Kent Archaeological Society Newsletter, No. 40. Spring 1998
The Castles of Kent No.3: Rochester Castle
Introduction
In 1997, the Canterbury Archaeological Trust undertook an archaeological watching brief at Rochester Castle while trenches were excavated for new electricity cables (Fig. 1) (Ward and Linklater 1997). Thanks are extended to Rochester upon Medway City Council for funding this archaeological work and to all those who assisted with the project.
During the post-medieval (1550-1750) and early modern (1750-1875) periods, the castle grounds were used as allotments, gardens, and, most recently, a grassed open area. Both horticulture and landscaping would mean compost, soil, and other materials being brought into the castle grounds. It was expected that there would be a build-up of about a meter over medieval deposits. As the trenches to be excavated were to be only 0.75 m deep, it was thought unlikely that significant archaeological deposits would be encountered. As is usual on archaeological sites, the expected did not happen!
Although the standing fabric has been studied in some detail (Livett 1895; Payne 1905), very little is known about the below-ground archaeology of the castle. In 1976, Colin Flight and Arthur Harrison undertook a small excavation immediately in front of the outer wall, adjacent to Epaul Lane (Flight and Harrison 1978). This important trench produced the remains of a Roman building passing below the medieval defenses. By using all the known evidence, they were able to work out the sequence of castle construction. It had been generally accepted that the first Norman castle was a motte (mound) and bailey (courtyard) constructed outside the third-century Roman town walls, on what is known as Boley Hill. This is one of the fables of local archaeology which, because it has been repeated so many times, has become 'fact' (modern Ordnance Survey maps still show this 'castle' on Boley Hill). Not a shred of positive evidence has been produced for a castle ever having existed at this position. This interpretation was accepted because it was what archaeologists 'wanted' (unfortunately this 'woolly minded' way of thinking is, if anything, on the increase within Kentish archaeology - my students take note!). If looked at in an objective manner, this fable could have been quickly dismissed. At Canterbury, London, York, Lincoln, Wareham, and other urban places, where defenses already existed, the Normans constructed castles within those circuits. If part of a pre-existing defensive area could be cordoned off, this was the easiest, quickest, and cheapest way of constructing a new fortification. Also, it would more easily dominate and defend the town. The only possible exception known to the present writer, of a castle being constructed outside of an urban center, is at Dover, but here there is the problem of even identifying the site of the late Anglo-Saxon town (Tatton Brown 1984, p.23).
The Development of the Castle
Although much detail remains hidden, the main building phases of the castle are probably known:
1. The first castle on the site would either be of the motte and bailey or ringwork type. The latter consisting of a bank, palisade, and ditch. The castle must have been in existence by 1086 for Domesday Book tells us that the Bishop of Rochester, the pre-Conquest landholder, had exchanged the site for property at Aylesford. The date of construction is more likely to be nearer 1066-72, the time of the Conquest, than later. The exchange of land may have taken place only after the contingencies of war had been satisfied and merely recognized a fait accompli.
Of the first castle, nothing can be seen today. The excavation of 1976 showed that the stone wall of the second castle had been constructed on an earlier gravel and chalk rubble bank. If the wall was being constructed from new, it would almost certainly not be constructed on an unstable bank. It is a reasonable deduction, therefore, that this bank must represent the first castle. The gravel of this bank was observed in 1976 (Flight and Harrison 1978) and again in 1995 (Ward 1995) when the so-called 'arches of construction' forming the foundation of the fourteenth-century east wall were exposed. The gravel of the earlier rampart had stuck to the underside of each arch. The base of the gravel lay directly on top of the so-called 'dark soil' layer, which was deposited after the abandonment of the Roman town. The top of the dark soil must represent the late eleventh-century ground surface; from this point to the internal apex of the arches is a height of 3.40 m. This is the minimum height of the rampart. As gravel is inherently unstable, the higher the rampart, the broader it would need to be. It also seems likely that a vertical timber or turf revetment would be necessary on the external face. As the rampart was constructed on the then ground surface, it must also mean that the slope within the late eleventh-century bailey would be completely different from that which is seen today. The chalk ridge upon which the castle stands would be narrower and slope to the east as well as to the north. Gradually the area behind the rampart has been leveled off, the build-up being over four meters deep. Well-preserved Anglo-Saxon, Roman, and Iron Age deposits may exist below this leveling.
