MS9) and Potterspury (MK code MS6) are were too highly fragmented to be identified. Overall, represented by just a single sherd, which indicates that the assemblage was dominated by large-sized animal the end date is secure. bone fragments, most often cattle where identified, The St Neots Ware includes sherds from the rims with medium-sized animals (predominantly sheep/ of a jar and a large inturned-rim bowl, all in Denham’s goat and pig) present in smaller quantities, and small (1985) T1(2) type fabric, of 11th – 12th century date. animals represented by dog bones and a single rib. The rest of the assemblage is mainly fragments of jars, The largest quantity was retrieved from ditch 106, with although a single bowl rim in Costwold-type ware and smaller quantities in ditch 103, other linear features jug rim in shelly coarseware were also present. This is and pits. A sieved soil sample from 1 (50) included a a typical range of vessel types for assemblages of the right upper incisor from a dog. Deposit 64 (ditch 106) period in the region. containedVersion three fragments of cattle left metatarsal, two proximal ends and one distal end. Ditch 103 (slot 42) METALWORK BY STEVE CRABB contained several pieces of cattle cranium and upper A silver plated copper alloy spoon was recovered from molar teeth (left and right). The teeth have only a minor the topsoil. It has a simple flat handle terminating in a to moderate degree of wear, suggesting a juvenile or rounded rectangular terminal on the reverse of whichOnline young individual. Deposit 73 (infilling ditch 106, slot are visible four stamped hallmarks However, the initial 17) contained several skeletal elements (a mandible with letter stamp is worn and therefore identification to a teeth, an axis, an ulna, a rib, a metacarpal and several particular producer is not possible. It measuresFree 130mm skull fragments) of dog, which are of comparable size long and the bowl is 26mm across. and likely to represent one individual. This context also ANIMAL BONE BY DANIELLE MILBANK included cattle remains comprising a left calcaneus and right tarsal bone, left and right parts of an innominate A modest assemblage of fragmented disarticulated bone, with both left and right femur heads, from a animal bone was recovered from 32 contexts in the similar size cattle animal, again likely to be the same 26 TVAS Occasional Paper 6 individual. The epiphyses are unfused indicating it is CHARRED PLANT MACROFOSSILS BY ROSALIND a juvenile. Deposit 153 (also in ditch 106) contained MCKENNA further cattle remains (1 metacarpal and a left tarsal A programme of soil sampling was implemented bone), with a right calcaneus bone recovered from during the excavation, which included the collection deposit 155 (ditch 104). Pig was represented by a single of samples from 11 sealed contexts, all dated from the tooth from deposit 80 (ditch 103), which also contained medieval period (with the possible exception of Pit 2). the only horse remains found in the excavation (a All samples were processed using standard flotation single metapodial). Deposit 96 (fill of ditch 105, slot techniques and sieved using a 0.25mm mesh, and 37) contained 41 pieces of bone from a small animal, charcoal and other plant macrofossils were identified together with some small fragments. The majority using published guides (details in archive). are vertebrae or vertebra fragments, and several are Charred plant macrofossils and charcoal were unfused vertebra. They are all from a juvenile small present in all eleven samples. The preservation of the animal, possibly a dog. charred remains varied from good to very poor (Table No evidence of butchery was present. No other 2.2). A single sample produced a suite of remains high information could be retrieved from the fragmented in both quantity and diversity – from ditch 104, (slot remains, and the majority (except the dog) are likely to 30, 88). All other samples produced fewer remains in represent domestic consumption. Table 2.1: Inventory of Animal Bone Group Cut Deposit Type No Wt (g) Horse Cattle Sheep/goat Pig Dog Large Medium Small 101 1 50 Ditch 15 85 - - - - 1 1 4 - 101 1 51 Ditch 2 14 - 1 ------2 52 Pit 4 28 - - 1 - - - 1 - 103 3 54 Ditch 15 128 - 1 - - - 1 - 1 103 3 55 Ditch 9 82 ------1 - 102 4 56 Ditch 7 84 - - - - - 1 1 - 106 6 58 Ditch 8 10 ------106 6 59 Ditch 4 112 - 1 - - - 1 - - 102 7 61 Ditch 3 26 ------106 9 64 Ditch 