Julliberrie's Grave, Chilham: Retrospection and Perception

JULLIBERRIE'S GRAVE, CHILHAM: RETROSPECTION AND PERCEPTION PAUL ASHBEE INTRODUCTION While Julliberrie's Grave (N.G.R. TR 078533) is not unknown, the sources of its legendary associations, as well as the many antiquarian and, latterly, archaeological endeavours and notices that it has attracted, are scattered and largely unappreciated. Considered a tumulus since the sixteenth century, it was, more than a century ago, designated a long barrow by John Thumam (1868, 176, fn.; Rice Holmes 1936, 683, fn.; Piggott 1993). In our own age, O.G.S. Crawford (1924, 3, 5) listed it and specified its precise location, although R.F. Jessup in his Archaeology of Kent (1930, 70, 254) suspended judgement, designating it a 'Probable long barrow'. During 1936 and 1937, however, he carried out careful, comprehensive, excavations (Jessup 1937; 1939) which revealed its fundamental characteristics and showed it as beyond doubt a Neolithic long barrow. Subsequently it became an Ancient Monument (Jessup 1948, 123). Jessup's excavations, discussed in detail below, one of the small number of earthen long barrow investigations carried out during the 1930s (Ashbee 1970, 6), found a flint axe of Scandinavian style in a primary context, intimate early Romano-British burials and deposits, . besides confirming the long suspected truncation of the northern end. General narratives have emphasised the nature of the flint axe (Childe 1940; 1947, 62, fn. 8; Grinsell 1953, 13, 192; Piggott 1954, 61, 76, 99, 315; 1955, 101) and that the simple structural details conformed to the series (Grinsell 1953, 54-55; Piggott 1954, 52, 54, 56, 377). Its length (about 144 ft.), breadth (48 ft.) and not inconsiderable height (7 ft.) have been emphasised (Grinsell 1953, 195) and seem to be comparable in size with the larger of those on the Sussex Downs (Ash bee 1970, 27, fig. 17). More recent studies have, besides outlining the results of the excavations (Jessup 1970, 81-66, figs. 22-25), continued to affirm the Northern characteristics of the flint axe (Alexander 1961, 20; Whittle 1977, 202). Presciently, R.F. Jessup (1970, 86) said that serious field-work in east 1 PAULASHBEE Kent might yet reveal further long barrows and in that year mounds were found at Boughton Aluph and Elmsted (Bradshaw 1970, 180). Interpretative fashion prompted the suggestion that these Stour Valley long barrows may have been 'territorial markers' (Holgate 1981, 223) while there has been a plea that Julliberrie's Grave should no longer be seen as an isolated monument (Clarke 1982, 28). The absence of burials was thought significant, as various long barrows and chambered cairns were without such deposits, and a function other than funerary has been propounded (Ashbee 1976; Kinnes 1975, 16). In a recent comprehensive study a plan, which suggests the possibility of a side chamber, has been presented (Kinnes 1992, 34, 94, 113, 192). THE LONG BARROW'S NAME Place-name evidence is notoriously difficult and all too often ambiguous. For validity, a name must be traced to its earliest recorded form and should not be inconsistent with the history and topography of the locality. Certain names, particularly those of ancient sites, may owe more to antiquarian speculation, or even imagination, than distant antiquity. A task that faced O.G.S. Crawford (1953, 39; 1955, 158), when he became the first Archaeology Officer of the Ordnance Survey in 1920, was the removal of such dubious names from our maps. Thus, it is not surprising that J.K. Wallenberg, in his pioneer study of Kent's place-names, considered the appellation Julliberrie' s Grave as derived from no more than antiquarian fancy (1934, 374). During the 1930s, when R.F. Jessup (1937, 124) examined the nature of the distinctive name of the long barrow, there was consensus regarding the -berrie ending which was seen as derived from OE beorge, an artificial hill or barrow. The first element, it was thought, might have been a personal name. However, it was stressed, using Thomas Philipot's (1659, 117) stricture, that even the 'Common People who bear the greatest sway in corrupting of names' could scarcely be credited with the almost impossible change from Chit (Chilham) to Jui. Indeed, it was thought that the village name of Chilham (Gelling 1978, 176), which has been relatively stable since its initial version, would have prevented such a corruption. Were the first element Jui or Jut Laber to be pursued it could emerge that it might have behind it a personal name akin to J olby (French Joel c. 1170; Middle German Juwel). This, in the sixteenth century, could have been rendered as Juel or Joel in English Jewel (Cameron 1963, 93). An alternative is a possible reference to objects thought to be concealed within the barrow for, despite its doubtful formation, this sense has been conveyed since it emerged from Middle English. Although, as was thought in the 1930s (Jessup 1937, 124), -berrie could reflect the 2 JULLIBERRIE'S GRAVE, CHILHAM Old English, or even earlier, beorg or beorge, from which we have obtained the Wessex and West Country term Barrow (Gelling 1978, 132) it is far from direct. An underlying difficulty is that beorg cannot be readily divorced from burgh, and its dative byrig, a defended place such as Bigbury (Jessup 1933; Jessup and Cook 1936). None the less, in that it is attached to a long barrow, it need not be without validity. In the present-day name there is the designation Grave. Although it is not known when this became specifically attached, it was in use by the early eighteenth century (Lukis (Ed.) 1833, 228). It should derive from OE graef, a grave or pit, although it could also stem from OE graf, some trees or a patch of woodland (Cameron 1963, 217). Since it is particular to the long barrow the sense of a grave might apply, although it could have been the ditch which stimulated the epithet. THE LASTING LEGEND A legend, current since at least the sixteenth century, is that the name Jui Laber (his grave) or Julliberrie' s Grave embodies a folk memory (Dobson 1968, 4) of the burial, beneath the long barrow, of Q. Laberius Durus, Caesar's tribune, killed by the Britons (BG, v, xv). L.V. Grinsell, however, who has personal knowledge of the long barrow and its surround, considers