WEARMOUTH AND JARROW MONASTIC SITES (2 of 2)

WEARMOUTH AND JARROW
MONASTIC SITES
Volume I
Rosemary Cramp
NGI.JSIl HIlRITAGI!
JARROWPR.QXD
19-01-2007
12:45
Pagina i

MONASTIC SITES
Volume 1
JARROWPR.QXD
19-01-2007
12:45
Pagina ii
This volume is dedicated to Bede and all who have

worked at Wearmouth and Jarrow
JARROWPR.QXD
19-01-2007
12:45
Pagina iii

MONASTIC SITES
Rosemary Cramp
with contributions by
G and F Bettess, D J Craig, J Hunter, P C Lowther, S McNeil,
C D Morris, A Piper
and principal illustrations by

Y Beadnell and N Emery
E N G L I S H H E R I TA G E
2005
JARROWPR.QXD
19-01-2007
12:45
Pagina v
Contents
Wearmouth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jarrow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Post-Dissolution history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wearmouth becomes Monkwearmouth . . . . . . . . . .
Jarrow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvi
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xx
Rsum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxii
Zusammenfassung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxii
Part II: Wearmouth

5 Interventions and discoveries pre-1959
The west end of the church. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nineteenth-century investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Early twentieth-century investigations . . . . . . . . . . . .
The interior of the church, east end . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nineteenth-century investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Twentieth-century observations during
restorations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Volume 1
Part I
1 Introduction
The structure and content of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Volume 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Volume 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
The location and topography of the sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Previous assessment of Wearmouth and Jarrow:
antiquarian scholarship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2 The excavations
Circumstances of the excavations, 195988 . . . . . . . . .
Wearmouth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jarrow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jarrow Slake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recording and post-excavation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The site archives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chronology and phasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Terminology and the period divisions . . . . . . . . . . . .
Architectural phasing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Artefactual and absolute dating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6 St Peters Church
Summary description of the fabric of the
Anglo-Saxon church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Phase 1, the west wall of the original nave . . . . . .
Phase 2, the porch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Phase 3, the tower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The excavations in and adjacent to the church . . . . . .
The 1972 excavations in the north aisle
and porticus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The 1986 excavations in the Cuthbert Chapel .
The chancel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The west end: nave and porch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The development of the Anglo-Saxon church
of St Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Phases 1 and 1a, 6745. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Phase 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Phases 2 and 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Phase 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
18
18
15
20
20
20
20
21
21
3 The pre-monastic background

Prehistoric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Wearmouth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Jarrow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Roman. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Wearmouth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Jarrow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Early Anglo-Saxon settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
The growth of ecclesiastical settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Episcopal jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4 The documentary history
The Anglo-Saxon twin monastery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The founder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The foundation of Wearmouth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The foundation of Jarrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The later Anglo-Saxon history of the sites . . . . . . . . . . .
The re-establishment of the monasteries by Aldwin .
Landholdings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Durham cells. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
40
41
41
42
43
43
49
49
49
55
55
56
56
59
59
61
61
62
63
64
66
67
69
70
71
7 The excavations south of St Peters Church

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Site structure and disturbance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Pre-monastic activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
8 The Wearmouth burial ground
General introduction by Rosemary Cramp
and Pamela Lowther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Wearmouth Anglo-Saxon cemetery by Susan
McNeil and Rosemary Cramp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Number and condition of burials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Phasing and dating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Coffins and containers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Grave fills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Body position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cemetery organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Grave forms and burial modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Marking of graves and stone arrangements . . . . .
Discussion and summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
31
31
33
33
34
35
37
38
v
76
77
77
77
78
80
81
82
84
84
85
86
JARROWPR.QXD
19-01-2007
12:45
Pagina vi
Summary and discussion of the Western Church:

Anglo-Saxon phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
The tower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Structural description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
General summary of pre-Conquest phases . . . . 166
The development of pre-Conquest churches . . . . . . . 167
9 The excavated Anglo-Saxon structures

Anglo-Saxon Phase 1a: the earliest structures . . . . . . 91
The central cobble path, 1561 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Building D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Ditch 1304 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Anglo-Saxon Phase 1b: the construction
of Benedict Biscops monastery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
The mortar mixers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Building B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Wall K . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Structure C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Anglo-Saxon Phase 2a/b: the enclosure and
its buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Wall 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Wall H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Wall F/1 (phase 2b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Anglo-Saxon phase 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Fragmentary deposits and structures,
pre-Conquest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Summary and interpretation: Saxon phases 13 . . . 111
The excavated Late Saxon and Norman
structures
Phase 4: Late Saxon and Saxo-Norman . . . . . . . . . . .
Wall 2, 1743/1780 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wall 3a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Phase 5: abandonment and resettlement . . . . . . . . . . .
The tower of St Peters church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Phase 5b: the Norman reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The well shaft, 1377. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Evidence for clearance and reconstruction
of buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14 Excavations around the church

Earlier twentieth-century excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
The 196378 excavations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
15
The Jarrow pre-Norman burial ground

by Pamela Lowther
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The extent of the graveyard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chronological attribution of burials . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The pre-Norman burials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Skeletal survival and post-depositional
disturbance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Age and sex composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Disposition of the body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Grave morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Artefacts and other material from grave fills . .
Alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The organisation and layout of the cemetery . . .
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
115
115
116
116
117
118
118
16 The excavated monastic buildings

Phases 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Building A and its surroundings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The roof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Openings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The exterior of Building A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Building A, phase 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Building B and its surroundings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The first phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rooms Bii and Biii (the cell) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Buildings A and B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Constructional modules for Buildings A and B
The southern slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Western sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The eastern part of the slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Building D and its surroundings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Phase 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Phase 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Phase 2: The construction of Building D . . . . . .
Phase 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dating and interpretation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The riverside buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Phase 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Phase 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Phase 3a: The first workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Phase 3b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Phase 4: The second workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Phase 4b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Phase 5: The collapse of the structures. . . . . . . . .
Summary discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
120
11 The medieval and post-medieval occupation

Phase 6: The medieval cell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
St Peters church. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
The medieval burials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Post-Conquest modification of the monastic
buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
East of the chancel of St Peters Church . . . . . . . 135
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
The adaptation of the monastic buildings into the
Jacobean Hall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Part III: Jarrow
12 Introduction: the Anglo-Saxon period
Previous discoveries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
13 St Pauls Church
The Eastern Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The standing Anglo-Saxon structure. . . . . . . . . . . .
The Eastern Church: excavated evidence . . . . . .
The Eastern Church: discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Western Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Textual and graphic descriptions of the
pre-1782 nave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Anglo-Saxon Western Church:
excavated evidence
by Rosemary Cramp and John Hunter . . . . . . . . . . . .
147
147
148
151
154
154
155
vi
173
173
173
175
175
176
176
178
182
183
184
185
187
187
191
192
193
197
197
201
201
201
204
207
207
212
212
214
215
215
222
222
224
226
230
230
232
232
233
234
235
237
238
JARROWPR.QXD
19-01-2007
12:45
Pagina vii
17
The Late Anglo-Saxon/Early Medieval

occupation
Building A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Building B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The well, 4348 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The southern slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
242
243
243
245
18 The medieval occupation

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
St Pauls Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The chancel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The tower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The nave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The medieval burial ground by Pamela Lowther . . .
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The burials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
251
251
251
252
253
254
254
256
262
The boundaries of the medieval cell on the

south: Jarrow Slake excavations 19731976
by C D Morris
Introduction to the excavated areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
Post-excavation analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318
Area IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318
Area IV West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
Area V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
Area VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
Medieval structures and deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
Area V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
Area IV West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324
Areas IV/IVE/IVN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
Area VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
Overall summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
22 The post-Dissolution occupation of the site
The South Cloister Building and the cottage . . . . . . 338
The riverside cottages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
The school-house . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
The rectory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
The burial ground. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
19
The monastic buildings and the Norman

and medieval phase 1 occupation
The standing buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
The standing walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
The east wall of the West Range, Wall 2 . . . . . . . 263
The north wall of the South Range, Wall 3. . . . 264
The East Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
The archaeology of the cloister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
Wall construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
The West Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
The cloister interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
The occupation evidence in the cloister,
11th to 14th century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
The South Range. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
The South Range adjunct building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
The kitchen area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
The southern perimeter and slope. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
The East Range (the dorter) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
ER1 (possible Sacristy) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
ER2 (Slype) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
ER3 (Chapter House) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
ER4 (day stairs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
ER5 (warming house/kitchen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
ER6 and ER7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
Medieval 1 summary and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
20 The Later Medieval phase 2 occupation
The monastic buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The cloister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The South Cloister Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Medieval 2b/post medieval modifications
to the South Cloister Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The east cloister walk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The East Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The cloister periphery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The western sector and southern slope . . . . . . . . .
Summary of the Medieval 2 occupation . . . . . . . . . . . .
The medieval layout of Jarrow and Wearmouth
in relation to other cells of Durham Priory . . .
Part IV: Discussion section

23 The changing economy of the sites
The economy of the Anglo-Saxon twin monastery .
Access to natural resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The documentary picture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Excavated evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The medieval economy of the cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wearmouth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jarrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Anglo-Saxon monastic sites of
Wearmouth/Jarrow within the context of
their time
The nature and layout of the monastic buildings . . .
Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Enclosures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The churches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Internal layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cemeteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
341
341
341
343
345
345
346
24
25
296
296
296
348
348
349
351
355
355
356
Conclusions and prospects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362
Part V. Reference section

Appendix A: A selection of the documentary
sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
300
301
301
309
309
311
Appendix B. The graphic record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381

Notes
.......................................................
401
Abbreviations and Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402
313
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428
vii
JARROWPR.QXD
19-01-2007
12:45
Pagina viii
Figures
Fig 5.6
Note: Photographs are by RC, unless otherwise credited in the

full captions.
Credits for Volume 1 illustrations are as follows:
YB=Yvonne Beadnell, FB=Fred Bettess, LB=Linda Bosveld,
DC = Derek Craig, RC = Rosemary Cramp, NE=Norman
Emery, JH = John Hunter, PL=Pamela Lowther, TM=Tom
Middlemass, A MacM = Ardle Mac Mahon, CDM =
Christopher Morris, LW=Liz Worth
IS = Imperial Scale, MS = Metric Scale
Fig 5.7
Fig 5.8
Fig 5.9
Fig 5.10
Fig 1.1
Fig 1.2
Location map of Wearmouth and Jarrow . . 5

Wearmouth, air photograph of the
excavation site in 1971 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Fig 1.3 West front of St Peters Church,
Wearmouth, before restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Fig 1.4 Detail showing St Peters Church
and to the south Monkwearmouth Hall . . . 7
Fig 1.5 Ordnance Survey 1:2500 map, showing
Hallgarth Square . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Fig 1.6 Jarrow, air photograph looking north . . . . . . 9
Fig 1.7 The Jarrow site in the course of
excavation 1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Fig 1.8 Part of a manuscript plan of the estate of
Simon Temple of Hylton Castle, showing
Jarrow Hall, church and village in 1808 . 11
Fig 1.9 View of Jarrow monastic ruins from the
south in the 18th century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Fig 1.10 Ordnance Survey 1:2500 map, showing
Jarrow Slake, river with causeway, and
supposed Roman site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Fig 1.11 Regional geology of north-east England . 13
Fig 2.1 Wearmouth excavated areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Fig. 2.2 Jarrow, areas excavated in the
Guardianship site and the churchyard . . . . 17
Fig 2.3 Jarrow, excavated areas 19541991 . . . . . . . 19
Fig 3.1 Roman routes and sites in the north-east 24
Fig 3.2 Roman finds in the vicinity of
Wearmouth and Jarrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Fig 3.3 Early Anglo-Saxon sites in the region . . . . 27
Fig 3.4 Major early ecclesiastical sites in
northern Britain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Fig 3.5 Sites in the region with evidence for preConquest churches and stone crosses . . . . 30
Fig 4.1 The cells of the medieval Priory
of Durham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Fig 4.2 Dependent vills of Wearmouth and
Jarrow, with early road system . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Fig 5.1 St Peters church at the beginning of the
excavation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Fig 5.2 St Peters tower viewed from the
south-west in 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Fig 5.3 St Peters church, west entrance porch
in 1982. Detail of carved jambs . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Fig 5.4 Drawings of St Peters west front and
tower by Mathew Robson, 1866. . . . . . . . . . . 47
Fig 5.5 R Sewells drawing of the 1912
excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Fig 5.11
Fig 6.1
Fig 6.2
Fig 6.3
Fig 6.4
Fig 6.5
Fig 6.6
Fig 6.7
Fig 6.8
Fig
Fig
Fig
Fig
Fig
6.9
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
Fig 6.14
Fig 6.15
Fig 6.16
Fig 6.17
Fig 7.1
Fig 7.2
Fig 7.3
Fig 7.4
Fig 7.5
Fig 7.6
Fig 8.1A
Fig 8.1B
viii
The Back Lane and housing to south of

St Peters church, 1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Interior view of west wall of St Peters
church in 1982. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Drawing of interior west wall of
St Peters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Exterior of west wall of St Peters
church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Exterior of western facade and tower
of St Peters church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
North and south elevations of St Peters
tower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
St Peters church: original quoins on
north-west wall of nave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
St Peters church: south-west view
of west wall and porch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
St Peters church: vault and wall
surrounding opening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
St Peters church: west face of W3,
west wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Exterior of original west wall of church . . 58
West wall: fabric surrounding dedication
cross in area of original gable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
West wall: detail of dedication cross
set on a plinth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Excavated Anglo-Saxon features within
the east end of St Peters church . . . . . . . . . . 60
North-facing section of trench 8601 . . . . . . 62
West-facing section of trench 8605 . . . . . . . 62
Detail of north wall 2/3111 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Wall 3111 with steps or flags above . . . . . . . 63
Matrix of deposits in Parsons excavation
trench at east end of chancel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Trench 6605, plan showing phase 1
and 2 walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Junction of 1953 and 1954 with south
wall of porch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Robbed return of porticus wall where
it met Wall 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Possible reconstructed plans of the
Anglo-Saxon church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Hallgarth Square, Monkwearmouth,
viewed from the north, 1961 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Excavations in Hallgarth Square viewed
from the north, 1961 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Lunchtime viewing by the shipyard
workers during site clearance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Wearmouth, principal excavated stone
features, all periods . . . . . between pages 745
Trenches 6401 and 6402: Walls 4 and F
viewed from the north . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Excavations in trench 6403 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Wearmouth cemetery: plan of
skeletons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . between pages 767
Wearmouth: burials to the south of the
church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . between pages 767
JARROWPR.QXD
19-01-2007
Fig 8.2
Fig
Fig
Fig
Fig
Fig
Fig
Fig
Fig
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
8.10
Fig 8.11
Fig 8.12
Fig 8.13
Fig 8.14
Fig 8.15
Fig
Fig
Fig
Fig
Fig
8.16
8.17
8.18
8.19
9.1
Fig 9.2
Fig 9.3
Fig 9.4
Fig 9.5
Fig 9.6
Fig 9.7
Fig 9.8
Fig 9.9
Fig 9.10
Fig 9.11
Fig 9.12
Fig 9.13
Fig 9.14
Fig 9.15
Fig 9.16
Fig 9.17
Fig 9.18
Fig 9.19
Fig 9.20
Fig 9.21
12:45
Pagina ix
Burials cut by Anglo-Saxon phase 2

walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Skeletal distribution: early graves . . . . . . . 79
Matrix of deposits in trench 61012 . . . . . . 80
Distribution of late graves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Burial positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Alignment of Anglo-Saxon burials . . . . . . . . 82
Right-side burials 62/3 , 62/4, 62/5 . . . . . . . 83
Burial 61/60: bone movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Burial 71/18: supine burial with foetus
on pelvis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Burial 66/12: supine burial with right
arm crossed on pelvis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Burial 61/59: grave with coffin stain . . . . . . 85
Burial 64/22: grave with plain
headstone marker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Stone setting above multiple graves
71/2426 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Burial 61/18: disturbed grave above
burial of horse bones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Horse bones below burial 61/18 . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Coffin nails with wood attached . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Burial distribution by age and sex . . . . . . . . . 89
Distribution of female burials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Hallgarth Square, derived from the
2nd edition OS map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Wearmouth, excavated features
assigned to the Anglo-Saxon
period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . between pages 923
Wearmouth, Building D plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Mortar mixer 1490, in relation to
Building B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
The mortar mixer, cut by well pit . . . . . . . . . 94
Cobble path to the east of mixer cut by
later burials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Northsouth section over mortar mixer,
trench 6403 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Wearmouth phase 1 interpretative plan . . 96
Building B -junction with Wall H . . . . . . . . 97
Detail: construction level of east wall
of B, trench 7401. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Central section of Building B at j
unction with Wall F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
View from Wearmouth tower looking
south over excavation trench 6201 . . . . . . . . 98
Junction of Wall K and Building B . . . . . . . . 99
Section across robbed wall trench of
Wall K . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Exterior of structure C at junction between
the natural clay and sand levels . . . . . . . . . . 100
Interior of Structure C, east face . . . . . . . . 100
Interior elevation of structure C,
west face . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Interior elevation of structure C,
east face . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Wearmouth Anglo-Saxon phase 2 plan . 102
Wearmouth, Wall 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Wall 4, showing destroyed first phase
Anglo-Saxon wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Fig 9.22 Wall H showing rebuilding level and

strengthening in the medieval period . . . 103
Fig 9.23 Junction of west wall of Building B
and Wall H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Fig 9.24 Junction of east wall of Building B
and Wall H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Fig 9.25 Wearmouth, 1971 trench, looking west,
showing Building D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Fig 9.26 Sunken room 569 after excavation . . . . . 106
Fig 9.27 Clay pack against the north face of
Wall H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Fig 9.28 Wearmouth, Wall F, looking east . . . . . . . 107
Fig 9.29 Wall F looking west . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Fig 9.30 Junction of west wall of Building B
and Wall F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Fig 9.31 Section of Wall F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Fig 9.32 East face of west wall of Building B . . . 108
Fig 9.33 Wearmouth, phase 3 plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Fig 9.34 Wall F, re-cut foundation trench west
of Wall VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Fig 9.35 Wall F east of Wall VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Fig 9.36 West section of trench 6904 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Fig 9.37 Position of mortar mixer 776 . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Fig 9.38 Area of opus signinum floor 1130 . . . . . . . . 111
Fig 9.39 Disturbed opus signinum 1209 and
rubble in corner of trench 6402 . . . . . . . . 112
Fig 9.40 Model of reconstruction of the Wearmouth
Anglo-Saxon excavated site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Fig 10.1 Wearmouth, plan of late Saxon/
early medieval excavated
features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . facing page 115
Fig 10.2 Foundations of Wall 2 looking south in
trench 6603 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Fig 10.3 Walls 3a and 3b looking south . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Fig 10.4 Detail of Wall 3a capped by earth and
Wall 3b overlying it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Fig 10.5 South-facing section of trench 6101 . . . . 117
Fig 10.6 The tower of St Peters church, showing
the later re-building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Fig 10.7 Section of the well shaft 1377 . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Fig 10.8 Deposit of building stone 1413 with reused
Roman altar AS1 in well pit 1377 . . . . . . 119
Fig 10.9 Stratigraphic position of hearths and
Wall 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Fig 10.10 Rubble spread 1129 with baluster shaft
overlying opus floor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Fig 10.11 Sunken structure Ca (1705) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Fig 10.12 Sunken structure Ca (1705): entrance
at the west . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Fig 10.13 Sunken structure Ca (1705): fill of
building rubble when abandoned . . . . . . . 121
Fig 11.1 Northsouth wing of Wearmouth Hall . 123
Fig 11.2 View from the north-east of
Monkwearmouth church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Fig 11.3 View of Monkwearmouth chancel,
from the south . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Fig 11.4 Partially excavated medieval lead
coffin in the Cuthbert Chapel of
Monkwearmouth church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
ix
JARROWPR.QXD
19-01-2007
12:45
Pagina x

Fig 11.6 Flooring of medieval outbuilding or
yard in trench 6604 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Fig 11.7 Detail of east wall of medieval
outbuilding in trench 6604. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Fig 11.8 Wearmouth: excavated features
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . between pages 1289
Fig 11.9 South-facing section of trenches
6101/6102 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Fig 11.10 Medieval drain and Wall E and Wall
1096 in foreground, trench 6402 . . . . . . . . 130
Fig 11.11 Buttress of Wall VIII, overlying
Anglo-Saxon Wall IX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Fig 11.12 Medieval Wall 637 appearing under
cellar wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Fig 11.13 Rebuilding of Wall F from wider
foundation levels in the eastern sector . . 131
Fig 11.14 Rebuilding of Wall F in the western
sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Fig 11.15 Looking west latrine 142 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Fig 11.16 North-facing section of trench 71013 . . 133
Fig 11.17 Suggested reconstruction of main
medieval features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
Fig 11.18 Trench 7401 looking west . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Fig 11.19 Plan of major wall lines of all periods . . 136
Fig 11.20 Detail of sunken ornamental path against
the west face of Wall H foundations . . . . 138
Fig 12.1 Jarrow in the early 20th century . . . . . . . . . 139
Fig 12.2 The site during excavation in 1976 . . . . . 140
Fig 12.3 St Pauls chancel from the south . . . . . . . . 140
Fig 12.4 St Pauls Church and monastic ruins
from the south-west . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Fig 12.5 St Pauls Church plan and cross-section
westeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Fig 12.6 The monastery of Jarrow or Gyrwi,
Durham, 12 Oct 1773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Fig 12.7 The north elevation of St Pauls Church,
drawn by S H Grimm c 177580 . . . . . . . 143
Fig 12.8 Interior of St Pauls Church, looking
east into the chancel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Fig 13.1 St Pauls Church, elevations of north,
south and east walls of the chancel. . . . . . 146
Fig 13.2 East wall of chancel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Fig 13.3 Plan of the Anglo-Saxon churches
and principal monastic buildings . . . . . . . . 149
Fig 13.4 Plan of excavation trenches inside and
adjacent to St Pauls Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Fig 13.5 West-facing section of trench 7005
extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Fig 13.6 Detail of plinth foundation at base
of chancel wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Fig 13.8 Plan of excavated remains at east end
of Anglo-Saxon West Church . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Fig 13.9 Plan of excavated remains at west end
of Anglo-Saxon West Church . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Fig 13.10 West end of Anglo-Saxon church at the
end of excavation looking south . . . . . . . . . 157
Fig 13.11 Trench 7503 during excavation . . . . . . . . . . 158
Fig 13.12 Foundations of south wall of AngloSaxon church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Fig 13.13 South wall of Anglo-Saxon church . . . . . . 159
Fig 13.14 Footings of the east wall of the chancel
of the Anglo-Saxon West church . . . . . . . . 160
Fig 13.15 Plan of successive phases of St Pauls
Church, in relation to the plan of 1769 . 161
Fig 13.16 St Pauls, West and East Churches,
conjectural isometric reconstruction
of the Anglo-Saxon church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Fig 13.17 St Pauls, plan and sections of tower . . . 164
Fig 13.18 Isometric reconstruction of the lower
levels of the tower and East Church . . . . 165
Fig 13.19 St Pauls Church, plans of the AngloSaxon phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Fig 14.1 Aerial view of the church and cloister . . 170
Fig 14.2 Contour plan of the guardianship area
south of St Pauls Church in 1963 . . . . . . 171
Fig 15.1 Plan of all in situ Anglo-Saxon
burials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . facing page 173
Fig 15.2 Skeletal survival at Jarrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Fig 15.3 Age of Anglo-Saxon burials at Jarrow . . 175
Fig 15.4 Sex of Anglo-Saxon burials at Jarrow . . . 175
Fig 15.5 Schematic plan of the distribution of
males, females and sub-adults within
the Anglo-Saxon cemetery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Fig 15.6 Body position for Anglo-Saxon burials
at Jarrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Fig 15.7 Right side and prone burials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Fig 15.8 Schematic plan of Anglo-Saxon supine
and right-side burials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
Fig 15.9 Sex of Anglo-Saxon supine and
right-side burials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
Fig 15.10 Schematic plan of coffins, stone
settings and grave markers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Fig 15.11 Anglo-Saxon graves with stone features . 181
Fig 15.12 Burials with grave markers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
Fig 15.13 Anglo-Saxon burial alignment by
body position. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Fig 15.14 Alignment of sexed Anglo-Saxon adults 184
Fig 15.15 Schematic plan of superpositioning and
pairs of graves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Fig 16.1 Possible pre-Saxon features south of
Building A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
Fig 16.2 Plough marks and stake holes in
trench 6302 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
Fig 16.3 Detail of stake holes/root markings in
trench 7802 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
Fig 16.4 Anglo-Saxon phases all features,
north . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . between pages 1889
Fig 16.5 Anglo-Saxon phases all features,
south . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . between pages 1889
Fig 16.6 Key plan of Building A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Fig 16.7 Jarrow: Building A, excavated features . 190
Fig 16.8 Building A during excavation. . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Fig 16.9 Detail of the north-east corner of
Building A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Fig 16.10 North-east corner of Building A, looking
along north wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
x
JARROWPR.QXD
19-01-2007
12:45
Pagina xi
Fig 16.11 Detail of wall construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

Fig 16.12 Building A, the south-east quoin . . . . . . . . 192
Fig 16.13 The central part of Building A,
looking north . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Fig 16.14 The central part of Building A, drain,
5691, to the north . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Fig 16.15 Detail of buttress base, 6223 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Fig 16.16 The west end of Building A,
looking west . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Fig 16.17 West wall of Building A looking north . 196
Fig 16.18 Detail of drain 5635 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
Fig 16.19 Building A looking west . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Fig 16.20 North part of Building A annexe, looking
east . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
Fig 16.21 Detail of east wall of Building A annexe 198
Fig 16.22 Foundations of south wall of annexe . . . 199
Fig 16.23 Trenches 67034, looking east . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Fig 16.24 Eastwest section over the east end of
Building A and west end of Building B . 200
Fig 16.25 East-facing section of trench 6703 . . . . . . 201
Fig 16.26 Building B viewed from the north
in 1969 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
Fig 16.27 Key plan of Building B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
Fig 16.28 Building B excavated features . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
Fig 16.29 The south wall of Building B
looking west . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Fig 16.30 View of central part of Building B
looking south . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Fig 16.31 The middle of the south wall of
Building B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Fig 16.32 Northsouth section over Building B . . . 206
Fig 16.33 Room Bii (looking south) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Fig 16.34 The south-east corner of room Biii . . . . 207
Fig 16.35 Distribution of window glass over
Building A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
Fig 16.36 Distribution of window glass over
Building B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Fig 16.37 Reconstructed plan of Buildings A
and B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
Fig 16.38 Construction modules for Buildings A
and B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Fig 16.39 Footings of possible timber wall
or fence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
Fig 16.40 West-facing section in trench 7803 . . . . . 213
Fig 16.41 Successive cultivation terraces and
plant holes in trench 7803 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Fig 16.42 South-facing section of trench 6302 . . . 214
Fig 16.43 Trench 7103, A. West-facing section;
B. East-facing section; C. North-facing
section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
Fig 16.44 East section of 7103 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
Fig 16.45 Wall 5107 looking west . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Fig 16.46 South face of 5107 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Fig 16.47 Detail of the junction of 5106 and
5107. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Fig 16.48 Building D, looking east . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Fig 16.49 Section below Building D looking west 217
Fig 16.50 Section through Building D
looking west . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Fig 16.51 West-facing section though the floor and

construction platform of Building D. . . . 218
Fig 16.52 East-facing section through the floor and
construction platform of Building D. . . . 218
Fig 16.53 Tips of sandy clay and stones 2875
under floor of Building D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Fig 16.54 Excavated features in Building D . . . . . . . . 220
Fig 16.55 View over Building D looking west . . . . . 221
Fig 16.56 Building D (earlier stage of excavation) 222
Fig 16.57 View from the south over Building D . 223
Fig 16.58 Detail of wall construction of 1062
and feature 4796 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
Fig 16.59 Junction of 1062 with Wall 1056 . . . . . . . . 224
Fig 16.60 Plot of window glass inside Building D . 225
Fig 16.61 Stone runnel or drain in Building D . . . 226
Fig 16.62 Section over Building D and the junction
with the Jarrow Slake trench Area IV . . . 227
Fig 16.63 Collapse of north wall of Building D . . . 228
Fig 16.64 Plan of the collapse debris of
Building D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
Fig 16.65 Collapse over the floor of Building D . . 229
Fig 16.66 Riverside buildings, phase 1 features
in trenches 7603 and 7805 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
Fig 16.67 Riverside buildings, phase 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
Fig 16.68 Riverside buildings, Anglo-Saxon phase
2 features cut by medieval structures . . . 231
Fig 16.69 Riverside buildings, Anglo Saxon phase
3a features cut by medieval structures. . 231
Fig 16.70 Riverside buildings, phase 3a: foundation
3924 cut by medieval oven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
Fig 16.71 Riverside buildings, phase 3a: pad of flat
stones 4813, later wall 4801 above . . . . . . 232
Fig 16.72 Riverside buildings, phase 3a: revetment
wall 1055 cut by Norman pier, viewed
from the north . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Fig 16.73 Riverside buildings, phase 3a: Wall
1055 and flagging 3796 to the south . . 233
Fig 16.74 Riverside buildings, Anglo Saxon phase
3b features cut by medieval structures . 234
Fig 16.75 Riverside buildings, phase 3b: showing
floor level 1011 and paving 4720 . . . . . . . . 234
Fig 16.76 Riverside buildings, phase 4a features . . 235
Fig 16.77 Section drawing of levels under
Wall 1062 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
Fig 16.78 Riverside buildings, phase 4: Wall 1062
viewed from the north . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
Fig 16.79 Riverside buildings, phase 4: section
under Wall 4751 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
Fig 16.80 Riverside buildings, phase 4a: Wall 4751
viewed from the south . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
Fig 16.81 Riverside buildings, phase 4a: postholes
4809 and 1005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
Fig 16.82 Riverside buildings, phase 4b features . . 237
Fig 16.83 Riverside buildings, phase 4b: settings
and posthole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
Fig 16.84 Riverside buildings, phase 4, viewed
from the north . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
Fig 16.85 Riverside buildings, phase 4b: revetment
4751 and 985 viewed from the east . . . . . 239
xi
JARROWPR.QXD
19-01-2007
12:45
Pagina xii
Fig 16.86 View from the south over the riverside

buildings under medieval structures . . . . 239
Fig 16.87 Matrix of phases 15 of the riverside
buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
Fig 16.88 Reconstruction of the Saxon phase
main structures (model) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
Fig 17.1 Late Saxon/early medieval features,
north . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . between pages 2423
Fig 17.2 Late Saxon/early medieval features,
Fig 17.3 South wall of Building B looking west . 243
Fig 17.4 The well 4348 and patch of plaster
flooring 4351 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
Fig 17.5 Well 4348 with packing and lower
surrounding surfaces revealed . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
Fig 17.6 Well structure with collapse 4343
and 4394 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
Fig 17.7 Well as excavated in trench 7002 . . . . . . 244
Fig 17.8 View of trench 6302, north section . . . . . 245
Fig 17.9 View of Wall 2a from the west . . . . . . . . . . . 245
Fig 17.10 Structure 5321 viewed from the east . . . 246
Fig 17.11 Looking west over trenches 73013 . . . . . 246
Fig 17.12 Detail of 6224 in trench 7301 looking
south . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
Fig 17.13 Trench 7803, excavation ended by rain . 247
Fig 17.14 Cut 5218 with deposit of stones 5207
viewed from the east. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
Fig 17.15 Section across the cloister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
Fig 18.1a East and south faces of the medieval
tower of St Pauls Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
Fig 18.1b Detail of south face of St Pauls tower . 253
Fig 18.2 Suggested successive phases of
St Pauls Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
Fig 18.3 Plan of all in situ medieval burials . . . . . . . 255
Fig 18.4 Age of medieval burials at Jarrow. . . . . . . . 256
Fig 18.5 Sex of medieval burials at Jarrow . . . . . . . . 256
Fig 18.6 Examples of parallel burials . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
Fig 18.7 Schematic plan showing location of
stone features, earth mounds, double
burials, possible family relationships
and burials with finds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
Fig 18.8 Examples of stone features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
Fig 18.9 Area of intercutting graves in
trench 7001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
Fig 18.10 Double burials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
Fig 19.1 The monastic buildings and St Pauls
church viewed from the south-west . . . . . 264
Fig 19.2 Key plan of the early claustral
buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
Fig 19.3 Elevation of the east wall of the West
Range, west face . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
Fig 19.4 Elevation of the east wall of the West
Range, east face . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
Fig 19.5 East face of Wall 2 (West Range) . . . . . . . 268
Fig 19.6 The south-west corner of the cloister . . . 269
Fig 19.7 Elevation of the north wall of the South
Range, north face . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
Fig 19.8 Elevation of the north wall of the South
Range, south face. NE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
Fig 19.9 Plan of rooms d and e. Elevation a/b east

face; b/c north face of the cottage . . . . . . 272
Fig 19.10 Junction of west wall of East Range and
south wall of South Range viewed from
the west. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
Fig 19.11 Junction of South Range and East
Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
Fig 19.12 Norman and Medieval 1 excavated
features, north . . . . . . . . . between pages 2745
Fig 19.13 Norman and Medieval 1 excavated
features, south . . . . . . . . . between pages 2745
Fig 19.14 West wall of ER 6 and 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
Fig 19.15 Elevation of the west wall of the East
Range, southern part: east face . . . . . . . . . . 275
Fig 19.16 Section below west wall of East Range . 276
Fig 19.17 Foundations of Norman West Range
wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
Fig 19.18 The massive clay and stone foundation
1453 at the south-east corner of ER5 . . 278
Fig 19.19 East section of trench 6703 showing
South Range Wall 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
Fig 19.20 Norman capital and base reused as
bedding for Medieval 2 Wall 4040 . . . . . . 279
Fig 19.21 Norman capital used as packing for
wall trench of 4040 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
Fig 19.22 Cloister excavations in trenches 6901
and 6902 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
Fig 19.23 Crack in Wall J, south wall of South
Range, and inspection pit 1524 . . . . . . . . . . 280
Fig 19.24 The South Range adjuncts looking
south . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
Fig 19.25 The South Range adjuncts looking
north . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
Fig 19.26 Possible sequence of building of the
South Range adjuncts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
Fig 19.27 Drainage channel 2645 and dumps of
dark soil at the south of the slope . . . . . . . 284
Fig 19.28 Plan of the principal structural
features of the medieval
East Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . between pages 2845
Fig 19.29 Robber trench of the east wall of the
East range, looking south . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
Fig 19.30 Floor of ER3, showing circular column
base 3244 and remnants of burning
and plaster flooring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
Fig 19.31 ER5, phase 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
Fig 19.32 ER5 from the east. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
Fig 19.33 ER5 showing hearth and black deposits
of phase 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
Fig 19.34 Northsouth section east of the
East Range. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
Fig 19.35 Piers 1150 and 1482, and Walls 1157
and 1148, and the slope of the Late
Saxon and medieval surface in ER6 . . . . 289
Fig 19.36 Relationships of pier 1482, Wall 1152
and Wall 1148/1154 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
Fig 19.37 West wall of East Range, east face. . . . . . . 291
Fig 19.38 ER7, Medieval 1b construction of 1152
over the earlier cut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
xii
JARROWPR.QXD
19-01-2007
12:45
Pagina xiii
Fig 19.39 Artists impression of the Medieval 1

buildings, looking west . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
Fig 19.40 Artists reconstruction of the interior of
the Norman cloister looking south . . . . . . 294
Fig 19.41 Suggested development of the Norman
cathedral and priory at Durham . . . . . . . . . 295
Fig 20.1 Medieval 2 excavated features,
Fig 20.2 Medieval 2 excavated features,
Fig 20.3 Trench 6901 looking east . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
Fig 20.4 Key plan of the later claustral buildings
showing numbering of rooms . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
Fig 20.5 Plan of the South Cloister building . . . . 299
Fig 20.6 Looking west across the South Cloister
building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
Fig 20.7 Looking south across South Range
building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
Fig 20.8 Destruction level of ER3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
Fig 20.9 ER5, main Medieval 2 features . . . . . . . . . . 302
Fig 20.10 Looking south in ER5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
Fig 20.11 ER6, looking south . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
Fig 20.12 ER6, looking south, with the robbed
wall trench of 1117 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
Fig 20.13 Packing for wall junction on top of
pier 1153 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
Fig 20.14 ER6, looking north . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
Fig 20.15 ER6, looking north, demolition
deposit 1086 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
Fig 20.16 Horse's head corbel (AF1) within
demolition deposit 1086 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
Fig 20.17 Post-Dissolution rubble deposit 1082
over ER6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
Fig 20.18 Oven/hearth 1059 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
Fig 20.19 Interior of oven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
Fig 20.20 Looking west into the oven entrance . . 307
Fig 20.21 New entrance into room ER7 . . . . . . . . . . . 307
Fig 20.22 Slot for door and pivot hole . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
Fig 20.23 View looking south over SR adjuncts
with later flooring of SR5 and SR4
filled with rubbish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
Fig 20.24 Sixteenth-century pot lying in fill
of SR4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
Fig 20.25 A. Postholes surrounding medieval
hearths 3776 etc; B. Possible
configurations of postholes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
Fig 20.26 Postholes between the two stone drains . 311
Fig 20.27 Drain 1965 looking north towards ER5 . 312
Fig 20.28 Drain 1869 with construction trench
excavated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312
Fig 20.29 Artists reconstruction of the possible
appearance of the Medieval 2 cloister
looking south . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
Fig 20.30 Plan of Lindisfarne Priory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
Fig 20.31 Plan of Finchale Priory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
Fig 21.1 Jarrow Slake Site II, location of excavation
trenches (Areas IVVI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318
Fig 21.2 Northsouth section through JS Area V,
linking through to JA trench 7505 . . . . . . 320
Fig 21.3 General view of JS Area V looking west . 321

Fig 21.4 Area V, detail of Wall 2 from north . . . . . 321
Fig 21.5 Area V, rubble of Episode 5 over
clay bank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
Fig 21.6 Area V, Wall 3 on top of clay bank . . . . 323
Fig 21.7 Area V, plan of postholes and gully of
Episode 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324
Fig 21.8 Area V, postholes of Episode 2 . . . . . . . . . . . 324
Fig 21.9 East-facing section of Areas IVW . . . . . . . . 325
Fig 21.10 Areas IVV, plan of walls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326
Fig 21.11 Area IV, general view from east . . . . . . . . . . 327
Fig 21.12 Area IVN/IVE, east-facing section. . . . . . . 328
Fig 21.13 Area IV: eastwest Wall 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
Fig 21.14 Detail of pier base from south . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
Fig 21.15 Area IV: general view of Wall 12/15
from the west . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
Fig 21.16 Northsouth Wall 6/14 viewed from
the south . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
Fig 21.17 Relationship of rebuilt pier and
Wall 6/14, with possible opening . . . . . . . . . 332
Fig 21.18 Area IV, general view of medieval walls
at end of excavation, looking west . . . . . . . 332
Fig 21.19 Detail of Wall 16/5 from the west . . . . . . . . 333
Fig 21.20 Plan of features and walls in Area IVN . . 333
Fig 21.21 Area VI: eastwest Wall 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
Fig 22.1 Early post-medieval features in the area
of the cloister . . . . . . . . . . . between pages 3389
Fig 22.2 Reconstruction plan of the main
19th-century buildings around St
Pauls Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
Fig 22.3 Excavated late post-medieval features,
Fig 22.4 Excavated late post-medieval features,
Fig 22.5 Plan of Jarrow monastic site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
Fig 24.1 Reconstructed plans of excavated
buildings from Wearmouth, Jarrow and
Glastonbury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
Fig 24.2 Plan of the Ile St-Honorat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350
Fig 24.3 Reconstructed plans of Wearmouth
and Jarrow overlaid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351
Fig 24.4 Reconstructed plans of Wearmouth,
Jarrow and Whithorn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
Fig 24.5 St Catherines monastery, Mount Sinai . 357
Fig 25.1 Gradiometer survey of the area south
of St Peters Church, Wearmouth,
undertaken in 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
A1.1
The Jarrow dedication stone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
A1.2
Roman inscription commemorating
Hadrians military achievements . . . . . . . . . 366
A1.3
The closing section of the same
inscription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366
Appendix B Frontispieces: 1: The earliest pictorial
plan of Wearmouth; 2: The earliest
depiction of the Jarrow aite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380
B1
Engraved plan of the Sunderland
harbour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381
B2
Part of A plan of the River Wear from
Newbridge to Sunderland barr as it
xiii
JARROWPR.QXD
19-01-2007
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8a &b
B9
B10
B11
B12
B13
B14
B15
B16
B17
B18
B19
B20
B21
B22
B23
12:45
Pagina xiv
appeared at low water showing

Monkwearmouth Hall and grounds. . . . . 382
The west front of St Peters Church . . . . 382
View of St Peters Church from the
north west . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383
View of west front of St Peters Church . 383
West front before the opening up of
the west door in mid-19th century . . . . . 383
Photograph of east end of St Peters
Church before rebuilding in 1866 . . . . . . 384
Interior fitments of St Peters Church
in early 19th century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3845
The church and surroundings of
St Peters 18191822 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385
Excavation of the west doorway into
the porch of St Peters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386
St Peters Church between 1866
and 1873 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386
The rebuilt church of St Peters. . . . . . . . . . 386
St Peters rebuilt church 1907 . . . . . . . . . . . . 387
Surroundings of St Peters Church on the
west at the beginning of the excavation. . 387
Engineers boreholes taken before the
excavations in 1959 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388
Engineers boreholes taken before the
excavations in 1959 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388
Hallgarth Square showing Borough
Engineers placing of boreholes . . . . . . . . . . 389
Part of A Plan of Monkwearmouth Shore
with the Quays, Yards, Landings etc. the
Property of the late Sir H Williamson . . 389
St Pauls Church and the interior of the
cloister from the east . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390
Blocked Norman doorway with
fireplace above, in the south wall
of the cloister (Wall 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390
View of the Jarrow site from the
south-west . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391
St Pauls Church and ruins from the
south-west . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391
St Pauls Church and ruins from the
south-west . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391
B24
B25
B26
B27
B28
B29
B30
B31
B32
B33
B34
B35
B36
B37
B38
B39
B40
B41
B42
B43
B44
B45
B46
St Pauls Church from the north-east . . 392

Engraving of St Pauls Church and
ruins from the south-west . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392
Ruins of south range from the east with
rectory in the background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392
General view of the area from the east . . 393
Jarrow Bridge with adjacent buildings and
chemical factory in the background . . . . . 393
Remains of Jarrow monastery from the
east showing cottage in west of cloister . . 393
Cottage in the west of the cloister . . . . . . . 394
St Pauls Church from the south . . . . . . . . 394
St Pauls Church, churchyard and
ruins from the west . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394
Detail of tower and chancel from the
south . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394
Ruins of south range from the east with
rectory in the background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395
St Pauls Church, churchyard and
Parsonage House from the north-west . 395
Ruins of monastery and Victorian
rectory from the south . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396
St Pauls Church (as rebuilt by Scott)
and rectory from the south-west . . . . . . . . . 396
St Pauls Church, ruins, school and
cottages in the village from the southwest, also riverside wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397
St Pauls Church, ruins and school from
the south-west, early 20th century . . . . . . 397
The village of Jarrow viewed from the
south, c 1905 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398
Village and school from the south-east,
c 1905 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398
View of the site covered in bushes from
the south-west, c 1920? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398
Detail of cottage as lived in during the
early 20th century. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399
The school as deserted at the beginning
of the excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399
Jarrow church viewed from the Slake and
estuary before the filling in of the Slake . 400
St Pauls Jarrow, plan of pews, 1783 . . . 400
Tables
1.1
1.2
Site phasing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Principal events in the history of Wearmouth
and Jarrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
15.1 Jarrow: categories of burial dating . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

15.2 Comparison of the Anglo-Saxon (A),
unphased (DE) and medieval (B) burials . . 175
xiv
JARROWPR.QXD
19-01-2007
12:45
Pagina xv
Contributors to Volumes 1 and 2

Sue Anderson
CFA Archaeology Ltd, Old Engine House, Eskmills Park, Musselburgh, East Lothian EH21 7PQ
Marion Archibald 4 York Road, New Barnet, Herts EN5 1LJ
Ian Bailiff
Department of Archaeology, University of Durham, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE
H Barker
Colleen Batey
2 Benreoch House, Arrochar, Argyll and Bute G83 7AG
Justine Bayley
Centre for Archaeology, English Heritage, Fort Cumberland, Portsmouth PO4 9LD
Azra Bec^evic
Sefika Dorica 2, 71000 Sarajevo, Bosnia Herzegovina
Fred Bettess
Waleric House, Northumberland Street, Alnmouth, Northumberland
Gladys Bettess
Paul Bidwell
Arbeia Roman Fort and Museum, Baring Street, South Shields, Tyne and Wear NE33 2BB
David Birkett
Richard Brickstock The Castle, University College, Palace Green, Durham DH1 3RW
Robert Brill
The Corning Museum of Glass, One Museum Way, Corning, New York, NY 14830
Belinda Burke
Broom Cottage, 29 Foundry Fields, Crook DL15 9JY
Eric Cambridge 8 Orchard Terrace, Chester-le-Street, Co Durham
John Cherry
58 Lancaster Road, London N4 4PT
Phil Clogg
Department of Archaeology,University of Durham, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE
Barrie Cook
Department of Coins and Medals, The British Museum, Great Russell Street, London WC1B 3DG
Derek Craig
Alex Croom
Arbeia Roman Fort and Museum, Baring Street, South Shields, Tyne and Wear NE33 2BB
Janey Cronyn
4 Chiswick Staithe, London W4 3TP
Samantha Daniels
Lucy Daines
Alison Donaldson
Vera I Evison
5 Somerset Road, Harrow, Middlesex HA1 4NF
Margaret Firby
Ian Freestone
School of History and Archaeology, Cardiff University, PO Box 999, Cardiff
Ian H Goodall
22 Elmlands Grove, York YO31 OEE
Pam Graves
M J Hughes
Department of History, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX
John Hunter
Department of Ancient History and Archaeology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT
Jacqui Huntley
EH Regional Adviser for North-East England, Department of Archaeology, University of Durham,
South Road, Durham DH1 3LE
A R Hutchinson
Anne Jenner
24 Victoria Terrace, Lanchester, Co Durham DH7 0JB
Andrew Jones
Department of Archaeological Sciences, University of Bradford, Bradford BD7 1DP
Jennifer Jones
Kenneth Jukes
Pamela Lowther School of Archaeology and Ancient History, Leicester University, University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH
A Mac Mahon
179a Clarence Road, Hackney, London E5 8EE
Susan McNeil
11 Roundhead Road, Theale, Reading RG7 5DL
Susan Mills
The Speirs Centre, 29 Primrose Street, Alloa FK10 1JJ
Chris Morris
Department of Archaeology, University of Glasgow, Gregory Building, Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ
Barbara Noddle
Terry OConnor Department of Archaeology, University of York
Alan Piper
University Library, University of Durham DH1 3LE
Elizabeth Pirie
Jennifer Price
Garth End, Well Garth, Main Street, Heslington, York YO10 5JT
Ian Riddler
Tatra, Diddies Road, Stratton, nr Bude, North Cornwall EX23 9DW
Seamus Ross
Humanities Advanced Technology and Information Institute, George Service House, 11 University Gardens,
University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ
David Schofield 8 Wearside Drive, Durham
Sue Stallibrass
English Heritage Archaeological Science Advisor for North-West England, SACOS, University of Liverpool
Michael Tite
7 Kings Cross Road, Oxford OX2 7EU
Michael Trueman High Farm, Upton, Newark, Nottinghamshire NG23 5ST
Judith Turner
6 Crossgate, Durham City DH1 4PS
Alan Vince
25 West Parade, Lincoln LN1 1NW
Calvin Wells
Ian Wessels
Jeffrey West
Redundant Churches Board, Fielden House, 13 Little College Street, London SW1P 3SH
Hugh Willmott
Dept of Archaeology and Prehistory , University of Sheffield, Northgate House, West Street, Sheffield S1 4ET
Robert Young
Alexandra House, 5 Dale Terrace, Stanhope DL13 2KH
xv
JARROWPR.QXD
19-01-2007
12:45
Pagina xvi
Preface
I, Bede, servant of Christ and priest of the monastery
of St Peter and St Paul which is at Wearmouth and
Jarrow, have, with the help of God and to the best of
my ability, put together this account of the history of
the Church of Britain and of the English people in particular, gleaned either from ancient documents or from
tradition or from my own knowledge. I was born in the
territory of this monastery. When I was seven years of
age I was, by the care of my kinsmen, put into the
charge of the reverend Abbot Benedict and then of
Ceolfrith, to be educated. From then on I have spent
all my life in this monastery, applying myself entirely to
the study of the Scriptures; and, amid the observance
of the discipline of the Rule and the daily task of
singing in the church, it has always been my delight to

learn or to teach or to write. At the age of nineteen I
was ordained deacon and at the age of thirty, priest,
both times through the ministration of the reverend
Bishop John on the direction of Abbot Ceolfrith. From
the time I became a priest until the fifty-ninth year of
my life I have made it my business, for my own benefit
and that of my brothers, to make brief extracts from
the works of the venerable fathers on the holy
Scriptures, or to add notes of my own to clarify their
sense and interpretation.
(From Hist Eccl Book V, Ch 24)
xvi
JARROWPR.QXD
19-01-2007
12:45
Pagina xvii
Acknowledgements
At Jarrow, the excavation of the guardianship monument, directed by Rosemary Cramp, and the rescue
excavations directed by Christopher Morris outside the
guardianship area, were funded by the Ministry of
Works and its successor bodies, the Ancient
Monuments Division of the Department of the
Environment, and the Historic Buildings and
Monuments Commission (English Heritage), with
additional support from Jarrow Corporation, Borough
of South Tyneside and Tyne and Wear, and the
Manpower Services Commission. The acknowledgements for the Jarrow Slake excavations are set out separately below.
English Heritage has also funded all post-excavation
work on the guardianship site, including the salaries of
research assistants, and is responsible for the publication costs. I would like to thank the organisation very
much for the opportunity it provided to conduct the
first post-war large-scale excavation of an early monastic site. I would also like to thank the series of inspectors of ancient monuments who have dealt with this
site, and in particular John Weaver, who provided much
valuable insight into the medieval monastery, and those
members of the organisation whose unenviable task it
was to steer the publication to completion, in particular
David Sherlock and Sarah Jennings.
At Wearmouth, the excavations were generously
supported in kind by the Borough Engineers division
of the then Borough of Sunderland (who supplied tools
and the services of two workmen for the first two seasons), and in cash and in kind by the University of
Durham Excavation Committee and Department of
Archaeology. My special thanks go to the University
and the Archaeology Department for long-standing
support for this project. The excavation of this site was
in modern terms minimally funded, and much of the
excavation and post-excavation was genuinely a labour
of love from a team of volunteer helpers. In fact the
excavations were, in modern terms, community
based in that members of the churches and local
inhabitants as well as shipyard workers at Wearmouth
were all involved. In addition much of the post-excavation analysis and research has been undertaken without payment and I am indebted to many colleagues for
their generous help. I list those directly involved under
their contributions or in the list of contributors, but I
would especially like to thank the late Mrs Gladys
Bettess who maintained the momentum of post-excavation work, until her death in 1995, and the late Lord
Fletcher whose generous grant from The Juno Trust
funded a research assistant, Miss Susan Topping, thus
ensuring that the record of the Wearmouth excavations
could be prepared in a form comparable with Jarrow.
Finally, I would like to thank English Heritage for
agreeing to publish the site with that of Jarrow.
For both sites I am much indebted to the rectors

and parishioners of St Peters and St Pauls for their
patience in putting up with the disruption of the excavations and the disappointing length of time for which
the publication has been awaited. The director must
take full responsibility for this, but without the help of
so many dedicated people the completion of the work
would have been impossible.
Research assistants Gladys Bettess, Elizabeth
Coatsworth, Lucy Daines, Derek Craig, Pamela
Lowther, Rebecca Payne, and Susan Topping (who,
save for the first three named, never saw the sites in
course of excavation) provided a stringent check of the
records. Fred Bettess was not only the person responsible for all the surveys of the site, but also assisted in
the computerisation of the record. In the preparation
of the text for publication I would particularly wish to
thank Gladys Bettess and Pamela Lowther for their
fundamental work in the construction of the archive of
contexts, trench notes and analyses, and the latter for
supporting the project with editorial help through to
the publication stage. Her invaluable editorial role in
the compilation of Volume 2 is acknowledged below. I
am also deeply indebted to Derek Craig who was
responsible for completing the context catalogue, the
final checking of the text of both sites, for checking and
compiling the consolidated bibliography, which
involved much bibliographic research. Finally Ren
Rogers, Ardle Mac Mahon and Belinda Burke were
added to the post-excavation team at the eleventh
hour, and have been an invaluable aid in the final
stages of text preparation. I would particularly wish to
thank the first named for her work on the context catalogue, the second for his provision of the distribution
plots, and the last named for her help with editing the
pottery report and the final compilation of the text and
illustrations. I am also indebted to Elizabeth Rainey for
help with checking the historic prints and to Christina
Unwin and Kenneth Jukes for scanning, enhancing
and layout of illustrations. For others who have provided detailed and constructive criticism of the text, I
would particularly wish to thank Richard Gem, Philip
Rahtz and Lorna Watts who read early drafts of the
report, and also Derek Craig, Pamela Lowther and
David Sherlock, who read the later drafts.
For photographic aid, both on and off site, I would
particularly wish to thank Tom Middlemass. Trevor
Woods, and later Jeff Veitch, undertook the final preparation of photographs. Yvonne Beadnell, Norman
Emery, Keith McBarron, Pauline Fenwick and Linda
Bosveld were responsible for drawing the illustrations,
and Yvonne Beadnell has played the leading role in
ensuring common standards and producing the final
layout. I am deeply grateful to her for the long-term
commitment she has shown to the project.
xvii
JARROWPR.QXD
19-01-2007
12:45
Pagina xviii
My thanks to the many professional colleagues who

provided the specialist reports in Volume 2 are recorded below. Thanks also to Val Kinsler for her painstaking and patient editing of the text, and to David Jones
and the English Heritage team for bringing the volume
to publication.
Finally I would like to thank all of my family, colleagues and friends who have had to live with this project for so long, but by their patient support have
encouraged it finally to a conclusion.
Commission Jobs Creation Scheme, through the good

offices of Peter Clack. To all of those most of whom
will have, happily, put the experience behind them I
give my grateful thanks, especially to the team in the
summer of 1973 that endured regular acts of vandalism
and, as a consequence, daily flooding of the trenches at
high-tide via the old sewer pipes servicing the erstwhile
brick cottages. That plans could be drawn and photographs of the major stone built structures could be
taken at all is a tribute to their dedicated hard work.
The photographs are generally by the author, supplemented by major final shots in 1973 by Tom
Middlemass, then Departmental Photographer, and
others for the record by John Hunter, Brian Gill, Peter
Corser and Nicholas F Pearson. Site survey was under
the overall supervision of Fred and Gladys Bettess, stalwarts of the main JarrowWearmouth team, who
became close personal friends and followed the
Director to more salubrious sites in subsequent years in
Orkney, Caithness and the Isle of Man. As indicated in
the appropriate place in the text, the final stage of
recording on site in 1976 (during the backfilling exercise) was undertaken by Stephanie Large under the
supervision of Rosemary Cramp. Christopher Morris is
grateful to both and especially to Rosemary for her
patience with the impetuousness of youth on site in
1973, and with the seemingly unending process of completion of the report.
That this report has taken so long to bring to
fruition is a reflection of the short-sighted policies of
support for rescue excavations without concomitant
post-excavation provision in the mid 1970s. Even as
time went on, it was difficult to secure any funds for
post-excavation due to the bureaucratic separation in
official minds of the Rescue and Guardianship areas of
the same site. Modest funds were supplied by English
Heritage for three months (November 1982 to January
1983), and then six months (April to September
1983), sufficient to employ Michael J Rains to attempt
the herculean task of bringing order to the records, and
moving towards stratigraphical analysis and phasing of
the different parts of the site. His work was crucial
although unfinished and he was assisted at various
times by Andy Gittins and Pamela Lowther. Norman
Emery also provided much-needed illustrative help,
while Colleen Batey tried to make sense of the overall
finds records and brought them into a level of coherence where specialists such as Susan Mills (pottery),
Elizabeth Pirie (coins), Seamus Ross (copper alloy
pins), Ian Goodall (ironwork), and Margaret Firby and
Rosemary Cramp (glass) could carry out further analysis. At later stages, Bruce Landen and Jacqui Huntley
gave much needed technical assistance with computing. There are many deficiencies in both the archive
and the report, but it is true to say that, apart from the
support for Michael Rains, none of the rest has been
undertaken on anything other than a voluntary basis or
sense of obligation. With more enlightened official attitudes, it could have been so much better.
Rosemary Cramp
Jarrow Slake
For the Jarrow Slake excavations, Christopher Morris
would particularly wish to thank the then Department
of the Environment, who provided funds for limited
exploratory excavation across the area of redevelopment for five weeks during the Easter vacation 1973.
This was backed up by material assistance from Jarrow
Corporation in terms of ground-clearance and
machinery. The latter was of disproportionate value
here and was backed by their essential help in combatting vandalism. In summer 1973, there was also a generous grant from the National Geographical Society of
America. At Easter 1976, material assistance from the
Borough of South Tyneside (successor to Jarrow
Corporation), and the new metropolitan county of
Tyne and Wear provided further financial assistance.
The fourth season, in the summer of 1976, benefitted
from funding from the same sources, together with
funding from a Manpower Services Commission project. All four seasons were also part-funded by the
Department of Archaeology as student-based training
excavations.
In 1973, the Assistant Director of the Jarrow Slake
excavations was John R Hunter, who also undertook
the overall supervision of the initial Site II (Area IV) at
Easter and the central part of the site in the summer
season. At the original Site I, to the north-east of the
church, Christopher Morris was assisted by Paul
Gosling and Brian H Gill, the latter of whom then acted
as Site Planner for the work on Site II in the summer.
Brian Macdonald, Helen Griffin and David Coxall all
acted as Site Assistants then, and Vivienne Morris and
Susan Halliday undertook the tasks of Finds Recorders.
In 1976, the Site Assistants were Nicholas F Pearson,
Peter Corser and Brian H Gill for Areas IV, V and VI
respectively, and Stephanie Large acted as Finds
Recorder. The core of the digging team (volunteers in
the quaint usage of the 1970s) comprised students in
training from Durham University and associated colleges, supplemented in 1976 by members of Weymouth
and Doncaster Colleges of Education, and in all seasons by intrepid local volunteers. In 1976, these were
joined by members of a Manpower Services
xviii
JARROWPR.QXD
19-01-2007
12:45
Pagina xix
In DoE, at the inception of the project, Dr Ian

Stead made the judgement to back the project, and the
outcomes of the second, third and fourth seasons have
justified his faith in the project. Barbara Harbottle
(then of Tyne and Wear), too, saw the value of the project and Rosemary Cramp gave much practical advice
in terms of seeking alternative funds to those from the
DoE. The financial aspects of the project were overseen by the benign Assistant Finance Officers of
Durham University, John Sandbach and Ken Delanoy.
Their can do attitude towards a young lecturer was
both encouraging here, and also led to longer-term
fruitful interaction over many years with other projects.
They represented an ideal attitude on the part of a service section of the university administration.
It remains to acknowledge my debt to Rosemary
Cramp, instigator of the project who constantly pushed
for completion; Pamela Lowther, her Research Assistant,
for unfailingly trying to make sense of the connections
between the two parts of one site; and Colleen Batey, my
wife and colleague, who has stepped in so often to try to
help sort out aspects of a site she never experienced,
and probably wishes she had never heard of!
For my part, it has been curious to go back almost
three decades to my first directorial experience. It is
ironic that it was only at Glasgow, twenty-four years
after the end of the Jarrow Slake project, that I was
enabled within my research leave in 2000 to find time
to draw together the various loose threads of the postexcavation work in an attempt to make a coherent
whole of it. Various pieces have been revised or added
to (as with these acknowledgements) since 2000, but
essentially this report represents the perspective
brought by two months intensive work in that year. I
am grateful to my present employers for the award of
the leave at that time, which amongst other things,
enabled me, at last, to repay my debt to both the site
and Rosemary Cramp, who was my academic inspiration as a student and has remained a guiding light,
colleague and personal friend ever since.
Petchey, Michael Pocock, Michael Sekulla, Jane Shute,

Alison Smith, Rachel Squire, Michael Swanton, Peter
Tyson, Harvey Watt, Hazel Wheeler.
Surveyors: Fred Bettess, A Eves
Site Finds: Gladys Bettess, Elizabeth Coatsworth,
Lucy Daines, Margaret Meldrum
Conservators: Janey Cronyn, Phil Clogg
Photography: Rosemary Cramp, Tom Middlemass
Volunteers
Gwenda Adcock, Brian Alvey, Valerie Angus, Paul
Armstrong, Martha Ashbrook, Jean-Michel Avundo,
Linda Babb, James Bambean, Neil Beagrie, Sue
Bennett, Richard Bethune, William Blaso, Sheila
Bonde, Gillian Boughton, Diane Boyson, William
Bradley, Ruth Brown, Margaret Burke, Mary Burkett,
Eric Cambridge, Rachel Campbell, Laurence Carlisle,
Pauline Coley-Smith, M. Constance, David Cook,
Professor Cove, S Crawford, Alice Curteis, Jacques
Delerurence, Clare Dickens, Andrew Dickson,
Edmund Dixon, Philip Dixon, Joy Deas, Margaret
Donaldson, Audrey Dorward, Caroline DouglasHome, Gwen Dunn, Hugh Elcher, Ken Ellis, Linden
Elmhurst, Anthony Elridge, Robert Farrell, Peter
Farmer, Andreas Fischer, Stephen Fisher, Edmund
Foster, Michael Fox, Ron Francis, Sarah Gieve, Paul
Glover, Alison Graham, Roger Gray, Barbara
Gummer, Belinda Hall, Stephen Harbottle, Peter
Harper, Enid Hart, Tim Harvey, Amy Haues, Amy
Hayes, Derek Henderson, Mark Hepworth, David Hill,
Irene Hogg, Pauline Holland, Marilyn Hornsby, Ellen
Horrie, Peter Hoy, John Hudson, Leslie Hughes, Ben
Humphreys, Martin Hunt, M Hutchinson, S A Jenkins,
Kim Jones, Martine Jouve, Adrian King, Janet Kirby,
Richard Knight, Andrew Lawson, Anthony Lee, E
Leithread, Geoff Lester, Mary Maddock, Jane Maltas,
Lucy del Mastro, Ann Maw, Nancy McDermont, Tom
Middlemass, R Moore, Irene Mossop, Andrew Nash,
Jane Orrom, Jean Orwin, Timothy Owens, Clive Page,
Anne Marie Parient, Eric Parkin, Rebecca Payne,
Chris Pearson, Martin Pearson, Norma Pearson, Mike
Raines, Chris Robertson, Olivia Rolleston, John
Russell, Norma Sanderson, Alan Scadding, Catherine
Shaer, Ellie Shea, William Sherwood, Robert Sidney,
Brian Simms, Dick Small, Linda Smith, Mary Smith,
Ursula Smith, Christopher Snow, Geoffrey Stanfield,
Margaret Steabler, Andrew Steele, Penny Stonier,
Susanne Straight, Joan Summerson, Tony Swalwell, H
V Szlechter, A R H Thompson, Barbara Thompson, I
M Thompson, L Tollarton, Eileen Tomaney, Faith
Turnball, Doreen Turnstall, Sylvia Usher, Peter Waine,
Antony West, C Whitehead, The Rev Brian Williams,
Robin Woodward, Patrick Wormald, Pat Wressell,
Vivien Wrightson, James Wylie.
Christopher D Morris
Excavation staff for the main excavation are listed below.
Supervisors
Sarah Acheson-Gray, David Alexander, Sarah
Bagshawe, Richard Bailey, Sue Bennett, Roger Bettess,
David Breeze, Kevin Brown, Marilyn Brown, Diana
Boyson, Elizabeth Campbell, Helen Cayton, Bridget
Cherry, John Cherry, Peter Corser, Ann Dornier,
Norman Emery, Susan Evans, Paul Everson, Dennis
Gallagher, Paul Gosling, Helen Griffin, Fred Hand,
Barbara Harbottle, Ellen Hobbie, John Hunter,
Shelagh Kelly, Stephanie Large, R I Lawless, Craig
Meyer, Roger Miket, Christopher Morris, Elaine
Morris, Deirdre OSullivan, David Parsons, Eric
Parsons, Ann Pearson, Nicholas Pearson, Martin
xix
JARROWPR.QXD
19-01-2007
12:45
Pagina xx
Summary
The twin monastery of Wearmouth and Jarrow in
Northumbria achieved European importance in the
period between its foundation in the late 7th century
and destruction in the mid 9th, partly because of the
pioneering achievements of its founder, Benedict
Biscop, in creating an important centre of culture and
learning, but mainly because of the fame of the most
renowned inmate, the theologian and historian, Bede.
The 11th-century refoundation, and survival of both
sites as religious centres to the present day, is largely
due to the continuing interest in his work. Despite this
interest, however, nothing was known of the physical
context of this work save for the surviving parts of the
early churches until these excavations took place.
The excavations demonstrated for the first time that
the founder did indeed build in stone, in the Roman
manner as claimed by early texts (Ch 4), although
there are differences of layout and constructional techniques between the two sites. Both sites produced evidence for large-scale buildings with lead roofing, opus
signinum floors and painted and sculptured wall decoration, as well as the greatest quantity of 7th- to 8thcentury coloured window glass from any site of comparable date in Europe. Other finds include glass vessels and millefiori settings, as well as evidence, in the
form of waste rods, crucibles, and residues, for glass
working in the 9th century. There are also important
sculptures, significant numbers of stone vessels,
including a mortarium and lamps, as well as early
glazed pottery, from this period.
The excavated evidence south of the standing
churches for the main domestic buildings of the
monasteries provides an important insight into the
evolution of monastic plans in the Christian West
between the late 7th and mid 9th centuries a period
before the Carolingian Revival, when there is little evidence for stone buildings save for churches. The excavations have also provided some evidence for the economic base of such sites and have demonstrated their
international contacts, particularly in the range of
exotic pottery from the riverside buildings at Jarrow.
The excavation of the successor monasteries some
of the ruined buildings of which still survive at Jarrow
has made it possible to consider the local economies
of the sites through a period of 1100 years. Changing
uses of maritime and regional resources can be demonstrated from the finds, and the cemeteries of the two
sites have provided useful long-term demographic evidence from the Early Christian period to the 19th
century. It is now possible to see the churches on both
sites within the context of first a thriving Anglo-Saxon
monastery, then semi-derelict areas followed by the
earliest Norman religious houses in the region, and
after that, until the Dissolution, within the context of
the dependencies of Durham Priory.
The later developments at both sites significantly
changed their appearance and function. As both sites
were transferred into secular possession, sections of the
monastic buildings were developed as domestic houses
or were cleared away. At Wearmouth, subsequently,
the whole site was cleared of buildings in the 19th
century and laid out as part of a town development
(see Table 1.2 and Appendix B). The post-medieval
activities on both sites severely affected the archaeological record and have therefore been summarised in
this volume, although for reasons of space it has been
decided to publish these phases separately later.
Consequently, the detailed records of the 17th- to
19th-century structures and finds are currently
restricted to archive.
xx
JARROWPR.QXD
19-01-2007
12:45
Pagina xxi
Rsum
Le double monastre de Wearmouth et Jarrow en
Northumbrie a atteint une importance europenne au
cours de la priode situe entre sa fondation, la fin du
7me sicle, et sa destruction, vers le milieu du 9me,
en partie cause du caractre pionnier des accomplissements de son fondateur, Benot Biscop, qui y cra
un important centre d'rudition et d'enseignement,
mais surtout grce la renomme de son rsidant le
plus clbre, le thologien et historien, Bde. Sa nouvelle fondation au 11me sicle, et la persistance des
deux sites comme centres religieux jusqu' ce jour,
sont en grande partie des la prnnit de l'intrt
suscit par son oeuvre. Toutefois, malgr cet intrt,
on ne connaissait rien du contexte physique de cette
oeuvre mis part les parties des glises primitives qui
ont subsist jusqu' ce que les prsentes fouilles aient
lieu.
Les fouilles ont dmontr pour la premire fois que
le fondateur avait effectivement construit en pierre la
manire romaine comme on le prtendait dans les
textes primitifs (chap. 4), bien quil y ait des diffrences dans le plan et les techniques de construction
entre les deux sites. Les deux sites ont rvl des
tmoignages de lexistence de btiments de dimensions
importantes avec toit en plomb, sols en opus signinum
et dcoration murale peinte et sculpte, ainsi que la
plus grande quantit de vitrail color du 7me au 8me
sicle de tous les sites de datation comparable en
Europe. Parmi les autres trouvailles on dnombre des
rcipients en verre et des ornements en millefiori, ainsi
que des tmoignages, sous la forme de baguettes
rejetes, creusets et rsidus, de travail du verre au 9me
sicle. De cette priode existent galement des sculptures importantes, un nombre significatif de rcipients
en pierre, y compris un mortier (mortarium) et des
lampes, ainsi que de la poterie vernisse primitive.
Les tmoignages recouvrs au sud des glises sur
pied et concernant les principaux btiments domestiques des monastres offrent un important aperu de
lvolution des plans de monastres dans loccident
chrtien entre la fin du 7me et le milieu du 9me sicle - priode situe avant la renaissance carolingienne,
et pour laquelle on ne connat que peu de tmoignages

de btiments en pierre mis part les glises. Les
fouilles ont aussi produit des tmoignages sur les bases
conomiques de tels sites et ont dmontr lexistence
de contacts internationaux, en particulier dans la
gamme de poterie exotique provenant des btiments
du bord de la rivire Jarrow.
Les fouilles des monastres qui se sont succds l
dont certains des btiments en ruines existent encore
Jarrow ont rendu possible ltude des conomies
locales des sites sur une priode de 1100 ans. A partir
des trouvailles on a pu dmontrer les changements
dans lutilisation des ressources maritimes et
rgionales, et les cimetires des deux sites ont fourni
dutiles tmoignages dmographiques sur une longue
dure depuis le dbut de lre chrtienne jusquau
19me sicle. Il est maintenant possible denvisager les
glises sur les deux sites dans le contexte dabord dun
monastre anglo-saxon prospre, puis de lieux demi
dlaisss, suivis par les plus anciennes maisons
religieuses normandes de la rgion, puis aprs cela, et
jusqu la dissolution, dans le contexte dannexes du
Prieur de Durham.
Les transformations qui ont suivi ont apport des
changements consquents lapparence et au rle des
deux sites. Comme les deux sites passrent dans des
mains sculires, on transforma certaines parties des
btiments monastiques en maisons d'habitation ou on
les rasa. Par la suite, Wearmouth, le site entier fut
dbarrass de tout btiment au 19me sicle et amnag dans le cadre d'un projet d'urbanisation (voir
Table 1.2 et Appendice B). Les activits post-mdivales sur les deux sites ont srieusement affect les
tmoignages archologiques et ont, de ce fait, t
rsumes dans ce volume, bien que, pour des raisons
de place, on ait dcid de publier ces phases sparment une date ultrieure. Par consquent, les tudes
dtailles des structures et des trouvailles du 17me au
19me sicles sont actuellement confines aux
archives.
Traduction: Annie Pritchard
xxi
JARROWPR.QXD
19-01-2007
12:45
Pagina xxii
Zusammenfassung
Das Zwillingskloster von Wearmouth und Jarrow in
Northumbria erreichte europische Bedeutung in der
Periode von dessen Grndung im spten 7. Jahrhundert
bis zu seiner Zerstrung in der Mitte des 9.
Jahrhunderts. Dieses verdankt es zu einem Teil den
bahnbrechenden Errungenchaften seines Grnders,
Benedict Biscop, und seiner Schaffung eines wichtigen
Zentrum des Lernens und der Kultur. Zum grten Teil
aber verdankt es seine Bedeutung dem Ruhm seines
bekanntesten Insassen, dem Theologen und Historiker,
Bede. Die Wiedergrndung des Klosters im 11.
Jahrhundert und das berleben beider Standorte als ein
religises Zentrum bis in die heutige Zeit sind hauptschlich dem fortlaufenden Interresse an Bedes Arbeit
zu zufhren. Trotz dieses Interesses, war jedoch abgesehen von den verbliebenen Teilen der frhen Kirchen
und bis diese Ausgrabungen begannen, nichts ber den
physichen Zusammenhang seiner Arbeiten bekannt.
Die Ausgrabungen demonstrierten zum ersten
Mal, da der Grnder wirklich mit Stein und in der
Rmischen Weise, wie in frhen Texten beschrieben
(Kap. 4), gebaut hat. An beiden Standorten gibt es
jedoch Unterschiede zwischen den Grundrissen und
den angewandten Konstruktionstechniken. Beide
Ausgrabungssttten produzierten Beweise fr groangelegte Gebude mit Bleidchern, Opus SigninumFubden und bemalten und skulptierten
Wanddekorationen, sowie die grte Anzahl von
gefrbtem Fensterglas aus dem 7. und 8. Jahrhundert
aus einem Ausgrabungsort einer vergleichbaren
Periode. Andere Fnde beinhalten Glasgefe und
Millefiori-Fassungen, sowie weitere Beweise fr
Glasbearbeitung im 9. Jahrhundert, in Form von
Abfallstangen, Schmelztiegeln und Rckstnden.
Neben diesen wurden auch wichtige Skulpturen, eine
bedeutene Anzahl von Steingefen, einschlielich
eines Mortariums und Lampen, sowie frhe Keramik
aus dieser Zeit gefunden.
Die, sdlich der stehenden Kirchen ausgegrabenen
Beweise fr die Wohngebude der Klster, erbringen
eine wichtige Einsicht in die Entwicklung von
Klstergrundrissen im christlichen Westen zwischen
dem spten 7. Jahrhundert und der Mitte des 9.
Jahrhunderts eine Periode vor der Carolingianer

Wiederbelebung, wo es wenige Hinweise auf
Steingebude, abgesehen von Kirchen, gibt. Die
Ausgrabungen erbrachten auch Beweise fr die
konomische Basis dieser Standorte und demonstrierten deren internationale Kontakte, herausragend
dabei die Sammlung von exotischen Tpferwaren, aus
den am Flu gelegenen Gebuden bei Jarrow.
Die Ausgrabungen der Folgeklster einige der
Ruinen stehen immer noch in Jarrow machten es
mglich die rtliche Wirtschaft ber einen Zeitraum
von 1100 Jahren zu untersuchen. Die verschiedenen
Nutzungungen von maritimen und regionalen
Ressourcen werden durch die Fnde demonstriert und
die Friedhfe an beiden Standorten erbrachten ntzliche langzeitliche Beweise fr die Demografie der
frhen christlichen Periode bis in das 19. Jahrhundert.
Es ist nun mglich beide Kirchen in ihrem
Zusammenhang zu sehen, zuerst als blhende angelschsische Klster, dann als semi-verfallene Flchen,
gefolgt bei den frhsten normannischen religisen
Husern dieser Gegend und danach in ihrem
Zusammenhang als Schutzgebiete des Durham
Priorates bis zu ihrer Auflsung.
Die spteren Entwicklungen an beiden Standorten
haben ihr Ausehen und ihre Nutzungen deutlich
verndert. Als beide Standorte in den weltlichen Besitz
bergingen, wurden Sektionen der Klstergebude als
domestische Huser umgebaut oder vollkommen
abgerissen. Letztendlich wurde in Wearmouth im 19.
Jahrhundert der gesamte Standort von Gebuden
gerumt und als ein Teil einer Standtentwicklung ausgelegt (Tab. 1.2 und Anhang B). Die post-mittelalterlichen Aktivitten an beiden Standorten beeinflussten
die archologische Beurkundung dramatisch und wurden daher in diesem Band zusammengefat, wegen
Platzgrnden wurde jedoch entschieden diese Phasen
erst spter und separat zu verffentlichen. Als
Konsequenz sind die detailierten Aufzeichnungen der
Strukturen und Fnde vom 17. bis zum 19.
Jahrhundert derzeitig archiviert.
bersetzung: Norman Behrend
xxii
JARROW1.QXD
19-01-2007
10:12
Pagina 1
Part I
1 Introduction
The structure and content of the
report
how the archaeological evidence has been used to construct its own sequence of events.
Essential reference material for the history of the
sites from the founding of the monasteries in the 7th
century, through the period of abandonment and
refounding in the 11th century to their dissolution at
the Reformation, is provided in summary in the main
body of the text and the original sources are quoted
more fully in Appendix A.
Each site is then discussed phase by phase, the
churches the primary visible signs of antiquity on both
sites being considered first. Here the excavated evidence is supplemented by structural analysis and early
graphic records. The cemeteries are considered next, as
being immediately adjacent to the churches and containing some of the earliest evidence for the use of the
sites. The archaeology of the cemeteries at each site is
discussed in the following chapters, but the pathology
and anthropology of the skeletal record is to be found
in Chapter 36. The monastic buildings are then considered and their layout and relationships summarised.
The evidence, from both sites, for the layout and
economy of the Anglo-Saxon and post-Conquest
monasteries is synthesised and compared more widely
in the discussion chapters at the end of Volume 1, with
reference also to the artefactual and ecofactual evidence which is contained in Volume 2.
Volume 1
This report is concerned with those sections of the site
sequence which can be assigned to the periods before
the mid-16th century when at both Wearmouth and
Jarrow the nature of the occupation changed from
ecclesiastical to secular. Since some of the medieval
buildings on both sites were adapted and partly utilised
into the 18th century, however, a summary of the postmonastic development is included. It is intended to
publish the later developments of the sites elsewhere,
but the records and plans of these later periods, together with the finds listings and reports, as well as the complete context catalogues, are available in the archives.
The introductory chapters provide a context for the
excavations both physical and temporal, and essential
reference material for the excavation report. The sites
are first set in their physical backgrounds, then briefly
in the context of past scholarship. The circumstances
and methods of the excavations and post-excavation
are then set out, together with an explanation of the
nature and content of the archival record. The major
chronological phases and significant events for understanding the development of the sites are summarised
in Tables 1.1 and 1.2 and accompany an assessment of
Table 1.1 Site phasing
Period
Chronology
Description
Prehistoric
Roman
Before c 450
Pre-monastic
Early Anglo-Saxon
c 450674
The foundation of Wearmouth and Jarrow
(Pre-Conquest)
Anglo-Saxon 1
Anglo-Saxon 2
Anglo-Saxon 3
674+ MK/682+ JA
8th/9th century
9th century
The Twin Monastery
Post-monastic
Late Anglo-Saxon
Late Saxon/early medieval
911th centuries
(uncertain whether pre- or post-refoundation)
Lay occupation and abandonment
The re-establishment of monastic life

Norman
High Medieval (Med 1)
Late Medieval (Med 2)
1072 to 1083
1214th centuries
14thmid 16th centuries
Aldwinian building phase

The Durham cells
The Dissolution of the Cells

Earlier Post-Medieval (EPM)
Later Post-Medieval (LPM)
Modern (Mod)
15367mid 18th
mid 18th19th centuries
20th century
Secular occupation
Industrial era
The broad site-phasing as above is supplemented by sub-phases and episodes of occupation for specific buildings or areas
1
JARROW1.QXD
19-01-2007
10:12
Pagina 2
WEARMOUTH AND JARROW MONASTIC SITES
Table 1.2 Principal events in the history of Wearmouth and Jarrow

Wearmouth
Jarrow
reference
Anglo-Saxon
672/3
674
674/5
675/6
675/6
681
681
682
684
685
685/6
685/6
686
686+
686716
688
688
689
688716
c 71011
716
716
716
716
716
734
735
746
764
794
c 864
Grant of 50/70 hides from King Ecgfrid

to Benedict Biscop. Birth of Bede
Building of monastery begun
Church begun: master builders and stone
masons from Abbot Torhthelm in Gaul
Glaziers brought from Gaul to lattice
windows in church, chapels (porticus)
and upper storeys (caenacula)
Church dedicated to St Peter
Books, relics and pictures from Rome and Gaul
Dormitory, kitchen, bakehouse and
agricultural buildings mentioned
Grant of 40 hides from King Ecgfrid,
8 years after foundation of Wearmouth
Building of monastery begun
Eosterwine placed in charge of Wearmouth
Ceolfrid + 22 (10 tonsured, 12 others), or
alternatively + 17, sent from Wearmouth
to form community
Church begun: King Ecgfrid marked out
position of altar
Church dedicated to St Paul
(dedication stone survives)
Pestilence nearly wipes out both communities
Eosterwine died, buried in portus ingressus before 716
Reference to church of St Mary
Pictures brought back from Rome and
and pictures from Rome
placed in St Pauls church showing
Old and New Testament scenes
3 hides purchased on S side of River Wear
and other land purchases
8 hides of land by River Fresca by exchange
from King Aldfrid assigned to Jarrow but later
traded for 20/8 hides at Sambuce nearer to the
monastery during reign of King Osred (705716)
Sicgfrid buried outside the sacrarium
to the south of the church
The twin monasteries united under one superior
Benedict Biscop buried on the east side
of the altar in the porticus of St Peter
Several oratories added by Ceolfrid, and
10 hides in Daltun donated by Witmaer
Nechtan king of the Picts asks Abbot
Ceolfrid for masons to build a church
in the Roman manner
Second reference to church of St Mary
Reference to oratory of St Lawrence in
or near to dormitory of the brethren
Eosterwine and Sicgfrid translated to
side of altar in St Peters church
Estate of 150 hides at Ceolfrids death.
600 (+80) monks at Wearmouth and Jarrow
Codex Amiatinus taken to the continent, and 2 other bibles
made (vellum required from 1,500 calves)
Bedes letter to Bishop Egbert on state of the Church
Death of Bede
Boniface writes from Germany asking for works of Bede
Request for help in manufacture of glass vessels
sent to Lull, archbishop of Mainz,
because we are ignorant and destitute of that art
Viking attack on Donmouth
(but possibly in Yorkshire)
?Northern monasteries destroyed (208 years before Aldwin)
HAA, 7/HAB, 4
HAA, 7/HAB, 4
HAA, 7/HAB, 5
HAA, 7
HAB, 5
HAA, 9
HAA, 9/HAB, 6
HAB, 8
HAA, 11/HAB, 7
HAA, 11/HAB, 7
HAA, 11, 12
HAB, 7
HAA, 12
HAA, 12
Cramp 1984, 11314
HAA, 13, 14
HAA, 13/HAB, 10
HAB, 9
HAB, 9
HAB, 15
HAA, 18/HAB, 20
HAA, 1617/HAB, 13
HAA, 18/HAB, 14
HAB, 15
HE, V.21
HAA, 25/HAB, 17
HAB, 17
HAA, 18/HAB, 20
HAA, 33
HAA, 20, 37
Bruce-Mitford 1969, 2
Whitelock 1955, no. 170
EOB
Whitelock 1955, no. 180
Whitelock 1955, no.
185
HR, 57/ASC E
HED, III.22
JARROW1.QXD
19-01-2007
10:12
Pagina 3
1: INTRODUCTION
Table 1.2 continued

Wearmouth
Jarrow
reference
Late Anglo-Saxon
c 934
Athelstans donation of lands to Chester-leStreet, previously belonging to Wearmouth
102245
Hart 1975, 118

Services held on anniversary of Bedes
death. His bones removed to Durham
HED, III.7
Community of St Cuthbert shelter in the church

Church destroyed by fire
HED, III.15/HR, 154

HR, 154
HR, 1901
HED, III.21
Norman
1069
1069/70
1070
1072
10768
1083
1144
c 1190
Church burnt by Malcolm III of Scotland

Aldwin community settled in the ruins;
buildings restored
Church said to be ruined and overgown;
site restored by Aldwin
Communities of Jarrow and Wearmouth transferred to Durham
(total of 23 monks)
Besieged during conflict between William
Cumin and Bishop William de St Barbara
Monastic life possibly re-established by 1190
HED, 11213
HED, IV.3
HED Cont I
Piper 1986, 4
Medieval
1225
c 1235
C13
1303
Named as a cell of Durham

Re-established as a Durham cell by 1235
Chancel and north aisle added to church
Account rolls survive from 1303
First inventory shows cell had a farm attached
Aula, camera de magistri, lardaria, coquina,
brachina/pistrina: therefore cell already reshaped
In addition: celarium, pantaria (a later
inventory says cellarium is under pantry)
1310
1313
1321
C14-16
1347
1351
1367
Account rolls from 1321

Surviviving accounts include references to the
following domestic and farm buildings: cloister
hall, masters chamber, kitchen, larder, bake-house,
brew-house, piped water supply, coal-hole, barn,
granary, stable, ox-byre, dovecote
Expenditure on three windows in the choir
1417
14534
1533+
1534
1536
1537
Raine 1854
Raine 1854
Raine 1854
Piper nd, 8
Window in chancel
ald kirke (possibly St Mary) used for
keeping hay; also mentioned in 1440
13745
14023
HDST, x1
Piper nd, 2
Hutchinson 1787, 506
Raine 1854
Repair of glass for 3 windows in aula

An expensive item: factura claustri cum tectura
domorum (only item which is a construction,
and only reference to the cloister)
First mention of promptuarium
Labourers/servants: 5 men, 2 boys, 1 woman
Bedes oratory and altar shown to Leland
by 3 poor monks (the only residents)
Last account roll entry
Act of Dissolution
Raine 1854, 1459

Raine 1854
Raine 1854, 159, 241
Durham Ms
Durham Ms
Raine 1854
Piper nd, 5
Leland 1715, 42
Valor Ecclesiasticus 5, 304
27 Henry VIII
Cell dissolved. Revenues valued at 40 7s 8d
Post-Dissolution
1537+
1545
1597/8
1598
160025
1616
C17th
1641
or 56?
1689
1704
Sold to Eure family who held until 1616

Granted to Thomas Whytehead, with
estates of 151 acres
Passed to Whittrington family
Will listing extensive rooms and outbuildings
Monkwearmouth Hall built early 17th century
Watts Moses 1964,

735
Watts Moses 1964, 58
Greenwell 1860, 286
Hutchinson 1787, 506
Property divided, later split into eighths
Building of adjuncts to S range northwards
Purchased by Col Fenwick
Passed to Williamson family

Grimm sketch of S aspect of church
and E range with door

BL Add Ms 15540
no. 74
JARROW1.QXD
19-01-2007
10:12
Pagina 4
Table 1.2 continued

Wearmouth
Jarrow
reference
Post-Dissolution
1711
Churchwardens report of ruinous condition

of ministers house (?SW area of range)
Ministers house said to be uninhabitable
E range allowed to fall into decay:
Buck drawing shows E range roofless
1715
1728
1735?
1773
1782
1783
1790
1794
C1819
182654
182930
1834?
1839
1840+
1852
1853
1866
1866
1866
1866+
18725
1878
1880
1880
1887
1905
1925
1927
Hall later used as parsons house

Sparrow drawing shows S range abandoned
Faculty for rebuilding and plan drawn up
Nave of St Pauls church taken down and rebuilt
Hall destroyed by fire
except a small building to the west
Gallery erected on N side of church:
N aisle, chancel arch, and N chantry
chapel destroyed
Ballast dumping around church
Hallgarth square built
Balusters found in vault on E side of tower
Tidfirth stone discovered 20ft S of church
Interior sculpture exposed
1998
Raine 1854, xxviiixxx
Anon 18628b
Present N aisle and vestry built, and substantial
restoration of tower and chancel by Scott
School extension
Church restored, N aisle rebuilt
Popham Miles Ms, 23

Rectory demolished
N gable of hall collapsed

Churchyard closed
West porch built
Proposal by rector that the site be taken
into state guardianship (later withdrawn)
Repairs to church

Rose 1932
Insall 1961
Grounds of monastic ruins cleared and
relaid at instigation of rector
Trial excavations by E Birley S of church
outside boundary wall of school playground
Site scheduled as an ancient monument of national
importance (cottage still occupied by verger)
Trial excavations by CAR Radford NE of church
Cottage vacated by verger
Site taken into guardianship of Ministry of Works,
deed signed by George Beckwith, rector, 24 May
1954
1955
1956
1994
Holmes nd
OS 2nd edn 1897
Raine 1854, xxxii
Hodges 1905, 213
Popham Miles Ms, 1
Excavation of nave N wall and cross wall

Ballast cleared, W porch opened, slab discovered
1938
19623
1963
19678
1974
19736
1975
1978
1986

Fordyce 1857, 415
School built
Report on church by George Gilbert Scott
Rectory built
1935
195960

Grose 1773a
Start of excavation programme under R Cramp;

trial trenches between occupied buildings
Hallgarth square demolished
Radford 1954b, 205
Cramp 1969, 28
Start of excavation programme under R Cramp
School demolished
Completion of excavation programme

Excavations by C D Morris at Jarrow Slake
Site laid out with trees
Excavations inside church, and construction
of N aisle Cuthbert chapel after fire
Wright 1936, 343
Completion of site excavation programme

Watching briefs
Local management agreement signed 1 April

between English Heritage and Jarrow 700 AD Ltd
Both sites put forward for classification by UNESCO as World Heritage sites
JARROW1.QXD
19-01-2007
10:12
Pagina 5
1: INTRODUCTION
Fig 1.1 Location map of Wearmouth and Jarrow in relation to the topography of north-east England. YB/NE
There are also appendices listing textual sources,
antiquarian records both textual and graphic, and in
Volume 2 the context catalogue of the Anglo-Saxon,
medieval and early post-medieval periods, and the burial catalogues.
Volume 2
This contains the specialist reports on the ecofacts and
artefacts; reports and catalogues of the human and animal bones, and of the finds from each site grouped
according to material and function.
The location and topography of

the sites
The monastic sites of Wearmouth (NZ 403577) and
Jarrow (NZ 339652) are both located in the coastal
region of the historic County of Durham (though
presently in the new Metropolitan Boroughs of
Sunderland and South Tyneside respectively), at the
mouths of two major rivers the Wear and the Tyne
and adjacent to sheltered harbours with good lines of
communication by sea (Fig 1.1). This is the area of
Durham county which has been favoured for settlement
since prehistoric times (see Chapter 3 below), and, even
in a region which has little good agricultural land in
modern terms, there is a narrow belt of good agricultural soil on the East Durham Plateau (see Stevens and
Atkinson 1970, 55). Both sites were situated on the crest
of a low slope, dipping towards the sea on the east and
a river on the south, which enclosed the site in a meander, and it is of interest that this situation is similar to
that of other early Christian sites in Northumbria such
as Aycliffe, Bywell, or St Andrew Auckland (Fig 3.5).
Wearmouth was sited right at the mouth of the
River Wear, iuxta ostium fluminis Uiuri (HE, IV.18;
Plummer 1896, I, 241), on a slightly elevated plateau
with a commanding view from the north bank of the
river (Fig 1.2). Its earliest Anglo-Saxon name is AEt
Wiuraemutha, Latin Ad Uiuraemuda (HE, V.24;
Plummer 1896, I, 357), although different forms of the
name Wearmouth continue in use into the 18th
century. By the 12th century it appears in charters as
acquilonalis Wiramutha (north Wearmouth) to distinguish it from the bishops estate at south Wearmouth
(Watts 2002, 79 and 134). Later the names are further
clarified and in 1291 the Taxatio Ecclesiastica (Astle et
al 1802) distinguishes between the possessions of the
monks and the bishop of Durham, Wermouth Episcopi
and Wermouth Monarchorum (Ekwall 1960, 502); and
the terms occurs also in 1306 in the Registrum
Palatinum Dunelmense (Hardy 18738; Mawer 1920,
209). By the 14th century the name Monkwearmouth
JARROW1.QXD
19-01-2007
10:12
Pagina 6
Fig 1.2 Wearmouth, air photograph of the excavation site in 1971, showing St Peters church in the foreground, river mouth
and sea frontage with harbour. Newcastle University
Fig 1.3 West front of St Peters Church, Wearmouth, before restoration, drawn by S H Grimm c 177783 (British Library,
Ms Add. 15540 no. 75)
JARROW1.QXD
19-01-2007
10:12
Pagina 7
1: INTRODUCTION
"" <f<J
"
.......
/
-"
Fig 1.4 Detail showing St Peters Church and to the south Monkwearmouth Hall in relation to the River Wear from the
linen plan of Sunderland harbour, by J Fawcett, 1719 (see also Appendix B1), in possession of R Cramp
JARROW1.QXD
19-01-2007
10:12
Pagina 8
Fig 1.5 Ordnance Survey 1:2500 map, 2nd edition, 1897, sheet VIII.14, showing Hallgarth Square, the site of the gasometer, and the development of the built-up area around St Peters Church, Wearmouth
is in frequent use. The name Wearmouth has been
used throughout the text with reference to the early
monastery and medieval cell, and Monkwearmouth
for the post-Dissolution site.
The pre-industrial topography is most readily
reconstructed from early drawings, although even in
the 18th century the original contours of the ground
had been blurred by ballast dumping (Fig 1.3).
Nevertheless the pastoral nature of the area was
retained until relatively recent times. Maps of 1714
and 1719 (Fig 1.4; Appendix B frontispiece) show the
church and Monkwearmouth Hall with only a few
ancillary buildings, and the whole complex set among
fields. The change came when the port and the shipbuilding industry developed, and after the disastrous
fire which destroyed Hallgarth House in 1790, the area
became part of the town, with Hallgarth Square being
built in c 1826 (Fig 1.5).
Jarrow was sited somewhat inland on the south
bank of the Tyne, in low-lying marshy land at the eastern end of the Tyne Gap (Fig 1.1). The earliest AngloSaxon dwellers in that area were identified by a
topographical name which reflected the terrain, since
Bede tells us that the monastery was located in Gyrwum
(among the Gyrwe), a tribal name which means marsh
or fen dwellers (HE, V.21, 24; Watts 1970, 256). The
JARROW1.QXD
19-01-2007
10:12
Pagina 9
1: INTRODUCTION
Fig 1.6 Jarrow, air photograph looking north, showing the location of the excavation site in relation to the River Tyne to the
north and the Slake to the east as it appeared in 1948. Cambridge University, BG-75
site is located on a small eminence of upper boulder clay,
and the land dipped sharply to the east from the church
towards mud flats which surrounded a tidal tributary of
the Tyne, the River Don (Figs 1.6 and 1.10). The
Slake, as this shallow natural anchorage is called, has
been radically altered by dumped infill in the recent
past, but its earlier appearance as recalled by Hutchinson
(1787, 47080; and Figs 1.8, 1.9) was still possible to
recreate when the excavations began (Fig 1.7). The site
is more limited in extent to the south than is Wearmouth,
and possibly was likewise to the east, where the small
promontory was later covered by the now extinct
village (Fig 1.10; Appendix B4041 and Table 1.2).
Geology
Both sites are situated on glacial deposits of upper
boulder clay (Smith 1994). At Jarrow this overlies
Carboniferous sandstone (Westphalian) (Fig 1.11) and
here the church and monastic buildings are largely
constructed of local sandstones (much of it possibly
reused from nearby Roman buildings). At Wearmouth
the subsoil of the site is a glacial deposit of sand, silts,
gravels and boulder clay, which sometimes underlies
but sometimes outcrops alongside the sands. The
lower boulder clay is of variable thickness, filling as it
does deep fissures in the Magnesian Limestone escarpment which extends northwards from Hartlepool to
JARROW1.QXD
19-01-2007
10:12
10
Pagina 10
Fig 1.7 The Jarrow site in the course of excavation 1973. Durham University
the Wear. The stone is sometimes known as Hartlepool
and Roker Dolomite (Fig 1.11; Cramp 1984, 13, fig
5). This limestone outcrops near to Sunderland and
provides an easily worked building stone and one
which takes a fine finish for carving, as is demonstrated in all the early decorative details found on the
Wearmouth site (see Ch 28). The pre-Conquest walls
of the church and monastery were also built of this
material, and the Fulwell quarries are less than a mile
away. The longstanding importance of the quarries is
attested in finds there dating from prehistoric and
Roman times (Chapter 3 below) and the quarries may
have been part of the original land grant to Wearmouth
monastery, since Fulwell still existed as part of the
appurtenances of the cell when it was sold at the
Reformation (Watts Moses 1964, 76).
Communications
The grant from royal land of a site at the mouth of the
River Wear with a good natural harbour presented the
community with a key site for communication with the
coastal seaways. Nevertheless, the River Wear, which
has changed its directions several times since the 18th
century, at one time being only 300 yards from the
south wall of the church (Watts Moses 1964, 60),
must have also constituted something of an enclosing
barrier in the Anglo-Saxon period. It had to be crossed

by a ferry so Benedict, soon after the foundation,
obtained land on the south bank so that the community could control that point (see Chapter 4 below). The
moving description of Ceolfrids departure from his
community in AD 716 (Appendix A3.6), not only provides a graphic illustration of the crossing but also
demonstrates that he had to travel by land to the
Humber in order to acquire a boat for a long sea crossing. Good communications by land were therefore also
an important factor for the community. The major
Roman roads in the region passed to the west (see Fig
3.1 below) but there may have been a minor road linking Wearmouth and South Shields as is evidenced at a
later period (see Fig 4.2 below) but there is no obviously direct route linking Wearmouth and Jarrow. The
later pattern of roads which link the dependencies of
the two monasteries provide a rather circuitous land
route. The siting of Jarrow away from the mouth of the
Tyne may have been partly because there were already
important ecclesiastical sites on the north bank (such
as Tynemouth) and south bank (South Shields), but
also the wide mouth of the River Tyne was a very dangerous area to cross, even by boat. Bedes account in
The Life of St Cuthbert of monks who were in danger of
being swept out to sea on their rafts demonstrates this
well (VCP, 3; Colgrave 1940, 1612). On the other
JARROW1.QXD
19-01-2007
10:12
Pagina 11
1: INTRODUCTION
11
Fig 1.8 Part of a manuscript plan of the estate of Simon Temple of Hylton Castle, showing Jarrow Hall, church and village
in 1808 (Tyne & Wear Archives Service, Jarrow MBC, T10/372)
hand, the Don could have been crossed by a wooden
bridge or causeway. Hutchinson noted, The passage
from Jarrow monastery to the opposite shore is formed
by a raised causeway and a bridge over the rivulet,
which, considering the haven to have been neglected
for so many ages, is yet a formidable work (Hutchinson

1787, 4779). This causeway, the name of which is
still marked on early maps of the area (Fig 1.10),
could have been in operation from the earliest occupation of the site or even before (see Chapter 16 below)
JARROW1.QXD
12
19-01-2007
10:12
Pagina 12
Fig 1.9 View of Jarrow monastic ruins from the south in the 18th century, by S Buck (Bodleian Library, University of
Oxford, Gough Maps 7 fol 15A)
Fig 1.10 Ordnance Survey 1:2500 map, 2nd edition, 1897, sheet III.12, showing Jarrow Slake, river with causeway, and
supposed Roman site
JARROW1.QXD
19-01-2007
10:12
Pagina 13
1: INTRODUCTION
13
Fig 1.11 Regional geology of north-east England. YB

and certainly the road to the bridge would have constituted the most direct entry to the site when travelling
from and to Wearmouth. This factor in addition to a
similar local topography with a good anchorage may
have determined the location of the second foundation.
The swamps to the south of the site at Jarrow into
which the causeway must have led have an obvious
similarity to the Lincolnshire fens, the causeways
through which have been recently studied by Stocker
and Everson (2003). They conclude that locations at
the end of causeways could retain their prehistoric
sacred character into the medieval period and this
could be a determining factor in the siting of monasteries (ibid, 2749). As far as Jarrow is concerned,
there is no evidence to date for votive deposits in the
area, and it could well be argued that key river crossings were originally retained in royal hands for strategic purposes, but in handing them over to monastic
communities rulers ensured that they would be well
maintained by groups that were not likely to constitute
a dynastic threat. One should nevertheless remember
that the built-up areas around both of these sites have
successfully obliterated early topography. In relation to
this, a recent suggestion made by Professor Ian Wood
(pers comm), that there may have been another
JARROW1.QXD
14
19-01-2007
10:12
Pagina 14
monastery at the south end of the causeway remains an

interesting hypothesis, but thus far there is no material
evidence to support it.
Previous assessment of Wearmouth

and Jarrow: antiquarian scholarship
The fame of Bede as a theologian his writings had by
the 9th century earned him the title of Doctor of the
church (Brown 1987, 978) and from late AngloSaxon times onwards the popularity of his most
famous work The Ecclesiastical History of the English
People (HE), ensured that the places where he lived and
worked were remembered and visited. Symeon of
Durham, writing in the 12th century, was at pains to
recount that it was because of the fame of Bede that
Aldwin and his monks recolonised the two sites in the
late 11th century (Historia Dunelmensis Ecclesiae
(HDE) III, 212). Leland, visiting Jarrow just before
the Dissolution, described how three monks showed
visitors Bedes oratory and altar on the north side of
the church, and also recorded the dedication stone of
the church (Leland 1715, 42; Appendix A6.4).
By the end of the Middle Ages (15th16th
centuries) it seems clear that Jarrow was the site which
maintained the tradition of antiquity the more firmly,
and this was reinforced, after the Dissolution of the
monasteries, when the site at Wearmouth became
comprehensively redeveloped with the building of the
Jacobean mansion, Monkwearmouth Hall, while the
site at Jarrow, although sold into lay hands, seems to
have remained in occupation by the church.
By the 18th century, antiquaries such as
Hutchinson could only marvel at the difference
between the appearance of the sites as they now existed and how they must have been in Bedes day. At
Monkwearmouth he noted that the hall was erected on
the site of the old monastery, but none of the offices
can be ascertained from the edifice now standing
(Hutchinson 1787, 506), although he commented in
some detail on the church and its tower. Apart from
early maps (Fig 1.4, Appendix B frontispiece and B1),
and one drawing by Grimm which records the appearance of Monkwearmouth Hall and the area south of
the church (Fig 11.1 below), from the late 18th
century onwards antiquarian comment and graphic
record focused here solely on the church. This does,
however, usefully provide a record of its appearance
before the rebuilding of the north aisle, south wall and
substantial renovation of the porch and tower, as well
as its changing urban context (Chapter 5 below).
At Jarrow, Hutchinson introduced the site dismissively, Little more remained of this once famous town
when we visited it in 1782, than two or three mean cottages, the distracted ruins of the old monastery, the
church, a venerable pile, then patched up so as to
retain few traces of its original figure, and the capacious haven, now called the Slake, washed full of sand
(Hutchinson 1787, 470). Nevertheless his detailed

description of the church, taken together with the
drawings of the Buck brothers and Grimm (Figs 12.4
and 12.7 below), and a plan of 1769 (Fig 12.5 below),
provide the only surviving evidence for some of the
medieval monastic buildings, the medieval church, and
the vestiges of the Anglo-Saxon church which partially
survived in its fabric until the nave was rebuilt in 1783
(Chapter 16).
In the 19th century the founding of local antiquarian societies, coupled with changes in liturgical taste
and practice, provoked major interest in the churches
and inscriptions of both sites, and produced a steady
flow of scholarly articles in local journals. At
Wearmouth the unpublished observations of
Longstaffe and Robson, as well as contemporary drawings, are of great importance in assessing the surviving
Anglo-Saxon fabric before the opening up of the west
porch and its excavation in 1866 (see Chapter 5
below), as too are the records of the random diggings
inside the church. Also valuable are the architects
records of the restorations in 1866 and 1872 which had
the then fashionable objective of restoring as far as was
practicable the post-Reformation appearance of the
church to that of the Middle Ages. Similar, although
less comprehensive, observations were recorded at
Jarrow when, in 1866, the 18th-century nave was
pulled down to make way for a nave designed by Giles
Gilbert Scott, and the tower and chancel were substantially restored (Appendix A6.9).
These antiquarian records were an essential part of
the 20th-century assessment of the surviving early fabric at both sites, in the light of contemporary understanding of the nature and chronology of Anglo-Saxon
and medieval styles of architecture. The position of
both churches in relation to other early architecture in
Northumbria was clarified by the publications of E C
Gilbert between 1947 and 1964 and of C A R Radford
in 1954, but a major step forward was made in the
publication by H M and J Taylor, in 1965, of modern
drawings of the churches on both sites accompanied by
a detailed commentary.
From their inception in 1958 the annual Jarrow
Lectures (now gathered into two compendious volumes under the general title Bede and his World
Lapidge 1994) have focused scholarly attention on the
wider importance of the two sites and the works of
Bede, and have produced a steady flow of important
commentary on the monastic arts, crafts and scholarship. Other collaborative works such as the anniversary volumes edited by A Hamilton Thompson
(1935a), and Gerald Bonner (1976), significantly
summed up the relevant scholarship of their times, and
like Peter Hunter Blairs The World of Bede (1970)
and more modern assessments such as George Hardin
Browns Bede the Venerable (1987) are important
sources of reference for the intellectual context of the
excavations described in succeeding chapters.
JARROW2.QXD
19-01-2007
10:14
Pagina 15
2 The excavations
Circumstances of the excavations, 195988
Despite the close links of the sites of Wearmouth and
Jarrow, first as one monastery in two places and then
as two of the cells of Durham Priory, it was nevertheless only by accidental circumstances rather than
research design that they were excavated by the same
director and eventually have been brought together
under the same post-excavation research programme.
The evidence from all of the areas excavated between
1959 and 1988 is synthesised in this report.
These excavations were conducted over a span of 19
years or, if one includes the rescue excavations in
Wearmouth church, 27 years, and during that period
excavation techniques and recording changed rapidly
and radically. The labour force remained throughout
largely volunteers, although for four years at
Wearmouth and up to 1973 it included specialised
workmen (two from the council labour force at
Sunderland, and one from the direct labour force of the
Department of the Environment at Jarrow). From
19758 at Jarrow the volunteers included people who
had already found a career as archaeologists in professional units, and their involvement during their holidays
was a great benefit. Nevertheless the involvement of
local people, children and adults, as well as the generations of students from British and foreign universities
meant that the ethos of these excavations was very different from the professional excavations of today. Many
of the undergraduate and postgraduate supervisors listed on p xix went on to distinguished careers in archaeology, but I would like to think that many of the more
casual volunteers (some of whose names unfortunately
could not be extracted from the records), may have
continued with the interests which they developed during their exposure to digging. This was indeed community archaeology to such an extent that at some points
two shifts were worked in a day to allow local volunteers
to help after their daytime activities were over.
Those involved in the very long post-excavation
process were mainly professional archaeologists, and I
am grateful for their expertise and patience in teasing
information from what was often an imperfect site
record, but it has also been a bonus that volunteer help
has continued to the end (see Acknowledgements). It
is also noteworthy that most of the reports in Volume
2 were written without payment by very busy specialists; without their generosity, and that of my colleagues
in the Durham Department of Archaeology, the publication would not have been completed.
The brief was to see how near to the church any redevelopment could take place without disturbing historic
structures and deposits. Urban development had obliterated all above-ground remains of both the AngloSaxon and medieval monasteries, which were known
from documentary and graphic evidence to have existed, and parts of which had survived to the south of the
church as late as the 18th century.
A series of engineers boreholes taken around the
church immediately before the excavation in 1959
indicated that although there was a considerable depth
of ballast sands and gravels to the north, to the south
of the church there was evidence of stratified occupation deposits to varying depths above the natural sands
and clays (Appendix B1516). In an attempt to test the
quality of the survival of structures, excavation proceeded in a small-scale and piecemeal way, first amidst
the occupied buildings wheresoever permission could
be obtained, and then as the site was cleared. The
result of this process was a series of small cuttings
investigated in short seasons: in 1959, 1960, 1961 and
1962, while buildings were still standing; in 1964,
1966 and 1967, while the site was being cleared; and
in 1969, 1971 and 1974 after the site had been levelled
and planted (Fig 2.1). There were also three small rescue excavations inside the church: in 1970 inside the
chancel during repairs to the floor, conducted by the
late Eric Parsons; in 1972 in the north aisle, when a
vault collapsed, directed by Rosemary Cramp; and in
1986 in the north aisle, in advance of the building of a
visitor centre, supervised by Tadgh OKeefe.
Throughout this was a volunteer dig and only in the
post-excavation period was anyone paid for their services, and this is doubtless reflected in the variable
quality of the excavation and the field record.
Wearmouth presented all the problems of an urban
site. The area which was available for excavation had
been intensively developed from the 19th century with
cellared houses, outhouses, privies, and service trenches, but even before that there had been severe truncation of deposits. St Peters Church was originally sited
on raised ground, as was still just visible in the 18th
century (Fig 1.3), but the slope to the south had been
levelled in the post-Conquest period thus bringing
some Anglo-Saxon graves very near to the surface, and
only in small areas in the centre of the medieval cloister did patches of Anglo-Saxon ground surface survive,
and these also had been in use in the medieval period.
In addition the yards and sunken ornamental paths of
the Jacobean hall destroyed more of the garth area.
Within the mortared rubble buildings (which were
largely rebuilt on the pre-Conquest plan), no intact
occupation levels of the Anglo-Saxon period survived
and only within the South Range were traces of the
Wearmouth
Excavations to the south of the Anglo-Saxon church at
Wearmouth began in 1959, at the request of the local
authority in advance of a housing clearance scheme.
15
JARROW2.QXD
16
19-01-2007
10:14
Pagina 16
Fig 2.1 Wearmouth excavated areas. The first two figures of each number represent the year of excavation from 195974. YB
JARROW2.QXD
19-01-2007
10:14
Pagina 17
2: THE EXCAVATIONS
Fig 2.2 Jarrow, areas excavated in the Guardianship site and the churchyard. NE
17
JARROW2.QXD
19-01-2007
18
10:14
Pagina 18
medieval floor levels detectable under their 17thcentury successors. There were no rubbish pits of the
7th to 9th centuries and most of the Anglo-Saxon
material from the site came from clearance dumps or
the infilling of negative features, such as a well-pit or
latrine, in the period between the 11th and 13th
centuries. The levelling of the ground to the grassy surface it presents in 18th-century maps and engravings is
clearly visible in the sections of the archaeological
trenches, as is the deep deposit of sand from ships ballast which preceded the development of the town houses around Hallgarth Square. More of the earlier history
of the site might have been lost, however, if this development had not roughly followed the outlines of the
medieval inner and outer courts of the monastery.
Despite the later depredations the excavations did
yield new evidence for the Anglo-Saxon period: new
features of the church were discovered and a long-lived
cemetery partially explored, while the foundations of
the Anglo-Saxon buildings presented a surprisingly
ordered layout. There is little to see on the ground
today of the building layouts revealed, although these
were marked out after excavation and an open area was
left around the church, with tree planting outside the
area excavated. A small interpretative exhibition with
some finds exists in St Peters Church Visitor Centre,
and there is a larger exhibition in Sunderland Museum.
Jarrow
The monastic site around St Pauls Church and the
ruins of the medieval monastery at Jarrow were more
comprehensively explored. This was a larger scale and
better funded excavation than Wearmouth and
although the area had been occupied by domestic
buildings since the 17th century, and in the 19th
century a school, there was less intensive disturbance
over the whole site than at Wearmouth. An area, mainly within the Guardianship site south of St Pauls
Church, was excavated at the request of the Ministry of
Public Building and Works, subsequently named the
Directorate of Ancient Monuments and Historic
Buildings, Department of the Environment just before
becoming English Heritage (Fig 2.2). Initially the aim
of the excavation was to provide interpretative information for the ruined buildings of the medieval
monastery, which had recently been consolidated.
The site was excavated under the direction of
Rosemary Cramp in a series of short seasons in 1963,
19657, 196971, 197378 with watching briefs in
1988 and 1992 when floodlighting and signage were
installed on the site (Fig 2.3). Two cuttings were made
in 1963 to test the nature of the deposits inside and
outside the medieval cloister. In 1965 several small
trenches were laid out in relation to the standing walls,
and the first evidence for Anglo-Saxon buildings was
recovered. After 1966, the demolition of the derelict
school, which occupied a large area of the cloister,
enabled most of the interior of the medieval court with
its underlying cemetery and Anglo-Saxon buildings to

be examined, and between 1971 and 1978 the area of
the medieval East Range as well as the open slopes to
the river on the south. In 19723 John Hunter directed rescue excavations inside the church before a new
floor was laid. The totality of these excavations
revealed the form of the main Anglo-Saxon church,
with, to the south of it, a cemetery, and large stone
buildings both domestic and industrial. In addition,
the complete layout of the liturgical buildings of the
small medieval successor monastery was determined.
At the southern limits of these excavations it was possible to create a direct link with the Jarrow Slake rescue
excavations undertaken by Christopher D Morris (see
below), and some features and levels continued from
one area to the other (Fig 2.3; Chapter 21 below).
The main Anglo-Saxon and medieval structures are
now marked out on the Guardianship site, and there is
an extensive interpretative display in the nearby Bedes
World Museum, where the site finds and archive are
housed. The architectural fragments which derive from
the various restorations and rebuildings of St Pauls are
displayed in the church. In 198991 rescue excavations
were conducted to the north of Jarrow Hall and have
been independently published (Speak 1998).
Jarrow Slake
Four seasons of rescue excavation were undertaken
between 1973 and 1976 under the direction of
Christopher D Morris outside the Guardianship area.
These were occasioned by environmental improvement
proposals by the then Jarrow Corporation to landscape
the areas to the east, south and north of St Pauls
Church and churchyard, in advance of tree planting
and the provision of car parking facilities. The area
went by the general name of Jarrow Slake, hence the
site code JS (Fig 2.3, Areas IVI). As explained above
the Areas IVVI were excavated and recorded separately from the Guardianship site. While the two excavations provided complementary information (and in
Area IV actually joined), the differential developments
to the south of the post-medieval boundary wall, and
the special environmental problems of the tidal riverbank, did create significant distinctions. To the extent
that this is stratigraphically possible, the two sequences
have been linked (see Figs 16.62 and 19.34), and the
Anglo-Saxon and medieval finds have been included in
the same specialist reports in Volume 2. This was particularly important for the pottery where sherds from
the same pot were found in the two discrete excavations (see Vol 2, Ch 33). A revised version of the
reports by Christopher Morris on the stratigraphic
sequence and overall conclusions concerning the
boundaries of the medieval cell to the south are the
subject of Chapter 21, while his full text (written in
2000, before the pottery report for this area was fully
available), is held in archive. For the introduction to
these excavations see Chapter 21.
JARROW2.QXD
19-01-2007
10:14
Pagina 19
2: THE EXCAVATIONS
Fig 2.3 Jarrow, excavated areas 19541991. YB
19
JARROW2.QXD
20
19-01-2007
10:14
Pagina 20
Recording and post-excavation

At both Wearmouth and on the main site at Jarrow, the
spatial basis of recording was a grid of 10ft (3.05m)
squares identified by letters on the north-south axis
and by numbers on the east-west axis (see Figs 2.1 and
2.2). In both cases, the excavation grid was based on
the alignment of the standing church. Recording was
in imperial measurements throughout the excavation
of both sites, with the exception of Tadgh OKeefes
1986 excavations in Monkwearmouth church which
were recorded in metric. From 1970 scales on
photographs were shown in both imperial and metric.
The main excavations were planned at a scale of 1:12
and site plans were drawn on graph paper until 1966
and thereafter on film. The site plans were then
reduced to 1:48 for the production of phase plans.
Save for the 1974 season at Wearmouth, when the
area was machined off down to the ballast deposits,
excavation was by hand. There was no sieving on site,
although some soil samples were sieved later in the laboratory. This no doubt resulted in the loss of very small
artefacts and fish bones (but see Vol 2, Ch 37.3). All
artefacts and ecofacts were collected from all deposits,
and only discarded from the uppermost disturbed levels of topsoil after recording. A complete sequence of
pottery and other artefacts therefore exists from the
7th to the 20th centuries, and is fully listed in archive.
Throughout the excavations extensive samples of plasters, mortars and other building materials were kept
from all structures, and this proved a valuable interpretative aid (see below and Vol 2, Ch 26).
Methods of recording on the main site were refined
as time went on, but the recasting into contexts was a
post-excavation process. Throughout, the finds were
recorded on site with the site prefix (MK or JA), followed by the year and an alphabetic code AA, AB etc.
These daily finds tray registers, together with the feature cards and site notebooks completed by the area
supervisors, and the plans, sections, and photographs,
formed the basis of the numerical context records from
which the context catalogues are synthesised. The
numbering of the trenches, burials, and some other
features was similarly standardised in the post-excavation process. The original labelling of walls (based on
the site grids) and structures, however, has been
retained since they have been extensively used in interim publications and thereafter.
During the post-excavation process, proformas
were devised for contexts, finds assemblages and burials. Routine post-excavation procedures such as the
drawing of matrices and the writing of stratigraphic
commentaries for each trench then followed. The
major weakness of the site record is that not every layer
was planned, although the negative or positive features
which cut them were, and this has resulted in several
insoluble problems. However, the very full photographic record of both sites proved an invaluable interpretative aid.
Christopher Morris excavation at Jarrow Slake in

19736 was recorded in metric with plans drawn at a
scale of 1:20 and sections at 1:10. The finds are
marked with the prefix JS. They have been integrated
in the same published catalogues and reports as the
rest of the site finds.
The published finds have been allocated unique
numbers prefixed by an abbreviation indicating the
material, eg GlW = window glass. A complete list of
these abbreviations appears at the beginning of Volume
2. Where museum accession numbers have been provided these are included in the published catalogues.
The site archives

A summary of the site and publication archives is provided in Appendix H. For Jarrow, the archive and all
the excavated finds (with the exception of some AngloSaxon window glass) are held in the museum at Bedes
World, Jarrow on Tyne. Apart from a few items displayed in St Peters Church, many of the Wearmouth
finds are displayed in Sunderland Museum. The
remainder, together with the archive, are stored by
Tyne and Wear Museums Service. The National
Monuments Record at Swindon also holds a record of
the excavations.
Chronology and phasing

Terminology and the period divisions
The development of the sites has been described in
terms of major periods which, from the Anglo-Saxon
through the later medieval periods, derive their chronological support from a limited number of documentary
and textual sources. These period divisions have been
labelled in relation to specific dated events which affect
the site, and in other texts the terms may have a different chronological range. The term Early Anglo-Saxon,
for example, is used to describe a period which is
roughly dated from the end of the Roman control of
the North to the foundation date of Wearmouth; in
relation to the site archaeology it is in the broadest
sense pre-monastic (see Table 1.1). The term monastic has been used for the period when an organised
religious life, subject to a Rule, is documented for the
sites. The term Norman has been linked only with
those structures and events that can be assigned to the
documented period of the occupation of the sites by
Aldwin and his monks (Table 1.1 and Chapter 4). The
divisions within the major periods such as High
Medieval (Med 1) and Late Medieval (Med 2) are
specifically linked with major structural events such as
the foundation and reconstruction of the monastic
buildings, but the phases and sub-phases usually represent events which have been detected archaeologically
only in small areas of the site or in relation to individual buildings, and usually cannot be related to major
site developments. There is of course a temptation in
JARROW2.QXD
19-01-2007
10:14
Pagina 21
2: THE EXCAVATIONS
the post-Conquest period, when documentation for the

sites is fuller, to use the surviving references to buildings and their repair or reconstruction as precisely relevant to the archaeological events which have been
detected. Nevertheless, the documentary lacunae are
such that there are no surviving Anglo-Saxon sources
that describe the physical appearances of the sites save
for the period of the foundation and early years of the
monasteries existence. Knowledge of the conditions of
the sites before the Anglo-Saxon foundations and in the
disturbed period between the 9th and 11th centuries
depends almost entirely on excavated evidence. The
surviving records for the Durham cells begin later than
what appears to be a major change in site layout
between the 12th and early 14th centuries, at both
Wearmouth and Jarrow and, despite their value for
reconstructing the site economies, are concerned mainly with refurbishing of roofs and other above-ground
features which are archaeologically undetectable. The
broad framework, therefore, for the history of these
sites may be seen as text-aided (see Table 1.2), but the
finer phasing for each site is entirely dependent on
archaeological methods.
Architectural phasing
Relative sequences for major features could sometimes
be converted into periods. For example the west wall
and porch of St Peters Church at Wearmouth has been
universally accepted as early Anglo-Saxon on the evidence of its architectural style and the decoration of
the entrance portal (see below, Chapter 6). The porch
was demonstrated by excavation to be earlier or the
same date as Wall 4, which cut through and disturbed
some of the burials, thereby providing a terminus ante
quem for them and a model for the distinctive form of
the foundations of early Anglo-Saxon walls on the site.
At Jarrow, some burials, and structures such as
Building A, are identified as pre-Conquest by the fact
that they are cut by a standing wall with intact Norman
architectural details. Building A, having been confirmed as pre-Norman also by the radiocarbon dates,
was dated more closely to the Anglo-Saxon rather than
the Roman period by the style of the architectural column, the base of which was embedded in a pit covered
by the opus signinum floor of the building. The foundations of this building in turn proved to be constructionally identical with those of the Anglo-Saxon church
and quite distinct in construction from the foundations
of walls with Norman and later medieval features.
Constructional details combined with distinctive
types of mortar and plaster facings proved in many
cases at Wearmouth to be decisive in phasing walls
which had been rebuilt several times and where the
associated stratigraphy had been truncated or lost altogether, since very few undisturbed occupation deposits
from before the 18th century survived there. At Jarrow,
where some deeper deposits survived, and medieval
buildings are still standing, the phasing of buildings
21
between the pre-Conquest and the post-Conquest

structures is not difficult, since the layout was very different. Moreover, in some sectors at the south and east
of the site it was possible to determine multiple subphases of occupation (see Chapter 16).
Artefactual and absolute dating

The dating of such sub-phases can be difficult, however. The use of closely dated finds to provide a terminus
post quem is a procedure that is rarely possible on these
sites. It is unfortunate, for example, that because of the
current dearth of dated kiln sites for the pottery of
northern England in the pre-Conquest and postConquest periods, the help which this evidence provides for dating sub-phases is negligible. Moreover, in
the long process of post-excavation the dating of some
pottery types was refined or changed and that had an
impact on earlier stratigraphic analysis in archive. In
most cases the pottery dating is concluded in such
broad terms as to be of little value, but it has been a
useful indicator of the redistribution of deposits on site
which at Jarrow is considerable. A thermoluminescence dating programme has supported pottery
sequences in a useful way (Vol 2, Appendix G) by providing more precise date ranges and relative chronologies, but not all of these coincide with the dating of the
pottery specialists.
For the crucial pre-Conquest phases on both sites,
lack of finance for radiocarbon dates can be seen in retrospect as a severe hindrance to phasing and interpretation. At Wearmouth those features in particular the
burials which have been interpreted as probably premonastic, might have been clearly assigned to that
phase if absolute dating had been attempted. At
Jarrow, two samples of carbonised wood from the floor
of Building A, which were presumed to be part of the
roof timbers from the burnt-out Anglo-Saxon building, although not collected and stored under stringent
conditions, were dated to 154070 BP (HAR-961) and
204080 BP (HAR-960) (see Vol 2, Appendix G). At 2
sigma, these calibrate to cal AD 380650 and cal 355
BC to cal AD 120 respectively. The first date would be
entirely consistent with a recently cut-down tree having
been used when Building A was constructed in the late
7th century. The significantly earlier date from the second sample might indicate that older timber perhaps
obtained from a Roman structure was also used in
Building A. Alternatively, the charcoal sample may
have derived from the heartwood of a long-lived tree.
A third radiocarbon date of 1100 80 BP (HAR2910) was obtained from oak charcoal from hearth 944
in the riverside buildings. At 2 sigma, the calibrated
date of cal AD 7251040 is entirely consistent with the
late Anglo-Saxon date for the use of this structure proposed on archaeological grounds (Chapter 16).
Few coins have been retrieved from these sites (see
Vol 2, Ch 30), and these are not in very pivotal contexts. At Wearmouth two 4th-century Roman coins,
JARROW2.QXD
22
19-01-2007
10:14
Pagina 22
a sceat and stycas were recovered from graves or the

cemetery earth. At Jarrow early southern sceattas were
discovered at the riverside, but there are no coins from
either site from the period between the mid 9th and the
mid 11th centuries. Coins do, however, provide some
evidence for activity in the difficult periods of the 12th
to 13th centuries, when documentary sources are
almost entirely lacking.
On the whole, though, these seem to be very managed sites, which are relatively clean and are not rich in
personal artefactual remains in the entire period from
the 7th to the 16th centuries. The same may be said for
ecofacts: only one rubbish dump has been identified, to
the east of the later medieval buildings at Jarrow, and this
yielded pottery from about the 14th to 17th centuries.
On both sites there is most artefactual evidence from

the end of the medieval periods when features such as
latrines or out-houses were filled with rubbish, but perhaps the dearth of earlier evidence is not surprising
given the nature of the occupation, since, as noted
above, the ordered monastic life should encourage
organised rubbish disposal and a lack of personal possessions. In addition, at both sites the excavated area
comprised mainly cemeteries, and liturgical or communal rather than small domestic or industrial buildings.
At Wearmouth, the larger monastery, where one might
have expected more extensive industrial buildings, none
have been located, whereas at Jarrow some workshops
by the riverside were excavated, and yielded important
evidence for craft working.
JARROW3.QXD
19-01-2007
10:16
Pagina 23
3 The pre-monastic background
the coastal regions and the well-drained land in the

major river valleys were the most attractive for settlement, since there is no evidence on this site for
Neolithic, Bronze Age, or Iron Age occupation, whereas there is evidence for Iron Age settlement at South
Shields (Bidwell and Speak 1994, 13).
The fact that the best agricultural land in the region is

now densely covered by urban and industrial development means that the evidence for early settlement is
very fragmentary.
Prehistoric
On the East Durham plateau flint scatters have been
noted along the coast, and important burial grounds
and barrows, dating from the late Neolithic to the
Bronze Age, have been recorded in prominent places
on the Hambledon Hills, Copt Hill, Hastings Hill, and
the Fulwell quarries, while the hinterland along the
Tyne and the Wear valleys is well settled, especially in
early prehistory (see for example Harding 1970; Young
1980; 1987; Haselgrove et al 1988, 1016; Haselgrove
and Healey 1992).
Roman
(Figs 3.1 and 3.2)
The Roman impact on the area is of importance in

considering later settlement, not only because a network of roads was laid down, but because the stone
buildings which survived into the post-Roman period
especially those nearby along Hadrians Wall, or in hinterland forts such as South Shields, Wallsend,
Gateshead and Chester-le-Street could have been a
source of architectural inspiration as well as convenient
quarries. Two trunk roads running north to south
crossed the Wear and Tyne valleys the one furthest
east passing through Chester-le-Street with a branch
road to the important port and military supply base at
South Shields (Margary 1967, 43942, nos 8d, 80b
and 809). There was probably also a road linking
coastal sites between Seaham, Wearmouth and South
Shields, and there is a scattering of small finds, mainly
coins, in this coastal zone (Fig 3.2).
Wearmouth
The evidence for a significant Mesolithic settlement
actually at the Wearmouth site, as well as perhaps more
widely dispersed activity in the area between the site
and the sea is attested by the flint scatters concentrated in cuttings 6402 and 6901 (see Fig 2.1) in the lowest sand level, and the body of material collected by
Wilfred Dodds, all of which is reported on here by
Robert Young (Vol 2, Ch 34.3). This material and
other finds in the vicinity of the church lead Young to
suggest that Wearmouth may have been a preferred
location for human habitation in the Mesolithic period
(Young 1987, 10412). There is no evidence from the
area excavated around Wearmouth church of any later
prehistoric activity, whether in the form of artefacts or
of structures, but such evidence is forthcoming from
other nearby areas (Clack and Gosling 1976, fig 2b).
Wearmouth
The harbour at Wearmouth is large and well sheltered,
and might well have been valuable in the Roman period, especially since the Wear Valley from the mouth to
Binchester was comparatively well settled from prehistoric through to medieval times (Young 1987; Watts
1970, 2567, fig 54), and provided a route between the
two northsouth roads. Nevertheless the valley is not,
even today, a major point of entry into the region, nor is
it as easy a crossing point between the eastern and western seaboards as is the more open Tyne Valley. The
areas of the harbour and the low hills overlooking it and
the North Sea have obvious strategic value, but were
heavily built up in modern times and any structural evidence for signal stations could easily have been missed,
while artefacts such as coins and burials are easier to
recognise, and were most often recorded. Hutchinson
noted the discovery of a burial, perhaps in a tumulus, on
the Fulwell Hills, and records that the burial was covered with four flat stones and there were two Roman
coins in the grave (Hutchinson 1787, 6367). There are
records of the discovery of coins at other sites which
likewise, later, were possessions of the twin monastery,
notably Hebburn, Hylton, Ryton and Southwick, and
there is a concentration of coin finds in Sunderland
itself, although no Roman settlement has been found
Jarrow
The evidence of early prehistoric activity at Jarrow is
more problematic. The lithic material was widely scattered on the site, and not confined to the early contexts. In fact several flint artefacts (Vol 2, Ch 34.4)
were clearly associated with Anglo-Saxon deposits,
such as the workshop floor of Building D, and could be
of Anglo-Saxon manufacture. No structures can be
assigned to the prehistoric period, except perhaps
some of the small stakeholes which had intruded into
the natural clay and seemed to have been cut from the
earliest ground surface (see below, Chapter 16). The
cultivation marks which were identified in trench 6302
could also be of prehistoric date, although all that can be
said with certainty is that they pre-dated the monastic
occupation. It is possible that throughout prehistory
23
JARROW3.QXD
24
19-01-2007
10:16
Pagina 24
Fig 3.1 Roman routes and sites in the north-east. YB

near to Wearmouth. Dobson has speculated on whether
there was a chain of signalling stations up the Durham
coast, and cites the remarkable cluster of Roman finds
from the area of Monkwearmouth (Dobson 1970,
197), but specific structural evidence is still lacking, and
see Brickstock comments (Vol 2, Ch 30.1).
On the St Peters site itself, two Roman coins (Vol
2, Ch 30.1) have been discovered associated with the
earliest cemetery levels (see Chapter 8) and there is a
scattering of pottery in the form of eight sherds of
Samian and colour-coated wares. In addition there
were a few worked stones which could have been
Roman, the most substantial of which was the possible
altar which had been converted into a door jamb (Vol
2, Ch 28, AS1) and was discovered in the fill of the
pit/well 1377, while another altar fragment (Vol 2, Ch
28, AS2) was discovered in the foundations of Wall F.
In the standing Anglo-Saxon fabric of the church there
are several stones with Roman cross-tooling or with
Lewis holes, and although the main fabric of the building was of Permian limestone, it is possible that the
large sandstone blocks which formed the quoins and

door openings could all have been recovered from a
Roman site, thus adding to the romanitas which the
founder so admired.
Jarrow
The fort and supply base of Arbeia (South Shields) is
within sight to the east along the River Tyne, and it has
been suggested by various antiquaries, from
Collingwood Bruce onwards, that a fort or signal station at Jarrow would fit into a pattern of defence for the
eastern end of Hadrians Wall, since it would be sited
at a reasonable interval from Shields Lawe (Bruce
1867, 30810; Birley 1961, 1579). Dobsons more
recent hypothesis is of a series of signal stations, as yet
to be discovered, along the coast between South
Shields and the Tees, and that Wearmouth and Jarrow
may have been operational sites of the Roman period:
If they were indeed Roman sites, is the settlement of
monks at these precise spots more than coincidence?
JARROW3.QXD
19-01-2007
10:16
Pagina 25
3: THE PRE-MONASTIC BACKGROUND
25
Fig 3.2 Roman finds in the vicinity of Wearmouth and Jarrow. Source: Tyne and Wear SMR. YB
(Dobson 1970, 197). The case for a Roman occupation of Jarrow has achieved such firm support that a
possible Roman site was marked on Ordnance Survey
maps from 1856, in Drewett Park to the north of the
churchyard (Fig 1.10), and there is still a strong local
tradition in support of this view. A dowsing survey suggested that there were structures in the Park, which the
authors interpret as possibly Roman (Briggs 1982, 14).
A pilot resistivity survey by Bradford University failed,
however, to pick up any conclusive evidence of buildings in this area, although there has been so much disturbance in that field that electronic detection was
difficult (A Aspinall, pers comm). A recent magnetometer survey by Durham University has also failed to
record anything which could conceivably be part of a
Roman settlement.
The earliest evidence suggesting a Roman presence
at or near Jarrow was the discovery of two Roman
inscriptions which emerged when the old nave of St
Pauls Church was demolished in 1782 (RIB 1051 ab;

Appendix A, Figs A1.2 and 1.3). These were recorded
by Brand (1789, 62) who thought that they might have
come from South Shields, although from two different
monuments, but they were later interpreted by Hbner
(1873, 498) as part of the same narrative sequence.
The text has subsequently been interpreted by
Richmond and Wright (1943) as deriving from a
Hadrianic war memorial, relating to the construction
of the Wall, and by Birley as relating to the Severan
reconstruction (Birley 1961, 1579). Speculation by
Richmond and Wright as to whether the inscription
would have been more plausibly sited at South Shields
or elsewhere led to no conclusion, but they rejected
Jarrow because the site was so low-lying (Richmond
and Wright 1943, 119). This presumed, however, that
the Roman site would be in the vicinity of the church
and not on an eminence such as that now crowned by
Jarrow Hall, a more obvious site for a signal station or
JARROW3.QXD
26
19-01-2007
10:16
Pagina 26
for a monument. The suggestion that the church lay in

the midst of a Roman fort may be traced back to
Hodgson who was rector there for many years. His testimony has been requoted by many subsequent writers.
Hodgson claimed that there was to be seen,
an oblong square of about 3 acres with its
corners rounded off ... Under-ground foundations of a wall of strong masonry mark out its
area on every side, and include within them the
site of the present church and church-yard, and
some ragged remains of the antient monastery
of Jarrow; and in digging up part of the remains
of these walls, in a potatoe garden, a little to the
west of the church-yard, on April 14, 1812, a silver denarius of Aulus Vitellius was found by the
sexton of the church, embedded in mortar in the
heart of the wall, and given to myself by the
finder a few minutes after it was disinterred
(Hodgson 1840, 230).
It is unfortunate that Hodgson was not more precise about the position of this find, although Surtees
(who probably gained his information from Hodgson)
amplified it, saying, a regular line of masonry has been
traced from East to West (parallel to the south wall of
the church-yard) till it terminated in the site of a round
tower near the south west angle of the cemetery, and
on this very spot was found a silver coin of Aulus
Vitellius (Surtees 1820, 689).
Obviously the coin could have been deposited in
the mortar of the wall at any time subsequent to its
issue, and it is just as likely that these enclosing foundations were part of the medieval monastery, which is
recorded as walled in the 12th century. This suggestion
is supported by the discovery of foundations running
parallel to the exterior face of the present south wall of
the site in Christopher Morris rescue excavations (see
below, Chapter 21). Hodgson records other walls
which were frequently met with in the church-yard,
and east of it. He also records that when the road was
formed past the east end of Jarrow Row, in 1803, two
square pavements of Roman brick were discovered,
and that the labour of digging for the foundations and
cellars of the mansion-house and offices [presumably
Jarrow Hall], in the field north of the church was much
obstructed by the remains of walls which, as the workmen described them to me, bore all the character of
Roman masonry (Hodgson 1840, 230).
This last quotation demonstrates perfectly the difficulty of accepting early descriptions of Roman buildings at Jarrow. Before the main excavations there,
no-one in the north had encountered Anglo-Saxon
secular buildings in stone, such as were discovered,
built in the Roman manner, as the founder of the
Anglo-Saxon monastery himself had wished (HAB, 5).
Any discovery of walls of mortared stone and brick
would, therefore, automatically have been considered
Roman. Some indeed may have been so, and it is
tempting to consider that the walls found in the construction of Jarrow Hall support the case for a Roman
structure on the hill. Moreover some sort of beacon
may have been retained in the Anglo-Saxon or
medieval periods, although no Roman structures were
found immediately to the north of the Hall in recent
rescue excavations (Speak 1998).
Since the excavations on the monastic site, however, it can be conclusively stated there were no Roman
buildings underlying the Anglo-Saxon buildings to the
south of the church. No structures were discovered,
and the small amount of Roman pottery was heavily
weighted to samian ware, together with fine grey
wares, and slipped wares (see Vol 2, Ch 33.1). Such an
assemblage is typical of the collection of such fine
pottery which distinguishes many other post-Roman
sites (Rahtz et al 1992, 1478). The same could be said
for the few fragments of Roman glass from the site (Vol
2, Ch 32.1, GlVR 114), although some pieces could
have been imported as frit. Likewise some fragmentary
metalwork, for example part of a trumpet brooch (Vol
2, Ch 31.2.1, CA1), may have been imported as scrap.
No Roman coins were found in the excavations, but, as
well as the Vitellian coin already mentioned (Vol 2, Ch
30.1, Nu5), two others have been found in the salt
grass on the ballast embankment to the west of the site:
a coin of Nero (Nu4) (Anon 19234; Petch 1925, 18),
and in 1921 a coin of Septimius Severus (Nu3), discovered by Mr R Worley of Hexham, which is published here for the first time (Vol 2, Ch 30.1).
Unfortunately the ballast in that area could derive from
anywhere.
On the other hand many of the Roman stones
which were reused in the Anglo-Saxon buildings are
large and heavy and would have been difficult to transport very far. There is a Roman stone with a Lewis
hole reused as a quoin in the north-east corner of the
chancel, while the foundations of the north wall of
Building D are particularly massive. These were first
identified in 1973 by the late Dorothy Charlesworth as
probably from a Roman bridge (pers comm), and this
view has been recently endorsed by Paul Bidwell (Vol
2, Ch 26.1), but the irregularity of the sizes and the
meaningless positioning of the tie grooves leave no
doubt that they are reused (see Chapter 16). In addition, the quoins of Building A (Fig 16.12) and the
oddly shaped stone found in the filling of the pit (31)
cut into the floor of Building A (Vol 2, Ch 28, WS32)
are also heavy pieces. It is possible that they could have
been transported by water from Wallsend or South
Shields, but there may have been Roman structures
nearer at hand, which might have been the source of
the Roman tile on the site (Vol 2, Ch 26.5)
Excavations in 1989 on the area previously occupied by the oil storage tanks to the north of Jarrow Hall
(Fig 2.3) also produced small amounts of Roman
material, in the form of one tegula fragment, part of an
Italian amphora, and half-a-dozen very abraded sherds
of samian ware (Speak 1998). Although earlier features
JARROW3.QXD
19-01-2007
10:16
Pagina 27
27
Fig 3.3 Early Anglo-Saxon sites in the region. YB

may have been destroyed by the buildings and fields of
the medieval village or farm which constituted the
main occupation evidence from the site, any substantial Roman structure should have left some trace.
Like Wearmouth, the amount of Roman material
discovered at Jarrow is minimal compared with any
attested Roman site in the north. Nevertheless the
Anglo-Saxon monks clearly had an interest in the local
Roman remains, which would have been an impressive
element in the nearby landscape. Bede provides the first
antiquarian record both of the substantial rampart to
which he gave the term vallum (HE, I.5 and 1.11) and
the stone wall for which he recorded very detailed measurements of the eastern sector, So...they made a
famous wall which is still to be seen. It is eight feet wide
and twelve feet high, running from east to west as is
plain for all to see even to this day (HE, I.13). After the
revival of the art of building in mortared stone by the
Gaulish masons at Wearmouth, the monks may have
gained confidence in building more romanorum from
the Roman structures which they could see within easy
distances, and thereby, like their counterparts in other

Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, laid claim to their indigenous
Roman heritage in the most tangible fashion.
Early Anglo-Saxon settlement (Fig 3.3)

Evidence of how the settlement pattern changed, and
what were the major foci after the collapse of the
Roman military presence in the area is still unclear. At
many of the Roman sites in the region, the upper levels were truncated by later site development or were
machined off in the course of excavation. Where
research excavations have taken place over substantial
periods of time, as at South Shields, the evidence
seems to be of some rebuilding in the 5th century, and
then of slow decline. Finds of long cist burials at
Cornforth, Copt Hill and Houghton-le-Spring (Miket
1980, 300) could indicate the existence of post-Roman
Christian cemeteries, but so far no large-scale excavation of a Roman cemetery has been undertaken in the
area between the Tyne and Tees, and there are no
JARROW3.QXD
28
19-01-2007
10:16
Pagina 28
Fig 3.4 Major early ecclesiastical sites in northern Britain. YB

excavated settlement sites which are contemporary
with the continuance of land clearance which the
palaeoenvironmental evidence for the 5th to 6th
century suggests (Huntley and Stallibrass 1995, 423).
How early the region between the Tyne and the
Wear felt the impact of the Anglo-Saxon hegemony is
uncertain. The region is debateable land between the
primary parts of the Northumbrian kingdom: Bernicia
and Deira (Fig 3.4), the boundary in the 6th century
being most convincingly placed on the Tees (Hunter
Blair 1949; Cramp 1983a), although there have been
those who would see Hadrians Wall and the Tyne as
the boundary. The Tees valley seems to have been the
boundary at that period between those who practised
the rites of cremation and those who practised inhumation, although whether this was a cultural division
of peoples or a temporal division of settlement is not
known.
Roman forts such as Binchester and Corbridge
have yielded either burials with Germanic types of
dress fastening or suites that could derive from graves;
at other Roman sites such as Piercebridge, Newcastle,
Chesterholm, Chesters, Benwell, or South Shields,
individual finds of female dress fastenings may have
derived from graves, as the most recent commentators

on the scatter of individual finds of Anglo-Saxon type
in the eastern part of the county postulate (Sherlock
and Welch 1992, 45). The extensive excavations in
the Roman fort at Newcastle revealed an interesting
sequence (Snape and Bidwell 2002). The post-Roman
and Anglo-Saxon occupation of the fort site seems to
show that in the period before the establishment of an
extensive Anglo-Saxon cemetery dating from the 8th to
12th centuries, there were two major phases. In the
first, the Roman buildings fell into ruins and a widespread layer of soil, mortar and stones covered them
and the via principalis. In the second phase, there was
extensive stone robbing, clearance and levelling, and
the Roman remains were cut by a long drain, a water
tank and an alignment of posts (Snape and Bidwell
2002, figs 1.6 and 12.3). All of these later features
ignored Roman alignments and, when the cemetery
(Harbottle and Nolan forthcoming) was in use, it
would appear that the presence of the Roman buildings
was forgotten. Similar extensive excavation of other
Roman sites in the region could also demonstrate
whether the burials found were interred in recognisable, abandoned or forgotten buildings.
JARROW3.QXD
19-01-2007
10:16
Pagina 29
Compared with the number of furnished burials

from Deira the evidence from this area is very scanty;
only three sites Norton, Darlington and Easington
have yielded enough burials to justify the term cemetery, but the finds indicate that people who favoured
Anglo-Saxon dress were established in the region by
the early 6th century. The fact that there is a dearth of
cemeteries but a scatter of displaced finds in the region
could be because the area of preferred settlement in all
periods was the same, and much has been lost in the
intense modern industrial settlement (see Miket 1980,
fig 17.1). The evidence hardly supports the idea of
large-scale population change, but the significance of
such furnished graves has been hotly debated over the
last twenty-five years. The assumption that those wearing ornaments and dress fastenings that can be closely
paralleled in the North Germanic area were descendants of people who lived in that area has been dismissed as too simplistic (for a recent summary of the
debate see Lucy 2000, 17486). Nevertheless the presence of such artefacts in graves does indicate, if not
identity, at least contact with and a wish to emulate the
culture of the Germanic peoples.
How far a new elite took over old centres of power
and their territories is uncertain. Place-name evidence
suggests relatively early settlement along the coast and
the central plain (Watts 1970, fig 54; 1978) and provides the clearest indication of the location of settlements dominated by Anglo-Saxon speakers. It is very
difficult, however, to provide a dated chronology of
Anglo-Saxon place-names (Watts 2002, xiii). The earliest are considered to include the names of natural features such as Gyrwe itself, and some of the territorial
names, such as Auckland, as well as the names of
Roman forts, indicate contact with Celtic speakers. By
the 9th century, however, English habitation names in
County Durham are well scattered in the area west of
the Pennine Uplands.
The evidence from excavation of settlements in Co
Durham such as Hart (Austin 1976) or Thrislington
(Austin 1989), which revealed early phases which
could be Middle Saxon, suggests that some new settlements were formed that were dominated by AngloSaxon speakers and that settlement shifted within old
territories such as Hartness and Auckland. How land
was taken over by the Anglo-Saxon rulers and their followers remains nevertheless obscure, but by the time
that Wearmouth and Jarrow were founded the settlements that were later recorded as their land holdings
(see Chapter 4) seem to have been in the control of the
Anglo-Saxon rulers.
The growth of ecclesiastical

settlement (Figs 3.43.5)
Bede was born, as he tells us himself, on the sundorland
of the monastery of Wearmouth in c 673 (HE, V.24),
and probably into a Christian family. After the initial
missionary campaigns of Paulinus between 627 and
29
633, the Ionan mission from 635 onwards quickly established from its main centre at Lindisfarne a network of
smaller communities to help to serve the pastoral needs
of the lay population of Northumbria. At Wearmouth,
there is some evidence in the western sector of the site
for lay burials which have been covered by the developed
monastic layout, and at Jarrow some burials with single
beads could belong to a pre-monastic phase. A larger
area of the sites would have to be excavated, nevertheless, in order to prove this hypothesis.
The Anglo-Saxon kings seem to have been persuaded that the donation of lands to monasteries
added to their international status and also protected
them with a spiritual army. By the time Wearmouth
and Jarrow were founded in the late 7th century, the
region already had a significant number of monasteries
that presumably were established by the Lindisfarne
community on a similar model throughout
Northumbria (Cramp 1973). The monastery of
Tynemouth had been established on the north bank of
the River Tyne, possibly as early as c 650 (Craster
1907, 413) and by Bedes day was a community of
men (HE, V.6), while on the south bank of the Tyne,
probably at South Shields, there was in Bedes day a
community of women which, earlier, in St Cuthberts
lifetime, had been a community of men (Colgrave
1940, 161). The fact that post-excavation research has
identified a series of metal objects, including a decorated stylus, among the finds from the Roman fort of
Arbeia (P Bidwell, pers comm), strengthens the idea
that the monastery could have been sited within the
Roman fort, like the nunneries at Carlisle and
Gloucester. (In a lecture in 2004, Professor Ian Wood
suggested that the monastery at South Shields/Arbeia
could have been the site of Donemutha. See also
Chapter 4, note 3.) The north bank of the Wear, linked
by the road and river communications to other important sites, was an obvious location. Bede records (HE,
IV.23) that c 650 Bishop Aidan established Hild there
with a small grant of 1 hide of land to support a religious community, but he does not relate the location to
the site of his own monastery. King Oswiu, c 655, gave
twelve small estates each of ten households to
found six monasteries in Deira and six in Bernicia
(HE, III.24), which could have included such sites as
Gateshead and Gilling.
When Oswius successor, King Ecgfrid, was prevailed upon to provide a site for Benedict Biscop
(Chapter 4 below), he may have offered him the site
once temporarily occupied by Hild and still a Christian
burial ground (see discussion, Chapter 8), while
Jarrow, as the second foundation, had to fit into the
existing pattern of ecclesiastical sites, but also had to
be linked to Wearmouth by a land route which may
have run through its supporting landholding (see
Chapter 1, Communications and Chapter 4). As mentioned above, there too early burials in the eastern part
of the site could indicate an earlier Christian focus (see
discussion, Chapter 24).
JARROW3.QXD
19-01-2007
10:16
Pagina 30
30
Fig 3.5 Sites in the region with evidence for pre-Conquest churches and stone crosses. YB
A hint as to the location of some other ecclesiastical
sites which have not been tested by excavation may be
provided by the discovery of pre-Conquest sculpture in
their churches (Fig 3.5), and this type of evidence
often provides an indication as indeed at Wearmouth
and Jarrow that a community continued to use a
Christian burial ground even after changes in the
organisation of the church following the Viking period
disturbances.
Episcopal jurisdiction
As well as the royal assent to landholdings, every
monastery was dependent on the local bishop for the
ordination of its priests and the dedication of its
churches. The area between the Tyne and the Wear
was originally within the jurisdiction of the bishop of
Lindisfarne, but from c 678, when the first bishop of
Hexham was established (HE, III.12; VW, 24), it was
within that jurisdiction, until the see ceased to exist
c 821 (Offler 1962). Thereafter presumably the joint

house continued under the jurisdiction of Lindisfarne
and probably had ceased to exist by the time that
Chester-le-Street was established in 883 (Cambridge
1984, 73; and below).
Just how much power other than spiritual the
bishops exercised over the joint monastery is unclear.
Certainly soon after the foundation Benedict hastened
to obtain from Pope Agatho a privilege which would
protect the house from external interference both lay
and religious (HAB, 6; Plummer 1896, 2, 360; see
below, Chapter 4).
The abbots of Lindisfarne and Hexham were often
closely involved with secular politics and, on various
occasions, severely at odds with the Northumbrian
kings. Benedict, the founder of Wearmouth/Jarrow, may
have therefore prudently wished to guard himself from
such problems, even though there was a close involvement by the Bernician royal family in the establishment
of the monastery and its subsequent development.
JARROW4.QXD
19-01-2007
10:18
Pagina 31
4 The documentary history

The Anglo-Saxon twin monastery
The pivotal events in the histories of the monasteries
are summarised for reference in the chronological table
(Table 1.2).
The primary accounts of the foundation and history of the monastery, up to the death of Abbot Ceolfrid
in AD 716, are to be found in the Historia Abbatum,
Auctore Beda (HAB), and the earlier Historia Abbatum,
Auctore Anonymo (HAA), which last is specifically concerned with the life of Ceolfrid. There is also useful
information concerning the life of the community in
Bedes other writings, notably the Historia Ecclesiastica
Gentis Anglorum (HE). After these comparatively full
accounts, which include invaluable descriptions of the
churches and their decoration, the monastery is documented only by a few letters to and from members of
the community to fellow clerics, including Alcuin. For
the events of the 9th century, which seemingly led to
the demise of the joint foundation, one must rely on
post-Conquest historians such as Symeon of Durham
or John of Worcester.
HAA, 7; see p 000 Endowments/landholding). This

generous initial donation was augmented and consolidated later by gifts from the kings nobles and by the
judicious exchange of lands (HAB, 15, and below).
Benedict was now ready to recruit for his new community and he began by securing the help of a fellow
Northumbrian, Ceolfrid, who after an initial period
in the monastery at Gilling, N Yorkshire had moved
to Wilfrids community at Ripon. Soon after he had
been ordained a priest by Bishop Wilfrid, he travelled
to Kent and East Anglia to gain a wider knowledge of
monastic life in other kingdoms, and it was probably
on these travels that he met Benedict. His status and
experience was very valuable to Benedict Biscop who
had more travelling to do in the initial stages of creating the monastery.
The foundation of Wearmouth

The formal foundation of St Peters monastery took
place in 673, since the abbatial years were reckoned
from that point, but the building began a year later,
and the account in HAA is repeated verbatim by Bede
in HAB, They began to build a monastery near the
mouth of the river Wear in the 674th year of the
Incarnation of the Lord, it being the 2nd Indiction and
also the 4th year of the reign of King Ecgfrith (HAA,
7; HAB, 45; Appendix A2.2, 2.3).
It is not clear what was constructed that year, but
any living quarters must have been indigenous in type:
either timber or timber on stone sill construction, such
as have been discovered at Hartlepool (Daniels 1988),
rather than mortared stone, since both the early
sources agree that Benedict travelled subsequently to
the continent to procure masons.
Benedict clearly wished his foundation to be as
visually impressive as those which he had admired during his travels, and he used the contacts he had made
in his long sojourn on the continent to further this end.
In the second year from its foundation that is in
674/51 Benedict travelled to Gaul and brought back
masons to build him a stone church according to the
manner of the Romans which he had always admired.
HAA, 7 records that the master-builders and stonemasons (cementarii) were obtained from a friend with
an English name, Torhthelm, who was the abbot of an
unknown Gaulish monastery.
Within the circuit of a year the shell of the church
was finished to the roof, but, according to Bede, there
were no glass-makers in Britain who could complete
the windows and so Benedict sent to Gaul for glaziers
to lattice or glaze the windows of the church, porticus
and caenacula, a feature which has been variously interpreted as upper stories and refectories (Hunter Blair
The founder
The founder was Benedict Biscop, recorded elsewhere
as Biscop Baducing, a Northumbrian noble who, after a
career in the royal retinue of King Oswiu, journeyed to
the continent in 657 and visited Rome (Wormald
1976; Fletcher 1981). He was so impressed by what he
saw that he returned for a second visit, and sometime
around 665667 he spent a period on the islands of
Lrins at Ile St Honorat, France, where he was professed as a monk (HAB, 2; Plummer 1896, I, 365).
From there he made his third visit to Rome and in 668
was despatched by the pope to England to accompany
the newly appointed archbishop of Canterbury,
Theodore of Tarsus. For two years after they arrived at
Canterbury in 669, Benedict seems to have served as
abbot of the monastery of St Peter and St Paul in
Canterbury until Hadrian, the abbot designate, who
had been detained in Gaul, joined Theodore. After
that Benedict undertook another journey to Rome in
671/2 with the express purpose of securing as many
books as possible from Rome and Vienne (HAB, 4;
Plummer 1896, I, 367).
On returning to England and discovering that his
former patron, Cenwalh of Wessex, had died, Benedict
returned to his native Northumbria. There King
Ecgfrith (670685), impressed by the books and relics
which he had procured, and fired by his enthusiasm for
the monastic life, granted him either 50 hides of land
later augmented, according to the Anonymous Life of
Ceolfrid (HAA) or 70 hides (according to Bede) from
the royal estates, in order to support a monastic foundation at the mouth of the River Wear (HAB, 1 and 4;
31
JARROW4.QXD
32
19-01-2007
10:18
Pagina 32
1970, 1678; Meyvaert 1979, 65; Appendix A2.3).

Meyvaerts claim, that Bedes normal meaning for the
word caenaculum is an upper room, is indisputable, but
the word can also mean refectory, and there is nothing
odd in supposing that there was more than one refectory in the monastery in order to accommodate the different groups within the community. This passage
though does seem to refer specifically to the church,
and it could plausibly be translated that the glass-makers were brought in for latticing the windows of the
church, as well as its adjuncts and upper storeys. It
seems odd to itemise an upper storey as a separate feature, but if each level had different functions this may
be explicable. The glazing of the buildings is also discussed in Volume 2, Chapter 27.
Benedict completed his preparations for the establishment of a perfect continental type of monastery by
undertaking a fifth journey to Rome (this time with
Ceolfrid), in which he obtained more books and relics,
paintings on boards, as well as a letter of privilege and
a licence to protect the succession of the abbots and
the land holdings from external interference. The text
of this privilege does not survive, but from Bedes
account (HAB, 6; and HE, V.24) it was clearly important since it allowed the choice of an abbot according
to merit, rather than family relationship to the founder,
and stabilised the landholding of the institution. Bede
is careful to emphasise that the king agreed with the
licence and that it was publicly confirmed in a
Northumbrian synod in 679 (Haddan and Stubbs
1871, 126) a marked difference from the difficulties
endured by his contemporary, Bishop Wilfrid, in
securing royal assent to his landholdings.
Benedict and Ceolfrid also brought back a distinguished visitor, John, who was abbot of St Martins
and the Archcantor of St Peters, Rome, and he taught
the elaborate Roman chant and the skills of reading
aloud not only to the new community, but also to other
monks from monasteries nearby. Possibly other artists
or craftsmen were also obtained in order to teach and
to establish the standards of the Late Antique tradition
at Wearmouth. In these detailed preparations for the
enrichment and beautification of his church, Benedict,
according to Mayr-Harting (1972, 153), may have
been imitating the policy of kosmesis by which East
Christian Imperial patronage furnished or refurnished
an important church.
of God simul et duodecim apostolorum, quibus mediam

eiusdem aecclesiae testudinem, ducto a pariete ad parietem
tabulato praecingeret (HAB, 6; Plummer 1896, I, 369).
The meaning of this text has been extensively discussed
by Hunter Blair (1970, 173), Meyvaert (1979, 72), and
most recently by Gem (1990, 15) and Kitzinger (1993,
48). Gem considers, like several earlier commentators,
including Hunter Blair, that the text describes a screen,
running from the north to the south walls, which would
have been like an iconostasis. Kitzinger, on the other
hand, suggests that the images could have been on the
closure screens for the chancel. Another interpretation
of the passage could be that the figures on their individual boards were placed on the wall dividing the nave and
chancel and that Mary was in the high central position,
over the central opening, flanked on either side by the
apostles. Meyvaerts attempt to decide on the size of the
panels by dividing the known width of the church by 13
assumes that the central panel was of the same size as
the rest, whereas it could well have been larger.
Nevertheless his calculation showing that each panel
need not have been more than 43mm (17in.) wide is a
useful reminder of the scale of the building in relation to
the great Italian churches which Benedict would have
seen on his journeys.
Adjuncts to St Peters Church
Other adjuncts to St Peters Church are mentioned in
the early sources: Bede (HAB, 8; Plummer 1896, I,
372) states that the bones of Eosterwine, who died in
685/6, were removed in 716 from the portus ingressus
into the church to be placed together with the bones of
abbot Sigfrid next to the body of the founder, Benedict
(HAB, 20; Plummer 1896, I, 285). This statement
provides a terminus post quem for the construction of
the entrance porch (see Chapter 6).
The position of Benedicts burial, in 689, is
described as in the porticus of St Peter to the east of the
altar; abbots Sigfrid and Witmer had originally been
buried in the sacrarium to the south. This word can
mean a sanctuary, sacristy or cemetery (Plummer
1896, II, 155), and one of the latter two meanings is
most likely here. It would seem, then, that by 716 the
porticus to the east of the altar was where the bodies of
the early abbots were enshrined. The implications of
these texts for the form of the east end of St Peters is
discussed in Chapter 6.
The paintings and their decorative scheme

Bede provides a relatively detailed account of the subject matter of the important paintings, the iconography
of which must have impressed him greatly (Henderson
1980, 1317), and incidentally gives an interesting
insight into the form of the main church of St Peter.
Bede records that they were arranged on boards (like
icons) and that Gospel stories and the Apocalypse were
placed on the south and the north walls respectively,
while the image of Mary perpetual Virgin and Mother
Other buildings
The texts also mention other churches on the site
which are impossible to locate today. There was a
church or chapel dedicated to St Mary, since Benedict
on his fifth journey to Rome acquired dominicae historiae picturas (pictures of the history of Christ), which
he hung in totam beatae Dei genitricis quam in monasterio maiore fecet, aecclesiam in gyro coronaret (HAB, 9;
To wreathe in a full circle the church of the blessed
JARROW4.QXD
19-01-2007
10:18
Pagina 33
4: THE DOCUMENTARY HISTORY
mother of God, which was in the larger monastery).

