Great Tottington's Sarsen Stones

GREAT TOTTINGTON' S SARSEN STONES PAUL ASHBEE Whereas the sarsen stone-built long barrow remains on Blue Bell Hill have been noticed and described since the sixteenth century (Ashbee 1993), no more than incidental mention has been made of the many stones, grouped and isolated, which were at one time to be seen on the lower land skirting Great Tottington. Spreads of substantial stones, brought down from the heights by periglacial solifluxion, were to be found in Westfield Wood and behind the Lower Bell Inn, while, at one time, there were scattered boulders from Burham to Boxley and Bearsted. At Tottington, in the nineteenth century, an array of stones, large and small, were seen to lie around the farmyard; while others, some substantial, rested on the banks and in the spring-head which fed the pools and moat. Similarly, such sarsen stones were also a feature of the Cossington spring-head, almost a mile to the east. From the eighteenth century onwards, antiquarians and various archaeologists have speculated, regarding these as erstwhile circles and avenues. Sadly, Great Tottington 's sarsen stones, like those higher upon Blue Bell Hill, have been neither planned nor examined in detail. Thus little is known of the size and characteristics of those that remain. Moreover, they have never been systematically counted, writers merely remarking upon 'large numbers', although Dunkin (1871, 75) saw more than fifty blocks in the farmyard and a group of eight close by. However, in 1946, a rapid count by the present writer revealed about a hundred stones, while a few years later Alan McCrerie, who has been most helpful with his notes and memories, identified about ninety-five. Hercules Ayleway, one of William Stukeley' s correspondents (Lukis 1883, 225-8), visited Kit's Coty House in 1722 and saw attached to it ' .. a parcell of small stones in the form of brachii, or arms, or arches of circles', a feature which has been thought of as the pulled down, unburied, stones of the long barrow's kerb (Crawford 1924, 3; Daniel I 950, 82). Beyond his description of this apparent feature, Ayleway continued 209 N .... 0 Fig. l Great Tottington as seen by William Stukeley in 1722. Stones may be what is shown in the western spring. .,, ► ? ► VJ 􀀁 m m GREAT TOTTINGTON'S SARSEN STONES .. by reason of the many stones I find disposed in or very near a straight line, and exactly corresponding with the said arches, which avenue leads to a little farm called Tottendan [sic] Place, about 800 yards west [SW] of the Cotty House; it was moted around, and whilcome was a place of good strength. Neare this is Tottenden rivulet!, full of such like ragged stones, and as large as them I have described, and thence I suppose they were taken. Thereafter he refers to the Coffin Stone and remarks that 'these stones are all rough and unhewed, nor ten non nor mortise', these having been observed at Stonehenge by Stukeley. In Stukeley's sketch of Kits Coty House (1722) Tottenden, its moat and spring, is shown but there is no indication of the many stones in the vicinity (Ash bee 2001, 82-3). This sketch was converted into a detailed engraving (/tinerarium Curiosum IT, 1776 (Tab.31)). Here, Tottington Place, and its moat, is shown in some detail but, apart from the Coffin Stone, the many sarsen blocks noted by Ayleway are omitted (Fig. 1). However, a letter from Lord Winchelsea (Lukis 1883, 228) shows that the Tottington stones may have been observed and discussed for there is the curious sentence: 'I will certainly, as you desire, bring you some of the stones out of Todington brook'. Rather than substantial sarsen stones, this may be a confusion with Cossingtoii where the springwater rapidly stained flints red. Here there were also blocks of sarsen stone, long since removed, perhaps by the Water Board (Coles Finch 1927, 166). Sadly, little is known of the Cossington stones which, like those at Tottington, might have remained from a long barrow of which no overt trace remains. However, during 1980, four substantial stones, which had been buried in pits, were encountered at no great distance. Stone burial is, indeed, attested in various ways from almost all the Medway's stone-built long barrows (Philp & Dutto I 985, 11; Ashbee 1993, 64). Two generations later, John Thorpe (Smith 1837, 288), one who went out into the countryside and