This book explores the role of great hall complexes in kingdom formation through an expansive and ambitious study, incorporating new fieldwork, new quantitative methodologies and new theoretical models for the emergence of high-status settlements and the formation and consolidation of supra-regional socio-political units.

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright page
• Contents Page
• Back cover
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• List of Graphs
• Preface and Acknowledgements
• Chapter 1
• Introduction
  • 1.1 The Great Hall Complexes
    • 1.1.1 The Sites
      • Figure 1.1: The great hall, Building C12, at Cowdery’s Down (reconstruction after Millett and James 1983: figure 71 © Royal Archaeological Institute, reprinted by permission of Taylor & Francis Ltd, http://www.tandfonline.com on behalf of Royal Archaeolog
    • 1.1.2 The Extent of Fieldwork at the Great Hall Complexes
      • Figure 1.2: The distinctively structured layouts of Yeavering (redrawn from Hope-Taylor 1977), Cowdery’s Down (redrawn from Millett and James 1983) and Sutton Courtenay (redrawn from Booth et al. 2007; Hamerow et al. 2007; Wessex Archaeology 2010).
        • Figure 1.3: The nineteen sites discussed in Part I of this book.
  • 1.2 The Study of Great Hall Complexes
    • 1.2.1 Yeavering and the Culture-Historical Paradigm
      • Figure 1.4: Brian Hope-Taylor’s excavations at Yeavering (redrawn from Hope-Taylor 1977) and the 1976 excavations at Yeavering Henge (redrawn from Tinniswood and Harding 1991); due to discrepancies in the published plans, there may be inaccuracies in the
        • Figure 1.5: Martin Millett’s excavations at Cowdery’s Down (redrawn from Millett and James 1983). The nearby ‘Lych pit’ or ‘corpse pit’ recorded in AD 945 (S 505) may be an early Anglo-Saxon cemetery, or perhaps a hollow associated with dead or supernatur
          • Figure 1.6: Gabor Thomas’ excavations at Lyminge (redrawn from Thomas 2017). Only the sixth- and seventh-century features are depicted in this plan; the eighth-century minster buildings are not included (Due to discrepancies in the currently available pla
          • Figure 1.7: The cropmarks at Cowage Farm, partially excavated by John Hinchliffe in 1983 (redrawn from Hinchliffe 1986).
          • Figure 1.8: The cropmarks at Sutton Courtenay, partially excavated in 2001-2003 and 2010 (redrawn from Booth et al. 2007; Hamerow et al. 2007; Wessex Archaeology 2010) (Due to discrepancies between the different published plans, there may be inaccuracies
          • Figure 1.9: The Eynsford hall (redrawn from Philp 2014) (The exact location of the hall and sunken-feature building and the extent of the excavated area are not depicted in the published plans; the locations of these features have therefore been estimated
          • Figure 1.10: The great hall at Rendlesham, identified from aerial photographs and geophysical survey (after Scull et al. 2016; © Suffolk County Council). Metal-detecting and test-pitting have revealed strong evidence for high status Anglo-Saxon occupatio
          • Figure 1.11: The recent excavations at Long Wittenham, undertaken by the author, in collaboration with Helena Hamerow and Jane Harrison. A sunken-feature building was also apparently excavated at the eastern edge of the Long Wittenham I cemetery in the 19
          • Figure 1.12: The great halls at Atcham, partially excavated by Roger White (redrawn from White and Young 2019). The cropmarks at Atcham are unusually irregular, and the buildings appear to be almost sub-rectangular, but aerial photographs can be misleadin
          • Figure 1.13: The cropmarks at Hatton Rock, bisected by the 1970 pipe trench (redrawn from Hirst and Rahtz 1973; Gethin 2007). One of the largest buildings appears to have had a rounded end wall, possibly indicative of an apse, but this feature is not well
          • Figure 1.14: The cropmarks at Milfield (redrawn from Gates and O’Brien 1988) (n.b. the scale of this figure is different from that of the previous figures – the site is simply too extensive to be depicted at the same scale).
          • Figure 1.15: The cropmarks at Long Itchington (redrawn from an unpublished plan provided by Abi Tompkins) (n.b. this figure and Figures 1.16-1.22 are depicted at the same scale as Figures 1.4-1.13). Long Itchington is one of the least understood sites, an
          • Figure 1.16: The cropmarks at Sprouston (redrawn from Smith 1992).
          • Figure 1.17: The possible great hall complex at Dover (redrawn from Philp 2003). Only the possible sixth- and seventh-century features are depicted in this plan (Due to discrepancies in the published plans, there may be inaccuracies in the placement and o
          • Figure 1.18: The possible great hall complex at Repton (redrawn from Biddle and Kjølbye-Biddle 2012). The site is unpublished, and the excavated area is unknown. These possible buildings were identified underneath the later minster buildings – nothing els
          • Figure 1.19: The minor hall complex at Chalton (redrawn from Champion 1977). The site is only partially published, and the construction technique used in most of the buildings is unknown, but the majority were probably post-built buildings, based on the p
          • Figure 1.20: The minor hall complex at Polebrook (redrawn from Upex 2002; 2003; 2004; 2005).
          • Figure 1.21: The minor hall complex at Thirlings (redrawn from O’Brien and Miket 1991).
          • Figure 1.22: The minor hall complex at Lockerbie (redrawn from Kirby 2012).
    • 1.2.2 Cowdery’s Down and the Growing Influence of Processual and Post-Processual Archaeology
      • Figure 1.23: Above, the buildings at Cowdery’s Down compared with other Anglo-Saxon buildings: 1. Cowdery’s Down B4, 2. Chalton A20, 3. Bishopstone XXVIII, 4. West Stow 2, 5. Mucking, 6. Thirlings G (redrawn from James et al. 1984: figure 9). Below, the e
    • 1.2.3 Great Hall Complexes in the 21st Century
    • 1.2.4 Key Themes and Unanswered Questions
      • Figure 1.24: The distribution of great hall complexes and princely burials clustered around the edges of John Blair’s ‘eastern zone’ (after Blair 2018: figure 29).
  • 1.3 Great Hall Complexes in Comparison and in Context
• Part I: Great Hall Complexes in Comparison
• Chapter 2
• The Characteristics and Functions of Great Hall Complexes
  • 2.1 The Built Environment
    • 2.1.1 The Architecture
      • 2.1.1.1 Building Forms
      • 2.1.1.2 Foundations
        • Figure 2.1: The open-form great halls (redrawn from Hope-Taylor 1977; Millett and James 1983; Gethin 2007; Wessex Archaeology 2010; Scull et al. 2016; Thomas 2017; reconstruction after Millett and James 1983: figure 71 © Royal Archaeological Institute, re
          • Figure 2.2: The annexed great halls (redrawn from Hope-Taylor 1977; Hinchliffe 1986; Gates and O’Brien 1988; Smith 1992; Gethin 2007; White and Young 2019; Abi Tompkins pers. comm.). The Atcham halls appear to be unusually irregular in aerial photographs,
• Chapter 2
• The Characteristics and Functions of Great Hall Complexes
  • Table 2.1: The dimensions of the largest open-form great halls identified at each site.
    • Table 2.2: The dimensions of the largest annexed great halls identified at each site.
      • 2.1.1.3 Wall Types
        • Figure 2.3: Cross-sections of various foundation trenches at Yeavering (redrawn from Hope-Taylor 1977), Sutton Courtenay (redrawn from Brennan and Hamerow 2015; Hamerow et al. 2007), Cowage Farm (redrawn from Hinchliffe 1986), Cowdery’s Down (redrawn from
          • Figure 2.4: Reconstructed wall types from Yeavering and Cowdery’s Down (redrawn from Hope-Taylor 1977; Millett and James 1983).