This could mean that this church was centrally
planned, although the passage need not necessarily
have this meaning, but it does seem to indicate that St
Marys was treated as an individual building and so
was probably a free-standing structure. Whether the
chapel dedicated to St Lawrence was free-standing or
not is more doubtful. This building, which Ceolfrid
visited as he left St Peters on his way towards the river
when he was making his last journey in 716, is stated
by one of the texts of the Anonymous Life to be in dormitorio fratrum (HAA, 25) and Bede uses the term in
front of (quod in dormitorio fratrum erat obvium; HAB,
17) which agrees better with another text of HAA
which has proximum near rather than in
(Plummer 1896, I, 397). Although this building must
have been somewhere to the south of St Peters church,
its location is otherwise unknown. Ceolfrid is also
recorded as having built other oratories, but there is no
indication in the texts as to their location.
Other buildings at Wearmouth which are mentioned in the Lives of the Abbots include the dormitory
of the brethren, kitchen and bakehouse, and there
appear to have been agricultural buildings and sheds
nearby, such as are described in the attractive account
of Eosterwines activities (HAB, 8; Appendix A3.1).
The foundation of Jarrow

Eight years after the foundation of Wearmouth (that is
681/2) King Ecgfrid, pleased with the success of the
Wearmouth foundation, gave Benedict 40 hides of land
(XL familiarum terram) on which to build a monastery
dedicated to St Paul. Morris makes the interesting suggestion that when communities became too populous
they may have been divided the better to take advantage of separated estates (Morris 1989, 113). The
chronology of the process is not entirely clear from the
texts, since neither Bede nor the author of the
Anonymous Life are self consistent. The most plausible
sequence seems to be that the formal foundation date
for Jarrow was 682, and Ceolfrid with a group of the
brethren from Wearmouth were sent to construct those
buildings most necessary for the monastic way of life
(HAA, 11). There was a period of over two years
between the foundation and the beginning of the building of the church of St Paul, in which King Ecgfrid himself marked out the position of the altar. There followed
a period of over one year before the dedication
occurred, which seems to have been on 23 April AD 685
(Plummer 1896, II, 361) according to the inscription
on the dedication stone still extant in the church (Fig
12.8; Appendix A1; see below Chapter 12).
Thereafter there are few references to the buildings
at Jarrow: after Benedicts fifth journey to Rome, Bede
recounts how he brought back paintings for St Pauls
church which were designed to illustrate by type and
anti-type correspondences between the Old and New
Testaments (Henderson 1980, 1315, and 30, note 86),
33
and these were hung on the north and south walls

(Appendix A2.42.6). There are passing references also
to the individual cells which seem to have been assigned
to the senior monks in both houses. Just before Benedict
died, his old friend Sigfrid, who was also at the point of
death, was carried to his little room (cubiculum) to make
his farewells. When Bede died he is described as being
in pavimento suae casulae on the floor of his cell
(Plummer 1896, lxxvii, clxiv). In later tradition this cell
is still remembered: Symeon of Durham records, Even
to the present day there is exhibited the place where he
[Bede], had a little mansion of stone in which it was his
custom, apart from all that could disquiet, to sit and
reflect, to read, to dictate, to write (Stevenson 1855, ch
XIV). This could, of course be a medieval attribution of
a building to a famous figure, but the tradition survived
throughout the Middle Ages (see Appendix A6.4,
Leland 1715, 42).
The community
In several places (HAA, 7; HE, V.24) it is specifically
stated that Wearmouth/Jarrow was one monastery
although in two locations, and as intimately related as
head and body (HAB, 7). Yet each part had its own
donation (see below and Fig 4.2) and until 688, when
Ceolfrid became sole abbot, seemingly functioned as
independent ecclesiastical units. From that point
onwards they seem to have had only one abbot, and
probably members of both houses moved freely
between them, although the texts do not make the
organisation clear. Bede describes himself as a servant
of Christ and priest of the monastery of the blessed
apostles Peter and Paul, which is at Wearmouth and
Jarrow (HE, V.24).
In forming the initial community, Benedict had to
recruit some trained religious from other houses: Bede
named one of his teachers of the scriptures as
Trumberht who had been educated in the monastery of
the Irish-trained Chad. Whether the Benedictine concept that a monk should only belong to one community
for his whole life was part of Benedict Biscops thinking
from the beginning is not clear. Certainly the concept of
stability was not embraced by the Irish church and
indeed the early monastic life of Ceolfrid himself
demonstrated the possibilities of peregrination from one
house to another. Benedict, unlike Wilfrid, did not
claim that he had introduced the Benedictine Rule to his
houses, but he must have encountered it among the seventeen monasteries from whose customs he said himself
he had composed the rule of his house (Mayr-Harting
1976, 67; Hunter Blair 1970, 1226). It would seem
though from these early texts that there was the desire to
make clear that Benedict Biscop did not found a colony
of monasteries, as was the custom in the Irish and earlier Northumbrian church, but one large community. On
the continent the rules of Irish monks like Columbanus
as well as St Benedict were as one in endorsing the
ceonobitical style of life (John 1965, 21618).
JARROW4.QXD
34
19-01-2007
10:18
Pagina 34
It is not recorded how large the community at

Wearmouth was when Jarrow was founded but there
were sufficient inmates to create, and indeed build,
another house. There is disparity in the sources concerning the number of brethren from Wearmouth who
were sent to Jarrow: according to Bede (HAB, 7) seventeen monks were sent under the supervision of the
praepositus, Ceolfrid; according to the Anonymous Life
(HAA, 11), twenty-two brothers were sent with
Ceolfrid, ten of whom were not tonsured and twelve of
whom were, and these constructed the buildings most
necessary for the conduct of regular monastic life
(Appendix A2.42.6). This passage is interesting in
being the only text that makes the distinction between
the lay and tonsured brethren, and indicates perhaps
that the untonsured were craftsmen attached to the
community. There is no hint here of the presence of
any of the foreign workmen who were imported to
build Wearmouth church.
The only contemporary reference to the size of the
community (HAB, 17), occurs when abbot Ceolfrid,
on his last journey to Rome, left behind him more than
600 brethren with lands which according to the customary reckoning of the English might support almost
150 households. Whether in this large territory the
community manned churches and maintained a pastoral role, as was customary in many other monasteries, is not recorded; nor (save for Bedes most famous
pupil Egbert, elected bishop of York in 732), does it
appear that the community produced from its numbers
bishops for the Northumbrian church, although the
influence of its early abbots and their high position in
the counsels of kings is undisputed (HAB, 7).
The most famous inmate of the monastery was
Bede himself, who entered Wearmouth c 679 at the age
of seven and died at Jarrow in 735 (see Preface). The
authority of his learning was established in his own lifetime, and his life and writings are succinctly recorded
by him at the end of what has survived as his most original work, The Ecclesiastical History of the English People
(HE). Yet it was his theological works and school books
which earned him the status of Doctor of the Church
and teacher of the whole Middle Ages (Brown 1996),
and copies of his books were eagerly sought by other
scholars throughout the 8th and 9th centuries
(Whitelock 1960; Brown 1987, 97100).
Bede makes it clear that the craft as well as the
intellectual skills of the community were widely
esteemed. The monastery of Wearmouth/Jarrow seems
to have become an established centre for the arts of
stone building, because c 710 Nechtan (Naiton) king
of the Picts sent to Ceolfrid abbot of the monastery of
St Peter and St Paul (HE, V.21) for craftsmen (architectos), who could build him a church of stone in the
Roman manner (see Appendix A3.5).
The joint monastery of St Peter and St Paul was,
however, most frequently mentioned in contemporary
records of the later 8th century as a source of books
(Whitelock 1955, nos 180, 185, 188) and seemingly
some of its inmates travelled abroad and were in touch

with the continental missions. During that period also
Alcuin recorded a visit during which he had been
impressed by the community (Dmmler 1895, 4423,
no. 284), although later, after the sack of Lindisfarne
in 793, and the probable sack of Jarrow in 794 (HDE,
XX; Arnold 1882, 652),2 he wrote again in a more critical mood urging that discipline should be tightened
and the boys better taught, since he saw the Viking
raids as a punishment for the laxity of the times
(Dmmler 1895, 4445, no 286; Appendix A3.9).
Bede himself had seen much to criticise in what he
saw as the secularisation of religious communities, and
had also seen how dangerous for the protection of the
state was the wealth of land tied up in monastic possession and the consequential lack of land for seasoned
warriors in the kings service to settle on (Whitelock
1955, no. 170, 7402). Nevertheless Bedes work did
lead to the continuation of Northumbrian Annals into
the 9th century, and the revival of historical interest in
early Northumbria in the 12th century through the
writings of Symeon of Durham and his circle. It is
moreover his reputation and works which provided the
impetus for the refounding of the monastery in the
11th century, and even the modern Bedes World
development in the aftermath of the monastic excavations.
The later Anglo-Saxon history of

the sites
In common with other Northumbrian monasteries,
there is little documentary evidence concerning the
joint foundation of St Peter and St Paul after the first
half of the 9th century. The larger monastery of the
pair may have been more difficult to protect against
attack, but both were certainly vulnerable to sea attack,
and the albeit late testimony of Matthew Paris (Luard
1872, 3923), that the two monasteries perished in the
general destruction and burning of the raids of
86970, is tacitly supported by Symeons statement
(HDE, III.22) that the refounding of Jarrow took place
208 years after their abandonment, placing this event
in c 865 (Appendix A5.6). But there were other periods of raiding and savage reprisals, other than the initial Viking attacks, before the post-Conquest revival of
monastic life at the two sites, and the process of their
depopulation may have been slow or fast.
When in 934 the West Saxon king Aethelstan visited the Community of St Cuthbert at Chester-le-Street,
it seems clear that they were the dominant if not the
only religious community in the area. He donated to
the community my beloved vill of South Wearmouth,
with its dependencies. These dependencies, as noted
below, seem to have been the lands originally held by
Wearmouth (Hart 1975, 118 and fig 16), and it would
appear that by that time all of the landholdings of the
twin monastery had been dispersed into new hands
(Cambridge 1984, 73).
JARROW4.QXD
19-01-2007
10:18
Pagina 35
If the Community of St Cuthbert, first at Chesterle-Street, from 883, and then at Durham from 995,
gained control of the Wearmouth/Jarrow lands and
income, it is possible that they maintained some pastoral responsibility for the local communities.
Certainly it is from the Durham records one gains any
knowledge of what was left on the sites, and this may
be a direct result of the obsessive interest of the
Chester-le-Street and Durham community in the cult
of relics and in increasing their hoard of such treasures.
Jarrow church was recorded as extant in the 11th
century since in the episcopate of Bishop Eadmund of
Durham (102245), an indefatigable relic collector in
the Durham community, Alfred Westou, is recorded as
accustomed ...annually to visit the monastery of
Jarrow (in which he was aware that the doctor Beda
had lived, died, and was buried), upon the approach of
the day of his decease, and there to devote himself to
prayers and watchings. Upon a certain occasion when
he had gone thither as usual; and having spent some
days there within the church, very early in the morning
he returned alone to Durham, leaving his companions
behind, and never again bothered to visit the site, and
gave strong hints to his friends that the bones of Bede
were now in the same shrine which contained the body
of St Cuthbert (Appendix A4.1). As Symeon further
relates, It is well known that his bones were those
which were found many years later, wrapped up by
themselves in a little linen bag, and deposited along
with the uncorrupted body of the father Cuthbert
(HDE, XLII; Stevenson 1855, III.7). This incident
indicates that the anniversary of Bedes death continued to be remembered at Jarrow, but also explains why
in the later medieval period the monks of Jarrow
showed only Bedes cell to pilgrims, not his shrine (see
also Vol 2, Ch 29.3). The bones of other famous
inmates were also apparently dispersed, and relics of
Benedict and Ceolfrid were traditionally housed as far
away as the monasteries at Thorney, Cambridge, or
Glastonbury, Somerset, (see Rollason 1986, 36; and
Wearmouth cemetery report, Chapter 8 below).
In 1069, according to the Historia Regum (Arnold
1885, 189), St Pauls Church was consumed by
flames, but in 1069 or 1070 the Community of St
Cuthbert stayed for the night in Jarrow church in flight
from the Conquerors army, on their way back to
Lindisfarne (HDE, L; Stevenson 1855, III.15), so that
perhaps the damage was not too great, and after an
abandonment of 200 years, this was probably the only
habitable building on the site. Nevertheless the
account of the refounding (see below) implies that
within a few years the church was unroofed.
There is no documentary mention of Wearmouth
church until it is recorded as destroyed by Malcolm
IIIs Scottish troops in 1070 (HR; Arnold 1885,
1901). At that time Edgar, the English pretender to
the throne, together with his mother, sisters and
friends, were at Wearmouth harbour, as was also a ship
waiting to carry off Bishop Egilwin of Durham to safety
35
away from King Williams wrath. Malcolm is said to

have destroyed by fire, under his own inspection, the
church of St Peter, the prince of the Apostles, at
Wearmouth (Stevenson 1855, 553). Malcolm offered
the royal fugitives a haven in his own country, but ravaged the countryside between the Tees and the Wear
first. There has been some doubt as to whether this
account is a Hexham interpolation, since other sources
state that Edgar and his sisters were by 1070 already in
Scotland. There seems no good reason, however, to
doubt the Northumbrian account.3 If the record of
Malcolms destruction of Wearmouth church is correct, then the church had been renovated after the possible destruction in the late 9th century. The
importance of the harbour and the fact that the Wear
valley seems to have been fully populated at that time
would be sufficient to explain the renovation of the
church for parish use.
The re-establishment of the

monasteries by Aldwin
The re-establishment of monastic communities on both
sites is related in Symeons Historia Dunelmensis
Ecclesiae (HDE: Arnold 1882; Rollason 2000). In 1072,
Aldwin prior of Winchcombe, together with two monks
from Evesham, arrived in the north to restore monastic
life according to the reformed Benedictine rule now
current in southern England, in those ancient
Northumbrian foundations of which he had read in the
History of the Angles (Stevenson 1855, 692). They
were first settled by Bishop Walcher at Jarrow, the
unroofed walls of which were still standing... Upon
these walls they placed a covering of unhewn timbers,
with hay/thatch upon them, and there they began to celebrate the offices of the divine service. Beneath the
walls they erected a little hut in which they slept and
took their food (HDE, LVI; Stevenson 1855, 693,
III.21; Appendix A5.4, 5.5). Bishop Walcher decided to
endow the group with what was necessary for them to
rebuild the church and to restore/redesign the monastic
buildings, cum enim eos ecclesiam ipsam reaedificare et
destructa monachorum habitacula videret velle restaurare
(Arnold 1882, 110).4 About two years later Aldwin
attempted to revive monastic life at Melrose, but that
site was now in the possession of King Malcolm of the
Scots and when the monks refused to acknowledge him
as their lord, he attempted to drive them out. Their
untenable position was recognised by Bishop Walcher
of Durham, who ordered them back under threat of
excommunication and assigned to them the monastery
of the blessed apostle Peter, in Wearmouth, which had
formerly been a noble and august fabric, as it is
described by Beda, who had resided in it from his infancy; but at the period of which we are speaking, its original state could scarce be traced, in consequence of the
ruinous condition of the buildings. Here they erected
some little habitations of wattle work (HDE, LVII;
Stevenson 1855, 695, III.22; Appendix A5.6).
JARROW4.QXD
36
19-01-2007
10:18
Pagina 36
Fig 4.1 The cells of the medieval Priory of Durham. NE

As already noted, the ancient land holdings of the
monastery were then held by the Community of St
Cuthbert now at Durham, and the bishop endowed
Aldwins community with the vill of Wearmouth, to
which his successor, William of St Calais, added the
adjacent vill of Southwick (Suddick; Fig 4.2). Symeon
continues by saying, Then they took pains to clear out
the church of St Peter, nothing more than the halfruined walls of which were at this time standing; and
they cut down the trees, and rooted up the thorns and
brambles, which had taken possession of the whole site.
When they had done this, and roofed it with thatch, as
it now appears, they had done their best to make it fitting for the performance of divine services (HDE, LVII;
Stevenson 1855, 6956, III.22). It is at that point that
Symeon says that from the time in which the pagans had
destroyed the monasteries in Northumbria until the
arrival of Aldwin in 1072 was 208 years (A5.6).
Aldwins endeavours to re-establish Benedictine
monastic life in Northumbria were so successful that
on 26 May 1083 Bishop William of Durham translated
the twenty-three monks from the two establishments of
Wearmouth and Jarrow to form the chapter of his
cathedral at Durham, then staffed by lay canons. It is
JARROW4.QXD
19-01-2007
10:18
Pagina 37
possible that the bishop wished to ensure orthodoxy in

his new establishment, but there was obviously also the
fear that the successful new communities could establish cult centres to St Bede to rival that of St Cuthbert
at Durham. Symeon puts it more circumspectly, for
the small extent of the diocese did not afford room for
these monastic establishments (HDE, LXI; Stevenson
1855, IV.2).
On Whit Sunday 28 May, Durham church and
monastery was given to them and Aldwin became its
prior. The period after the monks left and before the
sites are documented as one of the nine dependent
cells of Durham (Fig 4.1) is difficult to chronicle,
although it could have lasted for more than a century.
Despite the fact that a forged bull of Pope Gregory VII
and a forged charter of Bishop William of St Calais
point to the fact that the Durham monks did not forget their obligations to the sites from which they had
been drawn (Piper nd, 2), there is no certain documentary evidence for what was the pastoral provision
for these sites. Piper has, however, conjectured that
both Jarrow and Wearmouth were served by a monkchaplain (Piper 1986, 45). It is possible that if the
Durham Priory decided to keep a direct contact with
these sites instead of allowing the charge of a secular
parish priest, there may always have been the intention
to reoccupy them and, as Piper points out, this was
explicit by c 1190 (Piper 1986, 5).
Landholdings
Wearmouth and Jarrow were lavishly endowed initially
by the Northumbrian kings, and, despite the founders
concept that this was to be one monastery in two
places, the vills which were given to support the two
centres in rents and services are distinctly identified,
and probably remained so throughout the history of
the two houses. In any attempt to reconstruct the landholdings, however, one needs to consider not just the
contemporary documentation, but evidence from postConquest writings.
Wearmouth, specifically described by Bede as the
larger house (HAB, 9), had the larger endowment: it
was granted seventy hides of land from the royal
estates, according to Bede (HAB, 4), but fifty, later
augmented by other gifts from the kings and nobility,
according to the Anonymous Life (HAA, 7). In c 685
Benedict purchased from King Aldfrid an estate of
three hides on the south of the River Wear in exchange
for two silk cloaks (HAB, 9), and thereby the community may have come to control the river crossing. In
c 7012 Witmaer, who had acquired ten hides of land
at Daltun from King Aldfrid gave them to Wearmouth
for perpetual possession of the house, perhaps at the
time when he entered the community (HAB, 15).
Other than Daltun, Dalton, the individual estates
are not named by Bede, but it has been reasonably postulated that a list of the possessions of South
Wearmouth granted by King Athelstan to the
37
Community of St Cuthbert at Chester-le-Street in 934

could probably be regarded as a reconstruction of
Wearmouths early endowment south of the river
which had been broken up at the time of the Danish
settlement (Hart 1975, 118; Craster 1925, 1934;
HR, 1 (Arnold 1885), 211). These vills are listed as
Weston, Westoe; Ufferton, Offerton; Sylceswurthe,
Silksworth; duas Reofhoppas, the two Ryhopes;
Byrdene, Burdon; Seham, Seaham; Setun, Seaton;
Dalton, Dalton-le-Dale; Daldene, Dawdon; Heseldene,
Cold Hesleden (see Fig 4.2). Fulwell and Southwick,
which were part of the Wearmouth estate in the
medieval period, could also have been part of the initial grant (see Watts Moses 1964, 76, 177).
The foundation grant for Jarrow was of forty hides
(HAB, 7; HAA, 11), and, in 689, abbot Ceolfrid completed a transaction with King Aldfrid, which had been
agreed before Benedict Biscops death, namely to
exchange a Cosmography of marvellous workmanship, which had come from Rome, for eight hides of
land juxta fluvium Fresca (HAB, 15). There is some
doubt as to where the River Fresca is, but it may have
been some way distant from Jarrow since Ceolfrid
returned the land to Aldfrids successor Osred, and, by
paying an extra sum of money, was able to obtain
twenty hides in a place called in villam Sambuce, much
nearer to Jarrow.
When in the 11th century Bishop Walcher granted
appurtenances to the newly refounded monastery at
Jarrow (see above), they are a compact group and may
have been part of its original holdings. They are:
Preoston, Preston; Munecatun, Monkton; Heathewurthe,
Hedworth; Heabyrme, Hebburn; Wivestou, Wivestow;
Heortedun, Hordon (see Fig 4.2).
The Chester-le-Street/Durham Community had
acquired these lands in 883, when Guthfrid, king of
Northumbria, granted to St Cuthbert in perpetuity,
All the land between the River Tyne and the River
Wear, from Deorestrete (the Roman road Dere Street)
(HDE, I, 6970; Craster 1954, 189). It is also worth
noting that in the Durham Episcopal Charters (Offler
1968, 11) Durham also held estates north of the Tyne,
at Willington, and it is possible that Wallsend at least
was part of the initial Jarrow endowment since during
the Middle Ages the chapels of Wallsend, Heworth and
Shields were within the parish (Raine 1854, 2345).
The two Roman sites could have been important quarries, as noted above in Chapter 3, and the Roman
stone reused in the construction of the Anglo-Saxon
buildings is considered similar to that of Wallsend and
unlike South Shields (Vol 2, Ch 26.1).
Although it is impossible to map the exact boundaries of the individual vills, it is clear that the initial
Wearmouth/Jarrow endowment must have swallowed
up a large amount of land in what may have once been
a large royal estate bounded on the west by the main
Roman road north, on the north by Gateshead on the
Tyne, on the south by Cunecacestre (Chester-le-Street)
on the Wear, and on the east by the sea. Some of the
JARROW4.QXD
38
19-01-2007
10:18
Pagina 38
Fig 4.2 Dependent vills of Wearmouth and Jarrow, with early road system based on a map of 1768 by Capt A Armstrong
and T Jeffrey (NTS). YB
landholdings of earlier and smaller monasteries such as
Gateshead or Hildas foundation on the north bank of
the Wear (HE, IV.23, and see Fig 3.4) may have been
absorbed later by the twin monastery. Once the
Community of St Cuthbert acquired the lands, however, only part of them were assigned to the newly founded houses in the 11th century, and after 1083, when
they became cells of Durham, they were some of the
most impoverished dependencies of Durham Priory.
The Durham cells

In the Statutes drawn up by the Prior of Durham in
1235, both Jarrow and Wearmouth are numbered
among the priory cells (Fig 4.1), a status which
remained until the Dissolution of the monasteries
some 300 years later. The history of the fortunes of
these houses, and of the masters and monks of
Durham who were seconded to them for relatively brief
JARROW4.QXD
19-01-2007
10:18
Pagina 39
terms of office, has been reconstructed from the inventories and account rolls surviving in the archives of the
Dean and Chapter of Durham Cathedral (Raine 1854;
Piper nd; Piper 1986).
Both houses on their appearance in the inventories
were obviously small domestic organisations, housing
a master and only one or two monks, together with a
working manor and its servants (Piper nd; 1986;
Appendix A5.75.10). The Durham documents provide much valuable information concerning the economy of the sites (see Chapter 24), while for a full account
of the life of the Durham community see Dobson
(1973); Piper (nd; 1986) and Cambridge (1977; 1984).
Save for the generalities of their organisation the histories of the two houses diverge from the 13th century
onwards and so will be considered separately.
Wearmouth
The community
The community was not large: In the mid-13th
century there were two monks here and the same is true
on the whole for the period covered by the accounts,
from 1343 to 1533. About 1430, when the cell was
receiving additional financial support, the number of
monks rose to three, and again from 1514 onwards,
when a further 5 a year was assigned; otherwise
Durham was content to provide only two monks the
absolute minimum required (Piper nd, 8). In Pipers
judgement, ... the masters of Wearmouth were not
chosen from among the top flight of Durham monks
(Piper nd, 9), but often had experience in the management of the priorys sources of income or problems of
provisioning. There were, however, two exceptions;
John Fosser, who became master in 1338 and was still
master when he was elected prior of Durham in 1341,
and John Auckland, master from 1466 to 1470, who,
after serving as head of other larger cells, became prior
in 1484. As for the masters fellow monks they were
...almost invariably monks of modest attainments, men
who had not been selected for a period of study in
Oxford, men who very rarely held any of the important
monastic offices (Piper nd, 9). The general practice
seems to have been for the monks to spend a very short
time at Wearmouth, on average less than two years.
The cell also had its servants and agricultural workers, but their numbers and modes of operation are
obscure. In his analysis of the account for 14534
Piper notes, of the five men, two boys and one woman,
it is only the reeve who would have superintended the
home-farm, and so was clearly not a domestic servant.
Of the remaining four men, two are not named, two
are; it is perhaps not unreasonable to suppose that one
of these pairs worked on the farm, the other in the cell.
It is quite impossible to tell what the function of the
boys was, but the woman was called Katherine
Garthwoman and this suggests that she worked in the
garden or the farmyard (Piper nd, 5).
39
The buildings
Only St Peters Church is recorded as a working
church in medieval documents, although there is a reference in a return of 1360 to a building called veteri
ecclesia, which was being used as a tithe barn (Raine
1854, 159). Almost a century later, the building still
had the same use since there was a complaint against a
certain Scotsman called John Pottes, who had sett his
horse in a place callid ye ald kirke to ye hay mowe defilyng ye sam place and destroying hay... (Raine 1854,
241). This church rather than being the original St
Peters could well be one of the other churches, such
as St Marys, mentioned in the pre-Conquest records.
The history of the medieval church, as reconstructed from surviving documents, is disappointingly
sketchy. Symeons account, makes it clear that in the
early 12th century the church was still roofed with the
thatch put on by Aldwin and his community (HDE,
LVII, 696; Arnold 1885, xxii; Appendix A5.6), but
other evidence for what happened to it after their
departure can only be deduced from the architectural
evidence (Chapter 11). The inventories and account
rolls do not begin until 1321, and record no major
rebuildings to the church although they do record regular repairs to the roof with stone slates and lead (see
Vol 2, Ch 26, and Appendix A5.8). Since the church
was also a parish church, the community were probably only responsible for the upkeep of the chancel,
although for the last two hundred years of the cells history some of the incomings were spent on the employment of a chaplain for parochial work. In 1347,
however, there was a payment to Hugh of Woodburn
for making three windows in the choir of the church
(Raine 1854, 1459), and these seem to have survived
until the 18th century and to have been replicated in
the present-day restorations (see Figs 11.2 and 11.3).
It is possible that the east window was also of this date,
and Cambridge notes that the lavish provision of windows in the choirs of both Wearmouth and Jarrow
could have been to emphasise the monastic status
(Cambridge 1984, 470). The patronage of the important Hilton family is reflected in their chantry chapel
and monuments (see Chapter 6 below, Vol 2, Ch 29,
and Raine 1854, 154 and 23941).
The buildings as first mentioned in the accounts
and inventories are of a domestic rather than strictly
monastic nature (see Appendix A5.9), and are specifically stated in the first inventory 1321 to be in a poor
state (Raine 1854, 141): the site is said to be almost
surrounded by a wall, and in 1390 a new great gate was
constructed (Raine 1854, 180). Other buildings in the
monastery which are mentioned in the inventories and
accounts are: a cloister to the church, which was
repaired and re-roofed in 141516; a hall (aula), a
chamber (camera) for the master, as well as a guest
chamber in 14034 and, in addition, kitchen, larder,
bakehouse, brewhouse, and coal store. The buildings
of the farm included a barn, granary, stable, ox-byre
JARROW4.QXD
19-01-2007
10:18
40
Pagina 40
and dovecote, and in their territory there was a piped

source of water, which often needed repair, and a mill,
which disappears from the records in 1387.
Unfortunately there are no details in the inventories
as to the appearance and location of any of the buildings.
Pipers calculation that the income for Wearmouth
was very small indeed for a medieval religious house
and amounted to about one-fiftieth of the income of
Durham Cathedral Priory itself, and that ..there is
certainly no sign that they were able in general to
afford substantial building projects or other luxuries
characteristic of monastic affluence at this period
(Piper nd, 7), puts the position of the house in perspective.
have expected to find in a sacristy, and from 1372

seems to have housed a variety of domestic stores as
well as guest bedding. In 1480 a chamber and a new
priors chamber are mentioned and both contained
bedding. The domestic offices included a kitchen,
bakehouse, brewhouse, and three store rooms, a
pantry, larder and cellar (Piper 1986, 14).
As well as the domestic buildings there was an associated grange, perhaps nearby, although its location is
nowhere stated. The farm buildings are listed by Alan
Piper in Appendix A5.7b, and further discussed by
him elsewhere (Piper 1986) and include a barn, granary, stable and farmyard later a cow byre, piggery,
dairy, smithy and mill. Whether some of the farm servants would have used the buildings within the claustral enclosure is unknown.
All of these buildings necessitated constant repairs,
especially the windmill which appeared to be a valuable asset in 135661, but seemed to require constant
repairs and was abandoned after 14245. In the 14th
century, the brewhouse may have provided some
income, but the beer produced found no takers after
14045 (Piper 1986, 8). Although many of the references are unspecific, several, such as the factura claustri in 14023, are important and many are informative
concerning such matters as the materials used for roofing. A selected list of building repairs is included in
Appendix A5.8, and some of the problems of relating
the specific references to buildings with the excavated
evidence is discussed in Chapters 19 and 20.
One is aware that there were many episodes and
changes of use which are hinted at in the documents
but which it is impossible to detect archaeologically.
Such are the imprecisions of our current dating mechanisms that the withdrawal of monks from Jarrow
between 1425 and 1432 (Piper 1986, 9) could only be
detected through a documentary record. It is intriguing to speculate whether the major repairs which are
recorded for a specific year are because of the complaints of the outgoing master or the insistence of the
new man in office. Perhaps the most likely incumbents
for getting repairs or rebuildings done were those who
stayed some time, and who had already served as one
of the obedientiaries in the mother house and so knew
the working of the financial system. The first very large
bill for repairs and building, in 1347, was in the time
of Thomas of Graystanes (13448) well into his period
of office (Raine 1854, 29). Considerable repairs were
made to the hall and the chamber in 1370, the first
mastership of the princely John of Lumley, and in the
interregnum (1374; Raine 1854, 61), before he took
up his second period as master, three glass windows
were put into the hall. In his third mastership
(13789), the new window was put in the south wall of
the church (1378; Raine 1854, 67). Thomas Legats
long if broken association as master between 1381 and
1393 was marked by steady spending on repairs,
although the making of the cloister in 14023 was just
after his time, and cost surprisingly little (see below).
Jarrow
The community
When the site became a dependent cell of Durham, it
housed a master and one or two monks who supported him for brief periods of time. The priory exercised
a tight control over its cells and no monk or master was
allowed to spend too long away from the mother house
although some could return to a cell after a period
away. The terms of service of the masters and monks
of Jarrow are to be found in Piper (1986, 2336), but
the average length of each term for a master was a little over 3 years and 3 months. They were usually men
of mature years and experience. An average stay of a
monk in the period 1432-1518 is calculated as 16
months (Piper 1986, 19). On account of its salubrious
reputation, Jarrow was twice used to provide an establishment for a retired prior.5 The first was William of
Tanfield who resigned in 1313 and received the cell
and the manor of Wardley, and the earliest account of
the cell covers his incumbency of one year, 131314,
and beyond his death. Lay servants supported the
community and ran the home farm. A yard woman is
noted in 1328, together with ten other servants who
included ploughmen and boys, a carter, a pigman, a
gardener and a lad (Piper 1986, 14).
The buildings
By the time of the first surviving inventories, at the
beginning of the 14th century, the buildings on the
site, like those at Wearmouth are described in domestic terms (Appendix A5.7a). It is clear from the terminology used that, unlike some of the other Durham
cells such as Lindisfarne or Finchale, communal buildings such as the dormitory, refectory or Chapter
House, which we must presume to have been in the
11th-century plan, had ceased to function as such. The
principal rooms mentioned in the status returns are
now a hall (aula), and a chamber (camera). This last,
up to 1341 is described as the masters chamber, and
seems to have housed material one might normally
32
JARROW4.QXD
19-01-2007
10:18
Pagina 41
Mid-way through John Bradburys term of office in

14556 (Raine 1854, 115) there is a bill for making a
window and camini in nova camera juxta ecclesiam (possibly the chamber at the south-west of the church
which later became a sacristy). There were large-scale
repairs in the second mastership of Robert Billingham
in 1488 (Raine 1854, 123), and in his third term of
office (14934) a wall was constructed around the
cemetery and garden (Raine 1854, 124; see Chapter
21 below).
There are structures such as the latrines or
wells which are not mentioned in the documentary
sources, and which do figure in the archaeological
record as problems, but on the whole the inventories
and account rolls help to enrich our perception of the
daily life of the two cells and support the archaeological evidence for Jarrows more flourishing situation
than Wearmouths during this period. Jarrow also
seems to have specifically cherished the memory of
Bede in that, as Raine pointed out, A Life of Bede was
the only book, with the exception of their service
books, which finds a place in their inventories (Raine
1854, vii).
Post-Dissolution history
Although this report is not concerned with the postDissolution evidence from these sites, their subsequent
development needs to be summarised in order to
understand the constraints of the archaeological
evidence for the medieval and Anglo-Saxon periods.
The chronology of the principal events is summarised
in Tables 1.1 and 1.2 and illustrated in the phase plans.
Wearmouth becomes Monkwearmouth

At the Dissolution of the monasteries the revenues of
the cell of Wearmouth were assessed as 26 9s 9d per
annum, and in 1545 King Henry VIII granted to
Thomas Whitehead for the sum of 161 2s 7d, the
whole house and site, lately of the cell of
Wearmouth...and all messuages, houses, buildings,
barns, stables, dovecots, ponds, vineries, gardens,
orchards, and lands within the bounds and precincts of
the cell and belonging to it. Added to this were 60
acres of arable land, 53 acres of pasture, 18 acres of
moorland, 16 of meadow land as well as 8 cottages and
fishing rights in the River Wear (Watts Moses 1964,
734). In 1597 William Whitehead (described as
of Monk Wearmouth in the County of Durham,
gentleman) granted to Robert Woodrington of
Northumberland all that belonged to the late cell of
Monkwearmouth as well as other holdings in Monk
Wearmouth, Sunderland and Fulwell (Watts Moses
1964, 76).
Robert Woodrington, who died in 1641, left an interesting inventory of his buildings at Monkwearmouth in
his will of August 1598. These are listed as: Hall, Great
Chamber, inner chamber, privie chamber, Mr Johns
41
chamber, maids chamber, brushing chamber, serving

mens chamber, inner parlour, fore-parlour, new
chamber, as well as the ostlers closet, the kitchen,
milk-house, boulting house, brew house, buttery,
pantry, cattle sheds and barns (Greenwell 1860,
2867; Appendix A6.11). This implies a spacious
house with some new rooms.
After Woodringtons death the estate was fragmented but most of it was eventually purchased by Colonel
George Fenwick, whose daughter Dame Dorothy
Williamson (see below, Chapter 6 1972 excavations)
purchased the whole, c 1689, and the manor of
Monkwearmouth has remained in Williamson hands
up to the present day, although the site is now leased
to the Sunderland Corporation. The Williamsons later
were granted wharves on the Wear and the right to use
the ferry, as well as rights to work all limestone quarries and stone quarries within the Durham Priory
lands at Monkwearmouth and Fulwell. All of these
were probably ancient rights of the monastery (see
above).
The house became temporarily the Williamson
family home, and the antiquary William Hutchinson
described Monkwearmouth Hall, as it is designated on
18th-century maps (see Fig 1.4) as a large, noble, old
mansion, built about the time of James I. It formed
three sides of a square with the church, and occupied
the site of the old cell. The kitchens which fronted to
the East and closely adjoined the Church, were lofty
and spacious, with large windows divided by stone
mullions and transomes; these had very probably
formed part of the Monastic offices (Hutchinson
1787, 506).
The family did not remain long in residence and c
1735 the Hall became the parsons house. Only one
early drawing shows part of this building (Fig 11.1),
this being the northsouth range and the ornamental
sunken paths which fronted it. In those days when the
river flowed within 150 yards (137m) of the church,
the Hall gardens were close to the Wear (Watts Moses
1964, 60). Unfortunately the Hall was completely
destroyed by fire in 1790. By 1849 the distance
between the church and the river had increased to 420
yards (343m) by reason of the tipping of ballast from
the incoming colliery ships, and the reclaimed land was
added to the estate. The Williamsons as patrons of the
church paid for the erection of galleries in St Peters in
1794, and no doubt also were willing to countenance
the dumping of ballast over the churchyard to the
north of the church which had been filled to completion before that event.
The 19th century saw the development of shipyards
along the Wear and an increase of building in the
Williamson estate around the church, including the
laying out of Hallgarth Square within the area which
had once been the monastic court or the double square
of the Hall garth and gardens (see Fig 1.5). The shipyards were in full production when the excavations
began.
JARROW4.QXD
19-01-2007
42
10:18
Pagina 42
Jarrow
At the Dissolution Jarrow revenue was valued at 40
7s 8d, and the estate passed into lay hands although
the church precincts remained in ecclesiastical use,
and a stipendiary income only was reserved for a perpetual curate (Surtees 1820, 70). The first lord of the
manor was William, Lord Eure of Witton, and the
family remained in possession until 1616 when the
property was divided and then fragmented into oneeighth shares. By the 18th century the estate had been
purchased by Simon Temple who built a house (Jarrow
Hall) on the hill overlooking the church and monastic

ruins. These continued to be lived in, first by the parson and then into the 20th century by the church warden. Simon Temples estate map shows a very rural
surrounding for the church and site with a small settlement to the east of the church (Fig 1.8). The only
buildings within the churchyard precinct were, however, always linked to church use, whether a cottage,
school or rectory (see Appendix B35, 37, 43, 44) and
domestic occupation of the ruins only ceased in 1955,
after which the site was taken into Guardianship (see
Table 1.2).
JARROW5.QXD
19-01-2007
10:20
Pagina 43
Part II. Wearmouth

5 Interventions and discoveries pre-1959
Since even the remnants of monastic buildings, recorded in the 18th century had been swept away and forgotten in the wake of new urban developments in the
19th century, from that point until the 1959 excavations historical and archaeological interest focused
solely on St Peters Church (Figs 5.1 and 5.2).
Yet even at the beginning of scholarly interest in the
church, in the 19th century, most of the features now
identified as Anglo-Saxon were hidden under the plastered exterior or the fitments and galleries of the postReformation church (see Appendix B8a8b). Haighs
record of his visit there in 1845 well illustrates the
problems (Haigh 1846, 43840), and his claim that the
tower and west wall were Anglo-Saxon was, initially,
not accepted.
Within the intervening twenty years before the earliest recorded excavations, however, the antiquity of St
Peters west wall and porch had come to be recognised,
and the excavations undertaken in 1866 by a group of
scholars from the Durham and Northumberland
Architectural and Archaeological Society answered
many of Haighs questions about the west end of the
church. In addition, the observations of C Hodges
(1893), Capt Robinson, and the rector the Reverend
Matthew Robson (Durham Cathedral Library, Ms
Longstaffe Octavo 16; Quarto 41) add substantially to
our knowledge of the appearance of the church at that
time. Since these accounts provide a picture of the
church before the major reconstructions and some are
unpublished, they are considered in more detail in
Appendix A, together with an analysis of the most
important illustrations of the church and its surroundings in Appendix B. A summary of the discoveries is,
however, a necessary introduction to the modern
excavations, although it is unfortunate that it is not
possible to pinpoint the interventions recorded in these
accounts with sufficient accuracy to be able to plan
them.
bond with the west wall of the church, and that the
stonework and quoins in the upper stories of the tower
were different from the west wall and the area below
the gable. This all contributed to establishing a
chronology in which the one storey porch was seen as
later than the main body of the church in construction
and the tower later than the porch. Five large stones in
the centre of the gable with two brackets beside them
were also noted and the suggestion made that, The
second central stone from the top has on it the remains
of a delicately-sculptured ear, probably of the date of
the 13th century, and Bishop Brownes theory
(Browne 1866a, 438, fig) was accepted that, a figure
of our Lord, with SS Mary and John could have been
inserted at that time, presumably meaning in the 13th
century. The two windows in the western wall with
their sloping sills and baluster supports (see Figs 5.7
and 5.8) were also recorded when their plaster coverings had been stripped away.
In 1866 excavations took place both in the porch
and church, and were reported upon in various newspaper accounts. Annotated versions of these in
Longstaffes hand, as well as his own field notes, and
letters from Matthew Robson concerning his independent excavations in the interior of the church, survive
in Durham Cathedral Library, Ms Longstaffe Octavo
16 and Quarto 41). The official version of the excavation of the porch was published in the Transactions of
the Durham and Northumberland Architectural and
Archaeological Society 1, 1414, and in Church Reports
III in the same volume (Anon 18628a; 18628b).
There was no doubt in the minds of the committee
that the porch was that described by Bede as the porticus ingressus and an excavation of its interior took place
seemingly in an attempt to find the burial of Witmaer,
who was reputedly buried in the porticus ingressus of St
Peters after the removal of the bones of Eosterwine
into the eastern porticus of the church in August 716
(HAA, 18; HAB, 20). A niche was discovered in the
west wall foundations framed by two baluster shafts,
and it is recorded that the interior floor of the porch
was of concrete, 9in. (0.23m) thick, save in the
northwest corner along the north wall where a monolithic stone coffin, measuring 6ft (1.83m) by 1ft 9in. >
1ft 2in. (0.53m > 0.36m) internally, had been covered
by flat slabs, one of which was the famous
Anglo-Saxon burial slab commemorating the priest
Herebericht (Cramp 1984, 124, pl 110, 604 and Vol 2,
Ch 28, MS2). At the time it was noted that the slab
appeared to have a thin coating of plaster or gesso, and
to have been coloured with vermilion, some traces of
which still exist. This is not so visible now, although
other sculpture from Wearmouth bears traces of gesso
and red paint (see Vol 2, Ch 28). The grave slab was in
The west end of the church

Nineteenth-century investigations
The first stage of the investigations had been the plaster stripping and the unblocking of ancient openings so
revealed, and the most dramatic discovery was the decorated west portal of the porch, which is dimly visible
in early 18th-century drawings (Fig 1.3 and Appendix
B3), but appears to have been plastered over later, perhaps when a new window was inserted in the first floor
of the porch. The decoration of the jambs of the porch
with interlaced beasts provided a useful confirmation
of its age as 7th to 8th century (Fig 5.3). Plaster stripping also revealed that the porch and tower were not in
43
44
19-01-2007
10:20
Pagina 44
Fig 5.1 St Peters Church at the beginning of the excavations. YB
JARROW5.QXD
JARROW5.QXD
19-01-2007
10:20
Pagina 45
5: INTERVENTIONS AND DISCOVERIES PRE-1959
45
,
,
,
,
I
.\
..~
:\
Fig 5.2 St Peters tower viewed from the south-west in 1982. Photo: TM
JARROW5.QXD
46
19-01-2007
10:20
Pagina 46
Fig 5.3 St Peters church, west entrance porch in 1982.

Detail of carved jambs. Photo: TM
a secondary position, face downwards, and in the interior of the coffin the uppermost body was somewhat in
situ, but underneath were packed what was estimated
as twelve bodies (all except one being male) with skulls
placed in the centre, and many of the thigh bones
placed alongside. All had been carefully disposed
under a layer of black shale or coal. If the black shale
was similar to the charcoal burials which are known
from various early medieval contexts (eg Durham
Cathedral, Fowler 1880; Shoesmith 1980, 279, 49),

then it is more probable that this reburial took place in
the Aldwinian period or when the north aisle was
rebuilt than at the Reformation.
Unfortunately the observers did not record whether
the coffin had been cut through the concrete floor, or
whether the whole of the floor was taken up during this
excavation, since that would have confirmed or refuted
the existence of a narthex in phase 1 (see Chapter 6). If
this was Witmaers tomb then it had clearly been
added to either in the Middle Ages or after the
Reformation, perhaps when the burials in the eastern
porticus were cleared, and the references to fragments
of glass with lattice design (see Vol 2, Ch 27.4) would
indicate a post-Reformation reburial.
Robsons scaled elevation drawing of the condition
of the tower immediately after these interventions and
before consolidation (Fig 5.4) and the more detailed
drawing of the openings and balusters (Anon 18628a,
figs I and II) are important in that they record not only
the details of the quoining of the west face of the tower,
but also the fine detail of the decoration of the arched
entrance, and the lowest frieze, before it had been
repaired and renewed or merely destroyed by the
atmosphere. Robsons elevation drawing is also important in showing later details now restored, such as the
lengthened window in the west face stage 1, and the
destroyed top of the gable of the west wall, as well as
indicating just how much of the top two stages of the
tower appeared to be a recent renewal in 1886. This
elevation also provided the first reconstruction drawing
of how the porch might have appeared before the
building of the tower. How this reconstruction was
arrived at by the committee is detailed in their manuscripts and publications.
Probably as a result of the excavations within the
tower there was a slight settlement of the structure,
and hurried repairs were undertaken to replace some
shattered quoins, to place iron bands on the tower, and
to grout it. In 1872 the main work of restoration
began, the object of it being to bring back the church
as far as practicable to the plan it presented in the 14th
century, and to provide more congregational space
after the removal of the galleries. The work was completed in 1875, and the new church was opened in
practically its present form (see Fig 5.1).
At that date, then, the received picture was: the
original church was a simple parallelogram, with the
secondary addition of a small square two-storied western porch, which, from the arrangement of the openings and remains of ancient foundations running
north and south seems to have been connected with an
ancient atrium, or cloister surrounding a forecourt,
Hodgson (190611a, 165), and Church Reports, note
walls west of the church, forming something like a way
to it have subsequently been opened out (Anon
18628b, 45). The date at which the porch was raised
into a tower was thought by the committee to be a matter of some speculation.
JARROW5.QXD
19-01-2007
10:20
Pagina 47
S:P.ET.E;R<S CHURCH'MUl(KWEA.RMO'U.'I'H.
1-,.'
47
1.H:I!'. TQVt"t;1\
U,...-- .. -* ,... .. "r.
Fig 5.4 Drawings of St Peters west front and tower by Mathew Robson, 1866, showing the fabric before restoration. (After
TDNAAS I, 1866, 140)
JARROW5.QXD
19-01-2007
10:20
Pagina 48
48
........,....
..
.......
_I.. .
.
_-----
.....
" - <- .. .. -
,'
" - - -....
.: . ~
.....
'_'--"'--
Fig 5.5 R Sewells drawing of the 1912 excavations, showing position of trenches dug and the protective building in front of
the porch. Dated 27.11.12. In possession of R. Cramp
JARROW5.QXD
19-01-2007
10:20
Pagina 49
49
Fig 5.6 The Back Lane and housing to south of St Peters Church, 1960. Photo: the late R Moore
Early twentieth-century investigations

Further excavations to identify the western adjuncts to
the porch are recorded in the unpublished papers in
the collection of Baldwin Browns correspondence at
Edinburgh University and I am grateful to Professor
Richard Bailey for drawing this material to my attention. The vicar, J T Brown, wrote on 16th May 1923,
Just before the war I had excavations made under a
competent authority to secure safety and to see if evidence could be found of any building at the west of the
tower ... Also there are references, somewhat vague, of
traces of a westward building, in certain papers about
the church (Edinburgh University Library, Ms Gen
1923/85). The competent authority was a Mr Sewell, a
civil engineer. One drawing of this excavation survives with the trenches coloured red (Fig 5.5). The
investigations on the north side of the tower found no
evidence of an adjunct. There was no wall in bond running west from the tower/porch west face, but the excavators did find a big stone 2 or 3 feet under the surface
and in line with the north wall of the tower but some 3
yards away from it. The stone had traces of lime on its
top surface. Mr Brown considered that this was not
Anglo-Saxon because of the differences between it and
the Anglo-Saxon foundations of the porch, which he
rightly noted are slight and without large stone foundations.
The interior of the church, east end

Nineteenth-century investigations
Certain letters which were exchanged during
November 1866 provide much valuable information
concerning the form of the early churches. Robson, in
a letter to Longstaffe, concluded with the assistance of
excavation that the lower courses of the north wall of
the Saxon nave were extant on the site of the arcade
which separated the nave from the north and only aisle
(Durham Cathedral Library, Ms Longstaffe Octavo
16). This would give an internal width for the nave of
about 5.64m (18ft 6in.).
Other accounts (see Cramp 1969, 301) describe
the excavation of a cross wall under the chancel arch.
A sketch in Longstaffes notebooks records, The wall
2ft 10in. (0.86m) thick, while a letter of Matthew
Robson of the 10th November records, From the
cross wall found the day before yesterday to the wall of
the existing chancel is 14ft (4.27m). This wall may not
be the same as the one under the chancel arch (see discussion below). The width of the cross wall was 2ft 9in.
to 2ft 10in. (c 0.85m), while the chancel wall was noted
as 2ft (0.61m), wide and the old nave wall as 2ft 4in.
(0.71m), although in another account it is said that the
chancel wall is is thinner by 8in. (0.20m) or less than
the nave walls.
JARROW5.QXD
50
19-01-2007
10:20
Pagina 50
Fig 5.7 Interior view of west wall of St Peters church in 1982. Photo: TM
All accounts of which Hodgsons seems the most
careful agree that at the point where they cleared the
pews and made their excavations, the transverse wall, the
nave, and the foundations of the chancel were of one
build. All are bonded together and are of one date.
They considered it possible that the wide northsouth
wall was the bedding for a step, but equally

possible that it was a cross wall at the junction of the nave
and chancel. It is also important to note that the wall on
the line of the north wall of the chancel was described by
Robson as built of squared stones, and to have been
15ft 6in (4.72m) from the south wall of the chancel.
JARROW5.QXD
19-01-2007
10:20
Pagina 51
Fig 5.8 Drawing of interior west wall of St Peters, based on photographs and manual measurements by N Emery. NE
51
JARROW5.QXD
52
19-01-2007
10:20
Pagina 52
Fig 5.9 Exterior of west wall of St Peters Church, based on English Heritage photogrammetric survey and interior photography. (Centre block above S1 drawn by eye). NE
JARROW5.QXD
19-01-2007
10:20
Pagina 53
53
Fig 5.10 Exterior of western facade and tower of St Peters Church, based on English Heritage photogrammetric survey and
manual measurements. NE
JARROW5.QXD
54
19-01-2007
10:20
Pagina 54
Fig 5.11 North and south elevations of St Peters tower, based on English Heritage photogrammetric survey. NE
JARROW5.QXD
19-01-2007
10:20
Pagina 55
There was also mention in one of Robsons letters to

Longstaffe that when flags were taken up some time
ago in the passage from the vestry to the pulpit that no
foundation wall was found which we thought at the
time would be from its having been removed to make
room for interments as a quantity of bones was found.
The form and development of the chancel area has
been much disputed. Hodgson placed in the Aldwinian
period the development of a new eastern chapel
(Hodgson 190611a, 1767). Others were more circumspect, although most seemed to consider that
there had been a change in the chancel in the 13th or
14th century (see Chapter 11). Fordyce (1857, 441)
made the interesting observation that part of the chancel is built with clay instead of mortar. In the same letter to Baldwin Brown quoted above, the Reverend J T
Brown mentioned that, About the same time (that is
just before 1914) we were laying a mosaic floor in our
chancel and we carried a trench eastwards from the
chancel step to see if there were any foundations left of
a small chancel such as exists at Escomb. They
reached what they considered original ground level
and carried the trench (presumably eastwards) for
about 1516ft (4.574.88m), but found nothing. It is
unfortunate that no sketch record of where all the
investigations took place seems to have survived. It
should, though, be noted that wheresoever the trench
was placed it need not indicate, as the excavators felt,
that there was no chancel, but only that the chancel, if
it existed, was larger than 4.574.88m east to west (see
Gilbert 1947 for further discussion of this feature).
Twentieth-century observations during

restorations
In November 1924, a further thorough conservation of
the fabric was initiated and continued under the direction of W and T R Milburn until its completion in
October 1925. The scaffolding provided a good opportunity for close observation of the fabric, and there are
excellent accounts of what could then be seen (Hall
1931; Milburn and Milburn 1931). Their observations
are recorded more fully in Appendix A6.13, but the
following points may be noted here. Hall considered in
relation to the west wall that at least three periods of
time were indeed necessary in which to complete the
wall in its entirety (Hall 1931, 51), the first phase
being up to the door/window (W3) (Figs 5.8 and 5.9).
He also noted above the head of W1 and W2 a raking
line in the fabric which he interpreted as a rebuilding
line (ibid, 55) and recorded differences in mortar in
the walls, concluding that, when the south wall of the
nave was rebuilt in the 1866 renovations, the south
wall of the porch had also been repaired and regrouted
(see Vol 2, Ch 26.2). Hall and the Milburns also noted
55
an arch of stones in the east face of the west wall which

they took to be the original western entrance of the
church (Hall 1931, 58), but see discussion below,
Chapter 6. They also provided the first record of a
blocked flat-headed opening in the exterior face of
the west wall above W3 and another blocked opening
with a semi-circular head hard up against the South
wall of the tower (Hall 1931, and see Figs 5.10 and
5.11). Their invaluable observations were not always
matched by similar interpretations: the crude picked
interlace which they noted on several sandstone
blocks seems to be Roman tooling rather than AngloSaxon ornament.
Halls careful record of the mortars was amplified
by the observations of the mason in the 1966 restoration and consolidation of the tower, when it proved
possible to distinguish early mortar fills from the 19thcentury regrouting and to look at some undisturbed
wall core. These observations, as recorded by us at the
time may be summarised thus: in the west wall to
about 20ft (6.10m) from the floor, hard creamy-white
mortar (probably equivalent to type 1; see Vol 2, Ch
26.2); in the walls of the porch and the nave door, a
creamy yellow mortar (probably type 2, as was found
in the walls of the southern porticus, Chapter 6 below).
The mason also considered that there was a slight difference in mortar type between the walls of the porch
and its north, south and west openings, and this type
was also found in the setting for the figure in the west
gable and the decorated string course. The walls of the
tower were bonded with a coarse grey gritty mortar,
and a variant of this type was found in the jambs of the
north door to the porch chamber. Although most of
the plaster on the interior wall faces was stripped off in
the 19th-century renovations (see above), a small section of pink finishing mortar (type 3) survived until
1966 to be discovered by the excavation team on the
interior face of the porch behind the inserted barrel
vault (Vol 2, Fig 26.2.1).
Summary
Before the 1959 excavations, then, there was a general
consensus concerning the pre-Conquest church: the
west wall was part of the first phase of the church, the
porch the second (with perhaps a one-storey and then
a two-storey phase), and the tower the third, although
except for the foundation date there was no consensus
for the dating for the phases. There was uncertainty as
to whether or not there had been side or west adjuncts
to the porch. The width of the nave was certain, but its
length and the form of the chancel, as well as the exact
relationship between the two were uncertain. The relationship of the church to any monastic buildings that
could have surrounded it was unknown.
JARROW6.QXD
19-01-2007
10:24
Pagina 56
6 St Peters Church
At the beginning of the excavations the only hint as to

the possible location of the Anglo-Saxon and later
medieval monastic buildings was the church, which
incorporated in its fabric features from the 7th to the
19th centuries (Fig 5.1). Because of its closely documented history, this building proved to be of major
importance for providing a comparison with the fabric
and constructional characteristics of the excavated
foundations on the site to the south. The excavations
inside the church itself were not extensive and always
of a rescue nature, but at one point (see below) it was
possible to establish a direct link between the church
structure and the excavated walls on the site to the
south, which provided an invaluable chronological
pivot. The church is therefore discussed first and its
phases are linked, where possible, to the excavated
cemeteries and monastic buildings.
Summary description of the fabric

af the Anglo-Saxon church
(Figs 5.2, 5.4, 5.55.11)
The structure now consists of a western tower, which
is clearly raised on a western porch of a different fabric
and construction; a west wall of the same fabric as the
porch but not in bond with it; a narrow nave in 19thcentury ashlar, of the same width as the west wall, but
separated by a columned arcade with pointed arches
from a wide adjunct on the north side, and an aisleless
chancel separated by a wide pointed arch from the
nave. The nave measures 19.50m by 5.64m internally
and is about 9.30m high. A full description is to be
found in Taylor and Taylor (1965, 43256) and this
may be supplemented by the accounts of the restorations in Boyle (1886), Hall (1931), and Milburn and
Milburn (1931).
The pre-Conquest fabric surviving above ground
today consists of the west wall of the nave, and the western porch, with the jambs of its open portal decorated
with carvings of interlaced beasts which are undisputedly accepted as of 7th- to 8th-century date (Fig 5.3
and Vol 2, Ch 28). The western tower has been variously assigned to the pre-Conquest and post-Conquest
periods by reason of its distinctive openings in the belfry stages but for convenience is described here.
Fig 6.1 St Peters Church: original quoins (fire reddened

stains on quoins next to drain pipe) on north-west wall of
nave, and showing porch opening into north porticus
Phase 1, the west wall of the original nave

The fabric of this wall is of roughly coursed limestone
(Hartlepool and Roker Dolomite) blocks, with wide
mortar joints. Some stones are set in angled bands,
especially at the base of the wall, and there are lines of
narrow levelling blocks, which are visible on the interior face just below the window W3, and on the external
Fig 6.2 St Peters Church: south-west view of west wall

and porch, showing totally renewed quoins of south-west
corner, also tower built over gable
56
JARROW6.QXD
19-01-2007
10:25
Pagina 57
6: ST PETERS CHURCH
57
Fig 6.3 St Peters Church: vault and wall surrounding opening D1
Fig 6.4 St Peters Church: west face of W3, west wall
face (now inside the tower), below the pair of windows,

W1 and W2 (Fig 5.8), where two rows of narrow
blocks enclose a row of herring-bone. The quoins are
formed of large megalithic sandstone blocks laid in
side-alternate fashion. Those on the north are comparatively undisturbed, and show extensive evidence of
burning (Fig 6.1) while those on the south have been
largely renewed, apparently in the 19th century when
the south wall was rebuilt on the same line as the previous one (Fig 6.2). The bonding cement, where it was
noted as surviving in the reports of the restorations, is
a creamy white type (type 1, see Vol 2, Ch 26.2).
At ground level, there is one opening: a centrally
placed doorway (D1) formed with sandstone throughstones. The jambs are monolithic, capped with long
flat imposts and the head is formed from eight irregular voussoirs which are splayed in the interior. The
stonework around this door on the west face is very
irregular (Figs 5.9 and 6.3), but on neither face is there
convincing evidence today for an earlier door as
recorded elsewhere (Hall 1931, 58; Taylor and Taylor
1965, 4345). The opening above (W3), now used as
a doorway into the tower, has been extensively rebuilt
on the eastern face with upright and flat jambs and a
head formed of four voussoirs, but its western face
seems to be original, and is formed with monolithic
jambs on small block bases (Fig 6.4). These support a
round head carved from a single rectangular block.
JARROW6.QXD
58
19-01-2007
10:25
Pagina 58
Fig 6.5 Exterior of original west wall of church: walling

between the top of W3 and the chamfered plinth S1 showing band of herringbone on base of W2, and possible opening top right under plinth
Fig 6.6 West wall: fabric surrounding dedication cross in

area of original gable
Fig 6.7 West wall: detail of dedication cross set on a plinth with wall disturbance to the north
JARROW6.QXD
19-01-2007
10:25
Pagina 59
6: ST PETERS CHURCH
It has been convincingly suggested that this opening

was originally a window (Taylor and Taylor 1965,
4345). Above this, about 7m (23ft) from the ground,
are a pair of small windows (W1 and W2), which were
obscured by the later tower. Their western faces are
formed by a lintel supporting monolithic jambs and
imposts, and with monolithic curving stone heads. The
eastern faces have been reshaped at a later date: the
heads are formed from three grooved voussoirs supported on short monolithic imposts and jambs. The
steeply sloping sills are framed by two baluster shafts.
These stones were turned and reset when they were
discovered in the 19th-century restorations (Hall 1931,
535). Previously (either when the western gallery was
erected in the 18th century or before) they had been
cut back flat to the wall face and plastered over.
However, since the slope of the window sills had also
been reshaped it is clear that the shafts were not even
then in their original position.
The springing for the steep gabled roof of the nave
appears to be at a height of about 10.5m (30ft) above
ground level and is marked by an external string course
(S1), which is barely visible on the exposed west face
but still survives intact in the interior of the tower (Figs
5.9 and 6.5). This chamfered plinth or string course is
in a patch of disturbed walling and may have been
inserted or reset when the porch was built (see below).
There is also a slab with a cross in relief set high in the
original west face of the gable (Figs 6.6 and 6.7), but
this too is in an area of disturbed walling, and so is not
necessarily part of the original west wall, although its
form could be early, but it could have been set or reset
there when the tower was built (Cramp 1984, 1334,
ill 620; and Vol 2, Ch 28).
Phase 2, the porch

The porch, although not in bond with the nave wall, is
constructed in the same limestone rubble fabric, with
large sandstone jambs which have been very largely
renewed in successive restorations. The porch measures
externally 3.08m (10ft 1in.) by 3.02m (9ft 11in.) with
a wall thickness of 0.51m (1ft 8in.). At ground level it
is entered by an elaborate open portal (D2), constructed of massive through-stones. The jambs are upright
and flat and the lower is carved with interlaced beaked
reptiles (Fig 5.3; Cramp 1984, 1256 and ills 61217),
while above a pair of balusters on each side support
chamfered imposts. The voussoirs of the rounded head
are neatly cut, although the centre is displaced by later
insertions (see Fig 5.4). There are two doorways (D3
and D4) formed of through-stones in the north and
south walls of the porch. The large monolithic jambs
are morticed into the massive sills, and the flat slab
imposts support voussoired heads. These openings are
rebated for doors opening outwards from the porch (see
below). At the top of the lowest stage of the porch on
the west external face was a broad frieze divided by
cabled bands and apparently once containing animal
59
and human figures (Cramp 1984, 127 and ills 6215).

Hall, who inspected it in situ, saw two hounds and possibly a stag running southwards (Hall 1931, 57). This
frieze (S2) has now been entirely removed and a small
part of it is retained in the church. The frieze did not
return around the north and south faces of the tower.
The roof of the ground floor of the porch is
barrel-vaulted, but since the floor which rests on it is
not functionally related to several of the openings on
the first stage it is clearly a later insertion and, during
the 1966 restorations, when part of the vault was cut
away, the original pink plaster facing of the interior face
of the porch was observed as intact behind this vault
(see above, and Vol 2, Ch 26.2).
The second stage has the vestiges of three openings.
In the western face, partly obliterated by later openings, is a window (W4) which survives on the interior
and has a rectangular monolithic head and jambs decorated with cable pattern (Taylor and Taylor 1965, fig
208). In the north face is a blocked square-headed
door (D5) set closely against the west wall of the nave.
Its sill is below the level of the vault, and its jambs and
head are formed with narrow rectangular slabs. On the
south face there is a small blocked opening (W5) above
a line of three large stones.
On the third stage there are no openings, but on the
west face the sharply angled line of the gable of the
original porch is apparent in the rough limestone
blocks framed by the more regular sandstone courses
of the later tower. The gable springs from a hollow
chamfered string course (S3), and since the string
course (visible most clearly inside the tower, Fig 6.5) is
of a similar form, it is possible that this was added
above the roof line of the porch at this period. Set in
the west face there is the shadow of a lifesize figure
carved on four large stones, with on either side two
small rounded stones (similar to one on the interior
face of the wall), which may have served to support two
smaller figures (Cramp 1984, 127, ill 618). There is a
certain amount of disturbed walling around this figure.
Phase 3, the tower

The tower, which was raised on the upper storey of the
porch, was constructed with neat well-coursed sandstone blocks with irregular quoins which have been
much restored. There was originally no stone tie
between the tower and nave walls, and a straight joint
practically to full height (Milburn and Milburn 1931,
66). The raising of the porch into a tower blocked the
two windows in the west wall and seems to have considerably disturbed the fabric on the west face of the
west wall of the nave. The fourth stage is raised on a
levelling line of narrow stones and a plain rectangular
string course (S4), and there are no openings save for
a small west-facing window (W6) cut from a single rectangular stone. A small rectangular window (W7) in
the south wall has cut the string course and must
belong to a later phase.
JARROW6.QXD
60
19-01-2007
10:25
Pagina 60
Fig 6.8 Excavated Anglo-Saxon features within the east end of St Peters Church. See Fig 5.1 for location. FB/YB
JARROW6.QXD
19-01-2007
10:25
Pagina 61
6: ST PETERS CHURCH
61
Above the string course in the east wall of the tower

the rectangular slab with a carving in relief of a splayed
arm cross has already been mentioned above and its
date has been discussed in relation to a possible date
either in the 11th or the 7th century (Cramp 1984,
1334; and Vol 2, Ch 28).
The upper belfry stage has been largely rebuilt,
especially the west face (see Fig 5.4, Baldwin Brown
1925, 122 and fig 56; Milburn and Milburn 1931). It
is separated from the fourth stage by a plain rectangular string course (S5), and the north, south and west
faces contain double belfry windows with straight midwall shafts and a hood-moulding outlining the opening, with round sounding holes above.
The standing fabric then exhibits at least three
major structural phases before the modern restorations
and rebuilding of the nave (see Appendix B48 and 12)
as well as other possible patches and minor changes,
which could nevertheless represent important episodes
in the life of the building.
The excavations in and adjacent to

the church
All of the excavations inside or immediately adjacent to
the church were adventitious, and constrained by the
building or repair programmes which provided the
opportunities for investigation, with the result that
many questions which could be answered by larger scale
and better supported excavations remain unanswered.
The 1972 excavations in the north aisle

and porticus (Figs 5.1 and 6.8)
In 1972, a short rescue excavation was carried out in
the north aisle of the church, in the area of the old
Hylton Chantry, now known as the Cuthbert Chapel,
after the floor collapsed over a burial vault (plausibly of
the
Williamson
family,
the
builders
of
Monkwearmouth Hall, see Chapter 4 above, and Fig
6.8). The excavation was carried out under very difficult conditions, not the least of which was a power
strike, so that the evidence was accordingly gathered in
dark and hurried conditions! The vault (808) had cut
through all earlier features and deposits, and once its
walls had been isolated only a very small area of the
small trench, c 3m square, was available for excavation.
To the south of the vault were the foundations of a
wall (North Wall 1) running northsouth. It had been
cut by the section edge, but in the area excavated was
2ft (0.61m) wide and constructed with limestone
blocks set in yellow lime mortar. The eastern face of
the construction trench of this wall was clearly marked
by a line of undisturbed clay. Medieval and later grave
digging had destroyed all except modern stratigraphy
above the surface of the wall.
To the east of it was what appeared to be another
wall, 814, running eastwest, which had been cut by
the vault walls so that only its southern face survived.
Key to section drawings. YB

This was composed of small neat limestone blocks set
in yellow lime mortar, and in the east section of the
cutting these blocks were found to be grounded on
small limestone rubble of the same type as the
construction of NW1, but no direct relationship was
determined between NW1 and 814. The robber trench
of 814 was filled and levelled with deposits of brown
clay and mortars 800/806, sealed by an 18th-century
layer.
To the south of wall 814, the ground was very soft
and appeared to fall into a void, but this was too near
to the edge of the cutting to be investigated. This area
to the south of 814 was very disturbed by burials but
did include some distinctive Anglo-Saxon creamy yellow mortar (see Vol 2, Ch 26.2) and Anglo-Saxon window glass (see Vol 2, Ch 27.1), so it appeared that 814
JARROW6.QXD
62
19-01-2007
10:25
Pagina 62
Fig 6.9 North-facing section of trench 8601, showing

robbed wall trench of North Wall 1. YB
Fig 6.10 West-facing section of trench 8605 showing levels

above foundations 3411. YB
was either a reshaping of an Anglo-Saxon wall or had

superseded one. In such a small area it was difficult to
say more. This small investigation provided some evidence for an Anglo-Saxon structure to the north of the
present chancel, but it remained uncertain whether
wall NW1 continued further south. A wider context
was provided for this fragmentary evidence by further
rescue excavations in adjacent areas in 1986.
3013, was a layer of large unshaped stones (on average

0.20.4m in length), bedded in a clay matrix, and covered in clay and yellow lime mortar. It was not possible to say in this small area whether the stones were
foundations for a wall running northsouth or
eastwest, but in the clean clay deposits, 3012, above
the foundation was a band of small stones and mortar
which appeared to be robbing deposits, 30089 (see
Fig 6.9). There was no dating evidence associated with
any of these deposits, but a deep layer of disturbed
earth and burials containing 18th-century pottery covered these features. In the south face of this cutting,
when it was cut back, there appeared to be a wall foundation with similar yellow mortar running from east to
west under the chancel screen wall. Since the stones
3013 are on the line of NW1 and continued to the wall
underlying the chancel screen, this feature, 3013 and
its robbing are considered to be a continuation of
NW1.
Further north, in 8602, the cutting was excavated
to the top of a wall, 3111, and further investigated in
1987, when it was enlarged when a brick enclosure was
built to allow the wall foundation NW2/3111 to remain
visible. The foundation cut 3112, the brown weathered
surface of undisturbed natural yellow clay. It was
0.61m (2ft) wide and composed of irregular blocks set
in clay and capped by rubble with yellow mortar. The
The 1986 excavations in the Cuthbert

Chapel
These excavations were undertaken in advance of the
construction of an upper floor in the Cuthbert Chapel,
and the area available consisted of eight 1 metre
squares which were designated to hold the supports of
the new structure (Fig 6.8). The team of archaeologists from Durham University were directed by Tadhg
OKeefe, and they began the excavations after the
existing floor and its bedding had been removed by
workmen. A full account is lodged in the site archive.
Since this was indeed a keyhole excavation the results
could hardly be conclusive.
Foundations which could belong to the AngloSaxon phases were located in cutting 8601 which
abutted the base of the chancel colonnade and was
adjacent to the 1972 cutting. The earliest feature,
JARROW6.QXD
19-01-2007
10:25
Pagina 63
6: ST PETERS CHURCH
Fig 6.11 Detail of north wall 2/3111. See also Fig 6.8. YB
63
burials of both medieval and post-medieval date.

Burial earth had filled what may be a robbing trench
above a line of stones, 3411, of which about 0.30m
(1ft) were visible running east to west along the southern face of the cutting at a depth of 1.401.55m below
the existing floor (see Fig 6.10). These undistinctive
foundations cut clean natural clay, 3410, and could be
of Anglo-Saxon date, but the deposit of burial earth in
the putative robbing trench contained medieval window glass and there is the possibility that the wall was
this date. Nothing of early date was distinguished in
cutting 8606.
The earliest feature in trench 8607 in the south-east
corner of the chapel was a line of four roughly shaped
stones, 3613, running northsouth, clay packed, and
cut into the natural clay at a depth of c 1.131.28m
below the modern floor of the church. There was a
loose grey mortar layer, 3614, above them, and the
area above had been heavily disturbed by burials.
These foundations could therefore be of any date from
the Anglo-Saxon period onwards but in form they are
not similar to other Anglo-Saxon foundations on the
site, and may be assigned to a later date.
The only other feature which threw light on the
Anglo-Saxon church in these cuttings was an observation in trench 8608 where the south section allowed
the inspection of the footings of the north wall of the
chancel. This wall had a plinthed base, and was cut
into a layer of mid-brown clay with gravel and mortar
inclusions. Alongside the wall foundation was a band
of stony yellow mortar, 0.61.0m wide.
The chancel
Fig 6.12 Wall 3111 with steps or flags above. See also Fig 6.8
surface of the wall had been disturbed by the construction of what seem to be steps, 3108, and by
medieval burials (see Figs 6.11 and 6.12, and Chapter
11 below).
To the north again, the earliest feature in cutting
8603 was a layer of large rounded stones, 3209, tightly set in natural clay, some 0.951.15m below the floor
level. These could be wall foundations or an external
surface of uncertain date. This feature was overlaid by
brown mortary earth 3208, and there were a series of
compact and pebbly layers above, which could be
external surfaces. The lowest of these, like 3208, contained no datable evidence but the pebble layer above
contained early post-medieval material.
In the adjacent cutting, 8604, the only early layer
was a small patch of brown clay, 3312, overlying undisturbed natural yellow clay in the north-east corner; the
rest of the ground had been completely disturbed by
burials. Cutting 8605 was also deeply disturbed by
In 1970 repairs were made to the tiled floor of the

chancel of St Peters Church, and the work was
observed by the late Eric Parsons of the Department of
Archaeology, Durham University, whose notes on the
stratigraphy observed were of considerable value in
assessing the area (Fig 6.13). The author never saw
this excavation and only a plan and rough notes survive, together with finds. These suggest that an area 6ft
(1.83m) 16ft (4.88m) was stripped of floor tiles and
part of it examined to a depth of 5.5ft (1.68m).]. The
earliest feature recorded was a layer of clay and sand,
521, containing some human bones and mortar fragments. Into this layer had been inserted a grave, 520,
with a grave cover which can be dated 9th to 11th
century; its upper surface was recorded as 4ft 10in.
(1.47m) below the chancel steps. The cover had been
cut by three graves but was sealed by a level of limestone fragments, 517, which contained a baluster shaft.
This burial and grave cover is described and evaluated
in Chapter 8 below, and Vol 2, Ch 28). If the slab was
originally laid to be seen above the ground surface,
then the chancel floor level has been progressively
heightened in relation to the floor of the nave. Parsons
noted that the sandy clay level above the burial, 516,
sloped slightly from west to east.
JARROW6.QXD
19-01-2007
64
10:25
Pagina 64
Fig 6.13 Matrix of deposits in Parsons excavation trench at east end of chancel. PL
Summary
These limited investigations provide the only modern
record for the stratigraphy and associated features to
the north and east of the line of the Anglo-Saxon nave.
It has not been possible to phase some features closely, but it would seem plausible that the line of foundations, 3111, turned south in the area obliterated by the
vault to join the wall NW1/3013 (see Fig 6.8). Where
these cuttings were adjacent to the foundations of the
supporting wall for the chancel arcade, the underlying
stones with yellow mortar noted in the south sections
of cuttings 8601 and 8608 could indicate that there
had been an Anglo-Saxon wall on this line. How far
this continued east is uncertain, but Wall 814 could
represent an additional porticus, and the east end of the
chancel may once have been on a line just east of the
slab-covered grave 70/1. The importance of the discovery of a high status pre-Conquest grave in a central
position in the chancel, and also the baluster shaft
which was discovered in the debris above, could indicate that this area was inside the building and support
the antiquarian observations that the chancel and the
nave of the Anglo-Saxon church were all of one build
(see above, Chapter 5). What sort of terminus the
foundation 3613 indicates is impossible on such limited evidence to decide.
The area to the north of Wall 3111 could well have

been external in both the Anglo-Saxon and medieval
periods. The nature of the deposits in the northernmost
cuttings supports this theory. The layers of cobble-like
stones, 3209 and 3411, could then be part of an external
surface or path overlaid by a later burial ground; on the
other hand, since the observation points were so small,
they cannot be ruled out as parts of wall foundations.
The west end: nave and porch

Although, because of the fragility of the structure, initially permission was not given to excavate near to the
exterior walls of the church, a swift investigation of the
area immediately to the south of the south-west corner
of the porch (cutting 6605) was allowed in 1966 during
the course of the consolidation and restoration of the
Anglo-Saxon fabric (Fig 6.14). This area was subsequently extended southwards to 17ft (5.18m) south of
the porch. In the next year another small cutting (6701)
was allowed further east, although this had to be closed
before excavation was fully completed. Both areas
included disturbances which can be plausibly be attributed to the 1866 excavations of the porch, and destruction of buildings adjacent to the south-west corner of the
nave (see Fig 6.16 and Appendix B10 and 11).
JARROW6.QXD
19-01-2007
10:25
Pagina 65
6: ST PETERS CHURCH
65
Anglo-Saxon phase 1
The earliest feature revealed was a neatly constructed
wall, 1953, running northsouth for 13 feet before it
turned to the east, and measuring 1ft 9in.2ft
(0.530.61m) wide. Its fabric of rough limestone
blocks was close-packed and its surface was covered by
a bright yellow mortar. The south wall of the porch
appeared to override it: certainly there was no joint
between it and the porch wall, and it was either earlier
than, or contemporary with, the porch (Fig 6.15). In
the most southerly extension it could be seen that the
wall foundations had been cut into natural sand, 2211,
but where 1953 turned east, brown clay, 2201, was
packed along its northern edge. Below that a thin mortar skim, 2203, was noted on the surface of the natural sand, which seems to represent the construction
level of the wall.
Phase 2
Fig 6.14 Trench 6605, plan showing phase 1 and 2 walls

to the south of the porch to the point where they join wall 4.
RC/YB
The wall had been stripped down and widened to the

west by the addition of footings, 0.91m (3ft) wide,
1954, which were irregularly laid but covered with the
same bright yellow mortar as covered the surface of
1953: the stones of this addition also appeared to run
under the wall of the porch or to have been built with
it, but had been cut by the foundation of a postmedieval building butt-jointed to the west face of the
porch, the large slabs of which were being utilised to
support the builders scaffolding (see Figs 6.14 and
6.16). The eastern edge of 1954 coincided with a
straight joint in the superstructure, and the eastern end
Fig 6.15 Junction of 1953 and 1954 with south wall of porch showing investigation by builders in 1966. (IS)
JARROW6.QXD
66
19-01-2007
10:25
Pagina 66
of a long stone about 1.07m in length which may have

been part of a western continuation from the porch.
The foundations of 1954 also had been cut into natural sand (2211), which was exposed at the extreme
south-east of the extended cutting where the foundations stood to a height of c 0.60m.
At the southern end of the cutting there was a deep
intrusion which exposed the wide clay-bonded foundations, 1956, and which is interpreted as the robber
trench of a wall, Wall 4, rebuilt on the early foundations, and continuing southwards (see Figs 6.14 and
6.16), and which had been demolished in the late
18th/early 19th century as demonstrated by its
destruction layers, 1943 and 2195. This wall is discussed further below in Chapters 9 and 11. At this
point it is important to note that the rebuilding of Wall
4 (perhaps to be seen in the mortar line 2202) seems
to have only gone as far north as the turn eastwards of
Wall 1953.
It was not possible because of fears for the stability
of the tower to section these walls. Two carved Saxon
stones (Vol 2, Ch 28) had been found lying near to the
porch on the surface of the two walls. It is unfortunate
that the investigation of this important area was so hurried and that the area could not be enlarged, particularly in the area where wall 1953 turned eastwards.
The crucial deposits brown clay, 2201, 2204, and the
grey soil mortar and charcoal deposit, 1951 contained no datable evidence which might have indicated
when the annexe or porticus formed by the return of
1953 was pulled down or modified, although there was
a significant amount of burnt material in 1951. Since a
common layer of mortar covered the foundations of
both walls in the area near to the porch, either they
were built at the same time, and the odd practice of
building two walls adjacent to each other was a way of
retaining the structural identity of the southern chamber, when a wider wall (Wall 4) continued south (see
below, Fig 9.2), or there were two campaigns of building which used the same type of mortar and the same
constructional methods. This last supposition would
fit with the sequence already noted in the fabric survey.
A sequence which may be proposed is that there
could have been a western adjunct to the nave or
narthex, represented by wall 1953, which preceded the
porch construction; but when the porch was built, in
very much the same constructional style as the west
wall, then a wider wall, 1954, was built which overlapped the west front of the porch, and possibly also a
wall running westwards (see above, Chapter 5). This
wider wall then continued southwards beyond the line
of the early narthex as the enclosure (Wall 4). From the
limited excavation in this trench it was not possible to
determine whether the presumed narthex was adapted
into a southern porticus at that time, but the south door
from the porch, which opened inwards, must either
have opened into a chamber or have provided a way to
the secluded part of the monastery from the west end
of the church.
How long this porticus survived, or indeed whether

it was originally the westernmost of a series of porticus,
is a matter which is still uncertain (see below). To the
east of this cutting another small area, 6703, was
excavated swiftly and not to natural because of problems perceived by the church authorities as affecting
the stability of the tower. This cutting revealed a
robbed wall line 1997, running eastwest which contained both Saxon debris and pottery of 16th-century
date. This trench joined with a northsouth section of
walling with neatly coursed blocks, 2000, which in
construction type resembled the phase 2 building of
Wall 4, or the top of the tower. A case is made in phase
4 for the reconstruction of an Anglo-Saxon porticus
here.
It is unfortunate that the area to the east along the
presumed line of the porticus south wall was so badly
disturbed. A small area excavated in 1960 yielded evidence for Anglo-Saxon demolition of walling but this
could have derived from buildings further south, and
there was no sign of the eastwest line of the robber
trench. In the larger area opened in 1967, 6701, which
might have yielded a wall or robber trench for the porticus in the northernmost 0.91m (3ft) of the trench, the
ground surface had been levelled down and also deeply
disturbed by a modern drain which followed the line of
an earlier stone drain, 2106, and which was exactly on
the line any aisle or series of porticus might have followed (see Fig 11.19). These disturbances also meant
that the walls of the long gallery, Building B (Chapter
9 below) were likewise truncated just at the point
where their relationship to any presumed porticus or
aisle of the church was important to establish. In the
eastern part of the area examined in 1967 (6702), the
north edge of the trench was about 4.42m (14ft 6in)
from the south wall of the present chancel, and so
could not be expected to pick up the projected line of
the aisle/porticus. Nevertheless the small investigations
to the south of the porch did provide an important link
between the church and other monastic buildings to
the south.
The development of the AngloSaxon church of St Peter

If one considers the fabric and excavated evidence in
relation both to earlier documentation and current arthistorical opinions, a broad sequence of construction
can be determined, but it should be remembered that
only the west end can be considered from all these
viewpoints, and that there are no stratigraphic links
between the east and west ends. Moreover there are
only two construction dates before the 18th century:
the date of the first building (674/5) and the date by
which a western and eastern porticus had been constructed (before 716 for the reburial of Eosterwine).
The evidence provided by the early drawings
and architects reports are therefore crucial, especially
in the light of the limited and opportunist nature of
JARROW6.QXD
19-01-2007
10:25
Pagina 67
6: ST PETERS CHURCH
67
the excavations. Some of the crucial illustrations and

some quotations from the reports are provided in
Appendices A and B.
Phases 1 and 1a, 6745 (Fig 6.17)

The first phase of construction was the nave, in which
presumably all of the walls were, like the west wall,
constructed with limestone rubble bonded with
creamy mortar (as noted by the mason in 1966) to a
height of about 20ft (6.1m), and with megalithic sidealternate quoins. The nave was 22ft 6in. (6.86m) in
width externally and 18ft 6in. (5.64m) internally, and,
if it ended under the present chancel arch, was about
63ft 6in.64ft (19.3519.51m) in length. There was a
western entrance, D1, set with the same mortar as the
wall apparently, and it is considered by the present
writer that the formation of stonework seen by some as
an earlier offset door (Taylor and Taylor 1965, 442 and
fig 204) is not convincing as such. It was certainly a
feature that was clearly visible before Milburns
regrouting, but it could have been a relieving arch for
the existing opening (Fig 6.3).
The high west wall was lit by two single splayed
windows (W1 and W2; Fig 5.8 above). Below them
there may have been a western gallery supported by a
deep beam of L-shaped section, which was noted by
the mason in the 1966 repairs as about 17ft (5.18m)
above the ground and which extended through the
thickness of the wall. Although there are larger stones
at this point there is so much disturbance on the interior face of this wall, not least that which must have
occurred when the post-Reformation galleries were
added in the 18th century (Appendix B8), that it is
impossible to be certain about the phases of disturbance.
These high windows could have been repeated in
the nave walls, especially if there were side chambers
which would have been lit at ground level.
Unfortunately there is only excavated evidence for
chambers at the east and west ends (Fig 6.17).
Alternatively, as noted above (see Chapter 4 above),
Hunter Blair (1970) and Meyvaert (1979) suggested
that the reference to the glazing of the caenaculum and
porticus could imply that the church had an upper
storey, which, like a porticus, could be considered as a
separate entity and would need its own lighting. It is
difficult to decide, however, exactly where such a floor
should be placed. Hall (1931) had also presumed that
there might have been an upper storey lit by the two
west windows (and presumably also others in the nave
walls). In this role for the west windows, the lower floor
could have been lit by lower windows in the nave and
or aisles. An upper storey could have been entered
from a wooden internal staircase, which need have left
no trace on the fabric. The change of stone form visible on the exterior and interior of the wall just below
the level of the windows could indicate where the
upper floor had been inserted/removed, but see the
Fig 6.16 Robbed return of porticus wall where it met Wall

4 (context 1956). (IS)
caveat above. It is just possible, however, that the openings still visible very high up in the west wall, and visible on the east face on the north and on the west face
on the south, lit a much higher upper storey, but alternatively they may have functioned for the lighting of an
upper storey of the tower and so would belong to a
much later phase.
The 1966 key-hole excavations south of the porch
provided evidence that there was an early western
adjunct, slightly narrower than the present porch and
with a west wall (1953), which was later pulled down
and rebuilt in phase 2 when the porch was constructed
(Fig 6.16).
Whether or not the funerary porticus of St Peter to
the east of the altar, as described in the documents
(HAA, 18), was an integral part of the first church or
a later extension, is impossible to say. There is a variety of complex arrangements for funerary porticus in
Gaulish churches of that period (see Chapter 24
below; Duval et al 1991, 2001, 212), and if this were
a separate building then it could have been added after
the death of Benedict Biscop who was buried to the
east of the altar in 689 and hence in phase 2. The burial of abbots Sigfrid and Witmaer was originally to the
south of the sacrarium. If this means a sacristy then the
east end may have had porticus to the north and south
as in some early Kentish churches (Taylor and Taylor
1965, fig 62).
The church would have needed a sanctuary of some
sort in the first phase, for normal liturgical use.
Moreover the testimony of the early antiquaries that
JARROW6.QXD
19-01-2007
10:25
Pagina 68
Fig 6.17 Possible reconstructed plans of the Anglo-Saxon church. YB
JARROW6.QXD
19-01-2007
10:25
Pagina 69
6: ST PETERS CHURCH
the walls of the nave, chancel, and the broad wall

which crossed under the present chancel arch, were all
bonded together and that the chancel walls were only
slightly narrower than the naves is closely paralleled
in the form of the east end at Jarrow (Chapter 13). The
rescue excavations in the old Hylton chantry (now the
Cuthbert Chapel), in 1972 and 1986 provided evidence for a substantial eastwest wall (NW2) overlapping the current nave and chancel, with creamy yellow
core mortar and white facing, and a less substantial
wall running northsouth (NW1) which could have
formed part of a northern porticus (Fig 6.8).
If the original chancel was like Jarrow, and measured 5.49m (18ft) east to west, then it would have
been narrowly missed by the 19th-century antiquaries
and by Eric Parsons excavation in the chancel. The
empty tomb covered by a slab that he excavated was,
however, exactly in the centre of this postulated east
end of the church. A wall immediately to the east of the
grave not only ties in with the phase 2 enclosure to the
south (see Chapter 9 below), but possibly with the
cross wall noted by Robson as lying 14ft (4.27m) from
the east wall of the 19th-century chancel. It remains
then a possibility that an original short chancel was
lengthened in the Anglo-Saxon period.
There are only ambiguous archaeological features
which could indicate the presence of a southern porticus or sacrarium as mentioned in the documents. It, like
the western porticus ingressus, could have been a phase
2 addition, although a northern and a southern western chamber at the east end could have been part of
the original liturgical scheme of a narthex at the west
end and a prothesis and diaconicon at the east, on the
same model as the early Kentish churches with which
the founder would have been familiar (Clapham 1930,
267). We know that the first stone church was completed within the circuit of a year, and it is possible that
there was from the beginning the intention to add on
more chambers. Nevertheless it makes a reasonable
plan to have a north and south porticus in this first
stage, as at St Martins Canterbury (Taylor and Taylor
1965, fig 63), and some continental churches (see
Chapter 24 below).
If the main altar stood forward of the arch of the
sanctuary, as would have been customary (Taylor
1973), then there could have been a T-shaped east end,
and a porticus to the east, which would have been
entered by a central arch. The very broad wall across
the present chancel arch which was seen in the 19th
century would seem to be best explained as a step up
to a raised sanctuary. It should be remembered that
when Ceolfrid left for Rome in 716 he stood on the
step/s (in gradibus) where he was accustomed to read
(HAA, 25) for his farewell address to the community.
The steps referred to could of course be part of an
independent ambon or pulpit sited in the nave, but
both the anonymous author and Bede continue by saying that he gave the kiss of peace to all as he stood on
the steps, so they could hardly have been high.
69
The type of east end arrangement postulated here

could be further supported by the description of how
Benedict Biscop placed his painted panels brought
back from his fourth journey to Rome c 67980 (see
Appendix A3.2, and Chapter 4 above), with the scenes
from the Gospel story on the south wall, scenes from
the Apocalypse of St John on the north wall, and the
Virgin Mary and the twelve Apostles across the middle
from wall to wall (HAB, 6). One reasonable translation
would mean that the tabulatum or boarding encompassed the middle arch of the church and ran from wall
to wall, and a recent translation with these he intended to close off the chancel arch, suspending a construction of boards across from wall to wall (Pickles
1999, 246) seems to support Gems idea of an iconostasis (Gem 1990, 23; but see above).
A clergy bench for the senior monks and the abbot
is implied by the classicising lion armrests for seats
which have survived among the sculptural fragments
from the church, and to which on stylistic grounds one
would wish to attribute an early date, perhaps the work
of the Gaulish workmen themselves (see Cramp 1984,
12930, ills 66372; and Vol 2, Ch 28). Such seating
could have been east of the altar as at Reculver
Church, Kent (Taylor and Taylor 1965, fig 247), or
flanking it.
Since the standing fabric of the porch and west wall
of the church are so similar in type and since there is
no stratigraphic link between the east and west ends of
the church, it is not possible to be certain about the
relationships of the side adjuncts. It has been demonstrated that the west wall of the narthex or southern
porticus was plausibly of an earlier date than the present
porch, and it is assumed that the comparable wall on
the north would have been the same. One possible
reconstruction is shown in Fig 6.17; alternatively, the
phase 1 church could have had narrow clasping aisles
(see Jarrow), which were either open at the east end
or which could have terminated in two porticus.
Phase 2 (dated to before Eosterwines

reburial in 716; HAB, 8)
To this phase may be assigned the western porch
which, although not in bond with the west wall, was
built with the same type of rubble bonded with a
creamy yellow mortar and with the same megalithic
quoins as the first building phase. The sharply pointed
gable of its roof would just fit between the windows 1
and 2 in the west wall. The porch was entered at
ground floor level by an elaborately decorated open
portal and further ground floor doorways to the north
and south. There seems no need to presume that the
south porticus only would be built first because the
tomb of Eosterwine would preclude an opening to the
north (Pickles 1999, 81), since we do not know what
the tomb was like, or even if it was above ground. The
puzzling niche in the west wall foundations discovered
in the 1866 excavations (see Chapter 5 above) could
JARROW6.QXD
70
19-01-2007
10:25
Pagina 70
well have marked the position of his tomb, and the

stone coffin excavated in 1866, although apparently
reused, was below floor level.
Openings at the upper floor level include a squareheaded doorway in the north wall, a window (W4),
now considerably reshaped in the west wall, an opening W5 in the south wall and W3 in the east wall/the
west wall of the church, with possibly another opening
above (Figs 5.10 and 5.11 and Appendix A6.13; Hall
1931, 53 and 59). The level of the floor as entered
from the north door is lower than the vault, at about
11ft (3.35m) from the ground, and the roofs of any
side adjuncts would have to have been either at that
level, or could have enclosed it with pent roofs reaching S2. The bases of W3 and W4 are roughly at the
same level, and could accommodate high side
adjuncts, but W5 would be blocked.
A complex history of the porch, in which a onestorey porch was raised to a two-storey and then
reduced to a one-storey again, has been postulated
(Pickles 1999, 81), but this is not certain. Radfords
contention was that the two-storey porch was not the
first adjunct, but was preceded by one in which both
the porch and its lateral chambers were of one storey,
about 12ft high and with the saddle stone of the gabled
roof embedded in the wall of the nave at twenty feet
(Radford 1954c, 211). It is true that excavation has
shown an earlier western structure existed, but its form
is unknown, and the preceding complex sequences
have been derived from the present standing structure.
The difficulty is the small opening, now blocked, on
the south face, which would have been obscured by a
two-storey porch. In fact, since this opening is so unlike
other windows in the church one wonders whether it
had had some other function, and its date of construction as well as its date of blocking is inconclusive. The
masons evidence for a change in mortar type for the
north and south doorways and the wide frieze S2, as
well as the setting of the figure in the gable, might indicate that they are secondary features, but it is also a reasonable supposition that the frieze and the figure,
which was clearly seen as an inserted feature during
restoration (Milburn and Milburn 1931, 68), would
have been carved ex situ and placed when the building
was finished. There has also been substantial repointing and replacement in all of these areas. Much of the
postulated sequence of building depends on interpretations of the function of the frieze (S2), which does not
return on the north and south faces of the porch. Since
excavation has proved that the west face of the porch
jutted out slightly from the line of the lateral chambers
(ie the line of the original narthex) then this decorated
band may have been carved solely to break up the new
facade. Nevertheless there would seem to be evidence
for reroofing the side porticus, as Taylor pointed out,
and the height of the suggested hipped roofs of the porticus at about the level of S3 would fit all of the demonstrably early openings in the upper floor of the porch.
A possible scenario for these early developments would
be that the western porticus ingressus was built at some

time after Eosterwines death in 686 and designated for
the reburial of his bones, but the north and south porticus formed by dividing the original narthex were not
used for burial purposes, because the southern adjunct
provided a passage into the monastic area, while the
northern porticus was used to house a stair to the upper
floor of the one-storey porch through the square-headed door on its north face (Taylor and Taylor 1965, 434,
fig 204E, and 442).
The processional way, or closed court to the west
recorded in 1866 (see Chapter 5 above) may also be
assigned to this phase, and possibly the northsouth
wall, noted in an electricity trench 7.50m from the
west wall of the church by this writer in the 1980s, is
part of the complex, since it was of the same fabric and
mortar as the west wall and the porch. It is the frontage
of the wider porch which ties into the excavated line of
Wall 4 (see below) and forms part of the enclosure of
the monastery. The function of the upper chamber can
only be guessed at: certainly its east window could have
been used to gain a view of the main body of the
church, and since the chamber could be entered from
outside the church it could have allowed participation
in services by persons who were not members of the
community (see Chapter 24 below). It could also have
allowed anyone observing the liturgy from inside to
communicate with people outside in the western
courtyard through the west window, W4 (which in its
original form extended to the animal frieze).
The documentary sources quoted above are the
only evidence for an eastern porticus. Sigfrith, who died
c 689, was buried outside by the sacrarium to the south,
but Benedict Biscop who died four or five months later
(see Plummer 1896, 364, for a discussion of this difficult chronology) was interred in the church in the porticus east of the altar (see Chapter 4 above). This seems
to have changed the function of that area because in
716 the bones of Eosterwine and Sigfrith were disinterred and placed together in a subdivided (wooden)
coffin near to Benedict. If one supposes that the
creamy yellow mortar (type 2) belongs to phase 2
buildings, then the eastern adjuncts and north aisle
wall revealed in the 1986 excavations would belong to
this phase and not phase 1. The many small balusters
that exist among the loose stones in the church (Vol 2,
Ch 28) could indicate a multiplicity of openings either
like the entrance porch or like the windows, and so
could belong to either phase.
Phases 2 and 3
This phase was identified by Radford as that in which
the west wall of the nave was patched and a bold chamfered string course added (1954c, 211). This could
have been part of a much larger phase of reconstruction in the church and elsewhere, but it cannot be
related to any other works, nor can it be dated except
as later than the porch and earlier than the tower.
JARROW6.QXD
19-01-2007
10:25
Pagina 71
6: ST PETERS CHURCH
Phases 2 or 3 (Fig 6.17) could have included the

development of other small divisions at the east end,
and even along the nave as at Jarrow (Chapter 13
below), but the position of burials along such a projected line to the south of the church (see Figs 8.1 and
8.19) casts some doubt on this, unless one could
assume that these were burials from the first eighty years
of the life of the monastery. Only further excavation
could resolve this problem. There may indeed have
been a continuing process of adding small adjuncts in
the 7th to 8th centuries, since Ceolfrid is credited with
the ambitious construction of many oratories.
It is also possible that the east end was extended to
the length of the present chancel in phase 2a or phase
3, since while Wall VI terminates on the line of the postulated phase 1 chancel, Wall IX (see below, Fig 9.2)
terminates just east of the present chancel. This indicates the size of the liturgical enclosure in phase 3 on
the site, and it is important to note that excavations in
1960 to the east of the chancel indicated that there was
no extension to the church further east and that the
ground began to slope sharply at that point. The closely similar proportions of the Saxon east church at
Jarrow and the present chancel at Wearmouth have
been remarked upon (Cramp 1976b) although I would
no longer suggest that the Wearmouth eastern annexe
was the chapel dedicated to St Mary. This church
remains so far unlocated (see below).
Phase 4
There are no other distinguishable building phases of
the church of St Peter until the construction of the
tower on the porch foundations. This is quite distinctive in constructional form and mortar type. It is built
of coursed blocks of local sandstone and its junction
with the porch is clearly seen inside the third stage of
the present structure, associated with a band of
patched stonework (Fig 5.9), which must represent
some rebuilding of the gable of the west wall and the
roofing of the church. The quoins of the tower are
irregular and less massive than those in the porch, but
only the openings in the fifth, belfry stage are sufficiently elaborate for stylistic dating. This part of the
structure is much rebuilt (see Figs 5.4 and 5.10) and
although it is clearly like the undated Northumbrian
towers of other churches on sites with a pre-Conquest
history such as those of Bywell St Andrew,
Billingham, or St Mary Bishophill Junior, York one
can only note that they form a distinctive group which
has been remarked upon since the earliest antiquarian
studies, but which has been variously dated from the
9th to the 12th centuries (see Wenham et al 1987,
1436). It is considered here, since discussion of it is
most usefully related to the preceding text.
The dating of the tower has, throughout and up to
the most recent accounts (Cambridge 1994; Pickles
1999, 81), been pinned to historically probable contexts, and to stylistic affinities, although sometimes the
71
use of the same evidence has produced different conclusions. The dating of the porch on which the tower
rests can be accepted on both the documentary and
stylistic evidence of the carvings to be c 700. Pickles
would then see the tower constructed in two phases,
the first up to string course S4, as a defensive measure
against Viking raids...and the present belfry chamber
in the late 10th century. To support these ideas he
cites the quoins as being rather larger below the string
course than above it, but it is prudent practice to
diminish the weight of stones at the top of a tower
practice which seems here to be the work of the 19thcentury rebuilders. The second reason, that the barrel
vault is demonstrably inserted into the original fabric
and does not relate well to the first floor openings, does
not inevitably lead to the conclusion that it may well
have been inserted for protection against Viking
attacks (ibid). Nevertheless it could just as well have
been inserted after Malcolm of Scotlands firing of the
church in the early 11th century (see above, Chapter
4), or indeed at any time up to the 18th century. This
late date for the vault could be suggested on the
strength of Robsons drawing (Fig 5.4) since it is difficult to see how the lengthened west window of the
porch which he shows and which is still visible in the
fabric could have been cut, and would have operated,
if the vault were there.
Despite the fact that western and crossing towers
were well known on the continent by the mid-9th
century, modern architectural opinion would not support the idea that such towers could be found in the
north in the mid-9th century before the Viking incursions and settlements. The heyday of tower building in
midland and southern England is considered to be the
later 10th through the 11th century a time when the
north was thought to be impoverished and cut off.
As far as historical context is concerned, the earliest
that seems a possibility for the construction of all the
towers like Wearmouth is the period when the
Community of St Cuthbert with St Cuthberts body
was moved to Durham by Earl Uhtred, and a new
church with a western tower was built between 1020
and 1042 to house the remains. At the inception, as
Symeon tells us (HED, XXXVII), the project was supported by the Earl of Northumbria, Uhtred, The
entire population of the district which extends from the
Coquet to the Tees, readily and willingly rendered
assistance as well to this work [the site clearance] as to
the erection of the church at a later period; nor did they
discontinue their labours until the whole was completed. This is the only account we have of the gathering
of a labour force by the earl, who was based in York,
and the similarity of style between Bishophill York and
churches in the centres of population on the Tees, the
Wear and the Tyne, could be seen as indicating common patronage. The wooden church of Chester-leStreet was rebuilt in stone between 1042 and 1057, and
it is claimed that in Yorkshire by the 1050s stone
became the common medium for church building.
JARROW6.QXD
72
19-01-2007
10:25
Pagina 72
In this region, therefore, the mid-11th century might

be seen as a possible date for the erection of towers,
especially in centres of population where there were
already stone churches. Yet it should be remembered
that Symeon specifically said that the church at
Wearmouth was overgrown with bushes and brambles,
and roofless when Aldwin and his monks arrived there.
Whether the period since c 1070, when Malcolm king
of the Scots according to some traditions fired the
church, to 1075 was sufficient time for such dereliction
to set in is uncertain. The church tower both inside
and outside bears traces of fire.
The style of the belfry is unlike that at Jarrow, and
this has been taken by some commentators, such as
Gilbert (1947), and Taylor and Taylor (1965), to indicate that it is earlier than the time of Aldwins rebuildings in c 106883. As well as the differences in style
between the Aldwinian work in the monastic buildings
and tower at Jarrow and that of Wearmouth (see
Chapter 13 below), the distribution of other such towers in the north does not seem to conform to Aldwins
documented sphere of influence. Stylistically, Stocker
has argued a convincing case for St Mary Bishophill
Junior as dating to the third quarter of the 11th
century, although he tends to distance the York church
from the more northerly examples of such belfries
(Wenham et al 1987, 1445). Cambridge, while
accepting the common opinion that the base of the
chancel arch at Wearmouth is Aldwinian, supports the
idea that the tower should be seen as closely similar to
the Lincolnshire towers and so dated nearer to 1100.
The difficulty is to provide a historical context for the
building of these towers, and to explain the differences

between Wearmouth and Jarrow architecture.
It should be noted, moreover, that structures
formed from small neat sandstone blocks have been
identified elsewhere in the site as part of the Norman
site reconstruction, as for example in the widening of
the foundations of Wall 4, or in the reconstruction of
the southern porticus, and it must remain a possibility
that the tower dates, if not from the time of Aldwin, to
some later reconstruction before the cell was fully
operational. The tower is further discussed in the wider
consideration of the site (Chapter 24 below).
There are documentary references to other churches
at Wearmouth: Benedict on his fifth journey to Rome
brought back pictures of the gospels to encircle the
church dedicated to the Blessed Mother of God in the
larger monastery in monasterio maiore (HAB, 9). (This
is the only place where Bede mentions the relative size of
Wearmouth and Jarrow.) We do not know where St
Marys lay in the monastic complex, although it may
have stood for some time since in the medieval records
there is mention in 1360 and 1440 of the old church (not
St Peters) which was used as a hay barn (Raine 1854,
159 and 241). When Ceolfrith left for Rome in 716 he
said mass first in St Marys, and then in St Peters, where
he addressed the assembled brethren, and then visited
the oratory of the blessed martyr Lawrence quod in dormitorio fratrum erat, and from there went to the river
(HAB, 17; see above, Chapter 4). St Lawrences oratory
must then have lain to the south of St Peters, but since
we cannot identify the dormitory among the monastic
buildings to the south we cannot locate it more precisely.
JARROW7.QXD
19-01-2007
10:27
Pagina 73
7 The excavations south of St Peters Church

Introduction
The church, as described above, provided the touchstone for the recognition of Anglo-Saxon and later
medieval wall fabrics, but because of the constraints
imposed by the fragility of the tower was only effectively linked to the stratification of the main site in one
small area (6605).
Although the whole of Hallgarth Square (Fig 1.5)

was scheduled for clearance and redevelopment, the
area available for excavation at the beginning of the
exploratory campaign in 1959 was the Back Lane
immediately behind St Peters Church, and the yards
of houses around Hallgarth Square (all of which were
Fig 7.1 Hallgarth Square, Monkwearmouth, viewed from the north, 1961
73
JARROW7.QXD
74
19-01-2007
10:27
Pagina 74
Fig 7.2 Excavations in Hallgarth Square viewed from the north, 1961
Fig 7.3 Lunchtime viewing by the shipyard workers during site clearance
JARROW7.QXD
19-01-2007
10:27
Pagina 75
7: THE EXCAVATIONS SOUTH OF ST PETERS CHURCH
75
Fig 7.5 Trenches 6401 and 6402: Walls 4 and F viewed

from the north
Fig 7.6 Excavations in trench 6403, showing structure A

(1628), part of Building B and the well pit
still occupied; Figs 5.6 and 7.1). The first exploratory

cuttings: 59015903, 60016004 (Fig 2.1) were therefore very small, and had to be fitted in among the
buildings wherever the initial evidence from the engineers boreholes indicated that there might be deposits
(Appendix B15 and B16). In addition the deposits, at
this stage, were not well recorded by the largely
untrained volunteer work force. Cuttings 61016107
were excavated while the houses were being evacuated,
and it was not until 1962 that a sizeable area could be
opened (see Fig 2.1), although even then ruined buildings were still standing and it was not until 1966 that
the site was fully cleared and the scattered evidence
could be linked together (Figs 7.27.6). It has
inevitably proved impossible in the post-excavation
process to identify and integrate a number of contexts
from the pre-1962 excavations.
truncating the earlier stratification. On the other hand,

the dumping of ships ballast in the 18th and 19th centuries had in places raised the ground seven to ten feet,
2.15 to 3.05m (Lowe nd, 2). Many of the houses in
Hallgarth Square were cellared, which destroyed earlier
occupation layers and meant that in places the cellar
walls and 19th-century floors were grounded immediately on Anglo-Saxon or later medieval foundations (see
Fig 11.12). The infilling of the cellars after 1966 also
posed a safety hazard. Finally the nature of the subsoil
which in the western sector of the site was wet running
sand and in the east (Fig 9.15) was clay produced differential survival of evidence, whether of structures or
burials. Indeed, it is perhaps surprising that so many
traces of the Anglo-Saxon and medieval wall foundations survived, even though there was little survival of
floor or occupation levels before the 18th century.
Site structure and disturbance
Pre-monastic activity
Over the site as a whole the normal constraints of urban

excavation applied (see Chapter 2). Under the Back
Lane, which divided Hallgarth Square from the church,
ran sewerage, water, gas and electricity services which
had destroyed much of the earlier stratification. In the
eastern sector of the site, where there had been a gasometer (Fig 1.5) and later allotments, the ground was
deeply disturbed, although little of that area was excavated. It was evident from a preliminary study of the
graphic evidence that throughout the history of occupation, the natural slope southwards to the River Wear,
and eastwards to the sea had been gradually flattened
and blurred. Excavation demonstrated that the construction of the ornamental paths and outhouses of the
Jacobean Hall in the early post-medieval period, followed by the construction of the back lane, had levelled
a significant area to the south of the church, thus
The deeply disturbed nature of the site was a particular problem when trying to interpret artefacts which
were earlier than the historic date of the monastic
foundation but were not found in well stratified contexts. In the western area of the site, in particular in the
disturbed layers such as 1284 in trench 6401, 1230 in
trench 6402 and 1042/3 in trench 6901 there was a
scatter of prehistoric flints, the significance of which is
discussed in Volume 2 (Ch 34.3). There is however no
trace of later prehistoric activity, and the finds of
Roman pottery and coins came from the cemetery
where they could be in a secondary context.
Nevertheless there is a reasonable case to be made that
the earliest phases of the cemetery could have predated Benedict Biscops foundation and for that reason
the Anglo-Saxon cemetery is considered first, before
the discussion of the monastic buildings.
JARROW8.QXD
19-01-2007
10:31
Pagina 76
8 The Wearmouth burial ground

General introduction to the problems and methods of analysis of the
Wearmouth and Jarrow burial grounds
by Rosemary Cramp and Pamela Lowther
Both Wearmouth and Jarrow yielded the remains of
numerous burials: Wearmouth 178 in situ burials, the
vast majority dating to the Anglo-Saxon period; Jarrow
523 in situ burials spanning the Anglo-Saxon, medieval
and post-medieval periods. The reports on the burial
grounds for each site are presented chronologically
(Anglo-Saxon; medieval) as follows: an introductory
section with an explanation of the phasing, discussion
of the layout and organisation of the cemetery, description of grave types, followed by a summary assessment
of the evidence. The burial grounds will be put in wider
context elsewhere in the report (Chapter 24). The postmedieval burials, which were not the primary objective
of either excavation programme, are described only in
summary form (Chapters 11 and 22), although they
were recorded in the same manner on the site.
Catalogues of the In Situ (IS) burials and Not In Situ
(NIS) or inadequately recorded human skeletal remains
of all periods are found in Appendix D, while the
anthropological report and human bone catalogues are
in Volume 2, Chapter 36. For this report, NIS is used
to describe both additional bones recovered from the
fills of graves, and loose bones recovered during the
excavation of other archaeological deposits.
Palaeopathological and anthropological analysis of the
skeletal material from both sites was undertaken initially
by Dr Calvin Wells (for the 19611973 seasons) and subsequently by Dr David Birkett and Susan Anderson. The
intermittent nature of the two excavations over a long
period of time, and urgent pressure for reburial from the
church authorities led to most of the anthropological
recording being undertaken virtually immediately in
small batches, long before the site phasing had been
established; inevitably reburied material could not be reexamined. Not all burials could, however, be examined
by a specialist, notably the large group of burials from
Jarrow 1966. Following the untimely deaths of Drs Wells
and Birkett, it fell to Anderson to collate and amalgamate
all the usable data into a single report and catalogue. In
total, 122 in situ burials from Wearmouth and 257 from
Jarrow were examined by them, together with a large
number of NIS bones. The human bone report and catalogues for both sites appear in Volume 2 (Chapter 36;
Appendix D), where the specialist who identified each
skeleton is indicated. The physical anthropological data
will not be repeated in the structural part of the cemetery
reports but will be cross-referenced as appropriate.
Post-excavation analysis was inevitably structured by
the available data. Processes of detailed on-site recording
were considerably less evolved at the time of excavation
and, as a result, categories of information which would
now be expected as best practice are not available.
At both sites, skeletons were numbered from 1 each

year; this numbering has been retained as the basis of
all post-excavation records and the published catalogues (thus MK 67/5 is Wearmouth 1967, skeleton 5).
Extra, non-articulated human remains recovered
from the fills of graves have been numbered to indicate
this relationship eg JA 69/16-2 was a second individual recovered from the fill of Jarrow burial 69/16.
Loose or displaced bones found during the excavation of other deposits were subsequently also allocated numbers in the same sequence, for ease of
reference, since the remains of several individuals
could derive from a single archaeological context. In
some cases it was possible to suggest a correlation
between such bones and a nearby in situ grave; such
equations are indicated in the burial catalogues.
The individual site archives comprise site notebooks;
index cards for each burial, listing associated finds etc,
usually accompanied by a photograph; and site plans. As
part of the post-excavation study, pro-formas were compiled for both IS and NIS human remains, containing
information about the disposition of the body, description of any grave features, relationships to other burials
etc, and summarising the anthropological data (age, sex,
pathology). From these records, a Paradox database was
created and used to analyse the burial evidence, and this
formed the basis for the burial catalogues in Volume 2
(Appendix D). Data on each burial recorded by Wells is
available in the site archive; Bradford University is the
repository of the Calvin Wells archive.
At both sites, the common cemetery problem of disturbed burial earth made it difficult to distinguish the
outlines of graves rarely was a definite grave cut visible,
and the only certain way to recognise a burial in many
parts of both sites was by the discovery of the skeleton
itself. Graves were filled with essentially the same material as the deposits into which they had been cut (cf
Kjlbye-Biddle 1975, 89). In addition, there was extensive intercutting (eg in the western sector at Wearmouth)
and other post-depositional disturbance such as levelling
for later structural phases. As a result, it was rarely possible to establish accurate grave dimensions or depths as
excavated. Only where burials cut into the stiff natural
clay or clean wet sand, or through very clearly defined
horizons (such as the opus signinum floor of Jarrow
Building A) was it possible to establish more certain grave
cuts. At Wearmouth, a number of graves were defined by
the deposits of Anglo-Saxon building debris through
which they had been cut, but which had subsequently
been entirely removed. Burial preservation was in places
extremely poor, owing to the nature of the subsoil; in
some areas, it is likely that not all burials were detected.
76
JARROW8.QXD
19-01-2007
10:31
Pagina 77
8: THE WEARMOUTH BURIAL GROUND
77
Because of the excessively disturbed nature of the

deposits above the burials (see above), it was sometimes difficult to associate finds with particular burials
in several instances the records list finds as from the
area of skeletons x, y, and z, which cannot securely be
attributed to any of the listed burials.
Precise burial alignments were not recorded during
excavation. Where sufficient of the skeleton survived
(essentially from skull to pelvis), orientation was measured from the site plans, relative to site north, 270
representing a westeast alignment, parallel to the
church. For less complete burials from Jarrow, an estimate of their general orientation is included in the catalogue wherever possible.
The inability to give specific dates or even clear
phases for the cemetery groups on either site has hindered interpretation. The problem is particularly acute
for Jarrow, where the burials range in date from AngloSaxon to post-medieval. The majority of burials can
only be assigned at best to broad phase bands, based
either on TAQs provided by later walls or features or on
TPQs given by material incorporated in the fills. The
way the phasing and dating was established for each
site is explained further below. For the Jarrow cemetery, see Chapters 15 and 18.
post-excavation process a case was made for contamination by later features for all of these (see below). The
only undoubtedly medieval graves were a small number excavated inside the church, while a small group of
post-Dissolution graves lay outside the east end of the
church. These are considered in the medieval and
post-medieval sections relating to the church. The discussion which follows concerns those burials which
may be considered pre-Conquest.
While the total number of burials of all periods
recorded is 178 for Wearmouth and 523 for Jarrow, it
is rare that the whole cemetery dataset can be used in
the analyses presented below. Only a proportion of the
bodies were subject to anthropological examination,
and the picture is further complicated by differential
survival of the human remains in each grave. For each
trait discussed, the results are given as a percentage of
the total number of observations which were possible
for that particular attribute (see Boddington 1996,
34). For example, proportions of sexes rest on the
number of skeletons which were identified by the
palaeopathologists, while data relating to the disposition of the body, such as head, arm and leg position,
can be given only for those burials where the relevant
part of the body was preserved.
The Wearmouth Anglo-Saxon

cemetery
Number and condition of burials
by Susan McNeil and Rosemary Cramp

Introduction
In the area south of St Peters Church, burials were
encountered in all trenches apart from 6107 and three
small trenches close to the south-west corner of the
church (Fig 8.1), but although there were significant
differences in the density of burial in different parts of
the site, no definite boundaries were found for the burial ground. Because of the nature of the excavation in
annual campaigns and in small trenches there were no
large areas where burials were excavated in long
sequences. Equally, since burials occurred under and
between buildings, the cemetery was not assessed as a
discrete entity during the early seasons of excavation.
The evidence recorded represents an unknown percentage of the burial population of this site, although it
is clear from the phasing of the graves and from documentary references to where the members of the AngloSaxon community were buried (see above, Chapter 4)
that the area south of the church was an important part
of the pre-Conquest burial ground. The levelling and
disturbance of the ground surface in both the medieval
and post-medieval periods as well as by Victorian cellar
construction brought many of the pre-Conquest burials
near to the surface and contaminated the surface of
some grave fills as for example 69/6.
Four graves in the area south of the church contained medieval pottery, and one a single postmedieval sherd (see Vol 2, Appendix D), but in the
A maximum of 441 individuals of all periods are

recorded from the excavations. Of these 178 were in
situ burials, the remainder being NIS bones from grave
fills and disturbed areas of the cemetery. A degree of
overlap between the IS and NIS categories is likely;
some of the displaced bones are likely to derive from
incomplete but in situ burials. Only three-quarters of
the total number of skeletons were available for anthropological analysis by the various specialists (see Vol 2,
Ch 36). The ten IS and fourteen NIS individuals of
medieval or post-medieval date are not considered further here.
This leaves a potential total of up to 417 AngloSaxon individuals from the site, of which only 168
were in situ burials, the rest having been disturbed and
scattered by superimposed burials, by ground levelling,
and by the building and rebuilding which had taken
place on the site from the 7th to the 20th centuries. In
addition to the stratigraphic problems posed by such
disturbance, there were the usual cemetery excavation
problems already mentioned in the introduction.
The preservation of the skeletal remains is disappointing, particularly in the areas of wet running sand
on the west of the site. As Calvin Wells commented,
It is unfortunate, considering the importance and
potential interest of this material, that it has survived
in extremely poor condition. Few major skeletal
series are as consistently bad as this one. ... It is the
product of the chaotic state of the cemetery combined
with the malignancy of soil chemistry (Wells, archive
report).
JARROW8.QXD
19-01-2007
10:31
Pagina 78
78
Phasing and dating

It has proved very difficult to assign close dates for the
burials, although some sub-phasing within the postConquest period is possible. Burials have been phased
in a number of ways.
In relation to the buildings of phases 13
A terminus ante quem is provided for those burials that
are cut by walls which can be shown to originate in the
Anglo-Saxon period (Figs 8.2 and 8.3).
The only structure potentially of phase 1 which cut
a burial was Structure C, which disturbed 61/48, and
even here a case could be made for Structure C to
belong to phase 2.
The phase 2 enclosure formed by Walls 4, H, and
VI (Fig 7.4 and Chapter 9 below) cut a number of
burials. In addition, if any of the burials which lie outside its limits to the east, west, and south are of an earlier phase, then this building phase divided up a burial
area either from ignorance, indifference or design.
These walls, in their primary construction, are
undoubtedly of the Anglo-Saxon monastic period, and
have been placed in the second building phase,
although the burials they cut could be of the same date
as those cut in phase 1 (see Fig 8.3). Burial was particularly dense and disturbed in the western sector of
the site and there are fragmentary skeletons to the east
and west of wall 4, which have been clearly cut by the
wall, as well as in several cases by later burials. This is
particularly marked in the line that runs northsouth
from 59/1 to 66/25 and 41. In the eastern sector, where
walls H and VI lie, there are few burials, but two
crouched inhumations (69/9 and 10) are cut by Wall
VI, and burials occurred to the east of this both as
intact graves (62/33, 71/15 and 69/8) and disturbed
bones; the last mentioned being cut by Wall F. These
burials, because of their location and burial position,
could be of a different phase from those in the west. All
of these should have been, at the latest, earlier than the
building of the church porch and construction of the
enclosure, and the possibility that some are pre-monastic cannot be ruled out when consideration is given to
the associated objects in the graves (see below).
In the western sector many burials were disturbed
or overlaid by the construction trenches of Walls 2 and
3a, which are late Anglo-Saxon/early medieval in date
(Fig 8.2). This provides a pre-Medieval 1 horizon for
these burials, but with the strong supposition, since
they line up with others clearly pre-Conquest in date,
that these are also of that period.
Terminus post quem dating
It is not surprising in the two hundred years of the
monastic, and three hundred years of the post-monastic, phases before the refounding of the monastery that
some burials cut through earlier features, which may
Fig 8.2 Burials cut by Anglo-Saxon phase 2 walls. (IS)

have become overgrown and invisible. The central
cobble path was cut by burials in several places (Figs
8.3 and 9.6), for example by 66/55, 66/58, 66/59, and
in the central area where the cobbles were set in a decorative scale-like formation, the path may have been
reshaped to cover graves 62/20 and 62/21.
Since this cobble path was, however, obliterated at
the south of the site by the phase 2 and phase 3 AngloSaxon buildings, parts of it evidently went out of use
within the monastic period. Likewise there is especially
dense burial in the floor of the mortar mixer (Figs 8.13
and 9.5), which is odd considering how hard it must
have been to cut through, but this is a feature which,
having fulfilled its function, could have been very swiftly covered over and forgotten (see below). It is possible
that other structures were visible, but ruined, in the
post-monastic period: there is a clear line of burials
inside Building B, some of which 69/1, 2, 3, and
71/10, 11, 12, 13, all male or unsexed, and with grave
fills which are clean except for mortar traces could
have been interred within this building when it was still
in use or when abandoned but perhaps still roofed.
Other burials 64/15, 30, and 62/3, which are female,
as well as 62/3 and 4 which are male were cut through
building debris, and so presumably were buried when
the building was in ruins. Within the central area of the
excavated site another group is noteworthy in its relationship to the phase 3 structures in the southern range,
since these burials (71/24, 25 and 26) may have been
specifically marked when a building was constructed
above them (see grave markers, below).
Phasing by intercutting
Many of the burials in the north of the site were found
to overlie or to cut one another, implying burial over a
long period of time, or shortage of space as the enclosure became filled with buildings. Among those burials
which are recorded as superimposed or cutting others
(see Vol 2, Appendix D), some may have been interred
at close intervals in time, and could have been inserted
JARROW8.QXD
19-01-2007
10:31
Pagina 79
79
Fig 8.3 Skeletal distribution: early graves (ie buried before the collapse of the monastic buildings). RC/LW
into a known grave, for example 62/9 above 62/35, and
62/7 above 62/38. Some could be family graves, as when
two infants, 71/20, lie on the pelvis of 71/18, a male. On
the other hand some burials could have been interred
after a considerable lapse of time, when the location of
the earlier grave was forgotten. It is interesting, however, to note that several of the secondary burials, such
as 69/7, 69/5, and 67/16 contain the sort of building
debris which could indicate that they were buried after
the collapse of the Anglo-Saxon structures (see below).
Phasing by grave contents
These can be sub-divided into those objects which are
part of the original deposition of the burial (including
coffin fittings), and finds which derive from the
deposits through which the burial has cut, and only in

rare cases is it difficult to decide to which category the
material belongs. Datable artefacts associated with
burials were relatively rare at Wearmouth. One of the
sherds of Roman pottery was associated with 69/21
and may have been placed in a grave deliberately,
although it may equally have been part of the deposit
through which the grave was dug (see below).
Of some significance is the fact that three coins, one
Roman and two Saxon (see Vol 2, Chs 30.1 and 30.2),
were found associated with disturbed burials 62/8,
61/8 and 61/18 respectively. While the exact location of
the coins in relation to the skeletons was not possible
to establish, since all of the burials were fragmentary
and had been disturbed, their presence near the bodies
might suggest an early date for the burials. With the
JARROW8.QXD
80
19-01-2007
10:31
Pagina 80
Fig 8.4 Matrix of deposits in trench 61012, showing superimposition of skeletons under walls. LB
disturbed bones of 61/18 was also found part of a horse

skeleton (Figs 8.15, 8.16; Geake 1997, table 6.1); similarly a boars tusk found with 66/54 which could also
be a remnant of pagan practice. The displaced skull in
trench 6004 (context 1988) which had vestiges of gold
thread on the left side of the head (see Vol 2, Ch 31.1)
is similarly also of an early, possibly 7th-century date,
although the presence of such thread is more a sign of
status than of date.
Bronze pins uncovered with a number of burials
have been interpreted as shroud pins (Vol 2, Ch 31.2).
Generally they were undecorated, with small round
heads, and are associated with tightly packed, parallel
burials, such as 64/14 or 66/55, but they are not susceptible to precise dating or phasing (see discussion of
body position below). Some iron objects identified in

graves, such as a fragment in the chest of 61/7, could
have been the cause of death of the individual, but
most ironwork seems to be part of coffin fittings.
Coffins and containers

The most common finds associated with the burials
were indeed nails and iron fragments which seem to be
part of the containers for burial. Groups of small coffin studs (Fig 8.17) were found in association with a
few individual burials, for example 64/21 or 66/23, and
many more were scattered in the disturbed burial
earth. There is some evidence that these studs were
plated and therefore probably used for decorative
JARROW8.QXD
19-01-2007
10:31
Pagina 81
81
Fig 8.5 Distribution of late graves (ie buried after the collapse of the Anglo-Saxon buildings but before the completion of the
post-Conquest rebuilding). RC/LW
purposes on burial containers. Whether such a feature
is an indicator of date as opposed to status is impossible to tell, but these small studs occur, like the coins,
in the disturbed lowest level of graves in the western
sector of the site.
The type of simple plate fittings and hinges for
coffins (Vol 2, Ch 31.7) may also indicate a date in the
7th/8th century for the burial with which they have
been found, but they could equally be a sign of status.
Grave fills
The nature of the grave fills have sometimes proved
useful in providing a terminus post quem: for example,
many graves contained building materials such as
Anglo-Saxon plaster, mortar, lead and glass, and this,

if the material was in small quantities, certainly implies
burial after the construction of the Anglo-Saxon buildings. When, however, the quantity of such material was
significantly greater in the grave fill, and moreover
included architectural fragments, most commonly of
baluster shafts or string courses (such as in burials
62/9, 64/25, 66/1 and 66/7), it is reasonable to suppose
that the burials took place after the Anglo-Saxon buildings had been ruined or demolished. It may be significant that such graves are most commonly in the centre
of the site.
Very little pottery was found in the grave fills. Burial
69/21 probably contained a single Roman sherd. No
Anglo-Saxon pottery was recorded with the burials,
JARROW8.QXD
19-01-2007
10:31
82
Pagina 82
but pre-Conquest pottery is relatively scarce over the

whole site. Medieval pottery was found in the area of
certain graves (61/2, 61/3, 61/10, 62/3), but this has
been interpreted as contamination, as mentioned
above.
Body position
Orientation
All of the Wearmouth pre-Conquest skeletons are orientated roughly westeast, with the head to the west, in
contrast to the post-medieval infant burials east of the
church. There are minor differences of alignment
between 250 and 285, and there is a notable peak
around 270 (Fig 8.7), and this may have significance;
certainly it is noticeable that some of the superimposed
burials, such as 69/6, seem to be more carelessly disposed.
Disposition
Of the 117 pre-Norman skeletons whose burial position could be determined, 30 (25.6%) were supine and
79 (67.5%) on their right side (Figs 8.6 and 8.8). It is
possible that more were supine, judging by the pelvis
position of some of the partial bodies in the western
sector. Only two burials (1.7%) were buried on their
left side: 64/17 and 66/12. Six were prone (5.1%):
64/20, 64/22, 66/66, 67/8, 69/6, and 69/18. Two of
these latter had stone settings or markers (see below).
In the remaining cases, the position could not be identified.
Almost all of the inhumations were extended with
the exception of a small group of three (69/8, 69/9 and
69/10) at the extreme south-east of the site which were
buried crouched, in almost foetal positions. Many data
on arm position were missing because skeletons were
incomplete, especially among the right-side burials. In
this latter group, the left arm was almost always found
Fig 8.7 Alignment of Anglo-Saxon burials. PL
Fig 8.6 Burial positions. PL

in front of the body, with the hand in front of the pelvis
(Fig 8.8). The right arm was often not visible, but in
the majority of such cases must have been alongside
the body, as were half of the distinguishable cases.
Almost a third of right arms were placed in front of the
pelvis; in a few cases the left and right hands appeared
to be clasped together. The majority of supine burials
had their arms placed by the side of the body (Fig
8.10); a smaller number had both hands placed on the
pelvis or one hand (usually the right) by the side and
one on the pelvis or across the front of the body (Fig
8.11). All three of the more complete prone burials
had the arms beneath the body, hands in front of the
pelvis. In most cases the legs were together or less commonly crossed, see for example 66/55 and 66/59. This
last had a shroud pin in the grave, suggesting that such
a configuration of the bones could indicate shrouding,
see below. The heads of the right-side burials were all
lying on the right side, as would be expected. Most of
the supine burials also had the head turned to the
right, but there was more variability. Four burials had
heads facing straight upwards: one had the head
detached, in another burial the head had fallen forward
as if the body had been buried in a seated position.
Seven supine burials had the head turned to the left.
The supine burials deserve more attention. The two
burials where coffin stains were identified were supine
(Fig 8.12). A significant number of supine burials were
in the prime position near to the church. Only three
JARROW8.QXD
19-01-2007
10:31
Pagina 83
Fig 8.8 Right-side burials 62/3 , 62/4, 62/5: Late Saxon

burials in shallow graves covered by debris of Anglo-Saxon
buildings. (IS)
Fig 8.9 Burial 61/60: bone movement. (IS)
Fig 8.10 Burial 71/18: supine burial with foetus on pelvis. (IS/MS)
83
JARROW8.QXD
19-01-2007
10:31
Pagina 84
84
This point is considered further below. The northwestern area, intensively used for burials, contains a
large number of female inhumations, many superimposed and lying below Saxon walls (Walls 4, 3, 2). A
few burials lay near to the south wall of the church.
The implied early date for this part of the cemetery,
closest to the church entrance, is discussed further
below. Unfortunately none of the burials in 6401 or
6402 were sexed, although the density of burials is
considerably lower in these trenches.
Age distribution
Fig 8.11 Burial 66/12: supine burial with right arm

crossed on pelvis. (IS)
The in situ burials for which data are available comprise

107 adults and 53 sub-adults (of which there were 11
adolescents, 25 children and 17 infants). There seems
to be no segregation in the Anglo-Saxon cemetery
according to age. There is a fairly even distribution of
sub-adults across the site. Most were discrete burials,
although a few infants were buried with adults; eg
71/19 is a sub-adult later inserted into the adult grave
of 71/22. Others may also have been especially inserted on top of a family burial, eg 64/22, which is much
smaller than the grave cut for the primary burial 64/26.
There is a large number of sub-adults (23) to the east
of Building B, which could be explained by the admission of boys at an early age to the monastery.
Groups and rows
supine burials were female and all were the lowest burial in what appeared to be multiple graves. The remaining fourteen adults were male, giving a ratio of female
to male of nearly 1:5, albeit from a small sample. (The
proportion of males and females among right-side
burials is close to the overall male:female ratio for the
cemetery.) Eight sub-adults were supine. None of the
supine burials belonged to the upper levels or had late
material in their graves. In summary, then, the supine
burials could be part of the earliest burial population in
the graveyard and it is possible that this position, especially when the body is parallel sided, could indicate
coffin burial.
Cemetery organisation
Distribution of sexes (Fig 8.18)
Of the in situ adult burials which could be sexed, there
were 56 (63.6%) males (including three adolescents
who were probably male), and 32 (36.4%) females.
The proportion of female burials in the cemetery confirms that there had been a lay cemetery for the use of
the surrounding community. Here, however, the phasing of the cemetery is crucially important for the interpretation: the majority of the female burials lay west of
Building B, reinforcing the proposition that the monastic community, which could have included many subadults, was buried separately to the east (Fig 8.19).
The cemetery at Wearmouth does appear, in the main,

to be orderly, organised in rows running east to west in
the north, and smaller groups to the south. There is a
rather spurious appearance of rows running
northsouth caused by the building lines which cut
through the cemetery in that direction. The row of
burials down the centre of Building B may have been
inserted while the gallery was standing, as already
noted above. The group of burials in 7402 (74/17)
could well be a family, since it includes a male, a
female, an infant and children, while the odd isolated
curled or crouched burials (69/810) may represent
sporadic burials of a different, possibly native British
tradition (OBrien 1999, 69).
It is possible that there may have been cobbled
paths or patches of pebbles dividing up the cemetery at
some period, since many small rounded beach pebbles
were found, particularly in the centre of the enclosure, some of them in graves which have been assigned
to the later pre-Conquest phases. Alternatively, some
of the pebbles may have covered the graves rather than
marking paths between them.
Grave forms and burial modes

Where grave cuts have been identified, their shape varied considerably. Some were very compact, only just
large enough to take the body, such as that of 74/5,
while others were much larger than the body, as for
JARROW8.QXD
19-01-2007
10:31
Pagina 85
85
Fig 8.12 Burial 61/59: grave with coffin stain. (IS)

example 66/59. Very few graves were cut as rectangular pits with straight sides like 67/16. Some were subrectangular with slightly rounded corners, as 74/3, and
the remainder were a variety of irregular forms, possibly the result of the features through which they were
dug. For example, 66/55 cut the Saxon cobble path,
which clearly affected the shape of the grave.
Many of the skeletons appear to have been buried
in shallow graves (Fig 8.8). In the few places where the
Anglo-Saxon ground surface survived, as in the centre
of the enclosure around the cobble path, the depth
could be estimated. Here, the depth seems to have
been c 0.5m, and no grave depth, where measurable,
seems to have been more than 0.75m.
Coffins and shrouds
Evidence of possible coffined burials was noted at
Wearmouth in some 22 examples, either from the survival of nails or coffin fittings (as noted above) or from
wood staining; in one case (61/59) a coffin shape survived as a distinct shape in the wet sand (Fig 8.12). It
had a slightly tapering form with a squared-off west
end and what might be a subdivision. Unfortunately,
the east end was concealed by the trench edge. In a few
cases the side of a coffin was indicated by a row of nails
or studs, but most of the metalwork was disturbed.
The iron coffin fittings (Vol 2, Ch 31.7) cannot always
be linked to particular inhumations, since the two
areas in which they were found are particularly disturbed parts of the cemetery, but where possible their
distribution has been plotted. There is a marked cluster in the south-west sector of the excavated area.
As well as the dislocation of bodies caused by intercutting and the wall construction trenches, bone
movement has been identified in a number of burials,
which could support the evidence for coffins or
wooden covers which would have allowed the bones to
move during the rotting of the corpse, for example
61/60 (Fig 8.9). However, Boddington (1996, 35) considers, from the Raunds evidence, that tightly parallel
burials were in coffins, and that seems to be so here
where there is coffin evidence. The presence of
shrouded burials is suggested by the number of skeletons which lay in a very compact position with the
bones closely parallel (Boddington 1996, 48), as well
as by the evidence of shroud pins in two graves (66/58
and 67/20).
Marking of graves and stone arrangements

Regrettably, when one considers the important monastic phase of the site, no burials were found with associated inscribed grave-markers, and the only name
stone recovered was in a secondary context, having
been broken and reused (Vol 2, Ch 28; Cramp 1984,
1234, ill 600). Similarly, very few plain headstones
were found in the burial ground. Burial 66/63 had a
single headstone, and 64/22, which cut into the mortar
mixer, was interred with a rectangular stone upright
against the skull (Fig 8.13) and a stone under the skull,
suggesting an uncoffined burial. This appears to have
been a secondary burial inserted into an existing grave
since it overlay 64/26. Sk 67/8 had both head and footstones, as well as stones over the pelvis and right arm,
suggesting that this was an exceptional burial. It is also
noteworthy that both it and 64/22 were prone, and
since there are only six probable and certain prone
burials in the cemetery, and another one of these
(69/18) also had stones over the feet, it is possible that
these burials had been specially marked out because
they were significant, or for medical or superstitious
reasons although the pathological analysis revealed
no evidence for disease.
Near to the church there is a complex relationship
between some burials and the truncated stone features,
Structure V/2157 and 2170, which together might
have formed a burial enclosure. Skeleton 67/9 fits very
JARROW8.QXD
86
19-01-2007
10:31
Pagina 86
rough square of large stone blocks, 650 (Fig 8.14),

covered with a spread of small cobbles and pebbles,
638. The cobble spread covered all five burials, two
males and three sub-adults, but the lower blocks only
covered 71/26 and 71/24. The cobbles may have been
the remains of a cairn or may simply have been used to
level up the ground surface. The ground in this area is
liable to subsidence and it is likely also that the ground
surface would sink as the bodies decomposed. It is possible that this marking was made some time after burial, when the exact position of each body was
unknown. This grave group was later covered by a
building and could possibly have been marked out or
levelled off at that point (see below, Chapter 9).
Some stones in the graves may have been quite fortuitous, for example 62/7 had stones over the skull,
chest and legs, but the grave had cut through ruined
Anglo-Saxon buildings and the fill consisted mainly of
mortar and building debris. In other graves the placing
of stones seems to have been intentional. In burials
59/04, 62/09, 64/22 and 66/61 the head was resting on
a stone pillow, and in some twenty-one cases there
were stones propping up or outlining parts of the body
(see Vol 2 Appendix D, and Fig 8.11). These stones
may, however, have also served as supports for a wooden cover to protect an important burial (Boddington
1996, 3843) especially as they are not tall enough to
project above the ground surface.
Fig 8.13 Burial 64/22: grave with plain headstone marker, cutting through the mortar mixer (structure A). (IS)
neatly with its head against V, but the same wall had
decapitated two (presumably earlier) male burials
67/17 and 20; while 67/16, a later female burial, seems
to have utilised some of the stones from the south wall
of the little enclosure as a grave edge, indicating that
the enclosure was no longer in use.
What seems to be an important tomb, which
although empty was covered by a grave cover, was
found during rescue excavations inside the chancel in
1970 (see Chapter 6 above). Its position was directly in
the centre of the postulated east end of the early AngloSaxon church (see Figs 6.8 and 9.33) The grave, 70/1,
had been dug into brown clay (521) and on the surface
it was outlined with ashlar blocks supporting a slab
with a long-stemmed cross, carved in low relief (Vol 2,
Ch 28, MS3). The head of the cross was at the west
end of the grave, and this style of cruciferous gravecover seems to be of 9th- to 11th-century date (Cramp
1984, 1534, pl 152, 797). Covering the slab was a
layer of limestone building rubble (517519), about
0.15m in depth, with no datable components except
for an Anglo-Saxon baluster shaft and some glass fragments that may be post-Conquest. The significance of
this tomb is discussed below.
One grouping of burials which seems to have been
specially marked was located in the south of the site
(trench 7101). The graves 71/2426 were covered by a
Discussion and summary

Although the burials excavated represent an unknown
percentage of the Anglo-Saxon burial population, there
do appear to be marked spatial and temporal differences in the burial patterning. Boddington has stated:
A characteristic of the majority of pagan
and final phase Anglo-Saxon cemeteries is that very few graves cut earlier interments. Where multiple burial does
occur in these cemeteries it is isolated
groups of two or more individuals buried
successively, on rare occasions simultaneously, above or closely adjacent to each
other. In contrast, the cemeteries of
medieval churches, and at an earlier period the cemeteries of minsters, exhibit a
complex pattern of intercutting which
reflects repeated clearances of areas of the
graveyard and the reuse of limited consecrated ground by successive generations
(Boddington 1996, 49).
At Wearmouth there are isolated groups and areas of
dense intercutting. The western and north-western
areas had the most dense concentration of inhumations
with many intercutting and superimposed burials. The
density of burial decreased markedly to the south and
east of the site, where burials were isolated in small
JARROW8.QXD
19-01-2007
10:31
Pagina 87
87
Fig 8.14 Stone setting above multiple graves 71/2426. (IS/MS)
Fig 8.15 Burial 61/18: disturbed grave above burial of

horse bones. (IS)
Fig 8.16 Horse bones below burial 61/18. (IS)
groups. Moreover only five burials were identified east

of Wall VI, and at least two of these were earlier than the
construction of the wall. The evidence, then, would
seem to imply that the western area was the main burial
focus, although it is not certain for what community.
The earliest burials on the site could have been in a
thin spread of individual graves or small groups, which
may have included some supine interments in the
lowest levels at the western and central sectors of

the centre of the site, as well as the isolated crouched
burials in the eastern sector, which could be continuing a prehistoric tradition (OBrien 1999, 69 and 185).
This may indicate burial on the site before Benedicts
foundation, but only radiocarbon dating would
endorse or refute this supposition. The western sector
of the site, closest to the church entrance, could
JARROW8.QXD
88
19-01-2007
10:31
Pagina 88
Fig 8.17 Coffin nails with wood attached. TW
perhaps have been the earliest and most popular burial

area in the monastic phase. It is here where there is
most displacement of earlier by subsequent burials,
where early coins and metal-mounted coffins have
been found, and where there are the greatest number
of female graves in what may be thought of as a primary context (see Figs 8.1 and 8.18). The cutting
through of the earliest levels in this area by enclosing
walls prompts the question as to whether the builders
did not know of the existence of the burials or whether,
if this was a lay cemetery, it was initiated just before the
monastic foundation or grew up in the first decade or
so after the building of phase 1 of St Peters Church,
but before the porch and Wall 4 were built and the site
reorganised. There is nothing to indicate by orientation or associated finds that burial in this area was preChristian, although the Roman coins, Roman pottery
and boars tusk and horse jaw in the graves could indicate early Christian practice when there was still a tradition of depositing goods with the dead, a practice
which continued to c AD 700 (Geake 1997, 1379). It
is possible that this area continued in use as a lay burial ground after the construction of Wall 4, but there
has been little excavation west of that feature.
Building B seems to have constituted a marked division in the cemetery from its inception. To the east of
it, all of the primary burials which could be sexed were
either male or sub-adult, with the exception of a row
near to the church, including the well-marked burial
67/8 (Figs 8.18 and 8.19). It is possible, then, that there
may have been an area near to the church that was
of special importance and reserved for significant lay
people, and it should be noted that the only example of
gold thread (Vol 2, Ch 31.1) came from a disturbed

burial in that area. It is obvious from the female names
on grave-stones from Lindisfarne that some women
were not excluded from monastic burial grounds
(Cramp 1984, 202, pl 200), and notable persons may
have had the privilege of burial close to the church. For
a discussion of the position of the burial ground in the
whole complex, see Chapter 24 below.
On the whole the open area to the south of the
church could, in the Anglo-Saxon monastic phases,
reasonably be interpreted as the burial ground of the
monastic community. It is an area which has produced
the only inscribed name-stone, albeit not in situ, a
wooden coffin (Fig 8.12), in form like that of St
Cuthberts (Battiscombe 1956), and, as noted in
Chapter 4, it is recorded that two of the early abbots
were translated into the church from a burial place near
the sacrarium to the south. It is possible that the cemetery did extend east of wall VI into areas which were not
excavated, since a pre-Conquest grave-stone apparently in situ and inscribed in runic script with the name
Tidfirth was described as having been found in 1834
at a great depth, about 20ft (6.1m) from the south side
of the church in an area of what is called the Manor
House (Hodges 1905, 213; Cramp 1984, 123). The
style of carving of this stone appears to fit most reasonably into the later 9th to 10th century, and there does
seem to be a more random spread of burial over the site
in the post-monastic, pre-Conquest period. This evidence for post-monastic but presumably pre-Conquest
burial, for example the line inside Building B (a building which was cleared away and played no part in the
medieval monastic plan), is important in assessing the
JARROW8.QXD
19-01-2007
10:31
Pagina 89
89
Fig 8.18 Burial distribution by age and sex. RC/LW

use of the site in the later Anglo-Saxon period, since
this could mean that the lay community around continued to bury their dead near to their old minster. At this
stage the predominant rite seems to have been burial on
the right side, often with stone settings.
The fact that the only grave-cover in situ was late in
date (late 9th to 10th century) and was found in the
chancel of St Peters Church in the area postulated for
the early funerary porticus, also points to a continuity of
activity at the site, especially since a case could be
made that this stone marked a particularly important
grave which had been emptied. It is, therefore, of interest to note that the Hyde Abbey Register recorded that
the bones of Benedict Biscop, who was initially buried
to the east of the altar at St Peters (see Chapter 4
above) now rested at Thorney near Peterborough
(Birch 1892, 91), and William of Malmesbury records

in Book IV of the Gesta Pontificum Anglorum that in the
process of Bishop Aethelwolds refounding of Thorney
c 964, the bishop purchased the body for a great price
(Hamilton 1870, 329). The pillaging of the bodies of
the important saints from Wearmouth and Jarrow is
well illustrated by the story of the acquisition of Bedes
bones by Durham (Chapter 4 above), but the less wellknown account of the acquisition of Benedict Biscops
body casts an interesting light on whomsoever were the
curators of the church and graveyard in the 10th
century.
Despite the deficiencies in the cemetery record, this
population, together with that from Jarrow, is one of
the few excavated from early church sites in Bernicia,
and has already proved important for comparison with
JARROW8.QXD
90
19-01-2007
10:31
Pagina 90
Fig 8.19 Distribution of female burials. RC/LW

other groups (Anderson 1989; Sherlock and Welch
1992; Geake 1997; OBrien 1999). Particular attention should be drawn to the generally healthy state of
the early community, which was first pointed out by
Calvin Wells (archive report) and is further considered
by Anderson in Volume 2 (Chapter 36). The sequence
of burial modes as identified is not as strikingly different as at Whithorn (Hill 1997), but there are interesting anomalies such as the supine burials, the
right-sided burials (compare Jarrow, Chapter 15

below), and the apparent zoning of female and lay
groups, which may be paralleled elsewhere in the
future. Clearly in the monastic phase, the cemetery
was an important element in the topography of the site,
and perhaps remained the most significant Christian
element in the post-monastic and pre-Conquest period. The wider comparisons of the burial ground are
considered in Chapter 24.
JARROW9.QXD
19-01-2007
10:38
Pagina 91
9 The excavated Anglo-Saxon structures

Anglo-Saxon phase 1a: the earliest structures (Figs 7.7, 9.1, 9.2 and 9.8)
As well as those burials in the cemetery which have
already been discussed as potentially earlier than the
organised monastic layout of the site (Chapter 8
above), there are other features which appear to be primary on the site, are cut by Anglo-Saxon buildings and
graves, and could belong either to the first period of
monastic occupation or to a previous phase.
would seem to be pre-Conquest in date. These burials

are covered by a clay deposit, 1551. The bottom of this
layer contained a quantity of Anglo-Saxon window
glass and building debris which may be a late Saxon or
early medieval deposit, while the top of the clay contained later medieval pottery. In addition, a large
stone-packed posthole (1582) and two smaller postholes (1758 and 1759) were alongside the path and
may have been in some way associated with its use (see
Fig 9.2). There were also other patches of distinctive
tiny rounded beach pebbles which occurred in the centre of the site to the east and to the west of the path.
Some had been disturbed and were found in the fill of
the late Saxon graves, other patches, like 2225,
remained in situ, so that it is possible that there were
subsidiary paths or patches of cobbles crossing the
open space and cemetery in the early phases of the site
use.
The cobbled path was cut by both Walls F and H,
but to the south of Wall H, in an area which also probably was open ground in the pre-Conquest period, the
critical junction of the path with Wall K was removed
by burials, most crucially 74/3. All were lying on their
right sides and since the fills of the graves were clean
could belong to the monastic phase of occupation. The
lack of evidence for a relationship with Wall K, which
has been placed in phase 1b, means that the earliest terminus ante quem for the path is provided by the construction of Wall H, which has been placed in the
second phase of the site development (see below). On
the other hand, the path was not traced south of Wall
K (although the instability of the trench side at this
point meant that the area could not be fully excavated).
The function of the northsouth path remains then
uncertain, but its lack of precise alignment on the
church and the fact that it was cut by so many AngloSaxon structures and features could mean that it existed in the pre-monastic period. Alternatively it could
have been laid down as a path to the river at the beginning of phase 1 of the Anglo-Saxon occupation, coexisting with Building D (below), and only becoming
redundant when the phase 2 and 3 buildings were constructed.
The central cobble path, 1561 (Figs 9.4 and 9.6)

This is a distinct feature which cut undisturbed levels
of clays and sand such as 1577, or 500 and which was
traced in patches from Wall K northwards right across
to the centre of the site (Fig 9.2). The path was not
precisely aligned on the church, but lay slightly northnorth-west, and was cut by all the eastwest AngloSaxon phase 2 and 3 walls and by a number of burials
which have been assigned to the Saxon period. Where
it was best preserved, in trenches 6604 and 7401, it was
c 1.68m wide and composed of a mixture of flat slabs
and cobbles which were neatly edged and surrounded
by the brown earth capping of the undisturbed natural
clay (Fig 9.4). In one place, in 7402, it seemed to cut a
layer of clay, 196, which sealed some burials (see
below). Where undisturbed the cobbles were tightly set
and overlapping against the slope (Fig 9.6).
The entire length does not seem to have functioned
as a path throughout the Anglo-Saxon period. The
most northerly section which survived in 6201 was
wider than the path to the south and was composed of
neatly sorted cobbles set in a scale fashion and in a
curving formation (Fig 9.2). Here the cobbles if they
are part of the same feature covered fragmentary
child burials 62/19 and 62/20. If the feature had continued northwards on the same alignment it would also
have covered other child burials (62/29, 62/18, 62/2).
The graves in this area were not laid out on a true
eastwest alignment, and had been much disturbed by
later medieval activity, so it is uncertain whether they
belong to the pre-monastic or post-monastic phases of
the cemetery (see Chapter 8 above). This northern
patch of cobbling seems to be a reshaping of the original line, however, and was certainly at ground level in
the later Saxon period, since lying on the cobble surface was a Saxon gaming piece or glass setting (Vol 2,
Ch 31.4, GlO3, Fig 31.4.8). Indeed this area of cobbles may have remained an above-ground feature
throughout the pre-Conquest phases. It was sealed by
a thick disturbed layer of cobbles and black earth,
1668, which built up during the late medieval and early
post-medieval periods.
Further south in 6601, in an area which likewise
seems to have been open ground in the Anglo-Saxon
period, the path was cut by a series of burials which
Building D
This structure survived only as one level of foundations
cut by the construction of the perimeter formed by
Walls H and VI (Figs 9.2 and 9.3). These foundations
were about 2ft 4in. (0.7m) wide and consisted of flat
slabs set in brown clay, 339, which covered the clean
clay subsoil and seemed to be the primary ground surface. The width of the structure which they formed
was 12ft (3.65m) externally, 8ft (2.45m) internally
91
92
19-01-2007
10:38
Fig 9.1 Hallgarth Square, derived from the 2nd edition OS map, showing buildings in relation to the site grid, an explanation of site disturbances and truncation of levels. YB
JARROW9.QXD
Pagina 92
JARROW9.QXD
19-01-2007
10:38
Pagina 93
9: THE EXCAVATED ANGLO-SAXON STRUCTURES
93
Anglo-Saxon phase 1b:

the construction of Benedict
Biscops monastery
The mortar mixers (Figs 9.4 and 9.5)
Fig 9.3 Wearmouth, Building D plan. RC/LW

northsouth, and the surviving eastwest length was
14ft 6in. (4.43m). A small stretch of angled foundations to the north, 337, may have been some sort of
annexe or entrance porch to the building. There is no
evidence as to the nature of the superstructure of the
building, which could have been of wood or of claybonded stone since there was no trace of mortar associated with the structure. No floor level survived, and
it is not possible to know how deep the foundations
might originally have been. The truncated clay levels
around and inside the foundation (contexts 333,
342/3, 330) included pottery with a range of medieval
dates, and indeed the same types of pottery (F1, E18
and G12) were found in the clay layer, 334, which covered the foundations.
The different alignment of the structure (except
with the cobbled path and the robbed wall trench
1304) and the form of its foundations (paralleled elsewhere on the site only by the eastern foundations of
Wall F, see below), set this building apart from those
which can be linked in construction with phases 1 and
2, but this singularity might be explained if Building D
was erected in a pre-monastic phase or in a primary
phase of monastic occupation, before the Gaulish
masons were imported.
Ditch 1304
A tiny section of a ditch or construction trench, 1304,
was excavated to the west of Wall 4 in 6401 (Fig 9.2).
This was on a very different alignment from the church
and main stone buildings of the monastery. This
feature cut the sand and burials in that area but
contained small fragments of plaster and stone in its
fill. It could plausibly belong to the first phase of
monastic building either in phase 1a or 1b. It had been
cut by another robbed wall trench 1312 which could
belong to any of the pre-Conquest phases (see below,
Chapter 11).
The earliest stone building to be constructed in this

phase was most probably the church, as already discussed above, but a concomitant of the swift building
of that structure by Gaulish workmen (Chapter 4) was
the introduction of mechanical aid for large-scale mixing of mortar for the poured concrete constructions.
The earliest feature of this phase, therefore, was perhaps strictly the mortar mixer, Structure A (1490).
Traces of another mortar mixer, 776, are described
below in phase 2. Structure As primacy on the site is
not only reasonable because of its function, but
because it can be demonstrated that after its abandonment the area overlying it had several phases of preConquest use. The placing of this mortar mixer in the
first constructional phase of the monastic site means
that it is one of the earliest early medieval examples of
a type of mixer in which, by the aid of paddles attached
to a bar supported on a central pivot, large quantities
of mortar could be mixed. Such mechanical aids seem
to have existed in the Roman period and to have been
transmitted as a concomitant of stone technology to
early medieval Europe (Gutscher 1981; Williams et al
1985).
Structure A survived in a complete enough fashion
to be characterised. A roughly circular cavity about 1ft
(0.30m) deep had been cut into the Saxon ground surface 1446, which survived patchily as clay (1408,
1583) and paved clay surfaces (22245). The cut contained a spread of mortar (1445/1490) varying
between 0.1 and 0.2m deep. The feature measured
12ft (3.66m) eastwest and 10ft 6in. (3.20m)
northsouth. Around the edge of the deposit were
stakeholes (1499) about 2in. (50mm) in diameter, set
at 1ft (0.30m) intervals and angled outwards, which
formed the wattle frame to contain the mixture, and
there were many curved wattle-marked fragments in
the surrounding debris. The mortar was of a hard
white type with large pebble conglomerates (mortar
type 1 see Vol 2, Ch 26.2) and had a dusting of fine
brick fragments over the surface and especially in the
concentric grooves left by the mixing paddles. There
was, however, no brick dust through the mix. In the
centre was a posthole packed with stones, which must
have supported the central pivot, and on the eastern
side two half-moon shaped slots, which are not so far
explained. There was no sign of successive mixes of
mortar as in some mixers discovered elsewhere
(Gutscher 1981; Williams et al 1985). This type of
mixer, with angled wattles forming a surrounding
frame is very similar to the 9th-century Zurich
Mnsterhof mixer (Gutscher 1981, Abb 2), and also to
the Northampton mixers (Williams et al 1985, pls 40,
41). The more recently discovered 11th-century mortar
JARROW9.QXD
94
19-01-2007
10:38
Pagina 94
Fig 9.4 Mortar mixer 1490, in relation to Building B and surrounding surfaces. YB
practically touched the east wall of Building B. Seven
burials had cut through the mortar mixer and there
were two distinct phases of burial: those which cut the
mortar surface only, such as 64/21 (1448) and 64/22
(1498), and those which cut the clay (1375) which levelled it up to the surrounding ground surface, such as
64/8 (1371). Figure 9.5 shows that some had been cut
by the lip of the shaft (1377), which is at the latest
Norman in date (see Chapter 10 below).
The burial of bodies in the mortar spread before the
depression had been levelled off with the clay deposits
1375/6, is difficult to explain, but the episodes involved
could have been as follows:
Fig 9.5 The mortar mixer, cut by well pit. (IS)

mixers from Eynsham, Oxon, are not contained within
a wattle framework (Hardy et al 2003, 7376, pl 3.6,
figs 3.2022).
Much of the north and south edges had been cut
away, and a small section of the western tip of the circumference had been broken off, at the point where it
a) the construction and use of the mixer for the initial

building of the church and perhaps other buildings;
b) the mixer put out of use by the time Building B was
completed since it could not have operated so close
to a standing wall;
c) first phase of burials;
d) the levelling of the ground with a clay pack over the
hollow of the former mortar mixer;
e) the second phase of burials;
f) digging of the shaft 1377 which cut grave 64/21
(1448).
This last episode is most reasonably placed in the
period of the Aldwinian rebuilding.
JARROW9.QXD
19-01-2007
10:38
Pagina 95
95
Fig 9.6 Cobble path to the east of mixer cut by later burials. (IS)
Fig 9.7 Northsouth section over mortar mixer, trench 6403. RC

In the area to the east of the mortar mixer there
were a few undisturbed Saxon deposits in the form of
brown and reddish clay, some of which could be contemporary with its use and contained animal bone,
plaster and flint (1577, 1616), but other deposits (such
as 1394 and 1391) appear to represent surfaces which
had built up throughout the Anglo-Saxon period.
Above the lowest clay layer over the mortar mixer were
deposits containing charcoal, animal bone, and plaster
(1608/9), deposits which were probably laid down
soon after its abandonment when it was levelled off
with clay 1375/6 (Fig 9.7).
Building B (Figs 7.7, 9.2, 9.8)

This structure appears to belong to the first Saxon
phase, since it was constructed in the same manner as
the west wall of the church, it nowhere cuts any other
feature except the mortar mixer, and it was cut or
modified by other pre-Conquest structures or features.
Building B (Figs 9.99.14) is sited almost centrally in
relation to the presumed length of the Anglo-Saxon
nave of St Peters Church. Its length from the south,
where it is firmly bonded into the foundations of Wall
K, to where it peters out to the north in a single stone
c 14ft (4.27m) south of the south wall of the present
JARROW9.QXD
96
19-01-2007
10:38
Pagina 96
Fig 9.8 Wearmouth phase 1 interpretative plan. YB

church, is c 110ft (33.53m). Its northern termination,
if one assumes that the line of the south porticus continued eastwards, thus would be on the line of the
aisle/porticus range (see Chapter 6 above). The average
external width of Building B is 10ft 6in. (3.20m) and
the internal dimensions vary between 6ft (1.83m) and
6ft 6in. (1.98m). It is possible that there was a door
opening in its east wall opposite to the adjunct
Structure C, since at that point the wall line dips into
a clay-lined depression with a mortary surface (Fig
9.12). The walls of B are variable in width, but the
west wall is generally rather wider than the east, sometimes being more than 2ft (0.61m), while the east wall
is in places as narrow as 1ft 10in. (0.56m). The walls
are constructed with foundations formed of clay-bonded irregular limestone blocks, some set at an angle,
while the oversailing superstructure is formed from
slabs lavishly covered with a creamy yellow mortar
(type 2 see Vol 2, Ch 26.2).
As has been postulated for the church wall construction, the walls were plausibly formed within shuttering, and there may be vestiges of this in the post- and
JARROW9.QXD
19-01-2007
10:38
Pagina 97
97
Fig 9.9 Building B, junction with Wall H showing slump into cut. Victorian cellars in background. (IS)
Fig 9.10 Detail: construction level of east wall of Building

B, trench 7401. (IS/MS)
Fig 9.11 Central section of Building B at junction with

Wall F. (IS)
stakeholes alongside the east wall of B towards its

southern end (Fig 9.2). The foundations deepened as
they ran south down the slope, and where they were cut
into the wet sand near Wall K, they were more than 1m
deep. Here (see Fig 9.13) it was possible to see the construction technique clearly: a cut had been made into
the natural sand and one face of the wall had been
backed against the cut. On the side from which the construction took place there was a spill of mortar (which
had plausibly run out from under some shuttering) and
which had been covered by the sand that had been
shovelled back against the foundations when the shuttering had been removed. Between the two walls the
natural stratigraphy of the sand was undisturbed.
The facing plasters which were associated with this

building along its entire length were type 3, with a fine
pink facing, painted white, and a fine white plaster
painted white with red ochre stripes (Vol 2, Ch 26.2;
Cramp and Cronyn 1990, 212, pl 1). Some of this
striped plaster had been set against a smooth straight
edge, and it is possible that the narrow stone strips (Vol
2, Ch 28) which were found in the graves and the rubble spread from the building, as well as in the disused
shaft (1377, Phase 5 below) near to the east of the
Building B may have formed decorative wall panels
which framed the painted plaster.
Unfortunately, despite the retrieval of many fragments of window glass which lay both alongside
JARROW9.QXD
98
19-01-2007
10:39
Pagina 98
Fig 9.12 View from Wearmouth tower looking south over excavation trench 6201, showing Building B cut by later features
at point of possible entrance, the cut above its west wall, and structure C. The entrance to Hallgarth Square underpass is in
the background. (IS)
Building B and in the rubble dumps or grave cuts to
the east of it, the Anglo-Saxon ground levels had been
so truncated and disturbed that no in situ concentrations of window glass survived on the ground surfaces
(see Vol 2, Ch 27.1) and thus it is not possible to say
where any windows were positioned, nor whether the
many fragments of painted baluster shaft (Vol 2, Ch
28), which were found in the filling of the later well
shaft (1377) and in surrounding areas (Cramp 1969,
fig 14), had framed the openings of this structure or
another. In the interior of the building the surface was
of mortar-flecked clay (1037) which contained fragments of mortar, types 1 and 2 and opus signinum, but
there were a few less truncated areas of flattened clay
with a grey mortary covering as though some flooring
had been removed. The only possible candidate for
this flooring among the excavated material consists of
slabs of greyish mortar, 0.03m thick, faced with a fine
brick dust, opus signinum type 3B (Vol 2, Ch 26.2).
This seems a rather fragile flooring material, but bears
no indication on the reverse faces of having been
applied to a wall surface. At some time while the walls
of the building were still standing the interior had been

used for burial, since there are throughout its length
burials which fit neatly into its width. These burials,
which seem to belong to a later Saxon phase, are discussed in the cemetery report above (Chapter 8).
Building B, then, in its first phase was an elaborately decorated covered walk or passage which led
south from the church. The excavations did not, however, continue far enough south to provide the evidence for whether it terminated in a building or passed
through buildings to the river bank.
Wall K
Building B was bonded at foundation level with the
most southerly wall excavated on the site Wall K,
which ran eastwest parallel to the church c 37m (120ft)
to the south, but unfortunately at the point where its
foundations were discovered the depth of overburden
made exploration further south a safety hazard. A section was hurriedly drawn, but it was not possible to
determine the level from which the construction cut for
JARROW9.QXD
19-01-2007
10:39
Pagina 99
99
Fig 9.13 Junction of Wall K and Building B. (IS/MS)
the wall was made since this was masked by the floor
of stone chippings, 480 (Fig 10.1), which was not
removed, and the area to the south was not excavated
deeply enough (Figs 9.13 and 9.14). The superstructure of Wall K survived to some height in places and
there were signs that its south face had been substantially rebuilt, probably in the early medieval period (see
Chapters 10 and 11), but the wall had continued in use
until it was finally robbed and demolished in the 18th
century, as was clear from the medieval pottery in the
occupation levels which built up against it, 252, and the
18th-century pottery in 236, which sealed them and the
fills of its robbed wall trench (Fig 9.14).
Wall K was 2ft 6in. (0.76m) wide, and in the 70ft

(21.34m) of its excavated length there were no signs of
a subdivision. A small adjunct (Structure 246), interpreted as a small latrine chute, was butt-jointed to its
southern face which could imply that the south was an
outside face, but the width of Wall K is comparable to
that of Walls F and VI, and it could have been the
north wall of a building to which Building B led, rather
than forming the southern enclosure of the monastery.
This latter interpretation must remain a possibility,
however, especially in relation to the later development
of the site where it certainly seems to form a perimeter
(see below, Chapter 11).
JARROW9.QXD
19-01-2007
100
10:39
Pagina 100
Fig 9.14 Section across robbed wall trench of Wall K. RC/YB
Fig 9.15 Exterior of structure C at junction between the

natural clay and sand levels. For location of structure C, see
Fig 9.2. (IS)
Structure C
A stone-lined sunken structure, C, attached to the west
wall of Building B is less certainly an integral part of
the initial layout (Figs 9.2, 9.1518). The building was
constructed by cutting a neat rectangular hole into the
natural clay at a point where there was a junction with
the wetter sand a spring line (see Fig 9.15). This cut
had then been lined on all four sides with small limestone blocks forming a cavity 1.65m by 1.35m and
about 1.8m (6ft) deep. The southern corner at the base
of the east wall was formed by a large dressed stone
about 1.15m (3ft 9in.) long and 0.85m (2ft 10in.) high
(Fig 9.16). On the west face two slots, 0.25m wide and
0.5m apart, had been formed starting at a level below
the superstructure (Fig 9.17). These could have held
Fig 9.16 Interior of structure C, east face. (IS)

timber uprights since they were full of charred wood.
There was a great deal of burnt timber also in the fill
of the cavity, which could have derived from some
internal structure or from the roof of the building. The
clay base of the structure was clean.
Whether this structure formed an integral part of
Building B initially is not clear. The relationship of its
construction trench to the robbed wall of B could not
be determined largely due to the construction trench
for a major late medieval/early post medieval site division, in the form of a palisade and post trench 1636,
JARROW9.QXD
19-01-2007
10:39
Pagina 101
101
Fig 9.17 Interior elevation of structure C, west face.

RC/LW
Fig 9.18 Interior elevation of structure C, east face.

RC/LW
which had cut through the line where the two structures were contiguous (see Fig 9.12). Nevertheless it
was clear that the north, south, and west walls of C
were constructed on free-standing foundations, while
the east side appeared to have been constructed against
the west wall of Building B. In the centre of the east
wall of C was a depression packed with clay very similar to the gap in the east wall of B opposite, which is
interpreted as a possible opening (see above). At this
level the foundations of both buildings would have
been clay bonded, and the actual door threshold would
have been higher, but some opening to communicate
with Building B would have been necessary if the two
were integral. Structure C has therefore been assigned
to the same broad phase of building as Building B, but
it could have been built as an addition very soon afterwards. One skeleton, 61/48, seems to have been displaced by the construction of its south-west corner, but
see discussion above of burial phasing (Chapter 8).
Various functions could be suggested for this building:
in form it is like later, medieval latrines (Carver 1974, pls
VII X/1) but there was no evidence of any latrine deposit
at the base of its fill, and the wooden uprights seem rather
substantial for seating supports. If it were a shallow well
or cistern with a washing place then the inbuilt wooden
structure might have supported a winding mechanism for
a bucket. In either interpretation its position near to an
external door from the covered walk, B, into the cemetery
or cloister to the east would be practical. The very depth
and nature of the construction of the sunken Structure C
means that its east wall would have to have been built
independently to a certain height against the west wall of
B in order to maintain the stability of the latter building.
There is then a case to be made for it as a primary construction even though its fill, 1188, contained medieval
pottery (E10, E11a), implying that it remained a visible
feature in the post-Conquest period (see below), or had
been disturbed by later activity.
porch at the west end of St Peters church, and presumably also to the chancel or an eastern porticus (see
Figs 9.2 and 9.19). Since Wall 4 is directly related to
the porch (see Figs 6.14 and 7.7) and in its first phase
was built in the same manner with limestone rubble set
with poured mortar a construction type which is the
same as the phase 1 church and Building B it is possible that little time elapsed between the constructions
assigned to phases 1 and 2A. There is no direct stratigraphic link between Walls H and 4 however, since the
area in which their relationship could have been established was not excavated.
The vestiges of what seems to be another mortar
mixer, 776, cut by later Wall IX, could belong to any
phase prior to phase 3, but has been placed tentatively
in phase 2, since it is well placed to serve building
activity in the south-east of the site. This was barely
seen except in section (see Figs 9.36 and 9.37). It consisted of a deposit of hard white mortar, 776, with a
slot or beam hole, 786, set in it, and it was surrounded by a flattened area of clay pierced by a curving line
of small holes, possibly for wattles. Over the clay and
mortar was a deposit of stones and mortar, 785, which
contained no datable evidence, and this in its turn was
covered by a layer of red mortar-flecked clay which had
been cut by Wall F (interpreted as Anglo-Saxon) and
Wall IX, which is medieval.
Anglo-Saxon phase 2a/b:

the enclosure and its buildings
The next phase seems to represent the creation of a
more ordered layout in which an enclosure formed by
Walls 4, H and VI was tied in to a newly constructed
Wall 4
Wall 4 is a long-lived structure which was rebuilt several times. In its earliest phase, visible at foundation
level, it is at its widest 4ft (1.22m), is trench built, and
constructed of neat limestone blocks, some set on end
or at an angle (Fig 9.20), as in Walls F, and VI/H and
the west wall of the church. Its first phase of construction and its type of poured yellow mortar (type 2)
were well preserved immediately to the south of the
porch (see Figs 6.14 and 6.16) and in the south-west
corner of the site, where Wall F is butt-jointed to its
eastern face (Fig 9.28). Its construction trench cut
through the early burial ground on the west of the site
(see Chapter 8 above), and its construction level is
evidenced by a thin layer of mortar alongside its east
face overlying the natural sand, 1897 (Fig 9.21). For
JARROW9.QXD
102
19-01-2007
10:39
Pagina 102
of
Fig 9.19 Wearmouth Anglo-Saxon phase 2 plan. YB
Wall H
much of its length Wall 4 was robbed out completely
in the 18th century but parts of the structure survived
partly covered by the cobbled floors of outbuildings
(see Fig 9.21 and Chapter 11). Before then it had
been rebuilt in several phases. As already mentioned,
its relationship to Walls H and K is unknown because
of lack of excavation in the relevant areas, but it may
have formed the western perimeter of an area in which
the major stone buildings were enclosed on the east by
Walls H and VI (Fig 9.2).
Wall H survived only at foundation level where it was

4ft 6in. (1.37m) wide, trench built and constructed of
small limestone blocks, some set at an angle, and lavishly covered with poured yellow mortar which reached
right down to the lowest courses (Figs 9.22 and 9.24).
It cut through the cobble path and the burial ground
west of Building B, but its relationship to B was more
difficult to determine. At the point of junction on the
south face of H, that wall had been strengthened and
JARROW9.QXD
19-01-2007
10:39
Pagina 103
103
Fig 9.20 Wearmouth, Wall 4, showing three phases:

Anglo-Saxon wall at base, medieval rebuilding above, postDissolution wall above. (IS)
Fig 9.22 Wall H showing rebuilding level and strengthening in the medieval period, viewed from the west. (IS/MS)
Fig 9.21 Wall 4, showing destroyed first phase AngloSaxon wall cutting cemetery, medieval rebuilding above,
post-Dissolution wall dismantled and incorporated into late
18th-century cobbled yard. (IS)
rebuilt in the post-Conquest period and at this point
was very close to the edge of the trench 7101. On the
north face, the impression in course of excavation was
that the construction of H had cut through the gallery
(Building B). At foundation level the cut was clear and
the foundations of the east wall of B had slumped
towards the north face of H (Figs 9.9, 9.24). There did

seem, however, to have been a bonding between the
west wall of B and Wall H, although the west wall of B
was either robbed or obliterated by other buildings in
the north of trench 7101 (Fig 9.23). The careful bonding of B and H at this point could indicate that the west
wall was pulled down and rebuilt or that the construction of H followed on very quickly from phase 1, before
B was completed. In this phase the gallery could have
been retained as a passage though the site with possibly a door though Wall H.
At its eastern end, Wall H turned north in a seamless continuation and although the northsouth wall
has been separately identified as Wall VI there was no
constructional difference between the two. The foundations of Wall VI cut natural clay, 1135, and some
scattered early burials (69/9 and 69/10) as well as
Building D (Figs 9.22 and 9.25). It is the constructional technique and the mortar type (which are the
same as the porch of the church), as well as the careful
junction with Building B, which leads one to suppose
JARROW9.QXD
104
19-01-2007
10:39
Pagina 104
Fig 9.23 Junction of west wall of Building B and Wall H.

See also Fig 9.2. (IS/MS)
Fig 9.24 Junction of east wall of Building B and Wall H.

See also Fig 9.2. (IS/MS)
that Walls H and VI are of the earlier Saxon phases in

origin, even though they have clearly been rebuilt subsequently (see below, Chapter 11).
The area to the north of H and west of VI seems
initially to have been an open space dedicated to burial, and this view is supported by the presence of the
stone platform 650 which covered several graves (see
Chapter 8 above, and Fig 8.14). The enclosure which
these walls formed measured c 92ft (28.05m)
eastwest, between Wall 4 and Wall VI, and 98ft
(29.87) northsouth from the north face of Wall H to
the south face of the church. However, if there had
been narrow aisles or chambers on the south side of the
church, as discussed above, then the area enclosed
would have been practically square.
The sunken structure, 569, is an enigmatic feature,
measuring 2.67m 3.05m (8ft 9in. 10ft), externally,
and 1.83m 2.59m (6ft 8.6ft) at the base internally,
and about 0.91m (3ft) deep (Figs 9.26 and 9.27). Its
south and east sides, formed by Walls H and VI, were
faced with clay, but the north and west sides were formed
of neat ashlar blocks. The surface of these latter walls was
mortared with bright yellow mortar, and it appears that
569 originally had a superstructure that butted up to or

was bonded with the walls. The interior was very clean,
but since the clay skim which was packed against the two
pre-existing walls was noted by the excavators as spreading over the top of the west wall, it is possible that the
building was cleaned out and lined with clean clay when
it was demolished and before it was filled with sandy rubble. The phase at which this was filled in is not certain:
the fill of clean rubble and yellow mortar contained at its
lowest levels some painted plaster and fish bones, but
several layers in the deposit were incorporated and there
was contamination from the 18th-century clearance of
the site on the upper levels. Some pottery (type D9)
dated to the second half of the 12th century (see Vol 2,
Ch 33.2), found in the fill seems to have derived from a
line of small round stakeholes 5425 the stakes having
been burnt in situ (Fig 9.2). The subsequent history of
this feature is discussed in Chapter 11.
The original function of 569 was not determined
it could conceivably have been a storage room or a
latrine. There was no evidence for how this room had
been floored, but whether the floor had been of trodden earth or planked, it could have continued to serve
JARROW9.QXD
19-01-2007
10:39
Pagina 105
Fig 9.25 Wearmouth, 1971 trench, looking west, showing

Building D cut by the corner of Walls H and VI. Victorian
cellar walls in background. (IS/MS)
as some form of underground storage, and it is just
possible that, whatever the structure was, it remained
open until the ranges were reshaped between the late
11th and 13th centuries, in which case the stakeholes
would have been inserted and the pottery dropped at
that time (see below and Vol 2, Ch 33.2).
Wall F/1 (phase 2b)

Wall F/1 (which runs from Wall 4 to the east side of
Building B and thus creates a building in the southwest corner of the enclosure just described), is
assigned to a sub-phase of 2 rather than as part of the
campaign which formed the enclosure, only because
there is no bond between F and 4 or between Building
B and F at foundation level. It is true nevertheless,
since the presumed link between H and 4 has not been
demonstrated by excavation, that the construction of
Wall 4 might be seen as a separate phase of building
linked to some development further to the south, and
that the construction of a building in the south-west
corner of the enclosure may have been part of the same
campaign of building as the construction of H/VI.
105
Between Wall 4 and Building B the upper courses

of Wall F/1 had been rebuilt several times, and indeed
the upper rebuilt courses had amazingly survived
above ground into the 20th century as a part of
Hallgarth Square (see Figs 9.1, 9.28 and 9.29, and
Chapter 11). This has seriously complicated consideration of the sequences of reconstructions that are
incorporated in the line of Wall F. The lowest footings
comprised two courses of limestone slabs set in clay;
above were one or two surviving courses of limestone
blocks set in poured yellow mortar (Fig 9.29). In
places these courses had been stripped down to a level
mortar surface, as between the two walls of Building B
(see Fig 9.28). The relationship between the west wall
of B and Wall F was examined in some detail and is
well recorded in the site photographs (Figs 9.309.32).
At this point the foundations of B survived as two
courses of limestone blocks or slabs, set in clay and
covered by an oversailing spread of mortar which was
the bedding for their superstructure (see Fig 9.31)
composed of neat limestone blocks set in clay. For Wall
F/1 to the west of Building B the first phase of building is represented by flat and angled neat limestone
blocks between which was a quantity of mortar. Above
this level was a layer of large waterworn boulders which
had displaced some of the smaller stones of the AngloSaxon fabric. These seem to have been laid to consolidate a sag in the foundations and to provide a firm
support for the large well-shaped slabs above, which
are interpreted as a post-Conquest wall rebuilding (see
below, Chapters 10 and 11). The foundations of Wall
F were sunk 0.61m (2ft) deeper than those of B and
there was a clear gap between the foundations of the
two walls. A section of sandy subsoil was cut back
against the junction of the east face of the west wall of
B and Wall F/1 and there the walls were very close
together but the upper stones of B had tipped against
Wall F where the cut was made (see Fig 9.30).
Between the walls of the gallery, the Wall F/1 construction was again two courses of clay-bonded foundations, above them a poured mortar level with
limestone blocks set more vertically (Fig 9.29). The
first course on the line of Wall F/1 to cut through and
to cover the foundations of both walls of B was a
course of heavy sandstone slabs (Fig 9.30) which is
considered part of the medieval rebuilding (see below).
There appears then to have been the same deliberate
attempt to build against an existing gallery, and then
presumably to bond the walls together at a higher level
as noted in Wall H. The junction to the east of the east
wall of B was masked by a modern cellar wall which for
safety reasons was not removed but left as a baulk. The
postholes 655, 656, 474 (Fig 9.2) on the east side of
the east wall of B could have been inserted to support
the fragile gable wall of this building.
Between the walls of Building B the careful insertion of the wall foundation was perhaps for the threshold of a doorway, so that there could have been a
passage through at ground-floor level and also an
JARROW9.QXD
106
19-01-2007
10:39
Pagina 106
Fig 9.26 The sunken room 569 after excavation. (IS/MS)
Fig 9.27 Clay pack against the north face of Wall H. (IS/MS)
JARROW9.QXD
19-01-2007
10:39
Pagina 107
107
Fig 9.28 Wearmouth, Wall F, looking east, butted to Wall

4, Anglo-Saxon foundations revealed under medieval and
later rebuilding. (IS)
Fig 9.29 Wall F looking west, flat slabs of medieval

rebuilding over mortared Anglo-Saxon wall, with demolition deposits alongside. (IS)
Fig 9.30 Junction of west wall of Building B and Wall F

showing no bonding; below medieval rebuilding. (IS)
Fig 9.31 Section of Wall F between the two walls of

Building B with Anglo-Saxon walling below, and medieval
rebuilding above. (IS)
entrance at this point into the new building. (It is perhaps not without significance that a medieval
north/south division Wall 637 of the South Range,
and later doorways appeared to be at the same point
(see Figs 9.23 and 11.12).) The careful insertion of the
much deeper foundations of Wall F around the two
walls of Building B could be explained if the builders
wished to leave a passage open through B for as long as
possible. Then, having completed the walling for the
new building up to the gallery to the height of the
gallery roof (a greater height being assumed from the

much deeper foundations), the foundations below the
threshold of the opening from B into the building
would be inserted, a door made and the wall constructed over the gallery. The foundations between the
two walls would have to be of comparable depth to the
rest if the west wall of B was demolished in the interior of the building and the east wall strengthened, or if
the two walls formed a ground floor passage with an
upper storey over them.
JARROW9.QXD
108
19-01-2007
10:39
Pagina 108
Anglo-Saxon phase 3
(Fig 9.33)
In this phase the line of Wall F was continued to the

east of Building B as F/2, which cut through the line of
Wall VI and then turned north to form another building or range running northsouth towards the church
(Fig 9.32). The foundations of F/2 are very different
from F/1, as well as from Walls 4 and VI, being formed
with large flat stones set in clay, like the foundations of
the medieval wall which divided the south range and
other medieval rebuilding (see above), and indeed this
continuation was initially considered to be part of the
Aldwinian building campaign. Some justification has
then to be made for interpreting this as initially part of
a Saxon building phase.
A section of Hallgarth Square cellarage was left
unexcavated to the west of grid line IV (Fig 2.1) after a
collapse of the trench side, but a section about 12ft
(3.66m) long of the foundations of Wall F/2 was uncovered east of the east wall of Building B. The foundations of F/2 were here set in clay, and laid in a crazy
paving fashion with tiny packing stones in the interstices but with no mortar at this level (Fig 9.34). It was
also noteworthy that the foundation trench widened as
it neared Building B, and since this is the natural division between hard clay and wet running sand, a structural strengthening at this point could have been part of
the original plan. Further east two courses of foundations survived. The wall trench had been cut into 979,
clean brown clay, and the widening at this point is plausibly a recutting at a later date. Where Wall F met Wall
VI the foundation was of the same width as the foundation to the east of VI, but there was also a narrower
southern section of foundations below, set more deeply,
and a wider northern stretch set one course higher.
Between this northern face and the west face of VI was
a narrow lip of clay, so at that point Walls F and VI were
butt-jointed (Fig 9.2). On the southern face, however,
the foundation line was less clearly cut and included
much yellow mortar and opus signinum. The narrow
wall line, the opus signinum and the mortar suggest that
F was originally an Anglo-Saxon wall that had been
widened at a later date and entirely rebuilt above the
clay-bonded foundations.
The junction of Walls F and VI had been packed
with clay, but were cut through by a post-medieval oval
pit, 922, which appears to have cut into Wall VI and displaced the stones of Wall F to the east of it, effectively
removing the junction. It should be noted also that some
large waterworn cobbles, usually associated with
medieval walls, had been set in the east face of VI just to
the south of Wall F. This fact, together with the straight
cut in the foundations of VI at the junction, could mean
that the line of F east of VI (Fig 9.35) to the point where
it turned north as Wall IX was completely rebuilt in the
post-Conquest period (Chapter 11). The small patch of
walling, 771, to the east of Wall IX (see Fig 9.2), which
did not run into the 1971 trench, may have been an earlier feature cut by Wall IX and related to the mortar
Fig 9.32 East face of west wall of Building B cut by Wall

F. (IS)
floor, 776. It was covered by clay, 750, which contained
only a fragment of animal bone and a glass bead, and
this was sealed by a late post-medieval deposit, 734,
which contained 18th- to 19th-century pottery.
The stratigraphic position of Wall IX is illustrated
in Fig 9.36: its foundations are cut into natural clay,
but its relationship to 750, the red clay, is ambiguous,
since this may have been cut by, or laid in conjunction
with, Wall IX. The demolition rubble in its wall trench
east of VI could well be derived from 771, which is
masked by the baulk (see Fig 9.35), or from Structure
D to the south which in the most plausible sequence
was partly destroyed by Wall VI.
In summary, the structure formed by Walls 4, VI, F
and H is a long narrow building c 30.8m x 7.32m (101
24ft) externally and 27.74m 4.88m (91 16ft)
internally. The most probable interpretation of the
fragmentary evidence is that only the east wall of B survived within the building and that the ground floor of
the eastwest structure was divided into two rooms
c 10.97m 4.88m (36 16ft) and 13.72m 4.88m
(45 16ft).
The prolongation of Wall F/2 and its return northwards formed a northsouth structure beyond Wall VI,
only the south-west corner of which was uncovered. Its
width was c 25ft (7.62m) internally, and 28ft 6in.
(8.68m) externally. Its northern end was not
determined by excavation, but if it was a continuous
range, it would have been over 65ft (19.81m) long.
There must remain the possibility that there were a
series of independent structures on this line rather than
one long range.
The phasing of the northsouth Walls 4 and VI, and
IX, and the cross walls F and H, the lines of all of
which formed the enclosure and building ranges of the
post-Conquest monastery and were reutilised into the
JARROW9.QXD
19-01-2007
10:39
Pagina 109
109
Fig 9.33 Wearmouth, phase 3 plan. YB

modern period, was perceived as a problem during
excavation, and it has still not been entirely resolved.
This is partly because the site was dug in small trenches over several seasons, at times in the midst of standing buildings, so that some crucial junctions could not
be excavated, but mainly because walls had been
stripped down to foundation level for rebuilding in
successive phases. Moreover, the occupation levels
which were associated with these structures had been
destroyed by the garden of Hallgarth House and the
Victorian cellars.
Fragmentary deposits and

structures, pre-Conquest
There is some evidence that the area between the
church and the ranges of building already discussed
was not entirely given over to burials throughout the
pre-Conquest period. There are small vestiges of preConquest layers which are overlaid or cut by postConquest structures and which overlay the early
western cemetery, but which are difficult to assign to
specific Anglo-Saxon phases. Since the subsoil of the
JARROW9.QXD
110
19-01-2007
10:39
Pagina 110
Fig 9.34 Wall F, re-cut foundation trench west of Wall VI.

