The Medway megaliths in perspective

THE MEDWAY MEGALITHS IN PERSPECTIVE PAULASHBEE For years the rich resources of Maidstone's Museum were locked away and inaccessible. A visit, late in 1948, however, found hitherto barred book-stacks open, tables and chairs piled high with albums, files and papers, all backed by Allen Grove's friendly, welcoming smile. Even more cases were opened and we talked for two days before I set about some of the notes that led to t h i s e s say. He became a stable, encouraging, friend in a shifting world, to be sought out whenever Maidstone was visited. The Medway's megaliths were among his varied interests and thus this perspective provides a fitting tribute to his memory. Since O.G.S. Crawford's (1924) inventory, which was followed by various descriptions and depictions (Jessup, 1930, 61-87; 1970, 95-112; Grinsell, 1936, 176-81; 1953, 192-7; Evans, 1948; 1950; Holgate, 1981a; 1981b), the Medway Megaliths, as they are collectively termed (Whittle, 1977, 61; Philp and Dutto, 1985), have been seen as essentially stone-built long barrows (Ashbee, 1984, 88-92). As such they have entered definitive studies (Daniel, 1950, 80-2, 142, 160-1; Piggott, 1954, 269) and a northern European mainland origin has been envisaged for them (Piggott, 1935, 122; Childe, 1940, 61; Daniel, 1950, 161). Substance was given to this derivation by the evident Northern flint axe found in Jullieberrie's Grave ( Piggott, 1939). Despite geographical isolation, the resemblance of Kit's Coty House to a Cotswold-Severn false portal (Corcoran, 1969, 54) has also led to the notion of lineage in that quarter (Crawford, 1924, 3; 1925, 68; Jessup, 1930, 69; 1970, 111). A place of origin is, nonetheless, impossible to indicate. Apart from the final emptying o f Coldrum's chamber and the exposure of kerb-stones (Bennett, 1913; Keith, 1913; Filkins 1924; 1928), there has been only one excavation of a member of the Medway group, that of the Chestnuts (Alexander, 1961). Here it was shown that an exceptionally high, rectangular, sarsen stone chamber, flanked by a commensurate fa9ade, had stood at the south-east end of a sandy long 57 P.ASHBEE barrow. This, it has been claimed (Manby, 1970, 21), could be a stone version of the timber mortuary house and fa􀁭ade of an earthen long barrow (Ashbee, 1984, 49-54 ), while similarities to the Yorkshire series and other long barrows have also been seen (Clarke, 1982, 28). Indeed, here as elsewhere (Ashbee, 1984, xxiv) there could have been the replacement of timbers by a stone construction, a process that would, in some circumstances, leave little trace. Where, as in Kent, suitable stone was available, and was an imperative, it was used. Sarsen stone, silicified sand from the Eocene, a dense, hard, heavy, durable rock, is found widely in Kent (Appendix I), as in Wessex (Bowen and Smith, 1977). To build the Medway's long barrows, suitable blocks were selected, matched, and transported, not for great distances, to the places where they were erected. As will emerge, some were of considerable size and the structures built from them larger, more grandiose and impressive, than their counterparts in northern Wiltshire and Berkshire (Piggott, 1947; 1962; Atkinson, 1965). John Aubrey (184 7, 44) was the first to mention 'Sarsdens or Sarsdon stones', when writing about Wiltshire's natural history. A century before, when he visited Stonehenge, William Lambarde ( 1730 (Ellis ed.), 117) had noted that its great stones could have come from the vicinity of Marlborough. Thus, when he compared Kit's Coty House with Stonehenge, it is strange that he neither recognised the stone nor knew the term. Stukeley (1740, 5) spoke of the 'gray weathers' on the Marlborough Downs as the source of Stonehenge's stone but is imprecise regarding those of Kit's Coty House. Indeed, Grose (1774, s.v.), following a contribution to the Gentleman's Magazine (1763, 248), termed it Kentish Rag. James Douglas (1793, 181) said that the stones were 'of reddish brown grit, and in their natural gibbous state', but it was not until the nineteenth century, when Beale Paste (Evans, 1949, 133) discussed the natural history of 'sarsdens' or 'greywethers', that the term was used regarding the Medway's megaliths. In Kent there are four principal spreads of sarsen stones overt traces of which have survived. Possibly intensive investigation might augment these and, perhaps, discover further clusters. On the upper reaches of Blue Bell Hill, and the backslopes of the North Downs, the sarsen stone spread, which provided material for the structures on the Medway's eastern bank, may at one time have been comparable with that near Overton Down, nor far from Marlborough (Bowen and Smith, 1977, Pl. X,""{Ill, b ). In the general Addington-Trottiscliffe area some scattered stones are still to be seen, although the substantial boulders in the clayey fields south of Coldrum, which gave rise to the belief that there might have been a connecting link with the Addington monuments (Bennett, 1907, 47), can no longer be found. Something of 58 THE MEDWAY MEGALITHS IN PERSPECTIVE the erstwhile availability of sarsen stone as a building material can be seen in the fabric of Addington church: the early south wall and the nineteenth-century vestry, attached to the north side of the chancel. Although some of this stone may have been taken from the long barrows, it is significant that so much of their essential structure still remains. Sarsen stones appear to have been particularly numerous in the vicinity of Cobham, indeed, concentrations cleared from fields have been thought of as collapsed megalithic structures (Jessup, 1930, 83). Many were taken to Cobham Hall where, with an especially constructed 'dolmen' (Daniel, 1972, 42, Ill. 35), they ornament the garden, while others mark the entrance to a group of modern houses (Appendix TI). A row of sarsen stones, near Acton Farm, Charing, may mark an old field boundary (Tester, 1956) while others were taken from Yew Tree Hill to embellish Eastwell Park (Payne, 1893, 144). A number were observed at Warren Street, on the Downs above Lenham (Payne, 1893, 130) while the present writer has seen boulders near Newnham. A fire-marked monolith and a tabular block of sarsen stone were found in the foundations of that part of St. Augustine's Abbey church, at Canterbury (Bing, 1949, 119), which was completed before 978. They may, however, have been brought from a distance, perhaps from an east Kentish monument long since destroyed. In conclusion, it should not be overlooked that the 'stone' placenames of Kent might denote erstwhile sarsen stones, and even vanished megalithic monuments (Everitt, 1986, 115). When first built, with selected sarsen stones, the Medway long barrows had, as has been shown by the excavation and restoration of the Chestnuts (Alexander, 1961), and also related monuments, high rectangular chambers, about 12 ft. in length and 6 ft. in breadth. These chambers, their entrances blocked by a focal portal stone and with a fac;ade, stood at the east end of considerable, in surviving instances more than 200 ft., long barrows. These, flanked by ditches or scoops, were contained by sarsen stone kerbs, the boulders being mostly of modest sizes. It seems likely that the intervals between the fac;ade uprights of the Chestnuts were infilled with courses of Carr stone from the Greensand (Alexander, 1961, 10) as small pieces of sarsen stone were used elsewhere. The tall rectangular chambers were internally divided by medial slabs and may well have been paved. Human remains have been excavated from Coldrum's chamber, besides pottery and a flint saw (Bennett, 1913; Keith, 1913). The skulls and bones found from 1804 onwards (Evans, 1950, 70) may have come from the chamber's clearance when the monument was slighted, and it should not be overlooked that Kemble and Larking may have removed pottery (Way, 1856, 404). A large quantity of pieces of burned bone 59 P. ASHBEE and potsherds, with various flint implements, came from the Chestnuts' chamber (Alexander, 1961, 36). Charcoal and skulls were found close by the Coffin Stone (Du nkin, 1871, 74) while potsherds were encountered when the ruined chamber of the Addington long barrow was dug into (Wright, 1854, 180) and it has been said that human bones were also found (Philp and Dutto, 1985, 3). The exiguous account of the disinterment of the Warren Farm chamber (Evans, 1948) allows the inherent possibility of the bones and pottery having been beneath an infill rather than in a void. At Kit's Coty House, James Douglas (1793, 181) set a man to dig on the west side of the monument and recalls that 'the spot had been, by the appearance of the soil, previously explored'. Thomas Wright (1854, 175) observed that 'Fragments of rude pottery have I believe been discovered under Kit's Coty House itself. . . .' while small sherds have been picked from the field close by (Cook, 1936). Clearly, the evidence regarding the character of the deposits in these chambers is slight. Nonetheless, consideration should be given to the likelihood of their contents, human bones, disinterred or from an ossuary (Ashbee, 1966, 37-42), having been, as at West Kennet and elsewhere, beneath infills which contained occupation debris, much of which could have been broken pottery (Piggott, 1962, 68-71). It is also possible that certain chambers may have had in them no more than soil and settlement debris, a widespread phenomenon (Henshall, 1972, 87-90; Ashbee, 1976, 21). Indeed, the long-standing interpretation of the Medway's long barrows as collective tombs has, as with others, obscured the possibility that their prime function may have been other than as mausolea. Following Evans (1950), the Medway's long barrows have been mustered into two groups, A, the longer, and B, the shorter. Initially the group B, the short monuments, was a category based upon the nature of Coldrum's kerb and Stukeley's reconstruction of the Lower Kit's Coty House (Stukeley, 1776, Pl. 32, lower), which was derived from alleged recollection. This, despite its author's insights and ingenuity (Piggott, 1985, 87), is unlikely to have been its original arrangement. Because at the Chestnuts the detectable remnant of the sandy barrow was only about 50 ft. in length, it has been thought of as substantiating this contention (Alexander, 1961, 13). Filkins (1924, 1928) undertook little more than the baring of stones for long partially visible. It is feasible that the sub-rectangular stone setting was something akin to the enclosure beneath the Nutbane earthen long barrow (Morgan, 1959, 31, Fig. 6, 32, Pl. 1 ). Thus, it could have been but a phase of a long barrow, comparable in length with the others of the series, the remains of which might be disclosed by excavation to the west of the protected area. Many long barrows and cairns are composite structures, a factor rarely realised (Henshall, 1972, 236; Masters, 1981, 168-73; Darvill, 1987, 60 THE MEDWAY MEGALITHS IN PERSPECTIVE 66) and, therefore, apparent anomalies within a group should be approached with caution. A characteristic of the stone-built long barrows on Blue Bell Hill, those east of the River Medway, is the short distance from one to another. Indeed, in the absence of present-day trees they would have been intervisible. On the west side the Addington long barrow and the Chestnuts is a pair close to each while Coldrum lies more than a mile to the north. When newly completed the contiguous east group might have looked similar to the series of rectangular boulder-bounded long barrows at Putlos, Kr. Oldenburg (Ashbee, 1984, Pl. XXXV), which stand close one to another on a river bank. As a group they are comparable, in a general sense, with other concentrations of long barrows, earthen and stone-built (Ashbee, 1984, 8-32) but, however, it is their concentration and contiguity within an area of less than a square mile that distinguishes them and makes them unique. Because of accessibility, the free-standing, capstone-crowned chamber remnant that is Kit's Coty House, at the east end of its considerable long barrow, has, since the sixteenth century, attracted continual notice. Indeed, like the seemingly near-intact remains of Coldrum, it has detracted attention from other, ruined and largely destroyed sites in its vicinity, which were, at the outset, more grandiose and imposing monuments. Thus on the east bank of the Medway there is the Lower Kit's Coty House where, when scrutinised from the east, it can be seen that the chamber's side stones have fallen to the north. Were they, as those at the Chestnuts (Alexander, 1961, 8) merely pulled back into a vertical position there would be a chamber, about 11 ft. long and 7 ft. wide, with an astounding internal height, at least at the entrance, of 9 ft! At the Chestnuts this procedure showed that the selected stones demarcated a chamber 12 ft. long and 7½ ft. wide, which was likely to have been 10 ft. in height. Were the Coffin Stone the side stone of a chamber this would also have been about 8 ft. high while the chamber of which Kit's Coty House is a remnant could have been, for the most part, more than 6 ft. in height. Indeed, from the dimensions given of the Warren Farm chamber, it could have had an internal height of at least 4 ft. On account of their largely ruined state (Daniel, 1950, passim) it is difficult, if not impossible, to tabulate, even approximately, the chamber heights of our stone-built long barrows. However, the details of some well-preserved, larger, examples can be given. In southern England, only West Kennet, with a barrow 33 0 ft. long, has a transepted chamber the passage of which was 8 ft. in height and blocked by a huge portal stone, 12 ft. in height (Piggott, 1962, 17) is comparable. Further afield in Wales, Pentre Ifan (Grimes, 1948) was 7 ft. 6 in. high at its entrance. In western Scotland, Carn Ban, on Arran, 61 P. ASHBEE has a long rectangular chamber with a roof 9 ft. above the floor (Henshall, 1972, 382) while, on distant Orkney, the Midhowe stalled cairn (Henshall, 1963, 222) had walls surviving to a height of just over 8 ft. At Cairnholy I, in Galloway, the roofing was about 4 ft. 6 in. to 5 ft. above the floor of the chamber (Piggott and Powell, 1951, 116), which is only a little in excess of the average for England and Wales, which is from about 2 ft. 6 in. to 4 ft. (Daniel, 1950, passim). It emerges that the Medway megaliths at their outset comprised a unique group of stone-built long barrows which were a concentration of the largest, and thus the most grandiose, of their kind in southern England. The determinants of size are difficult to define. Clearly there were available sarsen stones suitable for such remarkable chambers. At West Kennet, however, the stones marshalled for its construction were by no means the largest accessible; these were, it is thought, taken in a later age for Stonehenge and its trilithons (Atkinson, 1956, 110-17). Nonetheless, there remains the inherent possibility that the builders of Stonehenge's spectacular sarsen stone phase (Illa) could have ranged widely in their search for suitable stones as some are undersized (Atkinson, 1956, 24). Although the close-sited groups of stone-built long barrows, upon each side of the Medway, undoubtedly constituted complementary ritual landscapes, comparable, for example, with the first stages of the Stonehenge and Avebury surrounds (Ashbee, 1978, 83, Fig. 22), they neither clustered upon, nor preceded, so far as can be seen, other closely related monuments. W hereas, in Wessex, the long barrows cluster upon causewayed enclosures and are followed by cursus monuments and round barrows, there was neither a monumental focus nor subsequent, round, barrows. Thus, upon Blue Bell Hill, and around Addington, the spectacular long barrows are essentially intrinsic entities which emerged at an early stage and, unlike elsewhere, continued unchanged and undeveloped, a unique circumstance. One is led to the conclusion that the south-west facing prominence, on the lower and bottom slopes of which they were sited, which stands out from t he chalk escarpment, was considered to possess especial qualities. At Addington, two long barrows are upon the Lower Greensand and a third, Coldrum, upon a protruding chalky raft overlying the Gault. Although both areas are, in general terms, not dissimilar, a proximity to stream's sources is their factor in common. Such a concentration of huge stone-built long barrows, which transcended not only the generality but also the largest examples in southern England and beyond, cannot but have been possessed of especial qualities within Neolithic, and subsequent, society (Ashbee, 1978, passim; Holgate, 1981b, 223). An indication of this continuing into later times is, first of all, the proximity of the unusual Aylesford 62 THE MEDWAY MEGALITHS IN PERSPECTIVE cut tufa-slab cists, presumably Beaker, and the Wessex grave with its axe and daggers (Evans, 1890, 325; Jessup, 1930, 116; ApSimon, 1954, 41, Fig. 2) and, secondly, the considerable quantity of later Bronze Age gold objects, which have been