Researches and Discoveries

323 RESEARCHES AND DISCOVERIES A NEW PALAEOLITHIC HANDAXE DISCOVERY FROM THE FORDWICH PLATEAU During recent engagements with the Fordwich town community group for his ph.d. research the author was informed about the discovery in the early 1950s of a small crude handaxe of the classic pear-shaped Fordwich type. Almost all of our knowledge of the Palaeolith assemblage attributed to Fordwich is as a result of the collections made between 1923 and 1933 by Dr Willock (‘Other Gifts’, 1931) and Percy Powell-Cotton, but mainly Dr Tom Armstrong Bowes of Herne Bay (Roe 1981). It has long been expected that this enigmatic assemblage of trihedral picks, crude pear-shaped handaxes and more refined bifacial handaxes may be evidence for one of the earliest Acheulean handaxe industries in Britain. Chronology of the local terrace sequences suggests that the oldest of these handaxes may be from the MIS 15 interglacial (Bridgland et al. 1998; Knowles, in press); new dating work is adding strength to this theory but is not yet conclusive, deposits at the edge of the Fordwich plateau are suggestive of being deposited during MIS 14 (Key et al., 2022). No new discoveries of in-situ artefacts which are comparable with those in the original collections have been made in nearly ninety years. The location of the 1950s discovery of this handaxe, at a site known as Moat Rough, which is separate from where the original collections were made 0.7km south-east, gives a significant new insight as it shows that the artefact-bearing deposits are more widespread than originally thought. The condition of the handaxe is comparable with the existing assemblage; it is in a slightly to rolled condition which would suggest that when found it had not been transported far from its location of original discard. Collection and Site History The collection of Dr Tom Armstrong Bowes forms the majority of the extant assemblage, his original collection numbering over 600 artefacts, although the entire known extant collection is approximately half of this. Bowes immediately recognised the significance of the artefacts being found at Fordwich as they appeared to be of a cruder form and were from a higher elevation in the local sequence; to him it was clear that they were from a higher terrace than the discoveries being made elsewhere in the district, at Canterbury, Sturry and Reculver. So, he drew up an exclusive contract with Canterbury antiquity dealer Valentine Sinclair, so that he could be supplied with the best ‘Stones’ [sic] from the newly worked pit by Brett and Son’s, just north of the Stodmarsh Road and south of Fordwich. The pit became known as Fordwich High Pit. RESEARCHES AND DISCOVERIES 324 The Site The 1950s handaxe was discovered by Penny Lewis on her parent’s land at Moat Rough, which was being exploited for gravel extraction in the post-war period. Penny often searched the gravel pit to add to her fossil and curio collection. The handaxe was spotted about midway down a north face of the gravel cutting, Penny recalled that the depth of the pit was about eight feet and the handaxe was at eye level, approximately four feet below ground level. It is not known if the handaxe was stratified or in a loose slope deposit or spoil heap against the pit edge. Its precise geological stratigraphic depositional state is therefore uncertain. Sections have been cut in another adjacent old pit in attempt to understand the nature of the deposits and how they may relate to the other sites on the Fordwich plateau. These are revealing a sequence of topsoil, loess, coarse poorly bedded gravels, coarse sand and gravel, coarse gravels, sands, coarse gravels, bedrock sand. Geoarchaeological Interpretation The site (Moat Rough) is a large open glade surrounded by managed coppice woodland, approximately 1km south of Fordwich town hall and approximately 100m south of Stodmarsh road, at an elevation between 40-45m aod ( Fig. 1). The topography of the site is a plateau at elevations 50-40m, which lies east of Canterbury and south of the present course of the River Great Stour. An isthmus of Fig. 1 The Fordwich Plateau, showing the find spot in relation to sites of current and previous investigations and their expected age. RESEARCHES AND DISCOVERIES 325 this plateau descends in elevation towards the east and separates the valleys of the Great and Little Stour. Across this plateau lie the fluvial sands and gravels of the Fordwich Terrace, Coleman’s 125ft Terrace (1952). The bedrock geology is composed of Palaeogene beds, the dip of which is such that exposures of differing formations are variously revealed as the elevation rises across the plateau, from east to west: Thanet Sand, Upnor Formation, Harwich Formation. At the boundary between the Upnor and Harwich formations is a distinct band of Tertiary pebbles. The Handaxe The handaxe is a crudely made biface of Wymer (1968) type D (crude pointed); it exhibits similar characteristic to handaxes collected by Boucher de Perthes from Moulin Quignon (Antoine et al. 2019), characterized by deep flake removals on both faces from a hard hammer (Fig. 2). It has remnant patches of cortex on both faces and the butt, which has only been partially worked, establishing that it has been reduced from a small irregular or cylindrical flint nodule, such as are typically found locally in the alluvial gravels. Although the handaxe has been bifacially worked, its refinement ratio using Roe’s methodology (Roe, 1968) (max thickness to breadth) is low (0.83); when viewed in section it appears almost lozengeshaped. The laterals are quite battered but it is possible to establish that when fresh the usable cutting edge would have only encompassed the top half (point). It is patinated and stained a deep ocherous colour with Fe-oxide staining. Fig. 2 Handaxe FMR 001. RESEARCHES AND DISCOVERIES 326 Conclusion After lying fallow for decades, the ancient river deposits of the Stour on the Fordwich Plateau and the Palaeoliths that have been derived from them are now receiving much needed renewed scientific investigation. The addition of this handaxe to the known assemblage indicates that the artefact-bearing fluvial gravels, which have yielded crude handaxe types, are widespread across the Fordwich Plateau. This gives a greater scope for finding potential in situ artefacts, which will help to answer long-standing question on the antiquity of the Fordwich handaxes, and whether they represent the earliest north-western advance of the Acheulean culture. acknowledgments The author would like to thank the following for their help with this paper and ongoing research in the Fordwich area. June Hardcastle from the Fordwich Community group for liaising with residents and arranging talks. Roger Green for ongoing assistance with facilitating and helping with fieldwork. Penny Lewis for allowing us to excavate on her land and for allowing us to stud y her handaxe. pete knowles bibliography Antoine, P., Moncel, M.