2. Between November 1087 and May 1089, Gundulf, Bishop of Rochester, agreed to fortify the castle 'for the king in stone at his own expense', the king in question being William II (1087-99). The wording implies the presence of an earlier, timber, castle. That this stone wall was constructed on the earlier bank suggests that it was made at a time of emergency. As stronger fortifications are usually constructed as a consequence of 'events,' there is the distinct possibility that Gundulf was ordered to build the castle once the rebellion of Odo, Bishop of Bayeux and Earl of Kent, and the king's uncle, had been quashed (mid-1088). In case of further trouble, the emphasis was perhaps on speed rather than quality or stability. This castle is usually referred to as Gundulf's Castle, implying the site was back in the hands of the Bishop of Rochester, whereas in fact, it was still a royal establishment. Parts of the fabric of this structure can be seen in the outer wall on the west side of the bailey. The castle at this date may have retained an earlier motte, had a new one constructed, or have been a large walled enclosure.
3. The bailey is dominated by a classic Norman keep. This magnificent structure was built by Archbishop William de Corbeil, in or after 1127 with the permission and encouragement of Henry I (1099-1135). The king granted the custody and constableship of the castle to the archbishop and his successors.
4. After the siege of 1215, one of the few occasions in this country when a castle was taken by assault, the fortification was taken back into royal hands. The southeast tower of the keep was rebuilt, and various other repairs and alterations undertaken. In 1230-1, it was ordered that a wall be constructed in front of the keep, thereby dividing the bailey in two. What is supposed to be the eastern stub of this wall can be seen protruding from the southwest corner of Tower 2.
5. The east wall of the castle was rebuilt between 1367 and 1370 in the reign of Edward III (1327-77). As the foundations of Gundulf's wall were not seen in 1976 or 1995, they must have been of shallow depth. It seems likely that rebuilding was necessary due to the gravel rampart moving and consequently weakening the eleventh-century wall. The fourteenth-century wall may have been built on a seasonal basis, for what appear to be breaks in construction were identified in 1995. The two rectangular towers were also built at this time, although Tower 2 was preceded by an earlier structure. After the sixteenth century, the castle ceased to be of military use and passed to private owners.
The Trenches
Trench A. At each end of this trench, interesting archaeological deposits were observed. At the north, on the site of the medieval main gate, destroyed in the eighteenth century, masonry was found less than 20 cm below the modern ground surface. Although no edges of the structure were observed, the degree of preservation shows that a good plan of the gate can be recovered should the opportunity ever arise.
Two 'robber cuts,' representing the lines of destroyed walls, were observed to the south of the main modern path leading to the keep. If their alignment were continued, they would meet at a right angle. Although the trenches were backfilled with demolition material and therefore represent 'robber' trenches, their width, of 1.25 and 2.00 m, shows that a substantial structure must have existed at this point. It seems likely that this building was the inner gatehouse. Unfortunately, no trace of the dividing wall, to which the gate should have been attached, was observed during the trenching, nor in subsequent geophysical surveys undertaken across the grassed areas.
At the extreme south end of the trench, a clay floor and demolition material were observed. The deposits were not excavated, but a substantial amount of medieval pottery was recovered from the surface. From the clay floor, 97 sherds of pottery, dateable to the period 1200-1225/50, were recovered. From demolition and occupation deposits below the floor, 155 and 139 sherds were found, dating from 1175-1200/25 and 1200/25-1275, respectively. The concentration of a large amount of pottery in a small area, and a date range tending to center on the early thirteenth century, may be significant and perhaps represents the events of 1215 and subsequent rebuilding. The building represented by the clay floor would have been constructed against the outer wall and was lit by four windows overlooking the river. These four openings are usually referred to as loops implying defensive attributes, of which they have none, they are designed for letting in light.
