1

Uncovering an Anglo-Saxon Monastery in Kent

Interim Report on University of

Reading Excavations at Lyminge, 2008

Gabor Thomas

2

Landscapes of the Anglo-Saxon Conversion: University of Reading

Excavations at Lyminge, Kent, 2008

The following presents provisional results of the inaugural year of open-area

excavation by the University of Reading within the precincts of the Anglo-Saxon

monastic site of Lyminge, Kent. This work forms part of a wider project entitled

‘Landscapes of Conversion: the Anglo-Saxon Church within the Kingdom of Kent’,

which seeks to construct a comparative framework in which to interpret and

contextualize the evidence garnered from Lyminge.

Historical and archaeological background

The historical context surrounding the Anglo-Saxon monastery of St Mary’s, Lyminge

has received full treatment in the Project Design (Thomas 2005). Since the initiation

of the excavations a critical analysis of the historical sources relating to Lyminge

minster has appeared in print (Kelly 2006). Kelly’s detective work has shaken many

of the ‘truths’ surrounding the foundation legend of Lyminge minster derived from the

largely post-Conquest hagiographical tradition associated with the Kentish saint,

Mildrith (Rollason 1982). It is from this source that Lyminge derives its association

with its founding abbess, the historical figure, Æthelburh, widow of King Edwin of

Northumbria and daughter of King Æthelberht I of Kent, and with her its foundation

date of A.D. 633. Contrary to received wisdom, Kelly points out that a Christian site

of this comparatively early date was more likely to have been non-monastic in

character, perhaps taking the form of a royal mortuary chapel. Lyminge’s life as a

double monastery may thus have been initiated somewhat later (and by implication

by a rather less illustrious foundress), the most likely context being a re-foundation in

the final third of the 7th century.

Other than proposing a revised sequence for the early life of the monastery, Kelly’s

work also raises the spectre of a potential confusion in the charter sources between

the Christian community at Lyminge and a neighbouring one at Lympne, with the

possibility that some of the estates traditionally regarded as part of the Lyminge

endowment (including the Romney Marsh estate of Sandtun) were in fact in the

possession of the latter. If correct, this reading has important implications for

reconstructing the economic base of the Middle Saxon monastery, for excavations at

Sandtun have shown that it was indeed a highly strategic site engaged in cross-

channel trade and the seasonal exploitation of coastal and marine resources

3

(Gardiner et al 2001). On the other hand, some of Kelly’s assertions in this particular

regard are open dispute: having reflected on the relevant minutiae, Professor

Nicholas Brooks (joint editor of the forthcoming British Academy volume Charters of

Christ Church, Canterbury and Chairman of the umbrella Anglo-Saxon Charters

Project) is confident that the link between Lyminge minster and the Sandtun estate

remains secure (pers comm.).

Relevant archaeological discoveries in Lyminge up to 2005 have been summarised

previously (Thomas 2005). To many Anglo-Saxonists, Lyminge is synonymous with

a richly furnished, 5th-7th-century inhumation cemetery partially excavated on a site

to the north of the village during the 1950s and sampled further in recent excavations

by the Canterbury Archaeological Trust (Richardson 2005, 48-9). This burial ground

was evidently part of wider mortuary landscape hinted at by isolated burials

discovered elsewhere in the locality during the 19th century (ibid. 48).

With regards to the site of the Anglo-Saxon monastery itself, we owe the first

glimpses to the Victorian incumbent, Canon Jenkins, whose legacy of energetic,

though less than scientific, excavation has been responsible for fixing the cult of St

Æthelburh firmly in the modern-day imagination (Kelly 2006, 99-100). Considerable

ambiguity surrounds the results of his excavations in the graveyard adjacent to the

church, but scholars are in agreement that the buried wall foundations discovered

immediately to the south of the nave belong to a representative of a group of early

Kentish masonry churches exemplified by the apsidal structures forming the early

core of St Augustine’s Abbey, Canterbury (Cambridge 1999).

Canon Jenkin’s legacy has ensured that the cult of St. Æthelburh

remains alive and strong.