      • 2.1.1.4 External Raking Posts
      • 2.1.1.5 Great Halls and the Anglo-Saxon Building Tradition
    • 2.1.2 The Layout
      • 2.1.2.1 The Central Precinct
        • Figure 2.5 (page 34): External posts. Above, the raking posts at Cowdery’s Down, showing the excavators’ proposed reconstructions (redrawn from Millett and James 1983). Below, various buildings with external posts, showing a range of different configurati
          • Figure 2.6: The largest, most skilfully constructed building at Mucking (redrawn from Hamerow 1993a) compared with the great halls at Cowdery’s Down and Yeavering (redrawn from Hope-Taylor 1977; Millett and James 1983). There are clear similarities in for
          • Figure 2.7: The central precinct of Yeavering, showing the creation of extensive, multi-focal ritualized spaces through the use of a consistent orientation scheme, linear and perpendicular alignments, and a variety of focal elements (redrawn from Hope-Tay
          • Figure 2.8: The extensive, multi-focal ritualized spaces of the Sutton Courtenay central precinct (redrawn from Booth et al. 2007; Wessex Archaeology 2010) (n.b. the question marks associated with many elements; these interpretations are highly speculativ
      • 2.1.2.2 The Associated Activity
      • 2.1.2.3 Evidence for Planning
        • Figure 2.9: The associated activity surrounding the Sprouston central precinct (redrawn from Smith 1992).
          • Figure 2.10: The associated activity surrounding the Milfield central precinct (redrawn from Gates and O’Brien 1988) (n.b. the scale is different from Figure 2.9).
          • Figure 2.11: The associated activity surrounding the Sutton Courtenay central precinct (redrawn from Booth et al. 2007; Wessex Archaeology 2010) (n.b. the question marks).
          • Figure 2.12: The associated activity surrounding the central precinct at Rendlesham (redrawn from Scull et al. 2016).
      • 2.1.2.4 Variation in Layouts
        • Figure 2.13: Great hall complex layouts: variations on a theme (redrawn from Hope-Taylor 1977; Booth et al. 2007; Gethin 2007; Wessex Archaeology 2010; White and Young 2019; Abi Tompkins pers. comm.).
          • Figure 2.14: Great hall complex layouts: further variations on a theme (redrawn from Millett and James 1983; Hinchliffe 1986; Gates and O’Brien 1988; Smith 1992; Thomas 2017).
          • Figure 2.15: The orderly central precincts of Yeavering and Sutton Courtenay (redrawn from Hope-Taylor 1977; Booth et al. 2007; Wessex Archaeology 2010), juxtaposed with the sprawling settlement at Mucking (redrawn from Hamerow 1993a).
  • 2.2 The Cultural and Physical Landscape
    • 2.2.1 The Physical Landscape
    • 2.2.2 The Cultural Landscape
      • 2.2.2.1 The Local Scale
      • 2.2.2.2 The Regional and Supra-Regional Scale
        • Figure 2.16: The topographical setting of great hall complexes. Great hall complexes are typically found in river valleys, in close vicinity to more typical Anglo-Saxon settlements.
  • 2.3 The Material Culture
    • 2.3.1 The Material Culture of the Central Precinct
    • 2.3.2 The Material Culture of Associated Activity
      • Figure 2.17: The distribution of seventh-century occupation debris and high status refuse at Lyminge (redrawn from Thomas 2010; 2017).
        • Figure 2.18: The distribution of occupation debris and craft-working evidence at Sutton Courtenay (redrawn from Leeds 1923; 1927; 1947; Booth et al. 2007; Hamerow et al. 2007; Wessex Archaeology 2010).
          • Figure 2.19: The distribution of craft-working, food processing and sunken-feature buildings at Yeavering (redrawn from Hope-Taylor 1977; Tinniswood and Harding 1991; Gates 2005). Building D3 and the associated pit complex were sequestered within a fence
          • Figure 2.20: The distribution of settlement and refuse pits at Long Wittenham.
          • Figure 2.21: The tentative phasing of great hall complexes, based on the available dating evidence (many of these date ranges are refined or altered later in this book).
  • 2.4 Dating Evidence
    • Table 2.3: The available dating evidence for each great hall complex, arranged from earliest to latest.
  • 2.5 Great Hall Complexes and Kingship
    • 2.5.1 Peripatetic Kingship
  • 2.6 Ritual and Cult Activity at Great Hall Complexes
    • 2.6.1 Special Deposits
    • 2.6.2 Cult Structures
      • Figure 2.22: The possible pre-Christian cult building D2 at Yeavering (after Hope-Taylor 1977).
        • Figure 2.23: The square structures at Yeavering and Cowdery’s Down
          • Figure 2.24: The royal minster at Lyminge (after Thomas 2017).
          • Figure 2.25: The possible churches at Cowage Farm and Hatton Rock (redrawn from Hirst and Rahtz 1973; Hinchliffe 1986; Gethin 2007). The apsidal end of the Hatton Rock feature is indistinct in aerial photographs.
          • Figure 2.26: The possible mortuary chapels at Yeavering and Sprouston (redrawn from Hope-Taylor 1977; Smith 1992).
    • 2.6.3 Prehistoric Monuments
    • 2.6.4 Standing Posts
    • 2.6.5 Burial
      • Figure 2.27: The use of prehistoric monuments at Yeavering (redrawn from Hope-Taylor 1977; Tinniswood and Harding 1991). The Eastern and Western Ring Ditches appear to have been important cult and ritual foci, while the henge appears to have been used for
        • Figure 2.28: The near identical use of prehistoric monuments at Lyminge, Sutton Courtenay and Hatton Rock
          • Figure 2.29: The use of prehistoric monuments at Long Wittenham and Cowage Farm (redrawn from Hinchliffe 1986; Hamerow et al. 2013).
          • Figure 2.30: The locations of standing posts identified at Yeavering (redrawn Hope-Taylor 1977).
          • Figure 2.31: The standing posts at Cowdery’s Down, Cowage Farm, Sutton Courtenay and Yeavering
  • 2.7 Craft-working, Agriculture and Exchange at Great Hall Complexes
    • 2.7.1 Craft-working
    • 2.7.2 Agricultural Production and Collection
      • Figure 2.32: Craft-working at Sutton Courtenay (redrawn from Leeds 1923; Booth et al. 2007; Hamerow et al. 2007).
        • Figure 2.33: The distribution of craft-working and prestige goods at Rendlesham (redrawn from Scull et al. 2016) (This distribution is subject to change as the post-excavation reaches a more advanced stage).
          • Figure 2.34: The distribution of craft-working and prestige goods at Lyminge (redrawn Thomas 2010; 2017) (This distribution is subject to change as the post-excavation reaches a more advanced stage).
          • Figure 2.35: Supernaturally-charged metalworking at Yeavering and Lyminge (after Tinniswood and Harding 1991; Thomas and Knox 2015).
    • 2.7.3 Exchange
  • 2.8 Variation among Great Hall Complexes
    • 2.8.1 Variation in the Documented Terms for Great Hall Complexes
      • Figure 2.36: The possible livestock enclosures, droveways and outbuildings at Sprouston (redrawn from Smith 1992).
        • Figure 2.37: The possible livestock enclosures and outbuildings at Milfield (redrawn from Gates and O’Brien 1988).
          • Figure 2.38: The possible livestock enclosures and outbuildings at Yeavering (redrawn from Hope-Taylor 1977; Tinniswood and Harding 1991; Gates 2005).
          • Figure 2.39: The eighth-century barns at Higham Ferrers and Lyminge (after Hardy et al. 2007; Thomas 2008). These buildings exhibit a distinctive layout with a central line of posts that differs dramatically from the seventh-century great halls.
    • 2.8.2 Variation in the Archaeology of Great Hall Complexes
      • 2.8.2.1 Variation in Overall Size
        • Figure 2.40: The seventh-century royal urbs at Dunbar (after Perry 2000). The architecture and layout of the site bear little resemblance to the great hall complexes.
          • Figure 2.41: The largest great hall complexes: Cowage Farm, Yeavering, Sprouston and Cowdery’s Down (redrawn from Hope-Taylor 1977; Millett and James 1983; Hinchliffe 1986; Smith 1992). It is unclear exactly how many buildings were occupied at the same ti
          • Figure 2.42: The midsized great hall complexes: Sutton Courtenay, Long Itchington, Long Wittenham, Hatton Rock and Milfield
          • Figure 2.43: The smallest great hall complexes: Lyminge, Rendlesham, Atcham and Eynsford (redrawn from Philp 2014; Scull et al. 2016; Thomas 2017; White and Young 2019). Each of these sites may have been considerably larger than is currently understood, b
      • 2.8.2.2 Variation in Layout
        • Figure 2.44: The T/L-shaped great hall complexes (redrawn from Hope-Taylor 1977; Booth et al. 2007; Gethin 2007; Wessex Archaeology 2010; White and Young 2019; Abi Tompkins pers. comm.). While not T/L-shaped, the axial layout of Atcham is clearly related.
