KAS Newsletter, Issue 48, Winter 2000/2001

The Roman Invasion

Introduction

In the Spring issue 1999 of the Kent Archaeological Review Brian Philp's article entitled the Second battle of the Medway ends with 'watch this space for future developments' (Philp 1999, p.99-101). As many of you know there has already been a conference in Sussex on the route taken by the invading Roman army in AD 43 and it is good to see that there will now be a Kent based conference on the same subject (ed. K.A.R. No. 142, p.44). those who have worked with me or attended my various adult education classes know from experience that I would never be able to resist a debate such as this. As far as other archaeologists in Kent (but not in Sussex) are concerned I shall play devils advocate and put forward some of the factors which may support a route through Sussex rather than farther east.

The debate amongst several members of the archaeological fraternity as to the landing place of the Roman army in AD43 is however, not new and the debate can (and no doubt will - 'groan') continue for years and no conclusion will be any the nearer. However, if the (meagre) evidence is looked at in an objective manner the advocates of a Sussex route have probably been more constructive, or at least have put forward ideas that have not (in my view) been adequately answered by those who support a Kentish route. The present writer is not particularly concerned as to the route of the Roman army, but here attempts to summarise the evidence and to expand on some (but by no means all) of the points debated.

In September 1998 Martin Henig of Wolfson College, Oxford published a short article on the attitude of the indigenous Iron Age tribes to the Roman invasion. Amongst other statements he disputes the traditional interpretation that the Roman army landed in Kent, at that time dominated by the Catuvellauni. Instead he states that the landing was made in the friendly territory of the Atrebates in Sussex and therefore that the two­ day battle recorded by Dio Cassius at 'a river' was not at the

'traditional' site, the River Medway. Others then joined the debate in a series of short articles and letters within British Archaeology, the Kent Archaeological So. Newsletter and the Kent Archaeological Review. What many readers are probably unaware of is that J.G.F. Hind of the University of Leeds challenged the idea that the Roman army marched through Kent, ten years ago in a superb article within Britannia Volume xx. (Hind 1989, pl-21). This article should be compulsory reading for all who are interested in the subject. As far as the present writer is aware there was no attempt at that time to refute the interpretation offered. Hind points out that that the debate is not new and has been going on since the nineteenth century with Sussex, Essex, Hampshire and Kent, all being suggested as the area of invasion. The latter came to be considered the 'correct' route from the early part of this century and was 'confirmed' by the finding of a Claudian base at Richborough in the 1930's.

One of the excuses for the invasion used by the Roman government was the appeal by Verica, King of the Atrebates for help against his enemies the Catuvellauni or internal claimants to his throne (or both). Whether the aristocracies of the southern tribes were already Romanised and that many welcomed the invasion as suggested by Dr. Henig is of course open to argument. His interpretation of events in northern Britain, whether right or wrong, is a completely different theme and does not form part of this debate. Some, perhaps many, of the British aristocracy in the south do appear to have readily adopted Roman culture within a few years of the invasion although it would appear that others (e.g. Boadicea - 'yes I know its supposed to be Boudicca, but I'am old fashioned') thought otherwise.

The evidence

1. The route: The suggestion that the whole of the invading army landed in Sussex is a development on the idea that part of the army landed near Chichester (Cunliffe 1971, p23; Webster 1980, p95). This latter idea was partly based on the statement by Dio that the Roman army sailed in three divisions, which could be used to imply three separate landing places. A variation on this theme was that the three places were Richborough, Dover and Lymphe, based purely on the fact that the three main Roman roads in Kent start from these places to converge at Canterbury. Other variations have also been suggested (Hind 1989, p.8-19).

The Roman Invasion of AD 43: the alternative routes

The Roman high command would have known of the problems that Julius Caesar had in 55 and 54 BC when attempting ( and failing) to find a safe harbour. Even Richborough might not have been as safe as is usually thought for it may have been dilficult of access and subject to strong tidal flows both up and down the Wansum Channel. The lack of a safe harbour, the opposition that had occurred on Caesar's first raid and the harrying that he received on his second may all have suggested to the Roman high command that they should opt for an easier and safer anchorage further west within friendly territory. The advocates of a Sussex landing place have made much of the latter point; the Atrebates proved the excuse for intervention and would provide supplies, manpower and a safe base from which to operate. All of which are valid points. However, the Roman army was an offensive army and would probably want to bring the enemy to battle as quickly as possible. A more direct route to the north of the Thames through Kent, especially if supported by the fleet, might therefore be more applicable than one through modern Sussex, Hampshire and Surrey. The obvious counter argument to this is that eventually the enemy would have to seek battle anyway and therefore it was better, to be in friendly territory with guides and helpers.

It has been assumed since the early twentieth century that the two day battle between the Roman army and the native British tribesmen in AD43 described by the classical historian Dio Cassius took place on the banks of the River Medway either at, or to the south west of Rochester. If this "traditional" view is correct, one of the routes suggested for the Roman army has been regarded as the prehistoric trackway (Webster 1980, p.98) now known (incorrectly) as the Pilgrim's Way. There has been a recent attempt to position the site of the battle in the area of Halling close to this route (Nicolson 1998a, p.4-7; 1998b,p. 1-2). However, the suggestion that the route could have followed the more open country on or near the line of the present Watling Street and that the battle was fought closer to Rochester has much to commend it (Detsicas 1987, p.14). In 1976 Patrick Thornhill had also suggested a crossing at Upnor which, to the present writer, seems just as likely as the Halling crossing (Thornhill 1976, p.126). A route nearer the coast, along the so called "Lower Road", would certainly keep the army in contact with the fleet. Large quantities of equipment were presumably being shipped across the Channel and there seems little point in unloading all the supplies at Richborough to be then brought over land. Safe harbours to provide forward supply bases may have meant that the river in the area of Rochester was a military priority. This lack of naval support may be one of the weaknesses in the argument of the advocates of the Sussex route. However, if looked at on the wider scale, support by the fleet may be an irrelevance. Where was the fleet when the Roman army was marching through the forests of Germany, the Balkan mountains or the deserts of Syria?

The advocates of a Kent landing place have pointed out that beyond Chichester there was the Forest of the Weald and that this would hamper Roman operation. However, this pre-supposes there were no route-ways through the Weald. Even if we assume that the forest was as dense as we suppose (of which I am doubtfuJ) the Roman army and their allies (the Atrebates) could cut swathes through this forest. How many trees can 10,000, 30,000 or 50,000 (or more) men cut down in a day? Such terrain has not stopped the Roman army in other areas although occasionally, as in Germany in AD9, disaster ensued.

2. Documentary sources: The work of Dio Cassius is the only source, which gives any real detail about the Roman invasion. The statement by Suetonius is very short and what, no doubt, would have been our main source, the appropriate book of Tacitus' Annals is lost for this particular campaign. We have to remember that Dio is writing a hundred and fifty years after the event. This is as far removed as we are from the Crimean War, but there were no newspapers, no photographs, merely official announcements. Some of the propaganda would be recorded by (the very few) contemporary historians who might then ask for more information from friends and relatives taking part in the campaign. Dio's account has been translated and edited by S. Ireland (1986, p.45) from which the following applicable extracts are taken:

a. "they (the Romans) made the crossing in three divisions so as not to be hampered in landing, as a single force might be". (H.ind's translation reads ".... to avoid having an opposed landing, which might hold up a single force").

This statement could be used to support an argument either for three separate sailings to the same spot or three separate locations. The phrase "as a single force", could (arguably) be used to favour the former theory. W hatever it means, it is little use to us because it does not identify the landing place/ s. H.ind's translation could be used to support three different places, but this does not prevent an opposed landing and they also c_reate strategic, communication and logistical problems. In my view the word "hampered", and consequently one landing place is to be preferred. The statement is ambiguous and can mean whatever the reader wants it to mean.

b. ".... they (the Romans) were at first disheartened by being driven back in their course. Subsequently, though they recovered their spirits when a bolt of lightning (Hind "shooting star") shot from east to west the direction they were sailing".

