Canterbury's 1844 Archaeological Congress

331 CANTERBURY’S 1844 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONGRESS PAUL ASHBEE In these days of teach-ins, set up with scant regard for essentials such as times, transport and accommodation, the notion of what used to be termed a conference, a meeting for discussion and the interchange of views, has almost been lost sight of. Yet certain of our archaeological societies still promote annual assemblies which are lectures, field excursions or combinations thereof. Moreover, it is all but forgotten that the first formal function of this kind was held in Canterbury, during September 1844, two years before the railway reached that city. This was the First General Meeting of the newly-formed British Archaeological Association. Founded in 1843 and attracting a mass membership, post- Canterbury differences brought about a severance and the emergence of the Archaeological Institute, which became Royal later in the century. This led to the Archaeological Journal, issued by the Archaeological Institute, and the Journal of the British Archaeological Association, both of which have happily continued to this day. Canterbury was selected as the venue for the Congress, as it came to be termed, because the President of the new Association was Lord Albert Conyngham (1805-60), a man of antiquarian interests (Levine 1986, 49), who resided at Bourne Park, Bishopsbourne. Organisation and co-ordination was in the hands of a General Committee, chaired by the President, while, with papers and activities in mind, there were sections, namely Primaeval Antiquities, Mediaeval Antiquities, Architecture and History. These sectional committees each had a President, Vice-president and two Secretaries, the enterprise being backed by a local committee. Names familiar to those concerned with the emergence of archaeology during the earlier nineteenth century are prominent. Thus, the Secretaries of the General Committee were Charles Roach Smith and Albert Way, while among its members were William Henry Rolfe, from Sandwich (Matson 1961) and Thomas Wright. Thomas Crofton Croker, from Cork, an active and energetic Irish Academician who was staying at Bourne Park, assembled an album recording all that came to pass during the momentous week (Taylor 1932, 183). The Primaeval section embraced PAUL ASHBEE 332 all that was to be Prehistory, plus Roman and Saxon studies (Daniel 1975, 114-5). Although the notion of the three ages of prehistory, Stone, Bronze and Iron, was abroad, they were not accepted by all and thus the neutral term primaeval was preferred. Because of his extended Roman studies, Charles Roach Smith was one Secretary, while the members included Thomas Bateman, the ‘opener’ of numbers of Derbyshire’s barrows (1848-61) and Professor William Buckland, pioneer geologist and palaeontologist (Rupke 1983). The Mediaeval section attracted Lambert B. Larking from Ryarsh and his friend Albert Way. Architecture brought together John Britton, memorable for his Beauties of England and Wales (1801-14), Decimus Burton, the architect, and John Henry Parker, author of the famous Glossary of Architectural Terms (1846; 1896; 1990-1). Lord Albert Conyngham presided over the Historical section with his friend Crofton Croker and Thomas Wright as Secretaries. The local committee was led by George Neame, Mayor of Canterbury and one of the famous brewing family, and John Brent, who pioneered the study of Roman Canterbury and who made signal contributions regarding that city and Roman sites in east Kent to the early volumes of Archaeologia Cantiana. The domestic arrangements were not dissimilar to those which attended archaeological conferences during the second half of the twentieth century. There were conveyances from the railhead, then Ashford, and those attending the congress were lodged in various of Canterbury’s hotels, termed taverns. Most of the principal organisers stayed at the Queen’s Head while the remainder were at the Lion, the Fountain and the Rose. All in all, almost two hundred people had to be housed and fed, for many members were accompanied by wives and even daughters. To spread the load upon the hotels, a table d’hôte dinner, served at six o’clock before the evening sessions, was held at the various establishments upon different evenings. Thus many wandered, looking for their dinner, and because of dispersal there was unpunctual arrival for lectures and excursions. Indeed, the Fountain could only serve dinner for eighty-four while there appear to have been shortcomings regarding accommodation. Following the details in the Congress Report volume (Dunkin (ed.) 1845), the meetings were to be held in the Guildhall, close by the West Gate, a building demolished during the early post World War II years (Boyle 1980, 161-2). A subsequent analysis (Taylor 1932, 