A Survey of Kent Place-Names

A SURVEY OF KENT PLACE-NAMES By P. H. REANEY, Litt.D., Ph.D., F.S.A., F.R.Hist.S. THE English Place-name Society began a Survey of Enghsh Placenames in 1924 and has now pubhshed 29 volumes covering 19 counties and two of the Ridings of Yorkshire. In general, the policy has been to deal first with those counties on which no work had previously been done and secondly with those for which there was only an inadequate or incomplete survey, leaving until later those like Lancashke, Northumberland and Durham, the Isle of Wight and Dorsetshire, for which rehable books were available. Kent comes under the last class. In 1931 Dr. J. K. WaUenberg pubhshed his Kentish Place-names and foUowed this in 1934 with The Place-names of Kent, the two volumes containing a thousand pages, a major achievement for a single individual, especially as the author was a Swede and the books were published at Uppsala. The Place-name Society's volumes, we must never forget, are the result of co-operative effort. For various reasons, a definitive book on the Place-names of Kent is unhkely to appear in the near future. The county is large and vast quantities of material must be searched ; the Anglo-Saxon Charters relating to the county are particularly numerous, with many problems of identification and interpretation stiU to be worked out. To foster and hasten the coUection of material and to bring nearer the publication of a work we so badly need, the CouncU of the Kent Archaeological Society recently appointed a Place-names Committee and the purpose of this article is first to appeal to aU members of the Society and others interested to support the project and secondly to indicate various ways of giving practical help. Occasionally one meets the objection that Wallenberg's thousand pages make a further work superfluous. The truth is that, valuable as is much of his work, it is neither complete nor altogether satisfactory. The books are difficult to use. There is no general historical introduction, no discussion of the special characteristics of Kentish Placenames, no comparison with those of the neighbouring counties of Sussex and Surrey. There are no lists of the elements used or of their distribution, no lists of personal-names, no collection or discussion of field-names. The treatment of minor names is inadequate and often unsatisfactory. Material for these is usuaUy to be found in such unpubhshed documents as court-roUs, ministers' accounts, extents and surveys, etc., not one of which has been used. It was, of course, 62 A SURVEY OF KENT PLACE-NAMES impossible for him to use the vast accumulation of such documents now to be found in the Kent Archives Office, but there were others in the British Museum and the Public Record Office. Since 1934, too, many additional volumes have been pubhshed in the series of Pipe RoUs, Curia Regis RoUs, Close and Patent RoUs, and Inquisitions post mortem. Work on other counties suggests that these wiU contain much valuable material. Many of WaUenberg's etymologies wUl need to be reconsidered. Obsessed at first by Zachrisson's antipathy to personal-name derivations, he postulated a number of unrecorded topographical terms, the majority being names of hUls or streams, and more than once, after a long discussion in favour of a stream-name, he was compeUed to admit that there was no stream there. In his later book, he modified his views and agreed that Zachrisson's reaction against derivation from personal-names had gone too far. But many of his etymologies are inconclusive. He gives two, or possibly three, alternatives and leaves the reader to make his own choice. It is true that for many place-names a definite etymology cannot be reached but it is an editor's duty to eliminate the impossible, so far as he can. Both unrecorded topographical elements and hypothetical personal-names undoubtedly do occur in place-names and Kent placenames need revision in the hght of the advances made in the 25 years since WaUenberg wrote. The frequent survival of otherwise unrecorded Old English personal-names in post-Conquest documents not only emphasizes the gaps in our knowledge of these names but, in a few instances, has actuaUy proved that names postulated to explain placenames did reaUy exist.1 Many place-names originaUy ending in •ingas, an early type denoting the settlement of a community, contain a personal-name. Rooting, from an original Rotingas, means " the men, followers or dependents of a man named Rota ". This personalname may weh be a nickname meaning " the merry one", but WaUenberg's interpretation that the settlers at Rooting were called " the merry, noble men " is impossible. A nickname may be applicable to a single individual, here the leader of the group, but to