This implies that the whole of the invasion fleet was at this time together, but whether they were driven back by the wind or the tide we have no way of knowing. All writers seem to agree that the invasion fleet set out from Boulogne (Frere 1978, p.78; Webster 1980 p.94; Detsicas 1983, p.11). The phrase "east to west" seems to argue in favour of a Sussex beachhead, such a direction hardly matches a course from Boulogne to Richborough. However, it is always possible the Roman fleet sa.iled north and once opposite the Isle of Thanet turned west. The statement is ambiguous and can mean whatever the reader wants it to mean.

c. "On putting into the island they met no resistance, since the Britons, from what they had learned, had not expected them to come, and had not assembledbeforehand". The initial response is to say that this must mean Kent, for this was dominated by the Catuvellauni and therefore this is where they would have assembled. Unfortunately the Catuvellauni also seem to have dominated Sussex for Berikos " had been driven out of the

....._

island as a result of an uprising". Berikos is regarded as being the same individual as Verica. Presumably name specialists have f".,,een able to make the connection surely enough for this identification to be accepted, although, on the information easily available, I personally am not totally convinced. The statement is ambiguous and can mean whatever the reader wants it to

mean.

".... surrender on terms of part of the Bodunni "

The Bodunni are usually equated with the Dobunni of Gloucestershire and hence it has been suggested that Kent would be too far away from their home territory for them to be operating. Two counter points can however, be raised. First, (importantly) the tribe may be some small, unknown, group from Kent (the Cantiaci are not mentioned by Caesar and are almost certainly a Roman administrative creation). Secondly the Dobunni as subjects of the Catuvellauni would (presumably) have to have no say on where they were to operate and they may have been brought over to Kent or Sussex. This statement is ambiguous and can read whatever the reader wants it to mean.

�".... (the Romans) came to a river. The Barbarians thought the Romans would not be able to cross without a bridge."

This statement implies that the river in question is wide, deep and/ or swiftly flowing. Again, initially the statement would tend to support the Medway rather than any of the Sussex rivers. Such a description of the River Medway is (today) true for the whole length from Gillingham to Aylesford. However, we should remember that Dio is writing about what the Britons thought (or -to make it confusing - what he (or his informant) thought they thought). To the Catuvellauni the River Arun would probably look just as formidable as the Medway. In the area of Arundel itself, the river is in the region of 30 metres wide, is just as muddy as the Medway and has vertical banks. Its flood plain, as far north as Coldwalthan, is for the most part three quarters of a mile wide and tidal. There are many steams, marshy areas and water meadows, although the latter would normally be dry in summer. The Arun may be "minor" to us and "no more than a few yards wide", (Philp 1999, p.100), but it is not our view which matters, it is the view of the Catuvellauni. Furthermore, the description that Dio does give of the river is very limited. He implies that it is wide, but if looked at

objectively he merely states there was no bridge. He also states German auxiliaries were sent across "who were quite used to swimming easily even in full armour across the swiftest currents". Note the phraseology. He does not actually say that this river was swiftly flowing merely that the auxiliaries could cross such rivers. A legion then "got across the river somehow"; 5500 heavy infantry were able to cross the river, followed by at least one more legion that night or the following day. No hint of a problem is stated by Dio. This latter factor could be used to suggest that the river was not such an obstacle as is usually thought. Again the statement is ambiguous and can read whatever the reader wants it to mean.

1. "from there (the river) the Britons withdrew to the Thames, at a point where itflows into the sea and at high tide forms a lake .... This they crossed with ease since they knew precisely where the ground was firm and the way passable."

   The statement in italics implies somewhere near the Thames estuary. A line of retreat from the Arun to the estuary makes no sense and this part of Dio's text definitely favours a Kent landing. However;

2. "The Romans .... got into difficulties while others crossed

by a bridge a little way upstream "

There is no way the Britons (or the Romans) could have built a permanent bridge anywhere near the Thames estuary. Two possibilities seem to arise:

Either the action was taking place at a narrower point to the west of London and there was a bridge nearby, in which case Dio's reference to the sea has to be interpreted in some other way. The statement may mean the limit of the tidal river where it might overflow its banks at high tide. Alternatively, the Romans constructed a pontoon bridge, which would then imply close liaison with the fleet, in which case a Kent invasion route is assured. However, whilst a route to the west of London is the long way around to reach Camulodunum (Colchester) the initial military target, it is not as implausible as it first appears. The area around Verularnium (St Albans) saw one of the earliest towns and was shown favour by the Roman authorities. Although within the kingdom of the Catuvellauni the nobles of this area may have made overtures to the Roman army and offered no resistance thereby preserving their own wealth and opening up Camulodunurn to an advance from the west. This then implies previous contact perhaps via messengers to and from Adminius, the exiled brother of Caratacus and Togodumnus joint kings of the Catuvellauni.

The statement taken as a whole, rather than its separate components (f and g) is ambiguous and can read whatever the reader wants it to mean; neither route has the advantage.

From the above comments it can be seen that all of the statements are ambiguous one (b) perhaps favours Sussex and one (f) perhaps Kent. What surprises the present writer is that with the exception of the Thames (and later in the text Camulodunurn) Dio Cassius writing (c. AD 200) long after the event fails to name a single place. By this time he would (or should) have known about Richborough, London, Chichester, etc, even if he did not know exactly where they were. A statement along the lines "the army landed at the place we now call ", might be expected. Also, perhaps importantly, he fails

to mention Julius Caesar's invasion, with a phrase along the lines "The army landed in the same area as that used by the deified Julius Caesar". Perhaps this is missed out due to the very fact that they did not land in the same area, and they did

3

not follow Cnesnr's route because they knew of the problems he had encountered in trying to protect his ships.

3. The archaeology: To say the archaeological evidence for one of the more momentous events in our history is a disappointment is an understatement (only beaten by the total dearth of archaeological evidence for the events of 1066). There is evidence at both Richborough and in the Chichester harbour area for a very early Roman military presence, probably datable to AD 43 or 44.

The area enclosed by the early ditches at Richborough seems to the present writer to be largely irrelevant to the debate (Manly 1999, p.14; Philp 1998, p.14; 1999 a, p.14; 1999 b, p.100). Due to

the erosion which has taken place, we have no way of checking how large this area actua.lly was. It may have covered 90 to 100 acres in a square of 600 to 650m or it may have covered an unknown area (but greater than 10 acres) in the form of an elongated rectangle as found at the early fort at Waddon Hill, Dorset (measuring c.200 x 75m.; Webster and Dudley 1965, p.105 and Fig.23). Also if we assume that the whole Roman army landed at Richborough in three separate divisions over a few hours or days. Part might always be moving forward to provide room for those behind (Detsicas 1983, p.12-13). If this were the case, the whole of the army would never have been brigaded together. Each legion, or any combination, may have had separate marching camps and the ditches found at Richborough may merely have been brigade headquarters and a storage area. Certainly they seem (to the present writer) to have far more in common with a permanent fort than a temporary marching camp.

Although early military style buildings have been found near Chichester (as far as the present writer is aware) there is no sign of fortification. Even assuming this was friendly territory, a marching camp or camps would be likely, but this apparent lack of evidence may merely be a reflection on the area excavated.

If it could be shown that marching camps and early forts were constructed along what was to become Watling Street, a Kent landing would possibly be more secure. Certainly a fort existed at Richborough, but others at this date are more problematical. The fortlet at Reculver can be dated to the "opening phases of the Conquest of Britain" (Philp c.1970 p.3) with mid-first century pottery in the infill of the ditches (Philp 1986 p.4). In the latter article, the actual context of the mint condition coins of Tiberius and Nero found in the eighteenth century are not known, and are therefore not relevant to the dating of the fortlet. Indeed the coins of Tiberius and British coins may indicate a later Iron Age prestige site, which itself could have been a military target. If we accept that the Reculver fortlet does date as early as AD 43 it merely shows that both ends of the Wansum Channel were guarded, it does not help us pinpoint the campaign route.

