Subscribe now for full access and no adverts
In the mid-1990s, one of the largest known early medieval settlements in England was excavated by University of Leicester Archaeological Services (ULAS) at Eye Kettleby in Leicestershire. In his blog, Dr Gavin Speed, Project Manager at ULAS and co-author of the new book The Anglo-Saxon Settlement at Eye Kettleby, Leicestershire, describes the site as a ‘seemingly unremarkable field on the south-western outskirts of Melton Mowbray’. Yet not only did that field contain more than 50 post-built and sunken-featured structures dating from c.AD 450 to c.AD 650, it had also been a place of significant activity in the prehistoric period, with an early Bronze Age monument complex and a cremation cemetery that was in use periodically over several centuries during the early to middle Bronze Age (these are described in a separate monograph: see ‘Further reading’ below).
A deserted medieval village
Sites of Bronze Age ritual activity are often located close to watercourses and, true to form, this site lies near to a river, on a tongue of land between two small tributary streams. The river changes its name at this point from the upstream Eye (from Old English ea, meaning ‘river’) to the Wreake (Danish in origin, meaning ‘meandering’). The place was well chosen for a settlement, being well-supplied with fresh water, on a mainly flat, well-drained river terrace on gravel and sand, and with good riverine connections.
Later medieval settlement on this land is represented by the well-preserved (but largely unexcavated) remains of a deserted medieval village (DMV). It was the proximity of these earthworks and fishponds that highlighted the archaeological potential of the site when the arable field to the west of the DMV was earmarked for development as a light-industrial estate in the early 1990s (it now produces, among other things, traditional Melton Mowbray pork pies).
Aerial photography showed that the DMV once extended into this field, but that the upstanding remains had been ploughed flat when the pasture was converted to arable during the Second World War. The expectation, then, was that the site would yield information about the DMV, but fieldwalking in 1993 located the largest scatter of rare early to middle Anglo-Saxon pottery ever found in Leicestershire (the authors are careful to point out that they use the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ in the report to describe the building and pottery styles, not the ethnicity of the people living here). So, elevated from a status of regional importance, the site now became recognised as potentially of national significance.
The shapes of settlement
Just over 4.2ha of the 12.8ha field was subject to open-area excavations between September 1996 and December 1997, with a further 3.35ha subject to an intermittent watching brief. The result of this activity was to identify an extensive settlement represented by the remains of 28 post-built structures, 30 sunken-featured buildings, 12 fire-pits, 60 or so further pits, and various boundary ditches and fence-lines. The authors believe that they found the southern and eastern limits of the settlement, but that a few buildings extended beyond the northern and western limits of the excavation. Further structures could also have existed here that were truncated by the construction of the Syston to Peterborough railway line, which forms the site’s northern boundary.
The post-built structures fell into two groups: 19 larger buildings (from 6.5m to 14.2m in length and typically 4m to 5m wide) probably served as houses, while the smaller ones (all well under 5.6m in length and not more than 3.5m in width) were most likely used for storage, or as workshops or animal byres.
In most cases, the evidence suggests that the roof trusses rested on single posts that were set into post-holes and secured by packing stones. One building differed from the others in having staggered pairs of closely spaced posts. Similarly paired posts found at West Stow (Suffolk), Radley (Oxfordshire), and Cowdery’s Down (Hampshire) have been interpreted as being set either side of walling material, such as horizontal planking or wattle-and-daub panels. One structure had three of its four walls defined by a continuous trench, which probably accommodated a timber sill-beam into which vertical posts were set.
Doorways, where they could be identified, were typically located in one or both of the long walls, but slightly off-centre. Four of the buildings had internal partitions, and one had either an annexe or an internal partition at the eastern end. All had internal pits (none of which could be positively identified as a hearth in situ) as well as post-holes that could have supported benches or beds.
