the topography of some saxon charters relating to the ......latin or anglo-saxon (the original...

( 123 )

THE TOPOGRAPHY OF SOME SAXONCHARTERS RELATING TO THE FAVERSHAM

DISTRICT.

BY GOEDON WARD, M.D., F.S.A.

IT is proposed, in this essay, to study the topography of•certain Saxon charters relating to Faversham and theneighbourhood. These are of much interest and it isfortunate that most of them are either still in existence or•are known from almost contemporary copies. But thetopographical questions involved have not yet been decidedand the use of these charters for historical purposes hastherefore been open to criticism. Thus, the " region ofFaversham ", and the " region suburban to Faversham " aresometimes considered to be the same ; others believe themto be separate areas. Again, the common expression" publica strata " or " antiqua strata " may be a valuableguide to an old road hitherto unidentified, or it may be one•of the synonyms for Watling Street. The whereabouts ofCilling, the old port of Faversham, has never been decidedbut these charters afford us indications of great interestin this connection, even if it can hardly be said that theyleave no more to discover. The evidence of how a con-siderable area was deliberately taken from the manor andparish of Faversham and placed in the adjoining manor andparish of Graveney seems to have escaped comment untilnow and is of great historical significance. I feel sure thatI shall not be able to refrain from enlarging somewhat onthese points but in the main this essay is intended to betopographical. There will be no extensive quotations inLatin or Anglo-Saxon (the original charters and the Cartu-larium Saxonicum are available for students), nor is itproposed to deal in any way with that King's Wood belongingto Faversham which lay in Ulcombe and neighbouring

Archaeologia Cantiana Vol. 46 1934

http://www.kentarchaeology.org.uk/Research/Pub/ArchCant/Vol.046%20-%201934/page%20v%20+%20vi%20%20contents.htm

BOUGHTONUNbERBLEAN

CYNINCGES CUA LOND -ONE|IN RECIO WESTAN

WIDD6 SOLD TO flRCHBUMOPWLFRED IN (V° 8(l» . HOCARATRUM AB MANS1ONEMON ORftFON /CA._

GRATOM EAHE.80UNMMW OFciMNCi.es UJALONB IN A'81V

SlAjKHUNING LOND IS THEEASTERN BOUNDARY OFGR/XFON E « H N Av &I4—s

5EIEBERHTIKI. LOTO «BP WLFRElfl" SIS ASUNIUS > r X NMUHENTIS

GRAFON EftH 6WEN TOWLFRED IN A' 812

SULUNC.

SUlTWHUriTlNCG LONDGRAVAWEA « AET-6RAFON rtOWEN TLpRtHSP i\WLFRED ASTWO ARATRA,' IN ̂

SOUTH PRESTONWITHOUT

124 THE TOPOGRAPHY OB1 SOME SAXON CHARTERS

parishes. For convenience of reference the charters discussedwill be distinguished by letters, as follows :

A. A sale by King Coenwulf of Mercia to ArchbishopWlfred of Canterbury " in the region suburban to thetown of the King which by the natives there is calledEefres ham, the land of two aratra in places namedthus, Suithhunincg lond (Swithhun's land) aet Graf onAea (G-raveney)." This is an original charter of theyear 811 (B.C.S. 335).

B. In a Lambeth Register (Lamb. 1212) of the 13thcentury there is an entry in the form of a charterwhich seems to be of a composite character. Itincludes the land mentioned in A as " land of twoaratra which is called Suuithuningland juxtaGravanea ". It is of interest only because the sugges-tion of A that two different places may be involved,(as shown by the plural "in places named, etc "), or,alternatively, that Swithhun's land was " aet", thatis, " in " Graveney, is here corrected by the plainstatement that his land was " juxta Gravanea "—next to Graveney (B.C.S. 336). This is of the year811.

C. Another narrative charter from the same LambethRegister mentions the gift by King Coenwulf toArchbishop Wlfred of " 20 acres in the place calledIbentea in the region Fefreshames, and in anotherplace two acres " (B.C.S. 340). This is of the year812, and is rubricated " Ibbintea."