          • Figure 2.45: The poly-axial great hall complexes (redrawn from Millett and James 1983; Hinchliffe 1986; Smith 1992; Thomas 2017).
      • 2.8.2.3 Variation in Great Halls
        • Figure 2.46: The integral and extensive use of boundary features (in yellow) at Sprouston and Milfield (redrawn from Gates and O’Brien 1988; Smith 1992). The great halls at Milfield appear to be entirely enclosed.
          • Figure 2.47: The boundary features at Cowage Farm, Hatton Rock and Yeavering
    • 2.8.3 Great Hall Complexes and Minor Hall Complexes
      • Figure 2.48: The minor hall complex at Chalton (redrawn from Champion 1977), compared with the large poly-axial sites at Cowage Farm and Cowdery’s Down (redrawn from Millett and James 1983; Hinchliffe 1986). Although there are clear similarities, the buil
        • Figure 2.49: Building AZ1 – the largest building at Chalton constructed in the great hall style – compared with the great halls at Cowdery’s Down and Cowage Farm (redrawn from Addyman and Leigh 1973; Champion 1977; Millett and James 1983; Hinchliffe 1986)
          • Figure 2.50: The minor hall complex at Polebrook (redrawn from Upex 2002; 2003; 2004; 2005), compared with Yeavering (redrawn from Hope-Taylor 1977). The layout of Polebrook is reminiscent of the great hall complexes, but the buildings are less carefully
          • Figure 2.51: The buildings at Polebrook compared with the buildings at Yeavering; the largest open-form building at Polebrook – Building 2 – is much smaller and much less robustly constructed than the great hall A2 at Yeavering, and the annexed Building 1
          • Figure 2.52: The minor hall complex at Thirlings (redrawn from O’Brien and Miket 1991), compared with Yeavering (redrawn from Hope-Taylor 1977). The layout of Thirlings exhibits an approximately consistent orientation scheme, but unlike the great hall com
          • Figure 2.53: The buildings at Thirlings compared with the buildings at Yeavering; the Thirlings buildings were clearly imitating the architectural style of the great hall complexes, but they were less carefully constructed and significantly smaller (redra
          • Figure 2.54: The minor hall complex at Lockerbie; like Polebrook and Thirlings, the annexed building at Lockerbie appears to have been a smaller, less robust imitation of the buildings at great hall complexes. Unlike Polebrook and Thirlings, however, the
• Chapter 3
• The Emergence, Development and Obsolescence of Great Hall Complexes
  • 3.1 The Emergence of the Great Hall Complexes
    • 3.1.1 The Antecedents of the Great Hall Complexes
      • Figure 3.1: The earliest phases of Lyminge and Yeavering (redrawn from Hope-Taylor 1977; Thomas 2017). The earliest halls at these sites appear to be constructed within a palimpsest of pre-existing ritual activity, which is suggestive of public assembly (
        • Figure 3.2: The great halls at Sutton Courtenay were constructed to the south of the main concentration of settlement, on top of a Bronze Age barrow cemetery, which appears to have been a focus for earlier sixth-century burials (redrawn from Booth et al.
      • 3.1.1.1 Great Hall Complexes and the Appropriation of the Public Assembly
      • 3.1.1.2 The Origins of the Minor Hall Complexes
        • Figure 3.3: The early phases of Polebrook and Thirlings look more like domestic settlements than ritual foci, and while the exact phasing of Chalton is uncertain, the overall layout of the site resembles a large, carefully planned domestic settlement (red
          • Figure 3.4: The minor hall complex at Lockerbie (redrawn from Kirby 2012). The possible ring cairn may have been visible in the Anglo-Saxon period, but the Neolithic hall is unlikely to have been visible. The undated enclosure may actually belong to the A
            • Table 3.1: The available dating evidence for each minor hall complex, from earliest to latest.
    • 3.1.2 The Emergence of the Great Hall Architectural Style
      • Figure 3.5: The incremental development of the great hall architectural style at Cowdery’s Down and Lyminge, emerging directly out of the Anglo-Saxon building tradition (redrawn from Millett and James 1983; Hamerow 1993a; Thomas and Knox 2015; Thomas 2017
    • 3.1.3 The Cultural Context of the Anglo-Saxon Hall
      • Figure 3.6: The development of the great hall architectural style at Yeavering (redrawn from Hope-Taylor 1977; Hamerow 1993a).
      • 3.1.3.1 Yeavering and the Question of British Influence
        • Figure 3.7: The British and sub-Roman buildings at Birdoswald, South Cadbury, Frocester Court and Poundbury
          • Figure 3.8: The sites at Poundbury and Frocester Court, showing their location and layout (redrawn from Sparey-Green 1987; Price 2000).
      • 3.1.3.2 The Scandinavian Halls
      • 3.1.3.3 A Northern European Hall Culture
      • 3.1.3.4 The Romanized Hall
        • Figure 3.9: The Scandinavian halls at Gudme, Tissø and Lejre (redrawn from Jørgensen 2003; Christensen 2010; Franck Bican 2010; Sørensen 2010). The Scandinavian halls were constructed in a distinct architectural style, which exhibits a longue durée develo
          • Figure 3.10: The Scandinavian central places at Lejre and Tissø share many common elements with the Anglo-Saxon great hall complexes, but these elements were combined in different ways, producing an overall layout that was significantly different from the
      • 3.1.3.5 Great Hall Complexes on the Periphery: the Distribution of Great Hall Complexes within Anglo-Saxon England
  • 3.2 The Early Development of Great Hall Complexes
    • Figure 3.11: The distribution of great hall complexes and princely burials appears to avoid John Blair’s ‘eastern zone’
    • 3.2.1 The Development of Wall Types
      • Figure 3.12: The early development of wall types at great hall complexes, showing the synchronized development of similar wall types across different sites
        • Figure 3.13: The spatial distribution of wall types at Cowdery’s Down strongly suggests that the C9 wall type developed after the C12 wall type (redrawn from Millett and James 1983). Some of the C12 buildings, especially the great hall C12, may have still
          • Figure 3.14: Comparing the C9 and A2 wall types
          • Figure 3.15: The development of wall types and foundations at Yeavering (redrawn from Hope-Taylor 1977). The wall types get progressively more robust until Building A2, after which they become progressively more ephemeral, while the foundations become pro
  • 3.3 The Later Development of Great Hall Complexes
    • 3.3.1 New Wall Types
      • Figure 3.16: The development of wall types at Cowdery’s Down (redrawn from Millett and James 1983). The wall types get progressively more robust until Building C12, after which they become increasingly ephemeral.
        • Figure 3.17: Building B/C15 is stylistically and spatially more closely related to the C9 buildings, strongly suggesting that it developed out of the C9 wall type and is probably the latest building identified at Cowdery’s Down (redrawn from Millett and J
          • Figure 3.18: The development of wall types at Lyminge (redrawn from Thomas 2017) (The positions of greyed-out planks and posts are conjectural, based on photographs of the excavations; detailed plans are not yet available).
    • 3.3.2 New Building Forms
      • Figure 3.19: The annexed halls (redrawn from Hope-Taylor 1977; Williams et al. 1985; Hinchliffe 1986; Gates and O’Brien 1988; O’Brien and Miket 1991; Smith 1992; Gethin 2007; Kirby 2012; Tester et al. 2014; White and Young 2019; Abi Tompkins pers. comm.).
        • Figure 3.20: The early square shrine annexes
          • (after Millett and James 1983; Blair 1995).
    • 3.3.3 New Layouts
      • Figure 3.21: The development of late-type annexes at Yeavering appears to have originated in the compartments at either end of the great hall A2, rather than in the square enclosure abutting Building D2 (redrawn from Hope-Taylor 1977; Blair 1995).
        • Figure 3.22: The distribution of late-type annexed halls. The lack of late-type annexed halls in southeast England appears to be a cultural preference rather than a chronological indicator.