191), however, constantly refers to the ‘Town Hall’. There was a precise, timed, programme which was adhered to, although excursions and such activities as the unwrapping of the Egyptian Mummy led to delays and diversions, all of which appear to have been accepted with good spirit and understanding. The programme was as follows: CANTERBURY’S 1844 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONGRESS 333 Monday 9 September, 1844:- 1.00 pm Meeting of the Committees of the several Sections for the arrangement of the business of the week 3.00 pm General Meeting: The President’s Address 8.00 pm Primaeval Section and Evening Conversazione and the reading of a paper on barrows Tuesday 10 September:- Opening of Saxon barrows in the park of Lord Conyngham, at Bourne 8.00 pm Primaeval Section Wednesday 11 September:- 12 noon Mediaeval Section 8.00 pm Architectural Section and Evening Conversazione Thursday 12 September:- Excursions to Richborough and Barfreston Church to inspect the antiquities Friday 13 September:- 11.00 am Historical Section 3.00 pm Primaeval Section 8.00 pm Unrolling of an Egyptian Mummy Saturday 14 September:- 11.00 am General Meeting, Reports of Committees, etc. Lord Albert Conyngham, the ‘noble President’, addressed the gathering on the Objects of the Association, saying that ‘a disposition to cultivate intellectual pursuits was making rapid progress in this country, as well as on the Continent, and this growing feeling was especially manifested with regard to archaeology’. His remarks were brief, although including much on the place of Canterbury in the national scene. He then called upon Charles Roach Smith to read the list of papers, which was followed by Roach Smith detailing the Association’s objectives and operations. It appears that there was time in hand and Sir William Betham, Ulster King-at-Arms, was invited to read his paper on ‘The Origins of Idolatry’. He was almost inaudible and, even in 1844, his subject matter was extravagant. Thus dinner, at the Fountain Tavern, despite its lack of accommodation which caused some to seek food elsewhere, was a relief. Nonetheless, the meeting venue was crowded by eight o’clock for papers by the Rev. John Bathurst Deane and Thomas Bateman for papers on ‘Barrows’. Thereafter, the company adjourned to a Conversazione held in Barnes’ Rooms, where Edvard Pretty from Maidstone exhibited sketches of the Druidical monument at Coldrum, near Trottiscliffe, and of Goddard’s Castle at Thurnham. Tuesday 10 September was not uneventful. Breach Down, Bourne, about eight miles from Canterbury, had on it some twenty barrows PAUL ASHBEE 334 Fig. 1 Breach Downs, the rain-attended barrow openings (from Alfred Dunkin’s 1845 Congress Volume). CANTERBURY’S 1844 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONGRESS 335 of which seven, close by the prominent windmill, had been almost dug away by workmen so that their burials might be of easy access for the antiquaries. Some two hundred gentlemen, attended by not a few adventurous ladies, set out in a convoy of some thirty carriages and brakes. The barrow burials, Saxon, had bones which were for the most part in a good state of preservation. A further two barrows, also in Bourne Park, were also opened. The President, arrayed in his ‘exploring costume’, supervised the various disinterments. Almost as soon as the work on the barrows began, drenching rain fell (Fig.1). Although the ladies and others were offered the shelter of the windmill, the enthusiasm was such that the participants crowded around the barrows to see the various pieces come to light. This ‘opening’ of barrows was commemorated in a four-page pamphlet of doggerel verses, with a view of Breach Down, scribbled by the Rev. Stephen Isaacson, Vicar of Dymchurch. Ronald Jessup (1961, 25) cited its substance and the following selected verses show its spirit: Such dragging of skirts, such giggling of flirts As you see in a storm in Hyde Park, With no end of umbrellas, to shelter the Fellows Who seemed bent upon digging to dark. The ‘Buckland’ Professor, a very great messer In clay and in rubble and chalk, Jumped into a grave, some relick to save, And there had a pretty long talk. Sir William Betham of course too was with ‘em It’s nothing without ‘Ulster King’. How he handled the thigh bones and other queer dry bones Sometimes shouting out ‘No such thing’! The best of good feeding, with true courtly breeding Was prepared for us all at Bourne Park: Had the party been weeded, to say truth it needed, We could gladly have staid there ‘till dark. Isaacson had met Thomas Bateman the previous evening, which led to friendship, visits to Derbyshire and further ‘barrow digging’ versification (Grinsell 1953, 109, 113, 222-3; Marsden 1974, 36-7). He was a man of great ability as is shown by his collaboration with Bateman at Winchester in 1855 