Mystery embankment on Hoo Island

[Smiffy]

This map from 1769. "A Fort in Ruins", although still not in the same position as the circular feature.

Another possibility is that this was to be the position of the present Hoo fort but after initial work it was moved further south to the site of the old fort for some reason. Perhaps the ground here was found to be too unstable as the later fort also suffered problems with subsidence.

[MartinR]

What's that crescent feature to the left of the word "Marsh" just above "East Hoo Creeke"?  Is that the circular structure shown in later maps?  No-one's mentioned it yet, but the 1870 map originally posed shows a trackway crossing the mud and leading straight to it.  If the OS marked it we can be fairly sure that the trackway existed as a track at that date.

[Admiral D]

Thank you Smiffy - your help is much welcomed.


There was another fort on the same site in 1724, then the present one was built 1871 - interestingly there's no mention of ruins being there when work started.

The embankment is north of the fort(s) site at Folly Pt.

The best guess so far is it is the start of a fort, a drainage pond of some kind or something else...

On the Mudge map from 1807 (left) there is indicated a fort. On the later map from 1819 (right) it isn't. It would seem to me that a fort had been started or planned around about this time, but for some reason was no longer deemed to be necessary until later in the century, when the existing Hoo fort was constructed slightly further south.

[Admiral D]

Thank you Smiffy - your help is much welcomed.


There was another fort on the same site in 1724, then the present one was built 1871 - interestingly there's no mention of ruins being there when work started.

The embankment is north of the fort(s) site at Folly Pt.

The best guess so far is it is the start of a fort, a drainage pond of some kind or something else...

On the Mudge map from 1807 (left) there is indicated a fort. On the later map from 1819 (right) it isn't. It would seem to me that a fort had been started or planned around about this time, but for some reason was no longer deemed to be necessary until later in the century, when the existing Hoo fort was constructed slightly further south.

[Admiral D]

thank you for this Stuartwaters - much apprected.

Ive spoken with people form another forum and a local museum guy, here are some theories so far:

It is too regular to be linked to clay extraction or mud digging.

It is too big to be a kiln, and if anyone thought it could have been Roman, surely archaeologists would have been all over it already.

Pans for salt making tend to be rectangular.

Oyster pits/beds also rectangular-ish and from what I can see are usually boarded. Seen pictures of timbers elsewhere.

De Gomme’s 17^th C map for the fortification of the Medway shows nothing on Hoo Ness. Again if anyone out there thought it could possibly have been intended as a fortification, surely someone would have written about it. The entry for Hoo Fort in the Kent Defence Gazetteer mentions nothing.

Surely it would be too much hassle to manage livestock out there.

River defences follow the line of the solid land and are not circular.

It is tempting to think that it is something to do with Hoo Fort. The earliest map image of it is the one you sent of the 1860s, by which date Hoo Fort is being built or is built, I think. Some (maybe uncompleted) location for a battery? But I don’t think at that date they would have been very interested in building an earth rampart. Did they store something there while they were building and wanted to keep the river out? Did they camp there?

There's also a source which says lots of drainage took place on the forts foundations so the concrete would set, 'wells and pipework' this might have been a drainage pond of some sort?

Thank you John.


We thought the same, but it pre-dates Hoo fort and there's no mention of a fort being built at this spot as a trial.


Theres nothing in local archives or National archives or the Royal Engineers museum, not sure who else to ask?

[Smiffy]

On the Mudge map from 1807 (left) there is indicated a fort. On the later map from 1819 (right) it isn't. It would seem to me that a fort had been started or planned around about this time, but for some reason was no longer deemed to be necessary until later in the century, when the existing Hoo fort was constructed slightly further south.

[stuartwaters]

In the absence of hard facts, sometimes you have to make an educated guess or extrapolate existing knowledge. So, purely guesswork here, but as far as I'm aware, the island was partly created out of the slurry and spoil from dredging the river. Some sort of bund to stop the slurry getting back into the watercourse perhaps?

[Admiral D]

Thank you John.


We thought the same, but it pre-dates Hoo fort and there's no mention of a fort being built at this spot as a trial.


Theres nothing in local archives or National archives or the Royal Engineers museum, not sure who else to ask?

[johnfilmer]

Could it be a failed start to the fort, site found to be unsuitable etc. Mess ups and rethinks are not confined to recent government funded infrastructure...

[Admiral D]

photos of what the embankment looks like now

[Admiral D]

Dear Histroy Brethren,[/font][/size][/font][/color][/size] [/size][/font][/color][/size]I am resarching Hoo Island (Hoo salt marsh) and my friends don’t know what this circular embankment was for.[/size][/font][/color][/size] [/size][/font][/color][/size]We think it may have been an animal enclosure but maps from 1870 show water was in the centre so its unlikely.[/color][/size] [/size][/font][/color][/size]Another theory is it was a Roman kiln but this would have been huge and I cant find examples of a kiln this size.[/size][/font][/color][/size]I attache some map images and recent photos of what it looks like now (which is rather low for an embankment[/size][/font][/color]).[/size] [/size][/font][/color][/size]I would be grateful for anyone's theory or definitive explanation as to what this is, please?[/color][/size] [/size][/font][/color]