Events took place in and around the 9th century that largely created England as we know it today, with the Cookham area having a small but important part in this process. These events played no small part in the evolution of England as a sovereign state administered by the equivalent to our Local Authorities with overall a parliament albeit not a democratic one. The area of Cookham with relevant features is shown on a Google photo [Fig. 1]

This review is confined to matters relevant to further archaeological investigation of Saxon defences in the Cookham area, Sashes Island and adjacent areas being primarily a review of historic and archaeological evidence. It relies for background and evidence on a number of documents from around the period and research papers and reports, with extracts as a separate appendix of the parts that relate to the exercise. This statement is an attempt to review all of this evidence so as to come to some view on matters of relevance to fieldwork proposals but it is not intended to be anything approaching a definitive historical narrative or interpretation, for this reference must be made to the many excellent works on the subject. Much of the evidence is contradictory and attempts have been made here to take the most reasonable alternative based on current knowledge, advice and the practical circumstances that existed at the time. It is inevitable that some of the assumptions are likely to be incorrect but the purpose of the investigation proposals is to seek to check and illuminate these uncertain issues.

Whilst there seems little doubt that the Cookham area played a part in the evolving process during the 9th century, there is little documentary evidence and surprisingly, virtually no archaeological or physical evidence or structured research. One of the purposes of this statement is to try, in part, to remedy this situation or least put some elements of our understanding onto a more sound basis.

Despite the historic importance of Cookham our only knowledge of the Saxon period, is mainly limited to a reference to a monastery and land transfers in the Anglo-Saxon (AS) Chronicle [App. 1] associated deeds and a document named the "Burghal Hidage" which is suggested as being an inventory of West Saxon defences, naming "Sceaftesege" as one, thought to be in Cookham.

The Burghal Hidage document, for this section I shall refer to "The Defense of Wessex" [DoW, by paragraph and page number] an excellent work by David Hill and Alexander Rumble, of MANCAS, published by Manchester University Press 1996.

The "Burghal Hidage" being a list of fortifications was called this by Maitland in 1897 [DoW, para 2, pg. 6].

The document only exists as a number of copies thought to date to sometime in the first half of the 11th or late 10th century. It is suggested by linguistic study that these copies derive from two sources defined as version A and B [DoW, chart, pg. 37]. This may suggest that the 10/11th century copies, in existence today, may have been copied from copies of the original document or even a combination of original documents.

David Hill 1996 whilst noting other research including Davis 1982 who suggested 886 concludes the most likely date for the document of 914<919. [DoW, para 1, pg. 11].

The suggested date for the document being post 900 is based on the inclusion of certain forts being constructed just prior to this date, i.e. the document being dated by the date of the latest construction. Jeremy Haslam argues in various papers that there may have been an earlier phase of construction of these forts and the date being used applies to a later stage of reconstruction at the end of the 10th century.

It is generally accepted that the document is administrative for the purpose of a form of taxation, allocating areas (hidage) to contribute to the cost and manpower required to construct and defend the listed defenses. It must be the case that the size, location and configuration of each defense was largely a function of the strategic objective, perhaps influenced to some extent by the available resources. To suggest otherwise makes a nonsense of the overall defensive strategy. Nevertheless even if strategic objectives were paramount, those responsible for each construction would have needed to have some idea of the resources available. This suggests that some form of the document with allocations of hidage would have had to have existed at an early state of the process and this suggests a date of about 878/9. This is not to say that original documents of about this date were not added to or amended later, perhaps up to say 910 as has been suggested. If as has been suggested the copies date to 10/11th century, then this is least 100 years after the probable date for the original documents at a time when the political and defensive requirements were somewhat different and this raises the question of why was it important to make apparently so many copies.

There are 9, c10<c12 copies of the document, so far as Sashes is concerned the details do not vary significantly between copies but research and study of these documents provides a wealth of information about the original document and copies. [DoW, Rumble, chapter 2, pg. 14]

List of forts (indicates figures uncertain from the documents) (suggested wall length ft) sequence as order of citation in document

1. Eoreburnan three hundred hides and 24 hides. (1336)

2. Hastings 5 hundred hides. (2062)

3. Lewis twelve hundred / thirteen hundred hides. (5362)

4. Burpham seven hundred hides and 20 hides. (2972)

5. Chichester 15 hundred hides. (6187)

6. Portchester 5 hundred hides. (2062)

7. Southampton one hundred and fifty hides. (619)

8. Winchester twenty four hundred hides. (9900)

9. Wilton fourteen hundred hides. (5775)

10. Chisbury 5 hundred / 7 hundred hides. (2062<2887)

11. Shaftesbury 5 hundred / 7 hundred hides. (2062<2887

12. Christchurch 5 hundred hides less thirty / 40 hides. (1898<1937)

13. Wareham 16 hundred hides. (6600)

14. Bridport eight hundred hides less forty hides. (3135)

15. Exeter thirty four hides and 7 hundred hides. (3028)

16. Halwell three hundred hides. (1237)

17. Lydford one hundred and fifty hides less ten / 140 hides. (577)

18. Pilton 360 hides. (1485)

19. Watchet 5 hundred hides and 13 hides. (2116)

20. Axbridge four hundred hides. (1650)

21. Lyng 100 hides. (412)

22. Langport 6 hundred hides. (2475)

23. Bath ten hundred hides. (4125)

24. Malmesbury twelve hundred / 22 hundred hides. (4950<9076)

25. Cricklade 14 hundred / 1500 hides. (5775<6187)

26. Oxford 15 hundred / 1300 hides. (5362<6187)

27. Wallingford 24 hundred hides. (9900)

28. Buckingham 16 hundred hides. (4125<6600)

29. Sashes 10 hundred hides. (4125)

30. Eashing 6 hundred / 500 hides. (2062<2475)

31. Southwark eighteen hundred hides. (7425)

32. Worcester 1200 hides. (4950)

33. Warwick 2400 hides. (9900)

Total 27000 and seventy hides and 30000 belong to the West Saxons

The Hidage calculation text is in Version A and is a series of statements of how many hides of land provide for construction and manning of fort walls. I give here the statement from Version A, to gave a flavor of this important matter but not in correct text form due to limitations of font, for correct format see [DoW, chapter 2, A Rumble].

"To anes aeceres braed on pealstillinge to paere paere gebirigeao xvi hida Gif aelc hid byp be anum men gemannod ponne maeg gesettan aelce gyrde mid feoper mannum, bonne gebyreo to tpentigan gyrdan on pealstillinga hundeahtatig hida to pam furlange gebirgeao oper healf hund hida x hida be pam ilcan getaele pe ic her bebufan tealde.

To tpam furlangum gebyrao xxx hida preo hund hida.

To prim furlangum hundeahtatig hida cccc hida, bonne gebyrigeao to iiii furlangum xl hida vi hund hida.

To fif furlangum gebyreo ymbganges eahta hund hida on pealstillinge.

To six furlangum gebyreo sixtig hida nigan hund hida.

To eahta furlangum ymbeganges pealstillinge hundeahtatig hida xii hund hida.

To nigan furlangum x hida xiiii hund hida.

To x furlangum gebyrep xvi hund hida.

To xi furlangum gebyrep lx hida xvii hund hida.

To xii furlangum ymbeganges pealstillige gebyreo xx hida nigantyn hund hida. Gif se ymbegang mara bip ponne maeg man eape pone ofereacan ge pencan of pisse tale for pon ealning to anum furlange gebyreo sixtig manna bonne bip aelc gyrd mid feoper mannum geset" [DoW, pg 30]

Rumble suggests that the calculations are "generalizing" and that it is not clear if the calculation applies to intentions or as constructed. As examples: 1 pole (wall length) = 16.5 feet = 4 hides = 4 men and 40 poles = 1 furlong = 660 feet = 160 hides = 160 men [DoW, Rumble, para 2, pg. 70 & 71].

David Hill notes: "...a problem arises when the various alternative figures are used in conjunction with the option of using or omitting the river length" [DoW, para 5, pg. 83] It is suggested that there is a correlation between the sum of the fort hidage in each county with the total hidage for each county or shire in the Domesday survey. [DoW, chapter 4.4, pg. 92].

Fort name Sashes. Spelling in document (document reference)

sceaftesige (A2 (BL Add MS) [Nowell, 1562, from A1])

Sceafcesege (B1 (Rylands) [1204 * 1215])

Sceaftesege (B2 (PRO) [c. 1225])

sceaftesege (B3 (Hargrave) [c. 1250, from B2])

Sceastesege (B4 (Cotton) [c. 1310, from B1])

sceasteseye (B5 (CCCC) [by 1313 * 1314])

sceasteseye (B6 (Orel) [c. 1330, from B5])

Steastesege (B7 (Harley) [D'Ewes, c. 1639, from B4])

Sceaftelege (Gale, Scriptores, p.748 [1691, from B2, B4 ?A2])

Not mentioned (Wanley, Catalogus, p. 219 [1705, from A1])

There are a variety of spellings for some of the forts in different versions of the document but what may be significant is the generally consistent spelling in all documents for "Sceafcesege". Does this suggest that the scribes copying the document , even in the10/11th century were familiar with the name?

The obligation on Boroughs to contribute to defense seems to have been established by at least the mid c8th. Brooks mentions charters that show Mercian obligations "boroughwork" (construction and manning of defenses) from the mid c8th, Kent from 790s, Wessex from at least 840s or 850s and estimates that the burden may have been as high as one in five of all adult males. Brooks discusses the inconsistencies of applying the hidage formula to forts of known size. [DoW, chapter 6, pg. 128]

Brooks suggests that Eorpeburnan, Portchester, Chisbury, Bredy, Halwell, Pilton, Watchet, Lyng, Sashes, Eashing and perhaps Burpham and Twinham were emergency forts not expected to become urban centres and may have been half built and never completed. [DoW, para 3, pg. 144]

A complication to the application of the formula to ascertain fort size is the measurement "rod, pole or perch" . Hinton notes a difference between the unit of length as used in Wessex and Mercia and notes the difficulty of reconciling the actual length of wall (where known) with that calculated from the hidage for forts along and north of the Thames in locations at some time in Mercia. [DoW, para 3, pg. 153]

Sashes and adjacent Thames forts, (citation number) Cricklade, Oxford, Wallingford, Sceaftesege (Cookham Sashes), Southwark

"Cricklade (25) 1415<1500 hides. Close to a Roman Road and major Thames crossing apparently a new fort suggested as constructed in Alfred's reign, mentioned in the Chronicle in 903 "that a raid reached there" but not mentioned is if it was defended at this date. Bank today is 15<18m wide and 1m high. The hidage calculation gives indicates a defense perimeter of 1886m the actual perimeter is 2073m. The works consist of: clay and earth bank revetted at the front with turf, possibly also with timber facing, a walkway or wall street of laid stones on the inner bank edge, probably a simple tower on the inside corner, later c11th? A stone wall with base 1.2m cut into the turf revetment. A mint from the reign of AEthelstan." [DoW, para 2<, pg. 199]

"Oxford (21) 1300<1500 hides. On the Thames, archaeology has established occupation since 8thC. Excavation and topography indicate a defense perimeter of 1840m which would as the calculation indicate 1463 hides. A mint from the reign of AEthelstan." [para 4, pg. 211]

"Wallingford (27) 2400 hides. On the Thames, calculated length of defense from hidage consistent with actual length if river bank included. Today bank stands 7.6m above a 6.1m wide ditch. A mint from the reign of AEthelstan." [DoW, para 2, pg. 219]

"Sceaftesege (29) 1000 hides. Suggested as Sashes and island on the Thames. Only known from Burghal Hidage but not located, length of defense works from calculation would be 1257m. No separate entry in Domesday Book and no known coins or reference to a mint." [DoW, para 3, pg. 215]

"Southwark (31) 1800 hides. From calculation indicates a defense length of 2263m but no convincing evidence found but Dyson pointed out that a circuit of 2263 would encircle the known Roman settlement area and suggested that the (Saxon) fortification was probably 825<900. Appears as a mint for the 991<997 issue of AEthelred II." [DoW, para 2, pg. 218]

Various attempts and much intellectual effort has gone into trying to relate the hidage and formula to known forts and then predict from this the configuration of other forts, with varying success. Sashes is listed as having an allocation of 1000 hides, as the formula this would indicate some 220 men to construct and defend a wall length of 4125 feet (1257.3m). This has been taken further with suggestions that if similar to other known forts and say square would be a fort of 39 acres. I suggest that there are several problems with this. The other forts being used for comparison were primarily to defend major land routes, whereas Sashes may have had a different function and therefore a different layout. All that the Burghal Hidage document says is that an area of 1000 hides is allocated to the fort and according to the formula this produces some 220 men capable of constructing and defending some 4125 feet of wall. It seems very unlikely that defensive considerations would have been subservient to an administrative allocation and that the document is telling the builders to construct a defensive wall of 4125 feet, no more and no less. On the other hand the document states that the hidage allocation is for the construction as well as the defence. This would seem to mean that the wall was not measured after construction and then the allocation was made as to do this would mean that the number of men to be allocated to the construction would not be known until after completion.