Trench B. Only at the west end of this trench was anything of significance seen. A ragstone rubble wall foundation representing one side of a north-south aligned structure was observed. The truncation of this wall, presumably in the post-medieval period, had destroyed its associated floor deposits. Three sherds of pottery dateable to the period 1175-1225/50 were recovered. An extensive dark brown sandy gravel deposit seen at the far west end of the trench probably represents the bank of the earliest Norman castle.
Trench C. At the extreme south end of this trench, 80 cm of early modern deposits overlay a layer of sand which stretched for at least five meters northwards. This deposit respected the slope of the modern ground surface, which in this corner of the castle grounds is considerable, rising nearly four meters in a forty-meter length (Fig. 2). That the sand dips below other deposits suggests that it continues downwards at a steeper angle. It is possible that this deposit represents a Norman motte in the southeast angle of the bailey. Although sand is not a good material from which to make a mound, there is a parallel at Hastings (Barker and Barton 1977, p.88).
Conclusion=
While little actual excavation took place, the exercise gave a good archaeological insight into what can be expected should future trenching be undertaken across the castle grounds. That high-quality archaeological deposits survived so close to the surface was a surprise to all concerned, and it must be assumed that well-preserved deposits exist over the whole of the grassed area at a depth of less than a meter.
References
Barker, P.A. and Barton, K.J. 1977. Excavations at Hastings Castle 1968, The Archaeological Journal, Vol. 134, p.80-100.
Flight, C. and Harrison, A.C. 1978. Rochester Castle, 1976, Archaeologia Cantiana, Vol. XCIV, p.26-60.
Livett, G.M. 1895. Medieval Rochester, Archaeologia Cantiana, Vol. XXI, p.17-72.
Payne, G. 1905. The Reparation of Rochester Castle, Archaeologia Cantiana, Vol. XXI, p.17-72.
Tatton Brown, I. 1984. The Towns of Kent, in Anglo-Saxon Towns in Southern England, (Ed. J. Haslam).
Ward, A. 1995. Rochester Castle Curtain Wall (unpublished archive report).
Ward, A. and Linklater, A. 1997. An Archaeological Watching Brief at Rochester Castle (unpublished archive report).
Alan Ward. Dec.1997.
KAS/CAT /KCC Archaeological Education Service
The Education Service managed by the Canterbury Archaeological Trust is jointly funded by the Kent Archaeological Society, the Canterbury Archaeological Trust, and Kent County Council Education Department. The Service derives policy guidance from the Education Committee of the KAS, chaired by Dr. Alec Detsicas with Marion Green, CAT's Education Officer, as Secretary. The implementation of the work of the Service is managed on a part-time paid basis by Marion Green, drawing on the expertise of members of the Committee, members of the Canterbury Archaeological Trust, and external educationalists as necessary.
The underlying aims of the Education Service are firstly, to promote Archaeology through the county's educational establishments reaching as many young people as possible in the most economic way; and secondly, to do this placing particular emphasis on local aspects.
Certain priorities need to be established for the work we undertake, as resources for educational ventures are limited. Over the past few years, our contribution has been varied and both reactive and proactive in nature. Hence a rather broad base has developed, with input being made at all levels of formal education, from the primary sector to the tertiary. However, the focus has always been and will continue to be on Kent schools. The introduction of the National Curriculum for maintained schools in the late 1980s and early 1990s identified a particular need and thus helping teachers to implement the History programs is our first priority.
Experience has shown more recently that, within this, some prioritization of the various possible education projects is the sensible route to take if we are to fulfill our fundamental aims. In order to reach large numbers of school children, the most economic way is to empower teachers with knowledge and the capability to convey this knowledge to pupils. In attempting to achieve this, production of teaching materials supplemented by INSET (In-Service Training) for working teachers and tuition for student teachers is likely to be the most effective.
Teaching Materials
Both Roman Canterbury and a more recent publication, Discovering Archaeology in National Curriculum History, have been produced by the Service specifically for use in primary and lower secondary schools. The former brings together much primary evidence for the Roman town in an easily digestible form and is a valuable case study for schools beyond East Kent in addition to those nearer to Canterbury itself. Discovering Archaeology in National Curriculum History is a teaching handbook of archaeological processes, classroom activities, local and national contacts, and Kent sites to visit and is to be used across the county. Ian Coulson (a member of the Education Committee) does sterling work promoting both these books and the Education Service in schools throughout the county, in his professional capacity of Lead Consultant for History for the Kent Curriculum Services Agency.
