EXCAVATIONS AT THE 'OLD PALACE',
BEKESBOURNE, NEAR CANTERBURY*
TIM TATTON-BROWN
With contributions by Andrew Butcher, Nigel Macpherson-Grant.
Pan Garrard, Mark Horton and Richard Reece
One of the least well-known of all the Archbishops of Canterbury's
palaces in Kent situated at Bekesboume 4.8 km. south-east of
Canterbury (Fig. 1). This post-medieval palace, which was once a
large complex of sixteenth-century brick buildings lasted for only
just over a century and today only a small part still remains above
the ground (N.G.R.: TR 193555). Very little has been published
about the palace though Hasted wrote a short account of the history
o f the m anor and its buildings in his famous History. 1 Much more
can be gained from surviving documents (particularly those in
Lambeth Palace) and Andrew Butcher has summarized this history
below, concentrating on the light the documents throw on the buildings
of the palace.
In the autumn of 1976 the Canterbury Archaeological Trust were
approached by the present owner of 'The Old Palace', Mr John
Quine, who told us that the digging of a large sewer trench through
his garden in 1972 had cut through a mass of brick walls and that the
area in question was still partly open and a brick 'tunnel' could still
be traced across the area. On inspection, it was quite clear that a
major drain and several brick wall foundations of the Tudor palace
had been discovered and partly destroyed. The site itself was not a
scheduled ancient monument and, after consultation with Mr. Tony
* This paper has been published with the aid of a grant from the Department of the
Environment.
' E. Hasted, The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent, ix, 2nd
edn., Canterbury, 1800, 268-71.
27
TIM TATION-BROWN
Fig. 1. Canterbury and Bekesbourne - Location Plan.
Musty, of the D.o.E., it was decided to clean up the mess and try
and find what remained of the palace in this area, so that the whole
site could be scheduled.
Small-scale excavations were then carried out on the site in
November and December 1976 with a group of 'job creation
scheme' excavators and a little financial help from the D.o.E.
(Ancient Monuments Inspectorate). Work was then discontinued
due to bad weather and other commitments in Canterbury. Then
during the summer and autumn of 1977 the work recommenced and
we were able to continue our work largely at weekends with volunteers
(no finance was available). The excavations were more protracted
than we expected because underlying the post-medieval
palace levels were the remains of a fine medieval building and below
that some Iron Age and Roman levels. Work finally finished in early
January 1978 when the whole area had been excavated down to the
natural silts of the Nailbourne valley.
The Bekesbourne site lies alongside the river Nailbourne on its
north-western side at about 18 m. above sea-level (Fig. 2).
Geologically the site lies on alluvium which overlies Head brickearth
and Upper Chalk. The natural levels under the archaeological
features were therefore a complicated sequence of chalky silts and
clays.
The excavation itself was 50-100 m. west of the present house
which is built within the surviving sixteenth-century gateho use
28
EXCAVATIONS AT THE 'OLD PALACE', BEKESBOURNE
A
THE SITE--
Fig. 2. Bekesboume 'Village' and the 'Old Palace'.
range, and it was obvious both from the documentary material and
from our small excavation that the whole area to the south-west of
the gatehouse range had once been covered by the main buildings of
the palace. We were fortunate in being able to obtain the services of
Mr. Basil Turton who carried out a detailed resistivity survey of the
whole of the supposed main area of the palace. Unfortunately, the
complications of the natural features in the area made this survey
difficult to interpret.
29
TIM TATTON-BROWN
HISTORY OF THE 'BISHOPS PALACE' AT BEKESBOURNE
Andrew Butcher
The manor of Livingsbourne in the parish of Bekesbourne is known
to have possessed manorial buildings, including a manor house,
from at least as early as the late fourteenth century when it was
owned by a family of London wine merchants called Doget. 2 Little,
however, is known of these buildings. Brief mentions of the house
and its outbuildings at this date record repairs to the barn and pighouse
as well as the provision of lead for the mill, repairs to the
bridges, and a 'cisterna', and the making of a door for the buttery. 3
Though the manor was farmed directly by this prominent London
family its role within the merchants' economy was probably small,
supplying households in London and Sandwich, and there is no indication
that the owners visited their property. If Livingsbourne is
to be regarded as a merchant investment in the countryside, it must
be as a very limited one, and it seems unlikely to have encouraged
any substantial building work.
