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
Battely,plate ix,p. io6.
2. PRIM ITIVI
Ibid. p. 105.
3. . . . TACI
Ibid. p. 105, Trin. Coll. Library.
Ibid. p. 105.
5. OF PRIM
Gent. Mag. 1884 (i), 372, possibly a blundering
recollection of No. 1 ;
but the stamp is common.
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
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.