ANGLO-SAXON 

 REMAINS 



THERE is abundant reason to expect more than a general resemblance 

 between the Anglo-Saxon antiquities of Suffolk and those of its 

 northern neighbour. Before the draining of the Fens, East 

 Anglia was cut off from Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire ; and, 

 to judge by the name of Essex, the Stour constituted an effective tribal 

 frontier. That this isolation was not distasteful to the inhabitants, but rather 

 desired as a matter of policy, is shown by the elaborate fortifications erected 

 near Newmarket, against an advance from the interior.^ The principal of 

 these is the Devil's Dyke across the famous Heath, barring the way between 

 Reach in the Fens and the comparatively high ground near Wood Ditton, 

 where primeval woodland no doubt continued the defensive line. It is the 

 most easterly of the series, and consists of a rampart 1 8 ft. above the surface, 

 the crest being 12 ft. wide and 30 ft. above the bottom of the ditch which 

 lies on the west of it. Such a stupendous work over 7 miles in length will 

 hardly be assigned to the Anglian settlers without further proof, but it must 

 be remembered that the Bokerly Dyke was proved by the late General Pitt 

 Rivers to be of Roman or later date, and the Wansdyke that runs from the 

 Severn near Portishead to Andover is probably contemporary.'' Both these 

 remarkable earthworks were evidently intended to withstand invasion from 

 the Southern Midlands, as the ditch is on the northern side, and a limiting date 

 may some day be found in the same way for these ramparts of East Anglia. 

 Whether of post-Roman or prehistoric construction, they seem in any case 

 to have constituted a tribal frontier in the Anglo-Saxon period, as relics on 

 either side are for the most part quite distinct, though, as will be seen later, 

 there is considerable variety in the Suffolk series. This is perhaps due rather 

 to difference in date than to a conflict of races ; but the evidence at present 

 is insufficient to explain many of the discoveries now to be enumerated. 



Of the accounts here summarized one was communicated by Rev. H. M. 

 Scarth to the Archaeological Institute' in 1863, and was itself based on 

 a report by Mr. Francis Francis to the Field newspaper ; another was given 

 to the Society of Antiquaries * by Mr. Septimus Davidson, from which the 



' Described in 1883 by Professor Babington, Ancient Cambs. 95 (2nd. edition, Camb. Antiq. Soc. octavo 

 publications, no. xx). 



' V.C.H. Somen, i, 374 ; Pitt Rivers, Excavations in Bokerly Dyke and Wansdyke (1892), iii, 25 ; see also 

 pp. xiii, 246. 



' Arch. Journ. xx, 188 ; Field, 17 Jan. 1863, p. 61 ; 24 Jan. p. 75. 



* Proc. Soc. Antij. (2nd. scr.), ii, 177 ; summary by G. H. Boehmer, Prehistoric Naval Architecture (Report 

 of U.S. National Museum, Smithsonian Institution, 1 891), p. 603, pi. Ixxvi, figs. 118, 119. 