assume that aU the settlers at a particular place had the same characteristics, physical, mental or moral, is absurd. The founders of Yalding cannot aU have been old men or chieftains ; Ealdingas must be " the foUowers of Ealda ". Nor can aU the men of Detling have been " men of a lumpy, rounded stature " or those of MaUing " crazy, foolish men ", or those of Ratling " men making a rattling noise ". To test how far new material wUl confirm, correct or add to Wallenberg's work, a preliminary examination has been made of certain sources, ready to hand and chosen at random, and not used by him. 1 v. P. H. Reaney, Dictionary of British Surnames (1958), xix-xxiv. 63 A SURVEY OF KENT PLACE-NAMES The recently pubhshed Cartulary of St. Gregory, Canterbury,1 gives earher references for many places, a number going back to 1086-7. For Goldstone in Ash we have six references earlier than WaUenberg's first (1202). It occurs as Goldstanestune in 1086-7, which makes connection with Goldstan, son of Bruning, a juror at Sandwich in 1127, at least doubtful. Even if he were only 20 in 1086, he must have been 60 or more at this time and it is unlikely that a Saxon founded and gave his name to this farm between 1066 and 1086. The place was probably named before the Conquest from some other Goldstan. As often, the search for place-name material throws light on the history of the place itself. Bekesbourne appears in Domesday Book as Burnes, a name wliich continued in use throughout the twelfth century (to 1198). The church of St. Peter of Burnes was granted in alms to Edmund the priest by Rodbertus filius Godwini between 1136 and 1150, a grant confirmed by archbishop Theobald in 1143-50. The grantor is also caUed Robert de Burnes and Robert de Hastinges, and was the son of Godwine frenus ; thus, in spite of his French Christian name, he was of English descent. Some time before 1182, Eustace de Burnis (presumably his son) granted the church to the priory of St. Gregory. Between 1182 and 1190, Hugh de Bee had UlegaUy given the advowson of Burnis either to the church of Holy Trinity, Hastings, or to the Knights HospitaUers. The convent of Holy Trinity, Hastings, resigned its rights in the church of Liuingesburn' to St. Gregory. WUham del Bee, son of Hugh, after a dispute with Eustace de Burnis regarding the advowson of the church of Burnis, relinquished his claim. This connection with Hastings explains the alternative surname of Robert de Burnes. In the late twelfth century, his son Eustace and WiUiam de Bee held jointly the serjeanty of providing a ship for the king's service at Hastings and Bekesbourne became a noncorporate member of the Cinque Ports.2 Bekesbourne, like Littlebourne, Patrixbourne and Bishopsbourne, was originaUy named from the stream (OE burna) on wliich it stands, now the Nail Bourne. When it became necessary to distinguish between these four places, Bekesbourne was first caUed Liuingesburn', a name found from c. 1180, in common use in the thkteenth century, and occasionally as late as 1541. The tenant of Bekesbourne in 1066 was one Levine (OE Leofwine), from whom WaUenberg derives Liuingesburn. If this were correct, the form would be Leofwinesbume, or possibly Livinesburne. Liuingesburn presumes an OE Lyfingesburna or, possibly, Leofwinesburna, from OE Lyfing or Leofing. As Robert, who held the church c. 1136, and his father Godwine were Enghsh by 1 Cartulary of the Priory of St. Gregory, Canterbury, ed. A. M. Woodcook (Camden Third Series LXXXVUI), 1956. 2 ibid., 15-18, 27, 34-39, 164, 218, 221, 222, and p. xiv. 64 A SURVEY OF KENT PLACE-NAMES bkth, they may have been descendants of Leofwine, the tenant of 1066, but the time-factor suggests that Godwine was rather the grandson than the son of Leofwine. If so, Lyfing may have been a son of Leofwine and father of Godwine, and we have here an instance of a Saxon family retaining its possessions from 1066 to the end of the twelfth century. It may be noted that Leofwine alliterates with Lyfing, whUst Godwine contains the same second element as Leofwine, both characteristics of Anglo-Saxon nomenclature. The name Bekesbourne is not noted before 1270 by WaUenberg but clearly derives from the famUy of Hugh del Bee (c. 1190), most probably of French origin. Curlswood Farm in Nonington is identified by WaUenberg with crudes silba (873 BCS 536), a name which survived as late as 1434 as Cruddeswode. The wood may weU have been in this neighbourhood ; by metathesis the name may have become Curdeswode ; but no explanation of the modern form has been offered. This probably preserves the memory of the heks of Walter Crul " the curly-haked " who granted 5s. rent in Ewerlande (Overland in Ash) to the priory of St. Gregory c. 1215-27, a grant confirmed by Adam Crul and