William Stukeley's Kentish Studies of Roman and other Remains
WILLIAM STUKELEY'S KENTISH STUDIES OF
ROMAN AND OTHER REMAINS
PAUL ASHBEE
William Stukeley (1687-1765) was a pioneer unmatched in the history
of archaeology, noted for his work on Stonehenge and Avebury,
as well as his obsession with the Druids. It is not generally appreciated
that he made major excursions into Kent and that in his published
works, and many surviving papers, there are details of the principal
Prehistoric, Roman and Mediaeval monuments of the County,
as seen by him during the earlier years of the eighteenth century.
Furthermore, his closest friends were John Gray, the Canterbury
physician, and, from about 1721, Lord Winchelsea, of Eastwell Park.
Two members of his antiquarian circle, Sir John Elwill and Sir
Samuel Lennard, resided at Beckenham and West Wickham respectively,
while another, Hercules Ayleway, wrote from 'Merriworth
Castle'.
Stukeley (Plate I) studied medicine at Cambridge and later in
London, at St Thomas's Hospital. He spent seven years in practice in
his native Lincolnshire, at Boston, returning to London in 1717. His
countryside tours and antiquarian interests, led to the detailed
appreciations of Stonehenge and Avebury, their supportive landscapes
and allied monuments, made between 1718 and 1724, for
which he is justly famous. In 1717 he became the first Secretary of the
Society of Antiquaries of London and wrote in the Minute-Book that
'Without drawing or designing the study of Antiquities or any other
science is lame and imperfect'. After his death, Richard Gough
(1780, 373) wrote that 'If any man was born for the service of Antiquity,
it was Dr Stukeley' and, at Avebury, nearer our time, 0. G. S.
Crawford (Crawford & Keiller 1928, 211) said: 'Let us once for all
pay a tribute of esteem and gratitude to Stukeley's memory'.
Besides prehistoric monuments, Stukeley made a considerable
contribution to Roman studies (Haverfield & Macdonald 1924, 75-9;
Birley 1961, 15-17), and numismatics (Evans 1864, 7). He had a
prescient appreciation of mediaeval buildings (Watkin 1985, 51 ), and
61
PAUL ASH BEE
PLATE I
\ formal por1ra11. in oil,. h) an unkno\\ n anit. of W illiam Stul..clc) dur·
ing the I 7:!0, In the po"c"ion of the Socict) of An11quarie, of London
and i, here reproduced "'ith their kind pcrmi,ion
62
WILLIAM STUKELEY'S KENTISH STUDIES OF ROMAN AND OTHER REMAINS
was particularly sensitive to the then unspoiled nature of England's
landscapes and countryside. His medical studies led him to write
upon the spleen and gout and, in later life, after taking Holy Orders in
1729, he preached upon healing. Diverse matters, which were the
business of the Royal Society, electricity, earthquakes, eclipses, turbinate
water-wheels, zoophytes and corals, claimed his attention. He
saw Stonehenge and A vebury, and other stone circles, as temples and
furnished them with ministrants, the Druids. In later life, he developed
an eccentric Druidical mythology which fuelled the mystical
William Blake, and led to the Ancient Order of Druids, which became
the benefit society i n 1833. His notions are still with us each year at
Stonehenge. In the realm of Roman studies, poor Stukeley was the
victim of the forgery by Charles Julius Bertram, domiciled in Copenhagen,
of an account of Roman Britain, allegedly by Richard of Cirencester
(Piggott 1986, 119-22). This contaminated developing RomanoBritish
archaeology until well into the nineteenth century and fragments
remained upon our Ordnance Maps until the 1950s (Crawford
1955, 166; Rivet & Smith 1979, 184).
Stukeley's work has never been lost sight of, for not only were his
views regularly cited but some of his papers were published. John
Nichols (1745-1826) included letters (Nichols 1817-31, 769-82) in
his Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century (1812-15) and Illustrations
of the Literary History of the Eighteenth Century (1812-15).
These amplified the material relating to Stukeley and his friends that
had appeared in Bibliotheca Topographica Britannica (1780-90).
Later, three volumes of the Surtees Society were devoted to a further
selection. The three volumes, The Family Memoirs of the Rev. William
Stukeley M.D. and the Antiquarian and other Correspondence were
edited by William Collings Lukis (Atkinson 1976). They are Surtees
Society volumes LXXIII (1880); LXXVI (1883) and LXXX (1887).
The first is the autobiographical common-place book and correspondence,
while the other two contain material ordered by counties,
Kent being LXXVI (1883), 224-38.
An insight into Stukeley's contributions to the study of Roman
Britain was given by Francis Haverfield (1924, 75-9) in the first of
his Oxford Ford Lectures, delivered in 1907. Emphasis was given to
the confusion arising from Bertram's forged De Situ Britanniae,
which was examined in detail by Henry John Randall (1933; 1936,
120-40) in his Splendide Mendax essay. Indeed, so all-pervasive was
this spurious source - Gough, Roy and Roach Smith had accepted it
without question - that an appendix was included in the recent
examination of the place-names of Roman Britain (Rivet & Smith
1979).
63
PAULASHBEE
Alexander Keiller' s excavations at Avebury (Smith 1965) were
guided by Stukeley's plans, drawings and records. To this end Keiller
had obtained various manuscripts as these had conditioned H. St.
George Gray's planning of the great circle and excavations into the
massive ditch (Gray 1935; Burl 1979, 61-7). Stuart Piggott, from
1933 to 1938 (Daniel & Chippindale, 1989, 25-7) worked with
Keiller and appreciations of Stukeley led to two essays, 'Stukeley,
Avebury and the Druids' (Piggott 1935) and 'Prehistory and the
Romantic Movement' (Piggott 1937). These show, respectively, how
fieldwork became almost a mystical religious tract and that nascent
romanticism was a potent factor. These Avebury essays led to the
definitive biography William Stukeley an Eighteenth Century Antiquary
(Piggott 1950; 1985, revised & enlarged ed.) and within the
details of the tours listed in it, the nature of Stukeley' s Kentish
excursions, made on horseback (Moir 1964, 47-57), can be seen.
Stukeley's preoccupations with the Druids have been detailed by
Kendrick (1927, 9-12), who saw him as furthering a cult, and Owen
( 1962) who considered his speculations in the light of their effects
upon English literature. Stuart Piggott (1968; 1985) placed him
firmly within the European romantic movement and detailed his contribution
to the national myth. Subsequently, he (Piggott 1989) outlined
Stukeley's contribution to emergent field archaeology (Ashbee
1972) before his immersion in religious conjecture.
The revised edition of the definitive biography included new
sources which amplified the nature of Stukeley's work at Stonehenge
and A vebury as well as his sad involvement in the Bertram forgery
(Piggott 1985). A postscript used further emergent sources which
revealed something of the origins of his theology and gave further
insights into the motivations of Charles Julius Bertram (Piggott
1986). An interest in Kent becomes apparent when the reconstructed
tours are scrutinised.
William Stukeley's publications reflected his wide interests
(Piggott 1950, 205-5). Of particular note are: ltinerarium Curiosum
Centuria I ( 1724 ); Stonehenge, a Temple restor' d to the British
Druids (1740); Abury, a Temple of the British Druids (1743) and
ltinerarium Curiosum Centuria II (1776, post.). He had intended a
History of the Temples of the Antient Celts (1723) which would have
included material relevant to Kit's Coty House and Julliberrie' s
Grave (Piggott 1985, 88; Ucko et al. 1991, 74-98). Jtinerarium Curiosum
I (IC (i), 1724) contains twelve engravings of Kentish sites and
monuments as well as the Kentish section of the Iter Romanum V (pp.
113-26), dedicated to Lord Winchelsea of Eastwell Park, while the
map of England (Tab. LVI) shows Stukeley' s concept of the county in
64
Wll.LIAM STUKELEY'S KENTISH STUDIES OF ROMAN AND OTHER REMAINS
Roman times (Fig. 1). /tinerarium Curiosum II (IC (ii), 1776) is a
collection of plates, without accompanying text, eighteen of which
depict further Kentish sites and monuments.