that the invention of stories to explain names is well known, Oster Hill, supposedly 'The tumulus of Publius Ostorius' (1976, 70, 123) being another example. The Laberius Durus legend was initially recounted by Lambarde (1576, 256), who, for the most part, had little to say about the Romans in Kent (Kendrick 1950, 139). He cited Camden saying, ' ... that (not without reason) some have thereof called it Ju/ham the place of Julius: even as others call the Green hillocke at Chi/ham, Jullaber, of Laberius Durus, one of Caesars Colonels, that was slaine by the Britaines upon the rising of that his Campe'. Thereafter, William Camden included the substance of the story in his Britannia (1586, 171-172). It gained from this source an antiquarian currency, which ensured its survival to the threshold of our own century, because repetition in the many, including the revised and augmented, editions of the Britannia gave it substance and authority. The English language translations, the first by Philemon Holland (1610), followed by Edmund Gibson (1695) and finally Richard Gough's (1789) three great folios, were particularly influential. In passing one should remember that Holland is thought to have made a rather free translation of Camden's laconic Latin, although Camden himself revised the proof sheets (Douglas 1951, 257). Gibson was frequently inaccurate, while Gough, whose work was one of antiquarian piety rather 3 PAUL ASHBEE than contemporary scholarship (Piggott 1957, 215), made the closest rendering of the Latin text. With appropriate allowances for the changes in English usages during the seventeenth century, Gough's presentation in 1789, and in the 1806 edition, was that of almost two centuries earlier: 'Thence we come to Chilham, or as some call it, Ju/ham . . . Below this town is a tumulus covered with green turf, under which they say was buried many ages since one Jullaber, whom some fancy a giant, others a witch. For myself, as I think some antient memorial is concealed under this name, I am almost persuaded that Laberius Durus the military tribune was buried here, having been slain by the Britans ... and from him the tumulus was called Jul-laber.' John Aubrey (Powell 1963; Hunter 1975; Tylden-Wright 1991) visited Julliberrie's Grave when staying at Hothfield with his friend and patron, Nicholas Tunon, 3rd Earl of Thanet, in about 1671. Camden and his Britannia had inspired him since his youth (Powell 1963, 35), and in later life he provided material, antiquarian and biographical, for Gibson. Thus, it is no surprise that Q. Laberius Durus was associated with the tumulus but, perhaps, more remarkable that no comparison was made with those long barrows that he knew so well in Wiltshire (Piggott 1962, 1, Pl. I). However, among the material amassed for the Monumenta (Fowles and Legg (Eds.) 1980, 826-827) is the following: 'Captain Edmond Hamden (who married his wife from hence) [Chilham Castle] ... affirms this grave is threescore and sixteen yards long and 18 broad: and four or five foot high. This Laberius was killed by the Britons ( as Julius Caesar sayeth in his second day's march). Memorandum from the Downs to Chilham is 16 miles, which is two days' march. But (as I remember) Julius Caesar calls him Quintus Laberius Durus: he was master of the camp.' Richard Kilburne (1650, 56) and Thomas Philipot (1659, 117) cite Camden's story, using Philemon Holland's translation of the Britannia (1610) as their source. At the outset of the eighteenth century, however, Prebendary John Battely, Archdeacon of Canterbury, wrote a Latin language treatise (1711, 373-375), which was subsequently translated and reviewed (1774, 109-112; Gents. Mag., Notice, 1774, 373-375), mentioned Julliberrie's Grave. He compounded an ingenious compromise between Camden's notion of the barrow as the burial place of the Roman Q. Laberius Durus and the Saxon origins of Chilham as a place-name. Cilla byrig, the Saxon name, he contended was intonated softly and in a manner comparable with Italian. A direct derivation is not expressly claimed but, none the less, the reader is left to contemplate a possibility. Edward Hasted (1732-1812) (Boyle 1984; Thirsk 1993) was, one senses, sceptical. Indeed, as his debate with Thomas and Richard Heron of Chilham shows, he considered the notion of the barrow having been raised over the remains of Laberius Durus as unsupported tradition 4 JULLIBERRIE'S ORA VE, CHILHAM (Jessup 1943, 17). The brothers upheld the History of Kent (Boyle 1984, 71) and furnished the details of Chilham; included in the folio edition (1778-1799) is an engraving of Chilham Castle, made from Julliberrie's Grave (Hasted 1790, 125). Eventually Hasted averred that: ' ... Quintus Laberius Durus, the tribune, was slain, and is supposed to have been buried under the long barrow of earth ( one of the earliest precise usages of the term) ... This is now vulgarly called Julliberie' s Grave, and is supposed to take its name from him, and to be a corruption from the words Jui Laber or Julii Laberius, i.e. the grave of Julius' s tribune Laberius.' He is also particular in describing its siting, gives dimensions, so far as can be seen, from measurements made when at Chilham Castle, which he compares with those of Archdeacon Battely, and cites Camden's giant or witch comment (Hasted 1790, 140). Like Battely, he referred to the excavation undertaken by Heneage Finch. Some of the many editions of William Gostling' s Walk in and about the City of Canterbury, issued between 1774 and 1825, express certainty. They have in them a map designed for a tour of east Kent and Chilham is indicated with, close by, a rectangle labelled 'Jullaber or Tomb of Laberius'. William Henry Ireland, who, in 1829-1830, published England's Topographer or a new and complete History of the County of Kent, remarkable for its diversity of engravings (Hart 1989, 59), the text of which owed rather too much to Hasted, was similarly cautious. He wrote: ' ... the long barrow of earth upon the chalk hill ... now vulgarly called Julliberrie' s Grave, supposed to have derived its name from him, and to be a corruption from the words Jui. Laber, or Jullii Laberius'. Dimensions are given, 'It is from north to south, 148 feet, and in breadth forty-five feet' and it is said that 'Heneage earl Winchelsea, a