More information : [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)
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 facade-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) |