William Stukeley's work, notably in Kent, should be seen in the
context of the perceptual climate of his age. His early appreciations
of antiquity, landscape and nature are in the traditions of The Picturesque
(Hussey 1927), from the Italian term Pittoresca, a subject as
seen by a painter. His drawings of Kit's Coty House and its environs
employ its modes, as does some of his descriptive prose (Moir 1964,
48). This is difficult to disentangle from the later Romantic
movement (Clark 1928, 66-91; Piggott 1937; 1985, 156-8) which had
at its heart appreciation of the Gothic, the ruins of the many ecclesiastical
establishments remaining from the sixteenth century. Stukeley'
s illustrations of Kentish buildings of this kind illustrate his
considerable insight into this aspect of antiquity (Watkin 1983, 51;
Piggott 1985, 31 ).
William Stukeley 's Kentish Friends
The plates (Tabulae) of /tinerariun Curiosum I (1724) were dedicated
to various of Stukeley' s friends (Appendix 1). Those pertaining
to Kent include four in the county, John Gray MD, of Canterbury; Sir
John Elwill of Langley Park, Beckenham; Sir Samuel Lennard of
West Wickham Court, and Heneage Finch, the Fifth Lord Winchelsea
of Eastwell Park, near Ashford.
John Gray of Canterbury, to whom a map of the city is dedicated (IC
(i), 96), was a life-long friend whom Stukeley had met at Cambridge
(SS (i), 1880, 41, 41n, 50, 50n; SS (ii), 1883, 358). He was the son of
Mathias Gray, an Alderman of Canterbury, and was admitted to
Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, in 1706. He returned to his home
city where he practised medicine until his untimely death in 1737.
Stephen Gray, also of Canterbury, the pioneer electrician (DNB,
xxiii, 20), whom Stukeley described as ' ..... a very ingenious man,
well vers'd in Philosophy, Astronomy, Optics, Mechanics &c.' was
his uncle. Of the nephew he wrote (SS (i), 1880, 41): 'John Gray, of
our College, my Junior, who stud yd Physick, a lad of very good parts
& Industry, with whom I was particularly acquainted, since took his
Batchelor of Physics Degree, and now practises at Canterbury his
Native Country'. Besides medicine, William Stukeley and John Gray
had a mutual interest in ancient remains. Indeed, it is likely that
Stukeley, on his Kentish tours in 1722 and 1724, stayed with him. He
would have had a base and local guidance for his work in Canterbury,
while Richborough and kindred places were at no great distance. Of
65
.
-
------- .
1-f.a ·.
. .
..1?1J!,
orli+J
- ., h.d.i-
. 1 J ..Po.:r.
L.
:IX:&. I\7:
. ..
. . .
1, .Eortus ;;!
?
63
m
Fig. 1 William Stukeley' s vision of Roman Kent. His 1722 journey into the county was the conclusion of his
Iter Romanum, the subject of a complete map of England and Wales (IC (i), 1724)
WILLIAM STUKELEY'S KENTISH STUDIES OP ROMAN AND OTHER REMAINS
John Gray's antiquarian activities, William Gostling (1774, 11)
wrote ' ..... the old arch of W orthgate, of the same structure as
Riding-gate appears to have been, but with one arch only, which was
preserved by Dr. Gray, a late eminent physician of our city'. A
footnote in a later edition (1825, 11, fn.7) notes its Roman brick
construction, its removal to a garden in Lamb Lane and later use as a
gateway to Lee Priory, at lckham.
Sir John El will of Langley Park, Beckenham, now known as Park
Langley, was the subject of the plate of Rochester Castle, the first of
the Kentish monuments to be drawn in 1722 (IC (i), 1724, 6). John
Elwill had married the daughter of Humphrey Style and Langley Park
was in dower to him. Upon the death of his father in 1717, he
succeeded to the baronetcy shortly before Stukeley returned to
London from Boston. Stukeley visited Langley Park in 17 I 8 and
recorded that he made a sketch of ' .. Lady El will' s house at Langley'
(SS (ii), 1888). There are also undated drawings of heraldic shields
(Bodleian Lib., MS Top. gen. e.61, ff. 55, 66) which are recorded as
'Langley, Kent' (Piggott 1950, 215). These are from the wealth of
heraldic devices of the Style family which were a prominent feature
of the old, unrestored, Beckenham church. When Stukeley left
London for Grantham in 1726, he listed 'Sr John Elwell of Langley,
Kent' as one of the 'gentleman acquaintances' that he was sad to
leave behind (SS (i), 1880, 131).
A near neighbour of Sir John Elwill was Sir Samuel Lennard of
West Wickham Court. Stukeley dedicated his plate of Faversham
Abbey (IC (i), 1724, 27) to him and made drawings of the wealth of
Lennard arms and quarterings in West Wickham church (Bodleian
Lib. MS Top. Gen.e.61, ff. 55-66), which he did not date. Despite,
presumably, a visit, or visits, to West Wickham by Stukeley, Sir John
does not appear as prominent in the London circle. However, when,
in 1726, the move to Grantham took place, he was itemised in the
common-place book, as one of ' ... 3 baronets, near neighbours, Sr
John Elwell, of Langley, Kent; Sr Sarni. Lennard of Wickham; and Sr.
Nich. Carey of Bedington .. .'. Beddington, near Croydon in Surrey
was Bedington, also at no great distance from London, while Sr.
Nich. Carey was of the Carew family occupying, the largely rebuilt,
Beddington House, in Beddington Park.
The considerable lter Romanum which is the principal part of
ltinerarium Curiosum I (1724), together with a plate (Tab. 98) of
Folkes tone, as well as the Prospect of Kit's Coty House Kent, Oct 15
1722, in ltinerarium Curiosum II (1776), were dedicated to Heneage
Finch, Fifth Earl of Winchelsea ( 1657-1726), of Eastwell Park, near
Ashford. He was a friend and patron of non-jurors, those clergymen
67
PAULASHBEE
who after 1688 refused to take the oaths of allegiance to William and
Mary, as was Thomas Thynne, First Viscount Weymouth (1640-
1714 ). At Thynne' s instigation, as they shared antiquarian interests,
he had undertaken excavations into Julliberrie's Grave, the long
barrow which stands above the River Stour at Chilham, in 1702. This
work was described in unusual detail in a letter to Archdeacon Batteley
(Nichols 1822, 96-7), which has been, since that time, regularly
referred to (Thurnam 1868, 176, fn.6; Jessup 1937, 126; Ashbee
1970, 5). It was not, however, until the death of his famous literary
wife Anne, notable for her long poem The Spleen in 1720, that his
antiquarian endeavours became all-absorbing. It was in 1720 that
Stukeley records in the Abstract of his life (SS (i)), 1880, 49-58) that
'He had contracted friendships with the great Thomas, Earl of Pembroke,
whose antique marbles at Wilton he drew out; with the learned
Heneage, Earl of Winchelsea, & in general with all the virtuosos in
London ... .'.
Heneage Finch, Earl of Winchelsea was then more than sixty years
of age but despite the disparity, Stukeley being thirty years his junior,
a close friendship developed. Warmth and affection are apparent in
the many letters regarding various arrangements, and local researches,
that Lord Winchelsea wrote from Eastwell Park. Not only
did he take part in Stukeley' s fieldwork at A vebury and Stonehenge,
he was, in 1722, a founder member of Stukeley's Society of Roman
Knights, taking the title Cyngetorix and, in 1723, a Fellow of the reformed
Society of Antiquaries of London. Apart from his excavation
of Julliberrie's Grave, early in the century, and the various references
to local researches, the disinterment of urns, prehistoric and Roman,
and the pursuit of the course of Roman roads, little is known of Lord
Winchel sea's antiquarian activities. Nonetheless, he emerges as
experienced and in advance of many of that time. It seems likely that
he was attracted by Stukeley' s amiable personality, energy, knowledge
and skill.
