Bayford Castle and Bayford Court
In the last Newsletter John Clancy was brave enough to write an article on Bayford Castle. Many of you will know that over the years the present writer has been writing a series of articles for these pages on Kent castles. The latest, on Binbury Castle is already with the editor. I had no intention of writing anything on Bayford for, as JC points out, next to nothing is known about either the built-over castle site or Bayford Court. As so often, the present writer learns from other individuals and his article brings forth a number of points worthy of discussion.
The statement that one of this country’s greatest cartographers Christopher Saxton was drawing maps of Goodnarnston and Bayford in 1590 is of great interest. His county maps (or at least the writer’s own copy; Ravenhill 1992) do not show the sort of information that John Clancy has been able to identify. If other detailed Saxton maps exist the writer would be particularly interested in any of Thurnham and Rochester.
John Clancy is quite right to regard the association of Castle Rough with the Vikings and Bayford Castle with the Anglo-Saxons as fable. The Chronicle tells us that the Vikings made a fort at Milton Regis which of course was a royal estate and would have produce within its storerooms. Why build a fort elsewhere and have to transport the spoils? The Chronicle makes no mention of an Anglo-Saxon fortification.
The main thrust of John Clancy’s article is towards the Roman period. The position of St Michael’s Church is telling us that Watling Street was on its present site by the twelfth century and I can see no reason why it should have been too far distant a thousand years before that. There is no evidence for it being adjacent to Bayford Court, 300m to the north.
For the Lower Road the presence of villas and burials implies that certain sections (at least) date to the Roman period and an Iron Age date would come as no surprise. This would allow access to the rich arable land to the south and perhaps marsh pasture and fowling areas to the north. The writer rejected the idea that the Roman army used the Lower Road (Ward 2000), partly because it is just as likely Watling Street was also originally an Iron Age track-way. Just as the Lower Road provided access to two diverse environments the same is true of Watling Street, arable land to the north and more difficult soils to the south. It also provides the easiest route for civilian traffic; further south, valleys dominate the countryside and to the north along the Lower Road inlets and creeks make travel more awkward.
As JC states the Roman army would march about 16 miles a day before setting up camp and Sittingbourne is certainly that distance from Canterbury. On the other hand Ospringe is 16 miles from Rochester and might support the suggestion by the present writer that the Roman army constructed forts from west to east down to the coast rather than the other way around (Ward 2002). Whether such forts or marching camps existed has still to be positively shown at most of the sites mentioned in 2002. The supposed rampart and ditch on the slope overlooking the Syndale Valley at Ospringe looks (unfortunately), to the present writer, more and more like a lynchet, especially as there is another terrace at a lower level. Hasted tells us there were ‘several breastworks’ (by implication more than two) on the north side of Watling Street, likewise facing west (1798, p.503). Of these, one survives in line with the lower terrace to the south. From the opposite side of the valley, it is possible to see a definite break in slope at a higher level, which may well represent another, much ploughed, lynchet more or less in line with the terrace forming the supposed ‘fort ditch’. Whilst a ditch is undoubtedly present I can see no reason why it should not be later in date than this terrace and that the supposed rampart merely represents the natural lie of lower level. Whether a medieval motte, hinted at by Hasted, existed further south will probably never be known (Ward 1997).
That Bayford Court superficially looks like a Roman fort cannot be proved from the air (Harris 2003) but the parallel ditches are more indicative of a medieval approach. Further consideration of the evidence for Bayford Castle is suggested.