19 192 - 2 ------10 66 Ditch 1 2 ------105 11 67 Ditch 3 54 - 2 - - - - 1 - 106 12 68 Ditch 1 8 ------1 - 14 70 Ditch 4 38 - 1 - - - 1 - - 15 71 Gully 6 16 ------105 16 72 Ditch 2 2 ------106 17 73 Ditch 40 780 - 8 - - 6 1 - - 106 17 74 Ditch 7 14 - 1 ------100 18 75 Ditch 5 4 - - 1 ----- 103 22 80 Ditch 5 98 1 - - 1 - - - - 103 23 81 Ditch 2 58 ------2 - 102 25 83 Ditch 2 2 - - - Version----- 104 30 88 Ditch 3 8 ------107 33 91 Gully 1 2 ------100 34 92 Ditch 3 20 ------2 - 105 37 96 Ditch 52 130 -Online 1 - - - - - 42 106 38 97 Ditch 13 100 ------1 - 103 42 152 Ditch 17 246 - 9 ------106 43 153 Ditch 24 130Free - 2 - - - - 5 - 106 43 154 Ditch 3 18 - 1 ------104 44 155 Ditch 6 46 - 1 - - - - 1 - 46 158 Pit 14 78 - 1 - - - 2 - - Total 298 2615 1 33 2 1 6 8 21 1 MNI 1 2 1 1 1 27 -"& &N# Table 2.2: Plant Macrofossils other than charcoal Taxonomy and Nomenclature follow Stace (1997). Sample 1234567891011 Cut 2 3 16 17 18 25 30 33 34 1 46 Deposit 52 54 72 74 75 83 88 91 92 50 158 LATIN COMMON NAME Ranunculus acris/repens/bulbosus L. ------3 - - - - Buttercups Chenopodium / Atriplex spp. 24 18 8 8 12 1 23 2 5 6 8 Goosefoot / Orache Stellaria media (L.) Vill. ------7 - - - - Common chickweed Silene L. ------1 - Campions Rumex spp. L. ------1 - - - - Dock FABACEAE - 2 10 4 1 - 9 4 - 2 5 Pea Family Vicia faba L. - - 2 ------Broad bean Pisum sativum L. - - 12 3 - - 11 - - - - Garden pea BORAGINACEAE - - - 2 - - 5 - - - - Borage Famiy Galeopsis L. ------2 - - - - Hemp nettles Sambucus nigra L. ------1 - - - - Elder Valerianella dentate (L.) Pollich ------1 - - - - Narrow fruited cornsalad Anthemis cotula L. - 1 - - - - 49 1 - - 1 Stinking chamomile Chrysanthemum segetum L. ------6 - - - - Corn marigold Eleocharis palustris (L.) Roem & Schult. - - 1 - - - 1 - - - - Common Spike rush Carex spp. - - 4 - - - 6 - - - 1 Sedge POACEAE 1 1 - 4 2 - 55 2 - 6 7 Grass Family Avena cf. sativa - 2 31 - - - 12 5 - - - Oat Hordeum spp. 4 3 7 6 2 - 89 2 - 1 2 Barley Hordeum spp. – sprouted grain ------66 - - - - Barley – sprouted grain Triticum spelta / Secale cereale ------33 - - - - Spelt wheat / Rye Triticum spp. 13 13 199 49 8 2 406 19 10 8 26 Wheat Indeterminate Cereal 35 70 409 98 42 6 723 34 - 42 60 Indet cereal – sprouted grain ------28 - - - - Indet cereal – detached embryo ------6 - - - - Indet cereal chaff - -2---4 --11 ` ------50+ - -- - Indeterminate - 11111- 1211 both diversity and abundance. The preservation of crop along with oats as a buffer against adverse weather; the charcoal fragments was poor, so that identifiable it was also mixed with oats to make coarse bread for remains were present in only five samples (Table 2.3). the lower classes in society (Stone 2009, 12), and is used The majority of the seeds recovered were to brew ale (Dinely and Dinely 2000). Oats are very indeterminate cereal grains. Identified cereals were the tolerant to poor growing conditions. They were used usual wheat (Triticum sp.), barley (Hordeum sp.) and oat to make coarse and cheap bread, porridges, cakes and (Avena sativa). It is probable, based on the general size oftenVersion ale, and were used as horse-feed. and morphological characteristics that the species of Although the grains are severely carbonized, it was wheat utilized was bread wheat. Bread wheat was not possible to identify just under 100 grains from sample protected by glumes so it was easier to process than 7 that had evidence for sprouting of the embryos. glume wheats, such as emmer (Jacomet 2006), butOnline Germination of cereal grains can be either accidental this also meant that it was more subject to decay and or deliberate (van Zeist 1991; Stike 1996). Accidental infestation. This wheat requires fertile soils to grow. germination can happen in the field or during storage, This, and the presence of a large percentageFree of gluten in both cases because of overly damp conditions. within the caryopsis which allowed bread to rise and Germination can be actively induced by steeping grains consist of a lighter texture than previous wheat, lent it in water in order to promote the development and the highest status of all grains in the medieval period activity of an enzyme that transforms the starch of (Kelly 1997, 219; Stone 2009, 17). Barley was present in the grain into fermentable and more easily digestible smaller numbers. Barley was often grown as a dredge sugars. Malt (sprouted grain) has various uses (Maurizio

