Seasalter: A problem borough in Domesday Kent re-examined

SEASALTER: A PROBLEM BOROUGH IN DOMESDAY KENT RE-EXAMINED* ROBERT BALDWIN, M.A. 'In the same Lathe 1 of Borowart lies the small borough called Seasalter. [The manor there2] is assigned to support the kitchen of the Archbishop [of Canterbury]. Blize3 holds it on lease from the monks [of Christ Church]. Land for one plough there is 1 Anglo-Saxon Kent was originally divided into lathes which were the largest administrative sub-divisions. Later, before the Norman Conquest, hundreds were created within the lathes, but apparently not all at the same time (Cam 1963a, 103; Jolliffe 1929). At least by the time of King John, each hundred had a High Constable (Cam 1963c, 18). Under Elizabeth I, the parish became a unit of civil administration within the hundred (Redlich and Hirst 1903, 24), each with its own law officer, the Petty Constable, who was subordinate to the High Constable of the hundred (Webb and Webb 1963a, 25-28). Parishes contained one or more townships, which in Kent were known confusingly as boroughs (from the Old English borh = surety) (Elton 1867, 164). These boroughs should not be confused with the ancient boroughs (from the Old English burh = town or fort) recorded in the Domesday survey or established later by charter. Seasalter was an ancient borough. 2 I have made this expansion of the text on the basis that the Domesday survey is primarily a record of land tenure. The entry makes more sense as a description of a manor than it does of a borough. Also the entry for Seasalter Manor, a known manor belonging to Christ Church at a later date, would otherwise be missing. The expansion can in addition be justified on linguistic grounds, using the entry for Seasalter in the Domesday Monachorum. The holding of the subtenant in this text is described using a neuter gender pronoun (illud). This must relate to the neuter word for manor (manerium) and not to the masculine word for borough (burgus). Since it is generally accepted that the Domesday Monachorum and the Domesday Book derive from a common source, the sense of the entries in each should be the same. It is not possible to use the same linguistic argument on the Domesday Book entry because in the Domesday Book, borough (burgum) and manor (manerium) are both always neuter words. 3 Called Blittaere in the Domesday Monachorum (see appendix extract ii). Possibly, this was the Blitherus who was master mason in charge of building work at St. Augustine's Abbey.The tenancy of the Manor of Seasalter could have acted as a form of retainer for work carried out at Christ Church. A similar situation is known from St. Alban's and possibly Winchester at this time (Gem 1987, 88). • This paper has been published with the aid of a grant from Messrs. Peat Marwick. 237 ROBERT BALDWIN farmed in demesne and land for one plough is farmed by forty eight smallholders. There is a church there, eight fisheries with a rent of twenty five shillings, and woodland to support ten pigs. In the time of King Edward [the Confessor] and later [in 1066] it was assessed at twenty five shillings, and now [in 1086] it is assessed at one hundred shillings' (translated from the Domesday Book fol. 5 rect. 1). WHY IS SEASALTER A PROBLEM? Seasalter is one of seven boroughs recorded in Kent in the Domesday survey. Of the other six, Canterbury and Rochester were major ecclesiastical seats, and Sandwich, Hythe, Romney and Fordwich were ports. Seasalter was neither the centre of a diocese nor, from a reading of the Domesday survey, was it a port in 1086. It was apparently an unexceptional manor in all respects except that, because there was a borough there, it must have possessed some administrative importance prior to the Norman Conquest. This paper will examine why the otherwise insignificant Seasalter was a borough in 1086. The Domesday Book itself as a source of information covers the period from prior to the Norman Conquest up to 1086. The version of the Domesday survey known as the Domesday Monachorum belonging to the monks of the monastic house ( or familia) at Canterbury Cathedral (Christ Church), updates the picture in part probably to about 1100 (Douglas 1944, 3). For this brief span of time, we possess a view of Seasalter that is precise in detail but limited in extent for the survey was intended to record specific contemporary administrative data. Despite the limitations, however, it is still possible to make a number of significant observations which make this borough worthy of attention because of the problems it presents. Unlike the other boroughs of Kent, Seasalter possessed no burgesses in the later eleventh century. It was a farmed manor, without obvious urban activity, but it was taxed at the same rate as the other six ancient boroughs at least until the fourteenth century (Tait 1936, 67). Unlike the other boroughs, it failed to develop as a town during the medieval period, and even where the borough lay is now not known for certain (Tatton-Brown 1982, 81; 1984, 32). Ballard (1904, 98) calls Seasalter a simple borough, which he defines as a site in the possession of a single landholder and which administratively was part of a hundred (ibid., 95, 102). However, he is wrong to dismiss Seasalter as an unexceptional simple borough because, although it was much like any other village (Campbell 1962, 554) and thus fits with his definition, it was also a distinct administrative unit within the Lathe of Borowart and not part of any hundred at all (Douglas 1944, 90; Domesday Book supra). 238 SEASALTER: A PROBLEM BOROUGH IN DOMESDAY KENT Maitland (1898, 40--1) argues that sites that were administratively independent in this way must have been important. He believes there must have been some special reason why sites were outside the normal administration within the county. On the one hand, therefore, Seasalter is an unexceptional ecclesiastical manor. On the other, it displays features that indicate administrative importance prior to the Norman Conquest. This is the paradox that has meant that Seasalter is a site that has prevented the establishment of a uniform set of criteria that will define the English borough of the Domesday period (Tait 1936, 67). DOMESDAY SEASALTER IN CONTEXT: THE KNOWN FACTS UP TO 1086 The name Seasalter is derived from Old English sae-sealt-aern or 'the sea salt house' (Mawer 1924, 1; Wallenberg 1931, 309). It is not surprising as a name for a site in this location for the extraction of salt from sea water on this part of the north Kent coast is directly attested. There were medieval saltworks in Seasalter Level (Thompson 1956) and salt pans in Whitstable Marsh at least during the eighteenth century (Hasted 1799, 505). The name, though easily explicable, also creates a problem when one tries to identify it as a place recorded in Anglo-Saxon charters. Both Wallenberg (1931, 69) and Ward (1944, 51) identify grants of saltworks from 785 onwards as relating to Seasalter but they go beyond the evidence. A distinctive characteristic of Kentish manors is that they were not necessarily single blocks of land. Often they comprised a number of discrete areas located in different parts of Kent (Du Boulay 1966, 48). There is thus no reason why grants of saltworks to manors in north Kent should not refer to sites anywhere along the Swale estuary, where the Domesday survey records a large number of saltworks as existing in the eleventh century (Campbell 1962, 539-40). Any reference to a sea salt house need not be a reference to the specific sea salt house that was Seasalter, and without further evidence, the manor is no clue to the precise location of the saltworks named in the grant. The Domesday Book records the first certain use of the name Seasalter. In it the manor is assigned to the support of the archbishop's kitchen (Domesday Book supra). The Domesday Monachorum states that the manor was assigned to the monks' kitchen (Douglas 1944, 90). Whether this difference is explained by the archbishop and monks having common eating arrangements or by a change in the assignment between 1086 and 1100 is not clear (Du Boulay 1966, 21). However, both texts record that the monks leased 239 ROBERT BALDWIN the manor to a subtenant, and this indicates that it was part of the estates of the monks of Christ Church by 1066. Virtually all the records of Christ Church up to 796-98 have been lost or destroyed. By contrast, records after 798 are numerous and authentic. Drawing upon the list of landholdings given in the Domesday Book, and the known grants after 798, it is possible therefore to argue for pre-798 grants by process of deduction. The main benefactors of Christ Church were the early Kentish kings, and it is demonstrable that large estates were generally early grants. The estate of Northwood, the large tract of land in north Kent including Seasalter was, at thirteen sulungs, amongst the largest belonging to Christ Church in 1066 (Brooks 1984, 100-106). It is quite likely, therefore, that Seasalter was granted to the church before the end of the eighth century when the endowment was already substantial by any standards. It is possible, too, that Seasalter was specifically granted to the familia of Christ Church at this early date. The earliest known bequest is dated to around 780, by which