Further Investigation of Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Eastry

Further Investigation of Anglo-Saxon and Medieval eastry

keith parfitt and sheila sweetinburgh

Located at the end of a ridge of chalk not far inland from the medieval Cinque Port of Sandwich, Eastry is widely acknowledged as having considerable archaeological potential. The settlement was an important one during medieval times (see below) but its origins lie in the Anglo-Saxon period. The place name evidence indicates that in this area once existed an Anglo-Saxon royal centre, the villa regalis of the eastern region of the Kentish kingdom. Precisely why this particular spot should have been chosen for such a high status settlement is not entirely clear, although the fact that it lay adjacent to the main Richborough to Dover Roman road (Margary 1967, Route 100) must be a significant detail. The discovery of no less than four early Anglo-Saxon cemetery sites around the present village (Richardson 2005, Cemeteries I-IV) clearly implies that a sizeable community was living in the area from the late fifth century. To the east, Eastry overlooks a small stream which would have originally fed into the southern section of the Wantsum Channel – that broad waterway once separating the Isle of Thanet from mainland Kent. In the past, local historians have envisaged that it was this local watercourse, forming an inlet off the main Wantsum, which first brought Anglo-Saxon colonists to the place as they sailed into the Channel and found a sheltered landing-place at the head of the creek.

Searching for Anglo-Saxon Eastry

In an important paper, now written 30 years ago, the late Sonia Hawkes set out a detailed consideration of the significance of Eastry during the early Anglo-Saxon period (Hawkes 1979). From her knowledge of the topography of the Wantsum, however, she could not accept that any Anglo-Saxon invader had ever arrived here in a long-ship, only conceding that ‘boats of shallow draught may even have been able to pull into the creek below …’ (Hawkes 1979, 96). Continuing research makes even this suggestion unlikely and it now seems highly improbable that the southern-most part of the Wantsum could ever have been open to any vessel during the Anglo-Saxon period because marsh formation would have been far too well advanced by this time (LVRG 2006). Nevertheless, Eastry certainly was of considerable significance during the Anglo-Saxon period and Hawkes’ study specifically highlighted the likely existence of an Anglo-Saxon royal ‘palace’ somewhere in the immediate area of the village, quite possibly on or near the site of the later medieval manor house (Eastry Court) adjacent to parish church.

Since Hawkes’ study there have been a number of excavations aimed at locating direct physical evidence for Anglo-Saxon occupation at Eastry. The first of these was the trenching undertaken by C.J. Arnold in 1980 on a site near the manor house (Arnold 1982). Channel 4’s Time Team carried out further investigations in this area during 2005 and a larger excavation was conducted immediately adjacent to Eastry Court by the Dover Archaeological Group in 2007-8. Other excavations have been undertaken further west, adjacent to the line of the Roman road, which is represented by the present High Street though the village (Parfitt 1999). In all this work, however, no clear evidence for a palace or any other form of early Anglo-Saxon habitation has been identified, even though several important new graves of the period have been discovered (Richardson 2005).

The most extensive excavation so far undertaken in Eastry village is that conducted by the Canterbury Archaeological Trust off the western side of the High Street in 2000. This is the main subject of the present report. Work ahead of the construction of new houses (now Eastry Mews) to the rear of Nos. 7, 8 and 9 High Street allowed the detailed investigation of a substantial block of ground here. A sequence of ditches, gullies and pits, mainly dating to the medieval and post-medieval periods was revealed (Parfitt 2000; 2001). The excavation has provided significant new information about the historic topography of Eastry but it would seem that the investigated site had always lain at some distance from the main habitation areas. The only possible evidence for Anglo-Saxon activity was a single gully, probably representing a field boundary or enclosure of some kind.

a brief history of medieval eastry by Sheila Sweetinburgh

Situated in the rich agricultural region of east Kent, the village of Eastry has for centuries provided a focus for the scattered farmsteads and yeoman families. The origins of this may lie with its role as an estate and administrative centre in the early Anglo-Saxon period, the Kentish kings seeing the advantages of continuity in terms of settlement and roads from the Roman period (Everitt 1986, 10, 103). In addition, following the adoption of Christianity and the church’s subsequent need to establish the parish system, the parish church at Eastry functioned as a mother church with several daughter chapels (Everitt 1986, 194-5, 220). Yet in consideration of the manorial system, the manor of Eastry extended far beyond the boundaries of the village, a situation that is extremely common in Kent but unlike many of the Midland counties where parish and manor correspond closely.

