the structure really stood near the fort, it may have
stood inside it. But we ought possibly to accept the account of Harris,
and suppose it to be something separate from the fort, perhaps a farm or
villa, half a mile away. The occurrence of mosaic flooring, unusual in
forts, favours this view, and an apparent parallel will meet us at
Richborough. (2) Battely also mentions some ‘ cisterns,’ 10 ft. to
12 ft. deep and broad, lined with oak stakes and planks, and bottomed
with puddled clay. In his opinion they were meant to store rain-water;
others have called them rubbish-pits; it is now impossible to refute or
accept either conjecture. (3) Hasted alleges that tiles, bricks, and
traces of tessellation had been found north of the fort as far as the
Black Rock. But he gives no details, and the remains may be those
recorded above or merely debris washed out of the north face of the
fort.23
Of smaller objects we know more. Not a few were discovered
in the seventeenth century. Battely describes and illustrates a gold
chain with blue beads between the links, a bronze enamelled pendant, a
fibula, rings, a statuette of Mars and the head of another statuette,
keys, two spoons, the ornamented handle of a clasp-knife, and a ‘strigil’
12 in. long, all bronze; various pieces of pottery, including Samian and
a ruder large four-handled jar holding twenty-four quarts, and some
tiles.24 Other recorded objects are an inscribed tile,
unfortunately undecipherable, an intaglio of Mercury, a bronze ring and
two fibulae (one early and one late in date) in Maidstone Museum, and
pottery.25 No inscriptions have been found save the
illegible tile, and only six potter’s stamps are recorded (1-5 Samian;
6 on a pelvis or mortarium).
1. MARSI.M
Battely,plate ix,p. io6.
2. PRIM ITIVI
Ibid. p. 105.
3. . . . TACI
Ibid. p. 105, Trin. Coll. Library.
4. CCF
Ibid. p. 105.
5. OF PRIM
Gent. Mag. 1884 (i), 372, possibly a blundering recollection of
No. 1 ;
but the stamp is common.
6. LVGVDV
Arch. Journ. xlvii, 234: ‘made at Lugudunum, in Gaul’ : i.e.
an import,
like the Samian ware.
In general, little of any sort has come to light recently, and Dowker
states that no discoveries occurred when some coastguards’ cottages
were built within the fort.
Coins have turned up in abundance. Leland testifies to ‘much
Romain mony,’ Duncombe to ‘vast quantities of Roman coins, chiefly
of the Lower Empire,’ and Battely to coins of all periods from Cesar
to Honorius. The finds that are actually specified seem to fall into two
portions. The first comprises a few early issues—five or six British
gold, mostly contemporary
23 Hasted, iii, 634.
24 Battely, plates ix—xiii,
repeated by Harris, p. 24.8, and Gent. Mag. 1774, p. 353; C.
R. Smith, Richborough, etc., pl. vii. The library of Trinity
College, Cambridge, possesses Battely’s collection. Personal
examination has shewn that some of the articles are labelled ‘Richborough’
in error. An inscribed ring (Corpus Inscr. Lat. vii, 24*, C. W.
King, Antique Gems, p. 290), some’ scale beams,’ and one or
two other things, also preserved at Cambridge, are plainly medieval,
though the ‘scale-beams’ are figured by Gough (Adds. to Camden, i,
344, plate xvii) as Roman.
25 For the tile see Arch. viii, 79,
with plate: hence Corpus Inscr. Lat. vii, 1261. For the
intaglio, C. R. Smith, Richborough, etc., pl. vii, fig. i6, and Brit.
Arch. Assoc. Journ. xiv, 95. For other pottery, Soc. Ant.
Minutes, 12 June, 1735, i8 Dec. 1735, Arch. Journ. xlvii.
234, etc. Leland mentions a ‘ christal stone’ engraved CLAVDIA
ATE PICCVS, which adorned the binding of an ancient book of the
Gospels in the church in his time, and Hübner admits it (Corpus
Inscr. Lat. vii, 1325). Probably it is Roman work, and as Atepiccus
is a Celtic name, it may belong to Gaul or Britain; but it has no
demonstrable connexion with Roman Reculver. |