¹ Hume, K., ‘The Concept of the Hail in Old English Poetry’, ASE 3 (1974), 63–74Google Scholar; Jolliffe, J. E. A., Pre-Feudal England: the Jutes (Oxford, 1933), pp. 40 and 47–52.Google Scholar

² Hope-Taylor, B., Yeavering. an Anglo-British Centre of Early Northumbria (London, 1977), esp. pp. 276–7 and fig. 7.Google Scholar

³ For earlier statements of the general argument, see Blair, J., ‘Minster Churches in the Landscape’, Anglo-Saxon Settlements, ed. Hooke, D. (Oxford, 1988), pp. 35–58, at 40–8Google Scholar; Blair, J., ‘Anglo-Saxon Minsters: a Topographical Review’, Pastoral Care before the Parish, ed. Blair, J. and Sharpe, R. (Leicester, 1992), pp. 226–66, at 239–40, 242, n. 67 and (for the present view of Northampton) 261.Google Scholar

⁴ Williams, J. H., St Peter's Street, Northampton: Excavations 1973–1976 (Northampton Development Corporation, 1979)Google Scholar; Williams, J. H., Shaw, M. and Denham, V., Middle Saxon Palaces at Northampton (Northampton Development Corporation, 1985).Google Scholar The smaller sites are usefully summarized in the fiche supplement to Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, An Inventory of Archaeological Sites and Churches in Northampton (HMSO, 1985) (hereafter RCHM, Inventory).Google Scholar For a strong statement of the ‘palace’ hypothesis, see also Williams, J. H., ‘From “Palace” to “Town”: Northampton and Urban Origins’, ASE 13 (1984), 113–36.Google Scholar

⁵ For the Middle Anglian group of minsters, see Keynes, S., The Councils of Clofesho (the Eleventh Brixworth Lecture, Vaughan Paper 38, Univ. of Leicester, 1994), pp. 40–6 and ill. 3.Google Scholar

⁶ RCHM, Inventory, maps in pocket; Williams, , St Peter's Street, p. 4.Google Scholar

⁷ See below, n. 50.

⁸ The coloured frontispiece of RCHM, Inventory gives a good impression of this topography.

⁹ Lee, F., ‘A New Theory of the Origins and Early Growth of Northampton’, ArchJ 110 (1953), 164–74.Google Scholar Excavations between the two roads were inconclusive, though they encountered what might be interpreted as a ditch c. 15m wide which remained open into the post-Conquest period: RCHM, Inventory, fiche pp. 326–7.

¹⁰ Cf. Williams, , St Peter's Street, p. 5.Google Scholar

¹¹ This is suggested for Northampton by Haslam, J., ‘Market and Fortress in England in the Reign of Offa’, World Archaeol. 19.1 (1987), 76–93, at 84–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹² A perplexing find, to be assessed in a future paper, was a small barrow containing a burial with a scramasax which stood on top of the north castle bank: Scriven, R. G., ‘The Earthwork on the Site of the Castle at Northampton’, Associated Archit. Socs. Reports and Papers 15 (1879–1880), 204–10, at 204Google Scholar; R. G. Scriven, ‘Some Additional Notes on the Earthwork on the Site of the Castle at Northampton’, ibid. 16 (1881–2), 71–2; S. Sharp, ‘Description of Antiquities found on the Site of the Castle at Northampton’, ibid. 16 (1881–2), 243–51, pl. 3, no. 1; RCHM, Inventory, fiche p. 326. The scramasax survives as Northampton Museum acc. 1960.209 (ex inf. Robert Moore). This burial could have been sixth- to seventh-century or Viking-age, but in either case it implies that the castle re-used an existing earthwork.

¹³ Summarized in Williams, St Peter's Street; Williams et al., Middle Saxon Palaces; and RCHM, Inventory, fiche. Full reports on the peripheral sites are: Williams, F., ‘Excavations on Marefair, Northampton, 1977’, Northants. Archaeol. 14 (1979), 38–79Google Scholar; J. H. Williams and M. Shaw, ‘Excavations in Chalk Lane, Northampton’, ibid. 16 (1981), 87–135; and M. Shaw, ‘Excavations on a Saxon and Medieval Site at Black Lion Hill, Northampton’, ibid. 20 (1985), 113–38.

