A HISTORY OF KENT 



Rhine, are more frequently met with in Kent, but are rare in other 

 EngHsh counties. The most primitive form occurred on Chatham 

 Lines,' where two specimens with a diamond-shaped foot were also 

 found"*; but others from Ozingell, Folkestone, Lyminge and Bifrons 

 (two), together with one in Canterbury Museum, are of the usual form, 

 with blunt terminals (fig. 13). 



A massive brooch from Bifrons with square head and circular bow' 

 is hard to classify, but three silver specimens * of similar style but on a 

 smaller scale (as pi. ii. fig. 2) appear to be a late form of the Jutish 

 square-headed brooch (as pi. i. figs. 2, 3). 



The above represent only a small proportion of the rich harvest 

 from Kent, and there can be no hesitation in attributing such types as 

 the circular brooch with keystone and T garnets, the cell-work circular 

 brooches and the small square-headed specimens with a cruciform or 

 lozenge design on the foot, to Kentish craftsmen. One or two pieces of 

 cell-work somewhat in the Kentish style are known on the Continent, 

 and the Jutish square-headed brooch seems to have occurred in the 

 Herpes cemetery ,vDcpt. Charente, but was no doubt made in England. 

 It is clear that in the pagan period, at least, our Anglo-Saxon predeces- 

 sors enjoyed a splendid isolation, though such objects as bronze bowls 

 with openwork feet, spoons with perforated bowls and crystal spheres 

 are common to both sides of the Channel. On the other hand, it 

 would be hard to find an exact parallel anywhere to a jewelled brooch 

 (pi. i. fig. 11), now in Canterbury Museum and probably found in the 

 county. The cell-work seems to represent bees,° as in the tomb of 

 Childeric, but the present specimen is later than 481, and is more likely 

 of the sixth century. 



It might reasonably be expected that the exceptional number and 

 richness of Kentish Anglo-Saxon burials would throw a new light on 

 the racial affinities of its earliest Teutonic settlers ; but in truth the 

 finds do little more than justify the Venerable Bede. Enough has been 

 said to show that the grave-furniture of Kent and the Isle of Wight is 

 different from that discovered elsewhere, and there can be no objection 

 to explaining this phenomenon by Bede's assertion that both areas were 

 inhabited by Jutes. Who the Jutes precisely were and whence they 

 came are questions that will perhaps never be satisfactorily answered, 

 but it is interesting to find some traces of the race in the physical 

 characteristics of the present population. A peculiar cast ot features, 

 illustrated more than once in works on the subject,'' has been regarded 

 as Jutish, and noticed in the interior of Kent, especially near Tonbridge 

 and Canterbury, in Wight and the Meon district of Hants.' In the 



1 Nen, Brit. pi. vi. fig. 4. 



2 Ibid. pi. iv. fig. 7 ; pi. xv. fig. 5 (Rhenish terminal). 



3 Arch. Cant. .x. 313. 



* Gilton or Richborough (see above), and Stodmarsh (British Museum). 



= Mimoires des Antiquaires ie France, 1894, p. 137; Boulanger, Mobilier jiineraire, pi. xxv. fie. 2. 

 » W. H. Stevenson, Engl. Hist. Review, 1899, p. 42. 



' Beddoe, Races of Britain, pp. 40, 256; Ripley, Races of Europe, p. 332 and p. 316, Nos. 121, 122. 

 « Mackintosh, Trans. Ethnol. Soc, new sei. i. 213; Harrison, Joiirn. Anthrof. Inst. xiii. 86. 

 380 



