OS Grid Ref: TQ 57045 39336 ‘Analysis Of A Possible Prehistoric Tumulus And Related Monuments – Rusthall, Kent’ By Nigel T Stapple BSc (Hons) – Landscape investigator, WKDArchaeology March 2019 Photo: SW view of the Rusthall ‘Tumulus’ - Tunbridge Wells Golf Club (Jan 2019) Disclaimer: This review is not intended as a definitive statement as to the validity of the proposed archaeology. It merely offers one possible interpretation of the landscape features in the absence of an unequivocal modern context. More so, this review is not presented as an academic paper nor implied as such. The views expressed are the authors own and subject to broad interpretation. All research & photos ©N T Stapple unless otherwise stated. Introduction Preliminary research began back in 2017 at two areas of interest in Rusthall. The author became intrigued be an isolated sandstone outcrop close to the junction of Rusthall Road and Langton Road, near the house known as ‘Dingly Dell’. Surviving in a heavily modified post medieval landscape, its presence, in the modern landscape, seemed unusual. Measuring approximately 5m x 1.5m x 1m, above ground, it showed clear evidence of being quarried. Given its form and size the author postulated that it may have in fact been the remains of a former standing stone, preserved in antiquity. This hypothesis was later backed up by confirmation of a large pit found at the western end of the stone and visible as a parch mark in 2018. [Fig 1.]. This was thought to be a ‘slot’ for the ‘standing’ stone. Figure 1: Rusthall 'Standing Stone' - Summer 2018 Information regarding the stone had previously been presented to Kent County Council (KCC) representatives and the stone is documented in several of the authors earlier reviews of on-going research. There appears to be no local historical narrative to the nature and origin of the stone nor previous archaeological analysis. It would seem the stone has been largely overlooked and generally regarded as simply a random, natural outcrop. The author feels there is sufficient evidence to reconsider an alternative context to the stone. Indeed this review will also present a plausible connection to a nearby earthwork, which is the main focus of this review. In 2017 an interested Tunbridge Wells golf cub member invited the author to survey another stone, on the 8th Green of the golf course. [Fig 2.].The stone sits in isolation and at least 60m from the natural sandstone outcrop to the SW of the green. Largely rectangular in shape, it measured approx. 2.5.m x 2m x 1.5m. Again it showed clear evidence of being quarried as well as additional markings. Established in AD1885, the Golf Club had no information as to why the stone was there? Across the entire 9 hole course no other large stones are recorded. The author suggested that to stone was not a natural outcrop and may well have been in a more ‘upright’ position, as suggested by its general shape. One area of the exposed surface showed clear evidence of a carving that was triangular in form. [Fig 3.] Triangular Engraving Cut ‘Notch’ Figure 2: Isolated Sandstone Rock - 8th Green, TW Golf Course - Feb 2019 Above: View looking in a general SW direction. The exposed natural bedrock can be seen in the background, some distance from the isolated stone. The presence of a clear cut ‘notch’ at the base of the stone, may have been related to the transportation and original positioning of the stone. The use of large timbers, placed in such notches, may have been a practice well used in the past. The presence of such a notch (and there may be additional notches not exposed at this point) would seem to strongly suggest that the stone had been quarried and originally moved to or near it’s current position. Discussions, with golf club members, agree that it is unlikely to be a landscape feature related to the laying out of the original golf course. Left: Close up of engraving. Its triangular form may well be indicative of a primitive representation of the pubic area, thought to represent fertility and well documented at numerous prehistoric sites. Measuring around 50cm in length its surviving form is very compelling and may well be of considerable date. Figure 3: Triangular 'carving' on stone Identification Of A Possible Tumulus? Although the purpose for the original site visit to the golf course was related to the second isolated stone, the author was struck by a more imposing landscape feature. Set close the stone and rising some 10m, a large ‘finger’ of land dominated the immediate surroundings. Its form did not immediately suggest it was completely natural and investigations of the mound quickly showed evidence of ditches, banks and levelled areas, as well as additional large stones on top of the mound. [Fig 4.] It is also noted was the presence of Bluebells, considered to be an environmental indicator of