-H., Voinchet, P., Locht, J.-L., Amselem, D., Hérisson, D., Hurel, A. and Bahain, J.-J., 2019, ‘The earliest evidence of Acheulian occupation in Northwest Europe and the rediscovery of the Moulin Quignon site, Somme valley, France’, Scientific Reports, 9 (1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-49400-w Bridgland, D., Keen, D., Schreve, D.and White, M., 1998, ‘Quaternary drainage of the Kentish Stour’, in J.B. Murton, C.A. Whiteman, M.R. Bates, D.R. Bridgland, A.J. Long, M.B. Roberts and M.P. Walker (eds), The Quaternary of Kent and Sussex: Field Guide (pp. 39-44). Quaternary Research Association, London. Coleman, A., 1952, Some aspects of the development of the Lower Stour, Kent, Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, 63(1), 63-IN65. https://doi.org/10.1016/ s0016-7878(52)80024-0 Key, A., Lauer, T., Skinner, M., Pope, M., Bridgland, D.R., Noble, L. and Proffitt, T., 2022), ‘On the earliest Acheulean in Britain: first dates and in-situ artefacts from the MIS 15 site of Fordwich (Kent, UK)’, Royal Society Open Science, 9(6). https://doi. org/10.1098/rsos.211904 Knowles, P.G. (in press), A Magnificent Ficron and Assemblage Contianing Cleavers from Canterbury: A Reanalysis of the Collection of Dr Thomas Armstrong Bowes and a Problem of Provenance, Lithics, 41. Other Gifts, 1931, The British Museum Quarterly, 6 (3), 88-91. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/4421338 Roe, D.A., 1968, ‘British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic handaxe groups’. PPS, 34, 1-82. Roe, D.A., 1981, The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Periods in Britain, Routledge and Kegan Paul. Wymer, J., 1968, Lower Palaeolithic archaeology in Britain as represented by the Thames Valley, London : J. Baker. RESEARCHES AND DISCOVERIES 327 A NEOLITHIC FLINT AXE FROM EAST WEAR BAY, FOLKESTONE In the spring of 2002 Adrian Weston found a Neolithic flint axe partially exposed in a section of slumped cliff near the high water mark at the foot of the cliff at East Wear Bay – NGR: TR 2426 3695. When the tide had turned the whole section of Gault Clay which had contained the axe had been washed away. In 2021 he contacted the writer to help identify the axe and to write a sh ort report on it. The axe is 113mm in length, 44mm in width, 25.5mm maximum thickness and weighs 157 gm. No cortex remains on the surface of the flint, which is coated in a mottled, silky patina varying from pale grey to almost black. The axe is fashioned on a large flake, resulting in a plano-convex profile, slightly thicker at the butt end and with parallel sides (Fig. 1). Both the dorsal and ventral faces have been extensively trimmed by flaking from both sides. The ventral face of the rounded cutting edge of the axe has been sharpened by the removal of several longitudinal flakes. The dorsal face has also been sharpened but has been re-sharpened at a much later date – probably in the Bronze Age – by the removal of 5 or 6 short, parallel flakes which have removed the surface patina and exposed the underlying black flint in this area (see A-A, Fig. 1)). The butt end of the axe (B-B) has also been modified, possibly at the same time, by the removal of three vertical flakes to produce an edge which might conceivably have been intended for use as a scraper although there is no wear to indicate that it was used in this way. It is possible that the axe is a roughout or a preform, intended eventually to be ground and polished (Butler 2005, pp.139-140). However, the implement falls well within the range of shape and size identified as axes at Grimes Graves (Mercer and Saville 1981, p. 52): axes nos. F103 and F105, illustrated on pp. 98 and 99, most Fig. 1 A Neolithic flint axe from East Wear Bay, Folkestone. RESEARCHES AND DISCOVERIES 328 closely resemble the axe from East Wear Bay. The slight asymmetry in the crosssection of the axe might suggest that it should be classified as an adze: however, Saville uses the term axe to describe all such implements, citing ethnographic evidence that axes and adzes are used for exactly similar functions (Mercer and Saville 1981, p. 8). The find spot is immediately below the site of the Roman Villa where Neolithic flint material has been discovered during recent excavations. The cliffs here are in a constant state of erosion, due to the destabilising presence of the underlying Gault Clay and landslips are common, especially in winter. The axe may well have been carried to the find spot in this way. A Neolithic polished flint axe was discovered nearby in December 2013 (Holman 2020). Other Neolithic axes have been found on the high ground north of Folkestone. The late Geoff Halliwell kindly drew the author’s attention to the parallel of the Folkestone axe with the Grimes Grave material. richard hoskins references Butler, C., 2005, Prehistoric Flintwork. Mercer, R.J. and Saville, A., 1981, Grimes Graves, Norfolk Excavations 1971-72: Volume II. Holman, D., 2020, ‘A Neolithic Polished Flint Axe from East Wear Bay, Folkestone’, Archaeologia Cantiana, cxli, 283-4. SYDRACKE HILCUS, DESIGNER OF THE KING’S DUCK DECOY IN ST JAMES’ PARK, LONDON: SUBSEQUENTLY BUILDER OF THE GROVEHURST DECOY AT MILTON-NEXT-SITTINGBOURNE It is generally accepted that pipe duck decoys were introduced into England by Dutch engineers embanking the Lincolnshire Fens in the late sixteenth century. A second period of decoy building was instigated by returning Royalists after the Restoration. Charles II built a decoy in St James Park ‘contrived’ by one Sydracke Hilcus, probably a Dutchman. Research into the building of a decoy at Grovehurst near Milton-next-Sittingbourne reveals an interesting connection. The author contributed a general review of Kentish Duck Decoys in the 2022 volume of Archaeologia Cantiana. St James’ Park Decoy King Charles II upon his return to the throne in 1660 undertook works of restoration to the royal palaces and parks. He employed French garden designer, André Mollet, to redesign St James’ Park as a formal garden with aviaries for the royal bird collection, a water feature in the form of a 2,800 feet long canal and a duck decoy. Mollet was appointed as ‘Gardener-in-Chief for St James’ Park’.1 The canal was constructed by Adrian May, the Royal Gardener. A Sydracke Hilcus was employed to build the decoy. The construction and management of duck decoys was shrouded in mystery and it is unlikely that Mollet had detailed knowledge of them although he had worked in Holland. Mollet’s original layout shows a possible decoy pond of a ‘formalized’ RESEARCHES AND DISCOVERIES 329 shape with one pipe but with trees planted to the north side only. The pond was isolated from the park by a system of channels and ponds and became known as ‘Duck Island’ (Map 1).2 How closely Mollet supervised the works is unknown. No doubt Hilcus insisted that more trees and shrubs be planted around the pond if the decoy was to be used with any success and more pipes would be required to take advantage of the varying directions of prevailing winds. Mollet died in mid-1665 so Hilcus may have then gained a freer hand in bringing the decoy to a successful completion. Though some have doubted that the decoy was a pipe decoy the royal accounts for materials and labour involved in its construction indicate that this was indeed so, probably with more than one pipe. These accounts further reveal that Sydracke Hilcus was paid thirty pounds to ‘contrive’ the decoy: Charles Rex – the works and services comprised in this account were done by our direction. 