Letters to the Editor, Summer 2008

Dear Editor

I write regarding the photographs on Page 7 of the Winter 07/08 Newsletter.

In my opinion the mysterious stones in the churchyard at St Martin’s, Ryarsh, are evidence of the earlier boundaries of the area of consecrated ground. Saxon charters mention large stones as important boundary landmarks, and the church adopted the tradition with the addition of a carved cross on the outward side of the stone. This was immediately recognised by the population passing or entering the church.

Burial in consecrated ground was very important to the medieval culture, demonstrated by the priest being called urgently to a mother upon the birth of a child to effect baptism, thus protecting the child’s soul should it die very young. Children were assumed born with ‘original’ sin, which needed to be expunged. An unbaptised child was buried outside consecrated ground and condemned to an afterlife in purgatory, or worse still, in hell.

Richard Bidgood

The following also relates to the Ryarsh stones. Two ancient stones in West Malling churchyard, described in an article of 1904, bear resemblance to those of Ryarsh.

Dear Editor

I was interested to read the article on the two stones in Ryarsh churchyard. Enclosed is an extract from ‘A History of the Parish Church of St Mary, West Malling’, compiled by Rev A W Lawson, vicar of West Malling, and Col. Stockley, Church Warden, with contributions from three members of the FSA and published in 1904.

Similar to the first stone in design, but without the broad crescent, to the ends of the cross, and the, so to say, crockets at the sides, are those low upright stones in Ryarsh churchyard, of a massive (local) iron sandstone from the Folkestone Sands. These stones have a cross in low relief at both back and front, and are supposed to be of pre-Reformation date. It is interesting to note the position of these stones. In our case (West Malling) they are both north of the church, and at Ryarsh the one is due north of the other, and in line with the west end of the nave.

The West Malling stones have grass cuttings from the mower on them and moss. I intend to clean them gently, and hand cut the grass round the edge. They ought to be better known.

John Noble

Dear Editor

In Issue 75, I wrote in support of our excellent Journal and hoped that it would continue to be published in hard-back. In response to an earlier query as to whether any other Journal of equivalent standing continues to be published in hard-back, I said that the Journal of the Sussex Archaeological Society (SAS) is.

In Issue 76, Lesley Feakes wrote to say that she is also a member of the SAS and that her copy is published in soft shiny covers. For the record, it is not my practice to write untruths and so that members don’t think otherwise, confirm that my Sussex Journal always comes in hard-back. The SAS publish their Journal (actually called ‘Collections’) in both formats and members can choose which to have. Those of us who choose the hard-back version pay a little more for the privilege – otherwise they are identical, both in content and size.

Tom Hollebone

Dear Editor

Discussion of the format of Archaeologia Cantiana is going in the wrong direction. Rather than endless quibbles about the size of pages, we must question whether printed pages were a good idea in the first place.

Manuscript text on paper or parchment scrolls (gold for the wealthier among us) is pleasanter to read and approaches close to the mind of the author. Scrolls introduce no artificial page-breaks into our thought process. They encourage thorough reading rather than the sad modern habit of dipping into pages.

Papyri have been with us since the late 5th century BC and most of our medieval heritage is recorded upon parchment rolls – take for example the Great Roll of the Pipe. Besides which, parchments look so much better on the shelves of my scriptorium.

Council really must choose this radical, yet traditional format for the 2009 volume of Archaeologia Cantiana.

Roger A Cockett