The author of Roman Canterbury has been working on another written resource, this time for 11 to 12-year-olds. Medieval Canterbury should be useful to many secondary schools as a case study when looking at the study unit, 'Medieval Realms'.
For the future, some form of educational resource for schools which embraces aspects of the archaeology of Kent, across the county, would be a worthwhile project. This will be discussed in due course within the Education Committee.
In-Service Training (INSET) and Student Teacher Training
These are useful vehicles for reaching working teachers and those training in the profession. One INSET day has been hosted by the Service to date for primary school teachers which was very well received. We are planning another day for the spring of 1998 and have begun discussions within the Education Committee for a further day based in the Rochester area on aspects of mid and north Kent archaeology for secondary school teachers. Ideally, INSET could become a regular feature of the Education Service, reaching both local teachers and teachers in other areas of the county. In addition, in January 1997 we accepted a primary school teacher on placement at Canterbury Archaeological Trust for 3 days. She was the History Coordinator at Bethersden CP School (near Tenterden, in the middle of the county) and had a particular interest in artifacts and how archaeologists use them as evidence. The Teacher Placement Scheme is organized by the Kent Education Business Partnership for the CBI Education Foundation.
The Education department of Canterbury Christ Church College has been liaising with Canterbury Archaeological Trust regarding a series of tuition sessions for student teacher undergraduates. Two sessions have taken place so far. The focus is two-fold: the archaeological evidence for Roman Canterbury to develop personal knowledge and the use of artifacts as a teaching resource. A number of these people will eventually be looking for teaching posts in Kent. I hope that this contact can be developed in the future.
Other areas of educational input
We envisage the continuation of other aspects of our Education Service, which are largely reactive in nature, as long as they do not detract from the completion of priority projects and are financially viable.
While visits out to schools (in Canterbury, Herne Bay, Ashford, Preston, Wickhambreaux, and Margate in the past year) are without doubt beneficial and enjoyable, there is no plan at present to expand this area of input. Any development would be difficult to justify in terms of time expended and the inevitably limited numbers of young people who would benefit. This said, the small number of visits usually made will be maintained, to schools which are easily accessible.
Work Experience placements of one week's duration are given on a first come, first served basis and there is a quota in operation. Now the really keen schools approach us well in advance of placement time. This often means that the student is considering a career in Archaeology or a related area and therefore the experience of working in a unit will be particularly valuable. The nature of archaeological work can mean considerable staff supervision, by CAT members other than the Education Officer. Work Experience has therefore been a relatively expensive provision in the past, considering we can usually provide for only one or two students at a time. Many secondary schools are very appreciative of our role here as opportunities for budding archaeologists to get hands-on experience are rare. It is therefore planned to maintain the quota but revise the content of the program to reduce expenditure. Over the past year, we have been able to accommodate students from secondary schools throughout Kent: Maidstone, Tonbridge, Folkestone, Sittingbourne, Canterbury, Ashford, Sandwich, Orpington, and Rochester.
Excavation visits can be arranged when conditions allow and all Kent schools are invited to come and see archaeology in action. On the last such occasion (summer 1996), a member of the Trust field staff, Andy Linklater, very ably assisted with visits to a dig at Christ Church College. We had groups (mostly primary schools) from Maidstone, Folkestone, Canterbury, Great Chart (near Ashford), Headcorn, Woodchurch, Benenden (all in the Tenterden area), Hoath (near Herne Bay), Wingham, Bridge (both in the Canterbury area), and Broadstairs. It is envisaged that specially designed visits will again be in operation in connection with Canterbury Archaeological Trust's program of excavations in 1998. As usual, all Kent schools would be notified of these.