time it would appear that a separate endowment for the familia was already established. Whether the endowment goes back to the seventh century is not certain, although there are some indications that it might (ibid., 158). It may be noted that the familia of Christ Church appears originally to have comprised priests and deacons, and did not become fully monastic until some time between 959 and 1020 (ibid., 90, 255-60). Following the introduction of monasticism, the familia initially remained as an integral part of the cathedral. The archbishop became nominal abbot of the monks and indeed the monks only gained administration of their own estates at the end of the eleventh century (Rule 1884, 219). However, although the lands of the archbishop and the monks were administered jointly up to this time the endowments appear to have been quite distinct. The Domesday survey demonstrates this distinction very clearly. This, then, is the evidence for the early history of Seasalter. In summary, Seasalter is recorded as a manor belonging to the familia of Christ Church before 1066. The original grant was probably befo􀁖e 798, but when precisely it was given and by whom is not known, nor 1s the date at which a borough was created there. THE HISTORY OF SEASALTER AFTER THE DOMESDAY SURVEY The significant feature of the Borough of Seasalter is that it did not develop into a town in the medieval period. It is reasonable to propose that the reason for this is linked with the absence of 240 SEASALTER: A PROBLEM BOROUGH IN DOMESDAY KENT burgesses, for burgesses are found at all the boroughs that did become towns. Maitland (1898, 45) argues that for administrative purposes burgesses were by various means able to detach the land occupied by their boroughs from the estates to which they had previously belonged. This allowed such boroughs to develop as independent legal entities with their own rights conferred by custom or royal charter. The reason why there were no burgesses to promote the growth of Seasalter is a question that will be examined further below. The medieval attitude to church property was that it belonged to God and was inalienable (Cam 1963a, 100; Du Boulay 1966, 195, 250). This 'dutiful petrification' ensured that many ancient boundaries were preserved and the demesne map of Kent in 1500 must have been little different from that in 1100. In the case of Seasalter a useful bridge is thus found over a period where records are notably scarce. From the sixteenth century onwards, great county-wide surveys record the contemporary administration and physical state of the area, and from these a certain amount of detail can be obtained. In the later sixteenth century, Lambarde (1576, 30) describes Seasalter as a 'towne'. In this part of his work he is recording the local administration of the county which was based upon the parish. He explains that he designates as a 'towne' any village that was the sole administrative township within the parish where it lay (ibid., 49). When a parish contains more than one township, each settlement is designated as a 'borowe' or borough. 1 Lambarde shows Seasalter as a freestanding administrative unit ranking with the hundreds of the county and not itself in a hundred. In his illustration of the judicial arrangements of the county, curiously Lambarde (ibid., 25) describes Seasalter as a 'boroe'. Whether this is a mistake or harks back to its ancient borough status is not clear. In this section Seasalter is shown to be outside the jurisdiction of the County Justices of the Peace. The significance of this will be examined below. A little under a century later, the position of the 'towne' had not changed. It was still not part of a hundred and remained an independent unit with its own constable who had authority over the parish (Kilburne 1659, 242,350). The absence of the parish constable from the Assizes and General Sessions of the Peace mirrors the situation recorded by Lambarde where Seasalter is placed outside the jurisdiction of the County Justices (ibid., 373-76). At the end of the eighteenth century, the parish was still a separate administrative unit, ranking with the hundreds of the county (Hasted 241 ROBERT BALDWIN 1799, 499-500).4 This is illustrated for the first time in maps published by Hasted in 1790. 5 Given the unanimity between Lambarde, Kilburne and Hasted, there appear to be reasonable grounds for believing that the judicial and administrative organisation of Seasalter remained constant from at least the sixteenth to the end of the eighteenth century. This is not surprising. Many archaic rights and privileges lasted into the nineteenth century and a few hundred courts met as late as the 1850s and 1860s (Webb and Webb 1963b, 57-58). The Victorian reform of local government was widely acknowledged at the time as long overdue, but it is clear from the reports that preceded this reform that the abolished institutions in the main had antecedents dating back to the medieval period at least. English local government up to the nineteenth century exhibited a remarkable level of continuity. It seems reasonable to propose, therefore, that there was little administrative change at Seasalter between 1066 and 1799. The manor was part of the lands of Christ Church throughout, passing on the Dissolution from the monks to the Dean and Chapter. The parish always ranked equally with the hundreds of the county and was never included within a hundred. In addition, however, it is also possible to draw some conclusions about the history of Seasalter. Apart from the High Constables of the 64 hundreds in Kent, Kilburne (1659, 348) records 15 other officers who had comparable authority. One of these was the constable of Seasalter, whose responsibility extended over the parish of Seasalter. Of these 15 officers, five, including the constable of Seasalter, did not attend the county courts (ibid., 373-76). The status of Seasalter is, therefore, not unique, but it is sufficiently unusual to require an attempt at explanation. We know from the Domesday survey that Seasalter had not been in a hundred since at least the mid eleventh century, and it is likely that the office of constable was, therefore, pre-Conquest in origin. 4 Hasted calls Seasalter a liberty. By this he means an area within which special judicial rights were exercised. In the case of Seasalter these were the rights of the constable, which were unusual because a parish did not normally have a constable ranking as a High Constable (see note 1). This liberty is not to be confused with the 17 liberties of the great landholders of the county, such as those of the Archbishop or the Prior of Christ Church, where certain rights and powers, including the administration of justice, had been delegated to the landholder by the king (Cam 1963b, 184). Some of these liberties had Courts of Record to hear pleas of 'all actions reall, personall and mixt' (Kilburne 1659, 351). All had rights to direct writs of habeas corpus and to issue sheriff's warrants within the bounds of the liberty. The courts of the liberties thus administered justice at a separate level from the county courts. 5 These maps accompany the first edition of Volume iii of Hasted's survey. 242 0 3ml N k)]• 2J􀀆OJ􀀇 .j:::. w Q2Q!? - 9 22Q 999 Woodland(after Hasted) Main road (after Hasted) Alluvium ♦ Graveney boat q 29l 1222q oi􀀌􀀍-9" Q􀀎o QQ2Q -,Q g􀀇'i 0 GO " {J (} Q Q Fig. 1. it St A!phege, Seasalter • All Saints', Whitstable S Seasalter Level 􀀅\_ 􀀄􀀅 ,/l l j qQQ 2 Q9 p East Kent. en tI1 ► en ► t""' >-l tI1 ?? ► .., :;:, 0 ttl t""' tI1 􀀆 j I 􀀇 ttl 0 :;,;:i 0 c::: 􀀈 I Cl ::c - z 0 0 􀀇 tI1 en 0 􀀂J ► ><: :;s: tI1 z >-l 0 //,, London Clay ROBERT BALDWIN f"j h of Harwich 8oroug -- Parish boundary d(after HaSled) _ Roa h f Harw1c • The Boroug o . h· The topography. 244 SEASALTER: A PROBLEM BOROUGH IN DOMESDAY KENT However, though the office persisted, it would seem that the role of the constable had been eroded by 1576 and, unlike most of the constables with whom he ranked, he was not required to attend the county courts. This would suggest that Seasalter had had the relatively unusual status prior to the Norman Conquest to rank with the hundreds of the county. This is likely to have been because it was a borough. Subsequently, the role of its constable was reduced, and this is likely to reflect the fact that Seasalter did not maintain its effective status when a town failed to develop there. It would appear, therefore, that a good case for administrative continuity can be advanced, which at the same time reflects the changing fortunes of Seasalter. However, this says nothing about where the inhabitants of the parish lived. The Domesday borough is likely to have been a centre of population but is synonymous with neither the ecclesiastical and civil judicial area of the parish nor the tenurial area of the manor. Lambarde and Kilburne's 'towne' is not immediately locatable from their texts. The question of settlement within the parish will now be considered. WHITSTAPLE-STREET: THE PROBABLE POPULATION CENTRE OF THE BOROUGH OF SEASALTER The old church of St. Alphege is placed relatively centrally within the parish of Seasalter. So, too, is the church of All Saints in the neighbouring parish of Whitstable to the east.N either church is close to the centre of