30 May 1671. To Edward Maybanke & Thomas Green for the digging of the Decoy, carrying out earth, leveling the ground bout the said Decoy, one hundred and twenty pounds, two shillings and eleven pence halfpenny. To Edward Storey – for wyer and other things used about the Decoy, and a hundred baskets for the ducks – eight pounds nine shillings. To Oliver Honey for paving the feeding place for the ducks and breaking ground – one pound, ten shillings. Map 1 André Mollet’s original design for St James Park showing the probable decoy marked ‘D’ (Wikimedia Commons). RESEARCHES AND DISCOVERIES 330 To Sir George Waterman – for severall netts for the Decoy – fifteen pounds, three shillings. To James Rimes – plants, sette and four hundred bolts of reeds for the use of the Decoy – fifteen pounds, eleven shillings and eight pence. To Edward Storey – for money paid to sundry workmen – for setting the reeds and polles round the Decoy, and wyering it – nine pounds, ten shillings. To Sydracke Hilcus, for the contriving of the decoy in St James’s Park – thirty pounds. For looking to the plantation, and pruning the trees in St James’s Parke – seventy three pounds and seven pence. …To John Scott for Carpenter’s work done in wharfing, and to making bridges, and for boards used about the Decoy, and other work – forty five pounds, fifteen shillings and four pence.3 Though the accounts are dated 30 May 1671, diarist John Evelyn noted a visit to St James’ Park on 29 March 1665 where ‘His Majesty is now finishing the Decoy in the Park’.4 Storey’s provision of ‘a hundred baskets for the ducks’ is an indication of Dutch influence – nesting baskets were a common feature of continental decoys. Sydracke Hilcus received £30 for his work vouched for by John Scott and Edward Storey. Edward Storey was later to be appointed Keeper of the King’s Birds and is still memorialized by Storey’s Gate at the entrance to the park. There is further possible evidence of the decoy in the form of an engraving dated 1665 showing the removal of some fowl from a net with the hooped entrances of two decoy pipes in the background (Fig. 1). The illustration appeared in The Fables of Aesop Paraphrased in Verse, adorned with Sculpture and illustrated by Ammotations. By John Ogilby, Esq. Master of His Majesty’s Revell’s in the Kingdom of Ireland. Printed by T. Roycroft for the Author, MDCLXV.5 Though the diver-like fowl are very unconvincing ducks the fable the drawing illustrates is said to have been ‘The Husbandman and the Stork’. What is very noticeable is the lack of cover around the pipes giving the distinct impression that they were a work in progress. Stylistically Czech exile Wenceslaus Hollar (1607- 1677) may have been responsible for this engraving. Hollar came to England first in 1637 and collaborated with Ogilby over a period of years contributing many illustrations to the Fables and other publications. Ogilby was in favour with Charles being appointed the Master of Revells in 1661.6 The public had unrestricted access to the park even when Charles himself was tending his birds. How long the pond existed as a functioning decoy is unknown, but a subsequent map of the park by Robert Morden and Philip Lea dated 1682 showed formal gardens and ponds, though still called the Decoy. However, decoymen were notorious for their aggressive attitude to disturbance of their domain and as purveyors of misinformation regarding the art and science of the decoy. The mention of Sydracke Hilcus in the royal accounts was until recently the only known reference to him.7 Grovehurst Decoy Sir Jonathon Keates of The Hoo, Kimpton, Hitchin, Hertfordshire, owned the RESEARCHES AND DISCOVERIES 331 Grovehurst Estate, situated within the parishes of Milton Regis and Iwade, consisting of almost 500 acres. The estate was evidently bought as an investment and rented out over the years as a whole, as four farms or in parts . The Parish Overseers’ Accounts for Milton Regis Holy Trinity parish church exist from 13 May 1671.8 For 21 November 1676 one ‘Sidrick Elkeson’ is listed as a tenant of ‘Sir Joh. Keets’ occupying land rented at £12 per annum for the purposes of the collection of the Poor Rate. Further entries record the subsequent history of this Grovehurst holding: Fig. 1 Illustration in John Ogilby’s, Fables of Aesop, dated 1665, probably drawn by Wenceslaus Hollar showing decoy pipes in course of construction (Payne-Gallwey, Ralph (1886). Date Tenant Owner Rent (£) 21 November1676 Sidrick Elkeson Sir Joh. Keets 12.00 11 June 1677 Sidreke Elken Sir Jonath Keat 12.00 28 November 1677 Sidrek Elkin Sir Jonath Keat 12.00 22 April 1678 Widdi Helkes Sir Jonath Keate 12.00 12 November 1678 Widoe Hilkes Sir Jonath Keet 12.00 14 May 1679 Widoe Hillkes Sir Jonath. Keet 12.00 RESEARCHES AND DISCOVERIES 332 A search for a record of Sidrek Elkin’s burial proved fruitless but the will of Sidrach Hilkes late of the parish of Milton next Sittingbourne was found ‘… by him uttered and declared in the time of his last sicknes whereof he dyed about the beginning of March 1678’. The will was ‘nuncupative’ – spoken – referring to his wife, unnamed. However, when proved on the 16 April 1678 administration was granted to his wife Elizabeth Hilkes in the absence of a named executor: The last will and Testament nuncupative of Sidrach Hilkes late of the parish of Milton next Sittingbourne in the County of Kent & Archdeaconry of Canterbury deceased by him uttered and declared in the time of his last sicknes whereof he dyed about the beginning of March 1677 [1678] he being then of perfect minde and memory & in his owne dwelling house and haveing a full intent to make his will & dispose of his estate did declare the same by word of mouth in these or the like words following vizt: he sayed that he did give unto his brother Epy Hilkes twenty shillgs and unto his two other brothers he did give two shillings & six pence a piece. And that he gave unto