By the time of the Conquest the manor of Eastry had been in the hands of Christ Church priory for almost a century, the monks having received it from King Ethelred in 979 for the maintenance of the monastic kitchen (Hasted 1800, 103; Shaw 1825, 8). From the beginning it was a valuable acquisition providing the monks with both arable and pastureland, as well as other assets like a mill, three salt pits and woodland for the pannage of ten hogs (Morgan 1983, 3-17). The manorial lands were scattered over a wide area but the home farm, which formed part of the Eastry sulung, comprised a number of fields on either side of the main street, and close to the church (O’Grady 1981, 105). Also close to the church was the court-lodge, Eastry Court, where the manor court was held. There were a number of freehold tenements at Eastry but most of the local peasantry had customary land which meant they were required to perform customary services for the priory, though the amount required was relatively light compared to Midland manors for the same period (Smith 1943, 121). In particular the priory seems to have exacted carrying services, and in some instances peasants were paid for carrying extra loads to Canterbury. Boon-work at harvest was the other major service demanded whereas services like ploughing, and washing and shearing sheep were more likely to be commuted to cash payments (Smith 1943, 122-3). In these cases the work was done by the famuli, who were either paid at a yearly rate or, for example, in the case of the sower from Michaelmas to Pentecost (O’Grady 1981, 281).

By employing a regular labour force the priory was probably able to manage the farming of the demesne land more effectively, and as a result Eastry was a valuable contributor to the manorial economy. The priory had adopted a mixed farming policy at Eastry, the main crops were wheat and spring barley because of the high fertility of the soil, though a small acreage was sown with legumes (O’Grady 1981, 133, 137, 152). The fertility was maintained through generous manuring, the manor had common pastures with Lydden on which very large numbers of sheep were kept, and it also had a dairy for the production of cheese in particular. Although much of this food was consumed at Canterbury by the monks, the monk wardens were allowed to sell the produce from their manors and at Eastry the relatively high yields provided the monk warden with the opportunity to take advantage of the local markets. Interestingly, it was not until Henry VI’s reign in 1447 that Eastry was granted royal permission to hold a market and fair, the fair being held annually on the feast day of St Matthew the Apostle and Evangelist (Hasted 1800, 103. http://www.ihrinfo.ac.uk/cmh/gaz/gazweb1.html citing Calendar Charter Rolls, 1427-1516, p. 79).

The manor of Eastry, and later the market and fair, were not the only sources of revenue for the priory because the Christ Church almonry received rents from what was effectively a mini-manor, that is from its tenants holding houses and land in the Street (Eastry Street and Church Street) almost as far as Little Walton; and also the rents from houses built on the waste in Reaper’s Row or the Fair Field, and from a small area of land near Brook Street (O’Grady 1981, 27). The church of Eastry with its daughter chapels were similarly under the jurisdiction of the almoner from the late twelfth century, but the grant was later disputed by Archbishop Baldwin, who revoked his predecessor’s actions. As a consequence the rectory was in the hands of the see until Archbishop Islip, with the king’s consent, restored the grant and in return the archbishop received the advowson of three London churches from the priory. The manors and advowson were still under the control of Christ Church at the Reformation, and were afterwards transferred to the Dean and Chapter by the crown (Hasted 1800, 104, 118-9).

Thus for many of Eastry’s inhabitants their fortune during the Middle Ages was heavily dependant on the priory, whether as tenants, employees or tithe payers. Moreover, Eastry Court was an important priory residence which was used by the monks and the prior’s guests, including the king, members of the court, the archbishop or his staff, who might be travelling to and from London and the Channel ports (TNA: E36/204, pp. 58-62; reference kindly provided by Dr Michael Baron: Woodruff 1940, 7-8). The provision of hospitality for these dignitaries presumably provided work for the local populace, particularly those engaged in the food trades, and also those with building skills, carpenters, tilers, masons, who would have worked on the various construction projects. Such works included Henry of Eastry’s restoration of the manor house chapel and the later addition of a dormitory during the fifteenth century when William Sellyng was prior (Hussey 1911, 234; Hasted 1800, 118). The parish church similarly reflected the close association between Christ Church and Eastry, the elaborate choir stalls in the chancel were for the exclusive use of the monks and other religious persons who might be staying at Eastry Court (Hasted 1800, 117).