          • Figure 3.23: The enclosed annexed halls at Milfield, Hatton Rock and Cowage Farm, showing boundary features in yellow
          • Figure 3.24: The boundary features (in yellow) at Sprouston, Brandon and Yeavering
    • 3.3.4 New Diversification
      • 3.3.4.1 The Later Development of Minor Hall Complexes
        • Figure 3.25: The layouts of Cowage Farm, Milfield, Sprouston, Hatton Rock and Atcham, showing the striking differences between these sites (redrawn from Hinchliffe 1986; Gates and O’Brien 1988; Gethin 2007; White and Young 2019).
          • Figure 3.26: The development of the minor hall complexes, showing the increasing similarity with great hall complexes (redrawn from Addyman and Leigh 1973; Champion 1977; O’Brien and Miket 1991; Upex 2002; 2003; 2004; 2005). The phasing of Chalton is unce
          • Figure 3.27: The development of the architectural style at the minor hall complexes (redrawn from Addyman and Leigh 1973; O’Brien and Miket 1991; Upex 2002; 2003; 2004; 2005). The phasing of these buildings is far from certain: Polebrook 2 was probably co
    • 3.3.5 The New Architectural Style and the Development of Power
      • 3.3.5.1 The Decline of Public Space at High Status Sites
        • Figure 3.28: The later development of the great hall complexes, showing the diversification of great hall complexes, the development of annexed halls, the increasing use of boundary features, and the increasing similarity between minor hall complexes and
          • Figure 3.29: The decreasing accessibility of the Yeavering great hall from Phase IIIab to Phase IV
      • 3.3.5.2 Christianity and the Relationship between Public Assembly, Cult and Kingship
      • 3.3.5.3 Shifting Priorities: from the Public Assembly to the Means of Production
      • 3.3.5.4 The Development of Complex Settlement Hierarchies
  • 3.4 The Abandonment of the Great Hall Complexes
    • Figure 3.30: The eighth-century sites at Brandon, Lyminge, Northampton and Higham Ferrers
• Part II: Great Hall Complexes in Context
• Power and Place in the Upper Thames Valley
  • A Regional Case Study
  • The Upper Thames Valley
    • Figure II.1: The Upper Thames Valley study area.
      • Figure II.2: The topography of the Upper Thames Valley.
  • Power and Place
    • Figure II.3: The excavated settlements and cemeteries of the Upper Thames Valley, AD 475-750.
      • Figure II.4: The evidence for kingdom formation in the Upper Thames Valley, including the great hall complexes and princely burials as well as the documented episcopal seat and the tunas allegedly captured by Cuthwulf in AD 571.
• Chapter 4
• Burial Methodology
  • 4.1 The Aims
  • 4.2 The Methodology
    • 4.2.1 The Cemeteries Data
      • 4.2.1.1 The Sources and Typology
      • 4.2.1.2 The Cemeteries
    • 4.2.2 The Chronology
      • 4.2.2.1 Phasing
        • Figure 4.1: The 156 cemeteries or possible cemeteries analysed in this study (see Appendix 1 for a catalogue of cemeteries) (sites labelled as having intact gendered inhumation burials may also have disturbed gendered inhumation burials, ungendered inhuma
          • Figure 4.2: The chronological framework used in this study.
      • 4.2.2.2 Dating
      • 4.2.2.3 Mercian Hegemony and the Retreat of Wessex
      • 4.2.2.4 Roman Influences
    • 4.2.3 The Four Metrics of Socio-Economic Power
      • 4.2.3.1 The Distribution of Burials
        • 4.2.3.1.1 Kernel Density
      • 4.2.3.2 Average Quantified Burial Wealth
        • 4.2.3.2.1 The Sample
        • 4.2.3.2.2 Gender
        • 4.2.3.2.3 The Weighted Artefact Count
        • 4.2.3.2.4 The Average Weighted Artefact Count
          • Table 4.1: The weighted artefact count of female burial 111 at Lechlade; the weighted artefact count for this burial is 7.
            • Table 4.2: The average weighted artefact count of female burials 33/2, 111 and 81/4 at Lechlade.
        • 4.2.3.2.5 Normalization
          • Table 4.3: The normalized average weighted artefact count of sixth-century cemeteries.
          • Figure 4.3: The two-layer kernel density of the normalized average weighted artefact count for sixth-century cemeteries.
            • Graph 4.1: In the burials analysis (Chapter 5), the normalized average weighted artefact count is represented in graphs, like this one.
        • 4.2.3.2.6 Kernel Density
      • 4.2.3.3 The Distribution of High Status Artefacts
        • Figure 4.4: The distribution of rare, imported or otherwise high status artefacts in sixth-century cemeteries.
          • Graph 4.2: The weighted artefact count of the wealthiest sixth-century adult female gendered inhumation burials from each cemetery.
      • 4.2.3.4 Individual Quantified Burial Wealth
        • 4.2.3.4.1 The Wealthiest Burials
        • 4.2.3.4.2 The Concentration of Burial Wealth in the Wealthiest and Poorest 10% of Burials
    • 4.2.4 Methodological Limitations
      • 4.2.4.1 Poorly Recorded and Incomplete Assemblages
      • 4.2.4.2 Quantity versus Quality
      • 4.2.4.3 The Proportion of Gendered Burials
        • Graph 4.3: This graph displays the percentage of the total weighted artefact count of each cemetery that was concentrated in the wealthiest 10% of burials and the poorest 10% of burials of that particular cemetery. For example, Lechlade has 46 adult femal
          • Graph 4.4: Burial wealth and the proportion of gendered burial (cemeteries with high proportions of gendered burial: solid dark grey and solid light grey, cemeteries with low proportions of gendered burial: hatched dark grey and hatched light grey, isolat
      • 4.2.4.4 Unrepresentative Samples
      • 4.2.4.5 Imbalances in the Number of Male and Female Burial Sites
      • 4.2.4.6 Burial Sites and Proximity to their Burying Communities
• Chapter 5
• Power in Burial
  • 5.1 The Distribution of Burials
    • 5.1.1 The Long Sixth Century
      • 5.1.1.1 Cemetery Size in the Long Sixth Century
        • 5.1.1.1.1 Alpha Cemeteries
        • 5.1.1.1.2 Beta Cemeteries
          • Figure 5.1: All cemeteries analysed in this study (see Appendix 1 for a catalogue of the cemeteries).
          • Figure 5.2: The unweighted kernel density of all cemeteries (search radius 6000 m2).
          • Figure 5.3: The sixth-century cemeteries (1. Upper Swell II, 2. Lyneham Barrow, 3. Hampnett, 4. Burford, 5. Minster Lovell, 6. Fairford, 7. Filkins, 8. Lechlade, 9. Coleshill, 10. Watchfield, 11. Wanborough II, 12. East Shefford, 13. West Hendred, 14. Fri
            • Graph 5.1: The recorded number of excavated burials at each sixth-century cemetery with intact Anglo-Saxon gendered burials.
          • Figure 5.4: The unweighted kernel density of sixth-century cemeteries (search radius 6000 m2).
            • Graph 5.2: Sixth-century cemeteries grouped by size (Bishopstone has been removed from this graph because it may be much larger than the recorded burials would suggest).
        • 5.1.1.1.3 Gamma Cemeteries
        • 5.1.1.1.4 Delta Cemeteries
      • 5.1.1.2 The Distribution of Burials in the Upper Thames Valley
      • 5.1.1.3 Conclusions
        • Figure 5.5: The kernel density of sixth-century burials, weighted by the number of recorded burials at each site (1. Cirencester, 2. Fairford, 3. Lechlade, 4. Watchfield, 5. East Shefford, 6. Brighthampton, 7. Frilford, 8. Abingdon, 9. Long Wittenham I, 1
          • Figure 5.6: The kernel density of sixth-century burials, weighted by cemetery size categories (Alpha cemetery weight: 200, Beta cemetery weight: 100, Gamma cemetery weight: 30, Delta cemetery weight: 15).
          • Figure 5.7: The primary sixth-century burying communities in the Upper Thames Valley, based on the distribution of burials and the layout of the river network.
    • 5.1.2 The Mid-Seventh Century
      • 5.1.2.1 Cemetery Size in the Mid-Seventh Century
        • Figure 5.8: The seventh-century cemeteries (1. Kemble IB, 2. Kemble III, 3. Purton, 4. Wanborough I, 5. Longcot, 6. Lechlade, 7. Bourton-on-the-Water, 8. Upper Swell I, 9. Broadwell, 10. Rollright, 11. Lyneham Barrow, 12. Chadlington, 13. North Leigh, 14.
