Archaeologia Cantiana, Volume CXXXVIII (2017)
Written By Jacob Scott
CONTENTS
The Saxon Steed and the White Horse of Kent. By James Lloyd ......
The Contents and Context of the Boughton Malherbe late Bronze Age hoard.By Sophia Adams....................................
The Home Farm of St Augustine's Abbey, Canterbury, before and after the Dissolution. By Richard Helm and Sheila Sweetinburgh ........
The Roman Villa at Minster in Thanet.Part 11: the Glass.
By Rose Broadley .........................................
'Kentish Gothic' or Imported? Understanding a group of tracery-carved medieval chests in Kent and Norfolk.
By Christopher Pickvance ..................................
A Prehistoric Ring-Ditch at Martin, near Dover. By Keith Parfitt and Richard Hoskins ..........................................
Philip Symonson's Map,ANew Description a/Kent: 'the Finest Specimen of English Cartography before 1600'.By Linda Taylor ............
The Findings of various Archaeological Investigations at the Roman Naval Fort, Stutfall Castle, Lympne, 2014-16.By Malcolm Davies...
Shepsters, Hucksters and other Businesswomen: female involvement in Canterbury's fifteenth-century economy.By Sheila Sweetinburgh ....
Antiquarians, Victorian Parsons and re-writing the Past: how Lyminge Parish Church acquired an invented dedication.
By Robert Baldwin ........................................
Changing patterns of routeways in the landscape of the eastern High Weald from the end of the Roman period to the building of the Turnpikes.By Brendan Chester-Kadwell.......................
The remarkable multi-period finds at Minnis Bay, Birchington: the major contribution to inter-tidal zone archaeology made by Antoinette Powell- Cotton (1913-1997). By Vera and Trevor Gibbons ................
The Elham Annunciation by John Ward R.A.By Daphne Joynes ........
A Pulham garden rediscovered at Nonington.By Peter Hobbs .........
More Classis Britannica tiles from East Wear Bay, Folkestone.
By Adrian Weston .........................................
Reviews ..................................................
Kentish Bibliography ........................................
Obituary ..................................................
KAS
KENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
www.kentarchaeology.org.uk
PAGE
1
37
65
89
105
129
149
165
179
201
227
257
279
291
301
309
327
337
ARCH/EOLOGIA CANTIANA 2017
Kent Archaeological Society
image
ArchIBologia Cantiana
image
Images of Kent No. 13. Dungeness Lighthouse 1823 (William Daniell). From the KAS Library Collection.
image
Archreologia Cantiana
Being Contributions to the History and Archaeology of Kent
VOLUME CXXXVIII 2017
Published by the
KENT ARCHLEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
Registered Charity no. 223382
© 2017 Kent Archaeological Society ISSN 0066-5894
Produced for the Society by Past Historic, Kings Stanley, Gloucestershire Printed in Great Britain
image
This volume is dedicated to the memory of
Peter Stutchbury
Honorary General Secretary of the Society 2010-2015
Cover illustrations: the bright pink colouring preserved in the tracery recesses of the Faversham medieval chest fac;;ade (see pp. 115-6); part of the Minnis Bay Bronze Age hoard (see p. 261).
image
CONTENTS
List ofOfficers and Members ofCouncil vii-viii; Editorial Personnel viii
PAGE
The Saxon Steed and the White Horse ofKent. By James Lloyd . . . I
The Contents and Context of the Boughton Malherbe late Bronze
Age hoard. By SophiaAdams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
The Home Farm of St Augustine's Abbey, Canterbury, before and
after the Dissolution. By Richard Helm and Sheila Sweetinburgh . 65
The Roman Villa at Minster in Thanet. Part 11: the Glass.
By Rose Broadley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
'Kentish Gothic' or Imported? Understanding a group of tracery- carved medieval chests in Kent and Norfolk.
By Christopher Pickvance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
A Prehistoric Ring-Ditch at Martin, near Dover. By Keith Parfitt and
Richard Hoskins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Philip Symonson's Map, A New Description of Kent: 'the Finest Specimen ofEnglish Cartography before 1600'. By Linda Taylor. 149
The Findings ofvarious Archaeological Investigations at the Roman
Naval Fort, Stutfall Castle, Lympne, 2014-16. By Malcolm Davies 165
Shepsters, Hucksters and other Businesswomen: female involvement in Canterbury's fifteenth-century economy.
By Sheila Sweetinburgh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Antiquarians, Victorian Parsons and re-writing the Past: how Lyminge Parish Church acquired an invented dedication.
By Robert Baldwin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Changing patterns ofrouteways in the landscape ofthe eastern High Weald from the end of the Roman period to the building of the
Turnpikes. By Brendan Chester-Kadwell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
The remarkable multi-period finds at Minnis Bay, Birchington: the major contribution to inter-tidal zone archaeology made by Antoinette Powell-Cotton (1913-1997).
By Vera and Trevor Gibbons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
The ElhamAnnunciation by John Ward R.A. By Daphne Joynes..... 279
A Pulham garden rediscovered at Nonington. By Peter Hobbs. . . . . 291
More Classis Britannica tiles from East Wear Bay, Folkestone.
By Adrian Weston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
Phil Andrews, Paul Booth, A.P. Fitzpatrick and Ken Walsh. Digging
mat t.h.e.G..a.te.w..ay...T.h.e.A..rc.h.a.e.o.lo.gy...o.f .th.e..E.a.st..K.e.n.tA..c.ce.s.s.(.P.h.a.s.e 3�
Simon Elliott. Sea Eagles of Empire: The Classis Britannica and
the Battles for Britain 311
V
image
Alison Hicks et al. Medieval Town and Augustinian Friary: Settlement c.1325-1700. Canterbury Whitefriars Excavations 1999-2004 312
Sheila Sweetinburgh (ed.). Early Medieval Kent 314
Michael Baron. The Royal Heads Bells ofEngland and Wales 316
James M. Preston. Malting and Malthouses in Kent 317
Kent Gardens Trust. Capability Brown in Kent 318
Andrew Ashbee. Zeal Unabated: The Life of Thomas Fletcher Waghorn (1800-1850) 319
Andrew Sargent. Drinking in Deal: Beer, Pubs and Temperance in
an East Kent Town 1830-1914 321
T.L. Richardson. The 1830 Farm Labourers'Riots in Kent 322
Ian Jackson and Keith Robinson (eds). Ofthe North Kent Marshes 323
Susan Curran. The Wife of Cobham 324
Philip Eyden. Dover :S Forgotten Commando Raid, Operation Abercrombie: The Raid on Hardelot 324
Richard Stubbings (ed.). An Oral History ofHorsmonden 325
Kentish Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
Obituary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
Notes on Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
Committees of the Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342
General Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343
Vl
image
THE SAXON STEED AND THE WHITE HORSE OF KENT
JAMES LLOYD
In 1933, the College of Arms granted a heraldic achievement to Kent County Council that included, on the escutcheon, a prancing white horse on a red field.1 The White Horse motif is now ubiquitous in Kent, used by most public organizations (e.g. Kent Fire and Rescue Service, Kent Police, etc.) and by many private ones. It is, therefore, a little surprising to note that 1933 was the first time that this symbol was given any kind of official sanction or recognition. Although it had been used before then, its use depended on tradition. It is the purpose of this paper to trace how far back that tradition went and what its original rationale was.
This is not the first attempt to answer these questions. In 1931 and 1932, the Honourable Henry Hannen (who was a consultant to the County Council committee that applied for the coat-of-arms) and an anonymous correspondent known as 'G.H.W.' exchanged a series of brief articles in Notes and Queries,2 which later formed the basis of a column in the Kent Messenger.3 R.F. Jessup published a short paper on the subject in Antiquity in 19354 and Georg Schnath gave Kent a paragraph in his definitive history of the Saxon Steed in 1956.5 Most recently, a page devoted to it has been published on the website British County Flags.6
Although this paper does, to a certain extent, repeat its predecessors' findings, it goes into much greater detail than any of them, while also bringing to bear further evidence that they did not consider.
Ancient kings' standards
The earliest trace of the use of a horse symbol in some kind of official context in Kent was in Celtic times. Numerous coins struck in Cantium in the century preceding the Roman invasion depict horses.7 This design, however, was not limited to Cantium and derived not from any particular association between the Kentish tribes and horses but from the Celtic devotion to horses in general.8
Very few coins survive from Anglo-Saxon Kent and none of those that do depicts a horse, generally preferring crosses or the minter's name.9 The Anglo-Saxons were, however, like the Britons whom they had displaced, religiously devoted to horses, for which the principal evidence comes from Kent's own foundation myth. The story is a familiar one: Vortigem, the corrupt king of a Britain shaken by its unexpected independence of Rome, hires Saxon mercenaries led by the brothers Hengest and Horsa to fight against his enemies, Irish, Pictish, Germanic and even British. By way of payment, he cedes first Thanet and then Kent but they tum against him and trigger the Germanic invasion and settlement of what would
1
image
JAMES LLOYD
become England. Hengest rested on his laurels in Kent and his descendents would rule it until its conquest by Mercia in the late eighth century.
The story, as drawn cumulatively from Gildas, Bede, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and others, renders into a single narrative what must really have been a complex chain of inter-related and simultaneous events. With the exception of Gildas, who did not name any of the participants, none of these sources was even near contemporary (the next written source, Bede, wrote nearly three hundred years after the events he was describing) and the gap must have been filled by oral tradition. As a result, modem historians are timid about its details and the names of the founders of the Kentish kingdom, Hengest and Horsa, are particularly suspicious.10 These names mean respectively 'stallion' and 'horse' (feminine, so implicitly 'mare'). It is not impossible that the brothers actually had such names, or they may have been nicknames. It is generally felt, however, that names of this nature must have had a symbolic significance and, appearing in two founding brothers, they seem just too good to be true. A connection is commonly made with the apparent religious significance of horses among Germanic tribes11 and the inference is that either the brothers were given these names in honour of a horse-god or they actually were horse-gods, an expression of an Inda-European myth, also represented by the Hindu Asvins and the Classical Dioscuri, of male twins, consistently associated with white horses, who, in the Germanic tradition, were often remembered as the leaders of migrations.12 Other Anglo-Saxon deities are known to have been demoted to historical humans, after the conversion to Christianity, in order to explain the memory of them (and, perhaps, to sanitize them as ancestral figures).13
Maybe Hengest and Horsa are another example of this practice.
If Hengest was a real man, then the Kentish kings' supposed descent from him might have given them a rationale to use a horse as their symbol. Alternatively, if the first Kentish had followed a horse cult, of which Hengest and Horsa were a rationalized memory, then their descendents would still have had a reason to use a horse as their symbol and its use would not have been confined to the royal household. In either case, in what medium might this symbol have been expressed? The ancient Germans, according to Tacitus, believed that their war-god accompanied them into battle and 'certain totems also and emblems are fetched from groves and carried into battle'.14 Though he did not identify these symbols, it has been suggested that the 'totems' were 'images of sacred animals' and that the 'emblems' were 'weapons and instruments used by gods'.15 The apparent religious importance of the horse to Germanic culture might make a prima facie case for
assuming that these images included an equine motif.
Frustratingly, however, the standard most consistently ascribed to Germanic tribes in written sources was a draco. Widukind of Corvey, describing an episode that took place in the sixth century, refers to a banner in the Saxon camp that the Saxons held as a sacred ensign, on which were depicted a lion and a dragon, with a flying eagle above them.16 Though not associated with Saxony, the Psalterium Aureum, an early tenth-century manuscript from St Gall in modem Switzerland, depicts Jacob going to war against the Syrians and Ammonites with a draco standard borne before him.17
This tradition was continued by the Saxons in Britain.18 At the Battle of Burford m 752, the twelfth-century chronicler Henry of Huntingdon recorded that the
2
image
THE SAXON STEED AND THE WHITE HORSE OF KENT
West Saxon and Mercian battle-lines were'coloured with banners'19 and that'... LEthelhun, who led the way bearing the banner of the king of Wessex, that is, the golden dragon.20 This is apparently corroborated by a local tradition, recorded in the seventeenth century, that the people of Burford commemorated the battle by making a dragon and parading it.21
The golden dragon re-appeared at Ashingdon in 1016, when Edmund Ironside was stationed between it and his personal standard.22 The latter re-appeared at Hastings, where several Norman knights were killed in capturing it.23 Although Henry of Huntingdon did not describe it, this may have been Harold's banner embroidered with the figure of a warrior that Duke William sent back to the pope after his victory.24 This standard does not appear on the Bayeux Tapestry but two dragons do, one golden and one red, depicted being borne before King Harold.
If it is true that the continental Saxons had used a draco-standard, then they may have borrowed the idea from the Romans, who used a dragon-shaped windsock as the ensign of a cohort.25 Alternatively, if the standard's use was confined to the Anglo-Saxons, they may have borrowed the idea (ironically) from the Romano Britons (it is the origin of the Welsh Dragon), who would in tum have inherited it from the Romans.26
That the West Saxons did not use a horse-standard seems to be certain but this does not rule out the possibility that the Kentish did. The purpose of standards was to distinguish different commanders, a necessity which implies that different militia were headed by different standards.27 The presence of multiple standards at Hastings is hinted at by Guy, bishop of Amiens.28 It is lamentable that this near contemporary source does not describe any of these banners.29
The fact that the Anglo-Saxon army went to battle in militias drawn from the different shires led James Campbell to speculate that each shire might have had its own banner.30 Since the royal West Saxon draco does not seem to have changed with the whim of each new king but remained consistent over time,31 might Kent have had its own banner, passed on from one king, ealdorman or sheriff to the next for use in battle? If so, would it be too much to suppose, in the light of the tradition represented by Hengest, that it might have been an equus-standard?
It is tempting to identify the recently revived custom of horse-hoodening, long practised around Christmas time in certain parts of Kent,32 as a relic of such a usage but, like the equine motif on ancient British coins, customs similar to horse hoodening are recorded in other parts of England. Furthermore, it is not traceable, even in Kent, to earlier than the eighteenth century. This does not prove that horse hoodening does not date back to Anglo-Saxon times but rather a leap of faith is required to assume that it does.
The real problem with the horse-hoodening theory, however, is that it is wishful thinking and in defiance of all historical evidence. The sources attributing a draco standard to the Saxons, in both Germany and Britain, though not contemporary with the incidents that they narrate, do present a consistent picture, despite their mutual independence and therefore command authority. The only Anglo-Saxon kings known certainly to have used a windsock standard were the kings of Wessex (and possibly Mercia) and they used a dragon, borrowed from the Britons or the Romans. To believe that the kings of Kent, being impressed by the draco-standard of the Romano-Britons, decided to adopt a similar motif but adapted it to denote
3
image
JAMES LLOYD
their own equine patronage, something that the only Anglo-Saxons known to have imitated the draco-standard did not do, is to derive rather a lot from nothing at all. Another reason against assuming the antiquity of a windsock standard in Kent is its association with the Saxons, whereas other nations have different standards ascribed to them.33 According to Bede, Kent was settled not by Saxons but by Jutes.34 Although not all historians accept Bede's scheme for the settlement of Britain into Anglian, Jutish and Saxon areas as perfectly accurate,35 the archaeological evidence does seem to show that the inhabitants of west Kent were culturally distinct from the inhabitants of east Kent but indistinguishable from the Saxons of Surrey, Sussex and Essex.36 Conversely, brooches and bracteates found in east Kent, the Isle of Wight and southern Hampshire (settled, according to Bede, by Jutes) do, very generally, show affinities with Frankish/North Sea styles from the mid-fifth century to the late sixth, in contrast to the north German styles found elsewhere in England.37 The fashions of east and west Kent did not converge 'until
well on in the 7th century'.38
These changes in culture reflect changes in politics. It was not until the reign of LEthelberht that west Kent was subordinated to the east but even thereafter it occasionally enjoyed its own kings, several of whom were East Saxon kings or were related to the East Saxon house.39 To describe the Jutes as actually from Jutland may be a simplification40 but they were definitely non-Saxon and their dominance in east Kent is important, since the evidence for the use of a windsock standard is mainly associated with kingdoms of Saxon descent and is nowhere associated with the Jutes.41
Even the evidence supplied by Hengest is not as strong as it seems. When Kent converted to Christianity, not only would the horse-cult that he apparently represents have ceased to be a patriotic movement but it might actually have become an object of embarrassment. While a purely military standard might survive the conversion, any equine iconography would have been regarded primarily as a religious symbol, in which case it would likely have been among the idols destroyed in 640 by order of King Earconberht.42
Any possibility that the horse was a royal ancestral symbol is also ruled out by the fact that the kings of Kent, who were based in the east, did not take their name from Hengest. Instead, they were known as the LEscingas, from Oisc, suggesting that the legend of Hengest and Horsa may not have been as significant to them as it had become by the time Bede recorded it. Bede himself seems to have been unconvinced by the historicity of the whole account43 and the tradition that he recorded '... looks like someone's attempt to combine two rival origin legends'.44 This merger is believed to have taken place under LEthelberht's aegis, after the subordination of west Kent (and its Saxon traditions) to the east.45
Finally, Campbell's case for the consistent use of shire banners overlooks the complexity of Anglo-Saxon military organisation. The draco-standard remained consistent because it represented an office, the Crown ofWessex, which continued to exist regardless of changes in personnel.46 Campbell's hypothetical subsidiary banners would therefore have represented these offices, not their contingents and the offices qualified to lead a militia were bewilderingly varied, including ealdormen, sheriffs, thegns and even bishops, each of whom, presumably, would have had his own banner.47 Furthermore, the Anglo-Saxon army was not discretely
4
image
THE SAXON STEED AND THE WHITE HORSE OF KENT
organised into one shire per commander but one commander might have multiple shires fighting under him and under his banner, or one shire might have multiple potential commanders with multiple banners of their own. Once Kent had become absorbed into the West Saxon dominions, there would have been no standard, no matter what might have existed thitherto, which might be described as the Kentish standard. Even if we do assume that the ancient Kentish kings had carried a horse totem into battle (and there really is very little reason left to do so), this tradition is unlikely to have survived all the changes in administration that befell Kent after its conquest by Mercia.
The case for the antiquity of the White Horse of Kent is unsustainable. The historicity of Hengest and Horsa is dubious and their role in the foundation of the kingdom of Kent is likely to be a retrospective confection. The latter consideration also makes it difficult to attribute the reputed horse-cult that they might personify to the Jutes or to their LEscing kings, who in any case would have renounced its symbolism at their conversion to Christianity. Finally, though there is evidence for the use of a draco-standard by some kings of Saxon descent, there is no contemporary evidence anywhere for the use of a horse-standard by the Angles, the Saxons or the Jutes.
The Saxon Steed
It is, however, true that the origin of the motif lies in Saxony. Albert, co-Duke of Brunswick and Liineburg (a title shared simultaneously amongst several members of the House of Welf),48 began using the horse on his seal from his father's death in 1361; over the next decade, it was adopted in all three main lines of the dynasty.49 Initially the horse was depicted courant but Duke Magnus's seal of 1369 changed its position to salient and this became standard.50 In the generations that followed, more branches of the family adopted the symbol as their seal, crest or escutcheon.51 The vicissitudes of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries saw the Duchy dissolved and its territory partitioned between several successor states, which inherited the Saxon Steed. Since 1945 it has been used by the state of Lower Saxony, which comprehends the territory of the old Duchy.52
In the mid fifteenth century, the archbishop of Cologne, as duke of Westphalia, started using the symbol.53 It would be inherited by the Prussian province of Westphalia and ultimately by the modem state of North Rhine-Westphalia.54 Numerous towns and districts in these states use or have used the symbol.55 It is also used in the Netherlands, as one of the quarters of the arms ofRenkum56 and as the flag of the region of Twente.57
At the first appearance of the full achievement of the Saxon Steed on a heraldic text in 1380, it was described as an ancient symbol of Brunswick58 and the possibility of an unrecorded earlier use of the symbol in a context other than heraldry has been entertained by some commentators59 but not only is there no real evidence for its use before 1361 but it is not even found before that date in contexts where one might have expected it.60 Schnath, whose investigation of the matter is the most thorough written to date, went as far as to recognize the Heldenburg, Duke Albert's now ruined castle in Salzderhelden, as the actual birthplace of the arms of Lower Saxony.61 Perhaps it should also be recognized as the birthplace of the arms of Kent.
5
image
JAMES LLOYD
The reason why this symbol was adopted and what the rationale behind the design was are subjects of dispute. One suggestion is that it is a misinterpretation of the English crest62 (the English escutcheon had inspired the original symbol of the dukes of Brunswick: a lion)63 or that it was based on the seal of the count of Schwerin (a knight on horseback).64 A particularly interesting suggestion was made in the early fifteenth century65 by the German historian Gobelinus Person. It deserves extensive quotation:
Now, the leaders of that army who set out from Saxony to Britain were the sons of the duke of Angria or Enger, one of whom (as Bede says) was called Hengest and the other Horsa,66 the cant of whose names in the vulgar tongue signifies a royal horse of outstanding strength and beauty, which princes mainly use in jousts and tournaments. And it is perhaps for that reason that the arms of certain dukes of Sax ony are a white horse, for they have received such arms from their progenitors since ancient times. And thus have the names of the princes agreed with the names of their arms since ancient times, just as even today in Westphalia the names of certain knights agree with the names of or terms for their arms.67
Gobelinus belongs in a tradition of continental scholars who elaborated considerably on the bare bones of the legend of Hengest and Horsa as given by Bede.68 His own connection of the Saxon Steed with the brothers has an obvious relevance to this paper but, although several more recent authorities have accepted his explanation, 69 Schnath dismissed it7° and the evidence considered in the preceding pages should be added to his argument. It is quite apparent from the quotation that Gobelinus was not considering evidence now lost but was making an inference based on Hengest's name and the heraldic tendency towards canting. It was not an unreasonable inference but it was wrong nonetheless. It was, however, a mistake that was already common currency71 and was almost certainly intended by the symbol's true designer.
The real cause was the Golden Bull of 1356, which clarified the procedure for electing the Holy Roman Emperor, assigning the Saxon vote and the administration during an interregnum of territory where Saxon law applied to the House of Ascania, dukes of Saxe-Wittenberg, at the expense of the dukes of Brunswick and Liineburg, who had claimed both those rights and who, as descendents of Duke Henry the Lion, felt entitled to a higher precedence in the lands of Old Saxony. It was this humiliation, coupled with the Emperor's promise to the duke of Saxe Wittenberg of the succession to the Liineburg lands, that inspired Duke Albert, upon his accession in 1361, ' ... to assume the steed on his seal as the supposed symbol of the Old Saxons, to show the world to whom by rights the leading position in the old duchy of Saxony (fallen to the Wittenbergers) belonged'.72 Duke Albert was well educated, widely read and intelligent and designed the motif as a reference to Saxon history.73 Whether or not he realized that the Welfs' connection with Hengest and Horsa was unhistorical, it was a connection that he expected other people to make. Duke Albert had, to put it crudely, dug a trap for historians and Gobelinus fell right into it.
One might argue that, in order for Albert's plan to work, it must have already been generally believed that the symbol of the Saxons was a horse but it must be reiterated that it is only after his time that this myth is recorded and there is
6
image
THE SAXON STEED AND THE WHITE HORSE OF KENT
evidence that he was not wholly successful in persuading people of its truth. An alternative explanation was given by Conrad Bote in 1492, who recorded a legend that Widukind, king of the Old Saxons, carried a shield depicting a black horse, which he changed to a white horse after his conversion to Christianity in 785.74 The district of Herford, now part of the state of North Rhine-Westphalia and believed to contain Widukind's burial place, uses the black horse on a white field as its arms75 and the symbol was formerly also included in the arms of Renkum (the counts of which were supposedly descended from Widukind).76 Although this legend has been taken seriously in some quarters,77 it too is unhistorical and may have been invented to explain the arms. What it does demonstrate is that the Hengest explanation was not universally known or believed.
The Saxon Steed motif was invented in 1361 as a faux ancient symbol for the Saxons, inspired by the myth ofHengest andHorsa and all of the historians, ancient and modem, who have taken its connection with the legendary brothers seriously have made exactly the mistake that Duke Albert intended. This is the final proof that the kings of Kent would not have used a horse as their standard or as any other kind of symbol: it is a late medieval German invention, inspired not by genuine ancient usage but by the myth thereof.
Yet, ironically, although it was the founders of the kingdom of Kent who had given the dukes of Brunswick the idea for the Saxon Steed, Kent itself was surprisingly dilatory in copying their example. Bede might have been read in Germany but Gobelinus was not read in England and the transferral of the Welfs' symbol to Kent was a separate and much later development.
The Saxon Steed gallops to Kent
A favourite pastime of medieval heralds was the retrospective attribution of coats of-arms to historical figures78 but only one medieval heraldic roll is known to have assigned coats-of-arms to the kings of Kent. This was the so-called 'Kings of Britain roll', the first comprehensive catalogue of the attributed arms of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, as well as other historical and mythical figures (Brutus of Britain, Hector of Troy, etc.). Unfortunately, the roll does not survive in its original form but only as a copy, made circa 1580 (Figs 1 and 2).79 The roll also includes the genuine coats-of-arms of various medieval lords and the original has been dated to the mid-fifteenth century by the latest escutcheons and titles that it cites.80 The scribe attempted to assign coats-of-arms to all of the kings to have ruled in Britain or any part of Britain, even to the extent of repeating escutcheons for successive kings but his approach was cack-handed.He made numerous omissions and attempted to plough through contemporaneous kings simultaneously, regardless of their location, in a roughly chronological order, though some names still seem to be out of their proper sequence. The Old English names have been abominably Latinized, turning some into a different name and rendering others unintelligible. These techniques, coupled with the fact that many Anglo-Saxon kings had the same name, make it difficult to work out which kings (and arms) pertained to
which kingdoms.
Some kingdoms are identifiable by the repetition of an escutcheon but even here there are inconsistencies and no standard escutcheon routinely appears for
7
image
JAMES LLOYD
__,.,,
,, � -.......-�
I.._ /a:•"ti<+"":... /rv.t�t:;gt..,., .. ··- �- 6»_5,,t_r�. .J.i-
1 . .
Fig. 1 Arms attributed to early medieval British and Anglo-Saxon kings. College of Arms MS Vincent 170, p. 33. (Reproduced by permission of the Kings, Heralds and Pursuivants of Arms).
8
image
THE SAXON STEED AND THE WHITE HORSE OF KENT
Fig. 2 Arms attributed to early medieval British and Anglo-Saxon kings. College of Arms MS Vincent 170, p. 34. (Reproduced by permission of the Kings, Heralds and Pursuivants of Arms.)
9
image
JAMES LLOYD
Fig. 3a First attributed arms of 'Engest'.
Fig. 3b Second attributed arms of 'Engest'.
Fig. 3c Third attributed arms of 'Engest'.
identifiably Kentish kings. Indeed, no horse, ofany colour or in any configuration, appears on any of the escutcheons, for a suspected Kentish king or otherwise. The only arms that can be assigned with confidence to Kentish rulers are those attributed to 'Engest' but even here there are difficulties, for the scribe has assigned arms not to one Hengest but to three.
The first, apparently the brother of Horsa (the arms are given just after those of Vortigem), is assigned an escutcheon in two halves. The top half depicts a white lion on a red field. The bottom half is white, with a blue diagonal stripe with three white martlets on it (Fig. 3a). 81 Later on the same page this escutcheon is repeated, again under the name 'Engest' but this time the lion wears a golden crown (Fig. 3b). One can only assume that the herald imagined the first version as being Hengest's original arms and the more regal variant an adaptation he made after establishing himself as king of Kent.
No such rationale, however, explains the third 'Engest', who appears a little later on and who is assigned a completely different escutcheon. 82 It is again in two halves but this time vertically, with a toothed border. The left half is ermine, while the right is completely black and without charge (Fig. 3c).
These three Hengests are most curious, for the name is almost unique to the founder of the kingdom of Kent. The only other Hengest mentioned in any Old English source is a mercenary who appears in the text known as the Finnesburh Fragment and in an episode of Beowulf, both recounting the same event. 83 It is most unlikely that it is this Hengest who is intended in the Kings of Britain roll. Both Beowulf and the Finnesburh Fragment were obscure, forgotten texts in the fifteenth century, yet to come to scholarly light. Furthermore, some commentators have identified this Hengest with Horsa's brother. 84
It is impossible now to recover what was going through the scribe's mind or what sources he used for these coats-of-arms.85 As interesting as these questions are, however, they are irrelevant to the enquiry in hand. The important point is that the Kings of Britain roll is the only medieval roll known to have attributed arms to the kings of Kent and it did not attribute them the Saxon Steed.
The lateness of the association in English thought between the Saxon Steed and Kent is further indicated by the surprising silence of other authorities. William
10
image
THE SAXON STEED AND THE WHITE HORSE OF KENT
Lambarde, Kent's first historian, made no reference to the Saxon Steed at all in his Perambulation. Likewise, in 1586, William Camden, after remarking on the role horses played in the Saxons' divinatory practices, theorized
And this may possibly be the reason why the Dukes of Saxony bore in their Arms a horse. But why our Hengist and Horsa were called so from an horse (for both these names in Saxon signifie an horse) is a mystery to me; unless perhaps designed to portend their warlike courage ...86
Gobelinus's association of the Saxon Steed with Hengest should have been an obvious point for Camden to make, yet he ignored it. One can only assume that he was unaware of it.
Camden's silence should be contrasted with the garrulousness of Richard Verstegan87 on the topic. Verstegan was an interesting character. Born Richard Rowlands, he was the grandson of a Dutch immigrant and matriculated at Christ Church in 1564. However, he converted to Roman Catholicism and left Oxford and eventually England. Having reverted to his grandfather's surname, he settled in Antwerp, where he wrote most of his works. These included A Restitution of Decayed Intelligence: In antiquities, concerning the most noble and renovvmed [sic] English nation, published in 1605.
His passage on Hengest and Horsa is accompanied by an illustration, introduced with the words '... I thought fit heer in pourtraiture to set down ... the banner or ensigne first by them spred in the field'.88 On the opposite page, he gave the first depiction in an English context of the Saxon Steed, showing Hengest and Horsa (in what a Stuart imagined early medieval garb looked like) with their banner carried behind them (Fig. 4), which Verstegan justified associating with the brothers by use of a lengthy argument that is worth quoting in full:
Hingistus was doubtlesse a Prince of the chiefest blood and nobillitie of Saxonie and by birth of Angria [sic] in Westphalia vulgarly of old tyme called Westfeilding (wherein vnto this present a place retayneth the name of Hengster-holt) his wapen or armes beeing a leaping whyte horse or Hengst in a red feild; or according to our mixed manner of blasing armes in broken french and english put together, A horse argent rampant in a feild gules: which was the ancient armes of Saxonie, that the chief Princes and dukes haue there long since for many ages together borne. And albeit the dukes of Saxonie haue of later years changed that cote, yet doth Henry Iulius now duke of Brunswyke (a moste ancient Saxon Prince) who somtyme bore the whyte horse in a red feild, now beare the whyte horse for his creast, hauing for the chief cote of his armes, the two Leopards, which by Richard Corde/ion king of England was giuen vnto his anceter Henry the Lion, duke of Saxon, who had maryed with Mathilda the said kings sister, by the Emperor Frederic Barbarossa; had in bereft of his armes and tytles of honor. Moreouer Charles Emanuel the now duke of Sauoy, who is lineally descended from the ancient prince Bera/ who came out of Saxonie into Sauoy in the yeare of our Lord 998, and was the third sonne of Hughe duke of Saxonie, which Hughe was brother vnto the Emperor Otho the third, doth yet beare for one of his cotes thesaid leaping whyte horse in a red feild.
And very likely it is that this armes was in ancient tyme of paganisme espetialy chosen in regard of some diuine excellencie belieued to bee in this beast, for the old Germans as saith Tacitus, had a certain opinion that a whyte horse neuer hauing bin brydled or any way vsed, but taken out of the woods and put to draw a sacred
11
image
JAMES LLOYD
Fig. 4 Hengest's and Horsa's arrival at Ebbsfleet, in Verstegan, Restitution ofDecayed Intelligence, p. 117. (Detail reproduced courtesy of the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury.)
chariot, the Priest or Prince following it; did by the neighing thereof foretel things to come.89
There can be no doubt that it was Verstegan who first brought the connection between Hengest and Horsa and the Saxon Steed to the attention of an English audience. Indeed, he seems to have been under the impression that he had discovered the connection himself, since he cited a wealth of evidence in its support. This is not the action of someone merely reiterating an established theory. This is the action of someone making a new argument and it suggests that he, like Camden, had not read Gobelinus.90 Nearly two hundred years later, Edward Hasted, in his own discussion of the arms of Hengest, would cite Verstegan as his authority (see below).
Verstegan also made, despite his lengthy argument, a significant omission. If
12
image
THE SAXON STEED AND THE WHITE HORSE OF KENT
he had wanted to prove that Hengest and Horsa had used the horse motif, its contemporary use by the kingdom they had founded would have been the capping stone to his argument, yet instead he made the relatively incidental point of its use in Brunswick and Savoy. This is not an argument from silence. This is an argument from the wrong kind of noise and proves that the association ofthe motif with Kent is not an ancient survival from the fifth century.
Once imported by Verstegan, the idea that Hengest and Horsa had used the Saxon Steed quickly gained currency. In 1611, John Speed used the motif several times in his atlas Theatrum Imperii Magna? Britannia?.91 Its title-page depicts representatives of the five nations to have inhabited Britain, the Britons, the Romans, the Saxons, the Danes and the Normans, each accompanied by a coat-of arms. Above the Saxon hangs a red shield with a white horse on it. The frontispiece depicts the Royal Arms of James VI and I, surrounded by a border containing the arms of various rulers to have governed Britain, or parts of Britain, in the past. In the middle at the top is an escutcheon labelled 'Kentish Saxons', depicting a leaping white horse on a red field.
The final example is Speed's map of the Heptarchy, surrounded by scenes from their history.92 On the left is a column of founding kings and on the right a column of kings being converted to Christianity. The founding kings are accompanied (on the bottom left or right comer) by their imagined escutcheons but on the opposite column some of these kings are shown to have changed their arms upon converting. Hengest is in the top left comer holding his shield (with the horse round the wrong way) and just below him the Kentish escutcheon, coloured in the familiar fashion. On the top right comer, however, LEthelberht's escutcheon has a light blue background. The map itself imposes the escutcheons on each kingdom and in Kent the blue or red versions are used in different editions (Fig. 5).93
Fig. 5 Britainatthe time ofthe SaxonHeptarchy, in Cambridge, University Library, Atlas.2.61.1, Speed, J., The Theatre of the Empire of Great Britaine [cartographic material], 1603-1611. (Details reproduced by kind permission of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library.)
13
image
JAMES LLOYD
It is unclear if this distinction in background was intended to represent the conversion to Christianity or was an irrelevant fancy.94 It is also possible that Speed was inspired by German precedents, since some ofthe towns there that use the Saxon Steed put it on a blue, rather than red, background.95
Speed also employed the arms (in monochrome) in his atlas's companion piece The History of Great Britaine, which uses the same title-page as the Theatrum. The White Horse arms illustrate his Anglo-Saxon royal family trees (along with the other attributed arms), his chapter on the kings of Kent and his catalogue of Bretwaldas, among whom he included Hengest, as well as LEthelberht. Speed cited Verstegan as his authority for this usage and quoted extensively from the same passage as is given above.96
A note ofdiscord, however, was struck by Michael Drayton, author ofthe thirty volume Poly-Oblion (first eighteen volumes published in 1613; with another twelve in 1622), a poetical traipse through the history and geography ofEngland. The first batch was accompanied by learned notes by John Selden. The frontispiece, which resembles Speed's, depicts Britannia, holding sceptre and cornucopia, sitting in a classical arch and surrounded by figures of Brutus, Julius Caesar, Hengest and William I, with the now-obligatory coats-of-arms, Hengest's being the increasingly familiar horse.
As originally published, the frontispiece is monochrome, with the colour-scheme provided by the accompanying poem, which describes these coats-of-arms. Hengest's is related thus:
... the Saxon sable Horse, Borne by sterne Hengist ... '.97
Selden's footnote explains the design:
Hengist hath other Armes in some traditions, which are to be respected as Old wives fictions. His name expresses a Horse, and the Dukes of Saxony are said to have borne it anciently, before their Christianity, Sable: therefore, if you give him any, with most reason, let him have this.98
This commentary contradicts the argument ofVerstegan, followed by Speed, that Hengest's horse would have been white ('argent') and alludes instead to Conrad Bote's legend ofWidukind. This disagreement proves that the attribution ofarms to Hengest was still an ongoing debate in the early seventeenth century.
Duke Albert's exercise in manufactured tradition might not have achieved its political objective but he certainly deceived generations of historians, beginning with Gobelinus in the early fifteenth century. The myth of Hengest's steed was re-discovered by Verstegan in 1605, who transmitted it to England. This did not, however, automatically make the White Horse the symbol of the modem county of Kent. That happened later and would be triggered, appropriately, by another member ofthe House ofWelf.
The Steed as the county symbol
Though he followed Verstegan as far as the Heptarchy is concerned, it is significant that Speed's map ofcontemporary Kent itself,99 though it depicts the coats-of-arms
14
image
THE SAXON STEED AND THE WHITE HORSE OF KENT
of Canterbury, Rochester and past earls of the county, does not depict the Saxon Steed. Indeed, none of his maps of any modem county featured any arms attributed to its Anglo-Saxon rulers.
This should occasion no surprise. Coats-of-arms are the attributes of people, not of places. It was only in the sixteenth century that corporations, such as the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge, became armigerous and it should be recalled that even today the officially recognized coat-of-arms of Kent does not in fact belong to the geographical area at all but to the County Council, a corporation and as such a legal person. Speed believed that the Kentish kings had used the White Horse as their arms but that dynasty was destroyed by the Mercians in the eighth century and the very title 'king of the Men of Kent' is last known to have been used, jointly with the title 'king of theWest Saxons', by LEthelred I ofWessex (866-71).100 The symbol was not theWhite Horse of Kent but the (hypothetical)White Horse of the kings of Kent and, when Kent ceased to have kings of its own, so the logic ran, the use of their arms expired. The modem county had no automatic right to the arms of its erstwhile rulers or, indeed (being a portion of space, rather than a person), to any arms at all.
This fact is confirmed by Drayton, whose poem The Battaile of Agincourt (published in 1627) describes the county militia of Henry V's army marching aboard ship for the crossing to France, each preceded by a banner.101 He described their devices in tum, as well as providing footnoted explanations of their symbolism:
First, in the Kentish Stremer was a Wood, Out of whose top an arme that held a Sword, As their right Embleme; and to make it good, They aboue other onely had a Word,
Which was; Vnconquer'd; as that freest had stood.102
The footnote rationalizes this as a reference to the Battle of Swanscombe, when the Men of Kent, using foliage to seem greater in number than they were, ambushed Duke William and forced him to concede, in exchange for their acceptance of him as king, the continuation of their laws and liberties.103 The whole scene is pure fiction, modelled on similar scenes in Italian poetry.104 Drayton included the Welsh counties that would not be created until 1535.105 Some of the designs do pre date Drayton, being taken from the coats-of-arms of the counties' capital cities or principal families but for the rest of the motifs, including Kent's, there is no earlier evidence and the natural assumption is that Drayton invented them himself.
This passage reveals two points relevant to the present discussion. First, it is even more evidence that Kent was not yet using theWhite Horse symbol (or, indeed, any symbol) in 1627. Secondly, that Drayton had to contrive a symbol himself, even though he was well aware of the attribution of a horse motif to Hengest, suggests that it was not yet thought that the supposed symbol of the ancient kingdom might be used by the modem county.
Such a usage has been claimed of the horse device on four tradesmen's tokens issued in Kent in the middle of the seventeenth century106 but these are almost certainly irrelevant. Many such tokens were payable at inns and so bore the inn's sign. Three of the tokens in question explicitly identify themselves with public houses that used a horse for their sign and this may also be the rationale behind the fourth.107
15
image
JAMES LLOYD
The only certain instances of an association between the White Horse symbol and Kent in the seventeenth century were again on maps, based on Speed's, which used it only in an antiquarian context. One was the fourth volume of Dutch cartographer Joan Blaeu's Theatrum Orbis Terrarum, printed in 1645, which re-cycles, with some stylistic variation, Speed's title-page and map of the Heptarchy.108 The second was the monochrome map of the Heptarchy included in Edmund Gibson's translation oftheAnglo-Saxon Chronicle, published in 1692.109 By contrast, Richard Harris's map of the modem county presented at the start of his History ofKent (published in 1719) is surrounded by the escutcheons of its nobility and gentry.110 The White Horse is nowhere to be seen and perhaps its absence is only to be expected. This would soon change.
The Kentish Post was founded in 1717. Its original ornamentation was simply a floral block but from 1721 the masthead included a vista of Canterbury, with the city's arms,111 to which ensemble the White Horse escutcheon had been added by
1726 (Fig. 6).112 This is a highly important moment in the history of the symbol, for two reasons. Gobelinus, Verstegan, Speed, Blaeu and Gibson had no connection
with Kent. They were not born in the county, they never lived in the county and, for all the evidence that they thought they had found for a connection between Kent and the Saxon Steed, they do not constitute evidence that this feeling was shared in the county itself. The Kentish Post is the earliest known appearance of the White Horse motif in a source ofKentish provenance and as such is the earliest evidence that this foreign symbol, associated withKent by external academics, had now been accepted by the county that was supposedly its ancient home. Even more
to SAl.URDAY June 4, 1726. [Numb. 8321
Fig. 6 Masthead of the Kentish Post, with detail of White Horse escutcheon to left. (© The British Library Board, PENN.P32.)
16
image
THE SAXON STEED AND THE WHITE HORSE OF KENT
importantly, not only had Kent accepted it as part of its history but it had adopted it as part of its iconography, for this is the earliest known use of the motif as a symbol of the modem county, outside the context of the kings to whom it was attributed.
It is possible that this was simply a natural development out of the earlier line of thinking, just as the attributed arms of the kingdoms of Essex and Sussex are now used by the modem counties but the timing in Kent's case is suspicious. It has already been demonstrated that theWhite Horse of Kent is really the Saxon Steed of the House of Welf, which was used, in one form or another, by many of the branches of that dynasty. In 1714, a member of the House ofWelf, Georg Ludwig, Prince-Elector and Duke of Brunswick and Liineberg, became King George I of Great Britain and he brought the Saxon Steed with him.113
The arms of the elector of Hanover (as the co-Duke based in that town was compendiously but unofficially known) included the Saxon Steed, though courant, rather than salient. These were merged with the Royal Arms of Great Britain for the duration of the personal union. In this context, the Saxon Steed appeared on official documents and was displayed in parish churches (Fig. 7).114 Furthermore, the flag of the electorate was almost identical to that which is now recognized as the flag of Kent, depicting a white horse charging on a red field.
In 1751, George II issued a Royal Warrant on regimental uniforms,115 ordering the Horse of Hanover to be depicted on the flap of grenadiers' mitre caps, on drummers' caps and guidons of cavalry regiments and on the caps of the Royal North British Dragoons and the housing and holster caps of the 3rd Regiment of Dragoons. Although this order applied generally throughout the British Army,116 one military unit associated with Kent, the East Kent Militia,117 tweaked it to depict the horse salient, rather than courant, presumably in reference to the attributed arms of Hengest.118 Though this would not have lasted long (another warrant in
Fig. 7 Royal Arms of King George I, Church of St Peter and St Paul, Charing. (Reproduced by kind permission of John Salmon.)
17
image
JAMES LLOYD
1768 replaced mitre caps with bearskins, with the Royal Crest on a silver plate on the front),119 the tradition of displaying the White Horse on Kentish uniforms was established. Similarly, officers of the West Kent Militia120 wore sash buckles that depicted the horse salient.121
In 1768, the Kentish Post was absorbed by the Kentish Gazette, which had been founded only four weeks earlier.122 From the beginning it had, like the Post, depicted two escutcheons on its masthead, the WhiteHorse on the left and the arms of Canterbury on the right. As of its second issue (28 May 1768), the escutcheons were labelled 'Kent' and 'Canterbury' respectively, with the Royal Arms (including the Horse of Hanover) in between them.
In 1794, merchants' tokens, payable variously at Brookland, Goudhurst, Hawkhurst and Staplehurst, were minted with the horse motif on one side.123 In contrast to the seventeenth-century examples (see above), there were no White Horse Inns in any of these villages and the Brookland and Goudhurst issues say around the rim 'Kent halfpenny', implying that the symbol had regional, rather than only local, relevance. The Goudhurst issue even has the arms of Canterbury on the reverse (Fig. 8), so forming a diptych of symbols comparable to (and perhaps inspired by) the usage of the Kentish Gazette.
Fig. 8 Tradesman's token, payable at Goudhurst. (Reproduced by kind permission of David Stuart.)
These examples make it quite clear that it was in the eighteenth century that the White Horse was raised from being the attributed arms of the kings of Kent, of only antiquarian interest, to being the symbol of the modem county, from obsolescence to (supposed) revival. It may be sheer coincidence but one cannot help suspecting a causal link between the Hanoverian Succession of 1714 and the subsequent popularity of the White Horse as a symbol of Kent.
George I was not universally welcomed and his coronation was marked by riots in at least twenty towns in England.124 Kent, however, had good reason to welcome him. The county has a strong Protestant tradition125 and it was George's Protestantism that qualified him for the throne.126 Although the Horse of Hanover and the attributed arms ofHengest were not quite identical (the former being courant and the latter salient), their similarity and common origin were still obvious. By purportedly reviving a symbol so clearly related to George I's ancestral arms, the Men of Kent advertised the ancient links between their county and his homeland
18
image
THE SAXON STEED AND THE WHITE HORSE OF KENT
and, more importantly, flaunted their Protestant credentials and their support for the Protestant king.121
Nonetheless, even at the end of the eighteenth century the symbol had still not quite achieved the synonymity with the county that it has now. In 1797 Edward Hasted wrote:
The wapen, or arms ofHengist, according to Verstegan, were a leaping white horse, or hengit [sic], in a red.field; similar to which are the present arms ofthis county, the only difference being the colour ofthe field; which, in the latter, is blue. 128
The most visible use of the arms at this date was still on monochromatic newspaper mastheads, which explains why Hasted appealed to the relatively esoteric Speed for
the colour-scheme. The symbol was also shunned by the county's officials, who used their personal seals for public business, when they used any symbolism at all.129
It was in the nineteenth century that the White Horse truly galloped out of control and achieved its modem universal recognition as the symbol of Kent. It would be tedious to list all of the different contexts in which it was used but a few representative examples should suffice to illustrate its rising acceptance. Hop pickers printed it on their pockets130 and at least one hop-picker used it on his tokens.131 From its foundation in 1802, the Kent Insurance Company displayed the horse (appearing for the first time alongside the motto 'Invicta') on fire marks, fire policies, firemen's uniforms, the fa9ade of the Company's offices and even on
commemorative silverware.132
In 1828, the genealogist William Berry blazoned the arms of Kent in his Encyclopcedia Heraldica as 'gu. a horse, salient, ar.'133 and two years later depicted them as such on the title-page to the Kentish volume of his County Pedigrees
series.134 It was increasingly used on the front covers or title-pages of books about
the county.135 Archaeologia Cantiana has used it on its title-page (and, until rec
ently, on its cover) since its first issue in 1858.
Despite Berry's blazon, it became more usual to depict the horse forcene and so it appears on the southern abutment of Blackfriars Bridge, erected in 1864, as part
of the insignia of the London, Chatham and Dover Railway (Fig. 9). It was put on the steam engines of Aveling and Porter Ltd. from 1865.136 In the same century, stained glass windows depicting the attributed arms of Anglo-Saxon kings were
installed in the Chapel Corridor at Ightham Mote, including the White Horse on a blue field, labelled as LEthelberht's arms.137
The Kentish regiments continued to use it in various contexts, usually on a red background, though occasionally on a blue.138 It was also used on the coats-of
arms of institutions based in Kent. The escutcheon of Kent College, Canterbury (founded in 1885), uses the White Horse with a red background in the lower canton.
Conversely, Kent College, Pembury, has used the blue variant on its lower canton since its foundation in 1886.139 The uniform of Oakwood Park Grammar School has, since its foundation (as the Maidstone Technical High School for Boys) in
1918, depicted the escutcheon of Maidstone alongside the blue version ofthe Kent escutcheon.140 Perhaps these examples show a nascent tendency to treat the blue version as proper to west Kent and the red version to east141 but this rule was not
strictly maintained. In 1953, Tonbridge Grammar School adopted the red version for one half of its escutcheon.142
19
image
JAMES LLOYD
Fig. 9 Insignia of the London, Chatham and Dover Railway, Blackfriars Bridge, London. (Photo James Lloyd.)
Despite its lack of official recognition, the escutcheon was included in books of heraldry on the strength of traditional usage.143 It was flaunted by Kent County Council, which used it on its seal from its foundation in 1889 (Fig.10),144 on its official documentation145 and even as a watermark in Council notepaper.146 Since the current front wing of Sessions House was built in 1913,147 the escutcheon has been displayed both on the public fa9ade (Fig.11) and in the Council Chamber.148 The Canterbury City War Memorial, unveiled in 1921, includes a sculpture of the arms of Kent (among others), though it is uncoloured.149
By 1930, the original seal had deteriorated and the County Council took the opportunity to apply for a full heraldic achievement, which could glorify the replacement.150 Although there was considerable debate about the crest, helm and supporters, there was never any question but that the charge on the escutcheon should be the White Horse,151 with a carved shield displayed at Maidstone Museum being used as the model (Fig.12). 152 The arms were formally granted in 1933 and the new seal made in 1936 (Fig.13). 153
20
image
lHE SAXON STEED AND 1HE WHITE HORSE OF KENT
Fig. 10 Wafer impression of the original seal of Kent County Council, used from 1889, in C/A3/3C/7, New Seal, 1936. (By kind permission of Kent History and Library Centre, Maidstone.)
Fig. 11 Pediment of Sessions House, Maidstone. (Photo James Lloyd.)
21
image
JAMES LLOYD
Fig. 12 Fireplace in Maidstone Museum and Bentlif Art Gallery. (Photo James Lloyd, taken with permission.)
The horse also appears as a charge, crest or supporter on the arms ofmany towns and boroughs in (or formerly in) the county.154 Interestingly, several of these arms were granted before Kent County Council's, the earliest being Margate's in 1858. In 1967, the University of Kent was granted arms featuring the symbol.155
The Kent Messenger, successor to the Kentish Post and Kentish Gazette, cont inues their tradition of displaying the White Horse on its masthead. The Princess ofWales's Royal Regiment (Queen's and Royal Hampshire's), which has absorbed most of Kent's previous militias and regiments, features the White Horse on its collar badge. Kent County Football Association, Rugby Football Union and Cricket Club all use the White Horse, the first two against a blue background, the last against blue shading artistically into red. In 2003 the controversial (and rather avant garde) white horse was cut into Cheriton Hill near Folkestone. Indeed, one can hardly walk down a lane or drive down a road somewhere in the county without seeing it, be it appended to a notice from the County Council, functioning as a town sign or crowning the weather-vane of an oast-house.
The White Horse of Kent is actually the White Horse of Brunswick. Whatever standard or banner the kings of Kent might have used in reality (if any), there is absolutely no reason to believe that it might have been a white horse and good
22
image
THE SAXON STEED AND THE WHITE HORSE OF KENT
Fig. 13 Wax impression ofthe new seal of Kent County Council, used from 1936, in C/A3/3C/7, New Seal, 1936. (By kind permission of Kent History and Library Centre, Maidstone.)
reason to believe that it was not. The symbol, though inspired by the legend of Hengest and Horsa, is actually an artificial tradition, invented in Germany in 1361 and not applied to the kings of Kent until the early seventeenth century.
Perhaps this attribution was bound to lead to the symbol's adoption by the modem county sooner or later but it seems credible to hypothesise that this process was actually initiated, or at least hastened, by the Hanoverian Succession, which brought the Saxon Steed to the attention ofa wider British audience. The supposed use of that symbol by the ancient kings of Kent provided a convenient pretext that allowed the eighteenth-century Kentish to adopt what was really the symbol of a foreign state as their own, as a gesture of loyalty to the new Royal House and of the county's commitment to the Protestant religion which that House had been enthroned to protect. It is really these that the symbol, flag and arms of Kent represent: not the county's mythical founder but its actual history, a history of Protestantism and of allegiance to the Crown.
23
image
JAMES LLOYD
APPENDIX
The County Flag
The earliest reference to a flag based on the arms (not counting Verstegan's imaginative illustration) was made in an essay on Kentish botany, published in 1841, by Anne Pratt. Commenting on the county's virtues of civility and bravery that had secured its legal privileges (a reference to gave/kind), she concluded ' ... it is not only excusable, but quite natural, that the men of Kent should range themselves beside their banner of the Horse rampant, bearing the bold motto INVICTA, with a feeling of complacency ...'.156 Given the gushingly patriotic tone of her prose, it is unclear whether the image that this conjures should be taken literally or metaphorically.
The first organisation known to have used a banner of the arms was Kent County Cricket Club, which was formed in 1870 from the amalgamation of several earlier County Clubs, the first of which had been formed at West Malling in 1836.157 Precisely when the Club started using the flag is unknown but Pratt's comment suggests that it may have begun under the predecessor Clubs.
What is certain is that in 1931 Lord Harris, who had been founding Captain of the amalgamated Club, was chairman of the County Arms Sub-Committee. It was he who argued against a blue background for the escutcheon on the basis that red provided a better contrast on a flag in poor weather, something he knew from experience.158 In 1936, the K.C.C. Secretary re-directed an enquiry concerning the flag of Kent to the Cricket Club. In that year it was used to represent Kent at an inter-county chess tournament but it was still thought of the Cricket Club's flag as late as 1952.159 Its current popularity would therefore appear to be a relatively recent development and owed more to its use as the banner of the County Council.
The White Horse Inn
This paper would be incomplete without a consideration of one kind of White Horse with which many readers will, perhaps, be more familiar than is healthy. Kent has its fair share of White Horse Inns and some bear (modem) signs making a connection between the name and the county symbol.160 The most explicit in this regard is the Kentish Horse in Markbeech but that was founded in the nineteenth century. Some of these inns, however, do pre-date Verstegan.161 One might argue that these provide evidence for an earlier use of the White Horse symbol.
The riposte, however, is that there is no shortage of White Horse Inns elsewhere in England, many of them ancient.162 Conversely, Kent is also home to Black Horse (e.g. in Pluckley), Running Horse (e.g. in Sandling) and Flying Horse (e.g. in Boughton Aluph) Inns. Do these recall some obsolete regional symbol or Germanic cultic practice? Possibly but it is much likelier that they are just pub names. There is no reason to assume that any White Horse Inn, even in Kent, is named in honour of the county symbol and therefore no reason to believe that the antiquity of the Inn name proves the antiquity of the symbol.
24
image
THE SAXON STEED AND THE WHITE HORSE OF KENT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Although the errors and infelicities that remain are entirely the fault of the author, this paper could never have been written without the kind offices of the many others who furnished him with information, assistance or advice:
Professor Simon Keynes brought the existence of London, College of Arms, L. 14 and British Library, Harley 6085 to the author's attention and arranged for him to examine the latter.
The Reverend David Cook read much of the German-language material consulted for this paper on the author's behalf (though the translations provided here are the author's).
Samantha Bentley, Senior Conservation Assistant at Ightham Mote, provided the information on the stained glass windows in the Chapel Corridor.
Charles Griffin of www.britishempire.co.uk provided information on the East Kent Militia.
Colonel Walter Bonnici, L/RAMC, provided the information on the West Kent Militia in Malta.
Mark Housden, Deputy Headmaster of Oakwood Park Grammar School, explained the age of the school's uniform.
Pippa Blackstone, Tonbridge Grammar School Development and Alumni, provided very full information on the school's emblem.
Kayleigh Minihane, Head of External Relations at Kent College, Pembury, provided information on the school's use of the White Horse symbol.
Dr David Shaw provided advice and information on early issues of the Kentish Post.
Information about the shield in Maidstone Museum and BentliffArt Gallery was provided by Pernille Richards and Rebecca Arnott, Documentation and Collections Officers respectively at the Museum.
A major contribution was made by Dr Lynsey Darby, Archivist of the College of Arms, who verified on the author's behalf that the White Horse arms appear on no heraldic roll as the attributed arms of Hengest and drew the existence of London, College of Arms, Vincent 170 to the author's attention.
Mary Berg shared with the author her views on the history of the arms of Canterbury.
David Robertson, Honorary Curator of Kent County Cricket Club, provided information on that organization's role in the invention of the county flag.
Finally, and above all others, the author's thanks are owed, as always, to John Blubery and William Lynch.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, H.G. (ed.), The Kentish Coronal (London, 1841).
Anonymous, An Account ofthe Riots, Tumults, and other Treasonable Practices; since His Majesty's Accession to the Throne (London, 1715).
Anonymous, Some notes on the early history ofthe Kent Insurance Company, 1802-1952
(date and place of publication unspecified).
Arblaster, P., 'Verstegan fformerly Rowlands], Richard (1548x50-1640)', ODNB 56 (2004), pp. 381-2.
25
image
JAMES LLOYD
van Arsdell, R.D., Celtic Coinage of Britain (London, 1989).
Atkins, J., The Tradesmen s Tokens of the Eighteenth Century (London, 1892).
Bachrach, B.S. and D.S. Bachrach (trans.), Widukind of Carvey, Deeds of the Saxons, Medieval Texts in Translation (Washington, D.C., 2014).
Barlow, F. (ed. and trans.), The Carmen de Hastingae Proelio of Guy Bishop of Amiens,
Oxford Medieval Texts (Oxford, 1999).
Berg, M., Canterbury Cathedral: is Richard lls 1380 charter all it seems?, http://www. canterbury-cathedral.org/2014/11/0 l /is-richard-iis-1380-charter-all-it-seems/, accessed 7 June 2016.
Berry, W., Encyclopcedia Heraldica, or Complete Dictionary of Heraldry, 4 vols (London, 1828-40).
Berry, W., Pedigrees of the Families in the County of Kent, County Genealogies (London, 1830).
Birch, W.d.G. (ed.), Catalogue of Seals in the Department of Manuscripts in the British Museum, 6 vols (London, 1887-90).
Blaxland, G., The Story of the Queens Own Buffs, The Royal Kent Regiment (Chatham, 1974).
Bonhote, J., Historical Records of the West Kent Militia (London, 1909).
Bonnici, W., British Army Medical Services and the Malta Garrison 1799-1979: Queens Own (Royal West Kent), http://www.maltaramc.com/regmltgar/lrywtkent.html, accessed 10 June 2015.
Bouten, C. and A.C. Fox-Davies, English Heraldry (London, 1914). Bridge, J.W., 'KentHop-Tokens',Archaeologia Cantiana, 66 (1953), 60-3. Briggs, G., Civic & Corporate Heraldry (London, 1971).
Brooks, N.P., 'The creation and early structure of the kingdom of Kent', in The Origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, ed. S. Bassett, Studies in the Early History of Britain (London, 1989), pp. 55-74.
Brooks, N.P. and H.E. Walker, 'The Authority and Interpretation of the Bay eux Tapestry',
Anglo-Norman Studies, 1 (1979), 1-34.
Cambridge, University Library, Atlas.2.61.1, Speed, J., The Theatre of the Empire of Great Britaine [cartographic material], 1603-1611.
Camden, W., Britannia sive Florentissimorum Regnorum, Ang/ice, Scalice, Hibernice, et Jnsularum adiactentium ex intima antiquitate Chorographica descriptio, 1st ed. (London, 1586).
Campbell, A. (ed.), Encomium Emmae Reginae, Camden 3rd Series 72 (London, 1949). Campbell, J., 'The Late Anglo-Saxon State: a Maximum View', Proceedings of the British
Academy, 87 (1994), 39-65; rept. in and cited from his TheAnglo-Saxon State (London, 2000), pp. 1-30.
Campbell, L., F. Steer and R. Yorke,A Catalogue of Manuscripts in the College ofArms -
Collections, Vol. 1 (London, 1988).
Canterbury Cathedral Archives, CCA-CC-WOODRUFF/38/1, Grant, 10 Apr 1466. Canterbury Cathedral Archives, CCA-CC-WOODRUFF/38/3/1-2, Lease and counterpart,
17 Jan 1598.
Carman, WY., 'Grenadier Cap of the East Kent Militia', Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research, 26 (1948), 35.
Cawte, E.C., Ritual Animal Disguise: a Historical and Geographical Study of Animal Disguises in the British Isles, Folklore Society Mistletoe Series (Cambridge and Ipswich, 1978).
Chadwick, H.M., The Origin of the English Nation (Cambridge, 1907).
Chick, D., The Coinage ofO.ffa and his Contemporaries, ed. M. Blackburn and R. Naismith, British Numismatic Society Special P ublication No. 6 (London, 2010).
26
image
THE SAXON STEED AND THE WHITE HORSE OF KENT
College of Arms, Vincent 170.
Colgrave, B. and R.A.B. Mynors (eds. and trans.), Bede s Ecclesiastical History of the English People, Oxford Medieval Texts (Oxford, 1969).
Davis, R.H.C. and M. Chibnall (eds. and trans.), William of Poitiers Gesta Guillelmi The Deeds of William, Oxford Medieval Texts (Oxford, 1998).
Drewett, P., Rudling, D. and M. Gardiner, The South East to AD 1000, a Regional History of England (London, 1988).
Filmer, R., Hops and hop picking, History in Camera 6 (P rince's Risborough, 1982). Fox-Davies, A.C., The Book of PublicArms (London and Edinburgh, 1915).
Garnett, R., The Battaile ofAgincourt by Michael Drayton (London, 1893).
Gibson, E. (trans.), Camden s Britannia, newly Translated into English: with Large Additions and Improvements (London, 1695).
Gibson, E. (trans.), Chronicon Saxonicum (Oxford, 1692).
Gillespie, A. and 0. Harris, 'Holinshed and the Native Chronicle Tradition', in The Oxford Handbook of Holinsheds Chronicles, ed. T. Kewes, Archer, I.W. and F. Heal (Oxford, 2013), pp. 135-51.
G.H.W., 'Origin of The White Horse of Kent', Kent Messenger, 11 March 1933, p. 6. G.H.W., 'TheWhiteHorseofKent',Notes andQueries, 161 (1931), 373.
G.H.W., 'The White Horse of Kent', Notes andQueries, 162 (1932), 14-15 and 102-3. Green, M., The Gods of the Celts (Gloucester, 1986).
Greenway, D. (ed. and trans.), Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon: Historia Angomm The History of the English People, Oxford Medieval Texts (Oxford, 1996).
Griffin, C., The British Empire: The Buffs East Kent Regiment.
Hannen, H., 'The White Horse of Kent', Notes andQueries, 161 (1931), 412. Hannen, H., 'The White Horse of Kent', Notes andQueries, 162 (1932), 51. Harris, R., The History of Kent (London, 1719).
Hartemink, R., Heraldry of the World: Renkum, http://www.ngw.nl/heraldrywiki/index. php?title=Renkum, accessed 1 May 2016.
Hartemink, R., Heraldry of the World: Twente, http://www.ngw.nl/heraldrywiki/index. php?title=Twente, accessed 1 May 2016.
Hasted, E., The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent, 2nd edn, 12 vols (Canterbury, 1797-1801).
Hawkes, S.C., 'Anglo-Saxon Kent c. 425-725', inArchaeology in Kent to AD 1500, ed. P.
E. Leach, BA Research Report 48 (1982), pp. 64-78.
Haythornthwaite, P.J., 'Belt-plates of the West Kent Militia', Bulletin of the Military Historical Society, 35 (1984-5), 20-1.
Hebel, J.W. (ed.), The Works of Michael Drayton, 5 vols (Oxford, 1951).
Hutton, M. and E.H. Warmington (eds. and trans.), Germania, 2nd edn, Loeb Classical Library Tacitus 1 (Cambridge, Mass. and London, 1970), pp. 117-215.
Jansen, M. (ed.), Cosmidromius Gobelini Person und als Anhang desselben Verfassers
Processus translacionis et reformacionis monasterii Budecensis (Munster, 1900). Jenkins, R., 'The Sources of Drayton "Battaile of Agincourt'", Publications of the Modern
LanguageAssociation of America, 41 (1926), 280-93.
Jessup, R.F., 'The White Horse ofKent',Antiquity, 9 (1935), 469-71.
KHLC, ClA3/3C/ l, Grant of Arms -First proposals and comments from members of the County Council, 1930.
KHLC, C/A3/3C/2, Grant of Arms - Creation of County Arms Sub-Committee and submission of alternative designs, 1931.
KHLC, C/A3/3C/3, Grant of Arms -Agreed design, receipt of letters patent, requests for use of arms from other bodies and authorities, 1932-4.
KHLC, C/A3/3C/4, Grant of Arms -Designs Submitted, 1931.
27
image
JAMES LLOYD
KHLC, C/A3/3C/6, County Arms, 1934-6. KHLC, C/A3/3C/7, New Seal, 1936.
KHLC, C/A3/3C/9, County Arms - File 8, 1950-2
KHLC, Q/A/N/5, Justices' certificates of men emolled, 1796-7.
KHLC, U464/Ol, Appointment of Charles Lockyer as deputy lieutenant, 1727.
Keynes, S.D., 'Mapping the Anglo-Saxon past', in Towns and Topography: Essays in Memory ofDavid Hill, ed. G.R. Owen-Crocker and S.D. Thompson (Oxford, 2014), pp. 147-70.
Klaeber, F. (ed.), Beowulf and The Fight at Finnsburg, 3rd edn (Boston, 1950). van der Laars, T., Wapens, vlaggen en zegels van Nederland (Amsterdam, 1913).
Lambarde, W., A Perambulation of Kent: Conteining the Description, Hystorie and Customes ofthat Shire (London, 1826 edn; first publ. 1576).
Lloyd, J.W., Canterbury Cathedral: The Canterbury WarMemorial, http://www.canterbury cathedral.org/2014/03/20/the-canterbury-war-memorial/, accessed 20 March 2014.
Lloyd, J.W., 'Reeves as Agents of Royal Govermnent in the English Shires, from the Reign of Alfred to Domesday Book' (unpubl. PH.D. dissertation, Cambridge Univ., 2014).
Griffin, C., The British Empire: The Buffs East Kent Regiment, http://www.britishempire. co.uk/forces/armyuniforms/britishinfantry/buffsl 881.htm, accessed 10 June 2015.
Mallory, J.P., In Search ofthe Inda-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth (London, 1989).
Maxwell, D., Unknown Kent (London, 1921).
Maylam, P., The Hooden Horse: an East Kent Christmas Custom (Canterbury, 1909). Melling, E., History ofthe Kent County Council 1889-1974 (Maidstone, 1975).
Moisle, H., 'Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies and Germanic oral tradition', Journal of Medieval History, 7 (1981), 215-48.
Moore, D., The History ofKent County Cricket Club, 2nd edn (London, 1981).
Mynors, R.A.B., Thomson, R.M. and M. Winterbottom (eds. and transl.), William of Malmesbury Gesta Regum Anglorum The History ofthe English Kings, 2 vols, Oxford Medieval Texts (Oxford, 1998-9).
Myres, J.N.L., 'The Angles, the Saxons, and the Jutes', Proceedings ofthe BritishAcademy,
56 (1970), 145-74.
Naismith, R., The Coinage of Southern England 796-865, 2 vols, British Numismatic Society Special Publication No. 8 (London, 2011).
National Army Museum, 1966-09-57, Grenadier cap, East Kent Militia, 1760.
Neubecker, 0. and J.P. Brooke-Little, Heraldry: Sources, Symbols and Meaning, 2nd edn (London, 1997).
Newman, A.N., 'History of Parliament Online: Kent 1715-1754', http://www.historyof parliamentonline.org/volume/1715-1754/constituencies/kent, accessed 17 April 2016.
Nicolson, N. and A. Hawkyard (eds), The Counties ofBritain: A Tudor Atlas by John Speed
(1988, London).
North, A, Kent: Historical, Biographical, and Pictorial (London, 1907). Oswald, A., Country Houses ofKent (London, 1933).
Plummer, C. (ed.), Two ofthe Saxon Chronicles Parallel, 2 vols (Oxford, 1892-9). Petrus, S., Apologia pro Antiquitate et Origine Frisiorum, 2nd edn (Franeker, 1699).
Pratt, A., 'On the Vegetable Productions of Kent', in Kentish Coronal, ed. Adams, pp. 17- 19, 65-9 and 97-101.
Preston, J.M., Aveling & Porter, Ltd. Rochester (Rochester, 1987).
Richardson, A., 'The Third Way: thoughts on non-Saxon identity south of the Thames AD 450-600', in Studies in Early Anglo-Saxon Art and Archaeology: Papers in Honour of Martin G. Welch, ed. S. Brookes, S. Harrington and A. Reynolds, BAR British Series 527 (Oxford, 2011), pp. 72-81.
28
image
THE SAXON STEED AND THE WHITE HORSE OF KENT
Saber, J., British County Flags: Kent Flag, https://britishcountyflags.wordpress.com/2013/ 08/03/kent-flag/, accessed 30 March 2016.
Sawyer, P.H. (ed.), Anglo-Saxon Charters: an Annotated List and Bibliography, Royal Historical Society Guides and Handbooks 8 (London, 1968).
Schama, S., A History of Britain: The British Wars 1603-1776 (London, 2001).
Schnath, G., Das Sachsenross: Entstehung und Bedeutung des niedersachsischen Landeswappens, Schriftemeihe der Landeszentrale for Heimatdienst in Niedersachschen Series B Volume 6 (Hanover, 1956).
Scott-Giles, C.W., Civic Heraldry of England and Wales, 2nd edn (London, 1953).
Shaw, D.J. and S. Gray, 'James Abree (1691?-1768) Canterbury's First "Modem" Printer', in The Reach of Print: Making, Selling and Using Books, ed. P. Isaac and B. McKay (Winchester, 1998), pp. 21-36.
Sheil, R.L. and R.S. Mackenzie, Sketches of the Irish Bar, 2 vols (New York, 1854). Sierksma, K., De gemeente wapens van Nederland (Utrecht and Antwerp, 1962).
Simek, R., Dictionary of Northern Mythology, trans. A. Hall (Cambridge, 1993; first publ. Stuttgart, 1984).
Sims-Williams, P., 'The settlement of England in Bede and the Chronicle', Anglo-Saxon England, 12 (1983), 1-41.
Skingley, P., Coins of England and the United Kingdom, 47th edn (2012), pp. 1-45. Smith, R.J., 'The Swanscombe Legend and the Historiography of Kentish Gavelkind', in
Medievalism in the Modern World: Essays in Honour of Leslie J. Workman, ed. R. Utz and T. Shippey, Making the Middle Ages (Brepols, 1998), pp. 85-103
Speed, J., The History of Great Britaine under the Conquests of ye Romans, Saxons, Danes and Normans, 3rd edn (London, 1650).
Speed, J., The Theatre of the Empire of Great Britaine, 1st edn (London, 1611). Stadler, K. Deutsche Wappen Bundesrepublik Deutsch/and, 8 vols (Bremen, 1964-71). Strohl, H.G., Deutsche Wappenrolle (Stuttgart, 1897).
Sumner, P., 'Army Inspection Returns - 1753 to 1804', Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research, 3 (1924), 227-60; and 4 (1925), 23-37.
Tatlock, J.S.P., 'The Dragons of Wessex and Wales', Speculum, 8 (1933), 223-35. Tolkien, J.R.R., Finn and Hengest: the Fragment and the Episode, ed. A. Bliss (London
1982).
Tooley, R.V (ed.), Blaeu 'sAtlas of England Scotland Wales and Ireland (London, 1970). Turville-Petre, J.E., 'Hengest and Horsa', Saga-Book of the Viking Society, 14 (1953-7),
273-90.
de Vaynes, J.H.L. and J.W. Ebsworth (eds), The Kentish Garland, 2 vols (Hertford, 1881-2). Veddeler, P., 'Landessymbole', in Die Braunschweigische Landesgeschichte: Jahrtausen druckblick einer Region, ed. H.-R. Jarck and G. Schildt (Brunswick, 2000), pp. 79-98.
Verstegan, R., A Restitution of Decayed Intelligence: In antiquities, concerning the most noble and renovvmed English nation (Antwerp, 1605).
Wagner, A.R., A Catalogue of Medieval Rolls of Arms (Oxford, 1950).
Walkowski, G.K. (ed. and trans.), Vvitichindus Res gestae Saxonicae etAnnales Corbeienses et Annales Hildesheimenses (Bydgoszcz, 2013).
Welch, M., 'Anglo-Saxon Kent to AD 800', in The Archaeology of Kent to AD 800, ed. J.
H. Williams, Kent History Project 8 (Woodbridge, 2007), pp. 187-248. West, M., Inda-European Poetry and Myth (Oxford, 2007).
Williamson, G.C., Trade Tokens Issued in the Seventeenth Century in England, Wales, and Ireland, by Corporations, Merchants, Tradesmen, Etc., 2nd edn, 2 vols, (London, 1889- 91).
Witney, K.P., The Kingdom of Kent (London and Chichester, 1982).
Yorke, B., Kings and Kingdoms of earlyAnglo-Saxon England (Abingdon, 1990).
29
image
JAMES LLOYD
ENDNOTES
List of abbreviations
ASC
HE
S (with doc. no.)
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (ed. Plummer).
Bede, Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (ed. Colgrave and Mynors). Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters.
1 For further detail and sources on the grant of arms, see below p. 20. The heraldic designation is 'Gules, a horse forcene argent' (copy of the letters patent, in Kent History and Library Centre, Cl A3/3C/3, Grant of Arms - Agreed design, receipt of letters patent, requests for use of arms from other bodies and authorities, 1932-4) but it is more usually described as 'rampant' (Scott-Giles, Civic Heraldry, p. 177). Both adjectives mean 'with one hind leg on the ground' but 'forcene' is more appropriate for horses. In older depictions, it tends to appear 'salient', meaning with both hind legs on the ground.
G.H.W., 'White Horse of Kent'; Hannen, 'White Horse of Kent'.
G.H.W., 'Origin of The White Horse'.
Jessup, 'White Horse of Kent'.
s Sachsenross, p. 60.
6 Saber, British County Flags: Kent Flag, https://britishcountyflags.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/ kent-flag/, accessed 30 March 2016.
van Arsdell, Celtic Coinage ofBritain, pp. 90-110.
On which see Green, Gods of the Celts, pp. 171-5; on the animal's appearance on coins, see
ibid., p. 59.
9 Chick, Coinage ofO.ffa, pp. 96-132 and 149-63; Naismith, Coinage of Southern England I, pp. 15-35.
10 For a modem review of the story, see Brooks, 'creation and early structure', pp. 58-64; Yorke,
Kings and Kingdoms, pp. 25-44.
Tacitus said that white horses were used in divinatory rituals (Germania, §10; ed. Hutton and Warmington, p. 146). According to Bede, it was taboo for a priest ofthe old religion to ride a stallion, though a mare was permissible (HE ii.13; ed. Colgrave and Mynors, p. 184).
Germania, §43 (ed. Hutton and Warmington, p. 202); Simek, Dictionary ofNorthern Mythology,
pp. 59-60 and 139; Mallory, In Search ofthe Inda-Europeans, pp. 135-7; West, Inda-European Poetry and Myth, pp. 186-91; Turville-Petre, 'Hengest and Horsa', pp. 278 and 286; Drewett, South East to AD 1000, p. 250; Sims-Williams, 'settlement of England', pp. 23-4.
13 CJ Bede's acceptance of Woden as a historical ancestor of the English kings (HE i.15; ed. Colgrave and Mynors, p. 50). The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle goes one better, incorporating him into biblical history and making him a descendent of Adam (ASC 855; ed. Plummer I, p. 66).
14 'effigiesque et signa quaedam detracta lucis in proelium ferunt' (Germania, §7; ed. and transl. Hutton and Warmington, pp. 140-141).
15 Hutton and Warmington, Germania, pp. 140-1, nn. 2-3.
16 Gesta Saxonicae i.11; ed. Walkowski, p. 42. It has, however, been suggested that Widukind himselfinvented this, inspired by Roman tradition (Bachrach and Bachrach, Widukind ofCarvey, p. 21, n. 88).
17 Brooks and Walker, 'Authority and Interpretation', p. 32.
18 The West Saxon dragon is sometimes anachronistically referred to as a wyvem, a distinction that Old English does not make.
'uexillis depictus' (Historia Anglorum iv.19; ed. and transl. Greenway, pp. 242-243).
'... JEdelhun precedens Westsexenses regis insigne, draconem scilicet auream, gerens
Historia Anglorum iv.19; ed. and transl. Greenway, pp. 242-243.
Gibson, Camden s Britannia, p. 267.
Henry ofHuntingdon, Historia Anglorum vi.13; ed. Greenway, p. 358. See comment ibid., n. 61.
Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum vi.30; ed. Greenway, p. 394. Henry's accuracy in assigning the English king a personal standard in addition to the draco is questionable. He used the
30
image
THE SAXON STEED AND THE WHITE HORSE OF KENT
very recent French loanword 'standard', rather than a Latin translation, as one might have expected if he were translating an Old English expression and the motif of a draco-banner in partnership with a 'standard' sic also appears in contemporary French romantic literature (Greenway, Henry of Huntingdon, pp. cvi-cvii).
As recorded by William ofMalmesbury (Gesta RegumAnglorum iii.241; ed.Mynors, Thomson and Winterbottom I, p. 454) and William of Poitiers (Gesta Guillelmi ii.31; ed. Davis and Chibnall, p. 152).
Tatlock, 'Dragons of Wessex and Wales', pp. 223-4.
26 Neubecker and Brooke-Little, Heraldry, p. 105.
27 Brooks and Walker, 'Authority and Interpretation', p. 33.
28 According to whom Harold 'planted his standard on the summit, and ordered all other banners to be joined to his'; 'In summo montis uexillum uertice fixit, / Attigique iubet cetera signa sibi', Carmen de Hastingae Proelio, 11. 375-6; ed. and transl. Barlow, pp. 22-3.
29 Guy wrote his poem before 1070 (Barlow, Carmen de Hastingae Proelio, pp. xl-xli).
30 'Late Anglo-Saxon State', pp. 24-5. He even suggested that hundreds may have had their own banners.
31 CJ also the consistent use of raven-banners by Danish armies (instances are listed by Campbell,
Encomium Emmae, pp. 96-7).
SeeMaylam, The Hooden Horse; Cawte, RitualAnimal Disguise, pp. 85-93.
The Northumbrians were an Anglian people and their kings used very different standards. King Edwin had a standard of a plume of feathers borne before him (Bede, HE ii. 16; ed. Colgrave and Mynors, p. 192). For the possibility that East Anglian kings used the same standard, see ibid., n. 3). King Oswald's standard of gold and purple was hung over his tomb (Bede, HE iii. 11; ed. Colgrave andMynors, p. 246). TheMercians are the only Anglian kingdom fleetingly associated with a draco standard.
HE i.15; ed. Colgrave andMynors, p. 50.
Sims-Williams, 'settlement of England', p. 24; Myres, 'The Angles, the Saxons, and the Jutes', pp. 165-7. Historians' shifting views on the credibility of Bede's model are summarized by Richardson, 'Third Way', pp. 73-4.
Welch, 'Anglo-Saxon Kent', p. 209.
Richardson, 'Third Way', pp. 75-8.
Hawkes, 'Anglo-Saxon Kent', p. 74.
Brooks, 'creation and early structure', pp. 68, 73-4.
Martin Welch imagines a 'migration stream' flowing down from Jutland, through north-west Germany and the Netherlands, to Kent ('Anglo-Saxon Kent', p. 219), for which the collective label 'Jutish' may have been chosen in contradistinction to Saxon identity (Richardson, 'Third Way', p. 79).
As a matter of fact, there is no evidence that the kings of Kent ever considered themselves Jutes, seeming instead to have identified with the Angles (seeMyres, 'The Angles, the Saxons, and the Jutes', pp. 150, 169 and 175). In no source, however, did they identify themselves as Saxons, so the point still stands.
Bede, HE iii.8; ed. Colgrave andMynors, p. 236.
His choice of words when he reported that the Saxons' leaders 'are said' ('perhibentur') to have been two brothers named Hengest and Horsa (HE i.15; ed. Colgrave and Mynors, p. 50) '... shows that he is reporting a tradition without wholly endorsing it.' Sims-Williams, 'settlement of England',
p. 21.
Sims-Williams, 'settlement of England', p. 22.
Books, 'creation and early structure', pp. 73-4. For the argument that Oisc himself may be another demoted deity, see Turville-Petre, 'Hengest and Horsa', p. 285; Moisle, 'Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies', pp. 235-6; Sims-Williams, 'settlement of England', p. 23.
See also Tatlock, 'Dragons of Wessex and Wales', p. 227.
On the different officials who might lead the militia, see Lloyd, 'Reeves as Agents of Royal Government', pp. 34-5 and 84, n. 60.
31
image
JAMES LLOYD
The sharing ofthe ducal title creates different numbering protocols, so that he is sometimes known as Albert I or Albert II. To save confusion, this paper will call him simply Duke Albert.
Schnath, Sachsenross, pp. 18, 24-5.
Veddeler, 'Landessymbole', p. 83 and fig. 6.
Schnath, Sachsenross, pp. 18-21 (see in particular pp. 20 and 38-9 for its first appearance on an escutcheon in 1380, when the colour-scheme was established); Strohl, Deutsche Wappenrolle, p. 73.
Strohl, Deutsche Wappenrolle, pp. 70-4; Stadler, Deutsche Wappen V, pp. 6-7.
Schnath, Sachsenross, p. 49; van der Laars, Wapens, vlaggen en zegels, p. 8.
Stadler, Deutsche Wappen V II, pp. 7-8.
For, example, in the state ofLower Saxony, it appears in the arms ofthe districts ofHelmstedt (Stadler, Deutsche Wappen I, p. 44) and Stade (ibid., p. 85); in the state ofSchleswig-Holstein, it appears in the arms ofthe district ofHerzogtum Lauenburg (ibid., p. 45) and in the state ofNorth Rhine-Westphalia, it appeared in the arms ofthe former district oflserlohn (ibid., p. 48).
Sierksma, gemeente wapens, p. 113, with commentary on pp. 223 and 262.
Twente was anciently part ofthe Saxony/Westphalian dominions but the flag was only adopted in 1900 (Hartemink, Heraldry of the World: Twente, http://www.ngw.nl/heraldrywiki/index. php?title=Twente, accessed 1 May 2016).
Veddelers, 'Landessymbole', p. 83.
Strohl, Deutsche Wappenrolle, p. 73.
Schnath, Sachsenross, pp. 22-6.
61 Ibid., p. 26.
Strohl, Deutsche Wappenrolle, p. 73.
Neubecker and Brooke-Taylor, Hera/dry, p. 11O; Veddeler, 'Landessymbole', pp. 79-83.
A history ofprevious suggestions and the reasons for rejecting them are summarised by Schnath,
Sachsenross, pp. 26-38.
65 Writing 1406 x 1418 (Jansen, Cosmidromius, pp. xxxviii-xliv).
Bede did not, in fact, specify Hengest's and Horsa's nation oforigin but the collective term 'Saxones', originally a pars pro toto exonym for all the Germanic invaders ofBritain, came to be taken literally in their case.
'Duces igitur exercitus illius qui de Saxonia in Britaniam profectus est, filii ducis Angarie sive de Enghere fuerunt, quorum unus, ut dicit Beda, vocabatur Hengist et alter Horsa, quorum nominum quodlibet sonat lingua vulgari equum regium egregii roboris et decoris, quo principes maxime utuntur in hastiludiis et tomeamentis. Et inde forte est, quod arma quorundam ducum Saxonie sunt equus albus, quoniam ab antiquo talia arma suis progenitoribus receperunt. Et sic ab antiquo nomina principum cum nominibus armorum concordabant, sicut adhuc in Westfalia nomina quorundam militarium cum nominibus seu vocabulis armorum suorum concordant.' Cosmidromius, §23; ed. Jansen, p. 11; present author's translation.
See, for example, a dispute between sixteenth-century historians over whether Hengest was a full-blooded Saxon or half-Frisian: Petrus, Apologia, pp. 120-9.
69 Strohl, Deutsche Wappenrolle, p. 73; Stadler, Deutsche Wappen V, p. 6.
Sachsenross, pp. 45 and 101.
Ibid., pp. 38-40.
'... das RoB als vermeintliches Sinnbald des alten Sachsen in sein Siegel aufzunehmen, um der Welt zu zeigen, wem von rechts wegen die den Wittenbergem zugefallene fohrende Stellung im alten Herzogtum Sachsen gebuhrte.' Ibid., pp. 41-2; present author's translation. Schnath's conclusion is supported by Stadler (Deutsche Wappen V, p. 6, though Stadler also believed that Albert was reviving a genuinely ancient symbol) and Veddeler ('Landessymbole', p. 84).
Schanth, Sachsenross, p. 25; see also comments p. 40.
Schnath, Sachsenross, p. 46.
Stadler, Deutsche Wappen I, p. 44.
Hartemink, Heraldry of the World: Renkum, http://www.ngw.nl/heraldrywiki/index. php?title=Renkum, accessed 1 May 2016.
32
image
THE SAXON STEEDAND THE WHITE HORSE OF KENT
Van der Laars, Wapens, vlaggen en zegels, p. 8. See comments in Veddeler, 'Landessymbole',
pp. 84-5.
Boutell and Fox-Davies, English Heraldry, pp. 17-19. This tradition reached its climax in 1604, when the newly acceded King James asked Sir William Segar, Garter Principal King ofArms, 'some questions touching the CoatArmour of England'. He responded with two comprehensive manuscripts of the attributed arms: London, College ofArms, L. 14, fols. 362-84 and British Library, Harley 6085 (see Keynes, 'Mapping theAnglo-Saxon past', p. 169, n. 45).
London, College of Arms, Vincent 170, pp. 29-57; see Campbell et al., Catalogue of Manuscripts, p. 402.
Wagner, Catalogue ofMedievalRolls, p. 97.
College ofArms, Vincent 170, p. 33. The drawings are in fact in black and white but the intended colours are signified by abbreviated labels (a technique known as 'trick' in heraldic terminology).
Ibid., p. 34.
The Firmesburh Fragment is ed. Klaeber, Beowulf, pp. 245-7; the affiliated passage in Beowulf
is 11. 1063-1159a, ed. ibid., pp. 40-4.
This was first suggested by Chadwick (Origin ofthe English Nation, pp. 52-3) and developed by J.R.R. Tolkein (Finn and Hengest). That they were the same man was taken for granted by Myres ('The Angles, the Saxons, and the Jutes', p. 150, n. 4) and Witney (Kingdom of Kent, p. 16) but doubted by Klaeber (Beowulf, p. 235). Even if they are intended as the same character, however, that does not corroborate Hengest's historical existence but simply makes him a character in Germanic legend (Sims-Williams, 'settlement of England', p. 23).
The first two do bear a passing resemblance to the arms of Canterbury (three choughs on a white field, with a lion of England on a red background above them) but these were not registered with the College ofArms until 1619 and the earliest reliably datable examples are from the sixteenth century (Berg, Canterbury Cathedral: Is Richard !I's 1380 charter all it seems?, http://www.canterbury cathedral.org/2014/ ll /Ol /is-richard-iis-1380-charter-all-it-seems/, accessed 7 June 2016), though a fifteenth-century example has been claimed (Birch (ed.), Catalogue ofSeals II, no. 4783; disputed by Berg). Research into this question is ongoing and it remains to be seen how, if at all, the attributed arms of Hengest might affect it.
'... vnde fortasse sit, quod equum olim in insignibus gesserint Saxonire Duces.At cur Hengistus, & Horsa nostri ab equo nomen dux erint [sic] (vtriusque enim nomen Saxonice equum significat) plane me latet, nisi in bellicre virtutis omen ...' (Camden, Britannia, p. 47; transl. Gibson, Camden's Britannia, p. cxxx).
On whom, seeArblaster, 'Verstegan'.
Verstegan,Restitution ofDecayed Intelligence, p. 116.
Ibid., pp. 120-1.
This is presumably the reason why Hannen ('White Horse of Kent') and Jessup ('White Horse of Kent', p. 469) both believed that Verstegan had contrived the idea himself. Verstegan may also be one of the unnamed 'earlier authors' ('friiherenAutoren'), who had assumed that the White Horse of Kent dated back to ancient times, dismissed by Schnath (Sachsenross, p. 60).
Accessibly re-produced in Counties ofBritain, ed. Nicolson and Hawkyard.
Ibid., pp. 30-1.
E.g. Cambridge, Trinity College Library V I.5.34, which Speed presented to Queen Anne of Denmark, uses the red version (see Keynes, 'Mapping theAnglo-Saxon past', p. 160, fig. 18.10).
The first Christian kings of Wessex and Northumbria are also presented changing arms but not the others (cf the frontispiece, which specifies a distinction between the arms of the heathen West Saxons and Christian West Saxons).
Hardegsen (since 1500; Stadler, Deutsche Wappen V, p. 46), Wolfenbuttel (since 1570; ibid., p. 84) and Verden (but only since 1948; Stadler, Deutsche Wappen I, p. 92).
Speed, History ofGreat Britaine, pp. 282, 291-2, 295-7, 341, 346.
