The Medieval Period

South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 The Medieval Period Jake Weekes Introduction The South-East is a particularly rich area for studying the medieval period (for the purposes of analysis defined here as ca. AD1000–1550). The region’s location between London and the Continent led to an array of especially impressive buildings at this time, as well as a progressive and increasingly cosmopolitan society that originated many aspects of later medieval life in Britain and pre-figured the post-medieval period in important ways. The most recent regional synthesis of the medieval historic environment in the SouthEast was published by Peter Brandon and Brian Short in 1990. Any new assessment of the resource will have to acknowledge the large amount of new data that have been added since then (particularly via PPG15 and PPG16 related work), while assessing the effectiveness of current mechanisms for inter- and intra- regional comparison of those data: it will also need to take theoretical developments into account. In fact, a primary purpose of reassessing the resource is to see the degree to which the archaeological data from the South-East can help to answer the types of questions now being asked more generally (see Gerrard 2003, chapter 6; Weekes 2007a). The South-East Research Framework (SERF) is also an opportunity to revisit questions of cultural identity. Brandon and Short briefly touched on the idea of ‘Normanization’ (with specific reference to art: 1990: 40), but the development of a diverse Anglo-Norman material culture more generally (including buildings, see Munby et al. 1983 and Impey 1999 for example) is perhaps especially significant given the South-East’s proximity to mainland Europe. More detailed archaeological study of social differentiation in the region should be undertaken. As well as helping to investigate the material culture and diet associated with higher status groups and individuals better represented in the documentary sources, archaeological and environmental data are equally likely to reflect the less privileged and/or the less mainstream sectors of society like the poor, immigrant communities, migrant and itinerant workers, members of religious communities, and quarantined lepers. Studies of horizontal status differentiation based on gender and age, for example, are also significant research areas. Above all, we would surely wish to compare in more detail the various conditions experienced in medieval society in the South-East over time, and might look for evidence of agency within groups, as well as potential areas of interaction/conflict through which social differentiation would have been constructed and played out. A concerted interdisciplinary approach (see Wicker 1999: 169) to the various evidence types is plainly called for, including the gathering and synthesis of more detailed archaeological and environmental information in collaboration with documentary and art historians. Excavation and building recording in particular are likely to continue through developer funding but investigation should always be related to research questions, and the information gathered will require improved means for storage, communication, analysis and interpretation of data in the future (e.g. Geographical Information Systems [GIS]: see Conolly and Lake 2006). Finally, while the following resource assessment employs quite traditional research criteria, I hope it also advocates the development of a more contextual archaeology that approaches the data more holistically. Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 1 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 Evidence types Documentary and other historical sources Documentary evidence is bound to be limited by its original bias and context (see Dyer 1988), but recent work on ‘local’ history is expanding the study beyond traditional subject areas and can provide extraordinary new insights into the anthropology of the region in the medieval period: all good additional context for archaeological findings (Sweetinburgh 2010, with a focus on Kent, is an excellent example). Documentary evidence becomes increasingly important as we move through the Middle Ages. Domesday Book is of course of national importance for understanding the organisation of the landscape in the Conquest period especially. Additional sources, such as the Excerpta, Domesday Monachorum and Textus Roffensis for Kent (see Brandon and Short 1990: 34-5) fill some of the gaps in the Domesday information for example in respect of churches and cultivated land not mentioned in Domesday, Another contemporary record for the South-East is the Battle Survey in the Battle Abbey Chronicle and the Sele and Lewes monastic chartularies contain some 11th century material, but are generally 12th and 13th century (Mark Gardiner, pers. comm.). Later in the period there are an increasing number of sources available and variety in the types of information they can provide. Most obviously, the Pipe, Memoranda, Subsidy, Close, Patent and Charter Rolls, Inquisitions post mortem and ad quod damnum and various Court Rolls and documents provide much information on the development of central and local administration and offices from the 12th and 13th centuries onwards (Jewell 1972: 7-21). Grants of market rights, Lay Subsidies, deeds and manorial records and the Feet of Fines, along with wills and inventories, give more detailed and local glimpses of the history of particular districts and settlements, and even the lives of individuals, as the period progresses. Brandon and Short’s revisiting of the progress of Duke William’s armies via Domesday ‘values’ for manors shows how documentary sources can be used to reconstruct a significant historical event (1990: 28, Figure 2.1 see also Banyard 2004). As has often been pointed out, however, the Domesday survey is potentially ‘very misleading…’ (Brandon and Short 1990: 32) to any that would consider it definitive, even in terms of its own subject matter. Like documentary sources in general, the evidence Domesday provides is selective, in line with the function of the work, particularly in this case through generalisation and omissions. The approach to wider social history and especially the lives of the lower classes via documentary sources (written by and for the purposes of elites after all) is bound to be more complicated. There are nonetheless significant lines of enquiry here relating to the beginnings of a wider distribution and therefore attribution of ‘ownership’, as well as diversity of occupation at this time, perhaps paving the way for later medieval social mobility and unrest (e.g. the Peasants Revolt and Cade’s Rebellion of 1381 and 1450 respectively: see Brandon and Short 1990: 94-101), and beyond this fascinating evidence of religious ideas and aspects of gender and deviance is available (see for example Lutton 2010; Jones 2006, 2010 on Kent). From the perspective of social history, the developing minor gentry are more visible in the documentary evidence later in the period. Brandon and Short take Bartholomew Bolney, steward of Battle Abbey for many years in the 15th century, as their example of a member of an ‘up and coming’ family (ibid.: 120-1; see Saul 1986; for specific Kent examples see Everitt 1986: 220-1). Archaeologists working at Canterbury benefit from the detailed work of William Urry (1967), who reconstructed individual land and tenement histories in the city for the time of the Angevin Kings. In many cases, excavations can be at least tentatively correlated Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 2 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 with the documentary evidence in order to take note of individuals and their activities in the past. Canterbury is of course especially fortunate in this regard because of the quality of surviving records, but it would be highly informative to apply such methods (where the sources allow) to other towns and more rural situations and compare what the different types of evidence are telling us. A number of site-focussed historical studies will have been carried out as part of PPG15, PPG16 and PPS5 related work elsewhere, particularly as part of desk-based assessments. This type of work would contribute much to broader synthesis if it can be extracted from the large (and growing) corpus of grey literature. Such evidence can be complemented by comparison of aerial photographs, cartographic evidence (regression analyses of post-medieval maps on a local scale, as well as more stylised maps of the period: see Brandon and Short 1990, Plate 2.6 for example) and place-name evidence (including field and wood names etc. that potentially refer to local medieval topography). In the latter case it would appear significant, for example, that ‘-den’ names have a Kent focus, with numbers generally decreasing quite sharply at what is still the Wealden county boundary with East Sussex (Everitt 1986: 35; Brandon and Short 1990: 25; cf. East Sussex ‘-field’ names). Such differences may even represent ethnic boundaries in the more distant past. Evidence of medieval life and culture derived from literature and art, such as Psalters, or the Canterbury abbey and Chertsey Cartulary maps (c. 1165 and 1432 respectively), should also be admissible, but such information needs to be interpreted carefully. As well as original biases, literary tropes and artistic conventions must be taken into account. Chaucer’s evocation of socially stratified pilgrims travelling through Kent, for example, is best seen within the context of ‘estates’ literature, presenting highly stylised social portraits (see Rigby 1996: Chapter 1). Archaeological, environmental and finds evidence Archaeological evidence is vital if we are to have any hope of reconstructing those many aspects of medieval society in the region that were simply not recorded in contemporary documents: much should be considered ‘prehistoric’, even at this period (a wooden harpoon found near Chichester is especially eloquent of this: see Allen and Pettit 1997). Turner’s general comment applied to Surrey is relevant to the region as a whole: ‘(T)here are many pre- or proto- literate aspects…that can only be illuminated by archaeological methods. There are many gaps in the documentary record, particularly at the local level, and many parts of society did not participate in the record-making process at all.’ (1987: 223). This can be qualified further by Turner’s more recent point that archaeology is still often seen as ‘concerned only with buried evidence. It should, of course, just as frequently be seen as concerned with the upstanding…’(2004: 140) and the important standing building resource in the region is still in need of much investigation (including definitive cataloguing). In both standing buildings and buried archaeology much recent work is only contained in unpublished grey literature reports but some development-led excavations have been reported on via monographs (e.g. Townwall Street Dover - Parfitt et al. 2006) and in county society journals (e.g. Butler 1994; Hearne et al. 1996; Stevens 1997, 2007; Saunders 1997, 1998; Perkins et al. 1998; Barber 1999; Lovell 2001; Pine 2003; Clough 2004; Howe 2004; Allen 2004; Edwards 2007). Such sites include important new information from known settlements as well as previously largely or totally unknown Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 3 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 evidence from rural locations (e.g. Parfitt 2008). Extracting information from published works, grey literature and the various County Historic Environment Records (HERs) can be a challenge and there is need to develop more sophisticated referencing systems. As well as excavations driven by land-based development, archaeological evidence has increasingly been derived from marine contexts via the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund (ALSF; e.g. Long et al. 2006) and university led marine projects. Moreover, a large body of new finds data is increasingly supplied by metal-detected and other finds reported to the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS). This corpus is already an important addition to available data types, and will continue to grow both in quantity and significance. Finally, archaeological science is a vital area of study in need of considerable promotion, augmentation, improvement and synthesis for the medieval as well as other periods, though much as been done already. In addition to the reports above which should include the specialist reports for each site, many relatively accessible specialist reports on environmental analyses, dendrochronology and other forms of archaeological science can be found in the HERs, in the English Heritage report series and on the Archaeological Data Service (ADS) website, which notably holds the specialist reports (as well as the full reports) from the Channel Tunnel Rail Link intervention (CTRL; ADS 2006 CTRL digital archive). Several reviews of environmental work commissioned by English Heritage are available on demand (pollen, insects, wood, molluscs), whilst further reports on animal bones and plant remains are in preparation. The Environmental Archaeology Bibliography, also hosted on the ADS site (Environmental Archaeology Bibliography 2004) is an excellent resource. Castles, elite residences and defences Over 50 castles are known or postulated from documentary and/or archaeological evidence in the region, including examples in Surrey at Abinger, Thunderfield, Waltonon-the-Hill, Cranleigh (Brandon and Short 1990: 46 [see Plate 2.5]), and at Bletchingly, Enton's Coppice (near Capel Street), Ockley, Starborough and Reigate (Surrey HER); there are developed stone keeps at Guildford and Farnham (ibid.). Along with royal castles at Dover, Canterbury and Rochester, Alan Ward lists 22 early examples in Kent, and 13 others that represent various later developments, some on the same site as previous buildings (2004: 53-5). In Sussex, including those castles forming the administrative centres of the rapes at Arundel, Bramber, Lewes, Pevensey and Hastings (see Brandon and Short 1990: 29-30), Richard Jones (1999: with Susan Rowland) maps four ringworks and 22 earth and timber castles, earth and timber castles with later improvements in stone, and fully stone castles for the county. Many castles in the region as a whole retain most or some of their eventually imposing structures, as at Arundel, Lewes, Pevensey, Hastings, Dover, Canterbury, Rochester, Tonbridge, Cooling, Guildford and Farnham. It is worth bearing in mind that the earliest medieval castles can be viewed as being more offensive in function, protecting and consolidating an invasion and providing defendable strongholds for baronial colonists. Some were later to be developed, rebuilt, strengthened and elaborated in stone, but many motte and bailey and ringwork structures were apparently abandoned relatively early in the period (or had a change of use, see Thompson 1995, for example) once their more strategic uses had been outlived, either in conquest or later periods of civil war. Surviving castles went on to form the basis of a developing militarised infrastructure of physical and symbolic dominance, elite residence and defence in a key frontier zone between London and the Continent. Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 4 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 Bodiam Castle in East Sussex has been argued to lack efficacy as a defensive structure per se, and can be viewed more as a prototype of the post-medieval stately home, complete with formal gardens and a viewing platform from which to survey them (Taylor et al. 1990). Indeed many (following Coulson 1979) would see Bodiam as a significant case study. The historical source, in this case a ‘licence to crenellate’, must be qualified by an understanding of the actual building and landscape context (see Johnson 1999: chapter 10). The same could be said of Scotney Castle in Kent (Ward 2004: 55), and especially of 15th century Herstmonceux in Sussex, of which category Clarke has written: ‘What we are witnessing… is the transformation of the medieval castle into the Tudor mansion (1984: 116). Matthew Johnson has recently suggested that the defence/symbolism dichotomy in castle studies is essentially misguided and that we need to move beyond it to a more nuanced view of identity/masculinity: Bodiam again provides the example. Colin Platt’s response to this, that matters of defence should not be overlooked in ‘the social turmoil of Richard II’s reign and … the long history of French raids on the South Coast’ (2007: 86) can in fact be accommodated within such a perspective, as can his assertion that Bodiam formed a defence system with Scotney, Penshurst and Hever in Kent (ibid.: with further bibliography for this debate, but see also Creighton and Liddiard 2008). Perhaps it is indeed now time to situate Bodiam more within in its local and regional context, rather than purely considering it at national and international level: unpublished work by Casper Johnson and David Martin would contribute here (Matthew Johnson, pers. comm.). Crenellated manors (e.g. Westenhanger Castle - Martin and Martin 2001) and large halls are further examples of elite residence designed for defence and display by the major gentry from an early period. Regional comparison of these as well as ecclesiastical palaces (e.g. the Archbishop’s palace at Charing - Pearson 2001) would tell us much about this tier of society and its early influence. Developments during the period in defensive walls and structures associated with private and ecclesiastical houses as well as towns (e.g. Canterbury, Chichester) can also be seen as affording protection from within the region as much as without. The image of a regional infrastructure of martial necessity and elite display therefore begins to emerge, as the sheer density of defensive structures of all types mapped in the Sussex Atlas alone demonstrates (Jones 1999: 51); Jones has gone on to postulate some interesting patterning of ‘spheres of influence’ in the development of the Sussex ‘system’ over time (2003: 174-6). The chronological development of such patterns across the region and their correlation with other aspects of the medieval society in the South-East remain areas for further study. Along with the continued possibility of discovering new castle sites (as at Hartfield and Rudgewick in Sussex for example: ibid.: 177), elucidating finer details of castle chronology and clarifying the structural details of castles that no longer survive (e.g. Abinger in Surrey: see Brandon and Short 1990: 47, Plate 2.5), excavated features might offer important insights into castle life. Unfortunately, as Gerrard and others have observed, coverage of castle sites from the point of view of excavation and associated specialist analyses of material culture, diet, etc. is still patchy, and is likely to remain so if digging is not closely related to research questions (Gerrard 2003: 191; excavations at Lewes Castle in the 1980s [Drewett 1992)] give a good idea of the potential of a more research led impetus on castle sites, as well as demonstrating the importance of full publication of results). Environmental and zooarchaeological analyses (where good data are obtainable) offer the opportunity to investigate aspects of castle culture in new detail. Evidence of agricultural activity has been uncovered at Westenhanger Castle (Stevens 2006a), for Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 5 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 example, where some assemblages dominated by oats and rye differed somewhat from the others, reflecting the usual medieval suite of cereals dominated by free-threshing wheat and barley, and where the weed seeds indicate the exploitation of a range of soil types from dry and sandy to heavy clay. Zooarchaeological research on castle and high status assemblages has been crucial for identifying consumption patterns and the rise and fall of faunal status symbols from the Saxon to Postmedieval period (Albarella and