his kinswoman (who then dwelt with him as his servant) his white heifer and unto his man servant then dwelling with him he gave five shillgs And all the use of his goods & chells he gave unto his wife or he used words to the same effect & substance and did request the persons then psent or some of them to bear witnes tht what he declared was his will there being then & there psent the sevall all persons whose names are here unto subscribed: Thomas Seargeant The mke of Alice X Guilker The mke of Peter X Cooper The 16th day of April 1678 in the visitation of Sittingbourne before the lord official in the presence of me Paul Lukin Notary Public There was proved etc by the oaths as much as of Thomas Seargeant Alice Guilker and Peter Cooper witness as of Elizabeth Hilkes relict of the said deceased And thence was proved etc And because the said testator nowhere in his will named or constituted an executor so that the lord grants administration with the nuncupative will annexed to Elizabeth Hilkes the said relict present prius ad tact etc sworn in due form of law Saving the right of anyone else etc.9 On 28 May 1679 Eliz. Hilkes married Wm. Griffin at Holy Trinity, at Milton, as recorded in the Bishop’s Transcripts.10 William Griffin was a small farmer or grazier renting land as required as was local custom. His 13 May 1671 holdings were from four landowners: Rent (£) William Grifen: Mr Webb 06 00 more for Sir Jonathan Kytes Land 04 00 more for Squire Harbuts Land 08 00 more for Mr Filldons Land 03 00 RESEARCHES AND DISCOVERIES 333 Between 1671 and 1679 the rental value of his holdings varied between £14.00 and £21.00 p.a. A Holy Trinity Overseers’ Account entry dated 8 November 1679 listed William Griffin’s holdings as:11 Rent (£) William Griffin Mr Webb 05 00 for his clover field 03 00 for Sir Jonat: Keates meadow lands 10 00 for the Coy @ land Sir Jonat: Keates 12 00 This is the first documentary evidence of the Grovehurst decoy. One may assume that Sidrach Hilkes had spent his tenancy from November 1676 until his death in constructing the decoy and only after its completion and successful operation was its existence acknowledged as such in the parish accounts. After his marriage to Elizabeth Hilkes Griffin’s holdings varied from £30.00 to £51.00 pa. which may indicate investment financed through increased income from the decoy which was ideally situated to serve the London market by barge or hoy from Coldharbour or Milton Creeks. Conclusion It should be accepted that Sidrach Hilkes, as evidenced by his will, was the given name of he who built the decoy at Grovehurst, near Milton on land belonging to Sir Jonathan Keates and as the ‘contriver’ of the King’s decoy in St James’ Park, London. acknowledgments The author wishes to thank John Clarkstone and Mike Tillman for their help in preparing this paper for publication. Help and encouragement was also received from Dr Pat Reid. Margaret McGregor transcribed Sidrach Hilkes’ will. Grateful thanks are also due to the staffs of the Medway Archives, Strood; the Kent History and Library Centre, Maidstone; the Cathedral Archives at Canterbury, Sittingbourne Library and the East Sussex Record Office, Lewes. keith robinson references 1 André Mollet from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9 Mollet Accessed 9 September 2022 2 The original Duck Island within which the decoy was built was isolated from the rest of the park by a system of waterways. The decoy pond eventually fell from use becoming part of a formal garden design until becoming a stagnant pool which was replaced by a lawn. In 1827 John Nash redesigned the park. The canal was transformed into an irregular pool with an island – the Duck Island of today. Knox,Tim, Duck Island Cottage. http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/london.gardens/features/ dic.htm Accessed 28 July 2022. 3 Glasheen, Joan, St James’s, London, (1987), pp. 60-62. RESEARCHES AND DISCOVERIES 334 4 Evelyn, John, The Diary of John Evelyn, (Everyman’s Library Edition (1945), vol. 1, pp. 396-397. 5 Payne-Gallwey, Ralph, The Book of Duck Decoys (1886) Kessinger Legacy Reprint (2008), p. 9. 6 Fils, Nathan, Francis Barlow – Painter of Birds and Beasts, (Exhibition catalogue Clandon Park 2011), Hodnett, Edward, Francis Barlow, (1978), Sparrow, Walter Shaw, British Sporting Artists, Spring Books edition (1965) English born illustrator and painter Francis Barlow (c.1626- 1704) worked on the Fables with Hollar. Barlow painted the first English representation of a pipe decoy, that at Pyrford nr. Ripley, Surrey c.1670. Owner of the decoy, Denzil Onslow, had four large paintings by Barlow which, until the devastating fire of April 2015, hung at his descendants’ country seat of Clandon Park, Guildford. ‘The Decoy at Pyrford with waterfowl at sunset startled by a bird of prey’ was one of the four. Probably due to the obstructive behaviour of the decoyman Barlow’s view was from outside of the decoy’s boundary fence with only the very apex of a single pipe’s netting showing above. The decoyman’s hut and the decoy dog, in his shelter, are also shown outside the fence. Barlow is also credited with creating the first English depiction of shooting birds on the wing (1686) and the earliest print of a horse race (1687). 7 A Martin Hilkis of Peasmarsh, Sussex, signed Articles of Agreement with Harbert Morley of Glinde in the said county on 20 May 1665 to construct a decoy in a field named Bricklamps at Glinde for the sum of fifty pounds. The agreement was for a decoy with three pipes and the materials detailed were very similar to the royal accounts for St James Park. Hilkis died c.1669 evidenced by his widow’s remarriage. The building of a decoy and the similarity in names probably indicate a familial relationship between Sidrack Hilkes and Martin Hilkis. East Sussex Record office Ref GLY/1521, 1522. 8 Sittingbourne Library. Milton Regis Parish Chest. Overseer’s Accounts 1671-1792, P253 Reel 930. 9 Canterbury Cathedral Archives. Sidrach Hilkes’ will PRC/16/299/22. Transcription by Margaret McGregor AGRA. 10 Ibid Bishop’s Transcripts Milton Regis DCa/BT/124. 