recovered from the River Medway (Pretty, 1863; Roach Smith, 1874; Taylor, 1980, 81-2) where they had seemingly been consigned to the water (Ashbee, 1978, 194; Bradley, 1990), In Iron Age and Roman times, the great stone-built long barrows would have been thought of as sanctuaries, the dwellings of the departed, and, like others of their kind, entrances to the otherworld (Hubert, 1934, 238-40; Dillon and Chadwick, 1967, 143-4; Ross, 1967, 59). Indeed, Ay lesford's richly furnished Jater Iron Age cemetery's siting could have been determined by this factor (Birchall, 1965). Roman coins are regularly associated with long barrows, earthen and stone-built, and are more than casual losses by visitors (Piggott, 1962, 55; Ross, 1967, 44). In east Kent, a coin hoard, various coins, pottery and Roman burials were associated with the Jullieberrie's Grave long barrow (Jessup, 1937, 127; 1939, 265-7) while a hut, plus a considerable amount of pottery was found in the Jee of the Chestnuts (Alexander, 1961, 42). On what is now Blue Bell Hill, there is evidence of a temple adjoining the descent of the Roman road where it overlooked Kit's Coty House and its group (Lewis, 1966, 124, 126, 129, 131, 141; Detsicas, 1983, 145; 1987, 145). Recourse was made to it throughout Roman times and before (Lewis, 1966, 141 ): notable is the number and variety of Iron Age (Evans, 1864, 122, 197, 354) and Roman coins recovered (Charles, 1844, 536). In its vicinity were round pits, dug into the chalk, flint-infilled and sarsen-stone-covered (Wright, 1854, 177; Dunkin, 1871, 75), which may well have been local manifestations of a principle, widespread in time, which has an extensive European usage (Ashbee et al., 1989). Save for the effects of weathering and denudation, the Medway's long barrows appear to have survived virtually intact until the thirteenth century A.D. Then, and again during the later eighteenth and early part of the nineteenth centuries, they suffered the damage that has ensured that none of them retain anything more than the dismembered, damaged, vestiges of their original appearance. The excavation of the Chestnuts provided positive evidence of a planned mode of demolition, an approximate date, and of the way in which it had been carried out (Alexander, 1961, 24-7). It was obvious that the motives were neither the clearance of ground for cultivation nor the wholesale acquisition of building stone. At the Chestnuts, the barrow had been dug away, the lofty chamber emptied and thereafter such stones as still stood systematically felJed, usualJy by pits at their bases. Pottery pointed to the second half of the thirteenth century as the time of their overthrow. John Alexander (1961, 25) thought that it 63 P.ASHBEE might have resulted from the wholesale barrow opening, in search of treasure, indicated by the Close Roll of 1237 (Grinsell, 1953, 110; Ashbee, 1960, 17) for the pottery came from far afield, indicating, perhaps, persons other than local inhabitants and, moreover, the ' . . . expertness and throughness ... imply considerable resources well used. . . .' . However, medieval and later barrow opening in search of treasure (Grinsell, 1953, 110-11), which sometimes yielded unexpected curiosities (Thurnam, 1871, 522, fn.b; Skelenar, 1983, 16), was confined to the many, patently ancient, round barrows that stood in various places at that time, and, plainly the process, often a trench (Alexander et al., 1960, 273) through the heart of a mound, differs from the wholesale removal of large long barrows and the felling, and, sometimes, burial of their huge sarsen stones (Philp and Dutto, 1985, 11). Thus another reason for the comprehensive programme of long barrow wrecking, which struck Kit's Coty House, the Lower Kit's Coty House, the Addington Long Barrow, and Coldrum, as well as the virtual disappearance of others, must be sought. From the seventh century onwards the Church inveighed against those who frequented and worshipped stones (Thurnam, 1868, 241-2; Burl, 1979, 36). Theodore of Tarsus, Archbishop of Canterbury from 668 to 690 (Brooks, 1984, 71-6, passim), who established Canterbury's authority, was emphatic regarding this prohibition, which was further endorsed by Canute (1016-35). A particular aspect of the wrecking of the Medway's stone-built long barrows was stone-burial, attested in various ways, from almost all of them. This, as at Avebury (Smith, 1965, 179), was recommended by a late ninth-century council held at Nantes, in Brittany, where some 200 gallery- and passage-graves, as well as the great Carnac alignments and various standing stones, mostly ruined, and even Christianised, are still to be seen (Daniel, 1960, 71-111). Among other things, this Council specified that stones which are venerated should be dug up and concealed ( ... La,pides quoque, quos in ruinosis locis et silvestribus daemonum ludifictionibus decepti venerantur; ubi et vota vovent et deferunt funditus effodiantur; atque in tali loco projiciantur; ubi nunquam a cultoribus suis inveniri possint . ...). The advice from Nantes, and even earlier, however, was hardly carried out with celerity because Gregory's prescript to Augustine was that pagan Jana should not be destroyed, but only the images which they might contain (Hunter Blair, 1963, 222). Indeed, there is much evidence, albeit indirect, that barrows were then considered as an integral part of the customary landscape (Bonney, 1966; 1969). It is naturally impossible to specify why, during the later thirteenth century, the Medway's stone-built long barrows were systematically wrecked. At local level, despite the proximity of Canterbury and the propinquity of Rochester, and the substantial religious establishments that had come 64 THE MEDWAY MEGALITHS IN PERSPECTIVE into being at Boxley and Malling (Jessup, 1974, 54), non-Christian practices may have been no less prevalent than in earlier times (Coulton, 1926, 267; Bennett, 1937, 36). In the wider sense there was the general consolidation of Church authority coupled with the northern Crusades converting to Christianity the Baltic pagans, a move supported by Edward I and ill of England (Christiansen, 1980, 148). Thus, the wreckers could have had substantial support and some power. They may even have been itinerant, it may have been one of their number who was killed by the fall of a great stone at Avebury, where they were active shortly after 1320 (Smith, 1965, 178). The siting of churches close by the ruined long barrows may also have been a part of the process. Two, one dedicated to St. Stephen at Tottington, and the other to St. Michael at Cosington, both long since vanished, were adjacent to Kit's Coty House and its fellows, while St. Margaret's church at Addington is close by the long barrow and the Chestnuts. It stands upon a considerable eminence, seemingly natural but conceivably artificial. Destruction of the various stone-built long barrows was carried out in different ways, some chambers were toppled and others left, at least partially, standing, perhaps reflecting their substance and stature. At Kit's Coty House the kerb stones, and perhaps the faqade, were thrown down into the ditches and buried (McCrerie, 1956) by in great part the process of effacing the barrow. The General's Tomb, recorded by Stukeley (1776, Pl. 33), may have been a side-slab, or capstone, of the partially destroyed chamber, the present stones being the remainder that was left standing. The lofty chamber and faqade of the Lower Kit's Coty House (the Countless Stones) was probably subjected to the methods employed at the Chestnuts and felled to the north, after, perhaps, the complete removal of the barrow. A substantial sarsen stone, unearthed from a pipe-trench which had been dug across the site of the long barrow (seen on 24 October, 1991 ), may point to the kerbstones having been buried in the ditches. Some sarsen stones, found in 1942, may have been taken out of these ditches when the present road was made (Harrison, 1942, xxxvi). Other stones, presumably from the long barrow, have been unearthed close to the great Coffin Stone, which remains from another chamber of prodigious proportions. This was, seemingly, overthrown, the barrow spread, and its faqade and kerb-stones buried. At Warren Farm, only the partial remains of a buried chamber, beneath a hill-wash augmented, broadly-spread, long barrow, were found. It is possible that the White Horse Stones remain from destroyed stone-built long barrows, indeed, smaller stones lie to the west of the Upper White Horse Stone. At Addington, the chamber of the long barrow was felled although much of the mound survived. Various kerb-stones remain and an 65 P.ASHBEE intermittent pattern of the burial of some stones and the leaving of others may have been followed. The grandiose chamber and fa9ade of the Chestnuts, comparable with those of the Lower Kit's Coty House, were laid low and the wall stones left inclining to the north. Coldrum's kerb-stones were uniformly toppled and left prostrate after the barrow had been carted away. Some stones on the south side, however, seem to have been buried. Part of the chamber, and the fa9ade, were brought down by the device of digging away the bluff, in front of the east end of the long barrow. It is notable that the broader north end of the ostensible earthen long barrow, Jullieberrie's Grave, at Chilham (Jessup, 1937, 125, Pl. XXXIII) was also removed, seemingly by a similar method. Indeed, a chamber and fa9ade, sarsen stone being available at no great distance, could have been brought down and taken away without overt trace. Although the Medway valley's wrecked, but recognisable, stonebuilt long barrows were progressively observed and, indeed, from the end of the sixteenth century, included in antiquarian and archaeological literature, details of the damage inflicted upon them in later times are sparse and can only, for the most part, be gleaned from observation and inference. Thorpe's (1788, 74) account of the throwing down of the Lower Kit's Coty House is probably no more than countryside talk to travellers, although the hardness of sarsen stone and the ensuing difficulties are, in general, correct. In 1822, the Warren Farm chamber (Evans, 1948) was discovered and its stones removed, while the Lower White Horse Stone may have been smashed at about the same time (Lampreys, 1834, 59). The great slab adjacent to Kit's Coty House, the General's Tombstone, was in 1865 or 1867 supposedly blown to pieces (Evans, 1949, 137; 1950, 65), although it may have been merely buried below plough-share level (McCrerie, 1956, 252). Beale Paste (Evans, 1949, 133) claimed, however, that the General's Tombstone had been buried in 1787, so perhaps it was disinterred before destruction. Fergusson ( 1872, 117, fn.2) recalls a meeting with a stonemason who in his youth had been employed 'utilising' sarsen stones. Indeed, the Hercules Ayleway letter to William Stukeley, written in 1722 (Lukis (ed.), 1883, 225) refers to such scattered stones as might have attracted the mason's attention. Sarsen stone can be seen in various earlier houses and buildings in the vicinity of Blue Bell Hill as well as at Addington and Trottiscliffe. As has been noted, Addington church has sarsen stone in its earlier, as well as its nineteenth-century, fabric. Usually sarsen stone employed in buildings is in small, natural, or broken blocks. However, although hard, dense and heavy, some boulders when broken, allow squaring, which demands a laborious pecking technique. Splitting large sarsen stones involved the kindling of fires upon 66 THE MEDWAY MEGALITHS IN PERSPECTIVE them, streams of cold water and heavy sledge-hammers. Aubrey (1847, 44; 1980 (Fowles ed.), 38) was the first to describe the process which he saw at Avebury: 'Make a fire on that line of the stone, where you would have it crack; and after the stone is well heated, draw over a line with cold water, and immediately give a knock with a Smyth '.S' sledge and it will break like the Collets at the Glass house'. Stukeley (Smith, 1965, 180, Pl. XXVlla), also from Avebury, gave further details, verified by excavation, saying that 'The method is to dig a pit by the side of the stone, till it falls down, then to burn many loads of straw under it'. Such a pit, when excavated, contains, besides straw remnants, quantities of flakes and scales of sarsen stone. In Wiltshire the use of gunpowder was an eighteenth-century innovation and during the nineteenth century a sarsen stone splitting industry emerged, which persisted until the late 1930s (King, 1968). Because of the intrinsic qualities of sarsen stone, stone-breaking in Kent would perforce have used similar techniques. The traces of fire upon the stones of Kit's Coty House denote recent vandalism. However, there are some indications that one or two of the Lower Kit's Coty House's stones have been partially broken by firesetting. There are few traces of fire upon the remaining stones of the Addington chamber, but the tops of the inner pair of the Chestnuts' chamber's tall stones have been taken off, by the employment of fire and water, which would have been possible only after they had fallen. Others are also fire-marked and bear signs of limited breakage. One of the north-west stones of Coldrum's prostrate surround has extensive fire-marking with, again, only limited breaking which could be no more than the outcome of vandalism. As far as can be seen from what infrequent evidence there is for the use of fire for stone breaking neither felling-pits nor straw were utilised. Notwithstanding, should another excavation be embarked upon, close attention should be given to evidence for calculated felling and destruction. The stones dumped within the railings of Kit's Coty House are uniform in size and weathered. Indeed, they could well have been packing-stones within such stone-holes as were dug when the monument was built. Although some of the stones by the Upper White Horse Stone could remain from a monument, one or two are breakage debris. Indeed, some of the sarsen stones high on Blue Bell Hill could well have been cracked with explosives and then pieces smashed from the exposed edges, a procedure possible without recourse to fire. The Medway valley's stone-built long barrow remnants attracted antiquarian attention at an early stage (Appendix Ill). Wi lliam Lambarde (McKisack, 1971, passim; Warnicke, 1973), author of the renowned Perambulation of Kent, William Camden (Piggott, 1957; 1976, 33-53; Trevor-Roper, 1985, 121-48) and John Stow (Rubenstein, 67 P.ASHBEE 1968, 26-42) working in concert, described Kit's Coty House during the closing years of the sixteenth century. Although John Aubrey (Powell, 1963; Hunter, 1975; Tylden-Wright, 1991) made note of the Lower Kit's Coty House for his Monumenta Britannica, it was initially detailed by William Stukeley (Piggott, 1985) in the posthumous Itinerarium Curiosum, ii (1776), which also indicated the Coffin Stone. John Harris' Histor y of Kent (i, 1719, 23) mentioned stones at Addington, but these, in the guise of circles, were not portrayed until later in the eighteenth century (Colebrooke, 1773, 107). Although Coldrum was known at the outset of the nineteenth century (Evans, 1949, 137; 1950, 69), its debut in print in 1845, a mere mention (Way, 1845, 263; Wright, 1854, 181), termed it circle and cromlech. A decade later, however, a not inadequate description (Jessop, 1863, 637) appeared. A depiction of Kit's Coty House was p ublished during the seventeenth century (Philipot, 1659, 49) and measured drawings during the next (Stukeley, 1776; King, 1799, i, 210). It was Stukeley (1776, Pls. 31-34) who first pictured the Lower Kit's Coty House and the Coffin Stone (1776, Pls. 31, 33). Although representations and a delineation of Addington's monuments appeared during the eighteenth century (Colebrooke, 1773, 107; Thorpe, 1788, 68, Pl. XIV), accurate plans had to wait until the nineteenth (Dunkin, 1871, Pl. X, 3, 4; Flinders Petrie, 1878, 16, opp.). A plan of Coldrum was also featured by E.H.W. Dunkin (1871, Pl. X, 5) and twenty years later a photograph (Fielding, 1893, 4, opp.) and a line drawing (Payne, 1893, 139, Pl. XXV) were the initial views. Although archaeological photographs were a commonplace by 1850, their use in publications was not until late in that century. As with other monuments, it is likely that Kit's Coty House and its fellows were subjects from the first. Nonetheless, with the exception of examples included in present-day collections (Pratt Boorman, 1965, 17 5), photographs prior to the erection of the iron railings around Kit's Coty House, in 1885, are rare and those of the Medway megaliths a twentieth-century innovation. Comprehensive considerations of the Medway valley's stone-built long barrows came late in their literature. E.H.W. Dunkin's (1871) seminal paper, On the Megalithic Remains in Mid-Kent, illustrated by personally prepared plans, was a new departure. Its clarity, originality, and ample documentation made it an inevitable source for succeeding generations. George Clinch's account in Kent's Victoria County