|
Fig 7 Plan of Roman Fort at Reculver
(From Arch. Journal lxxxvi, p 299)
as even then endangered, and Battely, who died in
1708, testifies that in his lifetime the waves were already devastating
the north face of the fort. By 1784, when Boys made his plan, its
north-west angle had wholly vanished, and very soon afterwards the rest
of its northern side perished. Sea-walls have since saved much, but
nearly a third of its area has been swallowed up. The rate of erosion
has probably not been uniform, and we cannot now determine how far off
to the north the shore lay in Roman times. But we may assume that the
fort of Reculver stood a little way back from the open sea, on some
sheltered inlet or harbour.
The fort itself, when perfect, formed a nearly square
enclosure with rounded angles, measuring internally about 570 ft. by 585
ft., and covering, exclusive of its walls, a trifle over 7½ acres.21
The walls still stand in places 8 ft. to 10 ft. high, and must
originally have been more than twice that height. They are in
general 8 ft. or 8½ ft. thick, but broaden to 10 ft. at the bottom,
owing to two offsets on the inner side. They consist of a facing — now
mostly gone — of coursed Kentish ‘rag,’ in which the stones
average 5 in. to 6 in. square, a core of flint, tufa, and sandstone
rubble, some of it set slantwise in a common fashion, and thirdly a
slight foundation, about 6 in. in depth,
21
These dimensions are taken from a note and plan contributed by Boys to
Nichols’ Bib1. Topogr. Brit. i, 83—6, showing the site
in 1781, when the north-east angle of the fort still survived. Boys’
original drawing is in the Soc. of Antiq. scrapbooks at Burlington
House. The Ordnance Survey, followed by Fox, Arch. Journ. liii,
plan, makes them less, 565 ft. by 565 ft. But the north wall must have
vanished before the Ordnance Surveyors measured the site and their
dimension must therefore be conjectural. |