(IS)
Fig 9.35 Wall F east of Wall VI, showing junction with

Wall IX. (IS)
Fig 9.36 West section of trench 6904. YB

western area of the site is wet, running sand, flimsy features were more easily obliterated there by building
and rebuilding operations than in the heavy boulder
clay to the east. The natural division between the sand
and clay subsoils ran obliquely across this area and it
was noticeable that the early builders had taken several measures to consolidate the sand layers.
Patches of laid surfaces, 1878, 1867, and possibly
1870, which seem to be contemporary with the early
phases of use of Wall 4 survived near to the church in
the form of deposits of pinkish red clay. No dating evidence was recovered from these deposits, but one of
them yielded a quantity of fish bones, and a certain

amount of Saxon building mortar. This is overlaid by
disturbed clay deposits 1859 (no pottery) and 1870,
which contained Hard Fired Tyneside Buff White ware
(E11c, 12501400). It is possible that the lower
deposits were enclosed on the east by Wall 3a, which is
inferred only from a robber trench and rubble spread
under Wall 3b (see below).
In the southern section of trench 6101, and underlying the eastwest Wall 1131, was a spread of rubble,
1129, which contained one Saxon baluster shaft and
Early Gritty Green ware (E12a), bone, mortar type L,
JARROW9.QXD
19-01-2007
10:39
Pagina 111
111
Fig 9.37 Position of mortar mixer 776 cut by Wall IX. (IS)
tile, flint, brick, and clinker. It covered a fragmentary
opus signinum floor 1130 (Fig 9.38). This floor was bedded directly on to natural sand and had been formed by
pouring brick-bonded mortar (opus signinum type 1, see
Vol 2, Ch 26.2) over a bed of stones. The floor extended at least 2.44m further south since it was traced in a
fragmentary state in the area 6402 (1209) (Figs 9.2 and
9.39). It is just possible that the western section of the
fragmentary wall foundation E, 1096, enclosed the
floor on the south (see Fig 9.2). The floor was not
traced further east in trench 6102 or in 6401, but that
area had been much disturbed. The mortar floor does
nonetheless confirm a Saxon building in the south-west
of the enclosure, whether or not attached to Wall 4. It
should be noted, however, that there is a line of rubble
in 6401 (2375) that could be a continuation of a north
wall line (see Fig 10.1). The rubble spread 1129, which
was dated to the Late Saxon/Early Medieval period,
was discovered to both the north and the south of
eastwest Wall 1131. However, there is no record of the
discovery of any vestige of opus signinum beneath it to
the north of the post-Conquest Wall 1131, which would
in this case have continued the line of the earlier wall.
Unfortunately this wall was not taken up in the excavation. It is possible that this mortar floor belongs to
Saxon phase 2, rather than phase 3, since although in
construction it differs from the type associated with
Building B, it is quite Roman in appearance and disturbed fragments of this type have been found in early
levels elsewhere in the site.
The difficulty in interpreting the excavation of this
part of the site is partly that it was not well recorded
and not dug in phase over a large enough area, but also
that there had obviously been so much levelling of the
site that modern structures and deposits rested directly
on Anglo-Saxon and later medieval features. There are
other features which could belong to this phase,
Fig 9.38 Area of opus signinum floor 1130 cut by modern drain in trench 6101 (for location see Fig 9.2). (IS)
notably Walls 3a and 2, but they have been assigned to
phase 4 because they seem to cut across the ordered
layout of the other buildings, although stratigraphically
they are on the same horizon as Wall 4.
Summary and interpretation:

Saxon phases 13
Although it cannot be proved that the church and the
monastic buildings were sited in relation to an earlier
settlement either native or Anglo-Saxon with which
some of the burials, particularly on the west of the site
were associated, this remains a strong presumption.
Since no termination of the monastic settlement has
been found, it is impossible to say how near such a lay
settlement might have been. The layout of the excavated Anglo-Saxon monastic buildings however, seems
from the beginning to have been carefully planned to
bear little relationship to indigenous settlements and to
invoke the plans of late antique villas (see Chapter 24).
The first phase of monastic planning in the excavated
area immediately south of the church buildings comprised an open space with a cemetery, which was partially encroached upon in later phases but which
demonstrates the primary importance of the burial area.
The crowding of burials and their superimposition on
the west of the site and the presence of structures on
the east could imply that the excavations just missed
other structures which confined this central space.
JARROW9.QXD
112
19-01-2007
10:39
Pagina 112
Fig 9.39 Disturbed opus signinum 1209 and rubble in corner of trench 6402 (for location see Fig 9.2). (IS)
The cobble path, which may have been laid down

either in a pre-monastic phase or during the period of
initial building, could in places, like other patches or
walks of finer pebbles, have formed an integral part of
the cemetery layout. Building B, which was centrally
sited in relation to the nave of St Peters, seems to have
been originally an elaborately decorated corridor that
led from the church to other buildings to the south or
to the outer wall of the site. It possibly also served as
an eastwest division on the site between one area dedicated to a specific activity and another, or one area
accessible to one group or another; certainly there is a
marked difference in the sex of the burials of the early
phases to the east and west of it. It is unlikely, considering the width of its walls in relation to others on the
site, to have been more than one storey high, and there
are obvious parallels to be drawn with Roman corridor
villas as well as with liturgical corridors or porticus joining two churches ( Carragin 1999), or a church and
domestic buildings. Such parallels are discussed further in Chapter 24.
There is no doubt that Walls H and VI are of one
build and formed the corner of the sunken feature 569.
There is also no doubt that Building B was standing
when Wall H was constructed and that all of these
walls had similar distinctive yellow mortar which is
identical with that in the south porticus of the church.
In summary, despite the lack of a direct link, in the
area excavated, between Walls 4 and H/VI, the
constructional similarities between the three walls in

their primary phases make it extremely probable that
they are of the same, or closely contemporary, building
campaign. It is considered here that they all date to the
same period as the construction of the porch, which, as
noted above, continued the building methods of the
first phase, and since it is recorded that Ceolfrid (who
presided over both parts of the monastery from c
687716) was an energetic builder, he could have
wished to develop and formalise the earliest structures.
(It should be noted, however, that there is a difference
in construction between 4 and VI, which were not anyway directly associated on the ground, but one must
take into account possible differences in construction
which were occasioned by the different subsoils, especially at the junctions of clay and sand.)
The assumption that Wall VI terminated on line
with the east end of the chancel and perhaps joined the
wall of a southern porticus is only a working hypothesis,
but complements the evidence from the investigations
inside the church (see Chapter 6 above). Wall F is buttjointed to 4, and its length up to Building B is constructed with the same type of small, angled stones
with mortar poured to the bottom of the foundation
trench as in Walls 4 and H, while the continuation of
its line up to Wall VI is represented by the narrow
trench and clay bonded foundations which nevertheless include some small patches of limestone and yellow mortar, implying that there could have been an
JARROW9.QXD
19-01-2007
10:39
Pagina 113
113
Fig 9.40 Model of reconstruction of the Wearmouth Anglo-Saxon excavated site. Photo courtesy Sunderland Museum and
Winter Garden, Tyne and Wear Museums
earlier wall here. The original junction with Wall VI

was obliterated by post-Conquest rebuilding, but the
continuation of F east of Wall VI is of the same foundation type as to the west, and turns north as Wall IX
a wall which cuts the possible mortar mixer 776, and
is overlaid by the medieval Wall VIII (Fig 9.37). This
further confirms the position of Wall F in a preConquest phase, although it does not clarify which
phase.
Building B appears to be, as already stated, an early
focal feature in the monastic plan, but its relationship
to D and the other structures east of VI is uncertain.
Walls 4 and H/VI have been considered a secondary
phase of building, although in a similar technique, and
their construction forms an enclosure. Alternatively, if
B and H are bonded, it is conceivable that these were
the same phase and that a door through H was included in the original building plan, so that as a passage it
passed through two enclosures before it reached K and
whatever was beyond. In that case the first phase of
buildings on the site would be the scattered structures
west of 4, and D and other clay bonded foundations to
the east, cut by VI, plus the early cemetery. The next
phase would then be the construction of B together
with the enclosure, and possibly some structures on
the western sector of the site.
Wall F may have been fitted into the scheme in an
attempt to produce some more large-scale buildings,
possibly with an upper floor level, and the same height
as 4/VI but higher than the gallery, B, which is envisaged as a single-storey structure (on the basis of depth
of foundations). If these new buildings were to be
solidly based, they must have been tied in to the upper
courses of 4 and VI. It was evidently considered desirable or necessary to keep a passage through this southern range rather than just dividing it by a cross wall
which could have been the east wall of B suitably

strengthened. (The whole range seems too long for one
undivided building.) In this reconstruction the two
walls of Building B would have been retained to their
full height, or near roof height, but perhaps with the
walls thickened internally.
Alternatively, if the interpretation of the evidence is
that part of B inside the building was demolished, with
the east wall of B as the division wall, and the gallery
otherwise kept as a convenient covered way into the
building range, then the internal foundation is more
explicable. Because of the unstable nature of the sandy
subsoil at this point, and the difficulty of joining a one
storey and a two storey building, the foundations for F
were completed right up to the east and west walls of
B and the foundations were sunk between the walls
before they were knocked down. A similar process
could have happened in joining B and H, unless these
were originally of one build.
Excavation provided no clue as to the function of
these southern buildings since all floor levels had been
lost in later levelling of the site, but the most plausible
explanation is that they were living quarters. The thickness of the walls suggests that the range was a two-storied structure, but in view of the marked graves to the
east of B and the lack of any evidence for a groundfloor surface such as is found in the range of Buildings
A and B at Jarrow (see below, Chapter 16), it is possible that the living quarters were on an upper floor. It
should also be noted that if the sunken feature 569
started life as an external structure and then was incorporated into the south range either as an above ground
or as an under floor structure, then it would have taken
up about half the width of the room. This could be a
very good reason for demolishing it in this phase unless
it had a very necessary function. For the medieval
JARROW9.QXD
114
19-01-2007
10:39
Pagina 114
phase it is suggested that it might have supported a

stair (see Chapter 11). Within the enclosing walls the
fragments of opus signinum flooring in trenches 6101
and 6402, and the rubble which covered them, have
been considered to suggest a building at this point. If
this were on the scale postulated it might have been a
gate-house or guest-house, and is shown as such in the
model (Fig 9.40).
The position of Walls VI and IX has clear implications for indicating the east end of the Anglo-Saxon
church. The line of Wall VI terminates on the postulated east end of the phase 1 chancel while the line of
Wall IX terminates just east of the modern chancel. It
is possible, therefore, that the chancel/eastern porticus

(see above, Chapter 6) was lengthened during phases 2
or 3, thus forming the liturgical enclosure on the site
shown in phase 3 (Fig 9.33). It is also important to
note here that the small excavations to the east of the
present church in 1960 and 1971 (Fig 2.1) demonstrated that the church had never extended further
eastwards, and that the early ground surface began to
slope at that point. The elevated position of the church
would then have given it visibility from the sea and
would also have ensured its dominant position in relation to the buildings to the south where there was a
natural slope towards the river.
JARROW10.QXD
19-01-2007
10:41
Pagina 115
10 The excavated Late Saxon and Norman structures

Phase 4: late Saxon and Saxo-Norman (Fig 10.1)
monastic occupation, since they utilise the same type
of building stone as the confirmed Anglo-Saxon buildings, and do not fit easily into the post-Conquest plan.
The archaeological evidence from the site hardly adds

significantly to the blank documentary picture regarding the nature of any additions or changes to the site
after the initial period of building, which extended into
the early 8th century, and the process of change and
abandonment after the 9th century, possibly because
of incursions of Scandinavian settlers (see Chapter 4).
This is partly due to the lack of dateable artefacts from
the site, and specifically the lack of dateable pottery. In
the period mid-7th to 9th century a small amount of
imported pottery and Whitby-type ware was found,
but revised pottery dating of material which was initially published as Middle Saxon or Saxo-Norman
(Hurst 1969, 603) has characterised the period late
9th to late 11th century as apparently completely aceramic (Vol 2, Ch 33.2) while the next pottery phase,
late 11th to the end of the 12th century, is a bracket
which could embrace the brief Aldwinian occupation
and also the beginning of reconstruction as a cell of
Durham Priory. There are some features that can be
plausibly placed after the main Anglo-Saxon monastic
buildings on the site were ruined and abandoned, but
not firmly on either side of the Norman Conquest.
Additionally, a few walls and other features could have
been assigned to a late phase of the Anglo-Saxon
Wall 2, 1743/1780
This insubstantial, but nevertheless definite, linear feature is the prime example of a feature which could be
placed in the pre- or post-Conquest period. It was
recorded in trenches 6102, 6103 and 6603 with a maximum width of 0.45m (1ft 6in.), and was curiously
constructed, with a line of block-like stones at the base
and rubble above, set in a narrow trench (Fig 10.2).
The stones appeared to have no bonding agent, but
alongside the wall line in trenches 6603 and 6103 was
a clay layer, 1738, which included a considerable
amount of yellow mortar (type 2), plaster, opus signinum, and Anglo-Saxon window glass which may have
derived from this wall. The rubble bore some similarity to the walls of Building B, but equally that would be
the case if the stones had been reused from an AngloSaxon building. The narrow construction trench of the
feature cut into a low level of mortar-flecked clay and
into sand, 1753, as well as into the cemetery level, cutting skeletons 66/10, 11, 31, 32 and 60. On the other
hand, burials 66/2 and 66/6 appear to have been placed
respecting its line.
In the northern sector of the site, Wall 2 was sealed
by mortar-flecked clay, 1744, a deposit that appears to
be a ground surface which built up over a period of
time from the late Anglo-Saxon to the Medieval 1
phases, and this clay was also recorded as abutting the
wall in its upper layers. The sandy clay 1784 in grid
squares Aa 12, into which some skeletons and Wall 2
were cut (Figs 10.2, 10.3) was probably also laid down
over a considerable period of time, and contained
nothing but Anglo-Saxon material, including a styca of
King Eanred, c 810841 (Vol 2, Ch 30.2 Nu10). There
may be a difference to be detected in the use of the
ground east and west of the wall, since the clay, 1776,
east of the wall, contained no medieval material except
a fragment of pottery, now missing, in the base levels,
and in the upper levels a sherd of Oxidised Gritty ware
(E10, 10751300), while 1777 to the west contained
no medieval debris. In the 6.10m excavated in 1966
(which was better recorded than the 1961 excavation),
the wall was sealed by clay which did not include
medieval pottery. At the northern end, however, Wall
2 seems to have been reshaped, to serve as a wind
break between two hearths, 1812 and 1813, which
have been dated to the Aldwinian or Medieval 1 phases (see below, and Fig 10.1) and there its destruction
level, 1819, contained one sherd of Oxidised Gritty
ware (10751300). If it is the same wall further south
Fig 10.2 Foundations of Wall 2 looking south in trench

6603. (IS)
115
JARROW10.QXD
19-01-2007
116
10:41
Pagina 116
(and it is of the same construction even if on a rather

different alignment), then in trenches 6102 and 6103
it was sealed by a destruction level which included
13th- to 14th-century pottery. In summary this wall
may have been constructed between the later AngloSaxon and the Norman periods, and seems to have
survived in some sections until a major reshaping of
the site in the 13th/14th centuries.
The function of Wall 2 is not an easy one to deduce.
There is a line of rubble in Aa 2 which could possibly
connect Walls 3a and 2, but there is another possible
turn for this wall, this time eastwards, which is recorded in the area A12. One credible interpretation is that
it was some form of land division enclosing a specialized section of the site, although except for the division
between the wet sand and the clay subsoils there is no
apparent functional change on either side of it.
Alternatively it could have been a drainage channel or
even part of a building. It was suggested in the interim
report (Cramp 1969, 39) that Wall 2 could have been
the east wall of a structure, with the west wall being
either the putative 3a or obliterated by it, but if it were
part of a building it is difficult to see this wall as supporting anything but a flimsy timber superstructure.
There are no postholes recorded in the stone line, but
there are postholes (1779 and 1788) alongside its eastern face which may be connected.
Fig 10.3 Walls 3a and 3b looking south. (IS)
Wall 3a
This is a dubious feature which consists of a rubblefilled trench underlying medieval Wall 3b, and cutting
the western sector of the cemetery (Figs 10.1, 10.34).
It was not exactly on the same alignment as Wall 3b,
and was separated from it by deposits of rubble representing its destruction, which contained Anglo-Saxon
plaster, soil and stone slates and also, in contexts 1887,
1873 and 1892, pottery for which a date range from
the 11th to 14th centuries has been given. At the time
of its excavation this feature was clearly perceived as a
robbed wall trench, and in the north of the site it
appeared as a deep feature (Fig 10.4), but in the cutting 6101 as a rather shallow cut. It can be traced as far
south as 6101 where its robber trench was visible in the
north section (Fig 10.5), and here it merged with a
spread of rubble and stone slates, 1141, which also
contained pottery of the late 12th to mid-14th century,
and was cut by the medieval eastwest Wall, 1131.
Since the foundations of that wall were not excavated,
it is possible that 1131 masked a return of 3a which
could have turned west at that point to meet Wall 4a.
If it is not a wall trench, then it is a rubble-filled cut
which might be interpreted as a drainage feature laid
out in advance of the building of Wall 3b. In that case,
the deep deposit of soil which separated the spread
from the foundations of 3b has to be explained. On the
whole the most reasonable explanation seems to be
that this feature was a destroyed wall of the late AngloSaxon or Norman period.
Fig 10.4 Detail of Wall 3a capped by earth and Wall 3b

overlying it. (IS)
Phase 5: abandonment and

resettlement
There seems no doubt that there was a period of abandonment of the site before the Norman reconstruction,
and this is supported by the pollen evidence from the
lowest deposits in the well shaft, 1377 (Fig 10.7),
which are interpreted as material which fell in when
the shaft was being dug; see below. This demonstrates
that there was a considerable amount of waste ground
around the site at the time of deposition (see Vol 2,
Appendix F). It should be noted also that Symeons
account of the work necessary to clear the site of its
trees, bushes, and brambles is considerably more
detailed and graphic than the account of the reconstruction of Jarrow, and that he states that St Peters
Church was overgrown and roofless when the monks
arrived (Chapter 4 above).
Some burials, which cut a surface strewn with
architectural fragments and Anglo-Saxon wall plaster
(see Chapter 8) seem to be of this phase, as well as var-
JARROW10.QXD
19-01-2007
10:41
Pagina 117
10: THE EXCAVATED LATE SAXON AND NORMAN STRUCTURES
117
Fig 10.5 South-facing section of trench 6101, showing

robber trench of Walls 3a and 3b, cutting the line of wall
1131. (IS)
ious spreads and dumps of rubble and scattered postholes (Fig 10.1). The lack of pottery which can be
dated to the period late 9th to late 11th century has
already been mentioned and it is also important to
note that the numismatic report stresses the significant
lack of any pre-Conquest coinage after the period c 840
(see Vol 2, Chs 30.2 and 30.3), and there is similarly a
lack of late Anglo-Saxon metalwork. Potentially, then,
there is a period of over two hundred years when the
buildings on the site were falling into ruin, and the
clearance deposits provided considerable evidence for
charred wood and evidence of burning on stonework,
opus signinum, and wall plaster.
If it is often not possible to distinguish archaeologically between later pre-Conquest phases and the resettlement in the late 11th century, it is possible that the
rebuilding was limited since, as already noted above
(Chapter 4), the period in which Aldwin and his
monks were at Wearmouth was even shorter than at
Jarrow seven or eight years. Figure 10.1 gathers
together features which could belong to the period
immediately before the Norman reconstruction or
could be part of the Aldwinian activity, or soon afterwards.
The tower of St Peters Church

This structure has been discussed in detail in Chapter
6, and here the main concern is about how its possible
dating could be related to the site as a whole. It is possible that St Peters Church survived with some form of
use during the 10th and early 11th centuries, and the
burials in the abandoned monastic buildings could
Fig 10.6 The tower of St Peters Church, showing the later

rebuilding. TM
support this view. Whether the supposed firing of the
church by the Scots king Malcolm in 1070 (see above,
Chapter 4) had brought about its dereliction is impossible to tell. Certainly the west wall and porch bear
clear signs of fire both inside and out (Fig 6.1), but this
could have come about at any period. The only surviving architectural feature which is universally accepted
as belonging to the Aldwinian period is the bulbous
base of the south pier of the chancel arch, while the
tower, which was raised on the porch walls, has been
assigned on the basis of architectural parallels to both
a pre- and post-Conquest date (see above, Chapter 5).
It should be noted however in assessing its style that,
according to Hutchinson, what seems like a Norman
tower arch between the nave and chancel survived until
the drastic re-ordering of the 18th century; he
describes it as a heavy circular arch, much like the
arches of Jarrow in form but more lofty and extended
(Hutchinson 1787, 506). This comparison with Jarrow
buildings, which extends also to the form of the base
(see below, Chapter 19), is important since the architectural details of the tower are so unlike anything at
Jarrow. It is important to consider the fabric of the
tower since this is related to the rebuilding of certain
other walls on the site.
The tower (Fig 10.6) is of quite distinctive form: it
is built of coursed blocks of local sandstone, bonded
according to the masons with a gritty grey mortar (possibly type 11a), and its junction with the porch is clearly visible inside the third stage of the present structure,
JARROW10.QXD
118
19-01-2007
10:41
Pagina 118
where a band of patched stonework must represent the

rebuilding of the gable of the west wall of the church
and its roof (Fig 5.8; see also Vol 2, Ch 26.2, and
Appendix A6.13). The quoins of the tower are irregular and less massive than those of the porch and west
wall, but only the openings at the belfry stage are sufficiently distinctive for stylistic comment. The belfry
stage is separated from the stage below by a squaresectioned string course, and its east face is built on to
the reconstructed gable of the nave. The north, south
and west walls are pierced by double belfry windows
outlined by strip work and also have round sounding
holes (see Taylor and Taylor 1965, 43940). This stage
has been much rebuilt, especially on the west face, but
the general outline of these openings is visible on all of
the early depictions of the tower (see Appendix B5 and
6). This type of belfry is closely paralleled in other
Northumbrian churches with a pre-Conquest documentation such as Bywell, St Andrew; Billingham, St
Cuthbert; Ovingham, St Mary; and St Mary
Bishophill Junior at York. The towers are not closely
dated, however, and their position in the history of
northern architecture has been briefly discussed above
in Chapter 6, but they seem on balance to be best
assigned to the second half of the 11th century, a
period that could be pre- or post the Aldwinian refoundation of Wearmouth.
Also of this phase could be the construction, or
reconstruction, of a porticus to the south-west of the
nave which survived as a robber trench, 1997, running
east to west, and part of a wall superstructure running
north to south, 2000 (Figs 9.2 and 10.1), which like
the tower and the rebuilding of Wall 4, was formed
with neat sandstone blocks. Unfortunately the small
cutting 6703 had to be very hurriedly excavated
because of its proximity to the church and the surface
into which the wall was cut was not fully investigated.
From the pottery evidence there seems to be a reconstruction level, 1998, in the Medieval 1 period and the
chamber was put out of use in the immediately postmedieval period (see below, Chapter 11).
Nevertheless if one judges by the type of fabric alone
then at Wearmouth the use of neat sandstone blocks
does constitute a phase which only includes the church
tower and south porticus, and possibly a stage of building in Wall 4 (discussed in Chapter 11), while other
post-Conquest rebuilding seems to make use of thinner
stones which are less well shaped. It is possible then
that the building of the tower and the rebuilding of the
other features mentioned was effected using a limited
amount of good quality stone at a specific occasion.
Phase 5b: the Norman

reconstruction
Much of the pottery which could have been deposited
in the Aldwinian period is residual in later contexts,
but its distribution on the site alongside Wall 4 as well
as inside and to the south of the South Range could
indicate reconstruction activity in these areas. A scatter

of stakeholes which survived patchily along the length
of the nave, especially in 6701, could represent some of
Aldwins temporary buildings, and other substantial
postholes such as 2097, 1682 and 2143, could also be
of this phase, likewise the scatter of postholes cut into
the clay spreads to the east of Wall 4 such as 1872. The
clay, which seems to have been laid down in this phase,
principally in the wetter and sandier parts of the site,
was perhaps derived from a deep shaft in the centre of
the site which has been interpreted as a temporary
well, and which has a claim to be one of the earliest of
the Norman features on the site.
The well shaft, 1377

The shaft was funnel-shaped in section: at the top it
was about 5.63m (18ft 5in.) in diameter tapering to a
narrower shaft about 1.65m (5ft 5in.) wide and in total
about 5.50m (18ft) deep (see Fig 10.7). It was cut
from a ground surface covered with a considerable
amount of Anglo-Saxon building debris, 1372, and
had cut through both burials and the mortar mixer, as
well as the east wall of Building B (Figs 9.4 and 9.5).
The very compact grey clay at the base of the shaft,
1469, was markedly clean, containing a few stones,
bones, and a piece of string course. This may represent
partly dissolved natural clay at the base of the cut. The
redder clay deposits above, 1466 and 1468, contained
a considerable amount of human bone, wood in the
form of twigs and branches mortar, painted plaster
and opus signinum, fragments of plain and red-painted
baluster shafts and strip work (see Vol 2, Chs 26.2 and
28). This has been interpreted as material which fell in
from the level from which the shaft was dug, and this
deposit was sampled for pollen and macrobotanical
samples (Vol 2, Appendix F). The horizon above 1468
was interpreted in the course of excavation as the level
of the operational base of the well. The clay deposit
above, 1460, was very clean except for a few fragments
of wood and two deposits of stones and yellow mortar,
and this clay may represent a period of silting when the
shaft was not in use. The next deposit, 1450, contained
a certain amount of charcoal and mortar, and sealed
off the narrower part of the shaft. The shaft had then
been filled by tips of stone and clay. These tips (1439
and 1437, 1413, 1454) contained only Anglo-Saxon
building materials, including window glass, baluster
shafts, and strip work, as well as painted plaster and a
large door jamb formed from a Roman altar (see Fig
10.8 and Vol 2, Ch 28). In 1417, which was a darker
siltier layer, there was the same type of worked stone as
well as a pigs jaw bone, and within a hollow in this clay
deposit a hearth, 1382, had been constructed with a
clay base on a bed of flat stones (Fig 10.7). It had
impressions of burnt planks about 0.20m (8in.) wide
around its edge and seemed to have been reconstructed several times. The red ashy fill of the hearth, 1382,
contained a quantity of animal and fowl bones.
JARROW10.QXD
19-01-2007
10:41
Pagina 119
119
Fig 10.7 Section of the well shaft 1377 (for location see Fig 10.1). YB/RC
Fig 10.8 Deposit of building stone 1413 with reused

Roman altar AS1 in well pit 1377. (IS)
This hearth was sealed by 1372, a layer of clean clay
containing one piece of Anglo-Saxon window glass,
and on the same horizon a clay layer to the south of the
hearth (1395) contained one piece of a fine red ware,
considered to be either Roman or an early import,
while in the clay sealing the hearth, 1362/1372, there
was one sherd each of Newcastle Dog Bank ware (C1,

11501200) and Handmade Reduced ware (D12,
10751200). The hearth and the clay capping had
been truncated by a sequence of cuts in the fill 1345
and these contained pottery which spanned the
medieval periods and which will be considered with the
later medieval phase 6 (Chapter 11 below).
Indeed the shaft seems to have been filled in by the
time the next phase of post-Conquest activity began on
the site. Unless the well was dug to provide water for a
pre-Aldwinian phase in which the church tower was
built, it is most reasonably seen as a construction of the
Aldwinian period which was early put out of use, perhaps after the community had been taken to Durham.
It certainly was not operational after the 13th14th
century, and it is relevant to note that one of the recurring items in the Wearmouth accounts from the 14th
century onwards is repairs to an aqueduct, which
implies that water was brought in from somewhere
outside the site (see below, Chapter 11).
At some stage the east wall of Building B was
demolished between Walls H and K, but the west wall
served as a terminus for a floor of new limestone chippings 480 (Fig 9.13). This strip of path or floor has
been too marginally investigated to enable one to form
JARROW10.QXD
120
19-01-2007
10:41
Pagina 120
Fig 10.9 Stratigraphic position of hearths and Wall 2. LB

a firm conclusion about its function or date. Medieval
pottery (types E10, F10, D19) was discovered in the
removal of this patch of stone, and so, despite the similar appearance of this limestone surface to AngloSaxon structures, it may have been laid down in the
Aldwinian rebuilding phase, when Building B was still
a visible feature, since its wall foundation was used as
a terminus. This area may then have been in use until
about the 14th century.
Evidence for clearance and

reconstruction of buildings
There is, as noted above, considerable difficulty in distinguishing which building work was done in the period of the Aldwinian activity in the late 11th century,
and a period of reconstruction which is apparently
dated, on the evidence of pottery, to the late 13thearly
14th century, before the documentary sources for the
cell begin. The centre of the enclosure seems to have
been used as a workplace for such activities as the
melting of lead, or redressing of stone, and many of the
finest fragments of Anglo-Saxon masonry came from
this area (see Vol 2, Ch 28). In this central area there
Fig 10.10 Rubble spread 1129 with baluster shaft overlying opus floor, cf Fig 9.38. (IS)
JARROW10.QXD
19-01-2007
10:41
Pagina 121
Fig 10.11 Sunken structure Ca (1705), showing construction over filled in shaft of well (1377), looking east. (IS)
Fig 10.12 Sunken structure Ca (1705): entrance at the

west, showing partly excavated shaft and clay shelf. (IS)
were many small deposits of stone and mortar (such as
1672, 1637, 1670, 1665, or 1194) that either contained no pottery or fragments of pottery dated to the
13th14th centuries. One deposit, 1190, contained a
9th-century coin (Vol 2, Ch 30.2, Nu8). There is also
some evidence for temporary structures which could
either be the work of the Aldwinian community or of
the builders of the Durham cell. Near to the south wall
121
Fig 10.13 Sunken structure Ca (1705): fill of building

rubble when abandoned. (IS)
of the church, where the Anglo-Saxon ground surface
had been levelled off so drastically that the preConquest burials were practically on the modern surface, were two hearths 1812 and 1813 (Fig 10.1)
one of which had been used for melting lead, and
beside it was a lead skimmer, the handle of which had
been formed from a human tibia. The deposits which
covered the hearths, 1811, 1809, contained pottery of
the 13th14th centuries, and 1809, a sherd dated to
the 14th16th centuries, so that these hearths could
have belonged to any of the Norman/early medieval
reconstruction phases (Fig 10.9).
Other structures are equally difficult to date:
beneath the spread of rubble between the walls of
Building B at its northern end, there was a sunken
stone-lined pit 1658 (Fig 10.1), which cut through the
west wall of the Anglo-Saxon building, and there was a
short length of laid stone, like a truncated foundation,
to the north of it. The pit was filled with a certain
amount of greenish soil and some Anglo-Saxon plaster
and is interpreted as a latrine. Since it utilised part of
the foundations of Building B, it is perhaps more likely to be part of the Norman rather than the later occupation. One of the dumps of rubble around it, 1637,
contained nothing but Anglo-Saxon building materials
while 1194 contained later medieval pottery. The
spread of rubble 1129 in trench 6101, which contained
a baluster shaft and overlaid the opus floor in the southwest of the site, was probably also part of the demolition spread from the Anglo-Saxon buildings in that
area (Fig 10.10).
Since the period of Aldwinian occupation was so
short and the interval between 1083 and the beginning
of the surviving records of the cell in 1321 so comparatively long, several features which were built over the
infilled well shaft and seem to have been abandoned by
the 14th century could be assigned to the intervening
period. The sunken structure, Building Ca (Figs
10.1110.13), had been cut by the baulk between
JARROW10.QXD
122
19-01-2007
10:41
Pagina 122
trenches 6201 and 6403, and what survived to the north

of the baulk in 6201 was a sub-rectangular cavity in
which the upper shelf was lined with stones, with
heavier stones at the corners, and there appeared to be
an entrance which turned at a sharp angle. Its construction cut, 1705, contained only fragments of bone
and charcoal. It is possible that this structure was nearly completely excavated and what could be its south wall
was visible in the section above the well shaft as 1346.
This feature may have been used as a water collection
point after the well had been filled in, and, when it too
was put out of use, the cavity had been filled with large
stones and soft soil, 1653 and 1656, which contained
much Anglo-Saxon mortar and a 9th-century styca (Vol
2, Ch 30.2, Nu7) but also a rumbler bell (Vol 2, Ch
31.2, CA144) and some 13th- to 15th-century pottery,
implying that it may have served in the later reconstruction of the buildings, but then, like its more substantial
predecessor, 1377, was filled in. Other patches of laid
stone, 1684, over the filled-in well shaft could also have
been laid down during the reconstruction of the buildings before the main medieval occupation.
JARROW11.QXD
19-01-2007
10:45
Pagina 123
11 The medieval and post-medieval occupation

Phase 6: the medieval cell
St Peters Church
chancel, which had been constructed or modified in the

11th century (see above), was enlarged with a pointed
arch also of 13th-century date. This was destroyed by
the construction of a gallery in the 18th century but was
restored to its medieval form in the 19th century (see
Popham Miles 186878, Appendix A6.12).
Although an early drawing (Fig 11.1) depicts short
projecting walls attached to the south wall of the nave,
which might indicate the earlier presence of side chambers, either of Anglo-Saxon or later date, only one such
chamber has been excavated, at the extreme west end
of the nave.
There appears to have been a rebuilding episode in
this southern porticus of the church: the north to south
wall, 2000, which has been already dated as potentially 11th century (Chapter 10), was sealed by a black soil
level, 1996, and a mortar spread, 1992, which seems to
belong to a 17th to 18th-century building adjacent to
the church (see Figs 1.3 and 1.4). In the base of the
eastwest robber trench of the chamber there was a
sherd of pottery of the buff white ware type E11, which
could derive from its construction or reconstruction.
The nave
Since the nave of the church was completely rebuilt in
the 19th century (see above, Chapter 5, and Appendix
B12), the post-Conquest modifications to the church
are largely to be deduced from later documentation (of
which the most useful is Hutchinson 1787, vol II), as
well as loose architectural stone work. Judging by these
and the replicated forms of the present church it would
seem that by the end of the 13th century the north wall
of the Anglo-Saxon church had been demolished and a
north aisle constructed from its line. The aisle was,
according to Hutchinson, five paces wide and formed
by two round pillars and three pointed arches
(Hutchinson 1787, 506). There was a doorway into it
from the north and this doorway seems to have been
substantially retained during the 18th-century refurbishment and when the nave was rebuilt in the 19th
century. At that period the north aisle was extended 6ft
(1.83m) further north (Popham Miles 186878,
Appendix A6.12). The arch between the nave and the
Fig 11.1 Northsouth wing of Wearmouth Hall showing surviving Romanesque doorway, later doors and fenestration and
the ornamental sunken path, drawn by S H Grimm (British Library, Ms Add 15540, no. 74)
123
JARROW11.QXD
19-01-2007
124
10:46
Pagina 124
Fig 11.2 View from the north-east of Monkwearmouth church, engraved by R Beilby from a drawing made before 1779
(Hutchinson 1787, 501)
There was also some opus signinum and plaster in the
soil levels surrounding the wall which could have
derived from the porch or the demolition of an earlier
porticus (see above). This porticus then could have been
reconstructed either at the same time as the tower and
then again in the 14th century, or could have been
reconstructed only in the later medieval period. The
lack of excavated evidence on a large enough scale,
however, precludes a definitive reconstruction of the
medieval nave.
The chancel
There were extensive alterations to the chancel
between 1872 and 1875 (Lowe nd, 810) when it
appears to have been lengthened, but not entirely
rebuilt. Hutchinsons engraving demonstrates that a
building occupied most of the north side leaving space
for only one window (Fig 11.2). This building must be
the Hylton chantry chapel, which is known to have
occupied this position from possibly the 13th century.
According to Popham Miles (186878, Appendix
A6.12) this was converted into a vestry in the 18th
century. A canopied tomb of 14th-century date and a
figure in armour of c 138090 still exist (see Vol 2, Ch
29.2), and according to Hutchinson there had been an

effigy of a warrior in chain mail armour (1787, 635).
This could be an earlier effigy, now lost, or a loose
description of the present mutilated figure.
Once established in the cell the Durham monks
enriched their part of the church the choir as is evidenced from the provision of three windows in the
choir in the accounts of 13478 (Raine 1854, 150; see
Figs 11.2 and 11.3), and Cambridge has remarked that
this must reflect the special status of the chancel as the
monastic choir, although the lack of any late medieval
alterations reflects the acute poverty of the cell in that
period (Cambridge 1992, 170). One of the squareheaded Decorated windows that on the north (Fig
11.2) no longer exists, but the two on the south seem
to be accurate copies of those illustrated by
Hutchinson and one of them may be original. The
Bielby engraving in Hutchinson (Fig 11.2) depicted an
elaborate five-light east window which has also been
reconstructed. It had been destroyed in the 18thcentury rebuilding when simple pointed windows were
substituted (see Appendix B7), but the windows on the
southern face of the choir would have been masked by
Monkwearmouth Hall (Fig 11.1). Cambridge, in a discussion of the architectural links between the cells and
JARROW11.QXD
19-01-2007
10:46
Pagina 125
11: THE MEDIEVAL AND POST-MEDIEVAL OCCUPATION
125
Fig 11.3 View of Monkwearmouth chancel, from the south, with 19th-century reconstruction of medieval windows
the mother house at Durham, has noted that while

Jarrow traceries of a similar date can be paralleled at
Durham, nothing like the Monkwearmouth traceries
survives (Cambridge 1992, 175).
The small trenches excavated in 1986 in the
Cuthbert Chapel (Fig 6.8) demonstrated by the discovery of the plinth of the north wall of the chancel
that this had once been an external wall, but did not
throw much light on the subsequent construction of
the Hylton chapel. Mortar deposits, such as 3611,
could be associated with its construction, and the
eastwest wall 3411 in 8605 (Fig 6.8) could be
medieval and so part of this chapel or a north aisle,
with the possibility that feature 3613 is its eastern wall.
The rescue excavations discussed in Chapter 6 were
too limited to determine the medieval history of that
building, and the small trench 6003 provided only the
information that the ground to the east sloped quite
sharply, a fact which was also apparent from early
drawings (see Fig 1.3).
The medieval burials

It is presumed that the main burial ground was either
further to the east of the excavated area in the area
marked as burial ground on early maps (Appendix
B17), or to the north of the church, which was the burial
ground into the 19th century, and as Fordyce records,

A plot of ground to the north of the church is called
the Monks Garth; and it is conjectured that the burial
place of the monastery was extended in that direction
(Fordyce 1857, 415). It is there that the 14th-century
effigy of the cleric, which is now inside the church, was
reputedly found (see Vol 2, Ch 29.2, MSM1). Raine
suggested that this might represent Master William
Trollop d 1407, or Master John Rypon d 1413, who
were both buried at Wearmouth, and adds: This monument was not long ago ejected from its original place
in the chancel (Raine 1854, xxxiv). Eric Cambridge,
however, has suggested (pers comm) that this effigy
could have been of Prior Galfrid de Burden who
retired to Wearmouth and died c 1322 (see also
Fordyce 1857, 414). It is uncertain how many of the
masters and monks of Wearmouth died while serving
there or indeed whether, if they did, they would have
been buried at Durham in the mother-house, or at
Wearmouth, where they might or might not have been
separated from the laity. It is perhaps more likely that
past priors of Durham would have been returned to the
mother-house. Other masters and monks could have
been buried in the church, as were a few important laymen, and the 1986 excavations revealed several disturbed burials which could have been of this period, as
well as the burials above the late Saxon tomb slab in
JARROW11.QXD
126
19-01-2007
10:46
Pagina 126
Fig 11.4 Partially excavated medieval lead coffin in the Cuthbert Chapel of Monkwearmouth church. Photo: SCVS
Community Programme, Crown copyright
the 1971 chancel excavations (see Fig 6.13). The few
burials that were revealed in the small cuttings to the
east of the chancel include some which could be
medieval in date, but some are clearly postDissolution. One important in situ burial merits more
detailed notice.
After the main rescue excavations in 1986, it was
decided to widen cutting 8602 in order to show the
wall foundation of north wall 2. In the process, workmen revealed part of a lead coffin of half moon shape
(Fig 11.4). The burial in this was not investigated,
since it lay under the undisturbed floor of the Cuthbert
chapel, but the workmen recovered a pair of ring buckles which have been dated to the late 14th or early 15th
century, and which apparently came from the area of
the burial (Vol 2, Ch 31.2, CA19). The coffin was
lying in a soft brown sandy soil, 3109, above north wall
1 which has been assigned to the Anglo-Saxon period
(Chapter 6 above). Also lying in this soft sandy soil
were two large stone blocks with rounded edges. The
uppermost stone had clearly slewed out of its original
position, while the stone below it, although tightly
positioned against the north face of the wall, may have
slipped forwards. Below it were two more stones that
were stepped out eastwards. The lowest had been completely covered in a layer of brown clay and because of
the confined space it was not possible for it to be fully

excavated or to determine whether there was another
step below, but it seems possible that this was the
entrance into the mortuary area of the chapel.
The soft sandy clay, 3104, around the lowest step
incorporated the displaced bones of a male (86/2) and
two children, and may have disturbed some of the burial earth below. This layer, 3104, yielded a sherd of
Newcastle Dog Bank ware (C1), and was capped by a
deposit of clay on which was the bedding for a mortar
floor, 3102, which has been dated as early postmedieval.
The steps, and the soft soil and burials had all
been capped by a heavy dome of stones set in a very
hard light grey mortar, 3110. This deposit was, at first,
interpreted as a medieval wall, but the later excavation
established that it was a larger feature. At a later phase
the stone capping had been cut and reutilised to form
a burial enclosure, 31068. Unfortunately, it is uncertain whether the ring buckles came from the mortared
stone or the sandy soil layer. The steps then could be
early medieval in date, and certainly from stratigraphic evidence, could not be as late as the burial of Dame
Dorothy Williamson (Chapter 6, The 1972 excavations in the north aisle and porticus; see also Chapter
4), but the chamber in which the Williamsons were
JARROW11.QXD
19-01-2007
10:46
Pagina 127
127
Fig 11.5 South-facing section of trench 6401 showing robbed wall trench of Wall 4 and associated levels. YB
buried could well have been an earlier construction,

which was later reused and covered with a brick vault
(see Fig 6.12).
Post-Conquest modification of the

monastic buildings
The history of the monastic buildings seems to have
been one of adaptation of what survived at AD 1083.
The building layout of the last Anglo-Saxon phase had
provided a plan which would have needed little modification to produce a typical 11th-century Benedictine
plan, but unlike the buildings at Jarrow (see below,
Chapters 16 and 19) the small rubble blocks encased
in mortar which typify the Wearmouth Anglo-Saxon
buildings were not easy to reuse and were tipped into
cavities such as the well shaft, or laid as drainage channels (see below). It is difficult to decide, however,
whether the modifications to individual walls or buildings are to be dated to Norman or later building campaigns since, as noted in other phases, one is dealing
with small-scale excavation of fragmentary foundations
of walls, some of which supported superstructures
which stood until the late 18th century, although then
they were comprehensively robbed before the 19thcentury town development. The lack of any standing
medieval buildings at Wearmouth in contrast to the
sites of the other Durham cells, including Jarrow (see
below), has made interpretation of this period very difficult.
The most important buildings which would have
been immediately necessary for the conduct of monastic life would have been an enclosure, a chapter house,
a kitchen and some form of refectory as well as a

latrine and a dormitory. In the later occupation of the
cell by a master and one or two monks, the provision
of large communal buildings would not have been necessary and the domestic nature of the buildings as
gleaned from the surviving Durham documents has
already been mentioned in Chapter 4 (see also
Appendix A5.9 and 5.10). The hall mentioned from
the earliest documents could have been a general purpose room, with the camera serving as a private suite
for the master, although in later returns, 14234 and
15056 there seem to be more than one chamber
(Cambridge 1992, 187), and in 14678 there is a reference to a new hall (Raine 1854, 211 and Appendix
A5.10). The reference in 141516 to the repair and reroofing of the cloister to the church (Raine 1854,
192), has usually been considered to refer to a simple
passage as at Jarrow (Piper 1987, 15), and the impression is that the wall which is noted in the first inventory of 1321 as almost surrounding the court, but at that
time in a poor state of repair (Raine 1854, 141), represents the enclosure of the buildings. An aqueduct for
piped water together with other domestic buildings are
also mentioned in the accounts (see Appendix A5.9).
In few places, however, did sufficient occupation levels
survive to be able to deduce the functions of buildings
in any medieval phase, and to relate the archaeology to
the texts.
As mentioned in Chapter 10, Building B was certainly cleared from the centre of the site and the AngloSaxon cemeteries were ignored, but the surrounding
buildings appear to have been adapted or rebuilt on the
same lines, using the centre of the site as a builders
JARROW11.QXD
128
19-01-2007
10:46
Pagina 128
Fig 11.6 Flooring of medieval outbuilding or yard in

trench 6604. (IS)
Fig 11.7 Detail of east wall of medieval outbuilding in

trench 6604. (IS)
yard. Although there were in several areas sequences of

deposits or features, these were so discontinuous, and
the dating evidence provided by the pottery so uncertain, that it has been considered best to discuss the site
in this period area by area.
butted up to, but the upper courses were bonded into,

the eastwest Wall F (Fig 9.28), thus strengthening the
enclosure. Since there is some pottery dated 11th to
12th century in the levels alongside the wall, it is possible that there was an initial rebuilding in the Norman
or earlier part of the medieval period and another in
the 14th century. There also seems to be further repair
in the late medieval period (see below).
As noted above, repairs to the surrounding wall of
the court are mentioned on several occasions in the
inventories, and in the inventory of 1321 (Raine 1854,
141) the wall that almost surrounded the court was
said to be in need of repair. A great gate was made in
1392 (see Appendix A5.10) and since the main landward approach would have been from the west, the
gate could have been in Wall 4, perhaps enlarging an
earlier opening which has been postulated for the
Anglo-Saxon period (see Figs 9.40 and 11.8). The
foundation, 1279, which ran up to this wall from the
south-west overlaid two narrow robbed wall trenches
1304, which is plausibly an Anglo-Saxon feature (see
above) robbed in the pre-Conquest period and then
covered by a hard-packed stone surface, and 1312,
which could also mark a pre-Conquest feature,
although the robber trench contained a sherd of late
medieval pottery which could be contamination from
the feature above. Since the foundation or path, 1279,
was sealed by a mortar layer dated to the later medieval
period it is possible that the path was laid down with
the making of a new gate as recorded in the inventory,
The western sector of the enclosure

Only one substantial north to south wall was traced in
the excavations of this area, Wall 4, which was of
Anglo-Saxon origin and could have been modified first
in the Norman period (see above, Fig 9.20 and 9.21).
This ran south from the south-west porticus of the
church and survived only as a robbed trench in the
northern sector of the site (Fig 11.5), having been
comprehensively demolished in the late 18th century,
but further south several phases of construction could
be clearly seen (see 1293). Above the narrower AngloSaxon Wall 4a, formed with small limestone blocks,
was a level of earth and spilled mortar on which was set
the neat sandstone blocks of an offset course, as mentioned above, and on this a later wall of rougher blocks,
4b, had been constructed (Fig 9.20). The AngloSaxon wall seems then to have been rebuilt from
ground level, but there was no conclusive evidence for
the date of this work or for whether the rebuilding was
all at one time, although in trench 6401 part of the
reconstruction trench for the wall yielded a sherd of
Scarborough ware (F1, 11501350). At the junction
with the South Range, the lower courses of Wall 4 were
JARROW11.QXD
19-01-2007
10:46
Pagina 129
129
Fig 11.9 South-facing section of trenches 6101/6102. Stony tile deposit for Wall 3b lying in the medieval ground surface
1116. (See Fig 11.8). RC/YB
although there are obvious dangers in linking archaeological evidence with the patchy surviving records of
expenditure.
Very little ground has been excavated to the west of
Wall 4 and the evidence remains ambiguous as to the
nature of the buildings to the west. One narrow cutting, 22ft 6ft (6.71m 1.83m) with an extension 4ft
10ft (1.22m 3.05m), trench 6604, provided some
evidence for the nature of this area. About 10ft
(3.05m) to the west of Wall 4 was a shallow wall foundation, 845, running northsouth and to the west of it
another foundation, 846. Between 845 and 846 was an
area of compact chipped stone and cobbles set in clay,
844 (see Figs 11.611.8). The walls and the hard area
between them were set into natural sand, and the west
wall, 845, had cut a burial in the sand, 66/56. By the
north-east corner of Wall 846 was a row of stones at a
north-east/south-west angle very much like 1279, and
since there was an area of hard-packed stone east of
1279, it is possible that these two features were connected. Lying on the floor surface 844 was a sherd of
Later Green ware (E12b, dated 1375+), and overlying
the floor was a clean deposit of collapsed building
debris, and this was sealed by a dump of material (834)
which contained some Anglo-Saxon stonework as well
as animal bones and pottery which could span a period from the 11th to the 16th century. This structure
could have been part of a yard or an independent
building such as a stable, but certainly this cutting did
not provide evidence for the existence of a west range
at any post-Conquest period.
The evidence for either a cloister walk or buildings
to the east of Wall 4 is also very fragmentary. In the
northern sector of the site deposits of mortar-flecked
clay, 1849, 1859, 1878, which seem to have been cut
by postholes 1847, 1848 and the burnt patch 2308, and
which are all without pottery, could fit well into the first
phase of post-Conquest occupation, while the lower
part of the clay deposits could well have been preConquest. Above the clay, 1878, and the postholes,
there was a layer of flagging composed of reused sandstone roofing flags and this too has yielded no datable
evidence, although 1853 and 1870, which seem to be
stratigraphically equivalent layers, have some pottery
which spans the medieval period, 13th to 16th centuries. These clay layers, which overlaid the wet sand
with burials between Walls 4 and 3, could then have
been constantly renewed from the later Anglo-Saxon
throughout the medieval periods, and the paving could
have been for a cloister walk.
Further south, and immediately adjacent to the east
face of Wall 4, an area of densely laid paving, 1307 (Fig
11.8), was excavated and this seems to have been a
later medieval feature. How this feature was related to
the robbed Wall 3 (1860, Fig 11.8) further east is
unknown. The sequence in that area seems to be that
the eastwest wall foundation 1131 was laid across the
demolition rubble 1129, which has been seen as deriving from an Anglo-Saxon building at this point (see
above, Fig 10.5), and was formed with facing stones of
neat sandstone blocks surviving for two courses. This
wall apparently turned south in the baulk between cuttings 6101 and 6102, but was not picked up again further south. The wall, 1131, was cut by the foundation
trench of Wall 3b which was recorded in the north and
south sections of 6101/2 and survived as a foundation
embedded in the line of 1131, (see Figs 10.5 and
11.811.9).
Wall 3b
Wall 3b was identified in its most complete state in the
northern sector of the site where it was about 1m (3ft
3in.) wide with neat facing stones and a rubble core
(Figs 10.3 and 10.4). It had been set over a trench
filled with rubble and mortar-flecked clay which was
capped by a spread of tile and rubble, 1138/1873. This
trench has been tentatively identified as marking a
destroyed pre-Conquest feature (Wall 3a; see Chapter
10 above), and certainly the fills were composed of
JARROW11.QXD
130
19-01-2007
10:46
Pagina 130
Fig 11.10 Medieval drain and wall E and wall 1096 in

foreground, trench 6402. Possible wall in section to left of
ranging rod. (See Fig 11.8) (IS)
Anglo-Saxon building debris with its distinctive mortar
and plaster, but also contained medieval pottery,
including one sherd of Oxidised Buff White ware
(E11e, 13001500), and part of a glazed roof tile as
well as a copper alloy book-clasp (see Vol 2, Ch 31.2,
CA127). Wall 3b must, then, have been a later
medieval feature. Further south in 6101 and 6102, a
clay and mortar-flecked ground surface, 1114, covering the pre-Conquest cemetery, had built up against
Wall 3b and may have been cut by it at the lowest level
since it contained pottery dated to the 11th to 12th and
13th to 15th centuries. Lying on this surface was a
deep deposit of stone roofing tiles (1138). These tiles
could have been from a building nearby or from a cloister walk. This destruction level was in turn sealed by a
clay layer, 1111/1137, which mainly contained later
medieval pottery, but also two post-medieval sherds
and probably, therefore, dates to the end of the
medieval or early post medieval period.
Wall 3b then could have been on the line of a cloister wall, but possibly the walk did not function as an
enclosure wall in the latest medieval period since there
was at that stage similar domestic occupation on the
east and west sides of it in the form of a latrine pit
1896, hearths 1874, 1845, 1880, patches of burning
and deposits of coal in the northern section of the site,
and a possible hearth or oven base in trench 6401
(1281) which overlaid a deposit containing Tyneside
Buff White ware (E11b; see Fig 11.8).
Wall 3b was not traced further south to where there
might have been a corner and a return wall forming the
south walk of a cloister, and indeed the existence of
such a wall is problematic. A robbed wall foundation in
the north face of 6401 could represent its most
southerly limit. Three lengths of discontinuous walling
(Wall E; see Fig 11.8) run parallel to the South Range;
all are cut into the disturbed sand of the Anglo-Saxon
cemetery and all lay immediately under the floors of
Fig 11.11 Buttress of Wall VIII, left (see Fig 11.8) overlying Anglo-Saxon Wall IX, right. (IS/MS)
the Victorian cellars. The central section, 1096, had
been laid in conjunction with a drain (1204), which
had been neatly inserted through the rebuilt Wall 4b
and probably joined 1481 in the centre of the site (Figs
11.8 and 11.10). Much of the upper covering of this
drain had been destroyed by later activity, but in one
intact section, in trench 6402, the drain fill contained
Quite Gritty Oxidised Ware (D11). It is plausible that
both the drain and the southern wall, 1096, could have
been built in the early post-Conquest period. To the
west, the narrow Wall E (1096a) has been tentatively
placed in the Anglo-Saxon phase (see Ch 9 above), but
the eastern sector described here may have been partially reused in the post-Conquest period. This line
would provide a cloister walk of about 2.55m (8ft 4in.)
in width, but it is a remarkably fragile foundation. The
line of 1096 further east, in the areas excavated, would
have been obliterated by a modern wall. If there had
been an eastern cloister walk, of the same width as
those postulated on the west and the south, it could
only have been seen in trench 6702, and no vestiges
were noted there, although the ground had been heavily disturbed under the modern road.
The east and south ranges
These ranges could be said to have included potentially all of the essential monastic buildings as listed above
and they survived in outline at least into the 18th
century, as Hutchinson recorded (Chapter 4 above)
forming two sides of a square, or an L-shaped building
which had been adapted to create the Jacobean hall
(see Fig 1.4). It is the view of the west face of
Monkwearmouth Hall, as painted by Grimm (Fig
11.1), which provides the only surviving evidence that
there may have been significant rebuilding in the
Norman period, since he apparently depicts an elaborate Romanesque door.
JARROW11.QXD
19-01-2007
10:46
Pagina 131
131
Fig 11.13 Rebuilding of Wall F from wider foundation levels in the eastern sector. (IS)
Fig 11.12 Medieval Wall 637 appearing under cellar wall,

and abutting Wall H which has been strengthened at the
junction. The east wall of Building B is to the right. (IS/MS)
Fig 11.14 Rebuilding of Wall F in the western sector with

flat slabs levelling up over the Anglo-Saxon foundations,
looking south. (IS)
So little of the East Range was excavated that this

graphic evidence probably contributes more than the
archaeology. The foundations of the Anglo-Saxon Wall
VI, which presumably became the west wall of the East
Range, bore no evidence of modification before they
were levelled off after the fire of the 18th century
(demonstrated in many deposits of burning in the areas
sampled, especially in the northernmost trench, 6202,
where the paved path alongside the wall survived (see
Figs 11.19 and 11.20), but new openings could have
been inserted in the above-ground structure, in the
Norman period as well as at later dates, as the fenestration shows in Figure 11.1. The excavations at the
south-east corner do, however, suggest substantial
modifications in the post-Conquest period which
could have entailed a major reconstruction of the
whole range. It is possible that Wall IX was strengthened from the foundations upwards by the addition of
heavy boulders in the later Saxon or Norman period

(Fig 11.11), but at a later stage was put out of use and
the range narrowed. At this stage, the Anglo-Saxon
Wall IX was pulled down and covered with a deposit of
clean clay which contained one sherd of 11th- to 12thcentury pottery. Then another wall, VIII, was built
only 0.61m (2ft) west of it with a buttress, 770, covering the foundation of the earlier wall (see Figs 11.8 and
11.11). Wall VIII was very substantial, measuring
about 1.63m (5ft 4in.) at foundation level, and bonded with a gritty grey mortar. Unfortunately no floor
levels survived within the small section of the interior
of the range which was excavated, and the curious little burnt socket-like feature, 920, could have belonged
to any period, but in trench 6202 there was a small
area of paving, 2026, which could have been medieval
flooring. The excavated evidence does not disprove an
extensive rebuilding in the Norman campaign and
JARROW11.QXD
132
19-01-2007
10:46
Pagina 132
Fig 11.15 Looking west latrine 142 showing junction

with Wall K to the left. (See Fig 11.8) (IS/MS)
modifications later, but possibly the west wall of the
building, Wall VI, was allowed to stand with new openings inserted, since this like the south wall of the
South Range appears to have retained its AngloSaxon foundations until its demolition in the 18th
century.
Not all of the South Range was excavated: the western section (to the south of which one might have
expected the kitchen area in an orthodox Benedictine
plan) was not investigated, but in 1971 and 1974, a
major section of the South Range interior further east
was excavated which constituted an eastern room, east
of the division wall 637 (Figs 11.8 and 11.12). This
wall, which lay close to the west wall of the AngloSaxon Building B, was newly built in the postConquest period and was constructed with flat
slab-like stones. Only the foundations survived, immediately under a wall of the Victorian cellar (Figs 11.12
and 11.20). Where it met Wall H in a butt-joint the
foundations of H had been strengthened. This
medieval division provided a room which measured c
15.24 4.57m (50 15ft) internally. The north wall
of the east room (Wall F) had been robbed down to the
lowest foundations, but, as already noted in the discussion of phasing in phase 3 above, there seems to
have been an Anglo-Saxon wall on this line, but it was
widened and completely rebuilt, probably in the
medieval period. The small postholes, 944 and 951,
could indicate that scaffolding had been used for
rebuilding. West of Wall 637 there was also evidence
for rebuilding with similar flat slab-like stones, but this
time directly on the Anglo-Saxon foundations (see Fig
11.14). The small limestone blocks of the Anglo-Saxon
walling had been rejected for reuse in a coursed wall,
as was evident from the dumps of rubble, such as
1219, alongside the wall, and the Anglo-Saxon foundation had been levelled off with a course of flat slabs,
which had widened and strengthened it.
A few fragments of buff white ware (type E11a) in
the deposits alongside the wall dated the rebuilding in
this area to the 13th to early 14th century. This rebuilt
wall had been bonded into Wall 4 at the west end, and
there was a possible southern entrance in the southwest corner of the room.
The eastern room appears to have had a door in the
south wall with possibly a porch as indicated by the
large slabs and paving at 672 (Fig 11.8). This would
have led into a yard between Walls H and Wall K. A
small latrine pit, 246, was abutted to K and a suite of
anteroom and latrine, was built on to the south-east
corner of the range (see Figs 11.8 and 11.15). The east
wall of the latrine (133) was butt-jointed to, but a continuation of, the line of Wall VI, and, like the west and
south walls of the structure was built with large stones
mortared with a creamy yellow mortar. All three walls
were bonded together, although separately constructed
from Walls K and H, to surround a central pit. The
west and south walls cut a trench-like feature, 147/8,
which contained dark sand and a little Saxon mortar
(Fig 9.2). Between the east and west wall, adjacent to
Wall H, was a deposit of mortar, 151/564, about 8in.
(0.20m) deep, which seems to have formed the floor of
the adjunct building. This was based on a dark sandy
layer 553 which contained an amount of fish and bird
bone, a possible sherd of Whitby ware, some Oxidised
Gritty ware and Early Gritty Green ware (E12a, E10)
and a burnt fragment, possibly Oxidised Green ware
(E13). Above the mortar layer was another wall, 122,
which ran east to west and was butt-jointed to the east
and west walls of the latrine. It was a homogeneous
construction with small sandstone blocks bonded with
a sandy mortar, and the same sandy mortar was to be
found in the upper courses of the east and west latrine
walls which had been rebuilt over a deposit of clay
which separated the later from the earlier construction.
It appears, therefore, that Wall 122 was constructed as
a division in the adjunct building, and that the latrine
could have been constructed in a primary period of
post-Conquest building and subsequently modified.
The date of the construction of this latrine could,
according to the pottery evidence have been before the
mid-14th century when the site was reoccupied as a
Durham cell, and possibly replaced the more temporary structures of the Aldwinian period to the north.
Certainly this large latrine remained in use until the
end of the life of the cell when it was filled with debris,
including several jugs and three urinals (E13.23,
E13.24, E13.25; Vol 2, Ch 33.2), and levelled off with
stones.
The medieval floor levels of the South Range had
been severely truncated or destroyed by the flooring
joists of Monkwearmouth Hall (see Fig 11.18), but in
small areas throughout the range there were discontinuous patches of a clay layer which contained pottery
JARROW11.QXD
19-01-2007
10:46
Pagina 133
133
I
"
, +
- +
> +
.+
Fig 11.16 North-facing section of trench 71013 showing relationships of medieval and Anglo-Saxon walls. RC/YB
JARROW11.QXD
134
19-01-2007
10:46
Pagina 134
Fig 11.17 Suggested reconstruction of main medieval features. YB

which spanned the medieval period and must have
been part of the floor surface (such patches are 550
and 554). In the western sector of the room the
Victorian cellars had penetrated to a considerable
depth and had disturbed the Anglo-Saxon ground surface, including a section of the Anglo-Saxon cobbled
path. In the eastern sector, under the 18th-century
demolition layers, the area between the insubstantial

slot, 541, and the corner formed by Walls H and VI
was covered by a sandy deposit, 538, which contained
food debris of fish, animal and bird bones, and only
Anglo-Saxon building material. This area is above the
filled-in sunken room, 569, and on either side of this
the impressions of the floor joists of the post-medieval
JARROW11.QXD
19-01-2007
10:46
Pagina 135
135
floor are stopped. It is possible that this area was therefore covered by some structure such as a staircase,
which sealed the area below throughout the medieval
period and possibly survived as a rebuilt feature of the
Jacobean Hall.
The adjunct building which filled in the south-east
corner of the range to the east of Wall VI is evidenced
only by a shallow foundation trench (465) which cut
the earthen surface 329, and included late medieval,
with some post-medieval, pottery and so has been
placed in the early post-medieval period, but it is an
area which is singularly lacking in the cuts and intrusions of the area further east, several of which seem to
be medieval (see Figs 11.8 and 11.17), and so there
could have been a structure here in the medieval period, possibly of wood.
The south-east sector of the excavated area seems
to have been used for domestic or industrial purposes,
for example 376 included a large number of lumps of
melted lead, and the rash of stakeholes in the area
could have been temporary wind breaks. Trench 7104
was the furthest east excavated on the site and was
severely disturbed by later post-medieval activities,
including the beginning of the excavation for the 19thcentury gasometer (see Fig 9.1).
East of the chancel of St Peters Church

The small cuttings 6003 and 7105 (Figs 2.1 and 11.8)
to the east of the chancel of St Peters Church revealed
certain features which can be assigned to a period
before the 17th century and therefore are likely to
belong to one of the medieval phases. In 6003 the earliest surface uncovered was a reddish brown clay, 2185,
which contained a small amount of mortar and shell,
and seems to have been a weathered ground surface.
Set into it was a substantial foundation 3ft 6in.
(1.07m) wide running at an angle to the line of the
church, west-north-west/east-south-east. This feature,
2183, which seems to be the base of a wall, had large
well-dressed facing stones and a rubble core (see Fig
11.8). The eastern end of the wall had been cut by
modern intrusions. To the north of this was a shallow
depression, 2190, seemingly a hearth filled with some
burnt wood and fibrous debris and some shell fish, and
to the north of this again was a curving row of stones
with their faces to the north, 2191 (Fig 10.1) and in
the same alignment as the wall 2183.
Stratigraphically all of these are on the same horizon
and can only be said to be pre-17th century, being covered by 2181 and 2189 which contained material of
that date. Among the debris of the curving stone line
was discovered a complete quarry of red glass set in
lead (Vol 2, Ch 27.1), which on excavation was considered to be medieval but is now considered to be preConquest. The curving line of stones and the hearth
are reminiscent of other evidence for windbreaks and
insubstantial structures around hearths to the south of
the church which have been considered as early
Fig 11.18 Trench 7401 looking west, showing level of

impressions of floor joists from post-medieval south range
vestiges of medieval cuts in the foreground, rubble-filled
post-medieval drain and Victorian cellars in the background. The light-coloured spread of mortar is in the intersection of Walls H and VI. (IS/MS)
medieval (see above and Fig 10.1), and could be of the
same date. The wall is not closely similar in its fabric
and construction to any other structures on the site,
and has not been successfully placed in the period
sequence, save that it is most probably pre-17th
century.
A small area 10 8ft (3.05 2.44m) was excavated
in 1971 (7105), 1.27m east of the present vestry of St
Peters, and likewise revealed the depth of build-up to
the east of the church over the medieval ground surface,
as well as the natural slope to the east and south, as
found in the trench to the south (6003). A disturbed
clay level, 718, containing very decayed fragments of
human and animal bone and late medieval pottery, was
reached at a depth of OD 42.44ft, about 2.13m below
the ground surface. Embedded in its surface was a random deposit of small stones, some of which had yellow
mortar (type 2) or opus signinum attached (Fig 7.7).
136
19-01-2007
10:46
Fig 11.19 Plan of major wall lines of all periods showing intercutting and superimposition. LB
JARROW11.QXD
Pagina 136
JARROW11.QXD
19-01-2007
10:46
Pagina 137
This layer was covered by a sloping bank of dark soil

that contained pottery spanning a period from the 14th
to the 17th century, and this was capped by a distinct
burning level containing 17th-century pottery.
It may be assumed from the disturbed bones in the
lowest level reached before the trench was closed that
in the early medieval period, as possibly in the preConquest period, this area was in use as a cemetery (as
indeed it became again later), and this was truncated
and disturbed later in the medieval period. The debris
embedded in the clay surface could well derive from
the clearance of Anglo-Saxon buildings from elsewhere
on the site.
Summary
The archaeological evidence alone hardly permits any
coherent picture to be drawn of the rebuilding and
development of the medieval cell and Fig 11.17 gives a
spurious impression of certainty. Nevertheless some
sequences can be summarised. The filling-in of the
sunken structure 569 and the stakeholes, the construction of the well, and possibly the rebuilding of Wall 4,
could all have been of the Aldwinian phase. If,
however, Wall 1131 like Wall 2 represents some
intermediate period, between the demolition of the
Saxon buildings and the construction of the buildings
for the cell, perhaps the period when the tower was
built, then we could posit a building possibly continuing the position of an earlier Saxon structure. There
are common constructional characteristics for 1131,
the east wall of the southern porticus of the church, the
tower, and the rebuilt Wall 4. The only certainty is that
Wall 2, Wall 3a and the Wall 1131 were all put out of
use by about the 14th to 15th century when Wall 3b
was constructed.
There seems, however, to have been considerable
activity in the 13th/14th century, evidenced by the
reshaping and rebuilding of walls, and the early Buff
White wares are ubiquitous in the dumps of building
materials and the fills of such structures as Structure
C, the well shaft, and 1658 the latrine. Much of this
activity could have taken place before the mid-14th
century, when the documentary records begin. Very
little ground was examined west of the enclosure, but
there were certainly buildings adjacent to the west Wall
4; however, whether these were domestic, or part of the
farm mentioned also in the documentary sources, it is
impossible to say. The evidence for a covered walk
within the enclosure, perhaps planned in the early
post-Conquest period and then done away with, is very
tenuous except opposite the South Range. The fact
that part of the passage may have survived in front of
the East Range is supported only by one fragment of
walling and the position of a door into the church
shown on two of the early drawings (see Fig 11.1). The
area of the interior of the East Range has hardly been
touched by excavation, but a door would have been
needed initially for the conduct of monastic life.
137
In addition, the elaborate door shown in Grimms

drawing (Fig 11.1) together with the two blocked
openings to the north, compare very well with the illustration of the medieval East Range facade at Jarrow
(Fig 1.8), indicating that it was fully constructed in the
early medieval phases, and it certainly survived into the
post-medieval phase.
The South Range was divided into two rooms at
ground floor level, but the western room was hardly
touched by excavation, and the occupation levels of the
eastern had been severely truncated by later deposits
(see Fig 11.16). The main living quarters may have
been initially on an upper storey level, until the period
when the mortar floor at the entrance to the latrine was
laid down (Fig 11.16).
In the last phases of the medieval occupation there
seems to have been an increase in domestic activity in
the north-west sector of the enclosure, when hearths
were constructed (1908), and Wall 3b could have been
part of a domestic building such as a new camera or the
new hall mentioned in returns for 14678.
On the whole it appears as if only the East and
South Ranges were fully constructed in the period
before the 14th century, with a west wall serving as an
enclosure on that side (compare the situation at
Jarrow, Chapter 19). Although there is a reference to
the repairs to the roof of the cloister up to the church
in 141516 (Appendix A5.10), this could, as mentioned above, refer to a covered walk on one side only
or the term could refer to the whole enclosure. This
last seems, however, less likely in the specific wording
of cloister up to the church. There is no doubt that a
substantial east range was constructed, in which the
east wall would have been coterminous with the east
wall of the chancel (see above for discussion of the
medieval church). In any orthodox Benedictine plan
the west range should also be coterminous with the
church and should contain domestic and store buildings, perhaps with lodgings over. Such a range is well
preserved at Lindisfarne, another Durham cell
(Cambridge 1988, 3), although there is less clear evidence for a western cloister alley. On the other hand at
Jarrow, the site that Aldwin refounded just before
Wearmouth, a west range was not constructed,
although the cloister walk was (see below, Chapter
19), but the substantial perimeter wall on the west
survived as an enclosure into the post-medieval
period.
In the areas excavated there is no trace of the
domestic buildings such as the brewhouse which
are mentioned in the inventories, nor of the line of the
lead aqueduct which figured as such an expense in the
returns (see Appendix A5.9 and 5.10, and Piper nd).
Clearly more of the domestic and outbuildings, the
gardens and home farm, as well as the cemetery,
remain to be excavated at Wearmouth. The most fruitful areas which might be examined in the future are the
unexplored regions to the south-west and south-east of
the excavations.
JARROW11.QXD
138
19-01-2007
10:46
Pagina 138
The adaptation of the monastic

buildings into the Jacobean hall
The full report of the 17th- to 20th-century structures
and features are not the subject of this report.
Nevertheless, the building which was constructed by
the Williamson family by tradition incorporated and
adapted some monastic buildings (see Chapter 4) and
may be briefly mentioned here as a coda.
Although the L-shaped structure which appears on
early estate maps (Fig 1.4 and Appendix B1 and 2) as
the plan of Monkwearmouth Hall was apparently built
using the South and East Ranges of the medieval
monastery, additional rooms and subdivisions may
have been constructed to create the rooms enumerated
in the early wills (Appendix A6.11). It is unfortunate
that the only drawings of this building on the estate
maps are on such a small scale and at an odd angle, so
that increasing the scale has not secured a close fit with
the excavated features (Fig 11.19). It is possible also
that there was some widening south of the South
Range and perhaps the casing of the south-facing
facade, as well as division of the interior. The angled
projection on the north of the L-shape shown on the
estate plans could be an additional structure or the line
of the ornamental paths which were picked up in
excavation (see Fig 11.20) and which are clearly
depicted in the Grimm drawing.
On the estate plans, the small building shown at the
north of the enclosure was possibly a latrine, and other
outbuildings, whose cobble floors were revealed just to
the east of Wall 4 in trenches 59023 and 6101, were
probably stables. The substantial range of buildings
extending northsouth to the east of the excavated
Wall 4 are shown as divided by an opening and passage
Fig 11.20 Detail of sunken ornamental path against the

west face of Wall H foundations as excavated in trench
6202
from another block further south, but this area has not
been excavated. An outer enclosure roughly defines an
area which was later covered by Hallgarth Square
(Appendix B15). The north wall of this could have
been Wall K, which was certainly standing at this period. It is possible that this second square fossilised the
line of the outer court of the medieval cell, and this,
together with the enclosure along its south wall, could
be paralleled by the outer court at other cells such as
Holy Island (Cambridge 1988). Altogether, until the
20th century, Wearmouth, in the process of becoming
a domestic manor (the Hall) and then part of the suburb of Monkwearmouth, presents an extraordinary
example of continuity in the lines of structures and
enclosures.
JARROW12.QXD
19-01-2007
10:48
Pagina 139
Part III. Jarrow

12 Introduction: the Anglo-Saxon period
medieval cemetery, later gardens and allotments
(Appendix B22, 35 and 42), and the considerable
earthmoving activities involved in site consolidation
after Guardianship, destroyed all but the earliest stratification.
As at Wearmouth, the main attraction at Jarrow for
early artists and antiquarians was the church, although
there had been no recorded excavations within it until
the present campaign. The Anglo-Saxon phases of the
church are therefore presented first, before the cemetery and the monastic buildings, with consideration of
the graphic and textual evidence in existence before
the excavations began (see below, and Appendices A
and B).
The parish church of St Pauls now consists of a
Victorian nave with a north porch and slightly later
west porch, a medieval tower of several phases, and a
chancel which was once a separate building (see
Chapter 13), referred to below as the Eastern
Although the mouth of the Tyne, and even the Slake at

the east of the site, has been steadily encroached upon
by industrial development (see front cover and Fig
1.6), the removal of the school from the interior of the
cloister, and the small village from the east of the site
(see Fig 12.1), together with the interpretative display
in the guardianship area south of the church enables
one to appreciate the antiquity of the church and
monastery more easily than at Wearmouth (Fig 12.2).
Even when the site was most fully occupied by the
inhabitants of the cottage and the school (see
Appendix B3638) the medieval buildings were not
entirely swept away, although all traces of any AngloSaxon buildings had been lost. Since there was only
one cellared house, the short-lived Victorian rectory
outside the walls (Appendix B3537), the damage to
early structures on the site was not as great as at
Wearmouth. The greatest damage to the site was in the
area outside the enclosing medieval walls, where a
Fig 12.1 Jarrow in the early 20th century, with village to the east, school and cottage in the interior of the cloister. From an
old post card
139
JARROW12.QXD
140
19-01-2007
10:48
Pagina 140
Fig 12.2 The site during excavation in 1976 showing the standing remains of the medieval walls, over the outlines of the
Anglo-Saxon buildings. Newcastle University
Fig 12.3 St Pauls chancel from the south. DC
19-01-2007
10:48
12: INTRODUCTION: THE ANGLO-SAXON PERIOD
'
I
I.
"
;')
Fig 12.4 St Pauls Church and monastic ruins from the south-west, drawn and engraved by S and N Buck, 1728 (from S and N Buck, A collection of engravings of
castles and abbeys in England, London, 172639)
JARROW12.QXD
Pagina 141
141
JARROW12.QXD
19-01-2007
10:48
142
Pagina 142
.1
./
...
DEIJI("A 11~ "~IUM AI

~r'nVIIIlIiI"L AIAI
.\1-..0
ECTAIIIII1
OOl.I"I';;.'_lm,,, M
~.
C'U~
(OI\",'~
N'*vrToJRf
, 0 .111
If
Fig 12.5 St Pauls Church plan and cross-section westeast, anon 1769 (British Library, K Top.12.47b)
JARROW12.QXD
19-01-2007
10:48
Pagina 143
143
Fig 12.6 The monastery of Jarrow or Gyrwi, Durham, 12 Oct 1773, engraved by Sparrow (Grose 1773, unpaginated).
Note the houses to the north-east of the bridge in the foreground. This bridge may be medieval, and was ruinous in 1774,
repaired in 1781, and widened in 1805
Fig 12.7 The north elevation of St Pauls Church, drawn by S H Grimm c 177580 (British Library Ms Add 15540 no.
1). A unique record of the north wall of the pre-1769 church
JARROW12.QXD
144
19-01-2007
10:48
Pagina 144
Fig 12.8 Interior of St Pauls Church, looking east into the chancel. The dedication stone is visible above the arch. TM
Church. The present Scott nave (see Table 1.2) obliterated an 18th-century building, several depictions of
which and a contemporary pew plan survive
(Appendix B2226 and 46). This in its turn had obliterated a building for which an 18th-century plan (Fig
12.5) and several drawings survive. This is now generally accepted as a medieval or earlier church, and is
here referred to as the Western Church.
The structural evolution of the two churches at
Jarrow may be pieced together from the following
strands of evidence: the fabric of the standing Eastern
Church and tower, written or epigraphic evidence,

graphic evidence, and the limited excavations inside
and outside the church. Some of the most important
images are provided in Appendix B, although some
drawings or engravings, which are an essential part of
the argument for phasing of the destroyed Western
Church in particular, are discussed and reproduced in
the main body of the text. These are: the drawing and
the engraving by the brothers Buck, dated 1728, of the
south and west elevations of the church and the standing ruins of the monastery (see cover and Fig 12.4);
JARROW12.QXD
19-01-2007
10:48
Pagina 145
a plan and sectional elevation dated 1769 (BL Ms

K12, 47b; Fig 12.5); Sparrows impressionistic view
from the south-east dated 1773 (Grose 1773a; Fig
12.6); and Grimms detailed drawing of the north elevation (BL Add Ms 15540, fol 1; Fig 12.7). Since the
Eastern Church exists for comparison today, some
assessment may be made of the relative accuracy of the
draughtsmens work.
Previous discoveries
The first discovery recorded from Jarrow is the dedication stone (Fig 12.8 and Appendix A1), which is the
earliest such inscription for an English church, and as
such is of considerable importance. Its original position
is unfortunately not certain. According to an anonymous monk of Whitby in the 12th century, it was found
among the ruins by the Winchcombe/Evesham monks,
and this is quoted by Leland who transcribed the
inscription (1715, iii, 39). Camden recorded the stone
in the north wall of the nave (Camden 1607, 606 and
fig), and it is drawn in that position on the 1769 elevation drawing of the church demolished in 1782 (Fig
12.5, and Hutchinson 1787, 4756). During the demolition, when the dedication inscription was taken from
the north wall, it was found to have been composed on
two distinct stones, the lower of which had been mended by an iron cramp (Brand 1789, 51). This last observation supports the idea that the stone was not in its
original position. Today the inscription is set over the
west face of the tower arch. It is further described and
evaluated in Appendix A1. Leland also recorded that
there was a porch or chantry consecrated in honour of
145
Bede on the north side of the church, but does not pinpoint its position. Despite the useful collection of antiquarian drawings of St Pauls church before its
demolition in 1782, there are no contemporary
accounts of the demolition except incidental references
to the discovery of some of the carved stones taken
from its walls (Brand 1789, 624, and Vol 2, Ch 28).
There is likewise no record of the demolition of the
truncated and short-lived 18th-century church which
was taken down by Giles Gilbert Scott, although contemporary photographs of it exist, and the position of
its north wall was confirmed by excavation (see below).
During the 19th-century rebuilding of the nave and
restoration of the tower and chancel, completed in
1866, several important observations were made in
relation to the present standing fabric. Longstaffe stated, From a note made on 20th September 1864, I find
that on both sides of the chancel the lowest course of
squared stones overlap the foundations about 2in. or
3in., and that the lowest works consist of 2' 6"of cobbles filled in with the surrounding clay (Durham
Cathedral Library, Ms Longstaffe Octavo 16, Quarto
40). From this he deduced that the chancel had been
built on Roman foundations, but see below.
During the alterations the base of a wall was reputedly found running across the western end of the chancel immediately contiguous to the tower (Savage 1900,
36). This, taken together with the visible signs of the
quoins outside and inside, clinched the idea that the
chancel had originally been an independent structure.
Unfortunately there is no drawn record of this wall and
no comment as to whether or not a western doorway
was found (see below, Chapter 13).
19-01-2007
10:51
Fig 13.1 St Pauls Church, elevations of north, south and east walls of the chancel. A. South face. B. East face. C. North face. FB, NE
JARROW13.QXD
Pagina 146
JARROW13.QXD
19-01-2007
10:51
Pagina 147
13 St Pauls Church
The Eastern Church
The standing Anglo-Saxon structure
more clearly visible on the inside where it has a block

cap and voussoired head (Taylor and Taylor 1965, fig
151, G). It has been cut by the 14th-century window,
W8. The opening for D2 is cut straight through the
wall, and so should be a doorway.
What survives today as the chancel of St Pauls Church

are three walls forming a simple rectangular structure,
with monolithic side-alternate quoins at each corner,
including the south-west and north-west (Figs 12.3,
13.1). These demonstrate that the building was once
free-standing and provide an indication of the original
length of the Eastern Church. On all sides the lowest
twelve quoins appear to be original, implying an original wall height of about 5.50m (18ft) below the springing for the roof. The internal dimensions of the
building are: 4.664.82m (15ft 3in.15ft 9in.)
northsouth, and c 12.10m (39ft 6in.) eastwest. The
fabric throughout is of small, well-coursed ashlar
blocks of local sandstone, some of which show Roman
tooling. Lewis holes are also visible on upper quoin
stones on both the eastern and northern walls (Q12 at
the west end of the north face and Q11 at the north
end of the east face). The evidence for an eastern
extension is ambiguous (see below), while the tower
obscures any evidence for potential extensions at the
west end.
The east wall (Fig 13.1B)

The east wall shows considerable disturbance, and
indeed from the interior face it appears to have been
substantially rebuilt or re-cased (Figs 12.8, 13.1B and
13.2). The south-east quoins appear to be original, but
may have been reset, since on both east and south faces
the adjacent masonry is very disturbed; the lowest
north quoin rests on a projecting plinth (see excavation
report below). Two upright monoliths are partially visible at ground level on either side of later buttresses.
Their external faces are 3.75m (12ft 7in) apart but the
aperture is impossible to measure accurately since it is
obscured by the buttresses. The scale of these upright
stones is similar to the jambs of the primary door openings (D1 and D3), and the straight joints of the aperture they flank are visible in the interior of the church.
It is also noticeable that the stonework around them is
smaller and more disturbed than elsewhere on the east
wall, which might indicate that some adjunct had been
taken away at this point, but the insertion of the
medieval window (W7) and more modern rebuilding of
the gable have disturbed much of the fabric of this wall.
The south wall (Fig 13.1A)

At the west end, three distinctive side-alternate quoins
survive above the plinth foundation level (see excavation discussion below) and below the inserted
medieval window; at the east end there are twelve similar quoins which indicate the height of the original
masonry. Near the west end the blocked shape of a
narrow door opening, D1, is visible to the west of a
larger area of disturbance. There are two large upright
jambs separated by three horizontal blocks, which
might suggest a rectangular-headed doorway (Taylor
and Taylor 1965, fig 153), and its pre-Conquest date is
supported by the fact that these three horizontal stones
course in with the undisturbed wall fabric. The disturbance of the walling to the east is explained by the
enlargement of the opening to fit the medieval cloister
and the later door (Appendix B31 and 33). At a higher level, three small windows (W1, W2, W3) are
formed with single upright and flat jambs, and with
rounded monolithic heads. The two most easterly are
filled with stone screens, with irregular openings
stopped on their southern faces. These windows are
single splayed on the interior. The westernmost one
also had such a screen until it was removed by Gilbert
Scott in the 1866 restoration. He had intended to
remove all of the screens, but luckily was convinced by
Longstaffe that the mortar was original and the same
as that of the walling (Hodges 1893, 153). Above W1
is part of the eastern jamb for another opening (D2),
Fig 13.2 East wall of chancel, showing buttresses and

rebuilding around the medieval window. DC
147
JARROW13.QXD
19-01-2007
10:51
Pagina 148
148
The wall has been buttressed since at least the 18th

century and this could have been necessary if an opening here had weakened the fabric, but the church also
stands on the edge of a slope (see excavation discussion
of trench 7501 below).
The north wall (Fig 13.1C)
The earliest surviving feature in this wall is a centrally
placed round-headed opening at ground level (D3)
which has been blocked, and possibly at that stage disturbed, since the large upright stones of its jambs are
not level; there is no cap-stone on the left and the voussoirs of the head are unevenly placed. This opening,
which is 0.71m (2ft 4in.) wide and 1.98m (6ft 6in.)
high, could, however, have been a secondary insertion
into an existing wall, since there is a line of disturbance
around the head. The blocked door is the only apparently early opening on the north face, although the fabric of the wall has been much disturbed by the insertion
of four medieval windows of various dates (W4, W5,
W6, W9 see Chapter 18) and a later vestry.
It is possible that two pre-Conquest phases are
demonstrable in the fabric. As already noted, the north
wall doorway (D3) looks inserted, and could be secondary. More clearly secondary, though, is the upper
door opening in the south wall (D2), since its head at
least is placed in the area of stonework above quoin 12
which appears to be a later rebuilding. This stonework
could incorporate several rebuildings, and this door is
discussed below in relation to the tower.
The Eastern Church: excavated evidence

The south exterior
Two small cuttings (7005a and b; Figs 13.413.6) were
made against the south wall of the chancel in order to
examine the foundations and to determine whether
there was indeed evidence for an earlier wall, as
Longstaffe had suggested (see above, Chapter 12,
Previous discoveries). It was unfortunately not easy to
see the foundations; a stepped plinth was revealed covered in a very hard cement, and although badly
chipped the angles were very sharp. It was judged that
the cement and a gravel trench to the south of the
plinth were part of the Scott underpinning (see Figs
13.4 and 13.5). It was almost impossible to chip the
cement away without damaging the stonework, but just
visible behind the plinth were cobble foundations
which were set in clay and were narrower than the ashlar walls above.
North exterior (7501)
In an attempt to see if there were adjacent buildings or
paths which might relate to the door in the north wall,
a trench measuring 50ft 10ft (15.24m 3.05m)
was set out on the north edge of the path which was
parallel to the chancel, as near to the north wall as was

allowed (approximately 1m away, see Figs 13.4 and
13.7). Because of the particularly large number of
post-medieval infant burials here (see Chapter 22
below), the southern section of the trench could not be
excavated to natural. The earliest feature discovered in
the area that was excavated to natural was a burial
75/100 (2329), cutting the natural clay, and which is
probably Anglo-Saxon (see below, Chapter 15). This
female burial was not aligned on the Anglo-Saxon
Eastern Church, but was orientated roughly westsouth-west/east-north-east and the grave was partially
edged with small sandstone slabs. This burial was cut
by another female grave 75/96, the fill of which, 2323,
was also clean, and the head of the skeleton which lay
on the right side was supported by a pillow-stone.
Alongside were three other supine burials (75/93
female, 75/94 sub-adult, and 75/95 male) which were
aligned on the church, and in comparison with the
other burials appeared to be carefully grouped.
Burial 75/95 had Quite Gritty Oxidised ware (D11)
dated c 10751200, in the grave fill, and it is conceivable that the group may have dated to the late Saxon or
Norman period. If these burials had been disposed
originally in or alongside a porticus adjacent to the
north door of the church, no trace was found within
the excavated area of its north to south walls, although
there was a considerable amount of Saxon building
debris in the disturbed upper level 2203 (see Fig 13.7).
No ground surface of the Anglo-Saxon or medieval
periods survived in this area, and indeed the base of
the lower jamb of the north door indicates that the earlier ground surfaces must have been higher than the
present one. Extensive levelling in the postReformation period was noted also by Ralegh Radford
in his excavations just to the north of this trench
(Radford 1954b, 2089).
In the eastern part of the trench, the top of the
undisturbed boulder clay sloped gently down to the
east (Fig 13.7), but the fall had been gradually levelled
by a series of later deposits all of which contained some
19th-century pottery; parts of the same vessel were
contained in deposits 2316 and 2306 and 2205, indicating the extent of redeposition in this area.
The west end of the church interior
The only excavation within the chancel was at the east
end of a narrow exploratory cutting under the present
tower and extending across the line of the west end of
the Eastern Church (trench 7207; Fig 13.4). Here the
ground was much disturbed by a series of intercutting
intrusions, including the pipes and trench for the
Victorian heating system. What appeared, however, to
be a straight vertical cut for the eastern edge of an
archaeological feature was observed in the natural sand
(see Fig 13.8), but from that point to 1.83m (6ft) further west the area was disturbed. The fill of this disturbance, 4607, contained a great deal of rubbish
JARROW13.QXD
19-01-2007
10:51
Pagina 149
13: ST PAULS CHURCH
lf7
.......
:: .....
:::::::
j,
149
'
.'11....,.0 ...
I1
..
:L.
.
.......:.::::::0;;::
01
PH
"
" ._
"
Fig 13.3 Plan of the Anglo-Saxon churches and principal monastic buildings against the background of the excavation
trenches. A MacM
150
19-01-2007
10:51
Fig 13.4 Plan of excavation trenches inside and adjacent to St Pauls Church, showing position of foundations of the Anglo-Saxon church; standing walls of existing church
hatched. NE
JARROW13.QXD
Pagina 150
JARROW13.QXD
19-01-2007
10:51
Pagina 151
13: ST PAULS CHURCH
151
Unfortunately it was not possible to examine the junction between these and the east end of the Western
Church, or the south-western corner of the Eastern
Church.
The Eastern Church: discussion
Fig 13.5 West-facing section of trench 7005 extension,

showing Victorian consolidation over base of south wall of
chancel (for location, see Fig 13.4). YB
Fig 13.6 Detail of plinth foundation at base of chancel

wall (for location, see Fig 13.4). (IS)
including large stones and plaster, human and animal
bones, medieval window glass and a clay pipe stem, so
that its infilling could be assigned to the Victorian
restoration, at which date it is possible that the original
cut was enlarged disturbing the brown soily layer, 4600.
This area of disturbance is most plausibly explained as
the remains of the construction and demolition trenches for the west wall of the Eastern Church which was
noted by the antiquarians at this point.
The tower or narthex to the East Church (Fig 13.8)
Within trench 7207, in the recess of the old south
entrance to the tower, and under its footings, a vestigial line of stones set in clay, 4614, were cut into the
natural sand. These were neatly faced and were 6in.
(0.15m) higher than the foundations in the south wall
of the Western Church. They were sealed only by the
base of the hearth of the Victorian heating system.
As already mentioned in the fabric summary there is

little doubt that the Eastern Church was initially a freestanding structure, although there remain some doubts
as to its date relative to the original basilica mentioned in the dedication stone (see above and
Appendix A1), and about the appearance of the east
and west ends. The base of the wall, observed in the
1866 restorations running across the western end of
the chancel immediately contiguous to the tower
(Savage 1900, 36), was not discovered in the present
excavations, although there was a wide and deep disturbance at that point, 4607, which contained both
medieval and post-medieval material. Nor was supporting evidence found, in the limited excavations
within the tower, either for a western annexe, as was
suggested by Hodgson (190611a, 147) and Gilbert,
or for the further suggestion that the walls forming the
lower courses of the present tower were those of an
original narthex (Gilbert 19516, 3223). The small
patch of stonework, 4614, glimpsed under the standing
wall of the tower in the excavations of 19723 might
have been a feature which preceded the tower. It is difficult to see how that could be tested without demolishing the tower, but Gilbert did not know, at the time
he wrote, that the west face of such an adjunct would
have been contiguous with the east face of the chancel
of the Western Church (see below). The lower levels of
the brown loamy layer, 4600, discovered in the cutting
under the tower, might support the idea of an originally open space between the churches (although this
was evidently a long-lived deposit, see below), as could
the two opposing doors at the base of the tower.
No structures were found in the limited excavations
to the north and south of the Eastern Church which
could determine the function of the north and south
doors, other than as exits to the cemeteries and buildings beyond them, although the excavation to the
north of the church was not taken down to natural in a
critical area and there was a considerable amount of
building debris in the disturbed burial earth in that
area. The alternative explanation, that the openings led
into porticus, is not supported by the archaeology.
There is no sign of bonding for a porticus on the north
face of the Eastern Church, but, as at the nearby example at Escomb, it might have been butt-jointed (Pocock
and Wheeler 1971, figs 1 and 2). The absence of surviving Anglo-Saxon windows on the north side of the
church, and the lack of graphic evidence for their possible earlier location, save for the indeterminate lancet
above the north door shown on the Grimm north elevation (Fig 12.7 above), may be best explained by the
assumption that they were obliterated by the insertion
152
19-01-2007
10:51
Fig 13.7 South-facing section of trench 7501, showing natural slope to the east of the chancel. LB
JARROW13.QXD
Pagina 152
JARROW13.QXD
19-01-2007
10:51
Pagina 153
13: ST PAULS CHURCH
153
Fig 13.8 Plan of excavated remains at east end of Anglo-Saxon West Church. NE
of the medieval windows and not by the assumption
that they were blocked by buildings to the north, no
trace of which now exists.
Likewise no evidence of buildings was discovered
adjacent to the south face of the church in the Saxon
phase, and so if one accepts the Taylors identification
of the upper opening on that face (Fig 13.1, D2) as the
entrance to a western gallery (Taylor and Taylor 1965,
fig 151), then there would have to have been some kind
of external staircase, possibly of wood, and this explanation was originally accepted (and adopted in the model
in the Bede Monastery Museum). This opening certainly makes sense in relation to an adjacent building
with an upper floor entrance, but will be reconsidered

in relation to the medieval arrangements (see below,
Chapter 18).
Other evidence discovered in the course of excavation which is of relevance to the interpretation of the
Eastern Church concerns its foundations and the
buried contours of the early ground surfaces. The battered stepped plinth discovered in trenches 7005a and
b was difficult to investigate because of the Scott
underpinning (Raine 1854, xxix), and the cobbled
foundations set back from them and noted by
Longstaffe (see above, Chapter 12) were only just visible. It can now be demonstrated from the modern
JARROW13.QXD
154
19-01-2007
10:51
Pagina 154
excavations, however, that this is not evidence for two

building periods, but is an Anglo-Saxon building technique. These oversailing stones are not like the wellshaped stepped plinths which are considered a feature
of late Saxon architecture, but are comparable with the
oversailing mortared courses of stone above cobble
foundations which are recorded in Building A (see
Chapter 16 below) and the Western Church at Jarrow,
as well as the western annexe at Escomb (Pocock and
Wheeler 1971, fig 3). Such foundations could, therefore, indicate an early rather than a late date for the
Eastern Church.
Since there is no evidence to link the dedication
stone and its recorded foundation date to this structure, the date of the Eastern Church must rely on stylistic features which can be paralleled in other better
dated Anglo-Saxon structures. The neat well-shaped
stonework, large face-alternate quoins, and the form
and dimensions of the window heads can be paralleled
in Buildings A, B and D on this site, while the quoins
and types of window head and the form of the north
door are also found in the primary west wall at
Wearmouth (Chapter 6). In scale, the building compares very closely with the present chancel at
Wearmouth, and its dimensions, c 4.7m (15ft 6in./15ft
9in.) wide c 12.8m (42ft) long internally, as well as
some constructional characteristics and forms of openings, are closely comparable with the church at
Escomb (Taylor and Taylor 1965, fig 105) which
although not independently dated is assumed to be
early Anglo-Saxon. This building can then be reasonably placed in a 7th/8th-century Northumbrian milieu.
If seen as part of the original monastic plan, it could
have been built before the Western Church to serve the
community when the basilica was being constructed,
but the position of both churches within the overall site
development is discussed further in Chapter 24 below.
The Western Church

Textual and graphic descriptions of the
pre-1782 nave once an independent
western church
The most substantial textual and graphic evidence for
the appearance of the early church dates from the 18th
century, before the old structure incorporating both
Anglo-Saxon and medieval features was rebuilt (see
above, discussion of Eastern Church). The present
nave, rebuilt in 1866, superseded a church constructed in 1783 (Appendix B46), while its elevation is well
recorded in surviving drawings and photographs
(Appendix B2223, 2526). The registers of 1782 (see
Appendix A6.8) record the decisions of the vestry that
the nave was beyond repair, and that a new church
be built, but that the ancient tower and chancel could
be retained. The new plan shortened the church and
provided for the needs of a congregational
post-Reformation liturgy. The building which the
short-lived 18th-century church superseded was

recorded in various drawings. These drawings, notably
Figs 12.5 and 12.7 above, can be usefully combined
with Hutchinsons written account to form a picture of
the early church (Hutchinson 1787, 4757).
The dimensions of the chancel (Eastern Church)
are the same in Hutchinsons paces (reckoned as
3ft/0.91m) and the British Library plan (Fig 12.5), giving a length of about 40ft (12.19m), which is close to
modern measurements (see above), and likewise the
width of the Western Church, 18ft (5.49m) is common
to both. The length of the nave, however, differs
between Hutchinsons 84ft (25.60m) and the British
Library plans 90ft (27.43m). The Bucks, Grimm, the
British Library plan, and Hutchinson, however, all
agree that the church was entered through a two-storey
west porch; that there was a stump of walling at the
north-west corner, implying a northern adjunct; and
that there was a structure with a groined roof, about
20ft/6.10m long, on the south-west corner. This structure is mentioned here, because while it appears to
have various post-Conquest features and is discussed
further with the medieval phases of the church, it could
disguise an Anglo-Saxon structure. The interior section drawing of the British Library plan provides the
only evidence for a possible arcade in the north wall,
but several drawings indicate that there were four small
round-headed windows in the south and three in the
north walls, some of which could be unchanged AngloSaxon openings, some possibly lengthened in the
Norman refoundation. Surtees also mentioned two
old round-headed lights closed up (Surtees 1820, 67).
The observations made during the demolition and
rebuilding of the church in 1782/3 mainly concerned
the discovery of Roman inscriptions reused as building
stones in the walls (Brand 1789, 624), or commentary on the dedication stone. It is unfortunate that the
church was destroyed in the 18th century since this
meant that the more careful recorders of the 19th
century did not have a chance to see it, and as Boyle
said, in sentiments which could be endorsed today:
The early architectural remains at Jarrow present more than one serious problem. Had the
church as it existed until the year 1783,
remained to our present day, these problems
might possibly have been more easily solved
(Boyle 1892, 581).
He went on to compare the proportions of the nave,
as recorded on the plan, with that at St Peters,
Wearmouth, and noted that if the break in the walls
about 15fi feet from the east end of the nave as shown
on some early drawings, is taken into account, so that
the area west of that point is considered as Biscops
work, then the measurements of the two naves are
almost identical, concluding that there must then have
been two independent structures united by a tower.
At what period were they united?
JARROW13.QXD
19-01-2007
10:51
Pagina 155
13: ST PAULS CHURCH
Unquestionably when the lower stages of the

tower were built. The two principal arches of the
tower ... were intended from the first to open to
the interior of the church. To the period when
the tower was erected we must ascribe the
removal of the west wall of the eastern church,
now the chancel, and the prolongation of the
side walls of the western church, that is of the
nave taken down in 1783 (Boyle 1892, 5823).
He also presumed that at some period, perhaps in
the time of Ceolfrid, side chapels were added to the
early nave.
Subsequent commentators followed Boyle in considering that the plan depicted a building which was
basically Anglo-Saxon, although clearly with subsequent modifications, but varied in their belief in the
validity of its detail and in the sequence of construction
between the old nave, the tower and the chancel.
Savage for example suggested a sequence of (1) eastern
church/chancel with presbytery to the east, and possibly a small baptistry or chamber at the west, and (2)
the western church with aisles, built when the
monastery largely increased in numbers: the joining of
this structure to buildings further east, he suggested,
was pre-Conquest (Savage 1900, 44).
The seeming consensus view, that the Western
Church was pre-Conquest, was violently attacked by
Hodgson, who found the arcades sketched on the
British Library plan totally unacceptable as preConquest, and moreover pointed out that the AngloSaxon balusters had been taken from the walls of the
church in 1783. In his view the western building was
entirely medieval (Hodgson 190611a). It was left to
Gilbert to sum up and evaluate later attitudes to
Boyles theory and Hodgsons response (Gilbert
19516, 31114). He seized the nettle of the sculptured stones taken from the walls of the 18th-century
church, and remarked that the Eastern Church had no
evidence for any Anglo-Saxon decorative detail:
Clearly then these stones bespeak some more
magnificent and lordly church of a very ornate
type, such as no longer survives from Anglian
days (Gilbert 19516, 316).
Gilbert therefore concluded that the most reasonable supposition was that they had derived from the
site where they were found. In a series of careful comparisons with other Anglo-Saxon and Romanesque
churches he concluded that, the arguments in favour
of the Old Church containing an Anglian core, greatly
outweigh those against. He also made further interesting comments: The Old Church must obviously have
originated in the 7th century, but it does not follow
that any particular detail is 7th century, and particularly that the arcades are 7th century, and suggested
that on analogy with continental examples they might
be late 8th century, and he further suggested that the
155
high windows seen on the early drawings, taken in conjunction with the blocked arch in the tower at a height
of 34ft (10.36m), implies that the church had an upper
room (Gilbert 19516, 327). Other commentators
before the excavations largely accepted Gilberts interpretation of the West Church (see Radford 1954a, fig
2; Taylor and Taylor 1965, fig 149), but the validity of
the British Library plan is still doubted by some specialists (Richard Gem, pers comm).
Questions which remained unresolved about the
churches before the excavation campaign were: how far
could the 18th-century drawing of the Western Church
be trusted as a record?; were there side adjuncts in the
Anglo-Saxon period?; what was the nature of the east
and west ends of both Eastern and Western Churches
in their first phases?; what was the sequence and the
dating for the joining of the churches and the construction of the tower?; what was the relationship of the
churches to the pre-Conquest monastic buildings?
The Anglo-Saxon Western Church: excavated evidence

by Rosemary Cramp and John Hunter
Limited excavations in 19723 inside, in advance of a
new floor being laid, and in 1968/71 outside the west
end of St Pauls Church (see Fig 13.4) have added substantially to our knowledge of the Western Church.
The evidence in the interior of the nave consists of wall
foundations which lay immediately under the bedding
for the Victorian floor, and it was clear throughout the
church that there had been considerable truncation of
the earlier features and deposits when the Victorian
rebuilding took place, so that early floor levels were lost
and below the Victorian rubble layer only the lowest
level of foundations of the Anglo-Saxon church survived, as well as only two foundation courses of the
18th-century church. The excavations were directed
by John Hunter, with volunteer labour from the
Department of Archaeology, Durham University, and
the excavation and post-excavation synthesis was coordinated by Rosemary Cramp. John Hunters site
plans and interim report form the basis for the postexcavation synthesis. The circumstances under which
these excavations were undertaken are reported in
Cramp 1976e, and the full report by John Hunter
exists as an archive report.
The west end of the nave and the narthex
(Figs 13.9, 13.10)
The west end of the church was established in several
small cuttings. In 1968 a small area (trench 6801) was
opened immediately to the north of the present western
porch, in order to test the line of the north wall of the
church as recorded on the British Library plan. The
area opened was only 5ft 8ft (1.52 2.44m), and
much of this space was filled with a stone foundation,
4642, 3ft 6in. (1.08m) wide, which had been cut into
JARROW13.QXD
156
19-01-2007
10:51
Pagina 156
Fig 13.9 Plan of excavated remains at west end of Anglo-Saxon West church. NE
JARROW13.QXD
19-01-2007
10:51
Pagina 157
13: ST PAULS CHURCH
157
Fig 13.10 West end of Anglo-Saxon church at the end of excavation (trench 7102), looking south, foundation 4642 is
visible top left (see Fig 13.9). (IS/MS)
the weathered surface of the natural clay (Fig 13.9). It
was constructed with clay-bonded boulder foundations
capped by larger flat slabs, which were mortared. On
the uppermost surface a large stone covered the full
width of the wall. A hole had been cut in its surface
and the stonework had been packed with clean clay,
4655. The stonework had also been cut by a burial,
4656, sealed by clay layer 4653. A piece of buff white
ware, E11a, was recovered (and subsequently lost)
from one of the clay layers which seems to have been
laid down after the 13th/14th century.
The area investigated in 1968 was incorporated into
a larger cutting in 1971 (trench 7102; Fig 13.9). The
early structures and original ground surface had been
considerably disturbed by later densely packed graves
and by the pipe trenches associated with the construction in 1887 of the porch, and also there had been considerable levelling of the ground. Only the lowest level
of the primary foundations survived as foundation
trenches with cobbles set in bright yellow clay, but in
several places the base of the weathered clay surface,
3441/3478, into which the foundations had been cut
(see Fig 13.9) had survived, outlining foundations
such as 4642. (All of the weathered brown clay was
devoid of artefacts.) A vestigial clay and boulder foundation, 3484a, 4ft 6in. (1.37m) wide, survived running
eastwest about 5ft (1.52m) north of Wall 4642.
Approximately level with the west face of 4642 these

foundations widened, forming an angle; the narrower
wall was traced 5ft (1.52m) further west before it
turned south. At the south of the trench the foundations were cut by a burial, 3481 (71/33). Despite the
fact that the area immediately west of the wider part of
the wall had been cut by several graves, surviving
patches of brown weathered natural clay, 3478, defined
a clear northern edge (Fig 13.9); the area to the east
had been completely disturbed by three burials. The
east face of the northsouth return wall was similarly
defined by the brown clay, 3441, even though here too
the boulder and clay foundations had been cut by
many graves.
There is no doubt therefore that the walls 3484 and
4642 are genuine structures (which were on the same
line as those found in the excavations in the interior of
the church, below) but there is considerable difficulty
in comparing foundations that have survived at different levels. The width of the stone foundation 4642 is
greater than that of Wall 4536 on the same line further
east, but 4642 survives to a higher level and, as noted
above, the upper courses of the Anglo-Saxon walls can
be wider than the foundations. The width of 3484 is
more difficult to explain, however, unless there had
been a buttress or northern adjunct at this point.
These structures are primary on the site, cutting the
JARROW13.QXD
19-01-2007
10:51
Pagina 158
158
Fig 13.11 Trench 7503 during excavation, showing brick supports for modern floor, Victorian sub-floor rubble over stone
wall 4543 (centre), which appears to be the remains of the surviving wall of the 18th-century church. Anglo-Saxon wall 4536
is in the foreground; and stones of 4535 are visible to the north. JH. (IS/MS)
clean clay 3478 and 3441/4654, which must represent
the Anglo-Saxon ground level, but the phase of their
destruction is more debateable. Two deposits of mortar 3440 and 3485 may indicate demolition: the former
contained some opus signinum, and the latter a piece of
buff white ware, E11a, while the layer above, 4644,
contained pottery which spanned in date the medieval
phases, the latest being Oxidised Tyneside Buff White
ware (E11e, dated c 13001500). It should be noted
here that neither in 7001 nor in 6501 (trenches further
south but opposite this west end) was any trace discovered of Anglo-Saxon structures (see medieval church
discussion, Chapter 19).
The nave (Figs 13.1113.13)
In salvage recording of the workmens duct trench at
the west end of the church, two features were noted
which related to the foundations discovered outside the
church: a) four large boulders set in clay, 4536 = 4549,
to the south of the pier base; and b) what appeared to
be a section of clay and boulder foundations two courses deep, 4535, 5ft (1.5m) to the north. A small extension, 11.5ft 5ft (4.80 1.5m) immediately adjacent
to this area was excavated under controlled conditions
in an attempt to elucidate the two features further
(cutting 7203; Fig 13.9). This clearly established 4536
as a wall foundation with the stones set in clean yellow

clay, but the northern feature 4535 was merely continued by a few stones set in clean yellow clay. It did not
appear to have been cut, but the mortar-flecked clay,
4552, between the two walls was much disturbed by
burials; one grave, 4553 (72/3), was covered by the
same mortar-flecked clay.
The more substantial foundation (4536), 2ft 9in.
(0.84m) wide and composed of large boulders set in
clean yellow clay (Fig 13.11), was traced in four separate cuttings, just south of the Victorian arcade (see
Figs 13.8 and 13.9). The construction trench,
4562/77, was clearly visible in the natural yellow sand
into which it had been cut. In only one cutting, 7204,
was there an opportunity to extend the cutting far
enough north to see if the insubstantial line of 4535
continued further east, but no structural traces were
found.
Eighteen feet (5.49m) to the south and immediately to the north of the triple-stepped foundation course
on which the present south wall of the nave is grounded, was a wall foundation, 4526, which cut into a clean
sandy clay, 4513, and is interpreted as the south wall
of the Anglo-Saxon church (Figs 13.12 and 13.13).
These foundations were on average 3ft (0.91m) wide
and were formed of large boulders set in reddish clay.
In the south-western cutting (7202), the foundations
JARROW13.QXD
19-01-2007
10:51
Pagina 159
13: ST PAULS CHURCH
159
Fig 13.12 Foundations of south wall of Anglo-Saxon

church adjacent to the wall of the modern church in trench
7201 (for location see Fig 13.9). JH. (IS/MS)
Fig 13.13 South wall of Anglo-Saxon church showing

junction with chancel wall in trench 7201 for location see
Fig 13.9). JH. (IS/MS)
were disturbed by the workmen, but further east (in

7201), the line of the wall was undisturbed, and at this
point was cut into natural sand (Fig 13.8). About 48ft
(14.63m) from the west wall of the present church, the
line of the foundation trench stepped in slightly
towards the north (4507; Figs 13.1213.13). Opposite
this angle the south and the north faces of the wall had
been disturbed, and instead of being sharply defined in
the natural sand, were bordered by mortar-flecked clay
and small stones, 4509. To the north of the foundation
in this trench the area was much disturbed by postmedieval burials.
than in the main wall, the clay packing was also of a

slightly different colour. On the north face of the main
wall at this point there was a disturbed patch of clay,
possibly indicating where a feature had been removed.
In both the main eastwest wall and the south return
wall evidence of burning was noted in the clay and on
the stones. The stepped-in wall foundation was
observed east of pit 4581, as an area of grey clay which
did not contain any stones (4582).
The narrowing of the walls at this point and the
short foundation running north to south obviously
suggest a chancel opening, but the area further east
had been severely disturbed by intercutting medieval
and later intrusions, as well as by the massive Victorian
support for the north jamb of the tower arch
(Fig 13.8). Another feature, an area of small stones
and rubble, 4593, at the east end of trench 7206, was
either cut into the clay or set with it, but was not fully
excavated.
An opportunity for further restricted excavations at
the east end occurred in 1973, when an area in the
centre of the tower arch was excavated to a depth of
c 0.30m. (The 1973 cutting under the tower has, for
The chancel
At the same point where the foundations were stepped
in northwards in the south wall, the north wall foundations were stepped in southwards for 1ft 6in.
(0.46m), and the foundation trench also projected to
the south, measuring 4ft (1.2m) northsouth and 2ft
9in. (0.84m) eastwest (Fig 13.8). This foundation
4585 butted up to the main eastwest wall and the
stones which formed it were smaller and more compact
JARROW13.QXD
160
19-01-2007
10:51
Pagina 160
Fig 13.14 Footings of the east wall of the chancel of the Anglo-Saxon West Church, from the east, before the enlargement of
excavation trench 7207 (for location see Fig 13.8). JH. (IS/MS)
convenience, been numbered 7207.) Despite the
restrictions on the depth and size of the area of
excavation imposed because of the possible danger to
the tower, a line of foundations was revealed which
had been cut by the tower foundations (Fig 13.14).
These foundations, 4601, running northsouth, cut
into natural sand. They were 3ft (0.91m) wide and
consisted of two courses of rounded boulders of the
same type as those of the primary foundations in the
nave. They had been cut to the north by a pipe trench,
and to the south by the base of the tower arch, which
was originally composed of small squared rubble, but
had been cased with an ashlar offset with a chamfered
base in the Scott restoration. The upper level of the
foundations had been disturbed, perhaps by a burial
which itself had then been truncated, since disturbed
earth and a few scattered bones and stones survived
above the main foundations. These displaced stones
were sealed by a soft brown disturbed layer which
covered the whole of the trench, 4600. This seems to
be a deposit that may have built up over a period
of time, and contained fragments of plaster and
medieval glass, which could have been deposited
after the building of the tower when the area was
floored.
Although there was no direct link between this
northsouth foundation and those running eastwest
in the nave, the identical form of their construction
leaves little doubt that they are the same phase and that
they represent the east end of the structure.
Summary and discussion of the Western

Church: Anglo-Saxon phases
(Figs 13.1513.16)
The nave and chancel
The stone foundations of the building described above
seem to have formed the first structure on the site. No
evidence was discovered of an earlier timber phase,
although if one ever existed it is possibly more reasonable to suppose that it would lie under the Eastern
Church (see Chapter 24). The excavated nave measured 65 18ft (19.81 5.49m) internally, and the rectangular chancel c 18 14ft (5.49 4.27m). This gives
a total length for the structure of c 83ft (25.3m), which
agrees very well with Hutchinsons measurement of 28
paces long (about 84ft, 25.60m) and 6 paces wide
(18ft, 5.49m), since his length measurement was presumably taken from the west end of the nave to the
tower arch, which coincides closely with the excavated
east wall of the chancel. The 1769 plan shows a greater
length but agrees with the width of 5.49m.
The whole structure appeared to be of one build,
constructed with trench-built walls and clay and boulder foundations of the same type as discovered in the
pre-Conquest monastic buildings (see Building A,
Chapter 16), although only at one place, at the
west end, does part of the levelling course which supported the mortared superstructure 4642, 3ft 6in.
wide (1.07m), survive. Here, as in Building A, the
superstructure is wider than the foundations, forming
JARROW13.QXD
19-01-2007
10:51
Pagina 161
13: ST PAULS CHURCH
161
Fig 13.15 Plan of successive phases of St Pauls Church, in relation to the plan of 1769. The south wall of the Victorian
church overlies the 18th-century wall. YB
a simple plinth. West of this point there is a gap, which
may indicate the presence of an opening into the north
passage or porticus, but the break might have been
caused by a modern disturbance.
Since it is estimated that the Anglo-Saxon floor
level must have been at least 0.65m above the surface
of the foundations, only surface features which penetrated deeply would have been detectable, and little
evidence emerged for interior fitments of the church,
although very little of the interior space was excavated.
The area of small stones and rubble, 4593, at the east
end of the chancel might have been a deposit caused by
the clearing away of an altar at this point, but equally
this could be a deposit associated with the clearance of
the east wall. There may have been changes in the interior arrangements, however, and what has been interpreted as the northern base for a chancel arch (4585)
was interpreted as secondary by the site supervisor
because it was butt-jointed. While it may be secondary,
many features that seem to be of the same structural
sequence are butt-jointed in Anglo-Saxon buildings. In
the corresponding area of the south wall there was a
jagged break and the disturbance of a later pit, but if a
wall here projected for the same length as that against
the north wall, the opening would be 8ft (2.44m) wide,
which is the same width as the possible opening at the
east end of the Eastern Church (see above).
Since the later levelling of the floors was so destructive (it should be noted that only the lowest courses of
the walls of the 18th-century church survived, see Fig
13.11), there are obvious difficulties in trying to rec-
oncile the textual descriptions with the excavated evidence and the surviving fragments of sculpture.
The western end and the porticus
The close correspondence between the nave walls and
the 1769 British Library plan induced the hope that
there would be the same correspondence in relation to
the west end porch and the side chambers, but this
proved more uncertain (Figs 13.15 and 13.16). The
two-storied western porch, illustrated in the British
Library plan and described by Hutchinson, would be a
perfectly acceptable feature for a church of this date
and is paralleled at Wearmouth, but any western wall
would be under the tarmac to the west of the present
porch, an area not investigated archaeologically. A
published plan produced by dowsing (Bailey et al
1988, fig 12) indicated a complex series of western
structures, but although this was tested by one small
cutting no confirmation of the complex emerged. The
form and even the actual location of the western porch
or any other adjunct at the west end of the church
remains therefore a matter of conjecture.
The section of walling (4642) uncovered outside
the modern church corresponded roughly with the line
of the western buttress shown on the Bucks drawing as
set against the western porticus, and flush with the west
face of the church (in the position of 5004, Fig 13.9).
Although excavation proved that this porticus and buttress were medieval rebuildings (Fig 13.15, and
Chapter 18), it remains possible that the medieval por-
JARROW13.QXD
162
19-01-2007
10:51
Pagina 162
Fig 13.16 St Pauls, West and East Churches, conjectural isometric reconstruction of the Anglo-Saxon church. NE
ticus was in the same position as its predecessor, and in

that case the line of a modern wall and the path to the
south of the church obscures the south wall of any
Anglo-Saxon or later medieval porticus.
The line of porticus on the north and south of the
nave indicated on the 1769 plan are attested only by
this plan and the drawings of the Bucks and Grimm
which depict a northsouth wall on the north side as
well as the medieval porticus or vestry on the south. It
is possible, however, that the author of the plan drew
in the southern row because arches were visible in the
interior face of the north wall, and because a symmetrical early church plan seemed reasonable. This idea
could have been encouraged by the existence of a single medieval porticus.
The excavated evidence produced a different layout, with a narrow passage on the north side which
returned round the west front. This feature might,
however, have been superseded either in the pre- or
post-Conquest period. As already noted, in trench
7102, the nave wall 4642 appeared to end with a large
mortared through-stone, which elsewhere, as in

Buildings A and B, would have turned a corner, while
5ft (1.52m) to the north of it was another wall, 3484.
While this might have been even more substantial,
measuring c 4ft (1.22m) at one point, this northern
projection may have been part of a buttress,1 and the
same construction cut continued both westwards and
eastwards on narrower foundations for a further 5ft
(1.52m) and then turned at a right angle south. The
line of the northernmost wall was picked up in cutting
7203 inside the church, but not further east in cutting
7204, where it should have appeared if it had continued on the same line. One should also note that the
north wall of the nave, 4536, crosses the line of the presumed east wall of the most westerly porticus shown on
the British Library plan, without any conclusive evidence for its existence (Fig 13.15). Nevertheless the
evidence for the wall foundations of the 18th-century
church at this point is so insubstantial, whereas the
later disturbances are so great, that nothing conclusive
can be proposed. There remains the possibility that the
JARROW13.QXD
19-01-2007
10:51
Pagina 163
13: ST PAULS CHURCH
north wall of the secondary porticus lay further north

and so was missed, especially as at each point along the
main north and south walls of the nave where a junction might have been detected there was some disturbance. Moreover if these porticus were of only one
storey then the foundations could have been shallower
than those of the nave, as noted by Hutchinson in relation to Wearmouth (Chapter 6 above). Nevertheless at
Wearmouth, although the foundations are shallow the
nave walls are of considerable height and have been
presumed to carry an upper storey, so that depth and
height of walling are not necessarily connected.
There was clearly potentially some adjunct on the
north side of the nave wall at the point where it turned
into the chancel, as was evidenced both by the turn in
the foundation and by a patch of disturbed clay (Fig
13.8). Whether this was the return wall of a narrow passage/aisle, or of a larger porticus which might or might
not have been part of a series cannot be determined.
That the substantial nave wall 4642 did not continue westwards to meet the return of wall 3484 seems
likely from the excavated evidence, although there were
a series of cuts and disturbances at this point.
Alternatively it is possible that there was originally a
door or opening through the west wall at this point.
The evidence for the first phase of building therefore would seem to provide for a nave flanked by a narrow north aisle of passage-like dimensions, which
possibly led into a porch at the west end and terminated at the junction of nave and chancel at the east. If the
arrangement were symmetrical on the south, as is also
presumed for Wearmouth, the wall of the south aisle
would run under the tarmac path in an unexcavated
area. Such narrow single or double aisles are known
on continental churches of this date (see Duval et al
1991, 21213, and general discussion below)
A possible secondary phase
How then may one explain the four large arches set on
piers, which conform in position with the openings into
the porticus on the south side shown on the British
Library plan of 1769? That there had been structures on
the north side at some point is supported by the 18thcentury record, including Grimms drawing of the north
elevation (Fig 12.7), and when this evidence is put
together the supposition that side porticus were added in
a second phase of building seems very plausible.
Although piered openings into porticus occur on
other early Anglo-Saxon churches such as Brixworth,
Northamptonshire (Audouy 1984) or Wing,
Buckinghamshire (Fernie 1983, fig 37), they are not as
wide as those indicated at Jarrow. Moreover the arched
heads as shown on the British Library elevation are
composed of small neat voussoirs set directly on to the
top of the piers. This form of head is not found in the
early openings at Jarrow, Wearmouth, or indeed other
Northumbrian churches presumed to be of early date,
such as Escomb or Corbridge. The openings as drawn
163
are more like the existing tower arches at Jarrow (Fig

12.8), so they may be presumed to be of a similarly
later date than the original church, although not necessarily post-Conquest. We know very little, however,
about architectural developments in Northumbria in
the late 8th/mid-9th century, although textual sources
indicate that elaborate buildings were constructed during that period (Campbell 1967; Morris 1986). The
elevation drawing also shows two small windows high
in the north wall which could be Anglo-Saxon in type,
and two similar such windows are shown on Grimms
north elevation; but these windows, instead of being
placed above the piers, as would have been normal if
they were of the same constructional phase as the arches, are over the crown of the arch. In the position of the
westernmost porticus on the plan Grimm shows a large
pointed opening, and since Hutchinson notes that the
porticus both to the north and south at the west end
were entered by pointed arches, and the plan draws the
southern porticus with a groined ceiling, it is probable
that both the north and the south-western porticus were
built or rebuilt in the medieval period. Grimms elevation drawing also shows the scar of a different structure: a two-storied porch, with blocked upper and
lower openings, but the lower of these could be as late
as the 16th century. Finally Grimms drawing also
shows a stump of walling running north from the west
face of the church with a high western opening. The
wall, although not the opening, is also visible on the
Bucks drawing. This wall could either have been the
west wall of a pre-Conquest row of porticus, or the west
face of a rebuilt north porch, or indeed both. In either
case there is some evidence from the early depictions of
the exterior as well as the interior that northern
adjuncts did exist.
The existence of a row of northern porticus as
depicted in the 18th-century plan and elevation was
not conclusively denied by the limited excavations in
the church, but certainly they were not a primary feature. There is a later tradition that Bede was buried in
a northern porticus of the church, as recorded by
Leland (see Appendix A6.46.6), which could imply
that some northern adjuncts existed by the mid-8th
century, in which case they might be earlier than the
joining of the East and West Churches.
East of the line of the presumed porticus, Grimm
shows two windows: a two-light, possibly early 13thcentury, window to the west, and a round-headed
lancet. These are matched exactly by a pair in the same
position recorded by the Bucks on the south face, and
in stage 1 of the tower. This eastern end of the church
the area of the first chancel must have been thickened or re-aligned when the two churches were joined,
since no line of junction is clearly recorded on the wall
faces of the Western Church in any of the drawings, or
on the British Library plan,2 and without some alteration the nave walls would not join exactly with the
Eastern Church (see Fig 13.15). Yet the outer face of
the junction building follows the outer face of the
JARROW13.QXD
164
19-01-2007
10:51
Pagina 164
Eastern Church and the line of the chancel, and there

is no sign in the excavated foundations of thickening at
this point, although most of the north wall was cut
away by the undated pit, and the most easterly patch of
foundations is recorded as being set in a different
coloured clay from the rest. A further puzzle is provided by the dedication stone, which the 18th-century elevation shows as set in a position on the same line as the
north wall of the old chancel, and which Hutchinson
said went right through the wall. An original position
in the chancel would have been suitable, and the desire
to keep it in this place might account for the fudged
junction, but the inscription was supposedly seen lying
outside the church by a Whitby monk in the 12th
century (Appendix A1). Since excavated evidence
seems less ambiguous than the 18th-century drawings
it is reasonable to suggest that the chancel walls were
not completely realigned at foundation level in order to

accommodate them to the narrower walls of the
Eastern Church, but they may have been widened
above ground and later plastering of the surfaces both
inside and out may have disguised the irregularity.
These excavations provided the first modern evidence for the nature of the foundations of the preConquest church, and also confirmed the position of
its walling, revealing for the first time the rectangular
chancel of the Western Church. They also provided
some validity for the 1769 plan, since the north wall
4642 and the northsouth west end coincided with the
plan (see Fig 13.15, and Cramp 1969, fig 18), so that
some of the other features of this plan and elevation
which did not leave a below-ground trace must be seriously considered as evidence.
Fig 13.17 St Pauls, plan and sections of tower (after Curry). NE
JARROW13.QXD
19-01-2007
10:51
Pagina 165
13: ST PAULS CHURCH
The tower
Structural description (Fig 13.17)
The present tower consists of four storeys, of which
only the ground and first floor have been considered as
possibly pre-Conquest (Savage 1900, 39; Taylor and
Taylor 1965, 3447). This structure is built free-standing against the western quoins of the chancel and has
been inserted into a gap between the east and west
ends of the two original churches. The interior measurements of the ground floor are north to south
4.40m (14ft 5in.), and east to west 4.0m (13ft 2in.),
and of the first floor are north to south 4.32m (14ft
2in.) and east to west 2.13m (7ft). The ground floor is
heavily supported on the south face one buttress may
be medieval and was certainly in existence by the 18th
century (Fig 12.4), and another, further west, was
165
depicted on the British Library plan and by Billings in

1843 (Appendix B33). Both were probably reshaped
during the Scott restoration. Scott also heavily
strengthened the west wall at the point where the nave
walls of the earlier churches would have been removed.
These later supports of the tower, together with the
addition of the vestry to the north, render the external
features of the tower very difficult to interpret.
At ground level the larger openings are to east and
west. These arches are about 3.65m (12ft) high, and
the interior width of the opening to the east is 3.25m
(10ft 6in.) and that to the west 3.40m (11ft 6in). The
piers on the west face are composed of large stones,
some upright and flat but not through-stones, and the
plain chamfered imposts have been largely cut away.
The eastern opening is similar, but with more of the
intact original stonework surviving in the southern pier.
Fig 13.18 Isometric reconstruction of the lower levels of the tower and East Church. NE
JARROW13.QXD
166
19-01-2007
10:51
Pagina 166
The northern and southern openings are smaller and

of door-like proportions, about 0.76m (2ft 6in.) wide.
The opening on the north face now has very neatly
dressed jambs and well-shaped voussoirs, which may
be Victorian copies of an earlier form (see Fig 12.7)
since they are so unworn, and the relieving arch and
the plain tympanum which fills it are set at a higher
level than that on the southern face. On the exterior
wall above there is the scar of a sharply gabled roof,
which could indicate that it led into a porticus (see discussion below). The south door has been extensively
reconstructed, so that only the lower western jambs
appear to be original. The arch head has been filled by
a plain tympanum and the door opening blocked and
filled with a narrow two-light window in the medieval
period (Fig 12.4). The roof of this ground-floor stage
is vaulted with simple chamfered ribs, which are secondary to the original construction since they cut into
the springing of the arches and displace the surrounding masonry (see below, Chapter 18).
The second stage of the structure contains a complex series of openings which seem to be of various
dates, but if one can be seen as pre-Conquest in form
and in a primary position in the fabric, it raises the
possibility that this level is pre-Conquest. The double
splayed openings on the north and south faces (Tower
W1 and W2) have been considered to be either later
Saxon (Gilbert 19516; Taylor and Taylor 1965) or
Norman of Aldwinian date (Radford 1954a). The
southern opening, which is now used as a door, has
possibly been reconstructed but is of a simple roundheaded type with upright and flat jambs. The corresponding window on the north side is more elaborate
and is surrounded by a billeted hood moulding, but
since the stonework around it is disturbed it may well
be a replacement in the 11th century for an earlier
opening. Cut into the south section of the east wall of
the tower, and in a position which could be outside the
gable of the Eastern Church roof, is an opening (D3)
which has been partly obliterated by a later thickening
of the wall (Figs 13.17 and 13.18; Taylor and Taylor
1965, fig 152). In type it is comparable to the north
and south Saxon doorways in the Eastern Church (in
jamb type more like the south): the wider opening to
the north of it (D4) measures 1.85 1.27m (6ft 1in
4ft 2in). This opening may be connected with a postConquest choir or rood loft (Pickles 1999, 92), and is
considered below with later phases (see Chapter 18).
It is more difficult to interpret an extremely large
opening, measuring 2.44 2.62m (8ft 8ft 7in.), in
the west face of the tower (D5, Fig 13.17). The head is
supported on chamfered and grooved imposts, and the
base of the opening is concealed by the present floor of
the tower. Its jambs are level with the external corbels,
but that is all one can conclude. Curry (unpublished
1973, 5) also notes that on both the north and south
sides of the tower externally there is visible at the second stage, above the deeply splayed window openings,
the remnants of a corbel and string course (Figs 12.6
and Fig 18.1B below). Since this is just above the present chancel eaves level, it is probable that this was the
eaves level of the tower at some time. When the tower
was heightened by the addition of the third and fourth
stages, a new roof would have had to be constructed
for the Eastern Church, the scar of which is visible on
the exterior east face of the present tower. These upper
stages are considered in the medieval section of the discussion of the church (Chapter 18 below).
The limited excavation inside the tower in 1973 has
already been mentioned in relation to the Western
Church; this produced a fragment of foundations,
4014, underneath the blocked south doorway, but
deposits above it had been removed by the installation
of a stove at that point.
General summary of pre-Conquest

phases (Fig 13.19)
The dating of the ground floor and first floor of the
tower as pre-Norman is supported if one accepts that
part of the south and north doors of the ground floor
(Tower D1 and D2), as well as part of the south (window), and all of the south-east door of the next stage
(D3) are of the same style as the north and south doors
in the Eastern Church (Taylor and Taylor 1965, figs
152 and 153; Pickles 1999, fig 32), and that the
Norman rebuilding begins on the stage above. These
openings are indeed very similar and the head types in
the tower are like the north door of the Eastern
Church, while the jambs of the south-east opening on
the upper stage are identical with those of the AngloSaxon doorway, D1, in the Eastern Church.3 Although
other openings on the upper floor of the junction
building have been claimed as pre-Conquest, notably
the construction of two large openings to east and west
the east one 1.85 by 1.27m (6ft 1in. by 4ft 2in.) and
the west one 2.44 by 2.62m (8ft by 8ft 7in.) to form
perhaps a choir loft (Pickles 1999, 92), these seem best
placed in a later period (see Chapter 19 below),
although a case could be made for the block imposts of
the western opening to be pre-Conquest. One may
compare Grimms careful rendering of the exterior of
the north door of the ground floor before the construction of the vestry, which shows it as blocked and
with a small opening set in the blocking, and the form
of the arch, which with its block capitals, gives a curiously Late Saxon appearance. Nevertheless, after the
early dated churches in Northumbria it is difficult to
point to examples of the later 8th and early 9th centuries, despite the good textual evidence for new buildings in that period. It could well be that supposedly
later Saxon architectural details could have appeared
by c 800. The form and the scale of the openings on
the east and west faces of the ground floor of the tower
have likewise been seen as post-Conquest, although
the openings at Wing, Buckinghamshire (Taylor 1978,
fig 654), are of comparable dimensions. It is just
JARROW13.QXD
19-01-2007
10:51
Pagina 167
13: ST PAULS CHURCH
167
the site between the areas north and south of the

churches. The need to keep the passage open was obviously felt when the two churches were joined, since
there were doors in the north and south walls of the
junction building which seem to have been reshaped
and blocked with inserted windows in the postConquest period. On the other hand one might consider that these two doors originally led into north and
south porticus, although this idea seems less plausible.
The development of the preConquest churches
Fig 13.19 St Pauls Church, plans of the possible AngloSaxon phases. NE/YB
possible that the junction building was initially constructed as a tunnel at ground level with a room communicating with the Eastern Church (and possibly the
Western Church) above.
If one accepts the scenario that the east and west
openings are contemporary with the junction building,
then this is clearly later than the Western Church since
the churchs east end was obliterated by its construction, likewise it is later than the Eastern Church, since
that churchs west wall was obliterated. Even if one
does not accept the east and west openings as primary,
the junction building must be secondary to both
churches since its east wall butted up to the west
quoins of the Eastern Church and the east end of the
Western Church. Whatever the sequence of the openings there must have been a crucial reason for inserting
a two-stage structure into the gap between the two
buildings, and perhaps this was less to gain another
room than to gain a tower, as implied by the external
string and corbels noted above, and in addition a joining of the two buildings. At all events a construction on
four piers was built immediately adjacent to the two
gable ends of the churches. Such an insertion also
meant that it was easier to link two buildings with walls
of different thickness and on slightly different alignments. The east/west openings could then have been
pierced when the main work was done in order to avoid
too lengthy a disruption of the monastic offices.
The reason why the two churches were not joined
directly may have been not only because of the structural problems involved and the disruption it would
have caused to liturgical life, but also because there
was a necessary line of communication in that part of
The Western Church in its first phase (Fig 13.19) is a

church with narrow side passages or aisles and rectangular east end, and this is presumably the church consecrated in 685 as the basilica, the main monastic
church. It is from the walls of its successors that the
wealth of carved ornament for the church interior
derived (see Vol 2, Chapter 28). It also was substantially enlarged in a second phase, either by cutting
arcades or by rebuilding the side adjuncts into porticus.
Its chronological relationship to the Eastern
Church remains in doubt. Burials closely surrounded
the latter church, some on the south virtually touching
its foundations, and it is probably in the eastern sector
of the site that the earliest burials are found. It is at
least possible that it superseded a pre-monastic feature
on the headland such as a timber mortuary chapel.
Indeed, its functions on the site may have changed
through time. Initially it could be seen as fitted into the
available space on the crest of the slope after the
Western Church had been built or at least planned.
Some church whether temporary or permanent
would, however, have been needed in the four years of
building the major church and the main domestic
buildings, and it is a carelessly laid out structure, with
walls not properly aligned and of variable width, and so
might be interpreted as hastily built. (It is of interest
here that the British Library plan of 1769 depicts
clasping corner buttresses at the east end, and an opening in the centre, but Grimm (177783) shows stumps
of walls attached to the north and south faces and three
buttresses in the centre.)
Alternatively, the eastern church could have been
placed in the area east of the basilica to perform some
specific purpose such as a burial porticus, like the eastern porticus recorded at Wearmouth, or the funerary
chapel to the east of the church in the ancient cemetery
at Whithorn (Hill 1997, figs 4.5; 4.15; see Chapter 24
below). Small simple rectangular churches are well
known in Gaul (Duval et al 1991, 217). If this were its
function then the two vertical stones in its east face
could well have provided an oculus for viewing an
important burial place or tomb, and its position further
east than the other monastic buildings could be
explained as providing for lay access (see Chapter 24
below). The Western Church is centrally placed in
relation to the main excavated monastic buildings
JARROW13.QXD
168
19-01-2007
10:51
Pagina 168
(Buildings A and B; see Fig 13.3), but since we have

only a partial picture of the monastic layout and no evidence for the eastern perimeter, the Eastern Church
may have occupied a more central position than now
appears.
In a third phase a junction building with an upper
storey, with possibly the addition of a low tower, was
inserted between the two churches, preserving a passageway between them, but demolishing the old east
end of the Western Church and the east wall of the
Eastern Church and possibly moving the date-stone.
Such an opening up of the Eastern Church may have
changed its function, but that is speculation. It remains
to consider whether there is any evidence that the joining of the two churches might have been part of the
same campaign as the addition of the porticus as shown
in the 18th-century elevation. The only reason to consider this at all is because of the superficial resemblance between the openings as drawn and those in the
present tower. If one feels that the evidence for the
existence of porticus on the north side is insubstantial,
and further that the dotted lines of the porticus to the
east of the vestry on the south side, shown on the
British Library plan, could have been derived from the
scar of the Norman cloister whose robbed wall line
they follow, the openings in the elevation would have to
be explained as openings into the north passage-like
aisle. One has then to explain the late appearance of
the head forms and why the cross-walls were not
observed in excavations. On the whole it seems preferable to consider that porticus were constructed as a secondary feature and that they stood until reconstructed
in the medieval rebuilding and cloister construction.
They were plausibly constructed before the joining of
the two churches since otherwise there seems no reason why they should not have continued beyond the
line of the old chancel.
What was the function of the building at the base of
the tower? It joined the two churches at ground floor
level, and at upper floor level communicated by doorways with the Eastern Church and the monastic site to
the south. The doorway into the Eastern Church could
have opened onto a western gallery, but there is no
firm evidence for this. The south doorway could have
been approached by a wooden stair or ladder. The
upper room could therefore have been used for many
purposes: as a choir loft, as a teaching or safe storage
area, as the entry also to a higher, perhaps timber
stage, with a bell turret, supported on the string course
and corbels which still partially exist on the south face
(Fig 12.6 and 18.1B below).
If one should speculate further on the date when this
last reconstruction could have taken place, then the
raids of 7935 might provide a context in which some
sort of lookout point to the coast would be seen as convenient, and when the raising of a tower and possibly
the enclosure of the site would have been considered
prudent. The provision of a low crossing tower such as
this (perhaps incorporating an upper floor chapel)
could be paralleled in the period around 800 by developments in Carolingian architecture, for example the
developed church at Angers, Maine et Loire, France
(Forsyth 1953) and also in the reconstruction plan of
Sherborne, Dorset (Cherry l976, fig 4.11). In addition,
the plan postulated by Taylor for the late 8th-century
church described in De Abbatibus with its rows of porticus and crossing tower would provide a contemporary
Northumbrian parallel (Taylor 1974, fig 10).
JARROW14.QXD
19-01-2007
10:52
Pagina 169
14 Excavations around the church

Earlier twentieth-century excavations
Some cuttings were made in 1935 by students from
Durham University, working under the remote direction of Eric Birley and Richard Wright. These trenches were to the south of the church outside the
boundary wall of the school playground, but the exact
location was not recorded. The object of the excavations was, apparently, to test whether the bank to the
south of the church was a Roman construction. This
was found not to be so and medieval pottery was
recorded as present. These results were considered by
Wright of considerable negative value, for they show
that a full-scale excavation of the site would be unfruitful, owing to the drastic clearance of the earlier buildings (Wright 1936, 343).
Similar conclusions about the potential of the site
were reached by Ralegh Radford, who in 1954 conducted a short rescue excavation north of the church in
the north-east corner of the churchyard (Fig 2.3
above) in advance of the building of a new vergers cottage. This was the area claimed by local tradition to be
the site of Bedes cell. The area excavated was not
large: two trenches running diagonally southwest/north-east across the available site trench I, 4ft
(1.22m) wide and about 50ft (15.24m) long; trench II,
3ft (0.91 m) wide and 10ft (3.05m) long. The excavations revealed that the area had been flattened in the
construction of buildings of the 17th to 19th centuries,
although something of the natural slope of the ground
towards the east did survive. Fragments of two walls
were discovered below some 18th-century floor levels,
and one of these cut a pitched stone foundation 9in.
deep and about 13ft wide (Radford 1954b, figs 2 and
3) which the excavator interpreted as the base of the
monastic vallum (Radford 1954b). Radford considered
that neither of the walls was of the Anglo-Saxon period, but the pitched foundation might have been. At
that stage it was assumed that most of the monastic
buildings would, on the model of Whitby (at that time
the only other excavated monastic site in
Northumbria), be on the north side of the church, and
although Radford was careful to say that the date of the
pitched stone foundation at Jarrow cannot be directly
proved, the closest comparison for the feature was
seen to be on that site. Because of the levelling revealed
in his excavations, Radford concluded that further
work was unjustified. Without a photographic record
of the Jarrow stone foundation it is impossible to compare it with the similar foundation at Whitby (Cramp
1976c, fig 5.7), which is most reasonably interpreted
as a road to the east of the church. This, at Jarrow,
could be of any date between the Roman and Early
Post-Medieval periods, but it is an important element
of the site that would repay further investigation. Its
line was not picked up in the later excavations, but if it
were veering to the east as it seemed to be, it would

now be underneath a modern road. Before the 1963
and subsequent excavations, therefore, no evidence
had been forthcoming for the form and position of any
buildings of the Anglo-Saxon monastery, and the
extensive alterations to the churches were basically
unrecorded.
The 196378 excavations
(Fig 14.3)
With the exception of three small cuttings in the

churchyard to the north of St Pauls Church, and one
in open ground to the west of the wall which forms the
western limit of the Guardianship area (see Fig 14.2),
all of the cuttings of the main excavation were within
the scheduled enclosure (see Fig 2.2). The publication
of the test excavations by Birley and Wright (Wright
1936) did not include a plan of the trenches although
one was perhaps located in the excavations in trench
7105 (see Chapter 22 below, Fig 22.4), and there was
no record of the stratigraphy of the site to the south of
the church. The sections in Radfords small rescue
excavation to the north, did however provide evidence
of the shallow stratigraphy in the northern cemetery
area (Radford 1954b). Christopher Morris rescue
excavations in 1973 and 1976 extended the enquiry to
the east of Drewett Park and to the south of the enclosure wall, and these are reported upon separately (see
below).
The trenches opened within the Guardianship area
(Fig 2.2) encompassed an area which had been occupied (with only a putative break from the mid-9th to
the mid-11th centuries) from the late 7th to the mid20th centuries. The standing medieval buildings and
the ruinated cottage (Fig 14.1) had been consolidated
not long before the excavation began, and the brief
from the Ministry of Works Ancient Monuments
Inspectorate was to date the standing structures.
In the first short season, in 1963, two cuttings were
made (6301 and 6302), one within and one outside the
standing buildings in order to test the surviving stratigraphy. These indicated the degree of truncation of layers within the court, where fragmentary burials were
found just below the ground surface, and the build-up
and soil disturbance on the southern slope of the site,
which had been indicated by the pre-excavation contour survey (Fig 14.2). In 1965 a series of small cuttings were laid out in association with the standing
structures, but these demonstrated that crucial dating
evidence had been removed in the Ministry of Works
consolidation process in which narrow trenches had
been cut along the lines of all the walls. Nevertheless
the earliest phase of the cottage was determined as
17th century and the excavation below the floor levels
169
JARROW14.QXD
170
19-01-2007
10:53
Pagina 170
Fig 14.1 Aerial view of the church and cloister, with school and cottages still occupied, 1940s? Photo: anon
of the earliest room (building e), provided evidence for
the east end of Building A. This had been cut by a
robbed wall trench for the cloister walk, which had
been filled in during the 14th century (see Chapter
19). The standing western wall, with its Norman openings, also cut Building A, and another pre-Norman
structure to the east of Building A was also revealed
(Fig 13.3). Permission was then given to investigate
these major pre-Conquest buildings, and in the next
two seasons, 1966 and 1967, the whole of Building A
and some areas around it were excavated, and after a
break in 1968, when the disused school was removed
from the court (see Fig 14.1 and Appendix B42, 44)
the full extent of Building B and medieval structures
within the cloister were excavated. Excavations in 1971
and 19738 concentrated on the southern part of the
medieval East and South Ranges and the southern cultivation slopes, revealing the underlying garden areas,
Building D, and associated workshops of the preConquest period.
As mentioned in Chapter 2, there had been significant destruction and redeposition of soil on the site.
The levelling for the medieval cloister had truncated
the levels over the Anglo-Saxon cemetery and Building

B, and although the layers of clay over the collapsed
south wall of B and the whole of D and the riverside
structures had preserved levels, the 11th-century
reconstruction of the site not only obliterated and
robbed to foundation level all of the Anglo-Saxon
stone buildings but began a process of major redistribution of soil which was repeated in later building
episodes. These were notably concerned with the construction and demolition of the Victorian rectory (see
Table 1.2, 1853 and 1878), the domestic occupation of
the cottage, and the clearances associated with the
restorations and consolidations of the standing buildings by the Ministry of Works. The various occupancies inside the claustral enclosure the later monastic,
the cottage occupied from the 17th to the 20th centuries, the school in the 19th to 20th centuries were
all destructive of the medieval buildings and all operated from the same or nearly the same ground surface.
Outside the West Range wall, the ground was
intensely disturbed by the working areas of the
medieval rebuildings, as well as by a medieval and later
cemetery, and medieval and later gardens, including
19-01-2007
10:53
14: EXCAVATIONS AROUND THE CHURCH
Fig 14.2 Contour plan of the guardianship area south of St Pauls Church in 1963. Ancient Monuments Division, Ministry of Public Building and Works 562/65
JARROW14.QXD
Pagina 171
171
JARROW14.QXD
172
19-01-2007
10:53
Pagina 172
intensive market and allotment gardening in the 20th

century. All of this meant that intact early stratigraphy
was very patchily preserved inside and outside the
cloister. The excavations nevertheless were much more
productive than the gloomy prognostications of the
earlier excavators had suggested. The rescue excavations in 1973 and 1976, directed by Christopher
Morris, in the area to the south of the Guardianship

enclosure alongside the River Don, extended the
exploration of the site to the southern limits (Fig 2.3)
and enabled a more complete picture of the East
Range of the medieval monastery to be provided, as
well as revealing new enclosing walls (see Chapter 21
below).
JARROW15.QXD
19-01-2007
10:56
Pagina 173
15 The Jarrow pre-Norman burial ground

by Pamela Lowther
Introduction
To the south, the edge of the burial ground essentially

coincides with the break in slope at the edge of the flatter ground occupied by the principal Anglo-Saxon and
medieval buildings; no certain physical boundaries
were however detected for either period in that area.
Elsewhere, the cemetery continued beyond the excavated areas to the west, east and north. In sum, the preNorman cemetery thus appears to lie mainly between
the Anglo-Saxon churches and the two principal buildings of this period, A and B. A small number of burials north and south-west of the church may also belong
to this phase.
Burials were encountered over much of the excavated

area, especially to the south of St Pauls Church,
between it and the main Anglo-Saxon buildings, but
also in smaller trenches investigated in and to the north
of the church. The burials span the Anglo-Saxon to
later post-medieval periods, the churchyard having
finally been closed for burial in 1880 (Rose 1932). A
total of 523 in situ burials of all periods was recorded,
to which must be added the remains of up to 280 further individuals represented by fragmentary human
remains recovered from the fills of graves or from the
excavation of other deposits, or in some cases too poorly documented for inclusion in the primary catalogue.
The latter are listed in part 2 of the burial catalogue
(Appendix D), but are not further discussed here.
As noted in the general introduction to the
Wearmouth cemetery (Chapter 8 above), the burial
data from Jarrow will be presented chronologically.
The present chapter deals with the 132 in situ burials
assigned with more or less certainty to the AngloSaxon period (Fig 15.1); burials attributed to the
medieval monastery are discussed in Chapter 18 below
and the post-medieval burials are summarised in
Chapter 22. Discussion here is essentially limited to
structural aspects of the cemetery and the spatial distribution of the burials. The detailed anthropological
and demographic analysis by Susan Anderson appears
in Volume 2; this covers 257 (49%) of the in situ burials from Jarrow, as well as a substantial number of disturbed human remains. As already explained in
Chapter 8, not all of the excavated human remains
were available for specialist analysis, including a large
group from 1966. In examining the structure of the
cemetery, it has, however, been possible to utilise some
general adult or child attributions made at the time
of excavation or inferred by S Anderson from the photographic record, in addition to the detailed age and
sex data derived from the first-hand specialist analysis.
Chronological attribution of burials

The dating evidence for the cemetery is limited. In the
cloister area, some of the Anglo-Saxon burials were
only sealed by post-medieval deposits and lay close to
the modern ground surface. Virtually without exception, it was impossible to demonstrate even an approximate level from which individual graves had been cut,
while the actual grave cuts were rarely distinguished
before a skeleton was discovered, owing to the redeposition of soil which often occurs in cemeteries (cf
Kjlbye-Biddle 1975). In addition, large areas of the
western and southern part of the site were used as a
garden for the Victorian rectory and were subsequently cultivated as allotments, with the result that no premodern layers survived either above Building A or in
the area of the unbuilt medieval South Range.
For the majority of burials, only a terminus post quem
(TPQ) based dating is possible. The only clear termini
ante quos are for those burials cut by Norman or
medieval walls. There are relatively few areas where
burials were excavated in long sequences: the longest
stratigraphic chain, in 7001, just south-west of the
church is a sequence of six graves, of which only the
latest contained later 11th- to 13th-century pottery
(70/84, Type E10: Oxidised Gritty Ware). A system of
letter coding was therefore devised on the basis of such
stratigraphic data as was available, coupled with information from any finds contained within the grave fills.
The categories are summarised in Table 15.1.
The principal period divisions of the excavation
report have been followed for the cemetery discussion,
dividing the burials between Anglo-Saxon and
medieval. This inevitably creates an over-simplified
picture, since the burial ground which probably continued in use after the Anglo-Saxon monastic buildings
had been abandoned lends itself less readily to such
a clear-cut division than do the monastic buildings.
The groups employed here were arrived at by amalgamation of the stratigraphic categories given in Table
15.1. It must be stressed that burials dated by terminus
The extent of the graveyard

The precise extent of neither the Anglo-Saxon nor the
medieval graveyard is known; the post-medieval graveyard is assumed to correspond with the boundaries of
the churchyard as shown on early maps (eg Fig 1.9
above). The areas investigated north of the present
church were too small to be useful for establishing the
limits of the graveyard, beyond confirming the presence of burials which pre-date the post-medieval
period immediately to the north of the chancel. In
one case (trench 7101), the area was so full of late
post-medieval graves that the cutting was abandoned.
173
JARROW15.QXD
19-01-2007
10:56
Pagina 174
174
Table 15.1 Jarrow: categories of burial dating

Code
Preferred date range
A1
A2
A3
Anglo-Saxon
Anglo-Saxon
Anglo-Saxon?
A4
B1
B2
B3
B4
C1
C2
C3
D
E
Description
No. of burials
Burials stratified below Norman walls or Med 1 deposits

Burials stratified below Med 2 walls, floors or deposits. At latest might go up to C13th
Burials within the area of the cloister and East Range buildings, but with less clear
stratification than A1 and A2 and no datable finds
Anglo-Saxon?
Burials within S Range area and outside the E Range; no datable finds or certain
stratification.
LsaxMed
Burials post-dating Building A with no datable finds
LsaxMed
Burials yielding earlier medieval pottery (principally later C11early C13), or similarly
stratified
Medieval
Burials yielding medieval pottery (TPQ principally later C12C14) or similarly stratified
LMedieval
Burials yielding later medieval pottery (TPQ principally C14C16) or similarly stratified
PMed
C17/18 finds in grave fills, or similarly stratified.
LPMed
C18/19 finds in grave fill, or similarly stratified.
PMed?
Infant burials from N of chancel with no finds, similar to other PM/LPM infant burials
in this area.
SaxonMed
Unphased, Saxon or medieval. No datable finds or useful stratification to indicate date.
A small number of these burials post-date the drains around Building A
SaxMedPMed Unphased, Saxon to post-medieval
Total
33
21
65
13
33
12
116
19
21
73
25
84
8
523
Fig 15.2 Skeletal survival at Jarrow: a (left) Burial 70/90 (supine adolescent male?), cut through by the robber trench of
the Norman cloister walk wall (far left) and overlain by the Medieval 2 cloister walk wall. (IS/MS)
b (right) Poor skeletal preservation below the medieval east range: burial 70/181 (grave 70/174 alongside is already excavated). (IS)
post quem could conceivably belong to a later period.
To permit the dating of individual burials to be
assessed, both stratigraphic coding and preferred date
group are given in the burial catalogue (Appendix D).
The construction of the Norman monastic buildings provides the principal structural marker for defining the Anglo-Saxon burials (groups A1A4). Of
these, the A1 group are the only burials which can be
securely demonstrated to pre-date the late 11th
century. Technically, some of the A2 group could be as
late as the 13th century, while the A3 and A4 burials
might be later still, a problem exacerbated by the
absence of deposits earlier than the later medieval (or
even post-medieval) period above the graves in certain
trenches. On the other hand, there is no evidence for
any definitely medieval burials anywhere in the claustral area, nor to the south and east of the cloister.
Significantly, none of the burials in groups A1A4
yielded sherds of medieval pottery (except 75/34 which
had clearly been disturbed), which is a frequent find in
the fills of burials west of the West Range wall. Nor was
there evidence of any medieval grave markers from this
eastern part of the cemetery. Some burials lay physically within the cloister walk or the chapter house
(mainly A2, some A3) and could therefore conceivably
be contemporary with those structures. However, the
group includes both females and sub-adults and several of them are aligned away from due westeast, which
suggests they are not medieval monastic burials. For
these reasons, A2A4 can be fairly confidently treated
JARROW15.QXD
19-01-2007
10:56
Pagina 175
15: THE JARROW PRE-NORMAN BURIAL GROUND
Table 15.2 Comparison of the Anglo-Saxon (A),

unphased (DE) and medieval (B) burials
Anglo-Saxon
adult
subadult
prone
right-side
supine
female
male
72
39
1
29
29
20
35
65%
35%
2%
49%
49%
36%
64%
Unphased
49
31
1
10
56
12
16
61%
39%
1.5%
15%
83.5%
43%
57%
Medieval
104 62%
64 38%
159 100%
34 51%
33 49%
as pre-Norman. This makes a total of 132 in situ

Anglo-Saxon burials. Within these, it is unfortunately
not possible to differentiate burials that belong to the
monastic occupation from any which might be earlier,
or from those dating to the mid-9th to mid-11th
century, after the monastic buildings were abandoned.
Although the nature of the archaeological evidence
means that these 132 burials are the only ones which
can be safely assigned to the Anglo-Saxon period, in
practice, it is highly probable that the burial ground
extended further to the west, beyond the Norman West
Range wall, as well as to the north of at least the
Eastern Anglo-Saxon church. Two categories that
might have been pre-Norman are in fact more likely to
be of later date. The first comprises a number of burials (B1, n=33) post-dating Building A which contained
no datable material in their fills, apart from a single
grave containing one sherd of handmade early
medieval pottery (burial 67/40, Type C/D). However,
while burial above Building A could have started
immediately after its demise, ie before the Norman
period, it is noticeable that there are no corresponding
burials within the medieval cloister, either above the
east end of Building A, nor above Building B. This
implies that burial above Building A did not begin until
after the West Range wall was constructed in the
Norman period. The second group (category B2,
n=12) consists of a few burials in the western part of
the cemetery which contained sherds of pottery originally dated to the 10th to 12th centuries, ie potentially
belonging to the pre-Conquest period. The pottery
types in question are, however, now seen as more probably not earlier than the late 11th century in date (Vol
2, Ch 33.2). Such pottery is also absent from the definitely Anglo-Saxon burials (A1A4). Both categories
B1 and B2 are therefore analysed in this report with
the medieval cemetery, although Anderson classed the
twelve B1 burials available to her as Anglo-Saxon.
Two final categories potentially include some AngloSaxon graves. These (D, n=84; E, n=8) contained no
datable finds in their fills and lacked useful stratification,
although a number of them do pre-date burials of
medieval or later date. They lie mainly in the western part
of the burial ground in the area of the medieval cemetery,
with a few to the north of the Anglo-Saxon Eastern
Church and others near the Victorian west porch.
175
While none of these burials can safely be phased more

closely than Anglo-Saxon to medieval and those classified as E could technically go into the post-medieval
period in practice, a proportion of them are likely to be
pre-Norman. The idea that this sub-set incorporates a
mixture of pre-Norman and medieval burials is born out
by the ratio of male to female burials and proportions of
different body positions: they have values intermediate
between those for the definitely Anglo-Saxon and definitely medieval groups (Table 15.2). Interestingly, the
proportion of adult to sub-adult burials remains virtually constant between the two main periods. The category
D and E graves were not included in the numerical
analysis to avoid distorting the pre-Norman data, but
examples of particular interest are discussed where
appropriate in the report. The 45 undated burials available to Anderson were analysed as medieval.
The pre-Norman burials

Skeletal survival and post-depositional
disturbance
Less than two-fifths (36% = 34/94) of the certain AngloSaxon burials for which data are available survived to
any degree of completeness (75100% preserved);
almost another third (29% = 27/94) were less than 25%
Fig 15.3 Age of Anglo-Saxon burials at Jarrow. Infant =

02 yrs; Child = 212 yrs; Adolescent = 1218 yrs; Adult
= over 18 yrs. PL
Fig 15.4 Sex of Anglo-Saxon burials at Jarrow. PL
JARROW15.QXD
176
19-01-2007
10:56
Pagina 176
Fig 15.5 Schematic plan of the distribution of males, females and sub-adults within the Anglo-Saxon cemetery (categories
A1A4). PL
intact. It should be noted that where percentages are
cited, they represent the actual number of observations
for a particular trait out of the total possible observations
for that trait, to permit assessment of the size of the relevant sample (see Chapter 8, Introduction). The high
incidence of disturbance is almost exclusively caused by
the Norman and medieval walls which define this phase
of the cemetery (Fig 15.2a), or by later negative features.
The lack of intercutting between graves will be discussed
further below. In certain areas, particularly below the
medieval East Range buildings, skeletal preservation was
particularly poor (Fig 15.2b).
Age and sex composition

The certain Anglo-Saxon burials comprised 72 adults,
and 39 sub-adults (less than 18 years); the latter
included 12 infants, 22 children and 5 adolescents (Fig
15.3). Thirty-five of the 55 sexed adults (64%) were
male (23 certain and 12 possible); 20 (36%) were
female (11 certain and 9 possible) (Fig 15.4). Seven
adults could not be sexed and no data was available for
a further ten adult skeletons (the two adolescents
assigned a sex have not been included here). Neither
age nor sex data were available for the remaining 21
individuals. Figure 15.5 shows the spatial distribution
of males, females and sub-adults within the cemetery.
In the following discussion, male? and female? identifications are included with certain sex attributions.
Fig 15.6 Body position for Anglo-Saxon burials at

Jarrow. PL
Disposition of the body

All of the skeletons were extended. Twenty-nine (48%,
29/60) of the classifiable burials were supine or probably supine (Fig 15.6). Exactly the same number had
been buried on their right side, this category including
18 certain right-side burials (Fig 15.7AB); 6 probable; and 5 which had collapsed (ie burials originally
on their side which had subsequently rolled over in the
grave). An additional 16 fragmentary burials could not
be categorised, although visual inspection of the
records suggests that this group may have included up
to nine more right-side burials. Ten right-side burials
JARROW15.QXD
19-01-2007
10:56
Pagina 177
177
Fig 15.7 Right-side and prone burials.

A. Right-side burial of adult male with Pagets disease (69/15, A1). (IS)
B. Right-side burial of adult male with possible bone movement, in narrow grave cut (69/20, A1). (IS)
C. Prone burial of adult male (71/36, A4). (IS)
D. Prone burial of adolescent male?, unphased Anglo-Saxon/medieval (70/171, D). (IS/MS)
also occur among the unphased graves. Since rightside burials do not occur among the definitely
medieval group, it is likely that this is an exclusively
pre-Norman burial rite. This view is reinforced by the
stratigraphic position of the unphased right-side burials, no less than six of which lie at the start of longer
sequences (see below) in the area south-west of the
church. In only one case is an unphased right-side burial later than another (supine) grave (75/96 over
75/100), this time north of the Eastern Church.
Another right-side burial lay just to the south-west of
Building A. No burials were placed on their left side.
The location of supine and right-side burials is shown
in Figure 15.8.
Of the remaining burials, one was prone (71/36,
adult male; Fig 15.7C). One of the uncertain burials
was either prone or a right-side burial which had collapsed onto its front (70/69, adult male?). There is one
further prone burial (70/171, adolescent male?) among
the unphased (Fig 15.7D), which also lies at the start
of a sequence. No data on body position were available
for the remaining 57 individuals classed as AngloSaxon.
An anomalous burial is 66/76 (unphased; no data),
which appears to have its left and right legs transposed!
Unfortunately, as this skeleton did not lie entirely
within the excavated area, the torso position is
unknown. It was either disturbed in antiquity, or was
conceivably a right-side burial which had collapsed in
an odd way.
The supine burials comprise approximately equal

numbers of male (8) and female (10), together with
five sub-adults (Fig 15.9A). Right-side burials, on the
other hand, comprise 13 males to 6 females, with again
five sub-adults, being a ratio of male to female of 2.2:1
(Fig 15.9B). While the sample is extremely small, it
would appear that this rite was particularly associated
with male adults.
Virtually all the supine burials had their legs straight
and the feet together. Right-side burials, too, generally
had their legs straight, although a few were very slightly
bent at the knees. The only variants were two children
(70/12 and 70/23) with very slightly bent legs, and two
adult males: one a supine burial with the feet together but
the knees somewhat apart (70/77), the other with the feet
apparently crossed (70/118). Only the feet of 70/118 were
within the excavated area, and it may well be the remains
of a right-side burial giving the effect of crossed feet.
Since most of the supine burials were incomplete, few
data were available on arm position. Sometimes arms
were straight, placed by the side of the body, but more
often the arms were slightly flexed, with the hands placed
on the pelvis, sometimes clasped together. The arms of
right-side burials were generally found in front of the
body, hands being together in front of the pelvis in at least
three cases; the right arm was often not visible but can be
presumed to lie alongside the body. In other instances,
especially where the skeleton had begun to collapse backwards, the left arm was pulled back across the torso at an
angle (n=8). This might indicate that these particular
JARROW15.QXD
19-01-2007
10:56
178
Pagina 178
Fig 15.8 Schematic plan of Anglo-Saxon supine and right-side burials. PL
Fig 15.9 A Sex of Anglo-Saxon supine burials. B Sex of Anglo-Saxon right-side burials. PL
burials were not buried in a shroud, which might have
helped to contain the arm bones (see below). In one case
the left arm lay on top of the left side of the body.
The heads of right-side burials were, unsurprisingly, all lying on the right side (n=21). The pattern for
supine burials was more variable: one facing straight
up, one rolled forward, three to the left, but the majority (eight) to the right.
Grave morphology
The principal type of inhumation was a simple earthcut grave. A few burials had evidence for coffins or simple stone settings. No charcoal burials were recorded
such as the possible one in the Wearmouth porch, or
those known from the early cemetery below the chapter

house at Durham Cathedral (Fowler 1880; Lowther et
al 1993, 44) and numerous high-status Christian cemeteries dating from the 9th to 11th or 12th centuries.
Grave dimensions and depth
As already noted, grave cuts were often difficult to
recognise before the skeleton itself was reached. In
some cases the outline recorded on plan probably
reflects the area excavated around the skeleton rather
than the original cut, so detailed analysis of grave
shape is not appropriate. Many of the graves were fairly narrow, perhaps due to the extremely stiff natural
clay subsoil. Widths were recorded for only 52 graves:
JARROW15.QXD
19-01-2007
10:56
Pagina 179
179
Fig 15.10 Schematic plan of coffins, stone settings and grave markers; and associated finds. PL
they peak at 0.38m (15in.), ranging from 0.150.6m (6
to 24in.). The average width of adult graves was 0.4m
(16.3in.). Right-side graves do not appear to be significantly narrower than supine burials. Grave pits with
both rounded and squared ends occur. It is likely that
the narrow, rectangular outline of a number of graves
reflects the original presence of a coffin (see below)
rather being the edge of the grave pit (although these
may have effectively been the same).
Grave depth is only recorded for 21 burials: the figures range from 0.07m (3in.) to 0.38m (15in.), with the
majority falling between 0.150.25m (610in.) deep.
These are certainly underestimates. For the reasons
already stated, the upper part of graves had almost
invariably been dug away before the grave was measured.
The remains of the blocked Anglo-Saxon doorway
in the south wall of the Eastern Church (Fig 13.1,
above) can be used to give an approximate indication
of the level of the external ground surface at the time
the cemetery was in use. Taking the ground surface as
one course below the vertical jamb stone, the adjacent
grave 70/51 would have been c 0.5m deep, whereas
only 0.3m survives in section (Figs 13.513.6), suggesting that some stratification has been lost here, and
that the grave was originally somewhat deeper. There
are too many uncertainties to calculate its exact depth:
there could have been a step down from the church, or
the ground level could have been nearer the base of the
vertical jamb stone, which would make it deeper still.
In trench 6901, where burials lie below collapsed

masonry from Building B, the relative levels of the
tumble (3308) and the base of the burials suggest that
most of these graves were originally between 0.35m to
0.45m deep. Such figures are not incompatible with
the data from the late Saxon cemetery at Raunds,
where the depth of the few adult graves where the
ground surface was known was 0.44m; the average
depth of adult graves otherwise being 0.3m
(Boddington 1996, 31). At Wearmouth (Chapter 8
above), the survival of an Anglo-Saxon path indicated
grave depths of around 0.5m.
Interestingly, 13 graves assigned to the AngloSaxon period (10%, 13/132) contained extra human
bones, which cannot be explained by mixing of elements from intercutting graves. There may therefore
already have been a layer of disturbed burial earth in
existence by the time they were interred, or they may
be the only remnants of even shallower graves which
had subsequently been removed by later activity (see
also below).
Coffins and shrouds
Ten graves had traces of probable or possible coffins,
represented by wood stains (Fig 15.10). Such evidence
for vertical timbers indicates coffins or at least wooden
linings rather than just plank covers (it is unclear
whether the containers actually had a base). Only two
JARROW15.QXD
19-01-2007
10:56
Pagina 180
180
of these graves contained any nails. The presence/

absence of nails is not, however, a valid indicator for
the presence of coffins, since they are likely to have
been constructed entirely of wood. A further six graves
contained traces of wood which might also imply the
presence of a coffin or cover. The narrow, regular outline of certain other graves (eg 70/37) may also indicate
coffins of which no trace survived. In addition, the
collapse of a number of the right-side burials within
the grave may also imply that they were originally covered, leaving a void in the grave which had allowed the
body to roll over. No shroud pins were found in the
Anglo-Saxon graves. A single fragmentary iron plate
with a nail from an undated burial south-west of the
church (70/142, supine?, adult male) resembles the
coffin fittings from Wearmouth (Vol 2, Chapter 31.7).
The burials with coffins included both male and
female adults and one infant.
There were only two supine skeletons with their arms
tight to the body, or parallel-sided (cf Boddington
1996, 35) which can be taken to suggest evidence for
shrouds or coffins. One of these was constrained within
an extremely narrow grave cut. Similarly, bone movement (the displacement of skeletal elements during the
decay of the corpse), which could also suggest the presence of some kind of cover or container in the grave, was
restricted to a single possible case (69/20, where a vertebra had ended up below the pelvis of this right-side adult
male burial; Fig 15.7b). An unphased right-side burial
(70/152, adolescent) provides another possible example
of bone movement, which is somewhat commoner
among the medieval group (see Chapter 18 below).
Stone features within graves
In contrast to Wearmouth, only a small number of
graves at Jarrow contained stones that appeared to have
been deliberately placed (Fig 15.10). There were no
complex stone arrangements or cists among the certainly Anglo-Saxon graves. The truncation of overlying
deposits would effectively have prevented the recovery
of stone settings placed above the body. The sample is
too small to establish any clear correlations with sex or
age, although it appears that the majority of burials
with stone features are adult females. Both supine and
right-side burials are equally represented.
70/169 (?supine, ?female, 5070 yrs) had a stone

behind its head, apparently propping up the skull,
and a cobble placed roughly above the hands/pelvis.
Two right-side burials had flat flags behind their
left (69/16 collapsed right-side, female, 3545)
and right (75/15, ?female, 1618yrs) shoulders. A
flat slab lay along the southern edge of grave 75/22
(uncertain; infant).
Small groups of stones lay roughly above the head
end of 70/18 (supine; child); and adjacent burials
70/70 (?female, 3040 yrs) and 70/91 (infant; both
no data; see also below).
Two burials each had a large stone behind the

head/left shoulder, which might have functioned to
support some sort of cover: the skulls of these
burials are well preserved (70/109 supine? adult
female, Fig 15.11A; and 69/20 right-side adult
male, Fig 15.7B).
A further four right-side burials from the unphased

group, which are probably pre-Norman, can be mentioned here:
75/96 (right-side, female, 3545 yrs) north of the

chancel, has the only example of a pillow stone
from Jarrow (Fig 15.11B).
70/161 (right-side, male, 2123 yrs) south-west of
the church, has a stone placed on either side of the
head, evidently forming the support for a cover
which protected the skull (Fig 15.11C).
66/106 (no data), a burial just to the north of
Building B, which cuts an Anglo-Saxon drain
appears to have been packed with stones, particularly around the torso, perhaps to keep it in position (Fig 15.11D).
66/74 (right-side, adult male) contains stones displaced from the Anglo-Saxon drain next to which
it lies; the grave was evidently not long enough,
since the head is bent up at a very awkward angle.
Also of interest here is another unphased supine

burial of an adult female (75/100), which lies at the
start of a sequence, north of the chancel (see Chapter
13 above). This grave seems to have been edged with
stones: a line of small stones alongside the torso delimits the northern edge of the grave (in part cut away by
the later grave 75/96) and there are a few stones on the
south edge alongside the right femur (Fig 15.11E).
The site book notes a black stone under the feet and a
few small stones above the position of the hands above
the pelvis; the finger bones had become scattered in the
grave fill. Just to the south of this grave was an angular
arrangement of upright stones projecting from an
unexcavated area. While the feature is not very substantial and could simply be a stone-packed post hole,
it is conceivable that it is the corner of a small cist-like
arrangement associated with another burial, such as
the short cist child burials excavated at the Hirsel, in
the Borders (Cramp 1983c, 57).
In addition, the following unphased graves contained stone features:
71/32 (supine, adolescent, female?) has a stone by
the right side of the skull to keep the head in an
upright position.
66/69 (no data) has a stone by the head perhaps to
support a cover?
66/70 (no data) the plan shows a group of stones
in the corner of the grave by the head.
65/11 (supine, adult male) two large stones lie above
the right shoulder next to the (removed) skull.
JARROW15.QXD
19-01-2007
10:56
Pagina 181
181
Fig 15.11 Anglo-Saxon graves with stone features.