D. An exchange of lands between King Coenwulf andArchbishop Wlfred. The King gave " in the partssuburban to the King's town called Fefresham, onesulung where it is called by the inhabitants Grafon eah.Its boundaries are, on the east Suithhuning lond, onthe west Ealhfleot, on the south Sighearding meduue(Sigeheard's grass land) and likewise Suithhuning long(error for ' lond ')." This is an original charter of theyear 812 (B.C.S. 341).

RELATING TO THE FAVERSHAM DISTRICT. 125

E. A sale by King Coenwulf to Archbishop Wlfredincludes " land of one aratrum in the place and in theregion which is called Westan Widde (probablymeaning ' west of the wood ', i.e. of Blean Forest)where it is called Cynincges cua lond (land of theKing's cows)." The boundaries were, on the eastGrafon eah, on the west a channel which is calledMearc fleot (the boundary lake) and Seleberhtincglond (Selebeorht's land), on the south the old roadwhich leads to the port which is called Cillincg(" strata antiqua quae jacet ad portum "). This isan original charter of the year 814 (B.C.S. 348) andcontains the important words " hoc aratrum . . .ad mansionem on Grafon aea . . . concessumest " (this aratrum has been ceded to the manor ofGraveney).

F. A sale by King Coenwulf to Archbishop Wlfred of" terram unius manentis " (land of one dwelling) inthe region which is called Febres ham in a place whichthe countrymen are accustomed to call Seleberhtinglond. The boundaries are, on the east Alhfleot, onthe south the highway (publica strata), on the westthe King's marsh and on the north " Sualuae." Thisis an original charter of the year 815 (B.C.S. 353) andit has an almost contemporary, but apparentlyinaccurate, endorsement " Gravanea hesbec ".

G. Grant by Earddulf to his friend Wighelm of onesulung and one yokelet " in that place where by theinhabitants it is called Aet Hamme ". This is seen tocomprise the land at Hamme and a marsh adjoining;the boundaries of each are given. Those of the landat Hamme are, on the east Ham fleet, on the west thehigh street, on the north the land of the brotherhoodbelonging to Prestatune with the marsh belonging toit which King Alfred gave, on the south the highstreet as far as the ford. Those of the marsh are, onthe east the Praesta tune brotherhoods marsh, on the

126 THE TOPOGRAPHY OF SOME SAXON CHARTERS

west Hefer fleot, on the north Ham fleot, on the souththat land at Hamme. This is a nearly contemporarycharter (B.C.S. 539) of the year 875. It will be seenlater that during the sixty years which elapsedbetween the date of G and A-F there were variouschanges in the names of places, which is not verysurprising.

H. A charter by which King Wihtred of Kent grantscertain privileges to the monasteries of Kent. Wehave only a copy of this charter and this is not verysatisfactory in some respects. The only point ofpresent interest is that it is dated " in loco quiappellatur Cilling "—the place called Cilling—or, asother copies spell it, Cillinc ; and this may be thesame as the CiUincg of E. The date of H is morethan 100 years before E, in 699 (B.C.S. 99).

It is now proposed to identify the places and boundariesnamed in these charters, giving such reasons for the identifica-tion as may be possible. The strongest reason, however, isto be found on the accompanying maps from which it may beseen that the lands and bounds of these several charters fittogether like a jig-saw puzzle, each supporting the evidenceof the others.

Suithhunincg lond. In A and B this is " at " or " nextto " Graveney, while D tells us that it forms the easternboundary of Graveney. It is assessed at twice the amountof Graveney and must therefore be a place of some importanceand this is born out by the further evidence of D that it formsnot only the east but part of the southern boundary ofGraveney. Prom all this it is evident that Suithhunincg londmust be looked for in the parish of HernMU, of which we haveno other written record earlier than that of a church ofHaranhylle soon after the conquest (Arch. Cant., XLV, 83).In the northern part of this parish is a small hill on which issituated Monkshill Farm. I do not know how old this namemay be, nor what monks are referred to, but it affords someevidence of church ownership. At the time of Domesday


Book Hernhill seems to have formed part of the Archbishop'smanor of Boltune (Boughton under Blean), of which Graveneyalso formed a part (D.Mon.) and this brings evidence ofchurch ownership nearer to the time of Archbishop Wlfred.For all these reasons I think that the land which Swithhunowned must have been what is now called Hernhill.