          • Figure 5.9: The unweighted kernel density of seventh-century cemeteries (search radius 6000 m2).
            • Graph 5.3: The recorded number of excavated burials at each seventh-century cemetery.
        • 5.1.2.1.1 Alpha Cemeteries
        • 5.1.2.1.2 Gamma Cemeteries
          • Graph 5.4: Seventh-century cemeteries grouped by size.
        • 5.1.2.1.3 Delta Cemeteries
        • 5.1.2.1.4 Isolated Burials
      • 5.1.2.2 The Distribution of Burials in the Upper Thames Valley
      • 5.1.2.3 Core Areas, Isolated Burials and Supra-Local Communities
        • Figure 5.10: The kernel density of seventh-century burials, weighted by the number of recorded burials at each site (1. Lechlade, 2. Standlake Down, 3. Milton).
          • Figure 5.11: The kernel density of seventh-century burials, weighted by cemetery size categories
          • Figure 5.12: The barrow burials at Lowbury Hill and Compton, perched on the edge of the Berkshire Downs.
          • Figure 5.13: The princely burial at Cuddesdon, overlooking the Thame river valley.
          • Figure 5.14: The princely burials at Sutton Hoo were positioned to overlook the River Deben, a major routeway between the North Sea and the royal centre at Rendlesham. This arrangement closely parallels the location of the Cuddesdon burial, overlooking a
          • Figure 5.15: The supra-local burials at West Hanney and Frilford III, lying along the Ock river valley.
          • Figure 5.16: The West Hanney composite disc brooch (far left) compared with the Milton composite disc brooches
          • Figure 5.17: The supra-local burials of the Abingdon to Dorchester area, placed along important routeways leading into the area.
          • Figure 5.18: The distribution of supra-local burials surrounding the Abingdon to Dorchester area, paralleling the distribution of sixth-century Beta and Gamma cemeteries surrounding the Abingdon to Dorchester area.
      • 5.1.2.4 Conclusions
        • Figure 5.19: The Rollright burial and the Asthall barrow burial, straddling the northern edge of the Upper Thames Valley.
          • Figure 5.20: All possible isolated supra-local burials.
          • Figure 5.21: The three core areas of seventh-century burial. The possible extent of these areas is defined by the isolated supra-local burials. The Rollright and Asthall burials may delineate the encroaching influence of Mercia and their allies, the Hwicc
  • 5.2 The Distribution of Burial Wealth
    • 5.2.1 The Long Sixth Century
      • 5.2.1.1 Average Female Burial Wealth
        • Graph 5.5: The average weighted artefact count of female gendered burials at each sixth-century cemetery. The number of female gendered burials at each site is listed below the site names.
          • Figure 5.22: The average weighted artefact count of female gendered burials at each sixth-century cemetery, displayed by proportional symbols (1. Upper Swell II, 2. Hampnett, 3. Fairford, 4. Lechlade, 5. Filkins, 6. Coleshill, 7. Watchfield, 8. Minster Lo
            • Graph 5.6: The average weighted artefact count of female gendered burials at each sixth-century cemetery, only including those sites with two or more female gendered burials.
      • 5.2.1.2 Average Male Burial Wealth
      • 5.2.1.3 Normalized Average Male and Female Burial Wealth
      • 5.2.1.4 Normalized Average Artefact Count and Cemetery Size
        • Graph 5.7: The average weighted artefact count of male gendered burials at each sixth-century cemetery. The number of male gendered burials at each site is listed below the site names.
          • Figure 5.23: The average weighted artefact count of male gendered burials at each sixth-century cemetery, displayed by proportional symbols (1. Hampnett, 2. Lyneham Barrow, 3. Burford, 4. Minster Lovell, 5. Fairford, 6. Lechlade, 7. Filkins, 8. Watchfield
            • Graph 5.8: The average weighted artefact count of male gendered burials at each sixth-century cemetery, only including those sites with two or more male gendered burials.
            • Graph 5.9: The normalized average weighted artefact count of male and female burials at each sixth-century cemetery (the vertical axis displays the percentage of the sum total of average weighted artefact counts of male and female burials for each cemeter
            • Graph 5.10: The normalized average weighted artefact count of male and female burials at each sixth-century cemetery, only including sites with at least two gendered burials.
          • Figure 5.24: The combined normalized average weighted artefact count of male and female burials at each sixth-century cemetery, displayed by proportional symbols (1. Upper Swell II, 2. Lyneham Barrow, 3. Hampnett, 4. Burford, 5. Minster Lovell, 6. Fairfor
            • Graph 5.11: Comparing the size of sixth-century cemeteries with the normalized average artefact count of each cemetery
      • 5.2.1.5 Normalized Average Artefact Count and Cemetery Location
      • 5.2.1.6 The Spatial Distribution of Quantified Burial Wealth
        • Figure 5.25: The normalized average artefact count of sixth-century cemeteries with two or more gendered burials, showing the relationship between burial wealth and cemetery location.
          • Figure 5.26: The two-layer kernel density of the normalized average artefact count of sixth-century cemeteries. Top layer kernel density (0% transparency): cemeteries with 2+ gendered burials (Graph 5.10). Bottom layer kernel density (30% transparency): a
      • 5.2.1.7 The Distribution of High Status Artefacts
        • Figure 5.27: Burial wealth and burying communities during the 6th century (the kernel density is the same as Figure 5.26).
      • 5.2.1.8 Individual Quantified Burial Wealth
        • Figure 5.28: The distribution of rare, imported or otherwise high status artefacts in sixth-century cemeteries.
        • 5.2.1.8.1 The Concentration of Burial Wealth in the Wealthiest and Poorest 10% of Burials
          • Figure 5.29: High status artefacts and burying communities during the 6th century.
            • Graph 5.12: The percentage of the total weighted artefact count of each sixth-century cemetery that was concentrated in the wealthiest and poorest 10% of female burials at each cemetery
            • Graph 5.13: The percentage of the total weighted artefact count of each sixth-century cemetery that was concentrated in the wealthiest and poorest 10% of male burials at each cemetery
            • Graph 5.14: The percentage of the total weighted artefact count of each sixth-century cemetery that was concentrated in the wealthiest 10% of female and male burials at each cemetery
        • 5.2.1.8.2 The Wealthiest Burials
      • 5.2.1.9 Conclusions
        • Graph 5.15: The single wealthiest female gendered burial at each sixth-century cemetery.
          • Graph 5.16: The single wealthiest male gendered burial at each sixth-century cemetery.
            • Graph 5.17: The wealthiest male and female burials at each sixth-century cemetery, combined using normalization.
          • Figure 5.30: The kernel density of the single wealthiest female burial at each sixth-century cemetery, weighted by the weighted artefact count of each burial.
          • Figure 5.31: The kernel density of the single wealthiest male burial at each sixth-century cemetery, weighted by the weighted artefact count of each burial.
    • 5.2.2 The Long Sixth Century by Period
      • 5.2.2.1 AD 475-530 to AD 530-580
      • 5.2.2.2 AD 580-630
        • Graph 5.18: The combined normalized average weighted artefact count of male and female burials for each cemetery, AD 475-530 (Phases A1-A2).
          • Graph 5.19: The combined normalized average weighted artefact count of male and female burials for each cemetery, AD 530-580 (Phases B-C).
          • Figure 5.32: Two-layer kernel density of the normalized average artefact count, AD 475-530 (Phases A1-A2).
          • Figure 5.33: Two-layer kernel density of the normalized average artefact count, AD 530-580 (Phases B-C).
            • Table 5.1: Change in the average artefact count of each cemetery from AD 475-530 to AD 530-580 (Phases A1-A2 to Phases B-C).
          • Figure 5.34: Two-layer kernel density of the normalized average artefact count, AD 580-630 inclusive (Phases D-E).
            • Graph 5.20: The combined normalized average weighted artefact count of male and female burials for each cemetery, AD 580-630 inclusive (Phases D-E).
          • Figure 5.35: Two-layer kernel density of the normalized average artefact count, AD 580-630 exclusive (Phases D-E).
            • Graph 5.21: The combined normalized average weighted artefact count of male and female burials for each cemetery, AD 580-630 exclusive (Phases D-E).