A change in attitude towards the property probably came after
Canterbury Cathedral Priory took possession in 1443• though, as
lessors of the manor, it may be that they made no considerable improvements
much before the end of the fifteenth century. The evidence
of a lease drawn up on the 3rd June, 1492, however, clearly
suggests that changes had taken place in the second half of the fifteenth
century, 5 changes which may parallel changes noted elsewhere
for the nearby Cathedral Priory manor of Chartham. This
lease of the manor to John Egriden of Eythorne reserves to the
Priory as escheats, forfeits, etc., all rents of assize, and various
other perquisites, and also makes exception, to the use of the
Priory, of 'the hall with rooms and kitchen there, separated from
the rest of the buildings by wall and fence, as well as the ponds
there'. As early as the priorate of William Sellyng, then, there
2 Hasted, op. cit. supra. 269; B.M. MSS Harl. Roll Z. 5, 1365--o6. For refs. to
Doget family as London Wine Merchants see S.L. Thrupp, The Merchant Class of
medieval London, 1300--1500, Chicago, 1948, 337.
3 B.M. MSS Harl. Roll Z. 5, 1356--val
"' 0 IO
16th century
Fig. 6. Phase Plans (Roman, meclieval and sixteenth Century).
41
TIM TATTON-BROWN
in the mid-fourteenth century there was clearly a very considerable
population decline in Bekesboume, and this probably produced the
situation which continued well into the post-medieval period of
Bekesboume being a village with only a church and two manor
houses. Even today the village population is small and most new
nineteenth- and twentieth-century housing was built close to the railway
station or the aerodrome (now disused) and away from the
church. Unfortunately, not enough finds were made on the site to
give an 'archaeological' date to the first medieval buildings that were
found (see below), but a date in the fifteenth century is most likely.
Some fourteenth- and fifteenth-century pottery was found, but
surprisingly little. This is probably because the upper levels of the
site had been badly disturbed by the sixteenth-century palace levels.
The Medieval Building
The first substantial building that was erected within the area of the
excavation was a fine late-medieval building of flint and chalk-block
(Figs. 4 and 6). As it turned out most of this building was within the
area of the excavation and it was possible to reconstruct the whole
of its plan (Fig. 6, middle), which was L-shaped. All of the upper
parts of the walls had been completely destroyed in the sixteenth
century and all that survived in the eastern half of the building were
the foundations of the walls. The south-western wing of the building
had a half cellar and so some of the inside of this part of the
building had survived, showing several phases of use. Elsewhere, no
floors had survived though some of the loose glazed tiles in the destruction
levels on the site may have come from this building. Not
only had most of the levels associated with the medieval building
been destroyed by later work, but also the later brick walls had cut
through or covered the earlier walls.
The eastern part of the building, which was perhaps divided into
three bays, almost certainly contained the hall in the two south-east
bays. Dividing this hall into the putative two bays were a central
pier foundation and opposite it, in the northern wall, another pier
foundation coming out from the wall. On the south side of the possible
hall was the base of a fireplace; the tile-on-edge floor, with
heavy burning on it, had survived under sixteenth-century brickwork
(Fig. 7, S.ection B - H). As a base to this brickwork several
moulded blocks of stone were used. These perhaps originated in the
medieval building rather than the palace. At the north-western end
of the building were three small rooms separated from each other by
42
' ll()Ul'0 c. ......
, .... ,;:.·•··"····
'THE OLD PALACE', BEKESBOURNE 1976-78
------ I CRl..,, _____ _
TRENCH I
-
------- M(o,l.•I Cf<.t.d ---------
"•'-=..:,===, ___ r=== =----====---- === =---- '.===1
Fig. 7. Trench Sections A - D, D - F, J - I, C - E, F - G and B - H.
..... ,.,.,...t
(..,.1o·s,u
TRECJ-1 II
TRf.C"H II
PB&JB
H
•,O1Hlf0 l!"ll 01
_!_ \ ."'-10 ("fll•f WI!
.1, .. 1 • ..-,(C -II
I 1-( 1111
THE OLD PALACE·, BEKF.SBOURNE 1978
PB&JB
Fig. 8. Trench Sections M - L, and K - A.
EXCAVATIONS AT THE 'OLD PALACE', BEKESBOURNE
walls only c. 30 cm. wide as opposed to the outer walls of the
building which were 50-60 cm. wide. Though very small in size,
these rooms may represent the service end of the building which was
divided from the hall by a screens passage. This would mean a front
door on the east side of the northern end of this part of the building.
