Letters to the Editor, Summer 2003

Dear Editor

HOLLINGBOURNE HOARD

I may I respond to the letter from the Chairman of the Lenham Archaeological Society in the Spring Newsletter? In brief, while people in AD 43 would have known Bronze Age objects, the Hollingbourne hoard had probably been in the ground for nearly a thousand years by then.

To take her last point first, I too hope the hoard can be carbon-dated. A recent programme of radiocarbon dating for Bronze Age metalwork – including wood from sockets – has shown that material from the Carp’s Tongue phase was in use around 1000-800 BC. Some writers have proposed that hoards like Hollingbourne were deposited around 800 BC because bronze went out of use then. There is indeed very little metalwork of the succeeding Llyn Fawr phase in Kent, but elsewhere in southern England bronze hoards continued to be deposited until about 600 BC. However, we cannot be sure that all the numerous Carp’s Tongue hoards were deposited at the end of the period and other factors were probably influential in the transition from bronze to iron.

Sometimes Bronze Age types were deposited even later, notably in the so-called Salisbury hoard probably buried around 200 BC. We also think miniature versions of bronze socketed axes were made during the Iron Age and the Roman period. This indicates that Iron Age people knew Bronze Age metalwork, perhaps because they uncovered old hoards as we do today or perhaps because some Bronze Age objects were preserved through later centuries, but I understand that metal detector surveys revealed no Iron Age finds at Hollingbourne.

Whether any of the axes from Hollingbourne were actually new when they were deposited, the hoard certainly contains small fragments of axes and other objects. While it does include copper ingot fragments, the product of smelting copper ore, the hoard does not appear to contain debris from casting of new bronze objects and I understand that there was no evidence of a furnace on the site. This suggests Hollingbourne is better described as a scrap hoard than as a founder’s hoard. Whatever the interpretation of the metalwork before it was deposited, the significance of its deposition may not necessarily have reflected the function of its contents before they were buried. Hoards on dry land might have been deposited to demonstrate the wealth and prestige of the people who buried them, or for some other reason of the kind archaeologists usually call ‘ritual’.

I cannot easily calculate how many socketed axes are known from Kent, but a published corpus for Scotland and northern England contains over 700 and southern England is much richer. So while we are rightly impressed by the skill of Bronze Age craftsmen, axes were probably very common objects at the time as the all-purpose woodworking tool to which most adults must have required access. Bronze hoards may indeed have been valuable, but hoards were not necessarily lost or forgotten. Of course some hoards might have been hidden for later retrieval that never took place, but they were probably a minority. We know from finds of bronzes, notably swords, from rivers – including the Medway, that fine metalwork was deposited in circumstances that must have been deliberate: Francis Pryor’s brilliant excavations have revealed how bronzes were thrown into the water from a causeway linking Flag Fen platform with dry land at Fengate. The point is that people knew very well where those bronzes were being deposited, though it would have been impossible to recover them. The same may have applied to some hoards on dry land, where law or convention might have strongly discouraged other people from digging them up again.

Clay Lane Wood, discussed by Paul Ashbee in Newsletter no 48, is an intriguing find. But its bronzes might have been bright simply because they had been deposited in conditions that did not allow extensive corrosion or patina to develop.

Finally, we should congratulate all those involved in recovering the hoard – and welcome the belated introduction in England of antiquities legislation to protect the integrity of such finds. Our understanding of Bronze Age metalwork and its deposition can be improved only by study of the material and its context. The starting point for this must be publication, so I hope that – unlike most hoards from Kent – Hollingbourne will be fully and promptly published. Perhaps the KAS will assist?

Brendan O’Connor
Edinburgh

Dear Editor

KENT CHURCHES SURVEYS

I must correct the impression given by Alan Ward at the K.A.S. Day Conference, ‘Church and Monastery in Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Times’ held on 26th April 2003. He seemed to be suggesting that there are no archaeological surveys of churches currently being undertaken in Kent. Much excellent work was done by Tim Tatton-Brown for the Dioceses of Canterbury and Rochester in the 1990s – copies of all his surveys are in the Canterbury Archaeological Trust’s library. Tim’s work has been carried on since 2000 by Hugh Richmond, M.A., Dip. Arch. (Cantab), F.S.A., an Historic Buildings Consultant who was previously Director of Architectural Survey for the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England.

Hugh surveyed twenty churches in 2002, and a further twenty are planned for this year. His reports, which include phased building plans, form part of the Sites and Monuments Record maintained by K.C.C. Indeed, K.C.C. was one of the original sponsors of the project, as were the two Dioceses and other interested bodies, including the K.A.S. and I am glad to have the opportunity to publicly thank the Churches Committee in particular for their recent donation towards the cost of the Survey.

So far we have surveyed almost 50% of Kent churches listed Grade II* or higher, a total of 160, and there are plans to make the results widely accessible through a website. Speaking K.A.S. funding is enabling us to embark on a pilot study of how this can best be achieved. However, longer term funding for the surveys themselves is not yet in place and the future is uncertain. Nevertheless, I cannot agree with Alan Ward’s view that most amateur archaeologists could take part in this type of recording work, albeit under professional guidance. While this may be true of ruined churches such as Stonar near Faversham and Hope, the recording and, more importantly, the interpretation of standing fabric is an entirely different matter. This requires specialist knowledge of church architecture, including a detailed appreciation of style and the development of form. It is also essential to have an understanding of changes in liturgical practice and the way in which church interiors have been adapted and changed to accommodate them. In practice this requires knowledge of the whole range of furniture and other artefacts, of all periods, that survive in churches, and the ability to place them in a meaningful context.

One thing is certain. There must be effective coordination to avoid duplication of effort. A committee, comprising representatives of the two Kent dioceses, English Heritage and K.C.C., already exists to plan and oversee the survey work. The secretary, Mr Ian Dodd, D.A.C. Secretary, 9 The Precincts, Canterbury CT1 2EH will be pleased to help with any enquiries.

Leslie A Smith, Chairman
Canterbury and Rochester Diocesan Archaeological Survey