At the outset, Lord Winchel sea's letters to Stukeley are prefixed
'Sir', the usage of the age, but soon 'Dear Druid', 'My dear Druid'
and later 'Most venerable Druid and my dear Doctor' are the rule.
Besides the letters (Nichols 1817-58, 769-82; SS (ii), 1883, 228-32)
there are the various references to Lord Winchelsea in Stukeley's
common-place book, diary and other papers (SS (i), 1880, passim).
The letters, mostly from Eastwell Park, and the notes that Stukeley
customarily made, provide a number of insights into their joint
activities in Kent and elsewhere. He was in Kent (Piggott 1985, 162)
for at least the first part of October 1722, and it is likely that the
figures in some of the drawings are of Stukeley and Lord Winchelsea.
Moreover, at the end of this Kentish journey, to be discussed in
68
WILLIAM STUKELEY'S KENTISH STUDIES OF ROMAN AND OTHER REMAINS
detail, Stukeley stayed at Eastwell Park. A letter from Lord Winchelsea
(SS (ii), 1883, 228):
'To Dr Stukeley, next door to Powis House, in Ormond Street, London'
Eastwell, Octbr 20th 1722
Sir Nothing could so much attone for your leaving us [his Chaplain,
Mr Creyk, was his companion] so soon as letting me hear from you. I
was extreamly pleased to learn by your very obliging, entertaining,
and. instructive letter, that after doing pennance here, by what you
saw and observed in your way, the journey must have been very
agreable to you; and that you are, after all your toils, arrived in good
health, and are in safe harbour before the rough season of the year is
come ... .'
In this letter there is a statement of an intention to dig for urns and to
'view the Kit Coty House'. Undoubtedly the Medway megaliths (Ashbee
1993) were discussed at length for Stukeley had sought permission
to section 'this grave' (the long barrow) seemingly along the lines
of what Lord Winchelsea had dug in 1702 at Julliberrie's Grave,
indeed, he appears to have consented to undertake the operation and
wrote 'Perhaps I shall get it done, but I doubt it cannot be while I am
present, for want of time. I am glad you think this work strengthens
my conjectures concerning Julabury's grave .... .'. The monument was,
in that year, much in mind. A year later he wrote to Stukeley saying:
... .I have been at Julaber's Grave, which I formerly measured only by
my paces but I have now taken it with my measuring chain, and have
all its dimensions very right; and I took its bearings with my compass,
and from the top of it I have drawn out a prospect of the country'
(Nichols 181758, 769; Piggott 1985, 57).
On September 30 1726, Lord Winchelsea died at Eastwell Park and
his loss was mourned by Stukeley and the antiquarian circle. Samuel
Gale, the first Treasurer of the Society of Antiquaries of London,
wrote to him at Stamford on 30 March 1727, deplored his absence
from the capital and lamented ' .... the fatal loss of so many of our Society,
who by their works rescind the world from death and are themselves
made immortal. 0 Winchelsea, 0 Talman .... the first the
father of antiquities'.
Hercules Ayleway wrote a detailed letter to Stukeley, from Merriworth
Castle, March 25 1722, regarding his visit to Kit's Coty house
(SS (ii), 1885, 225). It is a valuable document in that it was a competent
report upon fieldwork (Ashbee 1993, 72) in an area that Stukeley
visited later in that year. It was carried out at his request. Presumably
they had met, perhaps in London, at some earlier juncture. Ayleway
wrote:
69
PAULASHBEE
'Sir According to your orders I have taken notice of two antient
monuments neere Alsford, in south Kent, about two miles from the
river Medway ...... they are called by the names of the Upper_and Lower
Kitt's Cotty house .... .' [and at the considerable letter's conclusion
there was:]
'from your ashured Servant and brother Hercules Ayleway'
He was undoubtedly puzzled by much that he saw but, notwithstanding,
in terms of the eighteenth century, his observations were those of
one versed in antiquities and able to observe. One wishes that more
were known of him as he emerges as an able member of the Stukeley
circle and as one glad to assist the researches.
William Stukeley's journeying in Kent
Although he had made incidental visits before and was to make
others, Stukeley' s three principal tours into Kent were in 1722, 1724
and 1725, largely the years he was busy at Stonehenge and A vebury.
The 1722 visit, during the first half of October, was the conclusion of
his lter Romanum (IC (i), 1724, 113-26). This was a pursuit of Roman
roads, mostly between London and Lincoln, the last part of which
took him down to Dover. While some of his earlier tour records may
be no more than what might have been written by any gentleman with
antiquarian interests (Piggott 1985, 39), the lter Romanum, and the
subsequent visits, were accomplished field archaeology (Ashbee
1972, 49-51 ). His 1724 excursion was also in the first half of October
but that of 1725 occupied the later days of May and early June. From
dated drawings, notes and incidental references in his journals and
published works it has been possible to reconstruct a framework for
these (Piggott 1985, 161-7).
Stukeley's excursions into those parts of Kent at no great distance
from London appear to have been after his return from Boston in 1717.
He had settled there to practise medicine in 171 O. In I 716, however,
he produced 'An account of Richburrough Ruins' (SS (ii), 1885,
224). Although brief, with the possibility that certain details were
from Batteley ( 1711) or Plot (1714 ), it has a freshness and grasp that
suggests personal observation and measurement. Thus an excursion
from Boston, perforce via London, is not impossible. In 1718,
however, he went to Greenwich where a view from the north-east was
drawn (Bodleian Lib. MS Top. gen e.61, f.21v). In the same year, he
visited Sir John Elwill at Langley Park, when he sketched 'Lady
Elwill's house' and drew the heraldic shields in the old Beckenham
parish church (it was rebuilt in the nineteenth century, Homan 1984,
70
WILLIAM STUKELEY'S KENTISH STIJDIES OF ROMAN AND OTHER REMAINS
35). A stay with Sir Samuel Lennard at West Wickham Court in 1718
accounts for the drawings of heraldic shields in the church close by.
Although the tours can be largely reconstructed from Stukeley's
dated drawings, there is a wealth of detail regarding Kent contained
in the concluding section of the 1722 Iter Romanum (Stukeley 1724,
113-26). The drawings of that year show that he was in Rochester on
4 October and drew the castle. It is likely that he had left London at
least two days earlier, as fieldwork was undertaken on the way. It
should not be forgotten that Stukeley's Iter Romanum was a journey
undertaken in the steps of the Antonine Itinerary (Rivet & Smith
1979, 150-80). He followed the Watling Street over Shooter's Hill
and thought of Northfleet as the site of a Roman town. East of Crayford
the agger had been visible but, after Dartford, he lost its line in
a wood near Southfleet. At Rochester, he noted Roman masonry by
the bridge and Roman cut stone in buildings close by the cathedral.
While at Crayford, Stukeley had speculated upon the possibility of a
branch road to Maidstone and, eventually, Lympne (Lemanis). Following
the comments upon Rochester, there are passages about Maidstone
and beyond, to Charing. The details suggest the possibility of an earlier,
personal, more leisured, visit. He wrote 'We must now according to the
Itinerary leave the Watling-street, and go to Maidston. The road hither
passes by that famous british monument call'd Kits-coty-house'. The
first part of the Rochester-Maidstone-Hastings route (Margary 1948,
212-28) is indicated and Maidstone is considered as Vagniacis (Rivet
& Smith 1979, 485). He records that 'about 1720, they dug up several
canoos made of hollow'd trees in the marshes of the river Medwav
above Maidston' and that 'one is usd for a boat to this day'. Also seen
was ' ... in the hands of Dr. Dodd a british coyn of electrum found at
Addington near Malling, anno 1720, in the foundation of a stonewall;
on the concave side a british horse rude enough, the convex was plain'.
