Reviews

REVIEWS Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park and Surrounding Areas By K. Blockley, M. Blockley, S.S. Frere and S. Stow. 27.5 x 21.5 cm. Pp. 1315, figs. 580, pls. 163. The Archaeology of Canterbury, V, Canterbury Archaeological Trust, 1995. Price: £60. This enormous production, comprising two substantial volumes and a wallet of loose-leaf drawings, provides the definitive report on an important series of excavations in the centre of Canterbury. These excavations include both those undertaken by Professor Frere on behalf of the Canterbury Excavation Committee in the post-war period and the later campaigns of the Canterbury Archaeological Trust carried out between 1978 and 1982. Both the excavations and publication represent a colossal undertaking for which there are few parallels in contemporary archaeology; all concerned should be congratulated on bringing the task to a successful conclusion with the publication of these impressive volumes which contain a mine of information which will be of especial interest to those working on Roman towns and the Late Roman-early Medieval transition. It is clear from the anatomy of the report that the process of preparing the publication was not without its problems. It is, for instance, evident that the many of the finds reports were written more than ten years before publication and this has had an impact on their current relevance. Equally, a close reading of the site reports reveals some unevenness in the incorporation of the sequences from excavations undertaken at different times and using varying techniques. Neither of these sets of problems should, however, obscure the achievement of the publication which presents a coherent picture of a very substantial part of the centre of one of England's principal historic towns. Seen in perspective, the scale of the work is most impressive. A brief scan of the Continental literature will show any critic of British urban archaeology how much more we now know of the development of Canterbury than of almost any comparable European city. The task of reading a report like this is daunting and one may question the extent to which such large volumes now fulfil the needs of either the archaeological profession or the interested public. The style of t9e publication is consistent with previous volumes in the Archaeology of 341 REVIEWS Canterbury series but I was surprised by the relatively lavish production standards. There are a large number of pull-out illustrations which are certainly not all entirely necessary and the text only makes limited use of reduced point-size in the Finds part. I would have been happier to see a similar reduction in print size used in the descriptive sections of the stratigraphic text. This would not only have made the book easier to handle (and presumably cheaper to buy) but would also have made it easier for the reader to separate the crucial texts from the routine descriptions. In the event, Blagg's 'Overview' (pp. 7-25) not only provides an excellent statement of the relevance of the excavation results to contemporary understanding of the site, but with careful use, it also provides the reader with a guide to make sense of the complex site information. It is perhaps less successful in guiding the reader through the contents of the various finds reports which thus tend to overwhelm. This is a pity since some contain fascinating and important new information. One or two gaps in the finds report should be noted. The omission of a bone report (explained on p. 1266) is particularly regrettable given the key importance of the later Iron Age and late Roman-Anglo-Saxon sequences for our general understanding of towns in Britain. Similarly, the absence of any environmental sampling perhaps looks odd in the 1990s but is understandable in the context of the era in which these excavations took place. In the remainder of this review I would like to focus on three sets of themes rather than pick through the report line by line. In doing this I aim to select and discuss questions of wider significance in the hope of contributing to our future understanding of Canterbury. These themes are determined as much by the contents of the report as by my own interests; I trust that in working in this way I am not detracting from the importance of other contributions. The themes I wish to examine are the character of the pre-Roman Iron Age settlement, the nature of the centre of the Roman town, and the transition from Roman to Anglo-Saxon town. The Iron Age Settlement The Marlowe excavations have now provided an insight into a considerable area of the pre-Roman Iron Age settlement beneath the later Roman civitas capital. (Although the report under review persists in using the term 'Belgic' for this later Iron Age period I would argue that this term is ambiguous in the ancient sources and is better avoided.) The substantial area of the new site now known (cf. Figs. 4 and 232) together with the finds from these excavations now provide useful insights into the character of