The Lost Tower of Luddenham

Dr Pat Reid, Community Archaeologist for the Faversham Society, Director FSARG

In 2011 the Faversham Society Archaeological Research Group (FSARG) were invited to find the remains of the north tower of Luddenham Church, near Faversham. This tower was a substantial structure with a double cap and three bells and stood halfway along the north side of the church. It collapsed in 1806, damaging the nave and chancel. Repairs were swiftly carried out but the north tower was not restored. Instead, a battlemented brick tower was built onto the south-west corner of the nave.

We had five days access to the churchyard, so this was a ‘Time Team’-type exercise and we had to be highly organised. Two days during the Easter season were spent carrying out surveying, including detailed building materials recording, mapping of the churchyard and graves, inspecting debris from rabbit holes and dumps and geo-resistivity surveying along the north wall. This last gave such a clear result that we knew solid foundations had survived.

Sure enough, when we returned in June, the walls proved to be no more than 10cm down. Working rapidly, much of the wall was exposed. The walls were around 0.9 m thick and survived to a maximum height of 0.6 m. They were mainly constructed of large, shaped flint nodules and blocks of ragstone and greensand, but the internal fill included many hefty pieces of Roman tile. Indeed, the west wall seemed to be founded upon a layer of Roman brick and tile and the fill between the walls contained pieces of roller stamped (type14) and combed box flue tiles and a very large floor tile, probably a sesquipedalis, along with tegulae and imbrices. The top layer of fill had a high proportion of peg tile fragments.

Other significant finds in the fill were a number of yellow or green glazed Flemish tiles, late medieval/early post-medieval in date. It has been suggested that Luddenham church, remote and with a small congregation, might have had earthen floors in the medieval period but this was plainly not so for at least some areas. Some pieces of earlier medieval tile were also found.

At the lowest foundation level of the tower, a complex multi-context layer emerged, interpreted as an artisans’ ‘working floor’. Beneath the lowest level of demolition fill was a patchy layer of charcoal, running in places over a hard white layer of chalky-mortar like material. There were also lenses of greenish clay. Three small post holes in a row penetrated the charcoal/white layers, and a larger one lay a short distance away. In one part of this ‘surface’ a circular impression seemed to have been impressed into the white layer. Immediately beneath this mixture of deposits was the natural soil, a clayey-brickearth. The white layer contained a lot of lead came fragments - cames are the fine lead strips which run between glass segments in stained glass windows.

The difficulty with the ‘working floor’ was dating it. Was it an original surface, dating back to when the tower was being built? The post holes could be scaffolding and the cames from window construction and trimming. Or was it a post-collapse floor - in which case, the tower site must have been completely cleared of rubble, right down to the natural soil? The cames could then be attributed to smashed windows - the 1803 print shows some small windows. Careful inspection, however, suggested that the burnt layer did not run under the foundations and that the very lowest stone showed some.

Sure enough, when we returned in June, the walls proved to be no more than 10cm down. Working rapidly, much of the wall was exposed. The walls were around 0.9 m thick and survived to a maximum height of 0.6 m. They were mainly constructed of large, shaped flint nodules and blocks of ragstone and greensand, but the internal fill included many hefty pieces of Roman tile. Indeed, the west wall seemed to be founded upon a layer of Roman brick and tile and the fill between the walls contained pieces of roller stamped (type14) and combed box flue tiles and a very large floor tile, probably a sesquipedalis, along with tegulae and imbrices. The top layer of fill had a high proportion of peg tile fragments.

Other significant finds in the fill were a number of yellow or green glazed Flemish tiles, late medieval/early post-medieval in date. It has been suggested that Luddenham church, remote and with a small congregation, might have had earthen floors in the medieval period but this was plainly not so for at least some areas. Some pieces of earlier medieval tile were also found.

At the lowest foundation level of the tower, a complex multi-context layer emerged, interpreted as an artisans’ ‘working floor’. Beneath the lowest level of demolition fill was a patchy layer of charcoal, running in places over a hard white layer of chalky-mortar like material. There were also lenses of greenish clay. Three small post holes in a row penetrated the charcoal/white layers, and a larger one lay a short distance away. In one part of this ‘surface’ a circular impression seemed to have been impressed into the white layer. Immediately beneath this mixture of deposits was the natural soil, a clayey-brickearth. The white layer contained a lot of lead came fragments - cames are the fine lead strips which run between glass segments in stained glass windows.

The difficulty with the ‘working floor’ was dating it. Was it an original surface, dating back to when the tower was being built? The post holes could be scaffolding and the cames from window construction and trimming. Or was it a post-collapse floor - in which case, the tower site must have been completely cleared of rubble, right down to the natural soil? The cames could then be attributed to smashed windows - the 1803 print shows some small windows. Careful inspection, however, suggested that the burnt layer did not run under the foundations and that the very lowest stone showed some.

The Roman material was easy to explain - a known but uninvestigated high status Roman villa lies nearby. More puzzling, however, were two blocks of chamfered stone at the corners of the buttress in the north east corner of the tower. These are far more finely worked than other stone in the church but were used in an obscure place. Is this another case of recycling, this time of medieval material? These blocks are identical to chamfered blocks used in the pillars of nearby Davington Church. Davington Church was formerly a priory and much was demolished at the Reformation - and Davington, from time to time, seems to have shared a priest with Luddenham.

On the middle day of our June excavation, Luddenham Church, which is under the care of the Churches Conservation Trust, had its annual open day. We put up a small exhibition and display of finds - all very enjoyable for both us and the visitors. I would strongly recommend a visit to this charming and peaceful little church, huddled in amongst farm buildings. Meanwhile, if you want to know more about the investigation itself, go to the FSARG website (now revised) on www.community-archaeology.org.uk. Great thanks go to Tim and Caroline Stevens of Luddenham Court and the Churches Conservation Trust for granting access to this very special site.