KAS Newsletter, Issue 111, Spring 2019

Wrotham Sheerness East Farleigh A straight-tusked elephant From medieval palace garden to bowling green The Royal Dockyard: Where are we now? MAAG update Found at Upnor in 1911 THE OLDEST AND LARGEST SOCIETY DEVOTED TO THE HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE ANCIENT COUNTY OF KENT № 111 Spring 2019 05 18 28 24 FRAGMENTS OF HISTORY ROCHESTER CATHEDRAL’S 02 | Kent Archaeological Society PresidentDr Gerald Cramp Vice PresidentsMr L.M. Clinch Mr R.F. Legear Hon. General SecretaryClive Drew secretary@kentarchaeology.org.uk Hon. TreasurerBarrie Beeching treasurer@kentarchaeology.org.uk Hon. Membership SecretaryMrs Shiela Broomfield membership@kentarchaeology.org.uk Hon. EditorTerry G. Lawson honeditor@kentarchaeology.org.uk Hon. CuratorDr Elizabeth Blanning elizabeth.blanning@kentarchaeology.org.uk Hon. LibrarianRuiha Smalley librarian@kentarchaeology.org.uk PressVacant NewsletterRichard Taylornewsletter@kentarchaeology.org.uk WELCOME FROM THE EDITOR Welcome to the Spring 2019 Newsletter. Following a relatively quiet winter, we have an issue packed with a variety of fieldwork, historical research projects and discussion. The Letters to the Editor section has taken off in this issue with members commenting on previously featured articles; this extended discussion is a long-term aim of the Newsletter and one, I hope, the Membership continues. What also struck me when editing this issue is the number of articles – and their associated projects – that have utilised and benefited from the survey equipment purchased by the Society in 2018. This investment in new technologies will continue to have a positive impact on much of the survey and fieldwork carried out by the Society and affiliate groups. Nowhere has this aim been more evident than at the recent survey of Badlesmere Bottom Field at Lees Court Estate, a probable candidate for one of the most extensive volunteer magnetometry surveys undertaken. Students from the University of Kent and KAS members from affiliate groups worked tirelessly, using the KAS survey equipment and learning new skills in the process, to survey approximately 250,000 square metres of agricultural land, the results of which are a feature on pages 15–17 of this issue. For me, the best way to increase the Society’s membership is continued engagement and learning – get people involved, try new activities, learn new skills and make contributions to our County’s fantastic archaeological and historical heritage. Members wishing to make use of the survey equipment need only contact the survey team at geophysics@kentarchaeology.org.uk The Newsletter remains an outlet for this fantastic heritage and the tremendous work going on out there. I continue to encourage as many members as possible to think about writing articles and help inform the broader historical and archaeological community of what is taking place in our heritage-rich and diverse County. Please continue to forward articles or notices to newsletter@kentarchaeology.org.uk. Enjoy this issue. Richard Taylor The editor wishes to draw attention to the fact that neither he nor the KAS Council are answerable for opinions which contributors may express in their signed articles; each author is alone responsible for the contents and substance of their work. Front cover image courtesy of Jacob Scott. Winter 2018 | 03 CONTENTS FEATURES From Medieval Wrotham Palace Garden to Bowling Green Adisham Mill: Romano-British Temple and Ritual Landscape Badlesmere Bottom Geophysical Survey Sheerness Royal Dockyard Fragments of History MAAG 2019 at East Farleigh Darent Valley Landscape Partnership Scheme The Context of the Palaeolithic Straight-Tusked Elephant Conserving ‘Powerful Symbol’ of Nazi Invasion Threat The Dutch Gables of Kent Spoons, Flags and Heroes Revising the Definition of Treasure in the 1996 Treasure Act 05 08 15 18 21 24 26 28 33 36 38 41 № 111 Spring 2019 6 mi. 10 km 27 18 05 28 24 36 21 15 38 08 33 26 President’s Column Letters to the Editor Books An Interview With... Nigel Macpherson-Grant Cobham Landscape Detectives Membership Matters Notices REGULAR 04 10 11 12 27 35 43 04 | Kent Archaeological Society Spring 2019 | 05 After the process started by my predecessor, Ian Coulson, the KAS became a Charitable Incorporated Organisation (CIO) on 1st January 2019. As mentioned in my previous column, members were informed that the Society’s old bank account would close and from 2019 the subscription should be paid into the new bank account. While many members did send their subscription to the correct new account, the Society’s membership secretary, Shiela Broomfield, has been working hard to correct the many errors that have occurred when subscriptions have been credited to the wrong account. On the same date, the Society’s revamped website was launched successfully. Donation to the Society During last year the Society was given a significant volume compiled during the first decade of the Society’s existence. Originally the volume belonged to E M Gibbs of Clarendon Cottage, Gravesend who pasted newspaper reports of the Society’s annual meetings from 1858 until 1868. Somehow the volume found its way to the West Country and has been donated to the Society by Caroline Marsham of Herefordshire. The Society must also thank David Everett of Worcester for arranging the gift and undertaking some family history research on Edwin Gibbs. PRESIDENT’S COLUMN By Gerald Cramp FROM MEDIEVAL WROTHAM PALACE GARDENTO BOWLING GREEN AboveFig 1: Ruins of the Archbishop’s Palace at Wrotham, E. Hasted 1782 This historic site between Wrotham Church and the medieval Archbishop’s Palace at Wrotham is now used as a bowling green by the Wrotham Bowls Club. The ruined palace building is shown in print on Wrotham as published by Edward Hasted in 1782 (1st edition of his History of Kent, volume 2, page 235) (Fig 1). Recently, one member of the Wrotham Bowling Club became very interested in the history of its home site after a search on the net using “Wrotham” and “bowling green” as search arguments. He was surprised to be referred to an article from Hasted’s History. Further enquiries by members of the club, much of it undertaken in the Kent History and Library Centre (KHLC) in Maidstone have uncovered a fascinating history of the site. Hugh Hornby, the author of Bowled Over: the Bowling Greens of England published by Historic England (2015) believes that the Wrotham Green is the tenth oldest green in England. Moreover, research undertaken by the garden historian, Sally Jeffery, has shown that the walled enclosure surrounding the green and the enclosed area was the middle part of a three-part garden scheme set out during the seventeenth century. The Manor of Wrotham was owned by the Archbishop of Canterbury from the 10th century until it was surrendered to Henry VIII. Wrotham Palace was one of several linking Lambeth Palace, the London home of the Archbishops of Canterbury, with the palace at Canterbury. To the west was Otford Palace and to the east was Maidstone Palace. The distance between Otford and Maidstone was about a day’s ride, making the palace at Wrotham superfluous. In the middle of the 14th century, Wrotham Palace was pulled down and Harris, in his History of Kent published in 1719, records that “about 350 years ago, Archbishop Islip pulled it down and carried the materials to Maidstone to complete the palace there.” The ruins and the site to the east of the parish church continued to be owned by the church until they were surrendered to Henry VIII in 1537. The remaining buildings and gardens were acquired as part of a dowry by James Byng in about 1557 who later sold the property to William James of Ightham shortly after 1649. This estate remained in possession of the James family of Ightham Court until at least 1847. This estate is the subject of a survey of 1568 and plans of 1620 (Fig 2) and 1759 (Figs 3 & 4). The 1568 survey describes the land briefly around the manor house, and more information is Her Majesty’s Government is consulting on proposed changes to the Treasure Act 1996, its associated Code of Practice and the process for finds that may be treasure. The Council of the Kent Archaeological Society discussed this consultation at its meeting on the 23rd of February and decided that the membership of this Society should be consulted directly. I have been asked to submit the Society’s comment using online submission. The full document can be viewed by Googling “treasure act consultation” and following the link where it says “documents”. It is 41 pages long with 144 paragraphs and thus not easily condensed into a few notes. The stated aim is to improve the treasure process so that it is more efficient, that it is focussed on the aim of preserving significant finds for public collections and that it is more rational and easier to understand. Since 1997 the success of the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) and the increase in interest in metal detecting has seen treasure cases rose from 79 in 1997 to 1,267 in 2017. Most of the document seeks views on the technical operation of the Treasure Act 1996 including reporting a find, the definition, the valuation of treasure and the acquisition by museums of treasure. The last part of the consultation (paragraphs 136 to 143) concerns the long term future of the treasure process and its sustainability. I have included paragraphs 141 and 142 as they may be viewed as having long term implications for the KAS and all archaeological societies. 141. Our aim, therefore, is to have a treasure process that supports the intention of the Act and encourages positive behaviour. In order to continue its success, however, the process must have a sound financial underpinning. 142. To this end, we are putting forward several initial suggestions as to the basis of discussion on the future form of the treasure process. These are: • the introduction of a process similar to that in Scotland, whereby all archaeological objects become the property of the Crown; • strengthening educational outreach to the full spectrum of the metal detecting community in order to encourage the proactive reporting of finds and adherence to the Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting and the treasure process; and • the introduction of a regulation as in Northern Ireland where archaeological digging of any sort (both by professional archaeologists and others) is only allowed by permit. These proposals have the potential to have a significant impact on archaeology in England and Wales, especially that carried out by archaeological societies such as the KAS. Further details of the proposals are given in an article in this issue of the newsletter (page 41). Gerald Cramp, President Consultation on Proposed Changes to the Treasure Act (critical) 06 | Kent Archaeological Society Spring 2019 | 07 TopFig 2: Detail from J Hine map 1620 MiddleFig 3: Wrotham 1759 Edward Hodges. CKS-U681_P8 detail ce BottomFig 4: 1759 plan CKS-U681_P8 detail of annotation(2) TopFig 5: Interpretation of magnetometry data. Yellow denotes archaeological anomalies and red denotes modern services MiddleFig 6: Magnetometry data BottomFig 7: Resistivity data – red is high resistance, green mid resistance and blue resistance given on the map of 1620 by John Hine. This survey identifies “the Stone Garden” (now the bowling green), “the Kitchen Garden” and “the Lady Pembroke Walke”. To the south of the Stone Garden in the 1620 map is a representation of the remaining palace buildings. These features can be seen in the extract from “A Plot of parte of the Manor of Wrotham in Kent” preserved in the KHLC (U681 P31). The bowling green is first identified in another survey produced by Edward Hughes in 1759. This survey is also preserved in the KHLC (U681 P8). Hasted in 1782 tells us that “the palace stood adjacent to the east side of the church-yard, there are hardly any remains left of the house itself, though there is a large substantial stone building once part of the offices belonging to the palace and in which I imagine the Byngs dwelt whilst in possession of this manor and estate. In the field behind the ruins are the marks of a garden, a bowling green and terras round it, still plainly visible.” The remains of the palace can be seen in Hasted’s illustration of 1782. Hasted shows a tower similar to that shown in the map of 1759, and to the left, an arch can be made out which could be that which survives today in the south wall of the bowling green. The statement about the bowling green is repeated in publications of 1790, 1798 and Ireland in his History of Kent, 1829. However, it has been difficult to find later references to a bowling green until 1971 when the following statement appears in the souvenir programme for the Wrotham Festival. “Until recently it (the Bull Hotel) had a bowling green behind it with a magnificent garden encircled by a rag (stone) wall.” Aerial photographs of 1929 and 1964 show the area of the bowling green, but it is not clear whether bowling is being carried out. A photograph of about 1930 shows a group playing a ball game in that area. The original planning application of 1986 to make the site suitable for bowls was headed “Re-use of former bowling green and formation of car parking area within rear garden”. The first task of the Bowling Club was to bring the existing surface within the walled area up to modern standards. Fortunately, no excavation was undertaken, and thus any remaining archaeology was preserved. The surface was levelled with about a foot of suitable foundation sand and soils. The Bowling Club would like to hear from anyone who has information on the use of this site before 1986. Contact can be made via the Wrotham Bowls Club website. The present club, the “Wrotham Bowls Club”, has leased the site from the Bull Hotel since 1988 and have had many seasons of successful bowling. Unfortunately, the club has been given notice to leave the site by the owners (the Bull) when the current lease runs out in September of this year. The bowling green is surrounded on all four sides (some of which are grade II listed) with walls constructed mainly of Kentish ragstone. The upper parts of each wall have been extensively repaired, but the lower courses may contain remnants of medieval or 16th-century craft. In the centre of the wall on the south side of the green are the remains of an early archway which may be that shown to the left of the tower in Hasted’s print. These walls have been the subject of several detailed articles by Sally Jeffery and Andrew Skelton in the last few years. Two articles can be found on the Wrotham Bowls Club website. She concludes that the walled garden which now houses the bowling green is the middle part of a three-tiered garden which was probably created during the Byng occupation of the site during the 16th century and labelled the “Stone Garden” in the 1620 map. Sally Jeffery suggests that the “Stone Garden” may be identified as the view shown in the background of an anonymous portrait of circa 1615 which is traditionally