At Canterbury there are two phases of "possible military occupation". However, the dating evidence is not good enough to definitely argue for an AD 43/ 44 date for the earliest phase. It might be as late as 60 with the second phase dating to 61 (Bennett et al 1982, p.30). On the other hand if London, and by implication Watling Street as a main routeway, begin c.AD 50 (Bird 1999, see below) then this might be the date of the ("possible") phase 1 Canterbury fort.

For Rochester there is no evidence for a fort other than the place names Durobrivae (the Dura element can apparently be used to identify the existence of a fortification) and until recently the same was also true of Ospringe (probably the site of D11rolev11m). In recent excavations however, Paul Wilkinson has dated the known earthworks there to the early Roman period (Lyne 2000, p.9). The pottery within the primary silts of the dit0 could be dated only to within the range AD 43-70. Whilst these fortifications on the evidence produced probably belong to the reign of Claudius (41-54) it does n�t mean the fort was constructed in AD 43/ 44 it could, as with Canterbury, be later.

_ _ _

1?'

For Springhead the present writer has seen (and helped excavate) a "military style" ditch and a fort IS implied (Burnha and Wacher 1990, p.192 and fig.59). However, whether there 1s enough evidence that can be used to support an AD 43 date is more problematic and the ditch may be that of a pre-Roman religious enclosure (ibid). On the archaeological "grapevine" there are rumours of early Roman military style, V shaped

ditches near Halling and Broadstairs. However, the pres�nt writer has helped excavate such ditches which enclosed nothing

To add to the problem such a series of forts only becomes �alid

if it can be shown that a fort existed at London.

There 1s no

known early fort at London and all the evidence points to a

purely civilian settlement created after c. AD 50. There has been

more than a farmstead; unless the excavations have been extensive and/ relevant artifacts recovered the evidence will be ambiguous.

an unsatisfactory attempt to locate a fort at Hyde Park (Sole 1993, p.122-126), but this is based purely on the ev1dence of the road system at least part of which now appears to be incorrect (Sloane and Thomas 1995, p369-370; Bird 1999, p.331). However

London covers a large area and future excavations may o.

course alter the picture.

However, on the Medway an "inscription recently found carved on a rock near the site must surely prove" that this is where the battle took place (Philp 1998, p.14). This evidence will obviously solve the problem and we look forward to the publication of this data (one carmot help but think however, it may be very similar to a certain modern inscription).

t,

The fort at Richborough is the most important piece of evidence to support a Kentish landing for the main invading force. A.LI would agree that the fort is early, almost certainly 43 but perhaps 44. Unfortunately, due to the lack of supporting evidence for an early date for the other suggested Kent forts, the apparent absence of military occupation at London and, most important of all, the absence of temporary marching camps, other interpretations can be put forward. (On the "grapevine" one marching camp has apparently been found, but on the evidence known to the present writer this is an unsafe interpretation).

The first alternative interpretation is that Richborough may have been constructed to guard the entourage and the elephants of the Emperor Claudius when he landed for his brief visit (Bird 1999). The need to bring elephants over by the shortest sea route is, for obvious reasons, very likely. The need to take 5,000 horses (Feakes 1999, p.8), by such a route is not so obvious. If hooded and hobbled they would probably be (relatively) docile whether the journey took (say) twelve hours across the shortest route or (say) twenty four from Boulogne to Sussex. Although William, Duke of Normandy's expedition of 1066 was not on the same scale, the horses on board the ships depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry seem however, not to be constrained, and indeed they seem to be rather enjoying the voyage. The journey from the Somme to Pevensey (William's route) is about 100 kilometres, and that from Boulogne to Chichester Harbour about 175 kilometres. The English expeditions to France of the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries with admittedly relatively small numbers of horses travelled distances between these two figures, but as far as I am aware, never more. Distances of these lengths do not appear to be too much of a problem. In addition, an area where

4

Feakes. L.	1999.	Letter in l<Lnt Archaeological Nnoslelltr, No.43.
Frere. S.S.	1978.	Britannia:A History of Roman Britain
		(2nd Edition).
Hanson. W.S.	1998.	Roman Conquest, letter in British Ard,at!Ology.
		No. 40.
Henig.M.	1998.	Togidubinus and the Roman Liberation, British
		Archaeology, No. 37.
Henig.M.	1999.	Roman Invasion, letter in British Archaeology,
		No. 41.
Hind.J.G.F.	1989.	The Invasion of Britain inA.D. 43-An
		AlternativeStrategy forAulus Plautius, Britannia
		Vol.xx, p. 1-21.
Ireland.S.	1986.	Roman Britain:ASourcebook.
Lyne.M.	2000.	A Roman Fort near Faversham, Kent, Practical Archaeology No. 2, p. 8-10.
Manley.J.	1999.	Roman Invasion, letter in British Archaeology,
		No. 41.
Moore. D. J.	1999.	Roman Invasion, letter in British Archaeology,
		No.42.
Nicolson. N.	1998a	The Battle of theMedwayA.O. 43, Current
		Archaeology, No. 157.
Nicolson. N.	1998b.	The Battle of theMedway, A.O. 43, Ke11/ Archaeological Society Newsletter, No. 42.
Philp.B.	c. 1970.	The Roman Fort at Rerulver (7th edition).
Philp. B.	1986.	The Roman Fort at Recu1ver (8th edition).
Philp. B.	1998.	Roman Conquest, letter in British Archaeology,
		No.37.
Philp. B.	1999a.	Roman Invasion, letter in British Archaeology, No.42.
Philp.B.	1999b.	TheSecond Battle of theMedway, Kent Archaeological Review, No. 135, p 99-101.

the landing would be less likely to be opposed would of course be beneficial to the unloading and exercise of the horses. The problem with the Solent tides is of course a valid argument against the longer routes, but in itself not an insurmountable one.

The second alternative interpretation is that Richborough may have provided a secure position from which the military could dominate the rich agricultural land of East Kent (Bird 1999). The construction of military style storage buildings (possibly granaries) very soon after the infilling of the ditches may indicate that this domination was exactly why the fort was built in the first place. Supplies (i.e. grain) would be collected and then shipped out, either to the west for the campaigns of Vespasian or to the north for the army consolidating Essex and perhaps along the Thames and into the Southern Midlands.

Conclusion:

Both the historical and archaeological evidence is ambiguous; only the latter may (although the present writer thinks it very unlikely) clarify the position. Advocates will read into the evidence what they want to believe. Archaeologists who advocate a Kent invasion route may have held their own with the arguments recently put forward, although for all the points

"'raised in defence of a Kent invasion route alternative interpretations can be suggested. More importantly, defenders

of the Kent route have singularly failed to argue against most of the deductive and logical points raised ten years ago by Hind. The advantage seems to be with the advocates of a Sussex route; we will see if the Council for Kentish Archaeological Spring Conference alters this position.

When I was a student at King Alfred's College, Winchester, for the first (and only) time I was warned about historical and archaeological bias and the way certain aspects of evidence will be emphasised. All my own students are now warned about bias. In this case we have to contend with:

The bias of the victorious Romans; the bias of the classical writers, the bias of documentary survival; the bias of archaeological survival; the bias of where archaeologists have excavated; the bias within archaeological reports and the bias of where advocates actually live. This debate will no doubt continue for many years.

Alan Ward (part time archaeological lecturer at Christ Church

University College, Canterbury). (May 1999 with revisions November 2000).