the settlement. Blagg's 'Overview' (pp. 7-11) highlights and reviews a number of the crucial issues, especially the perceptual difficulty created by the later development of the site into a Roman centre which arguably leads to the assumption that the earlier settlement must 342 REVIEWS have been equally important. The quantity of Iron Age coinage from Canterbury and its immediate area certainly now suggests that there was an important Iron Age focus here although it is later in date than other centres in southern England (cf. Haselgrove Arch. Journ., cxlv (1988), 99-122). A post-Caesarian date does not now seem in doubt, but whether Canterbury should be seen as a successor to Bigberry is more questionable. The character of the excavated features with triple ditched enclosure and round houses contrasts with the evidence now available frqm the near contemporaneous sites like Silchester and Canterbury appears almost rural in character. However, I am inclined to doubt that the triple enclosure is simply a stock pound since the staggered entrances seem too elaborate for this function and the variety of finds, especially the pottery, are more than one would expect at a farmstead. One of our difficulties here is that the term 'oppidum' creates expectations of the archaeological evidence which seem at variance with the reality. I would be inclined to see the development of settlement centralisation in the later Iron Age as one which has been given too much emphasis and would suggest that central people were more important than central places. The discovery of one nucleus of late Iron Age activity beneath the later town at Canterbury does not mean that there were not others and, as at Verulamium, we might expect to find a series of enclosures of different character in the immediate vicinity. Such dispersed centres of power are much more difficult to locate than proto-towns especially when there is a later superimposed settlement. The possibililty of other foci should certainly be borne in mind in developing strategies for dealing with development and excavation elsewhere in the city and its environs in the future. It may also colour our interpretation of such characteristics as the apparent hiatus in amphora supply in the earlier part of the first century A.D. which may have affected only parts of a larger complex. Should the opportunity occur to sample parts of this or another later Iron Age enclosure in the future much could be learnt from an examination of botanical and bone evidence since they have the potential to provide key information on the economic base and should provide some alternative to the perspectives provided by pottery and coinage alone. The Roman Town centre The Marlowe excavations have given us a remarkable insight into the development of the centre of a major Roman town. When combined with other excavations of the Trust and the Excavation Committee we have a good idea about the nature of the town (cf. Figs. 2 and 233). When seen in perspective these excavations raise as many questions as they answer. The salient features seem to be a relatively low density of settlement, a comparatively slow rate of development (cf. the number of phases of 343 REVIEWS change seen in the centre of London, Trans. London and Middlesex Arch. Soc., xliv (1993), 23-170) and a less than regular street grid. I do wonder whether the last feature might not have been influenced by as yet unknown features of the Iron Age topography. The late development of this part of Canterbury (with the change to a Romanised lay-out happening c. 70/80) is not, of course, unusual in Romano-British towns. Given Canterbury's location in south-east England the absence of evidence for the development of recognisably Romanised structures anywhere in the town by this date is more surprising. When this is added to the apparently relatively low density of activity and the slow rate of change one has an impression of a quiet suburb rather than a vibrant urban centre. This may be because we are seeing a back area behind the theatre and baths, away from the principal focus of the town, but we ought perhaps to consider where, if anywhere, the more vibrant heart of the town lay. These points should not belie the importance of the town, a civitas capital of an important region, but may give clues to the nature of such centres in a province like Britain. Here the importance of the baths excavated at Marlowe is crucial. The reconstructed plan of these baths (Fig. 92) demonstrates that they were impressive if unusual in layout with the insula containing them surrounded by massive porticoes. The baths were long lived and this arguably demonstrates the depth of Romanitas in the town. The other structures recovered are adequate but much less remarkable in their designs. Their very ordinariness perhaps gives a better impression of what appears to have been a quiet market town. The big question remains how typical this area is of the town as a whole. I do wonder whether a well-designed spatial study of the finds from the Marlowe