noblemen well versed in antiquities, made researches ... but found nothing to designate its origin, whether Roman or Saxon, or it appertaining to Laberius or Cilia, from whom this village is by some supposed to have taken its name' (Ireland 1829, 522). These words, in the idiom of an earlier age, were written little more than a decade before the railway reached Chilham and only a quarter of a century before the foundation of the Kent Archaeological Society. HENEAGE FINCH'S 1702 EXCAVATION An excavation was undertaken, in 1702, by Heneage Finch (1657-1726), later the 5th Earl of Winchelsea, then living at Wye Court, at the instigation of Thomas Thynne, 1st Viscount Weymouth (1640-1714). Little is known of Heneage Finch's antiquarian activities prior to his meeting 5 PAUL ASHBEE with William Stukeley, but, none the less, they were, if anything, in advance of many of his time. Thomas Thynne had developed similar tastes while attending Kingston-upon-Thames Grammar School. At the outset of the eighteeenth century, barrows, and their possible contents, were well known. For example, an account of the opening of a round barrow on Barham Downs (Grinsell 1992, 356), sometime before 1542, was in John Twyne's De Rebus Albionicis Britannicis atque Anglicis (1590), a work likely to have been in Finch's extensive library. Indeed, their forms and contents in various parts of the country were regularly commented upon in antiquarian literature and had been classified by Camden in the Britannia (Grinsell 1953, 109; Ashbee 1960, 18; Piggott 1989, 120-122). Thus, in terms of its age, as is shown by Heneage Finch's letter to Archdeacon Battely (Nichols 1833, 96-97), the exploration of Julliberrie's Grave was not without forethought and insight. In the event, a shaft (Finch terms it a 'well') 5 ft. in diameter, was sunk in about the middle of the long mound and thereafter a trench 5 ft. wide and 16 ft. long was dug along its axis towards its northern (he termed it 'eastern') end. From the details given in the letter, it would seem that he dug through the barrow's chalk envelope, through the loamy axial core, the first spoil from the ditch, and the ancient soil, to the underlying chalk. Stukeley's Prospect (1776, Tab. 54), taken from the eastern side of the barrow, shows the nature of Heneage Finch's excavation; a marked longitudinal depression along the crown of the long barrow is presumably the backfilled trench twenty years later. However, it is shown as extending the full length of the barrow and is not restricted to the northern half as is indicated in the narrative. A positive surface trace of the shaft was seen during the 1930s (Jessup 1937, 125) while the trench was detected as excavation proceeded (Jessup 1937, Pl. XXXVI, section C-D; 1939, 263, Pl. XLIX, general plan; LIII, C-D). All in all, the details recovered by R.F. Jessup during the course of his excavations might suggest that Heneage Finch's exploration was upon a rather more modest scale and in a different part of the barrow to that previously thought. In this matter it should not be overlooked that a trench was found to have been dug across the northern end of the long barrow, perhaps at the instigation of the Wildman family who owned the Chilham Castle estate from 1792 to 1861. Thus, it is possible that Stukeley' s drawing depicts the depressions remaining from both the initial and an anonymous subsequent undertaking. Although R.F. Jessup (1937, 125) could not identify the 'three transverse grooves' mentioned by Flinders Petrie (1880, 11), which also seem to have been a feature of 'the Giant's Grave one mile E. of Wye', it should not be overlooked that the Kentish field-work was early in a distinguished career (Drawer 1985, 6 JULLIBERRIE'S GRAVE, CHILHAM 25). Thus, this enigmatic reference is possibly no more than a general impression of the erstwhile excavations in these barrows. John Thumam (Piggott 1993) writing during the 1860s (1868, 178, fn. b) thought of the Heneage Finch exploration as 'The earliest opening of a long barrow of which I find any record ...' and was at pains to cite all the appropriate printed sources, besides in terms of his detailed work in Wiltshire commenting upon what had been done. He felt that the work ' ... most probably fell short of the actual sepulchral deposit, but sufficient was disclosed to show its conformity with other true long barrows'. Thumam was unaware, as there is no record of his having visited the site, of the truncated northern end of Julliberrie's Grave. Thus, he concluded his comments by saying ' ... that it is not improbable that the true sepulchral deposit of skeletons may yet remain intact at the east (N) end of this long barrow'. Because of its intrinsic value for appreciation of Julliberrie's Grave, the letter written by Heneage Finch, to Archdeacon Battely, shortly after the conclusion of the excavation in 1702, is cited in full. It was as follows: "SIR, Wye, May 14, 1702. "Having been lately at work upon the famous antiquity at Chilham, vulgarly called Julaberry' s Grave, I supposed you would hear of it, and that you might have a curiosity of knowing my success. I would have given you an account of it sooner, if business had not prevented me. My success was so bad that you will hardly find the relation of it worth reading, because I have not been able to make any useful discovery. That it has been a burial-place is manifest, but of what people or time I find no marks. It is above 60 yards long, and between seven and eight feet high in the middle; above 40 foot broad at the base, but narrow at the top; in shape it differs from a common grave only in the largeness of its dimensions. I sunk a well in the middle, five feet diameter, from which I afterwards dug a trench five feet broad, and 16 feet long, up towards the East end of the grave (for it lies East and West, inclining something to the South and North). A little below the turf we found two or three pieces of large bones, I believe the thigh bones of a horse, and perhaps buried there by a dog. I found the earth of a chalky substance, but loose and broken till I came about five feet from the top, when we came to a dark mound, soft and damp, like what is found in church-yards when they dig in an old grave; and in Chilham park there is such earth, full of the