References and Bibliography

Bird.D.	1994.	The Origins of Roman London, London Archaeologist, Vol. 7, No. 10.
Bird.D.	1999.	Early Days at London and Richborough, London Ardiaeologist, Vol. 8, No. 12.
Burnham. B.	1990.	TheSmall Towns of Roman Britain.
Cunliffe. B.	1971.	Fishboume: A Roman Place and its Garden.
Cunliffe. B.	1998.	Pishboume Roman Palace.
Detsicas.A.	1983.	The Cantiaci.
			5

Bennett. P., Frere.S.S. 1982. Excavations at Canterbury Castle. andStow.S.

and Wacher. J.

Robertson. G.

1998. Roman Conquest, letter in British Archaeology,

Sloane. B.,Swain. H. and Thomas. C.	1995.	The Roman Road and the River Regime, Lo11don Archaeologist, Vol. 7, No. 14.
Sole. B.	1993.	Metropolis inMayfair?, Lo11do11 Archaeologist, Vol. 7, No. 5.
Stewart.J.	1998.	Roman Conquest, letter in British Archaeology, No.37.
Thornhill. P.	1976.	A Lower Thames Ford and the Campaigns of 54 BC andA. O. 34, Archaeologia Ca11tiana, Vol.xcii, p. 119-128.
Webster. G. and Dudley.D. R.	1965.	The Roman Conquest of Britain.
Webster. G.	1980.	The Roman lnvasion of Britain.
Wolison.S.	1998.	Roman Conquest, letter in British Archaeology,
		No.37.

No.40.

is a em

.

ease pu

t th· d t • y

u

diary n

w and att

nd if y

ANNUAL• GENERAL M•

EETING• •

1

KASH0

YOU ANDY

ay

M 2001 PI

o

r

o

e

o

u can. Well

d w

will n e

The AGM will be held at Maidstone again this year, on ·Saturday 19 .

e

e

d a good attendance agam.

ful th

well known speake in the afternoon.

The notices and other papers will be sent to members in April and will give more information out

over 100 members attended our second attempt at holdmg the AGM last year; we are grate atob emthaenactivities. we propose 10 have a talk by a

r

Subscription reminder see enclosed leaflet.

Two years ago the Society visited several of Northumbria's Celtic Christian sites, next year we shall explore the beginnings oof pthat early ChriStianity

Summer excursion 2001- exploring Southern Ireland, June 9-17. (provisional dates)

ihni the south of Ireland, in County Mayo and County Galway. We shall also have the opportunity of investigating a �

vane

storic sites, from the most important Stone Age tomb in Europe, Newgrange, to the Georgian terraces of Dublin. Travelling

wri_ethiSSttonc and

rato s Tr�vel,

rsions. for fuller details send an s. a.e. to the Hon. Excursions Secretary. Joy Saynor

wDuitbhlipnicwki-tuhpdpaoiliyntesxtchuroughout Kent, we shall have an overnight stop in North Wales, at Caenarfon and will stay in a �omfortable hotel outside

Spring Social Evening - see enclosed leaflet.

KENT HISTORY FUND

story Federati on, to award grants to assist serious research leading to publication.

HThie Kent Archaeological Society has a Local History Fund Sub-Committee of the Publications Committee with representations from the Kent Applications are now invited from Local History Societies affiliated to K .H.F, or K.A.S, and from individuals who are either members of K.A.S. or a

Local History Society affiliated to either K.H.F, or K.A.S.

equesting an application form. The Sub Committee will be the panel judging applications received.

Pr rofessional historians or post graduate students are not eligible to apply. Anyone wishing to apply should write to the Sub Committee's Secr Please apply to .

iTmhpeo3s6stihblBeutioldpianyg aRterciobrudteertsomheimetiinng held at Charing in October took the form of a tribute to Kenneth Gravett. The speaker said that it was

REPORT OF 36TH BUILDING RECORDERS MEETING

et•ary

to pay tribut

such a short time but as the details of Ken's life had already been given in obituaries, the purpose that day was

to him simply as a building ecorder and to have a building reco der's me ting that he would have njoyed.

She refe rwreedr to the smiling photograph in Arch Cant chosen in honour of his presidency of the Society and suggested that many people at the

e r r e e

meeting e there because at some point Ken had smiled on them and begun a communication and a friendship.

thhiem1. 9H20iseixnpterests were wide and over the years he engaged speakers on cottages to castles, fro m greenhouses to barns, from a cricket ball factory to

ost medieval roof types, false fronts on old buildings and the effects of the 18th Century London buildings Act on Kent buildings.

The first Building Recorder's Meeting in 1964 was recalled as reported in Archaeologica Cantiana full of the energy and enthusiasm which never left areas, such aeprimental sound mirrors which preceded radar. His own lectures concentrated on subjects that every listener could apply to their own

o be listed. He personally visited every listed building in Kent photographing, checking and recording details. It was his greatest

Iotuwghats twell known that Ken was interested in timber framed buildings, for listed buildings of all periods and especially for those buildings which

CdihsanpnpeolinTtumnnentl rnaoitl tlionkhaavnedcohmi pelxettreadrthspe snersiiebsiloitfieTshaes KPerenstidHinsttorficthBuiSlodciniegtys Ianbdeoxr.beTdhhatiswlaosrtky, toagrse.thHeri weitthirhmis ecnotnmceernanftotrhhatouhsecsoounldthhea y

rt tribute closed with a few moments of quiet for members to appreciate their own special memories.

and compl e

s e o

e o e s

e s r e e -

TRaaxmpounbHlicigatgios nfoallnodwMedauwrieth a presentation of his own small house at Weald, Sarah Pearson with details of the research for the forthcoming Hearth

The sho

etely devote himself to what he enjoyed most in exploring even more buildings. •

have

enjoyed.

en Lovering with details of a house on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. It was indeed an afternoon that Ken Gravett would

Last year the Fund msliapdweasreeven grants to heltp w18o0r0k) being done by groups and one individual, John Cotter of Whitstable, who is studying the little

THE ALLEN GROVE LOCAL HISTORY FUND £1,700 given in grants

nchley and Matfi

record of the vi

B

llag the s

ld L

o t

cal Hi

s ry So

ciety received

_

tart f

o the M11I nnmm;

10

0

£40

c

op

�

ies will e

on Domes

day Album with 60 pages

�

b produced: Channg and District Local History Soci ty is producing tran cripts

f information and phot

graph

s t

o pr

vide a

_

at

e

o

re

o

o

o

document

and copie

s o lth of 13-17th C n

f a wea

tury

they ar rea

e dily acc

ible for res arch and

e

e

were given £100

t w

ard the cost

f the

e

s

material .

e

s so

ess

e

o

s

o

s

known Canterbury

industry (1690 o

and was given £200 towards his expenses and the costs of illustrations.

'.1" e o s their Heritage

Centres. Th� �ormer _receiveePd f:!n00 and the other £450 to�ar�s the c�st o� these; ��e grant to �e Kemsing Society was also to help with an archives

Both Kemsing Historical d Arts Society and Oxford H ritage Centre Management C mmittee asked for help with the di plays in

scheme run JOmtly with tl� � sh Co�ncil. _Snodland H1stoncal Society IS compiling an archwe of material on thomas Fletcher Waghorn (1800-50)

who pioneered steam navigation and 1t received £250.

6

MEPAGE

>UR SOCIETY

Why not apply for one?

The late Allen Grove left a legacy to the Kent Archaeological Society to establish this fund to be used for the purposes of research, preservation and e11joyme11t of local lristory. The Trustees will consider applications for grants for any project with one or more of these purposes. Projects may be practical ones such as presentations, publication and education as well as research.

Grants may be made to societies and groups as well as to individuals and are not restricted to members of the Kent Archaeological Society. They are usually around £200 to £400 each but the Trustees would consider a larger grant for a particularly imaginative or innovative project which might not be available to proceed without the grant. Awards may not be announced until the Summer or Autumn 2001.