I suggest that the difficulty in relating wall length from the formula to actual situations is fraught as the formula was not intended to be used in this way. I suggest that the hidage allocation was made at or about the date of construction as an estimate of resources available which may well relate to administrative areas current at the time or even perhaps an area of the Earl's holding being the Earl charged with carrying out the construction. That the hidage and formula was not intended as a specification of what was to be built. It may well be that the allocation of men and length of wall was only a contribution and not a measure of what was constructed. Further I suggest that the configuration of any fort cannot be assumed from the hidage figures as configuration and perhaps size was a function of the defensive objective.

Turning to the name generally given as "Sceafcesege". Margaret Gelling has written on this in works published by The English Place Name Society and elsewhere. An interesting appendix by Margaret Gelling is attached to Nicholas Brooks, Unidentified Forts, Thirteenth Century References to Shaftsey which says:
"The first clue to the whereabouts of Sceajtesige was found in 1924, when Lady Stenton, transcribing material from the Assize Rolls for the use of the English Place Name Society, recorded a note of the entry on Assize Roll 37 m I6d A.D. 1241, which made it clear that Sceajtesige was in the vicinity of Cookham. The slip of paper bearing this note was subsequently believed lost in the bombing of University College, London, but it was actually safe, and came to light when the English Place-Name Society's material for Berkshire was being edited. Further 13th-century references were found, one in the surname of Gilbert de Sefteseya, who lived in Cookham in 1220,55 and one of 1275-6 to a weir apud Shetejley in manerio de Cogham,56 and it was clear that these provided a link between the name in the Burghal Hidage and the field-names Sashes and Shaftsey's Eight cited by Darby."

The generally accepted translation of the name is spear/shaft on an island or in a marsh. This raises the question as to why the name Cookham less than a mile away or an earlier version Coch or Cog, was not used. For example Coch-esege (Cookham in the Marsh) or perhaps Sceaft-Coch The spear/shaft at Cookham. It seems reasonable to suggest that Coch-ham had little meaning at that time being only as the name suggests a small holding or family farm (ham). The evidence indicates that the main Saxon occupation, say up to at least 825 and probably later, was 1-2 miles to the west on higher ground, at Cochburh (the defended village of Coch). Having an established burh just up the road with the name Coch would perhaps have required a different and perhaps descriptive name for the fortifications at Sashes. It is possible that the works and defence created a new focus of occupation at the location of the current Cookham village.

Research was undertaken as part of another project into the evolution of the name Sashes:
"Name Date Source
Sefeseya 1198-1242 Liber Fedorum, Book of Fees or Testa de Nevill
Shaftesya 1241 Assize Roll
Shetefley 1275-1276 Rotuli Hundredorun
Shaftsey 1389 Extent Rolls
Shaftsey 1480 Darby
Shaftssey 1482-83 Cookham Manor Rolls
Shasses 1533 Cookham Manor Rolls
Shaftses 1538 Cookham Manor Rolls
Shaftseys 1559 Cookham Manor Rolls
Shaftses 1559 Cookham Manor Rolls
Shaseys 1562 Darby
Shaffseys 1566 Darby
Shafteies 1577 Brass Plate, Trinity Church, Cookham
Shaftsees 1580 Boston map
Sheaseys 1598 Cookham Court Rolls
Shawses 1607 Cookham Court Rolls
Shawses 1609 Darby
Shaffseys 1611 Darby"
[Tanya Berks, unpublished]
There can be little doubt that the name Sashes is derived from Sceafcesege and similar, although this says little about its location or extent.
 

Prior to the ninth century England was a number of small separate kingdoms, these coalesced roughly into three main areas, each occupied by peoples of differing background: The central areas between the Thames, Wales and East Anglia, was Mercia. East Anglia was occupied by the Danes and similar who appear to have had an understanding (at certain times) with Mercia. From the Thames to the south coast, including part of the west country but excluding Kent, was Wessex. Kent was a separate kingdom but seemed to have an alliance with Wessex.

The areas of control and influence of each kingdom varied from time to time. Although boundaries moved about during the early Saxon period Mercia dominated the midlands and south, controlling much of the area south of the Thames. In about 868, Mercia gave up control of areas south of the Thames when the Thames in general became the northern frontier of Wessex. This change of control is important in understanding the early Saxon history of the Cookham area and possible implications. As evidence for this important matter:
733 Aethelbald (Wessex) gave monastery at Cookham to the Archbishop of Canterbury [Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, Oxford History of England].
740<756 Monastery of Cookham with 100 hides gifted to Canterbury [N Brooks, Anglo-Saxon Myths State & Church, pg. 106]
742 Synod at Cliffs Hoo, Ethelbald (Mercia) and Archbishop Cuthbert (possibly when above gift was made) [AS Chronicle]
757<796 Offa (Mercia) obtained by force Monastery at Cookham [Haddam & Stubbs, Councils and Ecclesiastic Documents, Oxford 1871]
779 Cynewulf (Wessex) seizes Berkshire, including "wealthy monastery of Cookham" originally owned by Aethelbald (Mercia) but was forced to return it to Christ Church Canterbury. [Alfred P Smyth, King Alfred the Great, pg. 4] [N Brooks, Anglo-Saxon Myths State & Church, pg. 113]
779 Offa (Mercia) captured Bensington and annexed Cookham from Cynewulf (Wessex) [AS Chronicle] [Christ Church, S 1258, pg. 272] [Heather Edwards, Charters of the Early West Saxon Kingdom, BAR British Series 198, 1988]
798 Synod of Clofesho archbishop Aelthelheard (Canterbury) agreed that Abbess Cynedrytha (probably Offa's widow) be given the monastery of Cookham and adjacent in exchange for 60 hides at Fleet, 30 at Tenham and 20 at source of the Cray (Kent) [MSS, Canterbury, DC, Reg p, fos 27y-28 (s.xii)] [MSS BM Cotton, Claud, Dii fo. 29Ry (sxvi)] [MSS, Lambeth Palace, 1212, pg. 312-13 (s.xiii)] [Christ Church, S1258, pg. 272]
825 Berkshire possibly formed when other provinces were surrendered to Wessex leaving Berkshire in Mercia [Barbara Yorke, Leicester, 1995].
The above would seem to be clear evidence of the importance of the Cookham area to Mercia including the "wealthy monastery of Cookham" up to say 825 possibly 868. A monastery at that time may not have consisted of elaborate or substantial buildings being little more than a hall within a large hamlet but if it is correct that the Abbess of Cookham, Cynedrytha was Offa's widow, then it is not unreasonable to assume that she would have required an establishment compatible with her status. The question that has tantalised archaeologists over the years is where was the early Saxon settlement and monastery and how did this relate to the later Saxon defences mention in the Burghal Hidage etc.

Although there had been any number of battles, incursions and raids prior to 871 as recorded in the AS Chronicle [App.1] and by Asser [App.2] it seems that the most serious threat to Wessex came in this year. Some of the military movements are shown on [Fig. 3] to illustrate that armies were in constant movement as was the associated political situation. The invasion of 871 by the Danes was that of a major overland army, some say in excess of 10,000 troops, to this must be added all the support people and hangers on, a very considerable army. It would seem that this army came from Thetford where they had established winter quarters in 870 [App 2/16] [App 1/18]. The Danish army in 871 seem to have been intent on capturing Reading, for plunder, where they built fortifications, possibly with the objective of so disrupting the West Saxons that they would gain control of all of Wessex, which nearly succeeded. Evidence suggests that the Danes came from Thetford and crossed the Thames to Reading at Caversham. The only practical way of moving such a large army would have been along the route of the old Roman road system. It seems likely that the route was down the Roman Icknield Way, which passes through Thetford crossing the Thames a little west of Reading. Such a large army would have fanned out either side of the main line of advance. Also Asser records [App 2/17] "on the third day after their (Danes) arrival, their earls, with great part of the army, scoured the country for plunder".

Whilst the main army in 871 came overland it is probable that the Danes would also have made use of the Thames, perhaps to carry equipment and food. Armies at this time were thought to follow Roman methods of advancing in two columns so that if one was attacked the other could come to its support. The AS Chronicle notes on another matter in 870 "they came to Medhamsted, (Mercia) burning and breaking and slaying abbot and monks and all that they found and slew the king, whereupon they overran all that land and destroyed all the monasteries to which they came" [App 1/18] This appears to be the same army that invaded Reading in 871.
There can be no doubt that Cookham only some 17 miles from, the Danes main line of advance and on the Thames which was probably also used during the advance, would not have escaped devastation. This raises a question as to the monastery recorded in 798 some 73 years earlier but if it lasted at least until the end of Mercian rule only a few years earlier. The monastery in 798 was at that time within Mercia but remained under Canterbury, despite the change from Mercia to Wessex, it would seem that the West Saxons would have respected Canterbury and not closed it. It may of course have fallen into disrepair and out of use but if it continued until 871 it is most likely, considering events around it, that the monastery would have been wiped out. This may explain why a monastery recorded as "wealthy", the subject of negotiation at several synod's, seeming to have an exchange value of at least 110 hides and having as Abbess Offa's widow, disappears from history with no remains yet found.

Both Asser and the AS Chronicle indicate that after the capture of Reading there were several battles during 871 where the West Saxons were trying to dislodge the Danes but without success. The West Saxons now under King Alfred appear to have been at a disadvantage in numbers but nevertheless continued to fight the Danes in what seems to have been a desperate attempt to protect the very existence of Wessex, for example AS Chronicle "There were nine general battles .... south of the Thames, besides those skirmishes ...... which were accounted nothing" [App 1/27]. Asser "and Alfred .... he fought a battle with a few men and on very unequal terms against all the army of the pagans (Danes) ...... the Saxons had been worn out by eight battles in one year against the pagans who had slain one king, nine dukes and innumerable troops ...... both by night and day ... Alfred and all his chieftains with their men and several of his ministers were engaged without rest or cessation against the pagans". [App 2/23]. I suggest that this experience of fighting for their lives and the continued existence of their country, with devastating losses both to noble and peasant, plus this was Christian against pagan, had a great influence on both the leaders and public actions a little later which had implications for Cookham.
The upshot of all this was that Alfred and the survivors of his army retreated to Somerset, conducting raids against his enemies and in 878 built a base and defences at Athelney. Asser says of their condition in 877 "with a few of his nobles and certain soldiers and vassals .... used to lead an unquiet life among the woodlands ..... in great tribulation for he had none of the necessaries of life except what he could forage .... or steal from the pagans" [App 2/35]. To be noted is that Alfred and his reduced army spent some 7 years fighting skirmishes and struggling to survive before settling at Athelney. Despite greatly reduced circumstances, Alfred then achieved something quite amazing which has never been fully explained. By this time his kingdom was reduced to a few square miles mainly of marsh and the remnants of an army but he somehow persuaded the people of Somerset, Wiltshire and further west to raise a new army under his command. Perhaps by telling them, your turn next to be invaded if you don't help.