looked at the remains of earlier ages, explored the Blue Bell Hill area and left us a lucid and informative account, including a map (Fig. 2), in his Custumale Rojfense (London, 1788, 67-75). He said something of the medieval chapel (Coles Finch 1927, 163), sited close by the Coffin Stone (Fig. 3), the remains of which had been used to repair roads. He also mentioned a wall of 'large rough stones' lining the lane by which both stood, beside describing the stones around and about Tottington Place (1788, 67-8). Of these he wrote that: In the field adjoining, are several very large stones a little beneath the surface of the earth, some of which lie so fleet [sic], that it is with difficulty that men can plough it; and in some parts of it they appear 211 PAULASHBEE 􀀋 ;,t:i 􀀱:􀀲 .. :,, s , ... '' \\::::\ 􀀌 ',\ \'. n .Pur/Nt,n ----- \\ ·- !i --====-- 􀀌􀀍􀀎 ii --:==;:====1s,\ !: ,, i: ·: .. :-:-· .. :: .. :c .. ·• .. : .... • ... :::.:.:.!!:􀀙 , ... .. . ·.􀀴 E (::􀀇?, J \􀀈􀀉􀀊Jft􀀋􀀌{}􀀍 1-- 5: .. 􀀄 ;:􀀄 'i9:.t.;-:;t;t:?,: I ,'i' _;1 .. :- ,_...... ... . . ·- ·- .. £110l""9',f --􀀳􀀴 't. !J °;·􀀒':t􀀓5.􀀔-J:i:/[i;:,;,:- JJomom􀀐·{·.;·s􀀑;.l!'Jll..2m ,;-F􀀊AI􀀋i:t:AJ£.:;-􀀌􀀍- li O. ·•::.:.􀀵---j:- ._;::.;:::::·-::-:::-:-..:·􀀶.:.,,-..:., _ _. ::,-11---- L􀀂 -=-""'􀀄, 212 􀀅 􀀍 􀀎 .... GREAT TOTTINGTON'S SARSEN STONES level with the surface, as the tenant showed me. Stones of great magnitude likewise lie dispersed about the moat and yard, which give the place a romantick appearance; and one before the barn measured nine feet and a half in length, and seven feet in breadth. Another, much broader and of greater size, is at the upper end of the yard, near the spring-head. All these stones are irregular as when first taken from the earth, but through the great length of time and injuries of weather, are become smooth; and of the same kind, and similar to those which compose the celebrated British monument called Kits-Cotty-House, situated at a small distance from this place ... During the fourth decade of the nineteenth century, the Reverend Beale Poste ( 1793-1871 ), labelled a 'Disciple of the Druids' by Evans (1949), assembled material for a work to be entitled The Military Antiquities of Kent. Scrutiny of this shows that his antiquarian notions, particularly those pertaining to 'Cromlechs and Tumuli', are those of the eighteenth century, and his visions of 'Druidical Temples, and a 'Dracontium ', at Birling, could be thought of as emulation of William Stukeley (Piggott 1985, 105). Described in the Dictionary of National Biography as a divine and antiquary, he entered Trinity College, Cambridge, and took his degree in 1819. When in holy orders he held some curacies, but swiftly moved to Bydews Place, near Maidstone, his estate, to pursue his researches. It may well be that at Cambridge he had imbibed Stukeley's notions, for at that time they were the only source for views on England's ancient past. His developed interests, numismatics and Roman Britain, the latter seen in his contributions to Archaeologia Cantiana, may well, because of their systematics, have led to the abandonment of the Druidical work for which he had mustered so much material. Although couched in Druidical terms, the Beale Poste notes upon Kent's ruined stone-built barrows, upon both sides of the Medway, and the many scattered sarsen stones, contain much that is apposite to those of Tottington Place. For this area he devised an etymology, 'Todten-tuna, the village of the slain'. There had been a foundation preceding the chapel near the Coffin Stone, close by which a sack-full of human bones had been found, harking back to the victory at Fig. 2 (opposite) John Thorpe's plan of Great Tottington and its sun-ound, as depicted in Customale Rofjense (1788, 67, Pl. III, fig. l). His legend is: A. Kits Cotyhouse (sic); B. The Stones, 90 feet from the lane, and 1495 feet from [Lower] Kits Cotyhouse; C. A well, where formerly stood a house; D. Ruins of the Chapel 410 feet from the Yard; E. The Coffin Stone 270 feet from the Yard; F. Tottington Farm; G. Hop Ground [indicated by stacked poles]; H. Orchard. 