temples were of the well-known Romano-Celtic
type, with square cella and surrounding portico. No indications
as to their date or dedications were found during the hurried
examination of them.
Beyond the temples, during the construction of the
main railway line in 1846 at the south of the cliff, 600 yards
from the fortress and only a little above marsh level, a portion
of another building was similarly destroyed. No more was
uncovered than some flint-and-tile walling and parts of rooms
(one apsidal) paved with concrete—all suggestive of a
dwelling-house or baths.38 It may remind us of
a similarly placed building at Reculver (p. 21). Some Samian
ware, now in the Liverpool Museum, was found at the same time.
Lastly, one structure has been found actually on
marsh level. This came to light in the eighteenth century, about
200 yards north of the fort and at the foot of the cliff. It was
4 ft. high, triangular in shape, measuring 10 ft. each way and
pointing an angle towards the sea, and consisted of a brickwork
shell, two bricks thick, filled with earth.39 This
can scarcely have been a tomb. Boys called it a wharf. It may
rather remind us of the solid hexagonal Lantern of Augustus’
at the entry to the port of Fréjus in Provence, but that
structure is equally a mystery and, therefore, does not help.
Of the cemeteries of the place almost nothing is
known. Outside the fortress a few urns with burnt bones have
been found near the farmhouses to the west. Within the fortress
many human skeletons, bones and ashes have been found in the
eastern part close to the cliff. Here in the Middle Ages stood a
chapel dedicated to St. Augustine,40 and most
of the skeletons are doubtless connected with this. But the
ashes must be earlier and may well antedate the fortress.41
One tomb at least stood upon the site before the days of the
Saxon Shore. In 1927, under the west wall of the fortress, just
south of the gateway, was found a skeleton which had been buried
in a coffin. There was no grave-furniture except a bronze pin,
which had probably fastened the shroud. About 6 ft. above the
body, at what must have been the ground-level at the period,
were the remains of a small masonry chamber, which had been
partly cut away when the wall of the (later) fortress was built.
There were slight indications that the chamber had been covered
by a tumulus, as in a somewhat similar example at Rougham in
Suffolk. The date of the burial has been proved to be later than
about 200 A.D., as indeed we should expect it to be from its
character. It is certainly earlier than the latter part of the
third century, when the fortress was built. The first half of
the third century is therefore the most likely period.
If we know little of the cemeteries of Richborough
we do not know much more of the road or roads which gave access
to the spot. That a road existed we may feel sure. Richborough
was not only a fort. It was also a harbour where men and goods
were landed and embarked. That does not suit an island divided
by water from the roads of Kent. Had Richborough been
inaccessible by land, the landing-place would have been on the
Kentish shore of its harbour and not on its island. Of such a
landing-place, with its houses and inhabitants, there is no
trace anywhere save on Richborough hill, and
38 C. R. Smith, Richborough,
etc., 54. (plan).
39 Boys, Sandwich, 868;
hence C. R. Smith, Richborough, etc., 53.
40 The very
fragmentary remains of this chapel have been excavated and are
described in the Second
Richborough Rep. (Soc. Antiq.), p. 34.
41 T. C. Bell, Arch. Aeliana, ii