From Maidstone he considered that the Itinerary led to Charing,
thought to be Durolenum. His justification was that Charing was
upon a spring of the Len. However, the watershed between Len and
Stour is Lenham. Although 'Roman antiquities are found all about',
he could not find the site of the town. Lord Winchelsea continued
work in this area a year later and felt that he had found something of
the line of the Maidstone-Kingsnorth-Lympne Roman road (Margary
1948, 228-43) on Charing Heath (Letter to Stukeley, 12 Oct 1723,
Nichols 1812-37, 775). Despite his error regarding the rivers, Stukeley
made a brief appreciation of the chalk North Downs and the
course of the Len through sandy, undulating, terrain. He concludes by
affirming that this 'excursion with Antoninus' was designed to
'conduct travellers the nearest way to the portus Lemanis'.
71
PAULASHBEE
From Rochester, Stukeley followed the Watling street directly to
Canterbury, stopping, however, at Faversham where on 5 October he
drew the remains of the abbey. The final ten miles to Canterbury
appear to have been completed that day and he remarked how, at
Boughton, the tower of the cathedral was in the line of the Watling
street and that 'both together make a fine show'. At Canterbury he
presumably stayed with John Gray and explored the city in his
company.
Canterbury captivated Stukeley and he comments upon its remains
and ruins in substantial, lively, detail:
Here are many remains of roman buildings, many made of roman
materials in the saxon times. Many antiquities found in digging about
the hop-grounds. Your lordship (Lord Winchelsea) bas quantities of
them. The city is strongly wall'd about and many lunets or towers at
due intervals, a deep ditch close underneath, and a great rampart of
earth within.
On 6 October, he drew the Worth Gate, viewed the castle, which he
compared with Rochester, while seeing a relationship with the Wincheap
Gate. The Dane John caught his eye, as did a similar mound,
outside the city wall (Urry 1948). At the Riding Gate he noted part of
the Roman arch, and of the arch of the postern with Roman building
material in the wall close by, and stated that 'Hence the Watlingstreet
passes directly to Dover, over Barham downs'. The road to
Richborough issued from an East Gate and close by was the remains
of St Augustine's Abbey. Here he was enthralled by the porch where
Augustine and his successors were buried, by St Pancras church of
Roman bricks, with close by it a chamber said to have been Ethelbert'
s pagan chapel, and by St Martin's church, at no great distance,
which he saw as built for the most part of Roman bricks or tiles. He
saw a small remnant of St Gregory's chapel and in the great cathedral
he identified the worn area around where St Thomas Becket's shrine
had stood and described the ornate tomb of the Black Prince as 'a
noble monument of brass'. His drawings of St Augustine's are dated
the 6 October, that of St Martin's church was presumably drawn on
the same day, while a general map of Canterbury is dated the 5 October.
Leaving Canterbury, he followed the line of the Roman road to
Richborough which he drew on 7 October. Passing Wingham, he
recorded 'a very large barrow of celtic make, by the road side, call'd
the mount', adding that there were several more in the parish. At
Richborough he thought the Roman port and city had been at Stonar,
with the fort as the station of the garrison. He was impressed by the
site, considering it as ' ... a most noble remnant of roman antiquity',
72
WILLIAM STUKELEY' S KENTISH STUDIES OF ROMAN AND OTHER REMAINS
and noted the walls, possible gates and a great foundation which he
said: 'seems to have been a Pharos, or lodging for the commanding
officer'. The eastern side of this Saxon Shore fort, encroached upon
by the river, and later the railway (Frere & St Joseph 1983, 78) may
have only just fallen when seen by Stukeley. The 'castrensian
amphitheatre of turf ' was noted as was the soil of the neighbourhood:
' ... .it is of gravel and sand, and has been long plow'd over'. On the
same day, 7 October, he rode on, via Sandwich and Deal, to Dover.
The bricks of Sandwich a were similar to those of Rich borough and
Stukeley espied ' ... two roman tumuli' before Sandwich gates as well
as, south of the town: 'six large and broad celtic tumuli equidistant'.
He also records that he ' ... rode from Sandwich as far as Hi the upon
the brink of the shore or cliff, in sight of France all the way'.
Sandown, Deal and Walmer castles were remarked upon but one feels
that he was especially excited by the barrows that he saw on the high
chalk downs, inland from St Margaret's at Cliffe. He wrote:
I saw in two places a great number of littl tumuli of unequal bulk close
by one another, and between Hardres and Chilham and other places. I
know not that such have ever been taken notice of, the peopl say they
were burying places of the Danes, probably digging into them might
give us some satisfaction. I believe 'em celtic, because I saw many
sorts of them, and such as appear on Salisbury-plain.
Stukeley arrived in Dover, Portus Dubris, on the evening of 7 October.
He considered it: 'a most romantic scituation' and observed that
it is: 'a great valley, and the only one about this coast where water is
admitted inwards of the cliff, here very high: and a running brook
discharges it self into the sea. The water formerly came a good way
higher up, and made a large port, and they have found anchors above
the town'. It was thought that the Roman city was south of the river
and that the beach was the harbour in Caesar's time. It seemed to have
been an 'oblong square' and walling was still standing. The Watling
Street, from Canterbury, entered at the Bigin Gate. He was impressed
by the antiquity of Dover's churches, especially St Margaret's, the
collegiate church, and recorded the priory's remains as a farm house.
Snargate Street, almost beneath the cliff, also caught his attention. He
considered Dover Castle the strongest place in the world and surmised
that the Roman fort might have been upon this hill. The Roman
bricks and tiles in the fabric, particularly those turning the arches, of
the church of St Mary-in-Castro were, one senses, spectacular. It was,
however, the Pharos, at the west end of the church, which was the
nonpareil of his journey. A general view and a section were drawn (IC
(i), 1724, Tabs XLVI, XLVII) and it was emphasised that 'On the
73
PAULASHBEB
other high cliff opposite to this beyond the town, has been another
Pharos; some part of the bottom part of it is still left, call' d the devil's
drop, from the strength of the mortar. Others call it Bredonstone.
Here the new constabl of the castl is sworn'.
From Dover, Stukeley rode on to Lympne, Portus Lemanis,
the remains of the Roman fort, now called Stutfall Castle, which lie
below the escarpment where they have been tumbled by landslides,
on 9 October. He recorded that 'Beyond Dover southward the cliff is
exceedingly high to Folkeston. In the road two great roman barrows,
which will be eaten away in a few years by the sea'. Beyond, the high
chalk cliffs came to an end and there was low ground leading to Romney
marsh. He drew this coastal vista (IC (i), 1724, Tab. XCVIII),
calling it a 'View of Folkston-LAPIS TITULI'. He noted the 'Castle
Hill' camp and was sceptical regarding the bones of Danes in the
charnel house at Hythe and did not visit it, and was disappointed in
that he found no trace of Roman work at Saltwood Castle.
At Lympne the Roman road from Canterbury was seen as ending at
what Stukeley termed ' .... the tatter'd roman walls' and there was
speculation regarding Stane-street, which he considered signified via
lapidea, a stone road. The walls enclosed an area of about twelve
acres. No trace of a ditch could be seen, but there was a stream, with
its source by the church at the top of the hill. The walls were about
twelve feet thick, and the remains of bastions of ragstone, bound by
layers of bricks or tiles, were noted. The course of the wall was clear
on three sides but at the south, to seaward, it was levelled to the
ground. Here and there pieces of wall were recumbent while some
standing parts were cracked ' ... thro' the whole solid thickness',
although still ten or more feet in height. A gate was discernible on the
eastern side, while the Roman town, as distinct from the fort, he
considered to lie east of the churchyard. An old man, George Hunt,
who lived in the farm house close by, told Stukeley that he had found
coins and that when the embankment was breached the sea had lapped
the bottom of the hill.
At Lympne, on 10 October 1722, William Stukeley' s ITER V, dedicated
to Lord Winchelsea, came to an end. Kent was its concluding
section and he records visits to: ' ... 35 roman stations, many camps
and other things of highest antiquity'.
