Archaeologia Cantiana Vol. 22 1897 ( 123 ) ON THE LANDING-PLACE OF ST. AUGUSTINE. BY GEORGE DOWKER,, F.G.S. IT may seem presumption in me to re-open the question of the landing-place of St. Augustine after the learned Anti- quaries who have written on the subject, so that my essay requires a few words of introduction. I have been led to this enquiry because there seems no agreement among the writers as to the exact locality of the place called Ebbsfleet. In Dean Stanley's Historical Memorials of Canterbury, at the conclusion of the chapter relating to St. Augustine (page 54), he reviews briefly the various places where the event is supposed to have taken place:— " First, Eblsfleet: for this the main, reasons are, 1st, the fact that it was the usual landing-place in ancient Thanet, as shewn by the tradition that Hengist, St. Mildred, and the Danes came there (Lewis, page 83; Hasted, iv., page 289). 2nd, the fact that Bede's whole narrative emphatically lands Augustine in Thanet and not on the mainland. 3rd, the present situation with the local tradition (page 29). " Secondly, The spot called the Boarded Groin (Lewis, page 83), also marked in the Ordnance Survey as the landing- place of the Saxons. But this must then have been covered by the sea. " Third, Stonar, near Sandwich. Sandwich MS., in Boys's Scmdwich, page 836. But this, even if not covered by the sea, must have been a mere island (Hasted, iv., page 585). " Fourth, Richborough. Ibid., page 838. But this was not in the Isle of Thanet. and the story is probably founded partly on Thorn's narrative (1242), which, by speaking of Retesburgh in Insula, Thaneti, shews that he means the whole port, and partly on its having been actually the scene of the final debarcation on the mainland, as described in a previous ON THE LANDING-PLACE page." Following this summary Stanley gives us a Map of the Isle of Thanet at the time of the landing of St. Augustine. In all the accounts of this event that reach us the his- torical facts have been supplemented and explained upon the views which the authors held respecting the physical, I might almost say geological, changes that have taken place on this coast since the events then referred to. It has been my endeavour as a geologist to trace back the various changes that ha,ve taken place in the Eiver Stour and Wantsum estuary for some years past. In the year 1880 I read a Paper before the East Kent Natural History Society, entitled " The Changes which have taken place in East Kent, in the coast and river valleys since the Roman occupation of Britain." This Paper appears to have influenced the British Association on Coast-erosion to ask me to undertake for them a detailed examination of this part of the coast, and report thereon; moreover, I was then furnished with maps and historical data to help me in the enquiry. I had, previously to this, while engaged in the excavations at Eichborough, examined the surrounding marshes, and drawn a map which was published with the account in Yol. VIII. of the Proceedings of the Kent Archfeo- logicai Society. Mr. Green, in the Preface to his book on The Making of England (page vii), writes : " Physical geography has still its part to play in the written records of human history to which it gives so much of its shape and form." It is then to this physical geographical aspect of the question which I would now direct attention. I have quite lately read a Paper before the East Kent Natural History Society on " The Mouth of the Stour." It will be seen that the ancient limits of the Isle of Thanet are inseparably bound up with this question. After the most attentive study of the historical facts relating to Ebbsfleet, I am forced to the conclusion that little is to be gained from the documentary evidence, and that the chief reliance must be placed on the physical aspect of the question. I must necessarily refer to the documentary evidence, which OF ST. AUGUSTINE. 125 has been translated and commented upon by so many writers, to which, there is nothing of consequence to add. I shall, however, in quoting their statements make some remarks on the same as I proceed. Firstly, we find in 449, according to the Saxon Chronicle, " Hengist and Horsa, invited by Vor- tigern, King of the Britons, landed in Britain on the shore which is called Wippidsfleet." According to another read- ing, 449, "Vortigern invited the Angles thither, and they came to Britain in three ceols at the place called Wippids- fleet." A.D. 465, Cf This year Hengist and MSG fought against the Welsh near Wippidsfleet, and there slew twelve Welsh ealdor- menj and one of their own Thanes was slain whose name was Wipped."