Although much of the medieval fabric remains in the church, the fifteenth and early sixteenth century testamentary evidence does provide further details. There were lights, and presumably images, dedicated to Our Lady, St John the Baptist, St Margaret and St Anthony, a Trinity chapel and a chapel dedicated to Our Lady, though there seems to be some confusion as to its site. Most testators stated that it was in the church whereas John Pysyng and William Andrewe said it was in the churchyard (Centre for Kentish Studies [CKS]: PRC 32/5/6; 32/9/85). The more prosperous frequently sought masses to be said or sung for them at the church and these men were more likely to seek burial in the church rather than in the churchyard, like William Oare who in 1541 intended he should be buried in the ‘ally’ of Eastry church next to his parents (CKS: PRC 32/20/45). Of the other church fabric the belfry and bells received the greatest number of bequests but certain individuals favoured other items of church furniture. For instance William Sutton in 1464 left ten marks for a chalice, John Core intended 6s. 8d. should be used to buy a processional book, and two years later in 1494 William Frend bequeathed a cloth for the processional cross (CKS: PRC 32/2/153; 32/3/314; 32/4/15). Others were concerned about the state of the rodeloft; John Whytefeld in 1513, two years after Archbishop Warham’s visitation, had highlighted its poor condition, bequeathed 20s. towards the new rodeloft; and almost twenty years later John Oare left the considerable sum of £6 13s. 4d. towards its maintenance (CKS: PRC 32/12/32; 32/15/182. Shaw 1825, 20-1). John Oare was also an important benefactor of the Jesus mass at Eastry because he bequeathed two kine for the maintenance of the mass there and he intended that a priest should celebrate for his soul at the altar where the Jesus mass was celebrated for a year, the priest to receive £6 13s. 4d. For the vast majority of these testators, and presumably their neighbours, Eastry parish church was the focal point of their pious devotion, though those with interests elsewhere, for example William Paramore who held land in Ash and Eastry, did remember other local churches (CKS: PRC 32/15/152). The only known post-mortem benefactor of Christ Church was Peter Darby, which may be suggestive of local attitudes regarding their ecclesiastical landlord, but such support for religious houses in east Kent was generally very limited by the late Middle Ages (CKS: PRC 32/4/143).

Most of these testators appear to have been engaged in agriculture to a greater or lesser extent, and though some were prosperous yeomen farmers, for instance William Oare who held land in Eastry, Woodnesborough, Worth, Sholden and Deal, others were relatively poor having a few animals on a small acreage. The proximity of Sandwich was a significant factor and there is evidence of men from the town holding land in Eastry and vice versa from at least the thirteenth century and probably from much earlier (Greenstreet 1877, 328, 353). Such evidence suggests that the people of Eastry were part of a complex network of connections based on family, marriage, occupation, trade, friendship and neighbourhood. For some families, like the Paramores, Oares, Botelers and Fryndes, the changing economic and social conditions of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries offered considerable opportunities, with the result that rural Kentish society became more stratified due to the growth of such yeoman and gentry families.

the high street site

The site excavated in 2000 lies close to the heart of the historic village on the western side of the High Street, about 175m west of the parish church (Fig. 1). (NGR TR 3091 5476, centred.) The area investigated measured a maximum of 60m (n-s) by 34m (e-w) and lay across derelict gardens to the rear of eighteenth/nineteenth-century properties fronting onto the High Street. The surface of the land here slopes gently down to the east and stands at an elevation of between 28 and 26.50m above od.

Following three initial evaluation trenches, an area excavation covering some 380m² was opened up (Fig. 2). Twenty features of archaeological interest were revealed. These included pits, post-holes, ditches and gullies and the pottery evidence suggests that they range in date from the Anglo-Saxon to later post-medieval periods, although a number are undated. Two struck flints and a flint-tempered pot-sherd indicate small-scale prehistoric activity in the area.

The ‘natural’ across the site was found to consist of flinty clay [Contexts 3, 20 and 29], resting upon weathered chalk [30]. The top of the clay lay at a depth of between 0.40 and 0.75m below present ground level (Figs 3 and 4) and most of the archaeological features located were dug into this. They were sealed by a thin sub-soil layer of orange-brown silty clay [Contexts 2, 16 and 19], which had subsequently been cut by a number of late features (see below).

The stratigraphic and pottery dating evidence have been combined to provide a phased sequence for the excavated remains (Periods 1-5; Fig 2, inset), although there is insufficient data to allow this phasing to be anything more than tentative. Only a small quantity of pottery was recovered from the excavations. Much of this appears to be residual, so that the precise date of many features cannot be certain. More than half the pottery recovered was contained within a large enclosure ditch assigned to Period 4.

Period 1, Prehistoric Activity: two prehistoric struck flints, including a finely worked scraper, together with five calcined flints were recovered as residual material from several features and deposits across the site. No certainly contemporary features were identified but the material is clearly suggestive of at least casual prehistoric activity in the area. A quantity of struck flints was also recovered during earlier trenching at No. 4 High Street, nearby (Parfitt 1992, 4).

A single piece of flint-tempered pottery datable to the late Bronze Age or Iron Age period was recovered from gully F. 13 (see below). This must be residual in its excavated context but serves to indicate that there was also some later prehistoric activity in the region. Previous work at No. 4 High Street produced a few sherds of broadly similar material (Parfitt 1992, 4) providing some further evidence of settlement in this area.

A small pit [F. 64] cut by gully F. 13 (assigned to Period 2 on the evidence of its stratigraphic position), could perhaps belong to Period 1, although this cannot be certain (Fig. 3, Section 19). Its filling of light brown silty clay with chalk and carbon specks failed to produce any finds.

