|
The Towns of Roman Kent
I. INTRODUCTION
The geographer Ptolemy, writing in the first half
of the second century A.D., affirms that the principal cities
of the Cantii were Londinium, Darouernon (Canterbury), and
Rutupiae (Richborough). In including London within Kent, he
was doubtless influenced not merely by the extensive southern
bridge—head settlement in Southwark, but also by the general
fact that, from the Continental standpoint, London dominated
the horizon of the Kentish ports. His view may be contrasted
with that of the more insular Saxons who, later, included
London in Essex.
From our present survey, Roman London and its
suburbs are excluded.1
Richborough, now known to us primarily by its military
remains, has already been discussed (p. 24). Canterbury,
the tribal capital of the Cantii and the nodal point in the
Roman road-system between London and the ports, therefore
assumes priority. Like many other tribal capitals, it was at
some period in its Roman history dignified by a girdle of
fortifications. This dignity it shared, so far as we know,
with only one other Kentish town— that of Durobrivae, which
has left its outline in the streets and gardens of Rochester.
Both Canterbury and Rochester occupy characteristic Roman
sites at points where a main road crosses a river-valley. How
far Roman Canterbury owed its origin to Roman choice, and how
far it was influenced by pre-Roman tribal interests, is a
debatable question 2;
but there is no reason to doubt that Rochester at least, set
astride the Watling Street at the crossing of the Medway, was
a purely Roman foundation. As such, it may stand as the
archetype of several minor Roman towns and villages within the
limits of our county. It is hardly an exaggeration to say
that, wherever a Roman main road in Kent crosses the head of a
creek or spans a river-valley, there may be found the relics
of a Roman settlement. How far, in our description of these
remains, we are justified in isolating them and dubbing them
‘town’ or ‘village’ is not always easy to say. The
Watling Street of Kent seems, indeed, to have threaded an
almost continuous series, of Roman settlements of one kind or
another—here represented by a villa or a cemetery, there by
a few rubbish-pits and potsherds, the sole surviving relics,
perhaps, of timber cottages. In this far-flung line of
Romano-British settlement, the valley-crossings stand out
merely as local focus-points which we should be wrong to
emphasize unduly. For example, between Rochester and
Canterbury, the districts of Faversham and
Sittingbourne—each at the head of one of the larger creeks
which intersect the marshland towards Sheppey—were
undoubtedly areas of intensive habitation. It is less
important, however, to remember this than to observe that the
whole strip of habitable ground lying between the Wading
Street and the Swale, for 16 miles or more east of Rochester,
is strewn with Roman ‘villas,’ cemeteries, pottery and
other
1 See J’.C.H.
London, I, i Ct seq.; Roman London, Roy. Corn. Hist.
Mon. Eng. 2 See p. 61. |