(a total of 39 episcopal years). Both Thomas and Berhtgisl were consecrated by Archbishop Honorius, who died in 653 (Historia ecclesiastica iii.20). After Berhtgisl's death Archbishop Theodore, who reached Canterbury in 668-9, appointed Bisi to Dommoc, and Bisi attended the Council of Hertford in 673. By then Bisi's health was declining so that he was unable to administer the diocese and soon afterwards Theodore divided the see (Historia ecclesiastica, iv.5). Since Berhtgisl cannot have died later than 670, the foundation of Dommoc should date to c. 630-31 and the assassination of Eorpwald to c. 627. This would place the death of Felix at c. 647 and of Thomas c. 652. That would accord with the Liber Eliensis tradition that Felix baptised Saint Etheldreda in or soon after 631 at Exning and with William of Malmesbury's statement that he baptised Cenwalh of Wessex in East Anglia before that king was restored to Wessex by King Anna in c. 647. Location Despite its former importance, the original location of Dommoc has been lost for many centuries and forms the subject of scholarly debate. This reflects rival claims staked during the 13th century by the monks of Eye, Suffolk (for Dunwich, Suffolk), and of Rochester in Kent (for Walton, Suffolk). The uncertainty therefore arose between the tenth and twelfth centuries. William Camden, in his Britannia, promoted general acceptance of the identification with Dunwich, formerly a splendid city on the Suffolk coast between Aldeburgh and Southwold, all but a tiny part of which has now been lost to coastal erosion. The Rochester claim for Walton refers to the place near or in Felixstowe, Suffolk, at the tip of the Colneis Hundred peninsula between the River Deben and the River Orwell. This Walton is not to be confused with Walton-on-the-Naze, Essex, which stands on the south side of the Orwell and Stour estuary mouth, and which has never been seriously considered as a candidate for Dommoc. The scholarly revival of the claim for Walton as Dommoc was the work of Stuart Rigold. Bede records that Sigeberht ruled East Anglia together with Ecgric, his relative or cognatus, who until Sigeberht's abdication had ruled over part of the kingdom, and afterwards succeeded to the rule of all of it. The meaning of the arrangement is not clear, but there is no difficulty in accepting that during his own reign Sigeberht had the power to grant a coastal