Anglo-Saxon cemetery sites around Nonington
The article discusses two Anglo-Saxon inhumation cemeteries that lie within the bounds of the historic downland parish of Nonington and presents further evidence for other cemeteries nearby. Pulling together information from a range of sources, the author draws conclusions on excavated graves, human skeletons and finds evidenced by this archaeology. Various specialists have provided accounts of the material recovered and radiocarbon dating evidence suggests that the Nonington cemeteries were in use during the middle Anglo- Saxon period, between the seventh and ninth century AD.
The historic parish of Nonington lies on the chalk dip-slope of the North Downs some 12km to the south-east of Canterbury, a similar distance north-west of Dover and 8.6km south-west of Sandwich (Fig. 1). In the nineteenth century this parish covered just over 3800 acres (1541 hectares) of open, rolling chalkland, interspersed with occasional wooded areas. During the mid-twentieth century its extent was significantly reduced when the mining village of Aylesham was separated off to create a new parish to the west.
[fg]jpg|Fig. 1 Map of east Kent showing Nonington and other Anglo-Saxon cemeteries in relation to topography, principal settlements and Roman roads|Image[/fg]
As a place, Nonington, itself, is not recorded before the Norman invasion and appears to be a post-Conquest creation, formed when a number of existing hamlets and manors, including Frogham, Holt Street, Soles, Fredville, Kittington, Easole and Eswalt, were brought together to form one unit (Hardman c. 1935). The name is first recorded in the Domesday Monachorum (c. 1087), where the church at ‘Nun- ningitun’ is noted as being a subordinate of the church of Wingham. The site of the medieval parish church lies within the north-western quarter of the modern parish, at the junction of two old downland trackways and is dedicated to St Mary (Fig. 2). The extant structure is largely of thirteenth century date with some earlier, Norman fabric (Newman 2013, 469–70; Coulson 2018). Its recorded existence just twenty years after the Conquest could possibly suggest a late Anglo-Saxon origin for the structure. Amongst the medieval manors contained within the parish, Easole and Eswalt are apparently the oldest. The manor of Eswalt, alias St Albans Court, was given to the Abbey of St Albans, Hertfordshire in 1097 (Hobbs 2005, 277) but its origins may be traced back into the middle Anglo-Saxon period when it formed part of a larger estate called Oeswalum (perhaps meaning ‘banks of the gods’ or similar; Paul Cullen pers com). This estate seems to have been in existence by the late eighth century (Hobbs 2022), although its precise boundaries are unclear and are currently being researched.[pg185]
[fg]png|Fig. 2 Site location plan showing Cemeteries I and II in relation to medieval manor houses of Old St Albans Court and Fredville. (with inset location map).|Image[/fg]
[pg186]Dover Archaeological Group has been investigating the archaeology and early history of the Nonington area since the 1990s. Investigations in 2001 identified a late seventh to ninth century inhumation cemetery near Old St Albans Court (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, Cemetery I; Parfitt 2002; Parfitt 2016) and a second burial site of broadly similar date was discovered in Horseshoe Copse, Fredville Park one kilometre further south in 2016 (Fig. 2, Cemetery II). Building work at Aylesham in 2014 revealed three possible Anglo-Saxon inhumation burials (SWAT 2016) which could have formed part of another cemetery further to the west.
[fg]jpg|Fig. 3 Cemetery I; location plan showing investigated area in relation to medieval manor house (Old St Albans Court) and Beech Grove mansion.|Image[/fg]
Together, these burial sites, along with satellite images showing two other, unexcavated cemeteries not far away, on Snow Down and Catsole Hill, Goodnestone, now provide clear archaeological evidence for Anglo-Saxon habitation in the region. Details of these various sites are set out below, although information concerning the Aylesham finds is not yet available.
Cemetery I, Old St Albans Court, NGR TR 2625 5270
Cemetery I lies some 180 metres north of the medieval manor house of Old St [pg187]Albans Court, about 1km east by north-east of the parish church (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3). The burial ground had been known locally since the later nineteenth century but its Anglo-Saxon date has only been positively confirmed by modern fieldwork. It was in 1875, during the construction of a new mansion (now Beech Grove but originally new St Albans Court; Fig. 3) replacing the medieval one, that workmen employed by banker William Oxenden Hammond (1817–1903) first discovered ancient graves here.
Details were carefully recorded by Hammond within the pages of his personal journal, the relevant sections of which are transcribed below: ‘… I decided, with the approval of my brothers, to rebuild a new mansion, the old one which was built in 1556 having naturally fallen into a decayed state. In connexion with the new building I began to prepare some ground for planting, and in the course of trenching on the 22nd October 1875 we discovered a skeleton. Within four days fourteen in all were exposed - with them were several bullets or balls of what appeared to be chalk saturated with iron, a blade about 8 inches long, and round the forarm (sic) of one a bronze ring, riveted and 3 inches in diameter. All the bodies lay East [pg188]and West. Before the completion of the trenching fourteen skeletons were exposed. Two more knives found and one more bullet. Various conjectures have been made as to the history of these remains. My first idea was that they were Roman, since within 40 years two other grounds have been found, several in-total, within a mile of this spot, one of them on St Albans Down adjacent to it, and it appeared to me these were either Romans or Britons who had fallen in skirmishes as Caesar advanced inland from Richborough. The balls appeared to answer to (. . .) of the Roman slingers, the light armed troops. This position however was objected to by Mr Faussett, Registrar of Canterbury Cathedral and a good authority and he at first thought they were the remains of monks, who had a chapel at Beauchamp (affirming that Romans buried their dead; could this not be after an action in which they may have been wounded?)’ ‘None of these skeletons, however, lay at a greater depth than 8 inches, and some as near the surface as (. . .), which did not look like interment, and then what were those bullets. The discovery of the armlet, however, seemed to point to a woman’s remains and some other skeletons had struck me as small. Mr Faussett’s second conjecture now was that we had lighted on a Saxon burial ground, shallow burial being a Saxon characteristic, belonging to poor inhabitants, as shown by the absence of any rich relics. Still those balls remain unexplained, and who they were will possibly never be satisfactorily determined. I buried these bones decently about four feet below the surface to the N.E. of where they were found, & I intend, if I live, to erect over them some plain monument…’
Hammond followed through with his intention and in 1876 raised a small stone pyramid carrying an appropriately grand Latin inscription, over the re-buried skeletons. The monument still survives in a wooded garden some 80 metres to the north-west of the now Grade I listed Victorian mansion (Parfitt 2002; Figs. 3 and Fig. 4). Although clearly very interested in the discovery, Hammond never formally published details of the find and whether the skeletons were those of Romans, Britons or Saxons was never clear to him. Lack of publication meant that the cemetery remained unknown to Kent archaeologists until the existence of the pyramid monument was first reported by Dave Perkins over a century later (Perkins 1997, 228). Subsequent fieldwork has now greatly clarified the likely dating of these burials.