population in its respective parish, which is found today at the point on the coast where the parishes meet (Figs. 1 and 2). At this point lies the modern town of Whitstable. Hasted (1799, 499-500) remarks that most of the houses in Seasalter Parish in his day were to be found in 'Whitstaple-street', the area centred on the high street of modern Whitstable. In the early sixteenth century, John Leland recorded the only site on the coast between Faversham and Herne Bay as 'Whitstaple ... a great Fisher Towne' (Herne 1744, 134-35). The implication is that Whitstable has been the nucleus of local settlement for a considerable time. If such an assumption is correct, it is surprising because it is not immediately expected given the location of the churches in the neighbourhood. Indeed, one might otherwise anticipate that the parish boundary would divide local communities, but this is clearly not the case at Whitstable. One may ask why a village developed that was clearly so divided by a parish boundary. An answer to this question may exist in the unifying boundary, or rather series of boundaries, that does exist in Whitstable. These 245 ROBERT BALDWIN belong to the strangely shaped Borough of Harwich which is shown on the 25 in. Ordnance Survey map of Whitstable published in 1872. The borough comprises three distinct areas largely orientated on the High Street, described from west to east as 'Borough of Harwich in Northwood Westgate no 9', 'Borough of Harwich in Seasalter' and 'Westgate detached no 8'. Between them, these areas, which comprise the Borough of Harwich, cover the heart of old Whitstable, Hasted's Whitstaple-street (Fig. 2). Some two dozen of the boundary stones of the borough, known locally as 'Donkey Stones', survived in place until the early part of this century. 6 I believe that borough is here used in the sense of ancient borough, but to demonstrate this it is necessary to work backwards through time from the definite information on the Ordnance Survey map of 1872 to less precise records that can be equated with it. These earlier records can be enumerated as follows: 1. Hasted (1799, 500,506, 513-14; 1800, 2) describes Harwich as a borough of three portions. One of these was in the parish of Seasalter; the other two portions were in the parish of Whitstable: one in the Manor of Whitstable, formerly called Northwood, and the other in the Manor of Tankerton. He says that Westgate Hundred (the main body of which was at Canterbury) had within its jurisdiction as an ancient part of it 'the borough of Harwich in Whitstaple'. By this he must mean Harwich in Northwood and Westgate detached no. 8 which is at Tankerton. The description fits the Ordnance Survey boundary in all particulars. 2. The boundary is first found in definite form on a map now in the Kent County Archives at Maidstone (ref. TR 781/2). This map, which I believe was prepared in connection with a dispute over fishery boundaries which can be dated to 1768 (Goodsall 1938, 242), shows clearly the boundaries of Harwich in Seasalter, Harwich in Northwood and part of Westgate detached no. 8. Prior to this date it appears likely that the borough existed in similar form, but there are no maps or detailed descriptions to prove it (Hull and Wallis, 1973). 3. Two indentures in the Kent County Archives (ref. U47/ll T283; U1354 T4), dated 1634 and 1682, refer to land in the Borough of Harwich within the parish of Whitstable. Such a description suggests a need to distinguish in which parish the part of Harwich referred to in the indenture lay. This is consistent with the borough falling into two parishes, which we know was certainly the case by 1768. 4. It has already been noted that Kilburne records a 'towne' of 6 This is the personal recollection of Whitstable resident Mr Wallace Harvey. 246 SEASAL TER: A PROBLEM BOROUGH IN DOMESDAY KENT Seasalter. He makes no mention of a Borough of Harwich, but does record a 'Borough of Tankerton in Whitstaple' (Kilburne 1659, 286, 352). I believe that Kilburne's reference to Tankerton is in fact a record of at least that part of Harwich in Whitstable parish later described as Westgate detached no. 8, and it may be a gloss for both parts. Harwich clearly includes the area now called Tankerton. Also Kilburne's Borough of Tankerton is within the Liberty of the Archbishop;4 I will argue below that from prior to the time of the Domesday survey the parts of Harwich in Whitstable parish were within the archbishop's Manor of Westgate and thus within the Archbishop's Liberty. 5. Lambarde (1576, 30) mirrors Kilburne almost exactly with his reference to the 'towne' of Seasalter but does in addition record the 'Borowe of Harwich' within Westgate Hundred. On the basis of these descriptions, it is clear that, by at least the sixteenth century, the Borough of Harwich was administered in two parts. That part in the Manor of Seasalter was thereby in the Liberty of the Dean and Chapter, and formerly the Prior of Christ Church. As part of the parish of Seasalter, it was not part of any hundred. It can be argued that the two portions of Harwich in Whitstable parish were both formerly included in the Manor of Westgate and this was why they were in the Hundred of Westgate. At some stage, the portions of Harwich in Whitstable parish were taken out of the Manor of Westgate. One portion was added to the neighbouring Manor of Whitstable and the other at Tankerton became a manor in its own right, but both remained within Westgate Hundred for administrative purposes. Why parts of Harwich should have been originally included in the Manor of Westgate, which was at Canterbury, is not immediately clear, but it may be noted that areas physically detached from manors in this way are a common occurrence in Kent. I shall argue below that this division of jurisdiction between the prior and the archbishop dates to before the Domesday survey. Earlier information about Harwich is not so systematic. 6. The distinction between Tankerton and Harwich in Northwood would appear to have existed by the mid fifteenth century. Various wills record bequests to the church of All Saints, Whitstable, the parish church for both these parts of the borough, in order to maintain a candle burning before an image of the Virgin Mary (Hussey 1907, 358-59). It would appear that there was an image maintained by the men of 'Tangerton', which was different from the light of 'Blessed Mary of Herewych'. 7. In court records from 1313-14 it is recorded that the men of Harwich should have provided jurors for the hundred court of 247 ROBERT BALDWIN Westgate (Maitland et al. 1910, 75). On another occasion, the hundred courts of Whitstable and Westgate met to consider a theft in the 'villa de Whitstaple' (ibid., 70). This would indicate that part at least of Harwich was in Westgate Hundred at that date. Prior to this a certain amount of interpretation of the data is required. 8. In lists of holders of knight's fees from the Domesday Book up to 1346, there is a quarter fee listed under the Hundred of 'Stursaete' later called Westgate, which is identified variously as at 'Wic' in 1100 (Douglas 1944, 82), 'Wich' in 1171 (Colvin 1964, 8), 'Wike' in 1210-12 (Hall 1896, 470), 'Wyke' in 1253-54 (Greenstreet 1878, 205) and 'Wick' in 1346 (Du Boulay 1966, 381). It is listed with the archbishop's manors in the Domesday Monachorum of 1100, but explicitly described there within the text as part of the land of the monks of Holy Trinity (i.e. Christ Church). In 1253-54 it is described as held in fee from the prior. If these records all relate to the same land, this would suggest that the monks held Wic on sub-lease from the archbishop for at least part of this time. It is not certain that all these records relate to the same landholding. Moreover, until recently, no attempt had been made even to locate Wic in the Domesday survey (e.g. Morgan 1983, 2.16 notes). Neither the Domesday survey itself, nor especially later records, are a comprehensive list of every piece of land in Kent, and it must be acknowledged that, even if there are names of sites that remain unidentified, there are many more sites that are not specifically recorded and which consequently remain unnamed in any surviving records. Recent work has suggested that the records referred to above relate to the manor later called Moat, which lay in St. Martin's parish to the north east of Canterbury (Sparkes 1980, 22; Sparkes and Tatton-Brown 1987, 202; Tatton-Brown 1988a, 215). A family called de Wyke lived there, apparently until the late fourteenth century, and this fits neatly with some of the recorded tenants, Paganus de Wyke, son of Iva de Wyke in 1171 and 1210-11 and Stephen de Wyke prior to 1346. However, this in itself is not conclusive proof that Wic, or the variant spellings, was Moat. The tenant in 1100 was called Albold, and in 1253-54 it was John le Taillour, neither of whom can be linked explicitly with the de Wykes of Moat. Indeed, the idea of a continuing family connection is difficult to support even in 1346, for the manor was held by the heirs of the joint tenants Stephen de Wyke, John Tauncre and Richard Bett, who had themselves obtained the estate from the heirs of John le Taillour. It is perhaps not surprising that Stephen was surnamed de Wyke if he lived in Wyke, but that is no basis