and his rescue of the dilapidated Dymchurch Church and parish. Not all were present at the barrow ‘openings’ and close by Bridge and Patrixbourne churches were visited. However, the highlight of what must have been a wet and difficult day was the luncheon given to the Congress members by the President at Bourne House. It was described PAUL ASHBEE 336 (Taylor 1932, 199) as a ‘most sumptuous entertainment consisting of every delicacy the season afforded, and the liberality of the noble host appeared highly appreciated, if we may judge of the hearty manner in which everyone partook of the viands provided for them’. Nonetheless, the weather had improved and all concerned returned to the barrows. Dinner was at 6.00 pm at the Lion Tavern, Lord Albert presiding, and, although seemingly well served, some felt that there had been little improvement from the preceding evening. At 8.00 pm the Primaeval Section met, with the Dean of Hereford, John Merewether, in the chair. Drs Pettigrew and Buckland spoke regarding the discoveries in the Breach Down barrows, their presentation being followed by the Rev. Stephen Isaacson (the poet) on ‘Roman Discoveries at Dymchurch’, John Sydenham, from Greenwich, on ‘Kimmeridge Coal Money’ (Lawson 1975) and the Rev. Beale Poste, from Maidstone, attempting to show that Caesar had landed at Folkestone. Various antiquities were also exhibited and the proceedings did not close until an hour before midnight. Attending to these presentations following the exacting field excursion says much for the stamina of our archaeological forebears. Wednesday was devoted to the Mediaeval Section and by 9 o’clock that morning, members were exploring St Augustine’s Abbey and St Martin’s Church. The former was in the preliminary stages of its conversion from a brewery to the missionary college founded by A.J. Beresford-Hope, MP for Maidstone (Boggis 1907). At 11 o’clock the Archdeacon of St Alban’s took the chair and began the affairs of the day by defining ‘Mediaeval’ as the period from the Norman Conquest to the reign of Henry VIII! The business of what must have been a long morning was a paper on Old Saxon wall-paintings in Lenham church; a steel-yard weight, embroidery and wall-paintings in East Wickham church; the Pelham badge and the Arques barony. The conclusion must have been late but thereafter there were visits to Canterbury’s King’s Bridge Hospital, the West Gate and the Dane John, which were followed by an excursion to Heppington, to view the collection dug from Saxon graves by Bryan Faussett, FSA, during the eighteenth century (Daniel 1981, 55, 90). Here luncheon was provided by Godfrey Faussett, his grandson. Viewing the collection was considered as one of the triumphs of the week for it was later purchased by Joseph Mayer, of Liverpool (Gibson and Wright (eds) 1988) and presented to its Public Museum. Small groups of participants viewed the collections while the party was hospitably entertained in an anteroom. Dinner was in the Corn Exchange, the Rose Inn providing the catering as their dining room was not large enough, but it was thought by some to be indifferent. At 8 o’clock the Architectural Section convened and was chaired by the Rev. Robert Willis, Jacksonian Professor at Cambridge and Sectional President. There was discussion of a Norman tombstone which was followed by a considerable discourse upon Canterbury Cathedral by CANTERBURY’S 1844 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONGRESS 337 Robert Willis, followed by comments upon masons’ marks from George Godwin. Gervase’s account of the burning and repair of the church was commented upon and, by way of a conclusion, William Buckland spoke regarding the spontaneous combustion of bird droppings, thought responsible for a disastrous fire at Pisa. He had seen, he said, upwards of fifty pigeons flying in and out of the cathedral through a broken window. The notion of an accumulation of droppings from the pigeons was hotly denied by the cathedral’s surveyor, George Austin, which led Richard Barham, author of the Ingoldsby Legends, to pen some lines which were read out to much laughter. They were:- By the droppings of dickey-birds, fanned by a breeze, a Spontaneous combustion occurred once in Pisa. So beware then, grave guardians of old Durovernum Lest cock-robins **** in your cloisters and burn ‘em! The day was concluded by a Conversazione to which cathedral and city dignitaries came and the commemorative medal of the Congress was shown and its availability assessed. Thursday was devoted to a further field excursion, the Roman fort at Richborough and Barfreston church. Some sixty members embarked upon what was to be a strenuous day. Ash church was visited and Richborough reached at midday, and the walls, despite quarrying for local roads, were found impressive, as was the cross-shaped foundation