[fg]jpg|Fig. 4 Cemetery I; General view of Hammond’s pyramid monument in the grounds of Beech Grove, looking south-east.|Image[/fg]
Investigations in 2001
A programme of archaeological evaluation on open ground immediately west of the site of the nineteenth century graves was undertaken in the summer of 2001 (Fig. 3 and Fig. 5), prompted by the imminent transfer of that piece of land to new owners, with the possibility of future tree planting across it. The investigations were primarily designed to ascertain whether further burials extended into this region and, if so, to indicate something of their density, geographical extent, and date. In the event, five closely spaced inhumations were located across a fairly small area and these are now firmly dated to the Anglo-Saxon period (see Table 2 [pg189]below). There can be no doubt that the graves discovered nearby in the nineteenth century were of the same date. Indeed, this had been the opinion of Kentish antiquary Thomas Godfrey-Faussett, FSA, excavator of the nearby Bifrons Anglo- Saxon cemetery, with whom Hammond had consulted at the time of the original discovery (see above).
Given the strong possibility of further graves existing across the entire area, an agreement with the new owners was concluded which prevented any new tree planting or disturbance of the ground to be sold. With any potential threat thus removed and the site safe, archaeological investigations were brought to a convenient close, with a small but useful sample of new graves examined and dated.
The area investigated in 2001 (NGR TR 2625 5270) lay around 50 metres west of Hammond’s pyramid (Fig. 3). It was located within a field of permanent pasture, enclosed by an arc of mature trees on a gentle south-west facing slope, lying at [pg190]an elevation of around 40m OD. An initial geophysical survey proved somewhat inconclusive but three hand-cut trenches varying in length between 12.50 and 19.00m (Trenches 1–3) were successful in locating five new chalk-cut graves (Fig. 5), sealed under a layer of chalky topsoil, between 0.18 and 0.38m thick.
[fg]jpg|Fig. 5 Cemetery I; Plan of 2001 Trenches 1 and 3 showing excavated graves.|Image[/fg]
Trenches 1 and 3 were cut adjacent to each other, closest to the Victorian monument, while Trench 2 was positioned some 13 metres to the north-west of Trench 1 (Fig. 3). Initially, three graves were found in Trench 1, which was then enlarged southwards to connect with Trench 3, revealing two more graves enclosed by a ring-gully (Fig. 5). The density suggested that a significant number of other graves could lie in the immediate area. The general absence of burials within the western end of Trench 1 and in Trench 3 might suggest that the exposed graves lay at the margins of a cemetery that extended eastwards, back towards the site of the Victorian finds. This was further borne out by subsequent trenching in 2018 (see below).
Trench 2 failed to reveal any definite graves and perhaps lay beyond the limits of the cemetery. However, the discovery here of a broad irregular pit and a 0.40m deep curved ditch, showed that other archaeological remains were present in this area. Dating evidence for the two features was very limited but single small pot- sherds came from each. These are of somewhat indeterminate date but possibly belong to the Anglo-Saxon period.[pg191]
Excavated graves
A total of five graves was excavated within Trenches 1 and 3. These were quite closely spaced, with Grave 4 cut through and removing the lower part of Grave 5 (Fig. 5 and Fig.7). Except Grave 2, all the burials were orientated on an east–west axis. Grave 2, itself, was closer to north-west by south-east (Fig. 7). Depths into the chalk ranged between 0.39 and 0.70m (Fig. 6), the deepest being the large Grave 3.
[fg]jpg|Fig. 6 Cemetery 1; Plan of Grave 1; sections across Graves 1, 4 and 5; grave goods from Graves 1 and 5.|Image[/fg]
[fg]jpg|Fig. 7 Cemetery I; Plans of Graves 2, 3, 4 and 5.|Image[/fg]
[pg192]These depths may be compared with the nearby burials found during the Victorian period, none of which ‘lay at a greater depth than 8 inches’ (0.20m; see above).
A general absence of closely datable grave goods largely prevents conventional artefact dating of the burials (see below) but the stratigraphic evidence, subsequently underpinned by a series of radiocarbon dating tests (see Table 2 below) allows a sequence of deposition to be tentatively suggested and a middle Anglo-Saxon date to be assigned to the group. From the field evidence, earliest would seem to be Graves 1 and 5, both apparently enclosed by ring-gullies suggestive of the former presence of small barrows over them (Fig. 5).
Of special interest was the arrangement of successive Graves 5 and 4. Three interrupted segments of a shallow curving gully enclosed these graves and it seems highly likely that the spoil from this had originally provided material for a small covering barrow mound about 4.50m in diameter (Fig. 5; Fs 16, 21 & 23). The primary burial was Grave 5. Accompanied by a rectangular iron buckle (Fig. 6), this was of a mature male, between 50 and 60 years old. Although orientated east- west, it was unusual in having the head placed at the east, rather than the west, end of the grave (Fig. 7). An arm bone from this skeleton gave a radiocarbon date of 1247 ± 35 BP (AD 676–876, 2 sigma; Table 2).
Subsequently, a second, larger and deeper burial (Gr. 4), also that of a mature male, had been inserted on the same alignment, removing the lower part of the earlier [pg193]skeleton (Fig. 6 and Fig. 7). The later burial was orientated with the head to the west but was unaccompanied by any recognisable grave items. It seems most probable that Grave 4 had been inserted into a pre-existing barrow mound raised over Grave 5 but it is possible that any such mound was not raised until this second interment was made. Either way, the second burial had clearly been interred sometime after the first and bones derived from the lower part of the skeleton in Grave 5 were found loose in the backfilling of Grave 4. A bone sample from the Grave 4 skeleton provided a radiocarbon date of 1256 ± 39 BP (AD 669–874, 2 sigma; Table 2).
Also at some later date, Grave 2 had been partially dug into the ring-gully enclosing Graves 4 and 5 on the north side (Fig. 5). Set on a different axis, this mature female burial seems to represent a subsequent interment, perhaps implying links with the individuals associated with the mound. The burial was noteworthy for the presence of a piece of whale bone (a) carefully placed at the foot of the grave (Fig. 7). The atypical orientation of the grave may reflect a desire to insert the new burial between existing ones without disturbing them. A broad shallow ledge or step at the north-western end of this grave may have been associated with some sort of covering timber structure (Fig. 7). A bone sample from the skeleton gave a radiocarbon date of 1266 ± 37 BP (AD 664–867, 2 sigma; Table 2).