          • Figure 5.36: Two-layer kernel density of the normalized average artefact count, Episode B-C.
            • Graph 5.22: The combined normalized average weighted artefact count of male and female burials for each cemetery, Episode B-C (all burials solidly dated to Phases B-C).
          • Figure 5.37: Two-layer kernel density of the normalized average artefact count, Episode C-D.
            • Graph 5.23: The combined normalized average weighted artefact count of male and female burials for each cemetery, Episode C-D (all burials solidly dated to Phases C-D).
          • Figure 5.38: Two-layer kernel density of the normalized average artefact count, Episode D-E.
            • Graph 5.24: The combined normalized average weighted artefact count of male and female burials for each cemetery, Episode D-E (all burials solidly dated to Phases D-E).
      • 5.2.2.3 Conclusions
        • Figure 5.39: Diagnostic late sixth-/early seventh-century brooches and weapons and high status artefacts interred in late sixth-/early seventh-century burials, including the early seventh-century princely burials at Asthall and Cuddesdon.
          • Figure 5.40: The Abingdon to Dorchester area exhibits a remarkable concentration of wealth and power during this period; in addition to the concentrations of gendered burial and burial wealth, the great hall complexes at Sutton Courtenay and Long Wittenha
    • 5.2.3 The Mid-Seventh Century
      • 5.2.3.1 Average Female Burial Wealth
        • Graph 5.25: The normalized average weighted artefact count of male and female burials at mid-seventh-century cemeteries.
      • 5.2.3.2 Average Male Burial Wealth
        • Figure 5.41: The average weighted artefact count of female gendered burials at each seventh-century cemetery, displayed by proportional symbols (1. Rollright, 2. Bourton-on-the-Water, 3. Chadlington, 4. Kemble IB, 5. Lechlade, 6. Longcot, 7. Cokethorpe, 8
          • Graph 5.26: The average weighted artefact count of female gendered burials at each seventh-century cemetery.
            • Graph 5.27: The average weighted artefact count of male gendered burials at each seventh-century cemetery.
          • Figure 5.42: The average weighted artefact count of male gendered burials at each seventh-century cemetery, displayed by proportional symbols (1. Upper Swell I, 2. Broadwell, 3. Lyneham Barrow, 4. Chadlington, 5. Kidlington, 6. Hogshaw Hill, 7. Purton, 8.
      • 5.2.3.3 Normalized Average Male and Female Burial Wealth
        • Figure 5.43: The normalized average weighted artefact count of male and female burials at each seventh-century cemetery, displayed by proportional symbols (1. Rollright, 2. Upper Swell I, 3. Broadwell, 4. Bourton-on-the-Water, 5. Lyneham Barrow, 6. Chadli
          • Graph 5.28: The normalized average weighted artefact count of male and female gendered burials at each seventh-century cemetery.
      • 5.2.3.4 The Wealthiest Burials
        • Graph 5.29: The single wealthiest female burial at each seventh-century cemetery (Lechlade Burial 71 is excluded, see Section 4.2.4.2).
          • Graph 5.30: The single wealthiest male burial at each seventh-century cemetery. Burials interred with seaxes or swords are represented by hatched bars because seaxes may be undervalued by the quantitative methodology. The Compton burial may have been inte
      • 5.2.3.5 The Distribution of High Status Artefacts
        • Figure 5.44: The distribution of rare, imported or otherwise high status artefacts in mid-seventh-century burials.
      • 5.2.3.6 A Holistic Ranking of Final Phase Burial Wealth
      • 5.2.3.7 The Spatial Distribution of Burial Wealth
        • Figure 5.45: The distribution of rare, imported or otherwise high status artefacts in mid-seventh-century burials, overlying the two-layer kernel density of normalized average burial wealth.
      • 5.2.3.8 Conclusions
  • 5.3 The Development of Socio-Economic Power in Burial
    • 5.3.1 Power in Numbers
      • Figure 5.46: The core areas of seventh-century burials and burial wealth, showing the locations of the great hall complexes at Sutton Courtenay and Long Wittenham and the episcopal seat at Dorchester (Fairford to Lechlade area: red; Windrush confluence: b
    • 5.3.2 The Formation of Supra-Local Socio-Political Units
      • Figure 5.47: The kernel density of sixth-century burial wealth, showing the hypothetical burying communities. The supra-local concentrations of large cemeteries in the Fairford to Lechlade and Abingdon to Dorchester areas were probably the largest, most p
    • 5.3.3 The Expansion and Consolidation of the West Saxon/Gewissan Kingdom
      • Figure 5.48: The concentration of burial wealth in the Abingdon to Dorchester area during the late 6th/early 7th century, soon followed by the emergence of the great hall complexes at Sutton Courtenay and Long Wittenham, the establishment of the first Wes
        • Figure 5.49: Burial wealth and burying communities in the mid-7th century, showing the consolidation of West Saxon/Gewissan power in the immediate vicinity of the Abingdon to Dorchester area through the use of isolated supra-local burials.
• Chapter 6
• Settlement Methodology
  • 6.1 The Aims
  • 6.2 The Methodology
    • 6.2.1 The Settlements Data
      • 6.2.1.1 The Sources
      • 6.2.1.2 The Settlement Sites
    • 6.2.2 The Chronology
      • 6.2.2.1 Dating
        • Figure 6.1: All settlement sites analysed in this study, including 166 excavated settlement sites and 47 cropmark sites
          • Graph 6.1: The Anglo-Saxon settlement sites (Unstratified Settlement Refuse: artefacts typically recovered from settlement sites, e.g. pin beaters, loomweights, combs; Unstratified Personal Accessories: artefacts that could come from settlements or burial
      • 6.2.2.2 Phasing
    • 6.2.3 The Two Metrics of Socio-Economic Power
      • 6.2.3.1 The Distribution of Settlement Activity
        • 6.2.3.1.1 The Distribution of All Excavated Settlement Sites
        • 6.2.3.1.2 The Distribution of Excavated Sunken-Feature Buildings
        • 6.2.3.1.3 The Distribution of Excavated Earthfast Buildings
        • 6.2.3.1.4 The Distribution of Unexcavated Settlement Sites
      • 6.2.3.2 High Status Settlements
    • 6.2.4 Methodological Limitations
      • 6.2.4.1 The Distribution of Anglo-Saxon Material Culture
• Chapter 7
• Power in Settlement
  • 7.1 The Distribution of Settlement Activity
    • 7.1.1 The Distribution of All Excavated Settlement Sites
    • 7.1.2 The Distribution of Excavated Sunken-Feature Buildings
      • Figure 7.1: The 166 excavated settlement sites analysed in this study, showing the close relationship between Anglo-Saxon settlement and the river network (see Appendix 3 for a full catalogue of settlement sites).
        • Figure 7.2: The unweighted kernel density of all excavated settlement sites, showing the primary and secondary concentrations of sites.
          • Figure 7.3: The weighted kernel density of sunken-feature buildings, weighted by the number of distinct sunken-feature buildings at each site.
          • Figure 7.4: The largest individual settlement excavations, in terms of the number of distinct sunken-feature buildings, overlying the unweighted kernel density of all settlement sites (1. Fairford, Horcott Quarry, 2. Fairford, Horcott Road, 3. Lechlade, S
            • Graph 7.1: The number of distinct sunken-feature buildings and earthfast buildings larger than 20 m2 excavated at each site.
    • 7.1.3 The Distribution of Excavated Earthfast Buildings
      • Figure 7.5: The weighted kernel density of earthfast buildings, weighted by the number of distinct earthfast buildings larger than 20 m2 at each site.
        • Figure 7.6: The largest individual settlement excavations, in terms of the number of distinct earthfast buildings, overlying the unweighted kernel density of all settlement sites (1. Cotswold Community, 2. Latton Quarry, 3. Fairford, Horcott Quarry, 4. Le
    • 7.1.4 The Distribution of Unexcavated Settlement Sites
      • 7.1.4.1 Factors Affecting the Distribution of Excavated Settlement Sites
      • 7.1.4.2 The Distribution of Cropmark Settlement Sites
        • Figure 7.7: The circumstances of discovery for all excavated settlement sites, overlying the unweighted kernel density of all excavated settlement sites.