Dionisia his wife. The cartulary gives us forms for two names not in WaUenberg : Horton in Chartham (Hortune 1213-14) and Isingdane Wood in Waltham (Isendan' 1240-50) and (among others) an earher form for Winterage Farm in Elham : Wintering' 1215-40. This is clearly a singular name in -ing, not a name in -ingas. In any case, a meaning " early invaders who wintered here " is absurd. For Amets HiU in Stockbury, WaUenberg has only : " Cf. perhaps WUl. Amite 1327 Subs ". A surname Amite is most unlikely. It is probably a mis-reading of Amice, from the woman's name Amicia, surviving today in the surnames Amies, Amiss and Amys. In 1317 WiUiam atemethulle or ate Ametehelle was accused of stealing a cow worth 10s. of Richard Jordan and a sheep of Bertram Criel in the hundred of Twyferde.1 Stockbury is in Eyhorne hundred but no great distance from Twyford and cattle-stealers would not limit thek operations to the immediate neighbourhood of thek homes. This place-name is not common but is identical in origin with AmpthiU (Beds.), OE (crt) cemette-hytt " (place near the) ant-hill", the first element occurring also in Antley (Lanes). Amets HiU preserves the normal development of osmetic, with a pseudo-manorial s, as if from a surname. Parish histories often provide valuable material unobtainable except from the local historian with his special knowledge of local documents and topography. Ewing's smaU History of Cowden2 provides material for no fewer than ten places still on the map which 1 B. H. Putnam, Kent Keepers of the Peace, 1316-1317 (1933), 20, 83. a G. Ewing, History of Cowden, Tunbridge Wells, 1926. 65 A SURVEY OF KENT PLACE-NAMES are not included by WaUenberg : Basing Farm (1614), Beechenwood (1571), Friendly Green, caUed Bartlotts in 1505, from the famUy of WUham Bertelot (1416), Claydene (1556), Cowdenshaw (1476), Furnace Farm (1618), Glovers Haws (John Glover 1780), Saxbys (1516), from the famUy of John Saxpes (1505 ; also formerly caUed Oakdene and Boltings, from Hugh Botting who held Saxbys in 1555), Scarlets (Scarlets 1653, Scalehurst 1663), and Stridewood (1673). EdeUs owes its name to the famUy of John EydeU (1735) and Thomas EdeU (1760) and thus has no connection with WaUenberg's Robert Hedley. LudweUs is so caUed in 1558 from the family of Robert LudweU (1456) and is not from Lodelawe as WaUenberg hesitatingly suggests. Rickwoods derives from Laurence Rycarde (1465) and is not caUed Rickwood(s) untU the nineteenth century. It is clear from this that aU the parish histories of Kent must be examined, but care and discrimination are essential for it is not always easy to decide whether the author has modernized his forms or is quoting his documents accurately. Here, too, we would appeal to aU authors of papers in Archceologia Cantiana who have used old documents to quote accurately the forms of place-names and surnames, where necessary giving identifications in brackets. From our point of view, the valuable paper of Wing Commander Dumbreck on The Lowy of Tonbridge1 is of less value than it might have been because of an inconsistency in the transcription of place-name forms. Ensfield, Ramshurst and Tapners (p. 140) are certainly not the forms in the document of 1279. For these, we must still consult the manuscript. Articles on subjects of aU kinds unconnected with place-names can from time to time provide us with material. The name of a juror of 1279, Jocey Underevere,2 gives us the first reference to Under River " (the place) beneath the edge or brow of the hUl", i.e. River HUl, earher ozt yeere yfere, ME otter efer, atte rever. The earhest fuU form for HUdenborough so far noted is Hildenborough in the Patent Rolls for 1389. The final element has not previously been explained. In 1279 we have reference to doing service and attending " the borough of HUden ",3 so that the final element is the Kentish borgh, " the tithing of HUden". Although he gives the form Whitley ahas Whitcliff (1555) for Whitley Forest in Chevenhig, WaUenberg prefers to derive the name from a 1313 Whitehell " white hUl ". But -hill cannot become -ley and the true origin is made clear in the forms Witcliff and Witliffwood in the Patent RoUs for 1554, " the white chff or slope ", with the same development as in the colloquial pronunciation of Trottischffe as Trotsley. For Tyland in Boxley, WaUenberg's sole form is Tylond 1535, derived from OE teag " tye, enclosure ". In 1 Arch. Cant., LXXII (1958), 138-147. 2 ibid., p. 139. 3 ibid., p. 141. 