11 Milton Regis Parish Chest (see note 8). AN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY GOLD COIN HOARD FROM CHATHAM In July 1861 a hoard of eighteenth-century gold coins was discovered by labourers engaged in building work at Chatham. No record of this find appears on the Kent Historic Environment Record or in the standard catalogue of British postmedieval coin hoards,1 but a detailed account of the discovery did circulate in the contemporary English provincial press: ANCIENT GOLD COINS. – A remarkable scene has been witnessed on some newly appropriated building land in the New-road, Chatham, for several days past, hundreds of persons being occupied in digging and searching for gold coins, a number of which have been discovered among the soil and rubbish near which some houses are being erected. It appears that a great quantity of earth has been carted from one portion of Chatham, on which an old public-house called the Rose and Crown, together with other houses, formerly stood, all of which have recently been pulled down to make way for some improvements which are being carried out. The earth and rubbish on which the premises formerly stood were removed to the buildings in question, when it was accidentally discovered last week that a number of gold coins, some of them of large size, and very ancient, were among the soil. Immediately the discovery was made hundreds of persons flocked to the spot, and during nearly the whole of last week the ground near which the coins were found presented a most singular appearance, the persons engaged being employed in sifting and digging the soil as if in an Australian goldfield. Up to Saturday, it is stated, as many as 50 pieces had been obtained, some of them bearing new ‘spade’ guineas of George III, RESEARCHES AND DISCOVERIES 335 together with gold coins of the reign of Queen Anne, as well as a number of heavy gold coins of a character which has puzzled the numismatists to whom they have been shown to state what they are. How to account for the antique coins being found where they were appears exceedingly difficult. It is, however, stated that the Rose and Crown was the resort of men of war sailors at Chatham durin g the last century, and it is thought that the coins, however obtained, were hidden in some secluded part of the building, but the depositor never returning again to the house from sea, their existence was unknown until the discovery was made under the circumstances stated. This theory, however, would hardly account for the number of what appear to be exceedingly ancient foreign coins found with the others. Several of the coins have been disposed of by the fortunate finders for considerable sums. The “spade” guineas fetch 24s and 26s each.2 That ‘hundreds of persons flocked to the spot … sifting and digging the soil as if in an Australian goldfield’ comes as no great surprise, for the quoted sale prices of 24s. 0d. and 26s. 0d. per coin were roughly equivalent to eight days’ pay for a building labourer in the 1860s.3 Unfortunately, it is equally unsurprising that none of the coins survive in public collections, and it seems almost certain that the hoard was rapidly dispersed on the market before vanishing into private ownership or being melted down for bullion. While the disappearance of the coins is deeply regrettable, information presented in the contemporary newspaper report enables us to reconstruct aspects of this otherwise forgotten eighteenth-century coin hoard. In the first instance, the description confirms that the hoard consisted of up c.50 gold coins of Anne (1702- 1707) and George III (1760-1820), the latter specifically described as ‘“spade” guineas’, as well as a ‘number of heavy gold coins of a character which has puzzled the numismatists to whom they are shown’. Named for the distinctive shape of their reverse shield (Fig. 1), ‘spade’ guineas of George III were issued exclusively Fig. 1 Gold guineas of Anne (1702-1707) and George III (1760-1820), and a joe (4-escudos) and moidore (4000-réis) of John V of Portugal (1706-1750). RESEARCHES AND DISCOVERIES 336 in the period 1787-1799, and supply a terminus post quem (TPQ) of 1787 for the hoard as a whole. While the gold coins of Anne are not described in detail, comparison with the hoards from East Harsley (North Yorkshire, TPQ 1714), Moss Pitt (Staffordshire, TPQ 1727), and Old Ellerby (East Riding of Yorkshire, TPQ 1727) suggest that these are also highly likely to have been guineas.4 Quite how the ‘heavy gold coins of a character which has puzzled the numismatists’ should be identified is less clear, but must presumably be read in conjunction with the reference to ‘ancient foreign coins’. On this basis, the most plausible candidates are Portuguese 4-escudos and/or 4000-réis pieces, known in England as joes and moidores. Weighing 14.32g and 10.76g respectively, these coins were heavier than eighteenth-century English guineas (c.8.4g), and would have been alien to the collecting tastes of nineteenth-century Kentish numismatists. They were, however, rather more familiar sights in the preceding century. Finds of eighteenth-century coin weights designed for use with joes, moidores, and their fractions have been recorded in Broadstairs, Sandwich, Shepherdswell and Stone-cum-Ebony,5 and references to the coins themselves frequently appear in contemporary documentary sources: in February 1756, for instance, one John Saffery was accosted by thieves in Canterbury and robbed of a moidore and several English gold and silver coins, while in March 1761 a Miss Meredith had ‘a moidore, crown piece, and some silver’ stolen from her purse by a highwayman on the road heading south-east from Bromley.6 Similar combinations of English guineas and Portuguese joes and moidores have been recorded in coin hoards from Pillaton Hall (Staffordshire, TPQ 1724), Trembraze (Cornwall, TPQ 1727), and Cradley (Herefordshire, TPQ 1760), so are not an entirely anomalous presence in the Chatham find.7 The proportions of denominations are not stated, but a hoard containing c.50 guineas (21s. 0d.), moidores (27s. 0d.), and/or joes (36s. 0d.) would have had a minimum eighteenthcentury face value of £53 2s. 0d., a highly significant sum of cash equivalent to nearly three years’ wages for a craftsman in the 1780s.8 While the hoard was first found on land in New Road, a late Georgian residential suburb in south Chatham, the newspaper evidence suggests that it had actually originated in redeposited ‘soil and rubbish’ recently removed from the site of the Rose and Crown at 6 Fort Pitt Street, Ordnance Place (NGR TQ 754 675). Located c.360m south of Chatham High Street, the main eighteenth-century thoroughfare between London and Canterbury,9 the Rose and Crown was still run as an inn by its landlord, Frederick R. Boys (b.1809), as of late April 1861,10 and the ‘improvements’ that led to its demolition involved the construction of a new block of terraced housing first shown on Ordnance Survey maps dated 1864- 1866.11 Unfortunately, the newspaper report does not state whether the coins were found among building rubble or loose soil, and it is consequently impossible to determine whether they had been originally concealed in a structural context, such as a wall cavity or between floorboards, or instead within a pit dug into the inn’s garden soil. In any case, the deposition of a coin hoard on the site of an inn or public house is not unprecedented in the post-medieval period, and similar finds have been recorded from inns