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. Feb 2019. local population capable of massive earthwork projects, such as is being suggested in this review.

Figure 8: Proposed Alignments The mound at Rusthall may well be a Tumulus on a scale not typically identified in Britain. In fact, the author has only found a few examples of such large scale earthworks found in the UK. These include Silbury Hill, Marlborough Mound and examples of long barrows such as West & East Kennett Long Barrows. Additionally, original research drew direct comparisons to Adams Grave (Wiltshire), though smaller in scale. [Fig 9.]

Figure 9: Adams Grave & AD1871 OS Map Of Rusthall 'Mound' Additional Mound Features Left: Identification of a 1.2m wide trench of unknown origin. Sited downslope, a large Oak tree protrudes from the centre of the trench. The Oak is estimated to be in excess of 150 years so must post-date the trench and the track is shown on the AD1871 OS map. Below: Aerial view of the NE end of the mound, showing both the trench and unidentified circular parch mark. The trench has been shown to terminate close to the tree line on the mound and can be seen in Figure 10: Identification Of Cut Trench Figure 12.

Unedified Circular Crop Mark

Figure 11: Aerial View Of Eastern End Of Mound Left: Discussions with the long serving groundsman confirmed the N feature was not a modern drainage ditch and the presence of the large oak likely confirms the trench pre- dates the construction of the Golf Course (AD1885) and shown on the AD1871 OS map. The function of the trench is unknown at this stage. However there is little evidence that is a post-medieval drainage ditch as there is a clear ‘termination’ at the upper and lower limits of the cut. Residual spoil can clearly be identified along the length of the trench, suggesting it was never fully backfilled. One possible suggestion is that in may well have been a narrow access trackway to the top of the mound? Parallels to a possible prehistoric ‘passageway’ are not beyond plausibility as shown in figure 13, though only excavation of the feature will Termination Of Trench determine any subterranean archaeology. At this stage the author cannot offer either a modern or prehistoric context for the feature, other than it Figure 12: Limits Of Ditch? merits further investigation.

Left: Interpretation of the construction of a passage leading into a prehistoric burial mound (Source Unknown). The illustration may well be representative of the feature described as a ‘Trench’ in Figures 11 & 12. However no conclusions are drawn at this stage. Figure 13: Illustration Of Passage Grave Additional Mound Features Cont. This review does not offer a complete representation of the recorded features found on and near the area under investigation. However, an example of a few are presented in more detail in this section. The author has presented an argument that the mound has in fact been ‘constructed’ and not simply due to the accumulation of randomly deposited spoil. There is clear form and design to the mound, which has been shown in the LiDAR imagery. The presence of, what is thought to be, the surviving remains of a ‘revetment’ (supporting, reinforced, bank and ditch) can be observed both on the ground and on LiDAR. [Fig 14.]

‘Revetment’

0m 13 x. pro Ap

‘Revetment’

Figure 14: Identification Of Probable' Revetments'

The identification of, what appears to be, a clear revetment (ditch and bank) would be a landscaping feature not uncommonly found in the the construction of numerous prehistoric earthworks. Indeed a convincing parallel can be shown at West Kennett Long Barrow and with further research it is likely other UK sites will show comparable features, though not necessarily on the same scale as the Rusthall mound. [Fig 15.]. Though it cannot be stated with absolute certainty, the visual evidence of a well constructed ditch and bank can be seen circumventing the base of the mound and well into the garden of ‘Dingly Dell’. The author is not aware of a modern context for the feature and is confident that any future excavation will likely expose potential dating evidence for its construction and true function. ‘Revetment’ N N

West Kennet Long Rusthall ‘Mound’ ‘Revetment’ Barrow - Wilshire Kent

Figure 15: West Kennet Long Barrow- Rusthall Mound

Above: Side-by-side comparison of both sites reveals, what appears to be, similar constructional features, though the Rusthall mound is clearly a larger earthwork. A direct connections to well known prehistoric sites such as West Kennett, would seem to support the validity of the Rusthall mound, as a man-made earthwork.

Further Consideration The author acknowledges that the scale of the proposed ‘Tumulus’ at Rusthall would certainly make it one of the largest recorded in the British Isles. Convincing mainstream archaeology of the potential validity of the mound being an ancient monument is likely to be problematic in the absence of dating evince and direct comparisons to comparable UK sites. However the author has widened the research parameters and looked at sites outside of Britain. Of the most compelling are sites set within the Carnac region of France. Already established as one of the largest Neolithic sites in Europe, Carnac offers a range of prehistoric monuments that may have parallels to the Rusthall site. In terms of scale there are examples of burial mounds known as ‘Carnac Mounds’, which typically measure in excess of 100m in length. A good example, for comparison, is the tumulus known as Saint-Michel at Carnac. [Fig 16.]. Measuring 125m x 50m x 10m and constructed of earth and stone rubble, it is dated to around the 5th Century BC. Interestingly it is aligned along a similar axis to the mound at Rusthall (at around 60° - 62°). This, again, would seem beyond coincidental and the author argues that this should not necessarily be disregard as simply a convenient coincidence.

