Exploring Kent's Past

It should not be assumed that this site is publicly accessible and it may be on private property. Do not trespass.

Monument details

Summary

The remains of a Late Neolithic to Early Bronze Age chambered long barrow overlying a Mesolithic site. Twelve large sarsen fragments survive although these have been badly damaged by collapse and erosion. The barrow was once an oblong burial chamber covered by a large mound. It was oriented East to West and blocked at both ends. There was a facade of four stones, two on each side of the east end. The chamber was covered by two capstones. It contained the cremated fragments of at least eleven adults and one infant. The remains included at least three pots all of Neolithic/Early Bronze Age fabric.

The morphology of the tomb and grave-goods, suggest that it was in use in the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age (c. 1800-1400 B.C.). The barrow was still standing in the late 1st-2nd century A.D., when a small settlement sheltered in the lee of it and left a mass of pottery (some 900 sherds, iron nails, etc.) (see TQ 65 NE 14). The destruction of the tomb in the 12-13th centuries was apparently deliberate, probably during a search for treasure. The chamber was systematically turned over, pits were dug under the stones and the barrow was dug away. As a result of this the chamber collapsed, sealing medieval sherds beneath its stones (see TQ 65 NE 36). Since then the monument has been little disturbed.

The tomb was erected in an area of extensive Mesolithic settlement which had long been known from surface collections but was now found stratified under the floor and wallstones [see also TQ 65 NE 15]

Monument Types

• CHAMBERED LONG BARROW (Early Neolithic to Late Bronze Age - 4000 BC to 701 BC)
• LONG BARROW (Early Neolithic - 4000 BC to 3001 BC)
• FINDSPOT (Early Bronze Age - 2350 BC to 1501 BC)
• DITCH (Roman - 43 AD to 409 AD)

Associated Finds

• CREMATION (Neolithic - 4000 BC to 2351 BC)
• HUMAN REMAINS (Neolithic - 4000 BC to 2351 BC)
• LEAF ARROWHEAD (Neolithic - 4000 BC to 2351 BC)
• TRANSVERSE ARROWHEAD (Neolithic - 4000 BC to 2351 BC)
• BARBED AND TANGED ARROWHEAD (Early Bronze Age - 2350 BC to 1501 BC)
• ANIMAL REMAINS (Roman - 43 AD to 409 AD)
• NAIL (Roman - 43 AD to 409 AD)
• VESSEL (Roman - 43 AD to 409 AD)

Full description

If you do not understand anything on this page please contact us.

[TQ 6527 5917] Burial Chamber [NR] (Remains of) [NAT] (1) Excavated August-September, 1957, through the enterprise of the owner Mr E. Boyle, and the encouragement of the Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments. The tomb was erected in an area of extensive mesolithic settlement which had long been known from surface collections but was now found stratified under the floor and wallstones [see also TQ 65 NE 15]. Twelve large sarsen fragments survive although badly damaged by collapse and erosion. The majority of them was apparently still in their original positions although, like the Coldrum megalithic tomb, most of them had not been set in socket-holes. The plan was an oblong chamber, oriented E.-W., blocked at both ends and having a facade of four stones, two on each side of the E. end. The chamber, covered by two capstones, was about 12ft. x 8ft. x 7ft. high. It contained the cremated fragments (some 4,800 were collected) of at least eleven adults and one infant. The remains of a least three pots (50 fragments) also came from the chamber, one with fingernail impression,and all were of Neolithic/Early Bronze Age fabric. Two fine barbed-and-tanged arrowheads from the same area may be connected with the burials. Fragments of a fourth pot were found where it had been smashed just outside the entrance. A large barrow once covered the tomb. It has only survived for about one quarter of the circuit but suggested a total width of 60ft. and is likely to have been oval on plan. The morphology of the tomb and grave-goods, suggest that it was in use in the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age (c. 1800-1400 B.C.). The barrow was still standing in the late 1st-2nd century A.D., when a small settlement sheltered in the lee of it and left a mass of pottery (some 900 sherds, iron nails, etc.) (see TQ 65 NE 14). The destruction of the tomb in the 12-13th centuries was apparently deliberate, probably during a search for treasure. The chamber was systematically turned over, pits were dug under the stones and the barrow was dug away. As a result of this the chamber collapsed, sealing medieval sherds beneath its stones (see TQ 65 NE 36). Since then the monument has been little disturbed. Some digging took place round the stones in the 18th-19th centuries and some of the smaller fragments may have been taken for roadmending, but the larger ones were untouched. (2) Additional references. (3-6, 11)

