The Castles of Kent No. 1.

This is the first in a series of short articles to be submitted to the KAS Newsletter on the castles of Kent. A castle can be constructed in earth and timber or stone, or any combination, and can take many forms (e.g. motte and bailey, ringwork, keep, courtyard, concentric). Although specialists have been arguing amongst themselves for many decades as to how to define a castle, a consensus does seem to have been reached. A castle is a residential fortress for a lord, belonging within the medieval period or, more correctly, a feudal society (Allen Brown 1985, p.5). For this country feudal society, whereby land is held in return for military services, can be regarded as the medieval and, probably, the late Anglo-Saxon periods. The dates for both 'periods' are open to debate, but for the sake of argument let us say 850 to 1066 for the late Anglo-Saxon period and 1066 to 1530 for the medieval, although by the latter date it would be incorrect to call England a feudal state. Structures such as Deal Castle or Mereworth Castle can therefore definitely be excluded, the former being a military installation (a fort), housing a garrison to defend the state and the latter a palatial house. However, as with all definitions there are grey areas. For example Dover Castle was perhaps not only the defended residence of a lord (in this case the king), but also held a garrison to help defend the state. On the other hand Bodiam Castle (Sussex), constructed in the late fourteenth century is, from a military viewpoint, a disaster area, it was built as an impressive residence not as a fortification designed to offer serious resistance.

Stockbury Castle.

Overlooking the Stockbury Valley, between Sittingbourne and Maidstone, stand the grassed over ramparts and ditches of Stockbury Castle (TQ 8460 6162). The castle is situated on the west side of the valley and at 115 metres O.D. is some 50 metres higher than the valley floor. The medieval parish church is situated 30 metres to the north-east and, in its present form, partially blocks any view from the castle down the valley towards Watling Street, the modern A2, some two miles northward.

The first reference to the manor of Stockbury is in Domesday Book (1086) which tells us the land was held by Ansgot a tenant of Odo Bishop of Bayeux and Earl of Kent. Prior to the Norman Conquest an individual called Aelfeva held it directly from King Edward (1042-66). A church and mill are mentioned but no castle. However, as Domesday Book was primarily an economic document the failure to specifically mention a castle at Stockbury does not mean there wasn't one there. Many, probably most, castles known to be in existence by 1086 were not mentioned within its pages and those that were, usually, have only a passing reference.

The church was presumably the forerunner of that still standing and it is possible that the plan of an earlier building, consisting of nave and rectangular chancel, can be recognized within the framework of the largely thirteenth and nineteenth century structure (See plan in A.C.Vol.xxv 1902, facing p.244).

At a date in the late eleventh century the mill has to be water driven for windmills only appear in the mid to late twelfth century, perhaps due to ideas spread by the Crusades.

Importantly this evidence for a mill is telling us that a thousand years ago there was water in the now dry, Stockbury Valley. This of course carries implications for all other North Down valleys which are dry today; all the dip slope villages would originally have acquired their water from permanent streams rather than wells. It is to be hoped that the recent observations undertaken by archaeological contractors during the course of road widening along the A249 just to the north of Stockbury will be able to confirm this important piece of environmental evidence.

Although described as a matte (mound) and bailey (courtyard) on modem maps it is perhaps more likely that Stockbury was a ringwork (an unsatisfactory definition) with a crescent shaped outer bailey. A ringwork castle consists basically of an earthen bank presumably with a timber palisade or hedge on top, fronted by a ditch. In other words a defended enclosure. In some instances a stone wall was added at a later date on top, or in front, of the earthwork.

An eighteenth century and later farm occupies much of the site and has resulted in at least a third of the ramparts being totally destroyed. It seems excessive to go to the trouble to level a motte to build a post-medieval farmhouse, when the latter could easily be built elsewhere within the enclosure. If complete the ramparts of the suggested ringwork would be more or less elliptical in shape.

Geophysical surveys and excavation were proposed in the 1960's (Ford 1965, p.271) but were almost certainly never undertaken (Dunmore 1983, pers.comrn.).Earthen ramparts and ditches are visible from the adjacent churchyard, but apparently one scrap of masonry also survives and more has been encountered in cottage gardens (Guy 1980, p 219.). The masonry could however be quite late. The present writer has unfortunately never been able to identify the supposed outer bailey around the church (ibid. p.218). Although there are many primary documents relating to the manor surviving within the County Archive Office, nothing of the history of the castle seems to survive, even Hasted fails us (1798 Vol.5, p.572- 85). It seems likely that only large scale systematic excavation will really enhance our knowledge further. However, all of you place name specialists may have a part to play.

Although there is no direct reference to the existence of a castle within Domesday Book it is possible that it is mentioned indirectly, for one of the meanings of the Old English bury is 'fortified place'. Unfortunately of course it is not that simple, there can be other meanings and the non-place name speaalist has to be wary. The major works on Kentish place names, with all their faults, are still those of J. K. Wallenberg (Kentzsh Place Names 1931 and The Place Names of Kent 1934). Wallenberg gives us a list of spellings for Stockbury (1934, p.230):

Stochingeberge 1086 Stockebir 1233

Stocabere 1100 Stokin(ge)beri 1242-3

Stocingabere 1100 Stokebyry 1243

Stocinb'ia 1170-80 Stokinbyr' 1247

Stokingebir 1208 Stoke 1253-4

Stokingbir' 1226 Stokyngbery 1253-4

Stokingeb'y 1232 Stoke Ingeberi 1253-4

With Stockbery and Stockbury appearing in the seventeenth century.

Wallenberg states that the forms of spelling after Domesday Book go against the derivation of the second element being beorg meaning hill or barrow. He suggests it is more likely to derive from boer(e) = pasture or burh, byrig = fortified place. It is less likely to be byre meaning a shed. The first element he prefers as being an ' ... ing(a) derivative of O.E. sloe = place, house, dwelling, ... ' rather than being derived from stocc = stock sump (a hole left after the uprooting of trees), or in Middle English ' ... stocking = the uprooting of trees or land reclaimed from the woods.'

In her book Place Names of Kent (1976, p.180), Judith Glover prefers to regard the bury element as meaning pasture. Stockbury being' .... the swine pasture of the Stoke people ... .'; she then connects Stockbury with Stoke eight miles to the north. As far as the present writer is aware, other than this hint in Domesday Book, there is no other documentary evidence for this connection.

Importantly both writers appear to be unaware that an earthwork fortification exists. To the present writer the presence of the defensive earthwork seems to provide more or less conclusive evidence that the bury element in this instance does mean fortified place. If that line of reasoning can be accepted then Domesday Book is telling us that the fortification was there in 1086. However, of far more importance it also tells us that Stockbury was called Stockbury not only in 1086 but, also in the time of Edward the Confessor in 1066. In other words an Anglo-Saxon 'castle' existed adjacent to the church, a situation comparable to Earls Barton (Northants), Sulgrave (Northants) and Goltho (Lines) all regarded as Anglo-Saxon private fortifications.

It seems possible that Stockbury is one of those very rare sites, along with Eynsford Castle near Farningham (Horsman 1988, p.53-57), where we can say, with a good degree of certainty that there was an Anglo-Saxon forerunner to the medieval castle. Of course the earthworks visible today may not be of Anglo-Saxon date, for any earlier defences could have been buried or even destroyed later in the medieval period. On the other hand the visible earthworks could be prehistoric with an appended Anglo-Saxon place name. However, the presence of the adjacent church, presumably on the site of that mentioned in 1086, implies the nearby presence of the lord's dwelling. That further implies the presence of an enclosure, whether prehistoric earthworks (important enough in themselves ) were reinstated being largely irrelevant.

If it can be accepted that Stockbury was an Anglo-Saxon private fortification this then has implications for other b11ry place names mentioned in Domesday Book or earlier documents where fortifications, although not visible today (e.g.Wateringbury and Frindsbury), may at one time have existed.

Whether or not Stockbury is an Anglo-Saxon 'castle' only excavation can (possibly) show, but comments from all you place name specialists will be welcome.

References/Bibliography

Allen Brown R., 1985, Castles.

Dunmore S., 1983, Personal communication, letter dated 8.9.83 stating there is no reference on file at Fortress House of work being commissioned by the then Ministry of Works.

Editor. 1902 Notes and Queries: XIXth. Century Restorations at Stockbury Church in Archaeologia Cantiana Vol.xxv, p.244-50.

Ford D. 1965 Researches and Discoveries: Sittingbourne and Swale in Archaeologia Cantiana Vol.Ixxx, p.271.

Glover J., 1976, Place Names of Kent.

Guy J., 1980, Kent Castles.

Hasted E., 1798, The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent, Vol.5, p.572-85.

Horsman V., 1988, Eynsford Castle: A Reinterpretation of its early History in the Light of recent Excavations in Archaeologia Cantiana Vol.cv, p.39-58.

Morgan P. (Ed)., 1983, Domesday Book: Kent.

Wallenberg J.K., 1934, The Place Names of Kent.

Ward A., 1985, The Three Castles of the Stockbury Valley (unpublished B.A.Hons. dissertation).

NOTE: The earthworks at Stockbury are on private land and there is NO public access, they can be quite adequately viewed from the adjacent churchyard and public road.

Alan Ward. Sept.1996 c/o. History Department, Christ Church College, Canterbury, Kent.

Stockbury Castle: 'Buyer Beware'

The writer of the article on Stockbury Castle is an avid collector of postcards having an archaeological theme. Recently at a postcard fair thirteen photographs of what purported to be the Ixviii, 1953 excavation of the Holborough Barrow (A.C. 1954, Vol. p. 1-61 and 1956, Vol. Ixx, p. 84-141) were being sold for the very reasonable sum of £3.50. Another set had been sold to someone else a little earlier, The photographs were of good quality and showed the whole process of the excavation, so they must have been taken by someone on the site for the duration of the project. However, when comparing the photographs with the illustrations in the two articles mentioned above it was realised that the barrow was not that at Holborough, for there was no sign of a chalk quarry cutting into the mound. One of the advantages of being a member of the KAS is that you learn that there are people within the Society who have vast amounts of knowledge. The excavation was in fact that of a post medieval garden feature within the grounds of Nash Court, Boughton undertaken c:1948 (A.C. 1951, Vol. lxiv, p. 35-8). Indeed one of the Photographs published in that article was identical to one of those purchased. They were almost certainly taken b )'. the site director Ron Jessup. (My thanks to Arthur Hamson and Michael Ofock for providing much needed help). Copies of the photographs purchased will be deposited in the Society archive.

We now come to the 'buyer beware' element of this note. At another postcard fair four photographs of what was suppose�ly Stockbury Castle were on sale. They were most certainly NOT of that earthwork structure for they showed a brick built building partly surrounded by a moat. The building may have been one of the sixteenth century 'palaces' situated within the county, but they were not of a medieval castle. This was a case of the prospective buyer knowing what he was looking at. As the price of the cards was on the high side for a full-time archaeologist they were not purchased. They are probably still in circulation on the card market.

Alan Ward, February 1997