Editing Reculver (section)

===Medieval===
[[File:Part of the south wall of the ruined church at Reculver.jpg|thumb|upright=1.25|alt=refer to caption|Part of the south wall of the 7th-century church, incorporating Roman brick tiles]]
By the 7th century Reculver was part of a landed estate of the [[History of Anglo-Saxon England|Anglo-Saxon]] [[Kingdom of Kent|kings of Kent]], possibly with a royal toll-station or a "significant coastal trading settlement,"{{sfn|Kelly|2008|p=73}} given the types and large quantity of coins found there.{{sfn|Kelly|2008|p=73}}{{refn|While "[it] must be certain that the Roman fort had a supporting harbour, probably a natural feature improved by quays and jetties",{{sfn|Philp|2005|p=3}} "[the] quantity of seventh- and eighth-century coins picked up from Reculver and its vicinity is paralleled [in England] only at ''Hamwic'' [Anglo-Saxon Southampton]: finds include gold ''thrymsas'' and some 50 sceattas, with contemporary Merovingian coins and a small group of Northumbrian issues&nbsp;... Almost certainly there is some connection with Reculver's position on a major trading route".{{sfn|Kelly|2008|p=73}}|group=Fn}} Other early Anglo-Saxon finds include a fragment of a gilt bronze brooch, or ''[[Fibula (brooch)|fibula]]'', which was originally circular and set with coloured stones or glass, a [[claw beaker]] and pottery.<ref>{{harvnb|Roach Smith|1850|loc=pp.&nbsp;213–4 & Plate&nbsp;7, Fig.&nbsp;18}}; {{cite web | url=http://webapps.kent.gov.uk/KCC.ExploringKentsPast.Web.Sites.Public/SingleResult.aspx?uid=MKE6539 | title=Keystone garnet disc brooch from Reculver | author=Exploring Kent's Past | publisher=Kent County Council | date=n.d. | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150605154120/http://webapps.kent.gov.uk/KCC.ExploringKentsPast.Web.Sites.Public/SingleResult.aspx?uid=MKE6539 | archive-date=5 June 2015 | url-status=live | access-date=5 June 2015|postscript=;}} {{cite web | url=http://webapps.kent.gov.uk/KCC.ExploringKentsPast.Web.Sites.Public/SingleResult.aspx?uid=MKE6549 | title=AS claw beaker, Reculver | author=Exploring Kent's Past | publisher=Kent County Council | date=n.d. | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150605154246/http://webapps.kent.gov.uk/KCC.ExploringKentsPast.Web.Sites.Public/SingleResult.aspx?uid=MKE6549 | archive-date=5 June 2015 | url-status=live | access-date=5 June 2015|postscript=;}} {{cite web | url=http://webapps.kent.gov.uk/KCC.ExploringKentsPast.Web.Sites.Public/SingleResult.aspx?uid=MKE6537 | title=Anglo Saxon Pagan pottery from Reculver | author=Exploring Kent's Past | publisher=Kent County Council | date=n.d. | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150605154419/http://webapps.kent.gov.uk/KCC.ExploringKentsPast.Web.Sites.Public/SingleResult.aspx?uid=MKE6537 | archive-date=5 June 2015 | url-status=live | access-date=5 June 2015}}</ref>{{refn|"[The Reculver fibula] belongs to a class of ornaments&nbsp;... remarkable for peculiarities which seem almost to restrict them to the early Kentish Saxons. [John] Battely speaks of the fibulæ found at Reculver [in the late 17th and early 18th centuries], as being almost innumerable; some of these&nbsp;... were constructed with much artistic skill and good workmanship; they were either enameled, or set with precious stones."{{sfn|Roach Smith|1850|p=214}}|group=Fn}} Antiquarians such as the 18th-century clergyman [[John Duncombe (writer)|John Duncombe]] believed that King [[Æthelberht of Kent]] moved his royal court there from Canterbury in about 597, and built a palace on the site of the Roman ruins.{{sfn|Duncombe|1784|pp=71–2, 74}} However, archaeological excavation has shown no evidence of this; Æthelberht's household would have been peripatetic, and the story has been described as probably a "pious legend".<ref>{{harvnb|Gough|2014|p=191}}; {{harvnb|Brooks|1989|p=67}}.</ref>{{refn|The Roman remains at Reculver would have been "the only substantial building for miles around",{{sfn|Gough|2014|p=186}} but "Anglo-Saxon kings seem to have shown little interest in establishing themselves in old Roman forts."{{sfn|Kelly|2008|p=73}} "An itinerant royal household eating and drinking the food surpluses collected at [the king's] own estates and those of his subjects&nbsp;... lies at the core of the Kentish kingdom&nbsp;..."{{sfn|Brooks|1989|p=67}}|group=Fn}} A church was built on the site of the Roman fort in about 669, when King [[Ecgberht of Kent]] granted land for the foundation of a monastery, which was dedicated to [[Mary (mother of Jesus)|St Mary]].<ref name=669Refs>{{harvnb|Garmonsway|1972|pp=34–5}}; {{harvnb|Fletcher|1965|pages=16–31}}; {{harvnb|Page|1926|pages=141–2}}; {{harvnb|Kelly|2008|pages=71–2}}.</ref>