213 PAULASHBEE Fig. 3 John Thorpe's illustration of the Coffin Stone (I 788, Pl. III, fig. 2). He said that Stukeley gave it this name because the edge, seen in a lane-side bank, resembled an exposed coffin. Aylesford of the Christian Britons, while there was also a Druidical Circle and Altar Stone. More Druidical remains were to be seen at the spring-head, where he thought that the Druidical Headquarters, a Dracontium and a Via Sacra had once existed, statements that Stukeley (Piggott 1985, 103-6) might have hesitated to utter. Several of his drawings are of Tottington 's stones, one showing a snake-like Dracontium. There is a useful appraisal of the now vanished stones at the Cossington spring and notice of sarsen stones, single or grouped, in the vicinity; there is also reference to isolated sarsen stones in other parts of Kent. A critical edition of Beale Poste's notes coupled with his some fifty-seven sketches and plans, these being meticulous in their measurement and execution, would be an important addition to the perspectives of our megalithic long barrows. Thomas Wright, the pioneer of popular archaeology ( 1854, 172- 83), explored what he termed 'The Valley of Maidstone - Kits Coty House and the Cromlechs around', in the company of Lambert B. Larking, Vicar of Ryarsh, in I 844. Kit's Coty House was not a solit- 214 GREAT TOTTINGTON'S SARSEN STONES ary monument for the remains of a group were seen scattered over the fields below, including the Coffin Stone. He dug behind it and, thereafter, took his workmen to the summit of Blue Bell Hill where he found sarsen stones covering pits infilled with flint nodules. Later in the century James Fergusson (1872, 116-21), included a description of the area in his Rude Stone Monuments in all Countries, the first book to discuss the generalities of megalithic structures. Indeed, he derived the Medway's long barrows from Holstein (Daniel 1950, 162). Apart from specific monuments, he saw: ... nearer the village [Aylesford) exists or existed, a line of great stones, extending from a place called Spring Farm, in a north-easterly direction, for a distance of three quarters of a mile, to another spot known as Hale Farm passing through Tollington [Tottington), where the greater number of the stones are now found. In front of the line near the centre at Tollington lie two obelisks, known to the country people as the coffin stones - probably from their shape.T hey are 12 feet long by 4 to 6 broad, and about 2 to 3 feet thick. They appear to be partially hewn, or at least shaped, so as to resemble one another. In a footnote he recorded that one stone was almost wholly, and the other partially, buried, and that the dimensions were obtained by probing. At about the same time Tottington was visited by E.H.W. Dunkin (1871, 75) who recorded the 'megalithic remains' briefly, but not in unobjective detail, while citing Thorpe's comments upon their condition. He wrote: Here are stones lying about in all directions, seemingly without any plan, and it is therefore difficult to form an opinion respecting them. Some must be omitted from consideration, as they have been brought from the adjacent field in which the Coffin Stone lies. Seven or eight of these stones are disorderly thrown down at the base of one of the trees near the spring-head, and, thinking them of a suspicious looking character, we made enquiries and learnt that they were some of the very stones brought from the field above. Many of the stones, however, have such a stained and weatherworn appearance as to leave no doubt of their having been exposed for a very long period. Altogether more than fifty blocks, large and small, lie about the yard. The only trace of any arrangement appears just above the spring-head, where the stones crop out of the ground in a kind of semicircle. Nearer the farm buildings, they lie in groups. One of these groups comprises eight stones, some of large size, one block measuring 6ft 4in. in length, and 4ft in breadth'. Dunkin's investigations, which showed that, despite their considerable number, Tottington's stones had been brought together from the farm's surrounding fields, led to a lack of interest in them by sub- 215 PAULASHBEE sequent writers. They were either a recent assemblage or, perhaps, a natural concentration of stones as higher upon Blue Bell Hill. Thus they warranted no more than incidental observation and the ruined long barrows, rather than Tottington 's considerable collection of sarsen stones (besides those still to be seen here and there in the vicinity) became, understandably, the focus of attention. Indeed, since Dunkin's observations, made more than a century ago, there