Grafon Aea. This is Graveney and we have independentevidence that it was in church ownership in the Will of apriest named Werhard (B.C.S. 402) who seems to have farmedvery extensive lands belonging to Christ Church, to whichthey reverted, on his death about 832. But there wasevidently a break in ownership, a very usual happening withchurch property, for King Eadmund restored it again to thechurch in 941 (B.C.S. 766, 811). In 1006 it is returned asstill belonging to Christ Church (Kemble, 715) and so it seemsto have remained until it was leased to Richard the Constablesoon after the conquest.

Ealhfleot. This is the western boundary of Graveneyin D. It appears again as the eastern boundary ofSeleberhting lond (now North Preston) in F, and is possiblythe Ham fleot which is cited as the eastern boundary ofHamme in G—which is sixty years later than D and F, sothat the name might well have changed. The only possiblelocation of a fleet, which usually means a sheet of watercommunicating with a river or with the sea, something of thecharacter of the Norfolk Broads, although in Kent muchsmaller in area, is somewhere on the main channel betweenFaversham and the sea. At a spot on this channel indicatedon the map there are evidences of a previous fleet and thisarea has been enclosed with a wall, suggesting that the seapenetrated here in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.This is not, of course, evidence that it penetrated here in 812but the fact that the wall was built round the area whichseems to be Ealhfleot and not across its mouth so as to cut itoff from further flooding suggests that this area was too deepfor the purpose', in other words, that it was the site of anancient fleot and not a flooding of level country.


Cillincg. This place is considered out of its proper orderbecause it seems that it may have been a port or harboursituated on the Ealhfleot just mentioned. It will be notedthat two important roads lead towards Ealhfleot. On thewest bank of the river is a road which no longer exists butwhich is evidenced on the combined authority of F and G,each dealing with a different section of it. On the east bankis another road which still exists. This seems to be the" strata antiqua quae jacet ad portum quae dicitur Cillincg "of E. That it is in fact an old road is evident from its forminga parish boundary, and from the fact that this boundarytakes no note of an obvious southern diversion of the roadnear a house called Sandbanks. Both these roads must havehad a purpose. That of the eastern road is obvious, it wasthe way to Cillincg and this was a port. That of the westernroad is scarcely explicable unless it led to the other side ofthe same anchorage. There is further the evidence of thename " Ealh-fleot". The word " ealh " meant a temple or,in more general terms, a sanctuary. It matters little whichmeaning we adopt for either of them would be appropriateto an important harbour. When we can add that there wasin 699 (H) a place called Cillincg of sufficient importance forKing Wihtred to transact business there, we are entitled toattach considerable importance to the different threads ofevidence which suggest that the Saxon port of Pavershamwas on an open bay of the river, just south of the existingNagden Farm. The evidence is not complete, but it isworth following up by those who have a knowledge of thedetailed history, field names, etc., of the district.

SigJiearding meduue. We return now to the boundariesof Graveney. On the south is a " medwe ", what we now calla meadow. The word means grass land and not necessarilythe water meadows which were commonly divided amongstseveral owners at this period and for hundreds of yearsafterwards. I know of no facts which can certainly identifySighearding meduue but the map shows in the requiredposition south of Graveney a curiously shaped portion of


Faversham Without, i.e. of the old parish now outside thebounds of the town, which from its size and shape can hardlyhave been a separate holding such as would have been calledSighearding lond (i.e. farm) but may well have been a meadowdetached from some farm belonging to a man called Sigheard.It is worth noting that a magnate of this name attested royalcharters in 805 (B.O.S. 319) and 809 (B.O.S. 328). He ispossibly the " Sigheard comes " of 804 (B.C.S. 316) who alsoattests royal Kentish charters.