A. Supine? burial of adult female (70/109, A3). The stone behind the left shoulder on edge of grave cut may
have supported a cover to protect the skull. This burial also shows the difficulty of distinguishing between
collapsed right-side and supine burials (IS)
B. Right-side burial of adult female with pillow stone below skull; unphased Anglo-Saxon/medieval (75/96, D)
(IS/MS)
C. Right-side burial of young adult male? There is a stone on either side of the head; note the good preservation
of the skull compared to the adjacent burial. Unphased Anglo-Saxon/medieval (70/161, D) (IS)
D. Adult, no data. Grave possibly packed with stones. Unphased Anglo-Saxon/medieval (66/106) (IS)
E. Supine burial of adult female. The grave is partly edged with small stones, some of which have been removed
by later burials. Note the vertical stones alongside possibly a small cist? Unphased Anglo-Saxon/medieval
(75/100, D) (IS/MS)
Grave markers and surface features
grave slabs were recovered from the area of the
No decorated or inscribed stone grave markers were
medieval cloister, where they had been recycled in later
found directly associated with graves of the Anglostone features such as drains (see Vol 2, Ch 28). While
Saxon period. This is unsurprising given the degree of
it cannot be stated with certainty that these derived
later truncation. A number of displaced pre-Norman
from the immediate vicinity, they indicate the presence
JARROW15.QXD
182
19-01-2007
10:56
Pagina 182
Fig 15.12 Burials with grave markers.

A. Supine burial of unsexed adult with headstone (70/105, A3). (IS)
B. Coffin burial 70/59. The head of the coffin is visible as a straight line just beyond the skull. The rectangular
space beyond could conceivably have housed a grave marker. (IS)
C. Right-side burial with coffin. This burial contained a glass bead. (69/14, A1). The semi-circular lip beyond
the head could perhaps have housed a grave marker. (IS)
of high-status graves nearby. A fragment of a possible
pre-Norman grave marker with baluster decoration
was found at the level of the later post-medieval cemetery north of the chancel (Vol 2, Ch 28.2, AS44). The
lower part of another Anglo-Saxon grave marker (Vol
2, Ch 28.4, MS14) was found in the area of unphased
graves just south-west of the church in a medieval
deposit. Although neither of these was in situ, they
need not have been moved very far from their original
position, and give a further clue to the extent of the
pre-Conquest cemetery.
There was only a single instance of a probable in
situ grave marker. Burial 70/105 (supine, unsexed
adult) had a rectangular worked stone block set into
the natural clay at the head end of the grave (Fig
15.12A). This stone appears to have been broken off,
roughly level with the surviving surface of the natural
clay, and is likely to be the base of an in situ grave
marker destroyed in antiquity. An adjacent squared
stone might be an additional prop or packing stone.
The only other features which might be taken to
indicate the presence of grave markers are associated
with two coffin burials (Fig 15.10). In the first (70/59,
?male, 3545 yrs), the coffin was shorter than the
grave, leaving a rectangular gap at the head end, which
could conceivably have housed a marker; a smaller
stone on the perimeter of the cut could also be a support or prop, resembling the arrangement just cited
(Fig 15.12B). The second (69/14, right-side, male,
4550 yrs) had a semi-circular lip at the head end of
the grave, with a stone on the north edge of the cut
(Fig 15.12C).
While a number of postholes and slots occur in the

general area of the pre-Norman cemetery, none could
be associated with specific graves, and it is likely in
many cases that they are the truncated vestiges of later
features. As already mentioned, intercutting of graves
is minimal, which could support the idea that the
graves were originally marked. Superposition of graves
(see below), also suggests that burials could be accurately located by at least the presence of a visible earth
mound.
Artefacts and other material from grave

fills
The Anglo-Saxon graves were effectively unfurnished.
Only two contained finds which could be considered
deliberate, each yielding a single polychrome glass
bead (Fig 15.10): 69/14 (right-side, coffin; adult male,
4550 yrs) contained a black globular glass bead with
white trails and red and white eyes attributed to the
6th/7th century (Vol 2, Ch 31.4, B2) found lying close
to the neck; incidentally this is one of the burials
recorded by Wells as containing exceptionally high levels of lead. The same grave yielded a fragment of crucible of 8th/9th-century date (Vol 2, Ch 35.1). Grave
71/42 (only a shadow) yielded an incomplete brown
and yellow annular glass bead (Vol 2, Ch 31.4, B1). In
addition, shallow feature 3595, which appears to be
the upper fill of grave 70/105, yielded a green glass barrel-shaped bead with yellow trails (Vol 2, Ch 31.4, B3).
A small coral bead (Vol 2, Ch 31.4, B19) came from
the general level of the cemetery (context 4003) in
JARROW15.QXD
19-01-2007
10:56
Pagina 183
183
Fig 15.13 Anglo-Saxon burial alignment by body position. The continuous line shows the total for each alignment. PL
trench 7006, but cannot be associated with a burial.
Another Anglo-Saxon bead possibly deriving from a
burial was found in a disturbed part of the cemetery
south-west of the church (context 4898, trench 7001);
this was a blackish knobbed spoke bead with white spiral trails (Vol 2, Ch 31.4, B4). Polychrome glass beads
are often found in Anglo-Saxon graves up to the later
7th or 8th centuries (Geake 1997, 44). They may be
found on a necklace, or as a single bead strung around
the neck which may be the case for burial 69/14;
other functions may be as clothes fasteners, on a belt,
or attached to a sword (Guido 1999).
Apart from 69/14 (above), none of the Anglo-Saxon
graves contained pottery in their fills. Seventy-two contained no material culture of any kind; one disturbed
grave (75/34) yielded a piece of 16th-century pottery.
The remaining 59 graves contained small amounts of
building materials, such as fragments of plaster or opus
signinum, or pieces of lead or window glass. There is no
obvious patterning in the distribution of these graves. A
small number (13) contained one or two nails. While
these might be thought to suggest the presence of
coffins, in most cases they are more likely to be related
to the building materials. The presence of building
materials in the grave fills indicates that the graves were
dug after building activity had occurred on the site, but
it is impossible to distinguish debris from the original
construction of the Anglo-Saxon buildings from that of
subsequent modifications.
Six graves contained shells, but only two had animal bone. This is potentially interesting in view of the
idea that shellfish was a more important part of the diet
than meat during the Anglo-Saxon monastic occupation (Chapter 23 below), although it may simply reflect
the fact that the cemetery area was kept clean and that
food refuse was disposed of elsewhere.
The only find of note among the unphased burials
(D) was a group of iron clench nails (Vol 2, Ch 31.6,
Fe48), which had corroded together in burial 70/155
(supine, adult male). These closely resemble the
Wearmouth coffin fittings and are likely to be of AngloSaxon date, although in this case they evidently were
not attached to a coffin. An iron pin with a decorative
silver head was found on the surface of the natural clay
in the area of the cemetery south-west of the church
(context 4973) and could conceivably have derived
from a disturbed grave (Vol 2, Ch 31.2, P15).
Alignment
As already mentioned under Wearmouth (Chapter 8
above), the alignment of each burial was, where possible, measured to the nearest 5 relative to the site grid.
All burials were positioned with their heads to the west,
in a broadly westeast orientation, varying between
260 and 285. The northsouth burial mentioned by
Geake (1997, 185) is in fact erroneous (S Mills, pers
comm). Almost half of those which could be measured
(49%, 18/37) lay at 270, in other words on line with
the church (Fig 15.13); roughly equal numbers of
supine and right-side burials were found at this orientation. There appears to be a slight secondary peak in
the overall distribution at 280, ie slightly west-northwest, while a significant number of right-side burials
cluster around 265, ie just west-south-west. Most of
the undated right-side burials lie at 270 (8 out of 9
measured). As at Wearmouth, the spread of the
supine burials is narrower than that of the right-side
burials.
Although the sample of sexed burials for which the
alignment could be measured is small (n = 25), there
is a strong tendency for adult males to be buried
westeast (69%, 11/16), whereas the alignment of
females is more variable (Fig 15.14). The sample is too
small, however, to be certain whether this is because
some or all of the male burials were directly associated
with the monastery. The westeast aligned burials
(both measured and estimated) appear to be evenly
distributed throughout the cloister area, with no obvious clusters.
JARROW15.QXD
184
19-01-2007
10:56
Pagina 184
Fig 15.14 Alignment of sexed Anglo-Saxon adults. PL
The organisation and layout of the

cemetery
Rows, zoning and superpositioning
There are hints of northsouth rows within the cemetery, for example in trench 6301, as well as possible
lines or groups drifting from south-west to north-east
(for example in trenches 6901, 7003 and 7005; Fig
15.1 above). The discontinuous nature of the excavated area, however, precludes certainty on this matter.
Males, females and sub-adults seem to be spread
fairly randomly across the pre-Norman burial ground,
with no evident segregation or zoning (Fig 15.5),
although in the absence of more precise phasing we
cannot be certain that some patterning did not exist.
Supine and right-side burials are fairly mixed (Fig
15.8), although there are hints of a greater number of
supine burials towards the church (but since the excavation could only extend right up to the church in two
tiny cuttings, such a tendency is speculative). There
may be some clustering of supine and right-side burials; for example possible groups in trenches 7003 near
the Western Church and 7105 to the south of Building
A.
A number of Anglo-Saxon burials were placed
extremely close to the north walls of the principal
Anglo-Saxon buildings: five lay adjacent to Building B
(65/31, 65/14, 69/16, 69/21, 69/7), and at least two
unphased burials lay in a similar position relative to
Building A (66/74, 66/100). Two of these burials are
children, the rest adults either certainly or possibly
buried on their right side. The relationship of these
burials to the drains which run along the north eaves of
these buildings is not always absolutely clear, but they
appear to post-date the drains; indeed the drains may
have gone out of use and no longer been visible by the
time the graves were dug. Those burials near Building
B lay beneath tumble from the collapse or destruction
of that structure; these graves must thus have been dug
while the building was still standing or at least substantially intact. Interestingly, two other right-side burials
lay near the south-west corner of Building A (67/29)

and the south-east corner of Building B (69/20). The
evident desire to place burials as close as possible to the
walls of these two Anglo-Saxon monastic buildings
would suggest that the perceived status of these structures in the later Anglo-Saxon period was high (indeed
they may even have been mistaken for chapels); and
may also imply that right-side burials occur later rather
than earlier in the life of the cemetery.
At least nine examples of precise superpositioning
of graves occur among the Anglo-Saxon burials (Fig
15.15). In such cases, one individual is buried immediately above another, without apparent disturbance to
the underlying grave. In one instance, there is a
sequence of three such burials. While this phenomenon might reflect the burial of two or more individuals
in a single grave, this was not thought to be the case
during excavation. It is more likely that the grave plots
were reused at a later date, implying that the earlier
graves were clearly visible.
In five instances, an infant or child was buried
above an adult (3 male, 1 female, 1 unsexed); one child
was buried above an infant; and two adult females were
buried above adult males. Where the alignment of the
skeletons could be determined, the orientation of the
two bodies appears to be either identical or very similar (with the sole exception of one pair of adults); both
WE and other alignments are encountered. Two
superpositioned pairs occur in very close proximity in
trench 7003.
Among the unphased (D) burials, there were a few
possible cases of superpositioning. Adult 66/93 lay
directly above another adult (66/105), just to the north
of Building A. Nearer the church, an adult male
(70/92) apparently lay above an adult female (70/149),
but both graves lay partly outside the excavated area,
rendering certainty impossible.
In addition there are a few occurrences of pairs of
burials placed sufficiently closely as to suggest intention (70/70 adult female, with adjacent infant 70/91;
70/59 adult male with adjacent child 70/11; 69/4 no
JARROW15.QXD
19-01-2007
10:56
Pagina 185
185
Fig 15.15 Schematic plan of superpositioning and pairs of graves. PL

data, adjacent to 69/8 infant). There is another less
definite but larger group comprising infant, children
and adult female (70/16, 70/8, 70/12, 70/62, 70/49)
south of the chancel but these are cut by the
Medieval 2 cloister walk wall and therefore less clear.
These possible inter-relationships between graves
(and the possible drifting rows mentioned above) make
it tempting to speculate about the existence of marked
plots that were reused over time, perhaps by members
of the same family or kin group.
Paths and boundaries
The relationship of the cemetery to other features of the
site is difficult to discern clearly due to the discontinuous
nature of the excavated areas. It has not been possible to
define any paths through the burial ground, although
there must have been preferred routes of access to the
principal buildings, and presumably an entrance to the
cemetery. While areas of paving occur immediately adjacent to the Buildings A and B, the absence of any areas
of Anglo-Saxon ground surface in the area to the north
has effectively prevented the survival of any possible
paths through the cemetery between these buildings and
the churches. Unfortunately even the location of the
doorways into the buildings is largely conjectural. The
blocked Anglo-Saxon doorway in the south wall of the
Eastern Church would have given access to the cemetery, and the space between the two churches appears to
have been maintained as a thoroughfare even after the
two buildings were joined. Following the Wearmouth
model, it is possible that the northsouth paved path
between Buildings A and B formed a significant axis
across the site, although no trace of it survived in the
excavated areas to the north.
There were no burials in the area immediately outside the postulated doorway in the north wall of
Building B (Chapter 16 below), but unfortunately
the presence of a huge pit for a medieval well (Chapter
18 below) would have removed traces of any path leading away from here, as well as any burials. The area
immediately south of the tower was not investigated.

Several burials did lie close to the nearby door in the
south wall of the Eastern Church but there would still
be space, as today, for a narrow path running around
the perimeter of the building. In general, there are no
obvious gaps in the distribution of burials which
would have permitted space for formal paths, but it
should be remembered that some time-depth evidently exists in the burial ground, and the elimination of
later burials (which cannot be achieved on stratigraphic
grounds) might indicate possible routes.
As already noted, the southern limit of the AngloSaxon burial ground appears to coincide with the top
of the natural slope leading down to the river. A fragmentary stone feature (1452/51067), preserved only
within the southern part of the medieval East and
South Range buildings, is possibly the remains of a
wall. It does not seem to form part of a coherent building (although it is L-shaped) and it coincides with the
southern limit of burial in the south-eastern part of the
site only grave 73/1 lies a little further to the south.
Another possible boundary represented by a fragmentary cobble foundation a little to the north of Building
A (5667; see Chapter 16, Fig 16.4 below) makes little
sense in relation to the cemetery, as burials occur both
north and south of its position, unless it pertained only
to a particular phase of cemetery use.
Discussion
Although a span of some 400 years (not necessarily
continuous) is potentially represented in the preNorman burial ground, there is little spatial or stratigraphic evidence to help chart the detailed
development of the cemetery. There is no marked clustering of graves to indicate either an original nucleus or
a particularly long-lived part of the burial ground. The
busiest areas tend to be those closest to the churches,
although the south-eastern part of the cemetery also
has a fairly high number of burials and some evidence
for the intercutting of graves.
JARROW15.QXD
186
19-01-2007
10:56
Pagina 186
Intercutting of graves is extremely uncommon in

the area underlying the later cloister. Virtually none of
the Anglo-Saxon burials here cut through earlier graves
(one of the rare examples is 75/14 which appears to cut
75/16). However, as noted above, as many as 10% of
them do contain the partial remains of other individuals, which could well imply that a tier of earlier, shallow graves has been completely lost. Exceptionally, in
trench 6901, north of Building B, four out of six in situ
burials contained remains of other individuals.
Despite the lack of positive dating evidence, it is
clear that at some point the Anglo-Saxon burial
ground extended into the area south-west of the
church, and probably to the north as well. As noted
above, the argument that right-side and prone burials
are exclusively Anglo-Saxon appears to be confirmed
by the stratigraphic position of many of the examples
outside the cloister area at the beginning of longer
sequences of graves. In the most striking example, a
collapsed right-side burial (70/160, child) south-west
of the church was overlain by four further burials containing no datable material; followed by a sixth burial
containing medieval pottery (70/84, adult male).
Another five right-side burials, as well as one prone
burial, underlie other undated or medieval graves. In
only one case, to the north of the Eastern Church, does
a right-sided burial (75/96, adult female) follow another grave, but there is good reason to think that it too is
pre-Norman; the basal grave contained no datable
material (75/100, supine adult female), and was itself
below other undated graves (75/93, female; 75/88,
unsexed), while the right-side burial is followed by one
of the relatively few graves containing later 11th/12thcentury pottery (75/77, adult female).
In general, many more burials occur in sequences
outside the cloister area. Adjacent to the group of
graves just discussed, another burial with later
11th/12th-century pottery (75/95, supine, adult male)
overlay a supine adult female (75/98), while south-west
of the church, there were several further instances of

one or more burials without finds followed by one or
more containing medieval pottery. It remains impossible to ascertain what proportion of the unphased
supine burials are pre-Norman; some are undoubtedly
later. Nor is there any evidence to indicate whether the
Anglo-Saxon use of the burial ground outside the later
cloister began at approximately the same time as within it, or indeed whether this was earlier or later. The
greater incidence of intercutting here is largely a function of the continued use of the area through the
medieval period.
Allowing a maximum lifetime for the Anglo-Saxon
cemetery of around 400 years, the 132 pre-Norman
burials in the cloister area would represent only about
one burial every three years. Assuming a constant rate
of burial through time, this would imply a very small
community. In practice, the Anglo-Saxon burial
ground was certainly more extensive for at least some
of the period and an unknown number of early burials
has also been lost, making it virtually impossible to
gauge the size of the contributing population. As we
have seen, adult burials outnumbered sub-adults in the
burial population by nearly two to one, and nearly twothirds of the sexed adults were male, a proportion
which was to change significantly in the medieval period and thus presumably reflects the monastic associations of the pre-Norman burial ground. Another point
of interest is the presence of large numbers of rightside burials. This phenomenon also occurs at
Newcastle (P Graves, pers comm; Harbottle and
Nolan forthcoming) and Wearmouth (which has nearly two and a half times as many right-side as supine
burials), and may be a feature of north-eastern cemeteries. A small number of prone burials, on the other
hand, is common on Anglo-Saxon cemeteries elsewhere. Further implications of the burial evidence are
explored in Chapter 24, while the medieval burial
ground is discussed in Chapter 18.
JARROW16.QXD
19-01-2007
11:02
Pagina 187
16 The excavated monastic buildings
The excavated domestic buildings of the Anglo-Saxon

monastery lay to the south of the cemetery and extended down the slope to the river forming parallel zones of
different land use, which are examined below in relation to the major buildings and their surrounding areas
of activity (Figs 13.3, 14.3). It was difficult, however,
to determine from the small disconnected patches
of undisturbed early surfaces what was the state of the
site when the major monastic buildings were constructed.
number of places outside the building, and on these

surfaces various activities can be identified in the
Anglo-Saxon period.
Many of these activities seem to be concerned with
building works: the surface of the brown clay, 67, is
covered with a mortar skim, while 3980 and 5358,
which are substantial postholes cut into the clay surface, 3946, also yielded plaster, opus signinum, and slivers of lead. A shallow hollow, 68, was likewise filled
with gravel, opus signinum and fragments of lead, and
beside it was a patch of opus mix. Postholes that made
no coherent pattern were also cut into this brown clay
level, but these seem to be clearly part of the monastic
phase (see Fig 16.4). It would seem, therefore, that the
brown clay layers into which all of the major AngloSaxon buildings are cut represent open cultivated
ground which may have been cleared just before the
occupation of the site by the monks or considerably
before that time. The evidence of building activity on
this ground surface may have been spread over the initial building phase of the monastery or to episodes of
reconstruction later in the Anglo-Saxon phase.
Phases 01
The brown clay capping, above the natural yellow clay,
has been remarked upon above as the surface into
which the west end of the Anglo-Saxon church was
demonstrably cut (Chapter 13 above). This layer,
which is interpreted as a buried soil deposit, also survived in many places to the south of the church to a
depth of 0.50.6m. In the south-facing slopes and terraces there is some evidence, in the flint scatter (Vol 2,
Ch 34.4), for prehistoric activity and it is possible that
some of the stakeholes and the ard or other cultivation
marks were also pre-Saxon. In one area these features
survived particularly clearly and these have been
extracted from the general Anglo-Saxon plan on to a
separate plan (Fig 16.1).
To the south of Building A and in the floor of its
annexe, was a series of small stakeholes which were
most clearly visible in the yellow clay subsoil
53515412, 39333972, 6085 (Figs 16.116.3). In
other areas of the site, notably under the floor surfaces
of the annexe to A (525560), and of Building B, there
were similar holes (see below). Elsewhere, in particular
on the southern slope, there were rashes of interconnecting irregular holes which could have been tree
roots, 6204, but the stakeholes, as independently
recorded in different years, were of a regular diameter
ranging from 30 to 50mm and had been shaped to a
sharp point. Their spatial pattern is quite irregular,
although it is possible to create rough lines running
both north and south, and east to west. In two places
(see Fig 16.2) they apparently cut cultivation (?ard)
marks, 6084 and 629, and it appears that they all are
part of a horizon within a thick deposit of dark brown
clay (66 etc), which seems to represent a layer of cultivated soil which accumulated over a long period of
time. This clay yielded flints, and from one deposit, 67,
two sherds of Native Roman pottery (see Vol 2, Ch
33.1, nos B34 and B35). Two small hearth areas,
3947 and 3975 in 7103, could also belong to a premonastic occupation phase (Fig 16.1). The brown clay
surface into which Building A was cut was visible
underlying the opus signinum floor and survived in a
Building A and its surroundings

(Figs 16.4, 16.5, 16.6, 16.7)
It is difficult to isolate the activity area around each of
the major buildings. To the north of Building A only
vestiges of the Anglo-Saxon ground surface survived in
disconnected patches (eg 5595) or the pieces of flagging with a runnel, 5691, which may be interpreted as
paving associated with the building. The burial ground
between the church and the two Buildings A and B
seems to have been in use for a considerable time, but
it proved impossible to reconstruct any linking paths
between the churches and the buildings (see above,
Chapter 15). Moreover there is no clear boundary
between the burial ground and the buildings except the
vestiges of paving or gravel very close to their walls.
The only candidate for such a division is a small
stretch of walling, 5667, which has the same stratigraphic relationships as the flagging 5691. It was constructed with a foundation of cobbles set in clean clay
and a superstructure of shaped blocks set at rather
irregular angles. To the north of it were some flagstones and it seems to have been set against a slope to
the south and then to have slipped forwards over the
lower level. Water had accumulated within the wall collapse and then it had been stabilised with a pack of dirty
clay containing Anglo-Saxon building debris with much
burnt material, 5670, before being covered by a deposit
of clean clay which was part of the packing of the
Norman West Range Wall 2, which also cut 5667. No
trace of the feature was picked up on the same line in
187
JARROW16.QXD
188
19-01-2007
11:02
Pagina 188
Fig 16.1 Possible pre-Saxon features south of Building A including stakeholes 3947, 3975, 6085, 2706 etc, cultivation marks
629 and 6084 and possible root holes 6204. YB
Fig 16.2 Plough marks (6084 )and stakeholes (6085) in

trench 6302. (IS)
Fig 16.3 Detail of stakeholes/root markings 6204 in trench

7802. (IS/MS)
JARROW16.QXD
19-01-2007
11:02
Pagina 189
16: THE EXCAVATED MONASTIC BUILDINGS
Fig 16.6 Key plan of Building A showing numbering of

rooms. NTS. LB
the small area excavated to the west of the Norman wall.
Although feature 5667 is without doubt pre-Conquest,
too little of it was excavated to allow one to form a
clear impression of its form or function; unfortunately
the area further east was destroyed by a medieval well.
The east end of Building A was discovered in 1965
during the investigation of the standing structures (see
Figs 2.2 and 16.4). It had been cut by the Norman
West Range (Wall 2; Fig 16.8), the west and south cloister alley walls, and also by the late medieval Wall 5; its
east end was largely contained within post-medieval
building e (see Figs 16.9, 16.10). The central section of
the building to the west of the West Range wall was
excavated in 1966. The south-east corner, to the south
of Wall 5, was completed in 1967 when the western section of the building was also excavated; the southern
annexe was excavated in 1967, 1976, and 1978.
The whole area of Building A to the west of the
medieval enclosure was very disturbed by burials which
were largely of medieval date (Chapter 18), and there
had also been extensive gardening activity in the 19th
and 20th centuries which had left only small isolated
areas of intact stratigraphy immediately over the floor
and robbed wall trenches. The southern annexe Aiii
(Fig 16.6) had been almost obliterated by the construction of the cellars of the Victorian rectory (Fig 16.7).
Building A, which is the largest stone structure on
the site, was sited on the crest of the slope, c 50ft (c
15.25m) from the south wall of the nave of the AngloSaxon church, and 45ft 6in. (13.87m) from the south
wall of the existing church. The walls of the building
had been heavily robbed, but at the east end, both
inside the post-Conquest claustral enclosure and
immediately to the west of the Norman West Range
wall, the superstructure and the floor were less disturbed (Figs 16.9 and 16.13). Building A measured c
91ft 6in. 26ft (27.89m 7.93m) (maximum dimension) externally and c 86ft 21ft (26.21 6.40m)
internally from east to west. It is not possible to be
absolutely precise in these measurements since,
because of differential robbing, any line across its long
axis measures from the bottom of the foundations at
the west end but to the superstructure at the east end.
The building had been subdivided by a cross wall,
5921, which lay c 28ft (8.53m) from the interior face
189
of the west wall of A and measured 1ft 10in. (0.56m)

in width (Fig 16.7). The main north and south walls
were slightly thicker than the east and west walls, being
on average 2ft 6in. (0.76m) wide, while the east and
west walls varied between 2ft 2in. and 2ft 4in. (0.66m
and 0.71m) wide. This differential thickness was possibly to take the strain of the cross-members of the roof
and has implications for the form of construction. The
large southern extension to this building, Aiii, which
only partially survived, has been assigned to a secondary building phase (see below, phase 2).
There was some indication that the ground had been
terraced slightly to provide a level surface for the building, in the form of a low bank, 198, to the north of A,
but the upper part of the bank thus created had been
altered and disturbed by later medieval activity. The
walls, which cut the weathered surface of the natural
clay, were trench-built and the depth of the foundation
trench was on average about 3ft (0.91m) from the floor
level to the base of the trench. The walls were constructed in the following manner: at the base, two
courses of clay-bonded cobble-like stones, which neatly
overlapped (see Figs 16.11, 16.12); above them a levelling layer of flat slabs which supported the lowest course
of mortared and neatly jointed blocks with a rubble
core. The corners were turned with massive megalithic
quoins about 2ft (0.61m) square, which survived intact
at the east end of the building, projecting slightly
beyond the line of the wall trench. At the south-east corner external paving stones had been cut to fit round the
overhang of the quoin stone, which was probably a
reused Roman stone since it was tooled distinctively on
its south face (see Figs 16.7 and 16.12). A chip in its
northern edge had been plugged with small stones. It is
possible that this building had not only reused Roman
stones and roof tiles (see below) but had also reutilised
Roman roof timbers: two radiocarbon dates for the
burnt timbers lying on the floor of the structure yielded
dates of 250 cal BC120 cal AD and 380 cal AD650 cal
AD (see Vol 2, Appendix G). The superstructure of the
east wall demonstrated that the building had been
whitewashed on the outside and plastered with a thick
creamy plaster on the interior (Fig 16.9).
Extending eastwards from the north-east corner of
the building was a short line of cobbled foundations,
5748, the same width as the north wall and in the same
construction. These had subsequently been covered by
a drain and flagged path (5763) which lay between
Buildings A and B (Figs 16.4, 16.7 and 16.9). This
cobble foundation could either have been the vestiges
of a corner buttress, or an adjunct which was later
demolished when the path between A and B was laid.
This last interpretation could imply that Building A
was constructed before Building B (see below).
Alongside the south wall of Building A were three
rectangular stone and clay foundations c 2ft 6in.
(0.76m) northsouth, which have been interpreted as
buttress bases since they occurred on the side where
there was a natural slope (Cramp 1969, 48). The
190
19-01-2007
11:02
Pagina 190
Fig 16.7 Jarrow: Building A, excavated features. NE
JARROW16.QXD
JARROW16.QXD
19-01-2007
11:02
Pagina 191
191
Fig 16.8 Building A during excavation, cut by the Norman West Range wall. (IS)
foundations consisted of a deposit of clay and stone
chippings (see Fig 16.15, with in one case (5836) flat
slabs above forming a sort of pad. Only one, 5802, certainly formed an integral part of the foundation construction trench for the south wall (Fig 16.4). The
others were very tightly packed against its lowest levels,
but it was impossible to say whether they were the
same constructional phase or not. Their significance
and possible functions are further discussed below.
The roof
It is possible that Building A was roofed in different
materials at different stages of its existence, or that it
had a combination of roof coverings. There was a large
amount of melted lead around its walls and on its floor,
together with lead fittings for clipping together lead
sheets or plates, which were concentrated alongside the
south wall and in particular at the south-east corner
(Trueman 1985, 43, fig IV; Vol 2, Ch 26.6). There was
also a considerable number of stone slates and some
ceramic tiles (see Vol 2, Chs 26.4, 26.5) found around
the building (albeit in later deposits), so that it is possible that it had a stone roof with lead flashing. This
would be even more likely if the building had a hipped
roof. However, it is equally possible that the roof was,
Fig 16.9 Detail of the north-east corner of Building A,

showing plaster on internal face of wall and paving and
?buttress outside. (IS)
at the end of the life of the building, a mixture of lead
plates and stone slates. Since there were eavesdrip
drains only on the north side of the building, it is possible that the stone roof was edged by a layer of lead
plates which were turned up to form a sort of primitive
JARROW16.QXD
192
19-01-2007
11:02
Pagina 192
Fig 16.12 Building A, the south-east quoin, showing tooling on reused Roman stone; paving to right. Note the construction of the foundations. (IS)
Fig 16.10 North-east corner of Building A, looking along

north wall, with wall sectioned and removed. (IS)
guttering on the south side of the structure and that

this guttering debouched into a container one position for which was the south-east corner (see below). It
is therefore of considerable interest that in that area
there was a concentration of lead clips.
It is probable that Building A was a two-storey
structure, since the walls were solid enough to carry an
upper floor, but this is not possible to prove. The stone
pads or buttress bases along the south wall reasonably
could have functioned as supports for a tall building at
the edge of a slope. How one would have reached an
upper floor is unfortunately not demonstrable: there
could have been an internal or an external stair or
stairs which need have left no trace.
Openings
Fig 16.11 Detail of wall construction: cobble foundation

revealed at base of medieval robber trench, showing levelling stones and ashlar blocks of superstructure behind. (IS)
Likewise it was not easy to reconstruct the positions of

doors and windows. A window head was found in the
rubble near the south-east corner of the building (Vol
2, Ch 28), but this could have been displaced from the
west end of Building B. A plot of the major window
glass deposits (Fig 16.35) seems to indicate that there
were five or possibly six windows in each of the long
walls, if they were symmetrically arranged, although
the southern annexe could have caused a dislocation in
the scheme. It is also probable that there would have
been a window in the west wall, but there was too
much truncation and modern disturbance in that area
for the evidence to survive. In the south-eastern section of the building, where the collapsed material over
the floor and walls had not been so fully cleared, and
where the collapse had been sealed in places by a layer
of clean clay 185/671 deposited in the Norman reconstruction (Figs 16.24 and 16.25), more intact late
Saxon deposits survived.
One deposit of window glass around buttress 5802
was of a rather different character from the rest: it consisted of about 60 sherds of blue/green colourless glass
JARROW16.QXD
19-01-2007
11:02
Pagina 193
193
Fig 16.13 The central part of Building A, looking north, to the west of the medieval cloister wall, showing north and south
walls, and the stump of the carved column surrounded by burning on the opus signinum floor. (IS)
which were all heat-warped and cracked and were more
weathered than the rest of the glass from the building.
This glass is discussed in more detail in the glass
report, but its composition may indicate a replacement
window here (Vol 2, Ch 27.1). Although there was
some coloured glass from deposits west of the western
buttress, the windows on the north side of the building
yielded more coloured glass than those on the south,
and this could have been nicely judged in relation to
light. There was little evidence for lead cames in this
area and the lack of such evidence is discussed in the
section on glazing in Volume 2 (Ch 26.6).
It was difficult to determine the position of door
openings in Building A since nowhere save at the east
end did walling survive above floor level, so that comparable evidence to that from the south wall of
Building B was not available (see below). It seems reasonable to assume that Ai and Aii would each have had
entrances, but the only areas where it is possible to postulate such openings are at the east end of Aii. To the
north of the north wall, a substantial stone (5758) set
on a clay bed, about 2.74m (9ft) from the north-east
corner (Fig 16.4), was interpreted as a possible step,
and in a similar position outside the south wall was a

line of paving running at right angles to the wall, which
could also be an indication of an opening leading down
to the angled path 3976. Unfortunately, the crucial
area here immediately to the west remains unexcavated. These are placed in similar positions to the door
opening in Building B (Fig 16.4 and below) but the
evidence is not conclusive. Another line of flagging
(5811) at right angles to the south wall lay just inside
the west wall of the phase 2 annexe (room Aiii). At the
time of excavation this was considered part of the
flooring of the annexe and indeed could be so, but in
an earlier phase, before the annexe was constructed, it
could have marked the position of a door leading in to
the section of Building A west of the dividing wall,
5921. Indeed, it might have continued to function as a
door between the annexe and the west end of A.
The interior
Throughout, the floor was in the opus signinum technique, formed of concrete with large pebble agglomerates poured onto a bed of small stone chippings and
JARROW16.QXD
194
19-01-2007
11:02
Pagina 194
Fig 16.14 The central part of Building A looking north, drain 5691 to the north; settings, 5651, in the floor. The floor is cut
by medieval graves and by the foundations and pipe trenches of the Victorian rectory. (IS)
faced with a skim of fine brick dust. The concrete had
an average thickness of 50mm (2in.) and in several
places, particularly in the western part of the building,
the surface had worn away completely leaving a cobbly
surface exposed (Fig 16.16).
There were the vestiges of several interior fitments
in the building, most remarkable of which was the base
of a column. In 1966 the stump of an octagonal base
was found protruding through the opus signinum floor
(Fig 16.13); it was surrounded by many small fragments of dressed stone, some of them carved with
interlace and plant scrolls (Vol 2, Ch 28). The stone
had been badly shattered by fire and it appeared also
that the column had been smashed the marks of the
hammers were clearly visible on the stump core as it
survived in the ground. In the post-excavation attempt
to reconstruct the carving, enough large pieces
survived to determine a scheme of panels of interlace

and plant scrolls separated by heavy roll mouldings,
and also that the column could have been carved to a
certain height and then would have been plain. The
carved part of the column which survived in fragments
on the floor around did not reconstruct into a very tall
piece, although there were many plain fragments, with
smoothly dressed, angled or slightly curved surfaces
which it has not been possible to reconstruct. In order
to retrieve the piece for display, the base was dug out
in a separate small intervention in 1978. The substantial base had been set in a pit beneath the opus signinum
flooring and supported by stones and clay. Around the
foot of the column were two wedge-shaped sockets,
which, unless they were a remnant of a reused Roman
stone must have been used for lifting the column into
place.
JARROW16.QXD
19-01-2007
11:02
Pagina 195
Fig 16.15 Detail of buttress base, 6223. (IS)
Fig 16.16 The west end of Building A, looking west.

Rough cobble bedding of floor to the west of secondary drain
5635, and original partition wall, 5921. (IS)
From a consideration of the possible modules of
measurement used for setting out the building (see
below; Fig 16.38), it is clear that the carved column base
5648 marks some division in Building A on two modules at least and if this were structural and load-bearing, it is a very remarkable feature. It has been published
elsewhere (Cramp 1984, 11517, figs 15, 16 and pls 99,
100), but its context warrants fuller discussion here.
195
The original height of this piece cannot be reconstructed, but its diameter 0.34m (1ft 1in.) is not
very massive if considered as a column to divide a
building 6.40m wide, or to support a double arch with
openings of about 10ft (3.05m) on either side. For
example, the columns at the 7th-century Anglo-Saxon
church at Reculver, Kent, are, at their narrowest, 1ft
11in. (0.58m) in diameter and openings of the width
postulated at Jarrow are unusual in Anglo-Saxon stone
buildings, although there are some (for example the
arcade intervals at Wing or the Brixworth chancel arch
(Taylor 1978, 7967, fig 654), as well as the later openings in the north wall of St Pauls church (Chapter 13
above).
In earlier publications I therefore considered that
this might be a piece of furniture, paralleled by other
octagonal fragments of carved Saxon stone, which I
have, like this one, interpreted as reading desks, such
as those from Melsonby and Kirkby Moorside (Cramp
and Lang 1977, nos 78). A central position for a reading desk in a monastic refectory, if this building is so
interpreted, is plausible and can be paralleled in the
Egyptian monasteries. These usually consist of a solid
column set on a square base with a scoop on the upper
surface for holding the book, and their average height
is only about 1.5m (Walters 1974, 100 and fig 19).
Other such octagonal stone pieces from Anglo-Saxon
churches which have been identified as reading desks
might also have been structural and since we have no
contemporary accounts of refectories to guide us, the
reading desk in a monastic refectory could have been
at the top of a flight of steps against a wall as in the
later Benedictine arrangement.
Nevertheless it is possible to counter this supposition by suggesting that the wedge-shaped sockets which
were around the base and which seem to be settings for
lifting tackle do imply a substantial height for the
monolith. Moreover if the weight of the upper floor was
carried on major joists supported on a wall plate, then
the pad of stones, 5802, to the south of the south wall,
which is directly in line with the column base, could
have been a buttress support at a point of junction. The
top of the column could then have supported, and been
attached to, a major tiebeam or joist supporting an
upper storey. It is possible that the two openings which
the central column formed could have been closed by
curtains on a timber frame, attached to such a beam,
and perhaps the curtains looped back around pillars
an image which is so common in Anglo-Saxon manuscripts may not just be an anachronistic classical
image but reflect contemporary custom. One might
consider as a possible parallel the curtain rail in the St
Matthew portrait in the Lindisfarne Gospels
(Alexander 1978, fig 28). Two copper alloy rings which
could conceivably be interpreted as curtain rings (Vol 2,
Ch 31.2.17) were found in the floor debris of the building, and might lend support to this idea. It is worth
pointing out also that the area around the column was
deeply burned (Fig 16.13) in a large half circle and that
JARROW16.QXD
19-01-2007
11:02
196
Pagina 196
between 20 and 40mm of burnt wood and other organic matter (367) survived on the floor, which could have
been the destruction of internal fitments. The stone of
the column itself had been burnt red in marked contrast to the yellowish colour of the stone where it had
been buried under the floor. The column had certainly been subjected to an unusual degree of heat and
seems to have been the focus of some highly flammable material. The stone need not have been carved for
the full height, but there could have been a conscious
attempt to copy classical pillars carved with plant
scrolls a type which continues into the 6th century in
the East Christian world (Volbach and Hirmir 1961, pl
208; Hubert et al 1969, fig 29).
This piece has been discussed at some length
because it is a remarkable in situ survival from an
Anglo-Saxon secular building, and because, when
taken together with the fragments of a petalled wall
panel and the fragment of a bird carving (Vol 2, Ch 28)
which were lying in the broken stone debris to the east
of the pillar, the singular richness of this end of the
building is confirmed. The opus signinum floor was also
of high quality and represented a considerable aspiration and technical achievement: elsewhere in the
monastic buildings only room Bii (which is considered
to be an oratory, see below) has a comparable opus
signinum floor; other buildings, including the annexe,
were floored in partially paved beaten earth. The section east of the column also had the best preserved and
surfaced flooring, but that may be the result of differential use after the building had been burned down
in the areas further west the floor was more disturbed
but also had no surviving debris on its surface.
(5651), with a space of c 4ft 6in. (1.37m) between them

were inset in the opus signinum floor (Figs 16.7, 16.14).
They made no regular pattern either in each row or in
parallel, but they might have been some form of furniture support. Just how much has been lost in wooden
furnishings is impossible to know, but a quantity of
short, broad-headed nails with tinned heads have been
recovered from the floor at the east end, in context 675,
and these could have been furnishing studs (I am grateful to Dr P Ottaway for pointing out the tinning to me).
Other interior fitments

To the north of the pillar base there was another inexplicable interior feature, a shallow depression, 5626,
which appeared to have been deliberately created in
the underlying clay before the opus signinum floor was
laid, since there was no sign of cracking in the concave
concrete surface (see Figs 16.4 and 16.7). In the centre of the depression was a rectangular hole, 5986,
filled with burnt wood, a little plaster and fish bone,
357. The wood appeared to extend horizontally under
the opus signinum bedding and another section of wood
projected vertically through the socket. It was also
clear that some stone packing had extended under the
opus floor, although the floor was not fully sectioned at
this point. This setting seems to have been created to
hold an object with a rounded base, but the function of
the square socket is unclear unless it was to hold in
place whatever sat in the depression.
Other features set into the surface of the floor in the
central section of the building were difficult to determine a use for, since they might have belonged to a
more extensive series of features, part of which could
have been lost in the areas of grave digging and postmedieval disturbance. Two rows of three stone pads
Fig 16.17 West wall of Building A looking north, showing

external drain incorporating reused Roman imbrices. (IS)
Fig 16.18 Detail of drain 5635. (IS)
JARROW16.QXD
19-01-2007
11:02
Pagina 197
The exterior of Building A

Building A was surrounded on the west, north, and east
sides by drains which had been renewed or repaired
several times . The earliest were narrow, possibly eavesdrip drains formed of two closely spaced rows of cobbles with a gap of c 0.1m between them and capped by
flat slabs. The drain alongside the north wall, 538, was
cut by burials and survived patchily. Alongside the west
wall of the building were vestiges of a drain at the north
end of similar construction, but further south was a
more deeply cut drain formed of V-shaped slabs with a
slab capping; in one place the channel had been lined
with overlapping half round tiles which are assumed to
be reused Roman imbrices (436) (see Vol 2, Ch 26.5.1,
and Fig 16.17). These slab-lined drains, which occur
not only at the west end but also on the north side, 539,
at a right-angle to the building, and at the east end,
793, may possibly be secondary features, since they
resemble one (5635) which cut through the internal
wall, 5921 (Fig 16.16 and below). Usually the drains
were not sealed and so filled up with later material, but
there were some partially covered residues: the sandy
infill, 251, of the west drain 456 yielded bird bones,
shells, plaster and two sherds of Newcastle Dog Bank
ware (C1, dated 11501200).
The disposal of ground water must always have been
a problem on the clay slope, and it is possible that the
first drains were little more than a damp course, and
that something more substantial might have been needed. Moreover at the south-east corner it appears that a
pad or buttress base may have been removed and the
area was given a layer of stones and gravel, perhaps as a
197
damp course although if the building had gutters this

could have been a water catchment area. Altogether the
drainage of the area around Building A is rather a
patchy survival and it is difficult to be certain where the
drains debouched to the south, but it is possible that
drain 793 at the south-east corner ran into a stone-lined
feature (structure C) although this is considered under
the unphased pre-Conquest features below. The drain,
5635, which cut through the building (Fig 16.18), continued into the southern annexe, as discussed below.
Paving has already been mentioned at the east end
and the south-east corner of the building (Fig 16.23),
and lying on the brown clay to the west of the medieval
wall 2A, but unfortunately cut by its construction, was
a small patch of thin flagstones, 5319, which may be an
extension of the paving to the south-east of Building A.
Building A, phase 2: the southern

annexe and the inserted drain
Building A had been modified at some time by the
construction of an annexe to the south, Aiii (Figs
16.1916.22). This survived only at the lowest level of
cobble foundations at its southern limit and had been
destroyed entirely by the cellar of the Victorian rectory
in the centre, but in its northern part, where it
adjoined the south wall of A, the foundations were
more intact, and survived to just below the mortared
level, 451. A little of the internal earthen floor surface
also survived at this point (Figs 16.20 and 16.21). The
annexe measured c 31ft 21ft (9.45 6.40m) externally and internally c 29 18ft (8.84 5.49m). As with the
stone pads or buttresses along the south wall of A it
Fig 16.19 Building A looking west, showing walls and annexe paving to the south. (IS)
JARROW16.QXD
198
19-01-2007
11:02
Pagina 198
Fig 16.20 North part of Building A annexe, looking east,

showing floor with pebble settings and flags, cut by
Victorian cellar. (IS)
Fig 16.21 Detail of east wall of Building A annexe. (IS)
was not possible to be certain from the annexe foundations whether any superstructure was of the same
phase of construction as the south wall, but at the time
of excavation the annexe was considered to be a later
addition largely because the fragments of walling
which survived were of a rougher construction than the
main walls of A. The walls were trench-built, and there
were three layers of cobbles deeply separated by layers
of clay which survived to what seems to have been the
surface of the clay floor. At that point there was a thin
layer of yellow mortar, but there was no trace of ashlar
walling. Moreover the cross wall in Building A, which
is considered a primary construction (Cramp 1969,
47), seemed to have no meaningful relationship to the
annexe, if they had coexisted. This interior wall, 5921,
had been demolished to foundation level during the life
of Building A, presumably at the time when a large
drain, 5635, formed of V-shaped slabs set above a flat
stone base and larger capping stones had been constructed (Figs 16.4 and 16.18). The base stones of the
drain covered a skim of mortar and fragments of opus
signinum, and it had been inserted through the north
and south walls and had cut through the line of wall,
5921. Both the drain capping and the line of wall foundations had been covered with yellow clay and brick
chippings, 415, as if to imitate the appearance of the
opus signinum floor around.
The drain led into the southern annexe, but in the
small section of floor that survived before it was cut by
the Victorian cellar, it was not possible to discover
where the drain led. On its line was a large flat slab,
5253, and a small pile of rubble, and at a slightly lower
level a line of slabs running eastwest which could have
been the base of a drain, 5249. The cutting of the drain
through A and into the annexe must be assumed to
have some function, but with such a small area of the
building surviving it, other features set into the annexe
floor such as the slabs, 5811, and the pebble setting
are equally enigmatic. The curved, pebble-lined hollow
(5252) was inset in the brown clay floor 5246 (Fig
16.5) and may, as previously suggested (Cramp 1969,
47), be a setting to hold a round-bottomed container.
In the centre of the south wall of the annexe, the
lowest cobble foundations of the wall survived, and in
the interior there were the bases of some post impressions 578 (Figs 16.5 and 16.22). These were cut by
some later intrusions, and were directly covered and
filled by deposits from the Victorian rectory, but the
levels here are truncated and these could have been
more substantial sockets originally. Their position in
the centre of the south wall of the annexe seems to associate them with its use, and it is also noteworthy that the
clay sub-soil all around them was deeply burnt. At the
time of excavation it was considered that there may
have been some substantial timber structure here which
had been burnt in situ. This is still a potential interpretation and something like a stair is a possibility, but
another interpretation is that there had been a major
hearth in this area and the settings had supported its
JARROW16.QXD
19-01-2007
11:02
Pagina 199
199
Fig 16.22 Foundations of south wall of annexe, showing post indentations and burning to the north. (IS/MS)
Fig 16.23 Trenches 67034, looking east. The south-east corner of Building A; the flagged path separating it from Building
B; and the south wall of Building B in the background. (IS)
Cloister Walk Wall
- / ":. '/~ " /J
4'1,
~.!.__}~
01
10ft
III
799
5rn
...::.::-
'"
;: :!::lJ-'
6.
l\
II
"160"
--
m~1
,Dram 162
11
.~ II
g.!
' ~_
Robber Trench
of Well House
il']:
ill:
'''~I''-,uI71
","'= /, ;:'"
"':.:J/,;= ,,\ ,_-= ' ~ " ~{l1=1l.l.:
111=1=IIL=III= l fl5449 _1J1-1I1-171

896
"':
".~~
\I ~
_ !. - /L= lIP ~lljc>1 \I~t!:,~/LI'=O"/'
d= ~fft=!7J-"""n-_::=_,,,=169_'714
~/~(11~_8~9
~7?g7i3///.E=j7lkO
. . __ ~
~ ;:::::-;//':'-' ';:(.'''''''''''''~~ _ -f::f. _
_ /.
West Wall of B
795:,
I"-i-
::::-fi:i/"t4)Y"f"h"J;i)'~"ld 792:
-
1/.1=2) .}.
- ",
~rrillfliij~\I~;ml\\WNffiffinr9~159116~
ne] 1"='?O",:~q~flb'li?I1Ef}~~ ,~!fe;,,:~
\I~' _~2_
Fig 16.24 Eastwest section over the east end of Building A and west end of Building B, below south wall of cottage (trench 6509). NE
West
Range Wall
11:02
200
19-01-2007
JARROW16.QXD
Pagina 200
JARROW16.QXD
19-01-2007
11:02
Pagina 201
201
Fig 16.25 East-facing section of trench 6703, showing flagged path, south wall of Building A and opus signinum floor. NE
superstructure. There was a sufficient amount of food
debris, mainly fish and bird bones and other small
finds, such as part of a bronze vessel rim, in this structure and in the main hall of Building A, for the interpretation to be maintained that the whole complex
represented a refectory and servery with some evidence
also for at least one external hearth, context 756. The
annexe could have been added as a new kitchen with
the addition of a water supply and internal hearth.
feature may have taken over the function of the western section of the room. In any early monastery there
are recorded hierarchical differences in the community
which might later have been removed or broken down.
The changing functions which can be postulated for
the Jarrow buildings are discussed in the summary of
the Saxon period.
Building B and its surroundings

(Figs 16.4 and 16.2616.28)
Dating
There is no conclusive date for the construction of
Building A beyond the fact that its foundations cut the
weathered surface of the natural clay, and the sections
of the many intrusions in its flooring indicated no earlier structures below. It was clearly of pre-Conquest
date since the Norman west wall cut through it, and its
relative position in the sequence of Anglo-Saxon buildings is debateable, but the identity of technique which
is manifested in its walls and those of the nave of the
church, as discussed above (Chapter 13, Western
Church), and the quality of workmanship in its internal details would seem to put its construction within
the first Saxon building phase, 683c 700. The changes
in the building which have been noted, namely the
removal of the internal wall 5921, and the construction
of the large drain 5829, cannot be dated, although the
rough patching of clay and brick chippings over the
stump of the wall and the inserted drain could imply
that this work was done when skilful construction of
opus signinum was no longer practised or when the
building had declined in status. Either its initial triple
division was no longer relevant, or the annexe which,
as has been proposed above, is reasonably a secondary
The first phases

This building was first discovered in 1965 when the
line of the west wall and a small section of the interior
was excavated (trenches 6508 and 6510). Part of the
southern wall and interior was excavated in 1967
(6704; Fig 16.23), but the major part of the structure
was excavated in 1969 (69012) and a further small
area, which spanned the width of the building and the
well 4348, was excavated in 1970. Later building
developments had destroyed or cut some of the structure: it was cut by the south and east cloister alleys and
the well house of the Medieval 1 period, by the
Medieval 2 South Range and the Medieval 2 cloister
alley; and by the construction of the post-Dissolution
building e, which covered most of its west wall (Figs
16.24, 16.32). The deposits overlying it had been
much disturbed and truncated by the levelling operations to construct the medieval cloister garth and the
17th/18th-century yard both of which were only just
below the present surface but over the southern wall
and in the small space between the building and the
wall of the Norman South Range, the slope of the
Anglo-Saxon ground had been levelled up by deposits
JARROW16.QXD
202
19-01-2007
11:02
Pagina 202
Fig 16.26 Building B viewed from the north in 1969, showing the building cut by the walls of the cloister, south range building and the adjacent wall trench of the Norman East Range. (IS)
of clay and this had preserved the superstructure of the
south wall and a small area of the exterior to the south
(Figs 16.2916.31). Here, there seems to have been a
gravelled area, and in the brown earth accumulation
above this, 651, there was one sherd of gritty grey ware
(D23) of unknown date (see Vol 2, Ch 33.2).
This building lay only 3ft (0.91m) away from the
east wall of Building A and on roughly the same axis.
It was positioned exactly in the centre of the line of the
two Saxon churches (Figs 13.3 and 16.4) and 53ft
(16.15m) from the south wall of the Anglo-Saxon
chancel. The external dimensions of the structure
where they could be measured to superstructure level
were: length, 60ft 9in. (18.52m) externally and 56ft
9in. (17.30m) internally; width, externally 26ft
(7.93m), internally 21ft (6.40m). Internally the building had been subdivided by a northsouth wall,
3262/3386, c 2ft (0.61m) wide, into one large room Bi
to the west, c 43ft 6in. 21ft (13.26 6.40m), and a
smaller one to the east, 11ft 21ft (3.35 6.40m),
which in its turn had been subdivided into rooms Bii,
7ft 11ft (2.13 3.35m), and Biii, 14 11ft (4.27
3.35m) (Figs 16.27, 16.28). The east and west walls of
the building are, like the division wall 3262, only about
2ft (0.61m) wide, whereas the north and south walls
are about 2ft 6in. wide (0.76m), thus implying that the
weight of the roof was carried on them.
The walls were trench-built, and in one area a possible construction trench, 654, c 9in. (0.23m) wide, was
visible on the interior of the south wall (Fig 16.29). It is
more likely, however, since the cut, 654, was limited in
extent and contained iron and carbon, that it represented the setting for some sort of furniture such as a
bench or shelving which was attached to the wall at that
point. This feature cut natural clay and its weathered
surface, 534. The lower courses of the walls consisted
of rounded cobbles set in yellow clay with a superstructure of neat rounded mortared blocks set immediately
on top of them, but without the levelling layer of flat
slabs found in Building A. On the east wall and most of
the north wall the mortared superstructure had been
robbed and levelled off, but on the south wall and the
east internal wall a thick creamy plaster (Figs 16.30,
16.31, and Vol 2, Ch 26.2) survived on the interior and
a thinner skim of whitish mortar on the external face.
In one section of the south wall two courses of
mortared stones survived and there was the impression
of a third course in the plaster which had remained
upstanding even when the wall it faced had collapsed.
The mortared superstructure was slightly narrower
JARROW16.QXD
19-01-2007
11:02
Pagina 203
than the foundations, and the backs of the facing

stones almost touched in the wall centre leaving very
little space for core (Fig 16.29). The corners of the
building had apparently been turned by a single quoin,
although only one, on the south-east corner, survived
in situ. This was about 2ft (0.61m) square and projected slightly south of the external face of the wall. Most
of the west wall had been destroyed by later developments or was beneath the cottage wall (see Fig 16.24).
Near the south-west corner of the building were two
stone and clay bases, 5311 and 5312, which have been
interpreted as supports, probably buttresses. The more
substantial 5311 measured 3ft square (0.91m); 5312 c
9ft 3in. (2.82m) to the east was less substantial, but
none the less definite (Fig 16.28). These features are
very similar in construction and spacing to those found
against the south wall of Building A, and it is probable
that they performed the same function. There was no
trace of such features further east against the south wall
of the building, but the small stump of foundation,
5748, between the north-west corner of B and the
north-east corner of A may have been such a feature,
although alternatively it could have been an original
junction wall between the two buildings (see below).
Otherwise Building B seems to be of one phase, since
the north, east and south walls were bonded together
as was the north-west corner.
It was difficult to identify the positions of openings
in the main room Bi the north wall was robbed below
ground level but at the point where the line of paving,
6042, met the wall there were larger stones in the foundations and these could have been a threshold support.
The mortared face of the south wall showed no break
opposite the paving 3270 nor at any point where a door
might have been inserted, and indeed there may not
have been a door in the south wall but rather a door in
the west wall entered from the paved path between
Buildings A and B. The only certain position of a doorway into the building was in the south wall at the east
end leading into room Biii (Figs 16.28 and 16.34). This
was flanked by two large slabs which were the supports
for the jambs. The western one had a pivot hole, and
the door would seem to have opened outwards onto a
partly paved area 4437. Further west outside the south
wall of Building B a gravel surface, 533, survived in
patches. Alongside the north wall, and fairly intact at
the west end, was the line of a drainage channel to catch
the drips from an overhanging roof, as in Building A.
The roof of the building had been covered, at least
partly, with lead sheets, some fragments of which survived, and there was a concentration of lead roofing
clips alongside the walls in the collapse of the building.
The floor of the main room, Bi, at the time of the collapse of its walls seems to have been of beaten earth,
which sat on the weathered clay into which the wall
trenches had been cut (534, 5449). In places there
were clear traces of a white mortary deposit (4347 etc)
on the surface of the clay floor (6038, 4351 etc). In the
disturbed deposits of building debris, eg 643, 3381,
203
which overlay the floor were significant quantities of

opus signinum. Some of this was of the thin slab-like
type which also occurred in the early buildings such as
Building B at Wearmouth (see Vol 2, Ch 26.2), and
there also no opus survived in situ. This slab type of
flooring would have been easy to lift, but it is odd that
the opus signinum in room Bii and Building A which
remained in situ was a more substantial type, with broken stone bedding. The fragments of opus slabs that
survive in the rubble deposits above B remain, then,
somewhat of an enigma.
Another type of floor surfacing might be indicated
by the rash of stakeholes (such as 6039ak) with dark
organic fills which emerged in the brown clay subsoil
(Figs 16.4 and 16.30). While these could have
belonged to an earlier phase of activity pre-dating the
building, alternatively they could have been supports
for a wooden floor, especially since a distinctly soft
organic layer was detectable between the south wall
and the robber trench for the Norman cloister walk
(535), which at the time of excavation was considered
to be the remains of a wooden bench or panelling (see
above). If the mortar traces on the floor surface indicate that an opus signinum-type flooring was laid originally (or some other type of flooring with a mortary
bedding), it could have been replaced during the later
life of the building, at least in places, since it did not
survive underneath the collapsed walls. Certainly the
latest flooring in use at the centre of the Anglo-Saxon
building seems to have been of beaten earth with a
crossing path of stone slabs, 3270. This paving leads
directly to the centre of the building in the north wall
and is slightly offset west in the south wall (in the centre it is cut by the construction of the medieval Wall 5
(Fig 16.30). It would seem rational that the paving
should run between two doors but, as noted above,
there was no break in the plaster of the south wall
opposite the line of flagging (see discussion of openings
above).
Another feature which seems to be primary in Bi,
the main room of the building, is a stone setting, 6052,
consisting of one large slab edged with narrower strips
which was placed against the mortared face of the east
wall exactly in the centre (Figs 16.4 and 16.28). There
were traces of mortar on its surfaces and, in the light of
its size and position, it seems plausible to suppose that
it might have supported a stone seat. The wall, 3262,
against which this feature was placed, may have been
more highly decorated than the others, since a fine
pink plaster (type 1), which was also found at
Wearmouth, occurred along its line of collapse and a
certain amount of painted plaster was also found here
(Vol 2, Ch 26.2). If this wall were distinguished from
the rest by extra embellishment this would have
enhanced the importance of a central seat, 6052. More
painted plaster survived in the debris and disturbed
deposits at the north of the room, and it is just possible that some of it derived originally from room Bii,
since this area was very badly disturbed by the
JARROW16.QXD
204
19-01-2007
11:03
Pagina 204
medieval buildings. However, if one were expecting

one wall of room Bii to be decorated, one might predict it to be the east wall, where there was another centrally placed stone setting (see below).
Despite the medieval levelling of the cloister, in the
centre of Building B the flattened floor surface (4356,
4347) survived, with small deposits of burnt material on
the surface including melted lead, mortar, and small
quantities of animal bone and shellfish. In the southern
sector of the building, where the Norman cloister level
had preserved the building collapse, there was better
survival. Artefacts which survived in the undisturbed
floor deposits under the building collapse provide some
clues as to its uses. There were two bronze ring-headed
pins (Vol 2, Ch 31.2.5) which are Middle Saxon in date,
part of a bronze bow brooch which could be Roman
(Vol 2, Ch 31.2.1), and near to the south wall a small
pierced whetstone (Vol 2, Ch 34.2). In the southern
area there was also a stylus (Vol 2, Ch 31.2.10), and in
the northern sector a scriber for marking stone or some
other firm substance (Vol 2, Ch 31.2.12), and a plumb
bob (Vol 2, Ch 31.8). It is possible that the room was
used for a variety of purposes. Its scale and decoration
as well as a central seat would be appropriate for a multifunctional assembly hall, but it could have been used for
writing, drawing or other technical activities (see
Chapter 24). Finally, it remains a possibility that the
small well was inserted into the building at a late stage
of its use; this feature is discussed in Chapter 17 below.
Rooms Bii and Biii (the cell)

(Figs 16.27, 16.33 and 16.34)
The two small rooms east of wall 3262 constitute a
self-contained unit. The door already mentioned in the
south wall led into a room, Biii, with a beaten earth
floor, 4406, with raised paving, 4438, alongside the
east wall. Just to the east of the doorway against the
south wall was a sunken feature, 4439, edged with neat
stone slabs, and with a small posthole at the north-west
corner (Fig 16.34). The sunken area seemed to be
connected with a stone-lined sump leading out
through the wall. There was one other posthole surviving in this truncated clay floor. The sunken feature
could either be the vestiges of a washing place or possibly a urinal.
Fig 16.27 Key plan of Building B, showing numbering of

rooms. NTS. LB
Fig 16.28 Building B excavated features. The well in the centre belongs to a secondary phase of use of the building. NE
JARROW16.QXD
19-01-2007
11:03
Pagina 205
205
Fig 16.31 The middle of the south wall of Building B,

showing the internal wall plaster standing proud above the
remains of the wall. (IS)
Fig 16.29 The south wall of Building B looking west (trench

6704), showing construction trench and buttress 5311; two
stones of the west wall are visible in the section. (IS)
Fig 16.30 View of central part of Building B looking south

(trenches 69012): Cobble foundations of the north wall in
the foreground, paving and sub-floor stakeholes. In the far
trench, collapse from the south wall is visible in front of the
burnt plaster facing of the wall. The baulk represents the
line of medieval Wall 5. (IS)
This room was divided from Bii, to the north, by a

neat and highly finished stone slab set on its narrow
edge into the opus signinum floor of the northern room.
This feature was composed of two and a half separate
stones which survived east of a medieval wall (Wall 3),
and a small portion of another between Wall 3 and the
east wall of Bi (Figs 16.26 and 16.33). These stones
had a narrow central groove, except in the middle section, which was almost opposite the southern door (Fig
16.28). It is assumed that this stone slot held a low
screen of wood or very thin stone with a gap to provide
access between the two rooms.
Room Bii was floored throughout with opus signinum
into which was set a single stone slab against the centre
point of the east wall (Fig 16.33). The floor was covered by a deep deposit of ash, 3071 and 3060, which
contained a great deal of charcoal, melted lead, and a
deposit of multicoloured glass (Fig 16.36). The whole
deposit had then been covered with a fine layer of sand
which seems to have derived from the deteriorated mortar of the walls. One deposit of clay and plaster (3167),
which overlaid both rooms, yielded a sherd of Oxidised
Gritty ware (E10, 10751300). In places the floor
deposits in this area were sealed by a level of collapsed
building debris (3381), which contained no datable evidence but a certain amount of fish and animal bone.
The deposit of multicoloured glass outside the east
wall of Bii provided the best evidence for the position
of a window in Building B. There could well have been
a window in the southern room and there are scattered
deposits of window glass alongside the north and south
walls of Bi (Fig 16.36).
This self-contained suite of rooms at the east end of
B has been interpreted in earlier publications as a cell
with a living room to the south and an oratory to the
206
19-01-2007
11:03
Fig 16.32 Northsouth section over Building B, showing collapse deposits cut by medieval features. RC/YB
JARROW16.QXD
Pagina 206
JARROW16.QXD
19-01-2007
11:03
Pagina 207
207
Fig 16.33 Room Bii (looking south), with possible altar

base and stone slot for screen. (IS)
Fig 16.34 The south-east corner of room Biii with flagging

along east wall and drain in corner. (IS)
north (Cramp 1976c, 2389; Cramp 1976d, 1314)

and this interpretation is still maintained. The northern room (Bii) was obviously quite elaborate, with its
opus signinum floor, plastered walls and coloured window, and the slab against the east wall that can be reasonably interpreted as an altar base. The particularly
deep deposit of ash around it might indicate wooden
furnishings of some type. The southern room with its
earth floor, stone bench and possible wash-place is
plausibly interpreted as a living room. This suite is
interpreted in more detail in Chapter 24.
Building A, which gives a room of the same dimensions

as B (see below), does tie in with the line of the west
wall of the nave. If Building B was not placed centrally
originally, then one must assume that something prevented it being placed further east, and the only feature
of the site which could have pre-dated the buildings is
the cemetery (see discussion, Chapter 24). Building B
seems to have utilised the same mortar techniques as
were used at Wearmouth from whence the Jarrow
builders derived, but A is a very well-constructed building in the same technique as the nave of the church, has
an opus signinum floor throughout and was richly
embellished with sculpture, even though the decoration
of the column might have been considered on stylistic
grounds alone as later than the period c 685. Both
buildings seem to be working from the same module
(see below) and it is reasonable to consider that they
were part of the same plan even though they might have
been built with a few years difference between them.
Summary of Buildings A and B

(Fig 16.37)
There are small constructional differences between A
and B, as have been noted above, and in particular the
walling of A is constructed with more levelling layers in
its foundations (compare Figs 16.1116.12 and
16.2916.30), and with a wider core between the facing stones of the superstructure, but the similarities
between the two structures are greater than their differences. Both have buttresses on their south faces
features that could have been added for purely ad hoc
and practical purposes or could have been part of their
architectural tradition. Both could have belonged to
the first monastic plan although they might have been
built sequentially.
If one considers their relative position within the
monastic complex (Fig 16.4), a case could be made for
the fact that B was the first construction assuming
that both churches existed from the beginning. Building
B sits neatly in the centre of the church complex, and
by taking that position could have forced the builders of
A to push that structure further west than the end of the
Western Church. On the other hand, the cross wall of
Constructional modules for Buildings A

and B (Fig 16.38)
It has been claimed that, At Jarrow not only do both
churches display evidence for planning in northern feet
but so apparently do the incompletely known monastic
buildings (Huggins et al 1982, 59). However, as Fred
Bettess careful calculations derived from measurements of the chancel have demonstrated (see Bettess in
Vol 2, Appendix E, and Bettess 1991), the measurements of walls and foundations must contain an unacceptable margin of error, and it is not possible to
adjudicate between the northern foot and the Jarrow
foot. Nevertheless the work of scholars such as HopeTaylor (1977), Huggins (1981), James et al (1984) and
Fernie (1991), in advancing theories concerning the
208
19-01-2007
11:03
Pagina 208
Fig 16.35 Distribution of window glass over Building A. NE
JARROW16.QXD
19-01-2007
11:03
Pagina 209
209
Fig 16.36 Distribution of window glass over Building B. NE
JARROW16.QXD
210
19-01-2007
11:03
Pagina 210
Fig 16.37 Reconstructed plan of Buildings A and B. NE
JARROW16.QXD
19-01-2007
11:03
Pagina 211
211
Fig 16.38 Construction modules for Buildings A and B. NE
JARROW16.QXD
JARROW16.QXD
212
19-01-2007
11:03
Pagina 212
modules for the setting out of Roman and early

medieval buildings has sharpened the appreciation that
systems for the laying out of carefully planned buildings like A and B must have existed. Rough modules
have therefore been tested, on the presumption that
the easiest way of setting out buildings would be in
squares based on the internal or external width.
In the original form of Building A there are three
subdivisions: from the west wall to the division wall
5921; from the division wall to the pillar base; from
that base to the east wall. These divisions at first sight
appear to be arbitrary but on closer inspection have
some rationale, using the external width measurement
as a module. Using squares based on the external measurement of 26ft (7.93m), the building consists of
three and one half modules. On this basis, the western
edge of the most easterly square runs directly through
the centre of the column base (Fig 16.38), which we
know to have been a primary feature since its base was
buried beneath the opus floor and the stone-packed pit
which supported it had been entirely covered by the
foundation layer of the floor (see above).
On the other hand, if one works from the square of
the internal measurement which is 21ft (6.40m), and
measures from the west, this gives three units up to the
column base. The area east of the base can be thought
of as one further unit plus a fragment c 3ft (0.91m)
which does not seem very plausible, even though it
should be noted that the last unit falls on the buttress
and the possible door, which might have made surveying outside and inside easier. It is perhaps more reasonable to suggest that the eastern section was
considered a single unit. Such a system of working out
with internal squares gives a remarkable correlation
with not only the column and buttress, 5802, but also
the external dimensions of the southern annexe, which
sits centrally in the building west of the columnar division, and its walls also fall very neatly on the lines of
the internal squares.
Alternatively, Building A can be thought of in purely linear units. Working from east to west, it is one block
of 61ft (18.59m) up to the division wall and one half
unit of that length to the west of Wall 5921. Again,
working from west to east and taking the interior measurement, up to the west face of the division wall is 28ft
(8.53m), and using this module east of the wall, the
internal structure neatly divides into two further units.
Building B, to the east, when measured externally,
consists of one block of 61ft (18.59m) with a subdivision inside it which is half the buildings width. It can
likewise be divided, on external measurements, into
two units of 28ft (8.53m), or, using the module measurement of the internal width, of two and one half
modules.
It is obvious from the close correlation between A
and B, which have identical widths, and lengths in
which one is one unit and the other one and a half
units, that some form of module was being used. Some
sense can be made of the position of the internal wall
Fig 16.39 Footings of possible timber wall or fence, postholes 270657. IS/MS
of A (5921) if the external square is used or a linear
measurement between the interior faces of the walls,
and this may give an indication of setting out practice
for buildings on an open site. Squares based on the
internal measurements of width may, however, indicate
the positioning of the main roof trusses. Since the
annexe fits so perfectly in its measurements if the internal square is used, there may be some support for supposing that this annexe did belong to a second phase of
building and perhaps re-roofing, when it was easiest,
because the main building was standing, to treat the
addition to A as an independent unit.
The southern slope
(Fig 16.5)
Western sector
The natural slope to the river to the south of Buildings
A and B has been altered considerably through time,
and there is no clear dividing line in the Anglo-Saxon
period between the spheres of activity around the aforementioned buildings and the more short-lived structures
to the south. All the areas on the southern slope towards
JARROW16.QXD
19-01-2007
11:03
Pagina 213
213
Fig 16.40 West-facing section in trench 7803 showing the earliest southern boundary cut 6202 and the superimposition of
later cuts and successive terracing of the slope (see Fig 16.41). NE.
Fig 16.41 Successive cultivation terraces and plant holes in trench 7803 with cut 6202 to the south filled in. (IS/MS)
JARROW16.QXD
214
19-01-2007
11:03
Pagina 214
Fig 16.42 South-facing section of trench 6302 showing gravel floor 96 overlying the deposit of brown clay with earlier
timber marks. YB
the river (excavated as 7105, 73013, 7803; see Fig 2.2)
are therefore considered together. In the area of 73012
there had been considerable modern disturbance, particularly from a large rubbish pit connected with the rectory, but the location seems to have attracted gardening
activity in all periods, and the terraces so formed,
together with their bedding trenches and plant holes,
leave very little undisturbed stratigraphy. In 73013
there are several truncated features which appear to be
pre-Conquest, but within the area of the projected
Norman South Range, where an undercroft appears to
have been excavated as far as the extent of the south wall
of the range, the pre-Conquest levels are almost completely obliterated and only the bases of features such as
graves, pits, and post or stakeholes survived.
The mass of stakeholes revealed in the surface of
the natural yellow clay have already been mentioned
above as including some which are probably pre-Saxon
(see Figs 16.2 and 16.3) but others, such as 215465,
216684, 254857, 25992603, 266081, 270657,
could belong to the pre-Conquest period, and have
been shown on the general plan of Anglo-Saxon features (Fig 16.5), although whether they belong to the
monastic or post-monastic phase is uncertain. Some of
these stakeholes run at an angle north-north-west
across the slope, and at times seem to create a rectangular shape as in trenches 73012 (Fig 16.39) or at the
south end of 7303 (Fig 16.5); others formed a more
circular formation, but so much of the early ground
surface has been cut away or disturbed in this area of
the site that apparent patterning of the holes can be
misleading. Some more substantial postholes, such as
1799 in trench 7105, survive in isolated positions.
Since this area seems to have been open ground or
ground covered by fragile or temporary structures in the
Anglo-Saxon period, it is difficult to phase, and surfaces
perceived as unitary in the course of excavation had
obviously been open to use for a considerable time and
were only sealed by later medieval layers or features.
The surface of the orange/brown clay (surface of the
natural) revealed several deposits, which could have
been earlier, in which tile, mortar, lead, shells and animal bones are scattered (see 2704). Such deposits could
have accumulated during construction, rebuilding or
demolition of the Anglo-Saxon buildings and contained
no dateable evidence. It is noteworthy, however, that
there are few datable artefacts in stratified contexts from
the Anglo-Saxon period as a whole, and personal artefacts are notably lacking (Vol 2, Chs 31.2 and 31.6).
Most of the features in this area have been assigned to a
Late Saxon/Early Medieval phase (see below, Chapter
17), but the primary cuts for some of the drains such as
2702 could have been earlier (Fig 16.5).
The least disturbed area of the south slope was an
area covered by the trenches 6302, 6511 and 7103, to
the east of the southern annexe of Building A and west
of the Norman excavation for the undercroft of the
South Range, although even here the terrace had been
eroded on the south. In this area some features and
deposits can be dated with confidence to around the
middle of the 9th century and so have been placed on
the Anglo-Saxon rather than the Late Saxon/Early
Medieval plan see for example context 63, with one
sherd of Tating ware.
In a wide area extending from the south wall of A
southwards to where the slope had been terraced (Fig
16.40), and from immediately west of the Building A
annexe to about 6.0m east of it, a thin layer of gravel
(63) had been deposited at some period before the mid
9th century, and in 6302 a substantial layer of gravel
and small stone chippings, 96, was interpreted as a
workshop floor (see Fig 16.42). The upper surface had
been contaminated by later gardening, but the lower
gravel deposit here yielded a coin of Eadred, 790830,
together with a stump of millefiori rod (Vol 2, Ch 31.4),
several sherds of two Early Fine Red ware bowls (Ch
33.2, nos G1.1 and G1.18), fragments of bone comb,
and a knife artefacts which can be paralleled closely
in the latest phase of occupation of Building D. This
area of craft activity had perhaps been covered by a
timber shelter, as evidenced by the group of postholes,
6212, which seemed to be roughly coterminous with it
JARROW16.QXD
19-01-2007
11:03
Pagina 215
215
(Fig 16.5). The gravel surface, which may be thought

of as a yard or half-covered work-space, was clearly in
use during the latest Saxon monastic phase. The area
seems to have been linked by a path, 3928, to the
paving around the south wall of Buildings A and B,
and what may be another section of this paving, on the
surface of 3946, is also visible in the west-facing section of trench 7103 (Fig 16.43A and 16.44). The large
posthole, 68, which penetrated the gravel surface was
filled with opus signinum, lead, plaster, brick and animal bone, while the fills of the two other postholes
5358 and 5350 (Fig 16.5) to the north of it were fairly
clean. These features may not have all co-existed and
68 could be later in the sequence than the others, but
the evidence of building works in this area could be
related to the modifications to Building A at the time
when it was assumed that the annexe was constructed.
Small islands of Anglo-Saxon ground surfaces survived on the western sector of the slope in trenches
7301 and 7302, consisting of deposits of dark brown
clay (2760, 2704, 2701) which seem to represent a
series of working surfaces concerned with building
activity: 2760 contained animal, bird and fish bones, as
well as mortar, stone and brick chippings. 2704 was of
a similar composition, while 2701 contained no animal
but only fowl and goose bones. Deposits that contain
food debris are usually found in the pre-Conquest phases together with evidence for craft activities, see below
in the discussion of the workshops, and Chapter 23.
Other vestiges of Anglo-Saxon surfaces are patches of
gravel such as 6163 (Fig 16.5), and may be part of the
same phases of activity on the gravel terrace above,
especially since material such as millefiori, Anglo-Saxon
window and vessel glass, crucibles and copper alloy
waste occurred in disturbed deposits further south.
These are, however, discussed below in the later Late
Saxon and Early Medieval phase.
The eastern part of the slope (Fig 16.5)

In the most easterly area of the slope, to the north of
Building D and within the area of the Norman South
Range, there was, as already noted, little surviving
stratigraphy. The natural clay was overlain by a mortarflecked brown clay which must have been the soily surface of the ground from the Saxon through to the early
modern period. The many deposits of mortar-flecked
clays were separated out in the course of excavation, but
all are disturbed. In the central area of the South Range
they were cut by a host of features, many of which, in
particular the posthole clusters 215465 and 216684,
could be pre-Conquest in date. Only in the eastern section of the South Range, inside the small medieval
structures SR26, are there protected islands of stratigraphy which preserve pre-Norman features and layers.
The yellow clay natural in this area (trench 7105)
was overlain by a pinkish clay which is also possibly
undisturbed and is overlain by a brown clay
1795/5096. At the east end of 7105, the brown clay
Fig 16.43 Trench 7103, A. West-facing section. YB.

B. East-facing section. YB. C. North-facing section. YB.
Fig 16.44 East section of 7103, showing position of 3946

and 6214. (IS/MS)
JARROW16.QXD
216
19-01-2007
11:03
Pagina 216
Fig 16.46 South face of 5107 cut by Norman buildings. IS
Fig 16.45 Wall 5107 looking west showing possible slot for
support in the foreground and Wall 5106 in the background. (IS/MS)
sealed a stone feature 5106/7. This curious structure
consisted of two walls set at right angles, one of
which, 1452, ran east to west for about 23ft (7.0m),
and was cut by the Norman walls (Figs 16.4516.47).
It was constructed of three courses of roughly shaped
stones with the best shaped face to the north. The
superstructure had either slipped from its foundation
course or the foundation course projected. A line of
small stones was set upright against the upper stones of
the north face. The line of the wall follows the natural
contours of the ground in the same way that Building
D and the riverside buildings do, and it may indeed
have formed some sort of perimeter for that range of
structures, possibly dividing them from the cemetery
(see Chapter 15 above). In construction it can be paralleled by features 1055 or 4747 revetment walls
north of the riverside structures, but these are more
meaningfully set into the natural slope, not facing
towards it. The only other structure on the site which
5107 resembles is the small wall to the north of A,
excavated in 6504, which likewise may be considered
as some type of boundary.
At some stage Wall 5107 had been modified by the
addition of a line of stones, 5106, also set in clay but of
a more massive type and running northsouth with
their best-shaped face to the west (Fig 16.47). It seems
clear that the two walls were meant to function
together, since they are neatly bonded together and
Fig 16.47 Detail of the junction of 5106 and 5107. (IS)

it is possible that the northsouth arm represents a
shortening of the feature, which was anyway not traced
west of the medieval wall that had presumably truncated it. At the south its line seems to have been cut by a
pit, 1524, and by the construction of the Norman
south wall of the South Range. The function of this
feature remains obscure. Both walls were covered by a
layer of stone, mortar and clay, 1781, which also
included one Saxon lead fitting and Roman tile.
The area immediately to the north of Building D
yielded no identifiable early surfaces other than a
brown clay, 2870, into which the north wall of D was
cut. This surface had been subject to considerable clay
creep and slippage, and in one place, near to where the
north wall of D abutted the Norman pier supporting
the reredorter, the clay had covered part of the tumble
from the Saxon wall. It was difficult therefore to know
whether some of the stones which seemed to be deeply
embedded in the surface of the clay were in their original location or not. One such stone was of irregular
trapezoid shape. It had been hollowed to form a container, or a socket for some small vertical feature, perhaps a small cross (Figs 16.5 and 16.54). The
disturbed surface of the natural yellow clay in this area,
2189, incorporated one sherd of samian pottery, some
mortar, shell and charcoal. Also within this layer was
an area of burnt material, 3780, possibly a temporary
hearth, which yielded no associated datable evidence.
JARROW16.QXD
19-01-2007
11:03
Pagina 217
217
Fig 16.48 Building D, looking east, cut by Norman piers, showing slumped base of north wall and reconstructed west end
(trench 73045). (IS/MS)
Fig 16.49 Section below Building D looking west, showing

the outline of feature 3741 cut into the natural sand.
(IS/MS)
Fig 16.50 Section through Building D looking west, showing deposit of organic matter 2879 and flags 3739. To the
left is the later revetment 3713, which runs beneath the
platform for Building D to the west. (IS/MS)
JARROW16.QXD
218
19-01-2007
11:03
Pagina 218
Fig 16.51 West-facing section though the floor and construction platform of Building D, cut by medieval pit 3688, with
medieval deposits above. NE
Fig 16.52 East-facing section through the floor and construction platform of Building D, with later medieval boundary wall
to the south, and showing earlier revetment 3713 and associated deposits. NE.
In the same area north of Building D, the natural
orange clay 1786 was cut by a small group of seven
graves, in 7105 and 7304, although there were other
possible grave cuts which could not be investigated in
the time available in 1971. These graves appear somewhat isolated from the main burial ground between the
church and Buildings A and B, but credibly belong to
a pre-Conquest burial phase (see above, Chapter 15).
The series of occupation deposits which immediately overlie the area to the west of D seem to have
truncated the Saxon levels but do include activity of an
intermediate phase (see Chapter 17). Along the southern limit of trenches 73013 was a wide irregular cut in
the clay bank, about 27ft (8.23m) east to west (Figs

16.40 and 16.41). The base of this feature showed a
series of terraced cuts, and although in its latest phase
of use it is medieval, its upper fill being perhaps as late
as the 14th century, it may well be a pre-Conquest feature although not necessarily of the monastic phase.
Surviving at the base of the cut was, however, a short
section of a narrow gully, 6202, which contained no
pottery and only small amounts of Saxon building
debris. It is possible, therefore, that there were
drainage channels down and along the southern slopes
throughout the pre-Conquest and medieval periods
(see below, Chapter 20).
JARROW16.QXD
19-01-2007
11:03
Pagina 219
219
Fig 16.53 Tips of sandy clay and stones 2875 revealed by excavation under floor of Building D. (IS/MS)
Building D and its surroundings

This complex was excavated over three seasons a factor which perhaps unnecessarily complicated its interpretation. The southern sector, which was bounded by
the existing boundary wall of the site, had been left as
a baulk in 1973 (Fig 16.48), but was excavated separately in 1975. The eastern sector was opened in 1976
when the area to the east of the medieval standing wall
was also investigated. In that season the whole structure cut by the standing walls was exposed and
Building D, together with the platform on which it sat,
was sectioned (Figs 16.4916.53). The area south of
the boundary wall was excavated by Christopher
Morris in 1976 (see Chapter 21), but the deposits on
either side of the boundary wall were only related in
the post-excavation process.
The location of the buildings at the base of the
slope leading down to the River Don compounded the
difficulties in interpreting layers, since there was a
constant pressure from the slope, and a series of
slumped deposits were formed. Nevertheless this area
also preserved the best sequence of early deposits on
the site, because it was not levelled in the medieval
period, but rather built up. The scooped form of the
structure must have remained a marked hollow, even
after its collapse, and this was filled by a deep deposit
of clays which capped the collapsed building and the
silty deposits which had accumulated over its floor
(see Figs 16.51 and 16.62 below). These orange

clays (2375, 3753 and 2143) must have been dumped
to level the slope on perhaps two occasions, and the
latest deposit was clearly to stabilise the area to the
south of the abortive South Range of the Norman
monastery.
This is the only part of the site where there was a
deep, undisturbed stratigraphy for the Anglo-Saxon
period and, as explained in Chapter 2, the phases of
development recorded for the structures and their contexts here are specific for this area.
Phase 0
No evidence was noted of any activity to the north of
Building D which pre-dated the cutting of its construction platform into the clay bank. To the
south, however, there was evidence for activity on the
shoreline underlying the construction platform of the
building.
The earliest feature, observed at the base of the section through the platform for Building D, appears to
have been a shallow trench or terracing (3741) cut into
the natural sands (3736) at the edge of the slope above
the river. Only a short length was revealed in the cutting, and its shape had been distorted by pressure from
the slope: it varied from 18in. (0.46m) to 36in.
(0.91m) in width (Fig 16.49). It could represent a
220
19-01-2007
11:03
Fig 16.54 Excavated features in Building D, showing possible east end of building and southern cut with slope and possible cross socket to the north. For context numbers refer
to Fig 16.5. YB
JARROW16.QXD
Pagina 220
JARROW16.QXD
19-01-2007
11:03
Pagina 221
221
Fig 16.55 View over Building D looking west, showing bench 6031 and the crossing paving west of it and reused Roman
stones forming the north wall. Note paving slabs on the south edge of the floor slipping into the later cut. The original hillslope is visible in the excavated section in the foreground. (IS/MS)
vestige of the very first southern perimeter. The
deposits filling the cut were a sequence of thin layers of
sand (3743), silt (2885), sandy clay (3742), an area of
burning or organic material (2884), and clay (2883).
Context 2885 contained pieces of lead, and the upper
deposit, 2883, contained Saxon mortar as well as a nail
and some fragments of Roman tile, perhaps indicating
building activity nearby. On the northern edge of the
cut was an area of redeposited natural clay which had
slumped down the slope.
Across the surface of the cut and on the natural

slope to the north of it, lay a band of dark organic-rich
material (2879) 45ft (1.21.5m) wide and 34in.
(0.080.1m) deep (Fig 16.50), apparently containing
plant debris and perhaps denoting a stage of clearance.
Over the organic layer was a more extensive deposit of
dirty sand 2878, covered by brown clay with charcoal
flecks 2877, perhaps bedding and an occupation surface. These layers yielded some pieces of lead, animal
bone and chips of tile. Three flags (3739) set in the
JARROW16.QXD
19-01-2007
222
11:03
Pagina 222
Fig 16.56 Building D (earlier stage of excavation) showing the fireplace for hearth 3768 at the rear. (IS/MS)
natural clay are the remains of a stone setting of this
phase (Fig 16.50), perhaps the remains of a predecessor to the later shoreline features described below. To
the rear of the cutting, a tip of disturbed brown clay
may be hillwash from the higher slope.
Phase 1
Cutting these earlier deposits was a line of flat slabs,
3713, set in thick clay (3714, 3748, 2880; Figs 16.50
and 16.52). These were not on the same alignment as
the north wall of Building D, but seemed to follow the
natural contours of the ground; to the west, these slabs
ran under the construction platform for the floor of
Building D, and a cutting through the platform for that
building indicated two to three courses of stones.
Packed in behind them were layers of yellow-brown
sand (2874) and sandy clay and rubble (2875), forming a platform extending northwards on the edge of the
slope (Fig 16.52). To the east, these flags had been cut
by a medieval pit (3688), in the base of which three
shallow depressions appeared to mark the positions of
three further stones (context 2872).
This platform seems to be of the same construction

as the early phases of the riverside buildings further
east (see below, Riverside buildings, phase 1, cf feature
4819). The deposits contained only animal bones and
tile, but there was one tiny fragment of Saxon glass
and, unless this was intrusive, this should date the
deposit. The whole may represent a revetment or consolidation of the riverbank and possibly an uncovered
working surface. The surface level of clay and rubble
(2875, Fig 16.53) also contained a small fragment of
glass, a nail and some mortar, and so indicates building activity in the vicinity, although it is not possible to
say if this was connected with the construction of
Building D, or perhaps with the buildings immediately
to the east (below).
Phase 2: The construction of Building D

In this phase, which equates with Phase 4a in the riverside/later workshop buildings, a platform was created
by cutting into the slope to the north and depositing
material to the south to form a level for the floor of
Building D. These thick tips of sandy clays (2868,
JARROW16.QXD
19-01-2007
11:03
Pagina 223
223
Fig 16.57 View from the south over Building D and the riverside buildings showing Wall 1062, the potential east wall of
Building D. (IS/MS)
3730, 2870, up to 2ft 6in. (0.76m) deep; Figs
16.5152) contained small amounts of Roman tile,
plaster, a copper alloy nail, shell and animal bones.
The cut for the construction of the building was
particularly clearly defined at the west end (see Figs
16.545) where the cut into the slope was
distinguished by a dark soily layer (2186) which
included a sherd of Roman pottery and a sherd of
imported 7th- to 8th-century Early Fine Red ware (Ch
33.2, G1.9). Similar material was found in the brown
clay surface of the floor of Building D (2190, 2863).
The gap between the first construction work alongside
the river and the completion of D need not have been
long, but the occupation history of the building was
complex.
The construction was as follows: first the platform
was cut in the slope, measuring from east to west c 40ft
(12.2m) and from north to south, as far as could be
determined c 15ft (4.5m). The northern edge of the cut
was faced with massive blocks of sandstone packed into
clay. Some of the stones had cramp holes, but these
were not laid in such a way that the cramps could have
joined the blocks and they appear to be reused from a
substantial Roman structure such as a bridge. Above
them were smaller stones which were tongued back into
the clay bank and were set in an upright and flat technique with each layer of stones overlapping the clay
bonded joints of those below (see Fig 16.56). When discovered, this revetment had slipped forward in places,
but had otherwise resisted the pressure of the slope very
well. It has to be assumed that the foundations supported a freestanding wall, since the ground immediately to
the north of the foundation and the whole area of the
floor exposed in 1973 were strewn with mortar and
small neat sandstone blocks, one of which was inscribed
with the single word HELMGYT in a neat insular lettering (Vol 2, Ch 28). Two pieces of window heads were
also lying among the rubble (Fig 16.63).
Neither in the extension south in 1975 (trench
7505) nor in the reopening of the whole building
(trench 7602) was a convincing southern perimeter for
this building discovered, since the area immediately to

the north of the construction trench for the standing
boundary wall had been cut by a deep irregular linear
feature, 3689. This cut through the floor of D, and its
fills included a considerable amount of medieval pottery. It is difficult to date the construction of this
trench precisely: it could have been cut at any time
from the 9th to the 11th century and is discussed in
Chapters 17 and 19 below. Nor was any convincing
foundation trench for a wall found in Morris Area IV
to the south (Fig 16.62). It therefore seems most likely that the south wall of Building D was obliterated by
the later cut 3689 and that when the wall was removed
or collapsed, the deposits it had retained to the north
slumped into the cutting (Fig 16.65). No conclusive
evidence, then, was found for the superstructure of this
wall.
The east wall of Building D must either lie east of
the west wall of the medieval reredorter range (the piers
of which cut through it; Figs 16.48, 16.54), or have
been demolished by the construction of the reredorter
west wall. Assuming that it, like the north wall, was
constructed of stones faced into a clay bank, Wall 1062
seems the best candidate for the east end of the building (Figs 16.5, 16.54, 16.57). This wall was excavated
as part of the riverside buildings in 1976 and 1978 and
had been cut by a medieval oven on the north, and it
was placed so near to the medieval reredorter wall that
it was difficult to examine it from the west. When a
baulk was removed in 1978, however, it was possible to
see its construction: two courses of slab-like stones had
been laid with overlapping joints in the fashion of a dry
stone wall, and at intervals some extended back further
into the packing of clays and sand layers backed up
against it (see Fig 16.58), which mirror the sequence of
deposits noted beneath the main part of Building D to
the west. This construction is very like the floor and
north wall of D to the west of the wall and since the surface of 1062 is approximately on the same level as the
flags in D and the same sequence of deposits as found
above and below the floor of Building D occurred west
JARROW16.QXD
224
19-01-2007
11:03
Pagina 224
Fig 16.58 Detail of wall construction of 1062 and feature

4796. IS/MS
Fig 16.59 Junction of 1062 with wall 1056. (IS/MS)
of 1062, it seems reasonably part of the same building.

The difficulty is to understand how the west face of
1062 would have been finished and indeed what the
superstructure was like above this platform. It could
have continued in the same technique, faced similarly
on the other side with a cavity between filled with clay
and sand, or 1062 may have just been a levelling foundation for a stone or half-timbered wall which would
have been grounded on it. The substantial posthole,
954, at the south of the line excavated, possibly could
have served as an additional support. Wall 1062 seems
to have been joined at the north end to the north wall
of the workshops (1056), which was constructed with
much smaller stone foundations than D, and is on a
slightly different alignment (Figs 16.5, 16.59). In the
north-west corner, the north wall of Building D ended
somewhat raggedly, but the original west end of the
building had been demolished and the north-west corner reshaped (see phase 3 below).
The floor was formed of compacted brown clay
(2863, 2190) with partial flagging in the manner of
Building B rooms i and iii. The main room of D
appears to have been sub-divided both structurally and
possibly functionally. Alongside the north wall, for a
length of about 20ft (6.10m) east of the line of paving
1853, was a line of slabs slightly raised and with a cavity beneath, forming a low bench-like structure, 6031,
supported by narrow upright slabs in front, 1854. A
large quantity of both window and vessel glass (Fig
16.60), was found in the cavity and on the floor to the
south. The bench tapered from east to west and was
quite narrow where it joined a line of paving, 6029,
running northsouth about 2ft (0.61m) to the east of
paving 1853. Here there may have been some sort of
division, since there is a pad of well-set stones with
what may have been a socket at the northern end of the
line set against the bench. The easterly line of paving
was more deeply sunk into the clay floor than that to
the west, and may represent an earlier division, with
what could have been a post-setting against the

drain/bench. There were vestiges of another line of
paving on the extreme eastern edge of the bench. Both
of these lines of paving were sunk to a lower level into
the clay floor, and it was obvious, especially in the
western sector of the building, that there had been
some replacement of the paving. A line of paving running diagonally across the western sector of the building (6030) may have led to a south-western entrance.
Further flags 3752 ran along the southern side of the
structure. Here there was some evidence for more than
one phase of paving, and some of the slabs have subsequently tipped into the later cut (Fig 16.55). There was
markedly less paving in the eastern sector of the room.
In the south-east corner of the excavated area of
Building D a curious stone object was set in the floor
with some small stones alongside it. This stone (Fig
16.61 and Vol 2, Ch 34.1, SV1), when found had a broken Roman drainage tile set in its wider bowl-like end.
Although shaped like a mould, its interior is too rough
to have been used for this purpose and its function
remains uncertain. The most reasonable interpretation
is that it might have served to drain away water to an
outlet in the south wall from either a portable handwashing bowl or from some craft process. A domestic
function for this area of the building could be supported
by finds of a facetted headed pin (Vol 2, Ch 31.2.5, P1),
and a stone lamp or bowl (Vol 2, Ch 34.1, SV6), but
there is also evidence for glass working and melting in
this area with fragments of crucibles and two portions of
millefiori rods (Vol 2, Ch 31.4). In the modern manufacture of millefiori, water is poured over the rods as they
are pulled, so this process could well need such a drain.
Phase 3
In this phase, the west end of the building was reshaped,
and a secondary west wall was formed by three upended flagstones, 3767, no doubt taken from the floor,
19-01-2007
11:03
Fig 16.60 Plot of window glass inside Building D. NE
JARROW16.QXD
Pagina 225
JARROW16.QXD
226
19-01-2007
11:03
Pagina 226
Another constructional feature which is unique to

this building is a mass of thin slabs of whitewashed
daub which covered the floor under the collapse of the
building (see Vol 2, Ch 26.3). This daub had not been
packed against wattles, but against a flat surface such
as laths. This observation was made during the course
of the excavation and occasioned the thought that the
daub might have surfaced a ceiling. However, some
may have been a secondary lining of the walls or partitions since it was also found to the east of wall 1062,
the presumed east end of D, in the area of the riverside
buildings (below).
Dating and interpretation
Fig 16.61 Stone runnel or drain set in the floor of Building

D with paving alongside. (IS/MS)
which at that end of the building seemed to have been
more extensively paved than at the east. A line of kerbstones partly overlaid flagstones to the east (1853) and to
the south (3737), and enclosed a rectangular area with a
hearth, 3768, in the north-west corner (Fig 16.56). The
kerb stones could hardly have supported a substantial
structure, but they could have served as supports for a
wooden framework. At all events they served as a secondary limit for the structure. It would appear then that
there must have been some other more substantial south
wall for the building, whether of mortared stone or timber, and that the roof must have been so constructed that
it took the thrust of the north wall, which slipped forwards when its southern support fell or was removed.
A certain amount of painted and decorated plaster
was found around the collapsed north wall of Building D
(Vol 2, Ch 26.2; also Cramp and Cronyn 1990) and this
was of a more elaborate type than the monochrome plasters which faced the interior walls of A and B. In addition, the window glass from this building occurred in
greater quantity and more varied colours than that associated with any other building at Jarrow (Cramp 1975c,
and Vol 2, Ch 27.1). All of this indicates that Building D
was, despite its curious wall construction, at some stage
of its life at least, an impressively decorated structure.
The last datable use of Building D is in the later 9th

century, a date provided by two coins and other material sealed under its collapse. The coins are of Eanred
(AD 81041) and of Athelred II (AD 84150), which
last Elizabeth Pirie states cannot have been in circulation long before it was lost (see Vol 2, Ch 30.2). The
construction date of this structure must depend to a
certain extent on architectural analogy, although the
early imported pottery (G1) in the packing of the
north wall is also relevant. The collapsed superstructure of the north wall (Figs 16.63, 16.64), which
seems to have been inherently unstable, included the
same type of neat sandstone blocks as the Eastern
Church and Building B, and window heads found in
the rubble overlying the floor resemble those found
near to B. The flooring of Building D is also of the
same type as in Building B. Moreover the inscription,
which is plausibly part of the original wall, is of wellcut Anglo-Saxon uncials which are at the latest 8thcentury in date (Cramp 1984, 114, no. 18; and Vol 2,
Ch 28). It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore,
that this building was constructed in the same phase
or soon after the two buildings on the top of the slope,
and that the differences in the wall constructions are
explained by the need to cope with the difficulties of
the slope.
It is not clear from the surviving evidence whether
there were one or two modifications of the original
structure, one involving the replacement of the south
wall, possibly by a continuous (defensive) enclosure
wall, and the construction of a new south wall or division further north, and the other the replacement of
the west wall by a row of upright stones which were
probably derived from the flooring of the building.
Alternatively, both could have been part of the same
modification, and indeed the west end of D, which was
never unambiguously identified, could have been
demolished in one or the other of the campaigns (see
also, however, Chapter 17 for a further discussion of
the last use of this building). A southern entrance, perhaps opposite the line of paving 1853, remains a possibility, although no evidence for this was found in
Morris Area IV. It seems likely that Building D was
originally approached by a door at the west end where
19-01-2007
11:03
Fig 16.62 Section over Building D and the junction with the Jarrow Slake trench Area IV. NE
JARROW16.QXD
Pagina 227
227
JARROW16.QXD
228
19-01-2007
11:03
Pagina 228
Fig 16.63 Collapse of the north wall of Building D, to south and north of foundations, showing window head (AS49) in the
foreground. (IS/MS)
Fig 16.64 Plan of the collapse debris of Building D with pack of tumble 3766 at the west end, and showing the major deposits
of window glass. RC/LW
there is paving outside the line of the west wall (Fig
16.54), but the secondary vertical flagstones which
could have supported a turf and earth wall would then
have blocked this opening.
Alternatively, the flags could have supported a low
windbreak which would have let in light and ventilation
around the hearth 3768. The hearth had been used at
some stage for melting lead, since a great deal of lead
debris and dross lay around it, but it may have had a
long, or short intense, period of use since the stones of

the wall to the north were deeply burned. This enclosure of a small area of the building for secondary use
cannot be closely dated but it pre-dates the collapse of
the building, even though at that end of the structure
alone there was a deep plug of brown clay surfaced
with flat stones, 3766 (Fig 16.64), as though it had
been used and closed off after the rest of the building
(see Chapter 17).
JARROW16.QXD
19-01-2007
11:03
Pagina 229
229
This last process was specifically noted in the reshaped

western part of the building.
The possible sequence could be as follows:
Fig 16.65 Collapse over the floor of Building D tipping

south into the later cut 3689. (IS/MS)
It is reasonable to suppose that a building that
stood for at least 150 years, as is attested by the coins
of Eanred and Eanbald II, which were found in the
silty accumulation over the floor, could have had several changes of use. The floor would not have been as
easy to clean as the opus signinum floor of Building A,
and, as has already been noted, there was clear evidence of reflooring the lowest level of paving being of
smaller, more friable flagstones. Some of the deposits
of small stones, recorded as set in yellow clay, could
either have been a primary floor or part of the sub-floor
raft. Nevertheless the floor of D was much more cluttered with debris than that of Building B, and included several middle to late Saxon dress fastenings in the
form of strap-ends and dress hooks (Vol 2, Ch 31.2) as
well as a considerable amount of food debris. There
were also iron knives and small tools (Vol 2, Ch 31.6),
crucibles (Vol 2, Ch 35.1), a palette or mould (Vol 2,
Ch 34.2), cut panels of porphyry verde, mica and other
minerals (Vol 2, Ch 35.3) all of which indicate usage
which is at variance with its original elegant appearance. It is possible that the initial role of this building
in the monastery became superseded or redundant.
The position of Building D, so near the river and
possibly also near the point of entry to the site from the
river as well as the presumed overland route from
Wearmouth, would ideally suit a guest house. The
industrial use could well be attributed to a later phase
in the 9th century and possibly beyond when the whole
range of buildings to the east seems to have been operating in this way. The date of the coins is supported by
the radiocarbon date of the hearth 994 to the east
which centres around AD 900 (Vol 2, Appendix G).
The processes which can be identified in D include
glass working, copper alloy working and lead melting.
1) The area could have been used as a landing place,

with possibly a path by the river represented by the
slabs which were revealed in Morris Area IV
underlying the south-east pier of the medieval
South Range, although at that point no stratigraphy
survived relating them to the construction of the
medieval building.
2) It is possible that when the buildings on the crest of
the hill were being constructed, the riverside was
used as a working area as well as a landing point for
any building materials which may have been ferried
down the river from nearby Roman sites. This took
some time, since Bede tells us that the brethren
from Wearmouth came over in 681 but the church
was only dedicated in 685 (Chapter 4 above).
3) Building D was built as an elaborately decorated
building (perhaps as a guest house, in view of its
position) with coloured windows and painted plaster walls. Its high-status function could be supported by the evidence from its floor of the exotic
imported pottery bowls and goblets, the elaborate
glass beakers and the silver dress fastenings, and
one may remember that Bede mentioned that the
early Lindisfarne community did not originally
have buildings specially provided for the entertainment of rich and powerful laymen, implying he
knew places where that was so.
4) The modification of the building could have taken
place because the riverside buildings were damaged
in the raids of c 794, or, if later, because of the obvious threat posed to undefended sites in the later 9th
century when the Vikings wintered on the Tyne.
Alternatively the original functions of the building
could have become redundant or could have been
transferred to elsewhere on the site, and a new use
found, perhaps when the workshop range was
added. For whatever reason, Building D was
reshaped and a trench for a wall or palisade cut
through it. In its reshaped form it was used as a
workshop alongside structures to the east. The evidence that this use continued beyond the 9th
century is tenuous, but it is possible. There are two
sherds of Hard Sandy Grey ware (D8, 1075-1200)
at the top of the silty deposit which was later covered by a deep layer of clay, interpreted as a deposit
laid down in the Norman period of rebuilding (see
below, Chapter 18). These could have been
dropped in the rebuilding, and although the highlead type of glass found both in and on the dish crucibles is dated on other sites to the 10th century
(see Vol 2, Ch 35.1) the use of such glaze does not
have a definite beginning. The mass of melted window glass from the building (see Vol 2, Ch 27.1)
and the burnt daub seem to suggest that the building perished by fire, some time after the mid-9th
JARROW16.QXD
19-01-2007
230
11:03
Pagina 230
Fig 16.66 Riverside buildings, phase 1 features in trenches 7603 and 7805; overlying medieval walls are shown in outline.
PL/YB
century which is the date of the latest coin. There is
a quantity of charcoal in the fill of the early gully in
Morris Area V (context 100; Fig 16.62) and this
could have been deposited during the burning and
collapse of Building D (see Chapter 21 below).
The riverside buildings

The area to the east of Building D was excavated over
three seasons, in trenches 7504, 76034, 78045 (see
Figs 2.2 and 16.5). The natural slope of the ground
here was even steeper than in the area north of
Building D and this slope caused considerable problems to both the Anglo-Saxon and medieval builders
and users of the site, resulting in a complex series of
stabilising layers and revetment. The slope also caused
problems for the modern excavators. During the
excavation, in 1976 and 1978, the slope and the sections were shored and this, together with the necessity
of preserving the medieval structures, cut down the
area available for investigation, resulted in discontinuous stratigraphic units, and meant that the area could
not be excavated in phase, all of which made interpretation difficult. Nevertheless this was the only area on
the site where a considerable depth of early deposits
survived, and it was possible to identify not only major
phases of activity but also minor episodes. The major
episodes are reflected in the plans (Figs 16.66,
16.6869, 16.74, 16.76, 16.82), and a diagram showing the stratigraphic relationships of all the major
deposits and features (Fig 16.87).
The natural ground surface to the south consisted
of clean riverine deposits of yellow/brown sand and
gravels (1035, 1036, 4784), and the surfaces of some
Fig 16.67 Riverside buildings, phase 1 showing early

revetments 4819 and 4872, stakehole 4821 and the later
cut 4799 in the foreground. (IS/MS)
of these deposits contained black charcoal-like streaks
which seem to be of some organic material such as vegetation. To the north the subsoil was red over grey
boulder clay.
Phase 1 (Figs 16.66, 16.87)

1a: The earliest identifiable event was the creation of a
linear stone feature or revetment, with some large flat
stones (4819, 3925, 4798) set as a southern face with
a rubble and clay core behind it, 4782 and 1026 (Fig
16.67). Layers of pebbles, sand and clay (1038, 1010,
3794) formed a raft behind, and a stake, 4821, was set
JARROW16.QXD
19-01-2007
11:03
Pagina 231
231
Fig 16.68 Riverside buildings, Anglo-Saxon phase 2 features cut by medieval structures. PL/YB.
Fig 16.69 Riverside buildings, Anglo Saxon phase 3a features cut by medieval structures. PL/YB
at the east end. Context 1038 contained animal bones
but was overlain by sterile layers of brown sandy clay,
4783, and crushed sandstone, 4820.
1b: This layer was then capped by a layer 0.15m deep
of dirty brown loam, sand and charcoal (1028). This
spread over the earlier revetment and was a very sterile
layer considering its depth, containing only a little,
possibly Roman, tile. This could have been an external
muddy surface, or could represent a period of infrequent use.
1c: A deposit, 1034, seems to have been a new superimposed surface; this did contain more occupation
debris in the form of animal bones, daub, brick and tile
fragments.
This phase of activity seems to represent a use of
the area as a built-up, external platform alongside the
river, which could have been used for loading and
unloading activities as well as possibly for some building works. This is also the area where there could be
overland access from the south, as implied by the later
JARROW16.QXD
19-01-2007
11:03
Pagina 232
232
causeway (Fig 1.10). It is impossible to date the

episodes of use; they could have been pre-Saxon or
could belong to the earliest Saxon phase of the site.
Phase 2 (Figs 16.68, 16.87)

A second phase of activity is distinguished by deposits
of dark grey clay and charcoal (957, 1031, 1032, 1023
and 4775) which contained tile, a scrap of samian pottery (see Vol 2, Ch 33.1, B19), and a stone mortarium
(Vol 2, Ch 34.1, SV2) as well as fuel ash and fragments
of lead and iron. This may be seen as the precursor of
the workshop phase, and it should be noted (compare
Figs 16.66 and 16.68) that these deposits extended
over the line of the original revetment, vestiges of
which may be represented by a few tumbled stones,
4817.
A deposit of brown clay and silt, 1025/1029, above
this contained similar finds: fuel ash, animal bones, a
whetstone (Vol 2, Ch 34.2), red tile and daub, and may
represent a separate phase of activity.
These deposits seem to mark the end of this phase,
which possibly consisted of out-of-doors or perhaps
semi-covered activities, and intermittent use before a
comprehensive reshaping and levelling up of the area.
The activity seems to have been largely metalworking,
but some building activities are also indicated by the
tile and daub. The date of this phase could be Roman,
sub-Roman or Anglo-Saxon, but the most distinctive
artefact, the stone mortarium, is difficult to parallel
and to date.
Fig 16.70 Riverside buildings, phase 3a: foundation 3924

cut by medieval oven. (IS/MS)
Phase 3a: The first workshop (Figs 16.69,

16.87)
Stage 3 represents a comprehensive re-shaping of the
area and the appearance of the first stone structures.
The episode is distinguished by a deposit of
brown/orange clay (1024, 1030, 1063, 4780, 4773)
which contained unambiguous Anglo-Saxon evidence
in the shape of many lead strips, and a piece of AngloSaxon glass, as well as quartz, felspar, clinker, and
animal bones.
Identifiable structures in the shape of two linear
foundations, 3924/4796 (Fig 16.70) and 4812, which
may have served to divide up the area, and a pad of
flat stones, 4813 (see Fig 16.71), are coterminous at
the east end with the southern cut. This cut,
955/4799, may have housed some form of roof support for this area. Although there is no direct stratigraphic link, because of the intervening medieval
structures, it is assumed that a wall which revetted the
slope at the north of the cutting (1055/1056,
4749/4800) served as the north wall of the building
(Fig 16.72). It also appears to form a continuous
alignment with the north wall of D. This northern
revetment wall was cut into undisturbed natural clay,
but there was, as in the construction of the north wall
of D (see above), a looser packing of sand and clay
Fig 16.71 Riverside buildings, phase 3a: pad of flat stones

4813, later wall 4801 above. (IS/MS)
behind the stone face. The collapsed stonework of the
wall included a large well-shaped block which could
well have been a door jamb since it lay at an angle
above another large stone which could have been a
threshold (Fig 16.73). This door could have led to the
flags 3796, but unless there was an upper floor it is
most reasonable, on account of the steep slope, to
suppose that this building was entered from the south
or the east (see discussion of Building D). An associated surface within the structure was an area of closeset flags, 3796 (Fig 16.73), adjacent to the north wall
at the eastern end of the structure, and an area of broken flags, 1022.
JARROW16.QXD
19-01-2007
11:03
Pagina 233
Fig 16.72 Riverside buildings, phase 3a: revetment wall

1055 cut by Norman pier, viewed from the north. TM.
(IS/MS)
233
Fig 16.73 Riverside buildings, phase 3a: wall 1055 and

flagging 3796 to the south cut by Norman pier. TM.
(IS/MS)
Phase 3b (Figs 16.74, 16.75)

A deep deposit of blue clay with a considerable amount
of charcoal on its surface (956/4729 and 4736) seems
to have been deposited onto the surface of the
orange/brown clay which marked the start of Phase 3
and to have been packed against the structural features
and the patches of floor paving, but it did not entirely
cover the presumed floor area (Fig 16.69; 16.74). This
blue clay deposit contained fragments of lead, iron,
fuel ash and imported pottery (Early Fine Red ware
(G1) and Rhenish ware (G4); Vol 2, Ch 33.2), as well
as animal bones.
The south-east corner of the building was subsequently reshaped and partially refloored (Fig 16.74). A
layer of chocolate-brown clay, 4718, was laid down,
apparently to fill up a slight hollow. This deposit contained fragments of iron and nail heads, lead strips,
tiles and coal as well as animal bones. To the east of
stone pad 4813, the equivalent deposit of brown clay,
4717, contained a knife, iron lumps, and slag. This
deposit seems to indicate smithing activity (see Vol 2,
Ch 35.3). New floor surfaces for this sub-phase are
represented by areas of gravel and stones (4719 and
1011) and a large flag, 4720 (Fig 16.75).
In the eastern part of the area, a sequence of interleaved deposits of ashy loam and clean sand appear to
represent successive campaigns of work during phase
3. A deposit of fine black ashy loam, 1008, in this area
contained fuel ash, slag and tap slag of Roman type (J
Bayley, pers comm, and Vol 2, Ch 35.3), thus supporting the other evidence of smithing activity. The
sand layer, 4739, which overlay the Phase 3b surface,
contained fragments of an early imported bowl (G1.8).
A sandy loam deposit, 1015, contained both enamel
and fuel ash, and the sand above it, 1016, plaster and
brick. These deposits partly covered over the stone pad
4813.
Because of the restricted area available for excavation it was difficult to relate these small areas stratigraphically, or indeed to relate them to the deposits in
the cut which ran along the southern perimeter of the
trench, 955/4799. This was filled in the west with dirty
sand (4728) and also with sterile deposits of stones and
clay (4807), charcoal (4761), and clay (4760). Some of
these deposits appeared to be slumping from the clay
floor surface to the north. It proved difficult to unpick
the layers in the cut, since this alignment was used
again at a later phase (4746) which lay directly above,
thus rendering the cut/trench 4799 difficult to interpret constructionally. In the blue clay, 956 etc (apparently its lowest level), there appeared to be socket
marks on the north edge of the cut, and the line was
fairly regular and parallel to the north wall of the structure. A continuous trench/cut presumes a continuous
feature in this very unstable area, which is subject to
flooding from the south and considerable pressure
from the clay slope to the north.
JARROW16.QXD
19-01-2007
234
11:03
Pagina 234
Fig 16.74 Riverside buildings, Anglo-Saxon phase 3b features cut by medieval structures. PL/YB
Fig 16.75 Riverside buildings, phase 3b: showing floor

level 1011 and paving 4720. (IS/MS)
Phase 4: The second workshop (Figs 16.76,

16.87)
The structure was then completely reshaped, although
the north revetment wall, 1055 and 4749, was
retained. This rebuilding phase is distinguished by a
series of deposits of orange/brown clay (953/1009,
1006, 1013, 4764, and 4738; see Figs 16.77 and
16.87). This was a very clean horizon apart from fragments of Roman tile and one tiny fragment of the early
imported pottery (Vol 2, Ch 33.2, G1.13), which may
be residual from Phase 3. The cut or robber trench was
filled in and a posthole, 954, in the south-west corner
of the area may represent a constructional feature for
the new building or a support for wall 1062. This west
wall, 1062, extended south right across the levelled

trench immediately next to the posthole (see Figs
16.7678). This wall has already been discussed as
potentially the east wall of Building D (see above and
Figs 16.57 and 16.58). The easternmost limit of the
main part of the new structure is marked by the foundation 4751/4802. This, like 1062, is not cut into the
lower deposits but set over them in the new clay layer,
1006 etc (Fig 16.79), and has one well-shaped surface
facing east, while the back is rough. The disposition
of the stones at the back/the west face (see Fig 16.80)
could, however, indicate that there were pads and
sockets to support a framed timber construction above.
This is a characteristic of other walls in this part of
the site, including the north revetment walls for both
this structure and Building D. The difficulties of
reconstructing these buildings are discussed further
below.
Between walls 1062 and 4751 was a deposit of dirty
yellow sand, 949 and 989, which contained Roman
tile, rolled lead, a fragment of lead-glazed crucible, and
animal bones. This in turn was covered by a deposit of
blue clay (3795, 942 and 4716) evidently a floor surface, covered with a grey loamy layer 951 which contained much charcoal and burnt material. There was
another small deposit of burnt material, 941, nearby.
Context 951 yielded two fragments of crucible (Vol 2,
Ch 35.1) for glass melting, also iron, fragments of lead
and copper as well as four pieces of Anglo-Saxon window glass (Vol 2, Ch 27.3), together with a little fuel
ash, charcoal, and animal bones. Set in the clay, 3795,
was a flat slab, 4795 possibly part of a more extensive
JARROW16.QXD
19-01-2007
11:03
Pagina 235
235
Fig 16.76 Riverside buildings, phase 4a features. PL/YB
Fig 16.77 Section drawing of levels under Wall 1062. YB

area of paving not visible below the medieval structures
and alongside it a square setting for a post, 944,
which lay mid-way between walls 1062 and 4751, and
was presumably a principal roof support (Fig 16.76).
Another post-setting to the west of flag 4795 appears
to be secondary (Phase 4b below).
To the east of the wall 4751, the area was initially
covered by a surfacing of small stones, 4774, which survived in patches as far east as stone revetment, 4755.
This feature was packed into a cut slope that flattened
out at a lower level and housed an oval hearth,
994/1020. The hearth had been burnt to a solid red
crust at the base, and was filled with layers of mixed
ash, charcoals and clays, 4752. Some mature oak charcoal from the hearth yielded a radiocarbon date (HAR2910: 6901050 (0.99), 10901120 cal AD (0.01) at 2
sigma). Around the hearth was a series of silty layers
with charcoal inclusions (988, 1027) and sand tips
(4763, 4767) which seem to represent alternate

episodes of working and laying down clean surfaces.
Finds recovered from these deposits included a small
amount of daub, tile chippings and lead as well as animal bones. Context 1027 contained a crucible handle
(Vol 2, Ch 35.1), iron, flint, tile and a quantity of animal bone. This hearth seems to have been in the open
air. A line of stones revetting the bank to the north,
4747, could have formed a wind break for this area,
while two postholes, 1005 and 4809, adjacent to wall
4755 (Fig 16.81) may have supported a timber screen
for the floor to the west, or have acted as roof supports.
Phase 4b (Figs 16.82 and 16.87)

The western room had been resurfaced with a grey clay
deposit, 948 which contained iron fragments, smithing
slag, fuel ash and glass. Set into the surface of 948 was
JARROW16.QXD
236
19-01-2007
11:03
Pagina 236
Fig 16.80 Riverside buildings, phase 4a: Wall 4751

viewed from the south. (IS/MS)
Fig 16.78 Riverside buildings, phase 4: wall 1062 viewed

from the north. (IS/MS)
Fig 16.79 Riverside buildings, phase 4: section under wall

4751. PL/YB
a neat tile setting, 3923 (Fig 16.83), which might be
interpreted as a support for a brazier or hearth, as there
was considerable evidence for burning on the adjacent
surface. An area of broken tile 3922 lay next to the
west wall. Only partly revealed within the available area
was a feature surrounded by vertical stones, apparently forming some sort of tank or container, 6221.
In this phase, the revetment wall 4755 was replaced
by 985, constructed of squarish stone blocks in almost
the same position (Figs 16.8485). To the west of it a
deposit of red clay, 991, was laid, with a surfacing of flags
4753. This may have formed a new pathway and eastern
perimeter for the workshop. The clay contained crucible, lead, brick and tile and other occupation debris.
Fig 16.81 Riverside buildings, phase 4a: Postholes 4809

and 1005. (MS)
JARROW16.QXD
19-01-2007
11:03
Pagina 237
237
Fig 16.82 Riverside buildings, phase 4b features. PL/YB

fuel ash, jet and coal. These deposits are perhaps best
interpreted as muddy external yard/working areas
rather than as an abandonment of the area. However,
992 is perhaps disturbed by the later activities since the
crucible joins with a fragment in 984, which is interpreted as a phase of abandonment, and if the pottery is
C1, which is dated 11501200, then this could imply
some disturbance of the area in the Medieval 1 period.
Phase 5: The collapse of the structures

(Fig 16.87)
Fig 16.83 Riverside buildings, phase 4b: settings 6221,

3922, and 3923 and posthole 974; wall 1062 is visible to
the left. (IS/MS)
In the east of the area, hearth 994 had by now gone
out of use. The phase 4a revetments 4755 and 4747
had collapsed and been covered by silty deposits
(4734, 4721, 995) which were also rich in workshop
debris; for example, 4734 contained a tuyre, iron,
lead, window glass, animal bone, and charcoal; while
992 contained early imported Red ware (G1) and a
possible sherd of Newcastle Dog Bank ware (C1),
animal bone, iron, lead, a crucible, smithing slag and
There is clear evidence for a slow collapse of these

buildings and possibly sporadic occupation. In the
north-western part of the area, east of the northsouth
wall 1062, the earliest collapse, 943, included a quantity of burnt daub, as in Building D. This daub, which
does not occur further east, may have lined the walls or
ceiling; more appears in the overlying silt and rubble
deposit 945, which covered the last evidence of activity in that area, and in the second silt deposit above
that, 940/939. Further east there is a comparable
sequence of silt accumulation, 982, and building collapse, 4750. The silt and the collapse of the revetment
wall 985, contained a large quantity of elderberry
seeds. There is the possibility that the berries may have
been collected for the preparation of drink, or to use in
a process such as tanning, but since these seeds are
very resistant to decay, it is equally possible that they
could have accumulated under a tree which had taken
root in the area, which was the opinion of Alison
Donaldson, the botanist who worked on the charcoal
and seed identifications (see Vol 2, Appendix F).
JARROW16.QXD
238
19-01-2007
11:03
Pagina 238
Fig 16.84 Riverside buildings, phase 4, viewed from the north: (from right to left) revetment/wall 4751; flooring 4774 (phase
4a); and revetment 985 (phase 4b); hearth 994 (phase 4a) is just visible on the left. (IS/MS)
In that case this is further evidence for the abandonment of this area of the site in phase 5. The silty layer
992 continued through into this phase (see above).
Above, to the west, a brown sandy soil layer, 938,
and silty clay (984) to the east, seem to represent soil
accumulation over the former workshop. Context 984
contains a dish crucible (Vol 2, Ch 35.1) which joins
one from 992, and also a sherd of imported pottery
(G1.9) of the same type as other fragments found in
phase 3, Anglo-Saxon window glass, enamel, fuel ash
and animal bone. While some of this accumulation
may contain redeposited material, there may also have
been intermittent occupation of the area the main
focus of activity perhaps having shifted to an adjacent
area outside the excavation.
Summary discussion (Figs 16.86, 16.87)

These eastern structures cannot be divorced from the
history of Building D since at some stage they abutted
or joined it, and moreover shared some of the same
constructional characteristics. The use and development of the riverside as revealed in phases 1 and 2
seems to have preceded the construction of Building
D, and the layers of stone such as 3925 and 4819 (see
Fig 16.66) probably equate with the stone layers and
the revetment 3713 under the floor platform of D (see
Fig 16.50). In the riverside area a platform was cut into
the clay slope down to the gravel beach of the river.
This was then revetted with stones and earth at the
south, and the bank at the north either faced with timber or stone. The clay layers 1032 of phase 2 extended
JARROW16.QXD
19-01-2007
11:03
Pagina 239
the working area further south and represent the first

evidence for a more permanent presence on the riverside, with clearance of vegetation and charcoal deposits
which are also found to the south of D.
Phase 3, when the first workshop activities are
noted, also includes the first appearance of the imported Early Red Fine ware (G1), and it is in this phase
that the construction of the north wall utilised by
Building D began. The type of scooped construction
found in the north wall of D is paralleled in the north
wall (1055/56, 4749) but the clay slope above the
workshops had been additionally strengthened by layers of stone, 4747. There was little evidence in this
area (apart from daub in context 943) for the form of
the superstructure, partly because the area had been
intensively cleared and reshaped in the various later
activities in the medieval East Range. The area is nevertheless delimited on the south by cut 4799, which
may have held supports for a roof over an open-fronted possibly half-timbered building (see Fig 16.88).
In phase 4 the working area was again extended
south over the line of the cut (perhaps because of fluctuations in the river line?), and the area was divided up
into small platforms. The area is enclosed by 1062 to
the west and 4751 to the east, with the orange/brown
clay, 953, as the construction level. The earlier revetment 1055/4749 served as the north wall (see Fig
16.59), and the central posthole 944 perhaps served as
a roof support. The strange construction of the east
and west walls is best explained by each having been
keyed into a higher level or slope behind them. For this
building (as for Building D), only the northern (upslope) face would have been built in stone, with the
other walls consisting of framed planks set on stone
sills or sunk in clay. The daub, which covered most of
Building D and the western part of this structure, and
had apparently been packed against laths (see above
and Vol 2, Ch 26.3); while there it might have lined a
ceiling, here it is more likely to have lined the walls.
239
No east wall of Building D was found, other than

wall 1062, and it remains possible that further evidence
was totally destroyed by the medieval East Range wall.
Therefore one cannot be certain it was a wood-framed
construction. If it was of stone then it may have been
felt that there should be a gap between the grander
building of D and the workshops. If, however, it was
1062, then how did the wall work in relation to the two
buildings? Either it had two foundation faces of sharply
cut stones with a clay and sand bonding in between (the
western face removed by the medieval wall), or it faced
the edge of the platform which supported the floor of
D. In either case the stonework could have carried a
timber-framed wall, which was rendered on both sides.
The post carried in 954 could have been an additional
Fig 16.85 Riverside buildings, phase 4b: revetment 4751

and 985 viewed from the east. (IS/MS)
Fig 16.86 View from the south over the riverside buildings under medieval structures. (IS/MS)
JARROW16.QXD
19-01-2007
240
11:03
Pagina 240
!Ill
,I I
Fig 16.87 Matrix of phases 15 of the riverside buildings. LB/PL
0 1 ..
JARROW16.QXD
19-01-2007
11:03
Pagina 241
241
Fig 16.88 Reconstruction of the Saxon phase main structures (model). TM

support on the east. The stone platform, 4751, could
also have supported a sill-beam construction and
served to revet the slope to the east where there is
another platform with a veranda-like covering supported on two posts, 1005 and 4809. Further east again, the
scooped hollow where the hearth 994 was placed can be
seen as an open working area.
It is difficult to determine the chronology of the use
of these workshops, however, since the deposits seem
to indicate phases of activity followed by periods of
abandonment, defined by the silt layers. The earliest
activity associated with the building of the revetment
and stabilisation of the shore line could well be separated from the definable Anglo-Saxon phases by a considerable time.
Between the first phase of clearly Anglo-Saxon
activity (phase 3) with its imported pottery, AngloSaxon glass and various slags and fuel ashes, and the
second workshop phase with the hearth, which has a
potential date after the mid-9th century, there could
stretch nearly two hundred years, but this is not apparent in the artefactual debris, although there is a clear
sequence of activity in the deposits of clay, sand and
charcoal or other fuel debris. If the earlier episodes
seem to be intermittent and not intensive, it is interesting that the activity appears to intensify in the later
phases of use, and one should note that the other workshop activity, to the south of Building A, was also dated
to the 9th century or later. In both these areas there are
mid-9th-century coins. In all of these occupation
deposits in the riverside buildings there are animal
bones, which is not normal for the rest of the site in the
Saxon period (see Chapter 23). There is a possibility,
therefore, that these workshops housed lay workmen
and the exotic goblets and bowls in Early Fine Red
ware (type G1) could reflect external contacts in the

early phases.
These workshops seem to have been used for a variety of crafts, but the most identifiable element was
smithing slag. Only one context, 1008, contained tap
slag, and there was no evidence for glass making, but
glass melting and even working in this area could be
implied by the glass-melting crucible from context 951
and the possible marvering stone (Vol 2, Ch 34.2,
WS59). Nevertheless, there are contexts such as 982
(4a and 5 silt) which produce fuel ash slag from a clay
which could have been a kiln, and several others where
all that can be said is that there is fuel debris, either
coal, clinker or charcoal, and fuel ash slag. The impression is that although this area was mainly used for metalworking in iron, bronze, and lead, and some of it
could have been fine work as the fragments of enamel indicate other associated activities might have been
undetected in the debris. Fragments of minerals, which
mainly derive from Weardale, such as fluorspar or
quartz, could have been used in a fluxing process (see
Vol 2, Ch 35.3), and the thick deposit of elderberry
seeds could be part of a process such as tanning rather
than indicating a period when the site was overgrown.
If this was the smithing area of the site, it is possible that there were other craft areas, for example stone
carving, in parts of the site which remain unexcavated,
and it should be noted that evidence for the working of
glass, including the production of millefiori, occurred in
Building D and on the workshop floor to the south of
Building A. Moreover there are deposits of what could
be considered as workshop debris in the redeposited
fills of the cutting along the south east of the area
excavated. The layout and the evidence for the economy of the site is discussed in Chapters 23 and 24.
JARROW17.QXD
19-01-2007
11:20
Pagina 242
17 The Late Anglo-Saxon/Early Medieval occupation
The term late Anglo-Saxon/Early Medieval (LS/EM)

has been used to identify those features (Figs 17.1,
17.2) which can only be dated within a very wide time
bracket, from the late 9th century (when coin evidence
ceases) to the late 11th century when the main pottery
sequence on the site starts. Although there may have
been a slow or a swift change of life-style on the site
after the breakdown of organised monastic life this is
not easy to define archaeologically: there is evidence
for destruction by fire in all the major stone buildings
in the form of burnt plaster, charred wood and melted
window glass and lead, but none of the deposits contain datable material and the directly superimposed
deposits are either likewise devoid of closely datable
evidence or have been heavily disturbed by later grave
digging or gardening (as over Building A) so that no
early stratification survives. In some areas, however,
massive deposits of clean clay laid down in association
with the foundations of the Norman buildings provide
a defined archaeological horizon which does not rely
on artefacts for its dating (see below).
Nevertheless a definite change of life-style is perceptible from the change in the composition of the animal bone assemblage in which certain layers and
deposits overlying the Anglo-Saxon features show
greater concentration on the exploitation of the wild
than in earlier phases (see Chapter 23 below, and Vol
2, Ch 37.2). Such evidence could relate to some type
of late pre-Conquest occupation of the site, but
Symeon of Durhams account of the settlement by the
Wessex monks under Aldwin (Chapter 4 above) suggests a precarious and subsistence life-style which
could be similar to a limited re-occupation by other lay
or religious groups. Another important factor in assessing the nature of the site occupation, or lack of it, in
this phase is that the pre-Conquest coin evidence ceases in the mid-9th century until the one coin of Edward
the Confessor (Vol 2, Ch 30.3) which was found in
context 413, the debris surrounding Building A. The
lack of later Anglo-Saxon coins from the site has been
remarked upon as unusual by the numismatists (see
Vol 2, Chs 30.2 and 30.3), but it is also considered that
a coin of the Confessor would not have circulated long
after the Norman Conquest, and so is likely to indicate
pre-Aldwinian activity. Similarly the evidence within
the two craft areas in Building D and around trench
6302 included the lead-glazed crucibles already mentioned in Chapter 16, and bone combs of a later Saxon
type (see Vol 2, Ch 31.5). The problems of determining how long some activity continued inside the buildings is compounded by the difficulty of precise pottery
identifications, where uncertainty about types has been
indicated by C/D. Sherds of Newcastle Dog Bank ware
(C1) and Oxidised Gritty ware (E10) found in a work-
shop surface, context 1013, and on the floor of

Building D, indicate some activity in those areas into
the 12th13th centuries. Structurally, however, there
was little to define this period save collapse and demolition.
In the area between Buildings A and B and the
Western Church, the Anglo-Saxon burial ground was
covered by a rash of stakeholes and postholes, such as
410231 etc, 5504 and 42267, which may represent
temporary structures of the late Saxon or Norman
periods. An enigmatic slot, 5562, which was a cut in
the undisturbed ground surface filled with clean clay
and some disturbed bones, may have been part of a
more substantial, but abortive, structure of the preConquest period since it was cut by other postholes
(Fig 17.1). The large intrusions, 5669 and 2934,
which were likewise filled with clean clay may also
belong to the earlier part of this phase. Other small
slots and stakeholes, 38814 etc and 410231, scattered through this area could be of various dates, some
apparently pre-dating deposits of Saxon building
debris, and could reflect intermittent occupation of the
late Saxon period or the Aldwinian settlement. Within
the area of the Norman East Range (which also overlay the Anglo-Saxon burial ground) irregularly shaped
holes filled with clean soil, such as 3276, 4149, 4193,
61035 etc, are more plausibly pre-Conquest, while
3298 and 3269 are so positioned that they may have
been part of the Norman construction of the buildings.
The many stakeholes further south within the walls of
the Norman East Range (135172) post-date the
Anglo-Saxon cemetery and appear to have been cut by
the Norman wall trenches, but could be either late
Saxon or temporary structures put up in advance of
the main Norman building campaign.
Building A
The process of dissolution of Building A seems to have
been slow: there were small deposits of crumbling mortar and earth, such as 414/413, and 659 around its
walls, and areas of dark soil which had accumulated
with rubble deposits, 5885, 5728; areas of stones and
mortar such as 555, 858, which all point to structural
decay before the almost total robbing of the stonework
of the walls. At some point, however, the carved octagonal column at the centre of room Aii had been
smashed into a pile of rubble, 396. Some robbing of
the building may have taken place in the pre-Conquest
period of decay and dereliction, since the rubble
deposit, 413, alongside the north wall, in which the
aforementioned coin of Edward the Confessor was discovered, could have been the product of collapse or
robbing.
242
JARROW17.QXD
19-01-2007
11:20
Pagina 243
17: THE LATE ANGLO-SAXON/EARLY MEDIEVAL OCCUPATION
243
Whether there was intermittent occupation of the

building after the mid-9th century, and at what date it
was ravaged by the fire which deposited charcoal on
the floor below the rubble (see Fig 16.13), are difficult
questions to answer given the lack of associated dating
evidence. There is some probability that the western
sector of the building remained in use after the eastern
sector had been left to fall into ruin, since the surface
of the floor at the west end was more worn and lacked
the deposits of burnt debris found at the east end.
There is, moreover, a series of postholes from 243 to
760 (Fig 17.1) that could represent a timber structure
constructed once the stone superstructure was ruined.
The wall trenches do not provide much help in dating
their robbing: in one area of the robbing of the south
wall, context 241, a crucible sherd was discovered, but
also a sherd of Early Gritty Green ware (E12a,
11751350), which should date the activity to after the
Norman reconstruction. Over the other robbing
trenches the area was disturbed by later activity and
burials, and pottery ranging from the 13th to the 19th
century filled the voids.
Building B
The same problems encountered with Building A also
occur when trying to determine the exact period when
Building B went out of use. It had been burned down
and then allowed slowly to collapse, as is apparent
from the rubble (contexts 655, 3060 etc) deposited
against the burnt and discoloured plaster on the internal faces of the south and east walls (Figs 16.30 and
17.3). In the southern area of the building, where there
was the least disturbance from later activities, there
were deposits which could post-date the monastic use
of the building, such as a burnt area 648 (not on plan)
which yielded a late Saxon strap-end (Vol 2, Ch 31.2,
CA34), and context 651, ground surface to the south
of Building B, yielded one sherd of Gritty Micaceous
Grey ware (D23) which cannot be precisely dated. It is
unfortunate that the site appears to have yielded no
pottery after the Middle Saxon period which can be
dated to before 1075 (see Vol 2, Ch 33.2).
None of the rubble deposits such as 655, 5446/7,
underlying the Norman clay pack 638/3344 (Fig
17.15), contained any datable material, but once the
building had collapsed there was time for soil accumulation over the debris before the Norman levelling of the
cloister. This soil accumulation is to be found in other
deposits of heavy rubble at the east end such as 6077
and 3060, but there was no occupation debris contained
within it. There may have been some intermittent occupation after the building was fired, as the thin spread of
food debris within the building could indicate, but for
how long, or for what purpose it is impossible to say.
The building seems to have survived as a recognisable
feature until the Norman building campaign, however,
since there are no late Saxon burials within it, and
moreover the siting of the west wall of the Norman East
Fig 17.3 South wall of Building B looking west with

tumble in front of the wall plaster in the interior and
collapse on the exterior. (IS)
Range directly alongside the east wall of Building B
could have been to facilitate robbing of the earlier, and
visible, building for reuse in the later structure.
The well, 4348
(Figs 16.28, 17.1)
The well, 4348, is an example of a feature which is difficult to assign to a phase, but which may have been
constructed before the 1070s. It was partly visible in
trench 6901 under the central baulk which included
the foundations of a late medieval wall (Wall 5) (Fig
16.32), but was fully excavated in trench 7002. This
well lay roughly in the centre of Building B (Fig 16.28)
and appeared to have been cut through the mortarcovered floor 4351 (Figs 17.4 and 17.5). It was, therefore, not primary in that structure. Its construction pit
was sealed by a deposit of rubble, 4343, which overlay
the Anglo-Saxon floor (Fig 17.6). This contained only
Anglo-Saxon material, as did another clean deposit of
rubble, 4394, which could have derived either from the
collapse of the Anglo-Saxon Building B or from the
Norman construction. The fact that the whole mouth
of the well was covered by the construction and robbing of a wall which was built in about the 14th
century and demolished in the 18th century, complicated the picture, however (see Fig 16.32).
This well, or water container, was only 4ft 6in.
(1.38m) deep and c 2ft 6in. (0.76m) in internal diameter. It had been constructed by digging a hole c 6ft
JARROW17.QXD
244
19-01-2007
11:20
Pagina 244
Fig 17.4 The well 4348 and patch of plaster flooring

4351. (IS/MS)
Fig 17.6 Well structure with collapse 4343 and 4394.

(IS/MS)
Fig 17.5 Well 4348 with packing and lower surrounding

surfaces revealed. (IS)
Fig 17.7 Well as excavated in trench 7002. (IS/MS)
(1.83m) wide and packing the neatly jointed stones of

the lining with small stones and clean yellow clay, 4394
(see Figs 17.1 and 17.5). The well appeared to have
been barrel-lined, and parts of the staves and a bung
survived in its fill (Vol 2, Ch 31.9). Animal bones,
shell, mortar and twigs lay in the bottom silt, together
with sherds of an almost complete vessel of Moderately
Gritted ware (Vol 2, Ch 33.2 E1.1), which, if primary,
would date the well to the Norman phase; on the other
hand it could have been part of the infilling which
included sherds of Oxidised Gritty ware (E10), North
East Grey ware (D2), Tyneside Buff White wares

(E11a, E11b, E11e), and four fragments of 19thcentury pottery recovered from the top of the fill. The
latter were assumed to derive from the destruction of
the overlying wall of the Medieval 2 South Range.
Since the well was not dismantled but drawn in situ
there is no conclusive construction date. It is so
shallow that its function can hardly have been as the
main water source for a large community. There were,
however, many possible activities that would require
easy access to water in any period.
JARROW17.QXD
19-01-2007
11:20
Pagina 245
245
This well, then, might indicate a change of use in

the last phase of B as a functioning building, and if it
were a visible feature in the period when Aldwin and
his monks arrived on the site they might have utilised
it and built a small structure around it within the
cloister to form a lavatorium. If it were a pre-existing
feature, the slightly off-centre position of the lavatorium
in relation to the 11th-century monastic plan is explicable (see Chapter 18 below).
The southern slope

There seems to have been some occupation within the
annexe to Building A before it was comprehensively
robbed to the lowest foundations (Fig 17.2): a pit, 470,
filled with shellfish debris, together with a hearth
alongside, and another pit, 466, mainly filled with
whelks and winkles, had been cut into the floor. These
features are possibly part of the same episode that produced a similar shellfish pit, 626, further east in trench
7103. A pad of stones, 103, covering a small depression and a slot filled with charcoal, 6087, in trench
6302, as well as a large stone, 3977, in trench 7103,
seem likewise to be part of the same phase of activity.
In trench 6302, many of the small deposits which
overlay the middle Saxon gravel floor, 96, are impossible to assign to a dated post-monastic phase whether
pre- or post-Conquest, since they contained nothing
but Anglo-Saxon building debris or a rare sherd of pottery which can only be dated late 11th to 12th century.
In the northern part of this area, a deposit of stone
chippings, 64, indicates stone-dressing activity which
may well belong to the late monastic phase, but in the
more complex stratigraphy surviving in trench 7103
(Figs 16.4344), there are successive building deposits
within the middle to late Saxon period. Context 634,
with building debris and a bronze strap-end (Vol 2, Ch
31.2, CA33), seems to be overlaid by a soily deposit,
before a new building activity which involved the making of opus signinum, 3974. This in its turn was overlain
by a brown loamy soil (625, 3927), which included
Saxon building debris and one sherd of Newcastle Dog
Bank ware (see Vol 2, Ch 33.2). Four sherds of a similar pottery fabric were recovered from the soil, rubble
and shellfish debris that overlaid and disturbed the surface of the gravel floor 96. The west-facing section of
7103 (Fig 16.43A) showed a line of stones, which
appear to be shallow foundations (Fig 16.44), and
from which the rubble in this area, context 625, could
have derived. This line continued south and was noted
also under Wall 2a in 6302 (Figs 17.8, 17.9) and may
have continued south as a foundation trench, until cut
by a later cultivation terrace (Fig 17.2).
Attached to this lower wall was a small structure
(structure C, 5321/2/6), measuring c 7ft (2.13m) by
2ft (0.61m) internally, which in earlier publications of
the site I assigned to the monastic period (Cramp
1969, 54). This was because in construction it was
more like the Anglo-Saxon than the Norman or later
Fig 17.8 View of trench 6302, north section, showing the

lower level of flagging 5319. (IS)
Fig 17.9 View of Wall 2a from the west with earlier wall
debris 6081. (IS)
medieval buildings, and it was overlain by Wall 2a (Fig
17.10) that in the area to the north sealed a level with
wall collapse, 6214 (Fig 16.43), which seems to be on
the same horizon as structure C. All the relationships
in trench 6302 were poorly recorded, however, and this
has posed difficulties in assessing this structure: its
construction trench, which initially was recorded as
cutting only the brown clay surface of natural, could
have cut context 98, a layer of stones, earth and mortar, unfortunately disturbed by later activities. If the
undisturbed deposit were equivalent to 625 (above),
which is immediately adjacent and which can be
assigned to a Late Saxon/Early Medieval date, then
structure C may be post-Conquest. The fill of structure C contained pottery ranging from the 12th to the
15th centuries, all, or some, of which could have been
deposited when it had gone out of use. It was sealed
only by late post-medieval deposits (see Fig 16.42),
and the only firm pointer to its period of use is the fact
that its west wall is sealed by Wall 2a. The function of
this hollow rectangle of stonework may have been to
JARROW17.QXD
246
19-01-2007
11:20
Pagina 246
Fig 17.10 Structure 5321 viewed from the east showing

junction with rubble 6081 under Wall 2a. (IS)
support a trough or some receptacle, plausibly for
water, since the drain between Buildings A and B ran
in its direction. If it is pre-Conquest, it must be associated with a late phase of occupation, and perhaps its
use was connected with the workshop activities noted
on the adjacent gravel floor and the lower line of
paving, 6206, alongside its west end. If it is of a later
date, then the kitchen type of activities just to the north
and west of it at the top of the slope could provide a
context for its use.
Although there were terraces and possibly hedges
(see below, 2604) which divided off sectors of the
southern slope at different times, there is little firm evidence for defined spheres of activity in this phase, and
therefore all the areas on the southern slope towards
the river (trenches 7105, 73013, 7803) are considered
together. In the area of 73012 there had been considerable modern disturbance, particularly from a large
rubbish pit connected with the 19th-century rectory,
but as noted in the Anglo-Saxon period above
(Chapter 16), the location seems to have attracted gardening activity in all periods and the terraces so
formed, together with their bedding trenches and plant
holes leave very little undisturbed stratigraphy (see
Figs 16.40 and 16.41). Nevertheless several truncated
features of this phase survive.
In the most northerly section of the lower terrace a
straggling gully or trench with ragged edges, 2604 and
2538, ran east to west. It had been cut into the natural
Fig 17.11 Looking west over trenches 73013; in the

background the cut for the hedge-lines 2604 and 2338.
6288 partly overlain by a medieval deposit of stones.
Feature 6224 in the foreground. (IS/MS)
Fig 17.12 Detail of 6224 in trench 7301 looking south

with facing stones of later wall above. (IS/MS)
JARROW17.QXD
19-01-2007
11:20
Pagina 247
247
Fig 17.13 Trench 7803, excavation ended by rain. Area of pitched stone 5213, burnt clay and sand 5211 in the foreground
and drain 2841 bottom left. (IS/MS)
clay and there were some deeper indentations and
small holes in its base. The gully had been recut several times, and 6228 to the west and 2063 to the east are
plausibly part of the same feature, while 2538 may be
a successor cut (see Fig 17.11). The fill, 2604 included one sherd of Roman pottery, some animal bone, tile
and flint; the fills of 6228 and 2063 were clean, but the
recutting, 2538, included Early Fine Red ware (G1.7),
Newcastle Dog Bank ware (C1), animal bone, shells,
mortar, and, in its upper level, a sherd of Tyneside Buff
White ware (E11a, 1200-1350). These cuts and the
stones that sometimes filled and sometimes lay alongside them are interpreted as a hedge line which was
established in the Anglo-Saxon period, but which survived as a dividing line, albeit reshaped, into the
post-Conquest period.
In the north-eastern section of trench 7302, there
was a pad of stone, 6224 (Figs 17.2, 17.12). This stone
foundation cut into the natural clay and measured at
its greatest extent 8ft (2.44m) by 4ft 6in. (1.37m).
Much of the rubble surrounding it could have derived
from its collapse and this was sealed by a deposit,
2559, which contained pottery with dates ranging from
the late 11th to mid-14th century. Although pad 6224
was in line with the medieval northsouth Wall 2b,

5320, and it was considered during excavation and
post-excavation analysis that one face of a northsouth
wall survived above it (see below, Chapter 19), the
stone pad looks more like a supporting platform than a
wall foundation. Alongside this stone feature and
sealed by the tumble was an irregular hollow, 2705,
which may have been part of the foundation of the
platform complex. This feature was not completely
removed although it was sectioned and it remains of
uncertain date and function. It could perhaps have
supported a piece of equipment, and may once have
continued further westwards before it was cut by the
19th-century rubbish pit.
The most westerly area of this terrace, investigated
in trench 7803, was not excavated to natural because
of the time lost through incessant rain and because the
cultivation terraces which overlaid the pre-Conquest
layers were so time-consuming to untangle. A layer of
orange/brown sand and charcoal, 5211, which was the
earliest undisturbed layer noted, was not fully investigated, but it contained a considerable amount of burnt
wood and some postholes. There were similarly bands
of pinkish (burnt) clay on the same horizon as the
JARROW17.QXD
248
19-01-2007
11:20
Pagina 248
burnt sand (5210, 5212). None of these contained any

datable material, but above them was a more solid feature a layer of pitched stone, 5213, some of which,
with mortar attached, looked like broken building
stone. The interstices of the stones had been packed
with clay. The whole formed a roughly rectangular area
c 6ft (1.83m) by 14ft (4.27m). Near the western edge
of the excavated area were two postholes, 5219, 5220,
which may have been part of a construction such as a
shelter covering the working floor of pitched stone.
The edges of the pitched stone layer were so well
demarcated that it is possible that there was some timber superstructure. A possible sherd of Oxidised Gritty
ware (E10, 10751300) was found in the layer overlying the floor (2852). It is thus possible that this feature
is not pre-Conquest in origin and it could, like the second phase of the cut for the ditch at the south (see Figs
16.41 and 17.14) be of an early post-Conquest phase.
The southern sector of trench 7803 revealed part of
an irregular cut into the clay slope, 6197, about 5ft 6in
(1.68m) wide and running east to west. The base of
this feature showed a series of terraced cuts, and it had
clearly been reshaped several times (see Fig 16.40).
The earliest truncated cut, 6202, has been assigned to
the Anglo-Saxon phase, but this cut had been widened
in a line which is marked along its northern edge by a
deposit of small stone chippings, 5207, which may be
either thought of as a revetment of the same phase as
the floor, 5213, which was laid down to the north, or
the floor could once have extented further south and
the deposit of stones could have fallen into the cut at
that time (see Fig 17.2). The deposits at the base of the
cut, 5206, 5207 and 5217 (yellow clay and sand) were
all clean; the first silting 2848 contained a sherd of
Newcastle Dog Bank ware (11501200); and above
that the fill, 2847, contained pottery dated late 11th to
mid-14th century (E10 and E12a), which represents
the filling up of the feature (see Fig 16.41). The cut
may well be pre-Conquest in origin and a continuation
of the cut to the south of Building D and the riverside
workshops, thus forming a late Saxon boundary on the
south, but it had been widened in the later Saxon or
Norman period and, according to the pottery dating,
remained a visible feature on the site as late as the 14th
century, perhaps until the perimeter walls were constructed just to the south (see Chapter 21). One function of this southern ditch must have been to take
away water from the drainage on the slope: the drain
2841 led into it and had been cut by later medieval
widening and then filling of the ditch, and the first
phase of the drain 2647 likewise led into the ditch, and
had progressively been relined and recut in subsequent
phases.
To the east and north of the cut line a series of
scoops into the clay bank, 6225, 6226/7, contained a
series of deposits in a dark silty matrix, 2703, which as
mentioned above (Chapter 16) contained the deposits
of crucibles, slags, Anglo-Saxon vessel and window
glass, copper-alloy waste and crucible fragments as
Fig 17.14 Cut 5218 with deposit of stones 5207 viewed

from the east. (IS/MS)
well as pottery dating from the late 11th to mid-14th
century. Some of this could be dumping in the postConquest period, but there does seem to be one floor
area which is recorded in section and which contained
only bird bones, shells and tile.
It is possible, as suggested above (Chapter 16,
Southern slope), that this area of the southern slope
had been terraced for workshops in the monastic period. Alternatively, the Anglo-Saxon material may have
been retrieved from elsewhere on the site in the late
pre-Conquest period, and perhaps these scoops or terraces were used for the reworking of glass and bronze
in that phase. The working hollows or platforms could
then have been filled in by a levelling of soil in the 14th
century.
In the eastern area of the slope to the north of
Building D and within the area of the Norman South
Range in trench 7105, there was, as already noted, little surviving early stratification. The indistinct bases of
many small postholes survive on what must have been
in pre-Norman times the upper terrace. These may be
the remnants of temporary structures. There are small
islands of stratigraphy on the surface of the brown clay
capping of natural that contain Anglo-Saxon building
debris, such as 1702, and features such as the pit 5102
19-01-2007
11:20
Pagina 249
249
"
Fig 17.15 Section across the cloister, showing relationships of Anglo-Saxon and medieval walls. RC
JARROW17.QXD
JARROW17.QXD
250
19-01-2007
11:20
Pagina 250
which cut the brown clay 1573 and was sealed by a

medieval deposit, 1789. Its fill, 5101, yielded only dark
soil and mortar. To the north of Building D a deep
deposit of brown clay with some soil layers interleaved,
1135, seems to represent a long-lived open ground surface in use from the Late Saxon to the Medieval 2 periods. It contained debris from the collapsed AngloSaxon buildings, as well as significant amounts of occupation evidence in the form of animal bone, shells and
three sherds of pottery of 12th/13th-century date. On
this surface there were two patches of charcoal, 1127
and 1995, and a layer of burning, 1129, which contained a sherd of Newcastle Dog Bank ware (C1, 1150
1200). This area seems then to have been used for
dumping and clearance for a considerable time. Patches
of similar clay surfaces, such as 977, 987, survived
along the slope and were the surfaces into which the
massive piers of the Norman reredorter were inserted.
The collapse of the main north wall of Building D
has already been mentioned (see Figs 16.63 and
16.84) and this collapse was covered by a silty soil
deposit, and patches of orange/brown clay (2857)
which contained much Anglo-Saxon debris, and a
mixed brown clay before the area was firmly sealed by
the clean clay laid down in the Norman building campaign (3753 etc).
The fill of the west end of Building D in the area of
the hearth and its associated deposits of charcoal, fuel
ash and melted lead which represent the latest occupation (see above, Chapter 16) was rather more complex.
The stone at the base of the fill in that area had been
carefully laid (see Fig 16.64) in a matrix of brown clay,
2186, which contained only early imported pottery
(G1.9) and tile. This had been overlain by further
deposits within a sunken area, 3781, all of which
such as the clay 2149, and the stones and clay 3762,
3764 contained only Anglo-Saxon building debris
(Fig 17.2). The area had then been covered by a mixed
deposit of clay, 2141, which included pottery which
spans the medieval period.
To the south of the building a linear feature running
east to west, 3689, cut through the floor of Building D
(Fig 16.54). This feature was excavated in a narrow

trench (7505), and despite attempts to analyse the fills
and the associated pottery, the record of these layers
holds some irreconcilable stratigraphic confusion in
that some of the deposits within the cut, now grouped
as 2376, were not adequately distinguished from
deposits on the floor of Building D. The Norman clay
pack, 2375 and 2859, which sealed Building D, contained predominantly 12th-century pottery and one
sherd of Scarborough ware (F1). It, like some of the
underlying tumble, seems to have slumped into the cut
and was covered by the upper fills of the feature. There
may have been a succession of dumps: the cut contained a large amount of late 11th- to 12th-century
pottery (D8, D11, D12, D15 etc) in contexts 2372,
2376, 2377 and 2378, but also 13th- to 15th-century
types (see Vol 2, Ch 33.2). The fills of 3689 include the
largest group of 11th- to 12th-century rims from the
site, but the mixed nature of the fills indicates that it
could be rubbish redeposited from elsewhere. All that
it seems possible to conclude is that the cut post-dates
Building D, and is most probably later than the abandonment of D, being sealed finally by a clayey soil
2374, which contained pottery of mainly later
medieval (13th to 16th century) date. If at any stage
this cut had stood open for a period of time serving as
a ditch there should have been some silting, as was
noted in features at the foot of the slope further west.
The fact that it was so clean must either mean that it
was cut in the Late Saxon/Early Medieval period and
then cleaned out and filled again or that it was cut in
the 13th/14th century and quickly afterwards filled
with rubbish from elsewhere on the site. The infilling
of this feature will be considered further in Chapter 19
(below). The base of the slope and the river bank
seems to have been an area for rubbish disposal in all
periods after the Anglo-Saxon, but the filling of cut
3689 poses an interesting question about the nature of
the activity which produced so much early medieval
pottery was it the result of a large influx of people for
a short period of building rather than a longer period
of more limited occupation?
JARROW18.QXD
19-01-2007
11:23
Pagina 251
18 The medieval occupation

Introduction
The nature of the occupation together with the layout
and architectural form of the first phase of the
medieval buildings at Jarrow can be reconstructed
from a synthesis of the information derived from the
standing structures, the excavated substructures and
features, and the documentary evidence. This last was
discussed in Chapter 4, and the problems of equating
the excavated evidence with the activities of Alfred
Westou in 1022 and the visit of the Durham community in 1069 in Chapter 17 above. It is difficult to know
what picture the site presented around 1074, when
Aldwin and his companions arrived there, sent by
Bishop Walcher, but the account of their activities by
Symeon (see Chapter 4, and Appendix A5.45.5) is so
close to the events in time and place that there is every
reason to trust the written evidence.
The account of Jarrow in Symeons description is
significantly different from that of Wearmouth. It is not
stated that the site was overgrown, but that the church
needed to be reroofed, so they placed on the walls a
roof of untrimmed beams and hay and began to celebrate the offices of divine service (HDE, XXI). At that
stage they lived in a little hut under the walls of the
church in which to eat and sleep (see Appendix A5.4).
As stated in Chapter 4, the roof of the church could
have been recently destroyed, during the punitive campaign of the Normans in the north in 1069, since the
building was in a state fit for use as shelter by the
Durham community earlier in the year 1069 when they
were fleeing from the Conquerors army (see Appendix
A4.2). The archaeological evidence (see Chapter 17
and Fig 16.32) has shown, however, that the major
Anglo-Saxon monastic buildings were in a collapsed
and overgrown condition by the time the ground was
levelled and prepared for the new layout, although the
outlines of the earlier structures must have been clear
since their walls were systematically robbed for the
medieval rebuilding. The difficulty of reconciling this
with Symeons account of Bishop Walchers intentions
when he decided to endow the group cum enim eos
ecclesiam ipsam reaedificare et destructa monachorum
habitacula videret velle restaurare (Arnold 1882, 110,
and trans Appendix A5.4) has been considered above
in Chapter 4, note 5. In the event, however, the body
of the church survived, but, as is evident from the
archaeological evidence set out below, the monastic
buildings were not restored but completely erased and
a new plan designed.
The archaeological account presented here considers the evidence for the Norman building campaign
together with that for occupation which can be presumptively assigned, with the help of stratigraphy and
artefacts, to the period before the more domestic
medieval layout, as revealed by excavation and
described in the earliest surviving inventories of the

1340s (see Chapter 4, and Appendix A5.7a and b).
There is difficulty, however, in separating out activity
that can be assigned to the late 11th-century occupation of Aldwin and his community from the subsequent
undocumented period spanning more than two hundred years. This is largely because the dating assigned
to the pottery fabrics in this region is very broad and no
post-Conquest fabric is defined as earlier than the
bracket 1075 to 1200 (see Vol 2, Ch 33.2), so that if
one were to take the latest date in the bracket there
would be no pottery which could be associated with the
Aldwinian occupation, and it is difficult on the pottery
dating alone to define the later site occupation. The
standing walls of the church and surviving monastic
buildings and their associated layers or deposits at
Jarrow do, however, in the earlier period, enable one to
attribute some features to the period between the
1070s and 1083 when the community were removed to
Durham Priory. These have been labelled in the text
and context catalogue as Norman. The subsequent
period up to 1235, when Jarrow is first recorded as a
cell of Durham, and from then until the modified,
more domestic layout (described in the account-rolls
from the 1340s onwards), is classified here as Medieval
1, a and b. The subsequent period of occupation until
the Dissolution of the house in the mid-16th century is
classified as Medieval 2. There are clearly sub-phases
and episodes which are contained within the earlier
Medieval 1, and later, Medieval 2, period subdivisions,
and, where these are substantial enough, they are considered separately within the broader framework. The
church and cemetery, however, have been considered
as entities and discussed first in all their medieval phases, with some reference to the post-medieval period,
and likewise the standing monastic buildings are
phased first and then the appropriate details are incorporated in the phased discussions.
St Pauls Church
A functioning church would have been necessary for
the Benedictine community from the outset and the
church seems to have been adapted rather than rebuilt,
and to have retained in plan the core of the AngloSaxon building throughout the medieval period, with
only the addition of small adjuncts and windows.
The chancel
The standing structure has been described in Chapter
13 (see Fig 13.1) and there seem to have been changes
only to the openings and fenestration of the AngloSaxon church. On the south wall of the East Church
251
JARROW18.QXD
252
19-01-2007
11:23
Pagina 252
(Fig 13.1A) the upper opening (D2) which, as stated

in the discussion of the Anglo-Saxon period, is apparently part of walling which has been rebuilt above the
intact Anglo-Saxon quoining seems from the appearance of its inner face (Taylor and Taylor 1965, fig
151G) to have been inserted or reshaped in the
Norman period as an upper-floor entrance from the
Norman cloister. The door in the south wall (D1)
could have been enlarged in this period to link with the
cloister east walk (see Figs 1.9 and 12.4), but the east
face of its opening could have been lost in the much
later door (Appendix B31 and 33). Of a slightly later
date, perhaps 12th century, is the simple lancet window in the north wall (W5), the insertion of which,
directly above the Anglo-Saxon door, could mean that
the door (D3) was no longer in use. The other windows could all belong to the Medieval 2 phase: the
three-light windows in the east wall, and at the east end
of the north wall, with cusped intersecting tracery (W6
and W7) have been dated by Cambridge to
c 13001330 (Cambridge 1992, 163). The squareheaded window (W9) at the east end of the north wall
is difficult to parallel, and has been seen by Cambridge
either as early 14th century or possibly post-medieval
(Cambridge 1992, 164), although the former seems
more likely and it appears in Grimms drawing of the
north side of the church (Fig 12.7). The other window
on the north face, a cusped lancet (W4), is probably
14th century in date; likewise W8, the elaborate threelight window at the west end of the south wall with
convergent mouchettes, has been dated to the mid14th century and compared with windows in Durham
Cathedral (ibid, 164). This window has been identified
by most commentators with the only surviving documentary record of the insertion of a window in the
chancel, in the expenses returned for 13501 (Raine
1854, 35 and 36). Cambridge, however, has pointed
out the low cost recorded and queried whether the
costs for the insertion may have been in one of the
missing inventories, so the costs recorded under
13501 could refer to the lancet (W4). There is some
doubt about the date of W4, however, since in
Grimms otherwise careful record, a door with a pointed head is shown at this point rather than a window,
and indeed it is not visible in later drawings (see
Appendix B24).
The tower (Figs 13.18 and 18.1)

A case has been proposed in Chapter 13 that the
ground floor and first floor of the tower can be dated
to the pre-Conquest period, and this position is maintained here although there is a body of opinion which
would see the tower as first constructed in the late 11th
century.
The ground floor and first floor of the tower were
modified in the Norman period. The door in the south
face (D1) was blocked by a tympanum with a double
opening, which may be later, and the north door was
possibly modified by blocking and the insertion of a

small opening at the same time (see Fig 12.7). The east
face of the eastern opening from the chancel into the
tower shows some evidence of two types of voussoirs,
which might be interpreted as a widening of a preConquest opening and the strengthening of the walls
on either side of the opening in the phase when the
tower was modified.
On the second floor, the north and south faces of
the tower were enhanced by two double-splayed
romanesque windows (W1, W2, Figs 13.18 and 12.7).
The southern one, at a later date, was changed into
a door, and is shown by both the Bucks and Sparrow
(Figs 12.4 and 12.6) as a simple lancet, but the
north window (Taylor and Taylor 1965, fig 154) which
survives today is richly decorated with a characteristic
billeted head and hood moulding. Both of these windows may be reconstructions of Anglo-Saxon predecessors: the southern opening has the remains of
upright and flat jambs and the stonework around the
northern window is much disturbed, and above each of
them is a row of corbels which could have supported
the roof of the pre-Conquest tower. The walls are
thickened on this stage, and this thickening partly
obliterated the Anglo-Saxon door D3. What may be
considered as a new opening, D4, measuring 1.85
1.27m has a simple rounded head, like the interior face
of the chancel opening D2. The very large opening
measuring 2.44 2.62m (8ft 8ft 7in.), D5, in the west
face of the tower has been mentioned already (Chapter
13). The head supported on chamfered and grooved
imposts is paralleled neither in the surviving evidence
from the Anglo-Saxon nor medieval periods. It is not
visible on the west face of the tower and the floor below
it has been curiously thickened so that its base is hidden. It is possible that D5 was always a deep niche and
if the upper storey was intended for safe-keeping it
could have served to store books or valuables in the
Anglo-Saxon and/or Norman periods. In this phase the
interpretation of this chamber, with its eastern opening
towards the chancel, as a choir loft for the Aldwinian
community seems reasonable. Figure 13.18 attempts
to link together the levels of the openings
in this stage of the tower with the upper stage of the
chancel.
The east face of the third storey would have been
blocked by the roof of the chancel, but on the west face
is a blocked triangular-headed window (W3) cut
straight through the wall and without imposts, which is
a form in origin Anglo-Saxon but which continued into
the post-Conquest period (Taylor 1978, 8728, and
see below, Chapter 19). The double belfry type of
openings on the north and south faces are formed with
a single mid-wall shaft supporting a block chamfered
capital, and this level probably represents the belfry
height of the earliest post-Conquest phases. The forms
of the openings can be compared with the openings as
drawn by the Buck brothers in the west wall of the East
Range (Fig 12.4).
JARROW18.QXD
19-01-2007
11:23
Pagina 253
18: THE MEDIEVAL OCCUPATION
253
Fig 18.1a East and south faces of the medieval tower of St

Pauls Church. TM
Fig 18.1b Detail of south face of St Pauls tower showing

corbel line and details of openings. TM
The tower was later narrowed and the upper belfry

stage is lit by pairs of double belfry windows on the
east and west faces and single windows of the same
type on the north and south faces. The shafts are supported on three cushion capitals and three volute capitals, and the twin arches are recessed in square frames.
This stage of the tower has been plausibly assigned a
12th-century date, with a parallel at another Durham
cell at Lindisfarne (Cambridge 1977, 34, and Vol 2,
Ch 29.1), and it was perhaps at this stage that the base
of the tower was further strengthened by a groined
vault.
of the Western Church would have been (Fig 13.8),

there is a long lancet window (such as is found in the
north wall of the chancel) and a larger two-light window with a hood moulding and simple intersecting
tracery, possibly dating to the 12th century. These,
according to the graphic record, were the only new
medieval windows inserted in the nave. The small
chamber at the south-west corner of the nave was,
however, lit by a three-light window of more elaborate
form and of mid-14th-century date.
If the large pointed opening and the surviving
walling attached to the west face of the nave are taken
into account, then there might have been a chamber in
a similar position attached to the north wall. The twostorey porch to the east of it could have been a surviving Anglo-Saxon porticus refenestrated or, more
probably, a medieval north porch of uncertain date;
but if the latter, it possibly was the last medieval addition made to the nave (see Fig 18.2g), and could have
been specifically for the use of the lay parishioners.
When faced with the rather blank walls of the nave,
the more elaborate fenestration of the chancel is noteworthy, and this is explained by Cambridge as reflecting its special status as housing the choir of the monks
there. Significantly, its closest parallels are with the
refenestration of chancels of parish churches raised to
collegiate status in the 13th century (Cambridge
1992, 165). The development of the fenestration then,
after the period of Aldwins occupation, reflects the
division between the use of the chancel by the two or
three monks and the use of the nave by a chaplain and
The nave (Fig 18.2)

Since nothing of the early nave survives above ground,
and the excavations in the interior of the 19th-century
church only confirmed that the outline of the main
north and south walls was the same as for the AngloSaxon nave (Chapter 13), any interpretation depends
on early drawings. The graphic record is difficult to
interpret because the walls are shown as plastered, but
Grimm shows blocked features in dim outline. In the
central portion of the nave, both Grimm and the Bucks
(Figs 12.4 and 12.7) show three simple lancet windows
high in the walls, which, if any side chambers from the
Anglo-Saxon church had been removed, would have
been above their roof height. These could have been
enlargements or survivals of pre-Conquest windows.
At the east end of the nave, on both the north and
south faces, in the position where the original chancel
JARROW18.QXD
19-01-2007
11:23
254
Pagina 254
Fig 18.2 Suggested successive phases of St Pauls Church. ad. Anglo-Saxon; eg. medieval; h. the British Museum plan;
ij. the 18th century church; k. the 19th century rebuilding. NE
the parish. In Aldwins brief tenure, however, it is possible that the whole church was envisaged as for the use
of the much larger monastic community.
The medieval burial ground

by Pamela Lowther
Introduction
The phasing of the Jarrow burials was set out in the
introduction to the pre-Norman cemetery (Chapter 15
above). The main zone with medieval graves lay in the
western part of the excavated area, south-west of the
church and outside the west wall of the cloister enclosure, extending over the Anglo-Saxon Building A. No
definite limits to the medieval cemetery were found
within the excavation but, as in the Anglo-Saxon period, there appear to have been no burials beyond the
break of slope to the south. It is likely that some of the

undated burials both in this western area and to the
north of the church also belong to this phase; indeed,
north of the chancel at least two burials contain pottery
that is probably of late 11th12th-century date.
Again, the lack of stratified deposits made phasing
difficult, particularly in the western part of the excavated area which lay within the garden of the Victorian
rectory and had more recently been used as allotments.
Post-medieval material was recovered from deposits
right down to the level of the floor of Building A.
The attribution of burials to the medieval cemetery
(Fig 18.3) is therefore largely based upon the date of
material recovered from the grave fills and on their
relationships one to another. For the purposes of this
report, the following categories have been treated as
medieval (total 180 burials; see Ch 15, Table 15.1,
above):
JARROW18.QXD
19-01-2007
11:23
Pagina 255
Fig 18.3 Plan of all in situ medieval burials. PL
JARROW18.QXD
19-01-2007
11:23
Pagina 256
256
those with fills containing pottery sherds of broadly 13th to 14th (B3, n=116) or 14th to 16th
century (B4, n=19) date; in practice, some of these
graves may be even later than medieval and simply
contain residual material.
burials with later 11th to 13th century pottery in
their fills (B2, n=12), as discussed in Chapter 15
above.
burials without datable finds which post-date
Building A (B1, n=33). These are probably postNorman, as there are no corresponding burials
above the east end of Building A nor above
Building B, both of which lie within the medieval
claustral buildings (see Ch 15 above). (Anderson
analysed the twelve burials of this group that were
available to her for study as Anglo-Saxon.)
As explained previously (Ch 15), the unphased

burials (D, E n=92) from the western and northern
part of the cemetery are not included in the numerical
analysis, although specific burials or groups of burials
are mentioned where appropriate. It is evident that this
undated burial group is an amalgam of Anglo-Saxon
and medieval burials. The burials from this unphased
group available to Anderson were classed as medieval
for her analysis.
A handful of almost certainly medieval burials are
recorded as containing tiny amounts of post-medieval
pottery or other finds. It is most likely that these items
are intrusive or were incorrectly assigned to the grave
assemblages after excavation. There are unlikely to
have been any late post-medieval burials in this area, so
close to the Victorian rectory, and the building of the
rectory, its service trenches and garden would easily
account for these later items. The post-medieval material rejected as intrusive is indicated in the burial catalogue (Appendix D); the question is fully documented
in the site archive.
The burials
Skeletal survival and post-depositional disturbance
Nearly three-quarters (72%, 111/154) of the medieval
burials for which data are available were substantially
complete (75100%); the remainder were evenly divided between the lower categories of completeness. In
contrast with the Anglo-Saxon burials, a significant
cause of disturbance was the digging of other graves
(26% of disturbances being definitely caused by another grave, with only 6% non-grave disturbance and 68%
unclassified).
Age and sex composition
The definite medieval burials comprised 104 adults
(62%, 104/168) and 64 subadults (38%, 64/168; Fig
18.4). The sexed adults included almost equal numbers
of males and females: 49% (28 certain + 5 probable/67)
125
100
75
50
25
0
Fig 18.4 Age of medieval burials at Jarrow. PL
Fig 18.5 Sex of medieval burials at Jarrow. PL

being male and 51% (27 certain + 7 probable/67) being
female (Fig 18.5). The subadults included 6 infants, 48
children and 10 adolescents of whom two were tentatively identified as female (1F, 1F?) and five as male
(3M, 2M?). Only one adult could not be sexed, but no
data were available for a further 36 adult skeletons
which were not submitted for anthropological analysis.
Disposition of the body
All of the burials were extended and supine (n=159),
with only limited variation in body posture.
In almost all cases, legs were straight, with the
ankles together, the few exceptions (n=8) generally
being children with legs slightly apart at either the
knees or ankles. One adult male aged 50-60 years
(70/143) who had broken his left tibia and suffered
from osteoarthritis, particularly of the knees had legs
which were rather bowed out at the knees, presumably
due to his condition. The few other examples of anomalous leg positions appear to be due to post-depositional disturbance. In only two cases was the alignment
of torso and legs noticeably different (66/36, 66/107).
A small number of burials (n=8, eg 70/154 and
70/157) had their arms straight and very close in to the
body (parallel; Fig 18.6), with the hands placed on
the top of the thighs or in one case tucked in below the
hips (67/19; not illus). The vast majority (94%,
116/124) had been laid out in a more relaxed position: with the elbows flexed and hands placed either on
the pelvis (n=49) or clasped together (n=11); or with
arms laid alongside the body (n=32); a few had the
hands at the top of the thighs (n=6). Rarely were these
JARROW18.QXD
19-01-2007
11:23
Pagina 257
257
Fig 18.6 Examples of parallel burials. A Burial 70/98 (B3); B. Burial 66/19 (B1); C. Burial 70/157 (B2) (all IS)
arm positions mixed. The few variants include three
burials with one arm bent across the body to the opposite elbow (66/5, 70/17, 70/154); and one with the left
arm bent tightly back up to the left shoulder (65/5).
The relaxed supine burials comprised 71 adults
(65%) and 39 subadults (35%). There were slightly
more females (57%, 27/47) than males (42%, 20/47),
but a significant number of this group were not analysed
(n=24). Among the parallel bodies, however, three
sexed adults were all male (3 ND, plus 2 children).
In 42% of the burials (41/98), the head was facing
straight up; 31% (30/98) faced to the left and 22%
(22/98) to the right. Five skulls had become detached
from the body: two of these had rolled backwards within the grave away from the body, the others were probably moved due to post-depositional disturbance from
other burials.
Grave morphology
All the medieval burials were in simple earth-cut grave
pits, with both rounded and squared ends; some were
quite rectangular, others distinctly oval in plan: the
most certain grave shapes come from the burials which
cut through the opus signinum floor of Anglo-Saxon
Building A. Only a small number of graves (n=10)
contained evidence for deliberately placed stone settings (below).
Dimensions
The recorded width of adult graves (n=31) ranged
from 0.30.6m (12 to 24in.); and their depth
(n=16) from 0.130.43m (5 to 17in.). As with the
Anglo-Saxon graves, these will only be minimum

depths, often simply indicating the point at which a
burial was first recognised. No medieval surface nor
indeed any undisturbed medieval horizon - survived
beneath the Victorian rectory garden. Nearer the
church there were better indications (from the section
at least) of the likely original depth of medieval burials:
here some of the graves cutting the yellow brown stony
clay of the cemetery (4888/4897) were up to at least
0.6m deep; a single grave in this area may have been
0.84m (2ft 9in.) deep (70/157, B2).
Coffins and shrouds
A single grave contained evidence for a wooden coffin
(71/28). This lay north of the church porch and probably belongs to the latest tier of burials there (see also
below); it could well be post-medieval.
Twenty-one graves contained one or more nails, but
in no cases could these be interpreted as remains of a
coffin or cover which had not otherwise survived. Like
those in the Anglo-Saxon burials, they are likely to
derive from the general category of residual building
materials encountered in many of the grave fills (see
below). A small group of possible coffin nails was
found close to burial 70/149, but these were evidently
not in situ.
The eight tightly laid out, or parallel-sided, bodies
(Fig 18.6) and perhaps some of the others with the
hands at the top of the thigh (another 6) might indicate the original presence of a shroud wrapped around
the body (cf Boddington 1996, 13). Only a single possible pin was found, from burial 67/51 (adult F, B2;
Fig 18.7; but see discussion below).
JARROW18.QXD
19-01-2007
11:23
Pagina 258
258
Fig 18.7 Schematic plan showing location of stone features, earth mounds, double burials, possible family relationships and
burials with finds. PL
In the early medieval cemetery at Raunds (ibid,
367), Boddington remarks on the proportion of burials with a disordered appearance to the bones. this
phenomenon of bone movement, which he called
tumbling, was closely associated with parallel-sided
burials. He suggests that bone movement may reflect
the use fo coffins, thus creating an environment which
was conducive to the movement of bones during the
decay of the body, and perhaps is also indicative of a
time delay between death and burial (ibid, 13). At
Jarrow, however, potentially comparable bone movement was noted in only seven medieval burials, six of
which were child burials, and only one of which was
parallel-sided. Little significance can therefore be
attached to these examples, since due to the small
size of the bones child skeletons are perhaps particularly susceptible to disturbance through soil movement
and the actions of animals.
Stone features within graves
Only a small number of burials contained stones that
might have been deliberately positioned within the
grave (Figs 18.7 and 18.8). There appears to be no
particular correlation with age, sex or pathology. The
stones were perhaps rather intended as protection for
the body in the grave, as several could have helped support a cover. The graves in question are:
66/28 (adult ND) had several stones within the

grave, including three around the skull, which
might have supported a cover
70/151 appeared to have seven stones ranged
around the head end of the grave, but it is not certain if these are actually associated with the grave
or coincidental (adult F, 4247 with healed fractures of L hand and OA in spine) Fig 18.8A
a flat slab lay horizontally over the skull of 66/99
(adult ND, B1) Fig 18.8B
a vertical slab stood between the head and left
shoulder of 70/139 (adult M, 2535 with slight
OA) Fig 18.8C
three burials had stones over the right shoulder.
70/154 (adult M 1819, B3) had two stones above
the right shoulder/upper arm; the right arm was
straight, with the hand on groin and the left arm
was bent across the body as if to clasp the right
elbow (Fig 18.8A). 70/86 (Fig 18.8D) had a stone
flag over the right shoulder, as well as another,
smaller stone propping up the skull (child 1112,
B3). 70/157 (child, B2) may also have had a flat
slab above the right shoulder/skull; this grave had
a possible earth mound above it (below).
some large stones lay above the legs of 70/98 (adult M,
B3) which had a healed Potts fracture of the L fibula.
67/11 may have had a group of stone flags above
the foot end of the grave (adult F, 5065, B3, with
Colles fracture of R radius and R ulna styloid
process; and osteoarthritis).
Grave markers and surface features (Fig 18.7)

Grave 70/157 (child, B2, parallel) was distinguished by
an upper fill (4984) which may represent a slumped or
collapsed earth mound marking the burial. Two other
unphased adult male graves nearby had the same feature (70/153 and 70/155). A grave containing later
12th-century pottery (type C1; burial 67/33, adult M,
B2) had a footstone; two unphased graves (66/3, adult
and 65/20, child) each also seem to have had a narrow
JARROW18.QXD
19-01-2007
11:23
Pagina 259
259
Fig 18.8 Examples of stone features. A. 70/154 has a stone above the right shoulder; 70/151 has an arc of stones around the head
end of the grave, although these might derive from a feature cut by the grave; B. 66/99 appears to have a flat slab above skull;
C. 70/139 has a vertical stone between head and shoulder; D. 70/86, stones by the head and over the right shoulder (all IS)
vertical stone just below the feet. Interestingly, all of
these examples could well lie in the early part of the
cemetery sequence for this western part of the site (ie
latest Saxon/early medieval).
Artefacts and other material from grave fills
Seventy-nine per cent (143/180) of the medieval grave
fills contained artefactual material; the remaining 37
were clean of any finds (apart from stray human bone,
or wood in just one case). Apart from finds of pottery,
which formed the main basis of the grave classification,
65% (117/180) of the graves contained some kind of
building materials (eg opus signimum, mortar or plaster,
roof tiles, window glass) in most cases derived from
the remains of Anglo-Saxon Building A, through the
remains of which many of the burials had been cut.
Almost half of the medieval graves (48%, 87/180)
contained pieces of animal bone or shell. A number of
these graves lay above Building A, so it is likely that this
material derives from a midden post-dating Building

A, perhaps associated with the early kitchen area situated at the south-west corner of the cloister (Ch 19
below). Little animal bone was recovered from areas
nearer the church, but shell was present in a number of
graves here.
Three medieval burials contained complete animal
jaws (two of cattle, one pig) which could conceivably
be deliberate grave inclusions (66/33 adult B1; 66/36
adolescent B3, and 67/8 ND, B3); a fourth (pig) jaw
was found in an unphased grave (66/66 adult).
The only burials, all adult females, which appear to
have contained deliberately placed personal items
were as follows (Fig 18.7):
grave 70/112 (adult F, B2) contained a tiny yellow

glass bead (Vol 2 Ch 31.4, B5).
grave 70/35 (adult F, B3) contained a copperalloy buckle of 14th-century date (Vol 2, Ch 31.2,
CA 8).
JARROW18.QXD
19-01-2007
260
11:23
Pagina 260
as already mentioned, 67/51 (adult F, B2) yielded

a small, bent copper-alloy pin (Vol 2, Ch 31.2,
P28). While this might have been used to fasten a
shroud, the pin appears to be a machine-made pin,
probably of 19th-century date, and thus seems to
be intrusive in this context.
Alignment
The majority of burials were positioned with their
heads to the west, in a broadly westeast orientation,
varying between 245 and 300, representing a greater
range of variation than the Anglo-Saxon burials.
Nearly half (46%, 60/130) lay at precisely 270,
aligned with the axis of the church. Adding the
unphased burials does not significantly change the picture. There are notable swings in alignment in certain
places. Near the south-western corner of the cloister
buildings, the burials veer towards the south-west, as if
following around the corner. At the western end of the
excavated area, a significant number of burials veer
towards the north-west. It is tempting to suggest that
this reflects the presence of a cemetery boundary or
some other feature outside the excavated area, as proposed to explain the range and distribution of burial
alignments at Raunds (Boddington 1996, 312).
Spatial and chronological patterns in the use of
the cemetery
The number of graves, the complexity of their interrelationships, and the lack of precise dating evidence
make detailed spatial and chronological patterning difficult to discern. In contrast to the earlier phases of the
cemetery, numerous medieval burials either cut into
other medieval graves or were themselves subsequently disturbed (Fig 18.9). This implies either that the
burial ground was in use throughout the medieval period, or that the area available for burial was relatively
confined or perhaps both. A few key points do nevertheless emerge from examining the plan distribution
of the burials and their stratigraphic relationships.
Clusters, groupings and rows
There are four probable cases of double burials (Figs
18.7 and 18.10): (i) an adolescent (66/16) and child
(66/20) laid right next to one another in a wide grave
pit; (ii) an adult (66/57) with an infant (66/109) buried
alongside its right forearm; (iii) an adult female
(67/35) with an infant of 56 mths (67/39) buried in
the same grave; and (iv) two children (66/81 and 82).
A number of possible familial relationships based
on the presence of congenital anomalies have
emerged from the anthropological analysis (Vol 2, Ch
36):
70/95 (adolescent F, B3) and 70/151 (adult F, B3)

adjacent burials oriented west-south-west both
had detached neural arches
Fig 18.9 Area of intercutting graves in trench 7001

(70/1029394100101). (IS/MS)
67/16 (child, B3) and 67/40 (adolescent M, B1)

both have fused neural arches
70/31 (D) and 70/35 (adult F, B3) possibly identical twins. 35 appears to cut 31, in such a way as to
suggest some time depth between the burials; both
are cut by 70/148.
67/22 (B1) and 67/3 (D) both have detached neural arches; and 67/3 and 67/29 (D) both have cervical rib - all three could be part of a row. 67/29 is a
right-side burial and so almost certainly part of the
pre-Norman horizon (see Ch 15 above).
70/35 (F, aged 5060, B3) may have had a twin
sister in 70/31 (aged 4060, D) on the basis of mirror image non-metric variants. 70/35, however,
appears to cut through the earlier burial 70/31.
As well as these related graves, the discontinuous

distribution of burials in the area above Building A
gives grounds for believing that there may have been a
number of discrete burial plots, at least at certain periods. This effect is most noticeable in the south of the
area, where there are perhaps three separate groups of
adjacent burials in rough rows (see Fig 18.3). Other
similar clusters appear to exist further north, but owing
to the greater density of burials here, this is less certain.
Where excavation has been on a sufficient scale,
rows of graves are a common feature of medieval burial
grounds. At Jarrow, there are several cases of three or
JARROW18.QXD
19-01-2007
11:23
Pagina 261
261
Fig 18.10 Double burials. A. Children 66/81 and 82; B. Adolescent 66/16 and child 66/20; C. Adult 66/57 and infant
66/109 alongside; D. Adult female 67/35 with infant 67/39 (all IS)
more adjacent burials which may well be the remnants
of rows, which could originally have extended further to
the north into unexcavated areas of the graveyard.
Alternatively they are the remains of smaller plots such
as those proposed above. The only potential long row
which survives runs parallel to the West Range wall,
where a line of perhaps 12 graves with their heads
around 5.55.8m [c 1819ft] from the wall are set fairly close together. A further three burials spaced further
apart appear to extend the line round the south-west
corner of the cloister. The alignment of the northern
graves is westeast, whereas those towards the southern
end of this row veer systematically further south-west.