Davis 1996; Sykes 2004, 2006; Albarella and Thomas 2002; Serjeantson 2006). These syntheses have pointed to ways in which the elite distanced themselves from the nonelite groups through diet, and through a relatively greater consumption of beef and in particular pork (and venison), for example. The study of the large Guildford assemblage is a good example (Sykes et al. 2005). In comparison with material culture and environmental information derived from excavation, and combined with documentary study, analysis of building layouts and access (Mathieu 1999) will enable consideration of more complex social and experiential (Johnson 2002) questions about castle communities, along the lines of Gilchrist’s investigation of gender roles for example (1999a: 109-45; also Richardson 2003), or in terms of vertical social status. Understanding of castle culture at this level of detail would allow further comparison with groups beyond castle walls, and indeed with their hinterlands in urban and rural contexts (see Creighton 2005; Creighton and Liddiard [2008] propose a research agenda for castles combining excavation and landscape studies and non-intrusive fieldwork), but only if similarly detailed and comprehensive data were equally available from other walks of life. There might also be many more ephemeral features/structures in the landscape associated with defence themes, as Andrew Saunders recently pointed out (2007), including siege works, ditched defences and so on; HERs for the counties in the study area actually include a number of examples of battlefields, archery butts, earth banks (some possibly defensive) etc., and PAS data and HERs often include ‘stray’ military equipment and weaponry, perhaps in some cases indicating the presence of unknown battlefields, or unknown defended sites. Yet arrowheads, for example, can reflect either martial activity or hunting (Jessop 1996), and it is very noticeable that these finds are just a small subgroup of a much broader corpus of portable objects represented in PAS and HER databases, all of which might be more broadly associated with ‘travel’ in the region. Objects with martial or hunting associations within this evidence type should also be seen in the context of public display and social status as much as personal ‘defence’. Moated sites ‘Moated sites’ constitute an analytical category created by archaeologists, and it is unclear how useful such a generalised term can be as a way of classifying what are in fact a range of sites (consider the ‘fishpond’ which ran along two sides of the Hextalls manor, Bletchingley, for example, which may well have been considered a ‘moat’ by some: see Poulton 1998). Very little can be said with any confidence about the undoubtedly varied development, function and social and cultural implications of these sites. In terms of relative chronology, Jones thinks it ‘probable’ that the Sussex examples at least follow a pattern ’demonstrated’ by studies elsewhere and that ‘most were constructed between 1150 and 1500 with a period of rapid expansion between 1200 and 1325’ (1999: 51). This may be a model to test and fine-tune on a regional scale, but sufficient data are simply not currently available and no definitive regional gazetteer exists (ibid.; see also Bird [2006: 56] for Surrey; there is nothing on ‘moated sites’ in Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 6 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 Ward’s ‘Castles and Other Defensive Sites’ in An Historical Atlas of Kent [2004]). Actually it is far from clear whether the following figures (those currently available) are in any way representative of the true number of sites in the region that could be fitted within this broad category, and there is little doubt that a systematic search would reveal many more (Mark Gardiner pers. comm.). Brandon and Short (1990: 113) cited figures published by Aberg (1978: 3, Table 1; also cited by Clarke 1984:54) of 93 moated sites for Kent and 190 for Sussex as a whole; Surrey is allocated 123 in Aberg’s list (ibid.). Most HER searches in the region still show markedly less moated sites per county, giving a further clue to the incompleteness of these databases. Forms, functions, numbers and mapping of Surrey examples have been more convincingly addressed by Turner (1987: 230-4 and 244-6), who estimates ‘approximately 150’ (ibid.: 230). Jones actually puts the figure for Sussex at ‘over 235… although no definitive study has been undertaken…’ (1999: 51), suggesting that geology, ‘in particular the Wealden clay…’ might be a major factor for such a large number in that county (cf. Turner 1987: 230-1, and Figure 9.5). If this is the case for Sussex and Surrey it is surely interesting that Kent should have so many less moated sites. Site-specific publications in the region include sites at Glottenham, Hawksden and Bodiam (Martin 1989, 1990) in Sussex, at Boys Hall (Booth and Everson 1995) and at Parsonage Farm near Ashford (see Glass 1999: 213-14; and the CTRL archive) and Edenbridge Manor House (Brady and Biddulph 2007) in Kent, and at South Park Farm, Grayswood (Graham and Graham 2000) and Downside Farm, Cobham (Graham et al. 2005) in Surrey. The purpose of ‘moated sites’ in the region and beyond remains a subject of debate which would benefit from the accruing of more detailed evidence. Among other things, insecurity, climate deterioration (see Clarke 1984 on this and other views) and ‘geographical suitability’ (Barber 2008a: 66) can be taken into account in terms of their development and distribution. Certainly, albeit with an apparently limited dataset, Roberts and Wrathmell’s map of moated sites in the region (2003) would appear to show moats were mainly constructed in areas where the water table could be more easily reached: the Weald and Greensand areas of the region, with some outliers in coastal fringe and marshland locations (2002: Figure 2.12). Beyond practical considerations, however, the social and cultural aspects of these sites are of particular interest (Clarke 1984: 57-8). As Jones (1999: 51) suggests: ‘… it seems that moated sites soon attained a social and symbolic cachet, being associated with aristocratic, ecclesiastic and other manorial dwellings, which led to their adoption by those in the lower echelons of society.’ This phenomenon is perhaps particularly interesting therefore in terms of the rise of the minor gentry, especially in the Weald. Nationally, the close connection between many such sites and other rural settlements has been emphasised by Clarke (1984: 61-2), and is a further aspect in need of study, as well as a reminder that single classes of monument are not necessarily a meaningful research end in themselves (ibid.). Much interdisciplinary research into ‘moated sites’ is required, preferably targeting sites for which there is good documentary evidence. The research questions on which excavation should be based are primarily the need to define variant and probably not mutually exclusive functions and relative chronologies, and to obtain comparative material culture and environmental data (often particularly well preserved at some of these sites). One interesting example of interdisciplinary work is the moat at Parsonage Farm, Kent, where animal bones (see below), pollen (Scaife 2006), geoarchaeology Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 7 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 (Corcoran 2006), diatoms (Cameron 2006), plant remains (Davis 2006a) and wood (Smith 2006) studies have shown (in addition to the economic status) episodes of stagnation and free flowing water, the latter indicating that the moat had been kept clean during one period, a characteristic not typical of moats. The studies also showed that the moat was bordered by managed woodland of alder, oak, hazel, elm, ash, lime and hornbeam. There are unfortunately still few animal bone assemblages from such sites. Interestingly, however, a brief report on three moated sites in northeast Sussex (Anon in Martin 1989) lists ox and pig (generally indicating high status) as being “plentiful” and rabbit was also noted. Following its introduction rabbit would have been a luxury food also (see Curl and Sykes 2010). Clearly focussed interdisciplinary study could lead to more opportunities for comparison, and therefore more than just general statements about the cultural and historical significance of this still rather vaguely classified site type. Vernacular buildings Another vital and better understood class of evidence for the medieval period in the region is provided by the very large number of surviving timber-framed buildings, and in particular open halls, including aisled halls, Wealdens, and other forms. Some would argue that standing buildings are the most important medieval inheritance of the SouthEast, and yet often the most underrated. Sarah Pearson (1994) surveyed 380 houses from 60 parishes of Kent (representing only 19% of the county’s parishes and 24% of its total area), and, with chosen examples from other areas of Kent along with those known from other investigators, was able to compare around 500 examples (ibid.: 6-8; Pearson actually estimated a total of some 2500 such buildings for Kent alone: ibid.: 146). Brandon and Short rather misleadingly refer to all of these buildings as ‘Wealden’ (1990: 110), but the term actually refers to a subtype. Moreover, the statement that the distribution of halls extends ‘from their heartland in the Maidstone and Cranbrook districts into the bordering areas of Surrey and Sussex…’ (ibid.) in truth only reflects current patterns of survival. The form seems originally to have had an urban origin (Pearson 2005), and to have ‘spread’ southwards into the Weald (Sarah Pearson, pers. comm.). The typology of the layouts and structural engineering of halls and other timber framed buildings, along with architectural embellishments such as ornate mouldings, is a complex area of study (see Grenville 1997). At present in the South-East synthesis is only county based, despite the undoubtedly regional distribution of the buildings themselves (see for example; Turner 1987: 253-60; Pearson 1994; Martin and Martin 1999; Gray 2001; Hughes 2004). Indeed, the regional distribution is actually interesting in itself from the point of view of regionality, as are some typological similarities with European traditions (see Munby et al. 1983 for some inroads into this subject both regionally and internationally). Absolute chronology derived from dendrochronological analysis of surviving timbers (see Bridge 1988; Laxton and Litton 1989) provides much potential for better understanding of the relative chronology of this building type region-wide. A certain amount of tree-ring dating has already been undertaken; the Vernacular Architecture Group’s growing list of tree-ring dates for buildings currently comprises: East and West Sussex: 40, Surrey: 91 and Kent: 94: most but not all medieval (Sarah Pearson pers. comm.). PPG15 related work has produced some more information, and, hopefully, will continue to add new data, as HERs and the on-line Environmental Archaeology Bulletin Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 8 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 attest. Further important work has been contributed by the Domestic Buildings Research Group for Surrey (Bird 2006: 56), which is ongoing, as is the Rape of Hastings Architectural Survey in East Sussex. The majority of surviving hall houses are later (although see Austin 2003 for a rare and important early example at Newbury Farm, Tonge in Kent), and many were built for clothiers, some of Flemish origin, yeoman farmers (see Brandon and Short 1990: 110-12) and wealthy peasants (Pearson 1994: 146): in other words, the upwardly mobile. In this respect, it is interesting to note David Martin’s suggestion that the size, and therefore increased chances of survival, of hall houses might be indexed to the scale of their associated landholdings: ‘Few medieval houses survive for holdings of less than 50 acres, which suggests that they were of flimsier construction and not replaced…’ (cited in Brandon and Short 1990: 110). Landed wealth was more widely dispersed in terms of social background after the enormous social and economic problems and plague epidemics of the mid-14th century. It is surely significant that it is after this time that ‘Houses whose builders were quite certainly not of gentry status’ begin to be built, many of which survive (Pearson 1994: 146, discussing certain houses of the central low Weald). The potential for studying the use of space, and therefore the socially symbolic and ideologically significant layouts of medieval domestic buildings, is considerable, and a useful introductory discussion of the development of such ‘archaeological research agendas’ including spatial analysis, structuralist approaches and considerations of habitus and structuration theory (approaches initiated by Bourdieu 1977 and Giddens 1984 respectively), is provided by Grenville (1997: 13-22; see also Johnson 1993, 1996). Interdisciplinary work should explore further the social and cultural developments these buildings represent. Buried archaeological evidence, as well as uncovering the remains of previously unknown halls for comparison (e.g. Gardiner et al. 1991; Howe 2004), will also provide comparative material culture, and, in the right locations, environmental and zoological data (cf. the ‘Marlipins’ project in an urban context, at Shoreham: Thomas 2005). Zooarchaeological evidence has been obtained from the animal remains at Hextalls, Bletchingley in Surrey (first half of the 16th century), for example, where the analysis of bodypart distributions shows variation in waste on site reflecting the diet and status of the inhabitants (Bourdillon 1998). Similarly the assemblage at Parsonage Farm, Kent (CTRL report) yielded a typical medieval assemblage, focussed on older cattle and sheep, but with possible high status markers (juvenile pigs, meat bearing bones of deer and a range of wildfowl) which support information from the material culture. Many of the wild species are known to have been managed in parks (e.g. fallow deer, rabbit, game birds); a further note on suggestions of ‘elite’ signification through hunting is made in the section on landscape, below). Coupled with documentary and cartographic evidence, there is surely much to be achieved via research projects that would target good building evidence (preferably with absolute dating) for research excavation and specialist analyses to provide data for comparative study. Much more evidence of the material culture and diet of the inhabitants of the hall houses would provide a better understanding of how they at least benefited from the opportunities produced in the aftermath of the 14th century: for many others it had been disastrous. Villages and other rural settlements The complex settlement pattern of the South-East and the Weald in particular relates to what has been dubbed the ‘woodland’ or ‘ancient’ landscape zone rather than the ‘Midland model’ of nucleated settlements and open field systems (see Williamson and Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 9 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 Bellamy 1987: 10ff). Generally speaking, settlements that can be called ‘villages’ in the Middle Ages tended to be found in greater numbers in predominantly arable rather than pastoral areas, which would mean that they would most likely be found in this region in coastal Sussex and coastal and eastern Kent (Mark Gardiner, pers. comm.). This accords with patterns of nucleation and deserted villages reported by Roberts and Wrathmell (2002: cf. Figures 15 and 21). In predominantly pastoral zones, particularly in Surrey and Kent, and especially in the assarted areas of the Weald where the initial impetus for settlement was via systems of transhumance from without, there developed a much more dispersed settlement pattern (ibid.). Surrey and Kent were therefore mainly characterised by dispersed patterns of small hamlets and isolated farms in the medieval period (Everitt 1986: 41; Turner 1987: 246). In Kent this has been seen as directly related to the particularly diverse manorial systems, land management and peasant status that developed in the county, at least beyond the large monastic estates (Brandon and Short 1990: 56-62; Sweetinburgh 2004a: 48; Lawson 2004a: 50); manorial records and deeds have yet to be fully tapped in this area (Sheila Sweetinburgh, pers. comm.). This formation of the rural landscape is also an important area of research in relation to transition from the early to late medieval periods, and is also significant for the study of parish churches. In fact, dispersed settlement patterning might account for the ‘isolated church syndrome’ in Kent especially (John Williams, pers. comm.). While dispersed settlements are particularly difficult to investigate archaeologically, a scheme of interdisciplinary village based projects (as Turner suggests: 2004: 143), including field walking, might begin to characterise the medieval rural landscape around current villages more clearly (cf. Shapwick in the 1990s; see Stamper 1999: 257; see also Lewis 2007a, 2007b). Brandon and Short’s investigation (1990) centred on deserted medieval villages and was clearly focussed on certain areas of Sussex, although deserted medieval villages are also known from the downland, coastal fringes and heathland of Kent and Surrey respectively (Beresford and Hurst 1971, see Roberts and Wrathmell 2003: Figure 21). Citing Alciston in Sussex as a particular example, Brandon and Short (1990: see Figure 3.1) argued that the widespread desertion of villages resulted mainly from a combination of population decline and new opportunities (for a few) for land exploitation in the 15th century, especially on the downland, where many demesne fields were enclosed and given over to pasture (ibid.: 103-6). Actually, the relationship between open field farming and farming in severalty on the Sussex coastal plain, Downs and Weald can be shown to be more complex (see Gardiner 1999). The impact of elite emparking of land should also be taken into account (cf. maps in Gardiner 1999 and Pennington and Platt 1999). The Weald in particular needs to be more convincingly understood in these as well as other respects. Gardiner (1990: especially 47-50) begins to address this (see also Gardiner 1996 for a documentary based approach to local historical geography in the Weald, and Gardiner 1998a for application of interdisciplinary approaches to lost Wealden settlements). The fact that a number of the ‘deserted medieval settlements’ mapped in An Historical Atlas of Sussex are Wealden, along with some at the greensand junction with the Weald and the Rother Valley (Pennington and Platt 1999), would seem to suggest at least some potential locations for deserted villages in equivalent areas in Surrey and Kent by way of comparison; again, targeted village-based studies would appear to be a useful way forward. Gardiner (1997) has also traced the establishment of a type of market settlement in Sussex and Kent in the 13th and 14th centuries. Moreover, the term ‘settlements’ would include deserted farmsteads, of which there may be many as yet unmapped (Mark Gardiner, pers. comm.). Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 10 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 Along with much change in overall settlement distributions and layouts, there is considerable evidence of change and development within settlements to consider. In 1984, Clarke presented a typology of buildings based on social structure, from small cots, the very basic one or two room dwellings of the poorest cottars and bordars, to the longhouses of villeins with more cultivation rights as well as access to or ownership of ploughs, and animals, to the several building layouts of the farms of the richest peasants with rights to cultivate more land etc. Farms indeed often seem to have amalgamated adjacent deserted crofts and tofts as they became available later in the period for the socio-economic and demographic reasons already discussed. This could be demonstrated at one of the few excavated deserted medieval village sites in the region: Hangleton in East Sussex. Here four earlier crofts became part of one farm complex by the 15th century (Clarke 1984: 43, Figure 16; see Holden 1963). Evidence from what appeared to be one of the simple peasant cots excavated at Hangleton was used for reconstruction of this type of building at the Weald and Downland Museum (see Clarke 1984: 39, Figure 39), although this example might actually have been a separate kitchen for a larger establishment (Mark Gardiner, pers. comm.). In fact, the entire chronology of these various building types and the general typology of the later medieval domestic plan in England have recently been redefined by Gardiner (2000). The longhouse, for example, is now ‘identified as a regional variant’ (ibid.: 159) rather than a formative stage in a general developmental model, and is actually not found in the South-East. The broad tripartite social division used as a rough index to housing outlined by Clarke on a national scale (1984: 33) also cannot account for a more complicated southeast regional picture presented by the documentary evidence (see Brandon and Short 1990: 56-62). In Kent, gavelkinders enjoyed more freedoms from service to the lords through ‘a multitude of private money arrangements…A full explanation for the relative freedom and individualism that prevailed amongst the Kentish peasantry is not yet forthcoming’ (ibid.: 57). Such factors seem indeed to contribute to the more widespread pattern of dispersed settlement in the region, especially in Kent and Surrey. General models of housing and landholding over time should therefore not be assumed or projected onto the evidence, and a good deal more investigation via field study and excavation throughout the region is required in order to approach the characterisation and comparison of particular establishments. There is likely to be a great deal more information below the surface that will help in this regard. For example, the site of a late medieval farm with two buildings and a cobbled courtyard fronting on to the modern road was excavated in 2000 by the Canterbury Archaeological Trust at Bogshole Lane, near Herne Bay (Richard Helm pers. comm.; cf. Perkins et al. 1998; Saunders 1997; Stevens 2007 for further examples of rural sites discovered because of proposed development). Reports of some sites, and potentially significant ones, have taken many years to reach publication (e.g. Philp 2006; Baker and Herbert 2008), and many may never be published because of lack of funding. The Bogshole Lane site seems to correlate with Clarke’s model of farms with partly cobbled surfaces associated with easy access for livestock to and from the road (cf. Structure 9 at Hangleton: Clarke 1984: 42, Figure 16). The recently excavated ‘Thanet Earth’ site in Kent has revealed an entirely new medieval settlement area, including cellared buildings and ribbon development along a road (John Rady pers. comm.). Only by large-scale open area excavation can such entirely new evidence be located and characterised, but it should be reiterated that work on latter day villages in relation to medieval settlement has much potential for uncovering earlier settlement (as has been demonstrated in Surrey for example: see Turner 2004: 136-7). Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 11 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 Equally, the study of house layouts in the village and farmstead setting in terms of the social and cultural division of space (more likely to be based on excavated evidence) is just as important as it is for the houses of the better off (see section 4 above), with which they should be compared. We might also be looking in this dataset for evidence of agency and even resistance to social control on the part of the less well-off: evidence from excavation might present a different view from more official accounts derived from documentary sources. Along with comparison of material culture and buildings from all such sites, there is much need to continue encouraging environmental analyses to compare agricultural regimes, animal husbandry and diet over time and space. Such evidence has been accumulating since the 1980s. Studies of molluscs in dry valleys in the South Downs show that cultivation occurs near the settlement in Kiln Coombe (Bell 1983) and Hangleton Bottom, Brighton East Sussex (Wilkinson 2002) but that at Toadeshale Bottom East and West, Brighton, the arable environment extended beyond the immediate catchment of farming villages (Wilkinson 2002). More generally, continuing the trend set in the Saxon period, most assemblages are fairly similar (Giorgi 2006); they are dominated by free-threshing wheat either bread wheat or less often rivet wheat (Robinson 1999) and barley. Rye is now also often recovered, most notably at Pevensey (Robinson 1999) and Westenhanger Castle (Stevens 2006a) and also oats, as at Seaford, East Sussex (Hinton 2004). The assemblages also contain beans, peas, lentils, flax, plums (Davis 2006a, 2006b; Stevens 2006a) and vetch for fodder (Campbell 2006). The odd assemblage includes emmer, as at Saltwwod Tunnel (Stevens 2006b) and Ebbsfleet Peninsula, Sandwich Bay (Scaife 1995); this could represent a local revival of the use of emmer in medieval times or a taphonomic problem, and merits further investigation and dating. At many sites, weed seed assemblages indicate that a range of soil types are used; alongside the other plant remains they also provide information on stages of crop processing. A number of sunken featured buildings dating to the 11th to 14th century, with internal circular structures consisting of flint cobble bases, have been found across northern Kent and the Isle of Thanet (see Andrews et al. 2009: 249-251 for discussion). At Fulston Manor and Star Lane, samples yielded high numbers of charred plant remains. Single samples were also recovered from outside the domed oven but within the sunken featured building at Leyborne. It is thought that these structures are more likely to be related to baking, or possibly brewing, than grain drying given the design of the structures. Whole grain might be used in ovens to prevent the loaves sticking to the oven floors or bars or whole grain may be thrown into the oven to test temperature. Examples of animal bones studies include that of Bullock Down, Kilne Combe, Eastbourne (Drewett 1982), but there are relatively few animal bone data for rural settlements, and where present they are very limited, impeding a good understanding of regional and local patterns of rural production and urban supply. Some broad syntheses have been undertaken, however. The synthesis of animal bone data from England by Sykes (2006) shows that rural sites (nine assemblages) always yield a higher proportion of sheep dominated assemblages than urban sites (i.e. cattle are relatively more common in urban versus rural sites) from the mid 5th to 16th c. and that cattle dominated assemblages rise in both rural and urban sites in the 12th–14th and 14th– 16th centuries, perhaps reflecting the increased focus on cattle dairying or beef production (documentary evidence can also be brought to bear in comparison, see for example Campbell 2010). Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 12 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 Towns There was a considerable increase in the development of new urban centres and the expansion of those founded in the Anglo-Saxon period in the region in the later medieval period. It has been noted (see Brandon and Short 1990: 85-92; Williams, this volume) that the presence of important royal, lordly and ecclesiastical establishments and, increasingly, markets, often provided a focus either for new foundations or continued progression of existing centres. This would certainly include Canterbury, Chichester, Guildford, Rochester, Lewes, Hastings, Tonbridge, Reigate, Bletchingley, Farnham (castles and seigneurial residence), Battle, Chertsey, West Malling (monastic houses), Charing, Mayfield, Farnham (archbishop’s palaces) and Wadhurst, Horsham and Ticehurst (markets), for example. Other towns were initiated by the growth in certain industries and trades; links with London are important here, especially for Surrey towns, but also for Faversham in Kent, for example. The cloth industry can be seen as the stimulus for Tenterden and Cranbrook, and for further growth of Godalming and Guildford. Robertsbridge is a good example of the development (and deliberate founding by the local abbot) of a town at a significant river crossing in the transport network (Brandon and Short 1990: 91). For the historic county of Surrey at this period we also have the extraordinary town of Southwark, which, through its close association with London, was a centre for a very interesting mix of industry (including the ‘leisure industry’), prisons and ‘the sumptuous town houses of great churchmen’ (ibid.: 92). The Cinque Ports system, focussed on the Kent and Sussex coasts with members inland (see Brandon and Short 1990: 81-5; Bleach and Gardiner 1999; Lawson 2004b) was a further administrative impetus for town development, and government response to the climate and coastal deterioration resulted, for example, in the town of Winchelsea, founded by Edward I in 1288 as a replacement for Old Winchelsea (ibid.: 90; see Martin 2003; Martin and Martin 2004). Further towns developed on the Sussex coast beyond the Cinque Ports area, such as the major ports at Seaford, New Shoreham, Littlehampton and Arundel, along with numerous small ports and landing places (Bleach and Gardiner 1999), and market foci also spurred town development across the region (ibid.; see also Lawson 2004b and Andrews 2004 for example). Large amounts of new archaeological data from medieval urban contexts have been added in the last 20 years or so, including evidence for smaller towns (e.g. Russell 1990; Stevens 1990; Pine 2003; Clough 2004; Stevens 2004; Wragg et al. 2005; Edwards 2007), but there has been little synthesis (although see Dyer 2003, for a national review), and individual towns have still only been very partially excavated. On a broader scale, as Gerrard points out, developer funding has resulted in ‘more archaeological investigation in larger historic towns than …in smaller towns…’ and higher relative levels of development have meant that ‘more archaeological work is undertaken in the SouthEast than it is in the North-East of England’ (2003: 207). This might be seen as being of particular benefit to the South-East region, but there is a need to make the information recovered from this work more easily available. To demonstrate the scale of the issue, a list of short summaries of individual medieval ‘sites’ (including small and large scale excavations and watching briefs as well as building recording) in the Canterbury and Chichester District Urban Archaeological Databases (as of September 2007) stretches to 400 and 300 pages respectively (Richard Cross and James Kenny, pers. comm.). Recently Sarah Pearson (2007) has reiterated the problems that beset building recording in towns, and Paul Bennett (2007) has drawn attention to an increasing trend towards piling and raft methods of building in Canterbury and elsewhere, resulting in the accompanying archaeological work being considerably more difficult both to undertake Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 13 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 and interpret. Even without considering data that may not have been included in HER databases over the years, much work is plainly still required in order to bring all the relevant information together and analyse it. Luke Barber cites Midhurst in West Sussex as a town that has been well served by recent synthesis of small-scale work (2008a: 65; see Magilton 2001; see also Gardiner [1995] on Seaford; and Andrews [2004] on Kingston, Surrey), and Winchelsea, until recently, was indeed ‘special’ in the detailed interdisciplinary treatment it had received (Martin 2003: 179). The Martins’ work at Winchelsea, hailed as a model for future research methods, combines building survey with excavated evidence, the result of which is vital detail of the colourful and fluctuating fortunes of a particular urban settlement, with all sorts of implications for the regional picture of medieval society and beyond. Consider, for example, the importance of the town for overseas trade, especially in terms of wine for conspicuous consumption by members of the elite and the ‘upwardly mobile’ of the region. Storage of this primarily Bordeaux derived commodity was the primary function of the town’s many vaulted undercrofts, 32 of which are still accessible (Martin 1999: 44). On the other hand, the town was in the front line during the 100 years war, and was sacked a number of times by the French during the 14th century (ibid.), and, at least in 1360, many inhabitants were killed. These tribulations, along with the Black Death, resulted in considerable abandonment of town tenements and shrinkage of the settlement overall; the title of chief Sussex port passed to Chichester in 1378 (ibid.: cf. maps 1 and 2). More such studies are needed for comparison, and recent publications on Lydd (Barber and Priestly-Bell 2008), New Romney (Draper and Meddens 2009), and Sandwich (Clarke et al. 2010) are most welcome. In reference to Chichester, Luke Barber points out that ‘there is a huge body of data on the medieval period which…has yet to be drawn together to address the wider issues of urbanism…’ (Barber 2008b: 111), and this statement is equally applicable to Canterbury (although Lyle [2002: 62-95] contributes) as well as Guildford, and indeed many towns of the region. Large numbers of artefacts from the urban centres of the period are also being amassed through development-led work, but even classification is falling behind rates of collection: in this area Luke Barber has recently called for the development of an up-to-date ceramic sequence for medieval Chichester (2008b: 110). Environmental evidence is also being collected and a systematic approach to data already collected, as well as targeting of future resources, is clearly necessary in a research area which has so much potential for better understanding of the diet and conditions of town dwellers. For instance, at St Gregory’s, Canterbury, faecal material was recovered from a 11th century cesspit that showed that cereals (recovered as bran), eggs, fish, blackberry, wild strawberry, peas and beans were commonly consumed. There was also rarer evidence of ingestion of figs, poppy seeds, hops and plums. The inhabitants were infested with parasitic worms (see Allison and Hall 2001; Hall 1996). Environmental analyses from Townwall Street, Dover provide another excellent example of the sorts of insights such information can provide, especially concerning the lives of the poorest strata of town society, who might well be missing from the picture given by documentary and standing building evidence alone. The evidence from Townwall Street related in particular to fishing and preparation of the catch for export, as well as malting etc. (Parfitt et al. 2006; Nicholson 2006). As Enid Allison pointed out at the SERF seminar on the medieval period (2007), interesting details associated with apparently opportunist supplementing of diet also emerged from this sample, including the capturing and butchery of sea birds (Ellison 2006; cf. Ropetackle, Shoreham-by-Sea, Sussex; Jaques 2004) and even a dolphin (see Gardiner 1998b for wider discussion of sea Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 14 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 mammal exploitation of the period). Plant remains from Town Wall Street (Campbell 2006) included sprouted barley, some rye including straw which may have come from thatch, species of the mustard family (representing mustard or some sort of cabbage) and legumes including broad beans. Another good example comes from a 12th century pottery kiln and well lined with hazel wickerwork at Pound Lane, Canterbury. This yielded both bread wheat and rivet wheat, barley, oats, rye and weed seeds which provided evidence for late stages of crop processing having taken place nearby (Carruthers 1990: 1997). Many more studies of animal bone assemblages are available for towns than for rural settlements. The range of species reflects increasing urbanisation throughout the medieval period, this diversification beginning, according to Sykes (2006), in the 9th century. Cattle are predominant in urban assemblages such as Townwall street, Dover (Bendrey 2007; Nicholson 2007), sites at Canterbury (Driver 1990; King 1982; Serjeantson 2001), The Marlipins, Shoreham-by-Sea, Sussex (Sykes 2005), St. John’s Vicarage and Old Malden, Kingston-upon-Thames (Hamilton-Dyer 2001). In most of those sites, butchery marks suggest that home butchery was mainly practised, rather than large scale intensive processing, although whole carcasses/animals were brought into town; this is also the case at Seaford (Gardiner 1995), Ropetackle, Shoreham-bySea (Stevens forthcoming) and Tanyard Lane, Steyning, Sussex (O’Connor 1979). The study of the development of medieval town life is clearly a complex multidisciplinary subject in itself (see for example Schofield and Vince 1994; Ottaway 1996; Schofield 1999). A research framework for the future should also be concerned with deconstructing the various social and also experiential aspects of urban centres, including the ‘structural’ and ideological, rather than merely treating conurbations as administrative and economically driven nodes of settlement (e.g. Galloway 2005). Schofield (1999: 222ff; 1992) outlines some of the general subject areas we might wish to investigate in towns in the region, for example, and Lilley (2005) deals with all aspects of urban design including symbolism and experiential matters (see also Giles and Dyer 2005a, 2005b on relationships between town and country, and especially Giles (2005) on comparisons of public space, and Rawcliffe (2005), an important insight into suburban spatial and social liminality; see Sweetinburgh’s (2010) essay on temporal and spatial symbolism in towns of medieval Kent). Moreover, towns in the region need to be situated within a broader European context (e.g. Schofield and Vince 2005). A combination of synthetic study of standing buildings, buried archaeological and environmental evidence and documentary sources is necessary in order to approach such questions, and to compare the conditions and experiences of different groups in the same urban contexts. As well as differences in social status (including artisan status), towns are often where we find evidence of minority groups. Documentary sources are our primary sources for the Jewish communities early in the period, for example. Some details even of individual lives are available, like the enclave centred on Jewry Lane, Canterbury, where ‘Jacob’s stone house on the east corner of Stour Street, with the synagogue behind, was rented from Christchurch Priory’ (Lyle 2002: 71). Documents also record a thriving Jewish presence at Guildford (Brandon and Short 1990: 88) and a private place of worship was apparently found preserved beneath a shop there in the mid-1990s. A brief report on this ‘synagogue’ appeared in the Independent newspaper for January 16, 1996 (Keys 1996), but no reference to it could be found in the Surrey HER searches carried out for this project. Much more targeted work making use of various data types (including comparative building records, artefact studies and environmental analyses) Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 15 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 would need to be carried out in order to explore such important questions of minority and ethnicity in the region at this time. The ecclesiastical context The ecclesiastical infrastructure took many forms in town and country, and remains a component of the built environment of the region, with cathedrals at Canterbury, Chichester and Rochester, and the many parish churches. Indeed, churches