          • Figure 7.8: All Anglo-Saxon cropmark sites identified in aerial photographs – predominantly consisting of possible sunken-feature buildings – overlying the weighted kernel density of excavated sunken-feature buildings.
    • 7.1.5 Chronological Change in the Distribution of Anglo-Saxon Settlement
      • Figure 7.9: The distribution of sunken-feature buildings at sites with evidence for sixth-century occupation. The squares show all sites with evidence for sixth-century occupation; the weighted kernel density shows the number of sunken-feature buildings a
        • Figure 7.10: The distribution of earthfast buildings at sites with evidence for sixth-century occupation. The squares show all sites with evidence for sixth-century occupation; the weighted kernel density shows the number of earthfast buildings at sites t
          • Figure 7.11: The distribution of sunken-feature buildings at sites with evidence for seventh-century occupation. The squares show all sites with evidence for seventh-century occupation; the weighted kernel density shows the number of sunken-feature buildi
          • Figure 7.12: The distribution of earthfast buildings at sites with evidence for seventh-century occupation. The squares show all sites with evidence for seventh-century occupation; the weighted kernel density shows the number of earthfast buildings at sit
          • Figure 7.13: The distribution of sunken-feature buildings at sites with evidence for late seventh-/eighth-century occupation. The squares show all sites with evidence for late seventh-/eighth-century occupation; the weighted kernel density shows the numbe
          • Figure 7.14: The distribution of earthfast buildings at sites with evidence for late seventh-/eighth-century occupation. The squares show all sites with evidence for late seventh-/eighth-century occupation; the weighted kernel density shows the number of
          • Figure 7.15: All excavated settlement sites, overlying the unweighted kernel density of all cemeteries.
    • 7.1.6 Comparing the Distribution of Settlements and Burials
      • Figure 7.16: The distribution of sunken-feature buildings and earthfast buildings at sixth-century settlements, displayed by proportional symbols, overlying the weighted kernel density of sixth-century burial.
        • Figure 7.17: The distribution of sunken-feature buildings and earthfast buildings at seventh-century settlements, displayed by proportional symbols, overlying the weighted kernel density of mid-seventh-century burial (for the purposes of comparison, the p
          • Figure 7.18: The combined distribution of sixth-century settlement and burial. The number of sunken-feature buildings and the number of burials at each site has been normalized and combined into a single metric, providing a single representation of the di
    • 7.1.7 Conclusions
      • Figure 7.19: The combined distribution of seventh-century settlement and burial. The number of sunken-feature buildings and the number of burials at each site has been normalized and combined into a single metric, providing a single representation of the
        • Figure 7.20: The combined distribution of late seventh-/eighth-century sunken-feature buildings and earthfast buildings.
  • 7.2 High Status Settlements
    • 7.2.1 Sutton Courtenay
      • 7.2.1.1 The Built Environment
        • Figure 7.21: The probable and possible high status sites analysed in this section, overlying the unweighted kernel density of all excavated settlement sites (1. Lower Slaughter, 2. Latton Quarry, 3. Fairford, Horcott Quarry, 4. Lechlade, Sherborne House,
          • Figure 7.22: The great hall at Sutton Courtenay, compared with various other large buildings excavated in the Upper Thames Valley (redrawn from Frere 1962; 1984; May 1977; Hey et al. 2004; Brennan and Hamerow 2015; Benson site archive; Roger Ainslie pers.
          • Figure 7.24: The Sutton Courtenay central precinct, compared with the central precinct at Long Wittenham, the possible high status site identified at Sunningwell, and the possible eighth-century high status site at The Orchard in Aylesbury
          • Figure 7.23: The foundation trench of the Sutton Courtenay great hall, compared with the foundations of various other large buildings in the Upper Thames Valley (redrawn from May 1977; Hey et al. 2004; Brennan and Hamerow 2015; Benson site archive).
      • 7.2.1.2 The Wider Site
      • 7.2.1.3 Material Culture and Craft-Working
        • Figure 7.25: The associated activity to the northeast of the Sutton Courtenay central precinct
          • Figure 7.26: The wider landscape of settlement and burial surrounding the Sutton Courtenay great hall complex.
      • 7.2.1.4 Ritual Activity
        • Graph 7.2: The proportion of different types of material culture recovered from all stratified contexts at Sutton Courtenay, Barrow Hills and Horcott Quarry. Sutton Courtenay has produced the highest proportion of craft-working tools of any substantial se
      • 7.2.1.5 Chronology and Development
    • 7.2.2 Long Wittenham
      • 7.2.2.1 The Built Environment
      • 7.2.2.2 The Wider Site
        • Figure 7.27: The halls at Long Wittenham, before and after the recent fieldwork.
          • Figure 7.28: Long Wittenham: great hall complex or minor hall complex? Without the 30 m long great hall, the scale of the buildings at Long Wittenham is more reminiscent of the minor hall complexes, although the layout is more similar to the great hall co
          • Figure 7.29: Structure 4100, in plan and in section. The walls appeared to be constructed with either the C9 wall type (bottom right) or the A2 wall type (bottom left).
      • 7.2.2.3 Material Culture and Craft-Working
      • 7.2.2.4 Ritual Activity
        • Figure 7.30: The wider settlement and burial activity at Long Wittenham.
      • 7.2.2.5 Chronology and Development
    • 7.2.3 Worton
      • 7.2.3.1 The Built Environment
      • 7.2.3.2 The Wider Site
      • 7.2.3.3 Chronology and Development
        • Figure 7.31: Worton Building B103, in plan and in section (redrawn from Hey et al. 2004).
          • Figure 7.32: The irregular foundations of the Worton building appear to represent the culmination of the later development of the great hall architectural style, which can be seen in the sequence of foundation trenches at Yeavering. This stands in marked
          • Figure 7.33: The wider settlement and burial activity at Worton (redrawn from Hey et al. 2004).
    • 7.2.4 Benson
      • 7.2.4.1 The Built Environment
      • 7.2.4.2 The Wider Site
        • Figure 7.34: Benson Feature 1006, in plan and in section (redrawn from the Benson site archive).
          • Figure 7.35: The profile of the Benson feature is unusually shallow and irregular when compared with the earlier seventh-century great halls at Sutton Courtenay and Yeavering, but the latest halls at Yeavering were constructed with considerably shallower
          • Figure 7.36: The wider site at Benson, showing the other possible post-in-trench buildings and the modern parish church (redrawn from Pine and Ford 2003; Benson site archive; Blair pers. comm.).
      • 7.2.4.3 Chronology and Development
    • 7.2.5 Dorchester and Bishop’s Court
      • 7.2.5.1 The Built Environment
        • Figure 7.37: The post-in-trench buildings at the Dorchester Allotments and Dorchester Abbey (redrawn from Frere 1962; Keevill 2003).
          • Figure 7.38: The Bishop’s Court building, in plan and in section, showing the potential dimensions of the building, depending on whether the surviving wall represents an end wall or a long wall
          • (redrawn from May 1977).
      • 7.2.5.2 Dorchester, Bishop’s Court and the Wider Site
      • 7.2.5.3 Material Culture and Craft-Working
      • 7.2.5.4 Chronology and Development
        • Figure 7.39: The extended high status complex at Dorchester/Bishop’s Court.
          • Figure 7.40: The Aylesbury sites. The earthfast buildings excavated at The Orchard and Walton Lodge appear to represent the eastern edge of an elite precinct; these buildings are significantly more robust and more carefully constructed than those excavate
    • 7.2.6 Aylesbury
      • 7.2.6.1 The Built Environment
      • 7.2.6.2 The Wider Site
      • 7.2.6.3 Material Culture and Craft-Working
        • Figure 7.41: The Orchard bears a strong resemblance to Chalton and, to a lesser degree, Cowage Farm
          • (redrawn from Champion 1977; Hinchliffe 1986; Dalwood et al. 1989; Ford et al. 2004).
      • 7.2.6.4 Chronology and Development
        • Figure 7.42: The wider activity surrounding The Orchard. The minster at Aylesbury lay immediately across the valley from The Orchard and may have been in some way related.
