Iron Age and Roman salt production and the medieval town of

CBARESEARCH

REPORT

No 81

IRON AGE ANDROMAN SALTPRODUCTION ANDTHE MEDIEVALTOWN OFDROITWICH

edited by;Simon Woodiwiss

Hereford and Worcester County Council 1992

CBA Research Report 81

Iron Age and Romansalt production and themedieval town of Droitwich

Excavations atthe Old Bowling Greenand Friar Street

Edited by Simon Woodiwiss

Hereford and Worcester County Council

Contributions by: James Bond BA FSA MIFA, FatherJerome Bertram MA FSA, Susan Colledge BSc, AnneCrone, Brenda Dickinson BA, Christopher Gregson NDDATC Dip Cons, James Greig, Mark Hassall, JulianHenderson BA MA PhD, Jennifer Hillam BSc FSAMIFA, Hilary Howard, Justin Hughes BA AIFA, AlanHunt, Derek Hurst, Steven Juggins, Alison Locker BSc,Louise Monk BA, Donald Mackreth, Gerry McDonnellBTech PhD MIFA, Ruth Morgan PhD, Elaine Morris,Michael Nellist Bsc LDS RCS(Eng), Robert Otlet, AllanPeacey, Helen Rees BA, Fiona Roe MA MLitt, AlanSaville BA FSA MIFA, Wilfred Seaby MA FSA, MichaelSekulla, Robin Symonds PhD, Jane Timby BA PhD,Roberta Tomber, David Williams PhD FSA, RogerWilliams BSc, Simon Woodiwiss BA AIFA

Illustrations by:Anne Crone and Carolyn Hunt MAAIS

1992

Council for British Archaeology

Published 1992 by the Council for British Archaeology112 Kennington Road, London SE11 6RE

Copyright © Authors, Hereford and Worcester County Counciland Council for British Archaeologyall rights reserved

British Library Cataloguing in Publication DataA catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 1 872414 24 9

Typeset in house by Julie Gardiner and Lisa Pickering

Printed by Alden Press, Oxford

ContentsSections in parentheses refer to fiche

Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viiPlates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ixTables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xSummary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiAcknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XiiiAbbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xivProject staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv

1 Introduction, Simon Woodiwiss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Geology and topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1The 'open pan' method of salt production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1The economic potential of Droitwich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Previous work and research objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Note on the stratigraphic analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7(Stratigraphic analysis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:B3

Old Bowling Green

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

The excavation, Simon Woodiwiss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8(Old Bowling Green phase description) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:B9(Dendrochronology, Anne Crone) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:E2(Radiocarbon dating, Robert Otlet and Simon Woodiwiss) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:E9

Pottery, Helen Rees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Samian, Brenda Dickinson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58(Definition of ceramic phases and use of ceramic evidence, Helen Rees) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:Ell(The petrology of selected Roman pottery fabrics, Hilary Howard) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:F2(Petrological report on selected ceramic material, Elaine Morris) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l:F7(Petrological report on selected limestone-tempered fabrics, Elaine Morris) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:Fl0(Petrological report on an unusual medieval fabric, Elaine Morris) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:Fll(The petrology of selected samples, Roberta Tomber) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l:F13(First century AD pottery from Droitwich, Jane Timby) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l:G3(Amphorae, David Williams) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:G8(Samian catalogue, Brenda Dickinson) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l:G13(Rhenish ware, Robin Symonds) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2:C13

Ceramic building material, Simon Woodiwiss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Other ceramic objects, Derek Hurst and Simon Woodiwiss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Fired clay, Helen Rees and Simon Woodiwiss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Clay pipe, Derek Hurst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Glass, Julian Henderson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Worked stone, Anne Crone, Fiona Roe and Alan Saville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Inscriptions, Mark Hassall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75

Brooches, Donald Mackreth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77

Other copper alloy objects, Anne Crone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80(Coins, Michael Sekulla) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2:Dl

Ironwork, Anne Crone and Simon Woodiwiss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Lead, Anne Crone and Simon Woodiwiss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

v

15 Animal bone, Alison Locker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84(Animal bone tables) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2:D3

16 Human bone, Michael Nellist and Simon Woodiwiss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93(Complete human skeleton, Michael Nellist) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2:E13

17 Worked bone and antler, Anne Crone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

18 Environment, Susan Colledge and James Greig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96(Method) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2:Fi(Diatoms, Steve Juggins) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2:F4

19 Wood, Anne Crone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106(Lifting and conservation of a water-logged barrel from Droitwich, Christopher Gregson) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 : F 6

20 Miscellaneous, Simon Woodiwiss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Friar Street

21 The excavation, Justin Hughes and Alan Hunt.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115(Friar Street phase description) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2:F7(The dating of Roman timbers, Jennifer Hillam) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3:A9(Tree-ring study of medieval stakes, Ruth Morgan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3:B3(Radiocarbon dating, Robert Otlet and Roger Williams) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3:B5

22 Pottery, Derek Hurst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132Samian, Brenda Dickinson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .154(Petrology report on the prehistoric pottery, Elaine Morris) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3:B6(Samian catalogue, Brenda Dickinson) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3:Bll

23 Ceramic building material, Derek Hurst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

24 Other ceramic objects, Derek Hurst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

25 Clay pipe, Derek Hurst and Allan Peacey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159(Clay pipe table) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3:B13

26 Glass, Louise Monk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .160

27 Worked stone, Derek Hurst, with stone identification by Fiona Roe and Alan Saville and discussionof the Ruding memorial slab by Jerome Bertram. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

28 Copper alloy, Derek Hurst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166(Coins, Derek Hurst and Wilfred Seaby) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3:B14

29 Ironwork, Derek Hurst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168(Ironwork tables) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3:C1

30 Lead, Derek Hurst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170(Lead table) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3:C2

31 Pyrotechnological note, Derek Hurst and Gerry McDonnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

32 Animal bone, Alison Locker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172(Animal bone tables) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3:C3

33 Worked bone, Derek Hurst, with bone identification by Alison Locker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182(Shell table, Derek Hurst) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3:E1

34 General discussion, Simon Woodiwiss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

vi

Late Iron Age and early Roman salt production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183The town: c 400 - c 1900, James Bond and Alan Hunt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .186

35 Pottery fabrics; a multi-period series for the County of Hereford and Worcester,Derek Hurst and Helen Rees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .217(Index to the archive) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3:E2

Illustrations

All illustrations by Carolyn Hunt except Figs 36-8, 47, 49: Nos 5-9, 50 and 52-4 by Anne Crone

1 Location of excavations2 Geology3 The process of salt production by the 'open

pan’ method4 Known salt sources and their potential

hinterlands

36373839

40

Old Bowling Green 41

5678910111213141516171819202122232425

26272829303132333435

Phase 2 featuresPhase 3 featuresBrine tank (S6 construction)Brine tank (S8 construction)Phase 4 featuresBrine tank (S3 final reconstruction)Wood deposited in structure 6Wood deposited in structure 7Wood deposited in structure 8Phase 5 featuresPhase 7 featuresPhase 8 featuresBarrel (S16)Barrel (S19)Phase 9 featuresPhase 10 featuresPhase 11 featuresPhase 12 featuresPhase 13 featuresPhase 14 featuresReconstruction of salt production in theIron AgeIron Age and Roman potteryRoman potteryRoman potteryRoman potteryRoman potteryRoman potteryRoman potteryRoman potteryRoman potteryRoman pottery

42

43444546474849505152535455

5657

Non-vessel pottery formsBriquetage vesselsObjects in 'briquetage’ fabricsProportions (by number of sherds) offabrics present in phases l-3Proportions (by number of sherds) offabrics present in phases 4-5Proportions (by number of sherds) offabrics present in phases 7-9Proportion (by number of sherds) of fabricspresent in phases 10-13Decorated samianCeramic building materialTile stampsCeramic objectsClay pipeGlassWorked stoneWorked stoneInscriptions on pottery and stoneCopper alloy objectsLeadWorked bone and antlerPollen from the fill of a canal or large pit(S34), phase 12WoodWood

Friar Street

58

596061626364656667

Simplified section on southern edge ofexcavationPhase 1 featuresBrine tank (S2)Brine tank (S3)Hearth (S4)Phase 2 featuresWell (S6)Phase 3i featuresPhase 3ii featuresPhase 4i features

vii

85

70717273

7576

78

8081828384

8687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105

106107

Phase 4ii featuresPits possibly used in the processing ofanimal hides (S34)Phase 5i featuresPhase 5ii featuresPhase 6 featuresPhase 7 featuresPhase 8 featuresPhase 9 featuresPhase 10 featuresPhase 11 featuresPottery quantification by weightPottery quantification by sherd countFabric proportions by weight in phase 1Principal pottery sources in phase 1Prehistoric potteryPossible pre-Iron Age decorated sherdPercentage by weight of briquetage in thepottery assemblageFabric proportions by weight in phase 2Roman potteryFabric proportions by weight in phase 3Principal pottery sources in phase 3Fabric proportions by weight in phase 4Principal pottery sources in phase 4Saxo-Norman potteryPre-Conquest saltwaysFabric proportions by weight in phase 5Principal pottery sources in phase 5Medieval potteryMedieval potteryMedieval potteryFabric proportions by weight in phase 6Principal pottery sources in phase 6Possible candlesticksMedieval potteryMedieval potteryFabric proportions by weight in phases 7-8Principal pottery sources in phases 7-8Green glazed aquamanile possiblyrepresenting a boarPost-medieval potteryFabric proportions by weight in phases9-10

108 Principal pottery sources in phases 9-10109 Sequence of principal pottery fabrics110 Decorated samian111 Spindle whorl112 Roman glass113 Worked stone114 Worked stone115 The Ruding memorial slab116 Copper alloy objects117 Iron work118 Lead objects119 Worked bone

General discussion

120 Medieval Droitwich121 Post-medieval Droitwich

Fiche

Old Bowling Green

M122 Key 4:AlM123 Structure 1 4:A2M124 Structure 2 4:A3M125 Structure 3 4:A4M126 Structure 3 4:A5M127 Structure 3 4:A6M128 Structure 4 4:A7M129 Structure 5 4:A8M130 Structure 6 4:A9M131 Structure 7 4:A10M132 Structure 8 4:AllM133 Structure 9 4:A12M134 Structure 10 4:A13M135 Structure 11 4:A14M136 Structure 12 4:BlM137 Structure 13 4:B2M138 Structure 15 4:B3M1l39 Structure 16 4:B4M140 Structure 17 4:B5M141 Structure 18 4:B6M142 Structure 19 4:B7M143 Structure 20 4:B8M144 Structure 21 4:B9M145 Structure 22 4:Bl0M146 Structure 22 4:BllM147 Structure 23 4:B12M148 Structure 24 4:B13M149 Structure 25 4:B14M150 Structure 26 4:ClM151 Structure 27 4:C2M152 Structure 27 4:C3M153 Structure 28 4:C4M154 Structure 29 4:C7M155 Structure 30 4:C8M156 Structure 31 4:CllM157 Structure 32 4:C13M158 Structure 33 4:C14M159 Structure 34 4:DlM160 Structure 35 4:D2M161 Structure 36 4:D3M162 Structure 37 4:D4M163 Structure 38 4:D5M164 Structure 39 4:D6M165 Structure 41 4:D7M166 Structure 42 4:D8M167 Structure 43 4:D9M168 Structure 44 4:Dl0M169 Structure 45 4:DllM170 Structure 46 4:D12M171 Structure 47 4:D13M172 Structure 48 4:D14M173 Structure 49 4:ElM174 Structure 50 4:E2M175 Structure 51 4:E3M176 Structure 52 4:E4M177 Structure 53 4:E5

viii

6869

74

77

79

M178 Structure 54 4:E6M179 Structure 55 4:E7M180 Structure 56 4:E8M181 Structure 57 4:E9M182 Structure 58 4:E10M183 Structure 59 4:E11M184 Structure 60 4:E12M185 Dendrochronology 4:E13

Friar Street

M186 Structure 1 5:A1M187 Structure 2 5:A2M188 Structure 3 5:A3M189 Structure 4 5:A4M190 Structure 5 5:A5M191 Structure 6 5:A6M192 Structure 8 5:A7M193 Structure 12 5:A8M194 Structure 13 5:A9M195 Structure 14 5:A10M196 Structure 15 5:A11M197 Structure 16 5:A12Ml98 Structure 17 5:A13M199 Structure 18 5:B1M200 Structure 19 5:B3M201 Structure 20 5:B4M202 Structure 21 5:B5M203 Structure 22 5:B6M204 Structure 24 5:B7

M205 Structure 25 5:B8M206 Structure 27 5:B9M207 Structure 29 5:B11M208 Structure 30 5:B13M209 Structure 31 5:B14M210 Structure 32 5:C1M211 Structure 33 5:C2M212 Structure 34 5:C3M213 Structure 34 5:C4M214 Structure 35 5:C5M215 Structure 36 5:C7M216 Structure 37 5:C9M217 Structure 39 5:C10M218 Structure 42 5:C11M219 Structures 41 and 43 5:C13M220 Structure 44 5:DlM221 Structure 46 5:D3M222 Structure 47 5:D4M223 Structure 48 5:D5M224 Structure 49 5:D6M225 Structure 50 5:D7M226 Structure 51 5:DSM227 Structure 52 5:D9M228 Structure 53 5:DllM229 Structure 58 5:D12M230 Structure 59 5:D13M231 Structure 60 5:D14M232 Structure 173 5:E1M233 Dating of Roman timbers 5:E2M234 Dating of timbers 5:E3

Plates

Old Bowling Green

1

2

34

5

67

8

Wood debris in the fill of a brine tank (S6,P4)Body deposited in partly filled brine tank(S7, P5)Barrels (S16 and S19, P8)Post on padstone showing decay of centre(S22, P9)Early 16th century Venetian millefiorigoblet or bowlRadiograph of lower left third molar regionRadiograph of right tibia showing arrestedgrowth linesRadiograph of upper right third molarregion

9

10

11

Selected examples of the recovered plantremainsSelected examples of the recovered plantremainsFragment of post-medieval ‘barrow’, orconical wicker basket for drying saltcrystals

Friar Street

1213

14

Brine tank (52, P1)Wood debris in the fill of a brine tank (S2,P2)Cellar (part of S43, P7)

i x

TablesOld Bowling Green1 Clay pipe marks2 Animal bone summary3 Ageing of ox, ovicaprid and pig mandibles4 Withers heights in cm for ox, ovicaprid,

horse and dog5 Species list6 Wood from the brine tanks7 The barrels

Friar Street

8 Clay pipe marks9 Quantification of smithing slag10 Quantification of fuel ash11 Animal bone summary12 Animal bone totals for each species13 Ageing of ox, ovicaprid and pig mandibles14 Withers heights in cm for ox, ovicaprid,

horse and dog

FicheOld Bowling Green

Ml5 Samples taken for dendrochronology l:E6Ml6 t values between structure chronologies

and Roman master curve l:E8Ml7 Radiocarbon dates 1:E10Ml8 Typological characteristics of each

ceramic phase l:E13Ml9 Sherds used for petrological analysis l:G6M20 Amphora catalogueM21 Animal boneM22 Relative frequency of diatoms in a

count of 200 valves

Friar Street

M23M24M25M26

M27

M28M29M30M31M32M33M34

Details of timber samplesDating of the Droitwich timbersSummary oft valuesDroitwich Roman master curve,141BC-AD44Details of the medieval stakes sub-mitted for tree-ring analysisRadiocarbon datesThin sectioned sherdsClay pipeIronworkLeadAnimal boneShell

1:Gl0l:D3

l:F4

3:A133:A143:Bl

3:B2

3:B43:B5

3:Bl03:B133:Cl3:C23:C33:El

x

Summary

This is the first of a proposed three volume series,reporting on six excavations carried out inDroitwich between 1967 and 1985. The town hasbeen a centre for the large-scale production of saltfrom the Iron Age until the early part of thiscentury. This industry was based on the brinesprings of exceptional purity and strength thatnaturally occurred in the area of the town.

This volume commences with a generalintroduction which considers some of the geological,technological, and economic aspects of the industry.

The main evidence for salt production from theseexcavations dates to the late Iron Age. It consists oflarge tanks lined with clay and revetted by stakesand probably used primarily for the storage ofbrine. These tanks were also associated withhearths and vast quantities of briquetage. The sizeand arrangement of these structures indicate a wellorganised and large-scale industry. The termbriquetage is here used to refer to a coarse sandy ororganic pottery fabric, almost exclusively in theform of vessels, probably used for the draining ofsalt crystals. A high water table led to thepreservation of a range of wooden artefactsrecovered from the tanks and again probably usedin the production of salt.

At the Old Bowling Green there is some evidencefor the continuity of use of the tanks into the earlyRoman period, though for how long is uncertain.After the disuse of the structures associated withsalt production, occupation in the Friar Street areabecomes more domestic in nature. Industrialactivity at the Old Bowling Green continued in the3rd or 4th centuries. The nature of this industrycould not be conclusively determined, though theprimary production of salt or the processing of

animal products as a secondary process are equallyprobable.

The post-Roman phases at the Old BowlingGreen did not produce much useful evidence ofactivity. At Friar Street, however, the later depositswere better preserved. After an initial phase ofagricultural activity the area assumed anindustrial character (later Saxo-Norman), possiblyassociated with tanning or horn-working, FriarStreet itself may also have been in existence at thistime. From the 12th century there follows a fairlycomplex development of domestic enclosures andbuildings.

The reports on pottery and other ceramicmaterials are the first substantial ones to bepublished in the area, covering a virtuallycontinuous sequence from the late Iron Age to thelater medieval periods. Many of the objectsdescribed in other specialist reports (wood, lead,inscriptions, etc) are unique and may relatedirectly to the salt industry. Unfortunately it isoften impossible to establish this connection withany degree of certainty.

In the concluding general discusson two majorthemes are examined: Iron Age and Roman saltproduction, and the development of the Saxon andmedieval town. For the historic period discussion ofthe excavations is integrated with an outline of thedocumentary and topographical evidence. Thesethemes form the major aspects of two excavationsat the Old Bowling Green and Friar Street.

The combination of a primary industrial resourcewhich was exploited over many centuries and wellpreserved archaeological deposits, gives Droitwichconsiderable potential for research on thedevelopment of European industry.

R é s u m é

Ceci est le premier d'une série de trois volumesproposes qui rend compte sur six fouilles effecté esà Droitwich entre 1967 et 1985. La ville fut centrepour la production de se1 de l'â ge de Fer jusqu'audébut du vingtiéme siécle. Cette industrie étaitfondé e sur les sources de se1 d'une pureté etintensité exceptionelles qui existaient naturelle-ment autour de la ville.

Ce volume commence avec une introductiongénérale qui traite quelques-uns des aspectsgéologiques, technologiques et économiques del'industrie.

L'é vidence principale pour la production de se1 deces fouilles vient de vers la fin de l'â ge de Fer. Elle

consiste de grandes cuves chemisées d'argile etsoutenues à l'aide de poteaux qui furent utilisé esprobablement pour stoker l'eau salé e. Ces cuvesfurent aussi associé es à des foyers et à d'énormesquantités de briquetage. La grandeur etl'arrangement de ces structures indiquent uneindustrie bien organisée et à grande é chelle. Leterme briquetage s'emploie ici pour indiquer unmateriel de poterie de gros sable ou d'unesubstance organique, presque entiérement en formede vaisseaux, utilisés en toute probabilité pour ledrainage de crystales de sel. A cause d'un hautniveau hydrostatique un assortiment d'objetsfabriques en bois furent preserves et retrouvés

xi

dans les cuves, eux aussi étant probablementutilisés Dour produire le sel.

À l'Ola Bowling Green (le Terrain de Boules surGazon) il y a aussi de l'évidence pour l'usage descuves jusqu'au début de lè re romaine mais pendantcombien de temps n'est pas certain. Aprè s ladé sué tude des structures associé es à la productionde sel, le quartier de Friar Street devient plusrésidentiel. L'activité industrielle à l'Old BowlingGreen continua pendant le troisième ou quatrièmesiècle. On ne pouvait pas distinguer de faç onconcluante la nature de cette industrie bien que laproduction de base de sel ou le traitement deproduits animaux soient également probables.

Les pé riodes post-romaines à l'Old Bowling Greenn'ont pas fourni beaucoup d'é vidence d'activité AFriar Street, cependant, les gisements de cetteé poque é taient mieux pré servé s. Aprè s unepremiè re pé riode d'activité agricole, le quartier pritun charactè re industriel (vers la fin de l'è resaxo-normande) éventuellement associé avec letannà ge ou l'artisanat de cornes. Friar Streetelle-mê me existait possiblement à cette é poque. Apartir du douziè me siè cle se suivaient d'unemaniè re assez complexe des enclos de famille et desbâ timents.

Les rapports sur la poterie et d'autres matiè rescé ramiques sont les premiers publié s dans cedomaine, englobant une séquence presque continuede la fin de 1'â ge de Fer vers la fin du moyen â ge.Beaucoup des objets dé crits dans d'autres rapportsspé cialisé s (bois, plomb, graffiti etc) sont uniques etil se peut qu'ils soient directement lié s à l'industriede sel. Malheureusement, il est souvent difficiled'é tablir ce lien avec certitude.

Dans la discussion générale qui conclue, deuxthè mes majeurs sont examiné s: l'â ge de Fer et laproduction romaine de sel, et le dé veloppement dela ville saxonne et médiévale. En ce qui concerne lapériode historique la discussion de la fouilles' intè gre à un ré sumé de l'é vidence documentaire ettopographique. Ces thè mes forment les principauxaspects de deux fouilles à l'Old Bowling Green etFriar Street.

La conbinaison d'une ressource primaireindustrielle qui fut exploité e pendant de nombreuxsiè cles et des gisements arché ologiques bienpréservés accorde à Droitwich beaucoup depossibilités pour des recherches sur ledéveloppement de l'industrie europé enne.

Zusammenfassung

Dieser ist der erste einer vorgeschlagenen Reihevon drei Bä ndern, die ü ber sechs Ausgrabungenzwischen 1967 und 1985 in Droitwich berichten.Die Stadt war Zentrum fü r die Salzherstellung ingroßem Masse von der Eisenzeit bis zu frü h indiesem Jahrhundert. Diese Industrie wurde auf dieaußerordentlich reinen und starken Salzwasser-quellen gegrü ndet, die im Stadtgebiet ganznatürlich vorkamen.

Dieser Band beginnt mit einer allgemeinenEinle i tung , d ie e in ige der geo log ischen,technologischen und wirtschaftlichen Hinsichtebetrachtet.

Das wichtigste Anzeichen von Salzherstellungvon diesen Ausgrabungen kommt von der spä tenEisenzeit. Es besteht aus großen mit Lehmausgekleideten und von Stangen bekleidetenBassins. Diese Bassins wurden such mit Herdenund groß en Quantitä ten <<Briquetage>> benutzt. DieBassins wurden wahrscheinlich meistens für dasLagern von Salzwasser benutzt. Die Größ e und dieAnordnung dieser Strukturen deuten auf eine gutorganisierte und große Industrie hin. Das Wort<<Briquetage>> bedeutet hier eine große sandige oderorganische Tö pfererde, fast immer für Behä lterbenutzt, worin Salzkristalle wahrscheinlichabgetrocknet wurden. Ein hoher Grundwasser-Spiegel hat geholfen, eine Menge holzerner

Werkzeuge in den Bassins in gutem Zustand zuerhalten. Diese Werkzeuge wurden suchwahrscheinlich für die Salzherstellung benutzt.

Am Old Bowling Green IAlten Rasen zumBowlingspiel] gibt es einige Spuren, daß dieseBassins bis zur Frührömerzeit benutzt wurden,aber fü r wie lange ist noch unklar. Nachdem dieseSalzherstellungsstrukturen nicht mehr gebrauchtwurden, wurde das Leben im Gebiet von FriarStreet häuslicher. Industrielle Aktivität am OldBowling Green fuhr im dritten oder viertenJahrhundert fort. Die Art dieser Industrie warnicht beweiskrä ftig zu entscheiden, aber dieUrsalzherstellung oder die Verarbeitung vonTierprodukte als zweiter Vorgang sind ebensowahrscheinlich.

Die Nachrö merstufen am Old Bowling Greenstatteten nicht viel nützliche Aktivitätsanzeichenaus. In Friar Street jedoch wurden die spä terenAblagerungen besser erhalten. Nach einer erstenStufe von landwirtschaftlichen Tätigkeit nahm dasGebiet eine industrielle Natur an (späterSachse-normannisch), die vielleicht etwas mit demLohgerben oder dem Hornwerken zu tun hatte.Friar Street selbst mag wohl in dieser Zeit existierthaben. Vom zwölften Jahrhundert folgte eineziemlich komplizierte Entwicklung von häuslichenEinfriedigungen und Gebäude.

xii

Die Berichte über Töpferwaren und anderekeramische Mater ia l ien s ind d ie erstenbeträ chtlichen veröffertlichten Berichte über dieseGegend, und sie fassen eine fast ununterbrocheneReihenfolge urn, von der späten Eisenzeit bis zumspäten Mittelalter. Viele der in anderenSpezialistberichten beschriebenen Gegenstände(Holz, Blei, Einschreibungen usw) sind einzig, undsind vielleicht direkt mit der Salzindustrieverbunden. Unglücklicherweise ist es oftunmö glich, diese Verbindung mit irgendeinerSicherheit festzustellen.

Wä hrend der abschließenden allgemeinenDiskussion werden zwei Themen untersucht: die

Salzherstellung von der Eisenzeit und derRömerzeit, und die Entwicklung von derSachsestadt und der Mittelalterlichestadt. Für diehistorische Periode wird eine Diskussion derAusgrabungen mit einem Abriß der Beweisstü ckeund der Topographie verbunden. Diese Themenstellen die größten Aspekte von zwei Ausgrabungenam Old Bowling Green und in Friar Street dar.

Die Verknü pfung eines ursprünglichen indus-triellen Hitfsmittels, das über viele Jahrhunderteausgenutzt wurde, und gut erhaltenearchäologische Ablagerungen statten Droitwich mitbeträchtlichen Forschungsmöglichkeiten aus, aufdie Entwicklung von europaischer Industrie.

Acknowledgements

The projects reported in this volume weresupported by the Department of the Environment,Droitwich Town Council, Hereford and WorcesterCounty Counci l , Histor ic Bui ld ings andMonuments Commission for England, ManpowerServices Commission and Wychavon DistrictCouncil.

Anne Crone would like to thank Jennifer Hillam(Department of Archaeology and PrehistoryUniversity of Sheffield), the staff of the PhysicsDepartment, Worcester Technical College, and thestaff of the County Analyst's Department (Herefordand Worcester County Council).

Jennifer Hillam is grateful to Ruth Morgan forthe original work on the Friar Street timbers andfor help in preparing the report, and to theDepartment of the Environment for financing thework.

Alan Hunt would like to thank Philip Barker,Clifford Denham, Tony Fleming, James Greig, TonyHartshorne, Justin Hughes, Elaine Morris, PhilipRahtz, Geoffrey Showell, Ian Walker, Hereford andWorcester Fire Service, and all the contributors fortheir assistance at Friar Street. James Bondinitiated the original survey of towns inWorcestershire which was the main catalyst of allsubsequent work in Droitwich.

Derek Hurst gratefully acknowledges theparticular assistance of the following in thepreparation the Friar Street pottery report: CCane, J G Hurst, H Leech, M Mellor, J Rutter, Dr DP S Peacock (for confirmation of the amphoraefabric identifications), and D Walker (WorcesterTechnical College). Especial thanks are also due tothe Bibliographical Section of the LibrariesDepartment (Hereford and Worcester CountyCouncil) for their indispensable service insupplying many and diverse publications.

Michael Nellist gratefully acknowledges theassistance of Dr E Corbett (Department of Oral

Pathology, Dental School), Mr T F Spence(Department of Anatomy, Medical School), Mrs SWaring (Photographic Unit, Department of OralPathology, Dental School), all of the University ofBirmingham, and Dr D KM Toye and Miss D Kelly(Department of Oral Surgery and Oral Medicine),of the Dental Hospital, Birmingham.

Helen Rees wishes to acknowledge with gratitudethe help and advice concerning all aspects of thepost-excavation work given by A Anderson, DBarker, P Booth, B Dickinson, C Goudge, KHartley, M Hassall, H Howard, J Keeley, D FMackreth, E Morris, J R Perrin, J Price, the late HRussell, J Sawle, R Symonds, J Timby, R Tomber, AVince, Dr G Webster, Dr D Williams, and Dr C JYoung. P Hefford managed the finds shed withefficiency and dispatch. A Crone, C Hunt, WRiddick, R Styles, B Willoughby, and N Wood drewthe pottery. C Hunt prepared the illustrations andJ D Hurst suggested many changes to the originaltext to make it compatible with the revisedphasing.

Simon Woodiwiss wishes to thank Alan Hunt forinitiating the current programme of archaeologicalwork in Droitwich, which was subsequently guidedby the members of the Droitwich ArchaeologyCommittee, especially former chairmen, LawrenceBarfield, Geoffrey Showell and Anne Walton. Overthe years many officers of the constituent localauthorities have offered and given assistance to thetwo excavations reported here, especially ColinGarrett, Tony Hartshorne, Ken Jennings, andRichard Taylor. Successive Inspectors of AncientMonuments, namely Tony Fleming, MichaelParker-Pearson, and Anthony Streeten have givenvaluable assistance and advice over the years,

All the contributors to this volume have showngreat understanding of the difficulties and delaysin the publication programme. David Freezersupervised the excavation at Friar Street. The

xiii

preliminary work by John. Sawle and HeatherJames on the excavated data from the Old BowlingGreen contributed greatly to the stratigraphicanalysis. Conservation of finds was carried out byMartin Read (HBMCE's regional conservator) ofBristol City Museum and Joanna Williams andAlexander Trone of Birmingham City Museum;unless otherwise acknowledged. Hilary Whitecommented on the inlaid floor tile from the OldBowling Green. David Jordan of the AncientMonuments Laboratory kindly calibrated theradiocarbon dates. Derek Hurst is especially to bethanked for his patient criticism and advice.

Thanks are also due to the CBA's referee, to JulieGardiner, Christine Pietrowski, and Lisa Pickeringand to the Ancient Monuments Laboratory for theirmuch needed observations. Jeremy Owen kindlytranslated the summaries. Elspeth Entwhistle,Amanda Woodiwiss and Christine Pitt typed themanuscripts. Adrian Tindall found time at a verybusy period to correct the worst excesses ofgrammar and punctuation.

My work on this volume is dedicated to thememory of my father who brought back manytreasures from his travels; and to my mother forintroducing me to archaeology.

Abbreviations

SR Specialist referenceS StructureP PhaseHWCM Hereford and Worcester County Monu-

ment, the succeeding number refers to theCounty Sites and Monuments Recordprimary reference number

HWRO Hereford and Worcester Records Office,the succeeding number refers to theaccession number

Numbers in parentheses, without prefixes, refer tocontext numbers.

Project staff

R Armitage, D Barratt, A Bell, D Berwick, LBourne, D Britton, N Cafferty, S Clarke, M Coker, AColgan, A Crone, R Croton, F Dancyger, G Dipple,D Dyson, M Edwards, D Eveson, D Freezer, NGreen, V Groves, D Hales, D Halls, D Harris, PHefford, P Hillier, J Hughes, A Hunt, C Hunt, RHunt, J D Hurst, H James, R Kemp, P Kurn, MLind, H Lubin, A Marling, T Mason, M Meadows, C

Moor, H Mytum, R Oram, C Pitt, W Pitt, A Price, EA Price, R Price, N Pritchard, H Rees, W Riddick, PRose, H Russell, J Sawle, M Schofield, M Shaw, PSimkins, A Simmons, E Smith, F Smith, DStaniforth, M Stevens, R Styles, D Taylor, AThomas, L Utchinson, M Wallace, A Ward, J Ward,K White, M Williams, B Willoughby, D Windell, NWood, S Woodiwiss and G Wright.

xiv

1

1 Introduction Simon Woodiwiss

This is the first of a proposed three volume series,reporting on six excavations carried out inDroitwich between 1967 and 1985. All were partlyfunded by the Department of the Environment andlatterly by the Historic Buildings and MonumentsCommission for England. The excavations relate invarying degrees to different aspects and periods ofthe town's development, of which Iron Age andRoman salt production and the medieval town aredealt with here. The second volume will report onexcavations at the Roman fort (Dodderhill, HWCM603), villa (Bays Meadow, HWCM 678) andsettlement (Hanbury Street, HWCM 681), and thefinal volume will report on a continuous series ofdeposits relating to salt production from the IronAge to the post-medieval periods (Upwich, HWCM4575).

Geology and topography

The town of Droitwich, in the County of Herefordand Worcester, is located on the River Salwarpe, atributary of the Severn, amongst thegently-undulating topography of the EnglishMidlands (Fig 1). Droitwich is situated in themiddle of a band of Mercian Mudstone (KeuperMarl and Sandstone) extending from Cumberlandand County Durham in the north to Devon in the

the north-east of Droitwich) and dated to 42,000years bp, were mildly brackish, which wasattributed to the saliferous beds of the area (Coopeet al 1961, 398).

Both of the excavated areas reported in thisvolume were sited on Mercian Mudstone (Fig 2).The bedrock and its heavy clay soil would give poornatural drainage and artificial drainage is to beexpected. Friar Street (HWCM 605) lies just to thenorth of a small area of gravel, the third Severnterrace. The gravel would alleviate the otherwiseheavy clays of the area and may have beenpreferentially selected for cultivation. The OldBowling Green (HWCM 600) lay to the west of aformer meander of the river Salwarpe. The riverwas probably diverted to its present course in thisarea in the mid 19th century, when the DroitwichJunction Canal was constructed. The meander isshown on a 17th century map (reproduced inCrickmore 1984b, f ig 5 ) and presumablydetermined the course of the ecclesiastical parishboundary between St Andrew's and St Augustine's.The course of the meander, reconstructed from theparish boundary, is shown in Figure 2. It is possiblethat the meander existed from the Roman period orearlier, though not necessarily following preciselythe same course.

when the area was covered by a shallow sea

south. Within the marl are saliferous beds

(Northolt and Highley 1973, 4). Although the

deposited during the Triassic period, probably

saliferous beds are not continuous from north tosouth, Poole and Williams (1981, 3) believe theWorcestershire salt field to be a marginal extensionof the main Cheshire field. The full extent of thelocal saliferous beds is imperfectly known and theyare expected to extend over a larger area than sofar established. For example, it is thought that thefield extends at a greater depth in the Worcesterbasin towards Evesham (Northolt and Highley1973, 7). A general account of the local geology isgiven in Mitchell et al (1961).

Under present climatic conditions salt will notoutcrop, and at Droitwich the saliferous beds arecovered by breccias formed by collapse of thesurrounding rock (Poole and Williams 1981, 4).Water percolating through the beds takes up salt insolution until it forms saturated brine and is forcedto the surface under artesian pressure. Theresulting springs are today restricted to the lowriver flood plain in the area of the town. This maybe expected to have been the main location of brinesprings in the past, though salt derived from thesaliferous beds has possibly had localised effectsoutside this area. For example, the pools identifiedat Upton Warren (HWCM 4151, five kilometres to

productionThe 'open pan' method of salt

In order to produce salt crystals from brine, thewater content must be evaporated. This may beachieved either by solar evaporation or throughdirect heating. There is no mention in earlydocuments of solar evaporation being used inDroitwich, and the equipment and featuresment ioned ( furnaces and pans) indicateevaporation by direct heating. Solar evaporationcannot be totally discounted when considering thefunction of archaeological features and artefacts.However, the inland situation of Droitwich (awayfrom sea breezes), and the prevailing climate,suggest that direct heating would have been themost feasible method. Throughout the historicalperiod, until the adoption of the 'vacuum’ method inthe 20th century, the 'open pan’ method, requiring asimple technology, was used. The method itselfchanged little throughout its period of use,variation occurring in such details as the increasein boiling pan size, with the advent of iron pans inthe 17th century (Berry 1975, 78). Perhaps the bestcontemporary account of the method is thatsubmitted by Thomas Rastell in 1678 to the RoyalSociety. The manual by Georgius Agricola onEuropean industries of the 16th century (Hoover

2

Figure 1 Location of excavations

3

Figure 2 Geology, showing former course of River Salwarpe and western extent of Keuper Saliferous Beds

and Hoover 1912) also has useful illustrations anddescriptions of the salt making process.

The process and terminology of salt production bythe open pan method is summarised in Figure 3,together with the various energy inputs required.Both the processes and inputs change in detailthroughout the development of the salt industry inBroitwich.

presumably originally extracted using buckets orother containers. Later, pumps were used, anddocuments of the late 16th century mentionreciprocating pumps in the brine pits (Berry 1975,77). The motive power for extraction by the pumpsis uncertain, however the Salwarpe may haveprovided one source.

It would be necessary to settle any siltscontaminating the brine prior to boiling, especiallywhere the brine had been taken from poorly-lined,or unlined pits, Both Rastel (1678,1062) andAgricola (Hoover and Hoover 1912, 548) mention

Extraction was from natural brine springs,perhaps within pits, which may have been lined tocontrol contamination by fresh ground water andmaterial from the sides of the pit. Brine was

4

INPUTS PROCESSES

Mechanical power > Extraction.

Gravity > Settlement

Heat/ Precipitant > B o i l i n g

Gravity > D r a i n i n g

Heat > D r y i n g

Mechanical power > Export

Figure 3 The process of salt production by the'open pan' method

the use of 'tuns' or tubs close to the furnaces, inwhich brine was stored.

Salt houses, furnaces and wood for fuel arementioned in a number of Saxon documents (egFinberg 1972, nos 197, 206 and 282). Additionally,lead pans are mentioned in the Domesday Book(Thorn and Thorn 1982, nos 1, la:5). Similarstructures and implements are described by Rastel(1678, 1062) in the late 17th century, though coalwas then a recently adopted fuel. Changes in scaleof the furnaces and pans came as a result of anumber of developments, such as the use of coal,the breaking of the borough's monopoly on saltproduction, an increase in demand and theadoption of iron pans (Berry 1975, 78). To producedifferent sized salt crystals the heating of the panswas controlled, and Rastel (1678, 1063) mentionsthe use of resin to aid the formation of fine crystals.

The crystals were removed from the pan beforethe water had completely evaporated. It issuspected that the presence of liquid had a coolingeffect on the lead pans used in the medieval andearlier periods, since lead was a metal whose lowmelting point may otherwise have been reached(John Price pers comm). The form and porousnature of the coarse ceramic vessels, in a fabricknown as briquetage, indicates that drying andmoulding of salt crystals was their probablefunction (Rees 1986, 51). Conical wicker basketswere used for this purpose in the medieval period(Berry 1975, 78). Agricola (Hoover and Hoover1912, 552-3) and Rastel (1678, 1062) describe indetail the implements used in the production ofsalt. The crystals may have been dried naturally inthe open air or artificially, perhaps by heat ductedfrom the boiling furnaces. The usual model for a19th or 20th century open pan salt works had thestoking area, furnaces and pan at one end of thebuilding and a drying room, heated through ducts

from the furnaces, at the other. Having been dried,the crystals would have adhered to each other andcould be turned out of their containers as cakeswhich could be easily handled.

The economic potential of Droitwich

The indirect exploitation of Droitwich salt mayextend as far back as those periods when huntingand gathering was the main mode of subsistence.Hunters may have been drawn to the area by thepresence of herbivores attracted by salt as amineral supplement (John Price pers comm).Though direct ethnographic parallels have not beenfound, a modern parallel may be seen in theprovision of 'salt licks' for farm animals. Nomadsin Niger collect salt specifically for animalconsumption (Gouletquer 1975, 47). The earliestdates for the production of salt lie in the 6th and5th centuries BC when briquetage, petrologicallyidentified as coming from Droitwich and thought tobe used in the production of salt, is found onseveral sites distant from the source (Morris 1985,346).

It appears that in a normal diet man has nophysiological need for salt as a mineral supplement(Carter 1975, 13) and demand is determined by itsuse as a condiment, as well as for food processing(salting of meat) and other industrial processes (egtanning, soap making, chemicals, etc). Its use as acondiment serves as a reminder that theexploitation of salt at Droitwich was not drivensolely by economic forces, but that social factorswould also have had an important role. Its use ascurrency or as an exchange standard, for examplein the payment of the early Roman army and morerecently in parts of Africa (Alexander 1975, 82),demonstrates the potential complexity of its socialand economic functions.

Droitwich brine is saturated (or nearly so) atabout 25% sodium chloride, and as such willproduce about 0.294kg (0.651b) of salt from 11(0.22gal) of brine. By way of comparison, the sameamount of sea water will produce only about0.031kg (0.071b). The economic advantages areimmediately apparent. Contamination from freshground water must be taken into account and thiswould have affected the strength of the brine,especially when drawn from natural springs orfrom shallow, poorly-lined pits. Droitwich brine alsocontains very few impurities and does not requirefurther refinement.

Another major resource necessary for theproduction of salt by the open pan method is timberfor fuel. This must have been plentiful in the area,at least initially. The clays of the English Midlandsare traditionally regarded as having been heavilyforested throughout the prehistoric period (Evans1975, 130). The scale of salt production appears tohave been fairly stable and Berry (1975, 78) hascalculated that it rose by only a third from the late11th to the mid 17th century. Subsequently, with

the importation of coal as fuel, production almost doubled in around 50 years. The importance of fuel is indicated by Saxon and later documents. These, when mentioning the ownership of salt and salt lTIaking property in Droitwich, may include provision for access to, or supply of, fuel (eg Finberg 1972, no 282). Shortages of timber for fuel are noted in the mid 16th century (Berry 1975, 78) and lTIay be expected to have occurred in earlier periods (Hooke 1981, 149). Maintenance of a continuous and adequate supply of timber would have required a high degree of woodland management.

Before the construction of the canal reduced the flow of water, the Salwarpe was navigable (Whitley 1923, 1) between Droitwich and the Severn, eight

kilometres distant. The topography would have presented no physical impediments to easy travel in any direction. The present system of major roads serving Droitwich is based on the Roman roads, to Worcester in the south, Wall via Metchley in the north and Alcester in the east. In addition a road connected Droitwich to the fort at Greensforge and there is slight evidence of a road leading westward from the town (HWCM 7510). Whitley (1923), Houghton (1929-30) and more recently Hooke (1981, 306), have demonstrated that Droitwich was the focus of a large number of routes in the Saxon and medieval periods.

Indirect evidence from several sources has been used to indicate the distribution of Droitwich salt in various periods. This includes the distribution of briquetage from Iron Age sites (Morris 1985), the mention of manors associated with salt from Droitwich (Darby and Terrett 1954, 251-6), and the saltways mentioned above. As with any indicators ot distribution, care must be taken with in terpretation, as the biases acting on the evidence m ay obscure the real distribution. This is especially so for salt, which itself leaves no physical trace. It n"lust always be remembered that the distribution ot briquetage and Domesday manors need not d irectly reflect the distribution of Droitwich salt. Perhaps the most dramatic indication of Droitwich's economic importance was its rating at £ 100 for the annual fee-farm in the early 13th ce ntury. This is the same as that levied on N ewcastle-upon-Tyne, a major European port, and far exceeds that of Worcester (rated at £30) the main town of the county (Berry 1957,40).

Droitwich is fairly central to the land mass of Britain. Figure 4 shows all the known salt sources and the areas around them nearest to each source. The figure indicates the potential hinterland for each source, all the other variables affecting distribution being equal. All the other variables, of course, constantly vary through time, as well as the in dividual circumstances of each source. The strength of brine, availability of fuel, demand, ease ot transport, political constraints and existence of competing sources are a few of the variables that must be considered in examining the development ot the salt industry.

Previous work and research objectives

5

Thomas Habington, in the 17th century, was the first to have considered the antiquity of Droitwich, 'These sprynge(s) of salt, havinge byn I thinke heere from the tyme of N oe's flud' (Amphlett 1895, 466). He also demonstrated from Saxon documents that salt production existed at this period (ibid, 469). Nash used Habington's documentary references extensively but also noted the possibility of the town being of Roman date (N ash 1781-2, 302). Jabez Allies discussed various finds of Roman date (coins, pottery, mosaics, etc), confirming archaeologically N ash's speculation and himself speculating that salt was produced in pre-Roman times (Allies 1852, 102). He also noted two important sites, one of Roman date at Bays Meadow (HWCM 678), the other a medieval tile kiln at Witton (ibid, 102 . ; HWCM 660). The former, a villa, was later extensively excavated (Hodgkinson 1925-6; Gelling 1957). Later excavation in the town was confined to small-scale trenches establishing the presence of an early Roman fort at Dodderhill (St Joseph 1938; Whitehouse 1962.; H WCM 603). Between 1967 and 1977 excavation at Bays Meadow continued as part of the training programme for the Department of Ancient History and Archaeology, Birmingham University.

In the mid 1960s Droitwich was designated a development area and from this time the town has expanded continuously. The main types of developmen t were in housing construction surrounding the town centre and the enlargement of existing facilities (shopping centres, service buildings, recreation amenities) in the centre. Knowledge of the town's archaeology was largely confined to sites of Roman date outside the town centre. The potential existence of a major ancient industrial centre was only suggested by the wealth of documentary evidence and had yet to be archaeologically demonstrated.

In 1972 Alan Hunt, on behalf of Worcestershire County Museum, carried out a preliminary survey of the archaeological potential and implications of development in the smaller historic towns of Worcestershire. Of these towns, Droitwich appeared to have the greatest potential significance and was accordingly given the highest priority in the planning and funding of rescue excavations (AI an Hunt pers comm). Rescue excavation as an initial response to development at Friar Street (HWCM 605) demonstrated the existence of deeply-stratified archaeological deposits dating from the Iron Age and probably relating to the production of salt. In response to the threat posed by widespread development the post of Droitwich Archaeological Officer was established in 1976. At the same time the Droitwich Archaeology Committee was formed to advise on the coordination of resources.

6

[) Isle of

Man

... _----- Teeslde

_ ) Preesall ,..

( \ \ \ \ '-

..... , ....... _-,.-,,/

I' " / \ / \ �/ Cheshire- \\ / Shropshire .)

,,/ BaSIn __ -- ...... , ;' .- - I / /- I

,,I' // : , , • Staffordshire \ : I \ \ I \ \ ,}-----------\ , ,..,,/ , \' \ '- , Worcestershtre \ " I '... I � I ... I

I -------_/

o

_ SaltField

____ Boundary equidIstant from salt sources

- -100 200km

Figure 4 Known salt sources (after Northolt and Highley 1973, fig 2) and their potential hinterlands

Apart from the known archaeological sites of Bays Meadow, Dodderhill and Friar Street, three other areas were identified as potentially having deposits relating to industrial (Old Bowling Green and Vines Park) and domestic (Hanbury StreetJQueen Street) aspects of the town's topography (Freezer 1977, 17).

Note on the stratigraphic analysis

A full description of the method of stratigraphic analysis is given elsewhere (1:B3-8). As roughly a decade had passed since the excavations were carried out the field record was not suited to the rigorous methods of analysis employed on more recent excavations. The method of stratigraphic analysis adopted here reflects the nature of the field record. The field record was first subjected to a process of rationalisation to make it internally consistent for the purposes of analysis. The term 'structure' is primarily used as a generic term for groups of related contexts and does not necessarily imply the presence of buildings. In addition, elements of 'construction', 'use' and 'disuse' of each

7

structure were identified where possible. This aided the organisation of the phase descriptions, and the qualification of information derived from finds, especially in indicating residuality.

The publication and archive conform as far as . possible to the recommendations of the Frere

Committee (DoE 1975) and Cunliffe Committee (DoE 1982). The printed volume contains discussion of the results of analysis where this has a direct bearing on the major aspects of the excavations, or is of importance to specialists. The section of the publication contained on fiche presents more detailed description and discussion of the results. The archive contains all supporting data on which the above reports are based. Th� full archive (including finds) is held by the Archaeology Section, Hereford and Worcester County Council. A copy of the archive is also held by the National Archaeological Record.

'Phase 6' was removed at a late stage in the analysis which explains its absence in the following. 'Pers comm' references to Hurst, Roe, Tomber, Wills, Williams, Ford and Rees refer to a report on excavations at Beckford, Worcestershire, which is in preparation.

5

the importation of coal as fuel, production almostdoubled in around 50 years. The importance of fuelis indicated by Saxon and later documents. These,when mentioning the ownership of salt and saltmaking property in Droitwich, may includeprovision for access to, or supply of, fuel (eg Finberg1972, no 282). Shortages of timber for fuel arenoted in the mid 16th century (Berry 1975, 78) andmay be expected to have occurred in earlier periods(Hooke 1981, 149). Maintenance of a continuousand adequate supply of timber would have requireda high degree of woodland management.

Before the construction of the canal reduced theflow of water, the Salwarpe was navigable (Whitley1923, 1) between Droitwich and the Severn, eightkilometres distant. The topography would havepresented no physical impediments to easy travelin any direction. The present system of major roadsserving Droitwich is based on the Roman roads, toWorcester in the south, Wall via Metchley in thenorth and Alcester in the east. In addition a road a v i l la was later extens ive ly excavatedconnected Droitwich to the fort at Greensforge andthere is slight evidence of a road leading westwardfrom the town (HWCM 7510). Whitley (1923),Houghton (1929-30) and more recently Hooke(1981, 306), have demonstrated that Droitwich wasthe focus of a large number of routes in the Saxonand medieval periods.

Indirect evidence from several sources has beenused to indicate the distribution of Droitwich saltin various periods. This includes the distribution ofbriquetage from Iron Age sites (Morris 1985), themention of manors associated with salt fromDroitwich (Darby and Terrett 1954, 251-6), and thesaltways mentioned above. As with any indicatorsof distribution, care must be taken withinterpretation, as the biases acting on the evidencemay obscure the real distribution. This is especiallyso for salt, which itself leaves no physical trace. Itmust always be remembered that the distributionof briquetage and Domesday manors need notdirectly reflect the distribution of Droitwich salt.Perhaps the most dramatic indication ofDroitwich's economic importance was its rating at£100 for the annual fee-farm in the early 13thcentury. This is the same as that levied onNewcastle-upon-Tyne, a major European port, andfar exceeds that of Worcester (rated at £30) themain town of the county (Berry 1957, 40).

Droitwich is fairly central to the land mass ofBritain. Figure 4 shows all the known salt sourcesand the areas around them nearest to each source.The figure indicates the potential hinterland foreach source, all the other variables affectingdistribution being equal. All the other variables, ofcourse, constantly vary through time, as well as theindividual circumstances of each source. Thestrength of brine, availability of fuel, demand, easeof transport, political constraints and existence ofcompeting sources are a few of the variables thatmust be considered in examining the developmentof the salt industry.

Previous work and researchobjectives

Thomas Habington, in the 17th century, was thefirst to have considered the antiquity of Droitwich,'These sprynge(s) of salt, havinge byn I thinkeheere from the tyme of Noe's flud’ (Amphlett 1895,466). He also demonstrated from Saxon documentsthat salt production existed at this period (ibid,469). Nash used Habington's documentaryreferences extensively but also noted the possibilityof the town being of Roman date (Nash 1781-2,302). Jabez Allies discussed various finds of Romandate (coins, pottery, mosaics, etc), confirmingarchaeologically Nash's speculation and himselfspeculating that salt was produced in pre-Romantimes (Allies 1852, 102). He also noted twoimportant sites, one of Roman date at BaysMeadow (HWCM 678), the other a medieval tilekiln at Witton (ibid, 102.; HWCM 660). The former,

(Hodgkinson 1925-6; Gelling 1957). Laterexcavation in the town was confined to small-scaletrenches establishing the presence of an earlyRoman fort at Dodderhill (St Joseph 1938;Whitehouse 1962.; HWCM 603). Between 1967 and1977 excavation at Bays Meadow continued as partof the training programme for the Department ofAncient History and Archaeology, BirminghamUniversity.

In the mid 1960s Droitwich was designated adevelopment area and from this time the town hasexpanded continuously. The main types ofdevelopment were in housing constructionsurrounding the town centre and the enlargementof existing facilities (shopping centres, servicebuildings, recreation amenities) in the centre.Knowledge of the town's archaeology was largelyconfined to sites of Roman date outside the towncentre. The potential existence of a major ancientindustrial centre was only suggested by the wealthof documentary evidence and had yet to bearchaeologically demonstrated.

In 1972 Alan Hunt, on behalf of WorcestershireCounty Museum, carried out a preliminary surveyof the archaeological potential and implications ofdevelopment in the smaller historic towns ofWorcestershire. Of these towns, Droitwichappeared to have the greatest potential significanceand was accordingly given the highest priority inthe planning and funding of rescue excavations(Alan Hunt pers comm). Rescue excavation as aninitial response to development at Friar Street(HWCM 605) demonstrated the existence ofdeeply-stratified archaeological deposits datingfrom the Iron Age and probably relating to theproduction of salt. In response to the threat posedby widespread development the post of DroitwichArchaeological Officer was established in 1976. Atthe same time the Droitwich ArchaeologyCommittee was formed to advise on thecoordination of resources.

6

Figure 4 Known salt sources (after Northolt and Highley 1973, fig 2) and their potential hinterlands

7

Apart from the known archaeological sites ofBays Meadow, Dodderhill and Friar Street, threeother areas were identified as potentially havingdeposit relating to industrial (Old Bowling Greenand Vines Park) and domestic (HanburyStreet/Queen Street) aspects of the town'stopography (Freezer 1977, 17).

Note on the stratigraphic analysis

A full description of the method of stratigraphicanalysis is given elsewhere (l:B3-8). As roughly adecade had passed since the excavations werecarried out the field record was not suited to therigorous methods of analysis employed on morerecent excavations. The method of stratigraphicanalysis adopted here reflects the nature of thefield record. The field record was first subjected to aprocess of rationalisation to make it internallyconsistent for the purposes of analysis. The term'structure’ is primarily used as a generic term forgroups of related contexts and does not necessarilyimply the presence of buildings. In addition,elements of 'construction 'use' and 'disuse’ of each

structure were identified where possible. Thisaided the organisation of the phase descriptions,and the qualification of information derived fromfinds, especially in indicating residuality.

The publication and archive conform as far aspossible to the recommendations of the FrereCommittee (DoE 1975) and Cunliffe Committee(DoE 1982). The printed volume containsdiscussion of the results of analysis where this hasa direct bearing on the major aspects of theexcavations, or is of importance to specialists. Thesection of the publication contained on fichepresents more detailed description and discussionof the results. The archive contains all supportingdata on which the above reports are based. The fullarchive (including finds) is held by the ArchaeologySection, Hereford and Worcester County Council. Acopy of the archive is also held by the NationalArchaeological Record.

'Phase 6' was removed at a late stage in theanalysis which explains its absence in thefollowing. 'Pers comm' references to Hurst, Roe,Tomber, Wills, Williams, Ford and Rees refer to areport on excavations at Beckford, Worcester-shire,which is in preparation.

8

2 Old Bowling Green (HWCM 600), the

excavation Simon Woodiwiss

The excavation was located at National GridReference SO 8992 6350 (Fig 1) and an initialseason of work was carried out in the autumn of1977. A second season commenced in March 1978and continued until November 1978, and a thirdseason commenced in January 1979 and continueduntil May 1979. The first season's work wasdirected by David Freezer, Droitwich Archae-ological Officer, and the second and third seasonsby John Sawle, Archaeological Excavations Officer.

In 1975/6 recording of a sewer pipe trench alongthe west side of the Bowling Green indicated theexistence of substantial archaeological deposits.These deposits contained well-preserved wood, inwaterlogged conditions, and fragments ofbriquetage. Similar deposits had already beenexcavated at Friar Street (HWCM 605) and werethought to be associated with the production of salt(Hunt 1975, 40).

Two development proposals threatened to disturbthese deposits: the construction of the Inner ReliefRoad (now the Saltway) and a sewer on thenorthern part of the excavated area, and aproposed Salvation Army hall to the south. Theground conditions encountered during theexcavation subsequently led to the latter proposalbeing withdrawn. This part of the site is nowoccupied by a car park belonging to WychavonDistrict Council. Due to difficult ground conditions(this area of the Salwarpe Valley has a high watertable of 27 to 28m OD and is liable to subsidence),major ground disturbance is usually necessary toestablish firm foundations.

The high water table and heavy clay soil derivedfrom the marl bedrock made working conditionsdifficult. Resources did not permit overall artificiallowering of the local water table, water beingremoved from the site by pump or by hand. Asignificant proportion of the excavation was carriedout during the wetter seasons of the year.

The following discussion of each phase is asummary of the results of the stratigraphicanalysis, with the main conclusions of the otherspecialist reports added where appropriate. Itincludes only those structures which have afunctional significance or are major components ofthe site. This naturally leads to accentuation of theconstructional and use elements at the expense ofthose associated with disuse. A morecomprehensive description of each phase is given infiche (l:B9-El), as are detailed drawings of themajor structures (4:Al-E 12).

Phase 1: Possible late Bronze Age toIron Age

Buried soils (S61, S180, S212 and S215)The components of this phase were characterisedby layers of dark soil, often with pebbles, overlyingnatural marl. Briquetage and charcoal wererecorded as minor components and charcoal fromone layer (S180) provided a radiocarbon date of1045-838 Cal BC (Table M17, l:E10).

The dark coloration, pebbles and clay componentof the layers of this phase support theirinterpretation as buried soils, The clay would havebeen derived from the underlying rock (MercianMudstone) and the coloration from a high humiccontent. The radiocarbon date was from residualmaterial, indicated by the presence of Iron Agepottery, but suggests activity on the site during thelate Bronze Age.

DiscussionThe single sherd of earlier prehistoric pottery fromthis phase, the three residual sherds from laterphases (Chapter 3), and the residual flints fromphase 2 contexts (Chapter 9) complement theradiocarbon date in implying earlier activity on ornear the site. As only a small proportion of the sitewas excavated to this level there is no evidence toindicate the nature and extent of this earlieractivity.

Phase 2: Late Iron Age (Fig 5)This phase was characterised by layers withbriquetage as a minor component, interspersedwith the construction and disuse of small pits andpostholes. Only a few structures however hadenough constructional detail to allow conclusivediscussion of their function. All the structures ofthis phase were located in the eastern half of theexcavation.

A brine tank and pit (S2 and S14)Structure 2 was cut into the clay soil of phase 1 andthe underlying Mercian Mudstone. It consisted of arectangular pit (3.70 x 1.20 x 0.40m) with slopingsides and a wattle lining. Structure 14 was a muchsmaller circular pit, with a partially burnt claylining.

9

Figure 5 Phase 2 features

The characteristics of structures 2, cutting intothe poorly permeable Mercian Mudstone, and 14,with its clay lining, indicate the storage of liquid.The former was however considerably larger thanthe latter, indicating a different function for each.

In considering structure 2, the function of similarstructures from other phases (S1, S3, S4, S5, S6,S7, S8, S9 and S10) may also be discussed. Thebases of these structures were generally cut intomarl, their more permeable sides lined with clayand revetted with wattle or stakes to form a deeptank. A tank with steep sides facilitates the fillingof vessels such as buckets with liquid, as these areable to be fully immersed. The construction of thetank therefore indicates that ease of access wasimportant to their proper function.

The suggestion that the tanks were for the directcollection of brine from the ground may bedismissed, as their base of Mercian Mudstone is notvery permeable and showed no sign that springshad been present. That the tanks were used in theevaporation of the water content of brine by solarheating may be similarly dismissed. Features usedin solar evaporation may be expected to be shallowwith a large surface area, so that saturation andprecipitation of salt crystals would take place in theshortest possible time. The ratio of volume tosurface area of the tanks would be too great toallow efficient solar evaporation. The association ofsolar evaporation with similar, though unrevetted,clay lined pits from coastal salt production sites inEssex has also been dismissed (Rodwell 1979, 136).

10

Storage and settling would have been necessary ifthe source of brine were distant, if the brine held asubstantial amount of silt in suspension, or ifproduction methods required the close proximity ofbrine to another part of the salt making process (egboiling). The most likely place for contemporarysprings would be in the permeable g-ravels of thevalley bottom. Numerous springs in the gravelswere noted during a recent excavation at Upwich(HWCM 4575), just to the north-east of the OldBowling Green. Without adequate lining, brinederived from pits or springs would have had a highsilt content, impairing the final product andrequiring settling prior to boiling. The boiling ofbrine requires an easily accessible supply to top upthe pans. For instance, if the pans were allowed todry out during boiling and the salt adhered to thepan bottom, overheating and melting of the panwould result. The form and structural detailsindicate that the primary function of these tanks, ofthis and later phases, was the storage and/orsettling of brine, as suggested by Rees (1986, 51).

Possible hearth (S182)One poorly-defined pit (0.74 x 0.64m), part ofstructure 182, contained a fill almost entirelycomposed of charcoal which the excavatorsuggested could be in situ fuel residue from ahearth. In the absence of obvious alternatives (egdomestic structures) it seems safest to associatethis feature with the boiling of brine (see discussionof similar structures in phase 3, see below).

Layers of industrial waste (S71, S72, S81,S82, S87, S89, S131, S181 and S183)The layers of this phase characteristicallycontained briquetage. In only four of the 31 layersdid briquetage not form a component and six layerswere almost totally composed of briquetage. In viewof the interpretation of briquetage vessels as part ofthe salt production process (Rees 1986, 51), itwould seem likely that these layers were formedfrom waste during salt making, It was also notedduring excavation that these layers overlay verywet ground and this waste material may have beendeliberately deposited to produce a better workingsurface.

DiscussionWith the presence of more activity the range ofpottery fabrics and forms also increased slightly. Inexplanation Rees (Chapter 3) points to generaldevelopments in communication and increasingspecialiation in pottery in the later Iron Age, inaddition to the development of Droitwich as a saltproducing centre. This must however be viewedwith reference to the relatively small sample sizesof phases 1 and 3. The presence of two saddlequerns (Chapter 9), a bone needle (Chapter 17) andthe characteristic food debris of the animal bone

assemblage (Chapter 15) indicate that the area wasnot used exclusively for the production of salt.

Phase 3: Late Iron Age (Fig 6)

This phase was characterised by large structures oftwo different types. Eight very large clay-andstake-lined pits were used in conjunction withthree hearths.

Brine tanks (S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9and S10)Structures 3, 4, 5 and 6 formed a row and wereorientated in the same direction. Structure 3 hadtwo periods of reconstruction, the last one occurringin phase 4. Many of the original constructionelements had been removed by later reconstruction,with only the base of the elongated pit remaining. Aline of stakeholes ran along the southern side of thepit. The first reconstruction element consisted ofthe northern and eastern sides of a pit, of which theother sides had subsequently been removed.Neither the clay lining nor stake revetment,present in other similar structures, had survived.Structures 4 and 5 were partially destroyed bylater activity; both however had a stake revetment,though no clay lining was recorded for structure 5.A radiocarbon date of 358-91 Cal BC was obtainedfrom the stake revetment of structure 4 andanother of 101-72 Cal BC from wood found withinthe sandy clay fill of structure 5 (Table M17,1:E10). The latter at least is probably close to itsactual date of disuse, as unlike the other brinetanks, the primary fills did not contain Romanfinds. It may be that both were constructed muchearlier than the others, though structure 4 alsoappeared to continue in use into later phases.Structure 6 (Fig 7) was the most complete pit inthis alignment (4.62 x 2.10 x 1.40m) and had a claylining (c 0.20m thick) revetted by 58 stakes. Most ofthese stakes, which were shaped from planks withone end cut for driving into the ground, were placedwith their greatest width parallel to the sides of thepit. Several were however placed at right-angles tothis at intervals along the sides of the tank andwith similar stakes along the opposite side of thetank. A silt from behind the stake revetment mayhave accumulated during use of the structure. Adendrochronological terminus post quem of AD 19was obtained for the stake revetment (Table M16,l:E8).

The long axes of structures 7 and 8 were parallelto each other. These were the two largest of thistype of structure (5.50 x 2.74 x 1.00 and 6.95 x 3.44x 1.29m respectively). Both had a clay liningbetween 0.10 and 0.30m thick. Again, many of thestakes were shaped from planks. In structure 8 (Fig8), four pieces of wood were laid along the bottomedge of the stake revetment and were themselvesheld in place by stakes. The stakes of structure 7gave a radiocarbon date of 151 Cal BC-Cal AD 66

11


(M17, 1:E10) and a dendrochronological terminuspost quem of AD 25 (Table M16, l:E8) wasestablished for both structures.

Both structures 9 and 10 were partially obscuredby the limit of excavation but their long axes wereagain parallel. Each had a clay lining, partiallycollapsed, but no stakes were recorded for structure10. A dendrochronological terminus post quem ofAD 17 was obtained from the stakes of structure 9(Table M16, l:E8).

In all instances where the stake revetment hadsurvived the tops were decayed and impressions inthe clay lining existed to a higher level.

Though the sides were revetted with stakes, asopposed to wattle, the construction of structures 3,

4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 was essentially the same asfor structures 1 and 2. The arguments for their usein the storage and settling of brine can also applyhere, though more evidence is available. Crone(l:E4-5) argues from the dendrochronologicalevidence that most of these structures were ofcontemporary construction. These structures werecompletely excavated and the clay lining extendedonly over the more permeable sides of the pits,where these cut through archaeological deposits.The clay did not extend over the less permeableMercian Mudstone at the base of the pits. Theimpressions above the highest surviving level of thestakes indicate that they were originally muchlonger, possibly extending to the original ground

12

Figure 7 Brine tank (S6 construction)

Figure 8 Brine tank (S8 construction)

13

surface. The arrangement of some of the stakes ofstructure 6, with their greatest width at rightangles to the lining and with complementary stakeson the opposite side, suggests a facility for internaldivision. Only structure 6 had deposits that hadpossibly resulted from settling, a dark grey siltfrom behind the stakes revetting the clay sides. Allof these structures, except structure 3, whose finalreconstruction occurred in this phase, exhibitedonly one period of construction. The structureswould have contained very large quantities ofliquid, and estimates of the capacities have beenmade for the most complete examples: 6,9501 (S6),7,0001 (S7), 14,0001 (S8) and 5,3001 (S9). Structure8 was significantly larger and was estimated tohold twice as much as any of the others. If 11 (0.22gal) of brine produced 0.294kg (0.651b) of salt(Chapter 1) the largest and smallest tanks wouldhave contained enough brine for 4.116 tonnes (4.05ton) and 1.558 tonnes (1.53 ton) of salt respectively.These figures, though estimates, indicate thatproduction was on a large scale.

Hearths (S23, S24 and S25)All of these structures consisted of a linear cutextending from a pit. The structures varied indepth and degree of symmetry, structure 24 beingparticularly irregular. The long axis of structures23 and 24 were parallel and a pebble surfaceexisted on the eastern edge of the former. The onlyfill in this phase, that of structure 25, wascomposed of sand and charcoal.

The form of structures 23, 24 and 25 wasobviously suggestive of hearths, the linear cutrepresenting a flue. The fill of structure 25contained much charcoal, not enough to indicate itsuse as a fuel but indicating burning. Like structure5, the fill of structure 25 had an Iron Age terminuspost quem, also probably falling into disuse in thisphase. No evidence of any superstructure existed,save for a pebble surface at the eastern end ofstructure 23. This suggests that whatever wasbeing heated needed at least periodic attention.Again the easiest association to make is with theproduction of salt, and here specifically with theboiling of brine. Discussion of receptacles (or pans)that may have been used for boiling is undertakenlater (see below). The boiling of brine requiresfrequent agitation of the liquid to ensure theformation of evenly sized crystals and prevent themfrom adhering to the base of the pan, perhapsexplaining the pebble surface of structure 23.

DiscussionThe spatial arrangement of the structures of thisphase suggests some degree of organisation. Thenorth to south arrangement of the brine tanks mayreflect the existence of a feature to the east of theexcavation, possibly the meander in the RiverSalwarpe (Fig 2). The concentration of features inthe eastern half of the excavated area may also be

the result of clustering around some focal point,presumably an area of brine extraction. Thestructures appear to be paired, structure 3 with 4,5 with 6, 7 with 8, and 9 with 10. Rather moredubious is an association of structures 24 and 23with 7 and 8 respectively If the pairing is genuine,it may be due to a specific characteristic of the saltmaking process. For instance, settling may occur inone tank whilst clear brine was being drawn forboiling from the other. Alternatively, and possiblyadditionally, an explanation may be sought in theadministration of’ salt production. It may, forexample, be speculated that ownership of arestricted number of tanks only was allowed.

The apparent absence of layers, such as those ofphase 2, is probably a result of the stratigraphicanalysis rather than a genuine absence of deposits.A number of groups of layers were uncertainlyphased (S85, S86, S91 and S106) and could havebeen deposited in phase 3 but lacked conclusivestratigraphic relationships.

The paucity of layers and disuse fills haseffectively reduced the amount of artefactualevidence that can be used in discussion. Forinstance, though this is the only phase in whichovicaprid and small ungulate bones outnumber oxand large ungulate, this is drawn from a very smallsample and is probably not representative (Chapter15). Much of the material incorporated in thedisuse fills (P4) of structures constructed in phase 3may be from equipment used in salt production (seebelow).

Phase 4: Mid 1st to early 2nd centuryAD (Fig 9)

Two of the brine tanks, which may have continuedin use throughout this phase, lay to the north of aleat. Layers containing significant amounts ofbriquetage continued to be deposited. A number ofsmall pits and postholes were also constructed.

Brine tanks, hearths and a leat (S3, S4,S6, S7, S8, S10, S23, S24 and S30)The final reconstruction of structure 3 (Fig 10)consisted of a pit (4.74 x 3.26 x 0.85m) with a claylining (c 0.10 to 0.20m thick) and a stakerevetment. The phasing of this structure howeverwas in some doubt as it relied on only two sherds ofRoman pottery. The disuse of structures 3, 6, 7, 8,10, 23, 24 and possibly 4 has been assigned to thisphase, and that of structures 1 and possibly 4 and9, does not happen until at least phase 5. The fill ofstructure 24 contained much charcoal andbriquetage, including two substantially completeand unabraded (though distorted) vessels. Manypieces of wood from the disuse fills of the brinetanks were worked. The assemblages in structures6 (31 pieces, Fig 11, Pl l), 7 (59 pieces, Fig 12) and8 (66 pieces, Fig 13) were mostly aligned in the

14


same direction and grouped together. Much smallerassemblages were recovered from the fills of theother structures. Wooden artefacts deposited instructures 6, 7 and 8 may have been related to thestructures’ use as they were part of the primarydisuse fills (see below).

A linear cut (S30) was orientated north-west tosouth-east, with a gradient down to the north-westof 1 in 20. Its depth ranged from 1.00 to 1.50m.Reconstruction occurred four times along the samealignment. Related to these reconstructions wereconstructional fills composed of wattle and clay. A

number of the disuse elements also containedredeposited wattle and clay A radiocarbon date of388-168 Cal BC was obtained for a fill (Table Ml6,1:E10).

The final form of structure 3 is estimated to havecontained about 3,0001 of liquid. Just to the south,the linear cut had a constant gradient and a clayand wattle lining, indicating that it transported acontrolled flow of water. It probably formed a leatbetween the upstream bend in the Salwarpe (Fig2), to some point downstream to the north-west ofthe excavation.

15

Figure 10 Brine tank (S3 final construction)

Layers of industrial waste (S63, S93,S134, S136 and S143)The layers of phases 2 and 4 were very similar incharacter. Forty-one of the total of 52 layers inphase 4 contained briquetage and five were almostcompletely composed of it. The fragmentary natureand large quantity of briquetage, especiallycompared with the layers of succeeding phases,indicated deposition of waste material. Depositioncontinued in the eastern area of the excavation butalso occurred in the west.

DiscussionBoth the layers and the brine tanks stronglysuggest that the methods, and perhaps even theorganisation, of salt production continued withlittle change into the Roman period, though for howlong is uncertain. To suggest the contraction, oreven interruption, of salt production fromexcavation of a single, restricted area is clearlyinadvisable. Nevertheless the possibility may besuggested.

Figure 11 Wood deposited in structure 6

16



1 7

Plate 1 Wood debris in the fill of brine tank (S3, Plate 2 Body deposited in partly filled brine tankP4) (S7, P5)

The artefacts contained in the disuse fills of thebrine tanks were possibly used in the production ofsalt. The recovery of several substantially-completevessels from a hearth (S24) suggests thatbriquetage, in this case associated with Romanpottery, was particularly related to the function ofthese features. Though unresolved, it has beenargued that briquetage was used for drying andmoulding of salt crystals rather than the boiling ofbrine (Rees 1986, 50). Evidence of alternativevessels for boiling is, however, very scarce. The onlypossibilities lie in single examples of a shallowpan-shaped vessel in a briquetage fabric (Chapter3) and a possible bowl-shaped vessel of fired clay(Chapter 6), both of which were recovered fromstructure 8. Alternatively, there is the possibilitythat the evidence has not survived, because the panwas made either of an organic or of a high valuematerial. However the survival of organic materialwas good in places on the excavation and no scrapsor sheet fragments of lead were recovered fromcontexts earlier than phase 7 (Chapter 14). Giventhe evidence for other parts of the process, this

absence of evidence for boiling is surprising. Anexperimental approach may yet demonstrate theefficient functioning of briquetage as a boilingvessel, as well as being used in drying and export.

Other objects which may be salt makingequipment are the forked stakes from structure 6(other examples are known from Friar Street,Chapter 21). These may have been used in pairs tosuspend objects or vessels, over a fire for instance,or even as rests for heavy barrels as described byAgricola in 16th century Germany (Chapter 19).The latter source may also provide an analogy forthe function of a 'shovel’ or 'hoe', also recoveredfrom structure 6, since similar objects were used toagitate and scrape salt crystals to the edge of theboiling pan. The pollen, though from a smallsample, indicated the presence of grassland orwasteland plants with little evidence of trees(Chapter 18).

Continuity of salt production at least into the 1stor 2nd centuries AD is matched by continuity ofIron Age pottery traditions (Chapter 3), itselfcomplemented by rather less 1st century samian

18


than might be expected (Chapter 3). However, thefeatures associated with salt production appear tobecome fewer and the industry either declined inDroitwich at this time or was relocated.

Phase 5: Early 2nd to mid 3rd centuryAD (Fig 14)

In the central and southern area of the excavationa number of pits, postholes and ditches wereconstructed. In plan these often exhibited somespatial symmetry but their interpretation has toremain obscure. Layers, some with briquetage,continued to be deposited.

Brine tanks (S1, S6, S7, S8 and S9)Although the construction elements of structure 1were uncertainly phased (see below) those of disusewere assigned to this phase due to the consistencyof the pottery assemblage. The earliest of these fillswas composed of clay and wattle which wasprobably derived from the collapse of the clay- andwattle-lined sides of the structure. The later fillswere of sand, and brushwood was also acomponent. An articulated human skeleton wasapparently thrown into an already partly-filledbrine tank (S7, Pl 2). Structures 6, 8, 9 and the leat(S30) also continued to be filled in.

19

Layers (S97, S106, S138, S147 and S175)Of the fifteen layers of phase 5, eight containedbriquetage as a minor component. The number oflayers in this and succeeding phases was not greatenough to determine the residuality (or otherwise)of briquetage in the same way as for phases 2 and4. It is however useful to compare the 77% of layerscontaining briquetage in phases 1 to 4 (77 layers)with the 25% in phases 5 to 14 (83 layers). It was inphase 4 that the disuse of briquetage and itsincorporation as a residual element of layersoccurred, contemporary with the disuse of the brinetanks.