excavations together with those from other parts of the town might be used to shed further light on its character. In the absence of further large scale excavations such studies have the potential to provide insights into the issues. The Late Roman-Anglo-Saxon transition Canterbury in general and the Marlowe excavations have already figured very prominently in the debate about the nature of the transition from Romano-British to Anglo-Saxon town (compare S.S. Frere in The Civitas Capitals of Roman Britain, 1966 with D. Brooks, Oxford J. Archaeol., vii (1988), 99-113). This volume should provide the definitive statement of the evidence for these important sites but the publication of this aspect of the information seems to me to be very problematic. The structural sequence is presented with admirable clarity (pp. 280-350). From this evidence it is very clear first that the black earth at the end of the Roman sequence in different areas begun to accumulate at different times, second that the Anglo-Saxon sunken featured buildings cut into this at 344 REVIEWS different stages and third that although there was a high density these structures there was no real evidence for this part of Canterbury having been in any sense urban until later in the Saxon period. The picture clearly emerges of discontinuity and a piecemeal development which varies across the area despite the organisation evident in some parts of the site. The chronology of the Anglo-Saxon sunken featured buildings is very difficult to establish and relies heavily on an anlysis of the pottery (pp. 818-896). Such pottery is inherently intractable and I have to say that I found that the presentation of this part of the report is far from satisfactory. It lacks clarity and is poorly edited so the reader has to work backwards and forwards to retrieve key information. I am sure that the broad chronological conclusions are correct, with some gap between the Roman and Saxon sequences, but I am far from convinced either about the details of the dating or the methods upon which they are based. In essence, the typology of the vessel forms and the fabric analyses do not help in differentiating the material before the seventh century; as a result the occasional metal objects and the stratigraphy have to be used. I think it would be most satisfactory to admit that further chronological precision is really impossible. Instead, the evidence is pushed further, with the inclusion of dead-reckoning, to suggest absolute dates. I am left very uneasy about the dates that emerge and would have been happier to have seen a clear admission of the ambiguity of this early Anglo-Saxon material. As far as the broader picture is concerned the fascination of this important early medieval sequence remains. An important feature is the narrow typological range of the buildings identified, especially the absence of halls. Here we may need to be a little cautious for although their absence is contrasted with other sites (p. 350), the distinction may be illusory. On several sites of the fifth-seventh century it can be argued that the sunken featured structures are ancillary structures. This may also be the case_ at Canterbury for we only have good information from one part of the town and halls may well have been located elsewhere within the Roman walls. Indeed some specialisation within a large settlement might be expected. One might also ask whether the range of Roman buildings which are shown as being 'in decay' at this stage (e.g. Fig. 247) were abandoned or whether they retained some function. In relation to this final point one of the most fascinating features of the topographic development of the early medieval settlement is the way in which the discused Roman theatre became focal to the street grid (see Fig. 236). This provides a contrast with other Roman towns, but also raises interesting questions in relation to the Roman public baths. The sequence here shows that St. Margaret's Street running north-east from the theatre cuts through the core of the baths (see Fig. 92) whilst other 345 REVIEWS parts of the building, the portico and former Laconicum, remained standing until into the eleventh century. This seems to suggest either some strong motive to destroy the main part of the baths and/or some good reason for retaining the standing remains of the structures excavated on these sites. This raises interesting implications about the nature of the Anglo-Saxon settlement and perhaps the role of the surviving Roman structures within the town. This last point serves simply to remind us how much we have learnt from these major excavations. They set a new baseline for our understanding of Canterbury, resolving issues and clarifying new questions for the future. They represent an important contribution to British urban archaeology and deserve to be widely and carefully studied. MARTIN MILLETI The Beresfords of Bedgebury Park. By Gordon W. Batchelor. 