of the Monument. The coloured engravings in the Congress volume record vividly what was seen. The Rolfe collection of antiquities, mostly from Richborough, was viewed in Sandwich and thereafter the vehicles made for Ash, presumably heading for Barfreston via Chillenden. However, the principal driver lost his way and a carriage broke down. Mercifully, John Godfrey of Brook House was able to refresh members while repairs were carried out. Barfreston church was not reached until dusk and was viewed with lamps and candles. For the return to Canterbury a guide was employed and they reached the city at ‘a very late hour’. Another excursion, this to Dover Castle, led by the President, was received and refreshed by Major Davis, commanding the depot of the 62nd Light Infantry. They also returned at a very late hour and the Fountain’s deferred dinner was poorly attended. Nonetheless, the day concluded with the Canterbury Glee Club and some dancing! On Friday 13 September, the Historical Section met at 11 o’clock, with the President in the chair. After discussion of Reculver and Henry VIII’s ship, T. Crofton Croker read a paper on Richard Boyle, the first Earl of Cork. There were also comments upon early manuscripts in Canterbury Cathedral’s library and the mediaeval accounts of Merton College, Oxford. These were by J.H. Parker, author of the famous Introduction to the Study of Gothic Architecture (1849). Canterbury’s archives were explained in PAUL ASHBEE 338 some detail and repairs to the city walls were included. After lunch, the Primaeval Section met for a second session, with the Dean of Hereford, John Merewether, in the chair. Exhibits and brief reports were succeeded by a discourse on the rubbing of an inscription. Papers on the Roman itineraries, a Roman cemetery near Weymouth, a temple close by and a golden Saxon buckle. After a 6 o’clock dinner at the Lion Tavern, which may have been better than some as there was an absence of complaint, the members assembled for what seems to have been a highlight of the exciting week, the unrolling of an Egyptian mummy. This performance was by Thomas Joseph Pettigrew, distinguished surgeon and anatomist, Secretary to the Medical Society of London, who had vaccinated the baby Princess Victoria. This was his second unrolling, as he had once before done this in front of Fellows of the Society of Antiquaries of London, in 1836. The Canterbury mummy was attended by difficulties caused by the bitumen used by the embalmers. Bandages had to be cut away, and the process continued until 11.00 pm, there having been three hours devoted to explanation and work. All in all, this ‘unrolling’ was considered such a success that there was another mummy so treated, again by Pettigrew, at Worcester, in 1848. Even after the exacting three hours devoted to the mummy, some members still had energy enough to polka in Barnes’ Rooms. On Saturday 14 September, the last day of the Congress, all assembled at 11 o’clock to hear comments from the Chairmen, reports from the Sections, and to wind up the proceedings in a fitting manner. Lord Albert Conyngham looked back upon the week and considered that it had been, ‘not only pleasantly, but profitably spent’. He also reflected upon the harmony that had prevailed. Thereupon Archdeacon Burney ‘epostulated’ regarding the mutilation of the mediaeval wall-paintings in East Wickham church by the imposition of a marble mural tablet. A view of this meeting on the concluding day was the subject of a picture (Fig. 2) in the Illustrated London News. Reports from the various Sections were read out but sadly their substance was not included in the Congress Volume (Dunkin (ed.) 1845, 307). However, the votes of thanks were detailed and provide a vivid insight into all that had come to pass. First of all, Thomas Stapleton, FSA, thanked, on behalf of the British Archaeological Association, Canterbury’s Dean and Chapter. Congress members had enjoyed unlimited access to the cathedral, which was normally restricted, even to those living in the city. The Rev. Dr Spry, the Prebendary, replied saying that the conduct of those Congress members within the cathedral was an argument in favour of the admission of the people of Canterbury. Henry Crabb Robinson, FSA, thanked the Mayor and Corporation of Canterbury on behalf of the British Archaeological Association and said that the city archives were remarkable, should be cared for and made accessible. George Neame, the Mayor, returned thanks, hoping that CANTERBURY’S 1844 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONGRESS 339 Fig. 2 A meeting in progress in Canterbury’s Town Hall (from Alfred Dunkin’s 1845 Congress Volume). PAUL ASHBEE 340 the Association might one day return while desiring that access to the cathedral might unrestrictedly continue. John Brent, a founder member of the Kent