And finally... There are always a number of varied requests for information and data relating to individual student projects, from primary school to undergraduate level, both from within the county and beyond it. These are usually History related. One interesting exception came from a mature student on a nursing course. She was embarking on a 'Community Profile' of the Northgate area of Canterbury and was looking for evidence of social strata, welfare, and health conditions in the past. Although History was not a key element in her nursing studies, she had on this occasion taken the initiative to approach the Trust for assistance. She left with information about St John's Hospital (built under Archbishop Lanfranc) and the Medieval cemetery at St Gregory's Priory, feeling that she had broken new ground.
I extend many thanks to those people and organizations who have continued to support our work. Firstly, to the Kent Archaeological Society and the Education Committee which give guidance and financial support to our work; to Kent County Council for their financial support; and to the Friends of Canterbury Archaeological Trust for theirs. A special vote of thanks goes to Ian Coulson for his guidance and advice in curriculum matters.
Marion Green/Education Officer
January 1998.
Events, Outings, Lectures
K.A.S. Events
Summer Social Evening. The Society's Summer Barbeque will be held at 5:45 p.m. on Saturday, 9 May at Bradbourne House, East Malling. It will be preceded by 'Crawling round Malling' and will include a tour of Bradbourne House to view the restoration work. Meet at East Malling Church at 4 p.m. Tickets (£8) and inquiries to Mrs. M. Lawrence.
Fieldwork Conference on 'Roman Kent and beyond' will take place at Christ Church College, Canterbury on Saturday, 24 October, 1998. Speakers include Dave Perkins, Dr. Michael Still, and David Rudling. Further information and tickets from Mrs. S. Broomfield, 8 Woodview Crescent, Tonbridge, TN11 9HD. Tel: 01732 838698.
Kent Archaeological Field School are running a series of one-day courses on practical archaeology and its methods on Saturdays, September - November, 1998. Cost is £25 per day. Further details from Kent Archaeological Field School, School Farm Oast, Graveney Road, Faversham. Tel: 01585 700112.
Neolithic Orkney in its European context. Conference organized by Orkney Heritage Society 10 - 14 September, 1998. Cost £85 (£75 if paid before 1 June) £45 for unwaged. This excludes accommodation but includes the study trips or the Conference Dinner. Further details from Conference Secretary, Katherine Towsey.
Romney Marsh Conference. The Third Romney Marsh Conference will be held 18 - 20 September at Rutherford College, University of Kent at Canterbury. The program consists of 13 papers and an optional field trip on Sunday afternoon. Further details and booking forms from Mrs. D. Beck.
Romney Marsh Research Trust is holding a Sponsored Walk to raise funds for research on Saturday, 27 June. The walk commences at Fairfield and walkers will be provided with a detailed annotated map of the route. Kenneth Gravett will give architectural talks in Brooklands belfry and Fairfield Church, and Gill Draper and Jill Eddison will give short talks on recent research and will take questions. Sponsorship forms available from Mrs. D. Beck.
Scadbury Manor open days: Orpington and District Archaeological Society will be opening their excavations on this medieval moated site on 12 and 13 September, 1998. Car parking permits available from Mr. M. Meekums.
Two Unsolved Penshurst Mysteries
For some years now I have been at work, with the permission of Lord De L'Isle, on an edition of the seventeenth-century library catalogue of the Sidney family of Penshurst Place. The library was a large one (about 5000 volumes) and the task has been a complex one, but fascinating for those who, like myself, work on the history of books. Two problems have arisen, however, to which I have failed to find a solution, and I am hoping the members of the Kent Archaeological Society can help. The first is the rumor that in 1666, the library in fact burned down. The second is a statement by Robert Sidney, second earl of Leicester, that at some point in the period 1665-75, his library had been invaded by "spoylers," and books to the value of two hundred pounds taken away.
The reference to the conflagration is in an entry for 1671 in the Life and Times of the Oxford antiquary Anthony Wood. The Sidneys, he writes, from the time of King Edward VI,
have been collectors of books and have furnished such an eminent library that there were 3 thousand folios in it, besides others, and some MSS. Seven score years in collecting. This library was burnt between 9 and 12 on Maundy Thursday morning 1666, when several fires at that time were thereabouts.