in itself for proposing that Wic 248 SEASALTER: A PROBLEM BOROUGH IN DOMESDAY KENT was Moat. Indeed, Stephen's fellow tenant John Tauncre could equally be taken as an indication that Wic was located at or near Tankerton. If this proposition is followed through, it would be reasonable to see Wic in the Domesday survey as the otherwise unrecorded wic-suffix site of Harwich. Wall en berg ( 1931, 217) finds no mention of the name Harwich in the period between 946 and 1240, when 'Hertwick' appears in an assize roll. The identification of Harwich with Wic helps to fill this hiatus. Harwich, like Wic, was in Westgate Hundred. Moreover, Taylors were important local landowners at Harwich for their arms were displayed in Seasalter church (Hasted 1799, 503). When Hasted was writing, there were no other arms or monuments in the church, and it is possible that John, the tenant in 1253-54, was a member of this family, although the point cannot be proved. If Wic was Harwich it seems probable that the argument can be developed further, and the quarter fee can be identified specifically with the portion of Harwich later known as Harwich in Northwood. In 1242-43 William de Tangrinton, or Tangrenton, held a half fee at 'Tangrenton' (Lyte 1923, 655, 674), which is recorded again in 1253-54 in the same list as Wyke (Greenstreet 1878, 205). This illustrates three points. Firstly, individuals could take their surname from their landholding but further information is required actually to locate that landholding, if the name of the site is not unique. Secondly, the lists of fees are not necessarily complete lists of all fees in Kent for there is no record of Wic or Wyke in 1242-43. Thirdly, Tangrenton or Tankerton and Wyke were different places. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Tangrenton should be identified with the part of Harwich later called Westgate detached no. 8 which encompassed Tankerton. The earliest record of the name, as 'Tangerton', is found in an assize roll of 1240 (Wallen berg 1934, 494) which would suggest that the split of the two parts of Harwich in Whitstable Parish into separate manors, as described by Kilburne in 1659, dates at least to the mid thirteenth century, and could have been earlier. There is no indication precisely when these parts of Harwich ceased to be included in the Manor of Westgate. If the Domesday record of Wic is equated with Harwich, it would appear that this happened after 1100. However, accepting that the identification of Wic with Harwich is not proven, it would still seem that a broadly similar conclusion is likely. It is clear that Tankerton existed as a manor in its own right and that it was no longer part of the Manor of Westgate by c. 1240. Nevertheless, the fact that Tankerton was administratively part of Westgate Hundred is good prima facie evidence that it was once part of the Manor of Westgate. If, as seems 249 ROBERT BALDWIN likely, Whitstable Hundred was created around the time of the Conquest (Jolliffe 1929, 616), it is reasonable to propose that Tankerton was still part of the Manor of Westgate at that time. Otherwise, it is difficult to see why it should not have become part of the new hundred when it was created. It would follow, therefore, regardless of the identification of Wic, that Tankerton ceased to be part of the Manor of Westgate some time between c. 1066 and 1240. Following on from the above, it would appear that for administrative purposes, the Borough of Harwich was split between the Manors of Seasalter and Westgate prior to the time of the Domesday survey. It would also indicate that the reference to the Borough of Seasalter in the Domesday Book should more properly be read as the Borough of Harwich in the Manor of Seasalter, although it does in fact reflect the usage 'Towne of Seasalter' found in both Lambarde and Kilburne, which seems to refer solely to that part of Harwich within Seasalter Parish. For the two detached portions of Westgate Hundred it would appear that the name Harwich could have survived simply because such isolated parts could not be absorbed into the body of the hundred (which was at Canterbury) and thereby lose their identity. The name Harwich as part of Westgate Hundred would thus have survived after it had ceased to have any administrative significance as a name applied to a unified borough. This poses two further questions. The first of these is why Harwich remained in use as a name for part of the parish of Seasalter. The modern map indicates that it was not separate from the rest of the parish though it formed a salient which at first sight does not appear to· be an arbitrary inclusion. The second question is when did Harwich exist as one unified area, since it was apparently divided by the time of the Domesday survey. Both questions will be considered in the following sections. THE GEOGRAPHY OF HARWICH It is crucial to an understanding of the geography of Harwich that one appreciates how the modern coastline in the Whitstable area is largely a human creation. Man has now prevented further erosion of the cliffs through sea defences; the advance of the sea by over a quarter of a mile between 1540 and 1785 at Reculver seven miles to the east (Taylor 1969, 225) and by up to 67 yards at Beltinge some six miles away between 1872 and 1907 (Steers 1981, 75) is indication of how violent attacks by the sea could be. The London Clay cliffs from Seasalter to Reculver have suffered constant erosion (Steers 1964, 250 SEASALTER: A PROBLEM BOROUGH IN DOMESDAY KENT 402), although those at Whitstable have probably suffered less than most. The relatively sheltered position that nourished the local oyster industry must also have helped at least to reduce the damage to the coastline, if not to prevent it altogether. The other aspect of geography to understand is the process of flooding that eventually encouraged embanking and land reclamation from at least the early fourteenth century (Smith 1943, 187-8; Sheppard 1887, 139-41). Subsidence has caused the local land surface of the Roman period to sink by around 15 ft. in the last two millennia (Steers 1964, 400). This resulted in serious flooding beginning to afflict the coastal areas from between 900 and 1000 (Evans 1953, 116-20). The most obvious result was the creation of permanent coastal salt marshes, such as Seasalter Level (Fig. 1) and Whitstable Marsh (Fig. 2). The area of Whitstable Marsh was shown on a geomorphological map of the mid eighteenth century (Packe 1743, 29). This is land marked as 'frequently overflowed at Spring tides' on the fishery dispute map of 1768, though embanked to the seaward side. It was only drained and permanently reclaimed towards the end of the century (Hasted 1799, 505; Harley and O'Donaghue 1975, 7, 37). From this it can be seen that up to the eighteenth century, Harwich on its seaward side lay on the shoreline. It is only subsequent land reclamation that has disturbed this orientation towards the seashore. Another feature that becomes clear once the old coastline is recognised is that Seasalter in Harwich was actually a detached portion of the parish while the marsh existed, for the main parish boundary reaches the seashore at the western edge of Harwich in Northwood. The fact that Seasalter in Harwich was isolated from the rest of the parish could have served to preserve the name in just the same way as it could have preserved the name in the two parts of the borough in Westgate Hundred. The Borough of Harwich ran along the shoreline at Whitstable. An examination of the contours shows that it crosses the mouth of a small valley, with its western and eastern ends on higher ground (Fig. 2). The eastern end, which is Tankerton, was formerly known as Beaconsfield (Hasted 1799, 514), and at least one beacon, part of a system of navigation lights along the Kent coast, is known to have been on this part of the coast from at least the time of Edward Ill (Lightfoot 1872; White 1934, 92). It is possible that there was also a beacon at the western end of the borough. It is known that there was a beacon at Greystone, which was manned by the men of Whitstable in the fourteenth century (Lightfoot 1872). Greystone has not been identified with any certainty, but the location of a beacon there suggests that it was on 251 ROBERT BALDWIN the high ground around Whitstable. It would follow from this that Greystone was either another name for Tankerton or that it was the area later known as Harwich in Northwood. The final point to make in this section concerns the geology of the area. The Ordnance Survey geological map (Sheet 273, 1974), allowing for the coarseness of surface deposit boundaries to which such surveys must be subject, shows a remarkable coincidence between the London Clay across the mouth of the valley at Whitstable and the Borough of Harwich (Fig. 2). The borough lies on the clay. There is a spread of alluvium across the most exposed part of the borough in Westgate detached no. 8, which was protected by the earliest sea wall at Whitstable. This suggests that a natural clay breakwater was breached and the sea wall could be seen as the first artificial attempt to supplement a natural barrier that erosion was beginning to make inadequate. The alluvium extends to outline a shallow, elongated basin landward of