Other features (S50, S51, S146, S177 andS209)A number of postholes were recorded in thesouthern part of the excavated area, perhapsindicating the presence of either boundaries orbuildings. Three posts remained in situ (S50 andS146) and measured from 0.20 to 0.40m indiameter. Later activity however, obscured much ofthe form of these structures. Thus, for example,any eastward extension of structure 50 wasremoved by the construction of structure 31 inphase 8.

DiscussionSevern Valley ware dominated the potteryassemblage, with briquetage much reduced inquantity (Chapter 3). The range of coarse waresincreased only slightly and there was rather morepottery from distant sources (Chapter 3).Occupation of a rather more domestic thanindustrial character may have occurred close to thesite.

Phase 7: Mid 3rd to late 4th centuryAD (Fig 15)

The foundations of a building dominated thisphase, though little else appeared to be associated.A few layers were deposited, one containingsandstone fragments.

Building and associated layers (S26 andS210)The remains of a building was marked by a trenchdefining a roughly trapezoidal area withreconstructed sides of 6.96 x 8.04 x 9.40 x 8.88m,and with an average width of c 0.95m. The depthwas variable (0.66 to 0.91m) but the trench had agenerally flat base, the difference in depth largelybeing accounted for by a step of c 0.20m on thesouthern side. The trench was filled by sandstonerubble with a loam matrix. The size of the stonegenerally diminished towards the top. One piece ofworked stone was retrieved from the rubblefoundation (Chapter 9). Two coins dated AD 260-8and 64-75 were also retrieved from the fill (2:Dl).

If the fill of the trench is interpreted as afoundation, this was fairly substantial, thoughthere was little evidence for the method of con-struction for the superstructure. A doorway may bepostulated in the south-west corner, where thesandstone foundation did not appear to exist. Thisarea however had been disturbed by later activitywhich casts doubt on this reason for the absence ofthe foundation. Alternatively the fill of the trenchmay be interpreted as the result of robbing a morecarefully founded building. Of the seven layers, one(part of S210) contained sandstone fragments andlay to the south of the building (S26). This mayrepresent waste from the building's construction ofwhich the foundations at least were made ofsandstone. There were no deposits that couldconceivably be related to the building's use. It isuseful here to mention the possible construction ofa track (S28), in this or phase 8 (see below), overthe layers of structure 210. The track could haveprovided access for wheeled vehicles to thebuilding.

DiscussionUnlike previous phases there were no structuresthat could be associated with the production of salt,with any degree of certainty. This would appear tohave been a short period, the coin in the building'strench fill providing a terminus post quem of AD260, and pottery a terminus post quem of c AD 300for the phase as a whole (Chapter 3). The functionof this building must remain obscure largely due tothe paucity of associated deposits, though this itselfmay be explained by a short life for the building.

The artefactual evidence adds little to thestructure or function of the building (S26), thoughthere is some possibility that tile was used in itsconstruction. Relatively large fragments wererecovered from its constructional elements andfrom the layers around it. Smaller fragments,indicating increased residuality, were recoveredfrom contexts placed in phases 8 and 9 whichthemselves did not include structures likely to haveincorporated tile (Chapter 4).


Two spatial groups of structures may be identified,a northern alignment of reused barrels in pits anda group to the south which included two reusedbarrels within a trench, 25.80m long. Two similarlysized pits, without barrels, were also recorded. Thetrack fell into disuse during this phase.

Barrels (S15, S16, S17, S18, S19, S20,S21 and S31)The remains of five barrels recovered in situ wererecorded. Two consisted only of hoops (Sl5 andS20), whereas only three staves of structure 21remained. Structures 16 (Fig 17) and 19 (Fig 18)

20


were the best preserved (Pl 3), each consisting of c34% of a complete barrel. The barrels were laidwithin pits or a trench and constructional fills ofclay were recorded for three (S15, Sl6 and S19).Radiocarbon dates of 18 Cal BC-Cal AD 135 (S15),Cal AD 139-343 (S16), 36 Cal BC-Cal AD 129(S19),Cal AD 139-343 (S20) and 2 Cal BC-Cal AD214 (S21) were obtained for the barrels (Table Ml7,1:E10). Though fragmentary, the fill that laydirectly on top of the barrel of structure 21 was ofsandy silt with yellow/green flecks and may havebeen deposited as part of the final use of thestructure.

The pits of structures 17 and 18 were of similardimensions (2.25 x 1.40 x 0.70m and 1.80 x 0.94 x0.24m respectively). Structure 17 was aligned with

structures 16 and 19 and structure 18 lay paralleland just to the north-west.

A straight trench (S31), with near vertical sidesand a flat base (25.80 x 1.00 x 0.80m), sloped fromeither end down towards the middle. It containedtwo barrels (S20 and S21) and ran parallel to thetrack (S28). A radiocarbon date of 187 Cal BC-CalAD 51 was obtained from a disuse fill (Table M17,1:E10).

Three of the barrels were laid in pits (S15, S16and S19), the other two (S20 and S21) within thetrench (S31). The trench, with its vertical sides,absence of a consistent gradient in one directionand butt ends, would not have had a drainagefunction. It is probable that structures 20 and 21,as well as others previously removed, were laid

21


within the trench excavated specifically for thispurpose. Indeed a similar arrangement may bepostulated for the group of barrels to the north.However, in order to extract the most completebarrel (S16), the surrounding area was lowered,which was not conducive to properly recording theevidence of construction. The barrels must havebeen cut longitudinally in situ, as the action ofbreaking the binding hoops would have requiredsupport to retain the shape of the container. Clay inthe constructional fills may have served thepurpose of inhibiting drainage of the barrels’contents. The dimensions and form of structures 17and 18 were sufficient to contain similar barrels tostructures 16 and 19.

The sewer trench that ran through the excavation(see Chapter 1) exposed the remains of a furtherbarrel, similarly deposited in situ (HWCM 3682). Itlay c 5.00m to the west of the excavation and itslong axis was orientated roughly north-west tosouth-east.

The most obvious function of these barrels wasfor the storage of liquid and, in this location, thestorage and settling of brine. The function of thesebarrels may therefore be analogous to the brinetanks of phases 2 to 4. Other functions however,such as the processing of animal products, mustalso be considered. The early radiocarbon datesobtained from the barrels indicate their reuse inthis later Roman context. Indeed the radiocarbon

22

Figure 17 Barrel (S16)

dates suggest that at least some of the barrels hadprobably been in use for up to three centuries, oreven more. The consistency of the dates supportsan early date of manufacture and it would seemunlikely that barrels would have been made fromreused timber. Even allowing that the barrelsthemselves would have been reused, this period ofuse seems surprisingly long.

Plate 3 Barrels (S16 and S19, P8)

A track and an alignment of posts (S28and S55)Six postholes and possible postholes formed asingle alignment (S55). The postholes varied in sizebetween 0.48 x 0.44 x 0.40m and 0.70 x 0.56 x0.32m. In addition a stakehole, with a pointed base,formed part of this structure. One of the postholescontained packing stones and another a padstone.The postpipes were all subrectangular, varying insize from 0.24 x 0.18 x 0.20m to 0.16 x 0.14 x0.40m. This structure ran parallel to the trench(S31) and just to the north of it for approximately4.50m of its length. Some doubt must remain overthe structure's dating, as the mid 3rd to late 4thcentury terminus post quem is based on a smallassemblage. It has been placed in this phaselargely on the basis of its spatial relationship withstructures 28 and 31.

The track (S28), possibly constructed in theprevious phase, went out of use in phase 8,indicated by the filling of the drainage ditch to thesouth. Though the track petered out to the eastthere was no sign of this having been the result ofremoval by later activity. The eastern end coincidedwith the beginning of the line of postholesextending eastwards (S55). The most obviousinterpretation was that these formed a barriercontinuing from where the small ditch, to the southof the track, ended.

DiscussionNo conclusive case can be made for the resumptionof salt production in this area, after the period ofinterruption represented by phases 5 and 7. Priorto phase 7, activity was concentrated in the east ofthe excavated area, whereas the track (S28)indicates reorientation towards the west, awayfrom the presumed area of brine extraction (seeabove). This may be seen to strengthen thepossibility that the barrels were not used for theproduction of salt. However structure 57 (P4-8, seebelow), a possible hearth, may be the contemporary

23

equivalent of the hearths of phase 3. All of thesestructures fell into disuse during this phase.

As neither the European larch nor silver fir (usedfor the staves of the barrels) is native to thiscountry, they must have been imports. Theiroriginal use will have been in the transport of wetor dry goods, perhaps from the species’ native areaof Central Europe (Chapter 19). The use of oak forthe hoops, as opposed to the more suitable hazel, isan unusual characteristic (Chapter 19). Analternative use for the barrels would be as part ofan animal products industry, itself related to thesalt industry. Use of the barrels for leatherprocessing or salting of meat must be considered apossibility. However, though the animal boneassemblage was examined with this in mind, theresults were not conclusive (Chapter 15). A largefragment of lead sheet (possibly an offcut, Chapter14) and some inscriptions on pottery vessels(Chapter 10) may not with certainty be associatedwith the salt or a related industry but this is atantalising speculation. Tree pollen of alder, hazeland oak from the trench (S31) was found insubstantial quantities (Chapter 18).


This phase was dominated by the construction of alarge rectangular building. Much activity occurredto the south of this building, mostly represented byalignments of postholes and ditches. In the westwere two small clay-lined pits, a large ditchreconstructed several times and several other cutfeatures. Five layer groups were also deposited.

Rectangular building and associatedstructures (S22, S149, S151 and S172)The padstones that characterised structure 22formed two parallel rows, of which the three stones

to the south were directly perpendicular to those inthe north. The westward extent of the southern linewas obscured by the limit of the excavation. Apossible posthole, but without a stone, was locatedin the southern row, perpendicular to a stone in thenorthern alignment. No stone or pit was locatedperpendicular to the eastern end of the southernside. The stones were all large and of similardimensions (eg 0.50 x 0.25 x 0.30m). Most had holescut into one or more faces, probably to facilitatelifting. Only one of the postholes containing stoneswas largely undisturbed. It was subrectangular inplan and had dimensions of 1.20 x 0.90 x 0.94m. Italso contained the poorly preserved remains of apost (c 0.30m diameter), in situ on top of the stone(Pl 4). The post gave a radiocarbon date of 383-124Cal BC (Table M17, 1:E10). Two postpipes werealso recorded and of these one had a diameter of c0.35m. In two cases, two stones in the sameposthole were recorded. The constructional fillswere composed of silty clay, silt and loam. Only afew disuse elements were assigned to this phase,and these were composed of silt and ash.Stratigraphically and spatially associated with thebuilding (S22) were a number of cuts (S149 andS172). These were close to the postholes ofstructure 22 and structure 172 was filled withcharcoal. A number of layers (eg S151) were alsoassociated with structure 22 and were composed ofbriquetage and silt.

The difference between measurements from thecentres of corresponding pairs of stones was 0.12m,giving a symmetrical layout to the structure of thebuilding. No internal divisions were identified andthere was no obvious location for an entrance. Thesubstantial foundations would have been necessaryfor any large building in the unstable groundconditions of this area. Again like the barrels ofphase 8, an early radiocarbon date was obtained.However this may be more convincingly explainedby the reuse of structural timbers, as these may beexpected to have had a longer useful life than the

Figure 18 Barrel (S 19)

24


less substantial material of the barrels. Thebuilding appeared to have undergone recon-struction in this and later phases. Evidence for thereplacement of vertical posts may be seen in thecutting of a posthole (S149) and one other feature(S172). The structures stratigraphically betweenthe initial construction and final reconstruction ofthe building, must have been contemporary with itsuse (eg S151), but unfortunately they containedlittle artefactual material that could indicate itsfunction.

Structures to the south of the rectangularbuilding (S58, S59, S152, S160, S161 andS162)Sandstone and limestone rubble formed the majorcomponent of three of a group of five layers (S152)post-dating the rectangular building (S22). Theother two were composed of silt but had mortar as aminor component. The earliest layer was composedof sandy silt. The area to the south of structure 22also contained a number of structures, forming

Plate 4 Post on padstone showing decay of centreS22, P9)

posthole alignments (S59 and S160), pits (S161)and ditches (S58), all roughly parallel to structure22. Most of the postholes had post pipes and werelarge, the largest measuring 1.00 x 0.90 x 0.28m.

The group of layers (S152) to the south werecharacterised by rubble and mortar whichpresumably represented the demolition of walls.Whether this was derived from structure 22, fromstone filling within a timber framework, or wasderived from walls to the south of the excavatedarea, is unknown. Due to the proximity of the edgeof excavation little can be suggested for structures58, 59, 160 and 161 in terms of their function,beyond their representing boundaries. In the caseof structure 59, however, it is also possible that thisformed the northern side of a post- built structure,its southern side being beyond the excavated area.

A large ditch and a clay lined pit (S11 andS27)Reconstructed twice, structure 27 was a ditchenclosing an area largely off the south-westernlimit of the excavation. The earliest cut had adownward gradient to the north and an even base.The sides and the base were lined with

25

intermittent rows of stakes. A small pit was alsolocated in the base of the cut. The firstreconstruction was mostly removed by the secondreconstruction, and its dimensions and gradientcould not be estimated. It also however, had steepsides and an even base. The final reconstructionhad a maximum width of 2.00m and depth of cl.00m, with steep sides and a flat base and agradient of 1 in 33 downward to the north. Ninestakes and six stakeholes lined the base. Associatedwith the large ditch were a linear cut, a ditch andtwo postholes. The linear cut ran north to south,parallel to the large ditch and c 2.00m to the west.It had gently sloping sides and a flat base. Theditch continued the east to west alignment of thenorthern section of the large ditch, and had gentlysloping but irregular sides. The postholes hadconstructional fills of silty clay and postpipes. Aclay- lined pit (S11) lay along the western limit ofthe excavation. Its disuse elements were composedof clay with a charcoal lens.

The steady gradient down to the north indicates adrainage function for structure 27, presumably tothe Salwarpe. The change in direction, however,would also imply that it served as a boundary,enclosing an area to the west. The presence ofstakes and stakeholes suggest attempts tominimise erosion caused by running water.

Several other features were associated with thisstructure. A short ditch continued the boundary ofthe north-west to south-west section of the majorditch. However, it does not appear to have served adrainage function. Other features within theenclosure, two postholes and a shallow linear cut(possibly a beam-slot), could have formed part of abuilding. Close to this was a small clay-lined pit(S11), indicating the storage of liquid.

Activity between the rectangular buildingand the large ditch (S49, S105, S117,S119 and S126)A number of structures lay between the rectangularbuilding (S22) and the large ditch (S27), of whichthe most complex was structure 49. It consisted off ive possible postholes and eight possiblestakeholes, forming a tight cluster. To this may beadded three possible postholes and thirteenstakeholes shown on a field plan but not otherwiserecorded. Though alignments cannot easily beidentified, there exist two possible rows runningeast to west and roughly parallel to each other. Itwas not possible to assign a function to thesestructures.

DiscussionMost of the structures were constructed and fellinto disuse within this phase, though the twolargest (S22 and S27) possibly continued in use intolater phases.

26


The pottery of phases 7 to 9 was very similar(Chapter 3), although the form of the structuresindicate very different activities taking place. Thefunction of the Malvernian ceramic objects mustremain uncertain, although a slight bias in itsdistribution has been noted in the fill of structure27 (Chapter 5). Evidence of an animal productsindustry may also be seen in the bone assemblagefrom the large ditch (S27), the fills of which wereassigned to phases 9 and 11. The later fills havebeen assumed to be made up of residual material,as the assemblages were similar for both phases.The animal bone assemblage indicates aproportionally greater disposal of skulls andextremities than of parts of the carcass (Chapter15). The fill of the large ditch (S27) had a wetlandflora and seed assemblage, indicating that the

surrounding area was overgrown with weeds andscrub (Chapter 18).

Phase 10: 5th to 11th century (Fig 20)

Several of the major structures of phase 9 possiblycontinued to be used, though the only certaincomponent of this phase was a single layer.

A layer and possible continued use of otherfeatures (S22, S27 and S110)There was no evidence of activity in thepost-Roman period until the 10th to 11th centuries.Some of the structures of phase 9, however, may

27


have dated to this early period if the pottery-derived termini post quem were from residualassemblages. One structure, a layer composed ofclay with charcoal as a minor component, had aterminus post quem of the 10th to 11th centuries,determined by the presence of Stafford-type ware(fabric 48). There is evidence that the rectangularbuilding (S22), constructed in the previous phase,continued in use into phase 11. It was similarlypossible that the large ditch (S27) did not fall intodisuse until phase 11.


Concentrated in the eastern half of the excavatedarea, the structures included one associated with

burning, a pebble surface, layers and various cutfeatures.

Disuse of the rectangular building andlarge ditch (S22 and S27)The stratigraphic analysis indicated that some ofthe structures of this phase were contemporarywith the use of structure 22. Of these, two werecomposed of layers S157 and S158) and oneappears to represent the reconstruction or finalremoval of one of the vertical posts (S159) whichc o n t a i n e d p a c k i n g s t o n e s . T h e s e w e r estratigraphically earlier than the removal ofanother post, represented by a postipe and its fill,which probably marks the end of the building's use.Though this is the most obvious explanation of the

28


building's development, it implies that the buildingwas extant for around 700 years or more and had apost which was c 500 years old before it was used inthe building (P9). This seems unlikely but is notinconceivable. Moreover, there are two ways inwhich this apparently long period may bedifferently interpreted. Firstly, the period of usemay have been shorter: it is possible that thebuilding was constructed in phases 10 or 11.However, against this are the substantial numberof structures post-dating the building which haveconsistently late Roman termini post quem.Alternatively, the apparent signs of disuse, thepostpipe post-dating contexts with 12th to 14thcentury termini post quem, may not be as theyseem. As we have only the foundation from whichto judge, the building may have been demolished to

ground level only, or even left in a ruined state for along time, while the post rotted. The large ditch(S27) also fell into disuse during phase 11.

Other structures (S13, S38, S76, S141,S186 and S194)The construction elements of structure 38 consistedof a near-circular pit with vertical sides and a flatbase (c 1.20m diameter), with two shallow pits ordepressions. The fills of the latter included loamwith burnt clay and charcoal. The fills of the formerwere composed of clay and stones. These signs ofburning indicate its possible function as a hearth. Apebble surface (Sl86) existed to the north and it ispossible that industrial activity occurred in the area.

29

The remaining pits (S13, S76, S141 and S194) ofthis phase were also located in the eastern part ofthe excavated area, and of these structure 13 waspossibly lined with clay

Final fills of Iron Age features (S4, S9 andS11)The final fills of structures 4, 9 and 11 were notdeposited until phase 11. These features must havesurvived as slight depressions from the Romanperiod onwards. Structure 6 was not completelyfilled until phase 12.

Possible drains and other features (S32,S35, S48, S52, S56 and S167)The other linear cuts (S52, S56 and part of S167)may also be interpreted as drains. Despite theabsence of a brick lining, these had a gradientdown to the north. Mention should also be made ofstructure 32, a ditch with a gradient down to thenorth and of similar dimensions. Its construction,however, may have occurred in either this or phase13. Two other structures (S35 and S48) can besimilarly phased, though their function is bestdiscussed later.

D i s c u s s i o nThe low average weight of the tile from this phaseindicates that it was derived from buildings locatedat some distance from the excavation (Chapter 4).Butchery practices do not appear to have changedfrom the Roman period (Chapter 15).

Phase 12: 15th to 18th century (Fig22)

Phase 13: 19th to early 20th century(Fig 23)

The main structural components consisted ofseveral pits with brick linings, all in the westernpart of the excavated area. A linear cut rannorth-east to south-west, with two others joining itfrom the west. All were lined with brick. A numberof other features were constructed to thesouth-east.

aligned north to south: A very large cut appeared tobe the terminus of a number of drains. Anothergroup of structures included a pebble surface andditches with postholes along the eastern edge of theexcavation.

Specialist comment on this and later phases wasaccorded a low priority, and discussion of thestratigraphic analysis has been kept to a minimum.

The structures of this phase were characteristicallyDrains, possible hearths and a boundary(S33, S35, S41, S42, S43 and S48)The most prominent structure of this phase was abrick-lined drain (S33) carrying water away to thenorth, presumably into the Droitwich JunctionCanal (constructed in the mid 19th century, Squires1984) or into the river. Two further drains joinedthe main one from the west, where a number ofstructures were located. Structures 42, 48 and 43were lined with brick and the latter also had abrick-lined drain associated with it. The existenceof a brick superstructures was indicated by thepresence of brick rubble as a component of the fills(S41 and S48). Evidence of burning was also notedin the fill of structure 48. Structure 35 probablyformed a post-built boundary demarcating thesouthward extent of the structures described above.The construction of structures 35 and 48 could notbe certainly placed in this phase, though theirinterpretation is best discussed here withstructures of similar form. The First EditionOrdnance Survey plan of 1884 shows the site waslargely clear of buildings.

Boundary and yard (S193, S196, S198a n d S 2 0 0 )Three structures (S196, S198 and S200) appearedto form a boundary with an entrance, two postholesat the ends of two ditches marking the formerposition of gate posts. An 18th century plan(reproduced in Crickmore 1984, fig 5) shows thatthe present Rickett's Lane to the east wasestablished in or before this phase. A cobbledsurface covered an area extending from theentrance to the north (S193), presumably forming ayard.

Possible canal wharf (S34 and S92)This very large cut (S34) had a brick-lined drainrunning into it (S92). There was no sign of anyrevetment for the sloping sides, and it had a flatbase. One possibility is that it formed a wharf ofBrindley's canal, opened in 1771 (Squires 1984).This is supported by the presence of a plant speciesthat grows in mud, and aquatic snails whichindicate standing water (Chapter 18). Largeamounts of elm pollen from the same context mayhave been derived from the importation offlowering boughs (Chapter 18).

Phase 14: Later 20th century (Fig 24)

This phase represents the final function of the siteprior to the excavation,

Drains and foundations for a bowlinggreen (S69, Sl65 and S206)The ceramic drainage pipes (S165 and S206) would,as the excavator suggested, have drained thebowling green, the latest feature on the site. Theexcavator also suggested that the laying of

3 0


foundations (S69) was preceded by soil stripping,truncating many of the archaeological deposits.

Structures of uncertain phase

The structures described and discussed below areof Roman or earlier date, and are considered to beimportant to the understanding of the site. Some ofthese structures have only a small range of possiblephases and have already been discussed in generalterms.

Structure 1 (P2 to P4)The construction elements consisted of arectangular pit with steep sides and a curved base

(2.00 x 1.55 x 0.75m). The pit contained a clay andwattle lining which did not survive to the top of thecut. The wattle produced a radiocarbon date of101-72 Cal BC (Table M17, 1:E10). Strati-graphically the structure post-dated contexts withan Iron Age terminus post quem but can be placedin either phase 2 or 3. Though similar inconstruction to structure 2, it was notdemonstrably earlier than the clay- and stake-linedpits characteristic of phase 3 and may well havebeen contemporary with them. The fills alsoindicated a longer period of use, up to phase 5. Thefunction of this structure may be assumed to be thesame as that of structure 2 and the clay- andstake-lined pits (see above): for the settling andstorage of brine.

31

Figure 24 Phase features 14

Structure 4 (P7 to P10)The earliest fills were of clay and sand from whicha single sherd of pottery, possibly of late Romandate, was recovered. It is probable that thisstructure fell into disuse at about the same time(P4) as the other brine tanks.

structures of phase 9 (S27), the range is narrowedto phases 7 to 8. The clay lining indicates that itwas used to contain liquid, though the greatdifference in size presumably reflects a differentfunction from the larger brine tanks.

Structure 12 (P4 to P8)The full extent of this pit was obscured by atemporary baulk. It had a clay lining c 0.20m thickand a poorly-recorded disuse fill. Its constructioncould not be more certainly placed than tosomewhere between phases 4 and 8. The disuse fillhad a pottery derived terminus post quem of mid3rd to late 4th century and, with this pre-dating

This consisted of a surface with a gravelfoundation. Two parallel depressions crossed thesurface and a ditch ran to the south. The ditch wasc 0.40m wide and c 0.20m deep, with a number ofstakeholes in its base. The structure was orientatedeast to west, fading out to the east and with its fullextent obscured by the western limit of excavation.Within the make-up of the surface, a pit and its fillof clay were recorded.

Structure 28 (P7 to P8)

32

Despite its obvious importance to the site theconstruction and use of structure 28 was impossibleto assign to a specific phase. Stratigraphic anddating evidence indicate construction and use ineither, or both, phases 7 and 8. The structureformed a road or track running from the centre ofthe excavated area to the west. In both phases thestructures were so arranged as to be served by theroad (S26 and 531) and seems likely that it was inuse during both phases. The track appears to havebeen little used. Only one set of wheel ruts wasrecorded, where with long term use, many would beexpected. Moreover only one level of make-up wasrecorded and few repairs seem to have been carriedout.

Structure 29 (P4 to P10)This substantial ditch (c 2.20m wide and c 1.20mdeep) ran north-east to south-west and at itssouthern end turned a right-angle to thesouth-east. The eastern slope was less steep thanthat on the western side. The highest part of thebase was where its course altered, with a gradientof 1 in 100 to the north-east and 1 in 67 to thesouth-east. There was also a vertical step down of c0.60m to the top of the latter gradient at this point.A radiocarbon date of 379 Cal BC-Cal AD 116(Table M17, 1:E10) was obtained from one of theprimary fills of clay and silt.

The ditch's construction can be placed as early asphase 4. However it possibly post-dates a contextwith a mid 3rd to late 4th century terminus postquem, which would refine the phasing to between 7and 11. The radiocarbon date must have beenderived from residual material. The change inorientation and profile indicates the structurehaving enclosed an area to the east of theexcavation. The structure may also have acted as adrain, eventually to the Salwarpe, and the fillscontained evidence of a wetland flora (Chapter 18).

Structure 36 (P4 to P5)An alignment of four postholes ran north to southand may be associated with a further possibleposthole. Other constructional elements includedposts and fills of silt and loam.

Stratigraphic evidence and a radiocarbon datefrom one of the posts of 2 Cal BC-Cal AD 129(Table M17, 1:E10) 1p aces the construction of thestructure in phase 4, though two of theconstructional fills have a possible pottery-derivedterminus post quem of early 2nd to mid 3rd century.However, the date suggested by the pottery issuspect as it was based on very small assemblagesor uncertainly-identified fabrics. No parallel rowwas recorded, which suggests an interpretation asa post-built boundary rather than a building,though the structure ran parallel to, and not farfrom, the western limit of excavation.

Structure 37 (P4 to P9)These four stakeholes formed a rectangle with sidesmeasuring 2.50 x 1.50m. Another stakehole lay justto the north-east of one corner. Stratigraphically,construction and use may have occurred at anytime between phases 4 and 9. The small volume ofthe fills made the presence of a datable potteryassemblage unlikely. A single sherd from a fill gavea possible terminus post quem of mid 1st to early2nd century.

Structure 45 (P4 to P5)Twenty possible postholes were clustered around alinear cut running north-east to south-west.Although it could be later, this structure is bestplaced in phases 4 to 5. Not much of the structurecould be excavated, as it extended beyond thewestern limit of excavation, though it may haverepresented a post-and-trench type of constructionfor a wall.

Structure 46 (P7 to P9)A rough alignment of six possible postholes rannorth-west to south-east. Though their sizes variedconsiderably (from 0.38 x 0.34 x 0.18m to 0.72 x0.54 x 0.26m) they were all at the samestratigraphic level. Lack of stratigraphicrelationships with the structures of phases 7 to 9makes this structure difficult to phase with anycertainly. However, it was roughly aligned atright-angles to the line of barrels (S17, Sl6 andS19). A post-built boundary is a likelyinterpretation.

Structure 47 (P7 to P9)This single pit was smaller (1.26 x c 0.85 x 0.57m)than those containing barrels though it toocontained wood, much decayed, over the second fill.If this was in situ then the fills of silty clay andsandy clay may be regarded as constructional.

Structure 54 (P2 to P4)This structure consisted of 31 stakeholes and twopossible postholes. The layout of the structuredefies a brief written description. The sixstakeholes to the west were somewhat similar tothose of structure 60, though on a differentorientation. The structure may be placed anywherebetween phases 2 and 4. Its function is impossibleto ascertain though a light structure such as awindbreak or rack may be suggested.

Structure 57 ( P4 to P8)This single pit was of unique form, beingsubcircular in plan with a central 'pestal’ ofundisturbed material. The overall dimensions were1.90 x 1.50 x 027m, the central pedestal being

33

Figure 25 Reconstruction of salt production in the Iron Age

030m in diameter. A fill of charcoal and ash mayhave been related to the structure' use.

Stakeholes, parts of structure 163 (P4 to 5), mayrepresent a superstructure. The deposit of charcoaland ash indicated use as a hearth and possiblyrepresented a later type, equivalent to structures23, 24 and 25. A few of the clay- and stake-linedpits, with which structures 23, 24 and 25 wereassociated, were still possibly in use during phase4. Alternatively this may be associated with thebarrels characteristic of phase 8.

Structure 60 (P2 to P12)These seven stakeholes formed two diverging rowswith a single outlier. Though it may be assigned toa greater range of phases, the similarity with partof structure 54 has already been noted. Again alight structure such as a rack may be suggested.

Conclusion

Activity earlier than the late Iron Age is indicatedonly by the presence of very small numbers ofresidual flints and pottery sherds, together with a

radiocarbon date. The absence of structuresassociated with earlier salt production does not ruleout salt production elsewhere in Droitwich at thistime. Evidence of earlier salt production comesfrom sites outside Droitwich with briquetage datedto the 6th and 5th centuries BC (Morris 1985,346).

In the late Iron Age the construction of a numberof brine tanks with large capacities, as well as thevast amount of waste briquetage, indicateslarge-scale production (see Fig 25). The layout tooindicates some degree of organisation, though howfar this was determined by the method ofproduction as opposed to other organisationalfactors, is uncertain. Production continued into theearly Roman period, though for how long thiscontinued is again uncertain. One of the brinetanks was probably reconstructed during thisperiod.

The precise method of salt production in the lateIron Age and Roman periods is still uncertain.However, there is no evidence to refute the generalmodel, drawn largely from later evidence, outlinedin the introduction to this volume (Chapter 1). Thebrine tanks and hearths were used for storage andor settling, and boiling respectively. Some of thewooden artefacts deposited in the fills of the brinetanks may have been used in the production of salt.

34

The specific use (if one existed) of briquetage is alsostill uncertain and further experimental work isneeded to test its use for boiling or draining.

It appears that salt production declined (at leastwithin the area of the excavation) in the 2nd or 3rdcenturies, as the structures of phases 5 and 7cannot be associated with salt production with anydegree of certainty. Briquetage is probably aresidual element of the assemblage from phase 5onwards. In the absence of evidence for alternativefunctions, the barrels of phase 8 may most readilybe compared in function to the brine tanks of phase3. There is however, little evidence of the hearthswhich were complementary to the brine tanks ofthe earlier phase. The layout of the features ofphase 8 also suggests a significant reorientation of

the focus of activity in the area from the east to the west. Both of these points prompt consideration of an alternative function to that of salt production.For instance, the processing of animal products,such as tanning, itself an activity requiring brine orsalt. Indeed, such secondary industries may beexpected to have been located close to the primarysalt industry. Again, however from phase 9 there isno evidence of salt production occurring on the site, though the best evidence for animal productsprocessing comes from this phase.

Except in some details of topography, the poorsurvival of later deposits provided little informationon aspects of the town's development. Theexcavations at Friar Street were much moreproductive in this respect.

35

3 Pottery Helen Rees

Nearly 56,000 sherds were recorded from theexcavation, the majority of which (c 51%) wereRoman in date. A further c 38% were from vesselsof briquetage and c 10% were of medieval or laterdate. The remainder comprised c 100 Iron Agesherds, c 400 sherds which, due to the continuationof certain Iron Age fabrics into earlier Romantimes, were not securely ascribable to either period,and four sherds thought to be of earlier prehistoricdate.

The assemblage was recorded with threeinterrelated aims in mind:

1) To characterize the pottery by fabric and, as faras possible, to identify sources for the fabrics sodefined.

2) To characterize the pottery by form, and toproduce a vessel type series.

3) To note any other characteristics which weresignificant for the chronology, function or originof the pottery.

Fabrics were defined macroscopically according tocharacteristics of technique of manufacture, firing,texture, surface treatment and mineral inclusionspresent in fracture. They were then checked andascribed to source wherever possible, throughpetrological analysis (l:F2-G7) and consultationwith other researchers (see acknowledgements).Samian ware and amphorae were the subject ofspecialist reports by Brenda Dickinson (see belowand l:G13-2:C12) and David Williams (l:BB-10)respectively. Amongst the forms, ten majorprehistoric and Roman classes were recognised:flagon, jug, beaker, saucepan/tubby cooking pot(Peacock 1965-7; 1968), jar, tankard, bowl,mortarium, dish and lid. More detailed typologicalstudy allowed the definition of specific forms withinthese classes. Post-Roman forms were largelyparalleled in the already existing type series for theCity of Worcester (Morris 1980).

Using the fabric and form classifications thusdefined, the material was quantified by numberand weight of sherds and recorded by context,noting type of decoration and other characteristicssuch as the presence of rivet holes, the presence of 7slip on a normally unslipped fabric and distortioncaused by lack of control over firing conditions.

The aims of analysis were threefold:

1) In conjunction with analyses of other types ofartefact, to supply absolute dating for thesequence defined by the stratigraphy of the site.

2) Through application of a generally knownceramic sequence , to supplement thestratigraphic evidence concerning thechronological development of the site.

3) To assess site-specific evidence for thechronology, function or origin of the potteryfabrics and forms.

To this end a terminus post quem within thebroad date ranges of a ceramic phase was assignedto each assemblage. The ceramic phases weredefined through reference to external parallels anda terminus post quem was assigned to eachassemblage on the basis of the presence of certaintypes and the absence of others (see 1:E11-F1 forthe details of the criteria used to define ceramicphases). When the 'spot dating’ was considered inconjunction with the stratigraphy of the site andwith alternative dating evidence from radiocarbonand dendrochronological analysis, it became clearthat there had been a significant intrusion ofsherds and that the contribution of pottery datingevidence to the stratigraphic analysis neededcareful consideration (l:B7). Discrepancies in thechronological cohesiveness of the potteryassemblages were therefore rechecked against thesite data and areas of uncertainty in thestratigraphic record noted. These contexts wereexcluded from subsequent analyses, together withcontexts whose ceramic assemblages wereuncertainly phased.

Illustrated pottery

Iron Age and Roman pottery (Fig 26)Handmade Malvernian ware Group A (fabric 3)1

23

4

5

6

8

9

10

1112

13

Saucepan pot decorated with linear tooling(184)Saucepan pot (2192, S180, P1)Tubby cooking pot decorated with acutelattice (1181, S20, P8)Tubby cooking pot decorated with verticaland horizontal burnishing (1070, S16, P8)Tubby cooking pot decorated with horizontalburnishing (1185, S106, P5(7))Tubby cooking pot decorated with verticaland horizontal burnishing (731, S94, P7-8)Tubby cooking pot (2436, S8, P4)Tubby cooking pot decorated with verticalburnishing (448, S83, P2)Tubby cooking pot decorated with verticalburnishing (1618)Cooking pot with sinuous profile (477, S30,P4)Jar (1689, S8, P4-5(7)?)Handmade jar with everted rim (622, S117,P9)Handmade jar with everted rim (1716, S8,P4)

36

Figure 26 Iron Age and Roman pottery vessels in fabrics 3 (1-18), 4 (19-22), 5 (23), 7 (24,25) and 8 (26,27).Scale 1:4

37

Figure 27 Roman pottery vessels in fabric 12. Scale 1:4

38

14 Handmade jar with everted rim (1205, S110,P10)

15 Saucepan pot (2193, S181, P2)16 Cooking pot with sinuous profile (412, S81,

P2)17 Lid decorated with impressed ovals and

circles (582, S99, P9-11)18 Lid (582, S99, P9-11)

Handmade limestone tempered ware (fabric 4)19 Jar with bead rim (1258, S106, P4-5) 720 Jar with everted rim (2437, S8, P4)21 Cooking pot (457, S69?, P14?)22 Cooking pot decorated with two tooled lines

on shoulder (490, S90, P3-4)

Handmade sandy ware (fabric 5)23 Jar with ever-ted rim (2192, S180, P1)

'Belgic' -type ware (fabric 7)24 Beaker (2327, S152, P9)25 Bowl with plain rim (564, S27, P9(11))

'Belgic'-type ware (fabric 8)26 Bowl (2184, S181, P2)27 Segmental dish (1942/2048, S29, P11) 1

23

Roman pottery (Fig 27)45

Severn Valley ware (fabric 12) 671

2 83 9456789

1011

121314

1516

Flagon (2281, S158, P11-12)Flagon (1553, S155?, P12)Flagon (589, S27, P9(11))Flagon with a ring neck (559, S27, P9-11)Jar with double lip (579, S27?, P9?)Flagon (589, S27, P9(11))Beaker (2436, S8, P4)Beaker (531, S27, P11)Beaker decorated with applied vertical strips(581, S27?, P9?)Roughcast beaker (711, S97, P5)Beaker decorated with cordons below rim(2610, S208, P12)Beaker with narrow mouth (294, S63, P4)Beaker with high neck (35, S66, P7-9)Beaker decorated with acute lattice (1938,S192, P12)Jar or beaker (1689, S8, P4-5(7)?)Jar decorated with a cordon (1213, S107,P5-7)

17 Jar (1918, S29, P11)18 Jar (40, S1, P4)19 Jar with close mouth (477, S30, P4)20 Storage jar (2450, S150, P5-9)21 Jar (50)

Roman pottery (Fig 28)Severn Valley ware (fabric 12)1 Jar (1583, S21, P8)

2

3

4

56

89101112

131415

Jar with narrow mouth and decorated with acordon at the base the of neck and threeincised rings (3016, S30, P11)Jar with narrow mouth and decorated with acordon on the base of the neck and the girth(564, S27, P9(11))Jar decorated with grooves and burnishedlattice on the girth (2436, S8, P4)Jar with two handles (574, S27, P9(11))Jar decorated with a cordon (49, S66, P7-9)Jar (1175, S114?, P5(11)?)Jar (1002, S28, P7-8)Jar with pulley rim (1040, S127, P12)Jar with pulley rim (582, S99, P9-11)Jar (523, S27, P11)Jar with wide mouth decorated with grooveson the girth (531, 527, P11)Jar with wide mouth (69, S112, P7)Jar (1005)Jar decorated with cordons below the rim(2606, S208, P13)

Roman pottery (Fig 29)Severn Valley ware (fabric 12)

1011

12

13

1415

16

1718

19

20

21

222324

25

Jar (1070/1156, S16, P8)Jar (1689, S8, P4-5(7)?)Jar (2363/2292, S163, P5)Small jar with wide mouth (559, S27, P9-11)Small jar or bowl (1018, S52, P12)Jar or bowl (1018, S52, P12)Jar with wide mouth (531, S27, P11)Jar or bowl (577, S31, P8)Jar with wide mouth and small lower lip(559, S27, P9-11)Bowl (1689, S8, P4-5(7)?)Tankard with straight sides and decoratedwith a cordon (1686, S7, P5)Tankard decorated with acute lattice (1178,S109?, P5(7))Tankard with a bead rim and decorated withan acute lattice and cordons (1173, S109,P5-7)Tankard with a bead rim (1023, S114, P7-9)Tankard decorated with acute lattice (4,S68?, P13)Tankard decorated with acute lattice (3012,S1, P5)Tankard (1567, S155, P7-11)Tankard with everted sides and bead rim(3012, S1, P5)Tankard with everted sides and handle(1205, S0110, P10)Tankard decorated with white painted 'sun'motifs under rim (1163)Bowl with carination and decorated withcordons on carination (1271128, S3, P4)Bowl with carination (1689, S8, P4-5(7)?)Bowl with carination (1689, S8, P4-5(7)?)Bowl with carination and decorated withlattice (2267, S153, P11(12)?)Bowl with carination (731, S94, P7-8)

39

Figure 28 Roman pottery vessels in fabric 12 (continued). Scale 1:4

40


41


42

26 Bowl with carination (2401, S22, P9) 11 Flagon (564, S27, P9(11))27 Bowl with carination decorated with lattice 12 Jar (1689, S8, P4-5(7)?)

(4, S68?, P13) 13 Jar (3, S68, P13)

Roman pottery (Fig 30)Severn Valley ware (fabric 12)

Fine grey ware (fabric 14)14 Beaker with rusticated decoration (1576,

S31, P8)Small jar or beaker (1151, S114, P5-9(11))Beaker decorated with acute cross-hatchedburnishing (28?, S1, P5?)Jar with rusticated decoration (1553, S155?,P12)Jar (1918, S29, P11)Jar with narrow mouth and decorated withincised crosses above a stabbed dotted line onthe neck, and burnished all over except for aband on the girth (560-531-564, S27, P9(11))Jar (630, S27, P9(11))Jar with narrow mouth and decorated with7burnished bands (564, S27, P9(11))Jar with double lip (531, S27, P11)Bowl with 'waist’ (28?, S1, P5?)Shallow bowl with carination and decoratedwith three wavy lines (28?, S1, P5?)Bowl with reeded rim (630, S27, P9(11))Bowl with reeded rim (1029, S129, P12-13)Bowl with flanged rim (3, S68, P13)Bowl decorated with dimples (501, S69, P14)Dish with plain rim (501, S69, P14)Dish with a bead rim (531, S27, P11)Lid (2330, S57, P4-9)

1

2

34

5

6

8910

111213141516171819202122232425

2627

Bowl with flat rim and decorated withgrooves on rim and body (2382 2351)Bowl with reeded rim and decorated withgrooves on the girth (531,527, P11)Bowl with flat rim (717, S96, P7-9)Bowl with flat rim and decorated withgrooves (531, S27, P11)Bowl with flat rim and decorated withgrooves on rim and body (2255, S159, P11)Bowl with flanged rim and internal bead(559, S27, P9(11))Bowl with flanged rim (560, S27, P9(11))Bowl with flanged rim (731, S94, P7-8)Bowl with flanged rim (564, S27, P9(11))Bowl with reeded rim and stabbed decorationon reed (2600, S69, P14)Bowl with reeded piecrust rim (585, S31, P8)Bowl with reeded rim (563, S102, P9)Bowl with reeded rim (619, S112, P7)Bowl with reeded rim (630, S27, P9(11))Bowl with bead rim (1070, S16, P8)Bowl (585, S31, P8)Bowl with bead rim (1085, S127, P12)Bowl (1175, S114?, P5(11)?)Bowl (501, S69, P14)Bowl (582, S99, P9-11)Bowl with small everted rim (1143, S17, P8)Bowl with flanged rim (745, S94, P7-8)Bowl with shallow bead rim (1039, S15, P8)Bowl with flat rim (2267,5153, P11(12)?)Bowl with flat piecrust rim and decoratedwith grooves below rim (711, S97, P5)Bowl with flanged rim (1192, S113, P5(7))Bowl with double lip and decorated withstabbed lines on bottom of lip (2226, S167,P12)

Roman pottery (Fig 31)Severn Valley ware (fabric 12)1 Dish with plain rim (629, S27, P9(11))2 Shallow bowl with carination (582, S99,

P9-11)3 Dish with bead rim (629,527, P9(11))4 Dish (1139, S109, P5?)5 Lid (1023, S114, P7-9)67

Lid (501, S69, P14)Lid decorated with grooves (547, S27, P9)

8 Pedestal base decorated with a cordon abovepedestal and perforated base (39)

Sandy oxidised ware (fabric 13)9 Flagon (552, S27, P11)10 Flagon (631, S96, P7-9)

1516

17

1819

2021

222324

25262728293031

Roman pottery (Fig 32)Fine grey ware (fabric 14)1 Lid (531, S27, P11)

Coarse grey ware (fabric 15)2 Jar (745, S94, P7-8)3 Beaker with rusticated decoration (630, 527,

P9(11))4 Bowl with flat rim and decorated with

grooves on the rim (731, S94, P7-8)5 Bowl with flat rim (745, S94, P7-8)6 Bowl with bead rim (531, S27, P11)7 Dish with bead rim (559, S27, P9(11))

Mudstone tempered ware (fabric 17)8 Storage jar (1023, S114, P7-9)

Malvernian derived ware (fabric 18)9 Jar with close mouth (631, S96, P7-9)10 Jar (1515, S156, P12)11 Lid (1023, S114, P7-9)

Roman wheelmade Malvernian ware (fabric19)12 Jar with everted rim (2601)13 Cooking pot (699, S112, P7)14 Cooking pot (699, S112, P7)

43

Figure 31 Roman pottery vessels in fabrics 12 (continued, 1-8), 13 (9-13) and 14 (14-31). Scale 1:4

44

Figure 32 Roman pottery vessels in fabrics 14 (continued, 1), 15 (2-7), 17 (8) 18, (9-11), 19 (12-20), 20 (21) ,21.1(22), 21.2 (23) and 22 (24-8). Scale 1:4

45

15

161718

1920

Jar decorated with a groove at the neck(1126, S26, P7)Bowl with flanged rim (1190, S31, P8)Bowl with flanged rim (579, S27?, P9?)Dish with plain rim and decorated with agroove halfway between the rim and base(501, S69, P14)Dish or bowl with flat rim (564, S27, P9(11))Dish with flat rim and decorated with latticeburnishing on the inside (1205, S110, Pl0)

White slipped ware (fabric 20)21 Flagon (564, S27, P9(11))

Handmade micaceous ware (fabric 21.1)22 Dish with plain rim and decorated with acute

lattice on the inside base (564, S27, P9(11))

Wheelthrown micaceous ware (fabric 21.2)23 Bowl with flanged rim and decorated with

horizontal burnishing (531, S27, P11)

Black-burnished ware, category 1 (fabric 22)24 Jug (28?, S1, P5?)25 Beaker (28?, S1, P5?)26 Cooking pot (2168, S195?, P5-12)27 Cooking pot (39)28 Cooking pot (28?, S1, P5?)

Roman pottery (Fig 33)Black-burnished ware, category 1 (fabric 22)1

2

3

45

6

7

8

910

11

12

13

14

1516

Cooking pot decorated with obtuse latticeand a scored line (1205, S110, P10)Cooking pot decorated with obtuse lattice(574, S27, P9(11))Cooking pot decorated with obtuse latticeand a scored line (1164, S19, P8)Bowl with flat rim and chamfer (28?, S1, P5?)Bowl with flat rim and decorated with acutelattice (751, S94, P7-8)Bowl with flat rim and chamfer anddecorated with lattice (722)Bowl with flanged rim and decorated withburnished lines (1536, S155, P11-12)Bowl decorated with burnished lines (559,S27, P9(11))Bowl with flanged rim (564, S27, P9(11))Bowl with flanged rim and decorated withintersecting arcs (559, S27, P9(11))Bowl with bead rim and decorated withinverted chevrons (1192, S113, P5(7))Bowl with bead rim and decorated with acutelattice (1673, S22, P9)Bowl with bead rim and decorated with acutelattice (1076, Sl20, P8-9)Dish or bowl with flat rim and decorated withacute lattice (2610, S208, P12)Dish with plain rim (560, S27, P9(11))Dish with plain rim and decorated with acutelattice and burnished line on base (2267,S153, P11(12)?)

17 Dish decorated with intersecting arcs on sideand loops on underside of the base (559, S27,P9(11))

18 Oval dish decorated with a squiggle on thebase (2600, S69, P14)

19 Lid decorated with wavy lines (314, S42, Pl3)

Shell gritted ware (fabric 23)20 Jar (523, S27, P11)21 Jar (559, S27, P9(11))22 Jar (531, S27, P11)23 Jar (559, S27, P9(11))24 Jar (531, S27, P11)25 Bowl with flanged rim and rilling inside

(2601)

Roman pottery (Fig 34)Indixivixus (fabric 27)1 Possibly a copy of Samian form Dr 36, with

barbotine decoration on top of rim (574, S27,P9(11)

Nene Valley ware (fabric 28)2 Beaker with high neck (698, S7-9)3 Castor box decorated with rouletting (1681,

S22, P9)4 Bowl with flanged rim (531, S27, P11)5 Bowl with flanged rim (531, S27, P11)a6 Bowl decorated with white paint (501, S69,

P14)7 Bowl with flat rim (531, S27, P11)8 Dish (564, S27, P9(11))

Oxfordshire red/brown colour coated ware(fabric 29, Young 1977)910

111213

14

1516

171819202122

Jug or flagon (559, S27, P9(11))Beaker with high neck and decorated withtraces of rouletting, C22 (577, S31, P8)Bowl with carination, C81 (531, S27, P11)Bowl with flanged rim, C93 (531, S27, P11)Bowl decorated with rouletting, C68 (3, S68,P13)Bowl decorated with semi-rosette stamps,C70 (1025, S125, P12)Bowl, C71 (583, S31, P8)Bowl decorated with rosette stamps, C73(556, S102, P9)Jar, C75 (1161, S126, P11)Bowl with drop flange, C51 (560, S27, P9(11)Bowl, C44 (1072, Sl20, P8-9)Bowl, C45 (559, S27, P9(11))Bowl, C47 (1005)Bowl decorated with white paint on flange,C48 (552, S27, P11)

23 Mortarium, C97 (564, S27, P9(11))

Brown slipped ware (fabric 31)24 Flagon (564, 527, P9(11))25 Beaker (531, S27, P11)26 Beaker decorated with rouletting (523, S27,

P11)

46

Figure 33 Roman pottery vessels in fabrics 22 (1-19) and 23 (20-5). Scale 1:4

47

Figure 34 Roman pottery vessels in fabrics 27 (1), 28 (2-8), 29 (9-23), 31 (24-6 32 (27-9) and 33 (30, 31).Scale 1:4

48

Mancetter/Hartshill white ware (fabric 32)27 Mortarium with wall sides (2600, S69, P14)28 Mortarium with hammerhead rim and

decorated with grooves on the rim and body(559, S27, P9(11))

29 Mortarium with hammerhead rim anddecorated with painted scrolls (531, S27, P11)

Oxfordshire white mortaria (fabric 33, Young1977) of particular sites, it has also been possible to

30 Mortarium, M6 (677, S96, P7-9)31 Mortarium, Ml0 (589, S27, P9(11))

Roman pottery (Fig 35)Oxfordshire white mortaria (fabric 33, Young1977)1 Mortarium, M11 (523, S27, P11)2 Mortarium, M18 (2600, S69, P14)3 Mortarium, M21 (582, S99, P9-11)4 Mortarium, M22 (564, S27, P9(11))5 Mortarium, M23 (1576, S31, P8)

West Midlands mortaria (fabric 34)6 Mortarium with a flange (1190, S31, P8)

Kent/Continental mortaria (fabric 36)7 Mortarium with a flange (1167, S109, P5(7))8 Mortarium with a flange (1030, S122,

P11(12))

Oxfordshire white ware (fabric 38, Young 1977)9 Jug, W26 (563, S102, P9)

Oxfordshire parchment ware (fabric 40)10 Bowl decorated with traces of red paint (559,

S27, P9(11))11 Bowl decorated with red paint (501, S69,

P14)

Unprovenanced white ware (fabric 41)12 Possible bowl decorated grooves (500)

was the location of specialist pottery productionduring the Iron Age period (Peacock 1968). Of thethree Malvern-region fabrics identified during thecourse of this study, subsequently expanded to fivethrough further research (Morris 1983), two,fabrics 3 (Peacocks's fabric A) and 4 (Peacock'sfabric Bl), were present at the Old Bowling Green.

Through the identification of wares containinginclusions available within the immediate vicinity

isolate a more 'local', probably less specialised,component of Iron Age assemblages in the region(eg Morris 1983, 338; Ford and Rees pers comm).The handmade sandy ware (fabric 5) may be anexample of this, although the presence of inclusionspotentially ascribable to a local source does notnecessarily indicate a local origin for the material,as other regional wares may remain unidentifieddue to their geologically undiagnostic nature.

Previous research has also established thecontinuation of some handmade Iron Age fabricsinto the Roman period, usually in more Romanisedforms, as in the case of Durotrigian BlackBurnished ware (Williams 1977). This generalpattern of continuity in technology accompanied byslight changes in form has been observed amongstthe Malvernian wares (Peacock 1965-7), butsimilar evidence of change within a generalframework of continuity for the Palaeozoiclimestone-tempered wares at Kenchester (Tomber1985, 119) and Beckford (Ford and Rees perscomm) is perhaps less well-known. The meta-morphic fabric (fabric 3, Peacock's fabric A) isrelatively common from the excavation in both IronAge and conquest period to early Roman forms,whilst the limestone fabric (fabric 4) is present inconquest period forms. The emphasis on fabric 3may be due to contrasts in distribution betweencentral and northern Worcestershire, and southernWorcestershire and Herefordshire, during the laterIron Age period.

Similarly, the fact that 'Belgic-style' fabrics 7 and8 are present but poorly represented from theexcavation may be a result of limited distribution ofthese wares in central and northern Worcester-shire. However. these fabrics are never common inthe Hereford and Worcester area, and their scarcityhere may be due to the relatively small sample ofThe prehistoric and Roman pottery

The general range is illustrated and tabulated inFigures 26-35, which also serves as a generalindication of how common, or otherwise, specificfabrics and forms were. However, it is appropriatein this section to offer a brief discussion of thefabric type series as it applies to this excavationand its implications for the supply of pottery to thesite, and to Droitwich in general.

material-datable to this period.

Regional Roman coarse waresThe mass of the material in this group comprisedSevern Valley and related wares (fabrics 12, 13, 16,17 and 20) with a small quantity of grey wares(fabrics 14, 15 and 18) and late Roman cookwaresgenerally imitating Black Burnished ware category1 in their forms (fabrics 19 and 21). Since SevernValley wares are known to have been produced atvarious locations (Webster 1976), it was hoped thatpetrological analysis would serve to identify more

Iron Age fabrics and wares in the Iron Aget r a d i t i o nIt has been established through petrological work closely -the sources of the material reaching thethat the Malvern region of Hereford and Worcester site. In addition it was observed that certain grey

49

Figure 35 Roman pottery vessels in fabrics 33 (continued, 1-5), 34 (6), 36 (7, 8), 38 (9), 40 (10, 11) and 41(12). Scale 1:4

fabrics were very similar in fracture, if not alwaysin form, to Severn Valley wares and samples weresubmitted with the aim of clarifying therelationship between the two.

Initial results were equivocal, showing a possiblepartial correlation between grey and oxidizedwares, but emphasising the smallness of thesample size, the geologically undiagnostic nature ofthe inclusions and the lack of a general frameworkof research for the petrological investigation of theRoman coarse wares of the region (1:F2-6).

Subsequent analysis, as part of a regional studyof Severn Valley fabrics, went some way toremedying this situation, identifying at least twosources, one of which was probably Malvernian.However, the range of fabrics revealed in this studywas far greater at consumer sites than amongstsamples from kilns, suggesting that the number ofknown production centres are at present too few toallow more than the most basic conclusions

concerning the marketing of Severn Valley wares tobe drawn (l:F13-G2). Indeed, some of the materialfrom the Old Bowling Green itself was sufficientlydistorted as to be classified as kiln waste, althoughno contemporary kiln structure has so far beenrecognised in the town.

The effect of these constraints on the resultspresented in this report, together with occasionaldifficulties in the consistent identification in handspecimens of petrologically-defined fabrics (parti-cularly fabric 18) should be borne in mind.

With hindsight, it may be suggested that thematerial from the excavation was too diverse innature to be representative of all periods of Romanpottery in Droitwich. Pottery from excavations witha more limited date, such as Dodderhill (HWCM603) and Hanbury Street (HWCM 681), which areto be the subject of a further volume in this series,will provide a valuable addition to the fabric typeseries.

50

Figure 36 Non-vessel pottery forms: spindle whorls (1,2), candlesticks (3, 4) and a whistle (5). Scale 1:2

Traded Roman coarse waresThe vast majority of the material in this groupconsisted of Black Burnished ware category 1(fabric 22). Late Roman shell tempered wares(fabric 23), which were relatively common, mayalso be included here as, although it is possible thatthese were produced and marketed on a fairlylocalised basis, similarities in form over a widearea suggest a common source (Rob Perrin perscomm). At a late stage in the post-excavationprogramme, the presence of grey wares from theAlice Holt/Farnham kilns (Lyne and Jeffries 1979)was recognised. They have not been characterizedor quantified in detail and have probably, for themost part, been assigned general grey wareclassifications (fabric 14 and 15). These wares alsoform a relatively small proportion of the lateRoman assemblage from Beckford (Ford and Reespers comm). Their presence, so far from source,emphasises the success of this industry during thelate Roman period.

Mortaria (kindly identified by Kay Hartley) wererelatively rare, especially the earlier Roman types(fabrics 34-37). The presence of Oxfordshire whitemortaria (fabric 33) during the later Roman periodis consistent with the general pattern of supply tothe site and the area from this source (Young 1977,and see below). The predominance of Mancetter/Hartshill products in the West Midlands isreflected in the presence of these wares inincreasing quantities from the mid second centuryonwards.

Roman fine waresOnly the most generally common of the pre-Flavianfine wares, Terra Nigra (fabric 25) and Lyons ware(fabric 26) were present, and these in very smallquantities. The later 'Rhenish’ wares of bothCentral and Eastern Gaulish origin were slightlymore numerous, and the presence of a single vesselfrom the workshop of the Nene Valley potter'Indixivixus’ (fabric 27) is noteworthy. Only in thelater Roman period were fine wares other than theearlier samian at all common, being largelysupplied by the Oxfordshire potteries (fabrics 29,30, 38, 39 and 40), with smaller quantities of NeneValley (fabric 28) and brown-slipped wares (fabric31).

Later pottery and other ceramic types

Post-Roman potteryAlmost all of the fabrics contained in the typeseries (Chapter 35) were present at the OldBowling Green. The chronological emphasis was,however, on the later medieval to early post-medieval periods, and on vessels post-dating c1800.

Non-vessel forms in pottery fabricsFive ceramic artefacts not of vessel form wererecovered. Two of these, the spindle whorls, hadbeen reworked from vessels, whilst the remainder

51

Figure 37 Briquetage vessels. Scale 1:4

52

had been especially manufactured. All occurred infabrics represented amongst the vessel assemblage.

The spindle whorls were reworked from sherds infabrics 12 (Severn Valley ware, Fig 36 no 1) and 43(samian, Fig 36 no 2), and were derived fromcontexts of phases 12 (2095, 5192) and 10-11(1230,S111) respectively.

Two wheel- or lathe-turned objects were probablycandlesticks. One (Fig 36 no 3) is possibly of SevernValley ware (fabric 12) but is rather finer. It wasretrieved from a layer (1023, S114) assigned tophases 7-9. The other (Fig 36 no 4) was againpossibly of Severn Valley ware or Oxfordshire redslipped tableware (fabric 29). If it is the latter thenthe form is not represented by Young (1977). It wasresidual, being retrieved from the upper fill (531) ofa ditch (S27) of phase 11.

The mouthpiece of a whistle (Fig 36 no 5) wasretrieved from a ditch fill (2609, S208, P13). Thefabric is Stamford ware (fabric 46) and is glazed tojust over half way along its surviving length.However, the remainder may also have been glazedoriginally as the glaze has the appearance ofhaving been flaked away, The complete instrumentwould probably have been similar to the modern'flageolet', but is fractured at one end and nofingerholes survive.

B r i q u e t a g eA discussion of the briquetage from this excavationhas already been published (Rees 1986) and a morecomprehensive survey of its character anddistribution has been undertaken by Morris (1985).Further comment is offered on two points only.

There appears to be a slightly greater diversity inboth the fabric and form of the collections examinedby Morris (1985, 33844) than amongst thematerial from the Old Bowling Green (Fig 37). It ispossible that these variations reflect the greaterchronological span of the former material. Secondly,the pottery dating evidence from the excavationinitially suggested that the use of briquetage on thesite was wholly of Roman date. This wassubsequently refuted by dendrochronological andradiocarbon analysis, and it now seems likely thatthe main use of briquetage in the process of saltmanufacture is more in keeping with the Iron Ageto early Roman dating of the material found on theconsumer sites (Morris 1985). For furtherdiscussion of briquetage and its relationship to thestructures on the site, see chapter 2.

Objects in 'briquetage’fabricsThese were too few in number to enable more thanvery tentative suggestions as to their function to bemade. Since the large perforated triangular objects(Fig 38 nos l-2) were recovered from the fill of oneof the clay- and stake-lined pits (1689, S8, P4-5(7)),they may have served to weigh down the roof of asuperstructure over this feature, although none of

the wood debris from the fill of this feature wasunequivocally structural in nature. Alternatively,and more likely, they may have functioned asloomweights. The shallow vessel (Fig 38 no 3) mayrepresent the one surviving example of a pan inwhich brine was boiled (1752, S8, P4). In neithercase is there strict necessity to postulate a directlink with the salt industry, as the local clays mayhave been used in the manufacture of all kinds ofdomestic objects, although the likelihood of aconnection remains. Various other pieces ofnon-vessel form were identified in briquetagefabrics, but these were too fragmentary to bereconstructed.

Discussion of the stratified material

Phases 1 to 3: Iron Age (Fig 39)

Clear differences between the range of fabrics andforms present in phase 1 and those of phase 2 wereobservable. This was probably partially related todifferences in sample size, as phase 1 contextscontained only 42 sherds, whilst phase 2 contextsproduced 3,219. The factor of sample size may alsohave been responsible for the apparent lack ofceramic development between phases 2 and 3, sinceonly 799 sherds were recovered from phase 3con texts. However, this could be a genuineindication that these two latter phases wererelatively close to one another in date.

Domestic pottery, in any case, was relatively rarethroughout, briquetage accounting for the vastproportion of the assemblage. In order to comparethe relative proportion of briquetage in each phase,it has been included with the other pottery in thepresentation of quantification by phase. With theseconstraints in mind, it may nevertheless be ofsignificance that, apart from a sherd of probablyresidual earlier prehistoric pottery, and apart frombriquetage from Droitwich itself (fabrics 1 and 2),only two sources of domestic pottery, oneMalvernian (fabric 3) and one unknown (fabric 5.1)were represented amongst material of phase 1.Contexts of phase 2, by contrast, contained fourfabrics, with Palaeozoic limestone (fabric 4.1) and'Belgic-style pottery (fabric 8) making theirstratigraphically-earliest appearance, in addition tothe two earlier fabrics. This development wasmatched in the forms. The range in phase 1 wasconfined to plain saucepan pots (Fig 26 no 2) infabric 3 and a single everted jar in fabric 5 (Fig 26no 23), and the range in phase 2 comprised bothplain and linear tooled saucepan pots (Fig 26 nos 1and 15) and pattern burnished tubby cooking pots(Fig 26 nos 3-4 and 7-10), a single everted jar infabric 4.1 (Fig 26 nos 20-21) and a wheelturnedvessel, probably a carinated bowl in fabric 8 (Fig 26no 26). This extension in the range of forms andsources may have reflected a general trend towardsgreater communication between regions and

53

Figure 38 Objects in 'briquetage' fabrics: thatch or loomweights (1,2) and shallow vessel (3). Scale 1:2

5 4

Figure 39 Proportion (by number of sherds) offabrics present in phases 1-3

increasing functional specialization in potteryforms at the end of the Iron Age. It may also berelated to the importance of Droitwich as a centrefor the manufacture and export of salt during thelater Iron Age period (see Chapter 34).

Phases 4 to 5: Mid 1st to mid 3rdcentury (Fig 40)

Since assemblages from contexts of phases 4 and 5were large (3,838 and 5,643 sherds respectively),they not only represented a reliable sample size inthemselves but they can also be compared withreasonable confidence.

The pottery of phase 4 consisted of fabrics in theIron Age tradition (fabrics 3, 4 and 7) together withregional Roman types, predominantly SevernValley and related wares (fabrics 12, 13, 14 and 15).Continental sources were represented by Rhodian-style amphorae and samian ware from SouthernGaul and Les Martres-de-Veyre in Central Gaul.

Since the range of forms in fabric 3 increased inphase 4 to include narrow necked jars and that anecked bowl and a lug, in addition to the evertedjars of phase 3, occurred in fabric 4, the evidencefrom the site corroborates to some extent otherindications that these wares continued to bemanufactured after the Roman conquest.

The range of Severn Valley ware forms was fairlylimited, consisting largely of carinated bowls (Fig29 nos 21-27), with a smaller number of storageand other jars (Fig 27 nos 7, 16-17, and 19-21) andsingle examples in flagon (Fig 27 nos 3-4), beaker(Fig 27 no 12), necked bowl (Fig 29 no 10) and beadrimmed bowl (Fig 30 no 21) forms.

In phase 5, the range of coarse wares increasedslightly, most significantly to include BlackBurnished ware category 1 of Dorset origin (fabric22), and there was a slightly higher proportion ofsamian ware (fabric 43), mostly from central Gaul,which was expected for this date range. Amphorae(fabric 42) comprised Dressel 20 and Camulo-dunum 186A forms and mortaria in fabric 36(Kent/Continental) were also present for the firsttime. In addition, it may be significant thatbriquetage was almost completely absent from thelargest assemblage of phase 5 (that from the fills ofS1), suggesting that its use had ceased by this time.

Severn Valley ware forms making their strati-graphically-earliest appearance in phase 5 includedwide-mouthed jars, some with long upright necks(Fig 27 no 18), others with long out-turned necksand hooked or triangular rims (Fig 28 nos 12-15and 29 nos 1-3) and tankards with out-turned sides(Fig 29 nos 12-18). Everted jars with short necks(see above) were also much more common in phase5 than in phase 4.

The assemblage from structure 1 appeared, fromthe samian, to be of Hadrianic to early Antoninedate. Its large and well-preserved coarse wareassemblage included many of the above Severn

55

Figure 40 Proportion (by number of sherds) offabrics present in phases 4 and 5

Valley ware forms but lacked the hooked ortriangular rimmed jars, which were more regularlyassociated in phase 5 with Antonine samian ware.This suggested that this form was of later datewithin the range of phase 5. Structure 1 alsoproduced a jug in fabric 22, a form and fabriccombination unique for the excavation (Fig 32 no

24), and a small quantity of possible Severn Valleyware waster sherds. Identification of the forms ofthese sherds was difficult due to extremedistortion, but jars and a single tankard without-turned sides and lattice decoration wererepresented.

Phases 7 to 9: Mid 3rd to late 4thcentury (Fig 41)As the sample size in phase 7 was rather small (c185 sherds), no ceramic significance could beattached to the absence therein of typesrepresented in phase 8 (1,078 sherds) and phase 9(2,122 sherds). There was a slight difference inabsolute dating between phases 7 and 8, each witha terminus post quem of c AD 300 from singlesherds in fabric 29 (Oxfordshire red-slippedtableware (Young 1977, Cl00 and C71), and phase9 for which a single fabric 29 sherd supplied aterminus post quem of c AD 325. A coin of AD 320confirmed a late date for this latter phase (2:Dl).However, there was no other indication of ceramicdevelopment between phases 7/8 and phase 9, andthe phases were therefore considered together.

For the purpose of the discussion, the material isdivided into five functional groups:

Storage and everyday waresSevern Valley wares (fabrics 12 and 13) werepredominant in this group, occurring in a widevariety of late Roman forms, most notablysquat-necked jars (eg Fig 29 nos 4-9) and bowlswith grooved rims (Fig 30 nos l-14). Amongst therange of narrow- necked jars, the double-lipped jar(Fig 28 nos 9-10) was the most distinctive of thisperiod. A small quantity of grey wares (fabrics 14,15 and 18) occurred in somewhat similar forms toSevern Valley ware. At a late stage in the analysis,the presence of grey wares from the AliceHolt/Farnham kilns was recognised, and it is likelythat at least a few of the grey wares occurring incontexts assigned to phases 7 to 9 were of thisorigin. It may be of significance that fabrics 14 and15, the groups most likely to have containedunrecognised Alice Holt/Farnham wares, did notoccur in cookware forms.

A fabric related to Severn Valley ware containingmudstone (fabric 17) was reserved for distinctivelarge storage jars with heavy rims (Fig 32 no 8).

C o o k w a r e sThe two major cookware fabrics in currency duringthis period were Black Burnished ware category 1(fabric 22) and shell tempered wares, perhaps ofeastern Midland origin (fabrics 23 and 24, Fig 33nos 20-25). Another common fabric in this group,which usually occurred in forms imitating BlackBurnished ware (eg Fig 32 nos 15-16 and 19-20),was wheelthrown Malvernian metamorphic (fabric

56

19). A sandy micaceous fabric (fabric 21.2), whichwas present in flanged bowl form (eg Fig 32 no 23),formed a small proportion of the assemblage.

FinewaresOxfordshire red slipped tableware (fabric 29) wasthe most common fabric in this group but NeneValley ware (fabric 28) and south-western brownslipped ware (fabric 31) were present in smallerquantities. White wares were rare, and where thesource was identifiable, were also of Oxfordshireorigin. One Oxfordshire parchment bowl (fabric 40)occurred in a variation not represented in Young’s(1977) type series (Fig 35 no 11).

MortariaMortaria from Oxfordshire (fabric 32) andMancetter/Hartshill (fabric 33) were present inrelatively small quantities and in later Romanforms in phases 7 to 9 (eg Fig 34 nos 27-9 and Fig35 no 4).

AmphoraeDressel 20 (l:G8) was the most common formamongst the small quantity of amphorae in thisperiod.

Phases 10 to 13: 5th to 20th century(Fig 42)

The post-Roman pottery development of Droitwichwas much better represented at Friar Street(Chapter 22). It may be of significance that, despitethe presence on the excavation of a small quantityof pottery of the late Saxon and early medievalperiods, few assemblages could be assigned withcertainty to this date-range, suggesting that thesite was not intensively occupied at this time.

Conclusions

Figure 41 Proportion (by number of sherds) offabrics present in phases 7-9

With the exception of the Anglo-Saxon period, thematerial from the excavation presented acontinuous ceramic sequence from the prehistoricperiod to the present day. The absence of early andmiddle Saxon material is unremarkable for centralWorcestershire, and does not necessarily imply thatthe site was unoccupied at this time. Unusually,however, sherds of this date were recovered fromthe nearby excavations at Upwich (HWCM 4575,Derek Hurst pers comm) and Friar Street (Chapter22).

Within this broad span, the quantitativedistribution of pottery by period suggests thatoccupation of the site was more intensive duringthe Iron Age to early Roman, the late Roman andthe late medieval to post-medieval periods thanduring mid-Roman and early medieval times. Thatthe early medieval period was poorly represented isin contrast to the nearby Friar Street excavation

57

Figure 42 Proportion (by number of sherds) of fabrics present in phases 10-13

58

(Chapter 22). The increasing paucity of materialthroughout the 2nd century and the absence ofpottery demonstrably of the earlier to middle yearsof the 3rd century, would seem to be a more generalphenomenon (see eg Fulford 1975, 105-11; Fordand Rees pers comm).

To turn to specific aspects of the pottery, twopoints, both concerning the Iron Age period, may beof wider significance. Firstly, whilst it has beensuggested that wheelturned 'Be&c’ pottery (fabrics7 and 8) is exclusively of Roman date in this area(Swan 1975), its presence in phase 2 implies thatsuch material was in currency, albeit in very smallquantities, before the Roman conquest. The potteryassemblage of phase 2 also suggests that theMalvernian tubby cooking pot form, although mostlikely to be Roman in date (Peacock 1965-7),originated in the late pre-Roman Iron Age. This isconsistent with the evidence from Beckford (Fordand Rees pers comm), where such material ispresent in contexts of probable Iron Age date but ismuch more common in the early Roman period.Secondly, as has already been suggested,briquetage ceased to be used for the production andexport of salt during the first two centuries of theRoman period (Rees 1986, 51-3).

In general, the pottery evidence from the OldBowling Green is consistent with a pattern ofregional pottery supply in the later Iron Age andearly Roman periods, increasingly supplemented bymaterial from outside the region throughout theRoman period.

In future studies, it will be of interest to compareRoman material from the industrial phases of theOld Bowling Green and Friar Street with potteryfrom the fort at Dodderhill, the villa at BaysMeadow, the civil settlement at Hanbury Streetand the later Roman phases of Friar Street, inorder to assess the impact of site function onpatterns of pottery supply in Roman Droitwich.

Samian, by Brenda Dickinson

Over eight hundred sherds of samian (fabric 43)were recovered from the excavation, of whichapproximately 26% were South Gaulish ware, 68%Central Gaulish and 6% East Gaulish.

With only two or three exceptions, all the 1stcentury material comes from La Graufesenque.Another possible South Gaulish sherd seems to bein Montans fabric. Samian from this factory, whilenot uncommon in Britain in the 2nd century, isdistinctly rare in the 1st century, except perhaps atLondon. First ten tury Central Gaulish ware,represented here by two decorated bowls fromLezoux, does not occur in great quantities at anysite in Britain, but its distribution pattern haswidened considerably in the past few years andexamples have been noted as far north as Camelon,in Scotland. In the Midlands it is known from sitessuch as Alcester, Little Chester and Tiddington,

and there is another bowl from Friar Street,Droitwich (Chapter 22).

None of the earliest decorated ware from the sitesuggests that samian was in use here before the60s. This impression is reinforced by the scarcity ofthe commoner pre-Flavian plain forms, such as 24and Ritterling 8, while the contemporary formsRitterling 9 and 12 are absent altogether.

The quantities of samian discarded on the siteincreased considerably in the Flavian period but,again on the evidence of the decorated ware,declined sharply towards the end of the 1st century.

Such small quantities of Trajanic South Gaulishware as there may have been were supplementedby contemporary material from the Central Gaulishfactory of Les Martres-de-Veyre, whose productsaccount for approximately 8% of the samian as awhole and 10% of the 2nd century and latermaterial. This means that considerably less samianwas being discarded in the early 2nd century thanin the Flavian period and this amount does notincrease appreciably before c AD 150.

The Antonine Central Gaulish ware, of which thebulk comes from Lezoux, amounts to almost twicethe quantity of 1st century South Gaulish material.Much of it is not closely datable, but it includesforms not made before c AD 160, such as the dishforms 31R and 79, and several of the later 2ndcentury potters are represented by decorated bowlsor plainware stamps. They include Advocisus,Casurius ii, Do(v)eccus i, Iullinus ii and Paternus vand his associates. There are at least eightdecorated bowls in a style of Cinnamus ii current inthe period c AD 150-180.

All the East Gaulish samian, with the exceptionof one possible sherd of La Madeleine ware, is late2nd or early 3rd century. In the absence of anysherds with surviving decoration, attribution hasbeen made on the evidence of fabrics and glazes.These suggest that most of the material comes fromRheinzabern, but there is one sherd of Trier ware.Approximately 9% of the 2nd century and latersamian is East Gaulish, but scarcely any will beearlier than c AD 160.

The fluctuations in the quantities of samiandiscarded on this site over an unbroken period ofmore than a century and a half do not differ greatlyfrom the standard pattern for Britain, though itmay be noted that there is rather less 1st centurymaterial than might be expected in a collection ofthis size.

The following is an extract of the full catalogue(l:G13-2:C12).

