Uncovering an Anglo- Saxon Monastery in Kent Interim Report on University of Reading Excavations at Lyminge, 2008 Gabor Thomas 1 Landscapes of the Anglo-Saxon Conversion: University of Reading Excavations at Lyminge, Kent, 2008 The following presents provisional results of the inaugural year of open-area excavation by the University of Reading within the precincts of the Anglo-Saxon monastic site of Lyminge, Kent. This work forms part of a wider project entitled ‘Landscapes of Conversion: the Anglo-Saxon Church within the Kingdom of Kent’, which seeks to construct a comparative framework in which to interpret and contextualize the evidence garnered from Lyminge. Historical and archaeological background The historical context surrounding the Anglo-Saxon monastery of St Mary’s, Lyminge has received full treatment in the Project Design (Thomas 2005). Since the initiation of the excavations a critical analysis of the historical sources relating to Lyminge minster has appeared in print (Kelly 2006). Kelly’s detective work has shaken many of the ‘truths’ surrounding the foundation legend of Lyminge minster derived from the largely post-Conquest hagiographical tradition associated with the Kentish saint, Mildrith (Rollason 1982). It is from this source that Lyminge derives its association with its founding abbess, the historical figure, Æthelburh, widow of King Edwin of Northumbria and daughter of King Æthelberht I of Kent, and with her its foundation date of A.D. 633. Contrary to received wisdom, Kelly points out that a Christian site of this comparatively early date was more likely to have been non-monastic in character, perhaps taking the form of a royal mortuary chapel. Lyminge’s life as a double monastery may thus have been initiated somewhat later (and by implication by a rather less illustrious foundress), the most likely context being a re-foundation in the final third of the 7th century. Other than proposing a revised sequence for the early life of the monastery, Kelly’s work also raises the spectre of a potential confusion in the charter sources between the Christian community at Lyminge and a neighbouring one at Lympne, with the possibility that some of the estates traditionally regarded as part of the Lyminge endowment (including the Romney Marsh estate of Sandtun ) were in fact in the possession of the latter. If correct, this reading has important implications for reconstructing the economic base of the Middle Saxon monastery, for excavations at Sandtun have shown that it was indeed a highly strategic site engaged in cross- channel trade and the seasonal exploitation of coastal and marine resources 2 (Gardiner et al 2001). On the other hand, some of Kelly’s assertions in this particular regard are open dispute: having reflected on the relevant minutiae, Professor Nicholas Brooks (joint editor of the forthcoming British Academy volume Charters of Christ Church, Canterbury and Chairman of the umbrella Anglo-Saxon Charters Project) is confident that the link between Lyminge minster and the Sandtun estate remains secure (pers comm.). Relevant archaeological discoveries in Lyminge up to 2005 have been summarised previously (Thomas 2005). To many Anglo-Saxonists, Lyminge is synonymous with a richly furnished, 5th-7th-century inhumation cemetery partially excavated on a site to the north of the village during the 1950s and sampled further in recent excavations by the Canterbury Archaeological Trust (Richardson 2005, 48-9). This burial ground was evidently part of wider mortuary landscape hinted at by isolated burials discovered elsewhere in the locality during the 19th century (ibid. 48). With regards to the site of the Anglo-Saxon monastery itself, we owe the first glimpses to the Victorian incumbent, Canon Jenkins, whose legacy of energetic, though less than scientific, excavation has been responsible for fixing the cult of St Æthelburh firmly in the modern-day imagination (Kelly 2006, 99-100). Considerable ambiguity surrounds the results of his excavations in the graveyard adjacent to the church, but scholars are in agreement that the buried wall foundations discovered immediately to the south of the nave belong to a representative of a group of early Kentish masonry churches exemplified by the apsidal structures forming the early core of St Augustine’s Abbey, Canterbury (Cambridge 1999). Canon Jenkin’s legacy has ensured that the cult of St. Æthelburh remains alive and strong. 