Period 2, Anglo-Saxon Activity: three sherds of Anglo-Saxon pottery were recovered during the excavations. Two of these came from gully [F.13] which has been tentatively dated to the early-mid Anglo-Saxon period on this evidence and its stratigraphic position. A later (post-Period 3) pit [F. 44] located close to F. 13 produced the third Anglo-Saxon pot-sherd, although it was clearly residual in the excavated context.

Feature 13 had been cut through the undated pit [F. 64], perhaps belonging to Period 1 (see above) but was itself cut by a later gully [F. 58] assigned to Period 3 (see below). It consisted of a straight gully running roughly n-s across the central part of the excavation (Fig. 2) and was traced for a distance of just over 12m from its northern terminal. The gully was up to 0.82m wide and 0.26m deep, with sloping sides and a dished base (Fig. 3, Sections 7 and 19). The filling consisted of a light brown silty clay which produced three pot-sherds, small amounts of animal bone and a residual prehistoric flint scraper (see above).

The pottery recovered comprises the two sherds of Anglo-Saxon date, c.575-700 and a residual piece of flint-tempered ware datable to the late Bronze Age or Iron Age (see above). The Anglo-Saxon sherds are suggestive of a late sixth/seventh-century date for the filling of this gully, although they too could be residual.

The terminal of another shallow ditch [F. 46] was located on the edge of the excavation, about 6m to the north of F. 13 (Fig. 2; Fig. 4, Section 13). This might represent a continuation of the latter, the two separated by a broad entrance gap. No finds were recovered from F. 46. An undated post-hole [F. 60] located near the end of gully F. 13 could conceivably have been connected with a gate blocking this suggested entrance.

Period 3, Medieval Features: five features have been tentatively assigned to Period 3 (Fs 11, 28, 34, 42 and 58). The small amounts of pottery associated with these features suggest that this period lasted from c.1100 to 1350. Seven sherds falling within this date-range were recovered as residual material from the filling of the succeeding Period 4 enclosure ditch [Fs 26 and 40] and two more sherds dated c.1225-1350 came from the overlying sub-soil [19].

Three lengths of shallow gully (Fs 11, 34 and 58), filled by light brown silty clay with very occasional carbon flecks, appeared to delimit part of a rectangular enclosure. This was provided with an entrance at the north-west corner and perhaps another, narrow one, on the north side (Figs 2 and 3). The pottery contained within the gullies suggests that they were in-filled during the medieval period. Feature 58 had been cut through gully F. 13, assigned to Period 2 (see above). No other features located seemed to be directly associated with the enclosure.

Feature 11 was a segment of shallow gully, aligned e-w, cut away at the western end by a recent builder’s trench. As surviving, it was 2.55m in length, 0.63m wide and 0.32m deep. The sides were steep and the base rounded (Fig. 3, Section 4). The filling produced three pot-sherds, dated c.1150-1200/25, including a large piece from a North France-type red-painted ware import. There were also two fragments of animal bone.

Feature 34 was another section of shallow gully aligned e-w, which extended beyond the eastern limit of the excavated area. It was at least 1.50m in length, 0.65-0.73m wide and about 0.35m deep, with steep-sloping sides and a rounded base (Fig. 3, Section 8). The filling yielded three pot-sherds dated c.1050-1100/25, a small amount of animal bone, two marine shells and a piece of iron slag.

Feature 58 was the longest section of gully exposed, being traced for some 11m from its north terminal, before being cut away by a modern terrace [F. 18]. It was between 0.40 and 0.68m wide and about 0.23m deep, with steep sides and a dished base (Fig. 3, Sections 9 and 19). The filling produced a single pot-sherd datable to the period c.1175-1225, together with a few pieces of animal bone and an iron fragment.

Outside the enclosure, portions of two probable pits were located near the south-western corner of the excavated area [Fs 28 and 42]. The full extent of neither was revealed and both had been damaged by later features. Each produced a single sherd of medieval pottery and on this evidence they have been assigned here to Period 3, although the pottery might well be residual and they could be later.

Feature 28 measured a minimum of 1.75m (n-s) by 0.57m (e-w). It was at least 0.22m deep but the top had been truncated by the recent terrace-cut [F. 18]. The brown clay filling produced a small pot-sherd dated c.1225-1350 and a piece of animal bone.

Feature 42 had been largely removed by the recent terrace [F. 18] but as surviving, it was about 2.30m across and 0.31m deep, with steep sides and a flat base. The brown silty clay filling produced a single pot-sherd dated c.1225-1350, together with a small fragment of peg-tile and two pieces of animal bone.