In early 878 with this new army Alfred inflicted what was a serious defeat at Edington, on the majority of the Danish army as shortly afterwards the Danish king Guthrum, surrendered, converted to Christianity and signed a treaty giving up all the areas of Wessex they had invaded.

The agreement between Alfred and Guthrum commences with "This is the peace that King Alfred and King Guthrum, and the Witan of all the English nation and all the people that are in East Anglia, have ordained and with oaths confirmed, for themselves and for their descendants, as well forborn as for unborn, who reck of God's mercy or of ours" "Concerning our land boundaries: Up the Thames and then up on the Lea and along the Lea unto its source, then straight to Bedford, then up on the Ouse unto Watling Street". This shows that the northern boundary of Wessex moved from along the Thames to a line much further to the north east. This change to the boundary could be said to have made the Thames frontier fortification redundant. However Guthrum had only withdrawn his army to Cirencester which position could have been used to threaten Wessex.

Guthrum had his army to Cirencester and an agreement with Alfred but another apparently new Viking army had landed and built a base at Fulham placing what must have been a weakened Wessex in a potential pincer between two Danish armies. AS Chronicle [App 1/45] Asser [App 2/39]. Experience must have indicated to Alfred and the people of Wessex that they were again in danger of invasion, this time by two armies which if they had managed to combine would have been irresistible.

Alfred had to do something to avoid the catastrophe of another invasion of Wessex, Jeremy Haslam discusses this situation and puts reasoned explanations forward in his "King Alfred and the Vikings, Strategies and Tactics 876 to 886" extract [App 3]
Haslam: "This strategy (Alfred's) involved two complementary aspects. The first of these was the construction and garrisoning of a system of fortresses in Wessex and central Mercia. The second involved taking over control of Mercia after the demise of King Ceolwulf. It is suggested that these tactics enabled Alfred to confront and to dictate terms to the two potentially hostile armies stationed at Cirencester and Fulham, with the consequence that they were forced to leave Mercia. Guthrum's army retreated to East Anglia and the Fulham army left for more rewarding prospects on the Continent. Both actions recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as occurring in late 879" [App 3/4]
Haslam: "From the partition of Mercia in August 877 when Guthrum's took effective control of Mercia it is probable that London was taken over by Vikings. From this point onwards passage for Alfred's ships on the Thames would have been severely restricted. His position was aggravated by the arrival in the Thames in the summer of 878 of a large Viking army which settled at Fulham. This according to Asser made contact with the army further upstream (presumably at Cirencester) by which it may be reasonably inferred that it came to support Guthrum's attempted take over of Wessex, just as the army led by the brother of Ivar and Healfdene" [App 3/5]
Haslam: "The extraordinary nature of the retreat of the two armies from Mercia (Cirencester and London) in late 879 is brought into focus even more sharply when it is considered how the political and military relationship between Alfred and Guthrum must have been drastically altered by the arrival in the summer of 879 of the second Viking army which settled at Fulham. It is likely that this move, as Asser pointedly remarks, was intended to reinforce Guthrum's army in Cirencester. The army (Danes) therefore placed itself in the most advantageous position from which it could both control the London area and directly threaten Wessex". [App 3/8]

Something happened to convince the two Danish armies at Cirencester and London as well as most of south Mercia, to give up and effectively go away.
Haslam: "The positions of fortresses at Wallingford, Sashes and Eashing are equally significant in blocking access into eastern and central Wessex. The island site at Sashes with its bridge (?) would have effectively controlled both the crossing of the Thames by the Roman road (?) leading from St. Albans and Watling Street to Silchester as well as passage up the Thames itself by the Viking army at Fulham" [App 3/15]

As will be seen its important to determine when the forts along the Thames were built so as to get some idea by comparison with other forts of what the nature and construction of fortifications might have been.
Nicholas Brooks discussed this and other matters in his paper "The Unidentified Forts of the Burghal Hidage" [App 4]
Brooks: "With a wide stream on every side Sashes is a strong natural defensive position as a place of refuge. ....... Sceaftesege (Sashes?) was probably more than a place of refuge, for a Roman road (?) from Silchester to St. Albans probably crossed the river at the island. However it would be wrong to exaggerate the importance of a fort at the junction of road and river, since there are many places between Wallingford and Southwark where a Danish army might cross the Thames and it was scarcely possible to build forts to cover them all. The main purpose of the fort on Sashes seems to have been to fill a large gap on the northern frontier of Wessex. It takes its place alongside Chisbury, Eashing and a number of the less important burhs as an emergency fort which needed little more than a palisade to make it defensible. Such forts are a far cry from the great rectangular ramparts of Wallingford or Wareham .......... The Burghal Hidage does not describe a uniform scheme, it is a mixture of old and new, makeshift and permanent. [App 4/7]
Brooks: "But the fact that by 892 Alfred was already building a fort in or near Romney Marsh suggests that similar new burgs had already been built in Wessex. Asser writing in 893 could complain that Alfred's orders for the restoration of old defenses and buildings, of new ones had been too slowly carried out or even ignored but as Sir Frank Stenton has pointed out, the history of the campaigns after 892 implies that a new defensive system based on permanent garrisons had come into being" [App 4/9]
Jeremy Haslam discusses the issue of the date of the frontier fortifications in his report "Excavations at Cricklade, Wiltshire 1975" [App 5]
Haslam: ".. the account in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle of the numerous battles ..... in the late 860s and 870s not only gives no indication of the existence of this system of fortresses or of any fortification at all apart from the Viking one at Reading but also shows that warfare was conducted against the Vikings in a way which implies that these fortresses did not play any role in the tactics used against them. The inference is that the system of fortresses indicated by the Burghal Hidage was not in place at this time". [App 5/49]
Haslam: "the account in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle of the take over of at least part of Wessex by the Vikings ..... in early 878 also implies that the system of fortresses ....... was not in existence at this time. ........ it was only after his (Alfred) defeat of Guthrum at Edington in the spring of 878 that Alfred was in a position to implement the construction of this system". [App 5/50]
Haslam: "one of the significant aspects of this system of fortresses is that the combined hidage figures of the eight fortresses place around the northern border of Wessex ... totalling 12500 is nearly as much as the combined figures of all the other 22 fortresses put together. It must be inferred that, at the time of construction of this system, the border of Wessex with Mercia was the frontier line to which most of the manpower resources of the relevant shires were channelled. The construction of this system must therefore not only be placed after the take over of Mercia by the Vikings in 877 but must also predate the removal of the Viking forces from Mercia in late 879. There would have been little point in committing these huge resources along a border between two areas owing allegiance after 879 to the same king (Alfred) and against an adversary which had by this time effectively disappeared". [App 5/51]
Haslam: "....... it is possible – indeed probable that some of the small so-called emergency forts ..... were in use before 878-9 as rallying places for the local fyrd in times of emergencies and that some of these customary places were then absorbed into the more organised system created later, which was set out in the Burghal Hidage list". [App 5/52]
Haslam: "...... it is argued that the most plausible historical context for the creation by King Alfred of the fortress at Cricklade was in the period 878-9 ............... designed to oust the Viking armies from Mercia ........... achieved in late 879". "The evidence is discussed under period 2 which suggests that the wall was built to replace the turf revetment of the bank after only a short interval in the last decade of the 9th century. This fits with the historical circumstances of a date for the initial construction of 878-9, followed by a phase of more secure fortification initiated also by King Alfred against renewed Viking incursions in the 890s". [App 5/53]
Haslam of the Cricklade excavations identified as. Period 1:
"The principle elements in the original defensive system have been establish ......... as consisting of a bank of clay with front and rear turf revetments (probably without a timber palisade), an intramural walkway or wall street and three shallow ditches outside the bank separated from each other and the bank by berms. It seems likely, though direct physical evidence is lacking, that the defensive capability of the bank was completed by a small palisade on the crest of the bank associated perhaps with a pathway behind it (as suggested by Radford 1972, 102) and that these features were connected in some way with a wooden tower placed over the inner angle of each corner of the bank." [App 5/43]
"........ The clay used in the building of the bank must have been obtained from the ditches, which therefore must have belonged to the initial phase of the layout of the defences. No timber strengthening was used in the construction of the bank and there is no definite evidence for the existence of a fronting timber palisade. Although these observations reflect similar methods of construction used in other defences of the period (Biddle 1976a, 127-9; Radford 1972, 100-2), it is clear that the details of construction of the various defences of late Saxon fortresses were governed as much by the availability of different materials, or even traditional local building techniques, as by adherence to fixed methods." [App 5/44]
Copies of parts of sections from the Haslam Cricklade report showing period 1 construction:

Jeremy Haslam further discusses these matters in his report "The layout and early development of Anglo-Saxon Christchurch [App 6]
Haslam: " ......... advances in the understanding of the Anglo-Saxon burh in the last 25 years, a reassessment of the date and context of the Burghal Hidage and recent analysis of comparable archaeological evidence from Cricklade, make it necessary to review some of this evidence. This enables a new solution to the extent and layout Anglo-Saxon burh to be proposed, which in turn puts a rather different perspective on the relationship of the hidages given in the Burghal Hidage to the layout not only of Christchurch but all other burhs in the system described in the document". [App 6/1]
Haslam: "The structural sequence observed in the various trenches ..........."
Period 1: "..... earth defensive bank some 20m in width ...... strengthened or stabilised with irregularly placed timbers ...... no evidence of fronting palisade, though one may have existed. The bank separated from one or more ditches by a berm between 4 and 7m in width". [App 6/4i]

In about the year 890 Asser says: "But, owing to the sluggishness of the people, these admonitions of the king were either not fulfilled, or were begun late at the moment of necessity, and so ended less to the advantage of those who put them in execution; for I will say nothing of the castles which he ordered to be built, but which, being begun late, were never finished, because the hostile troops broke in upon them by land and sea, and, as often happened, the thwarters of the royal ordinances repented when it was too late, and blushed at their non-performance of his commands. I speak of repentance when it is too late, on the testimony of Scripture, whereby numberless persons have had cause for too much sorrow when many insidious evils have been wrought. But though by these means, sad to say, they may be bitterly afflicted and roused to sorrow by the loss of fathers, wives, children, ministers, servant-men, servant- maids, and furniture and household stuff, what is the use of hateful repentance when their kinsmen are dead, and they cannot aid them, or redeem those who are captive from captivity? For they are not able even to assist those who have escaped, as they have not wherewith to sustain even their own lives. They repented, therefore, when it was too late, and grieved at their incautious neglect of the king's commands, and they praised the royal wisdom with one voice, and tried with all their power to fulfil what they had before refused, namely, concerning the erection of castles, and other things generally useful to the whole kingdom". [Asser, Life of King Alfred]

In the year 894 the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says: "Whilst he was thus busied there with the army, in the west, the marauding parties were both gathered together at Shobury in Essex, and there built a fortress. Then they both went together up by the Thames, and a great concourse joined them, both from the East-Angles and from the Northumbrians. They then advanced upward by the Thames, till they arrived near the Severn. Then they proceeded upward by the Severn. Meanwhile assembled Alderman Ethered, Alderman Ethelm, Alderman Ethelnoth, and the king's thanes, who were employed at home at the works, from every town east of the Parret, as well as west of Selwood, and from the parts east and also north of the Thames and west of the Severn, and also some part of North-Wales. When they were all collected together, they overtook the rear of the enemy at Buttington on the banks of the Severn, and there beset them without on each side in a fortress. When they had sat there many weeks on both sides of the water, and the king meanwhile was in Devonshire westward with the naval force, then were the enemy weighed down with famine. They had devoured the greater part of their horses; and the rest had perished with hunger. Then went they out to the men that sat on the eastern side of the river, and fought with them; but the Christians had the victory". [Anglo-Saxon Chronicle]

An important question arises as to are these two entries, above, linked in some way or just coincidence as the answer might have implications for Sashes. In 894 the Chronicle records a large Viking/Danish army travelling up the Thames to near the Severn. The way this is recorded would seem to indicate transport at least in part by water. If as seems logical they would have gone up the Thames and then perhaps up the Kennet a passage to near the Severn is possible. If this was the route or similar they would have avoided the Saxon fortifications at Wallingford and Cricklade only needing to pass the fortification and obstruction at Sashes. There is much more about the battles fought when the Viking army arrived in Wales but no mention of anything during the passage up the Thames. Asser seeming to be writing in 890 of problems, saying, Alfred's instructions regarding fortifications were ignored with grievous consequences. Whilst this might be coincidence it might be telling us that the fortifications at Sashes were not maintained and perhaps not manned, allowing the Viking army unhindered passage in 894.