Applications must be submitted, on the official application form, by 31st March 2001. Application forms and further information may be obtained from the Hon. Secretary: Mr A I Moffat, or by e-mail to

secretary @kentarchaeology.org.uk.

Other grants

The Society has other grant programmes. Field work grants may be obtained from the Field Work Committee and applications should be sent to the Secretary, David Bacchus.

Directory -Correction.

Hon. Curator, Dr. Mike Still, Tel: 01322 221702

KENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY LIBRARY - A FRESH START

Tl:ltrevitalisation programme of the K.A.S. library is now almost complete, and we shall be ready at the beginning of 2001 to make a fresh start in t�ovision of facilities.

The furniture of the library has been modernised, and will provide for its prime functions - the use of its facilities for study, reading and research; as a meeting place for K.A.S. Committees and Working Groups; as a venue for small Seminars and Lectures for up to 20 people, and as a place where members can come simply to sit and browse. The index of books is now on computer, and there will also be available computers to access the Society's great collection of photographs, drawings and paintings, and to assist in the organisation of field-work. Sufficient of the library's books have been transferred to Bradbourne House to obviate the need for double stacking on the shelves and floor of the library. The books transferred to Bradbourne House are runs of Journals not often consulted, but will remain accessible to members when required. Valuable and rare books in the library have been made more secure. Re-organisation of books on the shelves is proceeding to a simple plan and new labelling of the shelves should facilitate search.

With these improvements achieved, we are organising, as from the beginning of 2001, a group of library volunteers to man the library. In the first instance, on Monday and Friday afternoons and all day Wednesday, in order to provide visitors and users of the library with any assistance they may require in searching for books or in using the computers. The library will, as now, be open to members at any time in the week during Museum opening hours, on production of a K.A.S. membership card, but those members who may feel they need assistance should take advantage of the presence of volunteers on the days stated.

Additionally, we plan to permit non-Members who have a need to consult the Society's unique collection, access by request on the days when Volunteers are present. We shall be publicise that fact, and the library's new start, at first through links with other libraries in Kent, such as the Canterbury University Library, the Canterbury Cathedral Library, and Kent Archives at Maidstone. Reproduced below is a copy of the information sheet we shall be circulating to outside organisations. We hope that this Fresh Start will encourage members to make fuller use of the library's unique facilities, and at the same time increase public awareness of K.A.S. by providing an opportunity for non-members with real need to consult our collections under supervision. The Volunteers would welcome visits from members wishing to familiarise themselves with the facilities the library has to offer.

F�Panton. Hon Librarian, K.A.S. November 2000

KENT ARCHAELOGICAL SOCIETY LIBRARY

Housed in Maidstone Museum, St Faith's Street, Maidstone, Kent, ME14 lLH

I COLLECTIONS

Ebuxtilednisnigvse, cwolitlehctaiolanrsgoe fnjuoumrnbearlso, fboolodksp,hpoatmogprhaplehtss,adnrdawepinhgesm, epraailnotinngths eanhdistmoraynuanscdriaprtchnaoeteobloogoyksoaf nKdenret,ciotrsdcis tbieesq,utoewathnse,dvbilylangoetsa, bclheuKrcehnetiss, h

historians and antiquaries. Journals and publications of the K.A.S. of other County Historical and Archaeological Societies, of U.K national organisations, and of European countries.

OPENING TIMES

For K.A.S. Members Only.

£Qr non-Members o.f K.A.5.

BORROWING Not permitted.

Every day in the week during Museum opening times. On presentation of a K.A.5 Membership Card.

Monday and Friday 2pm to 4.30 pm Wednesday 10.00 am to 4.30 pm (Tunes when the Library is staffed by Volunteers)

7

CLAY LANE WOOD, COBHAM:

A BRONZE AGE CULT SITE?

In 1825, the men clearing a part of Clay Lane Wood (NGR TQ 665705), on the northern side of the Watling Street, about a mile north west of Cobham, came upon an enclosure seemingly surrounding a massive deposit of bones and bronzes.

An account by Alfred John Dunkin (1812 to 1879), founder member of the Kent Archaeological Society, appeared in the Gentleman's Magazine of 1846:-

Jn 1825 some labourers while grubbing up a piece of Clay Lane Wood came upon an entrenchment, in the centre of which they discovered at the very least three wagon loads of human bones, mingled with leather,

many metal celts, spear-heads and armour, the latter in such preservation that a suit was actually put on by one of the labourers. The bones were collected and thrown into the fosse; the earth which formed the vallum was thrown over them and the soil levelled. Some of the celts, several portions of the armour, and pieces of the weapons are preserved in a museum at Gravesend. The armour was taken to Cobham Hall by the finders, who expected a noble reward for their pains, but the then noble owner, being no archaeologist, ordered the men some refreshment and told them to take their rubbish away. After

this rebuff, and knowing no collectors of antiquities, they sorted out the metal, and after breaking it into pieces sold above a bushel of it to Mr Troughton, late a Mayor of Gravesend. So bright was the metal that one of the celts was actually tested by fire to see ifit were not gold,

and it still bears the mark of this ill usage.

In his memoranda of Springhead and its Neighbourhood during the Primaeval Period (1848) A J Dunkin included an amplified version of the story. He wrote:-

"In 1825 some labourers whilst grubbing up a piece of Clay Lane came upon an entrenchment, in the centre of which they "depleated" (sic) three waggon-loads of human bones, mingled with leather, many metal

"celts", spearheads and armour, the latter in such perfect preservation, that a suit was actually put on by one of the labourers, who is now (1847) living. The bones were collected and thrown into the surrounding fosse; the earth which composed the vallum was then thrown over them and the soil levelled. Some celts, several portions of the armour and pieces of the weapons are preserved in the museum of William Crafter, Esq., of Gravesend. The armour was taken to Cobham Hall by thefinders, who expected a handsome reward for their pains, but they were told to take it away. After this, and knowing no

collector of antiquities, they sorted out the metal, and breaking it into

pieces, sold it to Mr Troughton of Gravesend, ironmonger, who consigned it to the melting pot. So bright was the metal, that one of the cells was actually tested by fire to see ifit was not gold, and it still bears the marks of this ill usage. The discoven; of these relics, Roman and British mingled together, clearly demonstrates that an engagement took place, and it was in Caesar's line of march, because we know that the Romans, under Au/us Plautius, occupied this part of the country. The mass of osseous fragments and British weapons with Roman armour incontestably prove that after the battle the slain on both sides were indiscriminately interred."

George Payne (1893, 150) cited Dunkin's initial Gentleman's Magazine version of the story and said that Charles Roach Smith's notebook for 1842 recorded that some of the celts were in the possession of Mr Crafter (Will.iam Crafter) of Gravesend. William Coles Finch (1927, 310) reproduces his later notice in

full. However, despite the mention of celts and spearheads, neither John Evans (1881) nor Ronald Jessup (1930) record the site, the last despite his having grown up at Gravesend.

Whether or not the deposit was in a pit is unclear. However, the human bones, mingled with leather, were with celts, spearheads and what was thought to be armour. Some of the celts were so bright that one seemed to be of gold, this was, presumably uncorroded bronze. Most of the metal went for scrap but various pieces may have found their way into a private collection. The bones were dumped into the enclosure's ditch and the bank thrown in upon them. There they might still remain unless the site has been eradicated and built upon.