Period 4, Late Medieval/early Post-Medieval Features: two arms of a substantial V-shaped ditch [Fs 26 and 40] appeared to form the north-eastern corner of a rectangular enclosure that lay on the western side of the site (Fig. 2). This enclosure clearly continued beyond the limits of the excavated area and its full extent remains unknown. Within the area examined a terminal at the southern end of the eastern arm [F. 26] may relate to an entrance, perhaps centrally placed. The in-filled northern arm [F. 40] had subsequently been cut near the north-east corner by an elongated L-shaped pit [F. 55] which might conceivably represent a late re-cutting of the ditch in this area (Fig. 4, Section 15).

The east arm, F. 26, was aligned n-s and was traced for a distance of nearly 21m, joining F. 40 at slightly less than a right angle. It was 0.97-1.37m in width and where sectioned was found to be about 0.90m deep with steeply sloping sides and a narrow, rounded base (Fig. 4, Section 3). The top of the natural chalk [30] was revealed in the base. The north arm of the ditch [F. 40] was aligned e-w and was traced for a minimum distance of 8.50m. It was about 1.60m wide and 0.76m deep, again with steep-sloping sides and a dished base (Fig. 4, Sections 11 and 15).

The lower filling of the ditches yielded a combined total of ten pot-sherds, the latest of which may be dated to the period c.1500-1550. Several residual medieval sherds are also present. Of particular interest were the semi-articulated skeleton of a sheep recovered from the base of the east arm and a dog skeleton found near the bottom of the north arm. A number of other animal bones were also recovered, together with some fragments of marine shell.

The upper filling of the ditches produced a further fifty-one pot-sherds, the latest of which may again be dated to the period c.1500-1550, but about one third are earlier medieval pieces which are clearly residual. A few fragments of peg-tile and early yellow brick were also recovered, together with a quantity of animal bone and marine shell. Wet-sieving of an 8-litre bulk sample produced small amounts of slag and hammer-scale, fragments of terrestrial snails, small unidentifiable fragments of mammal bone, several charred cereal grains and other charred seeds, and a frog or toad vertebra.

The clay filling of the later L-shaped pit [F. 55] produced eight pot-sherds. The latest one is dated to the period c.1525-1550/75, but the remainder are earlier residual pieces dated between c.1375 and 1525. There were also a few fragments of early yellow brick, some animal bone and marine shell.

From the dating of the latest pottery, it seems likely that the main enclosure ditch was finally in-filled during the sixteenth century, presumably having been originally excavated sometime prior to this. Eight pot-sherds contained within the filling of the ditches dated to the period c.1375-1525 may be connected with the earliest phase of use of the enclosure, although twenty-one other pieces dated between c.1100-1350 must be derived from earlier activity on the site.

North of the main enclosure, an initial evaluation trench cut in the north-eastern corner of the site (Trench 1) revealed a large pit [F. 7], not shown on plan, Fig. 2. This was sub-rectangular in shape and measured 3.50m (e-w) by at least 2.20m (n-s). It was 0.30m deep with sloping sides and a dished base. Half-sectioning of the brown clay filling yielded fourteen pot-sherds, dated c.1500/25-1550, together with two peg-tile fragments, two animal bones and an oyster shell. Fairly certainly, this represents a shallow rubbish pit, dug sometime during the sixteenth century.

Foundation trenches subsequently dug in the area revealed part of another large pit [F. 66], not shown on plan, Fig. 2. This was at least 1.80m across and 0.45m deep, with sloping sides and a flat base. The filling of mixed grey and brown clay produced a single pot-sherd of indeterminate post-medieval date and a few fragments of peg-tile.

Period 5, Later Post-medieval Activity: the principal archaeological features assigned to Periods 2 - 4 (see above) were sealed by a deposit of sub-soil [Contexts 2, 16 and 19]. A series of shallow features, mainly located in the south-eastern quarter of the excavated area, had been cut into this deposit. These were mostly small pits and trenches [including Fs 9, 22 and 32] some of which contained later post-medieval pottery and other finds. They appeared to represent fairly modern features connected with past horticultural activities across this former garden area. All the deposits and features along the southern edge of the excavated area had been truncated by a 0.58m deep modern terrace-cut [F. 18] of uncertain purpose, back-filled with chalk and brick rubble.

the finds

The small collection of finds from the excavations will be deposited at Dover Museum, together with a complete copy of the site archive.