It is probably beneficial at this point to step away from this evidence to consider the strategic implications of the location of Cookham and Sashes Island.

Whilst the large Danish/Viking armies would have travelled over land it would seem that use was made of the Thames for incursions, raids and in support of larger armies. Various entries in both the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Asser point to the importance of water transport and the integration of land armies with the use of water. Examples to illustrate the importance to the armies of water transport.
AS Chronicle 851 "came three hundred and fifty ships into the mouth of the Thames; the crew of which went upon land and stormed Canterbury and London." [App 1/6]
AS Chronicle 860 "came a large naval force up into the country and stormed Winchester" [App 1/11]
871 invasion of Wessex and Reading
Asser 877 " .... the army of pagans leaving Wareham, partly on horseback and partly by water arrived at Suanewic, where one hundred and twenty of there ships were lost .." [App 2/32]
AS Chronicle 894 "and they flew over the Thames without any ford, then up by the Colne on an island" ........ "Then came the kings troops and routed the enemy ........ and all the ships they either broke to pieces or burnt or brought to London or to Rochester" "Then they (Vikings) advanced upward by the Thames till they arrived near the Severn. Then they proceeded upward by the Severn" [App 1/67]
AS Chronicle 895 "Then in the same year ....... the Danes ......... towed their ships up on the Thames and thence up the lea" [App 1/68]
AS Chronicle 896 "In the harvest afterward the king encamped close to the city (London) whilst they reaped their corn that the Danes might not deprive them of the crop. Then some day rode the king up by the river and observed a place where the river might be obstructed so that they could not bring out their ships. And they did so. They wrought two works on the two sides of the river. And when they had begun the work and encamped before it, then understood the army that they could not bring out their ships. Thereupon they left them and went over land, till they came to Quatbridge by Severn. ..... and the men of London fetched the ships and all that they could not lead away they broke up but all that were worthy of capture they brought into the port of London". [App 1/69]
From the above one gains an impression of the importance of ships almost to the point that it would seem an essential tactic to make difficult or deny the enemy the use of water transport. There is also the impression that once water transport was lost they had to give up but we have no idea as to how this was used or how it related to a land army. We also have little idea as to what type of ships were used or how easy it was to navigate the rivers. A favorite route from East Anglia into Wessex would appear to have been by land along the Roman routes and by boats down the Lea and up the Thames. We must assume that Guthrum had boats suitable for this in 871. The Viking army that occupied Fulham in 879 came from overseas and would have had seagoing ships. Whether they intended to use these ships on the Thames to reach Guthrum is not known but to join up with Guthrum they presumably would have needed water transport. A similar situation arose in 895-6 where the Danes towed boats up the Thames, then up the Lea where they were blocked in and had to be abandoned.

It follows from all of this that it would have been an important tactic in defending Wessex to deny the Danes/Vikings the use of the Thames. There are many suggestions that the Thames frontier Burghal Hidage forts had two functions apart from acting as a refuge, in part being to deny the enemy use of the Thames and in part to prevent crossing of the Thames which is actually more difficult to explain as there were other possible crossing points.

Further information is available from "The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of AEthelweard" although noted is that prior to 892 it is from other sources.
"871. After a lapse of one year, the army of barbarians mentioned above set out to Reading from thence (i.e. from East Anglia) and above all that most impious people considering attacking the West Saxons with war. And three days after they had come there, two of the earls marched forward. Now by means of the equestrian equipment which nature had denied them, having cast their fleet from mind, ranged through fields and woods as swift indeed as scouts or as the eternal spirit." [Chronicle of AEthelweard, A Campbell 1962, para 2]
This seems to imply that they didn't have horses until after the invasion and made use of boats during the invasion.
"That very foul people broke the agreement made under strong oath with the West Saxons and made their winter quarters in Chippenham. By riding through many, they would have subjected them, so far as the inhabitants were not quiescent under their domination, they all quickly changed their minds. Then they with cruel force expelled others across the sea to the shores of Gaul. King Aelfred, indeed, was then in greater straits than was befitting" [Chronicle of AEthelweard, A Campbell 1962, para 2]
Indicating the devastation caused by the invasion.

It seems reasonable to suggest that in 871 the Danish army from Thetford invading Wessex, was not denied access along the Thames by virtue of the ease by which they apparently moved such a large army. Again in 894 the Viking army went from London to the Severn, up the Thames apparently without much difficulty and therefore must have had relativity easy passage along the Thames. If Haslam's suggestion is correct and there seems to be no evidence to the contrary, then the departure of Guthrum from Cirencester and the new Viking army from Fulham is explained by Alfred's strategy of fortifications along the Thames denying access by the major land routes and perhaps of greater importance by water, making the date for these defenses just prior to late 879. Apart from anything else blocking the Thames would have made difficult the Vikings linking with or supporting Guthrum. Is this perhaps telling us that we have not given enough attention to the military importance of transport by water.

As above another version of the Anglo Saxon Chronicle for 896, records "Then later in harvest time the king (Alfred) camped in the vicinity of the stronghold while they reaped the corn, so that the Danish could not keep them from reaping. Then one day the king (Alfred) rode up along the river (Lea) and looked to see where the river might be obstructed so that they (Danes) could not bring out their ships. Then they abandoned them and went overland so that they arrived at Bridgnorth on the Severn". [The Winchester Manuscript, Michael Swanton] Editors note to the above "This kind of blockading fortification had been used on the Marne against the Vikings by Charles the Bald in 862" [Hassall and Hill, 'Pont del' Arche: Frankish influence on the West Saxon burh;] "similar tactics are found later at Buckingham 918, Stamford 922 and Nottingham 924"

It would seem that blocking rivers with fortifications on both sides was a familiar tactic to the Saxons. If as seems possible it was a tactical imperative to block access along the Thames or at least make it extremely difficult, then we must consider how and where this was best done. There are no records of the Thames during this period so we must seek to use later evidence.

At a date claimed as 1560? a map was produced showing a dispute as to an area between the west corner of Sashes Island and near the village of Cookham . [Fig. 4 & 5]
This map known as the "Boston map" due to the original being in the possession of Lord Boston, seems to have been produced as part of a legal submission or similar to a Council. Whilst the map is schematic, particularly the left side, east (the map to us is upside down) where little attempt has been made with accuracy (the draughts man appearing to have run out of page), it clearly shows as accurately representative those matters the subject of the submission. The substance of the document is that a Mr. Manfield attempted to pull up the piles of the Warbor to increase the flow of water down "Shafteses Water" also to fell trees on the north west corner of the island to facilitate drawing barges through Hedsor Water. An attempt to interpret the map has been made [Fig. 5] which raises several important issues:
The map appears to show rocks and rapids immediately off the north west corner of the island. (This is consistent with information from the Thames Commissioners) [Fig 2 "A"]
At the south west corner of the island is shown an "L" shaped feature titled the "Warbor" or "Warborin" [Fig. 2 "B"]. Investigation reveals that this word may be derived from the Saxon War-burh which the best available translating gives as water defense. It is shown as partly a bank with trees and at the Cookham end a head pile. As may be seen on the ground it may be that the bank stretching from this end of the island today is a remnant of this feature. The purpose and date of this feature is unknown but the statement and configuration indicates that it could have diverted water down the main channel, perhaps raising the water level. Another thought is that it would have taken energy from the main flow, producing calmer water downstream where 3 water courses are shown as "ffishing streame. The most intriguing aspect shown is the apparent channel running diagonally across the island from the Warbor to the north east corner of the island as no evidence for this currently exists [Fig, 2 "C"]. Great care was taken with this aspect of the interpretation [Fig. 5] but there is no way of guaranteeing accuracy. Factors taken into account on the interpretation. The Boston map shows 3 corners on the island from the Warbor to the point where the main stream straightens. The Boston map shows 4 water courses from north to south. These as shown on the map are from the north Hedsor Water, Shafteses Water, The Kings Water and Babhams Water. From both configuration, location and Estate information, it is generally accepted that Babhams Water is today's Lullybrook. A glance at the OS or air photo shows that excepting the 1830 Lock Cut, that there are only 3 watercourses north to south. This being so means that the Boston map is showing an extra watercourse and as it is a main subject of the apparent submission is likely to be correct even if distorted. Possibly significant is that the map does not show the small island that we have today at the north west corner, known as Hedsor Eyot, separated from the main island by Hedsor Ditch. It might be that this diagonal channel is a poor attempt to show perhaps an earlier version of Hedsor Ditch except the map clearly shows the west end of this channel commencing east of the Warbor, whereas any location for any form of Hedsor Ditch would have to commence north of the Warbor. Intriguingly the line of the watercourse east of the Warbor prior to the 1830 Lock Cut, might be said to be showing the south west end of the diagonal channel [Fig. 2 "D"]
An important aspect is the position of "Pages Wharf" [Fig. 1 "F"] shown on the Boston map as being at the junction of Kings Water, Babhams Water and the Thames. Evidence for this position:
"Parnell Chilburie, wife of John Chilburie, bargeman: The millpond lying near Cookham Towne leading to the millbucks is a distinct water from the Thames and not navigable for barges; and is a small stream by itself running out of the Thames at a great pile below Cookham Ferry and down into the said Thames between two grounds, one called Bearleaze and the other Shawsies". The witness Ward, Thos Ward, millright of Bray adds that: "the spot where this back stream rejoined the Thames was called 'Pages wharfe'."
[The Thames Highway, vol 2. Fred Thacker,1920, reprinted David & Charles 1968, p.304).
"Pages Wharf AD 1634. Near Babham Lea"
[Min. Accts. Exch, Place & Field Names, Cookham Parish, Berks., Stephen Darby, privately printed 1899, pg.67]. [see also addendum A below]

The clear implication from this and similar evidence is that the configuration of features on the Boston map is correct if distorted.
Thomas Pride produced mainly estate maps of Berkshire dated from other evidence as 1790. A copy of the section showing Cookham and Sashes is at [Fig. 6] with a tracing for clarity [Fig. 7]. The 3 watercourses as above are shown but intriguing is the "X" feature diagonally on the island. It is difficult to work out if this was intended to show watercourse or road/track. Nevertheless it is a clearly shown feature and detailed inspection of other features on the map show all to be reasonably representative of real features. There is no explanation for this but a question arises: is the Pride map of 1700? endeavoring to show the same diagonal watercourse shown on the Boston 1560 map, marked as "Shafteses Water". The Rocque map of 1761 [Fig. 10 and trace Fig. 11] shows a similar X of watercourses to the Pride map but more clearly as water. This raises the possibility that the north east leg is a remnant of the Boston channel of 1608, this possibility is shown on [Fig. 2, C1]

In 1771 Robert Whitworth had done a survey (in part to be the cut of 1830) and remarked on the difficulties of navigating the Thames at Hedsor.

