Letters to the Editor, Autumn 2003
Dear Editor
KENT CHURCHES
I suspect many of my ex-students were waiting for this. KAS members are well aware of Tim Tatton Brown’s published church surveys. However, I suspect that the majority of the audience at the conference on the 26th April were unaware that copies, of a much greater number of his surveys, were available for consultation or that his valuable work had been restarted in 2000. Certainly this was the case with all but one of my current or ex-students, who accounted for about 15% of the total audience. I freely admit I was aware of both factors, but I enjoy stirring Kentish archaeologists out of their complacency. Of course it worked. All KAS members are now aware that church surveys are continuing and more importantly who to contact (something I did not know).
It is impossible to be sure after this length of time; I may have said that most amateur archaeologists can undertake such surveys, but what I certainly said was that amateurs can undertake recording surveys. There is subtle difference. The recording of standing fabric (i.e. measuring, drawing, photography and basic description of architectural detail) is relatively simple and, (where necessary) with guidance well within the capabilities of the interested amateur, of whom in this field I would consider myself one. I, as an individual, refuse to differentiate between ‘amateur’ and ‘professional’ (other than in the money sense) there are only good, average and bad archaeologists and historians.
Detailed study of some, perhaps all, of the aspects listed by Leslie A Smith in the last Newsletter are within the capabilities of the interested individual. The word interested along with the much more important commitment and less important enthusiasm are the key words; with observation and getting off their backsides which unlock interpretation. The vast majority of individuals will not wish to study a theme to the analysis stage, but a few will. More importantly in the present context, most of us, provided there is the occasional ‘boot up the backside’, are perfectly capable of undertaking recording work, and a few (not I) have the artistic ability to draw tracery or other detail. For some churches, with structural phasing surviving in the vertical plane, elevation drawings may be as informative as plan and can be completed to a considerable height without ladders.
In my view it is the recording which should come first, the analysis can wait. How much has been lost from churches because no one could be bothered or for the fear of being ‘wrong’. I know of wall paintings in one Kent church which were whitewashed over not all that long ago and I have no doubt readers of this piece know of other examples of destruction. In archaeology we are all wrong some of the time, and some ‘talk out the backs of their heads’ nearly all of the time. We only have to look at the disagreements between ‘specialists’ to realise that there will always be different interpretations of the evidence, but without that evidence being recorded in the first place we have nothing.
The recording of much of that evidence (buildings or below ground archaeology) depends upon local amateur archaeologists getting up off of their backsides and getting on with the work. There are some amateurs in Kent who have a reputation for good work, second to none in the county. One of the ‘red herrings’ in British archaeology (and another of my favourite rants) is that professional (paid sense) archaeologist have stopped amateur (unpaid sense) archaeologists from undertaking such work. What all responsible archaeologists want is to ensure that the work is actually undertaken and then completed to professional standards.
Alan Ward
Dear Editor
KENT CHURCH SURVEYS
Mr Smith suggests in the Summer Newsletter that ruined churches such as Stone and Hope should be surveyed by amateurs. In 1988, whilst working for what is now Archaeology South-East, I surveyed Hope-all-Saints church for the Romney Marsh Research Trust. A discussion of the phasing, with ground plans of the church and surrounding earthworks together with a selection of elevation drawings, is published in Romney Marsh, The Debatable Ground (ed. Jill Eddison, OUCA 1995). The entire standing fabric was drawn at a scale of 1:10 as a record and is held by RMRT. These drawings could be provided to Mr Smith (with the permission of RMRT) at A3 size if wished – as he says, there must be effective coordination to avoid duplication.
Maureen Bennett
Archaeological Consultant
Sevenoaks
Dear Editor
RE THE MANOR HOUSE, CHESTFIELD & THE ROPER FAMILY
I am writing to you to see if the Kent Archaeological Society might be able to help.
Since moving into The Manor House some five years ago, I have been struggling to trace the long and complex history of the property. Parts of the existing structure probably date from the C15, and it is possible that there has been something on the site from the C13. There appears to be little recorded history of rural properties from early times, so I have recently been concentrating on the associated families.
One significant local family – the Ropers of St Dunstan’s, Canterbury and Well Hall, Eltham – were owners of The Manor House for around 300 years from the middle of the C15 to the middle of the C18. This period included such important family members as John Roper, Attorney General to Henry VIII, and William Roper (son-in-law of Sir Thomas Moore). I would be extremely grateful if any of your members were able to identify any possible sources of information which might throw light on the history of the association of this house and family.
Chris Hughes
Chestfield
Whitstable