has been little more than cursory observation of the stones, although attention has repeatedly been given to those around the spring-head. George Payne (1893, 126) viewed Kit's Coty House and its allied sites, saying that there was 'passing in close proximity to the monuments a large number of sarsen stones which may have once formed part of them or some other similar structure long since destroyed'. George Clinch who assembled and wrote the prehistoric section of Kent (Victoria County History, i, 318-20) makes no mention at all of Tottington 's many stones. However, William Coles Finch, wellknown for his historical and topographical works, remarked ( 1927, 301): Although the ancient manor house and chapel are gone, and the moat is more or less filled in, the stream and the huge sarsen stones remain. Many of these stones are only partly exposed as they recline in the bed of the water-course, over which today the clear waters of the small spring flow. Some form a series of stepping stones, whilst others of considerable size lie all but submerged in its waters. Following comment upon the Coffin Stone, citing Thorpe (1788, 67-8), he continues, saying that in about 1836: These huge stones were common hereabouts, and many large ones were destroyed about the moat and yard and spring-head. One in front of the barn measured nine feet six inches by seven feet. These stones were all irregular and rough when taken from the earth, but through great length of time and the action of weather had become smooth. Indeed, a waggoner of the farm averred that the stones sank and rose again and sometimes one could plough with ease but at other times the stones were an impediment. Evans (1928, 81) voiced the objective view that had emerged asserting that 'there are large Sarsen-groups at Tottington Springs and Tottington Farm, but no evidence that they formed megaliths can be found now'. He added that sarsen stones are scattered over the whole area between Aylesford and Burham. Ronald Jessup (1930, 82) felt that because there were so many sarsen stones in the area, there should have been, supplementary to the long barrows, a stone circle 216 GREAT TOTIINGTON'S SARSEN STONES or circles. He thought that the nearest approach was the group of sarsen stones around the spring-head, although they were seen to be in disorder, half-buried or in the stream. The long standing claim for a stone circle in Cobham's Battle Street was also cited. Twenty years later the circle notion was matched by the observation (Evans 1950, 69) that of the spring-head stones 'two in particular lying side by side look like a collapsed chamber'. It was also said that 'another similar group around Cossington spring-head once existed but may have been removed'. In his chapter on Megalith Builders, Ronald Jessup (1970, 1 0 I), however, avers that these spring-head stones represented the remains neither of circles nor megalithic chambers: .. here [Tottington spring-head] may be seen a group of sarsen stones in great disorder, some being half buried in the stream. The spring water may well have been available to the megalith builders, but neither here nor at Cossington ... where there was also a group of sarsens round a spring-head is it possible to define the site of a monument. More recently this view has been re-echoed by Holgate ( 198 I a, 13) who said that: A group of sarsen stones lie around Tottington spring-head at a distance of about 100 metres to the southwest of the Coffin Stone, but these are likely to be a natural grouping. Sadly there was no mention of them in his short article ( 1981 b) defining the nature of the long barrow group. Following Dunkin's paper (1871, 75) the present writer has, since his early scrutinies, been of the view that the substantial stones around Tottington's spring-head are from the Coffin Stone's long barrow. Indeed, some could have been part of a substantial chamber or, perhaps, the fai;ade. When the Coffin Stone long barrow was slighted, and possibly because of its size and seeming importance, the chapel was built close by, and the spring-head could well have been thought of as a better and more ready place of deposit than the barrow's silted ditches. Earlier in the twentieth century Coles Finch (1927, opp.266 ) illustrated their size and nature, while they were also the subject of one of Hubert Elgar's remarkable photographs (Plate I). If these stones are from the Coffin Stone's long barrow, there must be a cogent reason for the remainder, the array of various sizes, thronging the immediate vicinity of Tottington Farm. Whereas Stukeley's correspondent, Hercules Ayleway, stressed the size and nature of the sarsen stones in 'Tottenden ri vulett', it was Thorpe (1788, 74) who emphasized, on two brief passages, those 217 PAUL ASHBEE PLATE l Sarsen stones in and around Great Tottington's western spring. Photograph by Hubert Elgar, c. 1925, from the east. They are probably from the Coffin Stone long barrow. 