Harwich. As recently as 1953, an exceptionally high tide has shown that this area can be awash to a depth of up to 10 ft. when the sea defences are not working effectively (Friends of Canterbury Cathedral 1953, 17). HARWICH AS A PRE-DOMESDAY 'WIC' 'Wic' is a common suffix in Anglo-Saxon place names. Its significance has been discussed at some length, and the connection with trade is now generally accepted (e.g. Biddle 1976, 115, 144 n. 118; Sawyer 1977, 152). Sandwich, Fordwich and Aldwych in London are all examples of such sites in south-east England. If, however, the hypothesis is to be advanced that Harwich was a port of trade, one must ask what evidence will support it. The economic context has been critically examined by Hodges amongst others, and he has shown that from at least the eighth century the Church was heavily involved in both export and import trade (Hodges 1982, 54-6; also Whitelock 1955, 451-3, 487-8), although to what extent this was commercial trade and how much a movement of prestige goods is a matter of debate. It is possible that there were political contacts between Archbishop Jaenberht and Charlemagne in the late 770s or early 780s. In the first half of the following century Archbishops Wulfred and Ceolnoth asserted their political and economic independence by producing a fine coin series of their own, without the head of the king on the obverse (Brooks 1984, 115-16, 132-3). There was substantial growth in trading activity in the tenth 252 SEASAL TER: A PROBLEM BOROUGH IN DOMESDAY KENT century (e.g. Hodges and Whitehouse 1983, 165-8) and from early in this century the king attempted to control it by restricting trade to recognised boroughs (Sawyer 1977, 154). One would thus expect that a tenth-century port of trade would be a borough. The specific involvement of the monks of Christ Church in Continental trade is well attested in the medieval period (Smith 1943, 128-30, 150). Earlier activity can be inferred indirectly, most dramatically by the Graveney boat which was found in the marshes west of Seasalter Level in 1970 (Fig. 1). This was a ship of shallow draft, abandoned around the middle of the tenth century, which had been used for the transport of heavy cargo from the Continent (Fenwick 1978a, xix; Hurst 1978, 125-9; Smith 1978, 131; Fenwick 1978b, 169-76). Graveney was a manor which belonged to the familia of Christ Church from at least 832 (Ward 1934, 127), and there is a strong implication that the Graveney boat transported merchandise to and from the estates of the familia. Harwich would have suited the needs of the familia as a port for Continental trade. As a location it was relatively sheltered. It could be well landmarked by beacon navigation lights on the higher ground at its extremities. It seems to have possessed to the landward side a shallow tidal basin with access to the sea through the gap in the borough boundary between Harwich in Seasalter and Westgate detached no. 8. This basin was protected from the sea by a natural breakwater of London Clay and would have been suitable for use by shallow draft vessels like the Graveney boat. The boundary of Harwich is conspicuously orientated on the high street of Whitstable, which is an extension of the main road to Canterbury, some six miles to the south. In the eighteenth century Whitstable acted as the port of Canterbury and was the major unloading point for coal for the city (Hasted 1799, 507). The value of the sea trade via Whitstable to Canterbury was so great that it encouraged the building of one of the first steam railways in the country, which opened in 1830 (Fellows 1930). It is known that in 1483, stone was shipped from Maidstone to Whitstable and thence by road to Canterbury for the rebuilding of St. George's gate (TattonBrown 1988b, 159), but it is not clear whether this was an unusual event at this date nor indeed what harbour installations existed. Nevertheless, this indicates that even in the medieval period, Whitstable was a viable port for the landing of heavy cargo bound for Canterbury. It is known, too, that the Manor of Whitstable continued to have harbour rights at Greystone into the fourteenth century. In the Eyre of Kent of 1313-14, it is recorded that the tenants of the manor, and their predecessors since time immemorial, had the right to levy a toll 253 ROBERT BALDWIN (theoloneum) on merchandise landed within Greystone (apud la Greyston) in the manor (Bolland 1913, 170). As already discussed, Greystone has not been located with any certainty, but it is likely to have included the higher ground at either extremity of the Borough of Harwich. I would suggest that 'within Greystone' could be interpreted as within the boundary of the borough, for it was still delineated by 'Donkey Stones' (=grey stones?) some 600 years later. It is possible that these harbour rights were largely residual and they may have been of more value in the past than they were to the lord of the manor in 1313. However, the fact that the rights existed is further evidence that there was a harbour of some sort then, and it would seem that this harbour was of considerable antiquity. It is perhaps noteworthy that prior to the recent diversion of the A2, the road from London to Canterbury, following a post-Roman alignment, did not enter the city directly as Roman Watling Street is most likely to have done. Instead, it joined the Whitstable road at right angles by St. Dunstan's Church north of the Westgate (Fig. 1). This would imply that from a very early date the road from Whitstable was more important than that from London and that the Whitstable road remained in use through a period when the course of the Watling Street was lost. Why Harwich should be called the Borough of Seasalter in the Domesday Survey is not immediately obvious. Du Boulay (1966, 17-18) observes that places in Kent were commonly known by different names at different times without the changes having any great apparent significance. It may be in this case that the borough was originally known as a whole as Harwich, but this was not clear to the Domesday Commissioners. They merely recorded the by then unimportant borough under the name of one of the manors in which it lay, that is Seasalter. The borough would have been of little consequence to the survey because there were no complications caused by the presence of burgesses with special rights. It was enough to record the land of the borough under its respective manors, Seasalter and Westgate. I will argue below that the borough is said to belong to the monks because the port of Harwich was primarily theirs. HARWICH: POSSIBLE RECORDED EVIDENCE FOR ITS USE AS A PORT The conclusion that Harwich was a port is based upon a variety of sources. However, with the exception of the name itself, there is no explicit indication that Harwich was a port in the Anglo-Saxon period. Accordingly, it is worth presenting the one contemporary 254 SEASALTER: A PROBLEM BOROUGH IN DOMESDAY KENT account that could be taken as supporting the view that Harwich was a port, at least in the early eleventh century. Alphege, or Aelfheah, was Archbishop of Canterbury at the beginning of the eleventh century. Danish raids had resumed by this time and he was captured in 1011 when Canterbury was sacked by the army of Swein Forkbeard, King of Denmark (Whitelock et al. 1961, 91-2). He was murdered at Greenwich the following year. Alphege was at first buried in St. Paul's London. However, in 1023, Swein's son Cnut, by then King of England, as part of an act of contrition for the murder, had the archbishop's body translated to Canterbury (ibid., 99-100; Wharton 1691, 143-7). The fullest account of the translation is given by Osbern in the near-contemporary Life of Saint Elphege commissioned by Archbishop Lanfranc at the time that the cult was confirmed sometime between 1070 and 1089 (Farmer 1978, 14). Osbern describes how the body was conveyed on the King's own barge across the Thames, and thence via Plumstead to Earthea (or Erith),7 attended by a bodyguard of Housecarles. Much is made of the vast crowds that were attracted to the procession and how it was mobbed by the enthusiastic citizens of Kent. Osbern is silent on how the procession proceeded from Erith, but he says that it arrived at Canterbury on the third day, accompanied by more rapturous crowds. It is possible that Osbern was using potent symbolism to emphasise the sanctity of the new saint whose life he was describing. Contemporaries steeped in the stories of the Bible could have easily recognised the journey lasting three days and ending in triumph (i.e. the return of Alphege as a saint to his own cathedral) as paralleled by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and Osbern does in fact compare it explicitly with the Passion. Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that Osbern would have used a journey time that was patently impossible, since this would have undermined the force of his account. It is possible, therefore, that the journey was staged specifically to take the symbolic three days. But, if we accept that the cortege did reach Canterbury after a journey of three days, it is worth examining how this could have been achieved in practice. Osbern says that the procession reached Erith by road for the first night of the journey. By comparison Chaucer's Canterbury pilgrims are considered to have reached Dartford by the end of their first day on the road (e.g. Ravensdale 1989, 70). Both places are some 15 7 Wallenberg (193i, 17) records the version of the name Earhio from a charter of 960. Earthea can, therefore, be identified with Erith on linguistic grounds as well as on the grounds that it fits with Osbern's account of the journey and there is no other obvious site with which it can be identified. 