¹⁴ Excavations have concentrated in the St Peter's and castle areas. The few others within the primary circuit are small, but probably do constitute negative evidence against mid-Saxon occupation spreading much further: RCHM, Inventory, p. 49 (map) and fiche, pp. 383–96. Recent excavations in Woolmonger Street, to the east of St Gregory's, found tenth-century occupation but none of the pre-Viking period (South Midlands Archaeology, 25 (1995), 40–1Google Scholar, and pers. comm. M. Shaw).

¹⁵ Williams, , St Peter's Street, p. 254 and fig. 109.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Ibid. p. 260 and fig. 112.

¹⁷ Ibid. p. 260; The Making of England: Anglo-Saxon Art and Culture A.D. 600–900, ed. Webster, L. and Backhouse, J. (London, 1991), pp. 86–7, 90, 100–1, 140 and 142–3.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Williams, , St Peter's Street, p. 260Google Scholar; Williams, J., ‘Excavations at the Greyfrairs, Northampton, 1972’, Northants. Archaeol. 13 (1978), 96–160, at 149 and fig. 22, no. 4Google Scholar; Sharp, ‘Description of Antiquities’, pl. 4, no. 7 (to be compared with Making of England, ed. Webster, and Backhouse, , pp. 142–3, no. 107d).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Williams, et al. , Middle Saxon Palaces, pp. 9–17.Google Scholar

²⁰ Ibid. pp. 17–26.

²¹ Ibid. pp. 26 and 65.

²² Ibid. pp. 28–31. Compare the useful analysis of size ranges in Marshall, A. and Marshall, G., ‘Differentiation, Change and Continuity in Anglo-Saxon Buildings’, ArchJ 150 (1993), 366–402.Google Scholar

²³ Cramp, R. J., ‘Monastic Sites’, The Archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England, ed. Wilson, D. M. (London, 1976), pp. 201–52, fig. 5.14.Google Scholar

²⁴ For the evidence, written and archaeological, for the domestic buildings of minsters, see Blair, , ‘Topographical Review’, pp. 260–4.Google Scholar

²⁵ Williams, et al. , Middle Saxon Palaces, pp. 31–6Google Scholar; Gem, R., ‘Architecture of the Anglo-Saxon Church, 735 to 870’, JBAA 146 (1993), 29–66, at 39–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁶ Ibid. pp. 34–44. Gem puts Brixworth early in this sequence; for an alternative view, see Fernie, E., The Architecture of the Anglo-Saxons (London, 1982), pp. 65–9.Google Scholar

²⁷ Heitz, C., L'architecture religieuse carolingienne (Paris, 1980), pp. 43–4Google Scholar; Gauthiez, B., ‘La ré-occupation planifiée de la cité de Rouen au Haut Moyen Age’, Medieval Art, Architecture and Archaeology at Rouen, ed. Stratford, J. (BAA Conference Trans, for 1986, 1993), pp. 12–19, at 16–17Google Scholar; J. le Maho, ‘Le groupe épiscopal de Rouen du IVe au Xe siècle’, ibid. pp. 20–30, at 24–5.

²⁸ Barrow, J., ‘English Cathedral Communities and Reform in the Late Tenth and the Eleventh Centuries’, Anglo-Norman Durham, ed. Rollason, D., Harvey, M. and Prestwich, M. (Woodbridge, 1994), pp. 25–39Google Scholar; Brooks, N., The Early History of the Church of Canterbury (Leicester, 1984), pp. 155–60.Google Scholar B. Langefeld, ‘Regula canonicorum or Regula monasterialis vitae? The Rule of Chrodegang and Archbishop Wulfred's Reforms at Canterbury’, see above, pp. 21–36 of this volume, argues that the Rule of Chrodegang was unknown in England before the tenth century.

²⁹ Cf. Wormald, P., ‘Bede, Beowulf and the Conversion of the Anglo-Saxon Aristocracy’, Bede and Anglo-Saxon England, ed. Farrell, R. T., BAR Brit. ser. 46 (Oxford, 1978), 32–95, at 43–5 and 53–4Google Scholar, for the social and cultural context.