)+ TVAS Occasional Paper 6

Table 2.3: Charcoal -Taxonomy and nomenclature follow likely represent the seeds retained by a fine sieve in the Schweingruber (1978). crop processing sequence. Fine sieving was most likely Sample 1 2567 performed just before milling, malting or parching. 2 3 18 25 30 Larger weed seeds were most likely removed by hand Context 52 54 75 83 88 prior to preparing the grain for use (Hillman 1981; /$ 1984; 1985; Jones 1984). G 15 30 50 15 100+ The total range of charcoal taxa comprises oak "I%, 179 201220 (Quercus), willow/poplar (Salix/Populus), and hazel Latin Vernacular (Corylus). Willow/poplar is by far the most numerous Corylus avellana Hazel 5 ---- of the identified fragments, with a small amount of hazel and an even smaller amount of oak. It is possible Salix / Populus Willow / Poplar 1 13 26 9 28 that these were the preferred fuel woods obtained from Quercus Oak - ---4 a local environment containing a broader choice of Indeterminate 9 17 24 6 68 species. 1927): it can be eaten as is or used to make bread, but its It is likely that these samples all represent most common use is in the production of fermented secondary deposition of charred plant remains, beverages. Van der Veen (1989) assumes that above through intentional dumping. The use of cereal 15% of germinated grains, one can probably rule out processing waste as fuel is well attested (Hillman 1981; accidental sprouting. The sprouted grains identified 1984) and disposal of spent fuel into features such as from sample 7 do not total 15%, and in the absence pits or ditches/gullies seems a likely explanation for of other indicators of brewing such as hops or a pure the arrival of this material on site. As the majority of barley grain, it is not possible to conclude that brewing the plant remains were found together with charcoal, was occurring at this site. it may suggest that waste or spilt grain were put on A small number of remains of arable weeds were the fire with other rubbish and a small fraction became found in some samples. The remains of Chenopodium/ charred without burning up, and joined the domestic ($#"F"8#$and Stellaria media also fall in ash on the rubbish heap. this group. All these species would have been brought to the site together with harvested cereals. Conclusion If cereal processing were occurring at the site, it The excavation revealed a modest quantity of would be expected that some remains (probably in high archaeological deposits and artefacts. The linear numbers) of cereal chaff, a by-product of processing, boundary ditches (101–7) in Area A were part of an would be found. Chaff was present only in small 11th – 12th century property boundary most likely amounts. The rarity of chaff is repeatedly reported relating to the ‘croft’, land that was farmed associated from archaeological deposits, and although this may with a property, rather than the ‘toft’, which would have suggest that grain was already threshed and winnowed, defined the platform that the property was built on. if not also milled, by the time it reached the site, it may The boundary was redefined, certainly five and possibly also show that any chaff was burnt up completely, as many as seven times, within a short time frame at the rather than preserved by partial charring, in the fires in end of the 11th century and possibly the early years of which it was deposited. the 12th. No further postholes were found in Area B Vetches and peas were present in many samples to add to the possible (but undated) examples recorded in small numbers, mostly poorly preserved with duringVersion the evaluation, and no other structural remains no surviving testa or hila. It has been possible to were present. It is therefore not possible say whether assign some to Vicia faba (broad bean) on the basis the ditches relate to the rear of a property boundary of surviving hila, size and shape, and to identify pea or the side. It is however likely, given the absence of (Pisum sativum) in some samples. Charred legumes can structures in Area A, that the property would have been represent only food waste, as their processing doesOnline not located to the south or west. The corner of ditch 106 require parching. The remains of cereals and legumes could provide the north-east corner of a plot whose together in the samples may point to the waste of south-west corner is reflected in the unusual layout of pottage – a staple dish from the medievalFree period (and Fort End, suggesting an early date for the latter, and later) (Black 2003) in which the actual food grains used suggesting the early existence of a street corresponding varied according to what was available (Dyer 1989). with modern Banks Road. Such an enclosure would be in the order of 58m (W–E) by 62m (N–S). The deposits contain a mixture of grain and similarly sized weed seeds, such as grasses, which most The boundary features produced a total of 37 sherds of pottery from its various permutations securely 29 -"& &N# dating the features. The absence of any earlier (Saxon) did not develop as its counterpart did to the north. pottery or the glazed wares that became common The residual sherds of Iron Age pottery found during the 13th century gives a narrow time span of in ditch 103 add only a little to indicate earlier activity activity on the site and a reasonably secure date for its in the area and while it is tempting to suggest these abandonment. Pit 46 contained 17 sherds of pottery originated from pit 2 it can be no more than speculation. contemporary with the property boundary. Unusually A single sherd of Roman pottery during the evaluation this time of abandonment in the 12th century is well is of similar significance. One other pit (39) produced before the commonly observed phases of abandonment no dating evidence but stratigraphically was earlier than in the 14th century, both in Haddenhham (Weale 2012) ditch 106 and gully 107. The large quarry excavated and elsewhere. The development of this site provides during the evaluation truncated a modern unexcavated a marked contrast with that at Townsend to the north linear and is therefore also modern in date. (Weale 2012). There, intensive development took place with pit and posthole digging, and rubbish disposal in Acknowlegements addition to the creation, redefinition and realignment of boundaries until abandonment. That area then saw The investigation was carried out to a specification a re-use in post-medieval times. At Fern Lane, the approved by Ms Eliza Alqassar, Archaeological Planning definition and re-definition of the boundary line was and Conservation Officer for Buckinghamshire County the only significant activity on the site, and this was Council. The fieldwork was undertaken by Daniel Bray temporally restricted. It might be that these divergent along with Lizzi Lewins, David Platt, Susan Porter, observations are merely a product of a restricted Tom Stewart and Ben Tebbit between 7th and 20th area of investigation for sampling at Fern Lane. Yet November 2013 with site code FLH 13/45. The it is considered that the area examined did comprise archive will be deposited with Buckinghamshire County a substantial part of a croft and if so, then there is Museum in due course. evidence here (or a lack of it) of a settlement unit that