To the north-east of Graves 4 and 5, another section of curving gully (F. 3) adjacent to Grave 1 suggests that this burial too once had an associated barrow mound (Fig. 5). The juvenile skeleton it contained was equipped with a small buckle (Fig. 6) and gave a radiocarbon date of 1306 ± 35 BP (AD 657–769, 2 sigma; Table 2). The grave-pit, itself, was noteworthy for the presence of a narrow continuous ledge or step, between 0.06 and 0.12m deep, around the top on all four sides (Fig. 6; Section no. 3). This feature could have neatly accommodated timber boards originally covering the top of the grave.
Set between the probable barrows over Graves 1 and 5 was east–west orientated Grave 3 (Fig. 5). This was the largest and deepest grave revealed (Fig. 7), its size perhaps suggesting that it had originally contained a coffin, no traces of which had otherwise survived. No grave objects were identified with the burial, and bone preservation was so poor as to preclude detailed analysis, beyond the suggestion that this was another mature individual. A sample of bone yielded a radiocarbon date of 1240 ± 38 BP (AD 681–880, 2 sigma; Table 2).
Finds
Grave objects
Only three of the burials excavated in 2001 contained grave objects and none had been richly provided for. Grave 1 yielded a small iron and copper-alloy buckle, whilst Grave 5 contained a rectangular buckle of iron (Fig. 6). More particular interest attaches to Grave 2 where the fragmentary remains of a large piece of unworked whale bone were found at the foot of the grave (see below; Fig. 7).
To this meagre collection of grave objects may be added the items recorded by Hammond as being present within the burials located in 1875 (see above). These items were presumably contained within separate graves but the details were not recorded. Most intriguing to Hammond were the ‘bullets or balls of what appeared to be chalk saturated with iron’. These were found with several of the burials but [pg194]rather than belonging to ‘Roman slingers’, as Hammond originally speculated, it now seems much more likely that they were nothing more than degraded nodules of natural iron pyrites, such as are commonly found in the local chalk. Most probably, their occurrence in the graves was entirely fortuitous, although Audrey Meaney does note the deliberate placing of such natural objects in a few Anglo-Saxon graves (Meaney 1981, 101).
The absence of spectacular or even noteworthy grave objects may well explain the failure of the original nineteenth century discovery to be reported in the archaeological literature of the day. The present whereabouts of those few finds which were then recovered remains unknown and they must be presumed lost. The finds from the 2001 burials will be held at the medieval manor house (today, Old St Albans Court), as part of a larger archaeology archive relating to the estate.
Knives and a blade
From Hammond’s account two, perhaps three, separate knives, presumably of iron, seem to have been discovered in 1875. No such items were present in any of the graves excavated in 2001. There are virtually no details about the Victorian finds; the one described as ‘a blade’ could have been either a knife or a corroded spearhead. If a knife, its recorded length of 8 inches (205mm) suggests that it might be more accurately termed a large knife, or possibly a seax.
Bronze ring
Hammond records that around the forearm of one skeleton was a bronze ring, riveted, and 3 inches (76mm) in diameter. Clearly being worn by the deceased, the discovery of this armlet ‘seemed to point to a woman’s remains’. Similar discoveries have been made in several other Anglo-Saxon cemeteries in Kent, e.g., Buckland Grave 110, dated to the later seventh century (Evison 1987, 241).
Buckles by Birte Brugmann and Ian Riddler
Two small buckles were recovered from graves in 2001 but no examples were recorded in 1875. The buckle (a) from Grave 1 can be assigned to Marzinzik type II.22a, defined by the presence of a tongue-shaped plate, secured by a single rivet (Marzinzik 2003, 48). This type of buckle was not included in the Anglo-Saxon Chronology Project (Baylss et al 2013). It is not a common type, occurring within graves of both sixth and seventh century date, including an example from Grave 91 at Mill Hill, Deal (Parfitt and Brugmann 1997, fig. 47, m). A further example secured a purse within a grave at the Ipswich Buttermarket (Scull 2009, 242–3 and fig. 3.45.8). The buckle (a) from Grave 5 belongs to a rare type, defined by Marzinzik (2003, 25) as her type I.6b and consisting of a small number of iron examples from cemeteries at Apple Down, Chessell Down and Droxford. There is little dating evidence for the type, unfortunately. Rectangular buckles were not favoured in the early Anglo-Saxon period, when oval and D-shaped buckles are much more common. They are more frequent on the Continent, occurring mainly in copper alloy but occasionally in iron, as at Bulles, for example (Legoux 2011, 118, 124 and pl. 40–1). Within the Chronologie Normalisée dating scheme (Legoux et al [pg195]2009, 122–5) rectangular buckles of silver and copper alloy extend from the sixth century to around the middle of the seventh century, and it is possible that iron buckles without plates have a similar date range.
Grave 1(a): Small buckle with a copper alloy plate and iron loop, found in the area of the pelvis (Fig. 6). The buckle loop is probably oval in form, whilst the plate is tongue-shaped and was originally secured by a single rivet, which is now missing. The corrosion of the iron has preserved the remains of a fibrous material, possibly leather, and a few areas of finely woven textile. The threads are still visible and represent a simple tabby weave structure. The spin, ‘S’ or ‘Z’ could not be determined. There are also remains of an organic material sandwiched between the folded halves of the plate. This is also of a fibrous nature and closely resembles the structure of decayed leather. Due to the tightness of the fold, the material could have been no more than 2–3mm thick.
Grave 5(a): Small, corroded iron buckle with rectangular frame, 20 x 30mm (Fig. 6). Centrally located iron pin now detached. The frame appears sub-rectangular in cross-section, c. 2 x 4mm. From the area above missing left pelvis (Fig. 6 and Fig. 7).
Whale bone slab, Grave 2 by Ian Riddler
It is very unusual to find a segment of whale bone in an Anglo-Saxon grave. Whale bone was widely used as a raw material during the middle Saxon period, particularly at Hamwic, where over 240 fragments have been discovered to date (Riddler 2014, 341; Riddler and Trzaska-Nartowski 2014) but it is scarcely known at all from the early Anglo-Saxon period. A segment of whale bone from a settlement at Botolphs, Steyning, Sussex, is one of the few examples to have come from that period (Riddler 1990, 262). It forms part of a rib from a cetacean and was recovered from the fill of a sunken-featured building. Ceramics from the fill suggested a date of deposition in the late fifth to early sixth century (Gardiner 1990, 240). Five segments of whale vertebrae came from Phase 2b deposits at Carlton Colville and were probably discarded in the second half of the seventh century (Riddler and Sabin 2009).