When he left Lympne, Stukeley struck across country to Barham
Downs where he drew a square earthwork, which he termed 'Caesar's
Camp' (IC (ii), 1776, 53) and the view from a 'Roman tumulus upon
Watlin street' (IC (ii), 1776, 55); both drawings are labelled 10 Oct
1722. From there he continued to Chilham where, from Julliberrie' s
Grave (Jessup 1937; 1939) he drew the landscape that saw 'Caesar's
74
WJLLIAM STUKELEY'S KENTISH STUDIES OF ROMAN AND OTHER REMAINS
passage over the Stour'. Thereafter it seems likely that, alone or with
Lord Winchelsea, he made his way to Eastwell Park (see Lord
Winchelsea's letter to Stukeley, 20 October 1722) where he stayed
before setting out for Aylesford, to view Kit's Coty House and its
fellows before returning to London.
Three drawings of Kit's Coty House and its fellows are dated 1 5
October 1722. There is a general view northwards which shows it and
the remains of its long barrow, the Lower Kit's Coty House (Ashbee
1993b) and. the Coffin Stone (IC (ii), 1776, 31); close studies of the
Kit's Coty Houses, Upper and Lower (IC (ii), 1776, 32); a view from
Kit's Coty House, with the long barrow and the monument in the
foreground (IC (ii), 1776, 53). There is also an undated drawing with
the profile of the Kit's Coty house long barrow on the horizon and the
ruined chamber of the Lower Kit's Coty House, in the foreground. It
seems likely that the work on Blue Bell Hill was aided and expedited
by the detailed letter by his friend, Hercules Ayleway, from Mereworth
Castle, dated 28 March 1722, which he had received earlier in
the year. Earlier still, on 20 December 1720, Lord Winchelsea had
sent to him a piece of stone from Kit's Coty house and a fossil oyster
shell from Maidstone (SS (i), 1880, 68). Furthermore, Stukeley
returned a year later, presumably to complete this work, for a diary
entry records 'Oct 16, 1723. At Kits Coty House. Lay at Aylesford.
Made drawings and measurement of these monuments'.
Although the 1724 excursion into Kent can be reconstructed in
outline, Stukeley left London early in October and returned on or
about 20 October, the dated drawings are at odds with the distances
involved. There are neither notes nor narrative but, notwithstanding,
the dates and places convey possibilities. His first recorded Kentish
date, 6 October, is attached to his notes on Noviomagus (Bodi. Gough
Maps, 229, 38). In the lter V, the account of the 1722 journey, he
thought of Noviomagus as near Wellend (Welling) or Crayford, or
perhaps even Northfleet. Thus, presumably, he undertook fieldwork
with a location in mind. Stukeley's notion regarding Crayford has
survived the years and the name, which can mean 'new place' or 'new
market' has, indeed, been located at Crayford and attached to a
substantial Roman settlement (Rivet & Smith 1979, 428).
A day later, on 7 October, Stukeley drew the Roman wall at Rochester
(IC (ii), 1776, 30) which is only about sixteen miles, a comfortable
ride. However, a drawing of the turf-clad amphitheatre at
Richborough (IC (ii), 1776, 56) is also dated 7 October. The distance
from Rochester to Richborough is, via the Watling Street and Canterbury,
almost forty miles. A day later, perhaps 8 October, is possible
as the 'Prospect of Dover' from a point upon the Western Heights, is
75
PAULASHBEE
dated 9 October. Indeed, even this adjustment of the dates could be
questioned for it is unlikely that Stukeley would have passed through
Canterbury without calling upon John Gray. From Dover he could
have made his way to Chilham where he drew a 'Prospect' of the
nature and siting of Julliberrie's Grave on 11 October (IC (ii), 1776,
56). Prom here he could have gone, again, to Eastwell Park where
Lord Winchelsea would have welcomed him. On 14 October he drew
a view of Charing (Soc. Ant. Lond., Roman Prints, iii), which is
unpublished, was at Malling Abbey on 17 October (IC (ii), 1776, 97)
and finally returned to London via Eltham, where he drew the Palace,
also on 17 October (Bodleian Lib. Top. gen. d. 14, f.15v). From
Malling to London, via Eltham, could have involved almost thirty
miles on horse-back, a not unstrenuous undertaking.
Stukeley's descent into Kent in 1725, at the end of May, has, from
the dated drawings, the look of an expedition from Eastwell Park. As
in the previous year, he may have been, at least in part, accompanied
by Lord Winchelsea. On 24 May he drew Julliberrie's Grave from the
Woolpack Inn (IC (ii), 1776, 57) and was at Richborough on 27 May.
Two figures, as in 1724, appear in the Julliberrie's Grave drawing
and thus, in the intervening time, Stukeley may have been in
Canterbury with John Gray. At Richborough he drew a view of the
fort from the amphitheatre. From Richborough he rode down to
Dover, retracing the route taken in earlier years. Here he drew a view
of the town, which was unpublished. Other, undated, drawings in the
posthumous ltinerarium Curiosum II (1776), could have been drawn
as supplementary material on this journey. He arrived in Dover on 29
May and on the 31 st he was on Barham Downs where he drew a vista
of the Watling Street. Prom here it was fifteen miles across country to
Eastwell Park. On the 5 June he rode out from Eastwell to Wye where
he made a study of the Downs, perhaps for comparison with Wiltshire's
chalk country. As he returned to London, via the foot of the
North Downs, ascending them at Blue Bell Hill, he made yet another
study at Aylesford which he also dated to 5 June.
Leaving London in early July, Stukeley rode via Dunstable and
Derbyshire, up to Hadrian's Wall. He returned, via Durham and the
heart of England, late in September. Lord Winchelsea wrote to him on
18 October mildly chiding him for his four months absence but, at the
same time, appreciating his tireless pursuit of antiquities. It is likely
that the general plan of this exceptional journey was discussed,
presumably at Eastwell earlier in the year.
In his reconstruction of Stukeley's journeys and fieldwork Stuart
Piggott (1985, 164) is of the view that, in 1725, a drawing of the
Downs, near Eastwell, was made, although it is dated 28 May 1726.
76
WILLIAM STUKELEY'S KENTISH STUDIES OF ROMAN AND OTHER REMAINS
Indeed, he considers 1726 as an error for 1725. To leave Richborough,
where he was busy on 27 May, and ride to Eastwell to be there
on 28 May, and then proceed to Dover the next day, while possible,
would have been an impracticable use of time and horses. Thus it is
likely that Stukeley visited Lord Winchelsea at Eastwell in 1726 and,
on 28 May in that year, drew a 'View towards Eastwell from near
Wye'. This notion is strengthened by the fact that views of Deal,
Walmer Castle and other sites in their vicinity, are dated to 29 May
1726, a day later. On the view of Eastwell from Wye, Stukeley wrote
'The last of my expeditions' and thereafter there were neither tours
nor excursions to Stonehenge and Avebury. There is also the
likelihood that he realised that Lord Winchelsea was ailing, for he
was to die on 30 September of that year.
During the last months of 1726, still a young man of thirty-eight,
Stukeley effected his contemplated move to Grantham, in Lincolnshire,
and subsequently took Holy Orders. To judge from a letter
(from Samuel Gale, then in Greece, 30 March 1727) the loss, by
death, of various friends, and notably Lord Winchelsea, may have
finally moved him to act upon his yearning for the countryside and to
leave London.