Ed. Hebel, Works ofMichael Drayton IV, p. ii.
Ibid.Are the 'Old wives fictions' a reference to the Kings of Britain roll or its sources?
Counties ofBritain, ed. Nicolson and Hawkyard, pp. 106-7.
33
image
JAMES LLOYD
The charters in question, S 338 (867) and S 339 (868), were the only surviving charters issued by that king that dealt with land in Kent. His other charters used only the title ' king of the West Saxons'.
101 Battaile ofAgincourt, ed. Garnett, pp. 28-33.
102 Ibid., p. 29.
The legend ofthe Battle of Swanscombe had only recently come to wider academic and literary attention (Gillespie and Harris, ' Holinshed and the Native Chronicle Tradition', pp. 148-9). For a discussion of the origin of the legend and of its use in historical and political debate, see Smith, ' The Swanscombe Legend'.
Garnett, Battaile ofAgincourt, p. 109; Jenkins, ' Sources of Drayton', p. 281.
Viz.Monmouthshire, Brecknockshire, Radnorshire, Montgomeryshire and Denbighshire.
G.H.W., 'White Horse of Kent' (1932), p. 15.
Williamson, Trade Tokens Issued in the Seventeenth Century I, pp. 352, 362-3 and 370; payable at Dover and Greenwich; also payable at Canterbury, where a White Horse Inn was standing at the time (see below, p. 36, n. 161). OnWhite Horse Inns in general, see below, p. 24.
Reproduced in facsimile in Blaeus Atlas ofEngland, ed. Tooley. This uses the 1662 edition of the title-page, where the Kentish escutcheon is blue (earlier editions had used red).
Gibson, Chronicon Saxonicum, opp. p. 1; see Keynes, 'Mapping theAnglo-Saxon past', pp. 161-3.
Harris, History ofKent, pp. iv-1.
Shaw and Gray, 'JamesAbree', p. 21.
112 Kentish Postl Jan 1725 (O.S.). No issues survive in between 1722 and 1726, so it is impossible to be sure at what point in the interim the addition was made.
113 This was expressed pictorially on a contemporary medallion which depicted a giant horse leaping from Hanover across the North Sea to Britain (Schnath, Sachsenross, table 17, fig. 64).
114 Parish churches in Kent that display the RoyalArms of the period 1714-1800 include Capel (Thomas Becket), Cranbrook (Saint Dunstan), East Peckham (Saint Michael) and Faversham (Saint Mary of Charity).
115 Ed. Sumner, 'Army Inspection Returns' (1924), pp. 227-31 and 'Army Inspection Returns' (1925), pp. 23-4, with details of individual regiments' uniforms, taken partly from the warrant and partly from inspection returns, passim both papers.
116 Jessup ('White Horse of Kent', p. 470) misrepresented this order as applying specifically to the 50th Regiment, which he anachronistically called the RoyalWest Kent Regiment. In fact regiments were not assigned to counties until 1782. It was only then that the Buffs were assigned to East Kent and the 50th to theWest. These choices were apparently made on the whim of their respective colonels, since neither regiment had had any particular association with Kent thitherto (Blaxland, Story ofthe Queens Own Buffs, p. 20).
117 Raised in 1760, merged with the Buffs in 1881.
118 The only known specimen of this mitre cap to survive is NationalArmy Museum, 1966-09- 57, Grenadier cap, East Kent Militia, 1760. It is reproduced and discussed by Carman, ' Grenadier Cap' and Griffin, The British Empire: The Buffs East Kent Regiment, http://www.britishempire.co.uk/ forces/armyuniforms/britishinfantry/buffs1881.htm, accessed 10June 2015.
119 Sunmer, 'Army Inspection Returns' (1925), p. 28.
12° Formed in 1759, in response to anAct of 1757. In 1853 it became theWest Kent Lightlnfantry Militia and in 1881 it was made the 3rd and 4th Battalions of the Queen's Own (Royal West Kent) Regiment, though the Battalions continued to be commonly referred to as the West Kent Militia (Bonhote, Historial Records, pp. 82, 252 and 277-8).
121 Ibid., opp. pp. 148 and 466; Haythornthwaite, ' Belt-Plates'. The cited examples are from 1793, 1798 and 1800 respectively.
122 Shaw and Gray, 'JamesAbree', pp. 27-8. The first issue was 4 May 1768 and the firstjoint issue 23July 1768.
123 Atkins, Tradesmens Tokens, pp. 48, 52 and 54.
124 Schama, History ofBritain, p. 348. For a contemporary account of many of the Coronation riots, seeAnonymous, Account ofthe Riots, pp. 4-15.
34
image
THE SAXON STEED AND THE WHITE HORSE OF KENT
125 So proverbial was Kent's reputation for Protestantism that Devonian Thomas D'Urfey celebrated it in a verse of his song The Brave Men ofKent in 1690 (de Vaynes and Ebsworth,Kentish Garland I, p. 137). Fresh verses were added to the song in 1828 in honour (or parody) of Kentish opposition to O'Connell and the Catholic Relief Bill (ibid., pp. 134-5), when a convention of the county at Penenden Heath voted to present a petition against emancipation to the House of Commons (Sheil and Mackenzie,Sketches ofthe Irish Bar II,pp. 315-38).
126 The election of Kent's M.P.s tended to vacillate between Tories and Whigs. The long-term trend was for Kent to return Tories but Whigs were returned in 1715 and 1727,elections precipitated by the accessions of George I and George II respectively (Newman,History ofParliament Online: Kent 1715-1754, http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/l 715-l 754/constituencies/kent,
accessed 17 April 2016). CJ the anti-Hanoverian disorder exhibited in other counties on the former
occasion (Anonymous,Account ofthe Riots, pp. 15-26). A song from the 1727 contest celebrated the election of the Whig candidates and proclaimed the county's loyalty to 'the Hanoverian line' (sic) (de Vaynes and Ebsworth,Kentish Garland I,pp. 335-6).
127 It seems to have been the Kentish Post's masthead that started the bandwagon. Nothing is known of the politics of the Post's original printer,Thomas Reeve, or of James Abree's, who took over as printer in 1726 but there is some evidence that the latter had Huguenot ancestry (Shaw and Gray,'James Abree',pp. 21-2).
128 History and Topographical Survey I,p. 64.
129 E.g. Kent History and Library Centre,U464/Ol,Appointment of Charles Lockyer as deputy lieutenant,1727,bears the personal seal of the Earl of Leicester,the Lord Lieutenant; Kent History and Library Centre,Q/A/N/5,Justices' certificates of men enrolled,1796-7,are impressed with the personal seals of the Justices of the Peace. CJ the traditional use of personal banners by Lord
Lieutenants when captaining the militia: Bonhote,Historical Records, p. 97.
130 This was in response to an Act of 1774 that required pockets to be marked with the year,place of growth and grower's name (Filmer,Hops and hop picking, p. 18).
131 Bridge,'Kent Hop-Tokens',p. 62 and opp. p. 60,fig. 9.
132 Anonymous,Some notes, p. 10,with examples on pp. 8,11-12,23,30,32 and 42.
133 Berry,Encyclopcedia Heraldica I,p. 268.
134 Berry,Pedigrees.
135 E.g. Adams (ed.),Kentish Coronal; de Vaynes and Ebsworth (eds.),Kentish Garland; North, Kent: Historical, Biographical, and Pictorial; Maxwell,Unknown Kent; Oswald,Country Houses of Kent; etc.
136 Preston,Aveling and Porter, opp. p. 1.
Samantha Bentley,Senior Conservation Assistant at Ightham Mote,pers. comm.
E.g. the West Kent Militia's colours, introduced in 1855, used a red background (Bonhote, Historical Records, pp. 259-60,272-3 and opp. p. 308). Conversely,the White Horse on a blue field is one of the regimental badges painted onto the walls of the Main Guard in St George's Square, Valletta,Malta,where the Militia served 1900-1 (Walter Bonnici,pers. comm.; this may be viewed at British Army Medical Services and the Malta Garrison 1799-1979: Queens Own (Royal West Kent), ed. Bonnici, http://www.maltaramc.com/regmltgar/l rywtkent.html, accessed 10 June 2015), even though the Militia actually trooped their red colours while in Malta (Bonhote,Historical Records, p. 308-9). These colours continued to be used after the Militia was merged into the Royal West Kent Regiment,which also inherited the Militia's helmet plate and forage cap badge (ibid., p. 278). Indeed,it is on the cap badge that the White Horse has enjoyed its most widespread dissemination: on Captain Mainwaring's cap in Dads Army.
Kayleigh Minihane,Head of External Relations,pers. comm.
Mark Housden,Deputy Headmaster,pers. comm.
CJ West and East Sussex, where the martlets are also given a blue or a red background respectively.
The design was suggested in 1952 by pupil Dorothy Bibby (now Gant), drawn up by Claire Foster (now Morgan) and adopted by the Governors after the Coronation (Pippa Blackstone,T. G. S. Alunmi and Development,pers. comm.).
E.g. Fox-Davies,Book ofPublic Arms, p. 406.
35
image
JAMES LLOYD
For information on the history of the old seal, as well as an impression of it on wafer, see Kent History and Library Centre, C/A3/3C/7, New Seal, 1936.
E.g. Education Committee certificates, issued c.1903 (Melling, History of the Kent County Council,p. 12, fig. 5).
The author found examples of this, appropriately enough, in Kent History and Library Centre, C/A3/3C/l-3 and 6, Correspondence concerning the grant of arms, 1930-6.
147 Melling, History ofthe Kent County Council,p. 23.
Ibid.,p. 25, fig. 11. This was replaced in 1934 by the recently granted full achievement (ibid.,
p. 56).
Lloyd, Canterbury Cathedral: The Canterbury War Memorial, http://www.canterbury cathedral.org/2014/03/20/the-canterbury-war-memorial/, accessed 20 March 2014.
150 This rationale is explained in a letter from the County Clerk to the Earl Marshal, dated 11 October 1930 and kept in Kent History and Library Centre, C/A3/3C/l, Grant of Arms - First proposals and comments from members of the County Council, 1930 and in letters and memoranda in C/A3/3C/7.
151 There was some suggestion of using a blue or Kentish grey background and of putting a cross pattee and fitchee in each of the upper comers to represent Kent's two sees but these came to nothing. See passim C/A3/3C/l and C/A3/3C/2, Grant of Arms - Creation of County Arms Sub-Committee and submission of alternative designs, 1931. Different designs may be viewed in C/A3/3C/4, Grant of Arms - Designs Submitted, 1931.
152 This is one of several escutcheons carved over a fireplace in the private house that has since become Maidstone Museum and Bentlif Art Gallery. The date of the fireplace is unknown but that wing of the house was built in 1868 (Pemille Richards, Documentation Officer, Maidstone Borough Council, pers. comm.).
153 An impression of the new seal on wax may be found in C/A3/3C/7.
154 Scott-Giles, Civic Heraldry,pp. 178-92,passim.
155 Briggs, Civic & Corporate Heraldry,pp. 216-17.
156 Pratt, 'On the Vegetable Productions of Kent', p. 17.
157 Moore, History ofKent County Cricket Club,pp. 14-17.
158 This criticism is explained in a letter from the County Clerk to the College of Arms, dated 4 July 1931, kept in C/A3/3C/2. The comment is attributed to Lord Harris in a memorandum, dated 13 March 1952, kept in Kent History and Library Centre, C/A3/3C/9, County Arms - File 8, 1950-2.
159 Letters between the Kent County Chess Association and the County Council (dated 26 February and 4 March 1936) and an internal Council memorandum (dated 2 March), kept in Kent History and Library Centre, C/A3/3C/6, County Arms, 1934-6.
160 E.g. at Cranbrook.
161 E.g. the White Horse Inn in Canterbury was probably founded in between 1466 and 1598. A document of the former date (Canterbury Cathedral Archives, CCA-CC-WOODRUFF/38/1), dealing with property on the future site, is endorsed in a later hand 'Now the White Horse'. The property is named as the White Horse in a document of 1598 (CCA-CC-WOODRUFF/38/3/1-2).
162 G.H.W. ('White Horse of Kent' (1932), p. 102) found a reference to a White Horse Inn on London Bridge in the fifteenth century.
36
image
THE CONTENTS AND CONTEXT OF THE BOUGHTON MALHERBE LATE BRONZE AGE HOARD
SOPHIA ADAMS
The Boughton Malherbe hoard of copper and copper alloy artefacts and fragments was found in arable land in 2011. It has been dated to c.850- 750 BC in the Late Bronze Age. The hoard was buried in a pit in 344 pieces derived from no more than 340 objects, two of which were pushed inside other socketed objects prior to deposition. Previous references to 352 items relate to the condition of the objects as presented for the Treasure valuation committee rather than the real quantity of deposited remains. This paper sets out the full contents of the hoard, as deposited and their current state. Details are given of the condition and type of the contents and comparisons are drawn with other known contemporary objects. Initial results of investigation into the deposition and landscape context of thefind add to the complex set of data for this impressive assemblage. The paper is intended as a preliminary study from which further research can develop.
The Boughton Malherbe hoard of Bronze Age copper and copper alloy objects was discovered crammed into a pit below the plough soil in August 2011 by metal detectorists Messrs Hales and Coomber in the parish of Boughton Malherbe (Figs 1 and 2). The discovery was reported to the Finds Liaison Officer for Kent, Jennifer Jackson, who led further archaeological investigation of the findspot. It was designated as treasure under the 1996 Treasure (Designation Order) 2002 (PAS ID: KENT-15A293). Initial cataloguing was carried out by staff and volunteers at the British Museum (Ben Roberts, Mafalda Raposo, Steven Matthews and Jessica Leedham (Matthews et al. 2011) to produce a report for the Treasure Valuation Committee. This catalogue contained every individual piece (pieces stuck together were reported as a single object) making a total of 352 items. The hoard was assigned to the Carp's Tongue complex of Late Bronze Age metalwork owing to the presence of sword fragments of this type and their combination with other specific object types and fragments. Dated to between c.850-750 BC on typological grounds (see below), this is the largest hoard of its type in Britain. It has been described as the third largest Bronze Age hoard but neither the largest nor the second largest are contemporary. The Isleham hoard from Cambridgeshire contained 6,500 items dating to c.1150-1000 BC and the Langton Matravers hoard in Dorset dated to c.800-600 BC contained 777 items recovered from four pits (Matthews et al. 2012; Roberts et al. 2015).
37
image
SOPHIA ADAMS
Fig. 1 Photograph of the hoard as received by the Portable Antiquities Scheme. PAS CC BY. From top to bottom: ingots and ingot fragments, sword pieces, spearheads and mould fragments, socketed axes and fragments, winged axes and fragments, miscellaneous tools, ornaments, fixtures and fittings.
The hoard was purchased by Maidstone Museum and Bentlif Art Gallery after financial support from the local community enabled the successful application for grants from The Art Fund, the MLAN&A Purchase Grant Fund and the Headley
38
image
CONTENTS AND CONTEXT OF BOUGHTON MALHERBE LATE BRONZE AGE HOARD
Grays Thurrock I e
Holborough Quany
e Holllngboume
■
Hlghstead, Chlslet
Minnis Bay
Yaldlng ■
Boughton Malherbe
*• Lanham
MIii HIii, Deal ■
Saltwood.
Fig. 2 Location of the Boughton Malherbe hoard, other local sites and hoards mentioned in the text. PAS hoard sites are marked by centre of parish only.
Trust. A further grant was obtained from the Kent Archaeological Society Allen Grove Local History Fund to enable the hoard to be catalogued for the museum archive, photographed, repackaged and researched in preparation for talks to the local community. The objects were accessioned with sequential numbers from MNEMG 2014.13.1 to MNEMG 2014.13.352 corresponding with the treasure report (see the KAS websitefor thefull list). Where specific artefacts are referenced below the last part of the number is quoted in parentheses, for example MNEMG 2014.13.213 is (213). This work was carried out by the author with support from museum staff including Samantha Harris, Pemille Richards and Rebecca Amott. The local interest in this hoard has been vital to its preservation and continued research. In return a number ofthe finds were made accessible to the public as part of talks held at Grafty Green Village Hall and Maidstone Museum. A selection of the finds is currently on display at Maidstone Museum (Adams 2014). Since its discovery the hoard has also received academic attention and is central to debates about the practice of hoarding during the final stages of the Bronze Age (e.g. Matthews 2013; Brandhem and Moskal-del Hoyo 2014).
This paper presents the initial results of further work carried out on the hoard as part ofthe process ofcataloguing and preparing it for storage at Maidstone Museum. As a result it has been possible to revise the original catalogue in terms of the quantity and type of objects and assess the contents of the original deposit versus their condition as presented to the Portable Antiquities Scheme. It is anticipated that publishing the evidence at this stage will be a pertinent reminder of the need for continued support and funding to conserve this collection. Conservation work that would provide much needed careful cleaning to enable precise recording and assessment ofthe hoard and to provide remedial work to preserve and maintain the collection for the future.
39
image
The hoard contents
SOPHIA ADAMS
In its current condition the hoard is in 358 metal pieces including every small fragment,part of an object and complete objects (Table 1). It entered the ground as 344 pieces derived from no more than 340 copper and copper alloy objects (and potentially fewer). Preliminary results of X-ray fluorescence analysis,undertaken by Xose-Lois Armada and the author,show the alloys to be bronze with variable lead content. The full results of this analysis will be published in due course. In its current condition the total weight of the hoard is 64.2kg. This is slightly heavier than the weight of the metal owing to the presence of sediment still attached to and filling some of the objects. Once the objects are cleaned and conserved the total weight is still estimated to exceed 60kg. The lightest fragment weighs less than
0.lg (342: the smallest fragment from the long decorated plaque) but the lightest complete object is a copper alloy ring (269) weighing 11. l g. The heaviest object is a complete,plano-convex copper ingot (213) weighing 7.446kg. The objects and fragments range in size from a few millimetres to 238.5mm diameter (ingot 213). One object,a fragmented decorated plaque,was originally over 244mm long but was deposited in the ground folded in half so it occupied a space no longer than
142.43mm. The folding of the object caused it to weaken and snap so that is it now in four pieces (322,323,342 and 347).
The median object or fragment weight for the hoard assemblage is 54.2g; the median length 50.34; median width 34.18 and median thickness 13.57 (all averages
TABLE 1. THE BOUGHTON MALHERBE HOARD CONTENTS
Organised by object category, listing the number of fragments (pieces), maximum number of objects from which these pieces are derived and the total weight for each category. Percentages relate to percentage of the entire hoard/assemblage. For a breakdown of the type of objects in each category see Table 2.
Object Group Current no.
%of hoard pieces
Max. no. of
%of hoard objects
Total weight (g)
%of hoard weight
Tools 151
42.18
147
43.24
17,006.60
26.48
Edged Weapons 78
21.79
75
22.06
3,268.20
5.09
Metalworking 67
18.72
67
19.71
43,128.63
67.15
Personal ornament, 48
13.41
38
11.18
744.50
1.16
Vessels
0.28
0.29
25.30
0.04
Miscellaneous sheet 13
3.63
12
3.53
51.30
0.08
Total 358
340
64,224.53
ofpieces
objects
remains/equipment fixture and fittings
fragments
40
image
CONTENTS AND CONTEXT OF BOUGHTON MALHERBE LATE BRONZE AGE HOARD
are similar with the exception of the weight which is distorted by the heavy ingots giving an average weight of 181.94g). Given the weight and bulk of the hoard this is not a particularly portable collection without the aid of a wheeled vehicle or pack animal or several people to assist with transport or several return trips by a single person.
Table 1 and Table 2 show that the different ways in which the contents are described can give a different emphasis to the hoard contents. For example, the hoard appears to be dominated by tools whether one is looking at the total quantity of fragments (42.18 per cent of the total hoard) or the total quantity of objects represented as complete or fragmentary items (43.24 per cent). This is followed at some distance by sword fragments and spearhead fragments (Edged Weapons: 21.79 per cent of pieces and 22.06 per cent of maximum number of objects). In contrast comparing the weight of the items in the hoard shows it to be distinctly dominated by metalworking remains and equipment: copper ingots, copper alloy casting waste and moulds (67.15 per cent of the total weight of the hoard). Ingots alone make up 64.49 per cent of the total weight of the entire hoard owing in part to the size and density of the seven complete copper ingots but also to the large quantity of ingot fragments: 47 pieces. It has not yet been possible to assess whether any ofthese fragments derive from the same ingot but this may be addressed in future research into the source of the ingots (by Xose-Lois Armada and Sophia Adams). Furthermore, the way in which the material is grouped affects the overall concept of the hoard's contents. For example, a far greater variety of items have been classified as objects of personal ornament and fixtures and fittings than as edged weapons. We must remain cautious as to whether a Bronze Age person would have grouped their artefacts in the same way. For example, in the Bronze Age objects might have been grouped together based on who used them or the way in which they were worn or carried rather than whether they were a tool or a weapon. Swords dominate the assemblage in terms of objects that are only included in fragments. Complete objects are dominated by axes. Patterns or lack of patterns in the pieces in the hoard will be discussed further below. What is clear at this point is that there is no simple pattern to the composition of this or other comparative hoards. This has led to debate about the reason for each collection and episode of deposition in the ground.
Hoard Type
The hoard has been identified as belonging to the Carp's Tongue tradition (Matthews et al. 2011; Matthews et al. 2012; Matthews 2013) but it has also been proposed as the British type-site for a cross-Channel hoard tradition: the Boughton-Venat hoards (Brandherm and Moskal-del Hoyo 2014). These equate to a period of metalwork deposition in the Late Bronze Age in north-western Europe from the ninth to eight centuries BC when copper alloy objects, often in fragments, and copper ingots were buried in discrete groups that archaeologists describe as hoards. The Carp's Tongue hoards are named after this sword type. It is a distinctive slashing and thrusting weapon that was cast in bronze complete with hilt and grip (over which was attached a handle of organic material) and a straight blade that narrowed towards the tip to form a long point (the 'Carp's Tongue').
41
image
SOPHIA ADAMS
TABLE 2. THE BOUGHTON MALHERBE HOARD, CONTENTS AND FRAGMENTS BY OBJECT TYPE
Object Group
Object Type
Pieces
Total no. of objects
Whole
Whole but in
Fragment only
Total Assemblage
All Objects
358
340
59
4
279
Tools
Adze
Axe
lll
108
25
82*
Chisel
Gouge
5
4
2
Hanuner
Knife
30
30
3
27
Socket unspec. type
Blade unspec. type
Edged Weapons
Sword
50
50
50
Spearhead
28
25
23
Metalworking
Ingots
54
54
7
47
Axe moulds
4
3 or4
3
Casting Waste
9
9
9
Personal ornament,
Armring
3
2
2
Band
Bracelet
13
12
12
Bugle-shaped
2
2
2
Button
Hollow Cap
9
4
6*
Hub Cap
Loop
Pendant
Pin
Decorated Plaque
5
2
Ring
8
8
2
6
Squared strap-fitting
Stud
Vessels
Bucket frag.
Miscellaneous
Sheet metal
13
12
12*
42
Complete objects include those where all parts ofthe object are present even ifthey are damaged. Not one complete object is in pristine, unused condition. Pieces references those individually catalogued fragments. Fragments marked with an* mean the list includes as a single entry any fragments that join together to make a single larger piece. The fragments column includes both large and small pieces.
pieces
remains/equipment
fixture and fittings
sheet fragments
image
CONTENTS AND CONTEXT OF BOUGHTON MALHERBE LATE BRONZE AGE HOARD
Although many swords and sword pieces are identified as Carp's Tongue there is some disagreement amongst scholars over what are the defining characteristics of such swords. A number of sub-types of the form exist but the only consistent feature of classic Carp's Tongue swords is an even, unbroken curve from the grip into the shoulders (i.e. the part where the handle widens before it steps back in to the blade) (Brandherm and Burgess 2008, 135). This precise piece is absent from the entire Boughton Malherbe hoard, so too are any tip fragments although a couple of pieces are derived from the point at which the blade narrows (43 and 47). Most of the pieces in the hoard identified as Carp's Tongue are recognised by the presence of a 'narrow midrib defined on either side by grooves' (Ibid.).
The Carp's Tongue hoards are identified not only by the presence of the sword fragments but also the composition of the contents. These include items that are typical of the hoards and those that are often included in the hoards. The difficulty arises with defining the main object forms that occur in the hoards and commonly associated but not primary components. Steven Matthews proposed that the Boughton Malherbe hoard contains both objects primary to the Carp's tongue complex and those that are often found in the hoards but are not specific to the complex (Matthews 2013, 57-9). The primary objects include: a specific Carp's Tongue sword form, the Type Nantes; lozenge sectioned pommel pieces; bugle-shaped objects and hogs' backed knives (Table 2). The secondary and tertiary types include socketed axes, bracelets, decorated plaques and casting debris. In contradiction to this interpretation the hoard does not contain other items typically recovered in these hoards such as bag-shaped sword chapes and
:,_·:,c;c..0 ' .. . .. .
· · · .
I 2
•.:, '; •. ,.;
Fig. 3 Anglo-Saxon pottery. 1) Jar with simple out-turned rim. Black core with dull brown to black patchy surfaces, fabric MLS 4C. Pit 1325.
2) Slightly out-turned and thickened rim from Ipswich-type ?spouted pitcher. Red-brown core with dark grey surfaces, fabric MLS 7. Pit 1246.
more indicative of household refuse. Interestingly, the main meat-bearing elements, notably the upper limbs for sheep/goat and the rear limbs in cattle were under represented or entirely absent, suggesting that these prime joints of meat (lamb shoulder and beef rump) had been removed, consumed and disposed of elsewhere (Jones 2010).
Remains of domestic chicken, geese and ducks were also recovered (Allison 2010), as were fish (Locker 2010). Significantly, the fish bone assemblage had a marked absence of exclusively freshwater species, and was dominated by migratory eel and marine species (mainly herring), as well as shellfish (mainly oyster) (Allison 2011). An emphasis on the consumption of marine fish species appears to be a pattern reflected at other high status or monastic sites from the eighth and ninth centuries (Barrett et al. 2004). It is suggested that this might reflect a growing diversification in the exploitation of coastal resources and control of and access to contemporary marine fisheries as is suggested between the early monastic foundation at Lyminge (Thomas 2013) and its coastal holding at Sandtun, West Hythe (Gardiner et al. 2001).
Plant remains, surviving either as charred crop processing and cooking refuse, or as mineralised material derived mostly from faecal or midden waste, were also recovered from the pits. A simple cereal (probably mainly wheat and barley bread) and pulse based (beans and peas) diet was represented, presumably augmented with meat, with a few flavourings coming from garden herbs such as opium poppy and mustard, and supplemented with native hedgerow and orchard fruits and nuts. Comparison of the Barton Court assemblage with other contemporary assemblages from southern England by Wendy Carruthers indicated a greater similarity with rural rather than urban sites, particularly with no exotic fruits or spices identified (Carruthers 2010).
In addition to pottery and food waste, a small number of personal items was identified. These included fragments from one or more decorated bone combs from pit 1325 (Bevan 2008) (Fig. 4), and a rare, cast copper alloy utensil (comprising a
68
image
THE HOJvffi FARM OF ST AUGUSTINE'S ABBEY, CANTERBURY
••
-�---
Fig. 4 Fragments from Anglo-Saxon composite bone comb, pit 1325.
i:.
0- : -
D!
three-pronged fork at one end and a strainer, formed of an oval bowl with perforations, at the other), from pit 220 (Richardson 2008) (Fig. 5, no. 1).
Six further pits, and three post-holes, perhaps indicating the presence ofan adjacent timber structure, all of a probable mid to late Anglo-Saxon date, were identified immediately to the north-west of the new Food Technology Block excavation while monitoring groundworks during the installation of associated services (O'Shea 2007).
It is not clear when the barton or home farm of St Augustine's Abbey was first established. An early seventh-century date is accepted for the foundation of St Augustine's Abbey and it would seem, if a later thirteenth-century copy of a charter dated AD 605 is to be believed, that the land occupied by the barton had
- --
2
___,,, 1
Fig. 5 Anglo-Saxon metalwork.
1) Cast copper alloy utensil. Length: 139mm. Width (spoon bowl): 22mm. Thickness (midpoint of shaft): 4mm. Weight:
7.5g. Pit 220. 2) Pin with globular head and plain shaft. Probable Type A dress pin. Length: 49mm. Ditch 1055.
69
image
RICHARD HELMAND SHEILA SWEETINBURGH
been included as part ofthis initial endowment (Kelly 1995, 9-11). However, the present results indicate that significant activity did not take place within the barton until the early eighth century and it is reasonable to suggest that the development ofthe barton did not immediately follow the initial foundation ofthe abbey, but rather was more likely contemporary with a later expansion and development of the abbey during the eighth and ninth centuries (Blackley 2000; Gem 1997).
Evidence for the foundation of St Augustine's Abbey is largely restricted to masonry structures recorded during early excavations (Sparks 1984), and only limited associated pre eighth-century activity has so far been identified during more recent work (Hicks 2015; Saunders 1978; Sherlock and Woods 1988). Outside the abbey, an early settlement, perhaps forming part of a 'royal ville', has been postulated for the area surrounding St Martin's Church (Sparks and Tatton-Brown 1987, 201); the church generally accepted to be Queen Bertha's chapel referred to by Bede and established before the arrival ofSt Augustine in AD 597 (Gem 1997; Tatton-Brown 1980; 1994; Taylor 1998). This 'royal ville' probably formed part ofa larger trading emporium or 'wic' extending between Canterbury and the port at Fordwich, encapsulating the area later occupied by the manor ofLongport, held by St Augustine's Abbey, and the manors ofColton (Northgate) and Caldecote (St Martin's), held by Christ Church Priory (Brookes and Harrington 2010, 87; Sparks and Tatton-Brown 1987, 203-205).
Excavation immediately east ofSt Martin's Church, has identified nine potential late sixth- to seventh-century burials perhaps forming part of a wider cemetery surrounding the early church (Sparey-Green 2003, 19-20; 2015). However, evidence for settlement activity along St Martin's Hill has so far been limited to the later eighth and mid ninth centuries. At the 'Conduit Meadow' site, immediately south ofSt Martin's Church, this comprised at least nine pits, containing domestic refuse and cess, concentrated along the frontage of a metalled track way which extended along the southern part ofpresent-day North Holmes Road towards the north-east, perhaps continuing as far as Fordwich (Rady 1987, 129-134), while immediately east of St Martin's Church, a further sixteen pits were recorded (Sparey-Green 2003, 20; 2015). To the south of Barton Court, within the grounds ofCanterbury College, activity included a possible mid to late Anglo-Saxon field boundary, aligned north-east to south-west, and two pits (Newhook 2008), while below the British Red Cross Centre, an intensive sequence oflate Anglo-Saxon pit digging was identified to the rear ofLower Chantry Lane (Gollop 2013).
No evidence for activity between the tenth and early eleventh century has yet been identified at Barton Court and a corresponding hiatus ofactivity is recorded from the surrounding areas (Hicks 2015; Newhook 2008; Rady 1987, 134; Sparey Green 2003; 2015). How far this hiatus was generated by the threat ofViking raids, or from a combination ofmore nuanced and multiple reasons, notably the changing political and economic climate, remain to be seen (Eales 2000, 12; Sparks and Tatton-Brown 1987, 205).
During the early medieval period a north-east to south-west aligned ditch [1134], perhaps representing a land boundary extending towards St Martin's Church, traversed the new Food Technology Block site (Fig. 6). The ditch, which measured up to 1.56m wide by 0.41m deep with a concave base, had evidence of a least one episode ofre-cutting [1055]. Finds from the fill ofthe primary ditch included
70
image
THE HOME FARM OF ST AUGUSTINE'S ABBEY, CANTERBURY
-$-
615740E
157580N
---
I
i
I
ii
i_
i 3m.
,h 615740E W157580N
I
i i
iI
i
i 615734[
157565N
i $-
I 615747[
i 157565N
i i
i
-
i
/
I
I
/
$- ,I
/
/ i
I
I/
'i·i
615747[
157565N
I
i i
/
I
/
/
$-
615740[
157555N
;t, 615740[ W157555N
/
-·//
Fig. 6 Early medieval boundary ditch.
Fig. 7 Late medieval masonry-founded building, yard and hollow-way.
three sherds of early medieval pottery of Canterbury-type sandy ware (EMl), one a D-profiled beaded rim suggesting a late eleventh- to twelfth-century date (Barber 2008), in addition to two residual sherds each of earlier eighth- to ninth-century Canterbury-type sandy ware (MLS 2) and 'local' shell-tempered wares (MLS4 and MLS4 A). The later backfill of the re-cut ditch contained only one sherd each of Canterbury-type sandy ware (EMl) and shelly sandy ware (EM3) respectively, with a broad date range of between the late eleventh and thirteenth centuries (Barber 2008). In addition, a plain shafted and globular-headed copper alloy pin (Fig. 5, no. 2), an example of a Type A dress pin commonly attributed to a middle Anglo-Saxon date, but also occurring in later contexts up to the eleventh century (Biddle 1990, fig. 150, nos 1429- 36, 554-556), was recovered from the later ditch re-cut (Bevan 2008). In both the primary and later re-cut ditches, animal and plant remains were poorly preserved. Animal bone comprised a minimum of one animal each ofsheep/ goat, pig, horse and dog (Jones 2010), along with a small quantity of marine fish bone comprising eel, herring and whiting (Locker 2010), and oyster shell (Allison 2011), while very small quantities of charcoal, charred cereal grain and chaff were
also present (Carruthers 2010).
71
image
RICHARD HELMAND SHEILA SWEETINBURGH
Elsewhere across the barton, a general scatter of features dating from the mid eleventh to the thirteenth century has been noted. These include at least one pit located on the north side of the barton, adjacent to the frontage with Longport (Diack 2001), a large uncertain feature, measuring at least 4.5m wide by 1.6m deep, located during construction ofthe Modem Foreign Languages Block in 2001 (Diack 2003), and four further pits, located during construction of an extension to the Modem Foreign Languages Block in 2005 (Linklater 2007). All ofthis activity appears to have been focused west of the ditch identified below the new Food Technology Block and it is plausible that this ditch, at least in the early medieval period, demarcated the eastern extents of the barton and its associated buildings from the surrounding farmland.
In the Late Medieval period the infilling of the re-cut boundary ditch by the thirteenth century signaled an eastwards expansion ofthe barton complex, with the former ditch partially overlain by a roughly metalled yard surface which fronted a new masonry-founded building located to the east, and a trackway, represented by preserved wheel ruts, running from the building's frontage into a hollow-way located to the south-west (Fig. 7).
Only the south-west comer of the building was exposed during the excavation. The building was located 4.25m east of the infilled boundary ditch [1055] (Fig. 6) and formed a rectangular structure with a visible external width of 4.98m (4.3m internally) continuing beyond the eastern limit of excavation, and a visible length of 9.27m (8.48m internally) continuing beyond the northern limit of excavation. The wall segments [1108 and 1110] measured between 0.55m and 0.81m wide and were formed of roughly coursed, undressed chalk blocks and angular flint nodules bonded with a light yellow brown sandy mortar characterised with inclusions of marine shell. The walls had a maximum surviving standing height of 0.42m. No evidence for foundation trenches was observed and later material abutting against the external wall faces indicated that the walls formed earth laid footings, presumably for a timber superstructure. This interpretation was reinforced by two surviving sockets for upright timbers [post-holes 1102 and 1117], each 0.37m and 0.40m in diameter respectively and up to 0.19m depth, cut into wall 1108.
The north-west side of the building was open-fronted, the south-western wall [1110] extending 5.56m before terminating in line with a square, chalk filled post pad [1085], offset 2.59m from the north-western frontage, and in alignment with a circular post-hole [1195], located 3.02m to the north-east. Both the post-pad and post-hole appear to represent parts of a projecting timber-framed porch. Across the open frontage, a shallow trench [1214], which measured at least 6. lm long by 0.48m wide, with a concave base up to 0.20m deep, potentially formed the setting for a former timber sill beam or perhaps a 'leap', a horizontal board extending across the entrance used to retain grain while threshing (English Heritage 2012, 17). Within the building's interior, no trace ofa floor surface was evident. However, an internal partition was represented by five post-holes [1168, 1170, 1225, 1243 and 1245], each between 0.16m and 0.36m in diameter and up to 0.61m deep.
A metalled surface [1194], formed of small to medium sub-angular flint nodules within a compacted chalk matrix, represented an exterior yard extending 5.6m from the north-western frontage of the building, and continuing northwards beyond the limit of excavation. At some stage this yard was widened on its west side, with a
72
image
THE HOME FARM OF ST AUGUSTINE'S ABBEY, CANTERBURY
new compacted chalk matrix with flint [1155], approximately 2m wide, partially overlying the original yard surface 1194.
To the south, a series of parallel wheel ruts [1013, 1113, and 1166], extended from the edge of this exterior yard into a gently sloping hollow-way [1154], up to 4.06m wide, which continued south-westwards beyond the limit of excavation. Where the hollow-way terminated at the edge of the exterior yard, a line of eleven post-holes traversed the yard's surface forming a fence-line broadly parallel and
2.25m west of the building's frontage. The post-holes varied between O. l lm to 0.38m in diameter, and between 0.05m and 0.09m deep.
The number of finds from all these features was notably low, perhaps indicating that the barton was regularly kept clear of waste as a result of systematic collection and spreading of such material onto surrounding cultivated fields (Barber 2008). Discounting three sherds of mid to late Anglo-Saxon pottery, which are almost certainly residual, only four sherds (16g) of pottery were recovered. These were noticeably less abraded than the earlier pottery, and consisted of three sherds of early thirteenth- to mid fourteenth-century Tyler Hill sandy ware (Ml) recovered from the basal fill of the hollow-way (1154), and a single glazed body sherd from an open vessel in Canterbury transitional sandy ware (LMl.2) of c.1475-1550, recovered from the surface of the exterior yard.
Small, heavily weathered animal bone fragments, of which identifiable species were limited to sheep/goat, cattle and pig, were retrieved from the metalled yard surface, the fills of the hollow-way and from post-holes within the building's interior (Jones 2010). Bird bone was limited to a single pelvis from a domestic fowl (Allison 2010). A small assemblage of fish bones and shellfish again reflected the abbey's continuing dependence on marine species and eel (Locker 2010; Allison 2011).
The form of the masonry-founded building, with an open frontage and porch extending onto an exterior yard, is characteristic of a barn-like structure. The document sources quoted in the second half of this paper list wheat, barley, oats, peas, vetch and hay as commodities produced variably by the home farm and abbey tenants, all of which would have required storage. Though charred plant remains from this period were sparse, the archaeobotanical record indicated that all of these crops were present, with both wheat and barley being the principal cereals. Other crops were also identified, including rye, which was possibly grown as a maslin with wheat, as well as horse beans and cultivated flax (Carruthers 2010). While none of the documents directly mention livestock housing it seems likely, given the identification of the three main species of livestock in the faunal assemblage, that such housing would also have been present.
During construction of a lift shaft on the eastern side of the existing school gym, an area of metalling was exposed, laid on a clay bedding, perhaps forming an external yard, but also potentially the interior surface of an agricultural building, with the clay bedding overlying a potential rammed chalk floor of probable late medieval date (Helm 2008a, 4). Elsewhere across the barton, other features included a refuse pit containing late medieval roof tiles exposed during construction of a new access road located to the north-west between the school and Pilgrims' Way (Helm 2009). As well as being the administrative centre of the home farm of the abbey, where abbey tenants from outlying manors brought their produce, the barton was also
73
image
RICHARD HELMAND SHEILA SWEETINBURGH
where the manorial and liberty courts were held (Tatton-Brown 1997, 133-135). The court hall was likely situated below the present main school building, which replaced the medieval manor house in the mid eighteenth century (see below; Tatton-Brown 1997, 135).
The barton would have required a range of buildings associated with the processing and storage of the agricultural produce and other commodities generated both from the home farm and surrounding holdings. Presumably, a proportion of this produce would have been held for use by the abbey, transferred as required to the range of service buildings, including a brewhouse, bakery and barn, located within the abbey's outer precincts to the north (Hicks 2015). Interestingly, the building identified during excavation at the new Food Technology Block site also does not appear to have been recorded, while archaeological monitoring works conducted within the area shown to have been occupied by the 'great barton barn', now occupied by the Science Block, have consistently failed to find any trace (Helm 2008a; O'Shea 2007).
Post-Dissolution: the Dissolution itself, and the later transfers of ownership, initially at least, did not appear to have any visible impact on the daily working-life of the farm. In 1750, the old Barton Court manor house was demolished and a new house, surviving today as the school house, was built in its place as a new family residence. Other modifications to the existing farm buildings likely took place at this time, though the great barn, which continued to be represented on maps of the area, appears to have survived into the early nineteenth century.
It is probable that the building identified in the excavation was demolished as part of this process, with a halfpenny of George II, dated 1757, retrieved from the backfilled trench forming the potential 'leap', providing a terminus post quern for this event (Bevan 2008). Clear indications of demolition associated with the building were observed. These comprised a concentration of angular flint nodules and chalk fragments (1089) dumped against the external face of wall [1108], tumbled chalk blocks [1111] abutting the external face of wall [111O], and an extensive spread of broken peg tile (1001), presumably deriving from the dismantled roof, dumped partially across the former yard (Fig. 8). The roof tiles were all medieval in date, with three main tile fabrics present: one from the Tyler Hill kilns, located immediately north of Canterbury, dated to the late twelfth to fourteenth century; another from an as yet unidentified Canterbury kiln, perhaps one operated by the abbey itself, dated to the late twelfth to sixteenth century; and a third from an unknown tilery, probably of late twelfth- to late fourteenth-century date (Pringle 2008).
It was not clear from the excavated data at what date the hollow-way leading to the open fronted building and yard went out of use. No material was recovered from the feature's later fills, which comprised weathered silts slumping into the feature from the east, but it is clear that this predated the demolition of the open fronted building, with demolition layer 1089 partially extending across the head of the former hollow-way.
Following the demolition, a loamy soil (1006) formed across the excavated area, in places surviving up to 0.30m thick (Fig. 9). Likely representing cultivated ground or a garden, this soil contained few finds, but included three abraded sherds
74
image
THE HOME FARM OF ST AUGUSTINE'S ABBEY, CANTERBURY
ft\
615740E W157580N
615740E W157580N
ft\
'
I -
I
J�I
3m.
i 1144 · -._
'
1147• • •1149 1151
I ·1151
i
!
i
i Soil horizon 1006
i
OPit1104 /
I
i i
I
i
I
i i
;;;;::� i
$ /
/
/
,i
ii
I
i i i i
/
/
//
/
//
/
ft\
615740E W157555N
I
i i
I
i i
I
i i
;;;�� i
$ /
/
/
ii
Pit101aO OPit1016
/
i
i
Ditch 1027
'V
Pit1093 <;,-''\ 1353 • • 1349
0
Soil horizon 1006
1351 /
1
Pit1036 •1355 i Pit10630 /
/
//
//
ft\
615740E W157555N
Fig. 8 Post-medieval demolition deposits. Fig. 9 Post-medieval agricultural features.
ofmedieval Tyler Hill sandy ware (Ml), and a single fragment ofan eighteenth century tobacco pipe stem (Barber 2008).
Two ditches [1027 and 1022], traversed the excavated area from south-east to north-west, truncating the loamy soil 1006. The ditches were spaced approximately 6m apart. The northern ditch [1027] cut across the southern end ofthe demolished building and the former exterior yard, and measured 0.70m wide by up to 0.24m deep with a concave base. The southern ditch [1022] extended from the eastern limit of excavation for a distance of 8 .3 lm before terminating at its north-west end, with the ditch measuring 0.69m wide at its visible south-east end, broadening to 1.46m wide at the terminal end. The southern ditch had a surviving depth ofup to 0.39m with a concave base. Only the northern ditch [1027] contained datable finds, comprising five sherds of post-medieval glazed earthenware (PMl) of mid eighteenth- to early nineteenth-century date and two stem fragments from nineteenth-century clay tobacco pipes (Barber 2008). Three post-holes, one located to the south ofditch 1027 [post-hole 1343], and two located to the north ofditch 1022 [post-holes 1345 and 1347], potentially represent the remnants offence-lines running alongside each ditch.
A shallow gully-like feature [1067], situated between O.73m and 1.46m north of
75
image
RICHARD HELMAND SHEILA SWEETINBURGH
ditch 1022, extended from the eastern limit of excavation for a distance of 5.25m before terminating at its north-west end. The gully measured 0.45m wide and had a surviving depth of 0.1Orn, with a concave base. No finds were recovered from the fill of this gully, but it is likely both the gully and the adjacent southern ditch were contemporary with the northern ditch, and are likely to have continued in use up to the early nineteenth century. While only conjectural, the alignment of the ditches, and their associated facing fence lines might represent a broad farm track or drove way for livestock extending from the farmyard complex and providing access into the barton fields.
To the north of ditch 1027 and to the south of ditch 1022, two corresponding groups of pits and post-holes were observed, truncating the loamy soil 1006. The northern group comprised three sub-rectangular pits [1016, 1018 and 1104], and five post-holes [1147, 1144, 1149, 1151 and 1161], while the southern group comprised a further three sub-rectangular pits [1036, 1063 and 1093], and four post-holes [1349, 1351, 1353 and 1355].
The pits measured between 0.95m and 1.49m long by between 0.63m and 0.93m wide. The southern pits had been truncated by modem ground reduction and only survived at a depth of between 0. l 8m and 0.25m, while the northern pits had surviving depths of between 0.57m and 1.04m. Finds from these pits again indicated a late eighteenth- to early nineteenth-century date, with pottery comprising four sherds from large glazed red earthenware (PMl) dishes, one sherd from a London stoneware (PM25) tankard, and one sherd from a blue painted pearlware (LPM12B) tea bowl from pit 1104, and one sherd from a plain late creamware (LPMl lA) chamber pot from pit 1018. A single bowl from a late eighteenth-century clay tobacco pipe was also recovered from pit 1104. Pit 1036 contained the truncated remnants of an articulated adult horse skeleton (Jones 2010).
The post-holes potentially represent parts of fence-alignments, perhaps forming enclosures for livestock. All nine post-holes measured between 0.20m and 0.46m in diameter and varied between 0.l lm and 0.41m deep.
Beyond the excavated area, other investigations identified further post-medieval elements. These include a brick floor situated adjacent to the pond identified during construction of an extension to the Music Room in 2002 (Diack 2002), and might represent the floor of an outbuilding or yard associated with the new mansion house. More of this brick floor was exposed in 2006, in the course of laying new services, and a further sequence of late post-medieval deposits associated with cultivation, building clearance and landscaping was observed across the school site (O'Shea 2007).
Approximately 46m to the north, within the adjacent property at No. 2 Park Cottages, a large post-medieval quarry was exposed during evaluation trenching (Gollop 2009). The quarry had been infilled with demolition material, including chalk and flint rubble, potentially derived from the demolished building excavated below the new Food Technology Block, and was in tum overlain by metalled surfaces representing a trackway and adjoining yard fronting onto Longport, dated to the later eighteenth to early nineteenth century. To the south-east, a second quarry infilled with redeposited chalk and post-medieval brick rubble, exposed during construction of the Canterbury Christ Church University Sports Centre, was dated to the early nineteenth century (Helm 2009).
76
image
Conclusion
THE HOME FARM OF ST AUGUSTINE'S ABBEY, CANTERBURY
The Anglo-Saxon findings demonstrate that the school grounds were occupied from at least the early eighth century. While a direct association with the ecclesiastical foundation of St Augustine's Abbey could not be confirmed, that this occupation related to the barton or home farm of the abbey was strongly implied by the recovered finds. Most notable in this regard was the demonstration of selective consumption of livestock within the grounds of the farm, with prime cuts being consumed elsewhere, presumably within the abbey refectory, and a preference for marine resources comparable to other contemporary ecclesiastical foundations of the time.
However, the location of the main archaeological investigation below the new Food Technology Block to the east of the farm complex significantly limited our understanding of the morphology and development of the home farm buildings. In particular the site of the medieval manor house and court hall, and the adjacent barns and other associated buildings which would have formed the heart of the farm complex have still to be identified below the existing school buildings. Understanding the complexity of the farm, and its changing fortunes from the middle Anglo-Saxon period remains a significant challenge, particularly as so few medieval documentary sources survive for the barton which might shed better light on understanding the workings of the farm.
The numerous small-scale observations conducted by the Canterbury Archaeo logical Trust have to a large part demonstrated that the potential for the survival of more extensive structures and features below the present school buildings is high, and our archaeological understanding of the home farm will no doubt be enhanced as and when future development takes place within the school's grounds.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks are extended to Barton Court Grammar School for supporting the pro gramme of archaeological works and to Richard Cross, Canterbury City Council Archaeological Officer, and David Britchfield, then of the Heritage Conservation Group at Kent County Council.
Excavation of the new Food Technology Block was carried out by the author, with Ian Anderson, Damien Boden, Iain Charles, Mark Davey, Ben Found, Andrew Linklater, Adrian Murphy, Laura O'Shea, Don Rudd and Jess Twy man.
The author has drawn upon a wide range of specialist archaeological reports submitted as part of the post-excavation process - see list at beginning of the bibliography.
Illustrations were prepared by Peter Atkinson (site plans) and Barbara McNee (finds). Post-excavation work was managed by Peter Clark. This report benefited from reviews by Peter Clark and Alison Hicks and copy editing by Jane Elder. The site archive will be deposited with Canterbury City Museums.
77
image
RICHARD HELMAND SHEILA SWEETINBURGH
THE DOCUMENTARY SOURCES FOR THE BARTON OF ST AUGUSTINE'S
(SHEILA SWEETINBURGH)
During the Middle Ages, Barton Court was the site of the home farm of St Augustine's Abbey, one of the two great and ancient Benedictine monasteries in Canterbury. After the Dissolution the farm became crown property. It was sold soon after and over the next 450 years it was the private residence of several gentry families. Such a history of ownership might suggest considerable documentary resources for the site pre- and post-Reformation, and there is an archive of sorts for the later period. However, materials for the pre-Reformation period are extremely limited and, in particular, there are almost no estate accounts or court rolls; the odd survivals offering little information. This is a result of the almost total destruction of St Augustine's Abbey, its post-Reformation owners, occupiers and visitors seeing it primarily as a resource, whether in terms of building stone, agricultural land or waste parchment and paper. Moreover, even some of the abbey's documents that survived the Reformation have since gone, including manuscripts destroyed in the Cotton Library fire of 1731. Nevertheless, a few abbey registers are extant and these provide tantalising glimpses of what must have been at the medieval complex. 1
As a way of trying to extend the analysis, it may be worth considering what the records say about Christ Church Priory's home farm or Barton because it seems likely that the two monastic houses would have had similar facilities to meet the demands of their large communities. Even though there are significant differences, with regard to proximity to the mother house and to the river, and the presence/ absence of a mill, both bartons must have acted as storage depots for agricultural produce from outlying manors as well as from the demesne land of the home farm. Additional documentary sources for the modem period in the form of maps have proved useful, especially those of the St Lawrence Tithery, which seemingly provide ideas about the composition of the site for the pre-nineteenth century period.
Consequently, this study has had to rely on the limited documentary survivals to try to piece together what might have occupied the site of Barton Court.
The home farm of St Augustine 's Abbey (c.800-1538)
Information regarding the early history of the area comes from a spurious charter said to date from AD 605 (Kelly, Charters of St Augustine 's Abbey, pp. 9-11). According to this royal grant, King LEthelberht gave a considerable area of land situated to the south and east of Canterbury to the abbey. The charter contains a complex boundary clause; some of the landmarks are difficult to identify today, but it appears to mark out the limits of the abbey precincts and the abbey's home farm.2 Even though the charter is considered to be a post-Conquest forgery (earliest extant copies are from the thirteenth century), it is feasible that the abbey did hold this acreage and that it was given to the monks by King LEthelberht. Such a holding would have been a valuable asset, both as an area of local farmland and as a place of storage for foodstuffs and other commodities brought in from the abbey's outlying manors that could not be stored within the precincts.
Being a gift of the crown, the barton or Longport manor (as it was also known)
78
image
THE HOME FARM OF ST AUGUSTINE'S ABBEY, CANTERBURY
was exempt from royal jurisdiction and was outside the liberty of Canterbury. As a consequence, the abbot was not only able to hold the manorial court but also the view of frankpledge where minor infringements of the law were heard, as well as the assize of bread and ale.3 Such rights were lucrative assets and thus were recorded in the Domesday survey of 1086. According to Domesday, the manor comprised one sulung and one yoke in the Hundred of Bridge, another yoke in Westgate Hundred and included 70 burgesses who were in the city of Canterbury (Domesday Book: Kent, 7, 4). The demesne had 2.5 ploughs and the 28 villagers and 63 smallholders had six ploughs. Not all the land was arable because 17 acres were designated as meadow. A late thirteenth-century survey provides a more detailed account of the extent of the manor, indicating that most of the farmland was in three fields of 85, 147 and 150 acres, the total acreage being just over 475 acres (CCAL: Lit MS El9, f. 172) (Fig. 10). Other surveys provide further clues, and Dom. John of Sturry noted three areas that may relate to Barton Court itself: 'the forestall before the gate/door of the court' 1.5 acres; 'curtilage with houses and buildings' 3.5 acres 1.5 virgates; 'in the garden' 3 acres 1 virgate (KHLC: U350/O1).
The manor was said to be worth £20 pre-Conquest, but its value substantially increased over the next 20 years to £36 4s. in 1086 (Domesday Book: Kent, 7, 4). Although not directly comparable, it is worth noting that in the mid fifteenth century, probably at a time of increasing financial difficulties on the abbey's manors, Longport was still a very profitable holding, two surviving annual accounts showing receipts of £49 14s. and £46 17s. 4d. respectively. By this time the manor had been farmed out but the abbey continued to fund building repairs, spending over 18s. in 1468-9 (CCAL: DCc/Ch Ant A66d&e).
Being the home farm, the abbey continued to receive part of the rent in kind rather than cash, and the commodities provided give some indication of the type of buildings that must have been on the site of the farmstead. From the abbey registers it seems that Longport was supposed to provide 250 quarters of wheat, 208 quarters barley, 15 quarters oats and 12 quarters peas, though at times the amounts apparently fell far short of this requirement, as well as varying annually (BL: Arundel 310, f. 139). For example, in 1497 the account lists 100 quarters of wheat and 101 of barley, whereas in the 1460s it was only 40 quarters wheat, 80 quarters barley and 5 quarters peas, but the amounts had risen again by the early sixteenth century (CCAL: DCc/Ch Ant A66a; A66d&e. Valor, I, p. 18). Thus there must have been barns and granaries to accommodate wheat, barley and oats for before and after threshing, and similarly storage space for peas.4 An indication of the importance of the pea crop can be ascertained from Abbot Hugh's grant, in 1137, of the tithes of peas and wheat from the demesne land of Longport manor to his new hospital of St Lawrence (CCAL: Lit MS C20, pp. 9, 34).
These were not the only crops stored at Longport because the abbey expected its tenants at Chislet to bring hay to Canterbury. These provisions were recorded in the manorial custumal, each sulunga or tenementum allocated a specific number of loads.5 Furthermore the tenants were also expected to build the hay barn when the need arose, although what sort of structure this was, was not specified (Black Book ofSt Augustine, pp. 115-18; Sparks, Chislet and Westbere, p. 39). In addition, the abbey is recorded as having bought 18 loads of straw in one year in the later
79
image
Old Parle OA Farm
PARK
\I
St.A.
Medieval bounderv or St Martln:S Parish
Medieval bOUndary 0� St Pauls Parish
Boundary or Longport 8orough
St Augustine's
BHailbl s
'\A.,,.ug-u,a,tlPn-ea11rk ---/
inalllll
Abbot oF St.
000
LO�GPOAT
I
/
/ Tenent5' Land
',, Be����'fu Oar-n
Fig. 10 The demesne and tenanted lands of St Augustine's Abbey in Longport. Courtesy CAT.
image
THE HOME FARM OF ST AUGUSTINE'S ABBEY, CANTERBURY
fifteenth century and it seems likely that at least some of this was stored on the farmstead at Longport. Similarly, vetch was bought in and it too must have required some type of storage facility (CCAL: DCc/Ch Ant A66d&e).
A mixed farming regime was practised at Longport, which may have included cattle rearing (Thirteen Centuries, no page number). Pigs were important, however, and the demesne land apparently supported a pig breeding herd, spending some of their time, at least, grazing areas of parkland such as Trenley Park wood (ibid.). Sheep were also kept, possibly a ewe flock but the manor was expected to send ten 'multon' to the larderer each year and these may have been wethers (BL: Arundel 310, f. 140). Even though none of the accounts, rentals and other manorial sources directly mention livestock housing, it seems highly likely that such housing did exist at the home farm, perhaps close to the stables where some of the straw was used (CCAL: DCc/Ch Ant A66d&e). Unlike some manors, Longport was not listed as providing hens but those that came from other manors as rent may have been kept there until required by the kitchen (BL: Arundel 310, f. 140). Even though there is no mention of a dovecote in the pre-Dissolution records, the presence of one in the late sixteenth century may suggest that the abbey did have one at Longport to provide birds for the abbot and his guests.
In addition to the granaries, barns and other farm buildings, the farmstead included a court hall which was situated on the west side of the complex (Tatton Brown, 'Abbey precinct', p. 133). The manorial court and view of frankpledge were held there, and the place probably also accommodated the abbey's bailiff/ farmer, possibly men such as Nicholas de Berthona (Black Book ofSt Augustine, p. 156). Close by was a large pond called the Court Sole and a gate/door which may have opened on to the road that separated the barton from the abbey precincts, and in particular the cellarer's garden (CCAL: CC/P/1/A/ l; Tatton-Brown, 'Abbey precinct', p. 133). Interestingly, the c.1640 map of Canterbury and its southern suburbs does not show the pond, but it does appear to show a boundary wall, a gateway and a barn adjacent to the Longport road which may indicate the survival of a medieval feature (CCAL: Map 123). The rental of 1375 appears to note all three features: 'a barn next to the gate of the court ate Courtsole' (CCAL: Lit MS El 9, f. 120). Thus the layout of the home farm appears to have been that of a typical courtyard plan focused around the 'Court Sole' pond, with the court hall forming the western side. Later maps potentially illustrate the surviving remnants of this medieval layout.
It is unclear from the documentary sources whether the farmstead buildings were primarily timber or stone.6 Even though a carpenter and a tiler were apparently the most commonly-employed builders at Christ Church Priory's barton, it seems likely that there was a mix of construction types (CCAL: DCc/Bedels Rolls: Barton Carucate). Concerning the Priory's barton there are a few references to new buildings, such as a thatched building constructed in 1326, though whether this was timber-framed or stone is unknown. In terms of the type of building there was probably a considerable overlap and it is worth noting that at the Priory's barton there were granaries, barns, stable, cattle, sheep and pig housing, as well as a dovecote. There was also a mill, unlike the abbey's barton, its mills being elsewhere including grain and fulling mills at Sturry. Nevertheless, for both the abbey and the priory, their respective home farms were integral parts of the monastic economy,
81
image
RICHARD HELMAND SHEILA SWEETINBURGH
the farmsteads comprising a complex of agricultural buildings and those needed for the effective administration of the monastic estates.
A gentry estate
Following the Dissolution the abbey and its holdings were taken by the king, initially Longport manor being leased to Robert Best, a yeoman from Ash. As the tenant he was expected to provide 46 quarters and two bushels of wheat, 105 quarters of barley and four quarters of peas, and 53s. 4d. in money, that is a total value of £84 19s. 4d. (Valor, I, p. 180). Best was succeeded by Clement Kemp, but during his tenure the manor was sold by Edward VI. The new owner was Sir Thomas Cheney, who had also purchased the neighbouring abbey lands, including 'le old Park', which he held until his death in 1558. His son inherited the vast Cheney estates, being one of the most powerful men in Kent, but he was far less successful than his father and his financial difficulties meant he had very little option but to sell the manor (Hasted, Kent, XII, pp. 238-9). Possibly in response to Cheney's difficulties, certain local prominent citizens saw opportunities to enclose small pieces of the manorial lands (CCAL: U3/81/6/16/ l). The new owner, Sir Edward Herbert, showed little interest in the manor and almost immediately sold it to Thomas Smith. Smith, as customer to Queen Elizabeth, became extremely wealthy and in addition to Longport he acquired the house and manor of Westenhanger, which was his primary residence. His tenant at Longport presumably lived in the manor house, and it was he who tried to plough up part of the demesne land of Babbs Hill in 1582. As a result the mayor and aldermen of Canterbury complained to the crown because the area had traditionally been used for shooting and Smith promised them that it would not happen again.
In total Longport manor was said to contain 20 messuages, two tofts, a dovehouse, 20 gardens, 430 acres of land, 50 acres of meadow, 120 acres of pasture, 15 acres of woodland and 50 acres of heath and waste (the manor having been extended in the late Middle Ages). The site of the manor house was within an eight acre plot, nearby was a close of four and a half acres of arable land, a close of 24 acres of pasture at Babbs Hill and an arable field, Barton field, of 144 acres. There were also six messuages in neighbouring Longport Street (CCAL: U451/Tl). A contemporary map, though impressionistic, shows five buildings at 'The Barton' (Fig. lla). One is probably the gateway, another may be a large barn, a third looks more like a livestock building and a fourth has a chimney, the manor house perhaps, but the fifth is unclear (CCAL: Map 49).
Thomas Smith was succeeded by his son Robert, who initially may not have lived there but was said to be 'of Barton' at his death (CCAL: U451/Tl) John, Robert's son may similarly have moved to Barton, and when he married Ann, daughter of John Raynye the elder of London, the Longport manor was part of the jointure settlement agreed before the wedding in 1624 (CCAL: U451/Tl; T3). John and his wife founded an almshouse (completed 1657) on land adjoining the manor house, providing it with a legacy of £1,500 and £32 per year to be divided among the pensioners (Thirteen Centuries, no page number). Ann also made provisions for the almshouse, including 50 acres of land (CCAL: U45 l /T l). The c.1640 map shows the boundary wall, barn and gate [see above] and also a twin
82
image
THE HOME FARM OF ST AUGUSTINE'S ABBEY, CANTERBURY
Fig. 11 Early maps of Barton Court. Reproduced courtesy of the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury.
Detail from late sixteenth-century map (Canterbury Cathedral Archives and Library (CCAL): Map 49).
Detail from c.1640 map (CCAL: Map 123).
Detail from 1672 map (CCAL: Ul60/l/l)
A
B
C
83
image
RICHARD HELMAND SHEILA SWEETINBURGH
gabled building with chimneys that is presumably the manor house (CCAL: Map 123) (Fig. llb). If it is, then it would seem that ' The Barton' was a very substantial gentry residence, perhaps on a par with the houses created at other ex-religious institutions such as the hospitals of St Laurence and St James. Unfortunately, the extant courts rolls and views of frankpledge throw no further light on the layout of the property, although the pond and associated watercourse are regularly referred to, mainly in connection with nuisance cases (CCAL: CC/P/1/A/l; U451/M l).
During the later seventeenth century the estate was the subject of a number of transactions, presumably in a bid to raise money, and eventually the majority of the estate was purchased by Solomon Hougham for £7,224 in 1671. The description of the property mentions the [manor] house with orchards, gardens, backsides, stable, pigeon house, forestall and yard; and Barton barn (CCAL: U45 l/Tl). A map dated 1672 shows four buildings (Fig. llc): possibly the gateway (though it could be a barn close to Longport Street), the manor house which seems to have a garden or orchard behind it, the great Barton barn, seemingly as long as the manor house and what may be the pigeon house (CCAL: U l60/l/l). This site covers 5 acres 2 roods 6 perches and abuts the 'Forstall' at Barton barn, the 'Forstall' being slightly smaller at 3 acres 2 roods 29 perches. The map also shows the Smith almshouses but not the great pond. Again, the manor house appears to be a very substantial gentry residence.
Like his predecessors, Solomon Hougham rented out the various farms and tenements, his income derived from the rents and court dues he continued to collect at the manorial court and view of frankpledge. Dying childless in 1697, his namesake and nephew inherited the estate, although three annuities were to be paid from the rent received for Barton field, including one to fund a charitable dole of bread and ale by the churchwardens of St Mary's church at Sandwich ( The National Archives [ TNA]: PROB 11/437). Solomon junior similarly died without male heirs in 1714, the estate passing to Charles, his brother. Charles and his son Henry continued the policy of leasing the estate, and they were apparently forced to mortgage the estate in an attempt to raise capital, a frequent occurrence at this time. Henry died in 1726, his widow continuing to manage the estate until William, their son, came of age. Probably the last map to show the 'medieval' manor house pictorially was produced in the early eighteenth century to show the lands belonging to the tithery of St Lawrence. It is difficult to know how accurate the drawing of the house at Great Barton is, but it differs from others in the vicinity which may indicate a relatively high level of accuracy. Barton barn is also depicted but none of the other buildings which presumably completed the complex.
William Hougham married one of the daughters of John Corbett of Bourne Place in 1744 and this probably explains his desire to demolish the old house and construct a new mansion house that was a fitting residence for his new family. His new house was built in 1750 and he may also have been instrumental in the development of what appears to be parkland behind the mansion complex on the maps produced by W. and H. Doidge (1752) and Andrew and Wren (1768) of Canterbury and its suburbs. The other structures shown probably included stables, as well as agricultural buildings, and there also seems to be a small acreage of hops to the west.
Under the terms of his will made in 1803, William Hougham's son, another
84
image
THE HOME FARM OF ST AUGUSTINE'S ABBEY, CANTERBURY
William, was the major beneficiary, but he also provided his granddaughter with substantial bequests. William junior similarly resided at Barton Court until his death in 1829, and, lacking male heirs, his niece Catherine Chesshyre was the major beneficiary (TNA: PROB 11/1750). Catherine and her husband the Rev. William Chesshyre received her inheritance after her aunt's death in 1839. They presumably resided at Barton Court because three years later he complained about the state of the vicarage adjoining St Paul's church, leading to its demolition. The Rev. Chesshyre was the incumbent at both St Paul's and St Martin's, as well as serving as a member of the cathedral chapter during the last years of his life (CCAL: DCc/MANDSP/1846/1; DCc/MANDRC/1858/1).
From the map evidence it is not clear exactly when Barton barn disappeared, to be replaced by a far smaller structure, but it is not shown on an early nineteenth-century map of the St Lawrence tithery, or on the slightly later tithe map of St Paul's parish (CCAL: U l60/l/13; TO/Cl/8B). This suggests that it occurred before Catherine and William took up ownership but they may have been involved. The Chesshyres had eight daughters which must have been a drain on the family income and may explain the proposed sale of part of the estate in 1850. In agreement with the terms laid down in his will, Catherine revived this scheme after his death in 1859, keeping for herself Barton Court house, its buildings, gardens, kitchen garden, pleasure gardens and adjacent pasture, in total 25 acres, and, ensuring that the trustees began to sell offplots of land elsewhere (KHLC: EKA-R/U438/T130/54). The timing was fortunate. Having been upgraded in the late eighteenth century (it became a turnpike road) the New Dover Road abutted fields, making it a prime target for residential development by wealthy Canterbury families, especially as it was also proposed to construct the London Chatham Dover railway in the same area. Although it would be difficult to ascertain the exact chronology of the sale of various building plots along the New Dover Road, it is clear that a considerable amount of building took place in the 1860s and 1870s (this development can also be traced in the census returns; TNA: St Paul's parish census returns 1851, 1861, 1871, 1881, 1991. CCAL: Map 199/17; Map 181).
In 1902 Barton Court and what remained of the estate was sold off, its new owner, Colonel John Russell, living there until his death in 1909 (CCAL: CC/P/ l /K/19). Thereafter his wife and daughters continued to live at the house, the estate under the management of his trustees. The early 20th century was a difficult period for such families, and as a way of generating income some of the Russell daughters became increasingly involved in the day-to-day management of the dairy herd. And after the First World War the family extended their horticultural enterprise, erecting glass houses at the Chantry Lane side of Well field and growing vegetables and flowers (Images ofCanterbury, 179). Their retail outlet was a shop at the New Dover Road entrance to the farm. They also opened up the parkland, using some to plant apple trees, while a ditch with a fence at the bottom was used to keep the cattle off the lawn (Lyle, 92, 94). However the further requisitioning of the mansion by the armed forces in the Second World War saw further changes, and in 1945 the city authorities bought the premises as part of their strategy to increase the availability of schools in Canterbury.
85
image
RICHARD HELMAND SHEILA SWEETINBURGH
BIBLIOGRAPHY
CAT - unpubl. specialist reports on archaeological excavations at Barton Court Grammar School, Longport, Canterbury:
Allison, E., 2010, The bird remains. Allison, E., 2011, The marine mollusc shell.
Barber, L., 2008, The post-Roman pottery and clay tobacco pipes. Bevan, L., 2008, The registered small finds.
Carruthers, W., 2010, The charred and mineralised plant remains. Jones, S., 2010, The animal bone.
Locker, A., 2010, The fish bone.
McNee, B., 2008, The prehistoric pottery. Pringle, S., 2008, The ceramic building materials. Savage, A., 2008, The Roman pottery.
Wilson, T., 2008, The prehistoric worked flints.
Barrett, J.H., Locker, A.M. and Roberts, C.M., 2004, 'Dark Age economics revisited: the English fish bone evidence AD 600-1600', Antiquity, 78, 618-636.
Blockley, K., 2000, TheAnglo-Saxon churches of Canterbury archaeologically reconsidered, M.PHIL. thesis, University of Durham, Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur. ac.uk/4320 (accessed 8/05/2014).
Biddle, M., 1990, 'Dress and hair pins', in M. Biddle (ed.), Object and economy in medieval Winchester, Winchester Studies 7, Oxford, 552-560.
Brookes, S. and Harrington, S., 2010, The kingdom and people of Kent AD 400-1066: their history and archaeology, The History Press, Stroud.
Canterbury Technical School for Girls, Thirteen Centuries at Barton Court.
Crampton, P., 2002, Images of Canterbury, 1945-1975 (Stroud).
Diack, M., 2001, 'Archaeological evaluation report on land for a proposed car park extension at Barton Court Grammar School, Longport, Canterbury', unpubl. report, CAT. Diack, M., 2002, 'Archaeological watching brief at Barton Court Grammar School',
unpubl. report, CAT.
Diack, M., 2003, 'Barton Court Grammar School, Longport', Canterbury's Archaeology 2001-2002, 17-18.
Eales, R., 2000, 'Politics and society in Canterbury around 1000 AD', in R. Eales and R. Gameson, Vikings, monks and the millennium. Canterbury in about 1000 AD, Canterbury Archaeological Society, Tenterden, 1-13.
English Heritage, 2012, Kent farmsteads guidance. Part 3: Kent farmsteads character statements, English Heritage, Kent County Council and Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Gardiner, M., Cross, R., Macpherson-Grant, N. and Riddler, I., 2001, 'Continental trade and non-urban ports in mid Anglo-Saxon England: excavations at Sandtun, West Hythe, Kent', The Archaeological Journal, 158, 161-290.
Gem, R., 1997, 'The Anglo-Saxon and Norman churches', in R. Gem (ed.), St Augustine 's
Abbey, Canterbury, London, 90-122.
Gollop, A., 2009, 'Archaeological evaluation on land adjacent to 2 Park Cottages, Longport, Canterbury, Kent', unpubl. report, CAT.
Gollop, A., 2013, 'British Red Cross Centre, Lower Chantry Lane, Canterbury', Canterbury's Archaeology 2011-2012, 17-19.
Hasted, E., 1801, The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent, vol. XII (Canterbury, reprinted 1972).
Helm, R., 2008a, 'Archaeological excavation at Barton Court Grammar School, Longport, Canterbury', unpubl. report, CAT.
86
image
THE HOME FARM OF ST AUGUSTINE'S ABBEY, CANTERBURY
Helm, R., 2008b, 'Barton Court Grammar School', Canterbury sArchaeology 2006-2007,
2-5.
Helm, R., 2009, 'Canterbury Christ Church University Sports Centre, Barton Court Grammar School, Canterbury', CanterburysArchaeology 2007-2008, 6-7.
Hicks, A., 2015, Destined to Serve? Use of the outer grounds of St Augustine s Abbey, Canterbury before, during and after the monks. Canterbury Christ Church University: excavations 1983-2007, The Archaeology of Canterbury, New Series, Canterbury.
Hussey, A. (ed.), 1935, Kent Chantries, Kent Records, vol. XII.
Kelly, S. (ed.), 1995, Charters of StAugustine sAbbey, Canterbury and Minster-in-Thanet,
Oxford.
KM Messenger Group, 1997, Images of Canterbury (Derby).
Linklater, A., 2007, 'Barton Court', Canterbury sArchaeology 2005-2006, 17-19.
Lyle, M., 1980, 'People at Barton Court', in M. Sparks (ed.), The Parish of St Martin and St Paul Canterbury (Canterbury).
Morgan, P. (ed.), 1983, Domesday Book, Kent (Chichester).
Newhook, R., 2008, 'Canterbury College', Canterbury sArchaeology 2006-2007, 5.
O'Shea, L., 2007, 'Barton Court Grammar School, Longport, Canterbury, Kent: watching and recording brief', unpubl. report, CAT.
Page, W. (ed.), 1926, Victoria County History, Kent, vol. 2 (London).
Rady, J., 1987, 'Excavations at St Martin's Hill, Canterbury, 1984-85', Archaeologia Cantiana, 104, 123-218.
Richardson, A., 2008, 'Finds assessment from an archaeological evaluation of a new vehicular access road, Barton Court Grammar School, Longport, Canterbury', unpubl. report, CAT.
Routledge, C.F., 1891, The History of St Martins, Canterbury, London.
Saunders, A.D., 1978, 'Excavations in the church of St Augustine's Abbey, Canterbury, 1955-58', MedievalArchaeology, 22, 25-63.
Sherlock, D. and Woods, H., 1988, StAugustine sAbbey: Report on excavations, 1960-78,
Maidstone.
Smart, J.G.O., Bisson, G. and Worssam, B.C., 1966, Geology of the country around Cant erbury and Folkestone. Memoir of the Geological Survey for Sheets 289, 305 and 306, HMSO, London.
Somner, W., 1703, TheAntiquities of Canterbury (republished 1977).
Sparey-Green, C., 2003, 'St Martin's Priory', Canterbury sArchaeology 2001-2002, 18-20. Sparey-Green, C., 2015, 'Excavations at St Martin's House: archaeological investigations in the vicinity of St Martin's Church, Canterbury', Archaeologia Cantiana, 136, 17-36.
Sparks, M., 1984, 'The recovery and excavation of the St Augustine's Abbey site, 1844- 1947', Archaeologia Cantiana, 100, 325-344.
Sparks, M. and Tatton-Brown, T., 1987, 'The history of the Ville of St Martin's, Canterbury', in J. Rady, 200-213.
Tatton-Brown, T., 1980, 'St Martin's Church in the sixth and seventh centuries', in M. Sparks (ed.), The Parish of St Martin and St Paul, Canterbury: Historical essays in memory of James Hobbs, Canterbury, 12-18.
Tatton-Brown, T., 1994, 'Kent churches - some new architectural notes (contd.). Churches in and around Canterbury', Archaeologia Cantiana, 114, 189-235.
Tatton-Brown, T., 1997, 'The Abbey precinct, liberty and estate', in R. Gem (ed.), St Augustine sAbbey, Canterbury, London, 123-142.
Taylor, M., 1998, 'Two relics of English Christianity before the arrival of St Augustine',
KentArchaeological Review, 132, 32-38.
Thomas, G., 2013, 'Life before the Minster: the social dy namics of monastic foundation at Anglo-Saxon Lyminge, Kent', Antiquaries Journal, 93, 109-145, doi:10.1017/ S0003581513000206.
87
image
RICHARD HELM AND SHEILA SW EETINBURGH
Turner, G. and Salter, H., 1915, The Register ofStAugustine 'sAbbey Canterbury commonly called the Black Book, The British Academy (London), 2 vols.
ENDNOTES
Although transcriptions or translations of some have been published, a few are in manuscript form only, mostly either at the British Library or in Cambridge. Mrs Margaret Sparks has examined the Corpus Christi College manuscript and has kindly described its contents to the author.
Thomes Chronicle includes a 'modem' rendition of the boundary clause: 'It is surrounded on the East by the Church ofSt Martin and to the East by Mellehelle and so to the North by Wivescrowche again to the East and South as far as Fiss-pole and so to the South and West as far as the King's road leading from Chaldane Crouch as far as Canterbury. And so to the West to Rederchepe and so to the North to Drontyntone'; pp. 8-9.
Unfortunately so few medieval court rolls survive that it is impossible to know how much these court dues were worth, but in two year in the late Middle Ages they provided 15s. 8d. and 1Os.; Canterbury Cathedral Archives and Library [CCAL]: Lit MS B2; Ul 4/2.
4 According to the account of 1432-3 there was said to be 284 quarters of wheat in the granary, 325 quarters of malt in the malt house and 8 quarters of wheat in the bakery; 80 loads of hay also remained; CCAL: DCc/Ch Ant A218a.
For example, the sulinga of Fayreport owed 16 loads hay, the sulinga of Boytone owed four more; Black Book ofSt Augustine, p. 100.
Following considerable storm damage in the late fourteenth century, a considerable sum was spent on repairs but the account gives few details; CCAL: Ul4/5.
88
image
THE ROMAN VILLA AT MINSTER IN THANET. PART 11: THE GLASS
ROSE BROADLEY
Abbey Farm Roman villa complex at Minster in Thanet was excavated between 1996 and 2004 jointly by the Kent Archaeological Society, the Trust for Thanet Archaeology and the Thanet Archaeological Society (Fig. 1). The site on the southern coast of the Isle of Thanet would have had commanding views over the southern section of the Wantsum channel, the main seaway to Londinium, and across to the fort at Richborough, the gateway to the province of Britannia. This report is the latest in a series revealing the results of both the excavations themselves and post-excavation research.
A total of 376 glass artefacts was recovered, comprising 125 sherds of vessel glass, 234 sherds of window glass, 16 unidentifiable sherds and one bead, with the majority dating to between the late first century and the early third century. However, at least six and up to ten of the vessel glass sherds are likely to be post medieval and have not been studied further, leaving 366 fragments of Roman date and 115 Roman vessel sherds. It is important to be aware at the outset that even this considerable assemblage of Roman glass fragments is certainly only a fraction of the glass used on the site during the lifetime of the villa - the glass that missed collection and recycling at the time or at any later point in history. Each sherd of vessel glass and the bead have been recorded and catalogued individually, while the window glass has been treated as a bulk find and quantified by number of sherds and total weight per context. [The catalogue of glass finds at Abbey Farm can be found on the KAS website. Ed.]
Glass from vessels
Forty-six fragments (40% of the Roman vessel glass from the site) are definitely or very probably from prismatic bottles (an umbrella term for glass bottles with square, rectangular or hexagonal cross sections), with the range encompassing large and small, blue-green and pale green, and the less common hexagonal form. The fragments include rims, bases, body sherds and handles (e.g. 72, AFM 03-7210) (Fig. 2; Plate I). The proportion of bottle glass falls right in the centre of the typical range for bottle fragments on first- and second-century Roman sites described by Price and Cottam: '30-50% of glass assemblages' (1998, 195). Square bottles in particular were in widespread use from the arrival of the Romans in Britain to the end of the second century. Vertical scratches usually present on the bodies indicate that the bottles were 'lifted in and out of a close-fitting wood or basketry
89
image
ROSE BROADLEY
Fig. 1 Plan of the Minster villa complex.
90
image
::{;"=
E
I
=· -·-- -frB=ldrg5 \
l -
Building 2
J
0
50m
150ft
I
Building 4
-
l
'
/
"
1
/
/
I \
I \
I \
I
I \
I }
\
\
8
6t (
(
7 Oiir4 )
') )
1
&
I
..,.._,,.
3
�9 u y 5
10
1 �
5 I 4
Fig. 2 A range of vessel glass from Minster villa, including colourless cup and bowl fragments, and sherds from jars and bottles (D. Perkins).
2.1 is 5, AFM 96-45; 2.2 is 23a-c, AFM 98-246 SF29; 2.3 is 17b, AFM 98-221 SF523;
2.4 is 18, AFM 98-23 SF24; 2.5 is 22a, AFM 98-246 SF28; 2.6 is 19a-c, AFM 98-240
SF25; 2.7 is 6, AFM 97 unstratified, between Room 18 and Building 3 SF42; 2.8 is 9,
AFM 97-1021 SF12; 2.9 is 13a, AFM 97-1022 SF17; 2.10 is 31, AFM 99-4073 SF13.
91
image
ROSE BROADLEY
PLATE I
A large ribbon handle (72, AFM 03-7210) (J. Piddock).
container' (Price and Cottam 1998, 194), although we cannot prove exactly what they contained or how they were used.
Twenty-eight fragments (24% of the Roman vessel glass) are colourless tableware sherds, forming the second-largest sub-group within the vessel glass assemblage (Fig. 2, Plate 11). Most are from fine cups and small bowls, although there is evidence for a colourless bottle with engraved decoration (Fig. 2.8, AFM 97-1021, SF12), a colourless jug (66a, AFM 03-7131), and one of two larger colourless plates or bowls (e.g. 79, AFM 04-7277). This type of material is also often found on villa sites and others where dining took place: for example, similar vessels have been recently found at a likely temple site at Augustine House, just outside the city walls at Canterbury (Broadley 2014, 62). The remaining 36% of the vessel fragments are generally not securely diagnostic, but certainly include a number of large jars or bottles, some smaller jars (e.g. Fig. 2.6) and an outstanding polychrome mosaic glass bowl (33a and b, AFM 99-9036, SF3 l, Fig. 3, Plate 111). Polychrome mosaic glass vessels of the kind found here had a very narrow period of popularity in the middle of the first century AD, c.45-70. The technique was closely associated with several bowl types, although cups and plates were also produced. In this case the pattern featured opaque red, pale blue and black concentric circles on an opaque yellow ground. The original bowl or cup appears to have had a flat surface, distinct from the vertical ribs typical of pillar-moulded bowls. These vessels were manufactured using a series of discs of glass, sections sliced from a mosaic cane which were fused together into a larger disc. The larger disc was then reheated and 'sagged' or 'cast' over a hemispherical mould (e.g.
92
image
THE ROMAN VILLA AT MINSTER IN THANET. PART 11: THE GLASS
PLATE II
The base fragment from a colourless cast bowl with a base ring and a pattern of cut decoration on the base (5, AFM 96-45, top right), alongside three other sherds of colourless tableware all featuring a similar pattern (top left 79, AFM 04-7277; bottom left 35, AFM 01-5001 SFll; bottom right 68, AFM 03-7153) (J. Piddock).
Allen 1998, 7; Price and Cottam 1998, 11-12). A number of well-known examples were found at Colchester (e.g. Cool and Price 1995, 27-31; Niblett 1985, fig. 80, nos. 1 and 10), while another was found recently at the opposite end of Roman Britain at Chester Roman amphitheatre which was too small to show the wider pattern, but large enough to display bright red, yellow and green colours (Chester Amphitheatre Project). An illustration ofthe variety ofcolours and patterns known from Britain was provided by Price and Cottam (1998, plate 1). The two mosaic sherds were found in the lower filling ofa re-cut ofthe boundary ditch, F. 9036, just outside the villa boundary to the north of Building 1 (Parfitt, Boast and Moody 2009, 350, figs 3 and 7; Minster Part 6), which also contained pottery dating to 70-140. This supports the obvious conclusion that the original vessel was used and broken in the principal villa building, and the fragments were then deposited in a suitable nearby open ditch, which would have been close by, but not visible from the main house. Unlike the majority of the vessel glass assemblage, the bowl or cup that produced these mosaic sherds was used and broken at the villa at the very beginning of the Roman period in Britain, at a time when the villa itself must have been very new.
93
image
ROSE BROADLEY
PLATE III
Cm
The two polychrome mosaic glass sherds (33a and b, AFM 99-9036, SF3l) (J. Piddock).
YELLOW ill_;j
PALEBLUE �
■
RED� BLACK
2cm.
'FRONT' 'BACK'
Fig. 3 The two polychrome mosaic glass sherds (33 a and b, AFM 99- 9036, SF3 l) (D. Perkins)
The second key find indicating the status of some of the glass vessels in use at the villa is a base fragment from a colourless cast bowl with a base ring (5, AFM 96-45), dating to the late first or second century AD (Plate 11). Characteristic horizontal polishing marks are visible on the inner and outer surfaces, and a pattern of cut decoration features on the base but not on the surviving portion of vessel wall, which is unusual. The pattern comprises a curved line (originally a circle), surrounded on the outside by a band of ground oval facets alternating with pairs of wheel-cut lines pointing from the centre of the base to the edge. This sherd was found in a demolition layer south of the south wall of Room 10 in the main villa building (Fig. 4), and it seems likely that it was used close by, this time probably
94
image
N
14 13 12
9 8 5 ,7 '" i
\0
V,
Building 3
28 a,.
I I
I
_jI I
0
�
r
\
Hearth Pit
0
2
65
3
4
20m
�
�
VJ
z
�
cl
.....
�
�
VJ
L- I (ljj"� J VJ
-\:_�]
Fig. 4 Plan of Building 1.
image
ROSE BROADLEY
during the second century. A similar vessel was found at Fishbourne Palace, West Sussex (Price and Cottam 1996, 172). This bowl and the mosaic bowl used here in the first century help to convey the type of settlement this was, the activities that took place here and the connections that were in place for the delivery of fragile imported goods. Furthermore, other colourless vessel fragments with a strikingly similar pattern of incised decoration were found near Buildings 4 and 6. A body sherd with a slightly larger version of the same pattern appearing above an angle on the vessel wall where it bends outwards, was found with unstratified material in the area of Building 4 (35, AFM 01-5001). A completely flat sherd showing part of a band of the same design between two concentric circles, probably from the base of a small bowl, was found in the fill of Room 35 in Building 6A (68, AFM 03-7153); (79, AFM 04-7277). Finally, a rim fragment featuring a very similar but larger band of ground oval facets alternating with pairs of vertical wheel-cut lines below the rim, and a pattern of facets and grooves cut into the rim itself, was found in the fill of robber trench F.7278 in Room 43 of Building 6A. The latter was probably from a large bowl as the estimated rim diameter is over 20cm. This specific decorative theme across four vessel sherds that appear to be from four different vessels points enticingly to the presence of a matching set of colourless tableware in use in the second century AD.
Window glass
The total number of window glass sherds found at Abbey Farm villa is 234, weigh ing a total of 1,640g. This quantity is significant and certainly dwarfs the 17 sherds recently found at Folkestone Roman villa, for example. The 21 sherds found in the single context AFM 97-1077 represent a larger quantity of window glass than the entire assemblage of window glass from Folkestone. It is also, according to the provisional report written by the late Dave Perkins, the Project Director, several times as much as all of the other villas in Kent combined.
The Minster villa window glass falls broadly into two colour categories, blue green (153 sherds, or 65% of the assemblage by sherd count) and another category best described as colourless to pale green (81 sherds, or 35% of the site sherd count), although the variation in the latter actually embraces pale greys and even pinkish hues (Plate IV). The thickness of the glass is a major factor in the appearance of colour, but the key point is that the colourless-pale green group is clearly distinct from the classic blue-green material, and both are present in quantity.
All of the window glass from Minster villa was made using the earlier manu- facturing method known as 'cast glass', which produces panes that are glossy on one side and matt on the other, and was used from the first to third centuries AD. The method of production has been successfully reproduced in recent times by the glass makers Mark Taylor and David Hill, who described it clearly on their website and in Glass News (Taylor 2000). In summary, the gather of molten glass is poured onto a kiln bat (a flat surface probably made of ceramic tile or stone that can be manoeuvred in and out of the kiln on a rod), and then reheated repeatedly while metal rods and pincers were used to tease the glass from its natural disc shape into a rectangle. Some of the Minster villa sherds have clear undulations and indentations on the top side from such pouring, reheating and shaping (e.g. AFM
96
image
PLATE IV
■cm■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
The window glass assemblage from context AFM 97-1077, SF23 (94), illustrating the range of colours and the size of some sherds (J. Piddock).
image
ROSE BROADLEY
PLATEV
The largest window fragment found at Minster, from 94, AFM 97-1077, SF23 (J. Piddock).
96-39), and tool marks visible on the glossy side (AFM 97-1077, SF23). Many others have a visible texture from the casting surface on the matt side, and even inclusions from the surface material.