At Hamwic, the whale bone waste is markedly different across the northern and southern parts of the settlement. Most of the fragments of waste have come from the northern area and they have been heavily worked. In the southern area there is much less whale bone, but each piece is larger and heavier. Amongst the fragments from the southern area are several pieces also identifiable as sections of rib bone and these provide a possible context for the Nonington fragment. The segment of whale bone, probably from a rib, may have been deposited in the Nonington grave simply because it was an unusual find, gathered from a local stranding; but the nearest beach is some 11.5km away, at Deal. Equally, it might be a reference to the deceased as somebody who either sourced skeletal materials for working or actually worked them. Intriguingly, the date of the grave would suggest that, alongside the vertebrae from Carlton Colville and the earliest fragments from Hamwic, it stands at the beginning of the extensive working of whale bone in Anglo-Saxon England.
Grave 2(a): A much decayed and fragmented segment of unworked whale bone found by the left ankle (Fig. 7). This appeared to be a flat, tapered slab up to 10mm thick with maximum dimensions of 380mm x 50–90mm. Today, dead and dying whales are occasionally washed-up on the Kent coast. One occurred at Pegwell Bay near Sandwich in 2011, with another at Botany Bay on Thanet in 2015. From time to time, such events are also likely to have occurred during the Anglo-Saxon period, when local inhabitants would have been provided with an opportunity to acquire a range of useful raw materials, not least bone.
[pg196]The Human Skeletons based on analysis by Frances Booth The five human skeletons recovered from the 2001 excavations were examined in 2005. Space prevents full publication here but a summary discussion is presented below. The full report (Booth 2005) is held with the site archive and has previously been published in Parfitt 2016. None of the bones found in 1875 survived for study. Preservation of the five skeletons varied from poor to moderate (Fig. 6 and Fig. 7), the condition of the bone reflecting the alkaline chalk matrix and the frequent root and worm disturbance within the grave fills. Fragmentation of fragile bones from the skull, shoulder, and pelvis and of the long bone articulations often rendered the recording of age, gender and measurements difficult.
Amongst the individuals represented there is a juvenile of 12–15 years (Gr. 1), a female of 33–45 years (Gr. 2), a male of 45+ years (Gr. 4), a male of 50–60 years (Gr. 5) and an individual of unknown gender who was mature at death (Gr. 3). This suggests that the cemetery contained a mixture of both genders, and children as well as adults. It was possible to calculate stature for the males from Grave 4 (175.57cm) and Grave 5 (165.88–171.16cm incorporating disturbed leg bones found in the filling of Grave 4).
Pathology evident on the bones provided information about diet, and dietary deficiencies. Enamel hypoplasia was present in the dentitions of the Grave 1 and 4 burials where it suggested two mild periods of illness or malnutrition at the age of 4–8 years in both individuals. The presence of osteoporosis in the spines of the Grave 2 individual (a female of menopausal age) and the Grave 5 burial (a mature male of 50–60 years) suggests a calcium deficient diet coupled with general age and occupation-related degeneration of the skeleton.
The condition of platymeria, or antero-posterior flattening of the femur shaft, was observed in the skeleton from Grave 4 and on disturbed loose bone in its general filling derived from Grave 5. In the latter the abnormality may have been worsened by underlying osteoarthritis at the right knee but in both cases, it is likely that a deficiency of calcium and vitamins in the childhood diets of the individuals caused the condition.
The individuals from Graves 2, 4 and 5 exhibited severe wear and polishing at the grinding teeth and to a marked degree at the incisors, which had resulted from a ‘Spay form of curve’ in all cases. This had been caused by considerable alveolar recession and calculus deposits, and also as a result of severe decay by carious cavities and abscesses at the grinding teeth.
The Nonington skeletons exhibit some degree of dental decay, despite the flattening of the molar crowns, and to a certain extent this is due to the heavy attrition at the incisors and cheek teeth. This dental wear on occasion exposed the pulp cavities and opened the teeth up to infection. But the heavy dental decay in the Cemetery I teeth must also reflect a high content of sugary and starchy foods in the diet of the individuals, and a degree of poor oral hygiene. The consumption of sugared foods such as dried fruit and cane sugar and starchy foods containing carbohydrates, all of which were not generally available to the populace, seems to indicate an element of wealth and status in the Anglo-Saxon community represented.
The skeletons also displayed a number of pathologies of traumatic and degener[pg197]ative origin which may reveal insights into the lives of the individuals. Trauma was evident in a depression fracture in the spine of the male from Grave 5. Although worsened by underlying conditions of osteoarthritis and osteoporosis of the spine, the fracture did exhibit evidence of a traumatic event, possibly a fall from a height onto a hard surface. Mild surface trauma to the shin of Grave 4 led to a case of periostitis infection. A bone avulsion injury was evident in the right arm of the Grave 5 male, possibly suffered in a fall or due to repetitive strain at the pectoral muscle.
Degenerative changes to the skeletons were also evident. These included minor stress lesions of bony outgrowths at soft tissue attachments at the long bones of the Grave 2 female and the Grave 4 and 5 males. Such lesions represent a degree of robusticity in the skeleton due to repeated stresses and strains at the muscle attachments which led to bone formation. This may have been as a result of manual tasks of lifting heavy weights, weapon training, or craft working.
In addition, a case of severe osteoarthritis at the right knee of the Grave 5 male may have been the result of repetitive strain at the weight-bearing joint and/or an underlying fracture to the neck of the tibia. This would have been a debilitating and painful condition for the individual, leading to the potential loss of use of the right leg and early retirement from working life. The individual would thus have been dependent on his kinsmen and the fact that he survived to mature age shows evidence of care for invalids in the community.
Early-stage cases of osteoarthritis and osteoporosis at the spines of the Grave 2 and 5 individuals reflect a degeneration of the bone facets due to mature age and a life of manual labour. Similar evidence of degeneration of the spine was observed as osteophytes in these two skeletons. There is thus an interesting contrast in the skeletal material from Cemetery I, with evidence of relative wealth and opulence shown by the refined diets leading to severe dental decay indicated by the teeth contrasting with other evidence for a hard, physical life. These include dietary deficiencies in childhood, a heavy content of abrasives in the foodstuffs consumed, and an element of starchy and sugary food components in the diet that led to dental decay. In addition, evidence of degenerative changes, stress markers and trauma in the skeletons suggest that these individuals experienced many physical stresses and strains in their lives, which likely included repetitive tasks involving heavy manual labour.