are surely the most common and obvious evidence of the medieval period for most inhabitants of the region today, and were ‘… the focal point for ritual and social life in a medieval community. They were used as a place of worship and regular meeting, for religious and seasonal festivals, baptism of infants, marriages and burial of the dead’ (Gilchrist 1999b: 228). They were also the stage for display and public munificence by local elites (see Brandon and Short 1990: 119-21: Weekes 2007a: 4), and, it can be argued, the ‘front line’ linking parochial networks to the central diocesan organisation. The transition from Anglo-Saxon to Norman church building has already been noted, and this also applies to the cathedral church at Canterbury, where the 11th century Saxon apse and its relationship with Lanfranc’s new nave (1070s) was observed during excavations in 1993 (Blockley et al. 1997; see Lyle 2002: plate 8). Chichester Cathedral represents a new site for the South Saxon see, moved from Selsey in about 1075 (Brandon and Short 1990: 88-9). Critical episodes in the creation of these great buildings throughout the period are of worldwide significance, the integration of Romanesque and Gothic styles over time a clear association with a broader European context of art and architecture. Major contributions to Canterbury cathedral include Lanfranc’s nave (1070), Anselm’s Romanesque tower (1130), Yevele’s perpendicular nave (1390s) and Wastell’s (1504) Bell Harry tower, for example (see Lyle 2002: plates 8, 9 and 27). Canterbury and other towns can also be seen as complex ecclesiastical landscapes in themselves, from their high status centres to their more marginal and therefore liminal suburbs (see Rawcliffe 2005, also Schofield and Vince on urban parish churches, cited below). In the study of parish churches the work of recording and analysis of typology and relative chronology (e.g. Tatton-Brown 2006) is ongoing (see Brandon and Short 1990: 44-6). Beyond this, new questions, including changes in technology and ritual (liturgy, the use of space, burial: Gerrard 2003: 189; see Blair and Pyrah 1996) and the church as social and ideological space (Gerrard 2003: 226; see Graves 1989) are significant avenues for research. Church archaeologists would today also look beyond the church centres themselves (buildings, interiors, frescoes, windows, fittings, interior and exterior buried evidence, artefacts) and into the wider landscape, at chantry houses and chapels, for example, and at holy wells (Gerrard 2003: 220 cites Rosser 1996; see also, however, Clarke 1984: 65-6). Moreover, research extends to considerations of how a church was experienced through everyday life; Schofield and Vince for example raise questions of private and public space and control of access to churches in the urban setting (1994: 158-9). Here we begin to move into the ‘social life of buildings’ (Gilchrist 1999b: 242-3), or rather, the study of buildings as expressions and representations of social life: the setting for negotiation and construction of ideologies. This in turn relates to the articulation of various physical and social structures in the landscape, such as the significance of spatial associations between manor, church and settlement (Gilchrist [1999b: 231] cites Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 16 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 Morris 1989: see also Stamper [1999] for a more holistic approach to social factors and rural landscape). Much church archaeology, driven by particular applications for faculties for change to buildings and churchyards, is piecemeal and very limited in scope, however, and while it can provide important information it is often difficult to interpret. Here once again there is a need for more synthetic studies. Large numbers of monasteries of various orders were also founded in the region (see Knowles and Hadcock 1971: 52-462, although even this is not definitive, at least in terms of hospitals, as it was primarily derived from the Victoria County History: Sweetingburgh 2004d: 19-20). Beyond these implanted communities with their variations on general themes of layout and building functions there are numerous alien houses, hospitals, almshouses, granges, colleges and also establishments of the orders of Knights Templars and Knights Hospitallers to consider (ibid.: see Sweetinburgh 2004b, 2004c; Taylor 1999, 2003; Turner 1987: 235-43 for useful overviews of the monastic establishments in Kent, Sussex and Surrey respectively). Brandon and Short’s regional distribution map of all such institutions (over 160 religious foundations of various sorts) shows some focus in the towns and country of the Sussex coastal plain, north and east Kent and nearer the Thames and London in Surrey, with less dense but quite even coverage of the Weald and Downs (1990: 39, Figure 2.3). As well as being communities to be investigated in themselves, these establishments exerted a major influence on the region through land management via manorial holdings, which could vary according to the rules of each order; Cistercian practice, for example, first introduced at Waverley in Surrey in 1128, required that monks and lay brothers should farm lands themselves rather than deriving rents and services as absent landlords (Harvey 1984: 5). Several large-scale urban excavations of monastic buildings and features show the potential of this archaeology, as with friaries at Guildford (Poulton and Woods 1984; see Schofield and Vince 1994: 170-1, Figure 6.13), and Lewes (Gardiner et al.1996), and St. Gregory’s Priory (Hicks and Hicks 2001) at Canterbury. Good evidence for the diet and farming activities of monks in the late 15th century has been found in highly organic deposits from St John’s Hospital, Canterbury, representing the diet and activities of an enclosed monastic and hospital establishment (Carrot et al. 1994). The analysis of the animal bones assemblage from St Gregory’s (Serjantson 2001), gives details of the meat, fowl and fish diet of the monks, the preparation of food and the disposal of food waste as well as status variation within the priory. The more recent large-scale Whitefriars excavations have made it possible to reconstruct a complex site narrative in terms of building layout and function, and to recover a superb assemblage of artefacts (often from secure contexts) along with environmental data and documentary evidence (Mark Houliston 2007; Sheila Sweetinburgh pers. comm.). More comparative evidence is needed in order to analyse the diversity of material culture and diet within monastic establishments, between different establishments and in comparison with other social groups and settings over time, or to pursue questions about gendered and otherwise ideological qualities of space and material culture in the monastic setting, for example (see Gilchrist 1994). In terms of the wider landscape and indeed the region as a whole as an ecclesiastical setting, pilgrimage, an important strand of medieval action and experience, was more widespread and complex than the most obvious focus on the shrine of St. Thomas Becket at Canterbury. Other foci included lesser places of pilgrimage and wayside shrines, as well as more ephemeral episodes of cult (see Webb 2004). PAS finds are already contributing important new data in this area, specifically with finds of small tin badges, and ampullae for carrying holy water, for example. Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 17 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 Industry and trade In 1984 Helen Clarke called for much more archaeological interest in crafts and industries: ‘…the life-blood of medieval England…poorly served by the archaeologist, who has until recently shown a peculiar lack of interest in this most important aspect of medieval life’ (1984: 129). Certainly this is a potentially rich area of study; ‘medieval industry’ might include the procurement, processing and trade in stone, tin, lead and pewter, copper alloys, gold, silver and precious stones, iron, ceramics (a broad range in itself), leather, textiles, antler, bone and horn and wood, for example (see Blair and Ramsay 1991). Brandon and Short’s work (1990), did not place as much emphasis on textile, ceramics, iron, glass and salt production (and trade) as it did on agriculture of the period, tending to discuss these industries more collectively at a summary level, and especially in terms of small-scale secondary occupation of assart farmers as part of the Wealden economy (e.g. 1990: 53-4: this is actually the only indexed mention of the pottery industry therein). Moreover, neither An Historical Atlas of Kent (ed. Lawson and Killingray 2004) nor An Historical Atlas of Sussex (ed. Leslie and Short 1999) has a dedicated section on industry, and the subject is not covered in The Archaeology of Sussex to AD 2000 (ed. Rudling 2003). Surrey has been better served in general synthesis (see below). Documentary evidence for the economy of later medieval Kent has recently been reviewed in some detail (see Campbell 2010; Draper 2010; Mate 2010a, 2010b) The ‘nouveaux riches’ who capitalised on opportunities for increased landholdings in the latter part of the period were also, along with agents of the Church and the Crown, exercising some control over means of production and trade. To understand this situation, however, we need to go further than the statement that ‘Much local craftsmanship probably catered purely for the growing neighbourhood but the textile and iron industries seem to have supplied larger markets…’ (Brandon and Short 1990: 54). In fact, in the Weald, especially by 1524-5, ‘tax returns are indicating forms of wealth supplementary to the yield of the land which were being derived from the cloth and iron making and glass industries…’ (ibid.:129; see 127-31). The historical evidence reflecting increased wealth from industry analysed by Brandon and Short still requires a good deal more study and contextualisation through comparative archaeological synthesis, environmental analyses and archaeological science. The latter comment also applies to the study of the development of agriculture, as noted in previous sections (rural life, towns, ecclesiastical context) where a number of sites with environmental analyses provide information about the products of agriculture which were becoming increasingly diversified in the medieval period (Stevens 2008). As a by-product of agriculture, malting is another industry which has been tentatively identified at Townwall Street, Dover (Campbell 2006), in a bakery/brewhouse where barley and oats had sprouted potentially producing malt. It is particularly interesting that malted darnel was also found and it was thought that its inclusion was intentional in order to produce a stronger brew than usual. Another industry derived from plants was rope manufacture, interpreted from the pollen evidence of hemp retting at Muddymore Pit, Dungeness, Kent (Schofield and Waller 2005). The wool industry was of primary importance in the medieval period, with sheep being frequently the more commonly represented taxon on medieval rural sites. In most rural and urban assemblages, sheep are generally mature animals, over three years though a proportion is younger in some cases. On high status sites, there seems to be a slightly higher proportion of lamb. This indicates how, as stated by Bendrey (2006) for Townwall Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 18 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 Street, Dover, urban consumption was directly influenced by wider agricultural and economic strategies (in this case the wool trade, though cattle would have provided relatively more beef on urban sites, e.g. Sykes 2006). Concentrations of horncores from Eden Walk, Kingston (Serjeantson 1984), medieval horses from Kingston upon Thames (Serjeantson et al. 1992), Townwall Street, Dover (Bendrey 2006), St Mary of Ospringe, Maison Dieu, Kent (Grant 1980), Linacre Gardens, Canterbury (Driver 1990), Phoenix Brewery, Hastings (Clements 1990), and Mersham, Kent (CTRL 2006) provide evidence for other animal based industries. Fishing is an important industry that would benefit from more environmental analyses. Major syntheses of fish data have advanced our understanding of the development of marine fisheries and their contribution to medieval economies (Barrett et al. 2004a, 2004b), but few assemblages from the south-east were available for these studies. With improved recovery techniques and an increasing number of assemblages as at Townwall Street, Dover, these models can be tested and refined at a regional and even local level. This could include study of both inshore and offshore fisheries and could explore the social distinction between consumption of fresh and preserved fish: herring and salted cod indicating poorer status and fresh fish and freshwater fish indicating higher status. After the import of wine, fishing was a vital component of the Winchelsea economy (Martin 1999: 44), and documentary evidence highlights the significance of the herring fishery at Sandwich (Brandon and Short 1990: 38), which also had its merchants and trade (as illustrated by archaeological evidence in the form of the Sandwich Ship: Milne 2004; see also Barber and Priestly-Bell 2008 on Lydd, Gardiner 2001 on Sussex; for more detail on the medieval maritime context, which constitutes an important research area in itself, see Milne, this volume, which also deals with shipbuilding: on the latter see also Draper and Meddens 2009 [New Romney] and Draper 2010 [documentary evidence of Kent shipbuilding], for example). Faunal evidence is in general understudied on a regional scale, although much published and archive evidence is already available (Symmonds 2008 and above); standing buildings associated with agriculture and stock management also survive (see Austin 1997; Aldsworth 2007). The material culture associated with some of the most widespread land-based industry and craft activity in the region, being made of organic materials, relies on waterlogged conditions for survival. This would apply to material associated with the production of textiles, leather (although tanning pits might provide archaeological contexts), and the working of bone, horn and wood (see Clarke 1984: 129-44 - carpentry is better represented in the standing buildings of course). It is to be hoped that more finds in future will augment the present corpus of loom weights, bone needles, tenter hooks, leather shoes and fittings, bone combs etc. Archaeological finds can also inform us about working practices that are not accounted for in the documentary sources (e.g. Clarke 1984: 141, paragraph 1). The need to move beyond very localised study in order to understand various industries in their wider context is a vital consideration in researching manufacturing and processing industries in the region (see for example Ridgeway 2000; Bone and Bone 2004; Semple 2007; also Crocker 2004). The regional implications of the Weald are again important here (Gardiner 1990), and study of the iron industry provides an excellent example. Key works like that of Straker (1931) and Cleere and Crossley (1995), as well as the activities of The Wealden Iron Research Group, have achieved a regional scope in the study of one of the South-East’s medieval industries at least. Indeed, with the Weald as a regional rather than county based focus for the various bloomeries and smelting sites associated with the industry, it is quite arbitrary to be Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 19 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 restricted by county boundaries in published syntheses, as Hodgkinson (2004) on Surrey examples in fact points out. Much is still to be done, and Jeremy Hodgkinson has promoted this area as a most significant one for the regional research framework (2007), especially through the use of Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) techniques on wooded areas. Archaeological scientific techniques also contribute to the study of this and other industries (thermo-remnant magnetism dating of tile kilns, for example, as at Farnham: see Youngs et al. 1986: 165), but again, more and better data are required to allow regional comparison at this level of detail. The medieval Wealden glass industry was much more localised, being centred around a few parishes in the vicinity of Chiddingfold in Surrey, and on the Surrey/Sussex border in the first half of the 13th century (see Kenyon 1967; Crocker 2004: 214ff), but still of national importance. In fact, over half of the 80 glasshouses in Britain in the period 1250-1600 were located in this small area (Crocker 2004: 214). Archaeological science (comparative study of glass composition) will again hopefully contribute much in future if medieval sites can be targeted in sufficient numbers and detail (Dungworth 2007). Turner recognised in 1987 that the manufacture of pottery was the industry that had received most archaeological attention in Surrey, with excavations of kiln sites in various urban and rural locations to be cross-referenced with stratified finds from sites (1987: 247; see also Crocker 2004: 215-16 on this and other Surrey industries). Such information could be used to trace the different distributions of the contemporary (ca. 1275–1325) Kingston-type ware, focussed on London, and Coarse Border ware, scattered widely through the Hampshire and Berkshire region, noting the different usage and markets involved. Later, Cheam ware appears to have replaced the Kingston-type ware as ‘a sign of metropolitan fashion’ (Schofield and Vince 1994: 142; see Pearce and Vince 1988; Schofield and Vince 1994: 142-4; Andrews 2004: 175-6). Earlier county based surveys for Kent and Sussex (Barton 1979; Streeten 1980, 1982), as well as regional syntheses (Streeten 1981) lay the foundations for prospective work that would take account of large quantities of new data now available. The location of pottery industries at the margins of the Weald with proximity to raw materials and local and external markets is of particular interest (Gardiner 1990: 49; see Streeten 1981, and, for example, Aldsworth and Down 1990). While individual and well excavated sites have been published, such as the workshops at Pound Lane, Canterbury (Cotter 1997), a comprehensive form and fabric type series for the region is still non-existent, rendering broader distribution surveys largely untenable at present. The latter problem persists for the study of various periods in the region, and results from a variety of different archaeological units each pursuing their own cataloguing systems over time (John Cotter, pers. comm.). In fact, in the face of much new developer funded work, systems of categorization also need to be revisited even at a local scale (e.g. for Chichester material: Barber 2008b: 110). Regional and local type series for non-ceramic small finds are similarly wanting, and archaeological science techniques such as microscopic and chemical analyses, as advocated by Justine Bayley (2008), although using pre-medieval examples, should be an increasing factor in the study of industry and craft, from iron working through to the manufacture of metal dress accessories, for example. Yet, while a better technological and chronological understanding of the processes and working practices of crafts and industry are key areas for further research in themselves, this research should also be attempting to reconstruct the social context and experiences of the workers involved. Many may have been migrants (e.g. tilers, at least at first: see Stopford 1993); others were certainly immigrants, such as the royally invited Flemish clothiers associated with some of the finest Wealden Hall houses Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 20 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 (Brandon and Short 1990: 109), or the French potter who apparently worked at Pound Lane, Canterbury (see Lyle 2002: 72-3, Figure 46, and Cotter 1997). There is a further need to place industrial workshops and centres in a wider landscape, social and experiential setting, and in particular