255 ROBERT BALDWIN miles from Southwark. Although the pilgrims set out at about 4.30 a.m. and were on horseback, the cortege seems to have started later and to have travelled part of the distance by boat. It is probably not unreasonable, therefore, to believe that the cortege did reach Erith by the end of the first day. Chaucer's pilgrims are normally reckoned to have travelled the 55 or so miles to a point close to Canterbury in four days, entering Canterbury itself after a short final ride on the fifth day (Chaucer 1977, 17; Ravensdale 1989, 106 ff.). This represents a journey of between 10 and 15 miles a day. This would have been a good pace over an unmade road for a wheeled vehicle, but if Osbern's dates are to be believed, the bier would have had to travel from Erith at twice the pace of the Canterbury pilgrims. One is forced to the conclusion that this is most unlikely. The fact that the cortege went to Erith may give an explanation of the route actually taken. Erith is not on the main road to Canterbury and would have been a diversion for a procession making its way to Canterbury by road. However, Erith is on the Thames estuary and would have enabled the bier to be embarked to sail down the Kent coast in the course of the second day. Indeed, the name Erith may derive from the Old English words meaning 'earth landing place' (Wallenberg 1931, 17), which could be interpreted as a harbour without wharves where ships were beached, just as it is proposed Harwich would have been. If the cortege embarked at Erith, the first natural landing place for Canterbury would have been Harwich. Such a landfall would then have enabled the bier to be brought to Canterbury easily within the course of the third day. It may also be noted that a sea journey on the second day would explain why Osbern records large numbers of people as attracted to the cortege at the beginning and end of the journey, but he makes no mention of any crowds between Erith and Canterbury. It has to be admitted, however, that it is not clear why the events of the second day are not described at all, although it may be that Osbern would have seen the description of an uneventful sea voyage as unnecessary for the essentially hagiographic nature of his story. Such then is the suggested route for the translation of the body of St. Alphege. It would fit with the account given by Osbern and to that extent may be considered plausible. It is also a local tradition that the body was brought to Seasalter (Lugard 1929, 3). There is, however, a further point that may support the hypothesis. This is the dedication of the church in Seasalter Parish to St. Alphege. There are only five known pre-Reformation dedications to St. Alphege (Arnold-Forster 1899a, 344). The church at Greenwich, 256 SEASALTER: A PROBLEM BOROUGH IN DOMESDAY KENT though demolished and rebuilt in the eighteenth century, is reputed to be on the site of the archbishop's murder (Duncan 1909, 55). St. Alphege, London Wall, also now demolished, was in the City of London where the body of the archbishop remained for 11 years after his death. The church in Canterbury stands at the edge of the cathedral precinct, and as such has an association with the final tomb of the martyr. Nothing is known of the foundation date of the original church at Greenwich (ibid., 54-5). However, the very clear association with the murder site would make it highly likely that the dedication was connected with the canonisation and hence is eleventh century in origin. The church at London Wall is traditionally, but apocryphally believed to have been founded in 1013 (Cater 1922, 180). It is more likely that it was built later in the century, and the advowson is believed to have been in the possession of the Dean and Canons of St. Martin-Le-Grand by 1068. The church at Canterbury has a little Norman work (Parkin 1969, 203). It seems likely the church had predecessors in the vicinity, but the present building appears to have been new in the eleventh century. All three of these churches, therefore, can plausibly be dated in origin to the eleventh century, and have direct associations with the martyrdom of St. Alphege. The parish church at Solihull, in Warwickshire, has no known direct association with the life or death of St. Alphege. The earliest parts of the surviving fabric of the church date to the late twelfth century (Midgley 1965, 223). Henry III granted a fair to Solihull in 1242, commencing on the eve of the feast of St. Alphege (Dugdale 1730, 939). A further loose connection with the saint is established by the granting of the advowson to the Dean of St. Paul's in 1313, but whether there were earlier links with the cathedral is unknown. In any event, the date of the church may suggest that as a dedication Solihull stands apart from the churches at Greenwich, London and Canterbury. It would appear more likely that it derives from the new vogue for the cult of St. Alphege following the death of Thomas Becket. Becket was reputed to have invoked St. Alphege as he was slain, (Douglas et al. 1981, 816, 819; Greenaway 1961, 156) and medieval English calendars indicate that the cult became widespread (Thurston and Leeson 1933, 230). This seems to have had little lasting impact beyond the Reformation and only one later new dedication is recorded up to 1896 (Arnold-Forster 1899b, Appendix I, 3). The antiquity of most dedications to St. Alphege can, therefore, be proposed with some confidence. In this context, how is one to interpret the dedication at Seasalter? 257 ROBERT BALDWIN The old church has fabric dating from probably at least the later eleventh century, and Domesday Book records a church there. If this puts the church into the same class as Greenwich, London and Canterbury, it is not unreasonable to ask whether there was also a direct connection with the saint as with these other three. The direct connection with St. Alphege could come from Seasalter being the landing point on the second night of the journey of the saint's cortege from London to Canterbury. The dedication is, of course, not proof of this, but it is at least suggestive. Osbern was writing some two generations after the events he was describing. It is not clear why he made no reference to the course of the journey on the second day. However, given the time-scale for the journey of the cortege that he presents, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that indirectly this is the closest contemporary evidence that Harwich was a port for Canterbury until at least 1023. HARWICH: A POSSIBLE CHRONOLOGY FOR ITS USE AS A PORT Political and trading contacts between Kent and the Continent are demonstrable from the later sixth century (e.g. Hodges 1982, 34-6). The Whitstable area is linked with this very early activity by single coins found at Tankerton and Swalecliffe (Rigold 1975, 660, 671), but such scant data are insufficient to allow the formulation of adequate hypotheses about Harwich at this period. The first charter reference to Harwich, where the name appears in the form 'Herewic' (Wallenberg 1931, 217), is found in a grant of saltworks by King Aethelberht to the thegn Aethelred in 863 (BCS 507). Saltworks were again mentioned in a grant of land at 'Herepit' (interpreted by Wallenberg as a scribal error for Herewic) by King Eadred to his minister Heresige in 946 (BCS 874b/1345). In neither charter is Christ Church mentioned, nor is there any suggestion that the site was a port. However, it is clearly possible that the saltworks mentioned were at the site of Harwich; one may add that land in the gift of the king was often subject to considerable movement between landholders and the Crown, nor do these recorded grants preclude other land at Harwich also belonging to the familia of Christ Church at this time. It is probably significant that although Heresige received Herepit (or Herewic) as part of an estate at Swalecliffe, Swalecliffe was passed on to St. Augustine's Abbey three years later without Herewic explicitly included (Hardwick 1858, 20). Since Swalecliffe was a manor of St. Augustine's in the Domesday Book and both Wic and Seasalter are ascribed to Christ Church or the archbishop, the 258 SEASALTER: A PROBLEM BOROUGH IN DOMESDAY KENT implication is that Heresige's land at Harwich did not pass to St. Augustine's; a change of ownership from St. Augustine's to Christ Church between 949 and 1066, while possible, seems unnecessarily complicated as a working hypothesis. The known holders of land at Harwich show that the familia did not have an exclusive interest in the borough. Whether or not Wic was Harwich, the inclusion of parts of the borough in Westgate Hundred would suggest that these were part of the archbishop's Manor of Westgate from an early date. The allocation of the borough at Seasalter to the monks in the Domesday