Trenching in 2018
In February 2018, Canterbury Archaeological Trust was commissioned by UK Power Networks to excavate a trench along the proposed line of a new high voltage power cable in the area of Cemetery I. This machine-cut trench was about 110m in length and 1.10m wide, extending westwards from a point around 4 metres north of the burials excavated in 2001 (Fig. 3). Careful cleaning and examination of the chalk surface exposed failed to reveal any additional graves or other archaeological features, thus further helping to establish the western limits of the cemetery area (Parfitt 2018).[pg198]
Cemetery II, Horseshoe Copse, Fredville Park, NGR TR 2623 5166
In 2015 a number of human bones were discovered in woodland within Fredville Park, 1.15km south-east of Nonington parish church and about 1km south of Cemetery I (Fig. 2). The initial discovery of two long bones was made by Mr and Mrs B. Rampton whilst walking their dog in January 2015. Further odd bones were found by them on the surface in the same general area over the next few months. By April 2016 the collection comprised four long bones, a few small rib fragments and two finger/toe bones. There were no skulls or teeth.
Inspection on the ground by the writer showed that the half-dozen separate bone find-spots were all contained within the eastern portion of a small, wooded area known locally as ‘Horseshoe Copse’ because of its distinctive shape. The bones were scattered across a comparatively wide area, measuring about 17 metres (NW– SE) by 22 metres (NE–SW). From the range of bones recovered and their relative positioning it seemed clear that several separate human skeletons were involved.
The copse is located on chalk, towards the northern corner of Fredville Park, NGR TR 2623 5166, and lies on a gentle west facing slope at an elevation of about 55m OD. The copse has been in existence since at least the nineteenth century but it suffered severe damage during the 1987 hurricane when most of its larger trees were blow down. The fallen trunks were cut up and removed, leaving the uprooted stumps. The area was then left to regenerate naturally and within twenty years the wood had largely restored itself, seemingly without much human intervention. During this regeneration process, a colony of rabbits moved into the area and established a number of burrows, often taking advantage of the disturbances associated with the remaining up-turned stumps.
Through the good offices of the landowner and the tenant farmer, a weekend excavation on the site was arranged by the Dover Archaeological Group in May 2016 in order to determine the exact context of the bones recovered. A search of all the available tree stumps and rabbit scrapes resulted in the recovery of a further quantity of disturbed human bone fragments, whilst a small area excavation recovered more bones and revealed one undisturbed grave (Feature 8; Fig. 8).
The area targeted for investigation in 2016 was that immediately to the north of the up-turned tree stump where the original two long bones had been discovered. Here, a slightly irregular area some 3 to 4 metres across was cleared (with some difficultly) down to the surface of the natural chalk. Between 0.40 and 0.50m of topsoil, containing numerous tree roots and cut through by animal burrows, covered the chalk here. This deposit contained a light to moderate scatter of prehistoric struck flints, together with eight small pot-sherds of prehistoric, Roman, and medieval date. There were no items that might represent grave offerings associated with any burials.
In the immediate area of the tree stump, further human bone fragments including several pieces of skull and a few teeth were recovered but it was eventually concluded that the disturbance caused by the fall of the tree, followed by subsequent rabbit burrowing, had completely destroyed any grave here, leaving nothing more than a scatter of loose bones in the area. These bones all seem to relate to a single adult female (bone Group 1, see below). There is some possibility that the excavated outline of the 0.50m deep tree throw vaguely incorporated part of the grave outline.[pg199]
Also located within the excavated area, just to the north of the tree throw, was a short length of shallow, straight gully (Feature 5). This was aligned roughly north-east by south-west and was traced for a distance of 1.30m, its southern continuation having been destroyed by the root disturbance. There were no datable finds and nothing to suggest that it formed part of an enclosing ring-gully encircling one the graves, such as revealed at Cemetery I (see above). It may be completely unconnected with the burials and perhaps represented part of an early field boundary.
Grave, Feature 8
Some 2 metres north of the tree throw, towards the northern corner of the excavated area, the outline of an undisturbed grave was identified, cutting into the top of the chalk. In order to provide some more precise information about the date and character of the burial site, the decision was made to fully excavate this grave. The grave was sub-rectangular in plan and was found to contain a single inhumation burial (Fig. 8).
[fg]png|Fig. 8 Cemetery II; Plan and section of excavated grave (Feature 8).|Image[/fg]
[pg200]As recorded, the grave-pit was 2.04m long, 0.80m wide and 0.48m deep. It had very steep, almost vertical sides and a flat base. The filling comprised a single deposit of brown loam and small chalk rubble, somewhat affected by small tree roots.
On the base of the grave lay an extended, supine burial, with its head to the west (FPN-16-7; Fig. 8). Although showing slight root disturbance, the skeleton was moderately well-preserved, with legs and arms straight and the skull turned half right. Analysis shows that these remains are those of an adult male aged about 50 to 60. The right femur was submitted for radiocarbon dating but due to poor collagen preservation no result could be obtained (see Table 2 below).
By the left pelvis a small rectangular iron object (a), representing a somewhat corroded buckle covered in mineralised textile (Fig. 9), was the only grave item discovered (see below). Overall, the bones of the skeleton appeared quite tightly set together as if they had been originally held in place by some sort of close wrapping (Fig. 8). The iron buckle found could have served to secure such a wrapping, in which case the mineralised textile visible on it might be the wrapping itself. The general form of this inhumation with its iron buckle leaves little doubt that it is broadly of Anglo-Saxon date.
[fg]jpg|Fig. 9 Cemetery II; Close-up of iron belt buckle (a) showing mineralised textile on the back-plate.|Image[/fg]
Boddington (1996, 13) has suggested that skeletons recovered in compact positions, where arms were placed tightly against the torso and legs fully extended, are suggestive of body binding or wrapping prior to burial. ‘Parallel burials have their limbs tight to the trunk of the body and, it is argued, were more likely to have been in coffins and/or tightly wrapped shrouds.’ [pg201]Scattered bones (Groups FPN-16-1, 9A, 9B, 10 & 11) Small collections of human bone were recovered from the bases of several more upturned tree stumps and animal burrows in the general vicinity of the intact grave excavated. These must relate to other, partially disturbed, burials located in the area (Table 1). The bone groups were: Group 1: Seventeen pieces of human bone, including skull and several long bones, collected from the original upturned tree stump, located about 2 metres south of excavated grave Feature 8. These appear to represent a single adult female aged 18–25 (Table 1). Sampling of the right femur returned a radiocarbon date of 1277 ± 20 BP (AD 673–774, 2 sigma; Table 2).
Group 9: Four bones collected from the surface about 5 metres north of excavated grave Feature 8. These seem to relate to two separate individuals (FPN-16-9A & 9B), both of indeterminate sex; 9A was adult (Table 1). Sampling of the left femur of 9A returned a radiocarbon date of 1364 ± 26 BP (AD 608–772, 2 sigma; Table 2).
Group 10: Four loose fragments, including two ribs and a toe bone, collected from the surface in the wood generally. These most probably derive from further disturbed graves of which nothing more is presently known.
