Page:Rude Stone Monuments.djvu/144

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been validated.
118
ENGLAND.
Chap. IV.

people as the coffin-stones—probably from their shape. They are 12 feet long by 4 to 6 broad, and about 2 or 3 feet thick,[1] They appear to be partially hewn, or at least shaped, so as to resemble one another.

Besides these stones, which are all on the right bank of the river, there are several groups at or near Addington, about five miles to the westward of Aylesford. Two of these in the park at Addington have long been known to antiquaries, having been described and figured in the 'Archæologia' in 1773.[2] The first is a small circle, about 11 feet in diameter, the six stones comprising it being 19 feet high, 7 wide, and 2 in thickness. Near it is the larger one of oval form, measuring 50 paces by 42 paces. The stones are generally smaller than those of the other circle. The other groups or detached stones are described by Mr. Wright,[3] who went over the ground with that excellent and venerable antiquary the Rev. L. B. Larking, They seem to have adopted the common opinion that an avenue of such stones existed all the way from Addington to Aylesford, but it seems to me that there is no sufficient evidence to justify this conclusion. Many of the stones seem natural boulders, and in no place is any alignment distinctly perceptible.

In addition to these, Mr. Wright found, and attempted to excavate some smaller monuments of a sepulchral character, near Kit's Cotty House, but situated on the brow of the hill immediately above it. These "consist generally of groups of stones buried partly on the ridge of the hill, but evidently forming, or having formed, small sepulchral chambers." "Each group," he adds, "is generally surrounded by a circle of stones."[4]

There only now remains the question, why were all these stones placed here, and by whom? Mr. Wright is far too sober and too well-informed an antiquary to repeat the usual nonsense about such monuments having been Druid temples or altars. The conclusion at which he arrives (p. 183) is that Kit's


  1. It is extremely difficult to be precise about the dimensions. One is almost wholly buried in the earth, and its dimensions can only be obtained by probing; the other is half buried.
  2. 'Archæologia.' ii. 1773, p. 107.
  3. 'Wanderings of an Antiquary;' London, 1854, p. 175 et seqq.
  4. loc cit. 175.