In 1826 one Jos. Gibbins, barge master, made a complaint to the Commissioners, stating "that the Mary, one of his barges, was coming to London laden with Bath Stone for Westminster, and in the night of the 9th August, the water being very low and the night dark; at Hedsor she got aground and swung across the channel, which caused her to be broken in two. Loss about forty pounds."
In 2002-3 there was a land dispute between the owners of Hedsor House and Wharf and the Environment Agency regarding land ownership and associated water rights. This action was a continuation of a dispute that went back to the 1800's and possibly before. The Court papers supply some information [App 7]
" ...... The southern edge of the island (Sashes) is a cut made in 1830 ........... to bypass Hedsor Water which for various physical reasons was difficult to navigate" [App 7/2]
"The Commissioners received many complaints about the inconvenience to commercial traffic passing through Hedsor Water which was shallow and fast flowing, the natural gradient of the river bed making navigation difficult for larger vessels such as barges. The Commissioners responded by making the Cut in 1830". [App 7/3]
"Hedsor water is a three-quarter mile loop of the Thames at Hedsor, beginning just downstream of Cookham Bridge .......... Hedsor Water forms part of the natural mainstream of the Thames and until 1830 provided the commercial route for river traffic heading back and forth to London. Hedsor Water was shallow and fast flowing, the natural gradient of the riverbed making it notoriously difficult and dangerous for larger vessels such as barges." [App 7/9] [Fig. 2 "E"]
"But also prior to 1830 there were many complaints about the inconvenience to commercial traffic passing through Hedsor Water arising from the physical difficulty of navigation". [App 7/10]

It would seem that avoiding the hazards of navigating the Thames at Hedsor Water and the north west corner of Sashes Island would have been desirable at all times up to the construction of the lock cut in 1830. It is inconceivable that earlier peoples faced with the same problem would not have sought a solution. It is known that both Romans and Saxons were quite capable of extensive navigation works in the form of canals and similar. The traditional route for boats passing up and down the Thames prior to the 1800's and apparently the same in the 1560's was along the south bank of the Thames crossing to Sashes and round the north bank of the island. The Boston map 1560 states "Manfield felled ........ one hundred and X111 of these trees whereby he might draw barges up Hyndes water" this is on the north west corner of the island.

Confirmation of the route round the north of Sashes being the major route for large boats is contained in the minutes of the Cookham Bridge Company, when in the late 1800's further to an Act of parliament to build a new bridge, a Mr. Pegg proved that he had traditional rights for a large flat bottom ferry (suitable for barge horses) to the island and across the river to the Ferry Inn, the company had to buy him out. Minutes 22 June 1839; "Towing path owned by Lord Boston" Articles between company and Thomas Poulton "One Large Boat for the transport of Cattle and Carriages as at present used with Chain, Rollers and Trucks inside therewith" Dotted line on plan showing two or perhaps combined route, between Ferry Inn, South west of island and north bank. [Fig. 2 "F"]

At the other end of the island, south east corner, on the south bank between Lullybrook (Babham's Water) and Kings Water at the point where horses would have had to cross to the island, it is thought that there was Babham's Inn, which if correct may have served the same function as Mr. Pegg's ferry and Ferry Inn at the north west end [Fig. 2 "G"]. This would seem like a tortuous route as it required crossing the Thames to the island twice, a more direct route would seem to have been to use the branches of the Thames to the south of the island, Kings or Shaftseses Water. The levels indicate that these southern branches may have been channels through marshes and maybe difficult to navigate. Whatever the reason why these southern routes were not used for navigation, it emphasises the importance of the route round the north of the island and its difficulties.

All of this would indicate that large boats seeking to pass through Hedsor water would have had difficulties. In all probability they would have had to be unloaded and dragged through the swift flowing shallow water. This would have made them very vulnerable to attack and obstructing this relativity easy, thereby, for example, achieving Alfred's objective of about 879. As the many comments Hedsor water is the best place on the Thames between Reading/Wallingford and the lower reaches to obstruct the passage of ships. If as suggested by Haslam and Brooks the function of fortifications in 878 was to defend Thames crossing points and prevent passage along the river, then there would seem to be no better place to do this than at Sashes. This also gives rise to the desirability, in all periods, to bypass the area difficult to navigate, perhaps by a canal and this may be what is being indicated on the Boston and Pride maps. However there is a practical difficulty, the fall in river levels between the south west corner of the island and the Hedsor reach is very considerable, contributing in large part to the problems of navigation. Prior to the 1800's the only way to get pass the upper Hedsor weir (just above the rapids) was a flash lock, which the records show to be difficult and dangerous. It follows that any canal bypassing these problems would have had a similar fall and flow of water. Whilst well within the capability of both Roman and Saxon engineers, it would have been a major enterprise.

Most suggestions for the justification of a fort at Sashes assume an important reason being that it was the site of a Roman Road crossing the Thames, Brooks, Hill, Haslam etc. This arises from the Viatores and in particular Margary 163, Camlet Way from Verulamium to Silchester. However the Viatores themselves write "A Roman road which crosses the present river system at Hedsor would indeed find itself in difficulties" [Viatores 1964, 136-50]. This theory for a Roman crossing was seen to be supported by the incorrect dating of pottery and piles from the 1896 excavation at Hedsor Wharf (more on this later). Whilst there is some evidence to the south from King Harry gate Verulamium and in the vicinity of Silchester, there is absolutely no evidence for this road in the vicinity of Sashes. There is evidence for a Roman Road running north from Maidenhead, known as Alderman Silver's Road and good evidence for the line of this road, through North Town Maidenhead, near Cookham Rise station and on towards the golf club [Fig. 8]. The line of this road passes Coch-Burh (Coxburgh) [Fig 1 "C"], Halldor, the 6 Saxon graves at Noahs Ark [Fig 1 "A"] and the Saxon burial on Cockmarsh. [Fig. 1 "B"] Of interest is an entry on the BBC History website, although the source of the evidence is not stated: "Cookham Rise is the least prestigious of the 3 villages, although it is likely that this area was the first to be settled. There is evidence of a Roman settlement at the southern end of the village, the approximate area where two Roman roads (Camlet Way and Alderman Silver's Road) crossed. There is evidence that there may have been a substantial wooden bridge over the river, possibly with an adjoining river port named 'Cwch-ium' Celtic for Boat-Place. A cemetery has been discovered that indicates that early Saxon settlers also stayed in this area,"

To the north of the Thames are a number of recordings of high status Roman material and the extensive Saxon burial ground at Cores End. Evidence for a Roman road of some type was found during construction of the M40 between Loudwater and Beaconsfield. Whilst not credible evidence, a line drawn through these features will reach the Thames near the marina opposite Cockmarsh.
A National Trust Archaeological Survey 1988 reports: "150059 Possible Roman Road, A hard surface road, 4 to 5m wide and some 2m above marsh level. Rising up the face of the escarpment at its western end in a series of evenly graded stretches [Fig. 1 "D"]. There is a theory, unpublished and unproven but with some evidence, that this causeway along the base of the escarpment is Roman, part of the route St. Albans to Silchester. There is a parallel narrow trackway running along the crest of the hill. ....... Thomas Willoughby's estate map of 1762 shows a long island in the Thames around the bend at Cockmarsh. On the 1825 plan it is called Cockmarsh Eyeotts and marked as Osier beds. The island no longer exists."

Whatever the truth of the matter, it seems that a line through the features north of the Thames, the so called Alderman Silvers road and the National Trust notes all converge on and indicate a crossing of the Thames at a point some 1-2 miles upstream from Sashes [Fig. 1 "E"]. Evidence indicates that even earlier routes through the Cookham area, possibly Iron Age, were along the line of School Lane and Mill Lane, crossing the Thames at My Lady ferry, some way downstream from Sashes, connecting with known routes up the escarpment west to Hedsor and east to the Hill Fort at Taplow. This route runs alongside an area at Whiteplace Farm where many finds of all periods have been found by field walking. What evidence exists of the Roman period roads as above, seeming to cross the Thames at Cockmarsh, indicate that these were not to Roman military standard construction. They may have been local roads or even Romano-British trading routes but there is no evidence to suggest major Roman routes as implied by Margary Camlet Way. Until evidence emerges to the contrary, suggestions that a Saxon fort on Sashes was to protect a major crossing point have to be treated with caution. This is not to say that defenses were not built in say 878/9 to block the Thames or that this garrison had the added task of defending minor crossing points in the vicinity. This does however suggest that any fortification at Sashes had a different function and therefore possibly a different form to Cricklade or a scaled down Wallingford which were clearly to defend major crossing points. We have to consider how this function would be best achieved, in other situations where blocking a waterway was the objective, Asser records that fortifications were built both sides of the river, which seems logical.

In 1894 an excavation was carried out at Hedsor Wharf by the Maidenhead Field Club (later Maidenhead Archaeological and History Society) assisted by notable antiquarians, Mr. Darby etc. This excavation was the subject of a full report to the Society of Antiquaries on the 21st November 1895 [App 8] This report should be read in full but the following extracts are an indication. [reported on SMR as at SU 90330:86090] See photos at Appendix A & A1.
At a depth of about 4 ft a sizeable timber structure was encountered, consisting of vertical piles, horizontal timber and brushwood,
"At 4ft 6 1/2in (as already stated) the pond-mud gave place to peat and from half and inch or so above it but in part sloping down some six inches lower, came the flooring of the pile-dwelling. This consisted of masses of brushwood, which at this level was especially thick and conspicuous in the north-west quarter; while throughout, roughly speaking, the central third (between east and west) it was less conspicuous and increasingly so from north to south; and was possibly entirely absent for the last foot or so in this width, at the southern boundary of the excavation , where the peat was somewhat drier and brighter coloured.[App 8/15]
The brushwood varied in size, from the smallest twigs up to tolerably large branches or small stems of oaks and beeches, the size being .... of a weight two men could conveniently carry. Not one of the larger sized sticks occurred at this level in this central third of the opening. There were about a score of upright stakes or piles at this level (including those already mentioned which reached to a few inches higher, and also including some which were quite small, three of them placed close together for mutual support and two or three others acting as satellites to larger posts). They were dispersed quite irregularly but all within either the western or eastern third of the excavation; and while the half-dozen uprights found at lower levels (5ft 6in to 7ft 9in) were all (in both the eastern and western third) on the inner or central side of the upper piles, yet not one was in the central third (ie upwards of 6ft space divided the western from the eastern group, if groups they can be called) although at a depth of from 6ft 6in to 7ft 6in there were several tolerably large horizontal logs in it." [App 8/16]
List of finds in report (bone etc., depths from existing natural surface) [App 8/26]
"2ft 3in pig 2ft 10in, wood
3ft, red-deer
3ft 2in, parallel pieces of wood
3ft 4in, upright
3ft 6in, upright, wooden door-buttons?, dark pottery, red-deer, sheep
4ft, upright, small branch, dark pottery, sharp flint, red-deer
4ft 2&3in, dark and red pottery, pieces small wood
4ft 6in, flooring began, several uprights
4ft 7in, slate-grey pottery (modern?), nail, red-deer, sheep
4ft 8in, black pottery, large wood ashes, horse-teeth
5ft, black pottery
5ft 2in, upright, scrap pottery
5ft 6in, iron horse-shoe, ox, nut-shells5ft 8in, pottery.5ft 10in, sheep
6ft, oak spear-butt, dogs canine, bird
6ft 6in, fresh layer brushwood; at E corner brushwood ended, pig, horse, red-deer, sheep
6ft 8in, ox, horse, lamb, iron bell
6ft 10in, wood began NW; horse skull
7ft, wood at S, black Celtic (?) pottery, red-deer
7ft 4in, flooring of small wood SE
7ft 6in, human skull, sheep, domestic fowl, pottery, nut-shell, lump of chalk with (?) Knife-cuts
7ft 8in, flooring of small wood begins again N
7ft 10in, horse-skull
8ft, horse
8ft 3in, pottery Celtic (?)
8ft 4in, horse
8ft 6in, horse, flint-flake8ft 7in, brushwood floor at S center ends
9ft 6in, brushwood begins again at S center, red-deer"

In an end note to the report "I need, perhaps, only add that there is unquestionably some and probably a large proportion, of this platform, or pile-dwelling, still underground at Hedsor awaiting excavation. A practical difficulty, however, presents itself; the spot is immediately under very much higher ground and the exploration having to be made at a tolerable depth, the water is not long before it intrudes and we were beaten back by volumes on which no hand-pumps could make an impression and we were not prepared to hire steam power." [App 8/27]


In 1895 the pottery finds were identified as Roman for the mid levels, Celtic for the lower and the timber structure consequently identified as a "Roman Pile Dwelling". This was unfortunate as it gave rise to later suggestions of a Roman road or bridge crossing the Thames at this point and to various theories based on this, one of which was that the Saxon fort was to defend this Roman crossing.