Chambered long barrow (remains). The remains of the burial chamber lie within a market garden. The owner (Mr E. Boyle) has started to reconstruct it and the four side-stones of the chamber and the four façade-stones are already in position. There is now no evidence of the mound. A 25" survey has been carried out; see also GP's AO/59/56/6 - from S.E.; /7 from S.W. (7) Final excavation report. (8) Checked and correct. (9)

Chestnuts Burial Chamber, Addington. Further work on the stones has indicated the front side stones to be eleven feet in height and the back side stones nine feet. (10)

Additional bibliography. (11-14)

The extent of the disturbance to the tomb and its contents, particularly during the medieval period, makes interpretation of the excavated evidence difficult, especially in terms of the sequence and chronology of events on the site from the Mesolithic onwards. The fact that so few finds are illustrated in the final report, and the absence of many plans and sections, does not help matters. Alexander's analysis of the pottery in particular is considerably outdated. Herne (1988) has looked at some of the sherds in the context of a broader discussion of Early Neolithic pottery from Britain, in the process highlighting the lack of pottery of this period from Kent and the consequent problems in interpreting and sequencing it. Alexander's suggestion that the chambered tomb was in use into the Early Bronze Age appears to be based on the vague identification of some potsherds as "Neolithic or Early Bronze Age" and the presence of two barbed and tanged arrowheads in disturbed contexts but regarded nonetheless as possible grave goods.

Alexander interpreted the Roman remains found adjacent to the barrow as representing a "hut", part of a suggested settlement. However, the only structural feature is a length of ditch 6 inches wide and four inches deep, and few if any of the Roman artefacts were certainly associated with it. The Roman material comprised "a four inch thick stratum of grey sand full of sherds, charcoal, iron nails, burnt clay and bone, and flint fragments". These items apparently spanned the entire Roman period in terms of their likely date.

Paul Ashbee has in recent years published several articles discussing the Medway megaliths, including Chestnuts, with a particular emphasis on historical records and early investigations, with detailed bibliographic sources. (15-20)

From the National Heritage List for England
The surviving remains of this monument lie on relatively low, sandy ground above the valley of a small stream. The remains are best interpreted as those of a Long Barrow oriented E- W with the burial chamber at the E end. Some 100m to the SE is the Addington Long Barrow. The most distinctive part of the monument is the cluster of large sarsen stones which originally formed a Neolithic burial chamber. The understanding of this monument relies heavily on the excavations carried out in 1957 by Dr. J. Alexander. These investigations demonstrated that the burial chamber had formerly been covered by a mound of sand 18m wide which nad been scraped up from the surrounding area. The burial chamber, formed by pairs of stones on the north and south sides and given a façade of four further slabs, was found to contain the cremated remains of 12 bodies. The burial chamber was estimated to have been 3.6m long and 2.4m wide and was roofed by capstones. The mound over the chamber was probably in the shape of a tapering rectangle extending westwards for perhaps 50-60m by analogy with similar monuments. The excavation showed that the mound had been had been seriously damaged during the medieval period. The western end was sub-sequently lost to quarrying and the mound was further damaged earlier this century by deep ploughing, but evidence from pits cut into the subsoil is considered likely to survive to the west of the burial chamber. The recent concrete at the foot of the large sarsens (but not the ground beneath), the props used to support the stones and the fence at the quarry-edge are excluded from the scheduling at this monument.