said to have belonged to the Byng family. The view shows a walled garden with an internal arcade. In the centre are two parterres separated by a fountain on a circular base. In March, the Kent Archaeological Society undertook separate magnetometry and resistivity surveys of the bowling green in an attempt to discover the central circular base. The results and interpretations can be seen in Figs 5, 6 and 7, both surveys indicating the presence of significant archaeological anomalies that are the likely remains of the “Stone Garden”. A full geophysics report will be published shortly on the KAS website. Acknowledgements:Thank you to John Townsend for conducting the resistivity survey and the Wrotham Bowls Club for their hospitality during both survey days. 08 | Kent Archaeological Society Spring 2019 | 09 During early 2017, the author, whilst searching the newly released Google Earth Satellite coverage of East Kent, noted what revealed to suggest a previously unknown and rare in Kent, Romano-British Temple (Templum) site, within a ploughed field on a broad Upper natural chalk ridge (British Geological Survey) adjacent north to the former 19th century site of Adisham Mill (Fig 1), and close up (Fig 2). The site is situated at TR 20568-54712 (centred), at an elevation of 60m AOD. The site occupies the northern gentle sloping side just below the hill summit that rises to 68m AOD. This location affords an uninterrupted panoramic view to the north, east and west of the monument and would have been seen for several miles in most directions. The site lies within an arable clay-with-flints field enclosed on its northern axis by Adisham Road, Shepherds Close Road to the west and the Bramling Road that bisects the hill 55m south of the temple. The former Romano-British town of the modern City of Canterbury (Durovernum Cantiacorum), lies 6.7km to the NW and the site of a Romano-British settlement (ARCHI UK), now the village of Adisham, 2.2 km SE of Adisham Mill. The main Richborough to Canterbury Roman road (Margary route 10) is situated some 3.28km north of the site and the Dover to Canterbury Roman road (Margary route 1a) 2km to the west. The local hinterland has been carefully observed using Google Earth by the author since its release in 2002. Some 600m south of the temple, at least two ADISHAM MILL ROMANO-BRITISH TEMPLE AND RITUAL LANDSCAPE By Vince Burrowsring-ditches were noted in 2013. However, closer observation within the new 2017 image reveals three ring-ditches, with a further ring-ditch that appears to represent a Neolithic causeway monument (Fig 3), all discussed below. In September 2018, the author organised a geophysical survey of the temple site that, despite dry soil conditions, produced a reasonable ground-truthing image supporting the Google Earth view that indicates some extensive plough erosion. The results suggest the site has been systemically robbed of building material with no indications of remaining in situ structural materials either from the central tower, Cella or the surrounding ambulatory or veranda (Figs 3 & 4). Conspicuous in its absence, field-walking by the team failed to produce any contemporary building material or associated pottery. The temples measurements taken from the satellite image are approximate: The outer ambulatory measures 15m x 15m, the central tower (Cella) On the opposing south side of the hill 597m from the temple, are an additional cluster of three ring-ditches with two further south. Varying in size, they measure between 11m to 27m. Close by, measuring 18m in diameter, a monument resembling a Neolithic Causeway enclosure with three entrances is visible. At the centre, a curious 2.85m2 rectangular feature could represent a ritual platform (Fig 5). During 1773, six barrows were recorded at two locations adjacent to the road close to the former Adisham Mill site, (Faussett 1856). Although none of these are currently visible in Google historical imagery, recent Faussett map research by the author and Keith Parfitt has enabled the location of all six former barrows to be securely located. Dover Archaeological Group holds this analysis. On the opposing south side of the hill 597m from the temple, are an additional cluster of three ring-ditches with two further south. Varying in size, they measure between 11m to 27m. An unknown feature 98m north of the temple consists of two curious rows of presumably post-pits forming an arrow-shaped feature orientated north and measures 67m in its entire length (Fig 6). Bramling road is worthy of some note; connecting the hamlet of Bramling near the village of Wingham (known for Romano-British occupation including a villa), potentially alludes to a former Roman route. Leaving Bramling the road traverses Adisham Mill hill before descending the gentle southern slope and continuing in straight sections, doglegging at three intervals passing Cold Harbour Farm (a name synonymous with Roman roads), before connecting to the Dover to Canterbury Roman road alignment. Adisham Downs holds an important ritualistic landscape spanning the Bronze Age to the Anglo-Saxon period. Several fields surrounding the features mentioned above currently remain obscure from Google Earth historical imagery due to crop type. Opposite pageFig 1: Aerial view of Roman-British Temple siteTop rightFig 2: Close-up of aerial view Second rightFig 3: Geophysical survey results of the site Third rightFig 4: Interpretation of geophysical survey results Fourth rightFig 5: Aerial of possible Prehistoric monument Bottom rightFig 6: Aerial view showing unknown feature to the north of site8m x 8m and the colonnades spaced at 2.56m. There is no visual evidence for steps alluring to the position of the portico. Directly south 1m from the templum, two ring-ditches measuring 8m and 9m in diameter both indicate central inhumations oriented east-west. Situated 259m to the north, a single ring-ditch measures 12m in diameter and just south a further ring-ditch indicates a central inhumation and measures 7m in diameter. At least seven scattered inhumations are situated near the temple. Up to ten further randomly scattered burials, more or less facing east-west, can be observed north of the temple site. Viewed as a broad dark band, boundary ditches enclose or cut through the site (Fig 1). A large enclosure is present 195m north of the temple and probably dates to the Iron Age. Due west is many enclosures, likely to date from the Iron Age to the Romano-British periods. BibliographyARCHI UK 2018. www.archiuk.com accessed 9th Nov 2018. British Geological Survey, Canterbury. Sheet 289, Solid and Drift Edition. 1982. Faussett.B 1856, Inventorium Sepulchrale, (ed C. Roach Smith), London. p144. Margary I.D., “Roman Roads in Britain “. 3rd Edition Nov 1997 Acknowledgements:Firstly our gratitude to the landowner Robert D.E. Spencer, Garrington Farm nr Canterbury for his kind permission to access his property to survey the site. Keith Parfitt for help with Rev B Faussett research and the geophysical survey team: Elissia Burrows (Osteo-forensic Archaeologist), Emily Brown (Archaeologist), David Earnshaw, Marilyn White and Darcey Burrows (aged 7). 10 | Kent Archaeological Society Spring 2019 | 11 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Dear Editor, I was interested in reading Kerry Brown’s article on literary links in Kent featured in the Winter 2018 Newsletter 110, but I expect I am not the only one to have spotted one or two misapprehensions. The author seems to have given E Nesbit an extra first name, referring to her as “E H Nesbit”; she had only one first name – Edith. It is also puzzling that Kerry Brown mentions only E Nesbit’s link with Yalding, where the family went for holidays. Her Kent connections extended much wider that, and much of her life as spent in the county. The happiest part of her somewhat peripatetic childhood was the three years when they lived at Halstead Hall (not as grand as it sounds), near Sevenoaks, a house which is still there. The tunnel at nearby Knockholt station inspired one of the incidents in her best-known book, The Railway Children. After her first marriage she lived in Blackheath, Lewisham and Lee, and then for 22 years at Well Hall, Eltham (all then in Kent), before she and her second husband built a house at St Mary’s Bay, where she died in 1924; she is buried at St Mary in the Marsh church. There has been some confusion over the education of Siegfried Sassoon, who did not attend Sevenoaks School. He was a pupil at The New Beacon, a preparatory school (still flourishing) in Sevenoaks, from where he went on to Marlborough College. However, his family home, Weirleigh (where he was born in 1886), can still be seen just north of Matfield, a typically fanciful Victorian pile prominently situated next to the road from Paddock Wood. He retained a great fondness for the house and the surrounding countryside, which inspired Memoirs of a Fox Hunting Man and many of his other works. The article might also have included Frances Hodgson Burnett, who was inspired to write The Secret Garden after visiting the walled garden at Great Maytham Hall, near Rolvenden. Yours sincerely, Karin Proudfoot Dear Editor, Your correspondent Victor Smith on p24 of the Winter 2018 Newsletter 110 asked for “dowsing readers to share their experiences”. In response, I can happily tell him that dowsing is alive and very well in East Kent, particularly in Charing, where dowsing has been used to plot many Roman features. This summer President Gerald Cramp visited one of our sites in the centre of some 50ha. of archaeology. Because of the large area involved our modest sized Charing Archaeology Group uses any and every non-invasive technique available. Dowsing is the quickest technique and is the most accurate (down to 1–2 cm) but is not self-recording. We, therefore, flag up features we find and then laboriously survey with tape and box sextant – very old fashioned. If, however, our neighbour Paula Jardine Rose comes to our aid with her GPS and Resistivity Equipment then we can record much quicker. Gerald witnessed our efforts this summer when we had started to confirm by excavating. As to magnetometry we have been assisted by Canterbury C.Ch but have run into trouble with the high metal concentration (mostly Roman nails) and need to rerun the results over about a hectare. We have also used GPR but ran into software problems. So please reassure Victor that dowsing may be laborious, but it works very well. Any old wire even barbed wire works and I have used it for many years. My father used hazel when on campaign in India when his troops needed water. Together we competed to find drains and so on at a time when I went off excavating under the late E.J.W.Hildyard of the Cumberland and Westmoreland Antiquarian Soc. in the early 1950s. So my message to Victor is that dowsing works well and will not let you down. However, if you need to publish any results and have not yet excavated then try to use one of the three electronically based systems. Yours sincerely, Tim Bain Smith Dear Editor, Thanks for another feature packed Newsletter. Referring to Victor Smith’s piece in the Winter 2018 Newsletter 110 concerning dowsing. I am not a dowser and was very sceptical until the Isle of Thanet Archaeological Society trip to the Avebury area some years ago. A member took his copper rods and dowsed around the interior of the Avebury circle without any result. Upon climbing up to the West Kennett long barrow, he got a reaction in front of the entrance. Unconvinced I asked to have a go and was surprised at the strength of the rods reaction as I walked past the entrance, the rods swinging around to the maximum possible. I did a return with the same result. I am now a believer even if I cannot explain it. Best wishes, Gordon Taylor Dear Editor, I am responding to the article by Victor Smith in the Winter 2018 Newsletter 110 concerning dowsing. When I first discovered I could dowse, some 40 years ago, I needed proof that what I thought was under the ground was, indeed, there. Luckily, the Dartford District Archaeological Group let me loose on a Saxon burial site they were excavating. I soon found I could find adult inhumations and this led on to visiting other groups for further dowsing experience. Over the years, I have honed my skills and can detect most below-ground anomalies. I no longer work for archaeologists, instead working for construction companies as I can cover a site looking for anomalies far quicker than any electronic equipment. In Victor’s article, I liked the reference to Bill Penn as a trained specific. He should have taken things further as he could have discerned brick, flint, timber foundations and the approximate date of construction. Hoodening is an ancient calendar custom unique to East Kent, involving a wooden horse’s head on a pole, carried by a man concealed by a sack. The earliest reliable record is from 1735, but other than Canterbury solicitor Percy Maylam’s seminal work The Hooden Horse, published in 1909, little serious research has gone into the tradition. George Frampton has rectified this, by taking Maylam as a starting point then cross-referencing dozens of newspaper reports, census records and other accounts – including several from Archæologia Cantiana – to build a comprehensive picture of who the Hoodeners were, why (and where) they did it, how it related to other folk traditions, and why the custom appeared to die out from time to time. He then goes beyond Maylam to look at the ‘demise’ of Hoodening in around 1921, its widely heralded ‘revival’ in 1966 and discovers that this narrative is quite misleading, as several Hooden Horses were still active throughout that period. He includes descriptions of the current teams and supplies plentiful appendices detailing past participants, BOOKSI worked on a site for a day with a nationally renowned archaeologist. He knew dowsing worked, but you would never see him with a pair of dowsing rods; peer pressure was holding him back. Similarly, I have been written up in the New Scientist journal, but the article explains that dowsing is all about a nervous reaction and nothing more. The scientist in question told me off the record that he believed dowsing worked, but the article in question would not have been published if he had said as much. Nevertheless, these days, I am a professional water diviner, and last year alone I carried out more than sixty assignments for clients. Interestingly, these clients, all of whom are successful in their fields, all know about the potential efficacy of dowsing. If any members of the KAS would like to be introduced to this fascinating subject, please get in touch at J.Baker864@btinternet.com, and I will happily arrange a workshop. Yours sincerely, John Bakerand places visited, songs performed, events on Hoodening’s timeline, and the horses themselves. Full indices make it easy for modern Men and Maids of Kent to check whether their ancestors might have been involved, and detailed references make this an invaluable resource for social historians too. The book features over 70 