further mention of the site occurs in Roman
literature, and some Possible references in Celtic poems are
neither certain nor helpful.83
Let us now review this patchwork of shreds and
tatters, and see whether anything like a convincing pattern can
be made of it. One useful fact is clear at the outset. If we
exclude the doubtful fragment of wall far to the north, at the
end of the Folkestone road (No.11), and the timber quay or
causeway to the east of the river (No.10), all the Roman
structural remains noted by Mr. Amos and his predecessors in the
valley of the Dour fall within a compact and fairly well-defined
area. This area extends from the vicinity of Dowgate, Princes
Street, and the eastern part of New Street on the west to Gaol
Lane, the eastern half of the Market Square and the western part
of Stembrook Street on the east; and from the northern side of
St. Mary’s churchyard on the north to a line just north of
Queen Street on the south. From east to west the area measures
about 430 ft., and from north to south about 550 ft. It covers
therefore nearly 5½ acres, which may be compared with the 5
acres of the Richborough fortress as originally laid out.
It may be possible, with the help of Mr. Amos’s
observations, to define this area of occupation yet more
closely. The most southerly, or seaward, structure which may be
ascribed to the Roman period is the 50-yard length of thick wall
found to the north of, and nearly parallel to, Queen Street. In
ancient times a great bank of blown sand had accumulated against
its southern face. At what period this accumulation occurred we
cannot say, but the southern face of the wall seems to have
perished before it was thus covered, and a well and other
structures thought to be of medieval date had been built into
the sand, which had therefore preceded them. This heavy layer of
sand has been observed at many points between Queen Street and
the present beach—at the eastern corner of Queen Street
itself, in Last Lane, King Street, Chapel Street, Snargate
Street and Townwall Street—whilst, as a further indication of
the comparatively early date of the drift, it is noted that a
medieval crypt in Bench Street is built into it. The evidence
thus enables us to say that the whole area between the Roman
wall in Queen Street and the present beach lay under sand by the
Middle Ages. Small patches of brown sand are occasionally
observed to the north of the wall, as on the Carlton Club site
in the Market Square; but there can be little doubt that the
line of the wall marks a definite break in the drift, and that
the barrier was therefore present at a relatively early date.
Moreover, the wall itself seems to have borne certain of the
characteristics of the Saxon Shore. Its original width, in the
absence of its southern face, is not known, but it was certainly
more than 6 ft. In Roman building such a thickness is abnormal
save in defensive works. It was built of re-used Roman material,
including a sculptured head of late second- or early
third-century date. It was therefore constructed not earlier
than the latter part of the Roman period; and the use of old
building-material and sculpture finds an easy parallel in the
Saxon-Shore defences of Richborough and Lympne (pp. 30, 58). The
northern side of the wall retained its facing, which included,
incidentally, much of the tufa
83 Sir John
Rhys suggested that Dover might be the Dybrys, Dybyr and Dyfrau
mentioned in the Book of Taliessin (Skene, Four Anct. Books of
Wales, ii, 198). If this conjecture be correct, we should
have evidence of Irish seamen in the Channel, probably pirates,
in the fourth or fifth century. But we should get no further
evidence as to Dover itself. |