SALT HILL: A LOST CANTERBURY TUMULUS
By WILLIAM URRY
L? there were no building at aU on the site of Canterbury, the place
might yet be remarkable for a group of tumuli. The most conspicuous
of this group is of course, the Dane John Mound. There are, or have
been, several others. No effort is undertaken in these notes to assess
the archaeological significance of such of the group as are known burial
mounds, but an attempt is made to compile a hst of mounds of which
the existence at some time or other is established, and a case is stated
for the addition of a further mound, " Salt HiU," to the hst.
I. Dane John Mound, or Greater Dungeon.1
II. A crescent-shaped mound outside the City waU on the site of
Canterbury East Station. It was destroyed in 1860 during the construction
of the rafiway. Upon this mound, U the map of Canterbury
in the 1825 edition of Gostling's Walk is to be trusted, there stood a
smaUer mound.
III. The Mound upon which stands St. Mary Bredin's School. It
was lowered in 1783 and flattened to accommodate a building. A
Roman cremation burial was found in it.
IV. Little Dungeon (Dungfil). This is mentioned by William
Somner in 1640,2 and it remained until the nineteenth century. It
stood just within the City waU (St. George's Terrace) between Ridingate
and Newingate, and from what Brent says3 it was at the parish boundary
St. George—St. Mary Bredin. This boundary cuts the Terrace at
a point 55 feet north of its junction with Gravel Walk, and thus
indicates the site. Quite a considerable part of the mound still appears
to exist. The destruction of the houses on the Terrace by enemy
action has disclosed a mass of earth (much cut about by excavations
for ceUars) projecting here, and only here, from the inner side of the
rampart. If this does in fact represent the remains of Little Dungeon,
it shows that this mound must have stood in the same relation to the
City waU as its greater counterpart, the Dane John Mound, abutting
directly on to it.
V. Oaten HiU. This was in existence as late as 1825. Executions
were conducted here until 1799.4 The hiU was of no small size. It was
lozenge-shaped, with a longer axis of as much as 150 feet, lying at
i For a discussion of I-TV, see V.G.H. Kent, III (1932), pp. 77-8 and Arch.
Journ., 2nd series, xxxvi (1930), 236, 272-6.
2 Antiquities of Canterbury, ed. 1, p. 21.
3 J. Brent, Canterbury in the Olden Time, ed. 2, pp. 12, 143.
4 Gostling : Walk (ed. of 1825), p. 28, n. 2.
141
SALT HILL: A LOST CANTERBURY TUMULUS
about 15° from north. The northernmost part occupied the triangular
space in front of Messrs. Seam's Garage at the end of Oaten Hill Place ;
the hop-oast covers the site of the southern section. The mound in its
later stages is shown in the various printed plans of Canterbury as
somewhat eroded away on the east; this was probably due to the
Northciate
Cathedral
MOUMD AT
I XLI -.« ST.AUfiUSTJNK
MOUND IN ^ buraaU A&&6-Y
PRJE-CINCTS
N&wiViaate
Worihaoxa. i s
SS. N R-idmaate.
DUN6E-50 ^
\ \
\
U « =
OATE-N
PAM& JOHN ST. MAR-Y HILL
MOUMD BILE-DIN'S
MOUND OH w SCHOOL SITE Of ya ffoo tooo W.o ^TATIOM 1.11 I 1 1 SCAL6 lit
MOUNDS AT CANTEFLbUrLY
passing London and Dover traffic. lake Little Dungeon, Oaten Hill
also served as a parochial boundary-mark; it defined the extreme
southern corner of St. George's Parish, and theh use in this way would
point to the fact that the mounds are of ancient date, for both parishes
had been delimited by the tweUth century.
VI. The mound in the grounds of St. Augustine's Abbey. Little
is reaUy known of this mound. It is depicted in the plan of Canterbury
by Andrews and Wren (1768), which shows that it cannot have been
formed, as has been stated, from earth dug out during excavations
142
SALT HILL : A LOST CANTERBURY TUMULUS
for the foundations of the Hospital. In its present state it is of considerable
size and it was untfi some years ago much larger. The waU which
retained it along Longport coUapsed after heavy rain, and during
subsequent alterations when the road was widened, a good deal of the
earth on the street side of the mound was scarped away. Roman
deposits seem to occur in the mound.