Figure 16: Saint-Michel Tumulus (Carnac) & Rusthall 'Mound' Returning back to the original ‘Standing’ stone shown in Figure 1, the author is able to offer comparisons to another well known standing stone (now fallen) referred to as the Grand Menhir Brisé, near Locmariaquer, France. [Fig 17.].

Figure 17: Grand Menhir Brisé - Prehistorc Megalith Above: Fragmentary remains of a former standing stone that may well of stood over 20m high. Visually similar to the singular fragment surviving at Rusthall, only on a larger scale. Set close to the Grand Menhir Brisé are the remains of a massive, but much damaged and eroded tumulus of Er-Grah. Interestingly its central axis would seem to align to the original stone hole/pit of the Menhir, much in the same way as the Rusthall stone and mound, though clearly on a different alignment. Again this would seem more than a coincidental parallel to the Rusthall site? Set close to the Menhir is the smaller tumulus of Table des Marchand. Close to the Rusthall stone is what is thought to be an old spring2 and currently under investigation by the author and local volunteers. Such a spring, in antiquity, may well have been part of an important ritualistic site?

Figure 18: Grand Brisé Menhir, Tables Des Marchand and Rusthall Stone & Mound

2 Referred to as the Rusthall Spring Site (RSP) and covered in several site updates, by the author, in 2018 Summary This review simply offers an initial appraisal of a site containing previously unidentified earthworks and potential archaeological features. Having researched the area since 2017, the author feels somewhat certain that both the isolated stones and huge mound are not simply natural phenomena, but, certainly in part, as a result of human endeavour. LiDAR shows, with little doubt, that the large mound on the Tunbridge Wells Golf Club course, is a man made feature. Its general shape and uniform layout strongly suggests that it is structural in design and not simply a random deposit of spoil from the nearby stone quarries. With the presence of what appears to be a revetment at the base of the mound, this seem to be a deliberate part of the construction of the mound. Limited analysis of the soil profile certainly confirms the presence of sand, soil and stone rubble on the top of the mound. Dozens of stones of various size (small blocks to large stones in excess of 500mm) have been observed on an area of the mound, including several embedded in the side of the levelled platform shown in Figure 4. Even to the casual observer there is little doubt many of the stones have been ‘laid out’ and form part of an, as yet, unidentified structure at the eastern end of the mound. Again, this offers tangible evidence of human activity on top of the mound and at the base (revetment). However, the author acknowledges that no direct dating evidence, relating to the features, has been found at this stage. But it should be noted that the terms of access, to the site (Tunbridge Wells Golf Club), currently prohibits all excavations. This limits the research to largely visual analysis of the earthworks, desktop research and local history (which is sparse). This review is largely a landscape investigation in the absence of a full scale archaeological excavation. By its very nature, a landscape survey is largely limited to the currently available data (LiDAR, H.E.R., old maps, local knowledge and satellite imaginary). Where there are shortfalls in such data only an interpretative overview can be given, as is the case for the Rusthall site. Though previous early human activity has been recorded near the site it is largely from the Mesolithic period (8,000 – 4,500 BC), such people are not generally regarded as ‘Monument Builders’. However the very presence of a cluster of Mesolithic flint finds near the mound (see appendix.) may well suggest the area was well used and well known to local hunter-gatherer groups at that time. A transition into agriculturist is starting to be shown in the growing archaeological record (at nearby Harwarton, for instance), leading to a more ‘settled’ lifestyle and growing population. It is this local ‘Neolithic’ population, now being established by the author, that are attributed to ‘monument building’ elsewhere in Britain and Europe. The author argues that the mound and ‘standing’ stones have characteristics more akin to monuments of the Neolithic period and little visual evidence supports a post-medieval context to the features. However it is acknowledged that the response from mainstream archaeology is likely to be critical and dismissive due to absence of prehistoric dating evidence, though this is equally valid in respect to the lack of post-medieval dating evidence as well. This suggests that a cavalier disregard for the ‘potential’ significance of the site would be premature at this stage. The author remains confident that a professional excavation of the site will validate the site as a major new archaeological discovery of probable prehistoric origin. Appendix

Above: Dr Paul Compton (geologist) at nearby Bulls Hollow. Referred to as ‘old quarries’ on 19th Century maps, the origins of the quarry is unknown, but local historians suggest a late medieval to early post-medieval date (with arbitrary extraction in the later Victorian period). Below: Alternative view of the exposed natural bedrock. I thin soil can be observed on top of the rocks. Weathering may also suggest a long period of exposure to the elements. Interestingly only a few areas show evidence of metal tool marks, suggesting the stone was split from the rock face as large boulders, for further processing. Little evidence of ‘worked’ stone can be found on-site. Random Surface Stones

Above: View of ‘platform’ and large embedded stone on top of the mound (under dead oak tree) Below: Alternative view of the embedded stone. Probing suggested an elongated ‘cut’ at the base of the stone (below ground), that would seem to be man-made. The stone sits in isolation, on top of the mound, some 40m from the nearest natural stone outcrop. From the current observed features evidence of remains of some type of a structural feature would seem plausible. Above: Wide view of the ‘Rusthall Mound’ - showing symmetrical, sloping banks. In the background the second isolated stone, shown in Figure 2, gives some impression of scale. The exposed Tunbridge Sandstone ridge begins at the edge of the tree line.