Sunken-featured buildings (also known as ‘pit houses’ or by their German name as Grubenhäuser) are ubiquitous features of settlements of the period from the 5th to the 12th centuries all over northern Europe. Since the subterranean floors rarely show any sign of use, it is assumed that they had suspended floors and were used as workshops, weaving sheds, or for storage, which is how they have been interpreted at Eye Kettleby.
Fire-pits and finds
Another feature of sites of this period is the fire-pit, characterised by a uniform sub-rectangular or oval shape, near-vertical sides, flat bases, and a fill of charcoal and cracked or discoloured pebbles indicating exposure to high temperatures. Twelve such fire-pits were found across the site, all containing substantial deposits of charred wood. It is assumed that they were used for cooking, but perhaps not on a daily basis, as they are relatively few in number compared to the number of buildings and they seem not to have a connection to any particular structure.
It is possible that the pits were used for special feasts (lipid analysis from fire-pits at Eye and Kentford, both in Suffolk, found meat residue on the stones), though one of the pits at Eye Kettleby had a large number of clay loom weights in its upper fill; possibly the pit was used for firing the loom weights, but equally they might simply represent a dump of discarded material.
The non-structural finds from the site included 2,371 sherds of Anglo-Saxon pottery, weighing 32.712kg, which is the largest assemblage of this date so far excavated in Leicestershire. It is nearly ten times greater than the total number of sherds (255) excavated from sites of similar date in Leicester since the late 1980s, though still dwarfed by the assemblages from Mucking (Essex) and West Stow (Suffolk).
Apart from a small number of bowls and a single lid, the majority of the identifiable vessels consisted of globular (occasionally biconical) jars, with upright rims and rounded or flattened bases, most likely used for cooking and storage (some of them had carbonised residues on the interior). Most were coarse handmade vessels, and signs of wear on some sherds indicated long use and repeated cleaning. The vessel forms and the occasional decoration support an early Anglo-Saxon date (c. AD 450-650) for the assemblage as a whole, though the authors of the pottery report (Nicholas J Cooper and Alice Forward) state that it remains an unanswered question whether the production of this type of pottery extends into the middle Anglo-Saxon period (c. AD 650-850).
Our current inability to distinguish middle Anglo-Saxon wares hampers any attempts to phase the site on the basis of pottery, though attempts were made by the authors to see whether there was a slight shift in focus over the life of the site from the western part towards the east, into the area of the later medieval village. Some slight evidence exists for this from three sherds of possible middle Saxon date from the eastern settlement.
In addition, the assemblage of seven bone combs from the site seems to fall into two groups: those dated stylistically to the late 5th to mid-6th centuries were found in the western part of the settlement, and those from the eastern part are essentially late 6th- to early 8th-century in style.
Occupation
The finds from the site, along with the carbon dates and building forms, indicate that the settlement was active from the mid-5th century. Three structures show signs of repair and three others have two or more phases: one was replaced by a similarly sized building on a different alignment, one shifted slightly on being rebuilt, and one had at least three phases.
The western settlement area was the most densely occupied, with a larger concentration of buildings and a greater variety of constructional form. The authors believe that the Bronze Age monument complex – including ring ditches, D-shaped enclosures, pit alignments, and mounds – would still have been visible in the early Anglo-Saxon period, and that their presence influenced the layout of the settlement. This is evident in the western part of the site, where the Saxon structures avoid the Bronze Age north–south pit alignment.
This indicates a degree of organisation and planning, as does the placing of the structures to follow the contours of the slightly sloping land. Many of the buildings, particularly in this western settlement area, are orientated in the same direction, or else at right-angles to each other. Environmental factors may have influenced the orientation of buildings. Constructing houses end-on to prevailing winds, for example, would have minimised draughts around doorways in their long sides.
There is a slightly later emphasis to the pottery and combs from the eastern part of the site, where there is a second concentration of structures, but with fewer and more dispersed post-built structures (PBSs) and more sunken-featured buildings (SFBs). These SFBs are significantly larger than those to the west, which appears to be another chronological indicator, since the increasing size of SFBs during the 7th century is seen at other sites, such as Mucking. This area also included a large number of pits, though these were more dispersed.