VII. Mound in the Precincts. This was in existence by c. A.D.
1160. A representation of it, perhaps the earhest diagram of a tumulus
in England, is shown in the Canterbury Psalter.1 Upon it stood the
Cathedral campanile which fell down in the earthquake of 1382. The
mound is shown quite clearly at the bottom of the tower. Excavation
is required to determine the exact nature of both this mound and the
preceding.
VIII. " Salt HiU." At Oaten HiU, WiUiam Somner teUs us, " was
that commodity of oats sometime vented : as in the same place before
Salt was sold, whence the place was caUed SalthiU."2 He gives as
reference Rentale vet. Ecclesie Christi Cant. The archives of Canterbury
Cathedral are pecuharly rich in ancient rentals, and several references
to Salt Hill can be discovered. The hiU meets two requirements for an
identification with Oaten HiU ; both are in the same parish (St.
George's) and the same ward (Newingate). However, upon further
investigation difficulties in this identification appear.
The first occurrence of the name Salt Hill so far noticed is in a rental
which can be dated from internal evidence to within a couple of years of
1165. The ceUarer of Christchurch receives a rent of 2s. per annum
from John, son of Roger Cook for a plot of ground lying in Salthelle.&
This ground, so it is stated, had belonged to Winede Oxe, and lay "without
Newingate towards the east, next to the land of St. Augustine's
held by Hamo son of Roger." In the next holding to the south dwelt
Alderman Alan.4 If Salt HiU were to be identified with Oaten HiU,
this property would lie near the junction of Chantry Lane, Oaten HiU
(the street of that name), and Dover Street, that is, two streets and 800
feet away from Newingate. It is quite clear from the context, however,
that it must be opposite the Gate, and that there is Uttle in between.
l i we assume that the line of houses in Upper and Lower Bridge
Streets between Ivy Lane and Dover Street lay on the same frontage
in the tweUth century as at present, we ought to look in this neighbourhood
for the holdings under discussion. This is an ancient built-up
area. Many houses dating at least to the fifteenth century stood on
1 MS. Trinity College, Cambridge, fol. 284b. The volume was published in
facsimile in 1934.
2 Antiquities of Canterbury, ed. 1, pp. 148-9.
3 Chapter MSS., Canterbury, Rental 31, col. i, para. 91.
* Ibid. para. 92. The wording as to the position of Hamo's holding is
ambiguous. See note 3, p. 144.
143
SALT HILL : A LOST CANTERBURY TUMULUS
this hne until within recent times, and we are probably quite safe in the
assumption that they lay on the same frontage as theh tweUth century
predecessors. St. George's Place is, of course, a comparative newcomer
and dates only from the end of the eighteenth century.
Another rental relating to Canterbury in the Cathedral archives is
incorporated in Register H, and was drawn up at the very end of the
tweUth century.1 We will refer to it for convenience as H2. It deals
inter alia with the same row of plots as does Rental 31.2 These have
naturaUy undergone changes in tenants since the compilation of the
survey of c. 1165. Alderman Alan's hehs now occupy his holding " in
front of Newingate " ; an extra tenement in the possession of one
Lambert has intruded itseU between those of Alan, and Hamo son of
Roger ; this must be due to subdivision of the one or the other. The
holding of John is now in the possession of Simon Chig, and has become
Cathedral property,3 while beyond John, and south of " Lodderelane "
hves Elviva widow of Pardich, paying 25d. at Midlent, and 7d. at the
feast of St. Peter ad Vincula. There is no mention of Salt Hill. The
rental " H2 " is a very remarkable document in that it comprises an
extensive, detailed, and where it can be checked, extremely accurate
survey of Cathedral property in Canterbury held by Gavelkind tenure,
thus providing a remarkable picture of an English borough at the
beginning of the reign of King John.
Another rental, at the beginning of the same register,* here caUed
HI for brevity, was drawn up a little later than the last mentioned,
perhaps just before or just after the great exile of the monks, 1207-1213.
I t does not provide as much detail as H2, but we find that the hehs of
Pardich (altered in another, later, hand to Richard clerk of Milstead)
pay 25d. at Midlent for land at Loddereslane " towards the south, at
Salt Hfil."5
The holding of Alderman Alan, discussed above, can be fixed
approximately as it is described as opposite Newingate. It must
therefore have been at or near the beginning of the present St. George's
i Chapter MSS., Register H, fi. 218a-229b.