    • 7.2.7 Eynsham Abbey
    • 7.2.8 Yarnton
    • 7.2.9 Fairford, Horcott Quarry
    • 7.2.10 Lower Slaughter
      • Figure 7.43: The site at Yarnton, showing the ditched enclosure system, the granary and a possible helm (redrawn from Hey et al. 2004). Helms are another type of specialized agricultural storage facility, typically consisting of a circular open-air raised
        • Figure 7.44: The Middle Saxon enclosure at Lower Slaughter, showing its location relative to the parish church and the thirteenth-century ‘king’s hall’; the projected extent of the enclosure is based on the street plan of the modern village
          • (redrawn from Kenyon and Watts 2006) (n.b. the plan on the left is depicted at the same scale as Figure 7.43).
    • 7.2.11 Other Possible High Status Settlements
      • 7.2.11.1 Sunningwell
      • 7.2.11.2 Cresswell Field
      • 7.2.11.3 Latton Quarry
        • Figure 7.45: The magnetometer survey at Sunningwell, showing a transcription of the possible Anglo-Saxon buildings
          • Figure 7.46: The site at Cresswell Field, showing the large annexed building (bottom right) and its proximity to Worton and Yarnton (redrawn from Hey et al. 2004).
          • Figure 7.47: The Latton Quarry building, compared with the buildings at Yarnton and New Wintles Farm (redrawn from Rahtz 1976b; Hey et al. 2004; Pine 2009). All three buildings use some combination of postholes and shallow foundation trenches, but the fou
      • 7.2.11.4 Lechlade, Sherborne House
      • 7.2.11.5 Wantage, Mill Street
      • 7.2.11.6 Other Possible Ditched Enclosures
      • 7.2.11.7 Shakenoak
      • 7.2.11.8 Swindon
      • 7.2.11.9 Purwell Farm
      • 7.2.11.10 Barton Court Farm
        • Figure 7.48: The ditched enclosure systems at Lechlade, Sherborne House and Wantage, Mill Street (redrawn from Holbrook and Thomas 1996; Bateman et al. 2003) (n.b. this figure is depicted at the same scale as Figure 7.43).
      • 7.2.11.11 New Wintles Farm
      • 7.2.11.12 Black Bourton
    • 7.2.12 High Status Settlements and the Development of the Settlement Hierarchy
      • 7.2.12.1 The First High Status Settlements
        • Figure 7.49: High status settlements during the late 6th and earlier 7th centuries, overlying the kernel density of seventh-century sunken-feature buildings and burials (1. Latton Quarry, 2. Swindon, 3. Purwell Farm, 4. Sunningwell, 5. Sutton Courtenay, 6
          • Figure 7.50: High status settlements during the late 7th and 8th centuries, overlying the kernel density of eighth-century sunken-feature buildings and earthfast buildings (1. Lower Slaughter, 2. Latton Quarry, 3. Fairford, Horcott Quarry, 4. Lechlade, Sh
      • 7.2.12.2 The Expansion of the Settlement Hierarchy
• Chapter 8
• Great Hall Complexes in Context
  • 8.1 The Emergence of Supra-Local Socio-Political Units
    • 8.1.1 The First Supra-Local Socio-Political Units in the Upper Thames Valley
    • 8.1.2 Supra-Local Socio-Political Units and the Development of Socio-Economic Power
      • 8.1.2.1 The Distribution of Socio-Economic Power in the Sixth Century
        • Figure 8.1: A hypothetical reconstruction of the sixth-century communities of the Upper Thames Valley: the Abingdon to Dorchester area (in yellow), the Fairford to Lechlade area (in red), the Evenlode confluence (in purple), the Windrush confluence (in bl
      • 8.1.2.2 The Concentration of Power and the Emergence of Supra-Local Socio-Political Units
        • Figure 8.2: The distribution of sixth-century burial wealth, showing the high status artefact types recovered from each cemetery, overlying the kernel density of the normalized average artefact count (the kernel density is the same as Figure 5.26).
          • Figure 8.3: The kernel density of the average weighted artefact count, showing the increasing concentration of burial wealth over the course of the 6th century (see Section 5.2.2).
    • 8.1.3 Corporate Power, Assembly and the Formation of Supra-Local Socio-Political Units
      • 8.1.3.1 Corporate Power and Supra-Local Socio-Political Units
      • 8.1.3.2 Supra-Local Socio-Political Units and Supra-Local Assemblies
  • 8.2 Great Hall Complexes and the Emergence of Supra-Regional Kingdoms
    • 8.2.1 The Gewisse and the Emergence of Supra-Regional Hegemony
      • Figure 8.4: A hypothetical reconstruction of supra-local assembly networks (important communities are represented by white circles, each of which may have had their own local assembly site). The local communities of the Abingdon to Dorchester area may hav
      • 8.2.1.1 Supra-Local Socio-Political Units and the Emergence of Supra-Regional Hegemony
    • 8.2.2 Great Hall Complexes and the Consolidation of Power
      • Figure 8.5: The early seventh-century high status settlements and princely burials, overlying the distribution of seventh-century burial and settlement (the kernel density is the same as Figure 7.19). Although the seventh-century high status settlements a
    • 8.2.3 Long Wittenham, Dorchester and the Beginnings of the Settlement Hierarchy
      • Figure 8.6: A hypothetical reconstruction of the new supra-regional assembly network, centred on the great hall complex at Sutton Courtenay.
    • 8.2.4 Supra-Local Burials and the Expansion of the Gewissan Heartland
  • 8.3 The Development of the Settlement Hierarchy and the Obsolescence of the Great Hall Complexes
    • Figure 8.7: The early seventh-century princely burials and the mid-seventh-century supra-local burials are strongly concentrated around the Gewissan heartland – the Abingdon to Dorchester area – and along the postulated supra-regional border between the G
      • Figure 8.8: The changing distribution of Anglo-Saxon burial and settlement over the course of the 6th, 7th and 8th centuries (for full-size images, see Figures 7.18-7.20, 7.49 and 7.50).
    • 8.3.1 The Mercian Conquest
    • 8.3.2 The Development of the Settlement Hierarchy
    • 8.3.3 The Dissemination and Degeneration of the Great Hall Architectural Style
    • 8.3.4 The Dissemination, Degeneration, Obsolescence and Abandonment of the Great Hall Complex Phenomenon
      • Figure 8.9: The dilution of the great hall architectural style, from the early seventh-century halls at Sutton Courtenay and Long Wittenham to the later seventh- and eighth-century halls at Benson and Worton, to the annexed building at Cresswell Field, th
        • Figure 8.10: The diversification of eighth-century high status sites in the Upper Thames Valley
          • Figure 8.11: The proliferation and diversification of high status sites and the concomitant dissemination, diversification and dilution of the great hall architectural style
• Appendix 1
• The Cemeteries
  • 1.1 The Cemeteries of the Long Sixth Century
  • 1.2 The Cemeteries of the Mid-Seventh Century
• Appendix 2
• The Burials Methodology
  • 2.1 Phasing
    • 2.1.1 The Allocation of Burials to Phases
    • 2.1.2 Exclusive Period AD 580-630 (Phases D-E)
    • 2.1.3 Episodes B-C, C-D, and D-E
  • 2.2 The Re-Dating of Male Artefacts
  • 2.3 Age Determination
  • 2.4 Defining the Anglo-Saxon Gendered Burial Rite
    • 2.4.1 Female Gender in the Sixth Century
    • 2.4.2 Female Gender in the Seventh Century
  • 2.5 Artefact Types
  • 2.6 Weighted Artefact Types
    • 2.6.1 Weapons
    • 2.6.2 Brooches
      • Table App.2.1: The method for counting various artefact types in the burials of the Upper Thames Valley.
    • 2.6.3 Medium Status Types
    • 2.6.4 High Status Types
    • 2.6.5 Highest Status Types
  • 2.7 Kernel Density
  • 2.8 Wealth Inequality in the Wealthiest and Poorest 10% of Burials
  • 2.9 The Proportion of Gendered Burial
    • 2.9.1 The Proportion of Gendered Burial in the Sixth Century
      • Table App.2.2: The proportion of gendered burials from all adult sexed burials, AD 475-630.
    • 2.9.2 The Proportion of Gendered Burial in the Seventh Century
      • Table App.2.3: The proportion of gendered burials from all adult sexed burials, AD 630-675.
        • Table App.2.4: The total proportion of all burials, regardless of sex or age, that received gendered burial, AD 630-675.
• Appendix 3
• The Settlements (including cropmark sites)
• Bibliography
  • Primary Sources
  • Secondary Sources