Illustrated sherds (Fig 43)1 Form 37, burnt. The fabric is very micaceous,

with a dull orange glaze, both typical of 1stcentury Lezoux ware. The motif is very likeRogers G9. The piece is not closely datable,but is likely to belong to the Flavian orFlavian-Trajanic period, since Lezouxsamian was not exported regularly to Britain

59

Figure 43 Decorated samian (fabric 43). Scale 1:2

60

2

3

4

5

before then. Context 2267, structure 153,phase 11(12)?.Form 29, South Gaulish. The upper andlower zones are completely filled withdecoration, in the manner of the Bassus i-Coelus firm, though with a different range ofmotifs. Double wreaths in the upper zone arenot common and, when they occur, areusually identical. Gallicanus used them onsome of his bowls. The motif in the basalwreath occurs mainly in the Claudio-Neronian period, and the use of wavy linesthrough it, and dividing the two lowerwreaths also suggests this date. No parallelshave been found for the exclusive use ofwreaths on form 29 except on bowls stampedby Gallicanus, but an unprovenanced bowl atMainz, of which only the lower zone survives,has two wreaths separated by beads. Itsbasal wreath, very similar to the one on theDroitwich bowl, is divided in the same way,but by beads. C AD 50-65. Context 564,structure 27, phase 9(11).Form 29, in 1st century Lezoux ware, withorange fabric and a dull, orange glaze. Themoulding is exceptionally good, though thefinishing of the rim is not to the samestandard. The upper zone occurs on bowlsstamped by, or in the style of Atepomarus ii(Bull Hist et Scient de l'Auvergne, LXII(1942), 200, 15). The motifs in the lower zoneappear to be made up of repeatedimpressions of similar large and smallleaves. Neronian. Context 564, structure 27,phase 9(11).Form 30, in the fabric of Les Martres-de-Veyre. A freestyle scene, with ovolo(Rogers B14) and figures used bymould-makers for Donnaucus. The warriorsto left (0.210) and right (not in D or 0) are ona bowl from London (Walters 1908, M1441).The kilted figure (D. 125, with a detachedsword instead of a spear) and amazon (0.251)are on a bowl from Les Martres (Terrisse1968, pl xxxi, 606) c AD 110-120. Context28C, structure 1, phase 5.Form 37, Central Gaulish, mended in severalplaces with lead rivets. The two repeatedpanels are: 1) a horseman (0.251). 2) a boar(0.1668) over a lion (0.14971). On thedecoration, this bowl would have almostcertainly have been attributed to Drusus ii ofLezoux. However, since it is in LesMartres-de-Veyre fabric, it was either madethere in a Lezoux mould or, more probably,Drusus began his career at Les Martres, ashis connections with Sacer i and hisassociates would have suggested. It is in hisfamiliar Lezoux early style, with alternatingwide and narrow panels without subdivisions(cf Stanfield and Simpson 1958, pl 89, 12,from Heronbridge). His small bowls all seem

to be in this style. The type of footring ismore common at Les Martres than Lezoux,and also suggests that this is one of hisearlier products. A range c AD 120-125 islikely for his activity at Les Martres-de-Veyre. Context 731, structure 74, phase7-9.

6 Form 37, Central Gaulish, with a freestylescene. The Mercury (D. 288 variant), siren(D. 499), leaf (Rogers 5146) and nine-petalledrosette all occur on a stamped bowl ofMaccius ii from High Cross (unpublished).The ovolo (Rogers B109) is probably the oneon a stamped mould of his from Lezoux (Co11Oswald-Plicque), which was also used byButrio. The other figure-types are a Diana ina chariot and a small, naked figure (neitherin D or O), another Diana (D. 69, alsorecorded for Maccius) and a bird (D. 1041).Very few of Maccius's decorated bowls areknown, and it is useful to have one whichadds some new figure-types. He clearly hasconnections with Butrio, but one of hisdecorated bowls and a plainware cup occur ina pit-group of c AD 150-160 at Alcester(forthcoming). His plain forms include 18/31,18/31R and 27. C AD 125-150. Context 1023,structure 114, phase 7-9.

7 Form 37, Central Gaulish. The unusualovolo, with thick tongue, occurs at Castlefordin a layer dated after AD 150. The trilobedmotif (of the type Rogers G152-185) is notclosely identifiable. Antonine. Context 1553,structure 155?, phase 12.

Stumped herds (not illustrated)1

2

3

4

Form 31, Central Gaulish, stamped ]I or I[.Antonine. Context 24, structure 66, phase7-9.Form 18/31R, stamped TA[SGILLVSF] byTasgillus ii (die 2a). This potter worked atboth Les Martres-de-Veyre and Lezoux, butall the examples noted of this stamp are inLea Martres fabric, and there are severalexamples from the kilns there. One is underthe base of a form 29. The stamp has alsobeen noted at Malton. C AD 110-125.Context 28A, structure 1, phase 5.Form 37, Central Gaulish, stampedA[DVOCISI] by Advocisus of Lezoux wherethe die (8a) is known. There are many bowlswith this stamp on Hadrians Wall and at itshinterland forts, but only one has been notedin Scotland (at Kelso). The trifid motif occurson a stamped bowl from the Wroxeter forumdestruction (Atkinson 1942, H3). C AD160-190. Context 541, structure 47, phase7-9( 11).Form 31, Central Gaulish, stamped ]ILVI ·Mor ]IIVI 'M. Antonine. Context 552, structure27, phase 11.

61

5 Form 33, stamped [AC]VRIO 'F by Acurio ofLezoux, where the die (5a) is known. There isno site dating for Acurio, but his repertoireincludes forms 18/31R, 27 and 38. This isprobably one of his later stamps, since heused it on forms 31 and 80. C AD 150-170.Context 559, structure 27, phase 9(11).

6 Form 31, Central Gaulish, stamped ]I· or ·I[.Hadrianic-Antonine. Context 563, structure27, phase 9(11).

7 Form 18R, South Gaulish, with very faintrouletting. The profile of the wall is nearer toform 18. There is still kiln-grit on the insideof the base and under the footring, so thedish may have been broken before it was everused. The sherds have been fitted togetherwith a large number of lead rivets, pre-sumably because it was worthwhile to menda new vessel. Unfortunately, although mostof the dish has survived, the complete stamphas not, and only C[ or ] remains. Neronianor early Flavian. Context 564, structure 27,phase 9( 11).

8 Form 31, stamped MATERNI by Maternus ivof Lezoux (die 11). This particular stamp hasnot been recorded before, but his work isknown at the hinterland forts of HadriansWal l and at Pudding Pan Rock . Hisrepertoire includes forms 31R, 79, 80 and,occasionally, 27. C AD 160-190, Context 630,structure 27, phase 9(11).

9 Form 33 or 80 etc, stamped [FA]BIANIMAretrograde, by Fabianus ii of Lezoux, wherethe die (2a) is known. Fabianus probably onlyused this one die, though others have beenattributed to him. It occurs mainly on form33, but single examples of forms 31 and 31Rhave been noted. He worked in the Antonineperiod, but no closer dating is possible.Context 714, structure 96, phase 7-9.

10 Form 32 etc, East Gaulish, perhaps stampedLI[. Late 2nd or early 3rd century. Context1098, structure 31, phase 8.

11 Form 29 base, South Gaulish, stamped O[ or]O. Pre-Flavian. Context 1194, structure 106,phase 4-5.

12 Dish, stamped [DOVIICC]VS by Do(v)eccus iof Lezoux (die 11e). This stamp has beenrecorded at sites in northern Britainreoccupied c AD 160. The forms include 31R.C AD 165-200. Context 1240, structure 106,phase 5.

13 Form 27, stamped S DAT.M by Sedatus IV ofLezoux, where the die (2c) is known. Thisstamp was used on forms 18/31, 27 and 33.His work appears occasionally in theRhineland, suggesting activity before c AD150 and one of his signed jar moulds also hasa signature of Paullus iv. C AD 125-150.Context 1919, structure 29, phase 11.

14 Form 18/31, stamped [GONO]I 'M with die2a of Gongius of Central Gaul, presumablyLezoux. Forms 18/31, 18/31R and 27 areamong his commonest forms, but thepresence of this stamp at Camelon and OldKilpatrick shows that he worked in theAntonine period. One of his stamps occurs ina pit-group of the 150s at Alcester. C AD140-170. Context 2212, structure 157, phase11.

15 Form 31, Central Gaulish, stamped C[. Midto late Antonine. Context 2600, structure 69,phase 14.

16 Form 29 base, stamped OFMODES[TI] byModestus i of La Graufesenque (die 2g). Oneof his commonest stamps, though notrecorded in dated contexts, apart from theCirencester fort ditch (c AD 45-65). Context2609, structure 208, phase 13.

62

4 Ceramic building material S i m o n W o o d i w i s s

An assemblage of 2,141 fragments, weighing246.21kg, was recovered from the excavation. Thefabric reference series used for identification was asdefined by Hurst (Chapter 23) for Friar Street. Thisdiscussion covers only tile, as brick formed toosmall a fraction of the assemblage to enable validconclusions to be drawn. An element of doubtconcerns the tile assemblage as this too was ofsmall, though not insignificant, size.

Chronological development

Roman tile was recovered in small quantities fromboth phases 4 and 5 (7 and 58 fragments res-pectively), and of these one layer (711) in phase 5contained 34 fragments

Most of the tile from phase 7 (28 fragments,weighing 3,166g) was recovered from two layergroups (S112 and S210). Another eight fragmentscame from the foundations of a building (S26). Theaverage weight of the fragments (136g) was thehighest of phases 5 to 9 and perhaps indicated thatthe tile was close to its place of use, possibly tilebroken during the construction of a building (ieS26).

Phase 8 contained the most tile of the Romanperiod, recovered from the disuse elements ofstructures which did not themselves appear to havebeen roofed. The average fragment weight (76g) was small, indicating that the assemblage wasprobably largely residual. This tile may havederived from the demolition of the building (S26)which was constructed in phase 7,

The tile of phase 9 also had a low average weight(57g), indicating a largely residual assemblage.Very few of the fragments were from contextspost-dating the construction of the post-builtbuilding (S22) suggesting that tile from this phasemay also have been derived from the buildingconstructed in phase 7 (S26).

A single example of a fabric with limestoneinclusions, indicating a Cotswold source, came fromphase 10.

A sizeable proportion (37% by weight) of thephase 11 assemblage was made up of the sandyfabric (fabric 2a), though residual material was stilldominant (see Chapter 23 for discussion of theearly date of this fabric). Most of the fragmentswere unglazed. The small average weight (71g)again indicated a largely residual component. The

Figure 44 Ceramic building material. Scale 1:2

63

average weight of fragments of fabric 2a was alsosmall (62g) and suggests the tile was used at somedistance from the excavated area.

In phase 12 fabric 2a increased to 77% of theassemblage by weight and had a fairly highaverage weight at 140g. Glaze, pegholes and nibswere present, as well as a roof finial (Fig 44 no 1)and a ridge tile of characteristic form (Fig 44 no 2).A small proportion of the assemblage (4%) wasmade up of fabric 3 with Malvernian rockinclusions.

Hard-fired machine-made tile (fabric 1) wasadded to the assemblage in phases 13 and 14,though fabric 2a remained the largest component.

Tile types, stamps and reuse

The range and date of tile types conformed closelyto that observed at Friar Street (Chapter 23).However the assemblage was too small forcomplete certainty in relating the tile to specificstructures. The forms of Roman tile were tegula,imbrex and box tile, in decreasing order of quantity.Nibs and pegholes were both features of themedieval tile.

The tile stamps, all from phase 12 contexts (1917,S191, 1565 and 2214, both from S170), may, asHurst suggests (Chapter 23) have been as early asthe 15th century. The stamps were of two types, acircle and a partial circle (Fig 45), pressed into thetile before firing. They bore some resemblance toone example from Worcester (Carver 1980, 213). Afragment of inlaid floor tile (Fig 44 no 3) wasrecovered from the foundations of the bowlinggreen (100, S69, P14). It bears a coat of arms: a

Figure 45 Tile stamps. Scale 1:1

cross surrounded by martlets and is probably oflate 13th or 14th century date (Hilary White perscomm). Floor tiles, apparently in situ, have beenfound behind the Hop Pole Inn on Friar Street(Hodgkinson 1931, 70. HWCM 610) and a kiln isknown from Witton (Allies 1852, 102. HWCM 660).

Two roughly-shaped disks (65 and 70mm indiameter) were recovered from phases 11 and 12(531, S27 and 2209, S167), and two fromuncertainly-phased contexts (559, S27, P9(11) and1992, S9, P4-5(11?)). The earliest may have comefrom Roman contexts (perhaps as early as phase 4)and three examples were made from Roman tile.The one reshaped tile in fabric 2a would indicate amedieval date for the reshaping, though all otherexamples cannot be assumed to be contemporary.Similar, though smaller, pottery disks from otherexcavations have in the past usually beeninterpreted as 'counters' (eg Crummy 1983, 93).The presence of counters used for reckoning andgames has been well established from the laterprehistoric period onwards. On this particular siteit is an attractive speculation to relate the tile disksto reckoning used in the production of salt.

64

5 Other ceramic objects Derek Hurst and Simon

Woodiwiss

A group of handmade fragments in the Malvernianpottery fabric (fabric 3) was recognised, and thesewere characteristically c 15-20mm thick (see alsoChapter 24) . Three poss ib le forms wererepresented: large vessels with thick heavy rims,straight sides and rounded comers (Fig 46 no l),straight-sided plates (Fig 46 no 2) and circularplates. One other form was represented by a singleexample (Fig 46 no 3). There were no completeexamples of any of these types and dimensionscould not be established.

Evidence from other sites in the region, forexample Beckford (Hurst pers comm), has indicatedthat this type of ceramic is 3rd to 4th century indate. The earliest material from the Old Bowling

Green consisted of two fragments from the earliestfill of a brine tank (2438, S8) assigned to phase 4(mid 1st to early 2nd century). Phases 9 (mid 3rd tolate 4th century) and 11 (12th to 14th century)produced the most material (13 and 14 fragmentsrespectively). Twenty-nine fragments, of a totalassemblage of 117, came from the fills of a largeditch (S27).

Fragments were also recovered of a possibleshallow vessel in a fabric similar to pottery fabric 2,but better mixed and formed. There was no sign ofcoil building. It was recovered from the fill (1752) ofstructure 8, one of the brine tanks of phase 4(Chapter 2).

Figure 46 Ceramic objects. Scale 1:2

65

6 Fired clay Helen Rees and Simon Woodiwiss

Twenty-five fragments of fired clay, most with holesfor wattle, were recovered from a layer (1065, S122)assigned to phase 11(12). It was not possible tosuggest from which structure these were originallyderived.

Fragments were also recovered of a possibleshallow vessel in a fabric similar to pottery fabric 2,but better mixed and formed. There was no sign ofcoil building. It was recovered from the fill (1752) ofstructure 8, one of the brine tanks of phase 4(Chapter 2).

66

7 Clay pipe Derek HUrst

Clay pipes were common in post-medieval contextsfrom phase 12 onwards, but especially duringphase 13. Several early examples were presentwith small bulbous bowls comparable with Broseleytype 1A and dating to c 1630-40 (Atkinson 1975,24). Until c 1800 some of the pipes were fromBroseley, South Shropshire, but more locallyproduced pipes seem to have been extensivelyavailable.

In addition there were several examples of pipeswith a wheel stamp impressed on the underside ofthe heel. This stamp type has been dated byOswald (1975, 66) to c 1650-90, and is commonlyfound on pipes throughout the Welsh Marchesregion.

Clay pipe marks are summarised in Table 1.

Fig 471 Novelty pipe of 19th century (Oswald 1975,

111); context 3119, structure 42, phase 13.2 Bowl of 17th century date marked with FB in

a heart on the heel; context 111/11.2,structure 92?, phase 12.

3 Broseley type 4A bowl (dated c 1720) withsmall SR mark of Samuel Roden on spur;context 111/112, structure 92?, phase 12.

4 Broseley type 7A pipe (dated 1720-40);context 1825, structure 203, phase 13.

Table 1 Clay pipe marks

Phase Mark Pipe type Date Maker Reference

11-12?1212121313

13

13

13

1313 AB

13

I0FBSRIPRPl[—]GFORDWORCESTERC.HARD[—]WORCES[—]IAMES/GETH/INGRUSS[—]WORCES[—]EP

FB in heart

Broseley 1A?Broseley 4A?Broseley 2BWorcester

Worcester

Broseley c1740-70

Worcester c 1835 —

Broseley 4BBroseley 4A

c 1630-4017th C1720-5017th Cc 1680—

—

—Samuel Roden—Randle Peak—

c 1850 C Hardwick

James Gething

1690-1720? —1690-1720 Andrew Bradley

— — —

——Atkinson 1975, 78

Atkinson 1975, 72—

Oswald 1975, 199

Atkinson 1975, 53

Oswald 1975, 199

Atkinson 1975, 90Atkinson 1975, 46—

67

Figure 47 Clay pipe. Scale 1:2

68

8 Glass Julian Henderson

A total of 375 fragments and objects of glass wererecorded, ranging in date from Roman topost-medieval. Chemical analysis was limited toqualitative x-ray spectroscopy of the beads. Theassemblage is largely residual and too small foreither a detailed analysis of development througheach phase or to indicate social and economicaspects of the site, Discussion consists of thedetailed description and drawing of parallels forselected glass fragrnents and objects from theexcavation. A full catalogue is held as part of thearchive.

Roman glass

VesselsOne of the most complete Roman vessels (Fig 48 no1) is a ribbed bowl in a pale 'natural’ green glasswhich was probably made in the mid 1st centuryand may be of Syro-Italian origin. It is probablymould-blown with a rim which has been rounded inthe flame. There are parallels from Verulamim(Charlesworth 1972, 196 and fig 74, 2) andCamulodunum (Harden 1947, 299-300, no 48 andpl lxxxvii) in yellow glass, and others have beenfound in London (Wheeler 1930, 122, fig 42, 5). TheOld Bowling Green example, in 39 pieces, wasredeposited in a post-medieval ditch fill (3009, S67,P12). Also of 1st century date, or possibly later, arethe remains of blown bottles in a natural greenishglass which were recovered from post-Romancontexts (501, S6, P14, 2212, S157, P11 and 2303,S170?, P11). The bulk of these common greenprismatic or square bottles occur in the period AD70-130, although they are found both before andafter this period (Charlesworth 1966; Harden andPrice 1971, 361). Only three of the bottle fragmentsfrom the Old Bowling Green were securelystratified earlier than the medieval period and, likethe other glass from the site, redeposition iscommon, The bottle fragments are often scratchedon the outer surface, probably as a result of beingstored in wooden crates.

Another vessel fragment is part of a cobalt bluebowl or jar which has probably been cast and whichbears a horizontal band. Other examples have beenfound in contexts of 1st century and later dates,and of other colours (Charlesworth 1981, 293, no11). While the glass metal is of good quality,suggesting a 1st century date, this fragment wasfound in the fill of a late Roman ditch (579, S27?,P9?) and may well date to that period; the fragmentis too small to be certain. A further bowl or cupfragment, although residual (1800, S69, P14), canbe assigned a 1st to 2nd century date with moreconfidence. The fragment is of a lightly-weathered

colourless metal with a thickened rounded rim,This high quality glass was probably cast and hasbeen ground and polished on both surfaces. Acomparable fragment was found at Fishbournefrom a Period Two context dated c AD 75-100(Harden and Price 1971, 331, no 23, pl xxv, fig 137).Comparable colourless glasses of Flavian date havealso been found in London.

A further rim fragment, of a pale green bowl orcup of Hofheim type, was recovered from acontaminated context (1576, S31, P8). It wasprobably b lown because i t exhib i ts thecharacteristic gloss of blown glass on its innersurface. The outer, slightly convex, surface iswheel-abraded with a band of wheel incisionsaround the rim, the latter having been knocked offand polished. Comparable bowls have beenrecorded from Fishbourne (Harden and Price 1971,345, fig 139, no 48) and Camulodunum (Harden1947, 303, nos 74 and 76). They have a roughlyhemispherical shape and mainly occur in the 1stcentury (including some examples from Fishbourneand Camulodunum), but they also occur in laterRoman contexts, like the fragment from the OldBowling Green. An example from Fishbourne whichderived from a context datable to as late as AD 270was also of pale green glass (Harden and Price1971, 345, no 480). Two further bowl fragments, ofinsufficient size to be wholly diagnostic, weretubular ring bases from bowls or beakers in naturalgreen blown glass. They were derived from a lateRoman pit fill (1039, S15, P8) and redeposited in amedieval layer (582, S99, P9-11) respectively. Bothhave the remnant of a slightly domed base andoutsplayed vessel walls attached. These bases werecommon 2nd to 3rd century forms and comparablewith examples from Exeter (Charlesworth 1979,224, fig 70, no 19) and from Housesteads(Charlesworth 1971, 34, nos 4, 5 and 6).

BeadsA brilliant translucent red globular bead from theOld Bowling Green has an opaque white substancelining the perforation. The probable technique ofmanufacture has been to wrap a filament of redglass around a wire coated in the opaque whitesubstance. The exact nature of the opaque whitesubstance is difficult to ascertain. It is of a granularnon-vitreous and friable consistency and will haveenabled the bead to have been easily separatedfrom the wire it was made on. The small differencein measurement between the two ends of theperforation (0.5-0.7mm) may indicate that atapering wire also facilitated removal of the bead.In order to regularise the shape of the bead it wasprobably reheated until the filaments fully fused,

69

Figure 48 Glass. Scale 1:2

Another bead of very similar dimensions and thesame colour has recently been excavated from adisturbed context on the surface of a Bronze Agesite on Harden Moor, West Yorkshire. The bead hasprecisely the same white lining of the perforation.Other red glass beads are not uncommon fromBritish Roman contexts such as from TrentholmeDrive, York (Wenham 1968, 99 and fig 36 no 46).

This bead is of a soda-lime-silica composition andits colourant is probably copper, which is present atrelatively high levels. It is however, translucent,and not opaque as would be expected if copper waspresent in a reduced (cuprous) coordination withinthe glass. It is conceivable that the cuprous oxide ormetallic copper crystals which would normallycause a red colour are extremely small and welldispersed. The bead was derived from apost-medieval layer (1515, S156, P12) but since it isof a Roman composition and type, with no knowncontinuity of production into the medieval period, itis likely to have been redeposited. Soda-lime-silicaglass is similarly rare in the high medieval period.

A second translucent glass bead is green and hasbeen produced by winding a strand of glass aroundthe end of a tapering metal wire from which it hadbeen pushed off when completed. It is very roughlymade and may originally have been part of anecklace. The type of bead is common in the lateRoman period in Britain (see Brodribb et al 1971,106 and fig 52, no 258 for a comparable example of4th century date). The bead was recovered from alate Roman fill of a foundation trench for a stonebuilding (1015, S26, P7). Analysis indicates thatthe bead is of a soda-lime-silica composition andthat it is coloured by a combination of copper, ironand possibly manganese. Chromium was detectedin trace quantities and may indicate that it wasintroduced in the sand as the mineral chromite.

Ten green vitreous fragments from a third beadappear to be highly weathered since they containonly a minor proportion of silica and any alkaliswhich may originally have been present have beenleached out. Their surface is iridescent and theinterior crystalline, with weathered pits visible insection. Analysis indicates that the green colour isdue to iron and manganese with some copper. Itwas impossible to suggest what shape the beadmight originally have been. The fragments wererecovered from the late Roman fill of a foundationtrench for a stone building (1015, S26, P7).

A counterAn opaque white glass counter has striations on theflat surface. These may indicate that it wasmanufactured by dropping a gob of glass on awooden surface, since the striations are similar tothose produced by the grain of a wooden surface.Many Roman sites have produced counters of thistype, including Ospringe (Whiting et al 1931, pllxi), Exeter (Bidwell 1979, fig 71, 59-64 and 231)and Shakenoak Farm (Brodribb et al 1971, 106). Itwas recovered from the Roman fill (1961, S29,P5-9) of a large ditch. This is a manganese-richglass (c 0.1-0.2% oxide), which was typical of theRoman period, and it contains a similar amount ofiron oxide. Traces of chromium and cobalt were alsodetected. This ratio of manganese to iron oxide hasalso been detected in the glass counters fromCast le ford , West Yorkshire (Hendersonforthcoming). The counter is however, badlyweathered, having a surface layer of iridescentglass.

The medieval and post-medieval glass

It is possible to be more certain of the form anddate of manufacture of the post-medieval andmedieval glass than of the Roman fragments.

Goblets / bowlsOne extremely interesting fragment of vessel glassis of an early 16th century millefiori Venetiangoblet or bowl (Fig 48 no 2; Pl 5). It is formed fromthree joining fragments of a vertically-ribbedconvex vessel wall, with a rim rounded in theflame, and an applied strip of pale green glasswhich is double at one end. Since this type ofmillefiori was manufactured for only a short timethere is little doubt about its early 16th centurydate, although this was not necessarily the date ofits deposition in a pit fill (1553, S155?, P12) datedto the 17th or 18th century. Although also found inthe early Roman period, this particular form ofmillefiori decoration is in the Renaissance style,using sections of chevron bead canes which wereprobably made in a series of dip moulds. Muraneseglass beads were made in the colours used here:translucent pale cobalt blue, turquoise and green,and opaque red and white. A characteristic of thesechevron rods is the use of alternating layers of

70

Plate 5 Early 16th century Venetian millefiori goblet or bowl

opaque white glass with other colours, which areobserved in the Old Bowling Green example. It isactually possible to see both ends of some rodsections embedded in the colourless matrix. In theproduction of this vessel, sections of the cane wouldhave been picked up on a gather of colourless glassfrom a suitable surface, such as a marver, and thenblown into a ribbed mould: the sections of cane lieon the outer surface of the vessel, and the interiorwall of the vessel is in the shape of the outer form.These characteristics would seem to be bestexplained by the suggested production technique.The applied strip of glass can be paralleled in aribbed bowl in the Kunstgewerbemuseum, Berlin,K 428 (Hollister 1981, fig 2, left) which also has acomparable rim diameter (80mm) to the examplediscussed here (75mm). Unfortunately there isinsufficient of the Old Bowling Green bowlsurviving to be able to suggest what the completevessel form might have been, although the Berlin

example noted above is similar in shape toexamples in the Courtauld Institute and inDusseldorf (Hollister 1981, 223). Hollister (1981,225) lists vessel forms with this design as bowl,goblet (chalice), cup, biconical glass, tazza, jar,flask, bottle, sprinkler and handled jug (ewer). Oneexample, a miniature ewer is in the BritishMuseum (Harden et al, 1968, no 251) and has acolourless ground colour like the Old BowlingGreen vessel. The Old Bowling Green vesselappears to be the first published excavatedexample from Britain.

A single goblet fragment was recovered from theexcavation. It is in a smoky-brown cristallo glass (3,S68, P13) and is a 17th century product, perhapsfrom Robert Mansell's glasshouse in Eondon(Oswald and Phillips 1949, 32033, pl v). For furtherexamples see Charleston 1977, 285-6 and Hüme1962, 270-71 and pls 7 and 8). Another drinkingvessel fragment from the Old Bowling Green is a

71

pale green domed base of a probable ale glass oflate 16th century date with a tubular base rimformed from a double thickness of glass at the sametime as the dome of the base was created (10, S68,Pl3). Such ale glasses were found at Woodchesterglasshouse (Daniels 1950), the Denton glasshouse(Hogan 1970, 25-25 and fig 2), Sidney Wood,Surrey (Hume 1962, 270) and from beneath HoneyLane Market, Cheapside, London (Hume 1962, 270and pl 3). As Charleston has noted (1977, 290) thisform of foot is a classic type from the forestglasshouses of the Surrey/Sussex Weald and theglasshouses listed above.

BeakersAnother common form of drinking vessel of 16th to17th century date is the beaker. The pushed-inconical base generally survives because it is madeof the thickest glass. Three examples of beakerbases are recorded from the excavation in both palegreen (503, S68, P13) and colourless glass (1800,S69, P14 and 2232, S170, Pl3). They are paralleledfor example from the fill of a 17th century pit at theBlack Gate, Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Ellison et al1979, 173, fig 7, no 43). The actual filling of the pittook place between c 1645 and 1675: the OldBowling Green examples are liable to have datedfrom the first half of the 17th century.

B o t t l e sOne fragment in pale green glass formed part of ahexagonal bottle of late 16th to early 17th centurydate. It was from a bottle shoulder and hasparallels at the Woodchester glasshouse (Daniels1950, pl v, 26-30), Gracechurch Street, London(Oswald and Phillips 1949, 34 and pl xii) and atWinchester (Charleston 1964, 150 and fig 50, no11). It was recovered from the fill of a pit dating tothe 15th to 18th centuries (1518, S155, P12). Asmall number of pharmacy phials or bottles wererecovered from the excavation (517, S48, P13 and1049, S121, Pll(12)) dating to the 16th to 19thcenturies, of both octagonal and cylindrical shapes.

Many of the 17th to 18th century so-called ‘wine’bottle fragments are in a dark green glass withheavy dark brown surface weathering. They can bedated using their form by referring to otherindependently dated examples which have datesstamped on them. Such bottles have come from theOxford taverns for example (Leeds 1941). Work byHüme (1961 and 1970) has also established thatthese bottles were in use in colonial America,among other places. The contents of an exhibitionheld in Truro Museum in 1976 on the history of theEnglish bottle (Anon) has provided further datingevidence for these bottles, and Wills (1977) haspublished in a popular form. Rim, neck, wall and

base shapes are all useful in determining the age ofthese bottles, although many of the fragments fromthe Old Bowling Green are too small for closedating. It also seems likely that there may wellhave been greater variability in the shape of thesebottles than has been recognised up to now and,while the generalisations about their shape arevalid in most cases, there are liable to be exceptionsto the rule. One example of a late 17th centuryonion bottle in fragments was recovered from thefill of a brick-lined drain (503, S33, P13) and isdistinguishable from other later fragments by usingits base and wall shape (Anon 1976, no 2; Wills1977, fig on p 46). The other examples of 18thcentury wine bottles include one with a low kick inits base which probably dates to c 1700 and wasalso recovered from the fill of the drain. Theremaining fragments, from their shape, are liableto be of early to middle 18th century date.

The machine-made wine bottle glass from theexcavation, of 19th to 20th century date, is mainlyfragmentary, although there is a single completeexample (517, S48, P13). It is a bottle which wasproduced using a technique patented by H Rickettsof Bristol in 1821. 'H.RICKETTS AND CO.,GLASSWORKS, BRISTOL' was stamped onto the base and'PATENT’ on the shoulder. The three-part ironbottle-making mould was perfected in 1802 byCharles Chubsee of Stourbridge, and a patent wasgranted to Ricketts in 1821. This bottle is likely todate soon after 1821.

Window glassThe medieval and post-medieval window glass istoo fragmentary to reconstruct a complete pane. Inthe catalogue the glass has been grouped accordingto thickness, colour and weathering characteristics.One fragment (502, S33, P13) was probably ofCrown glass manufacture because it hasweathered, leaving circumferential iridescentsurface striations, and may be of medieval date.This technique of manufacture is described byHarden (1961, 39-43). The remaining glass isprobably muff glass.

Conclusion

The archaeological association of the glass from theOld Bowling Green, Droitwich reveals that it hasbeen disturbed in many cases producing, forexample, Roman vessels in medieval contexts. Thefew datable Roman vessels fall closer to the start ofthe Roman period (1st to 2nd centuries AD) than tothe end. The post-medieval glass is of interestbecause the collection includes an early 16thcentury Venetian millefiori vessel, probably agoblet. This appears to be the first excavatedexample from Britain to be published.

72

9 Workedstone

Flintwork, by Alan Saville (Fig 49) 1 Multi-platformed core, possibly Neolithic or

Bronze Age. Context 184, unstratified.2 Retouched flake, possibly pre-Bronze Age.

Context 418, structure 86, phase 2?.3 Waste flake. Context 170, structure 72, phase

2 (not illustrated).

Shale, by Anne Crone (Fig 49)

4 Fragment of spindle whorl. Context 1015,structure 26, phase 7.

Whetstones and rubbers, by Fiona Roe(Fig 49)

5 Rubber. Context 1143, structure 17, phase 8.6 Whetstone. Context 1712, structure 177,

phase 5.7 Whetstone. Context 1917, structure 191,



phase 12.10 Whetstone. Context 500, unstratified (not

illustrated).

The rubber is large, being 180mm in length andirregularly shaped with two worn surfaces. It wasretrieved from the fill of one of the barrels of phase8 (mid 3rd to late 4th century). It is made from afine-grained, dark grey-green slightly micaceoussandstone. Thin sectioning has shown that the rockis a lithic ararite. A possible source for this wouldbe amongst the Pre-Cambrian rocks of theLongmynd. The whetstone from phase 5 (early 2ndto mid 3rd century) is ovoid in cross-section with allof its surfaces polished. It is made from KentishRag, a calcareous sandstone likely to be from theLower Greensand Hythe Beds of Kent. A secondwhetstone from an unstratified context (500) is alsomade from this material. These identifications arebased on macroscopic examination only; howeverboth of these whetstones approximate to the cigarshape often seen amongst Roman finds made out ofthe Kentish Rag. The other three were all fromcontexts placed in phase 12 and all appear, onmacroscopic examination, to be made of NorwegianRag or Eidsborg schist from the Telemark area ofNorway.

These findings are consistent with results fromother sites in the area. Two Kentish Ragwhetstones were recorded from Roman contexts atBeckford (Roe 1987, 15), confirmed in one case bythin sectioning. Whetstones of the Norwegian

Eidsborg schist are additionally known frommedieval and post-medieval phases at Friar Street,again confirmed by a thin section (Chapter 27).

Querns, by Fiona Roe (Fig 50)

11

12

13

14

15

16

Saddle quern. Context 2193, structure 181,phase 2.Rotary quern. Context 2189, structure 181,phase 2(4).Rotary quern. Context 1023, structure 114,phase 7-9.Rotary quern. Context 1041, structure 15,phase 8.Rotary quern. Context 1059, structure 35,phase 11-12.Quern. Context 403, structure 84, phase 2(not illustrated).

The saddle quern was retrieved from a contextplaced in phase 2 (late Iron Age) and appears to bemade from a fine-grained variety of Old RedSandstone or Millstone Grit. Of the rotary quernfragments, one came from an uncertainly phasedearly context (2189). This is made from a slightlyconglomeratic felspathic sandstone likely to derivefrom the Old Red Sandstone, probably from Wales.Old Red Sandstone is also used for one of tworotary querns derived from Roman contexts (1023).It is now pinkish and appears to have been burnt,perhaps by secondary use as a hearthstone. Theother Roman quern (1041) is made from a ratherfriable conglomerate that bears some resemblanceto the Upper Devonian quartz conglomerate foundin the Forest of Dean and other areas. A finalrotary quern fragment was retrieved from apost-Roman context (1059). This is made from adark purplish, fairly fine-g-rained sandstoneresembling the Old Red Sandstone brownstones.One other quern fragment (403) may either havebeen of rotary or saddle type. The material is thesame as that used for the saddle quern fromcontext 2193.

The materials used for querns can also be linkedwith findings from other excavations. Purplish-pinkgritstone was extensively used at Beckford in IronAge contexts and a fragment occurred in the IronAge phase at Friar Street. The source remainsunknown, but it is likely to come either from theOld Red Sandstone or the Millstone Grit, both ofwhich have extensive outcrops. Varieties of Old RedSandstone from south Wales were also found atBeckford, mainly from late Iron Age and Romano-British contexts. The Upper Devonian quartzconglomerate, which also occurred at Beckford, hasbeen widely noted from excavations, usually fromRoman levels.

7 3

Figure 49 Worked stone: flintwork (1,2), shale (4) and whetstones and rubbers (5-9). Scale 1:2

Shaped building stone, by Anne Crone constructional fill of a building (S26, P7). The latterdid not form part of the wall of the building, as it

Of the fifteen pieces of shaped building stone that was from within the foundations and hadwere retrieved from Roman contexts, twelve were presumably been reused. One side was coveredpadstones forming part of the construction of with toolmarks (Fig 50 no 17). The stone wasstructure 22 (P9). The three remaining pieces came presumably all local Triassic Lower Keuperfrom disuse elements of phases 4-5 and 8, and the sandstone (Mercian Mudstone).

74

Figure 50 Worked stone: querns (11-15) and shaped building stone (17). Scale 1:4

75

10 Inscriptions Mark Hassall

A sherd from a flanged Severn Valley ware bowl VASCIILLA, vascella, 'vessel' (Fig 51 no 2). The(fabric 12) had an incomplete graffito cut below the sherd was retrieved from the upper fill of a barrelrim before firing. It reads: ...] SC [..., perhaps for (1138, S17) of phase 8.va/SC[ella (Fig 51 no 1). The sherd was retrieved Vascella from vascellum, an alternative for thefrom a layer (1081, S210?) of phase 7-12. A more common vasculum, the diminutive of vas, thebodysherd of Severn Valley ware (fabric 12) also form being attested epigraphically on a funeraryhad a graffito, neatly cut in capitals before firing on inscription from Rome, CIL vi 3428 of AD 214,the burnished body of the vessel. It reads: where it refers to an ash chest. The word is

Figure 51 Inscriptions: on pottery (1, 2) and stone (3). Scale 1:2

76

probably neuter plural (rather than first declensionfeminine singular), but with singular meaning, cfvasa, the neuter plural of vas which can be so used(OLD volume 2). Both vas and vas(s)a (the latterused in the sense of cinerary urn) are attested fromRoman Britain (Wright 1954, 107, no 25 and EE ix1351(a)). Note, however, that in medieval Latinvascella can be both neuter plural and femininesingular (Niermeyer 1954-76). John Sawle, thedirector of the excavation, draws our attention toHooke (1981, 136-7), where it is shown thatvasculum was used in the medieval period todescribe vessels holding brine. If that usage isanticipated here, it suggests that these vesselswere in some way associated with the process of

salt manufacture. However, since the fabric andform of neither sherd is in any way unusual, it ispossible that they should be viewed as secondarydomestic or funerary debris, bearing no directrelationship to the salt working function of the site.

Inscribed lines were noticed on a badly erodedsandstone block (200 x 160 x 55mm, Fig 51 no 3).The lines may represent sharpening activity orpossibly crudely formed letters. . . . ] VI [ . . . . Theorientation of the possible letters or numerals isindicated by deepening of the groove and a moresteep cut to the top as would be produced byworking the stone towards the body. The block wasretrieved from a layer (718, S99) of phase 9.

77

11 Brooches Donald Mackreth

Fig 521 The brooch is in relatively poor condition

(570, S95, P7-9). The spring is mounted on aloop behind the head of the bow, It had beenheld in place by means of a rolledsheet-metal tube through the coils in whoseends were once located the ends of a wireloop which once rose above the head of thebow. The waist of the loop would have beencaught in a collar and the whole would havebeen prevented from falling over the head ofthe brooch by the cast-on nib on the head.The trumpet head is decorated with reliefornament. At the bottom are three bosses,each probably outlined with a groove roundits base. These were bordered by a stepwhich ran as a ridge up the centre of thehead and then divided to enclose a platform,on each side of which were two more bossesplaced on a 'comma'-like element whoselower edges were swept back into the middleof the head. The knop is made up of threeelements, the central one being bordered by athin moulding on each side, the upper andlower elements each has a groove. The lowerbow is set off from the knop by a cross-moulding which returns down each side andthe centre as ridges. In each of the sidepanels so formed is a wavy ridge. Beneaththese is a cross-moulding divided by a groove.The foot-knob is a cone with a concave profileand with a line of 'petals’ round it. Theunderside has a grooved border with acentral recess, from which projects aprominent boss.

The design is the commonest amongstthose with relief ornament, and the closesimilarity between brooches such as this incopper alloy with the highly elaboratesilver-gilt example from Carmarthen (Boonand Savory 1975) suggest strongly that all ofthese emanated from a single workshop, ifnot craftsman. The distribution lies in thelower Severn Valley running from Wroxeterto the south and spreading out across Wales.None is dated, but the floruit of otherrelief-moulded brooches should provide a clueas it is likely that all belonged to the samestylistic fashion: Wroxeter, before 130(Kenyon 1940, 224, fig 15,4), 110-30(Bushe-Fox 1913, 26, fig 9,7); Holcombe,Devon, 70-180 (Pollard 1974, 138-40, fig22,2); Derby, 150-75 (Mackreth 1985, 191-3,fig 127, 28); a silver-gilt loop and collaranalogous to the Carmarthen brooch fromBourton-on-the-Water was found with

pottery dating to c 80-160 (Boon 1978,152-3, pl xlix, a-b); Derby, late 2nd century(Mackreth 1985, 191-3, fig 127, 27), late2nd-early 3rd century (ibid fig 127, 26). Therange is basically in the second century and,in common with the bulk of ordinaryTrumpet brooches, almost certainly hadceased to be made between 150 and 175, witha few surviving in use to the end of thecentury, and perhaps a little beyond.

2 The spring lies between two pierced lugswhich hold the axis bar through the coils(501, S69, P14). The chord is external andheld by a hook behind a cast-on loop mountedon a pedestal on the head. The sides of thebow sweep out to near the ends of the wings,which appear to have intentionally roundedends, and there are seven grooves on each ofthe curves. The bow has markedly chamferedsides with a very narrow central face whichhas a ridge running down it. On each side arefour equally spaced divided mouldings. Thesestop just below the top of the catch-plate. Thefoot of the bow is pointed, with a sharplateral projection on each side.

The design is unusual and does not reveal aclose affinity with any variety of a standardtype. The writer has come across only oneparallel, from Eccles, Kent (excavations, ADetsicas, in prep), which is such an exactrepeat that it must have come from the samehand. Dating is hardly to be expected and allthat can be suggested here, based on thecast-on loop and the general type of the piece,is that it is 2nd century.

3 Now in four pieces (2338, S161, P9), thespring was essentially the same as that on aColchester example. However, while the hookis part of the body of the brooch, the springhad been made separately and fastened tothe bow by inserting its start into a hole inthe head. The corrosion hides any real traceof decoration. The wings are short anddamaged. The profile of the thin and widebow is recurved with a cross-moulding at thepoint of inflection. There may have beensome mouldings down the centre of the upperbow. The lower bow is heavily pitted, butseems to have the slightly bowed sides and,possibly, the rounded foot to be expected onthe type.

The brooch is simple and is related to theseries which includes the Pannonian and theAugenfibel. Never very common in Britain,no very clear picture of either the dating ordistribution emerges of the simple form. One

78

from Baldock was dated 90-120 (Stead andRigby 1986, 112, fig 42, 49). However, thesigns of decoration on the upper bow of thepresent brooch should mean that it had beenbeaded and the British dating is a littlebetter in this case: Colchester 49-61, twoexamples (Hawkes and Hull 1947, 321, plxcvi, 120-1); Towcester, c 100 (Lambrick1980, 60, fig 12, 3), Baldock, two examples,180-220 (Stead and Rigby 1986, 112, fig 42,47-8). This is hardly impressive, but onefeature appears to mark the distribution ofboth forms dealt with here. None has beenrecorded by the writer north of the Humberor Derby, and this could be taken as evidencethat the simple form should not really dateafter c AD 75, thus any later should havebeen residual in their context. The smallnumber recorded f rom Saalburg andZugmantel may show that a few lastedbeyond c 80 and this was the conclusionreached by Bohme (1972, 10-1, Taf 1, 7-14).

The few dated ones from Augst tend tosupport this view and show that the twoinstanced from Colchester are most probablywithin their proper floruit (Riha 1979, 68, 69,Taf 7, 207-9, Taf 8 , 223-6). The best range inBritain is probably Claudian-early Flavian.

4 This is a collection of fragments amongstwhich can be seen the head of a brooch with asprung-pin (559, S27, P9(11)). The spring wasprobably mounted in the Polden Hill manner,a version of which was used on brooch 2. Thecorrosion accretions are such that it isdifficult to see any diagnostic features whichmight illumine the type to which the piecebelonged. Another fragment appears to befrom a bow and the corrosion suggests thatthere may well have been a series of lozengesdown the front. The remaining bits are toosmall and indeterminate to be of any value.No further comment is advisable (notillustrated).

79

Figure 52 Copper alloy: Roman brooches (1-3), other Roman objects (5-10) and a post-medieval object (12).Scale 1:1

80

12 Other copper alloy objects A n n e C r o n e

Sixteen objects, including the brooches, wererecovered from contexts of Roman date (nos 1, 3, 5,6 and 7), eleven of which were unidentifiable (631,1023, 1041, 1125, 1171, 1239, 1257, 1508(2), 1688and 2340). A further nine were from contextspossibly of Roman date (nos 4, 8, 9, 10 and 11), fourof which were unidentifiable (559, 564, 574 and582). One residual Roman object is illustrated (no2). Objects of later date are recorded in the fullarchive catalogue. The salt content of the depositsis probably the main reason for the poor conditionand limited size of the assemblage. A ring ofundetermined date and from a post-medievalcontext (501, S69, P14. Fig 52 no 12) is worthy ofnote.

Fig 525 Coiled wire. Context 698, structure 95, phase

7-9.6 Riveted plates. Context 723, structure 112,phase 7.

7 Stud or nailhead. Context 1130, structure 31,phase 8.

8 Stud. Context 1522, structure 22, phase9(11).

9 Tweezers. Context 589, structure 27, phase9( 11).

10 Ring. Context 1151, structure 114, phase5-9(11).

11 Twisted wire. Context 1551, structure 155?,phase 7-11 (not illustrated).

81

13 Ironwork Anne Crone and Simon Woodiwiss

A full catalogue appears in archive and only the the 40 other iron objects from contexts which werepre-medieval material is discussed here. Iron is assigned to the Roman period (though not certainlyespecially adversely affected by the saline phased), 22 were nails and the rest wereenvironment of Droitwich, and so the condition of unidentifiable. Again most of these were found atthe ironwork was poor (no illustrations were the western end of the excavation and wereprepared for publication). Most small items may be retrieved from contexts as early as phase 4. Sevenexpected to have decayed altogether. hob nails were recovered together from a layer

Only one ornament was recovered (2318, S149, (677, S96, P7-9) and were presumably from a shoe,P9), although its form and function is obscure. Of the leather having decayed.

82

14 Lead Anne Crone and Simon Woodiwiss

Only objects from contexts which may be definitelyplaced in pre-medieval phases are described in thefollowing catalogue (the archive contains a fullcatalogue).

Fig 53B Tube formed from two strips. Context 225,

structure 63, phase 4.2 Trimming from sheet, folded, extended

length 2.40m. Context 1174, structure 120?,phase 8-9.

3 Mandle. Context 2193 (contaminated),structure 181, phase 2.

4 Folded sheet. Context 586, structure 28,phase 7-8 (not illustrated).

In addition unidentifiable scraps were recoveredfrom contexts 566, 1060, 1070, 1023 and 2318.

Though the assemblage was far too small for anydefinitive statement, th ere is an apparent absenceof containers for brine boiling in other materials

and, as lead was used in later periods (eg Rastel1678,1062; Thorn and Thorn 1982, nos 1, 1a; 5), itsearlier use must be considered a possibility. A leadpan reputedly of Roman date has been recordedfrom Middlewich, Cheshire (Bestwick 1975, 66).The scraps in later Roman phases, appear to bedrops of lead, possibly from the melting of panswhich had become too hot. The lead sheetfragments also may be derived from pans. Thelarge trimming (no 21, of late Roman date, mayrepresent wastage from the cutting of a lead sheet,possibly supplied without f inished edges.Domesday Book mentions the presence, inDroitwich, of fabrica plubi (lead works; Thorn andThorn 1982, no 2, 50). Though no physical evidenceof their existence has been found, it is possible thatlead working was carried out in the town duringthe Roman period. It may be significant that noneof the scraps and sheet fragments are earlier thanphase 7 (mid 3rd to late 4th century AD) and theymay even be contemporary with the barrels thatcharacterise phase 8.

83

Figure 53 Lead. Scale 1:2 (except no 3)

82

14 Lead Anne Crone and Simon Woodiwiss

Only objects from contexts which may be definitelyplaced in pre-medieval phases are described in thefollowing catalogue (the archive contains a fullcatalogue).

Fig 53B Tube formed from two strips. Context 225,

structure 63, phase 4.2 Trimming from sheet, folded, extended

length 2.40m. Context 1174, structure 120?,phase 8-9.

3 Mandle. Context 2193 (contaminated),structure 181, phase 2.

4 Folded sheet. Context 586, structure 28,phase 7-8 (not illustrated).

In addition unidentifiable scraps were recoveredfrom contexts 566, 1060, 1070, 1023 and 2318.

Though the assemblage was far too small for anydefinitive statement, th ere is an apparent absenceof containers for brine boiling in other materials

and, as lead was used in later periods (eg Rastel1678,1062; Thorn and Thorn 1982, nos 1, 1a; 5), itsearlier use must be considered a possibility. A leadpan reputedly of Roman date has been recordedfrom Middlewich, Cheshire (Bestwick 1975, 66).The scraps in later Roman phases, appear to bedrops of lead, possibly from the melting of panswhich had become too hot. The lead sheetfragments also may be derived from pans. Thelarge trimming (no 21, of late Roman date, mayrepresent wastage from the cutting of a lead sheet,possibly supplied without f inished edges.Domesday Book mentions the presence, inDroitwich, of fabrica plubi (lead works; Thorn andThorn 1982, no 2, 50). Though no physical evidenceof their existence has been found, it is possible thatlead working was carried out in the town duringthe Roman period. It may be significant that noneof the scraps and sheet fragments are earlier thanphase 7 (mid 3rd to late 4th century AD) and theymay even be contemporary with the barrels thatcharacterise phase 8.

83

Figure 53 Lead. Scale 1:2 (except no 3)

84

15 Animal bone Alison Locker

Summary

Some 10,000 animal bones were recovered fromdeposits dating from the late Bronze Age to themodern period. However, bones of later than 18thcentury date have not been included in this report.Activity on the site from the Iron Age to late Romanperiod is largely associated with salt extraction.The bone is usually associated with the disuse ofstructures. Ox and large ungulate fragments aredominant throughout these phases (1 to 9), exceptphase 3, in which the small sample shows ovicapridand small ungulates to be dominant, and in somestructures of phase 4. The importance of ox andlarge ungulate continues in the medieval periodand in phase 11 there is some evidence forpreferential representation of certain parts of thecarcase of ox. Butchery practices do not showsignificant changes through the phases, and pig ispoorly represented, between 3% and 6% of allsamples. Butchery marks were observed on somehorse bones but there is no real evidence that horsewas eaten. Dog was present both as isolated bonesand skeletons. There were also skeletons of cat andfoetal pig, both of medieval date. A few goat horncores were identified but the majority of theovicaprid sample is thought to be sheep. Ox andlarge ungulate, and ovicaprid and small ungulatecomprise most of the bones from the excavation,represent ing butchered bone re fuse . Thedistr ibut ion o f animal bones by phase i ssummarised in Table 2.

Introduction

The animal bones discussed in this report wererecorded in 1984 by Miranda Armour-Chelu(British Museum, Natural History), the data beingsubsequently written up in 1987 by the author. Anyidiosyncrasies in the interpretation should,therefore, be attributed to the author.

All the bone was recovered by hand picking onsite. No sieving was carried out, so there is likely tobe a bias in favour of the larger fragments.

The bone was recorded using the method of Joneset al (1981). Although some modern material wasrecorded, bone of later than 18th century date(phase 12) has not been considered in this report.Similarly, bone from contexts that were notcertainly phased, or from contaminated contexts,have not been included. Tables of the quantities ofbone from each structure are presented inmicrofiche (2:D3-E12).

The following species were identified; ox (Bos spdomestic), sheep (Ovis sp domestic), goat (Capra spdomestic), pig (Sus sp domestic), horse (Equus spdomestic), red deer (Cervus elaphus), dog (Canis sp

domestic), cat (Felis sp domestic), fowl (Gallus spdomestic), goose (Anser anser) and buzzard (Buteobuteo).

Ovicaprid has been used when sheep and goat were indeterminate, as they were in the majority ofcases. Both species were present however,positively identified from horn cores, althoughapplication of Boessneck's (1969) index to themetapodials suggests these were largely fromsheep. Large and small ungulate refer to boneswhich, though not specifically identifiable, are mostlikely to be ox and ovicaprid respectively.

Weathering and canid gnawing occur in allphases and may be evidence of some bone lyingaround on the surface before being disposed of.

In the following sections the commonly occurringspecies, their distribution and butchery evidenceare discussed followed by the ageing, metrical dataand occurrence of other species.

Phase 1: Possible late Bronze Age toIron Age

The bone from this early phase was found in threelayers of dark soil, mostly from layer 2461. From atotal of 62 bones for this phase, over 50% wereattributed to ox and large ungulate.

The butchered bone included two ox mandibleschopped through the alveoli, three scapulaechopped across the neck and split axially, and a fewchopped rib fragments. An ox femur shaft was froman immature animal. An ovicaprid pelvis waschopped, detaching the ilium, and a mandible hadbeen cut towards the diastema. Shaft fragments ofradius and metacarpal were also found.

No pig remains were found in this phase. Horseincluded six skull fragments, part of a scapula anda radius which had been split axially andsuperficially chopped across the shaft. The red deerantler fragment had been cast and had a cut markon it.

A few large bones showed evidence of gnawing bydogs, for example some large ungulate ribfragments and an ovicaprid mandible had beengnawed. A horse scapula was more weathered thanthe rest of the bone.

Phase 2: Late Iron Age

Some of the structures associated with this phasewere used for the storage of liquid and possibly forthe settling out of silt from brine before boiling. Theprimary activity during this phase was industrialand the presence of animal bone in disuse contextsincidental.

8 5

Table 2 Animal bone summary

Phase 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12

Ox 15 24% 92 20% 2 3% 88Sheep - - - - - -

G o a t - - - - - - - - -

Ovicaprid 14 23% 112Pig - 8Horse 12 19% 34Red deer 1 2 % - - -

Dog - -

Dog / fox - - - - - - - - -Cat - - - - - - - - -Hare - - - - - - - - -

L Ungulate 19 31% 159S Ungulate 1 2% 42LMammal - 2 - - -

F o w l - - - - -

G o o s e - - - - - - -

Buzzard - - - - - - - - -B i r d - - - - - - - - -Unident - - - - - -

Total 62 449

11

25% 35 47% 1952% 2 3% 148% 1 1% 16

11 1% 3

-

35% 16 21% 1119% 18 24% 582 % - -

1 < l % -75 489 262

18% 68<1% -< l % -40% 723% 93% 5

<1% -1% 2

23% 7812% 25

2

1

26% 47 26% 453 33% 1010 44% -

27% 373% 72% 5

1% 1

30% 6710% 161% -

3

< l % -

183

1 <l% -

20% 158 12% 373 16% 24% 45 3% 84 4% -3% 8 <l% 15 <l% -

2 <1% 4 <l% -<l% 231 17% 10 <l% -

1 <1% --

1 <1% -37% 369 27% 563 26% 1

9% 88 6% 155 7% -6 <1% -

1% 4 <l% 10 cl% -1 <l% -

1 <l% -3 <I% 17 <l% -

1362 2551 3

303

67% 16043

83

10

33% 35175

32

32% 55 13%1 <I%

17% 52 12%4% 88 21%1% 3 1%1% -1% 2 <1%

95 22%

37% 85 20%8% 42 10%

<l% -< l% -

958 423

In Phases 9 and 12 pig and cat respectively are almost complete skeletons

86

A total of 448 bones were recovered from thisphase, over half of which came from the layerswhich compose structure 131. Ox and largeungulates are dominant (56%), ovicaprid and smallungulates forming 34% of the total sample.

Two fragments of ox skull showed evidence thatthey had been cleaved, three mandibles werechopped proximally around the condyles and two inthe region of the alveoli. Scapulae were choppedaround the neck, separating the humerus, forwhich one specimen had been smashed in themidshaft and cut across the distal articulation.Metacarpals showed evidence of axial splitting aswell as knifecuts across the proximal, midshaft anddistal surface. On the hind limb three pelves werechopped on the ilium and ischium, femora andtibiae were smashed in the midshaft, as were a fewmetatarsals, and one was also split axially. A fewrib fragments were chopped and a vertebrachopped laterally.

Ovicaprid scapulae were chopped across the neckand glenoid cavity, radii smashed across themidshaft and one was split axially. Metacarpalsshowed evidence of both chopping and smashingacross the shaft and axial splitting. On the hindlimb two pelves were chopped across the ilium andacetabulum, eight tibiae were recorded as smashedacross the midshaft and one was split. A fewmetatarsals were chopped and split.

Only three instances of pig butchery were notedin this phase: a mandible chopped across thecondyle, and a radius and a humerus smashedacross the midshaft,

Three fragments of horse skull may have beenchopped: possible evidence of chopping wasobserved on the proximal end of a jaw, and also ontwo pelves. This is not definitive evidence thathorse was eaten, but might only representdismemberment of the carcase after skinning.

All the bone from this phase, with the possibleexception of horse, is food debris and has no directassociation with the activities on site at this period.

the trend for favouring the latter seen in phase 3.Goat and sheep were specifically identified fromsingle horn cores. However, ox and large ungulatebones were predominant in some structures. Forexample, in structure 63 they form 53% of thesample of 214 bones and ovicaprid and smallungulate are only 38%, so there are somedifferences in distribution within the phase. Pig isonly present in small numbers, as in the preceding-phases, and only accounted for 6% of all bone.

Many bones were butchered. Ox skull fragmentshad been cleaved axially and horn cores chopped atthe base. Mandibles were chopped and cut aroundthe condyles, under the alveoli and occasionallyacross the diastema. Scapulae were chopped acrossthe neck and glenoid cavity and sometimes splitaxially. Humeri were chopped across the distal endsand smashed across the shaft, and radii werelargely broken across the shaft. Metacarpals tendedto be more complete, some had cut marks, and hadbeen broken or chopped. On the hind limb, pelveswere chopped across the ilium and acetabulum,femora and tibiae were broken across the midshaft.Metatarsals, like metacarpals, tended to be morecomplete. A few vertebrae were laterally trimmedand ribs were chopped.

Ovicaprid skulls had also been axially split andhorn cores (including one of goat) chopped throughat the base. A few mandibles were chopped acrossthe condyles, beneath the alveoli and diastema.Scapulae showed marks and chops across theglenoid cavity, as well as across the neck. Humeri,radii and to a lesser extent metacarpals, were oftenbroken midshaft, with some cutmarks across thedistal surfaces. On the hind limb, pelves were cutacross the ischium and chopped on the acetabulumand ilium. Femora were broken across the shaft aswere tibiae, which were also cut and split.Metatarsals were broken and occasionally cut.

the acetabulum, two tibiae were split axially andone chopped across the proximal surface.

Butchery marks were seen on a small number ofpig bones; a mandible was chopped under thealveoli, two scapulae were chopped across the neck.On the hind limb, two Pelves were chopped across

Some horse bones had also been chopped: amandible was chopped across the diastema, threepelves were chopped around the acetabulum, and afemur was split.

A radius and a femur of a dog was found instructure 63.


In this phase the structures were also used forholding brine. The sample of bone was small,totalling 75. Little butchery was recorded in thisphase, largely influenced by the small sample size.This was the first phase where ovicaprid and smallungulate fragments outnumbered ox and largeungulate, though this may not be significantbecause of the small sample size. All the boneappeared to be food debris. Phase 5: Early 2nd to mid 3rd century

Phase 4: Mid 1st to early 2nd century

Salt production continued into the Roman period,and in phase 4 bone was recovered from a numberof structures. In the sample of 489 bones from thisphase, 41% were from ox and large ungulate and52% were ovicaprid and small ungulate: continuing

Only one of the brine tanks possibly continued inuse into this phase, and did not contain animalbone. No single structure contained more than 50bones (from a total of 262 for the phase) so thesample is small. Ox and large ungulate aredominant over the whole phase (forming 56%), 37%belonging to ovicaprid and small ungulate. Thebutchery for ox and ovicaprid is essentially the

87

same in this period as in phase 4. Pig is againpoorly represented.

A single buzzard ulna was found in a layer (1561,S147). This bird used to be a common scavenger inBritain.

Phase 7: Mid 3rd to late 4th century

Phases 7, 8 and 9 can be considered largely ascontemporary, but show different activities overdifferent areas of the site.

In phase 7 there is no evidence for saltproduction. The main structure is a stone building(S26) and possibly a track for access (S28). Only183 bones were associated with this phase. Largelyox and large ungulate were found and, to a lesserdegree, ovicaprid and small ungulate, The bonefrom the building is from the construction trenchfills and the other two groups (S112/S210) arecomposed of layers.

The number of ox and large ungulate fragmentsis increased in this phase by loose teeth and skullfragments as well as limb extremities, suggestingthat the remains are not high quality cuts of meat.Similarly pig is represented by a few mandiblefragments, loose teeth, a metacarpal and oneradius. The distribution for ovicaprids and smallungulate is more even, with both extremities andhigher quality cuts represented. The butcherypattern for phases 7, 8 and 9 was similar and isdescribed at the end of phase 9.


This phase relates to the use of five barrelssituated within cuts, their hoops have in someinstances remained in situ, The barrels are thoughtto have been used for the storage and settling ofbrine. A total of 1,362 bones were recovered fromthis phase, in particular from the disuse fills ofstructures 16 and 31, which produced 73% of thebone from this phase.

A feature of these later Roman deposits seems tobe an increase in the relative importance of ox andlarge ungulate deposits: 60% in this phase,compared to 18% ovicaprid and small ungulate and3% pig.

For ox in the structures with the larger samples(S16, S19, and S31) there does seem to be arelatively higher proportion of skull fragments andmandibles compared with other parts of thecarcase. However, the samples are small and thenumbers of skulls may be affected by increasedfragmentation.

The samples for ovicaprid are too small tosuggest any emphasis on particular parts of thecarcase.

In structure 16, in addition to the usual debrisfrom ox, ovicaprid and pig, a tibia and maxilla ofred deer was found and the remains of at least fourdogs, the latter in fill 1070. Dogs are discussed in alater section.


This phase is concerned with the construction of alarge rectangular building (S22), with postholesand cuts south of the building and to the west twoclay-lined pits, a cut and other features. The largestquantity of bone comes from this phase, 2,308bones from nineteen structures.

Two structures in particular, an enclosure (S27)with 1,730 bones and a number of layers (S102)with 228 bones, contributed 85% of the bone in thisphase. Some of the contexts which comprise theditch may include some later material from phase11, although they have been included here.

The dominance of ox and large ungulate isincreased in phase 9 to 70%, ovicaprid and smallungulate is 18%, and pig 3%.

In some contexts from the largest sample, theditch (559 and 564), concentrations of certain partsof the carcase of ox are apparent. In 559, of a totalof 175 ox bones, 24 are scapula, 13 skull, and 13mandible fragments. The remaining bonesrepresent the limbs, vertebrae and ribs and, apartfrom 27 rib fragments, no single anatomy numbersmore than nine. Similarly in 564, of 439 ox bones,122 are skull, 25 mandible and 30 scapulafragments. Many of the skull fragments showedevidence of butchery, including cleaving andpossibly poleaxing. The high number of skullremains is not only a feature of high fragmentation,since varying stages of completeness wererecognised.

No other disposal patterns for ox or any otherspecies were recognised for this phase. Dog/fox andhare were identified from single tooth fragments.

The butchery pattern for phases 7, 8 and 9 echoesthat of earlier phases. The larger sample ofchopped ox mandibles is dominated by thosechopped across the gonion and condyles, with asmall proportion chopped across the diastema andunder the alveoli. Only one mandible was cut,across the proximal end. As previously mentioned,skulls were chopped and cleaved, with the horncores chopped away.

Scapulae were most frequently chopped acrossthe neck and sometimes had been cut there. A fewhad been chopped across the glenoid, separatingout a meat joint distally delimited by choppingthrough the midshaft of the humerus, which wasalso sometimes chopped across the distalarticulation. Radii were chopped and cutproximally, sometimes chopped across the midshaftand split axially. Metacarpals and metatarsalswere again less fragmentary than other limb bones,being broken midshaft, proximally chopped andsplit axially.

On the hind limb, pelves were chopped across andaround the acetabulum, and less frequently on theilium and ischium. The femur was not wellrepresented and was broken at the midshaft, aswell as occasional examples of chopping at theproximal and distal ends. The poor representation

88

of this bone may be attributable to heavyfragmentation/butchery, so that it is often notspecifically identifiable rather than a true absence.Tibiae were also broken at the midshaft, andsometimes chopped or cut.

Ovicaprid skulls were cleaved in three instancesand a few mandibles (nine) were chopped andsmashed proximally. Scapulae were chopped acrossthe neck and humeri broken across the midshaft orsplit axially. Radii were largely broken midshaft orsplit, and a few metacarpals and metatarsals weresplit, smashed or sometimes chopped. On the hindlimb, pelves were chopped or cut about theacetabulum. The femur was broken midshaft, aswas the tibia, which was also chopped midshaft andproximally. The difference between butchery on oxand ovicaprid was that, although the chop markswere found in the same places in both, for the latterit was generally less intensive as one would expectwith a smaller carcase.

Since pig only made up 3% in these phases, theincidence of butchery was relatively low. It wasmost frequently observed on mandibles under thealveoli and occasionally at the proximal and distalend. Humeri and radii were chopped and brokenmidshaft. On the hind limb, a few pelves werechopped on the acetabulum and ilium, tibiae werebroken midshaft, and chopped proximally andmidshaft.

Except for one apparently 'split' metatarsal, nobutchery was observed on horse in these phases.

Phase 10: 5th to 11th century

Only three bones were recovered from this phase,two ovicaprid and one large ungulate.


In this phase activity is concentrated in the easternhalf of the excavation and includes disuse fills fromthe enclosure ditch (S27) constructed in phase 9.The bone from this structure is 70% of the entiresample from this phase, which totals 958.

In the ditch there were some concentrations of oxskull and mandible fragments, and in context 523also a relatively high concentration of firstphalanges, which are likely to be waste material.None of the other samples were large enough to besignificant.

Butchery on ox skulls included axial chopping,and two possible instances of poleaxing. Three horncores had also been chopped. The main areabutchered on mandibles continued to be theproximal end around the condyles. Scapulae werechopped across the neck and on the glenoid cavityas before. Humeri and radii were mainly brokenand chopped midshaft, as were metacarpals andmetatarsals, some of which had also been split. Onthe hind limb, pelves were chopped through theacetabulum, femora chopped on the proximal to

midshaft surface and tibiae broken or choppedacross the midshaft.

Butchery on ovicaprid skulls included axialcleaving, chopping through the base of the horncores, and chop marks at the back of the skull. Thecondyles of two mandibles were chopped off and onescapula was chopped through the neck. Six humeriwere broken at the midshaft, two radii were splitaxially and one chopped both proximally anddistally. Metacarpals and metatarsals wereoccasionally split axially and showed cut marks atthe proximal end. Pelves were most commonlychopped around or on the acetabulum, femora andtibiae were broken midshaft.

Horse included one scapula chopped across theneck.

The butchery practices do not appear to changefrom the Roman period to the medieval: ribfragments are still chopped and vertebrae laterallytrimmed.


The number of bones is inflated by a cat skeletonfrom structure 197 and a foetal pig from structure32, without which only 248 bones would have beenrecovered. The structures containing bones fromthis phase are largely ditches and their disuse fills.Ox and large ungulate fragments are almost twiceas numerous as ovicaprid and small ungulates.

A goat horn core was identified from context 1546(S156). The size of the samples is too small for anysuggestion of differential disposal of carcase/speciesto be made. The butchery patterns echo those ofphase 11.

Ageing of ox, sheep and pig

Although the epiphyseal fusion of the post cranialskeleton was recorded, tooth eruption and wear is amore precise way to assess age stages. The methodof Grant (1975) was used and a numerical valuecan be calculated for a relatively completemandible. Where the value is estimated, at leasttwo teeth were present and their wear stagescompared with those of Grant. Their values areshown by phase in Table 3.

For ox, the third permanent molar erupts aroundthe value of 30, often two years of age. The largestsamples are in the Roman occupation, phases 4 to9, but are only 38 in all. However, it can be saidthat the majority (87%) are over three years old, asare two out of three in the Iron Age and all five inthe medieval period.

Ovicaprids, suggested to be largely sheep withonly a few goats present judging from Boessneck's(1969) metrical separation index on themetapodials, have larger samples. This isparticularly true in phase 4 and, to a lesser extent,in phase 5. However, the largest total sample forov icapr id i s f rom phase 9 , suggest ing a

89

Table 3 Ageing of ox, ovicaprid, and pig mandibles (using Grant 1975)

Phase1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 11 12

Ox16e39-42e

41e 21e 1622e 4139e 4540 >4742 >44 >49e >49 >

Ovicaprid31 17e 40e 11e 8-10e34 33 21e 11-17e

33x2 >22e 19e34 24e 22e40x2 25e 25-35e

Pig

343738e39e41x3

21e 21e 46x3 4134e 45 4737 4641x244x345x446474952

41 2325e3637

24ex225e27ex248

22e24e25e2933

30-33e333548

28e 27e33 32e34 3734 >4035x2 4336 4438e38 >3941x2 >42x2 >44x2 >48

>

13e17e28-38e39

6e26

23e 5e42 > 10ex2

28e34-37e

10e

34x235 >36 >4045 >

19 > 10e22ex225e

e = estimated value on range due to incomplete jaw > = dated over more than one phase

90

proportionally higher concentration of mandibles Phase 4-5; of 3 mandibles, 2 showed PM2 to bewith ageable tooth rows in phases 4 and 5. absent.

The value 20-25 is estimated to be between oneand a half to two years. Of the total sample from allphases of 70 mandibles, only four have a value ofless than 20 and thirteen less than 25. Includingthe small samples from phases 1 to 3, most sheepwere kept until at least two years and later, andwould have been primarily used for wool, milk andbreeding, with meat as a secondary product. Thisapplies to all phases. The samples are not largeenough to suggest any culling patterns for themature animals.

The number of pig mandibles that could be agedis very small (nineteen), none earlier than theRoman period. The end of the second year isthought to be indicated by 20-25 and, as is usualfor pig, a higher proportion of immature animals isindicated, meat and hide being their only use.

Abnormalities were observed on some jaws of oxand sheep. For ox these were mainly two congenitalconditions: the absence of the second premolar anda reduced last cusp on the third molar. Theseconditions were found from phase 2 to 11. In onemandible from phase 8 the third molar was absentand on another an extra nutrient foramen wasobserved. As congenital abnormalities these do notimply any nutritional problems, but seem to implyrelatively high numbers compared with the numberof normal occurrences.

The number of third molars with a reduced thirdcusp, against the total number for the phase(excluding loose teeth), is shown below:

Phase 5; of 2 mandibles, 1 showed PM2 to beabsent.Phase 7-9; of 3 mandibles, 2 showed PM2 to beabsent.Phase 8; of 7 mandibles, 4 showed PM2 to beabsent.Phase 9-11; of 6 mandibles, 3 showed PM2 to beabsent.Phase 11; of 6 mandibles, 2 showed PM2 to beabsent.

On sheep mandibles the second premolar wasabsent in two cases, and one mandible had an extranutrient foramen. One mandible showed resorbtionand exostoses round the alveoli and another hadswollen tooth roots with resorbtion round thealveoli. Both may have resulted in feedingdifficulties and were of Roman date.

No pathology was observed on pig jaws.

The metrical data

Measurements were taken after Jones et al (1981)and are accessible in archival form. From somelength measurements various factors can be usedto calculate the withers heights, usually using thelengths of whole bones. The withers heights for oxand ovicaprids are shown in Table 4, divided byphase. The largest sample for ox is from phase 8,mostly from metapodials which is some reflection ofthe completeness of these bones in this phase. Thegreatest range in size is seen within phases 7 to 9,the late Roman period, where shoulder heights of100 to 121cms occur.

Despite the less intense fragmentation of a smallcarcase, the smaller numbers of sheep bones fromthe site result in far fewer withers heights beingavailable. The four Iron Age examples, rangingfrom 54 to 55cms, have a smaller upper limit thanthose of the Roman period, where up to 62cms havebeen calculated.

Phase 2; of 2 mandibles retaining M3, 1 had areduced cusp.Phase 4-5; of 6 mandibles retaining M3, 1 had areduced cusp.Phase 5; of 5 mandibles retaining M3, none had areduced cusp.Phase 7-9; of 7 mandibles retaining M3, 1 had areduced cusp.Phase 7; of 4 mandibles retaining M3, 3 had areduced cusp.Phase 8; of 17 mandibles retaining M3, 3 had areduced cusp.Phase 9-11; of 12 mandibles retaining M3, 4 had areduced cusp.Phase 9; of 5 mandibles retaining M3, 1 had areduced cusp.Phase 11; of 11 mandibles retaining M3, 1 had areduced cusp.

Therefore over phases 2 to 11, 22% of permanentthird molars had a reduced third cusp. Similarly, arelatively high proportion (some 48%) of mandiblesshowed the permanent second molar to be absent,the number in each phase is shown below:

Phase 2; of 2 mandibles, none showed PM2 to beabsent.

It is not possible to calculate withers heights forpig, the small number of pig bones resulted in fewmeasurements being taken. There were not enoughproximal radius widths for comparison with thosefrom Friar Street.

Occurrence of other species

HorseHorse bones were found in small quantities in allphases. Some bones showed evidence of chop marksand knifecuts, which may not necessarily beevidence that horse was eaten, but the result ofskinning and dismembering the carcase. Certainlyhorse was not subjected to the same intensivefragmentation and butchery as ox.

91

Table 4 Withers heights in cm for ox, ovicaprid, horse and dog (using the factors of Fock, Maltolcsi,Teichart, Kiesewalter and Harcourt respectively)

Phase1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 11 12

Ox1089m 1092 > r

1052 > m1102 > m1101 > m1230 > m1144 > m

1052m1095m

Ovicaprid545m

543 > r553r553m

Horse1324r1253t

514r

1156

1096r 1168m1075r1211m1175m1113m997m1071m1138m

> m1101x21022m1128m1062m1073m1177m

548 > r532 > m533 > m552 > t561m583m

595538625

> m> r> m

530 > m586m

561m

1343 > t1386 > t

531r

1417m1526t1448t1087m

440r437r504r449f446f446f292f

270t

1188h 1083r1119m1107m1183m1170m1113m1101m1132m1090m

1382m

KeyAll heights in mm > = dated over more than one phaser = radius h = humerus m = metacarpal or metatarsal f = femur t = tibia

Dog

92

The estimated withers heights are shown inTable 4. In the Iron Age in phase 2, ponies of twelveand thirteen hands are present, and in the earlyRoman period ponies of thirteen hands. Thegreatest size differences are in the late Romanperiod, where ten to fifteen hands (the latter is ahorse) was found. The only data for the medievalperiod is thirteen hands in phase 11.

All the ageing evidence for horse was for matureanimals, with all teeth in wear and all epiphysesfused. The exception of a skull fragment from phase2 in which the presence of deciduous teethindicated the animal was less than three years old(Thompson 1949, 240).

Exostoses were seen on a metacarpal from phase5 and on the proximal end of a metatarsal fromphase 4-5. This development of 'extra bone’ may bea reaction to stress around a joint, which couldincrease with age.

Red deerA few red deer bones were found throughout theoccupation of the site including a cast antler (fromP1), indicating this valuable raw material wascollected in the Iron Age, a sawn tine from the lateRoman period, a late Roman/medieval skull withthe antlers sawn off, a maxilla from phase 11 withall teeth in wear and a few postcranial fragments.

Dog bones were found as isolated bones and asskeletons. In particular, in structure 16 in phase 8(2:D14) the remains of at least four dogs werefound. Two of these were male and the sizes rangebetween 43 and 50cms at the shoulder (Table 4).Exostoses resulting in the fusion of some lumbarvertebrae, and others in a less severe conditionshowing extra bone around the articulation,

indicated elderly arthritic animals. Eburnation onthe glenoid cavity of a scapula, an abrasion on theproximal end of a radius, and a fractured rib, werealso evident on one of the skeletons from thisfeature.

Immature animals were represented by unfusedfemurs from phases 4 and 5.