bones of men, women, and children, as appears by the sculls. Here we found a few bones, but imperfect, and most of them so rotten that they crumbled in handling, which must either proceed from the length of time they have lain there, or from the weather penetrating to them, for the chalk above lies very loose and hollow in many places; I cannot tell whether these are the bones of men or of beasts, finding none entire enough to make any judgment from them. We found some pieces of deer's horns, and two or three large teeth, I believe 7 PAUL ASHBEE of horses. This is all we met with except a few bones of rabbits, or vermin, as I believe, if not of fowl, for some of them are of the shape and bigness of the thigh-bones of pullets. This earth is about two feet thick, and lies in a straight line; beneath it we dug a little way into a white chalky earth as at the top, and presently came to the rock of chalk, so that I find whatever has been buried here, was laid upon the surface of the ground, and lowered afterwards, according to the Roman manner of burial, but I do not remember whether the Roman tumuli are ever of this shape. The earth seems to have been thrown up at once, and is too great a body, I should think, to have been raised without a great many hands, and probably it must have been the work of part of an army. If it had been the burial-place of a family, I believe, it would not lie so even; nor would the earth within, which seems to be compounded of the bodies laid there and the earth about them, be in a line, but would have been met with in patches. However, I am much in the dark, and my conjectures must needs be very uncertain. If bodies were buried here, how should the bones of horses and horns of deer be among them, unless if it was a Roman work, they might sacrifice beasts and throw them into the heap. If I had dug farther, perhaps, I might have made a better discovery; but I undertook the work at my Lord Weymouth's desire. If he is inclined I should make another attempt. With Mr. Digges' leave I will try what I can make of it, and should then desire the favour of your advice what method I had best observe in my work. I should be very much obliged to you if you please at your leisure to give me your opinion concerning this place, if it is possible to make any judgment from so imperfect an account as I send you, for which I very much need your pardon. I am, Sir, &c. H. FrNCH." Heneage Finch was forty-five years of age, and at the height of his powers in 1702, when he investigated Julliberrie's Grave and wrote to Archdeacon Battely. It was not, however, until after the death of his famous wife Anne, notable for her long poem on 'The Spleen', in 1720, that his antiquarian endeavours became all-absorbing. He corresponded with William Stukeley (Piggott 1985, 56) and, with his chaplain Mr Creyk, pursued Roman roads and remeasured Julliberrie's Grave. He was a founder member of Stukeley's Society of Roman Knights, an antiquarian club for the study of Roman Britain; they took as titles the names of Celtic princes and Roman notables, Finch becoming CINGETORIX. In 1723, he was introduced to the Society of Antiquaries of London, which had been refounded in 1717, and became a Vice-President a year later. WILLIAM STUKELEY AND THE 'PROSPECTS' William Stukeley (1687-1765), the renowned eighteenth-century antiquary, notable for his works upon Stonehenge and Avebury (Piggott 1985), toured Kent in 1722, 1724 and 1725, and, among other things 8 JULLIBERRIE'S ORA VE, CHILHAM made drawings of Julliberrie's Grave. At this time he was the secretary of the refounded Society of Antiquaries of London, an F.R.S. since 1718 and a prominent, originally minded, figure in the antiquarian circles of London. A particular personality who, despite differences in ages, became a friend and fellow field-archaeologist, was Heneage Finch, whose excavation at Julliberrie' s Grave has already been discussed. The tours, undertaken on horseback, involved the making of sketches, sometimes plans, and the writing of descriptive notes. Drawings were dated, as also were the engravings made from them. These have enabled reconstructions of the tours to be made (Piggott 1985, 161-4). · In 1722, Stukeley drew Rochester Castle on 4 October and then went on to Canterbury and east Kent. At Chilham, from a point close by Julliberrie's Grave, he made a sketch on 10 October ( Stukeley 1776, Tab. 54), of the landscape which he thought overlooked Caesars passage over the Stour. Two years later in 1724, he followed much the same route, and on 11 October he made the lively Prospect of Julabers grave (1776, Tab. 56) before returning to London. Whereas the earlier visits had been in the autumn, the tour of 1725, during which time he may have stayed at Eastwell Park, was in May and early June. His Prospect of Julabers Grave from Chilham was drawn, from the Woolpack Inn, on 24 May (1776, Tab. 57). Sadly, there are no notes to accompany the drawings. These are lively and detailed, reflecting the skills of Elisha Kirkall, the engraver (Godfrey 1978, 40; Piggott 1985, 43), but were published posthumously. William Stukeley cannot have done other than compare Julliberrie's Grave with the earthen long barrows familiar to him from his detailed investigations of Stonehenge and Avebury. An aspect of Stukeley's field-work was his preoccupation with measurement. He was, in terms of the earlier eighteenth century, a competent surveyor (Ashbee 1972, 49-50). There is evidence to suggest that the dimensions, and orientation, of Julliberrie's Grave, after his first scrutiny in 1722, were of more than ordinary interest to him. In the event, a further careful survey, seemingly at Stukeley's behest, was undertaken by Lord Winchelsea. He wrote on 26 October, 1723 (Nichols 1817-31, 778-80), ' ... / have been at Julaber' s Grave, which I formerly measured only by my paces but I have now taken it with my measuring chain, and have all the dimensions very right; and I took its bearings with my compass, and from the top of it I have drawn out a prospect of the country.' The drawing (Fig. 1) made by Stukeley in 1722 is in detail entitled Caesars passage of the Stour by Chilham and Julabers grave. Drawn on 10 Oct I 722. In the absence of written observations, it would appear that he visited Chilham, and chose Julliberrie's Grave as a vantage point, with Caesar's comments, Camden's notion of the barrow as the burial place of the fallen tribune and Heneage Finch's excavations in mind. Indeed, he includes a figure with a sketching board, presumably himself, 9 ...... 