to investigate archaeologically their hinterlands and support networks, especially in terms of labour. More work is again needed to synthesise the currently narrowly focussed evidence produced by excavations initiated by development (e.g. Cooke 2001), as also recently emphasised by Jeremy Hodgkinson (2007: with reference to post-medieval archaeology but relevant here). Hodgkinson suggests that, as well as helping to understand the working of whole industrial sites, broader survey might even uncover evidence of shanty towns inhabited by a more itinerant workforce. Such conditions should be considered in the broader social and economic debate concerning factors such as settlement desertion and urbanisation. Once chronologically and spatially contextualised, in terms of production, trade and consumption, pottery and other artefacts might also be considered a ‘text’ to be used in the comparative study of social and cultural identities, for example via structuralist and/or phenomenological approaches (see Gerrard 2003: 195, 223-5). This again could form part of ongoing interdisciplinary research in the region. Brandon and Short provide an excellent example for further study: that of Robert de Etchingham’s 14th century moated manor house at Glottenham (1990: 20; see Martin 1989). The use of polychrome jugs from Saintonge in South-West France at this time, directly associated with the import of wine, is potentially full of social symbolism (Weekes 2007a: 5), and might even represent a more widely accessible form of conspicuous consumption represented by the much more occasional sherds recovered from farmsteads in east Kent, for example (Helm forthcoming: see also Martin 2003: 184-5, on the material culture associated with ‘Blackfriars Barn’, Winchelsea). Conspicuous consumption of goods derived from long distance trade may also be inferred from the presence in plant assemblages of some exotic food such as figs, opium poppy (Allison and Hall 2001; Hall 1996) and black pepper, fig and grape (Carrot et al. 1994). The preceding discussion of pottery manufacture and trade further highlights the fact that, as well as considering trade networks within the region, all the aforementioned industries and their associated patterns of consumption need to be more broadly contextualised in terms of London and Europe (see for example Campbell et al. 1993; Galloway et al. 1996 and Gardiner 2000 respectively). Indeed, the proximity of these major markets can be considered one of the most significant aspects of the medieval historic environment of the South-East (Mark Gardiner pers. comm.); both were major (and changeable) influences on the flow of goods and services into and out of the region, as well as stimulating industrial and commercial activity. An increase in the local networks of markets in the period, which would have included various entertainments as well as being fora for buying and selling, is attested more obviously in documentary sources and has been extensively covered by historians (see Mate 1996; McLain 1997; Bleach and Gardiner 1999; Lawson 2004a). Town layouts are also indicative of this trading function (Ottoway 1996: 171-2), as well as surviving street names of course. Numismatic evidence is yet another significant area of data, with further symbolic significance of coins often being indicated by find context (e.g. Bagwell Purefoy 2008, and funerary evidence, below). Another noticeably economic feature of the landscape would have been large numbers of new mills (water and wind powered), bridges (see Spain 2004; Lawson 2004: 50, for example) and roads. Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 21 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 Communications and landscape The medieval road/track way ‘system’ was vital to the exploitation and development of the Weald initially through transhumance (Everitt 1986: 32-9). As has been outlined throughout this chapter, diverse manorial exploitation and assarting led to a dispersed settlement pattern of farmsteads and hamlets in much of the region, with some openfield systems in areas more suitable for agriculture on a large scale. The distinctive grain of this landscape is clearly visible on modern maps with extant roads marking the alignment of drove ways into the Weald as well as (although endangered in the last century or so) ancient field boundaries. To these landscape features can be added ecclesiastical, industrial and economic infrastructures and a developing network of small towns. While some of the route ways between these settlements and centres ‘hardened’ into a post-medieval and modern road network; others did not. Turner’s points about Surrey over-land communications are applicable to the region generally: ‘medieval roads and routes are hard to map and harder to date because they were seldom formally engineered and frequently indirect. Most of them have been overlaid by modern roads and some have declined into green lanes or have been ploughed away…’ (1987: 248). While Roman roads such as Watling Street and Stane Street were evidently maintained throughout the medieval period, at least in terms of their general alignments, more detailed evidence of the medieval chronology of these structures is difficult to obtain, and exactly the same would apply to roads that reflect early medieval drove ways into the Weald. For all extant roads such as these, more concerted study would require extensive field survey and targeted excavation, as map regression analyses are obviously limited by a general lack of medieval maps (and the stylisation of those that do exist). There were also many field boundaries, park pales and lynchets in the Weald (Gardiner 1990: 49) and beyond that require chronological characterisation as well as mapping. Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC) is contributing enormously in this area (see Bannister 2004, and this volume), and should ideally be integrated with HERs (perhaps forming a template for an overhaul of the HER databases). ‘Landscape’, however, implies not only concrete evidence of topography, roads and land use from the economic perspective of exploitation, but also ideological components of space and place, whether specific, ‘local’ or ‘regional’ (see Bannister, this volume, and Johnson 2007; also generally the Medieval Settlement Research Group Annual Report 2007: S. Turner [ed] 2007: 6-31). The interaction of people with their physical environment in terms of perception is another potentially fruitful area for the study of medieval society and culture in South-East England, and travel through the region is another way of viewing the significance of its historic environment and landscape, as Joe Flatman (2007) has suggested. Finds reported to the PAS provide much more evidence of on-land medieval travel in the region, in that these in fact represent much of the portable material culture of the period that was worn or carried by travellers. A wide variety of reasons for travel (and associated loss) are represented here by large numbers of coins, horse fittings, belt sliders, finger rings, keys, arrows, papal bullae, ampullae etc. It is not unfeasible that these data may in fact help in locating routeways (Andrew Richardson, pers. comm.) as well as unknown settlements, but they also hint at other matters, such as the need for personal security on the road. Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 22 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 Developments of Romney and Walland marshes at this time were also significant in forming the modern landscape and have been the subject of much scholarly interest, with the Romney Marsh Research Trust a driving force (see Draper 2004, as well as Rippon 2002, Gardiner 2002, Allen 2002, Eddison 2002 and Sweetinburgh 2002, with further bibliographies, for example; see also Barber and Priestly-Bell 2008 on Lydd). Huge changes to the coastal landscape were also brought about by the silting of estuaries on the one hand (e.g. the fortunes of Sandwich: see also Bellamy and Milne 2003 on archaeological evidence for Small Hythe’s medieval shipyard facilities: the site is now some 12.5km from the sea) and the encroachment of the sea on the other (Winchelsea, Hythe, etc.: for more detail on coastal change and the maritime environment in general, see Milne, this volume). As Gustav Milne points out (this volume), the mariners and coastal dwellers of the region were quite ‘marginal’ in themselves in terms of their job description and indeed attitudes to the law of the land. Moreover, the towns and trades of these ‘fringe’ areas were a settlement focus for what Brandon and Short (1990) refer to as ‘aliens’, the lives and conditions of whom are of equal or even special interest for more detailed comparative study. For the elite, much of the region’s landscape was in fact a recreational as well as an economic resource, as the many deer parks, forests, chases and lodges that have been mapped (e.g. Brandon and Short 1990: 73, Figure 2.5) indicate (see Sykes 2007a, 2007b; Thomas 2007; Pluskowski 2007 on the economic, psychological and social functions of animal parks). The study of hunting practice and rituals has proved very effective for the investigation of chronological changes in social status display/differentiation within Saxon and high medieval society (Sykes 2007b, 2007c; Thomas 2007; Poole 2011).These same areas, demarcated for elite structuration, would also have been seen by some of the under-privileged at least as a dangerous opportunity for supplementing diet and/or income, of course, and can be seen as liminal areas of social conflict on a local level (see for example Sykes 2007a; Pluskowski 2007, on conflict and interaction). This is a reminder that any reconstruction of local and regional perceptions of landscape should also include those places where deviance or resistance was publicly discouraged (e.g. gallows, pillories, stocks, ducking stools etc.). Above all, ‘landscape’, rather than focussing on particular contexts, is a topic that invokes diverse relationships between contexts over time, such as: castle and town, urban and rural, manor house and village (particularly various in a region that included so many different manorial patterns), ecclesiastical and secular, and even life and death. Funerary evidence Brandon and Short (1990) do not mention this strand of evidence, and it has not tended to be given as much emphasis as other evidence types in medieval archaeology (e.g. Clarke 1984: 66-7; Gerrard 2003: 51, 160, 189, 220-1), although important work has recently been carried out on a national scale (Gilchrist and Sloane 2005) which demonstrates that funerary evidence for the period is a vital area for looking at issues such as social class and cultural diversity, for two main reasons. Firstly, there is likely to be important osteoarchaeological information relating to diet, disease etc., and secondly, there are the funerary rites themselves to consider. It should be noted for future research that at present comparison both of osteoarchaeological data and of funerary rites is still largely single site based rather than considering variability either locally or across the region. Mays and Anderson, in 1996 (especially 377 and Figure 10) estimated about 3300 burials from the medieval period in East Sussex, Kent, Surrey and West Sussex, this figure excluding at least 4000 Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 23 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 individuals represented by charnel from St. Leonard’s Church, Hythe, Kent. The totals must be much increased by now. Many of the most extensive cemetery excavations have been in monastic settings, as at Canterbury (Hicks and Hicks 2001), Rochester (Ward and Anderson 1990), Chichester (Lee and Magilton 1989), Lewes (Gardiner et al. 1996; Lyne 1997; Barber and Siburn 1998), Chertsey (Poulton 1988), Guildford (Poulton and Woods 1984), Merton (Gilchrist and Sloane 2005; see Saxby and Miller 2007) and Southwark (Gilchrist and Sloane 2005; Steele in prep). While the emphasis on monastic cemeteries means that we are already seeing a biased and therefore basically unrepresentative sample of society more generally, the sample does include many members of the lay community as well as the ecclesiastical. There is clear evidence of differentiation in lifestyle (from osteoarchaeological data) as well as funerary practices, such as spatial zoning of burial on the basis of age or sex (Gilchrist 1999b: 233). In fact, there is a perhaps surprising array of burial practices, from cemetery layouts to the various objects within the burials including coins, lead, stone, wood and anthropomorphic coffins (cf. anthropomorphic burial cuts), stone, wood, charcoal, ash (etc.) burial linings, unexplained group burials, mass graves relating to the Black Death and so on (Gilchrist and Sloane 2005). Gilchrist and Sloane’s analysis on a national scale is a superb example of how an interdisciplinary approach to the medieval funerary process can reveal a great deal about diversity in life and in death, and particularly in specialised funerary practice based on social status, gender, mode of death, age at death, etc. There was room for personal improvisation in the funerary context as well as more general rules; the fact that ‘[i]nfants and children were buried with a considerable number of the objects that … were added during the shrouding of the body’ represents, for Gilchrist and Sloane ‘agency of parents or guardians’, for example (ibid.: 223). It is also interesting to note the apparent persistence of superstition in funerals of an overtly Christian era, such as the placing of pebbles in the mouth of the deceased (see Schofield and Vince 1994: Figure 6.5): how widespread were such practices and what were their social and cultural implications? The flourishing of the Doctrine of Purgatory during the period led to increasingly lavish funerary monuments and an industry serving the construction of identities in funerary contexts from cathedrals to parish churches (see Badham 2005). Excavation of the (no longer extant) church of St. Giles at Winchelsea offers a further glimpse of funerary practice beyond the monastic setting. Seventeen graves were revealed (Martin 2003: 184-5; see Rudling and Browne 1993), and here again we have interesting osteoarchaeological evidence of diversity in life as well as archaeological evidence of ritual differentiation in death. Only one of the burials was obviously elaborated (at least in a way that survived post-depositional processes): that of a male aged between 25 and 35 years old, whose spine had been heavily distorted by vertebral tuberculosis. The grave was stone lined and vaulted (ibid.: 184; see Figure 15.9); is this perhaps particularly interesting symbolism in a town noted for the vaulted undercrofts of the no doubt richer merchant class? The St. Giles burials also included a higher proportion of females than is often the case for monastic cemeteries, and only two adults that were obviously over 35 years of age at death. We need much more evidence of this sort for wider comparison, yet many burials are likely to remain unexcavated in the extant churchyards of the region, except perhaps when these ‘living monuments’ are developed as sites (e.g. updating of church facilities, access, drainage etc.). Again, small-scale ‘developer funded’ work is in need of synthesis and research direction, and the parish council developers generally lack sufficient funds for the required osteoarchaeological analyses. Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 24 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 A regional approach to funerary and cemetery evidence should try to fill in gaps in our knowledge of both ritual and demographics at a more localised scale, as well as targeting those sites that could be compared with good assemblages from other social settings, by way of contextual analysis. Along with funerary variation symbolising class, gender and other social status, the funerals of minority and/or particularly marginalized groups like Jews or lepers are a further area for more emphasis in future study. The archaeological funerary record is an important source of information for such groups (e.g. St James and St Mary Magdelene Leper Hospital in Chichester), and, as Christopher Daniel has argued: ‘comparisons between main-stream Christian societies and these liminal groups throw both into sharper contrast’ (1997: 205). Beyond funerals, it should be noted that cemeteries were also a focus for markets and other activities of the living (Schofield and Vince 1994: 156), and also that places for the living and the dead actually had a surprising proximity in later medieval society in comparison with dominant attitudes in the region today and with archaeological and ethnographic examples relating to other periods and places (see Parker Pearson 1999). Conclusions The Reformation and Dissolution brought a clear change to an aspect of medieval culture and society that can be seen as definitive: the Church. Much of the ecclesiastical infrastructure of the region, as elsewhere in Britain, was dismantled or redistributed in a process of iconoclasm and opportunism (Hutchinson 2007 and discussion; see Weekes 2007b: 6-8). The extent to which medieval material culture and the society using it changed at this rather precise point in history is, however, another question, one which archaeologists can and should address in considerably more detail. Clearly the medieval period in the region was seminal in the development of a landscape template for the post-medieval period in terms of towns, villages, dispersed farms and hamlets, roads, field and park systems etc. It was surely also most influential in the formation of the social structure of the early modern era and beyond. The Church remained a powerful agent in town and country, and parish churches in particular retained their more secular function alongside the spiritual as centres of communities in a physical and ideological sense. They continued to be foci for the maintenance of the old and new gentry via public munificence and display through contribution to church fabric and fittings, ‘being seen’ at services and in parish administration for example. As Stamper puts it, the parochial and manorial frameworks based on later medieval social structure ‘survived little changed until the earlier nineteenth century and… remain the subject of intensive enquiry by historians’ (1999: 249). This would seem to be a most important legacy of the later medieval period in the South-East as elsewhere, as it underpins the discussion of developing private property, capitalism, industry, social structure, ideological frameworks etc. which are all central to the study of the post-medieval period and industrial revolution. Archaeologists have much to contribute to this research either side of the traditional chronological divide, and to a better understanding of what it meant materially. Jake Weekes Canterbury Archaeological Trust Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 25 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 Acknowledgements I am indebted to Nicola Bannister, Luke Barber, Joe Flatman, Mark Gardiner, Matthew Johnson, Sarah Pearson, Sheila Sweetinburgh and John Williams who all kindly commented on the work in progress. Dominique de Moulins, Ruth Pelling and Polydora Baker contributed useful examples and guidance concerning environmental and zooarchaeological analyses. I remain responsible for any errors or omissions. Research agenda Introduction Interdisciplinary research from a more ‘anthropological’ perspective would focus on various aspects of medieval social structure and cultural identity in the region. Social structures were obviously complex; the ideologies, lives and experiences of all sectors of society, as reflected by settlements, buildings, material culture, diet, etiquette, funerary customs etc., are of interest both in themselves and in comparison. Topics include:      The contrasting fortunes and lifestyles of royals and major and minor gentry, yeomen, merchants and artisans (with consideration of guilds), the socially mobile, the working classes (of various status, including serfdom: in rural and increasingly in urban settings) and less mainstream groups such as diasporic minorities and immigrant communities (e.g. Jews and ‘aliens’), migrant and itinerant workers, members of religious communities, quarantined groups (e.g. lepers) etc. Comparisons between urban and rural life, coastal and in-land Differing roles/experiences based on gender and age in all of the above categories The effect of agency on the part of individuals or groups Areas of conflict where identities and social differentiation might be emphasised. Ideologies and sub-ideologies might be investigated via considerations of specific social and cultural contexts, for example:        Ritual and ceremony, which might be religious (including pilgrimage) and/or related to funerary or other rites of passage Festivals, fairs, sport and games Public and private spheres and formal variation of behaviour according to such contexts (as well as resistance) Taboos: for example relating to diet, or access to and exclusion from certain places The phenomenology of material culture, buildings and landscape The influence of travel and experience of other cultures Expression and representation through, and influence of, the arts. Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 26 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 Evidence types (and methodology) Interdisciplinary approaches are plainly called for, but the sources used obviously need to be appropriate to the questions asked.  Mechanisms might be devised/encouraged whereby colleagues from different disciplines can formally work together on wide ranging projects, including via the internet. Documentary and other historical sources      Site level correlations between particular buildings and sites and documentary evidence of occupiers should be sought, and data already collected reviewed and synthesised in accordance with research questions The formation of names at this period in line with the wider distribution of ownership (albeit tenurial in terms of land at least): how does this correlate with material culture? The increase in documentary evidence along with gentrification in the period presents an interesting opportunity to link professional historical and archaeological research with much ongoing ‘amateur’ research into one-name studies and family trees Further investigation through combined aerial photography, map regression and place-name analysis including elements denoting topographical features and personal names The use of literature and art depictions as part of interdisciplinary approaches might provide important insights but these sources need to be approached with a good understanding of their original functions and biases. Archaeological, environmental and finds evidence       More ease of access to and research focussed and integrated dissemination of ‘grey’ literature, HERs, PAS data and reports of environmental analyses is required, and more environmental analyses are needed generally Agreed regional typologies for artefacts: for example, the region still lacks a unified form and fabric type series for ceramics, for this and other periods Buildings archaeology is a particular area of concern because there are few dedicated researchers in this area and the skills base required for recording and analysis needs augmenting Adequate funding should be allocated for properly contextualising developer funded sites within local, regional and national research themes; the current emphasis is on recording, phasing, writing site narratives and archiving In order to promote a concerted research effort involving all sectors of an archaeological and historical community, there must be effective communication systems in place: the internet has enormous potential for this, through data sharing and publication Ideally, a regional GIS combining geological, Historic Landscape, HER (improved) and PAS data could be made available to researchers and be contributed to by them on an ongoing basis. Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 27 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012   Systematic environmental sampling and analyses of waterlogged deposits and organic rich deposits and sampling of good animal bone assemblages are required applied in order to produce more comparative data from all site types Improved dating in relation to finds, environmental and zooarchaeological samples in order to fine-tune comparative analyses. Castles, elite residence and defence       Regional surveys of castles, crenellated manors and episcopal palaces, including comparison of buildings and other material culture and documentary evidence Investigation of conquest period and early castles in order to develop understanding of castle locations, relative chronology, morphology and function as well as material culture and diet in comparison with contemporary groups Interdisciplinary research of targeted sites (including open area excavation where possible) in order to check earlier findings and fine-tune understanding of castle developments over time and space Comparison of castle life and communities over time and space in terms of social, cultural and experiential factors within castles, relationships between castles and castle hinterlands, and between defensive sites on local and regional scales Investigation of more ephemeral matters of ‘defence’ and martial display from the distribution, chronology and use of earth built structures to PAS and HER reported finds distributions and types, and museum collections, in terms of national, regional, local and personal ‘defence’ and signification Reassessment of how martial or ‘defence’ considerations articulate with other symbolic aspects of castles, crenellated manors, town and monastic defences etc., rather than dichotomising these into separate studies Moats    As a starting point, a regional gazetteer of known and putative moated sites Further research excavations on targeted moats in the region in order to characterise their relative morphology, chronology and function, collecting comparative material culture and environmental data Regional comparison of moated sites in order to understand their cultural and historical contexts and to explore these monuments and their related material culture and environmental and zooarchaeological evidence as indicators of social differentiation and change Vernacular architecture   Regional survey and further development of building typology and comparison, in line with continuing work on a comprehensive dendrochronological series Targeted excavation along with further interdisciplinary work to increase understanding of the material culture and environmental evidence associated with these buildings (starting from consideration of evidence already collected via PPG15 and PPG16) Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 28 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012  Comparative research into use of space in buildings and associated land in social and cultural terms, again in light of documentary sources, material culture and environmental evidence, particularly in respect of the development of new landowning classes Villages and other rural settlements             More understanding of the landscape of primarily dispersed rural settlement in terms of development and maintenance over space and time Systematic investigation of landscapes through on an off-site analysis of a range of biological remains from waterlogged deposits and the proper retrieval of molluscs and charred plant remains including charcoal from dry deposits Investigation of variant patterns and development of rural settlement types on a regional basis Survey and comparison of deserted and shrunken villages The incidence of Anglo-Saxon origin of many rural settlements along with the impact (if any) of conquest (for example: any archaeological evidence of destruction associated with Norman route?) More detailed exploration of socio-economic reasons for different levels of dispersion patterns, desertion, shrinkage or expansion of rural settlements in various parts of the region over time using archaeological as well as documentary evidence Survey and comparison of individual settlement layouts in terms of relationships with other features such as moats and manor houses as well as industry and trade The development of individual plots and house and building types over time Consideration of space within buildings and settlements generally in terms of their various functions and also as representations and expressions of social differentiation, vertical and horizontal Comparison of material culture and environmental evidence within and between rural settlements, and in comparison with other settlement types Interdisciplinary village based schemes involving both locals (many village or small town focussed interest groups already exist in the region) and professionals (this will contribute much to research as well as a sense of place for those taking part); local concerns articulated with wider debates via a region wide scheme of research, dissemination and education Further investigation of agricultural practices (including animal husbandry) and land use through more systematic sampling and analyses than hitherto Towns     More interdisciplinary town based studies synthesising disparate data with relevance to wider research questions on the period Further comparisons between and within towns More research projects looking at small towns in particular are needed (both individual development and comparison) Open area excavations (and detailed building surveys) to provide more evidence for characterisation and contextualisation of features, buildings and deposits Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 29 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012      Comparison of public and private town buildings throughout the region, with, where possible, associated material culture and environmental evidence as well as detailed study of relevant documentary sources More comparative studies of finds , environmental data and animal bone both within and between towns, and in comparison with urban hinterlands and rural contexts Building studies considering aspects of symbolism, habitus, structuration, social differentiation, etc., making use of all of the evidence categories in tandem and in comparison Social differentiation (vertical and horizontal) investigated further via comparison of urban evidence within and between towns, in terms of social status and/or minority groups The ideological and experiential aspects of towns and their development, for individual conurbations as well as comparatively The ecclesiastical context        A general regional survey and gazetteer of all religious buildings, establishments, shrines, pilgrimage routes and related find spots More interdisciplinary studies of particular monasteries and associated establishments, as well as comparison of buildings, layouts, material culture and environmental evidence within and between different sites (to investigate social hierarchies within establishments, differential of access to resources, and use of space), and in comparison with other social contexts Comparison of building layouts, differential access, material culture and environmental and documentary evidence for the study of gender based and other social differentiations in the monastic setting Interdisciplinary studies of individual churches and regional synthesis, also taking into account the increasing number of studies carried out in a development control context (whether under a secular or ecclesiastical aegis), are to be encouraged The relationships between ecclesiastical centres and their hinterlands and wider landscapes This religious context as a critical area for the investigation of ideologies and subideologies: consideration of minority faiths, folk beliefs, superstitions and magic and of course Christianity (itself a complex and changing mix of institution, thought and experience) Alongside their role as spiritual centres, the use of ecclesiastical contexts of various sorts as fora for public expressions and constructions of social status via conspicuous involvement in administration, ritual and public munificence, social segregation etc. Industry and trade  This area is still under-researched on a regional and synthetic level and is a priority in itself: study should focus not merely on technical developments but on social and cultural context, in tandem/comparison with other aspects of medieval life in the region Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 30 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012         Researches into agriculture (including the development of related infrastructure, e.g. mills), pastoralism and fishing require more data (environmental and zooarchaeological analyses are particularly important in this area) and interdisciplinary research Investigation of production methods of craft and other industries Research into the public and private organisation of space with regards to craft and other industries. The textiles industry in the region, a particularly appropriate subject for interdisciplinary research, as material culture associated with this industry tends to be less well preserved in the archaeological record Research at a regional level into iron, glass, ceramics, extractive and processing industries and trade, as well as secondary industries utilising raw materials: interdisciplinary research including programmes of archaeological science such as metallurgy and fabric analyses (i.e. regional type series) in order to trace technical change and distributions of such materials A broader understanding of industrial landscapes and of the lives and experiences of workers as well as owners via documentary sources, survey, excavation, material culture, environmental analyses etc., particularly in relation to migrant and itinerant workers as well as diasporic sub-cultures and immigrants Beyond economic matters of production and distribution, the research interest in materials and particularly the artefacts produced by such industries extends to the way in which they were used to form a socially and culturally symbolic dialectic in public and private spheres, reflected in turn by levels and targeting of production and distribution The role of industry and trade in shaping settlement, including village change/decline/formation and the development and maintenance of towns and roads systems, as well as organisation of industrial and non-industrial space, concepts of ‘place’ and ‘landscape’, and social differentiation Communications and landscape      A better understanding through interdisciplinary research of the varied chronology (development and maintenance) of the region’s medieval roads and track ways, indexed not only to pastoral and commercial matters but other social and cultural reasons for travel or sedentism (e.g. pilgrimage; kinship; territories) A regional survey (especially in the Weald) of field systems, lynchets, park pales etc. is required, in comparison with other aspects of rural settlement and landscape, preferably through combination of HLC and HER data: the Weald in particular would benefit from articulation of county-based information and outlooks Use of geoarchaeology for landscape investigation Plotting of PAS data and other finds (e.g. hoards) in combination with the above might provide more information about routeways, travel and other aspects of landscape in the region (e.g. hunting/poaching/criminal activity) Isolation and investigation of the places in the landscape with a more ‘liminal’ identity, such as land/sea margins, suburbs, etc. in order to study activity at the margins of society, such as criminal activity, insurgence, public retribution, prostitution, noxious industries, etc. Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 31 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012  Landscape studies provide the template to break out of overly specific research topics and into a more contextual archaeology allowing comparison of various conditions and spatial segregation in private and public contexts Funerary evidence       Regional comparison of diet, disease, demographics, etc. from osteoarchaeological data (recognising the bias of cemetery populations), a strand of evidence for comparison with all those already considered above More comparative evidence from non-monastic churchyards and charnel: there might be significant levels of data already accumulating in grey literature Evidence of differential funerary practice, giving insights into social and cultural diversity in terms of ritual: this is another context to be compared with various aspects of medieval culture and society in a contextual archaeology Comparison of conditions in life and death (osteoarchaeological and funerary study) between monastic sites and other cemeteries, within and between cemetery sites, regionally, and between the South-East and other areas Spatial patterning within churchyards and the ways in which they articulate and even overlap with ‘lived spaces’, and the everyday activities of the living From the landscape perspective, cemeteries are equally (and perhaps especially) important to analyses of the structural and phenomenological construction of ‘places’: they are fundamentally ideological Conclusions  Detailed interdisciplinary and contextual study of the transition from medieval to post-medieval, in order to generate a better understanding of the effect (or lack of it) of dissolution and reformation across society. Bibliography Aberg, FA 1978. Introduction. In FA Aberg (ed), Medieval Moated Sites. CBA Research Report 17. London. 1-4. Albarella, U 2006. ‘Pig Husbandry and Pork Consumption in Medieval England’, in Woolgar, C M Serjeantson, D and Waldron, T (eds) Food in Medieval England. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 201-214. Albarella, U 2003. Tanners, Tawyers, hornworking and the mystery of the missing goat, in Murphy, P and Wiltshire, P (eds), The Environmental Archaeology of Industry. Oxford: Oxbow: Books: 71-86. Albarella, U and Davis, S 1996. ‘Mammals and Birds from Launceston Castle, Cornwall: Decline in Status and the Rise of Agriculture’. Circaea 12. Albarella, U and Thomas, R 2002. They dined on crane: bird consumption, wild fowling, and status in medieval England Acta Cracoviensia, 45 (special issue), 23-38. Aldsworth, F 2007. An early fifteenth-century barn at Charlton Court, Steyning, West Sussex. Sussex Archaeological Collections 145. 153-79. Aldsworth, FG and Down, AG 1990. The production of late and post-medieval pottery in the Graffham area of West Sussex. Sussex Archaeological Collections 128. 117-39. Allen, JRL 2002. The Rumensea Wall, Romney and Walland Marshes: a commentary. . In A Long, S Hipkin and H Clarke (eds), Romney Marsh. Coastal and Landscape Change through the ages. Oxford University School of Archaeology Monograph No. 56. Oxford. 121-6. Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 32 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 Allen, MJ and Pettit, PB 1997. A medieval wooden harpoon from the South coast of England. Medieval Archaeology 41. 236-40. Allen, T 2004. Swine, salt and seafood: a case study of Anglo-Saxon and early medieval settlement in north-east Kent. Archaeologia Cantiana CXXIV 2004. 117-35). Allison, E 2007. Townwall Street Dover. Paper given at the South-East Research Framework Resource Assessment Seminar on the medieval period. Institute of Archaeology, UCL: 03.11.07. Allison, E 2007. Bird bones in K Parfitt, B Corke and J Cotter, Townwall Street, Dover Excavations 1996. Canterbury Archaeological Trust: 370-378. Allison E and Hall A 2001. The plant and invertebrate remains in M Hicks and A Hicks 2001. St Gregory's Priory, Northgate, Canterbury excavations 1988-1991. 334-8. Andrews, P 2004. Kingston– Saxon royal estate centre to post-medieval market town: the contribution of archaeology to understanding towns in Surrey. In J Cotton, G Crocker and A Graham (eds), Aspects of Archaeology and History in Surrey: Towards a Research Framework for the County. Guildford. 