Some of the bones of other species from this siteshowed evidence of dog gnawing, particularly onthe articulations.

catA cat skeleton from phase 12 (post-medieval)showed ante-mortem tooth loss in the maxilla andmandible and was a mature animal.

BirdsApart from the buzzard bone, a number of domesticfowl and goose bones were identified. Domestic fowlwas present from phase 4 (early Roman) onwards,totalling 61 bones. All parts of the postcranialskeleton were represented, particularly thetibiotarsus and humerus- Knifecuts were onlyobserved on the humerus, on the proximal anddistal surfaces in late Roman deposits, and on theproximal surface in a medieval deposit.

Four goose bones were identified, and a lateRoman furcula had a hole of traumatic origin. Acarpometacarpus and ulna were of medieval date.Both these species are likely to represent foodremains, any cut marks being the result ofpreparation for the table.

Conclusion

Comparison of the Old Bowling Green and FriarStreet animal bone is given at the end of the latterreport (Chapter 32).

Dog

93

16 Human bone Michael Nellist and Simon

Woodiwiss

A near complete articulated skeleton was recoveredfrom the final fill (1686) of a brine tank (S7)assigned to phase 5 (early 2nd to mid 3rd centuryAD). The position of the limbs suggests that thebody had been thrown into the already partiallyfilled pit (P1 2). A radiograph (P1 6) of the lower leftmolar region showed that there was a congenitalabsence of the lower left third molar. Anotherradiograph (P1 7) of the right tibia showed theexistence of two distinct, and numerous fainter,Harris or transverse arrested growth lines. Thoughit was not possible to determine the sex due to theimmaturity of the skeleton, the presence of anunerupted upper right third molar crown (P1 8) andthe nearly closed root apices of both the lower leftand upper right second molars, suggest an age offourteen to fifteen years.

This immature skeleton was reasonablypreserved and did not appear to show any signs ofante-mortem trauma. A full report is givenelsewhere (2:E13-14). The presence of transversearrested growth lines in the right tibia indicatedperiods of previous starvation and or illness orpsychological stress.

Fragmentary skeletal remains were alsorecovered from eighteen other contexts, thoughthese were not submitted for specialist comment.The finds were usually of single bones, with theexception of a number of vertebrae and infantbones recovered from ditch fi l ls (S29 andunstratified). Four fragments were from Iron Agephases: the rest (with three exceptions) were fromRoman phases, and these were mostly mid 3rd tolate 4th century in date.

Plate 6 Radiograph of lower left molar region

9 4

Plate 7 Radiograph of right tibia showingarrested growth lines (1 and 2)

Plate 8 Radiograph of upper right third molarregion

95

17 Workedbone and antler Anne Crone

Of the 23 pieces of worked bone and antler, six (andpossibly one other) were from pre-medievalcontexts. A full catalogue exists in archive.

Fig 541 Complete highly polished bone needle with a

flattened, perforated head. Context 448,structure 83, phase 2.

2 Bone awl. Context 2183, structure 30, phase4.

3 Double-sided bone comb. Context 166,structure 30, phase 5?.

4 Bone pin with groove around top. Context1624, structure 177, phase 5.

5 Bone pin with spherical head. Context 1714,structure 177, phase 5.

6 Perforated bone fragment (burnt). Context731, structure 94, phase 7-8.

7 Antler, all sides dressed and thin knife marksvisible, curved and tapered along length.Context 1153, structure 19, phase 8.

The needle (no 1) is one of very few indicators ofIron Age domestic activity from both this and theFriar Street excavations. Of the post-medievalmaterial, only a tuning key (100, S69, P14) isillustrated (Fig 54 no 8). The remainder includedfive buttons, two toothbrushes, three handles, aspoon, two needles (all of bone), and an antlerfragment.

Figure 54 Worked bone and antler: Roman bone (1-6), Roman antler (7) and post-medieval bone (8). Scale1:2 (except nos 3 and 6, 1:1)

96

18 Environment Susan Colledge and James Greig

Summary

Various suitable contexts were examined for plantremains (pollen, seeds, etc) to try to find out moreabout the salt working industry which had been onthe site. Most of the indications are of weedvegetation, so the plants may well represent phasesof abandonment of those particular parts of thesite. Remains of cereals with cornfield weeds, andof sedges and other wetland and marsh vegetation,could perhaps represent materials such as corn,straw and sedge that were brought to the site foruse as building material, animal fodder or fuel.There is little sign of a salt-tolerant vegetationfrom the excavation. Compared with more domesticsites there is far less sign of crop plants.

Introduction

Droitwich has plenty of potential for environmentalarchaeological work because of the sticky clayderived from the Mercian Mudstone (Keuper Marl),which makes the excavation so difficult, but whichalso provides good waterlogged conditions andhence preservation of a range of plant and animalremains. Part of the interest in the results is that itis mainly an industrial rather than a domestic siteand there are few environmental results from sitessuch as this. A further point of importance is to seewhether there is any sign from the flora of thesaline conditions caused by the salt springs.

In the following discussion the plants are usuallydiscussed in taxonomic order, which is the same astheir order in Table 5. Selected examples of therecovered plant remains are illustrated in Plates 9and 10.

Wetland vegetation

This is represented by a number of taxa, many ofthem characteristic of banksides and such wetplaces. In context 1961 (P5-9) Ranunculusflammula (lesser spearwort), Hydrocotyle vulgaris(pennywort), Apium graveolens (wild celery), Anodiflorum (fool's watercress), Polygonum lapathi-folium (pale persicaria), Juncus sp (rush),Eleocharis uniglumis/palustris (spike-rush),Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani (bulrush) andvarious species of Carex (sedges) are present. Ofthese, most are to be found nowadays, althoughpennywort was considered rather uncommon(Amphlett and Rea 1909) and has doubtless not gotany more common since. The only plants indicativeo f s tanding water are Ranunculus subg,Batrachium (water crowfoot) and Glyceria sp(reedgrass) and there was only one seed of each.

The other botanically rich sample (559, S27, P9(11))provided a fairly similar wetland flora. Thepost-medieval material from context 3008 (S34,P12) was very rich in Ranunculus sceleratus(celery-leaved crowfoot) which grows in mud,preferably when enriched with animal dung. It alsohad an aquatic snail fauna and must thereforehave contained standing water. Waterloggedsamples usually have a wetland element in theplant remains, and when the site is in a damp rivervalley perhaps it is only surprising that there werenot more.

Weeds and ruderals

All samples had floras that were mostly weeds andruderals, both in numbers of taxa and inabundance of remains. Context 1961 (S29, P5-9)provided a fairly typical flora: most of the taxa werefrom weeds of one kind or another, the listdominated by the twenty or so weed taxa. Some of

Plate 9 Selected examples of the recovered plantremains

97

Table 5 Species list

Name Sample context number1707 1775 1961 132 559 578 1070 1098 3008

Pteridium aquilinum L 3Ranunculus cf acris L - 1 - -Ranunculus subg Ran 4Ranunculus parviflorus L - 1 -

Ranunculus flammula L 3Ranunculus sceleratus L -

R subg Batrachium - -RANUNCULUS typePapaver argemone L - -Papaver sp - -

Fumaria sp -Brassica sp -Thlaspi arvense L -CRUCIFERAE -

Viola spStellaria media group - -Stellaria palustris/graminea - -Arenaria sp -Scleranthus annuus L -CARYOPHYLLACEAE -Mania fontana ssp chondrosperma(Fenzl) S M WaltersChenopodium cf vulvaria L -Chenopodium cf album L -

Chenopodium ficifolium Sm - -

Chenopodium murale L -

Chenopodium sect Pseudoblitum(Gren) Aschers - -Atriplex sp -CHENOPODIACEAE -TILIA -cf Vicia -Vicia sativa L - -TRIFOLIUM REPENS - - -TRIFOLIUM PRATENSE - - -

Trifolium sp calyx -Trifolium sp corolla - -Lotus tp - -LEGUMINOSAE -FILIPENDULA ULMARIA -

Rubus cf idaeus L -

Rubus cf fruiticosus agg - -Rosa or Rubus (thorns)Potentilla anserina L -Potentilla erecta (L) Rauschel - -

Potentilla cf Reptans L - - -

POTENTILLA tp

---

--

3-

-

1-----

--

--

-51

-1

-----

---

1

1

2-11--

---1

12-

1-

1

44

-

12--1*1*-

1--

-211

-

1-5-11--1311--

2-37--

329--1*

-44

---51-25-

1--

--2-1

----1

---

--9

-

--

-

---

---

-

--8--9-531---31-1--3

--31-3

25913---247-

43-424---89

--2---

2

--

-1-

-

-

---1

--2-1*---------2-----

-

-----3----

4------

-----

--15--

53---

2-------

-

21----1------------

--1--

--143--

------------

--2-1600+-5--31-4-31---1

412--

1218151----------

-

--

- 1

98

Table 5 (continued)


Aphenes arvensis L - - -Aphanes microcarpa (Boiss andReuter) - - -Prunus cf institia (L) C K Schneid fr - - - -Crataegus sp - -Crataegus / Prunus (thorn) - -ROSACEAE 1 -Hydrocotyle vulgaris L - - -Torilis japonica (L) Houtt - -

Conicum maculatum L - -Apium graveolens L -Apium nodiflorum (L) Lag -Petroselinum crispum (Mill) Nyman -Aethusa cynapium L? Foeniculum vulgare L - - -Pastinaca sativa L or Heracleumsphondylium L - - -Daucus carota L - -UMBELLIFERAE - - - 8Polygonum aviculare L 6 -POLGONUM BISTORTA type - 2Polygonum lapathifolium L - -Polygonum convolvulus L - - -

Rumex acetosella L -Rumex sp -

RUMEX tp -Urtica urens L -Urtica dioica L -URTICA - - -ULMUS - -Betula spBETULAALNUS -Alnus glutinosa (L) Gaertn -

Corylus avellana L -CORYLUS - -FAGUS -QUERCU - -SALIX -

ERICALEScf Fraxinus excelsior L -FRAXINUS - - -

Atropa bella-donna L - -

Hyoscyamus niger L - - - -Solanum dulcamara L - -Solanum nigrum - - -

Verbascum cf pulverentulum Vill

--

--10-5-

--3-

--21--4-4---

---

-

1

11-------2-2

--3-1-44

-11

-1-

-

-1tw

-

-

2

5

-1*-31-14--

2-

27-3185-1115-

---11

-

----

2---

-

-----

-----

-1

5--2-----------

-------

--

--2---31011-51-

2-67---1593144--11--4-1-6

13542--

- -

-

------13-----

--2------------------2-----

---

-

----

------

--5-9----2

--

-14--15-712-

-

--

-

--------? l----

--1--111031-63-29-----

---

-

3037--11

-4-315

88-36--517-------21

99

Table 5 (continued)


RHINANTHUS tp - -Mentha cf arvensis L -Mentha sp - -MENTHA tp - - -PRUNELLA tp - -

Prunella vulgaris L -? Stachys palustris L - -? Stachys sylvatica L -

Ballota nigra L -

Lamium sp -

LAMIUM tp - -Galeopsis spAjuga reptans LPlantago media L -PLANTAGO MEDIAPLANTAGO LANCEOLATA - -CAMPANULACEAE -cf Galium sp - - --GALLIUM tpSambucus nigra -SAMBUCUS NIGRA - - - -Valerianella locusta (L) Laterrade - - - -Valerianella rimosa Bast -Valerianella dentata (L) PollichSenecio jacobea L - - -Anthemis cotula L -Tripleurospermum inodorum (L)Schulz Bip - - - -ANTHEMIS tp - -ASTER tp - -ARTEMISIA tp --

ARCTIUM tp - - - -

Cirsium cf palustre (L) Scop - -Cirsium cf arvense (L) Scop - -Cirsium sp -CIRSIUM tp - -CENTAUREA CYANUS - -CENTAUREA NIGRA tp - -TUBULIFLORAE - -Lapsana communis L -Leontodon sp - - -Sonchus oleraceus L - - --Sonchus asper (L) Hill - -Taraxacum sp - - -

LIGULIFLORAE - -Alisma plantago-aquatica L - -? POTAMOGETONACEAE

1---2-----2----6----

--

---------

----

-6-

1--

--

-----371-

---

-2---

1---

-1-1

1-1--

--

--------

--

--

--3-

4

-

--113--

-2

-4

-

3-

---1-

---1--

-

---

-----

-

-

-

1--

---

--

---

-

22

1-

1111?1---1391

-1301

----

-

6

-

1--512---

42-1

----

-----

----8---5------

-1-

-

2-15-

----9--

--26-

3-----

-

51-

-----3--

-

17-1

------2-----10------1061-----

-----

--------

--2-1

3--------51-----4--182-

-

34

-10-2-3---11101229628--

100

Table 5 (continued)

N a m e Sample context number1707 1775 1961 132 5 5 9 578 1070 1098 3008

Juncus sp - -Luzula sp - -TYPHA LATIFOLIA tp - - - - -Eleocharis uniglamis / palustris -Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani (CC Gmelin) Palla - -Isolepsis setacea L - -Carex cf flava agg -Carex cf riparia Curt - -Carex cf limosa L -Carex cf hirta L -Carex cf otrubae Podp - - - -Carex cf divisa Huds? - - - -Carex cf divulsa StokesCarex cf ovalis Good -

Carex sp 1CYPERACEAE -Bromus sp -Glyceria sp -Gramineae (mostly Poa) -GRAMINEAE -Triticum sp (grain) -Triticum spelta gl/b -Cerealia (grain) -Cerealia (culm nodes) -CEREALIA - 6

Total macroscopic remains - -Total pollen 396 - -

Other remainswood charcoal - -beetle remains -fly puparia -cadis cases -twigs - -coal

-

---

---1---55----

1--2

51*-----

--1,1*-1*11--11*1,1*2

129

+++++-+

- -

191-6

--

-

31-

--

16 -

19-3*,1111-4*4*,221-

335

++++++++++

25 901 24- 58 230

++--

4-

--

71 1

- -- -24 -5 -- 57 -7 -1 -2 -- -5 214 -- -- -- -164 131* -1* -- 1*- -1 1

- -

--2-

-----------8---84-----

291

-

-

2--2

-

15-

-

--------14----8

--1----1-1-4

--35-----

160 1111226 2004

-

All remains waterlogged except when marked *. Remains other than seed are fruitstone fragments (fr), twigs(tw), and glume bases (gl/b), and flower parts calyx and corolla. Order and taxonomy from Clapham et al 1962

1 0 1

these, such as Chenopodium (goosefoot), Atriplex(orache) and Urtica urens ( lesser nettle) ,Tripleurospermum inodorum (mayweed) andSonchus asper (sow thistle), are very widespreadand provide little information beyond the presenceof disturbed soil. Chenopodlium and Atriplex wereespecially abundant in context 559 (S27, P9(11)),and Atriplex in 3008 (S34, P12). These weeds couldalso have grown in cornfields, but there is no actualevidence that this was the case.

Hyoscyamus niger (henbane) was present in twosamples, and quite abundant in one of them (559).It is a rare plant now according to the Botany ofWorcestershire (Amphlett and Rea 1909), althoughrecorded from Droitwich, and it is somewhatunsuccessful when grown outdoors now. There hasbeen discussion (Greig 1988, 373) as to why itseems to have been common on Roman sites suchas Droitwich, although without a clear answer.

There is also a small number of plants whosehabitat is ruderal or rough grassland, the sort thatare found now on the verges of roads. Potentillaerecta (common tormentil) and P reptans (creepingtormentil), Torilis japonica (upright hedge-parsley)and Ranunculus parviflorus (small-floweredbuttercup) are the most typical examples. Rparviflorus was described in the Botany ofWorcestershire (Amphlett and Rea 1909) as localand rather rare, although Dodderhill and thecanalside below Salwarpe were given as placeswhere it had been found (Amphlett and Rea 1909)and, like henbane, it is one of the weeds whichseem to have been commoner in Roman times.

A range of weeds is also evident from the pollenspectrum from context 1707 (S6, P4), such asChenopodiaceae (goosefoot, etc), Rumex type(docks), Anthemis type (which includes Anthemisand Tripleurospermum) and there are other pollentypes that probably represent weeds, such asCruciferae. The weeds are mainly insect pollinated,and may therefore be less well represented bypollen than by their seeds.

Weeds of specific habitats

Cornfield weedsIn context 1961 (S29, P5-9) there was a largegroup, including Papaver argemone (poppy),Fumaria sp (fumitory), Arenaria sp (sandwort),Scleranthus annuus (knawel), Aphanes species(parsley piert), Polygonum convolvulus (bindweed),Rumex acetosella (sorrel), and Valerianella dentata(cornsalad), which are especially characteristic oflight sandy soils and many of them aretraditionally weeds in cornfields on these soils. Theother samples show much less sign of such a group.Much of Droitwich seems to have heavy clay soiland therefore a rather unsuitable habitat for theseweeds, which raises the question of whether theymight have grown elsewhere and been brought in,perhaps with straw, eventually being deposited

Plate 10 Selected examples of the recovered plantremains

with rubbish. This is discussed further inconnection with the cereal remains. Context 3008from structure 34 (Pl2) contained Centaureacyanus (cornflower) pollen and seeds of Anthemiscotula (stinking mayweed), which are bothcharacteristic of medieval, but not Roman, cornfieldweed floras.

Perennial weeds, ruderals and scrub plantsContext 559 (S27, P9(11)) has signs of a moreperennial weed flora than the other samples. Therewere 101 seeds of Conium maculatum (hemlock),and 35 of Atropa bella-donna (deadly nightshade).The latter grows where there is limestone andDroitwich seems a rather unlikely site for it, therebeing no nearby records in the Botany ofWorcestershire. There were also 24 seeds of Rubusfruticosus (bramble) and 130 seeds of Sambucusnigra (elder). Hemlock and elder grow best wherehuman occupation has enriched the soil and suchvegetation springs up on abandoned settlements. Itis surprising that there were not more nettle seeds,unless the overgrowth was too dense. This floraseems to be a sign that the surrounding area wasovergrown with weeds and scrub growing on thegood soil, and that it was probably not in use at the

102

time. The alternative theory that plants werebrought to the site for use seems less attractive, asthere are so many different scrub and weed taxapresent.

Grassland plants

Possible grassland plants are the best representedgroup in the pollen spectrum from context 1707(S6, P4) that can be identified to a particularhabitat. There are Gramineae (grasses), Trifoliumrepens (white clover), Prunella type (self-heal),Plantago lanceolata (ribwort plantain), andperhaps Compositae (Liguliflorae, dandelions,hawkweeds, etc), which all generally speaking growin grassland, although many of these plants canspring up on wasteland together with weeds,without fully- developed meadowland needing to bepresent. Some such as Ranunculus type (buttercup)can represent either weed or grassland taxa. Theseplants are well represented in the pollen record,particularly the wind-pollinated ones such asgrasses and plantain, as one would expect. In themacrofossil floras of contexts 1961 (S29, P5-9) and559 (S27, P9(11)), grassland plants are representedby small numbers of taxa (less than ten) and someof these would also grow up on wasteland as well asin proper grassland. One of the Ranunculus seedswas well-enough preserved to be identified as Racris (meadow buttercup), and there were seeds ofPastinaca/Heraclelum (wild parsnip or hog-weed),Prunella vulgar-is (self-heal), Ajuga reptans (groundivy), and probably Poa (a grass family with weedand grassland species). There were also floralremains of Trifolium (clover) in context 1961 andpollen of both red and white clover in 559. Brackenfrond was present. In the post-medieval possiblecanal (S34) there was also a good record ofCentaures nigra (knapweed), a fairly good exampleof a grassland plant.

Trees and shrubs

Trees, normally well represented when they arepresent, are scarce in most of the pollen results.Only context 1098 (S31, P8) has a substantialamount of tree pollen, mainly Alnus (alder) Corylus(hazel), and Quercus (oak). The post-medievalsample (3008, S34, P12) had an unusually largeamount of Ulmus (elm) pollen which seems to bevery local in origin, perhaps from flowering elmboughs brought to Droitwich for the production ofwater pipes: some of which have been found in thetown. In the macrofossil records there is just theoccasional birch or alder seed, or piece of hazelnutshell, or thorn of sloe/haw, but trees do not usuallyshow up well from macrofossils unless they wereactually overhanging the find-site. The shrubSambucus nigra (elder) has been mentioned as partof scrub vegetation (see above). Large amounts ofcharcoal lumps, as well as the finer particles thatwashed through the sieves in a number of samples

may represent the residue of wood or charcoalburning on a huge scale that was used to evaporatethe brine.

Cultivated plants

These were only represented by Triticum spelta(spelt wheat) which was identified from the glumebases (part of the chaff) and the other cerealremains of rather nondescript charred grains mightthen be from spelt as well. There were a fewcharred seeds, such as Vicia (vetch) and Bromus(brome grass) which may be from plants charredalong with the straw that was burnt. The possiblepost-medieval pit, structure 34 (3008, P12), had thepollen of Linum usitatissimum (flax) and Vicia faba(broad bean). These are typical crop plants for thisperiod and presumably they, together with thecereal pollen, owe their presence there to generalrubbish.

Deposit formation

In the case of some spectra, such as that fromcontext 1707 (P4), which came from the fill of abrine tank (S6), and context 3008 (P12), possiblypart of a canal (S34), pollen could have beendeposited from the atmosphere, thus to some extentrepresenting the general surroundings. In the caseof other samples such as from context 559 (S27,P9(11)), where the organic content is high, pollencould also have come from whole plant material.The landscape around the site can be interpretedfrom this grassy/open land pollen spectrum to havebeen mainly of grassy and weedy wastelandvegetation. Such a pollen spectrum is commonlyobtained from Roman wells and ditches. The plantseeds probably come from the very local vegetation,as seeds are not usually dispersed as far as pollen.Some seeds could have come from vegetationcontaining them (such as straw, reeds, etc), whichwas brought in to the site for some reason.

General interpretation

This assemblage of plants appears to represent amixture. Some of the weeds and grassland plantscould well have grown on the site itself and theirremains would thus represent the local vegetationat the time. The cornfield weeds and some of thecereal remains represent grain, straw andthreshing waste. These would have been brought tothe site from cornfields and barns. They might havehad a number of purposes apart from nutrition:straw can be used as animal fodder, building androofing material, and as fuel, and there is not muchindication of which is the case here. The wetlandplants could have grown on the site, perhaps in thepits and ditches which were wet enough to preservethe evidence. They might also have been broughtinto the site for use as roofing, flooring, etc.

103

Plate 11 Fragment of post-medieval 'barrow’ orconical wicker basket for drying salt crystals

Crop plants such as the cereals are wellrepresented here, as well as Vicia faba (field bean)and Linum usitatissumum (flax), which producemuch less pollen. Perhaps these crops were storedor processed in the area, and the last two mighteven have been grown nearby, as they were oftengrown as garden rather than field crops. Anotherinteresting facet of the pit was the retrieval of theremains of a basket made of thin wooden strips inlattice work. It was photographed as soon as it wasfound (Pl 11) although conservation later on provedto be unsuccessful. There is little indication as tothe original function of this feature; most placeswith waterlogged plant remains such as pits,ditches, and wells tend to preserve plant remainsthat give little indication of what the originalfunction was. Their fills usually representsubsequent disuse, since they filled up only afterthe original use had finished. It is therefore notreally possible to give any botanical evidence aboutwhat this pit was used for. The late date of thedeposit is interesting as there are very few suchresults from the post-medieval period. TheBirmingham Moat (Greig 1978-9), similarlypost-medieval, showed some sign of fully aquaticplants such as waterlilies and probably thereforeremained open long enough for this to establishwhile it gradually silted up. There the crop plantswere cereals, as at Droitwich, and in additionCannabiaceae, perhaps from hemp being processedor even retted in the moat itself. Environmentalarchaeology needs to be carried out on morepost-medieval sites to obtain continuity ofinformation, as well as to compare with the moreabundant evidence from earlier periods.

The large post-medieval pit or canal 3008 (S34,P12) was particularly interesting; the clay fill Comparison with other finds frompreserved pollen well at most levels and one of the Droitwichauthors (Sue Colledge) analvsed enough samplesfor a pollen diagram (Fig 55) to be prepared, as wellas the plant macrofossils and the molluscs.Wetland plants identified from the seeds and pollenshow that it probably remained at least dampthroughout the year. Fine clay sediment and theaquatic snails seem to suggest that it waswaterfilled, although there were few signs of trueaquatic plants. Ranunculus sceleratus, the mostabundant seed, would have colonised the dampedges of the pit, where wild celery Apiumgraveolens and hemlock Conium maculatqum wouldalso have found a suitable habitat. Large numbersof weed seeds show that the surroundings mayhave been overgrown with weeds such as Atriplex(orache). The comparatively large amounts of treepollen and particularly of Ulmus (elm) havealready been mentioned.

Plant remains have been studied from a number ofother Roman excavations in Droitwich. The villa atBays Meadow (HWCM 678) produced a well,although the fill with so many hemlock and nettleseeds seems to represent a phase of abandonmentrather than the surroundings of Roman Droitwichas such (Greig 1988). The main part of the siteproduced charred remains with large amounts ofspelt wheat, together with some rye and barley(Straker 1979), which parallels spelt in the cerealremains from the Old Bowling Green. At theHanbury Street excavation (HWCM 681) there wasa large amount of charred wheat chaff, some grainand a range of charred weed seeds: Ranunculus sp(buttercup), Agrostemma githago (corn cockle),Stellaria sp (chickweed), Chenopodium sp(goosefoot), Trifolium sp (clover), Polygonumconvolvulus (bindweed), Rumex sp (dock), andTripleurospermum inodorum (scentless mayweed;Vaughan 1982), which shows that these may havebeen the main cornfield weeds. The Old BowlingGreen seeds were mainly waterlogged (even thoughthere were very large amounts of charcoal) and

A pollen analysis such as this provides evidencenot possible from the macrofossil record, and thesite does seem to have enough tree pollen to showthat the surroundings were probably fairlyovergrown, which is in contrast to the almosttreeless Roman pollen spectra already mentioned.

Figure 55 Pollen from the fill of a canal or large pit (S34). phase 12

105

these deposits thus differ in nature from the richcharred finds, mainly of cereals, mentioned above.The Old Bowling Green flora does, however, havesome similarity to the finds from the well at BaysMeadow in the preponderance of weed seeds, andthe sample from context 559 (S27, P9(11))especially so. An industrial site for salt extractionsuch as this would probably be a place with littlevegetation because of the trampling, burning fires,piles of salt, etc, but if areas became disused, weedssuch as those that were found would have movedin. The remains may have become preserved if theplants either grew by pits or ditches themselves, orif their seeds (together with topsoil) were depositedin such wet places when the site was cleared forre-use.

Signs of halophytes

The brine springs at Droitwich may have had aflora of salt tolerant plants in the past. These mightoriginally have come from seeds carried in the gutsof grazing birds, such as geese. It is interesting to

see if there is any sign of this in the plant record.The only possible halophyte (salt tolerant plant)found so far is Apium gravedens (celery). In therecent past it was 'very abundant' along theDroitwich canal (Amphlett and Rea 1909), but theauthors have not seen nor heard of it there now. Inrecent years, wild celery seems to have retreated toa few coastal sites in Britain, the only locality theauthors could find being near Portsmouth. As wellas growing wild, celery was also cultivated inRoman times, it is believed for the aromatic seedsrather than for the stems that are eaten today. Theseeds from context 1961 (S29, P5-9) even stillsmelt of celery Celery seed has been found at otherRoman sites far from the salt springs, such as atAlcester (Moffett pers comm) and Berinsfield,Oxfordshire (Robinson pers comm). The presence ofcelery seed at Droitwich cannot then be taken as anindication of salinity, since it seems to have beencultivated, although the scarcity of other cultivatedplants in this Droitwich material might offer atleast the suggestion of such salt-tolerant naturalvegetation.

106

19 Wood A n n e C r o n e

The excavation produced a total of 423 woodsamples, of which 372 (88%) came from four of the ADexcavated brine tanks, structures 6, 7, 8 and 9. Thebulk of the wood was derived, either from theboards lining the pit sides or from debris within thepits. Further pits to the north (S3, S4 and S5) wereexcavated and recorded as being lined in a similarmanner but the linings were not totally retrieved.However, small samples of the wood debris wererecovered from structures 3 and 5, brine tanks anda large pit (S34). A small sample of the wattlelining of structure 1 was also retrieved. Two wellpreserved barrels, split along their axes, werelifted, one (S16) of which has been conserved by theNational Maritime Museum (2:F6). Six woodenposts, found in situ, were recovered. The remainderof the sampled material derived from debris frommiscellaneous features, layers, pits, ditches andpostholes. Carbonised material and that frompost-medieval contexts is not considered in thisdiscussion.


Brine tanks (S3, S5, S6, S7, S8 and S9)The species associated with the brine tanks aresummarised in Table 6. One hundred andninety-three pieces of wood were recovered fromthe construction of the brine tanks (S6, S7, S8 andS9), consisting of boards, board splinters, scantling,worked and unworked branchwood. The boards hadmostly been cut to form a point with one or twooblique cuts. Often, especially in structure 8, theboards are buckled just above the base, presumablyas a result of hammering the boards into the baseof the tanks. The survival of toolmarks is variable,although those from structure 6 are particularlyclear. This occurs, most frequently, as a series ofripples or stepped ridges down the side facets,varying in length from 15 to 50mm and in widthfrom 30 to 50mm. Oak (Quercus sp) was by far themost common wood used in the construction of thebrine tanks (Table 6).

Of the wood recovered from the disuse of thebrine tanks of this phase (S3 and S5), most was ofboards but also included a handful of small oak andhazel (Corylus avellana) twigs (162, S3), a split oakboard with a rough oval hole just above the tip, andtwo unworked branches of hazel and field maple(Acer campestre; 494, S5).

Phase 4: Mid 1st to early 2nd century

Disuse of the brine tanks (S3, S6, S7 andS8)Most (134 pieces) of the wood was either unworkedor simply worked branches, board splinters andscantling. However sixteen artefacts were retrievedfrom the fill (3116) of structure 6 and four boardsfrom the fill (3118) of structure 8 displayedcarpentary details indicative of a previous function.

Sliding mechanismOf the artefacts from structure 6 a rectangularpiece of oak measured 215 x 80 x 20mm, the fulllength of which did not survive (Fig 56 no 1). Fornearly 140mm of its surviving length it is dividedinto two rectangular prongs and tapers slightlyfrom the upper end to the pronged end, Threegrooves had been cut across one face. The grooveshad very thin ridges along their sides, reminiscentof sawmarks. When found in situ the two prongswere slotted into two rectangular holes in themiddle of a long square beam. A peg entered thebeam at right-angles to the prongs and penetratedbetween them but did not penetrate the oppositeside of the beam. This would have enabled thebeam to slide up and down along the prongs. Itsfunction is not at all clear. It may be the lockingmechanism of a barred door but its dimensionssuggest something smaller than a door; a chest forinstance.

Cutting blocksA chord off a large oak trunk was recovered, onwhich sapwood and bark still remain in places.Another sample was a roughly 'L' shaped segment,also an oak trunk, one arm of the L crossing thetrunk and the other arm going up the trunk.Almost every surface on both pieces of wood iscovered in thin cutmarks running mainly acrossthe grain of the wood. Within the curve thecutmarks are so profuse that the wood appears'feathered' in texture. The cutmarks are short, verythin and no more than 2-3mm deep, suggestingcuts produced by a sharp edge such as a knife.

The most obvious explanation for the function ofthese two pieces is as cutting blocks, though whysome of the more awkwardly shaped surfaces arealso covered in cutmarks may need furtherexplanation.

107

Figure 56 Wood. Scale 1:4

108

Table 6 Wood from the brine tanks

Phase Wood S T B I Pr Al Po Ac F C Q Non TotalStructure identContext Category

2-4128D

Branchwood

3 Board3 Amorphous162 Miscellaneous

43129

AmorphousBoard splinter

3 Board5 Board splinter494 Branchwood 1

361745

463116

Board 36Board splinter 13Scantling 8

BoardBoard splinterBranchwoodScantlingWorked branchArtefacts

1

1 1

1

3 Board7 Board splinter1773 Worked branch

473117

BoardBoard splinterBranch woodWorked branchAmorphous

233

381693

BoardBoard splinter

483118

BoardBoard splinterB r a n c h w o o d 1Worked branchAmorphous

1

2 1 11

1 1 1

392702

BoardBranch wood

TOTALS 1 1 3 2 3 5 8

1

1

12 12 2

1

1 31 31 12 1

2

11 17

4

213 10

12

11

1 4

57

4

1551113 35

72

10

166

714

13

11

58

4521 66

22

1091114

2

1 65

692 73

26 307 6 390

10 10

Key: S (Salix, willow), T (Tilia, lime), B (Betula, birch) I (Ilex, holly), Pr (Prunus, wild cherry), Al (Alnus,alder), PO (Pomoideae, apple/pear/quince group), AC (Acer, field maple), F (Fraxinus, ash), C (Corylus, hazel),Q (Quercus, oak)

109

Shovel bladeOf interest was a roughly oval piece of birch (Betulasp), 300mm long and 150mm at its widest point. Itnarrowed to 100mm at one end where it becameslightly 'waisted'. It was 15mm thick and slightlyconcave along its length. At the wider end the veryedge of the piece was burnt. At the narrower end,just below the waist, was a rough triangular slot 45x 30mm penetrating the piece. The upper and lowersides of this slot were parallel to each other butangled down the length of the piece. When firstfound, a small piece of roundwood, chopped at oneend, was sitting within the hole (Fig 56 no 2).

This artefact displayed characteristics identicalto the blade of the composite shovel, described indetail most recently by Carole Morris (1981).Briefly, the shovel blade is generally oval tosub-rectangular in shape, waisted at one end, withpegholes above the waist and a rectangular slotjust below it. A separate shaft was fitted into theslot from the concave, or upper, face and secured bymeans of pegs through the pegholes (Morris 1981,52). It lacks a peghole but as the piece is brokenabove the waist, a peghole may have existed.Alternatively, another means of securing the shaftmay have been used. Morris describes two completeblades which do not have pegholes (1981, 56, nos 24and 26) and suggests that they must have beensecured by rope or cord bound around the shaft andblade shoulders.

The shovel blades that have been recovered fromsecure contexts during excavation have been datedto the 9th to 13th centuries AD, the earliest knownin this country coming from 10th century levels atYork and Durham (Morris 1981, 59). However, asimilar blade was found in the 19th century in thelead-mines at Shelve, Shropshire and attributed tothe Roman period. Rastel (1678, 1062) describes a'loote', which is a board fixed slope-ways on a haftabout 1.00m long and was used to ladle out saltcrystals from the boiling pans.

Forked stakesSome eleven forked stakes appear to have beendumped as a bundle into structure 6 (Pl 1). Withthe exception of one stake of field maple all were ofoak. All have been fashioned from straight lengthsof roundwood which fork at one end. The branchesvary in diameter from 45 to 90mm. The mostcomplete example (Fig 57 no 3), is 1,750mm long,while another (Fig 57 no 4) measured 1,830mmalthough incomplete. The subsidiary branches havebeen trimmed by oblique chops to lengths varyingfrom 140 to 330mm. A third (Fig 57 no 5) had longthin facets along its length, presumably, as a resultof stripping off the bark, but all the others werestill covered in bark.

At the opposite end to the forks the branch hadbeen reduced to a long rounded tip by a series offacets. There are no signs of compression on thosestakes where the tip still exists. Five of the forked

stakes, had a halo of surface burning on the stemabove the stake tip, and one was also burnt in thetips of both forks. The toolmarking was wellpreserved on a number of the stakes. It occurredmost commonly as a series of shallow ripples orstepped ridges down the length of the facets at thestake tip, but varied greatly in length from5-30mm.

The most obvious explanation for the function ofthese forked stakes is that they were designed to beset in the g-round, supporting a horizontal memberbetween the forks. The halo of burning noted onsome of the stakes suggests that they may havebeen set in the g-round near open fires, allowing thestem to scorch. A clue to their function comes froma more recent source. In Book XII of his treatise onmetallurgical practices, De Re Metallica, GebrgiusAgricola describes the various processes of saltextraction that he observed being practised inGermany during the 16th century (Hoover andHoover 1912). An illustration of a contemporarysalt works shows two pairs of men crossing a yardcarrying a cask of brine suspended on a polebetween them. Each man carries a forked stakeidentical in appearance to those from structure 6and Agricola describes them in a note to accompanythe illustration as 'Forked sticks in which theporters rest the pole when they are tired’ (Hooverand Hoover 1912,549).

DiscussionIn addition one piece of scantling (SRBB) was foundin the debris (3116). One end had broken across arectangular hole 50mm wide, of which 60mm of itslength remained. Sawmarks were visible in thecorner of the hole. A tenon, 30mm diameter, extendedfrom the centre of the opposite end. It had beenroughly fashioned by a number of small facets whichreduced the end of the scantling, leaving the tenonprotruding. The tenon survived to a length of 45mm.

Of the boards from structure 8 (3118), four displayfeatures indicative of a previous function. One boardof oak is 163mm in length and 23mm wide, with aseries of four holes cut down the middle of the board.Two holes are square with angled edges, bothmeasuring 30 x 45mm while the other two are oval,one measuring 30 x 75mm and the other 40 x 90mm.A similar line of holes are found on a second oakboard measuring 1780 x 180mm. The holes areoff-centre along the board and are very irregular insize and shape, suggesting that the wood has erodedaway along the line of the holes. One end of the thirdsample has broken across a roughly square hole55mm wide. The fourth board, a sample of holly (Ilexaquifolium) is a very unusual piece, not least becauseof its species. It was very fragile and fragmentedwhen lifted. It appears to be the chord from a trunk,with the bark still adhering in places. A groove 30mmwide and 4mm deep is cut across the width of theplank on the flat face and the underside is burnt inpatches.

110

Figure 57 Wood (continued). Scale 1:10

.

111

Table 7 The barrels (dimensions in m)

Height Max diam Min diam No of Stave Stave Hoopstaves width specie specie

Old Bowling Green 1.78 1.25 1.00 10 0.11-0.20 Abies QuercusS16, 1102Old Bowling Green c 1.80 1.30 1.20 11 0.13-0.18 Abies QuercusS19, 3060Old Bowling Green 1.90 - 3 0.16-0.18 Larix --S21, 1727Old Bowling Green 1.65 1.10 1.00 - - - QuercusS15, 1228*Old Bowling Green 1.70 1.00 1.00 - - - QuercusS20, 1229*Silchester 1.95 0.86 0.72 19 0.15 Abies CorylusInsula XVIIISilchester 1.97 0.84 0.68 18 0.165 Abies CorylusInsula XVIIHarelbeke 1.60+ 1.20 0.80 18 0.17 Abies x 12 Corylus

Larix x 6

* dimensions estimated from size of pits

Disuse of a possible leat (S30)The fills of a possible leat contained four splintersof bark covered branch (168), probably debris fromthe squaring of a post. Another two splinterspossibly came from a plank (476). All were of oak.

Phase 5: Early 2nd to mid 3rd centuryAD

Posthole alignment (S146)This structure included an oak post (1776) whichremained in situ. Its top was tapered and hollow,due to rotting. The base was flat and radial, androtting was in its early stages (see phase 9 for fulldiscussion).

Phase 8: Mid 3rd to late 4th centuryAD

Barrels (S15, S16, S19, S20 and S21)Of the best surviving barrels, one (1102, S16, Fig17) was sent to the national Maritime Museum,where it was examined and then conserved fordisplay in Droitwich (2:F6). The other (3060, S19,Fig 18) was stored with the rest of the woodassemblage and finally dismantled in the course ofexamination at Droitwich. Unfortunately, the upperstaves had collapsed and only the lower staveswere still well preserved. Both the examination atGreenwich and that at Droitwich producedcomparable data. The staves of both barrels were ofsilver fir (Abies alba) and the hoops were of oak.

The method of conversion of the staves wasexamined closely. Traditionally, the staves arefashioned from radially split wedges so that themedullary rays remain largely intact and form animpervious membrane along the circumference ofthe barrel (Kilby 1977, 30). Many of the staves hadnot been converted so carefully and were cut atoblique angles across the rays. It is suggested that,instead of radial splitting, the trunk was quarteredand then the staves were sawn off parallel to one ofthe radii.

The hoops were chords about 20mm wide and5mm thick, cut from small bark covered branches,so that the bark constituted the greater part of thehoop. The hoops only survived in small strips and,in many cases, only their shadow was visible on thestave. No means of securing the hoops wereobserved.

Structure 21 was much disturbed and consistedof three barrel staves (1727) found in situ in thebase of structure 31. These collapsed during liftingbut the fragments were identified as radially splitpieces of European larch (Larix decidua).

The barrel hoops of structures 15 and 20 were ofoak (1228 and 1229).

Neither larch nor silver fir is native to thiscountry, both being introduced in the 19th century,and up until then their nearest natural habitatswere the mountain ranges of Central Europe(Godwin 1975, l-02-3). The literature on Romantrade describes goods such as wine and samianware being transported in barrels and there havebeen numerous finds of barrels in Roman contextsacross Europe and in Britain.

112

The barrels from the Old Bowling Green arecompared with a selection of these in Table 7. The

piece, creating a scalloped appearance on bothinner and outer surfaces. Context 1171 still

Old-Bowling Green barrels fall within the standard retained its complete circumference although itrange of dimensions and are manufactured from tapered considerably from base to top. At the topthe same range of species. The larch staves of a the interior was completely hollowed out, leavingbarrel from Harelbeke were positioned at irregular only an outer shell, and the very centre had rottedintervals in groups of one or two around the away down to the base. Context 1776 was similarlycircumference, similar to the barrel from the Old tapered and hollow at the top but the centre hadBowling Green (1727). A barrel from Aardenburg, not completely rotted away at the bottom. Instead,Zealand also used both species (cited in Frison the centre and some of the rays were still filled1961). with the soft, spongy partially decayed wood.

The only feature that appears to be quitedifferent is the nature and species of the hoops. Allother samples cited have used split hazel wands, amore suitable choice, as hazel is known for itselasticity. At Harelbeke the hoops were secured bysimple knots (Frison 1961, 772).

As the hoops of the barrels were not fastened tothe staves, except as a complete belt keeping thestaves in situ under pressure when cut. the barrel

Posts found during excavations at the broch ofBuchlyvie, Stirlingshire and displaying similarcharacteristics to those described above, were thesubject of a recent study into this type of decay(Barber pers comm). Acetolysis and microscopicexamination of thin sections taken along the lengthof the posts, indicated that fungi were the mainagency of decay but the species of fungi involvedcould not be identified.

The fungi attack the wood via the wood-vessels orpores, which provide vertical access through thewood. They also provide access for oxygen andwater, both necessary for fungal activity. It isestimated that the number of pores on thecross-sectional surface is four times as many at thecentre of the trunk as it is at the circumference(John Barber pers comm). Therefore, decay willoccur more rapidly in the centre of the post. As thecentre decays, access is enlarged and the fungibegin to attack via the smaller horizontal cells, iethe medullary rays. This process is much slower onthe exterior of the post, partly because thenecessary oxygen decreases with increased soildepth. Therefore the rate of decay will alsodecrease with depth, thus producing the taperedprofiles seen in contexts 1171 and 1776. This typeof decay will only stop with the onset of anaerobicconditions which arose, in this case, when thewater table was reached.

would probably have fallen apart. It wouldtherefore seem probable that whole barrels werelaid in the ground and then cut longitudinally, oreven left whole, This last suggestion wouldhowever, make access difficult and there was verylittle in the way of barrel parts in their fills asmight be expected if they had remained whole,Removal of the staves and end boards would notnecessarily have greatly disturbed the hoops, andthese would have remained in situ (S15 and S20).

Phase 9: Later mid 3rd to late 4thcentury AD

The rectangular building and postholealignment (S22 and S161)Very little of the single remaining oak post (2465)survived as it was very much decayed. It waslocated in situ on top of a large stone, acting as apost-pad (2464). Again this oak post from analignment (3115, S161) was in situ and was muchdecayed.

The remains of six wooden posts were recoveredin situ from the excavation as a whole. One (2465,P9) was found sitting on its padstone within aposthole (PI 4) while the others were set directlyinto postholes. Despite being found in situ only twoof the posts had well preserved bases. The base of1171 (P5?) was completely flat whilst that ofcontext 1776 (P5) had been shaped by two shortdownward chops on opposing sides, leaving aflattened ridge across the width of the post. Withthe exception of context 3115 (P9) all the postsdisplayed similar patterns of decay, although atdiffering stages on the process. In all cases thecentre of the post had rotted away (Pl 4) and thedecay was spreading out along the medullary rays.In the case of context 307 this had resulted in totalfragmentation of the post so that only wedges of theoriginal trunk remained. Only half of post 2465remained and decay was very well advanced on this

Uncertainly phased

Only two samples (28D) were recovered fromstructure 1 (P2-4), a brine tank and were derivedfrom the wattle lining.

Of the in situ posts which were uncertainlyphased, the samples from contexts 303 and 307(S36, P4-5) were very decayed. Decay had occurredalong the rays. Another in situ oak post (1265,S108, P4-5) again showed advanced decay alongthe rays (see phase 9 for full discussion).

A layer (1023, S114, P7-9) produced a fragmentof a small vessel stave, measuring 65 x 45 x < 5mm.The full length of the stave has not survived. It wasneatly squared at one end, and 10mm above thatend a groove, 5mm wide and 2mm deep, had beencut across the stave. The dimensions suggest asmall, finely made vessel; possibly a bucket. Thechoice of species (yew; Taxus baccata) is unusual.Two other fragments of planking may have been

113

barrel staves of silver fir, but were not wellpreserved.

Of the material recovered from post-Romancontexts, a fragment of wickerwork (3008, S34,P12; P1 11) is worthy of note. Conical wickerbaskets were used for the draining of salt crystalsafter they had been removed from the boiling pans(see Chapter 1).

Discussion

With the exception of the roundwood used torebu.ild one corner of structure 8, all the brinetanks were lined entirely with oak. Although theinner- and outermost rings are missing on all theboards so that the number of rings measuredduring tree-ring analysis represents only theminimum age of the tree many of them clearlycame from long-lived trees (Table M15, 1:E6).Tree-ring analysis also indicates that the boardswere fashioned from relatively slow-grown oaks.

The lining boards had been split radially from thetrunk, presumably using wedges, and varied from15 to 60mm in thickness. Practical experimentswith seasoned and unseasoned oak havedemonstrated that it is much more difficult to splitseasoned oak into halves, let alone into thin boards(Darrah 1982). Furthermore, the sapwood had notbeen trimmed and remained virtually intact onmany samples. It therefore seems most likely thatfreshly-felled oak trunks were brought to the siteand converted into planks for immediate use in thetanks. The use of unseasoned wood is alsosuggested by the buckling observed near the basesof many of the boards, a feature characteristic ofgreen timber hammered into a hard surface. Undersimilar duress, seasoned wood tends to becomemerely compressed at the tip.

Apart from the basic shaping of the tips (seeabove), there was no additional trimming ordressing of the faces. As described above, thetoolmarks on the shaped tips are eitlher a series of

ripples or stepped ridges. Experimental work in theSomerset Levels has demonstrated that the axeleaves abrupt steps where the blade has bitten inand the chip broken off, similar to those atDroitwich. The toolmarks are rarely larger than50mm and although subsequent chops will removepart of the toolmark it seems likely that a relativelysmall axe was used to fashion the lining boards.

There is evidence for a more varied toolkit in thedebris thrown into the tanks. Both the knife andthe saw were used. Sawmarks are visible in thecorner of the rectangular hole at one end of SRBBand in the grooves on the sliding mechanism. TheRomans used both a frame saw and a bow-saw butthe latter is probably more suitable for the finerwork in evidence here (Liversidge 1976). The knifeseems to have been used for finishing work. Thebark was stripped off on the the forked stakes witha knife and the tenon at the other end of SRBB hadbeen finished using a knife. The knife would alsohave been the most suitable tool of shaping thesquare holes found on planks amongst the debris(see above). The Romans used both spoon-shapedaugurs and bow-drills for boring holes (Goodman1962) but the holes on the Droitwich wood are tooeroded to determine the method of theirmanufacture.

A wide range of species was found in the debristhrown into the tanks, much of it twigs, branchesand some woodworking debris. The speciesrepresented are commonly found today in theenvirons of Droitwich. Poplar, willow, and alder linethe banks of the Salwarpe, while field maple andash appear as hedgerow trees. The fruits(Pomoideae), apple and pear, and the wild cherry(Prunus sp) may have been deliberately sought outfor their value as good fuel (Taylor 1981).

The artefacts found amongst the debris,particularly the shovel blade and forked stakes, areof interest in that they parallel some of theequipment used in salt-extraction some 1,600 yearslater (see above).

114

20 Miscellaneous Simon Woodiwiss

Leather artefacts were sporadically collected andprocessed. No conservation was undertaken andthe assemblage was d iscarded . A s ing leunidentifiable decayed fragment was retrievedfrom a Roman context (192, S214, P4(5)) and oneother from a layer of phase 10 (1205, S110). Therest of the assemblage was derived from post-medieval or unstratified contexts.

A number of fragments of mortar were recoveredfrom Roman contexts but these formed too small anassemblage for worthwhile comment.

115

21 Friar Street (HWCM 605, the excavationJustin Hughes and Alan Hunt

The site was located towards the western end ofFriar Street, on the northern side, at National GridReference SO 8974 6349 (Fig 1). Excavation wascarried out between August 1973 and July 1975,with a break between March and August 1974.

The project was directed by Alan Hunt (CountyArchaeological Officer) and supervised by DavidFreezer from August 1974 to the end. It was fundedthroughout by the Historic Buildings andMonuments Commission for England, formerly theAncient Monuments Division of the Department ofthe Environment, and by Hereford and WorcesterCounty Council.

Archaeological problems and questions weredefined as follows:

1 There was a strong possibility of prehistoricsettlement on the site, perhaps connected withsalt working in that part of the Salwarpevalley later occupied by the town. Excavationshad previously been concentrated at theRoman sites at Dodderhill (St Joseph 1938;Whitehouse 1962; HWCM 603), and at BaysMeadow (Gelling 1957; HWCM 678). Littleprehistoric material was recovered from thesesites on the higher ground north of the valley.However, an early focus of activity beside theSalwarpe or on the lower valley slopesremained a probability.

2 The early Roman fort at Dodderhill and thevilla at Bays Meadow might be interpreted asadministrative centres for a Romano-Britishsalt industry at Droitwich, attested by thename Salinae given in Ptolemy's Geographyand Salinis in the Ravenna Cosmography(Rivet and Smith 1979, 451). This industrywas presumably sited in the Salwarpe Valleyor on its lower slopes and a domesticsettlement (or settlements) might beassociated with it. Indeed, the pottery foundby Hodgkinson (1933) in the town, includingthe Friar Street area (HWCM 671), mightreasonably have been associated with a saltworking settlement.

3 The Saxon documentary evidence indicatedsalt working at Droitwich in this period andraised the possibility of continuous brineexploitation from Roman times onwards.

4 The medieval urban topography of Droitwichhas been summarised by Freezer (1977). Theearliest morphological unit seemed likely, ontopographical grounds, to be close to the pointwhere the Roman roads crossed the Salwarpe.Perhaps significantly, the road aligned north

to south here used to be known as MarketStreet (now Queen Street) . The HighStreet/Friar Street alignment was postulatedas a later development, perhaps of a plannedor regulated nature. A very slight variation ofalignment where High Street joins FriarStreet, by the parish church of St Andrew(HWCM 607), seemed to indicate that thissecondary development took place in twostages. Friar Street seemed more likely to bethe later of the two. The date and character ofthese developments needed elucidation. Anearlier excavation in a burgage plot on thesouth side of High Street (David Peacock perscomm; HWCM 4167) was frustrated byshallow deposits and considerable disturbance.

It was clearly important to explore earlysettlement in the area occupied by the town and toinvestigate the origins, chronology and character ofthe urban development. A high value was placed onpotential development sites in the historic centre ofDroitwich, particularly where Roman material hadbeen recovered. An initial survey found thatdevelopments were planned on several sites ofpotential archaeological importance. The FriarStreet site was of particular interest, because it laywithin the medieval town, close to the site of thedemolished parish church of St. Nicholas (Fig 1.HWCM 255) and opposite the late medievaltimber-framed Priory House (HWCM 609). Romanmaterial had also been found in this area(Hodgkinson 1933), although findspots could not beidentified with any certainty.

The site therefore presented an opportunity toexplore an area occupied in Roman and medievaltimes and possibly shed some light on theintervening period. Plans for building a new firestation were well advanced. The west part of thesite, formerly occupied by a church hall, was inCounty Council ownership and had already beencleared; to the east was a hall still in use.Development was scheduled to begin in 1975,which allowed time to carry out extensiveexcavations.

The subsequent investigation produced an almostcontinuous sequence of occupation from the mid tolate Iron Age, to the 20th century. An area of 400square metres was examined, yielding up to 3m ofstratified deposits. One thousand one hundred andeighty contexts were recorded, and these weresubsequently divided into 174 structures andordered into fourteen phases. A full description of

116

A - 19th century rubble B - medieval dark clay C - redeposited gravels D natural (marl)

Figure 58 Simplified section on southern edge of excavation

the stratigraphical analysis is given in fiche(2:F7-3:A8).

The depositional sequence was for the most partwell defined (Fig 58). Iron Age and Roman features(P1 to P3ii) were cut into the marl subsoil and weresealed in the sub-Roman period by a compactedpebbly clay. In the 12th century the beginnings ofan extensive build-up of dark, highly organic clayloam were detected, sealing drainage features inphase 4i and tanning pits in phase 4ii. This richsoil was cultivated during the sequence of domesticoccupation described in phases 5 to 9. The post-medieval sequence of brick buildings (P10 and P11)was sealed by rubble from their demolition in theearly 19th century.

Phase 1: Iron Age (Fig 59)

The earliest features on the site were associatedwith mid to late Iron Age salt production.


Brine tanks (S1, S2, S3 and S5)All but one of the five structures of this phase wereidentified as brine tanks. Two (S1 and S3) werebadly eroded but each had a series of postholes cutthrough its base and sides, demonstrating thatboth had been lined with timber. Structures 2 (Pl12) and 5 were identical in profile and lined withclay. The lining of the former was also revetted bywooden planks and wattles and had adendrochronological date of AD 19 (Table M24,3:A14). Wood stains were recorded in the base andsides of structure 5, but the pit was truncated at itsnorthern end. Figures 60 and 61 illustrate thecontrasting construction techniques of structures 2and 3.

Hearth (S4)To the east of structure 3 an elliptical pit (Fig 62),with almost vertical sides to a depth of 0.78m, wasinterpreted as an open hearth. It was filled withlarge quantities of briquetage, charcoal and ash, ina complex series of deposits of green and grey clays,dark brown and grey loams, and silt. The lower fillsmay have been associated with the use of thehearth, as the concentration of fuel waste washigher than in the upper fills.

DiscussionThe brine tanks and the hearth contained largequantities of briquetage and were aligned east towest. Two of the four tanks (S1 and S3) were poorlypreserved and significantly smaller than theothers, but all four were clearly relatedfunctionally. The great quantity of fragmented andcrushed sherds of briquetage in the fills of the brinetanks and the hearth also indicates a relatedfunction. The tanks were probably used for thestorage and settling of brine (see Chapter 2 for amore detailed discussion of the function of thesefeatures). The fuel waste and the large quantity ofbase sherds recovered from the hearth indicate theclose association of briquetage vessels with aprocess of controlled heating. Alternatively, it is

117

Figure 60 Brine tank (S2)

Figure 61 Brine tank (S3)

118

Figure 62 Hearth (S4)

possible that the hearth was used for the firing ofbriquetage vessels.

Whether briquetage was used as the boilingvessel and or for the draining of wet salt crystals isnot clear. Petrological analysis has identified twogeneral fabric types, organic and sandy (Morris1985, 342-4). Some of the sandy, flat-based vessels

had narrower bases (eg Fig 82 nos 5-6). Thisvariation may have been related to some specialfunction or may merely indicate smaller containers.

The remainder of the pottery assemblage fromthis period was small, but it included fabric typesrepresenting a wide range of trade links (Chapter22).

Plate 12 Brine tank (S2, P1)

119


Phase 2: Early to mid Roman (Fig 63)

The construction elements of phase 2 dated fromthe mid 1st to the 2nd century, when saltproduction ceased. Features were mainly in theform of pits and postholes, the main area of activitylying in the north-eastern corner of the site where acluster of features formed a possible area ofdomestic occupation.

Disuse of the brine tanks (S2, S3 and S5)The fills of structures 2, 3 and 5 were mainly composed of clay and loam, and contained largequantities of briquetage and charcoal. Structure 2contained an assemblage of wood, including aforked stake (Pl 13) similar to examples from theOld Bowling Green (see Chapter 19). A terminuspost quem of the 2nd century AD, derived frompottery, was given for their disuse. In addition adendrochronological date of AD 45 was obtained forthis material (Table M24, 3:A14). Radiocarbondates were obtained from three charcoal samplestaken from the fills of structure 3. These were400-100 Cal BC, 366-40 Cal BC, and 331 Cal BC-Cal AD 60 (Table M28, 3:B5). However the sampleswere taken from redeposited soils and the terminuspost quem provided by the pottery is more reliable.

Plate 13 Wood debris in the fill of a brine tank (S2, P2)

120

Figure 64 Well (S6)

Well (S6)Structure 6 had two construction elements, a pitand a sandstone shaft (Fig 64). The shaft was3.25m deep and varied in diameter from 0.73m atits top to 0.59m at its base. It was built withdressed grey and green sandstone blocks. Someunevenly worked blocks of green sandstone wereretrieved from the upper fills of the well. Theprimary fill of the shaft was composed of a clay silt,while the upper fills had a similar composition ofclay and sandstone. Fragments of green sandstonelay over the well-shaft.

Pits, postholes and stakeholes (S7, S9,S10, S23, S40, S55, S66, S78, S82 andS100)Three of the ten structures (S7, S10 and S55)formed post or stakehole alignments in the easternhalf of the excavated area. Structure 7 consisted offour postholes and three stakeholes on an east towest alignment; structure 10 comprised a cluster ofsixteen stakeholes, six of which were alignednorth-west to south-east; and structure 55 wasformed by four stakeholes. All three groups werefilled with clay and loam soils.

The other seven groups (S9, S23, S40, S66, S82and S100), with the exception of structure 78, werealso constructed in the eastern sector around thewell (S6). However, these pits had no clearassociation with the features previously described,except that they were cut from a similar level and

were filled with clay loam. Structure 78 consisted oftwo pits adjacent to structure 27 but of a slightlylater date.

Ditches (S8, S11, S27 and S63)Three of the four ditch groups were located close tothe well. Structure 8 consisted of four drainagegullies aligned north-west to south-east and lyingto the north of structure 7. Structure 11 comprisedtwo parallel ditches aligned east to west whichpost-dated the disuse of the well (S6). Structure 63consisted of a ditch and three pits, possiblyassociated with structure 55. The fourth group(S27) lay approximately on an east to westalignment in the south-western corner of theexcavation, and consisted of a ditch punctuatedalong its southern side by six stakeholes, fromwhich some timber survived.

Layers (S45, S57, S77 and S84)The features described in this phase were partiallysealed by deposits of gravelly clay soils.

DiscussionThe brine tanks went out of use prior to theconstruction of the late 1st to early 2nd centurywell and its associated features. The main area ofactivity was in the north-eastern area of theexcavation, with peripheral activity in thesouth-west. The well probably provided fresh water.Despite the presence of brine in groundwater in thearea of Droitwich, later records suggest that fresh

121

Figure 65 Phase 3i features

or mildly saline water was obtainable from surfacewells (Richardson 1930, 104). The well presumablylay within an area of domestic settlement. Itcontained a primary silt probably formed during itsoperational life, while the upper fills containedpottery suggesting that it was backfilled in thesecond half of the 2nd century.

Structures 7 and 8 probably provided drainagefor the area. Structure 8 had a gradient runningdown to the north-west, away-from the well.Structure 55 also appeared to have been associatedwith the well, perhaps serving as the foundation fora superstructure to draw water from the shaft. Thefunction of structures 9, 10, 11, 23 and 100 areunclear.

In the south-west a palisade trench (S27)probably marked a land boundary. The sixstakeholes driven into its upper slope may havesupported a fence. The boundary was presumablyassociated with the activity described in thenorth-east of the site, although the proximity of thebackfilled phase 1 brine tanks in the central areamay have made the construction of buildingsdifficult.

Traces of building materials (a small assemblageof tile) were recovered from the fill of the well. Thepottery indicated that there was in the 2nd centuryoccupation in the vicinity, probably of a domesticcharacter. It has been suggested that, when theRomans occupied the area in the second half of the1st century AD, they quickly acquired control overthe salt industry (Freezer 1977, 8). A manifestationof this control may possibly be seen in theconstruction of the fort at Dodderhill (HWCM 603).

Some reorganisation would then seem likely,possibly involving relocation or contraction of thesalt producing area. With the evidence of saltproduction continuing into the early Roman periodat the Old Bowling Green excavation (Chapter 2), itis possible to view this as indicating contraction ofthe salt producing area.

Phase 3i: 3rd to 4th century (Fig 65)

Evidence of small-scale settlement was apparent inthe late 3rd century from a number of structures tothe north of two linear features (S17 and Sl8). Anapparent absence of archaeological features to thesouth of structure 18 was misleading because thearea was heavily disturbed in phase 5ii.

Pits, postholes and stakeholes (S12, S13,S14, S15 and S86)Structures 12, 13, 14 and 15 formed four postholeand stakehole groups clustered along a north-westto south-east axis. Several peripheral featureswithin structure 12 were probably linked with thisalignment.

Structure 86 consisted of a series of inter-connecting pits and a ditch in the south-easterncorner of the excavated area.

Ditches (S16, S17 and S18)Structures 16, 17 and 18 were constructed on aneast to west alignment. Structure 16 was a ditchwith a steep profile and a narrow flat base, whichterminated 4m west of the eastern excavationbaulk. Its primary fill of clay contained charcoaland sandstone fragments. Structures 17 and 18consisted of two narrow, shallow gullies which layparallel to structure 16. The western end ofstructure 17 was clearly delimited but the easternedge merged into structure 174. A slight downwardgradient was noted as both structures ranwestward. Their edges in the central area were notclearly defined and, although no physical evidenceof disturbance was recorded, such disturbance ismore than likely given the position and depth ofstructure 34 (see P 4ii).

Layers (S54, S64, and S68)These deposits were composed of gravels and clays.

DiscussionThe structures in the late Roman period wereirregular, but they included a series of drainagechannels and small enclosures (S13, S14, S15, S16,S17 and S18). A drainage function was impliedparticularly in structures 17 and 18, which randown the natural valley slope. To judge by its size,structure 16 may have been part of an enclosuredividing two plots of land. The cluster of pits (S13,S14 and S15) to the south of the ditch was difficult

122

Figure 66 Phase 3ii features

to interpret within the limited area of excavation,but they may have formed parts of substantialtimber structures.

The composition of structures 54 and 68 and thegeneral character of adjacent features may suggestthat soil cultivation was taking place next to asettlement area. The two drainage ditches (S17 andS18) were constructed on the same east to westcourse as the enclosure ditch, indicating that thesettlement limits were clearly defined. Thedomestic nature of that settlement was implied bythe ceramic assemblage, which included tablewaresand mortaria (Chapter 22). Small quantities ofglass were also present.

Phase 3ii: Sub-Roman and Anglo-Saxon (Fig 66)

A series of linear features were cut into the layerscomprising structure 174.

Pits, postholes and stakeholes (S26, S28and S67)Three poorly preserved groups of features wereconstructed in the central area. Structures 26 and28 consisted of a possible posthole and a pit; andstructure 67 was an incomplete line of stakeholesand a ditch.


Gullies (S20, S21, S24, S25, S62 andS121)Five of the six groups were constructed on a northto south alignment. Structures 21 and 24 consistedof a parallel series of shallow gullies, but to the eastof the former, structures 25 and 62 were badlydisturbed. A ditch which was recut twice (S20) layin an apparently isolated position to the north-east.Finally, a narrow east to west gully (S121) was cutby structure 21.

Layers S65, S71, S171 and S174)These deposits were largely composed of clay loamand pebbles, and were compacted to level theground surface which had previously sloped on aslight gradient from north-east to south-west.

DiscussionSix of the structures identified above formed aseries of shallow linear features, generally on anorth-south alignment. Structures 20, 21, 24 and25 probably represented plough furrows; the fewabraded Romano-British pottery sherds from thesefeatures were consistent with deposition throughfield manuring. Soil within the furrows was mainlycomposed of loam, which further suggested that thesite was being cultivated. However the activity wasdifficult to date as only abraded residual Romanpottery was recovered. A date somewhere in thesub-Roman or Anglo-Saxon periods is suggested onthe basis of three 'grass' tempered sherds whichwere recovered from these deposits (Chapter 22).

123

Figure 68 Phase 4ii features

Phase 4i: Earlier Saxo-Norman (Fig 67)

Phase 4i consisted of a series of pits, ditches andlayers upon which little functional interpretationcould be placed.

Pits, postholes and stakeholes (S31, S69and S158)Structures 31 and 158 consisted of a line ofstakeholes running parallel to structure 19.Structure 69 was an isolated pit to the west ofstructure 22.

Ditches (S19 and S22)Structure 19 consisted of a ditch constructed on acurving north-west to south-east line. Itsnorth-western end was not located, as it had beendisturbed by structure 34. The ditch widened anddeepened towards its south-eastern terminal.Structure 22 was cut on a similar alignment anddeepened to the south-east.

Layers (S93 and S170)These two layers of sandy clay and loam weredisturbed during the construction of the largeboundary ditch in the 13th century (S36, P5ii).

DiscussionPhase 4i comprised structures associated withdrainage (S19 and S22) and rubbish disposal (S69).Structure 31 possibly formed a fenceline to thesouth of structure 19. There seems to have been

Figure 69 Pits possibly used in the processing ofanimal hides (S34)

little activity on the site in this period, but thedistribution of the features suggested more intenseoccupation to the north and east. Survivingfeatures were generally poorly preserved and thefinds assemblage was too small to aidinterpretation.

Phase 4ii: Later Saxo-Norman (Fig 68)Phase 4ii comprised a complex of pits in the centraland northern parts of the excavated area.

Pits (S30, S32, S34, S37, S80 and S81)Structure 34 formed the most substantial feature(Fig 69). It comprised six pits and a wide shallowditch. The bases of the interconnecting pits were

124


punctuated by a series of stakeholes. A secondstructure (S30) consisted of four pits, two postholeswith posts and a connecting ditch. Structures 32and 37 were similar, and a small assemblage ofhorn cores was recovered from the latter. The fillsof these groups contained organic deposits andfragmented, decayed wood and charcoal.

The two remaining structures (S80 and S81) werepartially disturbed and were not clearly associatedwith the main activity.

Layers (S70)Two layers of black clay and loam lay over much ofthe excavated area and were notably deeper in theeastern area, in a slightly lower part of the site.The deposit was rich in humic material and itsaccumulation and cultivation continued fromphases 4ii to 9.

DiscussionStructure 34 may have been used for the processingof animal hides, and the parallel lines of stakeswere probably used as a rack to dry the skins. Acomparable structure of similar date wasdiscovered at Lower Bridge Street in Chester(Mason 1985, 26). The horn cores and fragments ofskulls indicate the processing of animal products,possibly tanning (where the untanned hide may beacquired with the horns still attached; see Chapter32) or hornworking. The central feature (S34) alsocontained large quantities of decayed wood andorganic material, which are characteristic of thewaste products formed during the processing ofanimal hides.

The pottery assemblage indicated a wide range oftrade contacts with, for example, the Cotswoldsarea and Lincolnshire (Chapter 22). This confirmsthe commercial importance (founded on the salttrade) of the early medieval town across a widegeographical area, extensively referred to inDomesday.

Phase 5i: 12th century (Fig 70)Activity included the construction of ditches andpits. The phase was chiefly characterised by thecontinued deposition of clay loam over the site.

Pits, postholes, stakeholes and ditches(S29, S33, S35, S39, S83, S85, S88, S90,S101, S161 and S165)Three of the twelve structures (S29, S33 and S35)were directly associated by their alignment.Structure 29 consisted of a ditch (probably a drain) ofindeterminate length, running east to west. A pit(533) lay to the west, and structure 35 comprisedthree pits, connected to the eastern terminal of ditch29. Structure 39 consisted of a bowl-shaped pit filledwith clay and large quantities of charcoal and ash, apebble and clay surface, a ditch containing traces of ahorizontal timber floor, two possible postholes andthe western edge of two further postholes. The timbersetting probably represented the impression made bya cill beam, which might suggest that atimber-framed building stood to the north of therubbish pits of structure 35.

The function of the remaining pits and smallpostholes within structures 83, 85, 88, 90, 101, 161and 165 was difficult to determine because ofdisturbance in phase 5ii.

Layers (S70 and S159)The soils of structure 70 were first deposited duringphase 4ii and eventually reached a maximum depthof one metre in this phase. They were composed ofblack, clay loam, sealing structures 29, 33 and 35.Structure 159 was a compacted surface adjacent tothe rubbish pit (S33).

DiscussionThe main structural developments in phase 5ipoint to domestic activity, with a sequence of drainsand rubbish pits. Associated buildings were notidentified to the north of these features, where thebuild up of black organic clay loam was recorded(S70). Structures 29, 33 and 35 were contemporaryand were for drainage. Structure 35 possiblyprovided a sump for substances dumped andpoured into the ditch (S29). The timber setting andadjacent clay floor of structure 39 suggested that atimber building existed in this area, but its poorpreservation prevented a more precise definition.

A higher percentage of locally manufacturedpottery was noted during the 12th century,

125

Figure 71 Phase 5ii features Figure 72 Phase 6 features

especially the Worcester-type ware, with a relativedecline in the presence of pottery from more distantsources such as the Cotswolds (Chapter 22).

Phase 5ii: Early 13th century (Fig 71)

Constructional activity was confined to the cuttingof one large and one slighter ditch.

Ditches (S36)Structure 36 consisted of a large ditch running eastto west and a smaller one running north to south.The eastern end of the former terminated withinthe excavated area. It had steep sides, but wasshallower and narrower towards the east. The sidesof the lesser ditch were steeper but its width couldnot be determined. Primary fills of silt possiblyrelated to the use of the larger feature as adrainage ditch, after which it was filled with tippedlayers of clay and loam. The upper fills of theslighter ditch contained ash, plaster and rubble,indicating the destruction of a building by fire. Thisis the only archaeological evidence for the existenceof this building. The quantity of domestic potteryfound in these deposits suggest that the buildingwas a house, probably of middling or fairly highstatus (see below).

DiscussionThe form and size of the east to west ditchsuggested that structure 36 was constructed todefine the southern and eastern boundaries of asubstantial plot. The narrower, shallower ditch,which was cut at a later date, probably subdivideda larger original plot. It is notable that the plot atPriory House (HWCM 609), to the south of theexcavation, had its longest axis running east towest, and a similar layout may be suggested here.Contemporary internal features could not beidentified; if any existed they could have beenremoved by later activity.

The presence of a substantial house, in a stronglydelineated and probably large enclosure, suggeststhat domestic occupation of a higher status wasestablished by this time. It seems likely that FriarStreet served as a wealthier residential area to thewest of the commercial centre (High Street).

The ceramic assemblage recovered from theselevels largely comprised wares of cooking pot type,with some pitchers, probably manufactured atWorcester. A decorated lead spoon was found in theupper fill of the slighter ditch (Chapter 30),perhaps confirming the relatively high status ofthis newly established residential area of the town.

Phase 6: 13th to 14th century (Fig 72)Layers (S70) The boundaries identified in phase 5ii wereThe substantial deposit of black clay loamoriginally observed in phase 4ii continued to

superseded by a smaller enclosure. A cobbled road

accumulate in the northern area of the excavation.was also laid along the south end of the excavatedarea, forming the medieval course of Friar Street,

126

Road (S42 and S98)The road was constructed with cobbles and ittraversed the southern end of the excavated area.

Wall foundation (S44 and S173)The main foundation trench consisted of a ditchrunning east to west, which turned to the southapproximately l.00m from the excavation edge. Thesouthern extent of the cut respected the line of theroad.. Another trench running north to south wasnot physically linked with the first but it wasprobably contemporary. The depths of both cutswere similar, with steep-sided profiles and flat evenbases, and there was evidence of packing within theloam and rubble fills, which also containedcompacted clay.

Pits (S58, S111, S124 and S140)Three posthole structures (S58, S124 and S140)and two pits (S111) seemed to be linked with theline of the road, as they were established along itsedge. It can be assumed that a fenceline existedbetween the plot and the road. Figure 73 Phase 7 features

Layers (S70, S99, S108, S113 and S116)These deposits were largely composed of the darkorganic clays within structure 70, but somevariations were noted, particularly in the ashycontent of structures 99, 113 and 116.

DiscussionThe road, the first excavated manifestation of FriarStreet as a metalled street, was represented bystructure 42. It is perhaps relevant that Droitwichreceived its first documented grant of pavage in1316 (VCH ii, 90). Structure 44, contemporary withthe road surface, represents the foundation of threesides of a building, whose internal dimensions were17.50m east to west and 7.50m north to south.Structure 173 probably provided a foundation forthe main south wall. Unfortunately any internalevidence was removed by activity during phase 7.

The accumulation of dark soil deposits (S70 in P 5iand P5ii) continued into the 14th century. The highash content within structures 99, 113 and 116indicate that a fire caused some damage in theeastern section of the excavated area. A fire isdocumented in 1297, which caused widespreaddamage, and probably started at St Andrew’schurch, at the junction of Friar Street and HighStreet (VCH iii, 75).

Worcester-type wares continued to dominate theceramic assemblage but a significant quantity ofMalvernian ware was also represented. Domesticvessels were recovered in large quantities which,combined with a range of domestic items ofmetalwork (especially copper alloy pins andthimbles, and structural ironwork fittings), pointedto the domestic character of occupation. A small

quantity of smithing waste was also recovered from14th century deposits Four fragments of smithingslag, including a hearth bottom, were found.However they were associated with the layersidentified as road make-up (S98) and adjacent soils(S108), and so could have been brought onto thesite for road construction.


In the 15th century the character of the roadremained the same, and in the mid 16th centurytwo substantial timber and sandstone buildingswere erected.

Road (S42)Four metres of the total width of the road wasrecorded, the southern edge lying beyond theexcavated area. The surface was not uniform andthe differing patches of cobbling indicated thatrepairs had been made. Its location in this phasewas almost identical to that in phase 6.

Buildings (S41 and S43)A building (S41) occupied the eastern half of theexcavation, but was largely obscured by lateractivity. The main surviving feature was asandstone masonry construction interpreted as achimney stack, probably attached to the externalwall of a timber-framed house in the unexcavatedarea at the eastern end of the site. A north to southalignment (S49) of four postholes lay parallel to thechimney. These may have been part of the

127

Plate 14 Cellar (part of S43, P7)

postulated building or, more probably, of scaffoldingassociated with its construction. To the north of thechimney, a drain with a sandstone lining appearedto lead away from the north-western end of thebuilding, and a cobbled surface lay adjacent to thewest side of the chimney.

A second building (S43) with sandstone walls,aligned at right-angles to the street, lay to the westof structure 41. Its four walls enclosed a cellar (Pl14) with a partially preserved floor of sandstoneflags, at a level lower than the local ground surface.A small hearth made of tile occupied the centre ofthe cellar, which was possibly used as a brineboiling house. A line of five padstones lay to thesouth, presumably the foundations for the wallfronting the street. A north to south postholealignment, parallel to the east wall, probablyprovided support for an outshut attached to theconjectured central bay of the building.