As these latter cut through an early medieval kitchen
area (Ch 19), it is possible that they are later additions
to the row. Again, however, the apparent row may really comprise separate small groups.
Sequences
No precise superpositioning of graves, such as was
noted among the Anglo-Saxon burials, was observed.
Intercutting of graves was, however, relatively frequent,
resulting in disturbance to many of the underlying
burials.
JARROW18.QXD
19-01-2007
11:23
262
Pagina 262
The incidence of intercutting is highest in trench

7001 just to the south-west of the church (eg Fig 18.9).
Here, there were five cases of four tiers of medieval
burials on top of one another, and a similar number of
three-burial sequences was observed, as well as several
instances where one medieval burial overlay another.
The western part of the excavated area lacked such
long sequences, but there were still five cases of three
successive medieval burials and nearly 30 instances of
one burial underlying another. As already noted above,
some of the unphased burials forming part of
sequences are probably also medieval. Due to the lack
of close dating evidence, it has not however proved
possible to resolve the various tiers of burials into clear
separate phases of activity.
Paths and boundaries
While the evidence for rows implies that there must
have been access along lines of graves, there was little
physical evidence for pathways within the burial
ground, apart from just south-west of the church,
where an area of gravel (context 6=5020) may have
been a path leading towards the door at the north end
of the West Range wall.
The only surviving boundaries within the excavation appear to be post-medieval. In the western part
of the area (trench 6701), the remains of a probable
wall foundation running almost northsouth (context
254) post-date a large number of the burials and could
conceivably mark a post-medieval boundary pre-dating
the rectory. It is even possible that some of the burials
which lie to the west of this wall could be contemporary with it, although no grave cuts were visible at the
time the wall foundation was first revealed in excavation, and the graves in question seem more likely to be
medieval. This wall may be the same as one shown in
certain early illustrations of the Jarrow ruins (Appendix
B) which also show early post-medieval tombstones in
the area beyond this wall.
Discussion
As with the pre-Norman cemetery, there is little
archaeological evidence with which to subdivide the
sequence of medieval burials over the four centuries or

more of the cemeterys existence. The continued use of
the graveyard over a long period is shown by the high
incidence of intercutting, but in the absence of close
dating for individual burials it is difficult to group burials chronologically. Up to four tiers of medieval burials
were observed in the area closest to the church, with
two or three successive burials being common across
much of the excavated area. This may suggest that burial plots near the church were particularly prized. It is
likely that medieval burial also took place outside the
excavated area, for example in the largely unexplored
areas of more recent graveyard west and north of the
church.
When the excavated part of the medieval cemetery
ceased to be used is open to question, but the lack of
obviously post-medieval burials south of wall 4872 in
trench 7001 suggests that this area went out of use in
the 15th or 16th centuries, if not earlier. This could
have occurred following the secularisation of the site
after the Dissolution of the monasteries. As noted
above, some of the early drawings of the ruins appear
to show a neglected post-medieval graveyard in the
area further to the south-west, which could indicate
continuity into the early post-medieval period in at
least part of the burial ground.
In general, assuming the cemetery was in
continuous use up until the early 16th century, the
annual incidence of burials (0.4) is not significantly
greater than for the pre-Norman period. Unlike the
earlier period, however, the number of males and
females is virtually equal, representing a significant
increase in the incidence of female burials, and presumably reflecting the changed status of the site in the
post-Conquest period. The proportion of sub-adults,
however, remains constant. As in the Anglo-Saxon
period, nearly half of the burials were aligned precisely
west-east following the church, whereas the remainder
show a greater spread of orientations than previously;
in some places this may be due to the proximity of
boundaries or other features just outside the excavated
area.
The post-medieval burials are summarised briefly
in Chapter 22 below.
JARROW19.QXD
19-01-2007
11:29
Pagina 263
19 The monastic buildings and the Norman and medieval

phase 1 occupation
The standing buildings
such as Bailey (Appendix B21), and since the 19thcentury drawings likewise (Appendix B22 and 23) do
not depict the whole sequence it is possible that the
additional sockets were revealed in the Ministry of
Public Buildings and Works consolidation of the walls.
The opening for the triangular-headed doorway
ww2 is part of the original fabric, and the stones of the
head are set on projecting slightly chamfered imposts
with incised mouldings. There is clear displacement of
stonework around the triangular head which indicates
that it has been reset, and this could have occurred
when the 14th-century window was inserted in the
level above.
The opening ww7 is part of a large two-light transomed window which was set in the west gable of a
room in the later South Range (Fig 12.4 and Appendix
B22 and 23). This may be late 14th century in date,
and is discussed in Chapter 20 below. The window to
the north of this (ww6) may have been part of the original series, but was used as an opening in the 17thcentury cottage, as were ww8 and ww9 which were
probably made when the cottage was built (see Blore,
Appendix B23). The displacements in the lower
stonework to the north can be explained as another
opening shown in Blores drawing.
The east face of the wall is partly obscured by the
later structures which butted up to it (Fig 19.5), but an
offset course at a high level is clearly visible running
behind the cottage wall until it meets the north wall of
the Medieval 2 South Range building, later the south
wall of the cottage (Fig 19.5). The head of the north
door (ww1) shows some signs of disturbance in the
surrounding fabric, but the opening below the imposts
is clearly primary, as is the threshold. The north door
is of two square orders, enclosing a tympanum composed of three stones. A pair of angle shafts support the
abaci of the arch, and these have cubical capitals supported on bases, one of which is cubical and the other
bulbous (see Vol 2, Ch 29.1, and Cambridge 1977,
206), and the door head is made more prominent by
the fact that the fabric of the wall above is recessed.
The sills and jambs of the three early windows (ww3,
ww4 and ww5) are visible facing towards the cloister
interior, and on this face (ww6) appears more clearly
part of the series, although reused later in the cottage.
The half blocked face of the medieval window (ww7)
demonstrates more clearly on this face that it was constructed to look out to the west, while the openings (8)
and (9) can be seen as central to the south room of the
cottage.
Viewed from the west, the interior face of what
seems, from the evidence of the openings and the socket holes, to be a projected West Range of the Norman
foundation, presents some problems in relation to the
To the south of the church, part of the claustral buildings dating to the 11th century survive, and their plan
has been substantially augmented by the excavations,
so that a very complete picture, particularly of
Aldwins work, is now available (Figs 19.1 and 19.2).
It has been assumed at the outset that Aldwin, as a
Benedictine monk from a reformed West Saxon community, would have wished to build according to the
normal Benedictine layout if possible, and the excavated buildings have been named accordingly. Unlike
Wearmouth, the Anglo-Saxon building layout did not
provide a suitable basis for such a plan, and, as noted
above (Fig 16.8), the Norman buildings cut through
the earlier structures.
The standing walls (Figs 19.1 and 19.2)

The standing walls are all constructed with fairly regular sandstone blocks closely similar to the fabric of the
chancel, and consist of Wall 2, the east wall of the West
Range (Figs 19.319.5); Wall 3, the north wall of the
projected South Range (SR1) (Figs 19.619.8); and
the south-east corner of the upper level of the East
Range (Figs 19.1019.11). All of these walls are shown
in a more complete state, together with the west wall of
the East Range, on the Bucks 18th-century painting
and engraving, but these are drawn from an impossible
birds eye viewpoint so that Wall 2 appears more
stunted and the west wall of the East Range more elevated (Figs 1.9 and 12.4). It can be seen from the
above ground evidence that the West Range Wall 2 and
the South Range Wall 3 were bonded together (Fig
19.6), and both seem to have been constructed to full
height, with doors leading into the cloister alleys at
ground level, and upper storeys, of which the lower
portions of windows survive in Wall 2.
The east wall of the West Range, Wall 2

(Figs 19.3, 19.4 and 12.4)
On the west face of the West Range wall (ww) the three
most westerly window settings at the upper level course
in with the walling and face inwards towards the cloister. The north door (ww1) (apart from a modern lintel) is set in undisturbed fabric and is rebated to open
towards the west. There is an offset course which is visible for the length of the wall running three courses
below the lintel, and there are holes on either side of
the door running right through the wall. On a level with
the lintel of the north door is a row of thirteen large
squarish sockets. Only six of these are visible on the
Bucks drawing as well as other 18th-century drawings
263
JARROW19.QXD
264
19-01-2007
11:29
Pagina 264
Fig 19.1 The monastic buildings and St Pauls Church viewed from the south-west, at the end of the excavations. TM
socket holes (Fig 19.3). If these holes are interpreted as
joist holes for a floor level, the lintel of the north door
would have come right up to the ceiling, but at least the
upper floor would have cleared it, while the triangularheaded doorway would have been cut by the floor line.
In addition the windows of the upper room would have
been very high above the floor. There is a further problem as to how any projected West Range would have
joined the church. If the projected West Range had
been the same width as the East Range (30ft/9.14m, see
below), then the west wall would have coincided with
the western buttress of the south porticus, and if the porticus had been part of the original plan then it would
have needed light through its western and eastern faces.
It is possible that the rectangular window shown by the
Bucks in the west face is of Norman date, but with
something so simple it is impossible to assign a close
date. Alternatively, the whole chamber could have been
reconstructed in later phases of building, after Aldwin
and his monks had left for Durham and the site became
a subsidiary of Durham Priory. From the above-ground
level there is no indication of a junction for a west wall,
and, as stated above, the southern corner of Wall 2
turns seamlessly into what was in the Norman plan the
north wall of the South Range (Fig 19.6).
The north wall of the South Range, Wall 3

(Figs 12.4, 19.7, 19.8)
This wall (sw), which has been shredded by openings
of various periods from the eleventh to the 18th
century, was still shown as roofed in 1728 when the
Bucks drew it, although by the last quarter of the 18th
century, when Grimm recorded it (Appendix B19), it
was completely ruined.
On the north face (Fig 19.7), the only opening of the
primary phase at ground level is the imposing blocked
doorway (sw1), which survives from the threshold to the
springing of the arched head. All the voussoirs of the
outer order are gone, but it is possible to see within the
surviving masonry the shape of the curve, and also that
this door had a curved head on both faces. The recessions which must have held the angle shafts are complete, as is the abacus on the west side. This, like the
partially surviving one on the east side, is decorated
with outline mouldings and chequer patterns. It is
therefore formally like the north door in Wall 2 but
more highly decorated. This door had been later
blocked by a chimney and an upper floor cut through at
the level of the abaci. A drawing by Grimm shows a
detail of this feature with an upper floor fireplace still in
JARROW19.QXD
19-01-2007
11:29
Pagina 265
19: THE MONASTIC BUILDINGS AND THE NORMAN AND MEDIEVAL PHASE 1 OCCUPATION
265
Fig 19.2 Key plan of the early claustral buildings showing names of rooms. A MacM
position (Appendix B20). Today only two windows survive, neither of which seem to be those shown in the
Grimm detail, although they are of the same type: sw2
is splayed towards the north face and sw3 is cut straight
through the wall. The irregular patch and opening sw4
and sw5 may represent openings seen at a lower level in
the Bucks records. These do not relate to the floor level
to the east of door 1 and this implies two different
rooms for the building they light. The large hole (sw6)
is impossible to characterise, especially since over the
last thirty years it has been progressively enlarged by
vandals. The patch (sw7) most probably marks the position of a doorway with an angled head shown in the
Bucks drawings and now reset in the south face of the

wall (see below). The cavity (sw8) also probably represents a door opening, shown in the Bucks painting as
leading into a small enclosure against the south face.
On the south face of this wall more of the masonry
is visible and there are two offset courses (Fig 19.8).
The chimney which blocked the Norman doorway is
now, since the excavations, visible to its chamfered
base. This seems to represent an earlier ground level
than the level from which the doorway (sw7) was
entered or the drain debouched at the east end. The
Bucks drawings show adjuncts at the west and east
ends of the south face, but butted against it.
19-01-2007
11:29
Fig 19.3 Elevation of the east wall of the West Range, west face. NE
JARROW19.QXD
Pagina 266
19-01-2007
11:29
Fig 19.4 Elevation of the east wall of the West Range, east face. NE
JARROW19.QXD
Pagina 267
JARROW19.QXD
268
19-01-2007
11:29
Pagina 268
Fig 19.5 East face of Wall 2 (West Range) showing cottage abutting and trench 7605 in course of excavation. TM
A prominent door such as sw1 should have led into
a refectory, with probably an undercroft below, but the
position of this door in the middle of the range is
unusual it being more normal to have the entrance to
the range near to the west end of the room and the west
end of the south alley of the cloister, as at Durham (see
Fig 19.41). If the refectory ran the length of the range,
however, the door would have been centrally placed.
The date at which the door was blocked is not clear
from the surviving fabric, but this is the only opening
in this wall which implies a building to the south. The
other openings are all clearly part of a building, of
which this is the south wall, as it existed into the 18th
century, with the west gable end and 14th-century
window as shown in the early drawings and the north
wall partly surviving in the south wall of the later cottage (see Figs 19.5 and 19.9, and Appendix B43). The
upstanding masonry and the archaeology of this building, which has been labelled The South Cloister
Building (SCB) to distinguish it from the Norman
South Range, is considered below in Chapter 20.
The East Range (Figs 1.9, 12.4, 19.2, 19.1011)

Wall 3 butts up to the west wall of the East Range (Fig
19.2) which at the southern termination at the claustral level still stands to upper floor height with blocked
doorways leading south and west. This part of the fabric has not been drawn but is recorded photographically (Figs 19.1019.11). The east and the south walls
of the East Range are bonded together, and the south
wall of ER5 (Fig 19.11) courses through with the east
wall of the uncompleted South Range, only 30ft
(9.14m) of the south wall of which were completed.
The cavities which run right through the core of the
walling at this level are visible in Fig 19.10, and on the
west face of the East Range wall there is an offset just
below a lower opening, while the scar of a floor level
high up is visible just below the threshold of a blocked
door set in the corner angle. On the opposite face (Fig
19.11) it can be seen that this door led into a passage
with a vaulted ceiling of thin stone slabs, and from this
passage there were openings to the south and west and
possibly the north. The Bucks more clinical engraving
does not show these, but the water colour (Fig 1.9)
shows four openings on the south-facing gable and the
two round-headed openings at an upper and lower
level. Two openings were still visible on the south face
in the 19th century but this corner was much affected
by the building of the church school (Appendix B38).
The lower southern section of the East Range, ER6
and 7, was completed at ground level later (see below),
but the massive piers which presumably carried the
walk to the reredorter over an undercroft are also of the
JARROW19.QXD
19-01-2007
11:29
Pagina 269
Fig 19.6 The south-west corner of the cloister, showing

bonding of walls 2 and 3. (IS)
first phase (Fig 19.13). The two west piers are now
embedded in a wall which has been rebuilt many times
and which in the 19th century divided off the church
site from Jarrow village (Fig 19.14 and Appendix B39
and 40). The function of the non-radial arches visible
in the northernmost section of the west wall where it
adjoins ER5 is discussed below.
For the appearance of the East Range further north
one is entirely dependent on the early drawings. The
engraving by the Buck Brothers (Fig 12.4) records the
lower level of the west elevation of part of this range as
it survived in 1728, and in the detail shown suggests
that it is in origin of Norman date. The original height
of this range and its relationship to the Anglo-Saxon
windows in the church, which it may or may not have
blocked, is not, however, illuminated by this drawing.
The general impression of the openings is nonetheless
consonant with the style of the openings in the existing
west wall. ER1 is provided with a low window or hatch
and a low door with a pointed or triangular head. This
is in the normal position of the transept of a more pretentious church.
The next door south, which seems to have been
exaggerated in size in order to bring it into the Bucks
view, would have led to ER2, which is of the
passage-like proportions befitting a slype. The small
twin arches and the large arch to the south of them
could have been part of the chapter house, since a very
similar arrangement with additional twin arcades to
the south survives at Durham (see below). The rest of
the facade of the East Range is missing from the drawing, with only the gable end of its termination south of
the South Range surviving.
269
There was no evidence for a reredorter running east

from the south-east corner of the East Range as is
common in so many Benedictine houses, but the
topography of this site, with a tidal river to the south,
no doubt encouraged the construction of a reredorter
over this useful flushing device (see Morris, Chapter
21). The southern section of the west wall of the East
Range consisted of two pairs of piers linked by a wall,
3921, at the south, supporting a superstructure on an
arcaded undercroft. The structural and graphic evidence which survives, or survived into the
post-medieval period, confirms that Aldwin planned
an orthodox East Range and completed it in the first
phase.
Before the excavations, then, the standing fabric
and the graphic evidence provided the following information: the cloister enclosure had been built to upper
floor level in one phase and the East Range had apparently been completed as a separate block. A West
Range had been planned with its windows facing into
the cloister garth, but there was no above-ground evidence for the south and west walls. A South Range too
had been planned, probably with an undercroft, but
the wall which could have enclosed the building at the
west, as shown on early drawings, was butted up with
a straight joint against the south-west corner of Wall 3.
The archaeology of the cloister

Wall construction
All of the walls described above were probably built
from stone reutilised from the ruined Anglo-Saxon
buildings, and, as is visible today, there is a marked
resemblance between the neat rounded blocks of the
Eastern Church and those of the standing Norman
walls. Nevertheless, excavation in the many small
trenches whereby the cloister was investigated revealed
a marked difference in construction between the preand post-Conquest walls. The latter are wider, varying
from c 3ft (0.91m) for the robber trenches of the cloister, 3ft 6in (1.07m) for the standing walls of the South
and West Ranges, to more massive foundations of c 4ft
(1.22m) for the East Range and about 6ft (1.83m) for
the short length of foundation for the south wall of the
South Range (Wall J, context 5119; see Fig 19.13).
This demonstrates that the Norman builders increased
the width of the walls according to the gradient and
probably the height needed, since in the angle of the
south wall of ER5 a massive wedge of stonework
packed with yellow clay (1453) strengthened the corner above the slope (Fig 19.18). The yellow clay, which
was deposited to level over the uneven surface of the
robbed Anglo-Saxon walls in the cloister or to support
the foundations of walls against the slope, was something of a chronological marker on the site.
With the exception of the south wall of ER1, all of
the walls were trench-built with the same type of
dressed stone in foundation and superstructure. All
270
19-01-2007
11:29
Pagina 270
Fig 19.7 Elevation of the north wall of the South Range, north face. NE
JARROW19.QXD
19-01-2007
11:29
Pagina 271
Fig 19.8 Elevation of the north wall of the South Range, south face. NE.
JARROW19.QXD
271
JARROW19.QXD
19-01-2007
11:29
272
Pagina 272
Fig 19.9 Plan of rooms d and e which make up the post-medieval cottage. Elevation a/b showing the east face with the stump
of the original north wall of the south cloister building; b/c showing the north face of the cottage. NE
foundations were packed in clean yellow clay. The
foundation trenches were only very slightly wider than
the walls themselves, and varied in depth consonant
with the width, to accommodate the superstructure; so
the west wall of the East Range was c 4ft (1.22m) deep,
while the trench for the cloister arcade was only c 2ft
(0.61m) deep (Fig 19.19). In the standing west wall
there were five courses of stones below the plinth that
seemed, in that area at least, to represent the floor level
and the beginning of the mortared superstructure
(Figs 19.1719.19).
The West Range

The supposition based on the evidence of the standing
walls, as discussed above, that the West Range was
never completed, and indeed that nothing other than
its east wall (Wall 2) was begun even to the construction trench stage, is supported by the excavated evidence. There was no trace of a west wall trench in the
large area excavated west of Wall 2, and the south-west
corner was specifically examined at foundation level in
trench 7103 (Fig 16.44), but there was no trace of an
eastwest wall.
The problem of the relationship to the south-west
chamber/vestry of the nave of St Pauls Church has been
raised above. Excavations in the area where it was estimated to be, in trenches 6501 and 7001, revealed that
the modern wall which runs west from the northern terminus of Wall 3 had been built on an earlier wall which
was attached to a buttress, 5004, with the remains of a
pebble surface alongside it (Fig 19.12). This buttress
cut a potentially pre-Conquest burial and is placed
early in the post-Conquest sequence. Its position

equates well with the western buttress shown against
the south wall of the vestry in the Bucks drawing.
The area to the west of Wall 2 was probably one of
the working areas for the builders both in the Norman
and the later phases of this period. The archaeological
evidence clearly shows continuing occupation and possible building works during the 12th and 13th centuries. The deposits of robbed stone from Building A
have already been mentioned in the previous chapter,
and a considerable amount of early pottery was found
in the disturbed area of the cemetery and gardens over
Building A. A stone-lined pit, 31, which was filled with
stones and a greenish organic deposit and some pottery dated to this phase, could well have been a temporary latrine (Fig 19.12). It is also possibly significant
that the one 12th-century coin found, of Henry II
dated to the mid 1180s, was in the disturbed garden
soil overlying Building A, and the area to the south of
Building A produced a Short Cross type of an uncertain king dated before 1247, as well as a Short Cross
John, dated to about 120018 (see Vol 2, Ch 30.3).
This whole area could have been used by workmen
when the cloister interior and the church and tower
were being reconstructed in the period after Aldwin
and his monks had left and before the records of the
Durham cell begin.
The cloister interior

The order in which the construction took place after
the clearance and levelling of the Anglo-Saxon buildings
is partially obvious from what may be seen above ground,
JARROW19.QXD
19-01-2007
11:29
Pagina 273
273
Fig 19.10 Junction of west wall of East Range and south

wall of South Range viewed from the west, showing opening at upper level above scar for floor joists. TM
Fig 19.11 Junction of South Range and East Range showing openings at upper floor level. TM
but has been clarified by excavation. The cloister was

marked out first, in that the West Range wall (Wall 2)
and the original north wall of the South Range (Wall 3)
are bonded together, as is the surviving section of the
west wall of the East Range. The inner walls of the
cloister alleys, which, as noted above, survived as robber trenches or one level of foundations, must have
been built in the same campaign with matching architectural detail (Cambridge 1977, 26).
A significant amount of loose architectural sculpture was found lying on the site or in the Ministry of
Works store at the beginning of the excavations, and
these pieces have helped in reconstructing the detail of
the cloister (see Vol 2, Ch 29.1). Sufficient numbers of
capitals and bases of the same type as those in the north
door of Wall 2 were available to suggest that the cloister alleys were framed with single and double columns
set on a low wall. None of these survived in situ in the
robbed wall trenches which were usually filled with
rubble, mortar and rubbish, but a few capitals and
bases were found in the cloister in secondary packing
for later walls, for example that of the eastern alley
(Figs 19.20 and 19.21). In places, particularly in the
eastern alley, the lowest level of clay-packed foundations survived, and these, like the more substantial
walls of the ranges, were constructed of reused faced
blocks presumably from the Anglo-Saxon buildings. It
was not easy to distinguish the construction from the
robbing trenches, since very little of the primary
ground surfaces of the cloister survived. Indeed there

had been so much levelling of the surfaces that any
intact foundations surviving from the medieval period
lay just under the modern ground surface (Fig 19.22).
In trench 7104, the corner of the east and north cloister walls was revealed in a small cutting much disturbed
by modern pipework (see Fig 19.12), but a section of
robber trench was located running east to west and this
cut was also identified in 7003 (3847). The line taken
is very close to the projected south walls of the AngloSaxon porticus as shown on the 18th-century plan (Fig
12.5), and so it is possible that the Norman builders
reused the line. The supposition is, then, that in the
Medieval 1 first phase the alleys around the central
space of the cloister were completed.
The occupation evidence in the cloister,

11th to 14th century
In the eroded and disturbed area of the cloister interior it has usually not proved possible to separate out the
evidence of occupation on the site in the 11th century
from that of the three succeeding centuries. For that
reason the blanket term Medieval 1 has been used as
the main period frame, unless a feature is unambiguously of the Norman period. In the area of the western
alley the cloister wall cut the brown soily surface of the
pre-Conquest cemetery. Deposits of stones and mortar
JARROW19.QXD
19-01-2007
11:29
Pagina 274
274
such as 5662 (Fig 19.12), which contain no pottery,

could represent either the building or the robbing of
walls. There is no trace of any surfacing within the
alleys, nor in the western or southern sections of the
claustral interior, although it is possible that some
areas could have been stone paved, but elsewhere there
were patches of dark soil (eg 3814, Fig 19.12) overlying the natural clay, which yielded only medieval pottery, and which might imply that the centre of the
cloister was grass covered. But the surfaces must have
been considerably eroded through time, and usually
any early surface surviving under the post-medieval
levels produces pottery ranging in date from the beginning to the end of the medieval period.
Many of the stakeholes and postholes near the
church in the northern part of the cloister could belong
to the first Norman reconstruction phase and could
represent temporary structures which were put up
before the main stone buildings. They appear on Fig
17.1, but more substantial postholes 3553 in the
north-east corner, 3148 in the south-east corner and
possibly also 4867 in the north-west corner seem to
have been a feature of the early cloister layout (Fig
19.12). Likewise, 6072 and 4059 on the edge of the
cloister walk wall could be part of a construction
process.
The Laver or Lavatorium
The well 4348 has been discussed already in Chapter
17. The surface of stone chippings around it, 4371,
which seem to be contemporary with its first use, had
been sealed by a deposit of earth and mortar,
4395/4365, which represents either collapse material
from the Anglo-Saxon walls, their clearance or the
construction phase of the well. Above this was a deeper deposit of clay, dark earth and stones which may
represent the level from which a structure was built
around the well forming a well-house (Fig 19.12). This
level was sealed by a clean clay surface, 4331, which
pre-dates robbing of the well house and cloister walls
in the next major phase. The building, interpreted as a
laver, survived almost exclusively as robber trenches
(4338, 4339, 3168, 4364) with just a tiny fragment of
extant walling 897, but was clearly part of the Medieval
1a layout since its wall trenches were attached to the
robbed wall of the south alley (Fig 19.12). They varied
in width from 2ft2ft 6in (0.610.76m) and the structure measured 11ft 11ft 9in. internally (3.35
3.58m). The laver was set just west of the centre of the
cloister, although not in the corner of the range as
found on other sites (Fig 19.41).
The well, 6022
In the centre of the cloister garth, the abortive
medieval well, 6022/3632, remains something of an
enigma since its demise is inexplicable unless the
springline changed or it got in the way of other new
constructions. It is centrally placed in the Medieval 1

layout, but off-centre when the western and southern
alleys were removed by the Medieval 2 phase.
Although this well was not excavated to bottom, and its
outline was pieced together from several trenches,
excavated in different seasons, certain features could
be determined: it had a funnel-shaped profile, was
about 11ft (3.5m) in diameter at the top, and the shaft
3638, as far as was excavated, was about 8ft (2.44m)
wide. It was emptied to a depth of about 25.5ft OD or
6ft (1.83m) below the 1970 ground surface. The upper
part of the well appears to have been lined with stones,
3681, but these survived only sparsely, in marked contrast to the smaller well or laver to the south. In fact
there is considerable doubt as to whether it was ever
fully lined, since it is not normal practice for safety reasons to rob the stones of a well shaft. There was a
noticeable amount of silt in the edges of the cut, and it
is possible that its construction should be compared
with the well shaft at Wearmouth, which also was never
lined (Fig 10.7). The primary cut of the Jarrow well
was into the surface of the Anglo-Saxon cemetery,
3685, and the disturbed clay which formed the packing for the shaft, 36789, yielded not only Saxon
debris and human bone but also one sherd of
Newcastle Dog Bank ware (type C1). The lower fill of
the well, 3680, above the primary silt 3686, included
pottery which spanned a range from the 12th/13th to
the 15th centuries (E10, E11b, E11d, E12a).
In summary, the well was probably cut to supply a
source of water for the community during the first
building campaign, and used alongside the laver, in
which case it would have had to be cleaned out and
perhaps stabilised at the top when the reconstruction
of the buildings began again at some time before the
13th century. It still remains a possibility that this well
was built when the cloister was reshaped, although it is
difficult to imagine why it was not then fully lined. If,
however, it had been dug at the outset as a temporary
measure and then abandoned, when a community
occupied the site again the well would have been found
to be full of water and could then have been either
wood-lined or left as it was, until its replacement by
something more sanitary could be effected. A wooden
beam was found in the fill of the well, and some postholes, 3883 and 3880 were possibly part of a superstructure, but since the feature was not emptied to
bottom its early phases of use were not fully explored.
A stone-lined drain, 3590, which led away to the east
of it, may have supplied water to another laver after the
one to the south had gone out of use. No traces of piping for water from the well were, however, discovered.
The upper deposits of clays, sands and rubble which
filled and sealed off the shaft all contained some pottery which has been dated 14th to 16th century, indicating that it could have lasted in use until nearly the
end of the life of the cell. It is seen therefore as a feature of both the early and the later claustral layout.
Whenever the well went out of use, presumably the
JARROW19.QXD
19-01-2007
11:29
Pagina 275
275
Fig 19.14 West wall of ER6 and 7, with east wall and pier 1482 in the foreground. TM
Fig 19.15 Elevation of the west wall of the East Range, southern part: east face. NE
existing stone-lined well (Figs 12.2 and 14.2) which

lies in the gap between trenches 7003, 7004 and 7104,
superseded it and was used until domestic occupation
ceased in the cloister area in the 20th century.
At a later phase, however, the west and south alleys
were destroyed and filled in before the construction
of a new building in the south of the cloister interior.
The infilling of the robber trench of the west cloister

alley (context 293) contained a cut Long Cross halfpenny, current 124779 (Vol 2, Ch 30.3, Nu36), and
a considerable amount of pottery all of which could
have been deposited before the mid-14th century,
although one sherd of Oxidised Buff White ware
(E11e) has a date range of 13001500.
276
19-01-2007
11:29
Fig 19.16 Section below west wall of East Range, showing Norman piers 1150 and 3797, and cross-wall 1148. NE
JARROW19.QXD
Pagina 276
JARROW19.QXD
19-01-2007
11:29
Pagina 277
277
Fig 19.17 Foundations of Norman West Range wall. A. showing plinth (left). B. Lower foundations (right) (IS)
The South Range

As previously noted from the evidence of the standing
walls, only the north wall and the south-east corner of
the South Range was completed in the Norman campaign. Walls V (5124), which would have served as the
east wall of the refectory, and J (5119), the south wall,
are bonded together, and butt jointed to Wall 3 (5125)
because they were constructed as an integral part of
the East Range (Fig 19.11). It seems likely that this
method of building was adopted in order to strengthen
the difficult corner at the top of the slope. The foundations of Wall J were 6ft (1.83m) wide and excavation
revealed that they extended westwards for c 23ft
(7.0m), but no foundation trench continued further
west, although the area to the north had been excavated and flattened for the floor of the undercroft (Figs
19.10 and 19.13). The construction trench for Wall J
(5108) was very narrow, like all the Norman walls, and
it was cut on the north side by a wider, irregular linear
feature (1796, 1772, 1524) filled with earth, large
stones and rubble. Since this feature is immediately
below a crack in the superstructure, it is interpreted as
an inspection pit hastily filled in when the extent of the
crack which goes right through the foundations was
discovered (see Fig 19.23). Whether this inspection
was made in the first phase of occupation, before the
buildings were modified or immediately before the
construction of the outshut building is impossible to
tell; certainly it preceded the first phase of these structures, since it underlay Wall 6 (5120) which is considered below as a secondary feature. A large pit 1753,
centrally placed between the northern and southern

wall lines, and a stone-packed posthole 1736 are possible remnants of the first (Norman) construction phase.
The South Range adjunct building

Phase 1b
At a time when it was decided that the original concept
of the South Range could not be completed, probably
once it was decided that only a small community
would occupy the site, a northsouth wall (Wall 6,
5120) was erected between Walls 3 and J (Fig 19.13).
This new wall, which was 2ft 6in. (0.76m) wide, divided off an area of some 8ft (2.44m) at the east end of
the range. The position of this was probably determined by the western limits of the upstanding masonry of Wall J (Fig 19.10).
This structure (SR1) could have been either a single
unit or possibly two units (see Figs 19.13 and
19.2426), SR2 and SR3: the more northerly measuring c 7ft 6in. by 7ft 6in. (2.29 by 2.29m), and the more
southerly 17ft by 7ft 6in. (5.18 by 2.29m). The wall
which divided them, Wall H (5122), abuts both Walls 6
and V, but it could conceivably be an original feature: it
cut the same level of brown clay (5096) as Wall 5120,
and it had deeper foundations and is stratigraphically
earlier than Wall I (5123), and the layers within SR2
could all post-date its construction. An entrance
appears to have been made to serve this adjunct through
Wall V, which is contemporary with a reflooring of ER5
JARROW19.QXD
278
19-01-2007
11:29
Pagina 278
The kitchen area (Fig 19.13)
Fig 19.18 The massive clay and stone foundation 1453 at

the south-east corner of ER5. (IS/MS)
and possibly its change to a different domestic use (see
below). The construction of this adjunct is then tentatively assigned to period Medieval 1b.
The earliest deposits within this area may be associated with the building of these structures: brown clay
mortar and rubble in SR2 (1768), which yielded
11th/12th- and 13th/14th-century pottery (one sherd
each of D12 and E11a), and mortar and brown earth
(5093 and 1759) in SR3. Clay 1780 may represent the
floor of SR2. A patch of pinkish clay (1734) which yielded three sherds of 13th/14th-century pottery (E11b)
could have been the first flooring of the southern part of
SR3, while the northern part of the room contained a
deposit of charcoal, 1757, followed by an area of roof
tiles (5127) laid as flooring. These deposits are very
clean and give no idea of the function of the room,
although the stone-tiled floor and the drain
(1756/1776), might imply that it had some sanitary
function, connected with the openings in the upper floor
walling above. SR3 was presumably entered from the
west, although no trace of an opening could be detected
since Wall 5120 only survived at foundation level.
A shallow gully or drain, 1776, running
northsouth within room SR3 (Fig 19.25), must be
connected with activity of this phase (albeit perhaps at
the end of the phase) since it pre-dates the insertion of
a later dividing wall (5123) which subdivided SR3. Its
function is uncertain, but as its infilling yielded later
medieval pottery (dated up to 1350) in 1776 and a
sherd of E13 (1375), in 1756, it may have continued
to operate into the next phase although it is uncertain
how the drain would have functioned once Wall 5123
had been constructed; it is therefore shown on the later
phase plan (see Chapter 20 below).
The excavation for the undercroft floor was not completed to the west end of the South Range, and in that
area, the platform utilised in the earlier phase for
hearths and cooking seems to have continued in use
throughout the Medieval 1 phase. A large hearth area
with several areas of firing was excavated in trench
6302. This took the form of heavily burnt patches of
clay (85, 6209, 6210 and 6211) with deep deposits of
charcoal and ash that had built up on them (92, 94 and
86; see Fig 16.42). The lowest clay base had been set
on the broken pieces of an Anglo-Saxon millstone (see
Vol 2, Ch 34.2). Layer 92 contained no pottery; 94
contained one sherd each of unclassified early medieval
pottery (C/D), Fine White ware (D22, 1150-1300)
and Oxidised Gritty ware (E10, 1075-1300); 86,
which was a deposit prolific in pottery, also contained
fabrics dated late eleventh/twelfth, but the bulk was of
types dated 13th/14th century, with just one sherd of
Oxidised Green ware (E13) dated late 14th/16th
century. The surface of this deposit had been contaminated by the gardening activities above and contained
three sherds of 18th-century pottery. This assemblage
is important in providing what may be seen to be a
kitchen area in the customary position in a Benedictine
plan, at the south-west corner of the West Range,
which was abandoned by the mid-14th century (see
discussion of the East Range).
How this kitchen was roofed is more difficult to
demonstrate. To the south of the hearths was a band of
truncated, but obviously recut, postholes and post
impressions 6086, which had been cut by the re-terracing of the area in the Medieval 2 or Early PostMedieval period. They may, however, be the remnant
of the south wall of a timber offshut building, perhaps
of cob construction, and it is possible that a timber
west wall was missed in the unexcavated area between
6302 and 7601 and 7802 to the west. Wall 2A could
perhaps have been part of this putative kitchen in the
post-Norman phase of occupation and indeed if the
few facing stones, 6231, further south which lie over
the stone pad 6224 represent its southern termination, then this is on line with the abortive south wall of
the Norman range. The section of wall 2A (5320)
which survives on the upper terrace, was still a visible
feature in the landscape into the early 19th century
(see Appendix B22, 23, 25, 26) and may possibly be a
later rebuilding in the early post-medieval period, since
it seems to continue in a narrower robbed wall trench,
and if it is the same wall as seen in section in 7103 (Fig
16.43A), it is more like a stone support for a timber
superstructure. It can be seen to be later than the
Norman walls since it butts up against the south-west
corner of Wall 2 (see Fig 19.2). It is sealed by a
deposit, 614, which contains pottery spanning the
medieval phases only. This wall, therefore, may have
been initially part of the Medieval 1 kitchen, and could
have been half timbered.
JARROW19.QXD
19-01-2007
11:29
Pagina 279
279
Fig 19.19 East section of trench 6703 showing South Range Wall 5 cutting the path between Buildings A and B and deposits
of clay over the debris of the Anglo-Saxon buildings. LB
Fig 19.20 Norman capital and base reused as bedding for

Medieval 2 Wall 4040. (IS/MS)
Fig 19.21 Norman capital used as packing for wall trench

of 4040. (IS)
The southern perimeter and slope
seems to have remained in use probably up to the

Norman occupation and to have been carefully filled in
(see Fig 17.2).
There seem to have been at least two major
episodes of clearance and reconstruction on the site
between the Norman settlement and the stable occupation of the cell. In the Medieval 1a phase, the Late
Saxon/Early Medieval cutting 3689 was infilled by a
series of deposits which were difficult to disentangle
and may not have been sufficiently distinguished
(2376, 2377, 2380 and 2372). As already mentioned
(Chapter 17), the sequence contained Anglo-Saxon
building debris, food waste, and a large amount of pottery which included most of the early types found on
the site (D1 Permian Yellow Sand ware; D2, D3, D5
To the south of the kitchen area, all along the lower terraces there are dumps of rubble, charcoal, ash and
dark soil which may be part of the same pattern of rubbish disposal as noted in the Late Saxon/Early
Medieval phase. Drainage channels such as 2647 and
2645 (Figs 19.27 and 19.13) were recut and there are
a scatter of pits such as 593, and dumps such as 6200,
across the whole of the south slope. Over the west end
of Building D, a faint outline of its western terminus
persisted in the clay deposits (eg 2141) which had been
laid down to level up the ground to the south of Wall J
in the Norman building campaign. As mentioned in
Chapter 17 above, the western end of the building
JARROW19.QXD
280
19-01-2007
11:29
Pagina 280
Fig 19.22 Cloister excavations in trenches 6901 and 6902, showing (right to left) the robber trench of the west wall of the
East Range; the Medieval 2 cloister walk wall; and the robber trench of the first cloister walk wall. (IS/MS)
early grey wares; D7 Durham White ware; and early
medieval local types D8, D11D15, all of which date
to a period c 1075 to 1200). There were, however, several sherds of later types: E13, E18, and E19, which
may represent the final levelling of the feature. This
deposit seems to represent the clearance of rubbish
that must have accumulated elsewhere on the site. The
pottery profile of the deposits in the perimeter cut is
quite different from the fills of the cloister wall trenches, and probably represents debris from the Norman
occupation and a period of reconstruction in the
12th/13th century.
Phase 1b
Fig 19.23 Crack in Wall J, south wall of South Range,

and inspection pit 1524 along north face. (IS/MS)
The infilled cut, 3689, was then cut through by a substantial pit, 3688 (Fig 19.13), which was sufficiently
deep to have removed some stones from revetment
3713 which pre-dated Building D. After the pit had
started to become infilled with brown mortar-flecked
JARROW19.QXD
19-01-2007
11:29
Pagina 281
soil (2382) and a tip of charcoal (3719), it may then

have lain open for a time, and perhaps to have functioned as a drain or soakaway, since the middle fill was
a thick layer of silt, 2381 (Fig 16.51), again followed by
a layer of charcoal. The middle and upper fills of the
pit contained a quantity of high quality rubbish, mainly of 13th-century date. Silty fill 2381 contained vessel
glass (GlV M18), a copper-alloy rivet (CA191) and an
amber seal (S1), as well as building debris and pottery
ranging in date from the early medieval period to the
13th/14th centuries, with one later and probably intrusive sherd. The upper fill 2378 yielded a copper-alloy
bell (CA147), padlock (CA139) and vessel rim
(CA153), as well as lead and animal bone, again with
the majority of pottery centring on the 13th to mid14th century, but with a few potentially later sherds. If
the earlier dates of these ranges are accepted, the final
infilling date need be no later than c 1350.
Immediately to the north of the pit was a deposit of
loose brown sand and mortar 1994 which ran as far
north as the pier base in the adjacent East Range wall,
and may reflect an episode of repair or reconstruction
in the west wall of ER7. It is thought that 1994 also
sealed the pit or was the equivalent of its upper fill, but
because of the division between the different years
excavation trenches, this relationship is not definitely
demonstrable, nor is the correlation between 1994 and
likely equivalents further south. Here the pit was clearly sealed by a horizon of a light brown soil with mortar
and coal inclusions (2369/2855; see Fig 16.51) which
contained food debris, building debris and iron. Both
this and 1994 contained pottery of similar types to
those in the pit, mainly of 13th14th century date,
again with a few potentially later sherds. This appears
to be the level from which the cut, 3705, for the first
stone phase of the boundary wall (Jarrow Slake Wall 3)
was made (see Fig 16.62, and Chapter 21 below).
Above, a deposit of brown clay with mortar and rubble, 2370=2858, levelled up over the surface of the former pit. This deposit included pottery types E13 and
E19, which puts it into the Medieval 2 phase (see
below).
Med 1b/2a
Two stone-lined drains (Fig 19.13) were inserted into
the slope, the eastern one (1967) post-dating the levelling of pit 3688 and layer 2370. There are some hints
that the western drain (1979) may have been constructed from a slightly earlier level but the records are
insufficiently detailed. A layer of silt, 2013, in the base
of the western drain contained two sherds of pottery,
the later one dated 13th to 14th century (E11a). The
fills of the eastern drain (1965, 2368, 2371) contained
pottery types ranging in date from the 11th/12th to
14th/15th century. Both drains had subsequently lost
most of their capping stones, and the finds almost certainly largely relate to times when the drains were starting to fill up. The fills of the more disturbed western
281
Fig 19.24 The South Range adjuncts looking south: Wall

6 runs south from Wall 3 to join Wall J; remains of later
floor surface in SR5 at the south; SR4 in the centre as
infilled at the end of the medieval period; the later SR7 in
the foreground. TM. (IS/MS)
drain in particular (1869, 2384) contain both later
medieval and post-medieval pottery. The western
drain appears to have continued to the north, a little to
the west of the south range adjuncts, as 5079/1504
(not on plan, again early post-medieval in fill); it may
have been connected with an early phase of the South
Cloister building (see Chapter 20 below).
The eastern drain (1967) is on line with the outlet
from the south-west corner of ER5, and seems to be
part of the reshaping of ER5, when the Medieval 2
stone oven was planned (see below); it has therefore
been allocated a transitional phase between Medieval
1b and 2a. The outlet from the south wall of ER5,
which resulted in the skewed angle of wall 1106, and
perhaps also the evidence for silting in pit 3688, could
indicate that there had been an earlier drainage channel on this line. Indeed, some vertical stones on the
western edge of this drain may be the remnants of such
an earlier feature.
JARROW19.QXD
282
19-01-2007
11:29
Pagina 282
Fig 19.25 The South Range adjuncts looking north: with Med 1b drain in SR3 and the later, Med 2 wall 5123 cutting it
and abutting Wall V. TM. (IS/MS)
Both drains continued in some form of use
throughout the medieval period, although the construction of the boundary wall, Jarrow Slake Wall 3,
would have impeded their function unless special outlets had been cut through it.
The East Range (the dorter) (Fig 19.28)

The East Range was excavated piecemeal over a period extending from 1969 to 1978, and the deposits
inside the rooms are vestigial and difficult to disentangle, involving as they do many episodes of activity.
Moreover, floor coverings of the earlier periods had
been removed in the rooms which fronted onto the
cloister. Nevertheless since this is the only area of the
medieval site where rooms can be identified and
where functions, at least in the planning stage, have
been determined, it seems useful to discuss the range
room by room, as was done in the summary of the
structural and graphic evidence already presented
above. From this it could be deduced that this range,
together with the cloister, was the only substantial
building completed before the community was moved
to Durham in 1083, perhaps because it traditionally
housed those rooms most essential to the proper conduct of monastic life. Excavation showed that the west
and east walls of the building had been very substantially robbed when the 19th-century school was built
in this part of the cloister (see Figs 12.1 and 14.1),
and some of the room divisions were also partly

robbed out, but the plan of the building was nonetheless unambiguous.
ER1 (possible Sacristy)

The north wall of this structure was presumably
formed by the church. The south wall, 4225, had been
divorced from its relationship with the west wall of the
East Range by a pipe trench, 4216, and the presumed
junction with the east wall of the range was not excavated. It is interpreted therefore as a part of the East
Range because it was not traced further west and
because it makes sense in the plan. Its foundations
were of large river cobbles like the Anglo-Saxon walls,
and there was a mixture of white and yellow mortar
within its shallow robber trench. It is therefore just
possible that this was a Saxon wall reused. The construction trench seems to cut the brown clay surface
4289 (no pottery), which covered some of the Saxon
cemetery, while the disturbed clay 4221 north of the
wall also contained Saxon features such as stakeholes
and burials as well as a sherd of Early Gritty Green
ware (E12a) and must be a truncated occupation
deposit. No traces of flooring survived apart from two
small patches of stone flags, 4231 and 4284, set in
brown soil and mortar (Fig 19.12), and there was no
indication of the position of an entrance. A few features might belong to this phase: two postholes/small
JARROW19.QXD
19-01-2007
11:29
Pagina 283
283
Fig 19.26 Possible sequence of building of the South Range adjuncts. LB

pits filled with small stones and charcoal, 4226 and
4227, were noted as cutting the pre-existing clay surface (see Fig 17.1). Two slots ran parallel to the wall,
4251a and b; these had a brown organic fill and included a small fragment of Saxon glass, so that if they are
not Anglo-Saxon in date (Fig 16.4) they might have
supported some fitment for the room. The fill of the
robbed wall trench of 4225 (4290) contained one fragment of glass that may be 18th century in date but
could be earlier. It is just possible therefore that this
wall and the room which it enclosed were demolished
before the rest of the East Range.
ER2 (Slype)
Very little of the interior of the passage was excavated
since it had been largely destroyed by a modern manhole and drain, and a section of it lay in the baulk
between two trenches, while the south wall of the
structure was only just inside trench 7006. The wall
trench 4041, like the west-facing wall of the range, cut
a yellow clay layer (4003) which sealed the AngloSaxon cemetery. The surface of this clay contained
much Anglo-Saxon building debris and early medieval
pottery including a sherd of Northern Gritty ware
(D4), one of Newcastle Dog Bank ware (C1) and
eleven sherds not positively identified.
ER3 (Chapter House)

The western wall of the range, which up to this point
was robbed of all stone except in two isolated patches,
had been left with a facing of stones on the west of the
construction trench (Fig 19.28), perhaps to stabilise
the wall of the Victorian school which ran alongside it,
which had utilised the stone from its robbed walls.
At this point also the East Range wall ran directly

alongside the east wall of the Anglo-Saxon Building B
from which the stone had originally derived. The east
wall of the East Range had also been thoroughly
robbed, apart from its west face and a short length of
foundations left intact beneath the school porch (Fig
19.29). This enabled one to see that the full width of
the foundations was 4ft 9in. (1.45m) with a depth of
more than 5ft (1.52m).
The area inside the building revealed a sequence of
complex deposits above the Late Saxon occupation.
Layers of mixed yellow clay seem to have been deposited over the entire area, and these, such as 4003 and
3178, contained pottery spanning the medieval period.
These clay deposits probably originated at the time of
the Norman construction, but must have supported
the floors for the room from its construction through
to the last medieval floor which survived as a mortar
spread, 4450, and which is discussed in phase 2
(Chapter 20 below). It is therefore not possible to differentiate the earliest occupation deposits and to isolate not only early events but early features, since the
floors have clearly been removed. Patchy surfaces of
burnt clay survived (3132, 4001), and into these surfaces many intrusions had been cut. Burnt area 3131
would seem to be an early deposit, but many of these
features appear to belong to the period of a more
domestic occupation of the range and may have been
cut from the subsequent horizon of the burnt deposits,
which are dated by their pottery to the later, Medieval
2, phases of use. It is indeed possible that all traces of
the initial occupation of the chapter house in its original function and use have been lost.
Certain structural features may reasonably be
assigned to the first period of use, however. 4012,
which was a neatly squared and finely chamfered stone
JARROW19.QXD
284
19-01-2007
11:29
Pagina 284
against the robbed wall trench of the south wall or have

been cut by it (Fig 19.12). A rectangular feature, 3298,
within these slots is also backed up to the south wall
(see Fig 17.1) and may be contemporary.
ER4 (day stairs)
Fig 19.27 Drainage channel 2645 and dumps of dark soil

at the south of the slope. (IS/MS)
setting with good diagonal tooling had been set into a
large stone-packed pit bonded with clean yellow clay. It
is exactly central to the room both northsouth and
eastwest and may have held a central column or other
form of roof support. On the same northsouth alignment about 12ft (3.66m) to the north was an equally
deep cavity filled with clean yellow clay and pebbles,
4014, but the feature which this contained had been
removed and replaced at a later date by 3997. Setting
4014 may have displaced an Anglo-Saxon drain, hence
its very deep foundations. Twelve feet (3.66m) south of
4012 is another stone setting, 3244, marked with the
same fine tooling as 4012, but of a circular chamfered
form with a rectangular central hole (Fig 19.30). If it
forms part of a series with 4014 and 4012 then it is a
strangely aberrant shape and seems to be reused, having originally been designed as a grindstone. It is not
uncommon to discover stone in secondary use in
medieval buildings, and it was certainly functioning as
a support at the last phase of use of the building when
a mortar floor was laid (Chapter 20 below). While it is
possible that each of these sockets may have supported
furnishings, in view of their alignment it seems more
likely that they supported the upper floor of the room.
Only about half of the northernmost section of this
room was excavated, and the eastern area might have
provided evidence for the normal furnishing of a chapter house the benches and abbots seat, although if
such fittings existed against the east wall of the room,
all evidence would have been destroyed by the 19thcentury school wall. Alternatively the seating might
have been against the north or south walls. The only
feature which could be a candidate as a setting for a
large piece of furniture is 3135 two strange lengths of
slightly curving gully which are either backed up
Two completely robbed wall trenches, 3217 and 3033,

represented the north and south walls of this narrow
room. The north wall, 3217, was the narrower, being
only 2ft 6in (0.76m) at the base and with a foundation
trench 3ft deep (0.91m). The construction trench
seems to have been cut from 3178 a layer of mortarflecked brown clay, which appears to represent an
accumulation of surfaces from the Anglo-Saxon into
the early medieval periods. There are no layers or
deposits which can be unambiguously assigned to the
Norman or earliest Medieval 1 occupation, but a
northsouth wall 4405 is plausibly of this phase, since
it cuts the Saxon level 3285, and is sealed by 3252,
which contained one sherd of Tyneside Buff White
ware (E11a). It seems therefore plausible to link this
with the other robbed Norman walls. Wall line 3398
further west may also be contemporary, but the area
surrounding it was so heavily disturbed that it cannot
be closely placed in the stratigraphic sequence.
If Wall 4405 is seen as the support for a flight of
stairs, then this area would not plausibly have accumulated much debris in the first phase; it was put out of
use when the pebbly layer 3252 was deposited (not on
plan). Above it was a greenish organic layer with a
deposit of charcoal on its surface (4408) containing a
good deal of animal bone, and the texture of the deposit
could indicate that this small area had been used as a
latrine at one stage and for rubbish disposal at another.
ER5 (warming house/kitchen)

This room had been severely disturbed by the Victorian
school outhouses and latrines; it was also excavated in
four separate trenches (6904, 7008, 7106 and 7503)
which made the correlation of deposits between seasons
and the establishment of relationships extremely difficult. This was the most southerly room in the East
Range, at the point where it abuts the claustral enclosure, and special pains had been taken by the builders
to counteract the thrust of the sharp break of slope
along the line of the south wall. A levelling area of
mixed yellow and brown clay, 1438, had been deposited after construction, covering the earlier cemetery
(1454), the surface of which had been levelled, and
some fragments of gravestones were incorporated into
the later buildings of this area (see Vol 2, Chapter 28.4).
Across the south of the room and running at an angle
to the south wall of the room was a massive wedgeshaped foundation, 1453 (Figs 19.13 and 19.18). It cut
the brown clay surface of the late Saxon period, 4631,
and had a faced northern edge of the same neat rounded stones as the rest of the Norman work, and rubble
JARROW19.QXD
19-01-2007
11:29
Pagina 285
packed into disturbed clay behind. On the western edge

it butted against the plinth of the south wall about 5ft
(1.52m) from the western corner, but was then packed
against the internal face of the south wall, 1481.
The junction with the east wall was unfortunately
cut away by a large post-medieval pit, 1070. Only a
small section of this foundation was excavated to bottom, but this sondage demonstrated that it consisted of
four courses of clay-bonded stones overlaid by a course
of stones in which the clay was mixed with a substantial amount of mortar. This presumably represents a
layer laid during the construction of the superstructure
of the building which at this point was of considerable
height. Alternatively this fifth course may have once
supported a mortared superstructure, since elsewhere
there are five courses of clay-bonded foundations
under the mortared walls. A feature of this type could
perhaps have supported stairs, but if there was an
intention to provide a superstructure it was not long
sustained. A hole in the south-west corner, 1444,
which was filled with clean rubble and covered by a
large stone flag (6119), may represent a feature which
had served in the construction campaign (phase 1a)
and then was backfilled on completion, or which may
have been part of the projected structure, like a newell
post. The foundation and the wall footings were sealed
with a layer of yellow-brown clay, 1113, which contained five sherds of late 11th/12th century pottery,
one with a thermoluminescent survey date of AD
1030150 (see Vol 2, Ch 33.2, D8.1; and Appendix
G, JA/TL/21/2), and one sherd of Low Countries Grey
ware (G13, 1350-1500) which is presumably intrusive
from one of the many later features here.
The narrow construction trench for the western
wall of the room was revealed cutting 1454, and its
internal plinth was visible under the yellow brown clay
1438, which levelled up the interior of the room.
Within the thickness of the west standing wall two horizontal channels one transverse and one longitudinal
were revealed (Fig 19.28). These were about 1ft
(0.30m) square, and one exit survives above ground in
the south face of the wall (Fig 19.10). They were wide
enough for a thin child to crawl through and by this
means four sherds of Durham White ware (D7.4) and
some animal bone were retrieved from them (1440)!
The function of these wall channels is not clear; they
may have been conceived as drainage channels for the
walls, but there are other holes through the west wall of
the cloister which are hardly explicable in these terms.
Richard Morris has suggested that they may be chases
for timber reinforcement like those in the structure of
York Cathedral (c 1080) and some of the late 11thcentury fabric at Richmond castle (pers comm;
Phillips 1985, 6190).
The problems of where access may have been
gained to ER5 remain throughout its history of use. It
seems reasonable to suppose that there was originally a
door in the north-west corner to provide access into
the cloister. There is also a slot, 1338, marking the
285
Fig 19.29 Robber trench of the east wall of the East

Range, looking south: the facing stones of the west side
below wall of Victorian school; a short length of the foundations had been left intact below the school porch. (IS)
Fig 19.30 Floor of ER3, showing circular column base

3244 and remnants of burning and plaster flooring. (IS)
threshold of a blocked doorway, and a posthole 3329,
which was inserted in the west wall of the room; this
presumably provided an entrance to the first phase of
the South Range adjunct SR1 (above). In addition,
there is apparently evidence for a south door (see front
cover and discussion of ER6, pp 287 and 305).
JARROW19.QXD
19-01-2007
11:29
Pagina 286
286
Fig 19.32 ER5 from the east. Stone hearth 1417 and later
hollow (hearth pit?) 4638 edged with stones 4636 and
4637. (IS/MS)
Fig 19.31 ER5, phase 1. PL

The surface of the room had been cut by many features and had been covered by several deposits during
its earliest phases of use, which seems to span a period
from the 11th to the late 13th century (Fig 19.31). All
the features described below were sealed by major levelling deposits, 1281 and 1282, the latest date of which
from the pottery evidence is the late 14th century, but
they represent several sub-phases of activity. Four substantial postholes, 1344, 1339, 1087 and 3200, were
perhaps part of a construction phase (Fig 19.31). A
patch of stone flagging (1437) of what seems to have
been the primary flooring or a stone setting survives,
but elsewhere parts of the surface had been burnt
(1458), particularly around 1322, a stone feature
which was probably a hearth. 1322, which incorporates a reused stone with a hole or socket, was covered
with charcoal which produced some pottery dated to
the 13th to 15th centuries, presumably representing its
last use. The areas of flagging presumably represent
the patchy survival of an originally more extensive if
not continuous flagged floor. To the north-east of
this and central to the room was a rectangular pit,
1436, which was filled with rubble and mortar, and is

presumably a structural feature (Fig 19.31). Another
setting, 1435, alongside it may have supported a minor
structure, although it was removed in the next phase.
An irregular area of rubble and brown soil, 1281, south
of setting 1436, may represent an attempt to level up
the floor surface in the centre of the southern part of
the room. A small stone feature, 4628 (Fig 19.13), at
the south of the room was also surrounded by burning,
as was the stakehole complex, and some of the stakes
cut the burned surface. Posthole 1323 contained a
sherd of early medieval pottery (D12, 1075-1200). It is
difficult to decide upon a function for the plethora of
stakeholes found on the floor of this room (Fig 19.13),
although they might have held some wattle structures.
A gully, 1457 (Fig 19.31), in the north section of the
room, which had been truncated by later features, also
seems to belong to this primary medieval phase.
This gully lay below a stone hearth or oven 1417,
with which it may nonetheless be contemporary, if it
functioned as a flue or stoke hole (Figs 19.3132). The
hearth or oven was tucked into the north-west corner
of the room, still allowing some access to the door in
the west wall. The cut 3220 represents the construction of the north edge of the hearth; its fill yielded one
Anglo-Saxon sherd (G1) and two sherds of medieval
pottery (D4, 11501200 and E11b, 12001350).
Immediately north of the hearth was a sub-rectangular
scoop or hollow 3221, which may either have been created by the wearing away of the floor inside the proposed entrance to the room from the cloister alley, or
have been a working hollow. Its fill contained two
sherds of Later Green ware (E12b, 1375) as well as
earlier sherds, suggesting a degree of later disturbance.
In the southern part of the room, a layer of dark organic soil, 1337 (which contained one sherd of C1 pottery,
10751200), either represents occupation of the room
or a period of disuse at the end of this phase.
ER5 then seems to have been comprehensively
remodelled (Medieval 1b, ER5 phase 2; Fig 19.33). A
fairly extensive deposit or series of tips of mortar and
JARROW19.QXD
19-01-2007
11:29
Pagina 287
287
3150 and 3155, seem to belong to this phase of activity, although one may have replaced the other. Pit 3150
must have been disturbed by later activity as it contained a single sherd of 18th-century pottery; 3155
contained a sherd of E10 (10751300).
If, as suggested in the introduction to this section,
this would have been the normal place for a warming
house in the Benedictine House, then the presence of
so much burning and possible hearth debris is not surprising. It possibly continued in use as a living room in
the period before the refounding as a Durham cell,
although the deposit of dark organic soil (1337) in the
south of the room may represent a period of disuse.
Alternatively this may reflect an episode of domestic
use, probably in the 12th century, which seems to be
reinforced by the presence of the hearth/oven towards
the north of the room. This initial phase of occupation
of this room was brought to an end when the surface
was covered by a series of tips of brown mortar, clay,
and rubble (1282) with its new hearths. The Medieval
2 occupation also seems to have been focused on a
series of hearths, see Chapter 20 below.
ER6 and ER7
Fig 19.33 ER5 showing hearth and black deposits of phase

2. PL.
rubble, 1282, which contained only two sherds of pottery (one possibly Durham White ware D7?,
10751200, and one Early Gritty Green ware, E12a,
11751350), was laid down above the earlier features.
Into this were set two areas of flags and thin bricks set
on edge, 1252 and 1253, along the south and west
sides of the room. These had straight edges to the
north and east respectively, and appear to have delimited a hearth; the surfaces had been patched or
repaired several times (Fig 19.33). Around the hearth
was a thick deposit of charcoal, 1273. To the north was
a near-rectangular pit or scoop 4638, filled with charcoal and loose soil. This was delimited to the south by
a slot or gully, 1434, containing several stone blocks,
4636; similar stones were found along its northern
edge, 4637. Near this hollow were two postholes 3408
and 1277 which may be related (Fig 19.33). Feature
4638 may thus have been a hearth pit with cooking
supports beside it. Another posthole, 3412, and a
small area of flags, 4700, survived nearby. In the northern part of the room, two pits infilled with rubble,
The extension of the dorter range beyond the cloister

was usually an undercroft, but as Gilyard-Beer (1959,
29) noted, The use to which it was put varied and cannot always be determined. It is in fact comparatively
rare for this area of the claustral buildings to be excavated in full. Between 1975 and 1978 the interior of this
building was fully excavated, as well as an area to the
east in trenches 7502, 7604 and 7805. The area immediately to the south was excavated in the Jarrow Slake
rescue excavations (Chapter 21).
There was a substantial drop in level to the south of
Wall 1481 (the south wall of ER5; Fig 19.35), and it is
not at all clear how there was communication at
ground level between the claustral buildings of the East
Range and those to the south in the first medieval
phase, although before the regrouting of Wall 1481
there appeared to be a central door threshold, which
could indicate a floor intermediate between the ground
surface and the upper floor of the reredorter.
The line of the extended undercroft was laid out
off-alignment with the claustral range and it is not
clear why this should be, even though it was built as a
separate entity. The slightly slewed alignment allows a
narrow gap between the south-east corner of the
South Range and the undercroft, which was subsequently used for a drain, but not in the first period of
use. The structure to the south of Wall 1481 up to
Wall 3921 may have been built initially as a single unit
and then divided into two rooms roughly equal in size:
17 21ft (5.18 6m): ER6 and ER7 (Fig 19.28). The
west wall has clearly suffered a series of reconstructions or repairs, one of which, represented by 1994
(see above) appears to be assignable to the Medieval
1b/2a period.
288
19-01-2007
11:29
Fig 19.34 Northsouth section east of the East Range, from the level of the cloister to the riverside. NE
JARROW19.QXD
Pagina 288
JARROW19.QXD
19-01-2007
11:29
Pagina 289
289
Fig 19.35 Piers 1150 and 1482, and Walls 1157 and 1148, and the slope of the Late Saxon and medieval surface in ER6.
(IS/MS)
The Reredorter
To carry a two-storey building over the steep slope
down to the river, the medieval builders sank four massive piers to support the upper floor. Parts of the western pair, 1042 and 3797, were still visible at the
beginning of the excavations in the much reconstructed west wall of the building (Figs 19.13 and 19.14);
the eastern pair, 1482 and 4806, were revealed by
excavation in trenches 7504 and 7604 and in Jarrow
Slake Area IV. They all had stepped foundations bonded with clay; on the east, where the ground sloped
towards the sea as well as towards the river, they were
roughly 8ft (2.44m) wide, while on the west they were
c 6ft 6in wide (2.44m). Certain deposits possibly built
up during the construction of the building, such as a
layer of sandy earth, 1131, with masons chippings and
mortar (which yielded one sherd of D11, 10751200);
4713, a sandstone and mortar deposit; and 1125,
brown earth and yellow sand, with two sherds of late
11th- to 12th-century pottery (D7 and D2).
A smaller pier, 1044, with a well-tooled chamfered
stone on its top, was set midway between the northern
piers 1042 and 1482. This may have been to support a
central prop for the roof above, and could be a later
construction since it is recorded as cutting a higher
deposit of clay than the main piers. But there need only
be an insignificant gap in time between these construc-
tions, since the sandy deposit, 1131, covers its construction trench, and cutting that deposit, directly to
the east of it, are two stakeholes which could be scaffold poles. Certainly the central pier creates a division
in the undercroft which is maintained throughout subsequent phases. Within the interior of ER7 were vestiges of a clean yellow clay deposit, 935, which here, as
elsewhere on the site, was the hallmark of the Norman
builders (Fig 19.16).
The very steep slope of the pre-Norman ground
surface meant that a break into two parts would be an
obvious solution, but the gradient caused some difficulties also in wall construction. All of the northsouth
and eastwest walls, including the vestigial wall, 3921,
at the south, butted up to the piers (Figs 19.36 and
19.37). This may however be a constructional device
to assist building on a slope rather than an indication
of a separate construction phase, but the original plan
may have been to leave the areas between the piers
open. The east wall 1152/1157 was only revealed by
excavation, and in ER7 it abutted the pier 1482 to the
north, but where it met the south-east corner of ER5 it
appeared that wall 1481 had been rebuilt in order to
key the walls together (Fig 19.37). However, in the
north-western corner, where the west wall of ER6
(1106) joins ER5, there is a remnant of an arcade or
relieving arch (Fig 19.11). The small fragment of arch
JARROW19.QXD
290
19-01-2007
11:29
Pagina 290
Fig 19.36 Relationships of pier 1482, Wall 1152 and Wall

1148/1154. (IS/MS)
looks indeed as though it is part of the rebuilding and
there is an ambiguous relationship to the north wall,
which appears to course with the northsouth wall. It
is possible therefore that the west wall of ER6 was from
the outset built up even if the east wall was left open,
and that the fragments of arch, even if displaced, were
originally relieving arches. The springing of an arch on
the west face of the west wall starts from the level of the
interior of the cloister, and so the floor levels of ER6
and ER7 must have been progressively stepped down
the slope. The corbels and the blocked doorways still
existing in the standing masonry at the junction of ER5
and the South Range indicate the height of the upper
floor of the cloister range, but if this height were maintained in ER6 and ER7 then the undercroft would have
been very high indeed. Yet obviously there needed to
be direct communication between the dormitory and
the reredorter, possibly by a flight of steps. Only the
east wall of this part of the range was excavated archaeologically to foundation level a baulk being left in
1975 against the standing west wall (see Fig 19.35).
This baulk was then taken down by the Department of
the Environment workforce when consolidating the
walls in 19756.
The infilling of the walls between the piers enabled
the foundations to be stepped down the slope and the
ground floors to the north and south of the line of the
central pier 1044 to be of different levels. This partly
reflected the different levels of the Anglo-Saxon period
in which platforms were cut for the buildings, leaving a
steep slope to the north. In the first phase of occupation
of room ER6 the slope was left at ground level, and the
division between the medieval rooms is exactly on the
line of the Saxon wall (see Figs 16.72 and 16.73).
Perhaps the central pier was necessary to support a
weak line where the ground had slumped over the collapse of the north revetment wall of the Anglo-Saxon
workshops.
The eastwest dividing Wall 1148 is merely a facing
of stones that revetted the clay slope (Figs 16.7273
and 19.3536), in a similar way to the north wall of the
Anglo-Saxon Building D, but without the long and
short technique of the earlier building. The upper section of walling to the west was rebuilt in the subsequent
phase (Chapter 20). Walling 1154 to the east also
seems to exhibit two different phases of construction,
the earlier of which curved out against the slope, and
so there may have been a hasty repair. The builders of
the stretch of walling along the east side of ER7,
between piers 1482 and 4806 had specially strengthened the foundations where they passed over the earlier boundary cut, 4746 (Fig 19.38). The threshold of a
door 3ft (0.91m) wide opening into ER7 was identified
at that point. This was a primary part of the room and
was raised and then widened in later phases. Certain
deposits are difficult to assign to a phase, perhaps
because they were surfaces used throughout a long
period: 1121, a layer of mixed earth, charcoal and
wood in ER6 overlay the construction deposits; it contained a good deal of Anglo-Saxon material as well as
animal bones and nails, and also pottery with a date
bracket of 10751300, and so could span a period of
time during reconstruction and building, and the dark
period of 12th/13th-century occupation. This deposit
was recorded as running under the upper and rebuilt
courses of the eastwest wall, 1148, and therefore provides some support for the idea that this cross wall was
reshaped in a secondary building phase within the
broad parameter of the Medieval 1 period.
Another deposit on the ground floor of room ER6
is 1123, a brown earth layer, which overlay 1121, and
which yielded a certain amount of building debris, animal bone and pottery of the 13th to 14th/15th century.
It was sealed by 1118, clay with a mortar skim, which
was perhaps connected with a rubble deposit, 1119,
which marked the major reorganisation of this area at
a later phase of Medieval 2.
The use of the northern room as a storage area or
for the occasional use of the lay community is consistent with the archaeological evidence. If the undercroft
were used as a store in the primary phase then an
opening towards the sea and river crossing would have
been useful, but the same may be said for the postulated later use as a brewhouse or bakehouse since the raw
materials would have to be transported.
The early medieval levels in the lower room, ER7,
may have been truncated by the construction of the
base of the later oven 1050. Above the yellow clay
packing for the primary structures (935) are deposits
of brown clay and rubble, 934, 933; four postholes,
JARROW19.QXD
19-01-2007
11:29
Pagina 291
291
Fig 19.37 West wall of East Range, east face, showing junction with south wall of ER5 and possible relieving arch in the
corner, with east wall of ER6 in foreground. (IS)
929932, may be part of the construction scaffolding
(Fig 19.13). Above this, a deposit of yellow sand and
small rubble, 936, included one sherd of North
Eastern Grey ware (D2, 11001250), and could represent the construction in phase 1b of a hearth, 3799,
with a clay smoke hood or an oven with a clay dome.
This hearth was filled with a deposit of charcoal and
ash, 921; a layer of burnt clay, 1058, represents the
adjacent floor surface. Other associated deposits are a
layer of wood ash and daub (928), which contained
pottery with a date range of 10751300 (types D7,
D11, E10, D20), and a deposit of purple ash, clay and
charcoal (926) which contained pottery of a similar
date. A layer of clay, stone, charcoal and daub (927),
which might derive from the oven superstructure, contained one sherd E12a dated 11751350. The hearth
was subsequently replaced by a more substantial structure (see Chapter 20), the stone hearth base of the later
oven sealing these deposits. The stone oven could have
been constructed at any time from the 13th to the 14th
century; its construction is therefore described in
Chapter 20, the Medieval 2 phases.
Outside the East Range to the east of ER6, a small pit,

976, contained a certain amount of food waste and early
medieval pottery including a sherd of Oxidised Gritty
ware (E10, 10751300). Adjacent was a deposit of stones
and building rubbish (1203). Both of these features
were cut by a larger pit, 970, which contained a large
quantity of rubbish and pottery and was probably cut
in the Medieval 1b period (see also Chapter 20 below).
Another rubbish pit, 1499, lay a little to the north.
Medieval 1 summary and discussion

By combining the excavated evidence with that of the
standing walls (which necessarily is an imprecise exercise), it is nonetheless clear that Aldwin and his builders
devised the layout of the claustral buildings in relation
to the churches (Fig 19.39). The excavated East Range
was 30ft (9.14m) externally, and 23ft (7.01m) internally, and if the West Range had been completed, as obviously had been intended from the joist holes on its
western face (Fig 19.3) and had been identical in width,
then it would have extended to the west edge of the
JARROW19.QXD
292
19-01-2007
11:29
Pagina 292
Fig 19.38 ER7, Medieval 1b construction of 1152 over

the earlier cut showing threshold into ER7. (IS/MS)
western buttress on the church. (It is assumed, however, that a southern porticus was built in this area towards
the end of the Medieval 1 phase.) The original plan
would have provided a square of c 150ft (45.72m)
which would have enclosed the area to the south of the
church up to the exterior of the wall which joined the
two piers at the south of the East Range. Within that
area there are some apparently careful measurements:
the overall length from the church to the exterior of the
South Range is 120ft (36.58m); the cloister alleys are
precisely 12ft (3.66m) wide; the East Range passages
are 6ft (1.83m) wide and the interior of the cloister
garth is 82ft (24.99m) square. These dimensions provided quite substantial accommodation and are larger
than the other Durham cells (see Chapter 20).
Architectural historians have no doubt that the standing
West Range wall, Wall 2; the South Range wall, Wall 3;
and also the surviving portions of the East Range are all
Aldwins work. The style of construction (see artists
reconstruction, Fig 19.40) and the uniformity of the
cubical and cushion capitals and bases (Vol 2, Ch 29.1;
Cambridge 1977, 2737) give these walls a homogeneous appearance, and they have been tentatively
assigned to the work of Bishop Walchers mason, since
convincing parallels can be found in the Low Countries
(Cambridge supra; fig 246).
The whole of the upper floor of the East Range

would traditionally have been designated as the sleeping quarters for the monks (Gilyard-Beer 1959, 259),
but of that we have no surviving evidence. The layout
of the ground floor rooms seems to follow the traditional Benedictine arrangement (Figs 19.2 and 19.41)
with a passage, ER2, between a small room, ER1,
attached to the church (see below), and the chapter
house ER3, day stairs ER4, and warming house ER5.
There are problems in identifying the functions of
some of the rooms, and indeed there seem to have
been changes through time. Cambridge has suggested
in relation to ER1 that originally a transeptal church
may have been planned (Cambridge 1977, 1617), but
it is possible that this room may have served as a reception room or inner parlour in view of the doorway into
the cloister and the hatch or window shown on the
Bucks drawing (Fig 12.4).
There are some parallels with the mother house at
Durham, and other cells (see Chapter 20). The passage-like structure with its substantial cross wall, ER4,
is closely paralleled at Durham and was the entrance to
the day stair to the upper level of the range (Markusson
1980, 41). The southernmost room, traditionally the
warming house, is, like ER4, invisible in the Bucks
drawings, but its function in the first phase seems to be
confirmed by the archaeological evidence for the succession of hearths. The triangular-headed doorway
which led into the south-west corner of the cloister is
similar to a triangular-headed recess which survives at
Durham Priory (Markusson 1980, 40) in what is clearly a post-Conquest context. A similar opening has
already been noted in Jarrow church tower (Fig 18.1).
The architectural importance of the surviving claustral
architecture at Jarrow is further discussed in Volume 2
(Ch 29.1).
In the plan for the South Range there must have
been a determining factor for the entrance. This may
have been the existing position of the small well, 4348,
which was surrounded by a square structure at the
same time as the cloister alleys were constructed (see
above). Normally the lavatorium of a monastery would
be placed near the entrance to the refectory, but it may
have determined the position of the entrance if it
already existed. At Durham the early lavatorium was
set in the south-west corner of the old cloister, and that
position was retained even when it was rebuilt, possibly
in the 13th century (Hope and Fowler 1903, 43760).
At Jarrow the major reconstruction of the cloister (see
below, Chapter 20) swept the well-house or lavatorium
away, and probably its place was taken by the provision
of a trough, set into a wall conveniently placed near to
an eating area, possibly the hall, as for example at
Lindisfarne (OSullivan and Young 1995, fig 55).
There is a homogeneous style in the monastic court
(Fig 19.40), but there are tantalising hints of decorative details which must be fitted in elsewhere, such as
the horse head corbel (Vol 2, Ch 29.1), discovered in a
post-Dissolution demolition deposit in ER6 at the
JARROW19.QXD
19-01-2007
11:29
Pagina 293
Fig 19.39 Artists impression of the Medieval 1 buildings, birds eye view looking west. Ivan Lapper
293
JARROW19.QXD
294
19-01-2007
11:29
Pagina 294
Fig 19.40 Artists reconstruction of the interior of the Norman cloister, looking south Ivan Lapper
south of the East Range (see Chapter 21 below),
and the style of the upper stages of the church tower
has been convincingly assigned to a period after
the community had been taken back to Durham by
Bishop St Calais (Cambridge 1977, 334). It seems
very likely that in the period when the Durham community was supplying Jarrow with a monk-priest in
charge, they might have enhanced the church which
would have remained fully used, rather than the claustral buildings which may not have been (see Chapter 4
above). Nevertheless the facades of the claustral buildings, particularly on the East Range, remain substantially untouched throughout the Middle Ages, and
although windows were changed and essential repairs
effected, except for the one very substantial change in
the plan discussed below in the Medieval 2 period
(Chapter 20), they remain as a remarkable testimony

to the nature of late 11th-century building in the
north.
The discontinuous deposits in the centre of the
cloister highlight a problem which was also encountered inside the buildings, namely how and when the
buildings were occupied in the undocumented period
between the end of the eleventh and the end of the
13th century. The sparse coin evidence for this period
has been mentioned above in relation to individual
contexts, but when considered together is very helpful
in providing a date bracket for the reconstruction of
the buildings: a cut Long Cross halfpenny, current
124779 (Nu36) was found in the robber trench of the
west cloister walk together with a Scottish penny of
Alexander III, 124986 (Nu38); another Long Cross
JARROW19.QXD
19-01-2007
11:29
Pagina 295
295
Fig 19.41 Suggested development of the Norman cathedral and priory at Durham. The shaded outline is the suggested
position of the pre-Conquest church. ( Martin Roberts 1994)
halfpenny type IIIb (Nu34, c 124950), in a deposit of
gravel and mortar (3243) which seems to be related to
the destruction and rebuilding of the cloister. There is
one coin of Henry II from the site dated to the mid
1180s (Nu30), but it was found in the disturbed garden soil over Building A. The earliest 13th-century
coin of Short Cross type but uncertain king, dated
before 1247, was found to the south of Building A in a
disturbed context (Nu31, 519). Another Short Cross
coin dated 120018 is considered by Archibald (Vol 2,
Ch 30.3, Nu32) to have possibly circulated as late as
the beginning of the Long Cross type in 1247; it was
found in a Medieval 2 deposit (582, in 7802). A continental imitation of a Short Cross type (Nu33,
11901247) was discovered in 981, the fill of the
LS/EM cut 4746 to the east of ER7 in trench 7604.
Two other Long Cross pennies of Henry III, 12512
(Nu35), and Edward I, c 128090 (Nu37) were found

in the Jarrow Slake excavations. Other than a continental coin of Bishop Guy de Collemede (Nu39,
12961306) and one groat of Edward IV, 146470
(Nu40), these were the only medieval coins found on
the site, and therefore seem to indicate a peak of activity in the middle to late 13th century. The site may
always have been occupied (perhaps by a single monk
chaplain in the 12th and earlier 13th century (Piper
1986), but a more intense period of activity in the second half of the 13th century, in which buildings were
reshaped and probably a lay workforce occupied the
site, could explain both the quantity of pottery which
filled the robber trenches of the cloister and the profile
of coin loss. This activity, then, probably coincides
with preparation for the formal occupation by a master
and monk of the Durham cell (see Chapter 4 above).
JARROW20.QXD
19-01-2007
11:33
Pagina 296
20 The Later Medieval phase 2 occupation

The monastic buildings
The cloister
demolition of the alley, to allow for the construction of

the South Cloister Building would then be possible
(Fig 20.4).
The destruction of the western alley left a sizeable
area of space in the north-west of the cloister. Most
medieval levels had been truncated here, however, by
the construction of a 17th-century and later cottage
and its outbuildings, but patches of a deep deposit of
grey ferruginous clay, such as contexts 269 and 5658,
which were at times nearly 0.3m deep, survived in
places. The robber trench of the west cloister walk was
filled with similar clay and the area was later covered by
hearths, 5742 and 5561 (Fig 20.1). The clay and the
hearth areas had a distinctive covering of purple ash
and coal which yielded later medieval pottery, together
with traces of slag and iron as well as melted lead. The
entire outline of this hearth area was not planned, but
it was certainly extensive. Although its position so near
to the church is perhaps odd, it seems to have been
some sort of smithy which continued in use also into
the post-Dissolution period when black deposits (5543,
5535, 5530) covered the whole area. This deposit contained late 17th-century pottery and underlay the first
flagged floor of the later part of the cottage (room e).
In the centre of the cloister, the well 6022, already
discussed in the Medieval 1 period, survived until possibly the end of this phase. Around it, a flagged area
3661 and patches of stone and mortar are truncated
Medieval 2 surfaces. Further east, surrounding the
drain 3590, loamy brown deposits (eg 4021, 4025,
4026) which cover the earlier cloister surfaces, probably represent the grassed interior of the garth.
In this phase significant changes to the layout of the

monastic buildings inside the walls of the cloister were
completed to form a smaller, more domestic living
space for the master and one or two monks, while the
area outside the main buildings to the west was utilised
for a lay cemetery, gardens and small timber structures, and, immediately to the east, rubbish dumps
(Figs 20.1 and 20.2).
As stated in the previous chapter, it is difficult to
decide from the imprecise dating of the pottery which
archaeological episodes might be dated to successive
phases of reconstruction of the Norman buildings into
the transformed layout that is recorded in the first surviving inventories for the Durham cell (see Appendix
A5.7a). The evidence for 12th-century activity on the
site was considered in Chapter 19, but there must have
been a high level of activity also in the later 13th
century since the pottery which filled the robbed wall
trenches of the cloister was mainly of that date. Much
of the surface evidence for this activity has been
recorded on the Medieval 1 plan, but the demolition of
the cloister walks and construction of a new building
(the South Cloister Building) in the south of its enclosure may have taken some time, or a concentrated
effort of large resources, and this is considered as the
end of Medieval 1b. It should be remembered (see
Chapter 4) that the Jarrow statuses refer to a camera
magistri and an aula from 1310. Unless these were
originally in the East Range and then removed to the
new South Cloister building, this does provide a terminus ante quem for that building.
The South Cloister Building (Fig 20.5)

The interior of the cloister
At a date possibly in the early 14th century, a long narrow building was inserted in the southern part of the
cloister. The position of the north wall of this building
may have been determined by the wish to line up the
eastern gable with the entrance to the day stairs, established in the Norman building in ER4 (see Fig 20.4),
but also there may have been a wish to leave a reasonable space in the cloister interior. Since this building
stood into the 18th century and was still occupied
when it was drawn by the Bucks (Figs 1.9 and 12.4)
and portrayed in a semi-ruined state by several artists
(Appendix B213, 256), it is possible to add to the
excavated record quite substantially.
The robber trench fill of the northern alley was only

selectively investigated and produced very little pottery, but the date range of the pottery as in all the cloister robber trenches extends between 1175 and 1350,
with only a few sherds, which could be intrusive,
assigned to a post-1400 date (see Vol 2, Ch 33.2, Table
33.2.7 and Fig 33.2.73). A deposit of clay, 3542,
which capped the robber trench of the north walk,
yielded two sherds with a combined range of 14th to
16th century (E11d, E12b).
The walls of the western and southern alleys were
taken down completely before the construction of the
South Cloister Building (Fig 20.3); the status of the
east and north alleys is less certain (see below). The
robbing material, as mentioned in Chapter 19 above,
contained two 13th-century coins and a considerable
amount of pottery, predominantly of 13th to 14thcentury date. A date in the late 13th century for the
The structural characteristics

The east, west and south walls were the existing walls
of the cloister perimeter, but a north wall was buttjointed to the West Range and East Range walls (Figs
296
JARROW20.QXD
19-01-2007
11:33
Pagina 297
20: THE LATER MEDIEVAL PHASE 2 OCCUPATION
Fig 20.3 Trench 6901 looking east, showing the robbed

wall of the cloister 5268 cutting the collapse of the Saxon
wall of Building B; to the left, tumble from the Medieval 2
Wall 4436 and the northsouth division Wall 3284 of the
South Cloister Building above the robbed Norman cloister
walk. (IS)
20.5 and 20.6). Only a part of the foundations of this
wall was excavated since most of it was under a baulk
(see Fig 20.3), but a length of the original north wall
still stands as the south face of room d in the 17thcentury cottage (see Fig 20.5 and Appendix B43). The
South Cloister Building, as determined by excavation
and the standing fabric, measured 81 16ft (24.69m
4.88m) internally, and early illustrations depict it as
comprising two storeys, with an elaborate window in
the west gable.
Excavation revealed that there was single subdivision at ground floor level, wall 3163, which formed a
western room 60ft (18.29m) east to west and an eastern one 22ft 6in. (6.86m) east to west (Figs 20.3 and
20.4). There was a linking door between them, 3160,
and each of these rooms had apparently an entrance
from the south (see Fig 19.8). There was at least one
from the north into the western room, the lintel of
which was revealed in the 1965 excavations (Fig 16.24)
in the south wall of room d of the cottage. It seems
probable however that there would also have been a
north entrance from the east cloister into the east end
of the building where a pivot stone was set in the north
wall (Fig 20.1). A curious feature which is shown on
the Bucks drawing (Fig 12.4) but which cannot be
substantiated archaeologically, or indeed explained, is
that a section of the south wall seems to project south
and to be covered by a hipped roof. This could, however, be a post-Dissolution feature which was built at
the same time as the destruction of most of the East
Range. It is neither detectable in the surviving fabric
nor explicable in terms of the late medieval plan.
297
The existing door with the pointed arch set in the

south wall is clearly shown on the Bucks drawing, but
may have been reset by the Ministry of Works repair
team. It is obviously in a secondary position in the wall
as indeed it would have been if put in during the construction of the South Cloister Building but the
north face of the opening is now totally blocked. The
construction of the South Cloister Building meant
considerable changes to the South Range wall (Wall 3),
where the original windows seem to have been turned
round to face away from the cloister rather than into it,
and the great Norman door into the projected Frater
was blocked by a substantial buttress with a stepped
base (Fig 19.8). It is not clear whether this was blocked
in phase 1b, before the building of the South Cloister
building (although this is a possibility), but it was certainly utilised later as a chimney flue. A drawing by
Grimm (Appendix B19), shows fireplaces within its
hollow northern face on both ground and upper floors,
but these could be of either late medieval or postmedieval date and are of the same type as survive in the
upper floor of the north wall.
In the west gable there was an elaborate double
window with tracery which was depicted by several
artists before it was blown out in the 18th century. The
tracery as depicted could be either early 14th or 15th
century in date, and it could well have been reconstructed during the life of the building. Grimms drawing of its western face shows a blocking at the base, but
that too would probably be a post-Dissolution feature
(Appendix B20).
The south wall presents a complicated picture.
Whatever the height of the phase 1 roof of the cloister,
no trace of it is visible in the surviving fabric and it
seems obvious that the upper sections of the wall must
have been modified or rebuilt when the South Range
Building was constructed, since, if the upper floor level
is indicated by the present flooring scar, it would have
cut through the head of the great Norman door.
Moreover, as previously mentioned, what appears to
be a single splayed medieval window at the west end
now faces outwards from the cloister interior, and this
appears, from the Grimm depiction (Appendix B20) to
have been later surrounded by a post-Dissolution window frame. In addition, the upper section of the wall is
narrower than that below, and this too could indicate a
rebuilding when the South Range Building was constructed. Grimm and the Bucks show at least six upper
floor windows, but most seem to be post-Dissolution.
For example, the Bucks drawing shows two upper
floor windows divided into three frames which look
identical with those in the post-Dissolution cottage.
In the surviving western section of the north wall
there is evidence for an early window at the west end,
which was enlarged when room d was constructed, and
there is also a door opening which was certainly in use
in the post-Dissolution period but could well have
been primary. It is recorded in the Durham inventories
(Appendix A5.8) that in 1374 three glass windows
JARROW20.QXD
298
19-01-2007
11:33
Pagina 298
Fig 20.4 Key plan of the later claustral buildings showing numbering of rooms. LB
were put in the hall, but it is a matter for debate as to
which building was the hall and which the camera (see
summary below).
Archaeological evidence for the occupation of
the South Cloister Building
In the western section of the building no intact areas of
floor levels survived although there are small areas of
clay, such as 394, which might have been the bedding
for such floors. This truncation of levels seems to have
been effected in the post-Dissolution period when the
area was levelled and covered with flagging (5309,
5273), which survived patchily in this area.
In the eastern part of the building, excavated in
1969, there was better survival of surfaces and the clay
levels there seem to confirm that when the cloister wall
and lavatorium were demolished a levelling surface of
clay was laid down. These deposits of yellow clay, 3173
and 3240, yielded pottery (including Early Buff White
wares E11a and b) with a latest date of about 1350;
and a number of other deposits of sand, mortar and
rubble seem to reflect the building activities which
marked the transition between the Medieval 1 and the
Medieval 2 layout (eg 3005, 3310). These deposits

also contained Buff White wares (E11a, b and c).
Several small postholes such as 3216 and 3331 may
also be assigned to the constructional phase. Other
deposits of mixed dark earth, charcoal and mortar
(3288, 3271, 3090, 3192) seem to represent the occupation of this building during the 14th and 15th centuries, but they do not throw any light on the nature of
the occupation at ground floor level. It is possible that
the main rooms were in the upper floor and that the
lower level was initially mainly for storage, but later
adapted into a more comfortable living area. A feature
in the building which is not well defined stratigraphically is a drain (3238) which runs parallel to the dividing wall 3163 and could well be of the same date (Fig
20.7).
The relationship of the drain to the occupation
deposits just mentioned is unclear, but it certainly predated a later fireplace and porch (see below), although
its relationship to a more definite floor surface surviving as patches of white mortar bedding (3345), possibly for stone tiles, is also uncertain. This floor overlay
the soily occupation deposits mentioned above. It
could well be the latest medieval floor of the building
19-01-2007
11:34
Pagina 299
..
\I
299
I l
,,
tYS~
..
v_
,
,,
,,
,,
, ,
,.r,
I
~
,,
:I
"
,,f
"
Fig 20.5 Plan of the south cloister building showing part of the elevation of its north wall (as later incorporated into the cottage). NE/CU
JARROW20.QXD
JARROW20.QXD
300
19-01-2007
11:34
Pagina 300
Fig 20.6 Looking west across the South Cloister Building,

the robbed west wall of the east range in the foreground, the
north wall of the South Cloister Building partially excavated and the division wall over the south wall of the AngloSaxon Building B. (IS)
Fig 20.7 Looking south across the South Range building

with Wall 3163 and drain alongside; later entrance
screen/porch (formed by Wall 3287) in foreground. (IS)
which continued in use into the post-Dissolution period, but because of the later disturbances it is not possible to say more. Improvements to the buildings may
be reflected in the large repair bills in 14201 and in
1488 (Appendix A5.8), and it is noteworthy that in the
15th century the roofs, which were earlier described as
covered with thatch of straw or heather, are covered
with tiles, so that living standards may have improved
in this phase (see Appendix A5.8, 13711372 and
14323; also Vol 2, Ch 26).
Medieval 2b/Post-medieval modifications to the South Cloister building

Either in the very late medieval period or after the
Dissolution, a major structural change took place on
the ground floor with modification of the entrance
through the northsouth wall 3163 (see Chapter 22 and
Fig 22.1). The entrance (3290) consisted of two levels
of paving with a step through the wall. In addition, and
possibly subsequently, a short length of wall (3287)
south of the opening was constructed which abutted the
earlier division wall (3163) and formed a sort of
entrance screen or inglenook for a large fireplace, 3305
(Fig 20.7). There was a stone structure for the fire itself
and a brick and stone hearth round it, and there is no
doubt that it is post-Dissolution since the bedding for
the fireplace and inglenook, 3162, contained pottery,
the latest of which is dated 17th to 18th century.
Just to the east of the opening through the wall was
a small structure with a flagged floor set in cobbles (see
Fig 22.1). This may have been a small latrine or store
Fig 20.8 Destruction level of ER3 with fragments of 14thcentury window. (IS)
place, and running diagonally through this area was a
drain, 3255, which contained a coin of Charles II of
Scotland (Nu46) dated to c 1678. This stone-flagged
and cobbled section of what had been the eastern section of the medieval house would have been appropriate for a pantry or larder area, and was patched and
redeveloped through the post-Dissolution period.
Although the stratigraphic relationships of the various
types of flooring remained ambiguous, on the whole,
all of this development seems to fit best into the use of
the house in the 17th century when the northern
JARROW20.QXD
19-01-2007
11:34
Pagina 301
extension (d) was constructed. Both the traces of

plaster floor and the cobbles are covered by a series of
deposits which contain 17th- to 18th-century pottery
(see 31001, 3138, 2982).
The east cloister walk

As noted above, there is a possibility that the eastern
alley of the cloister was taken down at the same time as
the south and west. There are, however, complex problems of building sequence here. Either during the early
14th-century remodelling of the buildings in the cloister, or at a later date, another wall (4039/4040/6051)
was constructed running north from the South
Cloister Building to c 6ft (1.83m) from the south wall
of the chancel. At that point there was a clear termination, with, to the west of it, a stone box or cist-like feature, 4215, which was only partially excavated. This
wall cut surfaces of clay and stones such as 4022, 4036
representing the Medieval 1 surface and which contained pottery dated from the 11th to the 14th/15th
centuries. Its relationship to the earlier west wall of the
cloister alley (6040) was clearly demonstrated by a
short length of walling, 4045, which constituted something like a buttress to the west and which directly
overlay the line of the earlier wall which lay only about
1ft (0.3m) to the west of its replacement (see Figs
19.22 and 20.1).
The new wall was much less substantial than the
Norman cloister walk wall, being only 2ft (0.60m)
wide compared to 3ft (0.91m) for the earlier wall.
Moreover this later wall had hardly any foundation
trench and survived as just two courses of faced stones.
A possible sequence is that the eastern alley survived
for a time while the South Cloister Building was being
constructed and provided a covered way for whatever
incumbent was then inhabiting the East Range. The
north wall of the building cut across the line of the
cloister walk wall and must have necessitated the
destruction of its southern end by the time the door
opening represented by a large pivot stone was constructed (see Fig 20.1). A mortar-flecked clay surface,
3063, which lies west of the earlier wall 6040 and
seems to abut it, contained a quantity of medieval pottery dated from the 11th to the 14th/15th century and
has been interpreted as a Medieval 2 cloister surface,
so that the northern part of the wall of the eastern alley
(Fig 19.12) could perhaps have survived for a time
after the other walls of the cloister walk had been lost.
One could wish in retrospect that the relationships of
the layers and medieval foundations in the east of the
garth had been more minutely recorded in the course
of the excavation, and that their robbed surfaces,
which lay so close to the present ground surface had
been better sealed. The southern part of the eastern
alley (wall 6040) seems to have been demolished only
down to the contemporary ground level; its remaining
foundations were certainly incorporated into a later
flagged and cobbled yard surface, 2969, immediately
301
to the north of the South Cloister Building, but, as

noted above, it is debatable whether these surfaces are
very late medieval or early post-medieval.
The date at which the earlier wall 6040 was succeeded by 4040/6051 is not possible to fix very precisely from the archaeological evidence, and why it
happened at all is not entirely clear. It is possible that
the construction of the large medieval window, W8, in
the south wall of the chancel could have occasioned the
removal of a wall which might have obscured its light,
and the date of this window has been considered on
stylistic grounds to fit the period around the 1350s
(Cambridge 1992, 164), which would support the idea
that the conversion of the walls was all part of the new
plan for the South Cloister Building. On the other
hand, the new narrower wall may cut a ground surface
which is later than the 1350s. Moreover, among the
entries for construction in the Jarrow accounts is one
for expenses in 1402/3 for the making of a cloister
(Raine 1854, 77, and Appendix A5.8; Piper 1986, 15).
The sum involved was not large, but the relatively
insubstantial foundations of wall 4040/6051 indicate
that its construction may not have been a particularly
time-consuming task; stone from the earlier wall 6040
could have been robbed alongside, and the roof would
have had a narrower span than that of the original walk.
There are other references in the mid-15th century
to new buildings such as a new chamber beside the
church in 14567, and it has been conjectured
(Cambridge 1992, 166) that this may have been at the
north end of the East Range and that possibly this is
the same as the new chamber mentioned in the 1480
inventory, but there is unfortunately no archaeological
evidence to relate to this.
The East Range (see Figs 20.12 and 20.4)

ER1 and 2
In rooms ER1 and 2 the robbed wall trenches were all
sealed by 18th-century material and no medieval surfaces survived the 18th- and 19th-century activities
in that area having cut away or disturbed all of the later
medieval levels.
ER3
ER3 was identified in the Norman and Medieval 1
phase as the Chapter House. As noted in Chapter 19
above, only half of the northern part of the room was
excavated in trench 7006, although the full width was
investigated in 6903. The stone settings 3244 and
4012, which were installed in the Medieval 1 phase,
continued to function throughout this phase, presumably as structural supports, and the floor deposits the
burnt levels 3999, 4456 etc, as well as the later mortar
flooring 4450, or the brown soil and mortar 4452
which built up to them. Levels 3999 and 4456 contained the same wide range of pottery spanning the
JARROW20.QXD
302
19-01-2007
11:34
Pagina 302
whole medieval period (with three sherds of 18th/19thcentury pottery which, out of a total of thirty-nine
sherds, may be considered intrusive). The burnt floor
deposits may represent an accumulation of domestic
debris which built up throughout the medieval periods,
or may include some dumping from elsewhere on the
site before the final floor of this room was laid and
which survived only patchily in trench 7006 as 3998,
but was better preserved in 6903 as 4450 and 4452.
This mortar floor (which presumably was the setting
for stone slabs or clay tiles) was therefore probably laid
down towards the end of the medieval occupation,
and seems to have survived into the post-Dissolution
period.
Set into this mortar floor was a stone arrangement,
3997, which seems to have replaced the earlier setting
4014, presumably a third roof support. Also set into
the mortar floor was a short length of stonework, 3248,
which may have served as a bench against the south
wall of the room (Fig 20.1).
The floor of ER3 was then covered by layers of clay
and rubble, 3023 and 2987, the latter containing large
fragments of the tracery of a rectangular-headed 14thcentury window (see Fig 20.8 and Vol 2, Ch 29.1), as
well as 15th- to 16th-century pottery. These deposits
evidently represent the demise of the room and are
sealed by further layers of rubble, such as 2954, which
contain 18th-century pottery and must represent final
collapse and dereliction.
or replaced and the area then used as a passage

through the range. The stonework 3211, which may
have been a setting for a bench or another feature,
would seem, however, to block such an exit (see Fig
20.1). Above the mortar floor was a deposit of dark
soil, stone and clay (3157) which contained building
and food debris, as well as late medieval pottery and
one sherd which is possibly post-medieval.
Subsequently a layer of brown soil (3102) containing
mainly 17th- to 18th-century pottery covered the area,
and this probably represents a period in the first half of
the 18th century when the East Range was a ruin, but
before the area had been cleared and incorporated into
a yard, represented by a cobbled surface 3196.
ER5 (Fig 20.9)
This room, as noted above, was unfortunately excavated in four different trenches, which has made establishing the relationships of the complex deposits in this
area particularly difficult.
ER4
This narrow room, only 6ft (1.83m) wide, was identified in the Norman and Medieval 1 phases as possibly
the base of the day stairs leading from the Dorter
above, into the cloister walk. During the Medieval 1b
reconstruction of the buildings the earliest northsouth
wall within the room, 4405 (see Fig 19.12) had been
removed and covered with a pebble layer, 3252. There
seems then to have been a build up of floor surfaces to
the east of wall 3398: sand and gravel, 3191, which
yielded food debris and pottery from the 14th/15th
century, a thin spread of charcoal 3171, and another
level of sand and gravel, 3165, which plausibly represents a post-medieval surface or floor bedding.
A small section of stonework 3211 was inserted
over the earlier latrine level (layer 4408; see Chapter
19), and possibly also 3191, but is not certainly placed
in the stratigraphic sequence; alongside it to the east
was a small patch of paving embedded in mortar
(3042, Fig 20.1). These probably represent a vestige of
the surface of the later medieval/early post-medieval
mortar flooring which survived in patches elsewhere in
the range. Whether the western wall 3398 had gone
out of use at this phase is uncertain. Its robber trench
was visible in the mortar floor, but it seems unlikely
that a staircase was still operating in the room at a time
when the whole floor was paved, and it is possible that
the original staircase had in this phase been taken away
Fig 20.9 ER5, main Medieval 2 features. PL
JARROW20.QXD
19-01-2007
11:34
Pagina 303
303
Fig 20.10 Looking south in ER5, oven 1254 with charcoal (1241) sectioned in the interior, the drain 1255 and earlier
hearth 1253 on the right and Victorian school latrine wall and outlets in the background. (IS/MS)
Although the deposits along the southern edge of
the room had been entirely destroyed by the construction of the latrines for the 19th-century school (Fig
20.10), the surviving evidence suggests that the focus
of activity in this phase moved further north. The earlier hearth and paving at the south end of the room
were covered by dumps of rubble (1249) and of daub
and fireclay (1250), which contained food debris and
pottery dated to the 14th to 16th centuries (E11d,
E12b). In the centre of the room was a large oval or
horseshoe-shaped stone oven, 1254, about 9ft (2.74m)
across (Figs 20.9 and 20.10), and surrounding it was a
spread of clay with a charcoal covered surface (1244)
which was cut by several small stakeholes (12468).
The base of the oven was covered by a thick deposit of
fine charcoal, 1241 and 3407, which contained animal,
bird and fish bones, and shells. Paving 4626 seems to
be the new flooring for the room, as are 4618 and
4702, and the drain 1255 which cut the earlier flags
and hearth 1253 (see Fig 19.33) also could belong to
this phase. In this phase, the exit to room SR2, which
was blocked by the earlier feature 4638, may have been
opened again: slabs 4618 may represent paving alongside the doorway. An irregular pit, 3380, to the west of
the oven, cut the line of the drain and was filled with a
fine ashy deposit and a small amount of animal bone.
The domestic nature of the fills of both the oven and
the pit (which could have been for spit roasting) seems
unequivocal evidence that this room was the kitchen in
the later medieval period. There must have been some
communication from ER5 to the east, since the dumping area with large rubbish pits which had begun in the
Medieval 1 period outside its east wall continued in
use throughout the 14th to 16th centuries and into the
post-medieval period (see Vol 2, Ch 33.2).
The wall foundation 4474/1496 which also belongs
to this phase (Fig 20.2) would have prevented access to
this area from an exit east at the very north of the room
ER5, but much of the eastern part of the room was not
excavated and the eastern wall of the East Range was
so robbed at this point that an entrance to the south of
1496 would not have been detected. So little of the
wall 1496 was excavated that it is difficult to assess its
function. It runs at an angle along the top of the slope
and its foundations are quite wide (Figs 20.1 and
20.2). No walling to match it was found in the narrow
trench 6902 which extended 10.35m (34ft) to the
north of it, and it seems likely that it was a line of
demarcation on the site a free-standing wall rather
than part of a building. At all events it would have
effectively screened the rubbish tip from the church.
The next stage of use in ER5 is rubble 4617 surrounding the oven, which could be either a rebuilding
or a reconstruction of the oven. The drain 1255 and the
clay floor 1244 are then sealed by a yellow mortar floor
(1242) which abutted the oven wall and is thus contemporary. It contained food debris, nails and iron. The
oven was put out of use when deposits of domestic
refuse, 1237, and soil, mortar and rubble, 1240, covered the whole area. These in their turn are covered by
JARROW20.QXD
304
19-01-2007
11:34
Pagina 304
deposits of yellow mortar and rubble, 1236 and 1469,

containing 17th- to 18th-century pottery which seem to
represent the collapse of this part of the East Range.
ER6
A dark loamy layer, 1123 which contained pottery
the latest of which was four sherds of Oxidised Gritty
ware (E13, 1375 onward) and a more localised clay
and mortar deposit in the northern section of the room
(1118) seem to represent the last phase of activity in
this area before a major reshaping of both the lower
rooms of the East Range. The floor of ER6 was levelled
up by a deposit of yellow mortar and rubble (1119)
containing limestone tiles and four sherds of pottery
dated 14th to 16th century. The east wall, 1157, was
probably rebuilt or repaired at this stage since an irregular trench along its west face was covered by the subsequent occupation deposit in the room, 1107.
Cutting the yellow rubble were several features
which divided up the room: a narrow trench, 1117, only
1ft 6in. (0.45m) wide and filled with whitish mortar,
ran north to south, and where it abutted the eastwest
wall 1148/1043 was edged on either side by narrow
slabs (Figs 20.2, 20.1112). These slabs also mark the
width of a more substantial feature, a trench about 1m
wide which was filled with rubble and mortar, 1141.
This feature is subsequent to 1117, to which it ran parallel. It is possible that 1117 was the foundation for a
narrow timber wall (perhaps of lath and plaster) which
was later superseded by a wider mortared wall. The wall
terminated at the south on the top of the pier, 1153,
where it was packed round with stones, 4691 (Fig
20.13). The cross wall between the piers was the southern terminus of the room in this phase.
Fig 20.11 ER6, looking south, with the slot 1117 visible
and joined to wall 1148. (IS/MS)
Fig 20.12 ER6, looking south, with the robbed wall trench of 1117, and 1141 joined to 4691. (IS/MS)
JARROW20.QXD
19-01-2007
11:34
Pagina 305
Fig 20.13 Packing for wall junction on top of pier 1153.

(IS/MS)
The narrow western area, only 5ft (1.52m) in
width, was further subdivided by a thin eastwest slot,
1108, about 6in. (0.15m) wide (Fig 20.2). The two
areas to the west of 1117 and 1141, then, were very
narrow, of cupboard-like proportions, and a stud wall
partition would therefore be appropriate. It is possible
that the floor was paved since one flagstone survived;
the surfaces on either side of the partition, 1102 and
1109, were of soft fibrous earth which contained only
one sherd of early medieval pottery, and may have been
relict from the phase before the partition was made.
There was a clear distinction in the deposits to the
east and west of walls 1117 and 1141: to the east was a
layer of black earth, 1107, which contained only iron
nails, animal and fish bones and which may be contemporary with the first division. In the north-east corner,
set into the mortar and rubble, 1119, which contained
15th- to 16th-century pottery, and abutting 1481, was
a stone feature 1149 (see Figs 20.11 and 20.12). This
was composed of two lines of well-faced stones which
formed a right-angle projecting 1.22m from the south
wall of ER5 (1481) to the north, and may originally
have extended as far east as the northsouth wall 1157.
The centre of the feature was filled with mortar, and it
could have been the setting for some sort of container.
Alternatively it could have supported some stone steps
in order to communicate with the range to the north or
to an upper level of this building.
Whatever 1149 supported, it was demolished and
covered by a deposit of brown clay and rubble, 1101,
which contained only a small amount of animal bone
and mortar. This may be equivalent to the soft brown
clay, 1104, which sealed the rubble-filled partition,
1141, and contained 14th- to 16th-century pottery.
Above 1104 was a layer of greasy black earth, 1100,
which was likewise devoid of dating evidence. These
layers could represent the last occupation of the room,
and it is uncertain whether this occupation extended to
the end of the life of the cell or not.
305
Fig 20.14 ER6, looking north, 1149 in the background,

part of the flagged floor surviving to the east of 1141.
(IS/MS)
Fig 20.15 ER6, looking north, demolition deposit 1086.

(IS/MS)
A new phase of activity seems to have begun when
a substantial deposit of alluvial blue clay, 1089, was
spread over the area, perhaps to raise the ground level.
This clay was devoid of datable evidence, but a patch
of more disturbed brown clay (1092) yielded one 14thto 15th-century sherd and one 19th, which in view of
the stratification above is presumed to be intrusive. It
seems likely, therefore, that there was some late
medieval activity on this surface, and the deep cuts into
its surface could have been floor supports. The thick
deposit of building rubble and mortar, 1086 (Fig
20.15), which covered this clay could either represent
a late pre-Dissolution building phase or the destruction of some of the monastic buildings after the
Dissolution. It contained only medieval material,
including a horse head corbel (see Fig 20.16; Vol 2, Ch
29.1, AF1). The rubble extended right to the south of
the room and covered both the eastwest wall
JARROW20.QXD
306
19-01-2007
11:34
Pagina 306
ER7
Fig 20.16 Horses head corbel (AF1) within demolition

deposit 1086. (IS/MS)
Fig 20.17 Post-Dissolution rubble deposit 1082 over ER6.

(IS/MS)
1148/1045 and the central pier base, 1044/1153.
Above it was a deposit of earth and stones with 16thto 17th-century pottery (1081), and another rubble
layer, 1082, could represent successive demolition and
clearances of adjacent buildings (Fig 20.17).
From a period that may be defined as Medieval 2a, a

stone structure with a stone-based hearth was constructed abutting the eastwest wall, 1043/1148, and
the pier 1153 (see Chapter 19). The northern section of
structure 1051 was butted up to the west wall of the
East Range (a relationship only revealed when the baulk
alongside that wall was removed in the course of the
Department of the Environment consolidation of the
buildings after the excavation; see Fig 19.14). The north
wall leant at a slight angle to the face of the eastwest
wall 1043/1045, and the western section (1148) was
rebuilt in this phase. The structure curved at the base to
a short length of wide wall which was rather carelessly
built. The upper courses of the interior had been plastered and whitewashed (Figs 20.18, 20.19). The southern part of the structure had been almost entirely
destroyed by late post-medieval walling and a drain, but
part of a wall to the south of the entrance survived
(1052), providing a possible internal diameter of c
3.66m (12ft). The entrance which tapered from
0.91m to 0.84m (3ft to 2ft 9in.) from east to west was
paved with a large sandstone slab, 1060, set around with
narrow pale yellow bricks, 925 (see Vol 2, Ch 26.5),
which extended into the interior where they joined a circular hearth of stone flagging, 1059, sunk into a clay
bedding (Fig 20.20). It is possible that the bricks constituted a secondary flooring, the earlier one being of
stone slabs from the hearth through the entrance flue.
The stone floor of the structure cut 928, associated
with the preceding phase (Chapter 19), which contained food debris and pottery spanning a date bracket of 10751300. The floor level of the oven was
covered by a dark deposit of wood ash and soil, as was
the rake-out area to the east (921), which probably
constituted the debris of the last firing (see Fig 20.19);
this contained a small amount of animal bone and
shell. In the gap between the oven and the east wall,
north of the door, a series of deposits of clay, charcoal
and ash built up (918, 913, 912, 911, 910), representing successive firings of the oven. The use of the oven
had caused a significant build-up of soils and dark
earth over the original threshold of the opening into
ER7 from the east, and at some stage before the oven
went out of use, some time perhaps in the 15th
century, a wider opening had been made with a new
threshold, 1049 (see Figs 20.21 and 20.22), in which
the slot and pivot for the door survived. Unfortunately,
in neither the hearth deposits nor the deposits over the
threshold was there any datable evidence.
These dark layers were sealed by a layer of blue clay
(905) which is the equivalent of 1089 in ER6 and,
above that, a deposit of clean yellow rubble, 906,
resembling 1086 in ER6 (see Fig 20.15). These were
very clean deposits, but 906 contained a sherd of 14thto 16th-century pottery. The topmost fill of the abandoned oven area, 1099, could either be of late medieval
or early post-medieval date.
JARROW20.QXD
19-01-2007
11:34
Pagina 307
307
Fig 20.18 Oven/hearth 1059 as excavated in trench 7603.

(IS/MS)
Fig 20.20 Looking west into the oven entrance showing the
central stone hearth and entrance with brick and stone
paving. (IS/MS)
Fig 20.19 Interior of oven showing white plastered face

and dark deposit of wood ash. (IS/MS)
Fig 20.21 New entrance into room ER7. (IS/MS)
It is worth noting here that the yellow bricks found

in this oven are only found here and in the second
phase of use of ER5, but it has been noted by Hurst
that yellow stock bricks were common during the first
half of the 14th century (the date postulated for the
construction of the oven), and they were likewise used
in the hearths of a kitchen in Northolt, Middlesex
(Hurst 1961, 244, and fig 62; see also Vol 2, Ch
26.5).
The function of rooms ER6 and 7 in this phase is
obviously more domestic than in the Medieval 1 phase.
Since the floor and the hearth debris of the oven is at
ground rather than waist level it seems unlikely to have
been a baking oven, and it seems a possible suggestion
that it was part of the monastic brewing enterprise

which Piper notes produced a few shillings each year
during the 14th century but found no takers after
14045 (Piper 1986, 8). It is less easy to suggest a
function for the northern room ER6 using the evidence
from the Durham inventories. Piper records that a cellar for barrels and the like is described as under the
pantry in 1348 (Piper 1986, 14), and this could
indeed have been a convenient place for unloading
such items by river or by road. A reasonable use for
ER6 would be some function for storing food and dry
goods near to the brewhouse and kitchen, with perhaps
a change in the type of storage when cupboards were
fitted on one wall.
JARROW20.QXD
308
19-01-2007
11:34
Pagina 308
Chapter 23 below, and Vol 2, Ch 35.3), and this use as

a coal store, which connected with the kitchen in ER5
through a door in Wall V, seems to have been its last
use above this was a series of dumps.
SR4 and SR5
Fig 20.22 Slot for door and pivot hole. (IS/MS)

The area outside the East Range to the east continued to be used for the disposal of both domestic refuse
and building debris. The large pit 970 was filled with
deposits of rubble and roof tiles, 997, then more
domestic refuse, 967; it was capped with stone and
tiles, 969, which included pottery dated to the
13th/14th and 15th/16th centuries. This latter might
be contemporary with the deposits of building debris
within ER6, assigned to the end of the medieval period. Post-medieval debris, 965, lay over the infilled pit.
The earlier, Medieval 1b, pit 1499 east of the kitchen
was also filled and finally levelled up with building rubble and mortar, 1195.
The adjunct buildings attached to the East
Range (Figs 20.4, 20.23)
In the northern part of the area adjacent to ER5, the
adjuncts which had been constructed in an earlier
phase (see Chapter 19 and Fig 19.26C), were further
modified: SR3 was subdivided by the insertion of Wall
5123 to create SR4 and SR5. From this point the
deposits within the three structures differ and should
be considered separately.
In SR2, a deposit of sand and mortar (1773) which
overlay the first floor 1780 (Chapter 19), may represent the reshaping of this phase. A patch of charcoal
1770 (Fig 20.2) which lay above it in the south-east
corner of the room contained one sherd of Later Green
ware (E12b, 1375), then there was a layer of mixed
earth and charcoal (1752) which was probably redeposited material, since it contained 15 sherds of a Buff
White ware jug (E11a, 12001350), before a new level
of clay 1754, which may represent its last medieval
flooring. On this floor was a deposit of coal, 1637 (see
It is possible that the construction of Wall 5123 was

not so much to subdivide a space but to shorten a
room, the area SR5 certainly being the earliest to go
out of use, but despite the small size of SR4 4ft by 7ft
6in (1.22m by 2.29m) and the fact that there was no
discernible entry into this space, it may well have had
a separate function. Wall 5123 is cut into 1735, a soft
sandy deposit which overlies a series of dumps of clay,
stones and mortar (1760, 1745, 5094), which could
have been laid down as a bedding for the dividing wall
and whatever was supported on its narrow width.
Above the construction level 1735 was a small deposit
of silt (1716) in the north-east corner of the room,
which seems to be the only indication of use or a
period of disuse as the area was then filled in with a
series of dumps of clay, soil, and rubble (1635, 1636,
1568), all of which could be interpreted from the pottery evidence to be contemporary dumping in the late
medieval period. A possible explanation then is that
SR4 supported a staircase, and when this was dismantled at the end of the monastic phase the cavity was
filled up with rubbish including several whole pots (see
Figs 20.23 and 20.24).
Perhaps connected with the primary function of
SR5 was an L-shaped stone arrangement, 5074 (Fig
20.2), which may be seen as a form of setting or support. Within the area delimited by the stone arrangement were the following deposits, a spread of orange
clay (5085) perhaps a surface; brown clay mortar and
charcoal (5084) a resurfacing; brown woody soil
(1642) perhaps the disintegration of wooden furnishing, with one sherd of 14th- to 16th-century pottery;
red clay (5066) resurfacing; and finally rubble (5129)
perhaps the collapse of the structure. The area was
sealed by a deposit of clay and mortar (1556) which
contained one sherd of 14th- to 16th-century pottery,
a sherd of clear vessel glass, and a coin of Edward IV
(Nu40, York mint), 146470. A similar deposit above
SR4 (1631) is probably analogous.
It is a plausible supposition that this structure,
which is directly under an opening in the upper storey
of the wall above (Figs 19.1011), may have been a
garderobe, which may well have functioned when the
reredorter planned for a large community in the
Norman building was no longer necessary, and could
have served the rebuilt South Cloister Building and the
upper floor of the East Range. Moreover the two
rooms SR4 and SR5 directly parallel in their form and
position the medieval latrine at Wearmouth (Fig 11.8).
After the units discussed above had gone out of use
(although possibly when the south wall of SR2 was still
standing), a new structure was built which is related
to the South Range rather than the East Range.
JARROW20.QXD
19-01-2007
11:34
Pagina 309
309
Fig 20.23 View looking south over SR adjuncts with later

flooring of SR5 and SR4 filled with rubbish. (IS/MS)
Fig 20.24 Sixteenth-century pot lying in fill of SR4.

(IS/MS)
This could have happened in the last phases of monastic use, or just afterwards since layer 1746, the surface
from which SR6 is constructed, contains pottery dated
to the 14th to 15th century. On the whole the latter
seems most likely, although it was soon replaced by
SR7 with its own entrance to the South Range (see Fig
19.26), and part of the area of SR6 was covered by a
drain (1504). This development is undoubtedly postDissolution and the drain served the refurbished South
Range during its use as a domestic building into the
18th century.
of the kitchen (85) was a layer of disturbed earth, part

of the later gardening activity (95), which contained
both medieval and 18th- to 19th-century pottery (Fig
16.42). Context 85 yielded a large amount of pottery,
the bulk of it dating to before 1350. There were, however, three overfired Buff White ware sherds (E11d,
13001475), and one Oxidised Gritty ware (1400);
these last may be contamination from context 95 above
and it is unfortunate that there were no intact surviving deposits or surfaces of the later medieval period
here, since this has caused some difficulty in reaching
a decision as to how late the kitchen survived, before
it was reinstated in the East Range (see above).
The Wall 5320 is shown on several 19th-century
drawings, sometimes as though it extended much further south than the stretch of about 2.5m which survives, and in a greater or lesser state of repair (see Fig
12.4 and Appendix B2223 and 256). There is no
hint on the early drawings nor indeed in the surviving
archaeology as to whether there was a physical southern boundary for the cemetery, but this could have
been lost, together with other later medieval features,
in the destruction of these medieval horizons by the
gardening and tree planting in the post-medieval period and the activities associated with the Victorian rectory.
At the western end of the southern slope there was
limited survival of the medieval garden in the orderly
sequence of terraced trenches, 2821 etc, which partly
covered the fill of the earlier cutting or southern
The cloister periphery

The western sector and southern slope
The upper slope between the church and the area
which in the Norman and earlier medieval phases was
identified as the kitchen, was given over to a burial
ground in which the greatest concentration of burials
was nearest to the church (see Fig 18.3 and Chapter
18). The eastern boundary of the cemetery was the
West Range wall (Wall 2) and its extension to the
south, 5320 (Fig 20.2), which, as previously stated
(Chapter 19), had been built over the line of an earlier
structure which plausibly formed the east wall of the
area interpreted as the earlier medieval kitchen.
Rubble from this earlier wall was intermixed with soil
deposits over the latest hearths in the kitchen.
Extending over the latest medieval occupation deposits
JARROW20.QXD
310
19-01-2007
11:34
Pagina 310
Fig 20.25 A. Postholes surrounding medieval hearths 3776 etc. PL

B. Possible configurations of postholes forming successive temporary structures or windbreaks around the hearth
area. PL
boundary ditch (see Figs 16.41 and 17.14). A rubbish
pit, 2837, which also cut through the fill of the ditch
contained food debris and pottery, the latest of which
was of 15th/16th-century date, with a range of earlier
types. Other features, some of which may be plant
holes, such as 583, 581 and 2528, or truncated bedding trenches such as 2482, 2471 and 2567 (Fig 20.2),
further testify to the gardening activities of this phase,
and there is a continuation of the dumping of food and
structural waste down the slope which was a feature of
this area in earlier periods. Such deposits include
2541, 2533 and 2562 (Fig 20.2).
Further east, at the bottom of the slope, there was

more localised activity in the area above the west end
of Building D. The clay and rubble which covered it
had been overlaid by a series of hearths, the earliest
group of which (3776 etc) could belong to a Medieval
1b phase: they contain no pottery, but seem to be set
on a levelling layer of clay, 2141, which contains
Anglo-Saxon crucible fragments and pottery which
spans the medieval period, including Later Green
Glazed wares (E12b, E13). Above these hearths or
charcoal deposits was a layer of brown clay 2129,
which contained three sherds of mid to late medieval
JARROW20.QXD
19-01-2007
11:34
Pagina 311
311
perhaps even later as irregular gullies. The eastern

channel, 1828/2365, contained medieval pottery
which spanned the period from the 13th to the 16th
centuries, and the upper level contained post-medieval
pottery which presumably derived from the garden soil
which lay above it, when it had ceased to be operational after the southern boundary wall was re-built.
The capping of the western drain 1979 had been lost
by this period and its fill (1869) contained late
medieval pottery. Over the whole area, most of the features and disturbances could have been the result of
gardening activities from the later medieval to early
modern periods.
Summary of the Medieval 2

occupation
Fig 20.26 Postholes between the two stone drains, possibly

drying racks or fences. (IS/MS)
pottery (E11a, E12b, E13), with further deposits of
burnt debris, 3773. This area seems to have been
delimited by lines of stake and postholes which could
have formed windbreaks to the west and north and
possibly also to the south. The eastern perimeter could
have been formed by the western stone drain (1979),
by a vestigial line of stakeholes adjacent to the drain, or
may have been concealed beneath a baulk. At the time
of excavation it was considered that the main postholes
such as 2127, 2122, 2140 and 2133, formed a structure (Fig 20.25). Two possible configurations of postholes on slightly different alignments could have
formed enclosures round the hearths (see Figs
20.25AB). These need not have been very permanent
features, however, and the lines of stakeholes on a
slightly different alignment could also have been windbreaks. It seems possible, therefore, that this sheltered
site was used as a working area for the garden on many
occasions.
Other rows of posts, 18947 and 195666, further
to the east in the area between two medieval drains
could be drying racks or temporary fences (Fig 20.26).
The construction of drains in this area at the end of the
Medieval 1 period was considered in Chapter 19, and
they survived until the end of the monastic phase and
This period has covered the phase from about the mid14th century, to the specific event of the Dissolution in
1536, a period of about two hundred years. The beginning of the period has been linked to a major structural reorganisation of the buildings on the site, which
then remained in much the same form until the end of
the phase when they were selectively abandoned or
modified. It has not proved any more possible, however, from archaeological evidence than it has from surviving documents to establish the precise date at which
organised monastic life resumed at Jarrow, nor indeed
the precise form that the initial resettlement took (Piper
1986, 4). In this period the archaeological evidence
demonstrated activity in site clearance and rebuilding
in the 13th century, particularly in the dumps along the
southern sector of the site, and the pottery which has
been dated to the period up to c 1350, discovered in the
robbing trenches of the cloister walks also indicates
occupation of the site at that time. It is possible that the
masters and monks whose names are associated with
the site in the late 13th and early 14th century (Piper
1986, 234, 30) either lived there intermittently or
lived in the Aldwinian buildings while the cloister was
modified and the South Cloister building constructed.
However, it must be remembered that the date of construction of this building rests on the fragile evidence of
pottery dating. The East Range, which was the most
complete Norman building, could easily have accommodated two people, if both floors were in use, and it is
difficult to understand from the inventories when individual rooms are mentioned (see Appendix A5.7a)
whether they are subdivisions of space.
From 1310 onwards only two major domestic
buildings are mentioned: a hall and a chamber, which
until 1370 is called the masters chamber, camera de
magistri (Appendix A5.7a). Were the hall or the camera
in the East Range or the South Range? The usual position for the lodgings for the head of a Benedictine
house would have been in the upper floor over the
warming house at the south of the East Range, and
that may well have been the position in the Medieval 1
period (see Fig 19.41, and below).
JARROW20.QXD
312
19-01-2007
11:34
Pagina 312
Fig 20.27 Drain 1965 looking north towards ER5, showing relationship to drainage channel leading from ER5.
(IS/MS)
Fig 20.28 Drain 1869 with construction trench excavated.

Wall J is in the foreground. (IS/MS)
It is possible that the construction of a new building in the South Range (the South Cloister Building)
was to provide more comfortable lodgings for the master, and it may be significant that in 1313 an ex-prior
of Durham, Prior William of Tanfield, received the
cell, and in 1394, another ex-prior, Robert of
Walworth, found, for undisclosed reasons, the provision initially made for him at Finchale not to his liking,
and he was provided with the cell at Jarrow (Piper
1986, 20, 40). It is interesting that a considerable
amount of money seems to have been spent on repairs
to the buildings between 13913 (Appendix A5.8), so
that the ex-Prior may have had a more congenial lodging than at Finchale. The elaborate 14th-century window in the western gable of the South Cloister building
would be appropriate for an upper floor hall. The hall,
according to the inventories, was furnished with seats
and tables and seems to have been used for entertaining, and the masters chamber seems to have been used
as a safe place for vestments, church plate and books
until 1372 when these items are to be found in the
church, and from 1372 when the lodging is known
simply as the chamber, tools and spices, and guest

bedding were still kept safe there as well as furnishings
for the bedroom of the master.
The domestic offices which supported the living
quarters are listed in Appendix A5.7a. It has been suggested above that the oven in ER7 may have been in the
brewhouse, which seems to have been put out of use in
the 15th century a date which would fit the filling of
the oven as revealed by the archaeological evidence. The
transformation of the kitchen (ER5) by a large baking
oven as opposed to open fires is revealed by the construction of 1254 in this phase, but the provision of a
separate bakehouse which the inventories imply has not
found any archaeological support in the area excavated.
The cellar interestingly disappears from the record after
1341, but the term could have applied to the undercroft
area of ER6 in the earlier Medieval 1 phase. In the later
Medieval 2 phase it has been suggested from the archaeological evidence that the room was closed in and possibly provided with cupboards which could have been
used for storage. The functions of SR2 and 5 as a coal
store and latrine, as indicated by the archaeology, are not
JARROW20.QXD
19-01-2007
11:34
Pagina 313
313
Fig 20.29 Artists reconstruction of the possible appearance of the Medieval 2 cloister looking south. Ivan Lapper
paralleled in the inventories, and perhaps one should not
push these relationships between text and archaeology
too far. Some impression of what the manor-like establishment of the later medieval period could have looked
like from the cloister is to be found in Figure 20.29.
Unfortunately the extensive buildings of the home
farm, which are listed in the inventories and from which
the cell derived so much of its income (see Chapter 23),
were not found in these excavations, and although one
might have expected stables to be quite near they could
have been east, west, or north of the site. The farm
could, however, have been at some distance, and the
structures discovered in Speaks excavation to the north
of Jarrow Hall (see Fig 2.3; Speak 1998) are, perhaps,
another possible indicator of its location.
The medieval layout of Jarrow and

Wearmouth in relation to other
cells of Durham Priory
As has already been stated, the remarkable survival of
the 11th-century buildings at Jarrow are difficult to
compare even with the other Durham cells such as
Lindisfarne (Fig 20.30) and Finchale (Fig 20.31),
which likewise have standing structures, but which
have been more comprehensively altered in subsequent periods. The Jarrow buildings are, however,
even more difficult to compare with the fragmentary
excavated remains of wall trenches at Wearmouth,
which indicate that the medieval layout was shaped by
the existing Anglo-Saxon buildings, the foundations of
JARROW20.QXD
314
19-01-2007
11:34
Pagina 314
Fig 20.30 Plan of Lindisfarne Priory, after English Heritage

which seem to have been in part reused. There are
nevertheless some interesting similarities between the
two sites.
In the first phase, which is presumably the late 11th
century, Jarrow and Wearmouth develop an enclosure
and an East Range. The claustral enclosure at Jarrow,
about 82ft square (25m), is comparable with Finchale.
It is stated by Peers to have been originally 23m (75ft)
square (Peers 1987, 14) but was apparently extended
northwards in the 14th century to include the original
north alley. The enclosure at Lindisfarne was also
probably originally square, but was enlarged into an
oblong plan in the 13th century (Thompson 1986,
1516 and plan). The alleys at Finchale are however
rather narrower than at Jarrow, as indeed they seem to
have been also at Lindisfarne, and here, as at Jarrow,
they seem to have been dismantled by the 14th century
except for a covered walk alongside the east range. At
neither Wearmouth nor Lindisfarne have the full
stretch of the cloister alleys been excavated, but if one
can accept the tentative line suggested by the surviving
walling, they are both narrower, c 8ft (2.45m). The
interior width of the cloister is greater eastwest at
Wearmouth, but if one accepts the enclosure as
extending from the exterior of the west Wall 4 to Wall

K, this gives a square of 120ft (37m), which is the
same northsouth perimeter measurement as Jarrow,
measuring from the south wall of the church to the
perimeter wall.
At both Wearmouth and Jarrow, the 11th-century
builders apparently constructed an unlined well in the
middle of the cloister. This did not survive as long at
Wearmouth as at Jarrow and may have been replaced
by one further away. At Jarrow the lavatorium was set
against the north wall of the south alley, and there is a
possibility that the drain which ran across the southwest section of the cloister at Wearmouth led to a similar feature. The aqueduct which is prominently
mentioned in several of the Wearmouth accounts
(Appendix A5.10) has not proved to be detectable.
The East Range, which has been fully excavated at
Jarrow, is of ample proportions in comparison with the
other cells. Its internal width varies from 23 to 25ft (7
to 7.6m) and it is 30ft (9m) wide externally. The measurement of the chapter house at Jarrow is 23ft 38ft
(7m 11.6m). At Lindisfarne and Finchale the chapter house, like that at Jarrow, is a rectangular building
and set within the width of the east range, and a
I SoL E
11
SCA.&.E U MNlES
.,
>:!
30
~th
-....
(IF f:[
,.,
..Jr-
'1'1
SCJYL
liiJrl .. L
.,.
..._... _.
t .. _ _ ..
:1'1JJf~
.,
.. - .. ~ L--.,' .. _ _ ...... .
1rg-.~~~
~-
Fig 20.31 Plan of Finchale Priory, after English Heritage
130:11
141h CE1fl1JR'f
LA
L_
C ] POST SUPPRESSION
I 1111-
r-VU 1P
,----
LATE l3,n
~~A
-- - - - - - - - - -
c:::J
c:::J
fATEF
_OtsrEA
:.= :.:=:.::::::-::::.. :
"0 A Ut
LATE 12u-. CEN!IlJR'f
I I
11:34
Cl
Cl
a_TE""r
19-01-2007
c::J
~c-~::::.:-J
P'4:)A~H
:::::::::::: :== :;'l'Jt==:::8:1
'it
\r------------------ ~
r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ _
JARROW20.QXD
Pagina 315
315
JARROW20.QXD
316
19-01-2007
11:34
Pagina 316
similar rectangular building is suggested for the first

phase in the mother-house at Durham (Roberts 1994;
see Fig 19.41). At Lindisfarne the chapter house is
about 16ft (4.9m) wide and, if it extended to the day
stairs, about 46ft (14m) long, while at Finchale it is a
squarish building externally measuring 21ft 23ft
(6.4m 7m). Wearmouth and Finchale are very similar
in the interior dimensions of their ranges, both being c
18ft (5.5m), but this dimension was determined at
Wearmouth by the pre-existing buildings. Possibly,
since the east range at Finchale is supposedly constructed in the 13th century and the south/frater range
in the 14th century, these buildings should be comparable with the later medieval (Medieval 2) buildings at
Jarrow, but since Finchale did not convert its monastic
to domestic arrangements, maintaining a cloister,
frater, and dormitory even when it built additional
lodgings for the prior and guests, it might be assumed
that there was a similarity in the Durham buildings
which had been established as early as the 12th century
and which was retained. (I am grateful to Alan Piper
for confirming that the other cells such as Lindisfarne
and Finchale retained in their inventories the conventional monastic terms for their buildings at a time
when Wearmouth and Jarrow referred merely to hall
and chambers.) The arrangement of rooms surrounding the cloister are indeed very similar at Jarrow and
Finchale and in fact at the mother-house of Durham
itself where initially there was no West Range.
At Lindisfarne, however, there was a fully developed west range terminating in a kitchen, bakehouse
and brewhouse complex which served the reshaped
south range. This, like the South Cloister Building at
Jarrow, seems to have been a domestic type of building,
but at Jarrow, as at Finchale the domestic buildings
which served it were part of the East Range. The construction of the frater at Finchale in the 14th century
must have been near in date to the construction of the
South Cloister hall and chamber at Jarrow, but there
are notable differences. At Wearmouth, Finchale and
Jarrow the ground floors of the south ranges are subdivided. In the first two the arrangement is similar an
eastern room 50ft (15.25m) long and a western 32ft
(9.75m) long at Wearmouth and an eastern room 40ft

(12.2m) long and a western 20+ft (6.1m) long at
Finchale. At Jarrow, the larger room is at the west,
measuring 60ft (18.3m) in length, the smaller one is
22ft 6in. (6.85m) in length at the east. It seems possible that this division is conditioned by domestic
arrangements, though at Wearmouth the position of
the kitchen is unknown, but the position of the larger
room at Jarrow seems more suited to kitchens at the
west than the east, where they certainly were from the
14th century onwards. The arrangement of the latrines
at Wearmouth and Jarrow in their second medieval
phase is the same, but at Wearmouth they were accessible from both the south and the east range, while at
Jarrow they are most accessible from the upper floor of
the East Range. It seems probable, therefore, that the
most comfortable living accommodation was over the
East Range in the Medieval 2 phase, and that could
have been the masters camera. The difficulty of identifying the camera and the hall among medieval buildings
has been well discussed by Beresford (1974) in his
account of the 12th-century manor house at
Penhallam, Cornwall.
The excavated evidence has so far not revealed
whether in the later medieval period additional ranges
were built to the east of the East Range at Jarrow and
Wearmouth as they were at Lindisfarne and Finchale.
One wall at Jarrow (1496, Fig 20.2), running at an
angle from the East Range, might indicate that such
extensions did exist, but the above evidence demonstrates that there was plenty of room at Jarrow and
Wearmouth to subdivide the East and West Ranges in
order to provide living accommodation for the small
communities which existed there after Aldwins time.
There seems no doubt that in all of the Durham
cells the function of rooms changed through time.
Since at Jarrow and Wearmouth these are the fullest
excavations in the relatively modern period for these
institutions, it is interesting to compare the evidence
with other sites which were earlier cleared and excavated, then consolidated (although I have not been able
to take into consideration the excavations at
Coldingham).
JARROW21.QXD
19-01-2007
11:38
Pagina 317
21 The boundaries of the medieval cell on the south:

Jarrow Slake excavations 19731976
by Christopher D Morris
Introduction to the excavated areas
both to east (Area IVE) and west (expanded Area

IVW). It revealed several phases of riverside structures
and activity dated to the period from the Conquest
through the Later Medieval period and into the Later
Post-Medieval period beneath these buildings. The
presence of the cottages (and their disturbance of
deposits below) inhibited treatment of the excavation as
one continuous area until the later stages of this season.
When excavations resumed in 1976, questions
raised by the results of the 1973 excavations determined the need for an extension to the north of the
original excavation area (Area IVN). This extended the
excavation right up to the standing eastwest perimeter
wall. Also, it was evident that some major stone walls
found in Area IV were likely to extend to the west (or
if not, then it would be important to see where they
turned north or south), and so further examination
was initiated in a discrete area to the west (Area V).
This area lay immediately to the south of the perimeter wall of the churchyard and the important medieval
and Anglo-Saxon deposits excavated by Rosemary
Cramp to the north (Chapter 16). The presence of a
tree necessitated a baulk dividing the northern part of
the trench into an eastern and a western sub-area,
although the southern part of the excavation was one
large open area. The area examined in the third season
was set back from the standing wall, but when it was
established that this was based upon a bank, the area
examined was extended further to the north (right up
to the perimeter wall) in the fourth season. Excavation
was halted because of safety considerations before the
complete sequence had been investigated. During
backfilling operations later in 1976, a small
Continuation excavation of the lower deposits was
undertaken, directed by Rosemary Cramp, in the eastern sub-area of Area V, the results of which have been
taken into account here.
Additionally, it was felt that it was important to
attempt to relate the 18th-century and Victorian brick
cottages to the buildings marked upon early editions of
the Ordnance Survey maps (Fig 1.10; Appendix B40).
Area VI was accordingly established to the east of Area
IV (with a baulk between), although in the fourth
excavation season the two areas were opened up as one
continuous excavation area. The intention was to
examine the area of the remaining brick cottages
shown on the 18th- and 19th-century prints
(Appendix B22 and 26), following the uncovering of
the western part of this group in 1973. During the
course of the excavations, it became clear that a further
extension to the east was required to complete the
uncovering of the block (Area VIE). Excavations below
the level of the cottages in the original Area VI were
Two main sites were investigated in advance of development as part of the Jarrow Slake excavations in 1973
and 1976 (Sites I and II). To the north-east of the
churchyard, Site I (see Fig 2.3, Areas IIII) examined
a large area running along the east margin of open
ground. This was an area traditionally associated with
the site of a Roman fort, and some Roman finds had
been made previously (Birley 1961, 1579). Since the
area for redevelopment included a notable scarp, this
gave an opportunity to examine this traditional identification and the hypothesis that there might be an earlier, Roman, site which provided materials for reuse at
the Anglo-Saxon monastic site (see also Chapter 3).
Accordingly, the strategy for examination of the large
area was based upon a series of trial trenches established to examine the scarp on the eastern side and also
at the southern end of the area, where hypothetically
the perimeter may have swung round to the west.
In reality, although there were a number of
machine-cut trenches (Trenches IV), three extensions
to these (Trenches I, II and V), three small hand-cut
trenches (Trenches VIVIII) and three area excavations (Areas IIII) opened up beside them, no Roman
features were discovered on Site I. The make-up of the
bank appeared to be natural, and all occupation could
be placed in the later post-medieval phase. There was
a total absence of any finds datable to the Roman period, even in unstratified contexts, which suggests that
any Roman fort must have been some distance away
(see Chapter 3 above). As indicated above in Chapter
2, allotments were extensive in this area, and this disturbance meant that, even from the Late PostMedieval phase, no clear evidence of structures was
obtained. In the light of this, there will be no further
reference to Site I in this volume.
In 1973, Site II was initially opened to investigate an
area to the south of the church and monastery (and the
Guardianship area excavations) by the side of the River
Don. This site (Areas IVVI) was an altogether more
productive area for excavation. Again as in Site I the
strategy in 1973 was based upon initial examination of
a small area (Area IV; Fig 21.1). Once the solidified
chemical waste deposited from chemical works to the
south in the 19th century had been removed, it was evident that there were intact deposits below, although
these had been cut into to a certain degree by the building of brick-built back-to-back cottages. However, further west (Area IVW), there was a significantly greater
depth of surviving deposits. Work at Easter 1973 was
limited in scope for logistical reasons, but the second
season in that year enabled a larger-scale area excavation
to take place. The area of excavation was expanded
317
JARROW21.QXD
318
19-01-2007
11:38
Pagina 318
Fig 21.1 Jarrow Slake Site II, location of excavation trenches (Areas IVVI). NE
also undertaken to a limited extent. Also a small area
to the north of the north-west corner of the excavation
area was examined in order to look at the composition
of the bank behind the cottages and the construction of
the back wall.
Not all areas examined in Site II were excavated to
natural deposits; indeed, safety considerations played
an increasingly important role in determining how
much was fully examined. Area IV (including areas to
east, north and south) was most fully excavated (albeit
with lower deposits sampled in keyhole trenches).
Layers to the west (Area IVW) were completely excavated in the upper levels, but only partially below.
Further west again, Area V had extensive excavation in
upper levels in the third season, but only selectively
thereafter of the lower levels culminating in small,
rapidly examined areas at the base of the deposits during backfilling (Area V, Continuation). Area VI was
essentially only established in relation to the cottages,
and where excavation did take place below them in this
part of the site, it was limited by these constraints but
did aim to obtain as full a sequence as possible.
Post-excavation analysis
No post-excavation work for the Jarrow Slake site was
supported by the then Department of the Environment
(DoE) until the early 1980s. At that stage, the primary
documentation was sorted, listed and then some of the
stratigraphy was analysed by Michael Rains. However,
this limited post-excavation support was not extended
and, unfortunately, funding ran out before his work
was completed. In the later 1980s, English Heritage
was no more receptive than its predecessors to requests
for support to complete the post-excavation work, and

so it lay in abeyance, with small pieces of work being
carried out in between other obligations in the 1990s.
Officially, Jarrow Slake was treated as part of the overall Guardianship area project, which they had funded,
but no coherent proposals were then forthcoming to
bring the material from Jarrow Slake up to the level
from which it could be integrated into that post-excavation level project. Inevitably, therefore, the treatment
of the data has been patchy and inconsistent, and the
analysis is correspondingly deficient.
Similarly, no significant post-excavation work was
funded by the DoE on the artefacts. The small finds
were catalogued by Colleen Batey in the early 1990s,
following Michael Rains initial listings, and her information has been utilised in the specialists reports in
Volume 2. Her original documentation, which includes
the listing of post-medieval finds, exists in the Jarrow
Slake archive. The Anglo-Saxon and medieval finds
have however been accorded the same treatment as
those from the Guardianship site and help was also
provided in Durham with the plans and section drawings for the publication. No other general artefactual
or ecofactual material was analysed, apart from some
identifications by Dr Barbara Noddle of the animal
bones found in 1973. It is clear that there is significant
potential for further understanding of the site from
consideration of this material.
Area IV
There was a reasonable coverage at hand-written
level of the analysis of data from Areas IV and
IVE, although there are some missing stages in the
JARROW21.QXD
19-01-2007
11:38
Pagina 319
21: THE BOUNDARIES OF THE MEDIEVAL CELL ON THE SOUTH
documentation for IVN. There is also available a computer print-out of some of Michael Rains documentation, although this is incomplete, and the original files
on the Durham University MTS system were
destroyed routinely in the early 1990s. However, he
had undertaken sufficient work, and there was enough
documentation, for Christopher D Morris to be able to
cross-check these data and analyses in February/March
2000. Rains analysis of Area IV from on-site stratigraphic information etc, through the stratigraphic hierarchy diagram to the presentation of an interpretative
matrix for these three areas has essentially been followed here, but with some modifications as noted in
the archive report. A total of thirty groups of contexts
across the site were placed into Blocks, which were
then correlated to produce an overall sequence of fifteen Episodes. This amounts to an increase of five
blocks over Michael Rains analysis, with two additional blocks in IV/IVE and three in IVN. There are also
four additional episodes, essentially expanding out of
the original Episode 4, with consequent re-numbering
from the previous analysis. The Stratigraphic
sequence and connected account in the archive report
is therefore constructed and described in these revised
terms, in this and other areas and informs the account
of the Medieval structures and deposits (below).
Area IV West
For Area IVW, some preliminary work only had been
carried out by Michael Rains on the data. For many
years work was hampered because of the loss of the
site-book, which had to be reconstructed from other
sources of primary information. In 1994, this site-book
reappeared at the Department of Archaeology at
Durham. Work was therefore carried out in that year
by Christopher Morris to verify Michael Rains limited
documentation, and a significant number of modifications and additions were made to his preliminary
stratigraphic analysis. Computer print-outs of some of
Michael Rains documentation are also available,
although it is clear that this is incomplete, and the original files like those of Area IV were destroyed routinely in the early 1990s after the present author had
left. In February/March 2000, Christopher D Morris
cross-checked these data and analyses from the on-site
stratigraphic information etc through to the preliminary stratigraphic hierarchy diagram. Although no
interpretative matrix diagram as such has been produced for this area, a revised stratigraphic hierarchy
diagram was produced, which has enabled a total of
sixty-four of the sixty-six contexts identified during
excavation to be correlated. These have been placed
into thirteen blocks, which have produced an overall
sequence of ten episodes. Subsequently, some further
correlation was attempted between the groups of contexts here, and those of the adjacent Areas
IV/IVE/IVN, and these will be referred to in the
account of those areas presented below.
319
Area V
Area V fared better than most other areas. The primary documentation was sorted, studied and the stratigraphy analysed by Michael Rains in the early 1980s.
Despite the fact that funding ran out before his work
was completed, much was achieved. His analysis from
on-site stratigraphic information etc, through a stratigraphic hierarchy diagram to the presentation of an
interpretative matrix has been followed here, with the
important exception of what is clearly a mistake in relation to Wall 3 which demonstrably had two phases, the
earlier of which should have been separately designated. There are also a number of other smaller modifications which are described in the archive report. In
particular, the three sub-episodes from the
Continuation excavation have to be seen as distinct
and successive, rather than facets of the same primary
episode. The overall result is a sequence of thirteen
episodes into which the twenty-eight blocks of contexts
have been placed.
Area VI
Some preliminary post-excavation work was undertaken by Michael Rains on the records for Area VI in the
early 1980s, but, although some stratigraphic sorting
was undertaken, no stratigraphic hierarchy diagram or
interpretative matrix was produced as the funding for
the project ceased. As with the primary documentation
from Area IV, only small aspects of the material have
been looked at since, as the post-excavation programme has lain in abeyance. However, for the purposes of assisting with the overall publication of the
Guardianship area excavations, Christopher Morris
went back in March 2000 to the primary site records
and Michael Rains paperwork in order to analyse the
stratigraphic data. The blocks of contexts and the
stratigraphic sequence proposed here represents his
analysis, based upon Michael Rains initial analysis and
the primary records from 1976. Overall, the 55 contexts were sorted into 26 chronological steps, and
these have now been consolidated into sixteen blocks
of contexts divided into eleven major episodes.
Medieval structures and deposits

The character of the structural elements and associated
deposits examined to the south of the medieval monastic complex on the bank of the River Don are best first
examined in Area V, the most westerly of the areas
examined as part of Jarrow Slake Site II. This account
will then move across the site from west to east.
Area V (Figs 21.121.6)

As indicated above (Introduction), in the area to the
west of the 1973 excavations, it was the intention in
1976 both to examine the medieval structures which
JARROW21.QXD
320
19-01-2007
11:38
Pagina 320
Fig 21.2 Northsouth section through JS Area V, linking through to JA trench 7505. NE
were believed (on the basis of the results of the 1973
excavations in Area IV to the east) to extend into this
area, and to examine any surviving deposits below, up
to the standing modern churchyard perimeter wall to
the south of the Guardianship area excavations (Fig
21.2). In brief, the upper levels of the site comprised
modern cinder tracks running east-west in the area
between this wall and the river (Episode 13), in part on
top of chemical waste dumped to the side of the river
by the chemical factory to the south of the River Don
(Episode 12). Before this, there was clearly a heightening of the churchyard wall (Wall 3) some time in the
18th to 20th centuries and a number of postholes presumably associated with a fence for a path (Episodes
11/12). However, there was also a riverside wall (Wall
1) running westeast, with further dump deposits to
the south of it (Episode 11). North of this wall, and
antedating it, was a general deposit of sandy clay with
rubble and mortar, which appears (from the included
artefactual material) to have accumulated during the
post-medieval period, as the lower parts of the deposit
appear to be earlier post-medieval in date (Episode
10). Episode 9, consisting of a dump of mixed clay
with rubble at the south edge of previous depositions,
also appears to relate to the post-monastic phase of the
site after the Dissolution, with some earlier residual
material. It is tempting to associate these two episodes
specifically with the post-Dissolution closure and
reversion of the site to secular usage.
Removal of the modern riverside wall (Wall 1)
demonstrated that, as in Area IV to the east in 1973, it
had been set on a very substantial stone wall below
(Figs 21.221.4). This lower wall (Wall 2; Figs 19.13
and 19.28) was clearly the same as a major eastwest
riverside wall discovered there (Wall 12/15: Episode 6)
and, again, a mortar and rubble layer, which represents

the destruction of it, was found to the river side of it
(Episode 11, Block G). It seems likely that the wall was
in use through the post-medieval period as well, as
there were deposits up to it in that period (Episodes 9
and 10 above). To the north of this wall, and stratigraphically later than its construction, were successive
dumps of clay, sand and rubble overlying layers with
medieval pottery (Episodes 58), through the later
medieval period.
The latest group, representing dumping against the
north side of Wall 2 and later dumps across the whole
area, is made up of a number of blocks of contexts in
Episode 8. One grouping has, successively, yellow
loamy sand (Block O, including contexts 46, 47), then
dark brown loam (Block N, 29 and 36) and, finally,
mixed sand, rubble and mortar (Block M, context 24).
The finds recovered included food debris, building
materials and medieval pottery spanning the early
medieval period (10751350), with a few earlier residual sherds and a few fragments dated post-1400. There
was in addition a silver continental sterling of Bishop
Guy de Collemede (12961306; see Vol 2, Nu39), two
strips of copper-alloy plate riveted together (SF503),
and a horseshoe (Vol 2, Fe159). The second grouping
is a sequence of mixed deposits of crumbly grey/brown
clay and rubble (Block K; 26, 28, 33), then a patch of
yellow clay (Block L; 56), followed by brown sandy
clay loam with mortar flecks (Block J; 12, 19, 21).
Only the last block produced any finds: bone, shell,
mainly early medieval pottery, with a few later
medieval and one post-medieval sherds, tile, plaster,
metal, a clay-pipe bowl, green glass, and part of a deep
turquoise blue window quarry (Ch 27.1, JS no. 1746).
Small finds included another horseshoe (Vol 2, Fe160,
JARROW21.QXD
19-01-2007
11:38
Pagina 321
321
Fig 21.3 General view of JS Area V looking west, showing Wall 2. CDM. (MS)
Fig 21.4 Area V, detail of Wall 2 from the north. CDM.

(MS)
SF394) and a glass bead (Vol 2, B15, SF501). While

there are hints in these upper contexts of a postmedieval date, on site it was noted that contamination
from root action or adjacent later layers was possible,
so a Medieval 2 date may still be plausible for at least
some of the contexts from this episode. This episode
seems to indicate a gradual accumulation of material
over a long period, with Wall 2 still in use.
Before this, Episode 7 represents the infilling of a
ditch or cut running along the northern side of Wall 2.
Block P included contexts 40, 41, 48, and 75/93 (Fig
21.2) and consists of heavy grey/brown clay loam with
charcoal and mortar flecks at the bottom of the bank
against the north side of Wall 2. The material recovered included food debris, building materials and
medieval pottery, the bulk of which was Oxidised
Gritty ware (E10, 10751300) and Early Green ware
(E12a, 11751350) with a few residual late 11th to
12th-century sherds and a few fragments dated post1400. The finds clearly relate to a later medieval
phase of activity. Although the sections might suggest
that this ditch should be considered as a possible
construction trench for Wall 2, none of the infilling layers underlie the stones of the wall. Possible alternatives
are a robber-trench for stone at a later date (which is
not altogether unlikely), or a trench for inspection/
repair of the wall after a period of flooding.
Below these deposits, there was evidence in the east
of the area for earlier dumping down the bank in
Episode 6. Mixed clays with some sand, and occasional traces of burning, constituted Block R (contexts 68,
70, 71, 77, and 78). Finds included building and food
debris, coal, and pottery which included a preConquest crucible (Vol 2, Cr37), a large amount of
medieval pottery dating up to 1350 with a scattering of
later green wares (E12b, E13). Small finds included an
Anglo-Saxon coin attributed to Eadberht (c 73758;
Vol 2, Nu13) and a lead fitting (SF517). Again,
although there is some interesting Anglo-Saxon material here, it seems to be residual, as it is in context with
much medieval pottery. Presumably the best explanation is to connect this episode with construction during the medieval monastic phases, resulting in the
disturbance of debris from the Anglo-Saxon buildings
JARROW21.QXD
322
19-01-2007
11:38
Pagina 322
Fig 21.5 Area V, Rubble of Episode 5 over clay bank;

Wall 2 in foreground. CDM. (MS)
to the north. However, the presence of the later greenglazed wares would seem to indicate that the dumping
is likely to be Medieval 12 in date. The tip layers of
Episode 6 resemble similar deposits on the north side
of the boundary wall, such as 2369 and perhaps the
upper levels of 2372 (discussed in Chapter 19, the
southern perimeter and slope).
The primary phase of dumping from the north
down the earlier bank of Episode 3 (below) occurred in
Episode 5 (Fig 21.5). In the eastern part of the area was
a series of dumps of loamy clay and sand with some
rubble, distinguished as Block S (contexts 76/92,
8183, 84, 85/91, 86 and 90 (see Fig 21.2). Bone, shell,
tile, stone, metal, mortar and pottery were all found,
the latter having the same types and date range as Block
Q below. The assemblage would seem to be Medieval 1
in date. In the west of the area, Block Q is a group of
contexts also representing successive dumps down the
bank: they are clearly contemporary with Block S, as
contexts 52 and 49 equated with 82 and 86. The contexts (13, 45, 4952, 545, 57, 64, 69, 7274 and 80)
are interleaved dumps of sand, mainly brown sandy
loam, yellowed near the top, with some yellow clay

patches and rubble concentrations. Finds included animal and fish bone, stone, and Roman-type tile, as well
as pottery ranging from the late 11th to the 14th
century. Small finds comprise Anglo-Saxon window
glass (Vol 2, Ch 27, JS nos 17479), fragments of mica
(Vol 2, Ch 34.2, WS67 and Ch 35.3), a perforated lead
roof fitting (SF512), as well as a possible pin (SF523)
and possible vessel fragment (SF516) in copper alloy.
The finds again appear to show residual debris from the
earlier Anglo-Saxon monastery and are closely similar
to the finds from the floor of Building D, but here are
combined with later pottery and in contexts that are
clearly stratified as Medieval 1. This episode may
equate roughly to deposits to the north of the boundary
wall such as 2372 and the lower fills of 3689 (see Fig
21.2 and discussion in Chapters 17, the southern slope
and 19, the southern perimeter and slope).
The construction of the eastwest wall to the south
of these dumps (Wall 2) is in Episode 4 (Figs 21.3 and
21.4). Wall 2 consists of large dressed stones, several
courses high, and was of considerable width, being
approximately 1.5m wide at the base (context 25, Block
T: Figs 21.2, 19.13). This wall used faced stones on
both sides, and is a significant feature, running
westeast without any walls found adjoining it in the
area excavated. It had a noticeably broad base and a
tapering profile of which over 1m survived in places.
The construction with sloping sides, along with its
unusual width (more substantial than most others on
the site as a whole), suggests a wall deliberately placed
to resist river action, rather than simply a boundary wall
for the medieval monastery. The wall continued across
the length of the area excavated, and is certainly traced
throughout the Jarrow Slake excavation areas running
parallel with the river. It would seem over-elaborate if
its only purpose was as a perimeter demarcation or
boundary. This putative role (as a substantial defence
against river flooding) might then explain why it should
be so near the earlier clay bank and associated Wall 3.
Artefacts recovered indicate clearly an admixture of
Anglo-Saxon and medieval material. Wall 2 would thus
appear to have been in use throughout the later
medieval period, but probably originates in date in
Medieval 1. It was originally thought that a cut for a
construction could be seen through some tip-layers to
the north which was later infilled in the Medieval 2
period (Episode 7 above), but as explained above it
is now considered that this represents a later activity,
either robbing of stone or perhaps inspection or repair
following riverine flooding. Associated with the cleaning of the rubble at the top of Wall 2 were some animal
bone, shell, an iron nail and a sherd of medieval pottery, but again this may well relate to its demise, rather
than its usage.
Removal of the dumping layers of Episodes 58
revealed a steep sandy slope (Fig 21.5). This overlay an
artificially constructed clay bank with large stones set
in the top (Wall 3) and rubble spread down the face of
JARROW21.QXD
19-01-2007
11:38
Pagina 323
323
Fig 21.6 Area V, Wall 3 (left) on top of clay bank, with tips showing in east section of trench. CDM. (MS)
the bank (Episode 3; Fig 21.6). Block AA (contexts
9496 and 105) (Figs 21.2 and 21.5) is a clay, sand
and rubble mix over a solid clay packing or bank (context 97). The clay sand and rubble mix produced bone,
Roman tile (both tegula and imbrex), fragments of iron,
lead and silver, and medieval pottery of 11th to 14th
century date, as well as four sherds of later green wares
(E12b, E13). In addition, context 94 yielded a bronze
styca (Nu14) of the early 9th century (struck c 77880)
and context 96 a silver uninscribed Anglo-Saxon sceatta (Nu28), possibly Mercian (c 71525). Again, the
presence of the medieval pottery suggests that the
Anglo-Saxon material is residual.
Block U represents the offset course of stones of
Wall 3 (context 61), and would appear to be on top of
the clay bank. Evidence from the northern side of the
boundary wall implies, however, that the various
episodes of tipping down the slope were originally continuous and cut by Wall 3, while in trench 7505 a construction trench was recorded cutting from Medieval 2
layer 2369/2370 (see Fig 21.2). This would suggest
that the construction of Wall 3 in fact post-dates
Episodes 5 and 6, and that while Wall 3 was observed
to sit directly on top of the earlier bank, in fact some
time may have elapsed between the two events.
Three narrow sections only were cut through the
clay bank: in the western part of the area, these were
down to the natural sand of Episode 1. The bank (97)
appeared to have bands and/or wedges of both sand
and clay in it; its surface yielded animal bone, a fragment of Roman tile and early medieval pottery with a
date range of 10751350, but the core of the bank
appeared to be devoid of finds. This assemblage seems

to be Medieval 1 in date. However, it may be suggested that this bank is part of an early perimeter for the
monastery on the south side. Despite the presence of
Anglo-Saxon material, it appears to be associated with
later (Medieval 1) material and therefore presumably
relates to the re-established post-Conquest monastery
founded by Aldwin. No ditch or trench associated with
the bank has been located, and the precise orientation
was not clear. A suggested sequence taking into
account the deposits on the north of the wall could be
as follows. There could have been a cut or trench (for
posts) related to the cut in trench 7505 (assigned to the
Late Saxon/Early Medieval phase), the slope on the
south side towards the river being mounded up as support. At a later date, in the Medieval 1 period, the surface was further consolidated with stones. In that
phase or later, the construction of Wall 3, which was
most probably wider than the original cut, successfully
obliterated the earlier boundary.
In the small areas of these sections, no features
below the bank were observed. It was not possible, during the main excavation in 1976, to carry out further
investigation because of the unstable nature of the sand
layers. The present perimeter wall (Wall 3) rested on
top of the clay and sand bank above the natural sand;
consequently there was a very clear danger in excavating the bank, and the decision was taken, albeit regretfully, to halt work at this point. As far as dating evidence
was concerned at that stage, all dating material recovered appeared to be post-Conquest. However, by good
fortune, the process of backfilling this area was carried
JARROW21.QXD
324
19-01-2007
11:38
Pagina 324
Fig 21.7 Area V, plan of postholes and gully of Episode 2.