Version

Online

Free

30 TVAS Occasional Paper 6 REFERENCES Kelly, F, 1997, -#J, Dublin Maurizio, A, 1927, O8 ;#I BGS, 1994, &8## 1:50,000, Sheet 237, Solid II8, Berlin and Drift Edition, Keyworth McNicoll-Norbury, J, 2010, ‘Townsend Garage, Haddenham, BCAS, 2008, ‘Haddenham, Historic Town Assessment Buckinghamshire, an archaeological evaluation’, TVAS Report’, Buckinghamshire County Council, Aylesbury unpubl rep 10/56, Reading Black, M, 2003, ( ]**** &, Mellor, M and Oakley, G, 1984, ‘A summary of the key London assemblages, a study of pottery, clay pipes, glass and Blake, B, 1984, ‘Excavations Carried out in the Area Formerly other finds from fourteen pits, dating from the 16th to Known as ‘Behind the Walls’ Church End, Haddenham’, the 19th century’, in T G Hassall, C E Halpin and M Buckinghamshire County Archaeological Service Mellor, ‘Excavations in St Ebbe’s, Oxford, 1967–1976: Blinkhorn, P, 2006, ‘Pottery’ in A Norton ‘Excavations at Part II: Post-medieval domestic tenements and the Post- 67-69 St. Thomas’ St, Oxford’, {" 71, 364–71 Dissolution site of the Greyfriars’, Oxoniensia, 49, 181–211 Blinkhorn, P, 2010, ‘The Post-Roman Pottery’ in A Mellor, M, 1994, ‘A Synthesis of middle and late Saxon, Chapman, N '] ( # O medieval and early post-medieval pottery in the Oxford -"N'FG$>+[?>, Region’, Oxoniensia, 59, 17–217 Oxford, 259–333 Mills, A D, 1998, O -#;#?G, Oxford Denham, V, 1985, ‘The Pottery’ in J H Williams, M Shaw MPRG, 1998, Guide to the Classification of Medieval Ceramic and V Denham, # " ;# G$ MPRG Occas Pap 1 Northampton Development Corporation Monog Ser 4, MPRG, 2001, ;F 46-64 (# ;# $? ' Medieval Dinely, M and Dinely, G, 2000, ‘Neolithic ale: Barley as a Pottery Res Group Occas Pap 2 source of malt sugars for fermentation’, in S Fairbairn Mynard, D C and Zeepvat RJ, 1992, 8Bucks (ed), ;# G# & &, Neolithic Stud Archaeol Soc Monog Ser 3, Aylesbury Grp Seminar Pap 5, Oxford, 137–54 NPPF 2012, G# ;# ;# Dept Dyer, C C, 1989, Standards of living in the later middle ages. Social Communities and Local Govt, London change in England c.1200—1520, Cambridge Orton, C, 1998-99, ‘Minimum Standards in Statistics and Ford, S and Howell, I, 2004, ‘Saxon and Bronze Age Sampling’, Medieval Ceram 22-23, 135-8 settlement at the Orchard site, Walton Road, Walton, Aylesbury, 1994’, in S Ford, K Taylor and I Howell, The Pearce, J, 1988, &N HMSO # (#?'