Letters to the Editor

Dear Editor,

My concern is something that has struck me before – particularly in the Spring 2018 edition. I feel it would be useful to include (either on the front cover or inside on page 2) an outline map of the county showing the approximate locations of sites featured in that newsletter.

The only map in the Spring 2018 newsletter is the one showing the ancient coastline of East Kent and the Wantsum Channel. This should have made the article comprehensible. But it doesn’t. Near the end of page 7, the writer explains that in Roman times “to the East of Ebbsfleet peninsula was the sea”. In the last column on page 8, he is suggesting that Caesar landed at Pegwell Bay. If the modern location of Pegwell Bay had been shown on the map, it would have helped.

The fact that Rose Hill is being excavated by a Sittingbourne group serves to provide a general sense of what part of Kent it is in. But its location in Bredhurst is not mentioned until paragraph 5. Probably, everyone knows where Rochester is! But so many archaeological sites are in obscure locations. The article on Ebony is another case in point. The article about Ranscombe assumes that a previous article is fresh in the reader’s mind. There is no sign at all of where the writer is talking about until the middle of page 4 of the article.

The first needs to be designed by the editor, but the second type should be provided by the writer with an article that needs it.

Anyway. I have had my moan. A picture can be more informative than lots of words – and the newsletter has lots of pictures. But a map can be more useful than hints and inferences. Keep up the good work!

Best wishes Marylin Stevenson