4

The trail remerges over a century later when, in 2005, an archaeological evaluation

by the Canterbury Archaeological Trust to the south of the churchyard produced a

series of boundary ditches, structural features and pits attesting to a wider zone of

Middle Saxon occupation. These results provided the stimulus for a programme of

geophysics and test-pitting undertaken in 2007 under the auspices of the University

of Kent, culminating (following the Director’s move to the University of Reading) in

the initiation of the current open-area excavations. The principal aim of last season’s

excavation was to provide a basis for assessing the character and preservation of

archaeological remains constituting an extensive complex of Middle Saxon

occupation extending some 150-200m to the south of the church; the results were

also intended to inform sampling and recording procedures designed to maximise the

recovery of environmental, artefactual and structural evidence.

Aerial view showing location of excavation trenches in relation to the church. The CAT

evaluation took place in the square parcel of land above Trench 1

5

The methodology involved opening up two areas (providing a combined window of

some 1400m²), on private land belonging to the Old Rectory: Trench 1, a 30m x 30m

square adjacent to a fence-line marking the boundary with the land evaluated by CAT

in 2005; and Trench 2, a T-shape located in direct alignment with the Old Rectory

and the church beyond. Both areas were stripped mechanically down to the surface

of the chalk subsoil and all subsequent excavation proceeded by hand. The

excavations were run as a Field School for students from the Universities of Reading,

Kent and UCLA, California, with additional input being provided by volunteers from

the Kent Archaeological Society.

View of the 2008 excavations with the Old Rectory at the extreme right of the

picture – the church lies immediately beyond.

Results

Trench 1

The results in Trench 1 confirm the impression that the archaeology in this area is

predominantly of a single, Middle Saxon period (broadly 7th-9th centuries); later

features were restricted to two SW-NE field boundaries of post-Medieval date and a

more substantial E-W ditch which bisected the site and which owes its final form to

the late medieval period. Middle Saxon features were concentrated in what appear

to be two distinct zones, the most extensive being confined to the south side of the

central boundary ditch. The fact that this boundary coincided with a distinct break in

the distribution of Middle Saxon features, may suggest that it perpetuates a much

6

earlier boundary, conceivably marked by open ground as opposed to an actual

physical barrier, as found at the broadly contemporary monastic settlement of

Hartlepool (Daniels 2007, 157-9).

View of Trench 1. Notice the distinct clustering of features and the broad sterile

zone on the left side of the central ditch.

The southern concentration was

dominated by an imposing post-built

timber structure aligned on an east-

west axis, measuring 19m by 6.5m. It

was constructed of eight pairs of outer

wall posts set into pits up to 0.80m

deep, several of which preserved their

original post impressions. A

distinctive feature which sets the

Lyminge structure apart from the

mainstream tradition of Anglo-Saxon

timber construction was a longitudinal

alignment of posts creating two aisles.

The fact that these were out of

alignment with the outer wall posts

raises the possibility

View of the main post-hole building.

7

that this feature was a later structural modification, although it could be regarded as

primary, especially if an upper storey is envisaged. Dividing the space up in this way

does not make sense in a ground-level building used for domestic/residential

purposes. Indeed, the best parallels for this distinctive two-aisled plan can be found

amongst a group of Migration-period structures from the near continent interpreted as

grain-storage barns (Hamerow 2002, 37-8, Fig. 2.15).

This building was stratigraphically contemporary with an exterior yard surface

covering a roughly rectangular area measuring at least 10m E-W (the eastern limits

lay beyond the confines of the trench) by 3.80m N-S. The surface comprised a

metalling of crushed flint compressed into a prepared chalk surface; fragments of

animal bone and iron slag were incorporated into the metalling, whilst an adjacent pit

was found to contain a mass of flint nodules evidently surplus to requirements or

perhaps intended for making repairs. Hollowed areas within the surface were filled

by occupation deposits yielding domestic material including diagnostic Middle Saxon

imported pottery, ironwork and animal bone. Whilst the metalling was cut by several

pits of Middle Saxon date, no earlier features were discovered beneath portions lifted

for sampling. Bearing in mind its connection with a building with barn-like affinities, it

is not unreasonable to suggest that this metalled surface could have served the

function of a threshing floor.