Pottery Notes by John Cotter

The excavations produced a total of 104 sherds of pottery (1.115kg) of which more than half came from the filling of the Period 4 enclosure ditches (Table 1). The earliest piece recovered is a single undiagnostic bodysherd of Bronze Age or Iron Age flint-tempered pottery broadly dating within the period c.1500-50 bc [F. 13]. All the remaining pottery is of post-Roman date and mainly post-Norman. The presence of three early-mid Anglo-Saxon sherds is significant but only in that they suggest Anglo-Saxon activity on or near the site, most probably in the later fifth century and the seventh century. Two of the latter sherds, representing two vessels, occur in early-mid Saxon fine sandy ware (EMS1D) and one jar rim occurs in organic-tempered ware (EMS4). Next in date are a few sherds of early medieval Canterbury sandy ware (EM1 c.1050-1225) and one sherd of Canterbury shell-dusted sandy ware (EM.M1 c.1175-1250). Imported wares of the twelfth or early thirteenth century include North France-type red-painted ware (EM11A.RP), Normandy Gritty ware (EM15) and Andenne ware (EM12) from eastern Belgium.

Tyler Hill ware (M1 c.1225-1350) is fairly common but mostly residual in its contexts. There is a single tiny sherd of Saintonge green glazed ware (M22G c.1250-l400) from south-west France. Late Tyler Hill ware is fairly common (LM1 c. 1375-1525). Apart from a small number of nineteenth-century sherds from pit, F. 32, the latest pottery fabrics are late medieval fine earthenware (LM2 c.1475-1550), late medieval transitional sandy ware (LM1.2 c.1475-l550) and late medieval silty-sandy ware (LM17B c.1525-1575/1600). The former fabric (LM1.2) is of some interest as it clearly represents a separate and more localised industry than the LM1.2 that occurs at Canterbury. The fabric of the Eastry LM1.2 is paler-firing and finer than that at Canterbury and resembles Dutch red earthenwares (PM49) but although Eastry LM1.2 shows strong Continental influences it is more likely to be a local product made nearby (perhaps at Sandwich?) by potters of Dutch/Flemish origin – just like its equivalent fabric at Canterbury. This paler-firing LM1.2 has also been noted at Dover.

Animal Bone by Robin Bendrey

A total of 454, generally very well preserved, bone fragments, weighing 3,814 grams, was recovered by hand-excavation from twenty-one separate contexts (Table 2). About 66 per cent of the total number of fragments have been identified, and 94 per cent of the bone weight. Bones recorded as sheep/goat (32 fragments) are included in this report as sheep, as only sheep bones (55 fragments) have been positively identified from the assemblage (following Boessneck (1969) and Payne (1985)).

The bulk of the assemblage derives from the enclosure ditches of Period 4 [Fs 26 and 40], including two articulating skeletons (see below), and some possible partial articulations. The presence of these articulations biases the representation of some species (including 123 dog bones and 63 sheep bones, each from single skeletons). The very small size of the fragmentary assemblage can provide little information beyond a list of the species present. Ranking the importance of species, by number of fragments (after the removal of the articulating skeletons) gives the order sheep, pig then cattle, for Period 4 and for the whole site. A small number of butchery marks were recorded on the bones of sheep and cattle. Ageing data is available from two pig mandibles from Period 4, one with the lower third molar (M3) visible in its crypt, and the other with M3 at full height but unworn; both being about 1½-2 years old at death (Silver, 1969, 299). A single neonatal pig bone (also from Period 4) suggests that either breeding was occurring nearby, or sucking pig made up part of the diet.

The sheep skeleton was aged about 13-16 months old at death, based on epiphyseal fusion and tooth eruption data (Silver, 1969). There is no evidence for the cause of death of the animal, or any butchery marks.

The dog skeleton is that of a mature animal (all post-cranial elements are fused), and is identified as male by the presence of the baculum (penis bone). There is a healed break in the shaft of the right radius and ulna which probably altered the gait of the animal. An estimated mean shoulder height value of 64.8cm was calculated from four intact limb bones, following Harcourt (1974, 154). This is towards the upper end of the height range calculated for Anglo-Saxon dogs by Harcourt (1974, table 14), and is in a size range which encompasses both dogs and wolves (for example, see Clutton-Brock and Burleigh (1995, table 52)). The Eastry animal can be identified to domestic dog, as opposed to wolf, on the relative lengths of the fore and hind legs: the estimates of height for the hind limb are greater than those of the fore limb, which Clutton-Brock and Burleigh (1995, 1263-6) state is a characteristic of dogs rather than wolves. The cranium, mandibles, and atlas (first cervical) vertebra, are missing, and there is an ancient break across the anterior articular surface of the axis (second cervical) vertebra. The break is not consistent with the animal being butchered (chopped) through the neck, rather it may represent breakage due to post-depositional disturbance. There is no other evidence of modification to the skeleton.

Other taxa identified include horse, cat and galliform (Table 2). Ten horse fragments (from the skull, jaw and teeth) were derived from a single context within the Period 4 enclosure ditch and all may be from the same animal. Crown height measurements from three loose teeth gave estimated ages of 10-11 years, 13-14 years and 12-14+ years, following Levine (1982). Twenty-nine of the cat bones derive from a single context within the Period 4 enclosure ditch and represent a minimum of two animals. A single galliform bone from Period 4 pit, F. 55 is also recorded (although probably chicken, it was not possible to differentiate it from the other similar galliforms).