at Sproatley (East Riding of Yorkshire, TPQ 1694) and Luddington (Lincolnshire, TPQ 1787).12 While it is possible to interpret the hoard in romantic terms, perhaps representing the profits of local smugglers or the belongings of ‘men of war sailors…[who] never returned again to the house from RESEARCHES AND DISCOVERIES 337 sea’, it is more likely to have a prosaic explanation as the personal savings of an eighteenth-century pub landlord or resident. Its non-recovery could have resulted from a range of different personal misfortunes, whether occasioned by the owner’s death, relocation, or simple forgetfulness. The hoard found at Chatham in 1861 is one of only eight Georgian coin hoards known from historic Kent, most of which have been found in the north of the county close to the turnpike routes between London and the English Channel (Fig. 2). More than half of these hoards consist of gold coins and, like the Chatham find, must represent high-value cash accumulations hidden for safekeeping: notable parallels include a hoard of 17 gold coins found hidden beneath the floorboards at Boys Hall, Willesborough (TPQ 1720), as well as a hoard of 31 guineas, halfguineas and paper banknotes found in a sixteenth-century farmhouse at Deerton Street (TPQ 1800).13 By contrast, finds of silver and copper coins from Eltham (TPQ 1807), and Grove Park, Lewisham (TPQ 1727), seem to reflect the petty cash reserves or lost purses of the poorer sections of Georgian society, and are perhaps more typical of the everyday currency that circulated in the towns and villages of Kent during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Despite the county’s vulnerable coastal location in a century of frequent wars with France, there is no evidence to suggest that any of Kent’s Georgian coin hoards were hidden in response to invasion scares, and it is likely that most are straightforward cash accumulations concealed for safekeeping before the introduction of modern savings banks.14 murray andrews Fig. 2 Distribution of Georgian coin hoards found in Kent. RESEARCHES AND DISCOVERIES 338 references 1 I.D. Brown and M. Dolley, Coin hoards of Great Britain and Ireland, 1500-1967 (London, 1971). 2 Eddowes’s Shrewsbury Journal (24 July 1861, p. 5). Identical versions of this text were printed in the Bradford Observer (25 July 1861, p. 3), Durham County Advertiser (26 July 1861, p. 3), and Chester Chronicle (27 July 1861, p. 6), while an abbreviated version appeared in the Atlas (27 July 1861, p. 11). 3 G. Clark, ‘The condition of the working class in England, 1209-2004’, Journal of Political Economy 113 (2005), pp. 1307-40. 4 P.H. Robinson, ‘The eighteenth-century coin hoard from Pillaton Hall, Staffs.’, British Numismatic Journal 40 (1971), p. 124; C.S. Briggs, ‘Numismatics from newsprint 1753-1884: some lost Yorkshire hoards exposed’, Yorkshire Numismatist 4 (2012), p. 286, no. 10; M. Andrews and E. Ghey, ‘Coin hoards from England, Scotland, and Wales 2020’, British Numismatic Journal 90 (2020), p. 254, no. 210. 5 Portable Antiquities Scheme KENT5182, PUBLIC-AED203, PUBLIC-3D43A1, PUBLIC- 768195. 6 Kentish Post (11 February 1756, p. 4); Berrow’s Worcester Journal (5 March 1761, p. 2). 7 J. Allies, On the ancient British, Roman, and Saxon antiquities and folk-lore of Worcestershire (London, 1852), p. 241; I.D. Brown and M. Dolley op. cit., p. 38; P.H. Robinson op. cit. pp. 124-135. 8 G. Clark op. cit., p. 1325. 9 F.H. Panton, ‘Turnpike roads in the Canterbury area’, Archaeologia Cantiana 102 (1986), pp. 171-91. 10 F.R. Melville, Melville & Co.’s Directory and Gazetteer of Kent (London, 1858), 296; Kew, The National Archives (TNA) RG 9/478, p. 37. 11 Ordnance Survey 1:500 County Series (Kent), sheets XIX.7.17 and XIX.7.18. 12 I.D. Brown and M. Dolley op. cit., p. 38; C.S. Briggs, op. cit., p. 290, no. 23. 13 M.M. Archibald, ‘The Willesborough, Ashford (Kent), hoard’, British Numismatic Journal 40 (1971), pp. 120-122; B.J. Cook and V.H. Hewitt, ‘The Teynham, Kent, hoard of coins and banknotes’, British Numismatic Journal 60 (1990), pp. 139-141. 14 Kent’s earliest savings banks opened in 1816, and were progressively rolled out across the county in the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries: J.T. Pratt, A Summary of the Savings Banks in England, Scotland, Wales, & Ireland (London, 1846), pp. 67-73. See also P. Tann, ‘Country Banking’, in An Historical Atlas of Kent (Chichester, 2004), pp. 132-3. THE TRACTION ENGINE EXPLOSION BY ALL SAINTS, MAIDSTONE: DEVASTATION OF MONUMENTAL INSCRIPTIONS IN CHURCHYARD Newspaper reporting of the time provides ample details of the tragic incident. The Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald published the following item on the 11 December 1880: Terrible Boiler explosion in Maidstone. Loss of life. About three o’clock on Friday morning a frightful explosion occurred by the bursting of a boiler of a traction engine, in Mill-street, near All Saints’ Church. The shock was felt all over the town, it being so severe that it shook some of the people living near out of their beds. The engine and boiler are blown to atoms, pieces lying about a considerable distance away. About twenty yards of the churchyard wall, with massive pieces of iron, headstones, trees, etc., have been blown all over the RESEARCHES AND DISCOVERIES 339 churchyard, and Mr. Clement’s carpenter shop has also been very much damaged. Such a scene of wreck has never been witnessed in Maidstone bef ore. Unfortunately, the explosion was of a fatal character, one of the men, named Underdown, being killed on the spot; while two others were seriously injured. The story of the catastrophe may be told in a few words. A traction engine belonging to Messrs. Jesse Ellis and Co., and drawing two trucks laden with manure, left Mr. Monckton’s wharf on the Medway at one o’clock in the morning, and passing through the town had arrived in Mill-street, when one of the lamps went out. In order to relight it a stoppage occurred. The engine was in charge as usual, of three men: Frank Underwood, 19, stoker, and Henry Reader, 19, labourer, both residing at 45, Perryfields, and Moses Martin, 26, driver, of Thornhills. The lamp having been relighted, a start was again affected and when the wheel had made but one revolution, the boiler burst. Martin, the driver, was blown from his position into the road, falling on his back, and was very seriously scalded by the escaping steam, especially on the face (which is sadly disfigured) and legs, while his clothes were torn to shreds. Being rendered almost blind he was unable to give any assistance to his fellows, and made the best of his way to the hospital.1 Reader, the labourer, whose duty it was to precede the engine, had just started to take up his proper position, when he was struck by some debris, sustaining