Stukeley's later Kentish concerns
More than a decade later, in October 1747, Stukeley returned to
London and the living of St George's, Queen's Square, Bloomsbury,
the gift of the Duke of Montagu. There are two entries in his diaries
which indicate excursions into those parts of Kent at no great
distance from London and one, surprising, note of a barrow-opening
much further afield, near Richborough. Other visits may have been
undertaken of which there is no record. On 9 October 1752, he
records a visit to Lesnes Priory (Abbey), at Erith (SS (ll), 1883, 233);
in 1759, on 17 September he 'Rode to Westram' and made notes upon
the church (SS (ii), 1883, 237) and, finally, during January 1763, he
wrote (SS (ii), 1883, 238): 'By Richborow, in Kent, dug up a barrow,
found two elegant fibulas made in gold and glass work, and a string
of beads, evidently British'. This last is surprising as Stukeley was in
his seventies and Richborough was, in eighteenth-century terms, a
considerable distance from London. There is the possibility that this
barrow, probably Saxon, was one of the considerable number dug into
by the Rev. Bryan Fausset, in East Kent (Jessup 1965, 44; Hawkes
1990), between 1757 and 1773. Lesnes Abbey (SS (ii), I 883, 233-6)
was visited again in 1753 and Stukeley published 'An Account of
Lesnes Abbey, 12 April 1753' in 1755 which was followed more than
77
PAULASHBEE
a decade later by the 'Account of LESNES ABBEY, at ERITH, in
Kent, founded by Richard de Lucia, Lord Chancellor and Chief
Justice to Henry II', which, together with some observations upon the
destroyed sanctuary church at Worcester, was in the first Archaeologia,
published by the Society of Antiquaries of London in l 770
(Evans 1956, 147).
At the outset of the last year of his life, 1765, Stukeley called upon
his friend of many years, Bishop Warburton. His object was the
possibility of preferment to a prebendal stall at Canterbury, likely to
become vacant. Although John Gray and Lord Winchelsea may
account for aspects of his considerable interest in Kent, one feels,
especially when reading the County's section of the Iter Romanum,
that he found especial qualities in its unspoiled intimate and
variegated, antiquities, geology and topography.
The Margate Pa/stave hoard
Among Stukeley's unpublished and undated drawings is one of a
bronze palstave hoard (Fig. 2) from Margate (Bodleian Lib. MS. Top.
gen. B.53, f.32v). A detailed account of its discovery was included in
the History and Antiquities of the Isle of Tenet (Thanet), by John
Lewis (1736, 137). he wrote:
Betwixt this place [Daundeleon, TR 353695] and the Sea were found
AD 1724 by William Castle, who occupied a small Farm here, as he was
digging a Sea-gate, or a Way thro' the Cliff into the Sea, to fetch up
Oore or Waure for his Land, XXVII such instruments as I have described
in the adjoining Plate lying all together about two Feet under
Ground, so that it is a little strange, that they were not before this
discovered by the plough. They were of mixt Brass, or what they call
bell or Pot-metal, of several Sizes, and somewhat different Shapes, but
on both Sides alike, as they are here represented. The largest of them
were 7 Inches one quarter long, and 2 Inches three quarters broad at the
bottom the lesser ones were 5 Inches in Length and 2 Inches and one
half in Breadth at the Bottom. Two of them had Ringles on one Side
about the middle, which is the thickest or deepest part.
It is not known whether Stukeley and the scholarly, painstaking, John
Lewis (Shirley 1951) ever met but there was a copy of the first, 1723,
edition of the Antiquities of the Isle of Tenet in Stukeley's library
(Piggott (ed.) 1974, 459). Of note, however, is the fact that Stukeley
in February, 1725/4, had discoursed to the Society of Antiquaries of
London on the use of bronze axes, distinguishing the socketed from
the flat and palstave forms (Evans 1956, 80). He considered them as
' .... British and appertaining to the Druids, that they were fixed occas-
78
WILLIAM STUKELEY'S KENTISH STUDIES OF ROMAN AND OTHER REMAINS
Fig. 2 The hoard of Bronze Age palstaves found at Margate in 1724. John
Lewis's illustration was probably taken from Stukeley's drawings
79
PAULASHBEE
ionally upon the end of their staffs which they commonly walked with
to cut off the boughs of Oak and Misletoe in their religious services.
At other times they put them in their pouches and hung them to their
girdles by the little ring or loop'. Presumably, he saw and drew something
of this Margate palstave hoard, perhaps at Canterbury, when he
was in Kent during October 1724. Lord Winchelsea could have been
the intermediary (Lewis 1736, 27). Their number and character could
have been thought supportive of his developing Druidical notions and
his drawing of a Druid, adapted from Rowland's, showed a palstave
slung from his girdle (Stukeley 1740, Tab. I; Piggott 1985, 103).
Druids, however, were not mentioned by Lewis (1736, 137-8) who
saw these palstaves as Roman military tools for sharpening stakes.
A hoard of palstaves, comparable with the twenty-seven from
Margate, was found at Birchington, some two miles distant, early in
the twentieth century. Fourteen were in a Deverel-Rimbury globular
urn which was encountered in a brickfield, some 3ft below the surface
(Powell-Cotton & Crawford 1924; Jessup 1930, 100; Rowlands,
1976, 246, Pl. 10). This hoard has given its name to a type (Rowlands
1976, 32), also encountered in hoards at Goudhurst, Hayling Island
and Burnham. Some of the broad-bladed Margate palstaves (Lewis
1736, opp.137) have ribbed motifs below their stopridges and two
have loops. They are clearly to be associated with this distinctive
Birchington series.
Stukeley's notices of incidental Kentish discoveries
A small number of entries in Stukeley's diary, made after bis return to
London in 1747, refer to Kentish antiquities. They are, however, no
more than the records made for other counties and reflect his omnivorous
antiquarian interests. Nonetheless, his publications display,
more than anything, an interest in field monuments rather than
incidental antiquities. If anything, a slight bias towards Roman
matters is detectable which is not surprising when the stimulus given
by Bertram's spurious itinerary is remembered. It should not be
forgotten that, despite a certain caution, the forgery was, in many
parts, so good as to be convincing. There were communications to
The Society of Antiquaries of London which, during its nascence in
the eighteenth century, was referred to as the Antiquarian Society.
This term prefaces each entry.
In March 17 57, Stukeley learned of and saw a silver coin hoard
(numismatics were an abiding interest) from Lydd. He wrote 'Some
fair silver coins of King Harold produced, 1000 of them found at old
Lydd, in Kent, near old Romney, part of the king's military chest
80
Wil.LIAM STUKELEY'S KENTISH STUDIES OF ROMAN AND OTHER REMAINS
carryed off on loss of the battle' (SS (ii), 1883, 236). A letter from Mr
Jacobs (sic) of Faversham, received in February 1759, in Stukeley' s
words gives ' .... an account of the tesselated Roman pavement found
(in 1758) at Canterbury, with a drawing of it. Above, a (brass) coin of
Carausius, Providentia Aug., and a Valens'. Also a body, presumably
a skeleton, was dug up ' .... near Barham downs, his iron spear and
sword without a cross bar, a necklace of glass beads about his neck'
(SS (ii), 1883, 237). This was clearly an Anglo-Saxon grave,
comparable with the many investigated by Bryan Faussett referred to
above. Mr Jacobs was the Faversham antiquary and naturalist Edward
Jacob (?1710-88), notable for his History of the Town and Port of
Faversham (1774), local botanical works and the geology of the Isle
of Sheppey (Smith 1837, passim).
An error of place is involved in a note for March, 1759. Stukeley
wrote 'At the Antiquarian Society. A drawing of the head of a magnificent
crosier, copper double gilt, found in digging at Wrotham, in
Kent, which no doubt belonged to some archbishop whose manor it
was.' W. C. Lukis, the editor of the Stukeley diaries and letters for the
Surtees Society (ii, 1883, 23), corrected this in a footnote extracted
from the minute Book of the Society of Antiquaries of London, dated
8 March 1759: 'Dr. Milles (Jerimiah Milles, Dean of Exeter, President
1768-84) exhibited a drawing of the head of an archbp' s crozier
which had been dug up by a labourer in May 1752, in grubbing a
hedge in the vicarage garden, at Wesham, in Kent. The central part
exhibited a crucifix and at the foot therof two arms erect branch out
with figures on them, emblems of the four evangelists, and on each
side of them are represented John and the Virgin Mary, or probably
two Maries. The metal of which it is made is deemed to be brass, and
is double gilt, and was formerly adorned with precious stones. It has
a socket in order to its being fitted into a staff. Lukis added that in the
index the place is written Westram, which must be Westerham.
