^{page 55 note 2} For the sceatta and penny, see (respectively): Cambridge University Museum, Braybrook Diaries, 5/7/1854; and V.C.H. Essex, i (1903), 315–31.

^{page 56 note 1} e.g. Clapham, A. W., English Romanesque Archilecture, i (1930), pp. 99f.Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 2} A-S.C, C, D, E, s.a. 1016; D, F, s.a. 1020.

^{page 56 note 3} R.C.H.M., Essex, i (1916), pp. 143–5.

^{page 56 note 4} H. M.Taylor, and Taylor, J., Anglo-Saxon Architecture (1965), pp. 272–5.Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 5} e.g. in Fisher, E. A., The Greater Anglo-Saxon Churches (1962), p. 301, where one impost block is drawn but is shown upside-down.Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 6} Taylor, op. cit., p. 273. Even during the short period while the 1974 excavation was in progress, two papers appeared citing Hadstock as a dated example of Anglo-Saxon work: Radford, C. A. Ralegh, ‘Pre-Conquest Minster Churches’, Arch. Journ. cxxx (1973), 134Google Scholar; and Gilbert, E., ‘The First Norman Cathedral at Canterbury’, Arch. Cant, lxxxviii (1973), 30Google Scholar, fig. 6. In the former the association with Cnut was summarily dismissed, but an early eleventh-century date still claimed. The plan was shown to ‘fit’ into a preconceived typology of minster churches. In the latter paper the impost arrangement is discussed and a date of ‘about A.D. 1000’ given in the text, while the illustration is captioned c. 1020’.

^{page 59 note 1} , W. J. and Rodwell, K. A., ‘Excavations at Rivenhall Church, Essex: An Interim Report’, Antiq. Journ. liii. (1973), 225Google Scholar.

^{page 60 note 1} V.C.H. Essex, iii (1963), 135. There are also several other villas in the immediate vicinity.

^{page 62 note 1} No postholes have been omitted from fig. 4. Two gaps on the south side have to be filled conjecturally, but this is little obstacle to the proposed interpretation-Victorian levelling on this side had removed all but the last few centimetres of the surviving postholes.

^{page 63 note 1} For a photograph of the south-east respond before the erection of a screen against it see Clapham, op. cit., pl. 44.

^{page 63 note 2} H. M. and J. Taylor, op. cit., p. 275.

^{page 63 note 3} Here, one might recall the nearby church at Ickleton, Cambs., where it has been suggested that the columns of the Saxon-Norman arcade are reused Roman materials; H. M. and J. Taylor, op. cit., p. 331.

^{page 64 note 1} Wm. Cole MSS.; B.M. Add. 5836, F. 17.

^{page 64 note 2} For Buttsbury, see C. Hewett, Medieval Church Carpentry (1974), p. 98, fig. 66. For Hadstock see ibid., p. 97, fig. 65. I am grateful to Mr. Hewett for the benefit of discussion on the subject of the doors of Hadstock, and to Miss J. Geddes for her comments on the ironwork.

^{page 65 note 1} Although memory of its existence seems to have lingered until the eighteenth century when Morant, in his description of the church, confused it with the west tower: Morant, P., History of Essex, ii (1768), p. 543Google Scholar.

^{page 65 note 2} The roof is a curious low-pitched construction, but not all of one period-further study is needed, Meanwhile, see Hewett, op. cit., pp. 14, 138, fig. 2.

^{page 66 note 1} This interpretation is at slight variance with the procedure outlined by Theophilus, De Diversis Artibus. I am grateful for the opportunity of discussion with Mr. Tom Blagg and Mr. Bryan Ward-Perkins on the subject of medieval bell-casting,

^{page 66 note 2} Antiq. Journ. xlv (1965), 254–5, fig. 5, pl. lxxvib.

^{page 66 note 3} Med. Arch, vi–vii (1962–3), 65.

^{page 67 note 1} Timber rots very quickly in this soil and it would have been an exceptionally tall person who required a wooden coffin 2 m. long. Such a length would not, however, be unreasonable for a stone sarcophagus.

^{page 67 note 2} For a discussion of shallow graves of the Anglo-Saxon period surmounted by monuments (at Canterbury), see H. M. and J. Taylor, op. cit., p. 140.

^{page 67 note 3} That the bodies of important religious figures were given some form of preservative treatment may be reasonably inferred from several remarks by Bede; for example, when the Abbess Etheldreda was exhumed seventeen years after her death (660) her body was reported to be free from decay (Hist. Eccles. iv, 19). Similarly, when St. Cuthbert was exhumed after eleven years of burial (698), he too was found to be in fresh condition (ibid. 30).

^{page 67 note 4} That the eastern end of the grave just clips the hoggin foundation of the porticus is a useful pointer to the fact that the grave-digger began work hard against the east wall, unaware that he would encounter the internal foundation-offset just below floor level.

^{page 67 note 5} Cf., for example, the exhumation and re-interment of Etheldreda and Cuthbert (n. 3 above), On the significance of stone coffins, and even their re-use, see ibid. 19.

^{page 68 note 1} Op. cit., p. 273.

^{page 68 note 2} Hart, C., ‘The Site of Assandun’, Hist. Stud. i (1968). Unfortunately this important paper seems to have been overlooked by some scholars who have written on the subject recently: e.g. Radford, op. cit., p. 134.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 3} R.C.H.M. Essex, i (1916), p. 5.

^{page 68 note 4} Liber Eliensis, bk. iii, c. 90. See also Hart, op. cit., p. 9; and D. Whitelock, ‘The Pre-Viking Age Church in East Anglia’ in P. Clemoes (ed.), Anglo-Saxon England, i (1972), 10–11

^{page 68 note 5} The relevance of this reference was, however, recorded by H. M. and J. Taylor, op. cit., p. 273; and more recently Dr. Radford has indicated his acceptance of the reliability of the statement in Bishop Nigel’s Charter (op. cit., p. 134).

^{page 68 note 6} Whitelock, D., English Historical Documents (1955), p. 698.Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 1} Most notably Folcard’s Vita Botulphi (Acta Sanctorum). Such works as the Schleswig Breviary and the unreliable Florence of Worcester add further details. For a discussion of some of this material see Stevenson, F. S., ‘St. Botolph and Iken’, Proc. Suff. Inst. Archaeol. xviii (1922–4), 29 f.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 1} H. M. and J. Taylor, op. cit., pp. 193 f.

^{page 70 note 2} Ibid., pp. 214 f.

^{page 70 note 3} One might compare it with the nearby late Anglo-Saxon church at Chickney, Essex, where the nave and chancel appear to have been deliberately set out as parallelograms; the 9° deviation of the north-south walls is again to the west; R.C.H.M. Essex, i (1916), p. 62. The excavation of a late Saxon secular timber building at Thetford revealed a 5° discrepancy in the angle between the long and the short walls (Building E); the skew is there also reflected by each of the paired postholes; Davison, B. K., ‘The Late Saxon Town of Thetford: An Interim Report on the 1964–6 Excavations’, Med. Arch. xi (1967), 192Google Scholar, fig. 47.