66 A SURVEY OF KENT PLACE-NAMES 1629 the manor-house is caUed Tylelands and in the parish was also a Tyle Pond,1 clearly a place where material for tUes was obtained or where tUes were made. The search for place-name forms occasionaUy produces material which suggests interesting historical possibilities, even if the place itself cannot be definitely identified. An Anglo-Saxon charter of 616-18 (BCS 837) gives the bounds of Burmarsh : on the east the land of the South Saxons (sUpsaxe lond), on the south the land of the people of Folkestone (terra folcanstaninga), on the west the land of the king, and on the north the river Limen. The last is the only point which can be identified on the map today. Burmarsh is due south of Port Lympne which preserves the origmal name of the river now represented by the Royal MUitary Canal. Fohkestone is some distance away to the east and the terra folcanstaninga probably refers to land owned by the Saxon monastery of Folkestone of which no records remain. They also had land not far away, north of Warehorne (J>es hiredes land to Folcanstane 830 BCS 396), and near Dover, at West Chffe (1038-44 KCD 769). Of suysaxe lond, WaUenberg remarks : "It cannot refer to Sussex itself since this county is rather far away. Besides it seems impossible for Sussex to form the eastern boundary of any place in Kent". About seven mUes north of the old river Limen and due north of Burmarsh is Hastingleigh, a name whose significance appears to have escaped notice. It can only mean " the woodland belonging to the Hcestingas ", the people of Hastings, the name of a community or folk which settled in East Sussex probably in the latter half of the fifth century. An eighth-century chronicle written in Northumbria records that in 771 Offa, king of the Mercians, subdued by force of arms the tribe of the Hestingi who must have been identical with the Hcestingas of Sussex and this mention of thek subjugation in a Northumbrian annal implies that they were a people of some importance. They were stUl regarded as a separate people as late as 1011 when the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that by that year the Danes had harried, south of the Thames, " aU the Centingas and the South Saxons and the Hcestingas and Surrey and Berkshke, and Hampshire and a great part of WUtshire ". A people whose individuahty could be remembered for some 500 years and who, at the end of that period, could be mentioned in a national chronicle side by side with the people of Kent and the South Saxons must have been more than a mere fragment of a larger kingdom. We know from the few Saxon charters which have survived for Sussex that at the end of the seventh century there were hving at the same time in Sussex three men who bore the name of king, whUst the names of the kings of Sussex on record suggest there 1 ibid., pp. 12, 13. 67 A SURVEY OF KENT PLACE-NAMES may have been two distinct dynasties, one of which may have ruled the Hcestingas. What territory this fohk occupied is uncertain, but it must have been extensive, covering at least the Rape of Hastings, perhaps the whole of East Sussex, for it is significant that the Anglo- Saxon Chronicle records no fighting by AeUe east of Pevensey, whUst Hastingford in Hadlow Down in the Rape of Pevensey undoubtedly means " the ford of the Hcestingas ", probably a ford on thek boundary, the entrance to thek territory.1 Did this territory of theks extend as far east as Hastingleigh, near Wye ? At first sight it appears unlikely. But we must look at the countryside as it was at the end of the fifth century. Neither archseology nor place-names provide any evidence for early settlement south of the North Downs. The heavy clay of the Weald was weU-wooded and avoided by early settlers. The area of Romney Marsh from Hythe to Guldeford Level was even less attractive for different reasons. Both areas were thinly populated, even at the time of Domesday Book,2 and about A.D. 500 the whole was probably a no man's land, the effective occupation of south-east Kent ending along the North Downs from FoUiestone to Wye and that of Sussex at the Rother and the mouth of the Brede. The modern Hastingleigh may be a relic of a once extensive wood near the boundaries of the Hcestingas. Westenhanger may, perhaps, also refer to men from Sussex. It is admittedly a difficult name and its forms are not easy to reconcUe. Most common are forms hke Ostringehangre (1212) ; those like Estringeshangre (1231) WaUenberg regards as errors due to confusion of o and e in the manuscripts. Westringehangre (1270) he regards as due to folk etymology, from association with west. But this is clearly the origin of the modern form and the two earhest forms, admittedly poor ones, also belong here : Witingehanger c. 1140-4, Witingehanga 1135-54. These may weU be from an OE Westeringa-hangra " the wooded hiU of the men of the west ". WaUenberg's derivation from oster " protuberance " is tautological " wooded hiU of the men hving on the hUl " and does not account for the modern form. Westerham " the west homestead or viUage " occurs as Osterham in Domesday Book but Osterland in Stoke, so speUed in 961, is never found with an initial W. A further possible indication that here we have a border area where Kent and Sussex once met is perhaps the name of Canter Wood in Elham. This is not recorded before 1240 (Kanteworth') but may weU be old, a paraUel with Canterton (Hants) and Conderton (Worcs), the latter occurring as Cantuaretun in an eleventh-century copy of a 1 v. A. Mawer and F. M. Stenton, The Place-names of Sussex (1929-30), xxiiixxiv. a Cf. the maps in F. W. Jessup, History of Kent (1958), pp. 34, 35, 47. 