³⁰ RCHM, Inventory, pp. 57–9 and fiche pp. 371–8. Martin Biddle (pers. comm. 1995) also notes that St Peter's contains ‘megalithic’ column-shafts which seem ‘out of place as post-Conquest’.

³¹ RCHM, Inventory, fiche p.379.Google Scholar

³² Ibid., fiche p. 379; Williams, et al. , Middle Saxon Palaces, p. 65.Google Scholar

³³ Hope-Taylor, , Yeavering, pp. 70–85 and 95–118.Google Scholar

³⁴ Blair, , ‘Topographical Review’, pp. 246–58.Google Scholar

³⁵ Ibid. pp. 249–55.

³⁶ Michael Shaw points out (pers. comm. 1995) that RCHM, Inventory mislocates St Mary's; its correct site is marked as ‘St. Mary's Burying Gd.’ on Wood and Law's map (1847).

³⁷ Levison, W., England and the Continent in the Eighth Century (Oxford, 1946), pp. 264–5Google Scholar; Mosford, S. E., ‘A Critical Edition of the Vita Gregorii Magni by an Anonymous Member of the Community at Whitby’ (unpubl. DPhil dissertation, Oxford Univ., 1988), pp. xxv–xxvi.Google Scholar St Gregory is certainly not one of the standard patrons of eleventh- and twelfth-century churches.

³⁸ Tatton-Brown, T., ‘The Topography of Anglo-Saxon London’, Antiquity 60 (1986), 21–8, at 23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Blair, ‘Topographical Review’, fig. 10.4.

³⁹ Anglo-Saxon Chronicle 913A: The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. 3: MS A, ed. Bately, J. M. (Cambridge, 1986), p. 65Google Scholar; V.C.H. Northants. 3 (1930), 1Google Scholar; Williams, et al. , Middle Saxon Palaces, pp. 43–4.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Williams, J. H., ‘Northampton's Medieval Parishes’, Northants. Archaeol. 17 (1982), 74–84, at 77–8, uses as evidence for the royal status of Northampton the fact that its parochial dependencies, Upton and Kingsthorpe, were Domesday royal manors and later hundredal manors. This seems to me to underline its ecclesiastical importance, but to say nothing about its secular importance.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Nova Ugenda Anglie, ed. Horstman, C., 2 vols. (Oxford, 1901) II, 727–31Google Scholar; Farmer, D. H., The Oxford Dictionary of Saints, 2nd. ed. (Oxford, 1987), pp. 366–7Google Scholar; Williams, , ‘From “Palace” to “Town”’, pp. 126–7.Google Scholar

⁴² Williams, , ‘Northampton's Medieval Parishes’, pp. 77–8Google Scholar; Franklin, M. J., ‘Minsters and Parishes: Northamptonshire Studies’ (unpubl. PhD dissertation, Cambridge Univ., 1982), pp. 80–121Google Scholar, which gives grounds for thinking that Duston, Dallington and Hardingstone had also belonged to the mother-parish.

⁴³ Stenton, F. M., Preparatory to Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford, 1970), pp. 169–70 and 177Google Scholar; Franklin, , ‘Minsters and Parishes’, pp. 80–3.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ For a recent discussion, see Blair, J., ‘Ecclesiastical Organization and Pastoral Care in Anglo-Saxon England’, EME 4 (1995), 193–212.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Asser, in his De rebus gestis Ælfredi (ch. 49: ed. Stevenson, W. H. (rev. ed., Oxford, 1959), pp. 36–7)Google Scholar, calls Wareham a castellum but identifies it as a monasterium sanctimonialium. For the others, see Blair, J., ‘The Minsters of the Thames’, The Cloister and the World: Essays in Medieval History in Honour of Barbara Harvey, ed. Blair, J. and Golding, B. (Oxford, 1996), pp. 5–28, at 18–19 and 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁶ Rahtz, P., The Saxon and Medieval Palaces at Cheddar, BAR Brit. ser. 65 (Oxford, 1979).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Ibid. p. 29.