survey suggests that Harwich was a port operated principally by the familia but would not rule out the archbishop possessing rights there, too. It is possible that the harbour rights at Greystone (which seems to have been part of Harwich), possessed by the archbishop's Manor of Whitstable in 1313-14 since time immemorial, were a survival of his interest in the port at Harwich. This division of rights between the monks and archbishop is not unreasonable given the way that the estates of the archbishop and the familia were administered jointly up to the end of the eleventh century and that other Kentish boroughs similarly show varying degrees of multiple holding. But how or when the monks and archbishop acquired whatever interest they had in Harwich is simply not known. For a working hypothesis I would suggest that by the early ninth century the separate foundation that had been established for the familia of Christ Church would have encouraged the need, and the growth of the political power of the Church would have encouraged the desire, for a port to gain access to the markets of the Continent for both export and import purposes. The archbishop, too, would have been concerned to develop his status as a local 'baron' in the same way. Harwich was eminently suited as a harbour for the shallow-draft vessels then in use and was established as a port of trade by at least 863 when it is first recorded. Edward the Elder's law on trade in boroughs would have led to the acquisition of borough status for the wic early in the tenth century. At this time the borough would have been an administrative island of importance on this part of the coast. This is reflected in its legal independence down to modern times. If Harwich was a borough by the early tenth century, as an administrative unit it would have predated the creation of hundreds within the county. The county was originally divided into lathes, which are the Kentish equivalent of shires. It may be noted that where the Domesday Book normally records a site as part of a particular hundred, it lists Seasalter Borough, which I have argued is only one 259 ROBERT BALDWIN part of the whole borough, as part of Borowart Lathe as if this was the original administrative hierarchy. This might suggest that the familia was the first to create a wic, which was established on its land at Seasalter. Subsequently, the archbishop added land, but this was part of his Manor of Westgate and was kept administratively separate within Westgate Hundred. The presence of these two administered areas could have retarded the creation of Whitstable Hundred. This hundred is dated later in origin than most hundreds in the county and it was probably new at the time of the Domesday survey (Jolliffe 1929, 616). Following the above argument the borough could also have determined the location of the Seasalter and Whitstable parish boundaries which probably date from the mid tenth century (Addleshaw 1970; Rogers 1972, 47). It would appear that as a rule, the parish boundaries of southern England were influenced by existing property boundaries because of the tithe laws of Edmund and Edgar between 939 and 970 (Redlich and Hirst 1903, 31). The strong correlation with the parish boundary is the strongest evidence for the antiquity of the borough boundary that survived into the nineteenth century. By the end of the tenth century, four factors are likely to have combined to have begun to make Harwich a less attractive site as a port for the familia. The first of these was the advance of shipbuilding technology which created larger, deeper draft vessels that required quays at which to moor. The old style harbour where ships were beached became obsolete for regular trading purposes, and a number of pairs of sites are cited by Hodges (1982, 94--8) where such a shallow harbour was abandoned for a nearby site with wharves at this time. Examples of these are Hamwih abandoned for Southampton, and on the Continent Hedeby which was replaced by Schleswig. Increasing inundation of the north Kent coast at this time would have added to a decline in the popularity of the borough as a port in regular use. Flooding and the creation of marshes could have discouraged the development of new port facilities for the new type of ship, if indeed it was even technically possible to build a new port there under the prevailing conditions. The third factor was the resumption of Danish raids. These recommenced in 980 after a lull since early in the century. Thanet, amongst other places, was ravaged in that year and harrying of the coast is reported in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle periodically thereafter (Whitelock et al., 1961, 82 ff.). Harwich is a particularly exposed site, not susceptible to easy defence. It could thus have presented the familia with the problem of how it was to maintain its links with the Continent in relative safety. 260 SEASALTER: A PROBLEM BOROUGH IN DOMESDAY KENT Ultimately Sandwich became the main port of the familia, but when it first gained an interest there is not clear. There is a charter of 959-75 recording a grant by King Edgar, but this is now believed to be a later forgery (Brooks 1984, 293). It seems likely that the first grant was made by Cnut around 1023 (ibid., 292-4). It soon became one of the major cross-Channel ports, and was clearly a success as a town, gaining a mint before the Conquest and expanding rapidly during the medieval period (Tatton-Brown 1982, 80). With the grant of Sandwich by Cnut, Harwich would have had little to recommend it as a port, and it may soon have gone out of regular use. In such circumstances the borough status of Harwich could have persisted but the actual administration would have remained firmly with the Manors of Seasalter and Westgate of which it was part, and the borough remained split between the estates of the monks and archbishop. The absence of an active port would have discouraged burgesses, who were primarily concerned with trade, and without burgesses to promote the rights of the borough, it did not develop as an independent town. This was the situation recorded by the Domesday survey in 1086. CONCLUSION The Domesday borough at Seasalter is thus presented as part of a ninth- and tenth-century port of trade or wic, which belonged to the familia of Christ Church and the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is proposed that the borough as a whole is synonymous with the recorded Borough of Harwich and that it was consequently located on the site of modern Whitstable. Various factors combined in the early to mid eleventh century to cause the borough to be superseded as a port by Sandwich, so that by the time of the Domesday survey the site was still administratively distinguished but in practical terms no more than a village. There was no impetus for it to develop as a medieval town, and the simple pre-Conquest land division of the borough between the two Manors of Seasalter and Westgate persisted in essence into the nineteenth century. The above hypothesis is advanced as a working model. Its aim is to examine a known problem presented by the Domesday survey and to attempt an explanation of that problem based on available data. It is acknowledged that the archaeological evidence is lacking to support the hypothesis, but given the lack of excavation at Whitstable itself this omission is inevitable. I would hope that this paper may in the future encourage field work at Whitstable and could aid the formulation of a problem-orientated excavation project. 261 ROBERT BALDWIN This current work is based principally upon published data. Much of this information is, I believe, brought together for the first time, and I have sought to draw reasonable conclusions from it. In this way, I trust that it may serve as a further contribution to the continuing debate on the precise nature of Domesday Seasalter. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to Tim Tatton-Brown and to Professor Nicholas Brooks for their helpful comments upon an earlier draft of this paper, and to Simon May for his comments on some of the Latin. I should also like to thank Ken Reedie, Curator of the Royal Museum, Canterbury, without whose assistance this paper would never have been started, and my wife Diana without whom it would never have been completed. Unless otherwise attributed, the conclusions reached in this paper are my own. REFERENCES Anglo-Saxon charters are cited by reference to numbers in Birch (1885). Domesday Book is cited by reference to folios in the facsimile edition by Larking (1869). Addleshaw, G.W.O. Arnold-Forster, F. Ballard, A. Biddle, M. (Ed.) Birch, W. de G. (Ed.) Bolland, W.C. Brooks, N. Cam, H.M. 1970 1899a 1899b 1904 1976 1885 1913 1984 1963a 1963b The development of the parochial system from Charlemagne (768-814) to Urban II (1088-1099), 2nd edn. (York: St. Anthony's Hall Pub!. 6). Studies in church dedications or England's patron saints, i (London). Ibid., iii. The Domesday borough (Oxford). 'Towns' in (Ed.) D.M. Wilson, The archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England (Cambridge), 99-150. Cartularium Saxonicum. A collection of charters relating to Anglo-Saxon history, i (London). The Eyre of Kent 6 & 7 Edward II AD1313-1314 iii (London: Seldon Soc. Pub!. 29). The early history of the church of Canterbury (Leicester). 