This article appeared in the Summer 1970 (Issue #20) edition of the Kent Archaeological Review.
Permission should be sought from the Honorary editor (in writing) to reproduce or quote from articles in the K A R.
The CKA and the Honorary Editor are not responsible for opinions and statements expressed by contributors to the K A R.
May I comment on -- rather than "answer" -- Mr Horne's letter in your last issue; and at the same time on the metamorphosis of KARGC into CKA.
- that there are too many ineffective organisations engaged in "archaeology" (which I assume, although I am not sure, embraces or is embraced by "history"),
- that no organisation is better than an ineffective organisation and
- that what is most wanted is "co-ordination on a local basis."
But living on the ROTHER/LIMEN I am painfully conscious of the complete absence of co-ordination between Kent and Sussex and I believe that for any understanding of Kentish history and pre-history it is necessary to know about Essex too.
Might I dare to suggest:
- that (if CKA. meets more than annually) it should co-opt representatives of East Sussex and Essex (and perhaps of Surrey) and should seek similar representation on similar bodies in the adjoining counties and
- that there are some deplorable gaps in the coverage of Kent by local "groups" -- notably the Romney and Walland Marshes (and the Isle of Oxney).