⁴⁸ C. and Hollinrake, N., ‘The Abbey Enclosure Ditch and a Late-Saxon Canal: Rescue Excavations at Glastonbury, 1984–1988’, Proc. Somerset Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc. 136 (1992), 73–94.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Rahtz, , Palaces, p. 32Google Scholar; Williams, M., The Drainage of the Somerset levels (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 63 and 72–3Google Scholar; Russett, V. E. J., ‘Hythes and Bows: Aspects of River Transport in Somerset’, Waterfront Archaeology, ed. Good, G. L., Jones, R. H. and Ponsford, M. W., CBA Research Report 74 (London, 1991), 60–6, at 63 and 65.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ For comparanda for all these features, see Blair, , ‘Topographical Review’, pp. 227–31Google Scholar;Blair, J., Anglo-Saxon Oxfordshire (Stroud, 1994), p. 63Google Scholar; Blair, , ‘Minsters of the Thames’, pp. 9–12. It cannot, of course, be asserted that only minsters occupied such places, but more work needs to be done on the siting of Anglo-Saxon settlements and monuments in relation to water. Cf. below, n. 86.Google Scholar

⁵¹ C. and N. Hollinrake (pers. comm. 1995) compare this layout with the village plans of Dundon, Shapwick, Carhampton and Hardington Mandeville, where fieldwork suggests origins during the tenth to twelfth centuries.

⁵² Blair, , ‘Minster Churches in the Landscape’, pp. 48–9 and fig. 2.3Google Scholar, notably Wimborne Minster, which bears a marked resemblance to Cheddar.

⁵³ Rahtz, P., ‘Cheddar Vicarage, 1965’, Proc. Somerset Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc. 110 (1966), 52–84Google Scholar; S. M. Hirst and P. A. Rahtz, ‘Cheddar Vicarage, 1970’, ibid. 117 (1973), 65–96; Rahtz, , Palaces, pp. 12–13 and 32–3.Google Scholar A Roman ditch, enclosures and cobbled surfaces have since been found well to the west of the villa, beyond the railway embankment: J. Hawkes, ‘Archaeological Evaluation at Kings of Wessex School, Cheddar, June 1991’ (AC Archaeology, unpublished typescript, copy in Somerset SMR), summarized in Hawkes, J., ‘Cheddar: Kings of Wessex School’, Proc. Somerset Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc. 135 (1991), 142–3.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Rahtz, , Palaces, p. 372.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ For the range of arguments, see: Morris, R. and Roxan, J., ‘Churches on Roman Buildings’, Temples, Churches and Religion: Recent Research in Roman Britain, ed. Rodwell, W., BAR Brit. ser. 77(i) (Oxford, 1980), 175–209Google Scholar; Pearce, S. M., ‘Estates and Church Sites in Dorset and Gloucestershire: the Emergence of a Christian Society’, The Early Church in Western Britain and Ireland, ed. Pearce, S. M., BAR Brit. ser. 102 (Oxford, 1982), 117–38Google Scholar; Hase, P. H., ‘The Church in the Wessex Heartlands’, The Medieval Landscape of Wessex, ed. Aston, M. and Lewis, C. (Oxford, 1994), pp. 47–81, at 48–50Google Scholar; Blair, , ‘Topographical Review’, pp. 235–46.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Rahtz, , Palaces, pp. 44–67.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Ibid. pp. 71–3 and 85–6. It may be significant that the two earlier coins are both in a damaged condition (ibid. p. 291 and pl. XVIII).

⁵⁸ Ibid. p. 282 and fig. 95, item C.A.14. Leslie Webster (pers. comm. 1995) confirms that a date of manufacture earlier than c. 900 is extremely unlikely.

⁵⁹ Ibid. p. 53.

⁶⁰ Fabric ‘G’: ‘early 10th or earlier’, or ‘may well be of 9th-century or earlier date’; Fabric ‘A’: ‘early 10th to early 11th’, but ‘too generalised a fabric to be closely datable’ (ibid. pp. 310 and 314–15). Doubts about the dating of this pottery are reinforced by petrological analysis by Christopher Gerrard, who writes (pers. comm. 1995) that the material classified as ‘A’ and ‘G’ actually includes several different fabrics. For ninth- to tenth-century parallels for the bow-sided ‘long hall’, see Beresford, G., Goltho: the Development of an Early Medieval Manor (London, 1987), pp. 12 and 38–47.Google Scholar There are grounds for suspecting that the Goltho hall also dates from the tenth century rather than the ninth: Higham, R. and Barker, P., Timber Castles (London, 1992), p. 56.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Rahtz, , Palaces, pp. 140 and 147.Google Scholar The coin was found in West Hall context 84/18A, with a tenth-or eleventh-century sherd (M.P.18).