Several of the largest sherds come from one context - AFM 97-1077, SF23. The very largest amongst that context group measures 86.2 by 84.5mm, and weighs 52g (Plate V). This contextual assemblage of 21 sherds of window glass came from the fill of a pit in Room 14, in the north-western comer of the main villa building (Fig. 4). The most probable explanation for the larger than average size of the sherds is that they did not travel far to be discarded, suggesting that they were originally installed in this room or one nearby. There are only four large context assemblages of window glass from the Minster villa site, three of which are from the main house: 33 sherds from an ash deposit in Room 17 (90, AFM 97-1007), 24 sherds from a 'late fill' of Room 17 (93, AFM 97-1022), and 21 sherds from the fill of a pit in Room 14 mentioned above (94, AFM 97-1077, SF23). Interestingly, Rooms 14 and 17 were next to each other in the western comer of the main range of rooms of the villa (Fig. 4). Perhaps these were a convenient disposal point for
98
image
THE ROMAN VILLA AT MINSTER IN THANET. PART 11: THE GLASS
PLATE VI
A selection of the re-worked window glass (top left AFM 96 u/s 'plough soil over apse' 84, SF142; bottom left 82, AFM 96 u/s SF140; top right 83, AFM 96 u/s SF141; bottom right 86, AFM 96-39 SF139) (J. Piddock).
window glass from the entire main building once occupation was in decline. The fourth large context assemblage is a group of 10 sherds from the fill of stoke pit F.7107 in Building 6A (136, AFM 03-7106). However, it is worth noting how frequently individual window glass sherds were found across the rest of site - of 82 contexts containing window glass, 46 (56%) contained only one fragment. Overall, the window glass is clearly concentrated in the main villa building, and to a lesser extent the associated bath house (Building 3). Other than the group of 10 in stoke pit F. 7107 in Building 6A, the distribution across the remainder of the site is essentially a light scatter.
Most interestingly, approximately 15 sherds, or 6% of the site window glass, seem to have been re-worked after their original use as window panes (Plate VI). A paper on this phenomenon has recently been published (Fiinfschilling 2015), which notes that 're-worked glass sherds are known from all over the Roman Empire' (ibid., 170). The function of flat sherds that appear to have been cut or grazed into specific shapes is unclear at present, although Fiinfschilling suggests a range of possibilities that may all have applied in different times and places: for inlay work, as jewellery, and as tools for cutting or scraping (ibid., 172-174). Fiinfschilling describes the possible inlay work as perhaps relating to either furniture or walls, although there is
99
image
ROSE BROADLEY
a lack of evidence at present for any examples in situ in either Britain or Switzerland (she uses glass from the Roman fort at Augusta Raurica, located on the south bank of the Rhine in modem Switzerland, as a case study). However, in the case of the villa at Minster, the four small white patches adhering to the matt side of one of the shaped sherds (82, AFM 96 unstratified, SF140) may provide a clue: could these be the remains of mortar used to install the glass in an inlaid scheme? One of the find labels may provide another clue: that of AFM 96 unstratified, SF142 (84) reads on the reverse 'plough soil over apse'. Perhaps the other two similar unstratified sherds from 1996 were found in a similar location, and this label indicates the original home of the proposed inlaid glass feature. The 'apse' refers to a hemispherical room with painted wall plaster, opus signinum and underfloor heating (a hypocaust), which seems a fitting location. This room (Room 10, Fig. 4) is described in the previous report published on the main house (Building 1):
The full significance of Room 10 is still under consideration and more research is required. Its positioning astride the main axis of symmetry through the building, its apsidal form, the provision of under-floor heating and perhaps a mosaic, all clearly imply that this was an important, albeit small, room. At present, it can perhaps be provisionally suggested as being a small private chamber used for study or relaxation
- possibly it was the villa owner's personal office, positioned a little away from the bustle of the main house but still close to its principal rooms. (Parfitt et al. 2008, 321)
The evidence is slim, but the suggested scenario is both tempting and plausible.
There are other isolated examples of re-worked window glass from elsewhere on the site. For example, AFM 03-7208 (156) is an example of a colourless sherd that appears to have been cut to shape, and was found in the fill of robber pit F. 7215, in Rooms 42 and 43 of Building 6A - a context dated by pottery to 120- 160+. Fiinfschilling comments that at Augusta Raurica the finds there appear to be concentrated to two insulae interpreted as craft quarters (2015, 174), although she does not differentiate by shape between those suited as cutting tools, jewellery or inlay. Furthermore, it is challenging to interpret find locations and distribution of this material as contexts could relate to the 'production', or use, or both. However, the existence of reshaped window glass fragments at Minster villa is worth highlighting in the hope that progress can be made in this area in the future.
The bead
The only bead from the site is a small and uneven blue-green melon bead, found in the fill of a robber trench (F. 7270) in Building 6A, a context that has been dated to 70-150. This bead type was very long-lived, enduring from the first century AD well into the early Anglo-Saxon period, and was more widely distributed on the Continent than in Britain (Brugmann 2004, 74).
Discussion
The glass from the principal villa building, Building 1 (seasons 1996 and 1997) features substantial groups of both prismatic bottles and window glass (19 bottle fragments, or 41% of the site bottle assemblage, and 102 window fragments,
100
image
THE ROMAN VILLA AT MINSTER IN THANET. PART 11: THE GLASS
or 44% of the site assemblage). A noticeable concentration of prismatic bottle fragments was found in Context 1022, a late fill of Room 17 of the main villa (Fig. 4) dated to the third to fourth centuries, although the glass dates to the early third century at the latest. One possibility is that the bottle glass was gathered from across the site and deposited in a suitable location towards the end of the lifetime of the villa, or afterwards, perhaps at the same time as the concentration of window glass was deposited in the same room. A few fragments of good quality colourless tableware were also found, most notably the sherd from the bowl with the engraved pattern that matches fragments from Buildings 4 and 6 (5a, AFM 96- 45, a demolition layer south of south wall of Room 10). All four sherds date from AD 65 to the end of the second century. Interestingly, Room 10 was the well-fitted apsidal room described above (Fig. 4), which also produced some of the window glass that was cut to shape for re-use, perhaps as inlay in a wall decoration. It is likely that the colourless vessels with cut decoration were used in the main villa building, and that the deposition of sherds under the later satellite buildings shows that some fragments were then disposed of in suitable pits and ditches either before or during construction of the later buildings. The most notable vessel glass from the site as a whole - the two fragments from the polychrome mosaic bowl
- were also almost certainly used in the main house and then deposited in a recut of the ditch just outside the northern boundary wall, to the north of Building 1. As stated previously, mosaic bowls of this kind date to a narrow period in the mid first century (c.45-70), so this is the earliest glass from the Minster villa site. The vessel was probably imported and used here in the first phase of occupation in the decades immediately following the Roman invasion.
The glass from the bathhouse, Building 3 (season 1998), features an array of colourless tableware, including drinking cups and bowls, and fragments from a large amber jar. The most closely dateable of the colourless cups are from the late second or third century AD. The sherds from this building constitute the majority of the colourless tableware on the site, which raises the question of interpretation: were the inhabitants using these vessels in the bathhouse, or was it a convenient point for disposing of glass broken in the main house? The latter is more likely, as more than half of the contexts in question are ditch fills, some of which were located just outside the villa enclosure, near the bath house rather than in it, and most of the rest were pit fills.
The assemblage of glass from Building 4 (seasons 1999 and 2001), located in the south-eastern comer of the villa precinct, is a comparatively small one dominated by generic bottle and window glass. The contrast between the Building 4 group and the assemblage from Building 6 (seasons 2003 and 2004) is one of scale, as the Building 6 assemblage is much larger, although again substantial sub-groups of bottles and window glass are the main features. Interestingly, nine tiny fragments of colourless glass were found in the hearth of Room 36 in Building 6A, although they are too small to identify. These appear to be an example of an in situ deposition of glass (micro-refuse) indicating that the glass was broken in this room. Finally, an assemblage of glass was retrieved in 2002, mainly from the fills of a ditch and shaft outside the north-eastern comer of the villa precinct. This group consists of the remains of several large, globular jars, more prismatic bottles and some window panes.
101
image
ROSE BROADLEY
It is unsurprising that window glass and glass from everyday storage vessels such as prismatic bottles and jars dominate the site assemblage. This was a substantial complex of buildings, and both the glazing and supply and storage of bottled goods would have been on a scale in keeping with that throughout most of the long period of occupation. However, the presence of high quality imported glassware ofthe mid-first and late first to second century AD represents another key function of glass at villa settlements: fine dining in the main house. The presence of re-worked window glass, potentially for inlay work, is also significant. The majority of the glass from the overall site assemblage that can be identified and dated with any accuracy is from between the late first century and the early third century AD, although the polychrome mosaic bowl was here at the beginning of the villa's occupation in the middle of the first century. No glass from the site can be confidently allocated to the later Roman period, and it seems likely that glass use on the site declined from the tum of the third century to the mid-third century, when all of the principal buildings were abandoned. However, there is no doubt that more could be learned from the Minster villa glass assemblage and that there is potential for further research and comparison with other Romano-British sites in the future.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is very grateful to Keith Parfitt and Emma Boast for their determination to progress the Minster villa project publications, and their help with arranging the glass project, delivering the glass and advising on the location and nature of key contexts. She would also like to thank John and Rosemary Piddock for photographing a selection of the glass, and David Hill of the Roman Glassmakers for his helpful advice on Roman window glass and prismatic bottles (http://www. theglassmakers.co.uk/index.htm). Finally, great credit is due to the late Dave Perkins, Director of the Minster villa project, who made an excellent start to writing up, cataloguing and drawing the glass before his death in 2010 and whose line drawings have been used to accompany this report.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, D., 1998, Roman glass in Britain, Shire Archaeology Series 76.
Boast, E. and Cunningham, L., 2016, 'The Roman Villa at Minster in Thanet. Part 10: the Bone Objects', Archaeologia Cantiana, cxxxvn, 1-16.
Broadley, R., 2014, 'Roman glass', in R. Helm, Outside the town: Roman industry, burial and religion atAugustine House, Rhodaus Town, Canterbury, CAT Occas. Paper No. 10, 62-70.
Bmgmann, B., 2004, Glass Beads from EarlyAnglo-Saxon Graves, Oxford: Oxbow Books. Cool, H. and Price, J., 1995, Roman vessel glass from excavations in Colchester, 1971-85,
Colchester Archaeological Report 8.
Fiinfschilling, S., 2015, 'The re-use of Roman glass fragments', in J. Bayley, I. Freestone and C. Jackson (eds), Glass of the Roman World, Oxford: Oxbow Books, 170-177.
Holman, D.J. and Parfitt, K., 2005, 'The Roman villa at Minster in Thanet. Part 2: the Late Iron-Age, Roman and Later Coinage', Archaeologia Cantiana, cxxv, 203-228.
Jones, H.A., 2014, 'The Roman Villa at Minster in Thanet. Part 9: an Architectural Reconstruction', Archaeologia Cantiana, cxxxv, 189-208.
102
image
THE ROMAN VILLA AT MINSTER IN THANET. PART 11: THE GLASS
Lyne, M., 2011, 'The Roman Villa at Minster in Thanet. Part 8: the Pottery', Archaeologia Cantiana, cxxx1, 231-276.
Moody, G., 2010, 'The Roman Villa Complex at Abbey Farm, Minster in Thanet. Part 7: Building 7, a Late Roman Kiln and Post-Built Structures', Archaeologia Cantiana, cxxx, 315-332.
Niblett, R., 1985, Sheepen: an early Roman industrial site at Camulodunum, York: CBA Research Report 57.
Parfitt, K., 2006, 'The Roman Villa at Minster in Thanet. Part 3: the Corridor House, Building 4', Archaeologia Cantiana, cxxxv1, 115-133.
Parfitt, K., 2007, 'The Roman Villa at Minster in Thanet. Part 4: the South West Buildings, 6A and 6B', Archaeologia Cantiana, cxxvn, 261-296.
Parfitt, K., Boast, E. and Moody, G., 2009, 'The Roman Villa at Minster in Thanet. Part 6: the Villa Enclosure, Buildings 2 and 5', Archaeologia Cantiana, cxx1x, 333-358.
Parfitt, K., Perkins, D., Boast, E. and Moody, G., 2008, 'The Roman villa at Minster in Thanet. Part 5: the Main House, Building l ', Archaeologia Cantiana, cxxvm, 309-334.
Perkins, D., 2004, 'The Roman Villa at Minster in Thanet. Part 1: Introduction and Report on the Bath-house', Archaeologia Cantiana, cxx1v, 25-49.
Price, J. and Cottam, S., 1996, 'The Roman glass from Fishbourne, 1983 and 1985-6', in
B. Cunliffe, A. Down and D. Rudkin, Excavations at Fishbourne 1969 -1988, Chichester Excavations 9, 166-188.
Price, J. and Cottam, S., 1998, Romano-British glass vessels: a handbook, York: CBA. Tay lor, M., 2000, 'Roman Glassmakers Articles Page'. Theglassmakers.co.uk (http://www.
theglassmakers.co.uk/archiveromanglassmakers/articles.htm# Update). Web. Accessed 2 Oct. 2016.
103
image
'KENTISH GOTHIC' OR IMPORTED? UNDERSTANDING A GROUP OF TR ACERY-CARVED MEDIEVAL CHESTS IN KENT AND NORFOLK
CHRISTOPHER PICKVANCE
This article describes and analyses a group ofmedieval chests, three of which are in Kent and three in Norfolk. They are at St Mary of Charity, Faversham, St Margaret's, Rainham, and St John's Hospital, Canterbury; Norfolk Museums Reserve at Gressenhall (formerly in St Margaret's, Norwich), All Saints, Litcham, and All Saints, Wighton (Figs 1-6). The first three have been labelled 'Kentish Gothic' but the six have not previously been recognised as forming a group. It will be argued that the chests originate in neither Kent nor Norfolk but are Continental imports.
Medieval chests can be classified according to their construction type. There are three pure types: dug-out chests, boarded chests, and clamped chests (the type described here), but mixed types can be found (Chinnery 1979, 69-74, 104-124).1 These types embody increasing levels ofskill but do not represent an evolutionary sequence. In England the first three types co-existed in 1200, clamped chests were replaced by framed and panelled chests from the 16th century in most areas, dug out chests were still being made in the 17th century, and boarded chests continued as a cheap form into the 18th century.
Chests had numerous uses. In ecclesiastical contexts they were used to store relics, legal documents (deeds, leases), vestments, altar frontals, platens and chalices, jewellery, books and money (e.g. alms, rents, money for crusades). Chests were not the only form of storage: vestries, treasuries, aumbries and cupboards were alternatives. In secular contexts they were used for storing family valuables, legal documents, clothes, textiles and books. Foodstuffs such as grain were also stored in chests (e.g. in arks). Medieval times were insecure and protection of the chest was a major priority. This could mean placing it in a secure location (muniment rooms, treasuries) and/or adding iron strapwork and multiple locks.
Previous writing on the chests
A drawing of the Rainham chest was included in an article on Rainham church (Pearman 1887) (Fig. 7). Fred Roe, whose 1902 bookAncientCoffersand Cupboards was the first full length study of chests in England, included the Rainham and Faversham chests as examples of 14th-century chests as well as a related lost chest at Wittersham church known from an 1857 drawing (Roe 1902, 40-44). Soon after, in his book on oak furniture, Roe added the St John's Hospital, Canterbury chest,
105
image
CHRISTOPHER PICKVANCE
Fig. 1 Chest at St Mary of Charity, Faversham.
Fig. 2 Chest at St Margaret's, Rainham.
106
image
'KENTISH GOTHIC' OR IMPORTED? A GROUP OF TRACERY-CARV ED MEDIEVAL CHESTS
Fig. 3 Chest at St John's Hospital, Canterbury.
Fig. 4 Chest from St Margaret's, Norwich (now at the Norfolk Museums Reserve at Gressenhall).
107
image
CHRISTOPHER PICKVANCE
Fig. 5 Chest at All Saints, Litcham.
Fig. 6 Chest at All Saints, Wighton.
108
image
'KENTISH GOTHIC' OR IMPORTED? A GROUP OF TRACERY-CARVED MEDIEVAL CHESTS
Fig. 7 Chest at St Margaret's, Rainham. Source: Pearman (1887).
noting the three were 'almost identical' and that this left 'little doubt that they are specimens of Kentish Gothic work produced by the same craftsman' (1905, 118). The 'Kentish Gothic' label has been used ever since to refer to the three Kent examples. Sir Martin Conway (later Lord Conway), owner of Allington Castle, where he was building a collection of 'Kentish' chests, suggested that they and the Wittersham chest were 'a distinctively Kentish product' and were made possibly in Canterbury or by an itinerant craftsman (Conway 1909, 367), though, interestingly, he notes that some had considered the Faversham chest to be Flemish. In his later History of Oak Furniture, Roe included a photo of the Canterbury chest and a drawing of a further related lost chest drawn in 1835 at Sedlescombe church, in East Sussex (Roe 1920, plates 13 and 14). Intriguingly, in this book Roe refers to the Litcham chest in Norfolk but he continues to use the 'Kentish Gothic' label (1920, 5), no doubt thinking that the Litcham chest was made in Kent. Finally, Roe devotes five pages of his last book, on chests in the Home Counties, to the Faversham and Rainham chests and says the Rainham chest would have been 'of fairly recent production' in 1381 (1929, 99-100).
Cescinsky and Gribble's major study of oak furniture included the three Kent chests and the Litcham chest in a list of 14th-century chests and noted that 'only those of exceptional quality, as a rule, appear to have been preserved' (1922, Vol. 2, 30). The origin of the Faversham chest was sufficiently established for it to be illustrated in the Dictionary ofEnglish Furniture first published in 1924 and the Rainham chest is also discussed there (Macquoid and Edwards 1954, Vol. 2, 6).
More recently, the chests have received little scholarly attention. They were not among the chests included by Eames (1977) in her magisterial survey of medieval furniture in England, France and the Netherlands, nor does she comment on them in passing. Tracy's (2001) survey of Continental church furniture in England also
109
image
CHRISTOPHER PICKVANCE
omits them, presumably because he considers them to be English.2 The Rainham entry in Buildings of England mentions the similar Faversham and Canterbury chests (Newman 2002, 467) but the East Anglian chests have been ignored. In 2007 the present writer published a comparison of the Kent chests with a group of 14th-century carved chests, together with a dendro-dating of the Faversham chest, but at that time had not studied any of the Norfolk chests, learning of the Wighton chest in 2014.
The arrival of the chests in their present locations
A major problem in the study of medieval chests is the paucity of documentation allowing chests to be identified or recording their provenance. Inventories are more likely to list the valuables contained in chests than to give details of the chests themselves. Churches may have had chests made to order, purchased existing chests, received chests as gifts, bequests or transfers, or kept privately-owned chests for which they originally provided a safe location.
Of the six chests of interest here there is potential documentation relating to only two. A 1512 inventory of St Mary's, Faversham, lists, as well as an iron chest with four great chalices, an iron-bound 'spruse' (Prussian) chest with relics, and a 'cheste unlokked' containing the 'churche evidences' (all in the Treasury), a chest outside the 'Quire door' containing painted cloths, silk banners, a pewter basin, etc., about which a footnote says: 'This may possibly be the richly decorated one of flamboyant work, which has been often described, and is now to be seen in St Thomas's Chapel' (Giraud 1889, 105-112). Roe (1902 126, fn. 10) considers that the Faversham chest is mentioned in this inventory. The 1505 will of Thomas Reade referring to Faversham Church adds more information. It states that 'the two altar cloths of arras, a vestment of purple damask, with all the parell, a chalice of silver and parcel gilt, and all other cloths with appurtenances in a chest standing in the Chapel of St Thomas the Martyr, shall remain to the said Altar of the Chapel for evermore, and the key of the chest and stuff remain and abide in the custody of Robert Withiot and Robert Deve and of their assigns to the use abovesaid, and none otherwise' (Duncan, 1906). This illustrates the idea of a chest which contains the accoutrements of a specific altar. Although, again, the description is insufficiently detailed to confirm that it refers to the Faversham chest, the reference to custody of 'the key of the chest' (rather than three keys) is consistent with the Faversham chest which was made with a single lock. If so, the chest has been in situ for over 500 years.
For St John's Hospital, a 1546 inventory records three chests as being in the Hospital chapel but gives no further description (Holland 1934, 18-19).3 Most of the Hospital's records were lost during an air raid in 1942 but a 1785 study by Duncombe and Battely records that St John's 'hall' (today called the refectory) is 'now only used for the annual feast on St John the Baptist's Day, the admittance of members and the reading and sealing of leases. And there, in a strong chest, the ancient charters, etc. are deposited' (1785, 193). The same study reports on an attempt to sort out the 'greatest confusion' of the charters and deeds in the hospitals of Harbledown and Northgate, which had a common foundation, and says that 'there are drawers within the chest belonging to St John's Hospital' for
110
image
'KENTISH GOTHIC' OR IMPORTED? A GROUP OF TRACERY-CARVED MEDIEVAL CHESTS
this purpose' (viz. keeping separate the charters and private deeds) (1785, 216). It also refers to 'money to be laid up in a treasure-house, in a coffer with three several keys and locks' (1785, 217). The Canterbury chest, currently in the hospital refectory, has three (later) locks of l 7th-century type, and is thus consistent with the last chest referred to; it may thus have been there for over 200 years.
DESCRIPTION
It is very rare to find a group of chests which are almost identical. At first sight the chests are distinctive because of their deeply-carved fa9ades and carved lids. It will be shown that they are also all constructed in a very particular way.
The six chests are all capacious. The Faversham chest (163cm wide) is the largest, and the Norwich chest (133cm wide) the smallest. Losses to the stiles mean that precise measures of original height are difficult. The article concentrates on the original form of the chests, and points out divergences from the standard type; the Appendix describes their dimensions and later alterations. The Rainham, Canterbury, and Norwich chests are the most intact; only the fa9ade and lid of the Faversham chest remain and the Litcham and Wighton chests have had major repairs. Attention is focused on the first four.
Construction
The six chests are of 'clamped' construction in which the horizontal boards of the four walls are pegged into long mortices in the wide stiles (uprights). The four stiles are 20-25cm wide and taper in cross-section from 4 or 4.5cm to 2.5 or 3cm (Fig. 8).4
The lids are made of three boards which are butt-joined and dowelled; the front board is tapered in cross-section from 4cm to 2 or 2.5cm, the middle board is parallel-sided at 2cm and the tapered back board is 3-4cm at its rear. The lid boards are pegged to the cleats underneath each side of the lid which help hold the lid together. The cleats have a curved side profile matching the tapered shape of the boards, so the surface of the lid is flat (Fig. 9). The cleats terminate in tenons which fit neatly into rebates in the top of the front stiles. An intriguing and unexplained detail on all the chests, possibly a maker's mark, is the two horn-like indentations opposite these rebates (Fig. 10).
The front, back and sides are also made of three boards, except for the Norwich chest where they have two. The upper board tapers from 3cm at its top edge to 2cm at its lower edge; the middle board is 2cm thick and the lower board thickens out to 4cm at its lower edge. The result is that the four walls of the chest show curved internal shaping (Figs 11 and 12).
The bottom is made of three long boards held in grooves in the lower boards of the four walls. The bottom has two front to back supporting battens underneath and a centre batten on top which are morticed into the lower boards of the walls (Fig. 13). The hinges, lock, and bottom are all fixed to the thickest parts of the boards, a sign of a long tradition of making, in which advantage is taken of the tapered section produced by cleaving the trunk, though further shaping and smoothing is also carried out.
111
image
Fig 8 Stile showing tapered section, Norwich. Fig. 9 View of side showing lid construction
(and repair batten), Norwich. 018
Fig. 10 Stile showing horn-like indentations, Canterbury.
Fig. 11 Internal shaping, Canterbury. Fig. 12 Internal shaping, Norwich.
image
'KENTISH GOTHIC' OR IMPORTED? A GROUP OF TRACERY-CARVED MEDIEVAL CHESTS
The Rainham, Canterbury and Litcham chests have an applied grid of battens pegged on to the sides and jointed to the stiles (Fig. 14). This helps strengthen the joints between front and back, and sides. On the Norwich chest a later low rail has been added at one side for the same purpose.
The front and sides of all the chests slope inwards at the top; only the back is vertical; the angle of the joints between side rails and front stile reveals this (Fig. 14).5 All the chests have a carved apron pegged to the lower board of the fa9ade and the stiles (Figs 1-6). The Norwich chest also has carved spandrels below the apron. The chests have between eight and twelve buttresses pegged across the front. The two largest chests have a narrow applied board extending the full width of the chest containing the heads of the carved arches. The boards used in the construction of the chest vary in width and hence can be of trapezoid shape. This probably saved labour but meant adjacent boards had to be matched to form the rectangular lid and walls.
Each chest had a lidded 'till box' on each side for storing small items: one of the Faversham till boxes had a hidden lower compartment. Often the grooves in which they were held are the only evidence of them. All the chests had a high groove running along the full width of the back which would have held a narrow shelf, again for storage (Figs 11 and 12).
Ironwork
All of the chests had a reserve in the carved fa9ade design for a single lock. The lock plate had concave sides matching the sides of the reserve. Only the Norwich chest has a lock of the original shape today but it is a later example (Fig. 15). Originally all the chests had three or four short knuckle hinges; the hinges or their former positions are easy to see (Fig. 16). These were noted by Roe (1929, 101). Unlike the knuckle hinges on modem doors which are rebated to fit flush with the surface of the door and jamb, the hinges here are morticed into the top board of the back and the rear board of the lid. The hinges have two flanges which at Canterbury are about 3.3cm wide at the knuckle, tapering to 2.2cm, and 3.4cm deep (Fig. 17). The flanges are inserted into slit-like mortices and held by single nails through the hole in the centre of the flange. None of the chests has handles.
Decoration
The lids of the two large chests are carved with two rectangles formed of deeply carved arcs (Figs 18 and 19). The smaller chests' lids are carved with a pair of large rectangular quatrefoils with opposed stems (Fig. 4 and Fig. 20). In all the chests the lid design is incised with two lines.
The fa9ade of each chest is carved with two registers of traceried arcading with trefoils above double lights. The two large chests have an upper row of round headed arches; all the chests have gothic arches in the lower register. The applied buttresses are ofgothic shape. The stiles and apron are carved with large quatrefoils which differ in detail only; the aprons of the two large chests have a double row of quatrefoils.
The surface finish ofthe Faversham and Rainham chests is discussed by Macquoid 113
image
Fig. 13 View underneath showing supporting battens and pegs fixing apron, Norwich.
Fig. 14 Side view showing inward-sloping front and side with applied grid, Canterbury.
Fig. 15 Replacement lock plate of original shape, Norwich.
Fig. 16 'Bites' showing two of original four positions of mortised knuckle hinges, Faversham.
Fig. 17 Example of mortised knuckle hinge with flange out of mortise, Norwich.
image
Fig. 19 Lid decoration, Rainham. Fig. 20 Lid decoration, Litcham.
Fig. 18 Lid decoration, Faversham.
Fig. 21. Detail of arcading showing colour, Faversham.
Fig. 22 Detail of arcading showing colour, Canterbury.
image
CHRISTOPHER PICKVANCE
and Edwards who say that 'both examples, which are of noble proportions, retain considerable traces of the original tempera decoration' (1954, Vol. 2, 6) and Roe who noted their 'red ochre traces' (1929, 99-100). Today, however, the Rainham chest is bare, having apparently been scrubbed clean of all colour. The Faversham fa9ade is exceptional in retaining bright pink colour in the recesses of the tracery (Fig. 21). The Canterbury chest fa9ade has lesser remains of red colour in its recesses (Fig. 22). The lids and fa9ades of the Faversham, Canterbury, Litcham and Norwich chests all show dark brown stain or paint.
ANALYSIS
Dendrochronology
Dendrochronological analyses were carried out on the oak in the Faversham and Canterbury chests to produce an estimated felling date range and a most likely origin for the timber (Table 1). The method is more accurate when the heartwood/ softwood boundary is found as was the case for the Canterbury chest which thus has a narrower felling date range than for the Faversham chest.
TABLE 1 RESULTS OF DENDROCHRONOLOGICAL STUDIES OF THE FAVERSHAM AND CANTERBURY CHESTS
Date of analysis
Best fitting chronology6
Est. felling date range
Est. date of construction7
Faversham
2007
Southern Vistula, (Poland, south of Gdansk) t=5.37
1390-1420
Canterbury
2015
Pomerania (Northern Po- land, west of Gdansk) t=6.8
1400-1419
1402-1421
Source: Tyers (2007), Bridge and Miles (2016).
The results for the two sizes of chest are therefore consistent. They suggest that chests of different sizes and with two different patterns of lid carving were being made in the early 15th century. The presence of what is always referred to as 'Baltic oak' does not itself prove that the chests originated from what is now Poland, but is clearly compatible with this origin. Baltic oak was widely exported from the 13th century onwards and valued for its straight grain, light weight and ease of working (Salzman 1952, 245-8; Simpson and Litton 1996; Simpson 2014). The different origins within Poland of the timber are most likely to be due to the massive scale of timber exploitation and the mixing of supplies in timber yards before transfer to the makers; Baltic oak from different sources can even be found in the same chest. 8
Comparison with English and North German chests
As shown earlier, three of the six chests were labelled 'Kentish Gothic' on the basis 116
image
'KENTISH GOTHIC' OR IMPORTED? A GROUP OF TRACERY-CARVED MEDIEVAL CHESTS
of the location of the Rainham, Faversham and Canterbury examples and ignorance or neglect of the Norfolk examples. The argument for challenging the Kentish (or Norfolk) origin of the chests is their exceptionality among English chests and the features they share with a group of North German chests. Knowledge of the latter group was not available in the early 20th century and has only developed in the last three decades. The key reference is von Stiilpnagel's (2000) book which contains a survey of chests in North German and Scandinavian museums and a very detailed study of chests in four Luneberg Heath monasteries, 57 with dendrochronological dates. Each feature will be compared in tum.
Constructionalfeatures
Lid. The construction of the lid (three boards, the two outer ones being tapered in cross-section and the middle one untapered) is not distinctive. It is found on the East Kent group of arcaded gothic chests at St John's Hospital Canterbury, Graveney, Wormshill and Norton which date from 1250-1335 (Pickvance, forthcoming). The difference is that the thickness of the timber on the East Kent chests is much less. Lids of identical construction are also found on the 13th- to 15th-century North German chests studied by von Stiilpnagel (2000).
Walls. As mentioned earlier, the walls of the chests narrow from the top and widen towards the bottom. Wall profiles are only now being studied and it is too early to say whether this profile can be found on English chests. The East Kent arcaded gothic chests have a quarter-round internal 'lip' over the groove holding the bottom boards and most of the Sussex and Surrey pin-hinged, clamped chests (plain or with roundels) have a lip with a canted edge above the groove for the bottom boards (Johnston 1907; Pickvance, forthcoming).9 Von Stiilpnagel illustrates a number of types of wall profile, including the canted lip (2000, 81-88). However, he also shows a complete drawing of a chest with no lip above the grooves for the bottom boards, exactly as on the chests in question here (2000, 234, Fig. 23). 10 He refers to this as the 'late Luneberg' construction type and dates the chests which show it to the 1400-1500 period, which includes the dendro-dates for the Faversham and Canterbury chests (von Stiilpnagel, 2000, 257-263). Last, applied grids are very widely found on pre-1500 clamped chests in England and the rest of Northern Europe.
Inward-sloping sides and fac;ade. Inward-sloping sides are found on the great majority of 13th- and 14th-century clamped chests in England: they allow the lid cleats to be accommodated within the width of the chest. The inward-sloping fa9ade is not found in English chests to the writer's knowledge. It is however also found on the 'late Luneberg' group of North German chests (see Fig. 23).
Till boxes and high shelf. One or two till boxes are found in most chests of all periods: they are responses to the impracticality of searching for small items in the main chest space. Much less common are till boxes with false bottoms concealing either a second flat bottomed box (as shown by grooves on the back of the Faversham chest front), or a box that tapers towards the bottom of the chest (as
117
image
CHRISTOPHER PICKVANCE
�hnungZ419
ichnung einer Stollentruhe der ,,Liineburger Konstruktion"
.325, datiert auf: zweite Hiilfte 16. Jahrhundert)
Fig. 23. The 'late Luneberg' construction type. Source: von Stiilpnagel (2000, 234).
on the Godalming, Bosham and Stoke d'Abemon chests). In North Germany flat bottomed lower till boxes are also found but not tapered examples (von Stiilpnagel 2000, 95-99). The high shelf running across the back of the chest is a well-known feature of North German chests: it can either have a lip to retain small objects, or not (von Stiilpnagel 2000, 99) (see Fig. 23). A chest in England which may have originally had a high shelf but which now has a row of pigeon holes held in a high groove is the chest at St Mary Magdalen Church, Oxford, which on stylistic, constructional and dendrochronological grounds is argued to be North German/ Polish and of c.1330 (Pickvance 2014).11
Decorative features
Lid decoration. On English chests of any period it is exceptional to find decorated lids. The best known medieval examples are from the 14th century: the boarded de Bury chest from Durham Cathedral, now in the Burrell Collection, which has painted shields, and the clamped Dersingham, Norfolk. chest with its 'Jesus of Nazareth Crucified, King of the Jews' lid inscription (in Latin) and evangelists' symbols and tracery on the fa9ade (Chinnery 1979, 136-7, Roe 1902, 47). Again, North Germany provides the key. Von Stiilpnagel (2000, 104, 138-9, Fig. 24) shows the range of lid designs he found and describes Z 365 as the design typical of 'late Luneberg'; this is precisely the lid design on the Canterbury, Norwich and Litcham chests. Charles Tracy, whose specialism is church woodwork and
118
image
'KENTISH GOTHIC' OR IMPORTED? A GROUP OF TRACERY-CARVED MEDIEVAL CHESTS
d�r Truhe TR-_NR_ 32 t (Z 366), die Umn.s.se der Vier.
NR 7 I 8, Z 368 und z 367 Mu
pm•se mu dre1 L1mcn gezoge
die Blinder der Vierpasse don
l...h rd
rnenge u rt we
en. m kunstvolle F
se n ornien aus (TR
wo die Kreise zus
. n. Ge!egemlich laufen am.
_ ��� fi.ir das Fi.irsten-
der Truhe TR-NR 326 wieder
tum Lilneburg, lnvemarnu:nme
, be1 erzienen Deckels
369 gibt die Rekonstruktion /es_ v · 975). Zeichnung
menten (gestrichelte
Linien) die Vie
auseman n als auch
Vierpa�. der sowohl durch einen �rm ist e1n
der aus:· zwe,· F. rag- zusammengesetzt wurden. Eine selten;";sse �ied�r
ist (TR-NR 703, z 370).
.
durch emen waagerechten Balken
senkrecht
dergezogen
Z364
Z368
Z367
139
Z365
Z366
Fig. 24. Designs of lid carving on North German chests. Source: von Stiilpnagel
(2000, 139).
119
image
CHRISTOPHER PICKVANCE
furniture, when seeing the Canterbury chest lid for the first time commented 'this is not English carving' (Pers. Comm., April 2016).
The fac;ade design. The carved fa9ade contains three elements: a double register of traceried arcades, gothic 'buttresses' and quatrefoils on the stiles and apron. Professor Norbert Nussbaum of Cologne University, author of German Gothic Architecture (2000), was asked his opinion of the design of the carving on the Faversham chest. He responded: 'all of them [Faversham and some others] derive from Rayonnant style between 1280 and 1330 (which should be a terminus post quern for the chests). The Faversham tracery has its origin in the 'court style' somewhere between Amiens and Paris, 1240-1260, but possibly filtered through the Strasbourg fa9ade lodge. What reminds me of Strasbourg is the fact that the mullions of the upper tracery stand immediately on top of the lower tracery arch. There are prototypes for such a design in the Strasbourg fa9ade designs around 1270 to 1300 and during the first half of the fourteenth century this type of tracery spread over northern and eastern Germany. But again, I know not a single example that resembles the Faversham pattern exactly' (quoted in Pickvance 2007, 83). The gap between 1300-1350 and the dendro-dates of 1400-1420 shows how far chest decoration can lag behind new architectural styles. In other words, 'tradition' leads to a preference for established designs, a point often made by writers on furniture (Roe 1902, 36-40, Schmitz 1956, 22-25.)
Carved English chests of the 14th century have not been systematically studied. There is a group of probably 14th-century chests in England with traceried arcading most of which have mythical beasts in rectangular reserves on the stiles,
e.g. at Brancepeth (lost), Chevington, Derby, Hacconby, Kirkleatham, Saltwood and Wath and at the V&A (W49-1912, Wl8-1920) (Roe 1902, 36-48, Pickvance 2007, Sherlock, 2008, 27-8, 54-5, 2011, von Stiilpnagel 2000, 313). Their origin is not yet established.12 Hence it would be risky to treat them as English comparators. The same applies to a group of chests with traceried arcading and roundels in Lincolnshire (Simpson, 2014).
Again, von Stiilpnagel's survey of 13th- to 15th-century clamped chests is instructive. He shows numerous chests with traceried arcading which he dates from the first half of the 14th century to the 16th century, and a second group with quatrefoils on the stiles and the base of the fa9ade and with arcading containing stylised linenfold which he dates from the first half of the 15th century to the 16th century) (von Stiilpnagel 2000, 150-186). The early 15th-century date of the six 'Kentish Gothic' chests with traceried arcading and with quatrefoils on the stiles and apron thus fits comfortably with the dates of these two groups. However, von Stiilpnagel's survey does not show any chests with identical fa9ades to the six of interest: none have two registers of arcading, and where quatrefoils appear along the bottom of the fa9ade they are not carved on applied aprons but on the stiles and lower board. Spandrels are often found on early chests but the apron extending across the whole width of the chest appears to be exceptional on pre-1500 North German and Swedish chests. Plinths, which extend all the way round, are common in France and Spain but it is difficult to tell which are original and which have been added to conceal losses to the stiles. The carved fa9ade design thus shows close linkages but not an absolute match with the North German comparators.
120
image
'KENTISH GOTHIC' OR IMPORTED? A GROUP OF TRACERY-CARVED MEDIEVAL CHESTS
Ironwork
Locks. All of the six chests originally had one lock. This runs against the belief that medieval chests invariably had three locks. There are other groups of clamped medieval chests with single locks such as the arcaded gothic chests in east Kent and the Surrey and Sussex group of chests of probable similar date referred to earlier. Likewise, the North German chests illustrated and studied by von Stiilpnagel invariably have one lock. This is, therefore, a shared feature.
All six chests were designed with lock reserves for locks with concave-sided lock plates. Eames (1977, 142-3) notes that this was a common feature on the Continent as shown by the Flemish chests at Harty, York Minster and (formerly) Boughton Monchelsea (Eames 1977, 145-8, Christie's 1999). She says 'While I would not suggest that the presence of so simple a feature as the integrated lock plate [in the design] indicates an imported chest, its absence in a work as late as the 14th or 15th centuries does seem to imply the object in question is English' (1977, 143). Forty years later, with more chests dendro-dated and with more comparative studies, the present writer would be more confident that integrated lock reserves in chests before 1500 are indeed invariably a Continental feature.
The concave-sided type of lock for which the chests were designed is found extensively on North German chests from the early 14th century onwards (von Stiilpnagel 2000, 227, 246) and is thus consistent with our group of chests being from North Germany or a nearby region. However, this lock type is not diagnostic of a North German origin since such locks were also exported to England and the Low Countries (Geddes 1999, 233-4). They may also have been imitated in England. According to Chinnery they were in use in England from 1300-1550 (1979, 144).
Hinges. A second aspect of the ironwork is arguably the most intriguing feature of the chests, namely their morticed knuckle hinges. The contrast between the three or four small hinges and the weight and thickness of the chest lid is striking (Fig. 16). Large chests from 1200 onwards generally have either iron strap hinges which are fixed to the outside of the back and across the full depth of the surface of the lid, or pin (or pivot) hinges in which the lid cleat rotates on an iron rod fixed in a rebate at the top of the rear stile. (Some chests have both.) Iron strap hinges offer more security and are more costly. Hinges have not been systematically studied but the first English knuckle hinges the writer is aware of are on the Brasenose College Bursar's Chest of 1500-1515 (Eames 1977, 190-2, Chinnery 1979, 119). However, these are fixed to the surface rather than being morticed. The only pre- 1500 chests in England with morticed hinges the writer knows of are the Oxford chest, mentioned earlier, of c.1330 and of probable North German origin, and the later (1435-60) Boughton Monchelsea chest which, like the similar York Minster and Harty chests, is of Flemish origin (Pickvance 2014, Christie's 1999).13 This is good evidence in favour of the Continental origin of the chests studied here and is thus consistent with their originating in North Germany or a nearby region.
This observation raises the question of why morticed knuckle hinges were used. The Oxford chest and the six chests studied here have in common a lid with carved decoration; the Oxford chest has a lid design of gothic arcading at each end of the
121
image
CHRISTOPHER PICKVANCE
lid with trefoil heads and an empty field in between. Since, if iron strap hinges were nailed onto a carved lid they would partly obscure the lid design, it is possible that the idea of small morticed knuckle hinges in place of a pin or strap hinge was an innovation triggered by the desire to show the full carving on the lid.14 The Flemish Boughton Monchelsea chest, made 40 years later than the chests studied here and also with small morticed hinges has a single panel lid with a thick frame, a structure which makes the fixing of iron strap hinges difficult. Again the nature of the lid may have led to the use of a more compatible type of hinge. There are also mid 15th-century (framed and panelled) chests with morticed hinges at the Hotel Dieu, Beaune, founded by the Duke of Burgundy, Nicolas Rolin (Fran9ois, 1996). The Burgundian link to Flanders suggests a channel of influence to this institution and the chests have early parchemin panels with addorsed arcs of the type found in Flanders. Ideally it would be convenient to report that von Stiilpnagel found short, morticed, knuckle hinges on the five chests with carved lids he studied in Luneberg Heath monasteries. In fact, none of them had such hinges; the 1330 chest No. 402 had iron pin hinges and the 15th-century and later chests Nos 324-7 had short strap hinges, showing that there were alternatives to morticed hinges where lids were carved.
DISCUSSION
The approach adopted here has been to start from a group of similar chests and identifyfeatures which they share which are distinct from those of chests considered to have been made in England and which are exclusively found on chests in the purported country of origin.
How convincing is the evidence presented here that the six chests are indeed imported from what is now the North Germany-North Poland region? We have shown that a number of features of the chests are consistent with such an origin: the use of Baltic oak, the lid construction, and the concave-sided type of lock. However, these features are not in themselves diagnostic of the chests' origin since they are not restricted to the region. The features which are quite distinct from those common in England were shown to be the inward-sloping front, the high shelf, the apron, carved lid decoration (and its specific kind), the integrated lock reserve (probably) and morticed knuckle hinges.15 Six features is a large number and the first two in fact appear in Fig. 23. It is therefore considered likely that the six chests studied here are closely related to the 'late Luneberg' type of North German chests, which von Stiilpnagel dates to the period 1400-1500, which includes the early 15th-century dendro-dates obtained for the Faversham and Canterbury chests.
The proposal here that the 'Kentish Gothic' chests in Kent and Norfolk are in fact imported chests is not entirely new. As mentioned earlier, Conway reported that, for some, the Faversham chest was Flemish, but the consensus has been that they were domestic products. There is a lot of evidence of imported chests in inventories and port records. Eames's study makes great use of inventories and notes that many medieval chests are named by their assumed place of origin, e.g. Flanders chest, Danske (Danzig) chest, spruse (Prussian) chest (Eames 1977, 137, Pickvance 2012, 108-112, Sherlock, 2008, 10-12). Port records are more concerned with the dutiable contents of chests than with their containers. Indeed there is sometimes
122
image
'KENTISH GOTHIC' OR IMPORTED? A GROUP OF TRACERY-CARVED MEDIEVAL CHESTS
doubt about whether a chest is a crate for transport or a piece of furniture (Tracy 2001, 11-15). Eames (1977, 108-134) has discussed the many varieties of chest, their shapes, uses and the names used (coffer, chest, kist, etc.). The hope that usage will be consistent within and between countries and over time is likely to be false so any conclusions are likely to be provisional.
The importing of timber from Germany and subsequently from the eastern Baltic started in the 13th century and the result is the extensive use of Baltic oak in England especially in planked form rather than as structural timbers (Bowett 2012, 242-251). Tyers (2004) has suggested that the straight growth of Baltic oak meant that it was easier to convert into planking and that this was the key to the demand for it. There is some evidence that in the 1200-1500 period timber imports peaked around 1400, exactly the time when the 'Kentish Gothic' chests were made (Childs 2002, Daly 2007, 197-202). Moreover, the sixteen domed standard chests in Kent, which are part of a national group of 130 concentrated in the eastern coastal counties, proved also to date from the first two decades of the 15th century, precisely the same decades as the Faversham and Canterbury chests (Pickvance, 2012, 2015).16 This suggests that the chests studied here may have been part of a single Hanseatic export drive.
Postan (1933) argues that Hanseatic merchants were strongly favoured by the English state to ensure supplies of corn, timber and wood products but that this was later challenged by English merchants' demands for reciprocity. The reasons for the probable 1400 peak are complex. According to Postan (1987) the expansion and contraction of international trade was more influenced by piracy, war and international politics than by supply, demand, cost and profit. But how this applies to the flow of timber or wood products requires detailed economic data as well as information on the power of the Hanseatic towns and the entrepreneurial and military Teutonic order, which reached its zenith in 1400. The right gained by English merchants in the later 14th century to import goods from Baltic ports in English ships may be relevant to the 1400 peak (Simpson 2014, 240).
It is believed that timber and timber products were exported from a series of ports such as Stralsund, Danzig and Riga, and that chests were made near the port rather than a long way inland near the oak source. There is evidence of the importance of Danzig for timber processing and export and on the export of chests and coffers from Danzig to Hull in the 1450-1500 period (Childs 1986, Pickvance 2012, 145-6, Simpson 2014). Lynn is believed to have had a larger volume of trade with Danzig; the six chests studied here are likely to have arrived through Lynn and Sandwich. The distance over which Baltic oak was exported within the region is unknown; some undoubtedly went to Sweden to make chests. The result is that, faced with six chests made in a single constructional and decorative style and of Baltic oak, we can infer that they were made in a single workshop but we cannot be sure where within a region extending from North Germany to North Poland they were made. The fact that the 'late Luneberg' chests found in the Luneberg Heath are made of local oak makes it more likely that chests of similar construction made of Baltic oak come from North Poland, closer to the Polish timber source, or from parts of North Germany close to it.
This article has relied on the very detailed work of von Stiilpnagel on the Luneberg Heath monastery chests. However, there is a risk that too much importance is
123
image
CHRISTOPHER PICKVANCE
given to this set; the monasteries lie within a small area of 30km radius. The North Germany-North Poland region is very wide (from Luneberg to Gdansk is over 500km) and, given the well-known autonomy of German medieval towns, it is possible that many other chests were made, few of which have survived, with different workshops drawing on the same repertoire of motifs in distinct ways. It thus becomes easier to understand that while the construction of the chests studied here matches the 'late Luneberg' type no precise match for their carved fa9ades has so far been found. 17
In the early 20th century, English writers tended to assume that a chest in Kent was made in Kent. The term 'Kentish Gothic' was thus a self-evident description for the chests studied here. There was an awareness of imports but often not of their extent or quality; in some writings one can detect an equation of 'German made' with rough or inferior. The Litcham chest fitted uneasily under this label and was not given much attention. The discovery of the Norwich and Wighton chests also in Norfolk, a county well-placed to receive Hanseatic imports and one of the four counties (with Cambridgeshire, Suffolk and Kent) with the largest number of imported iron-bound domed standard chests, is a further challenge. The argument here that the six chests are imported has built on the greater knowledge of medieval chests now available, and has been helped particularly by dendrochronology and the internet, and especially by the pioneering study of von Stiilpnagel.
However, we have based our argument on existing knowledge, but emphasized that that knowledge is limited. In particular, identifying the features of chests that are specific to one country and those that are found more widely, the basis of our method, requires detailed studies of medieval chests from locations throughout Europe, which in practice are fragmentary. Our conclusions are thus advanced with caution and future research will undoubtedly modify them. The level of detail presented in this article is considered necessary to help build the bigger picture of medieval chests across Europe.
APPENDIX THE CHESTS: DIMENSIONS AND ALTERATIONS
Canterbury. 148 x 83 x 66cm. The chest is intact. Two later iron strap hinges of different lengths have been added. Front to back central batten over bottom is missing. Battens added under lid and across the outside of the back at top and bottom. Two later l 7th-century type locks and signs of former hasps and staples for padlocks. The chest has a dark brown stain; some red stain or paint remains in the recesses of the carved fa9ade.
Faversham. 163 x 93 x 72cm. Only the lid and fa9ade (with apron) remain; they are now attached to a pine structure. The lid has four later battens and is now attached by three modem iron strap hinges. Two later rectangular locks have been fitted to left and right of the original lock recess. The red stain in the recesses of the carved fa9ade is very clearly visible. Brown stain on lid.
Litcham. 148 x 76 x 66cm. The rear stiles have been replaced and the applied grids are incomplete and/or have been repaired. Strengthening battens have been
124
image
'KENTISH GOTHIC' OR IMPORTED? A GROUP OF TRACERY-CARVED MEDIEVAL CHESTS
added to lid, back and front. The hinges have been replaced. The lock plate is later but in a rectangular 15/16th-century style. The chest has dark brown stain.
Norwich. 133 x 87 x 62cm. (Gressenhall No. Ll974.29.3) The chest is intact ex cept for the base of the rear left stile which has been replaced by a narrow batten fixed to the side of the chest. Two lidded lockers replace the original till boxes; only the lid remains of the right hand locker. The lid has an add ed batten and the right hand cleat is loose. The chest does not have applied grids, but has had a later rail (now missing) dove-tailed to prevent the right hand side from splaying apart. The lid still has its original knuckle hinges; the right hand hinge is loose. The lock is later but made in the original con cave-sided style. Signs of a former hasp and staple for a padlock. The chest has brown stain.
Rainham. 160 x 88 x 72cm. The chest is intact but side aprons were added after 1887, the date of the engraving in Fig. 7. Later timber has been added to the rear stiles. The back has later vertical and horizontal iron straps and straps passing underneath. There are very old (original?) iron brackets at the cor ners. The lid is abraded and is now on two long, later, internal strap hinges; iron surface straps have been added to strengthen it. There are small inserts to the fa9ade and right hand lid cleat. Five buttresses have been replaced and re-fixed with nails; one buttress is now loose. The lock plate has been replaced by a metal cover. There are filled keyholes of later locks. There is no sign of colour; the chest appears to have been cleaned.
Wighton. 136 x 66 x 58cm. (Bundock, 2012) The lid and hinges are later and six of the eight buttresses are missing There is an insert in place of the lock plate. The feet of the stiles and lower part of the apron have been cut off, reducing the height. Both till boxes are now missing. John Stabler reports (September 2014): 'resembles the Litcham chest but the bottom 8 inches or so has been sawn off, the lid had been replaced with a plain pine one, and the hinges changed, no signs of applied grid fixings'. 18
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to Ian Tyers, Daniel Miles and Martin Bridge for their dendrochronological analyses; Edward Bundock, Jan Chinnery, Norbert Nussbaum, John Stabler, Sheila Sweetinburgh, Charles Tracy and Karl-Heinrich von Stiilpnagel for their advice; and Stanley Denham and Sharon Keenor (St John's Hospital), Anthony Oehring (Faversham), Sophie Towne and Joshua Giles (Norfolk Museums Reserve, Gressenhall), Alan Vousden (Rainham), Kerry Walpole (Litcham) and Elizabeth Boardman (Brasenose College), for access to chests. The author is grateful to Karl Heinrich von Stiilpnagel for permission to reproduce Figs 22 and 23, and to John Stabler for Fig. 6; all other photos are by the author.
125
image
CHRISTOPHER PICKVANCE
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bowett, A., 2012, Woods in British furniture-making 1400-1900, an illustrated historical dictionary, Oblong Creative:Wetherby and Royal Botanical Gardens: Kew.
Bridge, M.C. and Miles, D.H., 2016, The dendrochronological dating of a chest in St Johns Hospital, Canterbury, Kent [See report published on KAS website.]
Bundock, E.L., 2012, 'Church chests in the Burnham and Walsingham Deanery', unpubl. report.
Cescinsky, H. and Gribble, E.R., 1922, Early English Furniture and Woodwork (2 vols), Waverley: London.
Childs, W.R. (ed.), 1986, The Customs Accounts of Hull 1453-1490, Record Series, Vol. 144,Yorkshire Archaeological Society: Leeds.
Childs, W.R., 2002, 'Timber for cloth: changing commodities in Anglo-Baltic trade in the fourteenth century', in L. Berggren, N. Hybel and A. Landen (eds) Cogs, Cargoes and Commerce: maritime bulk trade in Northern Europe 1150-1450, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies: Toronto.
Chinnery,V,1979,OakFurniture: the British tradition, Antique Collectors Club: Woodbridge. Christie's,1999,Oak, Country Furniture and Works ofArt, Sale,Christie's South Kensington,
3 November 1999.
Conway, M., 1909, 'Some Kentish chests', The Burlington Magazine, 15 (78) 362-7.
Daly,A.,2007, Timber, Trade and Tree-rings: a dendrochronological analysis of structural oak timber in Northern Europe c. AD 1000 to c. AD 1650 (PH.D. thesis, University of Southern Denmark) (www.dendro.dk accessed 12 October 2016).
Duncan, L.L., 1906, Testamenta Cantiana, Mitchell, Hughes and Clark: London. https:// archive.org/stream/testamentacantia00dunc/testamentacantia00dunc_djvu.txt Accessed 6 October 2016�
Duncombe,J. and Battely,N.,1785,The History andAntiquities of the ThreeArchiepiscopal Hospitals and other Charitable Foundations at or near Canterbury, St. Augustine's College, Canterbury.
Eames, P.,1977, 'Furniture in England, France and the Netherlands from the twelfth to the fifteenth century', Furniture History, 13, 1-303.
Franc;;ois,B., 1996, 'La menuiserie de meuble a l'H6tel-Dieu de Beaune au milieu du XVe siecle',Actes du Vie Congres international d'Archeologie Medievale, 6 (1), 270-4.
Geddes, J., 1999, Medieval Decorative Ironwork in England, Society of Antiquaries of London: London.
Giraud,F.F.,1889,'On goods and ornaments at Faversham church A.D. 1512',Archaeologia
Cantiana, 18, 103-113.
Holland,E. (trans.),1934, The Canterbury Chantries and Hospitals in 1546, together with some others in the neighbourhood: a Supplement to Kent Chantries, Kent Archaeological Society: Ashford.
Johnston, P.M., 1907, 'Church chests of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in England',
Archaeological Journal, 64, 243-306.
Macquoid,P. and Edwards,R. (eds),1954,Dictionary of English Furniture, 3 vols,Antique Collectors' Club: Woodbridge.
Miles, D.W.H., 2006, 'Refinements in the interpretation of tree-ring dates for oak building timbers in England and Wales', VernacularArchitecture, 37, 84-96.
Newman,J.H., 2002, West Kent and the Weald, Yale UP: London. Nussbaum,N., 2000, German GothicArchitecture, Yale UP: London. Pearman,A.J., 1887, 'Rainham Church',Archaeologia Cantiana, 17, 49-65.
Pickvance, C.G., 2007, 'Medieval tracery-carved clamp-fronted chests: the 'Kentish Gothic' chests of Rainham, Faversham and Canterbury in comparative perspective', Regional Furniture, 21, 67-94.
126
image
'KENTISH GOTHIC' OR IMPORTED? A GROUP OF TRACERY-CARVED MEDIEVAL CHESTS
Pickvance, C.G., 2012, 'Domed medieval chests in Kent: a contribution to a national and international study', Regional Furniture, 26, 105-147.
Pickvance, C.G., 2014, 'The tracery-carved, clamp-fronted, medieval chest at St Mary Magdalen Church, Oxford in comparative North-West European perspective',Antiquaries Journal, 94, 153-171.
Pickvance, C.G., 2015, 'A study of medieval iron-bound 'domed standard' chests in Kent',
Archaeologia Cantiana, 136, 141-162.
Pickvance, C.G. forthcoming, 'The East Kent group of arcaded gothic chests: an unrecog nised group of medieval chests', submitted for publication.
Postan, M.M., 1933, 'The economic and political relations of England and the Hanse from 1400 to 1475', in E. Powell and M.M. Postan(eds), Studies in English Trade in the Fifteenth Century, Routledge: London.
Postan, M.M., 1987, 'The trade of medieval Europe in the North', in M.M. Postan and E. Miller (eds), The Cambridge Economic History of Europe, Vol. 2, Trade and industry in the MiddleAges, 2nd edn, CUP.
Roe, F., 1902, Ancient Coffers and Cupboards, Methuen: London. Roe, F., 1905, Old Oak Furniture, Methuen: London.
Roe, F., 1920, History of Oak Furniture, The Connoisseur: London. Roe, F., 1929, Ancient Church Chests and Chairs, Batsford: London.
Salzman, L.F., 1952, Building in England down to 1540, Clarendon Press: Oxford. Schmitz, H., 1956, The Encyclopaedia of Furniture, Zwemmer: London.
Sherlock, D., 2008, Suffolk Church Chests, Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and History: Ipswich.
Sherlock, D., 2011, 'The Prittlewell chest panels and a group of English church chests deorated with tracery and bestiaries'. Transactions of the Essex Society for Archaeology and History, 2, 173-187.
Simpson, W.G., 2014, 'Seeing the wood for the trees: Poland and the Baltic timber trade c.1250-1650', BAA Transactions, 37, 235-254.
Simpson, W.G. and Litton, C.D., 1996, 'Dendrochronology in cathedrals', in T. Tatton Brown and J. Munby(eds), TheArchaeology of Cathedrals, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology: Oxford.
Tracy, C., 2001, Continental Church Furniture in England: a Traffic in Piety, Antique Collectors' Club: Woodbridge.
Tyers, I., 2004, 'The eastern Baltic timber trade', in A. Massing(ed.), The Thornham Parva Retable, Harvey Miller: London.
Tyers, I., 2007, The tree-ring analysis of a piece of furniture: a chest from the parish church of St Mary of Charity, Faversham, Kent. [See report published on KAS website.] Von Stiilpnagel, K-H., 2000, Die Gothische Truhen der Li.ineberger Heidekloster,
Museumsdorf Cloppenburg: Cloppenburg.
ENDNOTES
I Chinnery's typology treats features such as lid shape, the presence of legs and plinths as secondary; they are given more importance by Eames (1977, 108-180) who uses the term hutch for this type ofchest. Geddes (1999, 32) uses the term stile chest, close to the German term stollentruhe.
2 They do not appear in his list of 'late medieval chests' which have 'long been recognised as of Continental origin' (Tracy 2001, 15).
3 The preceding list of'movable goods' suggests the chests were used to store church plate, altar and other cloths, a latten cross and censor, and mass books. Thanks to Sheila Sweetinburgh for this reference.
4 There are diagonal holes in the front upper comers ofthe stiles at Norwich only. These are also found on the Dersingham chest and the lid ofthe Buxted ark. Their purpose is unknown: it could be for concealed pegs for additional security, or for tying down when being transported.
127
image
CHRISTOPHER PICKVANCE
s Roe (1902, 43) suggested that the back of the Rainham chest was also inward-sloping but this is a misunderstanding, perhaps based on the 1887 engraving - see Fig. 7.
The chronologies are continuously evolving as more samples are taken: t values reflect the prevailing state of research.
The date refers to when the timber was felled, after which two years is usually allowed for seasoning for oak of 5cm thickness as in these two chests, to provide a terminus post quem for the date of construction (Miles 2006).
8 Ian Tyers (pers. comm., October 2016)
This is based on the author's current research on this group.
10 This drawing does not show the tapered cross-section shape of the stiles of the six chests.
11 A groove for a high shelf was also present on the Boughton Monchelsea chest, discussed below, which suggests that the idea extended later to Flanders (Christie's 1999).
12 The V&A chests were acquired in Germany. For Tracy they are Continental imports from the Low Countries or Germany (2001, 15-16).
13 Thanks to Jan Chinnery for her detailed notes on this chest (pers. comm., November 2015.)
14 Another solution would have been to use pin hinges which would not obscure the carved design; this is still a subject requiring research.
15 The combination of tracery and quatrefoil carving on the fac;ade may also be distinctive, but research on English chests does not allow us to say so yet.
16 Postan describes these two decades as 'normal years', very favourable for exports; Baltic timber arriving in England cost twice its cost in Danzig, whereas by the 1430s it cost ten times as much (1987, 203).
17 The Sedlescombe and Wittersham chests mentioned earlier, which have slightly different fac;ades, show that other workshops made related chests. Likewise, the great variation in the ironwork of the domed standard chests show that they were produced in many workshops (Pickvance 2015).
18 All Saints, Wighton, was rededicated in 1412 which may be related to the acquisition of the chest.
128
image
A PREHISTORIC RING-DITCH AT MARTIN, NEAR DOVER
KEITH PARFITT AND RICHARD HOSKINS
The Dover Archaeological Group was engaged to maintain a watching-brief during the construction of a new barn, stables and equestrian arena/sand school at Martin, on the dip-slope of the North Downs near Dover (Fig. 1). Groundworks were conducted across two areas, in 2012 and 2015. The excavations in 2012 unexpectedly revealed the partial outline of a substantial prehistoric ring-ditch, several pits and evidence for Bronze Age flint-knapping. The work in 2015, further up-slope, allowed the recovery of more prehistoric flints but exposed no associated features.
The areas investigated (NGR TR 33842 46619, centred and NGR TR 33811 46676, centred; Fig. 1) lie within the modem civil parish of Langdon and occupy paddocks bounded by East Langdon Road on the south-east side, further paddocks to the north-west and north-east and by open agricultural fields to the south-west. The medieval parish church of East Langdon is some 830m to the south-west.
The ring-ditch discovered in 2012 lay towards the bottom of a long, south-east facing slope, at an elevation of almost 70m AOD (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2). The slope defines one side of a broad, dry Downland valley (Lay Bottom), running north east towards the coast. Chalk ridges on either side of this valley overlook the site and rise to between 80 and 90m AOD. The natural geology here consists of Upper Chalk (Seaford Formation) capped by a thin, flinty yellow-brown clay Head deposit (i.e. hill slope material moved under periglacial conditions). The Tithe Map of the 1840s and the 1936 Land Utilisation Survey of Great Britain (map Sheet 117, accessed online, 22/8/16) show the area as then being arable land, rather than pasture as today.
The fall of the ground necessitated cut-and-fill terracing of the hill-slope for the new building work and parts of the site were reduced to a depth of 1.25m into the natural subsoil. As exposed during these excavations, the surface of the chalk below the clay was found to be heavily eroded, with numerous natural silt filled runnels and solution hollows present (Fig. 3). Several natural features were initially mistaken as being archaeological.
Archaeological background
The Downland of this region is exceptionally rich in cropmarks and forms part of the 'Sutton Wedge', a triangular block of rolling, waterless chalk country extending between Dover, Deal and Adisham (Fig. 1, Perkins 2010). More than 350 round barrow sites, nearly all known as ring-ditch cropmarks on aerial photographs rather
129
image
KEITH PARFITT AND RICHARD HOSKINS
N
Cl)
I I I
I
I
I1,t
I
I
/
/
/
/ /
//��
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
EAST LANGDON
Cropmark
0
Orn 200m
Fig. 1 Plan showing location of excavated ring-ditch and ground cleared in 2015.
than standing field monuments, have been recorded here (Perkins 2010). Significant numbers of cropmark sites, including enclosures, field-systems, trackways and ring-ditches are known in the fields around Langdon and Martin, although none has been excavated. Nothing was known of the present monument before the investigations began but there are cropmarks of several similar ring-ditch sites in the vicinity. These are all most likely to represent plough-damaged round barrows (see below). About 225m to the south of the present site, cropmarks of two such ring-ditches occur near the summit of the ridge (Hollands Hill), with another one about half way down the hill-side around 100m further to the south-west of these
130
image
A PREHISTORIC RING-DITCH AT MARTIN, NEAR DOVER
Fig. 2 General view of the site from the south. The central barn now lies over the ring-ditch.
Fig. 3 The ring-ditch under excavation, looking downhill to the south-east.
131
image
KEITH PARFITT AND RICHARD HOSKINS
(Fig. 1). Google Earth imagery (2007) shows the clear outlines of several others at no great distance, with examples located about 765m to the north-west, 804m to the north and 818m to the west of the excavated site. These various ring-ditches are all 15-20m in diameter and most appear as single monuments. They tend to be located on the mid/upper north-west facing slopes of ridges, at elevations of between 73 and 88m AOD. Such locations stand in contrast to the south-east facing aspect, and near valley-bottom positioning, of the 2012 ring-ditch.
Other evidence for ancient activity in the region is provided by scatters of prehistoric flintwork. An area producing such lithic material was recorded during the construction of the East Langdon village hall car park, about 380m to the south west of the present site in 2005 (Parfitt and Parfitt 2005). Nevertheless, a general paucity of struck flints within fields in the immediate vicinity of East Langdon and Martin has been previously observed (Tina Parfitt pers. comm.). This contrasts markedly with the general situation across this part of east Kent where such finds are frequently abundant in the local fields.
EXCAVATED REMAINS
The clearance work undertaken during 2012 exposed the partial outline of a substantial prehistoric ring-ditch (Fig. 3). Subsequently, in 2015, a piece of ground around 50m further upslope to the north-west of the ring-ditch was cleared down to the surface of the natural subsoil (Fig. 1). This new area measured about 13.00m (NW-SE) by 21.50m (NE-SW) but revealed nothing of further archaeological interest beyond a small collection of prehistoric struck flints contained within the upper soil deposits.
Despite cold, wet conditions, the investigations of 2012 succeeded in revealing about one-third of the circumference of a prehistoric ring-ditch (F. 5). Additional trenching established that the overall diameter of this was about 20m (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4). Several deliberately cut pits and a possible central grave were also recorded. A series of hand-dug trenches was cut across the ring-ditch, whilst a careful examination of the central part of the enclosed area was conducted to reveal the possible grave. Around half the monument remained un-investigated and should now lie preserved below the finished level of the new development and in the adjacent field to the south-west.
The outer ring-ditch, F 5
Cutting through a number of natural solution hollows, the ring-ditch (F. 5) where exposed was unbroken by any entrance causeway and was mainly filled by a succession of clay silts, without doubt derived from the clays naturally occurring on the site (Fig. 3). It was possible to excavate and record nine separate sections through the ditch in three sectors (designated North, East and South sectors). Details are set out below.
North sector: at 21m in length this was by far the longest sector of ditch exposed (Fig. 3): a total of 9.70m was fully excavated here in seven separate trenches (Fig. 4). The ditch generally had a truncated V-shaped profile, with a slightly dished
132
image
Building
Fence
633836.0mE
146643.0mN
------
·-·-·-· · · ----
------ · ,
'
\ I
w w
[7]
---S21
�---
(17) ff'
[24]
new fence
B�lldlng Orn
10m
633844.0mE
146603.0mN
Fig. 4 General plan of the excavated ring-ditch.
image
KEITH PARFITT AND RICHARD HOSKINS
(8)
Fig. 5 Sections across ring-ditch F. 5 and later pits Fs 7, 9 and 11.
and, in places, a flat base which was about 0.50m wide. It varied in width between
1.20 and 1.70m at the top, with slightly convex sloping sides, becoming steeper and sometimes almost vertical towards the base. The depth ranged between 0.55 and 0.70m (Figs 5 and 6).
The generally fresh appearance of its sides at the lower levels clearly indicated that these represented the original profile of the ditch, whilst the upper, shallower
134
image
l\
SE
71.03m OD
NW
..
(1)
.:- .. (3) �
.. ,......
(2}
(14)
Section 1
(14)
.
'F. [5]
NW
70.02m OD l\
Section 5
.
SE
(4)
F. [5]
--(3)• I �
• I
.. , (10) #
I
..
.
(4)
NW
69.93m OD
l\ �- ��-I� ----,_
SE
(4)
(6) .. -• -�.- I -(3) -. I
(4)
F. [7]
F. [5]
Section 3
F. [9]
N
S
ernmOo �)· Section 10
F. [5]
Orn
1m
2m
A PREHISTORIC RING-DITCH AT MARTIN, NEAR DOVER
7\ 69.25m o o
----.�-
=+--(20)
Fig. 6 Sections across ring-ditch F. 5 and central pit F. 24.
slopes suggested subsequent weathering of the ditch sides, creating a width somewhat greater than that first dug. In several places on the base of the ditch localised areas of a primary silt were represented by a cream-coloured chalky deposit containing very frequent small chalk lumps. This was generally found lying on the inner edge of the ditch, although occasionally it was also present on
135
image
NE
SW
69.43m OD � =-�-/1('?
7\
?')
(22)
Section 22 (25)
(23)-------
22
(26)
'(//Jjff/-- (23)
F. [5]
w
(18)
Section 20
F. [5]
SW
NE
Section 21
F. [24]
7\ 69.27m oD
I
SE
NW
(20)
I .. _J.---• -� _____, Section 15
Orn
1m
2m
KEITH PARFITT AND RICHARD HOSKINS
the outer edge (Fig. 6, Section 22, Context 23). No finds were recovered from this layer. Elsewhere on the northern side the lowest filling comprised a firm yellow brown silty clay containing moderate quantities of medium and large natural flint nodules as well as occasional small black pebbles (Context 21; not shown on sections). This deposit appeared to have eroded into the ditch from the outside and was very similar to Context 25, observed on the east side (Fig. 6, Section 22). No archaeological finds were contained within either deposit.
Above the lowest layers, the filling ofthe ring-ditch was generally quite uniform, consisting of an orange-brown clay with moderate quantities of small, medium and large flint nodules and angular flints as well as very occasional small black flint pebbles (Fig. 5, Sections 1, 3, 5 and 10, Context 3). This deposit yielded a combined total of seventy-seven prehistoric struck flints, a single calcined (burnt) flint, and ten small sherds of prehistoric pottery. The majority of these finds were discovered in the upper halfofthe deposit, with the lower part being almost devoid of finds. At one point, a localised group of struck flints, including several which were later found to join, were noted, implying in situ flint knapping. The pot sherds recovered consist of a single (residual) piece of probable Early Neolithic ware, four Early Bronze Age Beaker fragments and five sherds of Bronze Age Collared Um (see below).
An upper ditch fill recorded on the north-east side (Fig. 6, Section 22, Context 27) contained more than fifty struck flints, including a retouched blade but there was no associated pottery. Subsequently, on the north-west side, three substantial prehistoric pits were found to have been cut into the infilled ring-ditch (Fig. 4: Fs 7, 9 and 11, see below).
East sector: a single trench measuring 2.50 by 0.85m was dug on the eastern side of the ring-ditch (Section 20 as shown on Fig. 4). Here, the slope of the natural chalk was pronounced, being some 0.30m higher on the western (inner) side of the ring-ditch than on the east (Fig. 6, Section 20). This differential, however, may have been exaggerated by the presence of a large solution hollow on the eastern side (Context 22).
The ring-ditch was both wider and deeper here than elsewhere, being 1.75- l.85m wide at the top and 0.85-0.90m deep. The base was 0.55m wide and rounded. The main lower filling of the ditch here (Fig. 6, Section 20, Context 18) consisted of a soft orange-brown clay containing moderate quantities ofnatural angular flint. This was overlain by an upper deposit offirm yellow-brown clay with lesser amounts of flint (Section 20, Context 19). A small number of struck flints was recovered from this upper fill but no pottery was present.
South sector: although the finished level of the proposed works at the southern end of the site was well above the visible top of the ring-ditch, the land-owner willingly agreed to machine-excavate an additional deeper trench (Fig. 4, Section 15) in order to locate more ofthe ditch and allow its full diameter to be ascertained. The trench was about 4.0m long and 1.50-2.00m wide.
Removal of more than one metre of topsoil, clay and flint over-burden here exposed the eroded surface of the natural chalk. Reflecting the natural slope of the ground, the edge of the chalk on the north-western side of the ditch was found to
136
image
A PREHISTORIC RING-DITCH AT MARTIN, NEAR DOVER
lie about 0. l 5m higher than on the south-east side. The top of the ditch, however, could be seen to cut in from the overlying clay between 0.10 and 0.15m above the chalk surface.
A two-metre length of the ring-ditch was fully excavated. This varied in width across the top from 1.15m on the south-west side to 1.45m on the north-east side. It was between 0.65 and 0.70m deep, with slightly convex, sloping sides near the top, giving way to much steeper, almost vertical, sides towards the base (Fig. 6, Section 15). The base itself was 0.55-0.65m wide.
Two fills occurred within the ring-ditch here. These were the same as those recorded in the East sector (Fig. 6, Section No. 15, Contexts 18 and 19). The upper deposit
(19) tailed back some way to the north-west, beyond the uphill edge of the ditch. A moderate quantity of struck flint was recovered from this upper filling but there was no pottery. Subsequently, a shallow pit containing much more struck flint had been cut into the top of Context 19, over the main ditch (Fig. 4, F. 16, see below).
The area enclosed by the ring-ditch
A careful search was made for contemporary features, particularly burials, enclosed within the ring-ditch. An area of about 120m2 was examined but the presence of an extensive complex of clay filled solution hollows across much of the area hampered the work (Fig. 4, Context 17; see above). Two features of archaeological interest were eventually identified - a centrally located pit (Fig. 4, F. 24) which might have been a grave and, a little further to the north, a localised spread of flinty clay that could represent a final remnant of any associated barrow mound (Fig. 4, Context 28).
Centralpit F24: cut into natural solution hollow (Context 17) was a pit (F. 24). This lay close to the centre of the area enclosed by the ring-ditch, occupying a position where any burials associated with the monument might have been expected. The pit, itself, was an elongated oval in shape and measured about 2.54m (NW-SE) by 0.90-1.06m (NE-SW), its main axis following the natural fall of the ground (Fig. 4). It was 0.32 to 0.44m deep, with steep/sloping sides and a rounded base (Fig. 6, Section 21). The filling consisted of a uniform layer of soft brownish-yellow clay (Context 12) which contained occasional large flint nodules, thin lenses of natural manganese and a number of small black pebbles. It was fully excavated and a twenty-litre sample of the filling was wet-sieved for additional finds, with a negative result. In the central part of the pit, nine prehistoric pot-sherds and a similar number of struck flints were found within the upper zone of the filling. The pot-sherds have been tentatively identified as probably being of the Early Neolithic period and are most likely to be residual (see below).
Clay layer, Context 28: a distinctive patch of dark brown clay (Context 28), measuring approximately 4.50m (NW-SE) by at least 2.00m (sw-NE) and containing more frequent angular flints than all the adjacent deposits, was noted a short distance to the north of the central pit (Fig. 4). This thin layer extended across an area of shallow solution hollows and might have constituted nothing more than the uppermost filling of these, but there is a possibility that it represented the last
137
image
KEITH PARFITT AND RICHARD HOSKINS
remnants of a clay barrow mound set within the ditched area. No archaeological material was recovered but the deposit could not be investigated in any detail.
Later pits cutting the ring-ditch, Fs 7, 9, 11 and 16
A group of three later pits was identified in the North sector (Fig. 4, Fs 7, 9 and 11). These were closely spaced and appeared to be partially dug into the ring ditch filling, although their edges were very difficult to define outside the chalk-cut portions. A shallower fourth pit was located in the South sector (Fig. 4, F. 16).
Pit F7: this was the largest pit located, cutting into the outer edge of the ring-ditch on its north-west side. It was roughly oval in shape, measuring about 3.20m (NE-SW) by 1.60m (NW-SE). It was up to 0.81m deep with irregular, sloping sides and an uneven base. The filling (Context 6) consisted ofyellow-brown silty clay containing a moderate quantity of small angular flints, occasional very large flint nodules and very occasional small black pebbles, together with forty-one prehistoric struck flints (Fig. 5, Section 3). These were found evenly distributed throughout the filling down to the lowest level but there was no associated pottery.
Pit F9: this lay immediately south-east of pit F. 7 cutting the inner lip of the ring-ditch. It was oval in shape, up to 1.90m in diameter and 0.55m deep. The sides were steeply sloping with a dished base. The filling (Context 8) consisted of a single deposit of yellow-brown silty clay containing frequent small and medium sized angular flints and very occasional small black flint pebbles (Fig. 5, Section 3). Seven pieces ofstruck flint were contained with in the upper 0.20m of the filling.
Pit F 11: this lay just south of pit F. 7, adjacent to pit F. 9 and again appeared to cut the inner lip of the ditch. It was circular in shape, 1.50m in diameter and 0.79m deep. The sides were very steep and the base rounded. The filling (Context 10) again consisted of a single deposit of yellow-brown silty clay containing moderate quantities of small and medium sized angular flints, occasional large angular flints and very occasional small black flint pebbles (Fig. 5, Section 5). All the archaeological finds occurred in the upper 0.20m of the fill and consisted of two struck flints and three large sherds from a Late Bronze Age pottery beaker (Fig. 7, see below).
Pit F 16: this circular, flint-filled pit was found cutting into the ring-ditch in the South sector (Fig. 4). Excavation showed it to constitute nothing more than a shallow depression, about 0.08m deep and 0.55m in diameter. Its grey brown clay filling (Context 15, not shown on section) proved to be full of prehistoric struck flints and other knapping debris that extended a little be yond the depression to cover an area up to one metre across. More than 250 struck flints were recovered from this deposit during excavation (Table 1). The entire fill of the pit was retained and subsequently wet-sieved. This yielded further numerous extremely small struck flints and micro-debitage, amounting to 102g of additional material (see below). A small, intrusive sherd of early Roman pottery was also recovered.
138
image
Context No.
Description
No. offlints
2012
Ploughsoil/unstratified
64
2
Hillwash
44
Lower filling of ring-ditch,F. 5
0
3,19,27
Upper filling ofring-ditch,F. 5
158
6
Filling ofpit,F. 7,cutting ring-ditch
41
8
Filling ofpit,F. 9,cutting ring-ditch
7
10
Filling ofpit,F. 11,cutting ring-ditch
2
15
Filling ofpit,F. 16,cutting ring-ditch
270
12
Uppermost filling of pit,F. 24 (?grave)
9
2015
Ploughsoil/unstratified
63
Total
658
A PREHISTORIC RING-DITCH AT MARTIN,NEAR DOVER TABLE 1. DISTRIBUTION OF PREHISTORIC FLINTWORK
Subsequent deposits (Contexts 1, 2 and 20)
The natural Head deposit (Context 14), the infilled ring-ditch and the later pits were all sealed by a layer of down-washed clay (Figs 5 and 6, Sections 1, 15 and 20, Contexts 2 and 20). This was of almost identical composition to the Head deposit, making the junction between the two virtually impossible to define in many areas. These two clay subsoil layers were 0.35-0.65m in combined thickness and were overlain by 0.28-0.37m of recent plough soil and turf (Fig. 5, Section 1, Context 1).
FINDS
Relatively small assemblages of prehistoric pottery and flintwork were recovered during the fieldwork. Metal-detector searches of the ring-ditch area failed to reveal any significant finds. The material collected currently remains in the possession of the Dover Archaeological Group but, subject to agreement, will be transferred to Dover Museum in due course. Notes on the finds are set out below.
Pottery by Nigel Macpherson-Grant
A small collection of pottery was recovered during the 2012 excavations. The bulk of this material is prehistoric in date and from stratified contexts. In addition, one medieval sherd came from the topsoil (Context 1) and one post-medieval sherd from the hillwash (Context 2) during the machine work (not included below). Most of the stratified sherds were small. Three large pieces found in the top of pit F. 11 unfortunately crumbled into more than one hundred fragments during and after their lifting from the rain-saturated ground.
139
image
KEITH PARFITT AND RICHARD HOSKINS
The material submitted for examination forms a multi-period assemblage consisting of 124 pieces (719g). This overall figure includes the fragmented sherds recovered from pit F. 11 and may be sub-divided into three main period groups - Early Prehistoric, Later Prehistoric and Early Roman. The majority of the material is readily identifiable and on the basis of its association with the ring-ditch, probably derives from the monument's original and subsequent use. However, ten sherds provisionally dated to the Early Neolithic, most probably relate to pre monument activity.
Early Prehistoric pottery (Neolithic and Early Bronze Age)
Early Neolithic: ten sherds of possible Early Neolithic date were recorded from two contexts - one fragment from the upper fill of the main ring-ditch (Context 3) and nine from the filling of pit F. 24, at the centre of the ring-ditch (Context 12). The small fragment from the upper ditch fill is fresh and unworn. Those from F. 24 are small or fairly small and represent fragments from three or four different vessels. All share the same wear pattern - slightly worn externally, fresh internally
- clearly they were all deposited at the same time, with their internal surfaces face down.
The manufacturing trends of these pieces are a little ambiguous. The fairly coarse and moderately sparse flint tempering of this group would be in keeping with observed Early Neolithic potting trends - similar material has recently been noted from the Early Neolithic causewayed enclosure at Court Stairs, Ramsgate. However, broadly comparable fabrics can be found in certain fineware bowls of the Early-Middle Iron Age period. The present pieces are not quite typical of Iron Age material and, on balance, an Early Neolithic date is preferred here.
Beaker: Context 3, the main fill of ring-ditch, also produced a small quantity of Early Bronze Age sherds. These consisted of four Beaker fragments and five Collared Um sherds. The Beaker tradition is represented by one fineware and three coarseware elements. There is a small body sherd from a rather drab red brown oxidised Beaker made with a potting-mix containing fine grog and sparse, sometimes rather coarse, flint. The surviving decoration consists of three or four somewhat irregular horizontal lines framing a probable panel containing vertical sub-divisions. The decoration was made using a rather worn fine-toothed comb with rectangular teeth. The coarseware component consists of three moderate sized sherds, two conjoining, from a fairly large-diameter vessel made in a mixed temper, grog and flint, fabric fired a drab brown-buffin oxidising conditions - and decorated with wide-spaced finger-nail and finger-pinch impressions. There is no reason to assume that they are not broadly contemporary with the fineware sherd, and the relative crudeness of the latter's fabric and decoration suggests a fairly late Beaker, c.2000-1700 BC.
Collared Urn: the second tradition is represented by five small or fairly small body sherds, all made in a low-fired near-black greasy, coarsely grog-tempered fabric. Two small fragments carry traces of worn cord-impressed decoration. All the pieces are fairly heavily worn and come from the same crudely-made thin-
140
image
A PREHISTORIC RING-DITCH AT MARTIN, NEAR DOVER
walled vessel. Whilst its difference in condition compared with the rather better fired Beaker sherds could, and may, suggest a later date - it could also be due to the radically poorer potting and softer fabric. The Collared Um tradition began around 2000 BC and had a longer currency than Beakers so that a date range between c.2000 and 1600 BC is initially reasonable.
Later Prehistoric
The Late Bronze Age beaker from Pit F 11: the upper filling of pit F. 11 produced 103 highly fragmented small to fairly large sherds weighing 638g (see above). These are from a single fineware vessel whose sherds are near-fresh with little or no obvious edge-wear - and clearly all deposited at the same time. Their soft and fragile nature meant that it was impractical to clean them - other than a superficial removal ofexcess soil. Although the complete profile is technically restorable, any reconstruction could only be based on a few larger elements, with any observation of surface detail reduced to a minimum by remnant soil. The reconstruction (Fig. 7) is unapologetically simple with no attempt to indicate surface details or finish except for main formal aspects. The resulting beaker or deep bowl is made of fine sandy-silty clay tempered with fairly profuse moderately fine flint grits. It is moderately hard-fired with completely reduced dark grey-black surfaces. It was neatly made with a mostly even and fairly thin body wall. The rim is neat and even and the body profile elegantly smooth. Its apparently undecorated exterior was finished with a moderate but even burnish - its interior similarly, except towards the base which was only roughly wiped.
Fig. 7 Pottery vessel recovered from pit F. 11 (¼).
Finding ready parallels within the ex1stmg regional comparanda is difficult. In a way its form is, superficially, fairly closely related to an angle-shouldered fineware bowl from the lower ditch fill of the square Enclosure B70 at Highstead, Chislet - and typologically dated to that site's Period 2, c.900-600 BC. The construction of the enclosure and its first use was considered to be fairly early within that range, partly on the basis of the bowl, which had a relatively close parallel in Belgium dated to Halstatt B2/B3, c.900-700 BC (Couldrey 2007, 118
141
image
KEITH PARFITT AND RICHARD HOSKINS
and fig. 57, no.I). However, this bowl has different body proportions compared with the present vessel. Again, in a way, the latter's profile is not dissimilar to the likely form of a flaring-necked coarseware jar from recent Channel Tunnel Rail Link-associated work at Cobham Golf Course (Morris 2006, fig. 3.5a, CGC/16). More significantly, that site also produced an undecorated fineware beaker with similar vertical body-portion ratios to the Martin vessel (op. cit. fig. 3.5a CGC/12). Both the Cobham vessels were associated with a radiocarbon date of c.980-820 cal. BC, and considered to belong to the currently-termed 'Plainware' tradition of the Late Bronze Age, dated - within the radiocarbon sequence established for CTRL's Later Prehistoric assemblages - to 1150-800 cal. BC (Morris 2006, fig. 3.2). Unfortunately, the Martin vessel lacks useful associations - contemporary pottery, metalwork or radiocarbon dating. Despite this absence, it is considered to be stylistically nearer to the Cobham beaker than the Highstead bowl - and more likely closer to Late Bronze traditions than those of Earliest Iron Age date. On this basis, it could initially be placed c.1000-800 BC.
However, a suite of radiocarbon dates obtained by Wessex Archaeology for a sequence of early first millennium BC pottery from Cliffsend, Thanet, has allowed for a modification of the original 2006 CTRL dating of c.800 BC for the beginning of the Kentish Earliest Iron Age - at least within the eastern part of the region. This indicates that although ceramic elements of EIA character were appearing c.1000- 900 cal. BC, the main surge of EIA-type ceramic now appears to have begun as early as 900 cal. BC (Barclay and Leivers pers. comm.). For the Martin beaker, if a typological inclination towards the Late Bronze Age is correct, its form suggests it could be in a 'halfway house' between the Cobham beaker and Highstead bowl. 'Marrying' the scientific and typological dating quoted thus could place it c.1000- 900 BC - and within the cultural interface between the Late Bronze and Earliest Iron Age traditions. (A full report is held in the site archive.)
Early Roman
Two small, worn body-sherds were recovered. One came from the hillwash (Context 2), the other was intrusive in the top of pit, F. 16. Both sherds are probably derived from later first century and earlier second century AD agricultural manuring scatters. They are local wares, one native grog-tempered and one a Canterbury sandy ware product.
Prehistoric flintwork by GeoffHalliwell
Almost 600 prehistoric struck flints (nearly 17.5kg) were found during the course of the 2012 investigations, with a further 63 recovered in 2015 from deposits up slope to the north-west. The complete assemblage (658 pieces; almost 20.75kg) is described in more detail below; none of the flints recovered is worthy of illustration and relatively few tools are present.
Distribution: the bulk of the flint material recovered came from the 2012 excavations on the ring-ditch site (Table 1). Here, just over a quarter of the flintwork was contained within the upper filling of the ring-ditch itself (158 pieces). At several
142
image
A PREHISTORIC RING-DITCH AT MARTIN, NEAR DOVER
points around its circumference, localised clusters of flakes suggested that episodes of flint knapping had occurred within the partially infilled ditch. Study of these flint clusters has enabled some refitting of flakes to cores, largely confirming the point. Significant post ring-ditch groups are represented by the flints recovered from pits
F. 7 and F. 16. In particular, the small pit F. 16 was full of struck material and other flint-knapping debris. The work of 2015, up-hill from the ring-ditch, showed that there prehistoric flints were more sparsely scattered, with no associated features. Table 1 above summarises the distribution of flint material recovered.
Methodology: all struck flint recovered by hand during the investigations was allocated by context number, washed and initially graded according to the degree of patination (Table 2). Each piece was then examined for evidence of manufacture
into a specific tool type, signs of use, or was noted as unaltered, and then catalogued accordingly. Examination for working revealed comparatively few definite tools. Where retouch of some kind was found, the piece was allocated to one of five groups, namely, scraper, point, rod, miscellaneous retouch, or 'other' (which includes serrated flakes, cores, notched pieces, etc.), as summarised in Table 3.
TABLE 2. ATTRIBUTION OF STRUCK FLINT ACCORDING TO PATINATION
Type
No.
Unpatinated
506
Slight blue-mottled
123
Well patinated blue-white
15
Deep white
14
Total
658
TABLE 3. TOOL TYPES AND WORKED OR UTILISED FLINTS FROM THE INVESTIGATIONS
Context Scraper Point Rod Misc. Other Total
retouch
2012, Topsoil and subsoil
4
6
1
10
5
26
2015, Topsoil and subsoil
4
5
1
16
0
26
2012, Features
6
1
0
0
3
10
Total
14
12
2
26
8
62
A more detailed study was undertaken for the material recovered from pit F. 16, which appeared to contain a dump of knapping debris. Following the hand removal of all the visible lithic material contained within the filling of this pit (Table 1), the remaining soil was wet-sieved through a 2mm mesh, with the result that a further 102g of flint fragments was recovered. A weighed representative sample of this material was counted using a hand lens.
143
image
KEITH PARFITT AND RICHARD HOSKINS
Raw material: the bulk of the struck material recovered had been produced from locally collected mottled grey Downland flint, characterised by a cream-white chalky cortex. The use of Bullhead flint, also readily found in the immediate area of the site, was surprisingly limited, with only about a dozen pieces present in the assemblage. No water rolled, river or sea derived flint had been utilised. Given the evidence for in situ knapping at the site (see below), the enclosing ring-ditch or its associated barrow mound was very probably the immediate source of the raw material being worked here.
Patination: the majority (96%) of the struck flint material recovered was either unpatinated or showed only slight, mottled blue patination (Table 2). Since, in very general terms, patination equates with the length of time that has elapsed since fracturing of the initial flint nodule took place, it constitutes one component of the criteria for the dating of any flint artefact. In the context of the present site, pieces with limited patination are likely to fall later in the prehistoric sequence than those with a denser patination, which account for just 4% of the total flint assemblage. More than half the flints with dense patination came from the topsoil and subsoil deposits. These pieces are likely to represent residual and derived material not directly associated with the ring-ditch monument.