full-colour illustrations. Format: Royal Octavo hardbackPublished: 1 December 2018ISBN: 978-0-9931587-7-3Length: 250 pagesAvailable: All good booksellers (offline and online), or direct from the publisher (see www.ozaru.net) Discordant Comicals: The Hooden Horse of East Kent 12 | Kent Archaeological Society Spring 2019 | 13 AN INTERVIEW WITH… RT: How would you describe the role of a ‘ceramicist’? NMG: To date what you are looking at! Sorry – that may sound a bit blunt, but although these days, a series of radiocarbon or other scientific dates can provide reliable chronological signposts, excavations do not always produce suitable material. Also, though undeniably essential, they can be expensive. So, if one cannot date pottery adequately oneself – a ceramicist is one’s first port-of-call. However, it is more than that. It’s knowing how to examine pottery - what to look for in terms of fabric, form and decoration, and condition. If a cluster of flint-tempered sherds you’ve just picked up from a field are unworn and fresh-looking – you’ve got a Prehistoric site under your feet! It’s also about knowing how to assess a new group of pottery accurately – its relative academic value, how to draw and photograph any rims, decorated bits properly – either as part of a reference archive for future researchers and standard publication should it warrant such. Also to determine whether it needs conservation and restoration and then how to store it properly and when necessary, display it or teach others about it. RT: And tell us briefly about your archaeological journey to becoming a ceramicist. NMG: When young, I worked on a farm for a while and couldn’t help but pick up pottery or flints turned up in the plough furrow, on the damp freshly harrowed field – so wanted to know more. The process began when I was employed in 1970 by the Powell-Cotton Museum, Birchington – to help catalogue and draw the finds that had been collected from Minnis Bay and elsewhere. But as a ceramicist for real – by accident really – when I joined the Canterbury Archaeological Trust in 1977, the then Director, Tim Tatton-Brown, gave me the job of cataloguing and dating the pottery from their excavations. Ultimately, with the help of Marion Green and the sadly late Andrew Savage we built up Fabric Reference and vessel-form collections – the former now known as the Kent Fabric Reference Collection. And I became an independent analyst in the early 2000s. RT: What is it that ‘pots’ can tell us about a site, and about material culture in general? NMG: Its likely date. The longevity of occupation or activity at that location – was it single-period and occupied over only a few generations, or multi-period and used over many? Whether field-walking or excavating – is there only a modest area-spread of sherds or features suggesting an isolated farmstead or is there a wider spread with concentrations of material suggesting a village? Are there loads of pottery, some of it warped and twisted – indicating a kiln, a pottery workshop? Does this cluster of Late Neolithic Grooved Ware or Early Bronze Age Beaker sherds mean we have another ceremonial or settlement site? With Prehistoric and Saxon handmade pottery particularly – a pot’s relative quality of production can say a great deal or raise interesting questions - for instance, Early Neolithic pottery is often well-made, but sometimes you find examples that are thick-walled and clumsy. Does this imply a quick ad hoc production made under difficult circumstances by newly arrived people from the continent – or was it a clumsy attempt to copy by a contemporary indigenous Mesolithic person? Studying pots helps to understand changes in pottery production technology over time, changes in fabric ‘recipes’, vessel forms and decoration and usage. Also, they raise interesting questions like why are particular cultures associated with specific sets of these. For instance, why do some cultures have lots of decorated ceramic and others not? Early Bronze Age Beaker pottery and eastern Kentish Early-Mid Iron Age polychrome-painted ceramic are major when it comes to this aspect. More mundanely, recognising travelled or imported wares because of differences in fabric and shape compared with what was obviously in regular use locally, helps Nigel Macpherson-Grant Ceramicistdetermine the degrees of human interaction, trade or exchange over time and as a result, sometimes their relative wealth – social or financial. Also, where pots are involved, determining what are ‘placed deposits’ is always high on excavation agendas, particularly with Prehistoric pottery, merely because they signpost something special, symbolic, subtly numinous – and therefore of relevance in determining belief systems. RT: What has been your most memorable ceramic artefact? NMG: Mm! Oddly enough, on a sunny late winter’s afternoon in 1970 – a small humble little brown Medieval Canterbury sandy ware handled drinking-jug, lying on its side with traces of its content ‘trickling’, frozen in time, out of its mouth, up against a burnt wattle-and-daub wall and maybe fallen from a shelf onto a clay kitchen floor – and all under a spread of burnt daub and roof-tile because the house had been destroyed by fire in 1385 AD when the French raided the port town of Stonar, near Sandwich. RT: What are the biggest challenges currently facing the role? NMG: The fortuitous, head-in-hands photograph of me taken at a recent workshop [over the page] expresses it all! Primarily – there is a lack of experienced in-County ceramic analysts with a specific interest in Kentish material. Also, there are too few properly-trained illustrators. At present, there are only four experienced analysts – one specialising in Early Prehistoric and Mid Bronze Age ceramic, one in Later Prehistoric, one in Roman and one in all periods but specifically Prehistoric and Saxon-Medieval. Three of the latter can draw their material. There are also several good but very part-time illustrators. Apart from myself – none of these are actively engaged in illustrating pottery on a reasonably regular basis. This means that there is an in-County shortage of people who can adequately examine the considerable quantities of un-published assemblages, determine their relative value and, if necessary, draw any new academically useful material. There is also a shortage of funding for such work since most of it is currently outside the remit of mainline contract or research archaeology. It is even finding the time to adequately train up people who can do such work or act as follow-on analysts or draughstmen in a specific area – most experienced analysts these days, whether in-County or extra-mural, all have virtually full-time work-loads. In a way though, this is a built-in blessing – it takes time to become experienced, and it’s only over time that that knowledge or ability can be taught. RT: Are you fearful or optimistic regarding the transition of this highly specialised role to future generations? NMG: Both – in a way! ‘Fearful’ because we live in a pressured, rather divided and needy world. It is also highly IT orientated. The latter can definitely be a blessing – but it can also grab, over-focus and disassociate from the natural and still beautiful home-world we have all around. As a result, there is a danger of loss of respect for the environment – and for the past. Dr Alice Roberts, in her The Incredible Human Journey, did us all a favour at the end of her TV series by stressing the underlying, permeating unity that we all share. If it hadn’t been for their tenacity, courage against many difficulties we would not be here - literally. Archaeology is not just about bits; it’s about respect for our ancestors and their abilities. It is, almost, a way of saying ‘Thank you’. While the majority of us did not ask to be born, I feel it is our responsibility to respect that legacy, their ‘heirloom’. ‘Optimistic’ because there are still many people who are interested in the past to some degree – often found in the most unexpected places, shop floors, hospitals. People love finding things, want to know. Why? Personally, I think, there is often an unconscious need to re-connect with something deeper – a need that should not be suppressed by the rigours or pressures of the world we now live in. I was amazed once by a lady, in her 30’s, 40s, coming to the Canterbury Trust and her looking at all the pots we had on display in the Pot Room – she 14 | Kent Archaeological Society Spring 2019 | 15 was in a state of genuine awe. The same awe embraced another lady more recently when she was handling whole Early Bronze Age Beakers. So – while I agree that not every sherd or heap of same is an automatic ticket to a magical journey ceramics are, if one lets them be, a signpost to that ‘something deeper’. Anyway, as long as we do Archaeology, or feel the need to do so, ceramics – merely because they are the most prevalent surviving artefact type – will always be crucial in determining the date of a site. RT: Do you think the KAS can play a role in this possible transition? NMG: Yes – absolutely. But maybe ‘how’ – and with more specific reference to ‘what’, could be the subject of a future review? RT: What is the coverage of the county’s ceramic reference knowledge like, in your view – are there any gaps geographically or periodically? NMG: Inadequate. We do have the usefulness of the Kent Fabric Reference Collection in Canterbury – but it needs upgrading (I believe there is an intention to do so). New material needs to be added from recent work in other parts of the County. Like the answer above – could this be reviewed separately? RT: How are you currently intending to help encourage a greater knowledge of ceramics? NMG: At the moment I am training up a chap in Thanet to replace me – so that there will be at least one locally-based person who knows what’s what – and where to go when he doesn’t. I’m helping another in the Canterbury-Dover district who is already proving to be a keen ceramicist. My numerous spot-dating visits to the KCC’s Community Archaeology group at Shorne have helped its members become more familiar with what they find. I visited the Sittingbourne Archaeological Group recently to discuss how they could take their work further. Helping so-called amateur groups to become less so – to know what they have and what they could do with it, is something I’m keen to see furthered. As part of a recently initiated concept – Ceramic Thanet – I have given several hands-on orientated workshops, mostly as a chronology-based introduction to regional pottery but also how to illustrate it. These were appreciated – and I’m similarly keen, over time, to see these furthered. I’d like to provide short illustrated articles for future issues of the Newsletter about unusual ceramic aspects or topics. RT: Lastly, given that pots are so crucial to so many excavation reports, how would you inspire readers to take a greater interest in ceramics? NMG: Difficult, that one! It depends on one’s perspective. Maybe for some, it’s just sufficient to know what period and the associated dating. Okay, no worries, but if you want to go deeper and know more – the journey begins there. I think it helps a great deal to realise that a pot, sherds, are not ‘dead’ objects. All matter is energy vibrating at different rates – just because a rock in the countryside or sherds on a table are still, apparently inanimate, does not mean they are not ‘alive’. At a molecular level, they are energy made into substance, now in a state BADLESMERE BOTTOM GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY By Richard Taylor and Fred Birkbeck During February 2019, the KAS Survey Team were tasked to carry out a magnetometry survey of Badlesmere Bottom Field, adjacent to St Leonard’s Church, Badlesmere, a part of Lees Court Estate (Fig 1). As mentioned in Clive Drew’s article, ‘Badlesmere Church – clues to a forgotten landscape?’ (see 107; pp.34-7), we know there has been a church at Badlesmere since Norman times and Hasted visited the area, mentioning changes in crop colours that may indicate the remains of buried structures nearby. The survey aims to enhance knowledge of this potential archaeology and add to the ongoing KAS research of the Lees Court Estate Project. With this aim in mind, undeterred be variable weather and an abundant bean crop, a regular turnout of volunteers from the Faversham, Maidstone and Shorne Woods Archaeological Groups, students from the University of Kent, North Downs YACs and numerous KAS members worked together to survey approximately 250,000 square metres of agricultural land over three weeks (Fig 2). The results demonstrate a range of anomalies with the potential for multi-period activity (Fig 3). Once the data was geo-rectified and processed, an analysis of the apparent anomalies was discussed amongst members of the Fieldwork Committee, resulting in the following interpretation of potential targets for further investigation (Fig 4, over the page):of decay maybe, but in transition – and thus part of the great flow of Universal energy. People are too, so nothing is separate. Sorry, a bit philosophical but I think it is essential – unless people realise the implications of that primary unity there is no real respect. Also I think there is an art aspect here that acts as a stimulant, mentally or artistically – the intriguing decorated Jomon pottery of Japan (c.12,000 BC), exquisitely painted plates from Arpachiyeh, northern Iraq (c.6000 BC), the marvellous painted pots and figurines of the Ukrainian Tripolye giant-settlement culture (c.5000-plus BC), our own Late Neolithic Grooved Ware (c.2800 BC-plus), European and British beaker pottery, Cretan Minoan snake-goddess pottery and contemporary Aegean murals, Classical Greek black and red Attic ware, Chinese ceramic of all ages but particularly the vigour and vibrancy of its painted porcelains – and much more. All these are a rich heritage, a gift to feed the senses – not to be thrown away. All those grubby little sherds we often see or handle are, directly, indirectly, part of that great flow – they have their place in their too. Images courtesy of Paul Hart. TopFig 1: Location of Badlesmere Bottom FieldBottomFig 2: Badlesmere Bottom looking east 16 | Kent Archaeological Society • Nos 2,3 & 4 are magnetically positive (i.e. trenches or ditches with soil infill) linear anomalies suggesting boundaries or enclosures of an unknown date. It is interesting that they are close to No 24, which we know, from the indentations on the ground surface, is a probable disused chalk quarry. An evaluation trench linking all four anomalies should confirm their purpose/function and demonstrate any stratigraphic relationship (Fig 5). • No 14 appears as a circular feature measuring approximately 30 metres diameter that looks as if cut by Nos 2,3 & 4, suggesting the latter are later in date. Given the Prehistoric circular features discovered in nearby Stringmans Field, it is possible No 14 may be similar. • Nos 8, 12 and 13 are tantalising as they are closest to St Leonard’s Church and may account for the