169-85. Andrews, P, Dinwiddy, KE, Ellis, C, Hutcheson, A, Phillpots, C, Powell, A and Schster, J 2008 Kentish Sites and Sites of Kent, A miscellany of four archaeological excavations. Wessex Archaeology Report 24. Anon, 1989. Animal remains, in Martin, D Three moated sites in North-east Sussex. Part I: Glottenham, Sussex Archaeological Collections, 127: 89-122. Austin, R 1997. An architectural survey of Littlebourne Barn. Archaeologia Cantiana CXVI 1996. 203-20. Austin, R 2003. Newbury Farm, Tonge: Kent’s earliest known aisled hall house. Archaeologia Cantiana CXXIII 2003. 95-126. Badham, S 2005. Evidence for the minor funerary monument industry 1100–1500. In K Giles and C Dyer (eds), Town and Country in the Middle Ages. Contrasts, Contacts and Interconnections, 1100–1500. Society for Medieval Archaeology Monograph 22. Leeds. 16595. Bagwell Purefoy, P 2008. The coinage of William I in Kent. Archaeologia Cantiana CXXVIII 2008. 59-74. Baker, CR and Herbert, AN 2008. Excavation of a medieval settlement at Pond Field, Littlebrook, Dartford. Archaeologia Cantiana CXXVIII 2008. 281-300. Banyard, G 2004. Duke William’s Conquest of Kent 1066. In T Lawson and D Killingray (eds.), An Historical Atlas of Kent. Chichester. 34-5. Bannister NR 2004. The Surrey Historic Landscape Characterisation Project. In J Cotton, G Crocker and A Graham (eds), Aspects of Archaeology and History in Surrey: Towards a Research Framework for the County. Guildford. 119-32. Barber, L 1999. The excavation of land adjacent to the Old Farmhouse, Pevensey, East Sussex, 1994. Sussex Archaeological Collections 137. 91-120. Barber, L 2008a. Period summary: the medieval period. In J Manley (ed), The Archaeology of Fishbourne and Chichester: A Framework for its Future. Lewes. 63-8. Barber, L 2008b. Gap analysis: the medieval period. In J Manley (ed), The Archaeology of Fishbourne and Chichester: A Framework for its Future. Lewes. 107-12. Barber, L and Priestly-Bell, G 2008. Medieval Adaptation, Settlement and Economy of a Coastal Wetland: The evidence from around Lydd, Romney Marsh, Kent. Oxford. Barber, L and Siburn, L 1998. The medieval hospital of St. Nicholas, Lewes, East Sussex: excavations 1994. Archaeology South-East draft report 1994/148. Barrett, J, Locker, AM, Roberts, CM 2004a. The origins of intensive marine fishing in medieval Europe: the English Evidence. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2885. Barret, J, Locker, AM Roberts, CM 2004b. Dark Age economics revisited: the English fish bone evidence AD 600-1600, Antiquity 78, 618-636. Barton, KJ 1979. Medieval Sussex pottery. London. Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 33 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 Bayley, J 2008. Crafts and industries: the scientific investigation of processes and products. Paper given at the South-East Research Framework Resource Assessment Seminar on Environment and Environmental Analyses. Institute of Archaeology, UCL: 12.01.08. Bellamy, PS and Milne, G 2003. An archaeological evaluation of the medieval shipyard facilities at Small Hythe. Archaeologia Cantiana CXXIII 2003. 353-82. Bendrey, R, 2006. Mammal bones, in K Parfitt, B Corke and J Cotter, Townwall Street, Dover Excavations 1996. Canterbury Archaeological Trust. Bennett, P 2007. Archaeology and towns: are we getting it right? Paper given at the South-East Research Framework Resource Assessment Seminar on Urban Themes. Institute of Archaeology, UCL: 17.11.07. Beresford, MW and Hurst, JG (eds) 1971. Deserted Medieval Villages. London. Blair, J and Pyrah, C (eds) 1996. Church Archaeology. Research Directions for the Future: CBA Research Report 106. York: Council for British Archaeology. Blair, J and Ramsay, N (eds) 1991. English Medieval Industries. Craftsmen, Techniques, Products. London. Bleach, J and Gardiner, MF 1999. Medieval Markets and Ports. In K Leslie and B Short (eds) An Historical Atlas of Sussex. Chichester. 42-3. Blockley, K, Sparks, M and Tatton-Brown, T 1997. Canterbury Cathedral Nave: Archaeology, History and Architecture. The Archaeology of Canterbury (New Series) Vol. 1. Canterbury. Bird, D 2006. Surrey Archaeological Research Framework 2006. Surrey Archaeological Society: www.surreyarchaeology.org.uk. Bone AE and Bone DA 2004. Lavant Stone. A Roman and medieval building stone in West Sussex. Sussex Archaeological Collections 142. 63-78. Booth, P and Everson, P 1995. Earthwork survey and excavation at Boys Hall Moat, Sevington, Ashford. Archaeologia Cantiana CXIV 1994. 411-34. Bourdieu, P 1977. Outline on a Theory of Practice. Cambridge. Bourdillon, J 1998. The faunal remains, in Poulton, R. (ed), The Lost Manor of Hextalls, Little Pickle, Bletchingley, Surrey. Kingston: Surrey County Archaeological Unit: 139-174 Brady, K and Biddulph, E 2007. Feeding the moat: excavations near the site of Edenbridge Manor House. Archaeologia Cantiana CXXVII 2007. 127-42. Brandon, P and Short, B 1990. The South East from AD 1000. London. Bridge, MC 1988. The dendrochronological dating of buildings in southern England. Medieval Archaeology 32. 166-74. Butler, C 1994. The excavation of a medieval site at Muddleswood, near Hurstpierpoint, West Sussex. Sussex Archaeological Collections 132. 101-14. Campbell, BMS 2010. Agriculture in Kent in the high middle ages. In S. Sweetinburgh (ed), Later Medieval Kent, 1220–1540. Woodbridge. 25–53. Campbell, BMS, Galloway, JA, Keene, D and Murphy, M 1993. A Medieval Capital and its Grain Supply: Agrarian Production and Distribution in the London Region c. 1300. Historical Geography Research Series 30. Campbell, G 2006. Plant Remains in K Parfitt, B Corke and J Cotter. Townwall Street, Dover, Excavations 1996, The Archaeology of Canterbury New Series, Volume III, 378-390 Carrott, J, Dobney, K, Hall, A, Irving, B, Jaques, D, Kent, P, Kenward, H, Mills, A and Nicholson, C 1994. Assessment of biological remains from the fills of a reredorter at St John’s Hospital, Canterbury (site code SJH91), Reports from the Environmental Archaeology Unit, York 94/14 Carruthers W 1990. Plant macrofossils from a medieval well and pottery kiln, Pound Lane, Canterbury, Kent. AML Rep. New Ser. 104/90 Carruthers, W 1997 Appendix D. Plant Macrofossils and other Environmental Evidence in J Cotter, A Twelfth Century Pottery Kiln and Pound Lane, Canterbury. Canterbury Arch Trust Occ Paper 1, 103 Clarke, H 1984. The Archaeology of Medieval England. London. Clarke, H, Pearson, S, Mate, M and Parfitt, K 2010. Sandwich, the completest medieval town in England. Oxford. Cleere, H and Crossley (D), (ed. J Hodgkinson) 1995. The Iron Industry of the Weald. Cardiff. Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 34 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 Clements, J 1993. Animal Bones in Rudling, D and Barber, L Excavations at the Phoenix Brewery site, Hastings, 1988. Sussex Archaeological Collections 131, 73-113. Clough, H 2004. Excavations at 19 High Street, Reigate. Surrey Archaeological Collections, 91 (2004). 263-70. Conolly, J and Lake, M 2006. Geographical Information Systems in Archaeology. Cambridge. Cooke, N 2001. Excavations on a late medieval ironworking site at London Road, Crawley, West Sussex, 1997. Sussex Archaeological Collections 139. 147-67. Cotter, J 1997. A Twelfth-Century Pottery Kiln at Pound Lane, Canterbury. Evidence for an Immigrant Potter in the Late Norman Period. Canterbury Archaeological Trust Occasional Paper No. 1. Canterbury. Coulson, C 1979. Structural symbolism in medieval castle architecture. Journal of the British Archaeological Association 132. 73-90. Creighton, OH 2005. Castles and castle building in town and country. In K Giles and C Dyer (eds), Town and Country in the Middle Ages. Contrasts, Contacts and Interconnections, 1100– 1500. Society for Medieval Archaeology Monograph 22. Leeds. 275-92. Creighton, OH and Liddiard, R 2008. Fighting yesterday’s battle: beyond war or status in castle studies. Medieval Archaeology 52: 161-9. Crocker, G 2004. Surrey’s industrial past: a review. In J Cotton, G Crocker and A Graham (eds), Aspects of Archaeology and History in Surrey: Towards a Research Framework for the County. Guildford. 213-32. Daniel, C 1997. Death and Burial in Medieval England. London. Davis, A. 2006a The charred and waterlogged plant remains from Parsonage Farm, Westwell, Kent (ARC PFM98). CTRL Specialist Report Series Davis, A. 2006b The charred plant remains from Northumberland Bottom, Southfleet, Kent (ARC WNB98), CTRL Specialist Report Series Draper, G 2004. Romney Marsh and its towns and villages. In T Lawson and D Killingray (eds.), An Historical Atlas of Kent. Chichester. 56-7. Draper, G 2010. Timber and iron: natural resources for the late medieval shipbuilding industry in Kent. In S. Sweetinburgh (ed), Later Medieval Kent, 1220–1540. Woodbridge. 55–77. Draper, G and Meddens, F 2009. The sea and the Marsh. The Medieval Cinque Port of New Romney revealed through archaeological excavations and historical research. Pre-construct Archaeology Monograph No. 10. London. Drewett, PL 1992. Excavations at Lewes Castle, East Sussex 1985–1988. Sussex Archaeological Collections 130. 69-106. Drewett, P 1982. The Archaeology of Bullock Down, Eastbourne, East Sussex: the Development of a landscape. Lewes: The Sussex Archaeological Society. Driver, J 1990 Animal Bones, in Driver, JC, Rady, J and Soarks, M (eds), Exavations in the Cathedral Precinct, 2 Linacre Garden, ‘Master Omers’ and St. Gabriels Chapel, Maidstone: Canterbury Archaeological Trust by the Kent Archaeological Society Dungworth, D 2007. Glass industry of the Weald. Paper given at the South-East Research Framework Resource Assessment Seminar on Post-medieval and Modern periods and Industry. Institute of Archaeology, UCL: 01.12.07. Dyer, C 1988. Documentary evidence: problems and enquiries. In G Astill and A Grant (eds), The Countryside of Medieval England. Oxford. 12-35. Dyer, C 2003. The archaeology of medieval small towns. Medieval Archaeology 47. 85-114. Eddison, J 2002. The purpose, construction and operation of a 13th century watercourse: the Rhee, Romney Marsh, Kent. In A Long, S Hipkin and H Clarke (eds), Romney Marsh. Coastal and Landscape Change through the ages. Oxford University School of Archaeology Monograph No. 56. Oxford. 127-39. Edwards, C 2007. Excavations at Fremlin Walk, Maidstone. Archaeologia Cantiana CXXVII 2007. 73-106. Environmental Archaeology Bibliography, http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/specColl/eab_eh_2004/index.cfm Everitt, AM 1986. Continuity and Colonization: the Evolution of Kentish Settlement. Leicester. Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 35 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 Flatman, J 2007. Some thoughts on the medieval South-East. Paper given at the South-East Research Framework Resource Assessment Seminar on the medieval period. Institute of Archaeology, UCL: 03.11.07. Galloway, JA, Keene, D and Murphy, M 1996. Fuelling the city: production and distribution of firewood and fuel in London’s region, 1290–1400. Economic History Review, 2nd ser., 49. 447-72. Galloway, JA 2005. Urban hinterlands in later medieval England. In K Giles and C Dyer (eds), Town and Country in the Middle Ages. Contrasts, Contacts and Interconnections, 1100–1500. Society for Medieval Archaeology Monograph 22. Leeds. 111-30. Gardiner, MF 1990. The archaeology of the Weald – a survey and a review. Sussex Archaeological Collections 128. 33-53. Gardiner, MF 1995. Aspects of the history and archaeology of medieval Seaford. Sussex Archaeological Collections 133. 189-212. Gardiner, MF 1996. The geography and peasant rural economy of the eastern Sussex High Weald, 1300–1420. Sussex Archaeological Collections 134. 125-39. Gardiner, MF 1997. Trade, rural industry and the origins of villages: some evidence from southeast England. Rural Settlements in Medieval Europe, papers of the Medieval Europe Brugge 1997 Conference 6. 63-73. Zellik (Belgium). Gardiner, MF 1998a. The characterisation of medieval Wealden settlements. Excavations at Ivenden, Combe Farm, Mayfield, East Sussex. Sussex Archaeological Collections 136. 95110. Gardiner, MF 1998b. The exploitation of sea-mammals in medieval England: bones and their social context. Archaeological Journal 154. 173-95. Gardiner, MF 1999. The Medieval Rural Economy and Landscape. In K Leslie and B Short (eds) An Historical Atlas of Sussex. Chichester. 38-9. Gardiner, MF 2000. Vernacular buildings and the development of the later medieval domestic plan in England. Medieval Archaeology 44. 159-79. Gardiner, MF 2001. Medieval fishing and settlement on the Sussex coast. Medieval Settlement Research Group Annual Report 16. 6-7. Gardiner, MF 2002. The late medieval ‘antediluvian’ landscape of Walland Marsh. In A Long, S Hipkin and H Clarke (eds), Romney Marsh. Coastal and Landscape Change through the ages. Oxford University School of Archaeology Monograph No. 56. Oxford. 101-20. Gardiner, MF, Jones, G and Martin, D 1991. The excavation of a medieval aisled hall at Park Farm, Salehurst, East Sussex. Sussex Archaeological Collections 129. 81-97. Gardiner, MF, Russell, M and Gregory, D 1996. Excavations at Lewes Friary 1985-6 and 1988-9. Sussex Archaeological Collections 134. 71-123. Gerrard, C 2003. Medieval archaeology: understanding traditions and contemporary approaches. London. Giddens, A 1984. The constitution of society. Cambridge. Gilchrist, R 1994. Gender and Material Culture: the Archaeology of Religious Women. London. Gilchrist, R 1999a. Gender and Archaeology. Contesting the Past. London. Gilchrist, R 1999b. Landscapes of the Middle Ages. Churches, castles and monasteries. In J Hunter and I Ralston (eds), The Archaeology of Britain: An introduction from the Upper Palaeolithic to the Industrial Revolution. London. 228-46. Gilchrist, R and Sloane, B 2005. Requiem: the medieval monastic cemetery in Britain. London. Giles, K 2005. Public Space in Town and Village. In Giles, K and Dyer, C (eds) 2005a. Town and Country in the Middle Ages. Contrasts, Contacts and Interconnections, 1100–1500. Society for Medieval Archaeology Monograph 22. Leeds. 293-311. Giles, K and Dyer, C (eds) 2005a. Town and Country in the Middle Ages. Contrasts, Contacts and Interconnections, 1100–1500. Society for Medieval Archaeology Monograph 22. Leeds. Giles, K and Dyer, C (eds) 2005b. Introduction. In Town and Country in the Middle Ages. Contrasts, Contacts and Interconnections, 1100–1500. Society for Medieval Archaeology Monograph 22. Leeds. 1-5. Giorgi, J Introduction to CTRL specialists reports. CTRL Specialist Report Series. ADS Glass, HJ 1999. (Compiler) Archeaology of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. Archaeologia Cantiana CXIX 1999. 189-220. Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 36 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 Graham, D and Graham, A 2000. The moated site at South Park Farm, Grayswood. Surrey Archaeological Collections, 87 (2000), 127-45. Graham, D, Graham, A and Taylor, D 2005. Trial trenching on a probable moated site at Downside Farm, Cobham. Surrey Archaeological Collections, 92. 217-29. Graves, P 1989. Social space in the English parish church. Economy and Society 18 (3). 297332. Gray, P 2001. Surrey medieval buildings: an analysis and inventory. Domestic Buildings Research Group. Grenville, J 1997. Medieval Housing. London. Hall A. 1996. Plant remains from medieval deposits at the Priory of St Gregory, Canterbury, Kent. Reports from the Environmental Archaeology Unit, York 96/8. Hamilton-Dyer, S 2001 Animal bone, in St. John’s Vicarage, Old Malden, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey Archaeological Collection, 88, 1661-221. Harvey, PDA 1984. Manorial Records. British Records Association: Archives and the User No. 5. London. Hearne, CM, Perkins, DRJ and Andrews, P 1996. The Sandwich Bay Wastewater Treatment Scheme Archaeological Project, 1992–1994. Archaeologia Cantiana CXV 1995. 239-354. Helm, R forthcoming. Archaeological excavations at Broomfield, Herne Bay, Kent 2000–2002. Canterbury Archaeological Trust Occasional Paper. Canterbury. Hicks, M and Hicks, A 2001. St Gregory’s Priory, Northgate, Canterbury Excavations 1988–1991. The Archaeology of Canterbury (New Series) Vol. 2. Canterbury. Hinton P. 2004. The charred plant remains in S Stevens Excavations at 1-3 High Street, Seaford, East Sussex. Sussex Archaeol. Coll. 142, 89-91. Hodgkinson, J 2004. Iron production in Surrey. In J Cotton, G Crocker and A Graham (eds), Aspects of Archaeology and History in Surrey: Towards a Research Framework for the County. Guildford. 233-44. Hodgkinson, J 2007. Wealden iron. Paper given at the South-East Research Framework Resource Assessment Seminar on Post-medieval and Modern periods and Industry. Institute of Archaeology, UCL: 01.12.07. Holden, E W 1963. Excavations at the deserted medieval village of Hangleton, Part 1. Sussex Archaeological Collections 101. 54-181. Houliston, M 2007. Excavations at Canterbury Whitefriars 1999-2003. Paper given at the SouthEast Research Framework Resource Assessment Seminar on the medieval period. Institute of Archaeology, UCL: 03.11.07. Howe, E 2004. A medieval timber building at London Road, Wallington, Sutton. Surrey Archaeological Collections, 91. 217-30. Hughes, A 2004. Vernacular architecture. In J Cotton, G Crocker and A Graham (eds), Aspects of Archaeology and History in Surrey: Towards a Research Framework for the County. Guildford. 147-54. Hutchinson, R. 2007. Change and decay: Post-medieval church archaeology. Paper given at the South-East Research Framework Resource Assessment Seminar on Post-medieval and Modern periods and Industry. Institute of Archaeology, UCL: 01.12.07. Impey, EA 1999. The Seigneurial residence in Normandy: an Anglo-Norman tradition? Medieval Archaeology 43. 45-73. Jaques, D 2004. Assessment of slected vertebrate remains from excavations at Ropetackle, Shoreham, East Sussex (site code: ROP03). Palaeoecology Research Services report, 2204 Jessop, O 1996. A new artefact typology for the study of medieval arrowheads. Medieval Archaeology 40. 192-205. Jewell, HM, 1972. English Local Administration in the Middle Ages. New York. Johnson, MH 1993. Housing Culture. Traditional Architecture in an English Landscape. Washington DC. Johnson, MH 1996. An Archaeology of Capitalism. Oxford. Johnson, MH 1999. Archaeological Theory: an introduction. Oxford. Johnson, MH 2002. Behind the Castle Gate: From Medieval to Renaissance. London. Johnson, MH 2007. Ideas of Landscape. Oxford. Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 37 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 Jones, K 2006. Gender and Petty Crime in Late Medieval England: The Local Courts in Kent, 1460–1560. Woodridge. Jones, K 2010. Witchcraft and magic in Kent, 1396–1543. In S. Sweetinburgh (ed), Later Medieval Kent, 1220–1540. Woodbridge. 189–207. Jones, R 1999. Castles and Other Defensive Sites. In K Leslie and B Short (eds.) An Historical Atlas of Sussex. Chichester. 50-1. Jones, R 2003. Hastings to Herstmonceux: the Castles of Sussex. In D Rudling (ed.). The Archaeology of Sussex to AD 2000. King’s Lynn. 171-8. Kenyon, GH 1967. The Glass Industry of the Weald. Leicester. Keys, D 1996. Medieval ‘synagogue’ found in Surrey shop. The Independent (London). Jan 16 1996. King, A 1982. The animal bones, in Frere, SS, Stow, S and Bennett, P Excavations on the Roman and Medieval Defneces of Canterbury. The Archaeology of Canterbury II, 159060. Kirk, L 1997. Animal bone, in Gardiner, M. and Greatorex, C., Archaeological excavations at Steyning, 1992-95:Further evidence for the evolution of a late Saxon small town, p. 167, Sussex Archaeological Collections, 135: 143-71. Knowles, D and Hadcock, RN 1971. Medieval Religious Houses of England and Wales. London. Lawson, T 2004a. Markets in the Medieval Period. In T Lawson and D Killingray (eds.), An Historical Atlas of Kent. Chichester. 50-1. Lawson, T 2004b. The Cinque Ports. In T Lawson and D Killingray (eds.), An Historical Atlas of Kent. Chichester. 52. Lawson, T and Killingray, D (eds.) 2004. An Historical Atlas of Kent. Chichester. Laxton, RR and Littton, CD 1989. Construction of a Kent master dendrochronological sequence for Oak, A.D. 1158 to 1540. Medieval Archaeology 33. 