Bronze celts (celt the term for axe or adze) and spearheads have been recognised forms since the seventeenth century (Piggott, 1976, 56). Armour is, however, rare and known only from the European mainland (Coles & Harding, 1979, 375, fig.135: Harding, 2000, 285-91) and broken buckets or cauldrons (Leeds, 1930) are a possibility. Despite manifest deficiencies, the tantalising details of this earthwork enclosure, and the bronzes and bones from there, could depict a ritual enclosure which has no direct counterpart in the English series. Two Kentish sites, at Worth (Klein, 1928; Jessup, 1930, 213) and on Blue Bell Hill

(Charles, 1844, 536; Detsicas, 1987, 145) have provided eviden�ea of Iron Age cult activity, preceding Roman temples, but there 1sW

seemingly nothing earlier, although the installation on Blue Bell Hill might have been prompted by the proximity of the stone­ built long barrows (Ashbee, 1993,63). In this general context it should be observed that Kent's considerable later Bronze Age hoards (Champion, 1982,37,fig.14) are concentrated in Thanet, the northern coastal lowlands, the Hoo peninsula and Thamesside. Since the inception of Bronze Age studies it has been assumed, largely because of their contents, that these were utilitarian, but, it must be stressed, we know little or nothing of their contexts and the circumstances of their discovery. Many hoards and bronzes may have been deposited in compliance with ritual procedures (Bradley, 1990, passim).

Counterparts, albeit Iron Age, to the Cobham enclosure are to be found across the Dover Straits, in the general Pas-de-Calais area. Here, sanctuary sites have yielded evidence of activities which culminated in the deposition of broken weapons together

with great quantities of human and animal bones (Webste- 1995, 455, 458, fig.24.2). At Goumay-sur-Aronde, for example, r1'

cult site of the Bellovaci, some 2000 broken weapons and 3000 animal bones were found in the ditch (Brunaux, 1988,15). Within this general area similar sites have been encountered in recent years. Posidonius, who saw sanctuaries in Gaul, emphasised their open nature (Tierney, 1960), while Caesar (DBG, Vl,17) said that considerable piles of war-spoils and the remains of sacrificed animals were displayed in various hallowed places. Such shrines as those of the Pas-de-Calais may have left indelible impressions of barbarism upon Roman minds.

These European mainland sites are mostly elements of larger installations, but, nonetheless, the similarity is marked, although Clay Lane Wood's weaponry was, as far as can be seen, of bronze. We have, however, no knowledge of the entities of which this apparently modest enclosure might have been a part, although there is an enigmatic earthwork in Cobham Park Gessup, 1930,158). Cult enclosures, for the account of the Clay Lane Wood discovery places it in this category, had their

8

ministrants, the Druids (Piggott, 1975). Kendrick (1927,75) considered that they must have been long established to have been thought of as more than local sects. Indeed, these shadowy figures may have had varying functions dependent upon site and shrine. Caesar (DBG, VI, 13-18) encountered them in Gaul and observed that their beliefs and usages may have had their origins in Britain ("... Disciplina in Britannia reperta atque in Gal/iam translata existimatur ...', DBG, VI, 13).

Druids are regularly seen as figures of later prehistory for their chroniclers may have been regaled with details of usages long past. From earlier prehistory onwards, particular people must have been involved with the siting and size of barrows, the sinking of shafts, as well as the nature of ritual deposits (Ashbee, et al., 1989,135). Thus Oay Lane Wood's enclosure, with its bronzes and bones, could have been a precursor of the principles developed across the Dover Straits, in the Pas-de­ Calais and beyond. Long established contacts between Kent and Picardy were based upon trade and the supply of skilled warriors (Nash, 1984,104). Thus practices such as may have taken place in the Clay Lane Wood enclosure could have been an attendant factor.

The principal source for the Clay Lane Wood story is Alfred John Dunkin's account in the 1846 Gentleman's Magazine, cited

�y George Payne (1893,150). Several topographical writers, notably William Coles Finch (1927,310) and Ralph Arnold (1949,3), have also repeated versions of the basic accounts. A recent development is that the various sites and monuments records have, despite the details of the celts and spearheads, considered the site as Anglo-Saxon! It was listed, back in the 1930s, in Maidstone Museum's index and Norman Cook, when asked about it, thought the Gentleman's Magazine account a tall story. At that time it seemed extravagant and without counterpart but, within recent years, the excavations in the Pas­ de-Calais have shown that the details set down more than a century ago could illustrate an element in a developing pattern. Papers may yet come to light and there is also the possibility that bronzes without patination and possibly unprovenanced may survive in one of our museums, while, unless totally destroyed by development, something of the site might remain. The Dunkins, father, John Dunkin (1782-1846) and son (1812- 1879), were both original members of the BritishArchaeological

�sociation and, primarily, concerned with the antiquities of

�ent. The narrative of Clay Lane Wood was a record of what, in their age, would have been thought of as primaeval. Now, in the light of developing European research, it may have a place. Any information that members may have regarding it would be welcomed by the present writer.

PAULASHBEE

CLAY LANE WOOD - BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bradley R. Brunaux J.L

Champion T.

Charles T.

Coles J.M.

& HardingA.F. Coles Finch W. DetsicasA. DunkinA.J. DunkinA.J.

Evans J. HardingA.F Jessup R.F.

Kendrick T.D. Klein, W.G.

Leeds E.T.

Nash D.

Arnold R.	1949	A Yeoman of Kent, London
Ashbee P.	1993	"The Medway Megaliths in Perspective", Arch. Cant., CXI, 57-111.
Ashbee P., Bell M. & Proudfoot E.	1989	Wilsford Shaft: Excavations 1960-62, Eng. Heritage Arch.Rpt., 11, London
			9

Payne G. Piggott S. Piggott S. Tierney J.J.

Webster J.

1990

1988

1982

1844

1979

1927

1977

1846

1848

1881

2000

1930

1927

1928

1930

1984

1893

1975

1976

1960

1995

11,e Passage of Arms,Cambridge

11,e Celtic Ga11ls: Gods, Rites and Sanctuaries, London

"The Bronze Age in Kent'', Archaeology in Kent to AD 1500 (ed. Peter E. Lynch), CBA Research Rpt., 48, London, 31-9

"RomanAntiquities found at and near Maidstone in Kent". Archaeologia, XXX, 535-37

The Bronze Age in Europe,

London

In Kentish Pilgrim/and, London The Cantiaci, Gloucester Gentleman's Magazine, 26, 591

Memoranda of Springhead and its Neighbo11rhood during the Primaeval Period, London

The Ancient Bronze Implements of Great Britain, London

European Societies in the Bronze Age, Cambridge

The Archaeology of Kent,

London

The Druids, London

"Roman Temple at Worth, Kent'',

Antiq. Journ., VIII, 76-86.

"A Bronze Cauldron from the river Cherwell, Oxfordshire, with notes on cauldrons and other bronze vessels of allied types", Archaeologia, BO, 1-36.

"The Basis of Contact between Britain and Gaul in the Late Pre- Roman IronAge", Cross- Channel Trade between Gaul and Britain in the Pre-Roman Iron Age (ed. S.Macready & F.H. Thompson), London, Society of Antiquaries, 92-107.

Col!ectanea Cantiana, London

11,e Druids, London

Ruins in a Landscape, Edinburgh

"The Celtic Ethnography of Posidonius", Proc.Royal Irish Academy, LX, 189-275

"Sanctuaries and Sacred Places". 11,e Celtic World (ed. Miranda J. Green), London, 445 64.

COURSES, EVENTS, TEACHING AIDS

MINSTER EXCAVATION

The K.A.S in conjunction with the Trust for Thanet Archaeology, will be returning to Minster-in-Thanet to continue with the exca�ation of the Roman villa complex. This will be our fifth season at this site, and it will be directed by David Perkins, M.Sc.,M.1.F.A. The dig wi ll be held over a two week period, those participating will be introduced to the site on Saturday 1st September 2001. The excavation is open to people

aged 16 years and above who wish to participate in practical fieldwork. For enrolment details please contact David Bacchus

COUNCIL FOR KENTISH ARCHAEOLOGY

"The Roman invasion AD 43: Kent or Sussex?" Saturday 7th April 2001 - 1.45 pm to 5.30 pm Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School, Faversham

An illustrated conference about the Roman invasion AD 42 controversy - the main landing place, Kent or Sussex? Contributors include The Case for Sussex - David Bird BA, PhD

The Case for Kent - Nigel Nicolson OBE FSA

The Roman Landings How and Where - John Smith BA The Case for Richborough - Brian Philp MBIM, MJFA, FSA

Tickets price £3.00 from CK.A. 7 Sandy Ridge, Borough Green, TN15 BHP (sae please)

THE FIRST JOINT KENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY AND CHRIST CHURCH UNIVERSITY COLLEGE ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORY CONFERENCE

Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Kingship - Saturday 12th May 2001

Many K.A.S members will have attended lectures in the comfortable new lecture rooms at Christ Church University College, Canterbury and for the first time CCUC and the K.A.S are joining forces to offer the first of several planned one day conferences. These conferences will be looking at different historical and archaeological themes of local, national and eventually (hopefuliy) continental interest.