History (i (1908), 318-20) featured photographs of the principal monuments and, by implication, made megalithic synonymous with Neolithic. O.G.S. Crawford's (1924) Ordnance Survey Professional Paper in providing locations, plans of the less damaged sites, documentation and 68 THE MEDWAY MEGALITHS IN PERSPECTIVE discussion of their origins (Appendix III) marked the threshold of the present age. The compilation of an exhaustive aggregate of the literature pertaining to the Medway's megaliths, particularly Kit's Coty House, would be an enormous task, as it would entail the inclusion of multitudinous allusions, minor works and articles which could add little to the thrust and direction of an e nquiring narrative. Thus, the consideration of concepts in times past has concentrated upon the clearly apposite, although often neglected, sources. In broader perspective, Lambarde, Camden and Stowe are the apotheosis of the Elizabethan Discovery of England (Rowse, 1950, 31-65), which exercised mature, inherited, historical traditions (Gransden, 1980; 1982, 4 77-9). Similar appreciations of the ancient past were also afoot upon Europe's mainland (Klindt-Jensen, 1975, 9-16; Skelenaf', 1983, 34-43) and, for example, Olaus Magnus (1555), Archbishop of Uppsala, attributed Sweden's megaliths to Goths and Suevi. At home, despite the Tudors' invocation of English history, there was the dissolution of the monasteries (Knowles, 1976), an institutional and physical break with the past. The buildings became, like our railway stations, historical monuments, evoking a nostalgic, scholarly, concern for bygone times (Aston, 1973). Something of this vein can be seen in the Itinerary of John Leland (Kendrick, 1950, 45-64; 1964). Between 1535 and 1543, this tireless antiquarian topographer noted the Roman Wall, Offa's Dyke and the huge Devil's Arrows, standing stones near Boroughbridge, in Yorkshire (Ashbee, 1988, 9), but neither Stonehenge nor Silbury Hill. For the most part his approach to the things he saw sprang from historical sources. Emergent, enhanced cartography was also influential, sometimes more than topography (Fussner, 1962, 57). Laurence Nowell (Flower, 1935) kept Leland's ideals alive and set his mind upon new and better maps as well as the recovery of Anglo-Saxon learning and language. Kent's William Lambarde was his friend and disciple. KIT'S COTY HOUSE (N.G.R. TQ 745609) William Lambarde, as he records in his Description of England (1730, 67, 314-15), visited Stonehenge in 1578. His approach was proficient and practical. Fables are banished: ' ... suche like Toyes, whearwith Galfrid (Geoffrey of Monmouth) and many others have brought good Hystories into vile Contempt, and themselves the Wryters woorthely into derision'. There was neither marvel nor miracle about the stones for ' ... they hange with no more Wonder than one Post of a House hangeth upon another, seinge that all the Stones are lett one in another 69 P. ASHBEE by a Mortece and Tenant, as Carpenters call theim'. Of its erection, he said that ' ... by Art T hinges of greater Weight may be removed, especially if a Prince be Pay-master'. He declared that it had been built in honour of the deaths of British noblemen, a statement which, despite his stricture, is essentially the story of Merlin and the British massacre, as recounted by Leland (Chippindale, 1983, 29). Nonetheless, Stonehenge demonstrably leavened his view of Kit's Coty House. Lambarde's Perambulation was 'Collected and written (for the most part) in the yeere 1570' and published in 1576. Kit's Coty House is not mentioned in this initial edition but appears, clearly described, as a memorial to Catigern in the second, of 1596 (p. 409). He wrote: 'The Britons ... erected to the memorie of Categerne (as 1 suppose) that monument of foure huge and hard stones, which are yet standing in this parish, pitched upright in the ground, covered after the manner of Stanage (that famous sepulchre of the Britons upon Salisburie plaine) and now tearmed of the common people heere Citscotehouse ... '. A side note adds 'Citscotehouse in Totington Ground' as the monument's location. This enduring addition cannot but have resulted, in the first instance, from the 1578 Stonehenge visit, for there is clear comparison, and secondly further consideration of the relevant documentary sources. Indeed, Categeme must be from Nennius (44, Morris (ed.), 1980) and, as Lambarde states regarding ' ... the Tambe of Borsa', Bede (15, Plummer (ed.), 1896, I). Horsa had been associated with Kit's Coty House and thus he is of the view that this cannot be '. . . because this fashion of monument was peculiar to the Britons, of which nation Categeme was .. .', a further employment of the perceived similarity to Stonehenge. Horsted, among other locations (1596, 288), ' ... a place not farre off was a likelihood for the site of Saxon Horsa's tomb. It was left for those that were to come to enhance this cautious view (Evans, 1952). Stow (1590, 52) and Camden (1610, 331) recapitulate Lambarde's conclusions regarding Kit's Coty House. Stow recalls (1591, 52) that 'l have myself in company of divers worshipful and learned gentlemen beheld it in Anno 1590'. Lambarde had, in 1585, read Camden's manuscript, as is recorded, and supplied the Kentish material (Warnicke, 1973, 34). In 1590, they may have travelled to Halling Palace, where Lambarde then lived, before their visit to Kit's Coty House. Lambarde thought that Citscot e house was Catigern's name corrupted.I t was apparently ancient and, presumably, endeavours were made to ensure its correctness. Apart from capricious spelling, it has endured almost inviolate since the sixteenth century.J osiah Colebrooke (1773, 114) arguing that the name meant no more than Keith, the 70 THE MEDWAY MEGALITHS IN PERSPECTIVE shepherd's shelter, proposed Catigern's expulsion, while, in our own age House has been dropped (e.g. Jessup, 1930, 61-84) seemingly because Coty might mean shelter or house (Evans, 1952, 112) and thus the house element would be duplicated. Nonetheless, there lurks the possibility of an ancient personal name, or even names, albeit much distorted, surviving within the compound (Ellis Evans, 1967, 177-87). Other names, and attached tales, within the long barrow groups, are of recent currency (Grinsell, 1976, 123). Camden's Britannia, in its many editions, carried the basic details of Kit's Coty House and Catigern into the eighteenth century. Error, however, crept in when Edmund Gibson's new translation (1695) described it as '. ..f our vast stones are pitch' don endw ith others lying cross-ways upon them . . . ' . This inexactitude was corrected by Colebrooke (1773, 114) who, nonetheless, does not seem to have consulted earlier editions. The Britannia, in modern terms, a bestseller, went a long way towards creating, by virtue of its comprehensive nature, the antiquarianism of a later age as its revisions kept it in line with changing opinion (Piggott, 1957, 209; 1976, 44). Thus, Kit's Coty House became widely known and, because of its accessibility, frequently visited (e.g. Samuel Pepys, Diary, 24th March, 1669). Already John Weever had included the substance of Lambarde's comments upon Kit's Coty House in his Ancient Funerall Monuments (1617, 317), where it was among memorials and inscriptions. Although this work heralded a new antiquarian age, Catigern was established at the seemingly Stonehenge-like monument, where he has, in popular belief, survived almost to this day (Appendix III) while Horsa, similarly commemorated, took up residence at Horsted (Evans, 1952). Just before the Restoration, two Kentish writers, Richard Kilburne (1659, 17), from Hawkhurst, and Thomas Philipot (1659, 48), from Folkestone, examples of the new genre of county historians which had emerged in those troubled times (Piggott, 1956, 106; 1976, 14) also included the story in their surveys. One of them (Philipot, 1659, 48) featured an engraving which, even a century l ater, exci ted disapprobation (Colebrooke, 1773, 116; Pegge, 1779, 111, fn.d). Early in the following century, John Harris, sometime Rector of Barming, made a fleeting similar mention in his incomplete county history (1719, 31; Hull, 1956, 225; Boyle, 1984, 225). Among the material assembled by John Aubrey for his Monumenta Britannica, the first English work to rely entirely upon material remains for a view of the past, is a dimensioned, schematic, drawing of Kit's Coty House (Fowles (ed.), 814-15) given to him by the classical scholar, Thomas Gale (Piggott, 1989, 33, 125). On the same page is a transcript of Thomas Philipot's (1659, 48) description and statement that it is a memorial to Catigern. Aubrey, between 1671 and 1679, 71 P.ASHBEE made frequent visits to Kent, staying at Hothfield Place with his friend and patron, Nicholas Tufton, 3rd Earl of T hanet. To go there he sometimes took boat to Gravesend, where he was met with horses (Tylden-Wright, 1991, 170). From there, he would have crossed Rochester bridge and then descended Blue Bell Hill, to join the eastward road, passing Kit's Coty House and the other ruined long barrows. Although no record of this has survived, it is inconceivable, in the light of his habits, that he did not visit them and make comparison with such Wiltshire sepulchres as West Kennet (Piggott, 1962, 1, Pl. I), which were well-known to him. William Stukeley (Piggott, 1950; 1985) toured Kent in 1722 (4-15 October), 1724 (6-17 October) and 1725 (24 May-5 June), totalling about 36 days. On 15 October, 1722, he drew Kit's Coty House (ltinerarium Curiosum, ii (1776), Pls. 31-3), as seen from a point east of Tottington Place, from the north-east and from the north, showing the then denuded, but recognisable, long barrow. The Lower Kit's Coty House reconstructed and the Coffin Stone were indicated in two of the drawings, while another (Pl. 34 ), which is not dated, was of the fallen stones of the Lower Kit's Coty House which also has the Upper Kit's Coty House and its long barrow silhouetted on the skyline. Sadly, these splendid drawings were only published posthumously, later in the century (1776). On 5 June, 1725 (these tours are reconstructed from dated drawings, Piggott, 1985, 161-4), he drew views of the Downs near Aylesford and Wye, a feat only possible in a very long day, for they are separated by some 20 miles. His curiosity had been aroused already for his diary (Lukis (ed.), I, 1882, 68) records: 1720 'Dec. 20 Ld Winchelsea gave me a peice of the Stones of Kits Coty House & a great fossil Oyster shell from about Maidston'. Heneage Finch, the 5th Earl of Winchelsea, who lived at Eastwell Park, entered the Stukeley circle in about 1720 and was an adroit fieldwork companion, who had surveyed Jullieberrie's Grave (Piggott, 1985, 57). Stukeley also recounts (Diary, Lukis (ed.), ii, 1883, 233): 'Oct. 16, 1723. At Kits Coty House. Lay at Aylsford. Made drawings and measurement of those monuments'. Also among his papers is a letter, written on March 28, 1722, by Hercules Ayleway, from Mereworth Castle, which is a report upon preliminary fieldwork. Besides the two principal monuments on Blue Bell Hill, much is made of the many scattered sarsen stones in their vicinity (Lukis (ed.), 1883, 225-8). It was accompanied by sketches and, in terms of the e a r l y eighteenth centu ry, is an outstandingly objective and informative document. Although Stukeley had appropriate works in his library (Piggott (ed.), 1974, 419-62, Items 932, 995, 1071, 1080), and undoubtedly had access to many more, he makes mention of neither Catigern nor Horsa. Stukeley's achievement, as we see it in the backward-looking 72 THE MEDWAY MEGALITHS IN PERSPECTIVE perspective of more than two centuries, is his objective fieldwork on Blue Bell Hill, and elsewhere in Kent. When this was undertaken, his pervasive Druidical extravagances were in the future and thus his ability to observe and record in the open air was untarnished. In a modest manner, his restoration of the Lower Kit's Coty House, for all its faults (Evans, 1950, 67-8), is a foretaste of his remarkable accounts of Avebury and Stonehenge, which record and reconstruct so much that has been destroyed. Although the culmination of an earlier tradition, his vision of the stone-built long barrows east of the River Medway was unequalled until the advent of E.H.W. Dunkin (1871), George Clinch (1908) and O.G.S. Crawford (1924) in our own century. Although the attention paid to Kit's Coty House during the later eighteenth century, and for much of the nineteenth, reflects the general relapse of antiquarian studies into speculation or Druidical lore (Piggott, 1989, 123-59), it was, because of the persistence of the Catigern tradition, largely spared from wider conjecture. In 1763, a note in the Gentleman '.I' Magazine (May, 248) gave dimensions, two views (Plate I), considered the stone to be Kentish Ragg and looked back to Camden and Catigern. This was the source of a full-page engraving (Plate II) in Antiquities Historical and Monumental of the county of Cornwall (2nd ed. 1769) by William Borlase, the Cornish clerical geologist, naturalist and antiquarian (Pool, 1986). He considered it a Crom/eh and the name a corruption of Quoit. The trio of papers in the Archaeologia (Colebrooke, 1773; Pegge, 1779; Boys, 1794) adequately reflect the exercise of speculation, with appropriate footnotes, although Boys, a correspondent of Edward Hasted (Boyle, 1984, 67), despite considering it a Saxon grave, observed the denuded long barrow. Edward Hasted's (1782, 177) description and attribution to Catigern is that of two centuries earlier, as is Ireland's (1829, 557) who plagiarised him. Thorpe (1788, 67-75) considered it sepulchral and, following Camden and Stow, Catigern's monument. James Douglas (1793, 181) had a man dig behind the stones, who may have dug through the remnant of a stratified deposit, while Edward King (1799, 210) illustrated his description with dimensional elevations and plans, arguing that it had been constructed so that it could not fall. Unlike his contemporaries, he considered it a Druid altar, designed for public sacrifice. Letters and an article in the Gentleman's Magazine where Catigern vied with the Druids, marked the outset of the nineteenth century (H.C., 1804, 409; Hamper, 1804, 611; Rudge, 1824, 126). These, the description in S.C.L(ampreys) Maidstone and its Environs (1834, 57) and the popular presentation in Charles Knight's (ed.) Old England (1844, i, 15) were but a continuation of the earlier antiquarian tradition. Kit's Coty House, a favoured a n tiquarian subject for artists 73 P. ASHBEE PLATE I Kit's Coty House as depicted in the Gentleman s Magazine, May 1763 74 THE MEDWAY MEGALITHS IN PERSPECTIVE PLATE II William Borlase's illustration of Kit's Coty House, taken from the 1763 Gentleman's Magazine and included in his Antiquities of Cornwall ( 1769) 75 P.ASHBEE ( Chippindale, 1985, 123) (and the Cromlechs around) formed a chapter in Thomas Wright's Wanderings of an Antiquary (1854, 172-89), which was popularisation of a new kind, selecting areas of antiquarian interest which could be sought out and visited on the then new railway s. His C e l t, Roman and Saxon (1861, 64), the p opular archaeology of the period, which opposed the notion of the three ages, Stone, Bronze and Iron (Daniel, 1975, 83), featured Kits-Cotty-House (sic), a 'British cromlech', and mentioned neighbouring monuments. James Fergusson's Rude Stone Monuments (1872), the first general survey of megaliths, included (p. 116) 'Kit's Cotty - or Coity House', cited Thomas Wright, and concluded that it was ' ... the tomb of Catigren, which tradition always represented it to be'. As has been indicated, Edwin Hadlow Wise Dunkin's On the Megalithic Remains in Mid-Kent (1871) was a new departure, the first study of the group, the monuments upon each side of the Medway. Of Kit's Coty House (p. 70) there is a clear description, dimensions, consideration of the Catigern story and the name, comparisons, a personally drawn plan. With reference to Stukeley (1776, Pl. 33) he considers it likely that the whole structure was covered with earth, although he could find no traces of a tumulus. He also refers to Thomas Wright's (1854, 175) fragments of 'rude pottery' and James Douglas' excavation. Further excavation, he considers, would be fruitless because of the vanished mound. In the same vein, Flinders Petrie (1880, 14) observes that' ... at Kits Coty, in Stukeley's time, there was a long mound with the chamber at one end ...' . At the end of the century, George Payne, in his Collectanea Cantiana (1893) reproduces a letter from W.C. Lukis (7 May, 1883), one of the foremost in nineteenth-century megalithic studies (Atkinson, 1976), which, while citing Stukeley, observes that it was formerly in a mound, a long barrow. After the Ancient Monuments Protection Act, 1882, had received Royal Assent, the first, highly prestigious, Inspector of Ancient Monuments, General Pitt Rivers (Thompson, 1977; Bowden, 1991) visited Kit's Coty House in April, 1883. From the outset, it caused him considerable concern, for pieces of the capstone and the transverse upright had been broken off, while ploughing was up to the feet of the stones (Plate III).H e recommended an iron railing around the stones and said that, if they became unstable, they should be supported by an iron frame. Regrettably, the barrow, at that time subjected to no more than the ten inch furrow of horse ploughing, and so even more prominent than it is today (Philp and Dutto, 1985, Fig. 7), was disregarded. In the event, Kit's Coty House's stones became a protected monument in 1885. Kit's Coty House was the first monument within the protection of the Act to need repair and safeguarding. The erection of the iron railings 76 THE MEDWAY MEGALITHS IN PERSPECTIVE 77 P.ASHBEE occasioned some two years of bureaucratic obstruction, delay and the ensuing frustration (Saunders, 1981). Finally, a quarter of the entire ancient monuments budget for a year, £25, was spent upon them and their erection. Treasury authorisation was given upon the understanding that the expenditure could be met out of savings from the Public Buildings vote (Saunders, 1983, 13). At the time of writing, these railings (Saunders, 1983, Pl. III, a, b) are rusted, their bolts have been broken, they have been bent apart and partially wrenched, a process which must have needed considerable concerted effort, from their seating, and, once again, the monument has been damaged. After more than a century, neglect has set this pioneering protective endeavour at nought. During the first decade of this century there appeared F.J. Bennett's lghtham (1907) with, to illustrate his Megalithic Period chapter, two of H.J. Elgar's superb photographs, the first being of Kit's Coty House. This was followed by George Clinch's contribution to the Victoria County History (i, 1908, 318), which has the Kentish megalithic structures firmly in the section on Early Man. Kit's Coty House, described as 'the best known and most peifect example of its kind in Kent . . .' 