that was always dear to the heart of the
Roman builder; and the contrast between the well-preserved
northern and the perished southern face of the wall at once
recalls the common contrast between the inner and outer faces of
a Roman fort-wall the inner comparatively sheltered and further
preserved by the accumulation of occupation-earth against it, or
even by a protective bank; the outer exposed to the weather and
(in this case) the sea, and more readily attacked by the
stone-robbers of later ages. Only the seeming inadequacy of the
mortar in the core of the wall might appear to suggest a
medieval rather than Roman builder. On the other hand, medieval
mortar was normally good, whereas Roman mortar, as in the walls
of Caerwent, was sometimes spread in intermittent layers in such
a manner as to leave much of the rubble of the wall ungrouted.
Such a wall, exposed to sea-weather, would rapidly disintegrate.
On the balance of probability—we cannot say more— the Queen
Street wall is more likely than not to have been the seaward
rampart of the Saxon-Shore fortress.
On the eastern side of the area, one definite
landmark seems to be vouch safed to us. The inchoate mass of
masonry, some 12 ft. thick as preserved, found at the junction
of Church Street with the Market Square, can scarcely be other
than a fragment of the Roman defences. Mr. Amos thinks that it
was a part of a bastion. He is probably right, since the
thickness of the unfaced fragment is considerably greater than
that of the normal Saxon-Shore rampart. Its central position in
the eastern side of our Roman area suggests that it may even
have been a part of a gateway. Like the Queen Street wall, the
‘bastion’ contained re-used building material, and, if the
tufa-facing observed by Mr. Amos near the bastion was a part of
it, or of the adjacent rampart, we have a further slight
constructional link between the two groups.
A line drawn through the ‘ bastion,’ at right
angles to the Queen Street wall, passes through or close to the
substantial wall found under the eastern wall of the Duchess of
Kent public-house on the south side of the Market Square. Little
is known of this wall; but the ground immediately to the east
slopes away from it, was apparently under water (see above, pp.
44—5), and was presumably therefore outside the defences.
On the northern side, the Roman defences cannot
have stood far to the north of the Roman building under St.
Mary’s church (No. 2), for the low-lying fields between the
churchyard and the Dour were marshy up to1800. The only
structural evidence which may have a bearing upon the problem is
the tough fragment of masonry found long ago near the Biggin
Gate (No. 1). If this was not a part of the medieval wall, it
was probably a relic of its Roman predecessor. The details,
however, are too badly recorded to support definite conclusions.
On the western side, the limit of Roman building
(as known to us) is marked by the tufa-faced wall, substantial,
but of unascertained thickness, at the south-west corner of the
former ‘ Royal Oak’ yard (No. 3). The wall had an offset on
its eastern side and ran approximately north and south. It was
thought at the time of its discovery to be town-wall, although
it lay off the medieval line. But further details of it are
badly needed. Meantime, the apparent absence of Roman structures
to the west of it, and its suitable distance from the Church
Street ‘ bastion,’ suggest the possibility that it may be a
relic of the western rampart but fall far short of proof. |