At the other end of the screens passage would have been the access
to the half cellar, as well as perhaps the way to the first floor above
the cellar, which must have contained the main chamber. In the
medieval destruction level of the 'service end' were found two lead
ventilating panels (25 and 26, II - 4; see report below), which were
exceptionally fine for this sort of medieval building.
The half cellar, as was stated above, has in it several floor levels
(Fig. 7, Sections C - E and C - D).The earlier clay floor ( I - 25) ran
apparently across the whole of the cellar. Then, on top of this was
built a narrow cross-wall, which divided off the south-western third
of the cellar. Another cross-wall, dividing off the north-eastern
third, could also have been built but this would have been destroyed
totally by the massive sixteenth-century brick wall. Another slightly
higher clay floor (I - 15 and 23, and IV - 5) was then built. This
had iron nails on it and traces of staining, which suggested a plank
floor. This floor also covered the earlier partition wall. The cellar
was then filled up a bit more with loam, clay, mortar and some
rubble (I - 14 and 22, and IV - 4) and a final floor (I - 12) was
constructed. Into this floor above the earlier partition wall was set a
small pier. Again another pier, now destroyed, could have lain at
the other end of the cellar. The final fill of the cellar (I - 11 and 21,
and IV - 3) contained bone, oyster shell, some late-medieval
pottery and roofing-tiles. This must have been the early sixteenthcentury
destruction level. The upper part of the building above the
cellar was almost certainly timber-framed (the walls were far too
insubstantial to take anything else) and though it is likely that the
main 'hall' part was timber-framed also, it is possible that the
ground floor walls at least were of stone (flint on the outside and
chalk block covered in plaster, as in the cellar, on the inside). The
fact that there was a fireplace built into the south wall would also
suggest stone rather than timber-framing.
A precise date for this building is difficult due to the lack of stratified
levels, but some of the pottery in the fill of the lower part of the
half cellar may suggest that the building was constructed in the latefourteenth
to early-fifteenth century rather than the late-fifteenth
century. The building was therefore originally perhaps part of the
Doget's manor house rather than the Priors' (see above). However,
it clearly continued in use till the early-sixteenth century and so it
must have been one of the buildings used by the Prior or his
43
TIM TATTON-BROWN
firmarii. It must have been too small for the Prior's 'mansion', so
perhaps it was the domestic dwelling-house used by the firmarius.
The Archbishop's Palace
As we have seen above, the manor of Livingsbourne and its associated
buildings were acquired by Archbishop Cranmer in 1540, and
some time after this, he and the later Archbishops Parker and
Whitgift constructed the 'Bishops Palace' on the site. Today only
the remains of the north-east wing (the gatehouse wing) survive
above ground. In the centre of this wing was the main gateway with,
on its south-east side, the porter's lodge and beyond this the stables.
As can be seen from the plan (Fig. 3), the stables were only of one
storey and hence had only fairly thin walls. Above the stables the
sixteenth-century queen-post roof still remains in part. The rest of
the gatehouse wing still survives to two storeys high, but here only
the nineteenth-century roofs survive. All these buildings are constructed
with red bricks laid in an English bond in thick layers of
yellow mortar. At the south-east end of the stables Caen stone
quoins are still visible and some of the windows surviving in the
porter's lodge are also the original sixteenth-century windows with
their stone surrounds. Unfortunately, the part of the building which
lies north-west of the gateway (the present 'Old Palace') was completely
rebuilt in the nineteenth century and, not only does it have a
1 new roof, but also a crenellation was added to the top of the
sixteenth-century walls and the whole building was covered in rendering.
Also a new wing was built on to the south-west. Only the
thickness of the walls and the small pilaster buttresses on the northeast
side tell us that the basic fabric of this part of the building is
sixteenth-century. To the north-east again is a separate flint and
brick building and, though this, too, has been heavily restored, it
seems likely that this also formed part of the palace buildings. The
fact that the building is on a slightly different alignment (and nearly
parallel to the medieval building in our excavations) and is partly
made of flint may also suggest that it is late-medieval in origin.
South of this building three fragments of walls, which survive in a
modern courtyard (Fig. 3), were also almost certainly part of the
palace. They have the same English bond brickwork as in the main
buildings.