⁶² Given the massive quantities of food-bones, the plausible alternatives are (1) that Ditch A was filled at the inception of the Period 1 buildings, using debris carted from the minster site; or (2), perhaps more likely, that it was filled during the life-span of Period 1, maybe a decade or two after its inception, using palace debris.

⁶³ Rahtz, , Palaces, pp. 146 and 168.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Ibid. pp. 202–3 and 228–34. For late use of the basketwork technique, see Heywood, S., ‘The Round Towers of East Anglia’, in Minsters and Parish Churches: the Local Church in Transition, 950–1200, ed. Blair, J. (Oxford, 1988), pp. 169–77, at 170 and fig. 63.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Rahtz, , Palaces, pp. 196, 203 and 310.Google Scholar Christopher Gerrard (pers. comm. 1995) states that fabric ‘C’ actually represents several different fabrics, mostly matched elsewhere from eleventh- to twelfth-century contexts, and that fabric ‘EE’ is similarly dated at Glastonbury Tor.

⁶⁶ Ibid. p. 89.

⁶⁷ Ibid. pp. 282–5 and 291–2, small-finds C.A.10, 21 and 90 and coins S.C.1–3. Daring of the small-finds remains tentative; I am grateful to Leslie Webster for her advice on this point. Ditch A also produced two possibly ninth-century glass fragments (ibid. p. 258, no. 7).

⁶⁸ Cf. ibid. p. 290: ‘The [Roman] coins are doubtless derived from the neighbouring Roman site at Cheddar Vicarage.’ Twenty-five Roman coins were found, five of them in the Ditch A fills; the ninth-century objects could just as easily have come from outside the site.

⁶⁹ Ibid. pp. 77–80 and 83–7, concluding that the ditch is unlikely to have undergone much scouring or maintenance before the rapid silting.

⁷⁰ Ibid. pp. 78–81 and figs. 6, 8 and 20–4; Hawkes, ‘Archaeological Evaluation’. It is an odd feature of the 1991 test pits (Trench 2) that they lay in the same area as Rahtz's Trenches 69–73, but found much less clear evidence for Ditch A. The non-continuance of Ditch A in a south-westerly direction seems, however, to be proved by the 1991 Trench 4, and by the intact Roman features located by geophysical survey in this area.

⁷¹ Rahtz, , Palaces, p. 83.Google Scholar

⁷² Blair, , ‘Minster Churches in the Landscape’, pp. 48–50Google Scholar; Blair, , ‘Topographical Review’, pp. 229 and 231–5.Google Scholar A local parallel for Cheddar in form and scale, though not on a riverine site, is the Glastonbury enclosure proposed by Warwick, Rodwell, ‘Churches in the Landscape: Aspects of Topography and Planning’, Studies in Late Anglo-Saxon Settlement, ed. Faull, M. L. (Oxford, 1984), pp. 1–23Google Scholar, ‘circuit B’ in fig. 9. For a recently explored example where the enclosure ditch can be clearly traced, see Lowe, C. E., ‘New Light on the Anglian “Minster” at Hoddom’, Trans. of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway Nat. Hist. and Ant. Soc. 3rd ser. 66 (1991), 11–35.Google Scholar

⁷³ Blair, , ‘Minsters of the Thames’, pp. 12–13 and 25 and fig. 1.2.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Harmer, F. E., Select English Historical Documents of the Ninth and Tenth Centuries (Cambridge, 1914), p. 17Google Scholar; translation after Keynes, S. and Lapidge, M., Alfred the Great (Harmondsworth, 1983), p. 175.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ S 1667 and S 1668, S 1674 (in references to Anglo-Saxon charters, S = Sawyer, P. H., Anglo-Saxon Charters: an Annotated List and Bibliography, R. Hist. Soc. Guides and Handbooks 8 (London, 1968)Google Scholar, followed by the number of the document); Edwards, H., The Charters of the Early West Saxon Kingdom, BAR Brit. ser. 198 (Oxford, 1988), 67–8.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Keynes, and Lapidge, , Alfred the Great, pp. 85 and 317.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ S 1115; Domesday Book, fols. 86 and 89v.