Although there will be a Kentish input to the five lectures being offered Kent should never be looked at in isolation. 1n the early Anglo-Saxon period the county was merely one of several kingdoms and from the late seventh century usually dominated by the more powerful states of Mercia or Wessex. After the Norman Conquest to understand the history of government, upstanding architecture or below ground archaeology it is necessary to study what was taking place elsewhere in the country and in many instances within France. It would be surprising if the speakers invited to lecture at this conference failed to put new ideas into the heads of their listeners. Of the speakers only Jonathan Coad has lectured regularly at various conferences on Kent archaeology; Alf Smyth will also of course be known to many of you from his years at the University of Kent. John Newman and Tom James have both lectured for the now disbanded Medway and Gillingham Branch of the K.A.S but never for a larger Kentish audience; Barbara Yorke is well known on the national conference scene but this is her first lecture to a Kent based audience.

The speakers:

Dr Barbara Yorke will be speaking on "The Early Kings of Kent". In many ways Kent is one of the better recorded early medieval Kingdoms thanks to the interest that Bede took in the papal mission led by Augustine that arrived in 597. However, Bede was not very selective in what he recorded or how he presented his information. For instance he does not mentio" any of the notable royal nunneries (e.g. Minster in Thanet and Minster in Sheppey) founded in Kent, these are only known from other sources. This lecture will look at what is known, and is not known, about the early Kentish kings, and at how historians have reached very different conclusions about aspects of the history of the early kingdom in spite of using the same material. It will consider how far Kent resembled other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, and the significance of its

connection with Francia. Barbara is Reader in History at King Alfred's College, Winchester. One of her particular areas of interest has been the history of the early Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and she is the author of Kings and Kingdoms ofEarly Anglo-Saxon England (1990), Wessex in the Early Middle Ages (1995) and The Anglo-Saxons (1999). She is currently working on a book of royal nunneries.

Professor Tom James will be speaking on the "Palaces ofMedieval England". Whilst castles, towns and villages have received much attention surprisingly, the royal palaces of medieval England have been a neglected area of architectural, archaeolgoical and historical study. The study of the shattered and fragmentary remains of these structures - usually defined by their unfortified nature - provides an absorbing and

challenging topic. Torn is Professor of Regional Studies at King Alfred's College, Winchester. He has published extensively on medieval palaces over many years. His monograph (with Annie Robinson) on Clarendon Palace, situated just to the south of Salisbury has brought this magnificent site back from obscurity. he is currently leading a five year programme of consolidation of the ruins in partnership with English Heritage and the landowner. His Medieval Palaces of England was published in 1990. He has lectured widely in Britain and around the world and has several recent radio and television credits including Melvyn Bragg's 2000 Years ofChristianity (1999) and Edward Windsor's Crown and Sceptered Country (1998).

Professor Alf Smyth will be speaking on "Kent and tlie Kings of Wessex". The final takeover of Kent, Surrey and Sussex by the Kings of Wessex in the ninth century for the first time in the Anglo-Saxon period saw a unified block of territory to the south of the Thames. The creation of this "greater Wessex" will be one of the themes covered in this lecture. Alf is currently Director of Research at Christ Church University College, Canterbury. His best known publication is a biography of King Alfred the Great published in 1995.

John Newman will be speaking on "S11tton Hoo - A New Era of Discovenj'' whiD) will concentrate on the recent excavations that have taken

plac� on this, the most famous Anglo-Saxo_n si!e � the country. The _lecture will explore the growth of status and social differentiation through the Sl)(th and early seventh centurie� culminating m the Mound 1 ship burial. In addition he will draw on other work and material, including that from Kent, which throws new Light on the complex:_1ty of Anglo-Saxon society in this period. John is a Field Officer with the Archaeology

10

Courses, Events, Teaching Aids cont.

�ce of Suffolk County Council and has a particular interest in the Anglo-Saxon period. In the 1980's he ran the area survey associated with the Sutton Hoo research programme and he has been involved with various recent cemetery excavations in Suffolk. His work with recording finds made by individuals in Suffolk has thrown considerable light on the Post Roman period (the so called "Dark Ages"). One of his latest publications has been "The Late Roman and Anglo-Saxon Settlement Pattern in the Sandlings of Suffolk in The Age of511/1011 Hoo (ed. Martin Carver 1992).

Jonathan Coad will be speaking on "Defending Kent 1066-1588" which to a very large extent will of course entail an examination of the royal fortresses within the county and the development of fortification within that period. Jonathan is an Inspector of Ancient Monuments for English Heritage, Honorary Secretary of the Royal Archaeological Institute and a Vice-President of the Society for Nautical Research. He has published extensively on military and naval topics (e.g. Dover Castle 1995) and directed various excavations perhaps most notably those at Castle Acre Castle, Norfolk.

It is hoped that several other joint K.A.S. and CCUC Anglo-Saxon and Medieval conferences, each with a different theme (e.g. the Common Man; Church and Monastery, Town and Contry) will follow in the next few years. If successful further conferences covering both historical and archaeological themes will hopefully also take place. It is also hoped that the K.A.S. will be able to arrange guided tours of Clarendon Palace and Sutton Hoo in the not too distant future.

At the time of writing this note it has not been decided in what order the speakers will lecture. It is hoped that this original and once in a lifetime opportunity to listen to some of the most knowledgeable individuals in their field will be a sell out. Please order tickets on the enclosed ticket order form or by letter and addressed to: Sean Greenwood, History Department (CONFERENCE TICKETS), Christ Church University College, North Holmes Road, Canterbury, Kent, CTl lQU. Please enclose a stamped addressed envelope.

�orthcoming Publications

Shoreham, past and present by Joy Saynor and Peter Batley.

A new publication by Shoreham and District Historical Society. 200 years of Shoreham's history through the medium of prints, watercolours and old photographs set against the present day scenes. With an historical introduction and a final section about some of the people who helped to create today's community. Copies price £4.99 + 66p post and packing from the Secretary of the Shoreham & District Historical Society, The Coach House, Shoreham, TN14 7fU. Cheques made payable to S.& D. H. S.

Romney Marsh - survival on a frontier.

Written by Jill Eddison with a forward by Barry Cunliffe. £14.99 from Bookshops. ISDN 07524 1486 0 148 pages, 75 black and white illustrations, 31 colour plates.

The book reflects the work of the Romney Marsh Research Group

,.._,unded in 1983 by Professor Barry Cunliffe and Jill Eddison. It brings

,ogether the recent work of archaeologists, historians and geographers and presents an up to date interpretation of the area.

Jill Eddison, a Jong time member of the society is uniquely placed as the author of this book, having been the secretary of the Research Group, the supporting charitable trust and joint editor of the three specialist publications about Romney Marsh.

An Edward Hasted Bicentenary

1801 marked the completion of the publication of Edward Hasted's magisterial History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent. With the publication in 2001 of the first full-scale biography of the historian we have an opportunity to celebrate this bicentenary.