On the outside of the north-west wall of the porter's lodge, and
clearly set into it at a later date, are two stone plaques. On (Plate
V) one is carved T.C. 1552 (clearly Thomas Cranmer) while the
other (Plate VI) has the arms of Matthew Parker. It seems very
44
EXCAVATIONS AT 11-IE 'OLD PALACE', BEKESBOURNE
likely that these plaques were originally set over the archway of the
main gate and when the archway was demolished, the plaques were
moved to their present position.
North-west of all these buildings is an area of walled gardens and,
though these have been heavily reconstructed, they must in part be
the walled gardens ( and orchards) mentioned in the
seventeenth-century documents (see above). It is also clear from the
documents that the largest buildings of the palace must have lain to
the west (south-west) of the surviving buildings and that all these
buildings were demolished in the later seventeenth century. Our
excavations, though limited in scale, bear this out.
Apart from the large brick drain which was discovered before the
excavations began, a series of brick-wall foundations were soon uncovered
(Fig. 4), and it was clear immediately that we were dealing
with only a very small part of two large ranges of the palace (Fig. 6,
bottom). Again the limited area of the excavation and the very extensive
robbing of all the main brickwork meant that it was not
possible to interpret the function of this part of the palace, particularly
as even the floors here had been completely removed.
In the south-west corner of the site, our excavations in Trenches I
and IV (and later V) showed that we had cut across the foundations
of a substantial range of the palace. The main wall foundation here
was 1.40-1.80 m. thick. It was particularly thick where it crossed the
filled-in medieval cellar and where the drain passed through it. The
foundation itself, though containing many broken bricks, had clearly
been built in English bond brickwork just like the surviving gatehouse
range, i.e. two rows of headers (up to six deep) were laid on
rows of stretchers and so on (Fig. 4).
Above ground, the wall was perhaps just less than 1 m. wide (c. 3
ft. wide), and this would allow the range itself to have been at least
two storeys high. The south-west wall of this range was almost certainly
located in the very corner of the trench and, though even the
foundation had been robbed here, it is likely that this wall was also
the same width as its north-eastern counterpart. Running under this
range and badly robbed at its southern end was a well-constructed
barrel-vaulted brick drain (Fig. 7, Section F - G, and Fig. 8,
Section M - L). The drain, which had a brick floor as well, had
very little silt in it and in fact most of the fill was very modern.
Connecting with this drain were two garderobe pits, which contained
little silt in the bottom (I - 4). The garderobes themselves
were perhaps at first-floor level in the range described above. The
drain then ran under a complicated area of brick walls before turning
slightly just before an inspection hole. After this the drain
continued for an unknown distance in a north-easterly direction
45
TIM TATTON-BROWN
under what must have been open courtyard. The inspection hole
was obviously situated in the comer of this courtyard and a small
amount of pebbling survived, (Fig. 8, Section M - L) in the area to
confirm a courtyard surfacing. The drain itself must be connected
with the Nailbourne stream above and below the palace area thus
allowing fresh water to be flushed through it all the time.
Joining the large range mentioned above to another range at right
angles to it (Fig. 6, bottom) is an area, which has a whole series of
brick-wall foundations. Unfortunately, as these foundations were
very fragmentary, few conclusions can be reached as to their function.
It is clear, however, that all these walls were built after the
drain had been constructed and that they appear to exhibit at least
two phases. The largest of these walls (an outside wall with the
courtyard) turns through two right-angles before becoming the main
north-west wall of the range. The other wall of this range on the
south-east side was certainly rebuilt at a later date a little to the west
of its original line making the range narrower. Within the small part
of this range that was excavated was a mass of broken glazed floortiles
(II - 9). These tiles, which probably came from the Low
Countries (see report below), must have been used for the floor of
this range though none were found in situ. In the most easterly
corner of the excavation (Trench II) were found at least two
consecutive layers of gravel metallings (II - 8). This must also
indicate an outside courtyard and the upper of these gravel levels
overlies the earlier south-east wall of the range. Within the excavations
were found various post-holes (Fig. 6, bottom).These were
perhaps used for scaffold posts during building work.
During the later part of the seventeenth century all these buildings
were pulled down and the bricks robbed out and sold.
(Several houses in the neighbouring village of Littlebourne still
show where some of the bricks went). It is unfortunate that this
robbing was so extensive that today modern ground level is almost
certainly below the ground levels of the floors within this part of the
palace. This means that the majority of surviving material and small
finds from the palace were in the topsoil levels, if they survived at
all. It is, however, possible that in other areas of the palace (as yet
unexcavated) much more will survive, and this applies particularly
to the area of the palace nearer the Nailbourne. We hope therefore
that a much more extensive area-excavation of the palace will take
place one day allowing the remains of the great hall, kitchen, long
gallery, wine and beer cellars, etc., to be examined.