I have made a careful search in Anthony Wood's papers in the Bodleian Library, and in his letters in the British Library, but can find no record of where he obtained this information, nor why he entered it in his pocket diary in 1671, five years after the alleged fire took place.
A likely source would be information given to him by John Aubrey, but that trail has also proved unprofitable. But did a fire actually take place? In all the De L'Isle family papers there is no mention at this or any later date of a fire at Penshurst: not of the fire, not of the carting away of burned timbers, not of rebuilding, not in letters, not in account books, nothing. With one exception, I have found no other seventeenth-century references to such an event, nor any later ones. Which does not of course mean that it didn't happen; it's just that you would expect Edward Hasted and other early antiquarians to remember that sort of thing.
The exception is a reference in Thomas Smith's preliminary essay to the catalogue of the Cottonian Library (1696):
Among the illustrious men who had frequent contact with him [Cotton], whether in speech or by letter, in their tireless zeal for the collection of books ... [was] Robert Sydney Earl of Leicester. But these noble libraries so eminently worthy of their owners have fallen victim ... to the corrosive effects of time on the heritage and goods of noblemen, or have suffered irreparable loss in an actual fire, as was the lamentable fate of the Sydney library which the illustrious Earl, his son and successors inspired by the same love of literature had each in turn enriched with great acquisitions and which was destroyed some thirty years ago when the great house of Penshurst went up in flames.
The anecdote, repeated a generation after the event, suggests that a fire of some sort may have occurred. Yet the very extravagance of the description makes me suspicious. Penshurst still stands, despite later changes very much the aged pile that Ben Jonson described. Among later book lists (1675, 1723) there is good evidence of the continuity of the library, and a substantial Sidney family library was sold at auction in 1743. So if any Kentish historian knows of local information which might confirm or deny Anthony Wood's statement, I would be very glad to know about it.
The second Penshurst mystery emerges from a booklist compiled by Robert, second earl of Leicester, in 1675, when he was eighty. Written out on January 16, 1675/6, the list was prompted by what was apparently a violent removal of books from his study at an undetermined date several years earlier. I have no idea what caused persons unknown to make off with about 200 pounds worth of books from Penshurst. The document is in the elderly owner's quavering hand, and at the bottom he has written "I cannot tell the number of English Books of a lesser volume which are took away in the spoyl. Many miscell. & concord. are missing: so that upon serious consideration, I think that my loss at the least amounts to two hundred pounds. Upon 5 or 6 revisions of my Books, I miss about 44 which I am sure were in my study before the spoylers came there." The books had been missing for some time; he notes that he had been able to buy back his copy of Hobbes at Ridgwell, "about three years after my books were took away," but this does not tell us when the original invasion took place. At any rate, a month after the list quoted above, Lord Leicester wrote out another list to report the return of the books from a Mr. Alston "by Alexander Bell's cart." Again, here is an event I cannot identify. Perhaps a local historian will recognize details which will tell me when and why the "spoylers" took Lord Leicester's books, and who they might have been. Was this invasion of his study connected with some local political or religious disagreement?
If there are Kentish historians whose knowledge of diaries, letters, and other local records might cast light on either of these mysteries, I would be glad to hear from them, and I and my co-editors (Dr. William Bowen and Dr. Joseph L. Black) will gratefully acknowledge their assistance in our edition. Please write to me as follows: Prof. Germaine Warkentin, Victoria College, University of Toronto, 73 Queen's Park Crescent, Toronto, Ontario Canada M5S 1K7 (e-mail: warkent@chass.utoronto.ca).
Germaine Warkentin
Part-time Certificates and Diplomas in Archaeology
Archaeology is an exciting discipline involving the study of past peoples and cultures. It explores the historical past as well as more distant times many millennia before the appearance of written evidence. Archaeological and Classical Studies, part of the University of Kent's School of European Culture and Languages, offers a range of archaeological modules at both Certificate and Diploma level which can be studied on a part-time basis. They can also contribute to a degree in Classical and Archaeological Studies.
There will be intakes to the Certificate and Diploma in Archaeological Studies in October 1998. Courses will be taught both at the University's Canterbury Campus and its Centre in Tonbridge.