Group 11: A group of eight pieces of human bone collected from the surface some 10 metres east of excavated grave Feature 8. These represent a single individual of indeterminate age and sex (Table 1). Sampling of the right humerus returned a radiocarbon date of 1343 ± 25 (AD 647–773, 2 sigma, Table 2).
Finds by Andrew Richardson
Iron buckle (a) from grave Feature 8 (Fig. 9)
The buckle from grave Feature 8 has a short but wide iron loop, with a plain tongue, and a folded back-plate. The back-plate is very short, and may in fact be incomplete, as no rivets connecting the open end of the plate are visible. A large area of mineral-preserved textile is present on the reverse of the back-plate (Fig. 9). Length: 33mm; width: 52mm; thickness: 13mm. Weight: 12.74g.
Typologically, this type of buckle falls within Bayliss et al (2013, 146) type BU9: buckles with a folded back-plate and plain tongue - a general class corresponding to Marzinzik’s Type group II.19a, buckles with rectangular iron plate (Marzinzik 2003, 46). This is a large and varied group, not closely dateable within the Anglo- Saxon period.
The Human Skeletons (Table 1) based on analysis by Nick Lawrence The largely complete skeleton recovered from grave Feature 8 (FPN-16-7), together with parts of four others (FPN-16-1, 9A, 9B & 11) and a small bag of mixed bone fragments (FPN-16-10) was submitted for examination in 2019. Due to the fragmentary nature of this assemblage overall, no detailed examination was [pg202]possible. Summary notes are presented below with a full report held in the site archive (Lawrence 2020).
The minimum number of individuals present was calculated from the presence of the highest number of a single bone, which was the left femur. Based on this, it was concluded that all the bone groups contained one skeleton except FPN-16-9, which contained two left femora indicating at least two skeletons were present (FPN- 16-9A and FPN-16-9B). FPN-16-10 comprised scattered unstratified material consisting of three fragments and a right proximal phalange. These are insufficient to be classed as representing a single skeleton and the minimum number of individuals present in the assemblage would thus appear to be five.
Preservation
Preservation of the skeletal remains was varied. The generally poor preservation is likely due to the alkaline geology of the site, the shallow depth to the graves and the permeable nature of the chalk (Brothwell 1981). Root disturbance and gnawing marks also eroded some of the cortical bone. Due to its fragmentary nature, a detailed examination of much of the material to ascertain age, sex, measurements, and pathology was not possible.
Sex
Only two of the five skeletons could be assessed for sex. FPN-16-1 was assessed as being female, although the only sexually dimorphic feature present was the external occipital protuberance. This identification should thus be used with caution. Skeleton FPN-16-7 was assessed as being a male based on sexually dimorphic features of the pelvis and skull.
Age
Within the assemblage, only three out of the five skeletons could be assessed for age at death. FPN-16-1, probably a young adult female was aged 18–25. Skeleton FPN-16-7 was an old adult male aged 50–59. FPN-16-9A could only be classed as an adult because the Lower Right Molar 3 (LRM3), although missing, had clearly erupted. No sex could be assigned to this skeleton.
Stature
It was only possible to calculate the stature of male skeleton FPN-16-7, at 167.4cm +/-3cm. This suggests that the individual was shorter than the male average mean of 172cm for the early medieval period as described by Roberts and Cox (2003). It is not known if this short stature was due to a familial trait or the result of a childhood deprived of a healthy diet.
Indices Cranial indices could not be calculated for any skeletons in the assemblage due to its fragmentary nature. Where possible, indices of the femur and tibia were [pg203]calculated using the standard formula provided by Brothwell (1981). Post-cranial indices were calculated using three left femora, one right femur and two right tibiae. Most femora fell within the norms of 70 to 99.9 as described by Brothwell (1981). Where both femora and tibiae were present, the left measurement was calculated to determine indices.
Non-Metric Traits
The supraorbital notches and supraorbital foramina were observed for skeleton FPN-16-7 but no others displayed non-metric traits that could be recorded.
Dental Anthropology
Three out of the five skeleton groups had surviving dentition. Fifty sockets were available for examination. Within these sockets, seven teeth were present but not in occlusion, and two teeth were still in occlusion. Eight teeth were lost post-mortem.
Ante-Mortem Tooth Loss (AMTL)
Skeleton FPN-16-7 showed evidence of severe AMTL with 23 out of the 32 permanent teeth lost before death. FPN-16-9A had a partial right mandible present but there was no sign of AMTL as all sockets were present. No other skeletons had surviving maxillae. Old age and poor oral hygiene are the most contributory factors of AMTL (Hillson 1996; Ortner 2003).
Dental Caries
In the assemblage, a total of three out of the nine teeth present were identified as having caries. The lower right canine and lower right first premolar from skeleton FPN-16-7 were assessed to have gross caries as the crowns were almost completely destroyed by the carious lesion.
Osteoarthritis
Osteoarthritis (OA) was assessed primarily on the presence of eburnation, and secondarily on the presence of two or more of the following indicators: alteration of the joint contour; marginal or central osteophytes on the joint surface; and pitting (Waldron 2009). Three of the cervical vertebrae of skeleton FPN-16-7 were observed to have features consistent with OA. C4 and C5 both contained osteophytes and pitting on facet surfaces. C5 also had eburnation present on inferior facet surfaces. C6 showed evidence of eburnation on its superior facet surfaces.
Ankylosis Two thoracic vertebrae of skeleton FPN-16-7 were also observed to have fused. Accurate identification proved difficult because the vertebral bodies were missing and only the right-side transverse processes were present. However, the thoracic [pg204]vertebrae were assessed to be T11 and T12 based on the morphology of the transverse processes.
Congenital Brevicollis (Klippel-Feil Syndrome)
Klippel-Feil Syndrome is the congenital fusion of two or more cervical vertebrae. To diagnose, both the bodies and the posterior elements vertebrae must be completely fused. This defective cervical ventral block creates an abnormal neck curvature of the cervical vertebrae, shortening the neck and limiting its movement (Waldron 2009; Barnes 2012). The posterior elements of C6 and C7 were bilaterally fused for skeleton FPN-16-7. The fusion was solid, and the surface between the laminas was smooth. Unfortunately, the vertebral bodies were missing and so it cannot be ascertained as to whether they were fused. This means that a diagnosis of Klippel- Feil Syndrome cannot be confirmed, but it is certainly suggestable.
Eagle’s Syndrome
Skeleton FPN-16-7 had an elongated left styloid process indicative of Eagle’s Syndrome (Fig. 10). However, the right styloid process was missing for comparison. It is difficult to ascertain if symptoms would have been apparent to the individual.
