the third century. To the massive ruins of this
fortress—ruins which tower over the marshes and break the horizon for
miles round—we now turn.
The ruins are fragments of the ramparts defending a
rectangular fort. Three of the walls—south, west, and north—survive
in singular completeness (P1. II). The fourth or eastern has vanished
through erosion, although fallen pieces of it may still be seen at the
foot of the cliff, and part of a curious foundation, to which further
reference will be made, remains upon the brow. How far stable land
extended seaward in Roman times we do not know. At Reculver, as we have
seen, the fort was several hundred yards from the coast, and clearly
depended rather upon the channel of the Wansum for approach by water. At
Burgh Castle, on the other hand, the larger part of the fort occupied
high ground, but the water-front was brought down to the water’s edge.
Richborough was probably more like Reculver than Burgh; for the
smallness of the surviving portion of the large legionary camp
underlying the fortress is clear indication that much land has been lost
here since the Roman period. Nevertheless, the Richborough fortress is
20 ft. below the summit of the hill on which it stands, and
accessibility from sea and channel, and doubtless, therefore, from the
Channel Fleet, must have been a determining factor.
The area thus enclosed within the walls now measures about
490 ft. by 470 ft., and, if squared off to its maximum surviving width,
covers about five acres. There is a remarkable piece of evidence that
this was the approximate size originally intended by the builders.
Mention has already been made of a foundation of which a part still
remains near the brow of the cliff in the northern part of the fortress.
This foundation lies north and south, is from 13 ft. to 14 ft. wide, and
can only have been meant to carry a heavy defensive wall. An eastern
rampart in this position would give the fortress a convincingly square
plan, with its northern and (possibly) southern posterns in the centres
of their respective walls. But there are difficulties. On such a design
the easternmost ‘intermediate’ tower on the north wall would come
inconveniently near the north-eastern corner, which may be supposed to
have had a tower of its own. A more serious objection is that a deep pit
sunk anciently through the broad foundation contained 140 coins of which
none was apparently later than the latter part of the third century; the
foundation was therefore already ignored at that time. These
difficulties, combined with the complete absence of any superstructure
on the foundation, compel the inference that the rampart which it
suggests was never completed and that the plan of the fort was modified
during process of construction by an enlargement towards the east.
The construction of the three surviving walls is uniform.
They are 10½ ft. to 11¼ ft. thick, and occasionally even more; their
original height cannot now be determined, but must have exceeded 25 ft.
Their material is a rubble-and-concrete core with facings of coursed
masonry, much of which is re-used from earlier buildings,32 and
reveals here and there an attempt at ornamentation in the disposition of
light and dark stones. Externally from about 8 ft. upwards are double
levelling-courses of tiles, which do not run through the core. On the
inner side of the wall the facing has mostly been
32 Built into the north wall
externally is, amongst much other second-hand material, a much-weathered
carving of a lion. |