'which lie dispersed about Tottington-yard'. From his observations, in the vicinity of the Coffin Stone, where there were, close by, stones beneath the surface, and elsewhere at no great distance, he hazarded that they 'were undoubtedly taken up in sinking the moat there'. This is an eminently sensible comment but, notwithstanding, there is the inherent possibility that, while sarsen stones had for long been in and around Tottington's spring-head, the considerable number in and around the farmyard, particularly on the eastern side, had been brought there during the half-century, or more, that had elapsed between the visit of Ayleway during the J 720s and Thorpe in about I 780. Thus a reason for the considerable assemblage of sarsen stones, some large, in the Tottington Farm area, though not in either spring or brook there, could be sought. Indeed, Thorpe is, so far as can be seen, the first to record a particular tale which may have been told to account for the ruinous condition of, at least, the Lower Kit's Coty House chamber (Ashbee 1993, 79-80). 218 GREATTOTIINGTON'S SARSEN STONES Of this patently toppled chamber, Thorpe (1788, 74) wrote: Mr Dunnings a very antient man and tenant at Tottington ... said it was thrown down by order of the then proprietor; and the stones, when broken in pieces, were to be put on board vessels to go down the River Medway to Sheerness, for paving the garrison there; but when they had pulled them down, were so hard, the workmen could not break them, so as to answer the trouble and expense. This story was repeated by Ireland (1829, 556). Dunkin (1871, 73) quotes Thorpe, although he was primarily concerned with changing depictions. Fergusson, however (I 872, 1 17, n.2), recounts how: When I was there [Hale Farm) four years ago I was fortunate enough to find an old man, a stonemason, who had been employed in his youth in utilising the stones. He went over the ground with me and pointed out the position of those he remembered. Clinch (I 908, 3 I 9) was specific regarding the Lower Kit's Coty House saying that 'the stones were thrown down in the early part of the eighteenth century, and between the years 1772 and 1824 they suffered considerable further damage'. Later in the century Coles Finch (1927, 301) remarks that in '1836, these huge stones were common hereabouts and many large ones were destroyed about the moat and yard and spring-head'. Ronald Jessup (1930, 66) recalls Fergusson' s mason and refers to a structure having been partially destroyed by blasting, and in his later work (1970, 98-100) he states that the great block, the 'General's Tomb', lying adjacent to the Kit's Coty House long barrow, was blown to pieces in 1867. Regarding the Lower Kit's Coty House he said that James Douglas was told in 1773 that the monument had been thrown down to sell the stones as roadmetal but they were too large and their transport would have been too costly. Indeed, in what was an age of agricultural improvement there was continued destruction of which there is no record and little exact knowledge (Ashbee 1993, 66). In assessing the problem of the incidental sarsen stones around the lower slopes of Blue Bell Hill, which for the most part were in the vicinity of wrecked monuments, as are those few remaining, and the Tottington assemblage, the prodigious use of such stone for a specific long barrow should be borne in mind. Besides chambers and fa􀃍ades, for which the more massive blocks were employed, the kerbs containing the long barrow, which were also a feature of the series, also involved great quantities of lesser stones, normally tabular blocks. Were a contained long barrow, as for example, at Warren Farm (Ashbee, 2003, fig. 1), about 180ft in length, its kerb would have 219 PAULASHBEE utilised some 120 or even 140 selected