'Early groups of hundreds' (reprinted from 'Historical essays in honour of James Tait') in Liberties and communities in Medieval England (London), 91-105. 'The King's government, as administered by the greater Abbots of East Anglia' (reprinted from 'Comm. Cambridge Antiq. Soc.' xxix) in ibid., 183-204. 262 SEASALTER: A PROBLEM BOROUGH IN DOMESDAY KENT Campbell, E.M.J. Cater, W.A. Chaucer, G. (Ed.) Douglas, D.C. (Eds.) Douglas, D.C. and Greenaway, G. W. Du Boulay, F.R.H. Dugdale, W. Duncan, L.L. Elton, C.I. Evans, J.H. Farmer, D.H. Fellows, R.B. (Ed.) Fenwick, V. Friends of Canterbury Cathedral Gem, R. Goodsall, R.H. (Ed.) Greenaway, G. Greenstreet, J. (Ed.) Hall H. (Ed.) Hardwick, C. 1963c 1962 1922 1977 1944 1981 1966 1730 1909 1867 1953 1978 1930 1978a 1978b 1953 1987 1938 1961 1878 1896 1858 The hundred and the hundred rolls (London). 'Kent' in (Eds.) H.C. Darby and E.M.J. Campbell. The Domesday geography of south-east England (Cambridge), 483-562. 'The date of the foundation of the church of St. Alphege, London Wall', Trans. London and Middlesex Archaeol. Soc., ns iv pt. v, 179-80. The Canterbury tales, trans. N. Coghill, revised edn. (Harmondsworth). The Domesday Monachorum of Christ Church, Canterbury (London). English historical documents, ii 2nd edn. (London). The lordship of Canterbury. An essay on Medieval society (London). The antiquities of Warwickshire (London). 'The church of St. Alfege, Greenwich, from early times to the year 1710', Trans. Greenwich Antiq. Soc., i, pt. ii, 54-60. The tenures of Kent (London). 'Archaeological horizons in the north Kent marshes', Arch. Cant. !xvi (1953), 103-46. The Oxford dictionary of saints (Oxford). History of the Canterbury and Whitstable railway (Canterbury). The Graveney boat (BAR, Oxford 53). 'Structural evidence for the origin of the ship and comparison with other early north European ship finds' in Fenwick 1978a, 193-264. 26th annual report (Canterbury). 'Canterbury and the cushion capital' in (Ed.) N. Stratford, Romanesque and gothic: Essays for George Zarnecki (Woodbridge) 83-101. Whitstable, Seasalter and Swalecliffe. The history of three Kent parishes (Canterbury). The life and death of Thomas Becket, Chancellor of England and Archbishop of Canterbury, based on the account of William fitzStephen (London). 'Holders of knight's fees in Kent at the knighting of the King's son, anno 38 Henry III (1253-4)', Arch. Cant., xii (1878), 197-237. The red book of the exchequer ii (London: Rolls ser.). Historia monasterii S. Augustini Cantuariensis by Thomas of Elmham (London: Rolls ser.). 263 Harley, J.B. and O'Donaghue, Y. Hasted, E. (Ed.) Hearne, T. Hodges, R. Hodges, R. and Whitehouse, D. (Eds.) Hull, F. and Wallis, H.M. Hurst, J.G. (Ed.) Hussey, A. Jolliffe, J.E.A. Kilburne, R. Lambarde, W. (Ed.) Larking, L. Lightfoot, W .J. Lugard, C.E. Lyte, H.C.M. Maitland, F.W. (Eds.) Maitland, F.W., Harcourt, L.M.V. and Bolland, W.C. (Ed.) Mawer, A. Midgley, M.M. (Ed.) Morgan, P. Packe, C. ROBERT BALDWIN 1975 1798 1799 1800 1744 1982 1983 1973 1978 1907 1929 1659 1576 1869 1872 1929 1923 1898 1910 1924 1965 1983 1743 The old series Ordnance Survey maps of England and Wales, scale: I inch to I mile. A reproduction of the 110 sheets of the survey in early state, i (Lympne). The history and topographical survey of the county of Kent, vii 2nd edn. (Canterbury; reprinted Wakefield 1972). Ibid., viii. Ibid., ix. The itinerary of John Leland the Antiquary, vii, 2nd edn. (Oxford). Dark-age economics. The origins of towns and trade AD 600-1000 (London). Mohammed, Charlemagne and the origins of Europe. Archaeology and the Pirenne thesis (London). Catalogue of estate maps 1590-1840 in the Kent County Archives Office (Maidstone). 'The imported pot' in Fenwick 1978a, 125-9. Testamenta Cantiana. A series of extracts from fifteenth and sixteenth century wills relating to church building and topography. East Kent (London). The hidation of Kent', Engl. Hist. Rev., xliv (1929), 612-18. A topographie or survey of the county of Kent, (London). A perambulation of Kent (London; reprinted Bath 1970). The Domesday of Kent (London). 'Documents relating to a dispute between the seven hundreds at Lydd concerning the watch at Denge marsh', Arch. Cant., viii (1872), 299-310. Seasalter. Borough, manor and parish (Whitstable). Uber feodorum. The book of fees commonly called Testa de Nevill, ii (London). Township and borough (Cambridge). Year books of Edward II vol V. The Eyre of Kent, 6 and 7 Edward II AD 1313--1314 i (London: Seldon Soc. Pub!., 24). The chief elements used in English place names (Cambridge: Engl. Place-Name Soc., i, pt. ii). The Victoria history of the county of Warwick, iv (London). Domesday Book, Kent (Chichester). Ankographia sive convallium descriptio or an explanation of the plan of a new philosophico-chorographical chart of EastKent (Canterbury). 264 SEASALTER: A PROBLEM BOROUGH IN DOMESDAY KENT Parkin, E.W. 1965 Ravensdale, J. 1989 Redlich, J. and Hirst, F.W. 1903 Rigold, S.E. 1975 Robinson, J.A. 1926 Rogers, A. 1972 (Ed.) Rule, M. 1884 Sawyer, P.H. 1977 (Ed.) Sheppard, J.B. 1887 Smith, D. 1978 Smith, R.A.L. 1943 Sparks, M. 1980 Sparks, M. and 1987 Tatton-Brown, T. Steers, J.A. 1964 1981 Tait, J. 1936 Tatton-Brown, T. 1982 1984 1988a 1988b 'The old rectory of St. Alphege, Canterbury', Arch. Cant., lxxxiv, (1965), 201-10. In the steps of Chaucer's pilgrims (London). Local government in England, i (reissued as 'The history of local government in England', (Ed.) B. Keith-Lucas 1958) (London). 'The Sutton Hoo coins in the light of the contemporary background of coinage in England' in (Ed.) R. Bruce-Mitford The Sutton Hoo ship burial, i (London) 653-77. 'The early community at Christ Church, Canterbury', J. Theo/. Stud., xxvii ( 1926), 225-40. 'Parish boundaries and urban history', J.B.A.A., 3 ser., xxxv, (1972), 46-64. Eadmeri historia novarum in Anglia (London: Rolls ser.). 'Kings and merchants' in (Eds.) P.H. Sawyer and I.N. Wood, Early Medieval kingship, (Leeds) 139-58. Literae Cantuarienses, i (London: Rolls ser.). 'The lava querns' in Fenwick 1978a, 131-2. Canterbury Cathedral Priory. A study in monastic administration (Cambridge). 'The medieval pattern' in (Ed.) M. Sparks, The Parish of St. Martin and St. Paul, Canterbury (Canterbury) 21-7. 'The history of the ville of St. Martin's, Canterbury', in J. Rady, 'Excavations at St. Martin's Hill, Canterbury, 1984-85', Arch. Cant., civ (1987), 200-12. The coastline of England and Wales (Cambridge). Coastal features of England and Wales (Cambridge). The medieval English borough (Manchester). 'Canterbury and the Early Medieval towns of Kent' in (Ed.), P.E. Leach, Archaeology in Kent to AD 1500 (London, CBA Res. Rep. no. 48) 79-83. 'The towns of Kent' in (Ed.) J. Haslam, Anglo-Saxon towns in southern England, (Chichester) 1-36. 'The Anglo-Saxon towns of Kent' in (Ed.) D. Hooke, Anglo-Saxon settlements, (Oxford) 213-32. 'St. George's Gate 1988: Documentary evidence' Arch. Cant., cvi (1988), 156-61. 265 Taylor, H.M. Thompson, M.V. (Eds.) Thurston, H. and Leeson, N. Wallenberg, J.K. Ward, G. Webb, S. and Webb, B. Wharton, H. White, H.T. (Eds.) Whitelock, D., Douglas, D.C. and Tucker, S.I. ROBERT BALDWIN 1969 1956 1933 1931 1934 1934 1944 1963a 1963b 1691 1934 1961 'Reculver church', Arch. Journ., cxxvi (1969), 225-7. 'A group of mounds on Seasalter Level near Whitstable and the medieval imbanking in this area', Arch. Cant., Ixx (1956), 44--67. The lives of the saints, iv (London). Kentish place names (Uppsala). The place names of Kent (Uppsala) 'The topography of some Saxon charters relating to the Faversham district', Arch. Cant., xlvi (1934), 123-36. 'The origins of Whitstable', Arch. Cant., )vii (1944), 51-5. The parish and the county. English local government, i (London). The manor and the borough. English local government, iii (London). 'Osberni historia de translatione corporis S. Elphegi', A nglia Sacra, ii (London). 'The beacon system of Kent', Arch. Cant., xlvi (1934), 77-96. The Anglo-Saxon chronicle: A revised translation (London). APPENDIX i. Extract from the Domesday Book (fol 5 rect 1) 'In eod(em] Borowart Lest iacet parvu[m] burgu[m] no(min]e Seseltre q(uo]d p[ro]prie p(er]tin(et] coq[u]inae archiepi[scopi]. Quida(m] no[min]e Blize ten[et] de monachis. In d[omi]nio e[st] una car(ruca] et XLVIII bord[arii] cu[m] I car[ruca]. Ibi aeccl(esi]a et VIII piscariae cu[m] gablo de XXV sol(idis]. Silva X porc[is]. T(empore] R[egis] E(dwardi] et post valuit XXV sol(idos] et m(od]o C sol[idos].' ii. Extract from the Domesday Monachorum (Douglas 1944, 90) 'De Saesaltre 'Saesealtre est burgus monachorum et de cibo et proprie de coquina eorum. Et Blittaere tenet illud de monachis. Ibique est terra duarum carrucarum et est appretiatum C solidis. Hoe manerium in nullo hundret est.' 266 SEASALTER: A PROBLEM BOROUGH IN DOMESDAY KENT iii. Extract from the Domesday Monachorum (ibid., 81-2) 'De maneriis archiepiscopatus 'De Stursaete 'Stursaete est manerium archiepiscopi et in tempore Eadwardi regis se defendebat pro VII sulinges et nunc similiter et est appretiatum hoe quod est in dominio XL libros ... Albold vero tenet de supradictis sullinc unum iugum Wic et est de terra monachorum sanctae trinitatis quod est appretiatum XXX solidos ... ' 267