0 Fig. 1. William Stukeley's depiction of Julliberrie's Grave (enlarged) from the east. Drawn 10 October, 1722, as the foreground for his view of where Caesar crossed the Stour. Heneage Finch's excavation and the thrown down north end can be seen. i ► Cl'.> ffi gJ JULLIBERRIE'S GRAVE, CHILHAM seated on the ground and viewing the landscape. On the east side of the barrow the mound has been proportionally shortened but, as was noted above, the traces of the 1702, and perhaps another excavation, are prominent. The north end of the barrow can be seen, almost as debris from digging, sharply, and steeply, descending a modest escarpment on the south side of the Stour. No signs of the ditch (Stukeley was well aware that long barrows were ditched) are shown, while the east flank is depicted as excessively steep in proportion to the height. When Stukeley journeyed into Kent once again, during the autumn of 1724, he drew, on 11 October, a Prospect of Julabers grave, the long barrow is as seen from a point on the west side of the Stour (Fig. 2). Indeed, the two figures, perhaps Lord Winchelsea and Stukeley, are pointing back at the barrow denoting, as was often his custom, the standpoint for the range of view. The background is, to the left, the Chartham Downs while, to the right, there is the ascent to, what is today, Denge Wood. The long barrow is regular, and allowing for perspective, depicted as rounded and rectangular, with no signs of the 1702 excavations. A small enclosure has been shown as attached to the south end of the east side. As on Tab. 54, where Julliberrie's Grave is shown in some detail, the north end is shown as what appears to be a mass of barrow debris which has slumped down the escarpment almost to the margin of the river. Indeed, the river and the modest escarpment beyond it are indifferently illustrated. This is unusual as Stukeley's drawings, even after their passage through the hands of the engraver, are for the most part not inaccurate. All in all, it would appear that this drawing was expressly concerned with the barrow's siting, in terms of its immediate surround. So far as can be judged, the condition of the north end, depicted in this particular drawing, may have attracted his notice in 1722, for he is at pains to indicate something of its character. William Stukeley was, once more, in Kent during May and early June, in 1725. From the drawings and their locations, Richborough, Barham Downs, Dover, etc., it is likely that he again stayed at Eastwell Park. His Prospect of Julabers grave from Chilham May 24 1725, with the added note that This Drawing is taken from the Woolpack Inn, and A. Julabers grave beneath, is the first of the series (Fig. 3). The heights behind and south of the barrow are shown as densely wooded, presumably the Denge Wood, absent from Tab. 56, but the heights of Chartham Downs are omitted. Two figures walk in the foreground and act as a scale while the sinuous course of the tree-lined Stour is clear and unambiguous. Certain fields, including that in which the long barrow lies, are in cultivation. Julliberrie's Grave is seen from the north-west and as distant, and thus has been marked with the letter 'A'. While it is not easy to discern points of detail in Stukeley's drawings of this kind, the long barrow could be adjudged as flatter-topped, perhaps even more denuded, than in the earlier Prospect. In addition, with all allowances for perspective, it could be 11 ...... N _,,,.- ,I .. . - 􀀄 - ., --- -􀀏 ----􀀁􀀂 ..... -- :..: ·..:- - -==-...:..::.. .... ,• ·- t􀀅 .,;::-,,,,,,. ;, Fig. 2. William Stukeley's Prospect of Julabers Grave 11 Oct 1724, from the north-west, showing the thrown down north end (long barrow enlarged). 􀀆 > Cl.l ea rn ..... uJ ! I Cl) 􀀁 -􀀃 (j ; PAULASHBEE that the impression of a trapezoidal mound was intended. Of considerable importance is the fact that, unlike Tab. 56, the north end of the long barrow is shown as severed by a sheer, almost vertical, scarp. The fan of material, conceivably dug and dispersed from the north end of the barrow, shown partly in Tab. 54 and almost wholly in Tab. 56, has been removed and one is confronted with an approximation of what has been thought of, since Hasted (1790, 140), as the encroachment of a chalk-pit (Jessup 1937, 125). Stukeley's drawings (Piggott 1985, 60-1) allow two observations to be made regarding the condition of Julliberrie's Grave early in the eighteenth century. First of all, no ditches are shown, although he was well aware that ditches were a concomitant of long barrows. In view of the indications of tillage, faintly depicted in Tab. 57, the barrow from the W oolpack Inn, it seems likely that they had been obliterated by ploughing up to its skirt before Stukeley saw it. No trace of a ditch was seen upon an air photograph scrutinised before excavation, and the only indication was slightly thicker grass. Indeed, the presence or absence of a ditch was one of the objectives of the initial excavation of the 1930s (Jessup 1937, 128, 136). A further feature of Stukeley's plates is the nature of the damage to, if not the throwing down of, the north end of the long barrow. His Tabs. 54 (1722) and 56 (1724) show what is clearly the debris from the digging away of this extremity; in Tab. 54 it trails down a steep slope, towards the Stour, and, in Tab. 56, a protuberant spread falls away. However, Tab. 57 (1725) shows the north end of the barrow as cut by a steep escarpment. In 1935, the north, broader end, of the long barrow was considered as cut by a small chalk-pit and Hasted's (1790, 140, fn.) observation, regarding digging for chalk, was cited (Jessup 1937, 125). Indeed, it was observed that the debris on the floor of the pit had been cut into by the garden of a cottage and that it might even conceal the remains of the primary burials from the barrow (Jessup 1937, 125, fn. 2). With the details of Stukeley's sequence of drawings in mind, it is possible to intimate what may have come to pass, prior to Heneage Finch's excavation and Stukeley's visits. It is manifest that the Julliberrie's Grave long barrow was sited in a manner comparable with Coldrum, namely with its proximal end above a bluff. Possibly at some juncture, by methods, and perhaps even for reasons, similar to those employed at Coldrum (Ashbee 1993, 66), this end was dug away, a process facilitated by the slope down which the debris was thrown. After 1724 and before Stukeley' s visit in 1725, this chalky barrow spoil, and the chalk bluff, had been dug away, removed and the lineaments of the chalk-pit (Jessup 193 7, 125) established. 