The metalled ‘yard’ surface under excavation and a close-up showing its constituents

including fragments of tile and animal bone.

8

Two further structural elements were found in close proximity to the two-aisled

building. The first was a small sunken featured building measuring 1.80m by 2m.

This had a classic gable-post pairing along the longitudinal axis of the pit which was

filled by a single homogeneous deposit yielding domestic material. Cutting across

the floor-plan of the two-aisled building on an N-S axis, was an 11m-long section of

wall-trench which extended beyond the northern baulk of the trench. Its progress

was interrupted by several inter-cutting pits some stratigraphically earlier and others

later. It is impossible to know whether this is an isolated feature, perhaps the portion

of a timber palisade, or part of a more complex structure severely attenuated by

plough truncation.

Sunken-featured building

The remaining features in Trench 1 comprised some 35 pits of both sub-circular and

sub-rectangular form, the most impressive of which had neatly cut cylindrical profiles

extending to a depth of nearly 2m. As will hopefully become apparent when the pit

fills have been analysed, these morphological distinctions may be related to

differences in function; preliminary impressions indicate that the range embraces the

storage of foodstuffs, cess and rubbish disposal. The distribution of pits provides a

useful guide to internal zoning within the occupation. Those to the south of the

central boundary ditch formed a more or less continuous E-W swathe: a second

concentration found in the NE corner of the trench conceivably marks the

northernmost extent of another similarly-orientated sector of occupation.

9

Trench 2

Whilst Middle Saxon occupation in the form of pits and ditches extended across the

area, the archaeology in Trench 2 was distinct for its lack of structural evidence. The

ditches were confined to the transverse section of the trench running parallel with the

southern boundary of the Old Rectory gardens. The most substantial ditch followed

an E-W alignment for a distance of some 19m before making a sharp return to the

north. Its western portion was found to be of two distinct phases, the later

representing a continuation of one of the minor, post-medieval, field boundaries

traced in the SE corner of Trench 1. The earlier phase, dated to the Middle Saxon

period on the basis of diagnostic pottery, was altogether more impressive, having a

V-shaped profile with a breadth of 1.40m and a maximum depth of 1.0m. This

morphology was shared by Middle Saxon boundaries discovered closer to the

monastic nucleus during the 2005 evaluation and test-pitting in 2007: once plotted on

an integrated plan, last season’s ditch may be found to belong to a continuous

enclosure circuit.

The Middle Saxon boundary ditch appearing as a linear soil-mark running parallel with

the top edge of the trench; clusters of pits can also be seen on the right side of the

picture.

10

The 34 pits discovered in Trench 2 were arranged in distinct clusters separated by

sterile areas of chalk, the significance of which is only likely to be revealed with

further excavation. Their morphological range was similar to that encountered in

Trench 1, with the notable exception of a group with vertical sides sharing the form of

an elongated rectangle with rounded corners. Another divergence was the presence

of pits with short adjoining gulleys which possibly hint at a more specialised usage

potentially connected with agricultural processing or light industrial activity.

Rectangular pits distinctive to Trench 2.

Artefacts and ecofacts

Integrated with the material from the 2007 test-pits, the large and varied collection of

artefacts recovered from the 2008 excavations must represent one of the most

important of Middle Saxon assemblages from Kent. This short summary will attempt

to highlight notable categories and give an impression of the potential offered by

further analysis.

A definite highlight is an assemblage of glass comprising both vessel sherds and the

first Middle Saxon window glass recovered from Kent (as confirmed by Rosemary

Cramp). Sherds of the latter are cylinder blown, colourless or pale blue, and in some

cases grozed. The metalwork is dominated by iron knives and domestic fittings

including keys and locks. Non-ferrous metalwork is restricted to a few copper-alloy

pins, buckles and hooked-tags, covering the plainer end of the Middle Saxon

11

spectrum. Precious metal is confined to three Anglo-Saxon silver pennies all issued

during the first half of the 9th century. More ubiquitous are artefacts of bone/antler

covering a range of diagnostic comb types, pins and textile production implements.

A selection of the Middle Saxon glass; the two sherds on the right are typical of

the window glass from Lyminge; the remainder are all vessel fragments.