changes in crop colours and the remains of buried structures nearby, mentioned by Hasted. Nos 8 & 12 are magnetically positive linear anomalies similar to Nos 2,3 & 4 and have the characteristics of boundaries or enclosures, perhaps surrounding an early building. However, 13 is a circular feature measuring approximately 20 metres diameter that appears attached to No 8. Whether or not No 13 is a further Prehistoric circular feature or something later associated with Nos 8 & 12 will only be solved by an evaluation trench. • Nos 4 & 5, and 6 & 7 are linear pairs that may suggest any number of archaeological features, from Prehistoric to Post-Medieval. Nevertheless, both pairs are significantly wide, measuring 15 to 20 metres apart, and given their probable length of approximately 50 metres; it is thought they may have a Prehistoric origin, perhaps even the remnants of long barrows. • Finally, Nos 10, 11 & 15 are again magnetically positive anomalies. These are interesting because No 10, a single linear anomaly appears to lead directly toward No 15, a circular feature measuring approximately 20 metres diameter and again, similar to the Prehistoric circular features discovered in nearby Stringmans Field. Both Nos 10 and 15 are bisected by No 11, a further single linear anomaly. At this stage, confirmation of the age or function of any anomalies discussed above is not possible. However, as a general working hypothesis, Badlesmere Bottom Field exhibits the characteristics of a Prehistoric landscape with probable Medieval and Post-Medieval features imposed upon it over time. The next phase of the investigation will involve excavating evaluation trenches over the targets mentioned above to further enhance our understanding of these anomalies, their potential further study, and the broader contribution to the ongoing KAS research of the Lees Court Estate. All excavation opportunities and dates for this next phase will be advertised on the KAS website https://www.kentarchaeology.org.uk/ and posted on the KAS Facebook Page @theKentArchaeologicalSociety1857 shortly. Acknowledgements:We are indebted to Lady Sondes and Phil Stutt for their patience and permissions to access Baddlesmere Bottom Field. Thank you to Lis Dyson of Kent County Council for the loan of an additional magnetometer during the period of the survey, and thank you to all volunteers who worked tirelessly without whom the survey would not have been completed on schedule. Top, leftFig 3: Raw magnetometry data Top, rightFig 5: Evaluation Trench This pageFig 4: Magnetometry results with annotated features NORTH 18 | Kent Archaeological Society Spring 2019 | 19 SHEERNESS ROYAL DOCKYARD... WHERE ARE WE NOW? The situation was not good at that time. Over fifty listed buildings had been demolished in the 1960s and 1970s. Casualties included the Great Quadrangular Store, once the largest industrial building in Europe and scandalously demolished in 1978 (although its timber clock tower survives). Another loss was the wooden wall ship Cornwallis, built of teak in Bombay and going into service in 1813. Somehow, she survived until 1960 as a hulk and was then dismantled, albeit with some difficulty due to her massive construction. Most of the former dockyard is owned by Peel Ports who acquired it in 2006, and being a commercial port is a secure area without, sadly, any public access. By Richard Holme Outside the secure area and accessible therefore is the superb Naval Terrace, restored to a high standard and in full use. Pevsner notes it as being like “being in Woburn Square.” The other extant terrace Dockyard Terrace, comprising five elegant houses within the secure area of the port was sadly in poor condition at the time of my 2000 visit, with its gardens having been converted to a lorry park. In 2003 the Terrace along with other notable adjacent properties (including the palatial Commissioner’s House) in the 4-acre former officer’s residential quarter was sold by the port to a London based property developer. The properties were well constructed, and similar properties at Chatham Dockyard had previously been refurbished and successfully brought back into use. Six at Sheerness were listed Grade II* and four Grade II. The developer proposed inter alia building modern residential blocks alongside the Georgian buildings and providing access by driving a road through the dockyard wall. Feelings ran high locally, and Councillors refused planning permission despite a recommendation by planning officials to accept. One Councillor commented that the dockyard wall had survived Hitler’s efforts attempts to demolish it by bombing, so why should this speculative project do so? In 2011 the Spitalfields Trust acquired the Georgian quarter at the cost of £1.85m. The buyout was described as “one of the greatest heritage rescues of recent years”. All but one of the ten buildings had been empty and unoccupied for the best part of a decade. Since then all the properties have been restored to a high specification. I was fortunate recently to visit one of these, the Boatswain’s House. Another developer acquired the Dockyard Church, a Grade II* listed building built initially built 1826/8, although gutted by fire in 1881 and rebuilt. This developer proposed building twenty-two flats within the Church and an enabling development close by of five terraced houses. Planning permission was given for this in 2008, but the developer did not proceed. In 2001 the Church had been burnt out in a severe fire, and although today it is still in a mostly derelict state, great news in 2013 was its acquisition by the Spitalfields Trust. It was then transferred to an associated charity the Sheerness Dockyard Preservation Trust – www.sdpt.org.uk – which has secured £4.7m of Lottery funding to convert this interesting building into a community centre. Matched funding is still needed. It is also planned to display parts of Rennie’s Dockyard Model there, a substantial structure covering 1600 square feet and currently stored at Fort Brockhurst near Portsmouth. The Church is a vital element of the Officer’s Quarter, and this entire area will be sensitively conserved. The Grade II* listed Working Mast and Boat House (built 1823/6) in the secure area of the dockyard was threatened with demolition in 2012 when Vestas were looking to develop a wind turbine construction facility, creating 2,000 jobs. However, for business reasons the project was cancelled. Currently, within the secure area of the port, there is much concern at the condition of the Boathouse, Grade I listed and completed in 1860. It is quite possibly the most important dockyard building in the UK. Looking, subject to its poor condition, as though it was built much more recently, the Boathouse has a structural frame of iron rather than traditional bricks and mortar. Opposite, leftFig 1: Aerial view c.1971 with Officers Quarter at to (author)Opposite, rightFig 2: The Boathouse in 2003 (D. Hughes Collection) TopFig 3: Naval Terrace and Dockyard Church (D. Hughes Collection) MiddleFig 4: Hulk of the Cornwallis, 1956 (D Hughes Collection) BottomFig 5: Commissioners House and clock tower of Quadrangular Store (author) The Royal Navy closed the dockyard in 1960, leaving behind a superb complex of historic buildings mainly from the Georgian era. The engineer John Rennie Senior (1761-1821) planned new designs for most of the Dockyard which was rebuilt between 1813 and 1830. From 1960 to the present day the former dockyard has been operated as a commercial port, and in June 2000 I made my first visit. 20 | Kent Archaeological Society Spring 2019 | 21 This represented a leap forward in industrial architecture, and its frame made it in many ways the precursors of modern skyscrapers. Its unique character was explained in a BBC ‘Inside Out’ programme last year, though sirens from port security disrupted filming. Another worry is the former Military Hospital built in the 1850s and threatened recently with demolition until it was the subject of emergency listing. The case underlines the need for historic buildings to be listed, where appropriate. The situation at Sheerness can be contrasted with continuing success at the larger dockyard at nearby Chatham which closed in 1984. The Victorian extension there is used successfully as a marina and commercial port whereas the precious Georgian area was given over to the Chatham Dockyard Historic Trust. At Sheerness the various Georgian buildings have enjoyed less success although for many the future now looks secure and exciting. LeftFig 6: Dockyard Church 2014 (author)Top, rightFig 7: Boatswain’s House 2014 (author) Bottom, rightFig 8: Dockyard Terrace 2014 (author)Hopefully, a purpose can be found for the many historic buildings and docks still currently, lying empty and in a state of decay. The writer is newsletter editor of the Naval Dockyards Society – www.navaldockyards.org – and if you would like a free copy of our newsletter covering the Sheerness Boathouse, email on richardholme@btinternet.com FRAGMENTS OF HISTORY ROCHESTER CATHEDRAL’S STORY IN STONE, GLASS AND THREAD In 1820, work was underway to renovate the Great West Window under the architect Lewis Nockall Cottingham. Many sculptural decorations were removed from the spandrels; the areas either side of the arch of the window. Leaving the partially-weathered stones in place would have resulted in their continued decay and jeopardise the structural integrity of the sixteenth-century window below. Cottingham decided to sketch and record them as they were removed. Other fragments were discovered throughout Cottingham’s renovations to the cathedral in the 1820s. In 1825 the tomb of Bishop John de Sheppey was discovered, blocked up with rubble including several late-medieval stone fragments that are thought to originate from Sheppey’s chantry chapel. Further architectural fragments were removed, unearthed or discovered throughout the nineteenth century. By Jacob Scott TopFig 1: Romanesque relief removed during restoration work on the Great West window in 1820 BottomFig 2: Over 50 stone fragments and other medieval items are on exhibition in the cathedral crypt throughout 2019 Throughout 2019 the crypt of Rochester Cathedral is hosting an exhibition of some of the finest sculptural fragments gathered from around the building over the last 200 years. 22 | Kent Archaeological Society Spring 2019 | 23 TopFig 5: Two fragments of an early thirteenth-century lavabo bowl, only recently discovered reused as a garden feature at a local property Bottom, leftFig 6: 3D model of 4,000 visible masons’ marks in the nave, crypt and east end. This model features in upcoming KAS publications Bottom, rightFig 7: Scale photograph of a mason’s mark at Rochester cathedral The exhibition also features many other medieval treasures from its collections and a presentation on recent researches at the cathedral. Regular readers will be aware of the discovery of the east range of the Early Norman cloisters in a radar survey at the beginning of 2018. The form of the east end of the late eleventh-century building was confirmed in excavations in 2014. A virtual 3D model of the locations of over 4,000 twelfth and thirteenth-century masons’ marks was completed at the beginning of this year. This extensive sequence has been used to understand the construction history of the building in the twelfth century. This will be the first time that these stone fragments have been made accessible to the public. Entry to the exhibition is free and will run until the end of the year. We request that groups of 10 or more book in advance through the cathedral website. For more information visit: www.rochestercathedral.org/fragments These stones were gathered together in the Slype of the crypt at the turn of the last century, although would later be dispersed as the area was given over to vestries. In the 1980s a long-term friend of the cathedral Anneliese Arnold was responsible for gathering the stones together into a room with purpose-built shelving. The Lapidarium collection has grown over the last century to include fragments unearthed by the gardeners, discovered during various archaeological or construction works, or even found reused as garden features. Today the collection comprises over 400 stones ranging in date from the eighth to the nineteenth centuries. It includes two of only four sculptural fragments to be recovered from Anglo-Saxon Rochester and a tufa fragment with a surviving portion of a twelfth-century mural. TopFig 4: This Romanesque has a confused history - photographed outside the west front in the nineteenth century but may have originally been part of a twelfth century shrine BottomFig 3: Enigmatic and extraordinarily fragile vesment comprising peacock and other bird feathers, its provenance and date are currently unknown though possibly medieval 24 | Kent Archaeological Society MAAG 2018 AT EAST FARLEIGH In 2018 MAAG returned to an area of land at East Farleigh that became a focus of attention in 2013 due to a reference on the 1961 ordnance survey map to a Roman building, (remains of), on this 3-acre piece of land. Twenty-six test pits were dug in 2013 with a mechanical digger across the area that was free of trees. These trenches did not reveal the presence of a Roman building but did reveal some archaeological features in two of the trial trenches. These features were further explored, but no more extensive excavations were undertaken at the time. The first trench (number 16), was found to hold a single almost complete pot in a dark grey fabric By Stephen Clifton LeftEast Farleigh whole siteRightMagnetometry surveycontaining cremated bones in a grey-brown clay soil matrix. This pot was found upright in a shallow gully, [411], running roughly east/west. The pot was later dated to 60BC/50AD and is described as courseware in a glauconitic fabric thought to originate on production sites in the vicinity of the Loose oppidum only a short distance south of East Farleigh. No other finds were recovered from this trench. The other trench (number 17), contained a burnt feature, in a roughly oblong shape, 1.23m x .78m, with the flue extending beyond the extent of the trench. This feature consisted of reddened and blackened scorched clay, and a single piece of pottery, tentatively dated to the fifth century AD. In 2018 the trench was re-exposed and extended to the north, south and east. This second visit yielded another two features. Both of which appeared to be ditches beneath the oven-like feature. Subsequent pottery analysis has shown these features to be late Iron Age or possibly early Roman, (50 BC to 60 AD). The first of these ditches, [845], runs roughly east/west and is cut into the gault clay and chert natural layer, and was traced for a distance of 5m, and was quite shallow at an average of 320mm. It was filled with an orangey brown clay very similar to the surrounding natural layer. This feature appears to run parallel to the gully feature observed in 2013 in trench 16. Spring 2019 | 25 The second ditch runs approximately NW/SE at a depth of 320mm and has a distinct