46
EXCAVATIONS AT THE 'OLD PALACE', BEKESBOURNE
THE POTTERY
N.C. Macpherson-Grant
Belgic
1. (II - 27) Jar in fairly hard dark grey ware - rim and neck
lightly burnished.
2. (IV - 9) Jar in reduced dark grey ware. Light burnish as l.
Flagon in grey ware speckled with grog. Oxidized
orange-brown surfaces.
3. (I - 19)
Romano-British
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
(II - 7)
(II - 23)
(II - 16)
(II - 27)
(II - 16)
(II - 16)
(IV - 3)
Jar in grey sandy ware.
Jar in oxidized orange-pink sandy ware.
Dish in grey ware with fine sand-temper.
Flanged-rim bowl in dark grey sandy ware - soot
encrusted.
Flanged bowl in light grey grogged-ware, with all
surfaces roughly burnished.
Flanged bowl with ware and surface treatment as
8. Sooted.
Jar in light grey grogged-ware with orange-buff
surfaces. Light burnish on shoulder and inside
rim.
Nos. 8 - 10 were examined petrologically at Sheffield
University by Miss A. Mainman, as part of a larger research
programme into the late-Roman wares in the Canterbury
region and her detailed results will be published separately.
However, it can be safely said, that the form, fabric and finish
of these three vessels are typical of the hand-made late-Roman
tradition in east Kent.
11. (I - 21) Base of Oxford region import in fine light-grey
ware, oxidized pale pink. Dirty brown colourcoat.
Worn.
12. (II - 17) Bowl in fine orange ware with dull red colourcoat.
Two narrow rouletted bands below rim. An
Oxford region import (see discussion).
47
Medieval
13. (II - 29)
14. (II - 6)
15. (II - 6)
16. (I - 8)
17. (I - 8)
18. (I - 8)
19. (II - 17)
20. (II - 25)
21. (IV - 6)
22. (II - 7)
23. (II - 4)
24. (II - 6)
25. (II - 13)
26. (II - 7)
27. (II - 6)
28. (II - 7)
29. (II - 3)
TIM TA TION-BROWN
Cooking-pot in dark grey sandy ware.
Cooking-pot in grey sandy ware with light shelltemper
mostly on the surface.
Cooking-pot in light grey sandy ware mixed with
shell. Pale orange oxidized surfaces. Exterior
sooted.
Jug in light grey sandy ware, with marked inner
rim bead. Dull brown-green glaze.
Cooking-pot in grey-dark pink sandy ware with
sparse shell temper. Sooted exterior.
Cooking-pot in hard light grey sandy ware with
pink-grey oxidized surfaces. Internally !edged to
receive lid.
Cooking-pot in grey sandy ware. Buff surfaces.
Exterior sooted.
Cooking-pot in grey sandy ware with sparse chalk
temper.
Cooking-pot in grey sandy ware. Sooted.
Cooking-pot in oxidized brown-red sandy ware.
Sparse shell-temper mostly on the surface.
Jug in grey sandy ware with dark pink-red
surfaces.
Cooking-pot in grey sandy ware with markedly
everted and hooked rim. Medium shell and red
grit inclusions to fabric.
Jug in dark grey sandy ware, oxidized orange
inside and dark red-brown outside. Brown-green
glaze over two cream painted bands.
Jug in grey sandy ware.
Dish in light-grey sandy ware with oxidized buffpink
surfaces. Two rows of holes, stabbed down
from the rim top, and one below the inner rim
bead, pushed outward. Rim and interior splashed
with light apple-green glaze.
Jug sherd in orange sandy ware. Decorated with
an applied ?-petalled 'rose', covered with a thick
lustrous brown-green glaze.
Jug in light grey hard sandy ware, finer than
above. Rim top bevelled outward to a sharp edge.
48
EXCAVATIONS AT THE 'OLD PALACE', BEKESBOURNE
Late-medieval/ post-medieval
30. (II - 6)
31. (III - 4)
32. (II - 6)
33. (I - 19)
Discussion
Dish in orange slightly sandy ware. Exterior
sooted. Interior covered with a thick, matt
orange-brown glaze. Glaze covers single applied
pipe-clay wavy line, on rim flange.