YB
Fig 21.8 Area V, postholes of Episode 2. RC. (IS/MS)

out later in 1976 during a period of excavation by
Professor Cramp of the adjacent area, and in the eastern part of Area V the opportunity was taken to remove
the clay and sand layers of the bank in two small
stretches c 12ft (3.66m) and 4ft 6in. (1.37m) long.
An alignment of postholes cut into natural sand was
found below the bank in Episode 2, as well as an associated gully and path, all running eastwest. Eleven
postholes (Block BB) were essentially on an eastwest
alignment (Figs 17.2 and 21.78). Most were of a very
regular shape, eight being rectangular, the remaining
three being basically circular, with the postholes in the
smaller, more easterly, area being less regularly shaped.
In only one was there any evidence that the post had
been removed, but equally there was no evidence of
decayed wood in any of them. They were filled with
uniformly soft sand and small stones, and some contained fragments of bone and two fragments of Roman
tile. This line would seem best explained as some sort
of revetment along the base of the natural sand bank of

Episode 1, acting as a boundary. They appear to have
been associated (at least in the western half of the
Continuation area) with the line of a possible gully
filled with dirty brown clay with charcoal flecks also
running eastwest (Block DD: contexts 98101).
These layers yielded tile (Roman), animal bone, metal
(including a possible iron and silver washer), and
medieval pottery (11th14th century). Given the presence of the pottery, the implication has to be that the
Anglo-Saxon and Roman material is residual. The best
explanation would seem to be that this is a SaxoNorman marking-out of the perimeter of the monastic
area with a wooden fence and ditch (Episode 2), to be
replaced later with a more impressive and permanent
bank surmounted with a wall (Episode 3). Some
0.36m to the north of the gully feature, an area of compacted brown sand with pebbles (Block CC: 102, 103)
would seem best explained as a possible path running
parallel to the gully and fence, on the landward side of
it and cut into the natural bank. Finds were few, but
included a sherd of late 11th- to 12th-century pottery
(D12) and bone. Again, this is considered to be Late
Saxon/Early Medieval.
Thus, although some Anglo-Saxon material is present in this episode, the presence of medieval pottery
suggests that all these features are post-Conquest, perhaps associated with the replanning of the monastery
although the finds per se cannot support a dating as
precise as the initial work by Aldwin.
It is an unfortunate fact that the evidence from Area
V does not reflect the usage of the Anglo-Saxon
monastery, but rather the period after its demise, and
the clearance of its buildings, with dumping of material down the slope towards the river to make way for the
medieval monastery. In strictest stratigraphical terms,
then, the Anglo-Saxon material is non-contextualised,
and the period of the Anglo-Saxon monastery not visible archaeologically in this part of the site.
Area IV West (Figs 21.1; 21.9)

Area IVW, initially a small extension of the main Area
IV excavated at Easter 1973, was subsequently extended in 1976 as far as was possible to the west, and treated as a discrete excavation area. Since the main Area
IV had been built upon for later post-medieval brick
cottages, and IVW had not, there was also a significant
distinction in the nature of the surviving strata, and the
stratigraphic sequence to be derived therefrom. At no
point during the excavation was it possible to dig the
two areas as one larger area, as at any one time the
deposits in each were at significantly different absolute
levels and stratigraphic layers.
Below the uppermost levels of turf, topsoil and some
chemical waste (Episode 10), were a number of postmedieval deposits. A modern trackway along the riverside, with a post-fence along the south side, was clearly
late 19th20th century in date (Episode 9). This was
JARROW21.QXD
19-01-2007
11:38
Pagina 325
325
Fig 21.9 East-facing section of Areas IVW. NE

preceded by a substantial dressed stone riverside wall
(Wall 6; Fig 21.9), which appeared to adjoin (and
therefore post-date) the westernmost brick cottage
excavated in Area IV (Episode 8). It is said to have been
erected in 1811 (D Turnbull, pers comm). Wall 6, built
upon the foundation provided by an earlier wall (Wall
13) below, appears to be identical with Wall 1 of Area
V, and was perhaps similarly replaced by the modern
standing churchyard wall to the north (Fig 21.9). The
date range for Episode 8 is Later Post-Medieval to 19th
century. A general and gradual levelling up process of
the whole area with more rubble and clay seems to be
indicated by Episode 7. The assemblages from the contexts involved here contain a wide date-range, including
some Anglo-Saxon material, and certainly both earlier
and later medieval pottery, suggesting that it represents
both dumping of this material and clearance from a
fairly wide area, which was then mixed up with contemporary post-medieval material. The likelihood is
that it represents a gradual accumulation after the initial post-Dissolution changes, although there is clearly
some later, if not intrusive, material.
It is possible that an earlier perimeter wall is reflected in Episode 6. Walls 10 and 11 (at right-angles to
each other) were built in the area between the later
Wall 6 and the standing wall to the north. The likely
date is during the earlier post-medieval period,
although it could be later. Sometime in the earliest
post-medieval period, an accumulation of soils took
place across the whole area which may well in practical
terms represent the effects of the 1537 Dissolution
and perhaps a great river flood on the River Wear at
some point in or after the 16th century, which is apparently unrecorded. It seems quite clear from the mixture
of residual material through from possible AngloSaxon and earlier medieval to much later medieval
material, and the regular, if small-scale, appearance of
post-medieval material, that this episode must represent the total destruction of the erstwhile monastery
and its riverside perimeter, and the early phase of the
post-Dissolution history of the site.
Because of the survival of more deposits from the
post-medieval period, medieval deposits could not be
excavated comprehensively in this area. Nevertheless, a
complete sequence does appear to have been examined, if not exhaustively. Here, archaeologically speaking, the Medieval 2 period would seem to be
represented by substantial deposits of material in
Episode 4. These appear to reflect a more gradual disuse of the monastery, together with a long period of
decay and collapse of the eastwest riverside wall (Wall
13) of the preceding episode, as it was subject to riveraction, with possible repeated re-building. In Block 43,
sands, stone and mortar spreads were found on the
south side of Wall 13 (Fig 21.9): contexts 49, 50, 52 (=
68 in Area IV/IVE), 63 and 68. Finds included animal
bone, shell, flint, brick, limestone and sandstone roofing and red floor tile, glass waste, a range of earlier and
later medieval, and possible post-medieval, pottery,
together with a clay-pipe (SF309) and an iron nail
(SF398). In Block 44 were a number of sandy, clayey
soils, with mortar, charcoal, limestone tiles, and stones
and also features such as a pit and a robber-trench on
the north side of Wall 13: contexts 42, 45, 46, 47, 48,
51, 58, 59, and 60 (= 78 in IV/IVE). These deposits
yielded animal bone, shell, burnt wood, flint, slate,
slag, coal, sandstone, limestone and grey slate roofing
tiles and red tile, wall plaster (including painted AngloSaxon, SF278, 290, 291, 293 and 308), iron nails and
lumps (SF279, 285, 288, 281 and 283), a glass waster,
and later and some earlier medieval pottery ranging in
date from 1075 to 1550. Metal small finds included a
folded strip of lead (301) and a rolled copper-alloy
strip (310).
Pagina 326
Fig 21.10 Areas IVV, plan of walls. NE/CU
11:38
Wall 6/14
326
19-01-2007
Wall 4
JARROW21.QXD
JARROW21.QXD
19-01-2007
11:38
Pagina 327
327
were originally fairly massive and it was probably

designed specifically against potential flooding by the
river and ultimately by the sea, perhaps from neap or
spring tides. Although no finds were directly associated with the construction of this wall, the finds from the
earth (61) above the topmost surviving course seem to
indicate a medieval dating for it. Finds recovered from
context 61 were animal bone, sandstone and limestone
roofing tiles, buff plaster, and one sherd of Kelso-type
ware (F11, 11501250). It is not unreasonable, therefore, to consider its construction as possibly Medieval
1 in date.
The stones of this wall were set over a surface
(Episode 2: Block 41) of built-up river sand and gravel
(contexts 53, 54, and 64) created by tidal flooding over
the clean natural sand. Finds included animal bone,
sandstone and limestone roofing and red floor (including one possible inlaid) tile fragments, and yellowish
and white plaster. Insofar as it can be dated, it appears
to be Medieval 1 in date. A few finds of shell were made
at the interface with the natural sands of Episode 1.
Areas IV/IVE/IVN (Figs 21.1, 21.1021.20)
Fig 21.11 Area IV, general view from east, showing Wall
13. CDM. (MS)
Overall, although there is some very interesting
Anglo-Saxon and other earlier medieval material, such
as the painted plaster, and possibly the lead (from the
roofs of the monastic buildings), it has to be stated that
the episode contains later medieval finds and presumably dates to the demise of the monastery at the end of
Medieval 2. Certainly the large numbers of roofing
tiles would be consistent with this analysis. There is a
hint that some of this activity may have continued into
the post-medieval period, but the few pieces that might
be so dated may conceivably be explained as contaminants from later deposits or intrusions.
It is likely that the Medieval 2 period was when
riverine action affected a substantial wall (Wall 13:
Block 42) running eastwest parallel with the river,
constructed in Episode 3. It had three courses of large
stones set in wet brown clay and was clearly the same
east-west riverside wall found in both Area IV to the
east and Area V to the west (Figs 21.9 and 21.11).
Layer 65 was associated with its construction and some
associated stones in sand lay to the north (context 66).
As in Area V, it is possible to infer that its dimensions
This area formed the core of the site excavated in

1973, and was partially re-opened and extended in
1976 (see Introduction). The post-medieval history of
the site will simply be summarised briefly here.
Beneath uniform deposits of turf and topsoil (Episode
15), there is evidence in Episode 14 of the construction
of a riverside path with a post-fence along the south
side, which is likely to have occurred in the early 20th
century. Episode 13 below represents the collapse/
destruction of a group of brick-built, back-to-back
cottages, accompanied by the deposition of chemical
waste from a nearby factory to the south. This episode
must be late 19th20th century in date. Episode 12
represents the construction and occupation of this row
of cottages in the later post-medieval period, together
with an associated drain. The cottages appear on an
etching dated to 1782 (Appendix B26; Figs 22.2 and
22.4 below), and it is interesting to note that they are
built just beyond (ie respecting) the line of an earlier
churchyard boundary wall (Walls 10 and 11, Area
IVW), but over the line of the earlier riverside Wall
13/15/12. Many artefacts are associated with the occupation of these cottages but, as elsewhere, there is still
some interesting residual medieval material, reflecting
the continued disturbance of the ground. Beneath the
cottages, Episode 11 represents the gradual levelling
up of the whole area with clay and rubble in the early
post-medieval period (see Fig 21.12). Finds were
numerous and there was an extraordinary date-range
for the material. This suggests that they represent
clearance from a fairly wide area, and dumping of this
material, which was then mixed with contemporary
material, in the post-medieval period. There was also,
perhaps, more specific ground preparation in the late
18th century for the building of the brick cottages.
" ~"
hL"'
--'.
.. , -- ,
10ft
11:38
'.,.
19-01-2007
Fig 21.12 Area IVN/IVE, east-facing section. NE
"
JARROW21.QXD
Pagina 328
JARROW21.QXD
19-01-2007
11:38
Pagina 329
329
Fig 21.13 Area IV: eastwest Wall 4 to west of pier base; Wall 16/5 below; modern boundary wall above. CDM. (MS)
The preceding Episode 10, with much rubble,
including roofing-tiles, both north of, and over, an earlier eastwest riverside wall, represents the collapse
and/or destruction of a medieval building or buildings
to the north. An enormous amount of artefactual
material was recovered, with a mixture from residual
pre-Conquest to much later medieval material (especially a large collection of copper-alloy objects), and
the regular, if small-scale appearance of post-medieval
material. It is tempting, although entirely speculative,
to associate the final destruction of the earlier riverside
wall with a flood on the River Wear, as mentioned
above. However, more generally, it can be stated that
Episode 10 would seem to give the impression of the
total destruction of the erstwhile monastery and its
riverside frontage in the early part of the postDissolution history of the site.
Episode 9 in this area represents the last stage of the
medieval activity on the site. It appears that in the later
medieval period there was a long period of decay and
collapse of the monastic structures, with some evidence for rebuilding of an earlier major eastwest riverside wall. Final destruction was probably by the river in
the later Medieval/Early Post-Medieval period, with a
thick sandy clay deposit covering partly destroyed walls
particularly in the southern part of the area. In the central and eastern part of the area, Block 7 in Areas IV
and IVE represents this series of inundations, decay
and re-building. It comprises various sandy, gravel,
earth, clay, mortar and rubble spreads to either side of
Wall 15: contexts 68, 69, 75, 78, 79, 85 and 88. To the
north in Area IVN, Block 27 had mixed brown sand
and clay with some rubble (contexts 20, 22, 41, 44,
and 52); and a possible trench along the east side of an

earlier stone pier (context 47). Finds included shell,
animal bone, slate, flint, coal, copper slag, a range of
white, pink and grey plaster (some thought to be similar to that found from the South Range of the medieval
monastery), limestone and sandstone roofing and red
floor tiles (some glazed), medieval glass, and glazed
and unglazed medieval pottery (together with two
sherds of what appears to be contaminant postmedieval pottery). Small finds included both yellow
(204) and clear (284) medieval window glass, a possible crucible fragment (306; Ch 35.1, Cr42), a silvergilt/copper-alloy triangular hook tag (SF326, Vol 2,
CA37), fragments of pin (287), fragments of plate
(327), all of copper alloy, a rivet (191), nails (205, 262,
and 289) and other iron fragments (201). Overall, this
episode has material that is late in the medieval period
and presumably dates to the period of the demise of
the monastery at the end of the medieval period.
Certainly the presence of roofing tiles would be consistent with this analysis. There is a hint that some of this
activity may have continued, but the few pieces from
the post-medieval period may reasonably be explained
as contaminants from later deposits or intrusions.
Before this, a final structural phase from the
medieval period is to be found in Episode 8, with the
construction in Area IVN of an eastwest stone wall
(Wall 4) to the west of an earlier stone pier of Episode
7. This had initially been recognised in 1973 as an
eastwest robber trench with mortary rubble above it;
excavation in 1976 revealed a series of dressed flat
stones (context 18 of Wall 4) to the north resting upon
this (Block 26). This wall sits on top of Wall 16
JARROW21.QXD
330
19-01-2007
11:38
Pagina 330
Fig 21.14 Detail of pier base from south. CDM. (MS)

(1973)/Wall 5 (1976) of Episode 4, at a slightly different angle (Fig 21.13). This wall forms the southern
limit of room ER7, linking to a pier to the west found
in Professor Cramps excavations (Fig 21.10).
However, it need not be primary or associated with the
building of the stone pier; indeed, it could well be a
later blocking in of the undercroft to the building, eg
for storage purposes. This would suggest that, functionally, this wall is part of a secondary phase of the
extension southwards to the river of the east range of
the monastery, presumably as the southern wall of the
extended medieval reredorter. This wall was probably
later dismantled in part to provide stones for the back
(north) wall of the brick cottages of Episode 12, which
sat upon it. No finds were made.
Episode 7 represents a major constructional stage in
the layout of the southern part of the medieval East
Range, when a massive stone pier base was built on clay
bedding (context 19) with a trench along its northern
side (Fig 21.14). Originally interpreted in 1973 as a
bridge-abutment of the post-medieval period, this was
determined in 1976 to be incorrect, as the broader
stratigraphic relationships became clearer with extension of the site to the north. In Block 25 of Area IVN,
two stages of construction were noted. The lower consisted of smaller undressed rubble and a much whiter
mortar bond up to the level of the bottom course of a
northsouth wall (Wall 6/14, Episode 5), upon which it
partly sat at a different alignment (and so the latter had
gone out of use), beneath much larger dressed stones.
Although it had these two phases of construction, they
are unlikely to be of any chronological significance, as
the lower rubble was clearly a levelling-up base for the

massive stones above. No finds were directly associated
with the construction of this pier base, but it is suggested that this episode represents the stage of replanning the layout of the medieval monastery, when
activities were concentrated upon the East Range, with
an extension southwards to the river for a reredorter
building. However, a case has been made in Chapter 19
for the piers to be part of the initial building campaign
of the East Range.
Further major structural evidence in Areas IV and
IVE is seen in Episode 6 (Block 6), with the construction of a large eastwest riverside wall (context 71, Wall
12/15; Fig 21.15). It had been subject to river action
and, therefore, parts of the facing were missing and the
rubble core exposed at places. It is obviously the continuation of Wall 13 in Area IV West and Wall 2 of Area
V (Fig 21.10), and appears to continue alongside the
river-bank beyond the eastern limit of the excavations
as it goes up to the east section (Fig 21.12). The evidence of the effects of river action upon this wall (missing facing-stones, revelation of rubble core, irregular
line of the facing-stones) and periodic disturbance suggests that it was erected as river protection, parallel
with the river, for the medieval monastery. The wall
shows evidence of rebuilding within the medieval period, presumably in response to river action. As the wall
was not dismantled in excavation, there were no finds.
The suggested dating is, however, Medieval 1 with
continued existence through into the Medieval 2 period. Wall 12/15 showed a clear butt-joint with an earlier northsouth wall (Wall 6/14) of Episode 5.
JARROW21.QXD
19-01-2007
11:38
Pagina 331
331
Fig 21.15 Area IV: general view of Wall 12/15 from the
west, with northsouth Wall 6/14 and pier base visible to
the left. CDM. (MS)
Fig 21.16 Northsouth Wall 6/14 viewed from the south.

CDM. (MS)
The previous Episode 5 relates to the construction

of a northsouth wall of dressed stones with associated
clay bedding (context 40). Wall 6 (Figs 21.1621.17;
recorded as Wall 14 in 1973) formed, in Area IVN,
Block 24. No finds were made. This wall was apparently over-ridden by the massive stone pier-base of
Episode 7, and would therefore be stratigraphically
earlier and must have gone out of use by the time of the
construction of the stone pier. However, Wall 6/14
appeared to have a curious termination, or perhaps
entrance close to the pier (Fig 21.17). Unfortunately,
it was not possible to excavate immediately to the
north to ascertain whether it continued, and no further
northsouth walls have been found anywhere on this
site. As mentioned above, Wall 6/14 is abutted by Wall
12/15, the east-west wall to the south, and appears to
be either earlier or contemporary with the latter,
although the precise relationship of the two is complicated by subsequent rebuilding of the eastwest wall.
Wall 6/14 seems best explained as the remains of an
eastern perimeter wall, coming down the slope from
the north to the river to demarcate the boundary of the

monastic area in the post-Conquest period ie Medieval
1 in date.
At the northern edge of the site, fragmentary
remains of eastwest walls (to either side of the pierbase of Episode 7) were uncovered, which are designated Episode 4 (Figs 21.1921.20). To the west in Area
IV/IVE, Block 4 consisted of, firstly, the sand and gravel fill of a construction trench (contexts 81 and 82), and
then Wall 16 (context 90), together with associated rubble and clay (contexts 91 and 89). The stones are large
and flat, and may conceivably be paving or revetment,
rather than a wall as such. The equivalents in Area IVN
are brown clay with charcoal (context 33) and large flat
sandstone blocks (context 21, Wall 5). Finds included
animal bone, shell, stone and ceramic floor tiles, plaster, medieval pottery ranging in date from Oxidised
Gritty ware (E10, 10751300) to three sherds of later
green-glazed wares (E12b, E13, E18). Small finds
included a large crucible fragment (Ch 35.1, Cr5,
SF313), a curving lead strip (314), and a piece of
JARROW21.QXD
332
19-01-2007
11:38
Pagina 332
unglazed pottery with decoration (315). The pottery

and floor tiles appear to be from the medieval period,
although there is earlier material, but other evidently
intrusive material such as wood, might indicate that
some later contamination has taken place. It does not,
therefore, appear to be of securely early medieval date.
To the east of the pier-base was Block 23, the stones
of an eastwest wall (context 42), together with solid
clays (contexts 45 and 48). This Wall 7 was not only in
a fragmentary state, but also lay virtually on top of the
natural sand of Episode 1. It was robbed out to the
east, the trench filled with disturbed orange and brown
clay, 49, which contained Early Gritty Green ware
(E12a, 11751350). Although so fragmentary and
apparently on a somewhat different alignment, Wall 7
appears to be roughly contemporary with Wall 16/Wall
5 to the west, although the only stratigraphic links are
indirect. The fragmentary nature of Wall 7 and the lack
of any associated dating evidence mean that little can
be said about its character. Whether this feature was a
revetment, or a perimeter wall, cannot now be hazarded. The two lengths of walling are depicted on Figure
17.2 in view of the uncertainty of their dating.
It would seem clear that, previously, the area had been

subject to tidal flooding, with a build-up of river sand and
gravel in Episode 3. Block 3 (Areas IV and IVE) is represented by yellow sand (context 82B), with an equivalent in IVN (context 34A), over a sand with dark patches
(context 83). The latter produced a possible slate peg,
limestone, ironstone, yellow mortar, three sherds of early
and later buff white wares (E11b, 12001350 and E11d,
13001475), and animal bone. Block 22, in Area IVN,
appears to be contemporary, comprising mixed yellow/
brown sand with some gravel and red staining (contexts
30, 32, 34, and 36). Finds included building materials
(ironstone, red floor tile and white mortar), medieval
pottery, bone and a small square piece of lead (SF328).
The pottery and tile indicate a later medieval date for the
episode with some residual earlier material. The pottery
ranges from the 13th century (E11b) to the 14th or early
15th century (E11d) but there is no very late medieval
pottery. It has to be noted that there is possibly some
contamination from later contexts such as clearly
intrusive softwood but, as with other instances of
this, it has to be borne in mind that the site was subject to daily tidal flooding in the summer of 1973.
Fig 21.17 Relationship of rebuilt pier and Wall 6/14, with

possible opening. CDM. (MS)
Fig 21.18 Area IV, general view of medieval walls at end

of excavation, looking west. CDM. (MS)
JARROW21.QXD
19-01-2007
11:38
Pagina 333
The earliest evidence for human activity in this part

of the site is represented by areas of cobbling to the
north of the river (Episode 2). Block 2 (Areas IV and
IVE) is a hard pressed cobble floor or path (contexts
84 and 86). The equivalent Block 21 of Area IVN was
a dark brown sand with some clay lumps, charcoal,
sandstone pebbles and large stones (contexts 37 and
46). This episode produced animal bone, flint, white
plaster, and limestone roofing and red floor-tile
333
fragments together with one sherd each of Oxidised

Gritty ware (E10, 10751300) and Later Green ware
(E12b, 1375 onwards). It is difficult to interpret this,
but alternatives are either a riverside path or an area of
hard standing, possibly for boats, to the side of the
river. There is no reason in principle why this could
not be Anglo-Saxon, except for the presence of the
medieval pottery. Either this is intrusive (which is not
impossible given the circumstances of the 1973 excavations), or this is in fact a medieval episode of activity,
presumably related to the early post-Conquest
monastery, ie Norman or Medieval 1. Some animal
bone and shell came from the interface with the natural
sands of Episode 1.
Area VI (Figs 21.1, 21.21)
Fig 21.19 Detail of Wall 16/5 from the west, with Wall 4
above and pier base to rear. CDM. (MS)
Fig 21.20 Plan of features and walls in Area IVN. YB
As indicated above, the primary interest in this easternmost excavation area was the line of later cottages
(Fig 22.2 below), and therefore this account of evidence for the medieval occupation is necessarily limited. However, despite initial appearances, there is
rather more than might be expected which certainly
indicates that the extent of the monastic settlement to
the east has barely been explored yet.
In brief, the post-medieval and modern sequence
can be summarised as follows. The uppermost levels
(Episodes 11 and 10) comprise essentially black ash
and other material below the turf, and they cover the
remains of the destroyed brick cottages and chemical
waste to the south. These buildings, perhaps as mentioned above erected in the late 18th century, were of
a standard form, with brick walls and floors, except for
the rear (north) wall, which was of stone at least in its
lower levels. Episode 8 is the construction and usage of
these buildings, with Episode 9 as their destruction.
The cottages were built on a terrace created out of a
levelling-up process over a series of silt deposits in the
south and earth dumps in the north which had, apparently, accumulated gradually during the post-medieval
period (Episode 7). However, as elsewhere on this site,
it is clear that these deposits accumulated both from
activities on the site during this period, but also from
the decay and destruction, if not levelling, of buildings
to the north from the monastic, pre-Dissolution phase.
JARROW21.QXD
334
19-01-2007
11:38
Pagina 334
A complete mixture is to be observed in the artefactual record spanning Roman (samian ware) to later postmedieval pottery and glass. However, the presence of
small copper-alloy objects of a similar nature to the
many found in Area IV at the end of the Medieval 2
period, and even an early 8th-century sceatta from
London (Ch 30.3, Nu27), indicates that this area was
not far removed from the activities associated with
both the Anglo-Saxon and later medieval monasteries.
On a clay bank sloping from north to south towards
the river was some small-scale activity (Episode 6). Block
9 is a deposit of broken limestone roof-tiles (context 42)
in the area of the northern trench in which bone, shell,
grey and red tile, and later medieval pottery were also
found. The fill of Pit 3 (Block 10: context 37) is cut into
the clay bank of Episode 5 below. It comprised brown
loam and much charcoal from which animal bone, grey
tile, several sherds of later medieval pottery and a single
post-medieval sherd were recovered. This episode, if
short, would also seem to be at the changeover period
from Medieval 2 to post-medieval. It would have been
interesting to establish whether the tile layer was more
widely deposited, or whether this was related to a specific building. Either way, it indicates decay at best,
and possibly destruction (which might be associated
with the particular events of the 1537 Dissolution).
The clay bank itself below this activity forms Block
8 of Episode 5. It had significant amounts of material
on its surface, represented by light brown clay and charcoal with mortar flecks (context 18), perhaps falling
down-slope from decaying buildings above. A similar
deposit (context 41) in the northern trench (cut into by
Wall 4 of Episode 8) is almost certainly the same layer.
Roofing tile, both grey and red, large amounts of
medieval pottery, and some sherds of post-medieval
pottery, significant amounts of bone, shell, and mortar
were the general finds. Recorded finds were: 417, three
silvered pins, 438, several copper-alloy fragments,
including a rolled piece, and 442, a buckle plate (Vol 2,
Ch 31.2, CA12). To the south, a grey/green sandy clay
(Block 7, Episode 5) is identified as a river deposit
resulting apparently from inundation; context 54 yielded six sherds of Tyneside Buff White wares (E11b,
E11d, E11e). The indications overall are that this
episode may have spanned the end of the later medieval
and the beginning of the post-medieval periods.
Episode 4, below the bank, probably represents the
rebuilding of an earlier wall (Wall 5 below) in the central part of the area. A line of three stones (Block 6:
context 55), together with some large stones and rubble to the north (context 56) probably represents packing for the core of the wall running eastwest (Fig
21.21). The rebuilding of the wall, if considered along
with the succeeding clay bank of Episode 5, would
seem to indicate a determination to maintain the
integrity of the site even against apparently strong natural forces. This activity is difficult to date, but context
56 yielded a sherd of Kelso-type ware (F11,
11501250) and an unidentified early medieval sherd.
Fig 21.21 Area VI: eastwest Wall 5. CDM. (MS)

Before this, in Episode 3, two activities seem to be
represented. Firstly, to the south of Wall 5, a series of
sand and clay layers with mortar, charcoal and large
flat stones lipped up to and over it in Block 3: contexts
43, 46, 47, 50, 51 and 52. Where the wall was not present, these sands overlay the natural sand, and their
inter-relationship was often confused. Several animal
bones, shell fragments, a possible fossil, fragments of
grey tile, and pottery, predominantly buff white wares
(E11ae), were all recovered, along with a fragment of
painted plaster with red/green coloured design, presumably of Anglo-Saxon date (SF441). The obvious
inference is that part of the perimeter or retaining wall
had in fact been destroyed and washed away. These
layers seem best interpreted as representing the effects
of flooding from the river. Overall, then, the early
material should be regarded as residual within a
medieval episode.
Secondly, to the north, in Block 4 also of Episode 3,
the creation of a clay and sand bank, perhaps to prevent
further damage from floods, is represented by a mixed
disturbed clay with large rubble (context 45), below a
brown clay and sand mix with charcoal and mortar
JARROW21.QXD
19-01-2007
11:38
Pagina 335
(context 40). Fragments of animal bone, shell, several

lumps of mortar, grey and red tile and one fragment of
glazed roof tile (E12c.9), predominantly early medieval
pottery types, with three sherds of later green wares
(E12b, E13), and some possible early medieval sherds
were recovered, but also what appeared at the time to
be some post-medieval pottery sherds from context 40.
Particular small finds recovered included a small perforated whetstone (SF439, Vol 2, Ch 34.2, WS20) and a
fragment perhaps from an iron buckle or handle
(SF440). Again, despite the possible post-medieval
sherds which may well be contaminants (or misidentified), the likelihood is that this is a stratified, if late,
medieval episode of activity. Further to the north, in the
northern trench, was orange disturbed clay (context
48) in Block 5. This was not related stratigraphically to
the layers to the south. Finds were confined to a few
fragments of bone and a piece of burnt stone, so there
is no chronologically diagnostic material.
The wall referred to above was only partially uncovered and the primary phase of human activity (Episode
2) is particularly fragmentary presumably because of
later riverine destruction. An area of large stones running eastwest was distinguished as Wall 5 (context 49:
Block 2). It was not seen across the whole area, but it
was clear in section and revealed in the central part of
the area (Fig 21.21), but possibly robbed out or
washed away elsewhere. There is no indication of any
other walls in association with this, and therefore a
constructional function, ie for a building, is unlikely. It
would seem more likely that it was either a perimeter
or a revetment for the bank above. No finds were
recovered, and therefore dating evidence is totally lacking but the feature is presumed to be medieval (possibly Medieval 1) in date, although it could conceivably
be earlier. Its form is somewhat reminiscent of Wall
16/5 in Area IV (above). There is some confusion over
which layer the wall was cut into, presumably due to
river destruction and washing away of underlying
deposits in some places and the redeposition of other
sand deposits. A clean yellow sand (context 44: Block
1) found across the base of the excavation area was
presumed to be natural (Episode 1). Although four
fragments of animal bone, mortar, and three sherds of
medieval pottery (types F1, E11b, E13) were recovered, it is assumed here that these are contaminants
from either higher up or, more likely, from river action.
Overall summary
As stated above, the excavation of this area of the site
provided evidence for extensive and repeated flooding,
with consequent stratigraphic damage, throughout the
entire area. For that reason the lowest deposits may
have been washed away or disturbed. Although there
are some significant Anglo-Saxon artefacts from Area
IV, which should be associated with the Anglo-Saxon
monastery from the later 7th century, none of these was
found in a securely stratified Anglo-Saxon context.
335
Indeed, there is no structural or stratigraphic evidence

to indicate Anglo-Saxon usage of this area of the site.
Presumably the perimeter wall or vallum monasterii lay
to the north, perhaps underneath the standing churchyard perimeter wall (see above, Area V).
The earliest features in Area V were a series of rectangular post-pipes cut into natural sand. Datable evidence was only forthcoming from the layer above the
clay bank that covered them, and included both a 9thcentury Anglo-Saxon styca and an 8th-century sceatta,
along with later material. The line of posts runs
approximately eastwest, and, to the west was associated with, if not set in, a gully. This gully yielded Roman
tile, Anglo-Saxon glass and possible metalwork, as well
as early Medieval 1 pottery. To the north of the gully
was a possible path running parallel with it, which produced 11th to 12th-century pottery. Overall, it seems
not unreasonable to conclude that these postholes
below the bank represent an early fence line or perimeter. A satisfactory explanation for these, which does no
chronological violence, would be for the perimeter
wooden fence and ditch to relate to a Norman marking
out of the perimeter, and replanning of the monastic
area around the time of Aldwins refoundation. A more
impressive and more permanent reflection of this, as
the establishment became settled, is reflected in a later,
stone reinforced, bank surmounted by a wall (Episode
3).
The core of this bank, in Area V, which was of clean
clay and sand, could also be a feature of the postConquest planning. No ditch or trench associated with
the bank has been located, and the precise orientation
of the bank is not clear. It is considered that this bank
is an early perimeter of the monastery on its south side.
Regrettably, insufficient evidence has been forthcoming to establish for certain whether it could have been
part of an Anglo-Saxon, rather than post-Conquest
medieval, vallum monasterii. Despite the presence of
Anglo-Saxon material in the upper levels, it was in
association with later material, and therefore presumably relates to the re-established medieval monastery
founded by Aldwin. The clay bank was covered by a
rubble spread, perhaps deliberately consolidating the
face of the bank (Episode 3) in the Medieval 1 period.
Also possibly to be assigned to this general period
are the cobbles which could represent a path or hardstanding occurring in Areas IVE and N (Episode 2).
This was found in two discrete areas, and may well
have been more extensive originally. Such dating as
there is appears to be two sherds of medieval pottery.
Whether this feature is Norman or Medieval 1 in date
cannot be determined.
At the northern edge of Area IV, fragmentary
remains of eastwest walls (below the later pier-base)
were uncovered in Episode 4. That to the west (Wall
16/5) was constructed of flat slabs (and may indeed
have more of the character of paving than a wall), set
into a foundation trench cut into clean (?natural) sand.
Again, it has medieval pottery and tiles in association
JARROW21.QXD
336
19-01-2007
11:38
Pagina 336
although, like other contexts on the site, it has clearly

suffered from contamination from later activity. Wall 7,
to the east of the pier-base, remained in a fragmentary
state only, but also lies virtually on top of natural sand.
It had no associated dating evidence, and was so vestigial (it was robbed out to the east), that little can be
said about its character. The construction of Wall 7 did
not appear to be quite the same as that of Wall 16/5 to
the west of the pier base; indeed, although they
appeared generally to line up with each other, it is by
no means certain that they were of the same date and
building phase (even though they are so treated here).
Further to the east in Area VI, another vestigial length
of walling (Wall 5), which had evidently been rebuilt,
proved to be of later date, as it appeared to cut into tip
layers which overlay Wall 7 in Area IVN. Whether
these eastwest walls were a revetment, or a perimeter wall, cannot now be hazarded. At present, it is simply suggested for want of a better explanation that they
represent the fugitive evidence for an early building
phase (whose character is unclear), apparently belonging to the early post-Conquest monastery.
Probably also of this period is the construction of a
northsouth wall first discovered in 1973 (Area IV,
Episode 5). This wall was apparently over-ridden by a
massive rebuilt stone pier-base and is therefore earlier
than it. However, this wall (Wall 6/14) appeared to terminate (or have an opening in it) near the northern
limit of the excavated area. No further northsouth
walls were found anywhere on this excavation site. At
present, the most economical explanation is that it represents an eastern perimeter wall coming down the
slope from the north to the river, to demarcate the
boundary of the monastic area. It does not appear to
be Anglo-Saxon in date or even Norman as there was
an amount of medieval pottery and floor tiles present.
There was, however, also earlier material, and some
evidence for contamination of this context. Perhaps it
is contemporary with the more formal laying out of the
monastery after Aldwins time, ie Medieval 1.
A feature which has engendered considerable discussion is a massive stone setting below the brick cottages of the post-medieval period. Originally
interpreted in 1973 as a bridge-abutment of the postmedieval period, this was determined in 1976 to be
incorrect, as the broader stratigraphic relationships
became clearer with extension of the site to the north
(Area IVN, Episode 7). This stone setting is more likely to be a Medieval 1 pier base in line with two others
to the north and west examined by Professor
Rosemary Cramp, and associated with buildings of the
East Range of the post-Conquest monastery. Although
it had two phases of construction, these are unlikely to
be of any chronological significance, as the lower rubble was clearly a levelling-up base for the massive
stones above. The pier cut through and/or rested upon
the stones of the northsouth wall of Episode 5 (and so
the latter had gone out of use). It is suggested that this
episode represents the stage of replanning of the layout
of the monastery, when activities were concentrated

upon the East Range, with an extension southwards to
the river for a reredorter building.
For the medieval period, the most substantial structure on the site was the eastwest wall with sloping
sides (Wall 2), which in Area V remained several courses high and was of considerable width, being approximately 1.5m wide at the base. This wall continued
across the whole length of the area excavated (as Walls
13/12/15 in Area IV), and thus no termination either to
east or west was encountered. Nor were any walls
found adjoining it in the area excavated. It seems to
have been deliberately placed to resist river action,
rather than to serve simply as a boundary wall. The
effects of river action were clearly visible upon it (irregular and missing facing stones and exposure of the rubble core). It would appear to have been in use
throughout the medieval period, but most plausibly
originates in date in Medieval 1 (Fig 19.13). Its construction could then be seen as part of the extensive
building campaigns identified in areas within the
monastic complex during the 13th and 14th centuries.
A final structural phase from the later medieval
period is to be found in Episode 8 (Area IV), with the
construction of a further eastwest stone wall (Wall 4)
to the west of the pier. Initially recognised as a robber
trench with mortary rubble above it, excavation
revealed a series of flat stones: thus it seems to represent a construction trench for a stone wall running
westwards from the pier and linking up with another
pier-base to the west. This wall need not be primary or
associated with the building of the stone pier. Indeed,
it could well be a later blocking-in of the undercroft to
the building, eg for storage purposes, perhaps part of a
secondary phase of the extension southwards to the
river of the East Range of the monastery.
Wall 2/13 continued in use, with evidence of
rebuilding, throughout the medieval period as was
clear from the successive dumps of clay, sand and rubble which built up against it to the north (Episodes
58; Area V) and which overlay layers containing pottery with a date range through the later medieval period. It is evident that riverine action affected Wall 2/13
during the Medieval 2 period, as is clear from the fragmentary nature of the structure as well as evidence for
rebuilding and the sand and gravel deposits.
At the northern limit of Area V, an offset course of
large stones was revealed sitting on top of the clay
bank, below the modern boundary wall: this wall (Wall
3) was probably constructed during the Medieval 2
period. This is further explored in Chapter 19 above.
If the latest medieval activities come to an end with
the Dissolution, it is nevertheless the case that in Area IV,
archaeologically speaking, the Medieval 2 period would
seem to be represented by substantial deposits of material reflecting a more gradual disuse of the monastery.
Sands and clays, rich with artefactual debris, include significant quantities of roofing tiles, as well as more usual
domestic and other debris. What is of interest also is the
JARROW21.QXD
19-01-2007
11:38
Pagina 337
presence of a reasonable amount of Anglo-Saxon material perhaps reflecting some degree of clearance of the
grounds and consequent disturbance of earlier deposits
and structures associated with the Anglo-Saxon
monastery. However, the presence of a worn Henry III
Long Cross penny (c 12512, London mint) also shows
that the late 13th century is not too early a date for a
degree of untidiness, if not desuetude, to be evident here
(Area V, Episode 4). It is also of interest that major building activity is recorded in the area of the medieval
monastic buildings to the north (see Chapter 19).
In the later medieval period, then, there was a long
period of decay of the structures and a thick sandy
deposit was found all over the site, containing large
numbers of small metal and other finds, but final
destruction of this area of the site (Area IV) was probably by the river in the later medieval/post-medieval
periods, with sandy clay covering partly destroyed
walls in the south part of the area in particular
(Episode 9). Certainly the succeeding Episode 10,
with much rubble, including roofing tiles both north
of, and over, Wall 15/12, definitively represents the collapse and/or destruction of a building or buildings to
the north. An enormous amount of artefactual material was recovered, ranging from residual pre-Conquest
through much later medieval material, to some regular,
if small-scale, post-medieval material. Episode 10
would seem to relate, in part at least, to the post-1537
Dissolution situation, if not the 1576 flood, and certainly gives the impression of the total destruction of
the erstwhile monastery and its riverside frontage.
337
Perhaps the demise of the monastery, at the

Dissolution in 1537, is also reflected in some smallscale activity on the clay bank sloping from north to
south towards the river in Area VI: limestone roofing
tiles in a discrete deposit in the north part may reflect
an act of roof removal or at least decay of buildings,
and a pit with burning to the south is roughly contemporary. Both have Medieval 2 pottery associated
(Episode 6).
Overall, although the excavation took place over
four seasons in two separate years and consists of a
number of different investigations which have, with
some difficulty, been correlated in the limited postexcavation work undertaken, a reasonable sequence of
structural developments can be proposed. The caveat
expressed elsewhere about the incomplete nature of
the stratigraphic analysis carried out, and the absence
of any other specific post-excavation activity related to
the material from this site must be borne in mind when
assessing the sequences proposed. Clearly this area lay
at the perimeter of the medieval monastery, and this is
reflected in a number of elements which appear to be
part of the south end of the monastic complex of buildings, if not its south boundary. But the largest feature
is a major riverside wall, which, it is suggested, was
intended (ultimately unsuccessfully) to keep the effects
of the tides through the River Don at bay. Some features may go back to the beginning of the refoundation
of the monastery by Aldwin, but it is by no means clear
that there is any trace of the Anglo-Saxon monastery in
situ in any part of this site.
JARROW22.QXD
19-01-2007
11:40
Pagina 338
22 The post-Dissolution occupation of the site
Although the archaeological record for the periods from

the post-medieval up to the present day is not discussed
in this volume, it has sometimes been difficult to provide
a clear cut-off point in the narrative, and some of the
finds of the 17th century, as well as some of uncertain
date have been included in Volume 2. Moreover the
graphic record of the 18th and 19th centuries provides a
useful addition to our knowledge of the standing buildings within the Guardianship area and their medieval predecessors. A short account of the main structures which
have occupied the claustral enclosure from the 17th to
the 20th century is therefore provided here, together with
some illustration of the extent of 19th-century disturbance on the site when it was most densely occupied by
the inhabitants of the cottage, the rectory and the school
with the village to the east (see below). A structural survey of the cottage by Norman Emery exists in archive
The East Range was, by the time it was drawn by

the Bucks, a roofless ruin with some part of its east and
west walls still standing although all the openings on
the west wall had been blocked to form an enclosed
space. A small area to the east of the South Range
Building was however still roofed (Fig 12.4) with upper
floor windows and with new flooring (Fig 22.1). Since
this had been the kitchen in the Medieval 2 period it
may have retained some domestic function.
By the time Grimm drew the interior of the cloister c 177580 (Appendix B19) only the western gable
and south wall of the old South Range Building survived and a new room, e, had been abutted to the
north-east corner of room d, with an entrance from the
north (Figs 22.1 and 22.2). Grimm also shows a second door in the east wall of room e which was reached
by a flight of steps and this seems to have existed as late
as 1843 (Appendix B30). Originally the two rooms d
and e were linked by doors at upper and lower floor
level, but the lower floor door was later blocked by a
stone cupboard which is still visible. A large chimney
on the north wall of room e blocked an earlier upper
floor entrance by a stair to room d. By the 19th century
this area was covered by a structure with a lean-to roof,
which may have held both a wash-house and privy
(Appendix B29). The cottage was occupied into the
1950s (see Appendix B43).
The South Cloister Building and

the cottage
The Bucks watercolour (Fig 1.9) and their 1728
engraving (Fig 12.4) provide the earliest graphic evidence for the adapted South Range Building and the
cottage to the north. The lack of intact stratigraphy in
the old cloister garth and the cobbled and paved yards
(Fig 22.1, 2969), which succeeded and spread over the
old South Range Building, make it difficult to disentangle the Medieval 2 phases from the early postmedieval occupation of the interior of the old South
Range Building. It would appear, however, that new
fenestration was inserted in the south wall (Fig 12.4
and Appendix B20), although the medieval window in
the west gable remained. The small medieval door in
the south wall was still extant and possibly led to a
privy enclosed by a wall. In the interior of the South
Range Building there were changes to the inglenook
fireplace, and new drains were inserted (Fig 22.1).
The medieval entrance into the eastern part of the
building seems to have been retained, but when an additional room, room d, was added to the north-west it is
possible that what may have been a door opening into
the western area was blocked and a fireplace and chimney inserted directly above it. This new room (which
later became the main room of the independent cottage) was entered from the east and the original segmental arch of its doorway survives. The date of the
construction of room d must be pre-1728 and post
c 1625, since a coin found in the silty layer, 5788 (which
seems to represent the first floor of the building), is a
James I farthing (Nu42, 161425), which was probably
deposited within the issue period or shortly afterwards
(Vol 2, Ch 30.3). The Bucks show two rectangular mullioned windows at ground and upper floor levels.
The riverside cottages

During a period from the late 18th to the mid 19th
century a row of cottages fronted the river to the south
of the line of the East Range (see Figs 22.2, 22.4 [foldout] and Appendix B2122; 2526). The foundations
of these were excavated in the Jarrow Slake excavations
(Fig 22.4 [foldout]) and have been discussed in a
Durham dissertation (Carr 1990). They are the only
evidence within the excavated area for the village of
Jarrow which developed to the east of the claustral
enclosure (Appendix B40 and 41).
The school house

The date for the construction of the school survives on
a date stone preserved in Bedes World museum. The
original building was a rectangle, which closely followed
the line of the East Range. The west wall of the building lay immediately adjacent to the west wall of the East
Range (Figs 16.26 and 22.2) and part of the school
eastern porch entrance was immediately grounded on
the medieval foundations (Fig 19.29). The pottery in
the robbed wall trenches of the East Range was consistently late 18th to early 19th century in date. According
to the graphic sources, the line of the east wall of the
338
JARROW22.QXD
19-01-2007
11:40
Pagina 339
22: THE POST-DISSOLUTION OCCUPATION OF THE SITE
339
Fig 22.2 Reconstruction plan of the main 19th-century buildings around St Pauls Church. NE
East Range did seem to persist throughout the 18th
century (Fig 12.6) although the west wall seems to have
been cleared earlier, perhaps at a time when the 18th
century church was built. Nevertheless the excavations
indicate that stonework was there to be robbed and
reused, and the medieval outline must have been apparent. The school was extended to the west in the last
quarter of the 19th century (Fig 22.2) and latrines were
fitted into the standing masonry at the south of the East
Range in the former room ER5. The school continued
to operate to the 1940s and was still a habitable building at the beginning of the excavation (Appendix B44).
It was demolished in 1968 but its east wall now forms
part of the site enclosure.
The rectory
This was a short-lived building, existing from 1853
1878 (Appendix B3537), but its substantial walls and
cellars as well as its gardens and small outbuildings did

considerable damage to the site (Figs 22.3 and 22.4
[foldouts]). The whole plan of the building was excavated. During the 19th and 20th centuries the southern
slopes of the site were extensively disturbed by tree
planting and gardening, culminating in allotments to the
west of the enclosure during the last war which cultivated over the medieval and post-medieval burial ground in
that area (see Chapter 18 and Appendix B22, 42).
The burial ground

The post-medieval cemetery lay primarily north and
west of the church. Its limits are likely to be the same as
those depicted on the earliest modern maps (eg an 1853
plan of Jarrow DCRO EP/JA SP 4/9; cf Fig 1.10). In the
earliest post-medieval phase the burial ground might
have extended as far east as the excavated wall foundation 254 (Fig 22.1), beneath the area where the
JARROW22.QXD
340
19-01-2007
11:40
Pagina 340
Fig 22.5 Plan of Jarrow monastic site, showing principal phases. LB

Victorian rectory was built. In the late 18th to early 19th
century, the picture is of scattered, somewhat dilapidated burials in this general area (eg Appendix B22).
Other, roughly contemporary or slightly later prints do
not show graves here (Appendix B25, B26). By the time
the Victorian rectory was constructed in 1855, the
churchyard to the west and south-west of the church
was demarcated by a wall, the line of which can still be
seen dividing the area now (Appendix B32, 35, 37).
At least 119 excavated burials can be attributed to
the post-medieval cemetery in most cases to the later,
rather than earlier, part of this period (ie later 18th or
19th century). It is of course possible that some of the
burials categorised as medieval (see Table 15.1 and
Chapter 18) actually belong to the earlier part of the
post-medieval period. Alternatively, the relative lack of
burials definitely of this period might reflect a break in
the use of the cemetery after the Dissolution.
The principal group of post-medieval burials comprised 78 infant inhumations from just north of the
chancel (trench 7501), contemporary with either the

1783 or 1866 churches, and perhaps buried within a
relatively short period as a result of one of the known
cholera outbreaks of the 19th century. Only eleven
were anthropologically examined: their ages ranged
from foetal to c 6 months, the majority being newborn.
A high proportion had porotic hyperstosis and some
had cribra orbitalia (see Chapter 36), both conditions
associated with anaemia. The majority of the infants
were buried in coffins orientated either westeast or
eastwest; a smaller group were placed with their heads
to the south. A single burial may have had a headstone,
and two possible double graves were noted. The three
other trenches within the post-medieval cemetery
(7101, 7102, 7801) revealed a mixture of adult and
child burials. Within the church itself, two vaults
belonging to the 1782 church were noted in the southeast corner of the nave, as well as a small number of
unphased graves which lay north of the early church,
within or below the north aisle of Scotts nave.
JARROW23.QXD
19-01-2007
11:41
Pagina 341
Part IV. Discussion section

23 The changing economy of the sites
The economy of the Anglo-Saxon
twin monastery
1992, 1401). The privileges which Benedict and

Ceolfrid obtained from the pope in order to ensure
internal control over the right of succession to the
abbacy (HAB, 6), must have further stabilised their
economy and ensured that the land did not return after
a number of lives into the common royal pool for redistribution.
The territory of the twin monastery provided access
to stone for building, since the permian limestone used
at Wearmouth probably derived from the Fulwell quarries (a resource still in the possession of Wearmouth in
the post-Conquest period: Fig 1.11), and in addition,
at both Wearmouth and Jarrow, stone, including very
large sandstone blocks, seems to have been obtained
from the convenient quarry of nearby Roman sites (Vol
2, Ch 26.1). Whether the considerable amount of lead
which has been found on the sites (and which had even
affected the bones of the inhabitants: see Vol 2, Ch 36)
was also retrieved from Roman sites, or if there was any
lead production from the Weardale deposits, is
unknown (see Vol 2, Ch 26.6). The area must have
also provided plenty of wood for building and for fuel,
as well as coal from outcrops or the sea shore (fragments of which have been found in several of the stratified Anglo-Saxon layers at Jarrow: see Vol 2, Ch 35.3).
The mechanisms whereby a monastic community was

supported and how it paid for that support by some
form of exchange of services, goods, or money, is still
imperfectly understood for this period. There is not
the wealth of documentation that illuminates the later
medieval period from the 14th to the 16th centuries,
but one may presume that a communitys economic
viability was directly proportional to the extent of its
landholdings. It seems clear that when the king founded Wearmouth and Jarrow and endowed them with the
initial grants of 70 and 40 hides respectively (see
Chapter 4) he was transferring the rents and services of
that number of households from his own estate to that
of the religious community (see HE, IV.13 for the large
grant to Wilfrid to found a monastery at Selsey in
Sussex, where it is specifically stated that the grant of
eighty-seven hides included fields and men). The initial grants to Wearmouth and Jarrow were large by
comparison with the ten hides given by king Oswiu
(HE, III.24) for the foundation of monastic houses in
an earlier generation, and the Wearmouth/Jarrow landholdings were later consolidated and augmented in
what was one of the most fertile areas of Northumbria
(Chapters 1 and 4). The detailed extent of these landholdings is difficult to map save by using relatively
modern parish boundaries, but the broad picture
seems to be of a large block of territory (Fig 4.2), less
dispersed than the holdings of the episcopal and
monastic foundation at Lindisfarne (Morris 1977, 89,
fig).
Many monasteries were insufficiently endowed for
long-term survival and it is possible, since South
Shields was one of the medieval dependencies of
Jarrow, that it and Gateshead had been absorbed into
the larger estate of the twin monastery by the 9th
century, although, as Cambridge has remarked, they
were still independent in the time of Bede (Cambridge
1984, 77 and 85). Cambridge has also postulated that
the churches of Seaham and Dalton might have been
dependencies of Wearmouth/Jarrow, but how such a
network shared its resources, and indeed how
resources were divided between Wearmouth and
Jarrow themselves is far from clear.
The documentary picture

Despite the fact that food preparation for the community must have gone on inside the enclosure, and the
story of Eosterwines activities (see Appendix A3.1)
implies that there could have been a home farm, members of the dependent households in the monastic territory must have rendered food rents (and eventually
money rents), as well as work services to the
monastery. A hint of the scale of access to animal hides
if not to meat which was available to the community is
provided by Bruce-Mitfords well known estimate of
1550 calf hides necessary to produce in the
Wearmouth/Jarrow scriptorium the three pandects of
the Bible in the early 8th century (Bruce-Mitford
1967a, 2; Gameson 1992), while recent excavations at
the Green Shiels site on Lindisfarne have thrown new
light on how a major house could deal with its
resources, in the form of a specialised site for the processing of calf skins (OSullivan 2001, 42).
The relationship of the tenants who lived on and
worked monastic lands to those of the community
must have varied, but this is not spelt out in the documentary sources. Some could have been major landholders, others could have been ceorls or even slaves,
and it is not clear how directly the monastic community dealt with them. Hilda in her double monastery at
Whitby had a reeve to whom Caedmon went in order
Access to natural resources

The presumptive estate (see Chapter 4) included a
good proportion of prime coastal land with useful harbours near the river mouths, and access to the
resources of the sea and its shore (Chapter 1, and
Watts 1978, 31; Cambridge 1984, 73, fig 4; Thacker
341
JARROW23.QXD
342
19-01-2007
11:41
Pagina 342
to tell of his divine gift of song (HE, IV.24), since it

seems he was his master, and it is possible that most
of the divorced estates of any monastery would have
had a secular lord. Bede, for example, was born interritorio/in the territory of the monastery of Wearmouth
(HE, V.24), but we do not know the status of his family nor their relationship to the monastery.
All of the households transferred to the lordship of
the monastery might have some special affiliation to it
in pastoral terms (Thacker 1992, 13946), but some
people may have been more closely associated, such as
the lay craftsmen or the reeves, and may have counted
as part of the 500600 fratres, who Ceolfrid left in the
establishment on his last journey (see Chapter 4). The
clients and dependents of a monastery in Ireland seem
to be embraced in the common term manach
(monachus), and Thacker has postulated, Could it be
therefore that among those to whom monasteria such as
Wearmouth and Jarrow ministered was a group of tenants, perhaps tonsured and celibate, dispersed over the
communitys estates and attending the mother-church
at least on the major festivals? Such a hypothesis would
help to account for Bedes references to the presence of
additional fratres, though it leaves unexplained the
nature of the monks provision for ordinary layfolk
(including women), living on their estates and within
their parochia (Thacker 1992, 1412). There is the
hint of a wider network of obligations, whether in monetary or gift exchange, when Ceolfrid wished his intention to retire to Rome to be kept secret so that when he
left he was not overwhelmed by obligations that he
could not repay (HAA, 22).
The main return that any monastic community
made to the outside world was no doubt in its religious
roles, and in the provision of specialised services, such
as the lay world could not easily contribute. These
would include the writing and witnessing of documents, sometimes even their safe-keeping; medical
help; the manufacture of such items as window glass,
stone monuments and stone buildings, and some fine
metalwork. Every monastery probably had a hospitium,
but in addition major monasteries no doubt provided
hospitality for royal servants and the king and his officials (a burden that Bede hints could be costly if they
were provided with secular fare; HE, III.26). The
monastery of Wearmouth/Jarrow also, at least once,
provided skilled stone masons, who were despatched to
some distance: in 716 to Naitan, king of the Picts (HE,
V.21), and this must have enhanced the prestige of the
kingdom as well as the house. It is likely that monasteries provided skilled carvers for prestigious stone
monuments such as the Bewcastle cross, which seemingly was erected by a group of laymen (Bailey and
Cramp 1988, 6172), but whether such work was paid
for by the laymen named on the cross or seen as a quid
pro quo for lay support by the monastery is unknown.
A similar imponderable is whether Benedict, when
recruiting the Gaulish craftsmen to build the
monastery, paid in gift exchange or hard bullion.
One great strength that the large monasteries clearly

brought to the kingdoms where they were sited was
their relationship to an international network and its
wider resources, which could provide exotic items for
gifts or exchange.
Kings expected abbots to attend their councils, and
together with prominent laymen may have expected to
draw on monastic skills such as those of the doctors or
scribes, as well as expecting from their spiritual army
the benefits of prayers in life and in death. But these are
intangible benefits and to the simpler or more pragmatic among the laity the monasteries may have seemed too
costly a burden on the kingdom especially in the troubled times of war, or when land became scarce after the
Scandinavian land takings in Northumbria in the late
9th and early 10th centuries. Many magnates may then
have felt that the spiritual needs of their people were
better met by smaller and more widely dispersed clergy
groups who could serve in proprietary churches under
their direct jurisdiction. By that means also the number
of clergy exempt from secular dues would be diminished in numbers.
The very stability of the landholding succession of
the monastic estates had produced by the mid-8th
century a crisis in the lay system in that so much land
was frozen in the hands of the monastic houses that
there was not enough to circulate among the young
nobles of the kingdom, when, having performed their
military role, they were ready to settle down onto
estates. Bedes clear-sighted analysis of the problem is
well known (EE; see Whitelock 1955, 73545, no.
170) but he condemns specifically those small family
monasteries which had leapt on to the bandwagon of
ecclesiastical immunity and formed their families into
monastic communities (the 8th-century equivalent of
limited liability companies). Such monasteries were
also condemned at the Council of Clofesho in 747
(canon 5; Haddan and Stubbs 1871, 364). In
Northumbria it is clear that kings tried to regain some
monastic territories, since in 7578 Pope Paul I wrote
to King Eadberht asking him to return to abbot
Fordred three monasteries which had been given to
him by a certain abbess and which the king had given
to a layman (Whitelock 1955, 7645, no. 184). This
problem is further discussed in Chapter 24 below.
Wearmouth and Jarrow, as mentioned already, differed from the earlier monasteries of the Ionan mission, which increased their strength by founding
colonies. By the insistence that it was one monastery in
two places, the monastery of St Peter and St Paul
could command a large territory without a weakening
of centralised control. It would seem, then, that when
the control over its landholdings was finally lost, apparently in the 9th century, that its land block was available for redistribution into lay control or, as the
Aethelstan grant demonstrates (Chapter 4), to other
religious institutions, in this case the Community of St
Cuthbert at Chester-le-Street. One of the most difficult situations to reconstruct in Anglo-Saxon history is
JARROW23.QXD
19-01-2007
11:41
Pagina 343
23: THE CHANGING ECONOMY OF THE SITES
the process of the dissolution of the monastic houses

during the Viking Age wars, and what happened to
their inmates and to their estates. There is a tendency
today to see an undramatic change, from the late 9th
century, whereby one type of religious community
changes into another the minsters but there is a
clear break with organised religious life at both
Wearmouth and Jarrow which is attested in the works
of Symeon of Durham, and is supported by the archaeological evidence (see discussion, Chapter 24).
Excavated evidence
The excavations on both sites have thrown a flickering
light on the dark picture provided by the texts, but one
could wish for a clearer image. What the impact of the
destruction of these houses was on the monastic tenantry and the economy of the region is unknown, but
it is more possible to reconstruct from the archaeological vestiges something of the economic base for the
period when Wearmouth/Jarrow was a flourishing
community.
If one works from the assumption that the communitys Rule included some form of the Benedictine
Rule (HAB, 11, and Appendix A3.9), then several subsequent assumptions can be made which could affect
the nature of the archaeological record. Such a community would have been highly organised, would live
communally, and would be celibate and dedicated to
personal poverty. Nevertheless there would be some
provision for the lay or semi-lay visitors or associated
craftsmen, postulants or children. Bede entered the
monastery at the age of seven (HE, V.24) and there are
references to even younger children in double monasteries (Cramp 1976c). For the core community, one
might presume organised rubbish disposal, a limited
diet, communal cooking in large containers and a lack
of personal possessions, but for the lay visitors or associates the provision for a more liberal life-style, and
probably a different form of dress. One might also postulate specialised production areas, and evidence of a
wide network of contacts in the retrieved artefacts.
In many ways this picture is borne out by the
archaeological evidence: the buildings are regular and
orderly in their initial layout, but, as already noted
(Chapter 16) the functions of buildings apparently can
change, and the nature and extent of the unexcavated
parts of the settlement render all generalisations suspect. Nevertheless the early phases of the site occupation are clean, and there is a noteworthy lack of
personal possessions, even those of the simplest type.
Some of the most prized possessions of the house must
have been textiles, and other organic materials, and as
the letter of Cuthbert to Lul demonstrates, silks and
other exotic textiles could be received as presents while
other textiles of wool or linen could be exchanged,
together with fur garments (Appendix A3.7). Organic
survival is not good on either site however, and
although samples were taken for pollen, particularly in
343
the garden area at Jarrow, it does not survive in the

clays of the site at all, and only the most robust seeds,
such as elderberry, were detected (Appendix F).
Food supplies
Bread and vegetables must have been major items in
the diet, and there is evidence for millstones (Vol 2, Ch
34.2). Some carbonised grain samples of both wheat
and barley were recovered but lost before the report
could be written. Nevertheless there are some intact
deposits at Jarrow that do provide in the animal bone
record an interesting view of the agricultural base (Vol
2, Ch 37.2). It was not possible, however, in the specialist reports, to consider the minor contextual picture, and it is unfortunate that the report on the bird
bone contained no contextual information (see Vol 2,
Ch 37.2).
In the pre-Anglo-Saxon layers in the area around
Buildings A and B there is very little bone at all,
although the layers which preceded the construction of
Building D such as 2870, 28745, 28789, yielded a
small amount of pig, sheep and cattle, together with
fowl, dog and cat, and in the occupation layers outside
the structures there is fish and fowl or bird bone, but
very little animal bone. The undisturbed layers and
features which are considered to be of the monastic
period, indicate the consumption of well-grown
domestic fowl, some wild birds, shell fish and riverine
fish. For example the fill of the drain which ran
through Building A, 5249, contained bird bones, fish
including shellfish, and fowl only, while the drain that
ran through the annexe to A, as well as the clay floor of
that building, and the hearth, 470, yielded only fish
and bird bones. The truncated occupation layers in
Building B yielded hardly any bone, but there were
sheep bones in the drain/sink in Biii, perhaps indicating that the occupant of that cell had a more relaxed
diet. The sheep bones from the Anglo-Saxon period
seem to imply that animals could be kept through
maturity, and this would support the documentary evidence that sheep were milked (Appendix A3.1), and
perhaps kept for wool, although wool does not seem to
have been processed on site (see below).
Although the early phases of activity in Building D
and the riverside buildings yield only fish and bird
bone, there are some animal bones in the layers after
the reconstruction of D. The last deposits on the floor
of Building D, 21902, contain cattle and a small
amount of pig, sheep, and horse bones as well as fowl.
Similarly, evidence for the late Saxon/early medieval
occupation of Building B, whether in Bi or in the presumed chapel, Bii, does indicate the consumption of
cattle in limited quantities. The addition of horse to the
animal bone debris in those deposits which are loosely
associated with the 10th to 12th centuries is a marked
trend in certain areas of the site, and may represent a
different type of occupancy of the site in the late Saxon
period (see Vol 2, Ch 37.2). The addition of wild birds
JARROW23.QXD
19-01-2007
11:41
Pagina 344
344
and red deer to the diet in the same intermediate

phases late Saxon or Aldwinian is also noteworthy.
Whatever the precise dates are, there is a dietary phase
which is quite distinct from the mainly fish and fowl or
goose diet of the early to mid Anglo-Saxon period, and
the mixed diet which characterises the occupation of
the medieval cell (see Vol 2, Ch 37.2).
It is interesting to compare this information with
the excavated evidence from Iona (McCormick 1997,
56, table 1): there, larger numbers of individuals were
found in the vallum than the guest-house but the
species are very much the same from both areas, displaying a mixed livestock economy (see also OSullivan
2001, 44). McCormick notes that the inclusion of
horse bones with other discarded food refuse implies
that the animal was occasionally eaten by the monks, a
situation emphasised by the presence of butchering
marks on some of the horse bones from the vallum
ditch (McCormick 1997, 57). He further notes that
the eating of horse was generally frowned upon by the
church, as indicated by some 9th-century Irish penitentials, and Adomnns disapproval (Anderson and
Anderson 1991, 489). Perhaps the presence of
butchered horse bone in the monastic midden should
be interpreted either as emergency rations in time of
severe food shortage or within the context of someone
passing off horse flesh as beef to the monastic community (McCormick 1997, 57). Horse bones, which similarly seem to be food refuse, were found in periods I
and II at Whithorn (Hill 1997, 611), where the excavator also notes Pope Gregorys letter to St Boniface
deploring the habit (Emerton 1940, 58).
McCormick noted the high incidence of wild game
in the Columban middens at Iona, including red deer
and roe deer, which he suggests might have come from
the monastic estates (1997, 578). A small quantity of
deer is present also among the Jarrow bones (Vol 2, Ch
37.2) and could have likewise derived from their inland
estates. Unlike Jarrow, and also Church Close,
Hartlepool which has a similar range of fish and birds
to Jarrow (Daniels 1988, 199201) there was only a
small amount of evidence for domesticated fowl at
Iona, and the fish was all seawater fish, but this is not
surprising considering that there were no suitable lakes
or rivers on the island for freshwater fish. It would
seem therefore that monastic inhabitants adapted their
diet to their immediate surroundings, but the diet of
fish is very different (both at Jarrow and Hartlepool) in
the later medieval periods when deep-sea catches predominate (see Vol 2, Ch 37.2, and Locker 1988, 201).
Whether this is because the riverine fish were depleted
or because a more varied diet was demanded, it is
impossible to say (see Medieval Economy below).
Craft production and trade
Major monasteries in Ireland have been considered as
important craft centres where objects of fine metalwork could have been manufactured as well as more
everyday objects, and where trade and exchange could

take place (Doherty 1985; Ryan 1988). This should
leave evidence in the archaeological record in the form
of workshop residues, as well as possibly coinage and
evidence for lay visitors or occupants. At Jarrow, the
evidence for a different type of occupancy in Building
D during the 9th century is reinforced by the dress fastenings from that area, which include silver dress hooks
and strap-ends (Vol 2, Ch 31.2) as well as the 9thcentury coinage. This is a period of change in other
sites also (see Chapter 24 below). Relatively few coins
have been recovered from these sites but it is interesting that all of the early sceattas from Jarrow derive from
the waterfront area, where presumably some trading
could take place, and where there could be the maximum presence of visitors from outside the community.
It is also that area of the site which has produced the
greatest amount of imported pottery, in the areas designated as workshops and a possible guest house (see
Chapter 16). It is unfortunate that the main group of
imported pottery, Early Fine Red ware (type G1),
which is notably distinctive (see Vol 2, Ch 33.2), has
proved difficult to parallel elsewhere and thus to provide evidence for links with specific areas abroad. In
addition, in the area immediately to the south of
Building A (the refectory), some sherds of Tating ware
(G5) were found, and these may have been used as
monastic tableware. It is worthy of note that the
imported pottery at both Wearmouth and Jarrow is
markedly different from that found on west coast sites
such as Iona or Whithorn, and this difference may be
supported in the future by the publication of large
assemblages from sites such as Flixborough (Loveluck
forthcoming). The main evidence for imported pottery
at Whithorn spans a period before Wearmouth/Jarrow
was founded, but E-ware and D-ware continue
through the 7th century (Campbell 1997, 31526),
and Iona also has produced some E-ware. It would
seem that the east coast routes could have drawn on
different contacts (see Vol 2, Chs 33.2 and 3).
There are tantalising hints in the debris connected
with the metalworking and glass working in the workshops at Jarrow that the community had access to medium range external resources, so for example the
fluorspar and the mica (Vol 2, Ch 35.3) could have
derived from Weardale, while the Roman glass fragments (see Vol 2, Chs 32.1 and 35.3) and glass tessera
could indicate trade, exchange or even the combing of
local Roman sites. Whether the workshop evidence is
substantial enough to postulate the production of surplus items for exchange or is merely the evidence of a
self-sufficient community is difficult to decide. The
residues surviving on the workshop floors are not abundant, but the working floors could have been kept clean,
and there is evidence from the Jarrow Slake excavations
of tipping on the bank of the river and even into its
channel, and this has resulted in very disturbed deposits
(see Chapter 21). Nevertheless, compared with the
amount of evidence from the productive middens at
JARROW23.QXD
19-01-2007
11:41
Pagina 345
Flixborough (Loveluck 2001, and forthcoming) or

Brandon (Carr et al 1988; Webster and Backhouse
1991, 818), that from Jarrow is meagre indeed.
There is evidence for smithing in the form of slags
(Vol 2, Ch 35.3) but not in large quantities. Every
monk, according to the Benedictine Rule, owned a
knife, and several of these have been found on the site,
as have simple iron belt buckles which could, alongside
the structural fittings of buildings, have been manufactured on site (Vol 2, Ch 31.6). A single smith could
have been kept busy supplying the needs of the community, but a letter of the 8th century from Cuthbert,
abbot of Wearmouth, to Lul speaks of a gift of twenty
knives sent to a fellow cleric abroad (Whitelock 1955,
7656, no. 185, and Appendix A3.7), so possibly a surplus was produced. Moreover perhaps some form of
exchange took place with another institution (such as a
female monastery which produced textiles), since these
sites are remarkable, when compared with others (lay
and ecclesiastical), for the complete absence of loom
weights and spindle whorls in the pre-Conquest
monastic phase.
It is unfortunate, however, that at Wearmouth,
which was the larger unit in the twin organisation,
there has been no excavation of the waterfront or any
area which might be thought of as workshops, and at
neither site have the sort of rubbish dumps or pits been
discovered which have provided so much artefactual
evidence from sites such as Barking or Flixborough
(Webster and Backhouse 1991, 88101). The picture
which one derives from the archaeological evidence for
the economy of these sites in the pre-Conquest period
is therefore patchy and most probably misleading.
Exotic artefacts from the site such as the small ivory
box (Vol 2, Ch 31.5) could have been acquired in the
inmates travels or from gift exchange, but there was a
regular need in all ecclesiastical establishments for
some products which must have been bought in some
fashion. Oil, wine and incense were always needed, as
were some pigments, and exotic fabrics were obviously prized. Nevertheless it should be remembered that
none of the treasures which Bede distributed on his
death bed incense, napkins and grains of pepper
would have left any archaeological trace (EOB,
Colgrave and Mynors 1969, 5845; Cramp 1973,
124). The picture which can be drawn then is of a fairly self-sufficient community whose wealth may have
been in their landholdings, but which is reflected less
in their personal possessions and food consumption
than in their buildings.
The medieval economy of the cells

Durham Priory was unusual among medieval
Benedictine houses in the number of its cells but, as
noted already in Chapter 4, many of them, like
Lindisfarne, Coldingham, Wearmouth and Jarrow, had
originally been important pre-Conquest establishments with their own landholdings, and it was
345
therefore important to Durham to ensure that they

were firmly dependent on the mother-house. This state
was ensured partly by the regular movement of the
monks between Durham and the cells (see Chapter 4
above) so that no-one had time to build up a specific
allegiance to a cell, and partly by the strict financial
control which Durham exercised over all of its dependencies. As Cambridge has said, In economic
terms...the phenomenon of cells was a two-edged
sword, both diverting resources from the motherhouse, and attracting endowments it might not otherwise have acquired, or been able fully to exploit, for
itself (1992, 10). Despite the wealth of documentary
evidence that survives from Durham Priory however,
there are significant lacunae and these may well affect
our view of Wearmouth and Jarrow particularly in the
13th century. The documentary references which
enable one to reconstruct a reasonable picture of the
economic management of these cells have been fully
considered by Alan Piper, first in his 1973 lecture at
Monkwearmouth, Durham monks at Wearmouth (Piper
nd) and secondly in his Jarrow Lecture, The Durham
monks at Jarrow (Piper 1986). These two papers are
the source for the medieval documentary evidence in
Chapter 4, this chapter, and in Volume 2, Chapter 37.
The incomes of Wearmouth and of Jarrow were
nominally independent, but, in time of crisis, both
were crucially dependent on the Durham motherhouse. Because of the curious history of these houses
as providing the initial Benedictine community for
Durham (Chapter 4 above), resources for their support
had to be detached from the original Durham endowment, and the provision made for them as revealed by
the surviving accounts from the earlier 14th century
was modest (Piper 1986, 67). The situation of both of
these cells in the 12th century is obscure but it would
seem a parish church was maintained at each site, and
Piper has surmised that both may have been served by
a monk chaplain in that period. Certainly for both sites
one of the major sources of income, as for any parish
church, was from tithes.
Wearmouth
The documentary evidence
Wearmouths income was partly derived from the
incomings to its parish church from the vills of
Wearmouth, Fulwell and Southwick, partly from rents
from their tenants properties, and partly from the
monks own enterprise in running their home farm.
From these incomings the salary of a chaplain to service the parish had to be provided, and there was the
constant need for building repair and maintenance, the
details of which are considered above in Chapters 19,
20 and 21.
Among the tithes, those in corn were the most valuable (Piper nd, 3), although to protect themselves
against fluctuating harvests and so income, the monks
JARROW23.QXD
19-01-2007
11:41
Pagina 346
346
leased these tithes in the second half of the 15th

century. Other agricultural tithes were wool and lambs,
which became slightly more significant in the later 14th
century. Fish also appear regularly as tithes, and in the
mid-14th century there was a small income derived
from tithes of salmon caught in the River Wear, and
there is also occasional mention of sea fishing.
Sometimes the tithes were leased, at other times the
monks seemed to have managed their own enterprise:
a reference in 138990 to tithes and the profit of a
boat, together with the purchase of two cobells and
nets in 14278 suggests that they organised fishing on
their own account from time to time (Piper nd, 5).
Piper also notes tithes in what seems to be a local production of salt in the 15th to 16th centuries.
The production of the home farm is recorded in
some inventories and provides a picture of a small scale
agricultural enterprise of on average about eighty to
ninety acres, divided between legumes (peas and
beans) and corn (wheat and barley) with a few acres
only for oats and blandcorn. Between twelve and eighteen oxen were kept for ploughs, and four or five other
animals, probably horses, although in the 15th century
four or five cows are recorded. Pigs were an important
element in the economy and between forty and sixty
are recorded in almost all the inventories, while sheep
are more spasmodically mentioned, although in 1360
and 1362 there were flocks of one hundred and fiftyfour and one hundred and ninety-nine but, during the
course of the 15th century, about thirty sheep becomes
the norm. Towards the end of the life of the cell it
appears that more of the home farmland was being
rented out (Piper nd, 46), although the income from
cottages had declined. All in all the pattern is of dependence on a very localised economy.
The archaeological evidence
The archaeological evidence does not contribute much
to the detailed picture provided by the documents.
Since there was no above-ground survival of any of the
medieval buildings and even the foundations had often
been built over, the appearance of the buildings in the
Aldwinian period, and for their conversion into a more
domestic layout by the 14th century, cannot be evaluated. In addition, many of the items which occasioned
considerable expenditure in the accounts such as the
aqueduct have not been located. The lack of stratified
medieval layers and deposits means that the sample of
stratified bone is very small from this disturbed and
truncated site. The diet as shown by the animal bones
is more varied than that in the pre-Conquest period;
there is still an emphasis on poultry, but a substantial
element of sheep, pig, and cattle are indicated in the
diet and these seem to have been eaten in their
prime (Vol 2, Ch 37.1), The fish remains are more varied than in the pre-Conquest period and include deepsea species. It is concluded that in consideration of the
bird bones, the inhabitants of Wearmouth did not
enjoy a high status diet in terms of species, but they

seem to have enjoyed plenty of domestic fowl (Vol 2,
Ch 37.1).
The meagre artefactual evidence from the postConquest period at Wearmouth likewise does not indicate much about the life style, although there is some
evidence for the literacy of the inhabitants from the
book clasps (Vol 2, Ch 31.2, Fig 31.2.12) and the seal
of the collector is a poignant relic of the communitys
need to collect its incomings (Vol 2, Ch 31.3, S2).
Pottery seems mainly to have been bought locally, but
the evidence from the latest deposits, such as the filledin latrines, does include imports (Vol 2, Ch 33.2). The
trading benefits of living at a harbour mouth are not
reflected in the finds, but these are hardly representative of what there might have been, had intact medieval
floor levels or rubbish dumps survived. A final interesting point in the latest medieval phases, however, is
that there seem to have been metalworking hearths at
the western section of the site and domestic activity
outside the south-east corner of the South Range (Fig
11.8), both of which utilised the local coal.
In summary one is indeed severely hampered in
considering the medieval archaeology of Wearmouth
by the inability to extract the medieval functions of the
buildings from the vestiges which were incorporated
into the Jacobean Hall. As Cambridge points out, the
evidence of the accounts suggests that Wearmouth was
even poorer than Jarrow from the late 14th century
until the Reformation, and there was less expenditure
on the monastic buildings. The poorer survival of documents at Wearmouth may distort the picture somewhat, but while the amounts recorded for building
expenditure are smaller than Jarrow, the range of
buildings to be maintained seems somewhat greater;
the implication appears to be that, in the last two centuries of the Middle Ages at any rate, its domestic
buildings were less extensive, or less well appointed, or
both (Cambridge 1992, 1712).
Jarrow
The documentary evidence
As at Wearmouth the number of monks resident at the
cell was usually the minimum of two, although from
1513 the number increased to three (Piper 1986, 9),
and there was sometimes a resident chaplain and
sometimes a paying guest (Piper 1986, 16). As at
Wearmouth, the income from tithes of its large parish
(which reached from the North Sea coast to Gateshead
and some lands north of the Tyne), constituted the
most substantial part of the cells income. Nevertheless
the mother-house in Durham kept for itself almost all
of the corn tithes leaving those from only two townships to the Jarrow cell, although the tithes of hay, flax,
hemp and probably wool, were assigned to the cell
(Piper 1986, 6). Other revenues came from coal
shipped down from the Tyne, a small salt industry,
JARROW23.QXD
19-01-2007
11:41
Pagina 347
and what is the largest item in the cash income the

tithe of South Shields fish (idem, 7). Stallibrass (Vol 2,
Ch 37.2) has considered in some detail the evidence
from the animal, fish and bird bones in relation to
Pipers published analyses of the inventories and
accounts, and has also considered the home farm and
its produce, so this evidence will not be repeated here.
The picture conveyed is of a fair self-sufficiency with a
certain amount of surplus stock which in good years
could be sold, possibly in nearby urban markets such
as Newcastle.
Certain sources of income diminished or ceased
over time: income from some of the fishing yares (see
Vol 2, Ch 37.2) were at the beginning of the 15th
century taken into the main estate, and in the early
16th century they ceased to provide altogether, and
similarly the few shillings which the brewhouse produced ceased after 14045 (Piper 1986, 8).
Changes in income could result in changes in the
number of the community; for example the fall in
income from rents in the second decade of the 15th
century meant that monks were withdrawn from the
Jarrow cell between Michaelmas 1425 and July 1432,
while a third monk was added to the community at
Wearmouth. In 1513 the income from eight saltworkings on the Tyne was transferred from Durham to
Jarrow in order to raise the number of monks from two
to three at Jarrow, Wearmouth, and Farne, the
arrangement being that Jarrow made payments of 5
each to the other cells and 7 shillings to the Durham
bursar for rent, and kept the balance (Piper 1986, 9).
How well Jarrow fared under this arrangement is not
recorded, but from the end of the 15th century Jarrow
normally was expected to pay a substantial contribution to the expenses of Durham Priory: 6 13s 4d a
year, as opposed to Wearmouths contribution of 1.
Piper notes that, In general life at Jarrow was lived on
a slightly larger scale than at Wearmouth; for a period
before and after 1400 on a significantly larger scale,
enhanced on occasion by paying guests (ibid, 16).
The archaeological evidence
Alas, such detailed fluctuations in the economy of the
houses are not detectable in the archaeological record.
The house was originally planned with some style and
for a reasonably sized Benedictine community, as the
surviving buildings on the site still demonstrate (see
Chapter 19). The material evidence that can be reasonably related to the late 11th century is, however,
minimal, although some of the pottery types grouped
in Medieval 1a (Vol 2, Ch 33.2 synthesis) could belong
to this phase. The pottery and coinage evidence from
347
the 12th to 13th centuries is, however, of considerable

importance in demonstrating activity on the site at a
time when there is no surviving documentary record.
The regional pottery from this period which relates to
Durham, Newcastle, and as far afield as the Tweed valley, could well reflect the interests of the mother-house
as it consolidated its hold on the cells, and began
rebuilding as far apart as Coldingham, Lindisfarne and
Finchale. At Jarrow, the high level of activity and rubbish disposal in the mid-13th to early 14th centuries,
which has been noted in Chapter 19, also reflects a
period which precedes the documentary evidence.
This is a period when the pottery specialists have noted
that the quantity of pottery increases dramatically
(Vol 2, Ch 33.2 synthesis). The pottery includes not
only local wares, but Yorkshire types and imports of
Low Countries wares a range which is reflected also
at Newcastle, which could have been the market where
it was purchased. The forms of pottery, such as condiment dishes, wine jugs and other table ware, show that
the site was now occupied by a settled group, presumably monks, even though considerable building activity seems to have taken place in the latter part of the
phase. It is possible, however, that the mother-house
spent some considerable resources on the reconstruction of the site for a more limited occupancy at that
period, and it is noteworthy that several of the major
windows seem to have been inserted into the church
and monastic buildings in the 14th century (Chapters
19 and 20), while there is little evidence for later architectural embellishments. After the group of 13th- to
14th-century coins, there is very little later coinage
from the site, but the Tournai jetton (Vol 2, Ch 30.3)
may hint at some external trade, and the pottery (Vol
2, Ch 33.2) continues to be biased towards the Low
Countries until the late 15th to 16th centuries, when
German stonewares become more common.
On the whole the rubbish tips from the site support
the impression that the monks had an increasingly
comfortable life style with a varied diet, and Piper further notes, The style in which the monks could dine
seems to stand in striking contrast to the complete
absence of anything which could be described as a
library (Piper 1986, 21). But excavated remains can
scarcely help one here; the archaeological record for
learning at this period is no less substantial than it was
in the age of Bede, and the indications of literacy in the
form of bone and iron styli (Vol 2, Ch 31.5.4) are much
the same in both periods. Even with the greater bulk of
material evidence that survives at Jarrow, in comparison
with Wearmouth, such evidence can provide only a very
simplistic view of the complex economic and social network which the documentary sources demonstrate.
JARROW24.QXD
13-02-2007
10:28
Pagina 348
24 The Anglo-Saxon monastic sites of Wearmouth/Jarrow

within the context of their time
The nature and layout of the
monastic buildings
Wearmouth/Jarrow and Glastonbury (Fig 24.1). In

addition the excavation of small timber buildings at
Hartlepool, which have been interpreted as either cells
or workshops (Daniels 1988), and which seem to have
their own zone, encourages one to suppose that there
could have been similar zones at these sites, perhaps
on the north side of the churches.
The foundation of Wearmouth, as explained in

Chapter 4, was the fulfilment of an ideal to build in the
continental manner which had developed during the
sixteen years Benedict Biscop had travelled on the continent and the other English kingdoms, before his
return in 673 to his native Northumbria. There, King
Ecgfrith was, according to Bede (HAB, 4), inspired to
give land from the royal estates by Benedicts enthusiasm for the monastic institutions which he had
encountered in Rome and elsewhere, and the king was
also impressed by the books and relics that Benedict
had procured on his travels. Why eight years later the
institution was expanded by a foundation on another
site, and why that specific site was chosen is a matter
for speculation, although, as mentioned above
(Chapter 4), it was commonplace in the Insular church
for other founders to develop colonies of monasteries,
but Benedict was always careful to stress that
Wearmouth and Jarrow constituted one monastery in
two places. This is mentioned in the account of the
foundation of Jarrow where it is also stated (HAA, 11)
that King Ecgfrith gave the donation for his souls
redemption, pro redemptione animae suae: this phrase
may be something of a clich, but it is also stated that
he took such an interest in the site that he marked out
the position of the altar of the church (HAA, 12).
Ecgfriths name is included on the dedication inscription of the church (Appendix A1) and it is possible
therefore that he intended this as his burial church, but
certainly these statements have implications for the
nature of the sites which could be illuminated by further excavation, particularly to see if the Eastern
Church overlaid an earlier focus (see Chapter 25).
In order to see how far Benedict fulfilled his ideal
and produced foundations that were distinctive among
the monasteries of their time, it is necessary first to
review how similar or complementary the two foundations are. At the outset, however, it is important to
stress again that despite the spurious air of completeness that the reconstructions of the Wearmouth and
Jarrow buildings give (Figs 9.40 and 16.88), only an
unknown percentage of both of these sites has been
excavated, and this almost exclusively to the south of
the churches. Clearly to accommodate the buildings
mentioned in the early documents for these houses and
others like them (Cramp 1976b), a large area of
ground would have been needed, and the discovery by
air photography and selective excavation of an enclosure of 8 hectares (20 acres) at Hoddom is some indication of the scale one might expect (Lowe 1991), as is
also a comparison of the excavated areas of
Location
Both sites are situated on raised ground with a river to
the south leading directly to the sea, although at
Wearmouth the river to the south constitutes a major
boundary, and the sea on the east is within sight, while
at Jarrow the site was surrounded by a tidal tributary of
the Tyne on the south and east and the wide mouth of
the Tyne to the north. Both sites have useful harbours
to the east. Such a location has sometimes been
assumed to be characteristic of early monastic sites
(Morris 1989, 11011), but, as I have argued elsewhere, monasteries in Britain and Ireland are sited in a
variety of locations usually with good access to communication by land and water (see also Hughes and
Hamlin 1977, 239, and Blair 1992, 22731).
Associated with the large establishments could be
more remote sites such as are recorded in relation to
Melrose, Lindisfarne, and Hexham (HE, V.12; III.16;
V.2). Such sites on islands, hilltops, or even isolated
cells, enabled certain members of the community to
live for short or long periods the truly eremitical life,
which remained from the beginning of the monastic
movement as the highest aspiration. In Ireland, eremitical sites have survived particularly in the west and
have been surveyed in considerable numbers (Herity
1995), but in England little attention has been paid to
the few sites at which there are some visible traces
(Cramp 1981). No such eremitical site is recorded in
relation to Wearmouth/Jarrow, but it is possible that
Jarrow as the smaller of the two sites (HAB, 9), surrounded not only by a river, but by marshes on the
south and mudflats on the east, would have been considered the quieter and more retired location (see
Chapter 1). It is possible, however, that it was not only
the natural situation but also previous landuse which
was a determinant for the choice of site. If one had a
clearer idea of the boundaries of the immediate territories of these sites, one might be able to decide more
easily why the churches with their excavated cemeteries and major public buildings were precisely located
where they are in the landscape (see also discussion of
location in Chapter 3). Moreover, in a recent lecture,
Ian Wood has suggested that Arbeia could have been a
royal centre, perhaps with a secular stronghold as well
as a monastery (Wood, pers comm).
348
JARROW24.QXD
13-02-2007
10:28
Pagina 349
24: THE ANGLO-SAXON MONASTIC SITES OF WEARMOUTH/JARROW
349
Fig 24.1 Reconstructed plans of excavated buildings from Wearmouth (black), Jarrow (red) and Glastonbury (green),
showing position of ditched enclosure (after Rahtz 1993). A MacM
Enclosures
Although not every monastery had an enclosure from
the outset, this feature is commonly presumed to be
one of the key elements of a monastic site, and certainly in Ireland, the vallum monasterii, which could
define the sacred space at the heart of a monastic settlement, often still survives as a prominent earthwork
or wall varying in scale from about 30183m in diameter (Norman and St Joseph 1969; Hughes and
Hamlin 1977, 546; MacDonald 1997, 42). The area
surrounding both Wearmouth and Jarrow has been
developed so intensively that no trace of an enclosure
could survive above ground, and the layout of the
streets or fields in the earliest maps and plans of the
area does not provide an indication of a recognisable
boundary for the monastic territory on the north or
west, although on both sites the river to the south and
sea to the east may be seen as a terminus. At both sites
the monastery seems to front a river crossing: at
Wearmouth by ferry and at Jarrow by causeway, and it
is possible that the boundary of the monastic territory

was on the south banks of the Wear and the Don (Figs
1.5 and 1.10). Excavation on the riverside has not
taken place at Wearmouth, but at Jarrow the riverside
seems initially to have been open (see Chapter 21), and
the cut to the south of Building D (Fig 16.5) probably
indicates a Middle to Late Saxon strengthening of the
site to the south. The wide foundation of pitched stone
excavated by Radford to the north of St Pauls Church,
and interpreted as a vallum base (Radford 1954b,
2078, fig 2), was only examined in a very small area
and is better interpreted as a road since it runs very
close to the east end of the church, but this road in
itself may indeed have been an internal boundary. It is
in a similar position to a curving line of laid stones,
running northsouth, east of the church at Whitby,
which has also been interpreted as a vallum. There was
a spread of similar occupation to either side of it, however, and in the unpublished excavation photographs it
looks like a road (Cramp 1976c, 228, 457, fig 5.7;
Rahtz 1976b, 460).
JARROW24.QXD
350
13-02-2007
10:28
Pagina 350
Fig 24.2 Plan of the Ile St-Honorat, after Ian M Smith
It may be of significance that Anglo-Saxon secular

sites were not in their earliest stages enclosed, and this
differentiates them from those of their Celtic neighbours, where enclosed sites have an unbroken history
from prehistoric to medieval times. Internal subdivisions are marked out on many secular sites, however,
and there seems to be an increase in the enclosure of
individual plots in the Middle Saxon period. Some of
the divisions noted in recent excavations of monastic
sites could likewise also be internal rather than the
major external boundaries. Such boundaries differed
in type: at Hartlepool an early but long-lived division
was marked, first by spaced posts with a maximum
width of 0.8m and then a palisade trench 0.4m wide
(Daniels 1988, fig 6). At Dacre, Cumbria, similar
enclosures in the form of interrupted ditches enclosed
an early cemetery, and here the most substantial length
is about 2.10m wide and 0.50m deep (R Newman,
pers comm), while at Brandon, a site of uncertain status but clearly with an ecclesiastical element, there are
a variety of enclosures (Carr et al 1988, fig 2). Similarly
at Beverley a monastery built by John from Hexham
there is also an excavated enclosure ditch dating from
the 8th and 9th century (Armstrong et al 1991, figs 4
and 5). The 8th-century ditch (1290) at Beverley was
2.703m wide and 0.80m deep, and a 9th-century
ditch (1242) was 33.50m wide and c 0.75m deep.
This, which was fed by subsidiary ditches and may
have contained fish traps, is comparable in scale with
the enclosing ditch at Glastonbury (Fig 24.1; Rahtz
1993, 925, figs 63, 64), although the latter, like the
ditch and vallum at Iona, has proved to be a complex
and not unitary feature (RCAHMS 1982, 32, illus pp
3235). (For a comparison of where the Glastonbury
ditches would have been located in relation to
Wearmouth and Jarrow, see Fig 24.1.) But in mainland
Britain, save for Iona, Hoddom and possibly
Whithorn, it is impossible to say how great an area
these enclosures contained. The outer enclosures at

both Wearmouth and Jarrow may have been of a less
substantial nature than the earthen ditches and ramparts of the native Insular tradition, or the massive
stone walls found on Syrian sites (Braunfels 1972, III,
255), and a wooden palisade or a thorn hedge, as is
recorded as surrounding the monastery at Oundle
(VW, 67; Colgrave 1927, 1467) remains a possibility.
On the continent, the monastery at Hamage was surrounded in the 7th century partly by a wooden palisade and partly by a ditch (Louis 2002). Speaks
excavations to the north of Jarrow Hall (see Fig 2.3)
discovered part of a substantial slightly curving ditch,
which seems to be of pre-Conquest date and which
could be part of an enclosure (Speak 1998, 62, figs 1
and 2). Nevertheless, in the light of the other stone
structures and the specific statement of the founder
that Benedict was building in the Roman manner (see
above, Chapter 4, and Appendix A2.3), one might
have expected a surrounding stone wall. Very large
areas were enclosed in monasteries on the continent as
early as the 7th century, as the often quoted Life of St
Philibert indicates: battlemented ramparts rising up in
a massive square, an enclosure of remarkable capacity
(Braunfels 1972, 234). It seems possible then that the
area at Jarrow could have extended from the Tyne on
the north to the Don to the south, with the sea to the
east and a substantial boundary on the landward side
at an unknown point to the west. It should be remembered, however, that within the enclosure there could
have been several foci of separate buildings, including
dispersed churches, as on the island of St Honorat,
Lrins, where Benedict was received as a monk (Fig
24.2, and Fletcher 1980b; Smith 1984). In addition
the infirmary, novice house and domestic buildings,
which we must assume from related texts would have
existed (Chapter 4 above, and Cramp 1976c), could
have been widely separated.
JARROW24.QXD
13-02-2007
10:29
Pagina 351
351
Fig 24.3 Reconstructed plans of Wearmouth (black) and Jarrow (red) overlaid. A MacM
The churches
The locating and construction of the main churches of
St Peter and St Paul seems to be the initial event in the
foundation of each site. In summarising the results of
research on the Anglo-Saxon monastery of
Wearmouth/Jarrow, the evidence provided by the
churches is so substantial that it unbalances all other
evidence for the Anglo-Saxon buildings. Moreover the
comparative evidence from pre-Carolingian monastic
sites on the continent is very largely concerned with
the architectural study and excavation (often total), of
the churches on such sites (see for example the important series of publications, Les premiers monuments chrtiens de la France (Duval et al 1995; 1996), and
Vorromanische Kirchenbauten (Oswald et al 196691)).
The churches are therefore considered separately first,
and then in relation to the topography of both sites.
Despite the limited nature of the excavation at

Wearmouth and Jarrow churches and the differential
survival of the standing structures, it is possible to say
that there were close similarities in both plans, at least
in their initial form (see Figs 6.17, 13.16 and 24.3).
Both were cellular churches in Taylors terminology
(Taylor 1978, 96971); both had a nave length to
width ratio of about 3:1, and of closely similar dimensions; both had side annexes at Wearmouth these are
indicated on the north and south running into a probable western narthex, at Jarrow the narrow aisle is
only attested on the north, and seems to have been
transformed later. Jarrow certainly, and Wearmouth
probably, had a squared rather than an apsidal east
end. Wearmouth certainly had a western porch and
Jarrow, probably, a porch of similar dimensions.
Wearmouth had, as attested by documentary evidence,
a sacrarium to the south, for which, if one accepts the
JARROW24.QXD
352
13-02-2007
10:29
Pagina 352
interpretation of sacristy (see above, Chapter 4),

there are some enigmatic remains (Fig 9.2, 2170).
There seems to have been a similar adjunct to the
north, and this could have initially formed a T plan at
the east end, as may be paralleled in Gaulish churches
(Forsyth 1953, 404; Duval et al 1991, 2001, figs).
In their later developments it is postulated that their
plans diverged. Both might have had side chambers
which spanned the naves (Fig 24.3), but at Wearmouth
the length of the original chancel is not known
although it has been postulated that it is related to the
east range building with perhaps the eastern section
considered as a funerary porticus. At Jarrow there were
two churches on the same axis, the Eastern Church
considered as a funerary church (see Chapter 13, The
development of the pre-conquest churches), and the
construction of a junction building to join the east end
of the Western Church to the Eastern Church has been
seen as a pre-Conquest feature; at Wearmouth a tower
was raised over the western porch, apparently c the
11th century. Both churches may have had some upper
floor features, either a western gallery or, as discussed
above (Chapters 6 and 13), a full upper floor (see also
Pickles 1999, 245). The fabric and construction of
each church was different at Wearmouth the main
fabric is of limestone rubble with some angled courses
(in the manner of some local Roman work such as at
Piercebridge Roman fort), and the quoins and openings were of sandstone. The walling is bonded with a
bright yellow lime mortar, and faced with a creamy
white or pink plaster (see Vol 2, Ch 26.2). Jarrow was
constructed with similar mortar, but its fabric is of
neatly coursed sandstone blocks, which could have
been retrieved from a nearby Roman site since this is a
style of building to be found locally in the Roman Wall
construction. Both churches therefore could have been
said to have been built in the Roman manner, and
their constructional differences, which are mirrored in
the domestic buildings on the sites, may be dependent
on available materials as much as on the different traditions of their workmen, although this should not be
discounted as a contributory factor. It should also be
noted that the mortar mixers found at Wearmouth (see
Chapter 9) do seem to be part of the reintroduced
Roman technology and that they are some of the earliest post-Roman mixers in Europe (see Gutscher
1981, Abb 18).
It is extremely difficult to determine how far all of
the building traditions exemplified in these two
churches were imported, how far some may have been
extant in the British Isles, or indeed if these native traditions are reflected only at Jarrow, which was apparently built not by foreign workmen but by the
Wearmouth community and some untonsured
brethren (Chapter 4). Before the construction of
Wearmouth most of the Northumbrian churches were
seemingly of wood, but only one such structure which
is interpreted as a church has been excavated
Building B from the royal palace site of Yeavering,
Northumberland (Hope-Taylor 1977, fig 33). This

building, with its double square dimensions and its
four major door openings (one leading into a squared
annexe), seems very different from the architectural
traditions of Wearmouth/Jarrow; although, as Bettess
has demonstrated (Vol 2, Appendix E), there appear to
be identical units of measurement in use at Jarrow and
Yeavering, which may point to some local tradition.
The later timber church at Whithorn, however, has a
plan that is very similar to Wearmouth/Jarrow (Fig
24.4, and Hill 1997, fig 4.15).
It is unfortunate that the stone church built at York
in the earlier 7th century to enclose the timber oratory
hastily constructed for King Edwins baptism by
Bishop Paulinus has never been found (HE, II.14;
Cramp 1967a, 4). If the description of the stone
church later built to surround it as per quadratum
means that it was square, then it was of a different form
and similar perhaps to 6th- to 7th-century Kentish
churches (Clapham 1930, 1642) or the late Roman
church of St Paul-in-the-Bail at Lincoln (Gilmour
1979; Jones 1994, fig 8; Sawyer 1998, 22630), which
might still have been visible at that date. The stone
church of St Peters, York, had a burial porticus dedicated to St Gregory, where King Edwins head was
buried (HE, II.20), and in this resembled SS Peter and
Pauls, Canterbury. Similar burial porticus for the
senior members of the monastic communities are
recorded at St Peters, Wearmouth, and the stone
churches built by Bishop Wilfrid at Ripon and
Hexham in the 670s. These last are described in
Stephanus biography of Wilfrid, but have survived
(save for their crypts), in so fragmentary a state that it
is impossible to make valid comparisons with
Wearmouth and Jarrow. Nevertheless the evidence
which does survive indicates more complex plans and
a columnar construction. Ripon may, in its above
ground appearance, have been as different from
Hexham as Jarrow was from Wearmouth, but Hexham
and Jarrow certainly shared common features in their
architectural sculpture and may have had similarities in
plan (Bailey 1991, fig 6). The Wearmouth and Jarrow
churches are clearly following some formula. It would
be possible to say that this formula was the temple at
Jerusalem, which, like the Holy Sepulchre, has been
seen as the spiritual model for many churches, and
indeed Wood has suggested that this relationship can
be seen in the dimensions of St Peters Wearmouth
(Wood 1995). This would also apply to Jarrow and
Hexham and to several other Northumbrian churches,
which does not negate, and may indeed strengthen, the
argument but it is not easy to provide convincing support from the imprecise measurements with which we
deal.
In the most general terms the Wearmouth/Jarrow
type of church is, however, paralleled in plan in a range
of churches from 5th/6th-century Syria and eastern
Europe and Italy. The type is also known in Gaul,
where it persists through the 7th/8th century (Forsyth
JARROW24.QXD
13-02-2007
10:29
Pagina 353
353
Fig 24.4 Reconstructed plans of Wearmouth (black), Jarrow (red) and Whithorn (green), after Hill (1999). A MacM
1953, fig 190). The narrow naves, with a single narrow
aisle on the north side and flanking chambers at the
east ends, are found in Kfer, Rbeah in Syria,
Mokropolje in Jugoslavia, as well as Dos Trento in
north Italy (Krautheimer 1965) where a long narrow
nave is flanked by four lateral porticus at the east end.
At St Martins, Angers, there is a single aisle on the
south (Forsyth 1953, fig 190, l) and at the funerary
church of St Peter at Moutier Grandval there is a very
narrow southern aisle of the proportions of
Wearmouth/Jarrow (de Maill 1971, fig 190), while at
St Ambroix, Cher, there is a single narrow aisle on the
north of the nave (Duval 1991, 212h). Two of the
Jugoslavian churches of the 6th century have western
narthexes, but this feature is not so common elsewhere
at this date. It is evident in the usage of some early
Christian writers that the term porticus could describe
both a long flanking annexe like an aisle and a smaller
room like a sacristy (see Parsons 1987 and also discussion of the term in relation to Building B below).
Sometimes the porticus could be divided into cubicula:
as early as AD 400, Paulinus described the church that
he built at Nola, cubicula intra porticus quarterna
longis basilicae lateribus inserta (Forsyth 1953, 42
note). At Jarrow, as discussed in Chapter 13, these
divisions may be a secondary phase.
In most of the churches so far cited as parallels, the
eastern annexe/chancel was of apsidal form and not
squared. The latter form is nevertheless known in
provincial Italian structures such as the 5th-century
church of SS Felice and Fortunato at Vicenza
(Krautheimer 1965, fig 54), and also in the first (7thcentury) stage of the church of St Paul at Nivelles (de
Maill 1971, fig 3) and other Gaulish churches (Duval
et al 1991, 212e and g). Fernie has compared the proportions of the long narrow church of St Gertrudes,
JARROW24.QXD
354
13-02-2007
10:29
Pagina 354
also at Nivelles, with Wearmouth and Jarrow (Fernie

1983, 57, fig 30), and this church has a secondary
squared adjunct at the east end, built in order to house
the body of the abbess Gertrude (Mertens 1962;
Oswald et al 1991, 236 and plan). Such an eastern porticus for the church of St Peter at Wearmouth has
already been noted as housing the tombs of the first
abbots. Nevertheless the squared east end, which is so
common in pre-Conquest churches in England, is relatively uncommon on the continent except in quite
small buildings. In the light of the timber building traditions already mentioned, it may indeed be a feature
which is derived from the Insular/Romano-British
building traditions, as evidenced by buildings as far
apart as Yeavering and Cowderys Down, Hampshire
(James et al 1984).
At Nivelles, as in many other monastic sites in
England and on the continent, there are several
churches within the monastic precinct. In double
houses these could be three or more, but in most
monastic sites there were at least two, the abbatial
church and the funerary church (de Maill 1971,
2233). At Wearmouth mention has already been
made of the funerary porticus of St Peters and of the
churches of St Mary and oratory of St Lawrence (see
above, Chapter 4). Since neither of these two last mentioned have been located it is not possible to know
whether St Marys also had a funerary function, but it
might be noted in passing that the church of St Marys
at Hexham was sited in relation to a cemetery. At
Jarrow the originally independent Eastern Church (of
unknown dedication) is reasonably interpreted as a
funerary church. It is sited in the midst of an early
cemetery, and it is possible, if one assumes that the two
upright stones at the base of the east wall were some
form of oculus (Fig 13.1), that it housed a prestigious
tomb or tombs. The north and south doors of this
church communicate with the cemetery, which could
support the idea of a funerary church, but Jackson and
Fletchers percipient suggestion that the north door
was walled up at the time of building with a view to
opening if and when a porticus was actively wanted, and
clearly the provision proved unnecessary, presumably
because burials in porticus went out of fashion,
remains a persuasive alternative (Jackson and Fletcher
1956, 10). Nevertheless the intercommunication
between churches and cemeteries is an important factor on these sites, as discussed further below.
Changes in the liturgy and social changes in the lay
world are reflected in all churches, but are difficult to
determine from plans alone, especially when a total
excavation of a church has not taken place. The lack of
columnar structures at Wearmouth/Jarrow, as at other
early medieval sites, cannot be seen as a reflection of
the limited abilities of their stonemasons, or the lack of
suitable stone, since the many small balusters (Vol 2,
Ch 28) are skilfully lathe-turned, and the octagonal
column in Building A (Chapter 16 and Vol 2, Ch 28)
is also a confident piece of work. Nevertheless the
spanning of a structure supported on columns could

have been a problem. The provision of the rows of
flanking chambers alongside the nave at Jarrow could
be seen as an opening up and enlargement of the nave
space, which perhaps reflects changes in liturgical or
social fashions. In the past some commentators have
accepted these side-chambers as part of the primary
construction, as in the church at Brixworth, but,
whereas excavation has proved the primary nature of
the side porticus at Brixworth (Jackson and Fletcher
1961; Audouy 1984, 334), excavation at Jarrow indicates that they were secondary (see Chapter 13). As
mentioned above in discussing Paulinus of Nolas
church, rows of four chambers along the nave are
known as early as the 5th century, but in England such
rows of porticus are usually seen as a later development.
Excavations and fabric investigations at Brixworth now
indicate, however, that a date in the late 8th/early 9th
century is possible for the construction of that church,
so the Jarrow porticus could be seen as reflecting the
fashion of what Fernie has called the Mercian basilica
(Fernie 1983, 6473), or could be seen as an independent development.
The junction building between the two Jarrow
churches and the possible superstructure which was
raised upon it have been considered above as plausibly
of the same building campaign as the side chambers,
but there is nothing to link them stratigraphically, and
whereas side chambers were current before the foundation date of Jarrow, crossing towers seem on the continent to be a development of the 8th and 9th
centuries, with the main era of tower building in
Anglo-Saxon England being the 10th and 11th centuries. Moreover there are many more surviving examples of western towers than crossing towers from
England (Taylor 1978, 899900; Stocker and Everson
forthcoming).
At Jarrow, there is no conclusive evidence that there
was a tower raised over the junction building in the
pre-Conquest period. Instead there could have been
merely an upper chamber that communicated with the
postulated gallery of the Western Church, while retaining at ground level a passage to the north and south of
the monastic precinct. It would seem, however, a massive reconstruction of the church just to achieve one
more room, and when there are possible parallels for a
form of church with crossing tower it seems a reasonable reconstruction (Fig 13.18). Elsewhere in
Northumbria, the 8th-century church as described in
De Abbatibus and reconstructed by Taylor (1974, figs 9,
10), is precisely of this type, as is the reconstructed plan
of Sherborne in Dorset (Cherry 1976, fig 4.11). On the
continent, the Merovingian church of St Martins,
Angers, Maine et Loire, was reconstructed with a similar structure in its 10th century or Carolingian phase
(Forsyth 1953, 92102, figs 1867). This tower, like
that at Jarrow, was conceived as a box of masonry penetrated by four openings, so that it formed an independent structure with four other independent structures
JARROW24.QXD
13-02-2007
10:29
Pagina 355
flanking it. The superstructure of such a tower is

unknown: it could have been a simple wooden helm or
something more elaborate. Perhaps, like the bell-tower
mentioned by Alcuin in the 8th century at York
(Cramp 1967a, 10), it could have been roofed with
metal cladding (as York was in AD 801).
The western tower at Wearmouth, still extant today,
is easier to parallel in Anglo-Saxon Northumbria. It
belongs to a distinctive group of six, which have been
isolated by Taylor as having belfry openings outlined
by strips, and some of them, such as Billingham and
Bywell, also have round sounding holes. These towers
Taylor would see as perhaps constructed by a single
group of workmen (Taylor 1978, 8923). There is no
conclusive dating evidence, but a period when workmen had been assembled to build the west tower of the
new church at Durham in c 1000 is at least historically credible. All of these other churches seem to be in
the centre of well-settled areas, and if one accepts the
proposition that the Wearmouth tower was built at this
period it constitutes the best evidence one has for the
use of the site in the late pre-Conquest period.
Nevertheless doubt remains that this tower is preConquest: as discussed above (Chapter 10), the small
sandstone blocks with which it is built have been noted
as possibly used in the Norman rebuilding of the site,
and the publication of the closely similar St Mary
Bishophill Junior, York, which has a tower of similar
type, also questions its pre-Conquest date (Wenham et
al 1987, 1436). In our present state of knowledge
concerning Anglo-Saxon architecture it seems best to
leave this matter unresolved.
The development of these two churches was unfortunately cut off just at the time when on the continent
the influence of the Carolingian revival of classical
architecture was producing larger and more complex
buildings. In the north of England there seems to have
been little or no church building in the 10th century,
but in the 11th century a growing fashion for towers,
in particular western towers, is also shared by this
region. A complete rebuilding of either church to a
larger scale in the late Saxon period such as one finds
not only on the continent but elsewhere in England
(Biddle 1975) was ruled out by the poverty, and
remoteness from mainstream influences, which the
church in northern Northumbria experienced in the
late Anglo-Saxon period.
Finally there is the very scanty evidence from
Wearmouth for an atrium at the west of the church;
such atria are well known from the 4th century onwards
in churches both at the west and east (Brenk 2002,
198200, fig 7), and can be linked to the development
of the claustral plan (see below), but only further excavation at Wearmouth could elucidate what was to the
west of the church on that site. The complex of structures revealed by dowsing to the west of St Pauls
church at Jarrow are, like the dowsed vallum from the
same site, still very speculative until validated by excavation (Bailey et al 1988, appendix 2, 151, plan 22).
355
Internal layout
The churches on the sites which would, as on all
monastic sites, have constituted the major foci have
been discussed in detail above in relation to their architecture, but despite the fact that we are speaking from
only partial knowledge it is important to try to relate
the discoveries at Wearmouth and Jarrow to the traditions of western monastic buildings and layouts, if only
because the literary evidence is so scantily supported
by archaeology. Important excavations of continental
sites such as San Vincenzo (Hodges and Mitchell
1985) and Farfa in Italy, at Landevennec in France
(Bardel 1991), Reichenau in Switzerland (Rappmann
and Zettler 1998), Clonmacnoise and Inis Cealtra as
well as hermitage sites in Ireland (Fanning 1981;
Herity 1995), and other Northumbrian sites such as
Hartlepool (Daniels 1988 and 1999), Dacre (Newman
2002, 1512), Whitby, and Barking further south are
still in progress or in preparation for publication. The
final conclusions from these sites, as well as the sites of
Flixborough, Lincs, and Brandon, Suffolk, which seem
to have had a monastic phase, may well change our
present understanding.
Cemeteries
On all the large Irish sites the church is surrounded by
a burial ground (Swan 1985, 98, fig 4.16), and the
importance of cemeteries on monastic sites and the
various loci they provide is crucial in an understanding
of these sites. The recent excavations of the female
monastery at Hamage, northern France, indicate that
the church was set in a funerary zone (Louis 2002, fig
2). The dead remained part of the monastic community and were remembered in the Liber Vitae of the
house, and on funerary monuments, some of which, as
at Hartlepool (Cramp 1984, pls 84 and 85), asked for
the prayers of the living. As mentioned above, important lay persons were also buried at monastic sites from
the beginning of the Insular and Anglo-Saxon foundations, and the burial of members of royal or noble families conferred a validity to the monastic landholding
which was often necessary to maintain. The fact that
monasteries were sometimes founded on earlier occupied sites both religious and lay is well known in both
Britain and Ireland, and traces of burials from preceding communities can be an element in the burial patterning. At both Wearmouth and Jarrow there is
evidence for the burial of communities of mixed sexes
(Chapters 8 and 15), but in the case of the crouched
burials at Wearmouth and those in the western cemetery (where there was also evidence for grave-goods),
the presence of such burials was ignored, or disregarded by the monastic builders. On the other hand, there
do seem to have been a few burials of women near to
the church. The extent of the area where the earliest
burials occurred has not been determined at either site,
and it is of interest that recent excavations at Whitby
JARROW24.QXD
356
13-02-2007
10:29
Pagina 356
headland, 19992002, have revealed burials at some

distance from the area where the Anglo-Saxon buildings have been found. At Wearmouth there seem to
have been clear divisions between lay and religious in
the earliest phases of burials, but these are ignored in
the period when burials took place after the buildings
were in ruins (Chapter 8, and Figs 8.2, 8.18, 8.19).
The difficulties of unravelling the sequences and relationships of distinct groups can be particularly acute in
confined ecclesiastical sites. More work certainly needs
to be carried out in the future on the patterning of burial on sites such as these (see Chapter 25), but
Wearmouth and Jarrow have provided significant
pointers.
At Jarrow the position of the churches in relation
both to the cemeteries and to the other monastic buildings has been mentioned above in Chapter 13, but
deserves further analysis. The Western Church is centrally placed in relation to Buildings A and B, while the
Eastern Church projects further eastwards (Figs 15.1
and 16.4). One reason for this could be that the latter
was sited in relation to an existing feature, possibly a
cemetery. There is no conclusive evidence to relate
early burials to the Eastern Church, although there are
Anglo-Saxon burials to the north and south of it. The
marked slope to the east of the church, noted in the
trench 7501 (Fig 13.7), could indicate that, unless it
superseded a pre-monastic feature such as a timber
mortuary chapel, the Eastern Church was fitted into
the available space on the crest of the rising ground
when the Western Church had been built or at least
planned. Some church whether temporary or permanent would certainly have been needed in the four
years of building the major church and the main
domestic buildings, and it is a carelessly laid out structure, the walls of which are not properly aligned and
are of variable width, so it might be interpreted as
hastily built. Alternatively, it could have been placed in
the area east of the basilica to perform some specific
purpose such as a burial porticus, like the eastern porticus recorded at Wearmouth, or the funerary building to
the east of the church in the ancient cemetery at
Whithorn (Fig 24.4, and Hill 1997, figs 4.5, 4.15).
Small simple rectangular churches are well known in
Gaul and, as Duval noted concerning small rectangular chapels, La plupart de ces chapelles ont une destination funraire (Duval et al 1991, 217).
Since we have only a partial picture of the monastic
layout and no evidence as to the eastern perimeter, the
Eastern Church may, however, have occupied a more
central position than now appears. The position of this
church within the overall monastic plan and its stratigraphic relationship to the cemetery are nevertheless
potentially important factors in assessing the site. At
both Wearmouth and Jarrow one crossed through the
cemetery to reach the monastic living and working
quarters, and since this also seems to be the position
on Irish sites (Hughes and Hamlin 1977, fig 5) this
could be an Insular characteristic.
The buildings
From the earliest monastic sites in the Near Eastern
deserts to the late 8th century, it seems that monastic
sites reflected the secular building traditions of their
own regions. The earliest Egyptian monasteries have
been described as like villages, in which each monk or
nun lived in his own house, while a common dining
hall and one or more chapels for communal worship
were erected in the middle of the complex (Braunfels
1972, 14), but in some sites, such as Cellia, a tentative
chronology suggests the following process: in the 4th
century there were independent compound dwellings
of some complexity surrounded by humbler dwellings.
These are interpreted as the dwelling places of important anchorites surrounded by those of their disciples.
In the 5th century the outlying dwellings were enclosed
within a rudimentary wall and there was a nucleus of
communal buildings. The final change, which took
place in the 7th century, enlarged the enclosed area
and probably re-disposed the compounds, although
the settlement still consisted of a number of self-contained dwellings grouped around the enclosing walls
with the communal buildings notably churches and
refectories also grouped together (Walters 1974, 9). A
more recent reconstruction of a self-contained hermitage of the 7th century for a monk and his disciple
is provided by Descoeudres (1996, figs 1 and 2) and
something of the same layout still survives in the now
renovated monastery of St Catherines at Mount Sinai
(Fig 24.5).
This type of settlement is one that is transmitted
to Europe and finds its parallels in the earliest
monastery of St Martin at Tours, c 400 as described
by Sulpicius Severus in his Life of St Martin. The
monks lived in huts set against an enclosing wall, in
the centre of which stood a two-storey building with
living quarters for Martin and some of the community below and a common dining room above
(Braunfels 1972, 20). A similar plan seems to have
existed at Abingdon until swept away in the wars of
the 9th century: the monasterium of Abingdon, which
Hean, the first abbot of that place, constructed c 675,
is described as an ellipse 120 feet in length (36.58m),
and around the monasterium were twelve cells and
twelve chapels. In these cells the twelve monks took
their food, drink and sleep. They had no cloister such
as they now have, but were surrounded by a high wall
which took the place of a cloister for them. They also
had a house beside the gate in which they could talk
to visitors (Chronicon monasterii de Abingdon,
Stevenson 1858, 72; for further text see Pickles 1999,
1923). It has been tentatively suggested (Chapter 9)
that some form of this layout may have pertained in
the western sector at Wearmouth with the building
with the opus signinum floor which was set against the
enclosure wall (see Fig 9.2). Buildings set against an
enclosure wall are also found in the Irish hermitage
sites (Herity 1995).
JARROW24.QXD
13-02-2007
10:29
Pagina 357
357
Fig 24.5 St Catherines monastery, Mount Sinai, showing the enclosing wall and individual cells
As well as in layout, each early site must have owed
something in constructional detail to the native building traditions of the area in which it was located. The
neat organised blocks of buildings of the early Syrian
monasteries such as Qalat Siman and Umm-es-Surab
(Butler 1929, fig 91; Braunfels 1972, figs 46) have
been frequently cited in the history of monastic buildings and have recently been discussed by Brenk in relation to the development of the claustrum in the west
(Brenk 2002). Nevertheless these sophisticated monastic plans of the Near East could not be easily replicated
in the less technologically advanced western provinces
of the post-Roman world: when St Gregory adapted his
Roman villa on the Coelian hill in Rome, or St Martin
a villa at Ligug, the architectural form must have been
very different from that of Bir el-Qutt (Brenk 2002, fig
6), and different again was the rural architecture of
Ireland or Anglo-Saxon England (Murray 1979, 835).
For example at Tynemouth some timber buildings preceded the medieval monastery (Jobey 1967, fig 1;
Cramp 1976c, fig 5.5). Likewise, even in parts of Gaul
timber building would have been the norm. A 6thcentury source recounts the burning of the monastery
at Condat, and this comprised individual cells attached
to each other by beams, with possibly communal buildings as upper storeys (James 1981, 36). Benedict
Biscop had to recreate his Roman buildings because
seemingly the tradition of stone building had not survived in Northumbria, while on the continent some late
antique building practices still survived. In the often
quoted Life of St Philibert a text of the mid-8th century
we have a description (in chapter 8) of how Philibert
visited all the monasteries in the bosom of France and
Italy and Burgundy and took whatever he saw flourishing as his example, before building Jumiges c 655
(Levison 1910, 58890). His communal buildings
excited admiration, and even today sound impressive.
The high towering walls provided by providence to
house the monastery would seem to have been an existing fortress. The church dedicated to the Virgin, at the
east of the rectangular enclosure, was in the shape of a
cross; on the right (south) side was a church dedicated
to St Peter with an oratory of St Martin; the cell of St
Philibert was situated on the south, adorned with an
edging of stone. The two-storied dormitory, 290ft long
and 50ft wide (88.39m 15.24m), faced southwards.
Light shone through windows above each bed, penetrating through the glass to assist the eyesight of those
reading. Underneath were two rooms suitable for different purposes; one was a buttery for wines to be
served from, the other was for preparing wholesome
meals for those gathered there. This difficult text has
been much interpreted (Braunfels 1972, 234; Horn
1973; Pickles 1999, 26970), and particularly a
JARROW24.QXD
358
13-02-2007
10:29
Pagina 358
sentence Operosa saxis claustra comitur arcis which is

translated by Braunfels as Arcades accompany the
laboriously stone-built cloister and which is seen by
Horn as the earliest reference to a cloister in the west
(Horn 1973). However, neither James (1981, 3940)
nor Pickles accept this interpretation of claustra and the
word could mean enclosure. The walls surrounding a
space with multiple churches, a great refectory and
kitchen with dormitory above, and arcaded decoration
all have some links with Wearmouth/Jarrow, and certainly by the 8th century excavation has demonstrated
at Reichenau and Lorsch something which is clearly a
claustral arrangement with buildings organised in
blocks around a courtyard (Brenk 2002, figs 8 and 9).
Another intermediate stage in monastic planning is
demonstrated on the recent important excavations at
Hamage, where the 7th-century monastery contained
individual cells, but in the 8th century these were
regrouped in a large wooden building, measuring 10
18m, which included small cells, three communal
rooms, a domestic area and latrines. This building in its
turn was taken down and a geometric plan was laid out
(still in wood) surrounding an open court or cloister to
the south of the rebuilt, stone church (Louis 2002).
The eclectic attitude to the various traditions exemplified by Philibert was followed some twenty years
later by the Wearmouth/Jarrow founder, Benedict
Biscop, in the production of his Rule from the Rules of
seventeen others that he had admired on his travels,
but it is not clear if he exhibited a similar eclecticism in
his monastic building plan. From the fragmentary
remains of Wearmouth it is nevertheless possible to see
a formal element in the planning which is reminiscent
of the Gaulish plans discussed above and is markedly
different from anything that is currently known from
contemporary settlements in Anglo-Saxon England.
As discussed in Chapter 9 above, the first phase of
mortared stone building at Wearmouth (Fig 9.8)
involved the church and the corridor, Building B,
which ran from the centre of the nave to the most
southerly feature excavated, Wall K, 36m north to
south. In the second phase an enclosing wall ran up to
join the west wall of the porch and possibly the east
end of the chancel, and into that enclosure was fitted a
south range composed of two rooms, which if subdivided by the east wall of the corridor were equal in
dimension. Their external measurements also mirror
those of the church.
Building B at Wearmouth is the element in the
monastic plan of the site which most clearly links the
aspiration of the founders with the building traditions
of the antique past, traditions which survived into the
early medieval period on the continent. At Rouen, for
example, a 5th-century gallery, 25m long and 2.5m
broad linked two churches (Le Maho 1994), and a similar porticus leading from one church to another is
recorded in Rome. Indeed Carragin says, such a
porticus was probably intended to be an imitation or
citation of Rome ( Carragin 1994, 13, and 1999),
where processional ways linked the churches which

composed the Early Christian liturgical stations. James
has compared the Wearmouth porticus, which linked the
church of St Peter, with the church of St Martin at
Luxeuil (James 1981, 46). Later Carolingian developments, such as the single corridor which linked the
palace and palatine chapel at Aachen (Kreusch 1965,
fig 1), or the covered processional way which linked the
three churches at St Riquier (Braunfels 1972, figs
234), surely derive from the same tradition. Building
B at Wearmouth could well have been a feature which
Benedict was familiar with in Gaul and in Italy, and it
provides then an interesting link between the traditions
of late antique building and the Carolingian revival,
constituting one stage in the evolution of that most distinctive of monastic architectural features the cloister.
At St Riquier the corridor seems to run through an
open space to the south of the main church, and the
same is true at Wearmouth where the corridor divided
two open burial areas. What this porticus led to is not
clear since the area to the south of wall K is unexcavated. It may indeed have led to a stational church such
as the oratory of St Lawrence which was in, or in front
of, the dormitory of the brethren, as described in the
solemn procession from St Peters to the river crossing
on Ceolfrids departure to Rome (HAB, 17). This porticus seems to have been an elaborately decorated
structure, as discussed in Chapter 9, and perhaps
served as a place for various types of activity such as
reading, writing or teaching as well as serving as a corridor. The function of the south range rooms is not
possible to deduce since no floor levels of the preConquest period survived there, but see the discussion
of Buildings A and B at Jarrow below.
The construction of the enclosure could well have
provided walls against which buildings on the west and
east formed inward-facing blocks around the innermost internal monastic space, as in the later St Gall
plan; alternatively it could have contained independent
buildings on the west and east, similar to the layout
described above for Abingdon. Unfortunately the
western area was so disturbed by later developments
and the eastern section hardly excavated at all that this
problem could not be resolved; on balance, however, it
would seem for the phase 1 and 2 development that
internal blocks of building are unlikely, and only in one
place by the west wall is there a patch of opus signinum
flooring (Figs 9.2 and 9.19) which could indicate the
presence of a building.
Since the enclosure walls only existed as foundations it was impossible to be sure where the openings
would be. It is of interest, however, that in the description of an 8th-century Northumbrian monastery in the
poem De Abbatibus (Campbell 1967, 47386), there is
mention of the main gates at which the poor gathered.
If the west wall (Wall 4) at Wearmouth was an enclosing wall and the building with the opus signinum was
located by the main entrance, then it could well have
been a porters lodge (see Fig 9.40). It is not likely that
JARROW24.QXD
13-02-2007
10:29
Pagina 359
the floor would have been part of a group of cells, since

there is no comparable evidence elsewhere near to the
wall. There may then have been initially dispersed
buildings on either side of Building B or individual
buildings ranged alongside the east and west walls, but
certainly in a subsequent stage a southern range was
built and a possible east range to the east of the original enclosure (Fig 9.33).
The initial appearance of the buildings excavated at
Jarrow is very different from Wearmouth (cf Figs 9.40
and 16.88) but a closer look at the ground plans shows
striking similarities (Fig 24.3). The churches, as
already noted, are closely similar, and as at Wearmouth
the two buildings to the south, A and B, are separated
from the churches by the main cemetery, but with no
discernible path from the church to the narrow paved
gap between them (Figs 16.4 and 16.5). I have discussed their positioning in relation to the two churches elsewhere (Cramp 1994, 28990), and whether
since Building B is centrally placed in relation to both
churches it might have been built first. But if one looks
at the two buildings as a range then they relate best to
the Western Church the basilica. Both buildings are
constructed on the same module however (see Chapter
16 and Fig 16.38) and seem to belong to the first
monastic phase.
Further problems arise from their siting in that they
are so near to the edge of the natural slope that the
south walls are buttressed, but this may be because
there is some model plan which determined their position, since the line of their south walls coincides with
that of the north walls of the Wearmouth south range
(Fig 24.3). This is as far south as such buildings could
have been easily constructed, if the position of the
churches had been fixed, and it is to be noted that
quite different constructional methods had to be
employed in Building D (see discussion, Chapter 16).
The shorter interval between the churches and this
range than at Wearmouth gives a more crowded effect,
especially since the Jarrow group are more substantial.
The internal length of Building Bi is, however, the
same as the internal lengths of the Wearmouth buildings, so some sort of ideal module seems to be shared
by the two sites.
These large public buildings, A and B, have been
compared with the secular timber halls of the early to
mid-Saxon period (Cramp 1976c, 239; Cramp 1976d,
14). This applies not only to the plan of the main areas
formed of modules of squares, and fractions of squares
of the widths, but also the fact that they can have narrow partitions at one end, and are disposed end to end
with narrow gaps or junction structures between them
(see Chalton, Hampshire: Addyman et al 1972;
Addyman and Leigh 1973). The smaller private rooms
at one end of the timber halls may be compared with
rooms Bii and Biii at Jarrow, which have been interpreted as an oratory and living room divided by a low
stone screen. The account of Bedes death in which he
asked that he might be lifted up so that he could see
359
through to the place where he was accustomed to pray

(EOB, Colgrave and Mynors 1969, 584) provides an
exemplum for this type of unit, which was probably
freestanding like the similar timber or stone-founded
cells at Whitby (Cramp 1976c; 1993) and Hartlepool
(Daniels 1988), although the divisions were different.
The Anglo-Saxon timber building tradition, and its
affiliations with the Roman stone building traditions
which preceded it, has been discussed in depth by
James et al (1984), and there is one feature of the timber halls which they analyse, in which the Jarrow buildings resemble more closely late Roman structures than
Anglo-Saxon. This is the cross passage, which is seen
by the authors as a distinctive feature of Anglo-Saxon
structures, but which hardly ever occurs in Roman
ones (James et al 1984, 201). As already discussed
(Chapter 16), there were apparently no opposed
entrances and cross passages in the Jarrow buildings,
and their plans therefore seem more like Roman buildings than like the Anglo-Saxon timber halls (James et al
1984, fig 12: 2, 3, 6, 8). Since these Jarrow buildings
also have the same constructional appearance in their
neatly laid stone blocks as local Roman buildings along
Hadrians Wall, and since there is a good deal of
robbed Roman stone in the fabric, the likelihood that
the Jarrow builders actually copied standing Roman
structures is very strong, thus fulfilling the avowed
wish of the founder in a very positive way.
The evidence for the functions of these buildings has
been discussed in Chapter 16 where the conclusion was
reached that Building A could have been a refectory
with kitchen added, and dormitory above, and Building
B a multi-purpose hall with dormitory above and a private cell at the east end. I have elsewhere compared
these buildings with the Tech Mor the great house, and
the Proindtech the eating house or refectory which
together with the churches and abbots house are the
principal public buildings mentioned on Irish monastic
sites (Cramp 1986c, 1968; Cramp 1994, 289;
MacDonald 1997, 34, 38). This may be compared with
the description of Philiberts two-storied building with
dormitory above the refectory and kitchen, and some
impression can be gained as to how Benedict Biscop
and Ceolfrid developed their plans (Pickles 1999, 270).
There is indeed at Jarrow an acclimatisation of both
the continental and Irish traditions to form something
distinctively Anglo-Saxon. Instead of being joined in a
tight block the buildings are spaced into zones, and
these are linear zones, not the radial zones of the Irish
sites. At the top of the slope is the church and cemetery, on a platform further south the large communal
buildings, on the slopes gardens and a possible hedge
line, and alongside the river buildings which have been
interpreted as a guest house and adjuncts which developed into workshops by the 9th century. This outer
zone is equivalent to the outer zone of workshops
excavated within the enclosure at Nendrum (Hughes
and Hamlin 1977, fig 5) or the workshop areas on the
periphery of Armagh.
JARROW24.QXD
360
13-02-2007
10:29
Pagina 360
The layout of the riverside buildings has no very

obvious parallels on Anglo-Saxon sites, and it is unfortunate that the excavation of the larger site of
Wearmouth did not extend to a similar position by the
river. At other sites in which there are strong ecclesiastical connections such as Brandon (Carr et al 1988) or
Flixborough (Whitwell 1991; Loveluck 2001), the evidence for intensive workshop production is much
stronger than at Jarrow (Vol 2, Ch 35.3), but there was
such a marked difference between the deposits associated with the riverside structures and any others on the
site that their interpretation as workshops seems justified (see also Chapter 23). It should be remembered
that Jarrow and Wearmouth were very clean and managed sites, and that there is also the strong probability
that the activity would be less intensive and commercial than in a later town, if it were merely to provide for
the needs of the community and some possible gifts
for exchange. Moreover it is at least possible that
Wearmouth, the larger part of the joint institution,
would have contained more workshops in areas not
excavated. Their position at Jarrow, near to the southern land route from the site, and near to the river, would
be obviously advantageous, since the River Don provided a source of water (which would be necessary in many
processes), and a transport route for heavy raw materials, such as stone or iron ore. The tidal river would have
also provided a convenient dustbin for waste.
As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, the
unexcavated areas of the site must have contained many
other buildings which are mentioned in the documentary sources for these houses and for others. The
account of Eosterwine, the young aristocrat who briefly
became joint abbot of the monastery (HAB, 8, and
Appendix A3.1), mentions the kitchen, the bakery, the
garden, the smithy, and the places where winnowing
and milking took place. The same passage mentions
also the common dormitory of the brethren and the private place to which he was taken just before his death,
which might have been a private cell or an infirmary.
The texts also show that senior or infirm members of
the community had their own cells, cubicula. The affecting death-bed scenes of both Benedict and Bede took
place in their cells, and Symeon of Durham records
(HDE, Arnold 1882, 423) that there was a place
shown in his day where Bede had a little cell made of
stone, in which he was accustomed to sit, free from all
disquietude, and to meditate, read, dictate, and write
(Rollason 2000, 6871). As late as the 16th century,
Leland was shown by the monks what was claimed to be
Bedes oratory and cell (Appendix A6.4 and 6.6). It is
possible, then, that as well as cells for living there were,
as in the well-known account of Coldingham (HE,
IV.23), other small buildings (domunculae) which were
constructed for private prayer or reading. In addition it
seems reasonable to suppose that there would have been
a novice house and possibly a school house. There is
plenty of space for such buildings to the north or west
of the churches, and, as mentioned above, some of these
buildings, like those at Whitby, Hartlepool or

Whithorn, could have been of timber, or timber on
stone foundations. Half timbering for the ancillary
buildings has been suggested also for domestic buildings
in the St Gall plan (Horn and Born 1979).
The latest phases of the workshops both alongside
the river and on the upper terrace in trench 6302 have
clearly confirmed what may be a self-evident fact: that
the functions of areas of these sites changed through
time, and that monastic sites were not static entities,
but reflected changing economic traditions and the
changing attitudes of the lay world towards their communities. There is also contemporary evidence that, by
c 800 there was not so much commitment by the
inmates to the austere monastic life as there had been
in earlier times (see Alcuins letter: Whitelock 1955,
778 and Appendix A3.9). By the later 9th century the
Viking raids had destabilised a situation in which the
laity were happy to provide land and other support to
monasteries for the good of their souls, and even kings
were ready to take over monastic lands and to redistribute them, as it was claimed for example King
Alfred did to Abingdon (Pickles 1999, 194, and see
above, Chapter 23). The coastal monasteries were
especially vulnerable to Scandinavian raids, and when,
as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records for the year 875,
Healfdene took up winter quarters on the River Tyne,
Jarrow and even Wearmouth must have felt this to be
too close for comfort.
The building debris from both sites bears extensive
signs of fire. In the case of Building A at Jarrow charcoal debris still covered part of the opus signinum flooring when excavated, but whether this destruction
occurred when the site was occupied or abandoned is
not known. A similar situation was found in Bii, but
there were more signs of changing habits of occupation
in the food debris in that building before its walls slowly crumbled. Only in Building D and the riverside
buildings are there signs, in the form of the combs (see
Vol 2, Ch 31.5) and the high-lead glass working (Vol 2,
Ch 35.1), which could indicate occupation possibly
into the 10th century. A similar extension of craft
activities has also been detected on the monastic site at
Dacre (Newman 2002, 153). There are, however, no
coins from the sites from the middle of the 9th century
to the middle of the 11th century, as there are for
example on Lindisfarne, and no pottery of that date
either, and it would seem that Wearmouth and Jarrow
were abandoned to all except the most intermittent
occupation, while at Wearmouth a burial ground
spread over the ruined buildings. What happened to
the inmates of the 9th-century monastery remains an
unsolved problem. Some may have returned to their
families and to lay life, others could have joined other
religious institutions such as the Community of St
Cuthbert when they settled nearby at Chester-leStreet, or whatever community existed at Newcastle,
which in the 11th century was called Munecaceastre
(see discussion in Rollason 2000, 202). Others, who
JARROW24.QXD
13-02-2007
10:29
Pagina 361
were priested, could have served as chaplains to local

lords who maintained a chapel on their estates. At all
events Bendict Biscops dream vanished in the cold
light of the dawn of the 10th century. By contrast in
southern England there is now some indication that
refounded monasteries followed the type of
Carolingian layout in which large buildings were
grouped around an open space. The phase 2f buildings
at Eynsham for example provide a tantalising glimpse
of large stone buildings and planned layout (Hardy et
al 2003, fig 2:1). The same may be said about the section of buildings excavated at the site of the New
Minster at Winchester (Biddle 1970, fig 10).
Wearmouth and Jarrow could have developed in this
way, but remain examples of a stage in the progress
towards a full claustral layout.
There are many unanswered questions concerning
the impact of Wearmouth/Jarrow on the societies
which surrounded them, not least as to how important
361
a pastoral role the monastery filled in the 7th to 9th

centuries (Thacker 1992, 1401). Equally important is
the question of how influential were their buildings,
and the many artefacts which Benedict and Ceolfrid
imported, in shaping contemporary Northumbrian art
styles. The intellectual impact of the inmates of the
house, and Bede in particular, is not in question, as so
many Jarrow Lectures testify. But the discovery of the
physical remnants of the buildings that constituted
Bedes environment has for the first time provided a
fitting context for his scholarly and spiritual development. As Eric John said in another context, ... the student of monasticism is not simply irrelevant or
tendentious if he does not at once turn to the study of
monastic spirituality but starts by looking at the outer
life of the monks the point at which the monastery
and the world are closest. It is here he is likely to find
out something of the true worth of the monks inner
life (John 1965, 239).
JARROW25.QXD
19-01-2007
12:40
Pagina 362
25 Conclusions and prospects
What conclusions can one draw from this long process

of excavation and post-excavation research? Another
chapter has been written in the history of monasticism
in the period between the 7th and 16th centuries, in
that plans of coherent sectors of two well-known sites
have been produced, and something of the changing
way of life of the communities has been revealed
through the ecofactual and artefactual evidence.
Nevertheless this is an unfinished chapter, lacking
many of the answers to current questions that one
would have liked to provide.
The most illuminating new evidence has been provided for the period from the 7th to the 10th centuries.
Here the nature of the buildings and their layout has
been revealed in those sectors of the two sites which
have been excavated, and this has produced some surprises in the similarities and dissimilarities. But
although more has been revealed of the living areas of
these early monasteries than on similar British sites
hitherto, it is clear that much is still unknown about
the total composition of such institutions and further
exploration in the future may throw a very different
light on the present picture. Certainly in the 7th and
8th centuries the diversity of Rules of life is reflected in
the diversity of the plans. There may have been an
ideal model for the churches (see Chapter 24) but
these sites can be seen in no way as type sites, and nor
should this be expected on monastic sites of this period elsewhere.
The archaeological evidence from the sites has,
however, significantly supplemented the text-starved
periods of history. The slow decline before abandonment and apparently a changing way of life in the 9th
century is particularly well demonstrated at Jarrow
where there is a fuller stratigraphic record. Also at
Jarrow the undocumented period of reconstruction
and rebuilding in the 12th and 13th centuries has been
notably illuminated by the archaeological record.
The artefacts, although relatively sparse, hint (like
the G1 type of pottery, Vol 2, Ch 33.2, or the small
ivory box, WB22), at wide external contacts. These
may have been infrequent or random, but are tantalising to evaluate because the objects have no obvious
European parallels. Other types of artefact such as the
painted plaster, or the window glass, are relatively rare
in the 7th and 8th centuries. This publication may
however stimulate the discovery of comparable material, as may likewise the displays of the finds in the
museums at Sunderland and Jarrow.
What then could be the future prospects for wresting more evidence from these sites? At both
Wearmouth and Jarrow only very small areas of the
churches have been excavated and in all cases only in
the most hurried salvage conditions. While both build-
ings continue as living parish churches total excavation

of the interiors seems unlikely, and indeed enough has
been excavated in the nave of St Pauls to be able to say
that successor churches on the same site have obliterated most of the early stratigraphic record in that area.
At both churches, however, the north aisles, which
were added in the post-Conquest period, could reveal
more of the history of the presumed northern adjuncts
of the Anglo-Saxon period. At both churches the
entrance areas and possible atria have not been examined and this evidence, which could reinforce their
romanitas, may well survive under the present paths.
At both sites the area inside the chancel is of crucial
importance for understanding the development and
liturgical use of the sites. The testimonies of the early
antiquaries about the junction of the nave and chancel
at Wearmouth (see Chapter 5), leave many questions
which future excavation could answer. Were there
originally two churches which were then joined, as at
Jarrow, and if so where and of what form was the original west end of the main church? Were the eastern
adjuncts or independent buildings at both sites funerary chapels with burials, and was either sited over an
existing burial ground? In particular was there a focal
burial at Jarrow that could be linked with the possible
oculus in the eastern wall of the chancel, and do the folk
memories of a hollow area under the chancel floor
indicate that there could have been an underground
burial chamber, or alternatively a baptistry, there? Did
the passage between the eastern and western churches
at Jarrow imply access to cemeteries or to other buildings to the north? If so, at Jarrow, they probably were
to the north of the burial area, which was sampled
immediately to the north of the churches. At
Wearmouth, the borehole information revealed areas
to the south and west of the church where archaeological deposits, including burials, could survive.
The potential of the cemeteries on the two sites has
hardly been realised and targeted excavation combined
with an adequate provision for dating could yield
important results. The different groupings of burials
(some of them small and isolated) can now be seen in
a wider context of European churchyard burial in
which the transition from scattered graves to organised
churchyards has been widely recorded (Zadora-Rio
2003). On these sites there is in addition the complication of deciding whether there was a firm division
between lay and monastic burial. At Wearmouth to the
west of the excavated area there is potential to examine
further the lay burial ground identified there, which is
cut by monastic buildings, and has yielded Roman
coins and animal burial, and where the scientific dating of the burials should be possible because there is
good bone survival (Chapter 8, Figs 8.12). At Jarrow
362
JARROW25.QXD
19-01-2007
12:40
Pagina 363
25: CONCLUSIONS AND PROSPECTS
363
Fig 25.1 Gradiometer survey of the area south of St Peters Church, Wearmouth, undertaken in 2003: basic greyscale raw
data (standard deviation). The plot shows a clear set of anomalies apparently representing a rectangular structure outlined
by postholes; the circular arrangement at the right shows the position of the recent gasometer. N Barker
the survival of bone in some burials to the east of the
site is not good (Figs 15.1 and 15.2), but it would be
interesting to see how far east burials on the site
extended since this appears to be an area of early burial. In addition the dating of small isolated groups such
as 71/34-9 (Fig 15.1) could be an important addition
to our knowledge of how groups may have been differentiated in death as in life.
Throughout this text, and especially in Chapter 24,
it has been stressed how limited were the excavated
areas in relation to the potential scale of the AngloSaxon monasteries, and even in relation to the
medieval cell, the domestic buildings, the circuit of
walls and the home farm have not been identified.
More research has, however, been conducted on
medieval monasteries than on those in the preConquest period, and despite the difficulties caused by
modern development there are areas where future
excavation could produce a more rounded picture of
the early site. The novice house and school, infirmary,
guest houses, and workshops could all have been sited
at some distance from the main communal buildings,
and although a tentative identification of the two last
mentioned has been made at Jarrow a similar position
at Wearmouth would be under the ballast tips record-
ed on early estate maps to the south. Unfortunately the

evaluation exercise in advance of the development of
the North Sands in 1990 was limited to an area immediately to the east of the area archaeologically excavated, and revealed ballast to a depth of 5m (S Speak,
pers comm).
A recent fluxgate gradiometer survey of the area to
the south of St Peters church within the circuit of the
road (see Fig 25.1), has revealed a more interesting
picture, in that the survey picked up a very high anomaly in what was the open centre of Hallgarth Square
(Barker 2003). This is a large structure, about 30m
east to west, sub-divided into three bays with internal
wall supports and probably flanked externally by posts
or railings. The signal was of such intensity that it
would normally be interpreted as a modern industrial
structure just below the surface. No record of such a
structure survives, however, and it appears to be cut by
the road line which was certainly there by the 18th
century. Moreover no early map shows a feature in that
position. It is possible therefore that it is some earlier
industrial structure or, less probably, a timber structure which has been burnt in situ. I am grateful to Nigel
Barker for drawing it to my attention, and it certainly
would be interesting to examine the feature further.
JARROW25.QXD
364
19-01-2007
12:40
Pagina 364
Barkers similar investigations at Jarrow in Drewett

Park to the north of the church have not yielded any
conclusive evidence for structures in the area where tradition placed a Roman fort (see Chapter 3). No largescale cuttings have been made to the north of the
churches on either site, however, and although at
Wearmouth this would mean as the boreholes demonstrated cutting through a deep deposit of ballast and
burials to reach even the 18th-century churchyard level,
at Jarrow the Drewett Park area would repay testing, if
only because there is a strong probability that the
churches stood in the middle of their monastic
complexes. Moreover somewhere on the site there must

be the small cells which were assigned to some abbots
and senior monks like Bede, but whether these were to
the north, west or east of the churches is not known.
Until the perimeter of these sites has been determined it does indeed seem important to monitor all
destructive interventions, and to safeguard the territory around each site from further intensive development, until better investigative methods in the future
can reveal a more complete picture. The excavations
have, after all, demonstrated that important evidence
can survive in even such deeply disturbed sites.
JARRAPPA.QXD
19-01-2007
12:50
Pagina 365
Part V. Reference section

Appendix A. A selection of the documentary sources
Introduction
A1. The dedication stone
In selecting documentary sources, the one inscription

which provides a firm date for a building (St Pauls
Church, Jarrow) has been given an extended treatment
since it has engendered considerable comment from
the beginning of the 17th century to the present day.
The Latin texts of documents have been provided
where the information has been paraphrased in the
main body of the text, where there has been scholarly
dispute as to their meaning as with A3.33.6, or
A5.15), or where the Latin extracts are short and
clear, as in the extracts from the medieval inventories
and account rolls. Longer letters of the Anglo-Saxon
period are provided in the most accessible scholarly
translations. The selection from post-medieval documents has been largely to illustrate the history of the
site buildings. Many of these are scattered in inaccessible places, and in the case of the Department of the
Environment files (A6.10) are lost altogether.
According to an anonymous monk of Whitby in the

12th century, the dedication stone (Fig A1.1) was found
among the ruins by the Winchcombe/Evesham monks,
and this is quoted by Leland (1715) who transcribes the
inscription (Collectanea, iii, 39). Camden recorded the
stone in the north wall of the nave (Camden 1607, 606
and fig), and it is drawn in that position on the 1769
elevation drawing of the church demolished in 1782 (see
Fig 12.5), and Hutchinson 1787, 4756). Today the
inscription is set over the west face of the tower arch. It
is laid out on two stones, which may originally have been
separated, and reads as follows:
XpDEDICATIOBASILICAE
SCIPAVLI VIIII KLMAI
ANNOXV[E]CFRIDIR[EG]
CE[OL]FRIDIABBEIVSDEM{Q}
EC[C]LESDOAVCTORE
CO[ND]ITORISANNOIIII
Fig A1.1 The Jarrow dedication stone. TM

365
JARRAPPA.QXD
366
19-01-2007
12:50
Pagina 366
Fig A1.2 Roman inscription commemorating Hadrians

military achievements. By permission of the Society of
Antiquaries of London
Fig A1.3 The closing section of the same inscription. By

permission of the Museum of Antiquities of the University
and Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle upon Tyne
DEDICATIO BASILICAE S(AN)C(T)I PAVLI VIIII

K(A)L(ENDAS) MAI(AS) ANNO XV ECFRIDI
REG(IS); CEOLFRIDI ABB(ATIS), EIVSDEMQ(UE)
ECCLES(IAE) D(E)O AUCTORE CONDITORIS,
ANNO IIII
(Chapter 28.4, MS19). The second (Fig A1.3;

Richmond and Wright 1943, 1067 and fig 3) is considered to be the closing section of the inscription and
is now in the collection of the Society of Antiquaries of
London, Burlington House.
For a further commentary on the post-medieval
readings, see A6.16.3
Translation: The dedication of the basilica of St Paul

on the 9th day before the Kalends of May in the 15th
year of king Ecfrid; and in the 4th (sc. year) of abbot
Ceolfrid, founder, by the guidance of God, of the same
church.
Although Hutchinson considered that both the letter forms and the position of the stone as originally
recorded determines the inscription to be of equal
date with the repairs which were made after the
Normans destroyed the monastery (Hutchinson 1787,
476), modern scholarly opinion is united in accepting
the epigraphy as consistent with the recorded date of
c 685 (Okasha 1971, 856; Higgitt 1979). The implications for the position of the stone, as drawn on the
1769 elevation drawing (Fig 12.5) is discussed further
in relation to the Western church (Chapters 12 and 13,
Summary and discussion of Western Church).
The fact that there was Roman lettering available
on the site which could have been used as epigraphic
models is confirmed by two fragments of what has
been interpreted as an inscription commemorating
Hadrians military achievements (see Richmond and
Wright 1943, fig 3). The first (Fig A1.2) is part of the
first section of the inscription, which begins
[DIVORVM] OMNIVM FIL[IVS] and includes the
name Hadrian. This inscription is now at the Museum
of Antiquities, Newcastle (1851.11) and was reused to
form part of the head of a cross on a memorial slab
A2. The foundation of Wearmouth and

Jarrow
A2.1 HAA.6 (Benedicts construction of a Rule);
Plummer 1896, 390
Denique referre erat solitus, quia regulam, quam docebat, in antiquissimis Xcem et VIItem monasteriis didicerat, et quaeque ubicumque optima uidisset, haec, quasi
in sacculo sui pectoris recondita, Brittanniamque perlata, nobis sequenda tradiderit.
A2.2 HAA.7 (Foundation of Wearmouth, ad 674);
Plummer 1896, 390
Ceperunt autem aedificare monasterium iuxta ostium
Wiri fluminis, anno dominicae incarnationis sexcentesimo septuagesimo IIIIto, indictione IIa, anno autem
quarto imperii Egfrithi regis, accepta ab eo terra,
primo familiarum quinquaginta, postea namque uel
ipsius uel aliorum regum nobiliumque donatione
in maius auctum est. Secundo fundati monasterii
anno, Benedictus mare transiens architectos a
Torhthelmo abbate, dudum sibi in amicitiis iuncto,
quorum magisterio et opere basilicam de lapide
faceret, petiit, acceptosque de Gallia Brittanniam perduxit.
JARRAPPA.QXD
19-01-2007
12:50
Pagina 367
APPENDIX A
A2.3 HAB.5 (Building of the stone church); Plummer

1896, 368
Nec plusquam unius anni spatio post fundatum monasterium interiecto, Benedictus oceano transmisso Gallias
petens, cementarios qui lapideam sibi aecclesiam iuxta
Romanorum quem semper amabat morem facerent,
postulauit, accepit, adtulit. Et tantum in operando
studii prae amore beati Petri in cuius honorem faciebat
exhibuit, ut intra unius anni circulum ex quo fundamenta sunt iecta, culminibus superpositis, missarum
inibi solempnia celebrari uideres. Proximante autem ad
perfectum opere, misit legatarios Galliam, qui uitrifactores, artifices uidelicet Brittanniis eatenus incognitos,
ad cancellandas aeccelesiae porticumque et caenaculorum, eius fenestras adducerent. Factumque est,
uenerunt; nec solum opus postulatum compleuerunt,
sed et Anglorum ex eo gentem huiusmodi artificium
nosse ac discere fecerunt; artificium nimirum uel lampadis aecclesiae claustris, uel uasorum multifariis usibus non ignobiliter aptum. Sed et cuncta quae ad altaris
et aecclesiae ministerium competebant, uasa sancta, uel
uestimenta, quia domi inuenire non potuit, de transmarinis regionibus aduectare religiosus emptor curabat.
In no more than the space of one year after the
foundation of the monastery, Benedict, after crossing
the sea, made for the kingdoms of Gaul and asked for
masons to build him a stone church in the manner of
the Romans, which he always loved. He received them
and brought them home. He showed such zeal for the
work that within the turning of a year from the laying
of the foundations, the roofs had been put on, and you
would see masses being celebrated there. When the
work was nearing completion, he sent messengers to
Gaul to bring back glass-makers, craftsmen who were
unknown in Britain before that time, to glaze the windows of the church and of its porticus and upper chambers. It was done: they came, and it was not only the
work requested that they carried out, but they taught
the nation of the English to grasp and to learn this kind
of craft from that time on. It was a craft well suited to
many kinds of use, whether for a lamp for passages of
the church or for vessels. Everything that pertained to
the service of the altar and the church, holy vessels or
vestments, which he could not obtain at home, the
devout purchaser arranged to bring back from oversea.
(Pickles 1999, 245)
A2.4 HAB.7 (Foundation of Jarrow); Plummer 1896, 370
Igitur uenerabilis Benedicti uirtute, industria ac religione, rex Ecgfridus non minimum delectatus, terram,
quam ad construendum monasterium ei donauerat,
quia bene se ac fructuose | donnasse conspexit,
quadraginta adhuc familiarum data possessione, augmentare curauit; ubi post annum missis monachis
numero ferme decem et septem, et praeposito abbate
ac presbitero Ceolfrido, Benedictus consultu immo
etiam iussu praefati Ecgfridi regis, monasterium beati
367
apostoli Pauli construxit, ea duntaxat ratione, ut una

utriusque loci pax et concordia, eadem perpetuo familiaritas conseruaretur et gratia: ut sicut uerbi gratia,
corpus a capite, per quod spirat, non potest auelli,
caput corporis, sine quo non uiuit, nequit obliuisci, ita
nullus haec monasteria primorum apostolorum fraterna societate coniuncta aliquo ab inuicem temptaret
disturbare conatu.
A2.5 HAA.7; Plummer 1896, 391
Namque acceptis secum (Ceolfrid) XXII fratribus,
decem quidem attonsis, XII vero tonsurae adhuc gratiam expectantibus, venit ad locum, primo ibidem constructis omnibus, que maxime necessitatas monasterii
poscebat, domibus, ipsamque regularis custodiae disciplinam, eundem cantandi legendique ritum omnem
canonicum, quem in priori monasterio servabant...
A2.6 HAA.12 (Building of Jarrow church); Plummer
1896, 392
Tertio autem ex quo monasterium fundauit anno, cepit
aedificare aecclesiam beati Pauli apostoli nomine consecrandam, ubi cgfridus ipse locum altaris designauerat; quod in tantum creuit opus in dies, ut, cum
pauci essent operarii, secundo ex quo inchoatum est
anno, ad dedicationem usque perueniret.
A3. The monastic life

A3.1 HAB.8 (Eosterwine worked with the other monks);
Plummer 1896, 3712
...tantum mansi humilis [sc. Eosterwyni], fratrum
simillimus aliorum, ut uentilare cum eis et triturare,
oues uitulasque mulgere, in pistrino, in orto, in
coquina, in cunctis monasterii operibus iocundus et
obediens gauderet exerceri.
remained so humble that he [Eosterwine] took part
just like everyone else in the winnowing and threshing,
in the milking of the ewes and cows, working in the
bakery, the garden, and kitchen cheerfully and obediently he joined in all the activities of the monastery.
If he [Eosterwine] found the brethren working,
he would join them and work with them, by taking the
plough handle, or handling the smiths hammer, or
using the winnowing machine, or any thing of like
nature. For he was a young man of great strength, and
pleasant tone of voice, of a kind and bountiful disposition, and fair to look on. He ate of the same food as the
other brethren, and in the same apartment: he slept in
the same common room as he did before he was abbot;
so that even after he was taken ill, and foresaw clear
signs of his approaching death, he still remained two
days in the common dormitory of the brethren. He
passed the five days immediately before his death in a
private apartment.
JARRAPPA.QXD
368
19-01-2007
12:50
Pagina 368
A3.2 HAB.9 (Benedicts sixth visit to Rome. He returns

with fresh treasures); Plummer 1896, 373
Uerum his de uita uenerabilis osterwyni breuiter
praelibatis, redeamus ad ordinem narrandi. Constituto
illo abbate Benedictus monasterio beati Petri apostoli,
constituto et Ceolfrido monasterio beati Pauli, non
multo post temporis spatio quinta uice de Brittannia
Romam adcurrens, innumeris sicut semper aecclesiasticorum donis commodorum locupletatus rediit;
magna quidem copia uoluminum sacrorum; sed non
minori, sicut et prius, sanctarum imaginum munere
ditatus. Nam et tunc dominicae historiae picturas
quibus totam beatae Dei genetricis, quam in monasterio maiore fecerat, aecclesiam in gyro coronaret,
adtulit; imagines quoque ad ornandum | monasterium
aecclesiamque beati Pauli apostoli de concordia ueteris
et noui Testamenti summa ratione conpositas exibuit;
uerbi gratia, Issac ligna, quibus inmolaretur portantem, et Dominum crucem in qua patertur aeque portantem, proxima super inuicem regione, pictura
coniunxit. Item serpenti in heremo a Moyse exaltato,
Filium hominis in cruce exaltatum conparauit. Adtulit
inter alia, et pallia duo oloserica incomparandi operis,
quibus postea ab Aldfrido rege eiusque consiliariis,
namque Ecgfridum postquam rediit iam interfectum
repperit, terram trium familiarum ad austrum Uuiri
fluminis, iuxta ostium conparauit.
... Benedict ... not long after made his fifth voyage from
Britain to Rome, and returned (as usual) with an
immense number of proper ecclesiastical relics. There
were many sacred books and pictures of the saints, as
numerous as before. He also brought with him pictures
out of our Lords history, which he hung round the
chapel of our Lady in the larger monastery; and others
to adorn St Pauls church and monastery, ably describing the connexion of the Old and New Testament; as,
for instance, Isaac bearing the wood for his own sacrifice, and Christ carrying the cross on which he was
about to suffer, were placed side by side. Again, the
serpent raised up by Moses in the desert was illustrated by the son of Man exalted on the cross. Among
other things, he brought two cloaks, all of silk, and of
incomparable workmanship, for which he received as
estate of three hides on the south bank of the river
Were, near its mouth, from King Aldfrid.
A3.3 HAB.11 (Benedicts dying wishes); Plummer
1896, 3745
He urged the brethren, when they came to see him, to
observe the rule which he had given them. For, said
he, you cannot suppose that it was my own untaught
heart which dictated this rule to you. I learnt it from
the seventeen monasteries, which I saw during my
travels, and most approved of, and I copied these institutions thence for your benefit. The large and noble
library, which he had brought from Rome, and which
was necessary for the edification of his church, he commanded to be kept entire, and neither by neglect to be
injured or dispersed.
A3.4 HAB.15 (Character of Ceolfrids rule); Plummer
1896, 379
Qui et ipse tertius, id est, Ceolfridus industrius per
omnia uir, acutus ingenio, actu inpiger, maturus
animo, religionis zelo feruens, prius, sicut et supra
meminimus, iubente pariter et iuuante Benedicto,
monasterium beati Pauli apostoli VIItem annis, fundauit,
perfecit, rexit; ac deinde utrique monasterio, uel sicut
rectius dicere possumus, in duobus locis posito uni
monasterio, beatorum apostolorum Petri et Pauli, uiginti et octo annos sollerti regimine praefuit...dato
quoque Cosmographiorum codice mirandi operis,
quem Romae Benedictus emerat, terram octo familiarum iuxta fluuium Fresca ab Aldfrido rege in scripturis doctissimo in possessionem monasterii beati Pauli
apostoli comparauit...
A3.5 HE V.21(Naiton (Nechtan), King of the Picts,
consults Abbot Ceolfrid on the Paschal and tonsure
questions); Plummer 1896, 332
Eo tempore Naiton rex Pictorum, qui septentrionales
Brittaniae plagas inhabitant...misit legatorios ad uirum
uenerabilem Ceolfridum, abbatem monasterii beatorum apostolorum Petri et Pauli, quod est ad ostium
Uiuri amnis, et iuxta amnem Tinam, in loco, qui
uocatur Ingyruum, cui...Sed et architectos sibi mitti
petiit, qui iuxta morem Romanorum ecclesiam de lapide in gente ipsius facerent, promittens hanc in honorem beati apostolorum principis dedicandam...
A3.6 HAB.1617 (He takes leave of the brethren and
departs, June 4, 716); Plummer 1896, 381382
...Cantata ergo primo mane missa in aecclesia beatae
Dei genetricis semperque uirginis Mariae, et in aecclesia apostoli Petri, pridie nonas Iunias, quinta feria, et
communicantibus qui aderant, continuo praeparatur
ad eundum. Conueniunt omnes in aecclesiam beati
Petri, ipse, thure incenso, et dicta oratione ad altare,
pacem dat omnibus, stans in gradibus, turribulum
habens in manu. Hinc fletibus uniuersorum inter laetanias resonantibus, exeunt; beati Laurentii martyris
oratorium, quod in dormitorio | fratrum erat obuium,
intrant; uale dicens ultimum, de conseruanda inuicem
dilectione, et delinquentibus iuxta cuangelii regulam
corripiendis, ammonet; omnibus, siquid forte deliquissent, gratiam suae remissionis et plactionis offert;
omnes pro se orare, sibi placatos existere, si sint quos
durius iusto redarguisset, obsecrat. Veniunt ad litus;
rursum oscolo pacis inter lacrimas omnibus dato,
genua flectunt; dat orationem, ascendit nauem cum
comitibus. Ascendunt et diacones aecclesiae cereas
ardentes et crucem ferentes auream, transiit flumen,
JARRAPPA.QXD
19-01-2007
12:50
Pagina 369
APPENDIX A
adorat crucem, ascendit equum, et abiit, relectis in

monasteriis suis fratribus numero ferme sexcentorum.
A3.7 Letter of Cuthbert, abbot of Wearmouth, to Lul
(764); Whitelock 1955, 765766
To the most desired and sweetest friend in the love of
Christ, and dearest of all prelates, Bishop Lul,
Cuthbert, disciple of the priest Bede, sends greeting.
I have gratefully received the gifts of your love, and
the more gratefully, in that I know you send them with
the deepest affection and devotion; you have sent,
namely an all silk robe for the relics of Bede, our master of blessed memory, in remembrance and veneration
of him. And it indeed seems right to me, that the whole
race of the English in all provinces wherever they are
found, should give thanks to God, that he has granted
to them so wonderful a man in their nation, endowed
with diverse gifts, and so assiduous in the exercise of
those gifts, and likewise living a good life; for I, reared
at his feet, have learnt by experience this which I relate.
And also you have sent to me for myself a multicoloured coverlet to protect my body from the cold.
This I have given with great joy to Almighty God and
the blessed Apostle Paul, to clothe the altar which is
consecrated to God in his church, because I have lived
in this monastery under his protection for forty-six
years.
Now truly, since you have asked for some of the
works of the blessed father, for your love I have prepared what I could, with my pupils, according to our
capacity. I have sent in accordance with your wishes
the books about the man of god, Cuthbert, composed
in verse and prose. And if I could have done more, I
would gladly have done so. For the conditions of the
past winter oppressed the island of our race very horribly with cold and ice and long and widespread storms
of wind and rain, so that the hand of the scribe was
hindered from producing a great number of books.
And six years ago I sent to you, my brother, some
small gifts, namely twenty knives and a robe made of
otter-skins, by my priest Hunwine, when he was travelling to your districts and anxious to see Rome; but
this priest Hunwine, arriving at the city called
Beneventum, migrated from this light there. Therefore
neither through him nor any of your people has any
reply ever been given me whether those things reached
you. We took care to send to you, Father, two palls of
subtle workmanship, one white, the other coloured,
along with the books; and a bell such as I had by me.
And I pray that you will not spurn my petition and
my need; if there is any man in your diocese who can
make vessels of glass well, that you will deign to send
him to me when time is favourable. But if perhaps he
is beyond your boundaries outside your diocese in the
power of some other, I ask your brotherly kindness to
urge him to come here to us, because we are ignorant
and destitute of that art. And if perchance it happen
that one of the makers of glass is permitted, God will-
369
ing, by your good offices to come to us, I will treat him

with kind indulgence as long as I live. It would delight
me also to have a harpist who could play on the harp
which we call rottae; for I have a harp and am without a player. If it be not a trouble, send one also to my
disposal. I beg that you will not scorn my request nor
think it laughable.
Concerning the works of Bede of blessed memory,
of which you have no copies, I promise to assist your
wishes, if we live.
A3.8 HDE, pp 512
Denique anno sequente, dum portum Egfridi regis, id
est, Gyrvum vastantes, monasterium quoque ad
ostium Doni amnis depraedarentur, dux eorum ibidem
crudeli nece interiit, nec multo post vi tempestatis
eorum collisae contritaeque naves perierunt. Illorum
vero quidam fluctibus absorpti, alii qui ad terram vivi
quomodo fuerant ejecti, mox indigenarum gladio sunt
interfacti.
A3.9 Letter of Alcuin to the monks of Wearmouth and
Jarrow (c 793); extracted from Allott 1974, 3940
(Letter 29), using latin text of Dmmler 1895, 4445
To the holy brothers in Christ of the churches of
Wearmouth and Jarrow, Alcuin, a humble deacon,
sends greetings.
I have always loved your religious way of life, since
I have known of it, and have great faith in your united
prayers. I am always near you in spirit, though far away
in the body; for the breadth of love is divided by no distance, bounded by no limits
Carefully keep the rule of the monastic life which
the most holy fathers Benedict and Ceolfrid laid down
for you, that you may earn with them the reward of
eternal blessing
Let the Rule of St. Benedict be read frequently
among the assembled brethren and explained in their
own language that all may understand ... Consider
whom you have to defend you against the pagans who
have appeared along your coasts. Put your hope in
God, not in arms. Trust in the prayers of your fathers,
not in physical flight. So you will in the end be their
sons, if you keep to their footsteps. The holiness of a
place does not help evildoers, but integrity of religion
will make doers of good worthy of divine protection.
Who is not afraid of the terrible fate that has come
upon the church of St Cuthbert? So mend your ways,
lest the righteous perish for the sins of the wicked, lest
the vineyard of the Lord be given up to be devoured by
foxes, lest the feet of pagans tread upon the sanctuary
of God
You live near the sea from which this danger first
came. In us is fulfilled what once the prophet foretold:
From the North evil breaks forth, and a terrible glory
will come from the Lord (Jer 1.14, Job 37.22). See,
the pirate raids have penetrated the north of our island.
JARRAPPA.QXD
19-01-2007
12:50
370
Pagina 370
Let us grieve for the suffering of our brothers, and

beware that the same does not happen to us
Remember the nobility of your fathers; do not be
degenerate sons. Look at the treasures of your library,
the beauty of your churches, the fineness of your buildings, the order of the religious life. Think how happy
the man is who goes from these fine buildings to the
joys of the Kingdom of Heaven. The boys should learn
to assist in the worship of the heavenly king, not to dig
out the earths of foxes or course hares. How wicked it
is to forsake the worship of Christ to track foxes. The
boys should learn the Scriptures, so that when they
grow up they can teach others. You cannot teach, if
you have not learnt when you were young. Think what
a love for learning the presbyter Bede, the most notable
teacher of our age, had as a boy, and how honoured he
is now among men and even more gloriously rewarded
by God. Liven sleepy minds with his example. Sit with
your teachers, open your books, study the text, grasp
its sense, that you may find spiritual food for yourselves
and for others. Avoid private feasting and secret drinking as the snares of hell. Stolen waters are sweeter,
according to Solomon, and bread eaten in secret is
pleasant, but those who feast on them are in hell,
meaning that devils are present at such feasts (Prov 9.
1718).
As sons of God you should have nobility of character, holiness of life and sobriety of dress. A mans laugh
and his dress and his walk declare him, according to
Solomon (Eccles 19.27)....
A5. The re-establishment of monastic

life under Aldwin
A5.1 Historia Dunelmensis Ecclesiae; HDE, p 9
Nec multo post, quidam spiritu pauperes monachi in
australibus Angliae partibus divinitus commoniti, ut
Deo servituri in provincia Northanymbrorum peregrinarentur, ad episcopum venerunt Walcherum, rogabantque ut in suo eis episcopatu ubi possent habitare,
et si quos forte valerent servituros Deo sibi liceret
aggregare. Laetior solito fit episcopus, eosque quasi a
Deo sibi missos dulciter amplectitur, et reddita Deo
gratiarum actione benignissime suscipit. Mittensque
illos in Gyruum et Wiramuthe, duo sui episcopatus
loca ubi sanctorum quondam fuerant habitationes, ibi
praecepit interim manere, sibique quos possent in Dei
famulatum associare, donec processu temporis et
maturo consilio, constructis habitavulis, eos monachos
monachi simul et episcopi Cuthberti corpori vicinius
adjungeret. Fecerunt ut jusserat, et reaedificantes
destructa sanctorum habitacula, exemplo vitae et doctrina nonnullis profuerunt, ut mundo abrenunciantes
eos propositi sui comites haberent.
A5.2 HR, p 201
Cum ergo hos libros ervigili studio edidisset, obiit vii.

kal. Junii in gyrwe, ibique sepultus est; sed post multa
annorum curicula, ossa illius inde translata, et cum
incorrupto sanctissimi patris Cuthberti corpore sunt
collocata. In cujus, vidilicet Bedae, honorem, porticus
as aquilonalem plagam ecclesiae sancti Pauli in Gyrwe
consecrata, venerandam fidelibus nominis ejus ibidem
praestat memoriam.
Tres de provincia Merciorum monachi pauperes spiritu, divinitus missi in provinciam Northanhymbrorum,
venerunt Eboracum, petentes ab Hugone filio Baldrici,
qui tunc vicecomitatum gerebat, ut eis ducem itineris
inveniret, usque locum qui Munekeceastre, id est
monachorum
civitas
appelatur,
qui
nunc
Novumcastellum nominatur. Quo per conductum
venientes, as tempus ibidem morati, cum nullum antiquae servorum Christi ibi congregationis reperirent
vestigium diverterunt ad Giruum, ubi ruinis vix ostendentibus quid antiquitus fuerint, monachorum cum
semirutis ecclesiis visebantur aedificia multa, episcopo
Walchero summa cum gratulatione illos suscipiente, et
necessaria praebente. Horum nomina fuerunt; prior
eorum aetate et moribus erat Aldwinus; secundus
Ealfwinus; tertius Rinfridus. Ex his tribus tria in
regione Northymbrorum instaurata sunt monasteria.
A4.2 HDE, p 100
A5.3 HDE, p 10
In the same year, when William came to York with his

army and laid waste everything round about, Bishop
Egelwine and the elders, after consulting together,
took the incorrupt body of the holy father Cuthbert, in
the seventy-fifth year after it had been brought to
Durham by Aldhun, and began their flight to the
church of Lindisfarne. He spent the first night in the
church of St Paul at Jarrow...
Cui cum de beati patris Cuthberti sanctitate quaedam

licet pauca dixisset, illius per omnia sibi placuit consilium, ut vidilicet monachos quos in duobus episcopatus
locis Guiramuthe et Girwe invenerat, in unum coram
sancto illius corpore congregaret, quia episcopatus
parvitas as tria monachorum coenobia non sufficeret.
A4. Post-monastic
A4.1 HDE, p 42
A4.3 HR, p 169 (after HDE 512)