pieces. Although the medieval slighting process (Ashbee 1993, 63-6) involved stone burial, it is manifest that while stones were normally buried in ditches, as at Kit's Coty House (McCrerie 1956), many, as at Addington, were not interred. Upon both sides of the Medway the practice was chamber wrecking, fa9ade felling, and, mostly, kerb removal and barrow levelling. Indeed, numerous unburied, seemingly scattered, stones would have for long been a prominent feature of the landscape. Hercules Ayleway (Lukis 1883, 225), describes something of this. It seems likely that there may have been considerable clearance before Stukeley explored the Blue Bell Hill long barrows. So far as is known, he did not record stones at Tottington, although those in the spring-head may feature in his Prospect (1722). This initial clearance and a further one in the eighteenth century, which entailed the assembly of stones at Tottington, may point to a contingent utilization industry of which there is no more than travellers' tales. Nowhere upon Blue Bell Hill, nor upon the western side of the Medway, is there any evidence of the splitting of sarsen stones by employing fire and water, a process so graphically described by Aubrey and Stukeley (Ashbee 1993, 67). A stone-felling pit at A vebury, when excavated, contained, besides burned straw remnants, quantities of flakes and scales of sarsen stones (Smith I 965, 180). Ploughing spreads such material and the sites of destroyed stones are unmistakable. Immediate stone disposal on Blue Bell Hill would appear to have been by digging and dragging out, as at Warren Farm (Evans 1948; Ashbee 1993, 84), and thereafter dumping at a field margin. A number of sarsen stones of substance are in the copse below the steeply rising field in which Kit's Coty House stands, and are likely to have been removed from the remains of the long barrow. For ultimate removal to an assembly area, were working envisaged, teams of horses, dragging a robust timber sledge, would have sufficed. Large blocks would have been split with gunpowder, used in Wiltshire for this purpose from the eighteenth century onwards. Indeed, in the area between Avebury and Marlborough, where great spreads of sarsen stones, the probable sources of the great stones used at Stonehenge (Cleal et al. 1995, 26) and Avebury (Smith 1965, xxxviii), a stone-splitting and working industry emerged during the nineteenth century (King 1968). As the sarsen stones of Blue Bell Hill, and those on the western side of the Medway, around and about the Addington-Trottiscliffe area, are the only large spread outside northern Wiltshire, it is not unlikely that a similar industry, the work of which gave rise to the stories regarding the stones of the Lower Kit's Coty House, may have emerged. Besides building materials there was a demand for setts and kerbstones, such as might have been 220 GREAT TOTIINGTON'S SARSEN STONES envisaged for the Sheerness garrison installations. Because of the intrinsic nature of sarsen stones, the techniques employed for its working in Kent could not have differed greatly from those of Wiltshire. Indeed the aged stonemason met by Ferguson (1872, 117, fn.2) could have been a rare survivor from an industry in which silicosis was endemic. Beyond the repeated assertions that the stones of the Lower Kit's Coty House were to have provided paving for the Sheerness barracks, there is little positive evidence of the erstwhile existence of a sarsen stone industry. Indeed, Tottington's stones have been seen as a natural phenomenon, comparable with the assemblages higher on the hillside, by English Heritage, and thus not to be protected (Ashbee, 1999- 2000). This despite the fact that it is the only major assemblage on the Gault and is related to the Tottington area. However, it can be said that the stones, apart from some, and those in the spring-head, are of such a size as could have been brought to the area employing horses. For the most part, they are tabular in character and, at least by known standards (King 1968, 89), suitable for working. Moreover, unlike the patently natural sarsen stone spreads on Blue Bell Hill, they are conveniently dispersed for the manoeuvring of horses bringing stones to the concentration area. Positive evidence of sarsen stone splitting and working, discarded pieces, fragments, chips and dust would have long ago