slot cut into the base about 320mm wide. The fill is a similar orangey brown clay and chert mix. The base is flattened and dug to the natural ragstone. It has been suggested that this ditch profile could be associated with a beam-laid wall, or the foundation cut for a timber palisade fence. These new features were a revelation because we had not seen any sign of similar features in the other test pits and wondered whether we could have missed any. Partly in anticipation of the 2019 season, and partly for insurance, we decided to undertake some survey work on this area of the site. Over three unseasonably warm days in February, a resistivity survey and a magnetometry survey were carried out on the site, avoiding the heavily wooded areas and those not accessible due to undergrowth or modern builders rubble. Almost 430 square meters were surveyed using both methods. The results are tantalising. Both LeftResistivity surveyRightTrench diagrammethods produced extremely noisy results. This is probably due to the previous use of the ground for growing hops, which involves metal retaining devices screwed into the ground to support the hop poles and wires. These iron fixtures have turned up all over the site and generate spikes in the readings. The Magnetometry meter produced several anomalies that can clearly be seen, most notably a squarish feature, of approximately 20m x 20m, almost in the centre of the site to the east of our excavated trench. Besides this feature, two other curving anomalies could be ditches, one to the South West and the other running off the square feature to the east. The resistivity survey was if anything even more confused. We were not expecting much from this, because the trial trenches had not thrown up anything to suggest buildings on the land. However, there are many swirls of high and low readings that must be geological, but two areas of interest were revealed. On the northern edge of the survey area on the edge of the first 30m grid, is a right-angled anomaly of high signal that looks as if it is worthy of further examination. Also, there is also an area of a low signal at the far edge of the second square that looks like a squarish feature, coincidentally occupying a similar position to the large feature in the Magnetometry survey. The survey results have certainly given us some targets to aim for in the forthcoming season. If anyone would like to come and join us this year, they would be warmly welcomed. We usually dig on a Sunday from 10 am til 4 pm, and we will be starting the season around Easter, the exact date will be confirmed on the MAAG blog at www.maag.btck.co.uk. Alternatively, contact at Stephen.clifton@talk21.comor 07709 237355. 26 | Kent Archaeological Society Spring 2019 | 27 DARENT VALLEY LANDSCAPE PARTNERSHIP SCHEME As part of the recently launched Darent Valley Landscape Partnership Scheme (DVLPS), a large-scale partnership scheme focused on conserving the valley’s uniquely rich history and natural character, a series of over 40 integrated projects which explore and celebrate the historical and cultural heritage of the scheme area, which stretches between Dartford and Westerham, are in their early stages of implementation. In particular, the project aims to connect people to the unique Darent landscape through its historical connection with the Victorian artist Samuel Palmer, who lived in Shoreham and called the valley his ‘earthly paradise’. Amongst the project’s broad aims is the goal for local communities, professionals and delivery partners to participate in heritage conservation activities and apply new skills and knowledge to care for the local landscape. Led by the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), with Kent County Council acting as the hosting authority, the project has been awarded a grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund of £2.1 million, which along with additional funds, including from the European Regional Development Funds Interreg 2 Seas Programme, totals a £4 million scheme which will run until at least summer 2022. Six projects centre specifically around the scheme’s Historic Darent Valley theme and incorporate archaeological elements: • Peeling Back the Layers (2A): commissioning a high-resolution LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) survey of the valley to interrogate and explore the local landscape By Anne Sassin • The Darent Valley’s Hidden Roman Legacy (2B): communicating the importance of the villas and landscape during the Roman era to a broader audience, including undertaking fieldwork and community excavation at Lullingstone Roman Villa and other sites • The Surviving Castle – Eynsford’s Hidden Treasure (2C): opening Eynsford’s Norman ‘enclosure castle’ to a wider audience by improving signage and interpretation, as well as providing opportunities for further archaeological investigation in the surrounding fields • The Hidden Palace – Otford’s Own Hampton Court (2D): stabilising the north-west tower of the former Archbishop’s Palace and undertaking further restoration and interpretation at the site, in addition to further geophysical survey and possible excavation. • Royalty and Silk – Lullingstone Castle’s Buried Secrets (2E): undertaking geophysics (magnetometry) and community excavation of features within Lullingstone Castle, including a possible sunken Tudor kitchen garden and inner moated gatehouse, as well as condition survey, restoration work, improved access and interpretation of the flint bath-house and adjacent ice house on site • Gunpowder and Paper – Remembering a Working River (2F): working with Dartford Museum and other local organisations to research, record, restore, conserve and interpret the remaining features of the Dartford Powder Mills For 2019 the projects which will be at the forefront are 2A (LiDAR) and 2B (Roman Legacy). AboveFig 1: LiDAR image of Lullingstone Working with our partners Blue Sky International and the Interreg 2 Seas ICAReS project, the scheme is currently in the final stages of generating valley-wide surveys utilising laser technology and subsequent imagery provided by both LiDAR and digital photogrammetry, visual tools which allow vegetation to be stripped away and/or provide accurate 3D models of the landscape (see Fig 1). Such innovations are particularly appealing to new audiences, and a group of ‘landscape investigators’ are intended to be recruited who will go into the field and use the online portal to explore the images created and ground-truth features identified. An online interactive mapping portal, featuring the imagery, will be made available on the DVLPS website and is expected to be launched by later 2019. Following initial geophysical survey in February and March, a community dig is planned in the pasture meadow at Lullingstone immediately north COBHAM LANDSCAPE DETECTIVES Despite the blustery nature of March’s weather, the Cobham Landscape Detectives have been hard at work, both indoors and outdoors! Indoors we have been working with pottery specialist Nigel Macpherson-Grant to date the extensive pottery assemblages collected by the project. Highlights have included Saxon pottery from our excavations on the hollow way in Cobham Woods and evidence to date medieval occupation both in Cobham village and to the west at Jeskyns Court. We have also identified activity at Owletts that dates from the late Iron Age to the end of the Roman period. An almost complete absence of medieval pottery from the Owletts site may help confirm the presence of Medieval woodland to the north and west of Cobham village, referred to in medieval documents as Battles Wood? One sherd of Roman pottery from the southern edge of the village suggests that there is also Roman activity in the fields to the south, confirmed through fieldwalking as well. By Andrew Mayfield Outdoors, the landscape detectives have been using some of the oral history testimonies collected by the project team to investigate the wartime and post-war use of the RAF camps in Ashenbank Woods. The oral testimonies can be read on our website. We have chosen two of the huts to investigate further, with the work informing the interpretation of the site by the Woodland Trust. At Cobham Golf Course we have been hunting for a possible Tudor building on Peggy Taylor’s Hill. Although extensive demolition deposits suggest the building is long gone, some enigmatic buried tree trunks could point to the later Repton era landscaping of the site? Our exciting lottery-funded project draws to a close this coming June, with some exhibitions and open days planned. To keep in touch with this and the many other community archaeology projects being delivered by the volunteers and Kent County Council’s community archaeology team, do contact Andrew at andrew.mayfield@kent.gov.uk on 07920 548906, @ArchaeologyKent on Twitter, Archaeologyinkent on Facebook or www.shornewoodsarchaeology.co.uk.of the car park, a site which was partially excavated during the laying of sewer pipe in 1986 and revealed a series of pits and ditches of Roman date, as well as the ‘Lullingstone Man’ carved shale plaque. The dig is intended to inspire the next generation of archaeologists and provide an opportunity for local people and visitors to get involved and contribute to finding out more about one of the most important Roman villas in the country. This year will coincide with the 70th anniversary of the first excavations at the villa – and is the 75th anniversary of the Council for British Archaeology – thus will centre around the Festival of Archaeology in July (approximate dates 15th-28th). Volunteers are needed not only for digging but for finds and environmental processing. The summer will also involve events and a temporary exhibition at the villa on the original excavations, as well as other work at Roman period sites along the valley, for which contributions will be welcome. In the coming months these and other projects will be in further stages of development. If you would like to get involved, particularly in either the ground-truthing or fieldwork at Lullingstone, please register your interest with the DVLPS community archaeologist, Dr Anne Sassin (anne.sassin@kentdowns.org.uk), who will let you know when training dates and opportunities are available. See www.darent-valley.org.uk for more information or follow the project on social media (Facebook @DVLPS and Twitter @Darent_Valley). 28 | Kent Archaeological Society Spring 2019 | 29 THE CONTEXT OF THE PALAEOLITHIC STRAIGHT-TUSKED ELEPHANT FOUND AT UPNOR, KENT IN 1911 Fossil elephant bones and teeth were frequently found in the Thames Valley and elsewhere in Britain and Europe during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and subsequently but complete skeletons were and are rare. These discoveries provoked decades of debate and disagreement among palaeontologists about the number of fossil elephant species. In 1857, Hugh Falconer, a Scottish geologist, botanist, palaeontologist, and paleoanthropologist (Fig 1), used their enormous teeth and jaws to identify different species and concluded that the straight-tusked elephant (then called Elphus antiquus but now called Palaeoloxodon antiquus) is distinct from the mammoth (Elphus primigenius) (Falconer 1857, 1858; O’Connor 2007, 16). The straight-tusked elephant was adapted to a temperate climate and parkland or woodland environments and so moved north to Britain during interglacial periods, retiring southward during the glacial periods. It was immense being one of the largest of the pachyderms (huge thick-skinned mammals) of the Pleistocene epoch and much larger than any living elephant. Its long tusks, its most distinctive trait, while not twisted like those of the mammoths, were not really straight but gently curved (Fig 2, drawn by K. Schauer/C. Beauval). The Lower Medway region was one area in which such fragmentary fossil elephant remains, including examples of the straight-tusked elephants were found. For example, By Frank Beresfordsome were uncovered during the construction of new docks at Chatham Dockyard around 1860, mostly on land largely reclaimed from the River Medway, including an upper molar identified as from Palaeoloxodon antiquus (Davis 1874, 60). During work to underpin one of the towers of Upnor Castle around 1900, the remains of a considerable elephant were found which, because of its size, William Coles Finch suggested could also be a straight-tusked elephant (Finch 1930, 27.) The tusk, when unearthed, was perfectly preserved and measured nine feet in length. Workmen digging the large chalk pit at Twydall also reported finding large elephant bones near the northern entrance to the Pit around 1905 (Beresford 2018). The remains of the skeleton of a straight-tusked elephant were discovered in 1911, during the construction of practice trenches by a party of Royal Engineers’ in the grounds of the Royal School of Military Engineering on Upnor Hard, on the banks of the Medway. In the course of their work, the Engineers came across many large bones, some of which were destroyed including a tusk of large size. Two years later, the remains were rediscovered by Sydney Turner, who described how in August 1913, he was searching for stone tools and implements at Upnor, having obtained permission from the Military Authorities. He wrote “Whilst rambling round that Sunday morning it came on to rain very heavily and I took shelter in a disused trench in the undergrowth AboveFig 1: Hugh Falconer (photo from his 1868 memoirs)of Tower Hill. This trench was about 2 ft. 6ins wide and 3-4 ft. deep, caves partly caving down with grass growing at places. Whilst taking observations in my shelter, I saw where some massive bones had been cut through, also part of what appeared to be a large tusk having been cut through ….