Stone Supply to the Saxon Shore Forts at Reculver, Richborough, Dover and Lympne
STONE SUPPLY TO THE SAXON SHORE FORTS
AT RECULVER, RICHBOROUGH, DOVER AND
LYMPNE
ANDREW PEARSON
The Saxon Shore Forts at Reculver, Richborough, Dover and
Lympne, built at various dates during the third century AD, represent
some of the most important components of Roman Kent. All have
been subject to archaeological investigation, and many aspects of
these monuments' history have been studied, in particular their military
function (White I 961; Johnson 1976; Johnston I 977; Maxfield
1989; Pearson 2002a). However, whilst the architecture of the fort
defences has been the subject of detailed discussion, the fabric, and
the sources of these materials, has until very recently received comparati
ve!y little attention.
A reconnaissance-level examination has established the provenances
of the building stones in the Shore Forts of the eastern coast,
including Reculver and Richborough (Allen & Fulford 1999). A similar
study incorporated the same area, and also extended the analysis
to the forts of the south coast (Pearson I 999a; 2002b ). These investigations
have been complemented by other more detailed studies of
Brancaster (Allen, Fulford & Pearson 2002) and Pevensey (Pearson
1999b). All have shed new light on the issue of military supply and
transport, on ancient quarrying practices, and more widely, on longdistance
maritime traffic and the function of the Shore Forts during
their operational lifetime.
Each of the Kentish Shore Forts has been damaged by the actions of
both man and nature during the post-Roman period. Nevertheless,
sufficient parts of the defences have survived to enable a good
impression to be gained of the building materials employed in their
construction. In the case of Richborough, the walls represent some of
the finest standing masonry to have survived in Britain from the
Roman era. With the exception of Reculver, where intensive use of
the interior has been proven during the third century (Philp 1969;
1996), few internal buildings are known within the enceintes of the
197
ANDREW PEARSON
forts. For this reason, the current analysis is concerned only with the
materials present in the defensive perimeters.
Items such as brick and timber formed a minor, but still significant
proportion of the building materials used in the defences. These,
however, have not been considered in the present study. Neither
material lends itself well to provenance studies, a fact demonstrated
by Peacock's attempt to establish a provenance for the tiles manufactured
by the Classis Britannica (Peacock 1977). In any case, timber
has only rarely survived from the fort defences, although foundation
piles have notably been recovered from both Lympne and Pevensey.
Because of the size of the monuments, and the wide variety of stone
types incorporated within the defences, the identification of building
materials in the present study is primarily based on an in situ examination
of stone under a x 10 hand lens. Occasional samples were
thin-sectioned and examined under a petrological microscope. The
degree of precision with which stone identity and provenance could
be established depended greatly on the nature of each material, for
some rock types are more distinctive than others.
RECULVER
Examination of the standing remains of Reculver fort identified a
limited range of lithologies (Fig. 1). The core of the wall is largely
composed of flints, the majority of which are well worn and heavily
percussion-marked cobbles. Although some of the flints retain something
of their original nodular form, all show some sign of abrasion
and water-wear. This flint is most likely to have come from the storm
beaches of the Isle of Than et, between the eastern end of Peg well Bay
and Kings gate Bay, north of Broadstairs (Shephard-Thorn 1988, 20).
A number of flint strata are contained within the chalk cliffs, the most
prominent being the 'Whittaker 3 inch band'. Eroded in large quantities
from the cliffs, the flint could have been conveniently gathered
from the beaches at low tide. It is possible that the flints were collected
from other storm beaches beneath the chalk cliffs from Kingsdown
southwards to Dover. However, it has to be questioned whether
it would have been necessary to look this far afield for flint, and there
is little else in the fabric of the Reculver perimeter that suggests the
movement of raw materials from such southerly sources. Occasional
water-worn chalk cobbles were also present in the core, and these
would have been gathered from the same beaches as the flint. Some
unworn nodules of flint were observed, which were probably a
by-product of the extraction of chalk for mortar from inland pits.
198
STONE SUPPLY TO THE SAXON SHORE FORTS
···········-·- · - · · · . . . . . . . . . . ··· · · · · ···-· · · · - ····· ··········· ..... ............ .......... ·········
111111!\ ll:iil!! 11!1!! !l!l!!!!!!!!!!!:!t •
11111111
:. ·
!! ll l !!iii ii iii iii i iii i l iii ill I Illl l;
f i ; i I ; i I i ; ; ::.
.·.·.·.··.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·. ·.·..··..·.··.·.·.·.· ········
···················· ......... .
···················· .... .
···················· .. .
••••• •••••••••••• r:· ,.,.,.,.,...,r ::::::::.::::::::::: .::::::::· .:
HEHtiiiitrnr· .:· .:::sc: ..
/\EHE\\\E/1111\::::1\EE\[[\El::::i:::)GE
ll!il!lllll■!!ll l!!ll ll!l!!ll!lsil lllll
!!!l!!lll!!l!l!ll!l!l!ll!ll!llllllllll!llllll!llr/:··
i i i i i i i Ii iii i i .
:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:· ········.··.·
1l11!ll11lltlllltll11Wl!l!l]][jl:\::
: :HHI Ii: ..
F
Ck
TS
KR
SC
T
Flint
Chalk
Thanet Sandstone
Kentish Ragstone
Septarian cementstone
Tufa
----ii=::=====:::::i: ..... .
0 :lll/\l\\iil\\\\iJfimi:
······················"••····
············· · ·· · · · · · ·· · · ····· ······························
Fig. I Sources of stone used in the construction of the Shore Fort defences
at Reculver.
There is a nearby chalk quarry of Iron Age or Roman date at Birchington,
Thanet (Fulford, Champion & Long 1997, 166). Of course,
whether or not this particular quarry relates to the building of the
Shore Forts is entirely beyond proof.
In addition to flint and chalk, the core also contains Thanet Sandstone,
a grey, buff or occasionally mauve-coloured glauconitic silty
sandstone of Palaeocene age. The formation is exposed in westwarddipping
strata between Reculver and Bishopstone Glen (ShephardThorn
1988, 26-28; Sumbler 1996, 95-99). The vast majority of the
Thanet Sandstone formation is unconsolidated and entirely unsuitable
for building. However, in the cliffs immediately to the west of
Reculver, calcareous daggers of hardened stone can be found near the
base of the formation, parallel to the bedding (Plate I). Such daggers
199
ANDREW PEARSON
PLATE I
Doggers of Thanet Sandstone on the foreshore at Reculver Bay. These have
been left exposed after coastal erosion has removed the unconsolidated sands
that form the overlying cliffs. The twin towers of St Mary's church, built
within the Roman fort at Reculver, can be seen immediately to the left of the
cliff line.
are a relatively rare resource, as their exploitation relies on the
erosion of the softer overlying sands (often up to I Orn in thickness) by
the sea. For this reason, only small quantities of material are available
from a single location at any given time. Modern exposures of
these