14 JULLIBERRIE'S ORA VE, CHILHAM THE NINETEENTH-CENTURY NOTICES On August 3rd, 1866, the young Kent Archaeological Society (Jessup 1956) met at Chilham Castle. A lecture was given by the Rev. R.C. Jenkins, Rector of Lyminge (Faussett 1868, xlviii-lx), an original member and a prolific contributor to Archaeologia Cantiana. He included some observations upon Julliberrie's Grave and the origins of its name. He referred to 'An early tradition to which Camden may be said to have given fixity ...' which claimed that it contained the name of Laberius, Caesar's tribune, and marshalled some early documentary evidence from which, he said, another view might be extracted. He was ' ... tempted here also to offer the conjecture that the name Julliber, or Jullibery, is much more probably a corruption of Selebert, whose possessions seem to have been of great extent in this district, than to have any claim to a Roman original ... it may not be improbable that Julliber' s Grave is rather a mound for defence, thrown up by an early Saxon possessor of Chilham, than a jumble of two Roman names.' The assumptions regarding Caesar's advance were criticised and it was thought rather to have been in the direction of Kingston, on the Little Stour, because' ... (as Hasted tells us) ... Julliberrie's grave yielded no archaeological fruits when it was explored by a former Earl of Winchelsea ...' . In 1868, the same year as the memorable Chilham meeting was recorded as the Ninth Annual Meeting, John Thurnam (1868, 176, fn. b; Piggott 1993) unequivocally identified Chilham's long mound as an Ancient British long barrow, comparable with those of Wiltshire, and, seemingly, laid Camden's conjecture, as he termed it, to rest. John Mason Neale (1818-66), the founder of the Cambridge Camden Society (Piggott 1974, 5) and writer of hymns, wrote in his Hierologus: or the Church Tourists (London 1843, 92) that ' ... the traveller on the railway has many new and beautiful scenes opened out to him; and much the advantage, if he be gifted with any power of abstraction, over the traveller by the old method, in point of picturesqueness'. The travellers, largely from the new leisured class thrown up by the industrial revolution, sought the mild intellectural stimulus proffered by a combination of ingenious antiquarianism and agreeable landscapes, catered for by a nationwide proliferation of popular guidebooks. For the most part these contained itineraries and railway links, supplemented by, sometimes detailed, architectual, antiquarian and topographical information. Two examples, which refer to Julliberrie's Grave, illustrate their highly coloured contents. The Handbook to the County of Kent, by G. Phillips Bevan, F.G.S., contained railway, steam-boat and road excursions and, first issued in 15 PAULASHBEE 1876, was reissued in 1878. This took the derivation of the name Julliberrie' s Grave into a new dimension by saying (p. 70) as follows: 'Not far from the station [Chilham] is a mound called Jullaber' s Grave, but who the hero is seems uncertain. Some think that it is intended for Julius Laberius, who was killed in a battle near here, while others interpret Jullaber to be Julian's Bower, where games were held in the Roman era.' A more elaborate compilation, Black's Guide to the County of Kent, of which some twelve or more editions were published up to 1893, carried much the same story, although at greater length. It stated that: 'Just above the latter point [Chilham railway station] rises the singular elevation, 148 feet long by 45 broad, known as Julaber' s or vulgarly J uliberrie' s Grave - perhaps a corruption of ''Julius Laberius'', the lieutenant of Julius Caesar who was slain in the fight at the passage of the Stour. No skeletons have been found here, and "Julaber" may be identical with ''Julian's Bower'', a name often applied to ancient earthworks which seem to have been the area of the Roman Caesarian games.' William Stukeley (1724, 91; Lukis (Ed.) 1883, 253) had considered this particular name as indicative of Roman remains. However, the name as applied in Black's Guide might have been appropriate were the monument a complicated earthwork, as it has been applied to mazes, with names such as Julian's Bower or, in dialect Jullinbores (Allcroft 1908, 602, fn. 2; Sumner 1913, 52-53). Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953), poet and man of letters, associated with the minor romantic movement centred upon Sussex, at the beginning of this century (Ashbee 1972, 61), was also immersed in field archaeology. The Old Road (1904), a study of the Ordnance Survey's Pilgrim's Way (Close 1932, 112; Margary 1948, 259) mentions Julliberrie's Grave as its route passes close by the barrow. He wrote: ' ... the first barrow to be opened in England; the tomb in which Camden ... thought that a Roman soldier lay; in which the country people still believe that the great giant Julaber was buried, but which is the memorial of something far too old to have a name.' With Belloc we are in our own century. O.G.S. Crawford located Julliberrie's Grave (1924, 5) but R.F. Jessup (1930, 70, 254) wrote of Julieberrie' s Grave, inserting the letter 'e'. Later in the decade he reverted to Crawford's presentation (1937; 1939) and thereafter adhered to it (1970, 81); thus it became the usage (Kinnes 1992, 34). E VOLVING DESCRIPTIONS, DIMENSIONS AND ORIENTATIONS Since the sixteenth century, the writers making mention of Julliberrie's Grave have made brief descriptive comments, noted some dimensions 16 JULLIBERRIE'S GRAVE, CHILHAM and, from the eighteenth century onwards, referred to its orientation. There are differing persuasions regarding length and alignment. Lambarde refers to 'The Greene hillocke, at Chilham' (1576, 256), while the