dispersed. Stone pieces would have been used for road and track repair while all else would have been taken into the soil profile by earthworm action. Hence the settled, ancient, look of the stones seen by antiquarians and archaeologists down the years. On the other hand, there is the possibility that selected sarsen stones, some, perhaps suitably split, were shipped to Chatham and Sheerness, and there made into setts and kerbstones. Indeed, some might remain in the vicinity of the earlier buildings in those places. Had there been a modest sarsen stone industry based upon Tottington, it is likely to have declined and failed early in the nineteenth century. It is known that the East Kent Water Company had, even at the very beginning of the twentieth century, a contract with the Free family, one of the last to be concerned with sarsen stones in the Marlborough area, for such stones to be used in building supply hydrants. Quantities of sarsen stone were sent to this company over a number of years (King I 968, 88). Some of these hydrants may remain to be located in eastern Kent, where they would be within the ambit of industrial archaeology. Besides the concentrations of sarsen stones at Tottington and high upon Blue Bell Hill, there have down the years been numerous references to stones scattered upon the south-western facing lower slopes. There has also been the suggestion of another possible Jong barrow between Kit's Coty House and its lower compeer ('Between 221 PAULASHBEE these two a third dolmen is said to have existed within the memory of men', Fergusson 1872, 117), the stones of which may have been encountered in l 941 (Harrison 1942, xxxvi). There have also been continued claims for avenues, and even circles, which have persisted to this day. Nowhere is there a more fertile seedbed for such notions as a substantial sarsen stone spread such as Tottington. Whatever the origins of the Tottington stones, and an ingathering for ultimate utilisation seems not improbable, they are patently an historic, if not overtly ancient, monument (Fig. 4) and, within the national scheme of things, should be accorded appropriate protection. Ronald Jessup's (1948) list of Ancient Monuments in Kent specified only Kit's Coty House, the Lower Kit's Coty House and the White Horse Stone on the eastern side of the Medway. The Kit's Coty House long barrow, then upstanding and unmistakeable, the Coffin Stone, and the remarkable Tottington sarsen stone spread were excluded. Since then the long barrow has been all but obliterated and, recently, the iron railings and the well-known stones vandalised. Another large sarsen stone, dragged from the ground by modern machinery, now lies on the Coffin Stone and the traces of the long barrow neareradicated by deep ploughing. Parts of Tottington' s sarsen stone spread, it is reported, are being moved, if not destroyed. Overtures have been made to English Heritage regarding the condition and threats to these monuments, but, despite their manifestly unsatisfactory condition, no significant problems are seen. Indeed, it is averred that Tottington's sarsen stones do not meet the criteria for protection as ancient monuments, for they might have resulted from natural processes. In substance these specious assertions are distant from the tenets of prehistory, which, from time to time, must accept, provisionally, circumstantial evidence. All in all, bearing in mind the character and dispersal of Tottington's stones, it seems not unreasonable to conclude that those in the spring-head are from the erstwhile Coffin Stone long barrow, while the remainder, around and about the farm, the results of clearance and assembly, perhaps from the eighteenth century onward, with the inherent possibility of an incidental utilisation industry. The location of setts, kerbs and even flagstones, if they remain, at Chatham and Sheerness, might well substantiate this. However, this great assemblage of sarsen stones cannot be other than a memorial to the prodigious numbers of stones that even the more modest long barrows of the Medway series would have required. Tottington is a unique site, cogent archaeological evidence of what is likely to have come to pass, in the years, after our Medway Valley's long barrows were slighted and despoiled. Indeed, it is imperative that these, and Tottington 's stones, which are in a sense a memorial to their erstwhile substance, 222 471 •129 ;:., GREAT TOTTINGTON'S SARSEN STONES 470 2•JJI .. ,, 􀀉: .. !t ·.