Postholes (S59, S60, S122, S138, S163and S164)Structures 59, 163 and 164 formed three postholegroups between the buildings, but their precisefunctions could not be determined. Structures 60,

122 and 138 were parallel to the road, and mayhave formed a boundary.

Layers (S70 and S135)The black clay loams identified in previous phaseswere cultivated during the 16th century. Largequantities of flat roofing tile in structure 135,which also contained other building rubble, mayhave been used in the construction of the buildings(S41 and S43).

DiscussionStructures 41 and 43 were constructed in the mid16th century, partly of timber framing on sandstonesills or pads and partly of sandstone masonry walls,with tiled roofs. Post-medieval activity removedmuch of the eastern building, but its externalchimney stack survived with an adjacent cobbledyard. The remains of the western building (S43)were more substantial, with a recognisable centralroom. Rooms to the north and south were indicatedby the slight continuation of the walls forming thecentral bay and a further room to the west wasconjectured. Of the western structure (S43) twobays of a possible three-bay building wereexcavated, but the neighbouring building to the

128


east (S41) was more difficult to interpret becauseonly the masonry foundations of a chimney stacksurvived. This was interpreted as an external stackof a timber-framed house whose conjectured outlineis shown on Figure 73.

The domestic nature of the buildings wasidentified from the range of pottery forms in use,including a high proportion of Malvernian products,in particular glazed jugs and jars (Chapter 22).Phase 7 also produced a wide range of copper alloy(Chapter 28) and iron (Chapter 29) artefacts,mainly in the form of personal and householditems.

Although there was no sign of a boundarybetween the two buildings it is likely that theyoccupied separate plots. If this was so it seems thatthese plots were much smaller than those describedin phases 5ii and 6. The plan of structure 43 maysuggest that it stood in a conventional burgage plot,but structure 41 presumably lay in a largerrectangular uni t , whose proport ions anddimensions cannot be estimated. Unfortunately theevidence does not allow us to explore therelationship between these two units. However, itseems clear that by the 16th century a range ofbuildings reflecting a variety of status (and perhapsfunction) were in place in this area of the town.

Phase 8: 16th to mid 17th century (Fig74)The buildings continued in use into the 17thcentury, while the line of the street running along


the southern edge of the excavation was slightlymodified.

Road (S46)The northern edge of the cobbled road was repairedand now lay slightly to the south of its line in theprevious phase. This indicates either a reduction inwidth or a movement of the road southwards.

Buildings (S41 and S43)The character of the two buildings constructed inphase 7 remained the same, but the outshutattached to the central bay of structure 43 wasdemolished.

Pits and postholes (S136 and S166)Only one pit and one posthole survived laterdisturbance. The pit (S136) appeared to be internalto the eastern property, and may have formed thebase of a hearth. The posthole (S166) was isolated,beyond the east of the central bay of the westernbuilding (S43), and its function was not determined.

DiscussionMuch of the activity detected in this period wasdisturbed by the reconstruction and extensionsassociated with structures 41 and 43 in phase 9.Later building work particularly affected the line ofthe road (S46), the eastern edge of which was lostby the cutting of a modern pipe trench. Much ofstructure 41 was disturbed by the later erection ofbrick-built features. However the chimney was still


in use. The artefactual evidence was similar to thatrecovered from 16th century levels, demonstratingcontinuity of domestic occupation from c 1550 to1650. Phases 7 and 8 were divided only on the basisof the demolition of the outshut and the repairs tothe street.

Phase 9: Mid 17th to 18th century (Fig75)

In the early 18th century structures 41 and 43underwent large-scale change. Structure 43 waspartially rebuilt with a number of brick walls,while structure 41 was refurbished in brick, withan extension to the north. Between the twobuildings, and connecting them, a brick extensionwas constructed with a system of drains in its floor.

Road (S46, S48 and S169)The road (S46) was disturbed in the south-easterncorner of the excavation by a cobble spread (S48and S169), which possibly formed a yard, with a pitcut into the surface (see S47 below).

Buildings (S41 and S43)To the north of the chimney stack foundation aseries of internal features connected with a kitchenand cellar or sunken-floored room was added to theeastern building (S41). A brick floor outside theentrance to the cellar led to three steps descendinginto it, and onto a floor made of sandstone flagsedged with brick. A tiled floor lay adjacent to the

129

steps, and a brick wall lay to the west of the twofloors, forming the western side of the cellar. Itsparallel east wall had been largely robbed. The rearwall was constructed with brick and tile, and apartition wall within the cellar also survived. Tothe south of the cellar, but still within the building,a rectangular brick feature was built into the sideof the chimney.

The east wall of the western building (S43) wasrebuilt in the early 18th century. The sandstonebase was retained but the upper structure was ofbrick. The south wall had been partially robbed atits western end and only one course of brickssurvived. Two largely robbed floor surfaces layadjacent to it, and were constructed with brick, andre-used malthouse tiles. They were enclosed by abrick wall and were therefore probably external tothe house, which had a front garden bordered by abrick-built wall along the street frontage.

A brick and cobble-surfaced area with twobrick-lined drains was constructed between the twobuildings. The function of this area was not clearbut it seems likely to have been an outbuilding.

Pits (S47, S120, S123 and S139)Structures 120, 123 and 139 were associated withthe buildings. They consisted of five pits which wereprobably used for rubbish disposal. Structure 47comprised three postholes on an east to westalignment, which seem to have been linked to thealterations made to the course of the road. Howeverit may be that the line of the road was disturbedwhen the buildings were demolished (see P10).

DiscussionThe main activity associated with phase 9 was therebuilding and extension in brickwork of the latemedieval sandstone and timber buildings. Thecentral drains seem to have served both buildings.The main brick-built extension associated with theeast building (S41) seems to have been a cellarbelow a possible kitchen area. The street frontagewas separated from the site by a further brick-builtboundary wall, which had been robbed to the southof the eastern property.

Phase 10: 18th to early 19th century(Fig 76)

The two buildings were demolished in the 18thcentury and the road was rebuilt. In the early 19thcentury two tenement buildings within a block ofeight were erected on the site.

Road (S146)The road described in phases 8 and 9 (S46) wasreplaced by structure 146, which was constructedwith more closely packed cobbles and a moreclearly defined northern edge.

130

Pits and ditches (S50, S51, S61, S134,S153 and S172)A boundary line (S50), consisting of seven evenlyspaced postholes, separated the road from thetenements. Other pit groups included a clay-linedwell (S51) and six pits, forming structures 61, 134and 153.

A robber trench (S172) provided evidence of theremoval of internal building features from theeastern plot. It is possible that it was excavated toremove a boiler or fireplace, as the disused phase 9chimney stack foundation lay adjacent to it.

Layers (S142, S147, S149, S150, S152,S154 and S155)Twenty-five layers of clay and rubble were recordedand were clearly associated with the demolition ofthe phase 9 buildings. Some of the debris alsosealed the pits described above.

DiscussionStructures 41 and 43 had been demolished by themid 18th century, according to the dating of potteryrecovered from the rubble of structure 149 (an early19th century penny also found in this rubble maywell have been intrusive), The road had beenslightly realigned further to the south, narrowedand resurfaced. Several small pits were dug nearthe northern edge of the street surface in thisperiod, possibly marking a boundary between theread and the tenements. The remains of thesebrick-built tenements were removed duringmachine clearance early in the excavation but theirlimits, shown on the Tithe Map of 1839 (CR0R760/256/1572), are included on Figure 76. Thetenements were demolished at some time betweenthe preparation of the Tithe Map and the firstedition Ordnance Survey 1:2500 map in 1884.


Phase 11 represented the final period of activity onFriar Street prior to the construction of the FireStation in the late 1970s. It comprised the buildingof two halls used by church and communityorganisations.

Boundary wall (S53)A brick-built wall bordering the west and south ofthe excavated area was constructed prior to thefirst edition Ordnance Survey map of 1884.

Church hall (S52)The foundations of a late 19th or early 20th centurybuilding (S52) consisted of brick walls which were14.00m from east to west and approximately 6.00mfrom north to south. An interior north to south wallalso survived. Three demolition layers (S151, S156


and S157) sealed the building. A secondchurch/community hall was built at about the sametime, immediately to the south of structure 52. Itsoriginal function is unknown but latterly it wasused by the Scouts and Guides organisations. Bothhalls were demolished in recent times, structure 52in the 1960s and the hall to the south in 1975.

DiscussionStructure 53 was constructed as a boundary wall tothe south of the site in the second half of the 19thcentury. Its earliest dated appearance was on the1884 Ordnance Survey plan, which also indicatedthat the excavated area was unoccupied at thistime.

After the excavation the site was acquired byHereford and Worcester County Fire Service and,at the time of writing, is still occupied by a firestation.

Conclusion

From the late Iron Age to the early Roman period,Droitwich brine was being exploited and salt wasbeing produced. Production involved the clay- andstake-lined tanks and hearths, used respectively forthe storage and or settling, and boiling, of brine.This industrial production ended in the early 2ndcentury AD and the area was then used fordomestic occupation characterised by theconstruction of a well. Only sporadic activity wasevident in the 3rd and 4th centuries, by which timesalt production seems to have ceased in this area,

Sub-Roman and Saxon occupation was not wellrepresented, although the linear features within

131

phases 3ii and 4i may have been related to lightagricultural activity in this period. Their consistentorientation implies that field boundaries were wellestablished.

By the 10th and 11th centuries the site was againprobably exploited for industrial purposes. Thecentral phase 4ii structure was probably used inthe processing of animal hides, and nearby pitswere dug for the disposal of waste products,probably from tanning.

From the 12th to early 13th century onwards thesite was continuously occupied and laid out in asuccession of land and property divisions varying insize, arrangement and status. Within these landdivisions, domestic and possibly industrial,functions alternated.

The wider archaeological significance of theexcavation, in relation to the general developmentof Droitwich, is discussed in the concluding sectionof this volume (see chapter 34).

132

22 Pottery Derek Hurst

The pottery assemblage ranged in date from IronAge through to modern in an almost continuoussequence. A total of 14,867 sherds weighing214.09kg was recovered, including industrialceramic vessels, or briquetage, used as saltcontainers in the earlier period. This assemblagecomplemented that from the nearby Old BowlingGreen excavation, which contained a particularlylarge component of Roman pottery though lacked awell stratified sequence for the later periods. Inparticular, the late Saxon and early medievalperiods were well represented at Friar Street (Figs78 and 79). It was therefore possible, byconsidering both of these sites together, to presentan overall picture of the development of potteryusage at Droitwich over at least 2,000 years.

Method

The pottery was macroscopically sorted using thefabric reference series (Chapter 35), with occasional

Figure 78 Pottery quantification by weight Figure 79

use of a x10 binocular microscope. Forms wereclassified using non-functional terms into broadvessel types, and sub-types if applicable. Evidenceof vessel use, for example sooting and charred food Iresidues was noted separately. In order to avoidunnecessary duplication, reference to vessel formtypology for the Roman period is largely toillustrated vessels from the Old Bowling Green.Decorative motifs were recorded using a codingsystem covering 32 different categories ofdecoration and surface treatment. Quantification isby weight unless specified otherwise.

Phase discussion

Phase 1: Iron Age (Figs 80 and 81)

Fabrics present: 1, 2, 3, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 6, 9 and 10

Much of the pottery of this phase (95%) consisted ofbriquetage vessels used to dry and transport salt,with the organic fabric (fabric 2, 67%) being morecommon than the sandy variety (fabric 1, 28%).Definite rims could not be recognised, as thetendency to break along coil junctions observed byRees (1986, 48) produced many broken pieces ofbr iquetage which could not be certa in lydistinguished from rims. In contrast a number ofbases were present in both fabrics, as at the OldBowling Green excavation (Rees 1986,49). At FriarStreet these seemed to be of two types (Morris1985, fig 3), either flat (Fig 82 nos 2-6) or indented(Fig 82 no 1). The base diameters of the two types

Pottery quantification by sherd count

Figure 80 Fabric proportions by weight in phase 1

seemed similar (c 60-100mm), but the flat baseonly occurred in the sandy fabric. Bases of bothtypes were recovered from contexts probablyrelating to the use of a hearth (S4), and theunusual number of complete bases from thisfeature suggested that it may have had someassociation with briquetage production orutilization (see Rees 1986 for further discussion).The indented type has previously been recognisedin Droitwich (Rees 1986, 49, fig 2), and also atother sites such as Sutton Walls (Kenyon 1953, fig12 no 6) and Beckford, but the flat type has so faronly been distinguished in the Friar Streetbriquetage assemblage.

Other fabrics of this phase were poorlyrepresented, except for the handmade Malvernianware (fabric 3). This included several rim sherdswith linear tooled decoration (eg Fig 82 no 9), whichwere mostly associated with structure 4. Thesebelonged to jars with plain unbeaded rims, whilethe linear tooling just beneath the rim was of eitherhorizontal or oblique type. Similar pottery has beenfound at several other sites in the region, forexample Midsummer Hill (Stanford 1981, 144-7)and Beckford (Ford and Rees pers comm). Sincepetrological analysis conducted by Peacock (1968,415-21), this type of pottery fabric (Group A) hasbeen known to contain Malvernian rock inclusionsand its source is therefore broadly indicated.

Fabrics 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 6, 9 and 10 were presentin very small quantities, but no information abouttheir forms could be established. However,petrological analysis (3:B6-5) suggested that theyrepresented, together with the more commonfabrics, a wide range of different sources supplyingDroitwich with pottery during this phase. Thesecomprised sources to the north-west (fabric 6),

Figure 81 Principal pottery sources in phase 1

south-west (fabrics 3, 5.2 and 9) and south (fabric4.2). Sandy wares (fabrics 5.1 and 5.3) wereconsidered to be possible local products. This widerange of sources for the pottery, though based on asmall assemblage, is observed by Morris (3:B9) tobe unique in the region and may well be a result ofthe salt-making industry functioning as a focus forceramic exchange (Morris 1983, 355-6).

DatingThe dating of the pottery assemblage of this phaseis rather problematical, as the pottery of this periodis generally not closely datable. However, lineartooled Malvernian (fabric 3) pottery has beenrepresented at many sites of middle to later IronAge date in the region. At Beckford linear tooledMalvernian pottery constituted a diagnostic featureof the middle Iron Age ceramic phase but wasregarded as probably late in this sequence (Fordpers comm).

Other pottery information pertinent to the datingof this phase was less specific. However, all thefabrics present were of Iron Age date, exceptperhaps a single decorated sherd in fabric 10 (Fig83) for which a pre-Iron Age date was suggested byMorris (3:B9). The briquetage also supported anIron Age date, though the period of its manufactureand use has yet to be determined, and it may havecontinued in use beyond the Iron Age at least at theproduction centre (Morris 1983; Rees 1986, 51).However, the massive quantities of briquetagepresent at Droitwich have made the detection ofresiduality difficult, and on both the Old BowlingGreen and Friar Street (Fig 84) excavations itremained a significant component of the ceramicassemblage throughout the Roman period.

1 3 3

134

Figure 82 Prehistoric pottery and briquetage: fabrics 2 (1), 1(2-6), 3 (7-g), 4.1 (10) and 5.1 (11). Scale 1:4

Illustrated pottery

Prehistoric pottery and briquetage (Fig 82)Organic briquetage (fabric 2; no 1), sandybriquetage (fabric 1; nos 2-6), Malvernian (fabric 3;nos 7-9), limestone tempered (fabric 4.1; no 10) andfabric 5.1 (no 11)1 Briquetage vessel with indented base (1182,

S3, P1-2)2 Briquetage vessel with flat base (469, S4, P1)3 Briquetage vessel with irregular flat base

(1161, S4, P1)4 Briquetage vessel which is mottled purplish

grey throughout (1161, S4, P1)5 Briquetage vessel with flat base (469, S4, P1)6 Briquetage vessel with flat base and reduced

internal surfaces (469, S4, P1)7 Malvernian (Group A) jar with linear tooling

below rim (469, S4, P1)8 Malvernian (Group A) jar with linear tooled

decoration (469, S4, P1)9 Malvernian (Group A) jar with oblique linear

tooled decoration (885, S1, P1)

Figure 83 Possible pre-Iron Age decorated sherd(fabric 10). Scale 1:l

10 Limestone tempered (Group B1) bowl (415,S5, P1-2)

11 Burnished bowl with omphalos base (1182,S3, P1-2)

Phase 2: Early to mid Roman (Fig 85)

Fabrics present: 1, 2, 3, 4.1, 5.3, 12, 12R, 12.2, 12.4,13, 14, 15, 21, 22,41, 42.1, 43,45 and 98

The amount of Roman pottery in phases 2 and 3was relatively small compared with the amounts ofpottery associated with phase 5 onwards. Onlystructures 2, 3, 5 and 6 produced much pottery,while the disuse fills of two clay and stake-lined

Figure 84 Percentage by weight of briquetage inthe pottery assemblage

135


pits (S2 and S3) accounted for much of thebriquetage. The concentration of briquetage in theirfills (but not in other probably slightly laterfeatures of this phase) perhaps supports thecontention that the briquetage went out of use atthe same time as the brine tanks, at least in thisarea of Droitwich. In general the briquetage of thisphase was more fragmentary and degraded than inthe earlier period, with fewer recognizable basesherds. However, this may have been due to theabove average condition of the briquetage fromstructure 4 in phase 1 rather than any inherentresiduality in the phase 2 briquetage assemblage.It was noted that the organic fabric (fabric 2) waseven more dominant than in phase 1. In quantity,briquetage was comparable to that of phase 1 and itstill formed a major component of the ceramicassemblage (c 53%). Handmade Malvernian wareswere again featured (<3%), though only structure27 (a ditch) produced very many sherds. This fabricwas of a type described by Peacock (1968, 15-18)which was characterized by tubby cooking potforms and vertically burnished bands or surfaces.This was in contemporary use with Severn Valleyware and lasted well into the 2nd century (Peacock1968, 16).

One of the clay- and stake-lined pits (S3), stillbeing infilled during phase 2, produced thefragmentary remains of a single vessel in sandyfabric 5.1 (Fig 82 no 11) associated with SevernValley ware (fabric 12). The precise context of thisvessel within the feature was, however, uncertain.The possibility remained, therefore, that itbelonged to phase 1 rather than phase 2. The vesselwas very unusual in form, but unfortunately onlysurvived in a very poor condition and had to be

consolidated before lifting. It was a bowl with anoutside burnished surface (the inside surface wasmissing) and an omphalos base, and it wasdecorated above the maximum diameter with threehorizontal grooves. No comparable vessel is knownfrom Droitwich, despite the petrological analysissuggesting the possibility of a local source (3:B7).The only other Iron Age pottery fabric in this phasewas a small quantity of Palaeozoic limestonetempered ware (fabric 4.1).

The Roman pottery assemblage consisted mainlyof Severn Valley ware (fabric 12) and included threecomplete vessels. These were a dish with a slightfootring (Fig 86 no 4) and two narrow necked jars(Fig 86 nos l-21, which were both derived from thebottom fill of the well (S6). Each displayed on theirundersides traces of secondary turning, subsequentto throwing and drying to the leather-hard stage.In this way the shallow groove on the undersidewas equivalent to the footring on the bowl, as bothfeatures represented a secondary finishingoperation on the wheel. A turned base was alsodetected on jars from other contexts of this period.Another detail noticed on some Severn Valley warewas a dark grey banding apparently applied whenburnishing took place. Other Severn Valley warevessel types present were the early tankard type (cfFig 29 nos 11-13) and carinated beaker (cf Fig 29nos 21-26). Associated with the Severn Valley wareof this phase were grey ware bowls and jars infabrics 14 and 15, the latter including several withrusticated surfaces. A small quantity of BlackBurnished ware type 1 consisted only of cookingpots, except for a single beaker of cooking pot form(Gillam 1976, 64-6). Another beaker (fabric 45),possibly an import, was colour coated andrough-cast with clay. Other imports were Dressel20 amphorae and samian (3:B11-12).

DatingThere were several Severn Valley forms of earlytype in this phase. These included the dish withfootring (Fig 86 no 4) for which Rawes (1982, 45)has indicated a mid 1st to 2nd century date, andanother dish from context 1143 (cf Fig 30 no 26) ofa type dated by Webster (1976, 35, nos 65-6) to the2nd century. Fragments of carinated beaker fromcontexts 647 and 731 may also be of mid 1st to 2ndcentury date (Webster 1976, 33, nos 59-60). Theearlier tankard type with straight fairly verticalsides was also present (1136) and seemed identicalto an example published by Rawes (1982, 44, no143) which was being produced in the Malvern areain the 2nd century. The 'Belgic'influence evident inthe production of Severn Valley carinated beakersmay also be reflected in an unusual pedestal basein this fabric from context 416 (S5), probably from ajar (Fig 86 no 5). It was associated with a samiansherd dated to c AD 50-65 (3:B11) and thisassemblage provided the most tightly defineddating evidence for the abandonment of one of thebrine tanks, suggesting that, at least in this case, it

136

Figure 86 Roman pottery: fabrics 12 (1, 2, and 4-6) and 23 (3). Scale 1:4

could have occurred in the second half of the 1stcentury.

Other dating evidence was obtained from a smallquantity of Black Burnished ware type 1 sherds,none of which needed to have been later than themid 3rd century. This included a possible handleddrinking vessel in a cooking pot form, probably notproduced beyond the 2nd century (Gillam 1976, 64),and cooking pots with upright rims and acuteangled lattice decoration. Sherds of rusticated greyware, comparable with examples given by Gillam(1970, 12, nos 95-8; dated to later 1st to 2ndcenturies), were derived from the fill of the well


(1134 and 1142, S6). The use of this feature (S6)was also associated with a rough-cast beakerdatable to this early Roman phase. A small amountof samian from the disuse fills (1134, 1136 and1142) dated from the Trajanic to the (early)Antonine periods (3:B12).

Illustrated potteryRoman pottery (Fig 86)Severn Valley ware (fabric 12; nos l-2 and 4-6) andshell gritted ware (fabric 23; no 3)1 Narrow necked jar (1143, S6, P2)2 Jar with burnished decoration (1143, S6, P2)3 Jar with internal lime-scaling (308, S74, P5)4 Dish with footring (413, S5, P1-2)5 Pedestal base (416, S5, Pl-2)6 Candlestick base (232, S42, P7)

Phase 3: 3rd century to Anglo-Saxon(Figs 87 and 88)

Fabrics present: 1, 2, 3, 12, 12R, (?)12.2, 12.4, 13,14, 15, 17, 19, (?)21.2, 22, (?)23, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32,33, (?)36, (?)40, (?)41, 42.1, 43 and 50

The pottery assemblage of this phase was relativelysmall and degraded. The average sherd size wasreduced to 6.8g (5.9g for briquetage), comparedwith 13.8g for phase 2 and 17.9g for phase 4. Thisquantity of smaller sherds resulted in lessinformation being available about forms and hencedating was less secure. Two structures (S64 andS68) produced the most pottery in this phase andthese formed deposits laid down on the east side ofthe site.

Briquetage sti l l dominated the potteryassemblage, with over 50% by both weight and

137

sherd number. However, its residual characterseemed to be assured by its degraded condition andthe absence of any recognisable rims or, moreespecially, bases. The few identifiable Severn Valleyware forms were generally contemporary with thisphase, ie the later type of tankard and the jar withbifid or 'pulley' rim (see below). A grooved rim bowlwith internal overhang (cf Fig 30 nos 9, 12 and 13)could not however be closely dated, as it seemed tobe a type in use throughout the Roman period. Atendency to high firing of Severn Valley ware wassometimes apparent at this period, leading to adark purplish surface finish. The purpose of thiswas uncertain. The final result was reduced but,since other grey ware in a reduced Sever-n Valleyfabric was not so highly fired, there seemed to beno reason to suggest that it was done to effect adark finish. Possibly the vessels at the front of thekiln during firing were affected in this way and sothis may have been accidental. A number of bases,as in phase 2, exhibited a turned groove on theunderside.

Cooking wares consisted mainly of BlackBurnished ware type 1, though it was not presentin any quantity. There was also a small amount ofgrey ware, for example a plain dish (cf Fig 31 no 29)and single sherds of both late Roman shelly ware(fabric 23) and wheel-thrown Malvernian (fabric19) cooking pot (cf Fig 32 no 12). Other kitchenwares were Mancetter/Hartshill and Oxfordshire(both white and white slipped) mortaria, and largestorage jars in Severn Valley ware (cf Fig 27 no 19)and mudstone tempered ware (fabric 17).

Finer tablewares were supplied by theOxfordshire and Nene Valley industries, with theformer predominating, with both its colour-coatedand parchment wares being represented. Therewas also a small amount of fabric 31, acolour-coated ware probably derived from asouth-western source (see below).

As in phase 2, the principal imported pottery wasDressel 20 amphorae and samian, the lattercertainly being residual by this period.

DatingThe dating of this phase was based more on fabricdate ranges than form, as the assemblage wasgenerally so degraded. No doubt associated withthis, much of the pottery was also very abraded,especially from structures 17, 20 and 45. Severalfabrics were present which suggested a 3rd to 4thcentury terminus post quem. These includedOxfordshire and Nene Valley wares, and fabrics 17and 31. Mudstone tempered ware (fabric 17) hasbeen attested at other Midland sites in the laterRoman period (Booth and Green 1989) and mayhave been associated with the transportation ofsome special commodity. Fabric 31 has been datedto probably the late 3rd and 4th centuries atAndoversford (Young 1980, 44). WheelthrownMalvernian pottery (fabric 19) was dated to the 3rd


to 4th centuries at Beckford (Ford and Rees perscomm), where the evidence suggested a similardate was in order for the handmade slab-builtvessel rims in a Malvernian fabric (see Chapter 23).The latter were described by Peacock (1965-7, 24,nos 80-2) and similar material has been detected atthe Old Bowling Green excavation (Chapter 5) anda number of other sites in the region. Shelly fabric23 may also be dated to the later Roman period(Chapter 3).

Fabrics used throughout the Roman period atDroitwich were present in phase 3 in late forms.They included for example, Severn Valley ware latetankard type (cf Fig 29 nos 14-18) and jars (cf Fig28 no 9) dated by Webster (1976, fig 3 nos 10-11) tothe mid 3rd to 4th century. Black Burnished waretype 1 included cooking pots with oversailing rimsand obtuse angled lattice decoration (cf Fig 33 no 1)also of this date range.

Three sherds of 'grass' tempered ware (fabric 50),probably from a single vessel, were associated withthe later part of this phase (P3ii). They had patchyoxidized and reduced surfaces, and no rim or basesurvival was evident. Unfortunately these sherdscannot now be located and no detailed descriptionor record of their context is available. However,their most likely context was 682 (S174). Thedating of this pottery, though problematical,presented the distinct possibility that phase 3extended into the Anglo-Saxon period. 'Grass'tempered pottery from the 1983-4 excavations onthe site of the Great Upwich brine pit, Droitwich(HWCM 4575) was associated with Anglo-Saxonstamp decorated sherds. A single sherd of 'grass'tempered pottery was also noted by David Freezerfrom a watching brief at Covercroft Road,

138

Droitwich (HWCM 4147), though the date of thecontext could not be fully established from thestratigraphic and artefactual evidence. Elsewherein Worcestershire, 'grass' tempered pottery has onlybeen observed at Pershore (Vince and Whitehead1979, 22). In a survey of 'grass' tempered wares inGloucestershire by Vince (1984a, 246-1) this fabrictype was assigned a 5th to 8th century date rangeand a similar date range may be applicable inWorcestershire.

The evidence of the 'grass' tempered sherds andthe degraded and abraded condition of the Romanpottery may be taken as confirming that phase 3continued into the Anglo-Saxon period. However,the extent of the continuation remains unknown.Heighway (1984, 226-7) has also observed thedifficulties of dating the archaeological evidence inGloucestershire during this period. However, theamount of early to middle Saxon pottery from theFriar Street excavation tends to imply that thisarea had become rather peripheral by the end ofphase 3. In contrast the much greater quantity ofpottery of this period from the Upwich excavation,where it was associated with in situ industrialstructures, suggests that this area instead hadassumed greater importance.

Phase 4: Saxo-Norman (Figs 89 and 90)Fabrics present: 1, 2, 12, 13, 29, 30, 46, 49, 55, 57and 58Pit fills (S30, S32 and S37) accounted for most ofthe pottery of this phase, but the fill of a ditch (S19)that was stratigraphically early was alsoproductive. Overall the quantity of residual potterywas low (c 10%) and this consisted mainly ofbriquetage and Severn Valley wares. The average


sherd size increased to 18g because much of thepottery was from pit fills rather than layers.

The two commonest fabric types were StNeots-type ware (fabric 49) and Cotswolds ware(fabric 57). The first was represented by jars (eg Fig91 no 2), inturned rim bowls (eg Fig 91 nos 7-8)and shallow dishes (eg Fig 91 no 11). The jarsoccurred most frequently and an almost completeexample came from structure 19 (Fig 91 no 2). Thisexhibited the distinctive internal corrugatedsurface which was a feature of many body sherdsfrom jars. Slight lid seating on the inside of jarrims in this fabric was also observed in some cases.Droitwich is on the western periphery of the maindistribution area of this pottery type (Hunter 1979,fig 104), and it has only very rarely been found atHereford (Vince 1985, 63).

The Cotswolds wares were exclusively cookingpots, and both straight (eg Fig 95 no 15) and moreglobular vessels (eg Fig 95 no 12) were present. Thestraight-sided vessels could either have a flattopped out-turned rim, or were club rimmed with aslight internal overhang (cf Fig 95 no 17, from P5).This material could be related to fabrics identifiedelsewhere in the region, for example Gloucester(fabric TF41b, Vince 1984b, 262-3), Hereford(fabric D2, Vince 1985, 55-6) and the Oxfordcalcareous gravel tempered fabric (Maureen Mellorpers comm). It would seem, therefore, to be a verywidely spread early medieval type (Vince 1984b,254). Vince (1984b, 2534) has suggested thatproduction may have taken place at Haresfield tothe south of Gloucester, where the appropriategeological requirements exist.

Sandy, probably local, cooking pots in fabric 55also became available during phase 4. This fabrichas conventionally been referred to as Worcester-type (eg Vince 1979b, 176). It was less common


139

than the St Neots-type and Cotswolds wares inphase 4 and, although its form later became verystandardized, at its inception greater variationseemed apparent. Thus, one vessel type (Fig 96 no7) seemed very reminiscent of the Cotswolds form,and another (Fig 97 no 5) was rather unusual. Oneexample (Fig 97 no 3), however, bore a generalresemblance to the later standardized form of amore sharply everted and thickened rim (eg Fig 97no 1, from P5). Context 518 (S31) included twosmall fabric 55 rims of this standardised type,though these could not be definitely phased as 4and may have belonged to phase 5.

There were a number of glazed Stamford waresherds in this phase. However there were no rimsand only one handle which derived from a spoutedpitcher (Kilmurray 1980, fig 3, form 5). Fabrics fellinto the Kilmurray A/B/G range (Howard Leechpers comm), except for one small sherd ofKilmurray fabric D (Howard Leech pers comm) forwhich Kilmurray (1980, 132-3) has suggested a10th to early 11th century date. As with the StNeots-type ware, Droitwich was towards thewestern extreme of the distribution of Stamfordwares. In the county of Hereford and Worcester thisfabric type has been found at Droitwich, Worcester(Morris 1978, 75; 1980, 223-4) and Hereford (Vince1985, 58). There was also a small quantity of otherglazed sherds, which were not entirely dissimilar toStamford ware in fabric and glaze colour. However,they contained coarser inclusions than Stamfordware (Howard Leech pers comm) and theirprovenance remained undetermined.

Fabric 58 was represented by a few body sherdsand a single upright rim with thumbing on theoutside edge. The precise provenance of this groupwas uncertain, but it continued into phase 5 whensome sherds were decorated with rosette stamps(see below).

There were only a few sherds of Stafford-typeware (fabric 48, eg Fig 91 no 1). Quantities ofStafford-type ware found in Worcestershire havenot been large and this ware has only beenrepresented by a single sherd from Gloucester(Vince 1985, 63). The present evidence, therefore,may be taken to indicate that this pottery type wasmost typical of the central Marches area andnorth-west Midlands, rather than further south(see below).

DatingThe pottery of phase 4 could be divided into twogroups on the basis of the stratigraphic evidence.That associated with phase 4i was all residualRoman wares, except for St Neots-type ware. AtOxford, assemblages with a major component of StNeots - type ware have been regarded aspre-Conquest, since, on the basis of the coinevidence, this ware was dominant in the Oxfordregion c AD 1015-1066 (Mellor 1980, 19). TheCotswolds ware began to replace it in popularity

just before c 1070 (Mellor 1980, 21). The Droitwichrange of St Neots-type ware forms was the same asthat most commonly represented at Oxford, such asjars, bowls and dishes. The possibility ofpre-Conquest 10th to early 11th century activityalso seemed to be supported by the possibleKilmurray fabric D sherd associated with phase 4ii(see above), while the low incidence of Stafford-typeware may have been a local phenomenon connectedwith the presence of St Neots-type ware.Unfortunately it is not yet possible to compare the10th and 11th century distributions of Stafford-typeware in the area. The possibility remains that thesupply of Stafford ware may not have been asvigorous in the 11th century as earlier, which mayhave made the St Neots-type ware penetration ofthe Droitwich market more likely.

The phase 4ii pottery was characterized by theintroduction of glazed Stamford ware, andCotswolds and Worcester-type ware cooking pot. Asno other internal dating evidence for this phasewas available, dates derived from elsewhere forsimilar pottery types were used to suggest datingfor this assemblage. At Hereford, Cotswolds ware(Hereford fabric D2) first appeared in the late 11thcentury (Vince 1985, 55), and Worcester-type warecooking pots (Hereford fabric Cl) were introducedat a similar date (Vince 1985, 53). As at Droitwich,Stamford ware also seemed to be commoner in thelater 11th to 12th centuries than at other periods atHereford (Vince 1985, 58). At Gloucester, Cotswoldsware (Gloucester TF4lb) use was well establishedby the late 11th century (Vince 1984b, 254) and atOxford, too, Cotswolds ware supplanted StNeots-type ware in the second half of the 11thcentury (Maureen Mellor pers comm). The range ofStamford wares present, including both the coarserKilmurray A and finer B and G fabrics, was datableto c 1025-1125 (Howard Leech pers comm). Theabsence of any vessel forms made closer dating ofthe Stamford ware very difficult. Phase 4 thereforemay be 11th century in date, with 4i most likely tobe pre-Conquest and 4ii belonging to the mid to late11th or early 12th century.

The non-local sources of pottery used atDroitwich throughout the late Saxon to earlymedieval period corresponded closely to the patternof salt routes from Droitwich for this period,derived from documentary and place-nameevidence. Thus Hooke (1985, 125, fig 31 andreproduced as Fig 92) has shown that the principalpre-Conquest saltways were orientated towards thesouth and south-east o f Dro i twich , intoGloucestershire and Oxfordshire respectively. Latermedieval saltways are recorded to the east andwest, but salt transportation was not attested byany saltways beyond the northern boundary ofWorcestershire. The impact of the salt trade onpottery supplies may therefore have affectedsources of supply, especially during the late Saxonand early medieval periods, and the result of thismay have been (to some extent at least) to limit the

140

Figure 91 Saxo-Norman pottery: fabrics 48 (1 and 9), 46 (12, 13) and 49 (2-8, 10, 11). Scale 1:4

market penetration of pottery production centressuch as Stafford to the north. Importantly, theabsence of a more successful local pottery industrywould have contributed to this by making ceramicsfrom other production centres, for instance inLincolnshire and the Cotswolds area, a profitabletrade commodity in Droitwich at this period.

Illustrated potterySaxo-Norman pottery (Fig 91)Stafford-type ware (fabric 48; nos 1 and 9),Stamford ware (fabric 46; nos 12-13) and StNeots-type ware (fabric 49; nos 2-8 and 10-11)

1

23

4

5678

9

Jar with sooting on rim exterior (552, S70,P4)Jar (1016, S19, P4)Narrow necked jar with external sooting(476, S35, P5)Jar with slight external sooting (281, S43,P7)Lid seated jar (1032, S38, P5)Inturned rim bowl (971, S35, P5)Inturned rim bowl (545, S32, P4-5)Inturned rim bowl with soot impregnatedexterior (548, S32, P4-5)Spouted bowl with sooted exterior (226, S108,P6-7)

141

Figure 92 Pre-Conquest saltways (from Hooke 1985, 125, fig 31)

142


10 Dish (984, P5)11 Dish (552, S70, P4)12 Possible spouted pitcher (Kilmurry form 5)

(423, S98, P6)13 Possible spouted pitcher (Kilmurry form 5)

(522, S34, P4ii)

Phase 5 : 12th to early 13th century(Figs 93 and 94)

Fabrics present: 1, 2, 3, 12, 12R, 12.2, 12.4, 14, 23,28, 29, 30, 43, 46, 48, 49, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 64.1,64.2, 65, 69 and 92

Much of the phase 5 pottery came from thesouthern part of the excavation where thecontemporary stratigraphy was deepest. The fills oftwo pit groups (S34 and S35) and boundary ditches(S36) accounted for the greatest quantities ofpottery. There was also a greater quantity ofresidual Roman pottery than in phase 4, indicatingan increase in site activity disturbing earlierdeposits in the vicinity.

The pr inc ipal fabr ic / form type was theWorcester-type sandy cooking pot, which comprisedjust under half the assemblage (47%). A variety ofdifferent rim forms was represented, as noted forphase 4ii, though in phase 5 the everted rim (eg Fig97 no 1) was the commonest type. Other rim shapeswere clubbed with an external thickening (cf Fig 96no 11) or T-shaped (cf Fig 96 no 9) in section. Boththese types differed in general body shape from theeverted rim cooking pot, in that the narrowestpoint of the vessel was at rim level. A lid could have


been positioned on these flat topped rims, butwould not have been as securely held in place as onthe everted rim types. Similar rim shapes andvessel profiles were used for both theWorcester-type (fabric 55) and Cotswolds (fabric 57)cooking pots of this period. Occasionally decorationwas applied to the Worcester-type fabric, eitherusing a diamond pattern roller-stamp (Fig 96 no15) or stab marks in a neat horizontal row. Thisformer vessel was also unusual for displaying animpressed wavy line along the top of the rim. Asimilar, though smaller, cooking pot in the samefabric was noted at Sidbury, Worcester (Morris1980, fig 69).

The two other most prominent fabrics of thisphase were both calcareous. Cotswolds warecooking pots were present in quantity, as in phase4ii, and a similar range of rims was noted. Anadditional form, however, seemed to be a globularbodied vessel with an almost upright rather thaneverted rim (Fig 95 no 7). One Cotswolds warevessel, possibly a pitcher, was decorated withrosette stamps and the strap handle with incisedlattice and a grid-pattern stamp (Fig 95 no 5).Stamp decoration of this type may have enjoyed a12th to early 13th century vogue in parts of thesouth-west, as it was a feature of Bath and Bristolassemblages of this date. Bath fabric B (Vince1979a, 28), for instance, displayed examples ofgrid-pattern and rosette stamping and was also,like fabric 57, tempered with oolitic limestone,though not to the same degree. Fabric 58 was notas homogeneous as fabric 57 and may consequentlybe capable of subdivision into several fabric groups.It first appeared in phase 4 and was most common

143

in phase 5. Stamp decoration occurred rarely, forexample a rosette stamped body sherd (Fig 95 no6). This fabric closely resembled Bath fabric A, asdescribed by Vince (1979a, 27), which alsosometimes exhibited stamp decoration. Vinceconsidered that this fabric was probably a localproduct and so it may serve to emphasise furtherthe southerly aspect of Droitwich trade alreadynoted in the previous phase.

Other cooking pots comprised a small amount(2%) in Malvernian fabric associated withstructures 36, 38, 74 and 76, though none of thesecontexts was sealed by other phase 5 componentsand so the possibility remains that they wereintrusive in this phase. However no other definiteindications of contamination were detected, and sofabric 56 may indeed have been characteristic ofthe later phase 5 assemblage and thus probably anearly 13th century introduction.

The only glazed wares of this phase wereStamford wares (fabric 46), Cotswolds oolitictempered ware (fabric 65), sandy glazed ware(fabric 64.1) and early Malvernian pitcher (fabric53). The first type was very fragmentary and theonly form that seemed to be represented was thespouted pitcher (cf Fig 91 no 13). Some sherdscould have been residual and none could be datedmore closely than to the 11th to 12th centuries(Howard Leech pers comm). Early glazedMalvernian ware included a large tripod pitcher(Fig 101 no 1) which conformed to the later type ofthis vessel, as classified by Vince (1977, 269) anddated to the early 13th century. This vessel wasassociated with sherds of Malvernian cooking pot.Another context also produced sherds of both earlyMalvernian glazed pitcher and Malvernian cookingpot, indicating that both vessel types may havebecome available in Droitwich at about the sameperiod.

The few glazed oolitic limestone tempered sherds(fabric 65) were probably from tripod pitchers,which may have been present throughout phase 5.One sherd displayed the combed decoration typicalof this fabric type. A similar fabric was in evidenceat Sidbury, Worcester (Morris 1980, 231, TV161).The sandy pitcher type (fabric 64.1) was alsorepresented by a sherd with a worn foot.

DatingThe contexts of phase 5, as of phase 4, could bedivided on the grounds of stratigraphic evidenceinto an earlier (5i) and a later (5ii) phase.

Generally, a 12th to early 13th century date wassuggested for phase 5. Though Cotswolds ware wasstill a major component of the assemblage, it wasproportionally less important in phase 5 than theprobably more locally produced Worcester-typeware (fabric 55). At Hereford, the former declinedin importance throughout the 12th century (Vince1985, 55), and the Worcester-type ware had becomecommoner than the Cotswolds ware by the end ofthat century. However, the 12th century

assemblage from Sidbury, Worcester (Morris 1980,225) showed a much higher proportion of theWorcester-type fabric (82%) and a lesser proportionof Cotswolds ware. The amount of fabric 58 inabsolute terms was at its highest during this phase,which also indicated a 12th to 13th century date, asthis type was commonest at Bath during thisperiod (Vince 1979a, 27-8). The small amount ofassociated glazed wares, together with the formsand fabrics represented, also generally supported a12th to mid 13th century date for phase 5.

Comparison between phases 5i and 5ii potterydemonstrated a progressive decline in the amountof Cotswolds ware from 31% to 12%. The decline inCotswolds ware was, therefore, similar to thatevidenced at Hereford in the 12th century. A later12th to early 13th century date for phase 5ii wasalso indicated by the later type of Malverniantripod pitcher from context 407 (Fig 101 no 1). Thiswas contemporary with the appearance ofMalvernian cooking pot indicating that this typemay have been a relatively late introduction atDroitwich compared with other sites in the regionsuch as Gloucester, where it occurred in early 12thcentury assemblages (Vince 1984b, 255). The FriarStreet ceramic sequence suggested that Cotswoldsglazed ware (fabric 65), though confined to the 13thcentury at Sidbury, Worcester (Morris 1980, 231),was introduced at Droitwich during the 12thcentury

Illustrated potteryMedieval pottery (Fig 95)Limestone tempered wares: fabric 57 (Cotswoldsware; nos 3, 5, 7, 9-10 and 12-17), fabric 58 (nosl-2, 4, 6 and 11) and fabric 65 (no 8)

12

3

4 Rosette stamped sherd with lug handle (921,

5

67

8

910

1112

13

14

Cooking pot (473, S35, P5)Possible pitcher with crudely stamped rosettedecoration (182, S137)Possible pitcher with stamped rosettedecoration (226, S108, P6-7)

S120, P9)Handle with grid pattern stamp (226, S108,P6-7)Rosette stamped sherd (444, S33, P5)Globular cooking pot, heavily tempered andwith cracked exterior surface (473, S35, P5)Green glazed pitcher decorated with combingand applied strips (412, S96, P6)Handmade cooking pot (984, P5)Handmade cooking pot with everted rim(473, S35, P5)Possible handmade pitcher (576, S34, P4ii)Handmade cooking pot with extensiveexternal sooting (671, S37, P4ii)Handmade cooking pot with occasionalthumbing on top of rim and external sooting(585, S34, P4ii)Handmade cooking pot with thumbed rimand some sooting (300, S76, P5)

144

Figure 95 Medieval pottery: limestone tempered wares, fabrics 57 (3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12-17), 58 (1, 2, 4, 6, 11) and65 (8). Scale 1:4

145

Figure 96 Medieval pottery: Worcester-type wares, fabrics 55 (3, 4, 6-17), 64.1 (1, 2) and 92 (5). Scale 1:4

146

Figure 97 Medieval pottery: Worcester-type wares, fabrics 55 (1-3, 5) and 64.1 (4). Scale 1:4

15 Handmade cooking pot with thumbeddecoration (545, S32, P4-5)

16 Handmade straight-sided cooking pot (444,S33, P5)

17 Handmade cooking pot (300, S76, P5)

Medieval pottery (Fig 96)Worcester-type wares: fabric 55 (nos 3-4 and 6-17),fabric 64.1 (nos l-2) and fabric 92 (no 5)1

2

89

101112131415

16

Green glazed jug with pulled lip (328, S42,P6-7)Bridge-spouted jug with lustrous externalgreen glaze except on spout (338, S42, P6-7)Jar with sooted exterior (297, S42, P6)Jar (398, S96, P6)Spouted bowl (182, S137)Spouted bowl (421, S94, P6)Handmade cooking pot with slight externalsooting (518, S31, P4)Handmade bowl (984, P5)Handmade cooking pot with sooted exterior(571, S34, P4ii)Handmade bowl (984, P5)Handmade bowl (654, S34, P4ii)Handmade bowl (182, S137)Large handmade cooking pot (333, S42, P6)Handmade bowl (333, S42, P6)Bowl with lozenge pattern roller stamping,and impressed wavy line decoration (308,S74, P5)Handmade bowl with occasional surfacespalling (585, S34, P4ii)

17 Large handmade cooking pot (576, S34, P4ii)

Medieval pottery (Fig 97)Worcester-type ware: fabric 55 (nos l-3 and 5) andfabric 64.1 (no 4)1 Handmade cooking pot with external sooting

(555, S36, P5)2 Handmade cooking pot with some sooting

(996, S39, P5i)3 Handmade cooking pot with heavily sooted

exterior (671, S37, P4ii)4 Bowl with oxidized surfaces patchily reduced

(952, S114, P6)5 Large bowl with thumbing on inside of rim

(670, S37, P4ii)

Phase 6: 13th to 14th century (Figs 98and 99)

Fabrics present: 1, 2, 3, 12, 12.4, 14, 15, (?)16, 17,19, 29, 30, (?)33, 43, 46, (?)48, 49, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58,63, 64.1, 64.2, 64.3, 65, 69, 70 and 92

This phase marked a fundamental change of siteuse, as domestic structures were superimposed onearlier industrial features. Much of the pottery wasfrom the make-up and surfaces of a road (S42) andadjacent deposits (S108 and S116).

The assemblage of this phase contained a veryhigh percentage of sandy fabrics (60%), whichcontinued a tendency already noted in phase 5.There was also a higher proportion of glazed wares

34567

147


(28%) compared with only 3% for the phase 5assemblage, and this coincided with the widespreadintroduction of jugs to replace pitchers.

The commonest fabric was, as in the previousphase, the sandy Worcester-type cooking pot.However this exhibited much less variability in rimform than in phases 4 and 5, and the everted rimtype was found almost exclusively. Both the sandy(fabric 55) and Malvernian (fabric 56) cooking potsshared the same everted rim vessel style but,despite this similarity, rim forms in either fabricwere normally quite distinctive. The Malvernianrims had a more rounded and rolled appearance (cfFig 101 no 9) and the sandy cooking pot rims weremore angular (cf Fig 97 no 2). The decoration ofcooking pots was not at all common, but wavyimpressed line decoration was sometimes employedalong the top of the rim, or on the body. Otherexamples of decoration were ribbed patterningalong the top of a rim and diamond roller-stamping.There were some exceptions to this generaluniformity of shape for cooking pots in this phase(eg Fig 96 nos 13-14) but these may have beenresidual. In general the cooking pots seem to havebeen fired on their own, and accidental glazing wasonly noted on one sherd.

There was a small group of sandy unglazed bowlsand jars (eg Fig 96 nos 3-4) with sooty externalsurfaces, which bore some resemblance toStafford-type ware in both fabric and form. Sinceany Stafford-type ware would have been residualby this date, the fresh condition of these sherds andabsence of other associated Saxo-Norman fabricssuggested strongly that they were medieval ratherthan late Saxon in date.


The Malvernian industry supplied Droitwich witha much higher proportion of its pottery in phase 6than earlier. The cooking pot outnumbered glazedforms in a proportion of about 4:1. The cooking potswere consistently shaped, and not decorated exceptfor two examples, where thumbed bands of claywere applied. The Malvernian cooking pot seems tohave displaced the last remaining non-local bulksupplier of kitchen ware (Cotswolds ware), whilethe Worcester-type ware cooking pot continued tobe well represented.

At the beginning of phase 6 glazed tripod pitcherswere available in either sandy (fabric 64.1), ooliticlimestone (fabric 65), or Malvernian rock tempered(fabric 53) fabrics. During this period, however, thejug became the commonest glazed type, and thesewere typically well tempered with medium tocoarse quartz sand. The uniformity in the choice oftempering agent led to fabric distinctions beingdrawn on the basis of iron content in the clay. Thebas ic d iv is ion was between a red f i r ingWorcester-type glazed fabric which was rich in ironand iron-poor buff/white firing wares. The formerwas used for producing bridge-spouted jugs, oftenhighly decorated with stamping or roller-stampingand covered in a lustrous dark green glaze (eg Fig96 no 2). This glaze, on refiring in an oxidizingatmosphere, proved to be a reduced iron ratherthan copper coloured. This distinction between theWorcester-type glazed ware and other glazedfabrics, with the former being a reduced glazecoloured by iron, seemed to extend to the sandyglazed tile, which probably also had a Worcesterorigin (Chapter 23).

148

Figure 100 Possible candlesticks. Scale 1:2

Three unusual fragments in a sandy fabric maybe candlesticks (Fig 100 nos l-3). These werewheel-thrown, and the most complete (Fig 100 no1) exhibited a wide flange, which was glazed darkgreen on one side.

There was a small quantity of oxidized glazedMalvernian jugs (fabric 69), though no forms couldbe illustrated. Other iron-rich fabric types presentonly in small quantities were Deritend-type ware(fabric 62) with lattice decoration in painted whiteslip and Brill/Boarstall type ware (fabric 63).

The buff firing fabric 64.2 was extensivelyavailable in Droitwich at this period, and was usedfor jugs, dishes, fish dishes, bowls and pipkins (Fig102 nos 3, 6 and 9). The pipkins were hollowhandled and the handle attached by pushing in thevessel wall opposite the handle void (eg Fig 102 no6). A thin pink wash covered with copper fleckedgreen glaze was used on most examples of thisfabric type. Another fairly lightly coloured fabricresembled Nuneaton ware, but it was not presentin any quantity. Such pale firing clays, probablyfrom coal measure sources, were also used forfabric 64.3 which appeared to imitate the TudorGreen type ware of the later 14th to 15th centuries.

DatingPhase 6 dating depended principally on thepresence of glazed jugs instead of pitchers, and inparticular the Worcester-type jugs, for whichMorris (1980, 225) has suggested a mid 13thcentury introduction, while Vince (1983) hasproposed a post-1220 date for this type. Thecontinuation of this fabric type into the 14thcentury occurred at Worcester (Morris 1980, 225),when it was joined by oxidized glazed Malvernianware. The earliest datable incidence of the latterfabric at Hereford was late 14th to early 15thcentury (Vince 1985, 52), while the absence of 5fabric 69 jar, pipkin and conical bowl forms in thisphase suggested that it did not extend beyond theend of the 14th century and, therefore, was ofpost-c 1220 to 14th century duration.

Illustrated potteryMedieval pottery (Fig 101)Malvernian wares: fabric 53 (no 1), fabric 56 (nos7-9) and fabric 69 (nos 2-6 and 10-14)1

23

4

56

7

89

10

11

12

13

14

Pitcher with thin, patchy green glaze (407,S36, P5)Green glazed jug (226, S108, P6-7)Jug with slightly green speckled orange glaze(226, S108, P6-7)Jug with pulled lip, and sparse orange glazespeckles (339, S167, P7)Unglazed cistern, or large jar (220, S44, P6)Jar glazed on inside of rim only (226, S108,P6-7)Handmade cooking pot with slight externalsooting (333, S42, P6)Bowl (225, S108, P6-7)Bowl, oxidized throughout except for patchyinternal reduction (995, S39, P5)Bowl with traces of orange glaze internally(226, S108, P6-7)Bowl with internal green speckled orangeglaze (226, S108, P6-7)Bowl with sooted exterior and patchyinternal glaze (220, S44, P6)Bowl with internal green speckled orangeglaze (226, S108, P6-7)Pipkin with patchy internal orange glaze andsooted exterior (329, S131, P9)

Medieval pottery (Fig 102)Buff sandy ware (fabric 64.2)1 Jar with an exterior lime green glaze (227,

S41, P8(7))2 Green glazed tubular spouted jug with

anthropomorphic decoration (232, S42, P7)3 Bowl with yellow glaze speckles (333, S42,

P6)4 Unglazed bowl (996, S39, P5i)

6Unglazed bowl (232, S42, P7)Pipkin with body pierced at point of handleattachment (421, S94, P6)

7 Dish with internal green glaze and hollowhandle (328, S42, P6-7)

149

Figure 101 Medieval pottery: Malvernian wares, fabrics 53 (1), 56 (7-9) and 69 (2-6, 10-14), Scale 1:4

150

Figure 102 Medieval pottery: buff sandy ware, fabric 64.2. Scale 1:4

8 Pipkin with patchy glaze similar to no 6 (334,S42, P6-7)

9 Dish with internal dark green glaze (333,S42, P6)

Phases 7 and 8: 15th to mid 17thcentury (Figs 103 and 104)

Fabrics present: 1, 2, 12, 12R, 12.4, 19, 22, 43, 46,(?)48, 49, 55, 56, 57, 58, 64.1, 64.2, 65, 69, 70, 71,72, 78.1, 81.8, 82 and 100Domestic occupation on the street frontageestablished in phase 6 continued in this phase.Much of the pottery was associated either with thearea between two properties (S108 and S135), andprobably resulted from a general accumulationassociated with the use of these buildings, or withthe surface of the street (S42).

Malvernian wares, both glazed and unglazed,accounted for 51% of the assemblage and so themedieval sandy wares no longer dominated theDroitwich market. The proportion of glazed waresalso continued to rise to 50% and this included ahigher proportion of oxidized glazed Malvernianware (48%) than in phase 6. The expansion insupply was accompanied by a greater range offorms in this fabric, and large jars or cisterns (cfFig 101 no 5), smaller jars (eg Fig 101 no 6) andnew conical bowl types (eg Fig 101 no 13) were nowavailable. An oval dish form probably used forbaking fish, or as a dripping tray, was alsorepresented . The proport ion o f unglazed

Malvernian cooking pot also increased in thisphase.

The other main glazed ware fabrics of this phasewere generally similar to those that occurredduring phase 6, and may have included a residualelement, though this was difficult to quantify. Theiron-rich Worcester-type glazed ware, whichconsisted mainly of jugs, included an aquamanile

\

Figure 103 Fabric proportions by weight in phases7-8

151

Figure 104 Principal pottery sources in phases 7-8

(Fig 105), possibly in the form of a boar. Buff/whiteglazed wares were still fairly common, and anunusual form was a tubular spouted jug withanthropomorphic decoration (Fig 102 no 2). A fewglazed jug sherds suggested sources to the west andnorth for some pottery during this period. Thusthere were a few sherds of fine micaceous ware(fabric 71), which resembled fabrics produced in theHereford area (eg Vince 1985 fabric A7b) and, as inphase 6, white painted orange ware of 'Deritend'type (fabric 62).

Several new fabrics were present for the firsttime in this phase and they were mainly used fordrinking vessels. There were southern white wares(fabric 70), brown glazed ware (fabric 72, Fig 106

Figure 105 Green glazed aquamanile possiblyrepresenting a boar (fabric 64.1). Scale 1:2

no 8) and black iron-glazed Cistercian-type ware (infabric 78). The only imports were a Germandrinking mug of Raeren type (Fig 106 no 5) and thebase of a South Netherlands Maiolica drug jar (J GHurst pers comm, Fig 106 no 3).

DatingSeveral forms in the oxidized glazed Malvernianfabric could be dated to the 15th to early 17thcenturies. These were the jar with thumbeddecoration below the rim, large jar or cistern(probably double handled), pipkin, conical bowl andoval fish dish. The overall proportion of this fabricalso indicated a similar date as it was mostcommon at both Hereford (Vince 1985, 52) andWorcester (Morris 1980, 226-7) during the latemedieval and early post-medieval periods.

The introduction of ceramic drinking vessels alsooccurred in this phase (see above) and this hasgenerally been dated elsewhere to the latermedieval period. Thus the introduction of southernwhite ware has been established as early 15thcentury in London (Mathews and Green 1969, 6-7),while the more locally produced brown glazed jugs(fabric 72) were regarded as a 16th centuryintroduction at Worcester (Morris 1980,226). Blackiron-glazed drinking vessels were also present, butwere not as common as at Hereford or Gloucester(Vince 1985, 64-5). The Raeren drinking jug wasdated to the late 15th or 16th century.

Illustrated potteryPost-medieval pottery (Fig 106)1 Jug (fabric 81.7) with roller-stamped animal

motifs (103, S147, P11(10))2 Blackware (fabric 78.1) jar (183, S43, P11)3 South Netherlands albarello (fabric 82) with

faded blue banding (292, S46, P8-9)4 Blackware (fabric 78.1) tankard (183, S43,

P11)5 Raeren (fabric 81.8) drinking jug (222, S108,

P6(7))6 Ointment pot (fabric 78.3) with silver lustre

glaze (55, Sl69, P10)7 Buff ware (fabric 91) small bowl (102/103,

S147, P11(10))8 Tyg (fabric 72) glazed externally and inside

rim (931, S41, P7-8)

Phases 9 and 10: Mid 17th to 18thcentury (Figs 107 and 108)

Fabrics present: 3, 12, 12.4, (?)13, 19, 22, 29, (?)46,49, 55, 56, 57, 58, 64.1, 64.2, 69, 75, 78.1, 78.2, 78.3,81.2, 81.3, 81.4, 81.5, 81.7, 82, 83, 83.1, 84.1, 84.2,84.3, 85, 91, 92 and 99

Much of the pottery in phases 9 to 10 wasassociated either with an area of cultivated ground(S119) adjacent to one of the properties established

152

Figure 106 Post-medieval pottery: fabrics 81.7 (1), 78.1 (2, 4), 82 (3), 81.8 (5), 78.3 (6), 91 (7) and 72 (8).Scale 1:4

in phase 7, or with the demolition horizon (S150and S152) for these properties (Chapter 21). Therewas a high proportion of residual (and especiallyRoman) pottery and this may have occurredbecause of extensive disturbance of earlier depositsduring demolition. The pottery assemblage of thisphase was characterised by post-medieval red andbuff earthenwares (fabrics 77, 78 and 91) and arange of stonewares (fabric 81). The red and buffwares were decorated with slip trailing or combingunder a pale yellow lead glaze, or finished with ablack iron glaze over a dark red slip. Typical formswere flanged dishes, press moulded baking dishes,deep conical bowls and tankards (cf Fig 106 no 4).

In contrast both North Devon gravel temperedware (fabric 75) and Midlands yellow wares (fabric77) were but poorly represented in phases 8 to 10.

The stonewares included examples from London,Nottingham/Chesterfield, Staffordshire andpossibly south Shropshire. The latter area seems tohave been involved in the manufacture of whitestoneware (Malam 1981, 45) and possibly someslipwares as well. There was also a small amount ofimported Westerwald stoneware (fabric 81.2).

Creamwares (fabric 84) were present, and somehad 'tortoiseshell' decoration. There was also asmall amount of porcelain (fabric 83), includingsome originating from Worcester.

Figure 107 Fabric proportions by weight in phases9-10

Figure 108 Principal pottery sources in phases9-10

1 5 3

Figure 109 Sequence of principal pottery fabrics

DatingBoth 17th and 18th century pottery types werepresent. The former included thrown slip trailedredware dishes and possibly some of the lesswell-made black wares. The 18th century wasrepresented by white stonewares and brownNottingham-type stonewares, as well as themanganese mottled and combed slip decoratedwares and fine black glazed wares. During thisperiod new techniques of manufacture wereintroduced, including slip casting, press moulding,lathe turning and the more careful preparation ofthe clay body. Creamwares and porcelain weredeveloped during the second half of the 18thcentury.

ConclusionsThe site produced a well stratified ceramicsequence (Fig 109) from the Iron Age onwards, withthe Saxo-Norman and early medieval periods beingparticularly well represented. The importance ofDroitwich as an industrial and trading centre waswell demonstrated in the Iron Age by theavailability of non-local pottery types brought intothe town. The Roman pottery assemblage was notparticularly large and, though it containedexamples of imports from Spain, the Rhineland,and Gaul, this was not exceptional for the period.Subsequently, however, the special importance ofthe salt trade for the development of the late Saxonand medieval town was demonstrated by the close

154

correlation of pottery supply and the saltwaysduring these periods.

The pattern of pottery supply, however, rarelyremained stable for very long. It could be affectedby many disparate factors, and progressivefluctuations in supply could clearly be observed inthe Friar Street assemblage. For instance, therewas a well marked tendency towards supply bymore local production centres from the 12thcentury, after a period when more distant sourceshad been dominant suppliers. However, the trendreverted to a network incorporating less localsources in the later 17th to 18th centuries, afterimprovements in transportation and the growth oflarge-scale factory production.

A notable characteristic of the medievalassemblage was the number of vessels onlyrepresented by single rim sherds. As the FriarStreet excavation was at the front of burgage plots,the general scarcity of conjoining sherds perhapssuggests considerable organisation of rubbishdisposal at Droitwich, as is known for several othermedieval towns from documentary evidence(McCarthy 1979, 225). This could involve rubbishbeing taken out of the town or being buried inside,especially at the rear of burgage plots (Platt 1976,56).

There were few medieval foreign imports.Generally such pottery has been found to be absentin the West Midlands region, except at sites of thehighest status, for example Stafford Castle andDudley Castle (Deborah Ford pers comm), or atimportant ecclesiastical centres such as Worcester(Dunning 1968). The evidence from Droitwich,where (despite the economic significance of thetown) such pottery was not found, has thereforetended to confirm this pattern of distribution.

The assemblage has thus provided an insight intothe main trends of pottery usage, especially in

post-Roman periods. Though larger and betterpreserved pottery groups (especially for themedieval period) may result from futureexcavation, the ceramic sequence of fabrics andforms established for the Friar Street and OldBowling Green assemblages may be taken assubstantially representative of pottery typesavailable in the area from the Iron Age onwards.Further petrological study elsewhere, notablyperhaps at Worcester, and future discoveries of kilnsites, will indubitably bring greater precision to ourunderstanding of pottery production and exchangein the Droitwich region.

Samian, by Brenda Dickinson

The small collection of samian ranges from theNeronian period to the late 2nd or early 3rdcentury, with no obvious gaps. There are severalpre-flavian pieces, including four decorated bowls,one of which was made at Lezoux (Fig 110 no 1).Any 1st century samian from this source reachedBritain in small quantities from c AD 50 to 75, butwas even rarer thereafter. There is a different bowl,probably by the same potter, from the nearby OldBowling Green excavation (Chapter 3).

In the 2nd century, both Lezoux and the otherlarge Central Gaulish factory at Les Martres-de-Veyre are represented. The three sherds fromLes Martres-de-Veyre are all Trajanic, while theLezoux ware ranges from the Hadrianic or earlyAntonine period to the latter part of the 2ndcentury. The single East Gaulish sherd (232) isprobably from Rheinzabern (Fig 110 no 2). It is notclosely datable, but could be contemporary with thelatest Lezoux ware, rather than 3rd century. Thefull catalogue is in fiche (3:B11-12).

Figure 110 Decorated samian (fabric 43). Scale 1:1

155

23 Ceramic building material Derek Hurst

There was an assemblage of 94.063kg of ceramicbuilding materials associated with the Roman andlater periods (phases 2-11). This comprised mainlyroofing tile until phases 7-8, when the use of brickbecame widespread.

Fabric descriptions

The definition of terms used to describe fabric Fabric 2finclusions and hardness follows Orton (1977, Colour28-30). Full descriptions are available in archive. Inclusions

Fabric 1 Hard modern typeColour Usually red, but sometimes

distinctly purplishInclusions Abundant , coarse , angular

inclusions usually visibleForm Tiles may be double nibbed, and

are usually quite thin ie <10mmHardness Very hard

Fabric 2a Common sandy typeColour Usually red or orange

throughoutInclusions Moderate to abundant, variably

sorted quartz (<lmm)Form Both brick and tileHardness Usually hard

Fabric 2bFabric description as for 2a, except that coarserinclusions may be present (ie > 1mm)

Fabric 2cFabric description as for 2a except for moderateclay pellet/grog inclusions

Fabric 2dColour

Inclusions

FormHardness

Red throughout with pale buffbanding usually evidentSparse to moderate, medium(0.l-0.5mm) quartzUsed for Roman roofing tileHard dense fabric

Fabric 2eCotour

Inclusions

FormHardness

FormHardness

Fabric 2gColourInclusions

FormHardness

Fabric 2hColourInclusions

FormHardness

Pale buff , sometimes withoff-white laminationsAbundant, well-sorted, medium(0. l-0.5mm) quartzUsed for Roman roofing tilesoft

Red, may have grey marginsModerate, medium (0.l-0.5mm)quartz , and sparse she l lylimestone (<2mm)Used for flat roof tileVery hard

Light grey iron-free fabricSparse, medium (0.l-0.5mm)quartzPossibly box flue tileVery hard

Oxidized red throughoutRare, medium (0.1-0.5mm)quartzBox flue tileVery hard

Fabric 2i DelftwareColour Pale buff throughoutInclusions Moderate, medium (0.1-0.5mm)

quartzForm Wall tile. Tin glazed with tran-

sfer decorationHardness Soft

Fabric 2jColour

Inclusions

FormHardness

Oxid ized to red or orangethroughoutModerate, well-sorted medium(0.l-0.5mm) quartzUsed for Roman roofing tilesoft

156

Fabric 3 MalvernianColour Usually oxidized orange/buff

throughout; patchy copper greenglaze

Inclusions Sparse Malvernian rock inc-lusions (usually < 5mm); moder-ate medium (0.l-0.5mm) quartz

Form Ridge tile and flat roof tile;thinner than examples in fabric2a

Hardness Hard

Phase 2: Early to mid Roman

There was a small quantity of Roman tile from thisphase and this was mostly associated with the infillof the well (S6). Box flue tile, tegula and imbrexwere all represented, and the two commonestfabrics were 2d and 2j, These were similar, exceptfor the variegated appearance of the clay used forthe former.

Phase 3: 3rd century to Anglo-Saxon

The same range of tile types was represented as inphase 2, though in increased quantity, and thesame fabrics were most common. This material wasevenly distributed across the site and, since nostanding structures incorporating tile were knownon the site during this phase, the assemblageprobably constitutes rubbish disposal fromelsewhere. The abraded condition of tile fromcontexts 694, 793, 870, 1018 and 1103 was notable,tending to corroborate an Anglo-Saxon date forsome of the deposits in this phase.

Phase 4: Saxo-Norman

All the tile in this phase was Roman (fabrics 2d and2j) and therefore residual. The quantity was smalland most was rather abraded.

Phase 5: 12th to early 13th century

During this phase most contexts containing tileincluded residual Roman tile. However, theprincipal tile type represented was the glazed ridgetile in sandy fabric 2a. This generally displayed agreen glaze coloured by reduced iron, for when firedin an oxidising atmosphere the glaze turned brown.This characteristic was shared by theWorcester-type glazed wares (fabric 64.1) and thisgeneral similarity of fabric type suggested thatboth the tile and pottery could be derived from thesame source. Sandy ridge tiles were noted atSidbury, Worcester (Morris 1980, 228), where theirintroduction was dated to the 14th century. AtHereford a mid 13th century date has beenassigned to the earliest datable ridge tile (Vince1985, 68), while they have been recovered from late

12th and early 13th century contexts in Gloucester(Vince 1985, 69). This earlier dating fromGloucester for the introduction of ridge tiles bearscomparison with that inferred from associatedpottery for the Droitwich glazed roof tileassemblage.


Ceramic roofing tile was much commoner in phase6 than earlier, and it comprised mainly a new type,flat roofing tile. This was present in the samesandy fabric as ridge tiles in the previous phase. Itwas generally 15-18mm thick and usually nibbedfor hanging, though sometimes perforated forattachment using nails. Occasionally both methodsof fastening were available on one tile. The use ofsuch flat roofing tiles was well developed duringphase 6, whereas Vince (1984c, 39) considered thatthis type of tile was not used in Hereford andWorcester, or Gloucestershire, before the late 16thcentury. However, both archaeological and docu-mentary evidence indicate otherwise. Thus atSidbury, Worcester, Morris (1980, 225) recorded flatlugged tiles from the early 14th century onwards,while excavation at Blackfriars, Worcester (HWCM378) in 1985-6 has shown that flat roof tile was inuse throughout the lifetime of the friary, which wasfounded in the mid 14th century (Charles Mundypers comm). The documentary evidence has alsoindicated a pre-16th century commencement for thetile industry in Worcester, though the exact natureof its production is less clear and no documentaryevidence has yet confirmed tile productioncontemporary with phase 6 (13th to 14thcenturies). However, a series of local regulations inWorcester in 1467 contained references to tileworking in the city (VCH ii, 275; iv, 387) and someof these obviously promoted the industry bystipulating that wooden chimneys should be rebuiltin brick or stone and that thatching be replaced bytiles. They also ordered that tile makers shouldstamp their wares, and since the only stamped tilefound in Worcester (Carver 1980, 213) or Droitwich(Chapter 4) has been flat roofing tile, there is astrong possibility that at least some of this is of15th century date.

The use of glazed ridge tiles continued duringphase 6. These were usually in the same sandyfabric as in phase 5, but there were also someexamples in a Malvernian fabric (274, 537). Thelatter were more common in the next phase and sotheir pattern of introduction and use conformedclosely to that established for Hereford (Vince 1985,69) and Worcester (Morris 1980, 228).

Phases 7 and 8: 15th to mid 17thcentury

There was a greater range of ceramic buildingmaterials in evidence during this period than

157

earlier. Sandy flat roof tiles were abundantlyavailable, and were occasionally accompanied byflat roof tile in a Malvernian fabric. Glazed ridgetile was also represented in both these fabrics.Floor tiles occurred, though the largest group hadbeen reused as rubble in a foundation (375). Theseincluded rectangular and triangular (c 120 x 90 x90mm) types, which were brown glazed withoutany slip decoration. The use of brick was also wellattested on the site during this period.

As observed at Worcester (Morris 1980, 226) andDroitwich (Chapter 22), production of sandyWorcester-type pottery wares declined in the 15thto 16th centuries as the products of the Malvernianindustry became more popular. An increaseddemand for mainly sandy, probably local, ceramicbuilding materials, for which there is somedocumentary evidence (see above) may, therefore

have counteracted this decline in the local potteryproduction.

Phases 9 to 11: Mid 17th to 20thcentury

During this period pantiles were introduced, andthere was a tendency towards more highly firedtile, especially in fabric 1, which became common inthe 19th and 20th centuries. Some of the brickswere remarkably similar to examples foundrecently at White Ladies, Worcester, where brickand tile kilns were operating from soon after thedissolution, and it is possible that these productswere widely traded by canal to the surroundingarea (Ian Walker pers comm).

158

24 Other ceramic objects Derek Hurst

Fig 1111 Spindle whorl made from a Severn Valley

ware (fabric 12) sherd; context 460, structure159, phase 5-6.

2 Slab-built fragment in a fabric tempered withMalvernian rock inclusions; context 419,structure 79, phase 5i (not illustrated).

Fragments of this type were first observedby Peacock (1965-7, 24, fig 4, nos 80-2). Italso occurs at the Old Bowling Greenexcavation (Chapter 5), and at other sites inthe region, for example Beckford (HWCM 359and 497) and Wick (HWCM 5568).

Figure 111 Spindle whorl. Scale 1:2

159

25 Clay pipe Derek Hurst and Allan Peacey

Pipe smoking became quite widespread during the17th century and most of the Droitwich clay pipes(Table 8) date from c 1650 onwards. They weremainly of local origin, though there were alsoseveral pipes from the Broseley area of southShropshire. Local sources in Worcester andStourbridge (Oswald 1975, 199) probably accountfor many of the unmarked and unburnished pipes(David Higgins pers comm).

Table 8 Clay pipe marks

Context Mark Pipe type Date Reference

Unstrat7985 -888888

102901906

JOHN LEGG 1696RH? TWDSAM RO*DENJOHN RODENBROSELEYRICH SMITHIW. . . . . . . SON

Broseley 5 1696Broseley 4 ?early 18th centuryBroseley 4 ?early 18th centuryBroseley 4 ?early 18th century? c 1720-1750? c 1820-1840

? -?Bristol ?? -

Atkinson 1975-

Atkinson 1975Atkinson 1975Atkinson 1975

---

160

26 Glass Louise Monk

The glass assemblage weighed 5.68kg and included0.248kg of Roman glass. The remainder waspost-medieval bottle glass.

Roman (Fig 112)

1 Large mould-blown hexagonal bottle ofbluish-green metal with pin-head bubbles. Acrude graffito in the form of a plant wasincised on the vessel prior to breakage andthe multi-reeded handle was drawn into 27sharp claws to grip the bottle. Context 1115,structure 55, phase 2.

2 Unquentarium. Context 102, structure 147,phase 11(10?). Another fragment of the same

I

vessel type (not illustrated) was noted fromcontext 553 (S70, P4?). Both may be dated tothe 2nd or 3rd century-

Other contexts of Roman date (1037, S68, P3; 1103,S64, P3; and 1117, S16, P3) also produced bottleglass and all of these vessels were datable to themid 1st to early 3rd centuries (Charlesworth 1966).

Post-Roman

The more common use of glass did not resumeuntil phases 7 and 8 and it was not extensivelyrepresented until phase 9.

Figure 112 Roman glass. Scale 1:2

161

27 Worked stone Derek Hurst, with stone identificationby Fiona Roe, flint by Alan Saville and discussion of the Rudingmemorial slab by Jerome Bertram

There was a small quantity of worked stoneartefacts. Other worked stone, however, had beensampled during the excavation, and was no longeravailable for study. This included many examples ofsplit sandstone which may have been used forroofing, and which were mainly from phase 3.

Flintwork (Fig 113)

1 Mesolithic/early Neolithic core; context 419,structure 79, phase 5.

2 Mesolithic bladelet core; context 1037,structure 68, phase 3.

3 Mesolithic edge-trimmed blade fragment;unstratified (not illustrated).

4 Possible fragment of edge-trimmed blade;context 1068, structure 11, phase 2 (notillustrated).

5 Gun flint; context 183, structure 43, phase 10(not illustrated).

Whetstones (Fig 113)

Mica schist6 Context 240, structure 47, phase 9 (not

illustrated).

This whetstone was made from a distinctivegrey micaceous schist, and a thin sectionconfirmed that it was imported from theTelemark area of Norway. The material isknown variously as Eidsborg schist orNorwegian ragstone, and is a quartz-muscovite-biotite-chlorite-ore schist, describ-ed by Ellis (1969, 136-43). The sample fromFriar Street additionally contains grains ofepidote, a variation noted amongst honesfrom medieval sites (Ellis 1969, 141).