Refitting material: at various locations around the ring-ditch, its upper filling contained re-fitting sequences of flakes (Context 3, three refitting flakes; Context 19, one flake refitting a large core; Context 27, one group of three and one group of four refitting flakes). In Context 27 one of the flakes had been used, probably only momentarily, as an end-scraper, thus linking the flint-knapping process to subsequent tool production, although the result is not particularly diagnostic in terms of dating.
The sieved and counted material from pit F. 16 showed at least 1,500 fragments of micro-debitage, fully confirming that the filling of this pit contained material directly associated with an episode of flint knapping.
Worked material: a total of sixty-two pieces of flint showed some evidence of being worked, 9.5% of the total assemblage (Table 3). Twenty-six of these flints came from topsoil and subsoil deposits in the immediate area of the ring-ditch (Contexts 1 and 2), with another twenty-six from the 2015 area. These flints cannot be directly associated with any particular features and many of them are likely to be derived from prehistoric activity higher up the slope. Fourteen of the worked pieces could be classified as scrapers, 12 as points or piercers, 2 as rods and the remainder as flakes with miscellaneous retouching, prepared for a particular function of the moment then discarded.
Dating: the sequence of excavated features at the ring-ditch site would suggest the presence of at least two phases of on-site flint knapping; initially when the ring-ditch was partially silted and later, after it was completely filled and pit F. 16 was cut into it. It is unfortunate that, considering the total amount of struck flint recovered from the site, there are no really diagnostic pieces such as axes, knives or arrowheads, etc. It would appear that any large tools resulting from the specific
144
image
A PREHISTORIC RING-DITCH AT MARTIN, NEAR DOVER
knapping sequences recorded were taken away to be used elsewhere, if only in the immediate vicinity. This very absence of well-made tools and the occurrence of expedient flint use, indicates a date late in the prehistoric period, probably the latter part of the Bronze Age, for the bulk of the assemblage recovered. The few more heavily patinated pieces present within the assemblage are likely to represent older, residual material. One or two of the deepest patinated pieces could be as early as the Palaeolithic period.
Calcined flint: only four calcined (burnt) flints were found, all from the 2012 excavations. Of these, one was from the topsoil (Context 1) and one from the hillwash (Context 2). Two more came from excavated contexts: one from the fill of the ring-ditch and the other from the top of the central pit, F. 24.
Other finds
Very few other finds were recovered and all that were found came from either the topsoil (Context 1) or the hillwash (Context 2) during the machine excavation. These consisted of three fragments of medieval peg tile, one fragment of modem red brick and one small lump of black-coloured fired clay or daub. Any animal bone and marine shell did not survive due to the acidic soil conditions.
DATING AND DISCUSSION
In the absence of well-dated primary deposits, the exact date of the ring-ditch at Martin is difficult to establish. That it is prehistoric seems certain, with the finds of Neolithic and Bronze Age pottery and flintwork surely confirming its general period. Most frequently, ring-ditches of this size originally enclosed round barrows whose mounds often have not survived. Such monuments were being constructed throughout the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age periods, c.2500-1500 BC (Garwood 2007).
Round barrows are regularly associated with burials containing Beakers and Collared Urns. Sherds from vessels of these types in the upper filling of the ring ditch at Martin are consistent with such a date here. The ultimate origin of the potsherds recovered, however, is less certain. They seem too small in both number and size to be derived from burials and the only possible grave identified (F. 24, see below) contained no bones or obvious grave items.
Evidence for pre-monument activity appears to be provided by pot-sherds tentatively dated to the Early Neolithic period (see above) together perhaps with some of the struck flints. Most of the early sherds came from the top of the central pit, F. 24, initially hinting that this might be an earlier feature that had provided a focus for the subsequent monument. On balance, it seems more likely, however, that these are residual pieces in a later feature that was broadly contemporary with the ring-ditch.
Four pits cutting the ring-ditch (Fig. 4, Fs 7, 9, 11 and 16) are indicative of subsequent activity at the site. Pit, F. 16 is clearly linked to a late episode of flint working (see below) but the function of the others is less clear. Their filling contained very little so they are unlikely to represent rubbish pits associated with
145
image
KEITH PARFITT AND RICHARD HOSKINS
nearby settlement. The bowl sherds from the upper filling of F. 11 (Fig. 7) could suggest that these pits are Late Bronze Age but they need not all be of the same date. On Thanet, large irregular pits cutting barrow ditches have been interpreted as quarries, dug to provide extra material to enlarge the associated mound (e.g. Monkton Ring-ditches III & IV; Bennett et al. 2008, 23-32). The pits at Martin are too small for this and other functions must be sought. Perhaps they were casual excavations aimed at recovering further flint nodules for knapping.
Several aspects ofthe Martin ring-ditch are worthy offurther consideration:
the positioning within the local landscape;
the presence or not ofan associated barrow mound; the presence or not ofburials;
the monument's later use as a flint-knapping site.
Positioning: prehistoric round barrows are traditionally regarded as being mainly confined to areas ofhigher land. Certainly, such locations are regularly encountered in Kent. The thinner soils generally found on high ground are often well-suited to the formation ofcropmarks at levelled barrow sites, so accentuating the perceived pattern (Hammond 2014, fig. 37).
Sites on lower ground, however, are now being increasingly recognised (Woodward 2000, 58). There remains a bias in the recorded distribution ofbarrow sites, with higher elevation monuments still tending to outnumber sites located on lower valley sides and in valley bottoms. At these lower elevation sites, deeper soils frequently curtail cropmark formation and accumulated colluvium must seal many such monuments. Unknown before excavations began, the ring-ditch at Martin, located towards the bottom of a long slope (Figs 1 and 2) and buried under hillwash, provides further evidence that such sites are significantly under represented in the archaeological record. Accordingly, Perkins's (2010) estimate for the number ofring-ditches present within the area ofthe Sutton Wedge is likely to be somewhat conservative.
Barrow mound?: surface examination ofthe area at the start ofthe groundworks at Martin had shown no surface undulations that could relate to any sort of barrow. Excavation revealed no clear evidence for any surviving mound material within the ring-ditch, beyond a thin localised flinty clay deposit (Context 28) which could just represent the last remnants (Fig. 4). The question arises as to whether any significant mound was ever present. On higher ground, the absence or denuded form ofmany barrows can be readily attributed to centuries ofplough erosion. At the present site, however, ploughing further up-slope eventually led to the ring ditch being sealed by up to half a metre of hillwash. It seems unlikely that any substantial barrow mound here could have been destroyed by ploughing before the site was buried; nevertheless, the former presence ofa small, low barrow remains a possibility.
Burials?: no human remains, either as inhumations or cremations, were recovered during the excavations in either primary or secondary contexts, although the general absence ofunbumt bone can be readily explained by the acidic sub-soil.
A large pit discovered close to the centre ofthe ring-ditch (F. 24) could represent
146
image
A PREHISTORIC RING-DITCH AT MARTIN, NEAR DOVER
a grave but total excavation failed to reveal any skeleton or grave-goods. The uniform clay filling (Section 21, Context 12) was largely sterile, although a small collection ofprobably residual Early Neolithic pottery and nine struck flints came from its uppermost level.
The overall size of the pit (Fig. 4) is a little larger than would be expected for a typical prehistoric crouched inhumation or a cremation but it would be consistent with that required for an extended inhumation, of which no trace had survived.
Pit F. 24 might equally represent a feature dug in connection with some other activity at the centre of the monument. Although fresh, there seems little doubt that the Early Neolithic pot-sherds found in the top of this pit represent unrelated residual material, much older than the ring-ditch. It seems improbable that a significantly earlier pit had subsequently been enclosed by the ditch.
Flint knapping: this had occurred on the site sometime after the ring-ditch had been constructed. At least two successive episodes are implied; the first when the ring-ditch was still partially open and later, after the ditch was completely filled, when pit F. 16 was cut into its top. Possibly, the still part-open ditch and any mound had provided convenient exposures of raw flint material, with the earthworks also giving a certain amount of shelter for those engaged in the knapping. Similar activity has been recorded at a number of other local ring-ditch sites (e.g. Mill Hill, Deal; Parfitt 1990, 10-11).
Any large tools produced were apparently taken away for use elsewhere. Cont emporary habitation in the area is thus implied, and some locally known enclosure cropmarks could represent associated settlements.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The writers are most grateful to the land-owner, Mr P. Withington, for his assistance and patience during the course ofthe investigations. Of the Dover Group members who assisted with the work, Gareth Daws, Geoff Halliwell, Mike Hartley, David Holman, Brian McNaughton, Les Moorman, and Tina Parfitt must be thanked for their hard work, much of it undertaken during very inclement winter weather.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bennett, P., Clark P., Hicks, A., Rady, J. and Riddler, I., 2008, At the Great Crossroads. Prehistoric, Roman and medieval discoveries on the Isle ofThanet 1994-95 (CAT Occas. Paper No. 4).
Couldrey, P., 2007, 'The Pottery' in P. Bennett et al., Excavations at Highstead, Chislet, Kent, 1975-1977, The Archaeology of Canterbury New Series Volume IV, 101-171.
Garwood, P., 2007, 'Before the Hills in Order Stood: chronology, time and history', in J. Last (ed.), Beyond the grave: new perspectives on barrows (Oxford).
Hammond, J., 2014, 'The Eastling Down barrow in context', in Bennett, P., P arfitt, K., and Rady, J., Prehistoric and Anglo-Saxon discoveries on the East Kent Chalklands: Investigations along the Whitjield-Eastry by-pass 1991-1996 (CAT Occas. Paper No. 9). Morris, E., 2006, 'The Later Prehistoric P ottery', in Barclay et al., Ceramics from Section 1 of the ChannelTunnel Rail Link, Kent, CTRL Specialist Report Series (2006), 34-121. P arfitt, K., 1990, 'Excavations at Mill Hill, Deal, 1982-1989, an interim report', Kent Arch.
Rev., 101, 9-18.
147
image
KEITH PARFITT AND RICHARD HOSKINS
Parfitt, K., and Parfitt, T., 2005, 'Report on an Archaeological Watching-Brief at the new East Langdon Village Hall Car Park' (unpubl. DAG archive report no. 194, April 2005). Perkins, D., 2010, 'The distribution patterns of Bronze Age round barrows in north-east
Kent', Archaeologia Cantiana, 130, 277-314.
Woodward, A., 2000, British Barrows: a Matter ofLife and Death (Tempus, Stroud).
148
image
PHILIP SYMONSON'S MAP, A NEW DESCRIPTION OF KENT: 'THE FINEST SPECIMEN OF ENGLISH CARTOGRAPHY BEFORE 1600'
LINDA TAYLOR
A New Description of Kent 'engraven by Charles Whitwell' and produced 'by the travayle of Phil: Symonson of Rochester, gent' was first printed in 1596.1 Measuring 79 x 54cm (31 x 2lin.), and being drawn at a considerably larger scale than earlier maps of the County, it provided the opportunity for the inclusion of more information and greater attention to detail generally. Despite Symonson's map being lauded, as in the title above,2 it has often been considered of minor importance, 'not on account of the workmanship but from the smallness of the printed output',3 and consequent distribution. Indeed, many scholarly studies on the growth of cartography and chorography during the latter part of the sixteenth century fail to include any reference to Symonson. The innovative nature of the map certainly warrants closer examination. Fig. 1 shows an extract of the map illustrating its various characteristic features.
J.B. Harley, author of The new nature of maps (2002), argues that true under standing of documents, including maps, can only be achieved by returning them to the past and situating them 'squarely in their proper period and place'.4 Following this advice this paper will study A New Description ofKent in the context of:
the cartographer,
the context of other maps, and
the context of the society in which it was prepared,5
this in order to better appreciate Symonson's qualifications and motives for producing the map and its proper place in the history of topographical cartography. Although few details are known of the early life of Philip Symonson, records remain in the Rochester Bridge Wardens Accounts Book relating to his role as paymaster for the bridge - an appointment he took up on 24 February 1593 following the death of the previous holder of this position.6 The bridge required a large maintenance workforce averaging around 40 skilled craftsmen and it was the
paymaster's responsibility to oversee their monthly wages.
Paid to Phillip Symondson [sic], gent, receyvor and paymaster for the regarding of Rochester bridge in the county of Kent as to masons, carpenters, sawyers, banke layers and other laborers and also for the work, timber, stone and other necessaries belonging to the sayde bridge.7
149
image
LINDA TAYLOR
'
..
;�
'Y
;- i
:�·->
Fig. 1 Extract from Symonson's map showing the Lower Medway valley; the figures (e.g. 44, 48) are the key serial numbers of the hundreds listed on bottom left hand comer of map.
150
image
PHILIP SYMONSON'S MAP, A NEWDESCRIPTION OF KENT
Attracting an annual fee of just £10, this was obviously not Symonson's only form of income. However, his appointment was particularly fortuitous for the Wardens as, unlike previous or future paymasters, Symonson had much needed surveying and cartography skills. Following earlier boundary disputes, the Wardens needed to establish firm ownership of the Trust's estates and over the period of Symonson's appointment, 1593-1598, he was also hired to produce a series of estate maps, three of which still exists In 1593 he was paid £6 13s. 3d. for:
his paynes in plotting ye parcels of Nashenden and Little Delce in Kent and the manor of Est Tilborye in Essex, and for a survey and certificate to be made of ye stadles [wood used for the base of the bridge's stone support pillars] in the coppis woodes hedgerows of Nashenden afforsayed to be exhibited at the next general assembly of the wardens and assistants.9
Although estate maps were drawn on a much larger scale than his New Description ofKent, each presented certain characteristics that were echoed in his county map. The estate map for Nashenden and Little Delce depicts the main road using parallel dotted lines as in the Kent map and Symonson's practice of accurately portraying buildings can be seen from the image of St Margaret's church tower in Rochester. It is easily recognisable as the medieval tower which, to this day, remains an impressive landmark when viewed from the River Medway. 10 The style in which the trees are portrayed in the estate map of the bridge lands held near Faversham is identical to that employed on the county map.11
It is the map of the estate lands at Dartford which is of particular interest (Fig. 2). Although the amount of land held in Dartford in 1596 was only just over 37 acres, Symonson thought it appropriate to enlarge the area covered by his survey to embrace a considerable amount of land beyond including the nearby Queenes house.12 Following the dissolution of Dartford Priory in 1539, Henry VIII had adapted and partially re-built the site as a manor house conveniently placed on the main route from London to Dover. Although little now remains of the building, the account of one of the Surveyors of the King's Works at Dartford, James Needham, details in words the design including that of the western gate house and two courtyards, features which are actually illustrated by Symonson, with his usual care.13 Such deference towards the property of royalty and the aristocracy was commonplace and is a feature both on Symonson's county map and also on Lambarde's Beacon Map of Kent (Fig. 3),14 the work of which is often attributed to Symonson (see below).
Unfortunately, there is no record of the date and place of Symonson's birth. How ever, there are records of several members of the wider Symonson family in the Maidstone area and it is probable that Thomas Symonson, headmaster of Maidstone Grammar School in 1590, was his brother.15
Also, it is not known how long Symonson had been resident in Rochester before his paymaster appointment in 1593. During 1585-1587 he held an official role relating to the Rochester Cathedral choir16 and in 1597, he is described as a 'principal citizen' on the lease of a parcel of land at the Castle ditch.17 In 1598 he was elected mayor of Rochester. However, Symonson died on 30 September 1598 and the Wardens Account Book records a payment of £4 4s. 4d. to his widow, being
151
image
.,
,:"'1.··✓•...•
,...
� �..,
·."'"'-·"
-
V,
N
_,._.
Fig. 2 Symonson's estate plan of Dartford. East is at the top with Dartford town far right and R. Thames at top left.
Parcels of land owned by RBW are in green. 'Queenes House' is shown very faintly at top right. (Reproduced by kind permission of the Rochester Bridge Wardens Trust.)
image
PHILIP SYMONSON'S MAP, A NEWDESCRIPTION OF KENT
the outstanding portion of his annual fee.18 Despite the lack of biographical details, it is clear from Symonson's work at Rye (Sussex), which is briefly described below, that much more can be uncovered of his varied talents and the professional esteem in which he was held.
Extreme winds and tides had seriously damaged Rye harbour during the winter of 1571. Despite the ever-increasing dereliction of the harbour and local concerns, it was not until 1591 that the Privy Council appointed Sir Henry Palmer and William Borough to investigate possibilities for harbour improvement,19 part of which investigation required a detailed survey resulting in a coloured map.20
It is testament to Symonson's reputation in Kent, and seemingly beyond, that on 24 February 1594, Borough and Palmer commissioned the Rochester surveyor to make 'the plat' of the harbour, for which work he was to receive £5 with an additional piece of gold worth five shillings for his assistant, Lucy Phillips, once the 'plat' was 'Fynished & putt in cullers'.21 However, despite this prestigious commission from the Privy Council, Symonson clearly gave priority to his civic Rochester duties, as reported by Palmer and Borough to the mayor and jurats of Rye:
Wee sent presently for Mr Symonson for making the plat of your haven who is very willing to doo therein what h Can but ... the Fifte of Marche next the Syses are kept hear at Rochester, at what tyme he has speciall business there, that he maye not be absent from thence now seing the tyme is so shorte that he dowteth and so doo wee that he should not have tyme to doo the thing as wee wish it should bee and retume back to the sises.22
Symonson was required to produce two maps; one for the Corporation of Rye and another to be presented to the Privy Council, the latter to be completed and handed to Borough and Palmer before the end of Easter Term. However, when pressed by the Corporation for their copy, Symonson stood his ground. He was aware that his efforts for ensuring a timely production of the first map had not been appreciated by Borough and Palmer as his work had not yet been put before the Privy Council and considered that such 'slackenes ... made me the lesse forward in taking this other plot in hande for the Towne'. Showing an independent and somewhat assertive nature Symonson clearly set his own deadline promising delivery 'about Barthelmewtyde'.23 The map was delivered on St Bartholomew's Day, 24 August 1594, and a further sum of £4 16s. Od. was approved for Symonson's dietary expenses with an additional ten shillings for each of his two assistants.
Thus, Symonson's reputation was firmly established as a surveyor and cartographer of large scale maps of fairly small defined areas - maps which served a specific purpose. With this in mind, his New Description ofKent appears initially to be a complete departure from his regular survey work and to examine his motivation and reasons for this change in direction it is necessary to contextualise Symonson's New Description both in relation to contemporary maps and to the requirements of society at the time.
The growth of map-making in the second half of the sixteenth century was stimulated by the work of John Leland who, in 1533, was commissioned by Henry VIII to travel the realm gathering information on the treasures hidden away in the
153
image
LINDA TAYLOR
Fig. 3 Lambarde's Beacons map of Kent, often attributed to Symonson.
154
image
PHILIP SYMONSON'S MAP, A NEWDESCRIPTION OF KENT
(Reproduced by kind permission of the British Library.)
155
image
LINDA TAYLOR
libraries of monasteries as well as visiting all geographic features in order to des cribe fully the glory of Henry's kingdom. The end product was to be a written choro graphy of England. After ten years on this task, he wrote The Laboryouse Journey and Search of John Leylande for Englande s Antiquities in 1549. Unfortunately, whether due to the intensity of his research or other causes, his mental health deteriorated precluding further development of his ideas and he died in 1552. However, before he died he proposed writing a history of England and Wales with the work divided into books on each of the shires and domains, each book to be accompanied by a topographical map of the region covered. Although Leland's work remained unpublished in his lifetime his vision continued and his manuscript notes were read by, amongst others, William Lambarde and William Camden.24 Accordingly, interest in chorography encompassing both word and image continued apace.
Christopher Saxton's unprecedented collection of maps was published in atlas form in 1579. Thomas Seekford, Master of the Queen's Requests and Surveyor of the Court of Wards and Liveries, as well as being a wealthy landowner, at his own expense employed Saxton to undertake the mammoth task of surveying and mapping every county in England and Wales.25 Skelton describes a map as 'a graphic document in which location, extent and direction can be more precisely defined than by the written word ... 'its construction is a mathematical process strictly controlled by measurement and calculation'.26 However, to what extent Saxton employed advanced mathematical process is debatable. Although the sixteenth century witnessed the introduction of the technique of triangulation in the production of scale maps, the transition to this method was slow. Harvey states that 'in view of this it is not surprising to learn that Christopher Saxton's maps ... were probably simply itinerary maps, made without triangulation'.27 This opinion is somewhat modified by Lynam who, whilst acknowledging that very little is known about Saxton's method, also ruled out the use of triangulation as '[this technique] and the representation of hills in plan were unknown arts at this time'. Nevertheless, Lynam does acknowledge that Saxton probably plotted angles with the use of a geometric instrument called a 'planimetrium' and sketched his maps piecemeal in situ on a plane table.28 Saxton may have used a theodolite, simple versions of which, measuring horizontal angles only (and plane tables) were in use from the mid-sixteenth century.29 In 1571 Thomas Digges, the mathematician and astronomer (of Barham), collated and augmented the work of his late father, Leonard, also a mathematician. Mention is made of the plane table in rather derogatory terms as 'an instrument onely for the ignorant and unlearned that have no knowledge ofNoumbers'.30
Without any concrete evidence, the exact method used by Saxton can only be surmised. The speed at which the surveying work was conducted suggests relatively crude methods. Saxton completed his surveys of all of the counties in five seasons with surveying taking place only during the summer months. This works out at around one month per county. Although he probably employed assistants to advise on local place names, distances, etc., and most likely referred to the earlier work of John Leland, he simply would not have been able to complete the project within the timescale had he used triangulation. Martin and JeanNorgate, in their study of Saxton's map of Hampshire, maintain that speculation leads to the conclusion that Saxton worked from 'crude traverses supported by local knowledge'.31
156
image
PHILIP SYMONSON'S MAP, A NEWDESCRIPTION OF KENT
Before comparing Symonson's map of Kent with Saxton's work, it is useful to consider the way in which the latter's work was received and its influence on future maps. Initial reviews were not all positive. Bunching several counties on one sheet was criticized and there was a perceived need to resolve some of the inadequacies in Saxton's work. These opinions acted as a prompt to later map makers such as John Norden whose Speculum Britanniae, started in 1590, aimed to provide a county-based history combining text and maps. Norden's maps were based upon Saxton's but also included additional features such as a key to map signs, some roads and insets of county town plans.32
In Theatre ofthe Empire of Great Britain, published in 1611, John Speed relied heavily on the work of his predecessors using not only Saxton's maps but also the later adaptations of Norden. However, in the case of Kent, Speed turned to Symonson's although he failed to acknowledge this.33 Lacking the patronage enjoyed by Saxton, and in order to recoup his expenses and earn a living, the commercial value of Speed's finished products was of vital importance to him. By relying on earlier surveys, he avoided the need to undertake extensive field work. Speed was able to focus on the accuracy of place names, adding new details such as roads and ensuring that the finished product was decorative and pleasing on the eye. Furthermore, it allowed him the opportunity to decorate his maps more fully by surveying and inserting plans of county towns (like Norden) and adding the coats-of-arms of the leading county families thus making his finished product more marketable.34 Despite, these added details it has been stated that 'in all his maps Speed falls short of Symonson'.35
Thus, for the last two decades of the sixteenth century and the early years of the seventeenth most county maps were adaptations and revisions of Saxton. Symonson's New Description ofKent is an exception to this rule. The most obvious distinction between Symonson's and Saxton's work is the map scale. Saxton's, measuring 53 x 41cm (21 x 16in.), depicts not only Kent but also Surrey, Sussex and Middlesex, with parts of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Essex. (Its scale is 1:c.247,000.) By contrast, Symonson's much larger map measures 79 x 54cm (with only very marginal sections of the adjacent counties of Sussex, Surrey and Essex). The scale is 2 miles to 2.54cm (lin.), or 1:118,000, so providing the space for an abundance oftopographical detail. Main roads are precisely drawn and a reasonably full network shown. Churches do not simply appear as symbols indicating the site of the parish; they are accurate representations with, for example, either tower or steeple. As with Saxton, enclosed parkland is indicated but Symonson was able to show more of the 'houses of the Nobylitie and Gentrye as the Plott coulde conveniently receave,' and the landscape 'whether playne, Hyllye or wooddye is more diligently observed'. It is, however, the depiction of the 'trending of the seashore' together with the 'tractes of Ryvers, Rylles, and Creeks' that sets this map apart and earns it the accolade that these 'be more naturally described then heretofore it hath hen done'. Hazards such as sandbanks like the 'Nowre' head, off the Isle of Grain are depicted and, from the closely observed and named 'bayes' and 'stayers' on the Thanet coastline to the inclusion of Wyllop, Marsheland and Clobsden Guts on the coast of Romney Marsh (Fig. 4) it can be seen that the map was designed to inform navigation over both land and sea. Decoration is limited to Elizabeth's royal coat of arms at the top and the map's description inserted in
157
image
�
Fig. 4 Extract from Symonson's map showing the Romney Marsh �rea.
I1 'I
�D i.v_idFc( £n
<.
#�
.
::
.
.
•
;
Ba_v(ywief.e
.: 0p f(vnetf
W/7fffr,for, v.:zryprye c C ?he s; th, wzth their of_thei7c,11
image
PHILIP SYMONSON'S MAP, A NEWDESCRIPTION OF KENT
the right hand bottom comer in a 13 x 9cm box surrounded with two crenelated borders, together with dividers and scale. The basic informative purpose of the map is further emphasised by the considerable space in the bottom right comer given over to tabulated lists of the county's lathes, bailiewicks, hundreds and towns. 36
A New Description of Kent was probably not the first county-wide map that Symonson had completed as it is widely thought that he drafted the map of the beacon network included in the 1596 second edition ofLambarde's Perambulation ofKent.37 Lambarde's manuscript of this map clearly gives his own initials 'W.L' in the bottom left comer but there are many similarities with Symonson (Fig. 3). Although the proportions are not so accurate, virtually the same area is covered with slightly less of Sussex included. As the purpose of the map is to site the beacons and their trajectories, only a few towns and villages are included which are not beacon sites. The only hills depicted are ones nearby St Margaret's Bay, in Crowborwe [Crowborough] and Beggars Hill in Rye (both Sussex). The rivers are not named but the location of the bridges on the rivers mirrors the locations on Symonson's map. The script does not match the fineness of Symonson's italic hand but the inclusion of Squerryes in Westerham is reminiscent of his Dartford estate map. As in the case of Queene s House in Dartford, Squerryes plays no part in the purpose of the map and is not related to the beacon network in any way. It was, however, Henry VIII's hunting lodge and remained in royal hands for most of the reign of Elizabeth 1.38 Although more sketch-like in appearance than Symonson's finished work, the house is a representation complete with flag aloft on the tower rather than a symbol.
Having ascertained Symonson's eminent pos1t10n amongst late sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century map-makers, the question is what made him launch out from estate plans into county mapping? So large an undertaking would be costly. Although a Kent man, he would have required an army of assistants to provide the in-depth local knowledge involved. Unlike Saxton, there is no known patron and, unlike Speed's, the design of his map suggests he did not have the commercial market in mind. Therefore, the questions remain - who paid for this map and why? To find possible clues it is necessary to examine developments within contemporary society, not only relating to Symonson's own life in Kent but also in the nation at large. It is in both these areas that WilliamLambarde's influence can be found.
WilliamLambarde was appointed commissioner of sewers for Kent in 1568. He had previously bought land in the county and in 1570 married Jane Multon from Ightham. Although aLondoner by birth, he moved to Kent on his marriage and his association with the county continued throughout the rest of his life. A lawyer by profession, Lambarde is mainly remembered as an antiquary and for his historical topography of Kent first published in 1576. As a member of the county commission of the peace from 1579, Lambarde's local activities included the organization of musters, beacons and markets and hence the production of the beacon map mentioned earlier. Furthermore, he was a warden of Rochester Bridge and it is in this latter connection that Symonson's and his paths crossed. 39 In the second edition of Permabulation ofKent published in 1596, Lambarde recommends the work of his 'good friend Master Philip Symonson'. 40
As the author of the earliest county history,Lambarde had influence in Kent and it
159
image
LINDA TAYLOR
is not inconceivable that he might have met with Thomas Digges, also a Kent man (see above), to discuss survey theories and, taking this one stage further, introduced his friend, Symonson, as well. The accuracy and presentation of Symonson's map indicates he recognised that 'advances in trigonometry and surveying turned map making into a skill requiring training in mathematics rather than artistry',41 and any meeting would have been an opportunity to share interests.
In 1590 Saxton visited Kent to survey estate lands in Faversham and produced a map of 'Homston [Homestall] Farm in Feversham',42 and later in September that year he surveyed the manors of Bayford and Goodmanston in Sittingbourne.43 As with Digges, whilst there is no record of any meeting between the three men it is not beyond the realms of possibility and would have provided an ideal opportunity for Symonson to discuss his plans for a county map.
However, it is Lambarde's links with William Cecil, Lord Burghley, that probably had most influence on Symonson's completion of the map. Before Lambarde's Perambulation was published, the draft manuscript was examined by Burghley as were the draft maps of Saxton as detailed above. Lambarde obviously earned Burghley's approbation, both in relation to his topographical work and his public work, as in 1589 he was made Lord Burghley's deputy as master of the alienations office of chancery rising in 1597 to master in ordinary and deputy keeper of the rolls.44
Burghley had a keen interest in maps and throughout his time as Secretary of State, and later Lord High Treasurer to Queen Elizabeth I, he consulted maps to clarify any problem 'with even the most remote geographical connection'.45 If there was not a map available, he commissioned one. From 1585-1604 England and Spain were intermittently at war with the real threat of a Spanish invasion in 1588 (the Armada). Burghley used the maps to plot where coastal defences were at their weakest and where the beacons were best situated to communicate vital news to court. More, importantly, however, the maps were used for taxation and other administrative purposes:
What were the most densely populated and flat (and therefore the richest and most fertile) parts of the country, from which the highest tax returns could be expected? Which members of the gentry should be appointed Justices of the Peace, to ensure an even distribution and loyalty to the Queen? ... Were there parks with woodland and animals to feed the levies?46
Whether Burghley's requirements were the inspiration, financial or otherwise, for Symonson's map or whether he even saw the map is not known but it is likely, due to Lambarde's endorsement, that he was aware of Symonson's skill. No doubt, due to the amount of detail, the map would have more than satisfied Burghley's needs.
Delano-Smith and Kain refer to 'the lottery of map survival' due to their fragility and also vulnerability when stored through fire and flood.47 Undoubtedly, Symonson produced other maps and plans during his lifetime which are lost; certainly he would have needed to supplement his annual fee for his Rochester Bridge appointment. What does survive is the legacy of Symonson's skill. He is truly a 'homo novus chorographicus'. This term coined, by Helgerson, relating to Camden, Norden and Speed can be equally applied to Symonson. The over-riding
160
image
PHILIP SYMONSON'S MAP, A NEWDESCRIPTION OF KENT
theme of these men is love of their country,48 and, in the case of Symonson, love of his county.
While it is not possible to say with certainty that Symonson used triangulation techniques in producing his New Description, the accuracy of his work and his evident mathematical skills strongly suggest that he did. Having the experience of drawing the Beacons Map may well have assisted the task.
Although the original print run during Symonson's life was limited, the map long remained current and between 1596 and 1775 no fewer than eight editions were published.49 More than 60 years after its original appearance, it was chosen to illustrate John Philpott's Villare Cantium. However, the map had by now been updated and included inserted illustrations of both Rye (top left) and Dover (top right).50 However, Rye - not even in Kent - and Dover were both harbours that Symonson had successfully surveyed so may well have been included as a tribute to the master. In 1914, the Ordnance Survey produced a facsimile of the issue published by P. Stent dated 'about 1650' and from this, the earliest known existing copy of the whole map, it is learnt that Charles Whitwell was the engraver.51
The map trade mirrored the book trade and both grew exponentially during the seventeenth century. Map ownership as a symbol of country and county pride continued.52 For example, the probate inventory, dated 1666, of Elizabeth Pollen, the widow of a husbandman from Faversham, listed a total of nine maps and frames.53 These are unlikely possessions for someone of her social standing and probably indicate she was involved in the selling of maps. It is a pleasing thought that at least one of the maps might possibly have been the major work of Phil: Symonson of Rochester, gent.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The British Library: Add. 62935; M. T.6.f. l (4); 'Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Most Honourable, the Marquis of Salisbury', vol. 8, 1598, Entry No. 263.
Kent History and Library Centre: PRC/27/57.
Medway Archives and Local Studies Centre: DRc_Elp_00l; RCA_Tl _006_08.
Rochester Bridge Wardens Trust Archive: F l/1 03; F l/1 04; E2 4/0l/001; E 13/0l/004; E 09/0l/006.
Alsop, J.D., 2 004, ' Lambarde, William (1536- 1601)', ODNB, www.oxforddnb.com. Barber, P. and C. Board, 1993, Tales from the Map Room (London: BBC).
Bendall, S., 1955, 'When the Same Platte was Made and by Whom and to What Intent: Sixteenth Century Maps of Romney Marsh', Imago Mundi, vol. 47, 34-38.
Copley, G.J. (ed.), 1977, Camden s Britannia Kent (London: Hutchinson).
Delano-Smith, C. and J.P. Kain, 1999, English Maps: a History (London: The British Library). Digges, L., 1571, A Geometrical Practical Treatise names Pantometria (London).
Evans, I.M., 1972, 'A Newly Discovered Manuscript Estate Plan by Christopher Saxton, relating to Faversham in Kent', Geographical Journal, vol. 138, no. 4, 48 0-481.
Fordham, G., 1928, 'Some Surveys and Maps of the Elizabethan Period Remaining in Manuscript', Geographical Journal, vol. 71, no. 1, 5 0-60.
Gardiner, R.A., 1969, 'Philip Symonson's New Description of Kent, 1596, Geographical Journal, vol. 135, no. 1, 136-137.
Hannan, H., 19 14, 'An Account of a Map of Kent dated 1596', Archaeologia Cantiana,
3 0, 85-92.
161
image
LINDATAYLOR
Harley, J.B., 2002, The New Nature ofMaps (Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins UP).
Harvey, P.D.A., 1980, The History ofTopographical Maps (London: Thames and Hudson). Heawood, E., 1935, 'Some Early County Maps', Geographical Journal, vol. 68, no. 54,
325-337.
Helgerson, R., 1986, 'The Land Speaks: Cartography, Chorography and Subversion in Renaissance England, Representations, no. 16, 50-85.
Hull, F., 1973, Kentish Maps and Map-Makers 1590-1840 (Maidstone, KCC).
Lynam, E., 1950, 'English Map Makers of the 16th century', Geographical Journal, vol. 116, 7-25.
Mendyk, S., 1986, 'Early British Chorography', The Sixteenth Century Journal, vol. 17, no. 4, 459-481.
Ordnance Survey, 1914, A Note on Facsimile Reproduction ofSymonson s Map ofKent, 1596 (Southampton).
Philpott, J., 1659, Vil/are Cantium (London).
Rotberg, R.I. and T.K. Rabb (eds), 1986, Art and History: Images and their Meaning
(CUP).
Skelton, R.A., 1965, Decorative Printed Maps of the 15th to 18th Centuries (London: Spring Books).
Skelton, R.A., 1957, 'Two English Maps of the Sixteenth Century', British Museum Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 1, 1-2.
Tooley, R.V, 1949, Maps and Map-Makers (London: Batsford).
Yates, N. and J.M. Gibson, 1994, Traffic and Politics: the construction and management of Rochester Bridge, AD43-1993 (Woodbridge: Boydell).
ENDNOTES
I BLM.T.6.f.l (4).
2 R.V Tooley, Maps and Map-makers, p. 67.
3 Ibid., p. 67.
4 J.B . Harley, The New Nature ofMaps, p. 37.
s Ibid., p. 38.
Wardens AccountsFl/103 f442v.
Wardens AccountsF1/104 f46r.
N. Yates and J. Gibson, Traffic and Politics, p. 145.
9 Wardens AccountsF1/104 f92r.
RBWTAE24/0l/001.
RBWTAE13/0l/004.
RBWTAE09/0l/006.
www.dartfordarchive.org.uk/early_modem/buildings_mgh,. accessed 4.4.12.
BLAdd.62935.
www.theclergydatabase.org .uk ,. accessed 31.7. 16.
MALSC DRc Elb 001.
MALSC RCA TI 006 08.
1s RBWTAFl/104 f24lr.
19 Sir Henry Palmer (1550-1611), a naval commander and later Comptroller of the Navy, had previously been commissioned to oversee the repair and maintenance of Dover harbour during the previous decade when it is thought that Symonson was commissioned to provide a chart of that harbour. William Borough (1536-1599), also a naval officer, already had recognised expertise in charting and surveying and is credited with being one of the first in 1581 to observe magnetic variation.
162
image
PHILIP SYMONSON'S MAP, A NEW DESCRIPTION OF KENT
20 S. Bendall,'When the Same Platte was Made ... ', p. 44.
21 ESRO RYE 1/5 f 33 lr in S. Bendall, pp. 44-45.
ESRO 47/51/76 in S. Bendall, p. 45.
ESRO 47/51/65 in S. Bendall p. 45.
S. Mendyk,'Early British Chorography', The Sixteenth Century Journal, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 465-467.
Until the mid seventeenth century, these Saxton maps were associated 'with the master, not the man'. Indeed, although the 1579 atlas depicts both the royal arms and Seekford arms as well as acknowledging the work as Saxton's, from study of the original sheets completed between 1574 to 1578'only Seckford's arms appear on all thirty-four sheets'. T he royal insignia'crowded in a narrow margin as an apparent afterthought' is evident on all but the first sheet. However, Saxton's name did not appear until the twenty-fifth sheet- three years into the project. Seekford clearly had the political and financial influence to promote and oversee this venture. Political ambition may well have been Seckford's driving force as each draft proof was sent to Lord Burghley for inspection before the final print run. By currying favour with Burghley and satisfying the latter's need for maps, Seekford ensured completion of the project.
R.A. Skelton, Decorative Printed Maps of the 15th to 18th Centuries, p. 1.
PD.A. Harvey, The History of Topographical Maps, pp. 162-163.
E. Lynam.,'English Map Makers' pp. 7-25.
29 F. Hull, Kentish Maps and Map-Makers 1590-1840, p. iii.
Thomas Digges, A Geometrical Practical Treatise Pantometria.
www.geog.port.ac.uk/webmap/hantsmap/saxtonl/saxl svy l ,. accessed 17.4.12.
Although Speculum was never completed in its entirety, Norden's maps were re-issued to accompany William Camden's Britannia in the early seventeenth century, C. Delano-Smith and J.P. Kain, pp. 72-73.
R.V. Tooley, Maps and Map-Makers, p. 68.
Ibid., p. 75.
E. Heawood,'Some Early County Maps', p. 335.
BL M.T.6.f.l (4).
Delano-Smith and Kain, pp. 65-66.
BL Add. 62935.
J.D. Alsop, ODNB, www.oxforddnb.com accessed 29.3.12.
H. Hannen,'An Account of a Map of Kent dated 1596', 87.
R. Rotberg and T.K. Rabb, Art History: Images and Their Meaning, p. 122.
I.M. Evans,'A Newly Discovered Manuscript Estate', pp. 480-481.
PD.A. Harvey,'A Manuscript Estate Map by Christopher Saxton', p. 65.
J.D. Alsop, ODNB.
P. Barber and C. Board, Tales from the Map Room, p. 88. See endnote 25 for some details of Seckford's cartographic links to Lord Burghley.
Ibid., pp. 88-89.
Delano-Smith and Kain, pp. 241-247.
R. Helgerson, Forms of Nationhood, p. 147.
www.oldkentmaps.co.uk, accessed 21.3.12.
J. Philpott, Villare Cantium.
A Note on the Facsimile by the Ordnance Survey of Symonson s Map of Kent, 1596. Whitwell, a renowned late sixteenth-century copper engraver had also worked on significant maps of Surrey, France and Asia.
R. Helgerson, p. 147.
KHLC PRC/27/57.
163
image
THE FINDINGS OF VARIOUSARCHAEOLOGICAL INV ESTIGATIONS AT THE ROMAN NAVAL FORT, STUTFALL CASTLE, LYMPNE, 2014-16
MALCOLM DAVIES
When Charles Roach Smith carried out his major excavation at Lympne in the 1840s it is clear that he assumed that he was unearthing the remains of a single fort site, i.e. the Saxon Shore fort, occupied in the late third and fourth centuries. On its perimeter his excavations of the fort's gatehouse foundations revealed, inter alia, the Greensand altar inscribed by Aufidius Pantera, prefect of the Classis Britannica (see below). Roach Smith drew plans of only two buildings in the interior of the fort, a building in the south-east comer, which was later classified by Barry Cunliffe as a small bathhouse, and a building comprised of three rooms in the northern half of the fort (Figs 1 and 2). Study of the Stutfall Castle site is bedevilled by post Roman earth movements which have displaced much of the fort's external and internal structures.
\ .:a
t
Fig. 1 Overall plan of fort as published by Roach Smith.
165
image
MALCOLM DAVIES
10 V SO
FEET
Fig. 2 The principia building comprised of three rooms in the northern half of the fort (Roach Smith).
The three rooms in Fig. 2 have been generally interpreted as part of the fort headquarters (principia), with the apse being an occasional feature of the central room of these buildings, where the unit's insignia could be displayed. It is worth noting that in Fig. 1 the group of three rooms are centrally placed between east and west fort walls but these are drawn where Roach Smith only estimated they had originally stood. In fact, we do not know the exact position of the three rooms in relation to the external walls. Similarly, the bathhouse is not placed opposite bastion N, where it was excavated but where Smith, rightly or wrongly, calculated it had originally stood. The dating of both buildings was assumed by Roach Smith to be concurrent with the late Saxon Shore fort and the coins he collected from his excavations were entirely from the 250-350 period, with the exception of a single second-century Antoninus Pius example.
Since Roach Smith's excavations in the mid 19th century, there has been no re excavationof this possible principia and no archaeologist has seriously questioned Roach Smith's assumption that this building was an integral part of the Saxon Shore fort, except Stephen Johnson (1979) who allowed that it might belong to an earlier period:
Its plan was reminiscent of the shrine and official rooms which occupy the portion of a normal second century principia building between the crosshall and the tribunal. The central room at Lympne has a polygonal apse, and this emphasis has helped strengthen its identification as the aedes (regimental chapel). This building, however, as it is closely paralleled by earlier principia, may not belong to the late Roman phase of occupation but to a fort on the site connected with the earlier Classis Britannica.
Subsequent excavation of the fort took place in 1893-4 when Horsley attempted to locate the missing south wall. Much more recently, in 1976-8 Cunliffe reexcavated the fort's main gatehouse and also established that the missing south wall of the fort had slumped down the slope and extruded itself into the silts of the marsh edge. He
166
image
ARCHAEOLOGICAL IN VESTIGATIONSAT THE ROMAN NAVAL FORT, STUTFALL CASTLE
{I)• original bastion position
(5)
� movement vector �----·�(6) -::--+--- (7)
KEY I
---
-
....__ ·'JS.'IJ.:'.-,=.,,(!PZP'ttP6 �� �- \-
-v-
(4) /
CD
"(/ \0 \.
v',,IP t·\
. � I'�\{Pi)
\ '� \ y
1�,
/'Y
2'.
�
I
� 3 t �)}
� ', I '-� I
\ \ �oi /
•·
1
{11)
-----
J..-· -----..-- 9 I
----·---(121 \\
�- ---- {13) ·// '
toe of slope
25 so
Royal Military (anal
Fig. 3 Reconstruction plan of the Roman fort showing the original shape and absolute position of the northern walls and the inferred outline of the remainder (Hutchinson 1985, fig. 12).
also found evidence pointing to, but not proving, the existence of an earlier fort (see below).
Lastly, in the early 1980s J.N. Hutchinson carried out a series of archaeological and geotechnical investigations which identified the main soil movements which had taken place after the fort was abandoned. His investigations also gave clear proof ofthe original position oftwo ofthe most northerly bastions (5 and 6) and the angle ofthe northern walls of the fort (Fig. 3). However, these latest investigations did not throw any light on whether an earlier fort had existed on the site.
Cunliffe summarised the evidence he found for an earlier fort on the same site, or nearby, as follows:
Twenty-one fragments of tile stamped Classis Britannica both loose and re used in the fort walls.
167
image
MALCOLM DAVIES
Fig. 4 Drawing of Gre ensand blocks in main entrance to fort (Roach Smith).
An altar to Neptune dedicated by Aufidius Pantera, prefect of the Classis Bri tannica, dateable to c.135 (RIB 66), being reused in the foundations of the shore fort main gate.
A second, uninscribed altar in the same foundations.
A Greensand block carved with the base of an engaged pilaster in the same foundations.
A number of other Greensand blocks in the main entrance, some visible today, with clamp and lewis holes, that clearly point to an earlier usage. Some of these blocks were described by Roach Smith as being nearly a ton in weight (Fig. 4).
A fairly significant level of early pottery found on site (about 7% of the total).
Cunliffe concludes that this evidence is clearly indicative of an earlier Roman fleet presence and of the reuse of materials from earlier buildings but, in the absence of structures on site that could be clearly demonstrated as earlier, it falls short of providing the proof that a first-/second-century naval fort existed.
To Cunliffe's list could be added the very large quantity of reused tile including
tegula present in the courses of the shore fort walls (see example, Fig. 5).
168
image
ARCHAEOLOGICAL IN VESTIGATIONSAT THE ROMAN NAVAL FORT, STUTFALL CASTLE
Fig. 5 A tile, with nail in situ, reused in a tile course ofthe western wall. (Photo by M. Davies.)
The evidence ofa possible temple to Neptune
In his excavations of the fort's gatehouse foundations, Roach Smith uncovered not only the Greensand altar inscribed by Pantera together with the large Greensand blocks making up the entrance but also a pivot stone filled with lead on which a wooden door had turned. In addition, Cunliffe later uncovered an oolitic stone, uninscribed altar from the same general location as Roach Smith's altar and a base of engaged pilaster of Greensand, i.e. part of a rectangular column projecting from a wall. It is also significant that a number of the Greensand blocks had 'lewis holes and grooves which have been filled with lead and iron fastenings' (Roach Smith 1852). In the Sulis Minerva temple at Bath the base on which the altar stood was composed of nine blocks of basalt which were held together with metal straps in just this manner (Cunliffe 1985). All this provides powerful testimony that Pantera set up an altar to Neptune in a temple situated in the vicinity c.130 and that the building was subsequently stripped in the late third century to provide material for the entrance and foundations of the gatehouse of the later fort. In addition, as some of the individual stone blocks weighed nearly a ton (Roach Smith 1852) the temple site is likely to be in close proximity to the gatehouse, especially as the fort builders were exploiting the ragstone handily available a few hundred yards upslope of the fort.
169
image
MALCOLM DAVIES
Details of a resistivity survey aimed at discovering whether any building remains exist in the fort interior near the gatehouse are given below. Clearly, if a nearby building proved to be the temple site, this would strongly support the evidence of an early fort on the existing site.
The headquarters buildings in the northern halfof the shore fort and the characteristics of the later shore forts
As the three rooms in the northern part of the fort are the only recorded buildings inside the fort, apart from the bathhouse, it is worthwhile considering their signific ance in the context of Roman forts generally.
Among the ten shore forts in the SouthEast examined by Johnson (1979), only Reculver also had a traditional headquarterstype building. However, Philp indicates that the Reculver fort, including its principia, was laid down between 185-200 (Philp 2005). It clearly possessed many of the features common to the early forts,
i.e. rounded towers, four gates and a standard road system and belonged to an earlier era of fort building than the Shore forts of the late third century.
Johnson makes a case for the late Saxon Shore forts like Lympne belonging to a mainstream of Roman imperial architecture and that they are contemporary with the Gallic city walls, i.e. dated to the period 270-300. The dominant characteristic of the late shore forts was their much heavier concentration on defence. Their massive thick walls, towering stone ramparts protected with bastions to provide covering fire for the walls, their heavily fortified entrances (reduced to a single main entrance at Lympne), combined with their sheer size all have the clear objective of deterring attackers and providing a secure harbour base. By contrast, the accommodation within the shore forts is given much less priority. Where there is any evidence of buildings, these appear to have been largely wooden and built near or against the walls.
The events, which led to this radical change of emphasis in fort building occurred during the middle of the third century, with the barbarian incursions across Gaul, the rise of usurpers in the western empire and a developing problem of piracy in the Channel. Thus, in the context of this remodelled late shore fort architecture, the principia at Lympne is an anomaly without parallel and it is reasonable to assume that it was built at an earlier date.
THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2014-16
The aim of these investigations was twofold; to use non-intrusive techniques - resistivity, magnetometry and analysis of a LIDAR image of the site - in order to determine whether these approaches would provide any additional information about a possible earlier fort on site and secondly, to carry out small-scale excavations outside the designated area of the fort in order to examine features that might be related to the Roman site. Details of these various investigations are given below with a summary of their results.
A resistivity survey of the northern halfof the fort
This was undertaken in 2014 with the objective of trying to locate the exact site of 170
image
ARCHAEOLOGICAL IN VESTIGATIONSAT THE ROMAN NAVAL FORT, STUTFALL CASTLE
the principia buildings excavated by Roach Smith and to try and identify any other related buildings. The results were processed by L. Bosworth of the University of Kent and are shown in Fig. 6. One of the dominant features of the study was to
Fig. 6 The resistivity survey ofthe northern half of the fort.
171
image
MALCOLM DAVIES
show that, despite the relatively dry conditions during the survey, the north-west comer (1) shows unmistakable evidence of a strong flow of water below ground level, which is entering the breached north-west walls and continuing southwards inside the fort.
The substantial stonework (2) in the south-west comer is interpreted as the remains of the displaced north-west wall. In the most northern, central area of the survey, the stonework (3) is most probably fallen masonry from the north wall. However, the stone work (4), immediately south of this, measuring c.40 x 1 Orn, may well relate to the remains of the headquarters building and compares with Roach Smith's dimensions of 36.5 x 9.lm.
Further south-east of this feature is more evidence of substantial stonework (5) while the area in the north-east comer (6) gives evidence of considerable stonework but without a coherent pattern and it is likely to have been much disturbed by the water/soil movement that breached the north-east comer, a finding noted by Roach Smith and confirmed by Hutchinson.
A resistivity survey in the south-east interior of the fort
In view of the well-preserved state of the remains of the bathhouse, sited in the south east comer of the fort, it was decided in 201 5 to carry out a limited resistivity survey in the vicinity of the gatehouse immediately to the north of the bathhouse in order to determine whether any earlier building might lie near the gatehouse and which might have provided the materials reused in the gatehouse foundations. The results are shown in Fig. 7. The survey shows the site of the eastern part of the Roman bathhouse and an unidentified building about 20 30m away from the main gate.
* --- Fort entrance
'•
--- Unknown building
. Bath house - ··· _,...
Fig. 7 Resistivity survey of the south-east comer of the fort.
172
image
ARCHAEOLOGICAL IN VESTIGATIONSAT THE ROMAN NAVAL FORT, STUTFALL CASTLE
2a. A magnetometry survey of the northern halfof the fort
This survey was also carried out in 2014 with the assistance of R. Taylor, formerly of KCC, and the results again processed by L. Bosworth (Fig. 8).
Fig. 8 Magnetometer survey of northern half of fort.
173
image
MALCOLM DAVIES
2b. Magnetometry survey of the entire designated fort site
This survey was carried out in 2015-6 (see L. Bosworth 2016).
To summarise, the magnetometer results clearly showed that the buried archaeology of the fort interior was extensive, in contrast to the area outside the fort. However, with the exception of the bathhouse, it was not possible to identify individual features from this data alone.
LIDAR image of the fort
In 2015 a LIDARimage of the fort site was obtained from the Environment Agency. It should be emphasized that LIDARbasically indicates detailed height differences in the topography of the site and these may be natural or man-made.
Some interesting features were brought to light by this technique and the results shown in Fig. 9. The area marked (1) highlights the regular bank to the north-west of the fort, which runs across the slope in a straight line for about 90m from west of the fort to the footpath marking the western boundary of the field. It is worth noting that this feature appears to continue for several hundred metres west of the footpath..
The area (2) in the north of the fort shows the outline of a rectangle, whose northern edge appears to be closely aligned to feature (1). The area (3) is on the site
Fig. 9 The LIDAR image of the fort and immediate area.
174
image
ARCHAEOLOGICAL IN VESTIGATIONSAT THE ROMAN NAVAL FORT, STUTFALL CASTLE
of the bathhouse and indicates some of the perimeter of Roach Smith's excavations which is also visible on the ground. The area (4) may be the site of a small building, which a resistivity study also indicated.
It is interpreted that in (1) and (2), LIDAR highlights regular, man-made features which do not appear to relate to the layout of the Shore fort.
Investigation of the bank highlighted by LIDAR to the north-west of the designated fort area
Preliminary observations suggested that this feature (1 in Fig. 9), which consisted of an earthen bank running in a straight line across the natural slope of the hillside, was man-made. The area immediately downslope of the bank was a flat rectangle, about 70 x 15m and it appeared that the soil removed from this area had been thrown up to make a straight bank above a cutting in the hillside. It was also observed that along the base of the bank there was evidence of large blocks of ragstone at intervals, one of which bore chisel marks.
A resistivity survey of the bank and plateau indicated two intermittent lines of high resistivity, one at the base of the bank with a second line about 3m below the bank. It was decided to cut a 5m trench across these two features about 100m to the west of the fort (marked A on Fig. 9). Results of the excavation showed a quantity of ragstone, large and small, at the base of the bank and that the southern high resistivity line consisted of closely laid pieces of ragstone about 80cm wide (Figs 10 and 11).
..:>EC:T"ION OF �M TUWC..t-\
- NW OF LYMl"NE ,Sl-10� F�T
��ALe: �,_._M_e�_�_ ......
Fig. 10 Section drawing oftrench. (Drawing by R. Taylor.)
Examination of the area c.200m south-east of the fort where Roman pottery had been reported
Following reports of Roman pottery/tile found c.250m ESE of the Lympne fort on flat meadowland (NGR 12121 34205), a resistivity survey and a small excavation
175
image
MALCOLM DAVIES
0cm 40cm 80cm
Fig. 11 Plan drawing of ragstone pathway. (Drawing by L. Harrison.)
was carried out. Two I -metre squares were dug and a similar picture emerged from both pits. Below the topsoil of c.30cm lay a mixture of sand and clay to a depth of c.65cm. At this point lay a mixture of pebbles, mussel and oyster shell and a few pieces of waterwom tile and pottery sherds. At c.75cm this gave way to a mixture of mainly sand and pebbles.
It seems clear from this evidence that during the Roman period this area was a shallow part of the inlet, where refuse from the fort had accumulated.
CONCLUSIONS
All the geophysical work confirmed the findings of Roach Smith, Cunliffe and 176
image
ARCHAEOLOGICAL IN VESTIGATIONSAT THE ROMAN NAVAL FORT, STUTFALL CASTLE
Hutchinson, that the Stutfall site's dominant characteristic is its greatly disturbed nature resulting from water and soil movement. The only three exceptions appear to be areas partly protected by the walls of the fort where there has been least movement, i.e. the northern central area, where the principia rooms were located, the south-west comer of the fort where there is evidence of the remains of a building and the south-east comer where the bathhouse was located and where there is evidence ofthe remains ofa building near the fort entrance.
In view ofthis last building's proximity to the entrance and the quantity ofreused material found in the gatehouse foundations, it is possible that this material may have originated from this building and may, in fact, be the site ofthe second-century temple to Neptune but only excavation ofthe buildings remains can determine this. The existence ofa cutting and a Roman pathway running westwards away from the north-west side ofthe shore fort, which does not appear to relate to this later fort, could be indicative ofthe presence ofan earlier fort but is not conclusive on its own. The cutting appears on the LIDAR image, to terminate about 200m west of the trench marked A in what is now known as the Port Lympne Wild Animal Park. One possibility is that the path led to a signal station, positioned to the west
ofthe fort on order to gain a wider view ofthe English Channel.
The most powerful archaeological evidence ofthe earlier fort lies in the presence ofthe principia rooms, a feature without parallel in the other late shore forts and out of context in the architecture and purpose of the late shore forts but entirely consistent with the structure and purpose ofthe first- and second-century Roman forts. This conclusion is supported by the mass ofreused roofing tile, the presence ofRoman-fleet stamped tile, a significant quantity ofearly pottery and the evidence ofa second-century temple to Neptune found in the foundations ofthe gatehouse. Excavations ofthe building near the gatehouse might settle the matter finally.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author's thanks to Martin Bryer, Dave Earnshaw, Robin Grimes, Lorraine and Ken Harrison, Fiona Jarvest, Dave Jones, Yasser Rustom and Guy Topham for their assistance in carrying out the resistivity and magnetometry surveys and other field work. Thanks also to Lis Dyson ofKCC for her support and to Richard Taylor, formerly of KCC, for his assistance in the early magnetometer survey and trench section drawing. Lorraine Harrison provided the plan drawing of the excavated stone track and Ken Harrison provided technical support. Thanks also to Steve Willis ofthe University of Kent whose offer oftechnical help with both the resistivity and the later magnetometry survey was gratefully accepted; and to Lloyd Bosworth ofKent University who actually carried out the work.
Siriol and Bernard Mordan gave much needed assistance with presentation. Finally, a word ofthanks to the landowner, Richard Taylor and to the farmer Michael Owen for their cooperation and patience and to Rebecca Lambert ofHeritage England for her assistance in obtaining the necessary licences.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bosworth, L., 2016, Lympne fort magnetometer survey. https://www.kent.ac.uk/secl/ classics/research/docs/StutfallCastleLympneKentGeophy sical- Survey Report2016.pdf.
177
image
MALCOLM DAVIES
Cunliffe, B., 1980, 'Excavations at the Roman fort at Lympne 19768', Britannia, 11, 227- 88.
Cunliffe, B., 1985, The Temple ofSulis Minerva at Bath, vol. 1, The Site, fig. 18, Oxford. Frere, S.S., 1974,Britannia, a History of Roman Britain, London.
Hutchinson, J.N., Poole, C., Lambert, N. and Bromhead, E.N., 1985, 'Combined archaeological and geotechnical investigations of the Roman fort at Lympne', Britannia, 16, 209-36.
Johnson, S., 1979, The Roman Forts of theSaxonShore, London.
Pearson, A.F., 2002, The RomanShore Forts: coastal defenses of southern Britain, Tempus, Stroud.
Pearson, A., 2002, 'Stone Supply to the Saxon Shore Forts at Reculver, Richborough, Dover and Lympne',Archaeologia Cantiana, cxxn, 197-220 (see pp. 212-14 on Stutfall).
Philp, B.J., 1981, The Roman Forts of the Classis Britannica at Dover, KARU. Philp, B.J., 2005, The Excavation of the Roman Fort at Reculver, Kent, p. 216.
Roach Smith, C., 1850, TheAntiquities of Richborough, Reculver and Lymne, London.
Roach Smith, C., 1852, Report on Excavations on the site of the Roman Castrum at Lymne in Kent, London.
178
image
SHEPSTERS, HUCKSTERS AND OTHER BUSINESSWOMEN: FEMALE INVOLVEMENT IN CANTERBURY'S FIFTEENTH CENTURY ECONOMY
SHEILA SWEETINBURGH
The role of women in the workplace and thus their contribution to the national economy has remained a topical issue into the twenty-first century. It continues to fuel debates amongst economists and politicians especially regarding what are seen as inequalities in career progression, maternity leave, flexible working and the 'hidden economy' of households, child rearing, care of others and related activities. Historians, too, have explored many aspects of these topics, the growth in such scholarship in part a response to the rise and greater awareness of feminists from the 1970s onwards, who investigated what they viewed as an increasing marginalisation of women as workers from early modem times and into the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. 1 Although challenged by some, among the ideas put forward to explain such a phenomenon was the concept of separate spheres; put simply men (husbands) laboured in the workplace or workshop, women (wives) in the domestic household.2 The logical extension of this was the idea that historians should explore an earlier past to see if previous societies had functioned through more integrated households where domestic and commercial environments were under a single roof or space.3 One consequence of this exploration was the hunt for a 'golden age' (or even in the plural), where female 'commercial' workers were more plentiful, were seen as having wider opportunities regarding the range of occupations practised, which in tum might have had the potential to raise their status within the workplace, and in the economy and society more generally.4
These investigations into the working lives of women brought to the fore associated aspects of female experience over time such as the implications of the patriarchal nature of many societies, and in particular those ofWestem Europe; the significance of life-cycle stage and the effect this had on a woman's legal status, including her ability to function as an independent trader; and the role of marriage and household formation more broadly.5 In tum, such studies have addressed, at least to a degree, demographic matters including sex ratios and patterns of mortality and fertility, both geographically and chronologically, and how these affected and were affected by economic and cultural factors, themselves responding to and responsible for political, religious and social norms. This complex interweaving is important to appreciate even if it is exceedingly difficult to untangle because it demonstrates the problems of trying to identify trends over time regarding women and work.6 Consequently it may partly explain the frequency with which
179
image
SHEILA SWEETINBURGH
studies either offer longue duree surveys covering several centuries or use a snap shot approach, focusing on a particular year or short period. Another explanation for these alternative methods is the type, format and relative paucity of primary sources because it has long been appreciated that much of the work undertaken by women in the past remains hidden from view, being subsumed under that recorded for the male household head, most frequently the husband.
Yet, even where it is possible to locate women as workers in the workplace, there remains the matter of whether this commercial activity would necessarily have been construed by the women themselves as desirable, or even a matter of choice. Today, in what is seen as a more enlightened society, there are women who for a variety of reasons do not wish to engage directly in the world of work as it is still generally characterised. Such choices are as important to recognise now as they should be for women in earlier centuries, which means a greater percentage of women as workers does not necessarily equate either to a 'golden age' or to a time when working commercially was seen as an 'opportunity'. Instead, for large numbers of women work of this kind may have represented necessity not choice, a case of survival not betterment, and one that some would have preferred not to have undertaken if their circumstances had allowed.
The issues and problems outlined thus far cannot be addressed in a short article, but do need remembering when assessing women as commercial workers.7 However, one area where this article will try to break new ground, albeit only for the city of Canterbury, is a more systematic study over time. By concentrating on the fifteenth century and using a particular set of sources that provide annual data (see details below), as well as supplementary material from other records, it is possible to move beyond the snap-shot and the use of examples drawn from a long time period and wide geographical range. Nonetheless, it is worth noting at this point that all the primary sources used here present major problems regarding analysis. It is frequently believed, for example, that surnames had become fixed by this period but there is still some flexibility here. In addition, forenames are not always given because in some cases women are only designated in terms of a male relative, almost always their husband. In other instances there is nothing to indicate the woman's life-cycle status. Consequently, even though considerable care has been taken regarding the identification of the women in the records, especially where this involves record linkage, it is possible there remains an element of misidentification. Yet, notwithstanding such issues, this article offers some new insights regarding women and work in late medieval society.
For a number of social historians, the early fifteenth century, like the previous half century, is broadly seen as a time when the balance between wage levels and labour supply witnessed a reversal compared to the pre-Black Death period, as did the relationship between the demand for and supply of land. Among the consequences were far higher levels of mobility for men and women, both within the countryside and from rural to urban society, as both sexes sought to take advantage of these increased opportunities. Even though the national authorities sought to halt, indeed even reverse these relations to pre-plague levels, this appears to have had relatively little effect beyond certain localities.8 Towns thus drew in migrants, especially from predominantly arable-farming areas, the profile of these migrants being
180
image
SHEPSTERS, HUCKSTERS AND BUSINESS WOMEN IN l 5TH-CENTURY CANTERBURY
artisans and labourers, ranging from the unskilled though to the skilled, who were from a broad age range, the semi-skilled and unskilled most frequently in their late teens or early twenties. Women, as well as men, were part of this exodus from the countryside and Jeremy Goldberg has suggested that social developments such as life-cycle servanthood had an impact on the sex ratio, especially in towns. The higher proportion of women to men in these urban communities had a consequent effect on age at marriage, which meant women married later than previously, often leaving service to marry in their mid-twenties, while a significant number of women never married at all.9
The early fifteenth century also seemingly led to a growth in the variety of occupations undertaken by women due to the reduction in male workers resulting from continuing outbreaks of plague, albeit women remained predominantly in the areas of victualling, textiles and services. Access to capital, nevertheless, remained a serious and limiting factor for many businesswomen. However, some civic authorities, notably in London but probably also elsewhere, did seek to encourage widows to maintain their late husbands' businesses as they sought continuity within the urban economy. This latter factor may have grown in importance as a result of the long mid-century depression that can be seen to have extended from the 1440s to the 1470s. In addition, and even though the experiences of particular towns differed between the late fourteenth and the late fifteenth century, the continuing nationally-significant outbreaks of plague (about one per decade), agrarian, trade and other difficulties, seem to have adversely affected a considerable number of English towns which meant that local economies remained sluggish into the last decades of the fifteenth century, as seen, for example, in depressed rental incomes and empty and sometimes dilapidated properties.10 Furthermore, the apparent increase or revival of craft guilds during the same period, some of which included protectionist strategies among their regulations, suggests a time of economic difficulty or at best readjustment.
Canterbury was not immune from such national factors. Moreover, as elsewhere local and regional concerns were also significant, including apparent difficulties in the city's textile manufacturing sector and that the 1470 Jubilee coincided with deep-seated political difficulties. In addition, Canterbury's relations with the Yorkist kings were sometimes strained, which was also true for Kent more broadly.11 Thus against this context of often challenging circumstances this article will explore the incidence and activities of independent businesswomen, their longevity as workers and to a degree how they were viewed by the civic authorities at different times across the fifteenth century.
Studies of the role of women as workers in the medieval economy have normally employed sources such as ecclesiastical court records, institutional rentals, wills, poll tax records or lay subsidies, inquests and other court documents, including the assize of bread and ale. However, this study draws primarily on local licencing records which list the annual fees (fines) paid by applicants allowing them to reside and trade independently within Canterbury's liberty, and were recorded annually by the city chamberlains for about two hundred years beginning in 1392/3.12 The 'intrantes', as they were called, who were below the status of freemen, are listed on a ward basis.13 Against the name of each intrant the level of fine imposed is almost
181
image
SHEILA SWEETINBURGH
always specified, also frequently the person's occupation and occasionally place of origin. Furthermore, intrants had to re-apply annually, even though occasionally certain individuals seem to have been in arrears for several years. Whether the majority of these intrants were recent immigrants rather than non-free natives is difficult to access but remains a possibility, however as a group they were sufficiently prosperous to have craft tools, and had enough financial and personal credit to allow them to set up in business.
In terms of an investigation covering the fifteenth century, the nature of this source has considerable merits because it offers a means to examine the incidence of independent female workers over time, the occupations they followed and how this may relate to the broader trends of intrants' involvement in the economic life of fifteenth-century Canterbury. Moreover, as well as this quantitative approach to the sources, it is feasible to trace the commercial activities of particular individuals over a number of years, to follow the activities of married couples, and to track how certain wives coped with the death of their husband.
The various data on individuals in the licensing records are usefully augmented by the deployment of other types of civic record, in particular debt cases from the city's petty sessions because such cases are viewed by historians as offering evidence of commercial transactions. 14 Even though the level of detail on a case basis is often severely limited, the court records do offer a further pool of about 350 named women of whom some can be connected through record linkage to freemen either by birth or marriage. 15 Testamentary records provide an additional source, not only those from the ecclesiastical courts but also details recorded by the city's common clerk relating to inheritance issues involving daughters, wives and widows of freemen in the transference of property within Canterbury's liberty. 16
Male Intrants in Canterbury sfifteenth-century economy
The average number of male intrants licensed each year during the fifteenth century was about 70, while that of females was fewer than five. To provide a context for the far smaller involvement by female intrants in the city's economy, this short section considers the place of their male counterparts during this period.17 By the very nature of their often precarious existence, the number of men listed annually varied considerably, albeit a fortunate few were able to make the transition to freeman status. Looking at the 5-year rolling average of the numbers of male intrants (Fig. 1) during the fifteenth century, in broad terms, the early decades saw a rise in numbers but this growth was over by 1420. Even though there were short lived increases in the 1440s and 1490s, the century witnessed a broad downward trend. As already noted, this long decline was not uniform because it was due to a variety of factors, and, although national issues were important, these figures also indicate the significance of local and regional issues. The 1440s witnessed a partial recovery at a time when national factors, such as high taxation and depressed cloth exports, were becoming increasingly challenging as the country slipped into a long and extremely deep depression that prevailed for several decades. Notwithstanding these national problems, the slight rise in the figures for much of the 1460s, and to a lesser extent the 1470s, is perhaps more understandable because political conditions
182
image
SHEPSTERS, HUCKSTERS AND BUSINESS WOMEN IN l 5TH-CENTURY CANTERBURY
z
V)I-
er::
I-
LL.
100
90
80
70
60
50
5-yr rolling average: male and female intrants
-
0 40
30
V)er::
LU
a:,�
::Jz 20
10
0
YEARS 1400-1500
□men □women
Fig. 1 Five-year rolling average of male and female intrants 1400-1500.
did become more stable during the two reigns of Edward IV. Yet the presumably anticipated improvement as a consequence of the 1470 Jubilee would have been muted by the political problems of the Readeption and subsequent Fauconberg Rising, as well as a serious outbreak of plague. 18 The civic authorities were able to petition the king successfully to recover Canterbury's privileged status by the end of 1471 but that in itself was apparently not sufficient to draw in large numbers of intrants. The figures suggest that the 1480s presented considerable difficulties, yet the subsequent decade saw a marked, but short-lived, recovery (the downward trend returned in the subsequent decade). However other sources for the 1490s: the figures for stallholders in the fish and flesh markets, witnessed a decline that suggests that the economy was not buoyant generally. 19 This widespread situation is substantiated by Andrew Butcher's findings because Christ Church Priory, the premier landlord in the city, was experiencing problems finding sufficient tenants for its property during the later fifteenth century, as well as having to spend an ever greater percentage of its urban rental income on building maintenance.20
Looking more specifically at the occupational profiles of the male intrants (see Figs 2-3; occupational information for 1400-9 is too limited to be useful) and comparing the early and late fifteenth-century decades, apart from clothing, metalworking and the provision of hospitality, the other figures indicate a reduction in the numbers involved, especially the workshop industries. Another feature is the considerable variation among the different sectors of the economy over the century, and, where the figures are sufficient to indicate a trend, it may be possible to explore briefly this complex picture.
Firstly, examining those trades involving the supply of goods and services; as 183
image
SHEILA SWEETINBURGH
Male lntrants Occupations: 1400-1500
20
Vl
+-'
�
C
+-' 15
-
C
.!!!
E
ro 10
� 5
Q)
..Cl
E
� 0
Years: 1400-1500
-mercantile -service -accommodation -food
Fig. 2 Male Intrant Occupations in the Service, Hospitality and Trade sectors; numbers 1400-1500.
Male lntrants Occupations: 1400-1500
35
Vl
+-'
�
C 30
+-'
-
C 25
.!!!ro 20
E 15
� 10
5
..Cl
:,E
z 0
Years: 1400-1500
-leather -clothing -textiles -metal
Fig. 3 Male Intrant Industrial-type Occupations; numbers 1400-1500.
a distribution centre for the rich mixed farming region of east Kent, Canterbury also needed to supply a transient as well as a resident population. Consequently the decline in the number of male intrants involved in victualling, most marked in the 1430s and thereafter remaining low albeit punctuated by increases in the early 1440s, late 1460s and mid- l 490s, is perhaps indicative of economic difficulties, as well as stagnant or falling population levels.21 In addition the contrasting levels of success of the two Jubilees of 1420 and 1470, only the former apparently resulted in a sizeable increase in the numbers trading in food and drink, may partly reflect
184
image
SHEPSTERS, HUCKSTERS AND BUSINESS WOMEN IN l 5TH-CENTURY CANTERBURY
this general trend, as well as the far more favourable political circumstances of 1420.22 Unfortunately the numbers involved in the provision of hospitality are too small for any useful analysis, but there were more intrants in the mercantile trades. As a sector it seems to have been more volatile than most, a reflection ofthe flexible nature ofthe occupations involved, but the steep decline in the 1420s is worth noting, as is the nadir during the later 1470s and early 1480s. The latter seems to be part of a wider trend and may represents a lack of confidence in the city's economy and thus an unwillingness by individuals to engage in such commerce.23
Turning to manufacturing, whether attributable to the regional dominance of cattle in comparison to sheep as the primary livestock species, it is noteworthy that the leather industry, especially shoe making and repairing, comprised the most popular trades among this group ofmale intrants. Nevertheless, across the industry the broad trend over the century was downwards, and this, too, may relate to a fall in population because Canterbury residents presumably comprised the primary market.24 Yet whether the seeming recovery in the 1490s represents a reversal of the demographic trend or greater per capita spending on such items as shoes is not clear. The declining numbers involved in the manufacture of textiles, especially weavers (linen and wool), from the late 1440s onwards, may owe less to the city's demography and more to growing competition from Wealden cloth producers.25 This seems to have become even more challenging in the early sixteenth century, the civic authorities using a range of policies to try to halt the decline.26 In contrast the clothing industry, notably the tailors and specialist cap and hat makers, apparently found opportunities throughout most of the century. Thus even though there was some variation year on year it is not clear what may have fuelled this, and, as with all the occupations, it may reflect the personal circumstances of those working in clothing rather than more general economic and social factors.
Another industry, like clothing, that appears to buck the general trend involves the metal workers. Even though the numbers are small, it is interesting that in the 1490s the figures are higher than for the 1410s. Moreover, the greatest and longest sustained peaks were either side of 1440 and during the 1470s. However the rise was not due to growing numbers of producers involved in the luxury market such as goldsmiths, instead it marks the presence of more smiths and locksmiths. Why this happened is not known, but it is worth noting that soon after in 1506 the city's senior smiths and armourers drew up guild regulations that included a number of protectionist measures.27
Consequently, even though the picture is complex, the fifteenth century witnessed a decline in the numbers of men trading as intrants and the marked downturn in the 1430s was particularly noticeable regarding the victuallers. Other sectors of the economy that might be viewed as similarly significant concerning their implications for female businesswomen are clothing and textiles. For whereas the number ofmale intrants involved in textiles did fall from its late 1440s peak, the figures for clothing in general indicate a relatively buoyant market across the whole period.
Businesswomen in Canterbury society
Among the city's intrants during the fifteenth century, just over 160 were women. This is a small figure and in any one year women never comprised more than 14%
185
image
SHEILA SWEETINBURGH
of the total.28 In addition only in eight years did women constitute 10% or over, but the figures still offer valuable insights regarding the place of women as independent traders. Moreover, as a means of exploring the significance of the female intrants, it is useful to compare the poll tax returns for 1381, where occupations are often listed, and 1392, the first year the intrants were recorded.29 Although the 1381 poll tax returns are slightly damaged it is possible, discounting servants, as well as those designated solely as 'the wife of', to identify 84 women by occupation, who presumably were single women, although what proportion were widows is unclear. Of these, 70% were involved in textiles and almost all were listed as spinsters (i.e. spinners).30 The remainder were divided among seven sectors and of these the largest was victualling at 12% (10 women). Thus discounting the textile workers there were 25 women for whom their occupations are known, including three gentlewomen, and interestingly this figure is similar to the 18 female intrants listed in 1392. Furthermore, none of the women recorded as intrants between 1392 and 1500 are designated as spinsters, yet such workers must have been present in the city to supply the weavers, both intrants and freemen.31 Even though it must remain conjecture, it is possible that the spinsters were not viewed by the civic authorities as independent traders and instead the successors of those listed in 1381 may have operated under a putting-out system controlled by the weavers.32
Looking at the comparable 5-year rolling average for female intrants (Fig. 1), like their male counterparts the early decades of the fifteenth century were the most advantageous, and this was especially noticeable in the late 1410s and mid-1420s (the peak came in 1425 when 12 women were recorded). Thereafter there was a sharp decline and by the mid 1430s there were never more than one or two, and in the following decade women had all but disappeared: between 1441 and 1450 they were not listed in seven of these years and in the 1460s only three women are noted (Fig. 4). The mid-1470s brought a partial recovery, as did the 1490s, but the intervening period had witnessed a return to the low levels of the later 1430s.
Even though two out of every three of these 160+ businesswomen are only recorded for a single year, at the other end of the spectrum Alice Sergaunt traded as a huckster (victualler) for 13 years between 1415 and 1427. Her activities coincided with the decades when women were most likely to trade for longer periods: in the 1410s out of a total of 29 female intrants, 12 were licence-fee payers for two years or more, and in the 1420s there were 14 who traded for over a year compared to 12 who were listed for only a year. Like the total figures, it seems feasible that this longevity was due to the relative buoyancy of Canterbury's economy, which amongst other factors had benefited from royal military campaigns in France, including Henry V's triumph in the Agincourt campaign, the king's subsequent pilgrimage to Canterbury and his meeting there with the Holy Roman Emperor, as well as the success of the 1420 Jubilee.
The fall in the total number of businesswomen during the second and third quarters of the century is also reflected in their very limited longevity. Between 1425 and 1475 only Juliana Bous (1433-39) traded for more than five years, and in the 1440s, 1450s and 1460s, the sole exceptions who were present for more than one year were Johanna Ratford and Johanna Wylliam. In contrast, during the final quarter, greater longevity matched the recovery in the number of total female licence payers, and this is most marked in the 1470s and 1490s when 45% of these
186
image
SHEPSTERS, HUCKSTERS AND BUSINESS WOMEN IN l 5TH-CENTURY CANTERBURY
Annual numbers of men and women intrants
120
z
1-vi 100
�1-z 80
0 60
V)er::
co 40
�
z::J 20
0
YEARS 1400-1500
□men □women
Fig. 4 Annual numbers of male and female intrants 1400-1500.
women are listed for more than a single year. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that of those who traded for more than five years during these decades, all three women were working widows, albeit they seem to have traded previously as wives, in one case for almost a decade.
Unlike their male counterparts, throughout the fifteenth century these business women apparently had almost no opportunity to progress from intrant to freeman. The only women known to have achieved this status during the fifteenth century are Constance as the wife of Robert Bertyn, in 1455, and in 1482/3 Margaret Gryme, sole merchant, and Margaret Chyrche, the widow of William a Canterbury goldsmith.33 Nonetheless, assize and court records indicate that women were commercially active in far larger numbers. For example, the very fragmentary assize records, covering only a few years and often not all of Canterbury's wards, do illustrate female involvement in brewing, the regrating of ale, and as inn holders and butchers, as well as several brothel keepers.34 Amongst the latter were Katherine Borach in 1437, and fifty years later Mabil Shynglton, Johanna Belle and the wife of Thomas Style.35
In contrast, the more extensive petty session sources list the involvement in debt cases of 352 women. The almost complete absence of women intrants from these cases may indicate that many of these plaintiffs and defendants were the daughters, wives or widows of freemen.36 As a different cohort among Canterbury's businesswomen, it is unfortunate that the survival rate of these fifteenth-century court records is patchy, and there are none at all for the 1430s and 1440s. Even though they are not complete, there are only four extant rolls for the first three decades, the far more comprehensive coverage for the last three decades is valuable.
187
image
SHEILA SWEETINBURGH
Yet taking into consideration these obvious differences, it seems that there was a marked increase in the number of women using the courts in the 1480s and 1490s, as well as their involvement in more than one action. Indeed, Margery Arnet was involved in six cases over a four-year period in the 1480s and Eleanor Pemberton engaged in a similar number of cases but over a far longer period, the first in 1479 and the last in 1491.
However, even if this apparent rise in the numhers is a product of differing record survival over time, the recognition of the legal status of femme sole (a married woman who traded independently of her husband and who was responsible legally for the debts she incurred) is not seen in the surviving Canterbury court records before the 1460s.37 Between 1460 and 1499 the proportion of women so designated compared to those known to have been wives seems to have stayed at about a third, which means that in total 36 different women were noted as afemme sole, almost half (15) in the 1480s. A few women were listed accordingly more than once, but on other occasions the clerk for some reason did not mention their legal status, which may indicate that although seemingly important it was not viewed as essential in terms of recording practices. For the majority of the married women who were not seen as a femme sole and thus in law under the jurisdiction of their husbands respecting their commercial activities, the presence of their husbands with them in the courts was viewed as mandatory.38 Nonetheless, the court officials on occasion apparently saw the wife as the sole culprit regarding the outstanding debt, in that it was she alone who was detained.39
So what was the range of businesses run by women in Canterbury during the fifteenth century and did this change over the period? Even though the number of female intrants is less than half that recorded in the courts, the licensing records offer more details regarding occupation and for almost two-thirds of these women such details are known. Among the 36 occupations noted, 21 are only listed once, for example, fletcher, spurrier (maker of spurs), butcher, laundrywoman and vintner. Similarly one brewer is listed, Cecily Feyset who traded for a year after her husband John's death.40 He had been a barber and her apparently short lived experience as a widow in 1414 can be viewed as typical of that sector of the ale industry that involved small-scale, intermittent female production. This is in contrast to certain male brewers who by this period were operating relatively, large-scale, commercial brew houses. Among these, albeit slightly later in the century, was John Bigge who had both an ale and a beer brew house at his principal messuage. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that following his death his feoffees settled certain property, including his 'le Bierbruhous' and 'le Alebruhous' on his widow Constance and John Martin gentleman, with the instruction that Bigge's mother should reside in part of her daughter-in-law's messuage.41
More commonly these businesswomen were potters (3), barbers (5), shopkeepers (5), hucksters (7), shepsters (15), upholders (12), and victuallers (18).42 The preponderance of the food, clothing and mercantile trades is typical of female involvement in the later medieval urban economy (Fig. 5). It also mirrors to a degree the occupations of their male counterparts (see above) and the far more limited information provided in the debt cases where the items most commonly listed are barrels of ale (and beer in 1487, 1489 and 1496), and various forms
188
image
SHEPSTERS, HUCKSTERS AND BUSINESS WOMEN IN l 5TH-CENTURY CANTERBURY
A
B
C
Fig. 5 Some examples of female employments illustrated on misericords (nationwide): A: Spinster with distaff, Minster in Thanet Church. (Photo. S. Sweetinburgh.)
B: A dishonest alewife, Ludlow Church. (Photo I. Corrigan.) C: Carding, Norton Church, Suffolk. (Photo I. Corrigan.)
of bread and cloth.43 Far less numerous were those female intrants in the textile industry because apart from the absent spinsters, there were only two weavers, one kempster (a wool-carder), one dyer and one fuller. Indeed if these represent workers involved in the production of woollen cloth, the staple fabric in medieval
189
image
SHEILA SWEETINBURGH
England, it is worth noting that there were three flaxwives and a lacemaker among the Canterbury businesswomen. Such diversity may reflect a need to look for other economic opportunities, as may the presence of at least one knitter in the city.44 In addition, a few women were engaged in the leather industry, including two corvesers (shoe makers), a skinner and a pelterer, which is especially unusual because of these women only Felicia Hogyn seems to have been continuing her late husband's business, and in her case she maintained it for a further three years.45 The absence of women in either the construction or metal-working industries is not unusual, and there were relatively few male intrants in these same sectors, especially construction.
Examined over time, during the later 1410s the occupational profile is dominated by the victuallers, a response, perhaps, to the likely enhanced opportunities presented by Henry V's overseas military campaigns and the 1420 Jubilee. The following decade continued to offer such work, but others chose to act as shepsters (3), or as cloth or clothing sellers (3 upholders and 1 haberdasher), with further diversity in the form of two potters, two barbers and a dyer. Even though the number of women working independently fell in the 1430s and 1440s, the variety of occupations remained, albeit none were listed specifically as victuallers but there was a butcher and a fruiterer. Businesswomen continued to act as barbers, apparently following their husband's craft, as did the wife of Richard Alcotes who was designated the fletcher for a year during their marriage.
Even though the numbers involved are small, diversity remained the hallmark of the last 30 years of the century, both within and comparatively between the decades. For even though the clothing and mercantile trades were well represented in each, including shepsters and shopkeepers in all three decades, and one woman from the leather trades (a hosier in the 1470s, a corveser in the 1480s and a skinner in the 1490s), those involved in the food industry were only listed in the final two decades (a cook and a fruiterer in each). One of the very few women from the metal-working trades was active in the 1470s as a spurrier, and there was also a barber and a potter, while in the 1480s the wife of William George was an ashbumer and in the following decade there were three flaxwives and a mercer from the textile industry.46 Such findings are interesting because greater diversity might have been expected during the first quarter when the city's economy was buoyant, followed by a concentration on a narrow range of traditional occupations in the final decades of the century.47 Nevertheless, the particularity of Canterbury's heavy dependence on pilgrimage may explain the dominance of victualling during the early period. Yet it is less clear why this sector was barely present in the final quarter of the century, its place taken by clothing, mercantile and other trades, but the small numbers involved may be a key factor here.
A further topic that is especially important with respect to the place of women within the economy is life-cycle stage. However there are considerable identification issues regarding the marital status of many of the female intrants. Nonetheless, by examining the records of men with the same surname, ward of residence, year of licensing and occupation, as well as deploying other sources through record linkage, it is possible to categorise in terms of life-cycle stage these businesswomen fairly confidently, albeit there are some where this is less secure.48
190
image
SHEPSTERS, HUCKSTERS AND BUSINESS WOMEN IN l 5TH-CENTURY CANTERBURY
Thus taking account of these caveats, it appears there were over 40 women who were listed either as 'the wife of' or who were apparently operating their own business as married women, including six women recorded first as wives and then as widows; and a further 31 are 'known' to have been widows using the same criteria. The remainder (88), who were apparently 'single', presumably comprised the unmarried and widows but the relative proportions are impossible to ascertain from the available information.
Taking the largest group - the single women, as a proportion of the total number of women, the figure for the first quarter of the century was far greater (constituting the majority) than for the last quarter. Even though this may partly be a consequence of the less detailed records for the earlier period, it may, together with the higher total numbers of female intrants, reflect relatively high levels of immigration. Probably most would have travelled relatively short distances, the city's primary catchment area being east Kent, but a few seemingly had journeyed further, such as Katherine Orpington, and from outside the county: Alice Northampton and Celia Newport.49 Furthermore, if the model Goldberg witnessed in late medieval York of life-cycle servanthood is appropriate for fifteenth-century Canterbury, it is feasible that some/many of these single female intrants had spent time in service, whether they were natives of the city (but outside the freedom) or new arrivals, before having sufficient resources to trade as businesswomen.50
In terms of longevity, as intrants over 70% of these single women were only recorded once. For some this may indicate that it was very difficult for them to gain a sustainable place within the city's economy and a proportion of these women may have become or returned to being servants, or left Canterbury, either to return whence they came or to try their fortune elsewhere. Those less fortunate may have joined the city's poor, eking out a living on the margins, and those even less fortunate may have died, the city experiencing, for example, at least one major plague outbreak per decade. Although this may be an especially extreme example, it would suggest the perils of being a single businesswoman even in buoyant economic times. Whether Isolde Tappestere, who was before the courts in 1417, is the same person as Isolde Stafford, an intrant in the same year as a victualler is unknown, but is feasible because she is not listed again. Initially Isolde responded through her attorney to John Fydhole's demands for the 9s. owed for various breads he had supplied, but then she went in person to the court and acknowledged the debt. As a consequence she was taken into custody and died in jail.51 Yet thinking more positively, some may have married local craftsmen, their business subsumed within their new household and thus disappeared from the lists as independent traders.
Notwithstanding that the occupations of many from this group are not listed, it is probably not surprising that victuallers, shepsters and upholders were the most common businesswomen. Presumably such work offered these women considerable potential because it required few capital assets, a factor that may have influenced Celia Goldbeter's decision to take in washing in 1415 and Johanna Moldson's to become a fruit seller (1491).52 Yet a few were seemingly able or more willing to invest far greater capital because the weaving and dyeing businesses of Johanna Braid (1423) and Emma Essele (1427), respectively, would have necessitated far greater investment for tools and even premises.53
191
image
SHEILA SWEETINBURGH
Of the minority of single businesswomen who may be characterised as being successful in the city's commercial world, for a small number it is possible to examine some aspects of their 'career' in Canterbury. For example, Isabel Bertelot, perhaps from Romney Marsh because the surname was present there in the fifteenth century, is recorded as an intrant for three consecutive years (1411-1413). She is listed as a pelterer, indicating that she was an artisan and seemingly a woman of some skill because after the first year her licence fee increased to 2s. for each of the next two years.54 Thereafter she disappears from the list, maybe following marriage, although whether to John Clare, who appears that year as a pelterer in the same ward, remains a matter of conjecture.55 The only two women, either through choice or necessity, who managed to operate as independent traders for over ten consecutive years were the hucksters Alice Sergeant and Alice Clerys. The former lived in Northgate ward for at least 13 years, her business thriving sufficiently that her annual fee increased from 6d. to 8d. The latter had previously traded from Newingate ward for at least as long, and perhaps similarly successfully because only in her first year did she pay less than 6d.