􀀊 ,, ., 􀀂: .. ' ... .. ..:􀀈 St,>nes '..,:J c,..J <-:.. Fig. 4 Great Tottington as depicted by the Ordnance Survey I: I 0,560 or 6in. to 1 mile Revision of 1938, Sheet XXXI, 6. The sarsen stones are shown as clusters of irregular dots supplemented by the legend Stones in six places. (Reproduced by the kind permission of the Director-General.) be accorded such Ancient Monument protection as England's state system allows. By way of an epilogue, Great Tottington' s spring, one of a series that sprang from the junction of the Chalk and the Gault, should not be forgotten. Coles Finch (1927, 274) notes their incidence for during 223 PAULASHBEE the 1920s they flowed freely, fed substantial ponds, and provided exceptional domestic supplies. Sadly, the great chalk aquifer is today sorely depleted and many are now dry. O.G.S. Crawford (1924, 3) cites Hubert Elgar as pointing out the proximity of the Coffin Stone, Lower Kit's Coty House and, indeed, Kit's Coty House, to the then copious spring at Tottington. Recently, details have been published (Eve 2000, 402) of nineteenth-century watercress cultivation utilising its pools and streams. It would have undoubtedly been facilitated by the sarsen stone blocks and boulders therein. BIBLIOGRAPHY Ash bee, P., 1993, 'The Medway megaliths in perspective', Archaeologia Cantiana, CXI, 57-111. Ashbee, P., 1999-2000, 'Long Barrows and Sarsen Stones', KAS Newsletter, 45, 11. Ash bee, P., 2001, 'William Stukeley's Kentish Studies of Roman and Other Remains', Archaeologia Cantiana, CXXI, 61-102. Ashbee, P., 2003, 'The Warren Farm Chamber: a Reconsideration', Archaeologia Cantiana, cxxru, 1-15. Clinch, G., 1908, 'Kentish Megalithic Structures', Kent, Victoria County History, i, 318-20. Coles Finch, W., 1927, In Kentish Pilgrim/and, its Ancient Roads and Shrines, London. Crawford, O.G.S., 1924, Ordnance Survey Professional Papers, New Series, No. 8, Archaeological Information Incorporated in the Ordnance Survey Maps, Part 2, The Long Barrows and Megaliths in the area covered by Sheet 12 of the quarter-inch Map (Kent, Surrey and Sussex), Southampton. Daniel, G.E., 1950, The Prehistoric Chamber Tombs of England and Wales, Cambridge. Dunkin, E.H.W., 1871, 'On the Megalithic Remains in Mid-Kent', The Reliquary, 12, 67, 80. Evans, J.H., 1928, 'On the megalithic monuments of the Medway valley', Rochester Naturalist, 6, 73-90. Evans, J .H., 1949, 'A Disciple of the Druids, the Beale Poste MSS', Archaeologia Cantiana, LXII, 130-39. Evans, J.H., 1950, 'Kentish Megalith Types', Archaeologia Cantiana, LXIII, 63-81. Eve, D., 2000, 'Kent Watercress Beds: an Initial Survey and Typology', Archaeologia Cantiana, CXX, 396-412. Fergusson, J., 1877, Rude Stone Monuments in all Countries, their Age and Uses, London. Harrison, Sir Edward, 1942, 'Report for the year ended 31st December, 1941 ', Archaeologia Cantiana, LV, xxxi-xxxvii. Holgate, R.V., 1981a, A Management and Research Design for the Kent Megaliths, Dept. Env., London. 224 GREATTOTTrNGTON'S SARSEN STONES Holgate, R.V., J98Jb, 'The Medway Megaliths and Neolithic Kent', Archaeologia Cantiana, xcvu, 221-34. Ireland, W.H., 1829, A New and Complete History of the County of Kent, III, London. Jessup, R.F., I 930, The Archaeology of Kent, London. Jessup, R.F., 1948, 'Ancient Monuments in Kent', Archaeologia Cantiana, LXI, 122-25. Jessup, R.F., 1970, South-East England, London. King, N.E., I 968, 'The Kennet Valley S arsen Industry', Wiltshire Arch. Mag., 63, 83-93. Lukis, W.C. (ed.), 1883, 'The Family Memoirs of the Rev. William Stukeley MD and the Antiquarian and other Correspondence', Sur tees Society, LXXVI. McCrerie, A., I 956, 'Kit's Coty House', Archaeologia Cantiana, LXX, 250-1. Payne, G .• 1893, Co/lectanea Cantiana: or Archaeological Researches in the neighbourhood of Sittingbourne, and other parts of Kent, London. Philp, B. and Dutto, M., I 985, The Medway Megaliths, Dover. Piggott, S ., 1985, William Stukeley, an Eighteenth Century Antiquary, London. Smith, I.F., 1965, Windmill Hill and Avebury, Excavations by Alexander Keiller, 1925-1939, Oxford. Smith, J.R., 1837, Bibliotheca Cantiana, London. Thorpe, J., 1788, Custumale Rojfense, London. Wright, T., 1854, Wanderings of an Antiquary, chiefly upon the traces of the Romans in Britain, London. 225