Below: A small earth mound was identified close to the 8th Green and confirmed to be unrelated to modern landscaping by the groundsman (not a bunker). Probing to a depth of around 400m suggested a series of laid stones, possibly lining the small mound. Two small, narrow ditches where also observed on the ground. At this stage no test pits where opened to investigate below ground features. Above: Aligned view of both Saint Michel Mound (Tumulus – Carnac, France) and Rusthall Mound (Tunbridge Wells Golf Club – Kent, UK). Above Left: Steps leading up to the church at Saint Michel. Above Right: ‘Track/Passage’ leading up to earth platform at Rusthall Mound.

Left: From a visual perspective, as well as map evidence (AD1871), there is little doubt of a trackway, predating the formation of the Tunbridge Wells Golf Club and golf course (Circa. AD1885), was present in the landscape. Maps show the ‘trackway’ does not continue into the lower valley where a stream and mill pond was identified by the author in a previous review. It would seem to be limited to the SE end of the mound. Finds ID: TQ 53 NE 43

Finds ID: TQ 53 NE 5

Rutshall Spring site & ‘Standing Stone’

Finds ID: TQ 53 NE 3 Finds ID: TQ 53 NE 56

Above: Partial modern map (KCC H.E.R) showing a cluster of finds spots close to the Rusthall mound ( ). These include assemblages of Mesolithic flint artefacts with examples previously on display at the Tunbridge Wells Museum (currently bing re- developed).

HER Number: TQ 53 NE 43

Mesolithic flint artefacts were previously found in Rusthall Park. The finds included 19 cores, 23 blades/flakes and a scraper. These artefacts were last thought to be held in Tunbridge Wells Museum.

HER Number: TQ 53 NE 5

A number of Mesolithic flint implements including flakes, blades, scrapers and points. Discovered during work to lay foundations for new houses in Rusthall Park in 1902. The flakes were unpatinated, and included a broken microlithic point blunted down the whole of one side. Thought to be held in Tunbridge Wells Museum.

HER Number: TQ 53 NE 3

A Mesolithic blade and scraper thought to have been found near 'The Spa'. These artefacts were on exhibition in Tunbridge Wells Museum and suspected to have been found at the Spa Golf course, although no further records could confirm this.

HER Number: TQ 53 NE 56

A Mesolithic flint blade was previously found at Bishop's Down. The artefact was donated to the Tunbridge Wells Museum, where it is thought to remain. No further information was was available.

Note: Local Mesolithic rock shelters are recorded at both High Rocks and Happy Valley which are also reported to have produced Neolithic artefacts as well? Additional Reviews/Reports. Since 2012 the author has been compiling field notes and reviews/reports of all the sites under investigation in and around the Tunbridge Wells area. Many have been passed on to both the county representatives, Canterbury Archaeological Trust, Kent Archaeological Society and numerous professionally recognised archaeologists. Far from being an area of ‘little archaeological merit’ this unique part of West Kent has consistently shown to contain a wealth of archaeology that is largely missing from the archaeological record. It is the hope of the author that this area be given greater credibility in respect to growing evidence for significant and important new archaeological sites, previously overlooked by archaeologists and academics.

All review/reports are available on request. Rusthall ‘Megalith’ - A Speculative Review Of A Possible Standing Stone (fallen) Within A Prehistoric Context. Stapple, N. T. 2019. Investigation Into The Probable Site Of A Medieval Moated Manor House Known As Rust Hall. Stapple, N. T. 2018. Evaluation Of A Large Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age Flint Assemblage Within A Settlement Context. Stapple, N.T. 2019. Speculative Review Of A Large Elongated Earthwork At Rusthall. Stapple, N.T. 2018. Ridgewaye Playing Fields (Southborough) – Archaeological Finds & Assessment. Stapple, N.T. 2018. Analysis Of Prehistoric Non-Flint Lithics In West Kent. Stapple, N.T. 2018. evaluation Of A Series Of Wattle & Daub Structures Within The Southborough Valley. Stapple, N.T. 2018. End Of Season Review - RSP Site, Rusthall Common, Tunbridge Wells, Kent. Stapple, N.T. 2018. Chiddingstone Site Visit & Landscape Appraisal. Stapple, N.T. 2018. Review Of Carbon Analysis (C14) Of Material From 1 Forge Farm Cottage, Southborough. Stapple, N.T. 2018. Hurst Wood – Tunbridge Wells. A Preliminary Landscape Survey Within An Archaeological Context. Stapple, N.T. 2018. Chowing Bank – Bloomery Furnace Deposit. Stapple, N.T. 2018. Powder Mill Lane – Southborough. Gunpowder Mill Survey. Stapple, N.T. 2016. An Undated Circular Enclosure In Yew Tree Raod – Southborough. Stapple, N.T. 2018.

N.B. The list is by no means exhaustive but represents an example of the research undertaken by the author and supported by local volunteers.