68 A SURVEY OF KENT PLACE-NAMES charter of 875. The origin is not certain. Both these may be " farm of the men of Kent " (OE Cantwara-tun) or " farm of a woman maned Cozntwaru' (OE Cazntware-tun), a personal-name not on record. WaUenberg prefers to derive these names from the personal-name, chiefly on the ground that a settlement of Kentish men in Worcestershire (and in Hampshke) is a theory unproved " without the support of safe instances of simUar migration names ". But we have certainly one undoubted example, a settlement of East Saxons at Exton in Hampshke.1 Cantwara-wory> should mean " enclosure of the men of Kent ", " much too vague and sweeping a designation for a place of small importance situated in Kent " says WaUenberg, who consequently suggests a possible meaning " enclosure of the men of Canterbury ", though they were undoubtedly called burhware " men of the fortified town ", as in Burmarsh and the Domesday form of the lathe, Borowart. Canterbury (OE Cantwara-burh) was the " fortified town of the men of Kent " and a name Cantwara-wory may weU have been given to emphasize that this was Kentish territory. The term worth is old and became obsolete early for it is almost completely absent from the literary records of Old Enghsh. It is associated with a " hedge " or " fence " and compounded in some early place-names in -ingas and ham. Perhaps the enclosure at Canter Wood was for defence against the Hazstingas of Hastingleigh and the Westeringas of Westenhanger. The present boundary between Sussex and Kent north and east of Rye is clearly artificial and has varied. In a Sussex charter of 772 (BCS 208) we have the bounds of Icklesham. None of the points can be identified except that they reached o 3 Cantwara mearc'' the boundary of the men of Kent". In 830 (BCS 396) the southern boundary of Warehorne was Seaxana meare " the boundary of the Saxons". Neither of these can be equated with the present boundary nor have we at present the material to explain the changes. It is possible that Hastingleigh was an outlying swine-pasture of the men of Hastings. I t would be no more difficult for them to reach it than for the men of Thanet to reach Tenterden " the swine-pasture of the men of Thanet ". What is clear is that the early history of east Sussex and south-west Kent is more complicated than we had imagined. A thorough search of aU available documents might throw more hght on the problem. THE COLLECTION OP MATERIAL A place-name may have altered considerably both in pronunciation and spelling in the course of the centuries. Wateringbury, for example, is speUed both Wodringaberan and Uuotryngebyri c. 995, whUst Pembury was Peppingeberia c. 1100. Before we can attempt an etymology, we 1 est East Seaxnatune, 940 BCS 758. 69 9 A SURVEY OF KENT PLACE-NAMES need as fuU a coUection of early forms as possible to show the development of the name down to its modern form. These wiU be found scattered in sources of aU ldnds and wiU seldom or never turn up in the correct, chronological order. The only method is to coUect all the place-name forms from a particular document and, as we proceed with other documents, to arrange and combine aU the forms for each name. Problems of identification wUl often arise, but by noting any useful hints in the text, these problems can frequently be solved. Some place-names have not survived in use, but they should be noted as they may be of interest historicaUy or may help in determining the meaning of other names which have survived elsewhere in this or other counties. The essential quahties needed in coUecting this material are accuracy in copying, legible hand-writing and a healthy distrust of indexes. Forms should always be copied from the text; indexers are not infallible ; misprints may occur and names may be omitted from the index ; but indexes are often very valuable in providing identifications. Very many, probably most, of the printed sources can be searched by anyone wUhng to spend time and patience on the work. But some sources requke special qualifications. In dealing with Anglo-Saxon charters, for example, a knowledge of Old Enghsh is obviously