Cumulatively, the evidence suggests that the settlement originated in the western part of the site and shifted in focus during the life of the settlement towards the east, into the area of the later medieval village. Overall, the settlement fits a more widely recognised pattern of early Anglo-Saxon unenclosed settlements, with no archaeologically defined boundaries to delineate the area of occupation.
The carbon dating indicates that the settlement could have been active for up to 180 years, and experimental evidence from West Stow indicates that the lifespan of an earthfast timber building is around 35 to 50 years. The authors estimate that four to seven of the PBSs were in use at any one time, representing a population of 15 to 30 people. By comparison, the larger settlement at West Heslerton (North Yorkshire) had an estimated population of ten extended families or 75 people.
Farming and food
Analysis of the 8,193 animal bones showed that cattle were the dominant species, with sheep/goat as the second most common species, followed by pig. Wild animals were few in number, and red deer were mainly represented by antler fragments, which might have been acquired for tool-making rather than as food. Birds were represented by two chickens, a goose, and a pigeon, but bone-report author Stephanie Knight believes that this is not a fair indication of the numbers of birds raised and consumed because the soil conditions at the site were unfavourable to the survival of small bones.
Again, the greater deterioration of younger and more fragile bones in the soil might account for the lack of very young cattle. Some were slaughtered between 18 and 24 months, at their optimum weight, possibly before they required winter feeding. Others, however, survived to four years or more, and might thus have been used as draught animals – some bones showed evidence of harness friction. A number of different breeds were present, with both curved and straight horncores from short-, medium-, and long-horned animals.
The teeth of the sheep indicated that the weak, infertile, and unwanted animals were being culled at around 21 months, at their optimum meat value and prior to overwintering. A similar pattern of pig-killing at 16 months was evident, but some animals lived well into maturity: they could have been breeding stock, or they may have been kept to clear land for cultivation. Equal numbers of male and female pigs in this group suggest they were not being managed for breeding purposes, which would have meant that most males would have been culled once the animals reached a suitable size for food consumption.
Above & below: Needles, spindle whorls, and other related finds are evidence that weaving and other crafts were among the main activities carried out by the local community.
The inhabitants seem to have been self-sufficient in meat and dairy products, wool, hides, horn, and bone, with little need to fall back on wild hunted animals. Domestic animals also provided manure for the fields, and traction for ploughing and the transport of goods. The animal stock appears to be healthy, indicating no significant pressure on resources. The mix of animals is typical of a self-supporting peasant community – not one engaged in the specialist production of dairy or meat products for trade. One interesting observation in the conclusion of the bone report is the suggestion that the inhabitants were continuing Romano-British farming methods, because the species proportions and bone sizes are similar to those from earlier sites in the region – in other words, animal husbandry did not shift dramatically between the 4th and 7th centuries, at least in this part of England.
Analysis of the charred plant remains recovered from the excavation show that barley was the most numerous grain, followed by bread wheat, with some oats and rye. Also present were edible legumes and flax, as well as hazelnuts, sloes, and hawthorn. The last two might have come to the site as a result of wood-gathering for fuel. The barley and wheat were probably used for making pottage and bread, and for animal feed. The presence of bread wheat, which does not need parching to remove chaff, indicates that a change from the spelt of the Romano-British period had already taken place.
Along with cereal-cleaning, food-preparation, and cooking, the other main activities at the site were weaving and the making of nets and baskets, as indicated by the needles, spindle whorls, and loom weights found at the site. Small quantities of slag suggest metalworking on a modest scale.
