Archaeology can aid our understanding of developments over the whole six centuries of the Anglo-Saxon period and written records become more frequent towards the end of the period, but unfortunately when we look at the Wantage evidence we find that both the archaeological and written records are fragmentary. Although we can say with some certainty how the landscape of the Wantage area was settled and divided up at the end of the period, it is not so easy to say how this landscape came into being. However, we can still ask fruitful questions of the available evidence and draw on research undertaken elsewhere to help us reach some tentative conclusions.
What can archaeology tell us about settlements in the area?
Despite Wantage’s reputed association with King Alfred, prior to the 1990s little systematic archaeological work had been undertaken in the town and the immediate surrounding area. In 1993/4 archaeologists excavated an area of land fronting Mill Street prior to redevelopment. This was followed in subsequent years by further archaeological work in the vicinity, close to the location of previous discoveries of Romano-British material. Some evidence for early Saxon activity in the area was recovered but this was insufficient to establish whether there was any continuity of occupation and settlement between the latest phase of Roman activity and the earliest Anglo-Saxon one.
Likewise, knowledge of later Anglo-Saxon occupation of Wantage remains sparse; no evidence has been found for the site of the much speculated royal palace. This does not mean it did not exist – the evidence may lie elsewhere or may not have survived (wooden structures in soil do not survive as well as Roman stone ones). The only surviving Anglo-Saxon fabric from Wantage is a fragment of an ornamented cross-shaft of ninth century type recovered during the demolition in 1850 of a chapel within the churchyard of the present church.
If we look at a much wider area, what sort of settlement pattern do we find? Again the evidence for our area is slight. Generally, archaeologists think that the early Anglo-Saxon period is characterised by scattered farms and small hamlets. Where these lie next to Romano-British sites, continuity of settlement cannot be assumed; periods of abandonment are possible.
Although research shows that on the whole heavy soils were abandoned and free-draining soils preferred, interpretation of the evidence is difficult. Romano-British settlements are comparatively easy to recover from fieldwalking surveys, due to huge amounts of debris and other pottery produced. Early Saxon sites, in contrast, are much harder to locate, only small amounts of pottery were in use and of a type which unfortunately is highly friable - it disintegrates on the surface when exposed to frost and rain. Therefore 3-4 pottery sherds found in the plough-soil could indicate a settlement! So we cannot confidently say that an apparent lack of easily visible remains indicates an absence of people.
The picture is further complicated by the occurrence of localised settlement ‘drift’; at first sight an extensive spread of pottery may be taken as indicating a large settlement but in reality may represent a small settlement gradually shifting its focus over time.
In the mid-Saxon period settlements are more visible, but it is only from the later ninth century that durable pottery is in widespread use and settlements of all kinds become clear again in the archaeological record. Even so, there are still problems of recognition and interpretation; many settlements possibly originating from this period are still occupied today and the archaeology is sealed beneath houses and gardens.
Here’s a summary of what we know from the archaeology:
We will now go on to see what place-name evidence can tell us.