ancient woodland (pre- AD1600). The author invited consultant archaeologist, David Thorpe, to visit the site, who then concurred that the mound was ‘...not completely natural’. Consideration was given for a post-medieval context, including a large spoil heap from a nearby quarry, though this was later dismissed as several compelling counter arguments were presented. This included a geological overview of the abundant Tunbridge Wells Sandstone outcrops, suggesting that much of the quarry stone came from areas of long exposed bedrock with only a thin layer of mulch and sand on top of the bedrock. See Appendix. The level of spoil would have been minimal in any case and simply dumped behind the quarrymen and, indeed, the spoil can still be seen at the nearby quarry known as Bulls Hollow. Since the availability of free LiDAR imagery it has greatly enhanced the ability of landscape archaeologists to see features not always obvious on the ground. The author has made extensive use of LiDAR, as well as on-site surveys and map analysis, to gain a better understanding and possible context for the landscape features. It is by using such comparisons that an opinion can be formed based on the current level of research. This has lead to the authors own assertion that the earthwork may well be an unrecorded tumulus of some considerable size and hidden in plain site within the local landscape. Figure 4: A series of man-made features Above: Opposite side of the mound (to the stone), showing evidence of earthworks on and around the mound. The earthwork is recorded on OS maps dated to at least AD1871, and before the construction of the golf course (AD1885). LiDAR Analysis Rudimentary measurements have been taken, using a combination of Google Earth with LiDAR overlays. Whilst the author accepts this is a somewhat ‘crude’ method of surveying a site (in the absence of ground level survey equipment) it does offer a basic description of the layout and size of the earthwork in relation to the local landscape. LiDAR confirms, with little ambiguity, that the mound is man-made. [Fig 5.] Bulls Hollow Quarry Rusthall ‘Tumulus’ Rusthall Common Tunbridge Wells Common Figure 5: LiDAR - Wide View Of Rusthall & Tunbridge Wells Above: Analysis of LiDAR clearly shows the Rusthall ‘Tumulus’ is not a natural feature in the local landscape. Its length is approx. 130m and its widest point is round 40m. Its elongated and symmetrical ‘cigar’ shape would suggest it is deliberate in design and construction. It does not have the ‘randomness’ of ‘dumped’ quarry waste and is around 140m away from Bulls Hollow quarry (undated). Close to the NW side of the mound are the remains of two clear earth quarries. [Fig 6.] The date for the two quarries is unknown but are not untypical of soil extraction at numerous prehistoric Barrows and similar earthworks found in Britain and Europe. Left: Surviving evidence of quarry pits close to the constructed mound. Evidence of additional quarries may well Earth Quarries have been destroyed be the re- modelling of the golf course and and landscaping of the garden associated with ‘Dingly Dell’. However LiDAR does suggest the mound is likely to have been constructed using nearby soils? Figure 6: Expanded View Of Mound & 'Quarries' Stone On 8th Green ‘Revetment’? 2 ‘Revetment’? 1 Figure 7: Highlighted Features Above: Close up view of mound and local features. Of note is the observed alignment of the Rusthall ‘Standing Stone’ (1) through the centre of the mound and a second stone (2). Though some would argue a ‘coincidental’ connection to the proposed alignment there is visual evidence that the alignment only works based on the fixed position of the original Rusthall ‘standing stone’ (1). Had the stone been discovered in any other position the alignment would simply not work. [Fig 8.] Establishing the origins and context for the various large stones recorded in this review is paramount. Although the immediate area has produced a cluster of Mesolithic finds (see appendix.), as yet no conclusive evidence of monument builders (Neolithic/Bronze Age) has been confirmed on-site. However the author has established strong evidence for a major late Neolithic – early Bronze Age settlement near Harwarton (Speldhurst)1 and less than 2km from the mound. A second, similar site (in terms of flint assemblages) was also identified at Southborough (Ridgewaye), around 3km from Rusthall. It is quite likely that additional settlement sites would have existed in and around the Tunbridge Wells area but have long since been destroyed by urban development or simply remain hidden under plough soils. None-the-less confirmation of such early settlements does suggest a greater 1 Research Review - ‘Evaluation Of A Large Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age Flint Assemblage Within A Settlement Context’, Stapple, N.T.