The problems of identifying widows from amongst these single women is exemplified by the case of Margaret Halke. Between 1423 and 1430 she was annually listed as a chandler in Northgate ward, the annual fee rising from 6d. to 8d. for her final three years. Thereafter a Sampson Halke is recorded for two years under the same ward and occupation, paying a higher fee of 1Od. in each year, and in 1433 he became a freeman by redemption. Even though there is nothing else to link these two people nor what relationship this should be, it is feasible that Sampson was Margaret's son and that he took control of the family business from his widowed mother when he came of age. Again, although this involves a degree of conjecture, it seems the family remained in Canterbury because a Margaret Halke found herself before the city's petty sessions in 1463 for debt.56
In other cases the identification of widows appears more secure, and of these 31 female intrants over half (58%) are only listed for a single year. The occupations are known for almost all of these short-term businesswomen and just over half continued their husband's craft, such as Laurence and Clemencia Gerard who are both recorded as corvesers, although whereas Laurence's licence fee had risen from 8d. in 1428 to 3s. 4d. in 1431, the following year his widow only paid 10d. and then disappeared from the list. Similarly John and Constance Algood seem to have followed the same trade. In 1415 John is listed as an ostclothmaker, paying initially 4d. per annum. Thereafter his fee rose in increments so that by 1426 he was paying 16d. as his licence fee, the couple residing in Newingate ward. He was able to maintain this level of activity for a further three years, and when his widow paid the licence fee in 1432 she, too, was a cloth maker.57 Others were presumably unable to maintain such continuity: William Croser also worked as a corveser between 1432 and 1434 but the year after Isabel, his widow, was fined as an upholder.
Whether the disappearance of these widows so soon after the death of their late husbands was a result of their own death, rather than remarriage, entering service or migration is unclear. However a minority wished or had no option but to continue working independently in widowhood, and for most this meant maintaining the family business for at least two and often three years. For example, Johanna
192
image
SHEPSTERS, HUCKSTERS AND BUSINESS WOMEN IN l 5TH-CENTURY CANTERBURY
Hobard traded for three years as a vintner from 1496 after Robert's death, and in her final year she was before the courts in a dispute over two barrels of wine, one of which contained Malmsey.58 Even though examples from the intrants' lists are rare because of the nature of the sources, it is feasible that certain widows continued the family business until their sons were able to take control. Whether this was exactly the scenario regarding the Queyk family is not clear, but Johanna did maintain her husband Simon's successful fulling business (his licence fee rose from 8d. to 20d.) in Worthgate ward for two years after his death. Nevertheless, she paid the smaller sum of 8d. each year, and it is possible John Queyk, who began trading on his own in 1425, which was seemingly a few months before Simon's death, may have taken on part of the family business because he was also operating in Worthgate as a fuller. Like Johanna (his mother?), he was initially paying an 8d. fee but in 1427, his final year before he too disappeared from the intrants' lists, he was charged 10d. (half the amount previously levied on his deceased father?).
Such examples suggest that the city authorities had no objection to the presence of widows as independent traders in fifteenth-century Canterbury, and may even have encouraged their involvement to provide continuity and thus strengthen the city's commerce. For even if they were unable to continue the same type of business, their ability to trade independently was presumably advantageous to all concerned in a society where personal reputation was viewed as vital social capital.59 Thus Emma Clerk was able to trade as a victualler in Northgate ward from 1416 to 1418 after her husband Leonard's death, the same length of time he had run his cook shop and acted as a huckster. Consequently, if this does reflect the position of the mayor and his brethren, it is not clear why these widowed businesswomen were far scarcer during the middle decades of the century.
Turning finally to the 'known' wives, including those who were in business first as wives and then as widows, during the period of marriage the majority (57%) are listed for one year only as independent workers. Agnes Robert appears to fit this arrangement because she ran her shop in 1477 as the 'wife of John Robert', but the year after in her own name having also moved wards from Newingate to Burgate.60 Whether this scenario was due to John's incapacity in 1477 is not certain, but may explain the pattern seen with respect to Richard Alcotes and his wife in the 1440s. He is first listed as a fletcher in 1441 paying 12d. He paid the same sum the following year and then again in 1444, but in the intervening year it is his wife who is listed at the lower fee of 8d. Thereafter, except for 1448 when he disappears again, Richard continued to work as a fletcher until 1451.
However this chronological pattern of one year under the 'wife's' name during her husband's career is far less evident in the intrants' lists for the last quarter of the century. Instead where the working lives of couples are recorded the year in which the wife is seen as the intrant are almost equally either the year prior to her husband or the year after.61 For example, John a Lee's wife was the named intrant as a cook in 1495, and thereafter for the next two years their cook shop is recorded under his name. A decade earlier the pattern is reversed. Edward Clynk, also a cook, is listed under Westgate ward in 1482 paying l 6d., but it is his wife who was seen as the cook by the common clerk the following year, and again the licence fee is 16d. Moreover, these later decades witnessed a large percentage of the total of 'known' couples, although why is not clear. It seems unlikely husbands were
193
image
SHEILA SWEETINBURGH
more incapacitated than early in the century but whether this represents changing recording practices by the various clerks, or a shift in the respective responsibilities within families is unclear.
Nevertheless, there are couples, especially during the first two decades of the century, whose joint careers were apparently more complex and where the involvement of family members may extend into the next generation. For example, Henry and Lora Rounceby, with perhaps one or even two of their sons, are recorded as intrants for almost two decades. Looking at the level of fine paid by either spouse, their family business seems to have prospered because Henry paid a licence fee of 6d. in 1411, and three years later Lora was charged 8d. Indeed it is Lora rather than Henry who is recorded each year between 1413 and 1418, always at 8d. per annum. Interestingly neither is listed in 1419 but Henry's name returns the year after. Yet in 1421 and 1422, and again in 1424 it is Lora who is noted as the intrant. Thereafter her name disappears and over the next seven years it is mostly a Henry Rounceby, although in 1426 the forename changes to Laurence, and during the same period the fine had risen to 10d. per annum. Even though it is difficult to be sure of the precise chronology of responsibility held by individual family members as understood by the common clerk, these records do suggest that the civic authorities had few reservations regarding wives, as well as widows, in terms of their place in Canterbury's economy during the early decades of the fifteenth century. Whether such a view continued to be held in the later decades is somewhat less certain, nevertheless wives did very occasionally trade independently for several years, such as the unnamed wife of Henry Russelyn who, having traded for eight years as his wife (1491-5, 1498-1500), was thereafter noted as an intrant for four years as his widow. As a shepster living in Worthgate ward, she seems to have been modestly successful, but what exactly Henry was doing in the years prior to his death is not clear.62 Nonetheless, as noted above, such examples may hint at the problems married couples faced as a result of chronic disability or illness, and that town authorities were, therefore, prepared to recognise the necessary place of women in society.
This apparent willingness to provide the space whereby women could trade independently during marriage, rather than only in widowhood, is also evident from the petty sessions. In 1472, Petronella Haddon defended herself in court as a sole merchant against Thomas Ramsey over a debt of 34s. 6d. for 11½ barrels of ale.63 As a huckster, Beatrice Atkyn was involved in several cases in the early 1480s. She was designated a femme sole by the court and found herself in custody as a result of the debt owed to Ramsey, her husband, who was also present in court, not held to account.64
Yet even where the courts sought to hold such businesswomen accountable in law in their own right, it is probably not appropriate to envisage this with modem eyes solely as a 'victory' for the female sex. Rather for these Canterbury women pragmatism may have been far more important.65 The ability to gain a favourable judgement in the local courts might be achieved as a femme sole working independently, but if being represented by an attorney or working together with a spouse was more likely to result in the desired outcome, then presumably that is what these women did. Although the sources do not provide sufficient information to verify this hypothesis, this scenario does appear to fit the following examples. As a recent widow in 1491, Petronella Morbere was apparently involved in three debt
194
image
SHEPSTERS, HUCKSTERS AND BUSINESS WOMEN IN l 5TH-CENTURY CANTERBURY
cases that year, and in the second she was represented by her attorney regarding the labour costs incurred on various hides and skins.66 Alternatively, and this is not to imply that widows remarried just to receive such support, but on occasion the presence of her new husband beside her in court must have been viewed as advantageous. Among the occasions where this occurred in the Canterbury petty sessions were debt cases involving widows as executors of their late husbands. These included Agnes, one of the executors ofWill Faunt, who was not only joined by her late husband's other executor, a cleric called Thomas Halewell, but by her new husband Edward Bolney in their action against John Potman in 1496.67 In addition, Margaret Stephen challenged the court's designation of her as a femme sole. She and her husband were accused by Richard Melseby regarding her failure to pay 4s. l ld. for the white bread he had supplied, but when she came in person to the court she stated that she was not a sole merchant.68
Conclusion
The Canterbury records, especially the intrants' lists, offer a useful window on the commercial activities undertaken by women in the late medieval city. Even though there remain analytical problems concerning the deployment of such records, not least the numbers recorded and the ability to identity women in terms of their life-cycle stage, they do provide valuable comparable material, especially in terms of the early and later fifteenth century. To a degree the earlier period, in particular, can be envisaged as a time of opportunity, but life was still exceedingly precarious whether due to external factors such as market forces or internal issues like sickness or industrial accidents. The high level of female involvement in the food, mercantile and clothing industries has also been seen elsewhere, but it is worth noting that this pattern resembled that found for their male counterparts, a reflection, perhaps, of the particular nature of the city's economy. Thus this study, as well as examining the significance of regional and local conditions, has been able to place Canterbury within the wider scholarship on late medieval urban women and their place in economic society.
ENDNOTES
s
s
I Such as: M. Prior, ed., Women in English Society 1500-1800 (London, 1985); M. Whyte, The Status of Women in Preindustrial Societies (Princeton, 1986); J. Bennett, Ale, Beer, and Brewsters in England: Women Work in a Changing World, 1300-1600 (New York, 1996). See also articles in Gender and History; Women History Network; and Feminist Studies.
Although not specifically addressing this issue, Barbara Hanawalt nevertheless would seem implicitly to have envisaged such a distinction in her analysis of inquest records; B. Hanawalt, The Ties That Bound: Peasant Families in Medieval England (New York, 1986). Among those who see this model as too simplistic; F. Babb, 'Producers and reproducers: Andean marketwomen in the economy', Women and Change in Latin America, ed. J. Nash and H. Safa (New York, 1986), pp. 53-64. See also; J. Bennett, 'History that stands still: women's work in the European past', Feminist Studies, 14 (1988), 269-83; S. Stuard, 'The chase after theory: considering medieval women', Gender and History, 4 (1992), 135-46; B. Capp, When Gossips Meet: Women, Family, and Neighbourhood in Early Modem England (Oxford, 2003).
R. Morewedge, ed., The Role ofWomen in the Middle Ages (Albany, 1975); M. Labarge, Women in Medieval Life (London, 1986).
195
image
SHEILA SWEETINBURGH
For example, C. Barron, 'The 'Golden Age' of women in medieval London', Reading Medieval Studies, 15 (1989), 35-58; D. Herlihy, Opera Muliebria: Women and Work in Medieval Europe (New York, 1990).
Among the plethora of such studies: J. Bennett, Women in the Medieval English Countryside: Gender and Household in Brigstock before the Plague (Oxford, 1987); B. Hanawalt, ed., Women and Work in Preindustrial Europe (Bloomington, 1986); M. Erler and M. Kowaleski, Gendering the Master Narrative: Women and Power in the Middle Ages (Ithaca, N.Y., 2003); R. Smith, ed., Land, Kinship and Life-Cycle (Cambridge, 1984); P.J.P., Goldberg, Women, Work, and Life Cycle in a Medieval Economy: Women in York and Yorkshire c.1300-1520 (Oxford, 1992); P. Hudson and W. Lee, ed., Women s Work and the Family Economy in Historical Perspective (Manchester, 1990); L. Charles and L. Duffin, ed., Women and Work in Pre-Industrial England (London, 1985); M. Mate, Daughters, Wives and Widows after the Black Death: Women in Sussex, 1350-1535 (Woodbridge, 1998); M. Mate, Women in Medieval English Society (Cambridge, 1999); H. Jewell, Women in Medieval England (Manchester, 1996); M.K. McIntosh, Working Women in English Society, 1300- 1620 (Cambridge, 2005); R.R. Edwards and V. Ziegler, Matrons and Marginal Women in Medieval Society (Woodbridge, 1995); M. Kowaleski and P.J.P. Goldberg, ed., Medieval Domesticity: Home, Housing and Household in Medieval England (Cambridge, 2009); C. Barron and A. Sutton,Medieval London Widows 1300-1500 (London, 1994); M. Kowaleski, Local Markets and Regional Trade in Medieval Exeter (Cambridge, 1995), S. Penn, 'Female wage-earners in late fourteenth-century England', Agricultural History Review, 35 (1987), 1-14.
Marjorie McIntosh, in her introduction, provides a useful summary of the debates surrounding women's work, an assessment of the main documentary sources commonly used by historians, and the particular value of equity petitions as a source for her study; McIntosh, Working Women, pp. 3-42.
In the context of this article the idea of commercial work relates to payment received for goods produced and sold, rather than women as servants, that is in employment.
s Again, there is an extensive historiography on the late medieval economy and the effects on society, including; M. Bailey and S. Rigby, ed., Town and Countryside in the Age of the Black Death (Turnhout, 2012); R. Horrox, ed., Fifteenth-Century Attitudes: Perceptions of Society in Late Medieval England (Cambridge, 1994); R.H. Britnell, The Commercialisation of English Society, 1000-1500, 2nd edn (Manchester, 1996); C. Dyer, An Age of Transition? Economy and Society in England in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 2005); C. Dyer, Standards of Living in the Later Middle Ages: Social Change in England, c.1200-1520 (Cambridge, 1998); S. Rigby, English Society in the Later Middle Ages: Class, Status and Gender (Basingstoke, 1995); P.J.P. Goldberg, Medieval England: A Social History, 1250-1550 (London, 2004); L.R. Poos, A Rural Society After the Black Death: Essex, 1350-1525 (Cambridge, 1991); S. Penn and C. Dyer, 'Wages and earnings in late medieval England: evidence from the enforcement of the labour laws', Economic History Review, 2nd series, 43 (1990), 356-76.
P.J.P. Goldberg, 'Marriage, migration, servanthood and life-cycle in Yorkshire towns of the later Middle Ages', Continuity and Change, 1 (1986), 141-69; P.J.P. Goldberg, "For better, for worse': marriage and economic opportunity for women in town and country', Women is a Worthy Wight: Women in English Society, c.1200-1500, ed. P.J.P. Goldberg (Stroud, 1992), pp. 108-25.
Examples from the historiography include; J. Hatcher, 'The Great Slump of the mid fifteenth century', Progress and Problems in Medieval England: Essays in Honour of Edward Miller, ed.
R.H. Britnell and J. Hatcher (Cambridge, 1996), pp. 237-72; D.M. Palliser, ed., Cambridge Urban History of Britain, 1: 600-1540 (Cambridge, 2000); R.H. Britnell, 'Urban demand and the English Economy, 1300-1600', Trade, Urban Hinterlands and Market Integration, 1300-1600, ed. JA. Galway (London, 2000), pp. 1-21; A. Dyer, Decline and Growth in English Towns, 1400-1640 (London, 1991); J. Hare, 'Regional prosperity in fifteenth-century England: some evidence from Wessex', The Fifteenth Century 2: Revolution and Consumption in Late Medieval England, ed.
M. Hicks (Woodbridge, 2001), pp. 105-26. Although A.R. Bridbury's far more optimistic analysis of urban economic fortunes has been seriously questioned, and he has moderated his views more recently, some towns, due to their particular circumstances, did experience growth during the later Middle Ages, see for example; J. Lee, 'The trade of fifteenth-century Cambridge and its region', The Fifteenth Century 2: Revolution and Consumption in Late Medieval England, ed. M. Hicks (Woodbridge, 2001), pp. 127-39.
196
image
SHEPSTERS,HUCKSTERS AND BUSINESS WOMEN IN l 5TH-CENTURY CANTERBURY
M. Mate, Trade and Economic Developments, 1450-1550: the Experience of Kent, Surrey and Sussex (Woodbridge, 2006); M. Mate, 'The economy of Kent, 1200-1500: the aftermath of the Black Death',Later Medieval Kent, 1220-1540, ed. S. Sweetinburgh (Woodbridge, 2010), pp. 17-24; M. Mercer, 'Kent and national politics,1461-1509',Later Medieval Kent, 1220-1540, ed. S. Sweetinburgh (Woodbridge,2010),pp. 251-65.
For the purposes of this study, the main source is Cowper but his published transcription was randomly checked against the chamberlains' accounts,or where there seemed to be some doubt. J.M. Cowper,ed.,Intrantes: a List of Persons Admitted to Live and Trade within the City of Canterbury, 1392-1592 (Canterbury,1904); CCAL: CC-FAil; FA/2. It is worth noting that Canterbury's liberty extended beyond the city wall on all bar the Westgate side.
Of the six wards,Ridingate was probably never fully recorded and in some years was specifically noted under Newingate. However it was a poorer ward,included industrial areas such as lime kilns and may generally have been less densely populated.
14 CCAL: CC-J/B/203; J/B/215; J/B/217; J/B/22; J/B/252; J/B/255; J/B/263; J/B/268; J/B/271; J/B/273; J/B/276; J/B/279; J/B/281; J/B/282; J/B/287; J/B/289; J/B/291; J/B/295; J/B/296; J/B/298.
See; P.R. Schofield and N.J. Mayhew,Credit and Debt in Medieval England c.1180-c.l350 (Oxford, 2002); C. Briggs, 'Empowered or marginalized? Rural women and credit in later thirteenth- and fourteenth-century England',Continuity and Change, 19 (2004),13-43.
For the value of these petty session records to explore other female activities,see; K. Jones, Gender and Petty Crime in Late Medieval England: the Local Courts in Kent, 1460-1560 (Wood bridge,2006).
CCAL: CC-OA/1; OA/2. KHLC: PRC 17/1-17/7; 32/1-32/5.
17 Even though it is difficult to provide precise figures for the number of men who were intrants during the fifteenth century because of problems of identification,as a guide it appears there were probably around 2,500 individuals.
S. Sweetinburgh, 'A revolt too far: paying the price in late medieval Canterbury',Southern History (submitted).
Mate,Trade, pp. 24-5; CCAL: CC-FA/2,fols 236v,238,240v,241v,244,244v,251,253,260,
262v,263,267v,270v,276,279,285,286,296v.
A.F. Butcher, 'Rent and the urban economy: Oxford and Canterbury in the later Middle Ages',
Southern History, l (1979),39-40.
As well as structural changes within the industry, such as greater commercialisation; Mate,
Trade, pp. 62-3,68.
W. Urry, 'The Jubilee of St Thomas, 1420: billeting and rationing problems in the fifteenth century',Canterbury Cathedral Chronicle, 42 (1947),24; S. Sweetinburgh,Pilgrimage in 'an Age of Plague': seeking Canterbury's 'hooly blissful martir' in 1420 and 1470', The Fifteenth Century 12: Society in an Age of Plague, ed. L. Clark and C. Rawcliffe (Woodbridge,2013),pp. 57-77.
Mate, 'Economy of Kent',pp. 19-21,23.
24 Mate,Trade, p. 26.
25 Mate,Trade, p. 12; J. Andrewes, 'Industries in Kent,c.1500-1640',Early Modem Kent, 1540- 1640, ed. M. Zell (Woodbridge,2000),p. 110.
26 S. Sweetinburgh, 'Looking to the past: the St Thomas Pageant in early Tudor Canterbury,
Archaeologia Cantiana, 137 (2016),165-70.
21 CCAL: CC-Woodruffs/54/9.
28 Goldberg, Women, Work and Life Cycle, p. 334.
29 C.C. Fenwick,ed.,The Poll Taxes of 1377, 1379 and 1381. Part 1: Bedfordshire-Leicestershire.
Records of Social and Economic History: New Series 27 (Oxford,1998),418-33.
For an assessment of the dominance of textile manufacture in Canterbury's economy in the late fourteenth century; A.F. Butcher,'The social structure of Canterbury at the end of the fourteenth century' (unpubl.,CCAL: Pamphlet M/22/34).
Listed as a defendant in a trespass case (1479), it is possible Katherine Spynster's surname referred to her occupation; CCAL: CC-J/B/279.
Goldberg, Women, Work, and Life Cycle, pp. 118-19; McIntosh, Working Women, pp. 214-5.
197
image
SHEILA SWEETINBURGH
J.M. Cowper, ed., The Roll of the Freemen of the City of Canterbury from AD 1392 to 1800 (Canterbury, 1903). In the 14th century Alice Castel, in 1395, and Idonea Compton two years later (she is listed just below her husband who had similarly paid 13s. 4d. to become a freeman) achieved this status; CCAL: CC-FAil, fols 23, 32v. Constance Bertyn is a very special case. She had previously been married to the powerful citizen John Lynde and the agreement to allow her to join the city's freemen had been approved by all 12 jurats. Moreover their approval was conditional and only lasted for her lifetime; CCAL: CC-FA/2, fol. 46. Such special circumstance do not appear to pertain to 1482/3, rather the general economic conditions may have aided the applications of Margaret Gryme and Margaret Chyrche, each paying 10s.; CCAL: CC-FA/2, fols 205v, 206.
Regrators were those who bought food items or other goods to sell on for their own benefit, such street-sellers were not allowed to sell at a higher rate than that specified by assize.
CCAL: CC-J/Q/237; J/Q/286.
Among the benefits of being a freewoman of Canterbury was the ability to bequeath by will her freehold (property) held within the city's liberty to her husband or to anyone else, and she might receive her husband's property in the same way; AR. Myers, ed., English Historical Documents, 1327-1485, vol. 4 (London, 1969), 570. This could involve commercial premises, such as the inn called Le Vernicle that Godelena Bachelere received in her husband Robert's will (1405); or the two shops in Jury Lane that Colete, who lived elsewhere in the city with her husband John Edmund, bequeathed to him (1417); CCAL: CC-OA/1, fols 29v, 31v. At the other end of the century in 1497, Thomas Cukowe bequeathed his messuage and shops in the same lane to his wife Johanna; KHLC: PRC 17/6, fol. 339. During this same period several inns had similarly come into female hands: le White Man, le Angel, le Taberd in Westgate Street, and le Flowerdelyse; KHLC: PRC 32/2, fol. 253; 17/2, fol. 391; 17/3, fol. 258; 32/2, fol. 583.
In a minority of cases their craft or trade is designated, most followed 'hucstrycrafte', but there is one reference to 'shepstry'; CCAL: CC-J/B/268; J/B/276; J/B/281; J/B/282; J/B/287.
For an assessment of this legal status, especially with respect to London; M.K. McIntosh, 'The benefits and drawbacks of femme sole status in England, 1300-1630', Journal of British Studies, 44 (2005), 410-38.
As in the case of Johanna Slinere: she and her husband William were the defendants in court, but only she was taken into custody regarding the debt owed to Richard Mildenale; CCAL: CC J/B/289.
Yet note the presence of at least some female brewers as assize breakers above.
CCAL: CC-OA/1, fol. 24.
Huckster: petty traders who bought goods either to see in the street or from a market stall; shepster: a seamstress or 'sempster'; upholder: a second-hand clothes dealer, but could be applied more broadly to trading in used goods; Goldberg, Women, Work, and Life Cycle, pp. 118, 122-3, 132-3.
CCAL: CC-J/B/217; J/B/263; J/B/268; J/B/271; J/B/276; J/B/281; J/B/282; J/B/287; J/B/289; J/B/296; J/B/298.
A debt case between Henry Gosebourne and Robert Richardson involved, amongst other items, 'yearn' and 6 'knyttyng nedils' valued at 4d; CCAL: CC-J/B/289.
Generally women do not seem to have been involved in the leather industry, as exemplified by the poll tax returns, but references do exist; Goldberg, Women, Work and Life Cycle, pp. 88-92, 129- 30; Kowaleski, Local Markets, pp. 156-61; McIntosh, Working Women, pp. 234-5.
Flax and linen manufacture: McIntosh, Working Women, pp. 221-2; P. Walton, 'Textiles',
English Medieval Industries, ed. J. Blair and N. Ramsey (London, 2001), p. 348.
Goldberg, Women, Work and Life Cycle, p. 347; McIntosh, Working Women, pp. 30-4, 250-3.
To a degree, these records pose similar challenges to the assize records respecting life-cycle identification, but do offer certain advantages.
The court records indicate migrants might also come from continental Europe, such as Johanna Duchewoman, Jenetruda Duchewoman, Amfia Duchewoman and Ide Douchewoman, as well as other parts of the British Isles: Margaret Scottisshwoman; CCAL: CC-J/B/282; CC-J/Q/286; J/Q/287; J/B/289.
P.J.P. Goldberg, 'Female labour, service and marriage in the late medieval urban north',
Northern History, 22 (1986), 19-23, 24-6, 33, 35.
198
image
SHEPSTERS, HUCKSTERS AND BUSINESS WOMEN IN l 5TH-CENTURY CANTERBURY
John Fydhole, baker, resided in Westgate which indicates that he lived outside the city's liberty; CCAL: CC-J/B/217. Isolde was not the only woman to die in jail that year because Margery Walcote, the defendant in a detention ofchattels case, suffered the same fate.
Cowper, Intrantes, pp. 41, 144. For women as laundresses, see; C. Rawcliffe, 'A marginal occupation? The medieval laundress and her work', Gender and History, 21 (2009), 147-69.
Cowper, Intrantes, pp. 55, 62.
Ibid., pp. 35, 36, 38.
Ibid., p. 40.
CCAL: CC-J/B/263.
Yet on more than one occasion John is seemingly listed as a musician, specifically a piper, in the years when he is not noted as a cloth maker.
CCAL: CC-J/B/298.
McIntosh, Working Women, p. 11.
Cowper, Intrantes, pp. 129, 130.
The latter may indicate widowhood, albeit this is not stated in the records.
However in 1496 a Henry Hosteler is recorded for Worthgate ward and the following year for the same ward there is a 'wife ofHenry Hosteler, shepster', which is highly suggestive that this is the same couple. Yet ifthis is the same Henry it seems strange that he only traded as an intrant, perhaps a hosteller, for a single year. There is no reference to him in the freemen lists, but a John Russhle, butcher, had become a freeman by redemption in 1469. The only other wife, then widow to follow a similar pattern in terms oflongevity during the 1490s was that ofJohn Smyth (1497-1505).
CCAL: CC-J/B/271/i.
CCAL: CC-J/B/281.
McIntosh, 'Benefits and drawbacks', pp. 412, 419-21.
CCAL: CC-J/B/291.
CCAL: CC-J/B/295.
CCAL: CC-J/B/281.
199
image
ANTIQUARIANS, VICTORIAN PARSONS AND RE-WRITING THE PAST: HOW LYMINGE PARISH CHURCH ACQUIRED AN INVENTED DEDICATION
ROBERT BALDWIN
For more than a century, the residents of Lyminge, on the North Downs in East Kent, have taken for granted that the parish church is dedicated to St Mary and St Ethelburga. Yet for many centuries before that, it was known as the church of St Mary and St Eadburg. The dedication to St Mary, the Virgin, is ancient and straightforward to explain, for it appears in the earliest of the surviving charters for Lyminge dated probably to 697. 1 The second part of the dedication, whether this is correctly St Ethelburga or St Eadburg, is also likely to pre-date the Norman Conquest for both are clearly Anglo-Saxon names. But the uncertainty over the dedication invites investigation to understand who the patron saint actually is and the cause of the change, which is an unusual event by any standards.
At first sight, St Ethelburga is apparently also easy to explain. Although there were a number of St Ethelburgas, the one traditionally connected with Lyminge was Queen LEthelburh2, daughter of LEthelberht I, King of Kent, and widow of Edwin, King of Northumbria. The story of her marriage to Edwin, his conversion to Christianity and the beginning of the conversion of Northumbria in the 620s was recorded by Bede, writing around a century later.3 After Edwin's death in battle in 633, Bede noted that LEthelburh returned to Kent where her brother Eadbald had become king. Other sources4 recounted that the king allowed his sister to retire to his estate atLyminge where she established a 'minster'5 and subsequently died in 647.6
A dedication to St Ethelburga makes sense in the historical context ofLyminge. A dedication to St Eadburg is less easy to comprehend. Eadburg, or Eadburh,7 was a relatively common name in the Anglo-Saxon period and there are several possible candidates, but not one is known to be closely connected with Lyminge during her lifetime. This presented problems for antiquarians seeking to understand the dedication, and for at least the last four hundred years, the conventional explanation has been that Eadburg was simply a variant of the name that is otherwise known to us as Ethelburga.
However, the recent discovery of a manuscript in Hereford CathedralLibrary now casts doubt on this interpretation. In the light of this new source of information, this paper examines three questions: how real was LEthelburh's connection with Lyminge, who was the St Eadburg to whom the church was once dedicated, and why did the dedication change?
201
image
ROBERT BALDWIN
Did LEthelburh found a minster at Lyminge?
Archaeology does not often substantiate history. But remarkably, the excavations in Lyminge in 2008-15 have amply demonstrated that there was a complex of large, elaborate halls there in the seventh century, associated with a rich assemblage of artefacts, with origins in an earlier settlement from possibly the late fifth century that is best interpreted as the centre of a royal estate.8 In addition, an extensive monastic site was established to the south of the present church by the end of the seventh century. 9
The chronology of the minster's foundation at Lyminge is debateable, as the earliest attributable archaeological remains date to around fifty years after the traditional date of LEthelburh's death. There is evidence offeasting and conspicuous consumption in the hall complex, but it is not clear whether this is the result of permanent occupation, which might relate to LEthelburh's community, or simply the debris left by the royal retinue passing through periodically. The evidence for when a minster was founded at Lyminge is not clear-cut.
The seventh century was a formative period as Anglo-Saxon royal families rapidly embraced Christianity. The context for any foundation by LEthelburh would have been the period when Kent led the Christian mission across southern England. 10 However, the main wave of monastic foundations originated later in East Anglia during the 650s, spreading rapidly across all of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms during the latter half of the seventh century.11
The foundation of many minsters, largely as a royal initiative in just a few decades during the later seventh century, appears to have been part of a strategy by royal families who did not just exercise power in their own kingdoms, but also intermarried with each other extensively. Minsters were led almost exclusively in these early years by princesses or widowed queens. Christianity required new roles and structures to be developed, and drew heavily upon the input of female family members from the outset. The estates with which these minsters were endowed were generally not alienated to the Church, but seem to have been conceived as a special kind of family property.12
There is good evidence that the royal minsters served a practical purpose, with royal women looking after the spiritual interests of the king, the royal kin group and the kingdom as a whole through regular religious observance. The expectations of this role are probably encapsulated in the 'customary honour and obedience' set out by King Wihtred in a charter of 699, that documented the rights and obligations of the Kentish royal minsters.13 Unusually, this charter was witnessed by four abbesses, three of whom were certainly of royal birth.14
Minsters provided fixed points in a landscape where kings and their households were constantly moving around. They were essentially aristocratic communities, and the opulence, conspicuous consumption and wealth associated with them amply demonstrate that they remained fully connected with the secular world. They can be seen as an integral part of the royal progress, providing lodging and opportunities for feasting as much as any mead hall. They were also centres where craftsmen could congregate under patronage, providing a platform for economic development.15 This was evident by the start of the eighth century. What is uncertain is how early this began, and what this indicates about the origins of the foundation at Lyminge.
202
image
ANTIQUARIANS, VICTORIAN PARSON AND RE-WRITING THE PAST: LYMINGE CHURCH
Bede is famously critical of monastic communities that did not meet his strict view of how they ought to function. His observation that princesses pursuing a cloistered life in the 640s and 650s went to the monasteries at Chelles, Faremoutiers en-Brie and Jouarre in Francia16 is often taken as evidence that minsters were not founded in England until after this time. But it could equally mean that he did not regard the communities then in existence as meeting his strict criteria for what a minster should be, so he ignored them.17 The explosion in foundations from the 650s onwards led to more clearly recognisable monastic communities coming into existence. However, from the outset, minster communities varied considerably in terms of origin, scale and organisation. Minsters could be founded as a private initiative, might have a relatively short life of a generation or two, and did not necessarily follow an established rule.18 A minster's fortunes could ebb and flow with those of its founder's family. They performed a role intimately bound up with kinship and politics and the continuity of any particular community could depend on whether a family, or a particular branch of a family, was in the ascendancy or not.
LEthelburh would have been well aware that in widowhood, her Frankish grand mother Ingoberga retired to lead a contemplative Christian life at Tours, as indeed had Ingoberga's own grandmother St Clothilde.19 If one accepts Bede's account that LEthelburh returned to Kent after Edwin's death, it is credible that she followed her maternal family practice, and Lyminge is as good a location for this as any. It is simplest to accept the tradition if this is consistent with all the available evidence. In the absence of any definitive archaeological or charter evidence, it is reason able to consider what if anything might corroborate the tradition of the Kentish Royal Legend. Everitt has observed that all the main Kentish royal estates had close associations with Roman remains and seem to show continuity, with land ownership passing seamlessly from the previous sub-Roman aristocracy into Anglo-Saxon lordship with little or no interruption.20 However, the level of direct continuity at Lyminge is questionable. Roman brick is re-used in the church,21 but the only Roman artefacts found in the recent excavations were tiles re-used as post-hole packing22 and pottery in the large midden associated with Anglo-Saxon material of the sixth century.23 These were Roman items used in a post-Roman context and nothing is certainly local occupation debris. The PAS website records very few Roman coins or other artefacts from Lyminge parish. This casts doubt on the contemporary interpretation of the structures uncovered in the churchyard in the 1850s as Roman.24 Evidence for human presence between the Bronze Age and
the Anglo-Saxon period is sketchy.25
Roman material found in Lyminge seems to be Anglo-Saxon recycling, possibly deriving from the Roman Saxon Shore fort at Lympne, adjacent to the port at Sandtun that became part of the Lyminge estate.26 The connection between the two sites extends to their names for they both derive from Lemana, the name for the tidal inlet where the fort, known as Portus Lemanis, stood (Fig. 1).27 This inlet was gradually reduced by deposits of shingle and sand from the Roman period onwards so that the site is now some distance from the shoreline and entirely land locked. That Lyminge and Lympne perpetuate a name from the Roman period is not surprising. Many Saxon Shore fort names had an unusual continuity into the Anglo-Saxon period, which may stem from unbroken use of the maritime environment and the landmarks within it.28
203
image
ROBERT BALDWIN
ENGLISH CHANNEL
KEY
Ground over 100m contour
Roman road
..._ Coastline cAD600
- Modem coastline
0 10km
Fig. 1 The location of Lyminge and the other places mentioned in text.
204
image
ANTIQUARIANS, VICTORIAN PARSON AND RE-WRITING THE PAST: LYMINGE CHURCH
The settlement at Lyminge, revealed by the recent excavations as well as by two cemeteries of the mid to late sixth century,29 was apparently established on land that had not been permanently occupied for a substantial period previously. It was a pioneering settlement, but it took its name from the tidal inlet at Lympne or possibly more specifically from the Saxon Shore fort itself. This suggests that the founding group at Lyminge sought to preserve a connection, perhaps to what it viewed as its place of origin where it had first forged its identity. The connection was important enough to be perpetuated in the name of the new settlement at Lyminge.
On the basis of coin and pottery evidence, the fort is thought to have been abandoned by around 350.30 However, the location at Lympne in the Notitia Dignitatum, (the military list dated to the late fourth or early fifth centuries), of a unit originating at Toumai in Belgica suggests a continuing military function at least in the vicinity of the fort that might have persisted into the fifth century. Conceivably, the pioneer group that came to Lyminge might have originated as foederati located in the fort environs and taking their name from it. The one suggestive find in the fort was a knife that lacks clear parallels, although it was noted in the site report that most of the comparative material for such knives comes from Germanic, including Frankish and Saxon, graves in the Rhineland and North Germany.31
If there was late or sub-Roman occupation by foederati in or around the fort itself, the ephemeral traces would have been difficult to detect during excavation. The ground was highly disturbed due to substantial land slippage in the period up to around 700 that led to the fort collapsing. The excavator concluded that no part of the fort remains in its original position and occupation layers are largely destroyed.32 The context for a group offoederati relocating from Lympne could be after the local military command finally broke down and perhaps when rising sea levels and subsidence caused the fort to collapse and made the surrounding area physically unsafe.
Sandtun is unlikely to be the location of any ancestral community. It had a different pottery profile from the Saxon Shore fort itself and no Roman pottery was found clearly dated later than around 250.33 Two sherds of early Anglo-Saxon pottery indicate some activity in the late sixth or probably seventh centuries, but there is nothing definitely earlier than the settlement at Lyminge.34
The location of a hall and settlement at Lyminge probably by the later fifth century35 indicates when it became the central place of the group whose territory by at least 724 was known as that of the Limenwara36 (the 'Lemana Folk'). The suffix ge in the name derives from an unusual early name element meaning district or territory. 37 The name Lyminge could conceivably perpetuate the name adopted by the putative ancestral group when it first settled in Britain in or around the Saxon Shore fort at Lympne in the fourth or fifth centuries.
In considering why this group was drawn to Lyminge specifically, one possibility is that it was attracted by the spring, now known as St Ethelburga s Well. This is a perpetual spring, the source of the Nailboume that flows north along the Elham Valley, becoming the Little Stour and ultimately flowing into the Great Stour just upstream from Minster-in-Thanet. In the Anglo-Saxon period it reached the sea via the now-silted Wantsum Channel that then separated the Isle of Thanet from
205
image
ROBERT BALDWIN
mainland Kent. There is evidence that the spring attracted occupation from the Mesolithic onwards, for a dense scatter of worked flakes dating to between the eleventh and ninth millennia BC has been found on the chalk bluff immediately overlooking the spring.38 This is a sheltered position at the head of the Elham Valley. The direct route from Lympne to the south-west, still traceable by road and footpath, is the only relatively level passage through the North Downs without a steep ascent between Dover and Wye, a distance ofover 20 miles. This may be why early Anglo-Saxon settlers were drawn to the Nailboume springhead, but whether the spring was treated as sacred in this early period is unknown. What is clear is that the first settlement, which developed later into a royal hall complex, was located between the spring and a Bronze Age barrow. This is the kind ofassociation between Anglo-Saxon sites and ancient monuments that became common from around 550.39 Whatever the perceived meaning to those early settlers, the spring was clearly significant from its proximity.
The current appearance ofthe springhead is deceptive. The fundamental geology is likely to be the same, so in the seventh century as now, the spring flowed from the chalk at the base of the promontory where the church now stands. But the recent excavations have shown that the springhead itself would have been within more ofa defined grove than is now apparent because the ground has been affected by erosion and land slip.40 Subsequently, the spring was named St Eadburg s Well. The will of Henry Rand dated to 1490 records 3s. 4d. left to repair 'the well of St Edburge the Virgin', 41 suggesting it had been a sacred spring for some time before the fifteenth century, and conceivably since pagan times.
The presence of a pagan sacred spring could have been a reason why LEthelburh chose to go to Lyminge rather than to any other royal estate. Although this is speculative, a sacred spring would have given her the opportunity to convert an overtly pagan religious shrine, just as Pope Gregory had commended St Augustine to do in 601 following the launch of the mission to convert England.42
If LEthelburh did retire to Lyminge, it is probable that she lived in the archaeologically-attested royal hall complex, and this would fit with the later date of the explicitly monastic site on the higher ground to the south. However, she would have needed a church, being in much the same situation as her mother Bertha, the Frankish Princess, when she came to Kent in the sixth century to marry LEthelberht. Bertha established an oratory that is now incorporated into St Martin's church in Canterbury.43 Private oratories were ubiquitous in Francia at this period.44 The most likely site for LEthelburh's oratory is where the current church now stands, elevated on a promontory above the springhead of the Nailboume in a classic minster location.45 If there was such a church, it is probable too that LEthelburh was buried there. The excavated monastic buildings thus need not represent continuity of a community from LEthelburh's time and could relate to a re-foundation there subsequently around what would, on this hypothesis, have been her mortuary chapel.46 This could mirror what happened at the Frankish royal chapel at Chelles, originally founded by St Clothilde in the sixth century, and later re-founded as a minster by Queen Balthild around 659.
Ifthe initial monastic foundation at Lyminge is associated with Queen LEthelburh, Edwin's widow, it fell outside the main wave of royal foundations that only began in the second half of the seventh century. To address this apparent anomaly, Yorke
206
image
ANTIQUARIANS, VICTORIAN PARSON AND RE-WRITING THE PAST: LYMINGE CHURCH
has intriguingly suggested that it could be attributed to Queen LEthelburh, wife of KingWihtred, around the end of the seventh century, as she is named alongside her husband in a land-grant to Lyminge.47 This also fits the archaeological evidence. However, to introduceWihtred's Queen as founder conflicts with the later tradition that consistently presents the LEthelburh at Lyminge as the widow of Edwin. This raises the question whether a foundation at Lyminge as early as the 630s is sustainable in the light of the prevailing view on how and when most monastic communities were founded during the seventh century.
If one accepts Yorke's proposal about the identity of the LEthelburh who founded the minster at Lyminge, one then has to explain what happened to Edwin's widow, as Bede confirms that she returned to Kent. Moreover, it is also known that her daughter Eanflaed was living somewhere in Kent before she married Oswiu, King of Northumbria, in around 642-45.48 If this was at Lyminge, this would help to explain the curious dedication to St Oswald at the church in the neighbouring parish of Paddlesworth, which is still part of Lyminge Benefice. Paddlesworth is probably one of the two churches assigned to Lyminge in Domesday Book,49 although the fabric of the current church does not obviously pre-date the twelfth century.50 The dedication is ancient. It is first recorded in 1484,51 and as it existed then, it seems likely that it pre-dates the Norman Conquest for Oswald was promoted as the major saint of Anglo-Saxon England and there is no context in which this dedication is likely to have originated after the Conquest. St Oswald was Northumbrian, the brother (or possibly half-brother) and predecessor to King Oswiu, and Eanflaed's first cousin by the sister of her father. Oswald was known for his piety within his lifetime, and was rapidly celebrated as a saint shortly after his death.52 There are 56 pre-Conquest dedications to St Oswald, the vast majority in northern England, and only one in the South,53 so the dedication at Paddlesworth is unique and highly unusual.
While not conclusive, it is difficult to explain such a clearly Northumbrian dedication in east Kent without some local connection to Northumbria. The presence of LEthelburh and Eanflaed would provide such a connection, and the dedication at Paddlesworth could be connected with Eanflaed's marriage to Oswiu. This was highly significant, designed to unite the rival royal dynasties of Deira (to which Eanflaed was connected through her father Edwin) and Bernicia (to which Oswiu belonged). These dynasties had disputed the Northumbrian throne for decades and a dedication by Eanflaed in the name of St Oswald could have been an appropriately symbolic act at that time. If she and her mother were not living locally, this anomalous dedication is otherwise hard to explain.
There is a further possible link between Lyminge and Northumbria from a charter of 741 in which King LEthelberht II of Kent granted land to Lyminge minster that was said to have once belonged to the priest Romanus. It is conceivable that this was the same 'Kentish priest Romanus' who was in Queen Eanflaed's court and who accompanied her at the Synod ofWhitby in 664.54 As someone named by Bede at such a pivotal event, it is possible that Romanus was sufficiently well-known to be referenced in a charter dated only a decade after Bede completed his Historia Ecclesiastica, which was widely distributed across England. The accumulation of evidence does therefore highlight a particular connection between the Lyminge area and Northumbria that tends to support the tradition that the LEthelburh connected
207
image
ROBERT BALDWIN
with Lyminge was the wife of King Edwin of Northumbria rather than the wife of King Wihtred of Kent.
The royal estate centre at Lyminge was an appropriate home for someone of her rank, and retiring in this way to such a location was a practice consistent with other members of her family. Bede recorded that before her marriage to Edwin, LEthelburh had corresponded with the Pope.55 This shows how she was connected at the highest political levels and was participating in the mainstream of continental civilisation. In 633, she would have been well aware of the proliferation of monastic communities founded by members of her family across northern Francia, all closely associated with the royal court.56 The strong links that persisted between Kent and Francia at a cultural and family level throughout this period provide a reasonable context for the foundation of probably the first monastic community in England.
Lyminge, moreover, is not an entirely isolated example of early foundation during this phase of the conversion. It is realistic to see the foundation at Folkestone as comparable. The Kentish Royal Legend recorded the minster at Folkestone as founded by Eanswythe, King Eadbald's daughter, and hence LEthelburh's niece. Her relics are, unusually, still likely to be in the church to this day.57 This foundation too is traditionally dated early, and while the traditional date of 630 is perhaps too early,58 it too could have followed in the family tradition ultimately deriving from Francia. It is possible that the activity at both Lyminge and Folkestone in the 630s and 640s is not an anachronistic projection back from a later period but rather a manifestation in England of a contemporary Frankish family tradition. It is thus conceivable that LEthelburh did found a church at Lyminge, and did live in a community there during her lifetime. It is likely, and not inconsistent with this, that the monastic complex to the south of the church is later and was built in the period after her death.
There is consequently a plausible interpretation of the archaeological evidence that is broadly consistent with the historical narrative. Archaeology is rarely good at 'proving' history but as confirmation of the historical account, the archaeological evidence at Lyminge, is about as good as it ever gets.
How Lyminge Parish Church came to be dedicated to St Ethelburga
The archaeological evidence might be thought to close off the discussion. It could be taken as proof that the received historical account is essentially true, and the dedication of the church dates back to the seventh century. However, all is not quite as simple as that, and the greatest problem facing this interpretation is that for many centuries, the church at Lyminge was recorded as dedicated to St Mary and St Eadburg, not St Ethelburga. How can this be explained and when did the change take place?
For those who thought about it at all, the answer seems to have been that Ethelburga and Eadburg, were alternative versions of the same name for the same person. This idea dates back several centuries. William Lambarde, in his Perambulation ofKent of 1576 recorded that:
Lyminge ...Eadbald... gave it to Edburge his sister, who foorthwith clocked together a sorte ofsimple women, which under her wing there, tooke upon them the Popishe veile ofwidowhood. But that order in time waxed colde, and therefore Lanfranc... translated the olde bones ofEdburge from Lyminge to Sainct Gregories.59
208
image
ANTIQUARIANS, VICTORIAN PARSON AND RE-WRITING THE PAST: LYMINGE CHURCH
William Camden, in his Britannia, first written in Latin in 1585 (but translated into English in 1610) said little about Lyminge but did observe:
... by Stoure mouth runneth a brooke ... issuing out of Saint Eadburghs well at Liming (where the daughter of King Ethelbert first of our nation tooke the veile)
60
In his county history, Richard Kilbume in 1659 noted:
Limege, lieth towards the southeast part of the County ... the Church was called St Mary and St Eadburgh. King Eadbald gave to Eadburgh his sister ... second wife and widow of Edwin (King of the Northumbers) Liminge, where she built a Monastery ... and there died and was buried.61
Edward Hasted writing just over a century later in his multi-volume survey of Kent recorded that:
the monastery founded in this parish by Ethelburga, called by some Eadburga, daughter of King Ethelbert ... Ethelburga, the founder, was buried in it ... The church ... is dedicated to St Mary and St Eadburgh ...62
It is noteworthy that these county antiquarians all shared the same view that LEthelburh was known as Eadburh (in variant spellings). They focused on the well-known details of the Kentish Royal Legend linking LEthelburh, the historical person authenticated by the well-respected near-contemporary Bede, to Lyminge, and did not look further. Given the general contemporary inconsistency ofspelling, and the fact that for most authors this simply did not matter, by far the simplest explanation seems to have been to see the name Eadburg as some local corruption ofthe name that was better known to readers of Bede and the Kentish Royal Legend as Ethelburga.
But there was one other antiquarian who recorded a divergent position. John Leland, is perhaps best known for his itineraries undertaken in 1535-43, but his journey through Kent brought him no closer to Lyminge than the Stone Street, the Roman road between Lympne and Canterbury, some miles to the west of the village.63 However, in his earlier six volume work De Rebus Britannicis Collectanea of 1533-36, Leland included a number of references to Ethelburga and Lyminge, and in particular quoted the following passage from the Life ofSt Werburga:64
So QueenEthelburga, after the killing ofEdwin, the pious King of the Northumbrians, having returned to her brother Eadbald, built a minster at [his] estate in Lyminge, where she was laid to rest with St Eadburga.65
Thus Leland, writing in the 1530s, differed from the later antiquarians, distinguishing between Queen Ethelburga and St Eadburga. Moreover, earlier chroniclers whose work still survives did the same. William Thome, active at the end ofthe fourteenth century and whose chronicle ended in 1397, recorded Ethelburga (rather than Eadburh) as the daughter of LEthelberht, widow of Edwin and founder of the minster at Lyminge where she was buried.66 Thomas of Elmham, a monk of St Augustine's Abbey, Canterbury, writing around the first decade of the fifteenth century recorded the same, and also went on to discuss the dispute between his abbey and St Gregory's Priory, documented by Goscelin of Saint Bertin in the late
209
image
ROBERT BALDWIN
eleventh century that is considered further below.67 Thomas's account distinguished LEthelburh from Eadburh, whom he knew to be a different person.
Hugh Candidus, a monk at Peterborough writing in the second half of the twelfth century, repeated the details of the Life of St Werburga, concluding his account about LEthelburh as follows:
So after Edwin died, she returned with Paulinus to Edbald who was then King of Kent, and he, taking care of her, gave her his great hall at Lyminge, with all its estates, and she built there a minster, and there she was laid to rest, and Saint Eadburga with her. 68
Florence, a monk of Worcester, wrote a chronicle of the English nation, drawing upon many sources, starting with events in the mid fifth century and continuing up to his own day. He died in 1118. He referred to both Queen and St Ethelburga, widow of King Edwin, and also recorded that she built a minster at Lyminge and was buried there.69 He mentioned the diminutive Tate, which was also recorded by Bede,70 but did not at any point use the name Eadburh.
For William Thome, Thomas of Elmham, Hugh Candidus, and Florence of Worcester, there was no confusion. However, Goscelin of Saint Bertin, writing in Canterbury towards the end of the eleventh century in his polemical Tract against the foolish claimants to the body of the holy virgin Mildrith71 said this about the relics at Lyminge:
There in the church at Lyminge, which belongs to the Archbishop, Queen.tEthelburga is well-known to have been buried, but commonly she is known there as Saint Eadburga. 72
Goscelin's work served a very specific purpose, defending the claim of St Augustine'sAbbey to the relics of St Mildrith. In the late 1080s, St Gregory's Priory in Canterbury began to claim that their foundation relics given by Archbishop Lanfranc included those of St Mildrith (though they styled her Miltrude). Goscelin quoted two works promoted by St Gregory's in support of the claim that appear to be the Lives of SS /Ethelred, /Ethelbert, Miltrude and Edburg that survive in a fifteenth-century manuscript at Gotha.73 This text contains the surprising assertion that Edburg, Abbess of Minster-in-Thanet, was daughter of King LEthelberht and Queen Bertha of Kent, a claim that was not surprisingly ridiculed by Goscelin. It was clearly impossible for Edburg to have succeeded Mildrith as Abbess of Minster-in-Thanet in the first half of the eighth century, and to have been the daughter of LEthelberht who died in 616. Goscelin turned this ludicrous statement to his advantage, using it to cast doubt on the credibility of the claim by St Gregory's to St Mildrith. At the same time, he drew attention to the presence of LEthelburh's tomb at Lyminge, apparently intending to emphasise the point that no one disputed that she was buried there. He carefully contrived a picture of local confusion, suggesting that even local people were unclear whether she was really to be called LEthelburh or Eadburh. The implications of Goscelin's work will be considered further below.
However, notwithstanding Goscelin's justifiable criticism and the clearly shoddy scholarship displayed in it, the work represented by the Gotha text may have had more influence than it deserved. It was quoted extensively in the first comprehensive
210
image
ANTIQUARIANS, VICTORIAN PARSON AND RE-WRITING THE PAST: LYMINGE CHURCH
collection of the Lives of saints from across the British Isles compiled by John of Tynemouth, a monk of St Alban's Abbey, in the mid fourteenth century.74 John travelled widely and collected exhaustively. He seems to have accessed most of the extant Lives of saints, referring to some now lost and even going beyond the existing Lives in some cases, utilising Bede for example where hagiographies were lacking. But he was also uncritical, generally quoting from the works he found and not attempting to reconcile or explain inconsistencies. John's work was arranged in calendar order by reference to each saint's feast day. During the fifteenth century this was rearranged alphabetically, and with some additions was later published by Wynkyn de Worde in 1516 as Nova Legenda Anglie. It would certainly have been known to Lambarde writing less than sixty years later. It would have been a small step for Lambarde to take John's repetition of the statement that Eadburh was daughter of LEthelberht and transform this into Eadburh being the daughter of LEthelberht who was known to have been Queen of Northumbria, in other words that she was LEthelburh by another name. Whether this was the source of Lambarde's confusion about Eadburh and LEthelburh will never be known, though if it was, this would be ironic. The Nova Legenda Anglie also quoted from the same Life ofSt Werburga referenced by Leland which recorded that Queen Ethelburga was buried at Lyminge with St Edburga.75
Goscelin was keen to minimise any possible connection between Lyminge and Minster-in-Thanet. The presence in Lyminge of St Eadburh from Minster could possibly have given some credence to the presence of St Mildrith there also, which could then have cast doubt on the claim by St Augustine's to hold the relics of St Mildrith. The possession of relics was intimately bound up with, and in the absence of good written records could be used as evidence of, rights to land.76 Any hint that relics associated with a specific estate were in the possession of another community would have caused grave concern. It suited Goscelin's purpose to suggest that locally in Lyminge, LEthelburh was known as Eadburga, because if that was the case, it neatly dismissed any suggestion that St Eadburh, Abbess of Minster, was interred there. If the claim that St Eadburh of Minster was once buried in Lyminge could not be sustained, the credibility of the claim by St Gregory's to St Mildrith evaporated. This claim depended upon the idea that St Mildrith's relics were taken from Minster to Lyminge with those of St Eadburh. There was no other reasonable context in which St Mildrith could have arrived in Lyminge.
Goscelin did not actually say that Eadburh and LEthelburh were the same person, but merely that some people at Lyminge believed this to be so. Taken at face value, he was reporting genuine local confusion, amongst some people if not everyone, about the identity of the relics at Lyminge. This helped to muddy the waters and cast doubt over whose remains were translated from Lyminge and consequently over the claim by St Gregory's to the relics of St Mildrith, which was his prime objective.
Whatever the actual source of the confusion, the equation between LEthelburh and Eadburh was repeated from the sixteenth century onwards and by the end of the nineteenth century, it was more or less universally accepted. A local history aimed at a popular readership summed up the received view on Lyminge as follows:
One of the earliest Christian monasteries built and dedicated to its holy purposes by St Eadburg, the sister of King Eadbald, ... [and in a footnote]: The historians more usually call her Ethelburga.77
211
image
ROBERT BALDWIN
A more scholarly history of church architecture noted that the first Abbess of Lyminge was: 'Queen LEthelburga, vulgarly called St Eadburg'.78 Nevertheless, despite the almost complete unanimity of those writing on the subject, a query over the identification of Eadburh with LEthelburh did appear in the monumental gazetteer of church dedications compiled by Frances Arnold-Forster, dating to 1899:
... some doubt exists whether this saint is strictly speaking commemorated amongst us at all. Her one supposed church, the church of which she was the undoubted foundress, bears the name, not of Ethelburga but of Eadburga and it is a much disputed question whether these two names belong to one and the same individual.79
But the Rector of Lyminge from 1854 to 1896, Canon Robert Jenkins, regarded as an antiquarian of some standing, believed that the name Eadburg was a variant of the name Ethelburga. 8° For him, the form of the church dedication was no more than an antique version of the name LEthelburh. Though he undoubtedly believed that Lyminge church was dedicated to St Ethelburga, he preferred to use the old form and in the marriage notices for his daughter in 1892 and in the subsequent newspaper report, the church dedication was recorded as Saints Mary and Eadburg.81
The innovation that changed the dedication to St Mary and St Ethelburga seems to have been the responsibility of Canon Jenkins' successor Robert Eves, who became Rector of Lyminge following the death of Canon Jenkins in March 1896. The Reverend Eves took over a church in poor repair and embarked on a restoration campaign that involved significant fund-raising.82 In August 1897, he wrote to local newspapers describing his plans for the church ofSt Ethelburga at Lyminge. 83 This is the first mention of the church dedication in this form so far located.
The modernising new Rector seems to have had no qualms about making changes. Along with the old pews,84 he threw out the old name and St Ethelburga combined with St Mary, became the normal form used locally after 1897. The fund-raising Grand Fete and Fancy Fair held at Sibton Park, the largest house in Lyminge, in July 1898, was reported as being in support of the church of St Mary and St Ethelburga.85 Looking at wedding notices, there were just two in the period up to 1930 that named the church dedication, one in 1912 and the other in 1921. Both referred to St Ethelburga.86 Newspapers further away, in Whitstable and Dover, continued to use the old form St Eadburg when reporting on Lyminge, but the Folkestone Herald, the newspaper circulating closest to Lyminge, seems last to have used this form of the dedication in 1903.87
Wedding notices and local newspaper reporting are a good indication of the name the local population gave to Lyminge church in the early twentieth century. By 1912, the name seems to have been adopted in more scholarly circles as well, for in July that year, the Kentish church historian Charles Everleigh Woodruff led a visit of the Kent Archaeological Society to what was reported in the society's Proceedings as the Church ofSS Mary and Ethelburga, Lyminge. 88
There is no documentation so far found that makes any reference to a formal change in the dedication. Indeed, this may never have happened as such, not least because in the 1890s, there may have been little if anything at the church itself that actually recorded the dedication one way or the other. In any event, it seems clear
212
image
ANTIQUARIANS, VICTORIAN PARSON AND RE-WRITING THE PAST: LYMINGE CHURCH
that the view prevailed that Eadburg and Ethelburga were alternate spellings, so no one would have seen changing the name by which the church was known as an actual change of dedication. This was probably seen as at most a modernisation, fully endorsed etymologically by Canon Jenkins, as well as by antiquarians back to Lambarde. The Canon had had a profound impact on the parish throughout his forty-two year incumbency as Rector. In the years following his death, it is doubtful if anyone in Lyminge would seriously have challenged his views. It is a reasonable proposition, therefore, that his successor Robert Eves viewed changing the form of the dedication as simply a modernisation of an archaic form, aligning it with the recorded history about Queen LEthelburh and the account by Bede, and placing it firmly in the context of the creation of the English nation. The Reverend Eves astutely launched his fund-raising just two months after Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee celebrations. This was the high point of Empire. Patriotic fervour undoubtedly facilitated raising the substantial sum necessary to finance the major renovation work and internal reordering undertaken in the period 1898 to 1900.89
By the time that the Parochial Church Council (PCC) was founded in 1917,90 the dedication St Mary and St Ethelburga, would most likely have been seen as the correct form, replacing an odd archaism but not actually a change of dedication. The minutes of the PCC from the 1920s onwards at no point mention the church dedication directly, but they do refer to Ethelburga as the church's patron, to the Friends of Ethelburga and to the annual St Ethelburga Fair.91 In 1933, the fair was opened by a local girl dressed as Queen Ethelburga, emphasising how important she had become as a character integral to village history.92
But it is equally clear that it took time to eradicate the old form of the dedication completely. Postcards were still using the form St Mary and St Eadburg in the 1920s, and the Kent County Association of Change Ringers was still doing so as late as 1994.93 The name was not changed in Crockford's Clerical Directory until the edition of 1985-86.94 But the dedication now seems firmly established everywhere in the form St Mary and St Ethelburga, and the spring just below the church has been known as St Ethelburga 's Well since at least 1899.95
St Eadburh - Lyminge's other saint
Why then should the dedication at Lyminge be open to question? The problem is that, as Arnold-Forster observed in 1899, the identification of LEthelburh with Eadburh is questionable. There is no evidence that the name LEthelburh ever was contracted to Eadburh or Eadburg. Moreover, medieval chronicles and the Life of St Werburga all indicate that St Eadburh was different from Queen LEthelburh, and buried with her at Lyminge. Eadburh was a common name. There were several St Eadburhs,96 but the one most local to Lyminge, and the only one listed with her own Life in the Nova Legenda Anglie, was abbess of Minster-in-Thanet. She is known from the Kentish Royal Legend, and succeeded St Mildrith as Abbess in the early eighth century. She was named in a charter from Minster dated to 748,97 and she is recorded as having died in 751.98
In order to understand how an Abbess of Minster could be associated with Lyminge, it is necessary to look at events in the eighth and ninth centuries. At some point, probably in the ninth century, the community at Lyminge seems to
213
image
ROBERT BALDWIN
have contracted. This was once attributed to Danish raiding, and undoubtedly there was disruption locally.99 This may have led the female community to relocate to Canterbury, but it is probable that a male community of priests did persist. However, whatever the physical disruption caused by the Danes, in the period leading up to these changes, there was real political disruption, first through Mercia dominating Kent from the end of the eighth century, and then from Wessex gaining control following the Battle of Ellandun in 825.
The focus of support for new endowments shifted to the heartlands of first Mercia then Wessex in the ninth century, and with the eclipse of the Kentish royal family, the Kentish royal monasteries lost their primary role supporting the interests of the Kentish royal kin-group.100 At the same time, the Kings of Mercia and Wessex, who as successors to the Kings of Kent had assumed authority over the Kentish royal minsters and their estates, began to assert this more directly, in many cases completely eroding the minsters' autonomy and leaving any residual resident community largely to a local pastoral role.101 That Lyminge was affected by this seems evident from the way it disappears from the charter record as an independent community with its own land and re-emerges only once the estate had come into the possession of the community of Christ Church, Canterbury.102 Notwithstanding this, Archbishop Lanfranc was able to exercise some degree of control over Christ Church estates. Thus around 1085, he ordered the collection of relics from Lyminge so that they could endow his new foundation of St Gregory's Priory in Canterbury. The identity of these relics has been the subject of debate ever smce.
The foundation charter in the Priory Cartulary lays claim to 'St LEdburga, St Mildrith and Queen Ethelburga of the Northumbrians'.103 Although this is most likely to be a forgery of the early to mid-thirteenth century,104 it may reflect the tradition handed down from Lanfranc's original community at St Gregory's. The layout of the original church could support two or three shrines laid out symmetrically as during excavation, what were probably relic chapels were found either side of the nave.105 Goscelin described the relics as being elevated to the right and left of the altar.106 No evidence of burials was found in either the nave or the chapels, but as relics would most likely have been elevated in shrines above ground, lack of burials does not disprove the presence of shrines. The Easter Table Chronicle records only that St Eadburh was translated to St Gregory's by Lanfranc in 1085.107 The Priory seal created in the thirteenth century names St Edburga to the left side of Lanfranc, but the seal is broken and while the saint to his right is not visibly named, it is most likely to be St Mildrith.108
The most contemporary record is the Libellus of Goscelin of St Bertin already discussed, probably written in the 1090s,109 that attacked the Priory's claim to the relics of St Mildrith on behalf of his own abbey StAugustine's. This claim by St Gregory's caused great anger at StAugustine's because King Cnut had allowed the Abbey to translate St Mildrith's relics from Minster in 1030.110 She was popular locally, and the account of her translation records that the local populace chased Abbot Aelfstan and his monks as they fled with the relics. Securing relics could involve subterfuge and deception, although successful theft was often justified after the event as the will of the saint involved. m Aelfstan would have known that holding the relics of a popular saint would generate revenue from supplicants,
214
image
ANTIQUARIANS, VICTORIAN PARSON AND RE-WRITING THE PAST: LYMINGE CHURCH
particularly from amongst the aristocracy seeking divine aid with the help of very material donations. When confronted by the claims of St Gregory's, the Abbey was not prepared to have this income source undermined. Accordingly, an extraordinary campaign was launched, spear-headed by Goscelin who scorned the claim by St Gregory's that the nuns of Minster had fled to Lyminge with the relics of Mildrith and Eadburh, seeking sanctuary from Danish raiders.
The claim by St Gregory's to St Mildrith seems remarkably audacious. However, it is possible that at the time, it may not have seemed quite so far-fetched. Though St Augustine's had clearly coveted St Mildrith's relics in 1030, in the 1050s they were moved to make way for building work, and since then had languished at the back of St Gregory's Porticus at the Abbey.112 Conceivably the clergy at St Gregory's Priory thought that St Augustine's was not showing St Mildrith much honour and had lost interest in her amongst the many relics the Abbey possessed. Goscelin says that the claim to St Mildrith surfaced some three years after the relics were removed from Lyminge.113 As evidence of what happened, he cited the testimony given to Abbot Wido by Ralph, the priest at Lyminge who exhumed the relics:
'I', he said, 'who with my own hands raised both bodies and emptied their tombs, testify that on not one of the things that was found or identified as a holy relic was there any name or writing or title or any mark at all, certainly nothing relating to Miltrude, nothing clearly holy there except what was considered to relate to Eadburga...'114
This would have been a strange statement for Goscelin to have invented as it did not help his argument to have Ralph say he could positively identify Eadburh. This passage could therefore be genuine word-for-word eye-witness testimony, used only because it categorically refuted Mildrith's presence. If the tombs at Lyminge had ever had any inscription, these had been lost by 1085. But significantly, Ralph asserted that there were only two bodies found and he himself could identify one of these as Eadburh. Goscelin did not record whether Ralph thought he could also identify the other body. He noted only that the other grave was unmarked in any way. This testimony indicates that the original endowment by Lanfranc in 1085 was of two sets of relics, not three, and that the claim to St Mildrith can be attributed to the clergy of St Gregory's not Lanfranc. This would fit better with Lanfranc's reputation for being scrupulous over checking the authenticity of relics and judicious about who should be treated as a saint.115 Setting aside the claims about St Mildrith, the tradition is consistent that St Eadburh was translated to St Gregory's. It is St Eadburh alone who was highlighted in the Easter Table Chronicle, and St Eadburh who was named on the thirteenth century seal of St Gregory's. As the evidence is strong for a St Eadburh being buried at Lyminge, is there any evidence to indicate
which particular St Eadburh she was?
There is an unusually full collection of original charters covering land grants to religious houses in Kent. The charter of 804 recording the gift of land in Canterbury by King Coenwulf to Lyminge as a refuge, dates to the time when Kent was dominated by Mercia and Selethryth was abbess. The charter referred to 'Lyminge where the blessed Eadburga rests',116 which shows that at least by 804, Lyminge was known as the resting place of St Eadburh.
215
image
ROBERT BALDWIN
As noted already, an Eadburh is documented as Abbess of Minister-in-Thanet, successor to St Mildrith. She was responsible for the first translation of Mildrith's remains and for establishing her cult at Minster.117 She was once thought to have corresponded with St Boniface as there is a series of letters in existence between him and an Abbess Eadburh up to the 740s, but this is now generally believed to be another Eadburh, and Yorke convincingly places Boniface's correspondent, like most of his other correspondents, in his native Wessex.118
Eadburh's successor but one at Minster was Abbess Selethryth.119 Unlike Eadburh, this is an unusual name and given the coincidental chronology, it is probable that the Selethryth at Minster was the abbess named in Coenwulf's charter of 804.120 Charters CCC 22 and 23, dated to 785 and 786 respectively, identify Selethryth as the sister of King Offa's thegn Ealdberht.121 It is possible that her appointment was designed to bring control of Minster and Lyminge together, and was part of the Mercian king's struggle with the Archbishop of Canterbury to assert his authority over the royal minsters of Kent, as successor to the Kings of Kent. This could be seen as a straightforward struggle over rights to land and the income therefrom. It is doubtful the Kings of Mercia had the same interest as the Kings of Kent in maintaining a group of royal minsters in Kent to protect their family interests. They had founded their own minsters for that purpose.
Selethryth was succeeded, at least at Minster, by Cwoenthryth, daughter of King Coenwulf in the second decade of the ninth century. Cwoenthryth is a known pluralist who occupied the role of abbess in a number of locations simultaneously but whether she succeeded to Lyminge as well is unknown.122 When Wessex seized Kent in 825-7, the long-running dispute between king and archbishop over the lordship of the royal minsters continued.123 Ultimately, Archbishop Ceolnoth conceded at the Council of Kingston in 838 that the free minsters had chosen the lordship and protection of King Ecgberht, and the king therefore succeeded in gaining control over the old royal monastic estates outside Canterbury.124
The link between the two minsters of Minster and Lyminge under the control of a single abbess appointed by the king fits with this long-running dispute and the aim of reasserting royal control over the royal minsters, in succession to the Kentish royal family who had founded them originally. Selethryth could be seen as a royal appointee, promoting the role of the old royal minsters, using control of land and relics to reinforce the power of Mercia in Kent when it was relatively new. The cult of saints was largely a concern of the aristocracy at this period.125 Minster already had a well-established shrine to Mildrith. It is reasonable to see Selethryth acting as impresario of the cults at Minster, distributing the relics over which she had control to improve the local standing of the minster at Lyminge. Successful fostering of cults brought rich material rewards through the receipt of donations of land and this gives both a motivation and a context for the translation of Eadburh's remains from Minster to Lyminge.
The identity of the Lyminge relics
Although it is likely that Queen LEthelburh had been buried at Lyminge for 150 years before Eadburh's relics arrived, and it is probable that she was venerated to some degree locally, this alone was not enough to make a successful cult that was
216
image
ANTIQUARIANS, VICTORIAN PARSON AND RE-WRITING THE PAST: LYMINGE CHURCH
recognised more widely. The convention of the time was that sainthood generally required both elevation and translation.126 This could explain the priest Ralph's otherwise rather ambivalent assertion that the only holy relics he could certainly identify in 1085 were those of St Eadburh. This suggests that even to him as priest of Lyminge, the remains of Queen LEthelburh were not definitely holy relics. A successful cult also required promotion and this was something that Selethryth was in a position to deliver. By effecting the translation of Eadburh's relics to Lyminge, and elevation into a reliquary, Selethryth could have promoted her more widely as a saint according to the practice of the time.
Until very recently, the link between the Eadburh of Lyminge and the Eadburh of Minster rested largely on the claims of St Gregory's. However, a manuscript found recently in Hereford Cathedral Library has given the connection a firmer basis. This includes a version of the Minster foundation story, a Life of St Mildrith and crucially a Life and Miracles of St Eadburga. The Life closely matches the text of the Gotha manuscript already discussed,127 and places Eadburh as Abbess of Minster. The Miracles are centred on Lyminge, and locate her tomb in the minster there:128
... in the eastern parts of Kent, there in the minster at Lyminge, Saint Edburga was heard to lie.
... to the tomb of Saint Edburga ... at Lyminge, where the body of the holy virgin lies ...
The text may be dateable to around 1000,129 when Lyminge was controlled by Christ Church. Much hagiography dates to this period, providing the kind of literary justification for a saint's sanctity that was becoming an accepted requirement and a necessary part of the promotion of any cult.130 Whether the miracles were rooted in any kind of reality is not really the point. What is significant is that the author of the Life and Miracles of St Eadburga knew Eadburh as theAbbess of Minster who was by then buried and venerated at Lyminge. This was 85 years or more before any dispute arose between StAugustine's and St Gregory's. It is quite possible that the niche that is still visible on the outside of the south wall of the church is part of the shrine that housed her relics.131
But while all the evidence supports the burial of Eadburh at Lyminge, and there is no reason to doubt that the dedication of the church up to the end of the nineteenth century recognised this, this does not deny that LEthelburh was buried at Lyminge too.As already discussed, the Kentish Royal Legend does locate her at Lyminge after 633, and the archaeology is consistent with the foundation of a minster within fifty years of the time when Bede says she returned to Kent from Northumbria. The dedication to St Oswald at Paddlesworth, and the land held by Romanus both support a local connection to Northumbria. There is thus the strong possibility that LEthelburh lived, died and was buried at Lyminge after she returned to Kent.
In his Libellus, Goscelin highlighted the presence of 'LEthelburga's tomb in the north porticus in the south wall of the church',132 although the priest Ralph testified that there was no mark or inscription to provide a formal identification. This must therefore have been identification by tradition that required neither further explanation nor justification in the late eleventh century. There is no alternative tradition placing her remains anywhere else, and there is no challenge to the claim
217
image
ROBERT BALDWIN
by St Gregory's that her remains were translated by Lanfranc. She may not have been reckoned a significant saint, or indeed a saint at all prior to her translation, and St Eadburh is given more prominence in the records of the translation, such as they are, but nothing contradicts the view that LEthelburh was originally buried in Lyminge.
Goscelin is possibly selective in his quotation from the priest Ralph's testimony on the exhumation of the relics at Lyminge. He omits anything Ralph may have said about LEthelburh, although he does quote him as saying that he identified only 'one set of holy relics', those of St Eadburh. This could suggest that Ralph saw LEthelburh as of lesser sanctity than Eadburh, not that he did not know the second body was hers. The lesser status of LEthelburh is consistent even with the position taken by St Gregory's since she is named only as Queen, not Saint, Ethelburga in the foundation charter and is probably excluded altogether from the priory seal. In context, Ralph's statement about the lack of inscriptions is used to demonstrate that there was nothing positively indicating the presence of St Mildrith, not that the identity of the bodies was not known. The text could be taken as deliberately ambiguous, and perhaps Goscelin was intending to create the impression that Ralph himself was one of those who confused the names of Eadburh and LEthelburh. It seems likely that this was Goscelin's aim because it is otherwise difficult to reconcile his clear description ofLEthelburh's tomb with Ralph's testimony that he disinterred relics that he positively identified as St Eadburh. However, on the basis that two tombs were found at Lyminge and two bodies exhumed and translated to Canterbury, there seems good reason to conclude that one of these was Queen LEthelburh, and the other was St Eadburh, Abbess of Minster.
Conclusions
The evidence of the Hereford Life and Miracles of St Eadburga, taken with the charter evidence and the account from St Gregory's, is strong support for the dedication of the church at Lyminge properly being in the form St Mary and St Eadburg, as it was until 1897. The conclusion also follows that LEthelburh and Eadburh were indeed not the same person, and that antiquarians since William Lambarde have been misled.
So why did later antiquarians confuse the names? The source ofthe confusion may lie in the work of John of Tynemouth quoting the Life of St Edburga, reproduced in the Gotha text, which was published in the widely read Nova Legenda Anglie of 1516. But while even a small amount of critical analysis could have revealed the chronological problem with this account, for antiquarians who were compilers of the first national and county surveys, and for whom the intention was to establish and define English identity, the significance of Lyminge was different from the compilers of hagiographies and the early chronicles. For antiquarians, Lyminge was significant because it was associated with people mentioned by Bede. The connection with Augustine's Mission and the early history of the conversion of England, and thus with the creation of the English nation itself, was central to their theme. They may not have critiqued the equation of LEthelburh with Eadburh because it simply may have seemed incredible that the church at Lyminge would not recognise LEthelburh and instead would honour some other local saint who
218
image
ANTIQUARIANS, VICTORIAN PARSON AND RE-WRITING THE PAST: LYMINGE CHURCH
by then was of no great significance. By the sixteenth century, the relative status of LEthelburh and Eadburh had been completely reversed from the position in the Anglo-Saxon period.
s,
Once propagated, the assumption that Eadburh was LEthelburh was not seriously challenged until the end of the nineteenth century. Ironically, this was just when the new rector at Lyminge decided to bring his church into the twentieth century through a major renovation and re-ordering and by abandoning what seemed to be an archaic and confusing form of the church dedication. This demonstrates how evidence can be twisted or ignored to fit a point of view and ultimately, if it is repeated often enough by respected authorities, how opinion can come to be accepted as fact.
When the Reverend Eves started calling the parish church St Ethelburga he may have been following received belief, but more importantly and very astutely, he was also making it easier for potential donors to his church restoration fund to believe their donations both patriotic and worthwhile. By making the identification with Queen Ethelburga more explicit, he was probably consciously connecting Lyminge with Bede's History. This would have made it easier for the gifts to be seen as contributing to restoring a church that was a cradle of English Christianity. This was in the Diamond Jubilee Year of 1897, the high watermark of the British Empire, an avowedly very Christian empire, widely regarded in the contemporary popular imagination as built on Christian foundations laid in the Anglo-Saxon period. The achievements of the Anglo-Saxons and the evangelisation of England were integral to the English identity ofthose who had received a Victorian English education, and the restoration campaign was hugely successful. When the newly refurbished church was re-opened to worship by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1900, it had not only been repaired and refitted but also had a restyled dedication. Thanks to the Reverend Eves' project to restore the church for the new century, it has been known as the Church of St Mary and St Ethelburga ever since.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would particularly like to thank Dr Rosalind Love, Head of the Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic Studies in the University of Cambridge for sharing with him the text of the Hereford Life and Miracles of St Edburga, for allowing him to quote from it, and for her helpful comments. He is also grateful to Dr Gabor Thomas of Reading University for commenting upon an earlier draft ofthis paper, and to Professor Ian Wood of Nottingham University for sharing his observations about the Frankish family traditions of LEthelburh.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abbreviations used:
BCWG, The Bath Chronicle and Weekly Gazette.
CAM, Charters ofSt Augustine 's Abbey, Canterbury and Minster-in-Thanet, Kelly (1995). CCC, Charters ofChrist Church Canterbury, Brooks and Kelly (2013).
CDHAS, Canterbury Diocese Historical and Archaeological Survey, prepared for the Churches Committee of the Kent Archaeological Society.
DB, Domesday Book. Kent, Morgan (1983).
219
image
ROBERT BALDWIN
FH, The Folkestone Herald.
FHCSH, The Folkestone, Hythe, Cheriton, and Sandgate Herald. FHHSS, The Folkestone Herald, and Hythe and Sandgate Standard.
Gregory of Tours, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, translated in Thorpe (1974).
HE, Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum, translated in Colgrave and Mynors (1969).
PAS, Portable Antiquities Scheme.
SEG, The South Eastern Gazette.
WTHBH, The Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald.
Allen, J.R., 1889, The Monumental History of the Early British Church (London).
Arnold-Forster, F., 1899(a), Studies in Church Dedications or England's Patron Saints,
vol. 2 (London).
Arnold-Forster, F., 1899(b), Studies in Church Dedications or England's Patron Saints,
vol. 3 (London).
Beaches at Risk Project, 2005, Beach Sustainability and Biodiversity in the Eastern Channel Coasts, Interim Report, published on-line at: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/geography/ researchprojects/BAR/publish
Birch, W. de G., 1887, Catalogue of Seals in the Department of Seals in the British Museum,
vol. 1 (London).
Blair, J., 2002, 'A Handlist of Anglo-Saxon Saints', in (eds) A. Thacker and R. Sharpe,
Local Saints and Local Churches in the Early Medieval West (Oxford), 495-565. Blair, J., 2005, The Church inAnglo-Saxon Society (Oxford).
Brooks, N.P., 1984, The Early History of The Church of Canterbury: Christ Church from 597 to 1066 (Leicester).
Brooks, N.P. and Kelly, S.E., 2013, Charters of Christ Church Canterbury (Oxford). Camden, W., 1610, Britain, translated newly into English by Philemon Holland (London). Colgrave, B. and Mynors, R.A.B. (eds), 1969, Bede. Ecclesiastical History of the English
People (Oxford).
Colker, M.L., 1977, 'A hagiographic polemic', Medieval Studies, xxxix, 60-108. Crockford, 1983, Clerical Directory, 88th edn (Oxford).
Crockford, 1985, Clerical Directory, 89th edn (London).
Cunliffe, B., 1980, 'Excavations at the Roman Fort at Lympne, Kent 1976-78', Britannia,
xi, 227-88.
Davis, A.H., 1934, William Thorne 's Chronicle of Saint Augustine 's Abbey, Canterbury
(Oxford).
Everitt, A., 1986, Continuity and Colonization: the Evolution of Kentish Settlement
(Leicester).
Fleming, R., 1997, 'Christ Church, Canterbury's Anglo-Norman Cartulary', in C.W. Hollister (ed.), Anglo-Norman Political Culture and the 12th Century Renaissance (Woodbridge), 83-156.
Foot, S., 2006, Monastic Life inAnglo-Saxon England, c.600-900 (Cambridge). Forester, T. (ed.), 1854, The Chronicle of Florence of Worcester (London).
Gardiner, M., et al., 2001, 'Continental Trade and Non-Urban Ports in Mid-Anglo-Saxon England: Excavations at Sandtun, West Hythe, Kent', Archaeological Journal, 158, 161- 290.
Garmonsway, G.N. (ed. and transl.), 1955, TheAnglo-Saxon Chronicle, 2nd edn (London).
Gelling, M., 1988, Signposts to the Past: Place-names and the History of England
(Chichester).
Hardwick, C., 1858, Historia Monasterii SAugustini Cantuariensis by Thomas of Elmham
(London).
220
image
ANTIQUARIANS, VICTORIAN PARSON AND RE-WRITING THE PAST: LYMINGE CHURCH
Harrington, D., 2011, 'The Dedication ofLyminge Parish Church', in J. Carr (ed.), Lyminge a History Part Two (Lyminge), 7.8-7.9.
Hasted, E., 1799, The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent, vol. viii, 2nd edn (Canterbury, reprinted Wakefield 1972).
Hawkes, S., 1980, 'Late Roman Knife, silver mounted and with inlaid blade', in B. Cunliffe, 265-69.
Hearn, T. (ed.), 1770, Joannis LelandiAntiquarii de Rebus Britannicis Collectanea Tomus ii, iii (London).
Horstmann, C. (ed.), 1901a, Nova LegendaAnglie, vol. 1 (Oxford). Horstmann, C. (ed.), 1901b, Nova LegendaAnglie, vol. 2 (Oxford).
Hussey, A., 1907, Testamenta Cantiana. A Series of Extracts from Fifteenth and Sixteenth Century Wills relating to Church Building and Topography. East Kent (London).
Igglesden, C., 1901,A Saunter through Kent with Pen and Pencil, vol. iii (Ashford).
Jenkins, R.C., 1859, Some Account of the Church of St Mary and St Eadburh, Lyminge
(London and Folkestone).
Jenkins, R.C., 1874, 'The Basilica ofLyminge: Roman, Saxon and Medireval',Archaeologia Cantiana, IX, 205-223.
Jenkins, R.C., 1876, 'The Church of St Oswald at Paddlesworth',Archaeologia Cantiana,
X, 49-53.
Jenkins, R.C., 1890, The Burial-place of St Ethelburga the Queen in Lyminge (Folkestone). Jervis, B., 2011, Assessment of Pottery Recovered from Excavations at Lyminge, Kent,
published on-line at: http://www.lymingearchaeology.org/publications.
Kelly, S.E., 1995, Charters of St Augustine 's Abbey Canterbury and Minster-in-Thanet
(Oxford).
Kelly, S.E., 2006, 'Lyminge minster and its early charters', in S. Keynes and A.P. Smyth (eds),Anglo-Saxons: studies presented to Cyril Hart (Dublin), 98-113.
Kilbume, R., 1659,A Topographie or Survey of the County of Kent (London). Lambarde, W, 1576,A Perambulation of Kent (London).
Mackie, S.J., 1883, A Descriptive and Historical Account of Folkestone and its Neighbourhood, 2nd edn (Folkestone).
Mellows, WT., 1949, The Chronicle of Hugh Candidus, a Monk of Peterborough (Oxford). Morgan, P. (ed.), 1983, Domesday Book. Kent (Chichester).
Mudd, D. and Lawrence T., 2013, 'Prehistoric' in (eds) G. Thomas and A. Knox, Lyminge Excavations 2012. Interim Report on the University of Reading excavations at Lyminge, Kent, published on-line at: http://www.lymingearchaeology.org/publications.
Reece, R., 1980, 'The Coins', in B. Cunliffe, 260-64.
Rivet, A.L.F. and Smith, C., 1979, The Place-Names of Roman Britain (London). Rollason, D.W, 1982, The Mildrith Legend. A Study of Early Medieval Hagiography in
England (Leicester).
Rollason, D.W, 1986, 'Goscelin of Canterbury's Account of the Translation and Miracles of St Mildrith (BHL 5961/4): an Edition with Notes', Medieval Studies, xlvii, 139-210.
Rollason, D.W, 1989, Saints and Relics inAnglo-Saxon England (Oxford). Scott Robertson, WA., 1886, 'St Eanswith's Reliquary in Folkestone Church',Archaeologia
Cantiana, XVI, 322-26.
Sharpe, R., 1990, 'Goscelin's St Augustine and St Mildreth: Hagiography and Liturgy in Context', Journal of Theological Studies, New Series 41, Part 2, 502-16.
Sharpe, R., 1991, 'The date of St Mildreth's translation from Minster-in-Thanet to Canterbury', Medieval Studies, liii, 349-54.
Sharpe, R., 1995, 'The Setting of St Augustine's Translation, 1091', in R. Eales and R. Sharpe (eds), Canterbury and the Norman Conquest: Churches, Saints and Scholars, 1066-1109 (London), 1-13.
221
image
ROBERT BALDWIN
Sims-Williams, P., 2005, 'A Recension of Boniface's Letter to Eadburg about the Monk of Wenlock's Vision', in K.O. O'Keeffe and A. Orchard (eds.), Latin Learning and English Lore. Studies in Anglo-Saxon Literature for Michael Lapidge, vol. 1 (Toronto), 194-214. Stafford, P., 2005, 'P olitical Women in Mercia, Eighth to Early Tenth Centuries', in M.P. Brown and C.A. Farr (eds), Mercia: An Anglo-Saxon Kingdom in Europe (London), 35-52. Sweetinburgh, S., 2011, 'Anglo-Saxon Saints and a Norman Archbishop: 'Imaginative Memory ' and Institutional Identity at St Gregory's Priory, Canterbury', in J.E. Burton and K. Stober (eds), The Regular Canons in the Medieval British Isles, Medieval Church
Studies,19 (Tumhout).
Tatton-Brown, T., 1991, St Mary & St Ethelburga Church, Lyminge TRI 610 4085, CDHAS,
published on-line at www.kentarchaeology.org.uk.
Tatton-Brown, T., 1992, St Oswald's Church, Paddlesworth near Folkestone TQ 1950 3976, CDHAS,published on-line at www.kentarchaeology.org.uk.,_
Tatton-Brown, T., 1995, 'The Beginnings of St Gregory's Priory and St John's Hospital in Canterbury', in R. Eales and R. Sharpe (eds), Canterbury and the Norman Conquest: Churches, Saints and Scholars, 1066-1109 (London), 41-52.
Thacker, A., 2002, 'The Making of a Local Saint', in A. Thacker and R. Sharpe (eds), Local Saints and Local Churches in the Early Medieval West (Oxford), 45-73.
Thomas, G., 2013, 'Life before the Minster: the Social Dynamics of Monastic Foundation at Anglo-Saxon Ly minge, Kent', Antiquaries Journal,93, 109-145.
Thomas, G. and Knox, A., 2014, Lyminge Excavations 2013. Interim Report on the University of Reading excavations at Lyminge, Kent, published on-line at: http://www. lymingearchaeology.org/publications.
Thomas, G. and Knox, A., 2015, Lyminge Excavations 2014. Interim Report on the University of Reading excavations at Lyminge, Kent, published on-line at: http://www. lymingearchaeology.org/publications.
Thorpe, L. (ed.), 1974, The History of the Franks by Gregory of Tours (Harmondsworth). Toulmin Smith, L. (ed.), 1909, The Itinerary of John Leland in or about the years 1535-
1543 ', Parts VII and VIII (London).
Warhurst, A., 1955, 'The Jutish Cemetery at Lyminge',Archaeologia Cantiana,LXIX, 1-40.
Witney, K.P., 1976, The Jutish Forest. A Study of the Weald of Kent from 450 to 1380 AD
(London).
Woodcock, A.M. (ed.), 1956, Cartulary of The Priory of St Gregory, Canterbury, Camden 3rd Series, lxxxvii (London).
Yorke, B., 1998, 'The Bonifacian mission and female religious in Wessex', Early Medieval Europe,7(2), 145-72.
Yorke, B., 2003, Nunneries and the Anglo-Saxon Royal Houses (London).
Yorke, B., 2006, The Conversion of Britain. Religion, Politics and Society in Britain c.600- 800 (Harlow).
ENDNOTES
CCC 5 records a grant to the 'basilica of St Mary, Mother of God, at the place known as Lyminge', ('bassilicae Mariae genitricis Dei quae sita est in loco qui dicitur Limingae ').
Throughout this paper, the form Ethelburga is used to refer to the church dedication. Otherwise, the historical Queen of Northumbria is called JEthelburh, unless quoting the spelling adopted by a specific author.
HE ii, 9-20.
Rollason, 1982, 21. These are collectively known as the Kentish Royal Legend. The earliest manuscript is dated to the period 1035-1091, although deriving from an earlier source.
The term used was monasterium, normally translated as monastery or minster. This was a term
222
image
ANTIQUARIANS,VICTORIAN PARSON AND RE-WRITING THE PAST: LYMINGE CHURCH
applied to any kind of religious establishment with a church (Blair, 2005, 3). To avoid confusion with mediaeval monasteries,because they were a very different kind of institution,the term minster is adopted in this paper.
6 Rollason,1982,80-85.
7 In this paper,references to the historical church dedication are given as 'St Eadburg'. 'Eadburh'
is used to refer to the historical person,unless quoting the form ofthe name used by a specific author.
Thomas and Knox,2015,12-15.
Thomas,2013,111.
Blair,2005,9.
Yorke,2003,23-29 and 105-06.
Blair,2005,82-85.
Yorke,2003,106-12.