#$$#" Platt, D, 2012a, ‘The Red Lion, 2 Church End, Haddenham, /{N# TVAS Monogr 5, Reading, 60–88 Buckinghamshire: an archaeological watching brief ’, Hammond, M, 1981, && Haverfordwest TVAS unpubl rep 12/148, Reading Harley, L S, 1974, ‘A typology of brick’, J British Arch Assoc Platt, D, 2012b, ’44 High Street, Haddenham, 37, London Buckinghamshire: an archaeological watching brief ’, TVAS unpubl rep 12/22, Reading Hillman, G, 1981, ‘Reconstructing crop husbandry practices from the charred remains of crops’, in R J Mercer (ed), PPG16, 1990, Archaeology and Planning, Dept Environment ;&;, Edinburgh, 123–62 Planning Policy Guidance 16, HMSO Hillman, G, 1984, ‘Traditional husbandry and processing of Preston, S, 2007, ‘5 Townsend, Haddenham, archaic cereals in recent times: the operations, products Buckinghamshire, An archaeological desk-based and equipment which might feature in Sumerian texts. Part assessment’, TVAS unpubl rep 07/71, Reading 1: the glume-wheats’, Bull Sumerian Agriculture 1, 114–52 Rogerson, A, and Dallas, C, 1984, Excavations in Thetford Hillman, G, 1985, ‘Traditional husbandry and processing of >=+?[>>

31 -"& &N#

Buckinghamshire, an archaeological evaluation’, TVAS unpubl rep 11/47, Reading van der Veen, M, 1989, ‘Charred grain assemblages from Roman-period corn driers in Britain’, Archaeol J 146, 302– 19 van Zeist, W, 1991, ‘Economic aspects’, in W van Zeist, K Wasylikowa and K E Behre (eds), ; {# N# ;# Rotterdam, 109–32 VCH, 1905, Victoria History of the Counties of England: Buckinghamshire, i, London VCH, 1908, Victoria History of the Counties of England: & ii, London VCH, 1927, Victoria History of the Counties of England: & iv, London Vince, AG, 1985, ‘The Saxon and Medieval Pottery of London: A review’, Medieval Archaeol 29, 25-93 Wallis, S, 2007, ‘5 Townsend, Haddenham, Buckinghamshire, An archaeological evaluation’ TVAS unpubl rep 07/71b Reading Weale, A, 2007, ‘23 High Street, Haddenham, Buckinghamshire, An archaeological evaluation’, TVAS unpubl rep 07/71b, Reading Williams, A and Martin, G H, 2002, O&$# translation, London Williams, G, 2011, ‘An archaeological evaluation to the rear of 2 Fern Lane, Fort End, Haddenham, Buckinghamshire’, John Moore Heritage Services unpubl rep 2398, Beckley Zeepvat, RJ, Roberts, JS and King, NA, 1994, '# # ~] -" # >\\?>, Bucks Archaeol Soc Monog Ser 4, Aylesbury

Version

Online

Free

32 TVAS Occasional Paper 6 211 116 1 87 17 14 318 3 17 1 10 1 4 14 215 16 18 26210 17 1 4 1 17 2 3 13 3 15 11 111 1915 1 6 1 5 16 1 4 1 11 1 15 1 20 7 70 1 19 5 38 1 7 4 25 3 29 2 16 1 23 1 8 1 1 1 10 1 9 3 31 4 41 1 4 1 6 3 40 2 5 7 49 2 26 1 2 2 9 16 125