'was originally a long barrow enclosing a stone sepulchral chamber of the well-known neolithic type'. Appropriately, the demise of the old world of prehistoric archaeology was marked by the appearance in 1913 of the seventh and last edition of Lubbock's Prehistoric Times . He had invented the terms Palaeolithic and Neolithic back in 1865. This included a photograph (113, Fig. 151) of Kit's Coty House, inside its iron railings. Sadly, there was an element of doubt regarding the existence of a mound. Six years after the end of the 1914-18 war there appeared the Ordnance Survey Professional Paper - New Series No. 8, with its examination of Kit's Coty House in the light of southern English stone-built long barrows. Our own endeavours were tempered in the first instance by R.F. Jessup (1930, 67, Fig. 11, Pl. III) who saw the chamber as a broad Hplan at the end of a plough-denuded mound. Two years earlier plans of the stones had been published (Evans, 1928, 89, Fig. 2; Kendrick, 1928, 167, Fig. 39) and, because of their railings, attention was progressively detracted from the denuded long barrow. Nonetheless, the spread barrow was seen and small sherds were even collected from the ploughsoil (Cook, 1936). Glyn Daniel (1950, 81, Fig. 22, 2), however, envisaged a long barrow with a megalithic structure at its south-east end, the view now for long accepted. Indeed, the barrow was visible and, despite denudation, seen from the air in 1940 (Evans, 1948, 140, fn.2) and subsequently. J.H. Evans (1950, 63) had a chamber at the end of a long barrow, which he felt could not be less than 180 ft. in length. In the following decade the standard photograph, the enrailed 78 THE MEDWAY MEGALITHS IN PERSPECTIVE monument with its cast-iron notice, from the south-east, emerged in general archaeological and topographical works (Copley, 1958, 49, Pl. 2; Pratt Boorman, 1966, 95). A small excavation carried out in August 1956 showed that the kerbstones were probably pulled into the ditch and buried. Many years later Ronald Jessup (1970, 98, Fig. 30, Pl. 22) said that the mound could be seen for a distance of 180 ft., that it was visible from the air in 1940 and that there were soil-smears at the east end, which might mark Douglas's excavation or could be the sites of side chambers. He gave the dimensions of the stone chamber remnant which he saw as the outstanding feature. More recently, Robin Holgate, as a part of his Management and Research Design (1981a, 12, Fig. 5, Pls. 7-10) noted the quarry ditches visible on aerial photographs, as well as a recent illicit excavation. His p l a n showed the approximate relationship of the chamber remnant to the ditches, while his plates, of the enrailed stones from various vantage points, show alarmingly how ploughing has reduced the area around them. He considers also (Holgate, 1981b, 232, Fig. 2) that the mound, derived from quarry ditches, was undoubtedly revetted by a sarsen stone kerb. An even more recent and detailed survey considers, also, that there is evidence for a fa9ade and kerb and that the chalk rubble mound, established as some 220 ft. long and still about 3 ft. high, was contained by a kerb. This contention is illustrated by a graphic plan of the barrow, set against Addington (Philp and Dutto, 1985, 10, Fig. 7, lower). LOWER KIT'S COTY HOUSE (N.G.R. TQ 744604) Among the material that he amassed for his Monumenta Britannica, John Aubrey included a letter from Dr Thomas Gale, Master of St. Paul's School in London. Gale wrote: 'In the next field to this [Kit's Coty House] nearer to Ailesford, are 13 or 14 great stones,· seven standing, all covered with one large stone, the rest are fallen down. The people call this also Kit's Coty-house'. Gale concisely describes the probable results of the initial slighting and it is possible that, some time after his visit, there was further depredation. Had there been publication by Aubrey it would have been the first notice of Lower Kit's Coty House in literature. Although William Stukeley visited the area and made his drawing (1776, Pl. 34) and reconstructions (1776, Pls. 31-33) in 1722, they did not appear until after his death in 1765. Some descriptive details are included in the letter from Hercules Ayleway, written in 1722, seemingly an examination of the potential of the area. It was thought to have been pulled down some thirty years earlier, the fallen stones being 79 P. ASHBEE overgrown and much as they are today. Of the former appearance he wrote: 'I have been informed by some who remember it standing that the stones which composed the wall did all of them joyn close together so as to touch each other, and the dore was on the west side thereof, next the road.' We do not know to what extent Stukeley discussed this with Ayleway for the details are sparse and scarcely warrant what has been made from them. Moreover, in his illustrations, where the monument has been set into the landscape, the dore is not on the west side and there is a variance between the reconstructions (Stukeley, 1776, Pls. 31, 32).O ne endeavour could be likened to the proximal end of a stone-built long barrow, with chamber, entrance, fagade and some side-stones (Stukeley, 1776, Pl. 31 ), but its orientation is clearly erroneous. His more detailed reconstruction (Pl. 32), with View and Groundplot has a similar front elevation, giving the impression of a small chamber with an enclosed area behind it. Clearly, we do not know the considerations in Stukeley's mind at this time but, nonetheless, it should not be overlooked that, at the time of his visit, he had been busy at Avebury since 1718 and in 1722 was there during July and August. Thus it cannot be entirely ruled out that this anomalous reconstruction might owe something to that quarter, particularly as he admits to confusion between stone-built long barrows and the nuances of stone circles, his temples (Piggott, 1985, 88). Indeed, it could be thought that his energy, enthusiasm and ingenuity made too much from the scanty details available for it seems probable that they were, at best, a clear memory of partially fallen stones before further disturbance or more likely an obliging tale told to Ayleway. Stukeley must, however, be credited with, despite incorrect orientation, the notion of a structure not dissimilar to what might have stood at the east end o f a considerable long barrow. Edward Hasted (1782, 178), published, with a romanticised engraving, seemingly from the west, details, probably supplied by William Boys of Sandwich. It was seen as ' ... to have once formed a like kind of structure as that of Kit's Coty House, and to have fronted towards the same aspect.' Treasure-seeking accounted for its condition and it was ' ... intergrown with elms and other coppice shrubs . . .'. Ireland, a half-century later, repeated these words (1829, 557). John Thorpe (1788, 74) adds little, except to introduce the attempt to break the stones for dockyard paving. His lively, dramatic, engraving ( 1788, 74, Pl. IV, Fig. 2), a 'North View of the lower Monument in its present state', is, however, a valuable record for, although the stones are schematised, they do suggest something of the chamber which had been collapsed in this direction. James Douglas (1793, 286) mentions only ' . . . the remains of another cromlech ... thrown down by a farmer for materials to mend the road' and was not moved to investigate the site 80 THE MEDWAY MEGALITHS IN PERSPECTIVE any further. Edward Rudge, father or son, both had antiquarian interests, contributed a note to the Gentleman's Magazine (Feb. 1824, 125-6). He saw the remains of 'a Druidical monument consisting of five or six cromlechs' of which he made the first plan, the brushwood having been cleared, showing uniformly prone blocks. This, in its selection of outlines, depicts effectively the fallen chamber. There is a record of digging beneath the stone A on his plan which resulted in the discovery of human bones and pieces of armour. S .C.L(ampreys) (1834, 57), however, alludes only to large stones in a confused heap, a statement which, with exceptions, has in various places endured to this day. Way (1845, 264) and Wright (1854, 174) say little more, apart from their introduction of the name 'The Countless Stones', although Wright saw it as the remains of ' ... one of these more complicated cromlechs, consisting of more than one sepulchral chamber with an alley of approach.' Fergusson ( 1872, 117) uses the term 'Countless Stones' and claims that the site was so ruined that no plan could be made out. Edwin Dunkin (1871, 74) and George Clinch (1908, 319) both scrutinised the stones. Dunkin's plan differs from that by Rudge but, nonetheless, with allowance for interference in the intervening time, they have much in common and the collapsed chamber can be discerned. He recognises, however, the size of the stones and observes that 'Several of them are still of considerable size, and in their original upright and transverse positions, must have formed an imposing monument'. Clinch reproduces a photograph, taken from the northwest, which includes the substantial trees which still stood during the 1930s. He felt that the stones were more regular than those of Kit's Coty House and that it must have been an important site. Pitt Rivers visited Lower Kit's Coty House, as well as Kit's Coty House, in 1883, and wrote to the owner, H.A. Brassey, who replied saying that both monuments should be placed beneath the new (1882) Ancient Monuments Act's protection. However, when a deed of appointment, constituting the Commissioners of Works guardians of the monuments, was prepared, it was noticed that Lower Kit's Coty House was not specifically mentioned in the schedule to the Act and thus it had to be omitted (Saunders, 1981; Bowden, 1991, 98). In the event, the Lower Kit's Coty House was not scheduled until 1887, after an Order in Council, a delay, reflecting the Government's inertia, which irked and depressed Pitt Rivers. This is reflected in a letter to George Payne who had been asked if he would like to be his Assistant Inspector of Ancient Monuments (Barley and Barry, 1971, 217-20). F.J. Bennett (1907, 48), one of the Ightham circle, included a 'Sketch Plan of the Countless Stones', with a system of numbering, to which he did not refer, in his Megalithic Period. By this time the name Countless 81 P.ASHBEE Stones had superseded the earlier designation. It was, indeed, used by O.G.S. Crawford (1924, 6), who, nonetheless, kept the traditional label, when he included the site as a burial chamber where no remains of a mound are visible or recorded. R.F. Jessup (1930, 81; 1970, 100) and Glyn Daniel (1950, 234) were, one senses, dubious about the site and considered that it was impossible to envisage the form of the original structure, a view endorsed by Holgate (1981a, 12; 1981b, 233). It was for long suspected, the surmise strengthened by details gleaned from the excavation of the Chestnuts, that the massive erstwhile Lower Kit's Coty House chamber had fallen to the north. Something of this has been perceived by recent fieldworkers (Philp and Dutto, 1985, 6) and a recent visit (24 October, 1991) convinced the present writer that detailed planning of the principals might allow a tentative reconstruction. As has been noted above, a substantial sarsen stone had been unearthed from a pipe-trench which had been dug parallel to the road, already established in Stukeley's time (1776, Pls. 31, 33), which cuts across the site of the long barrow. Another, smaller sarsen stone was seen in the field. Variations in the pipe-trench backfill pointed to the possibility of a long barrow some 70 ft. in breadth and thus length could have been commensurate. Ephemeral although the evidence is, it indicates that the Lower Kit's Coty House may have been one of the two more massive structures of its kind on the east band of the Medway. THE COFFIN STONE (N.G.R. TQ 740606) In his 1722 letter to William Stukeley, Hercules Ayleway was moved to mention ' .. . a large stone 15 foot long, called the coffin .. .' visible by a road leading to Tottington (Lukis (ed.), 1883, 227). Stukeley in his Prospects towards and from Kit's Coty House, shows 'The Coffin' as huge blocks in the west hedgerow of the lane leading to 'Todington Place'. John Thorpe (1788, 67) describes the coffin stone, which, he remarks, was so-called by 'Dr Stukeley, from its resemblance', gives dimensions and mentions others beneath the surface in the adjacent field. Two illustrations (1788, 74, Pl. III, Figs. 1, 2) convey a vivid impression of a personal visit. A plan shows the relative position of the stone to the other, less ruined, monuments while a lively engraving, presumably by Bayly (Boyle, 1984, 44), of a view from the east shows the great block as pronouncedly angular and with a spindly tree growing from it. Ireland (1829, 556), unlike Hasted, briefly mentions the huge stone, citing T horpe's comment on the name and giving an approximate dimension. Beale Poste, the Maidstone antiquary and disciple of the Druids 82 THE MEDWAY MEGALITHS IN PERSPECTIVE (Evans, 1949) sketched the Coffin Stone in about 1840, and showed top-hatted horsemen around it. He also recounts (Evans, 1949, 135) that a sack-full of human bones was found close-by in 1838-39. Edwin Dunkin (1871, 74) relates the discovery of two human skulls, some bones and charcoal, to the removal of a hedge in 1836, but gives no reference, while R.F. Jessup (1930, 83; 1970, 101) states that the skulls were found under the stone in 1836. Edwin Dunkin's (1871, 74) detailed account recalls that the removal of the hedge made the stone visible and that, from the same field, many stones have been removed or buried to facilitate ploughing. His dimensions are comprehensive and he is of the view that the loose soil beneath it, which he probed with a stick, confirms that it was once upright. He also mentions a saying that it is the largest stone in Kent. F ergusson, a year later (1872, 117), writes ' ... near the centre at Tollington [Tottington] lie two obelisks, known to country people as the coffin-stones - probably from their shape', while George Payne (1893, 127) appears to confuse it with the General's Tomb, the great block close by Kit's Coty House allegedly blown to pieces in the late 1860s. In the light of this George Clinch (1908, 318-19) was careful to distinguish the stones and recorded it as lying in an open field. He states that it was 14 ft.6 in. in length, 8 ft.6 in.i n breadth and about 2 ft. in thickness.O .G.S.C rawford (1924, 6) included it in his list of sites where no mound was either visible or recorded. During the early 1920s, William Coles Finch (1927, 301, pl. opp. 267) measured the Coffin Stone and found that it exceeded the width given by John Thorpe (1788, 67). Sadly he saw breakages and plough damage. There is with his account a photograph, the first to be published, of the stone, from the east sitting in the bare hedge-bank. His son stands upon it as a scale and broken pieces of sarsen stone are piled up at the east end. Only two other photographs, both taken recently (Holgate, 1981a, Pls. 13, 14) which show a reduced hedgebank and another stone set upon the original Coffin Stone feature in archaeological literature. Since R.F.J essup (1930, 83; 1970, 97, 100), the Coffin Stone has, for a number of writers (Daniel, 1950, 234; Evans, 1950, 65; Holgate, 1981a, 13; 1981b, 233) had enigmatic qualities. Indeed, Glyn Daniel felt that the group, for other stones were noticeable close by when he visited the site, had the appearance of being entirely natural.T here are, however, almost imperceptible traces of a long mound west of the stone (Philp and Dutto, 1985, 6) while clearly associated stones have been encountered from Dunkin's (1871, 74) time to the present day. Such a long barrow would have been likely to have had quarry ditches, which could be located by a modest excavation or even geophysical methodology. 