The monastery developed as the centre of a "large estate, a manor and a parish",{{sfn|Gough|2014|p=187}} and, by the early 9th century, it had become "extremely wealthy",{{sfn|Blair|2005|p=123}} but it then fell under the control of the [[Archbishop of Canterbury|archbishops of Canterbury]]. In 811 Archbishop [[Wulfred]] is recorded as having deprived the monastery of some of its land,<ref>{{harvnb|Kelly|2008|p=80}}; {{harvnb|Sawyer|1968|loc=S&nbsp;1264}}; {{cite web|url=http://www.esawyer.org.uk/charter/1264.html# |title=S 1264 |year=2014 |website=The Electronic Sawyer |publisher=King's College London |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140421102401/http://www.esawyer.org.uk/charter/1264.html |archive-date=21 April 2014 |access-date=22 May 2014 |url-status=dead }}</ref> and soon after it featured in a "monumental showdown"{{sfn|Kelly|2008|p=80}} between Wulfred and King [[Coenwulf of Mercia]] over the control of monasteries.<ref>{{harvnb|Kelly|2008|p=80}}; {{harvnb|Blair|2005|pp=130–1}}.</ref> In 838 control of all monasteries under Canterbury's authority was passed to the kings of [[Wessex]], by the agreement of Archbishop [[Ceolnoth]] in exchange for protection from [[Viking]] attacks.<ref>{{ODNBweb|id=4999|title=Ceolnoth}} Retrieved 22 May 2014; {{harvnb|Blair|2005|p=124}}; {{harvnb|Kelly|2008|pages=81–2}}; {{harvnb|Brooks|1979|pp=1–20 (esp. 12)}}; {{harvnb|Brooks|1984|pages=203–4}}; {{harvnb|Kerr|1982|pages=192–94}}.</ref> By the 10th century the monastery at Reculver and its estate were both royal property: they were given back to the archbishops of Canterbury in 949 by King [[Eadred]] of England, at which time the estate included [[Hoath]] and [[Herne, Kent|Herne]], and land at [[Chilmington Green|Chilmington]], about {{convert|23.5|mi|km|1}} to the south-west, and in the west of the Isle of Thanet.{{sfn|Kelly|2008|p=82}}

By 1066 the monastery had become a [[parish church]].{{sfn|Kelly|2008|p=82}} However, in 1086 Reculver was named in the [[Domesday Book]] of 1086 as a [[Hundred (county subdivision)|hundred]], and the manor was valued at £42.7s. (£42.35).{{sfn|Williams|Martin|2002|p=8}}{{refn|This value can be compared with the £20 due to the archbishop from the manor of [[Maidstone]] and £50 from the [[Ancient borough|borough]] of [[Sandwich, Kent|Sandwich]].{{sfn|Williams|Martin|2002|p=8}} Of the £42.7s. from Reculver, £7.7s. (£7.35) was from an unspecified source. While Hoath, Herne and western parts of the Isle of Thanet belonged to the monastery in the Anglo-Saxon period, and remained attached to the church long after 1086, of these only Reculver is mentioned by name in Domesday Book: {{nowrap|"[as]}} the name [Reculver] is used here, it means something larger than the parish but much smaller than the thirteenth-century manor of Reculver. It is fairly sure to have included Hoath ...; it may also have included the adjoining part of Thanet, [including] All Saints ... and St Nicholas-at-Wade ... [The separate manor of ''Nortone'' is] Herne ... under another name."{{sfn|Flight|2010|p=162}}|group=Fn}} Included in the Domesday account for the manor, as well as the church, farmland, a mill, [[Salt evaporation pond|salt pans]] and a fishery, are 90&nbsp;[[Serfdom#Villeins|villeins]] and 25&nbsp;[[Serfdom#Bordars and cottagers|bordars]]: these numbers can be multiplied four or five times to account for dependents, as they only represent "adult male heads of households".{{sfn|Eales|1992|p=21}}{{refn|The multiplication indicated by Eales would give a [[peasant]] population for the whole of the estate centred on Reculver in 1086 of 460–575&nbsp;people. The mill was probably a [[watermill]], near Brook Farm, and King Eadred's charter of 949 mentions a mill-[[Creek (tidal)|creek]] in the area.