Westan Widde. This is the name of the " regio " inwhich the land granted in E was situate. The word " regio "is placed in inverted commas because some writers considerthat any area so denominated must have been a definite andvery ancient administrative area, a view which seems to needmore support than is at present forthcoming. The termWestan Widde means the west wood and, in this district,the only wood likely to be intended was the great forest ofBlean. We have the combined evidence of A, D and E toshow that this forest did not in 814 extend as far west asHernhill except, perhaps, in the form of isolated masses ofwoodland amongst large clearings with reasonably highassessments. In this case it is probably better to readWestan Widde as meaning " to the west of the wood ", ameaning which would seem also to attach to the manor ofWestwood in South Preston. We have every reason forsupposing that neither of these places was actually in thewood at the date of these charters, but that both alike weresituated in an indeterminate area very properly described aswest of the great wood of Blean.

Oynincges cua lond. This means " the land of the King'scows ", i.e. his cattle pasture and the boundaries tell us thatit was somewhere to the west of Graveney, i.e. of the Graveneyof 814, for it is clear from this very charter that the cow landwas actually added to Graveney and so should be sought forwithin the confines of the Graveney of to-day, the parish andold manor of Graveney. The western boundary of the cowland was a channel (" unum fretum ") called the Mearc fleot,

12


which means no more than that it was a boundary, or mark,fleot with a channel through it. There is only one suchchannel west of the Graveney of 814 and so placed that itcould also be west of the cow land. This is in the positionshown on the map where, as in the case of Ealhfleot, certaincontortions of the local watercourses suggest that there mustformerly have been a fleet. On the other side of this fleetand to the south of it we find, as the charter requires,Seleberhtincg lond (North Preston) which is discussed later.The " antiqua strata " which formed the southern boundaryof the cow land has already been discussed. It is concludedtherefore that the cow land was a farm (for, in spite of itsname, it was rated as such, paying on the same assessment asGraveney itself) of which the farm house may well have beenon the site of the modern Nagden Farm, while most of theland would necessarily be to the north-east of this. It maybe hoped that the local antiquary will find some trace of thecows in some still remaining field name, or in some ancientcharter.

Seleberhting lond. This is the land sold to ArchbishopWlfred in 815 as recorded in P. It probably obtained thename Preston (i.e. Priest-town) from this fact or because itwas administered as part of what is now South Preston,centred on the Archbishop's manor of Copton. In any case,it appears that the Seleberhting lond of 815 and the land andmarsh of Prestatune of 875 are the same. They are thenorthern and eastern parts of North Preston Without as itis to-day. The eastern boundary is that Aelhfleot, now speltAlhfleot, which has already been discussed and of which theposition can hardly be in doubt. The southern boundary isa public road which presumably followed the west bank ofthe river. The western boundary is the King's marsh andthis I take to be the marsh which was later given by Barddulfto his friend Wighelm and which was then appurtenant tothe land at Hamme. Such private charters have seldom ifever survived until to-day except in the hands of the churchand were, indeed, very usually made in contemplation of agift to the church. It is an undoubted fact that Hamme


came later to the church, and was attached to the manor ofCopton in South Preston. This King's marsh presumablyoccupied the site of the Ham Marshes of to-day, extendinginto Luddenham. The northern boundary of Seleberhtinglond is " Sualuae ", the Swale. This word is a general namefor a watercourse, which has become the name of a particularwatercourse between Sheppey and the mainland. It occursagain in Swalecliff further to the east and probably in manyof the Swallow holes known to local antiquaries and in variousplaces names compounded with the word swallow, e.g.Swallow Mill hi Little Chart. In this charter the word seemsto be applied to a stretch of the stream between the Aelhfleotand the Mearc fleet of E. The name would be quite appro-priate here or, since the boundaries of these charters areseldom exact, it may be that Sualuae is only a synonym forthe latter fleot.