A selection of the copper-alloy dress-accessories,

including a decorated hooked-tag and a range of pins

The pottery assemblage includes a mixture of handmade coursewares made locally,

regional imports, and Frankish imports dominated by wheel-thrown greyware pitchers

finished with rouletted

decoration closely matched at

Sandtun. The latter, widely

distributed across the two

trenches, forms a significant

proportion of the overall

pottery assemblage.

Imported Frankish pottery in the form of roulette-

decorated ‘greyware’ pitchers

12

Interestingly, Duncan Brown has observed that some of the pottery made from local

sources of clay may mimic the design of continental imports.

A range of economic and craft activities are represented in the artefactual record:

textile manufacture by loom-weights and pin-beaters; smithing and/or smelting by

large quantities of slag; and agricultural processing by massive quantities of quern,

most made from local sources of stone procured from the Weald.

A selection of the many clay bun-shaped loom-weights

found in 2008.

At this stage it is impossible to make informed statements on the bioarchaeological

assemblages, suffice it to say that the intensive level of sampling undertaken (over

200 soil samples and extensive dry-sieving) will ensure that their value as a tool for

reconstructing the diet, lifestyle and economy of the settlement will be maximised.

One preliminary observation worth making however is the strong imprint made by

coastal/estuarine resources in the form of a profusion of marine molluscs and fish

bone: the Romney Marsh link attested historically in the charters clearly played an

important role in provisioning the monastic community.

13

Discussion

The results of the excavation have confirmed that the buildings constituting the

nucleus of the Anglo-Saxon minster at Lyminge (including the apsidal church partially

exposed by Canon Jenkins at the end of the 19th century) formed part of an

extensive swathe of contemporary occupation. From the sample examined so far we

can begin to sketch an impression of the appearance of Lyminge as a monastic

settlement.

The spiritual core with the church at its focus was sited at the end of a prominent

ridge forming the western side of the Elham Valley - in the Anglo-Saxon period an

important axis of communication across the North Downs connecting the southern

sea-board of Kent with the densely-populated catchments of the River Stour

surrounding Canterbury. To the south of the church, contemporary occupation was

sprawled across the slopes of the ridge for a distance of at least 150m, perhaps

more. On the basis of the evidence for a series of multiple E-W ditched boundaries

and the spatial patterning noted in the spread of pits, it can be tentatively proposed

that the ridge-slope occupation was divided into a series of concentric zones; these

may have been sub-divided into smaller segments by palisades or, in some cases,

by open spaces. That investigated closest to the core of the monastic complex

(Trench 1) contained an imposing E-W building, possibly forming part of an outer

range to the built-up nucleus, arguably reserved for agricultural storage/processing.

It may be the case that the space beyond this peripheral shell of buildings was

largely used for cess and rubbish disposal and for light industrial activities such as

smithing, some of which may have been housed in more ephemeral structures.

The view presented above is no more than a working hypothesis and makes no claim

to be free of speculation. Those with background knowledge of comparative sites will

also recognise that this picture has been coloured by the results of excavations at the

Northumbrian monastery of Hartlepool providing as they do probably the best

impression we have of the organisation, on a landscape scale, of a Middle Saxon

double house (Daniels 2007). Some correspondence certainly exists between the

two sites: the ridge-top location of the main nucleus; a surrounding sprawl of

domestic activity including evidence for craftworking; and a concentric or segmental

layout structured by a hierarchy of boundaries – features individually shared by a

broader family of Anglo-Saxon settlements, not all monastic. The comparison with

Hartlepool also serves as a reminder that the ridge-top focus at Lyminge may form

14

part of a wider religious or ‘cultic’ landscape some elements of which may have pre-

Christian roots; St Æthelburh’s Well (the source of the River Nailbourne), located

some 80m NE of the church, is a case in point.