14 CAM 10 and CCC 7.
15 Blair,2005,257.
16 HE iii,8.
17 HE iv,25.
18 Yorke,2006,168-69.
Gregory of Tours,ix,26 for Ingoberga,and ii,43 and iv,1 for St Clothilde.
Everitt,1986,102-03.
Tatton-Brown,1991,1.
Jervis,2011; Thomas and Knox,2014,8.
Thomas and Knox,2015,10.
Thomas,2013,115; Jenkins,1875,205-11.
The recent excavations revealed a Bronze Age barrow with 5 cremation burials,and a separate crouched burial,but no later occupation evidence before the Anglo-Saxon period,Thomas and Knox, 2015,4. The PAS website records Iron Age coins from the area,but occupation sites of the period have yet to be identified.
CCC 10 and CCC 65.
Gardiner et al., 2001,164; 265-67; Rivet and Smith,1979,386-87.
Gelling,1988,64.
Warhurst,1955.
Reece,1980,263.
Hawkes,1980,265-69.
Cunliffe,1980,255-57.
Gardiner et al., 2001,191.
Ibid., 208.
Thomas and Knox,2015,6.
Witney,1976,31; CCC 23.
Gelling,1988,123.
Mudd and Lawrence,2013,4-5.
Blair,2005,183.
Information provided by Gabor Thomas during the conference 'Early Medieval Monasticism in the North Sea Zone' at the University of Kent in Canterbury,24-26 April 2015.
41 Hussey,1907,204.
42 HE i,30.
43 Ibid., i,26.
44 Blair,2005,70.
45 Ibid., 193-95.
46 Kelly,2006.
47 CCC 5 and 6.
223
image
ROBERT BALDWIN
48 HE iii,15.
49 DB 2,26.
50 Tatton-Brown,1992,1.
51 Hussey,1907,244,although Jenkins,1876,li dates this will to 1459.
52 HE iii,9-13.
53 Arnold-Forster,1899(a),312-16; 1899(b),21.
54 HE iii,25 and CCC 11. For the identification of Romanus,see Brooks and Kelly,2013,31,note 15.
55 HE ii,11.
56 Blair, 2005, 42.
57 Scott Robertson,1886.
58 Yorke (2003,23-24) observes that Eanswythe is said to have been born in 614,so a foundation date of 630 seems improbable.
59 Lambarde,1576,216.
60 Camden,1610,339.
61 Kilbume,1659,171-72.
62 Hasted,1799,78-91.
63 Toulmin Smith,1909,map between pp. 46 and 47.
64 Rollason,1982,26-27 and 81.
65 'Ethelburga vero regina, post pii regis Northumbrorum Eadwini inteifectionem, reversa ad Eadbaldum fratrem, in villa Liminga monasterium aedificavit, in quo cum S Eadburga requiescit', Heam,1770,167. The translation is the author's.
66 Davis,1934,233.
67 Hardwick,1858,142,176-77,224.
68 'Postea vero mortuo Eduuino reversa est cum Paulino ad Edbaldum qui tune Cantuariorum rex erat, deditque ei memoratus villam maximam Liminge, cum omnibus adiacentibus, construxitque ibi monasterium, ibique requiescit, et sancta Eadburga cum ea', Mellows,1949,56. The translation is the author's.
69 Forester,1854. 13,433,439,443,450.
70 HE ii,9.
71 Libellus contra inanes corporis sanctae virginis Mildrethae usurpatores (Colker,1977).
72 'Igitur in cecclesia Limminge, quae est episcopii, regina .IEthelburga celebratur sepulta, sed vulgo ibi nominabatur quaedam sancta Eadburga', ibid., 71. The translation is the author's.
73 Ibid., 97-108
74 Horstmann,1901a,308-11.
75 Horstmann,1901b,422.
76 Rollason,1989,180-87.
77 Mackie,1883,209.
78 Allen,1889,27.
79 Arnold-Forster,1899(a),352.
80 Jenkins,1859,7; 1890,5; 1874. He was a prolific author on antiquarian and theological matters, and the instigator of excavations that revealed the foundations of an apsidal structure,possibly the original Anglo-Saxon stone church,adjacent to the present church building.
81 FH 15 October 1892,9. The notice appears inSEG 18 October 1892,8,andBCWG 20 October
1892,1.
82 Initially costed at£1,000,FH 30 July 1898,3. Igglesden,1901,49,reported that the work cost
£1,807 10s. 5d. in total (in excess of£180,000 in today's terms).
83 WTHBH28August 1897,2. A letter was probably also published inFH,but the archives for this period are missing.
84 FH2 September 1899; 2,and 16 June 1900,3.
85 WTHBH 30 July 1898, 4. The report in FH 30 July 1898, 7, omitted the church dedication.
224
image
ANTIQUARIANS,VICTORIAN PARSON AND RE-WRITING THE PAST: LYMINGE CHURCH
However,in a special illustrated supplement on the local area published the following month,there is reference to 'the church of SS Mary and Ethelburga',FH 27 August 1898,30.
86 FHSCH27 January 1912,2 and 10; 28 May 1921,4.
FHHSS 17 October 1903,4.
Archaeologia Cantiana, XXX, 1914,lvi-lix.
The work on the church was sufficiently important for the church to be re-opened by the Archbishop of Canterbury,FH 10 November 1900,4.
FHSCH 14 April 1917,5.
The PCC minutes are held in the Cathedral Archives,Canterbury.
FH 15 July 1933,11.
Harrington,2011.
Crockford,1983,1254; and 1985,632.
FH 4 February 1899,12,referencing the Lyminge Church Magazine. Earlier,we know it was called St Eadburg s Well (see note 41).
Blair,2002,525-6,lists five.
CAM 51
Rollason,1986,157
CCC 34 records the grant of a 'refuge of necessity' ('necessitatis refugium') at Canterbury by King Coenwulf of Mercia in 804. Whether this means the female community vacated Lyminge at this time is unclear. CCC 26,dated to between 798 and 810 refers to the brotherhood at Lyminge, and also CCC 74,dated to 844,which could imply that only the male community remained, but this is not certain. There is no further reference to the community after 844, although when Lyminge came under the control of Canterbury remains open to question,(Brooks and Kelly,2013,34). By the time of the Domesday Survey,it had done so,DB 2,26.
Yorke,2003,72-76.
Blair,2005,298-99; 323.
Brooks,1984,255.
Woodcock,1956,1.
Sweetinburgh,2011,29.
Tatton-Brown,1995,48-49.
Colker 1977,73.
Garmonsway,1955,271.
Birch,1887,489,no. 2855; Sweetinburgh,2011,31.
Sharpe,1990,512-16.
110 Sharpe,1991.
111 Rollason,1989,180.
112 Sharpe,1995,4.
113 Colker,1977,73.
'Ego' inquit 'qui hisce meis manibus utraque corpora de tumulis suis levavi et exhausi, testor omne sacrum quad ibi nullum nomen, nulla scriptura, nullus titulus, nullum indicium fuit repertum vel nominatum, nulla prorsus Miltrudis, nulla sancta preter illam quae censebatur Eadburgis ibi erat indicabilis...',ibid., 85. The translation is the author's.
Rollason,1989,223-24.
'Lymingas ubi pausat beata Eadburga', (CCC34).
117 Rollason,1986,154-57.
118 Sims-Williams,2005,195-6; Yorke 1998,150-52.
119 Ibid., 159.
120 Rollason,1982,25.
Brooks and Kelly,2013,401-03.
Ibid., 33; Stafford,2005,41.
Foot,2006,131-34.
225
image
ROBERT BALDWIN
124 Brooks, 1984, 202-05; Blair 2005, 124.
12s Rollason, 1989, 95, 129.
126 Thacker, 2002, 48; Rollason, 1989, 42.
121 Colker, 1977, 97-108.
128 ' .. . in orientales partes Cantuarie, ibique in Limbiensi monasterio audisse sanctam quiescere Edburgam', and '...ad sepulchrum sancta Edburge... ad Limbias, ubi corpus sancte quiescit virginis...' The author is grateful to Dr Rosalind Love ofthe Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic Studies in the University of Cambridge, who has kindly shared a transcript of the manuscript she has found. The text has not yet been published.
129 Love,pers. comm.,attributes the text on stylistic grounds to the author known as 'B', who was active around 1000.
130 Rollason, 1989, 105-10.
Tatton-Brown, 1991, 1.
Colker, 1977, 72.
226
image
CHANGING PATTERNS OF ROUTEWAYS IN THE LANDSCAPE OF THE EASTERN HIGH WEALD FROM THE END OF THE ROMAN PERIOD TO THE BUILDING OF THE TURNPIKES
BRENDAN CHESTER-KADWELL
Before the Roman came to Rye or out to Severn strode, The rolling English drunkard made the rolling English road. A reeling road, a rolling road, that rambles round the shire,
And after him the parson ran, the sexton and the squire; A merry road, a mazy road, and such as we did tread
The night we went to Birmingham by way of Beachy Head.
G.K. Chesterton 1913 1
In his poem The Rolling English Road, G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936) played upon a cultural perception of the country's roads being original, eccentric, and standing for ancient liberties. This easily engages with the English People's innate romanticism about what they perceive as their ancient, idiosyncratic and timeless rural roads. Whilst it is interesting to observe the many fascinating cultural associations and poetical accumulations that landscape (and roads as a crucial aspect of landscape) has acquired over time, what is the true picture that emerges when examining the actual origins, development, and morphology of roads? This paper aims to explore the reality through a study of routeways in an area of the eastern High Weald that straddles the county boundary between Kent and East Sussex, centred on the upper levels of the River Rother.
The term routeway is used generically in this paper to include a wide range of different types of specific landscape features over which there is public right of passage by foot, horse or vehicle. Different kinds of routeway (such as common ways, the king's highway) are explored more fully in the section on landscape context below, while terms such as lane, track, or road are used within the body of the paper to convey an idea of scale, relative importance and physical form.
The research has involved field investigation aided by historical maps and other documentary sources. The majority of the written sources, together with the parish and estate maps that record roads, mostly date to the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, with little material relating to earlier periods. The earliest published county and national maps originating in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries either fail to record the roads altogether, or give only
227
image
BRENDAN CHESTER-KADWELL
rudimentary notions of where they were located. This is a potential problem when trying to establish the actual age and precise geographical location of routeways. Consequently, landscape features, topography, and archaeological evidence are of especial importance in establishing earlier patterns of routeways. Logical deduction from all the available evidence has been an essential part of the methodology for this study.
In dealing with the complexity of change within the network of local lanes, it has proved impossible to detail every example over such a large area. Therefore, this issue has been illustrated through two short case studies located across the parishes ofRolvenden (Kent), Salehurst and Ewhurst (both in Sussex). Similarly, whilst the results of detailed field research have been deployed within the analysis, the author is aware that there has not always been the space within a short article to articulate this evidence in detail.
A number of plans have been produced to illustrate the points made in the text. As the study area is quite large, the routeways marked on the plans cannot include all the subtlety of detail that ideally might be desired. Furthermore, the historical time that many of the plans cover is quite broad and within that time frame there were variations that cannot all be illustrated. However, it is hoped that any shortcomings will not detract from the main arguments presented in the paper.
The focus of this study is a selection of parish landscapes adjacent to the River Rother and its tributaries as they flow through the eastern part of the High Weald, exiting atRye. The location of the study area is shown on Figs lA and lB straddling the counties of Kent and East Sussex. On the Kent side it includes the parishes of Sandhurst, Newenden, Rolvenden, Wittersham, Benenden and Tenterden. On the Sussex side the study area includes the parishes of Bodiam, Salehurst, Ewhurst, Northiam, Beckley and Peasmarsh.
The study area covers approximately 222km2, although the focus is on those areas close to the River Rother and its local tributaries - the Kent Ditch, the Hexden and Newmill Channels. The county boundary follows the Kent Ditch and the River Rother. Fig. 1B delineates the parish boundaries and illustrates the routes and destinations of the modem A and B road system, set within the context of three major towns, Cranbrook to the north, Tenterden to the north-east andRye to the south-east. Fig. 2 illustrates the current topography of the study area using selected contours for clarity (0-10, 10-30, 30-60 and over 60m) showing the location of the main parish settlements. The study area contains the upper levels of the River Rother and its tributaries (its lower levels approach Rye and the sea). The upper levels comprise a tract of country shared by the counties of Kent and East Sussex, much of which lies below the 5m contour along the valleys of the Rother river system, before it adjoins the wetlands of Romney Marsh to the east. The landform of these parishes consists of a gently undulating countryside dissected by a series of streams, many within steep-sided gills in their upper reaches. These gills are wooded and this, together with the shaws and the small blocks of woodland around old field pits, give the landscape a moderately bosky appearance. By contrast, the reclaimed flood plain of theRother and the lower slopes of the land that skirts them are open and relatively treeless. Fig. 3 shows the area of the upper levels in detail, denoting what are known as the West and East Maytham Levels, the Newenden
228
image
CHANGING PATTERNS OF ROUTEWAYS IN THE EASTERN HIGH WEALD
1A
■
D Approximate area of the High Weald
Case Study Area
KENT
Canterbu•ry
Ashford.
I 13KM
LEGEND
- - StudyArea
· · · •parish
boundary
--Aroad
-sroad
Maidstone
Figs 1 A and 1B Location and Extent of the Routeway Study Area.
© B. Chester-Kadwell (2016).
229
image
BRENDAN CHESTER-KADWELL
CONTOURS
0-10 metres - includes reclaimed land
10-30 metres
over 30 metres
Fig. 2 Topography of the Study Area.© B. Chester-Kadwell (2016). (Fig.lB Legend applies.)
Levels and the Wittersham Levels. The 'Upper Levels', as they are collectively called, currently constitute a low lying, reclaimed marshland, with channels for the Rother and its tributaries, and criss-crossed by drainage ditches. This land, the flood plains of the Rother and its tributaries, are still regularly inundated in winter, despite modem flood defence work. Fig. 3 also shows the Upper Levels in relation to the modem road system, the current configuration of local lanes, the main river crossings and settlements.
Of the parishes containing territory on the Upper Levels, Rolvenden and Newenden are amongst the ones most affected by the history of this landscape. Rolvenden occupies a ridge of higher land orientated north-west to south-east that forms the watershed between the Hexden and Newmill channels. It is of particular interest because situated between the East and West Maytham Levels it was, in much earlier times, effectively a peninsular only accessible by road from either Benenden or Tenterden, and without any land routes over the extensive waterways. The contemporary parish routeway configuration is of a different order: the two nucleated settlements, Rolvenden Street and Rolvenden Layne, stand at significant points on a road system that enables passage north and south, as well as east and west, across waterways and higher terrain, bridging the Upper Levels at key points. For example, the A28 traverses south across the parish to Rye and Hastings, and
230
image
CHANGING PATTERNS OF ROUTEWAYS IN THE EASTERN HIGH WEALD
CONTOURS
Do-s metres
5-10 metres
10-30 metres
over 30 metres
over 60 metres
LEGEND
J:=f
main river crossings:
Hexden
Newenden
Ashbourne
Potman's Hoath
main rivers- waterways and ditches --
Q
main settlements
local lanes - A roads - Broads-
Fig. 3 Topography of the Upper Levels.© B. Chester-Kadwell (2016).
north to Tenterden and Ashford. While many local journeys continue to make use of lanes of great antiquity, traffic through the territory mostly makes use of an extensive network of A and B roads, the fruit of the turnpike revolution made possible by the reclamation of land prone to inundation.
Newenden, however, has substantially declined with the diminution of the navigable waterways. At the time of Domesday (1086), Newenden was the most significant place on the Upper Levels with a market and one of the few with its own entry in the Domesday survey (Morris 1983, 2.27). With the decline in the waterways Newenden lost the strategic and commercial importance that it enjoyed in the eleventh century. However, it continues to be an important bridging point on
231
image
BRENDAN CHESTER-KADWELL
the River Rother, situated south of Rolvenden at the termination of an east-west orientated ridge at the confluence of the River Rother and the Hexden and Newmill Channels. Currently the bridge at Newenden carries the A268, which commenced at its junction with the A2l at Flimwell, joining the A28 on its joumey south for a small stretch, and thence onto Rye.
EVOLUTION OF ROUTEWAYS IN THE ENVIRONS OF THE UPPER LEVELS
The High Weald is quintessentially 'ancient countryside' or, perhaps more accurately, one particular version of ancient countryside.2 Most farmland in the Weald has always been owned and exploited 'in severalty' - as property managed by individual families rather than managed in common by whole communities. This is the countryside of isolated farms or small hamlets, where villages are for the most part a late imposition on the landscape. The settlement pattern reflects its origins in the piecemeal enclosure ofextensive commons into areas ofwood pasture called dens originating during the Saxon period. By the Conquest the commons had dwindled considerably (Witney 1976, 31-55), and the broad settlement pattern of the eastern High Weald seems to have been established by the time of Domesday (Sawyer 1976, 1-2; Gardiner 1995, 94; Chester-Kadwell 2014).
However, it was not desirable to enclose all land because, in a pastoral economy, space had to be found within which driven herds and flocks could be managed along the routes of the droves - spaces within which common rights could continue to be exercised and which survive into modem times as greens. Greens are a frequent occurrence in the High Weald and in Kent especially, and there were a surprisingly large number of them - mostly small and unevenly distributed.3 Residual greens resulting from the enclosure of commons were often positioned centrally to the geography of the parish. Their location relates to their original function, the management offlocks of animals from the secondary settlement areas (the High Weald dens) to their primary settlement (the coastal manors) along the drove roads.4 Indeed, it is apparent from even a cursory perusal of early maps that roads and common land were different varieties of the same basic thing - unenclosed land, freely accessed by the communities. Roads connected greens and commons, flowing into them seamlessly, and on occasions it is difficult to distinguish between narrow linear commons and widened routeways.
The evolution of the High Weald landscape, such as the creation of individual farmsteads and the management of animal husbandry through greens and droves, have helped to determine and shape and structure of the routeway system. This particular socio-economic environment ensured, of necessity, a particularly dense mesh of local routeways connecting the greens with long distance drove roads, farmsteads and other locally recurring resources.5 Routeways emerged largely because farms and privately owned fields needed to be reached without taking stock across the land of other proprietors. These ancient lanes survive where patterns of land management and the organisation of field systems remain unaltered. Routeways in the High Weald should be understood, therefore, as part of the wider history of the landscape through which they run. Local networks of public rights of way form an integral part of the local pattern of settlement, the character of field systems, and the history of very early piecemeal enclosure. However, they
232
image
CHANGING PATTERNS OF ROUTEWAYS IN THE EASTERN HIGH WEALD
subsist within a framework oflong distance routeways that are essentially medieval in origin.6 They often also incorporate stretches of Roman roads and prehistoric trackways and have been modified, in much later times, by the turnpike trusts.
There are a huge variety ofdifferent types ofrouteway in the contemporary High Weald landscape, and this applies equally to their usage and physical form. Some are major roads or country lanes, metalled and open to all traffic, yet others are green lanes, trackways, footpaths or bridleways where public usage is restricted to non-motorised traffic. Some ofthese distinctions are of considerable antiquity. The pattern has evolved gradually, with some routes falling out ofuse in whole or part as local needs changed, but with many examples, although largely redundant, surviving as rights ofway.
Because of the difficulty of dating roads they are commonly classified in the literature either according to road-building epochs or usage, and this is no different for the Weald (Wooldridge and Golding 1966, 221-224).In terms of formal road building in the High Weald there were two main historical phases prior to the establishment of the modem system of road construction and maintenance that followed the formation ofthe modem county councils in the late nineteenth century. The first and the earliest was the network ofRoman roads with their associated trackways; the second, the roads built under the Turnpike Acts ofthe eighteenth and early nineteenth century.7 Roughly 1300 years separate these interpolations and between these phases of formal road building, the network of Wealden routeways has tended to be classified by function: for example, as drove roads, or long distance medieval routes (Witney 1976; Everitt 1986; Brandon 2003).
During the Middle Ages there was, in effect, a rather vague and shifting classif ication ofrouteways generally. Firstly, there were major roads, 'king's highways', which included both the nationally important roads connecting major centres of power, and also those that simply linked the main villages. The latter shaded off without clear definition into the more numerous group oflesser local highways, generally referred to in contemporary documents as 'common ways'. It is also important to understand that medieval roads differed conceptually from later roads. This was because a route between two places or points made use ofland that was known to be common land or waste, avoiding land under agricultural use. Common land or waste was normally manorial land, held and administered on behalf ofthe local community by the manorial court. The highway was less a physical object in the landscape than a legally enforceable right of passage. A traveller might wander off the beaten track onto private land in pursuit ofthis right ifthe way was obstructed or too poorly maintained to use (Webb 1913, 4-9). This common law concept ofthe right ofpassage is still seen in how footpaths are used, 8 but does not sit easily with the way that contemporary highways are experienced. Modem roads, essentially land managed and maintained by the local state, are bounded public spaces beyond which the right ofpassage does not normally extend.
Historically, within the High Weald as a whole, through-routes tended to follow the principal ridges and provide multiple alternatives for routes across the area. No doubt, this was welcome when roads were poor and often impassable in bad weather (Witney 1976, 131). Although the through-routes favoured the ridgelines, at some point each had to descend to the valleys to cross one or other of the principal watercourses. These cross-routes were complemented by a multiplicity
233
image
BRENDAN CHESTER-KADWELL
of local lanes whose purpose was to connect centres of habitation and allow access to associated farmland.
With the development of the High Wealden dens over time into 'private' space the remaining commons, especially the roadside greens, became particularly important for as long as there were large movements of animals in the area. Almost without exception greens are situated either along the main drove routes on the ridge tops, or at the principal cross-routes connecting the ridge-top drove ways. They occur on relatively level areas of ground and at the junctions of through routes with local lanes. Greens would have had the double utility of providing over-night stopping off points for livestock passing through, as well as collection and dispersal points for the flocks and herds belonging to local farmsteads. Green locations often also had the poorer soils that did not favour arable production.
In lowland enclosed countryside medieval roads were almost invariably bounded by hedges or some other form of stock-proof barrier, except where they widened to form greens and commons. These roads were used by wheeled traffic, travellers on horseback or on foot, and livestock. The boundary treatments indicated the limits of the common way and prevented the stock being moved along them from straying into adjacent fields. Conversely they prevented stock in fields from wandering off along the road. It was rather unusual for a public road to run unhedged through a field, because such an arrangement would rely on the good sense of users to keep the gates leading into and out of the field firmly closed. The public highways in anciently enclosed countryside can thus be likened to a complex network of sealed strips of common land, widening out in places to form greens and other more extensive areas of common grazing.
From the sixteenth century, individual parishes were responsible for maintaining the public highways within their boundaries and allocated more or less effort to surfacing and repairs, depending on the extent of use and perceived importance of the road in question.9 It was very largely the inefficiency of this system (especially along the major 'national' routes) that led to the formation of turnpike trusts that in the High Weald are rarely found to date before c.1760. For the most part the present divisions between lanes used by all traffic and 'green lanes' only crystallised out as tar-macadamised road surfacing began to be adopted in rural areas in the course of the twentieth century. This divided what had been a single spectrum of roads into two distinct groups - those suitable for general motor traffic and those not so. The wide valleys of the Rother, the Hexden Channel, and Newmill Channel were lands that until major reclamation measures were undertaken during the seventeenth century were historically prone to inundation and tidal streams below the level of (approximately) the 5m contour.10 The Rother was navigable someway up-stream ofNewenden and its tributaries were also navigable to a greater or lesser extent, as a consequence of which water transport was of considerable importance.
Up until the early modem period settlements around the Upper Levels were often more accessible by water than by land with many places interconnected by ferry.
Prior to the reclamation in the seventeenth century the topography of the area made it a difficult terrain for road building and this was a significant influence on historical road networks. As has been said, most long distance routeways were of necessity confined at that time to the ridge-tops, which are orientated broadly east/west. Travel by road north/south, against the grain of the land, was
234
image
CHANGING PATTERNS OF ROUTEWAYS IN THE EASTERN HIGH WEALD
difficult where wide valleys prone to flooding hindered the way. The focus was on finding reliable crossing points, often necessitating longer journey times. It is not surprising, therefore, that major routes largely avoided this area completely, whilst the local network of lanes provided access to the water for local resources and water transport, or connected local settlement to easier crossing points upstream.
The drainage ofthe inundated land and the canalising ofthe Rother, Hexden and Newmill channels brought about a very different potential to how the landscape of the Upper Levels worked generally, and to the landscape ofRolvenden especially. This was not achieved without a long period of contention and dispute. The land around the Isle of Oxney was a contested area between two sets ofinterests over a 300-year period, from the thirteenth to the early seventeenth century. On the one hand, those wishing to maintain the navigability ofthe waterways and, on the other, the land owners who wished to reclaim the inundated land for agriculture and protect their landholdings from flooding: each wanted to maintain, enhance and protect their interests. For example, Knelle Dam, built during the fourteenth century as part ofa scheme to improve navigation between the ports of Rye and Winchelsea and their hinterlands, diverted the River Rother from one side ofthe Isle ofOxney to the other. This was a large and significant engineering intervention that solved the problems of water management for a while but eventually led to the permanent inundation of much of the Upper Levels. The situation became unsustainable after 1600 and attempts to drain the Upper Levels whilst also maintaining the course ofthe Rother north ofthe Isle ofOxney failed. In the early 1630s the decision was made - once and for all - to breach the Knelle Dam to send the waters ofthe Rother back south of Oxney through the Wittersham Levels and reclaim as much ofthe inundated land in the Upper Levels as possible (Eddison 1985, 95-106; Eddison 2000, 105-110). This effectively restricted the waterways to small craft (lightermen) and limited the movement oflarger vessels between the coastal ports ofRye and Winchelsea and the hythes and wharfs further inland, such as Appledore, Small Hythe, Maytham, and Newenden.
The reclamation ofthe Upper Levels ofthe Rother was a defining process in the history of routeways in the area and a pivotal point in the present analysis. The network of routeways prior to this event was determined by the topography ofinundation, marine activity and the human processes oflandscape management as it was practiced at that time. The post-reclamation routeway network changed radically from what had gone before, spurred on by the opportunities presented by the better management of the waterways and the freedom to construct and successfully maintain roads over the previously inundated land. As will be seen, this affected both the way that long distance routeways were adapted to the terrain and how the network oflocal lanes developed. How major or long distance routes coped with the terrain before and after the reclamation ofthe Upper Levels, and how reclamation and changes to the major routes affected the local network of lanes are the two themes that define the analysis presented in this paper.
Early Long Distance Routeways in the Vicinity of the Upper Levels
Very little is known about pre-medieval routeways in this part ofthe High Weald, although it is reasonable to expect that they would have existed in some form
235
image
BRENDAN CHESTER-KADWELL
or another. Palaeo-environmental evidence for early agriculture and deforestation also supports the view that the area was subject to human activity in the pre Roman era but unequivocal evidence for the identification and dating of routeways to this time is not available. Speculation concerning the purpose of possible early routeways, often assumes that their use in some way anticipated later uses as drove roads. However, there is no way of being able to identify with certainty which (if any) of the lanes and tracks in the study area are definitely pre-Roman, but common sense suggests that some might be (Harris 2003, 22-23).
Although there is archaeological evidence for Roman activity in many of the parishes within the area of the Upper Levels - including industrial sites relating to the iron industry, interments, and a number of roads - the intelligence from this evidence remain patchy. In this part of the High Weald Roman roads were mainly secondary routes of relatively poor construction that tended to avoid the difficult topography of the Upper Levels. Additionally, they frequently adopted a sinuous course in order to deal with the challenges of the local terrain. Fig. 4 illustrates the two principal Roman roads; one took a broadly north/south alignment that passed to the west of the Levels, with a second going east/west that ran north of
CONTOURS
0-5 metres -
inundated land 5 - 10 metres
10-30 metres over 30 metres over 60 metres
Fig. 4 Approximate Line of the Roman Roads - Upper Levels.
© B. Chester-Kadwell (2016).
236
image
CHANGING PATTERNS OF ROUTEWAYS IN THE EASTERN HIGH WEALD
them (Margary 1973, 44-49). In terms of the modem topography, the road running north/south connected Rochester (Durobrivae) to the iron producing area north of Hastings, entering the parish of Benenden near Hemsted and leaving it south of Iden Green, crossing the Hexden brook at Wandle Mill. It then passed through Sandhurst parish and crossed the Kent Ditch at Bodiam into Sussex. From there it proceeded to Sedlescombe and on south towards Hastings. The east/west route branches from the Rochester to Hastings road at Hemsted, near where evidence for Roman settlement has been found (Pollard and Aldridge 2008, 301-307). This road proceeded east from here, eventually connecting to Canterbury (Durovernum Cantiacorum). Although the Rochester to Hastings route continued to be used in parts by later tracks and lanes, there were also many deviations from it. However, the Benenden to Canterbury route was largely ignored by later routeways, and other more local Roman roads that Margary speculates about have gone completely (Margary 1973, 47).
The Principal Medieval Routeways and some Post-Medieval Adaptations
Since medieval roads also avoided the inundated areas it is difficult to account for why more use wasn't made of the Roman roads prior to the reclamation of the Upper Levels in the seventeenth century. It may be partly to do with the nature of the Roman roads themselves, which in the High Weald were usually constructed of material that would have needed continuous maintenance to ensure their use over time. Additionally, designed as through routes for an earlier period, the alignment of the Roman roads often put them in the wrong place to act as routeways connecting later local settlement. The siting of early Saxon settlement, for example, tended to avoid Roman roads and later settlement seems to have followed this pattem.11 As a consequence later routeways related to settlement developed differently. This does not mean that routes used by Roman roads were not used at all in the post-Roman period, but neither does the later use of Roman roads necessarily imply continuity of use. For example, a routeway may go out of use for a while before (at a later date) being re-used, especially where the nature of the local topography is such as to make this the logical choice.12
Whatever the reason for their abandonment, Roman roads do not appear to have shaped the framework of routeways over the long term and medieval routeways in this part of the High Weald seem often to have ignored them. Throughout the Middle Ages travel between London and the principal continental ports ofRye and Winchelsea was of considerable importance.13 One of the principal routes from London was through Tonbridge and across the Weald to Rye and Winchelsea via a number ofalternative ways,14 but on these routes the all-weather roads still needed to circumvent the Rother Levels as they had done in Roman times.
Although in general terms medieval roads in the High Weald tended to keep to the higher land of the ridge tops, their actual course can be difficult to determine and where the evidence is forthcoming they often take rather surprisingly circuitous routes. In practice, the course of a long distance route was effectively the joining up of many local lanes rather than a planned long distance road as happened later under the turnpike trusts. In many cases there is simply not one major routeway but a number of parallel ways comprising a series of local lanes that are aligned in a
237
image
BRENDAN CHESTER-KADWELL
similar direction through which traffic filtered: this was especially so where roads had to traverse against the grain of the landscape. Negotiating early road systems, therefore, would have required a degree of specialist knowledge, particularly as there was unlikely to have been proper signposting. The medieval traveller would need to know the route through personal experience, or have employed a guide who did (Furley 1874, vol. II pt 2, p. 256). In places like the High Weald where there was a complicated network of possible alternatives, the preferred option may have been to employ a series of local guides as the traveller progressed through the countryside. Local guides would have known the best routes to take according to local conditions at the time of travel - as indeed was still the case as late as the nineteenth century in some parts of south-east England (Cobbett 1983 [first published 1830], pp. 88-89).
The exact route taken by medieval roads across this area is frequently difficult to identify, although it is sometimes possible to speculate with some degree of certainty. Symonson's map of 1596 gives a generalised view of how the major routeways crossed the area, but is of too small a scale to show the detail. 15 Its significance rests on the fact that it shows the area prior to the improvements to the Levels of the early seventeenth century and may, therefore, reflect the late medieval system fairly well. Symonson shows the Rother flowing north of the Isle of Oxney a few years before the Knelle Dam was breached in a storm. Using Symonson's map as a rough guide, with some detail added from fieldwork and the judicious use of later maps, Fig. SA illustrates the most likely course of the major medieval routes through the study area, which may be summarised as follows:
The main route to the north of the Levels [A on the plan] ran from Cranbrook to Tenterden passing north of Benenden and Halden Park thus avoiding the Newmill Channel. The road then continued from Tenterden to Appledore and New Romney over Romney Marsh. Today the Tenterden road from Cranbrook is unclassified, but continues from Tenterden to New Romney as the B2080.
The route from London to Rye via Tonbridge and Flimwell (the modem A21) passes along the Sandhurst Ridge (where it becomes the A268) to the crossing point of the Rother at Newenden and then onwards to Northiam and Rye [B]. This route avoided the most difficult parts of the Levels but en gaged with the valley of the Rother at Newenden. This reduced the journey time, bypassing the Rother crossing at Robertsbridge (the Hastings Road) and avoiding the longer southern route [C].
The route from north Kent that skirted the Levels to the west was more problematic. It seems that in the sixteenth century the Rochester road (ef fectively the route of the Roman road) divided at Camden Hill (just to the north of Cranbrook): one branch [DJ] passed through Cranbrook to meet the Newenden road at Hawkhurst; the other [D2] proceeded to Benenden (continuing along the route of the Roman road, although along a different alignment) and eventually joined up with the Newenden road somewhere near Sandhurst.
238
image
CHANGING PATTERNS OF ROUTEWAYS IN THE EASTERN HIGH WEALD
How this latter routeway [D2] covered the area between Benenden and Sandhurst is not clear as there are a number of alternative routes that it may have followed, but it illustrates many of the issues concerning the workings of these early through routes over difficult terrain (see Fig. SB).
Fig. 5B shows how the whole route illustrated by Symonson commences at Camden Hill, crosses the Cranbrook to Tenterden Road (almost certainly at Galford Green) and having passed through Benenden joins the Flimwell to Newenden Road to the east of Sandhurst. One possible route through Benenden would have been through Hemsted along the line of the Roman road to Iden Green (crossing by a paved ford at Stream farm) and from there via Standen Street and Hopemill Bridge to Ringlecrouch Green (the modem Crouch Lane) on the Hawkhurst to Newenden road [D2a, marked in red]. Alternatively, the road may have passed through Benenden Green and turned off the ridge near Pullington Farm along a now abandoned lane towards Iden Green and then on as before [D2b, marked in yellow]. It is also possible that the road may have turned south-east off the lane to Iden Green taking a now lost lane to Dingleden and onto Kensham Green in Rolvenden [D2c, marked in orange]. 16 From Kensham Green it would have crossed the Hexden stream either at Hopemill or possibly through a series of abandoned ways past Frenchhurst Farm to Lamberden Farm on the Newenden Road (not shown on Fig. 5B). 17 It is as likely that these were alternative ways offering choice depending on the actual state of any single route, with some perhaps being favoured at different times of the year.
Finding convenient crossing points for the main rivers was another consideration in planning a route. Bridges were impractical across the broadest valleys in areas prone to inundation or tidal streams and even ferries could be problematic where there were seasonal variations of water level. Bridges were also expensive to build and maintain, whichmeant that fewwere constructed for pragmatic considerations. 18 There were three crossing places on the Rother within the study area that resulted in bridges being constructed either during the course of the Middle Ages or in the Early Modem period; namely, Newenden, Bodiam (where there was also an earlier Roman crossing) and Robertsbridge; but the most significant for the purposes of this paper is that at Newenden. This crossing point was the lowest one on the Rother along the shortest route to Rye from Tonbridge (itself a key crossing on the Medway). It is not surprising, therefore, that as time went by local routes in the vicinity of the Upper Levels tended to gravitate towards the Rother crossing at Newenden.
Medieval crossing points, where attempts were made to carry the road across the river rather than rely on a ferry or simply fording the river, were often a combination of causeways and bridges. This was an effective technological approach as the valley of the Rother is flat and wide and the river would have had in many places a number of channels. The crossing point in Salehurst parish at Robertsbridge was probably typical of many medieval engineering projects of this type, which can still be seen here in the modem landscape. It is said that at one time there were as many as seven channels to be bridged at Robertsbridge and the process was to build a causeway between the channels, which were then individually bridged. This method made the process easier than attempting to bridge one large channel, but causeways also made the area more prone to flooding as they acted as a dam when water flows were exceptionally high. Where the river was forced into one
239
image
BRENDAN CHESTER-KADWELL
CONTOURS
0-5 metres - inundated land
5 - 10 metres
10-30 metres
over 30 metres
over 60 metres
LEGEND
1( established Medieval bridges
]( other river crossings
Fig. 5A Major Medieval Routeways - Upper Levels.
240
image
CHANGING PATTERNS OF ROUTEWAYS IN THE EASTERN HIGH WEALD
major Medieval routes
--■ Medieval routes, exact alignment unknown
© B. Chester-Kadwell (2016).
241
image
BRENDAN CHESTER-KADWELL
Fig. 5B Conjectured Medieval Through-routes in the Benenden Area.
© B. Chester-Kadwell (2016). (Contours and Legend as per Figure SA.)
larger channel bridges were more efficient, but they still had to be reached by a causeway used to carry the road above flood levels. In the lower reaches of the Rother such as at Newenden and Bodiam, where the demands of navigation required that the bridges could also allow the passage of larger craft, it was more advantageous to encourage the water into a single channel. Both Newenden and Bodiam are examples of how the technique of combining bridges with causeways was perfected during the eighteenth century.
242
image
CHANGING PATTERNS OF ROUTEWAYS IN THE EASTERN HIGH WEALD
Navigation in the East and West Maytham Levels on the Hexden and Newmill Channels (the two largest tributaries feeding the Rother in the Upper Levels) was more restricted than on the Rother itself and the craft able to use them must always have been lighter. However, although the demands of navigation were less than on the main stream, no attempt to bridge these valleys was made prior to the seventeenth century. This was largely because of the difficulty of the terrain and the width of the valleys that constituted the Maytham Levels. It was not until serious efforts were being made to cure the problems caused by the inundation of the Upper Levels that the establishment of new crossing points could be considered.
There were some modifications to the major routes as a result of the reclamation of the Upper Levels during the course of the seventeenth century and the early years of the eighteenth century. An attempt was made to solve the problem of inundation in the Upper Levels between 1600 and 1633 without sending the waters of the Rother south of the Isle of Oxney through the Wittersham Levels. Although unsuccessful in its principal objective, it did produce some results. One of the initiatives designed to manage the water in the Hexden Channel was to have a lasting benefit for the improvement to road transport in the long term. A raised causeway that was erected from below Frogs Hill in Newenden across the valley of the Hexden Channel enabled the stream to be bridged, with a sluice set above the causeway to assist in controlling the flow and enabling the stream above to be canalised. The causeway is shown in a plan of 1633, produced to show the disposition of lands before the Knelle Dam was breached the following year [ESRO: ACC 2806- l-9-02a]. This new bridge allowed access from the local network of lanes around Forsham and Kensham to the Sandhurst to Newenden road towards Rye and eventually presented a new opportunity for long distance travel as well.
Once the Rother had been allowed into the Wittersham Levels the Newmill Channel was diverted to the south-west to a new confluence with the Rother above Blackwall. To achieve this, a cut was made at Potman's Hoath where the Knelle Dam was breached to allow the waters from the Newmill Channel to flow south. However, the reclamation of the Upper Levels and the establishment of the Rother to the south of the Isle of Oxney effectively took the best part of a hundred years to fully achieve. At some point during this time frame another causeway was built connecting a stretch of the Knelle Dam at Potman's Hoath to a point between Maytham Wharf and Maytham Farm in Rolvenden parish. For the first time a land route was opened up between Rolvenden and the Isle of Oxney by utilising the aforementioned causeways and bridging over the breach in the Knelle Dam at Potman's Hoath. This new road connected the existing Maytham Road from Rolvenden Layne that hitherto had stopped at the edge of inundated land from whence a ferry operated across the Maytham Levels, which it now replaced.
The Effect ofthe Turnpike Trusts on the Major Road System
A significant issue for the efficiency of the public highways was their maintenance and improvement, thus facilitating the safe passage of the sovereign's subjects along the common highway. 19 In 1555 a statute was passed by Parliament designed to remedy what was, by then, perceived as a comprehensive breakdown of the
243
image
BRENDAN CHESTER-KADWELL
post-Conquest medieval system of road management (Webb 1913, pp. 9-26).20 From that date it became the responsibility of the local parish community and the county justices to undertake the maintenance and necessary improvements of the road system in their area. Each parish appointed a surveyor tasked with organising annually the labour service due by all parishioners to work on road repair. Not surprisingly this system proved inefficient and caused considerable resentment amongst the poorer members of parish society in particular. Despite the efforts of local parish surveyors, the road system in the High Weald remained largely unaltered from the medieval network until the introduction of local turnpike trusts later in the eighteenth century.21 Whilst the implementation of the turnpike system did not replace the responsibilities of the parish for general road maintenance, it did provide a more efficient process for upgrading and maintaining major routes.
Parliamentary Acts were used to create local road building trusts to improve selected key routes. These trusts enabled a programme of road building to be embarked upon that better reflected local needs and aspirations and, at the same time, improved the long distant routes required for trade and other essential functions both at the national and regional level. The tolls charged for their use were intended to pay for them and the trustees were empowered to build gates (known as turnpikes) across their roads for this purpose. Within the eastern High Weald it was usual for turnpike trusts to improve existing routes rather than constructing completely new roads.22 This meant making general improvements to the roadbed (such as widening, levelling and resurfacing), whilst building short stretches to straighten existing routes or cut off inconvenient diversions. Notwithstanding these limitations, a network of turnpike roads was generated within the study area during the latter half of the eighteenth century and the early years of the nineteenth. Fig. 6 illustrates how extensive this network of roads became over a period of about one hundred years (1753-1841). The earliest turnpikes in the area connected places like Rye [JA] and Hastings [1B] to the developing national system of roads centred on London. Similarly, the later turnpikes were intended to further improve local connectivity with other urban centres in the south-east region [2 & 3]. Once the economic benefits that the turnpikes generated was recognised, many cross-country routes were tumpiked as well. Some of these roads remained little more than country roads and today are nearly indistinguishable from other lanes. An example of a minor turnpike of this kind is the road from Staplecross through Bodiam to Silver Hill in Salehurst (although the deep cuttings constructed though the ridge in Bodiam are impressive) [4].
After the reclamation of the Upper Levels had been accomplished there were more opportunities for the road system to be extended into this area. However, in practice only three turnpikes were constructed over land previously inundated. The first was the road from Tenterden to Appledore via Reading Street (originating at Cranbrook), authorised in 1761 and now known as the B2080 [5A]. This road was mainly an upgrading of an older medieval road that appears on Symonson's map. The second was the extension from Tenterden to Newenden (1767), which was an improved and partially reconstructed route that seems to have been a rationalisation ofa series of earlier lanes (now the A28) [5B]. The third was a completely new road constructed following an Act of 1841 between Cripp's Comer in Ewhurst to Gill's Green in Hawkhurst, which also provided a new bridge over the Rother between
244
image
CHANGING PATTERNS OF ROUTEWAYS IN THE EASTERN HIGH WEALD
Salehurst and Bodiam (now the B2244) [5C]. Although few in number these three routes greatly improved passage through an area that had been, in previous times, more accessible by water. The work of the turnpike trusts created the system of roads that survive almost unchanged to the present day within the study area.
Impact ofChanges in the Major Road System on Local Routeways
As the major road system evolved, especially in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, older patterns of routeways were modified in response to these changes. A particularly significant example can be seen within the parish of Rolvenden, which demonstrates very clearly not only how a system of routeways may change over time, but in this case also how the reclamation of inundated land and the formation of new major roads impacted on older patterns of communication. A later example of modification to a system of lanes on the Sussex side of the Rother in the parish of Ewhurst also demonstrates how a new road may effect change, evidencing the process that for earlier examples is often missing.
The Rolvenden Case Study
The functionality of the earliest routeways within the parish of Rolvenden was largely determined by the topography of inundation and the pattern of settlement. In the south of the parish (where the case study is located) it was the extent of inundation along the Hexden Channel and the distribution of agricultural settlement within very specific early land divisions that influenced how routeways were formed and maintained. Fig. 7A illustrates the extent of the framework of lanes that served the socio-economic needs of the medieval settlement pattern. The key factors were: the location ofKensham Green to the west and Layne Green to the east; the existence of a set of land divisions that stretched back northwards from the Hexden Channel and appear to have used as their boundaries a series of southward flowing local streams off the main ridge upon which the Den of Rolvenden was situated;23 and finally, the location of the lowest crossing point of the Hexden Channel south west ofKensham Green. The Hexden Channel impeded the establishment of land routes between Rolvenden, Sandhurst and Newenden below the established crossing point near to Kensham. This created a strong east/west bias for one set of local lanes connecting a range of settlements to the crossing point and further inland towards Benenden. A number of shorter north/ south elements maintained the need for access to local resources along the Hexden or Newmill Channels for local communities (at a on Fig. 7A).
It is possible to largely reconstruct this older and more coherent pattern of routeways. Many of the earlier lanes are still extant, whilst others survived long enough to appear on earlier parish and estate maps. Some existing lanes may be quite late and it is uncertain whether they originated in the earlierlandscape [marked b on the plan]. Other elements survive as abandoned features in the landscape or are conjectured from an interpretation of the form of surviving lanes and landscape features, many of which remain as footpaths or rights of way over private land.
Whilst Fig. 7A illustrates how the current network of lanes north of the Hexden Channel formed part of an earlier, more rational system of routeways, Fig. 7B
245
image
BRENDAN CHESTER-KADWELL
0-10 metres
10-30 metres
over 30 metres
over 60 metres
LEGEND
main river f:.......J
crossings:,-..,
major medieval routes
• • Medieval routes, exact
Fig. 6 Extent of the Turnpike Trust Roads c.1753-1841 in relation to
246
image
CHANGING PATTERNS OF ROUTEWAYS IN THE EASTERN HIGH WEALD
-
--■
Turnpikes - New
Turnpikes - re-engineered earlier roads
the Medieval Road Network.© B. Chester-Kadwell (2016).
247
image
BRENDAN CHESTER-KADWELL
CONTOURS
0-5 m inundated
5-10 metres
10-30 metres
- over 30 metres
over 60 metres
LEGEND
- local lanes
•••••• local Medieval lanes lost on maps
1111
local Medieval lanes lost, but evidence visible in the
••••••••• 1andscape
land divisions
D
CONTOURS
0-5 m reclaimed land
5-10 metres
LEGEND
=
-Turnpikes
-local lanes
J[ river crossings
main waterways
10-30 metres
over 30 metres
- over 60 metres
byeways (green lanes)
principle eighteenth century farmsteads
0• main settlements
waterways
and ditches
Fig. 7 Rolvenden Case Study Area: (A) Routeways Prior to the Reclamation of the Upper Levels; (B) Surviving Local Lanes and Turnpikes. © B. Chester-Kadwell (2016).
248
image
CHANGING PATTERNS OF ROUTEWAYS IN THE EASTERN HIGH WEALD
shows the lanes that survive in the modem landscape in relation to the turnpike roads of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. However, the loss of earlier lanes happened over a long time frame and whilst many adaptations were made along the routes of the turnpikes at their time of construction, other of the now defunct lanes were still in existence until comparatively recent times. A small number of lanes were created in the post-medieval period [marked con Fig. 7B] and other (once important ones) have been reduced to byways that survive as green lanes.
A series of lanes running east/west connected Layne Green to Kensham Green and this connection is retained in the present day landscape, but in a simplified (and rather circuitous) fashion. The reason for this simplification seems mainly to have occurred following the establishment ofa new crossing point lower down the Hexden Channel at sometime between 1600 and 1630. This opened up the potential for a direct road link between the parish's main settlement at Rolvenden Street and the bridge at Newenden. At first this may have been achieved through the existing network of lanes, but following the establishment in 1767 of the turnpike between Tenterden and Newenden (via Rolvenden) the route was rationalised.24 It is likely that the establishment ofthis important extension ofthe Tenterden turnpike involved some new stretches ofroad as well as improvements to existing stretches. It seems probable that the number of east/west-orientated lanes crossing the new road (of which there were many) was reduced and some may well have been diverted. This process effectively disrupted the earlier pattern of lanes and that this was a potent factor in the simplification of the previous system of routeways.
The earlier north/south routeways that connected local settlements to the shores ofthe inundated lands, giving access to ferries and other water-orientated resources became of less importance or relevance once the land had been reclaimed. The decline in the number of such lanes may, therefore, have commenced earlier than the disruption to many of the east/west orientated lanes caused by the interjection of the turnpike. However, the end result was the same and the system became simplified in what was, to some extent, a rather random fashion.
The Ewhurst Case Study
It seems that a similar loss of local lanes could occur wherever there was a radical intervention in how lines of communication were configured. A later example of a similar interruption of an established ancient system of routeways can be found south of the Rother on the border between Ewhurst and Salehurst. The insertion of a very late turnpike road following an Act of 1841 between Cripp's Comer in Ewhurst parish and Gill's Green in Hawkhurst led to a comprehensive re organisation of local lanes, almost at a stroke.
Prior to the construction of what became known as the Junction Road turnpike a series of farmsteads located along the southern banks of the Rother Valley were served by a number of local lanes (see Fig. SA). These lanes connected with two major routeways running north/south that served the crossing points at Robertsbridge (in Salehurst) and that on the borders of Ewhurst and Bodiam (both medieval routes, later tumpiked). Fallowing the construction ofthe Junction Road, a newly laid out road that also established an additional bridging point over the
249
image
-•�: ·._ .. ,;;.-_.!,�,�
IJ!!!!!
BRENDAN CHESTER-KADWELL
. .
- Jll . ..
L��
. �
�.�-��-- ·•,
1� ,.,,
..'" .
j
� • ..0:::: • "iri"�'• •.
�· �rr
►
� -• \� 44..J
LEGEND O main settlements
local lanes
turnpikes •
farmsteads
- local footpaths/ bridle ways - River Rother
farm access post 1841 Jlriver crossings
Fig. 8 Configuration of Local Lanes between Robertsbridge and Staplecross:
(A) Routeways in 1805 and (B) Routeways Post 1841. © B. Chester-Kadwell (2016).
Rother upstream ofBodiam Bridge, access to these farms was radically altered (Fig. SB). The lanes that did not cross the new road survived (for example, Poppinghall Lane and part ofAbbey Lane), but those that did were effectively reduced to access tracks serving local land resources, whilst remaining rights of way for pedestrians or as bridleways. New access ways were created for most of the farmsteads that either led onto the Junction Road, or towards Robertsbridge - effectively removing the need to maintain the old lanes as public highways. Additionally, new settlement tended to be built directly off the Junction Road, reinforcing the new pattern. The greatest extent of the road closures occurred in Ewhurst parish itself, and the rationalisation happened there more thoroughly than elsewhere. This suggests that
250
image
CHANGING PATTERNS OF ROUTEWAYS IN THE EASTERN HIGH WEALD
(not unexpectedly) there was a more holistic approach to transport planning in the mid to late nineteenth century than was generally found in earlier times.
Because of the late date, this area had already been extensively mapped prior to the establishment of Junction Road Turnpike (now the B2244). Subsequent mapping has shown how the lanes decayed very swiftly following the construction of the new turnpike, whereas elsewhere in the earlier period secondary routeways within the High Weald (mainly represented by local lanes) often passed out of use almost without notice or public record. By the time that parish maps became more common, typically in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, many of these lanes (or sections of lanes) were still extant but have subsequently disappeared. Evidence for abandoned routeways (frequently occurring within woodland) can be found in the general landscape that do not appear on any of the existing maps, suggesting that this simplification ofthe system ofancient lanes in the High Weald has been happening over a long period of time.
OVERVIEW AND CONCLUSIONS
This study began with a challenge to the poetic and cultural perception of our country roads and routeways as unchanging, especially those in areas like the High Weald. After careful research, the reality seems to be much less romantic, but a great deal more complex and interesting. Located in ancient countryside (its formal appellation by landscape historians) with a maze of trackways and lanes, the routeways of the High Weald are regarded as part of its 'historic' character. The terms 'ancient', and 'historic' have encouraged the perception that routeways here have hardly changed over time - that what is experienced now has been bequeathed permanently by long-ago ancestors. However, the landscape of the Eastern High Weald, in particular, has altered in many ways over a long period of historical time. This is especially true in areas such as the Upper Levels of the River Rother where significant topographical developments have occurred as the result of previously inundated land being reclaimed for agriculture. As the lands of the Hexden and Newmill Channels were reclaimed this led to the re-configuration of through routes and the opening up of previously isolated areas. The narrative of this study has looked at the effect of these processes and the impact brought about upon the network of local lanes after the building ofthe turnpikes, using two detailed examples in Rolvenden and Ewhurst.
It is clear that routeways (roads, tracks, paths, highways) in the High Weald have evolved over time driven by the socio-economic needs of the communities they serve. Routeways are dynamic systems that need to change as economic and social needs change and, whether these changes are slow and piecemeal or rapid and sudden, the effect on the overall pattern may be considerable. Understanding the process of routeway creation and deposition in the High Weald is contingent on an understanding of settlement and the socio-economic realities of settlement. In previous times roads were not simply 'objects' in the landscape; they were passageways over land owned by the 'community' and they reflected the lives of those who travelled them as well as those who lived by their margins. Today, roads have become bounded public spaces within a predominantly privately owned landscape and because today's road-makers have the technology to recast large
251
image
BRENDAN CHESTER-KADWELL
swathes of road-scape within the blink of an eye, an older landscape such as the High Weald is often treasured for its apparently ancient unchanging ways. It may surprise us, therefore, to find this notion overturned: the High Weald routeways of today (together with their redundant features still discernable in the landscape) tells a complex and dynamic story of change in a changing landscape.
Routeways in the High Weald are an under-researched phenomenon. More use of recently developed techniques, such as LIDAR, can prove useful in establishing better landscape evidence, but more traditional methodologies could also be better deployed; for example, a systematic study of estate plans and early maps to learn how routes were regarded in the past. Further research needs to be done to establish the original nature, status and significance of relict routeways, where there remains an element of speculation. Although absolute dating may never be achievable, further research may establish a better understanding of earlier patterns of routeways, later stages of enclosure around greens and (following that) a sequencing of routeway generation and redundancy may be possible.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The writer would like to thank Dr Ernest Pollard and Professor Tom Williamson (University of East Anglia) for agreeing to read the draft of this paper. Their com ments, suggestions, and encouragement have been invaluable and very much appreciated - the result would have been poorer without them. Any errors or shortcomings, however, remain with the author. The narrative would have been impossible without the accompanying figures. Therefore, thanks go to Pat Chester Kadwell who not only composed the plans, but steadfastly coped with the many revisions that were required from time to time.
It should be noted that all of the plans were produced based on OS OpenData Contour data and OS VectorMap District (Vector) TQ, subject to the terms at www. ordnancesurvey.co.uk/opendata/licence.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Albert, W., 1972, The Turnpike Road System in England 1663-1840, Cambridge. Brandon, P., 2003, The Kent and Sussex Weald, Chichester.
Carley, J., 1970, The Turnpike Roads of Kent, Kent County Council.
Chester-Kadwell, B., 2010, 'A Sense of P lace in Rural Settlement: a locally oriented study of the Huntingdonshire Ouse Valley and the Eastern High Weald', University of East Anglia, unpubl. doctoral thesis.
Chester-Kadwell, B., 2014, 'A Reappraisal of Eleventh-Century Settlement in the Eastern High Weald',Archaeologia Cantiana, 135, 105-130.
Chester-Kadwell, M., 2009, EarlyAnglo-Saxon Communities in the Landscape of Norfolk,
BAR British Series 481.
Chesterton, G.K., 1914, The Flying Inn, London.
Cobbett, W., 1983 (original publ.: 1830), Rural Rides, Harmondsworth.
Eddison, J., 1985, 'Developments in the Lower Rother Valleys up to 1600', Archaeologia Cantiana, 102, 95-107.
Eddison, J., 1995, 'Attempts to Clear the Rother Channel, 1613-1624', in Eddison, J. (ed.),
Romney Marsh: the Debatable Ground, OUCA Monograph 41.
252
image
CHANGING PATTERNS OF ROUTEWAYS IN THE EASTERN HIGH WEALD
Eddison, J., 2000, Romney Marsh: Survival on a Frontier, Stroud.
Everitt, A.M., 1986, Continuity and Colonization: the Evolution of Kentish Settlement,
Leicester.
Furley, R., 1874, A History of the Weald of Kent: with an Outline of the Early History of the County, 3 vols, H. Igglesden: Ashford.
Gardiner, M., 1995, 'Medieval Settlement and Society in the Eastern Sussex Weald', unpubl. PH.D. thesis, University of London.
Gardiner, M., 2007, 'Hythes, Small Ports, and Other Landing Places in Later Medieval England', in Blair, J. (ed.) Waterways and Canal-Building in Medieval England, Oxford. Harris, R., 2003, The Making of the High Weald, High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty Unit: Flimwell.
Harrison, S.A., 2005, 'A History of Evolution and Interaction: Man, Roads and the Landscape to 1850 ', unpubl. PH.D. thesis, University of East Anglia.
Hasted, E., 1797-1801 (2nd edn), The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent, Canterbury.
Holloway, W., 1849, The History of Romney Marsh, London.
James, R., 2007, An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment of the Strawberry Wood Culvert, Benenden, Kent, Archaeology South-East.
Keith-Lucas, B., 1984, 'Kentish Turnpikes', Archaeologia Cantiana, 100, 345-369. Margary, I.D., 1946, 'Roman Roads in West Kent', Archaeologia Cantiana, 59, 28-63.
Margary, I.D., 1948, Roman Ways in the Weald: illustrated with maps, diagrams and photographs, Phoenix House: London.
Margary, I.D., 1973 (3rd edn), Roman Roads in Britain, London. Morris, J. (ed.), 1976, Domesday Book 2: Sussex, Chichester.
Panton, F. and Lawson, T., 2004, 'Turnpikes, Roads and Waterways 1700-1850', in Lawson,
T. and Killingray, D. (eds), An HistoricalAtlas of Kent, Chichester.
Fawson, E., 1977, Transport and the Economy: the Turnpike Roads of Eighteenth Century Britain, London.
Peak, S., 2009, East Sussex Turnpike Roads, Hastings Chronicle.
Pollard, E. and Aldridge, N., 2008, 'An Early Boundary, probably Anglo-Saxon, associated with Roman sites in Benenden',Archaeologia Cantiana, 128, 301-307.
Rackham, 0., 2000 (first publ. 1986), The History of the Countryside, London. Rippon, S., Smart, C. and Pears, B., 2015, The Fields of Britannia, Oxford.
Sanders, A., 2004, Cranbrook's Turnpike Roads, Cranbrook.
Sawyer, P.H., 1976, 'Medieval Settlement: Continuity and Change', in Sawyer, P.H. (ed.),
English Medieval Settlements, London, 1-7.
Scott-Giles, C.W., 1946, The Road Goes On, London. Taylor, T., 1979, Roads and Tracks of Britain, London.
Ward, G., 1937, 'Saxon Records ofTenterden',Archaeologia Cantiana, 49, 229-246. Warner, P., 1987, Greens, Commons and Clay/and: the Origins and Development of
Greenside Settlement in East Suffolk, Leicester.
Webb, S. and B., 1913, English Local Government: the Story of the King's Highway, London. Williamson, T., 2016, 'The Ancient origins of Medieval Fields: a Reassessment', Archaeological Journal, vol. 173, No. 2, pp. 264-287.
Witney, K.P., 1976, The Jutish Forest: a study of the Weald of Kent from 450 to 1380AD,
London.
Wooldridge S.W. and Golding, F., 1966, The Weald, London.
Other Reference material:
East Sussex Record Office: (a) Plan of the Upper levels c.1633: ACC 2806- l-9-02a; (b) Richard Budgen's Map of Sussex 1724: ACC 3762/1.
253
image
BRENDAN CHESTER-KADWELL
Kent History and Library Centre: (a) Newenden Bridge, covering the period 1637 to 1749: U386/02/3; QIAB/42; (b) Plan of the Upper Levels 1633: S/Ro Pl.
Turnpike Trusts: County reports of the Secretary of State, under the Acts of Wm. IV Cap. 80, No. 1 Kent; No. 2 Sussex, HMSO, 1852.
Maps and Pfans:
Symonson's map of Kent 1596.
A large number of parish maps and estate plans were consulted, including the tithe survey maps for the relevant parishes. There are too many to list separately here, but further information may be sought from the author.
OS maps, including the County Series 1:10560 1846-1969 and the County Series 1:2500 1854-1949, as well as the first edition l in. (1813) and 2in. (1805) maps where appropriate.
ENDNOTES
I Although first published in 1913, this poem was reproduced in Chesterton's novel The Flying Inn the following year, a futuristic allegory on modernistic erosion of traditional English values and culture.
The High Weald landscape differs strikingly from those areas of England that had a 'champion' landscape in the Middle Ages. The density and character of the local route network was one of the key features used by Oliver Rackham to distinguish the 'ancient' countryside from the 'planned countryside' of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century enclosure (Rackham 2000, 4-5).
The map evidence for the greens is more plentiful from the eighteenth century. Hasted records more than appear on the modem map. Most were either fully enclosed or mainly so by the time of the tithe surveys and continued thereafter to be growth points for habitation.
4 Everitt claims that greens on the North Downs of Kent are often associated with 'common pastoral woodlands' (Everitt 1986, 147). Similarly, Warner proposes that relic greens on the claylands of East Suffolk are the result of the enclosure and cultivation of extensive commons in the late Saxon period (Warner 1987, 13-15). This area of East Suffolk is of particular interest because, like the Weald, it is one of apparent discontinuity between earlier Roman settlement and later Saxon colonisation (Warner, 1987, pp. 9-12).
Routeways that have essentially local utility of this kind have been referred to as 'resource linkage' routes (Harrison 2005, pp. 147-149).
6 'Medieval' in this context is used to denote the period between the end of the Roman era and about 1535 (commonly considered the start of the Early Modem period). Medieval is used in a generic sense when the exact point of origin or usage of a routeway is not known. At other times it may be possible to attribute a timeframe within the medieval period, such as Anglo-Saxon (pre Conquest) or post-Conquest, if not an actual date.
7 The literature on these two periods of road building is not extensive for the High Weald. Margary is still the standard work for the Roman period (Margary 1946, 29-63; 1948; 1973, fig. 1, 54), although he has been added to and corrected on individual routes. The most informative overview of Wealden turnpike roads is found in the reports of the Parliamentary Commissions and select committees between 1830 and 1852. Besides a number of recent publications dealing with the history of turnpikes in England and Wales, some routes in the High Weald have been documented in detail; for example, the local turnpikes in the Cranbrook area (Sanders 2004).
8 Footpaths often have no identifiable landscape features associated with them, but rely on the ancient common right of pedestrians to cross a particular stretch of land, even across enclosed, private fields. In contrast to highways, footpaths appear to have received no maintenance in the past, and still rely on the common law obligation of landowners to keep them clear.
9 This obligation was formalised in an Act of 1555: 2&3 Philip and Mary c.8.
10 The 5m contour has been taken as the limit of inundation. This fits well with the evidence, such as that for the tidal and high water data, as well as the historical map evidence.
254
image
CHANGING PATTERNS OF ROUTEWAYS IN THE EASTERN HIGH WEALD
11 In a recent statistical analysis of Early Saxon settlement in Norfolk this tendency was clearly established (Chester-Kadwell 2009, pp. 135-142). Settlement usually related to medieval settlement of Saxon origins in the High Weald appears to reflect this also.
12 The issue of continuity between the Roman and medieval periods is very much a live debate (Rippon et al. 2015 contra Williamson 2016; Chester-Kadwell 2010).
13 Being essential for the Royal administration, the owners of the great estates, the Church, City merchants and others.
14 Other principal routes from London for the Continental crossing were along the North Downs to Canterbury and then on to Sandwich or Dover and another going via Maidstone and Ashford to Hythe (Lawson 2004, 51).
15 Symonson's map ofKent (1596) was printed by Sturt in the seventeenth century. [See article on Symonson's cartographic career, pp. 149-163.]
16 This route survives as far as Dingleden as a footpath, although there is evidence for an abandoned lane through Strawberry Wood where there is a culverted stone bridge over a gill (only recently discovered and restored). This structure is of a substantial construction, but makes sense as a survivor from an abandoned road. Latterly, a similar stone culvert bridging another stream has been discovered in woodland to the north of Benenden. This example seems to relate to another lost routeway that is associated with a green lane at Mount-Le-Hoe Farm.
17 There is evidence for a lost way from Kensham Green across the Hexden Channel downstream from Hopemill Lane out to the Sandhurst to Newenden road, but more research is needed.
1 s For a flavour ofthe difficulties see the documentation referring to the rebuilding and maintenance of Newenden Bridge covering the period 1637 to 1749 (KHLC U386/02/3; Q/AB/42).
19 During the Middle Ages the processes for keeping the roads useable seem to have worked reasonably well, grounded in the common law practices based on manorial obligations; the benefaction ofthe religious orders; and the setting ofspecific obligations on individuals or corporations. By the middle of the sixteenth century the state of the roads had become so bad that a new approach to the problem was needed. An Act of 1555 (2 & 3 Philip and Mary c.8) placed the responsibility for maintaining the roads upon the parish and the labour for the work upon the parishioners. This system formed the basis for road maintenance until the passing ofthe turnpike Acts, and for roads other than the turnpikes until the General Highways Act of 1835 (5 & 6 William IV c.50).
20 The 1555 Act was a general Act covering the whole country. However, there had been earlier Acts specifically concerning roads in the Weald. Famously the Act of1523 (14 & 15 Henry VIII, c.6) for altering the highways in the Weald ofKent was followed by a similar Act for Sussex in 26 Henry
VIII. A further Act of 27 Elizabeth c.19 1584/5 levied a charge on the owners ofironworks in Kent, Sussex and Surrey for the moving ofiron along the roads in the Weald.
21 Although the first Act that impinged on the High Weald was for the road between Sevenoaks and Tunbridge Wells in 1709, the Ticehurst to Hastings road (1753) was the earliest turnpike in the eastern High Weald.
The major exceptions to the rule were the upgraded Hastings to John's Cross section ofthe battle route to London and the St Leonards to John's Cross turnpike, both largely new roads (approved 1836). The last turnpike to be built in the study area was the Cripp's Comer to Hawkhurst 'junction road', which was also a mainly new road (approved 1841).
These land divisions were (from east to west) Maytham, Mileham (now only preserved in a field name), Forsham, and Cassingham (an early name for Kensham). Their names were derived from the Saxon form -hamme, meaning open (meadow) land near to water/marshland.
24 1767 was the date ofthe Act that allowed the Tenterden Trust to extend the road from Tenterden to Newenden using Hexden Bridge. However, it does not follow that the new works required were actually carried out in that year and it is likely that some were carried out at a much later date.
255
image
THE REMARKABLE MULTI-PERIOD FINDS AT MINNIS BAY, BIRCHINGTON: THE MAJOR CONTRIBUTION TO INTER TIDAL ZONE ARCHAEOLOGY MADE BY ANTOINETTE POWELL-COTTON (1913-1997)
VERA AND TREVOR GIBBONS
Minnis Bay, located midway between the Roman Fort of Reculver and Margate, is the most westerly bay on the north coast of the Isle ofThanet. The original inlet and its associated navigable creek were protected by the 30ft cliffheadland to the east. This natural habitat has been occupied since at least the Neolithic period with indications of a thriving Medieval occupation.
The significant Bronze Age site was on the east bank of the creek, now isolated at high tide 200m off-shore. The location is easily identified by the remains of the Hero shipwrecked in the late 19th century.
Quex Park, Antoinette Powell-Cottons family home in Birchington, is 2 miles south of the Bay.
Whilst some aspects of the archaeology of Minnis Bay, Birchington have been published over the years, no comprehensive overview has ever been undertaken. This article aims to address this by giving recognition to the key players who found, excavated and recorded the area, which Christopher Hawkes recognised as an important site following a visit in 1939. He encouraged the continuation of the research in 1939 and also after the War in the 1950s.
Special attention will be given to the archaeological work of Antoinette Powell Cotton, the youngest of three daughters of Major Percy Powell-Cotton of Quex Park, Birchington (1866-1940). He was a member of the Council of the Kent Archaeological Society from December 1914 until his death in 1940. In 1896 he built the first gallery of a museum at Quex Park to house his collection of Asian and African natural history and ethnography, the product of many expeditions. The Powell-Cotton Museum (hereafter the PCM), now has eight galleries and is of international importance. Archaeology was a longstanding interest within the family. The Major's grandfather, Henry Perry Cotton was one of the founding members of the KAS in 1858. Significant finds were made on Quex Park land - a hoard of 'Potin' coins in 1853 and a bronze hoard in 1904. Only a few months before his death the Major was involved in the examination of the early church site at Woodchurch.
Antoinette Powell-Cotton found and recorded the greater part of what is so far known of the archaeology of Minnis Bay. She discovered evidence of human activity
257
image
0 100m
200m
Late Iron Age
Foreshore excavation
� .-·'· --�-
....
....
Late Iron Age
Foreshore excavations
N
u-. 00
: \ Neolithic I
I I I
I \ I
I \ :
� ---------/ J
/
....
....
'·' '
assumed low lying marsh area 1 st century AD
Fig. 1 Location map of the Minnis Bay sites.
·-·- ------------
image
THE REMARKABLE MULTI-PERIOD FINDS AT MINNIS BAY, BIRCHINGTON
from the Neolithic to Medieval times. The present writers were privileged to work with her from 1965-1975. Now, as volunteers at the PCM, where Antoinette's finds and the archives relating to Minnis Bay are held, they continue the work begun 50 years ago.
The cliffs between Minnis Bay and Grenham Bay once extended at least a further quarter ofa mile out to sea and were bounded on the west by a creek, which extended southwards inland, as far as Upper Gore End Farm (Fig. 1). This creek provided shelter for shipping. In medieval times there existed a port here, sometimes known as 'Goresend', which was recognized as a limb of Dover, one of the head Cinque Ports. To the west of the creek was an extensive area of low lying marshy ground extending westward to Reculver and the Roman fort on the western bank of the Wantsum Channel. Over time the coastline was eroded away and the creek silted up thus causing the decline ofthe port but there is evidence that it was still possible to anchor there in the 1650s. Today, however, only a chalk platform and traces of the creek can be seen on the foreshore.
The greater part of the archaeological site lies on the foreshore at the eastern end of Minnis Bay and could only be found and excavated at low tide, parts of it being under 2m of water at high tide with some areas only being exposed during very low Spring Tides. This gave a limited length oftime, four hours at most, when work could be carried out. The remaining part ofthe site was located on the cliff top immediately above the chalk foreshore with some of the pits very close to the cliff edge.
The Beginning ofthe Excavations
The first significant indication of early human activity at Minnis Bay was found in April 1938 when Percy Powell-Cotton was informed that a millstone (Fig. 2),
Fig. 2 Millstone in Well (1938).
259
image
VERAAND TREVOR GIBBONS
t
Sc,u.c
Fig. 3 Percy Powell-Cotton survey plan of the first Beck pits (1939).
covering what appeared to be a small pit containing pottery sherds, had been found by G.J.D'A. Beck (known as Jimmy), a 14 year old schoolboy from the King's School, Canterbury, during a school holiday. Percy Powell-Cotton wrote in his diary the next day 15th April that he with his wife Hannah, Antoinette and his son Christopher:
went down to the Bay and out on the shore to the hole with a stone cover revealing bones and broken pots. We then went to Major Beck's house on the Bay where we saw other bits collected by Beck. We all returned to the shore, bailed out the hole & collected more sherds.
A survey plan of Beck's first pits was also drawn up (Fig. 3). Thus started the series of archaeological investigations on the Bay that continued until 1983 (with a break during the 1939-1945 war).
At the age of 25 Antoinette did her first excavating on the foreshore at Minnis Bay by helping Jimmy Beck to excavate some of the further seven pits found by him. The finds, from each of the pits/shaft bases, identified at that time as being of the Late Iron Age, are housed at the PCM including a New Forest type two handled Scarborough Ware amphora in good condition excavated by Antoinette.
The Bronze Age Site
In the August of the same year, young Beck, becoming bored with the Late Iron
260
image
THE REMARKABLE MULTI-PERIOD FINDS AT MINNIS BAY, BIRCHINGTON
Fig. 4 Part of Beck Bronze Age Hoard photographed at BM 2016 (Copyright Trustees of the British Museum).
Age pits, wandered further west along the beach where he found a pit or hollow near the remains of the Hero, shipwrecked in 1895. It contained a large quantity of animal bones and one human bone. He was about to give up when he came across a small piece of a bronze knife. This encouraged him to dig further and he found a bronze celt soon followed by more examples together with palstaves, dagger points, bracelets, swords, bronze tools, a bone arrowhead and a quantity of pottery sherds. Also found on the site was a large amount of wood, all well preserved in the clay filling of the pit. The wood included collapsed wattle 'panelling' and posts arranged in a curve and other individual posts. Percy Powell-Cotton was asked for help and, recognizing the importance of the hoard, he brought it to the attention of the British Museum (Fig. 4). Meanwhile Beck wrote an article on his latest find for his school magazine (Beck 1938).
Frederick Henry Worsfold, a local historian, became aware of the discovery of this significant bronze hoard. In March 1939 he approached the British Museum and invited Christopher Hawkes, then an Assistant Keeper, down to Minnis Bay to assess the site. Hawkes immediately realized the BM would be unable to mount a formal dig, as excavation was always dependent on the tides and weather conditions to expose the site. He suggested to Worsfold that, being local to the area, he should try to gather a team together, consisting of young Beck and his
261
image
VERAAND TREVOR GIBBONS
friend Robert Grace, F.B. Byrom and Roy Carr, both amateur archaeologists, and other volunteers to work when the conditions were favourable. Hawkes gave his support by offering to put Worsfold in touch with any experts that were required to analyse their findings. He also agreed to make observations on any report that Worsfold may write.
To allow the Bronze Age site to be accurately located together with the eight Late Iron Age pits, a datum line was laid by Roy Carr and Byrom in May 1939. The line was taken from a groin beacon to the west and a mast stump of the wreck Hero on the east bank of the creek. These locations still exist today.
Sadly, in late 1939 Jimmy Beck became seriously ill and died in early 1940, to be followed only months later by Major Powell-Cotton. Hawkes felt Jimmy's death was a great loss to archaeology. Before his death, Percy Powell-Cotton together with G.F. Pinfold, Curator of the PCM, recorded and photographed both the finds from the eight Late Iron Age pits and the Bronze Hoard and prepared a report (Powell-Cotton and Pinfold 1940). The hoard became known as the Beck Bronze Hoard or 'Beck Find'. The hoard was given on loan to the BM for exhibition and eventually in 1961 it was gifted to it by Jimmy's aunt.
After Beck's death Worsfold and his team continued, when conditions allowed, to work on the site but stopped in early 1940 when no more archaeological work could be done due to war restrictions.
Worsfold wrote a 70-page report with copious photographs and excellent draw ings and plans done by Byrom. He appended three reports, one by Dr J.W. Jackson on the animal and human remains, the second on plant remains by Miss
A.P. Conolly of the Botany School, Cambridge, and lastly a report on the silt of Minnis Bay by Dr W.A. Macfadyen. Worsfold sent the report to Hawkes for his observations and received back a critique. This gives a different interpretation from that proposed by Worsfold. Specifically, Hawkes considered that the site section indicated two separate Bronze Age occupations, both abandoned due to flooding. An abridged report, mainly due to the shortage of paper during the War, incorporating some of Hawkes' observations, was eventually printed (PPS 1943). The original report, including the letters between Hawkes and Worsfold and the drawings and photographs are in the archives of the Maidstone Museum, as the 'Worsfold Papers'. Worsfold died in 1954.
A Report in The Times
In 1947, after a very severe storm, a fall of chalk exposed a shaft in the cliff face at Minnis Bay. This shaft was excavated by Major Burchell, Roy Carr the finder, and Molly his wife. They found another shaft further inland and, cut into the chalk on the cliff top nearby, two interconnecting hollows. The first shaft was 32ft deep with footholds cut into the sides of the upper 21ft. The filling contained a few pieces of Romano-British pottery and the bones of an ox and a horse. A roughly circular piece of sandstone partially blocked the shaft at about 27ft down. Amongst the finds at the base of the shaft were several hundred unopened oyster shells, suggesting at the time that the shaft might have been used for ritual purposes. A study on ritual shafts and wells by Dr Anne Ross (1968) expands on this. The Romano-British material recovered from this shaft together with photographs and
262
image
THE REMARKABLE MULTI-PERIOD FINDS AT MINNIS BAY, BIRCHINGTON
Fig. 5 Photograph of shaft in
The Times 1949.
Burchell's notes are all at the BM. A report on this find was published in The Times
(31/05/1949) (Fig. 5).
Another excavation took place in 1947 on the foreshore at Minnis Bay of a 263
image
VERAAND TREVOR GIBBONS
Fig. 6 Mediaeval 'dipping' well excavated by Roy Carr in 1947.
Medieval well which was also carried out by Carr (Fig. 6). This was a well lined with chalk blocks and containing a wooden spoon, metal needle, hay rake, bucket hoop, pegs, leather and a rim sherd. All the finds were given to the PCM in 1961. [This well was revisited in 1955, PCM reference Med6].
Antoinette Powell-Cotton the Archaeologist
Meanwhile the War had also stopped Antoinette continuing with the excavation of the Late Iron Age pits. She spent the War in London, working throughout the Blitz first as a volunteer at a First Aid Centre and later as a trained nurse and midwife. Antoinette continued to work in London until the early 1950s, when she returned permanently to Quex Park.
When time allowed Antoinette renewed her interest in archaeology. She helped at the archaeological sites at Richborough and Reculver but excavating at Minnis Bay quickly became her priority. No scrap of information was left unrecorded. Antoinette had become adept at compiling museum records when she worked as a volunteer for two years at the Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford in 1933-34. She had gained further practice of record keeping when she went with her father on a collecting trip to Zululand and on two trips with her eldest sister Diana in 1936 and 1937 to Angola making an ethnographic study of the local people.
Antoinette started her Minnis Bay field books in December 1953. She kept notes of all her excavations and research in 25 books finishing in 1983. (Now held in the
264
image
THE REMARKABLE MULTI-PERIOD FINDS AT MINNIS BAY, BIRCHINGTON
archives of the PCM.) During this time Antoinette found and excavated over 100 pits. She soon developed a procedure to deal with the difficult conditions in which she worked on the foreshore. In a long letter to Ann Conolly, who analysed soil samples for her, she explained the situation:
The tide washes over the site and fills any hole already dug taking in with it any weed, sand and no doubt any modern flotsam and jetsam. The first job is to take out any chalk [blocks], we fill in with and bail out; next to sponge dry all round where we kneel, down the sides of the hole and then the bottom, lastly to scrape away the muddy surface of the sides and bottom. These little specimens of silt were taken with care, cut out with a clean, sea rinsed trowel, with the water well controlled. In some cases where the soil broke up a piece would be lifted out. Sometimes we leave bones to collect another time or when dealing with pottery. A certain amount of water does trickle or ooze in, always gloves and tools get very muddied up. A piece of timber from one hole already dug will act as a conductor, bringing water from it into the new hole in process of being dug. However this can usually be kept under control with sponges or bailing the neighbouring holes. There may be fissures in the chalk, which if it is scraped too close on sides or bottom, may suddenly let in a gush of water or more likely just ooze. Sandy layers exposed in the side will ooze too but can often be plastered over with clayey silt quite successfully. The filling of the pit we smear around, [the top], to act as a dam and from it pieces of botanical material and doubtless seeds will be washed out by the tide and float about some of it to be re-deposited in our holes. If there is much rain the pit will also be awash with rain drained from the road. There are many drains in the promenade for this purpose and the road comes down the hill towards the shore. The shore water draining from there out to sea passes over the pit.
Over time Antoinette refined these techniques. At the end of each session of digging the pit had to be backfilled so as not to present a hazard to the public. For this Antoinette used the loose blocks of chalk that were scattered over the chalk foreshore. Gathering these blocks and taking them out of the excavation at the next session shortened the length of time available for continuing the excavation. Once digging could begin the excavated filling from the pit would be spread as a bank round the edge of the pit. Fragile finds, left for retrieval another day, would be packed up with sponges before the chalk blocks were carefully placed back on top. Under the last layer of chalk she spread scrupulously scrubbed strong blue plastic waste sacks. These sacks greatly reduced the amount of newly deposited seaweed and sand that had to be removed before further excavation could take place.
All of Antoinette's finds were taken back to the PCM to be cleaned, labelled and recorded in the Museum's catalogue system. Photographs taken by her and her helpers were carefully labelled. Experts were consulted and their findings noted in her field books.
Effects of Cliff Erosion and a Sea Defence Promenade
In the winter of 1953-4 further cliff falls revealed more cliff top pits and Antoinette spotted bones sticking out of the cliff face. She pulled out one of these bones and identified it as human. With official permission, Antoinette excavated 23 pits on the clifftop between 1954 and 1962 helped by Lester Barton, the PCM's curator (Fig. 7).
265
image
VERAAND TREVOR GIBBONS
Fig. 7 Antoinette Powell-Cotton with Lester Barton engaged in cliff-top excavation. Skull and top of cliff face in foreground. The safety ropes to the left are connected to caterpillar track at top of picture. One is round Tony's waist.
The conditions of working on the cliff top brought different challenges from those on the shore. Sand could be thrown up by the high winds, which irritated the eyes. Antoinette found that working with her back to the wind alleviated the problem to some extent, but the position of some of the pits meant that she had to face the wrong way. Soon goggles became a useful addition to her tool kit. Some of the pits were right at the edge of the cliff and at times a rope harness was needed for safety. The Council's work on the cliff top (to improve public safety) would eventually lead to the destruction of many of the pits, although when the machines were not in use they were excellent anchor points for her safety rope!
The cliff top pits yielded fragments of pot, bone and wood which were dated as Late Iron Age /early Roman. The most significant find was a contracted female inhumation in the filling of a ditch right by the cliff face. Using the regression formula of Trotter and Gleser (1958) Antoinette calculated the height of this person to be 4ft 11 ½ in. The find drew the attention of the local press and was reported in the Kent Messenger (13 March 1959), complete with a photograph showing Antoinette tied to her lifeline whilst she excavated. Fragments of two more human skulls were found, a large femur of a tall well-built individual, a worn tibia, and a large scapula all possibly belonging to the same male. In all Antoinette excavated 43 pits on the cliff top - five were of little or no significance and all bar six were
266
image
THE REMARKABLE MULTI-PERIOD FINDS AT MINNIS BAY, BIRCHINGTON
destroyed in the cutting back ofthe dangerous cliff face before the construction of the sea defence promenade.
Concurrently with excavating the cliff top pits Antoinette was working on the foreshore, concerned that the promenade construction work would destroy the archaeological site. She re-opened Jimmy Beck's first eight pits and cleaned them out thoroughly so that they could be properly surveyed. In 1957 she also revisited the Bronze Age site excavated by the 'Worsfold team' during 1939-40. Antoinette re-opened the pits and retrieved further finds missed in the original excavation. The bronze pieces she sent to the BM to be held with the original bronze hoard. Amongst the sherds kept at the PCM were many pieces of briquetage, recently analysed as showing that salt-making processes were carried out here. These pieces ofbriquetage, date to c.1000-700 BC.
This was not the last time that this site was visited. In late 1966 when a storm scoured the sand and seaweed from the Bronze Age site, Antoinette re-surveyed the area with the present writers' help. It was not until 1971 that the present writers redrew the original survey done by Byrom in 1939 to the same scale as the 1966 survey. The two drawings were overlaid and Antoinette remarked in Field Book 23, p. 23:
All his [Byrom's] pits and particularly pit 15 were represented as very much larger than I believe to be the case at any rate today - allow for erosion and possibly masking by sand encroachment or the possibility of the pits (filling) covered by later flood deposits.
One problem that Antoinette encountered when working on her own was how to locate the pits as she had nobody to hold the other end ofthe tape. Her Field Books contain small sketches giving the distances between pits measured in Ps (paces), a technique she had encountered on her trips to Angola. Whilst this method was sufficient for her own use it was necessary for her to get a more accurate survey. In 1957 she approached the Isle ofThanet Geographical Society and they were only too happy to undertake the task. As each new pit was found it was added to the map and from 1966 the present writers (being architects with drawing skills) were able to assist in this. Members ofthe Society were also very helpful in explaining the geology ofthe area.
Volunteers
Antoinette often found herself working alone as most ofher volunteers were only available at weekends or during holidays. On one occasion, when conditions on the Bay were very good, she recorded in her field book that all of her current helpers were victims of the then current flu' epidemic. Antoinette was totally reliant on volunteers to progress the excavation and especially those with skills in surveying and drawing. At the beginning of each Field Book entry Antoinette listed all the volunteers who were with her that day or whether she was alone. Some of the volunteers were friends but many were people who were just curious as to why she was digging holes in the Bay. When they enquired as to what she was doing her reply was often that she was digging for rubbish. If they asked further they may have found themselves helping. Families were often seen working with her
267
image
VERAAND TREVOR GIBBONS
and some of the children were rewarded with fossils that Antoinette found when beachcombing. Some of the curious offered their help in other way s, such as her dentist who X-rayed some of her finds and two flying instructors from Manston aerodrome, who flew over Minnis Bay as part of their training flights, took aerial photographs and gave copies to Antoinette for her records.
In 195 8 the difficulty of finding help when conditions were good prompted Antoinette to question as to whether she should continue to work on the Bay. She contacted Hawkes, now at Oxford, for advice. His reply (actually drafted by his assistant):
I am sure that it would be the best possible plan if you would undertake to continue operations on the Minnis Bay site. As you say it does require a thorough knowledge of local conditions on the beach as it seems the best opportunities of working there could only be exploited by someone near at hand to take advantage of them. Luckily, too, I expect you to be able to use a comer of your own museum for keeping your finds in their associated groups and I hope that you will be able to extend the plan you showed us. If any of the pits or hollows display a definite shape it might be worthwhile drawing a section across them, as well as planning their outline.
If you feel you do need advice as you go along, I suggest you approach the British Museum (it is better to call them than write if you cannot get up to London), since they already hold part of the material that the site has already produced. They will seem more accessible to you than we are here. But once you have accumulated as much material as you can usefully collect, perhaps you would get in touch with Prof. Hawkes again - I am sure he will be interested in the results you obtain, and will gladly advise you about the publication of them.
At the time of this letter Antoinette had already located and explored many pits. 17 pits were on the cliff top and of the Late Iron Age/early Roman period. 16 pits were between Minnis Bay and Grenham Bay on the chalk foreshore, of which 14 pits, including the original eight pits found in 1938, were re-excavated by her for survey purposes. All were attributed to the Late Iron Age/Roman period. One pit had been previously dug by persons unknown and was empty. Along the line of what would have been the banks of the creek, Antoinette had found 26 Medieval pits, six Early Iron Age pits and 20 other sites of various ages including Neolithic and the late Bronze Age.
The discovery of the shaft in the cliff face in 1947 and the roughly circular shape of some of the Late Iron Age pits found on the chalk foreshore led Antoinette to believe that these pits were originally cliff top wells that had become contaminated and were therefore used as a depository for rubbish. Antoinette went on to find another 14 pits in the chalk foreshore, some of which had freshwater leaking into them. Seven of these were of the Late Iron Age, five were further modem animal burial pits and no finds were found in the remaining two.
Well 30, a Late Iron Age Shaft Base
In 1965 Antoinette found 'Well 30' the last in her sequence of Late Iron Age pits on the foreshore. At first, at the beginning of April, she suspected this might be a new pit. She checked it again at the end of the month. It was verified on the 29th of the month and estimated to be only 4in. deep, the base being of a very dry, tough
268
image
THE REMARKABLE MULTI-PERIOD FINDS AT MINNIS BAY, BIRCHINGTON
and compacted material. It was not until a year later that Antoinette, helped by the present writers, decided to try to break through this compacted layer with a pick. This exposed what proved to be a 2,000 year-old time capsule, the contents of which had been fully preserved by the bottom sludge of the original well, a very smelly filling (Figs 8-11).
Fig. 8 Well 30. (A.P.C./T.G. 1966.)
Fig. 9 Well 30 Pot 1.
269
image
VERAAND TREVOR GIBBONS
Plan: Shaft [well] 30
+
..,
N
Minnis Bay, Birchington surveyed 1966
Fig. 10 1966 Measured plan drawing of Well 30. (V and T.G.)
270
image
THE REMARKABLE MULTI-PERIOD FINDS AT MINNIS BAY, BIRCHINGTON
Sections: Shaft [well] 30 _)_
favf/- in c.hal"- 6"
L
r
-�- , -I
I
_).
_,,
_(1
,'------------'lf-------
- - -L_�j__
Section A-A
...
...:--rj--
Section B - B Minnis Bay, Birchirigton surveyed 1966
Fig. 11 1966 Measured section drawing of Well 30. (V and T.G.)
271
image
VERAAND TREVOR GIBBONS
At about 14in. down, sherds of grey-brown grog were found allowing a rim to base pot profile. This pot had been mended in antiquity with a pitch like substance and holes drilled on either side of the break (Thompson 1966). As the excavation continued the significant remains of a further seven pots were found, together with a complete safety pin brooch/fibula, an iron fragment of another, the base and a small section of stave from a bucket, a length of withy rope with a possible indication of a wooden handle. Food bones from domestic animals, the skeleton of a dog, oysters, one cockle, beetle remains and flint waste from knapping were also found.