Archaeological Society, then in the future, and notable for his work upon Roman Canterbury and east Kent then said that he saw in the Congress ‘an unusual scene of concord, unity and friendship’. Archdeacon Burney FSA, FRS, moved the thanks of the Association to the Treasurer, Thomas Joseph Pettigrew, FSA, the unroller of mummies, and contributed ten guineas to the Society’s funds, as did the Rev. Dr Spry, FSA. There was discussion regarding the application of monies and it was resolved that the needs of research should be paramount. Then the Rev. J. Bathurst Deane, FSA, thanked the Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Secretaries and Committees, followed by Thomas Wright, FSA, who thanked the local committee at some length. The names were read to the Congress by John Gough Nichols, FSA, and John Brent returned thanks. Charles Roach Smith, FSA, thanked the Rev. Godfrey Faussett, DD, Margaret Professor of Divinity at Oxford, for access to his forebear’s collection of material from Saxon graves, housed at Heppington. Stephen Isaacson, from Dymchurch, then expressed the appreciation of the Association regarding the acquisition of St Augustine’s Abbey to save it from further desecration and damage. Then Dr William Pettigrew thanked Thomas Wright for all that he had done to make the Congress the success that it had been. The Treasurer had the last word, enumerating donors and all who had punctiliously paid subscriptions. The meeting closed at one o’clock and, after luncheon, the participants began to disperse. Some members, however, stayed. The Bishop of Oxford took a group to the Deanery and the cathedral’s library, a group visited Chartham Church to see its brasses and a few were invited by Lord Albert, the President, to Bourne Park, and further barrow digging. Finally, an especial meeting of Canterbury’s city council was convened on Wednesday 16 October 1844, when Alderman Howard Plummer formally reported ‘the vote of thanks passed by the Archaeological Association to the Mayor and town council for the use of the hall and other accommodation, on the occasion of the recent meeting at Canterbury, and moved that it be entered into the Minutes, which was agreed to’. Unlike the meetings of the archaeological societies of the present day, the 1844 Congress was widely featured in newspapers and periodicals, national and local. By and large, the views expressed were favourable. The Morning Post felt that this first annual meeting had fulfilled the expectations of members and had stimulated their labours. The Literary Gazette had in it such a fulsome report of the week that public demand dictated the printing of an extra edition. The Morning Herald and the Art Union were similarly favourable, as were the Gentleman’s Magazine and Chambers’ Journal. However, Punch lampooned almost every dimension of the Congress in a flurry of textual inaccuracies and laboured parodies, CANTERBURY’S 1844 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONGRESS 341 while the Athenaeum was implacably hostile. Its correspondent, a Mr Peter Cunningham, a member of the Association and listed as of the Somerset House Audit Office, found fault with his food, the pattern of papers, the Barfreston excursion, displays of coins and pottery and Roman remains in general, while claiming that A.J. Beresford Hope had not been given appropriate credit for his purchase of St Augustine’s Abbey gate. He was, however, routed by the resounding ripostes of A.J. Dunkin (1845, 96, 255, 278). Although a member of the Historical Committee, it seems that he ‘made the most noise and complaint and did the least work of all who assisted at the meeting’. Although it had been announced to all at Canterbury that an especial Congress volume would be prepared and issued, the papers and other material were dispersed. However, Alfred John Dunkin, from Dartford, assembled most of the papers, plus various accounts of the proceedings and published them in book form, in 1845. Headed British Archaeological Association, it as entitled ‘A Report of the Proceedings of the British Archaeological Association at the First General Meeting held at Canterbury in the month of September, 1844’. Below this was ‘Edited by Alfred John Dunkin of Dartford, Kent, Member of the Association’. It was printed in London and published by S. Prentice of Canterbury. The frontispiece was the L.D. Raze 1840 engraving of Canterbury’s Cathedral, after the demolition and reconstruction of the north-western tower. A full page dedication to ‘Lord Robert D. Conyngham, KCH, FSA, President and the Members of the Association’ followed, preceding the inscription that ‘This Report …. is most respectfully inscribed by their obedient servant, the Editor, Dartford, February 1st, 1845’. Sadly only 150 copies of this remarkable volume were issued and its prompt editing and