Version 1 104 1 5 Online 1 1

Free J(F& G' *) MS19 OXAC {& MS3 MSC1 OXY MC1 {(N MS9 MS6 OXBX G N G N G N G N G N G N G N G N G N G N G N G N G N G N Cut Fill 0 463 203 255 0200 564 250 203 256 204 258 208 262 211 267 215 271 221 276 226 282 226 286 230 290 232 291 234 294 236 297 237 299 239 351 242 354 306 392 308 394 309 395 312 398 313 399 314 450 317 454 316 452 318 455 319 485 1 23 Appendix 1: 5 Townsend, Pottery occurrence by number and weight (in g) of and weight occurrence number Pottery by contexts. and medieval late Saxon fabric type, Appendix 1: 5 Townsend, sherds per context by 33 -"& &N# 116 16 3 100 11 16 4 8 1 5 110 1 8 1 15 112 3 9 210 125 3 19 1 16 314 2 25 5 19 3 19 1 27 4 35 16 1 24 2 16 2 10 221 1 24 4 52 4 24 2 11 1 9 11 1 5 5 60 117 20 145 11 83 4 89 2 5 3 25 9 75 1 6 1 7 13 219 1 9 2 14 1 2 5 22 1 3 1 16 1 2 1 13 1 2 1 2 3 18 3 20 3 15 2 39 2 15 9 53 1 3 18 125 15 138 Version 1 45 1 6 1 6 2 10 1 12 1 1 1 3 1 17 8 51 Online 1 5

Free J(F& G' *) MS19 OXAC {& MS3 MSC1 OXY MC1 {(N MS9 MS6 OXBX G N G N G N G N G N G N G N G N G N G N G N G N G N G N Cut Fill 319 486 325 466 327 470 328 550 329 551 329 583 330 472 331 477 332 479 333 481 338 484 339 554 343 560 344 561 345 562 346 563 347 566 349 582 387 304 400 569 401 568 401 571 402 573 402 574 402 578 403 580 404 581 405 584 407 586 410 589 417 599 34 TVAS Occasional Paper 6 122 1 9 12 87 122 1 5 13 1 62 18 2 22 1 21 211 7 35 2 17 2 27 2 6 158 1 1 1 10 1519 212 1 4 3 10 11015 16 1 6 18 19111 120 7 36 11 78 3 17 1 27 3 5 2 37 15 89 1 8 4 26 1 2 6 25 1 2 4 51 1 4 2 28 2 18 2 29 8 94 210 1 5 1 8 2 6 2 5 1 7 1 5 3 21

Version

Online 1 3

Free J(F& G' *) MS19 OXAC {& MS3 MSC1 OXY MC1 {(N MS9 MS6 OXBX G N G N G N G N G N G N G N G N G N G N G N G N G N G N Cut Fill 419 651 420 652 421 653 1 11 423 655 424 656 1 8 425 657 426 658 427 659 428 660 428 661 428 662 430 663 1 26 1 2 431665 432 667 432 668 1 19 434 670 435 671 437 673 438 674 439 675 440 676 441 677 443 679 442 678 444 680 445 688447 693 472 654 9 115 500 695 502 697 35 -"& &N#

APPENDIX 2: Fern Lane, Pottery Catalogue by context, by sherd count and weight (in g).

J( G' OXAC MS3 OXY MC1 Group Cut Deposit G N G N G N G N G N G N 103 3.08 1 4 101 3.04 114 101 1 50 1 7 103 3 54 2 9 1 7 102 4 56 1 12 105 5 57 1 22 106 6 59 1 6 102 7 61 1 6 106 9 64 1 26 2 21 105? 10 66 3 27 1 26 105 11 67 1 18 14 70 1 11 1 6 105 16 72 1 4 1 9 107 21 79 1 5 1 16 103 28 86 1 31 104 30 88 1 3 1 4 107 33 91 1 30 2 5 104 35 93 1 6 105 36 95 2 28 103 42 152 1 7 106 43 153 1 11 3 27 104 44 155 1 13 46 157 1 37 1 17 46 158 2 27 5 40 5 37 3 12 Total 3 12 4 45 19 254 3 42 18 165 7 55

Version

Online

Free

36 Medieval Haddenham, Buckinghamshire: Excavations at Townsend and Fort End, 2011 and 2013

by Daniel Bray and Andrew Weale

!! " #$ ## %&%" '( ')!* !!%! $$$#$RS #$ # # # ! $ $# #!/$ Haddenham and elsewhere.

Version

Online

Free

ISBN 978-0-9926330-5-9