Looking for inhabitants
Burial evidence is often used to provide an indication of a community’s wealth and social status and (through DNA and isotopic analysis) their origins and family relationships. In the case of Eye Kettleby, no cemetery has been identified, but metal-detecting finds indicate the possibility of burials to the west of the settlement. The finds include brooches, strap ends, silver coins, scabbard mounts, girdle hangers, and a gold bead. Those that can be dated stylistically fit the date range of the settlement. One copper-alloy brooch fragment shows a stylised face that is paralleled by 6th-century examples from Britain and Sweden, while another human face from a copper-alloy mount takes the form of a head with long moustache, open mouth, triangular beard, and curving horns with bird’s head terminals, probably depicting Woden and of 7th-century date.
It is at about this time that the Eye Kettleby settlement could have shifted further east and that further structures could have survived below the remains of the now-deserted medieval village. The possibility of continued activity nearby is supported by metal-detector finds of four sceattas (tiny silver coins), one datable to the period AD 695-740, in a field to the west of the settlement. The name of Eye Kettleby (‘Kettle’s homestead on the Eye’) might offer a further clue: Ketil is a well-attested Norse personal name and the ‘-by’ element is believed by placename experts to indicate a pre-existing settlement taken over by the Danes after the invasion of eastern England in AD 865.
The later DMV is recorded in Domesday as being held as part of the manor of Melton. After the Norman Conquest, it passed into the ownership of Goisfrid de Wirce (that is, from Guerche in Brittany). Poll-tax returns for 1379 record 41 inhabitants – not much more than its early medieval predecessor. After something like 1,000 years of existence, the village was abandoned in the mid-15th century.
Anglo-Saxon Leicestershire
Eye Kettleby lies in one of the most active migrant settlement areas of the mid-5th to 7th centuries, accessible via its several navigable rivers from the North Sea and the Wash. Within Leicestershire and Rutland, there are some 600 Historic Environment Records of finds of early to mid-Saxon date, along with 190 Portable Antiquities Scheme records, mainly of isolated pottery and brooch finds. Many more structures of this date have been discovered since Eye Kettleby was excavated, with particularly high concentrations within and close to the Roman city of Leicester and at Barleythorpe, on the outskirts of Oakham.
The picture that emerges from these data is one of small, scattered settlements located on sands and gravels, close to rivers and Roman roads, of which Eye Kettleby is a typical example. Given the ubiquity of Romano-British sites in the landscape, it is inevitable that most of these settlements lie close to earlier roads, fields, small towns, villas, and farms, but there is no indication of widespread continuity of settlement from the Roman period – instead, the evidence points to the establishment of new small-scale settlements on well-favoured sites. The settlements of this period show broadly similar economies, with a strong pastoral component, mainly focused on cattle and sheep. Most have little or no sign of enclosure or boundaries, and the surviving architecture suggests a non-hierarchical society.
Eye Kettleby did not exist in isolation: just within the Eye/Wreake valley, finds indicate the likelihood of settlements at roughly 1km intervals downstream (west) at Kirby Bellars, Frisby-on-the-Wreake, Brooksby, and Ratcliffe. The authors conclude their report by arguing for a detailed review of these and the large and growing body of evidence for 5th- to mid-7th-century settlement, suggesting that we have relied for too long on the ‘big three’ sites at West Stow, Mucking, and West Heslerton. A comprehensive reassessment of the countryside of early medieval England, in a similar vein to The Rural Settlement of Roman Britain (CA 326), would, they say, ‘greatly advance our understanding of this intriguing, if poorly understood, period of British history’.
Further reading:
Gavin Speed and Neil Finn (2024) The Anglo-Saxon Settlement at Eye Kettleby, Leicestershire (Leicester Archaeology Monograph 27, ISBN 978-0957479289, £25).
Neil Finn (2011) Bronze Age Ceremonial Enclosures and Cremation Cemetery at Eye Kettleby, Leicestershire (Leicester Archaeology Monograph 20, ISBN 978-0956017956, £20).
All images: ULAS, unless otherwise stated
You must be logged in to post a comment.