… I managed to disinter one bone and carried it home to Luton.” Turner subsequently sent the bone to the Natural History Museum where it was identified as a carpal bone of a giant elephant (Fig 2) In response, the museum asked whether there were more bones and could he receive a small deputation to view them (Turner, 1952). A few Saturdays later, Turner escorted Dr Charles Andrews, Professor MacKenny Hughes and Sir Hercules Read to the site for a careful examination. It became clear that a considerable portion of a huge elephant remained buried in the clay, but wet weather hindered the work which was not resumed until 1915 when a full excavation carefully removed all the remaining parts of the skeleton which were in an extremely fragile condition (Figs 3 & 4). It was identified as a straight-tusked elephant by its molar teeth of which one lower and two upper molars were recovered in excellent condition. This was important as it was the first instance in which the teeth had been found in apparent association with the skeleton, and so was the final confirmation of Falconer’s 1857 proposals (Pycraft, 1916). During this work, Turner visited the site several times, at the invitation of Andrews who had Turner’s picture taken sitting by one of the tusks (Fig 5). A near neighbour and acquaintance of Turner in Luton, William Coles Finch, who was the Manager of the Luton Waterworks Company and the author of several books on Kent was also invited by Andrews to view the excavations and witnessed the removal of the cervical vertebrae (Fig 2) (Finch, 1930, 29). Andrews wrote a short report and published in Nature in December 1918 (Andrews 1918). This describes the context in which the bones were found as stratified beds consisting of a series of sandy clays and tough clay with numerous flints, much race and ironstone. These were deposited against the side of a slope composed of chalk below and Thanet sands above. A photo of the chalk face was included which indicates that the site was at the far end of an overgrown quarry section. It took the next 12 years to clean the bones, which had been covered in plaster of Paris, to harden them in a solution of shellac in alcohol and to mount them as a complete skeleton, replacing any missing parts. In 1927, the Upnor Elephant was finally placed on public view in the Natural History Museum. It was mostly complete but mounted without the skull which was too fragile to conserve. The skeleton represents a massive male elephant with an estimated height at the shoulder of about four metres and originally weighing in at around ten tonnes. TopFig 2: Schematic drawing of a Palaeoloxodon antiquus skeleton showing the anatomical parts mentioned The museum published a report in their Natural History Magazine (Bather 1927) followed by a monograph the following year (Andrews & Cooper 1928). However, Andrews died in 1924, before the completion of the reconstruction and the publication of the monograph. The monograph repeats the description of the context of the find given in the 1918 report and describes each of the eight stratified layers in the series. The bones occurred at a depth of about 14 feet at the bottom of the basal deposit which was described as Clay with much race, numerous flints (rounded and angular), sand, ironstone passing down to clay with large flints. Unlike the Ebbsfleet elephant (see below), the Upnor elephant skeleton was not associated with any flint artefacts or waste (Bather, 1927, 106). The monograph (Andrews 1928, 2) describes “sharp gravel with angular and rounded flints (flakes)” in the immediately overlying bed. Eight flint flakes from Upnor, seven with secondary working, were noted by Roe in Maidstone Museum (Roe 1968, 186) but there is no evidence that they were found in the overlying bed. 30 | Kent Archaeological Society Spring 2019 | 31 A better chrono-stratigraphic context for the Upnor Elephant has subsequently been sought. John Carreck, a geologist at Queen Mary’s College, London investigated this question in the 1960s and left some working notes (Fig 6) that indicate his thinking at the front of his copy of the 1928 monograph (Fig 7). The notes indicate that, on April 18th 1965, he visited Lower Upnor and met a long term resident, Sidney Gurd, on the foreshore who remembered the excavation of the elephant. Gurd said that the elephant was found near Whitewall Cement works, about one-quarter of a mile from Whitewall and on a footpath leading from the river, half a mile from Upper Upnor, on the North East corner of Tower Hill. He said the site was only about 10 feet above the marsh near Couviet Creek. Using Gurd’s information to give the base level of the deposit and allowing 5 feet OD for the height of the marsh, Carreck noted that the summit of the stratified deposit at the site would have been circa 28 feet OD and the top of the basal deposit, which was the horizon of the elephant, being 20 feet OD. Noting that the elephant and some associated mammalian fauna were all woodland or forest species he tentatively suggested a “late Ipswichian” age (now linked to Marine Isotope Stage 5e) for the deposit which is a warm period circa 125,000 years BP but noted that “we only have Gurd’s memory to indicate the base level.” Anthony Stuart (1982, 44) also suggested that the Upnor elephant was probably of an Ipswichian date. In 2006, the Medway Valley Palaeolithic Project (MVPP) made a further attempt to relocate the site of the Upnor elephant hoping to clarify its date and perhaps reinvestigate the associated sediments. However, since the elephant was initially found, large earth movement and re-landscaping at the site had continued for almost 100 years as part of the training programme of the Royal Engineers. Consequently, although the original site location was identified, it was not possible to relocate the original context. They noted that the elephant did not seem to have been contained BelowFig 6: John Carreck’s working notes TopFig 3: Pelvis, femur and tibia of the Upnor skeleton during the excavations in 1915 MiddleFig 4: Hessian textile and plaster of Paris was used to support the bones during their extraction. Courtesy of the Rochester Guildhall Museum BottomFig 5: Sydney Turner sitting by one of the tusks during the excavations in 1915, courtesy of Illustrated London News, 1916in fluvial sediments, and so could not be directly related to their proposed MVPP Medway terrace framework. So they also considered the find level. They correlated this with Terrace DE or D on the MVPP framework, which would tie in with Marine Isotope Stage 7 circa 240,000 years BP, a warm period within the Wolstonian complex (Wenban-Smith et al. 2007). The Upnor elephant cannot be readily dated by reference to other securely stratified finds of straight-tusked elephants as Palaeoloxodon antiquus is present in the British fossil record over a considerable period. It first appears in the early Middle Pleistocene deposits of the Cromer Forest-bed Formation, including a couple of molars from the Pakefield deposits (Marine Isotope Stage 17 or 19 circa 750,000 years BP) that have also provided evidence of early human occupation in Britain (Parfitt et al. 2005). In Kent, Palaeoloxodon antiquus remains occur throughout the sequence of deposits at Barnfield Pit Swanscombe being especially abundant in the lower gravels (Ovey 1964, 91). In 1935, a complete tusk was found in the Middle Gravel (Fig 8), the same level in which the three fragments of the Swanscombe skull were also found separately in 1935, 1936 and 1955. The sequence at Barnfield Pit has been dated to Marine Isotope Stage 11 circa 400,000 years BP, a warm period known as the Hoxnian Interglacial. In 2004 the remains of a straight tusk elephant were found nearby at Ebbsfleet surrounded by a scattering of flint tools and waste flakes which were attributed to the Clactonian tradition. About 5% of the skeleton was preserved, and it was also dated to Marine Isotope Stage 11 (Wenban-Smith, editor, 2013). Bones of several straight tusk elephants have been recovered from Marine Isotope Stage 7 deposits at Sandy Lane Pit in the Lower Thames Valley at Averley, Essex (Sutcliffe 1995). Another was found at Deeping St James near Peterborough, in deposits of the last Ipswichian interglacial (MIS 5e, ca. 120,000 years ago). The species (Fig 9) soon after disappears from the British record, although it hung on in southern Europe until close to the start of the last glacial maximum (around 25,000 years ago) (Lister 2009). Consequently, it is only possible to say that the skeleton of the Upnor elephant, still one of the most complete skeletons of a straight tusk elephant ever found, represents a huge male that most likely dates to the late Middle Pleistocene (Marine Isotope Stage 7). In lacking a clear chrono-stratigraphic context, the Upnor Elephant site mirrors most of the major Palaeolithic sites in the Lower Medway area. Only Cuxton can currently be linked to such stratification (Wenban-Smith, 2006) while comparative technology has been used to propose dates for Frindsbury (White & Ashton 2003) and Twydall (Beresford 2018). Top, leftFig 7: John Carreck’s copy of the 1928 monograph showing the reconstructed Upnor elephant on the left Top, right Fig 8: Preparing to move the tusk of a straight-tusked elephant found in Barnfield Pit, Swanscombe, Kent, courtesy of Getty Images Acknowledgements:The author would like to thank Don Blackburn for his help in the research for this paper at Medway Archives and Steve Nye of the Guildhall Museum, Rochester for his help with the illustrations. All illustrations are used as authorised by the copyright holders as far as could be established. 32 | Kent Archaeological Society Spring 2019 | 33 ReferencesAndrews, C.W., 1915, Discovery of a skeleton of Elephus antiquus at Upnor near Chatham. Nature 96, 398 – 399. Andrews, C.W., Cooper C.W. 1928. On a specimen of Elephus antiquus from Upnor. London, Clowes Beresford, F.R. 2018. Palaeolithic material from Lower Twydall Chalk Pit in Kent: the Cook and Killick Collection. Lithics: the Journal of the Lithic Studies Society 39: 20–35 Bather, F.A.. 1927. The Upnor Elephant. Natural History Magazine 1: 99-106.. p106. London, Davis W., 1874. Catalogue of the Pleistocene Vertebrata from the neighbourhood of Ilford, Essex. London. Private circulation only. Falconer H., 1857. On the Species of Mastodon and Elephant occurring in the fossil state in Great Britain. Part I. Mastodon. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society, 13, 307-360, 1 February 1857, Falconer H., 1858. On the species of Mastodon and Elephant occurring in the fossil state in England.—Part II. Elephus Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society, 14, 81-84, 1 February 1858 Finch W.C., 1930. The Medway River and Valley, London C.W. Daniel. Lister A.M., 2009. British Fossil Elephants Deposits Magazine 13 (available online) O’Connor A, 2007. Finding Time for the Old Stone Age. Oxford University Press. Ovey D.O. 1964. The Swanscombe Skull, Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. Parfitt, S.A., Barendregt, R.W., Breda, M., Candy, I., Collins, M.J., Coope, G.R., Durbidge, P., Field, M.H., Lee, J.R. Lister, A.M., Mutch, R., Penkman, K.E.H., Preece, R.C., Rose, J., Stringer, C.B., Symmons, R., Whittaker, J.E., Wymer, J.J. & Stuart, A.J. 2005. The earliest record of human activity in northern Europe, Nature 438, 1008-1012. Pycraft, W.P., 1916. The Surprises of Trench Digging, Science Jottings, The Illustrated London News, Jan 8, 1916. 40 Roe, D.A., 1968, Gazetteer of British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Sites, CBA Research Report 8. Stuart A.J., 1982. Pleistocene Vertebrates in the British Isles, Longmans. Sutcliffe A.J. 1995. The Averly Elephant site, Sandy Lane Pit in The Quaternary of the Lower Reaches of the Thames (eds. D.R. Bridgland, P. Allen and B.A. Hart), 189-199. Quaternary Research Association, London. Turner S., 1952. The story of Upnor, Typed document – notes for a talk to the Chatham Historical Society, Medway Archives and Local Studies Centre GB 1204 DE314/32 Wenban-Smith, F., 2006. Handaxe typology and the Lower Palaeolithic cultural development: ficrons, cleavers and two giant handaxes from Cuxton. Lithics: the Journal of the Lithic Studies Society 25 (for 2004): 11-21. Wenban-Smith F., Bates M.R., Marshall G. 2007. The Palaeolithic Resources in the Medway Valley. Medway Valley Palaeolithic Project Final Report. (available online) Wenban-Smith F., editor, 2013; The Ebbsfleet Elephant, Oxford Archaeology Monograph No. 20 White, M. J. and Ashton, N. M., 2003. Lower Palaeolithic core technology and the origins of the Levallois method in North-Western Europe, Current Anthropology, 44 (4). pp. 598-609. BelowFig 9: Life restoration of a straight-tusked elephant such as the Upnor elephant based on fossil skeletal remains of Palaeoloxodon antiquus by D. Foldi Conservation of the Second World War pillbox revealed during building work at Tonbridge School (see KAS Newsletter 108, Spring 2018) is progressing. Acting on guidelines proposed by Victor Smith, chairman of our Kent Historic Defences Committee, the school’s estates department has carefully removed the dense foliage and undergrowth that had concealed the structure for most of the years that have passed since the end of the war. Victor is preparing a survey and a set of 1:20 scale architectural plans, elevations and cross-section drawings of the pillbox for the school’s archives, and publication in Archaeologia Cantiana, the KAS Newsletter and other journals, along with an in-depth case study of Tonbridge’s anti-invasion defences by Paul Tritton. The pillbox, part of the town’s defences against a Nazi invasion, is now in a landscaped setting and although it cannot be visited without permission, it is on prominent view to passers-by. An information panel and plaque will commemorate its importance to Tonbridge’s military history. The pillbox is in remarkably good condition and stands in the shadow of the new Barton Science Centre, opened in March, where pupils will design an experiment to be carried out on the International Space Station and where an international student science conference and other major educational events will be held. During the centre’s two-year construction programme the brick and reinforced concrete pillbox remained stable despite adjacent deep piling work and movements of heavy construction plant. “It’s bubble-level and vertical and shows no sign of having been dislodged or tipped,” said Victor. “There’s some damage to the machine- By Paul Trittongun firing apertures, but the walls are largely intact. Iron hooks that secured camouflage netting to the roof have also survived. I have advised making only minimal repairs to prevent decay. Retaining the structure’s original appearance is essential. It is a powerful symbol of the danger of invasion we faced in the Second World War.” Built in 1940 or 1941, the pillbox is 3.16m long, 2.21m wide and 1.5m tall overall and barely large enough to protect three Home Guard machine-gunners, firing through apertures aligned towards the High Street and the ‘Big Bridge’ over the Medway (the direction from which an enemy advance through Tonbridge would most likely have occurred); Portman Park to the east, and the High Street’s junction with London Road and Shipbourne Road. It would have been essential to defend this crossroads at all costs, in order to prevent German Panzer columns from pressing on towards London and north Kent’s military establishments and industrial towns. The pillbox appears to be a rare design. Six basic types were designed by the War Office, to be constructed quickly and capable of withstanding bullet and shell fire, but it appears that nothing similar to Tonbridge School’s pillbox has been recorded in Kent. “The design is clearly a non-standard one,” said Victor Smith, “but there were various individual designs up and down the country.” “Perhaps this one was tailored to suit its position and complement other defences deployed nearby,” added Paul. Tonbridge was strongly fortified because it would have been a key inland objective after a successful German landing on the south Kent or East Sussex coasts. Many of the hundreds of pillboxes built in Kent TopField Marshal Ironside’s memorial at Tonbridge SchoolBottomField Marshal William Edmund Ironside CONSERVING ‘POWERFUL SYMBOL’ OF NAZI INVASION THREAT 34 | Kent Archaeological Society for strategic defence, and to protect military sites such as airfields and docks, were demolished after the war – they were regarded as blots on the landscape – but in the 1970s about 400 survivors were recorded around the county for a national survey. Since then many more will have been lost, but several can still be found in Tonbridge’s countryside, some only 300 yards apart, but the one at Tonbridge School is the last to survive in the town. Second World War pillboxes are of particular significance to Tonbridge School because one of its distinguished alumni, General William Edmund Ironside, was responsible for building the Ironside Line, a stop-line of static defences (pillboxes, tank-traps, road-blocks and other obstacles) hastily erected during the national emergency Britain faced after Dunkirk, when a Nazi invasion seemed imminent and inevitable. Formerly Chief of the Imperial General Staff (CIGS), Ironside was appointed Commander-in-Chief, Home Forces, in May 1940, shortly before the last survivors of Dunkirk arrived home. More than 68,000 of the British Expeditionary Force’s soldiers had been killed, wounded or captured and most of its motor transport, along with more than 600 tanks and nearly 2,000 artillery pieces, abandoned in France. With a defeated army and shortages of manpower and mobile weapons to contend with, Ironside argued that until the Army could be brought up to full, fighting-fit, efficiency, defence against invasion would rely on static defences mainly manned by a volunteer force, the Home Guard. In 18 astonishing months, from June 1940, an estimated 10,000 to 18,000 pillboxes were built along a meandering 500-mile stop-line, from Bristol in the south-west, across southern England to Maidstone, and from there to the Thames. From Essex, it continued to Cambridge, then on to The Wash and North Yorkshire. It was officially called the GHQ (General Headquarters) Line, but history remembers it as the Ironside Line, after the man who directed the first phases of its construction. In Kent, it followed the Eden and Medway rivers which, widened and deepened where necessary, formed a ready-made anti-tank ditch. Ironside’s policy had many critics, notably a rising star in the military firmament by the name of Major-General Bernard Montgomery, CO of Southern Command’s 3rd Infantry Division, who persuaded Winston Churchill to allow him to move his now battle-ready troops from their static positions and operate as a mobile reserve. ‘Monty’ was backed by Lieutenant-General Alan Brooke, Southern Command’s General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, who begrudged the time and effort expended on static defences and demanded stronger investment in mobile forces. He was particularly distrustful of road-blocks, considering them as likely to impede his forces during a counter-attack as much as they would hamper the enemy. Top, leftIronside inspecting Tonbridge School’s Cadet Force in 1925. ®Tonbridge School (2) Top, rightOne of the machine-gun firing apertures revealed during Victor Smith’s survey, with a field of fire extending down Tonbridge High Street towards the ‘Big Bridge’ MiddleThe Big Bridge todayBottomThree massive tank-traps on a road-block on Big Bridge over the Medway at Tonbridge in WW2 Ironside’s critics prevailed. After only 54 days in office, he was ‘retired’ with the rank of Field-Marshall and a peerage. Brooke succeeded him as Commander-in-Chief, Home Forces. Nevertheless, construction of the GHQ Line continued, while Brooke implemented his ideas, including creating heavily fortified ‘nodal points’ (aka anti-tank islands) at towns and villages on critical road and rail junctions, which an invading army would be forced to capture before advancing to London. Spring 2019 | 35 Tonbridge was one of Kent’s six ‘Category A’ nodal points, under orders to ‘hold firm indefinitely’ and fight to the last man and the last round. During 1941 it was upgraded to a ‘fortress town’, with augmented defences within a three-mile outer perimeter of anti-tank ditches and tank-traps. The strongest area in the fortress was the castle and its immediate vicinity, where new fortifications were built for the first time since the castle’s twin-towered gatehouse was completed nearly 700 years earlier. I am delighted to welcome the following who have joined the KAS since the previous newsletter. Many apologies if I have omitted anyone! A massive thank you to all of you who have persuaded your banks to change to the new bank account! Unfortunately, some of you have not contacted your banks or your banks have not obeyed specific instructions. The old bank account will be closed during 2019 so please check how your subscription is going to be paid from 2020 onwards. In a few cases, banks have paid the subscription to both accounts meaning that I have had to contact you regarding the duplication! When you contact your banks, please include your membership number with your surname and initials in any reference. (The membership number is on the newsletter address label). Of course, if you wish to continue to pay by sending a cheque, this is acceptable. I have already been in touch with you regarding outstanding subscriptions so please deal with this as soon as possible if you have not already done so. The Lees Court project is going ahead with many exciting ways of getting involved – for more details contact the secretary. Remember that without you as members KAS could not exist! Shiela BroomfieldMembership Secretary membership@kentarchaeology.org.uk MEMBERSHIP MATTERS Individual Members Simon Cox Leybourne Amanda Glover Bearstead Katie Grocott Murdoch North Finchley Richard Holme Tunbridge Wells Carrie-Anne Johncock Whitstable Lesley-Ann Jones Ramsgate James & Michael Lloyd Cranbrook Stanley Matthews Swanley Richard Morkill Green Street Green Rachel Redman Hunton Clive Stanford Staplehurst David Warwick Tunbridge Wells Deborah Weir London SE12 Mark Williams Maidstone Affiliated Society Kent Downs AONB/Darent Valley LPS Shoreham Joint Members Tina Becconsall-Wood & Stephen Wood Gillingham Carol Wadsworth-Jones & S Jones Charing Right, topTonbridge School’s pillbox, awaiting conservation in December 2018, showing its entrance. ©Tonbridge SchoolRight, bottomVictor Smith and Sara Normand (Tonbridge School’s PA Operations Assistant) at the pillbox in January 2019 General Bernard Paget, General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of South-Eastern Command, issued this order to his garrisons at Tonbridge and other ‘nodal points’ and fortress towns: “There will be no withdrawal in any circumstances, and all ranks must be determined that every German who succeeds in setting foot in this country shall be killed.” 36 | Kent Archaeological Society Spring 2019 | 37 THE DUTCH GABLES OF KENT UPDATE TO KAS NEWSLETTER ISSUES 93 & 94, 2012 As has been said before, a study is out of date as soon as it appears in print. My research is no different, but I have good news at least. It was a general report, and individual properties did not generally get a mention. Some were in a parlous state, and I feared for their future, but fortunately, in some cases at least, a shining knight has come to their rescue. Eythorne, TR 299 491 Malmains Farm (Malmain is Norman – owner). Late fifteenth-century timber-framed house with gables added in seventeenth-century in red/brown brick in English bond, rest rendered and c.1800 extension. The barn is a former tithe barn. Side and rear pediments of the house were in disrepair on my 2011 visit. The owner wanted to repair the gables, and both gables were re-built 2016/7 during which work the roof timbers were found to need repair, so the roof was renewed as well as the gables, securing the house’s future (Figs 1 & 2). Tilmanstone TR 302519 North Court (separated from South Court 1564). Sixteenth-century timber-framed house and early seventeenth-century in brick. South gable has a chimney in half segmental pediment, straight one side ogee another side (matched only by Adisham Court, Kent and the Dun Cow pub in Swainsthorpe, Norfolk). Orange brown brick in English bond. West gable: segmental pediment with concave and two convex curves in English bond. Front Flemish bond. The porch has triangular pediment with a convex curve. Five S-shaped wall anchors. Renovated 2017/8 including removing all twentieth-century accretions and installing anti-flooding measures at the rear (grounds slope towards the house). The owner has also re-roofed the timber-framed barn employing thatchers from the West Country for the top half and wood shingles below to match the original. Another treasure saved (Figs 3 & 4). 60, High Street, Ash, Near Sandwich. This building, originally the Lion Hotel as listed by the late Arthur Percival and later an Indian Restaurant “Jagaan”, was virtually destroyed by fire early in 2009. Being Listed Grade II, I was assured by Dover District Council that it would be reinstated, and thankfully it was in 2014. Of rendered brickwork, it has a ‘Thanet’ pediment with two convex curves under at the east end only (Figs 5 & 6). By Gordon Taylor Opposite page, topFig 1: Malmains Farm rear gable prior to repairs Opposite page, middleFig 2: Malmains rear gable with new roof and removal of modern addition Opposite page, bottomFig 3: North Court, south gable circa 2011 This page, top leftFig 4: North Court south gable showing improvements This page, top rightFig 5: 60 The Street, Ash, near Sandwich This page, second right Fig 6: 60 The Street risen from the ashes This page, third right Fig 7: Stodmarsh Court Farm east wing 2008 This page, bottom Fig 8: Stodmarsh Court from side (close up) 2018 Stodmarsh Court, Stodmarsh. Grade II listed late sixteenth-century core (early seventeenth-century – Pevsner) with south front rebuilt nineteenth-century in ‘Jacobean style’ with three gables all with round pediment, the two wings have concave and convex curves under. East gable is original with round pediment with two convex curves under, three reverse S wall anchors, and diagonal brickwork in a lozenge-shaped panel – unique. Derelict when I visited it in 2008 but thankfully now fully restored when on the internet in 2018 is for sale with Canterbury estate agent Strutt & Parker (Figs 7 & 8). Nearby Higham Hall Farm circa 1700 has had a new porch added c.2015 which matches the original. 38 | Kent Archaeological Society Spring 2019 | 39 SPOONS, FLAGS AND HEROES A NEWLY DISCOVERED ITEM RELATING TO THE HILTONS OF SELLING In March of last year, the following communication was received via the KAS website: “I have a quality stlg silver spoon larger than a dessert spoon but smaller than today’s tablespoon. Engraved around the edge on the underside of the bowl is the following inscription: Eliz Hilton Ob, 29 Aug 1787, AE, 64… I am curious as to why it would have been so inscribed. Was it customary to inscribe spoons thus? I feel very much that I am the custodian of this spoon and would be so grateful if someone could give me more information. I live in Australia. I have had this spoon since the 1960s, it being stored safely away and forgotten until now. I feel it should be in a museum. Yours sincerely, E.M. Colquhoun (Mrs) – age 91 years.” Mrs Colquhoun had already done some genealogical homework and identified the dedicatee as one Elizabeth Hilton (née Chambers) born in Kent in 1723 and married to a Robert Hilton in 1746. It is fair to say that, as a Romanist, I had no knowledge whatsoever about 18th-century mourning spoons. Research indicated that the custom of giving inscribed memorial spoons to pallbearers or other participants in a funeral was a custom originating in, or at least prevalent in, the Netherlands in the 17th and 18th centuries. The majority of the (few) examples I have found are from the United States, where Dutch settlers introduced the custom. By Elizabeth BlanningThe earliest cited example from the US is dated 1645, and there the custom lasted into the early 19th century. Although I have found reference to such spoons being distributed in some places in England, I have been unable to ascertain where exactly; they are uncommon here. The only example I have identified is the Strickland Death’s Head Spoon (Victoria and Albert Museum), hallmarked for 1670-71 and made for a Yorkshire family. This is a much earlier, and it is a much more elaborate example, bearing the family’s arms, a skull and the words, “Live to Die, Die to Live”. The Hilton spoon is unusual in having the inscription around the bowl, rather than on the handle, although enquiries with the Victoria and Albert Museum did furnish one Dutch example (albeit a slightly more ornate spoon) with a memorial inscription on the bowl; this correspondence confirmed that the Hilton Spoon is highly unusual as a piece of English silver. Aside from the inscription, finely engraved in hatched capitals, the spoon, which is 21cm in length and weighs 51g, is entirely plain. However precious a memorial it was, it has clearly been heavily used. It has some denting to the bowl and seems to have been used to scrape the contents of a container, as the end of the bowl is unevenly worn, slightly inverted and slightly sharp to the touch. Indeed, the very top of the numeral nine has been worn away. It bears London hallmarks which have almost been polished away. The date letter and maker’s mark are indecipherable, but it cannot have been assayed before 1786 (the year before Elizabeth’s death) as it bears a duty mark in an oval cartouche. Duty marks were only introduced in 1785, and for the first year, the cartouche was a chamfered rectangle. If the spoon itself is somewhat enigmatic, what do we know of Elizabeth Hilton? TopElizabeth Hilton’s memorial in Selling Church. It is incorrectly dated 1788 (1787, the date on the spoon, coincides with that in parish records) TopThe Hilton Chapel with the replica flags. Elizabeth’s parents are commemorated on the monument behind the Austrian ensign Elizabeth was born in 1723, in Selling, daughter of William Chambers and Susanna (née Gibbs). Her father died the following year, leaving the family mansion and estate, Marshes, to his three surviving daughters. In 1746, Elizabeth married Robert Hilton who purchased her sisters’ shares in the property. It remained in the family until 1828 when it was sold to Lord Sondes. The name Marshes seems to have disappeared from the records in later years, but it researches among the tithe records show it to have been sited at the location of the present Selling Court Farm. Anyone familiar with Selling Church will know of the Hilton family through the Hilton Chapel, situated in the South Chancel, where memorials to the family are to be found along with two (now replica) flags from the Battle of Trafalgar. Elizabeth and Robert are commemorated on a marble slab on the East wall of the chapel, above the altar. Their eldest surviving son, Thomas Gibbs Hilton (sadly, their first-born son, William Chambers Hilton died shortly after birth) is commemorated in a monument on the South wall and Elizabeth’s parents on the