Hamme. This place is the less difficult to identify sinceThe Ham and Ham Marshes both appear on the 6 in. map.According to G the northern boundary of Hamme is thePrestatune land and its marsh. This is rather north-eastthan true north. On the west is a public street. Thisremains to-day and is in part of its course a parish boundary.On the south is another highway "as far as the ford". I donot know where this ford may have been but it seems likelythat it may have been at the end of the road leading fromFaversham church to the river, and replaced later by thepresent bridge (i.e. by one of its predecessors) a little higherup the stream. Such a position suits well with the require-ments of the charter. The eastern boundary is Ham fleotand this, I think, must either have been situated to the southof Ealhfleot, or may possibly have been the same place undera synonym. On the whole the spot at which a subsidiarystream from the east joins the river south of Ealhfleot seemsthe most likely spot for Ham fleot but an alternativepossibility is indicated by the fact that the river seemsformerly to have made a bend, still followed by the parishboundary, in the position indicated for Ham fleot. The landnow contained in this bend has an inner wall strongly


reminiscent of that of the Ealhfleot and the argument pre-viously suggested in favour of this indicating a former fleetmay apply to Ham fleot also.

Hamme marsh. The boundaries here are, on the south,the land at Hamme already discussed and on the east thePrestatune marsh of which the position can hardly be inquestion. The northern boundary is Ham fleot but this isclearly not the Ham fleot discussed above but another ofthe name, occupying the position of the Mearc fleot of E.The western boundary is another fleot called Hefer fleot.There is no fleet to the west until we come to Oare creek andeven to-day Ham Marshes extend in this direction acrosspart of Luddenham detached. That this is the fleot to whichthe charter refers is obvious from the fact that Hefer and Oareare both names which can be derived from O.E.ufer or ofermeaning a river bank, or from some common stem with thesame meaning from which both hefer and oare (A.S.ora) arederived.

Having now set out the identifications which I favour,it remains to indulge in some comment. It will be con-venient to arrange this under separate headings, and the firstof these is—

IBENTEA.This word occurs as the name of a place in C, and the

place is in the regio of Faversham. The word " Ibentia "is extremely unsatisfactory as may be understood from theremarks of Wallenberg (Kentish Place Names, 108-9). More-over, it comes from a MS., Lambeth, 1212, which containsmany other errors in place names. In this connectionmention must be made of a very similar name in the sameregister which tells us in summarizing another transactionbetween Bang Coenwulf and Archbishop Wlfred that theKing added to his grant " in alio loco in Oancia " twenty-fiveacres of land " nomine Ibbinctun ". It will be rememberedthat the grant at Ibentea was of twenty acres together withtwo acres " in another place ". With regard to these two


records it is worth noting (a) that we have no other record ofgrants at Ibentea or Ibbinctun, (b) that both grants are interms of acres, an unusual unit except with reference topasture land, which might be specified or might merely beunderstood to pass with some manor the subject of a grant,to which manor it had long been attached, (c) that bothrecords come from an untrustworthy source, a source inwhich narrative charters are often found to include rights notmentioned in the originals which they profess to condense,and (d) that the two places named are very similar to eachother but very unlike the common run of Kentish names.In these circumstances I venture to suggest that the clerkwho wrote Lambeth 1212 in both cases entered particularswhich he felt would strengthen the rights of the church, butwhich were not contained in the original charters. And sinceIbentia at least was in the region of Faversham (a detailwhich need not be disputed) we may look for it somewhereattached to the manor of Graveney, which was the Arch-bishop's largest holding in that area ; nor have I much doubtthat Ibentea and Ibbinctun are one and the same place.It has already been noted that grants in terms of acres arelikely to be grants of pasture outside the actual circle of themanor lands. It is therefore of interest to note that thereare, in the neighbourhood of Sighearding meduue, alreadydiscussed, no less than four detached portions of Graveneyparish. The larger of these adjoins Sighearding meduue.All are definitely within the regio of Faversham. I have notfound here any trace of the names Ibbinctun and Ibentea,but I admit to entertaining some suspicion that the latter isa mistaken form of Grafonaea, and the former a furtherillegitimate amendment. A clerk who could transcribe thetwo names Wy and Taenham, both clearly written in hisoriginal, and make of them a new place called Pittenham,would be quite capable of transcribing Grafon aea as Ibenteaor even as Ibbinctun. AH this is admittedly very far shortof proof but it may be that the suggestion will assist philolo-gists who have sought in vain to identify these places withDavington, Evington, etc.