Tunc et ecclesia Sancti Pauli in Girvum flammis est
consumpta.
A5.4 HDE, Ch LVI, p 693 (The refoundation of Jarrow)

So he gave them the monastery of the blessed apostle
Paul, which had been erected at Jarrow by its former
abbot Benedict, the unroofed walls of which were
alone standing, and they exhibited scarce any vestige of
JARRAPPA.QXD
19-01-2007
12:50
Pagina 371
APPENDIX A
371
A5.6 HDE LVIII, pp 695696 (Walchers rebuilding of

Wearmouth)
their ancient dignity. Upon those walls they reared a

covering formed of unhewn timbers, with hay upon
them, and there they began to celebrate the offices of
divine service. beneath the walls they erected a little
hovel in which they slept, and took their food, and thus
they sustained, by the alms of the religious, a life of
poverty.
Observing that their desire was to rebuild the
church, and to restore the dwellings of the monks
which had been destroyed, he gave them the vill of
Jarrow, with its appurtenants, namely, Preostun,
Munecatun, Heathewurthe, Heabyrn, Wyvestou, and
Heortedun, in order that they might complete their
works, and live in comfort.
He [Aldwin] endowed them with the vill of

Wearmouth, to which his successor, named William,
added Suthewic, which is immediately contiguous;
with the intention that he, and the brethren who were
with him might continue to serve Christ in that spot
without any great difficulty. For some persons came
thither from even the very remotest parts of England,
for the purpose of spending a monastic life along with
them.....Then they took pains to clear out the church
of St. Peter, nothing more than the half-ruined walls of
which were at this time standing; and they cut down
the trees, and rooted up the thorns and brambles,
which had taken possession of the whole site. When
they had done this, and roofed it with thatch, as it now
appears, they had done their best to make it fitting for
the performance of divine services.
We may reckon that two hundred and eight years
had passed from the time when the pagans had ruined
the churches, and destroyed and burnt down the
monasteries, in the province of the Northumbrians,
until the third year of the pontificate of Walcher, when
the monastic mode of life began to revive in that
province, upon the arrival of Aldwin.
A5.5 HDE, p 110 (The donation of land at Jarrow)

Cum enim eos ecclesiam ipsam reaedificare et destructa monachorum habitacula videret velle restaurare,
dedit eis ipsam villam Gyrvum cum suis appenditiis,
scilicet Preostun, Munecatun, Heathewurthe,
Heabyrm, Wivestou, Heortedun, ut et opera perficere,
et sine indigentia ipsi possent vivere. Taliter illi ex
diversis locis Christo pastore congregante in unum
ovile adducti, didicerunt quam bonum sit et quam
jocundum habitare fratres in unum.
A5.7a References to the monastic buildings in Jarrow inventories and account rolls (compiled by Alan Piper)
Status
date
I
II
XIII
XII*
XIV
XV
XVI
XVII*
XVIII
XIX
XXII
XXIV
XXX*
21 viii 1303
18 viii 1310
14 vi 1313
21 ii 1314
17 v 1321
1 x 1326
6 xi 1328
21 xii 1330
22 xii 1331
9 v 1333
6 x 1338
30 iv 1341
16 viii 1348
aula
hall
camera
chamber
camera magistri lardaria

Masters chamber larder
XXXI** 1351
XXXII** 1352
LII
[4 xi] 1370
LV
19 v 1371
XLIII*
?1372
LIX
15 vii 1373
LXIII
23 v 1379
LXVI
26 v 1382
LXXIX 28 v 1408
LXXXVIII1417
CXXXIX c 23 v 1480
nova
CXLV
domus Prioris
*
**
c 1 viii 1491?
Inventories of limited scope

Inventories which do not cover domestic buildings
celarium pantaria
cellar
pantry
coquina
kitchen
dispensatorium
[]
subtus
panetriam
promptuarium
promptuarium
promptuarium
bracina
pistrina
brewhouse bakehouse
pandox- bolting house

atorium
bolting house
JARRAPPA.QXD
19-01-2007
12:50
Pagina 372
372
A5.7b References to the farm buildings in Jarrow inventories and account rolls (compiled by Alan Piper)
Status
grangia
barn
granarium
granary
II
XIII
XII
XIV
XV
XVI
XVII
XVIII
XIX
XXII
XXIV
XXX
XXXI
XXXII
LII
LV
XLIII
LIX
LXIII
LXVI
LXXIX
LXXXVIII orreum
CXXXIX orreum
CXLV
orreum
stabulum
stable
curia
farm yard
bovaria
cowshed
porcaria
pigsty
bercaria
sheep shed
domus fabri
smithy
dayra
dairy
magistri et alia
magistri
[]
?
?
A5.8 Significant building references from the Jarrow inventories and account rolls (Source: Surtees Society vol 29, J Raine,
ed; emendations by Alan Piper from Durham University Library Archives & Special Collections, Muniments of the Dean
& Chapter of Durham, Jarrow 13467)
Year
Status
Text
Amount
13467
13478
1348
1348
27
28
29
30
17s 9d qu
17 4s 3d ob
21s 8d ob
135051
13512
13556
13589
13601
13612
31
32
39
41
42
1363
13634
13656
45
46
48
13678
49
13689
136970
1370
13701
50
51
53
54
13712
13745
56
61
in reparacione domorum loci predicti

in edificiis, empcione meremii et reparacione domorum
in expensis factis circa reparacione domorum
in omnimodis expensis apponendis et faciendis circa reparacionem novae grangiae
apud le Cote
cuidam cementario, pro uno fenestra in cancello facta, cum aliis necessariis emptis
in una fenestra in cancello vetreata cum stipendio vitriatoris
in reparacione et coopertura diversarum domorum et factura unius novi hostii pro grangia
in expensis necessariis, reparacione domorum cum combustione unius toralis pro calce
in reparacione molendini ventilis et domorum
Receptum. Et de xliiij s ij d r. de molendino ventritico et non plus, quia fuit in
reparacione per quarterium anni
in lv travis straminis emptis pro coopertura domorum, trava j d
in reparacione domorum
in reparacione cuiusdam fenestre et reparacione domorum et tectura infra hunc compotum
ij petris pro molendino
in emendacione et coopertura domorum una cum emandacione crebrarum, ridellorum
bultellorum, et aliis minutis rebus emptis
cuidam carpentario emendanti molendinum et grangium
in emendacione molendini et coopertura domorum cum salario carpentarii
in reparacione molendini cum velis novis emptis cum reparacione aliarum domorum
in reparacione aule et camere apud Jarrowe cum calce empto
in c travis hathir emptis pro coopertura domorum
in emendacione et coopertura domorum factura ostiorum, et aliis minutis
in reparacione domorum per tempus compoti cum thak ad easdem empto
in reparacione molendini ventricii
in reparacione iij fenestrarum vitrearum in aula
in reparacione aliarum domorum manerii
23s 10d
15s 3d
38s 8fid
69s 4d ob
6 19s ob
4s 7d
15s
9 17s 8d 2
1 5s
5s 22d
3s 8d
21s
32s 2d
10s
16s
60s
36s 8d
13s 4d
38s
JARRAPPA.QXD
19-01-2007
12:50
Pagina 373
APPENDIX A
373
Year
Status
Text
Amount
13789
1379
63
64
13812
65
13823
13912
13923
14023
14024
140910
141314
67
71
72
73
74
82
86
5s
4s
3s
7 2s
26s 4d
2 15s
8 5s
6
4 2s 8d
8s 4d
74s
141617
141718
88
89
in emendacione fenestre in fronte ecclesie

in uno bolster de eneo empto pro molendino
in uno dosor et ij conteys pro aula
[ditto]
[ditto]
in factura claustri cum tectura domorum
in reparacione molendini
reparacione domorum...fir sperres, thak borddes waynscottis et aliis necessariis
in reparacione domorum et vasorum et factura ij plaustrorum et unis coupe et
emendacione alterius et j pari rotarum ferro ligatu
in reparacione orrii cum empcione meremii apud Chapwell
Et de vj s. viij d. receptis de Roberto Mody pro reparacione unius tenementi.
De quibus idem computat in primis in superplusagio ultimi compoti, xlvij s. v d. ob.
quae summa deputata fuit et assignata per magistrum ultimo computantem ad
tectutam novi horrei et ibidem expenditur.
in expensis circa promptuarium, cameram et molendinum
Diversis hominibus pro trituracione mundacione horrei et situacione plumbi
et pro le cowrbys
1 hayre pro torali
In reparacione domorum et aliarum reparacionum per tempus hujus compoti
in reparacione domorum et aliarum reparacionum
Et de vj s. viij d. r. pro reparacione unius tenementi in Jarowe
in reparacione domorum fossarum et aliarum reparacionum lvij s. xd.
In reparacione domorum videlicet pro viij chalderys calcis Johanni Pokyrly pro
sclattis et tectura
Et pro MMV\C brodds
Et pro M lattis
Et nichil de molendino ventritico ibidem quia vastum Et in reparacione domorum
tegulis calce lattez et broddez emptis
Et nichil de molendino ventritico ibidem quia vastum
Et in reparacionibus domorum cum tegulis lattez et broddez emptis
De molendino ventritico ibidem nichil quia vastum et extra tenuram
Et in reparacione domorum et diversarum clausurarum i. i. t. cum tegulis lattez et
broddez emptis
Et in reparacione domorum, murorum, cum factura fossarum et hayarum p. i. t.
Rem. De molendino ventritico ibidem nichil quia totaliter vastatur.
Et in reparacione domorum et diversarum clausuram cum tegulis lattez et broddez
emptis i. t. c.
(mill waste)
(repair of houses, tiles, lattys, brodds)
(mill waste)
(repair of houses, tiles, lattz, broddz)
(new boat)
(mill waste)
(repair of houses, tiles, lattis & brodds)
Repairs, tiles, lattez, nails, lime
Repairs of houses and hedges (hayarum), tiles, lattes, nails and lime
Repairs of houses, hedges, etc.
Et in reparacione domorum, murorum, fossarum et sepium
Et in reparacione domorum et murorum, cum solucione facta Willelmo Graystoke hoc anno
Et in mendacione et reparacione chori de Jarowe hoc anno
Et in MM clavis vocatis brodnall e.
Et in MM tegulis c.
Et reparacione domus opilionis ibidem, ex convencione facta in grosso
Repairs and pointing (punctuacione) of houses viz 16 rods, with a new roof
of 5 rods, William Graystoke
141920
14201
14212
14234
14256
90
91
92
94
96
14323
98
14334
99
14345
100
14356
14367
101
102
14378
103
14389
104
143940
105
144041
14412
14423
14478
14523
106
107
108
112
117
14534
118
67s 8d
20 13s 10d
67s 1d
12s 9d
10s
6 15s 3d
17 10d ob
57s 10d
14s 10d
8s 4d
11s
9 16s 10d
6 18s
76s
4 4s
70s 6d
3s 8d
45s 6d
26s 8d
33s 4d
7
7
13s 4d
3s 9d
26s 8d
5s 2d
6s 4d
14s
10s
26s 8d
JARRAPPA.QXD
19-01-2007
12:50
Pagina 374
374
Year
Status
Text
14545
119
Reparaciones. In primis in edificione unius domus super portam et in punctuacione

domorum, cum solucione facta Johanni Morton, operanti ibidem per xij dies, capienti
per diem iiijd
Reparaciones. In v m tegulis pr viij s
Et in iij m clavorum voc. brodnayll pr. m iij s
Et reparacione facta apud Shelez in tenement, viz in j m tegulis pr. viijs.
D asserum pr.c. iiijs vjd. una cum solucione facta predicto Johanni sclatter
Et in solucione facta Johanni Manuell et sociis suis pro iij\xx rode novae clausurae,
capientibus per diem iijd
Reparaciones. In primis Johanni Sclatter, operanti per xl dies, capienti per diem iij d
Et soluti Johanni Wattson et Thomae Warde, lathomis, pro factura unius fenestre et
camini in nova camera, juxta ecclesiam, cum cariacione lapidum pro eisdem
Et in solucione facta pro vitro et vitriacione fenestrarum etc
Et in reparacione domorum et murorum, cum tegulis asseribus et broddis emptis h.a.
Dcclxx rod. fossatorum in campo de Jarowe ad
Et in reparacione murorum, tecture de le cothous et leyowhous, cum le watlyng et factura
murorum ejusdem, et adquisitione de le lynge et dovet pro eisdem domibus, et aliis
reparacionibus minoribus
faccione bovar cum tegulis asseribus et brodd et calce
Et in reparacione infra domum de Jarowe h.a.
Rem. Et de xij d de tenentibus de Monkton pro quibusdam parcellis et cornwis dimissis
extra fossatum ex australi parte campi de Jarowe
Repairs, carpenter work, tiles, spars, nails, locks and keys, workmen, etc.
Et in tectura cum lez lyng et stramine, ac in tegulis, asseribus et calce emptis, et
operariis circa muros in diversis locibus
Et in factura murorum circa cimiterium et gardini cum plantiacione de whikwod
ad occidentalem partem campi, una cum emendacione unius fossati ibidem
Et in reparacione domorum et opere carpentarii, punctuacione, tectura, cum tegulis
clavis et asseribus
...12 plaustrat de lez lyng and carriage
Et in reparacione domorum et opere carpentario, punctuacione, tectura, cum tegulis
clavis ac seris et clavibus
Et in reparacione infra et extra
14556
120
121
14667
14723
128
137
147980
14845
138
140
14889
14934
142
144
14956
147
14978
15078
148
154
15367
157
Amount
4s
40s
9s
20s 10d
15s
10s
26s 8d
5s
8 3s 5d
5d
108s 1d
15 9s 6d
20s
21 6s 8d
32s
27s
40s
(40s)
72s
38s 1d
A5.9a References to the monastic buildings in Wearmouth inventories and account rolls (compiled by Alan Piper)
Status
date
I
II
II
IV
V
VI
IX
XIII
XVII
XXVII
XXIX
XXX
XXXI
XXXII
XXXIII
XLI
XLIII
XLVI
LV
LX
CXXIV
11 v 1321
24 i 1338
7 vi 1344
15 v 1345
28 v 1346
13 v 1347
6 viii 1360
11 ix 1362
19 v 1371
23 v 1379
7 v 1380
27 v 1381
19 v 1382
4 v 1383
23 v 1384
1 vi 1394
1397
1398
1408
1409
[1417]
30 v 1506
aula
hall
camera camera magistri

chamber
Masters
chamber
butellaria
store
cupboard
promptuarium
panetaria
pantry
&
coquina
kitchen
lardaria
pistrina
bracina
larder bakehouse brewhouse
[]
[]
pandoxaria
&
pandoxatorium
JARRAPPA.QXD
19-01-2007
12:50
Pagina 375
APPENDIX A
375
A5.9b References to the farm buildings in Wearmouth inventories and account rolls (compiled by Alan Piper)
Status
grangia
barn
granarium
granary
tabulum
stable
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
IX
XIII
XVII
XXVII
XXIX
XXX
XXXI
XXXII
XXXIII
XLI
XLIII
XLVI
LV
LX
CXXIV
curia
farm yard
bovaria
cowshed
ara
pigsty
torale
kiln
manerium
orreum
orreum
magistri
domus
sheds
pl:
pl:
pl:
pl:
officiorum
officiorum
officiorum
officiorum
sing: coal,
lime etc
sing: coal,
lime etc
sing: coal
sing: coal
2: wool; coal
pl: coal, slates,
lime
A5.10 Significant building references from the Wearmouth inventories and account rolls (Surtees Society vol 29, J Raine, ed)
Year
13434
13445
13478
13601
Text
reparacione domorum murorum aqueductil

meremio pro stangno molendini & aliis necessariis
factura trium fenestrarum in choro Ecclesie
nova structure unius Cotagii emendacione Columbarii coopertura diversarum domorum infra
Curia & extra
13612 Structura unius furni unius contagii cum emendacione aliorum
Cotagiorum in villa & pro coopertura unius panelli magne Grangie de novo cooperte & punctura
quasi omnium domorum infra curia etc.
factura unius vinarii in le Cavett
13689 M stanbrodis pro grangea cooperienda...
13701 coopertura quarte partis chori
13712 reparacione unius acqueductus
13789 reparacione domorum infra mansionem & extra
13823 coopertura partis australis chori cum plumbo...
13878 reparacione aule & Camere & aliarum domorum infra & extra
13689 reparacione novarum portarum
138990 factura unius parietus cum porta
13901 factura unius parietus cum uno stobyate
13912 factura unius Porte magne
factura unius fenestre in Camera
14038 reparacione domorum & aqueducte
14078 emendacione magni orrei cum asseris & tegulis
141516 reparacione & tectura claustri usque ecclesiam
14501 76 petris plumbi pro factura cuiusdam aqueductus
factura eiusdem aqueductus
14523 reparacione domorum, in edificacione & nova factura unius columbarii...
14534 opere carpentarii in domus noviter constructa
14678 operanti super orreum
14678 Et Willelmo Alanson pro reparacione murorum, tectura straminea domorum, et operanti in nova aula
Amount
2 12s
1 16s
6
1 6s 1d
7 12s 6d
5s
8s
13s 4d
6s 2d
12s 4d
1 18s
3 6s 9d
1 1s 5d
1 6s 10d
16s
3 5s 3d
1 1s 6d
1 8s 5d
1...
1 18s
1 6s 8d
1 13s 6d
17s 5d
1s 4d
5s 5d
JARRAPPA.QXD
19-01-2007
376
12:50
Pagina 376
Year
Text
Amount
14712
147980
14801
14856
combustione unius lymekylne

punctuacione super orreum
punctuacione super orreum
duobus furnis
factura unius molendini pro Brasio molendo
440 petris plumbi pro aqueducto
reparacione aule & camerarum
pro nova factura aqueductus, convehacione ejusdem usque leg breuled, et nova factura capitis
ejusdem fontis
nova tecturas super cameras
reparacionibus super cancellum in tectura plumbea...
4s 10d
2s
2s
1
1
7
20 et ultra
15023
15056
15056
15334
13 13s 4d
8s
1 10s
A6. Post-medieval references

between the third and fourth lines a rough space like a
razore. (p 371)
Jarrow
A6.1 Camden, W, 1607, Britannia, p 606
Infra hunc vicum fere ad ipsum Tinae ostium Girwy
nunc Iarrow cernitur, Venerabilis Bedae natale solum,
vbi etiam monasteriolum olim florvit, Cuius fundatorem & fundationis tempus docet haec inscriptio quae
legitur adhuc in pariete Ecclesiae:
DEDICATIO BASILICAE
S PAVLI VIII.KL.MAI.I
ANNO XVI. ECFRIDI REG.
CEOLFRIDI ABB. EIVSDEMQ.
ECCLES. DEO AVCTORE.
CONDITORIS ANNO IIII.
[Camden, W, 1607 Britannia, siue florentissimorum
regnorum Angliae, Scotiae, Hiberniae, et insularum
adiacentium ex intima antiquitate chorographica
descriptio: nunc postremo recognitia, plurimis locis
magna accessione adaucta, & chartis chorographicis
illustrata, London]
A6.2 Gibson, E, 1695, Camdens Britannia, col 779
Below this village, almost upon the mouth of the Tine,
stands Girwy, now Jarrow; where venerable Bede was
born, and where a little Monastery heretofore flourisht. When and by whom it was founded, may be learnt
from this Inscription, which is legible to this day in the
Church-wall.
A6.3 Britannia, by William Camden ... enlarged by the
latest discoveries by Richard Gough, Vol III, 1806
It stands on an eminence on the south side of the Tine
about five miles east of Newcastle, having a large
marsh on the south, & when the tide is out a stinking
oozy creek. The chapel is now the parish church with
one aisle, the west door had a plain round arch, & on
its jamb, an antient cross ornamented in the saxon
style. On the north wall, within is the inscription mentioned by Mr Camden, blacked in a late whitewashing;
A6.4 Leland, J, 1715, Antiquarii De Rebus Britannicus

Collectanea IV, p 42 (III, 39)
Gyrwi quarto a Novocastro miliario
Famosum hoc monasterium, cujus Beda alumnus erat,
semel atque iterum a Danis, intrantibus Tinam, ita
depopulatum fuit, ut locis aliquot vestigia tantum
antiqui operis & structurae appareant. Monachi, qui
jam tantum tres coenobiolum inhabitant, monstrant
Bedae oratorium & arulam, in cujus medio pro gemma
ostentant fragmentulum sepentini aut viridis marmoris.
Inscriptio ibidem reperta in quadrato saxo majusculis litteris
Romanis sculpta
Dedicatio Basilicae S. Pauli VIII. Calendas Maii anno
XVo. Ecfridi regis, Ceolfridi abbatis ejusdemQ. M.
ecclesiae deo autore conditoris anno IIII.
A6.5 Leland, J, 1715. De Rebus Britannicus Collectanea
II, p 328 (I/ii, 423)
Anno sequente dum pagani portum Ecfridi regis, hoc
est Girvi, vastantes monasterium ad otium Tini amnis
depreaedarentur, dux eorum ibidem crudeli nece
interiit. (Portus Ecfridi finus qui a Tina ad Girwi penetrat. Penetrabat & interius usque ad Bilton, pene 3.
pas. millibus super Girwi, quo antiquitus & naviculae
pervenerunt. Fluviolus hunc sinum intrat.)
[see also: I, 102 (94); II, 332 (427); II, 370 (517); II,
381 (I/ii, 538); II, 382-4 (I/ii, 53741); III, 229 (II,
202); III, 355 (II, 308)]
A6.6 Leland, J, 1709. Commentarii de Scriptoribus
Britannicis, p 118
... quin adhuc Bedae oratorium extet, humile quidem
opus, & cameratum, utcumque tamen integrum; in
quo & hodie altare est; sed neglectum, & in altaris
medio crusta Ophiutici marmoris.
JARRAPPA.QXD
19-01-2007
12:50
Pagina 377
APPENDIX A
A6.7 Hodgson G B, 1903, The Borough of South

Shields, Newcastle, p 237
Quarter sessions in 16523 made various orders on the
inhabitants of Horton and Westoe (South Shields is
not mentioned) to contribute to the repayre of Jarrow
church, which had fallen into decay, the record in the
latter year stating that several assessments have been
made, but nothing collected, by reason that Horton
and Westoe standeth out and refuseth.
A6.8 The demolition of the nave at Jarrow, 1782.
Palaeography DR (2); Fac. Regs. XII, 1, pp 21319
To William Glover, curate of Jarrow; Henry Ellison,
Thos Brunton the younger, Henry Major, Richard
Forster, Edward Fairles, Ralph Redhead, Rob
Railstone one of the chaplewardens elect of the said
Parish, Miles Ellison, Rich Farwell, Wm Smith, Rob
Stote & Wm Listor Gentlemen the vestreymen of the
said parish Wm Tate the other churchwarden & Jos
Carins the chapelwarden (p 213).
That the said parish church of Jarrow is a very
ancient Edifice & hath for these several years been in a
very ruinous State & Condition & that of late it hath
been deemed so dangerous & unsafe to assemble therein that for some time past divine service has been regularly performed in the chancel (p 214).
Meeting in vestry 22nd Feb last; from their own
examination & the report of an able and experienced
workman who carefully reviewed inspected and considered the state of the fabric of the said church that
the same, excepting the Tower and chancel, was so
greatly decayed & so very ruinous that it could not be
properly & effectually repaired but must necessarily be
taken down and rebuilt (p 214).
Unanimously ordered that petition to be sent
requesting a faculty, That the said church is very
inconvenient in its present form extending in length 80
feet or thereabouts and in breadth only 17 feet or
thereabouts. New plan drawn up of church well suited & adapted to the General Accommodation of the
parishioners and inhabitants of the said Parish.
Approved by vestry meeting on 22 March past (p 215).
On 6th June last the vestry meeting decided immediately to apply for a faculty to empower and authorize
you or the major part of you for this time being to take
down the said church, except as aforesaid, together with
the vestry which adjoins thereto and forms a part of the
377
fabric and (p 215) to erect and rebuild the same in the

manner and form and according to the Dimensions
specified set forth and described in the before mentioned Plan ... and to erect a Pulpit Reading Desk and
Clerks Pew and other Pews and seats in the said church
and a Gallery close adjoining to the West End thereof
with seats or Benches there in and stairs to lead up to
the same in the manner described. Also to set out &
allot pews & to report the assignments to the Vicar
General & Official Principal (p 216). And we do hereby commit, give & grant to you (names as above) our
Licence or faculty ... (p 218) 12th July 1782 (p 219).
A6.9 Report on the restoration of Jarrow Church, by Geo
Gilbert Scott, May 1852
The remains of this monastery, so famous as the residence of the Venerable Bede, present now a melancholy picture... The only portions of the church which
belong to the ancient structure are the chancel and the
central tower. The nave has been rebuilt in modern
times in the most wretched and incongruous style. The
chancel and tower are of a very early date. I will not
venture to pronounce upon their age, but they are generally supposed to be of ante-Norman date. ... The
four piers, on which the tower is supported, appear to
have long since partially given way, and huge rents in
the walls and arches to have followed. The evil was partially remedied by adding three large buttresses, and by
thickening the lower part of the wall which faces the
nave. To the fourth pier, however, no buttress was
added, though on examining the wall and arch by
removing the plastering, I find it to be in a fearful state
of disintegration ... At the same time the foundations
of the chancel walls should be examined and underpinned, and a buttress added in at least one place,
where there is a serious bulge. The required enlargement of the nave will be best obtained by the addition
of a north aisle, and perhaps also by a slight extension
to the west. ... The present incongruous vestry should
be rebuilt ... There are arches, now walled up, which
appear to have opened from the chamber above the
vaulting of the tower eastward and westward into the
chancel and nave, forming that chamber into something equivalent to a rood loft ... I would not do away
with the present Gothic windows of the chancel, but I
think the little Romanesque windows which remain
should be opened out and glazed. The ancient door
should also be restored.
A6.10 The guardianship issue of the Jarrow site (notes taken by Rosemary Cramp from original DoE files before their
destruction)
1905
28/4/05
The Rev C R Laxley declared a wish for the Board to take over care of ruins of monastery of St Pauls, Jarrow.
Memo to Secretary of State:
They represent one of the earliest Ecclesiastical foundations in England and perhaps the most interesting...
The buildings have been allowed to decay and to be plundered and demolished: they are open practically to
boys and others bent on mischief and unless they are protected soon, efficiently and permanently, I fear that they
will disappear altogether. It is undoubtedly a scandal that the persons who have local interests, proprietary and
otherwise, in the Monastery ruins, should not have done their duty, but the case is unfortunately only one of many...
JARRAPPA.QXD
19-01-2007
378
12:50
Pagina 378
No. 3910
9th June 1905. Letter to Secretary, HM Treasury.

Board asks for protection of Ancient Monument Act. Fence and repair site and pay custodian of neighbouring
church and schools, 5.00 per annum.
16th June. First Commissioner for Works authorised ruins to be taken into charge.
24th July. Question asked of Mr Talbot in the House whether Diocese or inhabitants of parish had been consulted.
Lord Balcarres assured and said Rector willing, and Lord Northbourne, patron of benefice had been written to.
Town Council had expressed approval.
AA10057/3 DoE No. 7406.725
PRO.14.209 Ref. 7406.05. August 1905. The Rector withdrew his offer because Lord Northbourne had undertaken to look after
the area properly himself.
E Wall, south of ruins, raised to a height of about 10ft in order to prevent unauthorised persons entering.
21st August. The Rev C R Laxley withdrew his application for guardianship.
August
The site was scheduled as an ancient monument of national importance.
1938
1943
In 1943 a German bomb slightly damaged the churchyard wall.
194549
John Charlton (Inspector of Ancient Monuments) 1945. 15/10/45. Not enthusiastic about the site.
If it were shown say by excavations of a learned society that there were at all extensive Anglian remains, I suppose we should take Guardianship...
Suggestion then was that they did not want a repetition of 1905 and though in 1945 the Bishop was asking for
guardianship the offer was not taken up.
In 1948 the Bishop informed John Charlton that Jack Laiser and E. Fernyhough and other MPs might be pressurising Minister for protection.
And this matter was then pressed by the Rector of the church and the Town Clerk of Jarrow.
On January 18th 1949 Chief Inspector of Ancient Monuments Brian ONeil at last went to Jarrow.
Under present conditions I can only describe what remains as a rather unpleasant little scrap of a monastery,
although I should not like this opinion to be heard in Jarrow.
On September 1st 1949 a minute from MoW, C.3357/ARM stated that the Ministry could not take guardianship of
a dwelling house.
13th September 1949. Rector wondered if cottage might not be taken over as a Museum to house the interesting
stones which are now lying in the church, and any others which be discovered on the site.
Letter 10/10/49 indicates that the school should be kept as a works building during preservation and excavation, then
demolished. Some doubts as to whether cottage should be demolished or not.
Minute of 5th November 1949 from the Assistant Treasury Solicitor.
A case is put that the demolition of the cottage would involve the destruction of some 16th century work. If this had
been the case it seemed to me that the cottage was capable of being regarded as an ANCIENT MONUMENT, and
its demolition might expose the Ministry to a charge of having demolished something which is was under obligation
to maintain.
1950
In 1950 guardianship abandoned because house occupied by the verger was situated in the proposed area of
guardianship
1955
In 1955 old cottage vacated by verger. (13 June).
1956
18th April 1956. Minute sheet Works. C/3357/ARM, file no. 32395.
Notes.
Deed of Guardianship 24th Day of May 1956.
1957?
Work of consolidation began after that.
Wearmouth
A6.11 Testamentum Roberti Widrington (Wills and
inventories from the Registry at Durham (Part II), Vol
38, London, Publications of the Surtees Society, 1869, pp
28688)
August 29, 1598. Robert Wodrington, of Wermoth, in
the countie of Durham, esquier.
INV. Oct. 10, 1598. In the hall. One carpett, j cupbord clothe,... In the great chamber. One grene carpet,
fora table, j grene cupbord clothe, findged with
grene,... In the inner chamber. One cupbord, j chaire...
In the privie chamber. One old fetherbed, j bolster... In
Mr. Johns chamber. One bedstead, j grene stule, with
valence and curteynes to the bed... In the maides chamber.
Two old fetherbeds, ij bolsters... In the brushinge chamber. One bedsteade, j draweinge table... In the serving
mens chamber. One old fetherbed, j paire of
blankittes... In thiner parlour. One mattris, j
fetherbed... In the forre chamber. One counterpoynt, j
matt... In the newe chamber. Two bedsteades, j
fetherbed... In the closet. One truncke and j seller, with
glasses... In the lowe stable. One bolster, and iij happins... In the kitchinge. Three boardes, iij potingers... In
the mylke-house. Eighte earthen mylke bowles, v woodden mylkes bowels... In the bowltinge house. One temsinge troughe, j mowldinge board... In the brewe house.
One maskin tubb, j cole-rake... In the butterie. Fyve
hogseheades, and j barrell... In the pantrie. Three liverey potes, ij little drinking pottes...
JARRAPPA.QXD
19-01-2007
12:50
Pagina 379
APPENDIX A
A6.12 Notice to rebuild Monkwearmouth Church, 1872,

R H Lowe (nd), pp 89
The Following notice was posted on the Church door
and announced during Sunday services on January
28th 1872:
The Parishioners are requested to take notice that a
Vestry Meeting will be held in the Vestry Room of the
Parish Church at Monkwearmouth on Thursday, the
first day of February next at noon (12.00) of the same
day for the purpose of adopting such measures as may
appear necessary to enable the Vicar and
Churchwardens to make application to the proper
Ecclesiastical Court for a Faculty to empower them to
make the following alterations, additions and reparations in and about the Parish Church by voluntary contributions, viz To take off the whole of the roof of the
Church, to take down the south wall of the Nave, part
of all the north, south and east walls of the Chancel,
and the north and western walls of the Aisle or northern part of the said Church together with the Porch: to
remove from the interior all steps, floors, pews,
etc...and any other fittings or things that are affected by
the proposed alterations: to lower or excavate the
ground for foundations, spaces below floors, and heating apparatus, and, if necessary, to remove and re-inter
in the Churchyard or Cemetery any human remains
that may be discovered, and if necessary , to move any
graves or vaults that may interfere with the proposed
alterations, re-constructing the same and re-interring
any human remains that may be found therein: To
rebuild the south wall of the Church on the lines of the
ancient foundations, south of the site, to rebuild the
walls of the Chancel on their present site, constructing
an organ chamber on the south side, and a vestry, antevestry and aisle on the north side opening by arches
into the Chancel: to rebuild the North Wall, moving it
northwards so as to obtain extra space within the
Church, and to rebuild the porch outside the new
North Wall. To build up an arcade to separate the
North Aisle from the Nave: to put on new roofs to the
whole of the Church, to lay new flooring throughout,
and to fit up the Church with new pulpits, holy table,
rails, sedilia, credence, seats, font, and all other matters and things necessary for the celebration of Divine
Service; to put on a new roof to the Tower, and to lay
new flooring to the same, to refix such monuments and
tablets as it is necessary to refix, in such positions as
are determined on: To take down the retaining wall to
the north side of the Church and to remove it to the
north so as to allow of the northward extension of the
Church, and to rebuild it in such northward position:
To lower the soil round the Church so as to bring it
below the intended level of the floors, to make such
excavations to the west of and around the Church and
379
such as are necessary for drainage etc, and to remove

and re-inter in the Churchyard or Cemetery any
human remains that may be discovered in making such
excavations...
Dated this 26th day of January 1872.
Charles Popham Miles, Vicar
Henry Eggleston )
L Blumer
) Churchwardens.
A6.13 Hall 1931, Antiquities of Sunderland and its

vicinity, p 53
To continue our survey of the west wall, there is seen
immediately above the aperture just described, the
saddle or apex-stone of the porch. It is circular headed
in shape, of dressed sandstone, set flush with the rubble work overlooking the nave. A little distance above
the apex-stone there is a square-headed, blocked opening, 2 feet 3 inches wide. The present lintel is of wood,
which was probably inserted to form a ground for the
lath and plaster work removed in 1866. This opening
evidently gave access to the tower independently of the
chamber doorway below it, although it should be stated its sill level is about 27 feet above that of the nave
door.
(p. 55) Immediately above the level of the windowhead on the left hand side, a raking line, of probably a
former gable wall, will be observed. Attention, however, must here be called to the fact that this raking line
does not indicate the inclination of a pitched roof with
twin slopes. Instead it consists of one line only, which,
commencing as just stated, rises at an angle of about
forty-five degrees, and so continues upward and across
the entire width of the ancient west wall. At a later date
masonry has been added above this raking line to complete the west gable as we know it today. To account for
there being only one line of demarcation to be seen, we
know that when Aldwin arrived upon the scene the
church was in a ruinous and roofless state; this partial
destruction of the fabric was probably caused by the
soldiers of William the Conquerer in 106970, when
the roof must have suffered utter destruction. When
Aldwin began to restore the building, it would also be
found that all the upper stonework adjoining the roof
would also be in a damaged condition. Hence all such
defective walling was removed by his masons, who
afterwards rebuilt the gable with sound material. Thus
one may suggest that the single raking line seen on the
west gable indicates the junction of Aldwins work with
that of the older masonry, and the unseen portion of
this juncture is now hidden behind the timbers of the
modern roof of the nave.
JARRAPPB.QXD
19-01-2007
12:54
Pagina 380
Frontispieces: The earliest pictorial plan of Wearmouth: A true and exact survey of ye mannor of Munk Wearemouth, by
William Lewin, May 1714 (Tyne and Wear Archives Service, DX 882/1)
The earliest depiction of the Jarrow site, about 1545, shown on a plan of Tynemouth with later annotations in Italian (British
Library, Ms Cotton Augustus I.ii.7)
JARRAPPB.QXD
19-01-2007
12:54
Pagina 381
Appendix B. The graphic record
Introduction
early 18th century the principles had been widely

adopted also in England, particularly in topographical
drawings (see Figs B3 and B19), although some
draughtsmen, such as the Bucks (Fig 12.4), still
retained the older 'bird's eye' viewpoint. The 18thcentury drawings of both churches are important,
showing how the buildings appeared before the major
changes of the 19th century, which could be later
recorded in photographs. In the 19th century most of
the artists of these sites are local, and there is much
copying from one image to another, but examples have
been chosen which seem to be the primary record of
certain features. The later photographs are included to
record buildings such as the rectory or school house at
Jarrow or the lost industrial landscape of
Monkwearmouth.
Wearmouth and Jarrow are well represented in drawings, engravings and early photographs, and from these
a selection has been made to illustrate the postReformation history of the two sites. Bede himself was
familiar with a form of building plan in which building
details are shown in both profile and plan with relative
spatial relations, as is demonstrated in the plan of
Solomon's temple and tabernacle at Jerusalem in the
Codex Amiatinus I.c II fol 2v3r. He also knew and
copied the four simpler plans of the Holy Places which
Adomnan of Iona had drawn c 685. These have been
the subject of considerable modern analysis (for a good
bibliographic summary see Delano-Smith and Kain
1999, 249), but if such a plan had been made by Bede
of his own monastery it would not have helped us
much in reconstructing the site in his day. Such early
plans were mainly of didactic and exegetical value.
Nevertheless the earliest depictions of the sites
shown in the preliminaries to the main listing have
advanced very little from the picture maps of the classical and medieval worlds (Harvey 1980, 54 103).
They demonstrate however the advances in accuracy,
through the use of triangulation and better instruments, which in 15th-century Europe revolutionised
maps and plans. Italy had from the outset played a
leading role in graphic representation, and the Italian
influence is to be seen in the 1545 plan, in which
Jarrow is a bizarre footnote, but the fort at Tynemouth
is depicted in great detail. Detail and accuracy were
obviously important in relation to military works, and
these were advanced in England under the threats of
invasions during the 16th and 17th centuries.
Moreover as the ancient tradition of determining
boundaries by the written word and perambulation
declined under the pressure of contending land claims,
particularly in the great redistribution of lands after the
Reformation, maps and plans which defined landholdings became of greater importance. This is shown in
the 1669 map of the Dean and Chapter's claims at
Jarrow, and, as late as 1714, in the Lewin map of the
'mannor of Munk Wearemouth'. Private estate maps
(Kain and Bagent 1992, 18) were early seen in
England as of great utility as management tools not
only of estates but of harbours and rivers, and Figs B1
and B2 demonstrate this.
In the maps and plans so far discussed the angle of
representation of buildings was either in plan or, if in
elevation, as a side or oblique view, with sometimes
two sides of a building shown in the same plane.
During the Renaissance, rules of perspective drawing
had evolved in Italy and had been particularly applied
to Classical architecture (Stamp 1982, 915). By the
Wearmouth before 1866
B1 Engraved plan of the Sunderland harbour, by J

Fawcett, 1719 (Cramp collection; see also Fig 1.4)
381
JARRAPPB.QXD
382
19-01-2007
12:54
Pagina 382
B2 Part of A plan of the River Wear from Newbridge to Sunderland barr as it appeared at low water showing
Monkwearmouth Hall and grounds, drawn by M Burleigh, engraved by J Tinney, 1737. (Durham Record Office Prints [C]
Rut/Durham 2/166)
B3 The west front of St Peters Church with west door blocked, showing slope of the ground over the 18th-century churchyard and harbour beyond, engraved by J Newton after a drawing by S H Grimm, 1779 (F Grose, Supplement to The
antiquities of England and Wales, 2 vols, London, 177787, 1, 220)
JARRAPPB.QXD
19-01-2007
12:54
Pagina 383
APPENDIX B
383
B4 View of St Peters Church from the north-west showing the build-up of the churchyard and the entrances to the galleries
inside the church, engraved by B Longmate (Gentlemans Magazine, 82(2), 1812, facing 513)
B5 View of west front of St Peter's Church, showing

entrance to galleries, engraved by J Greig after a drawing
by J B Taylor, 1817 (anon, attrib J S Storer, The antiquarian itinerary, comprising specimens of architecture, monastic, castellated and domestic, 7 vols
(London, 181518), 6 [unpaginated])
B6 West front before the opening up of the west door in mid19th century showing the window cutting the lowest string
course, the entrance to the galleries closed and buttressed,
and the destruction of the west face of the upper story of the
tower by the insertion of a clock. Engraving by W J Robson,
c 1847 (from vol 7 of an extra-illustrated set of W Fordyce,
History and antiquities of the County Palatine of
Durham, 1857, in Sunderland City Library)
JARRAPPB.QXD
384
19-01-2007
12:54
Pagina 384
B7 Photograph of east end of St Peters Church before rebuilding in 1866 (courtesy of the late R Moore)
B8a Interior fitments of St Peters Church in early 19th century. From an old postcard
JARRAPPB.QXD
19-01-2007
12:54
Pagina 385
APPENDIX B
385
B8b Interior fitments of St Peters Church in early 19th century. From an old postcard
B9 The church and surroundings of St Peters 18191822, by John Rennie, after the demolition of Monkwearmouth Hall
and before the building of Hallgarth Square (part of John Rennies A map and survey of the River Wear, 1826)
JARRAPPB.QXD
19-01-2007
12:54
Pagina 386
386
Wearmouth 1866
B10 Excavation of the west doorway into the porch of St

Peters (after Hodgson, 190611, TAASDN VI, facing
168)
B11 St Peters Church between 1866 and 1873 showing the

replacement quoins on the porch, the new opening on the
upper floor of the porch, the demolition of the barn to the south
with evidence of the excavation trench (Private collection)
Wearmouth 18661959
B12 The rebuilt church of St Peters, engraving from an old postcard (Bemrose and Sons, Derby, 1873, Robert Moore
Collection)
JARRAPPB.QXD
19-01-2007
12:54
Pagina 387
APPENDIX B
387
B13 St Peters rebuilt church 1907 showing the covering around the sculptured doorway into the porch. From an old postcard
Wearmouth 1959
B14 The surroundings of St Peters Church on the west at the beginning of the excavation, before the clearance of Hallgarth
Square
JARRAPPB.QXD
388
19-01-2007
12:55
Pagina 388
B15 Engineers boreholes taken before the excavations in 1959 (based on drawing by Borough Engineers Department,
Sunderland, redrawn by C Unwin). Section from south to north across Hallgarth Square up to St Peters Church boundary
wall. Borehole 6 indicated the presence of archaeological deposits. Note that the vertical scale in this and in B16 has been
exaggerated. See Fig B17 for location of boreholes
B16 Engineers boreholes taken before the excavations in 1959 (Borough Engineers Department, Sunderland, redrawn by
C Unwin). Section from east to west across St Peter's churchyard and the area to the south. Boreholes 7 and 8 indicated
archaeological deposits. Note the distinction in natural subsoil between brown clay and silty sand
JARRAPPB.QXD
19-01-2007
12:55
Pagina 389
APPENDIX B
389
B17 Hallgarth Square showing Borough

Engineers placing of boreholes (1959) based
on OS maps. Note that the Burial Ground
had by 1959 changed to allotments
B18 Part of A Plan of Monkwearmouth

Shore with the Quays, Yards, Landings etc
the Property of the late Sir H Williamson,
surveyed by John Rain, 1811 (formerly in the
collection of Sunderland Museum)
JARRAPPB.QXD
19-01-2007
12:55
390
Pagina 390
Jarrow before 1783
B19 St Pauls Church and the interior of the cloister from the east, drawn by S H Grimm c 177580 (British Library. Ms
Add 15540, no. 2)
B20 (left) Blocked Norman doorway with fireplace above,

in the south wall of the cloister (Wall 3) drawn by S H
Grimm c 177783 (British Library Ms Add 15540 no. 3)
JARRAPPB.QXD
19-01-2007
12:55
Pagina 391
APPENDIX B
391
B21 View of the

Jarrow site from the
south-west, engraved
by J Bailey, 1782
(Hutchinson 1787,
470), showing the
south elevation of the
medieval church with
the south porch
Jarrow 17831866: rebuilt 18th-century church
B22 St Pauls Church

and ruins from the
south-west, engraved
by W H Capone after
a drawing by T Allom
(Rose 1835, facing
190)
B23 St Pauls Church

and ruins from the
south-west, drawn and
engraved by E Blore
(Surtees 1820, facing
67)
JARRAPPB.QXD
392
19-01-2007
12:55
Pagina 392
B24 St Pauls Church

from the north-east,
drawn and engraved
by E Blore (Surtees
1820, facing 67)
B25 Engraving of St
Pauls Church and
ruins from the southwest (Mackenzie and
Ross 1834, facing 7)
B26 Ruins of south

range from the east
with rectory in the
background, engraved
from a drawing by
J W Carmichael
(Fordyce 1857, facing
745)
JARRAPPB.QXD
19-01-2007
12:55
Pagina 393
APPENDIX B
393
B27 General view of

the area from the east,
anon drawing 1843
(William Whitfield
collection)
B28 Jarrow Bridge

with adjacent buildings
and chemical factory
in the background,
anon drawing 1843
(William Whitfield
collection)
B29 Remains
of
Jarrow
monastery
from the east showing
cottage in west of cloister, anon drawing
1843
(William
Whitfield collection)
JARRAPPB.QXD
394
19-01-2007
12:55
Pagina 394
B30 Cottage in the west of the cloister, anon drawing 1843

(William Whitfield collection)
B32 St Pauls Church, churchyard and ruins from the
west, anon drawing 1843 (William Whitfield collection)
B31 St Pauls Church from the south, anon drawing 1843

(William Whitfield collection)
B33 (right) Detail of tower and chancel from the south

showing heating system and door in the south wall,
engraved by G B Smith after a drawing by R W Billings,
1845 (Billings 1846, facing 49)
JARRAPPB.QXD
19-01-2007
12:55
Pagina 395
APPENDIX B
395
B34 Ruins of south range from the east with rectory in the background, drawing initialled J.E., 185578 (Private collection)
B35 St Pauls Church, churchyard and Parsonage House from the north-west, anon, 185578 (Private collection)
JARRAPPB.QXD
396
19-01-2007
12:55
Pagina 396
Jarrow 1866present day
B36 Ruins of monastery and Victorian rectory from the south, Ink-photo (Spragge & Co, London, 185378)
B37 St Pauls Church (as rebuilt by Scott) and rectory from the south-west (Rose 1932, 28)
JARRAPPB.QXD
19-01-2007
12:55
Pagina 397
APPENDIX B
397
B38 St Pauls Church, ruins, school and cottages in the village from the south-west, also riverside wall. Extension to school
and dump from demolition of the rectory, c 1904 (Private collection)
B39 St Pauls Church, ruins and school from the south-west, early 20th century (Private collection)
JARRAPPB.QXD
398
19-01-2007
12:55
Pagina 398
B40 The village of Jarrow viewed from the south, c 1905 (Private collection)
B41 Village and school from the south-east, c 1905 (Private collection)
B42 View of the site covered in bushes from the south-west, c 1920? (Private collection)
JARRAPPB.QXD
19-01-2007
12:55
Pagina 399
APPENDIX B
B43 Detail of cottage as lived in during the early 20th century, from an old postcard
B44 The school as deserted at the beginning of the excavations
399
JARRAPPB.QXD
400
19-01-2007
12:55
Pagina 400
B45 Jarrow church viewed from the Slake and estuary before the filling in of the Slake
B46 St Pauls Jarrow, plan of pews, 5 June 1783 (Durham Record Office EP/JA SP 4/4). Reproduced by permission of
Rev W E Braviner, Rector of St Pauls Jarrow, and the Durham Record Office
JARNOTES.QXD
19-01-2007
12:48
Pagina 401
Notes
Chapter 4
that the Latin term restaurare could mean rebuild or

redesign (Cambridge 1977, 810).
5. It is possible that the conversion of the buildings
from the typical Benedictine form, which Aldwin must
have envisaged, to the domestic layout recorded in the
first Durham status was to accommodate such distinguished men.
1. Plummer discusses fully the problems of arriving at

an unambiguous date for these events (Plummer 1896,
II, 3579).
2. The raid on Jarrow, if indeed this is the monastery
on the River Don Donemutha which is mentioned,
could be an important chronological pointer to some
changes in the monastic layout, but the doubt about
Symeons identification here (see Parker 1985) counsels caution, and Ian Wood has recently proposed
South Shields/Arbeia as a possible location (see
Chapter 3).
3. Malcolms wrath is partially explained by Symeon
as stirred by the raiding and pillaging of Gospatrick in
Cumbria and Northumbria, territory which had for
some time been under the control of the Scots (Kapelle
1979, 1235, 264 n 12).
4. The normal meaning of the text would be that the
monks were to restore the buildings. Since it is clear,
however, from the archaeological evidence (see
Chapters 18 and 19) that the monastic buildings were
not restored but completely robbed and erased, either
the monks found that the buildings were too ruined to
be restored or were wrongly disposed for their
Benedictine plan. Cambridge has, however, argued
Chapter 13
1. Pickles (1999, 89) states that the chancel is usually assumed to have been the Lady Chapel, but there is
no evidence to support this idea or indeed that there
was a Lady Chapel at Jarrow.
2. Pickles claims that a line of junction between the
old church and nave can be seen on both the north and
south walls in Grimms and Groses drawings. The line
at that point on Grimm (Fig 12.7) is a downcomer and
in Grose and Buck the line is not evident (Pickles
1999, 89).
3. Although H M Taylor considered that the north
window on the second stage could be pre-Conquest,
the billet-work round the head must be Norman, and
is closely similar to the decoration of the imposts on
the Norman door into the South Range; but it could
have been a replacement.
401
JARROWBI.QXD
19-01-2007
12:42
Pagina 402
Bibliography
Unpublished manuscripts
Aldsworth, F, Haggarty, G, Jennings, S and Whitehouse, D,

2002 Medieval glassmaking at Tyre, Lebanon, J Glass
Stud 44, 4966
Alexander, J J G, 1978 Insular Manuscripts, 6th to the 9th
Century, A survey of manuscripts illuminated in the
British Isles, 1. London
Alexander, M L, 1987 The Viking grave from Cambois,
Bedlington, Northumberland, Medieval Archaeol 31, 1015
Allan, J P, 1984 Medieval and Post-medieval Finds from Exeter,
19711980, Exeter Archaeol Rep, 3. Exeter
Allason-Jones, L and Miket, R, 1984 The Catalogue of Small
Finds from South Shields Roman Fort, Soc Antiq Newcastle
upon Tyne Monogr Ser, 2. Newcastle
Allison, E, 1988 Bird bones, in Daniels 1988, 199201
Allott, S, 1974 Alcuin of York (c AD 732 to 804) His Life and
Letters. York
Ambrosiani, K, 1981 Viking Age Combs, Comb Making and
Comb Makers in the light of finds from Birka and Ribe,
Stockholm Studies in Archaeology 2. Stockholm
Anderson, A O and Anderson, M O (eds), 1991 Adomnns
Life of Columba, 2 edn. Oxford
Anderson, S M, 1989 A comparative study of the human
skeletal material from late first and early second millennium sites in the north-east of England. Unpublished M
Phil thesis, Univ Durham
, 1994 The Human Remains from Guisborough Priory,
Cleveland, 19856. Ancient Monuments Laboratory
Report 47/94
, unpublished a The Human Skeletal Remains from
Blackfriars, Newcastle, Catalogue and report, Newcastle
upon Tyne SMR
, unpublished b The Human Skeletal Remains from
Blackgate, Newcastle, 19778, Archive report, Newcastle
upon Tyne SMR
, unpublished c The Human Skeletal Remains from
Guisbororough Priory, Catalogue and report, Tees
Archaeology SMR
Anderson, S M and Birkett, D A, 1988 The Human Remains
from Jarrow Monastic Site, Tyne and Wear, 19631978,
Ancient Monuments Laboratory Report, 15/88
Anderson, S M and Marlow, M, 1995 The human remains,
in D H Heslop (ed) Excavations within the church at the
Augustinian priory of Guisborough, Cleveland, 19856,
Yorkshire Archaeol J 67, 1046
Andrews, D D and Milne, G (eds), 1979 Wharram: a study
of settlement on the Yorkshire Wolds: 1, Domestic settlement: 1,
areas 10 and 6, Soc Medieval Archaeol Monogr Ser, 8,
London
Andrews, P (ed), 1988 Southampton Finds, Volume I: The
Coins and Pottery from Hamwic, Southampton. London
(=Southampton Archaeological Monogr 4)
, 1995 Excavations at Redcastle Furze, Thetford, 19889, E
Anglian Archaeol 72, Gressenhall
Anon, 18628a St Peters, Monkwearmouth, Trans Architect
Archaeol Soc Durham Northumberland 1, 1414
, 18628b Church reports, III: St Peters,
Monkwearmouth, Trans Architect Archaeol Soc Durham
Northumberland 1, appendix, 18
, 1890 Proceedings at meetings of the Royal Archaeological
Institute, February 6th, 1890, Archaeol J 47, 1758
, 19234 Miscellanea: Roman coin, Proc Soc Antiq
Newcastle 4 ser, 1, 286
Durham, Cathedral Library, Ms Longstaffe Octavo 16

Durham, Cathedral Library, Ms Longstaffe Quarto, 41
Edinburgh, University Library, Special Collections, MS
Gen. 1923/85 [letter from the Rev J T Brown, vicar, to
Professor G Baldwin Brown, 16 May 1923, describing the
excavations carried out at Monkwearmouth church by
himself and Mr Sewell before the war]
London, British Library, Ms K Top.12.47b [BL 1769 plan
and elevation of Jarrow church]
London, Society of Antiquaries, Early Medieval Prints and
Drawings, p 61a (measured watercolour drawings of lost
Witham hanging bowl)
Unpublished typescripts
Briggs, H D, 1982 Notes on a dowsing survey at St Pauls
church, Jarrow
Curry, I, 1973 Structural investigation and report on the
possibility of hanging a peal of six bells in the ancient
tower of the church of St Paul, Jarrow, Co Durham
Insall, D W, 1961 Report on parish church of St Peter,
Monkwearmouth, Sunderland, prepared for the Society
for the Protection of Ancient Buildings and the Central
Council for the Care of Churches
Popham Miles, C, 186878 Extracts from statements made
by the incumbent of the time, the late Canon Charles
Popham Miles, in annual parochial reports, 18681878,
concerning the restoration of St Peters, Monkwearmouth
Published or printed works

berg, N F, 1947 The Occident and the Orient in the Art of the
Seventh Century: 3, The Merovingian Empire. Stockholm
Achter, I, 1956 Zur Rekonstruktion der karolingischen
Klosterkirche, Centula Zeitschrift fr Kunstgeschichte 19,
13354
Adcock, G, 1974 A study of the types of interlace on
Northumbrian sculpture. Unpublished MPhil thesis,
Univ Durham
Addis, E L, 1976 The pottery, in Austin 1976, 10024
, 1979 The pottery, in Carver 1979, 3947
Addleshaw, G W O, 1963 The Pastoral Organisation of the
Modern Diocese of Durham and Newcastle in the Time of
Bede, Jarrow Lecture, Jarrow (reprinted in Lapidge 1994,
87102)
Addyman, P V and Hill, D H, 1969 Saxon Southampton: a
review of the evidence. Part II: industry, trade and everyday life, Proc Hampshire Fld Club Archaeol Soc 26, 6196
Addyman, P V and Leigh, D, 1973 The Anglo-Saxon village
at Chalton, Hampshire: second interim report, Medieval
Archaeol 17, 125
Addyman, P V and Morris, R (eds), 1976 The Archaeological
Study of Churches, CBA Res Rep 13, London
Addyman, P V, Leigh, D and Hughes, M J, 1972 AngloSaxon houses at Chalton, Hampshire, Medieval Archaeol
16, 1331
Aitken, M J, 1985 Thermoluminescence Dating. London
, 1998 An Introduction to Optical Dating. Oxford
Alcock, L, 1963 Dinas Powys. An Iron Age, Dark Age and early
medieval settlement in Glamorgan, Cardiff
402
JARROWBI.QXD
19-01-2007
12:42
Pagina 403
BIBLIOGRAPHY
, 192930 Exhibits: Roman lamp from Jarrow, Proc Soc

Antiq Newcastle 4 ser, 4, 47
Arbman, H, 1937 Schweden und das Karolingische Reich,
Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akadamiens
Handlingar, 43, Stockholm
, 1940 Birka: 1, Die Grber (tafeln), Uppsala
, 1943 Birka: 1, Die Grber (text), Uppsala
Archibald, M and Cook, B, 2000 English Medieval Coin
Hoards 1, London
Archibald, M and Metcalf, D M, 2000 English Medieval Coin
Hoards. London
Armstrong, E C R, 19223 Irish bronze pins of the
Christian period, Archaeologia 72, 7186
Armstrong, P and Ayers, B, 1987 Excavations in High Street
and Blackfriargate, E Riding Archaeol 8, Hull
Armstrong, P, Tomlinson, D and Evans, D H, 1991
Excavations at Lurk Lane, Beverley, 197982, Sheffield
Excav Rep 1. Sheffield
Arnold, C J, 1982 The Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries of the Isle of
Wight, London
, 1988 An Archaeology of the Early Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms.
London
Arnold, T (ed), 1882 Symeonis monachi opera omnia: 1,
Historia ecclesiae Dunhelmensis, Rolls Ser, 75(1). London
Arnold, T (ed), 1885 Symeonis Monachi Opera Omnia: 2,
Historia regum, Rolls Ser, 75(2), London
Astle, T, Ayscough, S and Caley, J (eds), 1802 Taxatio
Ecclesiastica Angliae et Walliae auctoritate P Nicholai IV circa
AD 1291, Records Commission, London
Audouy, M, 1984 Excavations at the church of All Saints,
Brixworth, Northamptonshire (19812), J Brit Archaeol
Ass 137, 144
Austin, D, 1976 Fieldwork and excavation at Hart, Co
Durham, 19651975, Archaeol Aeliana 5 ser 4, 69132
(ed), 1982 Boldon Book: Northumberland and Durham.
Chichester
, 1989 The Deserted Medieval Village of Thrislington, Co
Durham: Excavations 197374, Soc Medieval Archaeol
Monogr 12, London
Ayers, B, 1988 Excavations at St Martin-at-Palace Plain,
Norwich, 1981, E Anglian Archaeol 37. Gressenhall
Backhouse, J, 1981 The Lindisfarne Gospels. Oxford
Bailey, G N, 1978 Shell middens as indicators of postglacial
economies: a territorial perspective, in P Mellars (ed) The
Early Postglacial Settlement of Northern Europe. An
Ecological Perspective. London, 3763
Bailey, R N, 1979 The Durham Cassiodorus, Jarrow Lecture,
Jarrow (reprinted in Lapidge 1994, 46390)
, 1991 St Wilfrid, Ripon and Hexham, in Karkov and
Farrell 1991, 325
, 1992 Sutton Hoo and seventh-century art, in R Farrell and
C Neuman de Vegvar (eds) Sutton Hoo: Fifty Years After,
American Early Medieval Stud 2, 3141. Oxford, Ohio
, 1996a Englands Earliest Sculptors. Toronto
, 1996b What mean these stones? Some aspects of preNorman sculpture in Cheshire and Lancashire, Bull John
Rylands Lib Univ Manchester 78(1), 2146
, 2001 Bedes bones, in P Binski and W Noel (eds) New
Offerings, Ancient Treasures: Studies in Medieval Art for
George Henderson. Stroud, 16586
Bailey, R N and Cramp, R, 1988 Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone
Sculpture: 2, Cumberland, Westmorland and LancashireNorth-of-the-Sands. Oxford
Bailey, R N, Cambridge, E and Briggs, H D, 1988 Dowsing
and Church Archaeology, Wimborne
403
Bailiff, I K, 1982a Beta TLD apparatus for small samples,

PACT 6, 726
, 1982b TL dating of medieval pottery from north-east
England using the pre-dose technique, PACT 7, 7580
, 1986 Ancient TL date list 1, Ancient TL 4(3), 7pp
, 1991 The pre-dose technique, in Y Gksu, M
Oberhofer and D Regulla (eds) Scientific Dating Methods
Euro Courses, Advanced Scientific Techniques 1,
15573. Dordrecht, Boston and London
Bailiff, I K and Watson, I A, 1985 A TL dating service for
archaeologists,
Nuclear
Tracks
and
Radiation
Measurements 10(46), 81721
Baker, J R and Brothwell, D, 1980 Animal Diseases in
Archaeology, London
Ball, V, and Stokes, M, 1893 On a block of red glass said to have
been found at Tara Hill, Trans Roy Irish Acad 30, 27793
Bannister, T C, 1968 The Constantinian basilica of Saint
Peter, J Soc Architect Hist 27, 323
Barber, B and Bowsher, D, 2000 The Eastern Cemetery of
Roman London: Excavations 19831990, MoLAS Monogr
4. London
Barber, J, 1981 Excavations on Iona, 1979, Proc Soc Antiq
Scot 111, 282380
Bardel, A, 1991 Labbaye Saint-Gwnol de Landvennec,
Archologie Mdivale 21, 51101
Barker, N, 2003 The application of geophysical prospection
techniques at St Peters Church, Monkwearmouth.
Unpublished MA dissertation, Dept Archaeol, Univ
Durham
Barker, P A, Cubberley, A L, Crowfoot, E and Radford, C A
R, 1974 Two burials under the refectory of Worcester
Cathedral, Medieval Archaeol 18, 14651
Barker, P A, White, R, Pretty, K, Bird, H and Corbishley, M,
1997 The Baths Basilica, Wroxeter: Excavations 196690,
English Heritage Archaeol Rep 8, London
Barnes, I L, Brill, R H, Deal, E C and Piercy, G V, 1986
Lead isotope studies of some of the finds from the Sere
Liman shipwreck, in J S Olin and M J Blackman (eds)
Proc 24th International Symposium on Archaeometry.
Washington, 112
Barton, K J, 1969 Medieval unglazed earthenwares and
near-stonewares from Beauvais, Archaeol J 126, 16070
Bass, G F, 1984 The nature of the Sere Limani glass, J
Glass Stud 26, 649
, 1987 Oldest known shipwreck reveals Bronze Age splendors, National Geographic 172(6), 693733
Bass, W M, 1971 Human Osteology, a Laboratory and Field
Manual of the Human Skeleton, Missouri Archaeol Soc,
special publication. Columbia
Battiscombe, C F (ed), 1956 The Relics of Saint Cuthbert.
Oxford
Baumgartner, E and Krueger, I, 1988 Phoenix aus Sand und
Asche, Glas des Mittelalters, Bonn and Basel
Bayley, J, 1979 Appendix 10: the glass working residues, in
C M Heighway, A P Garrod and A G Vince (eds),
Excavations at 1 Westgate Street, Gloucester, 1975,
Medieval Archaeol 23, 2014
, 1982 Non-ferrous metal and glass working in AngloScandinavian England: an interim statement, PACT 7(2),
48796
, 1984 Examination of Some Technological Finds from
Jarrow, Ancient Monuments Laboratory Report 4317
, 1987 Viking glassworking: the evidence from York, in
Annales du 10e Congrs de lAssociation Internationale pour
lHistoire du Verre (MadridSegovie 1985), 24554.
Amsterdam
JARROWBI.QXD
404
19-01-2007
12:42
Pagina 404
, 1990 Glass rings and the manufacture of high lead glass,

in Biddle 1990, I, 2689
, 1991 La verrerie en Angleterre pendant lpoque anglosaxonne, in Foy and Sennequier 1991, 314
, 1993 Crucibles, in Rogers 1993, 12325
, 2000a Glass working in early medieval England, in Price
2000, 13742
, 2000b Saxon glass working at Glastonbury, in Price
2000, 16188
Bayley, J and Doonan, R, 2000 Glass manufacturing evidence, in Mainman and Rogers 2000, 251928
Bal, J C, 1983 Catalogue des objets de tabletterie du muse de la
civilisation Gallo-Romaine de Lyon. Lyon
Bal, J C and Feugre, M, 1983 Les pyxides gallo-romaines
en os de Gaule mridionale, Documents dArchologie
Mridionale 6, 11526
Beckmann, B, 1974 The main types of the first four production periods of Siegburg pottery, in V I Evison, H
Hodges and J G Hurst (eds) Medieval Pottery from
Excavations. London, 183220
Beckwith, J, 1972 Ivory Carvings in Early Medieval England,
London
Behn, F, 1949 Kloster Lorsch. Mainz
Bell, R C, 1971 Tyneside Pottery. London
Bell, R D, Beresford, M W et al, 1987 Wharram: a Study of
Settlement on the Yorkshire Wolds (ed J G Hurst): 3,
Wharram Percy: the Church of St Martin, Soc Medieval
Archaeol Monogr Ser 11. London
Bellamy, C V, 19624 (1965) Pontefract Priory Excavations
19571961, Publ Thoresby Soc 49, no. 110, Leeds
Bellamy, C V and Le Patourel, H E J, 1970 Four medieval
pottery kilns on Woodhouse Farm, Winksley, near Ripon,
West Riding of Yorkshire, Medieval Archaeol 14, 10425
Bender Jrgensen, L, 1992 North European Textiles until AD
1000. Aarhus
Beresford, G, 1974 The medieval manor of Penhallam,
Jacobstow, Cornwall, Medieval Archaeol 18, 90145
, 1987 Goltho, the Development of an Early Medieval Manor
c 8501150, HBMC Archaeol Rep 4. London
Berliere, Dom U, 1929 Le nombre des moines dans les
anciens monastres, 1, Revue Benedictine 41, 23161
, 1930 Le nombre des moines dans les anciens
monastres, 2, Revue Benedictine 42, 1942
Besborodov, M A, 1957 A chemical and technological study
of ancient Russian glasses and refractories, J Soc Glass
Technol 41, 168T184T
, 1975 Chemie und Technologie der antiken und mittelalterlichen Glser, Mainz
Besborodov, M A and Abdurazakov, A A, 1964 Newly
excavated glassworks in the USSR, 3rd14th centuries
AD, J Glass Stud 6, 649
Bettess, F, 1991 The Anglo-Saxon foot: a computerized
assessment, Medieval Archaeol 35, 4450
Biddle, M, 19612 The deserted medieval village of
Seacourt, Berkshire, Oxoniensia 267, 70201
, 1970 Excavations at Winchester 1969. Eighth interim
report, Antiq J 50, 277326
, 1972 Excavations at Winchester 1970. Ninth interim
report, Antiq J 52, 93131
, 1975 Excavations at Winchester 1971. Tenth and final
interim report: parts 1 and 2, Antiq J 55, 96126, 295337
(ed), 1990 Object and Economy in Medieval Winchester, 2
vols, Winchester Studies, 7, Artefacts from Medieval
Winchester, pt 2. Oxford
Biddle, M and Hinton, D A, 1990 Book-clasps and pageholder, in Biddle 1990, II, 7558
Biddle, M and Hunter, J, 1990 Early medieval window

glass, in Biddle 1990, I, 35085
Biddle, M, Lambrick, H T and Myres, J N L, 1968 The
early history of Abingdon, Berkshire, and its abbey,
Bidwell, P T, 1996 The external decoration of Roman buildings in Britain, in P Johnson (ed), Architecture in Roman
Britain CBA Res Rep 94. York, 1929
Bidwell, P T and Holbrook, N, 1989 Hadrians Wall Bridges,
English Heritage Archaeol Rep 9, London
Bidwell, P T and Speak, S, 1994 Excavations at South Shields
Roman Fort, 1, Soc Antiq Newcastle upon Tyne Monogr
Ser 4, Newcastle
Biek, L and Bayley, J, 1979 Glass and other vitreous materials, World Archaeol 11(1), 125
Billings, R W, 1846 Illustrations of the Architectural Antiquities
of the County of Durham: Ecclesiastical, Castellated, and
Domestic. Durham
Bimson, M, 1983 Coloured glass and millefiori in the Sutton
Hoo grave deposit, in Bruce-Mitford 1983, 92444
Birch, W de G (ed), 188599 Cartularium Saxonicum: a
Collection of Charters Relating to Anglo-Saxon History, 3
vols, London
(ed), 1892 Liber Vitae: Register and Martyrology of New
Minster and Hyde Abbey, Winchester, Hampshire Rec Soc
5. London and Winchester
Bird, J, 1986 Samian wares, in I Miller, J Schofield and M
Rhodes (eds) The Roman Quay at St Magnus House,
London London Middlesex Archaeol Soc Spec Pap 8.
London, 13985
Birley, E, 1929 Report on recent excavations in London,
Antiq J 9, 21928
, 1961 Research on Hadrians Wall, Kendal
Blair, J, 1991 The early churches at Lindisfarne, Archaeol
Aeliana 5 ser 19, 4753
, 1992 Anglo-Saxon minsters: a topographical review, in
Blair and Sharpe 1992, 22666
Blair, J, and Sharpe, R (eds), 1992 Pastoral Care Before the
Parish. Leicester, London and New York
Blockley, K, Blockley, M, Blockley, P, Frere, S S and Stow,
S, 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park and
Surrounding Areas, Part II: The Finds, The Archaeology of
Canterbury 5, Canterbury
Bloxam, M H, 1877 On an ancient inscribed sepulchral
slab, found at Monkwearmouth in the county of
Durham, Archaeol J 34, 298300
Boddington, A, 1987 Raunds, Northamptonshire: analysis
of a country churchyard, World Archaeol 18(3), 41125
, 1996 Raunds Furnells: the Anglo-Saxon Church and
Churchyard, English Heritage Archaeol Rep 7, London
Boeles, P C J A, 1951 Friesland tot de elfde eeuw, 2 edn. The
Hague
Bonner, G (ed), 1976 Famulus Christi. Essays in
Commemoration of the Thirteenth Centenary of the Birth of
the Venerable Bede. London
Bonner, G, Rollason, D and Stancliffe, C (eds), 1989 St
Cuthbert, his Cult and his Community to AD 1200.
Woodbridge
Booth, J, 1933 The Story of the Ancient Church of St Pauls,
Jarrow-on-Tyne. London
, 1984 Sceattas in Northumbria, in Hill and Metcalf
1984, 71111
, 1987 Coinage and Northumbrian history, c 790c 810,
in Metcalf 1987, 5790
, 1997 Sylloge of Coins of the British Isles: 48, Northern
Museums. London
JARROWBI.QXD
19-01-2007
12:42
Pagina 405
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bourdillon, J and Coy, J, 1980 The animal bones, in

Holdsworth 1980, 79121
Bourke, C (ed), 1997 Studies in the Cult of Saint Columba.
Dublin
Bovini, G, 1965 Gli antichi vetri da finestra della Chiesa di
S Vitale, Felix Ravenna 3 ser, 91, 98108
Bown, L S, 1985 The pottery, in OSullivan 1985, 4780
, 1988a The Dog Bank kiln. The pottery: Dog Bank kiln
ware, in OBrien et al 1988, 338
, 1988b The Queen Street pottery, in OBrien et al 1988,
44168
, 1989 The pottery, in C OBrien, L S Bown, S Dixon,
L Donel, L J Gidney, J P Huntley, R Nicholson and
P Walton (eds) Excavations at Newcastle quayside: the
Crown Court site Archaeol Aeliana 5 ser 17, 15267
, forthcoming The pottery, in Excavations at Prudhoe
Castle (L Keen, ed)
Boyle, J R, 1885a On the monastery and church of St Paul,
Jarrow, Archaeol Aeliana 2 ser 10, 195216
, 1885b On the windows in the south wall of the chancel
of St Pauls church, Jarrow, Archaeol Aeliana 2 ser 10,
21719
, 1886 The monastery and church of St Peter,
Monkwearmouth, Archaeol Aeliana 2 ser 11, 3351
, 1892 The County of Durham: its Castles, Churches, and
Manor-Houses. London
Braat, W C, 1971 Early medieval glazed pottery in Holland,
Medieval Archeol 15, 11214
Bracker, J (ed), 1989 Die Hanse. Wirklichkeit und Mythos.
Hamburg
Brade, C, 1975 Die mittelalterlichen Kernspaltenflten Mittelund Nordeuropas. Ein Beitrag zur berlieferung prhistorischer und zur Typologie mittelalterlicher Kernspaltflten.
Neumnster
, 1978 Kncherne Kernspaltflten aus Haithabu, in Das
archologische Fundmaterial 3 der Ausgrabung Haithabu (ed
K Schietzel), Berichte ber die Ausgrabungen in
Haithabu 12, 2435. Neumnster
Bramwell, D, 1980 Bird bones, in Wade-Martins 1980,
40912
, 1986 Bird bones, in J Bateman and M Redknap (eds)
Coventry: Excavations on the Town Wall 19789 Coventry
Museums Monogr 2, 120. Coventry
Brand, J, 1789 The History and Antiquities of the Town and
County of the Town of Newcastle upon Tyne 2. London
Braun, J, 1948 Bischofstuhl, in O Schmitt (ed) Reallexicon
zur deutschen Kunstgeschichte, 2, 81011
Braunfels, W (ed), 1965a Karl der Grosse, Werk und Wirkung
(Zehnte Austellung unter den Auspizien des Europarates).
Aachen
(ed), 1965b Charlemagne, oeuvre, rayonnement et survivance (Dixime exposition sous les auspices du conseil de
lEurope). Aix-la-Chapelle
, 1972 Monasteries of Western Europe: the Architecture of the
Orders. London
Braunfels, W and Schnitzler, H (eds), 1965 Karl der Grosse,
Lebenswerk und Nachleben: 3, Karolingische Kunst.
Dusseldorf
Brears, P C D, 1971 English Country Pottery. Newton
Abbot
Brenk, B, 2002 Zum Problem der Vierflgelanlage
(Claustrum) in frhchristlichen und frhmittelalterlichen
Klstern, in P Ochsenbein and K Schmuki (eds) Studien
zum St Galler Klosterplan II. St Gall, 185215
, 1962 An inlaid glass plate in Athens, part II: laboratory
examination, J Glass Stud 4, 3747
405
, 1965a The chemistry of the Lycurgus Cup, in Comptes

Rendus: VIIe Congrs International du Verre, Bruxelles,
Section B, paper no. 223, 223.1223.13. Brussels
, 1965b Interlaboratory comparison experiments on the
analysis of ancient glass, in Comptes Rendus: VIIe Congrs
International du Verre, Bruxelles, Section B, paper no. 226,
226.1226.4. Brussels
, 1968 The scientific investigation of ancient glasses, in
Proc 8th International Congress on Glass, London. Sheffield,
4768
, 1969 Lead isotopes in ancient glass, in Proc 4th
International Congress on Glass, RavennaVenice. Lige,
25561
, 1970a Lead and oxygen isotopes in ancient objects, in
T E Allibone (ed) The Impact of the Natural Sciences on
Archaeology. London, 14364
, 1970b The chemical interpretation of the texts, in A L
Oppenheim, R H Brill, D Barag and A von Saldern (eds)
Glass and glass making in ancient Mesopotamia. Corning,
10528
, 1970c Chemical studies of Islamic luster glass, in R
Berger (ed) Scientific Methods in Medieval Archaeology
UCLA Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies,
Contributions 4, 35177. Los Angeles
, 1970d Scientific studies of stained glass a progress
report, J Glass Stud 12, 18592
, 1976 Scientific studies of the panel materials, in L
Ibrahim, R Scranton and R H Brill (eds) Kenchreai,
Eastern Port of Corinth: 2, The Panels of opus sectile in Glass.
Leiden, 22555
, 1988 Scientific investigations of the Jalame glass and
related finds, in Weinberg 1988, 25794
, 1992 Chemical analyses of some glasses from
Frattesina, J Glass Stud 34, 1122
, 1997 Composicin qumica de algunos vidrios de la
Catedral de Len, in Conservacin de vidrieras histricas.
Anlisis y diagnstico de su deterioro. Restauracin. Los
Angeles, 11431
, 1999a Chemical Analyses of Early Glasses: 1, Catalogue of
Samples. Corning
, 1999b Chemical Analyses of Early Glasses: 2, Tables of
Analyses. Corning
, 2001 Some thoughts on the chemistry and technology of
Islamic glass, in S Carboni and D Whitehouse (eds) Glass
of the Sultans. New York, 2545
, 2002 Chemical analyses of the Zeyrek Camii and Kariye
Camii glasses, presented at the workshop on Byzantine
glass, Dumbarton Oaks, 16 November 2002
, forthcoming a Some stained glass fragments excavated at
St-Jean-des-Vignes: part II, chemical analyses, J Glass
Stud forthcoming (see especially Appendix)
, forthcoming b Chemical analysis of the Sere Limani
glasses, in G F Bass (ed) forthcoming, Final report on the
Sere Limani glass
Brill, R H and Barnes, I L, 1981 The flight into Egypt, from
the infancy of Christ window(?): some chemical notes, in
S M Crosby et al (ed) The Royal Abbey of Saint-Denis in the
Time of Abbot Suger, 112251. New York, 81
Brill, R H and Cahill, N H, 1988 A red opaque glass from
Sardis and some thoughts on red opaques in general, J
Glass Stud 30, 1627
Brill, R H and Schreurs, J W H, 1984 Iron and sulfur
related colors in ancient glasses, Archaeometry 26(2),
199209
Brill, R H and Wampler, J M, 1967 Isotope studies of
ancient lead, American J Archaeol 71, 6377
JARROWBI.QXD
406
19-01-2007
12:42
Pagina 406
Brill, R H and Weintraub, S, 1992 Chemical analyses of

some stained glass windows in Lon Cathedral, in
Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress on Glass,
Madrid 7, 1438
Brill, R H and Wosinski, J F, 1965 A huge slab of glass in the
ancient necropolis of Beth Shearim, in Comptes Rendus;
VIIe Congres International du Verre, Bruxelles, 28 juin3 juillet 1965, Section B, Paper no. 219, 223.1223.13
Brill, R H, Fenn, P M and Lange, D E, 1995 Chemical
analyses of some Asian glasses, in Proceedings of the XVIth
International Congress on Glass, Beijing 6, 4638. Beijing
Brill, R H, Shirahata, H, Lilyquist, C and Vocke, R D, 1993
Lead-isotope analyses of some objects from Egypt and the
Near East, in C Lilyquist and R H Brill (eds) Studies in
Early Egyptian Glass. New York, 5975
Briscoe, T, 1981 Anglo-Saxon pot stamps, in D Brown, J
Campbell, and S C Hawkes (eds) Anglo-Saxon Studies in
Archaeology and History 2 , BAR Brit Ser, 92, 136. Oxford
, 1983 A classification of Anglo-Saxon pot stamp motifs
and a proposed terminology, Studien zur Sachsenforschung
4, 5772
Brodribb, A C C, Hands, A R and Walker, D R, 1972
Excavations at Shakenoak Farm, near Wilcote, Oxfordshire.
Part III: site F, Oxford
Brodribb, G, 1987 Roman Brick and Tile, Gloucester
Brooks, C M 1987 Medieval and Later Pottery from Aldwark
and Other Sites, The Archaeology of York, AY 16(3).
London
Brothwell, D, 1981 Digging up Bones: the Excavation,
Treatment and Study of Human Skeletal Remains. 3 edn.
London and Oxford
Brown, D, 1990 Parchment prickers, in Biddle 1990, II,
7335
Brown, D and Lawson, G, 1990 Musical instruments, in
Biddle 1990, II, 71023
Brown, G B, 1895 Notes on some pre-Conquest architecture in England, Builder LXIX 21517, 2502
, 1925 The Arts in Early England: 2, Anglo-Saxon
Architecture. 2 edn. London
Brown, G H, 1987 Bede the Venerable. Boston
, 1996 Bede the Educator, Jarrow Lecture. Jarrow
Browne, G F, 18848 On various inscriptions and supposed
inscriptions, Cambridge Antiq Soc Rep Comm 6, 116
, 1886a Notes on the Remains of the Original Church of St
Peters at Monkwearmouth, Cambridge
, 1886b On inscriptions at Jarrow and Monkwearmouth,
Archaeol Aeliana 2 ser 11, 2732
Bruce, J C, 1851 The Roman Wall, London and Newcastle
, 1863 The Wallet-book of the Roman Wall, Newcastle upon
Tyne
, 1867 The Roman Wall: a Description of the Mural Barrier of
the North of England. 3rd edn. London
, 1875 Lapidarium Septentrionale, London
Bruce-Mitford, R L S, 1960 Part IV. Decoration and miniatures, in Kendrick et al 1960, 107260
, 1967a The Art of the Codex Amiatinus. Jarrow Lecture,
Jarrow
, 1967b The reception by the Anglo-Saxons of
Mediterranean art, following their conversion from
Ireland and Rome, in La conversione al Cristianesimo
nellEuropa dellAlto Medioevo, Settimane di Studio del
Centro Italiano di studi sullalto medioevo 14, 797825,
Spoleto
, 1969 (reprint) The Art of the Codex Amiatinus, Jarrow
Lecture, Jarrow, J Brit Archaeol Ass 3 ser, 32 , 125 (also
reprinted in Lapidge 1994, 185234)
, 1978 The Sutton Hoo Ship-burial: 2, Arms, Armour and

Regalia. London
(ed A C Evans), 1983 The Sutton Hoo Ship-burial: 3, Late
Roman and Byzantine Silver, Hanging-bowls, Drinking
Vessels, Cauldrons and Other Containers, Textiles, the Lyre,
Pottery Bottle and Other Items. 2 vols, London
Buck, S and N, 1774 Bucks Antiquities, or Venerable Remains
of above Four Hundred Castles, Monasteries, Palaces, etc. 3
vols, London
Bullough, D, 1983 Burial, community and belief in the early
medieval west, in P Wormald (ed) Ideal and Reality in
Frankish and Anglo-Saxon Society. Oxford, 77201
Butler, Dom E C, 1927 Benedictine Monachism: Studies in
Benedictine Life and Rule. 2 edn, London and New York
Butler, H C, 1929 Early Churches in Syria, 4th7th Centuries.
Princeton
Butler, L A S and Morris, R (eds), 1986 The Anglo-Saxon
Church. Papers on History, Architecture, and Archaeology in
Honour of Dr H M Taylor, CBA Res Rep 60. London
Caldwell, D H, 1995 Lead objects, in Lewis and Ewart
1995, 8990
Callmer, J, and Henderson, J, 1991 Glassworking at hus,
S Sweden (eighth century AD), Laborativ Arkeologi 5,
14354. Stockholm
Cambridge, E, 1977 The re-founded monastery of Jarrow,
Co Durham, and its eleventh-century remains.
Unpublished MA dissertation, Dept Archaeol, Univ
Durham
, 1983 The Anglo-Saxon cathedral at Durham, in H D
Briggs, E Cambridge and R N Bailey, A new approach to
church archaeology: dowsing, excavation and documentary work at Woodhorn, Ponteland, and the pre-Norman
cathedral at Durham, Archaeol Aeliana 5 ser 11, 91100
, 1984 The early church in County Durham: a reassessment, J Brit Archaeol Ass 137, 6585
, 1988 Lindisfarne Priory and Holy Island, London
, 1989 Why did the community of St Cuthbert settle at
Chester-le-Street?, in Bonner et al 1989, 36786
, 1992 The masons and building works of Durham Priory,
13391539. Unpublished PhD thesis, Univ Durham
, 1994 Early Romanesque architecture in north-east
England: a style and its patrons, in Rollason et al 1994,
14160
Cambridge, E and Williams, A J T, 1995 Hexham Abbey: a
review of recent work and its implications, Archaeol
Camden, W, 1607 Britannia, siue florentissimorum regnorum
Angliae, Scotiae, Hiberniae, et insularum adiacentium ex intima antiquitate chorographica descriptio..., London
Campbell, A (ed), 1967 Aethelwulf, de abbatibus, Oxford
Campbell, E, 1989 A blue glass squat jar from Dinas Powys,
south Wales, Bull Board Celtic Stud 36, 23945
, 1997 The Dark Age ceramics, in Hill 1997, 31522
Campbell, J, 1971 The first century of Christianity in
England, Ampleforth J 76, 1229
(ed), 1982 The Anglo-Saxons. Oxford
Campey, L H, 1987 Medieval settlement patterns in northern England; with particular reference to the estates of the
Priory of Durham. Unpublished PhD thesis, Univ Leeds
Caple, C, 1991 The detection and definition of an industry:
the English medieval and post-medieval pin industry,
Archaeol J 148, 24155
Carr, R D, 1985 Brandon, Staunch Meadow, 19791984,
in R J Silvester (ed) Fieldwork and excavation in the Fens
of eastern England, 198485, Fenland Research 2, 3541
JARROWBI.QXD
19-01-2007
12:42
Pagina 407
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Carr, R D, Tester, A and Murphy, P, 1988 The Middle

Saxon settlement at Staunch Meadow, Brandon,
Antiquity 62, 3717
Carr, R M, 1990 Post-Dissolution Jarrow: an assessment of the
documentary, topographic and illustrative evidence.
Unpublished BA dissertation, Dept Archaeol, Univ Durham
Carver, M O H, 1974 Excavations in New Elvet, Durham
City, 19611973, Archaeol Aeliana 5 ser 2, 91148
, 1979 Three Saxo-Norman tenements in Durham City,
(ed), 2003 The Cross goes North: Processes of Conversion in
Northern Europe, AD 3001300. Woodbridge
Casey, P J, 1979 The coins from South Shields, in J N Dore
and J P Gillam (eds) The Roman fort at South Shields.
Excavations 18751975. Soc Antiq Newcastle upon Tyne
Monogr Ser 1, 7297, Newcastle
Cassidy, B (ed), 1992 The Ruthwell Cross, Princeton
Catalo, J, Foy, D and Llech, L, 1999 Mobilier de la fin de
lAntiquit et du haut Moyen ge, Toulouse sur le site
du Donjon du Capitole: cramiquesverrescreusets de
verrier, Archologie Mdivale 28, 131
Cather, S, Park, D and Williamson P (eds), 1990 Early
Medieval Wall Painting and Painted Sculpture in England,
BAR Brit Ser 216. Oxford
Cecchelli, C, 1930 Vetri di finestra del San Vitale, Felix
Ravenna, n ser 35(2), 1420
Chapelot, J, 1971 Un atelier cramique dpoque carolingienne: Saran Loiret, Revue Archologique du Centre 3738,
310
Charleston, R J, 1963 Glass cakes as raw material and
articles of commerce, J Glass Stud 5, 5468
, 1975 The glass, in Platt and Coleman-Smith 1975,
20426
, 1983 The glass, in Jarvis 1983, 73
, 1984a English Glass and the Glass used in England, circa
4001940. London
, 1984b The glass, in Allan 1984, 25878
, 1985 Vessel glass, in Hare 1985, 13946
, 1990 Vessel glass of the late medieval to modern periods, in Biddle 1990, II, 9437
Cherry, B, 1976 Ecclesiastical architecture, in Wilson 1976,
151200
Cherry, J, 1980 Two equestrian seal dies, Brit Mus Occas
Pap 10, 313
Cherry, J, 1981 Medieval rings, in A Ward et al (ed) The
Ring from Antiquity to the Twentieth Century. Fribourg, 70
, 1992 The jet crucifix, Carlisle Cathedral Broadsheet,
August 1992
, forthcoming The jet crucifix, in G Keevill (ed )
Excavations at Carlisle Cathedral in 1985 and 1988
Clack, P A G, 1980 An excavation at Queens Court, 2 North
Bailey, Durham City, Trans Archit Archaeol Soc Durham
Northumberland, n ser, 5, 5670
Clack, P A G, and Gosling, P F, 1976 Archaeology in the
North. Durham
Clanchy, M T, 1993 From Memory to Written Record: England
10661307, 2 edn. Oxford
Clapham, A W, 1930 English Romanesque Architecture Before
the Conquest. Oxford
, 1950 Two carved stones at Wearmouth, Archaeol
Clark, A, Tarling, D H and Noel, M, 1988 Developments in
archaeomagnetic dating in Britain, J Archaeol Sci 15,
64567
Clark, J (ed), 1995 The Medieval Horse and its Equipment c
1150c 1450, Medieval Finds Excav London 5. London
407
Clark, J G D, Higgs, E S and Longworth, I H, 1960

Excavations at the Neolithic site at Hurst Fen,
Mildenhall, Suffolk (1954, 1957 and 1958), Proc Prehist
Soc 26, 20245
Clarke, G, 1979 The Roman Cemetery at Lankhills,
Winchester Studies, 3(2). Oxford
Clarke, H and Carter, A, 1977 Excavations in Kings Lynn
19631970, Soc Medieval Archaeol Monogr Ser 7, London
Clarke, H B and Simms, A (eds), 1985 The Comparative
History of Urban Origins in non-Roman Europe, 2 vols, BAR
Int Ser S255. Oxford
Clarke, P V, 19756 Appendix C: German stoneware, in J
Schofield (ed) Excavations south of Edinburgh High
Street, 19734, Proc Soc Antiq Scot 107, 20611
Clason, A T (ed), 1975 Archaeozoological Studies. Amsterdam
Coatsworth, E, 1979 The iconography of the Crucifixion in
pre-Conquest sculpture in England. Unpublished PhD
thesis, 2 vols, Dept Archaeol, Univ Durham
, E, 1981 The Carved Stones of Woodhorn Church.
Ashington
Codou, Y, and Fixot, M, 1996 glises doubles et les familles
dglises mdivales en Provence, Antiquit Tardive 4,
196210
Coleman-Smith, R, 1988 The Dog Bank pottery kiln: refining of pottery and clay samples, in OBrien et al 1988,
3840
Coles, J M, 1971 The early settlement of Scotland: excavations at Morton, Fife, Proc Prehist Soc 37, 284366
Colgrave, B (ed), 1927 The Life of Bishop Wilfrid by Eddius
Stephanus. Cambridge
(ed), 1940 Two Lives of Saint Cuthbert. Cambridge
, 194453 St Peters church, Monkwearmouth, Trans
Archit Archaeol Soc Durham Northumberland 10(2), 17994
(ed), 1968 The Earliest Life of Gregory the Great by an
Anonymous Monk of Whitby. Lawrence, Kansas
Colgrave, B and Cramp, R J, 1965 St Peters Church,
Monkwearmouth. Gloucester
Colgrave, B and Mynors, R A B (eds), 1969 Bedes
Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Oxford
Colgrave, B and Romans, T, 1956 A Guide to St Pauls
Church, Jarrow and its Monastic Buildings. Gloucester
Collingwood, R G and Wright, R P, 1965 Roman Inscriptions
of Britain: 1, Inscriptions on Stone. Oxford
Collingwood, W G, 1927 Northumbrian Crosses of the preNorman age. London
Collis, J, and Kjlbye-Biddle, B, 1979 Early medieval bone
spoons from Winchester, Antiq J 59, 37591
Conant, K J, 1959 Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture,
London
, 1963 Medieval Academy excavations at Cluny, IX: systematic dimensions in the building, Speculum 38, 146
, 1968 Cluny, les eglises et la maison du chef dordre. Macon
Cooke, C and Rowbotham, T C, 1968 Dental report, in
Wenham 1968, 177216
Coombs, H and Coombs, P, 1978 Hadrians Wall in 1801.
Observations on the Roman wall by Rev John Skinner FSA.
Bath
Coppack, G, 1986 Excavation of an Outer Court building,
perhaps the Woolhouse, at Fountains Abbey, North
Yorkshire, Medieval Archeol 30, 4687
Cormack, W F, 1989 Two recent finds of exotic porphyry in
Galloway, Trans Dumfriesshire Galloway Natur Hist Antiq
Soc 3 ser, 64, 437
, 1995 Barhobble, Mochrum: excavation of a forgotten
church site in Galloway, Trans Dumfriesshire Galloway
Natur Hist Antiq Soc 3 ser, 70, 5106
JARROWBI.QXD
408
19-01-2007
12:42
Pagina 408
Corning Museum, 1979 The Glassmakers of Herat, a documentary film produced by the Corning Museum of Glass
Coupland, G, 1948 A Mesolithic Industry at The Beacon, S
E Durham. Gloucester
Coutts, C and Hodges, R, 1992 Tating-type ware; a review
with particular reference to the Wharram sherd, in Milne
and Richards 1992, 389
Coutts, H, 19646 Scarborough ware from the Overgate,
Dundee, Proc Soc Antiq Scot 98, 3235
Cowgill, J, de Neergaard, M and Griffiths, N, 1987 Knives
and Scabbards, Medieval Finds Excav London 1. London
Cowie, R, Whytehead, R L and Blackmore, L, 1988 Two
Middle Saxon occupation sites: excavations at Jubilee Hall
and 2122 Maiden Lane, Trans London Middlesex
Archaeol Soc 39, 47164
Cox, G A, Heavens, O S, Newton, R G and Pollard, A M,
1979 A study of the weathering behaviour of medieval
glass from York Minster, J Glass Stud 21, 5475
Coy, J and Bourdillon, J, 1980 The animal bones, in
Holdsworth 1980, 79121
Cramp, R, 1964 A name-stone from Monkwearmouth,
, 1965a Early Northumbrian Sculpture, Jarrow Lecture,
, 1965b Monkwearmouth, Univ Durham Gazette 12(2), 56
, 1967a Anglian and Viking York. Borthwick Papers 33,
York
, 1967b The Monastic Arts of Northumbria. Arts Council
exhibition catalogue, London
, 1968 Monkwearmouth (1967), Univ Durham Gazette
15(2), 1819
, 1969 Excavations at the Saxon monastic sites of
Wearmouth and Jarrow, Co Durham: an interim report,
, 1970a The Anglo-Saxon period, in Dewdney 1970,
199206
, 1970b Decorated window-glass and millefiori from
Monkwearmouth, Antiq J 50, 32735
, 1970c Glass finds from the Anglo-Saxon monastery of
Monkwearmouth and Jarrow, in R J Charleston, W Evans
and A E Werner (eds) Studies in Gglass History and Design.
Papers read to the Committee B sessions of the VIIIth
International Congress on Glass held in London 16 July
1968. Sheffield, 1619
, 1971 Appendix 1: the window glass, in Pocock and
Wheeler 1971, 268
, 1973 Anglo-Saxon monasteries of the north, Scot
Archaeol Forum 5, 10424
, 1974a The Anglo-Saxon and medieval monastery of
Jarrow, Co Durham, Archaeological Newsbulletin for CBA
Regional Group 3, 7 (May 1974), 68
, 1974b The Anglo-Saxons and Rome, Trans Architect
Archaeol Soc Durham Northumberland, n ser 3, 2737
, 1974c Early Northumbrian sculpture at Hexham, in
Kirby 1974, 11540, 1729
, 1975a Jarrow 1973, Univ Durham Gazette 21, 1617
, 1975b Monkwearmouth excavations, 1974, Univ
Durham Gazette 21, 202
, 1975c Window glass from the monastic site of Jarrow,
problems of interpretation, J Glass Stud 17, 8896
, 1976a Jarrow, in Archaeological Excavations, 1975, 27,
London
, 1976b Jarrow church, Archaeol J 133, 2208
, 1976c Monastic sites, in Wilson 1976, 20152
, 1976d Monkwearmouth and Jarrow: the archaeological
evidence, in Bonner 1976, 518
, 1976e Monkwearmouth church, Archaeol J 133, 2307

, 1976f St Pauls church, Jarrow, in Addyman and Morris
1976, 2835
, 1978 The Anglian tradition in the ninth century, in J
Lang, Anglo-Saxon and Viking Age Sculpture and its
Context, BAR Brit Ser 49. Oxford
, 1980 The Bede Monastery Museum, Jarrow
, 1981 The Hermitage and Offshore Island, Second Paul
Johnstone Memorial Lecture, Occasional Lecture 3,
National Maritime Museum. London
, 1983a Anglo-Saxon settlement, in J C Chapman and H
C Mytum (eds) Settlement in North Britain, 1000 BC to AD
1000. BAR Brit Ser 118. Oxford, 26397
, 1983b The archaeologists view general, in Hart 1983,
1120
, 1983c Excavations at the Hirsel, Coldstream, Borders
Region, Univ Durham and Newcastle upon Tyne Archaeol
Reports for 1982, 5760
, 1984 Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture: 1, County
Durham and Northumberland, 2 vols. Oxford
, 1986a Anglo-Saxon and Italian sculpture, in Angli e
Sassoni al di qua e al di la del mare, Settimane di Studio del
Centro Italiano di studi sullalto medioevo 32(1), 12540,
Spoleto
, 1986b The furnishing and sculptural decoration of
Anglo-Saxon churches, in Butler and Morris 1986,
1014
, 1986c Northumbria and Ireland, in P E Szarmach (ed)
Sources of Anglo-Saxon culture. Kalamazoo, 185201
, 1992 Studies in Anglo-Saxon sculpture. London
, 1993 A reconsideration of the monastic site of Whitby,
in Spearman and Higgitt 1993, 6473
, 1994 Monkwearmouth and Jarrow in their European
context, in Painter 1994, 27994 (reprinted in Karkov
1999, 13753)
, 1997 The window glass, in Hill 1997, 32632
, 2000 Anglo-Saxon window glass, in Price 2000, 10514
, 2001 Window glass from the British Isles 7th10th
century, in DellAcqua and Silva 2001, 6786
, forthcoming a The window glass from Brandon, in R D
Carr et al (eds) Final report on excavations at Staunch
Meadow, Brandon, forthcoming
, forthcoming b The window glass from Flixborough, in
Loveluck forthcoming
, forthcoming c The window lead from Flixborough, in
Cramp, R and Cronyn, J M, 1990 Anglo-Saxon polychrome
plaster and other materials from the excavations of
Monkwearmouth and Jarrow: an interim report, in
Cather et al 1990, 1730
Cramp, R and Daniels, R, 1987 New finds from the AngloSaxon monastery at Hartlepool, Cleveland, Antiquity 61,
42432
Cramp, R and Heyworth, M P, forthcoming The window
glass, in M Biddle and B Kjlbye-Biddle (eds)
Investigations at Repton
Cramp, R and Lang J T, 1977 A Century of Anglo-Saxon
Sculpture. Newcastle upon Tyne
Craster, H H E, 1907 A History of Northumberland: 8, The
Parish of Tynemouth. Newcastle upon Tyne and London
, 1925 Some Anglo-Saxon records of the see of Durham,
, 1954 The patrimony of St Cuthbert, Engl Hist Rev 69,
17799
Crosby, S M, 1953 Labbaye royale de Saint Denis. Paris
Crowfoot, E, 1990 Textiles, in Biddle 1990, II, 46788
JARROWBI.QXD
19-01-2007
12:42
Pagina 409
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Crowfoot, E, and Chadwick Hawkes, S, 1967 Early AngloSaxon gold braids, Medieval Archaeol 11, 4285
Crowfoot, G M and Harden, D B, 1931 Byzantine and later
glass lamps, J Egyptian Archaeol 17, 196208
Crummy, N, 1983 The Roman Small Finds from Excavations
in Colchester 19719, Colchester Archaeol Rep 2.
Colchester
, 1988 The post-Roman Small Finds from Excavations in
Colchester 197185, Colchester Archaeol Rep 5.
Colchester
Cumberpatch, C G, 2001 The pottery, in P Carne et al
(eds) Durham City Leazes Bowl: archaeological excavations 1996, Durham Archaeol J 16, 5963, 84103
Cumberpatch, C G, Chadwick, A M and Atkinson, S,
19989 A medieval pottery kiln in Hallgate, Doncaster,
South Yorkshire, Medieval Ceramics 223, 4765
Cunliffe, B W, 1971 Excavations at Fishbourne 19611969: 2,
The Finds, Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 27. London
, 1976 Excavations at Portchester Castle: 2, Saxon, Rep Res
Comm Soc Antiq London 33. London
Cunnington, W, 1860 An account of the ancient British and
Anglo-Saxon barrows on Roundway Hill, in the parish of
Bishops Cannings, Wiltshire Archaeol Natur Hist Mag 6,
15967
Curle, A O, 191314 Report on the excavation in September
1913, of a vitrified fort at Rockcliffe, Dalbeattie, known as
the Mote of Mark, Proc Soc Antiq Scot 48, 12568
, 19389 A Viking settlement at Freswick, Caithness.
Report on excavations carried out in 1937 and 1938, Proc
Soc Antiq Scot 73, 71110
Curle, C L, 1982 Pictish and Norse Finds from the Brough of
Birsay 193474, Soc Antiq Scot Monogr Ser 1. Edinburgh
Curwen, E C, 1944 The problem of the early watermills,
Antiquity 18, 13046
Dalton, O M, 1912 Catalogue of the Finger rings in the British
Museum. London
Daniels, R, 1988 The Anglo-Saxon monastery at Church
Close, Hartlepool, Cleveland, Archaeol J 145, 158210
, 1999 The Anglo-Saxon monastery at Hartlepool,
England, in Hawkes and Mills 1999, 10512
Daniels, S I A, 1987 A preliminary investigation into the
characterisation of Anglo-Saxon and later mortars and
renders from the sites of Monkwearmouth and Jarrow,
County Durham. Unpublished dissertation, Dept
Archaeol, Univ Durham
Davey, N, 1961 A History of Building Materials. London
Davey, P and Hodges, R (eds), 1983 Ceramics and Trade.
Sheffield
Davis, S J M and Beckett, J, 1999 Animal husbandry and
agricultural improvement: the archaeological evidence
from animal bones and teeth, Rural History 10, 117
Dawes, J D and Magilton, J R, 1980 The Cemetery of St
Helen-on-the-Walls, Aldwark, York, The Archaeology of
York, AY 12(1). London
Dawson, G J, 1979 Excavations at Guys Hospital 1967, Res
Vol Surrey Archaeol Soc 7, 2765
Dawson, W R (ed), 1934 A Leech-book, or Collection of
Medical Recipes of the Fifteenth Century. London
Dekwna, M, 1981 Remarques sur la chronologie de lintroduction dans la verrerie europenne mdivale de la
technologie potassique et de celle au plomb non-alcaline,
in Annales du 8e Congrs de lAssociation Internationale pour
lHistoire du Verre (Londres-Liverpool 1979). Lige, 14560
Delano-Smith, C and Kain, R J P, 1999 English Maps: a
History. London
409
DellAcqua, F, 1995 Le vetrate del monastero altomedievale

di S Vincenzo al Volturno. Unpublished thesis, Univ
Florence (Facolt di Lettere e Filosofia) 19945
, 1997 Ninth-century window glass from the monastery of
San Vincenzo al Volturno (Molise, Italy), J Glass Stud 39,
3341
DellAcqua, F and Silva, R (eds), 2001 Il colore nel medioevo:
arte, simbolo, tecnica. La vetrata in occidente dal IV allXI
secolo, Collana di Studi sul Colore 3. Lucca
De Maill, M, 1971 Les cryptes de Jouarre. Paris
Der Nersessian, S, 1965 Aghtamar, Church of the Holy Cross.
Harvard and London
Deschler-Erb, S, 1998 Rmische Beinartefakte aus Augusta
Raurica. Rohmaterial, Technologie, Typologie und
Chronologie, Forschungen in Augst 27, Augst
Descoeudres, G, 1996 Der Mnch und das Bild. Visuelle
Umsetzungen von Glaubensvorstellungen im frhen
Mnchtum gyptens am Beispiel der Kellia, in B Brenk
(ed) Innovation in der Sptantike. Wiesbaden, 185205
Dewdney, J C (ed), 1970 Durham County and City with
Teesside. Durham
Dickinson, B, 1986 Potters stamps and signatures on samian, in L Miller, J Schofield and M Rhodes (eds) The
Roman Quay at St Magnus House, London, London
Middlesex Archaeol Soc Spec Pap 8, 18698
Dobson, B, 1970 The Roman period, in Dewdney 1970,
1959
, 1973 Durham Priory 14001450. Cambridge
Dodwell, C R (ed), 1961 Theophilus, de diversis artibus.
London
, 1982 Anglo-Saxon Art: a New Perspective. Manchester
Doherty, C, 1980 Exchange and trade in early medieval
Ireland, J Roy Soc Antiq Ir 110, 6789
, 1985 The monastic town in early medieval Ireland, in
Clarke and Simms 1985, 4575
Doppelfeld, O, 1958 Die Ausgrabungen unter dem Klner
Dom, Neue Ausgrabungen in Deutschland, 3228. Berlin
Driesch, A, von den, 1976 A Guide to the Measurement of
Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites, Peabody Museum
Bull 1. Cambridge, Mass
Drinkhall, G and Foreman, M, 1998 The Anglo-Saxon
Cemetery at Castledykes South, Barton-on-Humber,
Sheffield Excav Rep 6. Sheffield
Dublin, 1973 Catalogue of Exhibition of Viking and Medieval
Dublin National Museum Excavations, 19621973. Dublin
Dudley, C E A, 1971 A catalogue of the metalwork finds
from Monkwearmouth, Jarrow and Hartlepool.
Unpublished dissertation, Dept Archaeol, Univ Durham
Dmmler, E, 1895 Alcuini epistolae, Monumenta Germaniae
Historica, Epistolae Karolini Aevi 4. Berlin
Dunning, G C, 1943 The pottery, in Peers and Radford
1943, 2788
, 19623 Report on Scarborough ware found at
Kildrummy Castle, in M R Apted (ed) Excavations at
Kildrummy Castle, Aberdeenshire, 195262, Proc Soc
Antiq Scot 96, 2336
, 1968 The trade in medieval pottery around the North
Sea, in J G Renaud (ed) Rotterdam Papers 1, 3558.
Rotterdam
, 1975 The tiles, in Platt and Coleman-Smith 1975,
186202
, 1977 Mortars, in Clarke and Carter 1977, 32047
Durham, B, 1977 Archaeological investigations in St
Aldates, Oxford, Oxoniensia 42, 83203
Duval, N et al, 1991 Naissance des arts chrtiens: atlas des monuments palochrtiens de la France. Paris
JARROWBI.QXD
410
19-01-2007
12:42
Pagina 410
, 1995 Les premiers monuments chrtiens de la France, 1. Paris

, 1996 Les premiers monuments chrtiens de la France, 2. Paris
Dymond, D P, 1961 Roman bridges on Dere Street, with a
general appendix on the evidence for bridges in Roman
Britain, Archaeol J 118, 13664
Eames, E S, 1980 Catalogue of Medieval Lead-glazed
Earthenware Tiles in the Department of Medieval and Later
Antiquities, 2 vols. London: British Museum
Earle, J and Plummer, C (eds), 18929 Two of the Saxon
Chronicles Parallel, 2 vols. Oxford
East, K, 1983 The iron cleats, in Bruce-Mitford 1983,
91323
Eaton, T, 2000 Plundering the Past: Roman Stonework in
Medieval Britain. Stroud
Edgarton, S Y, jnr, 1975 The Renaissance Rediscovery of
Linear Perspective. New York
Edwards, B J N, 1966 Medieval pottery, in Harbottle 1966,
10442
, 1967 Medieval pottery, in Jobey 1967, 7083
Edwards, K, 1967 The English Secular Cathedrals in the Middle
Ages, 2 edn. Manchester
Egan, G, and Pritchard, F, 1991 Dress Accessories c 1150c
1450, Medieval Finds Excav London 3. London
Ehwald, R (ed), 1919 Aldhelmi Opera Omnia, Monumenta
Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi, 15(1).
Berlin
Ekwall, E, 1960 The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English
Place-names, 4 edn. Oxford
Elder, J M and Riddler, I D, 1988 Objects of bone, antler
and ivory, in P Blockley (ed) Excavations at no. 41 St
Georges Street, Canterbury, 1985, Archaeol Cantiana
105, 13545
Ellis, S E, 1969 The petrography and provenance of AngloSaxon and medieval English honestones, with notes on
some other hones, Bull Brit Mus (Natur Hist) Mineralogy
2(3), 13587
Ellison, M, 1981 The pottery, in B Harbottle and M Ellison
(eds) An excavation in the castle ditch, Newcastle upon
Tyne, 19746, Archaeol Aeliana 5 ser 9, 95164
, 1993a The pottery, in M Ellison, G McCombie, M
MacElvaney, A Newman, C OBrien, N Taverner and A
Williams (eds) Excavations at Newcastle quayside: waterfront development at the Swirle, Archaeol Aeliana 5 ser
21, 178205
, 1993b The medieval and post-medieval pottery, in
Lowther et al 1993, 77103
Ellison, M, Finch, M and Harbottle, B, 1979 The excavation of a 17th-century pit at the Black Gate, Newcastleupon-Tyne, Post-Medieval Archaeol 13, 15381
Emerton, E (trans), 1940 The Letters of St Boniface, Records
of Civilisation 31. New York
Emery, G T, 1963 Dental pathology and archaeology,
Antiquity 37, 27481
Erlande-Brandenburg, A, 1964 Le monastre de Luxueil au
IXe sicle, Cahiers Archologiques, 14, 23943
sperandieu, , 1908 Recueil gnral des bas-reliefs de la Gaule
romaine, 2, Aquitaine. Paris
Evans, J, 1981 Excavations at the Church of All Saints,
Brixworth, Northants, internal publication
, 1982 Raunds, mortar analysis, internal publication
Evelyn White, H G (ed W Hauser), 1933 The Monasteries of
the Wadi `n Natrum: 3, The Architecture and Archaeology.
New York
Everson, P, 1977 Excavations in the vicarage garden at
Brixworth, 1972, J Brit Archaeol Ass 130, 55122
Everson, P and Stocker, D, 1999 Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone

Sculpture: 5, Lincolnshire. Oxford
Evison, V I, 1969 A Viking grave at Sonning, Berks, Antiq
J 49, 33045
, 1977 An enamelled disc from Great Saxham, Proc
Suffolk Inst Archaeol Hist 34, 113
, 1979a Wheel-thrown Pottery in Anglo-Saxon Graves, Roy
Archaeol Inst Monogr Ser. London
, 1979b The body in the ship at Sutton Hoo, in S C
Hawkes, D Brown and J Campbell (eds) Anglo-Saxon
Studies in Archaeology and History 1, BAR Brit Ser 72.
Oxford, 12138
, 1980 The Sutton Hoo coffin, in Rahtz et al 1980,
35761
, 1983a Bichrome glass vessels of the seventh and eighth
centuries, Studien zur Sachsenforschung 3, 721
, 1983b Some distinctive glass vessels of the post-Roman
period, J Glass Stud 25, 8793
, 1987 Dover: Buckland Anglo-Saxon Cemetery, HBMC
Archaeol Rep 3. London
, 1988a Some Vendel, Viking and Saxon glass, in B
Hrdh, L Larsson, D Olavsson and R Petr (eds) Trade
and Exchange in Prehistory. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia
Series in 8vo, no. 16, 23745. Lund
, 1988b Vieux March, Place Saint-Lambert, Lige the
glass, in M Otte (ed) Les fouilles de la Place Saint-Lambert
Lige, 2, le vieux March, Etudes et Recherches
Archologiques de lUniversit de Lige 13, 21519.
Lige
, 1989a The glass vessel, in P Rahtz and L Watts (eds)
Pagans Hill revisited, Archaeol J 146, 3415
, 1989b The Saxon glass, in R L Whytehead, R Cowie
and L Blackmore (eds) Excavations at the Peabody site,
Chandos Place and the National Gallery, Trans London
Middlesex Archaeol Soc 40, 11217
, 1989c Le verre carolingien, in A travers le verre du moyen
ge la renaissance, Catalogue dune exposition ralise par la
Muse des Antiquits de Seine-Maritime Rouen. Rouen,
13744
, 1990 Red marbled glass, Roman to Carolingian, in
Annales du 11e Congrs de lAssociation Internationale pour
lHistoire du Verre (Ble 1988). Amsterdam, 21728
, 1991 Catalogue entries nos 66 (v)(y), 67 (m)(v), 107
(f)(p), 108 (a)(e), in Webster and Backhouse 1991,
878, 903, 1435, 1467
, 2000a Glass vessels in England, AD 4001100, in Price
2000, 47104
, 2000b The glass fragments at Glastonbury, in Price
2000, 189200
, forthcoming a A Catalogue of Anglo-Saxon Glass Vessels in
the British Museum. British Museum, London
, forthcoming b The glass vessels from Flixborough, in
Fairbrother, J R, 1990 Faccombe Netherton, Excavations of a
Saxon and Medieval Manorial Complex, Brit Mus Occas
Pap 74. London
Fanning, T, 1969 The bronze ringed pins in the Limerick
City Museum, N Munster, Antiq J 12, 611
, 1970 The Viking grave goods discovered near Larne, Co
Antrim, in 1840, J Roy Soc Antiq Ir 100, 718
, 1975 Some bronze ringed pins from the Irish Midlands,
J Old Athlone Society 1, 21117
, 1981 Excavation of an early Christian cemetery and settlement at Reask, County Kerry, Proc Roy Ir Acad 81C
(3), 67172
JARROWBI.QXD
19-01-2007
12:42
Pagina 411
BIBLIOGRAPHY
, 1983a Some aspects of the bronze ringed pin in

Scotland, in A OConnor and D V Clarke (eds) From the
Stone Age to the Forty Five. Edinburgh, 32442
, 1983b The Hiberno-Norse pins from the Isle of Man,
in C Fell, P Foote, J Graham-Campbell and R Thomson
(eds) The Viking Age in the Isle of Man. London, 2736
, 1994 Viking-age Ringed Pins from Dublin, Medieval
Dublin Excavations 196281, ser B, 4. Dublin
Farley, M, 1976 Saxon and medieval Walton, Aylesbury:
excavations 19734, Rec Buckinghamshire 20, 153290
Farmer, D H (ed), 1968 The Rule of St Benedict: Oxford,
Bodleian library, Hatton 14, Early English Manuscripts in
Facsimile 15. Copenhagen
Farmer, P, 1979 An Introduction to Scarborough Ware and a
Re-assessment of Knight Jugs. Hove
Faussett, B (ed C R Smith), 1856 Inventorium Sepulchrale.
London
Fernie, E, 1983 The Architecture of the Anglo-Saxons. London
, 1985 Anglo-Saxon lengths: the `Northern system, the
perch and the foot, Archaeol J 142, 24654
, 1991 Anglo-Saxon lengths and the evidence of the buildings, Medieval Archaeol 35, 15
, 2000 The Architecture of Norman England. Oxford
Fleming, S J, 1973 The pre-dose technique: a new thermoluminescence dating method, Archaeometry 15, 1330
Fletcher, E, 1980a The influence of Merovingian Gaul on
Northumbria in the seventh century, Medieval Archaeol
24, 6986
, 1980b The monastery at Lrins, J Brit Archaeol Ass 133,
1729
, 1981 Benedict Biscop, Jarrow Lecture, Jarrow (reprinted in
Lapidge 1994, 53954)
Fordyce, W, 1857 The History and Antiquities of the County
Palatine of Durham 2. Newcastle
Foreman, M, 1991 The bone and antler, in Armstrong et al
1991, 18396
Forsyth, G H, 1950 St Martins at Angers and the evolution
of early medieval church towers, Art Bulletin 32, 30818
, 1953 The Church of St Martin at Angers, the Architectural
History of the Site from the Roman Empire to the French
Revolution, Princeton Monogr Art Archaeol 28. Princeton
Forsyth, G H, and Weitzmann, K, 1973 The Monastery of
Saint Catherine at Mount Sinai. Ann Arbor
Fowler, J T, 1880 An account of excavations made on the
site of the Chapter House of Durham Cathedral in 1874,
Archaeologia 45, 385404
Foy, D and Sennequier, G (eds), 1991 Ateliers de verriers de
lantiquit la priode pr-industrielle. Rouen
Foy, D, Vichy, M and Picon, M, 2000a Lingots de verre en
Mditerrane occidentale (IIIe sicle av J-C VIIe sicle
ap J-C), in Annales du 14e Congrs de lAssociation pour
lHistoire du Verre (Venezia-Milano 1998). Amsterdam,
517
Foy, D, Picon, M and Vichy, M, 2000b Les maqtires premires du verre et la question des produits semi-finis.
Antiquit et Moyen ge, in Arts du Feu et Productions
Artisanales XXe Recontres Internationales dArchologie et
dHistoire dAntibes. Antibes, 41932
Francke, U, 1998 Ausgrabungen eines karolingischen
Tpfereikomplexes in Walberberg, Archologie im
Rheinland, 1997, 1478
Freestone, I C, 1992 Theophilus and the composition of
medieval glass, in P B Vandiver, J R Druzik, G S Wheeler
and I C Freestone (eds) Materials Issues in Art and
Archaeology, III, Materials Research Soc Symposium Proc
267, 73946. Pittsburgh
411
, 1994 Chemical analysis of raw glass fragments, in H R

Hurst (ed )Excavations at Carthage: the British Mission
2(1), The Circular Harbour, North Side: the Site and Finds
other than Pottery 290. Oxford
, 2001 Post-depositional corrosion of ceramics and glass,
in D R Brothwell and A M Pollard (eds) Handbook of
Archaeological Sciences. Chichester, 61121
Freestone, I C and Gorin-Rosen, Y, 1999 The great glass
slab at Bet Shearim: an early Islamic glass-making experiment?, J Glass Stud 41, 10516
Freestone, I C and Shepherd, J, (in preparation)
Composition of late Roman glass from Billingsgate Bath
House, London
Freestone, I C, Gorin-Rosen, Y and Hughes, M J, 2000
Primary glass from Israel and the production of glass in
late antiquity and the early Islamic period, in Nenna
2000, 6583
Freestone, I C, Greenwood, R, and Gorin-Rosen, Y, 2002
Byzantine and early Islamic glassmaking in the eastern
Mediterranean: production and distribution of primary
glass, in G Kordas (ed) Hyalos Vitrum Glass. History,
Technology and Conservation of Glass and Vitreous Materials
in the Hellenic World: First International Conference, RhodesGreece, 14 April 2001. Athens, 16774
Freestone, I C, Stapleton, C P, and Hughes, M J, (forthcoming) The composition of Anglo-Saxon glass, in
Evison forthcoming a
Frost, F B, 1970 Appendix: electron probe analysis of
archaeological glasses, in Cramp 1970b, 3335
Fry, D K, 1976 Anglo-Saxon lyre tuning pegs from Whitby,
N Yorkshire, Medieval Archaeol 20, 1379
Gai, S, 2001 Frammenti di vetro da finestra dal palazzo carolingio di Paderborn. Nuove considerazioni alla luce della
recente analisi dei dati stratigrafici, in DellAcqua and
Silva 2001, 99112
Gaimster, D R M, 1997 German Stoneware, 1200 to 1900:
Archaeology and Cultural History. London
Gall, E, 1930 Karolingische und ottonische Kirchen, Deutsche
Bauten 17. Magdeburg
Galloway, P, 1976 Note on descriptions of bone and antler
combs, Medieval Archaeol 20, 1546
Gameson, R, 1992 The cost of the Codex Amiatinus, Notes
and Queries 237(1), 29
Gaskell, C B and Harper, A E T, 1984 Excavations on
Cathedral Hill, Armagh, 1968, Ulster J Archaeol 47, 10961
Geake, H, 1997 The Use of Grave-goods in Conversion-period
England, c 600c 850, BAR Brit Ser 261. Oxford
Geddes, J, 1985 The small finds, in Hare 1985, 14777
Gem, R D H, 1990 Documentary references to AngloSaxon painted architecture, in Cather et al 1990, 116
Gem, R D H, 1993 Architecture of the Anglo-Saxon
church, 735870: from Archbishop Ecgberht to
Archbishop Ceolnoth, J Brit Archaeol Ass 146, 2966
Gerke, Fr, 1970 Das Lorscher Glasfenster, Beitrage zur
Kunst der Mittelalters, 1868, Berlin
Gerrard, C M, Gutirrez, A and Vince, A (eds), 1995
Spanish Medieval Ceramics in Spain and the British Isles,
BAR Int Ser S610. Oxford
Gibson, E, 1695 Camdens Britannia, newly translated into
English: with large additions and improvements. London
Gibson, M, 1994 The Liverpool Ivories: Late Antique and
Medieval Ivory and Bone Carving in Liverpool Museum and
the Walker Art Gallery. London
Giertz, W, 1996 Middle Meuse valley ceramics of Huy-type:
a preliminary analysis, Medieval Ceramics 20, 3364
JARROWBI.QXD
412
19-01-2007
12:42
Pagina 412
Gilbert, E C, 1947 ;Anglian remains at St Peters,

Monkwearmouth;, Archaeol Aeliana 4 ser 25, 14078
, 19516 The Anglian remains at Jarrow church, Proc Soc
Antiq Newcastle 5 ser 1, 31133
, 1964 Some problems of early Northumbrian architecture, Archaeol Aeliana 4 ser 42, 6583
Gilchrist, R and Morris, R, 1993 Monasteries as settlements: religion, society, and economy, AD 6001050, in
Carver 1993, 11318
Gilchrist, R and Mytum, H (eds), 1993 Advances in Monastic
Archaeology, BAR Brit Ser 227. Oxford
Gilmour, B, 1979 The Anglo-Saxon church at St Paul-inthe-Bail, Lincoln, Medieval Archaeol 23, 21417
Gilmour, L A, 1988 Early Medieval Pottery from Flaxengate,
Lincoln, The Archaeology of Lincoln 17(2). London
Gilyard-Beer, R, 1959 Abbeys: an Introduction to the Religious
Houses of England and Wales. London
Goggin, J M, 1960 The Spanish olive jar, an introductory
study, Yale Univ Publ Anthropol 62, 140
Goll, J, 2001 Frhmittelalterliche Fenster Glser aus
Mstair und Sion, in DellAcqua and Silva 2001, 8798
Goodall, I H, 1973 Iron objects, in Huggins 1973, 16875
, 1975 Chingley Forge metalwork, in Crossley 1975, 5989
, 1980 Ironwork in medieval Britain: an archaeological
study. Unpublished PhD thesis, University College Cardiff
, 1984 Iron objects, in Rogerson and Dallas 1984,
76105
, 1987 Objects of iron, in Beresford 1987, 17787
, 1990a Tenter-hooks, in Biddle 1990, I, 2349
, 1990b Building ironwork, in Biddle 1990, I, 32849
, 1990c Knives, in Biddle 1990, II, 83560
, 1990d Horseshoes, in Biddle 1990, II, 105467
, 1990e Locks and keys, in Biddle 1990, II, 100136
, 1991 The ironwork, in Armstrong et al 1991, 13247
Gorin-Rosen, Y, 1995 Hadera, Bet Eliezer, Excavations
and Surveys in Israel 13, 423
, 2000 The ancient glass industry in Israel: summary of
new finds and new discoveries, in Nenna 2000, 4964
Gough, R (ed) 1806 Britannia: or, a Chorographical
Description of the Flourishing Kingdoms of England,
Scotland, and Ireland, and the Islands Adjacent; from the
Earliest Antiquity. By William Camden. Translated from the
edition published by the author in MDCVII. Enlarged by the
latest discoveries..., 2 edn 3. London
Graham, A, 1977 Anglo-Saxon coffin fittings. Unpublished
MA dissertation, Dept Archaeol, Univ Durham
Graham, R, 1930 The monastery of Cluny, 9101155, part
1: the history of the churches and buildings, Archaeologia
80, 14365
Graham-Campbell, J, 1974 A preliminary note on certain
small finds of Viking-age date from the Udal excavations,
North Uist, Scot Archaeol Forum 6, 1722
Granger, F (ed), 19314 Vitruvius, on Architecture, 2 vols.
London and New York
Gratuze, B and Barrandon, J-N, 1990 Islamic glass weights
and stamps: analysis using nuclear techniques,
Archaeometry 32, 15562
Graves, C P, 1993 Window glass, in J Nolan, with J Vaughan,
C P Graves, K Dobney and D Jaques (ed) The town wall,
Newcastle upon Tyne: excavations at Orchard Street and
Croft Street, 198789, Archaeol Aeliana 5 ser 21, 11823
Green, M, 1976 A Corpus of Religious Material from the
Civilian Areas of Roman Britain, BAR Brit Ser 24. Oxford
Greenwell, W (ed), 1860 Wills and Inventories from the
Register at Durham, part II, Surtees Soc 38. Durham,
London and Edinburgh
Greep, S J, 1986 Objects of worked bone, in J D

Zienkiewicz (ed) The Legionary Fortress Baths at Caerleon:
2, The Finds. Cardiff, 196213
, 1995 Objects of bone, antler and ivory from C A T sites,
in Blockley et al 1995, 111252
Greyson, D K, 1973 On the methodology of faunal analysis, American Antiquity 39, 4329
Griffiths, D W, 19878 A group of late Anglo-Saxon hooked
tags from Cheshire, J Chester Archaeol Soc 70, 3949
Grimaldi, D A, 1996 Amber Windows to the Past. American
Museum of Natural History
Grose, F, 1773a The Antiquities of England and Wales, 1.
London
, 1773b Views of Durham. London
, 1784 The Antiquities of England and Wales, 2 edn 2.
London
Groszmann, D, 1962 Kloster Fulda und seine Bedeutung
fur den fruhen deutschen Kirchenbau, in V H Elbern
(ed) Das Erste Jahrtausend, Kultur und Kunst im Werdenden
Abendland an Rhein und Ruhr 1, Dusseldorf, 34470
Groves, M, 1990 Silver and copper-alloy tacks, in Biddle
1990, II, 110214
Guido, M, 1978 The Glass Beads of the Prehistoric and Roman
Periods in Britain and Ireland, Res Rep Soc Antiq London
35. London
Guido, M (ed M Welch), 1999 The Glass Beads of AngloSaxon England c AD 400700: a Preliminary Visual
Classification of the more Definite and Diagnostic Types, Res
Rep Soc Antiq London 58. Woodbridge
Guildhall Museum, 1908 Catalogue of the Collection of London
Antiquities in the Guildhall Museum. London
Gutscher, D B, 1981 Mechanische Mrtelmischer,
Zeitschrift fr Schweizerische Archologie und Kunstgeschichte
38, 17888
Haddan, A W, and Stubbs, W (eds), 1871 Councils and
Ecclesiastical Documents Relating to Great Britain and
Ireland 3. Oxford
Haggarty, G R, 1984 Observations on the ceramic material
from phase 1 pits BY and AQ, in C J Tabrahan (ed)
Excavations at Kelso Abbey, Proc Soc Antiq Scot 114,
3958
Haggarty, G R and Will, R, 1995 Ceramic material, in
Lewis and Ewart 1995, 98105
Haigh, D H, 1846 Historical and descriptive notes relating
to the ancient monasteries of St Peter, at Wearmouth, and
St Paul, at Jarrow, Transactions of the British Archaeological
Association Second Annual Congress, Winchester 1845,
42847. London
Hall, D N, 1977 Excavations in Brixworth churchyard,
1971, J Brit Archaeol Ass 130, 12332
Hall, D W and Chenery, S, forthcoming ICPS analysis of
medieval Greyware pottery from Scotland
Hall, J, 1931 The date of the monastic remains at St Peters
church, Wearmouth, Antiq Sunderland 18, 3662
Hall, R A, 1984 The Viking dig: the excavations at York, York
Hall, R A and Whyman, M, 1996 Settlement and monasticism at Ripon, North Yorkshire, from the 7th to 11th centuries AD, Medieval Archaeol 40, 62150
Hamerow, H and MacGregor, A (eds), 2001 Image and Power
in the Archaeology of Early Medieval Britain. Oxford
Hamilton, J R C, 1956 Excavations at Jarlshof, Shetland,
MOW Archaeol Rep 1. Edinburgh
Hamilton, N E S A (ed), 1870 Willelmi Malmesbiriensis
Monachi De Gestis Pontificarum Anglorum, Rolls Ser 52.
London
JARROWBI.QXD
19-01-2007
12:42
Pagina 413
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hamlin, A, 1985 The archaeology of the Irish church in the

eighth century, Peritia 4, 27999
Harbottle, B, 1966 Excavations at the south curtain wall of
the castle, Newcastle upon Tyne, 196061, Archaeol
Harbottle, B, and Nolan, J, forthcoming Newcastle upon
Tyne cemetery report, Archaeol Aeliana
Harbottle, B, and Salway, P, 1964 Excavations at
Newminster Abbey, Northumberland, 19611963,
Harcourt, R A, 1974 The dog in prehistoric and early historic studies, J Archaeol Sci 1, 15175
Harden, D B (ed), 1956a Dark Age Britain: Studies Presented
to E T Leeds. London
, 1956b Glass vessels in Britain and Ireland, AD
4001000, in Harden 1956a, 13267
, 1959 New light on Roman and early medieval windowglass, in Glastechnische Berichte 5, Internationaler
Glaskongres, 32 K, Heft 8, 816. Frankfurt (Main)
, 1961 Domestic window glass: Roman, Saxon and
medieval, in E M Jope (ed) Studies in Building History.
London, 3963
, 1969 Medieval glass in the West, Proc Eighth
International Congress on Glass 1968. Sheffield, 97111
, 1971a Ancient glass, III: post-Roman, Archaeol J 128,
78117
, 1971b Glass, in A C C Brodribb, A R Hands and D R
Walker (eds) Excavations at Shakenoak Farm, near Wilcote,
Oxfordshire: 2, Sites B & H. Oxford, 98108
, 1975 Table-glass in the Middle Ages, in Rotterdam
Papers 2, 3545. Rotterdam
, 1976 The glass, in Cunliffe 1976, 2324
, 1978 Anglo-Saxon and later medieval glass in Britain:
some recent developments, Medieval Archaeol, 22 124
, 1980 Early medieval glass, Bulletin de lAssociation
Internationale pour lHistoire du Verre 8, 5364
, 1981 Catalogue of Greek and Roman Glass in the British
Museum: 1, Core- and Rod-formed Vessels and Pendants and
Mycenean Cast Objects. London
Harding, D, 1970 The prehistoric period, in Dewdney
1970, 1914
Hardwick, J L, 1960 The incidence and distribution of
caries throughout the ages in relation to the Englishmans
diet, Brit Dent J 108, 917
Hardy, A, Dodd, A and Keevill, G D, 2003 Aelfrics Abbey:
Excavations at Eynsham Abbey, Oxfordshire 198992,
Thames Valley Landscapes 16. Oxford
Hardy, T D (ed), 18738 Registrum Palatinum Dunelmense:
the register of Richard de Kellawe, Lord Palatine and Bishop
of Durham 13111316, 4 vols, Rolls Ser 62, London
Hare, J N, 1985 Battle Abbey: the Eastern Range and the
Excavations of 197880, HBMC Archaeol Rep 2. London
Harman, M, and Shaw, M, 1985 The worked bone and
antler, in Williams et al 1985, 75
Harrison, J P, 1894 Note on the use of lead as a covering for
Saxon churches, Oxoniensia 4, 21114
Hart, C, 1975 The Early Charters of Northern England and the
North Midlands. Leicester
Hart, G D (ed), 1983 Disease in Ancient Man. Toronto
Harvey, P D A, 1980 The History of Topographical Maps:
Symbols, Pictures and Surveys. London
Haselgrove, C and Healey, E, 1992 The prehistory of the TyneTees lowlands: some recent finds, Durham Archaeol J 8, 124
Haselgrove, C, Turnbull, P and Ferrell, G, 1988 The Durham
Archaeological Survey: Report on Work Undertaken 198387,
Dept Archaeol Univ Durham, Occas Pap 2. Durham
413
Hatting, T, 1975 The influence of castration on sheep horn,

in Clason 1975, 34551
Haughton, C and Powlesland, D, 1999 West Heslerton: the
Anglian Cemetery, 2 vols. Landscape Research Centre
Archaeol Monogr Ser 1. Yedington
Haverfield, F J, and Greenwell, W, 1899 A Catalogue of the
Sculptured and Inscribed Stones in the Cathedral Library,
Durham. Durham
Hawkes, J, and Mills, S (eds), 1999 Northumbrias Golden
Age. Stroud
Hawkes, S C, 1958 The Anglo-Saxon cemetery at
Finglesham, Kent: a reconsideration, Medieval Archaeol
2, 171
Hawthorne, J G and Smith, C S (eds), 1963 Theophilus, on
Divers Arts. New York
Hayes, J W, 1972 Late Roman Pottery, London
Healey, E and Robertson-Mackay, R, 1987 The flint industry, in Robertson-Mackay 1987, 95118
Heawood, R, 1990 Iron coffin fittings from Northumbrian
period Whithorn. Unpublished MA dissertation, Dept
Heighway, C, and Bryant, R, 1999 The Golden Minster. The
Anglo-Saxon Minster and Later Medieval Priory of St
Oswald at Gloucester, CBA Res Rep 117. York
Heighway, C, Garrod, A P and Vince, A G, 1979
Excavations at 1 Westgate Street, Gloucester, 1975,
Hencken, H ON, 1936 Ballinderry crannog no. 1, Proc Roy
Ir Acad 43C (5), 103239
, 1950 Lagore crannog: an Irish royal residence of the 7th
to 10th centuries AD, Proc Roy Ir Acad 53C (1), 1247
Henderson, G, 1980 Bede and the Visual Arts, Jarrow lecture,
Henderson, I, 1993 The shape and decoration of the cross
on Pictish cross-slabs carved in relief, in Spearman and
Higgitt 1993, 20918
Henderson, J, 1985 The raw materials of early glass production, Oxford J Archaeol 4(3), 26791
, 1988a Electron probe microanalyses of mixed-alkali
glasses, Archaeometry 30(1), 7791
, 1988b Glass production and Bronze Age Europe,
Antiquity 62, 43551
, 1988c The nature of the Early Christian glass industry in
Ireland: some evidence from Dunmisk fort, Co Tyrone,
Ulster J Archaeol 3 ser 51, 11526
, 1989 The scientific analysis of ancient glass, and its
archaeological interpretation, in J Henderson (ed)
Scientific Analysis in Archaeology, and its Interpretation,
Oxford Univ Comm Archaeol Monogr 19, Institute of
Archaeology, Archaeol Res Tools 5, 3062. Oxford
, 1991 The glass, in Armstrong et al 1991, 12430 and
fiche B6C1
, 1992 Early medieval glass technology: the calm before
the storm, in Medieval Europe 1992, Technology and
Innovation, pre-printed papers 3, 1759. York
, 2000 The production technology of Irish early Christian
glass with special reference to beads and enamels, in
Price 2000, 14360
Henderson, J and Ivens, R, 1992 Dunmisk and glass-making in early Christian Ireland, Antiquity 66, 5264
Henderson, J and Warren, S E, 1986 Analysis of the glass
and glassy waste, in Tweddle 1986, 2247
Henig, M, 1984a Religion in Roman Britain. London
, 1984b Amber amulets, Britannia 15, 2446
, 1988 Small finds from excavations, 196065, in
Sherlock and Woods 1988, 17787
JARROWBI.QXD
414
19-01-2007
12:42
Pagina 414
Henkes, H E, 1994 Glas Zonder Glans, Vij Eewen gebruiksglas

uit de Boden van de Lage Landen, 13001800, Rotterdam
Papers 9. Rotterdam
Herity, M, 1995 Studies in the Layout, Buildings and Art in
Stone of Early Irish Monasteries. London
Herteig, A E, 1982 Scarborough ware from Bryggen,
Bergen, in Watkins et al 1982, 979
Hewett, C A, 1985 Comments on the construction of St
Cuthberts coffin, in J M Cronyn and C V Horie (eds) St
Cuthberts Coffin: the History, Technology and Conservation.
Durham, 657
Heyworth, M P, 1992 Evidence for early medieval glass production in north-west Europe, in Medieval Europe 1992,
Technology and innovation, pre-printed papers 3, 16974.
York
, 1993 Analysis of the window glass, in Woodward and
Leach 1993, 18992
Heyworth, M P and Evison V I, forthcoming Vessel glass at
Quentovic, in M Worthington (ed) Excavations at Quentovic
Heyworth, M P, Baxter M J and Cool H, 1990 Compositional
Analysis of Roman Glass from Colchester, Essex, Ancient
Monuments Laboratory Report 53/90
Higgitt, J, 1979 The dedication inscription at Jarrow and its
context, Antiq J 59(2), 34374
, 1990 Anglo-Saxon painted lettering at St Patricks
chapel, Heysham, in Cather et al 1990, 3140
Higham, C F W, Kijngam, A, Manly, B F J and Moore, S J
E, 1981 The third bovid phalanx and prehistoric ploughing, J Archaeol Sci 8(4), 35365
Higham, N J, 1986 The Northern Counties to AD 1000.
London
Hill, D and Metcalf, D M (eds), 1984 Sceattas in England
and on the Continent: the Seventh Oxford Symposium on
Coinage and Monetary History, BAR Brit Ser 128. Oxford
Hill, D, Barrett, D, Maude, K, Warburton, J and
Worthington, M, 1990 Quentovic defined Antiquity 64,
518
Hill, P H, 1997 Whithorn and St Ninian. The Excavation of a
Monastic Town 198491. Stroud
Hill, P V, and Kent, J P C, 1960 Late Roman Bronze Coinage
1. London
Hill, R, 1966 Christianity and geography in early
Northumbria, in G J Cumming (ed) Studies in Church
History 3, 1339. Leiden
Hinton, D A, 1974 A Catalogue of the Anglo-Saxon
Ornamental Metalwork 7001100 in the Department of
Antiquities, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Oxford
, 1977 Rudely made earthen vessels of the twelfth to fifteenth centuries, in D P S Peacock (ed) Pottery and Early
Commerce.London, 22138
, 1990a Split-end strap-ends, in Biddle 1990, II, 5002
, 1990b Buckles and buckle plates, in Biddle 1990, II,
50626
, 1990c Tag-ends, in Biddle 1990, II, 54752
, 1990d Handles, in Biddle 1990, II, 8648
, 1990e Copper-alloy appliqus for leather and textile, in
Biddle 1990, II, 10868
Hinton, D A and Welch, M, 1976 Iron and bronze, in
Cunliffe 1976, 195219
Hirst, S M, 1985 An Anglo-Saxon Inhumation Cemetery at
Sewerby, East Yorkshire, York Univ Archaeol Publ 4. York
Hirst, S M, 2000 An approach to the study of Anglo-Saxon
glass beads, in Price 2000, 12130
Hodges, C C, 1893 The pre-Conquest churches of
Northumbria, Reliquary n ser 7, 14056
, 1905 Anglo-Saxon remains, in Page 1905, 21140
Hodges, R, 1980 The pottery, in Holdsworth 1980, 4058

, 1981 The Hamwic Pottery: the Local and Imported Wares
from 30 years Excavations at Middle Saxon Southampton
and their European Context, CBA Res Rep 37,
Southampton Archaeol Res Committee Rep 2. London
Hodges, R and Mitchell, J (eds), 1985 San Vincenzo al
Volturno, the Archaeology, Art and Territory of an Early
Medieval Monastery, BAR Int Ser S252. Oxford
Hodgson, G B, 1903 The Borough of South Shields, from the
Earliest Period to the Close of the Nineteenth Century.
Newcastle upon Tyne
Hodgson, G W I, 1967 Summary of report on animal
remains, in Jobey 1967, 945
Hodgson, J, 1840 History of Northumberland, 2(3), Newcastle
Hodgson, J F, 190611a The churches of Escomb, Jarrow
and Monkwearmouth, Trans Architect Archaeol Soc
Durham Northumberland 6, 10987
Hodgson, J F, 190611b Font in Jarrow church, Trans Archit
Archaeol Soc Durham Northumberland, 6, 237
Hodgson, N, et al (forthcoming) Excavations at South Shields
Roman Fort, Vol 2
Hogarth, A C, 1973 Structural features in Anglo-Saxon
graves, Archaeol J 130, 10419
Hold, A G, 1991 The study of the Anglian vessel and window glass from Whithorn using ICPS analysis.
Unpublished 4th year dissertation, Archaeol Science,
Univ Bradford
Holdsworth, J, 1978 Selected Pottery Groups AD 6501780,
The Archaeology of York AY 16(1). London
Holdsworth, P, 1980 Excavations at Melbourne Street,
Southampton, 197176, CBA Res Rep 33, Southampton
Archaeol Res Committee Rep 1. London
Holling, F, 1971 A preliminary note on the pottery industry
of the Hampshire-Surrey borders, Surrey Archaeol Collect
68, 5788
Holling, F, 1977 Reflections on Tudor Green, PostMedieval Archaeol 68, 616
Holmes, E F, 1985 A History of Thimbles. London
Holmes, J G, nd Ballast Hills in Monkwearmouth, Wearmouth
Historical Pamphlets 5. Sunderland
Holwerda, J H, 1930 Opgravingen van Dorestad,
Oudheidkundige Mededeelingen uit s Rijksmuseum van
Oudheden te Leiden N R 11, 3296
Hope, W H St J, 191415 Recent discoveries in the abbey
church of St Austin at Canterbury, Archaeologia 66,
377400
Hope, W H St J and Fowler, J T, 1903 Recent discoveries in
the cloister of Durham Abbey, Archaeologia 58(2),
43760
Hope-Taylor, B, 1977 Yeavering: an Anglo-British Centre of
Early Northumbria, DoE Archaeol Rep 7. London
Horn, W, 1973 On the origins of the medieval cloister,
Gesta 12, 1352
Horn, W, and Born, E, 1979 The Plan of St Gall: a Study of
the Architecture and Economy of, and Life in, a Paradigmatic
Carolingian Monastery, 3 vols. Berkeley, Los Angeles and
London
Hougen, E K, 1968 Glassbegre i Norge fra sjette til tiende
rhunde, Viking 32, 85109
Howlett, D R, 1975 The provenance, date and structure of
De Abbatibus, Archaeol Aeliana 5 ser 3, 12130
Hruby, V, 1957 Slovanske kostene, predmety a jejich vyroba
na morave, Pamatky Archeologicke 48, 118217
Hubert, J, 1938 Lart pr-Roman. Paris
, 1952 Larchitecture rligieuse du haut moyen ge en France.
Paris
JARROWBI.QXD
19-01-2007
12:42
Pagina 415
BIBLIOGRAPHY
, 1969 Architecture and decorative carving, in J Hubert,

J Porcher and W F Volbach (eds) Europe of the Invasions.
New York, 1104
Hubert, J, Porcher, J and Volbach, W F, 1969 Europe in the
Dark Ages. London
Hubert, J, Porcher, J and Volbach, W F, 1970 Carolingian
Art. London
Hbner, , 1873 Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, 7,
Inscriptiones Britanniae Latinae. Berlin
, 1876 Inscriptiones Britanniae Christianae. Berlin and
London
Huggett, J W, 1988 Imported grave-goods and the early
Anglo-Saxon economy, Medieval Archaeol 32, 6396
Huggins, P J, 1978 Excavation of Belgic and RomanoBritish farm with Middle Saxon cemetery and churches at
Nazeingbury, Essex, 19756, Trans Essex Archaeol Soc 10,
29117
, 1981 Yeavering measurements: an alternative view,
Huggins, P, Rodwell, K and Rodwell, W, 1982 Anglo-Saxon
and Scandinavian building measurements, in P J Drury
(ed) Structural Reconstruction: Approaches to the
Interpretation of the Excavated Remains of Buildings. BAR
Brit Ser 110. Oxford, 2165
Hughes, K and Hamlin, A, 1977 The Modern Traveller to the
Early Irish Church. London
Hunter, J R, 1971 A survey of the Anglo-Saxon glass vessels
of Northumbria. Unpublished dissertation, Dept
, 1977 Glass fragments, in Everson 1977, 1047
, 1980 The glass, in Holdsworth 1980, 5972
, 1981 The medieval glass industry, in D W Crossley (ed)
Medieval Industry. CBA Res Rep 40, 14350. London
Hunter, J R and Heyworth, M P, 1998 The Hamwic Glass.
CBA Res Rep 116. York
Hunter, J R and Sanderson, D C W, 1982 The investigation
of early glass, in A Aspinall and S E Warren (eds) Proc
22nd International Symposium on Archaeometry. Bradford,
15867
Hunter Blair, C H, 1929 Medival effigies in the county of
Durham, Archaeol Aeliana 4 ser 6, 151
Hunter Blair, P, 1949 The boundary between Bernicia and
Deira, Archaeol Aeliana 4 ser 27, 4659
, 1970 The World of Bede. London
Huntley, J P and Stallibrass, S, 1995 Plant and Vertebrate
Remains from Archaeological Sites in Northern England:
Data Reviews and Future Directions. Architect Archaeol
Soc Durham Northumberland Res Rep 4. Durham
Hureau, J C and Monod, T (eds), 1978 Check List of Fishes
of the North Atlantic and Mediterranean. UNESCO
Hurley, M F, 1990 Excavations at Grand Parade, Cork II
(part 2), J Cork Archaeol Hist Soc 95, 6487
Hurley, M F and Scully, O M B (eds), 1997 Late Viking and
Medieval Waterford Excavations 19861992. Waterford
Hurst, D and Freestone, I C, 1996 Lead glazing technique
from a medieval kiln site at Hanley Swan, Worcestershire,
Medieval Ceramics 20, 1318
Hurst, D G and Hurst, J G, 1969 Excavations at the
medieval village of Wythemail, Northamptonshire,
Hurst, J G, 1958 Saxo-Norman pottery in East Anglia, part
III: Stamford ware, with a report on recent finds from
Stamford by D P S Peacock, Proc Cambridge Antiq Soc 51,
3765
, 1961 The kitchen area of Northolt Manor, Middlesex,
415
, 1966 Imported flasks, in C V Bellamy (ed) Kirkstall

Abbey Excavations 196064, Thoresby Society 51, 55
, 1969 The pottery, in Cramp 1969, 5964
, 1976 The pottery, in Wilson 1976, 283348
, 1977 Langerwehe stoneware of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, in M R Apted, R Gilyard-Beer and A D
Saunders (eds) Ancient Monuments and their Interpretation:
Essays Presented to A J Taylor, Chichester, 21938
Hurst, J G, Neal, D S and van Beuningen, H J E, 1986
Pottery Produced and Traded in North-west Europe
13501650. Rotterdam Papers 6. Rotterdam
Hutchings, J B and Sanderson, D C W, 1981
Transreflectance properties of lightly tinted ancient
glass, International Colour Association Meeting, West
Berlin, 2025 Sept 1981. Unpublished typescript
Hutchinson, W, 1787 The History and Antiquities of the
County Palatine of Durham 2. Newcastle
Insall, D W, 1961 Report on the Parish Church of St Peter,
Monkwearmouth, Sunderland, Prepared for the Society for the
Protection of Ancient Buildings and the Central Council for the
Care of Churches. London
Isings, C, 1980 Glass finds from Dorestad, Hoogstraat 1, in
van Es and Verwers 1980, 22537
Jackson, C M, 1994 Appendix A1, in M J Baxter (ed)
Exploratory Multivariate Data Analysis in Archaeology.
Edinburgh, 22831
, 1996 From Roman to early medieval glasses. Many
happy returns or a new birth?, in Annales du 13e Congrs
de lAssociation Internationale pour lHistoire du Verre (Pays
Bas 1995). Lochem, 289302
Jackson, C M, Hunter, J R, Warren, S E and Cool, H E M,
1991 The analysis of blue-green glass and glassy waste
from two Romano-British glass-working sites, in E
Pernicka and G A Wagner (eds) Archaeometry 90. Basel,
295305
Jackson, E D C and Fletcher, E G M, 1956 Porch and porticus in Saxon churches, J Brit Archaeol Ass 3 ser 19, 113
Jackson, E D C and Fletcher, E G M, 1961 Excavations at
Brixworth, 1958, J Brit Archaeol Ass 3 ser 24, 115
Jacobi, R M, 1976 Britain inside and outside Mesolithic
Europe, Proc Prehist Soc 42, 684
James, E, 1981 Archaeology and the Merovingian
monastery, in H B Clarke and M Brennan (eds)
Columbanus and Merovingian Monasticism. BAR Int Ser
S113. Oxford, 3355
James, S, Marshall, A and Millett, M, 1984 An early
medieval building tradition, Archaeol J 141, 182215
Janssen, H, 1983 Later medieval pottery production in the
Netherlands, in Davey and Hodges 1983, 12186
Jarrett, M G and Edwards, B J N, 1961 Medieval and other
pottery from Finchale Priory, Co Durham, Archaeol
Jarvis, K S, 1983 Excavations in Christchurch 19691980.
Dorset Natur Hist Archaeol Soc Monogr 5. Dorchester
Jedrzejewska, H, 1960 Old mortars in Poland: a new
method of investigation, Stud Conserv 5, 1328
Jenkins, F, 1965 St Martins church at Canterbury: a survey
of the earliest structural features, Medieval Archaeol 9,
1115
Jenner, A, 1985 The potters wheel product of function or
tradition, London Archaeol 5(5), 1304
Jenner, A and Cooper, D, 2001 The pottery, in L Truman
(ed) Excavations at Stockbridge, Newcastle-upon-Tyne,
1995, Archaeol Aeliana 5 ser 29, 16391
JARROWBI.QXD
416
19-01-2007
12:42
Pagina 416
Jennings, S, 1981 Eighteen Centuries of Pottery from Norwich.

