A HISTORY OF KENT 



The material used in these prehistoric monuments is sarsen stone, 

 or greywethers, a species of tough sandstone, which occurs naturally 

 scattered about the surface of certain parts of the North Downs and 

 elsewhere. This stone was also largely used at Stonehenge. As far as 

 the Kentish megalithic structures are concerned, the stone does not 

 seem to have been artificially shaped, except perhaps in one instance, 

 but such blocks as were of suitable size and shape seem to have been 

 selected and brought together. The following are the chief Kentish 

 examples : 



Kits Coty House, the best known and the most perfect example of its kind in Kent, 

 stands out boldly on the side of the hill a little below the extensive chalk pit at Blue Bell Hill. 

 It is situated i^ miles north-east of Aylesford, and on sufficiently high ground to command 

 extensive views over the country Ipng to the south and the west. The structure consists 

 of four stones arranged in the form of a simple cromlech. Three of the stones are up- 

 right and support a large flat cap-stone. The upright stones, which are arranged in an 

 H-shaped plan, are of the following dimensions : — the south-west stone is about 8 ft. high, 

 whilst its breadth at the base is 6 ft. 2 in., and its thickness about I ft. 8 in. ; the north-east 

 stone is about 7 ft. high, 6 ft. 8 in. broad, and 2 ft. thick ; the middle stone, which is of 

 irregular form, is 6 ft. 10 in. in greatest height. Upon the top of these stones is placed a 

 capstone measuring 12 ft. 10 in. by 9 ft. 3 in., and in some parts it is about 2 ft. thick. The 

 fact that the two main upright stones have an inclination inwards imparts to them great 

 strength and stability, especially as they are prevented from falling inwards by the middle 

 stone or outwards by the enormous weight of the capstone. 



The size of the capstone is sufficiently large to project beyond the supporting stones. 

 It is pentagonal in form, and so poised on the upright stones as to slope considerably towards 

 the north-west, a circumstance which was once held by archseologists '■ to point to the proba- 

 bility of its having been a sacrificial altar used by the Druids. 



A useful clue to the real object and purpose of Kits Coty House is furnished by the 

 engraved plate of the monument published in 1776 by Dr. Stukeley, 2 in which the stones are 

 represented as standing at the end of a long, low mound. There are also some valuable 

 particulars both of Kits Coty House and Lower Kits Coty House as they appeared in 1732 in 

 a letter from Hercules Ayleway ^ to Dr. Stukeley, as the following extract will show : — ' from 

 the N.W. front of this upper Cotty House are extended a parcell of small stones in the form 

 of branchii, or arms, or arches of circles ; on the N. west side they are doubly rowed, but the 

 S. east arm is either buried or the stones carried away, from the extremitys of which arms I 

 conjecture there has been an avenue, by reason of the many stones I find disposed in or very 

 near a right line, and exactly corresponding with the said arches, which avenue leads to a little 

 farm called Tottendan Place, about 800 yards west of the Cotty House ; it was moated 

 round, and whileome was a place of good strength.' 



There is no reason to doubt that Kits Coty House was originally a long barrow enclosing 

 a stone sepulchral chamber of the well-known neolithic type. It seems quite possible also, 

 judging from the foregoing extract from Ayleway's letter, that the barrow was enclosed in 

 a ring of stones. Agricultural operations, rain-wash, and the excavations of treasure-seekers, 

 are sufficient to account for the entire disappearance of the barrow and the circle of stones 

 by which it was surrounded. 



The division of the space between the supporting stones by the intervention of the middle 

 upright stone, a circumstance which inclined Dr. Stukeley to the opinion that this could not 

 have been a sepulchral cist, does not really present any serious obstacle to the explanation 

 suggested. It points rather to the conclusion that this was a double cist, a feature which, 

 as will presently be shown, is in harmony with another Kentish example. 



In the engraved picture in Dr. Stukeley's Itinerarium Curiosum, already referred to, is 

 shown a point marked ' the General's tomb.' This is clearly distinct from the recumbent 

 monolith, also shown in the engraving lying nearly a mile nearer Aylesford, and popularly 



' King, Mun. Antiq. i. 220 et seq. 



» Stukeley, Itin. Curios, (ed. 2) PJates 31 (2), 33 (2), and 34 (2). 



3 Dt. Stukeley's Diaries and Letters (Surtees See), Ixiiii. bcxvi. bcxx. 



318 