Dish or bowl in fine hard grey ware. Dark olivegreen
glaze with metallic lustre on underside of
rim and interior.
Jar in fine hard orange ware with orange-brown
glaze inside and on distinctive D-sectioned rim.
Imported Bellarrnine jug sherd in grey stoneware.
Stamped.
The excavated pottery covers most of the archaelogical phases from
the Iron Age to post-medieval. The Iron Age sherds are scrappy but
distinctly different from the flint-tempered wares now known to
slightly precede or accompany traditional Belgic wares on sites in
east Kent. These are therefore somewhat earlier.
The collection of Belgic sherds is unexciting but useful - those
illustrated (Fig. 9, nos. l-3) probably belong to the mid-late first
century A.O. Continuing occupation is suggested by
Romano-British coarse wares, in particular no. 7 (Fig. 9); a form
common in the late-first and early-second centuries A.O. The two \
native copies of flanged bowls and the jar with burnished shoulder
(Fig. 9, nos. 8-10), represent the later Roman phases. Occupation
during this period is confirmed by the two Oxford region imports, in
particular no. l2 (Fig. 9) belonging to Type C75 group of Dr
Young's series,24 and dated by him to A. D. 325 - 400 +.
No Saxon pottery was found in the excavation and the site was
probably not reoccupied until the very late-twelfth, or more certainly
the early-thirteenth century. The very shelly wares of the midlate
twelfth century are absent; nos. 14 -15 and 24 (Figs. 9 and 10)
have only a light shell addition to a predominantly sandy fabric.
Their forms, too, together with those of the accompanying purely
sand-tempered wares (e.g. Figs. 9 and 10, nos. 13, 17, and 19) emphasize
an early-thirteenth century date. The sandy fabrics can all,
presumably, be sourced at Tyler Hill kilns, Canterbury, with nos.
16, 18, 20 -21, 23, and 25 (Figs. 9 and 10); these wares on this site
14 C.J. Young, Oxfordshire Roman Pottery, BAR 43. fig. 62, 164. 166-7.
49
TIM TATTON-BROWN
'
f . . ··5 ·, .. [_ - J
3
4
. . \
15
,
8
9
14
16
7
6
I =, , -•·;,; _ :5
- ·-\ -
=
1.,·:-
-....- .,. .... __ ---- -
,.. - ·--=----.Z.----·
10
l l
1 2
T
.: · - - t --7
·-- .
. - --
13
1----- .. . . . l · : .. ,· i,i,,;y
--- -
·--. +-. r
. . . .. . .
l "-r--'--
17
,a r-- -9 . - . --·:-
Fig. 9. Pottery Drawings, 1-18. (¼)
50
19
7
EXCAVATIONS AT THE 'OLD PALACE', BEKESBOURNE
22
24
7'
20
ill 7-- . . .....
.,
-- I LJ
23
31
21
28
29
\H
25
i======· ::!!=>=:=!,.._, ' 1:-F> ==--:i)
·•'!" C.-; I
26
• ". • __ .. , t • • _ i •. · . ·
7
:. •. .:.'.;)
.. . . • .!-. ·'" ., ... .... _').,,......,,-...:. '
• • v •
... - --
- - .-,,,.;
I
... --=-;?
30
,
32
Fig. 10. Pottery Drawings, 19-33. (¼)
51
TIM TATTON-BROWN
are well into the mid-late thirteenth century. The large dish and jug
rim ( nos. 26 and 27, Fig. 10) are typical of the early-mid fourteenth
century. Sherds from a Saintonge 'lustrous' green glazed jug, an
Aardenburg jug and a Surrey ware measure belong here.
The angularity and hard sandy fabric of no. 29 (Fig. 10) is still a
Tyler Hill type product, and should be late-fourteenth century, tentatively
very early-fifteenth century.
The later and post-medieval phases were not very productive. A
sherd of 'Tudor Green' (white fabric, green glaze, possibly a late
Surrey ware) came from the construction phase of the brick palace.
Of the remainder, nos. 30 -33 (Fig. to), the earthenwares could
belong anywhere between 1550 - 1650, with perhaps an emphasis
towards the late-sixteenth and early-seventeenth centuries. The
latter in particular for the stoneware sherd (no. 33, Fig. 10), but
presumably before 1650. The earthenwares are all unsourced, but
there is no reason why they should not be from the east Kent
region.