[fg]jpg|Fig. 10 Detail of skull fragment showing elongated left styloid process indicative of Eagle’s Syndrome.|Image[/fg]
[pg205]Although 50% of sufferers are asymptomatic, Eagle Syndrome is known to cause secondary complications such as: pain, pinching of the carotid artery when the head is rotated, sore throat, the feeling that something is lodged in the throat, difficulty swallowing, pain in the ear and vertigo (Mann and Hunt 2012). This condition is likely to be underdiagnosed in the archaeological record because styloid processes are fragile. They are very often destroyed by taphonomy or during excavation.
Trauma
Skeleton FPN-16-11 had evidence of a healed fracture on the radius. The cause of this fracture is difficult to ascertain.
Conclusions
Study of this small bone assemblage has established that at least five individuals are represented, with only one complete skeleton present, that of a man aged 50–59 (FPN-16-7; Fig. 8). He was of comparatively short stature with poor oral health and presented with several pathological conditions (Table 1), which probably included Eagle’s Syndrome (Fig. 10). Bone group FPN-16-1, probably related to a young woman aged 18–25, whilst the individual represented by FPN-16-11 showed evidence of a probable healed fracture on the right radius (Table 1).
TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF SKELETAL MATERIAL RECOVERED FROM CEMETERY II
[pg206]unexcavated cemetery sites at snow down and catsole hill (fig.[fn1])
Two further cemetery sites, discovered by aerial photography/satellite imagery (recorded on Google Earth, April 2007) now provide important additional evidence for Anglo-Saxon activity on the downs close to Nonington. Unexcavated and, as yet not closely dated, these burial sites lie on Snow Down at Womenswold, 2.60km to the south-west of Nonington parish church and on Catsole Hill, Goodnestone, some 2.65km to the north-east of Nonington church (Fig. 1).
Snow Down, Womenswold; NGR TR 2370 5023
This site (Kent HER Ref. TR 25 SW 325) falls within the parish of Womenswold, 100 metres north of Woolage Village. It occupies a gentle south-east facing slope just below the summit of a downland ridge, at an elevation of about 95m OD. Here, a cluster of at least twenty ring-gullies, between 5 and 8 metres in diameter, clearly represent the remains of a previously unrecorded Anglo-Saxon cemetery, probably once marked by small barrows. The site occupies an area measuring about 70 by 30 metres and appears to be bounded by two roughly parallel ditches. Within the ring-gullies, several central grave-pits aligned roughly east–west are visible.
A short distance east of the main group a larger, isolated ring-ditch about 15 metres in diameter, probably represents the site of an earlier Bronze Age round barrow (Kent HER Ref. TR 25 SW 324) that may have provided a focus for the subsequent burials. An alignment of modern roads and paths passing just south of the cemetery site form part of an ancient downland trackway (Long Lane) running from the Channel coast to Barham Downs. This same routeway runs through the cemetery at Sibertswold/Barfrestone, located some 3.25km further south-east.
When Bryan Faussett excavated the Sibertswold/Barfrestone cemetery complex in 1772–3 around two hundred small Anglo-Saxon barrows remained in this area (Faussett 1856, 102). Some survived into the nineteenth century but ploughing continued to take its toll so that none are visible today, although a number of ring- gully cropmarks occur in the area. Perhaps significantly, Faussett makes no mention of any comparable barrows on Snow Down, even though he had passed through Womenswold parish and seen the larger prehistoric mounds on the adjacent Three Barrows Down (Rubury Butts; Faussett 1856, 101). The implication would seem to be that the present cemetery had already been levelled by the later eighteenth century.
Catsole Hill, Goodnestone; NGR TR 2610 5487 This cemetery (Kent HER Ref. TR 25 SE 110) lies in the parish of Goodnestone, between Nonington and Wingham, some 700 metres north-east of Goodnestone’s medieval parish church. It occupies the crest of a downland ridge at an elevation of about 40m OD. The site is clearly focused on an earlier, double-ditched circular monument over 30 metres in diameter, which most probably represents a prehistoric round barrow site. Extending away from the southern side of this earlier monument for a distance of at least 70 metres is a scatter of more than sixty graves. These are not regularly arranged, those closest to the monument being more densely spaced than those further out. In the central sector, three or four rough rows are [pg207]discernible. Although the grave axes are variable, a broadly east–west orientation seems to predominate. Two adjacent graves on the south-western side appear to be enclosed by small ring-gullies, suggestive of barrow burials.
Dating and discussion
Sufficient has now been found to demonstrate that two, perhaps three, separate Anglo-Saxon inhumation cemeteries lie within the bounds of the historic parish of Nonington, together with two more unexcavated ones close by in neighbouring parishes. These sites fall in an area where no Anglo-Saxon cemeteries had previously been recognised and now serve to fill something of a gap in the distribution of burial sites as previously recorded (Fig. 1; Richardson 2005, ii, map 2).
At Nonington, Cemetery I contained at least nineteen burials, whilst Cemetery II located about 1km south, has provided evidence for at least five. Three more graves are known further west at Aylesham, whilst the unexcavated site on Snow Down, Womenswold would seem to have contained at least twenty barrow graves. At Catsole Hill, Goodnestone more than sixty graves had been placed next to a prehistoric round barrow.
The general character of the graves discovered at Nonington Cemeteries I and II, with east-west aligned burials provided with only a few grave objects or nothing at all, suggests that these sites fall late within the established sequence of Anglo-Saxon graves in Kent (Kentish Burial Phases IX and X, c. AD 700– 1100; Richardson 2005, i, 39–40). This is largely confirmed by the radiocarbon dating evidence, which suggests that both Cemetery I and II were in use during the middle Anglo-Saxon period, between the seventh and ninth century AD (Table 2). The two nearby unexcavated cemeteries on Snow Down and Catsole Hill remain undated but the occurrence of numerous small ditched barrows at Snow Down might suggest a seventh century or later date.
TABLE 2 DETAILS OF RADIOCARBON DATES FROM NONINGTON CEMETERIES I AND II
[pg208]It is uncertain as to whether Cemeteries I and II represent contemporary or successive burial grounds belonging to a single community or whether they are connected with separate groups established in different places, as the recorded medieval settlement pattern might imply (see above). The radiocarbon dates suggest that Cemetery II could be marginally earlier than Cemetery I (Table 2). It seems fairly certain that one or both of these cemeteries lay within the bounds of the recorded eighth–ninth century Anglo-Saxon estate of Oeswalum. Both sites lie over 1km away from the medieval parish church and the available historical evidence provides no evidence to suggest any church here before the eleventh century. These sites thus appear to represent earlier burial grounds, pre-dating the foundation of a local church. With the construction of the church, an adjacent cemetery would have soon been established, superseding any existing burial sites in the area.
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements are due to many people for their assistance with the work reported here and the writer extends his sincere thanks to all concerned. First and foremost, the respective landowners of Cemeteries I and II, Peter Hobbs and the Fredville Estate, must be thanked for readily agreeing to the investigations on their land. The hard work of Dover Archaeological Group members must also be fully acknowledged.