7 Context 297, structure 42, phase 6 (notillustrated). Probably belongs within thesame lithic range as no 6.

8 Context 232, structure 42, phase 7 (notillustrated). Probably belongs within thesame lithic range as no 6.

Phyllite or siltstone9 Context 297, structure 42, phase 6.10 Context 412, structure 96, phase 6.

The materials for these two whetstones are alsolikely to have been imported to the site. Thewhetstone from context 412 was thin sectioned totest whether it was made of blue phyllite, which is

known to occur in association with Eidsborg schistat medieval sites (Moore 1983, 285). The thinsection however showed a different rock, a siltstoneconsisting of tiny grains of iron ore and clayminerals too fine to identify under the microscope.

Building stone (Figs 113 and 114)

Oolitic Limestone11 Window tracery fragment; context 32,

structure 172, phase 11.

Sandstone12 Red sandstone window tracery fragment;

context 374, structure 41, phase 7? (notillustrated).

13 Pink, micaceous sandstone roofing tile;context 222, structure 108, phase 7.

Other sandstone roofing tile of this type wasretrieved from contexts 226 (S108, P6-7), 294(S125, P6), 366 (S96, P6), 553 (S70, P4), and 1116(S16, P3) (none illustrated).14 Pink, micaceous sandstone tessera; context

2 5 6 , s t r u c t u r e 1 0 8 , p h a s e 6 - 7 ( n o tillustrated).

15 Grey/buff, micaceous sandstone roofing tile;context 541, structure 30?, phase 4ii.

Other sandstone roofing tile of this type wasretrieved from contexts 552 (S70, P4) and 697 (S28,P3) (none illustrated).

16 Pale sandstone moulded block; context 374,S41, phase 7?

The pink and grey varieties of flaggy sandstoneboth range over several periods and are notnecessarily all from the same source. The mostlikely provenances lie amongst the Lower Old RedSandstone of the Welsh borders and in particularamongst the Downton Castle 'tilestone'.

Chalk17 Two tesserae; context 223, structure 108,

phase 7 (not illustrated).18 Tessera; context 421, structure 94, phase 6

(not illustrated).

Blue Lias mudstone19 Possible roofing tile; context 297, structure

42, phase 6 (not illustrated).

162

Figure 113 Worked stone: flintwork (1,2), whetstones (9,10), building stone (11) and spindle whorl (22).Scale 1:2

163

Figure 114 Worked stone: building stone (16)

Green Porphyry20 Wall veneer fragment; context 444, structure

3, phase 5 (not illustrated).

The green porphyry is a distinctive material,consisting of pale green phenocrysts set in adark green groundmass. It derives from theSparta area in mainland Greece, and isknown from Roman sites in London,Colchester, and Fishbourne (FrancesPritchard pers comm).

Ruding memorial slab (Fig 115)

21 Decorated memorial slab of Triassicsandstone; context 375, structure 41, phase7.

This is an apparently unique survival from a smalllocal workshop, cut in local sandstone from beds inthe Elmley Lovett area and the design is unlike anyother incised slab yet recorded. Other incised figureslabs in Worcestershire are located at CoftonHackett (1514), Rock (c 1540), and Queenhill(1584). The surviving fragment is 770mm wide and180mm to 200mm thick. The design was cut mainlyusing deep V-shaped incisions, though the widerareas in the shields of arms were flat-bottomed.The heraldry, and probably the remainder, wereoriginally filled with black pitch.

The slab depicts a man in armour and probablyhis wife. The armour, which is very stylised, seemsto date from the end of the medieval period whenarmour had become simpler and closer fitting. The

helmet above the man’s head is probably anextremely poor representation of a sallet with apointed skull, similar to examples in St Mary’sHall, Coventry, and in the Victoria and AlbertMuseum, London. This type of helmet may bedated to the late 15th century The female effigy isbadly damaged, though the shoulder straps of asideless surcoat are clearly visible. The head-dressis the most distinctive item of costume and is of the‘forked’ variety of the popular ‘homed’ head-dress.This style may be dated 1440 to 1473, the latterdate being that of a slab in St Mary’s, Shrewsbury,which offers the nearest parallel to the costume onthis slab. Both the man and woman rest theirheads on stylised cushions.

At the top of the slab are two shields of armsdepicted hanging from their straps. Both bear thearms of Ruding. The sacred monogram ihu, alsoinlaid with pitch, is placed between the shields andadorned with tendrils ending in roundels above andbelow. In the top comers of the slab are smallfleurs-de-lys, which are probably purely decorative.There are faint traces of a border line around theslab. Any inscription would probably have been atthe feet of the figures. It is likely that the shieldsand fleurs-de-lys were repeated at the bottom of theslab.

The arms were readily identifiable as those ofRuding, a prolific family in Worcestershire andLeicestershire. However, the pedigree of Ruding,given by Nichol (1811, 568), does not go backbeyond the early 16th century. Before this date theonly information on the Ruding family is derivedfrom scattered references, though there is some

164

Figure 115 The Ruding memorial slab

165

evidence to link the Rudings with Droitwich in thedescription of the Chapel on the Bridge by Nash(1781-2, 329), which mentioned that the arms ofBeauchamp, le Despenser, Ruding, and others weredisplayed in the chapel windows. This memorial tomembers of the Ruding family was found upsidedown, built into the base of a chimney stack (S41),which was erected during phase 7. As the nearbychurch of St Nicholas (HWCM 255) was in a stateof disrepair, possibly following the Dissolution as itbelonged to a local nunnery at Westwood (HWCM2574), there was some possibility that it had beentransferred at this time from an original positionwithin this church. The memorial was probablyerected c 1470 according to the dating suggested forthe female head-dress.

Other worked stone (Fig 113)

22 Limestone (Lias mudstone) spindle whorl;context 102, structure 147, phase 11 (10)?

23 Purbeck marble mortar fragment; context256, structure 108, phase 6 (not illustrated).

24 May Hill Sandstone quern or rubber frag-ment; context 488, structure 3, phase 1 (notillustrated).

This is a pinkish gritstone which wasrecorded in some quantity at Beckford(HWCM 359 and HWCM 497) where it wasused for querns and rubbers. At this site itoccurred mainly in Iron Age contexts (Roepers comm).

Brief discussion of worked stone

It is notable that there is very little local stone inthis assemblage, only the two pieces of Jurassicmudstone and the Triassic sandstone used for theRuding stone. In contrast, the stone brought infrom overseas is worthy of comment, both the micaschist from Norway and the green porphyry fromGreece, while the possibility cannot be excludedthat the phyllite or siltstone is also of non-Britishorigin.

The British materials are wide ranging, withDevonian sandstones from west of Droitwich,Carboniferous Millstone Grit from northwards,Jurassic oolite and Purbeck Marble from asoutherly direction, as also Cretaceous chalk, andperhaps even Cretaceous flints.

166

28 Copper alloy Derek Hurst

Fig 116 Rings

Studs

1

2

Plain head; context 301, structure 128, phase6.Scallop shell head; context 223, structure108, phase 7.

14 Fragment with round section; context 959,structure 36, phase 5ii.

15 Cast in one piece with oval section; context341, structure 41, phase 7?

Other objectsOther studs were retrieved from contexts 226(S108, P6-7) and 290 (S46, P7-8).

Pins

16

17

3 White metal plating on head and shaft;context 274, structure 127, phase 6.

4 Spiralled wire head; context 222, structure108, phase 7.

5 Head formed with spiralled wire; context222, structure 108, phase 7.

6 Looped head; context 299, structure 126,phase 7.

7 Fragment with spherical head; context 218,structure 133, phase 8.

Other pins were retrieved from contexts 299 (Sl26,P7), 226 (S108, P6-7) and 218 (S133, P8).

18

19

20

Thimbles

21

22

23

248

9

Fragment; context 264, structure 108, phase6.Large thimble; context 235, structure 136,phase 8.

Fragment of decorative mount; context 552,structure 70, phase 4ii.Tapering implement with perforated head(?large needle); context 552, structure 70,phase 4ii.Perforated object; context 406, structure 36,phase 5ii.Button with illegible inscription on one side;context 257, structure 173, phase 6.Jetton of English type with arms of Evreuxon obverse dated to c AD 1355-70 (Barnard1916, 105, no 57); context 423, structure 98,phase 6.Mount with linear decoration; context 226,structure 108, phase 6-7.Double thickness of riveted sheet; context292, structure 46, phase 8.Lace-end; context 223, structure 108, phase 7(not illustrated).Lace-end; context 218, structure 133, phase 8(not illustrated).

Other thimbles were retrieved from contexts 264(S108, P6), 182 (S137, P7) and 183 (S43, P10?).

Discussion

Buckles

10 Possible loop fragment from buckle; context366, structure 96, phase 6.

11 Fragment with iron rivet; context 222,structure 108, phase 7.

12 Decorated buckle plate; context 230,structure 135, phase 7.

13 Buckle loop; context 315, structure 123,phase 9-10.

No identifiable copper alloy objects were recoveredfrom phases 1 to 3. A similar assemblage of scrapsand lumps was retrieved from each of phases 4 to 5,except that there were three objects from contexts552 and 406. However, from phase 6 onwards therewas a wider range of artefact types. Thimbles andpins were relatively well represented in phases 6 to8, probably reflecting the domestic nature of thesite during this period. The jetton from phase 6indicated a period before the 16th century, whenreckoning in Roman numerals was achieved usinga board and counters.

167

Figure 116 Copper alloy objects. Scale 1:1

168

29 Ironwork Derek Hurst

Fig 117

Tools

1 Possible point fragment; context 552,structure 70, phase 4ii.

2 Padlock key cf LMMC fig 45, no 3 possibly oflate 12th century date; context 962, structure36?, phase 5.

3 Ferrule; context 981, structure 81, phase 5.4 Knife fragment; context 995, structure 39?,

phase 5.5 Possible knife; context 334, structure 42,

phase 6 (not illustrated).6 Half of shears of specialised late medieval

type (cf LMMC pl 32, no 11) with maker’smark evident on radiograph; context 226,structure 108, phase 6-7.

7 Point; context 178, structure 150, phase 11(not illustrated).

Of the tools, the shears were notable for displayinga maker’s mark in the form of a small rosette. Theimplement type to which the ferrule belonged wasunknown.

Weapons

8 Dagger chape; context 1103, structure 64,phase 3.

Personal ornaments

9 Possible buckle fragment; context 226,structure 108, phase 6-7.

Structural fittings

10 Lock plate with traces of plating in theengraved decoration around the keyhole;context 226, structure 108, phase 6-7.

11 Hinge fragment; context 226, structure 108,phase 6-7.

12 Rotary key (cf LMMC pl 31, no 52 where typedated to 15th century); context 182, structure137, phase 7.

13 Wall hook; context 230, structure 135, phase7.

Horseshoes

14 Horseshoe with wavy outline characteristic ofthe earlier type; context 1016, structure 19,phase 4.

Other horseshoe fragments from contexts 182(S137, P7) and 222 (S108, P7).

Nails

Nails were the most commonly represented type ofiron artefact throughout the site development(Table M31, 3:C1), except during phase 4. Theyappear to have become very common from phase 6onwards in the Friar Street region of the town. Asmall cluster of six nails was associated with phase3 (1103), and these had corroded together as if theyhad originally been tied.

Other objects

15 Plate fragment with traces of plating infretting along one edge; context 366,structure 96, phase 6.

Other plate fragments from phase 6 (955, S116),phase 8 (218, S133), and phase 11 (32, S172; 85,543; 89, S151; 174, S150 and 179, S51).

DiscussionThe ironwork assemblage was generally too smallto permit valid conclusions to be drawn. It wasnoticeable, however, that iron structural fittingswere not represented until phase 6, when thedomestic nature of the site had become wellestablished. Nails also became more commonduring this phase, probably as a result of nearbybuildings being erected or repaired (Chapter 21).Better quality ironwork with decorative platedfinishes was also attested from phases 6 to 7.

169

Figure 117 Ironwork. Scale 1:2

170

30 Lead D e r e k H u r s t

Fig 1181 Spoon with leaf-shaped bowl decorated with

ribbed border and cross motif on theunderside. The ribbing continues along theupper side of the handle, which is twistedalong its length and has a knob terminal.This spoon is of early medieval type andsimilar examples are known from Beverleyand Carlisle (Brian Spencer pers comm);context 1032, structure 38, phase 5ii.

2 Bar with hooked end; context 301, structure128, phase 6.

Miscellaneous fragmentsA number of small lead fragments (Table M32,3:C2) occurred, especially in phases 5 to 7, andthese were mainly pieces of lead sheet or wire, thelatter probably being trimmings from larger sheets.They were most likely to be remnants related to theextensive use of lead by the Droitwich salt industry,though when this use commenced is, as yet,uncertain. However, evidence from other sites forthe extensive production and utilisation of lead inthe Roman period suggests that any associationbetween the salt industry and the use of lead wouldprobably date from this period.

Figure 118 Lead objects. Scale 1:1 (1) and 1:2 (2)

171

31 Pyrotechnological note Derek Hurst and

Gerry McDonnell

A scatter of residues from high temperatureprocesses, mainly fuel ash, was recovered.However, the quantities were too low for there to beany suggestion that industrial activities were beingcarried out on, or in the immediate vicinity of thesite. There were four examples of smithing slag,including one complete hearth bottom (226, S108,

Table 9 Quantification of smithing slag Table 10 Quantification of fuel ash

P6-71, from medieval levels. These seem to havebeen isolated finds redeposited from elsewhere,though in the case of the example from pit 995(S39?, P5i) there was an association with ash andcharcoal, suggesting that a larger scale dumping ofwaste had taken place.

Phase Structure Context Weight (kg) Phase structure Context Weight (kg)

5-6 039? 995 0.156 42 333 0.5046 96 366 0.4386-7 108 226 0.812

Total 1.904

3 84 705 386 1376 1257 427 1357 59?11 149

898 0.010552 0.066960 0.002257 0.004294 0.016232 0.022251 0.006353 0.064

88 0.010Total 0.200

172

32 Animal bone Alison Locker

Summary

Approximately 12,000 animal bones were identified(Table 11). The earliest phase was associated withbrine extraction during the Iron Age, while laterRoman occupation was of a domestic character. Thebone samples from these early phases were smallbut statistically similar to the butchered bonedebris from later occupation. Subsequent medievalactivity included tanning and amongst the domesticdebris a relatively small number of ox, sheep andgoat horn cores were found. In the succeedingmedieval and later settlement small numbers ofhorn cores were also found, but the greatproportion of animal bone was domestic debris inwhich ox and large ungulate fragments were mostnumerous. Ovicaprid and small ungulates were thenext most frequently occurring groups, followed bypig. Goat has only been positively identified fromthe horn cores. Small numbers of horse, dog, catand less frequently red and roe deer, rabbit andhare were also found. Birds were largelyrepresented by domestic fowl and goose. The finalsection compares the animal bone assemblagesfrom Friar Street and the Old Bowling Greenexcavations.

Introduction

Approximately 12,000 bones were recovered fromcontexts dating from the Iron Age to the 17thcentury. Some later deposits also contained bonebut these have not been recorded. Moreover, nosieving was carried out, with a consequent bias infavour of larger fragments.

The following species were identified: ox (Bos spdomestic), sheep (Ouis sp domestic), goat (Capra spdomestic), pig (SuS sp domestic), horse (Equus spdomestic), dog (Canis sp domestic), cat (Felis spdomestic), red deer (Cervus elaphus), roe deer(Capreolus capreolus), rabbit (Oryctolaguscuniculus), hare (Lepus sp), fowl (Gallus spdomestic), goose (Anser sp domestic), duck (Anassp), wood pigeon (Columba palumbus), and crow(Corvus corone).

In addition some indeterminate groups wereused, primarily large and small ungulate, whichare most likely to be ox and ovicaprid respectively.The bone was recorded using the method of Joneset al 1981.

Within each phase a number of structures wererecognised. Detailed tables indicate the number ofbones for each species/group in the contextscomprising each structure (Table M33, 3:C3-D14).The animal bone from phases 9 to 11 was recorded

but because of the relatively recent dates for theselevels, analysis was deemed inappropriate.

In the following sections the occurrence andbutchery of the three main economic species ie ox,ovicaprid and pig, are discussed. This is followed bythe metrical and ageing data, and the occurrence ofother species.

Phase 1: Iron Age

Animal bone was recovered from three of the fivestructures associated with brine extraction. In thissmall sample of 56 bones there did not appear to beany predominance of species or anatomy. Ox andovicaprids were equally represented. Clear signs ofbutchery were also scarce; knife cuts were observedon the midshaft of an ox humerus, the acetabulumof an ovicaprid pelvis and midshaft of an ovicapridtibia, and the midshaft of a pig radius. The cutswere probably the result of filleting. Two ox bonesshowed canid gnawing.

All the bone from this phase, with the possibleexception of five bones of horse which werefragmented but did not show definite indications ofbutchery, was probably food debris. As activity onthe site at this period was of an industrial nature,deposition of large quantities of animal bone refusewas unlikely.

Phase 2: Early to mid Roman

Extraction of salt continued into the 1st century,but the main activity was associated with earlyRoman occupation. Structure 6, a well shaft,contained the largest sample of bone. Here twoskeletons of fox were found. Both mature animals,the corpses may have been conveniently disposed ofin the well shaft, or may have had a ritual purpose.A number of complete skeletons were found at thebase of a Roman well in Staines (Chapman perscomm) and the skeleton of a lap dog and anotherlarger dog together with sheep skeletons werefound in a 1st century shaft in Keston, Kent(Locker unpublished). There does seem to be somesignificance in the placing of dog carcasses (thoughnot specifically fox) in well or shaft fills during thisperiod. Other bones from this same context (1142),were eighteen fragments of ox, ovicaprid and pig,as well as six fish fin rays.

Ox and large ungulate fragments dominated theassemblage. An ox scapula was chopped across theneck and a tibia was chopped across the distal jointsurface. Knifecuts were observed across the lateralside of the diastema of a mandible, and on themidshaft and distal surface of a metacarpal. On

Table 11 Animal bone summary

Phase 1 2 3i 3ii 4i 4ii 5i 5ii 6 7 8

ox 8Sheep - - - - -

Goat - - - - - - - -Ovicaprid 9Pig 2Horse 5Red deer - - - - - -

Roe deer - - - - - -

Red/fallow - - - - - -

D o g - -F o x - - - -C a t - - - - - -Rabbit - - - - - - - -

Hare - - - - - - -- -L Ungulate 10S Ungulate 11Fowl - - -

Goose - - - - - - -

Duck - - - - - - - - -Wood pigeon - - - - - - - - -Crow - - - - - - - - -

Bird - -

Fish - - - --

- - - -Frog/toad - - - - - - - - - -Unidentified 11Total 56

14% 26 7% 43 11% 2 2% 4 4% 140 10% 257 13% 909 1% 13 1% 3

28% 10 10% 94 6% 146 8% 599% 6 6% 93 6% 110 6% 482% 1 1% 5 < l % - 27

1 < l % - 121 < 1 % - 1

1% 1 1% 9 1% 19 1% 41 <1% 7 l % -5 (l% 7 <I% 2

12% 554 11% 58 10% 13<1% 10 < 1 % 1 <1% -Cl% 2 < l %

8% 355 7% 59 10% 86% 292 6% 38 6% 84% 120 2% 4 <l% -2% 1 <1% 1 <l%

<1% 5 <1% -2 <1% -

<1% 24 <1% 4 <1%

7%

16% 113% 59% 2

3% 91% 11

<l% 6

2% 73% 82% 2

4%4%

<l% 445%

1% 11156

<1% 11 <1% -2 <1% 1 <1% 11 <1%

35% 181 37% 238 39% 7521% 693 14% 110 18% 46

17 <1% 1 <l% 1<l% 4 < l %

1

<l%

40%25%<l%

<1%

718% 7220% 41

2 %21% 14512% 48

37% 3612% 17

1

41% 31 30% 547 37% 614 31% 26119% 27 26% 323 22% 467 24% 155

1% 2 2% 28 2% 11 <1% -4 <1% 1 <1% 1

1 1% -1 <l% -

2% 1 1% 12 1% 17 1% 119 1%

12%2%4% 123

290

<1% 1 1% 13 <l% 2 <l% 5 3%66

20% 15348

31% 1288

14% 20 19% 156 11% 248 12% 79 10% 975 20% 91 15% 27103 1458 1937 755 4898 608 185

15%

In phase 2 fox is represented by 2 skeletons

174

two ovicaprid pelves the acetabulum was choppedand knifecuts were also observed in this area.

Apart from the fox skeletons all the bone wasdomestic food debris, although none of the featuresappears to have been used for intensive bone wastedisposal,

Phase 3i: 3rd to 4th century

In the 3rd and 4th centuries small scale domesticsettlement was evident. Less than 400 bones wererecovered from nine structures, although thegreater concentrations of bone in three particularcontexts (1116,1103 and 1037) was a characteristicnot apparent in earlier phases. They produced 282bones, 85% in the large and small ungulate andunidentifiable mammal categories, which mayindicate a high level of fragmentation. Again the oxand large ungulate categories were dominant.These larger samples of bone in particular featureswere more typical of settlement debris than inearlier phases.

Butchery marks were largely observed on ox;knifecuts were seen below the alveoli on the lateralside of two ox jaws. Two ox scapulae were choppedlaterally across the neck. This area and the glenoidcavity are commonly chopped on ox scapulae, and isoften complemented by chopping through themidshafi and or distal end of the humerus (thelatter was observed in later phases). A calcaneumwas cut around the proximal surface, possibly as aresult of tendon cutting, and cuts were also

Table 12 A;nimal bone totals for each species

structure 30 32 34 37 70

TotalTotal for oxOx skull fragOx mandiblesOx maxillaeOx teethOx horn coresOx metacarpal/tarsalSheep skull/horncoresGoat horn coresTotal for ovicapridsOvicaprid skull fragOvicaprid mandiblesOvicaprid maxillaeOvicaprid teethOvicaprid horn coresOvicapridmetacarpaVtarsa1

- - -

- -

--

- - -

1 1 6

149 91 541 44 63321 10 55 10 443 2 3 5 22 2 4 1 13 - 1 1 1- 5 2 - 43 1 11 2 101 - 10 - 7

3 - 518

13 3 221 2

4 1 63 - 12 - -

3

- 219

3 533

1 1129

-

- -

observed around the midshaft of a metacarpal,eroviding evidence of skinning. An ovicapridhumerus had been cut around the midshaft. Nochopping or knifecuts were seen on pig bones.

Phase 3ii: Sub-Roman and Anglo-Saxon

Tables in fiche indicate the small quantity of bonefrom this period. Linear features thought to beassociated with field boundaries or soil cultivationwere defined and might not be expected to producesignificant quantities of bone. Only 88 bones wererecovered from the eight structures. Of the entiresample 76% came from a pit (S28).

Few examples of butchery were evident; a largeungulate scapula was chopped across the neck, alarge ungulate humerus had been split and a pigradius showed knifecuts across the shaft.

A high degree of fragmentation was evident (evenwith only hand picked bones and no sievedsamples) with 74% of all bone attributed to large orsmall ungulates or unidentifiable mammals. Thisintensive fragmentation could reflect abrasionduring soil cultivation.

Phase 4i: Earlier Saxo-Norman

The first part of this phase was associated with aseries of pits and ditches. The numbers of bonesfrom structures 22, 31/158, and 170 wereinsignificant (three, thirteen, and two respectively).Eighty-five bones were recovered from structure 19.No butchery was observed, although some bonesshowed evidence of gnawing (S19 and S22) on ox,ovicaprid, pig, large and small ungulates.

Phase 4ii: Later Saxo-Norman

During this phase a series of features thought to beassociated with tanning was identified. Structures30, 32, 34 and 37 were pits and structure 70 wascomposed of black clay and loam layers. Of the1,458 bones, 79% were recovered from structures34 and 70. In structures 30,34 and 70, ox and largeungulates dominated numerically. However, instructure 32 ovicaprid and small ungulates weremore numerous.

Apart from domestic food refuse, skull fragmentsand horn cores from ox, sheep and goat were found.These were probably debris from tanning where theuntanned hide may be acquired with the horns stillattached. Partial skulls and horn cores of sheepand goat were only found in structures 34 and 70,whereas ox occurred in all five structures. Table 12compares the number of skull fragments andassociated pieces with the total number of bones forox, sheep, goat and ovicaprid.

It is evident that although there were relativelyhigh instances of horn cores, particularly for goatand ox in structure 34, they may not be significantwithin the overall bone sample. Similarly there

175

were not high numbers of metacarpals andmetatarsals, which are often associated withtanning waste.

Part of an ox skull from structure 30 may havebeen poleaxed, judging from the fracture of thefrontals, while other ox horn cores had beenchopped at the base or showed cut marks there. Apair of goat horn cores had been chopped awayfrom the neurocranium, and others had beenchopped or cut at the base. Similarly sheep horncores showed evidence of chopping and cut marksat the base. The horn from these cores may alsohave been utilised. One sheep skull was naturallypolled.

The skulls and horn cores only totalled 70, lessthan 5% of the bone sample from this phase. Theremainder was largely food refuse except for a fewbones of horse, roe deer, dog, cat, and a fragment ofa red deer antler. One of the changes in butcherypractice seen in this phase and onwards was themore frequent occurrence of axially splitting pigskulls and long bones. A high incidence of butcherywas seen on ox and large ungulate bones, and to alesser degree on ovicaprid and pig (552, S70). Oxscapulae were split, a metacarpal was splitproximally and a humerus chopped across themidshaft. Gnaw marks were also quite common onox, ovicaprid and pig.

The identification of goat in this and later phaseswas solely from horn cores. Boessneck's (1969)indices for separating the metacarpals andmetatarsals of sheep and goat suggested that thesewere all from sheep except for one metacarpalwhich was just within the range for a goat. So itwould appear that goat was only present in thecon text of tanning.

Although the archaeological evidence indicatedthat tanning took place in this phase the smallproportion of horn core and associated remainscompared with the domestic food debris is echoed inlater phases. The majority of hides were possiblybrought without horn cores attached or, if present,they were disposed of elsewhere. As there were onlysmall numbers of metapodials it may be that thehorn cores indicate horn working waste.

Phase 5i: 12th century

The main activity of this phase was associated withdrainage and rubbish pits. Structures 29, 33, and35 yielded the largest sample of bones. Theremaining structures were layers, except for a pit(S83) which only contained seven bones.

Forty-five ox horn cores and four partial skullswere found. These were in a variety of contexts andshowed no particular concentrations. Sheep andgoat were less frequent, ie one horn core and onepartial ovicaprid skull. One horn core and eightskulls were positively attributed to sheep and fourto goat. These were not restricted in theirdistribution but formed only 4% of the total bonesample. However, there was only a 1% difference

between the proportion of partial skulls and horncores in this phase and phase 4ii. As the featuresassociated with tanning comprised all the activitywithin phase 4ii the animal bone alone would notappear to be a reliable indicator of tanning.

An almost complete ox skull was found (971, S35)in which all teeth were in wear and the horn coreswere of a 'short horned’ type. From the samestructure, two sheep skulls had the horn coreschopped off. Some of the ox horn cores had beenchopped at the base.

Butchery marks were most clearly observed onox. Knife cuts were seen on the diastema and belowthe alveoli on the mandible. Chop marks were alsoseen at the latter point. The scapula was choppedacross the glenoid cavity and across the neck. Themid point of the shaft of the humerus was alsochopped and cut, along with the distal articulationof the bone. The radii were occasionally split axiallyand knife cuts were apparent on the proximalsurface, as were chop marks across some of themidshafts. The ulna was frequently chopped on thejoint surface. Metacarpals and metatarsals wereinfrequently butchered, sometimes on the proximalsurface and across the midshafts. Phalanges werelargely complete. On the hind limb the pelvis waschopped across the top of the ilium, across theacetabulum and across the ischium. Femora weregenerally fragmentary, but knifecuts were observedon the proximal and midshaft areas. Tibiae werechopped about the midshaft or split. Ribs werechopped into sections or had cut marks on themand vertebrae were trimmed laterally. Thisbutchery pattern for ox is typical for thepost-Roman periods, largely reflecting thepreparation of the carcse into joints.

Within the assemblage of ovicaprids, one scapulawas chopped on the glenoid cavity, knifecutsoccurred around the midshaft of the humerus, withchop marks through the distal end and two radiiwere split. On the hind limb a pelvis was choppedacross the ilium, and a femur had been choppedacross the midshaft. Limb extremities weregenerally complete.

A pig humerus was chopped proximally andacross the midshaft, and cut marks were seenacross the midshaft of a radius, and one radius wasproximally burnt. All three species were subject tognawing.

Phase 5ii: Early 13th century

A total of 692 bones was recovered from theproperty boundary ditches (S36), including two ox,three sheep and two goat horn cores. Theremainder were associated with domestic fooddebris. Ox and large ungulate fragments dominatedthe assemblage. The butchery mirrored that seenin phase 5i.

A humerus of roe deer, rarely identified from thissite, was found in the larger of the two enclosureditches. Twelve red deer antler fragments were

176

recovered from the smaller north-south enclosure,one of which had been chopped at the base.However, this species was not represented by anypost-cranial fragments.


A total of 4,894 bones was recovered from eighteenstructures, 65% of which were found in structures42 and 108. A number of partial skulls and horncores from ox, sheep and goat were recovered. Aparticular concentration of ox horn cores and skulls(23 out of a total of 45) were found in structure 42,along with one horn core of a sheep and one of agoat.

In some contexts there were relatively highconcentrations of ox metapodials, for example instructure 42. Of the 58 bones positively attributedto ox, ten were metacarpals and thirteen weremetatarsals. Similarly, of the 112 ox bones presentin structure 42, eighteen were metacarpals andseventeen were metatarsals. Although these bonesare easy to identify, and are easy to attribute to ox,rather than to large ungulates, they are also lessfragmentary than other long bones bearing littlemeat. Specific disposal of metapodials seems tohave taken place, rather than whole feet, since themetapodials were not matched by two first, twosecond and two third phalanges for each bone.

Ox and large ungulates were dominant in thephase, particularly in the structures containinglarger quantities of bone. For example, instructures 42, 96 and 108, ungulates respectivelyformed 57%, 55% and 38% of the total. Thebutchery of ox, ovicaprid and pig was generallysimilar to that noted in phase 5ii, but included chopmarks around the gonion and alveoli of oxmandibles and showed indications of having beengnawed by dogs.


Only 608 bones were recovered from twelvestructures; a reflection of the purely urbanresidential use of the site in the 16th century.

Ox and large ungulates dominated the assem-blage. Only ox and one sheep horn core wererecovered. A fragment of red deer antler was foundin context 230 (S35). The butchery practices werenot notably different from the two precedingphases.

Phase 8: 16th to mid 17th century

Only 185 bones were recovered, largely fromstructure 46, with twenty or less bones fromstructures 118, 129 and 166. Ox and largeungulates were numerically dominant. A few boneswere butchered and gnawed. The bone largelyrepresented food debris, with the exception of someloose teeth and limb extremities.

Ageing of ox, sheep and pig

Mandibles were aged using Grant (1975) and thevalues calculated shown in Table 13. Where aphase is absent from the table no ageablemandibles were found in it. The high proportion ofestimated values is indicative of the number ofincomplete mandibles. For a mandible to have anestimated value at least two permanent teeth werepresent and then compared with the range of toothrows shown by Grant.

Until phase 5i the sample size for ox is verysmall. If the third permanent molar erupts ataround value 30, after two years, it would appearthat there is a higher proportion of animalsslaughtered at less than two years in phases 5 and6 than in the preceding phases. Although theabsence of younger animals in phases 2, 3 and 4could be a feature of small sample size, it mightindicate a use for milk, traction, etc, for a longerperiod before slaughter. In the later periods thereappears to be a greater surplus and thereforeyoung animals can be killed for meat, although thesmall size of the sample makes any interpretationtentative.

Sheep (assumed from the scarcity of goatsindicated by the metapodial index) represented alarger sample in phase 4ii than for ox. If betweenone and a half and two years is within the range of20 to 25, no specific patterning is discernible,except that where the sample size is large enough(ie from P4ii onwards) a certain proportion ofmandibles are slaughtered at less than eighteenmonths. The overall low proportion of mandibles ofless than value 25 could support an expectedemphasis on wool production, but the samples aretoo small to make any further comment.

Similarly the pig mandibles, where 20 to 25indicates the end of the second year, from phase 4iionwards (the sample size is too small in precedingphases) a small proportion of animals areslaughtered at less than two years.

Metrical data

Full details of all the metrical data are available inarchive. In Table 14 the withers heights for ox andsheep are displayed. Some of the smallest oxenseem to occur in phase 4ii and 5, which couldaccord with the reduction of size in the medievalperiod.

The horn cores of ox were measured along thelength of the outer curve when complete and acrossthe maximum and minimum diameter at the base.The lengths indicated that the 'short, medium andlong horn’ types identified by Armitage andClutton-Brock (1976) were present. This maysuggest that the metapodial size differences aremore related to breed.

For sheep withers, heights are greater in phase5ii than in 5i or 6, and may be a reflection of a

177

Table 13 Ageing of ox, ovicaprid and pig mandibles (using Grant 1975)

Phase2 3 4ii 5i 5ii 6

Ox49-50e 25e 11-12e

31 3037-49e 32e42-49e 39-40e45-48e 46-50e

12-21e x213-25e20-32ex22l-26e23-26e2526x227x2303234x23839x240x240-59e41-46e4242-47e46-47e47

20-32e27e3l-39e33-34e35-38e4146e41-50e44e

4e8-25e20-32e22e23-26e25e26e x327e29e323437-39e37-46e38e42-46e4446+ex24749+e5+e051+e

1 4i 4ii 5i 5ii 6 7

Ovicaprid32-34e 29-36e 3-6e

4-12e7-8ex 212-20e23-25e30-32e30-36e323336e3738

5-22e11e21e25-26e30e313233e3638x239x341e41+e47+e48e

8e26e36+e41

7e24e28e31e32e32-37e33x23435e36x339-41e41e

8e8-10e30e36-38e

e = estimated value or range due to incomplete jaw

178

Table 13 (continued)

Phase2

Pig26-30e

3i

41+e3ii36

4ii

13-14e22e27e30e x23131e34-38e

5i

10-15e17e19e28e2930e31e37e40e

5ii 6 7

24-31e x3 13+e 10+e27e 20-26e 27-31e29e 21e 29e32e 23-25e 33e

24-26e26e x226-33e28e29e31e x23l-33e34e35e35-38e38e42+e x2

change in site function from 5i to 5ii, althoughactivity was clearly domestic in phases 5ii and 6.

For pig, one of the more common measurementsis displayed, the width of the proximal joint surfaceof the radius indicating a particularly large andpossibly wild specimen in phase 4i.

Occurrence of other species

HorseHorse bones were recovered from contexts in allphases. These were in small quantities and thebones relatively complete. In Table 14 it is clearthat estimated withers heights of between 13 and14 hands indicate ponies rather than horses. Thesewere largely mature except for a mandible in whichthe third incisor had not erupted and was aged lessthan four years (Thompson 1949, 240). Knifecutswere observed on the ilium of a pelvis from context453 and from the midshaft of femora from contexts475 and 476 (all in P5i), and from the midshaft of atibia from 412 and of a metacarpal from 366 (bothin P6). The proximal end of a metatarsal from 233(P6) was chopped and indeterminate metapodialswere split from 338 (P6) and 552 (P4ii). There is noreal evidence that horse was eaten; these marksmay just be associated with skinning and ordismemberment of the carcass. Exostoses wereobserved on the proximal joint surfaces of twometatarsals from 460 (P5i). These may be apathological reaction to stress.

DogDog bones were frequently found as isolatedoccurrences in many features. They were all fromadult animals except for one proximally unfusedhumerus from context 460 (P5i). The shoulderheights were calculated using Harcourt (1974) andare shown in Table 14. None were extreme in sizeat either end of the scale. The fox skeleton from1142 (P2) has already been described.

Other mammalsThe occurrence of red deer, only represented byantler, has already been noted in the phasedescriptions. Roe deer was represented by two postcranial bones, a mandible and a radius. Catoccurred in a number of contexts as disarticulatdbones. All have been measured and the data isavailable in the metrical archive. None of the catbones had any cut marks that might indicateskinning. Rabbit was identified from a fewmedieval and later contexts, as was hare. Bothwere probably eaten.

BirdsDomestic fowl was the most commonly identifiedspecies. Some bones were immature and porousand others had been butchered. A fowl tibiotarsushad been chopped distally and a tarsometatarsushad knifecuts across the midshaft (585, P4ii). Fromcontext 959 (P5ii) a fowl tibiotarsus had been cutdistally and a goose tibiotarsus cut across the

179

Table 14 Withers heights in cm for ox, ovicaprid, pig, horse and dog (using the factors of Fock,Teichert, Kiesewalter and Harcourt respectively)

Phase1 4ii 5i 5ii 6 7

Oxmc 118Phase 2tib 114mt 113mt 112Phase 3imc 127mc 103

mc 102 mc 104mc 110 mc 105mc 99 mc 104mt 102 mc 104mt 107 mc 109

mc 119mc 115mc 98mc 106mt 113mt 114mt 110mt 112mt 108

rad 113mc 119mc 115mt 106mt 97mt 108mt 105

mc 116 mc 107mc 106 Phase 8mc 94 mt 109mc 108mc 116mc 110mc 121mc 103mt 103mt 114mt 102mt 108mt 111mt 105mt 105mt 119

4ii 5i 5ii 6

Ovicaprid(Boessneck's index for separating metapodials suggests these are all fromsheep rather than goats)mt 56 rad 57 rad 64 hum 56

mc 57 mc 61 rad 52mc 59 mc 67 mc 55mt 52 Cal 61 mc 51mt 53 mt 59 mc 53mt 59 cal 54

cal 52mt 51mt 60mt 58mt 53

3ii 4i 5i 5ii 6

Pig(The proximal width of the radius in mm is shown since shoulder heights cannot beestimated)30 37 31 29 27

25 27 2825 2428 2327 26

180

Table 14 (continued)

1 4ii

Horserad 136 mt 134

5i 5ii 6

rad 143 mc 141 rad 142mc 133 mc 140mt 135 mc 137

144

4ii 5i

Dogtib 46 hum 56

hum 36hum 36rad 39tib 48

6 7

fern 30 hum 48

Dog/fox skeleton from well fill 1142 approx 39 cm at the shoulder

Key:hum = humerus rad = radius mc = metacarpal fern = femur tib = tibia cal = calcaneum mt = metatarsal

midshaft. A goose tarsometatarsus from the samephase was cut across the proximal midshaft area.All these cuts are likely to have been made inpreparation for the table. As well as fowl and a fewgoose bones, pigeon and wood pigeon wereidentified from phase 5i. Two crow bones fromphases 4ii and 6 may be incidental.

Comparison between the animal boneassemblages from Friar Street andthe Old Bowling Green

The occupation pattern of the two sites is verysimilar. From the Iron Age (and in the case of theBowling Green possibly the Late Bronze Age) intothe Roman period, salt production was the mainactivity. The animal bone forms part of the disusefill of the associated features. After relatively littleevidence from the Anglo-Saxon period, occupationcontinued from the medieval period (includingbuildings, pits, ditches and depressions).

Recovery methods at both sites were similar: nosieving was carried out and hand collection willhave favoured recovery of the larger fragments andspecies.

At both sites the animal bone samples aredominated by ox and large ungulate fragments. Ofsecondary occurrence numerically are ovicapridand small ungulates. The large and small ungulatecategories refer to bones which probably belong toox and ovicaprids respectively but, because of

heavy fragmentation, poor preservation etc, couldnot be specifically identified. Some goats wereidentified from the horn cores but, judging from theseparation index used for metapodials, other partsof the skeleton seem to be mostly sheep.

Small concentrations of horn cores from ox,sheep, and goat were associated with evidence oftanning from Friar Street, phase 4ii of late 11th toearly 12th century date. However, skulls and horncores were less than 5% of the bone from the phase.Similarly there were small quantities of horn coresfrom other phases where there was no evidence oftanning activities, but goat was not identifiedearlier than the medieval period. Horn cores fromox, sheep, and goat were also found in smallnumbers in deposits of Roman date and later at theOld Bowling Green, mixed in with other domesticbutchered debris.

Specific concentrations of certain anatomies weredifficult to identify This may be influenced in partby the small size of the samples when divided byphase and structure. However, at Friar Street inphase 6, of 13th to 14th century date, somecontexts contained relatively high concentrations ofox metapodials. This can sometimes be related totanning waste, however in this phase there is noother archaeological evidence for it. In terms ofmeat quality these limb extremities are poor,although they do contain some marrow.

At the Old Bowling Green in phase 7, comprisinga late Roman stone building and access track, therelatively high concentration of ox, loose teeth and

181

skull fragments is thought to reflect a high level offragmentation. In phase 6 (late Roman) the disusefills of barrels contained a high proportion of oxskull fragments and mandibles. In phase 9, ofsimilar date but a different location, a linear cutcontained high proportions of ox skull, mandible,and scapula fragments. There is therefore someevidence to suggest the specific disposal of oxheads, which have been butchered extensively toremove the horns, brain, tongue and marrow (fromthe mandible), over all three areas occupied in thelate Roman period. For ovicaprids an increasedproportion of mandibles were found in phase 4 andpossibly 5, compared with other parts of thecarcass. However, apart from ox and largeungulate, other species/groups were too sparse toindicate any particular distributions.

The butchery practices on the two sites are alsosimilar. Any superficial differences are largelyattributable to the sites being recorded by twopeople. Although the same recording system was

used, personal preference for the level and order ofrecording influences the data.

In conclusion, the animal bone from these twoclosely related sites suggests that, from the IronAge until the post-medieval period, ox and largeungulate remains are generally the most numerousof all species/groups, this trend increasing throughtime. In some instances there is evidence forspecific disposal of certain parts of the carcase.Ovicaprid (both sheep and goat) and small ungulateare the most commonly occurringspecies/group, with pig occurring in small numbersat both sites. The bones generally come from disusefills and therefore would not be expected to reflectany changes in site use (ie from brine extraction tosettlement or agriculture), except for theassociation of horn cores with tanning at FriarStreet. Remains of horse, red deer, domestic fowland goose were consistently found but in smallnumbers. Dog was represented both by isolatedbones and partial skeletons at both sites.

182

33 Worked bone Derek Hurst, with boneidentification by Alison Locker

Fig 119

1 Toggle or bobbin with central perforation,made from pig metapodial; context 308,structure 74, phase 5.

2 Perforated ovicaprid scapula; context 997,structure 39?, phase 6.

3 Tip of point with polished surface; context223, structure 108, phase 7 (not illustrated).

4 Musical pipe made from horse or possibly oxmetatarsal; context 232, structure 42, phase7.

5 Handle notched at butt end; context 251,structure 135, phase 7.

6 Plain handle; context 240, structure 47,phase 9 (not illustrated).

7 Button. Flat disc with central perforationand stained copper green; context 240,structure 47, phase 9 (not illustrated).

8 Button. Dished with four symmetricallyplaced perforations, and also stained green;context 948, structure 41, phase 9 (notillustrated).

9 Double-sided comb fragment; context 7,structure 149, phase 10.

Figure 119 Worked bone. Scale 1:2

183

34 General discussion Simon Woodiwiss

This section aims to place information derived fromthe excavations into the context of contemporaryresearch. It also aims to suggest new directions forfuture research. General background information iscontained in the introduction to this volume,however, for the historic period discussion of theexcavations is integrated with an outline of thedocumentary and topographical evidence. Theexcavations yielded especially useful informationon two aspects, late Iron Age and early Roman saltproduction, and the development of the Saxon andmedieval town.

Late Iron Age and early Roman saltproduction

Being soluble, salt leaves no trace in thearchaeological record, except in very dry conditionsnot usually encountered in this country. Whenproduced by the 'open pan' method, salt producesfew waste or by-products which may easily berecognsed in the archaeological record. Silt (fromsettling of sediments contaminating brine), watervapour (from boiling brine) and fuel waste (fromhearths) are all produced, but are hardlyunequivocal identifiers of salt production.Additionally, few of the structures or implementsused in salt production are solely characteristic ofthat activity. There is however an exception to thisin the Iron Age, as Morris (1985) has conclusivelyargued for the association of briquetage with saltproduction and export. However, the precise role ofthese vessels in the production process is not yetclear. The recording of large quantities ofbriquetage (especially at the Old Bowling Green)indicates that it formed part of the industrialprocess involving much wastage. Here an analogymay be suggested with the wastage of moulds oftenincurred in the casting of metals. Briquetage itselfis closely associated with the hearths and tanksrecorded at Friar Street and the Old BowlingGreen, confirming their involvement in the saltproduction process. The association of the clay- andtimber-lined tanks and the hearths with saltproduction, rests on their association withbriquetage as well as the proximity of the rawmaterial.

No later Roman equivalent of briquetage hasbeen identified, and the structures of the OldBowling Green's phase 8 (especially the lines ofbarrels set into the ground) cannot be directlyrelated to salt production in the same way as thetanks and hearths of earlier phases. The evidencefor the function of the barrels of phase 8 is

inconclusive, however, secondary industries (suchas preservation of meat and processing of leather)are to be expected in an area of primary saltproduction. The failure to identify the processing ofanimal products in the bone assemblage of phase 8,as an alternative interpretation of the barrels, mayalso be invoked to support their interpretation aspart of the process of salt production. However thisis hardly conclusive evidence for drawing ananalogy between the barrels of phase 8 and thebrine tanks of phases 2 and 3. It is possible thatlead was used to construct pans for boiling and itspresence from phase 7 onwards, albeit in verysmall quantities, may be significant. Additionally,the equivalent of briquetage used in phase 8 mayhave been made from a less durable material, andperhaps the use of wicker baskets for drainingdates from the Roman period. However, in theabsence of briquetage or an equivalent diagnosticfeature of salt production, the function of thestructures of phase 8 is suggested solely by theavailability of brine. Given this absence ofconclusive evidence, the discussion of saltproduction will consider only the Iron Age andearly Roman periods. Consideration of the latersalt industry must await further work.

The process of salt productionThe general process of salt production by the openpan method (outlined in the introduction to thisvolume) may be used here, as no evidence wasfound to suggest that it may be invalid. As brineextraction did not occur in either of the twoexcavated areas, detailed discussion of the processmust start with the brine tanks. Their presence, ifused for settling, does indicate that brine was beingdrawn from sources which would have requiredremoval of sediment prior to boiling (ie unlined orpoorly lined pits or springs). The field record wasnot sufficiently detailed to identify the fine siltswhich may be expected to have existed ifsettlement had occurred and the tanks had notbeen cleaned. On the subject of post-medieval saltproduction, Rastel (1678, 1062) and Agricola(Hoover and Hoover 1912, 548) mention the closespatial relationship of stored brine to the boilingh e a r t h s . A s i m i l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p c a n b edemonstrated for the late Iron Age and earlyRoman periods at Droitwich. The functioning ofbriquetage vessels for the drying of salt crystals,argued by Rees (1986, 51) from evidence from theOld Bowling Green, is still the most obvious.Further experimental work may help to identify amore precise function for these vessels in theirindustrial context. A number of wooden artefacts

184

(forked and pointed stakes, the shovel, and perhapsthe inscribed pottery) are likely to be associatedwith salt production but their precise functionremains uncertain.

Though the evidence from coastal salt productionsites is also incomplete, there is a generalcorrelation with the inland process. Variation indetails such as the presence of hearth furniture andboiling pans from coastal sites, and their absencefrom inland ones, do however occur.

TopographyThe development of the town's non-industrialtopographical aspects will be discussed in a latervolume. In the late Iron Age two separate areas ofsalt production may be identified. The substantialarea in the western half of the Old Bowling Greenvoid of features associated with salt productionseparates the rows of brine tanks (probably alignedwith the river) from those of the Friar Streetexcavation. There may also have been other areasand it would seem plausible that each had separateaccess to points of brine extraction. The similarityof dendrochronological dates further indicate thatsalt production in these two areas wascontemporaneous.

The alignment of the tanks and furnaces with theriver at the Old Bowling Green may reflect theimportance of the river for transport of exportedsalt. As mentioned earlier, the river was navigablein the medieval period (Whitley 1923, 1).

The character of early Roman salt productionappears to have changed little from that of the IronAge, though for how long it continued and whetherit ended abruptly or not is uncertain. There is less1st century samian and coarse ware than might beexpected, supporting the view that the areascovered by the Friar Street and Old Bowling Greenexcavations retained an industrial, rather than adomestic character. Droitwich was also at thejunction of a number of Roman roads, providinganother means of export. By the 2nd century theFriar Street area was no longer used for theproduction of salt, though this may have continuedin some form in the area of the Old Bowling Green.

OrganisationMegaw and Simpson (1979, 421) have summarisedthe situation as '... by the end of the Iron Age therewas in southern and eastern Britain a complexurban society, with a highly organised system ofproduction and distribution, market centres wherea small denomination coinage was used inexchange, and a political authority which mintedcoins and kept records.’

Whilst Droitwich does not form part of the areareferred to, some aspects of the level of economicorganisation are comparable. Extensive cropmarksin the Severn and Avon valleys (eg Webster andHobley 1964), a proportion of which must be Iron

Age in date, indicate a significant intensity ofagricultural exploitation and settlement, at least incertain areas. Excavation of the mainly middle IronAge settlement at Beckford has demonstratedintensive agricultural activity which continued intolater periods (Wills pers comm). Coinage was alsoin circulation in the area of the Dobunni (Cunliffe1978, 109). Though this does not include the smalldenomination silver minims and bronze coinsalluded to by Megaw and Simpson there is a rangeof gold and silver denominations with some of thesilver coins being quite base (Sellwood 1984, 196).The existence of an Iron Age trade in pottery fromseveral centres in the Malvern area has beendemonstrated by Peacock (1968) and its productioncontinued into the Roman period (Peacock 1965-7).At Droitwich, large-scale salt production isindicated by the number and capacity of the brinetanks and hearths. A degree of organisation is alsoindicated by the definition of at least two differentsalt making areas, and in the methodical layout ofthe features within them, especially from the OldBowling Green. The distribution of salt fromDroitwich, suggested by the distribution ofbriquetage (Morris 1985, fig 6), is extensive. Theseindications of an organised and large-scale industrydo not help in identifying the detailed processesand participants involved. This will be resolvedonly with the investigation of the non-industrialaspects of the settlement at Droitwich, whenquestions on seasonality of production, thepresence or absence of specalised salt workers andhow salt was distributed, may be addressed. Thereis at present little information that may help withthis. For example the relationship of saltproduction at Droitwich with the surroundinghillforts cannot yet be discussed. Hanbury (Bassettand Dyer 1980, 88; HWCM 815), the closest (andthen only tentatively identified as a hillfort), hasnot been excavated; the closest excavated hillfortbeing Midsummer Hill (Stanford 1981; HWCM931).

DistributionBefore discussing the distribution of salt fromDroitwich, the biases to be expected fromnon-cultural variables should first be considered.This report is not the place for detailedconsideration of even such an important researchconcern but some comment is necessary. Figure 4defines the areas lying closest to their respectiveknown sources of salt. To these variables of locationof raw materials and distance, may be added thatof ease of production. For instance Droitwich brine,with its 25% solution of salt, would have greatereconomic potential than sea water (at 3%),expanding its potential area of influence at theexpense of coastal sources. Ease of transport wouldalso have favoured some sources above others andrivers may be assumed to have had as great aneffect on the distribution of salt as they had on

185

many other commodities. Physical impediments totransport are another consideration. For instance,the mountains of central Wales may be expected tohave affected the distribution of salt from both theWelsh coast (if salt was produced there) andDroitwich. If these non-cultural variables weresystematically assessed it seems probable, evenfrom subjective observation, that a bias in thedistribution of Droitwich salt may be expected infavour of the east, south and west.

The operation of cultural variables on thedistribution of Droitwich salt is much morecomplex . The contemporanei ty o f sourceexploitation, and any resulting competition, is oneobvious variable to be considered. Is, for instance,the restricted northward distribution of Droitwichbriquetage (Morris 1985, fig 6) to be explained bythe contemporaneous exploitation of theStaffordshire salt field (for which there is noevidence) or, as suggested by Morris (1985, 373), bya more successful distribution from a competingsalt industry in Cheshire? Availability of the rawmaterial alone does not necessarily imply that itwas being exploited. Coastal exploitation appearsto be limited to certain areas. However, these areareas where larger-scale production has made themmore easily visible (eg Dorset, Hampshire, Essex,Sussex and Lincolnshire) and the production of salton a smaller scale may not yet have beenrecognised.

Salt derived from brine is more likely to beproduced at source due to the relative difficulty oftransporting liquids, as opposed to the solidmaterials used in salt production (fuel etc). Thusthe possibility of the transportation of brine andthe production of salt at some distance from thesource may be assumed to be unlikely

If salt may not be considered a purely subsistencecommodity, in so far as physiological needs may beeasily met in the ordinary diet (Carter 1975, 13), itslarge-scale production and distribution indicates agreater economic and social role. Of greatestimportance is perhaps its use in the preservation ofmeat (Cunliffe 1978, 300), tanning and othermanufacturing activities. The identification of thesalting of meat in the archaeological record isdifficult, if not impossible. Bradley (1975, 22) has,however, argued for the likelihood of its occurrencethrough seasonal exploitation of coastal resourcesand the presence of cattle on coastal sites. Thiscannot be applied to Droitwich in quite the sameway though salt production may well have been aseasonal activity, perhaps also related to seasonalculling. Bradley (1984, 146) has already suggestedits role in the early establishment of links, laterfollowed by other commodities on the south coast.The historically documented use of salt as a form ofcurrency (cf Alexander 1975, 82) may also suggest asimilar function in the Iron Age, though this wouldagain be very difficult to identify archaeologically.The limited areas of large-scale salt exploitation inthe Iron Age include the developing regions of

Wessex and Essex, with their contacts with theContinent, as well as to the cultural areas of theDobunni and Coritani.

Morris (1985, 373) has demonstrated that inlandsalt production and distribution occurredthroughout the latter half of the 1st millennium BCand increased in intensification, a similar patternto contemporary coastal sites. In the late Iron Agethe distribution of briquetage (Morris 1985, fig 6) israther restricted compared to that of Dobunniccoins (Sellwood 1984, fig 13.1) and conforms fairlywell to that of Malvernian pottery (Cunliffe 1982,fig 4). That the distribution in the later Iron Age isnot merely a product of the paucity of informationis indicated by the number of sites wherebriquetage is not recorded (Morris 1985, fig 6).Bearing in mind the non-cultural variables on thedistribution of salt, the following differentapproaches to explain the distribution ofbriquetage, may be pursued. Droitwich is somedistance from the developments of the southernand eastern seaboards, with their continentalcontacts. Droitwich and its salt industry however,may not have been isolated, and it is worthinvestigating further the possibility of a linkbetween what seems (albeit from only twoexcavations) to be an increase in salt production inthe late Iron Age and socio-economic developmentselsewhere. The significance of salt production tothese developments has already been suggested byBradley (1984, 146), who has identified an eastern'core area' actively exploiting resources from itsperiphery, including salt from Droitwich (Bradley1984, fig 6.5). Such is the significance of salt thatBradley (1984, 156) considers it worth adding tothe slaves, cattle, gold, silver, iron, corn andhunting dogs in Strabo's well-known list of Britishexports.

Alternatively, a more insular approach may besought, perhaps tying the distribution of salt fromDroitwich more closely to the territory of theDobunni. Salt from Droitwich (Morris 1985) andpottery from the Malvern area (Cunliffe 1978, 109)are two well developed industries. The distributionof their products indicates that they primarilysupplied the indigenous area. Rather than being onthe periphery and responding to externaldevelopments, the Dobunni themselves may beseen as developing socially and commercially inmuch the same way as the communities of thesouth and east. This was apparently withoutsubstantial contact with the continent, however thepotential of the Severn as an important route ofcontact to the south, east and even west has not yetbeen tested.

Distribution in the Roman period is not so easilyvisible. Although briquetage is recovered from earlyRoman deposits away from Droitwich, Morris(1985, 352) has suggested that this is probablyresidual and that its export ceased, though its usein production possibly continued. The largequantities of briquetage associated with early

186

Roman pottery from the Old Bowling Green,however, supports its continuity of use inp r o d u c t i o n .

The town: c 400 - c 1900, by James Bondand Alan Hunt

IntroductionThis section summarises the development ofDroitwich during the medieval and post-medievalperiods, drawing upon topographical, documentary,and excavated evidence. The later industrialdevelopment of the town is accorded a fairly brieftreatment here, mainly because it will be dealt withmore fully in a later volume. In our examination ofthe origins, development, and character ofDroitwich it will become evident that manyproblems remain to be resolved. What follows,therefore, is essentially an interim statement, andshould be judged as such. In it we have nothesitated to offer controlled speculations, to 'flykites', on the basis of the summarised evidence, inthe hope of stimulating further research.

Anglo-Saxon Droitwich: early developmentof the salt industryBy the 5th century AD Droitwich had a long historyas an industr ia l set t lement (or group o fsettlements?) specialising in the production of saltfrom the brine-springs rising from the localMercian Mudstone (Keuper Marl). Its specialfunction and economic significance was reflected inits Roman name. It is very probably to be identifiedwith the Salinae of Claudius Ptolemy's Geography,complied c AD 140-150. Ptolemy's map actuallylocates Salinae near the Wash and his descriptionplaces it within the territory of the'Catyeauchlauni' (Catuvellauni), but in neither casedo these directions accord with any known Romansalt-producing centre, and they must be regardedas errors. However, Ptolemy also describes Salinaeas 120 Roman miles from London, only ten milesmore than the actual distance between Droitwichand London. The Ravenna Cosmography, compiledsoon after AD 700, records a place-name Salinis,which can unambiguously be identified withDroitwich. The name clearly refers to the saltworkswhich have dominated the economy of the placethroughout most of its history (Rivet and Smith1979, 120, 451). It has sometimes been suggestedthat an echo of the Roman name survives in that ofthe River Salwarpe and the nearby village namedfrom it; however, here the preferred etymologyseems to involve the Old English salu, meaning'dark-coloured' or 'brownish-yellow'; and a root-word meaning 'sediment’ or 'silt’, related to the OldEnglish verb weorpan, 'to throw or twist’ (Mawerand Stenton 1927, 306-7; Ekwall 1960, 403), and

the superficial resemblance to the Latin name isalmost certainly fortuitous.

The archaeological record appears to point to afundamental contrast in the Roman period betweenthe high-status villa-type buildings at BaysMeadow (HWCM 678) on the north side of the river,enclosed within their own defences in the later partof the 3rd century, and the more extensive urbanand industrial settlement to the south. The BaysMeadow complex was destroyed by fire at the endof the 3rd century and reoccupied on a reduced andless ostentatious scale; however, the coin sequencecontinues to the end of the 4th century. South of theSalwarpe some of the sites examined suggest areduction or cessation of activity in the laterRoman period, particularly on the higher ground,but industrial activity and settlement continuedalong the valley through the late 3rd and 4thcenturies (Crickmore 1984a, 74,102-4).

As usual, however, direct archaeological ordocumentary evidence of what happened in the 5thcentury is elusive. To what extent there was anydegree of continuity between Roman Salinae andAnglo-Saxon Wich therefore remains a vexedquestion. Certainly on present evidence there islittle sign of any direct topographical continuity inthe town plan, with the single exception of thecontinuing use of the main Roman road fromWorcester to Metchley in Birmingham. Thisremark must be qualified by pointing out how littleis known of the internal street-plan of the Romansettlement south of the Salwarpe. However, the factthat at Vines Park and elsewhere in the valley lateRoman occupation levels have been found sealedbeneath considerable depths of alluvium or soildoes not encourage optimism about the widespreadcontinuity of Roman plan elements. Similarly itwould be difficult to make any claim for thecontinuity of Roman institutions or civiladministration. In the broader context of estateorganisations and boundaries, the evidence isperhaps more open, and this question will beexamined further below. The most likely area forcontinuity, or at least for early resumption offunction, is in the salt industry. Salt would havebeen such a scarce and valuable resource in themidlands that it is unlikely that any convenientsource of it would have been neglected for long.Archaeological evidence for early/middle Saxonsalt-working has been identified at Upwich(HWCM 4575); this will be described at length in alater volume.

Charters provide plentiful evidence of theimportance of the salt industry in the middle andlater Saxon periods (Hooke 1981). Unfortunately anumber of the earliest-dated Worcester chartersare now lost and are known only from 18th centurytranscripts or summaries; moreover, some of thoserepresented by early medieval copies are partly orwholly forged. The earliest documentary reference,though of uncertain authenticity, is said to haveoccurred in a lost charter by which Ring Wulfhere

187

of Mercia (AD 657-674) granted to Abbot Colman aholding of 50 manentes at Hanbury, with meadows,woods and brine-pits belonging to it (Finberg 1972,no 195; Sawyer 1968, no 1822). By a second lostcharter Wulfhere's successor Æthelred (674-704, issaid to have granted to Bishop Oftfor of Worcesterin AD 691 a shed and two furnaces belonging to thegreat brine-pit at Wic (Finberg 1972, no 197).

The first surviving document of Saxon date,which all authorities regard either as the genuineoriginal or an accurate early copy, is one of c 716-7by which King Æthelbald of Mercia (716-757)granted to the church of Worcester, in exchange forsix furnaces in two salthouses on the north side ofthe Salwarpe, a piece of ground on the opposite sideof the river at places called Lootwic and Coolbeorgfor the construction of three salthouses and sixfurnaces (Finberg 1972, no 206; Sawyer 1968, no102). Nominally of the same date is a charter fromKing Æthelbald granting to the church of Eveshama mansio in Wico emptorio, salis quem nos Saltwicvocamus free of all taxes (Finberg 1972, no 207;Sawyer 1968, no 97), but opinions on itsauthenticity are mixed; a third charter of the samedate by which Evesham Abbey claimed lands invarious places including Hamtona juxta Wiccaemptorium and Wittona (Hampton Lovett andWitton by Droitwich) is largely or wholly spurious(Finberg 1972, no 205; Sawyer 1968, no 83). A lostcharter of Æthelbald is said to have granted to thenun Eafe part of a building with two salt furnacesin vico emptorio salis (Finberg 1972, no 212;Sawyer 1968, no 1824). Another lost charter of KingCoenwulf of Mercia (796-821) reputedly grantedten houses with saltpits in Wich to the church ofWorcester (Finberg 1972, no 237).

Although the failure of some of the early chartersto survive, together with the dubious authenticityof some of those which are extant, makes theirvalue as historical evidence somewhat question-able, there is, nonetheless, independent confirm-ation of the importance of this inland source of saltaround the beginning of the 9th century Part of theHistoria Brittonum attributed to the Welsh writerNennius (fl 796-809), describes the wonders ofBritain. 'The fourth marvel consists of wells of saltwhich are found in...[the region of theHwicce]...from which wells salt is refined. Thencedivers kinds of food are salted, and....[the wells]...are not near the sea, but spring from the earth.’(Wade-Evans 1938, 116-7; Morris 1980,40).

Later charters, often of surer authenticity, alsosometimes contain more information on thetopography or the organisation of the Droitwichsaltworks. In 836 a charter of Ring Wiglaf ofMercia refers to the saltpits and lead-furnacesbelonging to the minster of Hanbury (Finberg 1972,no 247; Sawyer 1968, no 190). Two charters of theealdorman Æhelred refer to tolls on the carriage ofsalt: in 884 Æthelwulf received five manentes inHimbleton with liberty to make six boilings of salt,paying toll on cartloads only to the lord of

Himbleton and not to the ruler of Mercia or to anypublic officer (Finberg 1972, no 265; Sawyer 1968,no 219); and some time before 901 Æthelred andEthelflaeda granted to Bishop Waerfrith and thecathedral church of St Peter various dues fromWorcester, reserving to the king the toll of oneshilling on cart-loads and one penny on pack-loadsat Saltwic (Finberg 1972, no 268; Sawyer 1968, no223).

Three saltpits are mentioned by name for thefirst time in the 10th century. In 962 BishopOswald of Worcester was leasing out lands atBentley in Holt to which were attached foursaltpans at Upwich and the amount of woodland inBradanlaege (Bradley near Feckenham) required toprovide fuel for salt-making (Finberg 1972, no 282;Sawyer 1986, no 1301). In 972 the great charter ofPershore Abbey, whereby Ring Edgar (959-975)granted or restored to the newly-revived abbeymany lands and privileges, included 'a site for tenvats at Middelwic and eight at Neodemestanwic forsalt-making, and the site of two furnaces atWictune' (Finberg 1972, no 302; Sawyer 1986, no786). The balance of opinion is that the Pershorecharter is substantially authentic, but anothercharter of the same date to the monastery ofWorcester, which repeats word for word detailsrelating to the saltworks at Middlewich,Netherwich and Witton, is certainly spurious(Finberg 1972, no 303; Sawyer 1986, no 788).

Brine boiling consumed considerable quantities offuel and the supply secured from the woods ofBradley in 962 for the Upwich pit is noted above.Other woodland properties in the surrounding areaalso had significant links with Droitwich. Fivecassati at Phepson granted by king Eadwy toWorcester Priory in 956 included five salt-furnacesin Droitwich (Finberg 1972, no 280; Sawyer 1968,no 633). In 1017 Archbishop Wulfstan of Yorkgranted to his brother Ælfwig six manentes atBentley in Holt, the appurtenances of whichincluded two furnaces at Sealtwic (Finberg 1972, no339; Sawyer 1968, no 1384); the same propertywith its two salt-ovens was leased out by BishopLyfing of Worcester in 1042 (Finberg 1972, no 348;Sawyer 1968, no 1395).

Charter evidence provides a terminus ante quemfor the three main salt-producing sites. Ultimately,however, their origins and early development canonly be established archaeologically and the resultsof the Upwich excavations (HWCM 4575) are verysignificant in this respect. As we have indicatedabove, salt-working seems to begin here in theearly/middle Saxon periods, but the significance ofthis cannot be fully assessed until the results ofthis very important excavation are more widelyavailable (summarised since this was written inHurst 1991).

Many aspects of the early organisation of the saltindustry first recorded in the pre-Conquestcharters find confirmation in the Domesday survey(Round 1901; Monkhouse 1954). Here again the

188

three principal puteis (brine-pits) are mentioned byname (Upewic, Middelwic, and Helperic togetherwith five other unnamed brine-pits and more than300 salinae (saltpans or salthouses). The King'sown Droitwich property included 149 and a halfsaltpans and 21 further saltpans belonging to theroyal manors of Bromsgrove, Tardebigge andGrafton. In all, fifteen different landowners on 40separate vills in Worcestershire alone had saltpansin Droitwich; rights to salt from Droitwich werealso held by eleven manors in Herefordshire, ten inGloucestershire, six in Warwickshire, three inShropshire, two in west Oxfordshire and, mostdistant of all, Princes Risborough in Buckingham-shire. The web of saltways radiating out to thesevarious places has been reconstructed in outline byWhitley (1923) and Houghton (1929-30). In almostevery case the value of the saltpans is recorded,sometimes in money, sometimes in terms of theamount of salt rendered in mittae (one mitt wasprobably about eight bushels or a horse load).Glimpses of the equipment and processes involvedin salt-making are provided: two of the royalmanors possessing salt-rights, Bromsgrove andTardebigge, included respectively six and twoplumbi (leaden pans or vats). The church ofWorcester's manor at Northwick possessed inDroitwich a fabrica plumbi (presumably aleadworks for making or repairing such vats). Fourfurni (furnaces) in Droitwich in 1066 rendered 60sand 100 mitts of salt. Three salinarii (salt-workers ) be longed to the royal manor o fBromsgrove. There are several references to hocci,variously translated as 'salt-pit’ or 'mound or shedfor drying salt’, though the meaning remainsobscure. There are also several mentions of fuelsupply. The saltworkers belonging to Bromsgroveare said to have been given 300 cartloads of wood inthe time of Edward the Confessor for the 300 mittsof salt they produced. Northwick manor had inDroitwich one saltpan rendering 100 mitts of saltfor 100 cartloads of wood. The Bishop of Worcesterhad woodland in Fladbury supplying fuel for thesaltworks. Finally, Westminster Abbey's manor ofHussingtree rendered annually 100 cartloads ofwood.

Droitwich was not in 1086 a royal manor, but theroyal holding in the saltworks was considerable,amounting to more than half the total number ofsaltpans recorded. Fifty-one and a half saltpans aresaid to have been held before the Conquest by EarlEdwin and these may represent a d irectinheritance from the earlier Mercian and Hwiccankings. Hooke (1985, 123) has pointed out that mostof the Worcestershire estates possessing Domesdaysaltpans, and in particular all of those possessing alarge number, such as Wychbold (twenty-sixsalinae), Bromsgrove (thirteen salinae), Alvechurch(eight salinae), Tardebigge (seven salinae),Hampton Lovett (seven salinae) and Salwarpe (sixand five salinae), lay in the north-western part ofthe county. She suggests that this provides

evidence for some early territorial link betweenthese estates and Droitwich, very probably due toearly royal or princely ownership within a commonland unit. The identification of such a land unit andof the key focal and central places within it are anessential preliminary to the investigation of theemergence of Droitwich as a town in thepre-Conquest period.

Anglo-Saxon Droitwich: urban originsIn 1976 Martin Biddle, recognising that definitionsof towns based on their legal status as boroughswere inapplicable before the Norman Conquest,sought clarification of what constituted a town inthe Anglo-Saxon period. He adopted a pragmaticapproach by listing a dozen criteria, the possessionof one or more of which he felt might indicate urbanstatus: defences, a planned street system, markets,a mint, a legal autonomy, a role as a central place,a relatively large and densely-concentratedpopulation, a diversified economic base, plots andhouses of urban type, social differentiation,complex religious organisation and a judicial centre(Biddle 1976). Some of Biddle's criteria areconcerned with the practical functions of towns,some with their administrative status and somewith their physical appearance on the ground. Notall of these criteria would have been present in alltowns and not all of them were necessarilyimportant at the same time. More significantly, notall of them need necessarily have operated fromexactly the same place. Indeed, their needs weresometimes recognisably in conflict. The primedesideratum of the market function, for example, ismaximum accessibility, leading to a preference foropen sites where routes can converge unhinderedfrom all directions. By contrast, the need of thedefensive function is precisely the reverse, withaccess needing to be restricted and controlled, oftenby the choice of hilltop or promontory sites. In thepre-urban context the dispersal of central-placefunctions among the two or more different locationswithin a given territory is characteristic (cf severalof the papers in Grant 1986). To some extent thesuccessful emergence of a town depends upon thepermanent coming-together of several of thosefunctions within a single location.

Leaving aside those of Biddle's criteria which areconcerned primarily with size and physical layoutand concentrating upon those central-placefunct ions which are l ike ly to have somerecognisable topographical expression, we canselect six functions which are perhaps of particularimportance:

i Estate centres: places from which a large area ofland was exploited for its economic resources.The richer or the more extensive the estate, thehigher the social status of its owner is likely tobe, and the more likely the centre of the estate

189

is to be represented by high-status buildings,such as a palace.

ii Administrative and judicial centres: places fromwhich a large area of land could beadministered and judgement of disputespronounced. In the Anglo-Saxon period thehundred was the most significant territorialunit in this respect, with the hundredmeeting-place as its focal point.

iii Ecclesiastical centres: places from whichreligious services and pastoral care could beexercised. At sub-diocesan level in theAnglo-Saxon period the key component was theminster parochia with the minster church at itscentre.

iv Military centres: places exercising a strategicdefensive role and serving as local refuges,represented in the Anglo-Saxon period by thenetwork of burhs.

v Industrial centres: places where raw materialsare exploited or processed by specialistproducers for wider distribution. The saltindustry of Droitwich is a somewhat singularexample of this function. The minting ofcoinage, though of much more widespreadoccurrence, was strictly controlled by the crown,and by the late Saxon period the distribution ofmints was closely linked with that of theemergent boroughs.

vi Commercial centres: any of the above fields ofoperation will tend to bring together numbers ofmilitary or religious personnel, bureaucrats andartisans, people who are not themselvesprimary producers; so a need developed to bringin foodstuffs and raw materials and to establisha mechanism for the exchange of goods throughmarkets or fairs.

Before these areas of activity can be examinedindividually, we need to establish the territorialframework within which they operated. It willimmediately be apparent that different central-place functions may serve somewhat differenthinterlands, where these can be defined. However,in the case of Droitwich, a peculiar significanceseems to be attached to the territory whichconstituted its rural deanery in the Middle Ages.Although the bounds of the WorcestershireDeaneries cannot be defined precisely before 1291,there is some evidence for their existence as unitsof ecclesiastical administration in the early 11thcentury, and the general tendency of the churchtowards conservatism raises the possibility that thedeaneries may be of much earlier origin, with theirbounds remaining substantially stable over a longperiod (Bond 1988, 128-30). Della Hooke has

underlined the probable antiquity of the Droitwichdeanery as a territorial unit, pointing to its fairlycompact outline and the fact that its bounds mostlyfollow clear topographical features, such as theHadley Brook in the west, the Dean Brook andSeeley Brook in the south, the River Cole in theeast and the River Rea in the north (Hooke 1985,66). Moreover, the deanery bounds coincide to aremarkable degree with those of a group ofDomesday hundreds, comprising the entirehundred of Came, the whole of the detachedsouthern portion of Clent hundred, the Hanburyportion of Esch hundred and a couple of exclaves ofPershore hundred (this close relationship wasdestroyed by the reorganisation which resulted inthe creation of Halfshire hundred around the mid12th century). Even more significantly, the patternof later manorial attachments and ecclesiasticaldependences emphasises the number of interlinkedestates which had an overall cohesion within thedeanery boundary. It is tempting to see theterritory fossilised by the later deanery as anAnglo-Saxon folk-area, with its heartland centredon the richer agricultural soils of the SalwarpeValley, complemented by a less developed northernarea spanning the higher plateaux beyondBromsgrove (Hooke 1986, 88-9).

Within a large multiple estate of this characterthere will inevitably be a multiplicity ofsettlements, at least some of which developedtendencies towards specialization from an earlyperiod. We can now return to the variouscentral-place functions identified above and seehow they operate within the territory representedby the later deanery.

i Estate centre: Round's map of Domesdayownership shows that the land around theheadstreams of the Salwarpe and thewatershed to the north represented the biggestconcentration of vills in royal ownership in thecounty (Round 1901, 253). The most importantof these in 1086 was Bromsgrove with itseighteen berewicks and its other dependenciesof Grafton, Cooksey, Chadwick and Willingwick,all held before the Conquest by Earl Edwin, aswere the royal holdings in the Droitwichsaltworks already noted. The other royal vill,Tardebigge, had belonged to Edward theConfessor before the Conquest. Theseproperties seem to represent the remnants of alarge royal estate, fragmented by 1086. The siteof the palace associated with this estateappears to have been at Wychbold, fourkilometres north-east of Droitwich. A charter ofAD 692 by which ten manentes at Wicbold weregranted to the church of Worcester (Finberg1972, no 199; Sawyer 1968, no 75) is regardedby some authorities as substantially genuine(John 1964, 74-6), but by the 9th century thisproperty was back in royal hands. Charters

190

ii

iii

were signed here by King Coenwulf of Mercia in815 and by Wiglaf of Mercia in 831 and weresaid to have been written in 'the royal vill'. The‘-bold’ element often translated merely as'building’ may imply a building or hall of arather super ior k ind , in fact a pa lace(Campbell-Curtis 1993, 59; Hooke 1986, 89).The site of the Wychbold palace has not yetbeen located archaeologically and this is amajor target for future research.