* Mr. Green (Malting of England) writes on the landing of the Jutes, 449—450: " A band of warriors was drawn to the shores of Britain by the usual pledge of land and pay, in three keels (so ran the legend of their conquest), and with their ealdormen Hengist and Horsa at their head they landed at Ebbsfleet in the Isle of Thanet." And he goes on to inform us, " the English Conquest as a whole rests on the authority of the English Chronicle ; the annals of 449 to the end of the English conquest were probably embodied in the Chronicle in the middle of the ninth century.-"t This foundation of the whole story is cloudy enough; according to it the landing-place was called after Wipped, one of the Jutish Thanes slain there. But we do not get any nearer to the exact locality. As these Jutes caine at the invitation of Vortigern, King of Kent, who probably fixed his residence at Richborough, we should of course con- clude that they came with their ships to the Rutupian Harbour, which was probably situated between Stonar and Rich- borough. And if the events of 449 were not recorded till the ninth century there is an additional source of uncertainty. Ebbsfleet, moreover, is not mentioned—it is a mere con- jecture that Wippedsfleet meant Ebbsfleet, the latter term being supposed to be derived from ebb and flow. * Bede's Ecclesiastical History and, Saxon Chronicle, Giles's edit, f Making of England, note, page 28, 126 ON THE LANDING-PLACE Now we come to St. Augustine's landing, A.D. 597. According to Bede, " On the east of Kent is the large Isle of Thanet containing, according- to the English way of reckoning, 600 families, divided from the other land by the River Wantsum, which is about three furlongs over, and fordable only in two places, for both ends of it run into the sea. In this Island landed the servant of our Lord, Augustine, and his companions, being, as is reported, nearly forty men."* We learn from subsequent writers that the two fordable places mentioned by Bede are Sarre and Sandwich; fordable has been surmised to mean passable by boats. And we Imow that a ferry existed in early times at Sarre and one at Sand- wich crossing the river to Stonar. It will be seen that the exact spot where Augustine landed is not mentioned by Bede, only that it was in the Isle of Thanet. In a note to Dean Stanley's Memorials of Gam- bury (page 53), with regard to Ebbsfleet in Thanet, he writes, " It must have been at this place, from the fact that it was the usual landing-place in ancient Thanet, as is shewn by the tradition that Heugist, St. Mildred, and the Danes came there, and the fact that Bede's whole narrative emphatically lands Augustine in Thanet and not on the mainland,"—the place indicated by Stanley being the spot where the farm called JBbbsfleet is situated. But Stonar, near Sandwich, would be equally in the Isle of Thanet, and close to Bich- borough, where, according to Thorn and Thomas Sprott,t Augustine and his companions landed, waiting in the Isle of Thanet until it pleased King Ethelbert to receive them: " Which thing the King hearing came shortly after into the Isle of Thauet unto his pallace or castle of Rupiches- ter, situate nigh the old citty of Stonehore, and the King sitting under the cliff or rock whereon the castle is built, com- manded Augustine with his followers to be brought before him."J A difficulty has been found in accepting this con- clusion because Richborough is not in the Isle of Thanet, * Ecclesiastical History, Giles, page 37. t Catalogue of British History, Hi., page 208. j See also Canon Jenkins in Areluzologia Cantiana, Vol. VI., page lix. OP ST. AUGUSTINE. 127 and Thorn speaks of " Retesburgh in Insula Thaneti." But he was probably alluding to the general name of the port,* or confused the first landing with the scene of the final debarcatioa on. the mainland—for the Missionaries crossed the ferry to Richborough, and from thence advanced by the Roman road to Canterbury. Tradition is not a very safe guide, especially when the traditions are at variance. The mention of St. Mildred as landing at Ippedsflete is recorded in Lambard and Thorn: " This woman (saith he) was so mightily defended with divine power that tying in a hot oven, three hours together, she suffered not of the flame; she was also endued with such godlike vertue, that coming out of France, the very stone whereon she first stepped at Ippedeflete in this Isle received the impression of her foot, and retained it for ever, having besides this property, that whithersoever you removed the same, it would within short time, and without help of man's hand, return to the former place again/'f The former landing-places were mostly fleets or streams leading into some large river—as we find in the names of Purfleet, Northfleet, Fleet Street, etc., names of like import on the Thames and suitable landing-places for the ships of those days.