Various specialists have provided accounts of the material recovered, notably Frances Booth and Nick Lawrence who have reported on the skeletal material, whilst Ian Riddler, Birte Brugmann and Andrew Richardson have commented on the grave items recovered.
Funding for the radiocarbon dating of bones from Cemetery I was generously provided by the late Geoff Halliwell. A further grant of £400 from the then Council for Kentish Archaeology, helped fund dating of bones from Cemetery II.
Bibliography
Barnes, E., 2012 Atlas of Developmental Field Anomalies of the Human Skeleton: A Palaeopathology Perspective (Hoboken; Wiley-Blackwell).
Bayliss, A., Hines, J., Høilund Nielsen, K., McCormac, G., and Scull, C., 2013 Anglo- Saxon graves and grave goods of the 6th and 7th centuries AD: A chronological framework (Society for Medieval Archaeology Monograph 33).
Boddington, A., 1996 Raunds Furnells. The Anglo-Saxon church and churchyard (English Heritage Archaeological Report 7).
Booth, F., 2005 The human skeletal remains from Beech Gove, Nonington, Kent (Osteological report for Dover Archaeological Group, April 2005). Brothwell, D., 1981 Digging Up Bones (London; William Cloves and Sons).
Coulson, C., 2018 Walk-round guide to the Church of St. Mary The Virgin, Nonington, Kent (Nonington).
Evison, V.I., 1987 Dover: The Buckland Anglo-Saxon Cemetery, Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England Archaeological Report 3 (London).
Faussett, B., 1856 Inventorium Sepulchrale (C. Roach Smith, ed.) (London).
Gardiner, M., 1990 ‘An Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Settlement at Botolphs, Bramber, West Sussex’, Archaeological Journal 147, 216-275.
[pg209]Hardman, F.W., c.1935 ‘Nonington, Kent: a contribution to its early history’. Unpublished manuscript reproduced in The old Parish of Nonington, a small place in east Kent history (www.nonington.org.uk).
Hillson, S., 1996 Dental Anthropology (Cambridge; Cambridge University Press).
Hobbs, P., 2005 ‘Old St Albans Court, Nonington’, Archaeologia Cantiana CXXV, 273– 290.
Hobbs, P., 2022 ‘Anglo-Saxon Nuns and Nonington’, Kent Archaeological Society News- letter 117, 10–15.
Lawrence, N., 2020 Examination of human remains excavated at Horseshoe Copse, Fredville Park, Nonington in 2016 (Osteological report for Dover Archaeological Group).
Legoux, R., 2011 La Nécropole mérovingienne de Bulles (Oise), Mémoires publiés par l’Association française d’Archéologie mérovingienne 24 (St Germain-en-Laye).
Legoux, R., Périn, P. and Vallet F., 2009 Chronologie Normalisée du Mobilier funéraire merovingian entre Manche et Lorraine, 3e edition, Paris (Association Française d’Archéologie mérovingienne).
Mann, R., and Hunt, D., 2012 Photographic regional atlas of bone disease: a guide to pathological and normal variation in the human skeleton: Third Edition (Springfield, Illinois; Charles C. Thomas).
Marzinzik, S., 2003 Early Anglo-Saxon belt buckles (Late 5th to early 8th centuries AD): Their classification and context. British Archaeological Reports British Series 357 (Oxford).
Meaney, A., 1981 Anglo-Saxon Amulets and Curing Stones, British Archaeological Reports British Series 96 (Oxford).
Newman, J., 2013 The Buildings of England. Kent: North-East and East (Penguin, revised ed.).
Ortner, D.J., 2003 Identification of pathological conditions in human skeletal remains (National Museum of Natural History; Washington D.C.; Smithsonian Institute Press). Parfitt, K., 2002 ‘Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Nonington’, Kent Archaeological Review 147, 154–159.
Parfitt, K., 2016 ‘Nonington and some other Anglo-Saxon cemeteries on the east Kent downs’, in Ian Riddler, Jean Soulat and Lynne Keys (eds) The Evidence of Material Culture: Studies in Honour of Professor Vera Evison (Europe Médiévale / 1o).
Parfitt, K., 2018 A watching brief at ‘Beech Grove’, Nonington, 2018 (Canterbury Archaeological Trust Archive Report 2018/20).
Parfitt, K. and Brugmann, B., 1997 The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery on Mill Hill, Deal (Society for Medieval Archaeology Monograph 14; London; Maney).
Perkins, D.R.J., 1997 ‘Report on Work by the Trust for Thanet Archaeology: The Bruderhof Community, Beech Grove, Nonington’, Archaeologia Cantiana CXVII, 228.
Richardson, A., 2005 The Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries of Kent, British Archaeological Reports, British Series 391, Oxford; 2 volumes (Hadrian Books).
Riddler, I.D., 1990 ‘Objects of Bone and Antler’, in M. Gardiner, ‘An Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Settlement at Botolphs, Bramber, West Sussex’, Archaeological Journal 147, 260–2 and microfiche.
Riddler, I.D., 2014 ‘The Archaeology of the Anglo-Saxon Whale’, in S.S. Klein, W. Schipper and S. Lewis-Simpson (eds) The Maritime World of the Anglo-Saxons, Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Essays in Anglo-Saxon Studies 5, Tempe (International Society of Anglo-Saxonists), 337–354.
Riddler, I.D. and Sabin, R., 2009 ‘Whalebone Chopping Boards’, in S. J. Lucy, J. Tipper and A. Dickens (eds), The Anglo-Saxon Settlement and Cemetery at Bloodmoor Hill, Carlton Coleville, Suffolk, East Anglian Archaeology 131 (Gressenhall), 199–201.
[pg210]Riddler, I.D. and Trzaska-Nartowski, N.I.A., 2014 Hamwic et l’artisanat de l’os de baleine aux VIIe -IXe siecles, Cahiers LandArc 2014, No. 6 (Samois-sur-Seine).
Roberts, C., and Cox, M., 2003 Health and Disease in Britain: From Prehistory to Present Day (Gloucester; Sutton Publishing Ltd).
Scull, C., 2009 Early Medieval (Late 5th – Early 8th Centuries AD) Cemeteries at Boss Hall and Buttermarket, Ipswich, Suffolk, Society for Medieval Archaeology Monograph 27 (London; Maney).
SWAT 2016 Archaeological Assessment of Dorman Avenue North, Aylesham, Kent (Archive report for Ward-Barrett Homes and Persimmon Homes; SWAT Archaeology, August 2016).
Waldron, T., 2009 Paleopathology (Cambridge; Cambridge University Press).[pg211]