Administrative and judicial centre: of theDomesday hundred of Came, the whole of whichlies within the territory under discussion, littleis known other than its extent. The origin of thename and the site of its meeting-place are bothlost. The same can be said for the hundred ofEsch. Droitwich itself lay within the southernportion of Clent hundred in 1086, but Clent, thesite of the hundred meeting-place, lay in thenorthern portion outside the Droitwich deaneryboundary. The two detached portions ofPershore hundred had both belonged toPershore Abbey since the 10th century. WhenHalfshire hundred was created in the 12thcentury it belonged to the king, and for a timein the 13th century was known as the Hundredof Wych, but there is nothing to suggest thatany administrative or judicial function wascarried out from or near Droitwich in theAnglo-Saxon period.

Ecclesiastical centre: in the Middle Ages therewere two churches in Droitwich itself inaddition to two in Witton and the church ofDodderhill on the fringes of the town. Multiplechurch provision, related to fragmentedownership, is a characteristic of pre-Conquesttowns. In a recent general survey of Normanchurches in Worcestershire a tentative claimwas made for St Andrew's (HWCM 607) as aminster church on the basis of two Domesdaypriests on the Abbot of Westminster's demesneholding one hide which had never paid geld(Bond 1988, 123), but the evidence for this is farfrom conclusive. The dominant topographicalposition of St Augustine's church (HWCM 606)in Dodderhill on the bluff immediately north ofthe town, its location within the south-eastcorner of the Roman fort on the extrememargins of a large parish and its cruciform planin the Norman period provide more evocativehints of an early ecclesiastical centre. Here,however, the earliest surviving fabric accordswell with the date of the first recordedinstitution in 1178; and while the likelihoodthat this represents a reconstruction of an olderbuilding cannot be discarded, there is nothingin the later records to suggest that Dodderhillhad any special significance in thepre-Conquest period. Unfortunately excavationsin the eastern part of Dodderhill churchyard in

iv

v

1977 shed little if any light on the origins ofthis incongruously- placed church (Hurst perscomm; HWCM 603). On present evidence thecase for Droitwich or Dodderhill as the centre ofan early minster parochia is not a strong one.There can be little doubt that the principalminster in the southern part of the territorystood six kilometres to the east at Hanbury(HWCM 8151, where the present church standsin a prominent position within an Iron Agehillfort, and where a minster church isunambiguously documented in Wiglaf's charterof 836 (Finberg 1972, no 247; Sawyer 1968, no190). The predilection of early minsters forreoccupying prehistoric or Roman sites seemsnot infrequently to override the convenience ofproximity to the royal vills with which theywere linked, and the distance between Hanburyand Wychbold finds parallels elsewhere (Blair1988,40-6). The church of Bromsgrove (HWCM1365), rebuilt on a cruciform plan in the 12thcentury, and the centre of a large medievalparish with five dependent chapels, canperhaps be seen as a complementary minsterserving the northern part of the territory.

Military centre: two defensive strong-pointshave already been mentioned, the hillfort atHanbury (HWCM 815) and the Roman fort atDodderhill (HWCM 603), and the presence ofchurches within them both hints at some sort ofreoccupation in the post-Roman period. Bothchurches are now comparatively isolated andunrelated to the present nucleations ofsettlement, and any settlement which did takeplace around them has not been sustained,either because of their comparative inaccess-ibility or because they were superseded in theirdefensive role by another centre elsewhere inthe territory. There is a possible candidate sixkilometres to the north of Hanbury. In 910Ethelflaeda is recorded as building a burh at aplace called Bremesburh immediately after theDanish defeat at Tettenhall (Whitelock 1955,192). Bremesburh is not securely located, butSlater (1982, 180) has suggested anidentification with Bromsgrove, already a royalestate, only 30 kilometres distant fromTettenhall, containing the same place-nameprefix, and occupying an important strategicposition on the Roman road from EnglishMercia into Danish Mercia. No trace of any10th century fortification has yet been detectedin Bromsgrove, but the absence of any laterreferences to the burh suggest that it did notretain its military importance for very long. Thesite was, however, better suited to commercialgrowth, and a market was established inBromsgrove in 1200, followed soon after by anew borough foundation.

Industrial centre: the presence of the brinesprings gave Droitwich a peculiar industrial

191

function which transcended merely local needs,though the concentration of salt privilegeswithin the territory under discussion hasalready been mentioned. An additional specialfunction is represented by the presence of amint in the time of Edward the Confessor(Stewart and Blunt 1978).

vi Commercial centre: the exceptional industrialcomponent within Droitwich's population canonly have been supported by some system ofexchange or marketing. The description ofDroitwich as emptorium (place of sale) in threeof the charters claimed to be of 8th century dateis, therefore, of great interest. One of thesecharters is lost, another is certainly spurious,but the third (Finberg 1972, no 207; Sawyer1968, no 97) is possibly authentic, at least inpart. Even the forged charter implies thatDroitwich was regarded as a trading-place atthe time when the forgery was made, though itdid not possess a chartered market until as lateas 1215. The very place-name may carry asimilar implication. In the earliest sourcesDroitwich is either Saltwic, or, more frequently,merely Wic. The prefix 'Droit' is not recordedbefore the 14th century and this is most likelyto be the middle English word meaning 'dirty',reflecting either the low-lying and muddysituation of the town or the smoke from thesaltworks, or both. The later forms of the nameprobably represent conscious attempts todisguise these unpleasant associations (Mawerand Stenton 1927, 285-7). The element wicremained in use over a long period of time, andlike many other place-name elements it tendedto change its meaning according to the periodand context of its use. In some instances itseems to mean little more than 'settlement’, inother cases more specifically 'dairy farm’; butone of its early meanings seems to be that of aplace fulfilling a special economic function as atrading-centre. Droitwich may not have rivalledother great wics or trading emporia of the 7thand 8th centuries such as Eoferwic (York),Hamwic (Southampton), Ipswich or Sandwich,which provided facilities for centralisedregional exchange, particularly in prestigegoods; but the demand for salt gave it a specialimportance of its own.

The significance of the wic is underlined by thenumber of neighbouring place-names which containthe same element, including the three brine-pits ofUpwich, Middlewich, and Netherwich, theunidentified Lootwic and Coolbeorg of the 716-7charter (which may be somewhere in Stoke Prior,Finburg 1972, no 206) and possibly also theHelperic of the Domesday survey (identifiable withHelpridge Farm, now called Old Ridgeway Farm,just above Brinepits Farm in Dodderhill (Mawer

and Stenton 1927, 282). Two other significantplaces are named in relation to it. Wychbold, the'building or palace by the wic' is on higher groundto the north-east at a decent distance from theindustrial centre. Witton, the 'enclosure or farm bythe wic ' , was presumably the agriculturalsettlement. There is an interesting parallel herewith the salt-working town of Northwich inCheshire, where the ancient parish church lay inthe adjoining settlement of Witton (Mawer andStenton 1927, 282, 285-6, 289).

Any of the central-place functions describedabove, or any combination of them, could in theoryhave prompted the beginnings of urban growth. Inthe particular case under discussion, however, theearly estate centre (the palace of Wychbold), thevarious hundred centres and defensive locationsand the principal ecclesiastical centre (the minsterof Hanbury) all failed to serve as pre-urban nuclei.It was primarily the industrial function, andfollowing upon that the secondary commercialfunction, which determined the locality upon whichthe town was to arise.

Direct archaeological evidence for the characterof the Anglo-Saxon settlement underlying themodern town remains slight. At Friar Street(HWCM 605) a few features, stratified between lateRoman and 11th and 12th century features,contained sparse and abraded Roman sherds, andone yielded grass-tempered pottery (P3ii). Thiswould seem to imply that in the early and middleSaxon periods this formerly settled area reverted toagricultural use, though whether this was due tosettlement shrinkage or settlement shift it isimpossible to say at present. Further evidencecomes from observation and salvage excavation byFreezer in 1974 at the Old Police Station (HWCM601). Here part of a curvilinear ditched enclosurewas traced, the fill of which also contained a fewgrass-tempered sherds. The plan of the enclosureand the size of the ditch seemed inappropriate for afield boundary, and this feature might beinterpreted as a small, short-lived farmsteadenclosure. Whether it was an isolated site or part ofa more extensive pattern of dispersed settlementwe do not know at present, but furtherarchaeological evaluation of the higher ground onboth sides of the Salwarpe valley might shed lighton this problem. Salt extraction from theearly/middle Saxon period onwards is clearlyattested by evidence from the Upwich excavation(HWCM 4575). Trading patterns are suggested bythe presence of Stamford, St Neots-type, Cotswold,and Stafford-type wares in the Friar Streetexcavation (Chapter 20).

The programme of excavations to date has notproduced any ev idence for se t t lement o fdistinctively urban character at Droitwich beforethe Norman Conquest, despite the documentaryindications of significant industrial and commercialgrowth. What is clear, however, is that the originsof the town cannot be understood in isolation from

192

its context. Throughout the pre-Conquest period weneed to be aware of other, complementary anddirectly linked central-place functions operatingwithin the same territorial unit but based indifferent centres. The pace of emergence of thetown is likely to be very closely related to itssuccess in acquiring or superseding thosecentral-place functions which were originally basedelsewhere.

Medieval Droitwich (Fig 120)The urban character of Droitwich becomes moresecurely established after the Norman Conquest,both from written sources which establish its legalstatus as a borough and its economic status as amarket centre, and from archaeological andtopographical sources which reveal a distinctivelyurban plan and buildings.

The Domesday survey indicates something of thesize and economic significance of Droitwich by thelate 11th century. It comprised ten hides, of whichtwo and a half were in Witton. While it is notnamed as a burgus or as a royal manor, a total of115 burgesses and 35 houses are recorded(compared with only seven burgesses and 131houses, of which five were waste, in Worcester).The king had only eleven houses, the bulk of hisrevenue coming from his substantial holding in thesalt industry. The abbey of St Denis in Paris hadeighteen burgesses rendering 4s 6d (undoubtedlyacquired through its dependent priory atDeerhurst), Westminster Abbey had 31 burgessesrendering 15s 8d, St Guthlac's Priory in Herefordhad nine burgesses rendering 30s, Roger de Lacyhad eleven burgesses with saltpans rendering 32mitts of salt and Herald, son of Earl Ralf ofHereford, had 20 burgesses with saltpansrendering 50 mitts of salt. In addition there were26 contributory burgesses and 24 houses attachedor belonging to surrounding settlements andestates (Round 1901,268; Monkhouse 1954, 262-3).The fluctuating economic fortunes of the medievaltown are inevitably linked very closely with the saltindustry, and these aspects will be dealt with atgreater length in a later volume. Our presentpurpose is to outline what we know of the medievalurban topography.

The borough status of Droitwich, implied by thenumerous Domesday burgesses, is confirmed in thePipe Roll of 1155-6, when the town was referred toas a burgus paying an aid of 100s. Consolidation ofthis status came in 1215 when Ring John granted acharter to the burgesses giving them the right tohold the town in fee-farm, including the king's ownsalt-dues, (Hunter 1844, 63) and also giving orconfirming the right to a market and fair (Ballard1913, 115, 124, 175, 190, 216, 231; Bateson 1913,734; Beresford and Finberg 1973, 182). This,confirmed on several occasions, remained thegoverning charter of the town up to the 16th

century. The bounds of the borough are described ina detailed perambulation of 1456 (quoted in full inBateson 1913, 79-80).

The topographical expression of borough status isthe presence of burgage tenements. Slater (1982,192) has made the point that in the west midlandsgenerally shallow burgages, ie those with alength/breadth ratio of less than 6:1 and an overalllength general ly less than 46m, tend topredominate. He comments further that theburgages in the central areas of towns of pre-Conquest origin, like Droitwich, Tamworth andWarwick, tend to be especially broad, presumablybecause lack of demand produces little mediationand may encourage the amalgamation of someplots. Unfortunately the burgage pattern inDroitwich has been badly disrupted by moderndevelopment. There are signs of shallow burgages,especially on the north side of High Street,continuing round to the west side of Queen Streetand also on the south side of High Street whereTower Hill serves as a back lane. The burgagepattern appears far from uniform but metricalanalysis is needed. There are also indications ofburgages in Friar Street, but here the pattern iseven more vestigial.

John's charter of 1215 granted to the burgessesan annual fair of eight days beginning on 9th Mayand a market. The dates of the fair were altered ona number of subsequent occasions (Bateon 1913,78-9). The town plan, perhaps significantly,provides little room for the accommodation of themarket, unlike some of the post-Conquest plannedtowns of the region. Two market-places, notnecessarily in contemporary use, can be identified.The older market-place is likely to be representedby the small triangular space north of St Andrew’schurch, where High Street, Friar Street, and StAndrew's Street meet. This is almost certainly thesite referred to by Leland, who tells us that 'Thereis a meane churche in the chefe strete, and in thetowne is once a weke a metely celebrate market’(Smith 1964, ii, 92). Slater (1982, 188-9) has notedthat triangular market-places are especiallycharacteristic of the post-Conquest towns and thosewhich have developed organically from villages,and the proximity of St Andrew’s church suggests apossible link between early informal Sundaytrading in the churchyard and the later formalestablishment of the chartered market. The verylimited space on this site offered little scope formarket encroachment, such a familiar feature ofthe topography of may other medieval towns.However, an exchequer-house, first recorded in1327, was rebuilt in timber in 1581, and a range ofbutcher's shambles of seven arches was added to itseast end in 1628. The whole structure was sweptaway shortly after its description by Prattinton in1825 and the present town hall was built on itssite, on the corner of St Andrew's Street and FriarStreet (Bateson 1913, 80-l; Cooper 1934; HWCM652). A cross is also mentioned in 1629. The lack of

193

Figure 120 Medieval Droitwich

194

room in the St Andrew's market-place may alsohave led to stalls being erected on other sites. Nash(1781, 305) tells us that there was, before his time,a market-place 'near the George Inn'. The exact siteof this inn cannot be identified, but the junctionbetween Hanbury Street and Queen Street on themain Worcester-Bromsgrove road is known as StGeorges Square and this probably identified thelocation of this second market-place. On the face ofit this seems a promising site for commercialactivities, at a strategic junction of routewayswhich had been important from the Roman periodonwards. However, it is difficult to escape thefeeling from the small size of both market placesthat the markets played a comparatively small parton the economic life of a town unusually dominatedby industrial interests.

Much of the rest of the street pattern of the lowertown can be dated to the medieval period (Fig 120).High Street, Friar Street, St Andrew's Street,Winnetts Lane, Tower Hill, Ricketts Lane, (alsocalled Bagbridge Street) and Queen Street (alsocalled Gosford Street) all existed in the MiddleAges. Some of the documented street-names do notsurvive, but their general position is indicated fromcontemporary records. La Ruyenestret, recorded in1344-5 (Cat Ancient Deeds III (19001,390, noc3621)), appears to be identical with Rafunestreet(Cal Chart R 226-57, p102 1229) which ran fromSt Mary's Witton to Luthbridge and so toLetherenebruge, ie Leather Bridge. Agrant of a voidspace between a tenement and shop in Barestrete in1387-8 describes the site as opposite thechurchyard of St Andrew (Cat Ancient Deeds VI(1915), p234, no C5529), and since the whole of thechurchyard lies south of the church this must be analternative name for St Andrew's Street. VallanceEnd was probably equivalent to or near QueenStreet. Another documented medieval street,Wavenham Lane, is so far unlolocated (Bateson 1913,80).

Evidence for town defences is very tenuous. Nomurgage grants are recorded, and there is noarchaeological or topographical evidence thatDroitwich was ever surrounded by a wall. However,like many other small towns it seems to have haddefences of a more minor nature, intended more todefine the bounds of the town and control trafficcoming into it than to serve any truly militarypurpose (cf Jones and Bond 1987, 100-2). Thestreet called Barestrete in 1387-8 is earlier, in1336, called la Barrestret (Cat Ancient Deeds 1(1890), p415, no C306), clearly taking its namefrom one of the gates. An account of 1622 mentionsthe 'filling of the pit at Worcester gate’ and Bateson(1913, 79) concludes that a 'ditch and tollgates wereprobably its sole defences'. The lack of anytopographical evidence for any continuousperimeter suggests that any ditch which did existcan only have been a slight and possibly incompletefeature.

Droitwich had several churches. The Domesdaysurvey mentions two priests of the WestminsterAbbey holding in Droitwich (Round 1901, 302), andin view of their endowment with one hide it ispossible that we see here a residue of a formerminster (Bond 1988, 133). St Andrew's seems tohave been the principal parish church of the town,standing in a prominent, if cramped centralposition. Its advowson was held by DeerhurstPriory apparently from before the Conquest(Bateson 1913, 87). The church of St Nicholas(HWCM 255), which stood at the junction of FriarStreet and Winnetts Lane appears to haveoriginated as a chapel-of-ease. It is first recorded inc 1170, when it was granted to the Cistercian nunsof Westwood by Count Matthew of Boulogne, whohad probably held it as an appurtenance of hismanor of Bampton, one of the Oxfordshire villswhich had salt rights (Houghton 1919, 62). After1291 it was constituted as a rectory andsubsequently served as the parish church for thewest end of the town, including Friar Street,Winnetts Lane and Ombersley Street, leaving StAndrew's to serve the central and eastern parts,especially High Street, St Andrew's Street and theWorcester Road. Both churches were damaged inthe fire of 1297 and St Andrew's shows evidence ofsubstantial rebuilding after that date, though thetower and fragments of the nave and chancelsurvive from the early 13th century (Bateson 1913,82-4). St Nicholas's church fell into disuse after theCivil War, though its ruins survived into the early19th century. At some stage one of its windows wasremoved and reused in the Cock Inn, a mid 17thcentury house on the north side of Friar Street(HWCM 268). The ruins were cleared, and the siteredeveloped, by 1884 (OS 1:2500, 1 edn).

The parish church of St Peter-de-Witton (HWCM253) still stands on rising ground to the south-eastof the town in a somewhat isolated position,perhaps marking the original nucleus of theagricultural settlement. The present building datesfrom the early 12th century. St Peter's parishextended northwards to take in Hanbury Streetand the bridge area of Droitwich and on the bridgeit had a dependent chapel (HWCM 698). Lelandrecords that he saw 'a bridge of four arches of stoneover the broke that rennithe by the Wiche, and atthe hither end of this bridge was a fayre new chapleof tymbar' (Smith 1964, i i , 94). Habingtonmentions ' the Chappell on the Brydge, throughewhich passe the (a thinge rarely seene) the Kinge'shighwaye (Amphlett 1895, i, 485), a bizarre featureconfirmed by Nash (1781-2, 329), who describeshow 'the public road with horses and carts passedthrough the chapel, the congregation sitting on oneside of the road, the priest on the other’. Thiscurious structure was pulled down in 1763. Thelast of the Droitwich churches was StMary-next-Witton (HWCM 257), which stood on theeastern side of the Worcester road, beyond thesouthern end of the town, in an area which was

195

perhaps affected by contraction of settlement. Itwas recorded in c 1200, but was in poor repair by1349. In 1427-8 the parish of St Mary receivedexemption from the subsidy payment, as there werethen less than ten inhabitants (Feudal Aids,1281-1431, Vol V (1908), p315), and the church wassubsequently demolished, the parish being unitedwith St Andrew's in 1662 (Bateson 1913, 87-8). StAugustine's church in Dodderhill, technicallyoutside the town though dominating it visually, hasalready been described.

Droitwich was never a monastic centre, but therewere two small religious foundations. The earlier ofthese was the Hospital of St Mary (HWCM 689),which stood on the north side of the Salwarpeabove the east end of Vines Lane, on a site now cutby the railway. This was founded in 1285 byWilliam Dover, rector of Dodderhill, who endowed itwith a bullary of salt, half a carucate of land andrents worth 26s 4d in Wych and Witton, landsgranted to him for the purpose by St Peter's AbbeyGloucester. It was placed under the supervision ofthe prior and convent of Worcester (Locke 1906,179-80). It was suppressed late in 1535 or early inthe following year by its own patrons: a detail of'articles to be proved against the prior and conventof Worcester' included the accusation 'That theysuppressed the hospital of Doverhill [sic] inDroitwich, Worc., without licence of the king, andexpelled the poor people, to their utterdestruction… and caused the hospital to be pulleddown and the building materials sold to their ownuse... [and that1 they trouble Sir Ric. Cornewall,clerk of the said hospital, and hold the lands of thesame by intrusion’ (L and P Foreign and Domestic,Henry VIII, Vol XI, p570, no 1429).

In 1331 Thomas Alleyne of Wych granted a plot ofland 300ft square for a foundation of Austin Friars(Cal Pat Rolls 1330-34, 44). A plan in thePrattinton manuscripts places the site in the Vineson the southern side of the river (Bateson 1913,82).The precinct was extended on at least twooccasions, in 1343 when John, son of WilliamDragoun, granted a plot 200ft long by 60ft broad forthe enlargement of the friar's dwelling and in 1351when John Bush and William Mercer, chaplains,granted plots five acres in extent for the furtherenlargement of the friary (Cal Pat Rolls, 1343-5,26; ibid, 1350-4, 188). All three gifts wereconfirmed in 1385 (ibid, 1385-9, 93). A hermitagewas built in 1388 by Thomas Beauchamp, Earl ofWarwick, on the south side of the friary church forBrother Henry de Stokebrugge (Nash 1781-2, i,332; Clay 1914, 77, 81-2). The 1531 Visitationreported to Cromwell on the great poverty of thehouse, with so many of its possessions sold that itwas only able to support one friar, and the premisesrequired great expenditure to be made fit forhabitation (Little 1906, 173-5).

No domestic buildings are known to survive fromthe early Middle Ages, for which the extensive fireof 1297 may be partly to blame. However, by c 1500

there were a number of substantial merchants'houses in Friar Street, of which the sole survivor isPriory House (HWCM 609), on the southern side ofthe street, almost opposite the excavation reportedhere. The solar wing of this timber-framed housewith its external stone stack was begun in the 15thcentury and it was extended or partly rebuilt sometwo centuries later. Another prominent latemedieval and 16th century house, Steynor's Court,stood immediately west of the excavated site. Itwas demolished in the 19th century, but earlyphotographs of it survive. The finest of all the FriarStreet houses was Chorley House (HWCM 292),with a hall of late 14th century date flanked byadditional two-storey bays at either end and sidewings to the rear. Charles (1967, 55-9) hasdescribed the elaborate form of the hall with itscusped wind-braces and monumental arcade as toolavish for a normal town house, but his suggestionthat it may be the house built in or just before 1388by Thomas Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick and givento the Austin Friars seems equally unlikely, sincethis reference is to a anchorite's cell (see above).Regrettably this fine building was demolished in1962. The only house of comparable status in HighStreet is no 38 (HWCM 632), known as Stephen's,with a timber-framed solar dating from c 1400 anda hall (now in separate occupation) rebuilt in the16th century (Charles 1967, 49-51).

What can be concluded about the character andshape of Droitwich in the Middle Ages? There areno medieval maps of the town and the earliestsurvey to show any sort of topographical detail isthe thumbnail sketch in John Ogilby's depiction ofthe road from Hereford to Leicester in hisBritannia, published in 1675. The central line ofOgilby's plan is the old Roman road from Worcesterto Bromsgrove, crossing the Salwarpe by the 'Woodbridg', but some of the other streets are clearlyrecognisable. The main axis of the town was clearlyalong High Street and Friar Street, while StAndrew's Street, Queen Street and Hanbury Streetare also depicted as built up on both sides. IfOgilby's sketch is reliable, there has been somecontraction since that date, since both the southside of Hanbury Street and the east side of QueenStreet are now empty.

The High Street/Friar Street axis runs along thecontour on the southern side of the Salwarpe valley,At the junction of these two streets was asignificant focus of routeways and activities: thecrossroads formed by St Andrew's Street andRicketts Lane (formerly Bagbridge Lane, givingaccess to a minor crossing over the Salwarpe), theparish church of St Andrew, and the mainmarket-place. Moreover, at this junction there is amarked kink in the alignment of High Street andFriar Street. On these grounds it is fair to concludethat they were not laid out in one single operation.It can be suggested that High Street appeared first,since it is directly connected to the Roman road andthe focus of early routes in the St Georges Square

196

area. A primary town plan, based on the HighStreet alignment, with burgage plots on either side,delimited at each end by significant road junctionsand at one if not both ends by market-places, wouldhave some topographical unity and integrity. Onlyone site has been excavated directly on High Street(HWCM 4167), by Peacock in the late 1960s andlater by Hillelson in 1984. At this site medievalstructures and deposits had been almost entirelyremoved by later developments (Hillelson 1985).Another excavation just off High Street at GurneysLane (Woodiwiss 1983; HWCM 4099) demonstratedthat a very large area has been affected bysubsidence and that any surviving medieval orearlier deposits exist only at a great depth. Furtherexcavation opportunities may be offered bypiecemeal developments and should be exploitedwherever practicable.

Friar Street makes no topographical sense as aprimary plan element, and if it is accepted as asecondary morphological unit within the town, weneed to consider its dating and character. In theFriar Street excavation several post-Roman ploughfurrows (P3ii) ran at right angles to the medievaland later street alignment. This was in markedcontrast to features of the early to mid Romanperiods (P2 and P3i) which lay below the metalledmedieval road at an acute angle to its alignment.We can speculate that in the post-Roman periodfields were laid out in this area, their boundariesaligned with the contours of the valley, and thattheir orientation influenced the planningframework when urban development extended intothis area. The foundation of St Nicholas's church inthe 12th century at the west end of Friar Street,near the limits of the built-up area, perhapsprovides a terminus ante quem for thisdevelopment. The first substantial medieval phaseof occupation recorded in the Friar Streetexcavation was dated to the later Saxo-Normanperiod, probably the later 11th or early 12thcentury, and consisted of a tannery, a noxiousindustry often banished to the urban fringes (P4ii).Since it respected the street alignment, thistannery seems likely to have appeared after theline of Friar Street had made its appearance.Subsequent occupation (P5i and P5ii, 12th andearly 13th centuries) saw the building of housesalong the street: initially at least one poor dwelling,succeeded by a more prestigious structure. It ispossible, then, that St Nicholas's church was builtto serve a residential and business developmentwhich had expanded over a former urban-fringeindustrial area in the 12th century.

After the tannery, probably of later 11th or early12th century date, was swept away to make roomfor residential development, the scale andcharacter of the succeeding domestic occupationchanged considerably. A very humble house ofphase 5i was replaced by a large, possiblypartly-ditched enclosure, presumably surroundingand draining a substantial building or complex of

buildings in the early 13th century (P5ii). Thisenclosure in turn was subdivided later in the 13thcentury and in its western division a house,probably timber-framed, was built. This latterhouse, probably of at least middling status, wasapparently destroyed by fire in the later 13thcentury. Whether this fire can be linked with thewidespread documented fire of 1297 is a matter forspeculation. After the fire which terminated phase5ii, and possibly after an intervening lapse of time,there was a resumption of residential orcommercial rebuilding which is broadly datedwithin the 13th or 14th centuries (P6), with afurther rebuilding in the 15th to 16th centuries(P7). Thus by the later 16th century Friar Streetwas occupied by the substantial merchants’ housesdescribed above.

The brine-pits along the Salwarpe valleycontinued to provide the principal economic base ofDroitwich throughout the Middle Ages. However, in1215 Ring John's charter granted the brine-pits tothe burgesses of the town and for the next 480years the salt industry remainedjealously-guarded borough monopoly (Berry 1957;By 1300 Droitwich was a flourishing industrialtown with municipal government and a charteredmarket. Hilton (1966, 176) has pointed out thatmuch wealth was to be gained there, for theburgesses had to pay an annual fee farm of £100 tothe exchequer for their privileges, compared withthe £30 paid by Worcester. However, the burgessesstranglehold over the salt industry significantlyinhibited the expansion of the town. Surnames ofplace-name origin, which provide some index ofrecent immigration, represent only ten percent ofthe total number of taxpayers’ names in Droitwichcompared with about forty percent in the boomtown of Stratford-on-Avon (Hilton 1966, 184).

Although Droitwich was never a large town, itnonetheless possessed a significant range of urbanequipment. Most importantly, it was a corporateborough with a regular market on an importantroute. It lacked a castle or major monasticinstitution, reflecting the fact that it was not amajor estate centre or ecclesiastical focus beforethe Conquest; but it had several smaller parishchurches and two minor foundations of monasticcharacter. It remains exceptional in its economiccharacter through the domination of the saltindustry, its strength in so far as it was uniquelyable to provide a commodity in much demand, butits weakness in that control of the industry could soeasily fall into the restrictive hands of a monopoly.

The post-medieval town (Fig 121)

Following Ogilby, the earliest large-scale map ofDroitwich, dating from the 17th century (HWRO8000/s497.33; reproduced in Crickmore 1984b, fig5) shows the urban area still centred on the HighStreet/Friar Street axis, apparently very little

197

Figure 121 Post-medieval Droitwich

198

changed from its medieval extent. The ancientbrine-pits of Upwich and Netherwich are shown inthe valley bottom, though Middlewich is omitted; atthis period the Salwarpe took a slightly morecircuitous course around the southern side of theUpwich pit, where it was crossed by Bagbridge (atthe end of what is now Ricketts Lane) and byNewbridge (by the former junction of LechmooresLane, now Gurney’s Lane and Frog Lane, later PostOffice Lane). Subsequently, in 1768-70, the riverwas straightened and now passes north of the site.Both pits are shown surrounded by numerous smallbuildings, which may be boiling-houses.

In the second quarter of the 16th century Lelandhad described the three salt springs and furnaces,which he estimated to be 400 in number, in somedetail, and commented on the problems of fuelsupply. Boiling was then taking place only sixmonths in the year, to maintain the price level andconserve fuel, but the coppices had to produce 6000loads of wood to enable each furnace to make fourloads of salt a year. The former sources of fuel werenow 'sore decayed' and fuel was having to bebrought in from Worcester, Bromsgrove, Alve-church and Alcester (Smith 1964, ii, 92-4). TheMiddlewich pit had fallen out of use by Habington's’stime, though he records two wells working inNetherwich and one in Upwich (Amphlett 1899,296) and gives a very full account of the industry inthe early 17th century. The documentation for theUpwich pit after 1695 and the problem of itsco-identity with the Anglo-Saxon and medieval pitof the same name have recently been reviewed byCrickmore (1984b)

The self-perpetuating monopolistic oligarchywhich had controlled the making and marketing ofsalt for many generations was finally broken in1692, when Robert Steynor sunk two wells on hisown land and defeated the burgesses in a lawsuitthree years later, though he nearly bankruptedhimself in the process. At the same time thelimitations of the fuel supply were overcome by theuse of coal for the first time, in 1691. A number ofnew salt-working enterprises then began todevelop, opening many new brine wells. In 1725 SirRichard Lane opened an experimental new boringthrough the layer of talc which had formed the baseof the old pits and immediately tapped a muchmore productive brine source. The old pits fell intodecay and were abandoned as new salt-producingfactories spring up in the 18th and 19th centuriesin the Salwarpe valley along Vines Park, below thetown and in the Covercroft area (map of Droitwich,1786: HWRO r925.99:40). A new source wasdiscovered five kilometres to the north-east in theparish of Stoke Prior in 1828 and a major newsaltworks built there by John Corbett (Anon 1910;HWCM 3348). By 1875 the production of StokeWorks exceeded that of Droitwich. Although manyof the smaller concerns in the town amalgamated toform the Salt Union in 1889, their days were

numbered and the last Droitwich saltworks closedin 1922 (Pillans 1906; Maddocks 1950).

The reinvigoration of the town in the 18thcentury was aided by improvements to its transportfacilities. The old Roman road from Chapel Bridgeto Worcester was the first Worcestershire road to beturnpiked and the Turnpike Act of 1713 spelled outthe need: 'by the Reason of the Great and manyLoads and Carriages of Salt and other goods whichDaily pass through the said Road...(which was)almost impassable for the Space of Nine Months inevery Year...’(12 Anne, Stat ii, Cap 3, Priv). Theterm of the first Act for this road was extendednorthwards along the Roman road to Bromsgroveand eastwards along the Roman Salt Way toBradley Brook (22 Geo II, Cap 43). Further roadsradiating from Droitwich were turnpiked under anAct of 1755, including that from Netherwich Bridgeto Low Hill near Hartlebury (28 Geo II, Cap 48),and renewals and amendments to the earlier Turn-pike Acts continued through to the mid-19thcentury.

The River Salwarpe may have been navigable in1378, when Richard II permitted the bailiffs ofDroitwich to levy tolls on it, but it did not longremain passable. There were several abortiveattempts during the 17th century to open the riverfor transport, first in 1655 by Andrew Yarrantonand Captain Wall; then in 1660-l by Lord Windsor,who seems to have built five out of an intended sixlocks before his scheme failed; and then by a seriesof proprietors in 1662, 1673, 1693 and 1747. ALondon druggist named Baker promoted analternative scheme to send brine by pipeline to theSevern at Hawford in 1755 but this also failed.Finally in 1768 the salt-makers of the townacquired an Act for making a new barge waterwayfrom Droitwich to Hawford, to achieve their dreamof exporting salt and importing coal by water. Theroute was surveyed by James Brindley andconstruction began in 1768 under the engineerJohn Priddey, being completed and opened in 1771(Hadfield 1966, 59-62). It was eleven kilometreslong and had eight locks, originally accommodatingSevern trows and barges. The opening of theWorcester and Birmingham Canal in 1815, passingonly two kilometres to the east of the town,provided a rival water link and the latter canalgained an advantage in 1830 when Stoke Workswas opened up alongside it. Both waterways weresoon faced with railway competition however andtheir companies responded by building theDroitwich Junction Canal in 1852-4, which linkedthe two older canals by a new line from DroitwichTown Mill to Hanbury Wharf, just over onekilometre long with seven locks. Despiteconsiderable improvements to all three canalsduring the later 19th century, the income from thetwo Droitwich canals ultimately did not justifytheir maintenance and both were formallyabandoned in 1939, having been derelict for manyyears (Hadfield 1966, 270-6).

199

The opening of the Birmingham and GloucesterRailway in 1845, which passed three kilometreseast of the town, provided a direct service to StokeWorks and from 1847 most of the salt from thissource was transported by rail. Droitwich itself wasfirst reached by rail in 1852, when Brunelcompleted a branch of the Oxford, Worcester andWolverhampton Railway (OWWR) running fromWorcester to Droitwich and on to link with theBirmingham and Gloucester Railway at StokeWorks, just before his resignation as the company'sengineer. Brunel's successor, John Fowler,completed the main OWWR line northwards fromDroitwich on to Stourbridge very shortlyafterwards. Extensive sidings serving the saltindustry developed around Droitwich station(Jenkins and Quayle 1977).

Another significant development of the 19thcentury, which was to have a major impact uponDroitwich's character, was its development as aspa. The potential healing qualities of the brinesprings were first recognised in the 1830's and in1836 the first Royal Brine Baths (for 'rheumaticand gouty patients') and Royal Hotel were openedon a site east of Queen Street, where the formerCounty Council offices (The Herriots) stand. Therewas, however, an almost intractable problem inreconciling the grimy and unsightly appearance ofthe old town, now riddled with subsidence andpermanently overcast by a pall of smoke and steamfrom the saltworks, with the pleasant surroundingsrequired by a successful health resort. It was onlywhen John Corbett's expansion of the Stoke Worksinitiated the decline of the town's salt industry thatits development in a new direction became possible.Corbett was himself the leading figure in theplanning of what was virtually a new spa town onthe plateau south of the medieval centre. Thecentrepiece of Corbett's town is Victoria Square (infact an informal triangular open space), aroundwhich he grouped his principal buildings: Salter'sHall (used for public meetings and concerts), the StAndrew's Brine Baths and the WorcestershireHotel, all built in the decade after 1881. The RavenHotel was also rebuilt on a much grander scale atthe same time, though retaining its 16th centurynucleus. East of the Worcester Road, Corbett laidout a park of four hectares and built the St John'sBrine Baths and Hospital in 1881 for the benefit ofpoor people suffering from rheumatic diseases.Droitwich was a very late spa and its developmentas a place of recreation, residence and retirementremained subsidiary to its primary purpose ofproviding specialised treatment for the sick. It is,therefore, quite different in character fromWorcestershire's other major spa town, GreatMalvern.

The changing fortunes and character ofpost-medieval Droitwich are to some extent

reflected in microcosm in the sites excavated in thetown. At the Friar Street site the two late orsub-medieval houses (S41 and S43, P7) had beenunited into one large property in the 17th centuryand some rebuilding or refurbishment took place(P9). By the 18th century, however, the premiseshad probably reverted to industrial or commercialuse; the 1786 map shows that after the arrival ofthe canal a wharf was built nearby (HWROr925.99:40). The clearance of the site and thebuilding of poorly-constructed and short-livedtenements early in the 19th century (P10),represents a typically high-density solution to theneed for working-class housing in a growingindustrial centre. Immediately to the south-east ofthe tenements a large building, probably a saltfactory, was in place by 1884 (OS 1:2500, 1 edn). Itoutlived the tenements, which were cleared by1784, but was itself removed by the early 20thcentury when two halls, for church and communityuses, were built (P11). These halls complete thevaried pattern of chronological development on thisexcavated site. Its relationship with the im-mediately surrounding area calls for furtherhistorical and archaeological investigation, butinitial impressions suggest that this western end ofFriar Street had become a residential area onceagain by the early 20th century

ConclusionsInevitably this discussion has been dominated byquestions and speculations rather than by solidanswers, but we would hope that it may serve tostimulate discussion and further investigation.Without doubt there is a wealth of historical andarchaeological potential at Droitwich. Documentarysources and vernacular buildings require researchprogrammes of their own and there may well beother long and well-preserved archaeologicalsequences to be excavated within the historic urbancore. Further topographical research, includingparticularly a close examination of property unitsand boundaries along the lines pioneered by Slater(1980; 1981; 1982), is likely to pay dividends. Intheoretical terms we should give more attention tothe early evolution of the settlement frompre-urban to pro-urban status. Again in the earlyperiods the territorial context and the relationshipwith neighbouring centres, particularly Worcester,would merit closer attention. It is arguable that fewsmall towns in the midlands of England offer somuch research potential and we hope that thismodest contribution, in addition to providing asomewhat sketchy overview of work to date, willpoint the way forward to further productive work infuture.

200

35 Pottery fabrics; a multi-period series forthe County of Hereford and WorcesterDerek Hurst and Helen Rees

The pottery fabric series has been developed since1983 in response to a need for a single ceramicseries to allow cross-referencing between differentsites in the County of Hereford and Worcester. Theseries has been evolved primarily from the fabricanalysis of ceramics from the two major Droitwichexcavations reported in this volume, as these sitestogether provide an almost complete ceramicsequence from the Iron Age to the post-medievalperiod. The important contribution by Morris(1980) to ceramic studies in the region, based onthe pottery from the Worcester Sidbury excavations(HWCM 117), has formed the basis of the presentfabric series, especially for the medieval period.However, the Worcester fabric type series was notpublished with detailed fabric descriptions in themain report and, though correlation between theMorris Worcester series and the present fabricseries is often possible for post-Roman fabrics, thefabric reference number may differ for anyparticular fabric type.

Fabric analysis

Many of the fabric types have been examinedpetrologically at Southampton University toconfirm and further delineate their particularcharacter. This has continued the programme ofdetailed fabric study commenced for the region byDr D P S Peacock in the mid 1960s, when thepotential of ceramic thin section analysis was firstappreciated and the value of its application to ageologically variable area was demonstrated. Sincethen, extensive thin section analysis has beencarried out on pottery from Beckford (Tomber perscomm, Williams pers comm) and Kenchester(Tomber 1985). The Iron Age fabrics from the FriarStreet excavation and the Roman fabrics from theOld Bowling Green in particular have been thesubject of petrological analysis in this volume.However, though thin section study is mostimportant in the region for assisting fabricrecognition, its pre-eminent position in ceramicanalysis locally may paradoxically have tended toexclude other methods, such as elemental analysis,whenever a programme of fabric analysis has beenformulated. It may, therefore, be appropriate toadopt other methods of compositional analysis, asconsidered by Tomber (l:F13-G2), notably toexamine some of the well-known Roman wareswhich are less well characterised to source, such asSevern Valley ware. The correlation of stylistic and

form attributes with detailed elemental analysis ina well stratified series of vessels, may yet proveuseful in determining local types of Severn Valleyware and their distribution.

Pottery fabric descriptions

The fabric type series is presented in some detailwith the intention that it may prove useful as ageneral mu1ti-period series for developmentthrough further ceramic study in the region. Visualcolour descriptions are provided, followed byMunsell colour code. Terms used for description ofinclusions are as defined by Orton (1977, 28-30).The full fabric descriptions and the referencesherds are available in archive.

The Droitwich briquetage has been included inthe pottery report because, although an industrialsaltworking ceramic, it was also used for thestorage and transportation of salt.

Fabric 1 Sandy briquetageManufactureHardnessColour

Surface treatment

Inclusions

HandmadeSoft to hardUsually oxidized red (10R5/8-2.5YR 6/8) throughout,though white or purplish patchessometimes evidentInner surface is often roughened,with deep finger impressions.Outer surface usually smoothedModerate to abundant quartzsand up to c 0.5mm withoccasional larger (c 2.0mm)rounded quartz, moderate tosparse elongated voids of allsizes up to c 20.0mm, sparse

Source

rounded clay pellets (<7.0mm)and sparse hard angular darkbrown iron ore fragments up to c2.0mmDroitwich (Morris 1981b, 153;1983, 171-5 and 178-82, figs5.14 and 5.16)

Fabric 2 Organic briquetageManufacture HandmadeHardness SoftColour Orange (2.5YR 6/8) to red (5YR

6/4) often with reduced grey core(N 4/0)

201

Surface treatment Inner surface is often roughened,with deep finger impressions.Outer surface usually smoothed

Inclusions Burnt-out organic matter hasleft abundant elongated voids ofall sizes up to c 20.0mm; sparserounded clay pellets (c 2.0-7.0mm)

Source Droitwich (Morris 1981b, 153;1983, 175-82, figs 5.15 and 5.16)

Fabric 3 Malvernian ware (Group A)Manufacture HandmadeHardness Soft to hardColour Dark grey to black (N 2.5/O);

occasionally with patchy redoxidized lenses (10R 5/8) on, or

Surface treatmentsbeneath, one or both surfacesOuter surface often smoothed.Inner surface may be smoothed.Linear tooled decoration, orpattern burnished

Inclusions Abundant angular Malvernianmetamorphic rock fragmentsusually c l.0-3.0mm in size, butranging up to c 8.0mm

Source Malvern Hills area (Peacock1968, 414-21; Morris 1981b;1983, 112-6, figs 4.15 and 4.16)

Fabric 4.1 Palaeozoic Limestone temperedw a r e ( G r o u p B 1 )Manufacture HandmadeHardness SoftColour Reduced black (N 4/0) but often

with patchy beige/brown (10YR6/4) or orange (5YR 7/6) oxidizedlenses on, or beneath, one orboth surfaces

Surface treatment O u t e r s u r f a c e s o m e t i m e ssmoothed, or highly burnishedall over

Source A source in either the Malvern,Woolhope, or Mayhill areas ofHerefordshire and Gloucester-shire , has been suggested(Peacock 1968, 422). However,more recent work (Morris 1983,116-22) has argued that theWoolhope source is the mostlikely

Fabric 4.2 Oolitic Limestone temperedwareManufacture HandmadeHardness SoftColour Oxidized buf f (7 .5YR 7 /4 )

throughout

Surface treatment None representedInclusions Abundant, ill-sorted oolitic lime-

stone up to 5.0mmSource Cotswolds area

Fabric 5.1 Sandy wareManufacture HandmadeHardness Fairly hardColour Pink (10YR 6/6) to black (N 3/0)Surface treatment May be smoothed or burnished

on outer surfaceInclusions Abundant, medium, rounded and

subangular quartzSource Possibly local

Fabric 5.2 Fine sandstone tempered ware(Group E)Manufacture HandmadeHardness SoftColour Buff surfaces (7.5YR 7/4) and

dark grey coreSurface treatment None representedInclusions Abundant medium (<0.5mm),

w e l l - s o r t e d , s u b r o u n d e d -subangular quartz; moderaterounded clay pellets; occasionalsubangular medium (<0.5mm)fragments of quartzose sand-stone

Source Llandovery (Silurian) deposits inMalvern Hills, Woolhope or MayHill area (Morris 1983, 135-40,figs 4.234.24)

Fabric 5.3 Coarse quartz tempered wareManufactureHardnessColour

Surface treatmentInclusions

Source

HandmadeSoftO x i d i z e d r e d ( 1 0 R 6 / 6 )throughoutNone representedAbundant medium (<0.5mm)subrounded-subangular quartz;moderate coarse quartz/quart-zite; sparse-moderate claypellets/mudstone (<2.5mm)Unknown

Fabric 6 Dolerite tempered wareManufacture HandmadeHardness soft;Colour Black or buff with grey core

(Gelling and Peacock 1966, 96-7)Inclusions Q u a r t z a n d d o l e r i t e r o c k

inclusionsSource Clee Hills area, south Shropshire

(Gelling and Peacock 1966)

202

Fabric 7 'Belgic-type' wareManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness Fairly hardColour Beige/brown (7.5YR 7/2) to black

(N 2.5/0)Surface treatment Outer surface often highly

burnishedInclusions Abundant rounded and sub-

rounded quartz grains up to c0.8mm in size

Source Unknown, possibly local

Fabric 8 'Belgic-type’ wareManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness Fairly softColour Similar to fabric 7Surface treatment Outer surface is often highly

burnished and may have a greyslip (N 4/0)

Inclusions Moderate rounded or subangularquartz grains up to c l.0mm andsparse to moderate other in-clusions eg clay pellets up to c1.5mm and iron ore up to c0.5mm

Source Possibly local

Fabric 9 Mudstone tempered ware (GroupD)Manufacture HandmadeHardness softColour Ranges from light brown to blackInclusions Vesicular as a result of the

dissolution of argillaceous,sedimentary rock fragments

Source Possibly Martley area, Wor-cester-shire (Morris 1982)

Fabric 10 Untempered fine wareManufacture HandmadeHardness HardColour Pink surfaces (2.5YR 6/6-6/8)

with black coreInclusions None visible macroscopicallySource Unknown

Fabric 12 Severn Valley wareManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness Soft to hardColour Usually reddish orange (2.5YR

5/8) but may be brown (5YR 6/6)and sometimes with reducedgrey (10R 6/1) core

Surface treatment Outer sur face o f ten h ighlyburnished. Simple impressedgroove and cordon decoration

Inclusions

source

Fine fabric containing occasionallimestone fragments, clay pelletsor iron oreSevern Basin (Webster 1976,18-46)

Fabric 12R Reduced Severn Valley wareAs for fabric 12 except that reduction produces agrey finish

Fabric 12.2 Severn Valley ware variantAs for fabric 12 but with sparse elongated voidsusually appearing as black or dark grey streaks infracture

Fabric 12.4 Severn Valley ware variantManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness HardColour Pale orange (5YR 8/3) surfaces

and grey coreSurface treatment None observedInclusions Abundant shelly limestone frag-

ments up to 0.5mm with sparselarger fragments

Source Unknown

Fabric 13 Sandy oxidized wareManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness HardColour Orange throughout (2.5YR 6/8)Surface treatment Outer surface may be highly

burnishedInclusions Moderate to abundant sub-

angular and rounded quartzgrains of all sizes up to c 1.0mm

Source Unknown

Fabric 14 Fine sandy grey wareManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness HardColour Grey (25YR 5/2-N 4/0)Surface treatment Outer surface may be burnishedInclusions Moderate angular and subang-

ular quartz grains up to c 0.lmmin size; sometimes micaceous.


Fabric 15 Coarse sandy grey wareManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness Soft to hardColour Light to dark grey (5YR 7/1-5YR

5/l)Surface treatment Outer surface may be burnishedInclusions Abundant rounded quartz grains

up to c 3.0mm in size

203


Fabric 16 Grog tempered wareManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness HardColour Grey (N 5/0)Surface treatment None representedInclusions Moderate angular fragments of

iron-rich grog up to c 0.5mm, andsparse, subangular quartz grainsof a similar size


Fabric 17 Mudstone tempered wareManufactureHardnessColour

Surface treatment

Inclusions

Source

Wheel-thrownHardPink (5YR 6/4), usually with agrey core (N 5/0)Outer surface often has thinwhite, pinkish white slip or wash(7YR 8/2)Abundant angular mudstonefragments up to c 4.0mm andoccasional fragments of roundedlimestone up to c 2.0mmUnknown; also occurs at Alcester(P Booth pers comm)

Fabric 18 Malvernian derived wareManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness Soft to hardColour Grey to black (N 6/0-N 3/0)Surface treatment None representedInclusions Abundant Malvernian rock

fragments up to 0.5mm in sizeSource Malvern Hills area

Fabric 19 Wheel-thrown Malvernian wareManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness HardColour Grey in colour (5YR 5/1) with

occasional oxidized, orangeexamples (5YR 4/6)

Surface treatment None representedInclusions Moderate to abundant, angular

Malvernian rock fragments up toc 3.0mm in size

Source Malvern Hills area (Peacock1965-7, 418-28)

Fabric 20 White slipped wareManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness HardColour Orange red (2.5YR 6/8)

Surface treatment Outer surface white (5YR 8/4)slipped

Inclusions Often without macroscopicallyvisible inclusions, but sometimescontains variable amount ofrounded quartz up to c 0.5mm

source Gloucester (Rawes 1972, 18-59;C Gouge and A Vince pers comm)

Fabric 21 Micaceous wareManufacture Fabric 21.1 handmade

Fabric 21.2 wheel-thrownHardness Fabric 21.1 soft

Fabric 21.2 Soft to hardColour Grey (2.5YR 4/l)Surface treatment Usually burnishedInclusions Abundant large (up to c 0.5mm)

flakes of white micaSource U n k n o w n . A l s o o c c u r s a t

Gloucester as TF5 (C Gouge perscomm)

Fabric 22 Black Burnished ware, type 1(BB1)Manufacture HandmadeHardness HardColour Reduced dark grey or black

throughout (5YR 3/l)Surface treatment Highly burnished zones on outer

surface, smoothed or burnishedon visible inner surfaces

Inclusions Abundant subangular quartzgrains up to c l.0mm but onlyrarely exceeding c 0.5mm. Somesparse white inclusions up to c1.5mm, and occasional pieces ofshale

Source Dorset (Williams 1977, 163-220)

Fabric 23 Shell gritted wareManufactureHardnessColour

Wheel-thrownSoft to hardGrey in colour (N 4/0) sometimeswith oxidized beige brownsurfaces (5YR 8/1)Surfaces are sometimes rilledAbundant shell and limestonefragments, ranging in size from c0.03mm to c 3.5mm, with manyas large as c 1.5mmUnknown

Surface treatmentInclusions

Source

Fabric 24 Shell and ironstone temperedwareManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness Hard

204

Colour M o t t l e d g r e y / l i g h t b r o w nsurfaces (5YR 6/1 - 5YR 6/3) anddark grey core (5YR 3/1)

Surface treatment None representedInclusions Abundant large (up to c 5.0mm)

flat calcareous inclusions, andsparse rounded iron ore up to c2.0mm

Source Unknown

Fabric 25 Terra NigraManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness HardColour White or pale grey (5YR 8/1)Surface treatment Overall fine dark grey or black

slip (N 3/0)Inclusions Virtually inclusion-free except

for very sparse minute redflecks, and occasional flat voidsup to c l.0mm in length

Source North-east Gaul/Rhineland(Rigby 1973, 7-24)

Fabric 26 Lyons wareManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness HardColour Pale cream, often green tinged

(5YR 8/3)Surface treatment Dark greenish brown (10YR 3/2)

colour coatInclusions None visibleSource Lyons, France (Greene 1978,

15-16)

Fabric 27 'Indixivixus'Manufacture Wheel-thrownHardness HardColour White (N 8/0)Surface treatment Glossy dark grey (N 4/0) slipInclusions Moderate small black specks (c

0.1mm) and sparse irregularlyshaped black lumps up to c2.0mm

Source Nene Valley area (D F Mackrethand J R Perrin pers comm).Product of the potter'Indixivixus' (Dannell 1973, 139-42)

Fabric 28 Nene Valley wareManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness HardColour (i) White or off white (10YR 8/2)

(ii) Pale pink (7.5YR 7/6)Surface treatment Dark red (2.5YR 6/6) to dark

brown (10YR 3/1) matt slip. In

Inclusions

overfired examples the colourcoat may appear metallicSparse large (up to c 5.0mm) iron

SourceoreNene Valley area (Howe, Perrinand Mackreth 1980)

Fabric 29 Oxfordshire red and browncolour coated wareManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness Generally hardColour Pale orange (5YR 7/6) to red

orange (2.5YR 6/8)Surface treatment Orange (2.5YR 6/8) to dark

brown (5YR 4/2) slipInclusions Sandy fabric with sparse small

black and red inclusions, andoccasional lumps of chalk up to c5.0mm. Frequently micaceous

Source Oxfordshire (Young 1977, 123)

Fabric 30 Oxfordshire white colourcoated ware (Young 1977, 117-22)ManufactureHardnessColour

Wheel-thrownGenerally hardPale orange (5YR 7/6) to redorange (2.5YR 6/8)

Surface treatment White or off-white (7.5YR 8/2-7.5YR 8/4) slip

Inclusions Sandy fabric with sparse smallblack and red inclusions andoccasional lumps of chalk up to c5.0mm. Frequently micaceous

Source Oxfordshire (Young 1977, 117)

Fabric 31 Brown colour coated wareManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness HardColour Pale orange (5YR 7/4) often with

a thick grey (N 5/0) coreSurface treatment Dull brown (7.5YR 4/2) slip on

one or both surfacesInclusions Moderate to abundant very fine

black and red iron ore, sparsewhite calcareous and non-calcareous inclusions up to c2.0mm, and occasional roundedquartz grains. Frequent flatvoids, up to c 0.7mm in lengthare also visible. May bemicaceous

Source Similar to CirencesterExcavation Committee fabric105, which may have a NorthWiltshire source (J Richardsonpers comm). Also occurred atAndoversford (Young 1980)

205

Fabric 32 Mancetter/Hartshill mortarium Fabric 36 Kent/Continental mortariumManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness HardColour White (10YR 8/1)Surface treatment Outer surface may have a thin

yellow (10YR 8/3) wash.Trituration grits are black, greyor rust brown opaque refiredpottery fragments.

Inclusions Occasional large quartz grains(up to c 2.0mm), and refiredpottery fragments. The latter arealso used for the trituration grits

Source M a n c e t t e r / H a r t s h i l l ,Warwickshire (Hartley 1973,143-7)

Fabric 33 Oxfordshire white mortariumManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness HardColour White (10YR 8/3)Surface treatment Outer surface may have a thin

yellow wash (10YR 8/4).Trituration grits are roundedwhite and pink quartz

Inclusions Moderate black and red quartzSource Oxfordshire (Young 1977,56)

Manufacture Wheel-thrownHardness HardColour Pale pink (5YR 7/3) with lighter

off-white (5YR 8/2) surfacesSurface treatment Trituration grits are small,

rounded and subangular, greyand white flint fragments

Inclusions Occasional iron ore up to c2.0mm

Source Kent and Continent (Hartley1977,5-17)

Fabric 37 Severn Valley mortariumManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness SoftColour Orange (2.5YR 6/8)Surface treatment Self-coloured matt slip; angular

white opaque quartzite tritur-ation grits

Inclusions Sparse brown-red flecks up to c0.5mm

Source Severn Basin (K Hartley perscomm)

Fabric 38 Oxfordshire white wareManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness Hard

Fabric 34 West Midlands mortariumManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness HardColour White (10YR 8/2)

Colour

Source

Off-white (7.5YR 8/4)Surface treatment None representedInclusions Moderate clear, black and red

quartz grains up to c 0.5mmOxfordshire (Young 1977, 93)

Surface treatment Moderate sandstone (up to c4.0mm), translucentquartz/quartzite (up to c 3.0mm)and ironstone (up to c 2.0mm)trituration grits

Inclusions Similar range of inclusions tothose used for t r i turat iongritting

Source West Midlands, probably Wrox-eter area (K Hartley pers comm)

Fabric 35 Brockley Hill/Verulamiummortarium

Fabric 39 Oxfordshire burnt white wareManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness HardColour Off-white (7.5YR 8/4)Surface treatment Burnt or fumed outer surface

(7.5YR 8/2)Inclusions Moderate clear, black and red

quartz grains up to c 0.5mmSource Oxfordshire (Young 1977, 113-

16)

Manufacture Wheel-thrownHardness HardColour White (10YR 8/2)Surface treatment None representedInclusions Abundant rounded and sub-

angular quartz grains, typically c0.5mm in size and sparse large(up to c 3.5mm) iron ore

Source Brockley Hill and Verulamiumarea

Fabric 40 Oxfordshire parchment wareManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness HardColour White (7.5YR 8/2) sometimes

with pink core (7.5YR 8/4)Surface treatment None representedInclusions Moderate black and red flecks up

to c 0.5mmSource Oxfordshire (Young 1977, 81)

2 0 6

Fabric 41 Unprovenanced white wareManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness Soft to hardColour White (5YR 8/2)Surface treatment Pale pink (5YR 8/3) or pale

yellow (10YR 8/3) washsometimes occurs on one or bothsurfaces

Inclusions Sparse minute black and redflecks and rounded iron ore up toc 1.0mm, with sparse tomoderate rounded and sub-angular quartz grains up to c0.5mm, and sparse rounded orflat voids up to c 0.2mm

Source Unknown

Fabric 42 Amphorae42.1 Dressel 20 type Outside surface often partially42.2 Dressel type 2-442.3 Pelichet 47 type42.4 Rhodian type42.5 Camulodunum type 186A42.6 Unidentified amphorae

( for fabric descriptions seel :G8-9 )

Fabric 43 Samian ware

Fabric 44 Rhenish wareManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness HardColour Oxidized red-orange (5YR 7/6),

or laminated red and grey(7.5YR 7/7)

Surface treatment Very fine dark brown or blackglossy colour coat (7.5YR 3/2),which may have a metallic sheen

Inclusions None representedSource Trier, Central Gaul (Greene

1978, 18-19)

Fabric 45Manufacture Wheel-thrownHardness HardColour Pale orange (5YR 6/6)

throughoutSurface treatment Sparsely applied clay pellet

rough casting, and matt darkgrey colour coat

Inclusions Sparse fine (<0.2mm), sub-angular quartz

Source Possibly Rhineland

Fabric 46 Stamford wareManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness HardColour Usually off-white (10YR 7/8) or

buff (2.5Y 7/2), but occasionallypinkish orange (5YR 7/6)

Surface treatment Usually glazed outside yellow(2.5Y 8/8) or pale green (5YR 6/3)

Inclusions Abundant fine quartz, andsparse coarse (<3.0mm) redinclusions

Source Stamford, Lincolnshire (Kil-murray 1980)

Fabric 48 Stafford-type wareManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness Very hardColour May be oxidized orange (5YR

6/8) throughoutSurface treatment

blackened/ discoloured, possiblythrough use

Inclusions Abundant, medium (0.1-0.5mm),well-sorted quartz

Source Possibly Stafford (Cane 1984,58-61)

Fabric 49 St Neots-type wareManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness HardColour Colour variable from grey (5YR

5/l), through orange (5YR 6/4) topale brown (7.5YR 6/4)

Surface treatment Jars especially have pronouncedinternal throwing grooves

Inclusions Abundant fossilized plate shellfragments 1.0-3.0mm in size

Source Jurassic area

Fabric 50 'Grass'tempered wareManufacture HandmadeHardness Soft to hardColour Generally dense black through-

out, except for greyish brown(10YR 6/2 light brownish grey)external surface

Surface treatment Some external wiping marksInclusions Organic matter has burnt out

leaving abundant linear voids;occasional medium quartz;moderate fine mica

Source Unknown

Fabric 53 Early Malvernian glazed wareManufacture HandmadeHardness Hard

207

Colour Orange brown (10YR 6 /6 )surfaces, and reduced grey(10YR 5/3) core

Surface treatment Applied decoration; thin externalgreen glaze

Inclusions Abundant quartz; moderateMalvernian rock fragments

Source Malvern Hills area (Vince 1977,269)

Fabric 55 Worcester-type unglazed wareManufacture Handmade; later examples

wheel-thrownHardness HardColour Usually reduced dark grey (N

2.5/0) throughoutSurface treatment Occasional use of rouletting or

combed line decorationInclusions Abundant medium quartzSource Probably Worcester (Morris

1980,224)

Fabric 56 Malvernian unglazed wareManufacture Handmade, later examples

wheel-thrownHardness HardColour Usually reduced medium grey

(10YR 5/l) throughoutSurface treatment Occasional applied strip de-

corationInclusions Moderate-abundant Malvernian

rock inclusions usually 3.0-4 .0mm; moderate mediumquartz

Source Malvern Hills area (Vince 1977,264-6)

Fabric 57 Cotswolds unglazed wareManufacture HandmadeHardness SoftColour Dark grey (N 4/0) often with buff

(10YR 7/3) marginsSurface treatment Occasional thumbed decoration

on rim, or stamp decorationInclusions Abundant 0.1-3.0mm, oolitic

limestone fragmentsSource Cotswolds area

g r e y c o r e

Fabric 58 Sandy limestone tempered wareManufacture HandmadeHardness HardColour Usually dark grey (N 4.0)Surface treatment Occasional stamp decorationInclusion Moderate coarse-medium round-

ed quartz; variable fossiliferouslimestone content

Source Possibly Avon Valley, Somerset(Vince 1979, 28)

Fabric 62 Deritend-type wareManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness HardColour Generally orange (2.5YR 5/8)

throughoutSurface treatment Painted white line decorationInclusions Moderate, medium quartzSource Possibly Deritend area, Bir-

mingham (Sherlock 1955)

Fabric 63 Brill/Boarstall wareManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness HardColour Pale orange (7.5YR 7/6) through-

outSurface treatment Horizontal grooves; external

glaze with moderate (copper)green blotches

Inclusions Abundant, medium, well-sortedquartz; occasional iron-rich(<l.0mm) inclusions

Source Brill and Boarstall area, Buck-inghamshire

Fabric 64 Glazed sandy waresFabric 64.1 Worcester-type sandy glazed wareManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness Hard to very hardColour Oxidized orange-red (5YR 5/6)

but often with reduced grey (N4/0) surfaces

Surface treatment Impressed decoration frequent;normally green (reduced iron)glazed

Inclusions Abundant medium-coarse quartzSource Probably Worcester (Morris

1980,225)

Fabric 64.2 Buff sandy wareManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness HardColour Usually off-white or buff (10YR

7/6) sometimes with reduced

Surface treatment Often has pinkish orange (7.5YR6/6) wash; applied strip orstabbing decoration frequent;speckled green (copper coloured)glaze

Inclusions Abundant medium to coarsequartz; occasional large redsandstone inclusions

Source Possibly Warwickshire

208

Fabric 64.3 Green glazed white wareManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness HardColour White (10YR 8/1) throughoutSurface treatment Mottled (copper) green speckled

yellow glazeInclusions Abundant, medium, well-sorted

quartz; occasional iron-rich(usually <1.0mm) speckles

Source Unknown, but probably a coalmeasures area

Fabric 65 Glazed oolitic limestonetempered wareManufacture HandmadeHardness HardColour Dull brown-buff (7.5YR 7/4)Surface treatment Applied strip and comb im-

pressed decorat ion . Green /brown glaze

Inclusions Abundant oo l i t i c l imestone(usually <2.0 - 3.0mm)

Source Cotswolds area

Fabric 69 Oxidized glazed MalvernianwareManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness HardColour Usually orange (5YR 5/8)Surface treatment Copper speckled orange glaze

generally appliedInclusions Sparse to moderate Malvernian

rock fragments; moderate med-ium quartz

Source Malvern Hills area (Vince 1977,269-70)

Fabric 70 Southern white wareManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness HardColour White to off-white (10YR 8/3)Surface treatment Overall bright green glazeInclusions Moderate, usually well-sorted,

fine (<0.1mm) quartzSource Hampshire area

Fabric 71Manufacture Wheel-thrownHardness HardColour Red (5YR 5/6) inside surface

otherwise grey (10YR 5/1)Surface treatment Green/brown, mottled exterior

glazeInclusions Sparse to moderate, well-sorted,

medium quartz; abundant well-sorted fine mica

Source Possibly Herefordshire (cf Here-fordshire group A Wince 1985,35-6)

Wheel-thrownHardRed (2.5YR 5/8) throughoutOverall dark-brown glazeSparse to moderate, mediumquartzUnknown

Fabric 72ManufactureHardnessColourSurface treatmentInclusions

Source

Fabric 75 North Devon gravel temperedwareManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness Very hardColour Brown (7.5 YR 6/4) to grey (10YR

5/1)Surface treatment Overall blotchy green/yellow

glazeInclusions Abundant coarse (usual ly

<3.0mm) quartzSource North Devon (Grant 1983)

Fabric 77 Midlands yellow wareManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness HardColour Pale buff (2.5Y 8/2)Surface treatment Bright yellow glaze usually

applied overallInclusions Sparse fine quartzSource Midlands

Fabric 78 Post-medieval red wares

Fabric 78.1 Red sandy wareManufacture Wheel-thrown or press mouldedHardness HardColour Usually red (2.5YR 5/6) through-

outSurface treatment Usually red slipped internally

and externally; overall blackglaze. Sometimes slip decorated

Inclusions Moderate medium quartzSource Probably Midlands

Fabric 78.2Same as fabric 78.1, except that fabric is purplishand very hard, and glaze often patchy and overfired

Fabric 78.3 Fine red sandy wareManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness Very hardColour Purplish (10YR 4/1) throughout

209

Surface treatment Lathe-turned decoration andsprigging used; overall evenblack glaze

Inclusions Moderate fine quartzSource Unknown

Fabric 84.2 Same as fabric 84.1 except palerglaze used

Fabric 85 Modern stone china

Fabric 79 Merida wareManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness HardColour Oxidized pink or orangeSurface treatment None representedInclusions Abundant mica; moderate quartzSource Spain

Fabric 90 Post-medieval orange wareManufacture Wheel-thrownHardness HardColour Oxidized orange (5YR 6/6)

throughoutSurface treatment Orange glaze with moderate

dark specklingInclusions Occasional medium quartzSource Possibly Severn Valley area

Fabric 81 Stonewares

Fabric 81.2Fabric 81.3Fabric 81.4Fabric 81.5Fabric 81.6Fabric 81.7Fabric 81.8

Fabric 82 Tin glazed ware

WesterwaldNottinghamMiscellaneous LateWhite salt glazedLondonPossibly StaffordshireRaeren

Fabric 83 Porcelain

Fabric 91 Post-medieval buff waresManufacture Wheel-thrown or press mouldedHardness HardColour Buff (10YR 8/3), sometimes

slightly mottledSurface treatment Usually slip decorated under

pale yellow glazeInclusions Moderate medium quartz ;

occasional large (<3.00mm) redand buff inclusions

Source Mainly Staffordshire

Fabric 92Manufacture Handmade

Fabric 83.1 Worcester porcelainManufacture Slip castHardness Very hardColour WhiteSurface treatment Blue hand-painted decoration;

may be distinguished by thegreen quality of transmittedlight

Inclusions None visibleSource Worcester

Hardness SoftColour Pale brown (7.5YR 6/4) or grey

(N 4/0) patchy surfacesSurface treatment Some surface smoothing; occas-

ional combed wavy line decor-at ion

Inclusions Moderate rounded coarse (up to3.0mm) quartz; abundant finemica

Source Unknown

Fabric 84 Creamware

Fabric 84.1Manufacture Wheel-thrown or press moulded Fabric 99 Miscellaneous medieval wares

Fabric 98 Miscellaneous Roman wares

Hardness Very hardColour WhiteSurface treatment Pale yellow glaze overallInclusions None visibleSource Mainly Staffordshire

Fabric 100 Miscellaneous post-medievalwares

210

Bibliography

Alexander, J A, 1975 The salt industries ofAfrica: their significance for European prehistory,in de Brisay and Evans 1975, 81-3

Allies, J, 1852 On the ancient British, Romana n d S a x o n a n t i q u i t i e s a n d f o l k l o r e o fWorcestershire, 2 edn

Amphlett, J (ed), 1895 Survey of Worcestershire,Vol 1, Worcestershire Hist Soc, (ed), 1899 Survey of Worcestershire, Vol 2,Worcestershire Hist Soc, and Rea, C, 1909 The Botany ofWorcestershire: an account of the flowering plants,ferns, mosses, hepatics, lichens, fungi, andfresh-water algae, which grow or have grownspontaneously in the County of Worcester

Anon, 1910 Salt-making in Worcestershire,Trans Worcestershire Natur Club, 4, 363-6

Anon, 1976 The English glass bottle, unpublexhibition catalogue l/7/76-30/9/76, CountyMuseum, Truro

Armitage, P L and Clutton-Brock, J, 1976 Asystem for the classification and description ofhorn cores of cattle from archaeological sites, JArchaeol Sci, 3, 329-48

Atkinson, D, 1942 Report on excavations atWroxeter, 1923-27

Atkinson, D R, 1975 Tobacco pipes of Broseley,Shropshire

Baillie, M G L, 1973 A dendrochronological studyin Ireland with reference to the dating of medievaland post-medieval timber, unpubl PhD Thesis,Queen's Univ, Belfast, 1982 Tree-ring dating and archaeology, and Pilcher, J R, 1973 A simple crossdatingprogramme for tree-ring research, Tree-ring Bull,33, 7-14

Ballard, A, 1913 British borough charters, 1,1042-216

Barnard, F P, 1916 The casting-counter and thecounting-board; a chapter in the history of earlynumismatics and early arithmatic

Bassett, S R, and Dyer, C C, 1980 HanburyHereford and Worcester, West Midlands Archaeol,23, 88-91

Bateson, M, 1913 The borough of Droitwich, inVCH, iii, 72-89

Beresford, M W, and Finberg, H P R, 1973English medieval boroughs: a hand-list

Berry, E K, 1957 The borough of Droitwich andits salt industry, 1215-1700, Univ BirminghamHist J, 6, 39-61, 1975 Medieval Droitwich and the salttrade, in de Brisay and Evans 1975, 76-80

Bestwick, J D, 1975 Romano-British inlandsalting at Middlewich (Salinae), Cheshire, in deBrisay and Evans 1975, 66-70

Biddle, M, 1976 Towns, in Wilson, D M, (ed), Thearchaeology of Anglo-Saxon England, 99-150

Bidwell, P T, 1979 The legionary bath house andbasilica and forum at Exeter, Exeter ArchaeolRep, 1

Blair, J, 1988 Minster churches in the landscape,in Hooke, D (ed), Anglo-Saxon settlements, 35-58

Boessneck, J, 1969 Osteological differencebetween sheep (Ovis aries Linne) and goat (CapraHircus Linne), in Brothwell, D, and Higgs, E S(eds), Science and Archaeology, 331-58

Bohme, A, 1972 Die fibeln der Kastelle Saalburgund Zugmantel, Saalburg Jahrbuch, Bericht desSaalburg Museums, 29

Bond, C J, 1988 Church and parish in NormanWorcestershire, in Blair, J (ed), Minsters andparish churches: the local church in transition950-1200, Oxford Univ Comm Archaeol Monog,17, 119-58

Boon, G C, 1978 A silver-gilt ornament from a'Carmarthen’ trumpet-brooch, Antiq J, 58, 152-3, and Savory, H N, 1975 A silver

trumpet-brooch with relief decoration, parcel-gilt,from Carmarthen, and a note on the developmentof the type, Antiq J, 55, 41-61

Booth, P M, and Green, S, 1989 The nature anddistribution of certain pink, grog temperedvessels, J Roman Pottery Stud, 2, 77-84

Bradley, R, 1975 Salt and settlement in theHampshire/Sussex borderland, in de Brisay andEvans 1975, 20-5, 1984 The social foundations of prehistoric

BritainBrodribb, AC C, Hands, AR, and Walker, S R, 1971

Excavation at Shakenoak Farm, near Wilcote,Oxfordshire, part IV: site C, privately printed

Bull Hist et Scient de l'Auvergne LXII Martin, J,1942 L'evolution des vases sigilles ornes deLezoux, au premier siécle de notre ere, 62,181-209

Bushe-Fox, J P, 1913 Excavations on the site ofthe Roman town at Wroxeter, Shropshire, in 1912,Rep Res Comm Sot Antiq London, 1

Cambell-Curtis, M, 1913 Dodderhill, in VCH, iii,58-69

Cane, C B K, 1984 'Stafford ware' fabric andform: an interim statement, in Cane, C B K,Cane, J, and Carver, M O H, Saxon and medievalStafford, new results and theories 1983, WestMidlands Archaeol, 26, 48-65

Carter, C O, 1975 Man's need of salt, in deBrisay and Evans 1975, 13

Carver, M O H (ed), 1980 Medieval Worcester, anarchaeological framework, Trans Worcester-shireArchaeol Soc, 3 ser, 7

CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum 1863-,Berlin

211

Charles, F W B, 1967 Medieval truck buildingand its derivatives, Soc Medieval Archaeol Monogser, 2

Charleston, R J, 1964 Medieval and later glass,in Cunliffe, B W (ed), Winchester excavations1947-1960, VOl 1, 145-51, 1977 Some aspects of 17th century glassfound in England, Annales du 7e Congres del' association internationale pour l'histoire deverre, Berlin-Leipzig, 1977 [19781, Liege, 283-97Charlesworth, D, 1966 Roman Square Bottles, JGlass Stud, 8, 26-40, 1971 A group of vessels from thecommandant's house, Housesteads, J Glass Stud,13, 34-7, 1972 The glass, in Frere, S S, (ed),Verulamium Excavations, Vol 1, Rep Res CommSoc Antiq London, 28, 196-215, 1979 Glass (including material from allother Exeter sites excavated between 1971 and1976), in Bidwell, P T, The legionary bath-houseand basilica and forum at Exeter, 222-31, 1981 The Roman glass, in Down, A, (ed),Chichester Excavations, 5, 293-7

Clapham, A R, Tutin, T G, and Warburg, E F, 1962Flora of the British Isles, 2 edn

Clay, R M, 1914 The hermits and Anchorites ofEngland

Coope, G R, Shotton, F W, and Strachan, I, 1961A late Pleistocene fauna and flora from UptonWarren, Worcestershire, Phil Trans Roy SocLondon, ser B, 244, 379-421

Cooper, W S, 1934 The Old Exchequer House,Droitwich, Trans Worcestershire Archaeol Soc, 3ser, 11, 64-74

Crickmore, J, 1984a Romano-British urbansettlements in the West Midlands, Brit ArchaeolRep S127

Crickmore, J, 1984b The old pit, Upwich,Droitwich, Trans Worcestershire Archaeol Sot, 3ser, 9, 13-36

Crummy, N, 1983 The Roman small finds fromexcavations in Colchester 1971-9, ColchesterArchaeol Rep, 2

Cunliffe, B W, 1978 Iron Age communities inBritain, 2 edn, 1982 Settlement hierarchy and social

change in southern Britain in the Iron Age,Analecta Pr æ historica Leidensia

Daniels, J S, 1950 The Woodchester glass houseDannell, G B, 1973 The potter Indixivixus, in