Copper Alloy Objects
Fig. 11
THE FINDS
Pan Garrard
l. (2, II - 6) Two fragments, perhaps plate rim; dia: 2 0 cm.
Highly polished internal surface; exterior surface
roughly smoothed with coarse file.
2. (7, I - 21) Sheet strip fragment, 0.70 cm. wide; two rivet
holes, one with a rivet in situ. Could be binding
for small box. (Not illustrated).
3. (8, III - 4) Blank disc; dia: 3 cm., 0.20 cm. thick. (Not illustrated).
4. (10, rv - 9) Small pin with twisted wire head; 3.80 cm. long,
0.05 cm. thick. (Not illustrated).
5. (19, II - 5) Two similar pins as 4. (Not illustrated).
52
EXCAVATIONS AT THE 'OLD PALACE', BEKESBOURNE
'
7 8
1l
12
Iron Objects
Fig.11
···,1 :•;. -
. . . . '- ,·, . . .
6
9
21
16
22
Fig. 11. Small Finds Drawings. (½)
1
I
6. (I, II - 15) Knife, straight upper edge, traces of wooden
handle; part of the blade is missing.
7. (3, II - 16) Key, band around the shaft; heavy corrosion
obscures the wards: probably hollow-shafted.
8. (4, IV - 8) Buckle; spike missing.
9. (5, III - 4) Seven-pointed spur rowel;25 radius 3 cm.
10. (11, II - 17) Heavy sub-rectangular object, very corroded,
(not illustrated).
>s London Museum, Medieval Catalogue, H.M.S.O., 1975, 103 ff., 109, fig. 34,
no. 7. A5018, with six points.
53
TIM TATTON-BROWN
11. (12, IV - 5) Horse-shoe fragment.
12. (13, II - 29) Horse-shoe fragment.
13. (14, I - 21) Horse-shoe fragments. (Not illustrated).
14. (22, +) Tool, possibly a chisel with an off-centre handle
fixture. (Not illustrated).
15. (24, II - 15) Fragment, square in section, apparently blunted
with use at one end; 7 .50 cm. Jong, 1.50 x 1.20
cm. thick. (Not illustrated).
Bone Objects
Fig. 11
16. (6, II - 29) Needle with key-hole eye; tool marks on shaft.
17. (20, II - 12) Piece of worked bone, sharpened to a point;
8.50 cm. long. (Not illustrated).
Glass Objects
18. (9, II - 19) Lozenge-shaped fragment of window _glass,
opaque from corrosion, grosing on one· edge.
(Not illustrated).
19. (21, II - 12) Fragments of plain window glass; grosing on one
fragment edge. (Not illustrated).
Lead Objects
Fig. 11
20. (18, II - 12) Strip of window lead; square in section, pinched
at the mid line: 0.20 cm. thick, 4.30 cm. long.
(Not illustrated).
21 and 22. Two lead ventilating panels of an architectural
(25 & 26, II - 4) character, perhaps fourteenth-fifteenth century.
22. Flat on one side with raised decorative surface
on the other, giving a triangular section: 12.70
cm. square. (Traces of white mortar were found
on their edges). Some similar panels are described
as coming from Clarendon Palace, 26
'• A111iq. Journ.,xvi (1936), fig. 10, 83 ff.
54
EXCAVATIONS AT THE 'OLD PALACE', BEKESBOURNE
Bardney Abbey, 27 Stanley Abbey, 28 and
Hampton Court,29 York Museum collection,3°
but none in quite the same style of tracery.
The 'Rose Window' floor tiles of the Chapter
House, Westminster Abbey are similar, but of
a much more elaborate design.
THE GLAZED TILES
Mark Horton
Plain Tiles
A number of plain tiles were recovered in the excavation. None of
them bore any form of decoration, apart from the use of slip and
glaze.
Group I: Nine fragments of floor tiles (from II- 9 and 17); they
have a bright red orange-pink fabric, with a sand and
grit temper, with a particle size up to 4 mm.; some
have a grey core. There is a medium bevel along the
edge, and there are nail-holes in each comer. One fragment
has a heavy coat of white slip, the others are
plain glazed with colours ranging from mid-brown to
olive-green to yellow. 18.40 cm. square and 2.70 cm.
thick.