In 1947 E M Jope an acknowledged expert, investigated the finds at Aylesbury Museum, from the 1895 excavation. This was as part of a wider exercise "Mediaeval Pottery in Berkshire" a report being published by the Berkshire Archaeological Society. [App 9]. Jope concludes that the pottery identified in 1895 as Roman is in fact late Saxon. The report identifies in particular, a pitcher and 6 shallow dishes, as late Saxon. By examination of the 1895 report it is possible to conclude that these 6 dishes come from the area of the timber floor at some 1.5m depth. Jope does not propose a more precise date for this pottery but in the body of the report by comparison of material, suggests prior to the 11th century. Of interest is the comment that the type and style could be earlier (9th/10th century?) and that they were not local probably coming from somewhere to the west.

In 2000 Oxford Archaeology were commissioned by the landowners agents for Hedsor Wharf to carry out an investigation as part of a planning application (more on this later). During the research for the Archaeological Assessment, Paul Blinkhorn, Saxon pottery expert, for OA apparently inspected the 1895 material and came to a conclusion similar to that of Jope.

We have to accept with some confidence the identification by Jope and Blinkhorn, that these items of pottery from the middle of the 1895 excavation are Saxon. The excavation report indicates that at the depth these were found there was no disturbance to the archaeology and that leads to the inevitable conclusion, as with the 1895 report, that the main timber structure and floor is of the same date as the pottery. It would be more productive if we had a more precise date for this material but it would seem that interpretation of all these reports gives a date range of between 800AD to 1100AD. However whilst identification as Saxon seems to be reliable, this doesn't, reveal what the timber structure was. The material below the flooring would appear to be Neolithic or perhaps Bronze Age, which would be compatible with other finds in the vicinity. The material above the flooring appears disturbed with the suggestion that it is spoil from the medieval hollow way or works to the house.

There are reports of piling works at Hedsor Wharf in the 13th century, also reports in the same period of firewood from the Chilterns and bricks/tiles being loaded for London. It would seem that the location of Hedsor Wharf was the highest point on the Thames, conveniently navigable by ships and barges, just below the navigation problems a little upstream on the north west corner of Sashes island. It is therefore hardly surprising that this location was used to load and unload ships, probably in all ages up to the construction of the lock cut. This would indicate wharf or associated works from a range of periods and perhaps this is what the 1896 excavations are showing. It would also seem that there was a system of roads or tracks, dating probably from at least the Iron Age, from surrounding areas to the north, north east and south east to enable the transport of material to and from this loading point. Whilst these roads would have been local it is not possible to say if they were part of or connected to major routes from further afield, all that can be said is that no evidence currently exists to indicate any major long distance route using Hedsor to serve ships or cross the Thames at this point.

In 1996 Derek Robinson carried out a resistivity survey of an area on the north west corner of Sashes island alongside and to the south east of Hedsor Ditch, which was reported in the EMAS Bulletin of March 1996 [App 10]. As to the resistivity a linear anomaly is reported at right angles to Hedsor Ditch [App 10/3]. An attempt has been made to re-digitise the plan on the report, as below, to produce a 3d model [Fig. 9] and to plot the position and extent on a plan [Fig 2 "H"]

This re-plotting is fraught with difficulty, the plan on report in the Bulletin is distorted, there is no scale and it is unclear what size grid was used. The only features of use are the line of Hedsor Ditch and a the position of a trench. An assumption was made that this trench was the same as shown on a drawing by David Hill and a rough idea of scale was obtained by measuring the distance from this trench to the Ditch bank. I would wish to emphasise that this is all very uncertain, the position and direction of the feature are probably about right but the size of the feature is at best only a guess. It would appear from the data that this anomaly is in the form of a bank, probably of gravel, the gradient of the data indicating that it was not formed naturally and is probably man made. This maybe dredging material from the ditch but it seems unlikely that this would have been dumped in this way, or part of some flood defense works but its difficult to see how this would have worked.

The report comments on the high anomaly, mound and three trenches, on the island (Hedsor Eyot) to the north west of the ditch. "In the center there is a substantial mound with a flat top about 3m above the rest of the island" "The trench nearest the bank was almost entirely uniform clay beneath the topsoil to the water level and below. This was quite different from the stratified clay with chalk flecks seen in the test pits on the main island and suggests that the eyot was never part of the main Sashes Island. In the other two trenches (one on the slope of the mound and one near the top) there was a thick layer of gravel overlying the clay. Finds from this layer appear to be of recent date". Reference to the Boston/Thames Conservancy papers show Lord Boston complaining and seeking compensation for dredging being dumped on Hedsor Eyot. It would therefore appear that this explains "there was a thick layer of gravel overlying the clay" as simply dredging spoil and that the difference with the trench nearest the bank (ditch) is that it was off or on the edge of the pile of spoil. The comment "the eyot was never part of the main Sashes Island" has to be treated with caution as there is evidence implying that Hedsor Ditch was re-dug on a number of occasions. Of perhaps greater relevance is why was Hedsor Ditch dug at all, was it perhaps a diversion round the difficult stretch of the Thames. Also it appears that in the distant past as today, the island of Hedsor Eyot was and is in different ownership to the rest of the island of Sashes and is even in different Counties as far back as can be checked, Sashes being in Berkshire and the Eyot being in Buckinghamshire with the ancient boundary between the two Counties being along the center of Hedsor Ditch. The land title to the Eyot, at least as far back as the Boston map of say 1560, was as part of the Hedsor estate on the north bank of the Thames and there are suggestions that this predated 1560. This is most unusual and one is intrigued as to why this should be so. A thought that is pure speculation without any basis, is that if there were defenses both sides of the Thames to obstruct ships, is it possible that the land ownership is reflecting this?

In 1995-1996 an excavation was carried out in the north west corner of Sashes Island and to the south of the Lock Cut by David Hill, David Beard and Derek Robinson. This was the subject of an unpublished report but copies are at the SMR [App 11]
"The map (Boston?) shows Sashes Water and if this were a new stream there is simply no room for it to cross Sashes Island north of the modern Sashes Water and to rejoin the Thames at a point south of the Buckinghamshire border thus fulfilling the statement that it would run wholly within Berkshire, thus the new stream cutting across Sashes Island is a chimera" [App 11/3] This comment arises from the assumption that a fort would be a rectangle some 39 acres in size [App 11/11] and therefore take up most of the space leaving no room for a channel as shown. As above this assumption may not be correct and whilst by no means certain, the fortifications may have been of a different configuration that would have allowed room for this channel. Also this channel is the essence of the submission on the Boston map and therefore, real or not, has to be taken seriously.
"North of the lock cut of 1830 is an abrupt change ..... as the field surface drops 2m. To the south of this line ..... is the up cast from the lock cut ..... " [App 11/4] Inspection on the ground reveals the "abrupt change" as a steep bank running diagonally across the island [Fig. 2 "I"]. Inspection also indicates that the assumption in the report, that the area to the north west from this bank up to Hedsor Ditch etc., is probably natural ground, would seem to be correct. All these trenches are shown on [Fig. 2] Trenches 1, 2, 6 and 7, all 1m deep, are on the area apparently clear of excavated spoil. These are reported as having an upper layer of rich loam topsoil with below two layers of dark loam/clay. Trench 6 is shown alongside Hedsor Ditch and we assume is the same trench as shown on Robinson's resistivity plot. The report states that at the bottom of this trench were found a flint core, charcoal and pottery. This pottery is noted as; 2 small fragments of pottery, early Neolithic, "there are small shell inclusions in one sherd, either inclusions in clay or additional tempering, lack of decoration" [App 11/10] It might be beneficial if this dating could be checked? The layers of loam/clay are reported as containing flecks of chalk and charcoal and is similar to that revealed other excavations in the area. [App 11/8]
The report on the trenches on Hedsor Eyot 8, 9 and 10 shows a different layout to that shown on the Robinson report but like the Robinson report suggests that the geology indicates that the Eyot is separate from Sashes Island [App 11/8]
Notes trench 5 which according to the accompanying plan is on the line of the pre 1808 channel, altered in 1830 to be part of the lock cut. This trench would also seem to be on the line of the diagonal channel shown on the Boston map, this could have provided important information but the report only notes "at this point at least, the area was heavily covered with dredged gravel with modern admixtures of brick etc."
Makes the assumption that SMR 1465, piles at Hedsor Wharf, are Roman and indicate the existence of Roman road Camlet Way crossing the Thames at Sashes, despite Jope 1947 showing this dating to be suspect.
It has to be noted that this is only a draft report and we understand that the intention was to go back the following year to complete the exercise but this did not happen, we are informed by the tenant that this was because the Environment Agency would not give permission for further access.

In 2000 Oxford Archaeology were commissioned by the agents for the landowners of Hedsor Wharf to carry out excavation further to a PPG16 conditions [extract App 12]. The Assessment for this is covered above.
An extract of relevant information from the evaluation report is as follows:
"Introduction ... there is evidence for prehistoric material nearby, and the possible line of the Roman road from St. Albans is thought to be followed by the line of the medieval holloway which now forms the main drive to the house. Sashes Island, immediately opposite the house across the Thames, is thought to be the location of a burghal fort. Saxon material has been found nearby. The importance of Hedsor Wharf is documented from the 14th century, especially its role in the transport of floor-tiles from Penn along the river to Windsor.
Phase 1. Test pits were excavated ...... to the first significant archaeological horizon .......... then re-machined to investigate the underlying geology. The test pits measured 2m * 0.75m .... to varying depths .... distributed evenly along the line of the proposed new driveway. Phase 2. Test pits 2 and 5 were enlarged to 2.3m * 4.5m to look in more detail at potentially significant features and deposits recorded during Phase 1. These enlarged trenches were called Trenches 7 and 8
Test pit 2. ..... earliest deposit appeared to be colluvial ...... yielded a single abraded worked flint. This was overlain by a possible buried soil from which some early to mid-Saxon pottery and animal bone was recovered. ......... 12th and 13th century pottery was retrieved from all of these deposits and they are considered to be derived from activity related to the adjacent current driveway.
Test pit 5. The fills of one of the features yielded pottery and animal bone. The pottery consisted of large unabraded sherds and datable to the 12th century.
Trench 8. ..... involved the re-excavation of Test-pit 2 and subsequent extension of the trench to the south and east. ........ Early to mid-Saxon chaff tempered pottery and animal bone was recovered from the first deposit overlying the colluvial sequence.
Finds. The pottery assemblage comprised 112 sherds with a total weight of 1848g. The minimum number of vessels by measurement of rimsherd length was 1.20. The range of pottery types present suggest that there were two phases of activity at the site, one during the early or middle Saxon period, the other from the 12th to 13th century. Fabrics. Early/Middle Saxon Chaff-tempered ware: Soft, dark brown to black fabric with moderate chaff voids up to 5 mm, outer surface smoothed and burnished.
Chronology. The range of pottery types present suggests that there were two phases of activity at the site, one during the early or middle Saxon period (c AD 450-850), the other during the early medieval. Seven sherds of Anglo-Saxon handmade pottery were noted, of which five, ....... appear to be stratified. Certainly, they are completely unabraded. Such wares are typical of the early and middle Saxon ceramics of the Thames Valley and London and can be paralleled at several sites, such as Lake End Road near Maidenhead, where such material was found in association with other hand-made wares, and also regional and continental middle Saxon imports.
Summary. The presence of middle Saxon pottery is important, providing the first evidence of activity in the area at the time". [Oxford Archaeology, John Stark and Crickmay Ptns, Hedsor Wharf, Bourne End, 2000]