90-8. Lee, F and Magilton, J 1989. The cemetery of the hospital St. James and St. Mary Magdelene, Chichester – a case study. World Archaeology 21 (2). 273-82. Leslie, K and Short, B (eds.) 1999. An Historical Atlas of Sussex. Chichester. Lewis, C 2007a. New avenues for the investigation of currently occupied medieval rural settlement: preliminary observations form the higher education field academy. Medieval Archaeology 51. 133-63. Lewis, C 2007b. Test pit excavation within currently occupied rural settlement in East Anglia – Results of the HEFA CORS project in 2007. In S Turner (ed) Medieval Settlement Research Group Annual Report 22, 2007. 48-56. Lilley, KD 2005. Urban landscapes and their design: creating town and country in the Middle Ages. In K Giles and C Dyer (eds), Town and Country in the Middle Ages. Contrasts, Contacts and Interconnections, 1100–1500. Society for Medieval Archaeology Monograph 22. Leeds. 229-49. Long, A, Waller, M, Platter, A and Roberts, H 2006 revised 2009 The Depositional and Histories of Dungeness Foreland and the Port of Rye. Landscape http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/ryeromney_eh_2006/ Lovell, J 2001. Excavations on a medieval site at Little High Street, Worthing, West Sussex, 1997. Sussex Archaeological Collections 139. 133-45. Lutton, R 2010. Heresy and Heterodoxy in late medieval Kent. In S. Sweetinburgh (ed), Later Medieval Kent, 1220–1540. Woodbridge. 167–87. Lyle, M 2002. Canterbury. 2000 years of history. Stroud. Lyne, M 1997. Lewes Priory: excavations by Richard Lewis 1969–82. Lewes. McLain, BA 1997. Factors in market establishment in medieval England: the evidence from Kent 1086–1350. Archaeologia Cantiana CXVII. 83-103. Magilton, J 2001. Midhurst. Chichester District Archaeology 1. Chichester. Martin, D 1989. Three moated sites in North-East Sussex. Part 1: Glottenham. Sussex Archaeological Collections 127. 89-122. Martin, D 1990. Three moated sites in North-East Sussex. Part 2: Hawksden and Bodiam. Sussex Archaeological Collections 128. 89-116. Martin, D 1999. Winchelsea – A Medieval New Town. In K Leslie and B Short (eds.) An Historical Atlas of Sussex. Chichester. 44-5. Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 38 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 Martin, D 2003. Winchelsea – a Royal New Town. In D Rudling (ed.). The Archaeology of Sussex to AD 2000. King’s Lynn. 179-90. Martin D and Martin, B 1999. Adapting houses to changing needs: multi-phased medieval and transitional houses in eastern Sussex. Sussex Archaeological Collections 137. 121-32. Martin, D and Martin B 2001. Westenhanger Castle – a revised interpretation. Archaeologia Cantiana CXXI 2001. 203-36. Martin, D and Martin, B 2004. New Winchelsea, Sussex: A Medieval Port Town, Field Archaeology Unit Monograph no 2, Insitute of Archaeology, University College London. Mate, M 1996. The rise and fall of markets in southeast England. Canadian Journal of History 31. 59-86. Mate, M 2010a. The Economy of Kent , 1200–1500: an age of expansion, 1200–1348. In S. Sweetinburgh (ed), Later Medieval Kent, 1220–1540. Woodbridge. 1–10. Mate, M 2010b. The Economy of Kent , 1200–1500: the aftermath of the Black Death. In S. Sweetinburgh (ed), Later Medieval Kent, 1220–1540. Woodbridge. 11–24. Mathieu, JR 1999. New methods on old castles: generating new ways of seeing. Medieval Archaeology 43. 115-42. Mays, S and Anderson, T 1996. Archaeological research priorities for human remains from South-East England (Kent, East and West Sussex and Surrey). Archaeologia Cantiana CXV 1995. 355-88. Milne, G 2004. The fourteenth-century merchant ship from Sandwich: a study in medieval maritime archaeology. Archaeologia Cantiana CXXIV 2004. 227-64. Morris, R 1989. Churches in the Landscape. London. Munby, J, Sparks, M and Tatton-Brown, T. 1983. Crown-post and King-strut roofs in South-East England. Medieval Archaeology 27. 123-35. Nicholson, R 2007 Fish provisioning, in K Parfitt, B Corke and J Cotter, Townwall Street, Dover Excavations 1996, pp. 353-369. Canterbury Archaeological Trust. O'Connor, T 1979 Animal bone remains, in Freke, DJ Excavations in Tanyard Lane, Steyning, 1997, Sussex Archaeological Collections, 117, 135-50. Ottaway, P 1996. Archaeology in British Towns from the Emperor Claudius to the Black Death. London. Parfitt, K 2008. An unknown medieval site, possibly a manorial chapel, at Crabble, Dover. Archaeologia Cantiana CXXVIII 2008. 17-33. Parfitt, K, Corke, B and Cotter, J 2006. Townwall Street, Dover Excavations 1996. Canterbury. Parker Pearson, M 1999. The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Stroud. Pearce, JE and Vince AG 1988. A Dated Type-series of London Medieval Pottery: Part 4, Surrey Whitewares. London and Middlesex Archaeological Society Special Paper 6. London. Pearson, S 1994. The Medieval Houses of Kent: An Historical Analysis. London. Pearson, S 2001. The Archbishop’s palace at Charing in the Middle Ages. Archaeologia Cantiana CXXI 2001. 315-49. Pearson, S 2005. Rural and urban houses 1100–1500: ‘urban adaptation’ reconsidered. In K Giles and C Dyer (eds), Town and Country in the Middle Ages. Contrasts, Contacts and Interconnections, 1100–1500. Leeds. 43-84. Pearson, S 2007. The contribution of standing buildings to urban archaeology and history. Paper given at the South-East Research Framework Resource Assessment Seminar on Urban Themes. Institute of Archaeology, UCL: 17.11.07. Pennington, J and Platt, P 1999. Deserted Settlements 1066-1500. In K Leslie and B Short (eds.) An Historical Atlas of Sussex. Chichester. 48-9. Perkins, DRJ, Boast, E, Wilson, T and Macpherson-Grant, N 1998. Kent International Business Park, Manston: excavations and evaluations 1994–1997. Archaeologia Cantiana CXVIII 1998. 217-56. Philp, B 2006. A medieval site at Well Wood, Aylesford. Archaeologia Cantiana CXXVI 2006. 2748. Pine, J 2003. Excavation of Roman and medieval deposits at the rear of 29-55 High Street, Dorking. Surrey Archaeological Collections 90 (2003). 261-71. Platt, C 2007. Revisionism in castle studies: a caution. Medieval Archaeology 51. 83-102. Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 39 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 Pluskowski, A 2007. Who ruled the forests? An inter-disciplinary approach towards medieval hunting landscapes, in Hartmann, S. (ed), Fauna and Flora in the Middle Ages, pp. 291-323. Poulton, R 1988. Archaeological investigations on the site of Chertsey Abbey, Surrey. Archaeological Society Res Vol 11. Guildford. Poulton, R 1998. The Lost Manor of Hextalls, Little Pickle, Bletchingley. Kingston. Poulton, R and Woods, H, 1984. Excavations on the site of the Dominican Friary at Guildford, 1974 and 1976. Guildford. Poole, K 2010 'Bird Introductions', in O'Connor, T and Sykes, N (eds) Extinctions and Invasions. A Social History of British Fauna. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 156-165 Poole, K 2011. The Nature of Society in England, c. 410-1066. Unpublished PhD. University of Nottingham Powell, AB, Bennett, C, Grimm, JM, Mepham, L, Phillpotts, C and Stevens, CJ 2009. A Medieval enclosure and bakery or brewhouse at Fulston manor, Sittingbourne, in P Andrews, K Egiing Dinwiddy, C Ellis, A Hutcheson, C Phillpotts, AB Powell, J Schuster, Kentish Sites and Sites of Kent. A miscellany of four archaeological excavations, Wessex Archaeology report 24. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology Ltd.: 175-197 Rawcliffe, C 2005. The earthly and spiritual topography of suburban hospitals. In Giles, K and Dyer, C (eds) 2005a. Town and Country in the Middle Ages. Contrasts, Contacts and Interconnections, 1100–1500. Society for Medieval Archaeology Monograph 22. Leeds. 25174. Richardson, A 2003. Gender and space in English royal palaces c. 1160–c.1547: a study in access analysis and imagery. Medieval Archaeology 47. 131-65. Ridgeway, V 2000. A medieval saltern mound at Millfields Caravan Park, Bramber, West Sussex. Sussex Archaeological Collections 138. 135-52. Rigby, SH 1996. Chaucer in Context. Society, Allegory and Gender. Manchester. Rippon, S 2002. Romney Marsh: evolution of the historic landscape and its wider significance. In A Long, S Hipkin and H Clarke (eds), Romney Marsh. Coastal and Landscape Change through the ages. Oxford University School of Archaeology Monograph No. 56. Oxford. 84100. Roberts, BK and Wrathmell, S 2002. Region and Place. A study of English Rural Settlement. London. Roberts, BK and Wrathmell, S 2003. An Atlas of Rural Settlement in England. London. Rosser, G 1996. Religious practice on the margins. In J. Blair and C. Pyrah (eds), Church Archaeology. Research Directions for the Future. CBA Research Report 106. York. 75-84. Rudling, D (ed.) 2003. The Archaeology of Sussex to AD 2000. King’s Lynn. Rudling, D and Browne, S 1993. An archaeological evaluation of part of St Giles’s churchyard, Winchelsea, East Sussex (TQ9015 1715) and a report on the human remains discovered during the excavations. Unpublished report: Archaeology South-East. Russell, M 1990. Excavations in Friars Walk, Lewes, 1989. Sussex Archaeological Collections 128. 141-56. Saul, N 1986. Scenes from Provincial Life: Knightly Families in Sussex 1280-1400. Oxford. Saunders, A 2007. Ephemera. Paper given at the South-East Research Framework Resource Assessment Seminar on Maritime and Defence Themes. Institute of Archaeology, UCL: 24.11.07. Saunders, MJ 1997. The excavation of a medieval site at Walsingham School, St. Paul’s Cray, Bromely, 1995. Archaeologia Cantiana CXVII 1997. 199-225. Saunders, MJ 1998. Archaeological investigations on the route of the Crawley High Street relief road, Crawley, West Sussex. Sussex Archaeological Collections 136. 81-94. Saxby, D and Miller, P 2007. The Augustinian Priory of St Mary Merton, Surrey. Excavations 1976-1990. MoLAS Monograph 34. London. Scaife R. 1996. Charred plant remains in CM Hearne, DRJ Perkins and P Andrews 1996. The Sandwich Bay wastewater treatment scheme archaeological project, 1992-1994. Archaeol. Cantiana 115. 325-9 Semple, J 2007. The medieval tile-makers of Borough Green. Archaeologia Cantiana CXXVII 2007. 297-320. Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 40 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 Schofield, J 1992. The social perceptions of space. The Field Archaeologist 16. 299-301. Schofield, J 1999. Landscapes of the Middle Ages: Towns 1050–1500. In J Hunter and I Ralston (eds), The Archaeology of Britain: An introduction from the Upper Palaeolithic to the Industrial Revolution. London. 210-27. Schofield, J and Vince, A 1994. Medieval Towns. London. Schofield, J and Vince, A 2005. Medieval Towns. The Archaeology of British Towns in their European Setting. London. Schofield J and Waller MP 2005. A pollen analytical record for hemp retting from Dungeness Foreland, UK. J. Archaeol. Sci. 32. 715-26 Serjeantson, D 1984. Medieval animal bone, in Penn,J, Field D and Serjeantson, D, Evidence of Neolithic occupation in Kingston: excavation at Eden Walk, 1965, pp. 220-1. Surrey Archaeological Collections, 75, 207-221. Serjeantson, D 2001. Food Consumption and Disposal: The Animal Remains in Hicks, M and Hicks, A (eds) St Gregory's Priory, Northgate, Canterbury: Excavations 1988-1991. Canterbury: Canterbury Archaeological Trust, 317-333 Serjeantson, D 2006. Birds: Food and a Mark of Status, in Woolgar, C M Serjeantson, D and Waldron, T (eds) Food in Medieval England. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 201-214 Serjeantson, D, Waldron, T and Bracegirdle, M 1992. Medieval Horses from Kingston on Thames, London Archaeologist 7, 9-12. Spain, R. 2004. Medieval Watermills. In T Lawson and D Killingray (eds.), An Historical Atlas of Kent. Chichester. 62-3. Stamper, P 1999. Landscapes of the Middle Ages. Rural settlement and manors. In J Hunter and I Ralston (eds), The Archaeology of Britain: An introduction from the Upper Palaeolithic to the Industrial Revolution. London. 247-63. Steele, A., (in prep). Excavations at the Monastery of St Saviour, Bermondsey, Southwark. London. Stevens, C 2006a. The charred plant remains from Saltwood Tunnel, Kent. CTRL Specialist Report Series Stevens, C 2006b. The charred plant remains from Westenhanger Castle, Stanford, Kent, CTRL Specialist Report Series Stevens, C 2008. Agriculture, local environment and diet: the plant macro remains. Paper given at the South-East Research Framework Resource Assessment Seminar on Environment and Environmental Analyses. Institute of Archaeology, UCL: 12.01.08. Stevens, L 1990. Three Lime Burning Pits, Church Street, Eastbourne. Sussex Archaeological Collections 128. 73-87. Stevens, S 1997. Excavations at the Old Post Office site, 15–17 High Street, Crawley, West Sussex. Sussex Archaeological Collections 135. 193-208. Stevens, S 2004. Excavations at 1-3, High Street, Seaford, East Sussex. Sussex Archaeological Collections 142. 79-92. Stevens, S 2007. Archaeological investigations on the A27 Polegate Bypass, East Sussex. Sussex Archaeological Collections 145. 119-35. Stevens, S forthcoming. Archaeological excavations at Ropetackle, Shoreham. Sussex Archaeological Collections Stone, DJ 2006. The Consumption and Supply of Birds in Late Medieval England, in Woolgar, CM, Serjeantson, D and Waldron, T (eds) Food in Medieval England. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 201-214 Stopford, J 1993. Modes of production among medieval tilers. Medieval Archaeology 37. 93-108. Straker, E 1931. Wealden Iron. London. Streeten, ADF 1980. Potters, kilns and markets in medieval Sussex: a preliminary study. Sussex Archaeological Collections 118. 105-18. Streeten, ADF 1981. Craft and industry: medieval and later potters in South-East England. In H Howard and EL Morris (eds), Production and Distribution: a Ceramic Viewpoint. BAR (International Series) 120. Oxford. 323-46. Streeten, ADF 1982. Potters, kilns and markets in medieval Kent: a preliminary study. In PE Leach (ed), Archaeology in Kent to AD 1500. CBA Research Report No. 48. York. 87-95. Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 41 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 Sweetinburgh S 2002. Land holding and land market in a 15th century peasant community: Appledore, 1400–1470. . In A Long, S Hipkin and H Clarke (eds), Romney Marsh. Coastal and Landscape Change through the ages. Oxford University School of Archaeology Monograph No. 56. Oxford. 140-56. Sweetinburgh, S 2004a. Landholding in 1300. In T Lawson and D Killingray (eds), An Historical Atlas of Kent. Chichester. 48-9. Sweetinburgh, S 2004b. Monastic Houses. In T Lawson and D Killingray (eds), An Historical Atlas of Kent. Chichester. 42-3. Sweetinburgh, S 2004c. Medieval Hospitals and Almshouses. In T Lawson and D Killingray (eds.), An Historical Atlas of Kent. Chichester. 44-5. Sweetinburgh, S 2004d. The Role of the Hospital in Medieval England. Gift giving and spiritual economy. Dublin. Sweetinburgh, S 2010. Kentish towns: urban culture and the church in the later middle ages. In S. Sweetinburgh (ed), Later Medieval Kent, 1220–1540. Woodbridge. 137–65. Sweetinburgh, S (ed) 2010, Later Medieval Kent, 1220–1540. Woodbridge. Sykes, N 2004. The dynamics of Status symbols: wildfowl exploitation in England AD410-1550, The Archaeological Journal 161, 82-105. Sykes, N 2005. The animal bones, in Thomas, G., Archaeological work at 'The Marlipins', Shoreham-by-Sea. Sussex Archaeological Collections, 143, 173-204. Sykes, N 2006. From Cu and Sceappe to Beffe and Motton, in Woolgar, C M Serjeantson, D and Waldron, T (eds) Food in Medieval England, pp. 56-71. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sykes, N 2007a. Animal Bones and Animal Parks, in Liddiard, R. (ed) The Medieval Deer Park: new perspectives. Windgather Press: Macclesfield. Sykes, N. 2007b. Taking sides: the social life of venison in medieval England, in Pluskowski, A., 2007 Breaking and Shaping Beastly Bodies: Animals as material culture in the Middle Ages, pp. 150-61. Oxford: Oxbow. Sykes, N 2007c. The Norman Conquest: A Zooarchaeological Perspective. BAR International Series 1656. Sykes, N and Curl, J 2010. The rabbit, in O'Connor, T and Sykes, N (eds) Extinctions and Invasions. A Social History of British Faun. Oxford: Oxbow Books: 116-126 Sykes, N, Ingrem, C and Ayres, K 2005. The bones and shell, in Poulton, R. (ed), A Medieval Royal Complex at Guildford: Excavations at the Castle and Palace. Guildford: Surrey Archaeological Society: 116-132 Symmonds, R 2008. Animal bones archives. Paper given at the South-East Research Framework Resource Assessment Seminar on Environment and Environmental Analyses. Institute of Archaeology, UCL: 12.01.08. Tatton-Brown, T 2006. A new survey of the fabric of the Church of the Holy Trinity, Bosham, West Sussex. Sussex Archaeological Collections 144. 129-54. Taylor, C, Everson, P and Wilson-North, R 1990. Bodiam Castle, Sussex. Medieval Archaeology 34. 155-57. Taylor, M 1999. Religious Foundations. In K Leslie and B Short (eds.) An Historical Atlas of Sussex. Chichester. 46-7. Taylor, M 2003. Ecclesiastical sites in Sussex. In D Rudling (ed.). The Archaeology of Sussex to AD 2000. King’s Lynn. 161-70. Thomas, G. 2005. Refining the biography of a marketplace tenement. A recent excavation and archaeological interpretive survey at ‘The Marlipins’, Shoreham-by-Sea, West Sussex. Sussex Archaeological Collections 143. 173-204. Thomas, R 2005. 'Animals, Economy and Status: Integrating Zooarchaeological and Historical Data in the Study of Dudley Castle, West Midlands (c.1100-1750)'. BAR International Series 392. Thompson, M 1995. Another ‘proto-keep’ at Walmer, Kent. Medieval Archaeology 39. 174-76. Turner, D 1987. The Archaeology of Surrey, 1066–1540. In J Bird and DG Bird (eds), The Archaeology of Surrey to 1540. Guildford. Turner, D 2004. Manors and other settlements. In J Cotton, G Crocker and A Graham (eds), Aspects of Archaeology and History in Surrey: Towards a Research Framework for the County. Guildford. 133-146. Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 42 South East Research Framework Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Medieval Period Consultation draft October 2012 Turner, S (ed) 2007. Medieval Settlement Research Group Annual Report 22, 2007. Urry, W 1967. Canterbury under the Angevin kings. London. Ward, A 2004. Castles and Other Defensive Sites. In T Lawson and D Killingray (eds.), An Historical Atlas of Kent. Chichester. 53-5. Ward, A and Anderson, T 1990. Excavations at Rochester Cathedral. Archaeologia Cantiana CVIII. 91-151. Webb, D 2004. Pilgrimage. In T Lawson and D Killingray (eds.), An Historical Atlas of Kent. Chichester. 46-7. Weekes, J 2007a. Some recent developments in the medieval period in South-East England. Paper given at the South-East Research Framework Resource Assessment Seminar on the medieval period. Institute of Archaeology, UCL: 03.11.07. Weekes J 2007b. Notes on the South-East Research Framework seminar on the Post-medieval and Modern period/Industry (01/12/07). https://shareweb.kent.gov.uk/Documents/Leisure-andculture/heritage/serf-seminar-notes/post-medieval-and-modern.pdf Wicker, NL 1999. Archaeology and Art History: common ground for the new millennium. Medieval Archaeology 43. 161-71. Williamson, T and Bellamy, L 1987. Property and Landscape: a social history of land ownership and the English countryside. London. Wilkinson, K nd Southern Region molluscs. English Heritage review of Southern England Wood, W 1995. The faunal assemblage, in Gardiner, M., Aspects of the history and archaeology of medieval Seaford. Sussex Archaeological Collections, 133, 189-212. Woolgar, CM, Serjeantson, D and Waldron, T (eds) 2006. Food in Medieval England,. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 56-71 Wragg, E, Jarrett, C and Haslam, J 2005. The development of medieval Tonbridge reviewed in the light of recent excavations at Lyons, East Street. Archaeologia Cantiana CXXV 2005. 11950. Youngs, SM, Clark, J and Barry, T 1986. Medieval Britain and Ireland in 1985. Medieval Archaeology 30. 114-98. Copyright Jake Weekes and Kent County Council 2012 43