East Anglian Archaeol 13. Norwich
, 1992 Medieval Pottery in the Yorkshire Museum. York
Jensen, S, 1991 The Vikings of Ribe. Den antikvariske
Samling. Ribe
Jobey, G, 1967 Excavations at Tynemouth Priory and
Castle, Archaeol Aeliana 4 ser 45, 33104
John, E, 1965 Secularium Prioratus and the Rule of St
Benedict, Revue Bndictine 75 (34), 21239
Johnson, M, 1993 The Saxon monastery at Whitby: past,
present, future, in M Carver (ed) In Search of Cult:
Archaeological Investigations in Honour of Philip Rahtz.
Woodbridge, 859
Jones, A K G, 1983 Bulk-sieving and the recovery of fish
remains from archaeological sites, in A R Hall and H K
Kenward (eds) Environmental Archaeology in the Urban
Context. CBA Res Rep 43. London, 7985
, 1984 Fish bones, in Rogerson and Dallas 1984, 1924
, forthcoming Fish remains from excavations at High
Street, Perth
Jones, A K G, and Scott, S A, 1985 The fish bones, in M
Atkin, A Carter and D H Evans (eds) Excavations in
Norwich 1971-1978, part II. E Anglian Archaeol 26.
Norwich, 2238
Jones, C W (ed), 1943 Bedae Opera de Temporibus. Medieval
Acad of America Publ 41. Cambridge, Mass
Jones, L W, 1946 Pricking manuscripts: the instruments and
their significance, Speculum 21, 389403
Jones, M J, 1994 St Paul in the Bail, Lincoln: Britain in
Europe?, in Painter 1994, 32547
, 1996 Early church groups in the British Isles, Antiquit
Tardive 4, 21115
Jordan, D, Haddon-Reece, D and Bayliss, A, 1994
Radiocarbon Dates from Samples Funded by English Heritage
and Dated Before 1981. London
Kain, R J P, and Baigent, E, 1992 The Cadastral Map in the
Service of the State. Chicago
Kapelle, W E, 1979 The Norman Conquest of the North: the
Region and its Transformation 10001135. London
Karkov, C, 1991 The decoration of early wooden architecture in Ireland and Northumbria, in Karkov and Farrell
1991, 2748
Karkov, C E (ed), 1999 The Archaeology of Anglo-Saxon
England: Basic Readings. New York and London
Karkov, C and Farrell, R (eds), 1991 Studies in Insular Art
and Archaeology. American Early Medieval Studies 1.
Oxford, Ohio
Kars, H and Wevers, J M A R, 1983 Early medieval
Dorestad, an archaeo-petrological study, Berichten van de
Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 33,
6181
Keller, C, 1998 Karolingische Tpferfen in BornheimWalberberg, Rhein-Sieg-Kreis, Bonner Jahrbcher 198,
285348
Kendrick, T D, 1941a A late Saxon hanging bowl, Antiq J
21, 1612
, 1941b The Scunthorpe bowl, Antiq J 21, 2368
Kendrick, T D, Brown, T J, Bruce-Mitford, R L S, RoosenRunge, H, Ross, A S C, Stanley, E G and Werner, A E A,
195660 Evangeliorum Quattuor Codex Lindisfarnensis. 2
vols. Olten and Lausanne
Kenyon, G, 1967 The Glass Industry of the Weald. Leicester
Kerridge, E, 1967 The Agricultural Revolution. London
Kilbride-Jones, H E, 1938 Glass armlets in Britain, Proc Soc
Antiq Scot 72, 36695
King, A C and Potter, T W, 1990 A new domestic-faade

from Roman Britain, J Roman Archaeol 3, 195204
Kirby, D P (ed), 1974 Saint Wilfrid at Hexham. Newcastle
upon Tyne
Kitzinger, E, 1993 Interlace and icons: form and function in
early Insular art, in Spearman and Higgitt 1993, 315
Kjlbye-Biddle, B, 1975 A cathedral cemetery: problems in
excavation and interpretation, World Archaeol 7(1),
87108
, 1990 Early medieval spoons, in Biddle 1990, II, 82331
, 1995 Iron-bound coffins and coffin-fittings from the preNorman cemetery, in Phillips and Heywood 1995,
489521
Kluge-Pinsker, A, 1991 Schachspiel und Trictrac. Zeugnisse
mittelalterlicher Spielfreude aus salischer Zeit, RmischGermanishes Zentralmuseum Monographien 30,
Sigmaringen
Knaut, M, 1987 Ein merowingerzeitliches Frauengrab mit
Tpferstempel aus Bopfingen, Ostalbkreis, Fundberichte
aus Baden-Wurttemberg 12, 46378
Knowles, A K, 1983 Acute traumatic lesions, in Hart 1983,
6183
Knowles, J A, 192930 Ancient leads for windows and the
methods of their manufacture, J Brit Soc Master Glass
Paint 3, 1339
Koch, U, 1987 Der Runde Berg bei Urach VI, Die Glas- und
Edelsteinfunde aus den Plangrabungen 196783 1,
Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften Kommission
fur Alamannische Altertumskunde, Schriften Band 12.
Heidelberg
Krautheimer, R, 193777 Corpus Basilicarum Christanarum
Romae, The Early Christian Basilicas of Rome: IVIX centuries 15. Vatican
, 1965 Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture.
Baltimore
Kreusch, F, 1965 Kirche, Atrium und Portikus in der
Aachener Pfalz, in Braunfels and Schnitzler 1965,
463533
La Baume, P, 19523 Die Wikingierzeit auf den nordfriesischen Inseln, Jahrbuch des Nordfriesischen Vereins fr
Heimatkunde und Heimatliebe 29, 5185
Lafond, J, 1966 Le vitrail. Les Arts Chrtiens 12. Paris
, 1968 Dcouverte de vitraux historis du moyen age
Constantinople, Cahiers Archologiques 18, 2318
Lagier, R and Baud, C A, 1980 Some comments on palaeopathology suggested by a case of myositis ossificans circumscripta observed on a medieval skeleton, J Human
Evol 9, 913
Laing, L R, 1973a Cooking pots and the origins of the
Scottish medieval pottery industry, Archaeol J 130,
183216
, 1973b People and pins in Dark Age Scotland, Trans
Dumfriesshire Galloway Natur Hist Antiq Soc 3 ser 50,
5371
, 1975a The Archaeology of Late Celtic Britain and Ireland c
4001200 AD. London
, 1975b The Mote of Mark and the origins of Celtic interlace, Antiquity 49, 98108
, 1999 The Bradwell mount and the use of millefiori in
post-Roman Britain, Studia Celtica 33, 13753
Laing, L R and Robertson, W N, 196970 Notes on
Scottish medieval pottery, Proc Soc Antiq Scot 102,
14654
Laistner, M L W, 1935 The library of the Venerable Bede,
in Thompson 1935a, 23766
JARROWBI.QXD
19-01-2007
12:42
Pagina 417
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Lambert, N, 1972 La Seube: tmoin de lart du verre en

France mridionale du bas-empire la fin du moyen-ge,
J Glass Stud 14, 77116
Lambrick, G, and Woods, H, 1976 Excavations at the site of
the Dominican Priory, Oxford, Oxoniensia, 41, 168231
Lane, A and Campbell, E, 2000 Dunadd: an Early Dalriadic
Capital. Cardiff Stud Archaeol. Oxford
Lanfry, G, 1939 Lglise carolingienne Saint-Pierre de labbaye de Jumiges, Bulletin Monumental 98, 4766
Lang, J, 1990 The painting of pre-Conquest sculpture in
Northumbria, in Cather et al 1990, 13546
, 1991 Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Cculpture: 3, York and
Eastern Yorkshire. Oxford
, J, 2001 Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture: 6, Northern
Yorkshire. Oxford
Lapidge, M, (ed), 1994 Bede and his World: the Jarrow
Lectures 19581993, 2 vols. Aldershot
Lapidge, M and Rosier, J L (trans), 1985 Aldhelm, the Poetic
Works. Woodbridge
Latimer, H B, 1927 Post-natal growth of the chicken skeleton, American J Anatomy 40, 157
Lawlor, H C, 1925 The Monastery of Saint Mochaoi of
Nendrum. Belfast
Lawson, G, 1978 Medieval tuning pegs from Whitby, N
Yorkshire, Medieval Archaeol 22, 13941
, 1985 Musical instrument pegs, in Hare 1985, 1514
, 1990 Musical instruments, in Biddle 1990, II, 71018
Leahy, K, 1999 The Middle Saxon site at Flixborough,
North Lincolnshire, in Hawkes and Mills 1999, 8794
Leach, R H and Newman, R, 1985 Excavations at Dacre,
19824: an interim report, Trans Cumberland Westmorland
Antiq Archaeol Soc n ser 85, 8793
Leeds, E T, 1923 A Saxon village near Sutton Courtenay,
Berkshire, Archaeologia 72, 14792
, 1927 A Saxon village at Sutton Courtenay, Berkshire,
second report, Archaeologia 76, 5980
Lehmann, E, 1938 Der fruhe deutsche Kirchenbau: Die
Entwicklung seiner Raumanordnung bis 1080. Forschungen
zur deutschen Kunstgeschichte 27. Berlin
, 1965a Die Architektur zur Zeit Karls des Grossen, in
Braunfels and Schnitzler 1965, 30119
, 1965b Die Anordnung der Altre in der karolingischen
Klosterkirche zu Centula, in Braunfels and Schnitzler
1965, 37483
Lehmann-Bockhaus, O, 195560 Lateinische Schriftquellen
zur Kunst in England, Wales und Schottland vom Jahre 901
bis zum jahre 1307 5 vols. Munich
Lehmkuhl, U, 1982 Archozoologische und typologische
Untersuchungen an durchlochten Schweinemetapodien
von slawischen Fundpltzen in Mecklenburg, Jahrbuch
fr Bodendenkmalpflege in Mecklenburg 30, 199222
Leland, J (ed A Hall), 1709 Commentarii de Scriptoribus
Britannicis 1. Oxford
Leland, J (ed T Hearne), 1715 De Rebus Britannicis
Collectanea 6 vols. Oxford
Le Maho, J, 1993 Les fragments de vitraux carolingians de
la cathdrale de Rouen, Bulletin des Amis des Monuments
Rouennais (Oct 92Sept 93), 3943
, 1994 Les fouilles de la cathdrale de Rouen de 1985
1993. Esquisse dun premier bilan, Archologie Mdivale
24, 152
, 2001 Les fragments de vitraux carolingiens de la
cathedrale de Rouen, in DellAcqua and Silva 2001,
11324
Lethbridge, T C, 1927 An Anglo-Saxon hut on the Car
Dyke at Waterbeach, Antiq J 7, 14154
417
, 1931 Recent Excavations in Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries in

Cambridgeshire and Suffolk. Cambridge Antiq Soc Quarto
Publ n ser 3. Cambridge
Lever, C, 1977 The Naturalised Animals of the British Isles.
London
Levison, W (ed), 1910 Vita Filiberti abbatis Gemeticensis et
Heriensis, in B Krusch and W Levison (eds) Passiones
vitaeque sanctorum aevi merovingici. Monumenta
Germaniae Historica, Scriptores Rerum Merovingicarum
5, 568604. Hanover and Leipzig
Levison, W, 1943 The inscription on the Jarrow cross,
Lewis, J H and Ewart, G J, 1995 Jedburgh Abbey. The
Archaeology and Architecture of a Border Abbey. Soc Antiq
Scot Monogr Ser 10. Edinburgh
Lilyquist, C and Brill, R H, 1996 A collaborative study of
early glassmaking in Egypt c 1500 BC, in Annales du 13e
Congrs de lAssociation Internationale pour lHistoire du
Verre (Pays Bas 1995). Lochem, 19
Liversidge, J M C, 1969 Furniture and interior decoration,
in A L F Rivet (ed) The Roman Villa in Britain. London,
12772
Ljubinkovic, R, 1959 Sur un exemplaire de vitreaux du
monastre du Studenica, Archaeol Jugoslavica 3, 13741
Locker, A, 1983 Southgate, Hartlepool. The Fish Bones.
Ancient Monuments Laboratory Report 3937
, 1988 Fish bones, in Daniels 1988, 201
Lomas, R A, 1974 Durham Cathedral Priory as landowner
and landlord 12401540. Unpublished PhD thesis,
Durham
London Museum, 1940 J B Ward Perkins (ed) Medieval
Catalogue. London
Longstaffe, W H D, 1858 Durham before the Conquest, in
Memoirs Chiefly Illustrative of the History and Antiquities of
Northumberland, as Communicated to the Annual Meeting of
the Archaeological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, held
at Newcastle-upon-Tyne in August 1852: 1 Miscellaneous
Papers. London, 4196
Louis, E, 2002 Wandignies-Hamage, ancienne abbaye de
Hamage, Archologie en NordPas-de-Calais. Douai
Loveluck, C P, 1998 A high-status Anglo-Saxon settlement
at Flixborough, Lincolnshire, Antiquity 72, 14661
, 2001 Wealth, waste and conspicuous consumption.
Flixborough and its importance for mid and late Saxon
settlement studies, in Hamerow and MacGregor 2001,
78130
, forthcoming The Anglo-Saxon Settlement and Cemetery
Remains from Flixborough. Humber Archaeology
Partnership, report in preparation
Lowe, C E, 1991 New light on the Anglian minster at
Hoddom, Trans Dumfriesshire Galloway Natur Hist Antiq
Soc 3 ser 66, 1135
Lowe, R H (nd) Monkwearmouth Church in the Nineteenth
Century. Wearmouth Historical Pamphlet 6. Sunderland
Lowery, P R, Savage, R D A and Wilkins, R L, 1971
Scriber, graver, scorper, tracer: notes on experiments in
bronzeworking technique, Proc Prehist Soc 37(1), 16782
Lowther, P, Ebbatson, L, Ellison, M and Millett, M, 1993
The City of Durham, an archaeological survey, Durham
Archaeol J 9, 27119
Luard, H R (ed), 1872 Matthaei Parisiensi monachi sancti
albani, Chronica majora 1, Rolls Ser 57. London
Lucy, S, 1999 Changing burial rites in Northumbria AD
500750, in Hawkes and Mills 1999, 1243
, 2000 The Anglo-Saxon Way of Death: Burial Rites in Early
England. Stroud
JARROWBI.QXD
418
19-01-2007
12:42
Pagina 418
Lundstrm, A, 1981 Survey of the glass from Helg, in A

Lundstrm et al (eds) Excavations at Helg: Glass, Iron and
Clay. Stockholm, 128
Lyman, R L, 1987 On the analysis of vertebrate mortality
profiles: sample size, American Antiquity 52(1), 12542
Lynn, C J, 1984 Some fragments of exotic porphyry found
in Ireland J Irish Archaeol 2, 1932
, 1988 Excavations at 4648 Scotch Street, Armagh,
197880, Ulster J Archaeol 51, 6984
McCarthy, M, and Brooks, C, 1988 Medieval Pottery in
Britain: AD 9001600. Leicester
McCormick, F, 1997 Iona: the archaeology of the early
monastery, in Bourke 1997, 4568
MacDonald, A, 1984 Aspects of the monastery and monastic life in Adomnns Life of Columba, Peritia 3, 271302
, 1997 Adomnns monastery of Iona, in Bourke 1997,
2444
MacGowan, K, 1996 Barking Abbey, Current Archaeol
13(5), 1728
MacGregor, A, 1974 The Broch of Burrian, North
Ronaldsay, Orkney, Proc Soc Antiq Scot 105, 63118
, 1978 Industry and commerce in Anglo-Scandinavian
York, in R A Hall (ed) Viking Age York and the North.
CBA Res Rep 27. London, 3757
, 1982a Anglo-Scandinavian Finds from Lloyds Bank,
Pavement, and Other Sites. The Archaeology of York, AY
17(3). London
, 1982b Bone, antler and ivory objects, in J C Murray (ed)
Excavations in the Medieval Burgh of Aberdeen 197381. Soc
Antiq Scot Monogr Ser 2. Edinburgh, 1804
, 1985 Bone, Antler, Ivory and Horn: the Technology of
Skeletal Materials since the Roman Period. London
, 1987 Objects of bone and antler, in Beresford 1987,
18893
, 1990 Antler, bone and horn, in J Blair and N Ramsay
(eds) English Medieval Industries. London, 35578
MacGregor, A and Dickinson, T M, 1992 Bone and antler
objects, in Milne and Richards 1992, 548
MacGregor, A, Mainman, A J and Rogers, N S H, 1999
Bone, Antler, Ivory and Horn from Anglo-Scandinavian and
Medieval York, The Archaeology of York AY 17(12). York
MacKenzie, E and Ross, M, 1834 An Historical,
Topographical and Descriptive View of the County Palatine of
Durham 1. Newcastle
MacLees, C, 1990 The Games People Played. Gaming Pieces,
Boards and Dices from the Excavations in the Medieval Town
of Trondheim, Norway. Fortiden i Trondheim bygrunn.
Folkebibliotekstomten Meddelelser 24. Trondheim
Magilton, J R, 1980 The Church of St Helen-on-the-Walls,
Aldwark. The Archaeology of York AY 10(1). London
Mainman, A J, 1990 Anglo-Scandinavian Pottery from 1622
Coppergate. The Archaeology of York AY 16(5). London
, 1993 Pottery from 4654 Fishergate. The Archaeology of
York AY 16(6). London
Mainman, A J and Rogers, N S H, 2000 Finds from AngloScandinavian York. The Archaeology of York. AY 17(14).
York
Manders, F W D, 1973 A History of Gateshead. Gateshead
Mann, J E, 1982 Early Medieval finds from Flaxengate: 1
Objects of Antler, Bone, Stone, Horn, Ivory, Amber, and Jet.
The Archaeology of Lincoln 14(1). London
Margary, I D, 1967 Roman Roads in Britain, rev edn. London
Margeson, S, 1982 Worked bone, in J G Coad and A D F
Streeten (eds) Excavations at Castle Acre castle, Norfolk,
197277, Archaeol J 139, 24155
, 1993 Norwich Households: the Medieval and Post-medieval

Finds from Norwich Survey Excavations 19711978. E
Anglian Archaeol 58. Norwich
Marks, R, 1986 Cistercian window glass in England and
Wales, in C Norton and D Park (eds) Cistercian Art and
Architecture in the British Isles. Cambridge, 21127
, 1993 Stained Glass in England During the Middle Ages.
London
Markusson, K W, 1980 Recent investigations in the east
range of the cathedral monastery, Durham, in N
Coldstream and P Draper (eds) Medieval Art and
Architecture at Durham Cathedral. Brit Archaeol Ass
Conference Trans 3. Leeds, 3748
Marlow, M, 1992 The population, in Sherlock and Welch
1992, 10719
Martin, J, 1852 The Pig: its General Management and
Treatment. London
Martin, C J M, 1979 Spanish Armada pottery, Int J Naut
Archaeol Underwater Explor 8, 279302
Martin du Gard, R, 1909 Labbaye de Jumieges, tude archeologique des ruines. Montdidier
Matolcsi, J, 1970 Historische Erforschung der Korpergrosse
des Rindes auf Grund von ungarischem Knochenmaterial,
Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie 87, 89137
Mattingly, H et al (eds), 192394 The Roman Imperial
Coinage 10 vols in 13. London
Mawer, A, 1920 The Place-names of Northumberland and
Durham. Cambridge
Maxwell, R and Vaughan, J, 1994 The pottery, in R Fraser
and R Maxwell (eds) Excavations in the Castle Ditch,
Durham. Unpubl report
Mayhew, N J, 1983 Sterling Imitations of Edwardian Type. Roy
Numis Soc Spec Publ 14. London
Mayr-Harting, H M R E, 1972 The Coming of Christianity to
Anglo-Saxon England 1 edn. London
, 1976 The Venerable Bede, the Rule of St Benedict and Social
Class. Jarrow Lecture, Jarrow (reprinted in Lapidge 1994,
40534)
, 1991 The Coming of Christianity to Anglo-Saxon England 3
edn. London
Mays, S, 1998 The Archaeology of Human Bone. London
Mead, V K, 1977 Evidence for the manufacture of amber
beads in London in the 1415th century, London
Middlesex Archaeol Soc 28, 21114
MPRG, 1998 A Guide to the Classification of Medieval Ceramic
Forms. Medieval Pottery Research Group Occas Pap 1
Megaw, J V S, 1961 An end-blown flute or flageolet from
White Castle, Medieval Archaeol 5, 17680
, 1984 Bone musical instruments from medieval Exeter,
in Allan 1984, 34951
, 1990 Bone whistles and related objects, in Biddle 1990,
II, 71823
Mellars, P A, 1976 Settlement patterns and industrial variability in the British Mesolithic, in G de G Sieveking, I H
Longworth and K E Wilson (eds) Problems in Economic
and Social Archaeology. London, 37599
Mellor, J E and Pearce, T, 1981 The Austin Friars, Leicester.
CBA Res Rep 35. London
Mertens, J, 1962 Recherches archologiques dans labbaye
mrovingienne de Nivelles. Archaeologia Belgica, 61. Brussels
Metcalf, D M, 1984 Monetary circulation in southern
England in the first half of the eighth century, in Hill and
Metcalf 1984, 2769
(ed), 1987 Coinage in Ninth-century Northumbria: the Tenth
Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History. BAR
Brit Ser 180. Oxford
JARROWBI.QXD
19-01-2007
12:42
Pagina 419
BIBLIOGRAPHY
, 1994 Thrymsas and Sceattas in the Ashmolean Museum,

Oxford 3. London
Meyvaert, P, 1964 Bede and Gregory the Great. Jarrow
Lecture, Jarrow (reprinted in Lapidge 1994, 10332)
, 1973 The medieval monastic claustrum, Gesta 12, 539
, 1979 Bede and the church paintings at WearmouthJarrow, Anglo-Saxon England 8, 6377
, 1996 Bede, Cassiodorus, and the Codex Amiatinus,
Speculum 71, 82783
Micklethwaite, J T, 1896 Something about Saxon church
building; with additional notes on Saxon crypts and
dwelling places in churches, Archaeol J 53, 292351
Miket, R, 1980 A re-statement of the evidence from
Bernician Anglo-Saxon burials, in Rahtz et al 1980,
289305
Mikler, H, 1997 Die rmischen Funde aus Bein im
Landesmuseum Mainz. Monographies Instrumentum 1.
Montagnac
Milburn, W and Milburn, T R, 1931 St Peters church,
Monkwearmouth; notes on the work of repairing the
tower and west wall, Antiq Sunderland 18, 6374
Mills, S, 1995 Pottery, in Cambridge and Williams 1995,
1279
, 1998 Appendix III: a guide to the pottery sequence, in
Speak 1998, 835
Mills, S and Webster, L, 1991 Cat 105 (ad). Selected finds
from the Anglo-Saxon monastery at Jarrow, Tyne and
Wear, in Webster and Backhouse 1991, 13840
Milne, G, and Richards, J D, 1992 Wharram: a study of settlement on the Yorkshire Wolds: 7, Two Anglo-Saxon buildings
and associated finds, York Univ Archaeol Publ, 9, York
Mirti, P, Casoli, A, and Appolonia, L, 1993 Scientific analysis of Roman glass from Augusta Pretoria, Archaeometry
35, 22540
Mirti, P, Lepora, A, and Sagu, L, 2000 Scientific analysis of
seventh-century glass fragments from the Crypta Balbi in
Rome, Archaeometry 42, 35974
Mols, S, 1999 Wooden Furniture in Herculaneum: Form,
Technique and Function. Amsterdam
Moore, D T, 1978 The petrography and archaeology of
English honestones, J Archaeol Sci 5, 6173
Moorhouse, S, 1971 Tudor Green: some further thoughts,
, 1972 Medieval distilling-apparatus of glass and pottery,
, 1983 Vessel glass, in P Mayes and L Butler (eds) Sandal
Castle Excavations 196473. Wakefield, 22530
Moreland, J, 1985 A monastic workshop and glass production at San Vincenzo al Volturno, Molise, Italy, in
Hodges and Mitchell 1985, 3760
Morris, C A, 1982 Aspects of Anglo-Saxon and AngloScandinavian lathe-turning, in S McGrail (ed)
Woodworking Techniques Before AD 1500. BAR Int Ser
S129. Oxford, 24561
Morris, C D, 1977 Northumbria and the Viking settlement:
the evidence for landholding, Archaeol Aeliana 5 ser 5,
81103
, 1981 Viking and native in northern England: a case
study, in H Bekker Nielsen, P Foote and O Olsen (eds)
Proceedings of the Eighth Viking Congress. Odense, 22344
Morris, E, 1980 Medieval and post-medieval pottery in
Worcester a type series, in M O H Carver (ed)
Medieval Worcester: an archaeological framework, Trans
Worcestershire Archaeol Soc 3 ser 7, 22154
Morris, R, 1983 The Church in British Archaeology. CBA Res
Rep 47. London
419
, 1986 Alcuin, York and the alma sophia, in Butler and

Morris 1986, 809
, 1989 Churches in the Landscape. London
Morrison, H, 19701 Pots et godets du Beauvaisis, Bulletin
Groupe de Recherches et dEtudes de la Ceramique du
Beauvaisis 3, 4370
Mortimer, C and Baxter, M J, 1996 Analysis of Samples of
Colourless Roman Vessel Glass from Lincoln. Ancient
Mortimer, J R, 1905 Forty Years Researches in British and
Saxon Burial Mounds of East Yorkshire. London
Mould, Q, 1979 The iron nails, in Smith 1979, 14852
Mller,
U,
1996
Holzfunde
aus
Freiburg/
Augustinereremitenkloster und Konstanz. Herstellung und
Funktion einer Materialgruppe aus dem spten Mittelalter.
Forschungen und Berichte der Archologie des
Mittelalters in Baden-Wrttemberg 21. Stuttgart
Murray, H, 1979 Documentary evidence for domestic
buildings in Ireland c 4001200 in the light of archaeology, Medieval Archaeol 23, 8197
Murray, H J R, 1941 The mediaeval game of Tables,
Medium Aevum 10, 5769
, 1952 A History of Board-games other than Chess. Oxford
Murray, J C, 1982 Scarborough ware from Aberdeen, in
Watkins et al 1982, 967
Myres, J N L and Green, B, 1973 The Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries
of Caistor-by-Norwich and Markshall, Norfolk. Rep Res
Comm Soc Antiq London 30. London
Nsman, U, 1986 Vendel period glass from Eketorp II,
Oland, Sweden, Acta Archaeologica 55 (1984), 55116
Nenk, B S, Margeson, S and Hurley, M, 1996 Medieval
Britain and Ireland in 1995, Medieval Archaeol 40,
234318
Nenna, M-D (ed), 2000 La route du verre. Ateliers primaires
et secondaires du second millnaire av J-C au Moyenge. Travaux de la Maison de lOrient Mditrraneen 33.
Lyon
Nenna, M-D, Vichy, M, and Picon, M, 1997 Latelier de
verrier de Lyon, du Ier sicle aprs J-C, et lorigine des
verres Romains , Revue dArchomtrie 21, 817
Nenna, M-D, Picon, M, and Vichy, M, 2000 Ateliers primaires et secondaires en gypt lpoque grco-romaine,
in Nenna 2000, 97112
Neuman de Vegvar, C, 1997 The Echternach lion: a leap of
faith, in C E Karkov, R T Farrell and M Ryan (eds) The
Insular Tradition. Albany, 16788
Newby, M, 1991 The glass from Farfa Abbey: an interim
report, J Glass Stud 33, 3241
Newman, R, 2002 Anglo-Saxon Christianity, in C Brooks,
R Daniels and A Harding (eds) Past, Present and Future:
the Archaeology of Northern England. Architect Archaeol
Soc Durham Northumberland Res Rep 5, 14954.
Durham
Newman, R and Leach, R H, forthcoming Report on
Excavations at Dacre. Cumberland Westmorland Antiq
Archaeol Soc Monogr
Newton, R G, 1978 Colouring agents used by medieval
glassmakers, Glass Technol 19(3), 5960
, 1985 W E S Turner recollections and developments.
Eighth W E S Turner memorial lecture, Glass Technol
26(2), 93103
Newton, R G, et al, 1976 Chemical analyses of mediaeval
window glasses, C V Newsletter 21, 915
Newton, R G, et al, 1977 More analytical results, C V
Newsletter 24, 1012
JARROWBI.QXD
420
19-01-2007
12:42
Pagina 420
Newton, R G, Holloway, D G and Hench, L L, 1981 A note

on the spontaneous fracturing of ancient glass samples,
in Annales du 8e Congrs de lAssociation Internationale pour
lHistoire du Verre (Londres-Liverpool 1979). Lige, 35567
Nicholson, A, 1997 The iron, in Hill 1997, 40433
Nicholson, R A, 1988 The fish remains, in OBrien et al
1988, 13847
Nielson, H and K, 1978 Module search by means of a computer an aid for analysis of historical architecture, etc,
in K Kristiansen and C Paludan-Miller (eds) New
Directions in Scandinavian Archaeology. Studies in
Scandinavian Prehistory and Early History 1.
Copenhagen, 2345
Noddle, B A, 1975 A comparison of the animal bones from
eight medieval sites in southern Britain, in Clason 1975,
24860
, 1978 Some minor skeletal differences in sheep, in D R
Brothwell, K D Thomas and J Clutton-Brock (eds)
Research Problems in Archaeozoology. Inst Archaeol Univ
London Occas Publ 3. London, 13341
, 1982 The size of red deer in Britain past and present,
with some reference to fallow deer, in M Bell and S
Limbrey (eds) Archaeological Aspects of Woodland Ecology.
BAR Int Ser S146. Oxford, 31533
, 1983 Size and shape, time and place: skeletal variations
in cattle and sheep in M. Jones (ed), Integrating the
Subsistence Economy, BAR Int Ser 181. Symposia of the
Association for Environmental Archaeology 4. Oxford,
21138
, 1987 Animal Bones from Jarrow, third report. Ancient
, nd Report on animal bones from Hereford(unpublished)
Noel Hume, I, 1963 Here lies Virginia. New York
Nolan, J, Fraser, R, Harbottle, B and Burton, F C, 1989
The medieval town defences of Newcastle upon Tyne:
excavation and survey 198687, Archaeol Aeliana 5 ser
17, 2978
Norman, E R and St Joseph, J K S, 1969 The Early
Development of Irish Society: the Evidence of Air
Photography. Cambridge
North, J J, 1991 English Hammered Coinage 2. Edward I to
Charles II, 12721662. 3 edn. London
, 1994 English Hammered Coinage 1. Early Anglo-Saxon to
Henry III c 6001272. 3 edn. London
Novelli, S, 1974 La Diocesi di Torino. Corpus della scultura
altomedievale 6, Spoleto
OBrien, C, 1988 The Dog Bank pottery kiln: excavation,
in OBrien et al 1988, 313
OBrien, C, Bown, L, Dixon, S and Nicholson, R, 1988 The
Origins of the Newcastle Quayside: Excavations at Queen
Street and Dog Bank. Soc Antiq Newcastle upon Tyne
Monogr Ser 3. Newcastle
OBrien, E, 1999 Post-Roman Britain to Anglo-Saxon England:
Burial Practices Reviewed. BAR Brit Ser 289. Oxford
Carragin, , 1994 The City of Rome and the World of Bede.
Jarrow Lecture, Jarrow
, 1999 The term Porticus and Imitatio Romae in Anglo-Saxon
England, in H C OBrian, A M DArcy and J Scattergood
(eds) Text and Gloss: Studies in Insular Learning and Literature
Presented to Joseph Donovan Pheifer. Dublin, 1334
, 1982 Animal Bones from Flaxengate, Lincoln, 8701500.
The Archaeology of Lincoln 18(1). London
OKelly, M J, 1963 Two ring-forts at Garyduff, Co Cork,
Proc Roy Ir Acad 63C (2), 17125
ORahilly, C, 1975 A catalogue and classification of

bronze stick pins from the excavations in Dublin
19621972. Unpublished MA dissertation, University
College Dublin
Rordin, S P, 1942 The excavation of a large earthen
ring-fort at Garranes, Co Cork, Proc Roy Ir Acad 47C (2),
77150
OSullivan, D, 1989 The plan of the early Christian
monastery at Lindisfarne: a fresh look at the evidence, in
Bonner et al 1989, 12543
, 2001 Space, silence and shortage on Lindisfarne. The
archaeology of asceticism, in Hamerow and MacGregor
2001, 3352
OSullivan, D and Young, R, 1991 The early medieval settlement at Green Shiel, Northumberland, Archaeol
OSullivan, D and Young, R, 1995 English Heritage Book of
Lindisfarne: Holy Island. London
Oakley, G E, 1979 The worked bone, in Williams 1979a,
2869
Oakley, G E and Hunter, J, 1979 The glass, in Williams
1979a, 296302
Offler, H S, 1962 A note on the last medieval bishops of
Hexham, Archaeol Aeliana 4 ser 40, 1639
(ed), 1968 Durham Episcopal Charters 10711152. Surtees
Soc 179. Gateshead
Okasha, E, 1971 Hand-list of Anglo-Saxon Non-runic
Inscriptions. Cambridge
, 1983 A supplement to Hand-list of Anglo-Saxon Nonrunic Inscriptions, Anglo-Saxon England 11, 83118
, 1988 The Anglo-Saxon inscribed stone from
Coldingham, Hist Berwickshire Natur Club 44(2), 825
Orton, C R, 1988 Post-Roman pottery, in P Hinton (ed)
Excavations in Southwark 197376, Lambeth 197379.
London Middlesex Archaeol Soc, Surrey Archaeol Soc,
Joint Publ 3. London, 295364
Orton, C R and Pearce, J E, 1984 The pottery, in A
Thompson, F Grew and J Schofield (eds) Excavations at
Aldgate 1974, Post-Medieval Archaeol 18, 3468
Oswald, A and Phillips, H, 1949 A Restoration glass hoard
from Gracechurch Street, London, The Connoisseur
September 1949, 306
Oswald, F, Shaefer, L and Sennhauser, H R, 196691
Vorromanische Kirchenbauten: Katalog der Denkmler bis
zum Ausgang der Ottonen 2 vols. Munich
Ottaway, P, 1992 Anglo-Scandinavian Ironwork from
Coppergate. The Archaeology of York AY 17(6). London
, 1996 The ironwork, in Hall and Whyman 1996, 99113
, forthcoming The ironwork, in R Newman and R H
Leach (eds ) Report on excavations at Dacre
Pagan, H E, 1969 Northumbrian numismatic chronology in
the ninth century, Brit Numis J 38, 115
Page, R I, 1973 An Introduction to English Runes. London
, 1999 An Introduction to English Runes. 2 edn. Woodbridge
Page, W (ed), 1905 The Victoria History of the County of
Durham 1. London
Painter, K (ed), 1994 `Churches Built in Ancient Times:
Recent Studies in Early Christian Archaeology. Soc Antiq
London Occas Pap 16. London
Parker, M S, 1985 An Anglo-Saxon monastery in the lower
Don valley, Northern History 21, 1932
Parsons, D (ed), 1975 Tenth century Studies. London and
Chichester
, 1977 The pre-Romanesque church of St Riquier: the
documentary evidence, J Brit Archaeol Ass 130, 2151
JARROWBI.QXD
19-01-2007
12:42
Pagina 421
BIBLIOGRAPHY
, 1987 Books and Buildings: Architectural Description Before

and After Bede. Jarrow Lecture, Jarrow (reprinted in
Lapidge 1994, 72974)
Paton, J N, 186870 Notice of the amber seal (matrix) of a
canon of Inchaffray, found near St Johns church, Perth,
Proc Soc Antiq Scot 8, 36472
Pearce, J E, 1992 Post-medieval Pottery in London, 15001700:
1 Border Wares. London
Pearce, J E and Vince, A G, 1988 A Dated Type-series of
London Medieval Pottery, Part 4: Surrey Whiteware.
London Middlesex Archaeol Soc Spec Pap 10. London
Pearce, J E, Vince, A G and Jenner, M A, 1985 A Dated Typeseries of London Medieval Pottery, Part 2: London-type Ware.
London Middlesex Archaeol Soc Spec Pap 6. London
Pearson, T, 1982 The dating of Scarborough ware,
Peck, C W, 1964 English Copper, Tin and Bronze Coins in the
British Museum 15581958. 2 edn. London
Peers, C R, 1935 Monkwearmouth and Jarrow, in
Thompson 1935a, 10210
, 1987 Finchale Priory, Durham, rev edn. English Heritage
Handbook. London
Peers, C R and Clapham, A W, 1927 St Augustines abbey
church, Canterbury, before the Norman Conquest,
Archaeologia 77, 20118
Peers, C R and Radford, C A R, 1943 The Saxon monastery
of Whitby, Archaeologia 89, 2788
Perry, D R, 2000 Castle Park, Dunbar. Two Thousand Years on
a Fortified Headland. Soc Antiq Scot Monogr 16.
Edinburgh
Perry, J T and Henman, C, 1867 Illustrations of the Medieval
Antiquities in the County of Durham. Oxford
Petch, J A, 1925 Roman Durham, Archaeol Aeliana 4 ser 1,
134
Petersen, J, 1919 De norske vikingesverd, en typologisk-kronologisk studie over vikingetidens vaaben. Kristiania
, 1928 Vikingetidens Smykker. Stavanger
Pevsner, N (revised by E Williamson), 1983 The Buildings of
England: County Durham. 2 edn. Harmondsworth
Phillips, D, 1985 Excavations at York Minster: 2 The Cathedral
of Archbishop Thomas of Bayeux. London
Phillips, D and Heywood, B (ed M O H Carver), 1995
Excavations at York Minster: 1 From Roman Fortress to
Norman Cathedral. 2 vols. London
Pickles, C, 1999 Texts and Monuments: a Study of Ten AngloSaxon Churches of the pre-Viking Period. BAR Brit Ser 277.
Oxford
Pilloy, J and Socard, E, 1910 Le vitrail carolingien de la
chasse de Sry-ls-Mzires, Bulletin Monumental 64,
525
Piper, A J, 1986 The Durham Monks at Jarrow. Jarrow
Lecture, Jarrow (reprinted in Lapidge 1994, 689728)
, nd Durham Monks at Wearmouth. Wearmouth Historical
Pamphlets 9. Sunderland
Pirie, E J E, 1984 Some Northumbrian finds of sceattas, in
Hill and Metcalf 1984, 20715
, 1986 Finds of sceattas and stycas of Northumbria,
in M A S Blackburn(ed) Anglo-Saxon Monetary History:
Essays in Memory of Michael Dolley. Leicester, 6790
, 1996 Coins of the Kingdom of Northumbria, c 700867, in
the Yorkshire Collections: the Yorkshire Museum, York, the
University of Leeds, the City Museum, Leeds. Llanfyllin
, 1997 The early medieval coins, in Hill 1997, 33245
, 2000 Thrymsas, Sceattas and Stycas of Northumbria an
Inventory of Finds Recorded to 1997. Llanfyllin
, forthcoming a Coins of the eighth and ninth centuries,
421
in T G Manby (ed) Paddock Hill, Octon: a Bronze Age and

Anglo-Saxon Site at Thwing, in East Yorkshire
, forthcoming b The early medieval coins, in G Keevill
(ed) Excavations at Carlisle Cathedral in 1985 and 1988
Pirie, E J E and Archibald, M M, 1995 Post-Roman coins,
in Phillips and Heywood 1995, 52730
Pirie, E J E, with Archibald, M M and Hall, R A, 1986 PostRoman Coins from York Excavations, 197181. The
Archaeology of York AY 18(1), London
Platt, C, and Coleman-Smith, R (eds), 1975 Excavations in
Medieval Southampton 19531969: 2 The Finds. Leicester
Plummer, C (ed), 1896 Venerabilis Baedae Opera Historica, 2
vols. Oxford
Pocock, M and Wheeler, H, 1971 Excavations at Escomb
church, County Durham, J Brit Archaeol Ass 3 ser 34,
1129
Poljakova, G F and Fecher, M V, 1973 Mhlespiel in der
alten Rus, Slovenska Archeologia 21, 4414
Pollard, G, 1962 The construction of English twelfthcentury bindings, The Library 5 ser 17(1), 122
Potter, T and Andrews, R D, 1994 Excavation and survey at
St Patricks chapel and St Peters church, Heysham,
Lancashire, 19778, Antiq J 74, 55134
Potts, R U, 1934 The plan of St Austins abbey,
Canterbury, Archaeol Cantiana 46, 17994
Price, J, 1988 Romano-British glass bangles from eastern
Yorkshire, in J Price and P R Wilson, with C S Briggs and
S J Hardman (eds) Recent Research in Roman Yorkshire.
BAR Brit Ser 193. Oxford, 33966,
, 1993 Window glass, in Woodward and Leach 1993, 189
, 1997 The Roman glass, in Hill 1997, 2946
(ed), 2000 Glass in Britain and Ireland AD 3501100. Brit
Mus Occas Pap 127. London
Price, J and Cool, H E M, 1991 The evidence for the production of glass in Roman Britain, in Foy and Sennequier
1991, 2330
Prinz, F, 1965 Frhes Monchtums in Frankenreich. Kultur und
Gelsellschaft in Gallien, den Rheinlanden und Bayern am
Beispiel der monastichen Entwicklung (45 Jahrhundert).
Munich and Vienna
Pritchard, F, 1991 Small finds, in A Vince (ed) Aspects of
Saxo-Norman London: 2 Finds and Environmental Evidence.
London, 120278
Prummel, W, 1983 Early Medieval Dorestad. An
Archaeozoological Study. Excavations in Dorestad 2.
Amersfoort
Rackham, B, 1936 A Guide to the Collection of Stained Glass,
London
, 1952 Farnham pottery of the 16th century, Surrey
Archaeol Collect 52, 505
Rackham, J, 1988a Animal bones, in Daniels 1988, 1979
, 1988b Synthesis of the vertebrate remains, in Daniels
1988, 201
(ed), 1994 Environment and Economy in Anglo-Saxon
England, CBA Res Rep 89. York
Radford, C A R, 1940 Small bronzes from St Augustines
Abbey Canterbury, Antiq J 20, 5068
, 1954a Saint Pauls church, Jarrow, Archaeol J 111,
2035
, 1954b Trial excavations at Jarrow, 1954, Archaeol J 111,
2059
, 1954c Saint Peters church, Monkwearmouth, Archaeol
J 111, 20911
, 1958 The excavations at Glastonbury Abbey 19567,
Somerset Dorset Notes Queries 27, 1659
JARROWBI.QXD
422
19-01-2007
12:42
Pagina 422
, 1962 The Celtic monastery in Britain, Archaeol

Cambrensis 111, 124
, 1968 Glastonbury Abbey, in G Ashe (ed) The Quest for
Arthurs Britain. London, 11938
Rahtz, P A, 1962 Whitby 1958, Yorkshire Archaeol J 40,
60418
, 1970 Excavations on Glastonbury Tor, Somerset,
19646, Archaeol J 127, 181
, 1973 Monasteries as settlements, Scot Archaeol Forum 5,
12535
, 1976a Buildings and rural settlements, in Wilson 1976,
4998
, 1976b The building plan of the Anglo-Saxon monastery
of Whitby Abbey, in Wilson 1976, 45962
, 1979 The Saxon and Medieval Palaces at Cheddar,
Excavations 19601962 (ed S M Hirst), BAR Brit Ser 65.
Oxford
, 1993 English Heritage Book of Glastonbury. London
, 1995 Anglo-Saxon and later Whitby, in L R Hoey (ed)
Yorkshire Monasticism: Archaeology, Art and Architecture
from the 7th to 16th Centuries. Brit Archaeol Ass
Conference Trans 16. Leeds, 111
Rahtz, P A, Dickinson, T and Watts, L (eds), 1980 AngloSaxon Cemeteries 1979. BAR Brit Ser 82. Oxford
Rahtz, P A and Meeson, R, 1992 An Anglo-Saxon Watermill
at Tamworth: Excavations in the Bolebridge Street Area of
Tamworth, Staffordshire in 1971 and 1978. CBA Res Rep
83. London
Rahtz, P A and Watts, L, with Taylor, H and Butler, L, 1997
St Marys Church, Deerhurst, Gloucestershire: Fieldwork,
Excavations and Structural Analysis, 19711984. Rep Res
Comm Soc Antiq London 55. Woodbridge
Rahtz, P A, Woodward, A, Burrow, I, Everton, A, Watts, L,
Leach, P, Hirst, S, Fowler, P and Gardener, K, 1992
Cadbury Congresbury, 196873: a Late/Post-Roman Hilltop
Settlement in Somerset. BAR Brit Ser 223. Oxford
Raine, J (ed), 1839 Historiae Dunelmensis Scriptores Tres.
Surtees Soc 9. London and Edinburgh
(ed), 1854 The Inventories and Account Rolls of the
Benedictine Houses or Cells of Jarrow and Monk-Wearmouth
in the County of Durham. Surtees Soc 29, Durham.
London and Edinburgh
(ed), 1864 The Priory of Hexham 1. Surtees Soc 44.
Durham, London and Edinburgh
Raistrick, A and Jennings, B, 1965 A History of Lead Mining
in the Pennines. London
Ramsay, N, 1987 Artists, craftsmen and design in England,
12001400, in J Alexander and P Binski (eds) Age of
Chivalry: Art in Plantagenet England 12001400. London,
4954
Rappmann, R and Zettler, A, 1998 Die Reichenauer
Mnchsgemeinschaft und ihr Totengedenken im frhen
Mittelalter. Archaologie und Geschichte 5, Sigmaringen
Rech, M, 1989 Zur frhmittelalterlichen Topographie von
Walberberg, Bonner Jahrbcher 198, 285344
Redknap, M, 1988 Medieval pottery production at Mayern:
recent advances, current problems, in D R Gaimster, M
Redknap and H W Wegner (eds), Zur keramik des
Mittelalters und der beginnenden Neuzeit im Rheinland
, 1999 Die rmischen und mittelalterlichen Tpferfen in
Mayen, Kreis Mayen-Koblenz. Berichte zur Archologie an
Mittelrhein und Mosel 6, Trierer Zeitschrift Beiheft 24.
Trier
Reinhardt, H and E F, 1933 Etude sur les glises-porches
carolingiennes et leur survivance dans lart roman,
Bulletin Monumental 92, 33165
Reynolds, N, 1976 The structure of Anglo-Saxon graves,

Antiquity 50, 1404
Richards, J D, 1987 The Significance of Form and Decoration of
Anglo-Saxon Cremation Urns. BAR Brit Ser 166. Oxford
Richmond, I A and Wright, R P, 1943 Stones from a
Hadrianic war memorial on Tyneside, Archaeol Aeliana 4
ser 21, 93120
Riddler, I D, 1980 Structural fittings from Anglo-Saxon
graves in Kentish cemeteries. Unpublished MA dissertation, Dept Archaeol, Univ Durham
, 1986 Pot dies: a Middle Saxon faunal viewpoint,
, 1990a Worked bone, in M Gardiner (ed) An AngloSaxon and medieval settlement at Botolphs, Bramber,
West Sussex, Archaeol J 147, 2602
, 1990b Ein Stielkamm aus Haithabu, in K Schietzel (ed)
Berichte ber die Ausgrabungen in Haithabu: 27, Das
archologische Fundmaterial 5. Neumnster, 17781
, 1991 The worked bone and antler, in P Fasham and R
J B Whinney (eds) Archaeology and the M3. Hampshire
Fld Club Archaeol Soc Monogr 7, 4650, Stroud
, 1993a Saxon worked bone, in R J Williams (ed)
Pennyland and Hartigans. Buckinghamshire Archaeol Soc
Monogr 4, 10719. Aylesbury
, 1993b Worked bone, in M Garner (ed) Middle Saxon
evidence at Cook Street, Southampton (SOU 254), Proc
Hampshire Fld Club Archaeol Soc 49, 11316
, 1994 The bone gaming piece, in D C Mynard (ed)
Excavations on Medieval Sites in Milton Keynes.
Buckinghamshire Archaeol Soc Monogr Ser 6, 1858.
Aylesbury
, 1996 Early Saxon, in R J Williams, P J Hart and A T L
Williams (eds) Wavedon Gate: a Late Iron Age and Roman
Settlement in Milton Keynes. Buckinghamshire Archaeol
Soc Monogr Ser 10, 1306. Aylesbury
, 1998a Bone styli, in Egan 1998, 272
, 1998b Worked whale vertebrae, Archaeol Cantiana 118,
20515
, 1999 A gaming-piece, in D Killocks (ed) Late medieval
and post-medieval developments at 100104 Bermondsey
Street, Southwark, Surrey Archaeol Coll 86, 133
, 2001 The small finds, in M Gardiner, R Cross, N
Macpherson-Grant and I Riddler (eds) Continental trade
and non-urban ports in Mid-Anglo-Saxon England:
excavations at Sandtun, West Hythe, Kent, Archaeol J
158, 22852
, forthcoming a The Anglo-Saxons and Taefl, in I Finkel
(ed) Board Game Studies. London
, forthcoming b Non-ceramic finds from the National
Portrait Gallery, in J Leary, G Brown, J Rackham, C
Pickard and R Hughes (eds) Tatberhts Lundenwic.
Archaeological Excavations in Middle Saxon London. PCA
Monograph 3. London
Riddler, I D and Walton Rogers, P, forthcoming The small
finds, in K Parfitt (ed) Excavations at Townwall Street,
Dover, Excavations in medieval Dover 1. Canterbury
Archaeol Trust Occas Pap. Canterbury
Riddler, I D, Trzaska-Nartowski, N T N and Hatton, S,
forthcoming An Early Medieval Craft. Antler and Boneworking from Ipswich Excavations 19741994. Gressenhall
Rigold, S E, 1960 The two primary series of sceattas, Brit
Numis J 30, 653
, 1966 The two primary series of sceattas: addenda and
corrigenda, Brit Numis J 35, 16
, 1977 The principal series of English sceattas, Brit Numis
J 47, 2130
JARROWBI.QXD
19-01-2007
12:42
Pagina 423
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Rigold, S E and Metcalf, D M, 1977 A check-list of English

finds of sceattas, Brit Numis J 47, 3152
Rigold, S E and Metcalf, D M, 1984 A revised check-list of
English finds of sceattas, in Hill and Metcalf 1984,
24568
Roberts, M, 1994 English Heritage Book of Durham. London
Robertson, A S, 1961 Sylloge of Coins of the British Isles: 2,
Hunter and Coats Collections, University of Glasgow. AngloSaxon 1. London
Robinson, M, 1973 Excavations at Copt Hay, Tetsworth,
Oxon, Oxoniensia 38, 41115
Rodwell, W, 1981 The Archaeology of the English Church.
London
, 1984 Churches in the landscape: aspects of topography
and planning, in M L Faull (ed) Studies in Late AngloSaxon Settlement. Oxford, 123
, 1986 Anglo-Saxon church building: aspects of design
and construction, in Butler and Morris 1986, 15675
, 2001 Wells Cathedral: Excavations and Structural Studies,
197893 2 vols. English Heritage Archaeol Rep 21. London
Rodwell, W and Rodwell, K, 1982 St Peters church,
Barton-upon-Humber: excavation and structural study,
197881, Antiq J 62(2), 283315
Roes, A, 1963 Bone and Antler Objects from the Frisian Terp
Mounds. Haarlem
Roesdahl, E, 1998 Livoire de morse et les colonies norroises du Groenland, Proxima Thule 3, 948
Rogers, N S H, 1993 Anglian and Other Finds from 4654
Fishergate. The Archaeology of York AY 17(9). London
Rogerson, A and Dallas, C, 1984 Excavations at Thetford
194859 and 197380. E Anglian Archaeol 22.
Gressenhall
Rohl, B M, 1996 Lead isotope data from the Isotrace
Laboratory, Oxford: Archaeometry data base 2, galena
from Britain and Ireland, Archaeometry 38(1), 16580
Rollason, D, 1986 The shrines of saints in later AngloSaxon England: distribution and significance, in Butler
and Morris 1986, 3250
(ed), 2000 Symeon of Durham: Libellus de exordio atque
procursu istius, hoc est Dunhelmensis, ecclesie/Tract on the
Origins and Progress of this the Church of Durham. Oxford
Rollason, D, Harvey, M and Prestwich, M (eds), 1994 AngloNorman Durham 10931193. Woodbridge
Rose, J D, 1932 Jarrow Church and Monastery, 3 edn. Jarrow
, 19356 In Exhibits, Proc Soc Antiq Newcastle 4 ser 7,
2467
Rose, T, 1835 Westmorland, Cumberland, Durham, and
Northumberland Illustrated 3. London
Ross, S, 1991 Dress pins from Anglo-Saxon England: their
production and typo-chronological development.
Unpublished D Phil thesis, 2 vols, Univ Oxford
, 1995 The pins, in Blockley et al 1995, 10436
, forthcoming Anglo-Saxon pins from the Ipswich excavations, Small finds report for the Ipswich Archaeological
Unit
Rowland, I D and Howe, T N (eds), 1999 Vitruvius: the Ten
Books on Architecture. Cambridge
Roy, N, 1993 Un atelier de poterie du Haut Moyen-Age en
Fort de la Londe, prs de Rouen (Seine-Maritime): tat
de la recherche, in D Piton (ed) La cramique du Vime au
Xime sicle dans LEurope du Nord-Ouest. Actes du
Colloque dOutreau (1012 Avril 1992), Nord-Ouest
Archologie, Numro hors-srie 34153. Berck-sur-Mer
RCAHMS, 1982 Argyll: an Inventory of the Monuments: 4
Iona. Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical
Monuments of Scotland, Edinburgh
423
Ryan, A M, 1939 A Map of Old English Monasteries and

Related Ecclesiastical Foundations, AD 4001066. Cornell
Studies in English 28. Ithaca
Ryan, J, 1931 Irish Monasticism, Origins and Early
Development. Dublin
Ryan, M, 1988 Fine metalworking and early Irish monasteries: the archaeological evidence, in J Bradley (ed)
Settlement and Society in Medieval Ireland: Studies Presented
to F X Martin, o s g. Kilkenny, 3348
Ryder, M L, 1970 The animal remains from Petergate,
York, 1957-8, Yorkshire Archaeol J 42, 41828
Ryder, P F, 1985 The Medieval Cross Slab Grave Cover in
County Durham. Archit Archaeol Soc Durham
Northumberland Res Rep 1. Durham
Sagu, L, 2000 Produzioni vetrarie a Roma tra V e VII secolo, in Annales du 14e Congrs de lAssociation pour
lHistoire du Verre (Venezia-Milano 1998). Amsterdam,
2037
Salzman, L F, 1967 Building in England down to 1540, a
Documentary History, new edn. Oxford
Sanderson, D C W and Hunter, J R, 1981a Compositional
variability in vegetable ash, Sci & Archaeol 23, 2730
, 1981b Major element glass-type specification for
Roman, post-Roman and medieval glasses, Revue
dArchaeometrie 3, 25564
Sanderson, D C W, Hunter, J R and Warren, S E, 1984
Energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence analysis of 1st millennium AD glass from Britain, J Archaeol Sci 11(1), 5369
Savage, H E, 1900 Jarrow church and monastery, Archaeol
Sawyer, P H, 1998 Anglo-Saxon Lincolnshire, History of
Lincolnshire. Lincoln
Sayre, E V, 1963 The intentional use of antimony and manganese in ancient glass, in F R Matson and G E Rindone
(eds) Advances in Glass Technology 2, 26382. New York
Sayre, E V and Smith, R W, 1961 Compositional categories
of ancient glass, Science 133, 18246
Schfer, H, 1994 ??? In Archologie in Deutschland pt 1, 467
Schietzel, K, 1970 Holzerne Kleinfunde aus Haithabu
(Ausgrabung 19631964), in K Schietzel (ed) Berichte
ber die Ausgrabungen in Haithabu: 4 Das archologische
Fundmaterial, 1, 19631964. Neumnster, 7791
Shaw, J T (ed), 1973 Sunderland Ware: the Potteries of
Wearside. Sunderland
Sherlock, D, and Woods, H, 1988 St Augustines Abbey:
Report on Excavations, 196078. Kent Archaeol Soc
Monogr Ser 4, Maidstone
Sherlock, S J, and Welch, M G, 1992 An Anglo-Saxon
Cemetery at Norton, Cleveland. CBA Res Rep 82. London
Shoesmith, R, 1980 Hereford City Excavations: 1 Excavations
at Castle Green. CBA Res Rep 36. London
Slowikowski, A M, 1992 Anglo-Saxon and medieval pottery, in Milne and Richards 1992, 2738
Smith, D B, 1994 Geology of the Country around Sunderland,
Memoir of the British Geological Survey, Sheet 21
(England and Wales)
Smith, G H, 1979 The excavation of the hospital of St Mary
of Ospringe, commonly called Maison Dieu, Archaeol
Cantiana 95, 81184
Smith, I M, 1984 The Lrins survey, Univ Durham
Newcastle Archaeol Rep for 1983, 616
Snape, M and Bidwell, P, 2002 Excavations at Castle Garth,
Newcastle upon Tyne, 197692 and 19956: the excavation
of the Roman fort, in The Roman Fort at Newcastle upon
Tyne, Archaeol Aeliana 5 ser 31 (extra vol for 2002), 1249
JARROWBI.QXD
424
19-01-2007
12:42
Pagina 424
Speak, S, 1998 Excavations at Church Bank, Jarrow,

198991, Archaeol Aeliana 5 ser 26, 5985
Speake, G, 1989 A Saxon Bed Burial on Swallowcliffe Down.
HBMC Archaeol Rep 10. London
Spearman, R M and Higgitt, J (eds), 1993 The Age of
Migrating Ideas: Early Medieval Art in Northern Britain and
Ireland. Edinburgh and Stroud
Stamp, G, 1982 The Great Perspectivists. London
Stenton, F M, 1947 Anglo-Saxon England, 2 edn, Oxford
Stephan, H-G and Wedepohl, K H, 1997 Mittelalterliches
Glas aus dem Reichskloster und der Stadtwstung
Corvey, Germania 75(2), 673715
Stevens, J H and Atkinson, K, 1970 Soils and their capability, in Dewdney 1970, 4657
Stevenson, J (trans), 1855 The Church Historians of England:
3(2) The Historical Works of Symeon of Durham. London
(ed), 1858 Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon. Rolls Ser 2.
London
Stevenson, R B K, 1955 Pins and the chronology of brochs,
Proc Prehist Soc 21, 28294
, 19546 Native bangles and Roman glass, Proc Soc Antiq
Scot 88, 20821
, 1976 Romano-British glass bangles, Glasgow Archaeol J
4, 4554
, 1982 Aspects of ambiguity in crosses and interlace,
Ulster J Archaeol 3 ser 445, 127
Stewart, I H, 1967 Scottish Coinage, 2 edn. London
, 1991 A Northumbrian coin of king Ethelwald and archbishop Ecgberht, Numis Chron 151, 2235
Stewart, J and Moore, J, 1982 Chemical techniques of historic mortar analysis, Ass Preservation Technol Bull 14(1),
1116
Stiegemann, C and Wemhoff, M (eds), 1999 799 Kunst und
Kultur der Karolingerzeit: Karl der Groe und Papst Leo III.
in Paderborn. Katalog der Ausstellung Paderborn 1999, 2
vols. Mainz
Stocker, D A and Everson, P, 2003 The straight and narrow
way: Fenland causeways and the conversion of the landscape in the Witham valley, Lincolnshire, in Carver 2003,
27188
Stocker, D A and Everson, P, forthcoming The Early
Romanesque Tower in Lincolnshire: a Study in Architectural
Symbolism. Oxford
Stopford, J, 1990 Recording Medieval Floor Tiles. CBA
Practical Handbooks in Archaeology 10. London
Stuart, J, 1867 Sculptured Stones of Scotland 2. Spalding Club
35. Edinburgh
Stuiver, M and Pearson, G W, 1986 High-precision calibration of the radiocarbon time scale, AD 1950500 BC,
Radiocarbon 28 (2B), 80538
Surtees, R, 1820 The History and Antiquities of the County
Palatine of Durham 2. London
Swan, L, 1985 Monastic proto-towns in early medieval
Ireland: the evidence of aerial photography, plan analysis
and survey, in Clarke and Simms 1985, 77102
Sweet, H, 1885 The Oldest English Texts. Early English Text
Soc, orig ser 83, London
Swindells, N and Laing, L R, 1977 Metalworking at the
Mote of Mark, Kirkcudbright, in the 6th7th centuries
AD, in W A Oddy (ed) Aspects of Early Metallurgy.
London, 1218
Tait, H (ed), 1991 Five Thousand Years of Glass. London
Taylor, H M, 1970 The origin, purpose and date of pilasterstrips in Anglo-Saxon architecture, N Staffordshire J Fld
Stud 10, 2147
, 1973 The position of the altar in early Anglo-Saxon

churches Antiq J 53(1), 528
, 1974 The architectural interest of Aethelwulfs De
Abbatibus, Anglo-Saxon England 3, 16373
, 1975 Tenth-century church building in England and on
the continent, in Parsons 1975, 14168
, 1978 Anglo-Saxon Architecture 3. Cambridge
Taylor, H M, and Taylor, J, 1965 Anglo-Saxon Architecture, 1,
2, 2 vols. Cambridge
Taylor, S R and McLennan, S M, 1985 The Continental
Crust: its Composition and Evolution. Oxford
Teichert, M, 1975 Osteometric Untersuchungen zur
Berechnung der Widerristhohe bei Schafen, in A T
Clason (ed) Archaeozoological Studies. Amsterdam, 5169
Tempel, W-D, 1969 Die Dreilagenkmme aus Haithabu.
Studien zu den Kmme der Wikingerzeit im
Nordseekstengebiet und Skandinavien. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Univ Gttingen
, 1970 Kmme aus Haithabu, in K Schietzel (ed) Bericht
ber die Ausgrabungen in Haithabu: 4 Das archologische
Fundmaterial, 1, 19631964. Neumnster, 3445
, 1979 Die Kmme aus der frhgeschichtliche Wurt
Elisenhof, in A Bantelmann (ed) Die Ergebnisse der
Ausgrabung der frhgeschichtlichen Marschensiedlung 3,
15174. Frankfurt and Main
Temple, E, 1976 Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts 9001066. A survey of manuscripts illuminated in the British Isles 2.
London
Thacker, A, 1992 Monks, preaching and pastoral care in
early Anglo-Saxon England, in Blair and Sharpe 1992,
13770
Thomas, C, 1966 Ardwall Isle: the excavation of an early
Christian site of Irish type, 19645, Trans Dumfriesshire
Galloway Natur Hist Antiq Soc 3 ser 43, 84116
Thomas, C, 1967 An early Christian cemetery and chapel
on Ardwall Isle, Kirkcudbright, Medieval Archaeol 11,
12688
Thomas, R, 2002 Animals, economy, status: the integration
of zooarchaeological and historical evidence in the study
of a medieval castle. Unpublished PhD thesis, Univ
Birmingham
Thompson, A H (ed), 1935a Bede: His Life, Times, and
Writings. Oxford
, 1935b Northumbrian monasticism, in Thompson
1935a, 60101
, 1986 Lindisfarne Priory, Northumberland, rev edn. English
Heritage Handbook. London
Thompson, J D, 1956 Inventory of British Coin Hoards AD
6001500. Roy Numis Soc Spec Publ 1. London
Thurlby, M, 2003 Anglo-Saxon architecture beyond the
millennium: its continuity in Norman building, in N
Hiscock (ed) The White Mantle of Churches: Architecture,
Liturgy and Art around the Millennium. International
Medieval Research 10, Art History Subseries 2, 11937.
Turnhout
Tmr-Balzsy, and Eastop, D, 1998 Chemical Principles of
Textile Conservation. Oxford and Boston
Tite, M S, 1972 Methods of Physical Examination in
Archaeology. London and New York
Tite, M S, Freestone, I C, Mason, R, Molera, J, VendrellSaz, M and Wood, N, 1998 Lead glazes in antiquity
methods of production and reasons for use, Archaeometry
40, 24160
Tite, M S, Freestone, I C, Meeks, N D and Craddock, P T,
1985 The examination of refractory ceramics from metalproduction and metalworking sites, in P Phillips (ed) The
JARROWBI.QXD
19-01-2007
12:42
Pagina 425
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Archaeologist and the Laboratory. CBA Res Rep 58, 505.

London
Tonnochy, A B, 1952 Catalogue of British Seal-dies in the
British Museum. London
Trevor, J C, 1950 Anthropometry, Chambers Encyclopaedia
1, 45862. London
Trotter, M, 1970 Estimation of stature from intact long limb
bones, in T D Stewart (ed) Personal Identification in Mass
Disasters. Washington, 7183
Trotter, M and Gleser, G C, 1952 Estimation of stature
from long bones of American whites and negroes, Amer J
Phys Anthrop 10, 463514
, 1958 A re-evaluation of estimation of stature based on
measurements of stature taken during life and of long
bones after death, Amer J Phys Anthrop 16, 79123
Trueman, M, 1985 Lead fittings from Monkwearmouth and
Jarrow. Unpublished MA dissertation, Dept Archaeol,
Univ Durham
Trusted, M, 1985 Catalogue of Amber in the Victoria and
Albert Museum. London
Turner, W E S, 1956a Studies in ancient glasses and glassmaking processes, pt IV: the chemical composition of
ancient glasses, J Soc Glass Technol 40, 16286
, 1956b Studies in ancient glasses and glassmaking
processes, pt V: raw materials and melting processes, J
Soc Glass Technol 40, 277300
Tweddle, D, 1986 Finds from Parliament Street and Other Sites
in the City Centre, The Archaeology of York AY 17(4).
London
Tweddle, D, Moulden, J and Logan, E, 1999 Anglian York: a
Survey of the Evidence. The Archaeology of York AY 7(2),
York
Tylecote, R F, 1990 General comments on the composition
of the golds, in Biddle 1990, I, 82
Ulbricht, I, 1978 Die Geweihverarbeitung in Haithabu. Die
Ausgrabungen in Haithabu 7. Neumnster
, 1984 Die Verarbeitung von Knochen, Geweih und Horn in
mittelalterlichen Schleswig. Ausgrabungen in Schleswig,
Berichte und Studien 3. Neumnster
van Es, W A, 1969 Excavations at Dorestad; a pre-preliminary report: 19671968, Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor
het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 19, 183207
van Es, W A and Verwers, W J H, 1980 Excavations at
Dorestadt, 1 The Harbour: Hoogstraat 1, Nederlandse
Oudheden 9. Amersfoort
van Vilsteren, V T, 1987 Het Benen Tijdperk.
Gebruiksvoorwerpen van been, gewei, hoorn en ivoor 10.000
jaar geleden tot heden. Assen
Vaughan, J E, 1994 The pottery, in Excavations adjacent to
Close Gate, Newcastle, 19889 (eds R Fraser, R
Maxwell, and J E Vaughan), Archaeol Aeliana, 5 ser 22,
10519
Vaughan, J E, 1995 The pottery, in R Fraser, C Jamfrey and
J Vaughan (eds) Excavation on the site of the Mansion
House, Newcastle, 1990, Archaeol Aeliana 5 ser 23,
16979
Velde, B and Gendron, C, 1980 Chemical composition of
some Gallo-Roman glass fragments from Central Western
France, Archaeometry 22, 1837
Velde, B and Sennequier, G, 1985 Observations on the
chemical compositions of several types of Gallo-Roman
and Frankish glass production, in Annales du 9e Congrs de
lAssociation Internationale pour lHistoire du Verre (Nancy
1983). Lige, 12747
425
Verhaeghe, F, 1982 Last-middeleeuws Loogversierd

aardewerk in de Lage Landen, in Rotterdam Papers 4,
15173. Rotterdam
, 1983a Medieval pottery production in coastal Flanders,
in Davey and Hodges 1983, 6394
, 1983b Low Countries medieval pottery imported into
Scotland: notes on a minor trade, Medieval Ceramics 7,
343
Vince, A G, 1985 The Saxon and medieval pottery of
London: a review, Medieval Archaeol 29, 2593
Vince, A G and Jenner, M A, 1991 Aspects of Saxon and
Norman London: the Saxon and early medieval pottery of
London, in A G Vince (ed) Aspects of Saxon and Norman
London, 2: Finds and Environmental Evidence. London
Middlesex Archaeol Soc Spec Pap 12. London, 19119
Volbach, W F, and Hirmer, M, 1961 Early Christian Art.
London
Wahl, C, 1972 Lderstmpler, Kulturen 1512
Waldron, T, 1983 Lead in ancient bones, in Hart 1983,
17282
Walker, C A, 1964 The growth and development of the beef
qualities of the Angoin cattle (E African Zebu), J
Agricultural Sci, 63, 13572
Wallace, P F, 1998 Line fishing in Viking Dublin: a contemporary explanation for archaeological evidence, in C
Manning (ed) Dublin and Beyond the Pale. Bray, 318
Wallace-Hadrill, 1988 Bedes Ecclesiastical History of the
English People: a Historical Commentary. Oxford
Waller, K, 1936 Friesische Grabfelder an der
Nordseekste, Prhistorisches Zeitschrift 27, 22751
Wallis, J, 1769 The Natural History and Antiquities of
Northumberland 2. London
Walters, C C, 1974 Monastic Archaeology in Egypt. Warminster
Walton Rogers, P, 1997 Textile Production at 1622
Coppergate, The Archaeology of York AY 17(11). York
Warhurst, A, 1955 The Jutish cemetry at Lyminge, Archaeol
Cantiana 69, 140
Warnecke, J, 1912 Mittelalterliche Schulgerte im Museum
zu Lbeck, Zeitschrift fr Geschichte der Erziehung und
Unterrichts 2, 22750
Warnke, J, 1934 Bernsteinkunst und Paternostermacher in
Lbeck, Nordelbingen 10, 42864
Warwick, R, 1968 The skeletal remains, in Wenham 1968,
11176
Waterman, D M, 1959 Late Saxon, Viking, and early
medieval finds from York, Archaeologia 97, 59105
Watkins, G, 1982 Scarborough ware the evidence from
Hull, in Watkins et al 1982, 947
, 1983 North European pottery imported into Hull
12001500, in Davey and Hodges 1983, 24453
, 1991 The pottery, in Armstrong et al 1991, 61103
Watkins, G, Murray, J C and Herteig, A E, 1982
Scarborough ware from Hull, Aberdeen and Bergen:
some brief comments on the Farmers chronology,
Watts, V E, 1970 Place-names, in Dewdney 1970, 25165
, 1978 The earliest Anglian names in Durham, Nomina 2,
303
, 19889 Scandinavian settlement-names in County
Durham, Nomina 12, 1763
, 2002 A Dictionary of County Durham Place-names, Engl
Place-Name Soc Popular Ser 3. Nottingham
Watts Moses, E, 1964 The Williamsons of East Markham,
Nottinghamshire, Monkwearmouth and Whitburn, Antiq
Sunderland 23, 5483
JARROWBI.QXD
426
19-01-2007
12:42
Pagina 426
Webber, M, 1999 Roman, Anglo-Saxon and medieval

coffins, in Heighway and Bryant 1999, 20719
Webster, J, 1975 The finds, in Cunliffe 1975, 198247
Webster, L E and Backhouse, J (eds), 1991 The Making of
England: Anglo-Saxon Art and Culture, AD 600900.
London
Webster, L E, and Cherry, J, 1977 Medieval Britain in
1976, Medieval Archaeol 21, 20462
Wedepohl, K H, 1999 Karolingishes Glas, 799 Karl der
Grosse und Papst Leo III in Paderborne Kunst und Kiltur der
Karolingerzeit, 21821
, 2001 The composition of glass from the Carolingian and
post-Carolingian period in central Europe, in DellAcqua
and Silva 2001, 25770
Wedepohl, K H, Winkelmann, W and Hartmann, G, 1997
Glasfunde aus der karolingischen Pfalz, in Paderborn
und die frhe Holzasche-Glasherstellung, Ausgrabungen
und Funde in Westfalen-Lippe (Mnster) 9A, 4153
Weinberg, G D, 1988 Excavations at Jalame: Site of a Glass
Factory in Late Roman Palestine. Columbia
Welander, R D E, Batey, C and Cowie, T G, 1987 A Viking
burial from Kneep, Uig, Isle of Lewis, Proc Soc Antiq Scot
117, 14974
Wells, C, 1961 A case of lumbar osteochondritis from the
Bronze Age, J Bone and Joint Surgery 43B(3), 575
, 1964 Bones, Bodies and Disease. London
, 1967a Report on the human skeletons from Red Castle,
Thetford, Norfolk Archaeol 34(2), 15586
, 1967b Weaver, tailor or shoemaker? An osteological
detective story, Medical and Biological Illustration 17,
3947
, 1969 Note on pathology, in Cramp 1969, 45
, 1974a Osteochondritis dissecans in ancient British skeletal material, Medical Hist 18, 3659
, 1974b The results of `bone setting in Anglo-Saxon
times, Medical and Biological Illustration 24, 21520
, 1975a Ancient obstetric hazards and female mortality,
Bull New York Acad Medicine,2 ser 51, 123549
, 1975b Une fracture rare chez un ancien Anglo-Saxon,
Helinium 15, 23743
, 1976 Ancient lesions of the hip joint, Medical and
Biological Illustration 26, 1717
, 1977a Disease of the maxillary sinus in antiquity,
Medical and Biological Illustration 27, 1738
, 1977b Human skeletal remains, in Everson 1977, 10717
, 1979 Dwarfism and cervical rib in an Anglo-Saxon from
Jarrow monastery, Trans College of Physicians of
Philadelphia 5 ser 1, 626
, 1980 A detailed description of the burials, in WadeMartins 1980, 31574
, 2000 Les vestiges humains de labbaye de Jarrow (GB)
dage Saxon-Medival, Palobios 12, 453
Wells, C and Waldron, H A, 1979 Exposure to lead in
ancient populations, Trans College of Physicians of
Philadelphia 5 ser 1, 10215
Wells, C and Woodhouse, N, 1975 Pagets disease in an
Anglo-Saxon, Medical Hist 19, 396400
Wenham, L P, 1968 The Romano-British Cemetery at
Trentholme Drive, York. MPBW Archaeol Rep 5. London
Wenham, L P, Hall, R A, Briden, C M and Stocker, D A,
1987 St Mary Bishophill and St Mary Castlegate. The
Archaeology of York AY 8(2). London
Werner, J, 1964 Frankish royal tombs in the cathedrals of
Cologne and Saint-Denis, Antiquity 38, 20116
Wessels, W I, 1987 A catalogue and discussion of stone
worked vessels from Monkwearmouth, Jarrow, and
Lumley Street, Hartlepool, 1968. Unpublished MA dissertation, Dept Archaeol, Univ Durham
West, S E, 1985 West Stow. The Anglo-Saxon Village, 2 vols. E
Anglian Archaeol 24. Ipswich
Wetter, C, 1979 Possibility of dating Roman monuments by
analysing mortar, Opuscula Romana 12(4), 4566
Wheeler, R E M, 1946 London in Roman times. London
Museum Catalogue 3. London
White, A, 1984 Finds from the Anglian monastery at
Whitby, Yorkshire Archaeol J 56, 3340
Whitehouse, D B, 1969 Note on glazed sherd from Jarrow,
in Cramp 1969, 645
, 1983 Labbazia medievale attraverso gli scavi archeologici, in Museo di Farfa (catalogue of an exhibition at Farfa
Abbey, JuneAugust 1983), 1730
, 2001 Window glass between the first and the eighth centuries, in DellAcqua and Silva 2001, 3144
Whitelock, D (ed), 1955 English Historical Documents: 1 c
5001042. London
, 1960 After Bede. Jarrow Lecture, Jarrow (reprinted in
Lapidge 1994, 3550)
Whitwell, B, 1991 Flixborough, Current Archaeol 126,
11(6), 2447
Wilkinson, J J, 192932 The Monkwearmouth amphisbaena,
Antiq Sunderland 19, 112
Willems, J, 1973 Le quartier artisanal Gallo-Romain et
Mrovingien de `Batta, Huy, Archaeologia Belgica 148.
Brussels
Williams, C, 1985 The pottery and glass at Alahan, in M
Gough (ed) Alahan an Early Christian Monastery in
Southern Turkey. Toronto, 3561
Williams, D H, 1982 Welsh History Through Seals. Cardiff
Williams, F and Williams, J H, 1979 The tiles and bricks,
in Williams 1979a, 3226
Williams, J H, 1979a St Peters Street, Northampton:
Excavations 19731976. Northampton Dev Corp Archaeol
Monogr 2. Northampton
, 1979b The mortar mixers, in Williams 1979a, 11833
Williams, J H, Shaw, M and Denham, V, 1985 Middle Saxon
Palaces at Northampton. Northampton Dev Corp Archaeol
Monogr 3. Northampton
Williams, V, 1988 Bone, antler and ivory objects, in Ayers
1988, 1007
Wilson, B, Grigson, C and Payne, S (eds), 1982 Ageing and
Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites, BAR Brit
Ser 109. Oxford
Wilson, D M, 1961 An Anglo-Saxon bookbinding at Fulda
(Codex Bonifatianus I), Antiq J 41, 199217
, 1964 Anglo-Saxon Ornamental Metalwork 7001100 in the
British Museum, Catalogue of antiquities of the later
Saxon Period 1. London
, 1975 Tenth-century metalwork, in Parsons 1975, 2007
(ed), 1976 The Archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England. London
, 1984 Anglo-Saxon Art from the Seventh Century to the
Norman Conquest. London
Wilson, D M, and Hurst, J G, 1960 Medieval Britain in
1959, Medieval Archaeol 4, 13465
, 19623 Medieval Britain in 1961, Medieval Archaeol
67, 30649
, 1966 Medieval Britain in 1965, Medieval Archaeol 10,
168219
, 1967 Medieval Britain in 1966, Medieval Archaeol 11,
262319
Wilthew, P, 1984 Analysis of Pins and Other Middle Saxon
Copper Alloy Objects from Southampton. Ancient
Monuments Laboratory Report 4334
JARROWBI.QXD
19-01-2007
12:42
Pagina 427
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Winkelmann, W, 1972 Liturgisches Gefasses der

Missiongeit aus Paderborn, in P W Scheele (ed)
Paderbornensis Ecclesia. Paderborn, 3747
, 1977 Archologische Zeugnisse zum frhmittelalterlichen Handwerk in Westfalen, Frhmittelalterliche Studien
11, 92126
, 1985 Am Tische Karls des Grossen, Archologie in
Deutschland, Heft 3 JuliSept, 2631
Wood, I, 1995 The Most Holy Abbot Ceolfrith. Jarrow Lecture,
Jarrow
Woodfield, C, 1981 Finds from the Free Grammar School
at the Whitefriars, Coventry, c 1545c 1557/58, PostMedieval Archaeol 15, 81159
Woodforde, C, 1954 English Stained and Painted Glass.
Oxford
Woodward, A, and Leach, P, 1993 The Uley Shrines.
Excavation of a Ritual Complex on West Hill, Uley,
Gloucestershire, 19779. English Heritage Archaeol Rep
17. London
Workshop
of
European
Anthropologists,
1980
Recommendations for age and sex diagnoses of skeletons, J Human Evolution 9, 51749
Wormald, P, 1976 Bede and Benedict Biscop, in Bonner
1976, 14169
Wright, R P, 1936 Excavations per lineam valli in 1935,
Durham Univ J 29(5), 33946
Wyckoff, D (ed), 1967 Albertus Magnus, Book of Minerals.
Oxford
Yalden, D, 1999 The History of British Mammals. London
Youatt, W, 1847 The Pig: a Treatise on the Breeds,
427
Management, Feeding and Medical Treatment of Swine.

London
Young, R, 1980 An inventory of barrows in Co Durham,
Trans Architect Archaeol Soc Durham Northumberland n ser
5, 116
, 1984a Aspects of the prehistoric archaeology of the Wear
valley, Co Durham. Unpublished PhD thesis, Univ
Durham
, 1984b Potential sources of flint and chert in the
north-east of England, Lithics 5, 39
, 1987 Lithics and Subsistence in North-eastern England:
Aspects of the Prehistoric Archaeology of the Wear valley, Co
Durham, from the Mesolithic to the Bronze Age. BAR Brit
Ser 161. Oxford
, 2000 Aspects of the coastal Mesolithic of the northeast of England, in R Young (ed) Mesolithic Lifeways:
Current Research from Britain and Ireland. Leicester
Archaeol Monogr 7, 17990. Leicester
Young, S H, 1993 A preview of seventh-century glass from
the Kourion basilica, Cyprus, J Glass Stud 35, 3947
Youngs, S (ed), 1989 The Work of Angels: Masterpieces of
Celtic Metalwork 6th9th Centuries AD. London
Zadora-Rio, E, 2003 The making of churchyards and parish
territories in the early-medieval landscape of France and
England in the 7th12th centuries: a reconsideration,
Zalkin, V I, 1960 Metapodial variation and its significance
for the study of ancient horned cattle, Journal of the
Moscow Society of Experiments of Nature, Biology Section 65,
10926 [in Russian]
JARINDXN.QXD
19-01-2007
12:47
Pagina 428
Index
Note: Page numbers in italics refer to
illustrations. Fold-outs are referred to as
fig *.*.
Aachen 358
abbots 30, 32, 34, 341, 342, 364
burials 32, 88, 354
abbots seat 284
abbreviations 20
Abingdon 356, 358, 360
account rolls 41, 301, 347, 3716
Adomnn 344, 381
Aethelstan (Athelstan), king 3, 34, 37,
342
Aethelwold, Bishop 89
Agatho, pope 30
agricultural buildings and sheds 33
agricultural workers 39
agriculture 346
Aidan, Bishop 29
Alcuin 31, 34, 355, 369
Aldfrid, king 37
Aldwin 20, 379
at Jarrow 117, 242, 245, 254, 263, 264,
269, 291, 292, 323, 324, 335, 337
re-establishment of monasteries by 14,
357, 251, 3706
thatch for roof 39
towers 72
at Wearmouth 46, 55, 94, 108, 115,
117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 132, 137
Alexander III, coin 294
Alfred, king 360
Allom, T 391
altars
Jarrow room Bii, slab (base?) 205, 207,
207
Roman, in foundations of Wall F 24
Roman, reused as door jamb (found in
well) 24, 118, 119
ambon 69
Angers, St Martins church 168, 353, 354
Anglo-Saxon 1, 23, 20, 314, 34861
Early Anglo-Saxon settlement 1, 20,
279, 27
Jarrow 13946, 14768
later history of the sites 3441
Late Saxon/Saxo-Norman structures
11522
letters 365
place-names 5, 8, 29
structures, Wearmouth 91114
see also baluster shafts; coins; glass; plaster; pottery; Wearmouth Building
D; Wearmouth monastery, cemetery
animal bone 3434, 346, 347
boars tusk 80, 88
cat 343
cattle 259, 343, 346
deer 344
dog 343
horse 80, 87, 88, 343
pig 118, 259, 343, 346
sheep 343, 346
see also Jarrow; Jarrow Slake; Wearmouth
animal hides 341
animals 346
annexes 351; see also Jarrow Building A

southern annexe
antiquarian scholarship 14, 69, 362
Appendix H 20
aqueduct, lead 119, 127, 137, 314, 346
Arbeia (South Shields) 24, 29, 348
architectural phasing 21
architectural stone (carved stones) 81,
123, 145, 155
geology 10
Jarrow cloister 273, 279
Jarrow St Pauls 18
Saxon 66
string course 118
see also baluster shafts
ard marks 187, 188
Areas IVI see Jarrow Slake
Armagh 359
artefactual dating 212
Athelred II, coin 226
atria 355, 362
Auckland 29
Auckland, John, master 39
aula see hall
Aycliffe 5, 30
Back Lane 49, 73, 75, 388
Bailey, J 263, 391
bakehouses 33, 39, 40, 290, 312, 371, 374
bakery 360
ballast dumping 8, 18, 26, 41, 75, 363,
364
baluster shafts
Anglo-Saxon 46, 81, 86, 110, 118, 155,
354
framing niche in St Peters 43, 6970
loose 70
painted 98, 118
in rubble (1129) 120, 121
St Peters chancel 63, 64
bank, south of church 169; see also under
Jarrow Slake
Barking 345, 355
barrows 23
basilica, Jarrow Western Church(?) 151,
154, 167, 356, 359
beads
coral 182
glass 29, 108, 179, 1823, 182, 259, 321
Beckwith, George 4
bedding trenches 310
Bede 8, 10, 14, 27, 29, 312, 33, 34, 37,
69, 72, 229, 341, 342, 348, 361, 369,
370
anniversary of death 3, 35
at Wearmouth 34, 35, 342
bones of 89
cell of 33, 35, 169, 360
cult centres to 37
death of 33, 34, 35, 359
and Jarrow 34, 35, 41, 163, 343
oratory and altar 3, 14, 360
plans 381
porch or chantry in honour of at Jarrow
145
porticus ingressus 32, 43
treasures distributed by 345
428
Bedes World Museum 20, 34, 338

Beilby, R 124, 124
bell, copper alloy 281
benches and bench-like structures 202,
203, 221, 224, 284, 302
Benedict Biscop 33
burial of 32, 67, 70, 89, 341, 342, 348,
350, 357, 358, 359, 361
cell of 360
ferry 10
Jarrow founded by 293
paintings on boards brought back by 32,
33, 69, 72, 368
relics of 35
Rome visited by 31, 32, 33, 348, 368
Wearmouth founded by 2, 29, 30, 312,
37
Benedictine plan 127, 137, 195, 263, 269,
287, 292, 311
kitchen area 132, 278
Benedictine Rule 33, 35, 343, 345, 358,
362, 366
Benwell 27, 28
Bernicia 28, 28, 29, 89
Beverley monastery 28, 350
Bewcastle cross 342
Billingham 118, 355
Billingham, Robert 41
Billings, R W 165, 394
Binchester 27, 28
bird bone 118, 132, 134, 197, 201, 215,
248, 303, 3434, 346, 347
bird carving 196
Blore, E 263, 391, 392
boars tusk 80, 88
Boniface, St 2, 344
book-clasp, copper-alloy 130, 346
box, ivory 345, 362
Bradbury, John 41
Brandon, Suffolk 345, 350, 355, 360
brazier or hearth 236, 237
brewhouses 39, 40, 137, 290, 307, 312,
347, 371, 374
bricks 231, 236, 287, 306, 307, 325
bridges 143, 325
across the Don 11, 13
Roman stone from reused 26, 223
British Library
Ms Cotton Augustus I.ii.7, Jarrow
(1545) 380
plan and elevation (1769) 14, 142, 145,
154, 155, 160, 161, 161, 162, 163,
164, 165, 167, 168, 366
Brixworth 163, 195, 354
Bronze Age 23
bronze working 241, 248
brooches, Roman 26, 204
Brown, Baldwin 49, 55
Brown, J T 49, 55
Browne, Bishop G F 43
Buck, S and N, Jarrow 12, 14, 141, 144,
154, 161, 162, 163, 252, 253, 263, 264,
268, 269, 272, 292, 296, 297, 338, 381
buckles
copper-alloy 259
copper-alloy plate 334
iron 335, 345
JARINDXN.QXD
19-01-2007
12:47
Pagina 429
INDEX
building materials, Anglo-Saxon 79, 81

building stone 10, 341
Burden, Galfrid de 125
Burdon 37, 38
burial enclosure (Structure V/2157 and
2170), Wearmouth 856
burial grounds see cemeteries
burials
prehistoric 23
Roman 23
Anglo-Saxon
Early Anglo-Saxon long cist 27
Jarrow 76, 17386, 242, 256, 260,
261, 283
St Peters porch (of Herebericht?) 43, 46
Wearmouth 63, 71, 7690, 94, 94, 98,
101, 102, 103, 111, 115, 117
medieval
Jarrow 76, 173, 174, 175, 177, 183,
186, 25462, 340
Wearmouth 63, 77
post-medieval (post-Dissolution) 63, 76,
77, 148, 173, 174, 175, 257, 262,
33940
of abbots 32, 88, 354
age and sex 84, 89, 112, 175, 176, 178,
180, 256
alignment 77, 183, 183, 184, 260
artefacts 1823, 25960
body position 824
bone movement 83, 180, 258
charcoal 46, 178
cist-like 180, 181
crouched (native British?) 78, 82, 84,
87, 355
dating evidence 1735
disposition of body 82, 84, 2567
double graves 258, 260, 261, 340
earth mounds 258, 258
family graves 79, 84, 260
footstone 258
grave-cover over burial, St Peters chancel 60, 63, 64, 69, 86, 89
grave morphology 17882, 2579
groups 84, 2601
methods of analysis 767
orientation 77, 82
parallel 2578, 257, 258
paths and boundaries 185, 262
pillow stones 86, 148, 180, 181
rows 84, 2601, 262
stone arrangements, Wearmouth 82,
856, 86, 87, 89
stone settings and features 178, 179,
180, 181, 257, 258, 258, 259
see also cemeteries; coffins; grave markers; human remains; shrouds
burial vaults 60, 61, 64, 1267, 340
Burleigh, M 382
butt jointing 108, 151, 161
Bywell 5, 28, 30, 71, 118, 355
caenacula 312, 67
calf hides 341
Camden, William 365, 376
camera (chamber) see under Jarrow monastic buildings; Wearmouth
cames, lead 193
Canterbury
St Martins 69
SS Peter and Paul 352
Capone, W H 391
Carmichael, J W 392
carved stones see architectural stone
causeway 11, 12, 1314, 232, 349
cellar 307, 312
cells and private cells 33, 360, 364; see
also Jarrow Building B, room Biii
cemeteries 1, 32, 348, 3556, 359, 3623
Early Anglo-Saxon 27, 289
Jarrow 767, 170, 17386, 187, 242,
283, 354, 3556, 359, 3623
lay people 29, 84, 88, 89
medieval, Jarrow 173, 174, 175, 177,
183, 186, 25462
organisation and layout 1846
post-medieval, Jarrow 262, 33940
Wearmouth 15, 18, 75, 7690, 11112,
130, 137, 360
see also burials; human remains
cemetery wall 340
Cenwalh of Wessex 31
Ceolfrid, abbot 2, 10, 31, 32, 37, 112,
341, 342, 358, 359, 361, 368
at Jarrow 33, 34
oratories 33, 71, 72
relics of 35
stood on step(s) 69
chamber (camera) see under Jarrow monastic buildings; Wearmouth monastic
buildings
chapels 37; see also St Lawrences; St
Marys
chaplain 39, 253, 346
chapter house 40, 127, 174, 265, 269,
2834, 314, 316
charcoal burials 46, 178
Charles II of Scotland, coin 300
Cher, St Ambroix 353
Chester-le-Street
church 71
Community of St Cuthbert 30, 34, 35,
37, 38, 342, 360
Cunecacestre 37
lands 3
Roman fort 23
children, in monasteries 84, 343
choir or rood loft, Jarrow 166, 168, 252
cholera outbreaks 340
chronology and phasing 201
churches 30, 3515, 362
location 348
see also St Pauls Church, Jarrow; St
Peters Church, Wearmouth
clay tobacco pipes 151, 320, 325
clergy bench, lion armrests 69
clinker 232
cloisters (claustrum) 3578; see also under
Jarrow monastic buildings
coal 233, 237, 241, 296, 308, 321, 325,
329, 341, 346
coal store 39, 308, 312
cob construction 278
coffin fittings 79, 80, 81, 85, 88, 180, 183
coffin studs 801, 85
coffins and containers
Jarrow 178, 17980, 179, 182, 182, 183,
2578, 340
St Peters, lead, in situ 126, 126
St Peters porch, stone 43, 46, 70
Wearmouth 801, 82, 84, 85, 85, 88
429
coins 212, 88, 117, 344, 360, 362

Roman 212, 23, 24, 25, 26, 75, 79, 88,
362
Anglo-Saxon/Saxon 22, 79, 242
9th-century 121, 122, 226, 229, 230,
241, 323
Norman and medieval 272, 275, 2945,
296, 347
from Jarrow Slake 295, 323, 335, 337
Alexander III 294
Athelred II 226
Bishop Guy de Collemede 295, 320
Charles II of Scotland 300
Eadberht 321
Eadred 214
Eanred 115, 226
Edward the Confessor 242
Edward I 295
Edward IV 295, 308
Henry II 272, 295
Henry III 295, 337
James I 338
London sceatta 334
Mercian sceatta 323
Cold Hesleden 37
Coldingham 28, 345, 347, 360
Collemede, Bishop Guy de, coins 295, 320
Columbanus 33
column bases
Jarrow Building A 21, 190, 193, 1946,
207, 212, 242, 354
Jarrow ER3, grindstone 284, 285
combs, bone 214, 242, 360
communications 1014, 348
community see monastic community
Condat monastery 357
copper-alloy objects 329, 334
copper-alloy strip 325
copper-alloy waste 215, 248
copper-alloy working 229, 234
copper slag 329
Copt Hill 23, 27
corbels 290, 292
horses head 292, 305, 306
Corbridge 27, 28
Cornforth 27
corn tithes 346
cottage, Jarrow 42, 139, 139, 16970, 170,
263, 268, 268, 296, 297, 299, 338, 339,
393, 394, 399
room d 272, 297, 301, 338
room e 170, 272, 296, 338
cottages (18th-century), riverside 317,
327, 330, 333, 336, 338, 339, 392
covered walk or passage see Wearmouth
Building B
Cowderys Down, Hants 354
craft production and trade 3445; see also
workshops
craftsmen 34, 342
cross (MS3), on grave slab 86
cross socket 216, 220, fig 16.5
crosses, stone, pre-Conquest 30
crouched burials see burials
crucibles 182, 215, 236, 237, 243, 248
Anglo-Saxon 310
dish 238
from Jarrow Slake 321, 329, 331
for glass working 224, 229, 234, 241, 242
handle 235
cubicula 353, 360
JARINDXN.QXD
19-01-2007
12:47
Pagina 430
430
cultivation marks 23, 187

Cunecacestre (Chester-le-Street) 37
cupboards 305, 307, 312
curtain(?) rings, copper-alloy 195
Cuthbert, St 35, 37, 71, 88, 343, 345, 369,
370; see also Chester-le-Street; Durham
Dacre, Cumbria 350, 355, 360
Daldon 38
Dalton 341
Dalton-le-Dale 37, 38
Daltun 2, 37
Darlington 27, 29
dating 212
daub 231, 232, 235, 237, 239, 291, 303
Dawdon 37
day stairs (Jarrow ER4) 265, 284, 292,
296, 298, 302
De Abbatibus 168, 354
dedication cross, St Peters west wall 58,
59, 61
dedication stone, St Pauls 14, 144, 145,
151, 154, 164, 168, 348, 3656, 365
Deira 28, 28, 29
diaconicon 69
diet 183, 3434, 346, 347
Dissolution 41, 42, 334, 3367
documentary history 21, 3142, 251,
3413, 365400
medieval economy 3457
domunculae 360
Don river 9, 11, 172, 317, 319, 337, 349,
350, 360
Donemutha 29
dormitory 33, 40, 72, 127, 290, 358, 359,
360
dorter 282
Dos Trento, Italy 353
dovecote 40
dowsing survey 25, 161, 355
dress fastenings, Anglo-Saxon 229, 344
dress hooks, silver 229, 344
Drewett Park 25, 169, 364
drying racks 311, 311
Durham 38
Cathedral 252
cells of priory 3, 15, 21, 36, 37, 3841,
115, 119, 121, 1245, 132, 251,
264, 287, 292, 294, 295, 296,
31316, 345, 347
cemetery 178
chapter of cathedral 367
chapter house 269
Community of St Cuthbert 35, 36,
378, 71, 251, 345
County 5, 29
development of cathedral and priory 295
doorway 268
inventories 297, 307
pottery 347
priors of 125
Priory 292
tithes 346, 347
west tower 355
Eadberht, king 321, 342
Eadmund, bishop of Durham 35
Eadred, coin 214
Eanred, coins 115, 226
Easington 27, 29, 38
East Boldon 38
Eastern Church see St Pauls Church

East Harrington 38
East Range 172
East Raynton 38
ecclesiastical sites 28, 2930
Ecgfrid (Ecgfrith) 2, 29, 31, 33, 348, 366
economy of medieval cells 3457
economy of sites 3415
Edgar 35
Edward the Confessor, coin 242
Edward I, coin 295
Edward IV, coins 295, 308
Edwin, king 352
effigies 124, 125
Egbert, Bishop 2, 34
Egilwin, Bishop 35, 370
Egypt, monasteries 356
elderberry seeds 237, 241, 343
enamel 233, 238, 241
enclosures, Wearmouth, Anglo-Saxon
(Walls 4, H and VI) 69, 78, 1018, 127,
1289, 314, 34950, 350, 3589
endowments see landholdings
engineers boreholes, Wearmouth 15, 75,
388, 389
Eosterwine 33, 341, 360, 367
bones of 2, 32, 43, 66, 69, 70
Escomb 55, 151, 154, 163
Eure family 3
Eure, William, Lord 42
Eynsham 94, 361
farm (home farm) 3, 3940, 137, 313,
341, 345, 346, 347, 363, 372, 375
Farne 347
Fawcett, J, plans by (1719) 7, 8, 381
felspar 232
female monasteries 29, 345, 355
fences and fence lines 212, 311, 311, 320,
324, 335
Fenwick, Colonel George 3, 41
ferry 10, 41, 349
figure(s), St Peters porch 59, 70
Finchale Priory 40, 312, 313, 314, 315,
316, 347
fireclay 303
fires 35, 117, 22930, 243, 360
fish, tithes from 346
fish bone 343, 344, 346, 347
Jarrow 196, 201, 205, 215, 303, 305
Jarrow Slake 322
Wearmouth 20, 104, 110, 132, 134
fishing 346
flint 247, 325, 329, 333
flint artefacts, Anglo-Saxon? 23
flints, prehistoric 23, 75, 187
Flixborough, Lincs 344, 345, 355, 360
flood (1575) 325, 329, 337
flooding 321, 327, 329, 332, 334, 335
floor tiles 325, 327, 329, 331, 332, 333, 336
fluorspar 241, 344
fluxing process 241
food supplies 183, 3434, 346, 347
Fordred, abbot 342
Fosser, John, master 39
fossil 334
foundation
of Jarrow 33, 37, 341, 367
of Wearmouth 312, 341, 3667
founder see Biscop, Benedict
Fresca River 37
frieze (S2), St Peters porch 59, 70

fuel ash (slag) 232, 233, 234, 235, 237,
238, 241
Fulwell 25, 37, 38, 41, 345
quarries 10, 23, 41, 341
Fulwell Hills 23
funerary porticus 67, 89, 167, 352, 354, 356
furnishing, wooden 308
furniture and furniture supports 26, 190,
192, 194, 196, 202, 284; see also benches;
seating
gaming piece/glass setting, Saxon 91
garden 170, 30910, 311, 359
gardening 172, 189, 214, 242, 246, 309,
310, 311, 339
Garthwoman, Katherine 39
gate-house 114
Gateshead
monastery 28, 29, 38, 341
Roman fort 23, 25
vill 37, 38
Gaul 31
churches 167, 352, 353, 358
funerary porticus 67, 167
glaziers from 31
masons from 27, 31, 93
workmen and craftsmen from 69, 342
geology 910, 13
Germanic peoples 29
gesso and red paint 43
Gilbert, E C 14
Gilling 29, 31
glass (vessels and unspecified) 235, 281,
308
Roman 26, 344
Anglo-Saxon/Saxon 81, 86, 215, 222,
232, 248, 283, 334, 335
medieval 160, 329
18th-century? 283
green 320
with lattice design 46
vessels (beakers) 224, 229
see also beads; tessera; window glass
glass-makers 312
glass waste 325
glass working and melting 214, 224, 229,
241, 248, 344, 360
Glastonbury 35, 348, 349, 350
glaziers, from Gaul 31
glazing 67, 193
gold thread 80, 88
grange 40
grave contents, Wearmouth 7980
grave cover, in situ over burial in St Peters
chancel 60, 63, 64, 69, 86, 89
grave markers
baluster decoration 182
Jarrow 174, 179, 1812, 182, 258, 258
name stone reused 85, 88
Wearmouth 78, 82, 856, 889, 113
grave-stones
inscribed Tidfirth 4, 88
reused 284
Gregory, pope 344
Gregory, St 357
Gregory VII, pope 37
Greig, J 383
Grimm, S H
Jarrow 143, 145, 151, 154, 162, 163, 166,
167, 252, 253, 2645, 297, 338, 390
JARINDXN.QXD
19-01-2007
12:47
Pagina 431
INDEX
Wearmouth 3, 6, 14, 123, 130, 137,

138, 382
grindstone 284
guest-house 39, 114, 229, 344, 359, 363
Guthfrid, king of Northumbria 37
Gyrwe 29
Gyrwum 8
Hadrian, abbot 31
Hadrian, emperor 366, 366
Hadrians Wall 23, 24, 25, 28, 352, 359
hall (aula) 3, 39, 40, 296, 298, 311, 312,
316, 371, 374
Hallgarth House 8, 109
Hallgarth Square 4, 8, 8, 18, 41, 73, 73,
74, 75, 92, 105, 108, 138, 363, 388, 389
Hamage monastery 350, 355, 358
Hambledon Hills 23
harbours 5, 10, 23, 35, 341, 346, 348
hard standing 333, 335
Hart 29
Hartlepool 28, 31, 348, 350, 355, 359,
360
Church Close 344
Hartlepool and Roker Dolomite 10, 13, 56
Hartness 29
Harton 38
Hastings Hill 23
headstones 85, 86, 340
Healfdene 360
hearth pit with cooking supports 287
hearths, metalworking 222, 226, 228, 250,
346
Hebburn 23, 25, 38
hedge lines (gully) 2467, 246, 359
Hedworth 38
Henry II, coin 272, 295
Henry III, coin 295, 337
Henry VIII 41
Herebericht, priest, burial of 43, 46
hermitages 355, 356
Heselton 38
Heworth 25, 37, 38
Hexham 30, 348, 352
Hilda (Hild) 29, 38, 3412
Hilton 38
Hilton (Hylton) family 39
Hirsel 180
Hoddom 348, 350
Hodgson, G B 46, 50, 55, 377
Holy Island 138
hook tag, silver gilt/copper-alloy 329
horse head corbel 292, 305, 306
horse skeleton 80, 87, 88
horseshoes 320
Horton 377
hospitium 342
Houghton-le-Spring 27, 38
Hugh of Woodburn 39
human remains 63, 76, 77, 101, 118, 135,
151, 173, 179, 274
anaemia 340
lead 341
Hutchinson, William 41, 123, 124, 154
Hylton, Roman coins 23, 25
Ile St Honorat, France 31, 350, 350
imbrex 323
infirmary 350, 360, 363
inscriptions
Roman 25, 154
Anglo-Saxon, on sandstone block 223,

226
see also Tidfirth
inventories 3, 3941, 127, 128, 137, 251,
252, 296, 297, 307, 311, 31213, 346,
347, 365
Iona 381
animal bone 344
ditch and vallum 350
pottery 344
Ireland
cemeteries 355, 356
eating of horse 344
hermitages 355, 356
internal layout 355
location 348
manach 342
monasteries 348, 355, 359
monastic craft centres 344
vallum nonasterii 349
iron
Jarrow 232, 233, 234, 235, 237, 241,
281, 296, 303, 323, 329
Wearmouth 80, 85
Iron Age settlement 23
ironstone 332
ironworking 241; see also smithing
ivory see box
Jacobean hall see Monkwearmouth Hall
James I, coin 338
Jarrow 10, 12
animal bone 151, 183, 196, 197, 201,
204, 205, 214, 215, 221, 222, 223,
2315, 237, 238, 241, 242, 244,
247, 248, 250, 259, 281, 284, 285,
290, 303, 305, 306, 3225, 327,
329, 3315, 3434
antiquarians 14
bridge 143, 393
building stone 341
buildings see Jarrow Building A; Jarrow
Building A southern annexe; Jarrow
Building B; Jarrow Building D
church see St Pauls Church
coins 22, 214, 226, 229, 230, 242, 272,
2945, 300, 338, 344, 347
communications 1011
craft production and trade 344; and see
Jarrow Building D; Jarrow riverside
buildings; workshops
cultivation marks 187, 188
documentary evidence for medieval
economy 3467
Eastern Church see St Pauls Church
excavations 17, 18, 19, 16972
fire 35
flints 187
geology 9, 13
graphic record 381, 390400
Guardianship 42, 3778
hearths 187, 188
location and topography 5, 5, 89
midden 259
monastery see Jarrow monastery
monastic buildings see Jarrow monastic
buildings
phases 01 187, 188
pitched stone foundation (road?) 169, 349
place-name 8
431
pottery 187, 197, 202, 205, 214, 233,

234, 237, 242, 243, 244, 245, 247,
248, 250, 272, 27491, 296, 298,
301, 302, 3036, 30811, 344, 347
prehistoric 23
riverside buildings see Jarrow riverside
buildings
Roman fort? 12, 246, 317, 364
site archive 20
the Slake excavations see Jarrow Slake
southern slope excavations see Jarrow
southern slope
transeptal church 292
trenches I and II 169
trench numbers 17
Western Church see St Pauls Church
see also cottage; cottages, Jarrow village;
riverside; rectory; school
Jarrow Building A (refectory?) 21, 149,
154, 160, 162, 1678, 170, 187201,
20712, 210, 211, 2423, 359
animal bone 196, 197, 201, 343
building materials in burials 259
burials 173, 174, 175, 177, 184, 189,
254, 256, 257, 259, 260
buttress bases 189, 191, 192, 195, fig 16.4
cobbled foundations (buttress/adjunct?)
185, 189, 192, fig 16.4
coin 242
column base 21, 190, 193, 1946, 207,
212, 242, 354
crucible 243
dating 201
depression (5626) 190, 196, fig 16.4
dimensions 189, 207, 212
dissolution and robbing 2423
drains 189, 190, 194, 197, 201, 214
exterior 197
fire destruction 243, 360
flagged path (5763) 189, 199, 201
furniture support 196
glass working 241
interior 1936
interior fitments 196
kitchen see Jarrow Building A southern
annexe
lead (roofing) 191, 192
Norman reconstruction 192
openings 1923
opus signinum 1934, 196, 198, 201,
201, 208, 210
paving (flagging) 185, 187, 191, 193,
197, 199
pottery 197, 243, 272
quoins 26, 192
radiocarbon dates 21, 189
as refectory? 201, 359
robbed stone deposits 272
roof 1912
rooms AiAiii 189, 189, 193 (and see
below Jarrow Building A southern
annexe)
stakeholes to south 187
step(?) 193
stone pads (furniture support?) 26, 190,
192, 194, 196
window glass 1923, 208
workshop floor to south 21415, 214, 241
Jarrow Building A southern annexe (Aiii)
189, 189, 192, 193, 196, 1978, 1978,
201, 212, 214, 215, 245, 343, 351
JARINDXN.QXD
432
19-01-2007
12:47
Pagina 432
hearth 198, 201

hollow for container? 198, fig 16.5
as kitchen 201, 359
post-impressions (timber structure/
hearth?) 198, 199, 201
stakeholes 189, 189
Jarrow Building B 149, 154, 162, 1678,
170, 187, 200, 2017, 210, 211, 226,
243, 359
animal bone 205
artefacts 204
as assembly hall 204
burials adjacent or near 175, 179, 180,
184, 186
constructional modules 20712, 211
dimensions 202, 207, 212
doorway postulated 185, 203
east wall 283
furniture 202
gravel surface 203
openings 203, 204
opus signinum floor(s) 196, 203, 205,
207, 209, 210
paving 185, 203, 204, 205
plaster 202, 203, 205
pottery 202, 205, 243, 244
roof 202, 203
room Bi 202, 203, 204, 205, 343
stone setting (seat?) 203, 204, 204, 359
room Bii 202, 2047, 204, 3434, 359,
360
altar base? 204, 205, 207, 207
as oratory 196, 205
plaster 2034
room Biii (cell) 202, 203, 2047, 204,
359
sunken feature (washing place/urinal?)
204, 207, 207, 343
stakeholes 203
well 201, 204, 204
window glass (in Bii) 205, 207, 209
burned down and collapse 243, 243
Jarrow Building D 149, 154, 170, 21718,
21930, 238, 239, 242, 250, 359
animal bone 221, 222, 223, 3434
area to north of 216, 218
artefacts 214, 222, 224, 229, 360
bench/drain (6031) 221, 224
coins 226, 229, 230
construction platform 218, 219, 2223
crucible 242
dating and interpretation 22630
daub 226, 229, 239
feature (3739), trench or terracing 217,
219, 221
glass working and melting 224, 229,
241, 360
as guest house(?) 229
hearth (3768) 220, 222, 226, 228, 250
inscription, 8th-century 223, 226
kerb stones (1853), windbreak? 226, 228
lead and lead debris (melting) 221, 228,
229
linear feature (3689) 223, 250
north wall 26, 216, 217, 223, 224, 226,
228, 232, 239, 250, 290
phase 0, on the shoreline 21922
phase 1, platform 222
phase 2, construction 2224
phase 3 2246
pit (3688), medieval 218, 222
plaster 223, 226, 229

pottery 223, 226, 229
prehistoric flint 23
revetment(s) 217, 218, 222, 223
secondary west wall 224
southern perimeter 221
south wall 223, 226
stone object (drain?) 224
vessel glass 224, 229
Wall 1062 (east wall) 220, 2234, 223,
224, 226, 234, 239
west end 224, 226, 228, 229, 310
windbreak 226, 228
window glass 224, 225, 226, 228, 229
window heads 223, 226, 228
workshop 224, 228, 229
Jarrow burial ground (cemetery) 17, 767,
170, 218, 309, 354, 3556, 359, 3623
Anglo-Saxon/pre-Norman 76, 17386,
187, 218, 242, 256, 260, 261, 283
medieval 76, 173, 174, 175, 177, 183,
186, 25462, 340
post-medieval 173, 174, 175, 33940
age and sex 175, 176, 178, 180, 256
alignment 183, 183, 184, 260
artefacts 1823, 25960
bone movement 180, 258
Building A 173, 174, 175, 177, 184,
189, 259, 260
cist? 180, 181
coffins 178, 17980, 179, 182, 182, 183,
2578
disposition of body 2567
earth mounds 258, 258
grave markers 174, 179, 1812, 182,
258, 258
grave morphology 17882, 2579
organisation and layout 1846
pottery 173, 174, 175, 183, 186, 254,
256, 258, 259
rows of graves 1845, 2601, 262
shrouds 178, 180, 2578
stone settings and features 178, 179,
180, 181, 257, 258, 258, 259
superpositioning 184, 185
Jarrow Hall 11, 18, 19, 25, 26, 42, 313, 350
Jarrow Lectures 14
Jarrow monastery
Bede 34, 35, 41
cemetery (churchyard) 17, 767, 170,
17386, 25462, 33940, 354,
3556, 359, 3623 (see also Jarrow
burial ground)
community 334, 40
destruction 325, 329, 334, 337
disuse 3367
as Durham cell 38, 401, 251, 287, 292
foundation of 29, 33, 37, 341, 348, 367
graphic records 3934
landholdings 29, 378, 38, 341, 371
master 40, 295, 296, 311
medieval layout 31316
monk-chaplain 37, 294, 295
monks withdrawn from 40, 347
paintings from Rome 33
plan (1545) 380, 381
plan (1853) 339
post-medieval references 3768
refounding (c 865) 34, 35, 3701
repairs and repair bills 300, 312
sack of 34
Jarrow monastic buildings 12, 14
phases 01 buried soil and associated
with building works 187
Anglo-Saxon 18, 13945, 187241
Late Anglo-Saxon/Early medieval occupation 24250
Norman and Medieval 1 occupation
242, 25162, 26395, 298, 301,
340
Medieval 1b 2778, 2801, 2867, 302,
310
Medieval 1b/2a 2812, 287
later Medieval 2 251, 278, 283, 290,
294, 295, 296316, 338, 340
Medieval 2a 306
Medieval 2b/Post-medieval 3001
post-Dissolution occupation 401, 42,
33840
abbots seat 284
altar 2, 33, 348
bakehouse 290, 312, 371
Bedes oratory, altar and cell 3, 14, 33,
35, 169, 360
benches 284, 302
boundary ditch, southern 310
boundary walls 218, 219, 281, 311; see
also Jarrow Slake
brewhouse 40, 290, 307, 312, 347, 371
Building A see Jarrow Building A; Jarrow
Building A southern annexe
building repairs 40, 3724
burials 169, 174, 175, 176
buried soil deposit (Anglo-Saxon ground
surface) 187
cellar 40, 307, 312, 371
cemetery see Jarrow burial ground
cemetery wall 41
chamber 40, 371
chamber (camera magistri), for master
40, 296, 298, 311, 312, 316, 371
chapter house 40, 269, 3012, 314 (and
see below East Range ER3)
church see St Pauls Church
churchyard boundary (Walls 10 and 11)
325, 327
cloister 18, 40, 147, 168, 170, 170, 249,
26975, 296, 390
burials 173, 174, 183, 186
dimensions 292
grave slabs recycled 181
interior 2723, 296
laver or lavatorium 274, 292
Medieval 2 modification 292, 301,
311
medieval occupation evidence 2738
reconstruction of Norman 294
upper floor 290
wall construction 26972
cloister alleys 189, 201, 263, 273, 274,
275, 286, 292, 296, 301, 314
cloister arcade 272
cloister garth 201, 292, 296, 338
well 2745, 296, 314
cloister walks 137, 170, 203, 296, 311
burials 174, 174, 185
east 301
Medieval 2 wall 174, 280
west 294, 296
coal store 308, 312
cross socket 216
JARINDXN.QXD
19-01-2007
12:47
Pagina 433
INDEX
day stairs (ER4) 265, 284, 292, 298, 302

ditch and drain 248, 248
dormitory 290
dorter 282, 302
drain between Buildings A and B 246
drains and drainage channels 278, 279,
2812, 284, 284, 303, 303, 311,
312
drying racks 311, 311
eastern perimeter wall see Jarrow Slake,
Wall 6/14
East Range, Norman and medieval 18,
170, 172, 174, 176, 202, 239, 242,
243, 264, 265, 2689, 272, 287,
292, 294, 296, 297, 301, 311, 314,
316, 336, 338, figs 19.1011
adjunct buildings 3089 (and see
below ER1ER7, SR4, SR5)
dimensions 291, 292
dorter 282
east wall 285, 303, 3389
new chamber 301
pier base 330, 330
upper floor 308
west wall 273, 275, 276, 280, 291,
306, 338, 339
East Range ER1 (possible sacristy) 41,
265, 269, 2823, 292, 298, 301
East Range ER2 (slype) 265, 269, 283,
292, 298, 301
East Range ER3 (chapter house) 265,
2834, 292, 298, 3012
bench 302
column base (grindstone) 284, 285
stone settings 301
tracery 300, 302
East Range ER4 (day stairs) 265, 284,
292, 296, 298, 302
bench 302
East Range ER5 (warming house/
kitchen) 265, 268, 269, 277, 278,
281, 2847, 286, 291, 292, 298,
3024, 302, 339
bricks 307
foundation (1453) 2845
hearth/oven 286, 286, 287, 312
as kitchen 303, 308, 312
south door 285, 287, 305
south-east corner 289
East Range ER6 265, 268, 275, 287,
28990, 289, 298, 3046, 306, 312
cellar? 307, 312
corbel 292
cupboards 305, 307, 312
pier 304, 305, 306
storage area? 290, 307, 312
setting (1149) for container 305
timber wall foundation 304
East Range ER7 265, 268, 275, 281, 287,
28991, 292, 298, 3068, 307, 330
oven/hearth 3067, 307, 312
enclosures 314, 34950, 350
fences 320, 311, 311, 324, 335
gardening 214, 309, 310, 311, 359
gardens 170, 30910, 311
grange 40
guest house (Building D?) 229, 363
hall (aula) 3, 40, 296, 298, 311, 312,
316, 371
hearths 216, 245, 278, 287, 291, 292,
296, 303, 303, 309, 31011, 310
junction building (between churches)

1634, 1667, 168, 352, 354
kitchens 40, 278, 303, 307, 308, 309,
312, 316, 371, 338, fig 19.13
landing place 229
larder 300
latrines/garderobe 272, 284, 300, 308,
312, 316
lavatorium 245, 274, 292, 298, 314
lay cemetery 296
location 3489
masters lodgings 312 (see also chamber
(camera magistri))
new chamber 301
opus signinum 158, 183, 190, 1934,
196, 198, 201, 203, 204, 205, 207,
20810, 215
ovens 281, 290, 291, 303, 303, 3067,
307, 312
pantry and larder 40, 300, 371
path between Buildings A and B 189,
190, 191, 203
perimeter
Saxo-Norman marking out with
fence and ditch 324, 335
southern 27982
perimeter walls 248; see also Jarrow Slake
pottery 187
priors chamber 40
refectory 268, 277, 292
reredorter 216, 223, 250, 269, 287,
28991, 308, 330, 336
piers 250, 2689, 289, 289, 290, 290
buildings
riverside paths and walls see Jarrow Slake
rubbish dumps 296, 303
rubbish pits 291, 310
sacristy (ER1?) 41, 265, 269, 2823,
292, 298, 301
shelter, timber 214, 214
slype (ER2) 265, 269, 283, 292, 298, 301
smithy 296
South Cloister Building (SCB) 268, 296
301, 298, 299, 300, 311, 312, 316
coin 300, 338
latrine/store 300
lintel 297
pantry/larder 300
pivot stone 297
post-Dissolution 338, fig 22.1
rebuilt 308
room d 338
room e 189, 201, 338
South Range, Norman and medieval
170, 173, 174, 214, 215, 216, 219,
248, 268, 269, 27782, 338, 395
adjunct building (SR1SR3) 2778,
283 (and see below)
dimensions 292, 316
drain 309
entrance 292
entrance to SR7 309
Medieval 2: 201, 244, 263
undercroft 214, 269, 277
Wall 6: 277, 281
Wall H 277
Wall I 277
Wall J south 269, 277, 280, 281
Wall V 277, 308
well 292
433
South Range Wall 3 (north wall, SR1),

medieval 263, 2645, 265, 268,
270, 271, 272, 273, 277, 292, 297
southern perimeter and slope 27982
southern slope see Jarrow southern slope
SR1 South Range adjunct building
2778, 283, 285
2778, 283, 303, 308, 312
2778, 283, 298, 308
SR4 staircase support 281, 298, 3089,
309
SR5 garderobe/latrine? 281, 283, 298,
3089, 309, 312
SR6 283, 309
SR7 281, 309
stables 313
stairs 285, 302, 308 (see also day stairs)
standing walls 251, 2639, 264, 265, 272
storage areas 290, 307, 312, 330, 336
store rooms 40, 300
trough? (structure C) 197, 2456, 246,
292
undercroft 269, 277, 287, 289, 290,
312, 330, 336
Wall 1 see Jarrow Slake, riverside wall
Wall 2 see below West Range Wall 2; see
also Jarrow Slake, riverside wall
Wall 2a 245, 245, 246, 278
Wall 2b see Jarrow southern slope
Wall 3 see above South Range Wall 3; see
also Jarrow Slake
Wall 4 see Jarrow Slake
Wall 5, late medieval 189, 203, 243; see
also Jarrow Slake
Wall 6 see Jarrow Slake, riverside wall
Wall 6/14 see Jarrow Slake
Walls 7, 1011, 15 and 16/5 see Jarrow
Slake
Walls 12/15 and 13 see Jarrow Slake,
riverside wall
Walls 5106/7 see Jarrow southern slope
Wall 5320 see Jarrow southern slope
Wall J see South Range
Wall V 277, 308
wall in south-east corner of East Range
263
warming house see East Range ER5
wash-house and privy 338
well and well-house (4348) 2435,
274, fig 19.12
well (6022), cloister garth 2745, 296,
314
wells 296, 314
West Range 2634, 269, 272, 2912,
296, 316
burials 175
West Range Wall 2 (east wall) 170, 187,
189, 2634, 265, 266, 267, 268,
272, 273, 292, 309
window glass 1923, 205, 207, 208, 209,
224, 225, 226, 228, 229
yards (gravel surface) 201, 21415, 301,
302
see also Jarrow Building A; Jarrow
Building B; Jarrow Building D;
Jarrow Slake; Jarrow southern
slope; workshops
Jarrow riverside buildings 22, 170, 216, 222,
223, 223, 226, 229, 23041, 359, 360
JARINDXN.QXD
434
19-01-2007
12:47
Pagina 434
animal bones 231, 232, 233, 234, 235,

237, 238, 241, 343
brazier or hearth 236, 237
causeway 232
coins 22
elderberry seeds 237, 241, 343
hearth (994) and radiocarbon dating 21,
229, 235, 237, 238, 241
loading and unloading 231
metalworking 232, 234, 241
oven, medieval 232
phase 1 2302, 230, 238, 240
phase 2 231, 232, 2389, 240
phase 3a first workshop 231, 232, 232,
233, 239, 240, 241
phase 3b 233, 234, 240
phase 4a second workshop 2345, 235,
236, 238, 239, 240, 241
phase 4b 2357, 237, 238, 239, 240
phase 5 collapse of structures 2378, 240
phases 15 matrix 240
pottery 233, 234, 237
revetments 2301, 230, 232, 233, 234,
235, 236, 237, 238, 238, 239, 239,
241, 280
smithing 233, 235
tank/container 236
west wall (1062) 234, 235, 236, 237, 239
Jarrow Slake 4, 9, 9, 12, 14, 18, 19, 20,
139, 227, 31737, 344, 400
allotments 317
animal bone 322, 323, 324, 325, 327,
329, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335
bank, clay 317, 318, 3223, 322, 323, 324
churchyard boundary wall (Walls 10 and
11) 325, 327
churchyard wall (Wall 3) 320, 325
cobble floor (riverside path or hard
standing) 333, 335
coins 295, 320, 321, 323, 335, 337
cottages (riverside) 317, 324, 325, 338
ditch 321
fence and ditch, Saxo-Norman markingout of perimeter 324, 335
fence for path 320
hard standing 333, 335
medieval structures and deposits 31935
pier base 330, 330, 331, 331, 333, 336
post-fence, modern 324
post-medieval 320, 3245
pottery 18, 320
revetment (postholes below bank) 324, 324
riverside path (cobbling) 333, 335
riverside path with post-fence 327
riverside wall (Wall 1) 320, 325
riverside wall (Wall 2) 320, 321, 321,
326, 330, 336, figs 19.13 & 19.28
riverside wall (Wall 6) 325, 331
riverside wall (Wall 12/15) 320, 326,
327, 330, 331, 331, 336, 337
riverside wall (Wall 13) 325, 326, 327,
327, 330, 336
Site I 317
Site II 31718, 318
Wall 3 (boundary wall) 281, 282, 319,
322, 323, 323, 324
Wall 4: 326, 32930, 333, 334, 336
Wall 5 perimeter or revetment 332, 334,
334, 335, 336
Wall 6/14 eastern perimeter wall 326,
330, 331, 331, 332, 336
Wall 7: 332, 336

Wall 10 churchyard boundary 325, 327
Wall 11 churchyard boundary 325, 327
Wall 15: 329
Wall 16/5: 32930, 331, 332, 333, 3356
Jarrow Slake Areas 18, 19
Area I 18, 19, 317
Area II 18, 19, 317
Area III 18, 19, 317
Area IV/IVE/IVN 18, 19, 223, 226, 227,
229, 289, 317, 31819, 318, 324,
32733, 335, 336, 337
Area IVW 317, 319, 3247
Area V 18, 19, 230, 317, 318, 318,
31924, 320, 335, 336
Area VI 18, 19, 317, 318, 318, 319,
3335
Areas IVI 18, 19
Jarrow southern slope 18, 170, 187, 212
18, 226, 24550, 30911, 339, fig 16.5
animal bone 214, 215
boundary cut 213
cemetery 218, 309
coins 214
cross socket 216
drainage channels 218
drains 311
drying racks or fences 311, 311
eastern part 21518
gardening 214, 309, 310, 311, 359
hearths and windbreaks 216, 245,
31011, 310
hedge lines (gully) 2467, 246, 359
kitchen (upper slope) 309
linear feature (3689) 223, 250
opus signinum 215
opus signinum making 245
path (3928) 215
paving 215
pottery 214, 245, 247, 248, 250
shellfish pit 245
southern perimeter and slope 27982
stone-dressing 245
structure C (trough?) 2456, 246
timber shelter 214, 214
Wall 2b 247
Wall 5320: 309, 391, 392
walls (5106/7) 216, 216
western sector 21215, 30911
working surfaces 215
workshop floor (yard) 21415, 214, 229,
246, 248, 344
Jarrow village 9, 11, 12, 338, 398
Jerusalem 352, 381
jet 237
jetton 347
John, abbot of St Martins 32
John of Lumley 40
John of Worcester 31
Jugoslavia 353
Jumieges 3578
junction building, Jarrow 1634, 1667,
168, 352, 354
kiln (farm building) 375
kiln (industrial) 241
Kirkby Moorside 195
kitchens 33, 127, 278, 303, 308, 309,
312, 316, 338, 359, 360, 371; see also
Jarrow Building A southern annexe
knives 214, 229, 233, 345
lamp/bowl, stone 224

landholdings and endowments 29, 30, 31,
32, 36, 378, 341, 342, 345, 371
larder 300
Late Anglo-Saxon/Early Medieval occupation, Jarrow 1, 24250, figs 17.12
latrines and latrine pits 22
Jarrow 272, 284, 300, 308, 312, 316
Wearmouth 41, 1001, 1045, 106, 112,
113, 121, 127, 130, 132, 134, 137,
272, 346
lavatorium 134, 245, 274, 292, 298, 314
lay brethren 34
lay cemeteries (and burials) 29, 84, 88,
89, 96, 296, 3556
lay community 290, 342, 343, 344, 3556
lay servants 40
lead 183, 187, 214, 215, 221, 232, 233,
234, 235, 236, 237, 241, 281, 323, 332
Anglo-Saxon 81, 216, 232, 233, 321
in burials 182
melted 135, 191, 204, 205, 228, 229,
250, 296
rolled 234
sources of 341
lead cames 193
lead fittings
Anglo-Saxon/Saxon 216, 321
for roof 1912, 322
lead melting hearth 120, 121
lead roofing 39, 191, 325, 327
lead roofing clips 191, 192, 203
lead sheets, for roof 203
lead strips 232, 233, 325, 331
Legat, Thomas 40
Leland, John 3, 14, 145, 163, 360, 365,
376
Lewin, William, map (1714) 380, 381
Lewis holes 24, 26
lifting tackle settings 195
Lincoln, St Paul-in-the-Bail 352
Lindisfarne 29, 30, 35, 40, 88, 137, 229,
253, 292, 313, 314, 314, 316, 341, 345,
347, 348
coins 360
Green Shiels site 341
sack of 34
Lindisfarne Gospels 195
lion armrests 69
location 3489
Longmate, B 383
Longstaffe, W H D 14, 43, 49, 55, 145,
147, 148, 153
Lorsch 358
Luxeuil, St Martins 358
Malcolm, king of Scotland 71, 72, 117
Malcolm III 3, 35
Manor House 88
maps, plans and drawings 381400
Marsden 25
Martin, St 357
marvering stone 241
masons (stone masons) 342
from Gaul 27, 31, 93, 292
masters chamber see Jarrow monastic
buildings, chamber (camera)
measurements 195, 207, 211, 212
medicine 342
Medieval 1 (High Medieval) 1, 20,
26395
JARINDXN.QXD
19-01-2007
12:47
Pagina 435
INDEX
Medieval 2 (Late Medieval) 1, 20,

296316
Melrose 348
Melsonby 195
Mesolithic settlement 23
metalwork 117, 342
metalworking 232, 241, 344, 346
mica fragments 322, 344
midden 259
Middle Saxon
enclosures 349, 350
gravel floor 245
pins 204
pottery 243
Milburn, W and T R 55, 379
Miles, Popham 124
mill 40
millefiori 214, 215, 224, 241
millstone, Anglo-Saxon 278, 343
minerals 232, 241, 322, 344
ministers house 4
Mokropolje, Jugoslavia 353
monasteries, siting of 13, 29
monastic buildings 35661
20th-century excavations, Jarrow 169
nature and layout 34850
see also Jarrow monastic buildings;
Wearmouth monastic buildings
monastic community 334, 39, 40, 343,
36770
diet (food supplies) 183, 3434, 346,
347
monk-chaplain (monk-priest) 37, 294,
295, 345
Monkton 38
Monkwearmouth 5, 8, 41
Monkwearmouth Hall (Jacobean) 3, 7, 8,
14, 15, 41, 75, 124, 130, 132, 135, 138,
346, 382
mortar mixers (Anglo-Saxon)
mixer (776) 93, 101, 111, 113
mixer (1490) Structure A 78, 86, 935,
94, 96, 352
mortarium, stone 232
mortars 20, 21, 55, 93
mortuary chapel, timber 167
Moutier Grandval, St Peters 353
nails 80, 85, 88, 221, 222, 290, 303, 305,
323, 329
building 257
coffin 179, 180, 183, 257
copper alloy 223
furnishing studs? 196
iron clench 183
Naiton (Naitan) see Nechtan
narthex 353
St Pauls 151
St Peters 46, 66, 69, 70, 351
natural resources 341
Nechtan (Naiton), king of the Picts 2, 34,
342, 368
Nendrum 359
Neolithic 23
new chamber 301
Newcastle 28, 347, 360
burials 186
pottery 347
Newton, J 382
Nivelles, churches 353, 354
Nola 353, 354
Norman period (Aldwinian building

phase) 1, 3, 20, 21, 26395; see also
Wearmouth, phase 5b
Northampton, mortar mixers 93
Northolt, Middlesex 307
Norton 27, 29
novice house 350, 360, 363
oculus 167, 354, 362
Offerton 37
opus signinum 358
making of 245
see also Jarrow Building A; Jarrow
Building B; Jarrow monastic buildings; Wearmouth monastic buildings
oratories 2, 33, 71, 359; see also St
Lawrences chapel
Ordnance Survey maps 8, 12, 25, 317
ornamental paths, Wearmouth 15, 41, 75,
123, 138, 138
Osred, king 2, 37
Oswiu, king 29, 31
Oundle monastery 350
ovens 232, 281, 290, 291, 303, 303,
3067, 307, 312
Ovingham 118
padlock 281
paintings from Rome
at Jarrow 33
at Wearmouth 2, 32, 69, 72, 368
positions of 32
palette or mould 229
panels, of minerals 229
pantry, monastic 40, 300, 371
Paris, Matthew 34
Parsonage House 395
Parsons, Eric 15, 63, 64, 69
parsons house 41
paths and boundaries see cemeteries
Paul I, pope 342
Penhallam, Cornwall 316
personal possessions 343
phasing 201
Philibert, St 357, 358, 359
Piercebridge 27, 28, 352
pillow stones see burials
pins 224, 322
bronze ring-headed, Middle Saxon 204
bronze (shroud) 80, 82, 85
copper-alloy 257, 260, 329
iron with silver head 183
silvered 334
pitched stone foundation (road?), Jarrow
169, 349
pivot stones and holes 297, 301, 306, 308
place-names 29
Jarrow 8
Wearmouth 5
plan (1769) see British Library
plant remains 221
carbonised grain 343
see also elderberry seeds
plasters 20, 21, 325
Jarrow Slake 325, 327, 329, 331, 334
painted 97, 104, 118, 203, 325, 334
plates
copper-alloy 320, 329
iron, with nail 180
plough and ard marks 187, 188
plumb bob 204
435
pollen 11, 116, 118, 343

porters lodge 358
porticus 31, 353
porticus (portus) ingressus 2, 32, 43, 69, 70
post-Dissolution 412, 33840
pottery 20, 21
dating 21, 251
in grave fills 812
trade 344, 346
Roman 24, 26, 75, 79, 81, 88, 119, 223,
247
colour-coated 24
Italian amphora 26
Native Roman 187
samian ware 24, 26, 232
Late Saxon/Norman, imported 115
medieval fabric types see below
post-medieval 77, 130, 135, 256, 281,
302
16th-century 66, 183
16th-17th century 306
17th-18th century 300, 301, 304
17th-century 137, 296
18th-19th century 108, 302, 338
18th-century 62, 99, 278
19th-century 148, 244, 305
see also fabric types below
C1 Newcastle Dog Bank ware 119, 126,
197, 237, 242, 245, 247, 248, 250,
258, 274, 283, 286
C/D handmade early medieval 175, 242,
278
D1 Permian Yellow Sand ware 279
D2 Fine White ware 278, 279
D2 North Eastern Grey ware 244, 289,
291
D3 279
D4 Northern Gritty ware 283, 286
D5 early grey wares 27970
D7 Durham White ware 280, 285, 287,
289, 291
D8 Hard Sandy Grey ware 229, 250,
280
D9 104, 105
D11 Quite Gritty Oxidised ware 130,
148, 250, 280, 289, 291
D12 Handmade Reduced ware 119,
250, 278, 286, 324
D13 280
D14 280
D15 250, 280
D19 medieval 120
D20 291
D23 Gritty Micaceous Grey ware 202,
243
E1 Moderately Gritted ware 244
E10 Oxidised Gritty ware 101, 115, 120,
132, 173, 205, 242, 244, 248, 274,
278, 287, 291, 309, 321, 331, 333
E11 buff white ware 123, 137
E11a Tyneside Buff White ware 101,
132, 157, 158, 244, 247, 278, 281,
284, 298, 308, 311, 334
E11b Tyneside Buff White ware 130,
244, 274, 278, 286, 298, 332, 334,
335
E11c Hard Fired Tyneside Buff White
ware 110, 298, 334
E11d 274, 296, 303, 309, 332, 334
E11e Oxidised Buff White ware 130,
158, 244, 275, 334
JARINDXN.QXD
19-01-2007
12:47
436
Pagina 436
E12a Early Gritty Green ware 110, 132,

243, 248, 274, 282, 287, 291, 321,
332
E12b Later Green ware 129, 286, 296,
303, 308, 310, 311, 321, 323, 331,
333, 335
E13 Oxidised Green ware 132, 278,
280, 281, 304, 310, 311, 321, 323,
331, 335
E18 93, 280, 331
E19 280, 281
F1 Scarborough ware 93, 128, 250, 335
F10 medieval 120
F11 Kelso-type ware 327, 334
G1 Early Fine Red ware 214, 223, 226,
229, 233, 234, 237, 238, 239, 241,
247, 250, 286, 344, 362
G4 Rhenish ware 233
G5 Tating ware 214, 344
G12 93
G13 Low Countries Grey ware 285
Tating ware see G5
Whitby-type ware 115, 132
see also pottery entries under buildings and
monastic buildings
Pottes, John 39
prehistoric 23
causeways 13
flints 75, 187
quarries 10
settlement 5
private cells see cells
promptuarium 3
prothesis 69
pulpit 69
quarries 10, 23, 37, 41, 341
quartz 232, 241
Radford, C A Ralegh 4, 14, 70, 148, 169
radiocarbon dating 21
hearth (944) in riverside buildings 21, 235
wood from Jarrow Building A 21, 189
Rain, John, plan (1811) 389
Raunds 85, 179, 258, 260
reading desks 195
recording and post-excavation 20
rectory (Victorian), Jarrow 4, 42, 139,
170, 189, 198, 256, 262, 309, 339, 339,
340, 392, 396
burials from garden 173, 254, 256, 257
rubbish pit 246
Reculver Church, Kent 69, 195
reeve 39, 3412
refectories 312, 40, 127, 195, 277, 292,
356; and see Jarrow Building A
registers (1782) 154, 377
Reichenau 358
relics 35
Rennie, John 385
repair bills and repairs, medieval 401,
128, 300, 312
reredorter, Jarrow 216, 223, 250, 2689,
287, 28991, 308, 330, 336
revetment walls, Jarrow 216, 218; see also
Jarrow riverside buildings; Jarrow Slake
Richmond castle 285
ring buckles 126
rings, for curtains?, copper-alloy 195
Ripon 28, 31, 352
river crossing 37, 349, 358

buildings
riverside cottages see cottages (18thcentury)
riverside paths 327, 333, 335
riverside walls see Jarrow Slake
rivet 329
copper alloy 281
roads 10, 23, 24, 25, 37, 349
map (1768) 38
Robert of Walworth 312
Robson, W J 14, 383
Robson, Revd Matthew 43, 46, 47, 49,
50, 55, 69, 71
Roman 237, 24, 25, 28
altar reused as door jamb 118, 119
brooches 26, 204
buildings (architecture; romanitas) 23, 24,
26, 27, 31, 34, 350, 352, 357, 359
drainage tile 224
finds at Jarrow Slake 317
fort at Jarrow? 12, 246, 317, 364
foundations of Jarrow Eastern Church
145
glass 26, 344
glass tessera 344
inscriptions 154, 366, 366
Jarrow site 12, 247
mortar mixers 93
quarries 10, 37
roads 10, 23, 24, 25, 37
roof tiles reused 189, 196, 197
stone from bridge reused 26, 223
stone reused 9, 26, 154, 194, 221, 223,
341, 352, 359
tile 26, 216, 221, 223, 231, 234, 322,
323, 324, 335
timbers reused 21, 189
tooled stone reused 24, 147, 189, 190,
192
tooling (interlace) 55
villas 111, 112
Wearmouth 234
see also coins; pottery
Romanesque door, Jarrow 123, 130, 137
Rome, church 358
roof and roof fittings, lead 203, 322, 327
roof tiles 308, 325, 327, 329, 334, 336,
337
in burials 259
glazed 130, 335
Roman reused 189, 196, 197
stone 130, 325, 327, 329, 333, 334, 337
used as flooring 278
roof timber, Roman reused 21, 189
Rouen 358
rumbler bell 122
Ryhope 25, 37, 38
Rypon, John 125
Ryton, Roman coins 23, 25
sacrarium 2, 32, 67, 69, 70, 88, 3512
sacristy 32, 40, 41, 67, 2823, 352, 353
St Andrew Auckland 5, 30
St Calais, Bishop see William of St Calais
St Catherines monastery, Mount Sinai
356, 357
St Gall plan 358, 360
St Lawrences chapel (oratory) 2, 33, 72,
354, 358
St Martin of Tours monastery 356
St Marys church or chapel, Wearmouth

2, 3, 323, 39, 71, 72, 354
St Pauls Church, Jarrow 18, 19, 139
altar 2, 33, 161, 348
arches set in four piers (side porticus)
163, 167
basilica (Western Church?) 154, 167,
356, 359
Bedes burial in northern porticus 163
burials 148, 157, 158, 159, 167
chancel 139
Anglo-Saxon 15961, 163, 164,
254
chancel arch 161
dimensions 160
hollow area under? 362
medieval 2512, 253, 394
windows, W5 252, W8, medieval
301
choir loft 166, 168, 252
dedication 2, 33
dedication stone 14, 144, 145, 151, 154,
164, 168, 348, 3656, 365
door openings
D1 south wall 147, 166, 185, 252
D2 south wall 147, 148, 153, 252
D3 north wall 147, 148, 166, 252
Eastern Church (chancel) 139, 140,
144, 144, 145, 14754, 155, 162,
1634, 1678, 348, 352, 354, 356
dating 154
development 1678
dimensions 147, 154
east wall 1478, 168
external staircase? 152
fabric 147
lay access 167
oculus 167
on Roman foundations 145
roof scar 166
south wall 147, 2512
blocked doorway 179, 185
tower or narthex 151
wall base 145, 151
west wall excavated 148, 151, 153
elevations 146
fabric 352
fire 35
glass, medieval 160
junction building 1634, 1667, 168,
352, 354
medieval occupation 2514, 254
narthex 151
nave
Anglo-Saxon 1549, 1601, 253
pre-1782 (Western Church) 1549,
1603
medieval 2534
demolished and rebuilt (17823)
1545, 377
Victorian 4, 14, 139, 144, 154
chamber at south-west corner (with
groined roof) 154, 163, 253, 272
dimensions 160
foundation wall (3484a) 157, 162,
163
foundation wall (4536) north wall
157, 158, 158, 162, 253
foundation wall (4642) 157, 157,
160, 161, 162, 163, 164
JARINDXN.QXD
19-01-2007
12:47
Pagina 437
INDEX
south wall (4526) 1589, 159, 161

west end 155, 156, 157, 157, 1613
north aisle see passage
northern adjuncts 154, 157, 163
oculus 167, 354, 362
opus signinum 158
passage (north aisle) 162, 163, 168,
351, 362
pew plan (1783) 144, 400
phases 254
porch
constructed 1887: 157
north 139, 163, 253, 254
west 139, 154, 161, 163
porticus 148, 151, 161, 167, 168, 273,
354
medieval 162
north 161, 162, 163, 167, 168, 253
row of northern 163
south 162, 163, 167, 264
south-western 163
western 1612, 163
pottery 157, 158
rebuilt 18th-century (1783) 14, 144,
145, 154, 155, 158, 161, 161, 162,
254, 377, 3915, 400
foundation courses 155
north wall 145
rebuilt 19th-century 145, 254, 377
roof 166, 251
Roman inscriptions reused 154
side-chambers (adjuncts) 161, 167, 354
south aisle 163
stepped plinth (south exterior) 148, 1534
tower 151, 164, 1656, 165, 168, 355,
394
belfry stage 253
choir or rood loft 166, 168, 252
dimensions 165
doors and openings 166, 252, (D3)
166, (D4) 166, 252, (D5) 166, 252
to Eastern Church 151
foundations 166
medieval 139, 144, 145, 1656,
2523
upper storey, for safekeeping? 252
tower arch 15960, 163, 166
trenches excavated 150
upper chamber 354
vestry 162, 165, 166, 272, 377
western buttress, medieval 161
Western Church 142, 144, 356, 359
Anglo-Saxon phases (nave and
chancel) 142, 144, 15467, 162
arcade in north wall 154, 155, 167
as basilica 151, 154, 167, 356, 359
development 1678
dimensions 154, 160
gallery? 168, 354
northern adjunct 154, 157, 163
structure (chamber) with groined
roof (south-west corner), porticus?
154, 163, 253, 272
western gallery 153, 168
window glass, medieval 151
windows, north wall (W4, W5, W6, W9)
148, 153, 252
St Peters Church, Wearmouth 5672,
3515, 358, 362
altar 69
Anglo-Saxon 21, 5672, 60
wall 1953 (phase 1) western adjunct

to nave/porch? 65, 65, 66, 67
wall 1954 (phase 2) nave/porch
656, 65, 67
annexe/porticus 66, 351
antiquarians 14
chambers (adjuncts) 67, 68, 69, 123
chancel 154
Anglo-Saxon 50, 55, 56, 60, 63, 64,
64, 69, 71, 112, 114, 352
burial with grave-cover 60, 63, 64,
69, 86, 89
burial vault (Williamson family?)
60, 61, 64
phase 6 medieval 1245
rebuilt 18th-century 124
19th-century alterations 124, 125
chancel arch 56
base of south pier 117
broad wall under 49, 69
cross wall 49, 69
clergy bench, lion armrests 69
coffin (lead) in situ, medieval 126, 126
coins 24
cross wall (under chancel arch) 49, 69
Cuthbert Chapel (Hilton Chantry) 60,
61, 623, 125
medieval lead coffin 126, 126
dating 66
dereliction and fire (phase 5) 117
drain, stone (2106) 66
east end interior 4955, 60
excavations and discoveries 15, 18, 4355
fabric 24, 352
Fawcetts plan (1719) 7
fires, 11th-century 72, 117
galleries 41, 383
glass 46
Hilton chantry chapel (Cuthbert
Chapel) 39, 61, 69, 124, 125
interior fitments 3845
medieval burials 1257
medieval cell (phase 6) 39, 1235
mortars 55, 61, 69, 70, 71
narthex(?) 46, 66, 69, 70, 351
nave
Anglo-Saxon (west wall) 21, 55,
569, 64, 67, 68, 95, 123
dimensions 49, 56, 67, 154, 351
entrance D1 67
galleries, 18th-century 67, 123
19th-century investigations 49, 55
medieval 1234
north aisle 46, 60, 61, 123, 362
phase 1: 67, 68, 69
phase 2 and 3: west wall patched 70
phase 6 medieval 1234
rebuilt 19th century 55, 56, 123
roof springing 59
side chamber 123
south wall rebuilt (in 1866) 55
stakeholes (phase 5b) 118
string course added 70
north aisle 46, 60, 61, 123, 362
North Wall 1: 60, 61, 62, 62, 64, 69,
123, 126
as northern porticus? 56, 69
North Wall 2/Wall 3111: 60, 62, 63, 64,
69, 126
path? (stones 3209, 3411) 63, 64
437
phase 1/1a 46, 67, 68, 69

phase 2 and 3 68, 701
phase 2 67, 68, 6970
phase 4 66, 712
porch (west entrance) 21, 32, 43, 46,
55, 56, 56, 59, 69, 70, 101, 112,
358, 386, 387
Anglo-Saxon foundations 49
barrel-vaulted roof 59, 71
D2 carved jambs 43, 46, 56, 59
D3 and D4 (north and south doorways) 59, 66, 69, 70
D5 door 59
dating 71
dimensions 59
20th-century excavations 49
figure(s) 55, 59, 70
fire 117
frieze (S2) 59, 70
19th-century investigations 43, 46,
47, 55
mortars and plasters 55, 59
phase 2 59, 6970
phase 5 117, 118
porticus ingressus 32, 43, 69, 70
Sewells drawing 48
south wall 55, 65, 65
stone coffin in 43, 46, 70
string course (S3) 59
upper chamber 70
W5 blocked opening 59
west doorway 386
west portal 21, 43, 69
west window (W4) 59, 70, 71
porticus 32, 358
earlier 118
eastern 46, 66, 69, 70, 101, 114,
167, 354, 356
Eosterwines bones 32, 43, 66, 70
funerary 67, 89, 352, 354
north 67, 69, 70
for stair? 70
south (or sacrarium) 32, 55, 67, 69,
70, 72, 96, 112, 137
western 66, 70, 351
processional way or closed court 70
rebuilt (1872) 46, 379
side chambers 67, 68, 69, 123
steps (3108) 63, 63, 69
string courses
S1 west wall 58, 59
S3 porch 59
S4 tower 59, 71
S5 tower 61
tomb slab, late Saxon 1256
tombs and effigies 124, 125
tower 14, 54, 55, 56, 59, 61, 352, 355
belfry stage 56, 61, 71, 72
excavations and restoration 43, 45, 46,
55
exterior 53
mortars 55
phase 3: 59, 61
phase 4: 52, 712
phase 5: 11718, 117, 119
restoration (1966) 55
slab with carved cross 58, 59, 61
string courses (S4) 59, 71, (S5) 61
upper storey? 312, 67
Wall 4: 66, 67, 70, 72
Wall 814 (porticus?) 612, 64
JARINDXN.QXD
438
19-01-2007
12:47
Pagina 438
west end, 19th-century investigations 438

west wall 21, 43, 502, 55, 569, 56, 66,
69, 379
arch of stones 55
dedication cross 58, 59, 61
doorway D1 57, 57
niche in foundations (framed by baluster shafts) 43, 6970
phase 1 569, 67, 69
string course (S1) 58, 59
W3 55, 56, 57, 57, 59, 70
western adjunct 66, 67
window glass
Anglo-Saxon 61
medieval 63
St Riquier 358
Sambuce 2, 37
sanctuary 32, 67, 69
Saxo-Norman structures, Wearmouth
11522
Scandinavians 115, 342, 360
school house (monastic) 360, 363
school, Jarrow 4, 18, 42, 139, 139, 170,
170, 268, 282, 283, 284, 3389, 339,
397, 398, 399
latrines 303, 303, 339
Scott, George and Giles Gilbert 4, 14,
144, 145, 147, 148, 153, 165, 377
scriber, for marking stone 204
scriptorium 341
sculpture
Jarrow cloister 273
pre-Conquest 30, 30
Wearmouth 43
Seaham 23, 37, 38, 341
seal, amber 281, 346
seating, stone 203, 204
Seaton 37, 38
Selsey monastery, Sussex 341
Sewell, R 48, 49
shellfish pits 245
shells (shellfish) 135, 183, 197, 204, 214,
223, 244, 245, 247, 248, 250, 259, 303,
306, 320, 343
Jarrow Slake 322, 325, 327, 329, 331,
333, 334, 335
shelter, timber 214, 214
Sherborne, Dorset 168, 354
Shields Lawe 24
shipbuilding 8, 41
ships ballast see ballast dumping
shroud pins, bronze 80, 82, 85
shrouds
Jarrow 178, 180, 2578
Wearmouth 85
shuttering (wall construction) 967
Sigfrid (Sigfrith), abbot 2, 33, 70
burial 32, 67
signal stations 23, 24
Silksworth 37, 38
silver fragments 323
site archives 20
site codes 18
site phasing 1
skimmer, lead 121
slags 233, 241, 248, 296, 325, 345
copper 329
Slake see Jarrow Slake
slate peg 332
slates 325, 329
grey roofing tiles 325
stone 39, 116, 191

slope (natural) 169; see also Jarrow southern slope
slype (Jarrow ER2) 265, 269, 283, 292,
298, 301
Smith, G B 394
smithing 233, 345
smithy 40, 296, 360
South Shields 10
Anglo-Saxon settlement 27
fish 347
Iron Age settlement 23
monastery 29, 341
Roman fort 23, 24, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29
vill 38
Southwick 36, 37, 345
Roman coins 23, 25
Sparrow, engraving 4, 143, 145, 252
spit roasting pit 303
spring lines 100, 274
stables 40, 129, 138, 313
stairs and staircases
Jarrow 135, 153, 168, 198, 285
Wearmouth 67, 70, 114
standing buildings, medieval 169, 170, 170
stone building 34
stone carving 241
stone-dressing 245
storage areas and store rooms 290, 300,
307, 312, 330, 336
strap-ends, late Saxon 229, 243, 245, 344
strips
metal 325, 331
stone, for wall panels(?) 97
strip work 118
Structure A see mortar mixers
Structure C, Ca and D see under
Structure 246, latrine chute(?),
Wearmouth 99
Structure 465, adjunct building,
Wearmouth 134, 135
Structure 569 (sunken), storage room or
latrine, Wearmouth 1045, 106, 109,
112, 113, 134, 137
Structure V/2157 and 2170, burial enclosure 856
styli 29, 204, 347
Suddick 38
Sunderland, Roman coins 23, 25
Symeon of Durham 14, 31, 33, 34, 35,
36, 39, 71, 72, 116, 242, 251, 343, 360
Syria
churches 352, 353
monasteries 350, 357
tank/container 236
tanning 237, 241
tap slag 233, 241
Taylor, J B 383
Tees valley 28
tegula, Roman 26, 323
Temple, Simon 11, 42
tessera, Roman glass 344
textiles 343, 345
thatch roofing 36, 39
Theodore of Tarsus 31
thermoluminescence dating 21, 285
Thomas of Graystanes 40
Thorney, Cambridge 35, 89
Thrislington 29
Tidfirth 4, 88
tiles 231, 232, 233, 235, 236, 247, 248,
250, 320
ceramic 191
grey 334, 335
limestone 304, 325, 329, 333, 337
red 325, 334, 335
Roman 26, 216, 221, 223, 231, 234, 323,
324, 335
Roman-type 322
see also floor tiles; roof tiles
tithes 3456, 347
tombs and effigies 124, 125
tombstones, post-medieval 262
tools 229
topography 59, 5
Torhthelm, abbot 2, 31
towers see St Pauls; St Peters
trade 3445, 346, 347
trenches (and cuttings)
Jarrow excavated areas 17
St Pauls Church, Jarrow 150, 156
Wearmouth excavated areas 16
trench 5901: 75
trench 59023: 75, 138
trench 60012: 75
trench 6003: 75, 125, 135
trench 6004: 75, 80
trench 6101: 75, 80, 11011, 111, 114,
116, 117, 121, 129, 129, 138
trench 61016107: 75
trench 6102: 75, 80, 111, 115, 116, 129, 129
trench 6103: 75, 115, 116
trenches 61047: 75
trench 6201: 91, 98, 122
trench 6202: 131
trench 6301: 169, 184
trench 6302: 23, 169, 188, 214, 214, 242,
245, 245, 278, 360
trench 6401: 75, 75, 84, 111, 127, 128, 130
trench 6402: 75, 111, 112, 114, 130
trench 6402: 23, 75, 84
trench 6403: 65, 95, 122
trench 6501: 156, 158, 272
trench 6508: 201
trench 6509: 200
trench 6510: 201
trench 6511: 214
trench 6601: 91
trench 6603: 115
trench 6604: 91, 128, 129
trench 6605: 64, 65, 73
trench 6701: 64, 66, 262
trench 6702: 66, 130
trench 6703: 66, 118, 199, 201, 279
trench 6704: 199, 201, 205
trench 6801: 155, 156, 157
trench 6901: 23, 75, 179, 184, 186, 201,
205, 243, 280, 297
trench 6902: 201, 205, 280, 303
trench 6903: 302
trench 6904: 110, 284
trench 7001: 156, 158, 173, 183, 262, 272
trench 7002: 243, 244
trench 7003: 184, 273, 275
trench 7004: 275
trench 7005: 148, 151, 153, 184
trench 7006: 183, 283, 301, 302
trench 7008: 284
trench 7101: 86, 103, 173, 340
trench 7102: 156, 157, 157, 162, 340
JARINDXN.QXD
19-01-2007
12:47
Pagina 439
INDEX
trench 7103: 187, 214, 215, 215, 245,

272, 278
trench 7104: 135, 273, 275
trench 7105: 169, 135, 184, 214, 215,
246, 248, fig 22.4
trench 7106: 284
trench 7201: 153, 159, 159
trench 7202: 156, 159
trench 7203: 156, 158, 162
trench 7204: 153, 158, 162
trench 7205: 153
trench 7206: 153, 159
trench 7207: 148, 150, 151, 153, 160, 160
trench 73013: 214, 215, 218, 246, 246,
247
trench 73045: 217
trench 7401: 91, 97, 135
trench 7402: 91
trench 7501: 148, 152, 340, 356
trench 7502: 287
trench 7503: 158, 284
trench 7504: 230, 289
trench 7505; 223, 250, 323
trench 7602: 223
trench 7603: 230, 230, 307
trench 7604: 230, 287, 289, 295
trench 7605: 268
trench 7801: 340
trench 7802: 188
trench 7803: 213, 214, 246, 2478, 247
trench 7804: 230
trench 7805: 230, 230, 287
trench 8601: 62, 62, 64
trench 8602: 62, 126
trench 8604: 63
trench 8605: 62, 63, 125
trench 8606: 63
trench 8607: 63
trench 8608: 63, 64
Trollop, William 125
trough (Jarrow structure C) 197, 2456,
246, 292
Trumberht 33
tuyre 237
Tyne river 5, 10, 28, 29, 325, 350, 360
Tyne valley 23
Tynemouth 29, 357, 381
Uhtred, Earl of Northumbria 71
undercroft(s) 268, 269, 277, 287, 289,
290, 312, 330, 336
upper stories 312, 67, 252, 352
urinal? 204, 207, 207
Usworth 38
vallum 27, 169
vallum monasterii 335, 349
vessels
bronze rim 201
copper-alloy 322
copper-alloy rim 281
vestry see St Pauls Church
Vicenza 353
Viking raids 2, 30, 34, 71, 168, 229, 343,
360
vills 36, 37, 38, 345
Walcher, Bishop 35, 37, 251, 292, 371
wall panels
petalled 196
stone strips 97
Wall 2 see Jarrow monastic buildings,

West Range Wall 2; Jarrow riverside
buildings, riverside wall; Wearmouth
monastic buildings
Wall 3 see under Jarrow monastic buildings, South Range Wall 3; Jarrow riverside buildings
Walls 3a and b, 4a and b see under
Wall 4 see under Jarrow riverside buildings;
Wall 5 see under Jarrow monastic buildings; Jarrow riverside buildings
Walls 616 see under Jarrow riverside
buildings
Wall 637 Wearmouth South Range,
medieval 107, 131, 132
Wall 1096, Wearmouth 130, 130
Wall 1131, Wearmouth 110, 111, 116
walls 1953 and 1954 see under St Peters
Church, Anglo-Saxon
Wall 2000, Wearmouth 66, 118, 1234
Walls VI, VIII and IX see under
Walls E, F, H and K see under Wearmouth
monastic buildings
Wallsend 23, 25, 26, 37
Wardley manor 40
warming room 311; see Jarrow monastic
buildings, East Range ER5
washer, iron and silver 324
wash-house and privy 338
washing place? 204, 207, 207
Wear river 5, 10, 29, 41, 75, 325, 349, 382
Wear valley 23, 35
Weardale 241, 344
Wearmouth
allotments 75, 389
animal bone 95, 108, 118, 129, 134,
135
antiquarians 14
church see St Peters Church
coins 212, 79, 115, 121, 122, 362
communications 10
ditch or construction trench (1304),
Anglo-Saxon 93, fig 9.2
engineers boreholes 388
excavations 15, 16, 18
excavations south of church 735
fish bone 104, 110, 132, 134
geology 9, 13
gradiometer survey 363, 363
Hilton chantry chapel see under St
Peters Church
Lewins map (1714) 380, 381
location and topography 5, 5, 8
ornamental paths 15, 75, 138, 138
OS map 8
place name 5
prehistoric 23, 75
site archive 20
vill 36, 345
see also mortar mixers; St Lawrences; St
Marys
Wearmouth Building B (Anglo-Saxon phase
1b) 66, 75, 94, 94, 958, 969, 99, 1001,
102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 107, 108, 108,
109, 111, 112, 113, 115, 127, 3589
burials inside 78, 79, 84, 88, 98, 112
439
as covered walk (corridor or passage)

98, 112, 113
east wall demolished (phase 5b) 119
foundations used in sunken pit 121
parallels 112
plasters 97
west wall as terminus for floor or path
(phase 5b) 11920
Wearmouth Building D (Anglo-Saxon
phase 1a) 91, 93, 93, 96, 103, 105, 113
Wearmouth monastery
Bede entered as monk 34, 35, 342
building stone 10, 341
church see St Peters Church
coins 212, 79, 115, 121, 122
community 334, 39
destroyed by Malcolm of Scotland 35
documentary records 313, 3456
as Durham cell 38, 3940
enclosure see Wearmouth monastic
buildings
foundation of 29, 312, 341, 348,
3667
interventions and discoveries (pre-1959)
4355
landholdings 31, 36, 378, 38, 341
monk-chaplain 37
parsons house 41
post-medieval references 3789
pottery 128, 129, 344, 346
re-established 357
renovated after late 9th century 35
window glass, Anglo-Saxon 61, 91,
978, 115, 118, 119
Anglo-Saxon (phases 1a/b3) 18, 21,
91114, 113 (and see mortar mixers; Wearmouth Building B and D)
late Saxon and Saxo-Norman 11522
Medieval 1: 118
bakehouse 39, 374
brewhouse 39, 137, 374
builders yard 1278
Buildings B and D see separate entries
above
building references 3756
burial ground, Anglo-Saxon 15, 18, 21,
75, 7690, 130, 179
camera (chamber for the master) 39,
127, 137
cemetery 15, 18, 21, 75, 7690, 11112,
115, 117, 130, 137, 3556, 360
central cobble path, Anglo-Saxon
(phase 1a) 91, 95, 96, 102, 112, 134
burials 78, 79, 84, 85, 91, 179
chamber 118, 123, 127, 374
cloister (passage?) 15, 39, 127, 137, 314
cloister walk 129, 130, 137
coal store 39
covered walk or passage 98 (and see
Wearmouth Building B)
Ditch 1304 (construction trench) 93
drainage channels and drain 127, 130, 130
East Range 130, 1312, 137, 138, 359
enclosure, Anglo-Saxon (Walls 4, H and
VI) 69, 78, 1018, 127, 1289,
314, 34950, 350, 3589
farm 375
foundation or path (1279) 128
gate?/great gate 39, 128
gate-house 114
JARINDXN.QXD
440
19-01-2007
12:47
Pagina 440
guest chamber/house 39, 114

hall (aula) 39, 374
hearths 115, 121, 130, 135, 137
inventories 3746
kitchen 39, 132, 316, 374
laid surfaces 110
latrines 41, 1001, 1045, 106, 112,
113, 121, 127, 132, 132, 134, 137,
138, 316
location 3489
medieval cell 12338
medieval layout 31316
new hall 127, 137
opus signinum floor 98, 108, 111, 111,
112, 114, 115, 117, 118, 124, 135
outbuilding (walls 845, 846 and floor
844) 128, 129
oven base 130
palisade and post trench 100
pantry and larder 374
paving 129
phase 1 Anglo-Saxon, interpretative
plan 96
phase 1a Anglo-Saxon earliest structures
913, 11114
phase 1b Anglo-Saxon 93101, 11114
phase 2a/b Anglo-Saxon 1017, 102,
11114
phase 3 Anglo-Saxon 10814, 109
phase 4 late Saxon and Saxo-Norman
structures 11516
phase 5 abandonment and resettlement
11618
phase 5b Norman reconstruction 11820
phase 6 medieval cell 12338
post-Conquest modification 12735
post-Dissolution 3940, 412
sacrarium 3512
South Range 15, 18, 118, 128, 130,
1325, 132, 137, 138, 316, 358,
359
latrines 132, 132, 137, 138
staircase(?) 135
Wall 637: 107, 131, 132
stables 129, 138
stone platform/setting (650) 86, 87,
104
store cupboard 374
Structure 246, latrine chute(?) 99
Structure A, Anglo-Saxon mortar mixer
(1490) 75, 78, 86, 935, 94, 96
Structure C, latrine chute (Anglo-Saxon
phase 1b) 78, 96, 96, 98, 99,
1001, 100, 101, 137
structure Ca, sunken (water collection
point?) 1212, 121
Structure D 108
Structure V/2157 and 2170 (burial
enclosure) 856
Structure 465 (adjunct building) 134,
135
sunken structure 569, Anglo-Saxon
(phase 2a/b), storage room or
latrine 1045, 106, 109, 112, 113,
134, 137
tithe barn 39, 375
Wall 2 (phase 4) 78, 111, 11516, 115,
120, 137
Wall 3a (phase 4) 78, 110, 111, 116,

116, 117, 137
robbed 129
Wall 3b medieval 110, 116, 116, 117,
12930, 129, 137
Wall 4, Anglo-Saxon (phase 2a/b) 21,
66, 75, 78, 79, 84, 88, 1012, 102,
103, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110,
111, 112, 113, 118
robbed trench 66, 127, 128, 137, 358
Wall 4a 116, 128
Wall 4b 103, 128, 130
Wall 637 South Range, medieval 107,
131, 132
Wall 1096: 130, 130
Wall 1131 post-Conquest 110, 111, 116
Wall 2000: 66, 118, 1234
Wall E 130, 130
Wall F/1 (cross wall) 75, 78, 79, 91, 97,
99, 101, 102, 1057, 107, 1089,
108, 109, 110, 11213, 128
altar fragment 24
F/2 (phase 3) 108, 109
late medieval repair 128, 131, 132
Wall H (cross wall) 78, 79, 91, 97, 101,
1025, 1026, 108, 109, 112, 113
strengthened 131, 132
Wall K, Anglo-Saxon (phase 1b) 91, 95,
96, 97, 98100, 99, 100, 102, 109,
132, 132, 138, 314, 358
Wall VI 71, 78, 79, 87, 88, 91, 99, 101,
102, 102, 103, 104, 105, 105, 108,
109, 11213, 114, 131, 132
Wall VIII 113, 130, 131
Wall IX, Anglo-Saxon (phase 3) 71,
101, 108, 109, 110, 111, 113, 114,
130, 131
well shaft (1377) 75, 94, 97, 119,
11820, 121, 127, 137, 314
baluster shafts 98, 118
pollen 116, 118
Roman altar reused as door jamb 24,
118, 119
West Range 137, 316
wells 41
Jarrow 2435, 2745, 296, 314
Jarrow Building B 201, 204, 204
well shaft see under Wearmouth monastic
buildings
Western Church see St Pauls Church
Westoe 37, 38, 377
Westou, Alfred 35, 251
whetstones 204, 232, 335
Whitburn 25, 38
Whitby 169, 355, 360
burials 3556
cells 359
reeve 3412
vallum 349
Whitehead, Thomas 41
Whitehead, William 41
Whithorn 350, 353, 360
animal bone 344
burials 90
funerary building 167, 356
pottery 344
timber church 352
Whittrington family 3
Wilfrid, Bishop 31, 32, 33, 341, 352

William, bishop of Durham 36
William of Malmesbury 89
William of St Calais, bishop 37, 294
William of Tanfield, prior 40, 312
Williamson, Dame Dorothy 41, 126
Williamson family 3, 138
burial vault 60, 61, 64, 1267
Winchester, New Minster 361
windbreaks 135, 226, 228, 235
windmill 40
window glass 362
blue quarry 320
Jarrow
Anglo-Saxon 215, 234, 237, 238, 241,
248
Building A 1923, 208
Building D 224, 225, 226, 228, 229
from burials 183, 259
St Pauls Church, medieval 151
Jarrow Slake
Anglo-Saxon 322
medieval 329
manufacture 342
red glass set in lead 135
Wearmouth
Anglo-Saxon 61, 91, 978, 115, 118,
119
medieval 63
window heads 192, 223, 226, 228
window tracery 297, 300, 302
Wing, Bucks 163, 166, 195
Witmer (Witmaer) 2, 32, 37, 43, 46, 67
women (lay women) 342
burials and grave-stones 84, 86, 88, 90,
90, 1748, 180, 183, 184, 186, 262
wood, for building and fuel 341
Woodrington, Robert 41, 378
workshops 22, 170, 241, 344, 359, 360,
363
for lay workmen? 241
Jarrow Building D 224, 228, 229
Jarrow riverside, first workshop 231,
232, 232, 233, 239, 240, 241
Jarrow riverside, second workshop
2345, 235, 236, 238, 239, 240,
241
Jarrow riverside, collapse of structures
2378, 240
Jarrow southern slope 229, 246, 248,
344
Jarrow south of Building A, workshop
floor 21415, 214, 241
see also copper-alloy working; enamel;
fluxing process; glass working and
melting; lead; slags; smithing; tanning
Yeavering 352, 354
York 28
bell-tower 355
Cathedral 285
St Mary Bishophill Junior 71, 72, 118,
355
St Peters church 352
stone church 352
Zurich Munsterhof, mixer 93
uitslaanders
80
13-02-2007
10:41
Pagina rfo1
Fig 8.4 Matrix of deposits in trench 61012, showing superimposition of skeletons under walls. LB
disturbed bones of 61/18 was also found part of a horse

skeleton (Figs 8.15, 8.16; Geake 1997, table 6.1); similarly a boars tusk found with 66/54 which could also
be a remnant of pagan practice. The displaced skull in
trench 6004 (context 1988) which had vestiges of gold
thread on the left side of the head (see Vol 2, Ch 31.1)
is similarly also of an early, possibly 7th-century date,
although the presence of such thread is more a sign of
status than of date.
Bronze pins uncovered with a number of burials
have been interpreted as shroud pins (Vol 2, Ch 31.2).
Generally they were undecorated, with small round
heads, and are associated with tightly packed, parallel
burials, such as 64/14 or 66/55, but they are not susceptible to precise dating or phasing (see discussion of
body position below). Some iron objects identified in

graves, such as a fragment in the chest of 61/7, could
have been the cause of death of the individual, but
most ironwork seems to be part of coffin fittings.
Coffins and containers

The most common finds associated with the burials
were indeed nails and iron fragments which seem to be
part of the containers for burial. Groups of small coffin studs (Fig 8.17) were found in association with a
few individual burials, for example 64/21 or 66/23, and
many more were scattered in the disturbed burial
earth. There is some evidence that these studs were
plated and therefore probably used for decorative
Fig 7.4 Wearmouth, principal excavated stone features, all periods.YB
uitslaanders dubbel
13-02-2007
10:51
Pagina rfo2
Fig 8.1A Wearmouth cemetery: plan of skeletons. RC/LW
Fig 8.1B Wearmouth: burials to the south of the church. RC/LW
uitslaanders dubbel
13-02-2007
10:51
Pagina rfo2
Fig 8.1A Wearmouth cemetery: plan of skeletons. RC/LW
Fig 8.1B Wearmouth: burials to the south of the church. RC/LW
uitslaanders
110
13-02-2007
10:41
Pagina rfo4
Fig 9.34 Wall F, re-cut foundation trench west of Wall VI.

(IS)
Fig 9.35 Wall F east of Wall VI, showing junction with Wall
IX. (IS)
Fig 9.36 West section of trench 6904.YB

western area of the site is wet, running sand, flimsy features were more easily obliterated there by building
and rebuilding operations than in the heavy boulder
clay to the east. The natural division between the sand
and clay subsoils ran obliquely across this area and it
was noticeable that the early builders had taken several measures to consolidate the sand layers.
Patches of laid surfaces, 1878, 1867, and possibly
1870, which seem to be contemporary with the early
phases of use of Wall 4 survived near to the church in
the form of deposits of pinkish red clay. No dating evidence was recovered from these deposits, but one of
them yielded a quantity of fish bones, and a certain

amount of Saxon building mortar. This is overlaid by
disturbed clay deposits 1859 (no pottery) and 1870,
which contained Hard Fired Tyneside Buff White ware
(E11c, 12501400). It is possible that the lower
deposits were enclosed on the east by Wall 3a, which is
inferred only from a robber trench and rubble spread
under Wall 3b (see below).
In the southern section of trench 6101, and underlying the eastwest Wall 1131, was a spread of rubble,
1129, which contained one Saxon baluster shaft and
Early Gritty Green ware (E12a), bone, mortar type L,
Fig 9.2 Wearmouth, excavated features assigned to the Anglo-Saxon period. RC
uitslaanders
13-02-2007
10:41
Pagina vfo5
10 The excavated Late Saxon and Norman structures

Phase 4: late Saxon and Saxo-Norman (Fig 10.1)
monastic occupation, since they utilise the same type
of building stone as the confirmed Anglo-Saxon buildings, and do not fit easily into the post-Conquest plan.
The archaeological evidence from the site hardly adds

significantly to the blank documentary picture regarding the nature of any additions or changes to the site
after the initial period of building, which extended into
the early 8th century, and the process of change and
abandonment after the 9th century, possibly because of
incursions of Scandinavian settlers (see Chapter 4).
This is partly due to the lack of dateable artefacts from
the site, and specifically the lack of dateable pottery. In
the period mid-7th to 9th century a small amount of
imported pottery and Whitby-type ware was found,
but revised pottery dating of material which was initially published as Middle Saxon or Saxo-Norman
(Hurst 1969, 603) has characterised the period late
9th to late 11th century as apparently completely aceramic (Vol 2, Ch 33.2) while the next pottery phase,
late 11th to the end of the 12th century, is a bracket
which could embrace the brief Aldwinian occupation
and also the beginning of reconstruction as a cell of
Durham Priory. There are some features that can be
plausibly placed after the main Anglo-Saxon monastic
buildings on the site were ruined and abandoned, but
not firmly on either side of the Norman Conquest.
Additionally, a few walls and other features could have
been assigned to a late phase of the Anglo-Saxon
Wall 2, 1743/1780
This insubstantial, but nevertheless definite, linear feature is the prime example of a feature which could be
placed in the pre- or post-Conquest period. It was
recorded in trenches 6102, 6103 and 6603 with a maximum width of 0.45m (1ft 6in.), and was curiously
constructed, with a line of block-like stones at the base
and rubble above, set in a narrow trench (Fig 10.2).
The stones appeared to have no bonding agent, but
alongside the wall line in trenches 6603 and 6103 was
a clay layer, 1738, which included a considerable
amount of yellow mortar (type 2), plaster, opus signinum, and Anglo-Saxon window glass which may have
derived from this wall. The rubble bore some similarity to the walls of Building B, but equally that would be
the case if the stones had been reused from an AngloSaxon building. The narrow construction trench of the
feature cut into a low level of mortar-flecked clay and
into sand, 1753, as well as into the cemetery level, cutting skeletons 66/10, 11, 31, 32 and 60. On the other
hand, burials 66/2 and 66/6 appear to have been placed
respecting its line.
In the northern sector of the site, Wall 2 was sealed
by mortar-flecked clay, 1744, a deposit that appears to
be a ground surface which built up over a period of
time from the late Anglo-Saxon to the Medieval 1
phases, and this clay was also recorded as abutting the
wall in its upper layers. The sandy clay 1784 in grid
squares Aa 12, into which some skeletons and Wall 2
were cut (Figs 10.2, 10.3) was probably also laid down
over a considerable period of time, and contained
nothing but Anglo-Saxon material, including a styca of
King Eanred, c 810841 (Vol 2, Ch 30.2 Nu10). There
may be a difference to be detected in the use of the
ground east and west of the wall, since the clay, 1776,
east of the wall, contained no medieval material except
a fragment of pottery, now missing, in the base levels,
and in the upper levels a sherd of Oxidised Gritty ware
(E10, 10751300), while 1777 to the west contained
no medieval debris. In the 6.10m excavated in 1966
(which was better recorded than the 1961 excavation),
the wall was sealed by clay which did not include
medieval pottery. At the northern end, however, Wall
2 seems to have been reshaped, to serve as a wind
break between two hearths, 1812 and 1813, which
have been dated to the Aldwinian or Medieval 1 phases (see below, and Fig 10.1) and there its destruction
level, 1819, contained one sherd of Oxidised Gritty
ware (10751300). If it is the same wall further south
Fig 10.2 Foundations of Wall 2 looking south in trench

6603. (IS)
115
Fig 10.1 Wearmouth, plan of late Saxon/early medieval excavated features. RC
uitslaanders
130
13-02-2007
10:42
Pagina rfo6
Fig 11.10 Medieval drain and wall E and wall 1096 in

foreground, trench 6402. Possible wall in section to left of
ranging rod. (See Fig 11.8) (IS)
Anglo-Saxon building debris with its distinctive mortar
and plaster, but also contained medieval pottery,
including one sherd of Oxidised Buff White ware
(E11e, 13001500), and part of a glazed roof tile as
well as a copper alloy book-clasp (see Vol 2, Ch 31.2,
CA127). Wall 3b must, then, have been a later
medieval feature. Further south in 6101 and 6102, a
clay and mortar-flecked ground surface, 1114, covering the pre-Conquest cemetery, had built up against
Wall 3b and may have been cut by it at the lowest level
since it contained pottery dated to the 11th to 12th and
13th to 15th centuries. Lying on this surface was a
deep deposit of stone roofing tiles (1138). These tiles
could have been from a building nearby or from a cloister walk. This destruction level was in turn sealed by a
clay layer, 1111/1137, which mainly contained later
medieval pottery, but also two post-medieval sherds
and probably, therefore, dates to the end of the
medieval or early post medieval period.
Wall 3b then could have been on the line of a cloister wall, but possibly the walk did not function as an
enclosure wall in the latest medieval period since there
was at that stage similar domestic occupation on the
east and west sides of it in the form of a latrine pit
1896, hearths 1874, 1845, 1880, patches of burning
and deposits of coal in the northern section of the site,
and a possible hearth or oven base in trench 6401
(1281) which overlaid a deposit containing Tyneside
Buff White ware (E11b; see Fig 11.8).
Wall 3b was not traced further south to where there
might have been a corner and a return wall forming the
south walk of a cloister, and indeed the existence of
such a wall is problematic. A robbed wall foundation in
the north face of 6401 could represent its most
southerly limit. Three lengths of discontinuous walling
(Wall E; see Fig 11.8) run parallel to the South Range;
all are cut into the disturbed sand of the Anglo-Saxon
cemetery and all lay immediately under the floors of
Fig 11.11 Buttress of Wall VIII, left (see Fig 11.8) overlying Anglo-Saxon Wall IX, right. (IS/MS)
the Victorian cellars. The central section, 1096, had
been laid in conjunction with a drain (1204), which
had been neatly inserted through the rebuilt Wall 4b
and probably joined 1481 in the centre of the site (Figs
11.8 and 11.10). Much of the upper covering of this
drain had been destroyed by later activity, but in one
intact section, in trench 6402, the drain fill contained
Quite Gritty Oxidised Ware (D11). It is plausible that
both the drain and the southern wall, 1096, could have
been built in the early post-Conquest period. To the
west, the narrow Wall E (1096a) has been tentatively
placed in the Anglo-Saxon phase (see Ch 9 above), but
the eastern sector described here may have been partially reused in the post-Conquest period. This line
would provide a cloister walk of about 2.55m (8ft 4in.)
in width, but it is a remarkably fragile foundation. The
line of 1096 further east, in the areas excavated, would
have been obliterated by a modern wall. If there had
been an eastern cloister walk, of the same width as
those postulated on the west and the south, it could
only have been seen in trench 6702, and no vestiges
were noted there, although the ground had been heavily disturbed under the modern road.
The east and south ranges
These ranges could be said to have included potentially all of the essential monastic buildings as listed above
and they survived in outline at least into the 18th century, as Hutchinson recorded (Chapter 4 above)
forming two sides of a square, or an L-shaped building
which had been adapted to create the Jacobean hall
(see Fig 1.4). It is the view of the west face of
Monkwearmouth Hall, as painted by Grimm (Fig
11.1), which provides the only surviving evidence that
there may have been significant rebuilding in the
Norman period, since he apparently depicts an elaborate Romanesque door.
Fig 11.8 Wearmouth: excavated features (13th to 16th centuries). RC
uitslaanders
13-02-2007
10:42
Pagina vfo7
13: ST PAULS CHURCH
Unquestionably when the lower stages of the

tower were built. The two principal arches of the
tower ... were intended from the first to open to
the interior of the church. To the period when
the tower was erected we must ascribe the
removal of the west wall of the eastern church,
now the chancel, and the prolongation of the
side walls of the western church, that is of the
nave taken down in 1783 (Boyle 1892, 5823).
He also presumed that at some period, perhaps in
the time of Ceolfrid, side chapels were added to the
early nave.
Subsequent commentators followed Boyle in considering that the plan depicted a building which was
basically Anglo-Saxon, although clearly with subsequent modifications, but varied in their belief in the
validity of its detail and in the sequence of construction
between the old nave, the tower and the chancel.
Savage for example suggested a sequence of (1) eastern
church/chancel with presbytery to the east, and possibly a small baptistry or chamber at the west, and (2)
the western church with aisles, built when the
monastery largely increased in numbers: the joining of
this structure to buildings further east, he suggested,
was pre-Conquest (Savage 1900, 44).
The seeming consensus view, that the Western
Church was pre-Conquest, was violently attacked by
Hodgson, who found the arcades sketched on the
British Library plan totally unacceptable as preConquest, and moreover pointed out that the AngloSaxon balusters had been taken from the walls of the
church in 1783. In his view the western building was
entirely medieval (Hodgson 190611a). It was left to
Gilbert to sum up and evaluate later attitudes to
Boyles theory and Hodgsons response (Gilbert
19516, 31114). He seized the nettle of the sculptured stones taken from the walls of the 18th-century
church, and remarked that the Eastern Church had no
evidence for any Anglo-Saxon decorative detail:
Clearly then these stones bespeak some more
magnificent and lordly church of a very ornate
type, such as no longer survives from Anglian
days (Gilbert 19516, 316).
Gilbert therefore concluded that the most reasonable supposition was that they had derived from the
site where they were found. In a series of careful comparisons with other Anglo-Saxon and Romanesque
churches he concluded that, the arguments in favour
of the Old Church containing an Anglian core, greatly
outweigh those against. He also made further interesting comments: The Old Church must obviously have
originated in the 7th century, but it does not follow
that any particular detail is 7th century, and particularly that the arcades are 7th century, and suggested
that on analogy with continental examples they might
be late 8th century, and he further suggested that the
Fig 15.1 Plan of all in situ Anglo-Saxon burials (categories A1A4). In grey: unphased burials at the start of sequences and burials on their right side. NE
155
high windows seen on the early drawings, taken in conjunction with the blocked arch in the tower at a height
of 34ft (10.36m), implies that the church had an upper
room (Gilbert 19516, 327). Other commentators
before the excavations largely accepted Gilberts interpretation of the West Church (see Radford 1954a, fig
2; Taylor and Taylor 1965, fig 149), but the validity of
the British Library plan is still doubted by some specialists (Richard Gem, pers comm).
Questions which remained unresolved about the
churches before the excavation campaign were: how far
could the 18th-century drawing of the Western Church
be trusted as a record?; were there side adjuncts in the
Anglo-Saxon period?; what was the nature of the east
and west ends of both Eastern and Western Churches
in their first phases?; what was the sequence and the
dating for the joining of the churches and the construction of the tower?; what was the relationship of the
churches to the pre-Conquest monastic buildings?
The Anglo-Saxon Western Church: excavated evidence

by Rosemary Cramp and John Hunter
Limited excavations in 19723 inside, in advance of a
new floor being laid, and in 1968/71 outside the west
end of St Pauls Church (see Fig 13.4) have added substantially to our knowledge of the Western Church.The
evidence in the interior of the nave consists of wall
foundations which lay immediately under the bedding
for the Victorian floor, and it was clear throughout the
church that there had been considerable truncation of
the earlier features and deposits when the Victorian
rebuilding took place, so that early floor levels were lost
and below the Victorian rubble layer only the lowest
level of foundations of the Anglo-Saxon church survived, as well as only two foundation courses of the
18th-century church. The excavations were directed by
John Hunter, with volunteer labour from the
Department of Archaeology, Durham University, and
the excavation and post-excavation synthesis was coordinated by Rosemary Cramp. John Hunters site
plans and interim report form the basis for the postexcavation synthesis. The circumstances under which
these excavations were undertaken are reported in
Cramp 1976e, and the full report by John Hunter
exists as an archive report.
The west end of the nave and the narthex
(Figs 13.9, 13.10)
The west end of the church was established in several
small cuttings. In 1968 a small area (trench 6801) was
opened immediately to the north of the present western
porch, in order to test the line of the north wall of the
church as recorded on the British Library plan. The
area opened was only 5ft 8ft (1.52 2.44m), and
much of this space was filled with a stone foundation,
4642, 3ft 6in. (1.08m) wide, which had been cut into
uitslaanders dubbel
13-02-2007
10:51
Pagina rfo8
Fig 16.4 Anglo-Saxon phases all features, north. NE/YB
Fig 16.5 Anglo-Saxon phases all features, south. NE/YB
uitslaanders dubbel
13-02-2007
10:51
Pagina rfo8
Fig 16.4 Anglo-Saxon phases all features, north. NE/YB
Fig 16.5 Anglo-Saxon phases all features, south. NE/YB
uitslaanders dubbel
13-02-2007
10:51
Pagina rfo10
Fig 17.1 Late Saxon/early medieval features, north.YB/NE
Fig 17.2 Late Saxon/early medieval features, south.YB/NE
uitslaanders dubbel
13-02-2007
10:51
Pagina rfo10
Fig 17.1 Late Saxon/early medieval features, north.YB/NE
Fig 17.2 Late Saxon/early medieval features, south.YB/NE
uitslaanders dubbel
13-02-2007
10:51
Pagina rfo12
Fig 19.12 Norman and Medieval 1 excavated features, north.YB
Fig 19.13 Norman and Medieval 1 excavated features, south.YB
uitslaanders dubbel
13-02-2007
10:51
Pagina rfo12
Fig 19.12 Norman and Medieval 1 excavated features, north.YB
Fig 19.13 Norman and Medieval 1 excavated features, south.YB
uitslaanders dubbel
13-02-2007
10:51
Pagina rfo14
Fig 19.28 Plan of the principal structural features of the medieval East Range. NE
Fig 20.1 Medieval 2 excavated features, north.YB
uitslaanders dubbel
13-02-2007
10:51
Pagina rfo14
Fig 19.28 Plan of the principal structural features of the medieval East Range. NE
Fig 20.1 Medieval 2 excavated features, north.YB
uitslaanders
306
13-02-2007
10:42
Pagina rfo16
ER7
Fig 20.16 Horses head corbel (AF1) within demolition

deposit 1086. (IS/MS)
Fig 20.17 Post-Dissolution rubble deposit 1082 over ER6.

(IS/MS)
1148/1045 and the central pier base, 1044/1153.
Above it was a deposit of earth and stones with 16thto 17th-century pottery (1081), and another rubble
layer, 1082, could represent successive demolition and
clearances of adjacent buildings (Fig 20.17).
From a period that may be defined as Medieval 2a, a

stone structure with a stone-based hearth was constructed abutting the eastwest wall, 1043/1148, and the
pier 1153 (see Chapter 19). The northern section of
structure 1051 was butted up to the west wall of the
East Range (a relationship only revealed when the baulk
alongside that wall was removed in the course of the
Department of the Environment consolidation of the
buildings after the excavation; see Fig 19.14).The north
wall leant at a slight angle to the face of the eastwest
wall 1043/1045, and the western section (1148) was
rebuilt in this phase.The structure curved at the base to
a short length of wide wall which was rather carelessly
built. The upper courses of the interior had been plastered and whitewashed (Figs 20.18, 20.19). The southern part of the structure had been almost entirely
destroyed by late post-medieval walling and a drain, but
part of a wall to the south of the entrance survived
(1052), providing a possible internal diameter of c
3.66m (12ft).The entrance which tapered from 0.91m
to 0.84m (3ft to 2ft 9in.) from east to west was paved
with a large sandstone slab, 1060, set around with narrow pale yellow bricks, 925 (see Vol 2, Ch 26.5), which
extended into the interior where they joined a circular
hearth of stone flagging, 1059, sunk into a clay bedding
(Fig 20.20). It is possible that the bricks constituted a
secondary flooring, the earlier one being of stone slabs
from the hearth through the entrance flue.
The stone floor of the structure cut 928, associated
with the preceding phase (Chapter 19), which contained food debris and pottery spanning a date bracket of 10751300. The floor level of the oven was
covered by a dark deposit of wood ash and soil, as was
the rake-out area to the east (921), which probably
constituted the debris of the last firing (see Fig 20.19);
this contained a small amount of animal bone and
shell. In the gap between the oven and the east wall,
north of the door, a series of deposits of clay, charcoal
and ash built up (918, 913, 912, 911, 910), representing successive firings of the oven. The use of the oven
had caused a significant build-up of soils and dark
earth over the original threshold of the opening into
ER7 from the east, and at some stage before the oven
went out of use, some time perhaps in the 15th
century, a wider opening had been made with a new
threshold, 1049 (see Figs 20.21 and 20.22), in which
the slot and pivot for the door survived. Unfortunately,
in neither the hearth deposits nor the deposits over the
threshold was there any datable evidence.
These dark layers were sealed by a layer of blue clay
(905) which is the equivalent of 1089 in ER6 and,
above that, a deposit of clean yellow rubble, 906,
resembling 1086 in ER6 (see Fig 20.15). These were
very clean deposits, but 906 contained a sherd of 14thto 16th-century pottery. The topmost fill of the abandoned oven area, 1099, could either be of late medieval
or early post-medieval date.
Fig 20.2 Medieval 2 excavated features, south.YB
uitslaanders dubbel
13-02-2007
10:51
Pagina rfo17
Fig 22.1 Early post-medieval features in the area of the cloister. NE et al
uitslaanders
13-02-2007
10:42
Pagina vfo18
22: THE POST-DISSOLUTION OCCUPATION OF THE SITE
339
Fig 22.2 Reconstruction plan of the main 19th-century buildings around St Pauls Church. NE
East Range did seem to persist throughout the 18th
century (Fig 12.6) although the west wall seems to have
been cleared earlier, perhaps at a time when the 18th
century church was built. Nevertheless the excavations
indicate that stonework was there to be robbed and
reused, and the medieval outline must have been apparent. The school was extended to the west in the last
quarter of the 19th century (Fig 22.2) and latrines were
fitted into the standing masonry at the south of the East
Range in the former room ER5. The school continued
to operate to the 1940s and was still a habitable building at the beginning of the excavation (Appendix B44).
It was demolished in 1968 but its east wall now forms
part of the site enclosure.
The rectory
Fig 22.3 Excavated late post-medieval features, north. NE
This was a short-lived building, existing from 1853

1878 (Appendix B3537), but its substantial walls and
cellars as well as its gardens and small outbuildings did

considerable damage to the site (Figs 22.3 and 22.4
[foldouts]). The whole plan of the building was excavated. During the 19th and 20th centuries the southern
slopes of the site were extensively disturbed by tree
planting and gardening, culminating in allotments to the
west of the enclosure during the last war which cultivated over the medieval and post-medieval burial ground in
that area (see Chapter 18 and Appendix B22, 42).
The burial ground

The post-medieval cemetery lay primarily north and
west of the church. Its limits are likely to be the same as
those depicted on the earliest modern maps (eg an 1853
plan of Jarrow DCRO EP/JA SP 4/9; cf Fig 1.10). In the
earliest post-medieval phase the burial ground might
have extended as far east as the excavated wall foundation 254 (Fig 22.1), beneath the area where the
uitslaanders dubbel
13-02-2007
10:51
Pagina vfo17
Fig 22.4 Excavated late post-medieval features, south. NE

WEARMOUTH AND JARROW MONASTIC SITES (2 of 2)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WEARMOUTH AND JARROW MONASTIC SITES (2 of 2)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WEARMOUTH AND JARROW

WEARMOUTH AND JARROW

This volume is dedicated to Bede and all who have

WEARMOUTH AND JARROW

and principal illustrations by

Part II: Wearmouth

3 The pre-monastic background

7 The excavations south of St Peters Church

Summary and discussion of the Western Church:

9 The excavated Anglo-Saxon structures

14 Excavations around the church

The Jarrow pre-Norman burial ground

16 The excavated monastic buildings

11 The medieval and post-medieval occupation

The Late Anglo-Saxon/Early Medieval

18 The medieval occupation

The boundaries of the medieval cell on the

The monastic buildings and the Norman

Part IV: Discussion section

Conclusions and prospects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362

Part V. Reference section

Appendix B. The graphic record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381

Abbreviations and Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402

Note: Photographs are by RC, unless otherwise credited in the

Location map of Wearmouth and Jarrow . . 5

The Back Lane and housing to south of

Burials cut by Anglo-Saxon phase 2

Fig 9.22 Wall H showing rebuilding level and

Fig 11.5 South-facing section of trench 6401 . . . . 127

Fig 13.12 Foundations of south wall of AngloSaxon church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Fig 16.11 Detail of wall construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

Fig 16.51 West-facing section though the floor and

Fig 16.86 View from the south over the riverside

Fig 19.9 Plan of rooms d and e. Elevation a/b east

Fig 19.39 Artists impression of the Medieval 1

Fig 21.3 General view of JS Area V looking west . 321

appeared at low water showing

St Pauls Church from the north-east . . 392

15.1 Jarrow: categories of burial dating . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

Contributors to Volumes 1 and 2

singing in the church, it has always been my delight to

(From Hist Eccl Book V, Ch 24)

For both sites I am much indebted to the rectors

My thanks to the many professional colleagues who

Commission Jobs Creation Scheme, through the good

In DoE, at the inception of the project, Dr Ian

Petchey, Michael Pocock, Michael Sekulla, Jane Shute,

et pour laquelle on ne connat que peu de tmoignages

Jahrhunderts eine Periode vor der Carolingianer

The Twin Monastery

Lay occupation and abandonment

The re-establishment of monastic life

Aldwinian building phase

The Dissolution of the Cells

WEARMOUTH AND JARROW MONASTIC SITES

Table 1.2 Principal events in the history of Wearmouth and Jarrow

Grant of 50/70 hides from King Ecgfrid

Table 1.2 continued

Athelstans donation of lands to Chester-leStreet, previously belonging to Wearmouth

Hart 1975, 118

Community of St Cuthbert shelter in the church

HED, III.15/HR, 154

Church burnt by Malcolm III of Scotland

Named as a cell of Durham