Detsicas 1973, 139-42Darby, H C, and Terrett, I B (eds), 1954 The

Domesday geography of Midland EnglandDarling, M J, 1977 Pottery from early military

sites in western Britain, in Dore and Greene1977, 57-100

Darrah, R, 1982 Working unseasoned oak, inMcGrail, S (ed), Woodworking techniques beforeAD 1500, Brit Archaeol Rep, 129, 219-30

Darvill, T C, and Timby, J R, 1982 Texturalanalysis: a review of potentials and limitations, in

Freestone, I, Johns C, and Potter, T (eds),Current research in ceramics: Thin sectionstudies, British Museum Occas Pap, 32, 73-88

de Brisay, K W, and Evans K A (eds), 1975 Salt:the study of an ancient industry

Detsicas, A P (ed), 1973 Current research inRomano-British coarse pottery, CBA Res Rep, 10

DOE, 1975 Principles of publication in rescuearchaeology, Ancient Monuments Board forEngland Committee for Rescue Archaeology,Department of the Environment, 1982 The publication of archaeologicalexcavations, Joint Working Party of the CBA andthe Department of the Environment

Dore, J and Greene, K, 1977 Roman potterystudies in Britain and beyond, Brit Archaeol Rep,S30

Dunning, G C, 1968 The pitcher imported fromSaintonge at Lich Street, Worcester, TransWorcestershire Archaeol Soc, 3 ser, 2, 45-7

Earp, J R, and Hains, B A, 1971 The Welshborderland, British Regional Geology

EE, Ephemeris Epigraphica, 1913, 9Ekwall, E, 1960 The concise Oxford dictionary of

English place-names, 4 ednEllis, S E, 1969 The petrography and provenance

of Anglo-Saxon and medieval English honestones,with notes on some other hones, Bull Brit Mus(Natur Hist), Mineralogy, 2. 3, 135-87

Ellison, M, Finch, M, and Harbottle, B, 1979 Theexcavation of a 17th century pit at the BlackGate, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1975, Post-MedievalArchaeol, 13, 153-81

Evans, J G, 1975 The environment of early manin the British Isles

Finberg, H P R, 1972 The early charters of theWest Midlands, 2 edn

F o c k , J , 1 9 6 6 M e t r i s h e u n t e r s u n g e n a nmetapodien einiger Europaischer rinderassengedruckt mit genehmigung de tierarzuchen,Fakultat der Universitat Munchen

Freezer, D F, 1977 From saltings to spa town, thearchaeology of Droitwich, Droitwich ArchaeolComm

Frison, E, 1961 Examen anatomique des bois dupuits Romain N I de Herelbeke, ArchaeologiaBelgica, 59, 800-5

Fulford, M G, 1975 New Forest Roman pottery,Brit Archaeol Rep, 17

Fundberichte 1910 Fundberichte aus Schwaben,18

Gelling, P S, 1957 Report on excavations in BaysMeadow, Droitwich, Worcestershire, 1954-5,Birmingham Archaeol Soc Trans Proc, 75, [1959],l-23, and Peacock, D P S, 1966 The pottery fromCaynham Camp near Ludlow, Trans ShropshireArchaeol Soc, 58, 96-100

Gillam, J P, 1970 Types of Roman coarse potteryvessels in northern Britain, 3 edn

212

, 1976 Coarse fumed ware in northernBritain, and beyond, Glasgow Archaeol J, 4,57-80

Godwin, H, 1975 History of the British flora, 2edn

Goodman, W L, 1962 Woodwork from the StoneAge to Do-it-Yourself

Goultequer, P L, 1975 Niger, country of salt, inde Brisay and Evans 1975

Grant, A, 1975 Appendix B. The use of toothwear as a guide to the age of domestic mammals- a brief explanation, in Cunliffe, B W, (ed),Excavations at Portchester Castle. 1 Roman, RepRes Comm Soc Antiq London, 32, 437-50

Grant , A , 1983 North Devon pot tery : theseventeenth century

Grant, E(ed), 1986 Central places, archaeology andhistory

Greene, K, 1978 Imported fine wares in Britainto AD 250: a guide to identification, in Arthur, P,and Marsh, G (eds), Early fine wares in RomanBritain, Brit Archaeol Rep, 57, 15-30

Greig, J R A, 1978-9 Appendix 4. The plantremains, in Watts, L, Birmingham Moat: itshistory, topography and destruction, TransBirmingham Warwickshire Archaeol Soc, 89,[1981], 66-72, 1988 The interpretation of some Romanwell fills from the Midlands of England, inKuster, H-J (ed), Der Prahistorische Mensch undSeine Umwelt, Stuttgart, 367-78

Hadfield, C, 1966 The canals of the WestMidlands

Hains, B A, and Horton, A, 1969 CentralEngland, British Regional Geology, 3 edn

Harcourt, R, 1974 The dog in prehistoric andearly historic Britain, J Archaeol Sci, 1, 151-75

Harden, D B, 1947 The glass, in Hawkes andHull 1947, 287-307, Painter, KS, Pinder-Wilson, R H, and Tait, H,1968 Masterpieces of glass, and Price J, 1971 The glass, in Cunliffe, BW, (ed), Fishbourne 2961-69, Vol II, the finds, RepRes Comm Sot Antiq London, 27, 317-68

Hartley, K F, 1973 The kilns at Mancetter andHartshill, Warwickshire, in Detsicas 1973, 143-7, 1 9 7 7 T w o m a j o r p o t t e r i e s p r o d u c i n gmortaria in the first century AD, in Dore andGreene 1977, 5-17

Hawkes, C F C, and Hull, M R, 1947 Camulo-dunum, Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London, 14

Heighway, C, 1978 Excavations at Gloucester,fourth interim report: St Oswalds Priory,Gloucester, 1975-76, Ant J, 58, 103-32, 1984 Anglo -Saxon Gloucestershire , inSaville, A (ed), Archaeology in Gloucestershire,225-47

Henderson, J, forthcoming Glass beads, coun-ters, tesserae and armlets from Castleford, WestYorkshire, in Excavations at Castleford, WestYorkshire County Council

Hillam, J, 1982 The dating of Roman timbersfrom Friar Street 1, Droitwich, AncientMonuments Laboratory Rep, 3754, and Morgan, R A, 1981 Dendro dates from

Sheffield, Curr Archaeol, 7.9, 286-7-, -, and Tyers, I, 1987 Sapwood estimatesand the dating of short ring sequences, in Ward,R G (ed), Applications of tree-ring studies, BritArchaeol Rep, S33, 165-85

Hillelson, D, 1985 Excavations on the old marketsite, Droitwich, 1984: an interim report, unpublrep, Hereford and Worcester County Council

Hilton, R H, 1966 A medieval society: the WestMidlands at the end of the thirteenth century

Hodgkinson, H R, 1925-6 Note on the Romanbuildings at, Droitwich, Birmingham Archaeol SotTrans Proc, 51, [1928], 35-8

1 9 3 1 M e d i e v a l t i l e s f r o m D r o i t w i c hBirmingham Archaeol Soc Trans Proc, 55, [1933]:70

1 9 3 3 R o m a n p o t t e r y f r o m D r o i t w i c hBirmingham Archaeol Soc Trans Proc, 57, [1935],175-6

Hogan, D, 1970 The Du Houx and the HaughtonGreen glasshouse, in Studies in glass history anddesign. Papers presented to the Committee Bsession of VIIIth international congress on glass,24-5

Hollister, P, 1981 Flowers which clothe themeadows in spring, the rebirth of millefiori c1500, Annales du 8 congres de l'associationinternationale pour l'histoire du vere, London-Liverpool 18-25/9/79, Liege

Hollstein, E, 1965 Jahrringchronologischedatierung von Eichenholzern ohne Waldkante,Bonner Jahrbuch, 165, 12-27, 1972 Dendrochronologische datierungausWederath (Belginum), Trierer Zeitschrift, 35,123-5, 1974 Eine Romische Deichel aus Dillingen,Kreis Saarlouis, Bericht der StaatlichenDenkmalpflege im Saarland, 21, 101-4

Hooke, D, 1981 The Droitwich salt industry: Anexamination of the West Midlands charterevidence, in Brown, D, et al (eds), Anglo-SaxonStudies in Archaeology and History 2, BritArchaeol Rep, 92, 123-69, 1985 The Anglo-Saxon landscape: thekingdom of the Hwicce, 1986 Terr i tor ia l organisat ion in theAnglo-Saxon West Midlands: central places,central areas, in Grant 1986, 79-93

Hoover, H C, and Hoover, L H (trans), 1912Georgius Agricola de re metallica

Houghton, F T S, 1919 The parochial and otherchapels of the county of Worcester, together withsome account of the development of the parochialsystem in the county, Birmingham Archaeol SocTrans Proc, 45, [1921], 23-114, 1929-30 Salt-ways, Birmingham ArchaeolSoc Trans Proc, 54, [1932], 1-17

213

Howard, H, 1985 The petrology of the KenchesterRoman and Iron Age pottery, unpubl, Kenchesterarchive, 108

Howe, M D, Perrin, J R, and Mackreth, D F, 1980Roman pottery from the Nene Valley: a guide,Peterborough City Mus Occas Pap, 2

Hughes, M K, Milson, S J, and Leggett, P A, 1981Sapwood estimates in the interpretation oftree-ring dates, J Archaeol Sci, 8, 381-90

Hume, I N, 1961 The glass wine bottles inColonial Virginia, J Glass Stud, 3, 91-117, 1962 Tudor and early Stuart glasses foundin London, The Connoisseur, 150, 269-73, 1970 Guide to the artefacts of colonialVirginia

Hunt, A, 1975 Friar Street, Worcs, 1973-5 (SO897635), West Midlands Archaeol News Sheet, 18,39-40

Hunter, J, (ed) 1844 The great Rolls of the Pipe forthe second, third and fourth years of the reign ofHenry 11, Record Commissioners, London

Hunter, R, 1979 St Neots type ware, in Williams,J H, St Peter's Street Northampton: excavations1973-6, Northampton Archaeol Monog, 2

Hurst, D, 1991 Major Saxon discoveries atDroitwich-excavations at the Upwich brine pit,Curr Archaeol, 126, 252-5

Jacobs, J, 1913 Sigillatafunde aus einemromischen Keller zu Bregenz, Jahrbuch furAltertumskunde, 6te Band, 1912 [1913]

Jenkins, S C, and Quayle, H I, 1977 TheOxfordshire, Worcester and WolverhamptonRailway

John, E, 1964 Land tenure in early England: adiscussion of some problems, Studies in earlyEnglish history, 1

Jones, M J, and Bond, C J, 1987 Urban defences,in Schofield, J, and Leech, R (eds), Urbanarchaeology in Britain, CBA Res Rep, 61, 81-116

Jones, R, Wall, S M, Lockyer, A M, Coy, J, andM a l t b y , M , 1 9 8 1 A n c i e n t M o n u m e n t sLaboratory, DOE, computer based osteometry,data capture user manual ( l ) , AncientMonuments Laboratory Rep, 3342

Kenyon, K M, 1940 Excavations at Viroconium1936-7, Archaeologia, 88, 175-227, 1 9 5 3 E x c a v a t i o n s a t S u t t o n W a l l s ,Herefordshire 1948-51, Archaeol J, 110, [1954],1-87

Kiesewalter, 1974 in von den Dreisch, A, andBoessneck, J, Kritische Anmerkungen zurwiderristhohen berechnung aus langenmassenvor-und fruhgeschichtlicher Tierknochen,Saugetierkunglicke Mitteilungen, 22, 325-48

Kilby, K, 1977 The village cooperKilmurray, K, 1980 The pottery industry of

Stamford, Lines c AD 850-1250: its manufacture,trade, and relationship with continental wareswith a classification and chronology, BritArchaeol Rep, 84

Knorr, R, 1912 Die Terra-Sigillata-Gefaße vonAislingen

, 1919 Topfer und Fabriken verz ier terTerra-Sigillata des ersten Jahrhunderts

Lambrick, G, 1980 Excavations in Park Street,Towcester, Northamptonshire Archaeol, 15,35-118

Leeds, E T, 1941 17th and 18th century winebottles of Oxford Taverns, Oxoniensia, 6, 44-55

Little, A G, 1906 Austin Friars, Droitwich, inVCH, ii, 173-5

Liversidge, J, 1976 Woodwork, in Strong, D, andBrown, D (eds), Roman crafts, 155-8

LMMC London Museum Medieval Catalogue[1940]

Locke, A A, 1906 The hospital of St Mary inDroitwich, in VCH, ii, 179-80

LRBC Carson, R A G, Hill, P V, and Kent, J P C,Late Roman bronze coinage [1960]

Lyne, M A B, and Jeffries, R S, 1979 The AliceHolt/Farnham Roman pottery industry, CBA ResRep, 30

McCarthy, M, 1979 Pottery synthesis, inWilliams, J H, St Peter’s Street Northamptonexcavations 1973-6, Northampton ArchaeolMonog, 2

Mackreth, D F, 1985 Brooches from RomanDerby, in Dool, J et al, Roman Derby: excavations1968-83, Derbyshire Archaeol J, 105, 281-99

Maddocks, P G, 1950 The salt industry ofWorcestershire, unpubl dissertation, BirminghamUniv Geography Dept, 160

Malam, J P, 1981 White salt-glazed stonewaremanufactured at Jackfield, West MidlandsArchaeol, 24, 45-50

Maltolcsi, J, 1970 Historiche Erforschung derKorpergrosse des Rindes auf Grund vonungarischem Knockenmaterial, Zeitschrift f,Tierzuchtg u Zuchtungsbiol Hamburg, 87, 89-137

Mason, D J P, 1985 Excavations at Chester.26-42 Lower Bridge Steet 1974-6. The Dark Ageand Saxon periods, Grosvenor Mus ArchaeolExcavation and Survey Rep, 3

Mathews, L G, and Green, H J M, 1969Post-medieval pottery at the Inns of Court,Post-Medieval Archaeol, 3, 1-17

Mawer, A, and Stenton, F M, 1927 The place-names of Worcestershire, English Place-name Soc,4

Megaw, J V S, and Simpson, D D A, 1979Introduction to British Prehistory

Mellor, M, 1980 Late Saxon pottery fromOxfordshire: evidence and speculation, MedievalCeramics, 4, 17-27

Mitchell, G H, Pocock, R W, and Taylor, J H, 1961Geology of the country around Droitwich,Abberley and Kidderminster, Memoir GeolSurvey Gt Britain

Monkhouse, F J, 1954 Worcestershire, in Darbyand Terrett 1954, 215-69

Moore, D T, 1983 Petrological aspects of somesharpening stones, touchstones and millingstones, in Kempe, D R C, and Harvey, A P (eds),The Petrology of archaeological artefacts, 277-300

214

Morgan, R A, and Schofield, J, 1978 Tree-ringsand the archaeology of the Thames waterfront inthe City of London, in Fletcher, J M (ed),Dendrochronology in Europe, Brit Archaeol Rep,S51, 223-38

Morris, C A, 1981 Early medievalseparate-bladed shovels from Ireland, J Roy SocAntiq Ir, 111, 50-69

Morris, E L, 1978 Late Saxon pottery fromWorcester, Trans Worcester-shire Archaeol Soc, 3ser, 6, [1979], 75-80, 1980 Medieval and post-medieval potteryin 'Worcester - a type series, in Carver 1980,221-53, 1 9 8 1 a C e r a m i c e x c h a n g e i n w e s t e r nBritain: a preliminary view, in Howard, H, andMorris, E L (eds), Production and distribution: aceramic viewpoint, Brit Archaeol Rep, S120,67-81-, 1981b Petrological report on the Beakerand Iron Age ceramics, in Stanford, S C,Midsummer Hill, privately printed, 151-5, 1 9 8 2 I r o n A g e p o t t e r y f r o m w e s t e r nBritain: another petrological study, in Freestone,I, Johns, C, and Potter, T (eds), Current researchin ceramics: thin section studies Brit Mus OccasPap, 32, 15-25, 1983 Salt and ceramic exchange in westernBritain during the first millennium BC, unpublPhD thesis, Univ Southampton, 1985 Prehistoric salt distributions: twocase studies from western Britain, Bull BoardCeltic Stud, 32, 336-79

Morris, J,(ed) 1980 Nennius, British history andthe Welsh Annals

Museum of London, 1986 DUA archive reportw r i t i n g m a n u a l , D e p a r t m e n t o f U r b a nArchaeology Museum of London

Nash, T R, 1781-2 Collections for the history ofWorcestershire, 2 VOls

Nichol, J, 1811 The history and antiquities of thecounty of Leicestershire, Vol 4

Niermeyer, J F, 1954-76 Mediae latinitatisl e x i c o n M i n u s . A m e d i e v a l l a t i n -French/English dictionary, Leiden

Northolt, A J D, and Highley, D E, 1973 Salt,Minerals Resourses Consultative Committee,mineral dossier no 7, HMSO

OLD Oxford Latin Dictionary, 1982Orton, C, 1977 Roman pottery, in Blurton, T R

(ed), Excavations at Angel Court, Walbrook, 1974,Trans London Middlesex Archaeol Soc, 28,14-100

Oswald, A, 1975 Clay pipes for the archaeologist,Brit Archaeol Rep, 14, and Phillips, H, 1949 A restoration glasshouse from Gracechurch St, London, TheConnoisseur, 123-124 (Jan-Dee), 30-6

Oswald, O, 1936-7 lndex of figure-types on TerraSigillata 'samian ware'

Peacock, D P S, 1965-7 Romano-British potteryp r o d u c t i o n i n t h e M a l v e r n d i s t r i c t o f

Worcestershire, Trans Worcestershire ArchaeolSoc, 3 ser, 1, 15-28, 1968 A petrological study of certain IronAge pottery from western England, Proc PrehistSoc, 34, 414-27, 1971 Petrology of the coarse pottery, inCunliffe, B W (ed), Excavations at Fishbourne1961-1969, Vol II: the finds, Rep Res Comm SocAntiq London, 27, 255-9., 1977a Roman amphorae: typology, fabricand origins, Ecole Francaise de Rome, 32, 261-78, 1 9 7 7 b P o t t e r y a n d e a r l y c o m m e r c e .Characterisation and trade in Roman and laterceramics

Pillans, E B, 1906 Salt, in VCH, ii, 256-63Platt, C, 1976 The English medieval townPollard, S, 1974 A late Iron Age settlement and a

Romano-British villa at Holcombe, near Uplyme,Devon, Proc Devon Archaeol Soc, 32, 59-161

Poole, E G, and Williams, B J, 1981 The Keupersaliferous beds of the Droitwich area, Inst GeolSci Rep, 81/2

Rackham, O, 1980 Ancient woodland; its history,vegetation and uses in England, Blair, W Y, and Munby, J T, 1978 The 13thcentury roof and floor of the Black Friars Prioryat Gloucester, Medieval Archaeol, 22, 105-22

Rastel, T, 1678 An account of the salt waters ofDroytwich, Phil Trans Roy Soc London, A, 12,1059-64

Rawes , B , 1972 Roman pottery k i lns atGloucester, Trans Bristol GloucestershireArchaeol Soc, 91, [1973], 18-59, 1982 Gloucester Severn Valley ware - astudy of the Roman pottery forms, Trans Bristoland Gloucestershire Archaeol Soc, 100, 33-46

Rees, H, 1986 Ceramic salt working debris fromDroitwich, Trans Worcestershire Archaeol Soc, 3ser, 10, 47-54

RIC Mattingly, H and Sydenham, E A, TheRoman imperial coinage, 5.2, 1923-67

Richardson, L, 1930 Wells and springs ofWorcestershire, Memoir Geol Survey EnglandWales

Rigby, V, 1973 Potters Stamps on Terra Nigraand Terra Rubra found in Britain, in Detsicas1973, 7-24, 1 9 7 7 T h e G a l l o - B e l g i c p o t t e r y f r o mCirencester, in Dore and Greene 1977, 37-46

Riha, E, 1979 Die R ö mishcen fibeln aus Augstund Kaiseraugst, Forschungen in Augst, Band 3

Rivet, A L F, and Smith, C, 1979 The place-names of Roman Britain

Rodwell , W R, 1979 Iron Age and Romansalt-winning on the Essex coast, in Burnham, BC, and Johnson, H B (eds), Invasion and response,the case of Roman Britain, Brit Archaeol Rep, 30,133-75

Roe, F E S, 1988 Report on worked stone fromBeckford, Worcestershire, Ancient MonumentsLaboratory Rept, 154

215

Rogers, G B, 1974 Poterie sigillee de la Gaulecentrale, Gallia, Suppl 28

Round, J H, 1901 Domesday Survey, in VCH, i,253-323

St Joseph, J K, 1938 The Roman fort atDodderhill, Droitwich, Birmingham Archaeol SocTrans Proc, 62, 27-31

Saville, A, 1979 Excavations at Guiting PowerIron Age site, Gloucestershire, Comm RescueArchaeol Avon, Gloucestershire, Somerset, OccasPap, 7

Sawyer, P H, 1968 Anglo-Saxon charters: anannotated list and bibliography, Roy Hist SocGuides Handb, 8

Sellwood, L, 1984 Tribal bounderies viewed fromthe perspective of numismatic evidence, inCunliffe, B W, and Miles, D (eds), Aspects of theIron Age in central southern Britain, 191-204

Sherlock, R J, 1955 Excavations at Deritend,Birmingham Archaeol Soc Trans Proc, 73, [1957],109-14

Slater, T R, 1980 The analysis of burgages inmedieval towns, Univ Birmingham Geogr DeptWorking Pap, 4, 1981 The analysis of burgage patterns inmidieval towns, Area, 13, 211-6, 1982 Urban genesis and medieval townplans in Warwickshire and Worcestershire, inSlater, T R, and Jarvis, P J, (eds), Field andforest: an historical geography of Warwickshireand Worcestershire, 173-202

Smith, L T (ed), 1964 The Itinerary of JohnLeland in or about the years 1535-1545, 5 vols

Squires, R W, 1984 A guide to the Droitwichcanals

Stanfield, J A, and Simpson, G, 1958 CentralGaulish potters

Stanford, S C, 1981 Midsummer Hill, an IronAge Hillfort on the Malverns, privatly printed

Stead, I M, and Rigby, V, 1986 Baldock, theexcavations of a Roman and pre-Romansettlement, 1968-72, Britannia Monog Ser, 7

Stewart, B H I H, and Blunt, C E, 1978 TheDroitwich mint and BMC type XIV of Edward theConfessor, Brit Numis J, 48 52-57

Straker, V, 1979 Macroscopic plant remains fromDroitwich, Bays Meadow 1972-6, AncientMonuments Laboratory Rep, 2812

Streeten, A D F, 1979 Appendices I-II, in Freke,D J (ed), The excavation of a 16th century potterykiln at Lower Parrock, Hartfield, East Sussex1977, Post-Medieval Archaeol, 13, 114-20

Swan, V, 1975 Oare reconsidered and the originsof Severnake Ware in Wiltshire, Britannia, 6,117-37

Symonds, R P, forthcoming Rhenish wares: finedark-coloured pottery from Gaul and Germany,Oxford Univ Comm Archaeol Monog, 23

Taylor, M, 1981 Wood in archaeologyTeichart, M, 1975 Osteometrische

U n t e r s u c h u n g e n z u r B e r e c h n u n g d e r

Widerristhohe bei schafen, in Clason, A (ed),Archaeozoological Studies, Amsterdam, 51-69

Terrisse, J-R, 1968 Les ceramiques sigilleesGal lo -Romaines des Martres -de -Veyre(Puy-de-Dome), Gallia, Suppl 19

Thompson, H, 1949 Elementary veterinaryscience, 6th ed

Thorn, F, and Thorn, C (eds), 1982 DomesdayBook: Vol 16, Worcestershire

Tite, M S, 1972 Methods of PhysicalExamination in Archaeology

Tomber, R, 1985 III Pottery, in Wilmott, AR, andRahtz, S P Q, An Iron Age and Roman settlementoutside Kenchester, (Magnis), Herefordshire.Excavations 1977-79, Trans Woolhope NaturField Club, 45, 99-145

Vaughan, M D, 1982 The charred plant remainsfrom Hanbury Street, Droitwich, unpubl MScthesis, Univ London

VCH, Page, W (ed), 1906 The Victoria History ofthe Counties of England. A history ofWorcestershire, ii

VCH, Page, W (ed), 1913 The Victoria History ofthe Counties of England. A history ofWorcestershire, iii

VCH, Page, W (ed), 1924 The Victoria History ofthe Counties of England. A history ofWorcestershire, iv

Vince, A G, 1977 The medieval andpost-medieval ceramic industry of the Malvernregion, the study of a ware and its distribution, inPeacock 1977, 257-305, 1979a The medieval pottery (CitizensHouse, 1970), in Cunliffe, B W (ed), Excavationsin Bath 1950-1975, Comm Rescue Archaeol Avon,Gloucestershire, Somerset, Excav Rep, 1, 1979b The pottery, in Heighway, C M,Garrod, A P, and Vince, A G, Excavations at 1Westgate Street, Gloucester, Medieval Archaeol,23, 159-213, 1983 The medieval ceramic industry of theSevern Valley, unpubl PhD thesis, UnivSouthampton, 1984a Grass-tempered pottery (appendixl), in Heighway, C, Anglo-Saxon Gloucestershire,in Saville, A (ed), Archaeology in Gloucestershire- from the earliest hunters to the industrial age, 1984b Late Saxon and medieval pottery inGloucestershire, in Saville, A (ed), Archaeology inGloucestershire - from the earliest hunters to theindustrial age, 1984c The use of petrology in the study ofmedieval ceramics: case studies form southernEngland, Medieval Ceramics, 8, 31-45, 1985 The ceramic finds, in Shoesmith, R,Hereford City excavations - the finds, CBA ResRep, 56, and Whitehead, P F, 1979 An abandonedFlandrian channel at Pershore - stratigraphy,pottery and biota, Vale Evesham Hist Soc ResPap, 7, 9-24

216

Wade-Evans, A W, 1938 Nennius's 'History of theBritons’, together with the 'Story of the loss ofBriain', Church Hist Soc

Walters, H B, 1908 Catalogue of the Romanpottery in the Department of Antiquities, BritishMuseum

Ward, M, 1981 Terra Nigra-type wares fromChester, in Anderson, A C, and Anderson, A S(eds), Roman Pottery Research in Britain andNorth-West Europe, Brit Archaeol Rep, 123,51-68

Webster, P V, 1976 Severn Valley ware: apreliminary study, Trans Bristol GloucestershireArchaeol Soc, 94, 18-46, and Hobley, B, 1964 Aerial reconnaissanceover the Warwickshire Avon, Archaeol J, 121,[1965], l-22

Wenham, L P, 1968 The Romano-Bri t i shcemetery at Trentholme Drive, York, MinistryPublic Buildings Works Archaeol Rep, 5

Wheeler, R E M, 1923 Segontium and the Romanoccupation of Wales, Y Cymmrodor, 33, 1930 London in Roman times

Whitelock, D (ed), 1955 English historicaldocuments, c 500-l042

Whithouse, D B, 1962 A note on excavation ofthe Roman fort at Dodderhill, Droitwich, 1961-2,

Trans Worcestershire Archaeol Soc, New Ser, 39,55-8

Whiting, W, Hawley, W, and May, T, 1931 Reporton the excavation of the Roman cemetery atOspringe, Kent, Rep Res Comm Soc AntiqLondon, 7

Whitley, D, 1923 Saltways of the Droitwichdistrict, Birmingham Archaeol Soc Trans Proc,49, [1926], 1-15

Williams, D F, 1977 The Romano-British BlackBurnished industry: an essay on characterisationby heavy mineral analysis, in Peacock 1977b,163-220

Wills, G, 1977 The Bottle-collector's guideWoodiwiss, S G, 1983 Excavations in Droitwich

1982-3, HWCM 4099 High Street, HWCM 4574Queen Street, unpubl report, Hereford andWorcester County Council

Wright, R P, 1954 II Inscriptions, J Roman Stud,54, 103-11

Young, C J, 1977 The Roman pottery industry ofthe Oxford region, Brit Archaeol Rep, 43, 1980 The late Roman fine wares, in Rawes,B (ed), The Romano-British site at Wycomb,Andoversford, Trans Bristol GloucestershireArchaeol Soc, 98, 11-55

2 1 7

Index by Barbara Hird

NOTE: Friar Street is abbreviated toFS, the Old Bowling Green to OBG,Hereford and Worcester to H & W.Figures in italics refer to plates andfigures; there may also be textualreferences on these pages.

Aardenburg, Zealand 112Acurio (potter, of Lezoux) 61Advocisus (potter, of Lezoux) 58, 60Æ lfwig, brother of Archbishop

Wulfstan of York 187Æ thelbald, King of Mercia 187Æ thelflaeda, Queen of Mercia 187,

190Æ thelred I, King of Mercia 187Æ thelred II, King of Mercia (the

ealdorman) 187Agricola, Georgius 3, 4, 16, 109, 183agriculture: IA 184; at FS 122, 131,

153, see also cerealsAlcester, Warwicks: fuel wood 198;

plant remains 105; pottery 58,60, 61, 203

alder 23, 102Alleyne, Thomas (fl. 1331, of Wych)

195Allies, Jabez 5Alvechurch, H & W 188, 199amphorae 35, 54, 56, 135, 137, 206,

M1:B8-10, G8Andoversford, Glos; pottery 137, 204Anglo-Saxon period: continuity from

Roman period 34, 186; FS xi,122-23, OBG 26; urbandevelopment 186-192 see alsoindividual aspects

animal products see: hornworking;meat; tanning

antler, red deer: fragments, (FS)175-6, 178, (OBG) 84, 92;worked, OBG 95

aquamanile, Worcester-type 150, 151archive 7; index M3: E2ash: IA, FS 116; Roman, OBG 33;

medieval, FS 125, 126, (fuel,analysed) 171

Atepomarus ii (Gaulish potter) 60Augst, Switzerland; brooch 78augurs, Roman use of 113Austin Friars 195awl, bone 95

Baker (London druggist) 198Baldock, Herts; brooch 78Bampton, Oxon, manor of 194barrels, OBG 22,, 111-12; animal

bone 23, 87, 183; conservation106, 111, M2: F6; construction21, 111-12; dimensions 111;forked stakes as rests for 17;functions, (original import) 21,

112, (reuse) 21, 34, 183; hoops21, 111, 112; inscribed potsherd23, 75; reuse of timber 21, 22,23, 112; S16 22, 85, M2:F6; S1920-1, 87, 111-12; staves 19,111;stone rubber in 72; in trench 20

baskets for drying and moulding saltcrystals 4, 103, 113, 183

Bath, Avon; pottery 142, 143Bays Meadow Roman villa,

Droitwich 5, 7, 115, 186; plantremains 103, 105

beads, Roman glass, OBG 68-9beakers 36, 37, 35, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46,

54, 135Beckford, H & W 7; agriculture 184;

briquetage 133; ceramicslab-built fragments 64, 158;pottery 48, 58, 133, 137, 200;querns and rubbers 72, 165

Bentley in Holt, H & W 187Berinsfield, Oxon 105Berlin, Kunstgewerbemuseum;

Roman glass 70birch; macrofossils, OBG 102; see

also shovel bladebirds: FS 172, 173, 178,180; OBG 84,

85, 87, 92; see also fowlBirmingham: Moat 103; see also

pottery (Deritend ware)Birmingham and Gloucester Railway

(1845) 199bobbin, bone 182‘-bold’ suffix in place-names 190bone, animal: ageing (FS) 176, 177-8,

(OBG) 88-92, and animalproducts industry (FS) 124, 172,175, 176, 180, 181 (OBG) 23, 26,87, 180, 181, 183; butcherypractices (FS) 172, 174, 175,178, 180, 181, (OBG) 29, 84, 86,87-8, 180-1, (see also underindividual species); canidgnawing 84, 92, 172, 174, 175,176; concentrations of particularanatomies 26, 87, 180-l;1;FS172-81, (chronological survey)172-6, (comparison with OBG)180-1, (summary) 173; horncores, FS 124, 172, 174, 175,180, 181; OBG 10, 84-92, (inbarrels) 23, 87, 183,(chronological survey) 84-8,(comparison with FS) 180-1,(ovicaprid predominance in P3)13, 85, 86, (skulls and limbextremities) 26, 87, 180-lpathology 90, 178; skullfragments (FS) 124, 174, 175,176, (OBG) 26, 87, 180-1; byspecies and context 172,M3: C3-D14; by species and

phase, FS 173, (OBG) 85;withers heights 176, 178, 178-9,(OBG) 90, 91, 178, 179-80

bone, human; OBG 18, 93-4,M2:E13-14

bone, worked 10, 95, 182boroughs, Anglo-Saxon 189;

Droitwich becomes 192bottles, glass: Roman (FS) 160,

(OBG) 68; post-medieval, OBG71

bounds, perambulation of (1456) 192Bourton-on-the-Water, Glos; brooch

77bow-drills 113bowling green 29, 31bowls, pottery: 'Belgic'-type 36, 38,

52; black burnished 1 45, 46;grey ware 42, 43, 135; NeneValley 45, 47; Oxfordshire colourcoated 45, 47, 48; Oxfordshireparchment 48, 49; St Neots 138,140; Severn Valley 38, 40-1,42,54, 55, 137; shell gritted 45, 46;wheelmade Malvernian 42, 44,45; wheelthrown micaceous 44,45

Bradley, Andrew (clay pipe maker) 66Bradley near Feckenham, H & W

187, 198Bremesburh 190brick, construction in: FS 128, 129,

130, 155, 157; OBG 62Brindley, James 29, 198brine: boiling 13, (receptacles for) 17,

52, 53, 64, 65, 82; known sourcesand hinterlands 5, 6, settling xi,3-4, 8-10, 22-3, 33, 183; springsat Droitwich xi, 1, 3, 186, 198,(new wells, C17-18) 198,(strength and purity)4, 184,(and vegetation) 96, 105

briquetage xi; bases 116, 132-3, 134;in brine tanks 119,183;cessation of use (FS) 135, (OBG)19, 54, 58; distribution atconsumer sites 5, 184; fabrics116, 132, 134, 200-l; FS 8, 116,119, 132-3,183, (quantity) 134,135, 136; function xi, 4, 17-18,33, 116,183; in hearths 16, 18,118, 183; in layers 8, 15, 18-19,23; at OBG 8, 51, 52, 183, 185,(IA) xi, 8, 10, 33, 35, 52, 132,183, (early Roman) 13, 15, 17,19, 23, 133, 185-6, (end of use)19, 54, 58, (quantity) 33, 35,183; pan, shallow 17, 52, 53, 64,65; production outsideDroitwich, C6-5BC 33;proportion of potteryassemblage (FS) 134. 135. 136.

218

(OBG) 52, 54, 55; substantiallycomplete vessels 13, 17; weights52, 53

Bristol, Avon: clay pipe 159; medievalpottery 142; Ricketts’ glassworks71

British Museum; Roman, glass 70Bromsgrove, H & W 188, 189, 190,

198Bronze Age, OBG 8; flints 8, 31, 72, 73brooches, copper alloy 77-8, 79Broseley, Shropshire; clay pipes 66,

159Brunel, I. K. 199Buchlyvie, Central Region 112bucket stave, possible 112buckles: copper alloy 166, 167; iron

168, 169building materials see: brick; mortar;

plaster; stone, worked; tile; woodbuildings: FS xi, 195, (C12-13) 124,

125, 196, (C13-14) 225, 126, 195,(C15-16) 126, 128, (C17-18) 129,199, (C18-20) 116, 129, 130;OBG, Roman (S22) 24, 25, 28,62, 73, 87, 112, (S26) 19, 20, 32,62, 73, 87

burgage tenements, FS 192burhs, Anglo-Saxon 189, 190Bush, John (Droitwich chaplain,

fl. 1351) 195Butrio (Gaulish potter) 60buttons: bone 95,182; copper alloy

166, 167buzzard 84, 87Came, hundred of 189, 190Camelon, Central Region 58, 60Camulodunum; Roman glass 68canals 199; Brindley's (1771) 29, 199;

Droitwich Junction < 1854) 1,5,199; Worcester and Birmingham(1815) 199; see also wharfs

candlesticks, ceramic 50, 52, 136, 148Carmarthen, Dyfed; brooch 77carpentry 106, 109, 113Castleford, West Yorks 60, 69castor box 45, 47Casurius ii (Gaulish potter) 58cat 172; FS 173, 175, 178; OBG 84,

85, 88, 92celery, wild (Apium graveolens) 96,

105cellars, FS 127, 129central-place functions 188-92ceramics xi; fragments, slab-built

Malvernian fabric 64, 158;spindle whorl 50, 158; see also:briquetage; pottery; tile

cereals: Bays Meadow 103; HanburyStreet 103; OBG 96, 102-3,105

Chadwick; at Domesday 189charcoal 102; in cut 23; in hearths

10, 13, 33,116; in layer 8,Ml: El0; in pits 25, 119, 124,M3: B5; radiocarbon dates 8,119, Ml: El0, M3: B5

charters: Anglo-Saxon 186-7; of KingJohn, to Droitwich 192, 196

Cheshire salt industry 185Chester; Lower Bridge Street 124Chesterfield, Derbys; stone wares 152chimney stacks: FS S41 128, 165;

Priory House 195Chubsee, Charles; glassworks,

Stourbridge 71churches: Anglo-Saxon 190; medieval

194-5,196; memorial slabs, Cl6163-65; see also under Droitwich

Cinnamus ii (Gaulish potter) 58Cirencester, Glos; pottery 61, 204clay: in constructional fills round

barrels, OBG 20; fired 16, 65(see also briquetage);waterlogging 96; see also: pipes(clay); tanks (clay lining)

Clent hundred 189, 190coal 4-5, 198cobbled surfaces: LIA (OBG) 13;

post-medieval (FS) 127, 128,129, (OBG) 29

Coenwulf, King of Mercia 187, 190Cofton Hackett, H & W; memorial

slab 163coinage: Roman (Bays Meadow) 186,

(Dobunnic) 184, 185, (OBG) 19,55, M2: D1; Anglo-Saxon mints189; Cl9 penny, FS 130

Colchester, Essex: brooch 77, 78;green porphyry 163

Colman, Abbot 187combs, bone 95, 182commercial centres, Anglo-Saxon

189, 191cooking pots: Roman 53, (black

burnished 1) 45, 46, 55, 135,136, 137, (handmade limestonetempered) 36, 38, (handmadeMalvernian tubby) 35, 36, 38,52, 54, 133, (wheel-thrownMalvernian) 42, 44, 55, 133;Saxo-Norman, Cotswolds 138;medieval, (Cotswolds) 142, 144,(Malvernian) 143, 147, 148, 149,(Worcester type) 125, 142, 145,146, 147

Cooksey, H & W 189Coolbeorg (Saxon place-name) 187,

191copper alloy objects: FS 126, 128,

166,167; OBG 80Corbett, John 198, 199Coritani; salt production 185Cornewall, Sir Richard (fl. 1535) 195Cotswolds; tile 62; see also under

potterycounters: glass 69; tile fabric 63Courtauld Institute, London; Roman

glass 70Coventry, W Midlands; St Mary’s

Hall 163cropmarks, Severn and Avon valleys

184crow 172, 173, 180currency, salt used as 4, 185cuts, OBG 23, 25, 32; see also under

wharfs

cutting blocks, wooden 106,109

dagger chape, iron 168, 169Danes; defeat at Tettenhall 190deanery, Droitwich rural 189deer, red: FS 172, 173, 175-6, 178,

181; OBG 84, 85, 87, 92,(worked antler) 95

deer, roe, FS 172, 175, 178Deerhurst Priory, Glos 192, 194dendrochronological analysis 113,

116, 119, 184, M1: E2, E6,M3: A9, A14, B3

Den ton glasshouse 71Derby; brooches 77dishes: 'Belgic'-type 36, 38; Roman,

(black burnished 1) 45, 46,(coarse grey ware) 42, 43, (finegrey ware) 42, 43, (Malvernian)44, 45, (micaceous) 44, 45, (NeneValley) 45, 47, (Severn Valley)42, 43, 135, 136; Anglo-Saxon,St Neots-type 137, 140

disks, tile 63distribution of Droitwich salt 5, 6,

184-6ditches: FS 120, 122, 123, 124, 125,

(S19) 122, 123, 138, (S27) 120,122, 135, (S36) 123, 124-5, 142;OBG (S27) 23, 24, 25, 27, 63, 64,88, 88, 120, 121, (S29) 32, 69,93,(S32) 29, (S58) 22-5

Dobunni 184, 185documents, Anglo-Saxon 4, 5, 115,

186-8Dodderhill, H & W: Roman fort 5, 7,

49, 115, 121, 190; Old RidgewayFarm (AS Helperic) 188, 191; StAugustine's church 190

Do(v)eccus i (potter, of Lezoux) 58, 61dog: FS 172, 173, 175, 178, 180, 181;

gnawing of animal bone refuse84, 92, 172, 174, 175, 176; OBG84, 85, 86, 87, 91, 92, 181;shoulder heights 91, 178, 180; inwells, possible ritual function172

Domesday survey: on lead works 82,188; on salt industry 4, 5, 124,187-8; on town of Droitwich 188,192, 194

domestic occupation, FS: Roman 121,122, 172, 174; medieval xi, 116,124, 125, 126-7 130, 146, 196(see also buildings (FS))

Donnaucus (Gaulish potter) 60Dorset; coastal salt works 185Do(v)eccus i (potter, of Lezoux) 58, 61Dover, William (fl. 1285, Rector of

Dodderhill) 195Dragoun, John (fl. 1343) 195drains: FS 116, 121, 124, 127,129;

OBG 28, 29, 31drinking vessels, post-medieval

pottery 151,Droitwich, H & W: Barestrete (St

Andrew’s Street) 194; boroughstatus 192; Chapel on the

Bridge 163,194; Chorley House195; churches 190, 194-5, 196,(see also individual churchesbelow); Cock Inn 194; Covercroft137, 198; deanery, rural 194;defences, medieval 194; inDomesday survey see separateentry; economic centre, medieval187, 191,196; economic role ofsalt 4-5, 185,196;exchequer-house 192; fee-farm,C135, 192,196; fire, Cl3 125,126, 195,196; Friar Street seeseparate entry; Gurney’s Lane198; Hanbury Street 7, 49, 103,194, 195; hermitage 195; TheHerriotts 199; High Street 192,194, 195-6; Hop Pole Inn 63;Inner Relief Road 8; Hospital ofSt Mary 195; leadworks,Domesday 82,188; markets 191,192,194; mint, Anglo-Saxon191; name 191; Old BowlingGreen see separate entry; OldPolice Station 191; pavage,grant of (1316) 126; Post OfficeLane 198; Queen Street 7, 192,194,195; Raven Hotel 199;Ricketts Lane 29, 194, 195, 194;Royal Brine Baths 199; saltmonopoly 4, 196, 198; spa,development of 199; St Andrew’schurch 126, 190, 192,194; StAndrew’s Street 194, 195; StGeorge’s Square 194; StNicholas’ church 115, 165, 194,196; street plan 192, 193, 194-6;subsidence 196, 199; Tower Hill192, 194; Victoria Square 199;Vines area 7, 186, 195, 198; seealso: Bays Meadow; Dodderhill;Friar Street; Old BowlingGreen; salt production; urbandevelopment; Witton

Droitwich Junction Canal 1, 5, 198Drusus ii (potter, of Lezoux) 60duck 172, 173Dudley Castle; pottery 154Durham; wooden shovel blade 109Dusseldorf, Germany; Roman glass 70

Eadwy, King of England 187Eafe (C8th nun) 187Eccles, Kent; brooch 77economic role of Droitwich salt 4-5.

185, 196Edgar I, King of England 187Edward the Confessor, King of

England 188, 189, 191-Edwin, Earl of Mercia 188, 189elder (tree) 102elm 29, 102, 103emptorium, Droitwich as 187, 191environment see plant remainsEsch hundred 189, 190Essex; coastal salt production 9, 185estate centres, Anglo-Saxon 188,

189-90

Evesham Abbey, H & W 187exchange: Anglo-Saxon development

189,190-1 salt as standard 4exchequer-house, Droitwich 192Exeter, Devon; Roman glass 68, 69experimental archaeology, on

toolmarks 113

Fabianus ii (potter, of Lezoux) 61factory, Cl9 salt (FS) 199fairs 189farmstead, possible Anglo-Saxon; Old

Police Station, Droitwich 191fee-farm, Cl3 5, 192, 196ferrule, iron 168, 169field boundaries (FS) 130fir, silver (Abies alba); barrels 23,

111, 112fire: documented, of 1297 126, 195,

196; FS, Cl3 building destroyedby 125, 126; see alsopyrotechnology

fish 172, 173Fishbourne, W Sussex 68, 168Fladbury, H & W 188flagons, Roman: brown slipped 45,

47, 46, 54; sandy oxidised 42, 44;Severn Valley 37, 38, 54; whiteslipped 44, 45

flints: FS 161,162; OBG 8, 33, 72, 73food processing see meatforts, Roman see: Dodder-hill;

Greensforgefowl, domestic: FS 172, 173, 178, 181;

OBG 84, 85, 92, 181Fowler, John (OWWR engineer) 199fox: FS 172,173; OBG 84, 87Friar Street, Droitwich: depositional

sequence 116, designated ofarchaeological interest 7;excavation 115-31, (Iron Age)116-18, (Roman) xi, 119-22, 130,184, (Saxo-Norman) xi, 123-4,(medieval) 115, 124-8, 196,(post-medieval) 128-30, 195,199; location 2, 115; PrioryHouse 115, 125, 195; Steynor'sCourt 195; see also individualaspects throughout index

friary of Austin Friars, Droitwich 195frog/toad 173fuel for salt production 4; see also:

coal; woodfungi 112

Gallicanus (Gaulish potter) 58, 60gates, medieval 194Gaul, imports from see pottery

(samian ware)geology 1, 3Gething, James (clay pipe maker) 66glass objects: Roman, (beads) 68-9,

(vessels) 68, 69, 71, 122,160;medieval and post-medieval(vessles) 69-70, 71, (window) 71

Gloucester: pottery 138, 139, 143,151; ridge tiles 156; St Peter’s

219

goat: butchery marks 175; FS 172,173, 174, 175, 180; OBG 84, 85,88, 175

Gongius (potter) 61goose: FS 172, 173, 178, 180, 181;

OBG 84, 85, 92, 181Grafton, H & W, royal manor of 188,

189Greece: Roman green porphyry

imports 163, 165Greensforge Roman fort, H & W 5

Habington, Thomas 5, 194, 198Hadrian's Wall; pottery 60, 61Halfshire hundred 189, 190halls, church and community, FS

130, 199halophytes 96, 105Hampshire; coastal salt production 185Hampton Lovett, H & W 187, 188Hanbury, H & W: IA hillfort 190; in

Anglo-Saxon charter 187;minster church 187, 190, l91

handles: bone 95,182; lead 82, 83Harden Moor, W Yorks 69Hardwick, C. (clay pipe maker) 66hare: FS 173, 173, 178; OBG 85, 87Harelbeke, Belgium; barrels 111, 112Haresfield, Glos 138Hawford, H & W 198hazel 23, 102, 106, 112hearths: LIA (FS) 116-18, (OBG) xi,

9, 10, 11, 13, 16; possibleRoman, OBG 22, 33; medieval(FS) 126, 127, (OBG) 27 28;post-medieval (FS) 128, (OBG)28, 30; briquetage in 13, 17, 118,183; and salt production 33, 126,127, 182, 183

Helperic (Helpridge Farm, now OldRidgeway Farm, Dodderhill)188, 191

Herald, son of Earl Ralf of Hereford192

Hereford: pottery 138, 139, 143, 151;ridge tiles 156; St Gathlac'sPriory 192

hermitage, Droitwich 195Heronbridge; samian ware 60High Cross; samian ware 60hillfort, Hanbury Iron Age 190Himbleton, H & W 187hinge, iron 168, 169hinterlands of salt sources 6, 184-5hob nails 81hocci 188'hoe',’, Roman wooden 17Holcombe, Devon; brooch 77holly wood 109,hook, iron wall 168, 169horn cores see under bone, animalhorn-working xi, 175horse: ageing 92,178; butchery

marks 84, 86, 90, 92; FS 172,173, 175, 178, 180, 181; OBG 84,85, 86, 88, 90, 92, 178; pathology92, 178; withers height 91, 178,

Abbey 195 180

220

horseshoes 168, 169houses, FS: Priory House 115, 125,

195; Steynor's Court 195; seealso under buildings

Housesteads, Northumbria; Romanglass 68

hundreds, Anglo-Saxon 189, 190Hussingtree, H & W, manor of 188Hwicce 187, 188

industrial centres, Anglo-Saxon 189,190-1

inscriptions: on pottery 23, 75, 76,184; on stone 75, 76, 164, 165

Iron Age: FS 116-18; OBG(early/middle) 8, 33, (late) 8-13;OBG 8, 33

iron objects: small finds 81, 128, 168,169, M3: Cl; structural fittings127; see also under pans

Iullinus ii (Gaulish potter) 58,

jars, pottery 133, 134, 135, 136, 137,138,140; Iron Age, handmadeMalvernian 35, 64, 38, 52, 133,134; Roman 42, 43, 44, 45, 46,54, (Severn Valley) 38, 39-40, 54,55, 135, 136, 137; Saxon, StNeots-type 138, 140

jetton, copper alloy 166, 167John, King of England 192, 196jugs: Roman 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 54-5;

medieval 148

Kelso, Borders Region; pottery 60Kenchester, H & W 48, 200Keston, Kent 172keys, iron 168, 169kilns: White Ladies, Worcester, brick

and tile 157; Witton tile 563knives 168, 169

La Graufesenque, France 58, 61La Madeleine, France 58lace-ends, copper alloy 166Lane, Sir Richard (fl. 1725) 198larch, European (Larix decidua) 23,

111lead objects 82, 83, 170, M3: C2; brine

boiling pans 4, 82, 183, 188; FS125, 170; OBG 16, 21, 82, 83

lead working in Droitwich 82, 188leat, OBG 13, 14, 18, 111leather artefacts 114leather processing see tanningLegg, John (Broseley clay pipe

manufacturer) 159Leland, John 198Les-Martres-de-Veyre, France;

samian ware 54, 58, 60, 154Lezoux, France; samian ware 58, 60,

61, 154lids, pottery: IA 36, 38; Roman 42,

43, 44, 45, 46

location of sites 1, 2

Lincoln&ire: coastal salt production185; pottery 124

Little Chester 58

lock plate, iron 168, 169London: Gracechurch Street 71;

Honey Lane Market, Cheapside71; museums 70, 164, (NationalMaritime) 106, 111, M2:F6;Roman green porphyry 164; seealso Westminster Abbey

Longmynd, Shropshire 72loomweights, possible 52, 53'loote'(salt-making shovel) 109Lootwic (Anglo-Saxon place-name)

187, 191Lyfing, Bishop of Worcester 187

Maccius ii (Gaulish potter) 60Mainz, Germany; samian ware 60Malton, North Yorks; pottery 60Malvern area ceramics; IA/Roman

continuity 184; see also under:ceramics; pottery

manors, Domesday 5, 187-8, 189,192, 194

Mansell, Robert; glasshouse 70maple, field 106maps: Cl7th 195, 196; Tithe (1839)

130; Ordnance Survey 1st Edn(1884) 29, 130

marble, Purbeck 165markets and market-places 189, 191,

192, 194, 195Maternus iv (potter, of Lezoux) 61Matthew, Count of Boulogne (fl.

1170) 194meat processing xi; head products

180-l; salting 4, 21, 183, 185medieval period: FS 115, 125-9, 196;

OBG 27-8; routes 5; urbandevelopment of Droitwich 115,192, 193, 194-6; see alsoindividual aspects

memorial slab, Ruding 163, 164Mercer, William (Droitwich chaplain,

fl.1351) 195Mercia, kings of 186-7, 188Mesolithic era; flints 161, 162metalworking 126, 171; see also: lead

working; sheet metalMiddlewich, H & W 187-8, 191, 196,

198Middlewich, Cheshire; Roman lead

122, 137, 205; West Midlands

brine boiling pan 82Midsummer Hill 133milk production 176minster churches, Anglo-Saxon 189;

Hanbury 187, 189, 191mints, Anglo-Saxon 189, 191Modestus i (potter, of

La Graufesenque) 61molluscs 29, 103monopoly, Droitwich salt 4, 196, 198Montans, France; samian ware 58mortar (building material) 25, 114mortar (grinder), Purbeck marble 165mortaria, Roman: Kent/Continental

54,205; Mancetter/Hartshill 47,48, 50, 56, 122, 137,205;Oxfordshire 47, 48, 49, 50, 56,

48, 49, 205mounts, decorative copper alloy 166,

167

nails: copper alloy 80; iron 81, 168,169, (hob) 81

Nash, T. R. 5, 165, 194,National Maritime Museum,

Greenwich 106, 111, M2:F6needles: bone 10, 95; copper alloy

166, 167Nennius 187Neolithic era: flints (FS) 161, 162,

(OBG) 72,73Netherwich, H & W 187, 191, 198,

198Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Tyne and

Wear: Black Gate 71; Cl3fee-farm 5

Niger, Africa 4Northwich, Cheshire 191Northwick, H & W 188Norway; Eidsborg schist whetstones

from 72, 161, 162, 165Nottingham stonewares 152

oak: barrel hoops 23, 111, 112; brinetank linings 106, 113, Ml:E6;pollen 23; sliding mechanism106, 107, 113; tree-ring analysis113, M1:E6

Oftfor, Bishop of Worcester 187Ogilby, John; map of 1675 195Old Bowling Green, Droitwich:

designated of archaeologicalinterest 7; excavation 8-34,(LBA/IA) 8, 33, (LIA) 8-13,(Roman) 13-26, (Saxon) 26-7,(medieval) 27-9, (post-medieval)27-30; location 1, 2; see alsoindividual aspects throughoutindex

Old Kilpatrick, Strathclyde Region 61Ordnance Survey, First Edition

(1884) 29, 130Ospringe, Kent 69Oswald, Bishop of Worcester 187outshut, FS 128ovicaprid: ageing 88, 89, 176, 177;

butchery marks 88, 172, 174,175; FS 172, 173, 174; OBG 84,85, 86, 87, 88; proportion of totalbone 85, 86, 88, 180, 181;withers heights 176, 178, 179;see also: goat; sheep; ungulate,small

ox: ageing 88, 89, 176, 177; butchery84, 86, 87-8, 172, 174, 175, 176,181; FS 172, 173, 174, 175, 176,180,181; horn cores (FS) 174,175, 176, 180, (OBG) 180;metapodials 174, 176, 180; milkproduction 176; OBG 84, 85, 86,87-8, 180-l; proportion of boneassemblage (FS) 172, 174, 175,176, 180, 181, (OBG) 85, 86, 88,180, 181; skulls 175, 176, 180-l;and tanning 175, 175, 176, 180,

221

181; traction 176; withersheights 90, 91, 176,179; see alsoungulate, large

Oxford: glass 71; pottery 138, 139Oxford, Worcester and

Wolverhampton Railway (1852)199

Oxfordshire Domesday manors 188,194

padstones 73, 74; FS C15-16 127;OBG C3-4 22, 23, 73, 74, 112

palace, postulated royal, at Wychbold189-90

pans, brine boiling: briquetage 17,52, 53; iron 1, 3, 4; lead 4, 82,183, 188

Paris; Abbey of St Denis 192Parliament; Turnpike Acts 198parochia, minster 189Paternus v (Gaulish potter) 58pathology, animal 90, 92, 178Paullus iv (potter, of Lezoux) 61pavage, grant of (1316) 126Peak, Randle (clay pipe maker) 66pebble surfaces see cobbled surfacespedestal bases, pottery 42, 43, 135,

136Pershore, H & W: abbey land

holdings 187, 190; pottery 138Pershore hundred 189, 190petrological analysis 35, 49, 133, 200,

Ml:F2-G7, M3:B5-6Phepson, H & W 187pig: ageing 89, 176, 177; butchery 86,

88, 174, 175 ; foetal84, 88; FS172, 173, 178, 179, 181; OBG 84,85, 86, 87, 88, ,90, 181; withersheights 90, 177, 179

pigeon 180pigeon, wood 173, 180pins: bone 95; copper alloy 126, 166,

167Pipe Roll (1155-6) 192pipeline, projected brine (1755) 198pipes: bone 182; clay 66, 67, 159,

M3:Bllpipkins 148, 150pits: barrels in, OBG 20-l; clay-lined,

OBG (Roman) 21, 24, 25,(medieval) 27, 29, (see alsotanks, brine); domestic rubbish,post-medieval, FS 128, 129;elliptical, FS 116, FS (Roman)120, 121-22, 135,(Saxo-Norman) 121, 122, 123-4,131, 142, 174, 175, (medieval)124, (post-medieval) 128, 130;hearth bases, FS 116-17, 128;OBG (Roman) 13, 18, 19-20, 24,25, 30, 54-5, (medieval) 28, 27,(post-medieval) 33, 102, 106;plant remains in 102; pottery in54-5; tanning 116, 123, 124, 131,174, 175; wood lined 33, 106;with central pedestal ofundisturbed material, OBG 33;see also tanks, brine

planks, stakes made from 10plant remains: Bays Meadow 103,

105; Hanbury Street 103; OBG96-105, (halophytes) 96, 105,(species list) 97-100, (trees) 17,23, 29, 102, 116, 119, 179,M3:A14, (weeds) 96, 101-03,105, (wetland species) 26, 29,32, 96, 103

plaster fragments 125plates: ceramic, handmade

Malvernian 64; copper alloy,riveted 80, 81; iron 168, 169

plots, FS 125, 128, 192plough furrows FS 122, 192plumbi (leaden pans or vats) 188points: bone 182; iron 168, 169Polden Hill, Somerset; brooches 78pollen see plant remainsporphyry, green 163, 165postholes: alignments (FS) 120, 121,

126, 127, (OBG) 21, 22, 24, 28,25, 32, 111, 112; cluster (OBG)24, 25; around cut (OBG) 32; FS124, 226, 128; OBG 8, ,9, 13, 18,19, 24-5; of outshut (FS) 127;with packing stones (OBG) 22,27; racks or windbreaks 32, 33123,124; rectangular building,C3-4 (OBG) 23, 25, 27;replacement of post in 24;scaffolding holes, possible (FS)126-7; wall, possible (OBG) 32

postpipes, OBG 22, 23, 25, 27posts, OBG 17, 23, 25, 27, 106, 111,

112pottery: ceramic sequence 35, 48-50,

56, 153, 154, 200-g, M1:E11;fabric proportions (FS) 133, 135,147, 150, 152, (OBG) 54, 55, 56,57; forms 35 (see also individualentries); FS 56, 132-54;inscriptions on 23, 75, 76,184;non-vessel forms, OBG 50, OBG35-61; petrological analysis 35,48, 133, 200, M1:F2-G7,M3:B5-6; trade (Roman) 50,5&,(Saxon) 191, (medieval) 154 (seealso imported wares below)Earlier Prehistoric (FS) 133,134, M3:B9, (OBE) 8, 33, 35, 52,54 Iron Age: from Beckford 48,58, 200; 'Belgic'-type 36, 38, 48,52, 54, 58, 135, 202; continuityinto Roman period 17, 48, 54,56, 58, 135; FS 118, 132-3, 134;functional specialization 54;OBG 10, 35, 36, 38, 48, 52, 54;limestone tempered, handmade36, 38; Malvernian 35, 36, 38,48, ,52, 58, 133, 134, 184, 185,201; micaceous 44, 45, 203;oolitic limestone tempered 201;Palaeozoic limestone tempered48, 52, 54, 135,201; sandy,possibly local 36, 38, 48, 133,135, 201, M3:B7 Roman: AliceHolt/Farnham 50, 55; amphorae

35, 54, 56, 135, 137, 206,M1:B8-10, G8; 'Belgic'-type seeunder Iron Age above; BlackBurnished 1,44, 45, 46, 4&, 50,54-5, 135, 136, 137,203; brownslipped 45, 47, 50; coarse wares42, 43, 48-50, 54, 184;Dodderhill finds 49; FS finds134-8, 139, 152; grey wares 42,43-4, 48, 55, 136, 137, 202-3;Hanbury Street finds 49;Indixivixus 45, 47, 50, 204;Kent/Continental mortaria 48,49, 54, 205; local wares 202-3;Lyons ware 50,204; Malvernian26, 42, 44, 45, 48, 55, 58, 135,137, 203, (see also underceramics); Mancetter/Hartshill47, 48, 50, 56, 137, 205;mudstone tempered 42, 44, 55,137, 202, 203; Nene Valley 45,47, 50, 56, 137, 204; OBG finds13, 19, 31, 35-50, 54-6, 132;Oxfordshire (parchment) 48, 49,50, 56, 137, 205-6, (red/browncolour coated) 45, 47, 50, 204,(red-slipped) 52, 55, (whitecolour coated) 138, 204,(white/white-slipped mortaria)47, 48, 49, 50, 56, 137,205,(white ware) 48, 49, 50,205;'Rhenish’ wares 50, 206,M2:C13; samian 17-l8, 35, 54,58, 59, 60-1, 135, 136, 137, 154,184, 206, M1:G13-M2:C12,M3:Bll-12; sandy 202-3,(micaceous) 56, (oxidised) 42, 43;Severn Valley 37, 38, 39-41, 42,43, 48-9, 50, 52, 54, 55, 75, 135,136, 137, 200, 202, 205; shellgritted 45, 46, 203; shelltempered 50, 55, 137, 203-4;south-western brown slipped 56;Terra Nigra 50, 204; WestMidlands mortaria 48, 49, 205;white slipped 44, 45- 203; whiteware, unprovenanced 48, 49,206 Saxon and Saxo-Norman:Cotswold 124, 138, 139, 142,143, 144, 191, 207, (globularvessels) 138, 142, 143,144; FSfinds 124, 132, 136-9, 140;'grass’ tempered 122, 137-8, 191,206; Lincolnshire 124; OBGfinds 56-8; saltways and imports139, 141, 153-4; St Neots-type138, 139, 140, 191, 206;Stafford-type 139, 140, 191,206; Stamford 139; Upwichfinds 56; Worcester-type 138-9,145, 146 medieval:BrilI/Boarstall type 148,207;buff sandy 148, 150, 207;Deritend-type 148; FS finds 125,132, 140-3, 144-5, 146-7, 154;glazed sandy 207; limestonetempered 143,144; Malvernian126, 142-3,148, 149, 206-7;

222

Nuneaton-type 148; OBG finds35, 56; oolitic limestone 147,208; quartz sand tempered 147;saltways and imports 139, 141,154; sandy 143, 145, 146,147;Stamford 50, 52, 140, 143, 191,206; Worcester-type 124, 125,126, 142, 145, 146, 147, 148,151, 156, 157, 202post-medieval: brown glazed151,152; buff 151, 152, 209;Cistercian-type blackiron-glazed 151, 152;creamwares 152, 153, 209;Deritend-type 151,207; finemicaceous, Hereford-type 151;FS finds 128, 150, 151, 151-2;Malvernian 128, 150, 151, 156,208; Midlands yellow 152,208;North Devon gravel tempered152, 208;Nottingham/Chesterfield typestonewares 152, 208; porcelain152, 153, 209; Raeren type 151,152, 209; red and buffearthenwares 152; red 208; redsandy 208; south Shropshirestonewares 152; SouthNetherlands Maiolica drug jar151,152; southern white 151,208; Staffordshire 152, 209;stonewares 152, 209;Westerwald stoneware 152,209;Worcester porcelain 152, 209 seealso individual forms

Priddey, John 198Princes Risborough, Bucks 188Ptolemy, Claudius 115, 186Pudding Pan Rock 61pyrotechnology 171

Queenhill, H & W, memorial slab 164querns 10, 73, 74, 165

rabbit 172, 173, 178racks, drying 33, 123, 125radiocarbon dating 8, 32, 119, M1: E9,

E10, M3:B5railways 198Rastel, Thomas 3, 4, 109, 183Ravenna Cosmography 115, 186rescue excavation, FS 5Rheinzabern, Germany; samian ware

58, 154Richard II, King of England 198Ricketts, H. (Bristol glassworks) 71rings, copper alloy 80, 166, 167ritual activities, early Roman 172river transport 5, 184-5,198roads: FS 115, 126, 128, 129, 146;

Roman 5, 184, 186, 190, 194,198; saltways 5, 139, 141, 154,188; turnpikes 198

robber trench 130Rock, H & W; memorial slab 163Roden, John (Broseley clay pipe

maker) 159Roden. Samuel (clav Diue maker) 66.

67, 159Roger de Lacy (Domesday

landowner) 192Roman period: continuity from Iron

Age (pottery styles) 17, 48, 54,135, (salt production, OBG) xi,15, 17, 33, 54, 121, 184, 185-6;continuity into Saxon era 181;FS xi, 130,184; see also: BaysMeadow; Dodderhill; andindividual aspects

roof finial 62, 63routes; Droitwich as focus 5; see also

roadsroyal holdings in Droitwich area

187-8, 189, 192rubbers, stone 72, 73, 165rubbish disposal 154, 156Ruding memorial slab 164, 165

Saalburg, Germany; brooch 78Sacer i (Gaulish potter) 60Salinae, Salinis (Roman names of

Droitwich) 115, 186salt: distribution 5, 6, 184-6;

economic role 4,185; industrialuses 4 (see also: meatprocessing; tanning); sourcesand hinterlands 5, 6; see also:brine; salt production

salt production: coastal 9, 184, 185;early prehistoric, outsideDroitwich 33; economic role ofDroitwich 4-5, 133, 185, 196;fuel 4-5, 187, 188, 198; hearths33, 127, 183, 184; late IA/Roman183-6, (FS) 115, 119-21, 130,184, 199, (OBG) 13, 17, 16, 31,118, 178, 179, 180-1,(organisation) 14, 31, 118, 179,(reconstruction) 33; lead used in170; monopoly, Droitwichborough 4, 196, 198;post-medieval 3-4, 199; Saxon186-8, 191, 187, 191; scale 4-5,13, 33, 183,184; seasonalworking 185,198; Upwich 186,187,191; see also: basket; brine;pans; shovel blade; stakes(forked); tanks, brine

Salt Union 198saltways 5, 139, 141, 154, 188Saltwic (Saxon name of Droitwich)

191Salwarpe, H & W (village) 186, 188Salwarpe, River 1, 2, 3; former

meander 1, 3, 13, 184,198;name 186; navigation on 5, 184,198

sand 13, 18sandstone, worked: FS 120, 127, 129,

161; OBG 19saucepan pots 35, 36, 38, 52, 54Saxon period see Anglo-Saxonscaffolding holes 127scantling (SRBB) 109, 113scapula, perforated 182Sedatus iv (potter, of Lezoux) 61

shaft fills, dog carcasses in 172Shakenoak Farm, near Wilcote,

Oxon; Roman glass 69shale spindle whorl 72, 73shambles, butcher’s 192shears, iron 168, 169sheep: ageing 89, 90, 176; butchery

84, 86, 88, 175; FS 173, 174,175, 176, 177, 180; horn cores174, 175, 176,180; OBG 85, 86,88, 90, 91; skulls 175; withersheights 90, 91, 176, 178, 179

sheet metal: copper alloy 166,167;lead 82, 83

shells M3:E 1Shelve, Shropshire; shovel blade 109shovel blade, wooden 16, 107, 109,

113, 184Sidbury, Worcester 142, 143, 156Sidney Wood, Surrey; glasshouse 71slag, smithing 171sliding mechanism, oak 106, 107, 113Smith, Richard (clay pipe maker) 159smithing 126, 171snails, aquatic 29, 103soap making 4soils, LBA/IA buried 8Somerset Levels 113spa, development of Droitwich 199spectroscopy, qualitative x-ray 68spindle whorls: ceramic 50, 52, 158;

limestone 162, 165; shale 72, 73spoon, lead 125, 170SRBB (scantling) 109, 113Stafford Castle; pottery 154Staffordshire: salt field 185;

stonewares 152Staines, Surrey 172stakeholes: alignments (FS) 120, 121,

122; brine tank revetment 10;cluster (OBG) 24, 25; in ditch(OBG) 24, 25,120,121; inposthole alignment (OBG) 21,22; in rectangle (OBG) 32; forstakes made from planks 10;windbreaks or racks 32, 123, 124

stakes: forked 184, (FS) 119, (OBG)16, 109, 110, 113; in palisadetrench 120; tanks revetted with9

staves: barrel 19, 23, 111; smallvessel 112-3

Steynor, Robert 198Stoke Prior, H & W 191, 198, 199stone: chalk 165; Devonian

sandstone 165; Eidsborg schist(Norwegian Ragstone) 72, 165,162,165; green porphyry 163,165; Kentish Rag 72; MercianMudstone (Keuper Marl) 1,3, 8,73, 96; Millstone grit 72, 165;Old Red Sandstone 72; oolite165; phyllite or siltstone 165,162; shale 72, 73; UpperDevonian quartz conglomerate72; Welsh 72, 161

stone, worked 72-4, 161-5; buildingstone, shaped (FS) 161,162,

223

163, (OBG) 19, 73, 74; FS 161-5;OBG 72-4; see also: inscriptions;padstones; querns; rubbers;spindle whorls; tesserae;whetstones

Stourbridge, W Midlands 71, 159Strabo 185Stratford-on-Avon, Warwicks 196stratigraphic analysis 7, M1:B3-8; FS

116, M2:F7-3:A8street plan of Droitwich 192, 193,

194-6studs, copper alloy: FS 166, 167;

OBG 81,subsidence, land 196, 199Surrey; glasshouses 71Sussex: coastal salt production 185;

glasshouses 71Sutton Walls 133

Tamworth, Staffs; burgagetenements 192

tankards, Roman pottery 38, 40, 54,135, 137

tanks, brine xi, 3; alignment withriver, OBG 13,184; brinesettling xi, 8-10, 30, 33, 183;briquetage in 119, 183 cessationof use (FS) 119, 120, 135-6,(OBG) 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; claylining xi, 10, 11, 12, 25, 30 117,130; disuse fills, (animal bone)172, (briquetage) 119, 183,(ceramics) 64, 65, (human body)17, 18, 93-4, (plant remains)102, (wooden objects) 13, 15, 17,119; early Roman use, OBG xi,13, 33; FS 117, 118, ; hearths inproximity to 13, 183; indicatelarge-scale salt production 184;OBG 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17,18, 32, 33-4, 64; partitions 10,11; repairs 15, 33; wattle lining8-10, 30, 63, 106, 112, 117; woodlining xi, 106, 109, 111, 113, 116,117, Ml:E6, (repair to) 113

tanning: FS xi, 4, 185, 196, (animalbone associated) 172, 174, 175,181, (pits) 116, 123, 124; OBG,possible xi, 23, 34, 183

Tardebigge, royal manor of 188, 189Tasgillus ii (Gaulish potter) 60tenement buildings, FS 129, 130, 199tenon, carpentry 109, 113tesserae, chalk 161-2Tettenhall, battle of 190thimbles, copper alloy 126, 166, 167Tiddington, Warwicks 58tile 62, 63, 155-7; box flue 155, 156;

Cotswolds 62; Delftware 155;disks of reshaped 63; floor(inlaid medieval) 63,(post-medieval) 129, 157;fragments from buildings 19, 29,121; FS 155-7; hearth, Cl5/16127, 129; kilns 563,153;Malvernian fabric 62, 63, 152-3;

medieval 63; OBG 62, 63;pegholes 62-3; ridge 63; Roman63, 155, 156; roofing 155-7,(finial) 63, (flat) 127, 155, 156,157, (pan-) 157, (ridge) 62, 63,(sandy glazed) 147 (stone) 161;stamps 63; stone 161

timber framed buildings, FS 127, 128Tithe Map (1839) 130toggle, bone 182tolls: Saxon 187; C14th 198topography 1, 2; of salt production

184Towcester, Northants; brooch 78track, OBG 21, 22, 32trade: Iron Age 5, 52, 118, 153, 184-6;

Roman 23, 50, 58, 111; Saxonand medieval 124, 189, 190-l;salt as exchange standard 4;stone imports see stone; see also:markets; pottery (trade); salt(distribution); transport

transport: Cl8th improvements 198;river 5, 184-6, 198; tolls 187,198; see also: canals; roads

tree-ring analysis 113, M1:E6trees: species worked 113; see also

individual species and underplant remains

trench containing barrels, OBG 20Trier, Germany; samian ware 58tripod pitchers 143,147tube, lead 82, 83tuning key, bone 95tweezers, copper alloy 80, 78

unguentarium, Roman glass 160ungulate, large 84, 85, 172, 173,180;

see also oxungulate, small 84, 85, 172, 173, 180;

see also: goats; sheepUpton Warren, H & W 1Upwich, H & W: Saxon period,

(pottery) 56, 137, (salt working)56, 138, 186, 187, 191; inDomesday Book 187-8; Cl7 saltworking 198; place-name 191

urban development of Droitwich 115,186-99; Anglo-Saxon 186-92;medieval 192, 188, 194-96;post-medieval 196, 197, 198-9

Verulamium; Roman glass 68Victoria and Albert Museum, London

163Visitation of Monasteries 194

Waerfrith, Bishop of Worcester 187Wales, stone from 72, 161Wall, Captain (fl. 1655) 198walls: boundary (FS) 128,130; of

building (FS) 125, 126; possiblepost-and-trench, OBG 32

Warwick; burgage tenements 192Warwick, Thomas Beauchamp, Earl

of 195water table xi, 8

wattle tank linings 8-10, 30, 65, 106,112, 116

weights, thatch 52, 53wells: Roman (FS) 120, 121, 135, 136,

156, (possible ritual deposit)172; Cl8th clay-lined (FS) 130

Wessex; salt production 185Westminster Abbey; land holdings

188, 190, 192, 194Westwood, H & W, Cistercian Nuns

of 164, 194wharfs: FS 199; OBG 29, 30, 102,

103, 104wheel ruts 32whetstones: FS 161,162; OBG 72, 73whistle mouthpiece, Stamford ware

50, 52Wic (AS name of Droitwich) 191wickerwork see basketsWiglaf, King of Mercia 187, 189, 190Willingwick; royal ownership at

Domesday 189Winchester, Hants; glass bottle 71window glass 71Windsor, Thomas, 7th Baron

Windsor 198wire, copper alloy 80, 81Witton by Droitwich, H & W:

Anglo-Saxon settlement 187,191, 194; churches 190, 191-2; atDomesday 192; tile kiln 5, 63

Woodchester glasshouse 71wood and wooden objects 8, 106-13;

disuse fill of tanks and pits (FS)119, 124 M3:A14, (OBG)15, 16, 17; fuel 4-5, 187, 188, 198;fungal decay 112; OBG 8,106-13; reuse, (barrels) 21, 22,(structural) 23-4; salt makingtools xi, 33, 107, 109, 110, 183-4,(see also: shovel blade; stakes,forked); species used 111; stains(FS) 116; see also: barrels;carpentry; dendrochronology;posts; shovel blade; stakes;tanks (wooden linings);timber-framed buildings andindividual types of wood

woodlands 4-5, 187, 198Worcester: Blackfriars 156; church

land holdings 187, 188, 189; claypipes 159; at Domesday 192;fee-farm (1300) 5, 196; fuel wood198; pottery 35, 143, 146, 151,152, 154, 157; Priory 187,195;tiles 63, 156, 157; White Ladieskilns 157

Wroxeter, Shropshire 60, 77Wulfhere, Ring of Mercia 187Wulfstan, Archbishop of York 187Wychbold, H & W 183, 189, 191

Yarranton, Andrew 198yew (Taxus baccata) 113York 69, 109Zugmantel; brooch 78

Iron Age and Roman salt production and the medieval town of

Documents

Transcript of Iron Age and Roman salt production and the medieval town of