A report was produced in 1978 for Berkshire County Council by Grenville G Astill titled "Berkshire Archaeological Committee Publication number 2, Historic Towns in Berkshire: an archaeological appraisal (BACP2) [Berkshire CC Library, B94]
"In 1854 during the construction of the railway ....... 6 inhumations were found at Noah's Ark 1.5km west of Cookham (village). These were accompanied by iron weapons and shield bosses. At Cockmarsh a low lying area of common land in a loop of the Thames 2km north-west of Cookham (adjacent to the same railway) 4 barrows were excavated c.1888 (actually 1874), one of which contained a primary Saxon burial. On the basis of these finds, Darby 1909 thought that the Saxon settlement would be on the higher ground to the west of Cookham. This report of 1978 recommended an Archaeological Policy that stated that investigations should be carried out into: "The nature, location and extent of the Saxon settlement. The relationship between the Saxon settlement and the burg on Sashes Island. The character of the burg on Sashes Island. The date of the laying out of the medieval borough" [Astill, BACP2 pg. 25, para 3]
(sad to say neither past or present archaeological or administrative authority have done much to progress this policy decision of 1978.

The excavation on Cockmarsh mentioned by Astill was reported in the London Daily Times by Darby (a local antiquarian) with his hand written copy existing:
"....... was opened and found to contain .......... the skeleton of a Saxon warrior. The figure lay facing North (pagan?) 2ft 6in in from the surface of the mound which rises about 3ft from the present level of the marsh and is surrounded by a well defined ditch. Covering the right shoulder was the Umbo or Boss of a shield which in all probability composed of wicker or hide, had itself long since perished. The Umbo which is a very fine specimen of early Saxon ironwork is about 6in in diameter and conical in form, being surrounded by raised bolts and what may have been a spear point rising from the center. To the left of the head had been placed an urn, now crushed with the weight of earth above it but originally doubtless containing wine or water, while at the feet of the skeleton lay the bones of a sheep, together with those of another animal not distinctly recognisable and with them an iron knife ...... with a portion of the hilt that remains ...... The examination of the third barrow resulted in the discovery of a skeleton of a child in a very decayed condition and several rough flakes ........" [Darby loose notes, report to London Daily Times 1874, Maidenhead Library]

Of relevance are some of the old names for fields and areas on the higher ground in the vicinity of Cookham Rise some 1.5km west of Cookham Village: Coxburgh, thought to be from Coch-Burg, an area to the west of the railway. Rowburgh, thought to be from Roug-Burg, a high ridge running from Coxburgh north towards Cockmarsh and the Thames. Halldore, Noah's Arc and others. The Fleet, (now filled in and replaced by a modern ditch) a river running from the start of the high ground and causeway at Cookham Rise to the Thames and recorded as having been capable of taking ships.

Hedsor was in the parish of Wooburn and intriguingly a note on a history of Wooburn Parish says as an aside, that at an "Inquisition" in the early 1200's into obligations of the Parish, was subject to a submission of evidence to the effect that it was "part of the honour of Wallingford" that as such it owed a traditional duty to supply men for Sashes and therefore could not be required to have a duty to the then local Lord. Whilst there are records of some of these "Inquisitions" and other reliable evidence from the 12th century for it being part of the honour of Wallingford, so far I have been unable to verify this statement of duty. If correct it would indicate that areas just north of the Thames had responsibility at some time for Sashes but without further evidence this is uncertain.

Other relevant evidence:
SE Odney [Fig 1 "G"] A long curving linear feature having the appearance of a bank and ditch was investigated by MAS using resistivity and auger.
White Place Farm, adjacent to Mill Lane [Fig 1 "I"] A number of field walks by various amateur societies, finds still being identified but appear to be considerable and from all periods.
Formosa House and Court [Fig 1 "J"]
Church Paddock [Fig 1 "L"] Resitivity surveys over a number of years and evaluation by excavation in 2005. Trenches revealed edge of channel from Thames or possible island that included church and north end of High Street. (consistent with information from levels and flood maps). Upper trench contexts revealed fill to make up bank containing much 12th contrary and later material. Lower contexts revealed area of rubble shown on resistivity having the appearance of being laid and containing Roman material, probably from works to church in late 1800's. Final report awaited.
Area [Fig 1 "M"] where Roman metal work and coins have been found by metal detecting [see SMR]

ADDENDUM A

Further information, mainly regarding Hedsor has been provided by Julia Wise of Bucks Archaeological Services.

"In 1605 the Lord of the Manor, Rowland Hynde, settled the estate on his descendants, including the 'horseing of barges. At about the same time he was in dispute, not for the first time with his neighbour Henry Manfield of Taplow ............. Another smaller wharf lay just downstream from Hedsor on Manfield's land. This was Page's Wharf tucked beneath the impressive chalk cliff opposite the present Cookham Lock. To help his case, Hynde drew a detailed map of the river channels and this has been handed down to successive owners of the wharf"
"The river below Cookham bridge divides into four channels, all of which have been altered in name and use over the centuries. The southernmost is the paper mill stream or 'Lollybrook' previously 'Babhams Water'. The next, Odney Weir Stream, was originally 'The Millpond Fishery', the channel for a long-forgotten medieval mill. The third was 'Sashes Stream' which according to Hynde's map once bisected Sashes Island. An easterly portion of this may have been filled in – possibly in the eighteenth century – but the rest utilised as part of Cookham lock, cut in 1830. Up until that time the northernmost channel, the Hedsor Wharf stream, had always been the main navigation channel.
In the enquiry held at Beaconsfield, Hynde complained that Manfield ........ had tried to make his own Sashes Stream navigable by dredging, cutting down trees and demolishing part of the 'Warborow', the ancient man-made weir or bank at the head of Sashes Island.
Several witnesses made depositions that the wharf stream was too shallow, because of the chalk stones in places on the riverbed ............ ........ Crannoll, the wharfinger, had refused to 'horse up' a Holderness barge via Hedsor because that summer, during a time of high water, Holderness had refused to go that way and went through the Sashes Stream instead ..... Richard went on to say that there was not sufficient water in Sashes Stream for Western Barges and 'did this summer see eight Tilt with passengers lay at ground by reason of the shallowness of the water' and even empty Tilt boats could not pass."
[The Thames, Record of a Working Waterway, D G Wilson, Batsford Ltd 1987]
Whilst not completely certain, the indications are that the references to statements at the Beaconsfield enquiry are from [Proceedings in Star Chamber, STAC 8 164/9]

DISCUSSION ON ABOVE "Addendum A"

The map attached to Wilson's article shows that in all cases where Wilson uses "Sashes Stream" he is referring to the diagonal channel shown on the Boston map [Fig. 4&5], where he uses 'Hedsor Wharf Stream' he is referring to the length of the Thames between Sashes and Hedsor.

There are a range of dates given to the Boston map the earliest being 1560. Wilson says that this map was used at an enquiry implied as being in 1608 but notes that the dispute predated the enquiry. Its not therefore possible to accurately date the map except to say that the circumstances shown apply to a little before 1600.

The nature of the statements given at the enquiry as to the diagonal channel 'Sashes Stream' shown on the Boston map, in particular the location of Page's Wharf, can leave no doubt that this channel existed approximately in the position shown on the map, also the difficulties of navigating Hedsor Water and confirm but do not explain that the channels to the south were not used by boats.

Significant is Wilson's observation that the east part of Sashes Stream was 'filled in' and that the west end was used as the first part of the lock cut [Fig 2 "D"].

There are elsewhere suggestions of a flash lock pre 1800 and pre the upper weir. It has always seemed to me that such a lock would be better if it was on a side channel, perhaps Sashes Stream. Whatever the fact of this it would appear that Sashes Stream as a channel bypassing Hedsor Water, went out of use some time before the lock cut as evidenced by the difficulties boats were having using Hedsor Water. It is possible that due to being shallow it silted up but against this is the considerable flow of water due to the fall in level, except perhaps if there was a lock.

It appears that Sashes Stream existed as shown on the Boston map [Fig 4] and perhaps the Pride map [ Fig 6] maybe not exactly as shown on these maps but with confidence running from just west of the Warbor to a point on the north of the island. This being so the statement by D Hill, is unlikely to be correct, regarding the Boston map and diagonal channel "thus the new stream cutting across Sashes Island is a chimera" made on the basis that this did not leave enough land for a square or rectangular fort of 1000 hides. Whilst by no means conclusive the available land may support the suggestion that the fortification was not square or rectangular and the total hidage may have been divided into two or more fortifications. There is a fault in this argument in that Sashes Stream could have been cut before say 1600 but after the Saxon defensive system, through the area of fortifications.

The situation regarding Hedsor Ditch is perplexing in that it is not shown on the Boston map. It would seem to be (from the Thames Conservancy records) that this ditch existed at an early point, definitely prior to 1800 and possibly prior to 1700. On the face of it this implies that Hedsor Ditch was cut sometime after say 1600 and possibly before 1700. It is possible that it replaced Sashes Stream which for some reason had gone out of use? Or perhaps Mr Manfield was having another go at Mr Hynde. Irrespective of when it was cut what this would appear to show is that the statements by Hill/Robinson that Hedsor Eyot was geologically not part of Sashes Island, to be dubious.

Of interest is the Boston map and as implied by Wilson, that in about 1600, the land to the north west of Sashes Stream up to Hedsor Water was Manfield's but the land to the south of this stream was owned by the King. The land to the north of the Thames being owned by Hynde and Manfield. This raises again the issue of why was and is Hedsor Eyot owned as part of the title of land north of the Thames with the ditch being the historic boundary between Buckinghamshire and Berkshire, not at this point the Thames.

This evidence from the Wilson article, in particular the 1608 enquiry record. seems to create greater certainty as to the existence of 'Sashes Stream' or 'Shaftese Water' as on the Boston map being a diagonal channel across Sashes Island. The implication of the way the claim is worded to the enquiry, is that this stream was certainly not new in 1600 and was probably established some time previously. The reference to "a long forgotten mill" on Odney Weir stream presumably refers to one of the two mills in the Doomsday record, the other being on Lullybrook. Also the Environment Agency report evidence of foundations alongside what would have been the west end of Sashes Stream [Fig 2 "D"]. Whilst very uncertain this may all be indicating that some form of channel existed prior to 1600. It is possible, indeed highly likely that several channels were cut and re-cut over the years, Only Hedsor Ditch being one that we can see and Sashes Water on the Boston map, being one that the evidence suggests. There may have been others as the desirability of navigating around Hedsor Water seems to have been a need at all times.

The key question is: were any of these channels related to the Saxon fortifications, It is probable that they were in some way but the evidence so far doesn't allow us to suggest which one or where it was.

ADDENDUM B
The following are extracts from Field Evaluations in the vicinity of Cookham which have now become available from Berkshire Archaeology. Locations referred to are shown by number "1" in text and in circle on map at end.