<ref>{{harvnb|Gough|1992|pages=94–5}}; {{harvnb|Kelly|2008|page=74}}; {{harvnb|Sawyer|1968|loc=S&nbsp;546}}; {{cite web |url=http://www.esawyer.org.uk/charter/546.html |title=S&nbsp;546 |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |year=2014 |website=The Electronic Sawyer |publisher=King's College London |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140331065536/http://www.esawyer.org.uk/charter/546.html |archive-date=31 March 2014 |url-status=live |access-date=19 May 2014}}</ref> There are numerous medieval salt working sites in the area to the south and east of Reculver, many of which lie on land belonging to Reculver in the medieval period, for example at {{gbmappingsmall|TR23316797}}.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://webapps.kent.gov.uk/KCC.ExploringKentsPast.Web.Sites.Public/SingleResult.aspx?uid=MWX19398|title=Medieval salt mound|author=Exploring Kent's Past|publisher=Kent County Council| date= n.d. | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150519195211/http://webapps.kent.gov.uk/KCC.ExploringKentsPast.Web.Sites.Public/SingleResult.aspx?uid=MWX19398 | archive-date=19 May 2015 | url-status=live | access-date=5 June 2015}}</ref>|group=Fn}} At that time, although Domesday Book records that Reculver belonged to the archbishop of Canterbury in both 1066 and 1086, in reality it must again have been lost to him, since [[William the Conqueror]] is recorded as having returned it, among other churches and properties, to the archbishop at his death.{{sfn|Flight|2010|pp=162, 217}}{{refn|The record states that the king "reddidit ecclesiae Christi omnes fere terras antiquis et modernis temporibus a iure ipsius ecclesiae ablatas&nbsp;... Haec omnia reddidit&nbsp;... gratis et sine ullo pretio." ("returned to Christ Church almost all the lands, its by right from ancient and modern times, that had been removed&nbsp;... He returned all these things&nbsp;... free and without any remuneration.").{{sfn|Flight|2010|p=217}} Among these, Reculver is listed only by name, while churches elsewhere are identified as monasteries.|group=Fn}} In the 13th century Reculver was a parish of "exceptional wealth",{{sfn|Graham|1944|p=1}} and the considerable enlargement of the church building during the [[Middle Ages]] indicates that the settlement had become a "thriving township",{{sfn|Gough|2014|p=187}} with "dozens of houses".{{sfn|Philp|2005|p=11}}{{refn|{{harvnb|Hasted|1800|pages=}} refers to Reculver as a "borough",{{sfn|Hasted|1800|pp=109–25}} but it is not listed as an [[ancient borough]] in Beresford, M. & Finberg, H.P.R., ''English Medieval Boroughs A Hand-List'', David & Charles, 1973. However, [[tithing]]s in Kent were known as "borghs", a word cognate with "borough", but derived from "''borh''", a "pledge".{{sfn|Baker|1966|p=11(note)}}|group=Fn}} In 1310 Archbishop [[Robert Winchelsey]] of Canterbury noted that the population of the whole parish in the time of his predecessor [[John Peckham]] ([[Wiktionary:circa|c.]]&nbsp;1230–1292) had numbered more than 3,000.<ref>{{harvnb|Gough|1984|p=19}}; {{harvnb|Duncombe|1784|p=136}}.</ref>{{refn|{{harvnb|Graham|1944|p=10}}, gives the figure for the population in the late 13th century as "over a thousand", but the relevant [[primary source]] as edited at {{harvnb|Duncombe|1784|p=136}}, gives it as "trium millium vel amplius" ("three thousand or more") and growing.|group=Fn}} For this reason, and because the parish was also large geographically, he converted [[Chapelry|chapelries]] at Herne and, on the Isle of Thanet, [[St Nicholas-at-Wade]] and [[Shuart, Kent|Shuart]] into parishes, though the church at Hoath remained a [[Perpetual curate|perpetual curacy]] belonging to Reculver parish until 1960.<ref>{{harvnb|Gough|1992|pages=91–2}}; {{harvnb|Gough|1984|pp=19–20}}; {{harvnb|Lewis|1848|pp=645–52}}</ref> Records for the [[poll tax]] of 1377 show that there were then 364&nbsp;individuals of 14&nbsp;years and above, not including "honest beggars", in the reduced parish of Reculver, who paid a total of £6.1s.4d. (£6.07) towards the tax.{{sfn|Fenwick|1998|loc=Introduction & p.&nbsp;393}}{{refn|The taxpayers of Hoath were presumably included with those of Reculver, since Hoath is not listed separately.{{sfn|Fenwick|1998|p=393}} An estimated 5% of the English population was exempt from or evaded the poll tax of 1377.{{sfn|Russell|1966|p=16}} Further, the population of England as a whole declined by about 40% between 1347 and 1377 because of the [[Black Death in England|Black Death]].{{sfn|Russell|1966|pp=16–7}}|group=Fn}}