3 The trail remerges over a century later when, in 2005, an archaeological evaluation by the Canterbury Archaeological Trust to the south of the churchyard produced a series of boundary ditches, structural features and pits attesting to a wider zone of Middle Saxon occupation. These results provided the stimulus for a programme of geophysics and test-pitting undertaken in 2007 under the auspices of the University of Kent, culminating (following the Director’s move to the University of Reading) in the initiation of the current open-area excavations. The principal aim of last season’s excavation was to provide a basis for assessing the character and preservation of archaeological remains constituting an extensive complex of Middle Saxon occupation extending some 150-200m to the south of the church; the results were also intended to inform sampling and recording procedures designed to maximise the recovery of environmental, artefactual and structural evidence. Aerial view showing location of excavation trenches in relation to the church. The CAT evaluation took place in the square parcel of land above Trench 1 4 The methodology involved opening up two areas (providing a combined window of some 1400m²), on private land belonging to the Old Rectory: Trench 1, a 30m x 30m square adjacent to a fence-line marking the boundary with the land evaluated by CAT in 2005; and Trench 2, a T-shape located in direct alignment with the Old Rectory and the church beyond. Both areas were stripped mechanically down to the surface of the chalk subsoil and all subsequent excavation proceeded by hand. The excavations were run as a Field School for students from the Universities of Reading, Kent and UCLA, California, with additional input being provided by volunteers from the Kent Archaeological Society. View of the 2008 excavations with the Old Rectory at the extreme right of the picture – the church lies immediately beyond. Results Trench 1 The results in Trench 1 confirm the impression that the archaeology in this area is predominantly of a single, Middle Saxon period (broadly 7th-9th centuries); later features were restricted to two SW-NE field boundaries of post-Medieval date and a more substantial E-W ditch which bisected the site and which owes its final form to the late medieval period. Middle Saxon features were concentrated in what appear to be two distinct zones, the most extensive being confined to the south side of the central boundary ditch. The fact that this boundary coincided with a distinct break in the distribution of Middle Saxon features, may suggest that it perpetuates a much 5 earlier boundary, conceivably marked by open ground as opposed to an actual physical barrier, as found at the broadly contemporary monastic settlement of Hartlepool (Daniels 2007, 157-9). View of Trench 1. Notice the distinct clustering of features and the broad sterile zone on the left side of the central ditch. The southern concentration was dominated by an imposing post-built timber structure aligned on an east- west axis, measuring 19m by 6.5m. It was constructed of eight pairs of outer wall posts set into pits up to 0.80m deep, several of which preserved their original post impressions. A distinctive feature which sets the Lyminge structure apart from the mainstream tradition of Anglo-Saxon timber construction was a longitudinal alignment of posts creating two aisles. The fact that these were out of alignment with the outer wall posts raises the possibility View of the main post-hole building. 6 that this feature was a later structural modification, although it could be regarded as primary, especially if an upper storey is envisaged. Dividing the space up in this way does not make sense in a ground-level building used for domestic/residential purposes. Indeed, the best parallels for this distinctive two-aisled plan can be found amongst a group of Migration-period structures from the near continent interpreted as grain-storage barns (Hamerow 2002, 37-8, Fig. 2.15). This building was stratigraphically contemporary with an exterior yard surface covering a roughly rectangular area measuring at least 10m E-W (the eastern limits lay beyond the confines of the trench) by 3.80m N-S. The surface comprised a metalling of crushed flint compressed into a prepared chalk surface; fragments of animal bone and iron slag were incorporated into the metalling, whilst an adjacent pit was found to contain a mass of flint nodules evidently surplus to requirements or perhaps intended for making repairs. Hollowed areas within the surface were filled by occupation deposits yielding domestic material including diagnostic Middle Saxon imported pottery, ironwork and animal bone. Whilst the metalling was cut by several pits of Middle Saxon date, no earlier features were discovered beneath portions lifted for sampling. Bearing in mind its connection with a building with barn-like affinities, it is not unreasonable to suggest that this metalled surface could have served the function of a threshing floor. The metalled ‘yard’ surface under excavation and a close-up showing its constituents including fragments of tile and animal bone. 7 Two further structural elements were found in close proximity to the two-aisled building. The first was a small sunken featured building measuring 1.80m by 2m. This had a classic gable-post pairing along the longitudinal axis of the pit which was filled by a single homogeneous deposit yielding domestic material. Cutting across the floor-plan of the two-aisled building on an N-S axis, was an 11m-long section of wall-trench which extended beyond the northern baulk of the trench.