22 x 80 cm. 263 pp, with index. William J.C. Musgrave, Goudhurst, 1996. ISBN 0 9527822 00. (Presentation edition of ten numbered copies. Standard edition £15.00 limp, plus £3.15 postage and packing, available from the author at Twyssenden Cottage, 1 Priors Heath, Goudhurst, Cranbrook, Kent TNl 7 2RB). Mr Batchelor has lived since 1948 in what was once a cottage belonging to the Bedgebury estate. He began a serious study of the Beresford and Beresford Hope families in 1970 and the result of his labours is contained within the pages of a handsome presentation volume. It is a worthy successor to The Book of the Beresford Hopes, by Irene and Henry William Law, published by Heath Cranton in 1925. Although the present author devotes two chapters to Field-Marshall Viscount Beresford and to the enlargement of Bedgebury Park, in the late 1830s, it is with the life and times of Alexander that he is chiefly concerned. Alexander James Beresford Hope (afterwards Beresford Hope), the youngest son of Thomas Hope (1770?-1831) of The Deepdene, Dorking, or possibly a son of Marshall Beresford by Mrs. Hope, was born on 25th January, 1820, and educated at Harrow School before proceeding to Trinity College, Cambridge, where he obtained a scholarship and several prizes. Hope obtained his B.A. in 1841, M.A. in 1844 and D.C.L. in 1848. From June 1841 until July 1852 and again from 1857-59, Hope represented Maidstone in Parliament in the Conservative interest, albeit independently, since his party could not always count on his vote. Mr Batchelor quotes skilfully from the conservative Maidstone and Kentish Journal, which printed almost every word Beresford Hope ever uttered 346 REVIEWS in public. In later life Beresford Hope represented his old university in Parliament. Throughout his parliamentary career Beresford Hope, who assumed that name on the death of Marshall Beresford in 1854, championed the Church of England against any attack. From 1859, his other great cause to which he gave his 'undying, undeviating, and unmitigated opposition' was opposition to the Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister Bill. The opposition so expressed, as the author shows, was the same to every issue which Beresford Hope did not approve. While an undergraduate Hope had joined the Cambridge Camden Society because its scholarly approach to the architecture, decoration and ritual arrangements of churches was one of his great interests. Through Hope's influence Christ Church, Kilndown, was transformed from 'a plain oblong room ... low tin roof ... a mean table for the altar ... into a building reflecting Camden Society and Tractarian principles'. His great wealth, inherited from his father and an uncle, enabled Hope to purchase the ancient buildings of St. Augustine's Abbey, Canterbury, which when restored became a college for the training of missionary clergymen. He built, at his own expense, All Saint's Church, Margaret Street, London. Readers will be entertained by Mr Batchelor's lively retelling of Beresford Hope's great building projects. Both at Canterbury and Margaret Street he employed the services of William Butterfield as architect. Beresford Hope was refreshingly forthright in his opinions of prelates of the church. At Margaret Street Beresford Hope clashed with the bishop, Archibald Campbell Tait, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, dismissed as ' ... slimy but malicious, shuffling, inconsistent, insolent, and yet courting the dirtiest popularity.' Through the social activities of his mother, Viscountess Beresford from 1832 and a woman of the bedchamber to Queen Victoria from 1830, and his own wealth, Hope became an extremely eligible bachelor. In 1842, he married Lady Mildred Cecil, elder daughter of the second Marquess and Marchioness of Salisbury, by whom he had ten children. Surprisingly from such a large family, there are not known to be any living descendants. The paternalistic attitude of both Beresford Hope and Lady Mildred to every aspect of affairs in Kilndown and Goudhurst is well chronicled. The support Beresford Hope gave to the Confederate States of America during the War of the Secession is recounted with telling detail. James Mason, of the 'Trent Affair' stayed at Bedgebury over Christmas 1864. When General Thomas Jonathan (Stonewall) Jackson died from wounds received at Chancellorsville in May 1863, Beresford Hope was a member of a committee organised to erect a statue to the general's memory. Despite many difficulties the statue, by John Foley, was eventually unveiled on the capitol grounds at Richmond, Virginia, in 1875. A 347 REVIEWS surplus from the statue fund was used to provide income for two gold medals to be awarded annually at the Virginia Military Institute, Lexington, Virginia, where Jackson had been a professor. These medals continue to be awarded. Beresford Hope, always interested in antiquity and antiquarian matters, was a founder member of the Kent Archaeological Society and spoke at length at its inaugural meeting held at the Charles Museum, Maidstone on April 14, 1858. Beresford Hope appears never to have understood the difference between interest and