Antoinette decided to write up Well 30 as a representative example of this group of pits and asked the present writers to collaborate with her in compiling the information and doing the necessary artwork. A draft report was produced but never published. In 2014, on return to Quex Park, the present writers were able to digitally complete the report and a copy can be seen in Gallery 4 of the Museum alongside a display of the rebuilt pots and some of the other finds from Well 30. The other Late Iron Age pits yielded pieces of leather footwear in pits 14 and 15, various pieces of quern stones, pieces of worked timber, pottery sherds, flint, bones and shells.
Antoinette always tried to follow the then accepted practices of archaeological excavation. From her experiences at Richborough and Reculver she was very aware of the importance of making vertical sections down through the fill of each pit. The waterlogged nature of the fill made it difficult to measure precisely the depth of each different layer of fill. Sections were also difficult to achieve in the confined bases of the shafts on the chalk foreshore once the excavation was down a metre below seabed level.
Late Bronze Age/ Early Iron Age Pits
By 1972 Antoinette had located and excavated 22 pits to the south-east of the Bronze Age site along the east bank of the original creek. This series of pits, to distinguish them from the Late Iron Age 'Wells' and Bronze Age pits, were lettered alphabetically as they were considered to belong to a different period. (Albeit adjacent to the Late Bronze Age site of Worsfold's report.) These became known as the 'lettered pits' and were estimated as being of the Early Iron Age. Some of these pits covered large areas on the east bank of the Creek and had to be excavated as a series of cells due to the limited length of time that each pit could remain open between tides. Among the more unusual finds were a horse pelvis packed with human bones and flints with several human bones scattered about; part of a cranium was in one of the cells of Pit S. Pit U yielded part of a unique Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age ladder leaning upright against the side of the pit (Fig. 12) together with other wooden stakes and pot sherds. A gold earring found near the same pit and four glass beads in one of the cells of Pit X were estimated to be l st-century AD.
Signs of a Substantial Medieval Occupancy
Between 1954 and 1974 the largest group of pits excavated were those of the Medieval period, pits Med 1 to Med 41. These were distributed between the east
272
image
THE REMARKABLE MULTI-PERIOD FINDS AT MINNIS BAY, BIRCHINGTON
-i
lJOOJJEN LRJX!)ER, f',r U. nwN1� 8t1'1. 1171.
f::RRL'{ /RON 1/�E- 5CAL.E ,
0--
@
-
' (j)
I S
Ruwrr c.
No lQ1.,1v1111.*"'' Ho1-•
r
i".nt Jft>f,
I/
/J
If
!,
/(
-- (i)
,._,n,_
J
'l'Nr..nvc 1r,,�1r,.,<,ffMI
NlfM•.J J'""'O-N't- •
Rwc;- SEC.now f 'iJRRWN AFTI.R. 'i)(,11NJ1"u/ll'r. f1oi,w,1,1, R'IIJ 3HOIJN,
- - - -� �·�---
II
'I
'I1
Fig. 12 Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age ladder from Pit 'U'.
273
image
VERAAND TREVOR GIBBONS
Fig. 13 Assemblage of pottery and wood from pit Med 1.
and west banks ofthe creek to the south ofthe Early Iron Age pits. There were no artefacts in three of these pits and Med 22 only contained plant material. Med 1 was a shallow depression on the east bank of the creek measuring 2ft 0in. by 4ft 0in. across. It contained sherds sufficient to reconstruct a jug with a pie crust base, other pottery sherds, some leather and wood (Fig. 13).
In Med 35 a huge bone, presumably from a whale and scrap ofleather were found. Med 39 excavated in 1970 containedjugs (Fig. 14), other sherds and several pieces ofwood. The latter included two planks, a stake, two peg tips, a piece ofwood with a hole through it. Another piece ofwood was charred and two others were burnt. Other interesting artefacts from this large number of pits included leather shoes, wood and much domestic debris ofpots etc.
In 1983 Antoinette thought that she may have found another Medieval pit, Med 42, close to the promenade and near to two other Mediaeval pits, at about a quarter ofmile to the west from the main groups ofpits. Close by these, near the remains ofthe Valkyr wrecked in 1919, she came across a patch ofMedieval sherds on the surface ofthe foreshore. The nature ofthe position ofthe finds led her to believe that beneath them there was probably another pit but she did not investigate any further. About half way between these three pits and the two main groups of Medieval pits on the banks ofthe creek was another pit ofthe same era.
When Antoinette could not work on the pits due to the bad conditions, she
274
image
THE REMARKABLE MULTI-PERIOD FINDS AT MINNIS BAY, BIRCHINGTON
Fig. 14 Medieval jug found in pit. Med 39.
would spend time either back at Quex Park cleaning and preserving her finds or beachcombing looking for more possible pits and archaeological artefacts. She had a keen eye for spotting new pits. She used a fencing foil as a very useful tool for establishing the approximate edges of every new pit before any excavation began! Antoinette's beachcombing finds were mostly of sherds, pieces of timber, bone and flint but occasionally she found the odd mine, bombs and hand grenades as Minnis Bay had been used as a wartime training area.
Spring Tides Exposed Signs of Neolithic Activity
One prized find however was a beautifully worked flint arrowhead, which she 275
image
VERAAND TREVOR GIBBONS
spotted just sticking out of the sand. It was this day-to-day working that led to her discovery during extreme low Spring Tides of timber posts beyond the normal low water mark. These areas she called the 'Far Flats, (FF) and Fence and Post (F&P). Lines of small posts were exposed including a group known as the 'Fish Weir' in the form of an obvious curve with a hooked return at the seaward end approximately on the line of the former creek. A measured survey of the latter exists and photographs of the 'small posts' are also in the archives. Some of the timber has been preserved in the PCM. The small posts are probably still in situ to this day only exposed during extreme Spring Tide conditions.
Also in this area, on the west bank of the former creek, pot sherds of the type of Neolithic pottery found elsewhere in east Kent were uncovered lying in a layer of blue clay topped by a thin layer of hard brown peat. These sherds together with a number of scattered flint tools including two polished axes, scrapers and flakes, some of it in pristine condition, date this site as Neolithic (Macpherson Grant 1969).
Making the Minnis Bay Discoveries Accessible
Unfortunately, age and ill health overtook Antoinette before she could successfully collate all of her work. After her death in 1997 attempts were made to organize all of the material she left behind. Volunteers from the Isle of Thanet Archaeological Society (IOTAS) spent several years, on a one-day-a-week basis, repacking and cataloguing her many finds. Others listed the paperwork and photographs.
The present writers, with their experience of working at Minnis Bay, have brought knowledge of Antoinette and her ways of working. The collation of all Antoinette's archaeological material will enable the PCM to get a better understanding of the unpublished records of Minnis Bay that they hold. Then Antoinette Powell Cotton's work on this important site at Minnis Bay can be recognized and easily accessed by future researchers. Her work has lain dormant for far too long. To quote Macpherson-Grant who worked at the PCM under Antoinette's guidance in the 1960s and 70s:
She was in her own way, an early 'professional' archaeologist and one of the few equally early proponents of the inter-tidal zone archaeology that is now considered so vital a part of national archaeology.
In the past two years the present writers have identified and located over 1,000 pottery finds and have listed and cross referenced them to the other records held in the archives. This will make it easier for the Museum to retrieve material for researchers. The reading of Antoinette's Field Books is finished and extracts and notes are being recorded under the headings of the people with whom she worked, the conditions under which she worked, references to publications, the seminars she attended and other sites and museums she visited; her finds, references to surveys, plottings, photographs and drawings are all recorded together with snippets that reveal something of her character.
This introductory paper will lead to the more detailed analysis of the Minnis Bay archaeological finds as classified by Antoinette Powell-Cotton, cross referring her fascinating Field Books with correspondence, her card indices, photographs and the stored artefacts, together with other relevant correspondence and artefacts
276
image
THE REMARKABLE MULTI-PERIOD FINDS AT MINNIS BAY, BIRCHINGTON
held at the BM and Maidstone Museum. The authors look forward to submitting detailed papers on the following in future volumes of Archaeologia Cantiana:
Belgic/Late Iron Age/Early Roman Well 1 to Well 30.
Late Bronze Age/[Earliest Iron Age] site, from Jimmy Beck's Bronze hoard find of 1938 to the debate in correspondence between Christopher Hawkes of BM and Worsfold regarding the two stage occupation of the site.
Mediaeval - the many finds of leather footwear, now dry in storage but re corded by excellent drawings soon after excavation. Also the quality pottery found, possibly an indication of wealth in this 13th-century 'port'.
The cliff-top inhumation pits and signs of habitation that could link with recent 2lst-century excavation during a building project.
Further consideration of the ABC pits which appear to be Early Iron Age on the edge of the creek between the Bronze Age site and the Mediaeval pits. These include a quantity of preserved timber, including the wooden ladder.
The Neolithic site [referred to as Far Flats] only exposed at low spring tides, that has revealed flint working, flint items and pottery sherds.
All this will lead to the Minnis Bay foreshore site and the relatively unknown work of archaeologist Antoinette Powell-Cotton (Fig. 15) being fully recognized and,
Fig. 15 Antoinette Powell-Cotton.
277
image
VERAAND TREVOR GIBBONS
most importantly, made available to everyone in a form ofwhich Antoinette would have approved.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beck, G.J. D'A., 1938, Report in Cantuarian, vol. XII, No. 1, Dec., p. 54.
Lambarde, W., 1656, First printing of the Charters, laws and Privileges added to The Perambulation ofKent.
Macpherson-Grant, N., 1969,Archaeologia Cantiana, LXXXIV, 249.
Powell-Cotton, P. and G.F. Pinfold, 1940, 'The Beck Find: Prehistoric and Roman site on the foreshore at Minnis Bay. Report and Catalogue',Archaeologia Cantiana, LI, 191.
Powell Cotton, Major Percy (obituary inArchaeologia Cantiana, LIII (1940), 156).
Ross, Anne, 'Shafts, pits, wells - sanctuaries of late Belgic Britons', in J.M. Coles and
D.D.A. Simpson (eds), 1968, Studies inAncient Europe, Leicester University Press, pp. 255-285.
Thompson, Isobel, 1982, Grog-tempered 'Belgic' Pottery of South-Eastern England, iii, BAR British Series, 108.
Worsfold, F.H., 1943, PPS, vol. IX, p. 28.
[Unless otherwise stated, all images are© Courtesy ofthe Trustees ofthe Powell Cotton Museum.]
278
image
THE ELHAM ANNUNCIATION BY JOHN WARD R.A.
DAPHNE JOYNES
With the centenary in 2017 of the birth of the eminent East Kent artist John Ward, 1 it is time to assess his remarkable, but little-known, mural of The Annunciation which was painted in 1993 high up behind the organ loft in the bell-ringing chamber of the church of St Mary the Virgin in Elham (Fig. 1). Commissioned by a local man, the mural completed and complemented a major project to rebuild the church's organ.
Although it is a familiar sight to Elham bell-ringers and organists, this Annunciation is almost unknown, not only in the wider art world but also in Kent and even in Elham itself. This is partly because it was funded by an individual (rather than by a number of parishioners, as were Ward's better-known murals in the church of Ss Cosmas and Damian at Challock, near Ashford), and also because it is hidden away in the ringing chamber which is on the first floor of the Bell Tower above the locked vestry (Fig. 2).
Fig. 1 St Mary the Virgin, Elham.
279
image
DAPHNE JOYNES
Fig. 2 The Ringing Chamber.
Perhaps because it is out ofsight, local memory ofthe circumstances surrounding its commissioning has faded in the years since it was painted. But in the year ofthe Ward centenary it is time for this magnificent painting to be publicly acknowledged alongside his better known works and to be reconsidered in the light of more traditional depictions of the Annunciation.
In the chronology of John Ward's work, the Elham Annunciation came between his two series of Challock murals.2 These were Scenes from the Life of Christ, which he painted in the Challock chancel in 1956 (the year he was elected to the Royal Academy), and his Millenium Mural, commissioned almost exactly 40 years later in 1997 and painted on the north wall of the nave at Challock. This mural has echoes of a single biblical event, Christ's Entry into Jerusalem before the Crucifixion. But as in the earlier Scenes from the Life of Christ the actual setting for John Ward's Millennium image is the Kent countryside: Christ is depicted riding into Challock in the year 2000 to be greeted by the jubilant villagers.
Unusually, the Millennium Mural was a village project, paid for by what today would be called 'crowd-funding'. People could pay from £10 to £1,000 to be included: £10 might buy a painting of a favourite flower, a bird or a bumble bee; a bit more and a dog or cat could be included, and so on up the scale to horses, trees, houses and portraits of individuals - 85 in all. It was a very successful, popular communal enterprise: a work of art funded from within the community.
280
image
THE ELHAMANNUNCIATION BY JOHN WARD R.A.
The Elham Annunciation project was much lower-key. The main movers were two of Elham's organists: James Larkin (who had been an organist in Elham in the early 1960s) and his successor Martin Renshaw, both Lyminge men. Elham church PCC records show that throughout the 1980s, Martin Renshaw (who was also an organ builder) had had to carry out some much needed running-repairs on the Elham organ, and that by 1991 it had become obvious that a complete renovation was needed. At that point James Larkin came forward and offered to cover most of the substantial cost of the works.3
Architect's drawings were provided and approved, a Diocesan Faculty for the project was granted and work on the organ began in May 1992.The following year, in March 1993, Larkin wrote to the PCC to say that he would like to complete the project by donating a mural of The Annunciation, to be painted by John Ward above the newly installed screen in the Ringing Chamber. Ward had been approached late the previous year and had agreed in principle to undertake the work. His work diary for this period provides a fascinating record of the progress of this commission and his meticulous way of organizing his work.4
The PCC minutes record that by June 1993 the work had been completed (Fig. 3). There was a celebratory exhibition of the mural and preparatory drawings, and a two-day organ festival directed by Mark Deller.5
As with his murals at Challock, John Ward's Elham Annunciation has a contemporary setting: the artist has set the scene in a typical village kitchen. The story it tells is taken from the Gospel of St Luke, Chapter 1:26-38, the dramatic moment when the Angel Gabriel announces to a young village girl that she is to be the mother of Christ. Unlike his Challock murals the Elham image was not painted directly onto the wall itself, probably because it would have been difficult to fix scaffolding in the narrow space above the ringing-chamber gallery so as to access the wall. Once the design had been finalised, panels were cut to size, and the panels were then painted in a studio before being fixed on the arch high above the gallery.6 When Ward treated his Challock biblical scenes as if they were happening in the surrounding fields and lanes, he was working within the traditions of Renaissance Italian painting. In the 1930s his artistic training, first at The Hereford School of Arts and Crafts and then at the Royal College of Art in London, would have been an academic as well as a practical one. For professional artists of his generation the study of the History of Art would have been an integral part of their training, as would life-studies, portraiture, landscape painting, architectural drawing and still life. Ward would have learnt that in Renaissance times, the placing of biblical stories in a contemporary setting was a way of bringing sometimes obscure religious events to life. It was also a way of helping those who could not read the Bible for themselves to understand the complex religious messages that preachers would be trying to teach them. This combination of religious events with contemporary medieval scenes is what makes those Renaissance paintings so appealing and
compelling today.
By locating his biblical scenes within contemporary, twentieth-century settings, and by peopling them with local, recognizable characters Ward was following closely in the footsteps of Italian masters like Fra Angelico, Masaccio or Ghirlandaio in Florence, or Giovanni and Gentile Bellini or Carpaccio, in Venice. In his Elham Annunciation, Ward's portrayal of Mary as an ordinary village girl
281
image
N 00 N
Fig. 3 The Annunciation.
image
THE ELHAMANNUNCIATION BY JOHN WARD R.A.
in a domestic setting is reminiscent of Renaissance depictions of the Annunciation. But whereas Renaissance painters such as Botticelli, Filippino Lippi and Fra Angelico painted their medieval Mary sitting quietly reading or spinning, John Ward has painted Elham's twentieth-century Mary helping her companion to stack crockery (Fig. 4).
The Elham Mary is a village girl in the kitchen of what could be an Elham house. She and her friend look as if they had been talking quietly and companionably about the day, about the coming weekend, perhaps about a forthcoming village fete, when Gabriel bursts through the door, bringing her the startling news that she is to be the mother of Christ. Their kitchen is a simple one, and they are surrounded by everyday objects. Like all John Ward's paintings, this one is full of small, intimate details that bring it to life - ordinary rather battered cupboards, carefully drawn jugs and glasses, gloves and a hat. It is a normal, homely space, which no one would think was anything special. In this way Ward has set the scene for an extraordinary and supernatural story to unfold.
The calm and peace of the girls' day is dramatically broken. The door bursts open, and a violent wind, a clap of thunder or a bolt of lightning sets the curtains flying and the dog barking. The young girl in the foreground looks as if she has just dropped what she was carrying and whipped round as through the door, in a burst of dazzling brightness, erupts the androgynous figure of God's messenger who looks as if he/she has flung something straight at Mary (Fig. 5). And that something is the halo that hovers just above Mary's head, almost as though a frisbee has been flung straight across the kitchen!
The Virgin is depicted as being frozen in the moment and so is the Angel Gabriel: both figures are quite static. It looks like a freeze-frame and they seem to inhabit another world. The only living things still in this world are the girl in the background and the excited dog. Mary's companion is standing on a chair with her back to the viewer stacking crockery, but looks as if she could be in a trance. She seems to be vaguely aware of the bright light, the door flung open and the billowing curtains, but there is a puzzled, dream-like quality about her. It is as if she can sense (rather than actually see) that something extraordinary is going on.
The dog is the only creature in this painting that is acting normally. Traditionally dogs, a symbol of fidelity, were thought to have second-sight, and this one has been well and truly startled by what it can see and is jumping up at the Archangel, perhaps in greeting, perhaps in fear.
It is Ward's close attention to every aspect of the painting that brings it to life. A particularly startling detail is the way the flimsy cotton curtain has been set flying in the gale that sweeps in through the door, suggesting that the curtain rings are about to be tom off the pole. Ward's deft inclusion of seemingly insignificant details brings a reality to the scene: the damp tea towels draped to dry on the clothes airer; the straw hat hung carelessly on a nail, ready to be grabbed again when one of the girls picks up the gardening gloves on the right-hand cupboard and goes back into the garden to plant the chestnut sapling (Fig. 6).
In a Renaissance painting such carefully included details would usually have symbolic meaning. Indeed, if this were a Renaissance painting it would be significant that the Virgin's right hand is gesturing towards a clear glass carafe, so as to make sure the viewer does not miss it (Fig. 7). In a Renaissance painting of
283
image
DAPHNE JOYNES
Fig. 4 Mary and Companion, detail.
theAnnunciation the glass carafe would symbolize the purity of the Virgin herself. John Ward was greatly influenced by early religious paintings where symbolism was all important and so it is quite possible that in this instance he was following such Renaissance traditions.
Overall, it is because of the very normality of the kitchen surroundings that the frozen figures of the Angel Gabriel and the Virgin Mary draw our attention. What the viewer is witnessing is the moment of Christ's conception, as represented by the flung halo hovering above Mary's head. It is a most extraordinarily powerful image. The final elements of this panelled mural are the symbols and lettering at the centre of the arch between the main figures, which pull together the themes of the picture and its commissioning origins (Fig. 8). There are two birds, images of the natural world. On the left is one of the jackdaws of Elham church tower, and on the right a pheasant of the Elham Valley fields. They flank a Latin inscription. 'MagnificatAnima Mea Dominum': My Soul doth magnify the Lord. It is the first line of the biblical text known as The Magnificat, which is also to be found in
Chapter 1 of St Luke's gospel.7
284
image
THE ELHAMANNUNCIATION BY JOHN WARD R.A.
Fig. 5 The Angel Gabriel, detail.
St Luke tells how after the Annunciation Mary went to visit her elderly cousin Elizabeth who, exceptionally given her age, was pregnant with a son who was to become John the Baptist. The Evangelist tells how when Elizabeth saw Mary 'the child leapt in her womb'. Mary then tells her cousin what has happened to her, in the passage beginning: 'My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my saviour...'. It is an intensely moving passage of scripture, and at its
285
image
DAPHNE JOYNES
Fig. 6 Right-hand cupboard, detail.
286
image
THE ELHAMANNUNCIATION BY JOHN WARD R.A.
Fig. 7 Mary's right hand gesturing, detail.
287
image
DAPHNE JOYNES
Fig. 8 Lettering and Bird, detail.
heart there is the theme of motherhood, two pregnant women - both amazed at what has happened to them - talking quietly and reverently together.
Immediately above the lines from The Magnificatthere is a line of poetry: 'Ring out Wild Bells to the Wild Sky', which could be the mission statement for any bell-tower anywhere in England! The line comes from In Memoriam, a long poem by Alfred Lord Tennyson written in memory of his close friend Arthur Hallam, who died as a young man just after becoming engaged to Tennyson's sister. It is entirely appropriate therefore for James Larkin's personal commemoration project in honour of his mother.
Three ofthe central verses from In Memoriam8 sum up the circumstances of this particular painting. They also contain the central message of this and every other depiction of the Annunciation.
Ring out, wild bells, to the wild sky, Theflying cloud, the frosty light.
The year is dying in the night;
Ring out, wild bells, and let him die.
Ring out the old, ring in the new, Ring, happy bells, across the snow. The year is going, let it go;
Ring out the false, ring in the new.
Ring out the grief that saps the mind, For those that here we see no more. Ring out the feud of rich and poor, Ring in redress for all mankind.
288
image
THE ELHAMANNUNCIATION BY JOHN WARD R.A.
Fig. 9 John Ward R.A.. self-portrait (1983): courtesy of William Ward.
'Redress for all mankind'. That is what depictions of the Annunciation throughout the history of art have been about. All such paintings have addressed the cosmic event which in Ward's outstanding mural has caused the curtains to blow and the dog to bark.
John Ward was fascinated by his subjects, and his individual style displays a lightness of touch, deftness and joy in his interpretation of the world around him (Fig. 9). His sketches, studies and finished paintings are full of intimate detail, not just for the sake of it but to evoke the atmosphere of a scene.
Alongside his work as a portraitist and society painter, he was passionately interested in the landscape and architecture of east Kent, and was familiar with the early tradition ofreligious wall paintings that would have filled these churches. It is particularly fitting therefore that alongside his ambitious series of wall paintings at
289
image
DAPHNE JOYNES
Challock Church, he should now also be remembered for this remarkable painting in St Mary the Virgin, Elham.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank John Ward's son, William Ward, for giving access to, and permission to use, John Ward's records and archive material, and to reproduce Ward's self-portrait. She also thanks Mary Morgan, Churchwarden of St Mary the Virgin, Elham, for making available PCC records. The photographs of St Mary the Virgin, Elham and The Annunciation are by Dr Patrick Wheeler and are reproduced with the permission of the St Mary the Virgin Parochial Church Council.
Anyone wishing to view the mural, which is in the locked ringing-chamber, should contact the Churchwarden of St Mary the Virgin, Elham (contact details are on the church website).
ENDNOTES
I Ward was born in Hereford in 1917 and died at Bilting, Wye, near Ashford, in 2007.
2 The murals in Ss Cosmas and Damian were painted in collaboration with his friend Gordon Davies.
3 'Mr James Larkin had pledged £27,500 towards the cost of the necessary repairs to the organ and the provision of a screen between the organ and the ringing chamber ... A further sum of £4,000 had been guaranteed by an anonymous donor. Mr Larkin wished the work to be carried out as a memorial to his mother'. Extract from the Minutes of a Meeting of the Parochial Church Council (PCC) 23 January 1992.
4 Extracts from JW's work diaries: Wednesday 28th October 1992: 11.00am Elham; Tuesday 29 December - Saturday 2nd January 1993: Murals; Saturday 16th January: Mural; Wednesday 27th January: Designs to church. Saturday 8th May: 5.30 meeting at church. This is when the design would have been finally approved. Work then continues in the studio. Monday 10th May: Mural. The entry dated 14th - 16th May gives a list of the mural's details that Ward is working on: table, bracket on wall, inside ofcupboard, hands, curtain rings, flower pot, hand, latch & hand, each crossed out in pencil demonstrating his systematic way of working. On Tuesday 8th June: Mural. And finally for the week beginning 14th June: Mural, crossed through in pencil. The work is complete.
Minutes of the PCC Social Committee of 27th April 1993 give full details of the Organ Festival to be held over the weekend of 12th and 13th June, to be directed by Mark Deller. The event was
to include trips up the tower to visit the Ringing Chamber and view the mural and drawings, and Minutes of the next PCC meeting on 1st July reported that the Organ Festival had been 'extremely successful'. As Ward's diary entry for 14th June suggests, he probably made final adjustments or additions in situ after the Organ Festival and Exhibition.
Gordon Davies, his collaborator at Challock, also worked with him on the Elham Annunciation. Ward made preliminary drawings for the three figures in his own studio at Bilting, and then the large panels were prepared and painted in Gordon Davies' studio at Hastingleigh. Ward asked one of his close friends, David Embry who was then Head of Art at Folkestone Girls Grammar School, if he could suggest models for this painting. The model for the figure of the Virgin Mary was Claire Carroll (nee Percival) and for Mary's companion was Kate Samson. Close scrutiny of the androgynous looking figure of the Angel Gabriel showed that it too was also based on Ward's drawings of Claire Percival, but that he had used his studies of his own hands to make the figure appear more masculine.
7 Luke 1:46-55.
8 From In Memoriam: Canto 106.
290
image
A PULHAM GARDEN REDISCOVERED AT NONINGTON
PETER HOBBS
The Hammond family had lived at Old StAlbans Court in Nonington since 1519, substantially adding to and changing this fourteenth-century hall house.1 William Oxenden Hammond, a successful banker, in 1875 wrote in his MSS 'Family Histories' that he had'... decided to rebuild a new mansion, the old one ... having naturally fallen into a decayed state'. He had already commissioned a new stable block and associated buildings from his friend and architect George Devey2 and added a tower and a new bay to the south-east side of the existing house. Nevertheless, he now commissioned an entirely new Elizabethan-style mansion on a rise to the north of the old house. He had also been improving and ornamenting the grounds of his newly-inherited estate with substantial tree planting and was no doubt considering other ways of enhancing the attractiveness of his property.
To the south of the old manor house there was a substantial hole in the ground. The first reference found so far to this feature is as a property marker in the 1501 Court Roll of theAbbot of StAlbans3 and it is shown on a 1629 Estate map. Given the ample presence of brickearth as well as recorded brick kilns in the immediate vicinity,4 it seems reasonable to assume that the'quarry' was probably extended as the source of raw material in 1556 when the old house was partially rebuilt in brick and it may have been further enlarged in 1666 and 1790 when the mansion was again extended.At the latter time, a large brick-built soakaway was inserted linked by a substantial brick-lined conduit to the rain water drains around the manor house.
This large cavity lay beyond the old roadway leading to the rear of the manor, immediately in front of the new 1869 Stable Block, and adjacent to the Tudor walled garden. This had been remodelled as a parterre with paths and glass houses in 1790 and refurbished, at least in part, in 1869. It was therefore logical for Hammond to utilise the sunken feature for further display and linking it to his walks amongst the rose beds of the Tudor walled garden (Fig. 1). No doubt a substantial rockery would have been an obvious idea.
Presumably he would have discussed suitable designers of a sunken rock garden with Devey the best known being James Pulham & Son, based in Broxbourne (Herts.).5 Devey had executed commissions for the Rothschilds and would have been aware of Pulham's work for Rothschild at Waddesdon Manor.
Rock gardening had developed in the earlier nineteenth century combining the skills of ornamental design with extending scientific enquiry. Some designers preferred to work with natural rock but the Pulhams exploited both this and an artificial (and cheaper) substitute.'Pulhamite', a stone-coloured terracotta mater-
291
image
PETER HOBBS
Fig. 1 The setting of the Sunken Garden.
ial used for precast garden or architectural ornamentation was the basis of their reputation. However, Hammond's commission appears to have been for the more expensive natural rock although the formation of a Dropping Well and two associated pools may have used 'Pulhamite'. In the 1877 Pulham Brochure, the work at Nonington was categorised under 'Femeries, rocky banks, alpineries and conservatories'. The south-west side of the excavation was a shallow slope with rocks amongst grass. Within this were areas linked by steps and paths of stone slabs. There was a prominent Toad or Frog stone to the west with small round planting holes appropriately placed to add to the illusion and another overlooking one of the Dropping Wells. The Pulham Business Records show the work being carried out for Hammond in 1877, a year before he was able to move into his new mansion, so this represented but one strand of a substantial construction project.
According to local accounts ofthe time, the natural rock came by rail to Adisham, then the nearest station, and by horse and cart the three miles to Nonington. The Wealden sandstone most probably came from a Maidstone quarry, likely the nearest available with rail connections. The water for the Dropping Well came via a two inch cast iron pipe from a reservoir in the then kitchen gardens to the south-east.
The subsequent history of the sunken garden is unclear. In the 1920s Mrs Ina Hammond lavished care and attention on what her grandchildren knew as Grannie's Garden. There are some grainy photos of small conifer planting in sites where
292
image
A PULHAM GARDEN REDISCOVERED AT NONINGTON
there are now large trees and there are local recollections of children opening the sluice in the old kitchen gardens and watch the water surge out of the Dropping Well in the sunken garden. The 1937 Sales catalogue describes the area as 'Large Sunk Garden with wide grass slope in centre and dripping well sheltered by large beech and chestnut trees ...'.6
Mrs Hammond sold that part of the estate to the English Gymnastics Society, and post-war photos show female students ofNonington College7 engaged in dramatic performance under the 'frog' stone. The College built four staffbungalows adjacent to the sunken garden, now re-named the 'Dell'. This radically changed the sunken garden's character by closing it in and the steady spread of the yew and conifer trees began to cut down the light and started to drive out the grass sward. The College closed in 1988 and the garden was abandoned to nature.
Re-discovery
In 2000 the present owners of Old St Albans Court took possession of the staff bungalows and their grounds. The first inkling of what had really been acquired came in 2008 when the postman delivered a letter from English Heritage (addressed to Mrs Hammond) concerning Pulham and the data base they were building of the firm's work.8 By then, the sunken area had been opened up, cleared and made safe, in so doing revealing the mixture of rubble and brick used to underpin the rocks. Rain and animal activity had largely emptied the mixture of peat and soil which had provided planting pockets in the rocks. A rectangular concrete pit was unearthed close to the Dropping Well which was still functioning as a marsh garden but the materials here look different from those used in the other constructions and may be Pulhamite. No water source was detected during the excavations. Paths and steps were mostly in situ although slipped and eroded in some places by tree roots, rabbit activity and weather but the plan of the nineteenth-century construction remained clear.
A detailed survey was carried out in 2013 which shows all the major features of the sunken rock garden (see Figs 2 and 3).9 This showed up brick crescents and banks on the west side. All were formed of the same machine brick, most probably from the Sittingbourne brickfields, and their siting in conjunction with, and under, rock makes the case for them to be part of the original construction. The Japanese knotweed has (hopefully) been exterminated by a sustained programme of digging, burning and poisoning, and the bracken has been tackled similarly. The Dropping Well has been linked to a permanent water supply from a cistern installed by the College in the 1950s to service the Caretaker's cottage. The water from the Dropping Well flows to a small pond and from there by gravity into the 1790 sump now converted to a large cistern from which it is pumped into Devey's cistern in the Stable Yard for garden use. The rediscovered pool has been repaired and linked into the same system. Puzzlingly, no evidence of any link or drain to the large brick 1790 soakaway was found although the soakaway itself is shown on the 25in. Ordnance Survey (1872).
The overgrown yews which overshadow the garden are being steadily trimmed back to allow light again and a replanting programme commenced. Grass snakes as well as a multitude of frogs, newts and other pond life multiply and even adders
293
image
PETER HOBBS
Original path (19' century entrance)
•
••...,..
••..
ii
Pool
Modern stone ,.J
,
?'l'-' revetment .,•
�4�� I
I ""
' Bri1c�k wall 1;...
•• "l 1,"'
•
1'.l
Pool � Pool
''
''
''
''
'
''' ''
D
D
D
Original rockery 'in situ' Original rockery (moved) Modern paving
Edge obscured by soil
'-. '-
'-.'-
_.-
Contours in metres
5m.
Fig. 2 Plan of the Sunken Garden (aka The Dell) at Old St Albans Court, Nonington.
294
image
A PULHAM GARDEN REDISCOVERED AT NONINGTON
33m.
A
South
North
32m.
31m.
30m.
'Frog' structure
South-east North-west
F
Stone
D
Original stone (moved)
Flagstone
Modern replacement flagstone E Upper pool .�
'--'L-..a._ Lower pool
33m.
32m.
31m.
D Unpaved East
G
,__,..
33m.
0 Sm.
West
30m.
29m.
H
'Frog' structure (edge of)
Modern pond
32m.
31m.
30m.
Modern stone retaining wIall
Fence
South-west 29m. North-east
Fig. 3 Profiles of the Sunken Garden at Old St Albans Court (see Fig. 2 showing positions of A-B, etc.).
have been sighted again whilst birds flourish. The original planting would, of course, have been Victorian. A detailed survey was carried out by Richard and Mary Hoskins in 2012-2013 (see Appendix 1).
In conclusion, although the basic content and materials of the Pulham execution remain, the nature of the garden has changed from being a substantial excavation but fully open with a slope upwards to the south to one which is now contained on all sides by walls of rock and greenery to the point that it has acquired an air of secrecy because its presence is completely obscured until the entrance gate is opened. Not perhaps William Oxenden Hammond's idea of a garden but one with which certainly the later Pulhams would have been well pleased.
A Gazetteer of Pulham sites in Kent is provided at Appendix 2.
295
image
PETER HOBBS
ENDNOTES
E. Hasted, T he History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent, 2nd edn, ix (1797- 1801), 251-262; P. Hobbs, 2005, 'Old St Albans Court, Norrington', Archaeologia Cantiana, cxxv, 273-90.
J. Allibone, 1991, George Devey, Architect, 1828-1886; British Architectural Library, Geo Devey 125, 56-57.
The Abbey of St Albans (Herts.), owners of the ancient Saxon estate since 1097.
G. Daws and P. Hobbs, 2015, 'The variety of brick types and sizes used at Old St Albans Court, Norrington', Archaeologia Cantiana, cxxxv1, 281-92.
s Durability Guaranteed - Pulhamite Rockwork - its Conservation and Repair; English Heritage 2008, Appendix A; A Gazetteer of Pulham sites.
As far as can be seen from the photograph in the Sale Catalogue; John D. Woods Co. Residential and agricultural Estate of St Albans Court, Norrington, 1938, 24.
I.A. Chapman and J.M. Whittles (eds), 2004, Nonington College, Kent, England 1938-1986.
s See endnote 5.
9 This very substantial piece of work was organised by Richard Hoskins aided by Graham Hartley, Les Moorman, Donna Lambert, Barry Sheridan and Marie- Charlotte Wahl. This may be the only Pulham garden which has ever been professionally surveyed.
Appendix 1
THE PLANTS IN THE DELL, ST ALBAN'S COURT, NONINGTON
By Richard and Mary Hoskins
The first known reference to the rock garden at St Alban's Court, Nonington appears in a promotional booklet published circa 1877 by James Pulham II (Pulham, c.1877). Pulham lists '... a few of the most choice, hardy plants, shrubs, conifers, and flowers ... I find that many want to know what plants are most suitable ... not for professional and experienced gardeners'. This list of trees, shrubs, ferns, climbers and herbaceous plants is quite comprehensive and includes more than 400 named species or varieties as well as referring more broadly to families of plant used in gardens designed by the Pulham family. Each Pulham garden would have included a selection from this list, varying in number according to the size of the garden. The rock garden at Nonington, now known as 'The Dell', is not large and the selection of plants would therefore have been relatively modest.
A general survey of the plants currently growing in The Dell was carried out during several visits during 2012 and 2013. Seventy-five species of plant were identified and listed during these visits (see below), excluding known recent additions. Comparing these with Pulham's list produced 30 matches of plant species or families.
After more than 140 years a low number of matches would not be surprising, especially as the garden went through a 60-year period of neglect during the 20th century, so at first sight 30 matches seems quite a high number. Included in this total are seven species of large tree including three varieties of yew, Common Yew (Taxus baccata), Golden Yew (Taxus aurea) and Irish Yew (Taxusfastigiata)), two of Cypress (Cupressus lawsonii and one other), one of Spruce (Picea) and one of Holly (Ilex aquifolium). Yew is slow growing and it is quite possible that the three species were all introduced by Pulham. Cypresses grow relatively quickly and
296
image
A PULHAM GARDEN REDISCOVERED AT NONINGTON
if these species were planted at Nonington by Pulham it is perhaps more likely that the existing trees are descendents of the originals. On the other hand the Spruce (probably Picea abies or Norway Spruce) is a large tree that is prominent in photographs of the Dell taken in the 1960s, so might therefore be original. The Pulham plant list includes variegated hollies and dwarf rock holly but does not specifically mention Common Holly (Ilex aquifolium), of which several mature specimens are now found in the Dell.
There are four species of smaller tree, or shrub, common to both lists. These are: Spotted Laurel (Aucuba japonica variegate), Deutzia (probably Deutzia crenata), Elder (Sambucus nigra) and Common Dogwood (Cornus sanguinea). The last two are species which occur locally in the wild and are immature specimens which have probably been introduced recently and naturally.
Any rock garden worthy of the description would be incomplete without a selection of ferns. All five species of fem now growing in the Dell are found on Pulham's list. These are Royal Fem (Osmunda regalis), Hartstongue Fem (Asplenium scolopendrium), Common Polypody (Polypodium vulgare), Prickly Shield Fem (Polystichum aculeatum) and Male Fem (Dryopterisfilix-mas). Most of these ferns grow locally in the wild but it is very likely that all were included as part of the range introduced into the Dell by Pulham. Of particular note is the Royal Fem which has now become rare in Britain as a result of wetland drainage but survives in profusion in the Dell.
Pulham includes a separate list of climbing or trailing plants 'Suitable to grow up, or trail down, especially over the thick strata of the rocks'. Remarkably few different climbers or trailers survive in the Dell. Of those which do by far the most abundant is Ivy. Pulham recommends obtaining ivies, including 'very good small Ivies ... from the banks and hedges, growing wild', and there is no reason to suppose that the ivies in the Dell did not arrive in this way, as most appear to be Common Ivy (Hedera helix). One patch oflvy has exceptionally large leaves - up to 20cm in length- and may represent a less common variety. Of the other climbing or trailing species currently found in the Dell three, Rock Cotoneaster (Cotoneaster horizontalis), Pheasant Berry (Leycesteria Formosa) and Honeysuckle (Lonicera periclymenum) are all included in the Pulham list but all could easily have been introduced naturally.
The remainder of the plants currently growing in the Dell consist of at least 46 different species of flowering herbaceous plant, of which eleven are also included in the Pulham Plant List. Some of these are common species of locally found wild flowers such as Bugle (Ajuga reptans), Wild Arum (Arum maculatum), Ground Ivy (Glechoma hederacea), Primrose (Primula vulgaris), and Dog Violet (Viola riviniana). Two others, Common Ragwort (Senecio jacobaea) and Babies Tears (Soleirolia solierolii) are species that were introduced to Britain as garden plants during the nineteenth century and have since become notorious invasive plants; these may therefore be remnants of Pulham's original planting. Four further flowering plants may also be descendants of the Pulham planting: Acanthus (Acanthus montanus), Autumn Cyclamen (Cyclamen coum), Small leaved Periwinkle CVinca minor) and Shining Crane's Bill (Geranium lucidum). The last-named is widespread in the Dell with its striking, bright pink flowers and dark green, glossy leaves.
297
image
PETER HOBBS
There are several plants that grow prolifically in the Dell but which are not named in the Pulham list. Solomon's Seal (Polygonatum biflorum) is an uncommon wild flower of the local Kentish woodland which is also often grown as a garden plant, flowering in the early spring. Yellow Archangel (Lamiastrum galeobdolon) is another wild plant also common in gardens, the species growing in the Dell being the silver-leaved variety. Finally, a very striking plant in the Dell is Indian Rhubarb (Darmera Peltata), a native of North America which grows as thick, spreading rhizomes in the wet and boggy areas at the bottom of the Dell and produces metre tall inflorescences of five-petalled bright pink flowers in late spring. These are followed by even taller stems bearing large, round, green leaves that give the plant its common name and which tum deep red in the autumn. Despite their absence from his list it would not be surprising if Pulham had introduced one or more of these three plants to the Dell.
In conclusion, the 30 species of plant currently growing in the Dell that are also included in the Pulham list of c.1877 are unlikely to be all original Pulham plants or even direct descendants thereof. It is probable that most of the smaller shrubs and herbaceous plants have not survived to the present day and that similar species have been planted and re-planted since then. Some of the original conifers may well have survived, together with a handful of ferns, a few shrubs and climbers, and a small number of the more tenacious flowering plants. Apart from these few remaining plants the Pulham legacy is contained in the rockery itself which remains as an oasis of l 9th-century gardening endeavour which can still be appreciated in the 21st century.
Pulham, James, c.1877, Picturesque Ferneries and Rock-Garden Scenery, in Waterfalls, Rockystreams, Cascades, Dropping Wells, Heatheries, Caves or Cavernous Recesses for Boathouses, &c, &c., Broxbourne and Brixton: James Pulham & Son (Lindley Library, RHS).
298
image
A PULHAM GARDEN REDISCOVERED AT NONINGTON
Appendix 2
CHRONOLOGICAL GAZETTEER OF PULHAM SITES IN KENT
Date
Town/Village
Site or Owner, Contractor
Comments
1854-6
Tun. Wells
Broomhill
Rocky pass and banks
1860
Tun. Wells
F. Wilson
Fernery, cliff to bank
1862-4
Tun. Wells
Dunorlan Park
Substantial works*
1865-70
Bromley
Civic Centre
Some rockwork*
1866
W. Wickham
J. Stewart
Fernery
1867
Bickley
J. Batten
Fernery
1867-9
Gravesend
Rosherville Gardens
Cavern with dropping well
1868-80
Lamberhurst
Court Lodge
Substantial works
1870
Staplehurst
StaplehurstHall
Rocks on lake margin
1870
Canterbury
Barham Court
Dropping well and pool
1870s
Yalding
RoydonHall
Fernery and dropping well
1873-4
Bromley
Sundridge Park
Chasm, fernery, cliff*
1874-5
Goudhurst
J. Ridgway
Fernery
1875
Maidstone
PrestonHall
1876
Bromley
Downham
Fernery
1877
Norrington
St Albans Court
Femery and rocky banks
1894
Ramsgate
Madeira Walk
Substantial works*
1897
Rochester
Beechy Lees
Rock works
1910
Folkestone
Lower Leas
Caves*
1912
Bexley
MarlHouse
Water and rock garden
1914
Bromley
Penchullee
1920-21
Folkestone
The Leas
Substantial works*
1923-36
Ramsgate
St Lawrence Westcliff
Substantial works*
?
Harrietsham
Colesdane
(There are other unidentified sites in the County known only by name of town or customer.)
Winterstoke Gardens
*Viewable today.
Sources:
C. Hitching, 2012, Rock Landcapes, the Pulham Legacy, Garden Arts Press.
English Heritage, 2008, Durability Guaranteed. Pulhamite Rockwork - its Conservation and Repair, Appendix A.
299
image
MORE CLASSIS BRITANNICA TILES FROM EAST WEAR BAY, FOLKESTONE
ADRIAN WESTON
Large-scale excavation of the Roman villa complex above East Wear Bay at Folkestone was carried out by S.E. Winbolt in 1924 (Winbolt 1925). Amongst the finds made were seven tiles bearing stamps of the Classis Britannica (CLBR), the Roman fleet in British waters (Winbolt 1925, 103-6; plate XX). Three of the stamps occurred on undisturbed pilae tiles built into the hypocaust of Room 38, part of a bath-suite in the substantial winged-corridor house designated Block A (Winbolt 1925, 61; plate XX). Other stamps came from Room 24, the corridor along the front of Block A (Winbolt 1925, 10, 28).
The presence of these Classis Britannica-stamped tiles has led to speculation about the ownership and nature of the East Wear Bay site. Winbolt himself was the first to put forward the idea that the villa, set in a commanding position overlooking the English Channel, was the official residence of the Prefect of the British Fleet (Winbolt 1925, 114) and this attractive notion has been regularly repeated (e.g. Cunliffe 1968, 260; Percival 1976, 94; Salway 1981, 529; Philp 1981, 114). David Peacock, however, suggested that the relatively small number of Classis Britannica tiles found at the villa were more likely to represent re-used material brought in from elsewhere (Peacock 1977, 246), possibly from a lighthouse or signal station that Stuart Rigold speculated may have originally existed in the Bayle area on the western side of Folkestone (Rigold 1972, 36).
The purpose of the present note is to place on record the fact that there are now considerably more CLBR stamps known from the area of East Wear Bay than those originally reported by Winbolt (Table 1). Significant numbers of stamped tiles are likely to have gone unnoticed by site workmen in the original excavation, even though rewards were payable for important finds (Winbolt 1925, 46). The spoil from the 1924 excavation was tipped over the edge of the adjacent cliff and remnants of this dumped material have been slowly eroding out onto the beach some 45m below the villa for more than twenty years. The author has made frequent searches of this eroding material, regularly collecting tile, pottery, bone and other significant finds. Study of the Roman tile recovered has resulted in the identification of another ten CLBR stamps, four of which are substantially complete (Fig. 1).
It is known that several other private collectors have also recovered stamped tiles from the foreshore but the exact numbers remain uncertain and few have been recorded. Details of only one, found c.1990, are included here (Table 1).
301
image
ADRIAN WESTON
TABLE 1. INVENTORY OF STAMPED CLASSJS BRITANNICA TILES FROM FOLKESTONE
Date found
Brick/tile type
Folkestone die type
Present location
Finder
1924
brick
3
FHRC
Winbolt
1924
brick
3
FHRC
Winbolt
1924
brick
3
FHRC
Winbolt
1924
brick
FHRC
Winbolt
1924
brick
FHRC
Winbolt
1924
brick
2
FHRC
Winbolt
1924
u/k
2
FHRC
Winbolt
c.1940
brick
2
FHRC
Brett
c.1970
c.1990 1990
u/k
tegula tegula
u/k
2
u/k
EWB exc. arch.
P. Keller arch.
u/k
AR PK
1990
imbrex
4
P. Keller arch.
PK
2001
tegula
2
Retained by author
AW
2001
tegula
2
Retained by author
AW
2002
brick
2
Retained by author
AW
2004
tegula
Retained by author
AW
2006
brick
5
Retained by author
AW
2007
tegula
2
Retained by author
AW
2007
tegula
2
Retained by author
AW
2007
tegula
2
Retained by author
AW
2008
tegula
2
Retained by author
AW
2008
tegula
Retained by author
AW
2010
tegula
2
EWB exc. arch.
ATU exc.
2011
tegula
2
EWB exc. arch.
ATU exc.
(FHRC = Folkestone History Resource centre; EWB = East Wear Bay; ATU = A Town Unearthed; u/k = unknown.)
Another example was found c.1940 (exact location unknown) and is now held in Folkestone's History Resource Centre. An allotment holder also found a stamped tile on allotment gardens a short distance to the north-west (inland) of the villa in the 1970s (Keller 1982, 209; no details available).
An excavation on the foreshore directly below the villa site in 1990, primarily conducted to examine quern production at the site, recovered two more CLBR stamped tile fragments (Frere 1991). One ofthese was ofparticular interest being of French origin (Peacock 1977, Fabric l; see below). New excavations which began at the villa site in 2010 have so far found two further stamped tile fragments. Other examples will no doubt be identified as this work continues. In all, a minimum of
302
image
MORE CLASSIS BRITANNICA TILES FROM EAST WEAR BAY, FOLKESTONE
�
�
2 3
4 5
CL.BR STAMPS
2 3 4 5
SIGNATURES
\\\\ \\\ \\
2 3
TALLY MARKS
4 5
Scale 012345cm
Fig. 1 Stamps, signatures and tally marks found on Classis Britannica tiles at Folkestone.
twenty-four tiles bearing Classis Britannica stamps had been recorded from the area of the Folkestone villa, up until the end of 2016 (Table 1 and Table 2).
Other Classis Britannica tile from Folkestone
Analysis by the late David Peacock of Classis Britannica tile fabrics indicated two quite distinct types (Peacock 1977, 236-7). Fabric 1 is hard fired and a fairly uniform buff in colour. Inclusions vary between scattered quartz sand-grains and very occasional rounded lumps of red-brown ferruginous sandstone. This fabric would appear to have originated in Gaul somewhere in the region of Boulogne. Fabric 2 is generally a distinctive reddish-pink colour relieved to a variable degree by streaks, lenses and swirls of creamy white clay. The most abundant inclusions are particles of black or red-brown iron ore. This fabric comes from the Fairlight
303
image
ADRIAN WESTON
TABLE 2. QUANTITIES OF DIE TYPES 1-5 FOUND AT FOLKESTONE AND OTHER CLASSJS BRITANNICA SITES
Folkestone die type
Tile type
Folkestone
Dover
Richborough
Beauport Park
Bardown
tegula
3
brick
2
2
tegula
10
2
brick
3
4
3
brick
3
4
imbrex
4
5
brick
27
5
tegula
2
5
imbrex
4
5
box flue
19
5
u/k
2
Clay of the Weald (Peacock 1977, 239). All the Folkestone stamps occur on tiles in this Wealden, Fabric 2, with the exception of the fragment of stamped imbrex in Fabric 1 found in 1990 (die Type 4, see below).
Approximately one hundred other tile fragments found by the author at East Wear Bay, although unstamped, are readily identifiable as being of the distinctive Classis Britannica Fabric 2. Many of these are fragments of curved imbrex roof tile. Brodribb, in his survey of the CLBR tiles from Beauport Park Roman bath house, Sussex (Brodribb 1979, 151), states that the majority of imbrices bear either a stamp or a signature but never both. (A signature is a mark made by fingertip applied to the surface of a tile by the tile maker when the tile was still wet, the purpose of which was probably to identify the work of an individual or group of workers). Five signatures have been found on Folkestone imbrex fragments (Fig. 1) but surprisingly no stamps have been found.
Marks cut into the edge of a tile usually just below the signature are also present. These are referred to as tally marks. Tally marks although quite common on Classis Britannica tiles are only occasionally found on other military tiles and are extremely rare on tiles of civilian manufacture. The exact meaning or purpose of these marks is uncertain but it presumably relates to some sort of counting procedure during the manufacturing process. Five different marks have been recorded from Folkestone (Types 1-5; Fig. 1). A Roman figure IV is the most common (Type 1), while Type 5, a Roman figure VII is the least common, with only one example.
Analysis of Folkestone CLBR stamps (Tables 1 and 2)
The practice of stamping tiles made by the Classis Britannica seems to have been introduced during the second century and continued into the early third century (Brodribb 1980, 185). Over 100 different die types are known, of which five
304
image
MORE CLASSIS BRITANNICA TILES FROM EAST WEAR BAY, FOLKESTONE
different ones are now recorded from Folkestone. Round designs (die Types 1 and 2) are by far the most common here (Table 2).
Round
Die Type 1 (RIB 2481.99; Brodribb (1969; 1980) Type 23; 5 examples; Fig. 1, 1)
A circular stamp 62mm in diameter with the words CLASIS BRIT around the edge. At the centre, a wheel-type motif has lost one of its spokes result ing in an irregular blank area. Two examples of this stamp were found in the 1924 excavations (Winbolt 1925, plate XX, A), with three further examples recovered in recent years from the beach. The stamp is unique to Folkestone, where there are now five examples recorded on both tegulae and bricks.
Die Type 2 (RIB 2481.89; Brodribb (1969; 1980) Type 21; Dover type J3, no. 37
(Philp 1981); 13 examples; Fig. 1, 2)
A circular stamp 50mm in diameter with the letters CLBR. These are well formed with the B and L both having serifs. Two examples of this type were found in the 1924 excavations (Winbolt 1925, plate XX, B), with many more from the beach. This is now the most common stamp found at Folkestone, with a total of thirteen examples known. They occur on both tegulae and bricks. Only six further examples of this type are known, four of which are from Dover (Philp 1981, no. 37).
Oblong
Die Type 3 (RIB 2481.22; Brodribb (1969; 1980) Type 7; 3 examples; Fig. 1, 3)
A large oblong stamp 111 x 32mm. The letters CLBR with a central dot are contained within an ansate frame. The three known examples were all found in the 1924 excavations, on complete pilae tiles within Room 38 (Winbolt 1925, plate XX, D). The stamp is unique to Folkestone apart from one ex ample in Fabric 2 from Richborough, where it is the only Classis Britannica stamped tile recorded (Bushe Fox 1949, 256, plate LXXI, b).
Die Type 4 (RIB 2481.51; Dover type K6, no. 44 (Philp 1981); 1 example; Fig. 1, 4)
An oblong stamp 60 x 27mm. The letters CLBR are contained within a dou ble frame. Only a single stamp is known from Folkestone, impressed on an imbrex in the French Fabric 1. This was found during excavations on the foreshore in 1990 (Frere 1991). Four similar examples of this die, all on tiles in Fabric 1, are known from Dover (Philp 1981, no. 44).
Die Type 5 (RIB 2481.40; Brodribb (1969) Type 9; Dover type K4, no. 42 (Philp
1981); 1 example; Fig. 1, 5)
An oblong stamp 78 x 22mm. Triangular medial stop between the L and B; terminal stop after the R. Only one example has been found at Folkestone, a nearly complete stamp impressed on a fragment of large brick found recent ly on the beach. Fifty-three stamps of this die have been found at Dover, one of which was discovered in a key stratified deposit dated to 190-200 (Philp 1989, 126-27).
305
image
ADRIAN WESTON
Stamp dies most frequently found at a site are suggested as relating to phases of construction, whereas those dies found infrequently, to phases of repair (Warry 2006, 89-90). At Folkestone the most common die, Type 2, accounts for more than half of the stamps found (Table 2). Die Types 1 and 2 have both been found on tegula fragments in combination with the same workman's signature, indicating that they are contemporary in date. The frequency of their occurrence suggests a phase of construction; however, their scarcity at other sites suggests the phase of construction at Folkestone is not contemporary with that at any of the other known Classis Britannica sites.
Warry has shown that the lower cutaways on tegulae evolved in shape over time (cutaways are the notches cut out from the top and bottom of a tile flange to allow overlapping tiles to fit together when placed on a roof). He has divided these typologically into four groups, A-D. A number of tegulae fragments of Classis Britannica origin with intact lower cutaways have been discovered at Folkestone (Fig. 2). All of the examples have been found to be of group D, dated by Warry at the Beauport Park bath-house to c.210 (Warry 2006, 154).
The majority of the Classis Britannica tiles found at Folkestone appear to have been manufactured at the end of the second or very early in the third century. This date would suggest that they were used in what was a total reconstruction of villa Block A and the creation of a second building, Block B, dated to around 190-
(,/·
1/
r ·
Scale 012345cm
Fig. 2 Classis Britannica tegulae with lower cutaways, from the beach at Folkestone.
306
image
MORE CLASSIS BRITANNICA TILES FROM EAST WEAR BAY, FOLKESTONE
200. The reconstructed Block A was built directly over an earlier villa of similar proportions which had been constructed around 90-100, this in tum having been built over earlier buildings of late Iron Age date.
General discussion
Tiles carrying stamps of the Classis Britannica have now been found at thirteen locations in Britain and two in Northern France (Boulogne and Desvres). The British sites are mainly in Kent (Richborough, Dover, Folkestone, Lympne, Lyminge, Cranbrook) and Sussex (Pevensey, Beauport Park, Bodiam, Bardown and, most recently, Kitchenham Farm). In addition, two stamped tiles have been found at excavations in Southwark, with another from London itself (Crowley and Betts 1992). A single tile found at St Catherine's Point on the Isle of Wight may have found its way there as ship's ballast or be derived from a military signal station or lighthouse built somewhere in the area (Lyne nd).
Dover (Portus Dubris) and Lympne (Portus Lemanis), positioned some 13 miles (21km) apart along the Kent coast, were certainly bases of the Classis Britannica (Philp 1981, 113-4; Cunliffe 1980, 284-5; Mason 2003, 107-112), with a 12.45 hectare (c.30 acre) fortress at Boulogne, on the French coast, apparently serving as the main headquarters ofthe Fleet (Philp 1981, 114; Brulet 1989, 62-9; Mason 2003, 106-7). The Sussex sites at Bodiam, Beauport Park, Bardown and Ashbumham, together with Cranbrook in Kent, would all appear to be broadly connected with the Wealden iron industry, which is generally believed to have been under the overall control of the Classis Britannica (Mason 2003, 114).
Dover has now produced more than one thousand tiles bearing Classis Britannica stamps (Amos and Wheeler 1929; Philp 1981, 123-142; Philp 1989, 57-61; Philp 2014, 38). The total from Lympne is about 22, all found in the area of the later Shore fort (Cunliffe 1980, 271, fig. 25), except for one water-worn specimen discovered in coastal beach deposits further to the south-east, near West Hythe (Philp 1982, 178, figs 4 and 6).
Whatever their significance, the number of CLBR stamped tiles recorded from Folkestone is now tripled, in comparison with Winbolt's original seven specimens. Moreover, unstamped tile fragments in identifiable Classis Britannica fabrics have now also been identified in some number. When the villa was first constructed about 90-100 the Classis Britannica was probably not involved in the manufacture of stamped tiles. If the site was then under naval control, the tiles needed for the villa's construction would probably have been obtained from either a private tilery or one run by the state. When the villa was totally reconstructed in about 190-200 presumably a large quantity of tile from the original building would have been available for reuse, supplemented with additional tile provided by the Classis Britannica s tilery as and where needed. These new tiles may have been used more extensively on certain areas ofthe villa which may account for the large number of Classis Britannica tile recovered from a relatively small amount of spoil eroding onto the beach. The results of the new excavations at the villa site may perhaps shed further light on the issue, but for the present, the question of the Classis Britannica connection with Folkestone remains unsolved.
307
image
ADRIAN WESTON
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author would like to thank Keith Parfitt for his encouragement and advice, and also for commenting on various draft texts.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Amos, E.G.J. and Wheeler, R.E.M., 1929, 'The Saxon-Shore Fortress at Dover',
Archaeological Journal, LXXXVI, 47-58.
Brodribb, G., 1969, 'Stamped tiles of the Classis Britannica', Sussex Archaeological Collections, 107, 102-25.
Brodribb, G., 1979, 'A survey of the tile from the Roman bath-house at Beauport Park, Battle, E. Sussex', Britannia, 10, 139-56.
Brodribb, G., 1980, 'A further survey of stamped tiles of the Classis Britannica', Sussex Archaeological Collections, 118, 183-96.
Brodribb, G., 1987, Roman bricks and tile (Gloucester).
Bmlet, R., 1989, 'The continental Litus Saxonicum', in V Maxfield (ed.), The Saxon Shore. A Handbook (Exeter), 45-77.
Bushe-Fox, J.P., 1949, Fourth Report on the Excavations of the Roman Fart at Richborough Kent, Rep. Res. Comm. Soc. Antiq. London, 16, London.
Crowley, N. and Betts, I.M., 1992, 'Three Classis Britannica stamps from London',
Britannia, 23, 218-22.
Cunliffe, B.W. (ed.), 1968, Fifth Report on the Excavations of the Roman Fort at Richborough, Kent, Rep. Res. Comm. Soc. Antiq. London, 23, London.
Cunliffe, B.W, 1980, 'Excavations at the Roman Fort at Lympne, Kent 1976-78', Britannia,
11, 227-88.
Frere, S.S., 1991, 'Roman Britain in 1990', Britannia, 22, 291.
Keller, P., 1982, 'Rescue excavations in Folkestone from 1973. Site 1- East Wear Bay, 1973', KentArchaeol. Rev., 69, 207-14.
Lyne, M., nd, 'Roman Wight' (unpubl.).
Mason, D.J.P., 2003, Roman Britain and the Roman navy (Stroud). Parfitt, K., 2010, 'Folkestone Roman Villa', KAS Newsletter, 87, 14-15.
Parfitt, K., 2011, 'Roman Britain in 2010, Folkestone', Britannia, 42, 394.
Parfitt, K., 2012, 'The Rocky Road to the Iron Age: excavations at Folkestone Roman Villa, 2011', KAS Newsletter, 92, 2-4.
Peacock, D.P.S, 1977, 'Bricks and tiles of the 'Classis Britannica'; petrology and origin',
Britannia, 8, 235-48.
Percival, J., 1976, The Roman Villa (London).
Philp, B.J., 1981, The excavation of the Roman Forts of the Classis Britannica at Dover 1970-1977, Kent Monograph Series No. 3 (Dover).
Philp, B.J., 1982, 'Romney Marsh and the Roman fort at Lympne', KentArchaeol. Rev.,
68, 175-191.
Philp, B.J., 1989, The Roman House with Bacchic Murals at Dover, Kent Monograph Series No. 5 (Dover).
Philp, B.J., 2014, Discoveries and excavations across Kent, 1970-2014, Kent Monograph Series No. 12 (Dover).
Rigold, S.E., 1972, 'Roman Folkestone Reconsidered', Archaeologia Cantiana, Lxxxvn, 31-42.
Salway, P., 1981, Roman Britain (Oxford History of England, Oxford).
Warry, P., 2006, Tegulae, their manufacture and use in Roman Britain, BAR British Series, 417 (Archaeopress).
Winbolt, S.E., 1925, Roman Folkestone (London).
308
image
BOOK REVIEWS
Digging at the Gateway. The Archaeology of the East Kent Access (Phase II). By Phil Andrews, Paul Booth, A.P. Fitzpatrick and Ken Walsh. Oxford Wessex Archaeology Monograph No. 8, 2015: Volume 1: The Sites. 532 pp., b/w and colour illustrations, maps and figures throughout. Hardback £30. ISBN 978-0- 9574672-4-8; Volume 2: The Finds, Environmental and Dating Reports. 618 pp., b/w and colour illustrations, maps and figures throughout. Hardback, £30. ISBN 978-0-9574672-2-4.
Two hard-bound volumes report investigations by a joint venture of two archaeological units, Oxford and Wessex, prior to the construction of the East Kent Access road on the Isle ofThanet, 2009 to 2011.The 4 mile (6.5km) road was routed, west to east, south of Manston airfield, then a southerly descent with an easterly spur towards Ramsgate along the Ebbsfleet Peninsula which until relatively recently was flanked by the former Wantsum Channel as well as Pegwell Bay. Considerable archaeological potential was already recognised in a landscape associated with events such as Caesar's incursions 55-54 BC, Claudius' landing of 43 AD, the tradition ofHengist andHorsa's arrival in 449, and 597, disembarkation of Augustine's mission of conversion.
Each volume commences with essentially identical sections providing context including: topography, geology and landscape characterisation; preliminary surveys and fieldwork; the 'strip, map and sample' excavation methodology em ployed, informed by research designs; the zonation of the excavations along the route; the Cl4 strategy; and community engagement. Volume 1 provides the narrative detailing and assessing the excavation results in chronological order, integrating a synthesis of data from the extended specialist contributions in Volume 2 which contains twenty-one chapters detailing a range of post-excavation analyses.The impracticality of total excavation was managed by continuous GIS based assessment of the features revealed by comprehensive stripping adjusting sampling and excavation priorities in the context of the research design.
There was minimal evidence prior to the early Neolithic which was represented by clusters of pits indicating transient settlement within a landscape containing monumental interrupted ditch enclosures. Emmer wheat, possibly spelt, and flax grains, are present, dating around or slightly before the mid-fourth millennium BC. Later Neolithic activity is limited to a burial and flint work suggesting a Bronze Age ring ditch had earlier antecedents.
Ten Early Bronze Age ring ditches date between c.2000 and 1500 BC. Evidence for associated cremations and inhumations survived at many, with the enclosed area of five rings containing graves likely to be contemporary with initial use. Grave goods from two burials indicated distant, including cross-Channel contact. Little evidence was found for contemporary settlement. Limited evidence in the
309
image
REVIEWS
Mid Bronze Age for the creation of an ordered agricultural landscape defined by field system ditches and drove-ways becomes more extensive in the Late Bronze Age with indications of settlements and structures. One ring ditch enclosing an inhumation grave dates to the Middle Bronze Age with other inhumations and cremations of Late Bonze age date clustering in cemeteries. Two hoards of Late Bronze Age metalwork, one comprising two gold penannular bracelets, the other fragments of copper alloy implements and ingots were found on the Ebbsfleet Peninsula adding to the concertation of hoards already known and supporting the view that the Isle was an important landfall for metalworking exchange networks. Succeeding Iron Age centuries saw intensification of agricultural management and settlement. There were a number of noteworthy discoveries. At one settlement circular buildings were excavated, remarkably apparently the first such structures of Iron Age date recorded in Thanet. Within a ditched trapezoidal enclosure there was a square sunken building leading to speculation on the basis of analysis of material culture and faunal remains that at some point a high status settlement might have acquired characteristics of a sanctuary. Treatment of the dead demonstrates a predictable range of cultural practices - formal inhumation, disarticulation and some cremation. Oxygen-isotope analysis of teeth from four Middle Iron Age adult burials indicates migration to Thanet in childhood from northern continental latitudes, complementing similar results from Cliffs End Farm, Thanet. Finally, a multi-faceted analysis of segments of a substantial ditch on the former western shore of the Ebbsfleet peninsula, putatively defining a defensive enclosure in excess of 20ha, and of late Iron Age, arguably of mid first-century BC origin, inexorably leads to a tentative suggestion of an association with Julius Caesar's landing. The
other possibility is an oppidum-like site. Research into the discovery continues.
Roughly sub-rectangular sunken structures become the norm for low status settlement from the later 1st century AD, construction spanning the Roman centuries but with fewer late examples. The alignment of field enclosures and tracks is broadly maintained from the late Iron Age. The economy was agriculturally based with evidence for craft activities and salt production. The evidence is worked hard to demonstrate some early military influence from the Richborough bridgehead: for example, perhaps a Claudian re-use of the possible mid-first century AD defensive work on the Ebbsfleet peninsular; a reduction in the proportion of cattle bones recovered equating with demand from occupying forces and then an urban population; and a modest total of metal objects with potential military associations although often not closely dateable. Ceramics relied heavily on local and regional production although, as in the later Iron Age, the area's geographical location resulted in the significant presence of imported wares. A range of mortuary practices was recorded representative of those generally known for the Romano British period. The human remains provide some data with regard to demographics and pathology.
Four Anglo-Saxon sunken buildings used in the later sixth to seventh century were identified; a grouping of three may represent a single short-lived settlement or successive phases of building. Around 1km away was a broadly contemporary clustering of graves with 54 inhumations, 40 of the graves containing grave goods. A second settlement dating to the eighth century was defined by two groups of pits and post holes possibly indicating built structures. The pits were remarkable
310
image
REVIEWS
for large deposits of marine shell fish with hearths in the v1c1mty suggesting processing for redistribution rather than immediate local consumption. A cemetery of 24 graves was close-by only one of which contained grave goods. Little late Anglo-Saxon activity was noted.
The principal medieval activity relates to two farmsteads on the Ebbsfleet peninsula defined by ditches, gullies, and fence lines, in use between the eleventh and fifteenth centuries. The latest structures were Word War II trenches.
Overall the results tend to confirm or refine existing knowledge rather than introducing significant information resulting in novel perspectives. There are, of course, exceptions in terms of various discoveries noted above for the middle Iron Age; the possible identification offeatures associated with Julius Caesar's landing, and a Mid Anglo-Saxon site focused on processing shellfish. The project certainly provides a major expansion in the range of quality data and assemblages and its true value will be seen over time through comparison with other recent major excavations on Thanet, for example at Monkton and Thanet Earth. Full publication of the latter will surely provide scope for a considered re-evaluation of most aspects of Thanet's archaeology.
Set against its commendably prompt appearance, the narrative of the archaeology in Volume 1 is not exactly a straightforward read. Admittedly reporting on a large project of complexity is never likely to produce an easy read! However, a little editorial forethought could have been helpful in a number of respects. For example, while an overall summary is provided, a consistently formatted summary of the results for each of Chapters 2-6, Volume 1 would have been helpful, as would clarity as to where aspects of the Late/Later Iron Age are dealt with. For example, would consideration of the import of the Ebbsfleet defensive enclosure have been better placed in Chapter 5, rather than 4? Given that the route provides an overview across landscapes from sea-level to the chalk ridge, there is no summative consideration of any differential patterns of activity. The inclusion of page numbers within cross-referencing between chapters also would have been helpful. And the length of some discursive sections is probably not warranted when in effect the excavation results do not hugely modify previously commonly rehearsed positions. Having noted this, modest perseverance with Volume 1 yields a satisfactory level of detail on the results supported by pertinent maps, clear plans and coloured photos well-articulated with text, and of course specialist reports in Volume 2 when necessary.
ANTHONY WARD
Sea Eagles of Empire: The Classis Britannica and the Battles for Britain. By Simon Elliott. 223 pp., b/w plates and maps. History Press 2016. Hardback. £25. ISBN 978-0-7509-6602-3.
Tangible evidence for the Classis Britannica in Britain in the forms of epigraphy, archaeologically incontrovertible Fleet bases, or ancient literary sources is tantalisingly limited; Boulogne as the fleet HQ is better evidenced. Consequently, scholars tend to divide into two camps: minimalists, who take a cautious approach and see no convincing evidence for the concerted involvement of the Classis Britannica
311
image
REVIEWS
in Britain beyond activities in and around the English Channel and assistance in the construction of Hadrian's Wall, when the scale of the task required all hands so to speak, and maximalists who see the Fleet as a major player in the initial conquest and, subsequently, the expansion and maintenance of imperial power in Britannia.
Simon Elliott, with academic credentials in both archaeology and military history, is definitely one of the latter. He retells the story of the creation of Britannia from the viewpoint of a naval historian, bringing his knowledge of military strategy to bear as he examines the potential roles of the Classis Britannica in that process.
An introductory chapter briefly outlines the historical background as well as sources and principles for understanding naval operations around Britain in the Roman period. Next, he discusses the development of Roman naval power and of the regional fleets, Roman maritime technology, and the command structure, manpower and infrastructure of the fleets. The history of the Classis Britannica itself is then placed in the wider context of the Roman military presence in Britain, before two chapters which discuss the military and civilian roles that can be deduced for the British Fleet. These, alongside more specifically military functions, included communications, information gathering, transport and supply duties and involvement in engineering projects (e.g. roads) and mineral resource procurement. As far as Kent is concerned, Elliott argues that ragstone quarrying in the Medway Valley was run by the Fleet on behalf of the state.
The following three chapters describe the roles played by the Classis Britannica, including the invasion force which arguably became that fleet, both in the initial conquest of Britain and in the subsequent maintenance of military control of the province. In the absence of direct historical sources for most post-conquest movements ofthe Fleet itself, as opposed to the land campaigns it is argued to have supported, much ofthis is deduced from his knowledge ofmilitary strategy and the distribution ofcoastal installations and potential harbour sites. The last substantive chapter outlines the turbulent political, economic and social circumstances of the third century AD during which the Classis Britannica disappears from the historical and archaeological record.
Its merits to one side, the volume has gone to print without sufficient attention being paid to checking and editing; there are many typographical errors, particularly in respect to bibliographic details and Latin terminology. Some secondary sources could perhaps have borne more scrutiny and in his undoubted enthusiasm for his subject, Elliott sometimes fails to flag sufficiently what is deduction, albeit often reasonable deduction, given acceptance of the initial thesis, from that for which there is archaeological proof or historical source.
ELIZABETH BLANNING
Medieval Town and Augustinian Friary: Settlement c. 1325-1700. Canterbury Whitefriars Excavations 1999-2004. By Alison Hicks et al. xvi + 382 pp, 199 figures, 105 plates. The Archaeology of Canterbury New Series Vol. V II, 2015. Paperback £40. ISBN 978-1-870545-30-3.
This substantial volume is one of four to emerge from the very extensive urban excavations at the Canterbury Whitefriars sites. It will be joined by a further two
312
image
REVIEWS
detailing the periods from Oto 750, and 750 to 1325 AD, and a companion volume looking in detail at the full range of finds from all three volumes.
The sheer extent of the 18 excavations involved (an overall area of some 200 x 100m) ensures that this will be a very significant contribution to our understanding of Canterbury's medieval development. Its particular strength lies in the fact that the archaeology of more than fifty per cent of an entire religious precinct can be balanced with a secular zone of tenements, allowing the incremental evolution of the friary to be seen clearly in its wider context of existing and new urban development.
As ever in urban contexts, the story is fragmented and complex, not aided by the loss, unrecorded, of some key areas of the friary to really quite recent (1971) developments. However, Hicks and her team successfully draw the lines of evidence together and present the narrative in a logical manner. After an introduction (Part 1), the excavated evidence (Part 2) is presented in three sections: the friary, the adjacent tenement zones, and the post 1538 urban development. Each coherent element is considered separately and its evolution charted over time. This is followed by an overall discussion (Part 3) which pulls the key aspects of the excavations together, a synthesis of the complementary documentary evidence (Part 4), and a series of summaries of finds and environmental evidence (Parts 5-9).
There are numerous, and generally clear, plans and photographs to help navigation, including some judicious use of colour, and a number of very helpful synthetic plans and land-use diagrams to tie the complex evolution together.
What emerges is an important story at both a national and a local level. Taking the friary first, there is a potential confusion to be cleared up straight away. Although the site and the friary are referred to throughout as the Whitefriars, this is an Augustinian friary. The true White Friars, the Carmelites, never settled in Canterbury. The archaeology therefore adds substantially to the few excavated Augustinian houses such as Leicester, London and a handful of others. Among the elements studied are the church, cloisters, east range, south range, dormitories, warming room, infirmary hall and cloister, kitchen, and outer court y ards and buildings. Of particular note to this reviewer are: the evidence for an early, modest church pre-dating the more conventional plan of nave, walking place and chancel; the infirmary/warming room complex, well-preserved on account of its semi sunken construction; the excellent sequences of kitchens running from the 1320s to the dissolution of the house in 1538; and the evidence for the use of the outer court for waste disposal, some horticulture and drainage. Accompanying the structural sequence are some important artefact groups including window glass evidencing two(?) fourteenth-century glazing programmes, large pottery assemblages, and some glass vessels including urinals found with ceramic jugs possibly used for the same purpose. A wide range of ecofactual material was recovered, providing an excellent window into both environmental and dietary conditions in the friary. Finally, the process of demolition following the Dissolution can be tracked clearly across most of the site.
Adjacent to the friary, and indeed at times indivisible from it physically, is a zone of ten tenement plots and two lanes, fronting on the north on to St George's Street and thus presumably in key locations for trade. The extent to which these tenements were under the direct management of the friary is unclear, but it certainly
313
image
REVIEWS
owned a number of them, the lay cemetery encroached upon them, and one is scant metres from the church wall. They saw repeated redevelopment, especially from the early fifteenth century, such that the archaeologists could identify dozens of individual significant or entire rebuildings. Internal floors, hearths and subdivisions accompany clear evidence of yards and pits, combining to present a very useful and well-preserved window into the piecemeal evolution of a Canterbury street frontage.
The post-Dissolution story is broadly one of two halves: open ground, possibly gardens, over most of the former friary; and unbroken redevelopment of the tenements adjacent, showing how the urban fabric was affected by the 'shadow' of the former religious house.
There are inevitably some niggles. Some of the colour doesn' t work too well (e.g. Fig. 45); relevant documentary research could have been brought more effectively into the period discussions or summaries instead of following the main synthesis; and the environmental material could perhaps have been made to work harder in the discussions. However, this is a significant body of results and should be drawn by others into wider academic studies of Canterbury' s history, English urban development and the study of religious houses. It is a testament to development led archaeology, to its sponsors and to the team who have delivered it.
BARNEY SLOANE
Early Medieval Kent. Ed. Sheila Sweetinburgh. Kent History Project Volume 10. 347 pp., 11 colour, 2 b/w, 11 line illustrations. Boydell Press, 2016. Hardback, £50.
ISBN 9780851155838.
This book is the tenth, and final, publication in the Kent History Project and is a companion to Later Medieval Kent, which was published in 2010. Both volumes provide much needed syntheses of current historical and archaeological research into Kent's rich and fascinating history. Early Medieval Kent is particularly welcome for finally opening up the complex and more inaccessible history of the county before the Norman Conquest, which still forms a natural watershed in historical writing. In this, it is highly successful, drawing out the numerous social, religious and material continuities which are often lost in narratives of the impact of the invasion from Normandy in 1066.
The volume opens with a helpful introductory essay by the editor, Sheila Sweetinburgh, providing an overview of changes in lordship, rural and urban settlement patterns, and the development of the church in Kent, all themes which underpin much of the detailed research in the following eleven chapters. The book closes with an extremely thorough and invaluable bibliography of medieval Kent history, which will be welcomed by scholars and more general readers alike.
Chapters One to Four offer a valuable and coherent picture of the pattern of development in Kent, starting with Andrew Richardson's first-class synthesis of research into the county's development before AD 800. His use of a range of evidence, especially archaeological finds, early charters and surviving place names, is accompanied by a sensitive interpretation of current ideas, which replaces the former 'Jutish' foundation myth of Kent with a more nuanced and
314
image
REVIEWS
carefully argued series of possibilities that reflect the available evidence. This is followed by two detailed essays by Gill Draper on early colonisation and the development of towns, which draw on an impressive range of evidence, including the Domesday Book and the Textus Rojfensis, to demonstrate how the county's landscape influenced its subsequent settlement. Her examination of urban development reinforces this analysis, providing fascinating detail on the development of trade and industry in individual towns, including some smaller settlements in north and central Kent and Romney Marsh.
Stuart Brookes focuses on the two phases of 'Viking age' Kent, examining both the impact of the raids themselves and the responses of the population to these events. Openly acknowledging that much of the county's development in the ninth to eleventh centuries was not necessarily directly linked to Viking incursions, he nevertheless provides a compelling account of the military responses of local and regional leaders to the Norse raids, drawing on evidence from charters, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, the Burghal Hidage, place names and coinage, and outlining the gradual absorption of the county into the kingdoms of Mercia and then Wessex.
Viking Kent is followed by an elegant essay by Hilary Powell, which reinterprets evidence from early hagiography to illuminate the relationship between saints' cults and the early religious foundations from which they originated. Charting their relationship with the landscapes of Kent, she then demonstrates how these early localised saints were either abandoned with the arrival of the Normans or were increasing assimilated by the monastic houses, their miracles re-apportioned from the experience of the laity to that of the religious, until their recognition as monastic assets was superseded again by the major cult of St Thomas Becket.
In Chapter Six the late Nicholas Brooks, provides a fascinating examination of five early charters of Canterbury cathedral, one from each of the seventh to eleventh centuries. Nicely illustrated, this short examination demonstrates how much can be gleaned from the subject, form and meaning of these manuscripts to illuminate early medieval life in Kent and beyond. Of particular interest are the conclusions that these charters show some of the complexity of Kent's relationships with its overlords beyond the county's boundaries and the astonishingly variable quality of scribal literacy during this early period.
Diane Heath and Mary Berg then consider aspects of the church, covering monastic culture and the influence of Anglo-Norman patronage on churches in Kent. Berg suggests that Norman architecture was initially intended to reinforce their political dominance, and charts the close links maintained by those who held lands in both Normandy and England, which promoted the spread of Norman influences in English ecclesiastical architecture.
Berg then collaborates with Paul Bennett to consider the history of Canterbury in the eleventh century, moving from the Viking siege of l0ll to the Norman Conquest of 1066, and providing a detailed analysis of the physical state of the city before and after these events. This is followed by Jake Weekes' synthesis of detailed archaeological evidence with William Urry's well-known reconstruction of the topography of Canterbury in the twelfth century. This essay considers in particular the methodological problems of the task, highlighting the difficulty of drawing robust conclusions from the fragmentary archaeological data which often
315
image
REVIEWS
results from piecemeal urban development, and provides a useful reminder that collating disparate evidence is a complex and problematic process.
The problems of interpreting patchy evidence are also acknowledged in a short but clear essay by John Cotter on Kentish pottery, which summarises the current state of knowledge on this often ephemeral material, noting three broad categories of ceramics and their relative distribution across the county. The final chapter considers an entirely different body of evidence, that of Kentish place names. Compiled by Sheila Sweetinburgh from research by Paul Cullen, this provides a fascinating list of components of place names, with their etymology and modem examples of their use with which many readers will be familiar, besides one or two detailed analyses of individual river names, including the Beult and the Stour. Early Medieval Kent is a very valuable and timely contribution to Kentish history. Inevitably there is some cross-over and repetition of events between some essays, which is most apparent when reading the volume as a single work. Most readers are unlikely to treat this volume in this way, however, and there is such richness in the contents that this drawback is worth overlooking in what is
otherwise a compelling and fascinating collection.
REBECCA WARREN
The Royal Heads Bells of England and Wales. By Michael Baron, Ph.D. 2015. Copies available £10 (including p+p) from Dr J.M. Baron, 1 The Old School House, Church Street, Eastry, Sandwich, Kent, CT13 0GJ. Tel 01304-614032.
Michael Baron and his family moved to Eastry in 1988, to a house which had been formed from part of the redundant old village school building. At the time he was working in the Financial Services industry. He studied with the Open University and later as a postgraduate student at the University of Kent, culminating in the award of PH.D. in 1996. After retiring he lectured in Space Sciences at the University until ill health intervened.
Needing an interest he decided to research the history ofthe old school at Eastry. During this work he came across the school bell which had been removed many years before from its position high on a gable end, to the village church and was being used in the bell tower as a 'table-top' demonstration bell by the bellringers. The bell is 14.5in, (37cm) in diameter and carries an inscription AVE MARIA GRACIA. It appears to be much older than the school's foundation. Although undated, the inscription suggests it had been cast in the fourteenth or fifteenth century as a Sanctus bell. Baron was intrigued by part ofthe decoration on the bell
- two small cast images of crowned heads.
Bell inscriptions are made by the use of metal stamps being pressed into the mould of the bell before casting. Often these stamps have been passed down and used by a succession of founders. Baron looked for information on the decorative motif of a 'Royal Head' but found no published literature to help. Thus his desire to find out more about the Eastry school bell led him to undertake a study himself of a very particular decoration on bells.
The nineteenth and earlier twentieth century saw the publication by antiquarians of studies of bells in a number of counties. These invariably include a list of bells,
316
image
REVIEWS
details of their inscriptions and founders. Using these and more recent online resources, plus many enquiries, Baron has been able to put together a list of all the surviving 'Royal Heads' bells in England and Wales. He has found 142 in 30 of the 52 counties.
He has identified three types of 'Royal Heads' images and has suggested who they may represent, and thus the dates of the bells. A greater incidence of the bells in some areas of the country has also led him to suggest where the foundries were located.
Baron decided on a novel way of publishing his research. It is in the form of a folded map, the size of the familiar OS maps, with illustrations and an inventory of the bells he located. There are instructions on the use of the map and suggestions for further research. Baron feels that the story of the 'Royal Heads' bells is not yet fully discovered. His original quest to find out why such a bell, the only example in Kent, should be in Eastry remains unfulfilled.
He is in a long tradition of people who have realized the importance and richness of elements of history 'hidden in plain sight' and is to be commended for his tenacity, during nine years' research, as well as for all aspects of his innovative publication.
HAZEL BASFORD
Malting and Malthouses in Kent. By James M. Preston. Amberley, 2015. 92 pp., 100 drawings and photographs. Paperback, £14.00. ISBN 978 1 4456 5306 8
(print); ISBN 978 1 4456 5307 5 (ebook)
Jim Preston is best known for his Industrial Medway, privately published in 1977. This reviewer doubts he would disagree that it was altogether more substantial in scale and scope than this new book.
Malt is made from barley. Beer is made from malt, hops and water. Thus the history of malt and malthouses is inextricably mixed with that of brewing, whether in terms of ownership, or co-location of buildings, changes in taste and demand, management skills, and daily operations. But what may have been autonomous enterprises in the eighteenth century tended either to merge with associated businesses or to go out of business, as the brewing industry consolidated in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. This process took place across the country. Preston's book makes it abundantly clear that Kent was no different.
Kent is reckoned to have supplied roughly half of London's imports of malt in the early seventeenth century. Thereafter, in terms of barley production, it lost ground to East Anglia. By the twentieth century, Kent's brewers imported malt from overseas, just as they imported hops. Preston tells us that Thanet, where some of the finest barley grew, now finds it more profitable to grow cauliflowers. He might have mentioned that cauliflowers are fast giving way to shopping malls and housing estates.
The book is something of a gazetteer of malt in Kent. It gives the all important map references to the county's malthouses where they still exist, and uses old town maps to show the location of those that did not survive. Preston has no doubt found most of them. The book makes good use of drawings and photographs that
317
image
REVIEWS
fill the equivalent of fifty-one of the ninety-two pages. The images show that early malthouses in the county seem not to have had any external distinguishing features and that they now make smart country homes. Some of the later ones, on the other hand, were built on an industrial scale. Most notable among these is Rigden's kiln, malt store and malthouse in Faversham, c.1880 which now houses Tesco's. (Reviewer's note: Rigden's brewery was taken over by Fremlin's of Maidstone, itself taken over by Whitbread. Whitbread has since exited brewing and now owns and operates Premier Inns and the Costa coffee chain, a wondrous example of the evolution within what was once one of the country's most important industries. Sic transit gloria mundi.)
A most surprising absentee from the bibliography is Christine Clark's British Malting Industry since 1830 (1998), the best and most complete national history of the industry. Perhaps Preston discovered that it contains nothing about malting in Kent, and saw the gap in the market.
PETER TANN
Capability Brown in Kent. Kent Gardens Trust, 2016. 116 pp., b/w and colour maps, prints and photographs. Paperback £9.50. ISBN 978-0-9934044-0-5.
This attractive publication, supported by the KAS, is one of many around the country published in 2016 to mark the tercentenary of Lancelot 'Capability' Brown's birth. The Kent Gardens Trust, chaired by Elizabeth Cairns, has done a very thorough investigative study into the estates with which Brown was involved in Kent. They actually had meagre pickings to look at, since he did not work extensively in Kent and the only significant garden still visible as he intended is the Chilham Castle Estate. The other four gardens whose development he contributed to were Ingress, Leeds Abbey, Valence andNorth Cray Place. Brown's role in Kent was often to work with other architects and designers or to continue the work of earlier developers of the landscape garden.
'Ingress: The Contribution of Capability Brown and William Chambers' highlights the work Brown did with Chambers and, in trying to distil the separate work of each, Liz Logan and Hugh Vaux have studied the history of the estate, house and grounds from the mid-seventeenth century. The property was acquired by John Calcraft, 'an army agent, a political fixer and an opportunist', in 1772 and he set about major works with Brown and Chambers. But he also acquired land in the wider area ofNorthfleet and at Leeds Abbey.
In 'Leeds Abbey: A Hidden Brown Landscape', we learn that little remains of Brown's work, but as Hugh Vaux says, 'visit in winter when the stinging nettles and brambles have died back and suddenly the ghost of the landscape is there just as it was depicted in the Ordnance Survey drawings of 1797'. Historical maps, among other documentary and visual sources, have been used to great effect throughout this volume.
The Ancient seat of Valence near Westerham ('Valence: A Landscape Improved') was extensively changed by Brown and the architect Henry Holland, making use of the abundant water features already established in the grounds. Much earth moving was required, including to build a new island in one of the lakes. Beverley
318
image
REVIEWS
and Paul Howarth argue that Valence and Brown's improvements benefited greatly from the earlier enclosures and the agricultural revolution. Much of Valence has had to give way to housing estates and golf course, but the natural and improved water courses, together with the resourcefulness of the authors have ensured that the essence of much of Brown's work is still identifiable in the landscape.
Elizabeth Cairns and Cilla Freud say in 'Chilham Castle: A Fine Landscape Improved' that unlike at Valence, 'Brown demonstrated his genius at Chilham largely through what he did not do'. He believed there was little needed to enhance an already 'well-composed landscape', the result of enclosure by Sir Dudley Digges in the early seventeenth century. Brown restricted his work to removing the more functional parts of the estate to clear the longer view.
The last of the estates studied, 'North Cray Place and Brown's Influence on Nearby Estates' is also still visible in its relationship to the River Cray, and Brown's Five Arch Bridge, where the estate has remained a public open space, contracted by the spread of outer London development and the destruction of the houses at North Cray Place and Foot's Cray Place. Geraldine Moon's and Mike O'Brien's study has shown that Brown's work at these two closely linked estates influenced the work of later developers at the nearby gardens of Danson and Vale Mascal.
For the gardener or those interested in garden history, there may be a little disappointment at the content of this volume, but the insight into Brown's career and of the work of his contemporaries give a depth and breadth to our understanding of the landscape garden, and for the local and social historian there is much of interest. Each of the chapters is prefaced with maps and the contextual history and landscape of the estates set the scene for a discussion of Brown's role and his professional and personal business dealings with the owners. His work in Kent was not on the scale of his major signature landscapes at Croome or Stowe, but then Kent had never been the natural environment for many large aristocratic estates. Nevertheless, this handful of smaller Kentish landed estates benefited from Brown's experience and reputation.