The surviving remains of this monument lie on relatively low, sandy ground above the valley of a small stream. The remains are best interpreted as those of a Long Barrow oriented E- W with the burial chamber at the E end. Some 100m to the SE is the Addington Long Barrow. The most distinctive part of the monument is the cluster of large sarsen stones which originally formed a Neolithic burial chamber. The understanding of this monument relies heavily on the excavations carried out in 1957 by Dr. J. Alexander. These investigations demonstrated that the burial chamber had formerly been covered by a mound of sand 18m wide which nad been scraped up from the surrounding area. The burial chamber, formed by pairs of stones on the north and south sides and given a façade of four further slabs, was found to contain the cremated remains of 12 bodies. The burial chamber was estimated to have been 3.6m long and 2.4m wide and was roofed by capstones. The mound over the chamber was probably in the shape of a tapering rectangle extending westwards for perhaps 50-60m by analogy with similar monuments. The excavation showed that the mound had been had been seriously damaged during the medieval period. The western end was sub-sequently lost to quarrying and the mound was further damaged earlier this century by deep ploughing, but evidence from pits cut into the subsoil is considered likely to survive to the west of the burial chamber. The recent concrete at the foot of the large sarsens (but not the ground beneath), the props used to support the stones and the fence at the quarry-edge are excluded from the scheduling at this monument

<1> OS 6" 1936 (OS Card Reference). SKE48337.

<2> Arch Cant 72 1958 191-2 (J Alexander) [Preliminary excavation report - full account to follow in nex (OS Card Reference). SKE35502.

<3> OS Prof Paper NS no 8 1924 (O G S Crawford) (OS Card Reference). SKE48426.

<4> Archaeology of Kent 1930 70 ff (R F Jessup) (OS Card Reference). SKE37347.

<5> PPS 1 1935 122 (S Pigott) (OS Card Reference). SKE48578.

<6> Prehistoric Chamber Tombs of England and Wales 1958 233 (G E Daniel) (OS Card Reference). SKE48653.

<7> F1 AC 23-JUL-59 (OS Card Reference). SKE41824.

<8> Arch Cant 76 1961 1-57 plans illusts (J Alexander) (OS Card Reference). SKE35588.

<9> F2 FGA 19-FEB-64 (OS Card Reference). SKE43329.

<10> Arch Cant 78 1963 liii (R G Boyle) (OS Card Reference). SKE35649.

<11> Philp, B, 1981, A survey of the Medway megaliths, KAR 64: 80 (Article in serial). SKE24000.

<11> Philp, B. and Dutto, M., 2005, The Medway Megaliths: An illustrated guide to the famous Neolithic chambered long-barrows of the Medway area (Monograph). SKE23999.

<12> Arch J 126 1969 241-2 (E Warman) (OS Card Reference). SKE36550.

<13> Arch Cant 97 1981 231 (R Holgate) (OS Card Reference). SKE36278.

<14> BAR 75 2 1980 Flint Arrowheads 391 (H S Green) (OS Card Reference). SKE37561.

<15> Field report for monument TQ 65 NE 24 - July, 1959 (Bibliographic reference). SKE3316.

<16> Field report for monument TQ 65 NE 24 - February, 1964 (Bibliographic reference). SKE3317.

<17> Ashbee. P, 1999, The Medway Megaliths in a European Context (Article in serial). SKE53767.

<18> Ashbee P., 2000, The Medway's Megalithic Long Barrows. (Article in serial). SKE53768.

<19> Barber M., 1997, Landscape, the Neolithic, and Kent. (Monograph). SKE53769.

<20> Herne A., 1988, A Time and a Place for the Grimston Bowl. (Article in monograph). SKE53770.

<21> Historic England, Historic England Archive (Archive). SKE53771.

Sources and further reading

Related records

Related thematic articles

• Mesolithic Kent (Thematic Essay)
• Neolithic Kent (Thematic Essay)