a fracture of the left arm, below the elbow joint. Underwood, was killed, and from what can be gathered, he seems to have been thrown by the force of the explosion through the trees and against the wall of the old burial ground, a distance of at least 35 yards. His clothes were very much torn, but he did not appear to have received any injuries except to his head, upon which fell. He was of course, dead when discovered a few minutes afterwards, but the watch in his waistcoat pocket was going. The engine, an 8-horse power steam traction, was manufactured by Messrs. Aveling and Porter, of Rochester, about three years ago, and the makers were promptly telegraphed for. Mr. Aveling came down, and, before the pieces were removed, they were photographed at his request. The damage is estimated at £2,000. The gauge, which has been found, indicated a pressure of over 200lb., whereas the safe limit is stated to be 100lb. The Borough Coroner (J.B. Stephens, Esq.) opened his enquiry at the Town-hall in the afternoon, and after some preliminary evidence had been taken and adjournment was made. In trawling through the newspapers of that time it is surprising how many boiler explosions are reported, and were of considerable interest, nationwide. Thus, The Huddersfield Daily Chronicle 4 December 1880 gives its readers an added note to the Maidstone incident, ‘That a piece of the boiler was hurtled on a new organ lately erected in the church’. The Folkestone Express, Sandgate, Shorncliffe and Hythe Advertiser 11 December 1880, had a long account from which the following is extracted: The engine appears to have been literally blown to pieces. Fragments, large and small, were thrown with immense violence in all directions, and the force of the concussion was so great that many windows were broken in the locality, and the shock was experienced in distant parts of the town, many persons fearing that an earthquake had occurred. A piece of one of the wheels, weighing about one hundredweight, was thrown over Mr. Clement’s workshop; another large piece was hurled against the same building some ten or twelve feet high, and did great damage; windows were blown out; one piece, a foot square, was carried into the doorway of Mr. Relf’s shop on Gabriel’s Hill, striking, it is believed en route the premises of Mr. Turner, draper; other portions were carried against the old church and into the RESEARCHES AND DISCOVERIES 340 garden of Mr. Menpes, at the Palace, as well as into the College yard; more were sent into the river, and in fact pieces were strewn in all directions. The damage done to All Saints’ Church is very considerable. The magnificent stained-glass window in the East end, erected by Messrs. Mercer some years since to the memory of the late Alexander Randall, Esq., has been broken in many places, the principal injury being in the central group of figures. Fortunately, the delicate tracery at the top has, apparently, escaped. The coloured windows on either side have been shattered, that to the south the more seriously, as a large piece of the wire protector was blown right through, falling near the vestry door, whilst a piece of an eccentric wheel found its way into the new organ. In the churchyard, too, the destruction was considerable. Close to where the explosion occurred there is a large breach in the boundary wall, while numerous headstones have been broken by the scattered debris, some large pieces of which are lying in the centre of the ground. The Illustrated Police News for 11 December 1880 reported at the inquest on Frank Underwood: The coroner, commenting strongly on the fact that, although he had given explicit instructions that no portion of the damaged machinery be moved before being seen by the jury, yet Mr. Aveling, engineer, of Rochester, ordered the safety valves to be taken away. Mr. Muirhead, a juror, said that he was with Mr. Aveling at the time, and, as he complained of the removal, the latter at once gave up the valves, which he said he had wanted to compare with a duplicate. The same witness drew attention to the steam gauge which he found in the churchyard, and which appeared to record a pressure of 230 lb., instead of the limit 100 lb. A report on the Boiler Explosion of Maidstone was prepared by the Consultative Branch of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade dated 18 January 1881 and presented to both houses of Parliament as Command Paper C2834. This long and detailed report should be available through the Parliamentary Archives but to make it more accessible it has been scanned and put on the Kent Archaeological Society website together with the extract from the Maidstone and Kent County Standard regarding the coroner’s report of the explosion. The boiler was part of an eight horse-power agricultural locomotive constructed by Messrs. Aveling and Porter of Rochester and belonged to Messrs. Jessie Ellis and Co. of Maidstone. There is a volume by R.A. Whitehead entitled, ‘Jessie Ellis and the Maidstone Wagons’, published in Tonbridge in 1992. (ISBN 0-9508298-1-1). His chapter 5 has a detailed account of the boiler explosion. Whitehead points out that under the Highways and Locomotive Act of 1878, Maidstone Borough Council had made regulations that limited the passage of such traffic through its streets to the hours between midnight and six o’clock in the morning. He also draws on a description of the engine and boiler taken from the report in Engineering but no date is given. It was also noted in the newspapers of the time, that the boiler explosion was reported in The English Mechanic and World of Science in February 1881.2 The Dover and County Chronicle, Saturday 11 December 1880 in a long article reported: The devastation was very marked on the other side of the road; a large breach was made in the wall enclosing the parish churchyard, while the tombstones were broken and hurled in all directions, one tomb being lifted from its foundations and RESEARCHES AND DISCOVERIES 341 rent asunder. The old parish church of All Saints is extremely damaged. Opposite the scene of the disaster, about 50 yards from the road, is the eastern portion of the church, and the handsome window of stained glass, erected as a memorial to the late Mr. Alexander Randall, a former high sheriff of Kent, is completely wrecked, whilst the much-admired memorial windows on each side are more or less damaged. One of the brass bearings of the engine was blown against one of the windows, breaking the stonework and shattering the glass, and is now lodged in the wirework used to protect the windows. The interior of the church is also damaged, a hole being made in the handsome organ, which had but recently been erected at a large cost, and the pipes very much injured, whilst there is evidence of the force of the explosion in other