Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T17:35:35.992Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Dating of Hamwih: Saxon Southampton Reconsidered

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2011

John F. Cherry  and
Richard Hodges
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

This paper briefly reviews the historical and artefactual evidence for the dating of the Middle Saxon settlement of Hamwih, Saxon Southampton. This is followed by a seriation of twenty selected pit-groups, each with varying quantities of the five classes of Middle Saxon pottery. The analysis suggests three clusters of pits, some of which can be dated using coins or ceramics found in them. The span of dates, however, is substantially shorter than has previously been proposed, and some possible explanations for this are briefly discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Antiquaries Journal , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , September 1978 , pp. 299 - 309
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Addyman, P. V. and Hill, D. H., 1968. ‘Saxon Southampton: a review of the evidence, Part I’, Proc. Hants Field Club, xxiv–xxv, 61–93.Google Scholar
Addyman, P. V. and Hill, D. H., 1969. ‘Saxon Southampton: a review of the evidence, Part IF’, Proc. Hants Field Club, xxvi, 61–96.Google Scholar
Biddle, M., 1973. ‘Winchester: the development of an early capital’, in Jankuhn, H.Schlesinger, W. and Steuer, H. (eds.), Vor-und Frühformen der europäischen Stadt im Mittelalter (Gottingen), i, 229–61.Google Scholar
Biddle, M., 1976a. ‘The towns’, in Wilson, D. M. (ed.), The Archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England (London), pp. 99–150.Google Scholar
Biddle, M., 1976b. Winchester in the Early Middle Ages (Oxford).Google Scholar
Biddle, M. and Barclay, K., 1974. ‘Winchester ware’, in Evison, V., Hurst, J. G., and Hodges, H. (eds.), Medieval Pottery from Excavations (London), pp. 137–65.Google Scholar
Blindheim, C., 1975. ‘Kaupang by Viks fjord: harbour, market centre or town’, in Herteig, A. E., Liden, H.-E., and Blindheim, C. (eds.), Archaeological Contributions to the Early History of Urban Communities in Norway (Oslo), pp. 154–75.Google Scholar
Blunt, C., 1961. ‘The coinage of Offa’, in Dolley, R. H. M. (ed.), Anglo-Saxon Coinage (London), pp. 39–62.Google Scholar
Bridbury, A. R., 1969. ‘The Dark Ages’, Economic History Review, xxii, 526–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherry, J. F., 1977. ‘Investigating the political geography of an early state by multidimensional scaling of Linear B tablet data’, in Bintliff, J. (ed.), Mycenaean Geography (Cambridge), pp. 76–83.Google Scholar
Cherry, J. F., 1977. ‘Computer analyses of Hamwih pit associations’, in Hodges, R. A., The Hamwih Pottery, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Cowgill, G. L., 1972. ‘Models, methods and techniques for seriation’, in Clarke, D. L. (ed.), Models in Archaeology (London), pp. 381–424.Google Scholar
Crawford, O. G. S., 1942. ‘Southampton’, Antiquity, xvi, 39–47.Google Scholar
Crawford, O. G. S., 1949 ‘The Trinity Chapel and Fair’, Proc. Hants Field Club, xvii, 45–55.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B.W., 1976. Excavations at Portchester Castle, 2: Saxon (London).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolley, R. H. M., 1970. ‘The location of the pre-Alfredian mints of Wessex’, Proc. Hants Field Club, xxvii, 57–62.Google Scholar
Doran, J. E. and Hodson, F. R., 1975. Mathematics and Computers in Archaeology (Edinburgh).Google Scholar
Drennan, R. D., 1976. ‘A refinement of chronological seriation using nonmetric multidimensional scaling’, American Antiquity, xli, 290–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganshof, F. L., 1957. ‘Note sur le “praeceptum negociatorum” de Louis le Pieux’, in Studi in onore di A. Sapori (Milan), pp. 103–12.Google Scholar
Hodges, R. A., 1977a. The Hamwih Pottery: a Contribution to the Study of Eighth and Ninth-Century Ceramics, Trade and Economics, Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Southampton.Google Scholar
Hodges, R. A. 1977b. ‘Some early medieval imported pottery in the British Isles: an archaeological assessment of the French wine trade with Britain’, in Peacock, D. P. S. (ed.), Pottery and Economic Archaeology (London), pp. 239–55.Google Scholar
Hodges, R. A. 1978. ‘State formation and the role of trade in Middle Saxon England’, in Green, D., Haselgrove, C., and Spriggs, M. (eds.), Social Archaeology and Settlement (Oxford: B.A.R., S. 47), PP. 439–53.Google Scholar
Holdsworth, P. E., 1976. ‘Saxon Southampton: a new review’, Med. Arch. xx, 26–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmqvist, W., 1975. ‘Helgo, an early trading settlement in central Sweden’, in Bruce-Mitford, R. L. S. (ed.), Recent Archaeological Excavations in Europe (London), pp. 111–32.Google Scholar
Hurst, J. G. (ed.), 1969. ‘Red-painted and glazed pottery in western Europe from the eighth to the twelfth century’, Med. Arch. xiii, 93–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jankuhn, H., 1972. Haithabu, ein Handelsplatz der Wikingerzeit (Neumunster), 5th edn.Google Scholar
Johnson, L., 1968. Item Seriation as an Aid for Elementary Scale and Cluster Analysis (Bulletin 15, Museum of Natural History, University of Oregor).Google Scholar
Kell, E., 1864. ‘Ancient site of Southampton’, J. Brit. Arch. Assoc. xx, 68–73.Google Scholar
Kendall, D. G., 1971. ‘Seriation from abundance matrices’, in Hodson, F. R., Kendall, D. G., and Tautu, P. (eds.), Mathematics in the Archaeological and Historical Sciences (Edinburgh), pp. 215–52.Google Scholar
Kruskal, J. B., 1964. ‘Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis’, Psychometrika, xxix, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruskal, J. B., 1964 ‘Multidimensional scaling in archaeology: time is not the only dimension’, Hodson, F. R., Kendall, D. G., and Tautu, P. (eds.), Mathematics in the Archaeological and Historical Sciences (Edinburgh), pp. 119–32.Google Scholar
Kruskal, J. B. and Carmone, F. J., 1969. How to use M-D-SCAL (Version 5M) and other useful information (Bell Telephone Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey).Google Scholar
Loyn, H. R., 1962. Anglo-Saxon England and the Norman Conquest (London).Google Scholar
Metcalf, D. M., 1974. ‘Monetary expansion and recession: interpreting the distribution and patterns of seventh- and eighth-century coins’, in Casey, J. and Reece, R. (eds.), Coins and the Archaeologist (Oxford: B.A.R., 4), pp. 206–23.Google Scholar
Pirenne, H., 1925. Medieval Cities: Their Origins and the Revival of Trade (Princeton).Google Scholar
Platt, C. and Coleman-Smith, R., 1975. Excavations in Medieval Southampton, 1953–1969 (Leicester University Press).Google Scholar
Rigold, S. E., 1960–1961. ‘The two primary series of sceattas’, Brit. Numismatic Journ. xxx, 6–53.Google Scholar
Van Es, W. A., 1969. ‘Excavations at Dorestad: a pre-preliminary report, 1967-1968’, Berichten voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzook, xix, 183–207.Google Scholar
Wishart, D., 1971. CLUSTAN IA User Manual (St. Andrews).Google Scholar
Young, F. W., 1970. ‘Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: recovery of metric information’, Psychometrika, xxxv, 455–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar