Letters
Apology & Correction: Queenborough Castle Winter 1998 Newsletter
I would be most grateful if you could publish this apology and correction. There was an error in my article, by which several sentences in paragraph 2 on page 3 were rendered nonsensical. The second paragraph on page 3 should, therefore, have read: "There is an apparent discrepancy between the Hatfield House plan and the original building accounts. The latter suggesting that the moat could have been twice the width, and the outer wall foundations 2 meters wider than those shown on the plan. The outer walls, at either width (4m. or 6m.) could have supported artillery (fig3); even the narrower width outer walls could have supported the relatively small gunpowder weapons of the times".
I can only apologise to you and your readers. I accept responsibility for the error and, as a relative newcomer to archaeology, will learn from this public mistake. (The replacement of the word "font" by "fort" in the following paragraph does not seem to be my error).
Christine Hodge
21.2.99
Dear Editor,
During my research into the history of Hollingbourne, which will eventually result in a book on the history of the parish, I have come across an incident of 'rough music' which is of great interest. It took place in 1860 and was reported in the Maidstone & Kentish Journal. A parade of women marched down the street with a full-sized figure dressed in clerical costume, accompanied by a band of rough music (banging of pots and pans and so on). At the green opposite the vicarage, the effigy was burned amidst yells and shrieks. It is reminiscent of the scene from Hardy's 'Mayor of Casterbridge'.
I wonder whether fellow members have come across similar incidents in Kent and if so at what dates? I have not myself come across rough music before and wonder whether it was very common and what date the practice might have commenced.
In this case, the parishioners were expressing their vehement disapproval of the vicar's refusal to give Christian burial to a suicide who had been found by the coroner's court to be of unsound mind. Books on British folklore which I have so far consulted have told me little other than that rough music was usually employed to express disapproval of sexual conduct.
Yours sincerely,
Helen Allinson
The Editors
KAS Newsletter
12.3.99
Dear Editor,
I have been somewhat amazed by the debate on where the Roman Invasion of A.D. 43 occurred. Are Cunliffe, Manley, Rudling et al (hailing from Sussex) all talking with their tongues in cheek and expecting us to believe that the main invasion took place through Chichester? It may well be true that Claudius came that way later in the year, when he purportedly met Plautius in 'London' for a 'picnic'. But Dio Cassius implies that Plautius landed in hostile territory (not invited in by the natives) and facts that have not changed over the years supply enough evidence that the invasion was through Kent.
John Peddie, in his excellent book "Invasion. The Roman Conquest of Britain" quotes Field Marshall Montgomery on the front piece, "The same principles of war which were employed in the past, appear again and again throughout history...."
The logical facts regarding the A.D. 43 invasion as I see them are as follows: Fact 1: The tide is the main key.
It is strongest up the channel and not down, and this tide pull can carry a sailing boat to Ramsgate (or Sandwich) in the same time it takes to cut across the tide to Lympne. This fits with Caesar's description that his boats were carried past Britain with the coast on port... and they had to row back. The A.D. 43 invasion must have been planned on a one tide distance route on the 20-hour two tide complication of Chichester. (A 'Montgomery principle' is that all invasions, or planned invasions of Britain have followed the shortest viable route).
Fact 2: There were some 5,000 horses aboard. Would they have risked taking those on a long sea voyage across two tides? It does not make military sense!
Fact 3: The Romans were a very superstitious lot and God-fearing. They paid much attention to auspicious events and whether the Gods were with them. As Caesar had a successful campaign, they would not have gone against the Gods and him by ignoring the route he had traveled and his strategies.
Fact 4: Lessons were learned from Caesar's problems. The boats needed beaches for landing but then they needed safe harbors for anchorage. I suggest that they aimed for beaches adjacent to Celtic Harbors where safe anchorage and routes for supplies were centered. i.e. Stonar (Richborough), Lympne, and Appledore... three Divisions as Dio Cassius tells us?
A debate is always difficult when evidence is sparse. Questions glare out... why has Caesar's original Camp never been found? He says he marched 11 miles.... eleven Roman miles from Port Lympne is Atchester Wood (pronounced 'aitch' ester in the last century) and it has straight flint roads with side ditches.... has anyone ever looked properly? Have people got hung up on the theory that Bigbury is categorically the camp Caesar sacked? There is evidence around that with common sense, deduction and some excavation might make complete sense.... then the debate is over. Prove Caesar entered through Kent and it is proven (99.9%) that Plautius did too. (0.1% chance they were blown off course by a Michael Fish type hurricane moving west in April)!
Yours sincerely,
Lesley Feakes, Lenham