At the same time, we should also expect to find divergences between the two sites,

not least because Hartlepool (albeit for a brief period) was in the premier league of

monastic institutions in the Kingdom of Northumbria. We might therefore expect it to

have had a considerably larger population of both clerics and lay brethren than

Lyminge, as represented amongst the three separate Anglo-Saxon cemeteries

sampled on the Hartlepool headland (Daniels 2007). Of course, given the diversity

of traditions which fed into Anglo-Saxon monasticism generally, and the very strong

Frankish dimension which fed into the Kentish church more specifically, the author is

mindful that the results from Lyminge should be allowed to speak with an

independent voice. Yet past work within the kingdom has almost exclusively focused

on monastic churches at the expense of their wider settings; for this reason he can

perhaps be forgiven for straying into Northumbrian territory to help generate what

amounts to the first provisional view of a Kentish minster as an integrated complex.

However one wishes to interpret the physical appearance of the monastic settlement

at Lyminge, the results of the excavations clearly show that the area under

investigation holds crucial evidence for reconstructing the economic profile of the

Middle Saxon community, its contemporary environment, and aspects of daily life

including diet and dress. Analysis of relevant categories of artefactual and

bioarachaeological evidence is likely to raise interesting questions on the changing

character and status of the community between the 7th and 9th centuries (and

indeed beyond), as hinted at in the historical sources.

15

Future Work and acknowledgements

Work is set to continue in 2009 with the full-scale excavation of the land evaluated by

CAT in 2005 and with the opening up of further trenches adjacent to those excavated

in 2008. A Ground Penetrating Radar Survey will also be undertaken in the

churchyard in an attempt to accurately map the buried wall foundations encountered

by Canon Jenkins. In 2010 the focus of attention will move to an area of open

ground within the village known as Tayne Field where test-pits located evidence of

Early Anglo-Saxon occupation which may cast light on Lyminge’s origins as an

Anglo-Saxon royal vill (estate centre)

I should like to record my generous thanks to the Royland-Payne’s of the Old Rectory

for granting permission to work on their land and to their gardener, Jim Baker, for

being so patient, helpful and accommodating during the period of our imposition.

Neil Mullins provided vital logistical back-up throughout the excavations and very

generously transformed his land into a well-appointed campsite; his legendary trailer

rides will be remembered by many. Helen Burr of Well Cottage has been a constant

source of support, encouragement and historical insight since I first set foot in

Lyminge. I should also like to express my gratitude to the Vicar, Peter Ashman, and

members of the Lyminge PCC for being such friendly and accommodating

neighbours. Several colleagues took time out of their busy schedules to visit the

excavations; special thanks go to the following who were cajoled into giving trench-

side lectures: Nicholas Brooks, Duncan Brown, Thomas Pickles, and Andrew

Richardson. Last but not least, I should like to thank the team of supervisors,

students and volunteers who made the 2008 excavations such as resounding

success. I look forward to seeing many of you in 2009!

Financial support for the excavations was generously provided by the Kent

Archaeological Society, the Society of the Antiquaries, the Royal Archaeological

Institute, the School of Human and Environmental Sciences, University of Reading,

and the Robert Kiln Charitable Trust.

Gabor Thomas

University of Reading

January 2009

16

References

Cambridge, E. 1999. ‘The architecture of the Augustinian mission’, in: R. Gameson

(ed.), St. Augustine and the Conversion of England, Sutton, 202-36

Daniels, R. 2007. Anglo-Saxon Hartlepool and the Foundations of English

Christianity. An Archaeology of the Anglo-Saxon Monastery, Tees Archaeology

Gardiner, M. (et. al) 2001. 'Continental trade and non-urban ports in Mid-Anglo-

Saxon England: Excavations at Sandtun, West Hythe, Kent', Archaeological Journal,

158, 161-290

Hamerow, H. 2002. Early Medieval Settlements, Oxford University Press

Kelly, S. 2006. ‘Lyminge minster and its early charters’, in: S. Keynes & A. P. Smyth

(eds), Anglo-Saxons; Studies Presented to Cyril Hart, Four Courts Press

Richardson, A. 2005. The Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries of Kent (Volume II), British

Archaeological Reports Brit. Ser. 391, Oxford.

Rollason, D. W. 1982. The Mildreth Legend: A Study in Early Medieval Hagiography

in England, Leicester University Press

Thomas, G. 2005. Lyminge: An Archaeological Research Agenda for the Pre-Viking

Minster and its Associated Settlement