83 P.ASHBEE WARREN FARM (N.G.R. TQ 753606) An obstruction to ploughing in 1822 or 1823 led to digging which revealed large sarsen stones just below the surface. George Fowle, of Cobtree Manor (N.G.R. TQ 747586), the landowner, initially directed their removal but, when three a pparent uprights emerged, h e determined that they should b e uncovered. H e invited Clement Taylor Smythe, the Maidstone historian (Russell, 1881, passim; Roach Smith, 1883, 147), to be present. What was ostensibly a rectilinear sarsen stone chamber was bared (Plate IV). It proved to contain the bones of at least two adults and a sherd of pottery. T hese bones were examined and reported upon by Dr T homas Charles, of Chillington Manor, Faith Street, in Maidstone (Roach Smith, 1883, 141; Allchin, 1907), a procedure considerably in advance of its time. For long in manuscript (C.T. Smythe Coll. MSS, V, 28-30; Sketches by Edward Pretty et al., 124, Maidstone Mus.) the account, which has the look of being written from some notes made after the disinterment and removal of the stones, was not published until 1948 (Evans, 1948). Shortly after the discovery, it was the subject of an article in a local newspaper (Maidstone Journal, 4 July, 1822) and of brief reports in the Gentleman's Magazine (1822, Pt. II, 84; 1833, Pt. I, 12-13). S.C.L(ampreys) (1834, 59) termed it a 'BRI TISH TOMB' and mentioned only one skeleton, although neither Edwin Dunkin (1871) nor George Clinch (1908) appear to have been aware of it.O .G.S.C rawford (1924, 6), however, includes it in his list of sites where mounds were missing and cites almost all the appropriate references, which reflects his detailed work in Maidstone Museum. R.F. Jessup (1930, 81) devoted a paragraph to the structure and likened it to a cist. Indeed, the 'small fragment of an unglazed urn', or, as is cited, fragments of ' . .. a small vessel of unglazed red earth' was, not unreasonably, thought to have been a beaker. His subsequent treatment conveys clearly the essential constituents of the discovery (Jessup, 1970, 101). Clement Taylor Smythe's initial account, and an additional note, give the dimensions of the stones, and it is stated that they are of the same kind as those of Kit's Coty House. A plan and a sketch illustrated the details and, employing these, Evans (1948) made comparison with the Kit's Coty House and Coldrum chambers. What seems likely, in terms of what can be seen of the overthrow and burial of chambers and stones, is that this c hamber was a surviving part of a lo nger, partitioned, chamber, comparable in appearance, but not necessarily in affinity, with those of western Scotland (Henshall, 1972, 69), which are less damaged than many of their kind. After the removal of the vertical stones, the bones were found, apparently at the bottom of the chamber, on a flat stone. Presumably, they had been covered by its infill. Apart 84 THE MEDWAY MEGALITHS IN PERSPECTIVE 85 c"' C: E 􀀈 -8 E"' ..c: u E 􀀉 C: 􀀊 ; " -5 ..... 0 ..c: u 0) 􀀁 "' ·., ..c: >-. "'E .... 0 >-. 􀀋 c"E " u P.ASHBEE from the bones broken by the workmen, their descriptions: 'Many small pieces of the skull, ribs, thigh, leg and arm bones were found' may indicate that they were, as in other long barrows, buried bones rather than bodies (Ashbee, 1984, 63-5). Apart from the recorded details, it is clear that the orientation of this chamber remnant was east-west and, with the present-day nature of other sites in mind, it was at the east end of a long barrow. This had been razed and its stone features buried. Hillwash may have contributed to the final obliteration. THE WHITE HORSE STONE(S) It is not generally appreciated that the sarsen stone block, called the White Horse Stone, standing by the Pilgrims' Way (N.G.R. TQ 753603) has inherited the name and legend of another, apparently similar, sarsen stone, destroyed in about 1828.T his stood in the northwest angle of the Pilgrims' Way and the Rochester to Maidstone road (N.G.R. TQ 752603 approx.). The legend is that the standard of the Saxons, a White Horse emblazoned banner, was flown from it by Hengist and Horsa during the battle of Aylesford in 455 (Alcock, 1971, 111) and found by, or beneath, the stone afterwards. S.C.L(ampreys) (1834, 59), himself critical of its claims, was the first to include the story in a printed work and its continuance stems from this source. Although there is the possibility that the story originated in William Lambarde's enthusiasm for the Saxon past (Warnicke, 1973, 23-7), Ronald Jessup's (1935) examination of the device of the White Horse of Kent makes it unlikely it existed before the earlier seventeenth century. LOWER WHITE HORSE STONE (N.G.R. TQ 752603 APPROX.) S.C.L(ampreys) (1834, 59) was the first to say where this destroyed stone 'lay', a term which suggests that it might have been prone. He introduces the name White Horse Stone, with its legend and recounts that it was ' ... broken into pieces and thrown into the road'. Clement Taylor Smythe makes mention in his unpublished journal (v (1841), 28, Maidstone Mus.) and Douglas Allport included a woodcut in his book on Maidstone (1842, 28). At about the same time Beale Poste recorded four versions of the origin of the name and made a sketch of it with, presumably, his antiquarian friends looking at it (Evans, 1949, 135, 139). Edwin Dunkin (1871, 80) was strangely unsure of its location, which he thought was ' ... somewhere on the hills above Kit's Coty 86 THE MEDWAY MEGALITHS IN PERSPECTIVE House, and the ancient trackway . . .', noting that tradition connected it with Horsa. George Clinch (1908) does not mention it although O.G.S. Crawford (1924, 7) locates it under the heading of 'Megalithic Remains (Probably Burial-Chambers)'. Coles Finch (1927, 298) recounts Lampreys' positioning and the legend. He was, however, the first to say that the stone now bearing the name derived it from that destroyed. J.H. Evans (1928, 79) cites W.H.B ensted's map (Maidstone Mus.) which he used to indicate destroyed monuments upon the occasion of the British Archaeological Association's 1863 visit to the area. Glyn Daniel (1950, 234) uses the name 'Kentish Standard Stone', introduced by O.G.S. Crawford (1924, 7), and describes it as ' ... a single standing stone in Aylesford Parish', sometimes known as the Lower White Horse Stone and destroyed at about the same time as the Warren Farm chamber. J.H. Evans (1950, 65) did no more than state site and legend while, twenty years later, R.F. Jessup (1970, 102) used the term 'Kentish Standard Stone', saying that it was destroyed in 1823. Recent writers (Holgate, 1981a, 14; 1981b, 232; Philp and Dutto, 1985, 11) are unanimous in saying that the stone was destroyed in 1823. The first saw it as similar to its successor, the Upper White Horse Stone, while the second inclines to Glyn Daniel's view, terming it a ' ... large upright stone . .. 300 m west of the Upper White Horse Stone ...' , adding that the site is probably beneath the dual carriage-way of the improved Rochester-Maidstone road. UPPER WHITE HORSE STONE (N.G.R. TQ 753603) A note in The A ntiquary (1907, 442-4), illustrated by photographs (Plate V) taken by H.J. Elgar of the Museum at Maidstone, brought the Upper White Horse Stone into prominence and perpetuated the web of legend that had been spun around and about it. It drew attention to the publication of a pamphlet, written by F.J.B ennett, on The White Horse Stone and its Legend (H.C.H. Oliver, West Malling, price 3d.). It was claimed that the ends of the tabular block had been fashioned by human hands into faces, human and fish-like. The tradition of Hengist, Horsa and their forcene horse standard led to the construction of a 'Legend of the Kentish White Horse or the Western Sphinx'. Essentially, the stone was thought of as a new discovery and the author of the note, probably George Clinch, considered the legend as purely fanciful. O.G.S. Crawford (1924, 7) listed it and cited the 1907 note, as well as other literature, which could refer to its predecessor. Shortly afterwards Coles Finch (1927, 298) indicated its location and referred to F.J. Bennett's ' ... study of this old monolith' and included (opp. 259) a well-reproduced photograph, taken from the south-east, which 87 00 00 PLATE V H.W. Elgar's photograph of the Upper White Horse Stone taken c. 1900. Frederick James, a former assistant of Pitt-Rivers, provides a scale :,:, ► (/) :r 0:, rn rn THE MEDWAY MEGALITHS IN PERSPECTIVE showed the broken pieces of sarsen stone that had accumulated around it, and the open landscape in which it stood during the 1920s. R.F. Jessup (1930, 81) thought it the remaining member of a megalithic structure and mentions the animal-like configuration. Twenty years later Glyn Daniel (1950, 234) described it as' ... A large stone ... with fragments of others nearby in the same field on Warren Farm . . . the remains may be the much ruined remnant of a burial chamber' and J .H. Evans (1950, 65) termed it the successor White Horse Stone, remarking that it had inherited the name and traditions, and thought that as it was upright it was reminiscent of a chamber's wall-stone. R.F. Jessup (1970, 101) gave its dimensions, as had Glyn Daniel, noticed the broken pieces close by and also thought that it might remain from a chamber. He also said that it was once thought to have resembled a horse and that ' ... stories of the god-like White Horse of Kent attached to it are quite without foundation'. He included a photograph (Pl. 23) from the south-west which shows the stone as tree-enshrouded. Inevitably the more recent accounts ( Holgate, 1981a, 13; 1981b, 233; Philp and Dutto, 1985, 11) are in much the same vein as those set down at the middle of the century. Robin Holgate, however, reproduces a photograph, taken from the east, which shows it as standing on a treelined field boundary. More materially, Brian Philp notes that smaller stones extend to the west, perhaps moved from adjacent fields, and there is no trace of a mound. Thus, its status as the relict component of a long barrow is uncertain. ADDINGTON LONG BARROW (N.G.R. TQ 635591) During the second decade of the eighteenth century, John Harris (1719, 23) related how in Addington, at the Warren, he saw six or seven stones above the ground, which the parish clerk, because of a tree that had been in their middle, thought of as seats, an observation that could also have applied to the Chestnuts. A half-century later, Josiah Colebrooke (1773, 107) described and illustrated (Plate VI) large stones, on an eminence, placed in oval form, with, at their east end, a flat stone placed, he said, like the Altar Stone at Stonehenge. All in all, he traced seventeen stones, one 15 ft. in length, of ' ... the same species as those at Stone Henge, and being placed in the same form, seem as if they were designed for the same use'. Samuel Pegge (1779, 113), Edward Hasted (1782, 227) and John Thorpe (1788, 68) echoed Colebrooke's designation and details. John Thorpe (1788, 68, Pl. XIV) includes an engraving, from a drawing by John Thomas Serres (1759-1825), entitled 'Monumental Stones in the Grounds of Mr Bartholemew at Addington Place in Kent', which depicts the collapsed chamber at the 89 PI.VJ. 􀀁., -􀀄-- -- P. ASHBEE Josiah Colebrooke's depiclion of lhe Addington 'stone circles', 1773 90 PLATE VI 􀀆-·,,,..!, THE MEDWAY MEGALITHS IN PERSPECTIVE east end. He, following Colebrooke, who cites Stukeley, terms it ' ... a cromlech or Temple of the Druids'. Beale Poste, who in about 1840 drew views of the 'Pillar Stone of Addington Circle', records that stones were removed when the road to the park was reconstructed in 1827 (MSS, c. 1841, 154-73; Evans, 1949, 136). Besides other drawings, he undertook a large-scale survey which equals anything produced until recently. A curious reconstruction depicts a circle from which ran an 'avenue'. Albert Way (1845, 263), in a report to the Central Committee of the newly formed British Archaeological Association, spoke of circles, but he thought that the large stones might have been the coverings of cromlechs. He added that there could have been a mound within the smaller circle. Later, his friend, Thomas Wright ( 1854, 180) repeated these words, adding that 'Mr Larking [The Rev. Lambert Blackwell Larking, Ryarsh Vicarage] has since made some excavations at one of the cromlechs of the parish of Addington, the only record of which was the discovery of some fragments of rude pottery'. Subsequent writers (Dunkin, 1871, 78; Jessup, 1930, 72; 1970, 103) have associated this with the long barrow, which in the light of the comments of Way and Wright is likely, although not proven. Alexander ( 1961, 2) disassociated the work from the Chestnuts, saying that Larking had found Neolithic flints and pottery. More recently, it has been said that he found human bones (Philp and Dutto, 1985, 3). Charles Moore Jessop (1863, 636-8) went with Roach Smith and Charles Warne to view some 'Celtic Remains' and the outcome, communicated to the Gentleman's Magazine, was that an 'elevation' was seen with which was associated the remains of a destroyed cromlech.A decade later, Edwin Dunkin (1871, 76-7, Pl.X , 4) planned the site, enumerating 25 stones, and noted the slight mound. His plan has lettering to indicate inclined, exposed and partially buried stones. He saw a ' . .. general resemblance . .. to other known primaeval structures, whose sepulchral character there is no room to doubt'. Later, Flinders Petrie (1878, 16, opp.) produced a plan, which, despite reduction, was correct to ½oo in. and a clear indication of 'A long low mound, about 5 feet high', while observing that the stones leaned against it and that the whole might have had a ditch around it. Fergusson (1872, 118) merely repeated earlier accounts, writing of circles, larger and smaller. Curiously George Payne (1893, 140) saw only ' ... another tomb which has collapsed,· near it are several sarsen stones lying in an imperfect circle'. For F.J. Bennett (1907, 48, Fig.) it was ' ... the so-called circle' and he published a sketch plan saying that the circle is a long oval and that only 22 stones could be seen. George Clinch (1908, 319) described in detail groups of stones accompanied by the earliest photographs of the concentrations, the first of the stones at 91 P.ASHBEE the east end of the long barrow from the north-west and the second of these stones from the south-east. They stand among mature pine trees and are styled 'Megalithic Remains, Addington'. O.G.S. Crawford (1924, Pl. 1, 1) located the 'Addington Burial Chamber' and reproduced Flinders Petrie's plan. A little later, Coles Finch (1927, 275) published a photograph of the collapsed chamber from the north. His son sits upon a stone as a scale and all is surrounded by the mature pine trees. The next year J.H. Evans (1928, V, 90) records that his plan of the Addington 'cromlech' and 'dolmen' is after E.W. Filkins, the Dartford architect and friend of F.J. Bennett, and that there are two more stones 50 ft. east of this group. R.F. Jessup (1930, 71, Fig. 12, Pl. IV, lower) found the barrow not easy to distinguish and thought that the condition of the stones at the east end might have been brought about by the nineteenth-century excavation. His plan, he hoped, would help to clear up some of the inconsistencies of the site for, when he wrote, many still considered it a circle, while his plate, 'Addington Barrow, North-East End', shows the collapsed chamber from the south-east. It was no longer among trees but some still stood at a distance. Yet another plan was published five years later when Stuart Piggott (1935, 123, Fig. 6) illustrated his contention that the Medway's megaliths could be of northern European origins. Glyn Daniel (1950, 74, 81, Fig. 22) saw ' ... a rectangular long barrow 200 ft in length and 35 ft broad ... the edge of the barrow is marked by an orthostatic revetment and at the north-east end are some fallen megaliths which may be the remains of a chamber ... '. He reproduced Crawford's plan and thought that the notion of a ruined chamber was preferable to that of a ruined false portal ( Jessup, 1930, 70).E vans (1950, 74) noted 22 stones and remarked upon the great size of the long barrow, some 200 ft., saying that when complete it must have been imposing. The