In A Scholar and a Gentleman: Edward Hasted, the Historian of Kent, Dr. Shirley Burgoyne Black has drawn the portrait of someone who was indeed both gentleman and scholar: gentleman by birth and nature, and scholar by education and subsequent inclination. Edwar� Hasted has frequently been under-estimated in both respects. Detailed researc_h shows that the place he occupied in society was no more than was his due in the eighteenth century - and was requited by him in terms of the local administrative duties he performed in the county. That he had the

11

scholarship necessary for the task he undertook is certain - and proved by the work he was given to do late in life by another historian.

This major study throws a great deal of fresh light on Hasted's development as a historian, as well as on his private life, including his relations with the members of his family and with his many friends. We see him as a young man, iiiarrying, rebuilding St John's Jerusalem at Sutton-at-Hone (now owned by the National Trust), at work in his m�y voluntary posts, among them those of justice of the peace, turnpi½:e trustee and commissioner of sewers, and then, with typical impulsiveness, whisking his family off for a season in the depths of the country which threatens to be far from idyllic. Increasing financi.aJ worries seem to have been the cause of the move to Canterbury, where life - and work on the History - jogged on together for some years in relative calm, until this was shattered by a series of totally unexpected complications: the historian's inability to break out of a tightening circle of debt, ill-health, and estrangement from his wife. A new relationship was begun with a young girl, and total disaster held at bay by an escape to France, but the onset of the French Revolution and the outbreak of war were to force Hasted back to England and the squalor and tedium of a debtor's prison.

Edward Hasted undertook his History of Kent at the persuasion of friends, and could not foresee that it was, in all, to occupy forty years of his life. Nevertheless, once it had been advertised and promised to the county he felt bound in honour to fulfil that promise, despite the turmoil of the final decade. The first edition came out in four folio volumes between 1778 and 1779, the second edition, in twelve smaller volumes which were to prove far more 'user-friendly', between 1797 and 1801.

A Scholar and a Gentleman contains much new material relating to the last twenty years of Hasted's life, his imprisonment for debt, and the vexed issue of the Hasted estates. It is satisfying to find that although by now in reduced circumstances, as the master of an almshouse, the historian's final years were passed in relative comfort and serenity. The whole Hasted story is introduced by an account of the rise of the family from working class origins in the seventeenth century to gentility at the beginning of the eighteenth, and it concludes with the death in 1855 of the historian's last surviving son, the Revd. Edward Hasted.

A Scholer and a Gentleman: Edward Hasted, the Historian of Kent will be published by subscription by Darenth Valley Publications, 33 Tudor Drive, Otford, Sevenoaks, Kent TN14 SQP, in late Spring 2001, at a price of £15.00, iru;uding__postage. Subscriber's names will be listed in the book.

LETTERS

25 October 2000 Dear Editor,

I am in the process of writing a history of Hollingbourne similar to my books on Borden and Bredgar. I am making good progress but was disappointed to find that the earliest churchwarden's account book at the Centre for Kentish Studies begins in 1742. So I assumed that earlier ones for the parish had not survived.

Industry.

However on reading a pamphlet published in 1963 entitled 'Hollingbourne' by Brian Gipps, I learned that Maidstone Museum had in their collection an account book dated 1618-63. I wrote to the Curator but he has found no trace of the book and suggested that perhaps it was in K.A.S.Library, however this has been checked and is not the case. Nor is the book amongst the many, as yet uncatalogued documents, deposited at the Centre for Kentish Studies by the museum.

So my appeal to members is has anyone seen the volume or have any other suggestions as to where it might be?

Helen Allinson

Michael Leach

1628 to 1643, was responsible. Judging by his latter invitation to

Culmer, he must have had puritan sympathi_es. I would be very

grateful for any information about Dr. Austin, as �e puzzle of

how Bedle's reputation reached Harbledown remains unsolved.

into any aspect

TEBBUTT RESEARCH FUND

17th November 2000 Dear Sir,

associated

expenses,

.

of the

Wealden

Iron

s

!ate C.F. Tebbutt, QBE., FSA., and applications are invited, from

It is anticipated that approximately £100 plus will _be av�able

from the fund and any interested person should wnte a swtable

letter of application giving details of themselves _together with

relevant information concerning the research enVIsaged. Please

of

your tutors �d

lecturers

notice

this fund

to the

bring

concerned with archaeology/ history as we are aruaous that the

Thi fund was established as a tribute to the life and work of the

individuals and groups, for grants towards research, including

.

money available should be used fully.

10 October 2000

Dear Editors,

Earlier this year you kindly printed my letter seeking information about how the Rev. John Bedle, an Essex clergyman from Barnston, near Great Dunmow, came to be preaching at Harbledown near Canterbury in 1638. On that occasion he fell foul of Archbishop laud who noted that he "preached very disorderly three hours al a time, and got himself many ignorant followers", I was very pleased to hear from two members who wrote to me suggesting a possible connection with Richard Culmer, the well known Puritan and cathedral iconoclast who had links with Harbledown. I am writing again to update those interested, and to ask further help.

Culmer graduated from Cambridge University in 1619 with a reputation for 'football playing and swearing" and was clearly only a partly reformed character by the time of his first preferment to the living of Godstone in 1630. Four years later he was suspended by Archbishop Laud for refusing to read the Book Sabbath Sports (which encouraged games playing on Sundays). After a run-in with the suspected informant he spent some time in Fleet prison, "remaining silenced for four years". It is not clear what he was doing between 1638 and 1642, though he was probably living at Harbledown where two of his children were baptised in 1637 and 1640. He may even have heard Bedle's sermon in 1638. However, by 1642 he appears to have beeen living in Canterbury, as a declaration stated that "Richard Culmer" ofthe said city is a man of exemplary life and conversation". Various preferments followed - Chartham (1642/ 43), St. Stephen's Hackington (soon after), Minster in Thanet (1�44) and Harbledown (some time after 1647).He was also appointed by Parliament in 1643 to "detect and demolish" superstitious inscriptions and monuments in Canterbury Catherdral, where he destroyed much of the offending stained glass with his own hand. He was reported to have required a military escort back to his lodgings to protect him from the anger of_ th� cr?w�.

His other connection with Harbledown was an mV1tation m the

early 1640s from the rector, Dr. Robert Au�tin, to assist hi1:' in the parish. However he is noted to have Vlolently antagonised

the parishioners by his efforts to suppress Sabbath sports and drunkenness. ...

It seems unlikely that Culmer would have been in a position to

invite Bedle to preach in 1638, though he might have put his name forward. It seems more likely that Dr. Austin, Rector from

Shiela Broomfield (Mrs) • (Hon. Sec. WIRG)

Applications should be sent to me not later than 31st March 2001 so that I can pass them to the Panel for consideration.

-

ARCHAEOLOGIA CANTIANA FOR SALE

The Newsletter Editors have been approached by an elderly ex­ member of the Society who wishes to dispose of a run of Arch. Cant. There are 36 volumes from 1966 to date. Please contact us on 01662 812448 if you wish to acquire these volumes and we will put you in touch with the present owner.

Newsletter Copy Deadlines

Spring issue - copy deadline is 1st March. Summer issue - copy deadline is 1st July. Winter issue - copy deadline is 1st November.

and

articles

The

Editors of the

Newsletter

letters,

welcome all

especially requests for research information , finds,

communications,

books and other related topics. The Editors wish to draw the reader's

attention to the fact that neither the Council of the KAS, nor the Editors

the

are answerable for opinions

which contributors may express in

Editors Announcement

course of their signed articles. Each author is alone responsible for the

contents and substance of their letters, items or papers. Material for the

next Newsletter should be sent by 1st March 2001 to Newsletter Editors,

Mr & Mrs

Il tt

Published by lhe Kent Archaeological Sode�

l

The Museum. St Faith's Street, Maidstone,

Kent ME14 ILH

' •

P�ted by Comolith. Kemble Road, Forest Hill London SE23 20).

Tel. D20 8699 8759 Fa.x: 020 8699 8981 e-mail: sal

es

@comolilh.demon.co.uk

12