printing, within about five months, is a remarkable achievement when today’s book and report production can take from three to five years. It is the primary source for the enterprise, its course, activities and conclusion. The Gentleman’s Magazine commended it and castigated the deficiencies of the Association’s Committee in not recording their much applauded Congress. A further report of the Congress was prepared and published by Thomas Wright, a member of the General Committee, who had, as a Secretary of the Historical Section, contributed a paper on ‘The Archives of Canterbury’. It was a masterpiece of detail and, from time to time, amusing. Moreover, it appears that he bore much of the burden of dayto- day organisation. Shortly before the issue of A.J. Dunkin’s book, he devoted forty-two pages of his Archaeological Album to the Congress, illustrated by the skill of F.W. Fairholt. Much of his narrative was concerned with Canterbury but, notwithstanding, a group centred upon Albert Way considered it objectionable, as it could distract from the Archaeological Journal, the first volume of which appeared in 1845. A PAUL ASHBEE 342 further summary account of the Congress, followed by brief biographies of many of those who had attended it, occupied a part of the initial volume (1883) of Retrospections Social and Archaeological by Charles Roach Smith. These volumes (1883; 1886; 1891) are a remarkably detailed source regarding the nature of archaeological endeavour in the Victorian age. Thomas Wright’s publication was seized upon by certain committee members who claimed that it would have a damaging effect upon the Association and its journal. From this a rift developed between Thomas Wright, supported by Roach Smith, and the critical faction, led by Albert Way, who was, it seems, of a contentious, if not choleric, disposition. Such confrontations were not uncommon during the earlier nineteenth century and it should not be forgotten that duelling was still a living memory. The eventual outcome was the British Archaeological Association, with Wright, Pettigrew and Roach Smith as its leaders, and the Archaeological Institute, the word ‘Royal’ being allowed at a later juncture. J.R. Planché, FSA, from Brompton, who had attended the Canterbury Congress, wrote that: ‘they would have their Way, and as trifles divide, so we took our own having (W)right on our side’. The dissent between the rival bodies was, for many years, bitter, indeed extreme, despite attempts, the first in 1850, to bury the feud and, once again, combine, while there are indications that those who had quarrelled discarded their differences and worked together. Archaeology and the pursuit of prehistory in the intervening century and a half has shown that there is a place for both bodies within the pattern of our endeavours, both for meetings and for publishing. The conference procedures, so effective in Canterbury, became an annual undertaking for the Archaeological Institute and further gatherings were held at Winchester, Gloucester and thereafter in appropriate cities and centres. Across the years it has continued and today almost all societies, for example the Prehistoric and the Mediaeval, besides various county organisations, gather and follow the format that emerged in Canterbury and stimulated their forebears. Note: a brief mention of the contributions by the Cresy family to the Congress can be found on page 404 of this volume (Ed.). BIBLIOGRAPHY Boggis, R.J.E., 1907, A History of St. Augustine’s College, Canterbury (Canterbury). Boyle, J., 1980, Portrait of Canterbury (2nd ed.) (London). CANTERBURY’S 1844 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONGRESS 343 Daniel, G., 1975, A Hundred and Fifty Years of Archaeology (London). Daniel, G., 1981, A Short History of Archaeology (London). Dunkin, A.J., 1845, A Report of the Proceedings of the British Archaeological Association at the First General Meeting held at Canterbury in the month of September, 1844 (Canterbury). Gibson, M. and Wright, S.M. (eds), 1988, Joseph Mayer of Liverpool, 1803-1886 (London). Grinsell, L.V., 1953, The Ancient Burial Mounds of England (2nd ed.) (London). Jessup, R.F., 1961, Curiosities of British Archaeology (London). Lawson, A.J., 1975, ‘Shale and Jet Objects from Silchester’, Archaeologia, 105, 241-75. Levine, P., 1986, The Amateur and the Professional, Antiquarians, Historians and Archaeologists in Victorian England, 1838-1886 (Cambridge). Marsden, B.M., 1974, The Early Barrow Diggers (Princes Risborough). Matson, C., 1961, ‘William Rolfe: a Noted Sandwich Antiquarian’, Archaeologia Cantiana, 76, 180-5. Rupke, N.A., 1983, The Great Chain of History (Oxford). Taylor, E.R., 1932, ‘The Humours of Archaeology, or the Canterbury Congress of 1844 and the early days of the Association’, Journal British Archaeological Association, 38, 183-234.