basic details of the site were set down by Elizabeth Warman (1969, 241) when, among other places, it was visited by the Royal Archaeological Institute. In 1970, R.F. Jessup (1970, 103, Fig. 32, Pl. 29) was able to remark upon the rectangularity of the long barrow, when he reproduced his earlier plan and also a photograph. He commented, sadly, that it was overgrown and difficult to interpret. Two more recent evaluations (Holgate, 1981a, 10; 1981b, 231; Philp and Dutto, 1985, 3), perforce include much that has already been said. Plates illustrate its neglected, dilapidated, condition brought about by unsympathetic housing development (Holgate, 1981a, 10, 1.2). A fresh survey (Philp and Dutto, 1985, Fig. 7, upper) shows that, like many long barrows (Ashbee, 1984, 79, Fig. 42), the 92 THE MEDWAY MEGALITHS IN PERSPECTIVE original structure may have had a trapezoidal character. Some 25 stones were located and the barrow was still some 3 ft. in height. Assuming a complete surround of stones, some fifty would have been necessary. The mounds spread was clearly indicated, b u t the possibility of a ditch was not mentioned. THE CHESTNUTS (N.G.R. TQ 652592) Apart from the ambiguous comment by John Harris (1719, 23), the first record of the Chestnuts is by Josiah Colebrooke (1773, 108) who saw 'ABOUT I 30 paces to the north west of this [the Addington long barrow] ... another heap of large stones tumbled inwards one on another'. These he reconstructed as a circle of six stones (1773, Pl. VI, Fig. 2) besides measuring them and hazarding that one of them must have been 19 ft. in height, which he featured as ' ... the largest fragment' (Pl.V I, Fig.3 ).H e said that' / THEREFORE join in opinion with the learned Dr. Stukeley, that stones placed in this oval form [the Addington long barrow] were the temples of the antient Britons ... and that the heap of stones fallen down at a little distance from the temple [the Chestnuts] was Catigern 's monument, which was more magnificent, and more in the manner of Stone Henge than Kits Cot house is ...' This, for us surprising, statement, stimulated, it would seem, by the size of the stones, is wholly in the spirit of later eighteenth-century antiquarian endeavour (Douglas, 1951, 273; Piggott, 1989, 123-52). Hasted (1782, 227) cited Colebrooke's locative and descriptive details, as did Ireland (1829, 618).J ohn Thorpe (1788, 68), also citing Colebrooke (1773, 108), considered it ' ... a cromlech or temple of the Druids', but could not accept the six stones as Catigern's monument, because, he said, the action was at Aylesford. T he question of Druid temples is pursued in detail, their wide distribution indicated, and Catigern is returned to the Medway's eastern bank. Albert Way (1845, 263) saw an isolated mass of large stones which he considered might have covered a subterranean structure, which words were also used by Thomas Wright (1854, 181). Charles Moore Jessop (1863, 637) saw, however, three capstones shelved one within the other and surmised that they had originally rested upon the smaller blocks around and beneath, with others indicating the continuance of a chamber. Edwin Dunkin (1871, 78, Pl. X, 3) spoke of' ... a collection of massive and imposing stones huddled together and sloping towards the north'. This is shown by his personal plan upon which he identifies 17 stones. He labelled the largest (a), considered that some could have been capstones, although he thought the group 93 P. ASHBEE too dilapidated for their former plan to be determined, and indicated (b, c) natural orifices in certain stones. Despite Jessop and Dunkin, Fergusson (1872, 118), in his Rude Stone Monuments (he thought megaliths to be of recent origin) saw only a circle and cited Colebrooke's (1773, 108) words. At the outset of the present century, F..J B ennett (1907, 48) found a 'fallen megalith', comparable with the 'Countless Stones' (Lower Kit's Coty House) thought that it had been chambered and saw traces of neither ditch nor 'circle'. George Clinch (1908, 320), from Borden, Library Clerk of the Society of Antiquaries of London, saw a structure, fallen or destroyed, in confusion. There was a vigorous growth of bushes which impeded his scrutiny but he thought the largest block to have been a capstone. The first photographs of the Chestnuts accompanied his comments, a general view from the south-west and a study of the largest stone. O.G.S. Crawford (1924, 6) has the Chestnuts at the head of his list of burial chambers and gives location, O.S. map details and the principal references. Coles Finch (1927, 305) cited Hasted (1782, 227) and Thorpe (1788, 68), but did not proffer a description. He included, however, two splendid photographs (facing 274, 275 (lower)), with, as usual, his son for a scale. One is a general view from the west and the other from south, showing the great fallen block. J.H.E vans (1928, 81, IV) planned the stones, saying, among other things, that they had been a structure of fine proportions. R.F. Jessup (1930, 72, Pl. IV, centre) saw huge stones in a state of absolute confusion and, with unusual pessimism, said that were it not for the reputed discovery of Neolithic flint flakes under the stones ' ... the site might be regarded as of little archaeological significance'. Nonetheless, he made use of H.J. E lgar's splendid photograph. Shortly afterwards, Stuart Piggott (19 35, 122) hazarded the possibility of the stones having been contained within a circular mound, a comment made with the patterns of northern mainland European sites in mind. Glyn Daniel (1950, 233) had visited the site during the 1930s and saw ' ... a confused group of recumbent and semi-recumbent stones, with no trace of a barrow'. He had, however, little doubt that it had originally been part of a stone chamber. J .H. Evans (1950, 75) saw no direct evidence that the stones were the remains of a structure but their deposition was indirect evidence of a collapsed chamber. In 1957, John Alexander (1961) undertook a programme of excavation and restoration at the behest of the Ancient Monuments Inspectorate of the Ministry of Works, because the owner of the land was building a house close by.I t was found that the great stones of the 94 THE MEDWAY MEGALITHS IN PERSPECTIVE chamber and fai;:ade could be pulled upright into their stone-holes and that only the positions of those that had divided the chamber were in doubt. As has already been recounted, the chamber, some 12 ft. long, 7 ft. wide and about 9 ft. high, was of huge and unusual proportions. In it there had been human remains, bones and cremations, and it seems likely to have been infilled, at least partially, with occupation debris which included much broken pottery and flint artifacts. Probably only the proximal part of the barrow was located for, to house such a chamber, a barrow of some length would have been appropriate. However, traces of neither ditches nor mound revetment were found. There had been recourse to the barrow in Roman times and a hut had been set against its northern side. The barrow was deliberately thrown down and razed, during the second half of the thirteenth century. Some memory of it might have remained in the eighteenth century Long Warren field name for the locality. John Alexander's (1961) comprehensive excavation report, with its apparatus of plans, sections, plates and illustrations of pottery and flint artifacts, a model of its kind, is the only modern examination of a Med way megalith. It has allowed a reconsideration of other remains, their size, likely status, and, by comparison, mode of destruction. Given present-day archaeological techniques, a series of accelerated radiocarbon dates could have been obtained from the great chamber's human remains, preserved in Maidstone Museum, had it not been for the fire about a decade ago which destroyed much of the material. Subsequent treatments of the Chestnuts have, perforce, been based upon John Alexander's endeavours. Thus, Elizabeth Warman (1969, 241) summarised the report for the 1969 Canterbury Summer Meeting of the Royal Archaeological Institute and a visit was made. Ronald Jessup's (1970, 104, Figs. 33, 34, Pls. 27, 28) succinct account employed plan, sections and photographs (of the stones before excavation and of the raising of one), recognised the size of the chamber, the selected sarsen slabs and the nature of the stoneholes. He said how welcome Alexander's considered sequence was in the absence of reliable details from any other similar sites in the county. In 1980, Robin Holgate (1981a, 10, Fig. 5, Pls. 3, 4; 1981b, 231, Fig. 2) summarised the excavation for his Management and Research Design and reproduced a simplified version of John Alexander's plan. His photographs show the constrained condition of the restored monument. More recently the excavation and its results have been summarised and the plan reproduced. A valuable contribution is, for the first time, a survey showing the close juxtaposition of Addington 's long barrows (Philp and Dutta, 1985, 4-5). 95 P.ASHBEE COLDRUM (N.G.R. TQ 654607) Sadly, the earliest accounts of Coldrum, so-called from the now demolished farm, Coldrum Lodge, that once stood close by, are unpublished. During the first years of the nineteenth century, the Rev. Mark Noble, ES.A., Rector of Barming, and biographer of Cromwell and the Regicides, is reputed to have prepared a description and also a plan of the monument (Evans, 1950, 69). The redoubtable Beale Paste, between 1842 and 1844, penned a description to supplement his plans, sketches and reconstructions (Evans, 1949, 137). He recorded that skulls were found in the terrace, close by the chamber, in 1804 and 1825 and it appears that, except for buried stones, the structure was much the same as it is today. This emerges from his final plan which shows the position of the skull found in 1825. Upon the heels of Beale Paste, Albert Way (1845, 263) and Thomas Wright ( 1854, 181) sought out Coldrum and said of it ' ... adjacent to a farm named Co/drum Lodge is another smaller circle of stones, and similar appearances of a subterranean cromlech in the middle.' As at Addington they saw a circle, but there is a possibility that, at the time of their visit, a part of the razed barrow remained partially concealing the chamber. In 1856, an excavation was undertaken by J.M. Kemble, the Late Celtic and Anglo-Saxon scholar (Daniel, 1975, 110; Levine, 1986, 25) and the Rev. Lambert Larking. All we know of it is in a brief report to the Central Committee of the British Archaeological Association (Way, 1856, 404) when it was said: 'Mr Kemble also gave some details of an excavation made by the Rev. L.B. Larking and himself on the site of the cromlech ... called "THE ADSCOMBE" or "COLDRUM" stones in Kent, with the adjoining magnificent stone circle, and exhibited specimens of the pottery exhumed by them, some of which was undoubtedly of Saxon manufacture ... the excavations will be resumed next year ...' . Were this pottery to have been from the chamber's infill, it is conceivable that they came upon a compact deposit covering the bones that were to be disinterred half-a-century later by F.J. Bennett (1913). Charles Moore Jessop (1863, 637) described Coldrum in detail, giving dimensions but no plan, and was convinced that were the fallen stones upright they would form a circle. He noted: 'In the quarry below ... fourteen huge blocks of stone ... ' Edwin Dunkin's (1871, 72, Pl. X, 5) description was accompanied by a plan, from which the stones on and at the foot of the steep slope and east of the chamber were omitted. He was impressed by the great size of the chamber's stones and was adamant, because of the bones and pottery that had been found that it was ' ...a place of sepulture'.S ome flint masonry secured the chamber and he believed that this, an early example of preservation (Thompson, 96 THE MEDWAY MEGALITHS IN PERSPECTIVE 1981, 22), was the work of Lambert Larking. Dunkin's work was closely followed by a sketch plan and description, by A.L. Lewis (1873, 6), and Flinders Petrie's (1878, 15) more accurate plan.L ewis, a devotee of megaliths, especially stone circles (Burl, 1976, passim), was a zealous supporter of the Royal Anthropological Institute, which also published an abstract of his note on Coldrum (1878). During his early life, Petrie, whose ability to accurately survey monuments was phenomenal (Wheeler, 1955, 74; Atkinson, 1956, 192; Drower, 1985, 21), recorded more than 50 Kentish sites, inclu ding Coldrum (Coldreham). His plan (Petrie, 1878, opp. 16) shows the chamber 's dividing blocks, bared, presumably, by Kemble and Larking. George Payne (1893, 137-40) was distressed at the overgrown condition of Coldrum, for him a cromlech, a dolmen surrounded by stones, and that it had been neither recorded nor planned.T his last is a curious statement in that he had been a member of the Ke nt Archaeological Society since 1872 and would thus have had the volume (XIII) containing Petrie's plan on his shelves. He wrote to Pitt Rivers in an endeavour to get the protection of the 1882 Ancient Monuments Act, and enlisted the Royal Engineers to plan the monument. The planning was undertaken on 20th August, 1892, by Major A.O. Green, Instructor in Survey, whose son sketched Coldrum from the east (Payne, 1893, Pl. XXV). This sketch is of importance in that the magnitude of the now missing chamber dividing stones, or perhaps, as Payne observed, broken capstones, can be seen, although they appear as displaced on the plan. His narrative recalls that a skeleton dug from the ' ... c entre of the dolmen' had been buried in Meopham churchyard, a statement variously cited by other writers (Fielding, 1893, 4; Bennett, 1907, 47; 1913, 76; Jessup, 1930, 75), and that the declivity in front of the monument was the result of chalk digging. He noted also that several prone kerb-stones were partially buried and that, as with other monuments of its kind, stones had been taken for road-making and other uses. In the same year as George Payne's work at Coldrum, the first photograph of it was published (Fielding, 1893, opp. 4). This is a view from the north-west showing fallen kerb-stones and the rear of the chamber. The first decades of the present century saw even more attention being paid to Col drum, its character and affinities. In 1905 ( 156), George Clinch reproduced Dunkin's plan, a photograph of the chamber flanked by coppice wood, and considered the monument as similar to ' ... the cromlech at Si evern, Hannover'. F.J. Bennett ( 1907, 4 7) repeated the substance of George Payne's account which was illustrated by a sketch-plan upon which the stones were numbered and a plate of the chamber, from the south-west, which is a frame for a winter view of the landscape east of the monument. Something of its overgrown 97 P.ASHBEE character is also visible. Clinch (1908, 320) described, for the Victoria County History, i, Coldrum as ' ... a quadrangular enclosure round a central chamber of which the two massive upright stones remain' (the chamber has four vertical stones) and reproduced two photographs. These, labelled 'Megalithic Remains at Co/drum, Trottiscliffe' are the earlier view of the chamber, flanked by coppice wood, and the great stone at the north-west corner of the kerb. During 1910, an excavation within the chamber was undertaken by F.J. Bennett (1913). The bones of some 22 individuals, with a sherd of pottery and a flint saw, were found at the bottom in the north-west part. They were studied by Sir Arthur Keith (1913) who determined that they represented people of both sexes and widespread ages. Bennett's account is illustrated by a general plan, surveyed and plotted by E.W. Filkins, A.R.I.B.A., as well as detailed chamber plans and a section, showing the positions of the skulls and bones. A model, now in the museum at Maidstone, was also made. Five photographs show the condition of the monument but nothing of the excavations. In 1922, Filkins (1924; 1928) cleared the bushes and brambles that had grown since 1910, bared the sarsen stone kerb, and dug beneath, where possible, finding further bones. These were handed to Sir Arthur Keith, at the Royal College of Surgeons, to be preserved with those unearthed in 1910 (Filkins, 1928; Jessup, 1930, 76), but were largely lost during the 1939-45 war ( Jessup, 1970, 110). Sir Arthur devoted the initial chapter of the Antiquity of Man (1915), to a Neolithic Community of Kent, a broad consideration of the bones. Sadly, he involved Coldrum in the hyper-diffusionism of Grafton Elliot-Smith (Daniel, 1981, 115, 149). John Ward, in his report upon the St. Nicholas Chambered Tumulus, Glamorgan, one of the Cotswold-Severn series and now called Tinkinswood (Darvill, 1982, 100, GLA 9), excavated just before the First World War, considered Coldrum as a counterpart ( Ward, 1916, 239). Despite the declivity, he gave it, upon an adaptation of the E.W. Filkins plan, a cuspate forecourt, saying that the stones would 'creep' downhill. Keith's hyper-diffusionistic explanation of Coldrum was accepted and applied to the St. Nicholas structure. O.G.S. Crawford (1924, 5) also used Filkins' plan to present the site, giving location, O.S. map details and the principal references. He was closely followed by Coles Finch, the topographer, who described Coldrum in extensive detail, illustrated by three remarkable photographs, one of it smothered by ' ... elder, bramble and other wild vegetation' and the other two of the slope-top chamber, with its interior timbered, one from below and the other from the north-west of the upper interior (Coles Finch, 1927, 306, Pls. opp. 115, 282). A year later, Evans (1928), noted a slight mound, used the Filkins plan once again, and ventured the definition of 98 THE MEDWAY MEGALITHS IN PERSPECTIVE a typical Medway megalith. Shortly afterwards, however, Ronald Jessup (1930, 73) published the succinct description, complemented by an account of the monument's vicissitudes and problems as seen at that time. In 1926, Coldrum was further cleared, secured, fenced, and vested in the National Trust as a memorial to Benjamin Harrison, the Ightham prehistorian and eolith protagonist. On the afternoon of 10 July, Lord Avebury, son of the author of Prehistoric Times, beloved by Harrison, and Chairman of the Memorial Committee, handed the title deeds to Sir Edgar Bonham Carter, who represented the Trust. Sir Arthur Keith told the assembly something of the monument, as did H.J .E. Peake, President of the Royal Anthropological Institute, and Percy Newberry, the Egyptologist (Harrison, 1928, 333, Pl.). Strangely, the stone bearing the memorial tablet to Benjamin Harrison does not belong to the monument and is an importation into the site (Evans, 1950, 69). Despite the acceptance of the deeds, the National Trust did not grasp that such a site needed maintenance. Indeed, within eighteen months the Vicar of lghtham drew attention to broken fences, slope erosion and the insecurity of stones that had been loosened. It was mooted that the Kent Archaeological Society would be a better steward. In the event, a local committee, chaired by Percy Newberry, who had been Treasurer of the appeal, brought a modicum of order to the situation and, thereafter, there has been inspection and maintenance (Gaze, 1988, 52). Coldrum's possible northern European mainland affinities, together with its fellows, were stressed during the 1930s (Piggott, 1935, 122). This view was detailed by Gordon Childe (1940, 61) and, in the postwar period, once again by Stuart Piggott (1954, 269). These northern European mainland origins, based upon general similarities, were discussed with a wealth of exorbitant detail by Evans (1950, 69-74) who, following a further detailed survey, proffered a reconstruction which had the monument poised above the declivity. Glyn Daniel, who had visited Coldrum during the later 1930s, saw it as a rectangular long barrow, revetted with orthostats, and with a rectangular chamber. He reproduced the Filkins plan and was of the view that there had been extensive quarrying at the east end (Daniel, 1950, 233, Fig. 22, 3). He was also inclined to look to northern Europe as its homeland (Daniel, 1950, 161). L.V. Grinsell (1936, 178) summarised what was known of Coldrum and drew attention to sarsen stones in its vicinity. His later description (1953, 194, Pl. XX) could add little, although he remarked that it was sad that Benjamin Harrison's memorial tablet should describe Coldrum as a stone circle! More recently Coldrum has been the subject of general notices (Warman, 1969, 240; Jessup, 1970, 108, Figs. 35, 36, Pls. 35, 36) and more detailed considerations (Holgate, 1981 a, 11, Fig. 5, Pls. 5, 6; 99 P.ASHBEE 1981b, 231, Fig. 2; Philp and Dutto, 1985, 1, Fig. 2). Elizabeth Warman (1969, 240), for the visit of the Royal Archaeological Institute, called attention to the speculation and argument concerning its origins and featured the reconstruction proffered by J.H. Evans (1950, 73, Fig. 4). Ronald Jessup (1970, 108, Figs. 35, 36; Pls. 25, 26) summarised what is known of the monument and reproduced the re-survey by J .H. Evans (1950, Fig. 3). He stressed that it was an entity and not associated with the various avenues and alignments as has been sometimes claimed (Bennett, 1907, 4 7). Nonetheless, there are (or were in 1946) substantial sarsen stones, including five prone and in line, in the field south of the site of Coldrum Lodge (Grinsell, 1953, 194), at no great distance. In the most recent synthesis, Coldrum has been seen as short and broad, comparable with the Chestnuts, and a contrast to the longer mounds (W hittle, 1977, 61). This specification has subsequently been followed and the by now traditional plan, supported by no less traditional photographs, which, above all, detail the monument's adversities, reproduced (Holgate, 1981a, 11, Fig. 5, Pls. 5, 6; 1981b, 231, Fig. 2). Latterly, a new plan makes the mound, with its tumbled kerb, into a truncated trapezoid which allows the slope-bottom stones to be a not unconvincing collapsed fagade remainder (Philp and Dutto, 1985, 1, Fig. 2). In conclusion, it must be stressed that Coldrum has suffered badly from early, unscientific, excavation, sporadic unrecorded restoration and uninformed conservation. Only fieldwork, together with restricted excavation, designed to elucidate specific problems, can further our knowledge of what appears to be the best-preserved of the series. CONCLUSION The many perspectives of the Medway valley's stone-built long barrows, from the later sixteenth century to the present day, are conditioned by the nature of the inevitable progress of knowledge. Such successive restatements cannot be other than in terms of the interests and assumptions of their age and, when representations are invol ved, the subjectivity of vision which is contingent upon understanding. These long barrows, a uniform series with near-unmatched lofty rectanglar chambers, flanked by commensurate fagades, at the proximal ends of considerable barrows, contained by stone kerbs, were, because of their huge stones, a concentration of the most grandiose and impressive structures of their kind in southern England, a quality hitherto unrecognised. Indeed, they can only be seen as exceptional 100 THE MEDWAY MEGALITHS IN PERSP ECTIVE translations into stone of the timber mortuary houses, fa􀁈ades and kerbs, common to a range of earthen long barrows (Ashbee, 1984, 33-54; Clarke, 1982, 58). Their close-knit siting is unusual, as is the apparent lack of a focal installation. Something of their erstwhile eminence is shown by their subsequent associations and, in common with, for example, Avebury and Arbor Low (Smith, 1965, 176; Gray, 1903, 463), their comprehensive slighting during the Middle Ages. Accessibility could account for the attention given to Kit's Coty House by the later Tudor antiquaries, while Lambarde's notion of an association with Catigern would, at that time, have been an additional attraction. This story endured, largely excluding the Druids. Aubrey's material marshalled for the Monumenta, exemplifies the initial stirrings of scientific endeavour, as do Stukeley's drawings its zenith. Thereafter was a measure of vegetation, if not stagnation, which continued into the nineteenth century. Later nineteenth-century prehistoric studies led to methodical field archaeology within which the genesis of present-day procedures can be seen (Ashbee, 1972, 58). Flinders Petrie is well-known, Edwin Dunkin and George Clinch are not, although their assessments of the Medway's megaliths were considerably in advance of their time. O.G.S. Crawford, whose work was the foundation of this century's endeavours, was supremely conscious of the wealth of archaeological attention that these sites had stimulated. All archaeology has an historical dimension and any assessment which neglects this falls short. Our Medway valley's stone-built long barrows are exceptional in this respect, for their literature is much larger than that of others of their kind. Only by appreciation of its qualities can a proper perspective be obtained. BIBLIOGRAPHY Alcock, L., 1971 Alexander, J.H., 1961 Alexander, J., Ozanne, A. and P.C., 1960 Allchin, J.H., 1907 Allen, A.F., 1966 Allport, D., 1842 Anon., 1763 Anon., 1907 Arthur's Britain, London 'The Excavation of the Chestnuts Megalithic Tomb at Addington, Kent', Arch. Cant., lxxvi, 1-57 'Re port on t h e Investigation of a Round Barrow on Arreton Down, Isle of Wight', PPS, xxvi, 263-302 'Chillington Manor House, Maidstone', in (Eds.) P.H. Ditchfi eld and G. Clinch, Memorials of Old Kent, London,253-63 'Cobham', Arch. Cant., lxxxi, lvi Maidstone,· its Geology, History, Antiquities and Traditions, discussed in a memoir recommending further inquiry on the subject etc., Maidstone 'Description of Kitt's-Cotty-House', Gents. Mag., May 'Note on the White Horse Stone', The Antiquary, xliii, 442-4 101 ApSimon, A.M., 1954 Ashbee, P., 1960 1966 1972 1976 1978 1984 1988 Ashbee, P., Bell, M., and Proudfoot, E., 1989 Aston, M., 1973 Atkinson, R.J.C., 1956 1965 1976 Aubrey, J., 1847 Barley, M. and Barry, T.B., 1971 Bennett, F.J., 1907 1913 Bennett, H.S., 1937 Bing, H.F., 1949 Birchall, A., 1965 Blome, R., 1673 Bonney, D.J., 1966 1969 Borlase, W., 1769 Bowden, M., 1991 P. ASHBEE 'Dagger Graves in the "Wessex" Bronze Age', Univ. London, Inst. Arch., 10th Ann. Rpt., 37-62 The Bronze Age Round Barrow in Britain, London 'The Fussell's Lodge Long B arrow Excavations, 1957', Archaeologia, c, 1-80 'Field Archaeology: its Origins and Development,' in (Ed.) P.J. Fowler, Archaeology and the Landscape, Essays for L. V. Grinsell, London, 38-74 ' B ant's Carn, St. Mary 's, Isles of S c illy, An Entrance Grave Restored and Reconsidered', Cornish Arch., xv, 11-26 The Ancient British, Norwich The Earthen Long Bar row in Britain (2nd ed.), Norwich 'The Pursuit of Prehistory into the Yorkshire Dimension', in (Ed.) T.C. Manb y, Archaeology in Eastern Yorkshire, Essays in Honour of T.C. Brewster, Sheffield, 4-11 Wilsford Shaft: Excavations 1960-62, English Heritage Arch. Rpt. 11, London 'English Ruins and English History: The Dissolution and the Sense of the Past', Journ. Warburg & Courtauld Inst. xxxvi, 231- SS Stonehenge, London 'Wayland's Smithy', Antiquity, xxxix, 126-33 'Lukis, Dryden and the Carnac Megaliths', in (Ed.) J.V.S. Megaw, To Illustr ate the Mon umen ts, Essays on archaeology presented to Stuart Piggott, London, 111-24 The Natural History of Wiltshire (Ed. J. Britton), London 1980 Monumenta Britannica (Ed. J. Fowles), i, ii (1982), Toronto 'Two Letters from the General', Antiquity, xiv, 215-20 /ghtham: the Story of a K entish Vi llage and its Surroundings, London 'Col drum Monument and Exploration, 1910', Journal Royal Anthrop. Inst., xliii, 76-85 Life on the English Manor, Cambridge 'St. Augustine of Canterbury and the Saxon Church in Kent', Arch. Cant., lxii, 108-29 'The Aylesford-Swarling Culture: the Problem of the Belgae Reconsidered', PPS, xxxi, 241-367 Britannia; or a geographi c a l d e s c ription of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland, London 'Pagan Saxon Burials and Boundaries in Wiltshire', Wilts. Arch. Mag., 61, 25-30 'Two Tenth-Century Wiltshire Charters Concerning Lands at Avon and at Collingbourne', Wilts.Arch.Mag., 64, 56-64 Antiquities Historical and Monumental of the County of Cornwall, London Pitt Rivers, Cambridge 102 THE MEDWAY MEGALI THS IN PERSPECTIV E Bowen, H.C., and Smith, I.F., 1977 Boyle, J., 1984 Boys, W., 1794 Bradley, R., 1990 Brooks, N., 1984 Burl, A., 1976 1979 Camden, W., 1610 1695 Charles, T., 1844 Childe, V.G., 1940 Chippindale, C., 1983 1985 Christiansen, E., 1980 Clarke, A.F., 1982 Clinch, G., 1905 1908 Colebrooke, J ., 1773 Coles Finch, W., 1927 Cook, N.C., 1936 Copley, G., 1958 Corcoran, J.X.W.P., 1969 Coulton, G.G., 1926 Crawford, O.G.S., 1924 Daniel, G.E., 1950 1960 1972 1975 1981 1925 'Sarsen Stones in Wessex: T h e Society 's First Investigation in the Evolution of the Landscape Project', Antiq. Joum., !vii, 185-96 In Quest of Hasted, Chichester 'Observations on Kits Coity House, in Kent', Archaeologia, xi, 38-44 The Passage of Arms: an archaeological analysis of prehistoric hoards and votive deposits, Cambridge T h e E a r ly H i s t o r y of t h e Church of Canterbury, Leicester The Stone Circles of the British Isles, New Haven and London Prehistoric Avebury, New Haven and London Britannia (First English ed. trans. Philemon Holland), London Britannia (Edmund Gibson's trans., 2nd e d . 1722; 3rd ed. 1753; 4th ed. 1772), London 'Roman Antiquities found at and near Maidstone in Kent', Archaeologia, xxx, 535-37 Prehistoric Communities of the British Isles, London Stonehenge Complete, London 'John Britten's "Celtic Cabinet" in Devizes Museum and its Context', Antiq. Journ., !xv, 121-38 The Northern Crusades, London 'The Neolithic in Kent: a review, in (Eds.) P. J. Leach and A.F. Clarke, The Archaeology of Kent to AD I 500, CBA Research Report, 48, 25-30 'Neolithic Burial', The Reliquary & Illustrated Archaeologist, July, 1905, 145-61 'Kentish Megalithic Structures', VCH, Kent, i, 318-20 'An Account of the Monument commonly ascribed to Catigern', Archaeologia, ii, 107-17 In Kentish Pilgrim/and, its Ancient Roads and Shrines, London 'Archaeology in Kent, 1936', Arch. Cant., xlviii, 234 An Archaeology of South-east England, London 'The Cots wold-Se vern Group 1. Distribution, Morphology and Artifacts,' in (Ed.) T.G.E. Powell, Megalithic Enquiries in the West of Britain, Liverpool, 13-72 The Mediaeval Village, Cambridge Ordnance Survey. Professional Papers - New Series, No. 8, Southampton The Long Barrows of the Cotswolds, Gloucester The Prehistoric Chamber Tombs of England and Wales, Cambridge The Prehistoric Chamber Tombs of France, London Megaliths i11 History, London A Hundred and Fifty Years of Archaeology, London A Short History of Archaeology, London 103 Darvill, T.C., I 982 1987 Detsicas, A., 1983, 1987 Dillon, M. and Chadwick, N.K., 1967 Douglas, D.C., 1951 Douglas, J., 1793 Drower, M.S., 1985 Dunkin, E.H.W., 1871 Ellis Evans, D., 1967 Elliston-Erwood, F.C., 1947 Evans, A.J., 1890 Evans, J., 1864 Evans, J.H., 1928 1948 1949 1950 1952 Everitt, A., 1986 Fergusson, J., 1872 Fielding, C.H., 1893 Filkins, E.W., 1924 1928 Flinders Petrie, W.M., 1880 Flower, R., I 935 Fussner, F.S., 1962 Gaze, J., 1988 Gransden, A., I 980 1982 Gray, H. St. George, 1903 Grimes, W.F., I 948 Grinsell, L.V., 1936 1976 Grose, F., 1774 P. ASHBEE The Megalithic Chambered Tombs of the CotswoldSevern Region, Highworth Prehistoric Britain, London The Cantiaci, Gloucester The Celtic Realms, London English Scholars 1660-1730, London Nenia Britannica; or, a Sepulchral Hist ory of Great Britain, London Flinders Petrie, A Life in Archaeology, London 'On t h e Megalithic Remains in Mid-Kent', The Reliquary, 12, 67-80 Gaulish Personal Names, Oxford ' P lans of, and brief A r c h itectural Notes on Kent Churches', Arch. Cant., Ix, 15-23 'On a Late-Keltic Ur nfield at Ayl e s ford, Kent', Archaeologia, lii, 317-88 The Coins of the Ancient Britons, London 'On the Megalithic Monuments of the Medway Valley', Rochester Nat., 6, 73-90 'Smythe's Megalith', Arch. Cant., lxi, 135-40 'A Disciple of the Druids, the Beale Poste MSS,' Arch. Cant., lxii, 130-39 'Kentish Megalith Types', Arch. Cant., Ixiii, 63-81 'The Tomb of Horsa', Arch. Cant., lxv, 101-13 Continuity and Colonisation, the Evolution of Kentish Settlement, Leicester Rude Stone Monuments in all Countries; their Age and Uses, London Memories of Malling and its Valley, West Malling 'Coldrum Exploration, 1923', Antiq. Journ., iv, 265 'Excavations at Coldrum', Antiq. Journ., viii, 356-7 'Notes on Kentish Earthworks', Arch. Cant., xiii, 8-16 'Laurence Nowell and the Discovery of England in Tudor Times', Proc. British. Acad., xxi, 47-73 The Historical Revolution, London A History of the National Trust, London 'Antiquarian Studies in Fifteenth-Century England', Antiq. Journ., Ix, 75-97 Historical Writing in E n g land, ii, London and Henley 'On the E x c av ations at A r b o r Low, 1901-1902', Archaeologia, !viii, 461-98 'Pentre-Ifan Burial Chamber', Arch. Camb., c, Pt. I, 3-23 The Ancient Burial Mounds of England (2nd revised ed., 1953), London Folklore of Prehi s t o r ic Sit e s in Brit ain, Newton Abbot The Antiquities of England and Wales, ii, London s.v. Ket's Coity house, Kent 104 THE MEDWAY MEGALITHS IN PERSPECTIVE Hamper, W., 1804 Harris, J., 1719 Harrison, Sir Edward, 1928 Hasted, E., 1782 H.C., 1804 Henshall, A.S., 1963 1972 Holgate, R., 1981a 1981b Hubert, H., 1934 Hull, F., 1956 Hunter, M., 1975 Hunter, M.C.W., 1971 Hunter Blair, P., 1963 Ireland, W.H., 1829 Jessop, C.M., 1863 Jessup, F.W., 1974 Jessup, R.F., I 930 1935 1937 1939 1970 1981 1942 Johnson, W., 1912 Keith, Sir Arthur, 1913 1915 Kendrick, T.D., 1928 1950 1964 Kilburne, R., 1659 King, E., 1799 'Letter (Kit's Coty House)', Gents. Mag., 1804, Pt. II, 611-12 The History of Kent in Five Parts, I, London Harrison of lghtham, Oxford Report for the Year Ended 31 st December, 1 9 4 1, Arch. Cant., Iv, xxxi-xxxvii The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent, ii, Canterbury 'Letter (Kit's Coty House)', Gents. Mag., 1804, Pt. I, 409 The Chambered Tombs of Scotland, i, Edinburgh The Chambered Tombs of Scotland, ii, Edinburgh A Management and R esearch Design for the Kent Megaliths, Dept. Env., London 'The Medway Megaliths and Neolithic Kent', Arch. Cant., xcvii, 221-34 The Greatness and Decline of the Celts, London 'Kentish Historiography', Arch. Cant., lxx, 221-30 John Aubrey and the Realm of Learning, New York 'The Royal Society and the O r i g i n s of B rit ish Archaeology', Antiquity, xiv, 113-21; 187-92 Roman Britain and Early England, London A New and Complete History of the County of Kent, iii, London 'Celtic Remains in Kent', Gents. Mag., 1863, Pt. I, 636-38 A History of Kent, London and Chichester The Archaeology of Kent, London 'The White Horse of Kent', Antiquity, ix, 469-71 'Excavations at Julliberrie's Grave, Chilham, Kent', Antiq. Journ., xvii, 122-37 'F urther Excavat ions at Jullieberrie's Grave, Chilham', Ant. J ourn., xix, 260-81 South-East England, London 'Landscapes: Some Antiquarian Moods and F ancies', i n (Ed.) A. Detsicas, Collectanea Historica, Essays in Memory of Stuart Rigold, Maidstone, 14-9 Byways in British Archaeology, Cambridge 'Report on the Human Remains found by F.J. Bennett, Esq., F.G.S., in the Central Chamber of a Megalithic Monument at Coldrum, Kent,' Journ. Royal Anthrop. Inst., xii ii, 86-100 The Antiquity of Man, London The Druids, London British Antiquity, London 'F oreword', in (Ed.) L.T. Smith, The Itinerary of John Leland, I, London A topographie or Survey of the Countie of Kent, with historical/, and other matters touching the same etc., London Munimenta Antiqua; or observations on the ancient castles etc., in Great Britain, London 105 King, N.E., 1968 Klindt-Jensen, 0., 1975 Kni ght, C. (Ed.), 1884 Knowles, D., 1976 Lambarde, W., 1596 L(ampreys), S.C., 1834 Levine, P., 1986 Lewis, A.L., 1873-6 1878 Lewis, M.J.T., 1966 Lubbock, J. (Lord Avebury), 1913 Lukis, W.C. (Ed.), 1883 Manby, T.G., 1970 Masters, L., 1981 McCrerie, A., 1956 McKisack, M., 1971 Meates, G.W., 1978 Morgan, F. de M., 1959 Morris, J. (Ed.), 1980 Payne, G., 1893 1900 Peake, H.J.E., 1928 Pegge, S., 1779 Philipot, T., 1659 P. ASHBEE 'The Kennet Valley Sarsen Industry', Wilts. Arch. Mag., 63, 83-93 A History of Scandinavian Archaeology, London Old England: a Pictorial Museum of Re gal, E cclesiasti cal, Municipal, Baronial, and Popular Antiquities, i, London Bare Ruined Choirs, Cambridge A Perambulation of Kent, containing the description, hystorie, and customs of that shyre, collected and written (for the most part) in the yeare 1570 (2nd ed.