2 Ibid. fol. 222a.
3 Due to ambiguity in Rental 31 above, it is possible that the holding of Hamo
Was north of that of John, son of Roger, in which case two tenements have intruded
themselves. Subdivision and amalgamation of tenements went on constantly.
Strictly speaking the tenant of the soil at the lowest level was the owner. The
vendor sold for an initial lump sum (gersuma), retaining a small annual rent.
Property was sold and resold, so many individuals and institutions might claim
an interest in one holding. Perhaps in this case both Churches, St. Augustine's
and Christ Church, drew rent simultaneously.
* Register H, ff. la-16a.
6 ibid. fol. 4b. A point of topographical interest provided here is the fact
that a cross stood in the roadway, in what would be now the centre of the crossroads.
Alan's holding, before which it stood, is said to be in the hands of one
Adam at Cross.
144
SALT HILL : A LOST CANTERBURY TUMULUS
Place. To the north of that holding was a tenement of 14 feet frontage,
according to the renthst H2, in the hands of Lambert, whfie next door
dwelt Simon Chig enjoying a frontage of 22 feet; giving a combined
frontage for these last two of 36 feet. Beyond Simon, and south
of Lodderelane, dwelt Elviva widow of Pardic, occupying a piece of
ground 27 feet in frontage. The Lane was therefore sited 63 feet north
of the Alderman's holding. One of the outstanding facts brought out
by a study of these early rentals is that in a great many instances the
ancient property boundaries can still be traced upon the ground plan of
modern Canterbury. The frontage of Elviva was, as has been shown,
27 feet, and the combined frontage of her two neighbours to the south
36 feet. These are the dimensions of two adjacent premises at the
required point in Bridge Street to-day.1
If the identifications are accepted Alan's dwelling is then placed
almost exactly where we should expect; it covered most of the breadth
of St. George's Place and the premises on the northern corner.
A difficulty is raised by a relevant group of deeds in the Cathedral
archives. The deeds fall in date just after the first compilation of HI,
and before the revisionary notes were added ; one of them records the
sale by Walter son of Robert Sheepshank (Szepeszange) of Dover to
Walter son of Roger of Iffeld of land at Salt HiU " without Niewingate "
which belonged to Elveva of SaltheUe widow of RanduU.2 The frontage
is given as 35 feet instead of 27, though it is clear from rents and names
specified that it is the same piece of property as that held by Elveva
in H2. Another3 deed concerns the further sale of this property at
Salthfil outside " Neuhingate " from Richard son of Roger of Hiffeld
to Richard the clerk, son of Martin of Milstede. The same measurement,
35 feet, is given as the frontage. In both cases the boundary to
the north is given, not as Lodderelane, but as the holding of Robert Pret.
The explanation might be that the frontage of 35 feet includes the
width (8 feet) of the lane, which was some sort of private alley.
It now remains to determine the nature and precise site of Salt hiU.
It was not a natural feature. There are no hills worthy of the name for
haU a mile or more. It was fairly smaU, it is clear, as it acts as a
land-mark in a quite closely defined position, and as far as can be
judged from available evidence (as given below) it lay between the town
waU and a row of houses not more than 120 feet away, in which distance
considerable space must be aUowed for the town ditch. Its name
1 The more northerly (Elveva ?) is a bombed and derelict 17th century building
(divided into three shops) with a mansard roof. The other (Messrs. Twyman's
newer department) seems to represent the holdings of Lambert and Simon.
1 Chapter MSS., Charta Antiqua, No. C. 1190. Elveva's complete title,
assembled from all the sources must have been : Elveva of Salt Hill, widow of
Randulf Pardic.
3 Charta Antiqua No. C. 1191.
145 13
SALT HILL : A LOST CANTERBURY TUMULUS
indicates very clearly that it was a mound of some sort, and, since smaU
natural mounds are not met with in this locahty, we may infer that it
was artificial. The word " hiU " is appUed regularly to the Canterbury
mounds.
The first element in the name is correctly explained by Somner.
The register of St. Augustine's Abbey places a Martin the Salter
(Sceltere) here in the thirteenth century.1
We can perhaps decide the site of Salt HiU with more precision. It
lay sufficiently near Elveva's holding to supply her with a surname.
L «& ui
o V >-
— r \& ^ cO dl
Ul
Oi y.
vt
U
w ^H
Previous
Previous
Smythe's Megalith
Next
Next