Indeed, almost into the present century, this contraction was frequently
used (Scott Robertson 1892, 298). He added that the object
was probably a processional cross rather than a crozier.
Stukeley's last Kentish diary entry was for December 1761. He
wrote 'At the Antiquarian Society, I as senior member took the chair,
and read on a gold British coin found at Sandwich, with a /J. [delta] on
the reverse, supposing it struck by Dunwallo, a famous King and legislator'
(SS (ii), 1883, 238). He had prepared twenty-three plates of
the coins of those he considered to be ancient British kings and, as
John Evans (1864, 7) tartly remarked, uninscribed coins do duty as
those of Dunwallo and other Gaulish personages. His notebooks on
coins, however, go back to 1720 and, despite lapses, there is much
81
PAULASHBEE
that has stood the test of later, and even modern, research (Piggott
1985, 141-2). He had intended a Medallic History of the Antient
Kings of Britain and the engraved plates, published posthumously by
his son-in-law Richard Fleming, depict many inaccurately.
William Stukeley 's Kentish Drawings
William Stukeley's Kentish drawings, the engravings in Itinerarium
Curiosum I (1724) and JI (1776) (Appendix I) are, apart from his
unique records of Stonehenge and A vebury, among the most informative
of their kind. His visits were made before the increase of population,
the extensive turnpiking of roads and the growth of towns
that took place in eighteenth-century Kent. Thus there had not been
the damage to monuments, resulting from these factors, noticeable a
century later. The same can be said of the unpublished drawings
(Appendix 2), which include a wealth of heraldic devices unmodified
by the spate of church restoration that marked the nineteenth
century. The published engravings, eleven of which appeared in 1724
(IC (i)) and eighteen in 1776 (IC (ii)), depict thirty-five subjects. The
seven prehistoric monument depictions are four of Kit's Coty House
and its analogues and three of Julliberrie's Grave. Roman sites, and
patent remains, predominate, there are fourteen portrayals, and they
reflect Stukeley' s Kentish section of the lter Romanum (I 724,
113-26) which was the prime reason for the 1722 descent into the
county. They reflect his route, discussed above, which was Rochester,
Canterbury, Richborough, Deal, Dover, Lympne and Barham.
Kent's wealth of mediaeval monuments stirred a latent chord in his
wide-ranging, intricate, psyche (Piggott 1955, 24) and to this we are
indebted for the illustrations of the remains of Rochester Castle,
Faversham Abbey, St Augustine's Abbey, St Gregory's church and St
Martin's church at Canterbury, the church in Dover Castle and
Malling Abbey. A map of Canterbury (IC (i), 1724, 96) is relevant to
Roman remains, likewise the Mediaeval ruins and churches, while
there are spirited views of Deal, Dover and Folkestone, which reflect
his pre-occupation with topography and the character of England's
countryside.
The 'Prospect of Kits Coty house' of the 15 October 1722 is
basically Stukeley's appreciation of a relict landscape, comparable
with his Prospects from Stonehenge (1740, Tabs. VIII, IX, X). The
original field drawing is in the Bodleian Library (MS Top. Gen. b.53
fl 9v) and it was from this that the published plate was constructed.
Kit's Coty House, with its long barrow, is the distant focal point, the
Lower Kit's Coty House, reconstructed as a cove, has been inserted
82
WILLIAM STUKELEY'S KENTISH STUDIES OF ROMAN AND OTHER REMAINS
(Ashbee 1993b) and the Coffin Stone is indicated. It could be
contended that Stukeley and Lord Winchelsea, to whom the plate is
dedicated, knew the area well and that it is essentially accurate. The
landscape had changed little when set against the finely engraved
first edition of Kent's OS Maps in 1819, was readily recognisable in
1944, and still survives in some part today. Stukeley' s notions
regarding coves is the substance of his second plate (IC (ii), 1776,
32.2d), the structure of Kit's Coty House and the bizarre reconstruction
of the Lower Kit's Coty House (Ashbee, 1993b). The 'Prospect of
the Country from Kits Coty house 15 Oct 1722' is a reversal of the
original plate (IC (ii), 1776, 31.2d). Kit's Coty House and. its long
barrow, with attached stones including that called 'The generals
Tomb', in the foreground with the related monuments, lower down
the hillside, in their appropriate places. The final plate (IC (ii), 1776,
34.2d) portrays from the south, the Lower Kit's Coty House. It can be
seen as clearly a fallen rectangular chamber (Ashbee, 1993a, 72-82).
Not all the stones have been drawn, only eight are shown, which is
puzzling as Aubrey had recorded 13-14 great stones. Those on the
southern side, the foreground, could be side-stones and are prone. On
the northern side two substantial stones stand and the larger ones
behind them may have been slipped cover-stones. At the eastern end
a massive lozengiform boulder, inclined at about 45 degrees, may
have been a portal stone or a fa9ade remnant. There are tenuous traces
of a barrow but, otherwise, the field is ploughed to the hedgerow of
the road. From this drawing it is clear that Stukeley's notion of this
fallen chamber as the remains of a cove was an exercise of his enthusiasm.
The Upper Coty house, A, is skylined on the upper hill- slope
and the long barrow is substantial. There is ploughing clearly shown
and it seems likely that stones were being unearthed from the ditch
(IC (ii), 1776, 33.2d) during the earlier eighteenth century. They
could have been dragged down the hill to the copse where a number
remain even today.
Julliberrie's Grave is the vantage point for Stukeley's initial
depiction of this long barrow (IC (ii), 1776, 54). His object was, one
suspects, despite the title 'Caesars passage over the Stour by Chilham
and Julabers grave', the landscape rather than the barrow which has
been contracted to construct an appropriate drawing. Nonetheless, he
noted the traces of Lord Winchelsea' s excavation of 1702 and the
thrown down northern end, which trails down the slope. The drawing
was dated 10 Oct 1722 and when Stukeley returned to Kent in 1724,
the long barrow, which had been further surveyed and measured by
Lord Winchelsea in 1723, was the subject of a careful portrayal of its
setting and character (IC (ii), 1776, 56.2). This presentation and that
83
Worth Gat;e ( aJk11{lJtfi{r,t) Canterb1u·y
-0, tT# !7 2.2,,
Fig. 3 William Stukeley's elevation of the Roman Worth Gate, at Canterbury, 6 October 1722 (IC (i),
1724, Tab. LIV. upper)
WILLIAM STUKELEY'S KENTISH STUDIES OF ROMAN AND OTHER REMAINS
made irt 1725, a Prospect, with Julliberrie's Grave in the middle
distance, made from the Woolpack inn, in Chilham (IC (ii), 1776,
57 .2d) are clearly comparable with those of the long barrows in the
vicinity of Avebury (Stukeley, 1743, Tab. 22) also drawn in 1724. In
1725 he was at pains to show the northern end truncated by the
digging back of the southern side of the Stour, for chalk. Although
Stukeley' s notes pertaining to the Kit's Coty House area and Julliberrie'
s Grave have not been found, it is not unreasonable to consider
that these sites were seen as the outlying examples of what he had, at
much the same time, encountered at Stonehenge and Avebury.
Stukeley's illustrations of the remnants at Roman sites and installations
in Kent were, with minor exceptions, geared to the last part of
his lter Romanum, undertaken in 1722. Not all were, however,
executed in 1722 and it seems that the subsequent visits, in 1724 and
1725, followed much the same route and thus the records of 1722,
incorporated in the Iter Romanum were amplified.