The Coach House, Formosa Place, Mill Lane. "1"
This was a watching brief further to planning consent 03/40284 at location SU 9070:8496.
"The site is located on the north side of Mill Lane, east of Cookham and to the south of Lulle Brook at a height of c.25m above Ordnance datum. The site slopes downwards towards the north and Lulle Brook. The underlying geology according to maps (BGS 1990) is on a boundary between Flood Plain Terrace gravel and alluvium. A sandy gravel was observed during the watching brief."
[Thames Valley Archaeological Services 2003, ref CMC 03/104, pg. 1, para 2].
"The site lies close to the Thames which is known to be a favoured location for occupation in prehistoric and later times. Numerous rich sites of many periods within the Thames Valley have been located from the air (Gates 1975). Dredging of the river Thames especially for the Maidenhead section has also produced a large range of prehistoric and historic tools and weapons of stone, flint, bronze and iron (Ford 1987). The site lies some distance to the east of the historic core of the Saxon and medieval town of Cookham (Astill 1978, fig 10)
[Thames Valley Archaeological Services 2003, ref CMC 03/104, pg. 1, para 3].
"From the watching brief it was possible to inspect all the foundations for the new construction. The trenches were all 1.10m deep and 0.70m in width. Typically the sections revealed 0.23m of very dark brown/grey loam with frequent sub-angular and occasional brick and tile inclusions with occasional charcoal flecking. Below this, a mid grey/brown silty layer 0.24m thick could be seen with frequent flint gravel inclusions. Natural sandy gravel was observed below this layer at a depth of 1.07m to the depth of the trench. No archaeological finds or features were discovered"
[Thames Valley Archaeological Services 2003, ref CMC 03/104, pg. 2, para 2].

This site is near the suspected location of Babham's Inn and Sashes ferry, thought to have existed from before the 17th century up to 1830 when the lock cut was constructed. To the south west, only the other side of the driveway is an area where there have been many finds of all periods from Neolithic to Norman "2". Whilst accepting the limited size of the trenches (foundations) it is somewhat surprising that this was not more productive or that the opportunity was not taken for further investigation of this potentially important location. A point of note is that the stratigraphy looks similar to that recorded by D Hill, trench 5 (including carbon flecks) in the report of the 1995/96 excavation, a little further to the north but at a similar distance from the Thames "3".

Whiteplace Farm, Historic Building Recording "4"

"1km north of Maidenhead and approximately 1km south east of the village of Cookham and is centred on NGR 490300:184400. Situated on generally level ground between Sutton Road to the west and the river Thames to the east".
[Wessex Archaeology, 2004, ref 56980.01, pg. 1, 1.1.2 &3]
"Whiteplace Farm forms a complex of buildings comprising some 21 structures in total. Seven of these buildings were the subject of the historic building survey ........"
[Wessex Archaeology, 2004, ref 56980.01, pg. 2, 2.1.1]
"A northern group containing structures dating to the 16th century is based around the remains of a courtyard the south edge of which is denoted by the south elevation of Barns 1-2. The second group is concentrated to the south and west of the northern group and is dominated by 19th and 20th century buildings."
[Wessex Archaeology, 2004, ref 56980.01, pg. 3, 3.1.1]
"Barn 2 is a large timber framed barn dating to the 16th century. The roof is pitched and covered with clay plain tiles and is gabled at the west end whilst the east end is hipped. ......... The main elements of the timber framing survives, which include jowled posts, tie beams, splayed queen struts, collars, principle diminished rafters, clasped purlins, wind braces and common rafters"
[Wessex Archaeology, 2004, ref 56980.01, pg. 5, 3.2.10 & 11]
"Building 7, Dovecot. It is square in plan and constructed in coursed dressed blocks of chalk with brick dressings around the corners and doorway. The roof is hipped with a timber-framed lantern on top and is covered in red clay plain tiles. ........ The listing description dates the dovecot to the early 18th century, but it may be earlier as the dimensions of the bricks used in its construction suggest early to mid 16th century date"
[Wessex Archaeology, 2004, ref 56980.01, pg. 8, 3.7.2 & 3]

Whilst not directly relevant to the review, it is interesting to note that Barn 2 and possibly the Dovecot may have been contemporary with the features on the Boston map, the estate at that time probably Babham's. It is also probable that the north boundary of this land (Babham's) was Lulle Brook, with the land to the north, as noted on the Boston map, as the 'Kings land'.

Odney Club, Odney Lane, Archaeological Evaluation phase II "5"
Evaluation further to planning consent 03/40538 at NGR SU 8979:8539.

"The archaeological condition required a 10% evaluation of the site area. ...... In the event it did not prove possible to excavate the full meterage, as a number of constraints existed on site in the form of protected trees and listed walls, all of which were to be retained within the proposed development. The reduction in sample size was agreed and approved by ................ of Berkshire Archaeology ..........."
[Foundations Archaeology 2005, report 462, summary]
"An earlier phase of evaluation undertaken by Foundations Archaeology in May 2005. No archaeological finds or features were encountered during these works. ......... The study area lies within the historic core of Cookham, close to the Church of the Holy Trinity. Cookham was an important local centre in the late Saxon period, as a royal estate and the site of a Minster church. It had borough status by the 13th century but declined after the foundation of Maidenhead in the 1820's. The proposed development therefore had potential to impact upon archaeological remains associated with earlier uses and buildings on the site and with the origins and development of Cookham. ....... The study area therefore contained the potential for significant features and deposits, predominantly associated with the Medieval period. This did not prejudice the works against the recovery of finds or features associated with other periods"
[Foundations Archaeology 2005, report 462, 2.3<5]
"The six archaeological evaluation trenches were excavated onto clean natural sand. Intact buried subsoil's and topsoil's were present in several trenches, although in others it was clear that there had been earlier bulk removal of deposits during the 18th - 19th century and again during the 20th century. No archaeological finds or features were present in any of the trenches with the exception of the probable tree throw in trench 10, from which Medieval pottery was recovered. The stratigraphic sequence clearly demonstrated that the land had been made up across all of the areas sampled. ....... The single feature which produced Medieval pottery is located at the northernmost extent of the site and may be indicative of Medieval settlement along the road frontage"
[Foundations Archaeology 2005, report 462, 6.1 & 2]

The introduction to this report notes the proximity to potentially important archaeology and this being so one wonders why the trenches were not positioned or altered to avoid the obstructions mentioned. Also why certain trenches were not extended to achieve the 10% stipulated, in particular trench 10 that gave rise to the comment about Medieval alongside the road. This report however might, indirectly, be telling us quite a lot. Excavation by OA and MAS, to the north west, just the other side of the church, revealed 12/13th century fill over sand/gravel, seemingly similar to the stratigraphy reported here at Odney, a little to the south east of the church. The trenches the other side of the church also revealed a sand/gravel bank, apparently being the edge of a channel or possibly island "6". Again it is to be noted that Odney trenches 10 and 11 show similar stratification at similar depths to D Hill, trench 5 in the report of the 1995/96 excavation, just a little further to the east of Odney "3". These findings along with other information have led to the suggestion that the centre of Cookham village was at some time an island which included the area of the current church. It may be that this Odney report is showing the other side of the island, the low lying areas adjacent being made up in the 12/13th century. Making up such a large area would have been a major undertaking but the date for this would seem to coincide with the grant of Borough status when it may have been thought beneficial. If this suggestion is in anyway correct it means that Cookham village, prior to say the 12th century, had a very small area capable of occupation, with any Saxon areas being concentrated around an area that is now the junction of the High Street and Maidenhead Road.


Whiteplace Farm, Archaeological Evaluation. "4"
Arising from proposals to convert some of the farm buildings, evaluation centred on NGR 490250:184520.

"....... the farm lies on the low-lying western flood plain of the River Thames, on Flood Plain Terrace Gravels which support pele-calcareous alluvial grey soils of the Thames Association and typical paleo-argillic brown earth's of the Sonning 1 Association. These are well developed soils developed in Holocene alluvium and the Flood Plain Terrace Gravels. ........ Within the flood plain there are slight rises of relict former gravel 'islands' which are now largely surrounded by deeper soils developed on former flood plain alluvium over the Terrace Gravel."
[Wessex Archaeology, 2006, ref 56982.01, pg. 2, 1.2.2 & 3]
"On the lower western slope of the gravel "island', trench 2 revealed a deeper (0.92m) brown earth developed in alluvium over the Terrace Gravels. ...... Higher up the western slope of the gravel 'island', trench 4 revealed a similar but shallower profile (0.6m) thick, over weathered gravels. ..... All trenches contained archaeological features which were either Middle/Late Iron Age or Early Romano-British or undated"
[Wessex Archaeology, 2006, ref 56982.01, pg. 6, 4.2.3, 4 & 5]
"The soil sequence in the evaluation trenches shows that the flood plain is covered by 1m or more of Holocene alluvium, which thins out around the edges of the White Place Farm gravel 'island' and the edge of the flood plain. The overbank alluvium indicates seasonal flooding and does not indicate that the gravel 'island' was surrounded by permanent water. Archaeological features may well be buried beneath or within this alluvial sequence but activity appears to have concentrated on the slightly higher and drier ground of flood plain margins and the gravel 'island'. The burial was found on the flood plain margin, (undated) while the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age, Middle/Late Iron Age and Early Romano-British occupation material was found some 450m to the east, (between the Farm and the Thames) on the White Place Farm gravel island." "7"
[Wessex Archaeology, 2006, ref 56982.01, pg. 12, 7.1.2]

Formosa Court "8"
Although significant building works were carried out to this property, it seems that there is no archaeological report.

General comment on evidence above. Addendum B.

Whilst the above reports do not add much directly to the "Review of Evidence, these in association with other reports from sites in the vicinity allow perhaps a picture to be formed of the area prior to 1600 the date of the Boston map. It is likely that this picture would be generally similar to the situation at the time of interest say 800<900AD. Other investigations considered in this, are: Riverdene OA "6", Vicarage OA "6", Environment Agency engineering works at lock "9", Environment Agency Flood prevention works and Church Paddock geophysics and excavation by MAS "6".

The Boston map being the earliest map of the area, in general shows the Thames bending around Sashes island with to the south a number of channels. This north bend would have been formed by the force of water pushing the bend further north until it came up against more resistant geology "11" (known today as Cliveden Heights). During high water periods, meandering braids would have cut across the bend, in some places eroding channels. The trench reports indicate a build up of alluvium on the south up against the gravel banks. The excavation reports are consistent in suggesting that this build up of alluvium was laid down by inundation of water flow with low energy, being indicative of a marsh. The reports are also consistent in suggesting a number of gravel islands presumably in an area of marsh. One of these appears to be the centre of Cookham village "14", another White Place Farm and by studying the contours and flood maps, we may suggest another on South East Odney "12" and the north of Sashes island "13", also the much higher ground on the north bank of the Thames. It maybe that this is to some extent confirmed, on the Boston map, by all of the large houses being on the north bank, with only an apparent hamlet originally of the family Coch in Cookham village. Domesday lists 2 mills and millstreams, one was on Lulle Brook "15" and evidence indicates the other was on Odney Stream "16". Practical considerations indicate that these millstreams would have been based if only in part on braided channels. Casting this picture back from 1600 to say 800 would produce a picture not greatly different. An area of high ground to the north of the Thames, a marsh to the south with a number of higher but relativity small areas and streams through this marsh, some of which had been improved for mills and perhaps boats. With boats loading and unloading at Hedsor Wharf "17", fortification of bank, ditch and palisade on the north of Sashes Island "13" and boats being dragged along a channel diversion. It is tempting to suggest that this picture describes the location known to the Saxons as 'Sceaftesege', pole or some say dry place in the sedge or marsh.

ADDENDUM C

John Rocque maps were mainly produced to sell to estate owners and his biography notes that this caused him to be careful with the detail. A section of the Berkshire map covering Cookham and Sashes is at [Fig. 10] and traced for clarity at [Fig. 11]. These maps are dated on the record as 176