West wall. Thomas Gibbs Hilton, a gentleman farmer and partner in the Faversham Commercial Bank, in turn, had seven sons. Notable among these were Stephen and Robert, both of whom served at Trafalgar. Robert was Surgeon’s 2nd Mate aboard the Swiftsure. National Archives’ Trafalgar Ancestors database records that he later deserted on 12 April 1806 at Gibraltar though this seems unlikely, as he returned to Kent, dying in Bridge, in 1837. Just a couple of weeks after Trafalgar, on 3 Nov 1805, Robert wrote a letter home, addressed to his brother William (see below) describing the battle. This was only discovered, amongst family papers, in 2007. Having described action, including the sinking of the Redoubtable, he tells how, after the battle, the Swiftsure’s crew sought news of Nelson: “We hailed the Victory to inquire the health of Lord Nelson whom we had heard was wounded at the commencement of the action when we received the melancholy information from Captain Hardy that this hero was no more. His dying words of this warlike Admiral were ‘I have then lived long enough’. This unwelcome intelligence of his death troubled most sensibly those hearts that were but a moment previous elated with success. Our gallant seamen now paused to pay tribute due to the memory of so great a character.” It was Robert’s brother Stephen who returned to Kent with the two flags. Stephen was Master’s Mate aboard the HMS Minotaur, which, with the HMS Spartiate, captured the Spanish Neptuno. Stephen must presumably have distinguished himself, for he was able to bring home not only the financial reward given to crew members of such victorious ships but Minotaur’s own Union Flag, flown at the battle, as well as a further ensign captured from the Neptuno. The Union Flag is one of only two known to survive from Trafalgar. The other, flown by the Spartiate was sold to a private buyer in 2009. Victory’s own Union Flag was intended to have been deposited in Nelson’s grave along with the ship’s other flags, but the Naval Chronicle of 1805 records that the sailors participating in the ceremony tore off a considerable part of it and divided it amongst themselves to keep as souvenirs. Pieces survive in various collections. The two Trafalgar flags were given to Selling Church by Hilton’s descendants in the 1930s. Being in a fragile state, they were moved in 1994, first to a conservator, then to Canterbury Cathedral Treasury, before an appeal by the National Maritime Museum raised enough money for their acquisition, conservation and the creation of replicas for the church. The Union Flag is now on display in the Museum’s Navy, Nation and Nelson Gallery, providing a backdrop to Nelson’s Trafalgar coat. The flag captured from the Neptuno was long supposed to be a Spanish ensign but is Austrian. The Spanish ship was presumably carrying it so that she could sail under false colours if outnumbered and needing to flee (Austria, in alliance with Britain at the time, was a significant sea-power). 40 | Kent Archaeological Society Spring 2019 | 41 AND REVISING THE RELATED CODES OF PRACTICE The consultation deals with proposed changes to the Treasure Act 1996 (‘the Act’), its associated Code of Practice (‘the Code’) and the process for finds that may be treasure following a review of the treasure process. The aim of the Act is to ensure that important archaeological items are preserved in public collections. The Department of Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) propose to improve the treasure process so that it is more efficient, that it is focused on the aim of preserving significant finds for public collections, and that it is more rational and easier to understand. We are also keen to ensure that there is a sustainable future for the treasure process. The aim of the consultation is to gather views on the proposed changes, and obtain information that will help us to assess the impact of these changes on groups and individuals. Opinions are sought which will support the development of future policies on the Act, the Code and the treasure process. The Act gives the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (‘the Secretary of State’) the power to revise the definition of treasure, to disclaim treasure finds and to take decisions on rewards paid under the Act. The Secretary of State is also required by section 11 of the Act to publish and regularly review a Code of Practice in connection with the Act. The Portable Antiquities Scheme (‘PAS’) is active in England and Wales. Local Finds Liaison Officers (‘FLOs’) record finds on a database and advise finders if a find is treasure. Under local agreements the FLO reports treasure finds to the coroner. The DCMS retains responsibility for treasure policy but administration of the treasure process was transferred to the Treasure Secretariat at the British Museum in 2007. Under local agreements, finds are reported to FLOs in England and Wales, and National Museums Northern Ireland (Ulster Museum) in Northern Ireland who pass the report on to the local coroner. The FLO or curator prepares a report for the coroner on how the find meets the definition of treasure in the Act, and offers the local museum the find for acquisition. If no museum declares an interest in acquiring the find, the find is disclaimed and returned to the finder. Otherwise the coroner holds an inquest and if the find is declared treasure it becomes the property of the Crown. The finder and the landowner and/or occupier then become eligible for a reward. REVISING THE DEFINITION OF TREASURE IN THE TREASURE ACT 1996 TopThe inscribed bowl of the spoon. ELIZ HILTON OB, 29, AUG 1787, Æ, 64 (Elizabeth Hilton died 29 Aug 1787, aged 64). Stephen used his prize money to buy a local property, which he extended and renamed Trafalgar House, located on Vicarage Rd, between Selling church and Gushmere. He continued his naval career, retiring as a Commander. He died in 1872 and is buried in Selling churchyard. According to O’Byrne’s A Naval Biographical Dictionary (1849) he had nine children; his youngest daughter rejoiced in the name Victoria Minotaur. Stephen and Robert’s brother George also pursued a naval career and attained the rank of Commander. Their youngest brother William, commemorated on the same monument as their parents, died in Bombay, serving as Lieutenant with the 14th Regiment of Madras Native Infantry. We have digressed some way from a silver spoon, and I fear that, for some at least, parts of this narrative will be familiar. For me, however, this has been a fascinating journey into unknown territory, both geographically and historically. We may never know precisely why the engraving of this spoon was commissioned, why this adaptation of a continental custom should make an appearance in rural Kent; nor, indeed, how it found its way to Australia. We are very grateful, though, to Mrs Colquhoun for bringing it to our attention and repatriating it, generously donating it to form a part of the KAS Collection. For mourning (funeral) spoons see Wees et al. (2013) Early American Silver in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Genealogical information was garnered from many sources, including FamilySearch.org. Information on Marshes and Elizabeth’s family history can be found in Hasted’s The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent: Volume 7, which can be viewed via the British History Online website and Burke’s A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Commoners of Great Britain and Ireland, Enjoying Territorial Possessions Or High Official Rank: But Uninvested with Heritable Honours, Volume 2 (1835), available on Google Books. Stephen’s and Robert’s Trafalgar service can be found in the National Archives’ Trafalgar Ancestors database and Stephen and George’s careers in O’Byrne’s A Naval Biographical Dictionary (1849). Both of these sources are available freely online. Events surrounding the acquisition of the Hilton flags were covered in local and national newspapers; an interesting document relating to the appeal by the National Maritime Museum can be found at http://www.flaginstitute.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/RMG-Flags.pdf. The discovery and contents of Robert Hilton’s letter were reported in the Daily Mail. Notes on selected sources 42 | Kent Archaeological Society The Secretary of State decides on the amount and share of the reward, acting on the advice of the Treasure Valuation Committee (‘the TVC’). This is a committee of experts who decide on the market value of the find, which is the basis of the amount of the reward. The TVC commissions a provisional valuation from an approved valuer. The acquiring museum, the finder and the landowner and/or occupier can submit evidence and private valuations. The TVC will assess the evidence and make a recommendation on the value and how the reward is shared between the interested parties to the Secretary of State. The TVC will also recommend if there should be any abatement (reduction) in the reward for behaviour, such as only partial reporting of a hoard, which breaches the Code. The museum will pay the reward to the Treasure Secretariat (or on occasion to DCMS) who will release the find to the museum and pay the reward to the interested parties. Conclusion The aim of the Act is to preserve significant finds for public collections. The proposals are aimed at supporting and promoting that aim. In addition to consultation responses, the DCMS will be inviting individuals and groups to speak to DCMS officials, and we are hoping for responses which will give us an insight into the views of everyone interested in the Act. For further information please go to https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/775560/Revising_the_definition_of_treasure_in_the_Treasure_Act_1996_and_revising_the_related_codes_of_practice.pdf This consultation seeks opinions on our proposals for addressing the issues outlined above regarding the proposals to: • Introduce changes in the administrative process to speed up and rationalise the treasure process • Update the Code to reflect these and other changes in policy and practice • Revise the definition of treasure in the Act to focus the process on significant archaeological, cultural and historical finds • Exempt finds that fall under the Church of England’s systems of control • Commence section 30 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, to avoid delay and prevent unnecessary work for the coroner and the Treasure Secretariat, and to extend to the acquirer of an object the duty of reporting a possible treasure object or coin to the coroner. Spring 2019 | 43 NOTICES The Medieval Port of London Saturday 18th May 2019 The Museum of London A conference organised by the Docklands History group. Many people with a long involvement in the history and archaeology of the River Thames and the City of London will present papers on a varied range of subjects relating to the Medieval Port of London. For further details and information on how to book a place, please visit the Group’s website at www.docklandshistorygroup.org.uk Kent Archaeological Society’s Historic Buildings Committee Conference 2019 12 October 2019, 10am–4pm Cobham Village Hall, The Meadow Room, The Street, Cobham, Gravesend DA12 3BZ The KAS Historic Buildings Committee is currently planning an October 2019 conference. The general theme is ‘Kent’s Ecclesiastical Heritage’, to include its various aspects, such as the medieval college, and the post-medieval parsonage or rectory house. It is intended to allow time after the conference presentations for a visit in the afternoon to the church, and/or college at Cobham to supplement the talks. KAS Strategy UpdateAs part of the broader KAS strategic review, members are invited to take part in a SWOT analysis, an examination of the Society’s strengths and weaknesses. Members are requested to submit their views, via the following link, which will help formulate a realistic, workable and coherent strategy for the next 20 years: https://www.kentarchaeology.org.uk/strategy Summer 2019 History Classes with Dr David Wright Kent Houses and their FamiliesMonday mornings 10:30–12:30; six meetings from 29 April at a cost of £48. Britain after the Great War, 1918—1928Monday afternoons 1:30 - 3:30; six meetings from 29 April at a cost of £48. Britain 1870–1914Monday mornings 10:30–12:30; Two 10-week terms from 23 September 2019 and 13 January 2020 respectively at £65 per term. The classes are held in the United Reform Church in Week Street, Maidstone. For booking or further details, contact should be made to Sue Moore at: su_mor@hotmail.com Canterbury Historical and Archaeological Society – Research and Publication GrantsWeb site www.canterbury-archaeology.org.uk The Society has limited funds available to award a grant to individuals researching any aspect of the history or archaeology of Canterbury and its region. It is envisaged that a grant would not usually exceed £500. Preference would be given to work resulting in publication in any media. Please apply in writing to the Honorary Secretary of the Grants Committee as soon as possible and in any case not later than 30th June 2019. You may be asked to name a referee whom the Committee making the grant could consult. If successful, you would be expected to account for the money spent and give a copy of an article, pamphlet, etc., to the Society. A recipient may be invited to give a lecture to the Society at one of its monthly meetings. A summary of your research may be published on the Society’s website: www.canterbury-archaeology.org.uk For further details, please contact the Honorary Secretary of the Grants Committee: Mr Barrie Beeching, Holly House, Church Road, Hoath, Canterbury, Kent CT3 4JT Alternatively, by email beechings1@gmail.com For more information go to: www.canterbury-archaeology.org.uk/grants If undelivered, please return to S. Broomfield, 8 Woodview Crescent, Hildenborough, Tonbridge, Kent TN11 9HD KENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY FIELDWORK COMMITTEE FORUM Saturday 4th May at 10.30am Maidstone Communtiy Support Centre, 39–48 Marsham Street, Maidstone, ME14 1HH. Tel: 01622 690369 www.mcsc.org.uk The Kent Archaeological Society’s Fieldwork Committee would like to invite you to meet at an informal gathering in Marsham Street, Maidstone. The purpose of this Forum is to exchange current thoughts and ideas that might be of interest or concern to archaeology in the County. The Forum will have a very relaxed structure, as detailed below. Please use this opportunity to bring along any artefacts that you might wish to show fellow enthusiasts, or that you may need help with or confirmation of identification. • Tea, coffee and biscuits at 10.30 • Keith Parfitt – Introduction to the Fieldwork Committee, its practices and current business. • Dr. Steve Willis – Kent History and Archaeology in Perspective: Trends and issues, circumstance and investigation. • Open floor discussion – open to all. The second Fieldwork Committee Forum will be held later in the year in the East of the County.