The Certificate will address the particular character of archaeological evidence; how it may be used to further understanding of earlier societies; and will provide a sound grounding in the particular periods studied. Courses will include An Introduction to Archaeological Method, The Age of Stonehenge, Late Pre-Roman and Early Roman Britain, Medieval England (700 to 1400) and Egyptology: Chronology and Sources.
The Diploma will extend the chronological and geographical scope of archaeological studies. It will allow comparison of the approaches employed, using different combinations of evidence, in the study of contrasting cultures at various periods across Europe and around the Mediterranean. Courses will include The Birth of Europe: Formative Episodes in European Prehistory, Egypt and the East Mediterranean, Heads, Heroes and Horses: in Search of the Prehistoric Celts and Rome and its Western Empire.
Applications will be welcome from anyone who wishes to study archaeology on a part-time basis. Formal academic qualifications for entry are not necessary if candidates can demonstrate their interest in the discipline and the aptitude to study at the appropriate level.
For a Prospectus containing information on the programmes, contact: The Unit for Part-time Study, Keynes College, University of Kent, Canterbury CT2 7NP. Telephone 01227 823507 or 823157.
Books
Elizabeth M. Tillman, Getting to the Roots of the Family Tree: The Story of a Saxon Family. 3 Volumes (paperback) xxvi + 1179, including drawings and photographs (1997 Heritage Books Inc. ISBN 0-7884-0627-2.) $65.00. Alternatively contact the author at Stanavis, Hawks Hill, Fetcham, Leatherhead, Surrey.
This book, in three parts, traces a family, as far as this is possible, from the time of the Saxon invasion to Norfolk, then spreading to Kent and the West Country. About two thirds of the story is set in Kent, where the family multiplied and flourished and produced its most distinguished member, who was granted a coat of arms. Not only dealing with members of the family in other counties, the author has shown the connection with the early emigrants to Virginia and Maryland who gave rise to some very celebrated characters. Bill Tilghman, the western lawman commemorated on a U.S. postage stamp, Tench Tilghman, who carried George Washington's hand-written dispatch of the British surrender at Yorktown to Congress, and Tilghman Island in Chesapeake Bay are all included. The author says, "I wanted to know if I could find out who the ancestors were... to know about the people, where they lived, what their occupations were and anything unusual or interesting about them." The author has set her researches into context and despite the truly enormous amount of detail that has been gathered and included in the volumes, I am sure that many will find items of interest in the vast range of sources that have been examined and perhaps surnames of interest to them in the 40 pages of index covering about 2,000 names (which includes no Tillman or Tilghman entries). Part 2, pp. 409-888 covers the family from both East and West Kent and will provide an insight for those that have not strayed into the Public Record Office of the range of documents that can be used to bring ancestors to light.
My eye alighted on the index on John Castlocke - was this the last Abbot of Faversham? [For a recent account of him and his skulduggery see P. Hyde, Thomas Arden in Faversham (1996)]. Alas not but a near relative. The entry on page 945 was a Feet of Fine (CP25(2) 309 Kent Michaelmas 11 Jas I (1613]) which showed that John had paid Thomas Tilghman alias Tilman and Mildred his wife £120 for the manor and lands of 'Moryscourte' [Morris-Court] in the parish of Bapchild. According to Hasted John, who was Mayor of Faversham in 1612, was the son of another John Castlock mayor in 1603, and was granted arms in 1614.
The line drawings and maps by the author greatly enhance this very enjoyable work. At page 1138 is a pull-out chart showing the descent of the early emigrants to America from the family in Pluckley. If there is a criticism of this splendid book it would be for me that I would have liked many more of these charts since I find it much easier to understand family relationships in this visual manner. Nonetheless, the author has produced a remarkable history of her family name which will be an inspiration to many others working on their Kentish ancestors.
Duncan Harrington.
BECKET'S BONES TO THE BLITZ - Seven more Canterbury Tales for Children (9 to 12+); by Marjorie Lyle. 56 pp. illustrated - ISBN 0-9529383-1-6 - £4.95.