In 1722, Stukeley (1724, 113) saw Rochester's Roman wall and
wrote ' .... near that angle below the bridg encompassd by the river, is
a large piece of Roman building of the wall, made of rubble-stone laid
sloping side-ways, here and there Roman bricks, houses are built up
on it, and 'tis broken thro' for a passage, in the inside much flint'.
This walling was drawn on 7 October 1724 and labelled as 'A Piece of
the Roman Wall at Rochester'. Something of its construction can be
seen, houses are at the rear and the passage is clearly visible.
As has been indicated, Canterbury aroused Stukeley's latent mediaevalism,
but, nonetheless, he sought out and drew specific details
remaining from the erstwhile Roman city. He went to the Worth Gate
(IC (i), 1724, Tab.54) on 6 October 1722, saying that it was • ... partly
wall'd up, 'tis under the castle. This is entirely a roman work, the
semicircular arch is of roman brick, beautifully turn'd, the peers of
stone, the thickness of it is three roman feet, I suppose this the
original gate of the roman city'. (See Fig. 3). He compared it with the
Newport Gate at Lincoln which he had drawn on 3 September 1722,
which is the lower illustration on the plate. Gostling (1825, 26) recorded
the dimensions of the Worth Gate, the radius of the arch being
12ft 3½ in., and Frank Jenkins (1968) bared the great blocks of stone,
the jambs, which he found on the southeastern side. The Riding Gate
also caught Stukeley' s eye and he said (IC (ii), 1724, 116) that it had
been 'built .... evidently in the place of the roman one, for there is part
of the roman arch, and the peer of one side still visibl, but much lower
than the present gate and in a yard close by is part of the arch of a
postern ..... these arches are of roman brick and there in the wall here
and there some more fragments of the roman work'. He inset an
85
PAULASHBEE
illustration of the Riding Gate, emphasising these features, into his
map of Canterbury (IC (i), 1724, Tab. 96), which largely depicts mediaeval
monuments but includes these Roman gates and the Roman
barrows, Dane John being labelled 'the Mount'.
Richborough impressed Stukeley (1724, 118) and he made four
drawings, three of the castle, as he termed it, and one of the castrensian
amphitheatre. His first was a bird's-eye view from the north,
which anticipates subsequent oblique air-photographs (Frere & St.
Joseph 1983, 78), which he entitled 'Richborow Castle of the Romans
7 Oct 1722 (IC (i), 1724, Tab. 97). It shows the vegetation- clad walls
'in some places still about 25 or 30 foot high', the cruciform foundation
and the amphitheatre. The brick bonding course of the walls are
emphasised. Cultivation brackets both the fort and its interior (Fig.
4). Further drawings are a 'View of Portus Rutupiae from Sandwich
7 Oct 1722', which shows something of the fort's siting, the Stour,
the sea and distant Thanet (IC (ii), 1776, 35.2d). A closer, but rather
schematic, lower presentation: 'South West view of Richborough
Castle', presumably also drawn in 1722, has a fore-ground of standing
corn, unusual in October. Although Stukeley's plate of 'The
Remains of the Castrensian Amphitheater at Rich borough Castle Oct
7 1724' shows a substantial bank, flat-topped, with a mounted and
two figures on foot contemplating the interior, he records ( 1724, 119)
that it ..... has been long plow'd over, that we need not wonder 'tis so
level'. A century later it had been further flattened and an excavation
revealed Roman walling apparently around it (Roach Smith 1850, 52,
161-72). Stukeley's plate (Fig. 5), however, depicts a Class II henge
(Atkinson et. al. 1951, 82) with double, opposed, north-south entrances.
Roman reuse of such monuments is well attested, Maumbury
Rings, near Dorchester (Bradley 1975), of the same size, is a good
example. The possibility that the Richborough amphitheatre, now
reduced to little more than an ephemeral outline, is a reused henge
need not be entirely dismissed. Indeed, temples were sited close by
which could denote a measure of continuity {Jessup 1970, 166, fig.
54).
As he passed by Deal, while riding from Sandwich to Dover, Stukeley
pondered upon Caesar's first expedition to Britain( ... 'tis the first
place where the shore can be ascended north of Dover) and felt that
traces of his camp(s) would have been obliterated by subsequent
developments. Nonetheless, it is manifest that an examination of the
landings of 55 and 54 BC was contemplated, for he wrote (1724, 120)
'But of this affair of Caesar's I reserve to myself another opportunity
of speaking, when I shall expressly treat of his expedition hither.' To
this end he prepared a hypothetical plan 'Caesars camp at Deal, in his
86
00
...J
Fig. 4 The bird's eye view ofRichborough, 7 October 1722, as seen from the north (IC (i), 1724, Tab. XCVII)
00
00
·-
.,..
_____ ,.,.
Fig. 5 Richborough's amphitheatre, 7 October 1724 (IC (ii), 1776, Tab. XXXVI)
WILLIAM STUKELEY'S KENTISH STUDIES OF ROMAN AND OTHER REMAINS
first expedition into Britain', dedicated to Lord Winchel sea (IC (ii),
1776, 52. 2d). It seems likely that the Stour, seen from Julliberrie' s
Grave, where Caesar might have crossed and camped (IC (ii), 1776, 54,
2d) was intended for such a work as was the perspective of 'Caesars
Camp upon Barham Down drawn 10 Oct 1722'. This last appears as
a possible small square enclosure of the viereckschanze series (Zi.lrn
1971 ).
The eastern Roman Pharos, within Dover Castle, stands to a height
of some 60ft, of which only about 12ft is of Roman structure, the
remainder being apparently mediaeval additions. It had seemingly a
stepped outline and an original height of almost 80ft. Antiquarian
feeling, not entirely absent during the Middle Ages (Mann 1932),
may have guided this early restoration which made it into a campanile.
Stukeley reconstructed its Roman appearance (IC (i), 1724,
Tab. XLVI) and his engraved plate 'THE ROMAN PHAROS AT
DOVER CASTLE 8 Oct 1722' restores the stone facing, the brick
bonding courses and the tile-arched windows (Fig. 6), while underestimating
its height. Another plate, 'The Ichnography & Section of
the ROMAN PHAROS in Dover Castle' details the octagonal plan
and nature of its construction. An undated engraved plate, 'The
Appearance of the Roman DUBRIS' (IC (ii), 1776, 38, 2d) shows the
fort from the eastern heights, with Watling Street and the river,
flanked by the Pharos. One more, 'The Appearance of Dover at the
time of Caesars Landing', may have been intended for the study of
that event.
Stukeley saw Stutfall Castle's ruined state as resulting from
deliberate slighting' .... tis the effect of design and much labor' (1724,
125) and his engraved plate 'LEMANIS f>ortus 9 Oct 1722' shows
something of the cataclysmic landslips that comprehensively
changed the fort's character (Fig. 7). It seems likely that this had
already happened when Leland noticed it (Toulmin Smith {ed.) 1909,
65), almost two centuries before Stukeley came on the scene.
Originally it was probably rectangular in plan like its compeers
(Detsicas 1987, 29, fig.5) and was originally sited upon a Wealden
Clay height, close to its interface with the Greensand. Despite the
evolution of Romney Marsh (Coleman & Lukehurst 1967, 11;
Cunliffe, 1980) it is likely that this position carried, from the first, the
seeds of its downfall and distortion.
Enthusiastic mediaevalism was a feature of Stukeley's sojourn in
Stamford (Piggott 1985, 121-3). There he constructed a garden
Gothic Temple of Flora, complete with stained glass windows. The
ltinerarium Curiosum I ( 1724) was, however, one of the first works
of its kind, to contain plans and prospects of mediaeval buildings.
89
PAULASHBEE
.. .. .. .. ,.
,21,fl
:,'. "liin. Rom.imis na,i&a_nu'6!'·' Jro;e.i,1. 'i"rrt«t;- ·
· :Ph aron ,;, C'y,lro :lJub,?.ru,: Ro5 Ga.I,; Ann, :
,. 5 . • .
fn,.l,l