progressive editions of Camden's Britannia mention no more than 'a green burrow' and latterly 'a tumulus covered with green twf' (Gough eds., 1789; 1806). John Aubrey noted for the Monumenta Britannica (Fowles and Legg (Eds.) 1980, 826-7) that' ... this grave is threescore and sixteen yards long and 18 broad: and four or five foot high'. Writing in 1702, Heneage Finch was the first to combine the barrow's dimensions with a comment upon its appearance. As an introduction to the details of his excavation he wrote, 'It is above 60 yards long, and between seven and eight feet high in the middle; above 40 foot broad at the base, but narrow at the top; in shape it differs from a common grave only in the largeness of its dimensions.' He revisited and remeasured Julliberrie's Grave but neither the revised dimensions nor the ascertained orientation are in his letter to Stukeley (Nichols 1817-31, 778-80). Stukeley's surviving records are, as already detailed, his drawings, subsequently engravings, made in 1722, 1724 and 1725 (1776, Tabs. 54, 56, 57). The siting, form and condition of the barrow are depicted; figures and landscape details alone are a general indication of its dimensions. Despite Finch's detailed letter, Archdeacon John Battely in his Antiquitates Rutupinae (1711), and the later translation thereof (The Antiquities of Richborough and Reculver, 1774), apart from the reiteration of dimensions, orientation and siting by the Stour, said little of substance. However, the List of Books - with Remarks, which commented upon the 1774 translation, in the Gentleman's Magazine (xliv (1774), 373-5) refers, in a footnote, to the condition of the long barrow. Battely cites the length paced out by Finch, 180 feet, but the writer of the Remarks adds, 'At present it is but 156' owing to the falling or digging away of the chalk-pit, on which it is placed, at one extremity, and to the encroachments made upon it by ploughing, at the other.' This comment, which follows Stukeley's drawing of 1725, is either from personal observations or a letter from someone who had the monument under periodic surveilance. Thomas Heron of Chilham Castle (Jessup 1943) is a possibility as is Edward Hasted, who was to make a similar remark, but with a different record of length. Hasted (1790, 140) indicated Julliberrie' s Grave as ' . .. the long barrow of earth upon the chalk-hill, close on the south-east side of the river here, almost midway between Swerdling downs and Shillingfield, and declining towards the latter'. In a footnote (i) he observes that 'It is opposite to French Mill, and about 206 feet distant from the river. It is in its present state, from north to south, 148 feet, and in breadth 45 feet. At the north end it has been cut away to dig for chalk, and has been reduced perhaps 40 or 50 feet, or more'. Forty years later, Ireland (1829, 17 PAULASHBEE 522) noted only ' ... the long barrow of earth upon the chalk hill, on the south-east side of the river .. .', while repeating Hasted's dimensions. Hasted was already using the term long barrow, coined by Stukeley (1740, 46), a generation before Colt Hoare (1810, 20) defined the series. Thumam (1868) continued this usage which is still current. Early in the present century, O.G.S. Crawford (1924, 4) observed that Julliberrie's Grave was ' ... a single long barrow ... situated on a chalk hill immediately above a perennial stream' and gave its precise location in terms of O.S. Sheet XLV SE (6 in. to 1 mile), latitude and longitude as well as its height above sea-level (between 100 ft. and 200 ft.). R.F. Jessup (1930, 70) was more cautious and said that' ... its long narrow shape is suggestive of a long barrow'. Some valuable observations were made in 1932 and 1935, which were incorporated into the introduction to this initial excavation report (1937, 125, 1 28). He wrote: ' ... the barrow is a grass-covered mound 144ft long, 48ft wide at the northern end, 42ft wide at the southern end, and 7ft in greatest height, the steep face of the northern end being just over 1ft higher than the south, which gradually merges with the field ... Along a large part of its western side the skirt of the mound had been destroyed by ploughing ... and the southern end has suffered in the same way . . . There is no ditch to be seen on the available air-photograph ... and the only hint of its existence was a slight thickening of the grass on the north-western skirt ...' After the two excavation seasons (Jessup 1937; 1939), the trenches were infilled and the mound restored to its previous lineaments. When the present writer visited the long barrow in 1962, he was surprised that the considerable cuttings, seen in 1937, were impossible to locate. John Aubrey's dimensions allow one to envisage that he saw a mound more than 200 ft. in length, comparable with the reduced remains of the Kit's Coty House and Addington long barrows (Philp and Dutto 1985, 8, fig. 7). Indeed, the lengths and breadths resulting from the pacing by Heneage Finch (Nichols 1817-31, 96-7; ' ... above 60 yards long ... above 40 foot broad') and John Harris, the Kentish historian (1719, 000), ' ... 70 paces long and 20 over', would not in any way detract from this conception. Stukeley's drawing (10 Oct., 1722) shows the thrown down northern end and, with appropriate allowances for the nature of this depiction, it is possible that as much as 40 ft. had been taken from the original length of the long barrow. Thus, before this specific mutilation Julliberrie's Grave could have had a length comparable with that of its boulder-bounded fellows by the Medway. After 1724, the bluff upon which the long barrow had been sited was broken away for chalk resulting in some further truncation which, together with some modest shortening by ploughing at the south end, reduced it to approximately those dimensions recorded by Hasted (1790, 140) and those who followed him. Excavation (Jessup 1939, Pl. XLIX) showed that, whereas 18 JULLIBERRIE'S GRAVE, CHILHAM the sides of the south end of the long barrow had been eroded, truncation was little more than 10 ft. Any assessment of the considered lengths of Julliberrie's Grave, prior to the nineteenth century, must take into account the fact that our presentday imperial units of length were only fixed by the Weights and Measures Act of 1878. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries units were often local and a 'Roman' foot of about 11.5 in. was widely used. John Aubrey was a competent surveyor and is known to have used, at Avebury, such chains as were available in his time (Ucko et al., 1991, passim). They were in perches (one (1) perch is 5½ yards) which were in use into this century but, during the seventeenth century, they were not without variation (Welfare 1989). Finch stated that Julliberrie's Grave ' ... lies East and West, inclining something something to the South and North' (Nichols 1817-31, 96-7). This was repeated by Battely (1711, 110) and then corrected in a footnote by the writer of the 'Remarks' in the Gentleman's Magazine (xliv (1774), 373-375), who observed that 'It is not exactly so, but approaches nearly to the SE and NW'. In Stukeley's Prospects (1776, Tabs. 54, 56, 57) the long barrow appears as accurately sited in relation to the topography of its surround. Hasted recorded that 'It is in its present state from north to south I48feet ...' (1790, 140, fn. i) which observation was repeated by Ireland (1829, 522). Ronald Jessup, after his survey, said, with exemplary accuracy, that 'It is oriented 350° east of north, ie. N. by W. and S. by E., so that for all practical purposes it may be said to lie north and south' (1937, 125). The approximate east-west orientation of long barrows has been commented upon from the first (Stukeley 1743, 46; Colt Hoare 1810, 21) but, none the less, local topography determined departures (Ashbee 1984, 23-4). R.F. JESSUP'S EXCAVATIONS, 1936 AND 1937 Ronald Jessup's excavations (Fig. 4, general plan) were carried out in July 1936 and, for some eight weeks, a year later in 1937 (Jessup 1937; 1939). They showed, in the first instance, that Julliberrie's Grave was, indeed, a long barrow, and not a pillow-mound, and, secondly, something of its erstwhile character, possible associations, later usages and vicissitudes. Its ditch proved to enclose the southern end, in the manner of certain long barrows in Dorset and Hampshire (Ashbee 1984, 42, fig. 30); Kinnes 1992, 179, 181). The mound, scarred by the earlier excavations, was of soil and turf, mantled by chalk, from the ditch. A possible post-hole was contemporary with this mound, which had been truncated at its ends by the chalk-pit and plough encroachment. A broken polishedflint axe, of apparent Scandinavian affinity, was recovered from the heart 19 N 0 " 0 " 7 􀀃 Scale. of feet. 10 2.0 JO 40 SO .. OUTER MARGIN OF DITGff UNCERTA/H -- 0 !0'11-tl.xt POlTHOLts AHO UJI.LY EXCAVAT/OX OUTUlf[ or MOUNO Tl{US --- CCINTOUR llffts AT roar INTERVALS THUS-•--' Ul:A ncAVATED SHAOl.p THUS ✓ / / s,􀀊tTR£N'" TOLL OF 􀀋 ------ TREES---,,,,, , COKJEtTUIUL LINE ar DITCH THU.S----- -· 􀂤 LARGE FLINT$ f;-􀀎-i􀀏􀀐-:-􀀑􀀒􀀓􀀔􀀕􀀖􀀗=-􀀘==􀀙􀀚􀀛:􀀜-􀀝􀀞----w½ NOT EXCAVATED SID􀀓;􀀔;;CK----- -- --------------- 􀀅 A ./ ---·-· .,,.,..- --------·--·-·-·-·􀁒---·-·-·-· - :..:.=---· ---·-' 􀁓 ·':::􀀋􀀌􀀍􀀎􀀏i.r􀀐􀀑-- m · W A"71 .. •=􀀃 :.--:.:􀁔::.:::--=.::.:-.=.=-􀁕-==-􀁖􀁗-=-...- ---------------------- -------- ,/ ;,;􀁘;.. PROFILE ON LINE A•Z SCALE. AS ABOVE O ,," H SIDE tRtNCH , .,. SIDE TRENCH .!i, C _.,..,. __ !____________________ -------- =============- z Fig. 4. R.F. Jessup's general plan of Julliberrie's Grave when excavated. 􀀄 ► v., e& gJ JULLIBERRIE'S GRAVE, CHILHAM of the mound while coins and other objects, as well as pottery and burials, testified to a more than casual Romano-British interest in the long barrow. Julliberrie's Grave was one of the small series of long barrow excavations, carried out during the 1930s, which were the valued precedents for later, post-war, endeavour (Ashbee 1970, 6). The Ditch In 1936, prior to excavation, aerial photography had not disclosed the ditch and only thickened grass-growth, on the north-western side, gave a hint of its possible existence and extent. Thus, in that year, four principal cuttings, on the flanks of the mound, were sited to explore its nature, infill and dimensions. One of these, on the western side (Jessup 1937, Pl. XXXIII, M2) was extended into the mound and was flanked by another cutting, Ml. During 1937, further cuttings at the southern end disclosed its existence around that extremity, while another, on the eastern side upon the lip of the chalk-pit, showed that it had continued, but had been, like the mound, truncated. Like most long barrow ditches (Fig. 5), the berm sloped from the base of the mound. This is a feature of weathering and denudation, frequently observed (Ashbee 1970, 47) and now, after three decades, to be seen at the Overton Down Experimental Earthwork (Jewell (Ed.) 1963). In 1936, it was, on the east side, broad and flat-bottomed, resembling the generality of long barrow ditches (Ashbee 1984, 47-9), but on the west side narrow and round-bottomed. A considerable plough-soil accumulation masked it, which clearly accounted for a lack of surface indication and which may have rendered it insensitive to aerial observation. The work during 1937 established the fact that the ditch continued around the south end of the mound and here it was broad and flat-bottomed, resembling the east side. Worked flints, the subject of an especial study (Clark 1937), were recovered mainly from the initial ditch silts in 1936, while a miscellany of Iron Age and Roman sherds of pottery came from the upper levels. Further flints were found in the ditches in 1937. Two small pieces of pottery, possibly earlier Neolithic, were also in the first coarse chalky ditch silt. They were not dissimilar to hand-made local Iron Age wares, thus, despite their context, they should be considered with caution. When, in 1937, the course of the ditch around the southern end of the barrow was established, four Roman burials (Jessup 1939, 265-6, Pl. LIV) were found dug into either its margin or its infill. Their character and associations will be discussed in detail below. When they were dug, the ditch silting process was largely complete. Here, however, at the south end, the reduction of the mound may account for the upper chalky 21 􀀂 ",O.RSH •1t0w" IU•IITtt l'ff!C OltOW'N c,o.,n-,c MTM sc.-.nutD e,.,,.,11 LUl,OS DA.Jte>l,\Lll'rLJ•JU'lt M[,1t.ltTM l 􀀎-•-••o••"'􀀏••m• YlU.OWUtt ru•t [All.TH WlfN 5C.ITT[R(O PICCD ar "'"" Cl<,LUI[ X tLINT AXC Scale of" feet i 'oO􀀑