This new set of tales continues from Seven Buried Canterbury Tales (£3.99) and goes from the Dissolution of St. Thomas' shrine to 1942.
Offer to K.A.S. members £4.50 post free or £7.50 post free for both books. Cheques to 'Chough Press' at 25 Rough Common Road, Canterbury CT2 9DL.
I am writing in the hope that members may be able to identify some structures I have come across while carrying out research on the biology and ecology of the saltmarsh mosquito at Pegwell Bay, near Ramsgate in Kent (Figure 3 - OS reference TR 340 624). On the site there are three large earthworks which are obviously man-made because they are shaped like the letter "E" or the number "3". They are composed of Thanet Sands which has been brought from Cottington Hill, approximately 1 kilometre away, and dumped onto the silt which comprises the saltmarsh. However, they do not appear on any Ordnance Survey maps dating from 1898, and I have not been able to find out anything about their origin or purpose. These structures are not easily seen on the ground but become obvious from aerial photographs. On the left is Pfizer's sportsground, in the middle is Stonelees Nature Reserve and at the top is the Ramsgate to Sandwich road, the A256.
The earthworks measure approximately 20 metres by 6 metres, and are a maximum of 1 metre high. Towards the sea is an irregular line of earthworks which do appear on Ordnance Survey maps dating from 1898. These are also composed of Thanet Sands, and are therefore man-made. On the landward side is an ancient earth embankment and ditch which forms the edge of the Stonelees Nature Reserve and Pfizer's sportsground. A line of anti-tank traps was built into the embankment during the Second World War. Pools have developed against or in close proximity to these earthworks, and it is in these pools where the saltmarsh mosquitoes develop, which I have been studying (see diagram).
A metal link from an early Victorian chain was unearthed from beneath one of the "E" or "3" -shaped structures, and it is possible that this was left behind when they were made. This is the only evidence that has been found for a possible date of origin. There is a metal tower on the ancient embankment which used to support a warning (air-raid type) siren. This may have been associated with the "secret" port of Richborough, built in 1917, or may have been intended for use during the Second World War. The train ferry berth built in 1917 is only a few metres away on the estuary of the river Stour. Plans made of the area when the "secret" port was being constructed do not show these structures either. This might suggest a date later than 1917, but as I have said, the structures do not appear on maps from after this date either. It is odd that an irregular (seemingly natural) line of earthworks has been recorded on maps but not an assemblage of obviously man-made structures in the same area.
It has been suggested that the shaped earthworks were hides for duck shooting, and the irregular earthworks for helping to channel the birds into the firing line. Or that the shaped structures may have been used for target practice or for defence purposes, but these last two uses would not explain the presence of the other earthworks. The area is marshy and/or actually under water for much of the year and I feel this would make these uses impractical. There is also a large gap between two of the structures where I would have expected to find another similar earthwork (see diagram). I am therefore not convinced by any of these ideas.
These structures have had a profound influence on the development of the pools on the saltmarsh where the mosquitoes develop, and therefore on the presence of the mosquitoes. I am naturally curious to know their origin. I therefore wondered whether, if you published my letter and figures in Archaeologia Cantiana, your readers might be able to help. Or whether you might be able to suggest any other source of information on these structures. I would be extremely grateful for any help you or your readers may be able to give.
Andre Molenkamp
KAS Hon. Editor's Announcement
The Hon. Editors welcome all letters, articles and communications and would particularly like to receive more from members and others, especially requests for research information, finds, books and related topics. The Editors wish to draw readers' attention to the fact that neither the Council of the KAS, nor the Editors are answerable for opinions which contributors may express in the course of their signed articles. Each author is solely responsible for the contents and substance of their letters, items or papers. Material for the next Newsletter should be sent by 1st July 1998 to Hon. Editors, Mr & Mrs L. E. Ilott.
Published by the Kent Archaeological Society, The Museum, St. Faith's Street, Maidstone, Kent. ME141LH.
Printed by Delta Press, Crayford Industrial Estate, Swaisland Drive, Crayford DAI 4HT. Typesetting and Design by )anset 0181-301 2856.
