We were taught that the Roman invasion was the beginning of civilized life in Britain, and therefore in Kent. The Roman Empire made a huge difference to the records that we can rely on, and it had a particularly strong impact on Kent. Even more locally we know that the invasion came through the north east of Kent, with landings at Richborough in 43 AD, and the building of a supply base there in the few years immediately afterwards.
But the modern story is of a politically inspired invasion that built on an established awareness of the economic value of the island, itself being the result of growing trade between the British (and especially Kentish) people with a variety of places within the Roman Empire. Kent people, along with others through southern England, were increasingly prosperous - they imported goods from what we would now call Belgium, France, Spain and Italy. Large numbers of amphorae, storage vessels typically up to 2 feet long, but occasionally up to 5 feet (see the picture of some above) were brought into Kent from about 100 BC onwards. North Kent was already a source of salt, important both for flavouring and preserving food and as currency, so trading was probably an important part of local life. There was also migration. About 60 BC Julius Caesar wrote that British people were often found among the Gauls fighting him in northern France We do not know for sure that they came from Kent, let alone Chestfield, but it is likely they were predominantly from close to France, and the reliance on coastal sailing already mentioned reinforces the chances that young men from around the area were well represented among the "barbarian" armies opposing the Romans.
But the modern story is of a politically inspired invasion that built on an established awareness of the economic value of the island, itself being the result of growing trade between the British (and especially Kentish) people with a variety of places within the Roman Empire. Kent people, along with others through southern England, were increasingly prosperous - they imported goods from what we would now call Belgium, France, Spain and Italy. Large numbers of amphorae, storage vessels typically up to 2 feet long, but occasionally up to 5 feet (see the picture of some above) were brought into Kent from about 100 BC onwards. North Kent was already a source of salt, important both for flavouring and preserving food and as currency, so trading was probably an important part of local life. There was also migration. About 60 BC Julius Caesar wrote that British people were often found among the Gauls fighting him in northern France We do not know for sure that they came from Kent, let alone Chestfield, but it is likely they were predominantly from close to France, and the reliance on coastal sailing already mentioned reinforces the chances that young men from around the area were well represented among the "barbarian" armies opposing the Romans.
The century before the Romans
If the land of the future Chestfield was a small relatively isolated part of Kent, the wider society of which it was part was already showing signs of technological advance. Close to the time Julius Ceasar wrote about British immigrants fighting his armies in France a Kentish burial included the sophisticated bronze and iron implements pictured opposite. They were probably made within the Roman Empire, but showed how developed was the connection between the area around Chestfield and land within the Roman Empire. Such things must have been known, maybe used, in our locality fully a hundred years before the Roman occupation began in 43 AD.
Having said that, after the Roman conquest the Romans tended to bypass the land between Reculver and Faversham. Roman roads were built inland from Richborough, and later Reculver, to Canterbury. Later both these places were strengthened from supply camps or forts into major centres of the defence system called the Saxon Shore forts, as Roman Britain and particularly the South East of what would be England needed to defend itself against Saxon attacks.
So we know there was a lot of Roman activity less than 10 miles from Chestfield. But there is little evidence uncovered of Roman or Romanised Britons living around the future village itself. No villas, no Roman roads, few Roman remains. This is understandable because the land could have been of little value compared the the salt flats to the west, arable land to the south, or the strategically significant land of Reculver to the east. So Chestfield might have been left by the Romans during the era that we think was the first major formative period of English history. Yet during the last hundred or more years of Roman occupation there is good reason to think that it gained a new significance, which we will see in the next section.
Comments welcome - click here
Having said that, after the Roman conquest the Romans tended to bypass the land between Reculver and Faversham. Roman roads were built inland from Richborough, and later Reculver, to Canterbury. Later both these places were strengthened from supply camps or forts into major centres of the defence system called the Saxon Shore forts, as Roman Britain and particularly the South East of what would be England needed to defend itself against Saxon attacks.
So we know there was a lot of Roman activity less than 10 miles from Chestfield. But there is little evidence uncovered of Roman or Romanised Britons living around the future village itself. No villas, no Roman roads, few Roman remains. This is understandable because the land could have been of little value compared the the salt flats to the west, arable land to the south, or the strategically significant land of Reculver to the east. So Chestfield might have been left by the Romans during the era that we think was the first major formative period of English history. Yet during the last hundred or more years of Roman occupation there is good reason to think that it gained a new significance, which we will see in the next section.
Comments welcome - click here