The ditches [Fs 26 and 40] may have represented a convenient place to bury the bodies of pets and other animals (natural casualties of disease, accident or old age). The dog is presumably a pet or work animal, but the young age of the sheep and absence of butchery evidence indicates a natural casualty. The location of sheep mortalities on a farm would normally be expected in a peripheral location relative to any domestic centre (Wilson, 1996, 79), but the presence of dog and cat articulations could suggest closer proximity to domestic activity.

dating and discussion

Given the documented significance of Eastry during the Anglo-Saxon and medieval periods it is important that archaeological investigations are undertaken here when and wherever possible. The excavations in 2000 represent the largest so far undertaken within the village and have revealed a sequence of ditches, gullies and pits which must have been located on the western edge of the historic settlement. Although a significant area of ground was examined, it is clear that these remains continued in every direction, so that their overall geographical extent is uncertain. Three evaluation trenches have been previously cut on a site at the junction of High Street and Mill Lane, some 40m south of the 2000 excavation (Fig. 1). This work revealed only two pits, one of which might be medieval (Parkinson 1993). It would thus appear that the present concentration of features did not continue this far south.

Most probably, the ditches and gullies discovered in 2000 bounded a succession of fields, enclosures and/or garden plots. A general lack of finds and the problem of residuality with the limited quantity of pottery recovered means that few of the excavated features can be very securely dated. The date-range of the pottery assemblage (Table 1) seems to imply more or less continuous, if unintensive, activity in the immediate area from the early-mid Anglo-Saxon period. This is broadly consistent with the documentary evidence (see above).

The latest and most substantial of the two ditched enclosures located appears to have been infilled during the sixteenth century (Period 4), whilst gully F. 13 has been tentatively assigned to the early-mid Anglo-Saxon period (Period 2). The discovery of some evidence for Anglo-Saxon activity in this area is of particular interest in relation to the historical evidence, although it is equally clear that the activity here during this period was not intensive. Certainly, no building remains or other evidence for regular habitation occurred on the 2000 site. This is perhaps consistent with the notion that the early Anglo-Saxon palace (villa regalis) and its associated settlement lay further to the east, in the area of the medieval parish church and Eastry Court (Hawkes 1979, 95), although investigations in that area have so far also failed to produce any evidence of Anglo-Saxon occupation (see above). The relatively small amounts of medieval and early post-medieval material recovered from the present site suggests that it continued to stand at some distance from the main habitation area in later times. Domestic rubbish was never deposited here in quantity as it probably would have been if the area lay immediately adjacent to an occupation site.

acknowledgements

Thanks are due first and foremost to the developers, who readily allowed access to the site and funded the entire project. In particular, the help and interest of Mr Robert Hunter of Champion and Bushell Ltd must be mentioned. The patience and assistance of Site Agent, Mr Barry Prior and his team during the course of the excavations is also fully acknowledged. Of the excavators who carried out the work, the efforts and enthusiasm of Miss Sally Howard and Messrs Barry Corke, Peter Godden and Chris Dennard must be recorded here. The help and advice of Kent County Council’s Archaeological Officer, Mr Simon Mason, is gratefully acknowledged. The site drawings were prepared for publication by Barry Corke with his usual efficiency. Helpful comments on earlier versions of this text were made by Peter Clark and Paul Bennett.

bibliography

Arnold, C.J., 1982, ‘Excavations at Eastry Court Farm, Eastry’, Archaeologia Cantiana, xcviii, 121-135.

Boessneck, J., 1969, ‘Osteological Differences between Sheep (Ovis aries Linné) and Goat (Capra hircus Linné)’, in Brothwell, D. and Higgs, E. (eds), Science in Archaeology, 331-58 (London).

Clutton-Brock, J. and Burleigh, R., 1995, ‘The dating and osteology of the skeleton of a large hunting dog’, in Blockley, K., Blockley, M., Blockley P., Frere, S. S., and Stow S., Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park and Surrounding Areas, Vol. V, The Finds, 1262-1266.

Everitt, A., 1986, Continuity and Colonization. The evolution of Kentish settlement (Leicester).

Greenstreet, J., 1877, ‘Abstract of Kent Fines. Anno 1 to anno 6 Edward II’, Archaeologia Cantiana, xi, 305-358.

Harcourt, R.A., 1974, ‘The Dog in Prehistoric and Early Historic Britain’, Journal of Archaeological Science, 1, 151-76.

Hasted, E., 1800, The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent, X (reprinted Canterbury, 1972).