}, London 1730 Description of England (Ed. H. Ellis), London A Brief Historical and Descriptive Account of Maidstone and its Environs, Maidstone The Amateur and the Professional, Antiquarians, Historians and Archaeologists in Victorian England, 1838-1886, Cambridge ' T h e Kenti s h Group of Rude Stone Monuments', Anthropologia, 511-16 'On a Rude Stone Monument in Kent', Journ. Royal Anthrop. Inst., vii, 140-2 Temples in Roman Britain, Cambridge Prehistoric Times (7th ed.), Cambridge 'The Family Memoirs of the Rev. William Stukeley M.D. and the Antiquarian and other Correspondence', Surtees Society, lxxvi 'Long Barrows of Northern England; Structural and Dating Evidence', Scottish Arch. Forum, 2, 1-27 'Chambered Tombs and Non-Me galithic Barrows in Britain', in (Eds.) J.D. Evans, B. Cunliffe and C. Renfrew, Antiquity and Man, Essays in Honour of Glyn Daniel, London, 161-76 'Kit's Coty House', Arch. Cant., lxx, 250-1 Mediaeval History in the Tudor Age, Oxford 'A Standing Stone at Eynsford', Arch. Cant., xciv, 260-2 'The Excavation of a Long Barrow at Nutbane, Hants.', PPS, XXV, 15-51 Nennius, British History and the Welsh Annals, London and Cambridge Collectanea Cantiana: or Archaeological Researches in the neighbourhood of Sittingbourne, and other parts of Kent, London 'Researches and Discoveries in Kent, 1899-1900', Arch. Cant., xxiv, li-lx 'Presidential Address', Journ. Royal Anthrop. Inst., xxviii, 1-31 'Observa ti ons on Kit's C o tty H o u s e , in Kent', Archaeologia, iv, 110-16 Villare Cantianum: or Kent surveyed and illustrated, London 106 THE MEDWAY MEGALITHS IN PERSPECTIVE Philp, B., and Dutto, M., 1985 The Medway Megaliths, Dover Piggott, S., 1935 'A Note on the Relative Chronology of the English Long 1939 1947 1954 1956 1957 1962 1974 1976 1985 1989 Barrows', PPS, i, 115-26 'The Flint Axe from the B a r r o w (Jullieberrie 's Grave)', Antiq. Journ., xix, 267-9 'Notes on some North Wiltshire chambered tombs', Wilts. Arch. Mag., Iii, 57-64 The Neolithic Cultures of t h e Britis h Is l e s , Cambridge 'Antiquarian Thought in the S ixteenth and Sev enteenth Centuries', in ( E d .) L. Fox, Engli s h Historical Scholarship i n the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, Dugdale Soc., Oxford 'William Camden and the Bri tannia', Proc. Brit. Acad., xxxvii, 199-217 The West Ken n et L o n g Barrow E x c a vation s, 1955-56, London, H.M.S.O. Antiquaries, Sale Catalogues of Libraries of Eminent Persons (ed.), 10, London Ruins in a Landscape, E dinburgh William Stukeley, An Eighteenth Century Antiquary, London Anc ient Britons and the Antiquarian Imagin ation, London Piggott, S., and Powell, T.G.E., 'The Excavation of Three Neolithic Chambered Tombs in 1951 Galloway', PSAS, lxxxiii, 103-61 Plummer, C. (Ed.), 1896 Bede, Historiam Ecclesiasticam Gentes Anglorum, London Pool, P.A.S., 1986 William Borlase, Truro Powell, A., 1963 John Aubrey and his Friends, London Pratt Boorman, H.R., 1965 Pictures of Maidstone, Mai dstone Pretty, E., 1863 1966 Kent: a Royal County, Maidstone 'On the Gol den Armillae in the Society's Museum', Arch. Cant., v, 41-4 Roach Smith, C., 1874 'Gold Torques and Armillae discovered in Kent', Arch. Cant., ix, 1-11 1883 Ross, A., 1967 Rowse, A.L., 1950 Rubinstein, S., 1968 Rudge, E., 1824 Russell, J.M., 1881 Saunders, A.D., 1983 Saunders, P., 1981 Seymour, C., 1776 Skelenai', K., 1983 Retrospections Social and Archaeological, I, London Pagan Celtic Britain, London The England of Elizabeth, London Historians of London, London 'Cromlechs at Enstone and Kits Coty House', Gents. Mag,., Feb., 1824, 125-6 The History of Maidstone, Mai dstone 'A Century of Ancient Monuments Legislation', Antiq. Journ., !xiii, 11-33 'General Pitt-Rivers and Kit's Coty House', Antiquity, Iv, 51-3 A New Topographical, Historical, and Commercial Survey of the Cities, Towns and Villages of the County of Kent, Canterbury Archaeology in Central Europe: the First 500 Years, Leicester 107 Smith, I.F., 1965 Stow, J,, 1590 Stukeley, W., 1740 1776 Taylor, J.J., 1980 Tester, P.J., 1956 Thompson, M.W., 1977 1981 Thorpe, J., 1788 Thurnam, J., 1868 1871 Trevor-Roper, H., 1985 Tylden-Wright, D., 1991 Ward, J., 1916 Warman, E., 1969 Warnicke, R.M., 1973 Way, A., 1845 1856 Weever, J., 1631 Wheeler, Sir Mortimer, 1955 Whittle, A.W.L., 1977 Wright, T., 1854 1861 P. ASHBEE Windmill Hill and Avebury, Excavations by Alexander Keil/er, 1925-1939, Oxford Annales, or a Generali Chronicle of England, London (1631, E. Howes Ed.) Stonehenge: a Temple Restor'd to the British Druids, London lt inerarium Curiosum, Centuria II , London (posthumous) Bronze Age Goldwork of the British Isles, Cambridge 'Sarzen Group near Acton Farm, Charing', Arch. Cant., lxx, 256 General Pitt-Rivers, Bradford -on-Avon Ruins, their Preservation and Display, London Custumale Roffense, London 'On Ancient British Ba rrows, espec ially those of Wiltshire and the adjoining Counties (Part I, Long Barrows)', Archaeologia, xiii, 161-244 'On Ancient British Barrow s , especially those of Wiltshire and the adjoining Counties (Part II, Round Barrows)', Archaeologia, xliii, 285-552 Renaissance Essays, London John Aubrey, a Life, London 'The St. Nicholas Chambered Tumulus, Glamorgan', Arch. Camb., xvi (Ser. 6), 239-42 'The Medway Megalithic Tombs,' Arch. Joum., cxxvi, 239-42 William Lambarde, Elizabethan Antiquary, 1536-1601, London and Chichester 'Proceedings of the Central Committee of the British Archaeological Association', Arch. Journ., i, 246-66 'Report to the Central Committee of th e British Archaeological Association', Arch. Journ., xiii, 404 Ancient funerall monuments within the United Monarchie of Great Britaine and Ireland, and the Islands adjacent, with the dissolved Monasteries therein contained, London Still Digging, London The Earlier Neolithic of Southern England and its Continental Background, BAR Supp. Series, 35 Wanderings of an Antiquary chiefly upon the traces of the Romans in Britain, London The Celt, the Roman, and the Saxon, London 108 THE MEDWAY MEGALITHS IN PERSPECTIVE APPENDIX I Kentish Sarsen Stones (Provisional List) Addington: Boulders upon each side of the drive in Addington Park (Coles Finch, 1927, 30, N.G.R. TQ 653588) Aylesford: five or six large boulders removed from the bank of the road leading to the Lower Bell Inn (Harrison, 1942; N.G.R. TQ 744606) Blue Bell Hill: stones lie in many places around the Lower slopes and were once more plentiful (Evans, 1950, 68) A large group behind the Lower Bell Inn (Evans, 1950, 69; N.G.R. TQ 748607) A large group in Westfield Wood (Evans, 1950, 69; Jessup, 1970, 102; N.G.R. TQ 765608 approx.) At Cossington stones were once grouped around the head of the spring (Evans, 1950, 69; Jessup, 1970, 101; N.G.R. TQ 747598) Tottington, stones, some of great size, scattered around the head of the spring (Coles Finch, 1927, 266, Pl., 301; Evans, 1950, 69; Jessup, 1930, 82; 1970, 101; N.G.R. TQ 739606) Four substantial stones interred in pits dug into the chalk (Philp and Dutto, 1985, 11, Fig. 10) Birling: stones by the churchyard wall (Johnson, 1912, 40) Boxley: in Cowbeck and Lord's Woods scattered stones and 'nearly forty huge masses' were broken up (Payne, 1893, 147; N.G.R. TQ 775625 approx.) Canterbury: a burned monolith and a tabular block are at the west end of the nave of St. Augustine's Abbey (Bing, 1949, 119) Charing: a row of stones on an ancient field boundary at Acton Farm (Tester, 1956; N.G.R. TQ 936504) Some large blocks were formerly at the foot of Yew Tree Hill (Payne, 1893, 144) Cobham: a stone in the fabric of the church and a mammilated example in the churchyard (Coles Finch, 1927, 310; Jessup, 1970, 102) At Battle Street, stones, once in a meadow, have long since been removed to houses, farms and gardens (Payne, 1893, 152; Bennett, 1907, 50; Clinch, 1908, 320; Coles Finch, 1927, 309; Jessup, 1930, 83; Evans, 1950, 75; Allen, 1966; N.G.R. TQ 667688 approx.) About thirteen stones, some large, were dug up in a field east of Battle Street, during 1965 (Allen, 1966; N.G.R. TQ 669688) Mammilated sarsen stones were dug up east of the Golf Links Club House during trunk road construction (Coles Finch, 1927, 310, fn.; N.G.R. TQ 699696 approx.) Nine stones at Owlet's Corner and three in the road bank at Jenkin's Corner (Allen, 1966; N.G.R. TQ 665688; N.G.R. TQ 659691) Doddington: substantial stones seen at drive-ends and by the roadside during July,1986 (N.G.R. TQ 927570 approx.) Dode: a substantial stone in the fabric of the church (Johnson, 1912, 40) Eccles: stones found beside the Pilgrims' Way (Harrison, 1942, xxxvii; N.G.R. TQ733616 approx.) Faversham: stones a mile east of the town, at Judd's Hill (Petrie, 1880, 14) Halling: stone(s) in the churchyard (Johnson, 1912, 40) Harvel, Luddesdowne: some thirty stones, in a hollow, were destroyed prior to the Spring of 1918. T he site was in Cockdamshaw Wood (Bennett, 1907, 48 opp., 50; Coles Finch, 1927, 137,296,309; Jessup, 1930, 84; 1970, 102; N.G.R. TQ 656635 approx.) Horsted: a hollow containing stones in Swingate Fall Wood (Payne, 1900, Iii) Kemsing: stone in churchyard (Johnson, 1912, 40) 109 P. ASHBEE Lenham, Warren Street: huge stones lying in the street (Payne, 1893, 130; N. G. R. TQ 927531 approx.) Maplescombe, Kingsdown-by-Wrotham: stones in the fabric of the ruined church (Clinch, 1908, 320; Johnson, 1912, 38, Figs. 9, 10; Elliston-Erwood, 1947, 15; N.G.R. TQ 563637) Meopham: stone in the fabric of the church (Jessup, 1970, 102; N. G.R. TQ 644662) Paddlesworth: a stone in the fabric of the church (Johnson, 1912, 40) Paddlesworth, near Folkestone: possibly a sarsen stone beneath the font (Johnson, 1912, 40) Trottiscliffe: a stone in the fabric of the church (Johnson, 1912, 40; Jessup, 1970, 102). Also a stone in the churchyard Scattered stones in the fields south of Coldrum ( Grinsell, 1953, 194; N .G.R. TQ 652602 approx.) Walderslade: 'hundreds . .. (of sarsen stones) ... grubbed out at Beechen Bank' (Coles Finch, 1927, 302; N.G. R. TQ 767623) APPENDIX II Recent Sarsen Stone Uses and Structures Cobham: the 'dolmen' at Cobham Hall has a circle of large stones upon their sides. They may have been brought from Battle Street. An ice-house, built in 1792, had an entrance partially framed by sarsen stones (Allen, 1966; Daniel, 1972, 42, Ill. 35; Jessup, 1981, 18) At Sarsen Close, Battle Street, a large sarsen stone has been placed at the entrance to a group of modern houses Owletts; the diary of Richard Hayes details how sarsen stones were used as posts, during the eighteenth century Charing: stones taken from the foot of Yew Tree Hill were used to ornament the lake in Eastwell Park (Payne, 1893, 144) Eynsford: a columnar sarsen stone has been set up close by the ford (Meates, 1978) Rochester: mammilated sarsen stones line a path in the garden of the Eastgate House Museum (Coles Finch, 1927, 243, opp. lower, 310, fn.l ) Trottiscliffe: at Coldrum the stone bearing the memorial plaque to Benjamin Harrison has been added to the monument (Harrison, 1928, 333; Evans, 1950, 69) APPENDIX III Attributions, Explanations and Origins (KCH: Kit's Coty House; LKCH: Lower Kit's Coty House; CS: Coffin Stone; WF: Warren Farm; W HS: W hite Horse Stone(s); ALB: Addington Long Barrow; CH: Chestnuts; CO: Coldrum) 1550-1600 William Camden, 1586, 169; as well as subsequent editions and translations: Catigern (KCH); John Stow, 1590, 52: Catigern (KCH); William Lambarde, 1596, 409, and subsequent editions: Catigern (KCH) 1600-1650 John Weever, 1631, 317: Catigern (KCH) 110 THE MEDWAY MEGALITHS IN PERSPECTIVE 1650-1700 Richard Kilburne, 1659, 17: Catigern (KCH); Thomas Philipot, 1659, 49: Catigern (KCH); Samuel Pepys, Diary 24 March, 1669: Catigern (KCH); Richard Blome, 1673, 127: Catigern (KCH) 1700-1750 John Harris, 1719, 31: Catigern (KCH); stone circles (ALB, CH) 1750-1800 Anon. 1763, 249: Catigern (KCH); Francis Grose, 1772: Catigern (KCH); Josiah Colebrooke, 1773, 107: stone circles (ALB, CH); Charles Seymour, 1776, 15: Catigern (KCH); Samuel Pegge, 1779, 113: British (KCH); Edward Hasted, 1782, 177, 227: Catigern (KCH), stone circles (ALB, CH); John Thorpe, 1788, 73: Catigern (KCH); James Douglas, 1793, 181: British (KCH); William Boys, 1794, 41: Catigern (KCH); Edward King, 1799, 210: Druids (KCH) 1800-1850 Edward Rudge, 1824: Druids (KCH, LKCH); W.H. Ireland, 1829, 555, 618: Catigern, cromlechs, stone circles (KCH, LKCH, ALB, CH); S.C.L(ampreys), 1834, 56: Catigern, Druids, cromlechs (KCH, LKCH, WF, WHS); Beale Poste (Evans, 1949, 134), 1841-42: Catigern, stone circles, Druids, British (KCH, LKCH, CS, WHS, ALB, CH, CO); C. Knight, I, 1844, 15: cromlech (KCH); A. Way, 1845, 263: stone circles (ALB, CH, CO) 1850-1900 Thomas Wright, 1854, 172-83: Belgian settlers, cromlechs, stone circles (KCH, LKCH, ALB, CH, CO); C.M. Jessop, 1863, 637: cromlechs (ALB, CH, CO); E.H.W. Dunkin, 1871: British (KCH, LKCH, CS, ALB, CH, CO); J. Fergusson, 1872, 116-21, 305, endmap: Catigern, stone circles, Scandinavia (KCH, ALB, CH); George Payne, 1893, 126, 140: dolmen, cromlech, stone circles (KCH, LKCH, ALB, CO) 1900-1950 George Clinch, 1905: Neolithic, Northern European mainland (KCH, LKCH, ALB, CH, CO); F.J. Bennett, 1907, 48: Megalithic period, dolmens, stone circles (KCH, LKCH, ALB, CH, CO); George Clinch, 1908: Neolithic (KCH, LKCH, CS, ALB, CH, CO); Sir Arthur Keith, 1915, 17: Neolithic, Egypt (KCH, CO); John Ward, 1916, 242: Egypt, Northern European mainland (CO); O.G.S. Crawford, 1924, 3: Cotswold-Severn region (KCH); O.G.S. Crawford, 1925, 68: Cotswold-Severn region (KCH); H.J.E. Peake, 1928, 31: Northern European Mainland (KCH, CO); R.F. Jessup, 1930, 69: Cotswold-Severn region (KCH); Stuart Piggott, 1935, 122: Northern European mainland (ALB, CH, CO); Stuart Piggott, 1939, 268: Northern European mainland (the Medway tombs); V.G. Childe, 1940, 61 (2nd ed. 1947): Northern European mainland (the Medway tombs) 1950- Glyn Daniel, 1950, 161: Northern European mainland (the Medway Group); J.H. Evans, 1950, 79: Cotswold-Severn region, Northern European mainland (the Kentish Megaliths); Stuart Piggott, 1954, 269: Northern European Mainland (The Medway Group of Chambered Tombs); John Alexander, 1961, 18: Atlantic Coast, Holland (the Medway tomb group); H.R. Pratt Boorman, 1965, 175; 1966, 95: Catigern (KCH); R.F. Jessup, 1970, 111: Cotswold-Severn region (Kentish long barrows and megaliths); T.G. Manby, 1970, 21: Yorkshire's earthen long barrows (CH); A.F. Clarke, 1982, 28: earthen long barrows (megalithic monuments in the Medway valley); B. Philp and M. Dutto, 1985, 15: Cotswold-Severn region (the Medway group) 111