ELIZABETH EDWARDS
Zeal Unabated: The Life of Thomas Fletcher Waghorn (1800-1850). By Andrew Ashbee. 316 pp., b/w and colour illustrations. Privately published, 2016. Paperback,
£15. ISBN 978 0 9507207 8 4.
Waghorn was the founder of the 'Overland Route' to India in the 1830s, before when most, but not all, people sailed around the Cape. In 1819, the East India Company (EiC), which controlled all the routes between India and Africa, established a service by ship from Bombay to Cosseir, on the Egyptian coast of the Red Sea. From Cosseir travellers proceeded west across the desert to Ghenna by camel and then down the Nile to Alexandria. The journey was characterised by the risk of prolonged delay in the Red Sea due to the monsoon, by political instability, by quarantine restrictions in case of an outbreak of plague, and much discomfort. Waghorn's route, on the other hand, offered steam boats, better able to battle the monsoons, security due to his friendship with Mehemit Ali, the Pasha of Egypt, and less time in the saddle. This was because his route bypassed Cosseir on
319
image
REVIEWS
the way to Suez at the northern end ofthe gulf, and thence to Cairo, in armchairs strapped to the backs of donkeys.
At Port Tewfik, at the southern end ofthe Suez Canal, was 'a colossal bust with a bronze bas-relief ofWaghorn surveying the desert on a camel, attended by a train of Orientals'. But this was destroyed in 1956. De Lesseps, the French builder of the canal, said that 'it was to Waghorn alone that he was indebted for the original idea of forming the Suez Canal'. There is also a fine statue in Chatham (1888). Ashbee believes that Waghorn deserves to be better known; he has evidently spent years researching his subject.
Waghorn joined the Navy and passed the navigation exams at sixteen, 'the youngest midshipman who did not study at the Naval College however passed as Lieutenant for Navigation'. But he was forty-two before he was given the rank. At nineteen, he volunteered for the EiC, and was assigned to the Bengal Pilot Service, and saw action in the Bengal War 1824-26. The arrival in Indian waters ofthe first English paddle steamer Enterprise caught his imagination: he 'had his attention first turned to the question of steam navigation on board the Enterprise, as pilot, in 1826'.
In 1830, still in the pay of the EiC, Waghorn experienced a particularly long journey from England to Bombay via Cosseir. It took 145 days, 90 ofwhich due to delays. He argued that the introduction ofa steam-boat to Suez would be quicker and more reliable, but the EiC continued to recommend the Cosseir route for travellers. Waghorn resigned in 1831. Astell, an EiC director, recorded the reason being 'that he may be better enabled to promote the object of steam navigation' between England and India. Recalling the event some time later, Waghorn was less diplomatic: 'I tell you, Astell, that I shall stuffthe overland route down your throat before you are two years older'.
At thirty-two, Waghorn rejoined the Navy as midshipman and passed for Lieutenant of Seamanship. It seems that his berth with the Navy was an accom modation, primarily for reasons ofpublic relations. In April 1834, he met with the Pasha's minister, who told him 'that the Pasha was ready to throw open Egypt so that British merchants might trade through it'. Waghorn went on to cultivate an important relationship with the Pasha.
As a result ofhis 'impetuous and impatient attempts to set up an infrastructure for the Overland Route', Waghorn brought India closer to the mother country, down from about three months to Bombay to about 35 days. His stated aim was to carry goods, money etc. and the forwarding ofpassengers by the best means, in the most economical manner. In this, 'Waghorn & Co.' benefited from the lethargy of officialdom from government, the Post Office and the Peninsula Steam Navigation Co..
Ashbee's book is enhanced by the amount ofspace he gives to first hand travel reports by employees and customers: Samuel Bevan, an employee, recorded that Waghorn maintained an abundant supply ofgood water kept cool underground in iron tanks at the seven stations between Cairo and Suez. The traveller might also slake his thirst with the best of ale or beer at a shilling a bottle, or with a bottle from the 'carte des vins' in the dining room. Expectations were so high that one young officer on his way out to India was extremely annoyed that his champagne was un-iced The book is also enhanced by the inclusion of contemporary public
320
image
REVIEWS
assessments of the man, and extracts from Waghom's own pamphlets such as
Egypt as it is in 1837, that promoted the attractions of travel and trade in Egypt.
Like many energetic, tenacious and entrepreneurial types, Waghom could be 'difficult'. He didn't play the game. He was neither deferential nor polite to important people in government, in the East India Company, or in the India Office. The press was on his side. The only really adverse opinion of him came from an American who was his business partner for a few months in 1839. He cited Waghom's 'impostures, his deceptions, his vile propensities, his utter disregard to principle... ', but perhaps we might disregard this rant. Waghom was certainly financially insecure. From 1840, P&O set up its own agency in direct competition with Waghom, but not to the extent of putting him out of business. He was able to write to Lord Aberdeen in 1842 that 'the whole of the Egyptian route is under my control'. Waghom was convinced that he had the Pasha in his pocket and that he could open the door for British interests, politically, militarily and commercially. It seems that the offer was not taken up. The Pasha effectively nationalised the Egyptian assets of both Waghom and the P&O in 1844.
The book is published privately by the author. Another publisher might have chosen to put the image of Waghom's statue in Chatham on the front cover: it shows a young man of action and drive, with his maps under one arm and the other stretching out as if to some far away future. This would be much more eye catching than Hayter's studio portrait (c.1844) and might help boost sales. Why is the title not 'Waghom and the Overland Route to India'? 'Zeal Unabated' is meaningless. And where are the maps? The one that purports to show the desert stations cannot be read with the aid of a powerful magnifying glass; the other two maps are entirely peripheral to the story. The narrative is confusing and the book would certainly have benefited from a good editor and an index. Despite these criticisms, the authenticity of the story carries the reader along.
References to Charles Roach Smith F.S.A. will interest Kent's local historians. Roach Smith felt that Mehemet Ali had acted nobly in keeping the Overland Route open in 1840 despite England being one of the powers fighting against him in successfully restoring Syria to Turkey. Roach Smith decided to commission a medal for the Pasha and was advised to consult Waghom about it. They became friends. He later gave dramatic readings in honour of Waghom at Snodland, where he is buried, and where Ashbee chairs the local history society.
PETER TANN
Drinking in Deal: Beer, Pubs and Temperance in an East Kent Town 1830-1914.
By Andrew Sargent. 288 pp. Over 80 b/w illustrations. BooksEast, 2016. Hardback
£25.00, paperback £20.00 (+£3.00 p+p) from 33, Cobom Street, London E3 2AB. Tel: 020 8981 3980. ISBN 978 1 908304 22 3 and 978 1 908304 20 9.
This is a long and detailed study of what the title says it is. Whilst reading it, the question kept coming to mind: 'do you have to put it all in?'. All historians face it. The answer, of course, is that to know about something, yet leave it out, shows discrimination and self-control. But to leave it out because you don't know about it, does not. In this case, Andrew Sargent clearly knows all about it, and could have
321
image
REVIEWS
left a lot out. It is easy to lose track of the main lines of argument midst all the 'supporting' evidence.
The clues to the book's length lie in the introduction. The author rightly eschews the 'illustrated compendium of public houses past and present' model, and follows instead the example of those who have written about Bradford, Norwich and Portsmouth in offering a 'whole story account of the consumption of beer and the development and functioning of public houses in a specific location'. His chapter headings are instructive: The Business of Brewing; Pubs and Publicans; the Users and Uses of Public Houses; Disorder, Regulation and Bad Behaviour (by far the longest); and Controversies and Closures.
Sargent relies heavily on the content of two local newspapers: the Liberal leaning Deal, Walmer and Sandwich Telegram (1858-1888) and the Conservative supporting Deal, Walmer and Sandwich Mercury (1865 to the present day, but now called the Messenger). The extent of such reliance is reflected in the number of endnotes to each of the five chapters the vast majority relating to items found in the pages of the Telegram or Mercury. It is clear that the author's method was to scour the newspapers for pieces that fit his chosen structure. Possibly he did not think enough about his target reader.
Sargent is very good at putting the East Kent story into its national context. Especially admirable is his chapter on the impact of the temperance movement, showing how changes in social behaviour were reflected by the lawmakers and the consequent tensions between brewers and licensing magistrates in the local courts after about 1870. His bibliography of brewing history contains important recent work at the national and local level, as well as the standard volumes. His acknowledgment of the support he has enjoyed from public and private libraries, museums and archive offices up and down the country reinforce the view that he has made good use of primary sources in addition to newspapers.
Sargent spent a good many years researching and writing this book. It is most unlikely that there will ever be a more complete history of drinking in Deal and East Kent in the 'long' nineteenth century. He is to be congratulated. Cheers!
PETER TANN
The 1830 Farm Labourers' Riots in Kent. By T.L. Richardson. Vi + 106 pp. 14 illustrations. Sandwich Local History Society, 2016. Paperback. ISBN 0-9542424- 6-7.
In this well written but brief study Dr Tom Richardson, formerly of the University of Kent, describes the likely causes and course of the most serious outbreak of rural unrest, the so-called 'Swing' riots of 1830, in Kent. The agrarian protests which began in west Kent, and then spread across the County (a good part of this book concentrates on east Kent) subsequently engulfed areas of southern, eastern, and midland England. In four chapters Richardson surveys rural Kent in the eighteenth century. Were relations between rural workers and their employers as 'harmonious' as he suggests? He then he examines field labour, followed by a discussion of 'the standard of living', a debate in economic and social history to which in the past he has made a valuable contribution. He concludes with a chapter
322
image
REVIEWS
on the actual riots and the retribution that followed. Local audiences in Sandwich, for whom the book is primarily written, will welcome Richardson's skilful analysis of a mass of statistical data to give a strong impression of the wretched lives that so many agricultural labourers endured and which caused many to resort of violence in 1830.
His conclusion is that the riots in Kent were an 'economic movement ... in which the labourers' primary concern was to secure a living wage and bring about an end to rural unemployment' (p. 89). This might have been modified if more recent literature had been consulted, particularly the articles in the special issue of Southern History (2010), and Carl J. Griffin's The Rural War (2012). The result is that the book has a rather old look about it, as if it was written some time ago and merely dusted down for publication. Given the lengthy background devoted to the riots, the final chapter ends rather abruptly. The reader is told little about the consequences of the riots, of their impact on parliamentary reform, the introduction of the New Poor Law, attempts at agrarian unionism in the mid-1830s, the attitude of farmers to further mechanisation, and the question of rural policing. In short did 'Swing', however uncoordinated, gain any results for rural labourers? Another question, one rarely if ever addressed in the weighty literature on 'Swing', is what of the impact of the violence on its victims?
The contemporary illustrations add to the book's usefulness, but the inclusion of photographs of agricultural labourers in the latter part of the nineteenth century seems somewhat out of keeping with events before the development of photography. An index to the book would have been helpful.
DAVID KILLINGRAY
Of the North Kent Marshes. Eds Ian Jackson and Keith Robinson. Privately published, 2016. xviii + 205 pp., b/w and colour maps, illustrations and photographs throughout. Paperback, £20 (£25 inc. p+p) from The Faversham Society, The Fleur de Lis, 10-13 Preston Street, Faversham ME13 8NS. ISBN 978-1-908067-14-2.
Bird-watching meets archaeology and environmentalism meets history in this very unusual and fascinating study of the North Kent Marshes. Underlying all, naturally, is the topography which has been studied in great detail by the authors and editors and not least the artist Billy Childish whose water colours add a further dimension. Ian Jackson's hand drawn, coloured maps convey not only the detail, but also the atmosphere of the Marshes and support the text throughout. From the carefully researched, but concise introductory chapter, 'Prehistory to the Norman Conquest', to the gazetteer of birds and literary and poetry extracts, this study is made by those who observe and absorb with all their senses.
Reclamation throughout the last millennium and sea defences have made the land a focus for innovative engineering works as well as the hard graft of living and farming on the edge and making a livelihood from the sea. The coastline and the Medway estuary were also the focus of military defences for centuries as well as the notorious prison hulks.
The book is divided into four sections: 'The Exploitation of the Marshes', covering the history of the landscape; 'People of the Marshes', a study of the
323
image
REVIEWS
importance of an eclectic range of characters to the life and heritage of the Marshes; 'The Road to Egypt Bay', a study of the small communities, their dwellings and Marsh life; and 'On Beach, Marsh and Seawall', an appreciation of the environment, flora and fauna of the Marsh and coastline. Each, in different ways is a potpourri of the informed, special interests of the authors, personal memoirs, extracts and illustrations. Ian Jackson's chapter in the second section on 'The Medway Embankment in particular Mr Webb's enclosures' exemplifies the style of the volume with an account and analysis of the damaging high tide at the tum of 1904-5 and the effects on the people of Greenborough Marsh, followed by the ultimate failure of the embankment of Mr Webb's re-inclosure from 1875 to 1883. Jackson brings together archaeology, topographical development, local reports and Mr Webb's own 'Inclosures Manuscript', written in order that 'it may in future years be referred to with some interest, as well as be of practical use in other contemplated inclosures'.
This volume is well-produced and has a useful bibliography and index, but would have benefited from a more professional proof-reading.
ELIZABETH EDWARDS
The Wife a/Cobham. By Susan Curran. Lasse Press, 2016. vii+ 217 pp., b/w and colour illustrations throughout. Paperback £18.99. ISBN 978-0-9933069-1-4.
It is very difficult to learn about the lives of individual women in the medieval period, and Susan Curran, who has also written about Margery Paston, admits this in her imaginative biography of Joan, de la Pole, 4th Baroness Cobham (1370- 1432). Joan's relatively long life and, more particularly, her numerous husbands have provided a wide social, political and geographical sphere within which to examine the life of a well-to-do woman. The first marriage at age 10 lasted for 11 years and Curran suggests that thereafter she may have exercised her own choice of her further four husbands. For most readers, and particularly those with an interest in Kent, it is her family links to the Cobham and Cooling estates and her fourth marriage to the notorious Sir John Oldcastle that will be of greatest interest. Curran tell a good story backed by sound research, but for the character and life of Joan herself there is little more than supposition.
Dover s Forgotten Commando Raid, Operation Abercrombie: The Raid on Hardelot. By Philip Eyden. The Dover Western Heights Preservation Society, 2016. 96 pp., b/w illustrations throughout. Paperback, from Dover Museum, Market Square, Dover CT16 lPO. ISBN 978-0-9935562-0-3.
In this detailed account of the Commando 'Abercrombie' assault on Hardelot in April 1942 which set out from the Western Heights, Eyden's aim is to elaborate on the brief official reports which he believes conceal a military and human story which should be told. The result is a very detailed narrative, setting the scene clearly from the original plan in March to the first, abortive, attempt on 19 April and the 'successful' attempt on 21/22 April and the 'grim' journey back to Dover.
324
image
REVIEWS
The No. 4 Commando was supported by the first Canadian division to be attached to such an operation, but they receive relatively short shrift from Eyden. This short volume highlights the difficulty of maintaining strategic planning once action starts and the human cost of such focused military undertakings, but a more general introduction and conclusion setting the raid in the overall strategy of 1942 would have added strength to Eyden's original aim. It is good to see a clear map used to clarify the geography for the reader.
An Oral History ofHorsmonden. Ed. Richard Stubbings. Horsmonden Historical Society, 2016. 312 pp., colour and b/w illustrations throughout. Paperback. ISBN 978-1-5272-6671- l.
The sub-title of this ambitious local history society project, supported by the Allen Grove Local History Fund, is 'a series of personal recollections in their own words by villagers born in the early to mid 20th century'. That is exactly what it is with editorial intervention only for the sake of clarity, and credit must go to Thelma Skinner and her team of interviewers. Although this approach brings an immediacy to the contributions of the thirty-five interviewees collected over six years, in his introduction, Richard Stubbings does admit to its limitations, and recognises that this is not a 'local history', but a fascinating insight into the changes and continuities of Horsmonden village community. As a consequence it will be an invaluable resource for those wishing to examine local social trends. The book has been arranged very sensibly in sections starting with 'Early Memories' and covering all aspects of a village life through school, work and the local economy, leisure and seasonal entertainment, to houses (from which much can be inferred about social status), transport, politics, war and welfare. This makes it a good book to dip into and will give pleasure and a sound resource to many in Horsmonden and beyond, but it does also raise the issue of whether local history societies might usefully consider collecting memories from younger members of communities as well.
325
image
ANNUAL BIBLIOGR APHY OF KENTISH ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORY
Compilers: D. Saunders, E. Finn, Kent History & Library Centre. Contributors: Prehistoric - K. Parfitt; Roman - Dr J. Weekes; Anglo-Saxon - Dr A. Richardson; Modern - Prof. D. Killingray.
A bibliography of books, articles, reports, pamphlets published in the calendar year 2016 unless otherwise stated. (Various of the publications listed below are reviewed in this volume, pp. 309-325).
GENERAL AND MULTI-PERIOD
Betts, P., 'Frittenden Brook: evolution of a landscape', Cranbrook Journal, 27, 3-6. Draper, G., 'New life in towns, c.800-c.1220', in S. Sweetingburgh (ed.), 66-102.
Draper, G., 'Land and Marsh': settlement, colonisation, and consolidation, c.800-1220', in
S. Sweetingburgh (ed.), 43-65.
Dyer, C. (ed.), Farmers, Consumers, Innovators: the world of Joan Thirsk (Hertford: Univ. of Hertford Press).
Fleming, F.,A Persistence of Place.A study of continuity and regionality in the Roman and early Medieval rural settlement patterns of Norfolk, Kent and Somerset (Oxford: BAR 262).
Heath, D., 'Monastic culture in early medieval Canterbury, 597-1220', in S. Sweetingburgh (ed.), 165-187.
Parfitt, K. et al., 'Excavations and other Archaeological Investigations on the Thanet Way,
1990-95',Archaeologia Cantiana, cxxxvn, 37-61.
Ravilious, K., 'The many lives of an English manor house', Archaeology, 69, Jan/Feb 44- 49 [restoration of Knole, Sevenoaks].
Sweetinburgh, S. (ed.), Early Medieval Kent 800-1220, Kent History Project Vol. 10 (Woodbridge: Boydell Press and KCC).
Tritton, P., 'Ledger stones yield clues to 'lost' family histories', Journal of Kent History,
84, 22-26.
Umbers, M., About St Leonard's (Barking: Lulu.corn, 2015) [St Leonard's church, Hythe]. Wallace, L.M. et al., 'Archaeological Investigations of Bourne Park, Bishopsbourne, 2011-
14',Archaeologia Cantiana, cxxxvn, 251-279.
Wright, D., Tracing Your KentAncestors: a guide for family and local historians (Barnsley: Pen & Sword).
PREHISTORIC KENT
Adams, S., 'Boughton Malherbe Bronze Age Hoard Project at Maidstone Museum', KAS Newsletter, 104, 14-16.
327
image
KENTISH BIBLIOGRAPHY 2016
Adolph, A., 'Ancient Kent in Archaeology and Myth', KAR, 200, 13-17.
Anderson-Whymark, H. and Pope, M., Late Quaternary (Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Later Prehistoric) Human Activity in the Darent Valley at Lullingstone Country Park, Eynsford, Kent. Occas. Paper 5. (Portslade, East Sussex: SpoilHeap Publications).
Beresford, F., 'Further Palaeolithic Material from Frindsbury', KAS Newsletter, 104, 4-7. Clewley, G., 'A Mesolithic tranchet axe from Folkestone', KAR, 201, 54-55.
Daniels, A., 'The Allington Pots', KAS Newsletter, 104, 17.
Holman, D., 'A New Classification System for the Flat Linear Potin Coinage', British Numismatic Journal, 86, 1-67. [More than half of this Iron Age coin type comes from Kent.]
May, D., 'A Mesolithic site at Cuxton: Part 3', KAR, 200, 5-8.
Webley, L. and Adams, S., 'Material Genealogies: Bronze Moulds and their Castings in Later Bronze Age Britain', PPS, 82, 323-40. [Includes Kent finds, e.g. Isle of Harty and Boughton Malherbe hoards.]
ROMAN KENT
Bird., D.G. (ed.), Agriculture and Industry in South-Eastern Roman Britain (Oxford: Oxbow Books).
Boast, E. and L. Cunningham, 'The Roman Villa at Minster in Thanet. Part 10: the Bone Objects', Archaeologia Cantiana, cxxxvn, 1-15.
Elliott, S., Sea Eagles of Empire: The Classis Britannica and the Battles for Britain
(Stroud: The History Press).
Lyne, M.A.B., Late Roman Handmade Grog-Tempered Ware Producing Industries in South-East Britain (Oxford: Archaeopress Archaeology).
Pearce, J. and Worrell, S., 'Finds Reported under the Portable Antiquities Scheme',
Britannia, Vol. 47, 387-388.
Ward, A., 'Roman Buildings in Rochester', KAR, 201, 41-48.
ANGLO-SAXON KENT
Bennett, P. and M. Berg., 'Canterbury in the Eleventh Century: a tale of the Viking incursions', in S. Sweetingburgh (ed.), Early Medieval Kent, 800-1220. Vol.10 Kent History Project (Woodbridge: Boydell Press and KCC), 203-225.
Brookes, S., Viking Age Kent, 800-1042', in S. Sweetingburgh (ed.), Early Medieval Kent, 800-1220. Vol.10 Kent History Project (Woodbridge: Boydell Press and Kent County Council), 103-132.
Brooks, N., 'The Early Charters of Canterbury Cathedral', in S. Sweetingburgh (ed.), Early Medieval Kent, 800-1220. Vol.10 Kent History Project (Woodbridge: Boydell Press and Kent County Council) 155-164.
Clewley, G.B., 'Anglo-Saxon glass vessels from Dover', KAR, 200, 18-19.
Philp, B. and Clewley, G.B., 'Discovery of Anglo-Saxon Burials at Horton Kirby. Part l ',
KAR, 201, 49-53.
Powell, H., 'Saints, Pilgrimage and Landscape in Early Medieval Kent, c. 800-1220', in S. Sweetingburgh (ed.), 133-153.
Richardson, A.F., 'What came before': the Kingdom of Kent to 800', in S. Sweetingburgh (ed.), 21-41.
Scull, C. and Naylor, J., 'Sceattas in Anglo-Saxon graves', Medieval Archaeology, 60, 205-241.
S. Sweetingburgh (ed.), Early Medieval Kent, 800-1220, Vol.10 Kent History Project (Woodbridge: Boydell Press and KCC) 21-41.
328
image
KENTISH BIBLIOGRAPHY 2016
Thomas,G.,McDonnell, G.,Merkel,J. and P. Marshall, 'Technology,Ritual and Anglo Saxon Agrarian Production: the biography of a seventh-century plough coulter from Lyminge,Kent',Antiquity, 90,351,742-758.
MEDIEVAL KENT
Allen,M.J. and D. Rudling,Archaeology and Land Use of South East England to 1066
(Oxford: Oxbow Books).
Berg, M., 'The Impact of Anglo-Norman Architecture of Kent Churches', in S. Sweetingburgh (ed.).
Blagg,T.F.C., 'An Architectural Description of the Remnant of the Archbishop's Palace surviving in Court Lodge Farmhouse,Aldington',Archaeologia Cantiana, cxxxvn,288- 294.
Connor,J.,'Confraternity and Commemoration at Christ Church Priory,Canterbury,1290- 1527: the lay community',Archaeologia Cantiana, cxxxvn,281-288.
Cotter,J.,'Pottery in Kent 800-1220: production use and significance',in S. Sweetingburgh (ed.),245-253.
Harwood, B.,Fixer and Fighter: the life of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent, 1170-1243
(Barnsley: Pen & Sword).
Hicks,A.,Medieval Town and Augustinian Friary: Settlement c.1325-1700. Canterbury Whitefriars Excavations 1999-2004 (Canterbury: CAT).
Johnson,M.,Lived experience in the later MiddleAges: studies of Bodiam and other elite landscapes in South-Eastern England (York: Council for British Archaeology).
Lane, R., 'The Medieval to Post-Medieval Vill of Sturry: excavations at the former Fordwich Garage,Water Lane and Franklyn House,High Street,Sturry',Archaeologia Cantiana, cxxxvn,209-235.
Parfitt,K. and Clarke,H.,'Scouring the Conduit Head at Woodnesborough. Investigations into Convent Well,near Sandwich',Archaeologia Cantiana, cxxxvn,127-147.
Shaw,R.,'W hen did Augustine of Canterbury Die?',Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 67, 3,473-491.
Sweetinburgh, S., 'Farming the Kentish Marshlands: continuity and change in the late Middle Ages', in Custom and Commercialisation in English Rural Society: revisiting Tawney and Postan (eds) J.P. Bowen and A.T. Brown (Studies in Regional and Local History Vol. 14),(Hatfield: Univ. Hertfordshire),73-95.
Sweetinburgh, S. (ed.), Early Medieval Kent, 800-1220, Vol.10 Kent History Project (Woodbridge: Boydell Press and Kent County Council).
Swensson, E., 'The Virgin and the Archbishop: a comparative analysis of the cults of Mildred and Augustine at St Augustine's Abbey, Canterbury', Journal of Medieval Monastic Studies, 4 (2015),1-20.
Weekes, J., 'Residues, Rentals and Social Topography in Angevin Canterbury', in S. Sweetingburgh (ed.),227-244.
EARLY MODERN KENT
Bolton,M.,'The Experience of Plague in East Kent 1636-1638',Local Population Studies,
96,9-27.
Curran,S.,The Wife of Cobham (Norwich: Lasse Press). [Account of the five-times married Lady Joan de Cobham.]
Downton,P., The Dutch Raid (Rochester: City of Rochester Society).
Harrington, D., 'Richard Harris, 'Fruiterer to King Henry VIII': some further details gleaned from documentary sources',Archaeologia Cantiana, cxxxvn,295-300.
329
image
KENTISH BIBLIOGRAPHY 2016
Johnson, M., Lived Experience in the Later Middle Ages: Studies ofBodiam and other elite landscapes in South-Eastern England (York: CBA).
Newill, P.L.A., 'The Heraldry of Godinton House. Part II: the Toke family', Archaeologia Cantiana, cxxxvn, 185-208.
Orme, N., 'John Cole (c.1467-1536) and the Origins of Education in Faversham',
Archaeologia Cantiana, cxxxvn, 107-126.
Sparks, M., 'Wyke (or Moat/Mote), near Canterbury, and the Finch family', Archaeologia Cantiana, cxxxvn, 237-249.
Sweetinburgh, S., 'Looking to the Past: the St Thomas Pageant in Early Tudor Canterbury',
Archaeologia Cantiana, cxxxvn, 163-183.
Thomas, D., 'The Hercules Settlers in New England', Archaeologia Cantiana, cxxxvn, 300-302.
Wyatt, G., 'Not as by Law established? Was there a Separatist Movement in Early Modem Thanet?', Archaeologia Cantiana, cxxxvn, 149-162.
MODERN KENT
Allen, P., 'Sir Victor Horsley, 1857 -1916', Cranbrook Journal, 27, 15-17. [Resident of Cranbrook and son of Cranbrook Colony artist John Horsley.]
Ambrose, R., Vinters, Weavering and Grove Green: memories (Maidstone: Robin. Ambrose). Anstee, A.R., 'The Artillery of the Great War: anti-invasion defences of the Swale area of
Kent', Journal ofthe Ordnance Society, 23, 55-79 (2015).
Ardley, N., Swinging the lamp - Thames estuary tidal tales (Oxford: Fonthill Media). Ashbee, A., Zeal Unabated: The Life ofThomas Fletcher Waghorn (1800-1850) Snodland:
Andrew Ashbee).
Austin, D., 'Folkestone Harbour and its Swing Bridge', lnvicta, 87, 6-9.
Baines, T., A Pub on every corner: Gravesend to Higham (Gravesend: Tom Baines). Baker, M.H.C., Trams, Buses & Trolleybuses Past and Present. No.3 Kent (Kettering:
Silverlink Publishing Ltd).
Ball, M., 'WWl Conscription and Exemption: Sevenoaks men at the West Kent Tribunal',
North West Kent Family History Society Journal, 14, 4, 158-161.
Bolton, M., St Laurence in Thanet: story ofa parish (Ramsgate: Ariana Press).
Bolton, M., 'Causes of Death in Ramsgate 1774-1812: the exceptional detail provided by the Rev. Richard Harvey in the Parish Registers of St Laurence', Archaeologia Cantiana, CXXXVII, 17-36.
Boorman, D., Hythe Cricket Week 1894-1939 (Horsham: David Boorman).
Boxall, M., Suffragette Seaside: the Women s Suffragette Movement in Herne Bay (Herne: Herne and Broomfield History Group).
Bruce, S., Breezing down to Broadstairs: early 20th century Broadstairs (Ramsgate: Michaels Bookshop).
Cairns, E. et al., Capability Brown in Kent (York: Kent Gardens Trust).
CAT., 40 years: Canterbury Archaeological Trust, Canterbury s Archaeology 1976-2016
(Canterbury: CAT).
Cole, D. and Phillips, S., Twenty Walks Around Sevenoaks and Tonbridge (Tonbridge: Hayesmoor Press).
Collins, D. (ed.), When we went to Dover: skipper Charlie Hastesfirst-hand account ofthe Hastingsfleets trip in May 1940 (Hastings: OHPS Publications 2015).
Cross, M.D., The History of Paddlesworth Court Farm (Folkestone: St Ursin Press). [A history of the Cross family and the farm dairies 1866-1966.]
Dalton, M. et al., From Ships to Sheep: the story of Smallhythe (Biddenden: YouByYou Books).
330
image
KENTISH BIBLIOGRAPHY 2016
Dennington, G., 'Bromley's struggle for Sunday Cinema', Bromleag, 2, 37, 26-29
Ford, J., 'Thomas Basden and the Royal Arms in St Dunstan's Church' [Cranbrook],
Cranbrook Journal, 27, 7-12.
Gill, A., The Kentish Coast from Whitstable to Hythe: a historical photo album (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2015).
Gunnill, M., 'Evelyn, genius of home front art', Bygone Kent, 37, 6, 24-31. [Early life of Evelyn Dunbar at Rochester, Snodland and Hastingleigh.]
Gunnill, M., 'A reformer who changed the law? Guilty, M'Lud', Bygone Kent, 37, 6, 44-49 [William Garrow (1760-1840), attorney general who resided at Pegwell Bay and coined phrase 'innocent until proved guilty'.]
Harding, P.A., The Hawkhurst Branch Line (Woking: Peter Harding). 3rd edn. Harris, P., Folkestone in 50 buildings (Stroud: Amberley Publishing).
Hart, R., The Golden Age of Folkestone s Cinemas (Uckfield: Millgate Publishing).
Harwood, B., Fixer and Fighter (Barnsley: Pen & Sword). [Account of Hubert de Burgh and the siege at Dover Castle].
Holden, C., Kent Britain s Frontline County (Stroud: Amberley Publishing). Hollingsworth, J.P., And then there was Beer: the story of Kentish breweries (Catrine:
Stenlake Publishing).
Jackson, I. and Robinson, K. (eds), Of the North Kent Marshes (London: L-13 Light Industrial Workshop, 2015).
Joynes, A., Tracking the Major: sketches from the Powell-Cotton Museum (Canterbury: Mickle Print (Canterbury) Limited).
Kelly, B. and Tripp, G., Ramsgate Jewish Cemetery 1872-2016: burial register & map monumental inscriptions and selected obituaries (Ramsgate: B. Kelly and G. Tripp)
Kennett, C., 'Chicken Coop to Manor House; the homes created by inspired carpenter', Bygone Kent, 37, 6, 16-23. [William Gleischner, founder of W.H. Colt at Bethersden and inventor of prefabricated houses.]
Lambert, I., Kent and its Cricketers: at odds with authority (Nottingham: Derby Books). LeGear, R., 'Nineteenth-Century Well Subsidence at St Peter's, Broadstairs', Archaeologia
Cantiana, cxxxvn, 303-304.
Llewellyn, S. and Liss, P. (eds), Evelyn Dunbar: the lost works (London: Liss Llewellyn Fine Art, 2015) [WW2 official war artist who worked and lived in Kent; only female war artist to receive commissions.]
Lyminge Historical Society., Lyminge: a history. Part 5: Lyminge Men Remembered
(Lyminge LHSoc., 2014).
Lyminge Historical Society., Lyminge: a history. Part 7 (Lyminge: LHSoc., 2015). McDougall, P., Secret Chatham (Stroud: Amberley Press).
Mayfield, A., 'World War One Stopline Trench System revealed by LIDAR in Whitehorse Wood, Birling', Archaeologia Cantiana, cxxxvn, 304-306.
Mills, M., Innovation, Enterprise and Change on the Greenwich Peninsula (London: Mary Mills).
Minnis, K., "'The electric Melon": Experiments in electro-horticulture at Sherwood Park, Tunbridge Well's, Garden History, 43, 2 (2015), 256-72.
Mirams, M.D., Old Ramsgate Pubs (Margate: SS & CC Publishing). 3rd rev. edn.
Morieux, R., The Channel: England, France and the construction of a maritime border in the eighteenth century (Cambridge: CUP).
Murray, D., A Childhood at Townsend Farm (Maidstone: D. Murray).
Noble, G., A Richer Dust Concealed: the old boys of Kent College who died in conflict
(Canterbury: Out of the Box Publishing Limited).
Pittman, S., Crockenhill Heritage Trail (Swanley: Crockenhill Parish Council). Preston, J., Kents Industrial Heritage (Stroud: Amberley Press).
331
image
KENTISH BIBLIOGRAPHY 2016
Richardson, T., Sandwich-Gascon Wine Trade (Sandwich: Sandwich Local History Society,2015).
Richardson,T.L.,The 1830 Farm Labourer s Riots in Kent (Sandwich: Sandwich Historical Society).
Rootes,A.,'Smashed: the spy ring that 'seduced' officers into betraying secrets',Bygone Kent, 37,6,8-15. [Spies in Kent leading up to WW l .]
Salter,S.,Ashford: a rare insight (Darlington: Destinworld Publishing Ltd). Sargent,A.,Drinking in Deal: Beer, Pubs andTemperance in an East KentTown 1830-
1914 (London: Bettany Press).
Singleton,T.,'Cranbrook's other Tanyard' Cranbrook Journal, 27,1-3. Smith,M.,A Schoolgirls War (Maidstone: Maidstone Grammar School for Girls).
Smith,V,'If the Kaiser Should Come: defending Kent during the Great War',Archaeologia Cantiana, cxxxvn,63-105.
Stebbings, R.,An Oral History of Horsmonden (Horsmonden: Horsmonden Historical Society).
Stevens,P.,A Look Back at Stone Street, Faversham (Faversham: Faversham Society). Stilwell,R.,The Defence ofThanet and East Kent (1939-1945) (Thanet: Thanet Military
Publications).
Taylor,I., 'Pressure,"subversion" and the politics of ridicule in Sevenoaks,Kent 1881- 1885',Christianity & History Forum Bulletin, 8,39-53.
Taylor,I.,'The whole of the proceedings were very orderly': Gunpowder Plot celebrations, civic culture and identity in some smaller Kent towns,1860-1890', Urban History, 43, 4,517-38.
Thornton, J.,Praise and Applause Meyrick Road Hall Sunday School and Theatre: a history (Sheerness: Jeremy Thornton,2015).
Tritton,P.,W hen Rolls Royce made history on Dover s W hite Cliffs (Dover: St Margaret's History Society).
Turcan,R.,Sittingbourne: the postcard collection (Stroud: Amberley Press). Wallace,R.,East Kent Road Car Company Ltd: a century of service, 1916-2016 (Ramsbury:
The Crowood Press).
Walsh,R.,'Wills & Packham Bricks and Barges',Topsail, 50,28-76. [Brick manufacture in Rainham from 1850 and the new-build barges constructed by Wills & Packham Company.]
Wynn,S.,Gravesend in the Great War (Barnsley: Pen & Sword Military). Wynn,S.,Tunbridge Wells in the Great War (Barnsley: Pen & Sword Military). Young,L.,'The Navy's Top Secret: toast-rack trains painted battleship grey',Bygone Kent,
37,6,32-37. [Transportation of workers in wartime by Davington light railway.]
RECENTLY CATALOGUED ARCHIVES
The following is a selection of material in Canterbury Cathedral Archives, Kent History & Library Centre at Maidstone and Medway Archives and Local Studies Centre which was catalogued in 2016.
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL ARCHIVES
Canterbury City Council
Canterbury City Library: agendas,1939-1951; statistics registers,1900-1947; receipt book, 1900-1914; donation register,1900-1918; correspondence,1910-1918 (CC/A/J/13/7)
332
image
KENTISH BIBLIOGRAPHY 2016
Dean and Chapter
Chapter Act Book, 1977-1984 (DCc-CA)
Glass plate slides of photographs by George Washington Wilson of the Dane John, St Augustine's, Canterbury pilgrims and Canterbury Cathedral, late 19th century (DCc GPSN/33 and 35)
Glass plate slide of Christ Church Gate, late 19th century (DCc-GPSN/36)
Album of Fisk-Moore photographs of the Cathedral and city of Canterbury, late 19th century (DCc-Photo/B/1)
Photographs, prints and postcards of Christ Church Gate, 19th century to 21st century (DCc-Photo/A/30)
Line engraved portrait of Geoffrey Chaucer by Jacobus Houbraken, 1742 (DCc- Prindraw/6/C/7)
Coloured print of Penance of Henry II before Becket's Shrine, 1794 (DCc-Prindraw/7/6)
The Blue Girls of Canterbury by G.A. Storey, 1874 (DCc-Prindraw/2/0/12)
Postcard commemorating the laying of the coping stone of the north-west pinnacle of Bell Harry Tower, c.1908 (DCc-Photo/A/32)
Postcard of statue of St Thomas of Canterbury in Sens, mid-20th century (DCc-Photo/A/31) Ospringe Rural Deanery: Parish magazines, 1915-1945 (DCd-OS)
Parish and Diocese
Ash, St Nicholas: Parish magazines, 2014-2015 (U3-274)
Canterbury, Christ Church Cathedral: Primates Conference visitors book, 2016 (U3-100) Chartham, St Mary: Parish magazines, 2016 (U3-154)
Cheriton, St Martin: Photographs of the church, 20th century; documents relating to restoration, 2001 (U3-148)
Dunkirk, Christchurch: Parish magazines, 1915-1934 (U3-181)
Faversham, St Mary of Charity: Register of baptisms, 1981-2008; Register of banns, 2001- 2008; PCC and APC minutes, 1994-2013; Papers relating to the church, the glebe and the Vicarage, 1873-1962; Papers relating to churchyard trusts and funds, 1873-1952; altered tithe apportionments, 1856-1907 (U3-146)
Folkestone, St Saviour: Parish magazines, 1948-1994 (U3-124)
Harbledown, St Michael: Mothers Union minute books, 1940-1990 (U3-194)
Margate, St John: Parish magazines, 2016; Orders of service and memorial pamphlets, 2016 (U3-140)
Minster-in-Thanet, St Mary: Mothers Union calendar, 1935 (U3-164) Northboume, St Augustine: Register of marriages, 2008-2015 (U3-74)
Preston-next- Faversham, St Catherine of Alexandria: Register of baptisms, 1935-1981; Registers of marriages, 1972-2015; Register of burials, 1810-1812; Registers of services, 1983-2006; Service sheet, 1983; PCC Minutes, 1929-1974 (U3-249)
Preston-next-Wingham, St Mildred: Deed of appointment of trustees for the charity of Robert Wybome, 1943 (U3-245)
Sturry, St Nicholas: Parish magazines, 2015 (U3-48)
Tilmanstone, St Andrew: Register of marriages, 1988-2014 (U3-101)
Unofficial
Eastbridge Hospital, Appointment of Trustees, 1937 (U24)
Deeds relating to a property in Church Street St Paul's, Canterbury, 1620-1923 (U538/5) Canterbury Diocesan Mother's Union, membership cards, 1935-1960; scrapbook, 1970;
photographs, 1930-1976 (Ul49)
333
image
KENTISH BIBLIOGRAPHY 2016
Sales particulars relating to Canterbury, Wickhambreaux, Stodmarsh and Whitstable, 1829-1938 (U538/6)
Photo-postcards ofthe city of Canterbury and Canterbury Cathedral, early 20th century (U565)
KENT HISTORY AND LIBRARY CENTRE
Charities and Societies
Bee Craft Magazine; The History ofThe Kent Beekeepers' Association, 1919-2011 (Chl 84) Kent Automobile Association, 1970-2009 (Ch35) Addl
NADFAS Survey ofSt Mary the Virgin, St Mary in the Marsh, Romney 2013-2016 (Chl 29) NADFAS Survey ofSt Thomas Becket, Fairfield, 2006-2008 (Chl 29)
NADFAS Survey ofSt Augustine, Brookland, 2007-2008 (Chl 29) NADFAS Survey ofSt Mary the Virgin, Great Chart, 2013 (Chl 29) NADFAS survey ofSt Dunstan, Snargate, 2013 (Chl 29)
Guardians
Blean Union: Overseers' receipt and payment book, 1848-1867 (G/Bl/O1) Dartford Union: Settlement and removal papers, 1881-1884 (G/Da)
East Ashford Union: Register oflunatics, 1877-1930 (G/Ae)
Local Government
Maidstone Borough; census enumerator books, 1801, 1821 (MD/AZ3/l -3) Sevenoaks Rural District Council: Valuation lists, 1963-1973 (RD/SE/R/1)
Parish
Ashford, St Mary the Virgin: Incumbent registers, 19th-20th century (PIO) Addl South Ashford, Christ Church: PCC committee minutes, 1959-1965 (PlOB) Addl. Aylesford , SS Peter and Paul: Grave registers, 1858-1921, (Pl 2) Addl.
Benenden, St George: Incumbent registers, 20th-2 l st century (P20) Addl. Bicknor, St James: Registers ofservices (P24) Addl
Biddenden, All Saints: Incumbent registers, 19th-20th century (P26) Addl. Borden, SS Peter and Paul: Parish registers, 1859-1988 (P35) Addl.
Chiddingstone, St Mary: Confirmation register, 1909-2005 (P89) Addl. East Malling, St James the Great: Parish registers, 1924-2013 (P242) Addl. East Peckham, St Michael: Register ofservices, 1923-1934, (P284) ADDL Egerton, St James: Register ofservices, 1982-2005 (P78B) Addl.
Egerton, St James: School punishment book, 1933-1947 (P78B) Addl. Eynsford, St Martin: Incumbent registers, 19th-20th century (Pl 39) Addl.
Frinsted, St Dunstan: PCC minutes and correspondence, 1983-1999 (Pl5 l) Addl. Headcorn, SS Peter and Paul: Parish magazines, 1996-1998 (Pl 81) Addl.
High Halden, St Mary the Virgin: Parish records, 1900-1989 (Pl 64) Addl. Hildenborough,St John the Evangelist: Parish magazines, 2006-2009 (P371C) Addl. Kennington, St Mary: Burial records, 1921-1989 (P207) Addl.
Knockholt, St Katherine: Register ofburials, 1892-1952, (P214) Addl. Little Chart, St Mary: Incumbent registers, 19th-20th century (P82) Addl Maidstone, St Michael: Register ofservices, 2001-2007 (P241E) Addl.
334
image
KENTISH BIBLIOGRAPHY 2016
Minster, SS Mary and Sexburga: Parish records, 1881-1923 (P254) Addl. Penshurst, St John the Baptist: Parish registers, 19th-20th century (P287) Addl. Plaxtol Parish: PCC minutes, 1944-1995 (P406C) Addl.
Sandhurst, St Nicholas: Marriage register, 1900-1988 (P321) Addl. Sevenoaks, St Nicholas: Highway assessments, 1839 (P330) Addl. Sevenoaks, St Nicholas: Parish registers, 1970-2006 (P330) Addl. Shadoxhurst, SS Peter and Paul: PCC accounts, 1979-1992 (P332) Addl.
Speldhurst, St Mary the Virgin: Parish records, 1861-1900 (P344) Addl. Parish workhouse records, 1772-1803, (P344) Addl.
Stansted, St Mary: Marriage registers 1994-2013 (P406B) Addl. Stockbury, St Mary: Registers of confirmation (P348) Addl.
Tudeley, All Saints: Capel overseers' accounts, 1764-1793 (P374) Addl.
Tunbridge Wells, Christ Church: Incumbent registers, 19th-20th century (P371H) Addl. Upchurch, St Mary the Virgin: Register of services, 1965-1972 (P377) Addl.
Wateringbury, St John the Baptist: Incumbent registers, 1864-1945 (P385) Addl. Wateringbury, St John the Baptist: Parish magazines, 1896-2011 (P385) Addl. Wittersham, St John the Baptist: Parish records, 1826-2014 (P399) Addl.
Parish Council
East Farleigh: Parish Council, Minutes, 1984-1994 (PC290) Harrietsham: Parish Council, Minutes, 1984-1989 (PC292)
Speldhurst: Parish Council, includes Ashurst parish meeting, 1894-1987 (PC313)
Schools
Dymchurch: School records, 1862-2005 (C/E/S/125) Addl. Sellindge: Council School, 1917-2003 (C/E/S/329) Addl. Tunstall: Church of England School, 1870-1963 (C/E/S/375)
Tunbridge Wells: Sandown Court Secondary School, 1960-1996, Log Books (C/E/S/371E)
Transcripts
Chandeliers in Kent churches, including Egerton, St James, 20th century (TR/2202) Marriage indexes for Hollingboume district, (1754-1911) (TR/3578/8)
Maidstone marriage register indexes, (1754-1911) (TR/3944)
Unofficial
Apprenticeship indenture, 1854 (U4071)
Johnson Ellis and Family hop farm ledger, 1787-1844 (U4116) Kent Messenger centenary celebration records, 1959 (U4085) Abstract of Title, Beaver Place, Ashford, 1868 (U4097) Covenant for Waterside, Bexley, 1732 (U4066)
Final concord relating to land in Bidborough and Tonbridge, c.1698 (U4070)
Deeds and records relating to the Railway Tavern, Dunton Green, 1892-1973 (U4088) Mortgage of land and houses in Upper Grosvenor Road, Tunbridge Wells, 1899 (U4089)
Title deed relating to land held in Acrise, Elham and Denton by the Lewknor family, 1662 (U4072)
Title deeds for land and property in West Malling, and manorial records for Mounton Melfield, Doddington, 1720-1850 (U4073)
335
image
KENTISH BIBLIOGRAPHY 2016
Mereworth: Parish overseers' records, 1865-1893 (U4084) Woodchurch: Parish statement of account, 1853 (U4099)
MEDWAY ARCHIVES AND LOCAL ST UDIES CENTRE
Local Government and Parish
Gillingham Borough Council: Public Health (series) 1894-1975 (GBC/H)
Cobham: Highway rate assessments, 1855-1862; Poor rates, 1868/69 Cl 9th (P96/20/2; P96/ l l/4)
Gillingham: Highway Board, 1851-1856 (HO/Gi) Gillingham: Women's Adult school, 1908-1916 (DE1259)
Unofficial
Jezreels collection 1820- l 960s (N/JZ) Coles Finch Notebooks, 1930s (DE351)
Charles Knight, historical notes 1890-c.1930s (DE217) Rochester Historic Pageant, 1931 (RCA/TCl/38/48-63) Letters relating to Fort Pitt, Chatham 1866 (DE248) Plan of Kingsnorth landing pier, 1931 (DE1260)
Photo album of Rochester Cathedral Precincts, 1924-1926 (DE1262) Miscellaneous dwellings at Rochester Cathedral, n.d. c.1910 (DE1257) Alloys Ltd, Strood 1969 (DE1263)
Brochure for British Twin Disc Ltd, Strood, n.d. c.1961 (DE1256) Solicitors papers, Lewis, Bell, Darley & Gambrill, 1720-c. l 970 (DE1248) Sales particulars, Main Road, Frindsbury (DE275)
Sale agreement for land at St Nicholas parish (DE352) Deed for Upnor, 1822 (DE362)
Deeds relating to Castle Road, Chatham 1895-1945 (DE1255) Deeds relating to Hammond Place, Chatham, 1814-1949 (DE147) Deeds relating to Chatham, 1806-1846 (DE61)
Deeds relating to Gillingham, 1872-1972 (DE1254)
Deeds for Gillingham, Scrayfries and outdoor pool 1844-1900 (DE1258)
336
image
OBITUARY
ELIZABETH MELLING, B.A.
Elizabeth Melling died in June 2016 at the age of 89. She was a Northerner having been born in Wigan. Elizabeth obtained a B.A. in history at Durham University in 1949 and in the following year a Diploma in Archives Administration at Liverpool University before joining the Kent Archives Office (KAO) of the Kent County Council as a junior archivist. She became Assistant County Archivist in 1966. She stayed with the archive service until her retirement, through ill-health, in 1980. Her 30-year career allowed her to develop a profound knowledge of the County's records collections and the local history of Kent generally. Few researchers visiting the KAO could not benefit from her depth of experience and her painstaking help with inquiries.
Her lectures throughout Kent did much to promote a wider interest in and appreciation of the value of documentary sources while her early work as the archivist responsible for contact with schools secured the excellent reputation of the Office in the education field. But it was her authorship of the Kentish Sources series of books which remains the most important aspect of her pioneering work in spreading knowledge of records. Using selected documents from the KAO, this series shows the contribution that the study of original manuscript sources as can make to all aspects of the study of history. A common theme is how local developments can sometimes have considerable influence at the national level. The first volume, Some Roads and Bridges appeared in 1959 with five succeeding volumes covering Kent and the Civil war, Aspects ofAgriculture and Industry, The Poor Law, Some Kentish Houses and Crime and Punishment. As the books were specifically designed for the general reader, each contains a useful introduction to the subject. Kentish Sources ended in 1969 with many people wishing it could have been extended.
Elizabeth then turned to a major study, History of the Kent County Council, published in 1975 as a monument to the old KCC, so radically reorganised in the 1974 Reform of Local Government.
While her career was based in Kent, her standing in her profession nationally is attested by her election to the Council of the Society of Archivists, becoming its Vice-Chairman in 1976-77.
Elizabeth joined the KAS in 1953 and thus became one of its most senior members. She was elected to Council in 1976 and served as a Vice President from 1984-2006. Her expertise was, of course, particularly highly valued by the Publications Committee of the Society on which she served for 20 years including as its Secretary from 1999-2003. In 1983 the Society had published Studies in Modern Kentish History presented to Felix Hull and Elizabeth Melling on the occasion ofthefiftieth anniversary ofthe Kent Archives Office.
Although dedicated to her professional work she was also an enthusiastic member 337
image
OBITUARY
of local societies where she was always ready with acute observations. She was particularly interested in art and musical appreciation both locally, nationally and internationally having a special interest in the Italian scene. Her personal library illustrated the width of her interests. Not the least of these was a fond attachment to her Lancashire background.
PAUL OLDHAM AND MARGARET LAWRENCE
[In 1991The KentArchives Office was united with the County Local Studies Collection at Springfield to form the Centre for Kentish Studies (CKS). The CKS has been replaced by The Kent History and Library Centre (opened 2012) which houses theArchive collections formerly held at CKS.]
338
image
NOTES ON THE CONTRIBUTORS
Sophia Adams, B.A., M.A., PH.D.: is a Senior Research Associate at the University of Bristol on theLeverhulme funded project 'The Social Context of Technology'. Her archaeological career began in 1993 as a volunteer excavating sites in Kent with LMARG; followed by degrees at University CollegeLondon and the University ofLeicester (PH.D.); interspersed with developed-funded fieldwork, community archaeology projects and teaching roles. Her research focuses on later prehistoric artefacts: their production, use and deposition.
Robert Baldwin, M.A.: Rob's interests have always been broad and cross-disciplinary. From studying Latin, Greek and Ancient History at school, he then went on to read Archaeology and Anthropology at University. He gained a range of excavation experience during these studies and worked at Canterbury Museum for a period after graduating. Latterly his interests have turned to the historical landscape. However, for most of his working life, the past has been a spare-time occupation and his career has been in accountancy, much of it in the forensic sphere where making sense of imperfect sets of data was the main part of the job. Rob's interest inLyminge stems from having lived in the village for 28 years, walking the local paths and getting to know the area well on the ground.
Rose Broadley, M.A.: is a freelance specialist in archaeological glass, who is just finishing a PhD on Anglo-Saxon vessel glass at University College,London. She has been based in Kent since graduating from the University of Exeter with a BA in Ancient History and Archaeology and currently works as Historic Environment Record Officer at Kent County Council.
Brendan Chester-Kadwell, PH.D., M.A., M.soc.sc., PGCERT.ARCH.CONs.: is a landscape historian specialising in the origins and development of rural settlement. He has worked mainly in East Anglia and the South-East, although much of his recent work has been in the High Weald. Current research projects include the development of early settlement in the eastern High Weald; the development of routeways in the rural landscape; and the impact of prefabricated buildings on the landscapes of Norfolk and the High Weald.
Malcolm Davies: after retiring as an airline director, qualified in Romano-British archaeology and worked in Israel as supervisor on a Bronze Age site for three seasons. Published papers on a number of Romano-British sites in Surrey and at Plaxtol and Springhead in Kent. More recently, worked at Salamis in Cyprus and published details of the site of the shipsheds for Evagoras' trireme fleet. In the last few years has also been working at two other Romano-British sites in the Lympne/Aldington area, Marwood farm villa and Upper Park farm.
Vera w. Gibbons, ARIBA (DIP. ARCH.. CANTERBURY), MBA;
Trevor K Gibbons, ARIBA (DIP. ARCH.. CANTERBURY): both studied at the Canterbury College of Art, School of Architecture and qualified in 1963 as Chartered Architects. Early in their married life, as residents of Herne, they were founder members of the Herne Society and also participated as volunteers on the Reculver dig in 1965. At this time, Herne Bay librarian, Harold Gough introduced them to Antoinette (Tony) Powell-Cotton to assist with
339
image
CONTRIBUTORS
the Minnis Bay site. Recently they returned to the Powell-Cotton Museum as volunteer researchers with the archaeology collection. Over the last three years they have provided invaluable assistance in bringing the collection up to the standards set by current museum management practice. More recently, they have focused on research to re-evaluate the work undertaken through the mid-twentieth century by Antoinette Powell-Cotton. This has led to a series of in-house research papers detailing the material excavated from Minnis Bay from the Neolithic through to the Medieval period as well as the importance of Antoinette's role as a field archaeologist at the time.
Richard Helm, H.N.D, B.A.(HoNs), PH.D.: studied archaeology at the universities of Bournemouth, York and Bristol, and is a Senior Project Manager at the Canterbury Archaeological Trust. He has conducted a broad range of excavation projects in Kent and the South-East, and has also carried out research and excavation in north and east Africa. He is currently a member of the Sealinks Project investigating maritime connections between the earliest societies around the Indian Ocean rim (www.sealinksproject.com).
Peter Hobbs, M.A.(oxoN), F.R.S.A., ccrPD, DR He IMC: read History at University; formerly first non-police Inspector of Constabulary, a Director of the Wellcome Foundation and Wellcome plc and of the Home Office Forensic Science Service. Founder Chairman of the Business Forum on Disability, he is Director of the Learning from Experience Trust and the CAT. Has worked with the Dover Archaeological Group and Keith Parfitt for many years and co-authored with him.
Richard Hoskins: has excavated with Dover Archaeological Group since 1994, including the Ringlemere excavations of 2002-2006. Worked as a Field Archaeologist with Canterbury Archaeological Trust between 2007 and 2011. Moved to Cornwall in 2015 and has since worked on various excavations throughout the county including the 2016 excavation at Tintagel Castle. Also works as a volunteer cataloguing finds, mainly of flint artefacts, at the Royal Cornwall Museum in Truro.
Daphne Joynes, B.A., F.HEA: is an art historian and lecturer specialising in the Italian Renaissance. She lectures for NADFAS, the National Trust and U3A, teaches at the National Gallery and V & A and leads frequent study tours to Italy. She has been a tutor for the University of Surrey and The Open University, and now writes on a wide range of art and historical subjects.
James Lloyd, M.A., PH.D.: was born in Kent and grew up in Cranbrook, where he attended the Grammar School in that town. He read Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic at Cambridge and wrote a doctoral thesis on the origin of the shrievalty. He is currently working as an archivist at the Inner Temple.
Keith Parfitt, B.A., F.S.A., M.C.I.F.A.: has been excavating in Kent for over 40 years. Hons degree in British Archaeology at University College, Cardiff, 1978. Employed with Kent Archaeological Rescue Unit between 1978 and 1990, working on a variety of excavations across Kent and S.E. London. Moved to Canterbury Archaeological Trust in 1990 and worked on the Dover A20 project, which culminated in discovery of the Bronze Age Boat in 1992. Running parallel with full-time career, Director of Excavations for amateur Dover Archaeological Group, also since 1978. Has served on KAS. Fieldwork Committee since 1992 and acted as Director for KAS. excavations at Minster, 2002-2004. Elected Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London in 2000. Co-directed a joint project with the British Museum excavating the complex Bronze Age barrow site at Ringlemere, 2002- 2006. Supervised ATU excavations at Folkestone Roman villa, 2010-2011. Engaged in overseeing major excavations in the centre of medieval Dover, 2015-17.
340
image
CONTRIBUTORS
Christopher Pickvance: is Emeritus Professor of Urban Studies at the University of Kent, Canterbury and Academician, Academy of Social Sciences. He has a general interest in pre-1700 furniture and in whether Kent furniture is distinctive. This involves comparison with furniture in other counties and countries and the role of imports and of immigrant craftsmen. His current research on medieval chests contributes towards this. He has been Chairman of the Regional Furniture Society since 2011.
Sheila Sweetinburgh, PH.D.: is a Principal Research Fellow at Canterbury Christ Church University and an Associate Lecturer in Medieval and Early Modem Studies at the University of Kent. She also works as a freelance documentary historian, primarily for the CAT. Her research focus on relationships and the ways individuals, and formal and informal groups used to negotiate religious, political and social relations. Her work employs a case study approach and makes use of Kent's rich archival sources. Her current project is an in-depth examination of urban households as centres of production and consumption using the records for 15th-century Hythe.
Linda Taylor, B.ED., M.A.: after a career in education, she developed her long held interest in local history and completed a Master's Degree with the Medieval and Early Modem Studies Department at the University of Kent in 2012. Linda is a member of the KAS Place Names Committee.
Adrian Weston: was born in east Kent and has been studying the East Wear Bay settlement at Folkestone for over twenty years. He worked as a volunteer on the 2010-11 'A Town Unearthed' excavations at East Wear Bay, before moving in 2011 to the island of Sanday in Orkney. Specialising in ceramic finds, his main interests are Roman ceramic building materials and late Republican Roman amphorae.
341
image
COMMITTEES OF THE SOCIETY
Communications Committee
Hon. Membership Secretary (Chairman),C. Broomfield, C. Drew,
Mrs K.H. Kersey (Vice chairman),MrsM. Lawrence, R. Taylor (Newsletter editor),
E.P. Tritton (Press Officer), Hon. General Secretary
Education Committee
MrsE.A. Palmer (Chairman),MissM. Green (Secretary), Dr P.B. Bennett,A. Harmsworth,
G. Moody, P.Walker,Hon. General Secretary
Fieldwork Committee
K. Parfitt (Chairman),C. Blair-Myers,MissE. Boast, G. Burr, V. Burrows, E.C. Connell,
Dr G. Cramp, A.I.Daniels, MissE. Dyson, DrM.R. Eddy,R. Emmett, R.F. LeGear,A. Mayfield, DrP.M. Reid,C.P. Ward, Dr S.H. Willis, Hon. Curator,Hon. General Secretary,
Hon. Membership Secretary
Finance Committee
Hon. Treasurer (Chairman),Mrs S.B. Broomfield,DrR.N. Cockcroft,DrC.W. Chalklin,
A.B. Webster,Mrs K.H. Kersey,Hon. General Secretary
Historic Buildings Committee
MrsD.J. Goacher (Chairman),M.L.M. Clinch (Secretary), MrsH. Basford, E.F. Bates,
D. Brooks, P.Burton,D.E. Carder, DrC.W. Chalklin,Mrs ME. Connor, MsA.D. Davies,
P. Lambert,J.H.C. Proudfoot,A. Singleton, Hon. General Secretary
Historic Defences Committee
V.T.C. Smith (Chairman),A. Anstee,DrP. Cuming, J. Curtis,A. Fyson, K. Gulvin,
J. Iveson (Vice-chairman), R. Porter, Mrs S. Soder,Hon. General Secretary
Industrial Archaeology Committee
J. Preston (Chairman),M.L.M. Clinch (Secretary),D. Gordon,R. Howells,Mrs P.Jardine-Rose,
N. Kelly, R.F. LeGear, P. Sowan,Hon. General Secretary
Library and Muniments Committee
Hon. Librarian (Chairman), MrsH. Orme (Secretary),J. Dickson, M.A. Perring, MrsJ. Sage,
P. Titley,C.P.Ward, DrD. Webb, Hon. Curator,Hon. Treasurer, Hon. General Secretary
Marshes Group
P. Jardine-Rose (Co-ordinator), H. Clark, I. Jackson, K. Parfitt, M. Pearson, Dr P.M. Reid,
K. Robinson, P. Slaughter, Dr S.M. Sweetinburgh, J. White, Hon General Secretary
Media Team
DrR.N. Cockcroft,E.C. Connell (Webmaster),A. Mayfield,R. Taylor (Newsletter editor),
E.P. Tritton (Press Officer), Hon. General Secretary
Place-Names Committee
DrM. Bateson (Chairman),Mrs Z. Bamping,MsB. Burchell , Dr G. Cramp , Dr P. Cullen (Academic Advisor), Ms I. Shub , Mrs AL. Thompson (Secretary),C.P.Ward, MrsM. Lawrence,E.P. Connell, P.Harlow,MsL. Taylor, N. Smith
Publications Committee
DrE.C. Edwards (Chairman), DrE. Blanning, DrC.W. Chalklin, P.R. Clark,DrM.R. Eddy, Prof. D. Killingray, Dr S.M. Sweetinburgh, MrsC. Williams,Hon. Editor, Hon. Treasurer, Hon. General Secretary
Strategy Group
Dr G. Cramp (Chairman),Dr S.M. Sweetinburgh,Hon. Membership Secretary, R.A. Cockett, MrsJ. Clayton (Orpington and District Archaeological Society)
342
image
GENERAL INDEX
Page numbers in italics refer to illustrations
Adams, Sophia, 'The contents and context of the Boughton Malherbe Late Bronze Hoard' 37-64
JElfstan,Abbot 214-15
JEscingas 4-5
JEthelberht (I), king 4, 13, 14, 19, 78, 201,
206,210,211
JEthelberht II 207
JEthelburh,Queen 201-19
JEthelhun 3
Albert, co-Duke of Brunswick and Luneburg 5,6,7,14
Alcotes,Richard 190,193
Algood,John and Constance,ostclothmaker 192 altars,Roman 165,168,169
Arnet,Margaret 188
Andrew and Wren,map (1768) 84 Andrews,Phil et al., Digging at the Gateway.
The Archaeology ofthe East Kent Access (Phase II),reviewed 309-11
Anglo-Saxon/Saxon period 4
church dedication and minster, Lyminge 201-26
dens 232
early Saxon settlement 237 horses (depiction of) 1-36
see also Canterbury,Barton Court Grammar School; pottery
animal,bird and fish bone badger 67
bird 68,73
cattle 67,68,73
dog 67,71
dog skeleton 272
fish 68,71,73
horse 67,71,262,272
horse skeleton 76
ox 262
pig 67,71,73
roe deer 67
sheep/goat 67,68,71,73
whale 274
see also Canterbury,Barton Court Grammar School; Minnis Bay
Appledore 235,244
arrowhead,flint,Neolithic 275 Ashbee,Andrew,Zeal Unabated: The Life of
Thomas Fletcher Waghorn (1800-1850),
reviewed 319-21
Ashingdon 3
Atkyn,Beatrice,huckster 194 axes
Neolithic,flint 276
Bronze Age see Boughton Malherbe
Bachelere,Godelena and Robert 198 n.36 Baldwin,Robert, 'Antiquarians,Victorian par
sons and re-writing the past: How Lyminge parish church acquired an invented dedicat ion' 201-26
Baron, Michael, The Royal Heads Bells of England and Wales,reviewed 316-17
barrow mound(?) 137,138,146
barrows and barrow sites 129-30, 145, 146,
206,223 n.25
Barton,Lester 265,266 Basford,Hazel,book review by 316-17 beads,Roman glass 89,100,272
Beck,G.J.D' A (Jimmy) 260-2,267,277
Beckley (Sussex) 228
Bede 2,4, 6, 7, 70, 201, 203, 207, 208,209,
210,211,213,217,218,219
beetle remains 272
Belle,Johanna,brothel keeper 187
Benenden 228,230,237,238,239,240,242,
245
Berry,William 19
Bertelot,Isabel 192
Bertha,Frankish princess 206,210
Berthona,Nicholas de 81
Bertyn, Constance and Robert 187,198 n.33 Best,Robert 82
Bexley,Pulham garden 299
Bickley,Pulham garden 299
Bigge,John,brewer 188 bird bone see animal bone Blaeu,Joan 16
Blanning,Elizabeth,book review by 311-12
343
image
GENERAL INDEX
Bodiam (Sussex) 228, 237, 239, 240, 242,
244,245,249
Bolney,Edward andAgnes 195
Borach,Katherine,brothel keeper 187 Borough,William,naval officer 153,162 n.19 Boughton Malherbe,BronzeAge hoard 37-64
axes 41,43,44,45,46,53,57,58,60,61
bucket fragment (vessel) 40,42
casting waste (copper alloy) and metal working 40,41,42,43,53,55, 59,60
ingots 40,41,42,53,54, 58,60
moulds (axe moulds) 41,42,44,53,55,56, 57,58,61
personal ornament 40, 41, 42, 43, 49, 51,
53,61
plaques 42,43,49,52, 57-8,60
spearheads 41,42,49,50, 53,57,58
swords 37,41,42,43,44,48,49,58,60
tools and knives 40,41,42,43,44,47, 57,
60
Boughton Monchelsea,chest 121,122
Bous,Juliana 186
bracelets,LBA hoard 42,43,49 bracteates,Frankish/North Sea styles 4 Brasenose College, Oxford, Bursar's Chest
121
brewers 188
brick kilns 291
briquetage (salt-making),BronzeAge 267 Broadley,Rose,'The Roman villa at Minster
in Thanet. Part 11: The glass' 89-103 Braid,Johanna 191
Bromley,Pulham garden 299
Bronze Age, hoard 37-64; see also Minnis Bay; pottery
brooch/fibula,Late IronAge 272 brooches,Frankish/North Sea styles 4 Brookland,tokens 18
bucket fragment,BronzeAge 40,42
bucket hoop 264
bucket stave,Late IronAge 272 Burford,Battle of2-3 Burghley,Lord,William Cecil 160,163 n.25 burials 70; see also Minnis Bay
Camden,William 11,12,156,160-1,209
Camden Hill 238,239
Candidus,Hugh,monk 210 Canterbury
arms of33 n.85
Augustine House,temple site 92
Barton Court Grammar School (Longport), excavations 65-88
Anglo-Saxon 65-70,77
animal bone 67-8,77
combs,bone 68,69
pin 69
pits 65,67,77
plant remains 68
pottery 67,68, 73
utensil,copper alloy 68-9,69
early medieval period, ditch and pits 70-2
plant remains 71
pottery 71
late medieval 72-4,81
building 71, 72-3
hollow-way (trackway) 71, 72,73,74
post-medieval/post Dissolution 74-6,82
animal bone 67-8,71,73,77,81 documentary sources (Longport) 78-85 dovecote 81,82
plant remains 68,71,73 pond (Court Sole) 81,84
Christ Church Priory 183,214,217 home farm (barton) 78,81
City War memorial 20 'Conduit Meadow' 70
Kent College 19
medieval chest in St John's Hospital 105,
107, 109, 110-11, 112, 113, 114, 115,
116,117,118,120,122,123,124
Pulham garden 299 Queen Bertha's Chapel 70 Roman roads 237
StAugustine'sAbbey 69-70,77,78 Home Farm (barton) 65-88
relics 210,211,214-15,217
St Gregory's Priory 209,210,211,214-15, 217,218
St Martin's Church 70,206 St Martin's Hill 70
tileries 74
women, businesswomen and trades in the 15th-century economy 179-99
Canterbury Archaeological Trust 65
Carr,Roy 262,264
cartography 149-63
Castel,Alice 198 n.33
casting waste (copper alloy), Boughton Mal herbe, Bronze Age hoard 41, 42, 43, 53,
55,59,60
Ceolnoth,archbishop 216 Challock,mural in church 279,280,281 Cheney,Sir Thomas 82
Cheriton Hill,White Horse 22 Chesshyre,Catherine and William 85
Chester-Kadwell,Brendan,'Changing patterns ofrouteways in the landscape ofthe eastern High Weald from the end of the Roman period to the building ofthe turnpikes' 227- 55
chests,medieval,'Kentish Gothic' 105-28
Chislet 79
344
image
GENERAL INDEX
Chyrche,Margaret,goldsmith's widow 187
Clare,Jolm,pelterer 192
Classis Britannica tiles 301-8
clay tobacco pipes, St Augustine's Abbey Home Farm 75,76
Clerk,Emma and Leonard 193 Clerys,Alice,huckster 192
Cliffsend,Thanet 142
cliff top pits see Minnis Bay Clothilde,St 203,206
Clynk,Edward,cook 193
Cnut,king 214
Cobham Golf Course,pottery 142 Coenwulf,king 215,216
coms
horse motifs 1,3
'Potin' 257
Roman 166,203,205
post-medieval,George II 74
combs,bone 68,69
Compton,Idonea 198 n.33
Conway,Sir Martin 109
Cotton,Henry Perry 257
Cranbrook 228,229, 238,240, 244
Roman tiles 307
Croser,Isabel,upholder 192
Croser,William,corveser 192 Cukowe,Thomas and Johanna 198 n.36 Curran,Susan,The Wife of Cobham, reviewed
324
Cwoenthryth,abbess 216
Dartford 151,152
Davies,Gordon 290 n.6
Davies, Malcolm, 'The findings of various archaeological investigations at the Roman naval fort,Stutfall Castle,Lympne,2014- 16' 165-78
dendrochronology, medieval chests 116, 117,
120,122
dens, Saxon 232
Dersingham (Norfolk),chest 118
Deve,Robert 110
Devey,George,architect 291,293
Digges,Thomas 156,160
Dingleden 239
Doidge,W. and H.,map (1752) 84
Domesday Book 79
High Weald settlement 232 Lyminge churches 207
Newenden 231
Dover 161
Roman tiles 305,307
Dover Archaeological Group 129 dragon (draco) symbol 2-4,5 Drayton,Michael 14,15
Eadbold 201,209,210
Eadburg (Eadburh),St 201,208-19
Eanflaed 207
Eanswythe 208
Earconberht,king 4
earring,gold,Roman 272
East Wear Bay,Folkestone 301-8 Edward IV 183
Edwards, Elizabeth, books reviewed by 318- 19,323-4
Edwin, king of Northumbria 201, 203, 207,
208,209,210
Elham, Annunciation mural in church 279- 90
Elliott, Simon, Sea Eagles of Empire: The Classis Britannica and the Battles for Britain, reviewed 311-12
Essele,Emma 191
Ethelburga,St 201,208-19
Eves,Robert,rector 212,213,219
Ewhurst (Sussex), routeways 228, 229, 244,
245,249-51
Eyden,Philip,Dover s Forgotten Commando Raid. Operation Abercrombie: The Raid on Hardelot, reviewed 324-5
Faunt,Will 195 Faversham
Homestall Farm map 160
medieval chest in St Mary of Charity Church 105, 106, 109, 110, 111, 113,
114,115,116,117,120,122,123,124
Feyset,Cecily,brewer 188 fish bone see animal bone
flint knapping 136,138,144-5,146,147,272 flints
prehistoric 129, 132, 136, 137, 138, 139,
142-5,147
Mesolithic 206
flint working,Neolithic, Minnis Bay 277 Florence,monk 210
Folkestone
East Wear Bay 301-8 minster 208
Pulham garden 299
Roman villa 301-2,307
footwear (leather), Iron Age and medieval 264,272,274,277
Fordwich 70
Fydhole,Jolm 191
garden,at Norrington 291-9
George I 17,17, 18-19
George II 17
George,William and wife 190
Gerard, Laurence and Clemencia, corvesers 192
345
image
GENERAL INDEX
Gibbons, Vera and Trevor, 'The remarkable multi-period finds at Minnis Bay, Birch ington: the major contribution to inter tidal zone archaeology made by Antoinette Powell-Cotton (1913-1997)' 257-78
Gibson,Edmund 16 glass,Roman
polychrome mosaic bowl/cup 92-3,94, 96,
101,102
re-worked window glass (inlay?) 99-100, 101,102
vessel 89-96,100-2
window glass 89,96-102
see also beads
Gobelinus Person,historian 6,7,11,14,16
Goldbeter,Celia 191
'Goresend' port 259
Goscelin of St Bertin 209-11,214,217-18 Goudhurst
Pulham garden 299
tradesmen's tokens 18,18
Graveney,medieval chest 117
Gravesend,Pulham garden 299
Gryme,Margaret 187
Haddon,Petronella 194
Halewell,Thomas 195
Halke,Margaret,chandler 192
Halke,Sampson,chandler 192
Hammond family 291
Harold,king 3
Harrietsham,Pulham garden 299
Harris,Lord 24
Harris,Richard,map 16
Hasted,Edward 12,19,209
Hastings 230,237,244
Hastings,Battle of 3
Hawkes,Christopher 257,261-2,268,277
Hawkhurst 238,239,240, 244,249
tokens 18
hay rake 264
Helm, Richard, and Sheila Sweetinburgh, 'The Home Farm of St Augustine's Abbey, Canterbury, before and after the Dissolution' 65-88
Hemsted 237,239
Hengest and Horsa 1-2,3,4,5,6,7,10,11-14,
12, 15,17,18,19,23
Henry of Huntingdon 30 n.23 Henry V 186,190
Henry V III 151,153,156,159
Herbert,Sir Edward 82
Hereford Cathedral Library, manuscript 201, 217,218
Hero wreck 257,258,261,262
Hexden Channel 228,230,234,235,239,243,
245,249,251
Hicks, Alison, et al., Medieval Town and Augustinian Friary: Settlement c. 1325- 1700. Canterbury Whitefriars Excavations 1999-2004, reviewed 312-14
High Weald,routeways 227-55
Hobard,Johanna,vintner 192-3 Hobbs,Peter,'A Pulham garden rediscovered
at Norrington' 291-9
Hogyn,Felicia 190
horse-hoodening 3
horse symbols 1-36 Hoskins,Richard see Parfitt,Keith Hosteler,Henry 199 n.62
Hougham,Charles,Henry,and William 84-5
Hougham,Solomon 84
Hugh,Abbot 79
human bones,Minnis Bay 261,265,266,272
Ightham Mote 19
ingots, Boughton Malherbe, Bronze Age 40, 41,42,53,54,58,60
inhumation see Minnis Bay
inter-tidal zone archaeology,Minnis Bay 257- 78
Iron Age see Minnis Bay; pottery
Isle of Thanet Archaeological Society 276 Isle of Thanet Geographical Society 267
Jackson,Ian,and Keith Robinson (eds),Of the North Kent Marshes, reviewed 323-4
Jenkins,Robert,canon 212,213 John of Sturry 79
John of Tynemouth 211,218 Joynes,Daphne,'The ElhamAnnunciation by
John Ward R.A.' 279-90 Jutes 4,5
Kemp,Clement 82
Kensham 243
Kensham Green,Rolvenden 239,245,249 Kent Archaeological Society 89,212
Kent Ditch 228,229, 237
Kent Gardens Trust,Capability Brown in Kent,
reviewed 318-19
Kent Insurance Company 19 Killingray,David,book reviewed by 322-3 'Kings of Britain roll' 7-10
Knelle Dam 235,238,243
ladder,LBA/EIA 272,273, 277
Lambarde, William, antiquarian 10-11, 151,
154-5, 156,159-60,208,211,218
Lamberhurst,Pulham garden 299
Lanfranc,archbishop 210,214,215,218
Larkin,James,organist 281,288 Lawrence,Margaret see Oldham,Paul leather, Late Iron Age and medieval (shoes)
264,272,274,277
346
image
leather industry 185 Lee,John a,wife of,cook 193
Leland,John 153,156,209,211
GENERAL INDEX
Bronze Age,briquetage(salt-making) 267
Bronze Age hoard 258, 261-2, 261, 267,
277
Litcham (Norfolk), medieval chest in All Saints Church 105, 108, 109, 111, 113,
115,116,118,124-5
Little Delce,estate map 151 Lloyd,James,'The Saxon steed and the White
Horse of Kent' 1-3 London,Chatham and Dover railway 85
insignia on Blackfriars Bridge 19,20 Ludlow,misericord in church 189 Lyminge 68
Anglo-Saxon minster and settlement 201, 202-8,209,210,214,216,217
parish church's invented dedication and antiquarians 201-26
Roman material,coins and pottery 203,205 Roman tiles 307
Sibton Park 212 Lympne
Roman Saxon Shore fort (Portus Lemanis)
203,204,205
Roman tiles 307
see also Stutfall Castle
Maidstone Museum,fireplace 20,22
Oakwood Park Grammar School 19 Pulham garden 299
Sessions House 20,21
maps,routeways 227-8,232,245,251,252
Margate,arms 22
Markbeech 24 Martin,Constance and John 188
Martin(nr Dover),prehistoric ring-ditch 129- 48
barrow mound(?) 137,138,146
flints 129,132, 136,137,138,139, 142-5,
147
pit(grave?) 137,146-7
pottery 136, 137, 138, 139-42, 145, 146,
147
Maytham,East and West 228,230,235,243 medieval see Canterbury, Barton Court
Grammar School; chests; pottery Melling,Elizabeth,obituary 337-8
Melseby,Richard 195
Mesolithic 206
metal workers,women 185,190
Mildrith,St 210,211,213-16,218
Mill Hill, Deal, Late Bronze Age 49, 52, 60, 61
mills 81
millstone 259-60,259
Minnis Bay,Birchington 257-78
Neolithic 258,268,275-6,277
Late Bronze Age 268
Late Bronze Age/early Iron Age, ladder 272,273,277
Early Iron Age,pits 258,268,272,277 Late Iron Age
brooch/fibula and bucket stave 272 leather shoes 272
pits 258,260,262,264,267,268
shaft base(Well 30) 268-72 Late Iron Age/early Roman
cliff top pits 265-7,268 inhumation 266,277
Roman,gold earring and glass beads 272 Romano-British shaft 262-3,263,268
medieval 258,277
leather and shoes 264,274,277 pits 268,272-5
port 259,277
pottery 274,274,275,277
well 264,264
animal bone 261,272
coins 257
Hero wreck 257,258,261,262
human bones 261,265,266,272 millstone in well 259-60,259 pottery 262,274,274,275,277
Valkyr wreck 274
whale bone 274 Minster-in-Thanet
abbess 210,211,213,214-15,216,217,218
misericord in church 189
Roman villa 89-103
bead 89,100
boundary ditch 93,101
Building 1
Room 10: 94,100,101
Room 14,pit 98-9
Room 17: 98-9,101
Building 3 bathhouse 99,101
Building 4: 96,101
Building 6: 96,101 Building 6A
bead 100
Room 35: 96
Room 36 hearth 101
Room 42: 100
Room 43: 96,100
stoke pit fill 99 glass 89-103
pottery 93,100
vessel glass 89-96,100-2
window glass('cast glass') 89,96-102 window glass re-worked(inlay?) 99-100,
101,102
347
image
GENERAL INDEX
minsters 201,202-3,206,214,216,217
Moldson,Johanna 191
Morbere,Petronella 194-5 moulds see Boughton Malherbe Multon,Jane (m. Lambarde) 159
Nailbourne river 205,206
Nashenden,estate map 151
naval fort,Roman see Stutfall Castle Needham,James,surveyor 151
needle,metal 264
Neolithic,flint axe 276; see also Minnis Bay Newenden 228, 229, 231-2, 232, 234, 235,
238,239,242,243,244,245,249
Newmill Channel 228, 229, 230, 232, 234,
235,238,243,245,251
Newport,Celia 191
Norrington,garden 291-9
Norden,John 157,160-1
Northampton,Alice 191
Northiam (Sussex) 228,238
Norton,medieval chest 117
Norton (Suffolk),misericord in church 189
Norwich (Norfolk), medieval chest from St Margaret's Church 105, 107, 111, 112,
113,114,116,118,124,125
Oldham, Paul, and Margaret Lawrence, 'Obituary: Elizabeth Melling' 331-2
Orpington,Katherine 191
Oswald, St 207
Oswiu,king of Northumbria 207
Oxford,St Mary Magdalen Church 118,121-2 Oxney,Isle of 235,243
Paddlesworth,church 204,207,217 Palmer,Sir Henry 153,162 n.19
Parfitt, Keith, and Richard Hoskins, 'A prehistoric ring-ditch at Martin, near Dover' 129-48
Peasmarsh (Sussex) 228
pegs 264 peg tiles
medieval 145
post-medieval 74
Pemberton,Eleanor 188
Pembury,Kent College 19
Pickvance, Christopher, "'Kentish Gothic" or imported? Understanding a group of tracery-carved medieval chests in Kent and Norfolk' 105-28
pin,early medieval 69,71 placenames
-hamme 255 n.23
Lemana 203,205
Limenwara 205
Speed's maps 157
plague 181,191
plants, garden at Norrington 295, 296-8; see also Canterbury, Barton Court Grammar School
plaques,Bronze Age see Boughton Malherbe Pollen,Elizabeth 161
Potman,John 195
Potman's Hoath 243 pottery
prehistoric 136,137,138,139-42,145
Early Neolithic 136,137,140,145,147 Bronze Age Collared Urn 136,140-1,145 Early Bronze Age,Beaker 136,140,145 Late Bronze Age, beaker 138, 141-2, 141,
146
Late Iron Age 269,272
New Forest type Scarborough ware 260 Roman 93,100,168,175,176,177,203,205
Romano-British 262
early Roman 138,142 Canterbury sandy ware 142 native grog-tempered 142
Anglo-Saxon 67,68,73,205
Canterbury-type sandy ware (MLS2) 67, 71
flint-tempered (MLS6) 67
Ipswich-type (MLS7) 67,68
'local' shell-tempered (MLS4, MLS4A,
MLS4C) 67,68,71
early medieval
Canterbury-type sandy ware (EM l) 71 shelly sandy ware (EM3) 71
medieval/late medieval 73, 139, 274, 274,
275,277
Canterbury transitional sandy ware (LMl .2) 73
Tyler Hill sandy ware (Ml) 73,75 post-medieval 74-5,76,139
blue painted pearlware (LPM12B) 76 glazed earthenware (PMl) 75,76
late creamware (LPMl IA) 76 London stoneware (PM25) 76 Powell-Cotton,Antoinette 257-78
Powell-Cotton, Major Percy 257, 259-60,
261,262
Powell-Cotton Museum 257,259 Preston,James M.,Malting andMalthouses in
Kent,reviewed 317-18 Pulham & Son,James 291-9 'Pulhamite' 291-2,293
Quex Park,Birchington 257 Queyk,Johanna,Simon and John 193
Rainham, medieval chest in St Margaret's Church 105,106,109,109,110,111,113,
115,116,117,125
348
image
Ralph,priest 215,217,218
Ramsey,Thomas 194
Ramsgate,Pulham garden 299
Rand,Henry,will 206
Ratford,Johanna 186
Reade,Thomas 110
Reculver,fort 170
Renshaw,Martin,organist 281
GENERAL INDEX
Sargent, Andrew, Drinking in Deal: Beer, Pubs and Temperance in an East Kent Town 1830-1914, reviewed 321-2
Saxon (Saxony) Steed 5-23 Saxons see Anglo-Saxon/Saxon
Saxon Shore forts 165, 166, 170, 177, 203,
204,205
Saxton,Christopher 156-7,160
Richardson,T.L., The 1830 Farm Labourers' Riots in Kent, reviewed 322-3
Richborough,Roman tiles 305,307
ring-ditch,prehistoric,at Martin 129-48
Roach Smith, Charles 165, 166, 168, 169,
172,175,176
roads,Roman 233-4,236-7,236,238,239
Robert,Agnes and John 193
Robertsbridge 229, 238, 239, 240, 249, 250,
250
Robinson,Keith see Jackson,Ian Rochester
Bridge,Wardens Accounts Book 149,151, 159,160
Pulham garden 299
routeways 237
St Margaret's church 151
Rolvenden, routeways 228, 229, 230, 235,
239,243,245-9
Roman/Romano-British draco-standard 3
High Weald 236-7,236
Lyminge and Kentish royal estates 203-5 naval fort see Stutfall Castle
see also pottery; tiles; villas Romanus,priest 207,217
Romney Marsh 157,158
roof tiles,medieval 73,74
rope,withy 272
Rother river 227, 228, 229, 230, 232, 234,
235,238,239,242,243,244,249-50,251
Rounceby,Henry (Laurence) and Lora 194 routeways,High Weald 227-55
Russell,Colonel John 85 Russelyn,Henry,wife as shepster 194 Russhle,John 199 n.62
Rye (Sussex) 153, 161, 228, 229, 230, 232,
235,237,238,239,243,244
St Eadburg's Well 206
St Ethelburga's Well (spring) 205-6,213 St Lawrence tithery 78,84,85
Salehurst (Sussex),routeways 228,229, 239,
244,245
Sandhurst 228,237,238,239,240,245
Sandtun
port 203,204, 205
West Hythe 68
Sandwich,St Mary's church 84
Seekford,Thomas 156
Sedlescombe 237
church,chest 109
Selden,John 14
Selethryth,abbess 215,216,217
Sergaunt,Alice 186,192 shafts see Minnis Bay
shoe making and repairing 185,190; see also
leather
Shynglton,Mabil,brothel keeper 187
Sittingbourne,brickfields 293 Slinere,Johanna and William 198 n.39 Sloane,Barney,book review by 312-14 Smith, Thomas, Robert, John and Ann (nee
Raynye) 82,84
Smyth,John 199 n.62
Speed,John 13-15,13, 16,19,157,159,160-1
spoon,wooden 264
Squerryes (house),Westerham 159
Stafford,Isolde 191 Staplehurst
Pulham garden 299
tokens 18
Stephen,Margaret 195
Stubbings,Richard (ed.),An Oral History of Horsmonden, reviewed 325
Sturry,mills 81
Stutfall Castle, Lympne, Roman naval fort 165-78
altar 168,169
altar by Aufidius Pantera 165,168,169 bathhouse 165,166,172,172,175,177
coins,Roman 166
pathway,Roman 177
pottery,Roman 168,175,176,177
principia (headquarters), 3 rooms 165-6,
170,171,172,177
temple to Neptune 169-70,177 tiles,Roman 167,168,169,175,176,177
Style,Thomas and wife 187 Sweetinburgh,Sheila
'Shepsters, hucksters and other business women: female involvement in Canter bury's fifteenth-century economy' 179-99
Early Medieval Kent, reviewed 314-16
see also Helm,Richard swords see Boughton Malherbe
Symonson, Philip, maps by 149-63, 238-9,
244
349
image
Symonson,Thomas 151
GENERAL INDEX
Vortigem,king 1
Tann,Peter,books reviewed by 317-18, 319- 22
Tappestere,Isolde 191
Taylor, Linda, 'Philip Symonson's map, A New Description of Kent: "the finest speci-men of English cartography before 1600"' 149-63
temple to Neptune,Roman 169-70,177 Tennyson,Alfred,Lord 288
Tenterden 228,229,230,231,238,244,249
Thanet Archaeological Society 89 Thomas of Elmham 209 Thome,William 209,210
tiles
Classis Britannica 301-8
Roman 167,168,169,175,176,177
re-used 203
Tonbridge 237,238,239
Grammar School 19
tools,Bronze Age see Boughton Malherbe tradesmen's tokens 15,18,18,19
Trust for Thanet Archaeology 89 Tunbridge Wells,Pulham garden 299
turnpike trusts 231, 233, 234, 243-5, 246-7,
248,249,251
utensil,copper alloy 68-9,69
Valkyr wreck 274
Verstegan,Richard 11-13,12, 14,16,19 villas, Roman 301-2, 307; see also Minster-
in-Thanet
Wantsum Channel 205 Ward,Anthony,book review by 309-11 Ward,John,artist 279-90 Warren,Rebecca,book review by 314-16 Welf,House of 5-7,14,17
Westerham,Squerryes (house) 159
West Hythe 307
Weston, Adrian, 'More Classis Britannica tiles from East Wear Bay, Folkestone' 301-8
West Wickham,Pulham garden 299 whale bone 274
White Horse Inn 24
White Horse motif (heraldic) 1-36 Whitwell,Charles,engraver 161 Widukind of Corvey 2,14
Wighton (Norfolk), medieval chest in All Saints Church 105,108, 110, 111, 124,
125
Wihtred,king 202,207,208
Winchelsea 229,235,237
Withiot,Robert 110
Wittersham Levels 229,230,235,243
Wittersham,medieval chest 105,109 women,15th-century businesses and occupat-
ions in Canterbury 179-99 Woodchurch 257
Wormshill,medieval chest 117
Worsfold,Frederick Henry 261-2,267,277
Wylliam,Johanna 186
Yalding,Pulham garden 299
350
image