Group II: Four fragments (from II - 9 and one from 4); all have
an orange-pink to red fabric, a coarse gritty temper
and a slight bevel. Where nail-holes are visible they are
along the sides, it being likely that there were eight
rtail-holes on each tile. Glazes employed are yellow,
green-yellow and brown-yellow, the latter is used with
a slip, to give a mottled appearance. 3.30 cm. thick.
" Proc. Soc. Ant. Lond., 2nd ser., xxiii (1909-1), fig. I, 366 ff.
'" Ibid., fig. 2, 366 ff.
1
• Ibid., fig. 10, 83 ff.
-'0 L. Weaver, English Leadwork Art and History, London 1909, Figs. 373-4, 219
ff.
55
TIM TATTON-BROWN
Group Ill: Thirteen fragments (from II - 9, 14 and VI - 9);all
have an off-pink maroon-red fabric, and a fine grit
temper. There is a slight bevel and each tile has two
nail-holes in opposite corners. Glazes are bottle-green
to yellow-green. 18 cm. square and 2.80 cm. thick.
Group IV: Six fragments (from II- 9, 11, 12 and 29) of pink-red
brick fabric with a coarse grit temper, and a grey core.
A medium bevel is employed, and four nail-holes are
visible in the centre of each side. The glaze is orangeyellow.
23 cm. square, and 2.80 - 3.20 cm. thick.
Group V: Six fragments (from II - 9, 11, 12 and 29), of a pink/
maroon-red fabric, with a mixed grit temper; a slight
bevel, and nail-holes visible in the comers. A variety of
glazes is employed with slips of white, and a creamywhite
clay, sometimes applied in streaks. Glazes often
bottle-green to browny-yellow in colour. 10.10 cm.
square and 2.70 cm. thick.
Group VI: Four fragments (from Il-4 and 9) of bright red fabric
with a fine grit and sand temper, and a medium bevel.
Tin glaze, nail-holes; almost bricks. 5.20 cm. thick.
Although a number of plain tiles, up to 22 cm. square, have
recently been discovered in medieval contexts in Kent,3' the
Bekesbourne tiles are somewhat later. These tiles all have
nail-holes, :n indicating that they were probably made in the Low
Countries; furthermore, tiles of this size only achieved wide-spread
popularity in the Netherlands in the early-sixteenth century. Tiles
still in situ of this date, and identical to the Bekesbourne fragments,
can be seen at the Princehof Museum at Delft. To find tiles imported
from the Low Countries should occasion no surprise. There
was considerable trade in plain tiles from the late-fourteenth century
onwards into southern England, and it is possible that the tiles were
carried over as ballast. 33
"Arch. Cant., lxxix (1964), 110; lxxxii (1967), 143; lxxxiv (1969), 151.
n These are small holes, fonned by the nails that were used to hold the tile down
during shaping. Tiles made in the Low Countries were sometimes shaped using a
template, and the practice was carried over to the Delft wall-tiles in the seventeenth
century; see, E.S. Eames in A.B. Emden, Medieval decorated Tiles in Dorset,
London and Chichester, 1977, 3.
'' Proc. Hanis. Field Club, xxx (1965), 29-33; Antiq. Journ., xvii (1937), 442;
Proc. Hants. Field Club, xxxi (1976), 23-42.
56
EXCAVATIONS AT THE 'OLD PALACE', BEKESBOURNE
THE COINS
Richard Reece
(15, II - 20) House of Constantine, A.O. 335-45. Copy as
HK 87.
(16, II - 22) Constantine I, A.O. 320-2 RIC 7. London Mint A2
225.
( 17, III - +) Nuremberg token. Hans Krauwinkel. Mid-sixteenth
century Barnard, Germany 84.
(23, +) Small bronze Roman coin; illegible from corrosion.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We must thank first and foremost Mr. and Mrs. John Quine and
their family (particularly Robin who worked on the excavations),
for encouraging the excavations to take place and for providing
many facilities. Paul Bennett has been responsible for much of the
work on site and without his help this report could not have been
written. We would also like to thank all the volunteers who helped
in the work, particularly the boys from St. Edmund's School,
Canterbury, and John Bowen and Jonathan Joy, who drew most of
the plans and sections. All the finds were cleaned and conserved by
Mrs Pan Garrard, while the pottery was sorted by Nigel MacphersonGrant
and drawn by Mark Duncan.
Finally, I must thank Andrew Butcher for his very important
historical conclusion and Beckie Bennett for typing the report.
57
