Magnetometer and Resistivity Surveys of Bilsington Priory, Kent, 2022
By Alexander Hibberts
Bilsington Priory was a relatively small community of Augustinian canons located on the clay hills that cluster at the edges of Romney Marsh, a 200 km1wetland in south-west Kent. It was founded in 1253 by John Mansel, Lord Chancellor and a royal favourite of Henry III. The house was never especially wealthy. The 1291-2 Taxatio valued its temporalities at
£33 16s. 5d. per annum.1 By 1535, the Valor Ecclesiasticus recorded a gross value of £81 1s. 6d. after deducting debts.2Therefore, the house would have been dissolved under the Lesser Monasteries Act (1536), but the prior expected this and surrendered on 28th February 1536.3 Following dissolution, the estate passed through the hands of various secular owners, including Archbishop Thomas Cranmer and Anthony St Leger, Lord Deputy of Ireland. In 1906, the priory remains – since incorporated into a farmhouse and associated agricultural buildings – were repaired and restored as part of a minor country house. This report will detail the results of a geophysical survey carried out at Bilsington Priory between January and June 2022.
Archaeological Context
There are many archaeological layers at Bilsington Priory (Fig 1).4 The modern house constructed in 1906, called The Priory, is situated on the presumed site of Upper Bilsington manor. It is near-encircled by a much-modified moat whose morphology is comparable to the remains of Lower Bilsington manor located in the modern village of Bilsington, 0.8 miles to the south-west. To the north-east of The Priory stands an L-shaped block of Kentish ragstone, the only above ground remains of the Augustinian priory. This building has a hall with mid-thirteenth-century windows over an undercroft.5 A contemporary spiral vice-star survives to the rear allowing access to two floors and the roof space of an adjoining wing.6 The whole building was much modified by John Thomas Micklethwaite who restored the structure in 1906.
Precise original use is unknown, although there is no shortage of suggestions ranging from infirmary to prior’s hall.7 The latter seems most likely. To the north of these remains, an area of level agricultural land is the presumed site of the priory church and other ancillary buildings. It is recorded that C.R. Councer undertook evacuations in this area, known as the North Field, on behalf of Kent Archaeological Society (KAS) in 1952.8 Councer is said to have uncovered traces of the church and cloister. However, no evidence of this excavation has been found either in the KAS archives, Kent Historic Environment Record, or in the records of Historic England.9 Other significance features include two fishponds connected by a central drainage channel.10 Although likewise much modified, they are most probably medieval in origin. Pencilled graffiti in the roof rafters is also worthy of interest. It can be attributed to the 14th Durham Light Infantry, which was stationed at Bilsington in December 1940.11 The much- disturbed nature of the ground around the upstanding remains may be attributed to the presence of the military. However, it is also possible that the North Field was a source of stone for an early twentieth-century rock garden in the front of The Priory. Pieces of medieval masonry have been found in this area.12
Survey Methodology
A resistivity and magnetometer survey were conducted over fifteen days between January and June 2022. The survey area was split into five fields (field 1 was divided further into 1a and 1b). Resistivity survey areas are shown in blue, magnetometer areas in red (Fig 2). The original plan had been for both methods to be used within the scheduled area. Modern contamination, including street lights, underground cables, and fencing, meant the magnetometer survey was only possible in the North Field. Further magnetometer surveys were conducted on surrounding fields (2-5). The survey was carried out using Geoscan RM15 Advanced resistivity equipment and a Bartington Dual Sensor Grad 601-2 magnetometer. Results were processed in Geoplot version 4.01. Survey grids were set out using Ordnance Survey coordinates. Further details can be found in a report submitted to Historic England.13 The summaries below are based on the findings of this report written in collaboration with Kevin and Lynn Cornwell, field officers from Hastings Area Archaeological Research Group.
Summary: Resistivity Survey
The resistivity survey was conducted in fields 1a and 1b. This includes the area immediately adjacent to the upstanding remains. Following records of Councer’s 1952 excavation, it would be expected to yield the most interesting remains.
However, only one undebatable foundation could be identified: a building shown on the Ordnance Survey Map (1877) unexpectedly extended further northwards (Fig 3). This may represent the remains of a larger feature, possibly a conventual building adapted to post-dissolution agricultural use. Only excavation can confirm this. Towards the north of field 1a, a labourer’s cottage was extant until at least the late nineteenth-century. Footings may survive as rectangular foundations at the eastern edge of the fishponds bounding the northern edge of field 1a (Fig 4). Former priory owner Mr Pratt-Boorman believed this building to incorporate the remains of a medieval gatehouse.14 If this is true, it is probable, given its proximity, that the medieval fishpond may have served as a moat. High resistance readings in places around the edges of the same pond imply a build-up of buried material within its banks. It has been suggested this results from the post-dissolution demolition and clearance of monastic buildings on the site.
No. 1 indicates the footings of labourer’s cottages said to incorporate remains of a medieval gatehouse. No. 1 indicates the agricultural building found to extent northwards into the North Field.
Summary: Magnetometer Survey
The magnetometer survey was conducted in fields 1a and 2-5.
In field 1a, features not seen in the resistivity survey were uncovered, including scattered building debris most likely related to a post-medieval dairy extending northwards from the priory buildings (Fig. 6). This was extant in 1904 but removed by 1906. Fields 2 and 3 yielded nothing of especial interest. Field 4 presented several features: a small enclosure for animals and possible ancient field boundary (ditch and bank). Evidence of medieval ‘ridge and furrow’ ploughing was also uncovered (Fig. 7). Further ditch-like features could be seen in field 5 (Fig. 8).
These included aspects suggestive of ancient field boundaries and drainage ditches. A circular ring- ditch feature with a diameter of c.20 m has been posited as a prehistoric enclosure or barrow. Another small enclosure, approximately 40 m2, has been presented as an enclosed farmstead with hints of internal structure from settlement and livestock housing. Again, dating is not possible without excavation.
Concluding Remarks
The results of geophysical surveys are subjective and open to interpretation. In many cases, confirmation of findings is only possible with excavation. However, this can be costly, time consuming, and destructive. Non-invasive surveys can offer a picture of buried features to determine archaeological potential and direct future excavation. In summary, both surveys have demonstrated the location of buried remains belonging to Bilsington Priory and its post-dissolution successors.
Sadly, there is not a clear footprint of the monastic precinct due to demolition and site clearance. Other features offer insight into long-term agricultural use of the priory estate including formerly unknown field boundaries, enclosures, dwellings, and evidence of ploughing. No surface finds were uncovered.
This geophysics survey is part of a larger PhD project, based at Durham University, to integrate the surviving archaeology and documentary evidence for Bilsington Priory and its post-dissolution successors.
Acknowledgements
The author is enormously grateful for the financial support of Kent Archaeological Society without whom this survey would not be possible. Thanks must also be given to the land owner, Libby Lawson, and Zena Hale, Kevin and Lynn Cornwell, Eva and Steve Corbett, Roy Dunmall, Mark Freeman, Mick Hide, and Bob Washington. The surveys were carried out by Hastings Area Archaeological Research Group.
References
Houses of Austin canons: The priory of Bilsington’ in William Page (ed.), A History of the County of Kent: Volume 2 (London, 1926).
https://historicengland.org.uk/ listing/the-list/list-entry/1018877