134 THE TOPOGRAPHY OP SOME SAXON OHAETEES

THE " BEGIO " OF FAVEKSHAM.The places described to be in this " regio " are Ibentea

and Seleberhting lond (North Preston). Both are actuallyadjacent to the existing Faversham. Now, if one regards amap of the Faversham area, it is at once apparent that theamazing complex of parishes surrounding the town must havesome special explanation. Faversham itself has one areacalled Faversham Within (i.e. the municipal borough) andfive outlying areas constituting together Faversham Without.Graveney is in five sections, Preston and Luddenham havefour each. Ospringe and Oare have two, while Stone andBoughton, Buckland and Murston, are similarly divided.These curious divisions might be very difficult to understandwere it not for the charters which we are considering. Theseshow that one of the divisions of Preston, viz. North PrestonWithout comprises two separate grants to the church, whichwere apparently attached for administrative convenience toanother church manor, i.e. Copton or South Preston. Theyshow also, as I believe, how Graveney came to combine suchscattered holdings and how the land of the cows might haveformed still another division if it had not been thrown directlyinto the manor of Graveney which it fortunately adjoined.Nor is it difficult to believe that Sighearding meduue wascarved out of Faversham for the benefit of Sigheard and waslater isolated by the formation of Goodnestone into a separatemanor. It is not possible to trace all the processes whichhave given rise to the present state of affairs, but if Favershambe regarded as a royal manor slowly split up by bribes andgifts to powerful courtiers and churchmen, we can keep aclear conception of how this state of affairs came about.And it was, I take it, the neighbourhood of this original royalmanor which formed the regio to which the charters makereference.

THE WESTWOOD " REGHO ".On the north this included the King's cow land and it is

reasonable to suppose that it also included the manor ofWestwood in Boughton under Blean. Between these two


places is situated Graveney which was in the " regio "suburban to Faversham. All these places were in theHundred of Boughton in 1086 (when we first hear of it) andthis Hundred might with equal right be described as west ofthe wood (as " under Blean " implies) or as suburban toFaversham. It seems that we have here two names for thesame regio and it is at least worth note that the regiosuburban to Faversham is seen to apply to the neighbouringHundred, while the regio of Faversham itself is within theHundred of that name. Unhappily there is an interval of250 years between these charters and the date at which theconstitution of the Hundreds is known. It is also a fact thatcertain other regies mentioned in the charters were notHundreds, for example, the regio called Bromgeheg is BroomyFarm in Cooling (B.C.S. 228 of the year 779) while the regioEasterege of B.C.S. 332 (of the year 811) is stated to includelands " on Liminum " and cannot be a smaller area thanEast Kent. It is therefore very hazardous to attach any tooparticular and exact a significance to the word " regio " asused in the Saxon charters.

THE GRANT TO GKAVENEY.

It need hardly be0said that the Kings made grants orconcessions to individuals or to religious houses and not toplaces. Nevertheless we have in connection with the grantof Cynincges cua lond, in an original charter of the year 814(E), the following words :

"Uulfredo archiepiscopo dilectissimo dabo etconcedo aliquam partem terrae juris mei . . .pro commodo pecunio . . . in provincia Cantiaeterram unius aratri in loco et in regione quae diciturwestan widde ubi nominatur Cynincges cua lond. . . et hoc aratrum cum omnibus utensilibusbonis ad mansionem on grafon aea aeternaliterconcessum est."