⁷⁸ Ekwall, E., The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names, 4th ed. (Oxford, 1960), p. 503.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Historical Manuscripts Commission, Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Dean and Chapter of Wells, 2 vols. (London, 1907–1914) I, 534 (Mark, Blackford, Biddisham, Allerton, Mudgely).Google Scholar

⁸⁰ S 806 (Robertson, A. J., Anglo-Saxon Charters (Cambridge, 1956), pp. 94 and 340).Google Scholar

⁸¹ S 511 (dots represent scribal omission) and S 611; Rahtz, , Palaces, pp. 16–17.Google Scholar S 511 is of uncertain authenticity and involves severe dating problems (pers. comm. Susan Kelly).

⁸² HMC, Calendar of Wells MSS I,439.

⁸³ Earle, J., A Hand-Book to the Land-Charters, and other Saxonic Documents (Oxford, 1888), p. 432Google Scholar; Pelteret, D. A. E., Catalogue of English Post-Conquest Vernacular Documents (Woodbridge, 1990), no. 11.Google Scholar The south-western analogies support the reading of ‘Cheddar-minster’ as defining the whole settlement nucleus (as distinct from such outlying zones as ‘Cheddar-cliff’ or ‘Cheddar-combe’), though the alternative possibility exists that it was coined to distinguish the zone immediately around the church from the palace complex.

⁸⁴ Cf. Keynes, and Lapidge, , Alfred the Great, pp. 317–18Google Scholar, tending towards a similar conclusion as regards royal occupation of Cheddar.

⁸⁵ Aston, M., ‘The Towns of Somerset’, in Anglo-Saxon Towns in Southern England, ed. Haslam, J. (Chichester, 1984), pp. 167–201, at 172–4Google Scholar; Costen, M., The Origins of Somerset (Manchester, 1992), pp. 136–8Google Scholar; Rahtz, , Palaces, p. 10Google Scholar; Domesday Book, fol. 86.

⁸⁶ The high-status secular complex at Sprouston lies beside a river, but is not on a site of the promontory or confluence kind so characteristic of minsters.

⁸⁷ For other probable cases, see Blair, , ‘Minsters of the Thames’, pp. 12–14.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ See, for instance, Fleming, R., ‘Monastic Lands and England's Defence in the Viking Age’, EHR 100 (1985), 247–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Yorke, B., Wessex in the Early Middle Ages (London and New York, 1995), pp. 194–7 and 235–9.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ See esp. Hamerow, H. F., ‘Settlement Mobility and the “Middle Saxon Shift”’ ASE 20 (1991), 1–17.Google Scholar Occasional royal centres (such as Benson (Blair, , Anglo-Saxon Oxfordshire, pp. 26–7Google Scholar)) occur regularly in written sources between the pre-Viking period and the eleventh century, but there are far fewer of these than is often supposed.

⁹⁰ Keynes, and Lapidge, , Alfred the Great, p. 101.Google Scholar

⁹¹ For instance, Williams, , ‘From “Palace” to “Town”’, pp. 127–30 and 134.Google Scholar

⁹² Brühl, C. R., ‘The Town as a Political Centre: General Survey’, European Towns: their Archaeology and Early History, ed. Barley, M. W. (London, 1977), pp. 419–30, at 426.Google Scholar

⁹³ Ibid. pp. 426–7, observing that under the Carolingians ‘the ruler, on a visit to a civitas, no longer necessarily resides in a palatium intramuraneum, but in a monastery outside the walls, where the ruler from now on has at his disposal a domus or palatium of his own’.

⁹⁴ My foremost thanks are to the two excavators, Philip Rahtz and John Williams, for their helpful and constructive responses. Earlier drafts were read by Mick Aston, Steven Bassett, Martin Biddle, Sarah Blair, Glenn Foard, Richard Gem, Nancy and Charles Hollinrake, Simon Keynes, Christine Peters, Michael Shaw and Barbara Yorke, and I am much indebted to their criticisms and advice. For information and help of various kinds I am very grateful to Bob Croft, Christopher Gerrard and Leslie Webster.