parts of the edifice, the large western window being also bulged in an outward direction.3 The Canterbury Journal, Kentish Times and Farmers’ Gazette 10 October 1885 stated that the church of All Saints Maidstone was under repair and that Archbishop, the Most Reverend Edward White, having opened the visitation at All Saints it would then be adjourned to Holy Trinity. Alas this account or others about this change of venue make no mention of the work being done to the church. Unfortunately, the papers consulted make no mention of the repairs caused by the explosion. Whitehead’s publication (p. 40), ‘as to the effects of the affair upon Jesse Ellis himself, in this, as in most other matters relating to his personal affairs, I rely on the recollections of his daughter Mabel. At the actual time of the events, she was only a few months old and recalled nothing of them directly. She had, however, in her late teens and early twenties, until she married, been very close to her father and, at the age of twenty-two, had been his companion on his second visit to Egypt. On the voyages out and home she had heard many of his reminiscences of his earlier life. That he was much affected by the death of Underwood has been noted already. This changed his attitude to safety and to standards of maintenance’. It had a serious financial effect upon the firm as well. The stained-glass windows of All Saints’ Church had been damaged by the blast and concern was felt about the effect of it on the organ. Whilst some of the glass was then relatively modern and capable of repair by native workmen, in the case of an antique window that was damaged it was expected that it would have to be removed and sent to Brussels for repair. As the total cost of the works was estimated to be over £500.00 the Churchwardens had taken legal advice on the issue of negligence by Jesse Ellis and had been advised that they would probably succeed in a case against the firm. Because, however, he was such a well-liked fellow townsman they hesitated to press him too hard. The debate in the Vestry meeting was lengthy and heated, some speakers wishing to make an example of him and others to temporise. It was a proposition of Mr. J. Monckton that resolved the matter. He proposed that Jesse Ellis & Co. should make a contribution of £250.00 towards the Vestry’s costs, which the managing partner agreed to, probably gladly. Ralph Fremlin, brother-inlaw of Jesse Ellis’s partner, Marianne Fremlin, put in another £50.00 as a ‘goodwill gesture’. It fell to John Thomas Russell4 (1866-1896) of 55 Mote Road, Maidstone, to painstakingly piece together the broken gravestones. His correspondence with Robert Hovenden5 records: RESEARCHES AND DISCOVERIES 342 I wanted to know about the stones that are broken. I think you know all about the explosion of a traction engine near the church. Well, I am now copying in that part where it was and I have come to some stones, some are completely cut to pieces while others sticking in the ground with a part of one side cut right off and some have got their foot stones. He goes on to say that some are lying in a lump together behind an altar tomb which he can hardly move and that it would take him a long while to match all the pieces. He proceeded to record all the stones by putting the broken pieces together ‘knocking a piece or two off my fingers, of course I had to put up with it’. The record of all his transcripts is written up in three books which have been bound into one volume and some correspondence has been tipped in. The first volume was sent to Robert Hovenden on the 25 September 1882. It is not known when Russell finished his work in the churchyard. The label pasted to Book 1 says “Maidstone Churchyard in 5 books’. In all he copied 458 stones. There is a letter from S. Shaw of 16 Foster Street, Maidstone written on 20 May 1897 that he was sending book number 2 containing 109 inscriptions from within the church, but the notebooks for inside the church are not bound with those of the churchyard.6 The notebooks for the churchyard monuments were put on microfiche by the Kent Family History Society as volume 1807. Readers may also find useful on the Kent Archaeological Society website; ‘Monumental inscriptions in the churchyard of All Saints, Maidstone’, with index of names at the end (including concise wills, some directory notes, newspaper reports and photographs) by D.E. Williams made in 2016. The Maidstone Area Archaeological Group created a survey of the All Saints Maidstone Ledger slabs in 1996-1997. This data-base has names, titles or profession, inscription, coat of arms, condition and size. It is available on the internet. duncan harrington † references 1 The illustrated Police News for 11 December 1880, says ‘They were conveyed to the West Kent General Hospital where their injuries were at once attended to’. 2 In The National Archives under COPY 1/51/495 there is a ‘Photograph of the traction engine explosion showing the fire box and boiler pipes with the under carriage’. Copyright author and owner of the work was Clarke and Company, 46 Week Street, Maidstone, Kent. Form was completed 15 December 1880 and registration 16 December 1880. Amongst the Home office registered papers at The National Archives is HO 45/9603/A21 the traction engine boiler explosion at Maidstone. 3 Whilst not mentioning the injury to the organ A History of the Organs in the parish church of All Saints Maidstone, Kent written by Reginald Hughes, b.mus., Organist and Choirmaster 1970- 1980, up-dated 2010 by Lionel Marchant and Brian Moore, is available on the internet and details the building of the organ in 1879-1880. 4 His parents were John and Harriett Russell, a painter and glazier of Maidstone. John Thomas was given in the 1891 census as an apprentice carpenter and joiner. He died 23 October 1896 and an inquest was held as to how he met his death whilst engaged at work at the Science and Art Schools, St Faith Street, Maidstone on 23 October 1896. Kent and Sussex Courier 30 October 1896. 5 Robert Hovenden (1830-1908) of Croydon was a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries and master of the Worshipful Company of Barbers. He transcribed and compiled many genealogical records. RESEARCHES AND DISCOVERIES 343 6 The three bound notebooks by Russell came from Canon Bernard & Mary Wigan collection and are now in the author’s collection. Canon Wigan compiled an index on 7 March 1969 by initialsurname giving those Y for those from the churchyard (Russell) and from the interior of the church marked C (Shaw). At the time of writing, it is not known where these latter notebooks are located. The present writer believes that this was Sydney A.M. Shaw born 1 June 1879 at Maidstone and that in 1898 he joined the Army Service Corps. RESEARCHES AND DISCOVERIES 344