necessary. Such documents as the Curia Regis RoUs, the early Close and Patent RoUs and monastic cartularies are printed in the original Latin. The text of these early documents frequently contains information of value for the identification and sometimes for the etymology of the name and this would be missed if the original could not be understood. But the later volumes and numerous other sources are in English abstracts or translations and requke no special qualifications. There is work which every member of the Society can undertake and we appeal to aU to make some contribution. An unusually large number of Anglo-Saxon charters has survived relating to lands in Kent. Very many of the places mentioned have been identified with certainty ; some of the identifications proposed cannot be accepted ; some are doubtful ; some places are stUl unidentified. On the working out of the bounds contained in many of these charters, good work has akeady been done, particularly by WaUenberg and Dr. Gordon Ward, but here, too, there are doubts and difficulties and places stiU unidentified. AU these bounds need reconsideration, both on the map and in the field. The clue to the identification of many such names may be found in the reappearance of the name in later documents and on Tithe maps and for this we need the help of the local historian and field-worker. We have had promises of some such assistance and appeal for more. It is interesting and fascinating work. 70 A SURVEY OF KENT PLACE-NAMES Another problem, peculiar to Kent, and to some extent overlapping with the last, is the identification of the denns or swinepastures in the Weald belonging to distant, upland manors. These are frequently mentioned in Anglo-Saxon charters as belonging to a particular estate but no indication is given of thek situation. Very many are stUl unidentified and the problem is complicated by the fact that the same modern name occurs more than once in different parishes, whUst it is often difficult to equate an early form with a modern name. The necessary material is probably hidden in unpubhshed manorial records and here is work for the historian who can incidentaUy provide valuable material for the study of these place-names. SOURCES These are of two main classes, national records from which material relating to Kent needs to be abstracted and documents concerned only with the county. The first type is voluminous, including the long series of Close, Patent and Fine RoUs, Feudal Aids and Inquisitions post mortem, and, for the later periods, the Letters and Papers of Henry VIII, Privy Council Records and the Calendars of State Papers. To confront potential helpers with this vast array of material would probably be fatal to the proposed project. That is why co-operative effort is needed. Each volume searched is one stage nearer the end and we shaU welcome offers to extract the Kent material from one or two or more of these volumes. They are not easily accessible, but arrangements can be made for borrowing them through the Kent County Library. In addition, there are the volumes of the Record Commission in which the arrangement is largely topographical, as in the Hundred RoUs, Taxatio Ecclesiastica, Valor Ecclesiasticus, etc. And, with the provisos mentioned above, we want all the relevant material from aU the parish histories pubUshed. A great deal of valuable material, often of a kind unavailable elsewhere, is buried in unpubhshed manuscripts in various depositories, the British Museum, the Pubhc Record Office, the Bodleian and the Cambridge University Library, and in certain Kent Libraries, as at Sevenoaks. Particularly important are the coUections of the Kent Archives Office at Maidstone and the Cathedral Library at Canterbury. Court-roUs, rentals and surveys are especiaUy valuable for local names. A systematic attack wUl have to be made on aU these, but in the meanwhUe time can be saved and duplication of effort avoided if those working on subjects which take them to manuscripts wiU come to our aid. They frequently accumulate references to place-names which the nature of thek subject makes it unnecessary for them to print. If they would spare us a httle time and send us this material, it would make it unnecessary to consult the same manuscripts again. 