Hawkes, S.C., 1979, ‘Eastry in Anglo-Saxon Kent: its importance, and a newly-found grave’, in S.C. Hawkes, D. Brown and I. Campbell (eds), Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History I, BAR British Series 72.

Hussey, A., 1911, ‘Chapels in Kent’, Archaeologia Cantiana, xxix, 217-258.

Levine, M.A., 1982, ‘The use of crown height measurements and eruption-wear sequences to age horse teeth’, in Wilson, B., Grigson, S. and Payne, S. (eds), Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites, BAR British Series 109, 223-350.

LVRG, 2006, The Geology, Archaeology and History of Lydden Valley and Sandwich Bay (report by the Lydden Valley Research Group).

Margary, I.D., 1967 Roman Roads in Britain (London, revised ed.).

Morgan, P. (ed.), 1983, Domesday Book, Kent (Chichester).

O’Grady, M.M., 1981, ‘A study of some of the characteristics of the holdings and agriculture of Eastry manor, East Kent, from c.1086-c.1350’, M.Phil. thesis, University of London, Bedford College.

Parfitt, K., 1992, ‘No. 4 The High Street, Eastry: Archaeological Evaluation Report’, DAG archive report.

Parfitt, K., 1999, ‘Anglo-Saxon Eastry; Some Recent Discoveries and Investigations’, Archaeologia Cantiana, cxix, 45-53.

Parfitt, K., 2000, ‘Report on Archaeological Evaluation Trenching off Eastry High Street’, CAT archive report.

Parfitt, K., 2001, ‘Report on Archaeological Excavations off Eastry High Street’, CAT archive report.

Parkinson, A., 1993, ‘Former King’s Central Garage, Eastry, Kent, Archaeological Evaluation’, OAU archive report.

Payne, S., 1985, ‘Morphological Distinctions between the Mandibular Teeth of Young Sheep, Ovis, and Goats, Journal of Archaeological Science, 12, 139-147.

Richardson, A., 2005, The Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries of Kent (BAR. British Series 391, two vols).

Shaw, W.F., 1825, Liber Estriae; or Memorials of the Royal Ville and Parish of Eastry, in the county of Kent, London.

Silver, I., 1969, ‘The ageing of domestic animals’, in Brothwell, D. and Higgs, E.S. (eds), Science and Archaeology, 250-68, Thames and Hudson.

Smith, R.A.L., 1943, Canterbury Cathedral Priory, a study in monastic administration, Cambridge.

Wilson, B., 1996, Spatial Patterning among Animal Bones in Settlement Archaeology, BAR British Series 251.

Woodruff, C.E., 1940, ‘Notes on the inner life and domestic economy of the priory of Christ Church, Canterbury in the fifteenth century’, Archaeologia Cantiana, liii, 1-16.

Fig. 1 General plan of Eastry showing location of investigated site and other archaeological discoveries.

Fig. 2 Detailed plan of excavation, with inset showing tentative phasing of ditches and other features.

Fig. 3 Sections across excavated features and deposits (Section Nos. 4, 7, 8, 9, 16 and 19).

Fig. 4 Sections across excavated features and deposits (Section Nos. 3, 11, 13 and 15).

Table 1. Distribution of pottery on the site

Period	Feature No.	Period 1 Bronze/ Iron Age	Period 2 Anglo-Saxon	Period 3 Medieval 1100-1350	Periods 3/4 L. Medieval 1375-1525	Period 4 E. Post-Med 1500-1575	Period 5 L. Post-Med 1825-1900	Total
2	13	1	2	-	-	-	-	3
3	11	-	-	3	-	-	-	3
3	34	-	-	3	-	-	-	3
3	58	-	-	1	-	-	-	1
3	28	-	-	1	-	-	-	1
3	42	-	-	1	-	-	-	1
4	7	-	-	-	-	14	-	14
4	26	-	-	17	7	-	-	24
4	40	-	-	4	1	32	-	37
4	55	-	-	-	7	1	-	8
4	66	-	-	-	-	?1	-	1
?	44	-	1	-	-	-	-	1
-	Subsoil	-	-	2	-	-	-	2
5	32	-	-	-	-	-	5	5
Total		1	3	32	15	48	5	104

Table 2. Distribution of animal bone, by number of fragments

	Period 2	Period 3	Period 4	Other	Total
Sheep	1	2	79	5	87
Pig	1	-	14	6	21
Cattle	1	6	4	4	15
Horse	-	-	16	-	16
Dog	-	-	127	-	127
Cat	-	-	36	-	36
Galliform	-	-	1	-	1
Sheep-sized	1	-	59	-	60
Cattle-sized	1	2	54	2	59
Indeter.	-	13	18	1	32
Total	5	23	408	18	454

Note: ‘Other’ deposits include a small number of post-medieval and undated contexts.