The words omitted are further descriptions of the price,the King's benevolence and the boundaries, none of which

136 THE TOPOGRAPHY OF SOME SAXON CHARTERS.

are needed for our present purpose. The remainder may betranslated as follows :

" To Wilfred the very dear Archbishop I willgive and concede some part of my rightful land. . . for a suitable sum of money . . . in theprovince of Kent, the land of one aratrum (a unit ofassessment) in the place and region called West-of-the-wood where it is named Cynincges cua lond. . . and this aratrum with all its agriculturalequipment has been ceded to the manor of Graveney."

The word " mansio " is commonly used as a unit ofassessment of the same character and value as one aratrum,which was the value at this time of Graveney (D). But itseems also to be the word equivalent to the manerium of theNormans, although this latter applied to all fiscal unitswhatever their value. However that may be, it seems clearthat Cynincges cua lond was in fact made one with theexisting manor of Graveney or, if purists will refuse to acceptthe word manor, with the then existing estate of Graveney.It would thus become subordinate to the Lord of Graveneyand to the ministrations of the priest of his manor church,in other words, it would become part of the parish of Graveneyof which it has remained part until to-day. That this sortof thing happened is well known, and many examples mightbe given besides those dealt with above, i.e. Hamme andSeleberhting lond, but I cannot call to mind that it isexpressly contemplated by any other charter of the Saxonperiod, and this exact information is therefore very welcome.In the same way the acres of Ibentea (always supposing theyare correctly identified) became part of the manor and parishof Graveney, the two being usually the same in Kent untilwell into the early Norman period. And in the same wayalso ought we to suppose—this is the important point—theoutlying parts of Luddenham, etc., were added to that manorand others, so that we have in a map of modern parishes avery valuable reflection of past history, although, alas ! amap by no means easy to read.

Kent Archaeological Society is a registered charity number 223382© Kent Archaeological Society

DVD ContentsVolume XLVITitle PageContentsIllustrationsOfficers and MembersAnnual Report and AccountsThe Sow and PigsThe Lathe of Aylesford in 975Some Early Kentish WillsMIlton Wills (Next Sittingbourne) - IIISome New Documents Concerning the Building of Cowling Castle and Cobham CollegeField Notes in the Canterbury DistrictOld Kentish RecipesThe Beacon System in KentAn Inventory of an Innkeeper's Possessions in 1685A Note on the Corona of St. Thomas of CanterburyThe Ballard Family RegisterAncient Stained Glass in Bishopsbourne ChurchThe Topography of Some Saxon Charters Relating to FavershamBrook Farm, RecolverThe Vineyard of Northfleet and TeynhamNotes on WallpaperAn Early Alteration of the Boundary Between Kent and SurreyEynsford Church in the Valley of the DarentThe Plan of St. Austin's Abbey, CanterburyThe Reports of Local SecretariesMiscellaneous NotesReviewsObituaryGeneral Index

046-13a The Topography of some Saxon Charters relating to the Faversham District.pdfDVD ContentsVolume XLVITitle PageContentsIllustrationsOfficers and MembersAnnual Report and AccountsThe Sow and PigsThe Lathe of Aylesford in 975Some Early Kentish WillsMIlton Wills (Next Sittingbourne) - IIISome New Documents Concerning the Building of Cowling Castle and Cobham CollegeField Notes in the Canterbury DistrictOld Kentish RecipesThe Beacon System in KentAn Inventory of an Innkeeper's Possessions in 1685A Note on the Corona of St. Thomas of CanterburyThe Ballard Family RegisterAncient Stained Glass in Bishopsbourne ChurchThe Topography of Some Saxon Charters Relating to FavershamBrook Farm, RecolverThe Vineyard of Northfleet and TeynhamNotes on WallpaperAn Early Alteration of the Boundary Between Kent and SurreyEynsford Church in the Valley of the DarentThe Plan of St. Austin's Abbey, CanterburyThe Reports of Local SecretariesMiscellaneous NotesReviewsObituaryGeneral Index