71 A SURVEY OF KENT PLACE-NAMES One task we wish to accomplish is to compile a list of field-names still in use in the various parishes and, where the material is available, to explain the history of these names. For this, we need local help, persons who wiU compUe these parish lists and coUect references from local sources. We want the field-names for each parish from the Tithe Awards and Maps, with any relative information about the topography, pronunciation, or any associated local lore. For the Rochester Diocese, these Tithe Awards are now preserved in the Kent Archives Office at Maidstone ; those for the Canterbury Diocese are at Canterbury. But a copy was always supphed to the incumbent, so that work on them can usuaUy be done in the parish itself. It is useful to insert the names on a tracing of the 6 in. map. Estate maps, Auctioneers' Catalogues, etc., wiU also be found useful. This work is a long-term project which can be accomplished only by continuous co-operative effort. It wUl pave the way for a fuU and definitive treatment of the place-names of the county, but can be combined with work on other aspects of county history. MeanwhUe, the material coUected wiU gradually provide a valuable series of references useful for various purposes. ARRANGEMENT OP MATERIAL Experience has proved that the most convenient method of arrangement is to use shps, 5 in. by 2\ in. As one side of the paper only is used, any paper with one side blank can be used, provided it is not too flimsy or too stiff. In the top left-hand corner, enter K (for Kent). For parish-names, write the name as a heading, underlined. The spelling used for aU names is that found on the Ordnance Survey maps. Below this, copy the speUing found in the document, adding the date and the abbreviation for the source. Where the volume is weU-indexed, no further reference is necessary, but references should be added for names not indexed or wrongly indexed. At the foot of the shp, add any relevant note from the document. But please do not add etymological speculations. The abbreviations used for sources are those now regarded as standard in the Place-name Society's volumes, e.g., Pat for Patent RoUs, CI for Close RoUs, AD for the Calendar of Ancient Deeds (with number of volume added), etc. For other sources, an abbreviation should be agreed on before beginning work. For names other than parishnames, add after K in the top lefthand corner, the parish name in brackets, and the name of the place (underlined) as a heading. If the place-name is known to have disappeared, add (lost) in brackets ; if it is a surviving field-name, add (fid) to the modern form ; if nothing is known beyond the former existence of the name, note the parish, but leave the heading blank. 72 A SURVEY OF KENT PLACE-NAMES K Ea s t Peckham Pecham 1317 Ass 18 Richard de Brenchisle, rector of [East] Pecham. (Ed.). K(Petham) Debden Court Henry de Diepedane 1190-1210 St Greg 144 witness in Petham K Boughton Alulf Bocton' a. 1219 St Greg 199 Alulphus de Bocton' ib. K(Stalisfield) Derbies Court William Derebi 1213-14 St Greg 159 witness 'in curia de Stalesfeld' K(Marden) Marden Thorn Adam atte Thome de Merdenne 1317 Ass 62 K(Nackington) la Mollonde 1225 St Greg 169 Where the same spelling of a name is found repeatedly in, e.g. a single volume of the Close Rolls, it is sufficient to enter this on a single slip, giving the outside dates, with the number of examples, e.g. Sudberia 1286-90 (10). OccasionaUy, a list of consecutive place-names or field-names wiU be met with which cannot be placed in a particular parish. Copy them out as they stand, on one slip, noting any information hkely to be of help in identification. Names of lathes and hundreds should also be noted, together with those of rivers, streams and roads. One difficulty of identification is that the same place-name occurs more than once in the county and it is often not clear to which the particular form belongs. Boctone, e.g. may refer either to Boughton Aluph, Boughton under Blean, Boughton Malherbe or Boughton Monchelsea. It is important that the form should be assigned to the correct place and any information relative to the identification should be added, e.g. the name of the hundred, the honour, the tenant, etc. AU abbreviations used for manuscript sources (and these only) should be underlined and wiU be printed in italics. Thus, Add (Additional MSS in the British Museum, foUowed by number) ; Ass (Assize RoU, foUowed by number and membrane) ; Ct (unpubhshed 73 A SURVEY OF KENT PLACE-NAMES court-roU ; with reference of depository, e.g. SC/2 203/29 (PRO) ; KAO/U89 ; or owner, if in private hands). Thus, AD iv refers to a deed printed in volume iv of the Catalogue of Ancient Deeds, but AD A 14091 is an unpubhshed deed in the Pubhc Record Office. To avoid duplication of effort, the Hon. Sec. should be informed of the specific work undertaken, and, when completed, a shp should be made showing exactly what has been done, e.g. Pat 1216-34, or AD Vol. 3, etc. This should be signed ; all assistance given wUl be fuUy acknowledged in due course. AU enqukies and offers of help should be addressed to Mr. J . M. Farrar, Hon. Sec, Kent Place-names Committee, Kent Archives Office, County HaU, Maidstone. 74