capital and eventually this led to his financial embarrassment. This aspect of Beresford Hope's affairs, and measures taken to correct them, are discussed with detachment. When Beresford Hope died at Worthing on October 20, 1887, his eldest son, Philip, entered into a doubtful inheritance and was forced to sell the library of rare and valuable books at Sotheby's in June 1888 in a sale which realised £2,832 14s. 6d. (approximately £141,635 today). Bedgebury Park itself was sold to Mr Isaac Lewes for £77,000 (£3,850,000) and he in turn sold its contents, which in the main had belonged to the Marshall and Alexander, for £36,764 (£735,280) on May 12, 1919. The Beresfords and Beresford Hopes became as a dream remembered. Among the pleasures of this volume are its illustrations particularly the beautiful watercolours of Bedgebury Park, reproduced in colour, painted by the architect Alexander Roos, c. 1838 and now at the Yale Center for British Art. Marshall Beresford and Alexander James Beresford Beresford Hope were both rather larger than life and Mr Batchelor is to be congratulated in having brought them to life, so to say, so vividly. DA YID A.H. CLEGGETI' The Speculum of Archbishop Thomas Secker. (Ed.) Jeremy Gregory. 24 x 16 cm. Pp. Iii + 365. The Boydell Press for the Church of England Record Society, Woodbridge, 1995 (£35, cased). It is fitting that the Church of England Record Society should choose to publish an important Kent document as its second volume, and it has been fortunate enough to attract one of England's more distinguished ecclesiastical historians of the eighteenth century to edit it. The Speculum covers the period 1758-61 and includes the whole dioceses of Canterbury and the archbishop's peculiars in the dioceses of Chester, Chichester, Lincoln, London, Norwich, Rochester and Winchester. It is reproduced in the order and format of the original manuscript in Lambeth Palace Library and covers the usual ground of visitation records in this 348 REVIEWS period. The questions, reproduced on pp. xli-ii, to which the text provides the answers, covers the extent of the parish; evidence of Roman Catholics, Protestant dissenters and those absenting themselves from public worship; details of residence, church services, charities, schools and benefice income. Gregory's apparatus is meticulous. Each entry is footnoted to provide known details of incumbents and others referred to in the text. There is a substantial introduction which surveys the latest state of research on the Church of England in the eighteenth century and the light that the Speculum throws on the condition of the Church of England in most of Kent, since a substantial part of the diocese of Rochester lay within the archbishop's peculiar jurisdiction, and a few areas outside Kent. There are maps showing the location of all the parishes in the diocese of Canterbury and those belonging to each of the peculiars. Altogether this is a handsomely produced volume and a valuable edition to the considerable number of eighteenth-century visitation records now in print for English and Welsh dioceses. The only addition which could usefully have been made would have been to summarise some of the information provided in the text in tabular form. As it is those who wish to use the volume to cover the whole diocese of Canterbury or one of the archiepiscopal peculiars, or a particular group of parishes within them, will have to do this work for themselves. NIGEL YATES Also received: Dover' s Hidden Fortress. By J. Peverley and K. Alexander. 21 x 15 cm. Pp. 38, with several plates and illustrations. Crabwell Publications (2 The Ridgeway, River, Dover, CT17 ONX), 1996 (£3.95, limp). A well-documented and illustrated booklet on the history and preservation of the Western Heights fortifications, and the White Cliffs countryside project on the Western Heights. Faversham's Reluctant Exiles, 1825-1845. By J. Stevens, 29.5 x 21 cm. Pp. 64, with several illustrations. About Faversham no. 49. The Faversham Society, 1996 £2.95 (£3.95, by post) (limp). The story of 22 Faversham people transported to Australia, fascinatingly told, with a mass of documented evidence. The Journal of George Thomas Mann. Transcribed by A. Mann and M. Welsh. 29.5 x 21 cm. Pp. xvi+ 67 with illustrations. About Faversham no. 50. The Faversham Society, 1996. £2.95 (£3.95, by post) (limp). 349 REVIEWS An edited transcription of the journal of George Thomas Mann of his years (1871-80) in the Victorian navy. Faversham Book Trade 1730-1900. By R. Goulden. 29.5 x 21 cm. Pp. 53, illustrated. About Faversham no. 51. The Faversham Society, 1996. £2.95 (£3.95, by post) (limp). A history of Faversham's book trade, with a book trade directory (1730- 1900) and indices of names and places. A Celebration of 50 Faversham Papers. Compiled by W. Williams. 29.5 x 21 cm. Pp. 17. The Faversham Society, 1996 (N.p., limp). An additional publication by the Faversham Society to mark the first 50 of its papers, with interviews and a list of the papers and facsimiles of their front covers. 350